The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 31

[LondonJohn]

So what do you think Marasca-Bruno meant when they wrote the following in their final written reasons (motivational report)?:




Why would Marasca-Bruno believe Knox was covering up for Guede in naming Lumumba if they believe she is innocent? On the contrary, they appear to not consider her innocent at all!

I've already explained this to you. The Knox criminal slander conviction, at the time of the Marasca SC judgement and MR, stood as a SC-affirmed settled conviction. Therefore the Marasca panel was obliged either 1) to issue a judgement on the murder-related charges which contradicted the judicial facts of the Knox criminal slander conviction - which would automatically have triggered a revision process regarding that criminal slander conviction; or 2) to find some way of endorsing & incorporating the judicial facts of the Knox criminal slander conviction, while finding that there was zero basis in law for convictions on the murder-related charges.

The Marasca SC panel chose, unsurprisingly, to take the latter option: even though it was internally contradictory in part, it avoided the mess and further farce that would have taken place had the judiciary had to open up the criminal slander charges again. It's an unsatisfactory way to operate, and indeed it's yet one more indication of how Italian criminal justice is not fit for purpose (see also the improper use of Guede's trial in Knox's/Sollecito's trial, and the improper way in which Knox's criminal slander charges were tried consecutively with Knox's/Sollecito's murder-related charges).


Of course, since then the ECHR has driven the proverbial coach and horses through the Knox criminal slander conviction, and has exposed it for the disgraceful abuse of process and disregard for law that it was. Any rational observer can therefore now view the Marasca SC judgement in the correct light: when one discounts - as one must, in the light of the ECHR judgement - all the stuff in Marasca that strived to incorporate the then-extant Knox criminal slander judicial facts.... the Marasca judgement now reads simply as a (correct) excoriation of the ways in which the lower courts adjudicated the Knox/Sollecito murder charges, and the disgraceful gaping flaws in the work of the police and prosecutor.

Hope that helps explain things for you.

 

[LondonJohn]

Peter Gill was not a witness at the trial. He was not cross-examined. He did not see the primary evidence nor the treatment of same.

As for your would, could, should, anyone can rationalise anything.

If you read Sollecito's second statement to the police, you will see that Sollecito does indeed confirm that his first statement was just an alibi for Knox, which she had asked him to provide and that this was a crock. He actually throws her under the bus and says she didn't return to his bedsit until 1:00. Such an honour bound chap! Bill Williams' chest will be bursting with pride for 'the kid'.

No. Poor understanding and analysis on your part once again.

It's perfectly clear that the police improperly coerced Sollecito into a state of cognitive dissonance in that 5th November interrogation (sorry: "friendly chat with someone who definitely wasn't a suspect"....). They more-or-less instructed him that they knew Knox had been in the girls' cottage at the time of the murder. This caused Sollecito to doubt his own memory of the two nights of 31st October - when Knox had indeed gone out separately from him; and 1st November - the murder night, when he and Knox had spent the whole evening/night together alone in his apartment. The police's certitude over Knox's presence at the murder, coupled with threats to him relating to "covering up" for Knox, effectively forced Sollecito to substitute the events of 31st October for the events of 1st November. This was the only way in which he could comply with the police's demands for confirmation that he didn't know where Knox had been at around the time of the murder.

Anyone who analyses this with a modicum of intelligence and objectivity can see, entirely clearly, that the events Sollecito substitutes in for the evening/night of 1st November correlate precisely with the factual events that actually occurred on the evening/night of 31st October. The police have bamboozled and threatened Sollecito into mixing up his memory of the two nights, in order to meet with the police's demands. One more clear indicator of this is Sollecito's request to see a calendar, and the police's refusal to allow this request. It's really very simple if one knows how to look at things correctly.

 

[TomG]

Peter Gill was not a witness at the trial. He was not cross-examined. He did not see the primary evidence nor the treatment of same.

As for your would, could, should, anyone can rationalise anything.

If you read Sollecito's second statement to the police, you will see that Sollecito does indeed confirm that his first statement was just an alibi for Knox, which she had asked him to provide and that this was a crock. He actually throws her under the bus and says she didn't return to his bedsit until 1:00. Such an honour bound chap! Bill Williams' chest will be bursting with pride for 'the kid'.

Neither was Garofano but it didn't stop you from upholding his baloney even when his conclusions were rubbished by at least 3 independent sources. Gill's credentials are second to none, his conclusions are presented in a professional manner for anyone to access including his peers. On the other hand, Garofano's conclusions were limited to one of the most discredited books on the case, and that's about it.

Now you've ditched the list and moved the goalposts.

Raffaele's 3.30 statement puts himself at his flat with Amanda at Le Chic or elsewhere, which is totally incompatible with the prosecution theory that they were both at VDP and involved in the crime, but it seems that only your favourite bits apply. Raffaele's recollections of that night are more likely to be that of Halloween anyway. However:

According to Raffaele's ECHR appeal document:

"In particular, in the reasoning were recalled the statements made by the applicant before his indictment, which could not be used in the criminal trial under the terms of Article 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In those statements, the applicant recounted in detail the events of the previous day, in particular the behavior and movements of A.K. the day before the discovery of the victim's body."

If that's the case then why are you referring to the statements?

Hoots

 

[Bill Williams]

Knox and Guede shared a joint together. Guede said Knox was giving him the glad eye. On a street corner when Guede was standing with his basketball chums, including the boys downstairs, Knox came up to him and said, "Hi, I'm Amanda from Seattle. [Remember?]' as they had chatted in Le Chic.

Do you have a problem with that?

She only knew Sollecito less than a week.

You really should pick a lane.

A few posts ago, you said you disbelieved Rudy Guede. Then you have proceeded to quote him as if he's a reliable source.

You're nothing if not inconsistent.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Judges do not hypothesise. Judges are paid to judge. They are expected to come to a decision.

It's right and proper for judges to consider hypotheses when arriving at their decision. They came to the decision the defendants did not commit the act. Do you cling to the hope history will somehow eventually conclude otherwise?

 

[Bill Williams]

Peter Gill was not a witness at the trial. He was not cross-examined. He did not see the primary evidence nor the treatment of same

You have no sense of a major part of the practice of science.

A major part of it is peer review, meaning that a scientist should finish his/her item of study, presenting it in a form which is duplicatable.

Meaning, that if the barrier to assessing Stefanoni's work was that experts not present at trial, were not able to judge the merits of Stefanoni's work....

....THEN THAT IS STEFANONI'S FAULT.

Science is intended to be transparent.

If Stefanoni saw the primary evidence, then presented it in such a way as preventing peer review....

..... THEN THAT IS A REASON TO REJECT STEFANONI'S WORK.

That this is not self evident is the most stark of your failures.

Peter Gill IS subject to cross-examination. It's called peer review. That no other expert has challenged Gill's conclusion means something.

That the fame-wiki accepts criticisms of Gill from anonymous sources is all you need to know about the fake-wiki.

Okay, I missed the one non-anonymous source. He admitted up front that his expertise was astrology.

 

[NewtonTrino]

I continue to be amazed that this continues to be discussed. If Amanda is such a huge murdered why does she seem like a pretty normal wife/mother these days?

Basically the italian police were a bunch of bumbling fools. If anyone should have been in jail it should be them.

 

[Bill Williams]

He mentions the fridges in her own laboratories do not even have a thermometer.

It's always been curious that guilters criticize *Vecchiotti* for those failures at her institution, failures she had nothing to do with.

Compare that with the way that Stefanoni handled the bra-clasp, not just the way Stefanoni blew it during its collection.

She stored it in such a way that the clasp became rusted, in effect it was destroyed and unavailable for further study.

That was Stefanoni who did that.

 

[Bill Williams]

I continue to be amazed that this continues to be discussed. If Amanda is such a huge murdered why does she seem like a pretty normal wife/mother these days?

I do it because literally there are times during the day I have nothing better to do!

I need a better hobby, I agree.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I continue to be amazed that this continues to be discussed.

Me too. I avoided even looking at these threads for many years as it was a bit close to home; a work colleague of mine at that time was the victim's brother.

But I've been looking lately just to see what's left to be said and the thread seems to be entirely about nitpicking the innocent on their character, as if that would magically make them guilty. To what end, I can only guess, but it seems like some true believers need Knox to be a murderer so they can vindicate their own prejudices. It's astonishing.

 

[Stacyhs]

Me too. I avoided even looking at these threads for many years as it was a bit close to home; a work colleague of mine at that time was the victim's brother.

But I've been looking lately just to see what's left to be said and the thread seems to be entirely about nitpicking the innocent on their character, as if that would magically make them guilty. To what end, I can only guess, but it seems like some true believers need Knox to be a murderer so they can vindicate their own prejudices. It's astonishing.

And that, in a nutshell, is exactly what is happening. I've said the same thing many times. They have become so emotionally and time invested in RS's and Knox's guilt that they cannot admit they are wrong. This is especially true for those 'true believers' who write for websites like TJMK, TMofMK, and even have their own blogs dedicated to 'proving' RS and AK are guilty. Some people's egos are so fragile that they would rather continue being wrong than admit to being wrong.

 

[Stacyhs]

Please try to follow how this was dealt with in court, legally. Tagliabracci for the defence argued in court that the DNA testing was suspect centric. This was weighed up by the court and cross-examined. The claim was rejected.

There was no finding that the forensic police had been suspect-centric but entirely objective and impartial.

You continue to make claims but fail to quote and cite supporting evidence.

"Tagliabracci for the defence argued in court that the DNA testing was suspect centric. "

Please quote and cite where Tagliabracci did this. If you do not, like your previous claims that have gone unsupported by the requested evidence, then we can only infer it is not factual.

 

[Vixen]

I've already explained this to you. The Knox criminal slander conviction, at the time of the Marasca SC judgement and MR, stood as a SC-affirmed settled conviction. Therefore the Marasca panel was obliged either 1) to issue a judgement on the murder-related charges which contradicted the judicial facts of the Knox criminal slander conviction - which would automatically have triggered a revision process regarding that criminal slander conviction; or 2) to find some way of endorsing & incorporating the judicial facts of the Knox criminal slander conviction, while finding that there was zero basis in law for convictions on the murder-related charges.

The Marasca SC panel chose, unsurprisingly, to take the latter option: even though it was internally contradictory in part, it avoided the mess and further farce that would have taken place had the judiciary had to open up the criminal slander charges again. It's an unsatisfactory way to operate, and indeed it's yet one more indication of how Italian criminal justice is not fit for purpose (see also the improper use of Guede's trial in Knox's/Sollecito's trial, and the improper way in which Knox's criminal slander charges were tried consecutively with Knox's/Sollecito's murder-related charges).


Of course, since then the ECHR has driven the proverbial coach and horses through the Knox criminal slander conviction, and has exposed it for the disgraceful abuse of process and disregard for law that it was. Any rational observer can therefore now view the Marasca SC judgement in the correct light: when one discounts - as one must, in the light of the ECHR judgement - all the stuff in Marasca that strived to incorporate the then-extant Knox criminal slander judicial facts.... the Marasca judgement now reads simply as a (correct) excoriation of the ways in which the lower courts adjudicated the Knox/Sollecito murder charges, and the disgraceful gaping flaws in the work of the police and prosecutor.

Hope that helps explain things for you.

Not so. The Chieffi Supreme Court already finalised the Calunnia conviction.

 

[Vixen]

No. Poor understanding and analysis on your part once again.

It's perfectly clear that the police improperly coerced Sollecito into a state of cognitive dissonance in that 5th November interrogation (sorry: "friendly chat with someone who definitely wasn't a suspect"....). They more-or-less instructed him that they knew Knox had been in the girls' cottage at the time of the murder. This caused Sollecito to doubt his own memory of the two nights of 31st October - when Knox had indeed gone out separately from him; and 1st November - the murder night, when he and Knox had spent the whole evening/night together alone in his apartment. The police's certitude over Knox's presence at the murder, coupled with threats to him relating to "covering up" for Knox, effectively forced Sollecito to substitute the events of 31st October for the events of 1st November. This was the only way in which he could comply with the police's demands for confirmation that he didn't know where Knox had been at around the time of the murder.

Anyone who analyses this with a modicum of intelligence and objectivity can see, entirely clearly, that the events Sollecito substitutes in for the evening/night of 1st November correlate precisely with the factual events that actually occurred on the evening/night of 31st October. The police have bamboozled and threatened Sollecito into mixing up his memory of the two nights, in order to meet with the police's demands. One more clear indicator of this is Sollecito's request to see a calendar, and the police's refusal to allow this request. It's really very simple if one knows how to look at things correctly.

Utter nonsense. Sollecito was a fourth-year IT student. IT students are said t be amongst the brightest. Sollecito was also a self-confident braggadoccio who swaggered into the Questera with a knife in his possession. On another occasion, when the police told him to attend the Questura at 22:00, Sollecito admonished them for interrupting his meal. That doesn't sound like a mouth-breathing drooling wilting flower who can't remember what he was doing on the night of a terrifying murder. Gimme a break.

 

[Bill Williams]

Not so. The Chieffi Supreme Court already finalised the Calunnia conviction.

If this is your response, it's hard to believe you even read LondonJohn's post, much less comprehended it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Utter nonsense. Sollecito was a fourth-year IT student. IT students are said t be amongst the brightest. Sollecito was also a self-confident braggadiccio who swaggered into the Questera with a knife in his possession. On another occasion, when the police told him to attend the Questura at 22:00, Sollecito admonished them for interrupting his meal. That doesn't sound like a mouth-breathing drooling wilting flower who can't remember what he was doing on the night of a terrifying murder. Gimme a break.

What does this attempt at character assassination have to do with anything?

 

[Vixen]

Neither was Garofano but it didn't stop you from upholding his baloney even when his conclusions were rubbished by at least 3 independent sources. Gill's credentials are second to none, his conclusions are presented in a professional manner for anyone to access including his peers. On the other hand, Garofano's conclusions were limited to one of the most discredited books on the case, and that's about it.

Now you've ditched the list and moved the goalposts.

Raffaele's 3.30 statement puts himself at his flat with Amanda at Le Chic or elsewhere, which is totally incompatible with the prosecution theory that they were both at VDP and involved in the crime, but it seems that only your favourite bits apply. Raffaele's recollections of that night are more likely to be that of Halloween anyway. However:

According to Raffaele's ECHR appeal document:

"In particular, in the reasoning were recalled the statements made by the applicant before his indictment, which could not be used in the criminal trial under the terms of Article 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In those statements, the applicant recounted in detail the events of the previous day, in particular the behavior and movements of A.K. the day before the discovery of the victim's body."

If that's the case then why are you referring to the statements?

Hoots

Garafano didn't attempt to manipulate the outcome of the trial, as Peter Shill did, with his crafty 'Do you know who I am' legerdemain act. The sheer arrogance of the guy, thinking he can get someone off a murder rap by claiming he knows better than the Scientific Police. I wonder how much Mr. Sollecito Snr paid him for that.

 

[Vixen]

You really should pick a lane.

A few posts ago, you said you disbelieved Rudy Guede. Then you have proceeded to quote him as if he's a reliable source.

You're nothing if not inconsistent.

The reason we know Knox knew Guede is because of witnesses. The boys downstairs witnessed all of this. Don't need to 'believe' or 'disbelieve' Guede.

 

[Vixen]

It's right and proper for judges to consider hypotheses when arriving at their decision. They came to the decision the defendants did not commit the act. Do you cling to the hope history will somehow eventually conclude otherwise?

That is factually incorrect. The topic we were discussing was the Calunnia. Knox was convicted of Calunnia and remains convicted of it.

 

[Vixen]

You have no sense of a major part of the practice of science.

A major part of it is peer review, meaning that a scientist should finish his/her item of study, presenting it in a form which is duplicatable.

Meaning, that if the barrier to assessing Stefanoni's work was that experts not present at trial, were not able to judge the merits of Stefanoni's work....

....THEN THAT IS STEFANONI'S FAULT.

Science is intended to be transparent.

If Stefanoni saw the primary evidence, then presented it in such a way as preventing peer review....

..... THEN THAT IS A REASON TO REJECT STEFANONI'S WORK.

That this is not self evident is the most stark of your failures.

Peter Gill IS subject to cross-examination. It's called peer review. That no other expert has challenged Gill's conclusion means something.

That the fame-wiki accepts criticisms of Gill from anonymous sources is all you need to know about the fake-wiki.

Okay, I missed the one non-anonymous source. He admitted up front that his expertise was astrology.

Criminal Law does its 'peer review' in the court room. The merits hearing is all.