The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

[Stacyhs]

A court of law is entitled to accept or dismiss a witness' testimony. It accepted Quintavalle's after extensive cross examination by several counsel.

It is fair. It is the court's prerogative. It is the court's job.

Two courts found Quintavalle's testimony unreliable; Hellmann and Marasca/Bruno. The latter concluded that:

Elements of strong suspicion are connected to the inconsistencies and falsehoods made by the accused in the various statements she made, especially in the part where her story was contradicted by telephone records which proved a different SMS source; in the witness statements of Antonio Curatolo, regarding the presence of Knox in Piazza Grimana, in the company of Sollecito, and of Mario Quintavalle], regarding her presence in the supermarket on the morning following the murder, perhaps to buy cleaning products. Nevertheless, the presence of intrinsic contradiction and poor reliability of the witnesses, on several occasions objected to during the trial, do not allow unreserved credit to be attributed to their respective versions, to the extent of proving with reasonable certainty, the failure, and therefore the falsity, of the accused’s alibi, who insisted that she stayed in her boyfriend’s home from late afternoon on 01-Nov until the following morning.

Quintavalle - apart from the lateness of his statements, initially reticent and generic - offered no contribution to certainty, not even regarding the product bought by the young woman he noted on the morning after the murder, when his shop opened, the fact he recognised Knox is worthless as her image had appeared in every newspaper and television news broadcast.

 

[Stacyhs]

I don't deal in hypothethical situations.

Hmmmm...one would suspect you just don't want to answer the question.

 

[Vixen]

BREAKING: No compensation for Raff.

Rome, June 28th. - No compensation for wrongful imprisonment to Raffaele Sollecito. This was decided by the fourth of the Supreme Court Criminal Division, rejecting the action by which the defenders of the young man asked to reassess the compensation request - amounting to EUR 516 thousand - already rejected by the Court of Appeal of Florence last February. Sollecito has spent nearly four years in prison on charges against him was that of voluntary competition in the murder of British student Meredith Kercher, in Perugia killed in the night between the first and 2 November 2007. In 2015, however, Supreme Court ended the trial by saying definitively the acquittal of Sollecito and Amanda Knox, the American girl to the young man at the time had a romantic relationship. The Florence judges had rejected the claim by highlighting the fact that Sollecito, in the early stages of the investigation would in conduct "malicious" and "grossly misleading". To know the reasons behind the decision today by the Supreme Court will have to wait about a month. For the crime of Perugia the only convicted of complicity in murder is Rudy Guede, the young Ivorian origins, judged expedited, is serving in the Viterbo prison sentenced to 16 years in prison.

 

[Bill Williams]

BREAKING: No compensation for Raff.

Thanks for the notice, Vixen. The Italians sure know how to make outrageous judgments.

Then again, the piece you quoted reaffirms the definitive acquittals in 2015.

The Masons must have been asleep through the compensation process!

 

[Stacyhs]

Thanks for the notice, Vixen. The Italians sure know how to make outrageous judgments.

Then again, the piece you quoted reaffirms the definitive acquittals in 2015.

The Masons must have been asleep through the compensation process!

"Malicious" and "grossly misleading"? LOL! That's a laugh. But then again, I really never expected Raffaele to get any compensation. It would make too much sense.

The original Italian text:

I giudici di Firenze avevano respinto la domanda di risarcimento mettendo in evidenza il fatto che Sollecito, nelle prime fasi dell'inchiesta avrebbe tenuto una condotta "dolosa" e "gravemente menzognera".

None of the internet translations I've used translated "dolosa" as "malicious" but as "deliberately", "fraudulently", "intentional", or "willful".

What was "malicious"/"willful" and "grossly misleading" was the conduct of the police and prosecution. But are they held to account? Nope. The police get medals and Mignini gets a promotion.

It looks like Raffaele is taking this to the ECHR. From La Stampa:

"This of course does not affect the acquittal of Raffaele and I can say that there's more, I intend to move forward at the European level because it would seem to me the recognition of injustice detention, it would seem the appropriate ending," concludes Bongiorno.

 

[Vixen]

"Malicious" and "grossly misleading"? LOL! That's a laugh. But then again, I really never expected Raffaele to get any compensation. It would make too much sense.

The original Italian text:



None of the internet translations I've used translated "dolosa" as "malicious" but as "deliberately", "fraudulently", "intentional", or "willful".

What was "malicious"/"willful" and "grossly misleading" was the conduct of the police and prosecution. But are they held to account? Nope. The police get medals and Mignini gets a promotion.

It looks like Raffaele is taking this to the ECHR. From La Stampa:

ECHR will be a waste of time as Italian Penal Code clearly states you can claim compensation for wrongful imprisonment and spells out an opt-out clause: but not if you commit gross misconduct.

It is a proven fact Raff lied and lied and lied.

ECHR can't overturn the decision. If it decides Raffs 'human rights' were breached, at best, they can award compensation payable by Italy.

This is rarely more than two or three grand.

BTW it was a google translation, so take it up with them.

 

[Stacyhs]

ECHR will be a waste of time as Italian Penal Code clearly states you can claim compensation for wrongful imprisonment and spells out an opt-out clause: but not if you commit gross misconduct.

It is a proven fact Raff lied and lied and lied.

ECHR can't overturn the decision. If it decides Raffs 'human rights' were breached, at best, they can award compensation payable by Italy.

This is rarely more than two or three grand.

BTW it was a google translation, so take it up with them.

No, it's not a "proven fact that Raff lied and lied and lied". He gave wrong information due to confusion during a coercive interrogation without a lawyer.


No one said they can "overturn the decision". But compensation payable by Italy is what Raff is due. It can come from an Italian court decision or the ECHR.

Cite your source for your claim that this is rarely more than two or three grand.

I don't need to take anything up with google. I used Google Translate for one of the translations and it did not translate it to "malicious". Not a single translation provided "malicious". How about you give a link to the google translation you used and then I might believe it's a "google translation".
If not, onto the "factoids pulled from the nether regions" pile it goes.

 

[Vixen]

No, it's not a "proven fact that Raff lied and lied and lied". He gave wrong information due to confusion during a coercive interrogation without a lawyer.


No one said they can "overturn the decision". But compensation payable by Italy is what Raff is due. It can come from an Italian court decision or the ECHR.

Cite your source for your claim that this is rarely more than two or three grand.

I don't need to take anything up with google. I used Google Translate for one of the translations and it did not translate it to "malicious". Not a single translation provided "malicious". How about you give a link to the google translation you used and then I might believe it's a "google translation".
If not, onto the "factoids pulled from the nether regions" pile it goes.

Click on the link I gave you and then click translation. It is a straightforward copy and paste.

It is a final legal fact that all the condemnations of the couple set out by the Florence Appeal Court stands.

Sollecito's conduct as described, clearly falls into the category of wilful misconduct, or at the least gravely negligent and imprudent, because [he] knowingly and voluntarily [made] his early contradictory or false statements and subsequently never clarified them, all [of which is] considered to have contributed to the issuance and continuance of the custody measures, and must be considered barriers to the recognition of the right to compensation.

Also, in light of the most recent judgments, according to which “On the subject of compensation for unjust detention, the behaviour of the suspect who, in the course of an interrogation, avails himself of the right to remain silent, while this is his right, it can assume relevance for ascertaining the existence of barriers such as wilful misconduct or gross negligence, only if the subject has not reported circumstances, unknown to investigators, useful to attribute a different meaning to facts forming the basis of detention”. (Cass. n. 25252 of 20 May 2016).

And, “Concerning damages for unjust detention, lying declarations made under interrogation of the subject undergoing cautionary custody can be considered relevant when ascertaining the existence of the barriers of wilful misconduct or gross negligence only when the subject has not mentioned circumstances, unknown to the investigators, which if they had been known of earlier would have avoided making an order of custody” (Cass. n. 46423 of 23 October 2015).

It does appear clear, in the light of the judicial truth established in the acquittal ruling concerning the indisputable presence of Knox in 7 Via della Pergola at the time of the murder, that if Sollecito had immediately said, without later changing his story, that the young woman had been far away from him during that time, and if he had told in a precise way the time at which she had arrived at his house and also her condition [11 ->] at that time – presumably upset or even extremely distraught, his legal situation would certainly have been different.

It seems probable that he would not have even become a suspect, or even so, not seen as withholding information or lying in his statements. If he did become a suspect, the need for preventive custody would have been absent or much less important, inducing the judges to apply, at the worst, a less restrictive custody order."

- Martuscelli, Masi, Favi, Florence Court 10 Feb 2017. [Extract]

His appeal was based on Rudy's shoeprint being mistakan for his, yet that was not the point of law the Florence verdict turned.

You cannot escape the fact Amanda & Raff lied and lied and lied, and are still lying.

It is a proven fact.

It is also a legal fact in perpetuity that Amanda Knox was present at the scene of the crime when Mez was murdered.

Florence court called her stories 'implausible'.

 

[Stacyhs]

On a side note, TJMK is chastising the Kentucky State Bar Association for saying that Amanda was definitively acquitted in the Kercher murder. TJMK is denying this:

"Dear Kentucky Lawyers:

Amanda Knox is scheduled to address your conference late in the afternoon Friday. She is guaranteed to mislead you.

If your Association’s due diligence process had examined the mountain of hard facts, it is doubtful Knox would ever have been invited. Your online notice of today’s talk by Knox at your conference itself suggests a lack of due diligence. It wrongly reads as follows

On Friday 23 June the programming will be packed with fun and interesting sessions.. Topping off Friday’s schedule will be the featured presentation; AMANDA KNOX will share her story. She is the American exchange student who spent almost four years in an Italian prison, following her conviction for the 2007 murder of Meredith Kercher, a fellow exchange student who shared her apartment. In 2015, Knox was definitively acquitted.

No she wasn’t."

TMB negative doesn't mean there is no blood and Knox wasn't "definitively acquitted". Only on TJMK...

 

[Stacyhs]

Click on the link I gave you and then click translation. It is a straightforward copy and paste.

It is a final legal fact that all the condemnations of the couple set out by the Florence Appeal Court stands.

- Martuscelli, Masi, Favi, Florence Court 10 Feb 2017. [Extract]

His appeal was based on Rudy's shoeprint being mistakan for his, yet that was not the point of law the Florence verdict turned.

You cannot escape the fact Amanda & Raff lied and lied and lied, and are still lying.

It is a proven fact.

It is also a legal fact in perpetuity that Amanda Knox was present at the scene of the crime when Mez was murdered.

Florence court called her stories 'implausible'.

I did exactly what you suggested and this is what it returned:

fact that Soliciting, in the early stages of the investigation, would have held a "gentle" and "severely deceitful" conduct. The Florence judges had dismissed the claim for compensation by highlighting the

Google translated it as "gentle", not "malicious".

No, it is not a "proven fact" that either of them "lied and lied and lied".

It is only a "judicial fact" that Amanda was present at the time of the murder due to the calunnia conviction and that is based only on her coerced "confession" that she heard Meredith scream. And that was coerced during an interrogation in which she illegally had no lawyer present. We'll see what the ECHR has to say about that.

I don't care what the Florence court said. It was overturned. All that matters is what the Supreme Court said. And they said she is definitively acquitted.

Apparently you missed this: Cite your source for your claim that this is rarely more than two or three grand.

 

[Vixen]

I did exactly what you suggested and this is what it returned:



Google translated it as "gentle", not "malicious".

No, it is not a "proven fact" that either of them "lied and lied and lied".

It is only a "judicial fact" that Amanda was present at the time of the murder due to the calunnia conviction and that is based only on her coerced "confession" that she heard Meredith scream. And that was coerced during an interrogation in which she illegally had no lawyer present. We'll see what the ECHR has to say about that.

I don't care what the Florence court said. It was overturned. All that matters is what the Supreme Court said. And they said she is definitively acquitted.

Apparently you missed this: Cite your source for your claim that this is rarely more than two or three grand.

The translation is:

The Florence judges had rejected the claim by highlighting the fact that Sollecito, in the early stages of the investigation would in conduct "malicious" and "grossly misleading".

Write to them and offer to contribute a better translation.

We have discussed ECHR compo before, so please do a search.

 

[Stacyhs]

The translation is:


Write to them and offer to contribute a better translation.

We have discussed ECHR compo before, so please do a search.

This is not how it was translated following your instructions. Nor did any of the several translation webpages I used.

No, I don't need to do a search. I'm not the one making the claim. You are.

 

[Vixen]

This is not how it was translated following your instructions. Nor did any of the several translation webpages I used.

No, I don't need to do a search. I'm not the one making the claim. You are.

I don't believe you. 'gentle' is obviously not a correct translation.

Why do you want to know? You're not really interested. If you were you would remember previous discussions about this.

 

[Stacyhs]

I don't believe you. 'gentle' is obviously not a correct translation.

Why do you want to know? You're not really interested. If you were you would remember previous discussions about this.

So... what? I'm lying? Here's a snip of it:



Why do I want to know? Because you have a history of making claims and, when asked for a citation, failing to provide it.

Once again, I'm not making the claim. You are. It's not my job to "remember" what may, or may not, have been discussed previously. It's your job to provide evidence of your claim.

 

[Vixen]

So... what? I'm lying? Here's a snip of it:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_71669595455b1d4e13.png[/qimg]

Why do I want to know? Because you have a history of making claims and, when asked for a citation, failing to provide it.

Once again, I'm not making the claim. You are. It's not my job to "remember" what may, or may not, have been discussed previously. It's your job to provide evidence of your claim.

Not sure what kind of programme you have there. Mine is clearly superior to yours. Note the box in the top right hand corner - proves it was auto-translated from the article by Google.

I will not be doing a search for you, so if you are really interested in ECHR awards, you have the resources to look it up for yourself, instead of playing at being an interrogator.

 

[Stacyhs]

Not sure what kind of programme you have there. Mine is clearly superior to yours. Note the box in the top right hand corner - proves it was auto-translated from the article by Google.

I will not be doing a search for you, so if you are really interested in ECHR awards, you have the resources to look it up for yourself, instead of playing at being an interrogator.

Ah, yes...it must clearly be superior to mine! LOL! If you note, I did not claim "dolosa" meant "gently". I was following your instructions on translating it and that is how it translated it. I said my searches had returned, not "malicious", but "deliberately", "fraudulently", "intentional", or "willful".


SDL Translation: intentional

Reverso Dictionary: deliberately, wilfully

Systran: fraudulent

Linguatec: fraudulent

Now, here is where you and I differ: Bing did translate it as "malicious". I can willingly offer that information. But, let me ask you this; if the court did actually mean "malicious" exactly what was "malicious" about what Raff said?

And no, I won't be spending my time providing a citation for your claim. You resort to that tactic far too often. Not once have I ever told you to go search for evidence of one of my claims. I know better than to pull that. I provide evidence and citations for my claims. I don't expect other people to do it for me.

 

[TruthCalls]

Ah, yes...it must clearly be superior to mine! LOL! If you note, I did not claim "dolosa" meant "gently". I was following your instructions on translating it and that is how it translated it. I said my searches had returned, not "malicious", but "deliberately", "fraudulently", "intentional", or "willful".


SDL Translation: intentional

Reverso Dictionary: deliberately, wilfully

Systran: fraudulent

Linguatec: fraudulent

Now, here is where you and I differ: Bing did translate it as "malicious". I can willingly offer that information. But, let me ask you this; if the court did actually mean "malicious" exactly what was "malicious" about what Raff said?

And no, I won't be spending my time providing a citation for your claim. You resort to that tactic far too often. Not once have I ever told you to go search for evidence of one of my claims. I know better than to pull that. I provide evidence and citations for my claims. I don't expect other people to do it for me.

For what it's worth... translate.google.com returned "gentle"; chrome translate returned "malicious". Neither makes sense. Such are translation engines.

I guess Vixen has nothing to say about Tramontano vs Quintavalle. Not surprised.

 

[Bill Williams]

For what it's worth... translate.google.com returned "gentle"; chrome translate returned "malicious". Neither makes sense. Such are translation engines.

I guess Vixen has nothing to say about Tramontano vs Quintavalle. Not surprised.

Every time Vixen claims something as a judicial fact, I interpret that as Vixen not having any evidence.

Esp. when "facts" are derived by interpreting words out of existence, like "hypothesize".

There it sits. Raffaele continues to be victimized by Italy's courts.

 

[Vixen]

Every time Vixen claims something as a judicial fact, I interpret that as Vixen not having any evidence.

Esp. when "facts" are derived by interpreting words out of existence, like "hypothesize".

There it sits. Raffaele continues to be victimized by Italy's courts.

Nah. He's a classic con man. The grifter got €66K for his start up business, which he now claims is not viable.

He drives a big red Ferrari sports car. Hasn't done a day's work in his life. Lives a life of leisure in Parma. Claims he can't find a job because of the 'persecution', when Italy is in an economic crisis with high unemployment especially amongst its youth and two major banks having to be bailed out by the government to stave off a run on them.

Raff has lived a life of privilege, getting a handsome government grant for his business which others would love. He's leeched off his family, relied on mafia connections to holiday in Dominican Republic at a moment's notice.

Massive advance on his two books. Fooled BBC's Victoria Derbyshire into shedding tears of sympathy on his plight earlier this year.

All the time, a smirk dances around his mouth.

He really tries it on, doesn't he.

 

[Bill Williams]

Nah. He's a classic con man. The grifter got €66K for his start up business, which he now claims is not viable.

He drives a big red Ferrari sports car. Hasn't done a day's work in his life. Lives a life of leisure in Parma. Claims he can't find a job because of the 'persecution', when Italy is in an economic crisis with high unemployment especially amongst its youth and two major banks having to be bailed out by the government to stave off a run on them.

Raff has lived a life of privilege, getting a handsome government grant for his business which others would love. He's leeched off his family, relied on mafia connections to holiday in Dominican Republic at a moment's notice.

Massive advance on his two books. Fooled BBC's Victoria Derbyshire into shedding tears of sympathy on his plight earlier this year.

All the time, a smirk dances around his mouth.

He really tries it on, doesn't he.

Wow. You really don't like Raffaele!