The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[LondonJohn]

Check quotes of Curt Knox as he stood on some steps giving a press conference.

He and Edda invested their funds in PR instead of legal counsel as they knew their daughter did it.

Nope. No dice. Made up.

And, lest you forget, your previous claim was that it was David Marriott who was the source of this "$2 million PR campaign" nonsense.

So let's try again, Vixen: show us the ACTUAL EVIDENCE on which you base this claim. Not nebulous and unsubstantiated (and, in fact, incapable of substantiation because they're wholly made up) hints.

Show us the evidence, Vixen. Because, as you so proudly told us, you never make claims unless they are backed by reliable facts and/or sources. So obviously you must have explicit evidence to support this claim. Mustn't you? And if you do, Vixen, it won't be at all difficult to show us this explicit evidence. Will it?

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh and by the way Vixen: if Knox's family chose to pay for PR instead of legal counsel, who do you think actually DID pay for all those many years (and trials) of costly legal representation?

Your attempted justifications are getting more and more laughable.

 

[abaddon]

As you have been told, I meant 'antennae' not 'mast'.

Antennae can and do move, in fact, they are designed to be flexible.

BZZZZT. Wrong.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

At first, I thought this post was Numbers gone completely bananas (or rather, more so) but then I checked the name of the poster and everything was in perfect character and all is well with the world. It is well [it is well].

Wow.... That was harsh Vixen. It hurts my feelings when you attack me personally like that.

Rather than personal attacks, could you address the point of my/our posts? According to Italian Law, Raffaele and Amanda are, and always have been, innocent of these crimes you are accusing them of. Yet you say they were never acquitted, and you keep claiming the courts convicted them. This is a massive disconnect from reality on your part, is it not? Is there something wrong?

Also, we've noticed a pretty major contradiction, I think -- you claim that PR bores you. Stated here:

PR bores me stiff.

Yet, and correct me if I'm wrong, you've posted a small (lol!) handful of times about Amanda's sex life, and, I think, about Raffaele's connection to the mob (while posting pictures that had absolutely nothing to do with any mob connections as false, manipulative "proof"). Put another way, you and your goons are engaging in negative PR against Amanda and Raffaele, and have been for more than a decade!

I thought you said "PR bores [you] stiff"?

 

[whoanellie]

When will the penny drop?

When you let it go.....

 

[Numbers]

Your pedantry is noted. The SC used the word 'annulled' because, technically, they do not acquit since it's not a trial but the end result is the same. Which is why all the media reports referred to the pair being acquitted.

According to this legal website:

https://www.nolandefenseattorneys.c...aside-a-case-vs-dismissing-a-case-in-arizona/

And what did Marasca Bruno rule? They annulled the conviction because Nencini did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

We've been over this issue of "annulled" and "acquitted" in the Marasca CSC verdict before.

Some corrections and additions:

1. An appeal to the CSC is a trial on points of law. Under Italian and international law (ECHR case-law), how evidence is interpreted is a point of law.

2. The Marasca CSC panel ANNULLED the Nencini appeal court verdict WITHOUT REFERRAL back to a lower court, because in the view of the CSC panel, there was no credible evidence that could be interpreted to support guilt. Thus, a referral would be superfluous. This annulment without referral was done in accordance with Italian law CPP Article 620, paragraph 1, subparagraph L.

3. The Marasca CSC panel ACQUITTED the accused, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, of the charges of the murder and rape of Meredith Kercher. The reason (specification or "rubric") for the acquittal was that the accused had not committed the act of the crime. Underlying this reason was the CSC finding that there was no credible evidence that could be interpreted to support guilt. This acquittal was done in accordance with Italian law CPP Article 530, paragraph 2.*

4. The Marasca CSC panel RECONFIRMED the conviction and already-served prison sentence of the accused, Amanda Knox, of the charge of having committed "calunnia" (malicious false accusation before a judicial or police authority) against Diya (Patrick) Lumumba. The CSC did this because they annulled the Nencini appeal court verdict of aggravated calunnia, and wished to make clear that in their view the verdict of the Hellmann appeal court of "simple" calunnia remained.

5. The ECHR final judgment in Knox v. Italy found that Italy, in convicting Knox of calunnia against Lumumba, had violated Knox's rights to a fair trial under two provisions of international law, and had violated her rights to have her allegations of mistreatment investigated under one provision of international law. Thus, Italy's conviction of Knox for calunnia was unfair, and Italy is obligated under its Constitution and international law to redress these violations.

The execution of this ECHR final judgment is currently under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers (Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECHR). Italy is obligated to provide an action plan or report on its proposed or accomplished individual and general measures to redress the violations to the Committee of Ministers.

* For completeness: Charge B which alleged that they had carried a knife to commit the crime was extinguished because the statute of limitations had expired. This extinguishment has the same practical effect as an acquittal for this charge, including maintaining the presumption of innocence.

 

[Numbers]

We've been over this issue of "annulled" and "acquitted" in the Marasca CSC verdict before.

Some corrections and additions:

1. An appeal to the CSC is a trial on points of law. Under Italian and international law (ECHR case-law), how evidence is interpreted is a point of law.

2. The Marasca CSC panel ANNULLED the Nencini appeal court verdict WITHOUT REFERRAL back to a lower court, because in the view of the CSC panel, there was no credible evidence that could be interpreted to support guilt. Thus, a referral would be superfluous. This annulment without referral was done in accordance with Italian law CPP Article 620, paragraph 1, subparagraph L.

3. The Marasca CSC panel ACQUITTED the accused, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, of the charges of the murder and rape of Meredith Kercher. The reason (specification or "rubric") for the acquittal was that the accused had not committed the act of the crime. Underlying this reason was the CSC finding that there was no credible evidence that could be interpreted to support guilt. This acquittal was done in accordance with Italian law CPP Article 530, paragraph 2.*

4. The Marasca CSC panel RECONFIRMED the conviction and already-served prison sentence of the accused, Amanda Knox, of the charge of having committed "calunnia" (malicious false accusation before a judicial or police authority) against Diya (Patrick) Lumumba. The CSC did this because they annulled the Nencini appeal court verdict of aggravated calunnia, and wished to make clear that in their view the verdict of the Hellmann appeal court of "simple" calunnia remained.

5. The ECHR final judgment in Knox v. Italy found that Italy, in convicting Knox of calunnia against Lumumba, had violated Knox's rights to a fair trial under two provisions of international law, and had violated her rights to have her allegations of mistreatment investigated under one provision of international law. Thus, Italy's conviction of Knox for calunnia was unfair, and Italy is obligated under its Constitution and international law to redress these violations.

The execution of this ECHR final judgment is currently under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers (Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECHR). Italy is obligated to provide an action plan or report on its proposed or accomplished individual and general measures to redress the violations to the Committee of Ministers.

* For completeness: Charge B which alleged that they had carried a knife to commit the crime was extinguished because the statute of limitations had expired. This extinguishment has the same practical effect as an acquittal for this charge, including maintaining the presumption of innocence.

For more detail, here is the relevant part of my post #848 in the current continuation of this thread (with a typo corrected). I have highlighted the mention of CPP Article 530 paragraph 2 and acquittal in point 2 below:

"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 on 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)."

 

[Bill Williams]

Oh and by the way Vixen: if Knox's family chose to pay for PR instead of legal counsel, who do you think actually DID pay for all those many years (and trials) of costly legal representation?

Your attempted justifications are getting more and more laughable.

I was going to post and pile on. But I have taken "the pledge". We have a meeting tonight anyway, so I think I can hang on.

Back to lurking. <fx biting on leather>

 

[Stacyhs]

As I remember, my first post in this forum was in regard to how I was amused that a certain someone was consistently having their *** handed to them on a plate yet they kept coming back for more. Three and a half years later, nothing has changed.

 

[TruthCalls]

You just don't get law do you?

Before a trial one is presumed innocent.

Knox and Sollecito had a trial and their conviction for aggravation murder - i.e., 'aggravated' because of the sexual assault and which would qualify as first degree murder in the USA - was merely annulled due to 'insufficient evidence'.

In other words, they are not deemed as innocent as a person before a trial. The final verdict is that Knox was present during the murder, did wash off the victim's blood from her person and did name Lumumba to cover up for Guede. Sollecito is deemed 'almost certainly' also present, with Knox.

When will the penny drop?

Honestly, this is one of the silliest things I've ever heard you say, and you've said a lot of silly things. How can someone be "less innocent" than they were some time before? Is it like double secret probation ??

And btw, what I said was "they weren't proven innocent and they weren't exonerated." These two statements are factually true. Sadly for you guilters, it's all you've got left. Really, Vixen, you must work on your reading comprehension - it will be your undoing!

 

[Bill Williams]

In other words, they are not deemed as innocent as a person before a trial.*The final verdict is that Knox was present during the murder, did wash off the victim's blood from her person and did name Lumumba to cover up for Guede. Sollecito is deemed 'almost certainly' also present, with Knox.

Honestly, this is one of the silliest things I've ever heard you say, and you've said a lot of silly things. How can someone be "less innocent" than they were some time before? Is it like double secret probation ??

And btw, what I said was "they weren't proven innocent and they weren't exonerated." These two statements are factually true. Sadly for you guilters, it's all you've got left. Really, Vixen, you must work on your reading comprehension - it will be your undoing!

Now Vixen is inventing a whole new legal system, where the courts can deem someone less innocent than they'd been at the start of the process.

Also - no, the court did not rule they'd been at the cottage during the murder. The court ruled that even if it had been true that Knox had washed blood from her hands, all that that proved - even if true - was that they'd been in another part of the cottage at a later time.

Vixen says all she does is quote the court. Ya sure.

 

[Stacyhs]

BREAKING NEWS! JOHN SMITH HAS JUST BEEN ACQUITTED OF THE ATTEMPTED MURDER OF HIS WIFE, BETTY SMITH. THE JURY FOUND SMITH NOT GUILTY, BUT NOT AS INNOCENT AS HE WAS BEFORE THE TRIAL! FILM AT ELEVEN!

 

[Stacyhs]

To contradict Vixen's theory that Marasca Bruno just barely annulled the conviction because there just wasn't quiiiiiiiiite enough evidence, remember that they could have sent the case back down to another appellate court. But they didn't. They stated that with the evidence presented, no court could convict them.

Also note that in the same declaration, the Court acquits them"

In the same way as the higher considerations, it is clear that the postponement would be useless, hence the declaration of annulment without postponement, pursuant to art. 620 I) of the code of ritual, thus applying a acquittal formula to which a new court of referral would in any case be held, in compliance with the principles of law set forth in this judgment.

Alla stregua delle superiori considerazioni, è evidente che il rinvio sarebbe inutile, donde la declaratoria di annullamento senza rinvio, ai sensi dell'art. 620 I) del codice di rito, applicando, dunque, una formula di proscioglimento alla quale sarebbe comunque tenuto un nuovo giudice di rinvio, in ossequio ai principi di diritto enunciati nella presente sentenza.

"Proscioglimento" translates to "acquittal".

 

[LondonJohn]

To contradict Vixen's theory that Marasca Bruno just barely annulled the conviction because there just wasn't quiiiiiiiiite enough evidence, remember that they could have sent the case back down to another appellate court. But they didn't. They stated that with the evidence presented, no court could convict them.

Also note that in the same declaration, the Court acquits them"





"Proscioglimento" translates to "acquittal".

Quite.

But even notwithstanding that, the truth remains that unless a court determines that there is sufficient evidence to prove guilt BARD, the defendant(s) must properly retain the presumption of innocence (having been acquitted). The bar for guilt is, necessarily and ethically-justly, set high. If a court can't be certain that the defendant(s) committed the crime, then the court must acquit and the defendant(s) must remain innocent in both law and ethics.

Incidentally, the qualifier to all of the above is that there is a fair trial in a properly-constituted court. And this is obviously important as it applies to the woeful Knox/Sollecito trials process. The Massei and Nencini courts were - as the Supreme Court eventually and correctly ruled - not properly constituted and were not fair courts. They did not apply the correct standard in evaluating evidence, and they did not operate under the guiding principle of "innocent until/unless proven guilty". Which is why their verdicts were, quite correctly and properly, expunged and anulled.

This qualifier (fair trial in a properly-constituted court) also applies to, for example, trials such as OJ Simpson's murder trial. There's a very strong case to be made that the prosecution (rather than the defence in the Knox/Sollecito instance) did not receive a fair trial, since this trial was not conducted in accordance with California State Law: the jury arguably did not attach the correct weight and importance to key elements of the prosecution's physical evidence and testimony which (again, arguably) ought to have collectively been more than sufficient to prove Simpson's guilt BARD.

So the qualifier can work both ways. And ultimately this is precisely the single most important role of the highest courts in any jurisdiction (usually called Supreme Courts). Their job is to oversee the work of the lower courts, and to evaluate the way those lower-court trials were conducted: were those trials conducted fairly, and in accordance with the law? Of course, in the Knox/Sollecito case, the Marasca SC panel was ultimately able to judge that the lower-court trials (most especially Massei and Nencini) were NOT conducted fairly and in accordance with the law. Their most egregious errors in law (and there were many) were in the way they evaluated and tested prosecution evidence (and indeed the prosecution case as a whole). As the Marasca panel correctly deemed, these lower courts should have effectively thrown out the prosecution's case, on account of the fact that every single piece of the crucial prosecution evidence/testimony was patently grossly unreliable.

Most pro-acquittal/pro-innocence commentators understand all of this, and most of us have known for years (once we were able to get proper visibility of the prosecution "evidence" and its true provenance) that there was not one single piece of credible, reliable evidence pointing to Knox's/Sollecito's guilt. But it appears that ALL (remaining) pro-guilt commentators are either unable or unwilling to understand and assimilate it....

 

[Bill Williams]

There's a very strong case to be made that the prosecution (rather than the defence in the Knox/Sollecito instance) did not receive a fair trial, since this trial was not conducted in accordance with California State Law: the jury arguably did not attach the correct weight and importance to key elements of the prosecution's physical evidence and testimony which (again, arguably) ought to have collectively been more than sufficient to prove Simpson's guilt BARD.

So the qualifier can work both ways. And ultimately this is precisely the single most important role of the highest courts in any jurisdiction (usually called Supreme Courts). Their job is to oversee the work of the lower courts, and to evaluate the way those lower-court trials were conducted...

Canada is like Italy, in that an appeal is considered simply an extension of the original trial, and that has profound effect on the definition of double jeopardy - although Canada only has one merits court, and two levels of appeals. While a case is under appeal, and not "final", then both prosecution and defence have the oppurtunity to challenge a lower court's finding.

One Canadian prosecution team received a new trial from an appeal's court, on the grounds that the prosecution itself had not received a fair trial. Foreigners more accustomed to an American definition of "double jeopardy" will be confused by that, if not a little offended.

Indeed, there was at one time an argument to be made that in Canada, that a quashing of an acquittal be based on an error in law which had caused the acquittal. Right now that is not necessarily the case, as all the prosecution needs to demonstrate is that the judicial error contributed to the "wrongful acquittal". (I have no clue what the distinction between those two qualifiers is.)

It is possible in Canada, but rare, that a higher court can impose a verdict, one that should have been found by the lower court, but which the higher court feels passing it back down would serve no end. Like the Sollecito/Knox acquittal, with no referral back to the 2nd levels' court in Italy.

 

[Stacyhs]

A blast from the past. A trip down memory lane. Let's take a sentimental journey with Vixen.....

The Marasca-Bruno verdict will be expunged in due course as 'illegal', but until then, the trial and appeal findings remain perfectly valid, aside from some of the DNA evidence (the knife and bra-clasp) ruled out by Marasca.

#23, part 23, Oct. 8, 2016

A heads up: justice is moving in on the corrupt judges.

Watch this space.

#29, part 23, Oct. 8, 2016

My ear to the ground tells me the Carabinieri have opened an investigation. There may not be enough evidence against Hellmann, but Conti & Vecchiotti might have their collar felt.

As may Marasca & Bruno.

#53, Oct 9, 2018

Did I sleep through the Marasca Bruno acquittal getting tossed out?

 

[Bill Williams]

He and Edda invested their funds in PR instead of legal counsel as they knew their daughter did it.

Your mind reading abilities are astonishing. Why didn't you tell us you possessed this gift?

 

[LondonJohn]

A blast from the past. A trip down memory lane. Let's take a sentimental journey with Vixen.....

#23, part 23, Oct. 8, 2016



#29, part 23, Oct. 8, 2016


#53, Oct 9, 2018

Did I sleep through the Marasca Bruno acquittal getting tossed out?

Ahh, you forget that the (mythical) PR Supertanker, employed and paid for by Knox and her family, even managed to get all news of this Marasca-tossed-out decision entirely suppressed throughout the whole World....

 

[Stacyhs]

Your mind reading abilities are astonishing. Why didn't you tell us you possessed this gift?

Wot? You haven't read Vixen's revelations of what Knox and Sollecito knew and/or were thinking before this? She's shared them with us many times.

 

[Stacyhs]

Ahh, you forget that the (mythical) PR Supertanker, employed and paid for by Knox and her family, even managed to get all news of this Marasca-tossed-out decision entirely suppressed throughout the whole World....

Not just that, but they must have had Raffaele's apology to Mignini and admission he lied about Mignini in his book purged from the news, too. No wonder they cost $2 million!