Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

Yes Tesla you have made it clear that A.Q.U.I.T.A.L is all you care about. IIRC Mach's quote indicated that there is a legal difference between one and two.

The read of M&B is what the conversation is about, both the paragraph and the narrative.

Strange that people here said it must be a paragraph two because it wasn't sent down. I happen to agree that a one would have been very difficult but once again that indicates there is a difference and in this case in law.

Personally I doubt any more cases will be filed against either of the kids for actions committed before the not proven guilty verdict.

I get that Mach said there was a difference between the 2 ...not that I'd ever consider Machiavelli to be a credible source. My question was about pursuing a second civil case despite losing the previous civil action that ran concurrently with the criminal trial.

And perhaps you can provide a source other than a quote from Machiavelli? Mach is not a lawyer and considering that the Kercher's own lawyer said it was over I would think that you of all people would say that is more than likely to be more credible.

 

[Grinder]

I think people were hoping the Italians "got it right."

The PIP view is that if M&B definitely ruled Knox was present at the scene, they're wrong in the same way Massei was wrong about (almost anything), and if Knox didn't get the equivalent of a legal exoneration, M&B are wrong. That anything less than an exoneration was a compromised verdict, in their view M&B bending over for the system at the expense of the correct just outcome.

I wouldn't disagree with that view, especially for Knox. There was a slightly better case against Raffaele, if a case must be made.

But you agree there is a difference, right?

 

[JREF2010]

Amanda Knox assolta dall’accusa di calunnia a polizia
La ragazza aveva detto di essere stata «forzata» dagli investigatori a denunciare la presenza di Patrick Lumumba nella casa dov’è morta Meredith

Google translation:

Amanda Knox acquitted of slander to the police
The girl had said she was "forced" by the investigators to report the presence of Patrick Lumumba in the house where she died Meredith

Source: http://www.lastampa.it/2016/01/14/i...-a-polizia-wlCvKyp9oqrOSnog9f4nIL/pagina.html

The text of the article by Google translation:

Amanda Knox acquitted of slander to the policeThe girl had said she was "forced" by the investigators to report the presence of Patrick Lumumba in the house where she died Meredith The court of Florence has acquitted Amanda Knox filled with formula from the accusation of having slandered some agents of the squad of Perugia They are investigating the murder of Meredith Kercher. The crime to which the young American, along with Raffaele Sollecito, was finally declared alien by the Supreme Court.In particular, Knox was accused of slander for having claimed to have been "forced" by the investigators to say that the murder had been in the house with Patrick Lumumba, who was involved in the investigation precisely because of the American company sentences and then recognized foreign to each other. The proceedings initiated by the Public Prosecutor of Perugia was then sent to Florence because of the people offended by the alleged offense would have also been the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini holder Kercher murder investigation.Knox for the prosecutor of the Tuscan capital had requested a sentence of two years and eight months in prison. His defenders, the Luciano Ghirga lawyers, Carlo Dalla Vedova and Tommaso Ducci they had instead called for the acquittal. Request accepted by the court. With its legal Knox, long back in the US, she said she was "very pleased and happy for the acquittal."

Not even reported in the US news per my my searches.
Did Andrea Vogt and Barbie N. get any mileage from it? Seems to be silence in their mouth.

 

[bagels]

But you agree there is a difference, right?

There seems to be from what little info there is. I wouldn't try to argue there isn't. It's not a huge issue for me though, I'm more interested in the ECHR because I see the interrogation as being their entire case and the only reason any of us have heard the name Amanda Knox.

 

[Numbers]

If there is no "sign-off" of the eventual verdict by the ISC because of statute of limitations, does the MR of the first-instance court have any legal effect?

Or would it only serve Grinder's interest - namely, perception?

Here's what could happen as I understand the possibilities:

1. The prosecution and civil parties don't appeal within 45 days after the MR was published. In that case, the first-instance court decision becomes the final verdict. (Italian law does not require appeals, a second-level [appeal] trial, or a hearing by the CSC, unless one or both sides appeal. If neither side appeals within 45 days after a verdict, that verdict becomes final.) However, I believe it is unlikely that the prosecution will not appeal.

2. If the verdict is appealed, their would be a second-level (appeal) trial. But if the statute of limitations indeed runs out in October, 2016, there may not be time for that appeal trial to be completed. It might not even begin. The reason for this is that the Italian courts have a heavy workload (in large part because appeals are common, and must be accepted for trial as long as the appeal requests conform to legal requirements). There are some alternatives:

2.1 The appeal is accepted for hearing, and the second-level trial is completed with a new verdict and new MR within the SoL time-limit. Then that new verdict and MR can be appealed to the CSC. However, at that point, the SoL is reached, and the case is ruled a final dismissal. There is no acquittal or conviction and no valid MR, but the dismissal has the effect of a final acquittal in terms of legal consequences.

2.2 If the second-level trial completes before the SoL and neither side appeals within the 45 day limit, or the CSC finds that the appeals are not legally valid, the new verdict and MR become final. (Very unlikely.)

2.3 The appeal is accepted for hearing, but the second-level trial cannot be completed because of the SoL. Then the case is ruled a final dismissal because of the SoL, and again there is no verdict of acquittal, but the dismissal has the legal consequences of an acquittal.

The MRs in any case remain valid, not for use in the Italian judicial system, but for review by the ECHR.

 

[Desert Fox]

There seems to be from what little info there is. I wouldn't try to argue there isn't. It's not a huge issue for me though, I'm more interested in the ECHR because I see the interrogation as being their entire case and the only reason any of us have heard the name Amanda Knox.

US or outside, the cops are talking to you, you are NOT helping them find the suspect. Dollars to donuts, they have narrowed their focus on you and want to get you to confess. It is time to say that you want a lawyer and refuse further questioning.

 

[toto]

this non post in error

 

[Numbers]

Thanks for this.
Do you know if there is a link to the Motivation?
And what is the Italian press, such as Andrea Vogt, saying about it?

Here's another article from Italy.

Google translation:

Meredith murder: Amanda Knox acquitted by the Florence Court of the charge of slander towards the Perugia Police. "He mentioned the name of Lumumba to end the pressure."

In the investigation into the murder of Meredith Kercher, Amanda Knox made to the police the name of Patrick Lumumba as a possible manager (but then totally foreign results and then acquitted) because '' giving the name 'fed' to those who were questioning so 'strongly he hoped to put an end to that pressure. " He writes the Florence court, single judge, in absolution motivations of young American from the accusation of having slandered some agents of the squad of Perugia and an interpreter. The court considers that the words of the Seattle student represent "the confused narration of a dream, albeit macabre" and "not the description of a story really happened." Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were finally acquitted by the Supreme Court of the charge of having participated in the murder Kercher, who have always proclaimed outsiders. About the slander, the US had to meet to have argued before the Court of Assizes of Perugia that it was led by an interpreter and some agents to accuse Lumumba. The Florence court, however, 'spoken in this area of ​​investigation characterized by "numerous IRREGULARITIES' procedural 'and the obsessive duration of interrogations. In his view the context in which they were made of the Knox "statements was clearly characterized by a psychological condition has become" for her "really an unbearable burden". And 'therefore "understandable" - we read in the motivations - that "giving in to pressure and fatigue have hoped to put an end to that situation, giving to those who were questioning what I basically wanted to hear they say: a name, a murderess" . To judge the story contained in the minutes of spontaneous Knox's statements and that the memorial immediately wrote later there appears "the confused narration of a dream, albeit macabre, not the description of a story really happened." To this the court "confirms the state it was in Amanda Knox" at that time and excludes its purposes '' could be to shut the name of the actual author of the crime ". The proceedings initiated by the Public Prosecutor of Perugia was then transmitted on an accrual basis in Florence.

Source: http://www.trgmedia.it/notizia/Omic...nia-verso-la-Polizia-perugina/80998/news.aspx

And a correction: I googled "Amanda Knox calunnia polizia" (not "police")

 

[Grinder]

Amanda Knox acquitted of slandering some agents of the squad of Perugia and an interpreter. And 'This is the judgment issued by the court of Florence, single judge, which shall, in its reasons, as, in the investigation into the murder of British student Meredith Kercher, Knox made the name of Patrick Lumumba because' psychologically pressed 'during 'interrogation. Lumumba, you recall, he was accused of the murder of Meredith, but it turned out totally unconnected with the facts, and therefore acquitted.

The judge, always in his reasons, he felt that the stories of the Seattle student, made ​​during interrogation, were the result of a confused narrative. Knox, along with Sollecito, were already acquitted by the Supreme Court of the charge of being co-responsible of Kercher murder, against which you have always declared strangers. But this acquittal adds one more step in, as it was the same judge to speak of "stressful" interrogation, following which, in order to put an end to pressure and fatigue, he mentioned the name of Lumumba.

If this is an accurate description of the MR I'd say it's time for ole Marriott to get to work.

 

[Grinder]

Vixen I must ask. Do you believe these judges were bent? Do you think the powerful Knox family was able to buy off these judges?

Since the reportage would have the MR in as close to direct contradiction of the calunnia conviction, how will this work with judicial truths?

Mach please come back.

 

[Planigale]

If there is no "sign-off" of the eventual verdict by the ISC because of statute of limitations, does the MR of the first-instance court have any legal effect?

Or would it only serve Grinder's interest - namely, perception?

I think the verdict is para 1 the crime does not exist once through statute of limitations. That still has to be signed off by ISC.

This is another side of how the Italian legal system is broken, for most crimes a well funded person can just slow the system until the statute of limitations is past.

I have previously said I think Italy will agree an out of court settlement with Knox. As the cases like the callunia collapse and with Mignini being disciplined for denial of access to counsel by Sollecito, I think this becomes more likely. If Knox had lost then Italy could argue she was still guilty of callunia even if the first case was dismissed, the penalty would have been similar - time served more or less so that Knox would have been entitled to no damages. With the courts ruling on Knox's side the face saving thing for Italy and Mignini is to agree a confidential settlement. I suspect for the Knox family getting money for the legal costs incurred sooner probably trumps pursuing the case with some uncertainty as to eventual outcome and the with the risk it incurs more costs with little or no eventual gain.

 

[Numbers]

This article may help provide more insight into the motivation report of Amanda's acquittal on the charge of calunnia against the police.

Source: http://www.lanazione.it/umbria/amanda-k ... -1.2047108

Meredith, Amanda fece il nome di Lumumba per porre fine alla pressione dell'interrogatorio

Il tribunale di Firenze ha assolto la Knox dall'accusa di calunnia nei confronti di alcuni poliziotti e di un'interprete. 'Era in una condizione psicologica insopportabile'

Perugia, 9 aprile 2016 - Fece il nome di Patrick Lumumba per porre fine alla pressione che stava subendo durante l'interrogatorio. Questa è la motivazione, resa dal tribunale di Firenze, dell'assoluzione di Amanda Knox dall'accusa di calunnia nei confronti di alcuni agenti della mobile di Perugia e di un'interprete. Subito dopo l'omicidio di Meredith Kercher Amanda fece alla polizia il nome di Lumumba quale possibile responsabile (ma poi risultato totalmente estraneo e quindi assolto) perché «dando quel nome 'in pastò a coloro che la stavano interrogando così duramente sperava di porre fine a quella pressione».

Il giudice ritiene che le parole della studentessa di Seattle rappresentino «la narrazione confusa di un sogno, sia pure macabro» e «non la descrizione di una vicenda davvero accaduta». La Knox e Raffaele Sollecito sono stati definitivamente prosciolti dalla Cassazione dall'accusa di avere partecipato al delitto Kercher, al quale si sono sempre proclamati estranei.

Riguardo alla calunnia, l'americana doveva rispondere di avere sostenuto davanti alla Corte d'assise di Perugia di essere stata indotta da un'interprete e da alcuni agenti ad accusare Lumumba. Il giudice di Firenze ha però parlato in tale ambito di indagini caratterizzate da «numerose irritualità procedurali» e dalla durata ossessiva degli interrogatori. A suo avviso il contesto nel quale sono state rese le dichiarazioni della Knox «era chiaramente caratterizzato da una condizioni psicologica divenuta» per lei «davvero un peso insopportabile». È quindi «comprensibile» - si legge nelle motivazioni - che «cedendo alla pressione e alla stanchezza abbia sperato di mettere fine a quella situazione, dando a coloro che la stavano interrogando quello che in fondo volevano sentire dire: un nome, un assassino».

Per il giudice il racconto contenuto nel verbale di spontanee dichiarazioni della Knox e quello del memoriale scritto subito dopo appare «la narrazione confusa di un sogno, sia pure macabro, che non la descrizione di una vicenda davvero accaduta». Per il tribunale questo «conferma lo stato in cui si trovava Amanda Knox» in quel momento ed esclude la sua finalità «potesse essere di tacere il nome dell'effettivo autore del delitto». Il procedimento avviato dalla procura di Perugia era stato poi trasmesso per competenza a Firenze.

Google translation:

Meredith, Amanda took the name of Lumumba to end the interrogation pressure

The Florence Court has acquitted Knox of the charge of slander against some policemen and an interpreter. 'It was in an unbearable psychological condition'

Perugia, April 9, 2016 - He took the name of Patrick Lumumba to end the pressure was undergoing during the interrogation. This is the motivation, made by a court in Florence, absolution Amanda Knox of the charge of slander against some of the mobile agents of Perugia and an interpreter. Immediately after the murder of Meredith Kercher Amanda made to the police the name of Lumumba as a possible manager (but then totally foreign results and then acquitted) because "giving the name 'fed to those who were questioning so hard he hoped to end that pressure. "

The court considers that the words of the Seattle student represent "the confused narration of a dream, albeit macabre" and "not the description of a story really happened." Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were finally acquitted by the Supreme Court of the charge of having participated in the murder Kercher, who have always proclaimed outsiders.

About the slander, the US had to meet to have argued before the Court of Assizes of Perugia that it was led by an interpreter and some agents to accuse Lumumba. The Florence court, however, spoke in this context of investigations marked by "numerous procedural irregularity in" and the obsessive duration of interrogations. In his view the context in which the statements were made Knox "was clearly characterized by a psychological condition has become" for her "really an unbearable burden." It is therefore "understandable" - we read in the motivations - that "giving in to pressure and fatigue had hoped to put an end to that situation, giving to those who were questioning what I basically wanted to hear you say: a name, a murderess."

To judge the story contained in the minutes of spontaneous Knox's statements and that the memorial written immediately after it appears "the confused narration of a dream, albeit macabre, not the description of a story really happened." To this the court "confirms the state it was in Amanda Knox" at that time and excludes its purpose "could be to shut the name of the actual author of the crime." The proceedings initiated by the Public Prosecutor of Perugia was then transmitted on an accrual basis in Florence.

 

[bagels]

Amanda Knox acquitted of slandering some agents of the squad of Perugia and an interpreter. And 'This is the judgment issued by the court of Florence, single judge, which shall, in its reasons, as, in the investigation into the murder of British student Meredith Kercher, Knox made the name of Patrick Lumumba because' psychologically pressed 'during 'interrogation. Lumumba, you recall, he was accused of the murder of Meredith, but it turned out totally unconnected with the facts, and therefore acquitted.

The judge, always in his reasons, he felt that the stories of the Seattle student, made ​​during interrogation, were the result of a confused narrative. Knox, along with Sollecito, were already acquitted by the Supreme Court of the charge of being co-responsible of Kercher murder, against which you have always declared strangers. But this acquittal adds one more step in, as it was the same judge to speak of "stressful" interrogation, following which, in order to put an end to pressure and fatigue, he mentioned the name of Lumumba.

If this is an accurate description of the MR I'd say it's time for ole Marriott to get to work.

Looks like he already did in getting to the judges

 

[bagels]

Once the ECHR rules in AK's favor the PGP will finally be forced to concede the Italians botched the interrogation. Then the new narrative will be if only they taped the interrogation and we heard her freely implicate Patrick, which is the return of the circular argument that if there was good evidence the evidence would have been good. Ie if this happened in the UK or US they would have had better forensic evidence, and CCTV of Amanda walking around with a giant knife, etc.

That judgement is only 6 to 8 business years away, hold on to your butts

 

[Grinder]

Looks like he already did in getting to the judges

Right but I thought the bag men came from Raf's camp.

Once the ECHR rules in AK's favor the PGP will finally be forced to concede the Italians botched the interrogation. Then the new narrative will be if only they taped the interrogation and we heard her freely implicate Patrick, which is the return of the circular argument that if there was good evidence the evidence would have been good. Ie if this happened in the UK or US they would have had better forensic evidence, and CCTV of Amanda walking around with a giant knife, etc.

That judgement is only 6 to 8 business years away, hold on to your butts

If the MR is as strongly worded as these reports one would think the whole concept of judicial truths would be challenged. I wonder if Mignini will appeal.

 

[Numbers]

If you would like to set up an account to fund hiring Maresca I'll handle the the rest. I've asked a law professor in Italy that had taught here and I've ask an Italian law professor here the question but alas they have not answered.

Could you provide the PIP lawyers' comments on this issue that implied existed above. To that point I'm a little surprised that the defense hasn't, to my knowledge, explained the finer points of the differences and why they had hoped for a paragraph one.[/QUOTE]

Grinder, could you refresh my memory with a citation where the actual legal defense (not the "PIP" anonymous posters) hoped - in writing, such as an appeal - specifically for an acquittal under CPP 530.1?

Did the appeals ask, in contrast to an acquittal specifically under 530.1, for an acquittal under "the applicants did not commit the act", which applies to either 530.1 or 530.2?

As we agree, the Hellmann court acquittal was issued naming neither 530.1 nor 530.2, but was, in the MR, clearly based on a reasoned evaluation based on BARD. The CPP citation used by Hellmann was the one allowing the appeal judge to amend a lower court verdict as necessary. Hellmann used the acquittal specification formula "the applicants (or the accused) did not commit the act".

Seriously, Grinder, please provide a citation of where the real defense - the legal teams - of Knox and/or Sollecito stated that they hoped for a "paragraph one" acquittal. I have looked through the appeal documents submitted by Knox and Sollecito in 2014 and 2015 that are available on amandaknoxcase.com, and I find no evidence of any reference to any request or hope for a "paragraph one" acquittal. You can look as well; the documents are searchable because they are PDFs.

What was requested by Knox was that her conviction be annulled by the CSC and that the matter be referred to the Constitutional Court because of the violations of her rights.

Similarly, Sollecito requested that the CSC annul his conviction without referral, but if the CSC did not do that, to annul the conviction with referral.

I could find no request for an acquittal specifically under CPP 530.1 or 530.2, or any indication of any wording to that effect.

I believe that the whole issue of number 2 versus number 1 is essentially a movement among the PGP/PIP anonymous posters and perhaps a few others. Have you cited any Italian news articles discussing this issue?

The hope or request of the legal defense was simply annulment without referral, which would mean an acquittal under either CPP Article 530.1 or 530.2, but would also require the CSC to invoke CPP Article 620.1 (L) [annulment without referral] as has been previously discussed on posts in this forum.

 

[acbytesla]

Hey Grinder,

Do you ever feel like you're being ganged up on?

 

[js202]

Once the ECHR rules in AK's favor the PGP will finally be forced to concede the Italians botched the interrogation. Then the new narrative will be if only they taped the interrogation and we heard her freely implicate Patrick, which is the return of the circular argument that if there was good evidence the evidence would have been good. Ie if this happened in the UK or US they would have had better forensic evidence, and CCTV of Amanda walking around with a giant knife, etc.

That judgement is only 6 to 8 business years away, hold on to your butts

Alternatively, I'm banking on the argument that the ECHR, like Gill, Douglas, et al., were in on the Marriott payroll. Dastardly organization, that Marriott. On the scale of sinister, up there with the House of Borgia.

Oh, wait, the Borgias were Italian!

 

[Desert Fox]

Alternatively, I'm banking on the argument that the ECHR, like Gill, Douglas, et al., were in on the Marriott payroll. Dastardly organization, that Marriott. On the scale of sinister, up there with the House of Borgia.

Oh, wait, the Borgias were Italian!

I believe the Marriotts are Mormon although they do seem reasonably supportive of LGBT employees / customers. I am sure some evil plot for the Mormons taking over the world can be found/

 

[Grinder]

I believe the Marriotts are Mormon although they do seem reasonably supportive of LGBT employees / customers. I am sure some evil plot for the Mormons taking over the world can be found/

Where do you get the idea he's Mormon?