The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

[Bill Williams]

The Florence judgement was annulled.

It has not been annulled.

How does that explain the fact that Marasca-Bruno's Section of The Supreme Court of Italy annulled the Nencini conviction? Why do you say things like this, when it is clear that they did, they wrote that they did, subsequent courts have said that that was what they did?

But Vixen says they did not. Who am I to believe?

3. With these preliminary considerations, the central theme of the current judgment can be tackled, forming the leitmotiv [underpinning reasoning] of the objections of the appellants, concerning the rulings rejecting the non-compliance by the referral Judge, of the dictum [report] of the verdict annulled by this court, underlining the criteria of the principle of law that affirms it.​

The assessment requested of this Court is – only in appearance – easy, given that the ratio decidendi [rationale for the decision] of the verdict of annulment lies in the realization of the obvious lack of logic of the reasoning of the challenged judgment;​

9. The ascertained errores in iudicando [errors in judgment] and the logical inconsistencies pointed out invalidate the appealed verdict from the funditus [foundations], hence it deserves to be annulled.​

The aforementioned reasons for annulling can be summarised in the inability to present an evidentiary framework that can really be considered suitable to support a pronouncement of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt​

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.​

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​

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 criminal intent as per Article, 61 n. 2 of the Italian Penal Code.​

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​

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.​

Other than these references, Vixen, it looks like you are quite correct, they did not annul any of what Nencini found.

 

[Stacyhs]

Covfefe?

Yo covfefo, tú covfefes, Ud. covfefe, él covfefe, nosotros covfefemos....

 

[bagels]

To be fair, Vixen is talking about the most recent Florence verdict, denying Raff's compensation money, which for now still stands.

 

[Stacyhs]

To be fair, Vixen is talking about the most recent Florence verdict, denying Raff's compensation money, which for now still stands.

Yes, bagels, you are right. I stand corrected. I thought she meant Nencini. I should have known better. Claiming Nencini wasn't annulled is too far a stretch even for Vixen. I've just become used to her outrageous claims.

When I went back to see exactly what she was referring to, I saw this:

the fact that Knox
was in the house 7 Via della Pergola at the time when young Meredith Kercher was killed
constitutes a fact of absolute and indisputable certainty; it is evident that the statements
made by Sollecito that she was with him all evening on 1 November 2007 are false, and
that one cannot believe his statements that he couldn't remember what he and Knox were
doing from the evening of 1 November 2007 until the following morning.' - Florence judgment.

I assume that the Florence court was referring to the calunnia verdict (Knox's saying she was in the kitchen) to determine that Knox was in the house when Kercher was killed. We know that Marasca/Bruno does not necessarily agree that this is a fact. I wonder what will happen if Amanda gets a new calunnia trial and is acquitted which would negate the Florence court's finding that she was in the cottage during Kercher's murder. That would help Raff's appeal. Of course, who know if that would happen in time to help Raff.

 

[acbytesla]

Covfefe?

The problem with not reviewing your work before you post. In the past it would be considered a mistake. Today, it is Presidential.

 

[Bill Williams]

To be fair, Vixen is talking about the most recent Florence verdict, denying Raff's compensation money, which for now still stands.

My bad.

Chalk up a clanger of my own.

 

[bagels]

Claiming Nencini wasn't annulled is too far a stretch even for Vixen.

Well she does say that annulment doesn't really count because a court of merit is its own confirmation, and an appeal court really can't say what a judge and jury that sat through the evidence decided.

Of course, Hellmann was a court of merit and acquitted, so Vixen had to offer a further addendum, which is only the first level trial really counts, since that is where facts are truly decided.

In a way, it's actually progress, because it seems to be veering away from the mass conspiracy that the upper courts were bent mafia verdicts. Now they seem to be earnest but merely uninformed. That's progress of sorts!

 

[Stacyhs]

Well she does say that annulment doesn't really count because a court of merit is its own confirmation, and an appeal court really can't say what a judge and jury that sat through the evidence decided.

Of course, Hellmann was a court of merit and acquitted, so Vixen had to offer a further addendum, which is only the first level trial really counts, since that is where facts are truly decided.

In a way, it's actually progress, because it seems to be veering away from the mass conspiracy that the upper courts were bent mafia verdicts. Now they seem to be earnest but merely uninformed. That's progress of sorts!

Well, it doesn't really matter because Marasca/Bruno will be thrown out because they didn't have the authority to acquit.

 

[acbytesla]

Well, it doesn't really matter because Marasca/Bruno will be thrown out because they didn't have the authority to acquit.

I forgot about that. Yes, I wonder when that is going to happen I'm sure many members of the PGP insisted that Italy was so outraged over Marasca that their Parliament was going to take action.

 

[Vixen]

How does that explain the fact that Marasca-Bruno's Section of The Supreme Court of Italy annulled the Nencini conviction? Why do you say things like this, when it is clear that they did, they wrote that they did, subsequent courts have said that that was what they did?

But Vixen says they did not. Who am I to believe?

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Other than these references, Vixen, it looks like you are quite correct, they did not annul any of what Nencini found.

Florence Court of Favi, Martuscelli and Masi dated 10 February 2017 write|:

Many facts
connected with the complete reconstruction of the event, exclude that Guede could have
acted alone (Page 26 of the cited decision), and at the same time “as for the whereabouts of
Amanda Knox, whose presence in the dwelling, site of the murder, is clearly certain in the case,
consistent with her admissions, contained also in her hand-written account.” (Page 45 of the
decision). In regard to Sollecito “The picture of the evidence which emerges from the
impugned judgment is marked by intrinsic unresolved contradictions...


It remains,
nonetheless, a strong suspicion that he was actually present in the house at Via della
Pergola on the night of the murder, but at a time, however, that cannot be determined.

On the other hand, given the certainty of the presence of Knox in that house, it is hardly credible that he was not with her.” (Page 49 of the decision) If therefore the fact that Knox was in the house 7 Via della Pergola at the time when young Meredith Kercher was killed constitutes a fact of absolute and indisputable certainty; it is evident that the statements
made by Sollecito that she was with him all evening on 1 November 2007 are false, and
that one cannot believe his statements that he couldn't remember what he and Knox were
doing from the evening of 1 November 2007 until the following morning.

But then you knew that all along.

 

[Vixen]

Thank goodness your mother didn't give you dog turd! (Stolen from John "Fawlty Towers" Cleese).

Sorry to hear about your experience.

 

[Bill Williams]

Florence Court of Favi, Martuscelli and Masi dated 10 February 2017 write|:




But then you knew that all along.

You didn't hilite, "but at a time, however, that cannot be determined.."

 

[Lince]

Florence Court of Favi, Martuscelli and Masi dated 10 February 2017 write|:

... If therefore the fact that Knox was in the house 7 Via della Pergola at the time when young Meredith Kercher was killed constitutes a fact of absolute and indisputable certainty ...

Quite an embarrassing statement (if it is indeed a statement, not an assumption. All these confusing "If"s). Considering all the arguments and disagreements about the exact murder time, I would not dare to say with absolute and indisputable certainty that Amanda Knox was in Perugia at that time Not the sharpest tools in the box, some of those Italian judges.

 

[Planigale]

Quite an embarrassing statement (if it is indeed a statement, not an assumption. All these confusing "If"s). Considering all the arguments and disagreements about the exact murder time, I would not dare to say with absolute and indisputable certainty that Amanda Knox was in Perugia at that time Not the sharpest tools in the box, some of those Italian judges.

The problem is this arises from Knox's callunia conviction, to be guilty of callunia Knox had to know Lumumba was not present which means she had to be present. Although her statements were ruled unusable as illegally obtained against herself, the Italian legal system does seem able to bring them up fairly freely. That the court of cassation in finding Knox and Sollecito not guilty of murder ruled that there was no evidence of their presence at the scene of the murder seems to be ignored, so it seems that Italian courts can choose their judicial facts. In addition even if one chooses to believe Knox's illegally obtained statements they do not report the presence of Sollecito (just Lumumba and Knox and the victim), so cannot be used to argue for Sollecito's presence. The court here seems to have reached a conclusion with no evidence and one concluded as false by the court of cassation.

 

[Bill Williams]

Quite an embarrassing statement (if it is indeed a statement, not an assumption. All these confusing "If"s). Considering all the arguments and disagreements about the exact murder time, I would not dare to say with absolute and indisputable certainty that Amanda Knox was in Perugia at that time Not the sharpest tools in the box, some of those Italian judges.

One of Raffaele's appeal points to the Marasca court, was as Marasca summarized in the Sept 2015 motivation report. It regarded Judge Nencini's determination that fixing a time of death was not important:

3) Another motivational flaw is suggested by reference to the finding that determining the exact time of Meredith Kercher's death (which, according to the defence, should have been placed between 21.00 and 22.00 hours, 22.15 the latest) would be irrelevant, particularly with reference to the examination of Kercher's telephone records.

4) The same flaw is noted regarding the alleged irreconcilability of Curatolo's testimony to the time of the scream and the asserted irrelevance of the precise time of death of the young British woman.​

By allowing a wide range for the time of death, allowed Nencini to pick and choose which piece of evidence would fit in - Curatolo's or Quintavalle's, etc.

Of this the Marasca-Bruno court eventually observed:

The Sollecito defence is right to object in pointing out the need for investigation of this point and all its implications, especially in a circumstantial case like this one. Not only that, but the exact determination of Kercher’s time of death is an unavoidable factual prerequisite for the verification of the defendant’s alibi, in the form of an inquiry aimed at ascertaining the possibility of his alleged presence in the house on via della Pergola at the time of the murder. It is for this reason that an appropriate expert review was requested.​

In summary, no one claims that Solletico and Knox were not at the crime scene; it is only a matter of when - as they both freely admit that after 10:30 am on Nov 2 they were at the cottage, raising the alarm.

So it was a mjor element which necessitated the Supreme Court annuling Nencini's conviction, that Nencini was not particularly interested in nailing down time of death. By not nailing it down, one could therefore fit in all the other extraneous stuff....

Which brings us back to the one thing Mignini himself took responsibility for, namely not allowing body temperature to be taken as soon as possible. That omission allowed for the situation where T.O.D. remained open - although, stomach contents analysis gives a clue that T.O.D. could not have been much past 10 pm on Nov 1.

But two things are true - Mignini himself prevented the most accurate method of determining this, and Nencini himself said it was irrelevant.

Thus - acquittal.

 

[acbytesla]

Well, it doesn't really matter because Marasca/Bruno will be thrown out because they didn't have the authority to acquit.

It is so nice to see this thread wilting. Even Vixen seems to have grown tired. The number of posts has trickled to just a few a day. Eventually they will disappear entirely. May everyone find peace.

 

[Bill Williams]

It is so nice to see this thread wilting. Even Vixen seems to have grown tired. The number of posts has trickled to just a few a day. Eventually they will disappear entirely. May everyone find peace.

I'll have to get a real job.

BTW - I agree with everything Knox wrote about mandatory participation in A.A. in American prisons. It seems some American courts or prison wardens have not read the related Supreme Court decision that making it compulsory violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

 

[Stacyhs]

It is so nice to see this thread wilting. Even Vixen seems to have grown tired. The number of posts has trickled to just a few a day. Eventually they will disappear entirely. May everyone find peace.

Wait until the ECHR decision comes down.

 

[acbytesla]

Wait until the ECHR decision comes down.

Will it happen in my lifetime?

 

[Numbers]

Will it happen in my lifetime?

Patience is required.

I searched the ECHR statistics page for any available statistical information on the average time ECHR requires to reach a judgment after the Communication of a case. I haven't found that information yet.

However, here is some other statistical information that may be of interest:

"Judgments by State in 2016

In 2016, almost half the judgments concerned 4 of the 47 member States, namely the Russian Federation (228), Turkey (88), Romania (86) and Ukraine (73). Nearly a quarter of all the judgments delivered by the Court concerned the Russian Federation.

Of the total number of judgments delivered in 2016, the Court has found at least one violation of the Convention by the respondent State in 83% of the cases.

Since the Court was established in 1959, more than a quarter of the judgments delivered by it have concerned 2 member States: Turkey (3,270) and Italy (2,351)."

Source: http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=reports&c=
Link: PDF "Facts and figures 2016"