• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
That's right. So a court of law could not find that 1+1 = 3 as it would be overturned on appeal.
Click to expand...


That's right. So a court of law could not find (for example) that

1) Curatolo claiming to see Knox and Sollecito in/around the square on the evening of the murder

+

1) Curatolo claiming that on this same evening he also saw hoards of reveller students in costumes and masks being picked up by disco buses (when all of that provably happened on the previous evening, and ONLY on the previous evening)

=

3) Curatolo is a credible, reliable witness, and it can therefore be accepted that he did indeed see Knox and Sollecito in/around the square on the evening of the murder

....as it would be overturned on appeal.


See how this works now, Vixen?
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

It appears that I'm simply going to have to repeat what the 2015 ISC wrote. You're STILL not getting it.

Yes, Nencini outlined a corpus of facts. What the 2015 ISC ruled was that those facts (even if true) did not, could not, and should not be used to convict anyone. Nencini erred as a matter of law, and no remitting to a lower court would fix Nencini's mistake.

It's no use to even comment on the other tripe in your post until you "get" this, which is the essence of the 2015 acquittal.
 
Bill Williams said:
It appears that I'm simply going to have to repeat what the 2015 ISC wrote. You're STILL not getting it.

Yes, Nencini outlined a corpus of facts. What the 2015 ISC ruled was that those facts (even if true) did not, could not, and should not be used to convict anyone. Nencini erred as a matter of law, and no remitting to a lower court would fix Nencini's mistake.

It's no use to even comment on the other tripe in your post until you "get" this, which is the essence of the 2015 acquittal.
Click to expand...


It had no grounds to annul the verdict.

Simply ignoring Chieffi doesn't give them the power to do so.

Marasca and Bruno acted outside of their remit.

As Briars says, Knox has never challenged Marsca & Bruno's damning indictment of her. Too scared to let the US public know that she washed off Mez' blood, covered up for Rudy and was present at the scene, and heard Mez screaming. It also found that like Raff, she lied, and lied and lied.
 
Stacyhs said:
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.
Click to expand...

ECHR case law says that where there is dubiety in evidence it must be interpreted in favour of the defendant. italian cours are required to follow this principle.

Take the Luminol positive footprints in the hall that were invisible to the naked eye discovered six weeks after the crime.

1) There is no identity in these prints they may have been made by Knox or by some other resident of the flat. (They are probably to small to have been made by Guede or Sollecito.)
2) There is no certainty that they are the result of blood staining but may be due to some other substance such as iron rich soil.
3) Even assuming that the prints are made by Knox and are in dilute blood, this tends to support Knox's testimony that she took a shower the next day after the murder.

What the findings have never done is fit into a prosecution scenario. The prosecution would have to explain how and why Knox is bare foot, and how the blood became highly diluted. Including in the explanation is how the blood was transferred given there is no evidence of Knox's foot becoming contaminated by 'neat' blood. Nor is there any evidence of any of Knox's clothes having been contaminated by the victim's blood.

It is important to emphasise that just because there is an explanation for a piece of evidence that fits a guilty scenario this cannot be used as evidence of guilt if there is an alternative innocent explanation. If there is dubiety it must be interpreted in favour of the defendant.
 
LondonJohn said:
That's right. So a court of law could not find (for example) that

1) Curatolo claiming to see Knox and Sollecito in/around the square on the evening of the murder

+

1) Curatolo claiming that on this same evening he also saw hoards of reveller students in costumes and masks being picked up by disco buses (when all of that provably happened on the previous evening, and ONLY on the previous evening)

=

3) Curatolo is a credible, reliable witness, and it can therefore be accepted that he did indeed see Knox and Sollecito in/around the square on the evening of the murder

....as it would be overturned on appeal.


See how this works now, Vixen?
Click to expand...


As has already been pointed out, there were buses, it was the Thursday before a bank holiday and long weekend, so of course there were still plenty of partygoers.

It is up to the court to decide whether or not a witness is credible. Curatolo was cross-examined and the court is entitled to accept his testimony.
 
I'm repeating this, because apparently guilters perhaps have trouble understanding the nuances of the English language, perhaps because of their strong biases. Apparently the guilters do not read posts or other writings in their entirety, because in my post appeal courts and referral appeal courts are described accurately with respect to their differences in legal authorities.

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.
___
To make it clear, the above use of "MAY" means that, for example, an appeal court is not obligated to hear a case de novo, but under some circumstances, and depending on the requests of the appellants - who may request a new trial - the appeal judge has the authority to grant a new trial, hearing as many of the old witnesses and even new witnesses as requested and as the judge believes relevant.

The statements otherwise by the guilters are false and represent a gross misunderstanding of Italian law. Of course, they may simply be a fabrication because the guilters' argument are, as they (one would hope) realize by now, entirely invalid and false. For example, no Italian legal organization in authority, such as the Superior Council of the Judiciary, has questioned the legal standing and validity of the Marasca CSC panel judgment in the Knox - Sollecito case. This demonstrates without a doubt that the guilters have no support in their allegations against it.
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
It appears that I'm simply going to have to repeat what the 2015 ISC wrote. You're STILL not getting it.

Yes, Nencini outlined a corpus of facts. What the 2015 ISC ruled was that those facts (even if true) did not, could not, and should not be used to convict anyone. Nencini erred as a matter of law, and no remitting to a lower court would fix Nencini's mistake.

It's no use to even comment on the other tripe in your post until you "get" this, which is the essence of the 2015 acquittal.
Click to expand...

Then it set a much higher bar than BARD.

If, as was found as a fact:

  • There were multiple attackers
  • Knox and Sollecito were present at the scene of the murder
  • The burglary was staged.
  • It is not credible Knox had a shower at the cottage and Sollecito was not with her.
  • Knox did wash the victim's blood from her hands (blood only stays wet for up to 30").
  • The couple had no alibi and lied, and lied and lied

It is not reasonable for the Marasca Court to annul the guilty verdict, and especially without referral, as both the first two lower courts had found the pair guilty, from the merits.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The following webpage might come as a shock to you, then:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...d_To_Match_Amanda_Knox_and_Raffaele_Sollecito

It is actually Raff's footprint facing Mez' door.
Click to expand...



The only way in which that phoney-wiki webpage comes as a "shock" to any critical thinker is the way in which it purports to serve as an objective record of the case, and yet in so very many places - including here - is actually a horribly partisan, low-intellect piece of garbage.
 
Vixen said:
Then it set a much higher bar than BARD.

If, as was found as a fact:

  • There were multiple attackers
  • Knox and Sollecito were present at the scene of the murder
  • The burglary was staged.
  • It is not credible Knox had a shower at the cottage and Sollecito was not with her.
  • Knox did wash the victim's blood from her hands (blood only stays wet for up to 30").
  • The couple had no alibi and lied, and lied and lied

It is not reasonable for the Marasca Court to annul the guilty verdict, and especially without referral, as both the first two lower courts had found the pair guilty, from the merits.
Click to expand...


Are you literally plugging your fingers in your ears and refusing to hear/understand the true, correct point on this issue? Or do you have a genuine comprehension problem? I frankly find it hard to believe the latter, since so many people have correctly explained it here so many times. So I'm afraid I'm inclined to the former.
 
Vixen said:
Then it set a much higher bar than BARD.

If, as was found as a fact:

  • There were multiple attackers
  • Knox and Sollecito were present at the scene of the murder
  • The burglary was staged.
  • It is not credible Knox had a shower at the cottage and Sollecito was not with her.
  • Knox did wash the victims blood from her hands (blood only stays wet for up to 30"
  • The couple had no alibi and lied, and lied and lied

It is not reasonable for the Marasca Court to annul the guilty verdict, and especially without referral, as both the first tow lower courts had found the pair guilty.
Click to expand...

Sigh. Simply repeating these factoids does not make them true.

But you are making the SAME mistake. So given your penchant for simple repetition, it is time to simply repeat what the 2015 report said.....

..... even if those things had been true, Nencini still should have acquitted, because nothing that the (inept) investigation provided any of the courts proved anything related to the murder.

Sheesh. You still don't get it.
 
Vixen said:
As has already been pointed out, there were buses, it was the Thursday before a bank holiday and long weekend, so of course there were still plenty of partygoers.

It is up to the court to decide whether or not a witness is credible. Curatolo was cross-examined and the court is entitled to accept his testimony.
Click to expand...


Nope. Once again, you simply do not or cannot understand.

I encourage you, once again, to read the transcript of Curatolo's testimony (to both the Massei and Hellmann courts) plus his (third-attempt) police statement. It really shouldn't be hard for even you to realise that Curatolo was UNEQUIVOCALLY talking about the disco buses, just as he was unequivocally talking about hoards of reveller students in costumes and masks.

Frankly, Vixen, it's your position on issues such as this (as well as so many others...) - in direct conflict with clear facts and inferences - which makes your entire approach to this case so heavily.... erm..... "debatable".
 
Numbers said:
I'm repeating this, because apparently guilters perhaps have trouble understanding the nuances of the English language, perhaps because of their strong biases. Apparently the guilters do not read posts or other writings in their entirety, because in my post appeal courts and referral appeal courts are described accurately with respect to their differences in legal authorities.

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.
___
To make it clear, the above use of "MAY" means that, for example, an appeal court is not obligated to hear a case de novo, but under some circumstances, and depending on the requests of the appellants - who may request a new trial - the appeal judge has the authority to grant a new trial, hearing as many of the old witnesses and even new witnesses as requested and as the judge believes relevant.

The statements otherwise by the guilters are false and represent a gross misunderstanding of Italian law. Of course, they may simply be a fabrication because the guilters' argument are, as they (one would hope) realize by now, entirely invalid and false. For example, no Italian legal organization in authority, such as the Superior Council of the Judiciary, has questioned the legal standing and validity of the Marasca CSC panel judgment in the Knox - Sollecito case. This demonstrates without a doubt that the guilters have no support in their allegations against it.
Click to expand...

Let's make this simple.

Let's say a trial court determines the following as facts:

1. a murder took place 2 Nov 2007
2. TOD is any time between 21:00 and 04:00 with a mean at circa 23:00.
3. two knives were used
4. there were multiple attackers
5. DNA of Elvis Presley was found on one of the knives


One of the parties or more appeals against no.5, arguing that this is not a reasonable finding on a point of law of perversity or of new evidence that Elvis died decades ago and the knife is only six months old.

The appeal court agrees to hear an appeal on point no. 5 only. The case is not heard again de novo. Just the point of appeal. It upholds that the merits court erred on point no.5, and upholds the appeal.

It is point no. 5 that is expunged, not points 1,2,3, qnd 4.

IT IS NOT A RETRIAL.
 
Last edited:
Vixen if Chieffi can say Rudy Guede couldn't have broken in because Meredith would've heard him (an argument on merits) then M&B can also do whatever the **** they want. Italy is a lawless country. You mad lol :D
 
Oh and by the way, Vixen - you really ought to school yourself properly in law (and Italian law in particular, of course).

Because your statement that "the court is entitled to accept (Curatolo's) testimony" - with your attendant implication being that no other (higher) court is entitled to challenge that court's acceptance - is entirely incorrect. Higher courts are absolutely entitled to judge that a lower court has not applied the law correctly when it accepted a witness's testimony, and similarly the higher court is absolutely entitled to judge that the lower court should not have accepted the witness's testimony.

The highly amusing (and embarrassing to you) coda to this is that YOU YOURSELF stated, not several posts ago in this very thread, that: "a court of law could not find that 1+1 = 3 as it would be overturned on appeal" :D :o


(As an even more extreme example (than Curatolo, or Quintavalle, or all of the DNA "evidence") to prove the point.... suppose that a witness testified in court that he'd seen the defendant shoot the victim, yet the defence produced reliable evidence in the form of a credit card receipt and CCTV showing that a person matching the witness's likeness and driving the witness's car bought petrol using the witness's credit card in a petrol station 30 miles away from the murder scene only 10 minutes before the murder.... yet the court ruled that the witness's identification evidence was credible and reliable. A higher court would obviously be potentially able to overturn the lower court's improper assessment of this witness's credibility/reliability.)
 
I remember this passionate defense of Italian legal procedures when Chieffi was taking a giant **** on them by holding his own personal trial de novo in a single day in chambers and taking the Hellmann court on the merits point by point and re-interpreting the evidence each and every time.

Just.

***********.

Kidding.

Vixen, Please for the sake of the world's irony supply stop this line of posting.
 
LondonJohn said:
Are you literally plugging your fingers in your ears and refusing to hear/understand the true, correct point on this issue? Or do you have a genuine comprehension problem? I frankly find it hard to believe the latter, since so many people have correctly explained it here so many times. So I'm afraid I'm inclined to the former.
Click to expand...

I don't think we should so cavalierly dismiss the notion that there is a comprehension or processing issue with some guilters. Of course, that issue may be the result of exteme biases.

But here's an example.

A guilter tries to explain the appeal process. The guilter lists, for example, 5 issues related to fact that the first court dealt with. Then, the guilter supposes that only one issue is appealed, thus, the guilter believes his or her argument is proven. However, the guilter does not consider that all 5 issues may be appealed, and all those appeal issues accepted for review, thus refuting his or her argument that in Italy, where appeal courts are authorized under law to rehear previous testimony and admit new testimony, in accordance with request of the parties and the acceptance of a request by the judge, an appeal trial MAY be a trial de novo. And the appeal judge may declare all or part of the first court's judgment quashed, and change the verdict to meet the findings of the new trial, all in accord with CPP Article 605.

Art. 605. Sentenza.
1. Fuori dei casi previsti dall'articolo 604, il giudice di appello pronuncia sentenza con la quale conferma o riforma la sentenza appellata.


Google translate (with my help):

Art. 605. Judgment.
1. Except for the cases provided for by article 604 {cases of nulllity}, the judge of the appeal court pronounces a sentence {judgment} which confirms or reforms the sentence {judgment} appealed.
 
Vixen said:
....it was the Thursday before a bank holiday and long weekend, so of course there were still plenty of partygoers.
Click to expand...


Oh and by the way, just on the above part, it shows that you still have a worryingly poor grasp of certain significant facts about this case. Thursday 1st November 2007 was NOT "the Thursday before a bank holiday and long weekend". In fact, the following days - Fri 1st Nov, Sat 2nd Nov, Sun 3rd Nov and Mon 4th Nov - were entirely normal weekdays and weekend days respectively. It was Thursday 1st that was a public holiday. Because it was a solemn Holy Day of Obligation in Italy, Vixen. That means NO PARTYING. And on top of that, the following day - Friday 2nd - was a normal workday (and university day).

One last time (though of course I realise full well it won't be the last time, as far as dealing with your "arguments" is concerned....): there would have been nothing remotely approaching Curatolo's description of hoards of student revellers in costumes and masks present in the square on the evening/night of Thursday 1st November 2007. Why not? Well, because a) all the Halloween costume parties were the previous evening (the evening/night of Halloween, Wed 31st October); b) all the partying would have been done on that previous evening anyhow, since the following day was a public holiday (i.e. the Thursday), and since partying on the Thursday would make next to no sense on account of the following day (Friday 2nd Nov) being a normal work day); c) the day of Thursday 1st November 2007 was a Holy Day of Obligation in Italy, when it was customary for young people to attend a quiet family dinner in the evening to remember dead relatives.

There is zero chance that the scene Curatolo describes in the square could possibly have been taking place on the evening/night of Thursday 1st November 2007. Zero chance.

And that's before we even start to discus disco buses. Oh and before we even start to discuss Curatolo's hard-drug dependency, and his self-admitted usage of them on the evenings in question. Oh and before we even start to discuss Curatolo's obviously severe mental health issues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom