The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

[Bill Williams]

Raffaele Sollecito is now suing all and sundry, the suit is in Genoa.....

He has now sued, according to the law on civil liability of the nine judges including pm, general prosecutors, investigating judge and judges of the Assize Court of Appeal asking for compensation, "for having misrepresented the facts." The process is in Genoa.

 

[Stacyhs]

Raffaele Sollecito is now suing all and sundry, the suit is in Genoa.....

Raffaele Sollecito is seeking €3 million (£2.5 million) in a lawsuit against prosecutors and jurors for his wrongful conviction for the 2007 murder of the British exchange student Meredith Kercher.

The former IT student was convicted, along with his American girlfriend Amanda Knox, of stabbing Ms Kercher to death in the flat that the two women shared in Perugia, but was ultimately acquitted by the Supreme Court in 2015.


Meredith Kercher was found stabbed to death in the apartment she shared with Amanda Knox in 2007
PA WIRE
Mr Sollecito, 33, is using a new law on the civil responsibility of magistrates to sue nine prosecutors and judges who were involved in his case and who he accuses of “ruining his life”.

Mr Sollecito is also seeking to sue 12 jurors who ruled on the murder case in Perugia and, on appeal, in Florence.…

(The Times UK)


The ruling by Marasca on the horrible investigation, that a conviction should never have occurred in the first place, etc could help him.

 

[toto]

from The Times:

Mr Sollecito is also seeking to sue 12 jurors who ruled on the murder case in Perugia and, on appeal, in Florence. Jurors can be sued only if their conduct is deemed to be gravely unfair or malicious and a judge in Genoa will rule today on whether the jurors can be included in Mr Sollecito’s suit.​

To be honest this seems rather a Hail Mary Pass.

 

[Bill Williams]

from The Times:

Mr Sollecito is also seeking to sue 12 jurors who ruled on the murder case in Perugia and, on appeal, in Florence. Jurors can be sued only if their conduct is deemed to be gravely unfair or malicious and a judge in Genoa will rule today on whether the jurors can be included in Mr Sollecito’s suit.​

To be honest this seems rather a Hail Mary Pass.

I agree, notwithstanding what Stacyhs said, that in essence, Marasca/Bruno said that the initial investigation was so bungled, that it would be impossible to either convict or totally acquit based on it.

 

[Stacyhs]

from The Times:

Mr Sollecito is also seeking to sue 12 jurors who ruled on the murder case in Perugia and, on appeal, in Florence. Jurors can be sued only if their conduct is deemed to be gravely unfair or malicious and a judge in Genoa will rule today on whether the jurors can be included in Mr Sollecito’s suit.​

To be honest this seems rather a Hail Mary Pass.

I agree, notwithstanding what Stacyhs said, that in essence, Marasca/Bruno said that the initial investigation was so bungled, that it would be impossible to either convict or totally acquit based on it.

I also agree. I think the jurors take their cues from the two judges. The one person I'd like to see Raff sue, and win, is Mignini.

 

[Vixen]

from The Times:

Mr Sollecito is also seeking to sue 12 jurors who ruled on the murder case in Perugia and, on appeal, in Florence. Jurors can be sued only if their conduct is deemed to be gravely unfair or malicious and a judge in Genoa will rule today on whether the jurors can be included in Mr Sollecito’s suit.​

To be honest this seems rather a Hail Mary Pass.

This is old news - it's the claim Raff lodged way back in February when his compensation application was dismissed. He's appointed a dodgy attorney with a -ahem- shall we say, colourful reputation - against some twelve assorted judges and PM's, including Mignini.

Firstly he'd have to prove it was a wrongful conviction, as the ISC never said he was innocent. Next he'd have to get Martuscelli overturned (compensation claim), then he'd have to explain all his lies. Bit of a **** wit to do all this, just before his next trial with Gumbel, coming up soon.

A normal person with a luckily commuted life sentence would just be happy at their good fortune and just get on with their life.

 

[Stacyhs]

This is old news - it's the claim Raff lodged way back in February when his compensation application was dismissed. He's appointed a dodgy attorney with a -ahem- shall we say, colourful reputation - against some twelve assorted judges and PM's, including Mignini.

Firstly he'd have to prove it was a wrongful conviction, as the ISC never said he was innocent. Next he'd have to get Martuscelli overturned (compensation claim), then he'd have to explain all his lies. Bit of a **** wit to do all this, just before his next trial with Gumbel, coming up soon.

A normal person with a luckily commuted life sentence would just be happy at their good fortune and just get on with their life.

I don't think this was filed in February as it was reported by ANSA just today.

Love the "normal person" spin.

I'd think a person who was really guilty but who literally got away with murder would want to slide into anonymity and get on with their life away from the limelight. An innocent person would be more likely to continue fighting the injustice despite the attention it brings.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't think this was filed in February as it was reported by ANSA just today.

Love the "normal person" spin.

I'd think a person who was really guilty but who literally got away with murder would want to slide into anonymity and get on with their life away from the limelight. An innocent person would be more likely to continue fighting the injustice despite the attention it brings.

Yes (though frankly I think one could make the argument in every way: one could conceive of how/why a factually innocent person might either a) keep fighting to prove an injustice or b) just want to slide away into anonymity; and by the same token, one could conceive of how/why a factually guilty person might either a) keep fighting to prove an injustice or b) just want to slide away into anonymity.

I think the point here is that it's thoroughly bogus and biassed to claim that

"A normal person with a luckily commuted life sentence would just be happy at their good fortune and just get on with their life."


And on related matters, where does one start with the several flavours of wrong within this series of words:

"...he'd have to prove it was a wrongful conviction, as the ISC never said he was innocent"

Almost as *ahem* wrong as claiming that a judicial fact established in a court process is an actual, immutable, irreversible, fact of truth

(On that last piece of wrong, the quickest and simplest way to show quite how wrong is to consider any number of cases where a man - "Mr A" - has been convicted for a sole-attacker rape and murder of "Ms X" (which necessarily entails the finding of the "judicial fact" that the man raped and murdered Ms X), then many years later DNA analysis reveals that the semen in/on Ms X actually belonged to a whole different man - "Mr B" - who was subsequently convicted of several other rape/murders, and who ultimately admitted to this particular rape/murder of Ms X. That "judicial fact" that Mr A raped and murdered Ms X doesn't look quite so immutable, irreversible and factually truthful now, does it.....?)

 

[LondonJohn]

I also agree. I think the jurors take their cues from the two judges. The one person I'd like to see Raff sue, and win, is Mignini.

It I were in Sollecito's shoes, I'd also take extremely strong issue with the way in which judicial rulings related solely to Knox's criminal slander trial process (rulings which were/are deeply flawed, but that's another matter....) were unlawfully and prejudicially imported into not only the final SC ruling on his murder acquittal (albeit on an "even if" basis in that instance), but also his compensation claim.

From Sollecito's point of view, the fault is particularly egregious. After all, in respect of the trial of his murder charges, the only way in which it ever cropped up that he might (hypothetically or otherwise) have been presence was not only via an imported ruling from Knox's criminal slander trial, but also on the absurd "inference" that if Knox had been there, it was likely that Sollecito would also have been there!

It's also of course worth pointing out that those Knox statements should never have been usable in any form whatsoever against her in the murder trial - and they never implicated Sollecito, so they should never have been used in any way whatsoever against him either. Simply put, none of the courts trying the Knox/Sollecito murder-related charges (up to and including the Marasca SC panel) should never have imported any element of the judgement related to Knox's criminal slander trial in respect of Knox herself, and in turn this would mean that none of the courts should have been able to draw adverse inferences about Sollecito either.

And the fault in respect of Sollecito's compensation claim is pretty much just as egregious. In that instance, the stance of the appeal court was effectively that since - as per the imported "fact" from Knox's criminal slander conviction - Knox was at the cottage at the time of the murder, this means that Sollecito must have been lying to the police at every point OTHER than during that infamous 5th/6th November interrogation (where he DID tell police that Knox had left his apartment for a significant period of time on the night of the murder) - in other words this gave the court reason to find that Sollecito had initially lied to police in his first interviews (in which he had said that Knox was with him in his apartment all evening/night of the murder), then he had told them (a version of) the truth in his 5th/6th Nov interrogation, then he'd gone back to lying to them through the trial process when he again said that Knox and he had been together in his apartment (though he of course could never be 100% certain of whether Knox might have somehow left his apartment when he was sleeping that night, although he rated this (obviously again) as extremely doubtful).


I suspect that if Sollecito were to lose his appeal in the compensation case and if he were to lose this other suit, he would also seek recourse in the ECHR. IMO, he'd have an extremely strong case in a number of related applications: 1) that he had not received a fair trial in the compensation hearing because that hearing had unlawfully used imported inferences from a wholly separate trial process involving a wholly separate individual (in which Sollecito himself had not been truly implicated at all - only through (unlawful) association); 2) that he had not received a fair trial on his murder charges in respect of the aspects of the final SC ruling which made certain inferences about his possible presence in the cottage at the time of the murder which were based on an imported ruling from a wholly separate trial process involving a totally different individual; 3) that he had been unlawfully coerced and bullied by police in the 5th/6th Nov interrogation into confusedly mistaking/conflating dates, resulting in him telling police that events which in fact (and, to a large degree, provably) took place the evening before the murder had taken place on the evening of the murder (and that, in that interrogation, as a clear suspect of having lied to police in his prior statements, he was denied proper access to legal representation and full provision of his rights as a suspect, since the police unlawfully decided not to classify him as an official suspect at that time).

 

[Bill Williams]

It I were in Sollecito's shoes, I'd also take extremely strong issue with the way in which judicial rulings related solely to Knox's criminal slander trial process (rulings which were/are deeply flawed, but that's another matter....) were unlawfully and prejudicially imported into not only the final SC ruling on his murder acquittal (albeit on an "even if" basis in that instance), but also his compensation claim.

From Sollecito's point of view, the fault is particularly egregious. After all, in respect of the trial of his murder charges, the only way in which it ever cropped up that he might (hypothetically or otherwise) have been presence was not only via an imported ruling from Knox's criminal slander trial, but also on the absurd "inference" that if Knox had been there, it was likely that Sollecito would also have been there!

Thus the separation strategy, following the 2014 Florence conviction. Many on both sides of the fence thought that Sollecito had thrown his co-accused under a bus, but when you actually read his appeal......

...... what he was saying was, "ok, you say 'x' about Knox, what does 'x' have to do with me?" A quick way to figure out that Knox had nothing to do with this was to remove Sollecito from consideration - an innocent Raffaele is her alibi.

The "confessions" have nothing to do with Raffaele. And if not - think about it - they have nothing to do with Knox either.

 

[TruthCalls]

This is old news - it's the claim Raff lodged way back in February when his compensation application was dismissed. He's appointed a dodgy attorney with a -ahem- shall we say, colourful reputation - against some twelve assorted judges and PM's, including Mignini.

Firstly he'd have to prove it was a wrongful conviction, as the ISC never said he was innocent. Next he'd have to get Martuscelli overturned (compensation claim), then he'd have to explain all his lies. Bit of a **** wit to do all this, just before his next trial with Gumbel, coming up soon.

A normal person with a luckily commuted life sentence would just be happy at their good fortune and just get on with their life.

You continue to struggle with the reality of the case. Marasca acquitted them and found there was no evidence of their involvement in the murder. If you've been acquitted then it was a wrongful conviction. If you didn't commit the crime then you are innocent of the crime.

As for your "commuted life sentence"... I'm just amazed you can pack so much 'wrong' into three words. The sentence, be it following Massei or Nencini, never was a life sentence. And the sentence wasn't commuted, which means a reduction from the original sentence, it was eliminated by way of the acquittal.

A normal person who was wrongly accused, wrongly convicted, spent four years in prison including six months of solitary, endured a massive financial hardship and who has had their reputations destroyed would tend to be very angry at those responsible.

 

[Vixen]

Yes (though frankly I think one could make the argument in every way: one could conceive of how/why a factually innocent person might either a) keep fighting to prove an injustice or b) just want to slide away into anonymity; and by the same token, one could conceive of how/why a factually guilty person might either a) keep fighting to prove an injustice or b) just want to slide away into anonymity.

I think the point here is that it's thoroughly bogus and biassed to claim that

"A normal person with a luckily commuted life sentence would just be happy at their good fortune and just get on with their life."


And on related matters, where does one start with the several flavours of wrong within this series of words:

"...he'd have to prove it was a wrongful conviction, as the ISC never said he was innocent"

Almost as *ahem* wrong as claiming that a judicial fact established in a court process is an actual, immutable, irreversible, fact of truth

(On that last piece of wrong, the quickest and simplest way to show quite how wrong is to consider any number of cases where a man - "Mr A" - has been convicted for a sole-attacker rape and murder of "Ms X" (which necessarily entails the finding of the "judicial fact" that the man raped and murdered Ms X), then many years later DNA analysis reveals that the semen in/on Ms X actually belonged to a whole different man - "Mr B" - who was subsequently convicted of several other rape/murders, and who ultimately admitted to this particular rape/murder of Ms X. That "judicial fact" that Mr A raped and murdered Ms X doesn't look quite so immutable, irreversible and factually truthful now, does it.....?)

That would be an exoneration, and as defined by Numbers in his Uni Minnesota? (Michigan?) legal definition that as well as being acquitted (as 'not guilty'), there must be a factual element, or part element of proven innocence.

Raff and Amanda do not have the latter part of this definition. They are not exonerated. Merely 'not guilty due to insufficient evidence' with Marasca plainly stating that if it were not for the 'flawed investigation' (their own perverse invention) their conviction would have remained certain.

Can you understand the difference between exonerated and 'not guilty', as this seems to be a blind spot for the PIP?

 

[Vixen]

I don't think this was filed in February as it was reported by ANSA just today.

Love the "normal person" spin.

I'd think a person who was really guilty but who literally got away with murder would want to slide into anonymity and get on with their life away from the limelight. An innocent person would be more likely to continue fighting the injustice despite the attention it brings.

I reported it way back in February - in fact I think it was Bill Williams who first mentioned it, tapping the side of his nose, as it were.

ETA It wasn't BiWi, it was me. I reported it here.

 

[Bill Williams]

I reported it way back in February - in fact I think it was Bill Williams who first mentioned it, tapping the side of his nose, as it were.

I don't know what that means.

 

[Vixen]

It I were in Sollecito's shoes, I'd also take extremely strong issue with the way in which judicial rulings related solely to Knox's criminal slander trial process (rulings which were/are deeply flawed, but that's another matter....) were unlawfully and prejudicially imported into not only the final SC ruling on his murder acquittal (albeit on an "even if" basis in that instance), but also his compensation claim.

From Sollecito's point of view, the fault is particularly egregious. After all, in respect of the trial of his murder charges, the only way in which it ever cropped up that he might (hypothetically or otherwise) have been presence was not only via an imported ruling from Knox's criminal slander trial, but also on the absurd "inference" that if Knox had been there, it was likely that Sollecito would also have been there!

It's also of course worth pointing out that those Knox statements should never have been usable in any form whatsoever against her in the murder trial - and they never implicated Sollecito, so they should never have been used in any way whatsoever against him either. Simply put, none of the courts trying the Knox/Sollecito murder-related charges (up to and including the Marasca SC panel) should never have imported any element of the judgement related to Knox's criminal slander trial in respect of Knox herself, and in turn this would mean that none of the courts should have been able to draw adverse inferences about Sollecito either.

And the fault in respect of Sollecito's compensation claim is pretty much just as egregious. In that instance, the stance of the appeal court was effectively that since - as per the imported "fact" from Knox's criminal slander conviction - Knox was at the cottage at the time of the murder, this means that Sollecito must have been lying to the police at every point OTHER than during that infamous 5th/6th November interrogation (where he DID tell police that Knox had left his apartment for a significant period of time on the night of the murder) - in other words this gave the court reason to find that Sollecito had initially lied to police in his first interviews (in which he had said that Knox was with him in his apartment all evening/night of the murder), then he had told them (a version of) the truth in his 5th/6th Nov interrogation, then he'd gone back to lying to them through the trial process when he again said that Knox and he had been together in his apartment (though he of course could never be 100% certain of whether Knox might have somehow left his apartment when he was sleeping that night, although he rated this (obviously again) as extremely doubtful).


I suspect that if Sollecito were to lose his appeal in the compensation case and if he were to lose this other suit, he would also seek recourse in the ECHR. IMO, he'd have an extremely strong case in a number of related applications: 1) that he had not received a fair trial in the compensation hearing because that hearing had unlawfully used imported inferences from a wholly separate trial process involving a wholly separate individual (in which Sollecito himself had not been truly implicated at all - only through (unlawful) association); 2) that he had not received a fair trial on his murder charges in respect of the aspects of the final SC ruling which made certain inferences about his possible presence in the cottage at the time of the murder which were based on an imported ruling from a wholly separate trial process involving a totally different individual; 3) that he had been unlawfully coerced and bullied by police in the 5th/6th Nov interrogation into confusedly mistaking/conflating dates, resulting in him telling police that events which in fact (and, to a large degree, provably) took place the evening before the murder had taken place on the evening of the murder (and that, in that interrogation, as a clear suspect of having lied to police in his prior statements, he was denied proper access to legal representation and full provision of his rights as a suspect, since the police unlawfully decided not to classify him as an official suspect at that time).

Shouldn't have asked Papa Raff and Popovitch to vouch for him then, as the Florence dismissal of his compo claim is predicated on the assumption they are telling the truth, therefore Raff must be lying. for example, Papa Raff said the broken pipes and evening meal happened prior to 20:42 - the last time they spoke - making Amanda a liar when she said both happened at circa 23:00.

 

[Stacyhs]

I reported it way back in February - in fact I think it was Bill Williams who first mentioned it, tapping the side of his nose, as it were.

ETA It wasn't BiWi, it was me. I reported it here.

No, you did not. Your link takes us to this:

Originally Posted by Methos

Well, and my post was about your claim that "rumor has it", that Bongioeno and Sollecito had parted ways, so I'm still not getting how your snarky remark should/could be an answer to that post, please explain.

She's lodged an appeal, but his complaint against twelve judges in Genoa is with alleged ex-mafia gangster Brizolli (_sp?) is the latest rumour.

This has nothing to do with any "Genoa judges" or "alleged ex-mafia gangster Brizolli".

 

[Stacyhs]

Shouldn't have asked Papa Raff and Popovitch to vouch for him then, as the Florence dismissal of his compo claim is predicated on the assumption they are telling the truth, therefore Raff must be lying. for example, Papa Raff said the broken pipes and evening meal happened prior to 20:42 - the last time they spoke - making Amanda a liar when she said both happened at circa 23:00.

Exactly how did Popovitch's testimony counter what Raff said?

No, Amanda said she could not verify the time they ate as she was not looking at the clock. She guessed at the time:

We had eaten dinner together, we had talked together, and during that time I hadn't left his apartment. But they were insisting upon putting everything into hourly segments, and since I never look at the clock, I wasn't able to tell them what time exactly I did everything.

AK:Um, around, um, we ate around 9:30 or 10, and then after we had eaten and he was washing the dishes, well, as I said, I don't look at the clock much, but it was around 10. And...he...umm...well, he was washing the dishes and, umm, the water was coming out and he was very "bummed" [English], displeased, he told me he had just had that thing repaired. He was annoyed that it had broken again. So, umm...

So, the phone call happened at 8:42 and she said she thought they ate around 9:30 or 10:00. Big deal. She wasn't paying attention to the time. Nowhere did she say it was as "23:00" as you claim.

One would think that, with all the time they had to come up with an alibi story, that they'd have made sure it was solid. I guess they are so ingenious that they can completely remove all evidence of themselves from Meredith's bedroom but they can't get a simple story straight. Riiiiiiiiight.

 

[Vixen]

No, you did not. Your link takes us to this:

Originally Posted by Methos





This has nothing to do with any "Genoa judges" or "alleged ex-mafia gangster Brizolli".

I said 14 February 2017

Quote:
She's lodged an appeal, but his complaint against twelve judges in Genoa is with alleged ex-mafia gangster Brizolli (_sp?) is the latest rumour.

This refers to Bongiorno not being a part of this, and Raff's new 'attorney' is Brizolli (_sp?).

It is now in the TIMES and the Italian papers. What is it you are not understanding, when I informed you 'It is old news'?

Kimo sabi?

 

[Lince]

That would be an exoneration, and as defined by Numbers in his Uni Minnesota? (Michigan?) legal definition that as well as being acquitted (as 'not guilty'), there must be a factual element, or part element of proven innocence.

Raff and Amanda do not have the latter part of this definition. They are not exonerated. Merely 'not guilty due to insufficient evidence' with Marasca plainly stating that if it were not for the 'flawed investigation' (their own perverse invention) their conviction would have remained certain.

Can you understand the difference between exonerated and 'not guilty', as this seems to be a blind spot for the PIP?

It is easy. There is none. And you do not have to legally prove your innocence in civilised countries. Any acquittal means that you simply retain your innocent status.

By the way, your (invented?) definition is woefully inadequate. How big this part factual element of innocence is supposed to be? One spoonful? Two? A quite substantial fact that there is no physical traces of Amanda in the room where the violent crime was committed is not big enough? I guess Amanda was just levitating or possessing the Guede's body while killing Meredith. Happens all the time.

 

[whoanellie]

Kimo sabi?

Vixen,
kemosabe does not mean what you seem to think it means. I know you are reluctant to do so but I suggest you look it up on Google.

Capiche?