The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill Williams said:
No wonder Vixen reads her stuff out of context. I mean, just how blatant does Marasca/Bruno have to be to set-up what is to come?

It's almost as if Vixen had wilfully ignored such statements as....

The intrinsically contradictory ensemble of the body of evidence, whose objective uncertainty is already emphasised by the previously highlighted wavering progress of the proceedings​
.........so that she can bend subsequent statements to some other conclusion.

Vixen wants it to be like this - M/B simply summarized unassailable facts as found at the lower court, agreed with them, listed them, but reversed the Nencini finding anyways.

Which part of "intrinsically contradictory ensemble of the body of evidence", or "whose objective uncertainty", or "is already emphasised by the previously highlighted wavering progress of the proceedings" is difficult to understand?
Click to expand...

So now you can see why the annulment was perverse, and why Rudy thinks he has grounds for a review based on the 'new evidence' of the Florence court, which ruled Raff committed gross misconduct by lying and misleading the police and that it is an indisputable and certain fact Amanda was present during the murder.

If it's OK for Amanda - and almost certainly Raff - to be present at the murder, then same must go for Rudy, is the intrinsic legal logic - it makes Rudy's conviction contradictory with that of two other courts.
 
Vixen said:
Section 9 is a summary of the facts. Section 10 reiterates the court's verdict.


No rational person finishes a report on a hypothesis. The hypothesis needs to be discussed in the main body, and indeed it is. Marasca goes through each party's appeal points in section 4 onwards in the main body of the report. Section 9 effectively are the conclusions of that discussion and a clarification of what the facts are, having heard all of the points of appeal.
Click to expand...

LOL. You perhaps have not read the entire Marasca CSC panel motivation report, and therefore have posted the absurdity quoted above.

The conclusion of the Marasca CSC panel MR are Sections 10, 11, and the PQM (For These Reasons = the operative verdict):

10. The intrinsic contradictory nature of the evidence, emerging from the text of the appealed verdict, in essence undermines the connective tissue of the same, leading to its annulment.
In fact, in the presence of a scenario marked by many contradictions, the referral judge should not have come to a verdict of guilt, but - as previously observed – should have reached a verdict of not guilty, given Article 530, section 2, Italian Code of Criminal Procedure.

At this point only one matter remains to be resolved, regarding the type of annulment - i.e., whether it should be decided with or without a new trial - which depends, obviously, on the objective possibility of further investigation which could unravel the perplexing aspects, and offer answers of certainty, perhaps through new technical investigations.

....

Given the above-mentioned considerations, it is evident that a new trial would be useless, thus the verdict of annulment without a new trial, in accordance with Article 620 letter I) of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, thus applying a sentence of not guilty which would also have been reached by any new referral judge, in accordance with the principles of law set out in this judgment.

The annulment of Knox’s conviction with regards to crime A), excludes the aggravating circumstance of criminal intent as per Article, 61 n. 2 of the Italian Penal Code. The exclusion of this part means the sentence must be redetermined, which is quantified to the same degree as fixed by the Perugia Court of Appeal, the adequacy of which has been amply justified, on the basis of determining parameters with which this judgment completely agrees.
It is hardly necessary to add that the result of the judgment precludes consideration of any other defence plea, deduction or request as absorbed or implicitly rejected, while any other line of argument, among those not examined, are considered inadmissible as, clearly, it would enter into the merits of the judgment.

11. Given the above, it can only be decided [to proceed] as per the operative part of this judgment.

FOR THESE REASONS

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.

Thus decided 27/03/2015_____

The verdict of definitive acquittal of Knox and Sollecito for the murder/rape charges was proclaimed two years and two days ago.
 
Vixen said:
So now you can see why the annulment was perverse, and why Rudy thinks he has grounds for a review based on the 'new evidence' of the Florence court, which ruled Raff committed gross misconduct by lying and misleading the police and that it is an indisputable and certain fact Amanda was present during the murder.

If it's OK for Amanda - and almost certainly Raff - to be present at the murder, then same must go for Rudy, is the intrinsic legal logic - it makes Rudy's conviction contradictory with that of two other courts.
Click to expand...

This does not at all track or address my post.

Never mind.
 
Vixen said:
Please read the court documents. The bit about rubbing her hands.
Click to expand...

:confused: huh. How is that evidence that she washed her hands of Meredith's blood? You know you sound insane when you make arguments like that?
 
Vixen said:
Massei, astutely pointed out, 'If I find a locked door, then I assume nobody's home'.
Click to expand...

Every time I come home from work, I expect to find a locked door. When I pop in on friends and relations, I expect to find a locked door. That's what doorbells are for.

When I go to the bathroom and the door is locked, I assume there is someone in there.

You are talking bollocks.

ETA: And when I come home, I lock the door from the inside even though I am resplendent in residence. I know of nobody who leaves their door open if they are at home. And it matters not that I am in my own home. Back in the day when I house shared, one locked up.

I am beginning to wonder about your cloistered history. You self present as entirely innocent of real life.

Never heard of student life, never heard of the psychedelic student experience, never heard of house sharing and it's consequences, never heard of basic tolerance for anyone else, never ventured outside the cloister of theology, never experienced atheism, the list goes on.

Feel free to disagree. But I cannot help how you self present unless and until you present otherwise.
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
Every time I come home from work, I expect to find a locked door. When I pop in on friends and relations, I expect to find a locked door. That's what doorbells are for.

When I go to the bathroom and the door is locked, I assume there is someone in there.

You are talking bollocks.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You don't start calling their name and banging on it louder and louder and try to break it down, 'because somebody might be hurt in there'.

No. You go away, and come back later.

If worried, to cause you to react as above, it would be strange not to mention it to the police when you ring them.
 
Vixen said:
In court Amanda was asked why she banged on Mez' door, and she replied, she was worried she was in there, hurt. (This implies Raff had the same view as he claimed to have tried to break the door down [and it was splintered]).

Massei, astutely pointed out, 'If I find a locked door, then I assume nobody's home'.

If Amanda thought Mez had come to harm as she claimed in her email to the world and to Filomena, what took her so long to get back to the cottage with Raff. No sign of any urge to investigate. Took them another TWENTY MINUTES to walk the five minutes to the cottage - so concerned were they, they later claimed they had been banging on the door and calling her name frantically and climbing over the balcony to get to her window sill, and Raff was trying out a kick and a shoulder to the door, they claimed.

So why not tell the police to come quickly, instead of reassuring them, 'nothing's been stolen'.

We note Raff refused to testify, so we have no explanation from him about his actions and his attitude.
Click to expand...

1. Amanda did not bang on Meredith's door or think she was hurt during the first trip to the cottage. As her email said, it was only AFTER she had returned to Raff's and had tried to call Meredith and could get no answer that she began to worry about her. I suggest you read her email again.

2. Do you have any evidence that it took them "TWENTY" minutes to walk to the cottage?

3. In her testimony, Amanda said she became more worried after she and Raff discovered the break-in and still could not get a hold of Meredith. But, as she said, she "didn't know what to think" and Meredith "could have been inside or not".

4. There was physical evidence that Raff did, indeed, try to break down the door.

5. The first thing Raff says to the police is "Hello, good day, listen ... someone has entered the house breaking the window and has made a big mess and there is a closed door. " So he is reporting Meredith's locked door immediately. Then he answers the operator's questions as to address, telephone number etc. He then reports the break-in and locked door:


Police: Theft [burglary] in the house eh?

RS:No, there's no theft... they broke a window... there is a mess... there is also a closed door... a mess.

He does NOT "reassure them" nothing's been stolen as you put it. He answers their question if there was a "theft". As they had seen nothing missing, why should he tell them there had been an actual theft?

He the immediately tells them about the blood.

POLICE: So listen, they entered... they broke a window... and how do you know they entered?

RS:It can be seen by the signs... that there are drops... there are blood stains in the bathroom.

After the call is dropped, he calls back:


RS:Yes hello, I called two seconds ago.


POLICE:Someone has entered the house and broke the window?


RS:Yes.


POLICE:Then they went into the bathroom.


RS:I don't know, if you come here perhaps...

Notice that he is asking them to come.


POLICE:What did they take?


RS:They didn't take anything, the problem is the closed door, there are bloodstains.

Again, he's not "reassuring" them, he is answering a direct question.


POLICE:There is a closed door. Which door's closed?


RS:[The door] of one of the flatmates who isn't here and we don't know where she is.


POLICE:And there are blood stains outside the door of this flatmate who's not there?


RS:The blood stains are in the bathroom.


POLICE:Oh in the bathroom. And this door is closed. And this girl, do you have her mobile number, her ...?


RS:Yes, yes, we tried to call her but she's not answering.


POLICE:OK, I'll send a patrol car now and we'll check the situation out.



Raff didn't need to tell them to come quickly as the police said they were sending a car right away. Try as you might, the call itself disproves your attempt to imply subterfuge by Amanda or Raffaele.
 
Vixen said:
Exactly. You don't start calling their name and banging on it louder and louder and try to break it down, 'because somebody might be hurt in there'.

No. You go away, and come back later.

If worried, to cause you to react as above, it would be strange not to mention it to the police when you ring them.
Click to expand...

What? Why would anyone mention a trivially common occurrence as significant? I am fortunate to have two bathrooms, so it doesn't occur very often, but I have lived in circumstances where a single bathroom was shared among many. When occupied and locked, nobody ever jumped up screaming "MURDER", one just politely backs away. And brings a nose peg.

You seem to be stuck on the notion that everyone at home leaves their door unlocked and that just is not the case. To suggest such a thing is impossibly naive.
 
Vixen said:
'Don't tell I, tell 'ee. That's my philosophy.'

I'm only quoting Marasca.

You know, your hero?
Click to expand...

You are of course ignoring words like 'even if' and 'hypothesis'

Still crazy after all these years.

--Paul Simon​
 
Stacyhs said:
1. Amanda did not bang on Meredith's door or think she was hurt during the first trip to the cottage. As her email said, it was only AFTER she had returned to Raff's and had tried to call Meredith and could get no answer that she began to worry about her. I suggest you read her email again.

2. Do you have any evidence that it took them "TWENTY" minutes to walk to the cottage?

3. In her testimony, Amanda said she became more worried after she and Raff discovered the break-in and still could not get a hold of Meredith. But, as she said, she "didn't know what to think" and Meredith "could have been inside or not".

4. There was physical evidence that Raff did, indeed, try to break down the door.

5. The first thing Raff says to the police is "Hello, good day, listen ... someone has entered the house breaking the window and has made a big mess and there is a closed door. " So he is reporting Meredith's locked door immediately. Then he answers the operator's questions as to address, telephone number etc. He then reports the break-in and locked door:


Police: Theft [burglary] in the house eh?

RS:No, there's no theft... they broke a window... there is a mess... there is also a closed door... a mess.

He does NOT "reassure them" nothing's been stolen as you put it. He answers their question if there was a "theft". As they had seen nothing missing, why should he tell them there had been an actual theft?

He the immediately tells them about the blood.

POLICE: So listen, they entered... they broke a window... and how do you know they entered?

RS:It can be seen by the signs... that there are drops... there are blood stains in the bathroom.

After the call is dropped, he calls back:


RS:Yes hello, I called two seconds ago.


POLICE:Someone has entered the house and broke the window?


RS:Yes.


POLICE:Then they went into the bathroom.


RS:I don't know, if you come here perhaps...

Notice that he is asking them to come.


POLICE:What did they take?


RS:They didn't take anything, the problem is the closed door, there are bloodstains.

Again, he's not "reassuring" them, he is answering a direct question.


POLICE:There is a closed door. Which door's closed?


RS:[The door] of one of the flatmates who isn't here and we don't know where she is.


POLICE:And there are blood stains outside the door of this flatmate who's not there?


RS:The blood stains are in the bathroom.


POLICE:Oh in the bathroom. And this door is closed. And this girl, do you have her mobile number, her ...?


RS:Yes, yes, we tried to call her but she's not answering.


POLICE:OK, I'll send a patrol car now and we'll check the situation out.



Raff didn't need to tell them to come quickly as the police said they were sending a car right away. Try as you might, the call itself disproves your attempt to imply subterfuge by Amanda or Raffaele.
Click to expand...


In her email home Amanda claims she was banging on Mez' door in a panic and Raff tried to break it down. But WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT?

It is completely irrelevant she claims she did all this when she went back with Raff.

She claims it was BEFORE POLICE ARRIVED AND BEFORE ANYBODY KNEW THERE WAS A BODY IN THE ROOM.

Why would Amanda and Raff claim to believe Mez' lay behind the door? As Massei said, he would assume no-one was home.

We know it took them twenty minutes because Filomena urged them to go back to the cottage. this was circa 12:11. However, the pair did not bother until some 20" later. They were there circa 12:35, because that is what time Battistelli and his assistant arrived and saw them sitting outside on the wall.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
You are of course ignoring words like 'even if' and 'hypothesis'

Still crazy after all these years.

--Paul Simon​
Click to expand...

It's amazing what one can conclude from a document when you redefine key words as merely "figures of speech" or "typos".
 
abaddon said:
What? Why would anyone mention a trivially common occurrence as significant? I am fortunate to have two bathrooms, so it doesn't occur very often, but I have lived in circumstances where a single bathroom was shared among many. When occupied and locked, nobody ever jumped up screaming "MURDER", one just politely backs away. And brings a nose peg.

You seem to be stuck on the notion that everyone at home leaves their door unlocked and that just is not the case. To suggest such a thing is impossibly naive.
Click to expand...

Massei wanted to know, why did Amanda claim she was worried that Mez lay behind the locked door hurt, when (a) nobody knew Mez was dead at that point (except the killers) and (b) Amanda reassured the cops it was normal for Mez' door to be locked, and (c) it was Filomena who arrived at 1:00-ish who IMMEDIATELY got Luca to break down the door.
 
By the way, you still have not presented any evidence that Amanda washed Meredith's blood from her hands. Because the judge said so is not evidence.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
Please read the court documents. The bit about rubbing her hands.
Click to expand...

Here is what Marasca wrote:

"Another element regarding her is represented by traces of mixed DNA, hers and the victim’s, in the "small bathroom", an eloquent confirmation that she had come into contact with the latter’s blood, which she tried to wash off (it seems we are dealing with washed away blood, while the biological traces belonging to her are a result of epithelial rubbing).The data leads to strong suspicion, although not decisive, considering the well-known considerations regarding the certain nature and attribution of the traces in question."

1. "mixed DNA" does not mean the mixed traces were left at the same time. That is a scientific fact.

2. Scientifically unproven. Once again, mixed DNA does NOT mean the two DNAs were left at the same time.

3. The source of Amanda's DNA was not determined. Inferring it was "epithelial cells" is not founded on scientific evidence.

4. Marasca is acknowledging that there are problems with assigning the mixed DNA to Amanda washing her hands of Meredith's blood for reasons 1-3.

Forensic experts have pointed them out for the last 9 years.
 
Vixen said:
In her email home Amanda claims she was banging on Mez' door in a panic and Raff tried to break it down. But WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT?

It is completely irrelevant she claims she did all this when she went back with Raff.

She claims it was BEFORE POLICE ARRIVED AND BEFORE ANYBODY KNEW THERE WAS A BODY IN THE ROOM.

Why would Amanda and Raff claim to believe Mez' lay behind the door? As Massei said, he would assume no-one was home.

We know it took them twenty minutes because Filomena urged them to go back to the cottage. this was circa 12:11. However, the pair did not bother until some 20" later. They were there circa 12:35, because that is what time Battistelli and his assistant arrived and saw them sitting outside on the wall.
Click to expand...

Why would they do that? Well, let me think about that....

Because of the open front door, the blood in the bathroom, the feces in the toilet, the broken window in F's room and because she couldn't get a hold of Meredith who always had her phones with her? Go figure. Of course she was worried by then, but she had no reason to think Meredith was lying murdered in her room.

Amanda didn't claim "to believe Mez' lay behind the door". She was worried that she MAY be there. As she said in her testimony, "she could have been inside or not" and "maybe she's in there and she isn't well or
something."

Your timing is off.

"12:20:44 (lasting 65 seconds) Romanelli F. calls Amanda (at Sollecito's)"

This is the call where she urges AK to go back to the cottage. The call ends at 12:21:49.

"12:34:56 (48 seconds): Filomena calls Amanda (at the cottage)"

The location of the calls was verified by the cell towers.

That's not TWENTY minutes later, it's just under 13 minutes. It's a 5 minutes walk back to the cottage. If they left immediately after the call with Filomena, they arrived about 12:27.They are AT the cottage when Filomena calls at just before 12:35.

And Battistelli didn't arrive at 12:35. As EVERY court has accepted, he arrived after Raff's 112 call at 12:51:40.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
In her email home Amanda claims she was banging on Mez' door in a panic and Raff tried to break it down. But WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT?

It is completely irrelevant she claims she did all this when she went back with Raff.

She claims it was BEFORE POLICE ARRIVED AND BEFORE ANYBODY KNEW THERE WAS A BODY IN THE ROOM.

Why would Amanda and Raff claim to believe Mez' lay behind the door? As Massei said, he would assume no-one was home.

We know it took them twenty minutes because Filomena urged them to go back to the cottage. this was circa 12:11. However, the pair did not bother until some 20" later. They were there circa 12:35, because that is what time Battistelli and his assistant arrived and saw them sitting outside on the wall.
Click to expand...

Because house-mates have some concern for their fellows. Your lack of empathy is more that a little disturbing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom