Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[Methos]

Er, annulments 'without referral' are almost certainly those found 'Not Guilty' at trial level and almost certainly referred to crimes other than 'serious crimes' such as aggravated murder and rape.

Please stop your misinformation.

This doesn't make sense, how can an acquittal (found 'Not Guilty') be annulled 'without referral'?

In Italy, prosecutors can appeal a, 'Not Guilty' verdict. Common sense tells you that large portion of the 10% of murder & serious crime cases (a fraction of the total 52K supreme court appeals) that are annulled 'without referral' will be where a lower court found, 'Not Guilty' and the Supreme court upheld it and dismissed the prosecution appeal. These will be overwhelmingly 530,1, because if there is 'insufficient evidence', it has the jurisdiction to remit it back to the second instance appeal court. (As it did with Hellmann.)

Please tell me, what happens to those people who are accused of murder and other serious crimes, who get a "Not Guilty" verdict at trial and as you say have those "Not Guilty" verdicts "anulled" by the Supreme Court "without referral"? I think there is a misunderstanding of the word "anulled" here...

 

[abaddon]

Actually it is very simple. It's an archive. If you copy an URL (let's say the one for this page in this thread and paste it into the "Save Page Now" box on the wayback machine an exact copy of that page will be saved on the wayback machine's server. The one for this page looks like this.
That makes it possible to tell how a certain page looked like at a certain date and it makes it possible to read blog posts that have been deleted. The tricky thing is, that you have to know the URL of the page you are looking for.

You are right, it looks like PQ of TJMK is trying to re-write the site's history here...

The wayback search engine allows wildcards.

 

[Methos]

The wayback search engine allows wildcards.

I didn't know that, good to know, thank you.

 

[Stacyhs]

Andrea Vogt "outs guilters"....? What are you on about?

When someone says, '"[but Mom,] I cannot lie, I was there," it is an indication that there is a need to lie about it. There would be no reason at all to lie about being at Raff's.

Raff himself categorically told police he came home alone and that Amanda did not turn up until 1:00 am, whereupon he continued to surf the net until 3:00am.
Alas, forensic computer experts could find no sign of any computer use after the autodownload of Naruto circa 9:20pm.

They did discover there was the activity of downloading some grunge metal for half an hour at circa 5:30 (Amanda's usual rising time) and that Raff accessed his mobile text messages from the night before, his phone having been switched off since 9:00pm, at circa 6:30am.

Yet both Raff and Amanda are adamant they did not awake until 10:00-ish and Raff had a lie-in until midday, and testified to this effect in court.
Who is the liar, the forensic police, or the kids?

Raffaele did not testify to anything in court as he never testified in court.

Here is Amanda's testimony:


GCM: On the morning of Nov 2 what time did you get up. When did you wake?

AK: Well, usually I wake early, but then I went back to sleep. So I know I woke early, but then I went back to sleep.

GCM: Early if one can say...

AK: It was still dark, at least in his room, therefore … I woke up but then I went back to sleep. Then I think I got up at about ten thirty.

GCM: As soon as you got up, did you turn on your cellphone?


AK: I don't remember.

GCM: When you awoke, was Raffaele Sollecito still asleep?

AK: Yes, I told him I wanted to go to my house but he was still a bit asleep, in fact I watched him for a few moments.

GCM: So he was still asleep?

AK: Yes.

GCM: At ten o'clock Raffaele Sollecito was still asleep?

AK: Yes.

Nothing was said about Raffaele sleeping in until mid-day and Amanda clearly states she woke up earlier in the morning but went back to sleep.

Regarding the "I cannot lie" statement, Massei found she was referring to Sollecito's apartment and no following judge said otherwise. It's clear to anyone who bothers to read the comment in context and is not blinded by their need to believe otherwise.

In Raffaele's statement to police, he said Amanda returned from her place at around 11:30. Amanda wrote that he was just getting out of the shower at that time so he was already up. He was not still in bed.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yet both Raff and Amanda are adamant they did not awake until 10:00-ish and Raff had a lie-in until midday, and testified to this effect in court.

Who is the liar, the forensic police, or the kids?

Great question, "who is the liar?"

Since Raffaele did not testify in court to anything, much less this, who is the liar?

 

[Mr Fied]

Great question, "who is the liar?"

Since Raffaele did not testify in court to anything, much less this, who is the liar?

It really is like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[abaddon]

I didn't know that, good to know, thank you.

Funny enough, neither did I until relatively recently. I happened upon it by accident while researching a woo claimant on another site. I simply guessed that wildcards might work and tried it. I was surprised. It was an utterly random guess. I shovelled in an asterisk and kaboom. I was actually expecting a 404.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/*

as a search term will get all pages from that domain which have been archived. Oddly, this does not work from the wayback home page. Only on subsequent results pages. To be fair, that could be total bovine fecal matter, but it certainly appears that way. I could further investigate, but life is too short. If something wanders along sufficient to twist my noodle, I might invest some effort but unless and until, not so much.

Look at

https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.internationalskeptics.com/*

Note trailing asterisk. This gets you every page on this site which has been archived. Some 130k or so.

I have not had time to explore it, but there clearly is some underlying syntactical logic on there. Likely, other obscure search criteria exist. What those might be is anyone's guess.

Another interesting thing about that is that there is some other interesting data in the result set. From-To gives you the dates of the logging to wayback. Captures tells you how many times the pages was committed to wayback. Duplicates and uniques tells you obviously how many of those were the very same thing and how many were altered from the original. Intriguing. There clearly is some search syntax, but how does it operate? I have no idea beyond the fact that it plainly exists.

The data is also sortable by column by simply clicking the column header. That is, however, the extent of my exploration. I have had neither the time nor inclination nor motivation to take it further. The only thing I can be certain of is that there is a bucket more functionality hidden in there.

 

[Methos]

Funny enough, neither did I until relatively recently. I happened upon it by accident while researching a woo claimant on another site. I simply guessed that wildcards might work and tried it. I was surprised. It was an utterly random guess. I shovelled in an asterisk and kaboom. I was actually expecting a 404.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/*

as a search term will get all pages from that domain which have been archived. Oddly, this does not work from the wayback home page. Only on subsequent results pages. To be fair, that could be total bovine fecal matter, but it certainly appears that way. I could further investigate, but life is too short. If something wanders along sufficient to twist my noodle, I might invest some effort but unless and until, not so much.

Look at

https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.internationalskeptics.com/*

Note trailing asterisk. This gets you every page on this site which has been archived. Some 130k or so.

I have not had time to explore it, but there clearly is some underlying syntactical logic on there. Likely, other obscure search criteria exist. What those might be is anyone's guess.

Another interesting thing about that is that there is some other interesting data in the result set. From-To gives you the dates of the logging to wayback. Captures tells you how many times the pages was committed to wayback. Duplicates and uniques tells you obviously how many of those were the very same thing and how many were altered from the original. Intriguing. There clearly is some search syntax, but how does it operate? I have no idea beyond the fact that it plainly exists.

The data is also sortable by column by simply clicking the column header. That is, however, the extent of my exploration. I have had neither the time nor inclination nor motivation to take it further. The only thing I can be certain of is that there is a bucket more functionality hidden in there.

Thank You!

 

[LondonJohn]

Please tell me, what happens to those people who are accused of murder and other serious crimes, who get a "Not Guilty" verdict at trial and as you say have those "Not Guilty" verdicts "anulled" by the Supreme Court "without referral"? I think there is a misunderstanding of the word "anulled" here...

I do believe there is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of the word "annulled". I'm at least 72,5% confident of that, anyhow.....

The verb "annul" is a verb implying change, in that it necessarily implies a striking out (nullification) of a previous verdict. Technically an appeal court could, I suppose, annul an acquittal (following a prosecution appeal), but only if that appeal court struck out the acquittal and ordered a conviction (whether subject to further appeal or final). Although the commonly-understood usage of the term reads the etymology of the word literally, in that the "null" root represents "nothing" - i.e. "annulment" means a reversal to nothing, meaning acquittal (whether subject to retrial or not).

But what "annulment" most certainly does not mean is what Vixen thought (hoped?) it meant: the confirmation of a the acquittal of a suspect following an appeal against that acquittal by the prosecution. It's a somewhat surprising mistake: we're dealing with pretty basic legal/judicial vocabulary (and implied meaning) here, actually........

 

[Numbers]

I do believe there is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of the word "annulled". I'm at least 72,5% confident of that, anyhow.....

The verb "annul" is a verb implying change, in that it necessarily implies a striking out (nullification) of a previous verdict. Technically an appeal court could, I suppose, annul an acquittal (following a prosecution appeal), but only if that appeal court struck out the acquittal and ordered a conviction (whether subject to further appeal or final). Although the commonly-understood usage of the term reads the etymology of the word literally, in that the "null" root represents "nothing" - i.e. "annulment" means a reversal to nothing, meaning acquittal (whether subject to retrial or not).

But what "annulment" most certainly does not mean is what Vixen thought (hoped?) it meant: the confirmation of a the acquittal of a suspect following an appeal against that acquittal by the prosecution. It's a somewhat surprising mistake: we're dealing with pretty basic legal/judicial vocabulary (and implied meaning) here, actually........

LJ, can you explain what you meant in the last paragraph? Or what you are claiming "annulled" means?

My understanding is that an appeal court (but not the CSC) in Italy may annul a verdict and impose the opposite verdict, after a trial, and supplying a reasoning (MR) indicating the reasons for the decision in law and/or facts. If the appeal court is fully evaluating the case to establish guilt or innocence, and it is annulling a verdict of acquittal and imposing a verdict of conviction, it must, by ECHR case-law, have done this with the presence of the accused (unless the accused declines to attend) and it cannot arbitrarily reinterpret evidence or law, and in general should have new inculpatory evidence compared to the appealed verdict of acquittal.

However, the Italian CSC does not hear new evidence and never admits witnesses or the accused for testimony or statements. Therefore, in annulling an acquittal, the CSC must always (to follow ECHR case-law) refer the case back to a lower court (an appeal or 2nd instance court) to have it hear new evidence and/or to follow the CSC's interpretation of law, with the lower court calling the accused to appear before it.

Furthermore, CPP Article 620, which allows the CSC to annul without referral, is written to include only cases in which the CSC finds the accused's appeal (or counter-appeal) justified.

The fact that Italy did not seek to extradite Knox to appear before the Nencini court suggests that its verdict was never intended as a "real" judgment if it convicted. More likely, the Italian judiciary was playing for time to make sure that the police and Mignini could not be legally charged with crimes against Knox for the interrogation to assure that the statute of limitations had run out. Or, perhaps, the judiciary was just demonstrating its power to cause financial and emotional pain to any accused, a kind of warning to the Italian public.

 

[Vixen]

Please tell me, what happens to those people who are accused of murder and other serious crimes, who get a "Not Guilty" verdict at trial and as you say have those "Not Guilty" verdicts "anulled" by the Supreme Court "without referral"? I think there is a misunderstanding of the word "anulled" here...

There might be some confusion over the difference between 'absolved' and 'annulled'. The verdict was annulled, the defendant absolved. So, in dismissing a prosecutor's supreme court appeal against a 'Not guilty' verdict, the supreme court confirms the second stage court's annullment.

 

[Vixen]

LJ, can you explain what you meant in the last paragraph? Or what you are claiming "annulled" means?

My understanding is that an appeal court (but not the CSC) in Italy may annul a verdict and impose the opposite verdict, after a trial, and supplying a reasoning (MR) indicating the reasons for the decision in law and/or facts. If the appeal court is fully evaluating the case to establish guilt or innocence, and it is annulling a verdict of acquittal and imposing a verdict of conviction, it must, by ECHR case-law, have done this with the presence of the accused (unless the accused declines to attend) and it cannot arbitrarily reinterpret evidence or law, and in general should have new inculpatory evidence compared to the appealed verdict of acquittal.

However, the Italian CSC does not hear new evidence and never admits witnesses or the accused for testimony or statements. Therefore, in annulling an acquittal, the CSC must always (to follow ECHR case-law) refer the case back to a lower court (an appeal or 2nd instance court) to have it hear new evidence and/or to follow the CSC's interpretation of law, with the lower court calling the accused to appear before it.

Furthermore, CPP Article 620, which allows the CSC to annul without referral, is written to include only cases in which the CSC finds the accused's appeal (or counter-appeal) justified.

The fact that Italy did not seek to extradite Knox to appear before the Nencini court suggests that its verdict was never intended as a "real" judgment if it convicted. More likely, the Italian judiciary was playing for time to make sure that the police and Mignini could not be legally charged with crimes against Knox for the interrogation to assure that the statute of limitations had run out. Or, perhaps, the judiciary was just demonstrating its power to cause financial and emotional pain to any accused, a kind of warning to the Italian public.

Let's ignore this particular paranoid crap.

Perhaps ypu are now beginning to grasp that it was legally illogical and incorrect for Marasca to annul without reverting it back to a lower court, because as you say, it doesn't have the power to examine evidence.

If the trial court and the further, merits appeal court both finds a defendant guilty as charged it boggles the mind a supreme court can annul it on grounds of 'evidence' whether insufficient or not. The correct protocol is to send it back down. And in Italy, it is mandatory to do this in a serious crime case.

Marasca did not have the jursidiction to come to a verdict the forensic police were bent, nor that the press used undue pressure.

 

[Vixen]

You;ve been shown many. many times that Knox;s statement. in the correct context and intellectually+honestly including the words which proceeded and followed Knox;s words. clearly and categorically has Knox telling her mother that she )Knox( will not lie TO REFLECT WHAT THE POLICE ARE INSTRUCTING HER TO SAY, In other words. the police are telling her to tell them that she left Sollecito;s apartment on the night of the murder. but Knox will not lie in order to tell them that, Instead Knox """cannot lie""" in that """she was there""" + meaning that she was in Sollecito;s apartment,

Why do you continue to misrepresent this quote of Knox;s. when it;s categorically and unequivocally clear that she is referring to """there""" as Sollecito;s apartment<?






You;re aware. aren;t you. that Sollecito is here accurately describing events from the evening before the murder. Halloween<? You are now,






Proof that it was an """autodownload""". please,






Firstly. it wasn;t """grunge metal""", Presumably you wrote that to sound pejorative<? Secondly. proof that 5*30 was """Amanda;s usual rising time""". please,






Firstly. are you aware that there;s a massive difference between waking up in the night and what one would term """waking up""" in the sense of ending one;s night;s sleep<? For example. last night I got up at about 4a,m, to go to the bathroom, then I turned on the TV to see what was happening in the Australian Open tennis for about 15 minutes or so. then I went back to sleep, I """woke up""" in the conventional sense of ending my night;s sleep at around 7*30a,m, And if somebody were to ask me. a few days from now. what time I woke up today. I would without doubt reply 7*30,

Secondly. evidence that Sollecito testified that he """had a lie%in until midday""". please,





Neither. but actually someone else entirely,

I suggest you get up to speed with the basic facts of the case before spouting off with evangelical zeal about the great conspiracy against the kids.

Read http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...7_Statement_to_the_Police#English_translation


Looks like your spin has got you into a right spin. You can't tell tits from arse.

 

[Vixen]

I do believe there is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of the word "annulled". I'm at least 72,5% confident of that, anyhow.....

The verb "annul" is a verb implying change, in that it necessarily implies a striking out (nullification) of a previous verdict. Technically an appeal court could, I suppose, annul an acquittal (following a prosecution appeal), but only if that appeal court struck out the acquittal and ordered a conviction (whether subject to further appeal or final). Although the commonly-understood usage of the term reads the etymology of the word literally, in that the "null" root represents "nothing" - i.e. "annulment" means a reversal to nothing, meaning acquittal (whether subject to retrial or not).

But what "annulment" most certainly does not mean is what Vixen thought (hoped?) it meant: the confirmation of a the acquittal of a suspect following an appeal against that acquittal by the prosecution. It's a somewhat surprising mistake: we're dealing with pretty basic legal/judicial vocabulary (and implied meaning) here, actually........

If you do not even know what Raff told the police, then I'll wager 100% you haven't the foggiest about anything in this case. It's all hype.

 

[Vixen]

Funny enough, neither did I until relatively recently. I happened upon it by accident while researching a woo claimant on another site. I simply guessed that wildcards might work and tried it. I was surprised. It was an utterly random guess. I shovelled in an asterisk and kaboom. I was actually expecting a 404.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/*

as a search term will get all pages from that domain which have been archived. Oddly, this does not work from the wayback home page. Only on subsequent results pages. To be fair, that could be total bovine fecal matter, but it certainly appears that way. I could further investigate, but life is too short. If something wanders along sufficient to twist my noodle, I might invest some effort but unless and until, not so much.

Look at

https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.internationalskeptics.com/*

Note trailing asterisk. This gets you every page on this site which has been archived. Some 130k or so.

I have not had time to explore it, but there clearly is some underlying syntactical logic on there. Likely, other obscure search criteria exist. What those might be is anyone's guess.

Another interesting thing about that is that there is some other interesting data in the result set. From-To gives you the dates of the logging to wayback. Captures tells you how many times the pages was committed to wayback. Duplicates and uniques tells you obviously how many of those were the very same thing and how many were altered from the original. Intriguing. There clearly is some search syntax, but how does it operate? I have no idea beyond the fact that it plainly exists.

The data is also sortable by column by simply clicking the column header. That is, however, the extent of my exploration. I have had neither the time nor inclination nor motivation to take it further. The only thing I can be certain of is that there is a bucket more functionality hidden in there.

So when certain persons are not frantically posting disinformation on this forum, they're playing at amateur spooks.

When will we see the dossier?

Any good compromising hotel scenes...?


I look forward to Buzzfeed revealing all.

 

[LondonJohn]

LJ, can you explain what you meant in the last paragraph? Or what you are claiming "annulled" means?

My understanding is that an appeal court (but not the CSC) in Italy may annul a verdict and impose the opposite verdict, after a trial, and supplying a reasoning (MR) indicating the reasons for the decision in law and/or facts. If the appeal court is fully evaluating the case to establish guilt or innocence, and it is annulling a verdict of acquittal and imposing a verdict of conviction, it must, by ECHR case-law, have done this with the presence of the accused (unless the accused declines to attend) and it cannot arbitrarily reinterpret evidence or law, and in general should have new inculpatory evidence compared to the appealed verdict of acquittal.

However, the Italian CSC does not hear new evidence and never admits witnesses or the accused for testimony or statements. Therefore, in annulling an acquittal, the CSC must always (to follow ECHR case-law) refer the case back to a lower court (an appeal or 2nd instance court) to have it hear new evidence and/or to follow the CSC's interpretation of law, with the lower court calling the accused to appear before it.

Furthermore, CPP Article 620, which allows the CSC to annul without referral, is written to include only cases in which the CSC finds the accused's appeal (or counter-appeal) justified.

The fact that Italy did not seek to extradite Knox to appear before the Nencini court suggests that its verdict was never intended as a "real" judgment if it convicted. More likely, the Italian judiciary was playing for time to make sure that the police and Mignini could not be legally charged with crimes against Knox for the interrogation to assure that the statute of limitations had run out. Or, perhaps, the judiciary was just demonstrating its power to cause financial and emotional pain to any accused, a kind of warning to the Italian public.

What I meant in the last paragraph was that an appeal court cannot "annul" a lower-court's acquittal (assuming, obviously, that the prosecution appealed the lower-court acquittal) by dismissing the appeal and confirming the acquittal. Vixen erroneously thought that the term "annulment" was effectively synonymous with "acquittal" - and that therefore if an appeal court confirmed a lower-court acquittal this was an "annulment".

(As I had already pointed out further up in that post, an appeal court can annul a conviction (and impose either a retrial or acquittal), or it can annul an acquittal (and impose either a retrial or conviction) - but it cannot "annul" an acquittal by confirming that acquittal, just as it cannot "annul" a conviction by confirming that conviction.)

 

[LondonJohn]

If you do not even know what Raff told the police, then I'll wager 100% you haven't the foggiest about anything in this case. It's all hype.

Erm.... what? Non sequitur, anyone?

Try addressing the actual points I've raised in the post to which you're (nominally) replying, rather than trying (and failing, incidentally...) to accuse me of a lack of knowledge about something completely different.

Let's go back to basics, as per my actual post: do you now know what an "annulment" means? Yes or no?

 

[LondonJohn]

I suggest you get up to speed with the basic facts of the case before spouting off with evangelical zeal about the great conspiracy against the kids.

Read http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...7_Statement_to_the_Police#English_translation


Looks like your spin has got you into a right spin. You can't tell tits from arse.

Oh dear.

Quite apart from the woeful inability to address a single one of the arguments and points I made in that post (preferring instead to "reply" with a schoolyard series of pejorative accusations, not a single one of which was substantiated or supported in any way whatsoever), you've been told well over two dozen times now (probably) that there are fundamental and insurmountable problems with citing the biassed fake-wiki site as a reference on this case. Please refrain from trying to do so in the future, eh?

 

[Vixen]

What I meant in the last paragraph was that an appeal court cannot "annul" a lower-court's acquittal (assuming, obviously, that the prosecution appealed the lower-court acquittal) by dismissing the appeal and confirming the acquittal. Vixen erroneously thought that the term "annulment" was effectively synonymous with "acquittal" - and that therefore if an appeal court confirmed a lower-court acquittal this was an "annulment".

(As I had already pointed out further up in that post, an appeal court can annul a conviction (and impose either a retrial or acquittal), or it can annul an acquittal (and impose either a retrial or conviction) - but it cannot "annul" an acquittal by confirming that acquittal, just as it cannot "annul" a conviction by confirming that conviction.)

In the case of the supreme court's statistics, it does. It is a generic header.

You have made the classic error of thinking that annulment in Italian law has the same meaning in English law. In England and Wales 'annulment' in the legal sense would mean 'quashed'. In Italy, it means, 'Not Guilty'. Kimo sabi?

 

[LondonJohn]

There might be some confusion over the difference between 'absolved' and 'annulled'. The verdict was annulled, the defendant absolved. So, in dismissing a prosecutor's supreme court appeal against a 'Not guilty' verdict, the supreme court confirms the second stage court's annullment.

This is absolutely textbook goalpost-shifting! I hear that the team setting up for the Sunday League football matches on Hackney Marshes is always on the lookout for skilled workers