The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

[Vixen]

I've been looking and I can't find anywhere Pringle himself has said he was on "death row for 15 years". Journalists have said that in their articles about Pringle. I've looked at several articles and videos and he always says he spent 15 years in prison, not on "death row". He explains that his sentence was commuted to 40 years in prison.

As for him never being in danger of actually being executed, that is your opinion but that's not what Pringle thought. He was sentenced on Nov. 27 to hang just three weeks later and came within 11 days of being executed:



(Irish News, 19 Sept, 2016)

If you can provide an example of Pringle himself saying he was on death row for 15 years, then do so. At least you've stopped claiming that he was NEVER on death row. That's progress.

Oh dear! What sort of world do we live in when people sympathise more with the perps than the victims. The killing of these two gardai in this reckless, irresponsible robbery to raise funds for a terrorist organisation, left five little children without their dad.

But, I say, let's have a pity party instead for the thugs.

 

[Vixen]

Yes. I pointed that out to Vixen hours ago. We are making headway, though. She at least admits he was actually on death row now.

He never was.


He's fooled you!


But then any friend of Amanda Knox is a best friend of yours.

 

[Vixen]

And let's not forget the third element* of CPP Article 530.2, where the judge shall (= compelled by law, must) deliver a judgment of acquittal when the evidence is "contraddittoria", which translates to "contradictory".

As LondonJohn states, CPP Article 530.2 defines the rationale of most acquittals - the evidence is absent, insufficient or incomplete, or contradictory - and therefore there is reasonable doubt of guilt. And any reasonable doubt regarding the allegations against the accused implies that there cannot be a judgment of guilt (according to CPP Article 533) and there must be an acquittal. To briefly describe the reason for the acquittal in the disposition (short form verdict, the "PQM"), as required by CPP Article 530, the judge selects from the specified reasons of Article 530.

This holds true even for an acquittal under CPP Article 605 (which makes no explicit mention of the specified reasons to be cited in the PQM), which gives an appeal judge the legal authority to deliver an appeal court judgment that confirms or amends the appealed lower court judgment. The Hellmann appeal court judgment followed the law in CPP Article 530 requiring listing of specified reasons** for acquittals in its PQM, and that judgment cited CPP Article 605 as its authority and did not explicitly cite CPP Article 530.

*"Il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione anche quando {1.} manca, è {2.} insufficiente o è {3.} contraddittoria la prova ...."

**Two different ones: "the accused did not commit the (criminal) act" for Charges A, B, C, and D; and "the act did not occur" for Charge E.

The above summary reflects the real procedures of Italian law, which are contrary to the inaccurate and agenda-driven statements of PGP.

Nothing to do with 'reasonable doubt'. The decision for that belongs to the trial court (the merits hearing).

The words 'did not commit the act' still do not appear in Art 530,2.

Nothing you do by way of rhetoric or say by way of sophistry can make it so.

 

[Vixen]

This reflects a principle that if more than one conclusion can be derived from the evidence, then the default position for an Italian court should be the one most favourable to the accused. Why?

Because they are innocent until proven guilty BARD. The reason why M/B argues the way it does in Section 9 is exactly on those grounds - except that in this case none of even the contradictory reasons to suspect they may be guilty......

....... overcomes the one unassailable fact that there is no evidence of them in the murder room. None.

The best Vixen or Machiavelli can do is cherrypick one piece of evidence which M/B says originates from the lower court, claiming that M/B regarded that one as factual......

....... plucked from the larger argument of Section 9 that all the lower court had in front of it was contradictions. Therefore, on the law, Nencini should have acquitted.

The few remaining PGP always ignore the structure of M/B's argument in Section 9. We now know why.

Section 9 of Marasca's judgment written reasons is a summing up of established facts.

 

[Vixen]

LOL!

The edit to the Wikipedia page about Giuliano Mignini cited by Vixen as factual lasted 11 days.

The edit had been to include Machiavelli's/Vixen's theory that the M/B report said that Knox had been at the scene of the murder - as a fact. Note: this was an edit to Mignini's page.

Eleven days later, that edit was removed. It was replaced with:

​

....... and the editor cited the reason for the change was so that the Mignini article would line up with the "Amanda Knox" article on Wikipedia.

Given that Vixen has cited Wikipedia as an authority in determining truth here, does Vixen now acknowledge the new edit as factual?

Whoever wrote this:

The conviction of Knox and Sollecito was eventually annulled by the Supreme Court of Cassation On March 27, 2015. It ruled that the case was without foundation, thereby definitively acquitting them of the murder. Rather than merely declaring that there were errors in the earlier court cases or that there was not enough evidence to convict, the court ruled that Knox and Sollecito were innocent of involvement in the murder. On September 7, 2015, the Court published the report on the acquittal, citing "glaring errors," "investigative amnesia," and "guilty omissions," where a five-judge panel said that the prosecutors who won the original murder conviction failed to prove a "whole truth" to back up the scenario that Knox and Sollecito killed Kercher. They also stated that there were "sensational failures" (clamorose defaillance) in the investigation, and that the lower court had been guilty of "culpable omissions" (colpevoli omissioni) in ignoring expert testimony that demonstrated contamination of evidence.

Is a liar.

Nowhere is the word 'innocent' mentioned.

Whoever wrote that is determined to pull the wool over the reader's eyes.

A con-merchant. Perhaps it was written by Amanda or Raff themself.

 

[Vixen]

Bill, do you have the original edit by Vixen?

ETA: Never mind.. was able to view the history. Are you sure this was Vixen? The original edit included "...which resulted in their acquittal, in March 2015." while Vixen continues to insist it wasn't an acquittal.

Adding here in case anyone else was interested.

Mignini came to wider public attention as the prosecutor who led the 2007 investigation into the murder of Meredith Kercher, and the subsequent prosecution of Rudy Guede, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. The conviction of Knox and Sollecito was eventually annulled by the Supreme Court of Cassation invokeing the provision of art. 530 § 2. of Italian Procedure Code ("reasonable doubt") and ordered that no further trial should be held, which resulted in their acquittal, in March 2015. The Court, however, acknowledged that it is a "proven fact" that Knox was at the murder scene when the murder was committed while it was not proven "beyond reasonable doubt" that Knox and Sollecito had an "active participation" to the "killing action", and invoked the legal categories of "non punishable connivence" or "concurring in the crime committed by others"; the sentence also acknowledges as "incontrovertible" the fact that Kercher was killed by more than one person and that Guede concurred in committing the murder "together with others"

I'll be credited with writing Shakespeare, next.

 

[Vixen]

Deleted.

 

[Vixen]

Acc. to that edit 21 Oct 2008, even before the first trial, this was the state of the evidence against the three - the edit on the Italian-version of Wikipedia was an unsourced "opinion" as to what the case was.

Against Lumumba:

- had been arrested because of Knox's testimony (note: no mention as to where that "testimony" came from)
- Knox had mis-accused because of taking narcotics
- Lumumba released, charges dropped​

Biggest difficulty of the investigation is establishing exact role of the participants, and potentially others. Reconstruction based on scientific polic expertise and inconsistencies of stories. Very little has been added to this which is trustworthy.

Against Sollecito

- His kitchen knife with Kercher's DNA, although defence contests it as damaged and insufficient.
- Presence of Meredith's blood on knife admitted to by Sollecito
- his passion for knives and violent (sexual) manga comics
- no alibi, he says he'd been with Amanda but she says she does not remember being with him
- the shoeprint in Meredith's room is compatible with Sollecito​

Against Knox

- she twice changed her story, and inbetween the changes wrote that she cannot trust her memory; possible her involvement was because of a narcotics-induced confused state
- She'd lied about not being in Meredith's room, her shoeprint was found
- Her DNA was on the kitchen knife handle
- In bathroom Meredith's blood contained Amanda's DNA (note: even early on, they were not talking about "mixed blood"!)
- Amanda's sexual fantasies revealed in her writings of a girl killed with a knife during sex
- The Harry Potter book Knox claimed to be reading at Raffaele's was, in fact, at the cottage​

Against Guede

- He admits to being at cottage during the crime
- His faeces in the toilet, although reconstructing why he'd use the toilet in those circumstances was "not easy"
- His DNA found on bra and victim, Rudy admits to intercourse with victim
- Guede has provided prosecution only with lies, falsehoods and "highly unlikely fantasy"
- Rudy's ID'ing of the other assassins does not match any of the other suspects.
- Rudy fled to Germany following the murder​

Overall clues to the suspects:

- Crimescene heavily altered, body moved and stripped after the fact
- on bed are "various pressures not attributable to Guede"
- window glass was broken maybe to simulate a break-in
- Moving the body suggests more than one person intervened after the crime.​

It's interesting reading this, there is no citation and it seems almost certain that because this is Oct 2008, all this must have been because of leakage from the prosecution itself.

Whilst wikipedia is generally good, in controversial issues, such as persons claiming 'wrongful conviction' it can be and is, deliberately manipulated to paint that person in a better light and to remove or down play anything incriminating.

For example, I had a look at Ryan Ferguson's page and much is made of an 'alternative' suspect and Erikscon 'just having a dream'.

Looking at the prosecutors actual petition we find things are not quite what Ferguson's (or Avery's, or Dassey's, or Knox'/Sollecito's) supporters would like us to believe. The 'alternative' is not possible, and much of the 'alternative' stuff comes from 'innocence' campaigners - shades of Shawshank Redemption and even Alessi and Aviello: two hardened criminals/child-murderer/mafiosi who were the star witnesses for Amanda and Raff, i.e., 'I overheard in prison another man confess...'

Anyone coming to the Kercher case from the US seems to have a unique viewpoint of 'poor young woman railroaded by the police' understandably, because they haven't seen what the Brits and the Italians have read.

For example, Amanda Knox did not name Lumumba 'because she was on narcotics' this is a blatant lie. The Supreme Court said it was because 'she was covering up for Rudy'.


Read wikipedia with a healthy dose of salt and always be aware that the information is likely incomplete or biased towards an agenda.

 

[Lince]

Nothing to do with 'reasonable doubt'. The decision for that belongs to the trial court (the merits hearing).

You have not presented any evidence for this claim. Repeating the same words does not wish them into reality, you know.

The words 'did not commit the act' still do not appear in Art 530,2.

Why should they, if the article specifies acquittal by BARD?

A simple question for you: do you believe that any person acquitted by Art 530,2 (no matter on which level) is just a criminal that managed to escape justice and should be treated as such? Police and prosecution are highly professional individuals after all, they are never wrong, don't you agree? The accused must prove his/her innocence with absolute certainty, otherwise the state and society have all the rights to crush, mistreat or discriminate him/her. After all, there is no smoke without fire. Even if (in extremely rare occasions, of course) there is no such fire, what is an individual comparing to the well-being of society? Like great Stalin said: When wood is chopped, woodchips will fly.

 

[Vixen]

It's no wonder that Massei came into the court room ready to convict . . .

Yeah, all these judges reading up on wikipedia instead of the evidence presented in front of them in court is the real reason the kids got convicted.

 

[Lince]

Section 9 of Marasca's judgment written reasons is a summing up of established facts.

Sure, a summary of judicial facts, established by other courts. While in other sections, the judgment in clearest words states that the overall process at arriving at such "facts" was extremely sloppy and unprofessional, so that guilt cannot be established on the basis of such properly unsubstantiated, wishful claims.

 

[Vixen]

No, it's Buddy Holly.

That'll be the day.

 

[Vixen]

You have not presented any evidence for this claim. Repeating the same words does not wish them into reality, you know.




Why should they, if the article specifies acquittal by BARD?

A simple question for you: do you believe that any person acquitted by Art 530,2 (no matter on which level) is just a criminal that managed to escape justice and should be treated as such? Police and prosecution are highly professional individuals after all, they are never wrong, don't you agree? The accused must prove his/her innocence with absolute certainty, otherwise the state and society have all the rights to crush, mistreat or discriminate him/her. After all, there is no smoke without fire. Even if (in extremely rare occasions, of course) there is no such fire, what is an individual comparing to the well-being of society? Like great Stalin said: When wood is chopped, woodchips will fly.

That appears to be the direction in which evidence points.

Art 530,2 was used to annul sentences of members of Italian terrorists on the grounds that they could not be identified as the actual planters of the bombs. However, given their active terrorist involvement, the judiciary was loath to give them an Art 530,1 'did not commit the act' verdict.

Art. 530,2 was used to annul the guilt verdict on Berlusconi. His innocence comes into question when it came to light afterwards the person who testified to get Berlusconi off, committed perjury on Berlusconi's behalf.

Art. 530,2 was used to annul the verdict of ex-Statesman Andreotti, of Mafia charges. He was a public figure with a high profile and and one of Italy's most influential politicians. He had been initially found 'not guilty' at the trial stage, so unlike, Knox and Sollecito, at least he had a 'not guilty' at the trial stage.

Art. 530, 2 therefore appears to be used as a loophole to get round the fact the defendant is 'probably guilty', 'but we don't want to convict because these are people in high places/we don't want to upset the US state department'.

Even in Italy a trial is judged by a panel of jurors. 12 in the UK and USA, 15 in Italy, so your claim of a fascist summary conviction is unwarranted.

 

[Vixen]

Sure, a summary of judicial facts, established by other courts. While in other sections, the judgment in clearest words states that the overall process at arriving at such "facts" was extremely sloppy and unprofessional, so that guilt cannot be established on the basis of such properly unsubstantiated, wishful claims.

Marasca was picking at straws, given the fact of Amanda being at the scene, washing Mez' blood from her hands and covering up for Rudy.

Instead it latched onto blaming the media (when Italy does not have a subjudice law) and then the police, for the defence's own delays and mistakes. For example it castigates the calling of Alessi & Aviello (er, hello?), and unreasonably claims Laura & Filomena weren't given official suspect status, when they had cast alibis elsewhere.

 

[Lince]

That appears to be the direction in which evidence points.

Art 530,2 was used to annul sentences of members of Italian terrorists on the grounds that they could not be identified as the actual planters of the bombs. However, given their active terrorist involvement, the judiciary was loath to give them an Art 530,1 'did not commit the act' verdict.

Art. 530,2 was used to annul the guilt verdict on Berlusconi. His innocence comes into question when it came to light afterwards the person who testified to get Berlusconi off, committed perjury on Berlusconi's behalf.

Art. 530, was used to annul the verdict of ex-Statesman Andreotti, of Mafia charges. He was a public figure with a high profile and and one of Italy's most influential politicians. He had been initially found 'not guilty' at the trial stage, so unlike, Knox and Sollecito, at least he had a 'not guilty' at the trial stage.

Art. 530, 2 therefore appears to be used as a loophole to get round the fact the defendant is 'probably guilty', 'but we don't want to convict because these are people in high places/we don't want to upset the US state department'.

Even in Italy a trial is judged by a panel of jurors. 12 in the UK and USA, 15 in Italy, so your claim of a fascist summary conviction is unwarranted.

So you basically admit, that the only way to be properly acquitted in Italy is by Art. 530, 1, i.e., by proving your own innocence. Otherwise, you are branded for life as "a probable criminal, that somehow bribed his/her way out". Such a notion as BARD does not practically exist. Poor Italy, a dangerous country with so many "criminals" on the loose.

 

[Lince]

Marasca was picking at straws, given the fact of Amanda being at the scene, washing Mez' blood from her hands and covering up for Rudy.

Instead it latched onto blaming the media (when Italy does not have a subjudice law) and then the police, for the defence's own delays and mistakes. For example it castigates the calling of Alessi & Aviello (er, hello?), and unreasonably claims Laura & Filomena weren't given official suspect status, when they had cast alibis elsewhere.

I do not see any "picking". Actually, Marasca et all just put these straws (the "judicial facts" of Amanda being at the scene, washing Mez' blood from her hands and covering up for Rudy, etc.) into public display, showing even these judicially generated, hypothesised claims are not enough to demonstrate guilt BARD.

 

[Vixen]

So you basically admit, that the only way to be properly acquitted in Italy is by Art. 530, 1, i.e., by proving your own innocence. Otherwise, you are branded for life as "a probable criminal, that somehow bribed his/her way out". Such a notion as BARD does not practically exist. Poor Italy, a dangerous country with so many criminals on the loose.

Wrong. As in other Western European countries, and the USA, Art 530,1 is a simple upholding of a 'Not Guilty' verdict, as found by the lower courts.

Problem is, in the Knox/Sollecito case, they were not found 'not guilty' by any of the valid lower courts. This must be legal history.

As you know, criminal justice works by (1) a trial by jury (2) an appeal if allowed on a point of law only, or new evidence, or perversity, or 'public interest' [miscarriage of justice]. In Italy, all persons found guilty automatically have two appeals (unlike almost anywhere outside of Latin Europe, i.e., inquisition-style tribunals) so there is an automatic appeal = (3) The supreme court. In England and Wales, Scotland and N Ireland, the Supreme Court is reserved for rare 'constitutional matters' of law only (for example the Brexit challenge).

Thus Italy's justice system, you could say is fairer to a defendant than ours.

To sum up, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were found guilty by trial with jurors, that included both laymen and trained solicitors. The guilty verdict was upheld by the Appeal court. The Supreme Court annulled the verdict under Art. 530,2, the get-out clause normally reserved for the guilty you cannot convict because they are high up and there might be diplomatic tensions so one uses this. IOW the court finds the defendant guilty but uses 530,2 as a way of getting them out of prison, but without exonerating them in any way.

We see this come into play when Raff was refused compensation for his four years' imprisonment. Had he had a verdict of 530,1 he may have been granted it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Your problem is, you have difficulty distinguishing legal forms of words from their colloquial/common or garden equivalents.

We have had much nonsense from you as to the meaning of:

• Synoptic
• Acquitted
• Exonerated
• Hypothetical
• "Even if"

The legal meanings are exact and invariable.

This post is nonsense.

 

[Vixen]

I do not see any "picking". Actually, Marasca et all just put these straws (the "judicial facts" of Amanda being at the scene, washing Mez' blood from her hands and covering up for Rudy, etc.) into public display, showing even these judicially generated, hypothesised claims are not enough to demonstrate guilt BARD.

(a) A court does not hypothesise. It gives a verdict, i.e., it comes down on one side of the fence or other. (b) The Supreme Court does not weigh up the facts. If the Supreme Court has an issue with any of the facts found, for example BARD not demonstrated*, then the correct procedure is to send it back to a court whose remit is to assess the facts. The Supreme Court only deals with whether the correct law has been applied. It does not re-examine the case.

*For this to be the case, it would have to show that the trial court was perverse, and this was never shown in the Kercher case.

A judge/court has wide-ranging powers and, as long as its verdict is within the realms of 'reasonableness' then, even if another judge or the Supreme Court judge might have come to a different verdict, then that is not a legal reason to overturn the verdict.

Finding a court/judge perverse, is exceedingly rare, and is quite extreme, for example, the judge falling asleep, being drunk, taking bribes, it just never happens, but if it does, then there is the safety net of appealing under the header, 'perversity'.

 

[Bill Williams]

(a) A court does not hypothesise. It gives a verdict, i.e., it comes down on one side of the fence or other. (b) The Supreme Court does not weigh up the facts. If the Supreme Court has an issue with any of the facts found, for example BARD not demonstrated*, then the correct procedure is to send it back to a court whose remit is to assess the facts. The Supreme Court only deals with whether the correct law has been applied. It does not re-examine the case.

All these issues are more than adequately covered in the M/B report, in explaining their reasons for annulling.

Even if the hypotheses of the Nencini court were true, that court should have acquitted. Therefore the ISC annulled the lower court convictions.

Definitively.

Without referral back.

The only people blathering that somehow this action was illegal are those few remaining English language nutcases who pick and choose what they think someone has written.

They then repeat ad nauseam, never providing their own proof for matters.....

On which we're still waiting.