The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

[Vixen]

False:



https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/glossary.aspx

Knox meets the highlighted sections. She was previously convicted and later acquitted on all charges factually related to the murder by a court. Now stop claiming she was not exonerated.

In your joy at the highlighted bit, did you not read further, where it categorically states:

The pardon, acquittal, or dismissal must have been the result, at least in part, of evidence of innocence that either (i) was not presented at the trial at which the person was convicted; or (ii) if the person pled guilty, was not known to the defendant and the defense attorney, and to the court, at the time the plea was entered. The evidence of innocence need not be an explicit basis for the official action that exonerated the person. A person who otherwise qualifies has not been exonerated if there is unexplained physical evidence of that person's guilt.

If you read Marasca carefully, and also Martuscelli, the courts make it very clear Knox was at the scene and both acted 'highly suspiciously' and told 'umpteen lies'. When will the penny drop?

They were not acquitted, the verdict was 'annulled' and the words 'innocent' and 'exonerated' appear exactly ZERO times in the written reasons for the judgment.

The words 'did not commit the act' do not appear in the statute under CPP Art 530,2, under which it was annulled.

So the choice of art 530,2 rather than art 530,1, in which the aforesaid wording does appear is a real difference in actual consequence.

 

[bagels]

Thanks to Amanda Knox telling police Patrick raped and murdered Mez, putting on an act of being in great fear of him.

This was the kind gentle warm-hearted fellow who gave her a job.

Yeah but serving annoying customers sucked and is super lame and wasn't what was promised in Eat Pray Love so AK was justified.

 

[Vixen]

You're either misremembering or making that up. NOBODY has ever referred to Northern Ireland as "Norn".

If you think about it for, oh, a nanosecond, you can see how obvious this is:

The "Norn" slang pronunciation is the representation of the way Northern Irish people say "Northern". But when they refer to the province of the UK from which they hail, they call it "Northern Ireland". Not "Northern". And, in NI slang, "Northern Ireland" is rendered as "Norn Irn" (or sometimes "Norn Iron").

As a little additional pointer as to how wrong you are, what you're saying is equivalent in many ways to claiming that the local slang rendition of the country "Australia" is "Stray". When the joke-slang rendering of it is actually "Straya".

So, if you must use that little "joke" (it's not really a joke, by the way), please use "Norn Irn" or "Norn Iron", and not "Norn" (which is meaningless). Or use "NI" or "Northern Ireland" - which would be the usual way to refer to that region. Many thanks.

She wrote it as Norn, and so did everybody else.

 

[Bill Williams]

In your joy at the highlighted bit, did you not read further, where it categorically states:



If you read Marasca carefully, and also Martuscelli, the courts make it very clear Knox was at the scene and both acted 'highly suspiciously' and told 'umpteen lies'. When will the penny drop?

They were not acquitted, the verdict was 'annulled' and the words 'innocent' and 'exonerated' appear exactly ZERO times in the written reasons for the judgment.

The words 'did not commit the act' do not appear in the statute under CPP Art 530,2, under which it was annulled.

So the choice of art 530,2 rather than art 530,1, in which the aforesaid wording does appear is a real difference in actual consequence.

There is no difference. Grinder found that out.

They were acquitted. So says the Boninsegna court in summarizing the events leading up to Knox's defamation trial brought by the cops. She was acquitted from that one, too.

"Innocent" does not need to appear in the M/B report. They began the process innocent and that legal designation never changed.

There is no need to read M/B "carefully". That is code for reading it your way.

 

[Welshman]

In your joy at the highlighted bit, did you not read further, where it categorically states:



If you read Marasca carefully, and also Martuscelli, the courts make it very clear Knox was at the scene and both acted 'highly suspiciously' and told 'umpteen lies'. When will the penny drop?

They were not acquitted, the verdict was 'annulled' and the words 'innocent' and 'exonerated' appear exactly ZERO times in the written reasons for the judgment.

The words 'did not commit the act' do not appear in the statute under CPP Art 530,2, under which it was annulled.

So the choice of art 530,2 rather than art 530,1, in which the aforesaid wording does appear is a real difference in actual consequence.

I have asked this question before which Vixen has refused to answer. Why did the supreme court annull the convictions if they felt Amanda and Raffaele were at the cottage when Meredith was killed and damming evidence such as washing off blood existed.

 

[Stacyhs]

It's vital if you want your criminal record wiped and perhaps apply for compensation.

None of the following are exonerated:

Amanda Knox
Raffaele Sollecito
Damian Echols
Ryan Ferguson
SunnyHorrendous Jacobs

The latter three have merely had their convictions 'vacated' and the former two 'annulled'.

Ryan Ferguson is listed as an exoneree by the National Registry of Exonerations which is a project of the University of California Irvine Newkirk Center for Science & Society,
University of Michigan Law School & Michigan State University College of Law.

Sonia , "Sunny" (and please, stop with the childish name calling)Jacobs did not have her conviction "vacated"; she had her death sentence vacated. After the witness who claimed Jacobs had confessed admitted she had lied under pressure from detectives, the State Attorney offered her a plea deal in which she did not admit guilt. In order to get out of prison, she accepted and she was released.

 

[Vixen]

I have asked this question before which Vixen has refused to answer. Why did the supreme court annull the convictions if they felt Amanda and Raffaele were at the cottage when Meredith was killed and damming evidence such as washing off blood existed.

<fx faint> Now you are asking the right questions.

 

[Stacyhs]

Thanks to Amanda Knox telling police Patrick raped and murdered Mez, putting on an act of being in great fear of him.

This was the kind gentle warm-hearted fellow who gave her a job.

This same "kind gentle warm-hearted fellow" also lied about firing her amongst other lies he told the Daily Mail.

It's your opinion, not a fact, that she was not truthfully in fear of him.

 

[Vixen]

Ryan Ferguson is listed as an exoneree by the National Registry of Exonerations which is a project of the University of California Irvine Newkirk Center for Science & Society,
University of Michigan Law School & Michigan State University College of Law.

Sonia , "Sunny" (and please, stop with the childish name calling)Jacobs did not have her conviction "vacated"; she had her death sentence vacated. After the witness who claimed Jacobs had confessed admitted she had lied under pressure from detectives, the State Attorney offered her a plea deal in which she did not admit guilt. In order to get out of prison, she accepted and she was released.

You omitted she bought guns for a cop-killer.

Two nice young rookie cops killed and their young families deprived of a husband and dad, thanks to 'Sunny' Jacobs.

 

[Vixen]

This same "kind gentle warm-hearted fellow" also lied about firing her amongst other lies he told the Daily Mail.

It's your opinion, not a fact, that she was not truthfully in fear of him.

What? It was a lie and a criminal obstruction of justice when Knox said Patrick raped and killed Mez.

Remember?

Do keep up.

 

[Bill Williams]

What? It was a lie and a criminal obstruction of justice when Knox said Patrick raped and killed Mez.

Remember?

Do keep up.

Really? Knox was charged with obstruction of justice? Your advice to others to "keep up" might be good advice for you!

 

[Vixen]

Really? Knox was charged with obstruction of justice? Your advice to others to "keep up" might be good advice for you!

Criminal 'calunnia' = US equivalent Federal felony of 'obstruction of justice' (derailing a Fed investigation) which can be up to five years imprisonment (up to six years, in Italy).

 

[Bill Williams]

Criminal 'calunnia' = US equivalent Federal felony of 'obstruction of justice' (derailing a Fed investigation) which can be up to five years imprisonment (up to six years, in Italy).

LOL! You believe that? Do yourself a favour and quit reading Peter Quennell's stuff!

 

[Stacyhs]

In your joy at the highlighted bit, did you not read further, where it categorically states:



At Massei, the independent experts' analysis that rejected the alleged DNA of Kercher on the knife and the likely contamination of the bra hook was not presented. Nencini was practically directed to convict Knox and Sollecito by Chieffi

If you read Marasca carefully, and also Martuscelli, the courts make it very clear Knox was at the scene and both acted 'highly suspiciously' and told 'umpteen lies'. When will the penny drop?

They were not acquitted, the verdict was 'annulled' and the words 'innocent' and 'exonerated' appear exactly ZERO times in the written reasons for the judgment.

The words 'did not commit the act' do not appear in the statute under CPP Art 530,2, under which it was annulled.

So the choice of art 530,2 rather than art 530,1, in which the aforesaid wording does appear is a real difference in actual consequence.

I know what the courts said. As has been pointed out several times, the courts to not find the defendants "innocent" or use the word "exonerated". They either acquit, convict, or annul. So why would either of those words appear in the motivation reports?

The words "per non avere i ricorrenti commesso il fatto " (did not commit the act) certainly do appear in the Marasca Bruno report:

visti gli artt. 620 lett. I) e 530, comma 2 cod. proc. pen.; esclusa l'aggravante dicui all'art. 61 n, 2 cod. pen., in relazione al delitto di calunnia, annulla senza rinvio la sentenza impugnata in ordine ai reati di cui ai capi a), d) ed e) della rubrica per non avere i ricorrenti commesso il fatto.

No matter how you try and spin it, they are there.

 

[Stacyhs]

She wrote it as Norn, and so did everybody else.

Does this person know the elusive "Jim" that Trump refers to when he needs a convenient quote?

 

[bagels]

<fx faint> Now you are asking the right questions.

Yes their hands were tied to reach a certain verdict, but in a pointless act of defiance that would be noticed by a half dozen weirdos on the internet, they wrote in secret contradictions to signify that they know they're letting a couple Ted Bundies loose but nothing we can do y'all sorry not sorry.

Or you could take the sensible view and see it as typical wonky Italian politicking and covering for their judicial klepto crap. In the end I guess we will never know unless M&B write a _if I did it book.

 

[Stacyhs]

You omitted she bought guns for a cop-killer.

Two nice young rookie cops killed and their young families deprived of a husband and dad, thanks to 'Sunny' Jacobs.

Ah...instead of admitting your errors, you attempt to side step with a non-issue. Buying a gun illegally for her husband in no way is evidence that Jacobs shot the police officers. Walter Rhodes, who testified Jacobs and Tafero were the real killers in exchange for prosecutors not seeking the death penalty, later recanted his testimony three times. Even the officers' families agreed to the plea bargain knowing she'd be released from prison.

Every single time an exoneration has been brought up, you've opined that they were really guilty despite the evidence of innocence. Why is that? Is anyone ever falsely convicted in your mind?

 

[Stacyhs]

This same "kind gentle warm-hearted fellow" also lied about firing her amongst other lies he told the Daily Mail.

It's your opinion, not a fact, that she was not truthfully in fear of him.

What? It was a lie and a criminal obstruction of justice when Knox said Patrick raped and killed Mez.

Remember?

Do keep up.

My point was in regard to your ""kind gentle warm-hearted fellow" description of Lumumba who, in fact, LIED about Knox being fired amongst other defamatory lies in that DM story.

I also said it's your opinion that she was not in fear of Lumumba, and not a fact. She did not KNOW that Lumumba was not the killer as the police were leading her to believe. Remember the whole "you texted him" and "met him later" fiasco?
Do try and comprehend what is actually written.

 

[Stacyhs]

Criminal 'calunnia' = US equivalent Federal felony of 'obstruction of justice' (derailing a Fed investigation) which can be up to five years imprisonment (up to six years, in Italy).

Oh, lordy... back to that again? And yet...and yet...you, good old Pete, Ergon, Machiavelli, no one has provided a publicly available criminal record in the US for Amanda. Which, of course, she would have if the US recognized her calunnia conviction as equivalent to a federal "obstruction of justice" conviction. Why is that again?

 

[whoanellie]

He'd avoided the issue of the subsequent practicle difference, claiming falsely the use of #1 vs. #2 was something judges used to try impugn something about the "level of innocence" by the use of each. Grinder thought for the longest time that #2 was dusted off by a court when they were trying to signal that they thought the accused were almost but not quite guilty.

To his credit he reversed himself not so much because of debate here, but because he actually consulted with some sort of Italian legal expert.

So you're perhaps correct, I may not be able to claim this as a direct win, but at least allow the illusion.....

Bill, I respect you and I don't want to rain on your parade but I do believe that you are misrepresenting Grinders position. His point was that certain people prematurely entertained the hope that the M/B verdict would be based on par. 1. Once it became clear that it wasn't a par 1 verdict, there was a shift to the view that there was no difference. Grinder, as was his wont, just wanted both sides to be intellectually honest and rigorous.