The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[Bill Williams]

You and Socrates: 'great minds think alike'.

Vixen - next time you present the factoid that the Italian Supreme Court found it as factual that Knox rubbed blood from her hands, here's your assignment:

1) Exactly when did that happen, choosing a time between Nov 1 at 6:50 pm to Nov 2 at 4:50 am?

2) Address that claim in the context of what Marasca-Bruno wrote in section 6.2: namely....

6.2. Another error of judgment resides in the supposed irrelevance of the verification of the exact
hour of Kercher’s death, considering sufficient the approximation offered by the examinations,
even if assumed as correct during the trial pohase.

With regards to this, Sollecito’s defense has reasons to appeal, since they signaled the necessity
of a concrete verification specifically in the evidential proceedings, every consequential
implication. Furthermore, the exact determination of the time of Kercher’s death is an inescapable factual prerequisite for the verification of the alibi offered by the defendant in course of the investigation aiming to verify the possibility of his claimed presence in the house at via della Pergola at the time of the homicide. And for this reason an expert verification was
requested.

So, specifically on this point, it is fair to note a despicable carelessness during the preliminary investigation phase. It is sufficient to consider, in this regard, that the investigations carried out
by the CID had proposed a threadbare arithmetic mean between a possible initial time and a
possible final time of death (from approximately 6:50 PM on 1st November to 4:50 AM on the
next day) setting the hour of death approximately at 11-11:30 PM.​

3. What does Marasca-Bruno mean, in law, that it is simply insufficient to calculate an arithmetic mean to suggest a time of death?​

Take your time.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen - next time you present the factoid that the Italian Supreme Court found it as factual that Knox rubbed blood from her hands, here's your assignment:

1) Exactly when did that happen, choosing a time between Nov 1 at 6:50 pm to Nov 2 at 4:50 am?

2) Address that claim in the context of what Marasca-Bruno wrote in section 6.2: namely....

​

3. What does Marasca-Bruno mean, in law, that it is simply insufficient to calculate an arithmetic mean to suggest a time of death?​

Take your time.

It's just a load of mumbo-jumbo copied and pasted from p!ss poor lawyer and far-right fascist Sicilian-born mafia-sympathiser politician Giulia Bongiorno whose barrister oratory skills extend to waving a bunch of kitchen knives at the judges and screeching shrilly.

 

[Planigale]

It is bizarre the way the Knox-haters have defended Rudy, the real killer and rapist, over the years. Remember, this is the guy who lied when he said he had been in the cottage "on a date" with the victim, which (continuing his self-serving lies) was his explanation for his DNA in her vagina.

The Nencini court had accepted one of his lies as true.... his claim that Knox had arrived in the middle of this date, knocking on the very door she had a key to so that the victim had had to let her in. Nencini said that it was true that Rudy had heard a row over rent money break out.
Not a Satanic rite, not a sex game gone wrong, not a dispute over household cleanliness.... Nencini had put aside all those former judicial truths to substitute his own, based on no one but Rudy.

Do lurkers here wonder how this case had gone off the rails from 2007 to 2015? Yet Vixen pins her defence of the real killer on the judicial truth that Rudy had never been charged with burglary, despite being found with a "burglary kit" in his posession in places he'd actually broken into.

This is how the guilter-nutters have rolled all these years. And if it takes defending the killer, so be it.

This in itself would be a good reason to dismiss the verdict of the Nencini court.
1) Contrary to Italian law the evidence of a 'witness' was introduced without the right of the defence to cross examine the witness. The court its self is literally introducing hearsay!
2) The court is acting as an inquisitorial court, a process that was supposed to have changed to an adversarial approach. The court introduces a motive that had not been presented by the prosecution. The reason why this is wrong is obvious. An argument introduced by the prosecution during a trial can be rebutted by the defence. (As the defence had obviously successfully done as the court did not accept the prosecution motive.) Instead after the hearing the judge introduces a new motivation based on hearsay giving the defence no opportunity to rebut.

Just this sentence in the long verdict is sufficient to render it unsafe. The only question really was whether the Supreme court would order yet another trial or as they did just dismiss the case on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence. (Meaning that they felt the prosecution should never have brought the case in the first place.)

 

[Bill Williams]

It's just a load of mumbo-jumbo copied and pasted from p!ss poor lawyer and far-right fascist Sicilian-born mafia-sympathiser politician Giulia Bongiorno whose barrister oratory skills extend to waving a bunch of kitchen knives at the judges and screeching shrilly.

True to form, you avoid those three questions, substituting ad hominem.

 

[Stacyhs]

You and Socrates: 'great minds think alike'.

I'm not the one resorting to slandering Knox, Sollecito, Hellmann, Marasca, Conti and Vecchiotti, Peter Gill, Vinci, and every other expert who had spoken out about the lousy job the police did. That would be you, Quennell and the other handful of desperates over on TJMK.

 

[Stacyhs]

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers."
(attributed to Socrates)

This certainly explains a lot.

It's just a load of mumbo-jumbo copied and pasted from p!ss poor lawyer and far-right fascist Sicilian-born mafia-sympathiser politician Giulia Bongiorno whose barrister oratory skills extend to waving a bunch of kitchen knives at the judges and screeching shrilly.

Thank you for proving Socrates correct.

 

[Vixen]

This in itself would be a good reason to dismiss the verdict of the Nencini court.
1) Contrary to Italian law the evidence of a 'witness' was introduced without the right of the defence to cross examine the witness. The court its self is literally introducing hearsay!
2) The court is acting as an inquisitorial court, a process that was supposed to have changed to an adversarial approach. The court introduces a motive that had not been presented by the prosecution. The reason why this is wrong is obvious. An argument introduced by the prosecution during a trial can be rebutted by the defence. (As the defence had obviously successfully done as the court did not accept the prosecution motive.) Instead after the hearing the judge introduces a new motivation based on hearsay giving the defence no opportunity to rebut.

Just this sentence in the long verdict is sufficient to render it unsafe. The only question really was whether the Supreme court would order yet another trial or as they did just dismiss the case on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence. (Meaning that they felt the prosecution should never have brought the case in the first place.)

What nonsense.

 

[Vixen]

True to form, you avoid those three questions, substituting ad hominem.

You have an affinity to Bongiorno that you perceive it as a personal attack?

 

[Vixen]

Thank you for proving Socrates correct.

Which part of it is 'slander'?

Cannot be slander if it is true or 'fair comment'.

 

[bagels]

Vixen must be right about this case cause lots of smart savvy people agree with her such as

 

[bagels]

Pictured: Me IRL talking about the Knox case in the year 2019 to normal people, "That's why Guede is guilty, and furthermore there's this internet poster named Vixen who is extremely wrong and..."

 

[Vixen]

Vixen must be right about this case cause lots of smart savvy people agree with her such as

Truth is Truth.

Nothing to do with who agrees with you or who can assemble the biggest PR campaign.

 

[bagels]

Truth is Truth.

Nothing to do with who agrees with you or who can assemble the biggest PR campaign.

Sounds like a foolproof way to avoid confirmation bias

 

[LondonJohn]

Truth is Truth.

Nothing to do with who agrees with you or who can assemble the biggest PR campaign.

LMAO

There's "being wrong"...... and then there's "being so wrong that you can't even figure out that you're wrong".




(For the avoidance of doubt for one particular pro-guilt commentator: the latter element of the above sentence applies to Vixen's "arguments" on the Knox/Sollecito trials process and the Kercher murder investigation in general (it's tragic that I need to add this, but, y'know.....))

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, those "Moon landings really were real" and "9/11 was planned and executed by a small group of Isalamist terrorists" whackjobs must have mighty large PR campaigns going on, in order to counteract the "Truth is Truth" of the Moon-landings-hoaxers and 9/11-Truthers, eh....?

 

[Bill Williams]

You have an affinity to Bongiorno that you perceive it as a personal attack?

Regardless, it is noted you've substituted ad hominem for answering those three questions.

 

[AnimalFriendly]

It's just a load of mumbo-jumbo copied and pasted from p!ss poor lawyer and far-right fascist Sicilian-born mafia-sympathiser politician Giulia Bongiorno whose barrister oratory skills extend to waving a bunch of kitchen knives at the judges and screeching shrilly.

Please provide some form of proof for this rather amazing claim.

 

[Bill Williams]

Please provide some form of proof for this rather amazing claim.

As bad as section 9.4 of the Marasca-Bruno report is for any notion of guilt, section 6.2 gets to the heart of why no one can really prove anything about the guilt of AK and/or RS.

The inability for a guilter to supply a timeline for this crime, one that includes AK and/or RS, is at the heart of the eventual exoneration. Section 6.2 savage's the former Nencini conviction by saying that Nencini just decided that Time of Death was unimportant, when Italian law views TOD as vital in proving such a circumstantial case.

So expect Vixen to continue to avoid answering those three questions. Machiavelli refused to answer it, too. Why? Because "all the other evidence" that they claimed still convicted the pair (once the DNA evidence collapsed in 2011) each sticks to differing times in that 10 hour window Nencini works with. Few of each item in that "all the other evidence" pairs up with another item in that huge window.

Add all this to the fact that at the scene Mignini actually and actively PREVENTED the on site doctor from taking the victim's temperature.... and you can see why peeps like Vixen would rather deal in ad hominem than assess evidence.

 

[LondonJohn]

As bad as section 9.4 of the Marasca-Bruno report is for any notion of guilt, section 6.2 gets to the heart of why no one can really prove anything about the guilt of AK and/or RS.

The inability for a guilter to supply a timeline for this crime, one that includes AK and/or RS, is at the heart of the eventual exoneration. Section 6.2 savage's the former Nencini conviction by saying that Nencini just decided that Time of Death was unimportant, when Italian law views TOD as vital in proving such a circumstantial case.

So expect Vixen to continue to avoid answering those three questions. Machiavelli refused to answer it, too. Why? Because "all the other evidence" that they claimed still convicted the pair (once the DNA evidence collapsed in 2011) each sticks to differing times in that 10 hour window Nencini works with. Few of each item in that "all the other evidence" pairs up with another item in that huge window.

Add all this to the fact that at the scene Mignini actually and actively PREVENTED the on site doctor from taking the victim's temperature.... and you can see why peeps like Vixen would rather deal in ad hominem than assess evidence.

Well yes and no.

In fact, the real reason (and the proper reason in law and in ethics) why the Marasca SC panel annulled the murder-related convictions and definitively acquitted Knox and Sollecito is this: there was simply insufficient* evidence to prove their guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.

And it's crucial here to expand upon this somewhat. Firstly, the SC ruled - again correctly - that the lower convicting courts had acted unlawfully in the ways in which they'd assessed critical prosecution evidence as reliable and credible (chiefly the forensic evidence, but also important "witness" testimony, chiefly Curatolo, Quintavalle and Capezalli). And secondly, when all this "evidence" was rightfully discounted, the SC further correctly judged that no court could possibly convict Knox or Sollecito. Thirdly, the SC - once again correctly - deemed that there was no reasonable chance that there would ever exist sufficient (credible, reliable) evidence to prove the guilt of Knox and/or Sollecito in any properly-constituted court. Which is precisely why the SC entirely struck out the case.

It's not for the SC to think about things like workable narratives etc (except insomuch as they chime with the actual evidence or not). The SC, and for that matter every lower criminal court as well, should only - and MUST only - consider the question of whether the summation of the evidence, properly weighted, constitutes proof of guilt BARD.



* And again, for the avoidance of pro-guilt-commentator misrepresentation of this word "insufficient", it means - in both law and in ethics - that (in practice) unless the court can determine that the evidence shows certainty of guilt, then the court must acquit. There's literally zero difference (again, in both law and ethics) between the court finding that a) there's just not quite enough evidence of guilt to provide such certainty, and b) there's absolutely no evidence of guilt whatsoever. Exactly the same acquittal applies. And indeed, in the instance of the Marasca acquittals/annulments, the court made it very clear that it considered there to be effectively NO proper (reliable, credible) evidence of guilt, even though it was bound to acquit under "insufficient evidence"-related codes.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well yes and no.

In fact, the real reason (and the proper reason in law and in ethics) why the Marasca SC panel annulled the murder-related convictions and definitively acquitted Knox and Sollecito is this: there was simply insufficient* evidence to prove their guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.

I'd not been addressing the verdict per se. I had been addressing Vixen's repeated factoid that, "Knox had wiped blood from her hands," and claiming that that had proven she'd been part of the murder.

Section 9.4 is the most obvious rebuttal to that factoid, because Marasca-Bruno's reasoning was that even if that had been true, that still did not put either of AK or RS in the murder room, but demonstrated that, again even if true, that they'd been in the cottage after the murder and in another part of it other than the murder room.

But Section 6.2 is a further rebuttal. Marasca-Bruno chastises Nencini for claiming that the establishment of the time of death was irrelevant to the case, saying....

the exact determination of the time of Kercher’s death is an inescapable factual prerequisite for the verification of the alibi offered by the defendant in course
of the investigation aiming to verify the possibility of his claimed presence in the house at via
della Pergola at the time of the homicide.​

Granted, that "defendant" referred to had been Sollecito. But the question for Vixen remains: if she is going to repeat the factoid that Knox wiped blood from her hands as some sort of proof that Knox had been involved in the killing.....

..... then when, exactly, did that act take place? If Vixen says it is irrelevant to make such an exact determination, then 6.2 kicks in - it is not only relevant, it is "an inescapable factual prerequisite" for assessing culpability in the murder.

And, of course, the determination of not having proven anything beyond a reasonable doubt is applied to the overall case as presented by the prosecution. Except....

...... Italy also allows a statement that, "they did not commit the act", not just that the prosecution had not proven anything. "They did not commit the act" was the finding in this case.