Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Citation, please.

A four inch penknife would not have reached all the way back to the hyoid bone, some eight cms back, which showed knife serrations on it.

Why on earth are you requesting a citation? Please fill in the backlog of citations requested from you!

Please start with naming on expert who agrees with Stefanon!

 

[LondonJohn]

Anonymity is no good in a court of law. I recall seeing evidence that the provenance of this anonymous letter was from Raff's own PC.

Anyway, if you have to write anonymously, it doesn't inspire confidence in the writer's integrity.

I've already explained twice in the past 24 hours or so, on these very pages, how it's fundamentally incorrect and ignorant to assume that Sollecito's ID on the metadata of a file automatically means that he was the originator of the content of the file. But, as so very often, it appears to go in one ear and out the other...........

 

[LondonJohn]

Why on earth are you requesting a citation? Please fill in the backlog of citations requested from you!

Please start with naming on expert who agrees with Stefanon!

First of all, let's wait for the penny to drop that a 4-inch blade is more than capable of causing an 8cm-deep wound

 

[Vixen]

Vixen demonstrates her scientific prowess once again with an inability to make a simple imperial-metric conversion

(FVI: 4 inches = approx 10.2 centimetres......)

Typo: that should, of course read 17.5cm, or eight - nine inches.

 

[LondonJohn]

Typo: that should, of course read 17.5cm, or eight - nine inches.

Soooo...... you're saying that the sentence you wrote, corrected for your alleged "typo", should now read:

A four inch penknife would not have reached all the way back to the hyoid bone, some eight-nine inches (or 17.5cm) back, which showed knife serrations on it.

So now your contention is that the hyoid bone lies 8-9 inches or 17.5cm back from the surface of the neck......?!

Quite apart from the basic fact that 17.5cm equates to approx 6.9 inches, and not the abysmal "8-9 inches" you claim, do you even realise how stupid all this is sounding right now? But the amusement value is still sky high

(Hint: get a ruler, measure out 17.5cm (or 6.9 inches, or even "8-9 inches" if you insist.....), and hold the ruler against your neck. It's really nothing more than a combination of the most basic research and the most basic common sense)

 

[Vixen]

Italian Penal Code re Review

The section of the Italian Penal code that allows reviews can be seen here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure#Review_of_trial


The section Rudy is applying for a review under is:

• there is discrepancy between the findings of fact contained in the conviction and in another irrevocable one.

IMV he has a good chance of being granted at least a preliminary hearing as (a) it is in the penal code, as set out,

(b) it appears to meet the jurisdiction in that the Marasca Court's verdict is (i) irrevocable and (ii) it contradicts the facts found Raff and Amanda were at the murder scene, but there was no proof they did it, versus the Micheli verdict and the sentencing by Giordano. Giordani rejected Rudy's appeal and concluded:

with reference to the seriousness of the crime, all the representations and considerations on the subject of the insistent violence against the poor victim, [who was] assaulted by several people according to the convincing arguments by the judges of first and second instance,corresponds to the canons for a judgement of rejection of the request concerning [23] mitigation of the
penalty, and of the relevance of the general mitigating circumstances that would absorb aggravating
circumstances; this is in fact an opinion of merit that is the exclusive competence, within the
aforementioned boundaries, of the lower courts.

Note: the prosecutor cannot appeal a not guilty verdict in an irrevocable not guilty verdict (as in final cassazione - Supreme Court), thus Rudy has nothing to lose in applying for a review.

 

[LondonJohn]

The section of the Italian Penal code that allows reviews can be seen here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure#Review_of_trial


The section Rudy is applying for a review under is:

• there is discrepancy between the findings of fact contained in the conviction and in another irrevocable one.

IMV he has a good chance of being granted at least a preliminary hearing as (a) it is in the penal code, as set out,

(b) it appears to meet the jurisdiction in that the Marasca Court's verdict is (i) irrevocable and (ii) it contradicts the facts found Raff and Amanda were at the murder scene but there was no roof they did it versus the Micheli verdict and the sentencing by Giordano. Giordani rejected Rudy's appeal and concluded:



Note: the prosecutor cannot appeal a not guilty verdict in an irrevocable not guilty verdict (as in final cassazione - Supreme Court), thus Rudy has nothing to lose in applying for a review.

Still gulping down that Kool-Aid, it seems

Marasca's ruling was explicitly seeking NOT to contradict the rulings in Guede's trial process. That's precisely why Marasca's SC panel posited that hypothetical section premised on an "even if..." construction.

IMO Guede has no chance of having his appeal heard, let alone it being successful in any way. However, you ARE correct in your contention that he has nothing to lose at this point - and, for that matter, nor do the lawyers who are gaining national publicity from picking up his case...........

 

[Vixen]

Soooo...... you're saying that the sentence you wrote, corrected for your alleged "typo", should now read:

A four inch penknife would not have reached all the way back to the hyoid bone, some eight-nine inches (or 17.5cm) back, which showed knife serrations on it.

So now your contention is that the hyoid bone lies 8-9 inches or 17.5cm back from the surface of the neck......?!

Quite apart from the basic fact that 17.5cm equates to approx 6.9 inches, and not the abysmal "8-9 inches" you claim, do you even realise how stupid all this is sounding right now? But the amusement value is still sky high

(Hint: get a ruler, measure out 17.5cm (or 6.9 inches, or even "8-9 inches" if you insist.....), and hold the ruler against your neck. It's really nothing more than a combination of the most basic research and the most basic common sense)

Bravo! I do actually have a tape measure in front of me.

IIRC the hyoid bone is about eight inches back from the angle Mez was stabbed.

 

[Vixen]

Still gulping down that Kool-Aid, it seems

Marasca's ruling was explicitly seeking NOT to contradict the rulings in Guede's trial process. That's precisely why Marasca's SC panel posited that hypothetical section premised on an "even if..." construction.

IMO Guede has no chance of having his appeal heard, let alone it being successful in any way. However, you ARE correct in your contention that he has nothing to lose at this point - and, for that matter, nor do the lawyers who are gaining national publicity from picking up his case...........

At this stage, law has nothing at all to do with opinion. If the jurisdiction is there for him to file a complaint, then there is a good chance of acceptance. Although, whether the Florence Assizes has a sift system based on 'Reasonable Prospect of Success', I do not know.

Imagine you believe you have been sold shoddy goods not fit for purpose. You can lodge a claim under the Consumer Act and it will be accepted as you have cited the statute the good is not fit for purpose and you have lodged it on time. Whether you win depends on whether there is a dispute.

Likewise, If it is there in Italian statute:

A convicted person may apply for a review if it contradicts another, irrevocable verdict. (This would be Marasca versus Giordani/Micheli.)

There is no statute of limitations.

In any case, the Marasca court only finalised in September 2015, so it was not possible to lodge the claim for a review before then.

 

[LondonJohn]

Bravo! I do actually have a tape measure in front of me.

IIRC the hyoid bone is about eight inches back from the angle Mez was stabbed.

No. No it's not*. Get an anatomy book out of the library.

And how about that zinger of 17.5cm = "8-9 inches"........?


* ETA: not to mention the fact that if Kercher's hyoid was "about eight inches back from the angle Mez Kercher was stabbed" (which it of course wasn't, seeing as that measurement is ludicrously incorrect....), that wound could not have been inflicted by a 17.5cm blade either. Because 17.5cm = only approx. 6.9 inches. Oops once again

 

[LondonJohn]

At this stage, law has nothing at all to do with opinion. If the jurisdiction is there for him to file a complaint, then there is a good chance of acceptance. Although, whether the Florence Assizes has a sift system based on 'Reasonable Prospect of Success', I do not know.

Imagine you believe you have been sold shoddy goods not fit for purpose. You can lodge a claim under the Consumer Act and it will be accepted as you have cited the statute the good is not fit for purpose and you have lodged it on time. Whether you win depends on whether there is a dispute.

Likewise, If it is there in Italian statute:

A convicted person may apply for a review if it contradicts another, irrevocable verdict. (This would be Marasca versus Giordani/Micheli.)

There is no statute of limitations.

In any case, the Marasca court only finalised in September 2015, so it was not possible to lodge the claim for a review before then.

None of this even begins to address the salient fact that Marasca's SC verdict is actually NOT at odds with Guede's final verdict to any degree that would trigger a right to an appeal. But c'est la vie.

It appears that not even God agrees with you on this one

 

[Vixen]

None of this even begins to address the salient fact that Marasca's SC verdict is actually NOT at odds with Guede's final verdict to any degree that would trigger a right to an appeal. But c'est la vie.

It appears that not even God agrees with you on this one

But don't you see that it is? Ignore the fact of whether you agree or disagree with the rectitude of Rudy's conviction. All that is being looked at at this stage is: does he have the right to lodge an application for a review. From the Italian Penal Code he obviously does, as this right is set out there, even if the convicted appellant is deceased, as there is no SOL even after death.

Micheli wrote [public domain]:

one can in effect hypothesize that RUDY knew nothing about the knife, or perhaps nothing showed in any way that could be seen as a resorting to violence to induce the girl not oppose herself to it: at a certain point in the action, though, the knife came out, and someone made repeated and prolonged use of it. The foreseeability that the weapon would be used not to wound or menace, but actually to kill, originates in the same moment in which the knife was produced, and becomes ever more likely with the progression of the criminal excursus, connoted by the constant resistance of the victim and the set of the enduring and ever-increasingly insistent wounding activity by the material authors.

[309] In the face of so many wounds, both whether in large part defensive and of containment, and in any case of numerous wounds from a bladed weapon, even if he found himself participating in the action holding one hand to impede any movements by the girl, and using the other to satisfy his own lust, he could not be a mere spectator, incapable of being aware of what was coming about: the same, and not negligible, time that was necessary to realise that lesional activity, must be understood ex se a factor relevant for excluding that a likely accomplice remaining in the background (and Mr GUEDE was not that) was standing back on something that was escaping out of his control.

[310] The clear evidence of the violent act, at least from a certain point forwards, was unavoidably manifested even in the eyes of those who brought into the equation, and wanted to participate in, something much less brutal: at the beginning it must be held that there was an agreed plan to satisfy sexual instincts, but then the modification of the plan towards homicidal intentions (which indubitably happened in a moment subsequent to the introduction into the scene of the knife, used at first instance for menacing purposes, in emerging to the victim’s reaction) was received, accepted, and followed through on by everybody, given that everyone kept on being co-protagonists in conduct which lasted well after the appearance of the weapon; no one ran away first or tried to stop the others, nor to seek help, nor display dissent with respect to that criminal progression. Assisting in repeated knifings, inasmuch as those initial ones could have had connotations of menaces, on the part of the one who was employed in holding the subject passive, does not indicate that that person could have foreseen and, further, accepted the risk that a mortal wounding would occur, but does make evident the participation of that subject for the ends followed through on by the person who was holding the wounding implement. The biological tests, mentioned multiple times, and the testimonial data (the simultaneous flight from the scene of multiple persons, according to Mrs CAPEZZALI) speak unequivocally in the sense just illustrated.

[311] We find ourselves thus in front of a criminal accord to be held directly relatable to the sexual violence, and supervening in the course of the operation towards the later event constituting the death of Ms KERCHER; accords that at any rate, for both the offences committed, describe complicit concrete facts within the meaning of Article 110 Criminal Code as charged against all the co-defendants and, as regards what is of interest today, as charged against Mr GUEDE.

Incidentally, I am pretty confident a couple of the pathologists giving evidence did state the knife would need to be at least 9 inches long.

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen reminds me of Baghdad Bob: There are NO American tanks inside Baghdad!

 

[Stacyhs]

But don't you see that it is? Ignore the fact of whether you agree or disagree with the rectitude of Rudy's conviction. All that is being looked at at this stage is: does he have the right to lodge an application for a review. From the Italian Penal Code he obviously does, as this right is set out there, even if the convicted appellant is deceased, as there is no SOL even after death.

Micheli wrote [public domain]:



Incidentally, I am pretty confident a couple of the pathologists giving evidence did state the knife would need to be at least 9 inches long.

Then present that testimony. Somehow, I just don't have a hell of a lot of confidence in your "99% accurate" memory.

 

[Numbers]

To set the record straight, here is the relevant Italian procedural law for the revision trial Rudy Guede is seeking; I believe I have posted some of this information before:

CPP Article 629 Convictions subject to revision

The revision of judgments of conviction or judgments issued under Article 444, paragraph 2 {application of punishment upon request of the accused and prosecutor}, or of final criminal decrees of conviction may be performed at any time and the cases established by law in favour of the convicted person, even if the sentence has already been enforced or is extinguished.

CPP Article 630 Cases of revision

1. Revision may be requested:

a) if the facts underlying the judgment or the criminal decree of conviction are incompatible with the facts established in another final criminal judgment issued by the ordinary judge or a special judge;
....

CPP Article 631 Limitations to revision

Under penalty of inadmissibility of the request, the arguments underlying the request for revision must be such as to prove, if ascertained, that the convicted person must be dismissed under Articles 529, 530 or 531 {that is: Article 529, the prosecution should not have been initiated or continued; 530, the person should have been acquitted under one of the reasons provided by law and listed in the article*; 531, the offense is extinguished (conviction is time-barred by the statute of limitation).

*The criminal act did not occur, the person did not commit the act, the act was not an offense by law, the act was justified under law or the person exempted from punishment, or the person lacked mental capacity.

CPP Article 634 Declaration of inadmissibility

1. If the request is submitted for reasons other than those provided for in Articles 629 and 630 or it is submitted without complying with the provisions of Articles 631, 632, 633 and 641** or the request is proven to be manifestly groundless, the Court of Appeal shall issue an order declaring, also ex officio, its inadmissibility and may sentence the private person who submitted the request to the payment of a sum ranging from EUR 258 to EUR 2,065 to the Treasury of Fines.
....

** Article 631 states that the arguments in the request for revision must be such as to make a case for dismissal under grounds otherwise provided for dismissals, for example, acquittal. Article 632 provides that the request must be brought by the convicted person or that person's next of kin or guardian (or heir if the person is deceased), and/or by the General Public Prosecutor attached to the Court of Appeal in the relevant district. Article 633 provides instructions detailing the form and manner of delivery to the Court Clerk of the request. Article 641 provides that a request found inadmissible may only be resubmitted if it is based on different arguments than the one(s) previously found inadmissible.
____

Applying the above to Guede's case, it would appear he has every right to file a request for revision. However, if the Court of Appeal finds that there was no incompatibility between Guede's conviction and the acquittal of Knox and Sollecito, his request would be ruled inadmissible and he may be required to pay a fine***; in no case would his prison sentence be altered due to submission of an inadmissible request.

***PGP may wish to consider a fund-raising effort for such eventuality.

The question the Court of Appeal must consider for Guede's case is: Are the facts underlying his final conviction incompatible with the facts established by the final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito?

There are several issues relating to this question.

1) There is no assurance, based on the arbitrary court decisions rendered by Italian courts in the Knox - Sollecito case, that the Italian Court of Appeal hearing Guede's revision case would consider this matter objectively.

2) If one assumes an objective evaluation, then the question becomes, which facts are alleged to be incompatible between the two final court judgments, and are they indeed objectively incompatible?

One issue is whether or not Guede's final conviction establishes (even if unfairly or illegally according to Italian law or the European Convention of Human Rights) as a judicial "fact" that he acted together with Knox and Sollecito, or instead that he acted together with persons unnamed.

On the other hand, the final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito establishes the judicial fact that they did not participate in the crime, but is (IIRC) silent as to whether or not Guede acted with others.

ETA: Source for the CPP information:
The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation, ed. M. Gialuz, L. Luparia, and F. Scarpa (C) 2014 Wolters Kluwer Italia

 

[bagels]

Incidentally, I am pretty confident a couple of the pathologists giving evidence did state the knife would need to be at least 9 inches long.

haha yeah im sure.

Massei twisted and turned with the knife "evidence" finally conceding that the fatal wound was not entirely altogether incompatible with the kitchen knife...if you squinted right...and the stars and moons aligned on the right evening.....

Of course he was just bending over backwards for the kids...not squirming his way through a bunk case he knew would be overturned on appeal.

 

[Numbers]

Returning to the issues of Guede's request for a revision trial:

To determine whether or not a judicial "fact" was "established" in Guede's final conviction that Knox and Sollicito participated with Guede in the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher, one should review the actual language of the Giordano CSC panel motivation report, which was the final judgment of conviction in Guede's case.

The relevant text from the Giordano MR is:

In the meantime it is now necessary to escape the attempt, pursued by the overall setting of the defence, but out of place in the context of this decision, to involve the Court in supporting the thesis of the responsibility of others, namely Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, for the murder aggravated by the sexual assault of Meredith Kercher. The decision to which this court is called concerns uniquely the responsibility of Guede regarding the deed with which he is charged, and the possible participation of others in the crime should be taken into account only to the extent to which such a circumstance would have an impact on the exclusive commitment of the Court to either modifying or confirming the verdict of guilt of the defendant, which was entirely shared by the courts of first and second instance.

 

[LondonJohn]

Returning to the issues of Guede's request for a revision trial:

To determine whether or not a judicial "fact" was "established" in Guede's final conviction that Knox and Sollicito participated with Guede in the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher, one should review the actual language of the Giordano CSC panel motivation report, which was the final judgment of conviction in Guede's case.

The relevant text from the Giordano MR is:

Exactly. This is the very nub of the gist (and the thing which ignorant/biassed pro-guilt commentators are unable/unwilling to apprehend). Guede's SC ruling explicitly and specifically notes two critical factors: 1) Guede's conviction is in no way dependent upon the convictions of Knox and Sollecito for the same crime; and b) The basis of Guede's conviction effectively stands alone of the presence (or absence) of others.

Interestingly, the only way there could have been a clash in this particular case, given the order in which the defendants were tried, would have been if Guede had been convicted first of committing the murder on his own, and if Knox and Sollecito had then also been convicted of the same murder. Given that the SC in Guede's case knew that Knox and Sollecito were also charged and awaiting trial on the same case, it effectively had no choice but to leave every avenue open without being prejudicial.

And on the wider issue of the competence of the SC in this case, the more I think about it, the more I am open-mouthed at the weasel and cowardly ruling of the Chieffi SC panel. The other SC rulings in this case have been fair and just (possibly with the exception of the failure of the SC to insist on a separation of the Lumumba criminal slander trial from the murder trial). It genuinely seems to me that the Chieffi panel read the evidence and trial transcripts, decided that the whole case was a dreadful mess of inconsistencies and contradictions, and then - instead of taking the brave and correct option of throwing the whole rotten case out - decided to throw the ball back the the appeal level to "sort out". And then, of course, Nencini made an almighty balls-up of it, leaving it to a competent and brave SC panel to put its foot down properly.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Mignini was at the crime scene from day one. Gill was not.

Mignini oversaw the forensics team schedule. Gill did not.

Mignini oversaw the pathologist's examination of the body at the scene. Gill did not.

Mignini interviewed Amanda, Rudy and others first hand. Gill did not.

Mignini was at every trial. Gill was not.

Mignini saw all the evidence, met all the suspects. Gill did not.

Mignini acted for the State on behalf of the murder victim, Gill acted for a fee on behalf of Raff's defence.

Which of the two is the more credible figure?

Certainly not the one who proposed it was a Samhain pagan murder ritual orgy, right? You can't be saying a deranged prosecutor is more credible than the founding father of modern forensic genetics, just because he was the one appointed to the case... are you? You're saying "being there first" makes you more credible than anyone else, no matter how qualified? That can't be what you're saying, Vixen.

I am also pretty sure Gill wasn't paid by anyone. There are some people on the internet with incredibly low intelligence and incredibly high crazy that make things up to smear those who support Knox. I am willing to bet that's what is going on here. Do you have a citation Gill was paid by Raffaele lol?

 

[Bill Williams]

Certainly not the one who proposed it was a Samhain pagan murder ritual orgy, right? You can't be saying a deranged prosecutor is more credible than the founding father of modern forensic genetics, just because he was the one appointed to the case... are you? You're saying "being there first" makes you more credible than anyone else, no matter how qualified? That can't be what you're saying, Vixen.

I am also pretty sure Gill wasn't paid by anyone. There are some people on the internet with incredibly low intelligence and incredibly high crazy that make things up to smear those who support Knox. I am willing to bet that's what is going on here. Do you have a citation Gill was paid by Raffaele lol?

One wonders how long Vixen will continue this malarkey?

Which is a more credible figure? Dr. Mignini or Dr. Gill? LOL!

Take Mignini in isolation for a second. - censured by his peers for violating the rights of an accused. Holy Moley just what does it take **in Italy** to get publicly censured!!!!

Who has ever censured Dr. Gill other than a vocal band of PGP malcontents? Has Gill ever been censured by his peers?

C'mon people, it's not even close. But I got suckered into responding...... which has been the cycle of this thread ever since Vixen arrived to flog some books.

Remember Vixen's early posts in April 2015 when she claimed still to be on the fence on all these issues?

Hoots!