Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Welshman]

Yeah, Luca stuck up for the pair quite a lot, didn't he? The only real tears of Amanda were tears of pity for herself, or as an act. Watching a snivelling Pistorius on tv yesterday, I was struck by his ham acting skills. Perhaps he and Amanda should do a screenplay together and see who can out wooden the other.

When Vixen was caught in a lie, she changed her story. This is what Vixen wrote in her original post :-

“Amanda has shown zero remorse and shed no tears for her friend”

When it was shown that Amanda had cried and shown remorse Vixen changed her story from Amanda not crying and showing no emotion to Amanda showing emotion and crying but was faking it. Vixen forgets her previous claim Amanda had not shown emotion or cried.

 

[Vixen]

But your argument was that once a court declared something as fact, that fact was no longer open to debate.

To convict anyone of a crime, the court has declared, as a fact, the defendant was guilty.

If this "judicial fact" is not open to debate there would be no appeals, re trials quashed convictions or pardons.

You are confusing yourself. Law has evolved over the centuries, building on case law and case precedent in how evidence is to be assessed. Modern law holds that the first step in a trial, after determining which law is alleged to have been breached, is to determine the facts . This will depend heavily in chronology (a timeline) and evidence prsented to the court by either side. The judge is paid to make a finding of fact, not dither over 'hypotheses'.

From these facts, the court can come to a verdict. How else are they supposed to do it?

 

[Vixen]

When Vixen was caught in a lie, she changed her story. This is what Vixen wrote in her original post :-

“Amanda has shown zero remorse and shed no tears for her friend”

When it was shown that Amanda had cried and shown remorse Vixen changed her story from Amanda not crying and showing no emotion to Amanda showing emotion and crying but was faking it. Vixen forgets her previous claim Amanda had not shown emotion or cried.

No. I was raising the question as to whether Luca is a reliable witness as far as the pair are concerned, as he backed them up quite a few times.

 

[Vixen]

I don't even know where to start to point out how illogical this "response" is, in so many different ways. So I won't bother.

But in passing, it also appears to show that you continue to hold the mistaken (and somewhat totalitarian-state) belief that it's incumbent upon an accused person to prove his/her innocence in court (and that if (s)he cannot prove his/her innocence, that should actively count against him/her in court).

Now you are being silly. In your original scenario you said Mr B came forward as a witness that it was Mr A what done it, and he got tried and convicted, but later, it transpired Mr. A had been sitting in an aeroplane the whole time of the murder.

Really? So he didn't bother to challenge Mr B's testimony nor produce the airline receipts at the trial. Presumably he went into the witness box and said, 'It was me what done it, Your Honour'.

Without a hap'orth of proof he was anywhere near the place.

 

[Vixen]

In fact it is so well recognised that the court system can be wrong that the Uk has an extra judicial system to review convictions of cases that have already been appealed. (criminal cases review commission) http://www.ccrc.gov.uk/
so the lawyers are obviously not as convinced as Vixen is by their infallibility.

That's a logical fallacy of leaping to a conclusion which doesn't follow. I didn't say the law was infallible. In fact, I actually said, of course, the courts make mistakes.

So by your own definition that makes you a ...?

 

[Mike1711]

So Mr A pleaded guilty without bothering to provide evidence he was elsewhere as of the time of the murder? More fool him.

His conviction is hardly the court's fault.

It's not about whose fault it is. It's about truth.

 

[Mike1711]

You are confusing yourself. Law has evolved over the centuries, building on case law and case precedent in how evidence is to be assessed. Modern law holds that the first step in a trial, after determining which law is alleged to have been breached, is to determine the facts . This will depend heavily in chronology (a timeline) and evidence prsented to the court by either side. The judge is paid to make a finding of fact, not dither over 'hypotheses'.

From these facts, the court can come to a verdict. How else are they supposed to do it?

A judges verdict can be and often is wrong.

 

[Vixen]

Please tell me what code you are refering to here? Italian Codice Procedura penale doesn't make sense:

Art. 230 of the Italian Codice Penale doesn't make sense either:

I don't speak Italian, but I assume what you are actually highlighting are the four subsections of para 230.1, which are numbered 1 - 4.

 

[Vixen]

It's not about whose fault it is. It's about truth.

As most murders and many crimes are committed under conditions of utmost stealth, with the perpetrator determined to get away with it under any circumstance, a court is faced with having to determine the defendant's guilt or lack thereof. To do this, they have to establish the facts.

In the Kercher case, Raff and Amanda may well sneer the facts found are wrong, as Massei didn't have the privilege to be there. However, using the technique of ascertaining what the most probable sequence of events were, and with all parties being free to present evidence and counter-argument, Massei had no alternative but to find the pair guilty as charged and Nencini upheld it, based purely on all the evidence presented before it.

It might not tell the story 100% accurately, but we can be reasonably sure that the verdict is correct and they did it, even if some of the supposed details of who did what and the motive are a bit abstract. Massei ruled the motive was 'futile' and I believe this perfectly described the cold blooded trivially motivated psychopathy of the perps, and as described by Amanda herself in her short stories leading up to the abomination.

 

[Vixen]

A judges verdict can be and often is wrong.

Ah. But it can only be apppealed against on points of law, not on the facts found by the court, unless ofcourse 'perversity' is argued, which won't cut the mustard with the appeals court.

 

[Bill Williams]

How many cringe worthy posts can one person make?

Time to put said poster on ignore. Again. I never learn.

 

[LondonJohn]

Now you are being silly. In your original scenario you said Mr B came forward as a witness that it was Mr A what done it, and he got tried and convicted, but later, it transpired Mr. A had been sitting in an aeroplane the whole time of the murder. Really? So he didn't bother to challenge Mr B's testimony nor produce the airline receipts at the trial. Presumably he went into the witness box and said, 'It was me what done it, Your Honour'.

Without a hap'orth of proof he was anywhere near the place.

*sigh* Read my original post again. Slowly and carefully.

It's Mr B - the alleged eyewitness - who was later proven to have been elsewhere (on the aircraft in flight) at the time of the murder. Not Mr A.

Now try again.

 

[acbytesla]

How many cringe worthy posts can one person make?

Time to put said poster on ignore. Again. I never learn.

4,894 so far.

 

[Planigale]

You are confusing yourself. Law has evolved over the centuries, building on case law and case precedent in how evidence is to be assessed. Modern law holds that the first step in a trial, after determining which law is alleged to have been breached, is to determine the facts . This will depend heavily in chronology (a timeline) and evidence prsented to the court by either side. The judge is paid to make a finding of fact, not dither over 'hypotheses'.

From these facts, the court can come to a verdict. How else are they supposed to do it?

You are describing the English common law system not the Italian civil / roman law system. Evolution is fundamentally an English concept. The origin of the civil law system is the neutral investigating magistrate who presents the facts to the court. The prosecuting magistrate directs the investigation by the police. The civil law systems have a codified law system and do not have case law and precedent. You frequently make the error of assuming the way things are done in England are the way they are done everywhere.

 

[Planigale]

As most murders and many crimes are committed under conditions of utmost stealth, with the perpetrator determined to get away with it under any circumstance, a court is faced with having to determine the defendant's guilt or lack thereof. To do this, they have to establish the facts.

In the Kercher case, Raff and Amanda may well sneer the facts found are wrong, as Massei didn't have the privilege to be there. However, using the technique of ascertaining what the most probable sequence of events were, and with all parties being free to present evidence and counter-argument, Massei had no alternative but to find the pair guilty as charged and Nencini upheld it, based purely on all the evidence presented before it.

It might not tell the story 100% accurately, but we can be reasonably sure that the verdict is correct and they did it, even if some of the supposed details of who did what and the motive are a bit abstract. Massei ruled the motive was 'futile' and I believe this perfectly described the cold blooded trivially motivated psychopathy of the perps, and as described by Amanda herself in her short stories leading up to the abomination.

Here is exactly the problem. The court is not supposed to find the most probable sequence of events. Given that there may be a choice between may sequences of events (e.g. Guede alone, Guede and unknown others, Knox alone, Sollecito alone, Knox and Sollecito, Knox and Sollecito and Guede), the most probable may be in itself be unlikely. Even if it is felt to be the most likely and be likely beyond 50% (the burden of proof in a non criminal case), that is not proof beyond reasonable doubt. A 49% likelihood of innocence is reasonable doubt.

 

[Planigale]

Ah. But it can only be apppealed against on points of law, not on the facts found by the court, unless ofcourse 'perversity' is argued, which won't cut the mustard with the appeals court.

In England this is not true.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/appeals_to_the_court_of_appeal/

"The Court of Appeal may hear new evidence that was not adduced in the original proceedings (section 23(1)(c) Criminal Appeal Act 1968), if:

it appears capable of belief;
it may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
it would have been admissible;
it is an issue which is the subject of the appeal;
there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it.
The court can call persons who were not called at trial but may be able to give relevant evidence to the Court of Appeal such as jurors or lawyers.

The court has power to compel the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses. These powers extend to hearings of applications for leave to appeal as well as the appeal itself, (section 23 Criminal Appeal Act 1968, as amended by section 47 and schedule 8 paragraph 10 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008)."

Other grounds (some of which were paralleled in this case):

'where questions are raised about the competence of expert witnesses'

'where it appears that a Crown witness has said something (falling short of a retraction) casting doubt on his or her evidence at trial.'

'where grounds allege lack of disclosure or other impropriety on the Crowns behalf;'

So all of these involve 'facts' and evidence, so you are not correct that appeal can only be on points of law.

 

[LondonJohn]

In England this is not true.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/appeals_to_the_court_of_appeal/

"The Court of Appeal may hear new evidence that was not adduced in the original proceedings (section 23(1)(c) Criminal Appeal Act 1968), if:

it appears capable of belief;
it may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
it would have been admissible;
it is an issue which is the subject of the appeal;
there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it.
The court can call persons who were not called at trial but may be able to give relevant evidence to the Court of Appeal such as jurors or lawyers.

The court has power to compel the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses. These powers extend to hearings of applications for leave to appeal as well as the appeal itself, (section 23 Criminal Appeal Act 1968, as amended by section 47 and schedule 8 paragraph 10 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008)."

Other grounds (some of which were paralleled in this case):

'where questions are raised about the competence of expert witnesses'

'where it appears that a Crown witness has said something (falling short of a retraction) casting doubt on his or her evidence at trial.'

'where grounds allege lack of disclosure or other impropriety on the Crowns behalf;'

So all of these involve 'facts' and evidence, so you are not correct that appeal can only be on points of law.

Indeed. And in the Knox/Sollecito trials, it was precisely a combination of the above that formed the basis of the SC annulment. They judged - correctly, justly and safely - that Curatolo was a fundamentally unreliable witness whose testimony should therefore be given no weight (contrary to the "reasoning" of both the Massei and Nencini courts); that both Capezzali and Quintavalle had sufficiently serious problems with their credibility/reliability as to render their testimony of far, far less weight than that attached to it by the Massei/Nencini courts; and that there were gigantic problems with the forensic evidence against both Knox and Sollecito - problems which had been clearly and explicitly explained by the independent court experts in the Hellmann trail, but then the expert opinion was more-or-less entirely ignored by the subsequent Nencini court, which improperly restored the Massei-era weight of the forensic evidence.


As a side note, I suppose it's also worth pointing out that judicial facts are different from judicial inferences. In the Knox/Sollecito trials, an example of a judicial fact would be the Massei court's finding that Capezzali heard a "scream of death", followed by the sound of people running up the iron stairs near the car park, at some time between around 11pm and 12am. But Massei's (and Nencini's) findings that Knox and Sollecito were present at the apartment at the time of the murder, and that they participated in the murder, were judicial inferences, based on (improperly-assessed and improperly-weighted) judicial facts.

 

[Mike1711]

How many cringe worthy posts can one person make?

Time to put said poster on ignore. Again. I never learn.

Quite right.

It's whack a mole time again.

Twist the truth. Avoid the question. Change the subject. Say something and say it wasn't said.

It's called deception and lies and goes on and on.

 

[Vixen]

*sigh* Read my original post again. Slowly and carefully.

It's Mr B - the alleged eyewitness - who was later proven to have been elsewhere (on the aircraft in flight) at the time of the murder. Not Mr A.

Now try again.

I find your prose so flowery, I have to speed read it, filtering out all the verbosity. Firstly, there is no way the prosecutor would bring a case based on the sole say so of Mr B. It would expect a full dossier of what case the police have built up to feel confident of bringing a charge.

Secondly, as Mr B was not there, it would be a simple issue of Mr A's counsel illustrating this in their cross-examination of him. He would have no real proof he was there. He would be unable to provide a plausible timeline,
or describe the crime scene.

Even if by a fluke the case came to trial based solely on Mr B's claim, then the system kicks in. The onus is on the prosecution to prove it. The court will identify that Mr A's presence is disputed, at a preliminary stage, and it will be listed as an "issue" for the court to examine.

The issue of whether or not Mr B or Mr A was there will be dispensed with very easily and the case thrown out.

If the system fails and Mr A is somehow convicted, then as soon the fact of Mr B being on an aeroplane as of the time of the crime (and there was no way of knowing this as of the duration of the hearing) then this would qualify as genuine new evidence, and a new trial ordered. (ETA But only if Mr B's eye-witness claim was the sole evidence and none other.)

So you see, the system works.

 

[Vixen]

In England this is not true.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/appeals_to_the_court_of_appeal/

"The Court of Appeal may hear new evidence that was not adduced in the original proceedings (section 23(1)(c) Criminal Appeal Act 1968), if:

it appears capable of belief;
it may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
it would have been admissible;
it is an issue which is the subject of the appeal;
there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it.
The court can call persons who were not called at trial but may be able to give relevant evidence to the Court of Appeal such as jurors or lawyers.

The court has power to compel the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses. These powers extend to hearings of applications for leave to appeal as well as the appeal itself, (section 23 Criminal Appeal Act 1968, as amended by section 47 and schedule 8 paragraph 10 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008)."

Other grounds (some of which were paralleled in this case):

'where questions are raised about the competence of expert witnesses'

'where it appears that a Crown witness has said something (falling short of a retraction) casting doubt on his or her evidence at trial.'

'where grounds allege lack of disclosure or other impropriety on the Crowns behalf;'

So all of these involve 'facts' and evidence, so you are not correct that appeal can only be on points of law.

You are referring to new evidence which was not known of as of the time of the trial and wherein it would not be reasonable to expect that it should have been known of. Yes, that is grounds for appeal. However, it is vanishingly rare that it is allowed and often relates to cases where people have spent years in jail and it becomes apparent the conviction is unsafe.

Thus, it is important to ensure you present all your evidence as of the time of the trial, not demand samples be analysed AFTER the trial is over, as Bongiorno did re the pillow stain.

New evidence is quite a separate issue from 'facts found' by a merits court.