Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

How is Chieffi able to "discredit" anyone? His court should only be able to rule on judicial matters, just the same as you keep repeating for Marasca.

The highlighted part should make one think, shouldn't it?


The highlighted part might be factually correct, but it doesn't matter because Crini was the prosecutor in Florence and C & V only testified in Perugia two years earlier...




See my post above, it would be nice to have the exact quote from Giordano re. the"three pairs of feet surrounding her", because there are more than "three pairs of feet" in that picture...

On the highlighted part: Mignini argued in front of judge Micheli (there's a link to the original document on that page):

It's hard to take you seriously, when you're repeatedly getting basic facts (the real ones) wrong...


It's a judicial construct, not a fact.

Marasca upheld the staged burglary, therefore, it is a legal fact.

Marasca was able to exclude the knife and the bra clasp as evidence.

It did not exclude - although it must have believed it had the power, from the aforementioned sentence - the burglary was staged.

'A 'judicial construct' by a final Supreme Court = a legal decision = irrevocable legal fact that cannot be appealed.

 

[Methos]

And some rough burglar had the bright idea...?

No, some rough burglar turned rapist and murderer left her in that position and threw the duvet over her...
I don't think that raping and murdering someone is a "bright idea" in general...

 

[NotEvenWrong]

The problem is the highlighted part.
This is a picture of the Manga books found at Raffaele Sollecito's apartment (courtesy of TMoMK):
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/images/a/ad/16060934.jpg
The one Vixen refers to is the third in the bottom row. (Btw. the collectors edition in the first row is mentioned in "Honor Bound".)

If you google for "Blood the Last Vampire 2 Page 29" you'll get a picture of the page.

The picture showing in what position Meredith Kercher's body was found, can be found on this page:
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/failed-sexual-assault-investigation/ It's slide 18 of the presentation.

"similar" perhaps but definitely not "exactly".

Oh look a body lying on the ground. This manga has a picture of another body lying on the ground. Must be connected! Pagan sex orgy proven. Thanks Vixen.

 

[Methos]

Marasca upheld the staged burglary, therefore, it is a legal fact.

Marasca was able to exclude the knife and the bra clasp.

It did not exclude - although it must have believed it had the power, from the aforementioned sentence - the burglary was staged.

'A 'judicial construct' by a final Supreme Court = a legal decision = irrevocable legal fact that cannot be appealed.

But still a "judicial construct" that has never been proven to be "the truth" or a "real fact" (and those are the ones that I'm interested in).
But we had this discussion before...

 

[Bill Williams]

There is no internal conflict, if you look at the Italian Penal Code.

Marasca was either a bunch of amateurs unfamiliar with the nuances of the law, or they deliberately sought to obfuscate the issues.

I believe, a bit of both. At least Marasca was ashamed enough to immediately retire.

It's amazing to me that you set yourself as an expert superior to an Italian ISC Section and its constituent judges. Lurkers can judge for themselves the veracity of your brag.

You also have a strange ability to mind-read, citing Marasca's alleged embarrassment that no one else seems to know about. Perhaps this is part of the astrology training you've had.

Got it.

 

[Mike1711]

So..... we don't have to wait three months before you simply repost your factoids, with no reference at all the the point being made.

"The facts upheld by Marasca," Is not what Italian Supreme Court panels do. They rule on whether or not the trial referred to it reached the right verdict.

Go back through this thread by clicking on the little arrow in the quote box - it's handy to avoid simply repeating your words regardless.......

Quite right, Bill.

The absurdity is that Vixen knows this but simply brushes that aside to blurt out her mantra.

She's a lost cause. If every single piece of evidence was presented to Vixen and every piece of evidence step by step analysed one at at time with Vixen showing her reality, she would probably concede on every point. One at a time.

...but her conclusion would still be "guilty".

This is not normal.

 

[Stacyhs]

There is no internal conflict, if you look at the Italian Penal Code.

Marasca was either a bunch of amateurs unfamiliar with the nuances of the law, or they deliberately sought to obfuscate the issues.

I believe, a bit of both. At least Marasca was ashamed enough to immediately retire.

"No internal conflict". LOL. How do Marasca and Bruno deal with a previous Cassation "judicial truth" that declares Amanda was trying to protect Guede but then declare her not guilty of participating in the murder? What other choice did they have? Declare the previous "judicial truth" wrong? No one can name one example of this being done before regarding the same defendant. Not one. They had to deal with it as a "fact".

Only you would claim that the President of the Fifth Section of the Italian Supreme Court and his fellow judges were "amateurs" who didn't understand the "nuances of the law".


It's so predictable that you would claim Marasca retired out of shame. It couldn't possibly be because he was over 70 years old, right?

Quote the relevant part of the Italian Penal Code that supports your claim.

 

[Vixen]

No, some rough burglar turned rapist and murderer left her in that position and threw the duvet over her...
I don't think that raping and murdering someone is a "bright idea" in general...

So a burglar off the street overcome by uncontrollable lust, is at the same time cool-headed enough to change knives in the middle of the attack, undress the body after death, move it by placing it on a blanket/sheet some 19" AND stage a burglary, and leave just his left side of shoeprints and half a footprint on the bathmat, which by an astonishing coincidence is highly compatible with Raff's foot.

Either the perp was an impromptu thug, or he was a cold calculating sadist, who had special knowledge he had all the time in the world.

How does it account for Amanda's blood? Mixed with Mez' DNA?


OK so the burglar savagely and cruelly murdered Mez, and then became soft-hearted and threw a duvet over her (after moving the body and undressing it...?) ...and also a few scattered papers, as also found in Filomena's room, with Amanda's footprint on some of them?

Your 'lone burglar' theory simply does not work. All the courts threw it out. What makes you stick to it?

 

[Mike1711]

The Marasca court came to a DECISION that Amanda was at the murder scene, did cover up for Rudy, did wash off Mez' blood and that Raff almost certainly there with her, and both did act highly suspiciously and lied compulsively. Upheld fact.

Overturning a verdict is not the equivalent of overturning all the facts found. It merely ruled that there was not enough evidence, whilst asserting in their written reasons,the aforesaid paragraph, as facts UPHELD confirmed.

DECISION

What is DECISION?
In practice. A judgment or decree pronounced by a court in settlement
oit a controversy submitted to it and BL.LAW DICT.(2D ED.)



Law Dictionary: What is DECISION? definition of DECISION (Black's Law Dictionary)

A conclusion reached after an evaluation of facts and law.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/decision


A declaration made by a judge is a legal decision.

This is utter nonsense and reflects the position of someone totally ignorant of law.

To repeat. The B/M court hold no position on judicial facts. They are bound by them.

If it was ruled that the earth was flat by a lower court and therefore Columbus is guilty of sailing off the edge of the world the appeal court would simply state that "...the world may well be flat but that doesn't prove that Columbus sailed off the edge of the world."

 

[Bill Williams]

Quite right, Bill.

The absurdity is that Vixen knows this but simply brushes that aside to blurt out her mantra.

She's a lost cause. If every single piece of evidence was presented to Vixen and every piece of evidence step by step analysed one at at time with Vixen showing her reality, she would probably concede on every point. One at a time.

...but her conclusion would still be "guilty".

This is not normal.

Will all respect, not quite Mike 1711. Vixen has defaulted to "it's a typo" to explain away an unassailable item for innocence, or "he was merely throwing one the defence's way" when citing something even a convicting judge conceded in favour of the defence.

Then there's the way Vixen surfs between "judicial truths" on the one-hand being unassailable (despite the evidence), but then on the other calling M/B "amateurs" because they produce judicial truths at odds with what she claims.

It is "normal" in the sense that it is a standard response to entrenched confirmation bias. "Facts!? We don't need no steeen-king facts, we already know she's guilty!"

 

[Bill Williams]

This is utter nonsense and reflects the position of someone totally ignorant of law.

To repeat. The B/M court hold no position on judicial facts. They are bound by them.
If it was ruled that the earth was flat by a lower court and therefore Columbus is guilty of sailing off the edge of the world the appeal court would simply state that "...the world may well be flat but that doesn't prove that Columbus sailed off the edge of the world."

Can I quote you on the highlighted part? This is what I've been trying to say and have failed to communicate.

 

[Mike1711]

Can I quote you on the highlighted part? This is what I've been trying to say and have failed to communicate.

Of course. It's simply the truth about a judicial truth.

 

[Vixen]

"No internal conflict". LOL. How do Marasca and Bruno deal with a previous Cassation "judicial truth" that declares Amanda was trying to protect Guede but then declare her not guilty of participating in the murder? What other choice did they have? Declare the previous "judicial truth" wrong? No one can name one example of this being done before regarding the same defendant. Not one. They had to deal with it as a "fact".

Only you would claim that the President of the Fifth Section of the Italian Supreme Court and his fellow judges were "amateurs" who didn't understand the "nuances of the law".


It's so predictable that you would claim Marasca retired out of shame. It couldn't possibly be because he was over 70 years old, right?

Quote the relevant part of the Italian Penal Code that supports your claim.

Citation please of the previous court which ruled 'Amanda committed calunnia to cover up for Rudy'.

The relevant code relates to the five only permitted reasons for appeal provided by art. 606 Code of Criminal Procedure. The one of internal contradictions is listed here. This was appealed by the defence on the grounds Stefanoni did not meet international standards (when actually, at the time there is no agreed standard) and the fact of one set of amplifications of Mez' DNA meant it was invalid (not so, as the penal code only requires a 'common sense' approach [cf. juries in England & Wales]).

It is clear Marasca had no idea what it was talking about, and I am willing to bet Bruno (who once had Bongiorno as his attorney, to get him off a mafia charge) browbeat his fellows well into the night (the verdict was at 11:00pm, if you recall) to accept his preemptive Hellmann-style pre-hearing declaration, 'there is only one certainty: Mez' murder'.

This proves the court had no intention of not making a judgment 'until all the submissions have been heard', and instead, went on a fishing expedition to try to reason its preordained (thus legally prejudiced, against the victim party) verdict, 'the DNA cannot be certain', when in fact there was no scientific foundation to reject it completely. BARD being based on different factors than, 'Does Rome lab do the same as the USA', presupposing that it did not.

If Marasca was 'over 70' and suffering from an inability to come up to judicial standard, then he should have recused himself.

 

[Vixen]

This is utter nonsense and reflects the position of someone totally ignorant of law.

To repeat. The B/M court hold no position on judicial facts. They are bound by them.

If it was ruled that the earth was flat by a lower court and therefore Columbus is guilty of sailing off the edge of the world the appeal court would simply state that "...the world may well be flat but that doesn't prove that Columbus sailed off the edge of the world."

At last we are getting there.

The Marasca court said, 'Amanda and Raff may have been present at the murder, behaved highly suspiciously, told numerous lies, such that we've lost count, were certainly at the murder scene, washed off Mez' blood, covered up for the convicted perp, Rudy...but that doesn't necessarily mean they are guilty.'

So we are all in agreement, that is the final edict, as decreed by the Supreme Court of Italy.

 

[Bill Williams]

Citation please of the previous court which ruled 'Amanda committed calunnia to cover up for Rudy'.

The relevant code relates to the five only permitted reasons for appeal provided by art. 606 Code of Criminal Procedure. The one of internal contradictions is listed here. This was appealed by the defence on the grounds Stefanoni did not meet international standards (when actually, at the time there is no agreed standard) and the fact of one set of amplifications of Mez' DNA meant it was invalid (not so, as the penal code only requires a 'common sense' approach [cf. juries in England & Wales]).

It is clear Marasca had no idea what it was talking about, and I am willing to bet Bruno (who once had Bongiorno as his attorney, to get him off a mafia charge) browbeat his fellows well into the night (the verdict was at 11:00pm, if you recall) to accept his preemptive Hellmann-style pre-hearing declaration, 'there is only one certainty: Mez' murder'.

This proves the court had no intention of not making a judgment 'until all the submissions have been heard', and instead, went on a fishing expedition to try to reason its preordained (thus legally prejudiced, against the victim party) verdict, 'the DNA cannot be certain', when in fact there was no scientific foundation to reject it completely. BARD being based on different factors than, 'Does Rome lab do the same as the USA', presupposing that it did not.

If Marasca was 'over 70' and suffering from an inability to come up to judicial standard, then he should have recused himself.

You've set an impossible task for yourself. You try to convince us Marasca suffered from an inability to come up to judicial standard, while at the same time we should respect the judicial-truths you say he came to or was bound by?

Got it.

 

[Mike1711]

At last we are getting there.

The Marasca court said, 'Amanda and Raff may have been present at the murder, behaved highly suspiciously, told numerous lies, such that we've lost count, were certainly at the murder scene, washed off Mez' blood, covered up for the convicted perp, Rudy...but that doesn't necessarily mean they are guilty.'

So we are all in agreement, that is the final edict, as decreed by the Supreme Court of Italy.

No you're totally wrong...again.

I am not going to tell you why because I'm tired of repeating myself. You just don't seem to get it, simple as it is. A first year undergraduate law student would know the correct answer.

If you want to know why you're wrong go to your favourite library, or better still go and ask the someone in the legal department of any university. You could even use google were it not that you don't use google.

 

[Bill Williams]

Of course. It's simply the truth about a judicial truth.

Imagine that one or more of the trials in this 7 1/2 year judicial debacle had a less than unanimous verdict - meaning that at the three fact-finding courts at least 3, and at the 2 ISC renderings at least 2 respectfully differed from the majority view...

I'm of the opinion that it would have been valuable to have had a competent minority opinion published, which would have explained the reasons for a dissenting opinion.

Imagine even one of the Section 5 panelists writing a counter to Marasca/Bruno's exoneration. My bet it would have argued better than Vixen why Nencini should be believed, and lay out the reasons why Nencini's forensic-DNA fantasies were better than the independent analysis as appointed at the Hellmann trial.

Italy might wish to make use of authoritative minority opinions to save us from thread-flooding of someone who thinks Nencini's errors are simply typos!!!!

 

[Vixen]

No you're totally wrong...again.

I am not going to tell you why because I'm tired of repeating myself. You just don't seem to get it, simple as it is. A first year undergraduate law student would know the correct answer.

If you want to know why you're wrong go to your favourite library, or better still go and ask the someone in the legal department of any university. You could even use google were it not that you don't use google.

Houdini himself would be proud of your brave grand attempt to 'wriggle out of it', were he alive.

 

[LondonJohn]

At last we are getting there.

The Marasca court said, 'Amanda and Raff may have been present at the murder, behaved highly suspiciously, told numerous lies, such that we've lost count, were certainly at the murder scene, washed off Mez' blood, covered up for the convicted perp, Rudy...but that doesn't necessarily mean they are guilty.'

So we are all in agreement, that is the final edict, as decreed by the Supreme Court of Italy.

Very important three words highlighted above for comprehension. And the lies/misrepresentations struck out for clarity too.

Marasca's ruling clearly says (clearly to anyone reading it objectively and with a modicum of intelligence) that - to paraphrase - even if one accepts certain other previously-established judicial facts, they do not and cannot amount to proof of guilt on the actual charges in this case re Knox and Sollecito.

Again, if Marasca's court truly believed that Knox (and Sollecito) really HAD factually been present in the apartment and had "washed Kercher's blood off their hands" and "lied numerously to investigators", then at the very least the case would have been passed back down to appeal level, and the PM would almost certainly have been asked to investigate the possibility of bringing new and different charges (charges related to failing to report a crime, perverting the course of justice, assisting an offender - all of which are very serious crimes carrying substantial prison sentences upon conviction).

I think that the only rational, objective way to view the Marasca panel's verdict and motivation report, in its proper context and in the absence of bias or agenda, is that the Marasca panel believed that 1) there was zero credible, reliable evidence linking either Knox or Sollecito to the murder of Kercher; 2) the only credible, reliable evidence in this case only ever pointed to Guede; 3) all the evidence was actually wholly consistent with, and compatible with, Guede as sole perpetrator; and 4) therefore the overwhelming likelihood according to the evidence is that Guede committed this crime all by himself, and that neither Knox nor Sollecito had anything whatsoever to do with it.

That perception entirely explains the actions and sentiments of the Marasca panel, in a way that no other interpretation can do. And it's correct too, which always helps.....

 

[Vixen]

You've set an impossible task for yourself. You try to convince us Marasca suffered from an inability to come up to judicial standard, while at the same time we should respect the judicial-truths you say he came to or was bound by?

Got it.

A professional must always protect threats to his or her integrity. Allowing yourself to be browbeaten (= a threat to professional objectivity because of intimidation) is a breach of one's ethical standards ( = you are now open to charges of corruption).

The way to deal with such an ethical threat is to either refuse to be intimidated, or recuse yourself. Marasca was ethically and professionally wrong to give in to the agenda-driven Bruno, who already had a blot in his copybook.