The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[NotEvenWrong]

You're an American citizen, right? So you will be familiar with the concept of prosecutors considering there is 'probable cause' to bring a criminal case against a suspect. The case is listed for arraignment before a judge. However, on the day, the suspect's defence lawyer - or even the suspect, if representing himself -manages to persuade the residing judge not to list it for a hearing as the prosecutor's case is not strong enough (in England & Wales, we call this 'Reasonable Prospect of Success'). So the case is dismissed on the grounds of 'insufficient evidence' and not listed for trial.

Vixen, sweety... help us out here.

Consider two scenarios:

- Two individuals are accused of a crime, move through the court system, and are ultimately completely exonerated by the Supreme Court by the end of it, and have all of the scientific and expert backing on their side.

- (Your alternative example, above) The suspect manages to persuade the judge to dismiss the case on grounds of insufficient evidence.

Are these two scenarios the same, or different? Consider this a basic, single question IQ test.

If the same, why? If different, then why are you using this made up example as an analogy to the Raffaele and Amanda trials?

Does this mean he is no longer a suspect? Does it mean he can no longer be prosecuted for the same crime, again? Does it mean the guy is 'proven innocent'? Or as innocent as someone who went to trial and was acquitted? IOW, that 'double jeopardy' kicks in and he can't be charged again for the same crime?

So, hopefully your answer to the above will be "completely different", therefore making these questions totally irrelevant. I have a feeling we're going to be transported to Vixen in Wonderland with your answers though lol.

If you know anything about your own country, you'll know that it means nothing of the sort. You can, and often are charged for the same offence if the police and prosecutor are able to acquire a better case against you.

Hurrrr

So no, being dismissed for 'insufficient evidence' is NOT the same as being found, 'Not Guilty' by your peers ( a judge and jury). Knox and Sollecito were NEVER found 'not guilty' by a jury. Quite the reverse. They were TWICE found 'guilty' of Aggravated Murder after a long and fair trial.

So uh the Supreme Court literally said they did not commit the act and everything about their convictions was eviscerated by the Supreme Court, all legal experts, and all forensic science experts. Yeah that's how bad you lost.

They had their sentence quashed by a couple of supreme court judges who never heard the case first hand and sat for just a couple of days in a paper-only environment, with Sollecito's barrister-for-the-mafia, Sicilian-born Bongiorno, being given five times the amount of hearing time than the other four parties put together.

So.... you're saying the lower courts are actually higher in the court hierarchy than the Supreme Court? And there was a mafia conspiracy to acquit two random kids? Weren't you guys the ones accusing us of conspiracy theories when we have been saying for 12 years the evidence didn't add up and Amanda/Raf were innocent?

Vixen, was Bigfoot in on this as well? You can answer honestly, we won't judge.

 

[LondonJohn]

And yet at the outset it was the pro-innocence posters who were regularly subjected to allegations that they were conspiracy theorists and calls for the thread to be moved to the CT forum.

It's a good example of the dangers of allowing mindless slurs of "conspiracy theory" to substitute for a rational examination of the evidence and arguments being put forward.

Ab-so-LUTELY.

And a critical factor underlying all of this is that a proper critical thinker can reach a "staged" level of conclusions (and certainty of conclusions) as more and more information becomes available and more and more analysis therefore becomes possible.

In the case of the Kercher murder, I'd actually say that to most commentators with no "inside" access to the investigation, it actually seemed reasonable to hold a provisional conclusion that Knox and Sollecito really did team up with Guede to attack and murder Kercher, right up to somewhere around the middle of the Massei trial in 2009.

And what changed at that point is that commentators got, for the first time, a better level of knowledge about the forensic "evidence", a first understanding of the prosecution's "witness" testimony, and a much better overall understanding of the dynamic of the crime.

So I'd say that as of mid-2009 onwards, it was in fact entirely reasonable for a well-informed (but non-"insider") commentator to have increasing scepticism as to a) the legal culpability of Knox and/or Sollecito, and b) the factual participation of Knox and/or Sollecito in the crime.

Then by mid-2010, in the build-up to the Hellmann appeal trial, more and more high-quality information became available to commentators, to the extent that by that point (IMO) the only logically-sound conclusion to reach was that a) neither Knox nor Sollecito should ever be convicted of anything related to the murder (on the grounds that it had become clear by that point that all the "evidence" of their participation was entirely rotten and valueless), and b) the very high likelihood was that neither Knox nor Sollecito had anything at all to do with the Kercher murder (and that the attack/murder was almost certainly carried out by Guede, acting alone).

Ever since that date, the additional information which has emerged has ONLY served to strengthen those conclusions.

 

[Rolfe]

Once someone told me about the gastrointestinal findings, I knew Meredith must have been killed shortly after getting back into the house. I can't remember when that was. Some time after Stilicho PMed me saying I was a respected poster on the forum and he was sure I'd be on the guilter side and wouldn't I come and participate in the thread?

I blew him off saying that life was too short. Then, as I said, someone else told me about the pizza and the apple crumble and that was that. Sometimes there's a single point which clarifies a case totally, even if it's not what the lawyers are concentrating on, and in this case, that was it.

 

[Numbers]

Well, no... You are just playing word games, as I said above...

Judges Marasca and Bruno (perfectly within their remit) used art 620.l to throw out the case: page 52:


Art. 620 reads:

Just for the record: Judges Marasca and Bruno involved art 530.2, for reasons only known to them, it wasn't necessary, but their use of art 620.l clearly is a slap in the faces of judges Matteini, Micheli, Massei and Nencini, isn't it?

They were conservative in choosing CPP Article 530.2 rather than 530.1. Had they only invoked CPP Article 620.1L, there would be ambiguities relating to both the murder/rape charges against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and the charge of calunnia against Amanda Knox. For the murder/rape charges, the Marasca CSC panel PQM makes clear that the accused did not commit the criminal act. On the other hand, for the calunnia charge, the Marasca CSC panel PQM makes clear that the aggravated circumstances are annulled, not the Chieffi CSC panel final conviction.

Since it was not a revision court, the Marasca CSC panel could not reverse, under Italian law, Knox's conviction for calunnia, and their statements in the motivation report did not suggest that they considered that conviction worthy of revision - even in the face of an ECHR judgment against Italy.

Here's an English translation (this differs, based upon an examination of the Italian text, in a few details from the translation as presented in my source*) of the PQM followed by a relevant excerpt from the motivation report text:

"FOR THESE REASONS

Pursuant to Article 620 letter A) Italian Code of Criminal Procedure:

annuls the ruling under appeal with respect to the crime under charge B) of the rubric because the crime is extinct due to statute of limitations;

Pursuant to Articles 620 letter L) and 530, section 2 Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, ruling out the aggravating circumstance under Italian under Article 61 n. 2 Penal Code, in relation to the crime of calumny,

annuls the ruling under appeal without referral with respect to the crimes under charges A), D) and E) of the rubric because the appellants did not commit the act.

Recalculates the sentence imposed upon appellant Amanda Maria Knox for the crime of calumny to be three years of confinement."

The motivation report text (translated) above the PQM includes the following statements:

"Given the above-mentioned considerations, it is evident that a new trial would be useless, thus the verdict of annulment without a new trial, in accordance with Article 620 letter L) of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, thus applying a sentence of not guilty which would also have been reached by any new referral judge, in accordance with the principles of law set out in this judgment.

The annulment of Knox’s conviction with regards to crime A), requires excluding {ruling out} the aggravating circumstance of criminal intent as given in Article, 61 n. 2 of the Italian Penal Code. The exclusion of this part means the sentence must be redetermined, which is quantified to the same degree as fixed by the Perugia Court of Appeal, the adequacy of which has been amply justified, on the basis of the determining parameters with which this judgment completely agrees."

*Source: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/motivation-reports-appeal-documents/

2015 Supreme Court Rulling: Marasca-Bruno Report [PDF]

 

[Stacyhs]

Everything points to a TOD very soon after MK arrived home. Even Guede puts himself at the apartment by 9:00 PM. Instead, Mignini and the PGP think Nara C. hearing rustling leaves and footsteps through double paned windows at 11:00ish (or so she thinks cuz she had to pee). This is, of course, on top of her testifying she'd heard about the murder and seen posters of the 'killer's BEFORE the murder had even been discovered. Sheesh.

Also, if she heard rustling leaves that night (which she didn't) that indicates DRY leaves which would not have been left on the wall as Guede climbed into FR's room.

 

[Stacyhs]

thus applying a sentence of not guilty which would also have been reached by any new referral judge,

But, but, but....according to Vixen, M-B didn't acquit Knox and Sollecito!

Oh, the conundrum! Who am I to believe? Vixen or my lying eyes?

 

[TruthCalls]

And yet at the outset it was the pro-innocence posters who were regularly subjected to allegations that they were conspiracy theorists and calls for the thread to be moved to the CT forum.

It's a good example of the dangers of allowing mindless slurs of "conspiracy theory" to substitute for a rational examination of the evidence and arguments being put forward.

It's also a good example of the broad reach of media and how it can influence public opinion, especially when you factor in social media. The PGP like to accuse Knox of running a PR campaign, but the real PR campaign was initiated by the prosecution and was enabled by the media. Stories of Amanda hosting a riot for a party, having seven sexual partners in a month, showering in a bathroom pink from blood, writing stories of rape and murder, committing a rape prank against her roommate in UW, and on and on it went - and people believed it... all of it. For people who read or hear things in the media and are inclined to believe it, and given the over-saturation of media outlets that exist today (Internet, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, etc.), it's not surprising so many people simply accepted her guilt.

 

[Stacyhs]

It's also a good example of the broad reach of media and how it can influence public opinion, especially when you factor in social media. The PGP like to accuse Knox of running a PR campaign, but the real PR campaign was initiated by the prosecution and was enabled by the media. Stories of Amanda hosting a riot for a party, having seven sexual partners in a month, showering in a bathroom pink from blood, writing stories of rape and murder, committing a rape prank against her roommate in UW, and on and on it went - and people believed it... all of it. For people who read or hear things in the media and are inclined to believe it, and given the over-saturation of media outlets that exist today (Internet, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, etc.), it's not surprising so many people simply accepted her guilt.

That's because so many people are lazy and none-too-bright. They just swallow whatever without doing any independent research. This case just solidified my opinion that, in general, people are idiots.

 

[RoseMontague]

Once someone told me about the gastrointestinal findings, I knew Meredith must have been killed shortly after getting back into the house. I can't remember when that was. Some time after Stilicho PMed me saying I was a respected poster on the forum and he was sure I'd be on the guilter side and wouldn't I come and participate in the thread?

I blew him off saying that life was too short. Then, as I said, someone else told me about the pizza and the apple crumble and that was that. Sometimes there's a single point which clarifies a case totally, even if it's not what the lawyers are concentrating on, and in this case, that was it.

I remember that. It's not been discussed nearly as much lately as it was in the early stages of the thread.

 

[Rolfe]

At the risk of being criticised for bringing up comparisons, I find that in many of the cases I've looked at there is one crucial point which proves that the case against the accused is wrong and that something else must have happened. With Lockerbie it's the understanding that the bomb suitcase was already in the baggage container at Heathrow an hour before the flight it was supposedly carried on touched down from Frankfurt. With Luke Mitchell it's the realisation that Andrina Bryson couldn't physically have seen what she said she saw if she was driving north, therefore she was driving south when she saw it, which shifts the time a crucial 45 minutes later. With Meredith Kercher it's the realisation that there is no evidence at all that she was alive in the cottage for any length of time after arriving there, and the particular circumstances of the timing of her meals demonstrate that she must have been killed very soon after 9 pm.

Once you have grasped that these things are facts which can't be explained away you have to analyse the case around them. So the Lockerbie bomb didn't come from Malta, which means that the accused was not, as claimed, at the scene of the crime. Exculpatory. So there is no evidence at all that Luke Mitchell was not in his own home at 4.50, which means that there is no reason at all to doubt the testimony of his mother and brother who say that he was there until 5.30, which gives him a complete alibi. Exculpatory. So Meredith Kercher was murdered shortly after 9 pm, when I understand that Knox and Sollecito are alibied independently. Exculpatory.

Of course it's interesting to discuss other aspects of the cases, but if you have a firm understanding of a solid fact that is incompatible with the accused person actually being guilty, the discussion proceeds on that basis.

As far as I am concerned unless you have a complete narrative of Meredith's murder where the killing took place shortly after 9 pm and was carried out by Knox and Sollecito, you're whistling in the wind putting forward any case for their guilt.

 

[bagels]

As far as I am concerned unless you have a complete narrative of Meredith's murder where the killing took place shortly after 9 pm and was carried out by Knox and Sollecito, you're whistling in the wind putting forward any case for their guilt.

They don't have a working narrative of AK/RS/RG participating in MK's murder for any TOD, let alone an early one. It has literally never been so much as attempted by them. Their inability to put together a basic sequence of events with what they consider ample evidence doesn't seem to give them any pause about their core belief in the pairs guilt though.

The PIP narrative is really just listing the evidence as it exist:

-A figure matching Rudy's description seen approaching cottage alone on CCTV
-There's an apparent break-in at the cottage matching a similar break-in blocks away Rudy was arrested in connection with
-Rudy's feces found in toilet
-A figure matching Meredith's description seen approaching cottage alone on CCTV
-Rudy's DNA found in Meredith's genitals, his bloody hand print left near body
-A bloody male footprint compatible with Rudy's foot in cleanup bathroom
-Rudy's DNA found on Meredith's purse
-Rudy's bloody shoeprints trailing away from the body
-Rudy's statements that he was alone with Meredith, and she fought with a single male attacker

Listing the primary evidence creates a narrative and timeline. Imagine that. It's almost because the real evidence is the result of the sequence of events which actually occurred. Mind blown. Imagine being a delusional guilter idiot haha

 

[Rolfe]

They don't have a working narrative of AK/RS/RG participating in MK's murder for any TOD...

Yes, I realise that. It's quite sad really.

 

[LondonJohn]

They don't have a working narrative of AK/RS/RG participating in MK's murder for any TOD, let alone an early one. It has literally never been so much as attempted by them. Their inability to put together a basic sequence of events with what they consider ample evidence doesn't seem to give them any pause about their core belief in the pairs guilt though.

The PIP narrative is really just listing the evidence as it exist:

-A figure matching Rudy's description seen approaching cottage alone on CCTV
-There's an apparent break-in at the cottage matching a similar break-in blocks away Rudy was arrested in connection with
-Rudy's feces found in toilet
-A figure matching Meredith's description seen approaching cottage alone on CCTV
-Rudy's DNA found in Meredith's genitals, his bloody hand print left near body
-A bloody male footprint compatible with Rudy's foot in cleanup bathroom
-Rudy's DNA found on Meredith's purse
-Rudy's bloody shoeprints trailing away from the body
-Rudy's statements that he was alone with Meredith, and she fought with a single male attacker

Listing the primary evidence creates a narrative and timeline. Imagine that. It's almost because the real evidence is the result of the sequence of events which actually occurred. Mind blown. Imagine being a delusional guilter idiot haha

Oh no, I think that in their own minds, the pro-guilt community DO have what they see as a working narrative.

The problem is: a) it takes many giant leaps of logic to reconcile this narrative, and b) the narrative simply is not supported by any of the (reliable, credible) evidence. But, just as with other nutter-groups (think Truthers or Staged-Moon-Landing CTer, for example), they easily manage to rationalise away these "minor difficulties".

Incidentally (and interestingly), one sees exactly the same behaviour traits in religious fundamentalists. One need look no further, for example, than the way creationist Christians twist and turn and rationalise and wave away when confronted with the Theory of Evolution: "No! our theory of life on Earth is correct! The Bible tells us so! And the Bible is the word of God!! And God tells us in The Bible that He created each living thing separately and placed them all onto the Earth, and made Man (separately) in His own image, more special than all the other life on Earth" <fx: places fingers in ears and goes "LALALALALALALA">

One can almost do a straight read-across to the way in which pro-guilt commentators defend their beliefs in respect of the Kercher murder case and the Knox/Sollecito trials process.

 

[Vixen]

At the risk of being criticised for bringing up comparisons, I find that in many of the cases I've looked at there is one crucial point which proves that the case against the accused is wrong and that something else must have happened. With Lockerbie it's the understanding that the bomb suitcase was already in the baggage container at Heathrow an hour before the flight it was supposedly carried on touched down from Frankfurt. With Luke Mitchell it's the realisation that Andrina Bryson couldn't physically have seen what she said she saw if she was driving north, therefore she was driving south when she saw it, which shifts the time a crucial 45 minutes later. With Meredith Kercher it's the realisation that there is no evidence at all that she was alive in the cottage for any length of time after arriving there, and the particular circumstances of the timing of her meals demonstrate that she must have been killed very soon after 9 pm.

Once you have grasped that these things are facts which can't be explained away you have to analyse the case around them. So the Lockerbie bomb didn't come from Malta, which means that the accused was not, as claimed, at the scene of the crime. Exculpatory. So there is no evidence at all that Luke Mitchell was not in his own home at 4.50, which means that there is no reason at all to doubt the testimony of his mother and brother who say that he was there until 5.30, which gives him a complete alibi. Exculpatory. So Meredith Kercher was murdered shortly after 9 pm, when I understand that Knox and Sollecito are alibied independently. Exculpatory.

Of course it's interesting to discuss other aspects of the cases, but if you have a firm understanding of a solid fact that is incompatible with the accused person actually being guilty, the discussion proceeds on that basis.

As far as I am concerned unless you have a complete narrative of Meredith's murder where the killing took place shortly after 9 pm and was carried out by Knox and Sollecito, you're whistling in the wind putting forward any case for their guilt.

Perhaps you'd like to explain who was ******* about with Mez' phone an hour and a half later inside the cottage.

<fx gets into listening pose>

 

[Vixen]

Yes, I realise that. It's quite sad really.

It's sad that anyone could let the fact they have a crush on the likes of Jeremy Bamber or Damien Echols get in the way of objectivity.

 

[bagels]

Perhaps you'd like to explain who was ******* about with Mez' phone an hour and a half later inside the cottage.

<fx gets into listening pose>

The call is coming from inside the house

 

[Bill Williams]

Perhaps you'd like to explain who was ******* about with Mez' phone an hour and a half later inside the cottage.

<fx gets into listening pose>

Instead of dropping these factoid-bombs into the thread, try incorporating it into a working narrative for how you think the crime happened.

A.

Comprehensive.

Working.

Narrative.

I'll let you in on something. You can't. Guilter-nutters don't even try. (My favourite reason given for not trying, was one nutter who said that since this was war, he didn't want to tip his hand to the innocentisi.)

 

[Rolfe]

The call is coming from inside the house

You know, and I know (but apparently Vixen doesn't know) that mobile phone masts have a range considerably wider than a single house.

 

[LondonJohn]

Perhaps you'd like to explain who was ******* about with Mez' phone an hour and a half later inside the cottage.

<fx gets into listening pose>

Perhaps you'd like to explain what ******* calls you're referring to.


(Since you're still apparently unaware with basic facts about the case, there were two aborted calls to numbers stored as short codes on Mez' Mez's Kercher's UK handset, and they took place right around 10pm. That's much less than one hour after Kercher was murdered. Not "an hour and a half later". And then there was an incoming MMS message to Kercher's UK handset just over 15 minutes after that.

And to answer your question in both instances: Guede - inside the cottage at 10pm with those two aborted outgoing calls, which were clearly fumbled attempts to turn the handset off), and somewhere on the road round the outside of the old city walls 15 minutes later (when he was caught out by the alert for the incoming MMS message, then mistakenly started the download of that message, then aborted the download). And very shortly after that MMS message fright, Guede clearly decided it was too much of a liability to hang on to Kercher's handsets, so he threw them into what he thought was a dark scrubby hillside (but which happened to be someone's front garden....)

 

[LondonJohn]

It's sad that anyone could let the fact they have a crush on the likes of Jeremy Bamber or Damien Echols get in the way of objectivity.

Isn't it just. But perhaps you could let us all know what this has to do with a discussion of the Knox/Sollecito trials process?