Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 27

[Stacyhs]

Why would the SC bother to bring up the BS shower story? They didn't buy it and other details she crafted. Maybe people have read the report and came away with the same conclusion they did , she knew more. This isn't really a question for you just a one off to keep you buzzing along.
Ciao it looks like Chris is learning Italian for their next big adventure . Anything to keep the spotlight on their chosen career! As somone said why couldn't she just message the prison chaplain . No! they must go and be very public. Book sales and mememe too. #amandaknox

Why did the SC definitively acquit both without remanding back to another appellate court if they concluded, as you claim, that her story was BS and that she knew more?
As has already been stated, the MB court was hobbled by having to work within a previous SC definitive ruling regarding the calunnia.

When the ECHR finds in Knox's favor (and they will) it's going to be fun watching the reaction of the PGP like you and Vixen. A word of advice: don't make the same mistake you all made in 2015 and buy that champagne ahead of time.

 

[Stacyhs]

Speaking of chosen careers....

If the initial prosecution had not tried their case in the tabloids, and if haters in the last decade had not engaged in their hate campaign, no one would have ever heard of Amanda Knox.

Which her Vice interview with Anita Sarkeesian is all about. Sarkeesian similarly would have been an unknown computer gamer if not for the similiar avalanche of online slut-shaming.

It's hardly chosen. No one chooses that, but they do fight back.

It's you lot, Briars and Vixen, who have created this career. And if you stopped the online campaign of hate there'd be no career! Eye-ron-ic ain't it.

Truly ironic! These people need to move on to their next target against whom they can spew their vitriol. I really do feel rather sorry for them. It must be miserable to have that much anger and hate inside. No wonder they need to let it out before their heads explode.

 

[Briars]

Sorry? The Supreme Court stated that Knox lied about her activities on the morning of 2nd November 2007? Is that what you're saying?







You don't realise that the reason the Marasca SC report included the stuff about Knox's presence at the cottage that night was ENTIRELY because this had been part of the ruling of a prior settled SC verdict (re the criminal slander conviction), and the Marasca panel obviously had no appetite for contradicting a prior SC judgement and thereby triggering a revision procedure? You're really not aware of that?





Why on Earth do you think Knox has any need to question the Marasca SC verdict. That verdict was unequivocal in acquitting and exonerating her (and Sollecito. Do you remember Sollecito?), while at the same time utterly eviscerating the authorities for their shockingly inept and confirmation-biassed "investigation", and lambasting the convicting courts for their appalling deference to the prosecution and their inability to apply the law properly in assessing evidence. The fact that the Marasca SC Panel had to dance around the settled verdicts from the Guede trial and the Knox criminal slander trial is nothing more or less than a procedural anomaly (and yet another failing of the Italian criminal justice system).

All Knox has to be concerned about now is the fate of her ECHR application (and, if that's successful, the inevitable annulment of her criminal slander conviction), and her potential battle for monetary compensation.

And.... "even though she is home free"? You do realise, don't you, that there's not one single piece of credible, reliable evidence pointing to the participation of Knox - or Sollecito - in the Kercher murder? And that ALL the credible, reliable evidence is wholly compatible with Guede as sole perpetrator? Knox is not "home free" (with its attendant implication that she's somehow "escaped justice"). But your use of that phrase is telling in many ways.

Back to the the phony shower. The last SC ruling came up with specifics regarding her lying around that shower. In that it was hardly credible she would have showered and waited to go back to Sollecito's . In all likelyhood she remained with him. This logic hadn't been introduced by the earlier courts so it was a new theory to give examples of her story telling. In clear terms, just for you, she lied. The handwashing and blood removal was a surprising addition too. Nothing about these two new findings needed to be added to appease the earlier court rulings that Amanda admitted to being there. Amanda has said nothing to slam the SC report which places her there and even suggests she helped cover for Guede. Strange that regardless of how you spin it, unless her lawyers told her to take the lumps. Sollecito was denied compensation due to his gross lies and omissions and Amanda will most likely fair the same.

 

[bagels]

*thinking in Italian*

But who would take a morning shower???

 

[Stacyhs]

Back to the the phony shower. The last SC ruling came up with specifics regarding her lying around that shower. In that it was hardly credible she would have showered and waited to go back to Sollecito's . In all likelyhood she remained with him. This logic hadn't been introduced by the earlier courts so it was a new theory to give examples of her story telling. In clear terms, just for you, she lied. The handwashing and blood removal was a surprising addition too. Nothing about these two new findings needed to be added to appease the earlier court rulings that Amanda admitted to being there. Amanda has said nothing to slam the SC report which places her there and even suggests she helped cover for Guede. Strange that regardless of how you spin it, unless her lawyers told her to take the lumps. Sollecito was denied compensation due to his gross lies and omissions and Amanda will most likely fair the same.

Please give me one good reason why Knox would need to lie about taking a shower there that morning. Give me one good reason why Knox would need to lie about the door being open or anything of the following details.

If guilty, all she had to do was either let Filomena or Laura come home to find the break in and/or body. There was zero reason for her to make up any story about coming back to the cottage that morning.

As for the hand washing nonsense, no court gave any scientific evidence regarding that. None. In fact, even Stefanoni testified that it was impossible to determine the source of Knox's DNA in the mixed blood/DNA sample.

A question for you: why was not a single trace of Knox found in Kercher's bedroom if Knox participated in the murder and/or staging of the body? That's something you simply cannot get around no matter how you try to.

 

[Stacyhs]

*thinking in Italian*

But who would take a morning shower???

[qimg]https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/300x300/60215149/no-human-being-would-stack-books-like-this.jpg[/qimg]

Especially at home where her clothes and her own shampoo/razor/ etc. were kept? Totally, illogical!

 

[Planigale]

Back to the the phony shower. The last SC ruling came up with specifics regarding her lying around that shower. In that it was hardly credible she would have showered and waited to go back to Sollecito's . In all likelyhood she remained with him. This logic hadn't been introduced by the earlier courts so it was a new theory to give examples of her story telling. In clear terms, just for you, she lied. The handwashing and blood removal was a surprising addition too. Nothing about these two new findings needed to be added to appease the earlier court rulings that Amanda admitted to being there. Amanda has said nothing to slam the SC report which places her there and even suggests she helped cover for Guede. Strange that regardless of how you spin it, unless her lawyers told her to take the lumps. Sollecito was denied compensation due to his gross lies and omissions and Amanda will most likely fair the same.

There is however evidence to support Knox having taken a shower. There are footprints compatible with Knox that are Luminol positive but TMB negative. These might be due to Knox standing in highly dilute blood. (The dilution of blood would be equivalent one drop in a bath of water, below the level of visible contamination.) The evidence fits with Knox having taken a shower where highly dilute blood was left by Guede washing himself of the victim's blood as Guede himself describes. Alternatively it could be from standing on the bloodstained bathmat with wet feet.

 

[Stacyhs]

There is however evidence to support Knox having taken a shower. There are footprints compatible with Knox that are Luminol positive but TMB negative. These might be due to Knox standing in highly dilute blood. (The dilution of blood would be equivalent one drop in a bath of water, below the level of visible contamination.) The evidence fits with Knox having taken a shower where highly dilute blood was left by Guede washing himself of the victim's blood as Guede himself describes. Alternatively it could be from standing on the bloodstained bathmat with wet feet.

There is also no testimony from the Brit girls, the Italian roommates or their boyfriends or Filomena's girlfriend, or the police on the scene, or the police at the station or Mignini claiming that Knox did not look freshly showered with clean hair.

I don't think Guede washed in the shower. There was no luminol reaction in it AFAIUI. I think he rinsed his foot (or feet) in the bidet thus getting his trousers wet (as he claimed to have), then stepped on the mat leaving the diluted footprint.

There is no reason to try and explain the footprints in the hallway as they were never identified as Knox's. They could have belonged to any of the girls in the cottage, including Meredith, and/or been left there well before the murder. They were just as likely to have had no connection to the murder at all.

 

[Mike1711]

Back to the the phony shower. The last SC ruling came up with specifics regarding her lying around that shower. In that it was hardly credible she would have showered and waited to go back to Sollecito's . In all likelyhood she remained with him. This logic hadn't been introduced by the earlier courts so it was a new theory to give examples of her story telling. In clear terms, just for you, she lied. The handwashing and blood removal was a surprising addition too. Nothing about these two new findings needed to be added to appease the earlier court rulings that Amanda admitted to being there. Amanda has said nothing to slam the SC report which places her there and even suggests she helped cover for Guede. Strange that regardless of how you spin it, unless her lawyers told her to take the lumps. Sollecito was denied compensation due to his gross lies and omissions and Amanda will most likely fair the same.

What utter drivel.

I've said it before and I'll say it again (and again if need be). It is Italian Law that findings of "judicial fact" (whether correctly found or not) are not up for appeal. An appeal is on issues of law not fact.

The Appeal Court concerns itself with the correct implementation of issues of law. Was it legally correct to establish guilt from lower court "legal facts" (regardless of validity thereof because this is outside of the Appeal Court jurisdiction) where proof of presence at the murder scene of the accused is non-existent? The clear answer is no and that was the finding.

In effect all lower court BS is in the bin (or trash can) and erased from legal precedent for obvious reasons.

End of discussion, deal with it.

Still struggling?

Simple. Again but slowly...

The BS facts found by the lower court are underwritten by the legal system but the conclusion from this BS is up for debate and that my dear friend is how Italian Law works. If the lower court found that 1 plus 1 = 3 and that 3 = guilt, it is a legal fact that 1 + 1 = 3. What the Appeal Court concludes is this...yes, we are stuck with 1 + 1 = 3, but because it equals 3 it does not mean that 3 = guilt.

I am so tired of the twisting of law by those who are clueless to its workings. It isn't science where facts are facts its law where "facts" may or may not be true.

 

[Vixen]

What utter drivel.

I've said it before and I'll say it again (and again if need be). It is Italian Law that findings of "judicial fact" (whether correctly found or not) are not up for appeal. An appeal is on issues of law not fact.

The Appeal Court concerns itself with the correct implementation of issues of law. Was it legally correct to establish guilt from lower court "legal facts" (regardless of validity thereof because this is outside of the Appeal Court jurisdiction) where proof of presence at the murder scene of the accused is non-existent? The clear answer is no and that was the finding.

In effect all lower court BS is in the bin (or trash can) and erased from legal precedent for obvious reasons.

End of discussion, deal with it.

Still struggling?

Simple. Again but slowly...

The BS facts found by the lower court are underwritten by the legal system but the conclusion from this BS is up for debate and that my dear friend is how Italian Law works. If the lower court found that 1 plus 1 = 3 and that 3 = guilt, it is a legal fact that 1 + 1 = 3. What the Appeal Court concludes is this...yes, we are stuck with 1 + 1 = 3, but because it equals 3 it does not mean that 3 = guilt.

I am so tired of the twisting of law by those who are clueless to its workings. It isn't science where facts are facts its law where "facts" may or may not be true.

No it is not. It can be appealed on the grounds of perversity.

 

[Vixen]

Why did the SC definitively acquit both without remanding back to another appellate court if they concluded, as you claim, that her story was BS and that she knew more?
As has already been stated, the MB court was hobbled by having to work within a previous SC definitive ruling regarding the calunnia.

When the ECHR finds in Knox's favor (and they will) it's going to be fun watching the reaction of the PGP like you and Vixen. A word of advice: don't make the same mistake you all made in 2015 and buy that champagne ahead of time.

Because it breached the Italian CPP. The one which says a dispute about the merits of a fact must be referred to a merits court.

 

[Vixen]

There is however evidence to support Knox having taken a shower. There are footprints compatible with Knox that are Luminol positive but TMB negative. These might be due to Knox standing in highly dilute blood. (The dilution of blood would be equivalent one drop in a bath of water, below the level of visible contamination.) The evidence fits with Knox having taken a shower where highly dilute blood was left by Guede washing himself of the victim's blood as Guede himself describes. Alternatively it could be from standing on the bloodstained bathmat with wet feet.

So how come Raff's footprints are also highlighted?

 

[Numbers]

What utter drivel.

I've said it before and I'll say it again (and again if need be). It is Italian Law that findings of "judicial fact" (whether correctly found or not) are not up for appeal. An appeal is on issues of law not fact.

The Appeal Court concerns itself with the correct implementation of issues of law. Was it legally correct to establish guilt from lower court "legal facts" (regardless of validity thereof because this is outside of the Appeal Court jurisdiction) where proof of presence at the murder scene of the accused is non-existent? The clear answer is no and that was the finding.

In effect all lower court BS is in the bin (or trash can) and erased from legal precedent for obvious reasons.

End of discussion, deal with it.

Still struggling?

Simple. Again but slowly...

The BS facts found by the lower court are underwritten by the legal system but the conclusion from this BS is up for debate and that my dear friend is how Italian Law works. If the lower court found that 1 plus 1 = 3 and that 3 = guilt, it is a legal fact that 1 + 1 = 3. What the Appeal Court concludes is this...yes, we are stuck with 1 + 1 = 3, but because it equals 3 it does not mean that 3 = guilt.

I am so tired of the twisting of law by those who are clueless to its workings. It isn't science where facts are facts its law where "facts" may or may not be true.

A clarification: Under Italian law, an "appeal court" - that is, a second-level court - may inquire into and admit evidence, including new evidence, as requested by either party and ruled relevant by the judge. And, of course, the appeal court may rule on any issues of law or bring up new issues of law. Thus, an Italian appeal court may, by law, hear a case "de novo". When an Italian appeal court quashes a first-level court's judgment, as the Hellmann appeal court did to the judgment of the Massei court, all the "judicial facts" of the lower court disappear, except as may be reinstated by the appeal court.

However, when the appeal court is acting as a referral court - that is, when the appeal court is hearing a case remanded by the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC), it is limited to not revising the issues of law decided by the CSC judgment. When the issue of law is the allegation or finding by the referring CSC panel that an interpretation of evidence by the first appeal court was illogical or contradictory, the referral appeal court is free to choose a new logical interpretation of the evidence and is not is obligated to any interpretation of evidence chosen by the referring CSC panel.

The Italian third-level court, the Supreme Court of Cassation, is limited by Italian law to appeals that are covered under Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) Article 606. This includes issues of law and the application of law, including errors in the admissibility of evidence and in the interpretation of evidence. Only in final judgments of the CSC, where there is a sentence on all charges and thus no referral, can an interpretation of evidence given by the CSC be considered a "judicial fact". The Italian courts acknowledge that their judicial facts are not necessarily "real" or "empirical" facts.

 

[bagels]

Because it breached the Italian CPP. The one which says a dispute about the merits of a fact must be referred to a merits court.

Wow you know more than the ISC judges themselves about their own procedures. Can I have your autograph

 

[Bill Williams]

Why did the SC definitively acquit both without remanding back to another appellate court if they concluded, as you claim, that her story was BS and that she knew more?
As has already been stated, the MB court was hobbled by having to work within a previous SC definitive ruling regarding the calunnia.

When the ECHR finds in Knox's favor (and they will) it's going to be fun watching the reaction of the PGP like you and Vixen. A word of advice: don't make the same mistake you all made in 2015 and buy that champagne ahead of time.

Because it breached the Italian CPP. The one which says a dispute about the merits of a fact must be referred to a merits court.

One of these days the penny is going to drop for you.

In the meantime, let's simply repeat what the 2015 Italian Supreme Court actually said.

The 2015 Italian Supreme Court did not have to "dispute" the merits of fact. As reposted here ad naseam, the ISC said that EVEN IF TRUE, the facts which were in front of the Nencini lower court did not penetrate an unassailable fact - that there was no evidence of presence in the crime-room for either Knox or Sollecito.

Shall that be repeated again?

For the purposes of what was being appealed - a conviction by that lower court - the 2015 ISC said that the conviction was not sustainable by the law.....

...... because even if the evidence that Nencini had convicted them on had been 100% true and unassailable (which it wasn't but that's for another post).....

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.​

This will be repeated until you get it.

The ISC did not need to refer this case back for a third 2nd level trial. Why? Because even if the merits of those fact(oid)s had been true, they still were not enough to convict if Nencini had applied Italian law correctly.

 

[Numbers]

When one reads some of the posts by guilters, one may be shocked but not surprised to see the same erroneous statements and invalid arguments again repeated.

The Italian Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC) does not hear testimony before the CSC. It may lawfully acquit without referral, even if the appeal it hears is of a conviction, if the CSC believes that is the rightful course. The authority for this is CPP Article 620.1L, as has been repeatedly stated in this forum.

Here's the relevant text:

Art. 620. Annullamento senza rinvio.
1. Oltre che nei casi particolarmente previsti dalla legge, la corte pronuncia sentenza di annullamento senza rinvio:

l) in ogni altro caso in cui la corte ritiene superfluo il rinvio ovvero può essa medesima procedere alla determinazione della pena o dare i provvedimenti necessari.

Source: http://www.legislationline.org/documents/section/criminal-codes/country/22

Google translation (with my help):

Art. 620. Cancellation without referral.
1. In addition to the cases specifically provided for by the law, the court shall issue an annulment sentence without referral:

l) in any other case where the court deems the referral superfluous or may itself proceed to the determination of the sentence or give the necessary measures.

The Marasca CSC panel MR explains that no referral would be useful because there was no credible evidence of guilt of Knox or Sollecito with respect to the murder/rape of Kercher in the case records.

 

[Vixen]

A clarification: Under Italian law, an "appeal court" - that is, a second-level court - may inquire into and admit evidence, including new evidence, as requested by either party and ruled relevant by the judge. And, of course, the appeal court may rule on any issues of law or bring up new issues of law. Thus, an Italian appeal court may, by law, hear a case "de novo". When an Italian appeal court quashes a first-level court's judgment, as the Hellmann appeal court did to the judgment of the Massei court, all the "judicial facts" of the lower court disappear, except as may be reinstated by the appeal court.

However, when the appeal court is acting as a referral court - that is, when the appeal court is hearing a case remanded by the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC), it is limited to not revising the issues of law decided by the CSC judgment. When the issue of law is the allegation or finding by the referring CSC panel that an interpretation of evidence by the first appeal court was illogical or contradictory, the referral appeal court is free to choose a new logical interpretation of the evidence and is not is obligated to any interpretation of evidence chosen by the referring CSC panel.

The Italian third-level court, the Supreme Court of Cassation, is limited by Italian law to appeals that are covered under Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) Article 606. This includes issues of law and the application of law, including errors in the admissibility of evidence and in the interpretation of evidence. Only in final judgments of the CSC, where there is a sentence on all charges and thus no referral, can an interpretation of evidence given by the CSC be considered a "judicial fact". The Italian courts acknowledge that their judicial facts are not necessarily "real" or "empirical" facts.

That is a fabrication. It is not a retrial. The only issue the second instance court can look at is a specific dispute on a specific piece of evidence. The judicial facts of the trial court do not 'disappear'. A specific fact can be looked at again, and the verdict revised. All of the facts not disputed remain set in stone.

The case is NOT heard all over again.

Thus, the Nencini court took just 10 days, whilst the trial lasted many months.

 

[Mike1711]

A clarification: Under Italian law, an "appeal court" - that is, a second-level court - may inquire into and admit evidence, including new evidence, as requested by either party and ruled relevant by the judge. And, of course, the appeal court may rule on any issues of law or bring up new issues of law. Thus, an Italian appeal court may, by law, hear a case "de novo". When an Italian appeal court quashes a first-level court's judgment, as the Hellmann appeal court did to the judgment of the Massei court, all the "judicial facts" of the lower court disappear, except as may be reinstated by the appeal court.

However, when the appeal court is acting as a referral court - that is, when the appeal court is hearing a case remanded by the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC), it is limited to not revising the issues of law decided by the CSC judgment. When the issue of law is the allegation or finding by the referring CSC panel that an interpretation of evidence by the first appeal court was illogical or contradictory, the referral appeal court is free to choose a new logical interpretation of the evidence and is not is obligated to any interpretation of evidence chosen by the referring CSC panel.

The Italian third-level court, the Supreme Court of Cassation, is limited by Italian law to appeals that are covered under Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) Article 606. This includes issues of law and the application of law, including errors in the admissibility of evidence and in the interpretation of evidence. Only in final judgments of the CSC, where there is a sentence on all charges and thus no referral, can an interpretation of evidence given by the CSC be considered a "judicial fact". The Italian courts acknowledge that their judicial facts are not necessarily "real" or "empirical" facts.

Thank you for the clarification.

I was referring to the Supreme Court of Cassation, however the workings of the lower Italian courts seem to be a law unto themselves.

I read some of the court transcripts of the AK case and leading the witness is common as well as the prosecution asking a question of a witness and then answering the question for the witness.

Absolute shambles.

 

[Mike1711]

No it is not. It can be appealed on the grounds of perversity.

Perversity would be a point of law.

 

[Vixen]

One of these days the penny is going to drop for you.

In the meantime, let's simply repeat what the 2015 Italian Supreme Court actually said.

The 2015 Italian Supreme Court did not have to "dispute" the merits of fact. As reposted here ad naseam, the ISC said that EVEN IF TRUE, the facts which were in front of the Nencini lower court did not penetrate an unassailable fact - that there was no evidence of presence in the crime-room for either Knox or Sollecito.

Shall that be repeated again?

For the purposes of what was being appealed - a conviction by that lower court - the 2015 ISC said that the conviction was not sustainable by the law.....

...... because even if the evidence that Nencini had convicted them on had been 100% true and unassailable (which it wasn't but that's for another post).....

​

This will be repeated until you get it.

The ISC did not need to refer this case back for a third 2nd level trial. Why? Because even if the merits of those fact(oid)s had been true, they still were not enough to convict if Nencini had applied Italian law correctly.

It was not in a position to ascertain that.

Nencini said, these are the facts. It is BARD the pair are guilty, as found in a fair trial, by the first instance court.

It did not find Conti & Vcchiotti credible and it ruled out contamination as the defence failed to demonstrate it and in addition, it is not legally possible for Marasca Supreme Court to find Conti & Vecchiotti credible after all or to find for contamination. It breached the CPP when it overturned Cheiffi Supreme court in this matter and reinstated the investigation as being suspect-centric.

The issue of the investigation being flawed and of press intrusion was never tried as an issue in the trial court or the appeal court, except under the above rubric, thus it was constrained from coming up with all these new facts.