Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Your bizarre statements are hilarious.

1. The review of Guede's request for a revision trial, if the reviewing court follows the requirements of Italian procedural law (and this cannot be certain for Italian courts), will rule the request inadmissible. Thus, unless there is some departure from law and logic by the reviewing Italian court, there will be no revision trial. The inadmissibility decision will leave Guede with the potential responsibility of paying a fine ranging from EUR 258 to EUR 2,065 to the Treasury of Fines (CPP Article 634.1). In the case of inadmissibility, CPP Article 634.2 gives the the person who submitted the request the right to appeal to the CSC; if the CSC agrees with the appeal, the CSC refers the case for a new review of admissibility in a different Court of Appeal.

To be judged admissible, according to Italian procedural law, Guede's request would need to have objectively convincing arguments that (assuming the news reports of his legal strategy are correct) there is an incompatibility between his final conviction and the final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito, and that there is credible evidence that he is innocent (or otherwise not to be held accountable for the murder/rape of Kercher) (CPP Article 631). This would seem to be a tough or impossible challenge - read the Giordano CSC panel MR* for a summary of the evidence against Guede.

However, because Italian courts apparently do not always function objectively and reasonably, or in accordance with Italian procedural law, there is no certainty what the judicial response to his request will be.

*http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/motivation-reports-appeal-documents/

2. Since many of those who have come to realize that Amanda Knox was innocent and was wrongfully convicted by the Massei and Nencini courts are not from the US, but are from other countries - including the UK, Canada, New Zealand, Luxembourg, Germany, South Africa, and Italy (and I apologize that I certainly have missed some countries in the list because I simply didn't recognize from the posts I have seen the nationality of a poster), the argument that "US jingoism" was a factor is absurd.

On the other hand, I believe that the comments of some PGP posters very clearly indicates anti-American sentiment on their part influences their belief in guilt.

1. Do you really think a determined litigant is going to be put off by a €258 - €2.5K fine? There's a good chance Rome lawyers Pietrocarlo & Grossi are doing it pro-bono, or on a contingency basis (no-win, no-fee).

2. How do you know Rudy has no new evidence? After all, he has a lot to come clean about. Look how worried Raff was about Rudy's recent tv interviews.

3. He has almost done his time, he has little to lose (€258? Really?) How much does Amanda and Raff have to lose?

It was amusing to see the Knox PR brigade bring out the Press Release about her non-news to try to bury the Rudy news.

 

[Numbers]

First of all, Marasca did not establish the judicial fact that they did not participate in the crime. The verdict filed was, 'Not Guilty due to insufficient evidence'.

This 'insufficient evidence' is directly attributed to 'fatal investigation flaws'.

If the forensics were flawed for the kids, then it ipso facto follows it was flawed for Rudy, as one can now no longer place any reliability on it (cf. Hume, 'the slippery slope' syndrome).

Yes, by his own account Rudy was there. However, Marasca ruled as a fact Amanda was there, and Raff also, on the balance of probabilities.

Rudy was convicted of murder mainly on the grounds his DNA was found on the cuff of Mez' jumper. This DNA was collected by the same team, at the same time as the bra clasp. Marasca found as an implied fact the DNA could have been the result of tertiary transfer. This same condition applies to Rudy.

Rudy's footprints were highlighted by luminol, but then so were Amanda's and Raff (=the presumption is an interaction with the victim's blood).

Marasca upheld the fact the burglary was staged, that Amanda washed off Mez' blood and that she covered up for Rudy when she accused Patrick. [This has to be a clear example of the supreme court acting outside of its remit as this 'fact' was never found by the lower courts, and it did not remit it back to evaluate the imputed fact].

The Pietrocarlo & Grossi legal team did sum up the particulars for the application in a 20-page document. I presume this is available to the public? Is there any download of it available, anyone?

The big hurdle Rudy will have to clear is the edict:
641** or the request is proven to be manifestly groundless, . However, I would imagine Florence would need to list a preliminary hearing to establish whether there is 'Reasonable Prospect of Success'.

Bear in mind, like Amanda and Raff, Rudy has always claimed he was innocent and there by invitation.

The other thing is, he has served most of his sentence as far as parole is concerned so there is no deal breaker such as 'we can't let a murderer/rapist loose'. However, a deal breaker might be, 'No way will we allow Rudy a potential claim for €500K compo, as we did Raff and Amanda'.

In your new absurdly hilarious post above, you have missed an important point.

According to CPP Article 631, a request for revision trial is inadmissible unless it has arguments underlying the request that the Court of Appeal considers to prove, if ascertained, that the convicted person must be dismissed (for example, acquitted) on the basis of one of the following: Article 529, 530, or 531. The evidence against Guede is, despite the incredible incompetency and corruption - directed at Knox and Sollecito - of the police investigation, quite strong.

If the Court of Appeal does grant Guede a revision trial, an honest and thorough review of the evidence and how it was obtained has the potential to confirm Guede's guilt of the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher. And, according to CPP Article 637.3, a judge may not order a dismissal (such as acquittal) in a revision trial solely on the basis of a different evaluation of the evidence gathered in the previous (convicting) trial. So Guede must have some new evidence convincingly demonstrating he should be found "not guilty" which was not presented in his original trial in order to obtain an acquittal or other dismissal.

And your statement that Knox and Sollecito were acquitted as "Not Guilty due to insufficient evidence" is absolutely incorrect, and has been shown to be incorrect by posts including direct quotes from the final verdict in this Forum.

The actual wording of the verdict (translated into English) is "[not guilty] because the appellants did not commit the act":

Pursuant to Article 620 letter A) Italian Code of Criminal Procedure; annuls the ruling under appeal with respect to the crime under charge B) of the rubric because the crime is extinct due to statute of limitations;

pursuant to Articles 620 letter L) and 530, section 2 Italian Code of Criminal Procedure; excluding the aggravating circumstance under Italian under Article 61 n. 2 Penal Code, in relation to the crime of calumny, annuls the ruling under appeal without referral with respect to the crimes under charges A), D) and E) of the rubric because the appellants did not commit the act.

Recalculates the sentence imposed upon appellant Amanda Maria Knox for the crime of calumny in three years of confinement.

 

[Numbers]

1. Do you really think a determined litigant is going to be put off by a €258 - €2.5K fine? There's a good chance Rome lawyers Pietrocarlo & Grossi are doing it pro-bono, or on a contingency basis (no-win, no-fee).

2. How do you know Rudy has no new evidence? After all, he has a lot to come clean about. Look how worried Raff was about Rudy's recent tv interviews.

3. He has almost done his time, he has little to lose (€258? Really?) How much does Amanda and Raff have to lose?

It was amusing to see the Knox PR brigade bring out the Press Release about her non-news to try to bury the Rudy news.

My opinions won't affect what Rudy Guede does. I welcome his attempt to get a revision trial; he is entitled to make that request. It is the Italian judicial system that will make the decisions as to the admissibility of the request, and if admissible, if Guede's conviction is indeed to be dismissed after a revision trial.

I am confident that Guede would not be put off by the concern of paying a fine if his request is ruled inadmissible. Also, by CPP Article 637.4, he would be subject to court costs if the request is accepted but he loses the revision trial. But PGP groupies and lawyers seeking publicity will probably help Guede with those expenses.

Knox and Sollecito are not going to be negatively affected in any legal sense by Guede's attempt to obtain a revision trial.

 

[Vixen]

In your new absurdly hilarious post above, you have missed an important point.

According to CPP Article 631, a request for revision trial is inadmissible unless it has arguments underlying the request that the Court of Appeal considers to prove, if ascertained, that the convicted person must be dismissed (for example, acquitted) on the basis of one of the following: Article 529, 530, or 531. The evidence against Guede is, despite the incredible incompetency and corruption - directed at Knox and Sollecito - of the police investigation, quite strong.

If the Court of Appeal does grant Guede a revision trial, an honest and thorough review of the evidence and how it was obtained has the potential to confirm Guede's guilt of the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher. And, according to CPP Article 637.3, a judge may not order a dismissal (such as acquittal) in a revision trial solely on the basis of a different evaluation of the evidence gathered in the previous (convicting) trial. So Guede must have some new evidence convincingly demonstrating he should be found "not guilty" which was not presented in his original trial in order to obtain an acquittal or other dismissal.

And your statement that Knox and Sollecito were acquitted as "Not Guilty due to insufficient evidence" is absolutely incorrect, and has been shown to be incorrect by posts including direct quotes from the final verdict in this Forum.

The actual wording of the verdict (translated into English) is "[not guilty] because the appellants did not commit the act":

As Grinder pointed out to you, the latter standard subclause is just part of the MR template. Fact is, it was not an 'innocent' verdict. It was an 'insufficient evidence' verdict, and as this section/para is normally used at preliminary trial stage, it implies that charges can still be brought if more evidence turns up.

As the petition has been drafted by specialist lawyers, we can be sure the wording is legally impeccable and will cite real grounds for a review.

Obviously, a court will always have the power to dismiss it.

 

[Vixen]

My opinions won't affect what Rudy Guede does. I welcome his attempt to get a revision trial; he is entitled to make that request. It is the Italian judicial system that will make the decisions as to the admissibility of the request, and if admissible, if Guede's conviction is indeed to be dismissed after a revision trial.

I am confident that Guede would not be put off by the concern of paying a fine if his request is ruled inadmissible. Also, by CPP Article 637.4, he would be subject to court costs if the request is accepted but he loses the revision trial. But PGP groupies and lawyers seeking publicity will probably help Guede with those expenses.

Knox and Sollecito are not going to be negatively affected in any legal sense by Guede's attempt to obtain a revision trial.

Apart from querygrinder (_sp?) I don't know of any Rudy groupie.

 

[LondonJohn]

As Latin is an inflected language, you can use virtually any word order.


Whoops there goes a billion kilowatt dam!

Seriously, don't stop with this tirade of ignorant bluster. It's absolutely priceless! We can add to the list your abject misunderstanding of what an inflected language actually means, coupled with your hilarious but rather embarrassing attempt to use it as an excuse for your original blunder. (Hint: it manifestly DOES NOT mean that "you can use virtually any word order"). And there is no other way to position those two Latin words together to form a coherent phrase than "Caveat Emptor". Again, I refer you to the British Library for a full explanation and corroboration. It's a most excellent institution for that sort of learning.

As they don't say: "Danaos timeo et ferentes dona". As they do say: "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes"

 

[LondonJohn]

1. Do you really think a determined litigant is going to be put off by a €258 - €2.5K fine? There's a good chance Rome lawyers Pietrocarlo & Grossi are doing it pro-bono, or on a contingency basis (no-win, no-fee).

Ahh the blissful ignorance that pro bono or "no win, no fee" do not equate to "no fee, no fine liability" or "no win, no fee, no fine liability"

Someone's going to have to pay Guede's fine if his appeal gets tossed out. The lawyers aren't going to pay, unless they're spectacularly stupid or otherwise motivated. The buck very much stops with Guede. Maybe the fine can come out of the mythical "Fund for Meredith"...........

 

[LondonJohn]

Apart from querygrinder (_sp?) I don't know of any Rudy groupie.

Who's been talking about "Rudy groupies"? Another figment of your rush-to-judgement imagination....?

 

[LondonJohn]

As Grinder pointed out to you, the latter standard subclause is just part of the MR template. Fact is, it was not an 'innocent' verdict. It was an 'insufficient evidence' verdict, and as this section/para is normally used at preliminary trial stage, it implies that charges can still be brought if more evidence turns up.

As the petition has been drafted by specialist lawyers, we can be sure the wording is legally impeccable and will cite real grounds for a review.

Obviously, a court will always have the power to dismiss it.

For the last time (not, regrettably....), it was not an "insufficient evidence" verdict, no matter how hard you WISH it was.

It was a "not guilty" verdict, under the section of the law which covers every eventuality from zero evidence of guilt to just-not-enough-evidence-to-convict-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt. It's mendacious (or, more generously, ignorant) to repeatedly claim that this was an "insufficient evidence" or "not proven" verdict, especially of course when the clear intention of such misdirection and mendacity is to plant the seed that Knox and Sollecito somehow "just got away with it".

But I expect nothing less, unfortunately, from the calibre and intellectual honesty of pro-guilt commentators on this case. Which says it all, I suppose.

 

[Vixen]

Seriously, don't stop with this tirade of ignorant bluster. It's absolutely priceless! We can add to the list your abject misunderstanding of what an inflected language actually means, coupled with your hilarious but rather embarrassing attempt to use it as an excuse for your original blunder. (Hint: it manifestly DOES NOT mean that "you can use virtually any word order"). And there is no other way to position those two Latin words together to form a coherent phrase than "Caveat Emptor". Again, I refer you to the British Library for a full explanation and corroboration. It's a most excellent institution for that sort of learning.

As they don't say: "Danaos timeo et ferentes dona". As they do say: "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes"

What do you know about inflection? In Latin any order will do if your case ending is correct.

 

[LondonJohn]

What do you know about inflection? In Latin any order will do if your case ending is correct.

You're as 100% wrong about this as you were about insisting a metaphor was a simile. You're embarrassing yourself, but you're amusing me greatly into the bargain. Carry on!

 

[Vixen]

Ahh the blissful ignorance that pro bono or "no win, no fee" do not equate to "no fee, no fine liability" or "no win, no fee, no fine liability"

Someone's going to have to pay Guede's fine if his appeal gets tossed out. The lawyers aren't going to pay, unless they're spectacularly stupid or otherwise motivated. The buck very much stops with Guede. Maybe the fine can come out of the mythical "Fund for Meredith"...........

Oh dear. If Rudy's only cost is going to be €258-€2.5K, you think that's worth highlighting as a deterrent? If he's getting pro bono representation worth a minimum of €10K...

...do try to follow the logic.

 

[Vixen]

You're as 100% wrong about this as you were about insisting a metaphor was a simile. You're embarrassing yourself, but you're amusing me greatly into the bargain. Carry on!

Oh no! You are so embarrassing, and you don't even know it. Hello? A simile IS A METAPHOR.


Whoops!

 

[Bill Williams]

For the last time (not, regrettably....), it was not an "insufficient evidence" verdict, no matter how hard you WISH it was.

It was a "not guilty" verdict, under the section of the law which covers every eventuality from zero evidence of guilt to just-not-enough-evidence-to-convict-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt. It's mendacious (or, more generously, ignorant) to repeatedly claim that this was an "insufficient evidence" or "not proven" verdict, especially of course when the clear intention of such misdirection and mendacity is to plant the seed that Knox and Sollecito somehow "just got away with it".

But I expect nothing less, unfortunately, from the calibre and intellectual honesty of pro-guilt commentators on this case. Which says it all, I suppose.

But you don't understand LondonJohn.

Vixen has been told by a local ( in Britain) university expert that Italy has a "not proven" option.

Vixen has not provided a name for this expert, nor anyone in Italy - save for Machiavelli - who believes the same.

Again, subsequent Italian judges refer to it as an exoneration; but that gets in the way of the nonstop factoidization of the evidence Vixen provides this thread.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh dear. If Rudy's only cost is going to be €258-€2.5K, you think that's worth highlighting as a deterrent? If he's getting pro bono representation worth a minimum of €10K...

...do try to follow the logic.

The notional opportunity cost that Guede might be saving through pro bono representation (or no win, no fee) is irrelevant.

What's relevant is whether Guede has up to 2,500 Euro kicking around in spare cash to meet a fine. What do you think? How much money do you think Guede had on the day he was arrested? How much do you think he's accrued (earned and not spent) while in prison and on day release? How much money do you think is sitting in Guede's wallet and bank account(s) right now?

Do try to follow the logic.......

 

[Bill Williams]

You're as 100% wrong about this as you were about insisting a metaphor was a simile. You're embarrassing yourself, but you're amusing me greatly into the bargain. Carry on!

Remember when Vixen posted a pic of the window below Filomena's when she claimed it showed no bars on it!?

All except for the obvious bars on the window!

 

[Vixen]

But you don't understand LondonJohn.

Vixen has been told by a local ( in Britain) university expert that Italy has a "not proven" option.

Vixen has not provided a name for this expert, nor anyone in Italy - save for Machiavelli - who believes the same.

Again, subsequent Italian judges refer to it as an exoneration; but that gets in the way of the nonstop factoidization of the evidence Vixen provides this thread.

Professor Anna Bull Chelli (Bath).

 

[Numbers]

As Grinder pointed out to you, the latter standard subclause is just part of the MR template. Fact is, it was not an 'innocent' verdict. It was an 'insufficient evidence' verdict, and as this section/para is normally used at preliminary trial stage, it implies that charges can still be brought if more evidence turns up.

As the petition has been drafted by specialist lawyers, we can be sure the wording is legally impeccable and will cite real grounds for a review.

Obviously, a court will always have the power to dismiss it.

Thanks again for a post which highly entertaining due to its absurdity and misinformation.

As I have pointed out by reference to Italian procedural laws in many posts in this Forum, there is no legal difference between acquittals in Italy between those under CPP Article 530.1 and 530.2, and which are given the specification "because the accused did not commit the act (crime)".

 

[Vixen]

The notional opportunity cost that Guede might be saving through pro bono representation (or no win, no fee) is irrelevant.

What's relevant is whether Guede has up to 2,500 Euro kicking around in spare cash to meet a fine. What do you think? How much money do you think Guede had on the day he was arrested? How much do you think he's accrued (earned and not spent) while in prison and on day release? How much money do you think is sitting in Guede's wallet and bank account(s) right now?

Do try to follow the logic.......

Compared to the €6million (???) Amanda was ordered to pay the Kerchers, I rather think €258 - €2.5K is trifling piffle for someone keen to to overturn a sixteen year sentence and perhaps get €500K compo to boot.

Understand proportionality?

 

[Bill Williams]

Thanks again for a post which highly entertaining due to its absurdity and misinformation.

As I have pointed out by reference to Italian procedural laws in many posts in this Forum, there is no legal difference between acquittals in Italy between those under CPP Article 530.1 and 530.2, and which are given the specification "because the accused did not commit the act (crime)".

We even got Grinder to eventually concede that with no legal difference in outcome between the two that the two were, in fact no different.

Like with the other issues, Vixen has just rebooted and started again as if nothing had transpired previously. It's like she's replaying a continual loop of 2008 - groundhog day!