The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[Vixen]

I've got the Supreme Court reasons right here. They say that the Nencini court erred in many ways. One way in which the Nencini court erred, was assuming that the prior 2013 Supreme Court referral was a directive to convict. The 2015 Supreme Court cited that as the main reason why Nencini evaluated the evidence wrongly, and illogically.

Unlike you, I shall post what the SC actually said....

​

You have to stop simply parroting the nutjobs at TJMK webpage.

Bongiorno mumbo-jumbo. No wonder it makes no sense.

 

[Bill Williams]

Nencini should have acquitted

Vixen thinks her opinions rest on clutching at straws. Vixen is technically correct, that the 2015 Supreme Court did not in the strictest sense "acquit".

It annulled. And the reason it annulled was that it said that on the basis of the evidence before it (none of it which was re-evaluated by the SC), that the Nencini court erred by not acquitting, but by convicting.

Is there anyone out there other than Vixen who has their nose out of join because of this?

10. The intrinsic contradictory nature of the evidence, emerging from the text of
the appealed verdict, in essence undermines the connective tissue of the same,
leading to its annulment.

In fact, in the presence of a scenario marked by many contradictions, the
referral judge should not have come to a verdict of guilt, but - as previously
observed – should have reached a verdict of not guilty, given Article 530, section 2,
Italian Code of Criminal Procedure.​

 

[Vixen]

Sigh. There is a basic reading comprehension problem here.

First, no, those other three are not "spares". Where you came up with that is anyone's guess.

Second, the Supreme Court did not deem those items to be allegations, they stated as fact that as received by the Nencini court they were factual, unproven allegations.

.... and what you always miss (to the point of probably knowing this by lying about it) is that those allegations EVEN IF TRUE still was not enough to convict the pair because of the unavoidable fact......

..... that there was no trace of the pair in the murder room.

'EVEN IF' here translates from the Italian as 'EVEN THOUGH'. It is not correct for you to claim that M-B is saying it i untrue.

You only have to look at the Florence court ruling which states:

..the fact that Knox was in the house 7 Via della Pergola at the time when young Meredith Kercher was killed constitutes a fact of absolute and indisputable certainty.
Martuscelli,Masi, Favi – Florence Court 10 Feb 2017

 

[Bill Williams]

Bongiorno mumbo-jumbo. No wonder it makes no sense.

If it makes no sense, then it makes no sense to you.....

..... which is the problem.

 

[Bill Williams]

'EVEN IF' here translates from the Italian as 'EVEN THOUGH'. It is not correct for you to claim that M-B is saying it i untrue.

You only have to look at the Florence court ruling which states:

Wow. You're quoting from Raffaele's compensation hearing. Why have you kept that from us.

Can you please list the evidence that that court heard to come to this conclusion. Before you go off quoting Massei or Nencini, what I am asking is WHAT EVIDENCE WAS PLACED IN FRONT OF THE COMPENSATION COURT, AND DID RAFFAELE HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THAT EVIDENCE CROSS-EXAMINED?

 

[Stacyhs]

You do not understand how it works.

In a merits hearing (a trial) the court's job is to ascertain the facts. It then decides on a verdict having heard all of the evidence in front of it from all parties, defence and prosecution, witnesses and exhibits. This is done by a mixture of highly qualified judges (usually people who have practised as criminal barristers for over seven years) and randomly selected members of the public (the defendants' peers, as it were).

In Italy there is an automatic appeal process. This time,it is simply a couple of judges (a junior and the lead judge) who read through both parties 'points of appeal' and each parties barristers are then give a few minutes each to present their skeleton argument in person before the judges.

The judges have to decide whether they prefer the defence's legal arguments or the prosecutions. You will note it is now nothing at all to do with presenting evidence,witnesses or facts.

In this particular case, there were iirc five parties presenting their appeals (for the Kercher family, for the prosecution, for the Knox defence, for the Sollecito defence and Lumumba's barrister). Each were told they were limited to twenty minutes.

Bongiorno, for Raff, was heard over a period of two and a half days - totally disproportionately to the others - together with a tacked on report from Peter Gill, who borrowed heavily from Conti and Vecchiotti and did not see or examine any of the forensic evidence at first hand (as we know C&V turned out to be defence advocates). Bongiorno hammered the judges over the head with 360 pages, when a skeleton is supposed to be no more than two sides of A4 maximum.

Surprise surprise, having given Bongiorno an unfair advantage in the amount of time she was given to present her appeal, not to mention the totally irregular use of evidence that had never been presented at trial (Gill was never called as a witness and had not been cross-examined) the judges on this occasion preferred the arguments of the defence. That's how it works. This why Bongiorno's crackpot and illogical arguments appear all over the motivational report.

Had it preferred the prosecutor's appeal then their arguments would appear in it.

The judges are not supposed to impose their own opinion. This is another way M-B erred as it was never put before the trial that the press were banned from speculating on the case (Italy doesn't have subjudice, being inquisitorial), which isn't against Italian law anyway and nor was the competence of the forensic scientists ever ruled as incompetent, either. This is something Marasca-Bruno made up.

One thing Bongiorno could not change though, without it having gone back to the merits courts, were the facts found, which stand in perpetuity.

So she got them out of jail but she did NOT clear their names. They are forever held to have been at the cottage during the time of the murder of 'the young Meredith Kercher'.

Bwwwaaahaaaahaaaa! I understand perfectly well how it works. I also understand this is nothing more than you, once more, being incapable of admitting you are just plain wrong.

The judges are not supposed to impose their own opinion.

You're right. Which is why Massei was wrong when he imposed his own opinion that the TMB negative samples were still blood because "what else could it be?" It's why he was wrong when he decided that the motive was just a "choice made to engage in extreme evil,” when the prosecution had never presented that as a motive". It's why he was wrong to invent the scenario that AK and RS were in her bedroom having sex while Meredith was in hers and Guede attacked her. No such evidence of this was ever presented or even suggested by the prosecution. I could go on with the many 'opinions' Massei came up with based on nothing. Maybe that's why he used "probably' 39 times.

 

[TruthCalls]

Wow. You're quoting from Raffaele's compensation hearing. Why have you kept that from us.

Can you please list the evidence that that court heard to come to this conclusion. Before you go off quoting Massei or Nencini, what I am asking is WHAT EVIDENCE WAS PLACED IN FRONT OF THE COMPENSATION COURT, AND DID RAFFAELE HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THAT EVIDENCE CROSS-EXAMINED?

I've been asking all of the remaining guilters to provide evidence of Amanda being at the cottage at the time of the murder and so neither Vixen or the other two have been able to provide it. When I last reminded Vixen that Amanda's interrogation statements were ruled inadmissible and so not evidence, she replied with;

"Erm, you forgot the blood."

Of course, she never clarified what blood she was referring to or how it proved Amanda was there at the time of the murder. Maybe she'll be kind enough to enlighten us now?

 

[Numbers]

Vixen thinks her opinions rest on clutching at straws. Vixen is technically correct, that the 2015 Supreme Court did not in the strictest sense "acquit".

It annulled. And the reason it annulled was that it said that on the basis of the evidence before it (none of it which was re-evaluated by the SC), that the Nencini court erred by not acquitting, but by convicting.

Is there anyone out there other than Vixen who has their nose out of join because of this?

​

No.

There is a certain amount of confusion in the above post, possibly in part because of the terseness in the PQM (For These Reasons, the operative part of the judgment).

For the murder/rape charges, Amanda and Raffaele were indeed acquitted, because the PQM uses CPP Article 530 (acquittal) and provides the specification ("rubrica"): "per non avere i ricorrenti commesso il fatto" ("because the appellants have not committed the act").

The Nencini Court of Appeal judgment of conviction was annulled without referral, but the Marasca CSC panel made clear that Amanda's conviction for "simple" calunnia, as finalized by the Chieffi CSC panel, remained in effect.

These were the legally binding actions performed by the Marasca CSC panel, as listed in the operative part of their judgment but written out by me in more detail:

1. Under CPP Article 620.1(A), they annulled without referral the conviction by the Nencini Court of Appeal of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito ont Charge B (carrying the knife) because the statute of limitations had run out.

2. Under CPP Articles 620.1(L) and 530.2, they annulled without referral the following convictions of the Nencini Court and acquitted because they had not committed the acts of the crime as follows:

2.1 For Amanda Knox only, of the alleged aggravating circumstances pertaining to her conviction for calunnia, contained in Charge F.

2.2 For Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito,

2.2.1 of the alleged crimes under Charge A (in collaboration among themselves and with Rudy Guede, murdering Meredith Kercher, and including [the former Charge C] in collaboration with Rudy Guede, enabling him to rape Meredith Kercher), and

2.2.2 of the alleged crimes under Charge D (stealing two mobile phones from Meredith Kercher), and

2.2.3 of the alleged crimes under Charge E (simulating a break-in and burglary to falsely attribute the crimes against Meredith Kercher to some unknown person).

3. Reaffirms the conviction of Amanda Knox for calunnia (as finalized by the Chieffi CSC panel) with a sentence of three years imprisonment (already served).

 

[Welshman]

You do not understand how it works.

In a merits hearing (a trial) the court's job is to ascertain the facts. It then decides on a verdict having heard all of the evidence in front of it from all parties, defence and prosecution, witnesses and exhibits. This is done by a mixture of highly qualified judges (usually people who have practised as criminal barristers for over seven years) and randomly selected members of the public (the defendants' peers, as it were).

In Italy there is an automatic appeal process. This time,it is simply a couple of judges (a junior and the lead judge) who read through both parties 'points of appeal' and each parties barristers are then give a few minutes each to present their skeleton argument in person before the judges.

The judges have to decide whether they prefer the defence's legal arguments or the prosecutions. You will note it is now nothing at all to do with presenting evidence,witnesses or facts.

In this particular case, there were iirc five parties presenting their appeals (for the Kercher family, for the prosecution, for the Knox defence, for the Sollecito defence and Lumumba's barrister). Each were told they were limited to twenty minutes.

Bongiorno, for Raff, was heard over a period of two and a half days - totally disproportionately to the others - together with a tacked on report from Peter Gill, who borrowed heavily from Conti and Vecchiotti and did not see or examine any of the forensic evidence at first hand (as we know C&V turned out to be defence advocates). Bongiorno hammered the judges over the head with 360 pages, when a skeleton is supposed to be no more than two sides of A4 maximum.

Surprise surprise, having given Bongiorno an unfair advantage in the amount of time she was given to present her appeal, not to mention the totally irregular use of evidence that had never been presented at trial (Gill was never called as a witness and had not been cross-examined) the judges on this occasion preferred the arguments of the defence. That's how it works. This why Bongiorno's crackpot and illogical arguments appear all over the motivational report.

Had it preferred the prosecutor's appeal then their arguments would appear in it.

The judges are not supposed to impose their own opinion. This is another way M-B erred as it was never put before the trial that the press were banned from speculating on the case (Italy doesn't have subjudice, being inquisitorial), which isn't against Italian law anyway and nor was the competence of the forensic scientists ever ruled as incompetent, either. This is something Marasca-Bruno made up.

One thing Bongiorno could not change though, without it having gone back to the merits courts, were the facts found, which stand in perpetuity.

So she got them out of jail but she did NOT clear their names. They are forever held to have been at the cottage during the time of the murder of 'the young Meredith Kercher'.

Vixen has been consistent in her hypocrisy that if something works in Amanda and Raffaele’s favour she attacks it but if the same thing works against Amanda and Raffaele Vixen has no problem with it. Vixen only objects to Bongiorno getting extra time because it worked in Amanda and Raffaele’s favour. If the prosecution were given extra time, Vixen would have no issue with it as this would work against Amanda and Raffaele. Vixen who believes that Amanda and Raffaele had to back to the cottage to stage a rape when Rudy had already raped Meredith has the hypocrisy to accuse Bongiorno of coming up with crackpot and illogical ideas.

 

[Numbers]

No.

There is a certain amount of confusion in the above post, possibly in part because of the terseness in the PQM (For These Reasons, the operative part of the judgment).

For the murder/rape charges, Amanda and Raffaele were indeed acquitted, because the PQM uses CPP Article 530 (acquittal) and provides the specification ("rubrica"): "per non avere i ricorrenti commesso il fatto" ("because the appellants have not committed the act").

The Nencini Court of Appeal judgment of conviction was annulled without referral, but the Marasca CSC panel made clear that Amanda's conviction for "simple" calunnia, as finalized by the Chieffi CSC panel, remained in effect.

These were the legally binding actions performed by the Marasca CSC panel, as listed in the operative part of their judgment but written out by me in more detail:

1. Under CPP Article 620.1(A), they annulled without referral the conviction by the Nencini Court of Appeal of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito ont Charge B (carrying the knife) because the statute of limitations had run out.

2. Under CPP Articles 620.1(L) and 530.2, they annulled without referral the following convictions of the Nencini Court and acquitted because they had not committed the acts of the crime as follows:

2.1 For Amanda Knox only, of the alleged aggravating circumstances pertaining to her conviction for calunnia, contained in Charge F.

2.2 For Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito,

2.2.1 of the alleged crimes under Charge A (in collaboration among themselves and with Rudy Guede, murdering Meredith Kercher, and including [the former Charge C] in collaboration with Rudy Guede, enabling him to rape Meredith Kercher), and

2.2.2 of the alleged crimes under Charge D (stealing two mobile phones from Meredith Kercher), and

2.2.3 of the alleged crimes under Charge E (simulating a break-in and burglary to falsely attribute the crimes against Meredith Kercher to some unknown person).

3. Reaffirms the conviction of Amanda Knox for calunnia (as finalized by the Chieffi CSC panel) with a sentence of three years imprisonment (already served).

With regards to CPP Article 620.1(L), the law states (translated by Gialuz, Luparia, and Scarpa):

1. In addition to the cases specifically provided for by the law, the Court of Cassation shall deliver a judgment of annulment without referral:

(L) in any other case in which the Court of Cassation believes the referral is superfluous or {it} may proceed to the determination of the sentence or take the necessary decisions.
_____

Thus, Italian law authorizes a CSC annulment without referral but also authorizes the determination of the sentence in that case. Thus, the CSC may dismiss or acquit by annulling without referral on its own judgment, based on one or more elements of law, including but not limited to the lack of logic in the convicting lower court's evaluation of the evidence or its use of inadmissible evidence.

 

[Stacyhs]

I've been asking all of the remaining guilters to provide evidence of Amanda being at the cottage at the time of the murder and so neither Vixen or the other two have been able to provide it. When I last reminded Vixen that Amanda's interrogation statements were ruled inadmissible and so not evidence, she replied with;

"Erm, you forgot the blood."

Of course, she never clarified what blood she was referring to or how it proved Amanda was there at the time of the murder. Maybe she'll be kind enough to enlighten us now?

You ARE the eternal optimist, aren't you?

Yes, I'd also like to know 'what blood'. The blood on the faucet? Blood that it's impossible to date as to when it was deposited? Let me guess...we'll hear how Knox said the faucet was clean the day before. Of course, it would be totally illogical for a guilty Knox to claim it wasn't there the day before. A guilty Knox would have said her ears were bleeding the day before and she'd just forgotten to clean it up in a rush to go somewhere. No, instead, we're to believe that she KNEW it wasn't there and so implicated herself willingly . Plus, according to Vixen, Knox was "bleeding profusely" so she must have gotten her own blood all over the sink. Which she apparently cleaned up. But left MK's blood because, after all, she could tell which was her blood and which was MK's. Good lord. In order to go with this line of thinking, one has to completely suspend all logic and common sense.

 

[Bill Williams]

No.

There is a certain amount of confusion in the above post, possibly in part because of the terseness in the PQM (For These Reasons, the operative part of the judgment).

<..... sinister deletia .....>​

2. Under CPP Articles 620.1(L) and 530.2, they annulled without referral the following convictions of the Nencini Court and acquitted because they had not committed the acts of the crime as follows:

I stand corrected. Yet in these discussions, we all wander between technical and colloquial uses of legal terms.

So, they in fact acquitted. Vixen says they didn't. Turns out that both colloquially, as well as under Italian law RS and AK stand acquitted.

 

[Bill Williams]

I've been asking all of the remaining guilters to provide evidence of Amanda being at the cottage at the time of the murder and so neither Vixen or the other two have been able to provide it. When I last reminded Vixen that Amanda's interrogation statements were ruled inadmissible and so not evidence, she replied with;

"Erm, you forgot the blood."

Of course, she never clarified what blood she was referring to or how it proved Amanda was there at the time of the murder. Maybe she'll be kind enough to enlighten us now?

.... and after 10,000+ posts telling us that the 2015 Supreme Court should not have been allowed to make determinations on the factuality of any one piece of evidence.....

...... in her post, Vixen quotes a hearing panel which had had nothing directly to do with the murder itself, just Raffalele's compensation claim!!!

Suddenly, acc. to Vixen, we're supposed to listen to a court - removed from the actual courtroom presentation of evidence - listen to the court make an opinion about a piece of evidence. And this with no opportunity for Raffaele or Knox to cross-examine the evidence which would make a court make that claim!

But did I say that this was the court which was constituted TO HEAR THE COMPENSATION CLAIM!?

If Vixen's claim is that it was merely summarizing the 2015 Marasca-Bruno report, then Vixen would be able to point to the place in that report which justifies the compensation court saying such. Vixen never does. Why?

Because in the earliest part of the report, the 2015 M/B report makes clear that that had been something that the previous, merits'-courts had alleged. And then the M/B court went on to rule that even if those allegations had been true, Nencini was still obliged to acquit.

Which as Numbers has shown, is what had happened. I had thought it was an annulment. Numbers has cited actual documents to show that it was an annulment of a conviction, and thus an acquittal.

What give me the feeling that Vixen will simply continue to claim otherwise?

 

[Stacyhs]

I stand corrected. Yet in these discussions, we all wander between technical and colloquial uses of legal terms.

So, they in fact acquitted. Vixen says they didn't. Turns out that both colloquially, as well as under Italian law RS and AK stand acquitted.

Ladies and Gents, place yer bets! Will Vixen admit they were acquitted? Place yer bets!

 

[sept79]

With all the posts the last couple of weeks, one has to wonder if Vixen might be under house arrest . . .

 

[Numbers]

I stand corrected. Yet in these discussions, we all wander between technical and colloquial uses of legal terms.

So, they in fact acquitted. Vixen says they didn't. Turns out that both colloquially, as well as under Italian law RS and AK stand acquitted.

If one looks back in the threads of this discussion, I believe you will find one or more posts where, for example, Vixen had stated that the Marasca CSC panel had used the Italian words for "dropped the charges" rather than "acquitted" regarding the murder/rape charges against Knox and Sollecito. See post 3033 in Continuation 19.

I believe there were also posts alleging that use of CPP Article 530 in a CSC judgment was contrary to Italian law. Others may search for those if they wish.

 

[Numbers]

.... and after 10,000+ posts telling us that the 2015 Supreme Court should not have been allowed to make determinations on the factuality of any one piece of evidence.....

...... in her post, Vixen quotes a hearing panel which had had nothing directly to do with the murder itself, just Raffalele's compensation claim!!!

Suddenly, acc. to Vixen, we're supposed to listen to a court - removed from the actual courtroom presentation of evidence - listen to the court make an opinion about a piece of evidence. And this with no opportunity for Raffaele or Knox to cross-examine the evidence which would make a court make that claim!

But did I say that this was the court which was constituted TO HEAR THE COMPENSATION CLAIM!?

If Vixen's claim is that it was merely summarizing the 2015 Marasca-Bruno report, then Vixen would be able to point to the place in that report which justifies the compensation court saying such. Vixen never does. Why?

Because in the earliest part of the report, the 2015 M/B report makes clear that that had been something that the previous, merits'-courts had alleged. And then the M/B court went on to rule that even if those allegations had been true, Nencini was still obliged to acquit.

Which as Numbers has shown, is what had happened. I had thought it was an annulment. Numbers has cited actual documents to show that it was an annulment of a conviction, and thus an acquittal.

What give me the feeling that Vixen will simply continue to claim otherwise?

Bill, not to be too picky, but "no" again.

An annulment of a conviction need not be an acquittal. It could be, for an example, a dismissal because the statute of limitations had expired, or because the court decided that there had been no reason to start or continue the prosecution. Each of those fall under their own CPP Articles, or paragraphs within CPP Article 620.1, which details most of the laws about annulment without referral.

The Marasca CSC Panel chose to acquit on the murder/rape charges. There are two indicators of that: 1) The explicit call-out of CPP Article 530, which relates only to acquittals*, and 2) The explicit call-out of the specification for an acquittal, as required by CPP Article 530. In this case, the specification was "because the appellants had not committed the acts of the crime".

* For example, the CSC also has available CPP Article 620.1(A), which includes annulment without referral for three different causes: 1) the criminal act is not deemed an offense under the law (for example, self-defense), 2) the statute of limitations was exceeded, or 3) the prosecution should not have started or continued. But it must use CPP Article 530 if its intent is to acquit after it has decided to annul without referral under CPP Article 630.1(L).

 

[LondonJohn]

It's clear to me that most (if not all) remaining pro-guilt commentators are choosing to address the inherent cognitive dissonance (the acquittals and exonerations of Knox/Sollecito vs a deep emotional attachment to a belief in guilt) by twisting the outcome of the trial process in order to try to pretend that the courts actually validated their (guilters') own point of view.

It's similarly clear to me that so important to them is this invented "validation", that they will defend it at all costs.

It's a fundamentalist, evangelical zealotry. And just like other examples (e.g. fundamental islamism), it perpetuates because a) there is a (usually very small) group of like-minded individuals who affirm and validate each other, and b) they convince themselves that others attack their arguments/beliefs because of a fear that those arguments/beliefs are actually correct. And such a belief system becomes so much a part of their own personal identity and ego that they simply cannot let go of it because that would feel like a betrayal of themselves.

It's fascinating to observe. Fortunately, in this instance (pro-guilt extremists in the Knox/Sollecito case) it's pretty benign* and specialised. But it's an extremely instructive example of the way these sorts of things start and foment. And the high likelihood is that nobody and nothing will ever make such zealots even moderate their beliefs, let alone actually change their minds........


* Though of course many of us remember instances where pro-guilt nuttery spilled over into threats of violence and retribution against Knox or Sollecito made by a (thankfully) very small number of individuals. Speaking of which, I wonder what happened to that maniac Graeme Rhodes. I certainly hope that as of now, neither Knox nor Sollecito has any real fear of harm, and similarly I hope that the appropriate law enforcement bodies are taking any and all necessary steps to keep them safe.

 

[Stacyhs]

I agree completely LondonJohn. They have so many years of emotional and public investment in the pair being guilty that the mere idea of being wrong is completely beyond their capabilities. To admit that they have conducted a decade long public campaign of hate toward two innocent people is more than they can deal with. Some cannot even just walk away and stop, even without admitting their own guilt. Instead, they continue their campaign of hate still trying to convince others in order to validate their own beliefs. It's truly sad.

As for G. Rhodes, hopefully he has received, or is receiving, the help he needs.

 

[toto]

'EVEN IF' here translates from the Italian as 'EVEN THOUGH'. It is not correct for you to claim that M-B is saying it i untrue.

You only have to look at the Florence court ruling which states:

I think the point has been made that the only evidence of Amanda Knox being present in the house during the murder of Meredith are the words of Amanda Knox herself which are extremely suspect and very far from being certain.