Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Planigale]

Are you seriously asking us to accept, "the only nick wounds were on the palms of the hands. I know this because Raff's defence expert, Prof Introna, suggested the injuries came from a glass shard deposited by the perp from Filomena's room, and caused by Mez falling onto the flat of her hands".

You omit to mention Massei rejected Introna's submissions on the grounds there were far too many of these knifepoint pricks. In addition, he scoffed at Introna's murder construction that Mez was naked from the waist down when the perp (sole, according to Raff's defence) came in and grabbed Mez from behind as, "it would be too much of a coincidence" and in any case, her shoes were in the opposite side of the room to her other clothes.

It was pointed out that there was even a knife point prick on Mez' left cheek (face).

So much for your misleading and deceptive claim "the nicks were on the palms of her hands only".
Massei also rejected the "single attacker" theory pointing out that an aggressor repeats the same act with progressive aim (we can see this in the large knife stab being thrust in three times in a sawing motion); the fact there were all these different focii indicates different perps doing different things.

It's interesting, though, these 23 knife nicks, mostly on Mez' forearms and hands, are something Raff had special knowledge of - as well as having a knife fetish and vampire slayer fantasies - to the extent of getting Prof Introna to come up with an alternative theory to 'knife flicks'.

Massei also ruled that these superficial wounds were not defence wounds, but signs of intimidation by the perp/s.

Doesn't sound like a frenzied rapist acting on impulse, does it?

This is an example of your dishonest intent.

The highlighted is in quotation marks indicating that is exactly what I wrote.
"the nicks were on the palms of her hands only".But what I wrote is, 'Of course Sollecito made a mistake there as he thought there was a prick on the back of Kercher's hand, but in fact the injuries were on the palms.'
So you completely made up the quotation from me! The 'only' is completely disingenuous as my comment only referenced the injuries on her hand. This is just another example of your deceit. I do not think anyone would read this as my implying that the only injuries were on the palm of her hand, especially as we are discussing the victim of a fatal stabbing to the neck!

The location of the injuries of the hands.
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/multiple-attacker-theory-wrong/

 

[Planigale]

No, the merits court remains the fact finding court. All of Massei's rulings were signed off by the Chiefi Supreme Court - i.e., final - apart from those specific issues it sent back down to the Nencini court.

The multiple attacker and staged burglary finding stands as a proven fact, together with the kids' presence at the murder scene, Amanda washing off Mez blood (genetic proof) and Amanda naming Patrick to cover up for Rudy. Official. Factual.

Massei also found as a fact Rudy restrained Mez from behind, whilst Amanda plunged in the murder knife from the front. There was a circular fingernail imprint nearby the knife wound, which Amanda's defense tried to explain away as a knife hilt wound. Five small bruises on Mez' lower face indicate Amanda viciously tried to prevent Mez from screaming with her murderers hand.

But in the Italian system the appeal court (Helmann) is also fact finding and over ruled Massei as the senior court. So Massei's finding are void. Chiefi cannot revert to a lower court . Chiefi was not a fact finding court so could not change the facts found by Helman, but did not confirm the verdict of Helman so had to refer it a further appeal (Nencini), to re-consider particular issues specified in their ruling. The verdict of Nencini was not confirmed by cassation and a verdict of not guilty was returned. Since cassation is not a court of fact it can make no rulings on facts, only on the law. So you cannot say that cassation ruled on this or that fact.

 

[Matthew Best]

My word. You are surely brighter than this.

Evidence?

 

[Vixen]

But in the Italian system the appeal court (Helmann) is also fact finding and over ruled Massei as the senior court. So Massei's finding are void. Chiefi cannot revert to a lower court . Chiefi was not a fact finding court so could not change the facts found by Helman, but did not confirm the verdict of Helman so had to refer it a further appeal (Nencini), to re-consider particular issues specified in their ruling. The verdict of Nencini was not confirmed by cassation and a verdict of not guilty was returned. Since cassation is not a court of fact it can make no rulings on facts, only on the law. So you cannot say that cassation ruled on this or that fact.

No! Chiefi rescinded Hellman completely.

Do keep up.

 

[Vixen]

My word. You are surely brighter than this.

Judicial facts are unlike empirical facts. This has been explained to you on numerous occasions by many including me. A judicial fact is by definition only, and entrenched in law to facilitate the orderliness and functioning of the legal system. Were it not for this double jeopardy could come into play...(another discussion for another day) as an appeal could become a retrial.

In South Africa (for example) judicial facts ARE appealable by the defendant but NOT by the state. In Italy it would seem that neither the state nor the defendant may appeal judicial truths. (Remember South African law is derived from Roman Law).

Judicial truths are not necessarily factual. They are merely cast in stone as truths for the workings of the legal system.

This is why the ISC, bound by lower court "truths", ruled that those "truths" are still a quantum leap from guilt. The ISC has no legal mandate to comment on judicial truths. It does however often, as a matter of ettiquette, defend lower court logic. In this instance by acknowledging that "strong suspicions" exist (whether the ISC actually believe that "strong suspicions" exist or not is open to debate - my opinion is that the ISC does not in reality believe this). This is (often) simply politeness and to avoid open warfare between judicial layers within the system.

Consider an unrelated case but one that is in the world news. Oscar Pistorius was found guilty of murder on appeal by the state (the lower court having found him guilty of a lesser crime). The "facts" (faulty as they are) were not and could not be appealed by the state. The appeal court completely overturned the lower court ruling (reminder...on the merits NOT the "facts"), but went on to CONGRATULATE the lower court Judge for the way she handled the case!!!! How is it possible to get the verdict completely wrong and be congratulated for it? Simple. It's court etiquette

Now stop perpetuating a lie.

In England & Wales it is condition of Bar Standards for barristers to be courteous.

Of course courts have to establish facts, (eg, Mr Bloggs married bigamously would require the court to demand to see the marriage certificates: this is a fact-finding exercise; having established the fact one way or another, it is settled, and Mr Bloggs can only appeal if there was an error of law, perversity or 'in the public interest' [say, he's a Mormon]).

How else could it work, without complete anarchy?

The congrats to Judge Massapi (_sp?) was a nod to her professional status. Lots of judges have their judgments overturned on appeal. There is nothing polite about it.

"To err is human" ~ Alexander Pope

 

[Vixen]

This doesn't make sense. Why on earth would an expert leave the opportunity to counter the "lack of defensive wounds argument" to explain some confused writing, that hasn't even been adressed in court? Sollecito's diary, just like Knox's has been conficated, but was never used as evidence... (Police and prosecution obviously had another way of (ab)using the diaries...)

Where do you get the "23 knife nicks, mostly on Mez' forearms and hands" from? Even the TMoMK Wiki lists "only" ten. Once again, the prosecution argued that the lack of defensive wounds was a sign that Meredith Kercher was restrained by "multiple assailants". Now you are telling us that these "defensive wounds" not only exist, but that there are 23 of them?

There were 47 wounds all together, of which 3 were deemed serious stab wounds to the neck, one of them lethal. Massei doesn't appear to number them, but they would include lesions caused by cuts and stabs (multiple), for example around and inside the mouth, and lesions caused by contusions (bumps) and also bruises, for example on the elbow. I am not sure whether a mark caused by a sharp point such as a knife would be included as a cut (a lesion) by a medic, or perhaps it would by a law court. In addition, there was some dispute as to whether some apparent ecchymoses (bruises/discolouration) were caused by knocks or by hypostatis. For example some of the elbow bruises and iliac (back), hypostasis being caused by a pooling of a deceased person's bodily fluid causing pressure points.

In any case, Dr Lalli reports:

There was another small wound on the left cheek; this was a tiny wound which could have been caused by the point of a knife simply to threaten the victim at some moment of the attack.

Professor Norelli is quoted as reporting:

Concerning the wounds which the victim had on her hands, the consultant highlighted that these showed no signs of scarring and therefore could not have arisen earlier, or at any rate more than 12 hours [earlier].

Professor Torre for Amanda:

As for the wounds on the hands of the victim, the consultant Professor Torre gave evidence of the smallness of these wounds. This smallness could not be explained by the fact that the girl had been restrained, since if one is restrained it is not the case that one is only slightly wounded; one is not wounded at all. He also observed that if one is faced with a knife having a large and long blade, then defence wounds - due to an action of holding off the blade which would be easy to grab due to its large size - should be quite large. He maintained that "these very tiny wounds are compatible 14 Between 1cm and 1.2 cm 15 Coltellino, “a small knife”, e.g., a pocket knife 145 with pricking by a small knife or with the serrated spine of the blade of a small knife" (page 24).

Massei, summing up on the causes of death:

Above all, the reason given to explain the wounds on the hands as coming from the harmful action of this piece of glass appears unlikely, both in itself (as it is quite difficult to imagine that one would fall precisely onto that little piece of glass, injuring oneself again) and also considering that there were multiple wounds to the hands and only one little piece of glass in the room. Neither can one put aside the fact that during the course of the event Meredith Kercher received several wounds from a pointed and cutting weapon; it is therefore likely that she had tried to interpose her hands to attempt some deflection of the blows that were being inflicted on her neck, receiving in this way some defensive wounds as well.

Thus, Massei court considered Mez had been goaded with a knife as a form of intimidation. As there was more than one attacker, this can be seen to be calculated cruelty, rather than 'a lone burglar overcome by lust'.

 

[Methos]

How do you get to the truth?

By taking a look at "the evidence" myself. I wonder if there's another case where almost everything is available online.

Adversarial courts - UK/USA - do this by identifying areas of dispute between the parties. It is nasty and acrimonious, but is a good short sharp method of getting to the crux of the matter. Whoever presents the best evidence and most persuasive argument, wins the verdict. This is one reason why the most expensive barristers can get people off and why the rich are more successful in court than the poor.

In Latin Europe, including Italy, the method is by a gathering of as much infomation as possible, an inquiry or an inquisition, well suited to a tribunal system with a panel of judges. This is more egalitarian, but takes for ever.

It doesn't matter how courts in the US/UK or Italy come to reach their "judicial truths", as I said, I'm not interested in "judicial truths", especially when looking at "the evidence" paints a different picture...

When do you call a halt?

When every rellevant open questions are answered. In this case judge Massei failed when he denied the defense request for re-evaluation of the DNA evidence. It's funny that Chieffi used the article that should have prompted Massei to grant that request, against Hellmann, who denied another review for the prosecution...

As for the press, I can still recall vividly the headlines about Amanda & Raff being arrested and Rudy caught in Germany and brought back. On the opposite page - page 3 - where the British press love to run their 'sex scandal' stories, (especially THE DAILY TELEGRAPH)there was a lurid piece about 'Foxy Knoxy' and her webpage. Whilst it seemed incongruous to me that a woman should be involved in this, nonetheless, I didn't have any illusions about press reporting. I did do 'content analysis' as part of my psychology degree in my social psychology option re advertising and persuasion, and how it is done.

But it looks like - even with all this expression of scepticism - that you swallowed all the nonsense hook, line and sinker...

For me, press reporting is an important research tool for journalists and historians. Early reports are often the most honest knee-jerk ones, before the politicians and PR agents come along.
Thus, I disagree that the public 'believe what they read in the papers'.

Of course, newspaper articles are the main source for historians, but you miss the point, this is not a question of honesty. I guess the reporter who added the "bleach receipts" to this article of the la repubblica honestly believed the person who told him that:

La squadra Ert (esperti ricerca tracce) venerdì mattina però nel suo monolocale in corso Garibaldi ha trovato due scontrini che comprovano l'acquisto (in momenti diversi e ben prima delle 10) di altrettante confezioni di candeggina Ace il 2 novembre, la mattina dopo l'uccisione di Meredith Kercher. Secondo gli investigatori Amanda e Raffaele con quel disinfettante avrebbero cercato di cancellare ogni traccia dal coltello ritrovato successivamente nella cucina dello studente pugliese.

Talking about honesty, another article on the same day (Nov 18th) is titled: "Giallo Perugia, in casa di Sollecito nessuno scontrino del 2 novembre"...
Why do you think Barbie Nadeau came up with this one for Newsweek on November 19th?

Because I have a good memory, it was easy for me to spot all the lies and contradictions in the kids' defense submissions.

Really? You might have a good memory, but in a discussion like this, it's the facts that matter, and providing sources saves one from being accused of making things up.
On the bright side, the snipe hunt you sent me and everyone else on with the 23 additional knife wounds added a piece to the puzzle. I now know that Guede was 15cm taller than Meredith Kercher, thanks for that...

 

[Methos]

There were 47 wounds all together, of which 3 were deemed serious stab wounds to the neck, one of them lethal. Massei doesn't appear to number them, but they would include lesions caused by cuts and stabs (multiple), for example around and inside the mouth, and lesions caused by contusions (bumps) and also bruises, for example on the elbow. I am not sure whether a mark caused by a sharp point such as a knife would be included as a cut (a lesion) by a medic, or perhaps it would by a law court. In addition, there was some dispute as to whether some apparent ecchymoses (bruises/discolouration) were caused by knocks or by hypostatis. For example some of the elbow bruises and iliac (back), hypostasis being caused by a pooling of a deceased person's bodily fluid causing pressure points.

In any case, Dr Lalli reports:



Professor Norelli is quoted as reporting:



Professor Torre for Amanda:



Massei, summing up on the causes of death:



Thus, Massei court considered Mez had been goaded with a knife as a form of intimidation. As there was more than one attacker, this can be seen to be calculated cruelty, rather than 'a lone burglar overcome by lust'.

Sorry, but my question is "Where do you get the 23 knife nicks from?"

 

[Methos]

No, the merits court remains the fact finding court. All of Massei's rulings were signed off by the Chiefi Supreme Court - i.e., final - apart from those specific issues it sent back down to the Nencini court.

The multiple attacker and staged burglary finding stands as a proven fact, together with the kids' presence at the murder scene, Amanda washing off Mez blood (genetic proof) and Amanda naming Patrick to cover up for Rudy. Official. Factual.

Massei also found as a fact Rudy restrained Mez from behind, whilst Amanda plunged in the murder knife from the front. There was a circular fingernail imprint nearby the knife wound, which Amanda's defense tried to explain away as a knife hilt wound. Five small bruises on Mez' lower face indicate Amanda viciously tried to prevent Mez from screaming with her murderers hand.

No, Chieffi messed it up dealing with judge Hellmann's verdict alone. You seem to think that in rejecting Hellmann Cheffi confirmed Massei, that is not the case. One could say that in judicial terms "Massei" is as nonexistant as "Hellmann"

 

[Planigale]

There were 47 wounds all together, of which 3 were deemed serious stab wounds to the neck, one of them lethal. Massei doesn't appear to number them, but they would include lesions caused by cuts and stabs (multiple), for example around and inside the mouth, and lesions caused by contusions (bumps) and also bruises, for example on the elbow. I am not sure whether a mark caused by a sharp point such as a knife would be included as a cut (a lesion) by a medic, or perhaps it would by a law court. In addition, there was some dispute as to whether some apparent ecchymoses (bruises/discolouration) were caused by knocks or by hypostatis. For example some of the elbow bruises and iliac (back), hypostasis being caused by a pooling of a deceased person's bodily fluid causing pressure points.

Yes the count of injuries included all cuts and bruises and scrapes. So not all were knife wounds but also included bruises. As you say there was some discussion about whether some of the injuries were pre mortem bruising or post mortem hypostasis. Some of the bruising may have occurred prior to the assault, as assessing the age of bruises is difficult.

It is good you have learnt that not all were knife wounds. So we will not hear the factoid about '23 knife nicks' again. There were three probable knife wounds on the hands, left index finger (palmar surface), right thumb (palmar surface) and right palm.

Massei, summing up on the causes of death:

"Above all, the reason given to explain the wounds on the hands as coming from the harmful action of this piece of glass appears unlikely, both in itself (as it is quite difficult to imagine that one would fall precisely onto that little piece of glass, injuring oneself again) and also considering that there were multiple wounds to the hands and only one little piece of glass in the room. Neither can one put aside the fact that during the course of the event Meredith Kercher received several wounds from a pointed and cutting weapon; it is therefore likely that she had tried to interpose her hands to attempt some deflection of the blows that were being inflicted on her neck, receiving in this way some defensive wounds as well."

Thus, Massei court considered Mez had been goaded with a knife as a form of intimidation. As there was more than one attacker, this can be seen to be calculated cruelty, rather than 'a lone burglar overcome by lust'.

So Massei does not say what you say he says. Massei (highlighted) says the wounds were defence wounds i.e. not deliberately inflicted by the murderer, but a consequence of the victim grabbing the knife when being stabbed in her neck. Massei actually says the opposite of what you say. Massei does not say goaded, or intimidation or any equivalent thereof. Massei says they were NOT deliberately inflicted by the murderer (or anyone else). Do you read the quotes you post? Because if you do you obviously do not understand them.

You also do not seem to understand the difference between evidential facts often agreed by both defence and prosecution e.g. the injuries, and interpretation or opinion, e.g. the size of the knife that inflicted the injuries, or the action that caused the injuries e.g. Massei's opinion that the injuries on the hands were defence injuries or that two knives (one never found) were used in the attack. These latter may become legal facts but they remain opinion, all be it the court's opinion.

 

[Welshman]

It can be argued whether or not there were multiple attackers. Even if it was proved there were multiple attackers, why are Amanda and Raffaele who had no relationship with Guede the only people who could have helped Guede.

 

[Vixen]

By taking a look at "the evidence" myself. I wonder if there's another case where almost everything is available online.

It doesn't matter how courts in the US/UK or Italy come to reach their "judicial truths", as I said, I'm not interested in "judicial truths", especially when looking at "the evidence" paints a different picture...


When every rellevant open questions are answered. In this case judge Massei failed when he denied the defense request for re-evaluation of the DNA evidence. It's funny that Chieffi used the article that should have prompted Massei to grant that request, against Hellmann, who denied another review for the prosecution...

But it looks like - even with all this expression of scepticism - that you swallowed all the nonsense hook, line and sinker...


Of course, newspaper articles are the main source for historians, but you miss the point, this is not a question of honesty. I guess the reporter who added the "bleach receipts" to this article of the la repubblica honestly believed the person who told him that:

Talking about honesty, another article on the same day (Nov 18th) is titled: "Giallo Perugia, in casa di Sollecito nessuno scontrino del 2 novembre"...
Why do you think Barbie Nadeau came up with this one for Newsweek on November 19th?


Really? You might have a good memory, but in a discussion like this, it's the facts that matter, and providing sources saves one from being accused of making things up.
On the bright side, the snipe hunt you sent me and everyone else on with the 23 additional knife wounds added a piece to the puzzle. I now know that Guede was 15cm taller than Meredith Kercher, thanks for that...

So Rudy is 510" (179cm), Meredith 5'5" (164cm); Amanda 5'4" (162 cm). I think Raff is average height of 5'8" (173).

No, the facts a court establish should be actual facts. Of course, tangible facts, such as Mr Bloggs' marriage certificate, a police traffic speed meter, a breathalyser and DNA/fingerprint are easier to establish than motive (which is why it is not needed in UK/USA, although Italy expects a suggested motive). Eye-witnesses who say they saw somethng are notoriously liable to memory errors, however, a judge can assess the crediblity of this by comparing this to what other witnesses say, and how they fit the tangible facts.

It is therefore a FACT Mez' DNA was found on the murder knife, Raff's DNA was on the bra-clasp, the luminol did highlight the footprints, presumed recent blood (or turnip jiuce if you are a PIP), there were five mixed DNA samples of Amanda and Mez. These are tangible, objective, scientifically applied and statistically analysed FACTS.

What is more, Amanda and Raff have spelt it out loud and clear they were there at the scene. (Memo to police; scribblings in letters and diary; police intercepts.) Short of big bold letters six feet high in flashing lights, how much more evidence do you need?

The kids must be astonished that despite all of the above there are still people coming out with the sex-crazed lone burglar theory delusion/deliberate lie (delete as appropriate). The five digit marks on Mez' face, together with circular half-moon imprint of a hard nail on her neck, indicates someone grabbing Mez' face from the front. As even the PIP hypothesize Rudy restrained Mez from behnd, it cannot have been his hand, as he'd really have to twist his shoulder, elbow and wrist to grasp Mez' face under the chin and fingers at nostrils.

The procedures of a court are extremely chronologically centred. Thus every thing has to be done 'within X days', an agreed 'timeline' has to be established, and sequence of events becomes key in the act of deliberating a verdict (aka 'applied logic'). As a minor example, the pair both turning off their mobiles prior to the murder, becomes interesting, within the context that they never did this before and that they both denied it and then Amanda came up with three different explanations for it, and Raff continuing to claim there was a signal black spot in his apartment.

This set procedure is dull and boring, but that is how they assess evidence and establish facts. The reasoning for the verdict is down to interpretation and this is indeed an art and somewhat subjective. Hence, the safety net of allowing an appeal. However,t he appeal is only allowable on errors of law, genuinely new evidence not known of as of the time of the trial, perversity (for example the original judge in the Pistorius trial who ruled manslaughter due to an error in reasoning with regards to the facts established) or 'public interest'.

You CANNOT appeal against facts found (except under 'perversity' which is a very uncommon reason for acceptance an appeal).

 

[Vixen]

No, Chieffi messed it up dealing with judge Hellmann's verdict alone. You seem to think that in rejecting Hellmann Cheffi confirmed Massei, that is not the case. One could say that in judicial terms "Massei" is as nonexistant as "Hellmann"

The PIP's desperation to give validity to the rogue judge Hellman (a business law judge) means you confuse yourselves as to how appeals work.

The merits court (Massei) establishes the facts of a case and comes to a verdict. In the UK/USA, the defendant can appeal on grounds of law , perversity, new evidence, public interest, ONLY, but not on facts found. In Italy, the same grounds for appeal, except the appeal is automatically accepted, and in addition, the appeal court (the Second Instance court) in Italy can look at the merits further but only on the issues of law accepted for the appeal.

In this case, there were two or three issues deemed outstanding, within the context of the appeal pleaded.

In the UK, if an appeal fails, the defendant (not the state) can apply to the High Court to take the appeal further, but permission is rarely granted and is usually on grounds of public interest. It used to go to the House of Lords, but now goes to Supreme Court.

In Italy, either the defendant or the state prosecutor can appeal.

Hellman upheld the defendants' appeal and acquitted the pair calling them 'innocent'.

The state prosecutor appealed on procedural grounds (their submissions were completely ignored in Zanetti-Hellman's summing up).

The appeal automatically went to the Supreme Court, where Chiefi ruled the Hellman court completely perverse, extinguishing the entire judgment and heavily criticising it in unprecedented terms, and sent back down the original issues appealed only back to the lower Second Instance (appeals) court. Nencini looked at the Conti-Vecchiotti issues and witness issues (Aviello, Curatolo and Quintavalle only.

All the facts, aside from the aforementioned, were rubber-stamped by the Chiefi court as legally binding in perpetuity.

Nencini Court considered the Conti-Vecchiotti and eye witness issues only; reassessed the facts, reestablished Massei's original facts on these aforesaid issues (for example, rejecting the claim of contamination or that Aviello was at all a credible witness).

The defendants' automatically appealed to the Supreme Court, legally allowable on the above limited issues ONLY - the Chiefi Supreme Court already having underpinned the legality of the other issues as legally settled facts; and this was constituted of Paulo Bruno, the junior judge who wrote up the report, and Marasca, the lead judge who signed it off.

This judgment is defective, as it interferes with the rulings of the Chiefi Supreme Court, which it does not have the constitutional power to do. It weighs up evidence and facts and substitutes its own verdict in place of the merits court - again defective and legally errant. In effect, they carried out an 'armchair trial', a notoriously unreliable method of dispensing justice.

They were legally perverse in allowing the defence team of Bongiorno two or three days of submissions, including testimony from Prof Peter Gill, who was never cross-examined, and nor did he produce an experts witness statement to the original merits court, as is proper, whilst all other parties to the proceedings were given just twenty minutes each to present their skeleton arguments, in addition to the written appeal/cross appeal, which will have been read by the Supreme Court judges in chambers.

The Bruno-Marasca court did not have the power to acquit a serious criminal case without remitting it back down to a lower court for the evidence under question to be reassessed for its merits. In effect, it queered the pitch of a lower court by making all kinds of findings that had (a) never been presented before a lower merits court (i.e., 'flawed police investigation', 'too much press influence' (perversely, as this was mainly due to Curt Knox' US$2m PR campaign) and (b) make rulings on issues that had never been pleaded by either side. For example, it issued a verdict stating the kids' were present at the scene, but did not participate in the murder. Neither Bongiorno, for Raff nor Dalla Vedova, for Amanda, had pleaded this in the alternative (their sole pleading being, 'they didn't do it, they were not there.')

Both Bruno and Marasca were politically appointed judges, who had not been through the legal career path, and no doubt felt themselves under political pressure to free the pair given (i) the big money invested in the case by multinational corporations (for example, Harper Collins, Simon and Shuster, the US tv networks) (ii) the undercurrent of serious organised crime, with the potential embarrassment of rumoured big money bribes for the Italian government to deal with, in the full glare of international public gaze.

It, however, made it clear, the pair were not found innocent. It did a damage limitation exercise to minimise the kids' chances of compensation (again, unethical of itself).

Shortly, after their long-delayed written reasons ( a breach of court protocol in itself) Marasca immediately retired and Bruno - rumoured to be suffering psychological issues - was moved sideways to a post with a fancy title, but little substance, 'head of the fifth chambers of the Supreme Court'. IOW a desk job.

All clear now?

 

[Vixen]

Yes the count of injuries included all cuts and bruises and scrapes. So not all were knife wounds but also included bruises. As you say there was some discussion about whether some of the injuries were pre mortem bruising or post mortem hypostasis. Some of the bruising may have occurred prior to the assault, as assessing the age of bruises is difficult.

It is good you have learnt that not all were knife wounds. So we will not hear the factoid about '23 knife nicks' again. There were three probable knife wounds on the hands, left index finger (palmar surface), right thumb (palmar surface) and right palm.



So Massei does not say what you say he says. Massei (highlighted) says the wounds were defence wounds i.e. not deliberately inflicted by the murderer, but a consequence of the victim grabbing the knife when being stabbed in her neck. Massei actually says the opposite of what you say. Massei does not say goaded, or intimidation or any equivalent thereof. Massei says they were NOT deliberately inflicted by the murderer (or anyone else). Do you read the quotes you post? Because if you do you obviously do not understand them.

You also do not seem to understand the difference between evidential facts often agreed by both defence and prosecution e.g. the injuries, and interpretation or opinion, e.g. the size of the knife that inflicted the injuries, or the action that caused the injuries e.g. Massei's opinion that the injuries on the hands were defence injuries or that two knives (one never found) were used in the attack. These latter may become legal facts but they remain opinion, all be it the court's opinion.

Sorry, but Massei does say the 'numerous' (his word) superficial nicks WERE a symptom of intimidation (his word) rather than defensive wounds.

He concedes the three you mention (which does not mean there were not others) were probably due to the victim holding up her hand to fend off the knives, again underpinning the fact she must have been prevented from making the movement again, as those were the only defence wounds visible.

Why are you so fond of half-truths? Wouldn't you rather have the full truth?

 

[Vixen]

It can be argued whether or not there were multiple attackers. Even if it was proved there were multiple attackers, why are Amanda and Raffaele who had no relationship with Guede the only people who could have helped Guede.

The common relationship appears to be drugs. The pair went into town that afternoon and were extremely defensive and evasive about it when questioned. Even in her book Waiting to be Heard Amanda simply says 'after Mez left the flat, we went to Raff's and spent the afternoon smoking hash and having sex, we stayed there all evening and night and didn't go out until the next day' (precis paraphrase). It is a fact, Rudy was also in town the same time.

IMV Rudy happened to be there and he became a convenient scapegoat for Amanda and Raff to pin the murder on. Massei believed Amanda and Raff were there having sex in her room, when they decided to try to force Mez into having sex with randy Rudy. No doubt, he was there hoping for sex with Amanda, having had the come-on by her.

In her memo present to the police she states she took Patrick round to the cottage to have sex with Mez. No doubt she was really referring to Rudy, when referring to 'Patrick', (as upheld by the final Supreme Court in the 'Patrick' matter).

 

[Mike1711]

So Rudy is 510"

Your writing is as sloppy as your enquiry.

 

[Mike1711]

No, the facts a court establish should be actual facts.

You either lack the intellect or refuse to understand.

Let me try an analogy to help you.

A referee awards a penalty. A goal results. Subsequently it is seen clearly on slow motion TV that it wasn't a penalty.

The goal still stands. The scorer still has chalked up a goal.

So too does the referee's mistake stand. It stands for the smooth running of football, NOT because referees don't make mistakes.

What you argue is that the goal stands therefore the referee didn't make a mistake.

What I say is......BS!!!

 

[Vixen]

You either lack the intellect or refuse to understand.

Let me try an analogy to help you.

A referee awards a penalty. A goal results. Subsequently it is seen clearly on slow motion TV that it wasn't a penalty.

The goal still stands. The scorer still has chalked up a goal.

So too does the referee's mistake stand. It stands for the smooth running of football, NOT because referees don't make mistakes.

What you argue is that the goal stands therefore the referee didn't make a mistake.

What I say is......BS!!!

A referee or an umpire is a good analogy of a judge insofar their decision is final, for the smooth running of a game. To help in this matter, they are given intense training, are given referees assistants, have to follow strict rules, such as recusing themselves in games of conflict of interest, for example, you wouldn't want to see an Italian or Swedish referee refereeing the Italy vs Sweden EURO2016 game. However, nowadays, thanks to high technology, a 'goal' can be replayed to see if the ball did cross the line.

As for tackles and penalties, we have to accept the referee's best judgement.

The analogy to a court of law stops there. In a court, we are looking at historical issues, not real-time events as they happen. Each party can make a representation as to why the defendant is guilty or not guilty, and the judge does not make a decision until ALL the evidence has been heard, unlike a referee who is expected to 'think on his feet' and make instant decisions.

And yes, a penalty that results in a goal because of a faulty referee's decision is still a goal, whichever which way you want to look at it. As a matter of fact.

 

[Mike1711]

A referee or an umpire is a good analogy of a judge insofar their decision is final, for the smooth running of a game. To help in this matter, they are given intense training, are given referees assistants, have to follow strict rules, such as recusing themselves in games of conflict of interest, for example, you wouldn't want to see an Italian or Swedish referee refereeing the Italy vs Sweden EURO2016 game. However, nowadays, thanks to high technology, a 'goal' can be replayed to see if the ball did cross the line.

As for tackles and penalties, we have to accept the referee's best judgement.

The analogy to a court of law stops there. In a court, we are looking at historical issues, not real-time events as they happen. Each party can make a representation as to why the defendant is guilty or not guilty, and the judge does not make a decision until ALL the evidence has been heard, unlike a referee who is expected to 'think on his feet' and make instant decisions.

And yes, a penalty that results in a goal because of a faulty referee's decision is still a goal, whichever which way you want to look at it. As a matter of fact.

Pity the lower court Judges didn't rely more on science and technology instead of their intuitive skills. "I picked the knife out of the drawer because it was a very interesting knife" type of logic defies science, particularly in light of the fact that modern technological science dictates that "that" knife doesn't match the wounds.

Pity the lower court Judges didn't rely more on the science of digestion instead of the unreliable testimony of half deaf old bats who don't even need a watch to say what time of the night they thought they heard a scream.

...a drugged up hobo who thinks he sees people but on the wrong day, so the Judge just alters the day. That's not science.

...a shopkeeper who sees the accused but describes her incorrectly, but the Judge ignores this. That's not science.

DNA analysed unscientifically...is not science.

Need I go on.

....and this is not the issue. It's not about a goal (or judicial truth) standing it's about whether the goal (or judicial truth) is based on sound judgement.

Its trite to talk of judicial truths as though they are empirical truths...and you have been told this....on numerous occasions, but that doesn't deter you from peddling your distortions. Why?

 

[Bill Williams]

Pity the lower court Judges didn't rely more on science and technology instead of their intuitive skills. "I picked the knife out of the drawer because it was a very interesting knife" type of logic defies science, particularly in light of the fact that modern technological science dictates that "that" knife doesn't match the wounds.

Pity the lower court Judges didn't rely more on the science of digestion instead of the unreliable testimony of half deaf old bats who don't even need a watch to say what time of the night they thought they heard a scream.

...a drugged up hobo who thinks he sees people but on the wrong day, so the Judge just alters the day. That's not science.

...a shopkeeper who sees the accused but describes her incorrectly, but the Judge ignores this. That's not science.

DNA analysed unscientifically...is not science.

Need I go on.

....and this is not the issue. It's not about a goal (or judicial truth) standing it's about whether the goal (or judicial truth) is based on sound judgement.

Its trite to talk of judicial truths as though they are empirical truths...and you have been told this....on numerous occasions, but that doesn't deter you from peddling your distortions. Why?

Vixen pretty much stands alone peddling the stuff she peddles.

This is a question for the lurkers out there - IF any are left. Is there any lurker out there who supports Vixen's posts, who would themselves post one post saying so.

Telling us why is optional. If you are not a regular poster to this thread and are somewhat convinced by Vixen's lies posts, please do us a kindness and tell us so.