Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill Williams said:
No. The annulment was because the evidence was contradictory and Nencini should not have convicted with what he had in front of him. The anulment was because Nencini substituted his own hunches for the evidence. The annulment was because the investigation was inept.

And yes, it was an exoneration. Subsequent Italian judges say so in their own motivations reports. They say that the two formerly accused now stand as "l'assoluzione."

Please stop this PR campaign of yours.
Click to expand...


Damien Echols and Ryan Ferguson tour the country and the media claiming to be 'exonerees', yet those who know better, know their convictions were merely 'vacated'. They were happy just to get out of jail.
 
Vixen said:
Damien Echols and Ryan Ferguson tour the country and the media claiming to be 'exonerees', yet those who know better, know their convictions were merely 'vacated'. They were happy just to get out of jail.
Click to expand...

I note how far you've come from supplying a cite to Nencini saying that Stefanoni deposited the raw data files to the court. Now you're talking about two American cases.

Whatever floats your boat.

I do appreciate, though, yet another post where you've refrained from using the familiar nickname for a victim you do not know and have no connection with.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The Nencini is not 'wholly null and void'. The only part dismissed was the bra clasp and knife DNA.

You really must stop making false knee jerk assertions.
Click to expand...


You really need to learn how to understand legal rulings.

I'll walk you through it, slowly:

The Marasca SC verdict overturned and annulled the Nencini verdict in respect of the murder charges.

The Nencini verdict was supported and justified by the judicial rulings made be Nencini's court, which were set out in the Nencini motivations report.

Therefore, the Marasca SC verdict nullified and voided the entire basis of "judicial reasoning" whereby the Nencini court arrived at its (erroneous) verdicts on the murder charges.

Therefore, nothing written in the Nencini motivations report carries any legal weight whatsoever in Italian criminal justice in 2016.

If it makes you feel better (and I know it will), exactly the same is true of the Hellmann verdict and motivations report in respect of the murder charges. As it is true of the Massei verdict and motivations report in respect of the murder charges. The only judicial reasoning which is now valid in this case in respect of the murder charges is the Marasca SC panel's verdict and supporting motivations report.

I'm sorry that you're still either unable or unwilling to understand this, but I hope my above primary-school-level explanation might help at least a little. Here's hoping, eh!
 
Vixen said:
The sentence and verdict was annulled. The facts remain, aside from the bra clasp and knife DNA. The annulment was due to 'insufficient evidence' NOT 'exoneration'.
Click to expand...


That you still appear unable to distinguish between a) evidence and testimony introduced into a court and b) judicial rulings that are made based on the evidence and testimony (and arguments about the evidence and testimony), is absolutely astonishing at this stage.

The evidence and testimony admitted to the Nencini court remains entirely valid. The judicial rulings made by the Nencini report are now annulled and worthless. As does the verdict of the Nencini court, which was (necessarily) based on that court's judicial rulings.

Please, please try to understand this (rather simple) concept.


To give you an example you might hopefully understand, consider the case of Barry George. There was evidence introduced into the first (convicting) court. The most important piece of evidence introduced was a particle of firearm gunpowder residue that was found inside the pocket of one of George's coats, a particle that was chemically identical to the gunpowder used to propel the bullet that killed Jill Dando. The convicting court came to a judicial ruling that this evidence was only consistent with George having handled and used the ammunition containing this particular gunpowder, and that therefore George had to have fired the ammunition that killed Jill Dando.

OK so far?

Now, the case was overturned on appeal and referred back for retrial, where George was acquitted. When the Court of Appeal annulled the convicting court's guilty verdict, it did not invalidate any of the actual evidence. The particle of firearms gunpowder residue in George's coat pocket was still valid evidence; the identical chemical comparison with gunpowder used in the ammunition used on Jill Dando remained as valid evidence. But the convicting court's judicial ruling - that this meant that George had to have fired the ammunition that was used to kill Jill Dando - was annulled, invalidated, thrown out.

When the retrial took place, the same evidence was available. New evidence, however, was added, which showed how reasonable the probability of contamination was. If the convicting court's judicial reasoning on the gunpowder residue evidence had still been valid, it would have been impossible for the new court to reach its own judicial reasoning in respect of this evidence: that there was a high enough and reasonable enough probability of contamination, such that in fact it was impossible to say with any reasonable degree of certainty that George had to have handled and used the same ammunition which killed Jill Dando.

To recap: the evidence remained valid. The convicting court's judicial reasoning (based on the evidence) and verdict (based on its judicial reasoning) did not remain valid. Both were annulled by the Court of Appeal.
 
Vixen said:
Damien Echols and Ryan Ferguson tour the country and the media claiming to be 'exonerees', yet those who know better, know their convictions were merely 'vacated'. They were happy just to get out of jail.
Click to expand...


You have no idea what you're talking about. A vacated judgement means that, in effect (and most certainly in both law and ethics), the conviction never even happened. If you were convicted of murder, and the judgement was then vacated (usually by a court of appeal), then to all intents and purposes it would be as if you had never been convicted in the first place. You would be as innocent in respect of the murder as everyone else who had never been convicted of it.

Please try to read up about the law and understand it properly before posting more bollocks of this nature. Thanks in advance!

<fx remains in distant hope of an intellectually-honest debate, but hope is fading fast>
 
LondonJohn said:
You really need to learn how to understand legal rulings.

I'll walk you through it, slowly:

The Marasca SC verdict overturned and annulled the Nencini verdict in respect of the murder charges.

The Nencini verdict was supported and justified by the judicial rulings made be Nencini's court, which were set out in the Nencini motivations report.

Therefore, the Marasca SC verdict nullified and voided the entire basis of "judicial reasoning" whereby the Nencini court arrived at its (erroneous) verdicts on the murder charges.

Therefore, nothing written in the Nencini motivations report carries any legal weight whatsoever in Italian criminal justice in 2016.

If it makes you feel better (and I know it will), exactly the same is true of the Hellmann verdict and motivations report in respect of the murder charges. As it is true of the Massei verdict and motivations report in respect of the murder charges. The only judicial reasoning which is now valid in this case in respect of the murder charges is the Marasca SC panel's verdict and supporting motivations report.

I'm sorry that you're still either unable or unwilling to understand this, but I hope my above primary-school-level explanation might help at least a little. Here's hoping, eh!
Click to expand...
People really do need to read the 2015 Italian Supreme Court motivations report, they really do. They need to read it, rather than pull snippets out willy nilly.

For instance - did The ISC say that this was simply a case where there as insufficient evidence?

No. For pete's sake, read Section 3.1 of the motivations report, and you'll see that the ISC regards the Nencini conviction "structurally flawed" for a very obvious reason.

Nencini, against procedure he should have followed, mainly ignored evidence, thinking his court was limited by the way the 2013 ISC had sent the case back to him for retrial:

3.1. As we will see, the judge a quo [of the trial from which this appeal is being heard], in further points, remains conditioned by the prospect of the factual profile unexpectedly included in the annulled sentence; such that the stringent and analytical evaluation of the Supreme Court might unavoidably become forced towards affirming the guilt of the two accused. Misguided by this basic misunderstanding, the same judge is drawn into logical inconsistencies and obvious errores in iudicando [errors in judgment] that are here reported.​
Click to expand...
The 2015 ISC is saying that the most basic error of the Nencini court is that it believed it was directed by the 2013 ISC to find the pair guilty.

That belief was at the heart of why it made errors in judgement that the 2015 ISC, from 4.0 onwards, reports.

In short, the Nencini court was flawed from start to finish. The 2015 ISC, therefore, did not simply say that the two were exonerated because of insufficient evidence, but that the whole process against them had been flawed.

And this is BEFORE the 2015 ISC addressed the flaws of the media and of the original investigation.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely.

And let's also make this perfectly clear: if anyone in Italy were arrested, charged and tried for a murder that they factually played no part in, but where they were unable to actually prove their innocence (e.g. a murder in the middle of the night when they were asleep with no electronic interactions etc), they would be found not-guilty by any competent court on the basis of "insufficient evidence" - a Para 2 acquittal. Para 1 would only apply if the person could prove their innocence, or if the court ruled that what took place wasn't actually a crime at all (e.g. that the victim committed suicide or died from natural causes, rather than having been murdered).

It's all set out clearly, in black and white, in the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure. People (Vixen most especially, of course) should read it some time.
 
LondonJohn said:
You have no idea what you're talking about. A vacated judgement means that, in effect (and most certainly in both law and ethics), the conviction never even happened. If you were convicted of murder, and the judgement was then vacated (usually by a court of appeal), then to all intents and purposes it would be as if you had never been convicted in the first place. You would be as innocent in respect of the murder as everyone else who had never been convicted of it.

Please try to read up about the law and understand it properly before posting more bollocks of this nature. Thanks in advance!

<fx remains in distant hope of an intellectually-honest debate, but hope is fading fast>
Click to expand...

Stop 'talking off the top of [your] head'. It is rubbish. Echols and Ferguson had to sign an agreement that they accept a 'vacated' conviction but not that they were exonerated. Please do some elementary research.


4. Ferguson's conviction is "vacated" not "overturned" or "reversed." The Western District Court of Appeals rendered the lower, Boone County District Court's opinion to be null and void. Importantly, the state has the option of retrying the case. Ferguson has not been declared "innocent," he has the same status as a pretrial detainee that he had in 2005 before his case began in October of that year.
Click to expand...
http://kbia.org/post/7-things-you-might-have-wrong-about-ryan-ferguson-ruling#stream/0


Re Echols:

... over the last few weeks the defendants' attorneys hammered out a deal that vacated the capital murder convictions and allowed them to go free if they entered Alford guilty pleas, meaning they're not admitting guilt but are admitting that it's in their best interest to cut a deal.
Click to expand...
http://www.eonline.com/news/259827/peter-jackson-still-gunning-for-justice-for-west-memphis-three

Clear now?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Damien Echols and Ryan Ferguson tour the country and the media claiming to be 'exonerees', yet those who know better, know their convictions were merely 'vacated'. They were happy just to get out of jail.
Click to expand...

Amanda Knox was acquitted definitively and cannot ever be tried again for Meredith's murder. That is the definition of exonerated. I know this decision was hard for the PGP to accept but it is simply what happened. Sorry.
 
bagels said:
Amanda Knox was acquitted definitively and cannot ever be tried again for Meredith's murder. That is the definition of exonerated. I know this decision was hard for the PGP to accept but it is simply what happened. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that is incorrect. Of the calunnia conviction, Marasca say:

2.2. The request of Amanda Knox’s defense aimed at the postponing of the present trial to wait for the decision of the European Court of Justice [sic] has no merit, due to the definitive status of the guilty verdict for the crime of calunnia, now protected as a partial final status, against a denouncement of arbitrary and coercive treatments allegedly carried out by the investigators against the accused to the point of coercing her will and damaging her moral freedom in violation of article 188 of penal procedure code. [21]

And also, a possible decision of the European Court in favor of Ms. Knox, in the sense of a desired recognition of non-orthodox treatment of her by investigators, could not in any way affect the final verdict, not even in the event of a possible review of the verdict, considering the slanderous accusations that the accused produced against Lumumba consequent to the asserted coercions, and confirmed by her before the Public Prosecutor during the subsequent session, in a context which, institutionally, is immune from anomalous psychological pressures; and also confirmed in her memoriale, at a moment when the same accuser was alone with herself and her conscience in conditions of objective peacefulness, sheltered from environmental influence; and were even restated, after some time, during the validation of the arrest of Lumumba, before the investigating judge in charge.
Click to expand...


Of her presence at the murder, it writes:

Given this, we now note, with respect to Amanda Knox, that her presence inside the house, the location of the murder, is a proven fact in the trial, in accord with her own admissions, also contained in the memoriale with her signature, in the part where she tells that, as she was in the kitchen, while the young English woman had retired inside the room of same Ms. Kercher together with another person for a sexual intercourse, she heard a harrowing scream from her friend, so piercing and unbearable that she let herself down squatting on the floor, covering her ears tight with her hands in order not to hear more of it.

About this, the judgment of reliability expressed by the lower [a quo] judge [Nencini, ed.] with reference to this part of the suspect’s narrative, [and] about the plausible implication from the fact herself was the first person mentioning for the first time [46] a possible sexual motive for the murder, at the time when the detectives still did not have the results from the cadaver examination, nor the autopsy report, nor the witnesses’ information, which was collected only subsequently, about the victim’s terrible scream and about the time when it was heard (witnesses Nara Capezzali, Antonella Monacchia and others), is certainly to be subscribed to.

We make reference in particular to those declarations that the current appellant [Knox] produced on 11. 6. 2007 (p.96) inside the State Police headquarters. On the other hand, in the slanderous declarations against Lumumba, which earned her a conviction, the status of which is now protected as final judgement [giudicato], [they] had themselves exactly that premise in the narrative, that is: the presence of the young American woman inside the house in via della Pergola, a circumstance which nobody at that time – except obviously the other people present inside the house – could have known (quote p. 96).
Click to expand...
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Marasca-Bruno_Report_(English)
 
Vixen said:
Sorry, that is incorrect. Of the calunnia conviction, Marasca say:




Of her presence at the murder, it writes:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Marasca-Bruno_Report_(English)
Click to expand...

1. i don't care

2. it has nothing to do with her definitive irreversible acquittal for murder which seems to have short circuited you. Wow the girl arrested from a murder scene from which 100% of the evidence collected pointed to a male burglar was acquitted for that murder what a shocking result.
 
Vixen said:
Stop 'talking off the top of [your] head'. It is rubbish. Echols and Ferguson had to sign an agreement that they accept a 'vacated' conviction but not that they were exonerated. Please do some elementary research.


http://kbia.org/post/7-things-you-might-have-wrong-about-ryan-ferguson-ruling#stream/0


Re Echols:

http://www.eonline.com/news/259827/peter-jackson-still-gunning-for-justice-for-west-memphis-three

Clear now?
Click to expand...


I suggest you read up a little about the presumption of innocence. And the concept of "innocent until/unless proven guilty".

Clear now?

<fx probably not>
 
LondonJohn said:
I suggest you read up a little about the presumption of innocence. And the concept of "innocent until/unless proven guilty".

Clear now?

<fx probably not>
Click to expand...

I know it is an extremely difficult concept to understand, but I live in hope a light will shine through a chink.

Consider carefully the following statement:

"he has the same status as a pretrial detainee that he had in 2005 before his case began in October of that year."

Now compare and contrast that with someone who has been found 'not guilty' proper. Is it dawning...?
 
bagels said:
1. i don't care

2. it has nothing to do with her definitive irreversible acquittal for murder which seems to have short circuited you. Wow the girl arrested from a murder scene from which 100% of the evidence collected pointed to a male burglar was acquitted for that murder what a shocking result.
Click to expand...

Marasca states that it definitively was not a 'murder by a burglar'. In addition, it underlines that the burglary was staged.
 
Vixen said:
I know it is an extremely difficult concept to understand, but I live in hope a light will shine through a chink.

Consider carefully the following statement:

"he has the same status as a pretrial detainee that he had in 2005 before his case began in October of that year."

Now compare and contrast that with someone who has been found 'not guilty' proper. Is it dawning...?
Click to expand...


Perhaps you ought to consider that the (deliberately pejorative, from a biassed source) "he has the same status as a pretrial detainee that he had in 2005 before his case began in October of that year." is EXACTLY EQUIVALENT to saying:

"He is currently considered innocent of the charges, unless and until he is ever convicted in a fair trial".

You really, truly, have no idea about all this. Again, I implore you to educate yourself by reading about the presumption of innocence in law and ethics in modern liberalised democracies, and the concept of being considered innocent in law and ethics (and morality, for that matter) unless and until one stands convicted by a competent court in a fair trial.

<fx shakes head once more in a mixture of disbelief and wry amusement at the ignorance and low intellect on display>
 
Marasca states that Mignini was a rogue prosecutor who was incompetent and malicious in equal measures. In addition, it states that Guede unequivocally committed the murder all by himself.

Wow! This making-stuff-up malarkey is EASY!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom