Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Annella]

Would this be the same Nina Burleigh who:



http://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/cyberalert-07071998-reporter-offers-clinton-blewinsky#1

Same Nina Burleigh who had experiences with your associates Vixen.

http://world.time.com/2013/03/29/the-amanda-knox-haters-society-how-they-learned-to-hate-me-too/

 

[LondonJohn]

Quennell was right about the 2013 ISC annulment of the Hellmann acquittals, and he was right about the Nencini conviction. Other that that he's made all sorts of predictions of legal doom be falling on all and sundry as per above.

He's the one who reacted to the 2011 collapse of the DNA findings by coining the term, "all the other evidence". He (and others) are still at it, even as the final court which ruled on this said that the remaining corpus of evidence did not demonstrate guilt.

Quennell and others are living a fantasy that factoid evidence, when amassed in large enough allegations, eventually amounts to something.

On another matter - The Daily Beast has a review out lauding the recent TIFF documentary. That's a long way from when Barbie Nadeau was the stringer for Tina Brown's rag on this.

Nadeau and The Daily Beast were once part of the problem that the documentary highlights. I've been around long enough to remember when AK was called by them, "Student Killer". Then after the 2011 acquittals they modified it to, "she's probably innocent but she knows something she's not telling us."

That was the most disingenuous comment of all!!!

Now The Daily Beast is writing as if they'd known that journalistic stupidity was a problem with this case all along!

The Daily Beast can change, why can't Quennell?

Quennell "predicted" at every single point in a pro-guilt, pro-prosecution direction. The fact that a couple of (rogue) decisions matched with his prediction is in no way an indicator of his objective prescience or ability to understand the case properly - any more than if I were to continually predict that a fair coin would come up "heads" (I'll be correct about half the time, but it's somewhat obvious that I am not being correct through any powers of analysis or prediction.....).

 

[Vixen]

Quennell was right about the 2013 ISC annulment of the Hellmann acquittals, and he was right about the Nencini conviction. Other that that he's made all sorts of predictions of legal doom be falling on all and sundry as per above.

He's the one who reacted to the 2011 collapse of the DNA findings by coining the term, "all the other evidence". He (and others) are still at it, even as the final court which ruled on this said that the remaining corpus of evidence did not demonstrate guilt.

Quennell and others are living a fantasy that factoid evidence, when amassed in large enough allegations, eventually amounts to something.

On another matter - The Daily Beast has a review out lauding the recent TIFF documentary. That's a long way from when Barbie Nadeau was the stringer for Tina Brown's rag on this.

Nadeau and The Daily Beast were once part of the problem that the documentary highlights. I've been around long enough to remember when AK was called by them, "Student Killer". Then after the 2011 acquittals they modified it to, "she's probably innocent but she knows something she's not telling us."

That was the most disingenuous comment of all!!!

Now The Daily Beast is writing as if they'd known that journalistic stupidity was a problem with this case all along!

The Daily Beast can change, why can't Quennell?

As they say, 'the darkest hour is just before dawn'. IMV history tells us truth will prevail, even if it takes one hundred years.

One hundred years from this time would anybody change their minds
And find out one thing or two about life
But people are always talking
You know they're always talking
Everybody's so wrong that I know it's gonna work out right ~ Gram Parsons

 

[LondonJohn]

Vixen's claim (my highlighting for emphasis):

"....as set out in the Italian Penal Code, which states it must be remitted back, as it is not within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to try a case."


Vixen's evidence provided in "support" of this claim (my highlighting for emphasis):

If the Court of Cassation does not uphold the sentence given by the first court, it usually orders a new trial in front of a different court, namely a Corte d'Assise d'Appello different from the previous one (in another district).


Note the fundamental difference between Vixen's claim, which is that the SC must remit the case back to the appeals level, and the "supporting" evidence, which states merely that the SC usually remits the case back to the appeals level.

There's nothing so amusing as when evidence provided in support of a particular claim actually disproves that claim

 

[LondonJohn]

As they say, 'the darkest hour is just before dawn'. IMV history tells us truth will prevail, even if it takes one hundred years.

One hundred years from this time would anybody change their minds
And find out one thing or two about life
But people are always talking
You know they're always talking
Everybody's so wrong that I know it's gonna work out right ~ Gram Parsons

You do know that there's not one single piece of credible, reliable evidence that Knox or Sollecito participated in any way in the Kercher murder, don't you? And you do know that all the credible, reliable evidence points to (and is wholly consistent with) Guede committing the murder on his own? And that there is zero reason to doubt that Knox and Sollecito spent the evening/night of the murder alone together in Sollecito's apartment?

Just a reminder of the truth for you

 

[Vixen]

You might want to check Art. 620 para l of the Italian Codice procedura penale (not the codice penale):

So much for "the Supreme Court Fifth Chambers acted outside of its legal powers"...

No, the Supreme Court is restricted from setting free a defendant found guilty in the trial and then the same conviction upheld by the appeal court for serious crimes such as murder.

The judges have to stick to the legal principles and can't just apply their own opinion. The legal priniciple is: the supreme court does not assess evidence, it assesses the appeal court's reasoning. If it there is a legal error, it can't just let the convicted murderers walk scot-free, based on one judge's mistake.

In any case, whilst you might disagree with Nencini, it was within his wide range of powers to prefer one expert witness over another, within the legal framework.

Zero evidence was presented that 'contamination took place' or that 'Raff's DNA was transferred from the cigarette butt and filtered out the Amanda DNA it was mixed with (actually, an impossibility)'.

A very strong near full profile on an ample amount of material showed Raff's DNA at 44 out of 47 loci.

Imagine if winning the lottery with six random numbers from 1 - 50 is 14million to one against, how much more vanishingly remote that an astonishing 44 loci in the correct sequence would be an accident of dust flying from cigarette butt, but without the Amanda DNA mixed with it.

 

[Stacyhs]

I suspect this will be way over your head, but here goes:

Quote:
"Cassazione[edit]
Both the prosecutor and the defendant can appeal to the top appeal court named Supreme Court of Cassation (Corte Suprema di Cassazione). The Court of Cassation only judges the correct application of the law in the lower courts and does not review the evidence. If the Court of Cassation does not uphold the sentence given by the first court, it usually orders a new trial in front of a different court, namely a Corte d'Assise d'Appello different from the previous one (in another district)."


Please do note, we are talking of 'serious crimes' here, the assizes.

"Quote:
The Corte d'Assise (EN Court of Assizes) is an Italian court composed of two professional, stipendiary judges (giudici togati) and six lay judges (giudici popolari), who are selected from the people. The Corte d'Assise has jurisdiction to try all crimes carrying a maximum penalty of 24 years in prison or more. These are the most serious crimes, such as terrorism and murder. Also enslavement, killing a consenting human being, and helping a person to commit suicide are serious crimes that are tried by this court. Penalties imposed by the court can include life sentences (ergastolo). The Corte d'Assise does not preside over cases involving attempted murder.[1] The prosecution is conducted by the Public Prosecutor at the Courts of Assizes (Pubblico Ministero presso la Corte d'Assise). Decisions are made by giudici togati and giudici popolari together at a special meeting held behind closed doors, named Council Chamber (Camera di Consiglio), and the Corte d'Assise is required to publish written explanations of its decisions. "

I am surprised you did not know this.

I did know that. But what I also know is that you quoted Wikipedia, and not the Italian Penal Code as requested. No wonder you failed to provide a link (as also requested).

Now, since you like quoting Wikipedia:

"The Supreme Court can reject, or confirm, a sentence from a lower court. If it rejects the sentence, it can order the lower court to amend the trial and sentencing, or it can annul the previous sentence altogether."

Please note your own Wiki quote says "If the Court of Cassation does not uphold the sentence given by the first court, it usually orders a new trial in front of a different court".

"Usually" is not synonymous with "must" or "always". I'm surprised you did not know this.

Once again, quote the section of the Italian Penal Code that says what Marasca-Bruno did was illegal.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen's claim (my highlighting for emphasis):

"....as set out in the Italian Penal Code, which states it must be remitted back, as it is not within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to try a case."


Vixen's evidence provided in "support" of this claim (my highlighting for emphasis):

If the Court of Cassation does not uphold the sentence given by the first court, it usually orders a new trial in front of a different court, namely a Corte d'Assise d'Appello different from the previous one (in another district).


Note the fundamental difference between Vixen's claim, which is that the SC must remit the case back to the appeals level, and the "supporting" evidence, which states merely that the SC usually remits the case back to the appeals level.

There's nothing so amusing as when evidence provided in support of a particular claim actually disproves that claim

That's to allow for cases where there has been an obvious miscarriage of justice, or new evidence comes to light. Neither of these remote grounds of appeal were put forward or upheld.

 

[Stacyhs]

Do read the reviews. There are plenty of them, all reading off the same Press Release from McGinn & Blackhurst (sounds like the names of a couple of supreme court judges), or perhaps a bluegrass singer-songwriter duo.

I have read the reviews which is why I know that your claim is false. Once again, you have failed to provide any quotes from the docu claiming that Amanda was "only convicted 'because of Nick Pisa' ". Do read the reviews.

 

[Vixen]

Quennell "predicted" at every single point in a pro-guilt, pro-prosecution direction. The fact that a couple of (rogue) decisions matched with his prediction is in no way an indicator of his objective prescience or ability to understand the case properly - any more than if I were to continually predict that a fair coin would come up "heads" (I'll be correct about half the time, but it's somewhat obvious that I am not being correct through any powers of analysis or prediction.....).

He didn't 'predict'. He has dozens of lawyers analysing the decisions. Lawyers are not bookmakers, they are persuaders, wordsmiths. They pore over the legal statutes looking at finely written clauses and look up previous case law.

Even Dalla Vedova for Amanda said there is almost no precedent for her having got away with an aggravated murder conviction. He should know. He agrees with Peter.

 

[Vixen]

You do know that there's not one single piece of credible, reliable evidence that Knox or Sollecito participated in any way in the Kercher murder, don't you? And you do know that all the credible, reliable evidence points to (and is wholly consistent with) Guede committing the murder on his own? And that there is zero reason to doubt that Knox and Sollecito spent the evening/night of the murder alone together in Sollecito's apartment?

Just a reminder of the truth for you

I am sure you know that is completely untrue and a mealy-mouthed misrepresentation.

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen's claim (my highlighting for emphasis):

"....as set out in the Italian Penal Code, which states it must be remitted back, as it is not within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to try a case."


Vixen's evidence provided in "support" of this claim (my highlighting for emphasis):

If the Court of Cassation does not uphold the sentence given by the first court, it usually orders a new trial in front of a different court, namely a Corte d'Assise d'Appello different from the previous one (in another district).


Note the fundamental difference between Vixen's claim, which is that the SC must remit the case back to the appeals level, and the "supporting" evidence, which states merely that the SC usually remits the case back to the appeals level.

There's nothing so amusing as when evidence provided in support of a particular claim actually disproves that claim

That's to allow for cases where there has been an obvious miscarriage of justice, or new evidence comes to light. Neither of these remote grounds of appeal were put forward or upheld.

As in this case.

I see you just ignore the fact that the critical word "usually" was replaced by "must". Dishonest. Did you think..or just hope...that we would not notice?

 

[Vixen]

I did know that. But what I also know is that you quoted Wikipedia, and not the Italian Penal Code as requested. No wonder you failed to provide a link (as also requested).

Now, since you like quoting Wikipedia:

"The Supreme Court can reject, or confirm, a sentence from a lower court. If it rejects the sentence, it can order the lower court to amend the trial and sentencing, or it can annul the previous sentence altogether."

Please note your own Wiki quote says "If the Court of Cassation does not uphold the sentence given by the first court, it usually orders a new trial in front of a different court".

"Usually" is not synonymous with "must" or "always". I'm surprised you did not know this.

Once again, quote the section of the Italian Penal Code that says what Marasca-Bruno did was illegal.

Do you read Italian? Then look it up on google for yourself.

I haven't got the patience to bicker with you. I doubt you have a genuine interest in this.

 

[Stacyhs]

I am sure you know that is completely untrue and a mealy-mouthed misrepresentation.

You mean like substituting the word "usually" with "must"?

Still waiting for quotes from the Italian Penal Code re the illegality of the M-B ruling and that Amanda Knox was "only convicted 'because of Nick Pisa'" from the Netflix docu.

 

[LondonJohn]

He didn't 'predict'. He has dozens of lawyers analysing the decisions. Lawyers are not bookmakers, they are persuaders, wordsmiths. They pore over the legal statutes looking at finely written clauses and look up previous case law.

Oh my word. You really believe the Walter Mitty fantasy about "dozens of lawyers"? You're not aware that the TJMK "machine" is nothing more than a creepy guy in a room in New York, a couple of other maladjusted people in Italy and UK, and whatever Mignini, Maresca and the Kercher family feel like providing to him?

(Hint: when Quennell uses the impressive-sounding pronoun "we", he rather tragically means "I"....)

Even Dalla Vedova for Amanda said there is almost no precedent for her having got away with an aggravated murder conviction. He should know. He agrees with Peter.

Erm no. Dalla Vedova was obviously pointing out how unusual it was (and it WAS unusual) because this in itself signified just what a disgraceful mess the lower courts had made of it. The very fact that the SC took the strong (and rare) step of annulling without referral back to the appeal level is a damning indictment of the grotesque failings of the lower courts in this case.

 

[LondonJohn]

I am sure you know that is completely untrue and a mealy-mouthed misrepresentation.

Which parts are untrue, specifically, and why?

(This should be fun!)

 

[Bill Williams]

He didn't 'predict'. He has dozens of lawyers analysing the decisions. Lawyers are not bookmakers, they are persuaders, wordsmiths. They pore over the legal statutes looking at finely written clauses and look up previous case law.

Even Dalla Vedova for Amanda said there is almost no precedent for her having got away with an aggravated murder conviction. He should know. He agrees with Peter.

One contemplates the difference between usually and must.

Your PR version of what Dalla Vedova knew is a wee bit of strawman, it's almost guaranteed Dalla Vedova thought justice had been done with the exoneration.

 

[Vixen]

As in this case.

I see you just ignore the fact that the critical word "usually" was replaced by "must". Dishonest. Did you think..or just hope...that we would not notice?

Really? Please show me where in their MR the Fifth Chamber Court give their reason as 'miscarriage of justice', or, 'new evidence'?

As both of the above are grounds for appeal then of course we have the 'usually' coming in.

In our case, we are not talking about 'public interest' or 'new evidence'; we are talking about old well-established evidence.

 

[Methos]

No, the Supreme Court is restricted from setting free a defendant found guilty in the trial and then the same conviction upheld by the appeal court for serious crimes such as murder.

For now it seems "the law" i.e. the Italian Codice procedura penale is on the Fifth Chamber's side of the argument...

The judges have to stick to the legal principles and can't just apply their own opinion. The legal priniciple is: the supreme court does not assess evidence, it assesses the appeal court's reasoning. If it there is a legal error, it can't just let the convicted murderers walk scot-free, based on one judge's mistake.

If only Chieffi had stuck to that principles, instead of turning to the abuse of Art 606 e)...

In any case, whilst you might disagree with Nencini, it was within his wide range of powers to prefer one expert witness over another, within the legal framework.

Do you mean Massei and his reasoning about how Meredith Kercher's character wouldn't her allow to be overpovered by just one person made him side with that one (paid for by the civil party) "expert"?

Zero evidence was presented that 'contamination took place' or that 'Raff's DNA was transferred from the cigarette butt and filtered out the Amanda DNA it was mixed with (actually, an impossibility)'.

A very strong near full profile on an ample amount of material showed Raff's DNA at 44 out of 47 loci.
Imagine if winning the lottery with six random numbers from 1 - 50 is 14million to one against, how much more vanishingly remote that an astonishing 44 loci in the correct sequence would be an accident of dust flying from cigarette butt, but without the Amanda DNA mixed with it.

Where did you get those numbers from?

 

[Vixen]

You mean like substituting the word "usually" with "must"?

Still waiting for quotes from the Italian Penal Code re the illegality of the M-B ruling and that Amanda Knox was "only convicted 'because of Nick Pisa'" from the Netflix docu.

What? I wrote 'must' before I looked up wiki, to give you your quote, which is an English version and a paraphrase of the actual Penal Code.

Wow, you are skilled in taking things out of context.

As I said, I am not going to bicker, as you appear not to understand legal issues and your claim to know nothing of the Nick Pisa netflix claim is not believed. Sorry. I don't believe you.