Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
The problem is, Micheli and Massei found that Rudy was not the person who dealt the fatal blow. Micheli had Rudy in a cage for his trial and Massei ruled he was the instigator of the violence, so they were hardly biased towards him - quite the reverse - yet they could not find any evidence he was culpable, other than as a participant and accessory, which of course, in law usually means as technically guilty as the actual murderer.
Click to expand...

There you go again, appealing to "judicial truth". Judges Hellman and Zanetti found that neither AK nor RS dealt the fatal blow either, and indeed were innocent of the charges. ISC Judges Bruno and Marasca acquitted AK and RS of the charges, so seemed to agree. Judge Boninsegna cited as a judicial fact that Marasca/Bruno had exonerated the pair.

We can play this judicial-truth-game all week!
 
Vixen said:
The Bruno-Marasca acquittal does not fulfil the criterion of 'fresh evidence', that is merely a judicial process. Evidence refers directly to the original crime, not legal opinion.
Click to expand...
This is gobbly-gook and makes no sense

Vixen said:
In any case, the Supreme Court definitively ruled summarized that one of the parties, the prosecution, claimed that (a) there were multiple attackers, (b) the burglary was staged, and (c) Amanda was definitely there at the scene (and by her own account) and Raff almost certainly. But the point was that when all this was examined synoptically, it still did not convict the pair.

Where is the 'fresh evidence'?
Click to expand...

There, fixed that for you.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The problem is, Micheli and Massei found that Rudy was not the person who dealt the fatal blow. Micheli had Rudy in a cage for his trial and Massei ruled he was the instigator of the violence, so they were hardly biased towards him - quite the reverse - yet they could not find any evidence he was culpable, other than as a participant and accessory, which of course, in law usually means as technically guilty as the actual murderer.
Click to expand...

I think you're twisting their ruling. But as I said, Italy always finds a way to surprise so I doubt I'd be shocked by any ruling a this point.
 
Bill Williams said:
There you go again, appealing to "judicial truth". Judges Hellman and Zanetti found that neither AK nor RS dealt the fatal blow either, and indeed were innocent of the charges. ISC Judges Bruno and Marasca acquitted AK and RS of the charges, so seemed to agree. Judge Boninsegna cited as a judicial fact that Marasca/Bruno had exonerated the pair.

We can play this judicial-truth-game all week!
Click to expand...

Nice try, Billy Boy! Unfortunately for you, Hellmann-Zanetti were zapped!
 
Vixen said:
Nice try, Billy Boy! Unfortunately for you, Hellmann-Zanetti were zapped!
Click to expand...

So we've proven nobody delivered the fatal blow. Thus, in Douglas Adams logic, Meredith has poofed back to life unharmed.

If only?
 
bagels said:
Haha. Oh well. It's not like there's a jury to prejudice.
Click to expand...

The panel of judges - some of them laypersons - constitute the tribunal of judges. They can hardly be any worse than 12 jurors selected randomly (after filtering out all those who cannot attend for 'business reasons', leaving the unemployed, unemployable and bored housewives to mete out justice).
 
bagels said:
So we've proven nobody delivered the fatal blow. Thus, in Douglas Adams logic, Meredith has poofed back to life unharmed.

If only?
Click to expand...

Exactly, bagels. Rudy's appeal is hardly going to succeed unless he comes clean with the truth, instead of clinging on to the same old BS argument as the kids.
 
Bill Williams said:
Yet on the other side, there's one here who claims it is a personal attack to ask them if a judicial truth replaces and is superior to a truth-truth. Claims that flawed science can be rescued by having a judge/tribunal sign off on it.....

.... to point that the judicial-truther can claim she is being bullied.

Yes, that must be it.

The good news is that this case is not being followed much these days, compared to its height in Mar-Apr 2015.
It still does not prevent remaining PGP from begging all sorts of questions to get right back to the conclusions they assumed in the first place.
Click to expand...

It should. . . .How much do we hear about David Camm or Russ Faria anymore? Even the West Memphis Three seem to have been able to fade into the background far better. I am sure that at least Amanda would like nothing better.

I think it is in some cases this "she devil" attitude. The sad thing is that I see this labeling a woman as a "she devil" in another case by a poster who supported Amanda Knox's innocence.
 
Bill Williams said:
There you go again, appealing to "judicial truth". Judges Hellman and Zanetti found that neither AK nor RS dealt the fatal blow either, and indeed were innocent of the charges. ISC Judges Bruno and Marasca acquitted AK and RS of the charges, so seemed to agree. Judge Boninsegna cited as a judicial fact that Marasca/Bruno had exonerated the pair.

We can play this judicial-truth-game all week!
Click to expand...
Vixen said:
Nice try, Billy Boy! Unfortunately for you, Hellmann-Zanetti were zapped!
Click to expand...

..... as were Massei and Nencini. Esp. Nencini, as per Section 10 of the M/B report - which I'll admit you don't read that far.

Marasca Bruno report said:
10. The intrinsic contradictory nature of the evidence, emerging from the text of
the appealed verdict, in essence undermines the connective tissue of the same,
leading to its annulment.​
Click to expand...
That's the judicial truth. One of the marks of the people who claim guilt for AK and RS is never, ever quoting the complete record.

My view is that in essence M/B sided with the Hellmann-Zanetti report. It was the judicial-truth-view of Judge Boninsegna that the M/B report exonerated the pair.

But the ad hominem was a good touch. Made it seem like you didn't have evidence of anything, and needed a little more rhetorical oomph to get your point across.
 
Bill Williams said:
..... as were Massei and Nencini. Esp. Nencini, as per Section 10 of the M/B report - which I'll admit you don't read that far.

​
That's the judicial truth. One of the marks of the people who claim guilt for AK and RS is never, ever quoting the complete record.

My view is that in essence M/B sided with the Hellmann-Zanetti report. It was the judicial-truth-view of Judge Boninsegna that the M/B report exonerated the pair.

But the ad hominem was a good touch. Made it seem like you didn't have evidence of anything, and needed a little more rhetorical oomph to get your point across.
Click to expand...


Ah but Bill, the important thing to remember is this: the law students and attorneys at Viterbo who are filing the petition will have made sure there was a sound legal principle when lodging the appeal. Certainly, Guede has a lot of public sympathy in Italy at the perceived inequality of justice.

It’s as though the ‘Doctor’s boy’ (Sollecito) was always expected to get off.

:D:D:D :rolleyes:
 
LondonJohn said:
Ah but Bill, the important thing to remember is this: the law students and attorneys at Viterbo who are filing the petition will have made sure there was a sound legal principle when lodging the appeal. Certainly, Guede has a lot of public sympathy in Italy at the perceived inequality of justice.

It’s as though the ‘Doctor’s boy’ (Sollecito) was always expected to get off.

:D:D:D :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You mean that the killer went to prison and the two people who were uninvolved were exonerated?
 
Vixen said:
The problem is, Micheli and Massei found that Rudy was not the person who dealt the fatal blow. Micheli had Rudy in a cage for his trial and Massei ruled he was the instigator of the violence, so they were hardly biased towards him - quite the reverse - yet they could not find any evidence he was culpable, other than as a participant and accessory, which of course, in law usually means as technically guilty as the actual murderer.
Click to expand...

I have repeatedly referenced the motivation report where the judge specifically says they did not rule on this, because the case that Guede struck the fatal blow was not put to them. That you continue to propagate this false meme shows that you are just ignoring the facts and creating your own myth. The fact that the judges specifically commented on this suggests (in my opinion) that they were dissatisfied with the prosecution failing to present the argument that Guede struck the fatal blow. However if neither the prosecution nor the defence argued for Guede striking the fatal blow the judges cannot rule that he did. This is very different from their ruling that he did not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom