The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

[Machiavelli]

This is what is so contradictory and illogical about the court's reasoning. Sollecito is definitively acquitted of the murder yet any statements he made under interrogation that proved to be incorrect are attributed to his malicious intent to obstruct the investigation of that murder. He would only need to do that if he were guilty. Which the Supreme Court says there is no evidence of.

There is no evidence that Sollecito was deliberately lying to the police, and not just confused, during his interrogation. In fact, I'd say his giving a description of Knox's actions on the night before the murder is evidence of confusion and not lying.

It has always amazed me that the Italian courts refuse to believe that what Knox and Sollecito said during their unrecorded and lawyer absent interrogations could possibly have been coerced. Any mistake or confusion just had to be a deliberate lie.

Actually it is not only about unrecorded statements - there are also several written and recorded statements - and it's just that the court found that their statements are not "mistakes" but a series of deliberate lies.
I think there is proof beyond reasonale doubt of that.
In fact, I assume only blinded believers could fail to see manifest evidence of fraud and malice in Knox's & Sollecito's statements.

 

[Stacyhs]

The point is that when you write "acquittal" you purposely end the statement there, but forget that there are some clauses, and this is a cherry picking.
One preliminary thing you forget to say is that the verdict is anomalous since SC does not have a power to acquit, but only annull, and this is something that has no be remembered (because it implies that the SC did not look at the evidence).
The biggest things you forget to say, anyway, is that the formula is subjected to art. 530.2 - which is normally called reasonable doubt - and also, that the same court stated that that it is a proven fact that Meredith was killed by multiple persons, that it is a proven fact Knox was at the scene of crime when Meredith was killed, that they said they even agree with the courts of merits that Knox heared Meredith's scream (and that she was able to somehow know in advance that there was a sexual assault, before the police could know), and also wrote that there is "eloquent proof" that Knox had contact with Meredith's blood and washed her hands of it. You try to sweep these things under the carpet. But they are here to stay.

No, it is not a proven fact that Meredith was killed by multiple persons as no evidence of any other person besides Meredith and Guede exists in the murder room. Guede left multiple forensic evidence of himself yet none exists for anyone else. The vast majority of experts who testified also said Meredith could have been killed be a single person.

It is not a proven fact that Knox was at the scene of the crime WHEN Meredith was killed. That is solely based, not on any evidence, but on her retracted statement she made during her unrecorded and lawyer absent interrogation.

No, Knox didn't know Meredith had been sexually assaulted before the police did. Like the police, and almost anyone else would have, she assumed Meredith had been assaulted due to the circumstances. Do you honestly think the police didn't assume there had been a sexual assault the minute they saw into that room?

As for the "eloquent proof" that Knox had contact with Kercher's blood, exactly what is that proof? None has ever been presented despite multiple requests. If you have it, please present it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Please note that I do not re-interpret any words of B/M: I report exactly what B/M say: what they says is that there is eloquent proof that Knox washed her hands of Meredith's blood.
This is not an "if" statement - forget any "if" in this sentence - there is eloquent proof that Knox washed her hands of Merediht's blood. This is not what I say, this is what Bruno/Marasca say. No "if". But an eloquent proof of a fact instead, this is what is stated in the text.

What is the proof? You are wasting your time continually repeating this without actually stating what the proof is.

Indeed, Marasca-Bruno cover this in an earlier part of their motivations report, about the relation between judicial proof and scientific proof.

It is the belief of this Court that the Scientific truth, however elaborated, cannot automatically be transferred into the trial to be transformed, eo ipso [of itself], in judicial truth. As has already been said, scientific proof has as an inevitable postulate the verification such that the relative findings can assume relevance and aspire to the level of “certainty”; since otherwise, they remain without reliability. But, independent of the scientific importance, a fact not verified, precisely because it does not have the necessary characteristics of preciseness and seriousness, cannot achieve, within proceedings, even the value of circumstantial evidence.​

So I repeat, what is this proof of which you speak? It is certainly not in the M/B report, in either language! And if it is in the Nencini report, that "proof" still does not break down the "insurmountable barrier" that M/B use as the basis of their acquittals - which M/B say Nencini should have done even if it was true that Knox had washed blood from her hands:

Nevertheless, even if attribution is certain, the trial element would not be unequivocal as a demonstration of posthumous contact with that blood, as a likely attempt to remove the most blatant traces of what had happened, perhaps to help someone or deflect suspicion from herself, without this entailing her certain direct involvement in the murder. Any further and more meaningful value would be, in fact, resisted by the fact - which is decisive - that no trace leading to her was found at the scene of the crime or on the victim’s body, so that - if all the above is accepted - her contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house.​

"If all the above is accepted"..... that would mean by necessity that scenario would mean that Knox must have come in contact with the blood, "would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house."

It still does not convict them of the murder.

 

[Bill Williams]

It still does not answer the question about the need to convince us here that you are correct....

..... when it seems that The Repubblica assumes you are not!? The Repubblica (five times) said that the pair had been acquitted in 2015.

Five times.

Why are you not trying to convince The Repubblica that it is they who are mistaken?

 

[Stacyhs]

Actually it is not only about unrecorded statements - there are also several written and recorded statements - and it's just that the court found that their statements are not "mistakes" but a series of deliberate lies.
I think there is proof beyond reasonale doubt of that.
In fact, I assume only blinded believers could fail to see manifest evidence of fraud and malice in Knox's & Sollecito's statements.

Can you give a few examples?

Only those so blinded by guilt bias can see confused statements made under extreme stress as fraud and malice.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
It has always amazed me that the Italian courts refuse to believe that what Knox and Sollecito said during their unrecorded and lawyer absent interrogations could possibly have been coerced. Any mistake or confusion just had to be a deliberate lie.

And btw, you could be equally amazed that not even half of a claim of coercion was ever raised by the defence attorneys throughout the whole investigation and preliminary hearings.

And in fact, Knox did not even claim coercion: she claimed suffering of false memory syndrome.
Sollecito refused to answer questions: his only and last interrogation was before Judge Matteini. That was his last version. After that, he invoked his right to remain silent before Judge Ricciarelli (despite he had requested the interrogation hearing himself) so he never presented any account of corecion. And no other account denying the recorded version that he presented Judge Matteini with. That was his last word.
Non only he did not present any claim of coercion: he also denied Knox's alibi.

 

[Machiavelli]

It still does not answer the question about the need to convince us here that you are correct....

..... when it seems that The Repubblica assumes you are not!? (....)

la Repubblica says I'm not correct? What have you been smoking Bill

 

[Bill Williams]

la Repubblica says I'm not correct? What have you been smoking Bill

Ok, I will then take it that you believe that the Italian Supreme Court definitively acquitted Knox and Sollecito in March 2015, as reported five times in one article by The Repubblica. Thank you for clearing up the confusion.

 

[Machiavelli]

What is the proof? You are wasting your time continually repeating this without actually stating what the proof is.

Indeed, Marasca-Bruno cover this in an earlier part of their motivations report, about the relation between judicial proof and scientific proof.

(...)
So I repeat, what is this proof of which you Bruno/Marasca speak? It is certainly not in the M/B report, in either language!

As for that, the "insurmontable barrier" is also not in the report - B/M merely state that such a alleged insurmontable barrier exist about the "active participation to the killing action" - but we may only note that this statement is, btw, manifestly contradictory with another statement by B/M, that is that there is incontrovertible proof that more than one person took part to the killing action.
B/M is manifestly contradictory, but to report it means to note it, to note what is unequivocably written in it, albeit contradictory, not to speculate why thos or that was written.

And if it is in the Nencini report, that "proof" still does not break down the "insurmountable barrier" that M/B use as the basis of their acquittals - which M/B say Nencini should have done even if it was true that Knox had washed blood from her hands:

But it does not state "if it was true". Such phrase doesn't belong to the sentence. There isn't any unreal hypothetical conjunctive verb "was" in the statement. (There is only a statement about DNA profile identification that is "a ritenere certa l'attribuzione")
Instead, the previous paragraph instead, states -unequivocally - that there is eloquent proof that Knox washed her hands of Meredith's blood.
And btw the text repeats that Knox presence on the scene of crime is "certain" a further two times, by the end of p.48 and by the end of p.49, after having previously called her presence on the scene of crime a "proven fact".

"If all the above is accepted"..... that would mean by necessity that scenario would mean that Knox must have come in contact with the blood, "would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house."

But this, by the way, is a false translation. There is no such statement as "if all the above is accepted". Certainly nowhere near the paragraph nor related with it. This doesn't exist in the text. It's made up.
This is a paragraph that starts as a brand new period, opening as follows:
"There is a further piece of evidence against Knox..."
No "if". Nothing. Only a clear unequivocal undisputable statement, opening a new paragraph.

 

[LondonJohn]

Here is a link to a (terrifically poorly written, and blatantly biassed) article about the Sollecito SC decision, from a very obscure web news site:

http://uk.blastingnews.com/world/20...-as-court-throws-out-his-claim-001810185.html

It's "written" by someone called "Krissy Allen". Krissy seems both a) very familiar with the case and b) exceptionally biassed against Sollecito (and Knox), as well as being very poor indeed at reportage writing. With that in mind, it seems strange that "Krissy Allen" hasn't been more active commentating on the Knox/Sollecito case. I, for one, look forward with relish to reading more of her output!

 

[Machiavelli]

Ok, I will then take it that you believe that the Italian Supreme Court definitively acquitted Knox and Sollecito in March 2015, as reported five times in one article by The Repubblica. Thank you for clearing up the confusion.

don't forget to say that the "acquittal" was actually an annullment without assessing the evidence and subjected to 530.2 reasonable doubt, and that same court stated that that it is a proven fact that Meredith was killed by multiple persons, that it is a proven fact Knox was at the scene of crime when Meredith was killed, that they said they agree with the courts of merits that Knox heared Meredith's scream (and that she was able to somehow know in advance that there was a sexual assault, before the police could know), and also wrote that there is "eloquent proof" that Knox had contact with Meredith's blood and washed her hands of it.

We are not writing a 1-minute-read newspaper article so why forget these things, since they are stated as proven facts.

 

[Machiavelli]

No, it is not a proven fact that Meredith was killed by multiple persons as no evidence of any other person besides Meredith and Guede exists in the murder room. Guede left multiple forensic evidence of himself yet none exists for anyone else. The vast majority of experts who testified also said Meredith could have been killed be a single person.

It is not a proven fact that Knox was at the scene of the crime WHEN Meredith was killed. That is solely based, not on any evidence, but on her retracted statement she made during her unrecorded and lawyer absent interrogation.

No, Knox didn't know Meredith had been sexually assaulted before the police did. Like the police, and almost anyone else would have, she assumed Meredith had been assaulted due to the circumstances. Do you honestly think the police didn't assume there had been a sexual assault the minute they saw into that room?

These are your opinions about the evidence the case.
We are not talking about the evidence of the case. We are talking about B/M's statements.

As for the "eloquent proof" that Knox had contact with Kercher's blood, exactly what is that proof? None has ever been presented despite multiple requests. If you have it, please present it.

The topic I am talking about is what is actually written in B/M's report.

 

[LondonJohn]

I wonder if Machiavelli realises that a 530.1 acquittal is only (in practical terms) possible if the defendant can PROVE his/her innocence, or if the court determines that actually no crime at all took place?

I wonder if Machiavelli therefore realises that someone in Italy was tried for a crime (for the sake of argument, let's imagine it was the case of a person shot dead from a distance which definitively precluded the possibility of suicide - and was therefore definitively the crime of murder), in which literally zero credible evidence pointing to guilt was presented to the court, but where the defendant was unable to PROVE his factual innocence, then that defendant would be acquitted under 530.2?

 

[Bill Williams]

don't forget to say that the "acquittal" was actually an annullment without assessing the evidence and subjected to 530.2 reasonable doubt, and that same court stated that that it is a proven fact that Meredith was killed by multiple persons, that it is a proven fact Knox was at the scene of crime when Meredith was killed, that they said they agree with the courts of merits that Knox heared Meredith's scream (and that she was able to somehow know in advance that there was a sexual assault, before the police could know), and also wrote that there is "eloquent proof" that Knox had contact with Meredith's blood and washed her hands of it.

We are not writing a 1-minute-read newspaper article so why forget these things, since they are stated as proven facts.

No those are not "proven facts" as in the M/B report. M/B is very clear. They say even if those things were proven in the Nencini court, then the Nencini court still should have acquitted.

I will post this for you one more time:

Nevertheless, even if attribution is certain, the trial element would not be unequivocal as a demonstration of posthumous contact with that blood, as a likely attempt to remove the most blatant traces of what had happened, perhaps to help someone or deflect suspicion from herself, without this entailing her certain direct involvement in the murder. Any further and more meaningful value would be, in fact, resisted by the fact - which is decisive - that no trace leading to her was found at the scene of the crime or on the victim’s body, so that - if all the above is accepted - her contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house.​

Even if what you say is true, that those are proven facts, M/B say that Nencini should have acquitted.

 

[Bill Williams]

As for the "eloquent proof" that Knox had contact with Kercher's blood, exactly what is that proof? None has ever been presented despite multiple requests. If you have it, please present it.

These are your opinions about the evidence the case.
We are not talking about the evidence of the case. We are talking about B/M's statements.



The topic I am talking about is what is actually written in B/M's report.

You have mentioned this "eloquent proof" a number of times. Please provide that eloquent proof. If you cannot, please stop saying it has been proven.

 

[Bill Williams]

don't forget to say that the "acquittal" was actually an annullment without assessing the evidence and subjected to 530.2 reasonable doubt, and that same court stated that that it is a proven fact that Meredith was killed by multiple persons, that it is a proven fact Knox was at the scene of crime when Meredith was killed, that they said they agree with the courts of merits that Knox heared Meredith's scream (and that she was able to somehow know in advance that there was a sexual assault, before the police could know), and also wrote that there is "eloquent proof" that Knox had contact with Meredith's blood and washed her hands of it.

We are not writing a 1-minute-read newspaper article so why forget these things, since they are stated as proven facts.

Marasca-Bruno wrote the exact opposite of what you claim, which I highlighted. As in their report - posted here on numerous occasions - they say that all the claim of what the Nencini court thought it had proven does is prove that Knox was present at the cottage AT SOME OTHER TIME.

No one disputes this.

if all the above is accepted - her contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house.​

 

[Machiavelli]

I wonder if Machiavelli realises that a 530.1 acquittal is only (in practical terms) possible if the defendant can PROVE his/her innocence, or if the court determines that actually no crime at all took place?

False.

530.1 only means that the incriminating evidence is disproven. Not that the defendant proves their innocence.

Second, you showing an embarassingly poor grasp of Italian law (really quite embarassing at this stage of your activism ) as you getting confused between the different types of acquittal formulas (there are five of them) and the evidence-based assessment (530.1/2). These are two different dimensions.
The distinction between 530.1 and 530.2 has nothing to do with whether the crime was committed or not.

Your confusion is embarassing.
Those reading should think about the credibility of this poster.

 

[Machiavelli]

Marasca-Bruno wrote the exact opposite of what you claim, which I highlighted. As in their report - posted here on numerous occasions - they say that all the claim of what the Nencini court thought it had proven does is prove that Knox was present at the cottage AT SOME OTHER TIME.
(...)

B/M wrote only once "maybe this occurred at some other time", but this can only be noted as one of the (many) contradictions in B/M's text.
But B/M also emphasided on multiple passages that it was proven that Knox was on the scene of crime when Meredith was killed.

It is true that B/M states one thing, and then some times also states the logical contrary.
But this does not make go away the fact that B/M states unequivocally some things. And B/M unequivocally states that Knox was there when Meredith was killed. B/M goes on explaining through whoe paragraphs how they agree with this, and with this and that of Nencini's findings. They also point out how further confirmation emerged that Knox was killed by multiple persons.

And the paragraph where B/M say that Knox washed her hands of Meredith's blood is unequivocal. You cannot interpret it in any possible other way. The only reservation expressed by B/M is a reference about the "reliability" of the attribution of biological traces (but there is actually no dispute about them in the trial evidence, not in B/M's motivations, nor in the defence recourse).

 

[LondonJohn]

False.

530.1 only means that the incriminating evidence is disproven. Not that the defendant proves their innocence.

Second, you showing an embarassingly poor grasp of Italian law (really quite embarassing at this stage of your activism ) as you getting confused between the different types of acquittal formulas (there are five of them) and the evidence-based assessment (530.1/2). These are two different dimensions.
The distinction between 530.1 and 530.2 has nothing to do with whether the crime was committed or not.

Your confusion is embarassing.
Those reading should think about the credibility of this poster.

Oooh comin' out swinging, huh?!

Let's look at the actual words of the code, shall we? Machiavelli might find them instructive!


530.1: Se il fatto non sussiste, se l'imputato non lo ha commesso, se il fatto non costituisce reato o non è previsto dalla legge come reato ovvero se il reato è stato commesso da persona non imputabile o non punibile per un'altra ragione, il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione indicandone la causa nel dispositivo.

530.2: Il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione anche quando manca, è insufficiente o è contraddittoria la prova che il fatto sussiste, che l'imputato lo ha commesso, che il fatto costituisce reato o che il reato è stato commesso da persona imputabile.


Translated as:


530.1: If the offence does not exist, if the defendant did not commit it, if the act does not constitute a crime or is not provided for by law as a criminal offence, or if the offence was committed by a person who is not imputable or not punishable for another reason, the court shall issue an acquittal indicating its reason for doing so.

530.2: The court shall also make a ruling of acquittal where evidence is absent, insufficient or contradictory that the defendant committed the crime, (or) that the fact constitutes a criminal offence, or that the offence was committed by a perpetrator.


I'd invite Machiavelli to take careful note of the word "absent" in 530.2. And then I'd invite him to think for himself about which commentator is more credible (and which provided the evidence to support his credibility, rather than angry unsupported words )

 

[Machiavelli]

You have mentioned this "eloquent proof" a number of times. Please provide that eloquent proof. If you cannot, please stop saying it has been proven.

I will say forever that the SC has definitely stated that there is eloquent proof that Knox washed her hands of Meredith's blood, simply because this is what the verdict says.
In fact, the verdict says that: either Knox killed Meredith, or she was merely present when she was killed, without taking part actively to the killing action ("complicity in a crime committed by others", "non punishable concurring"). Places reasonable doubt on the first. It only leaves these two options.
I'm sorry, this is what it says.