Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[icerat]

Actually they'd be better off if they were. Instead they've had their heads filled with bilge from their detestable lawyer so they believe in things like the 'second knife,' that Rudy's Supreme Court Motivations Report will damn Amanda and Raffaele despite it not being true and silly besides, that the cops claiming the break-in was staged means anything when they can't prove it and basically must claim the break-in was staged to make any case against Raffaele and Amanda and that there really is a multi-million dollar 'PR campaign' being waged on behalf of Amanda.

It's ugly what the combination of Mignini and Maresca did to them. They now believe a ridiculous irrational fantasy of Meredith's death that's unfalsifiable as any information that contradicts the Massei Report can be 'blamed' on the 'massive PR campaign' which somehow has its tentacles in the American, British and Italian media and can work Judge Hellmann to their will and corrupt the independent experts from Rome.

Surely it must have been a multi-billion dollar campaign for them to afford to hire an entire Boeing 767-300 as a private jet?

Seriously though, the Kercher's are victims in this tragedy twice. Once at the hands of Guede four years ago, and then - and still - at the hands of Mignini and Maresca, aided by Massei.

 

[Onofarar]

"Pacelli is the only party who won entirely. "

The power of "she-devil"

Seriously, Lumumba's case was trivially well-founded.

Actully no - the original award by the Massei court was at least 60K Euros plus legal expenses so this court cut the award by more than half. (However, the legal expenses may have increased by more than 38K so don't know if AK owes more or less than she did before).

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh and by the way, I just noticed that even the pro-guilt commentators Yummi and Popper on .org (both of whom are Italian, and both of whom seem to have some knowledge of Italian law) are in total agreement with my position on Article 530:

This is a technical thing. The art. 530 (acquittal) has two paragraphs. The second indicates cases with reasonable doubt. The first indicates cases where innocence is proven or certain.

But how can this be coupled with a 530 § 1 "non aver commesso il fatto" on the rest is a total mystery.

The fact it appears to be a 530 comma 1 - as Yummi/Clander said - would be an inexplicable circumstance. Maresca said without mention of the article that formula could be used for 530/1 or for 530/2 so we will find out only by reading the motivations. We will see. This may make this sentence less solid, as the slander conviction - inexplicably unconnected to the murder [and which is not final as the murder acquittal].

Had Hellmann's court acquitted Knox and Sollecito on the grounds of no more than reasonable doubt, he would have referred to 530.2 in his verdict. However, the court acquitted them on the grounds that it concluded they were no involved in the murder, which is why Hellmann explicitly quoted 530.1 in his verdict.

 

[Nogbad]

Actually they'd be better off if they were. Instead they've had their heads filled with bilge from their detestable lawyer so they believe in things like the 'second knife,' that Rudy's Supreme Court Motivations Report will damn Amanda and Raffaele despite it not being true and silly besides, that the cops claiming the break-in was staged means anything when they can't prove it and basically must claim the break-in was staged to make any case against Raffaele and Amanda. Oh, and that there really is a multi-million dollar 'PR campaign' being waged on behalf of Amanda.

It's ugly what the combination of Mignini and Maresca did to them. They now believe a ridiculous irrational fantasy of Meredith's death that's unfalsifiable as any information that contradicts the Massei Report can be 'blamed' on the 'massive PR campaign' which somehow has its tentacles in the American, British and Italian media and can work Judge Hellmann to their will and corrupt the independent experts from Rome.

I think I will bow out of this. Whether the evidence stacks one way or another, there is uneasy leaning towards vilification of the Kerchers that I find troublesome. One might think that it is possible to support justice seen to be done without the necessity for snideness towards the victim's family who are wholly blameless in the matter. Apparently not though. I still think the post I quoted originally reprehensible.

 

[smkovalinksy]

They must be the puppets of Mignini.

No, Mignini has no puppets, don't be silly - it is just human nature to run counter to the prevailing scenario.

 

[LondonJohn]

Surely it must have been a multi-billion dollar campaign for them to afford to hire an entire Boeing 767-300 as a private jet?

Seriously though, the Kercher's are victims in this tragedy twice. Once at the hands of Guede four years ago, and then - and still - at the hands of Mignini and Maresca, aided by Massei.

I couldn't agree more. And I truly hope that the Kerchers come to realise this truth: I don't see how they will ever find any peace or sense of justice otherwise.

And the multi-billion dollar PR campaign is also apparently funding the chartering of a 747-400 to fly from Heathrow to Seattle......

One point about the money angle: I read last night (can't remember who or where) that someone close to the Knox family (might have been Anne Bremner) alluded to the fact that well over a million dollars had been spent on Knox's case. Predictably, some confirmation-biased idiot at .org or .net leaped upon this as an "AHA!! GOTCHA!!" slip-up, and declared that the "multi-million-dollar PR campaign" story was right all along.

Except.......... the amount of money being referred to was the amount spent on the case in total. The overwhelming majority of this money would have been spent on legal fees and expert witnesses. And the vast majority of the rest would have been spent on travel and subsistence expenses for Knox's family. There simply never was a "multi-million-dollar PR campaign". It existed only in the minds of irrational pro-guilt individuals with an agenda to smear and obfuscate. It's very unlikely that there was ever anything much more than a "ten-thousand-dollar PR campaign". And I hope that Mignini gets properly called to account for his use of the million-dollar lie in open court. The man is a disgrace to the legal profession, and is about to get his just desserts.

 

[bolint]

No, I'm sorry. You're just plain wrong. Either you can't understand the Italian or you can't assimilate what's written there. But if you prefer to want to argue that black is white, that's your prerogative. It's not good for your credibility though.

I understand those paragraphs fully.
As for the judge, he did not refer to Para 1 or Para 2. only the (common) ground.
There is a reason
Because making that difference was abolished in the new penal code for protection of the presumption of innocence.

But argue it out with the Italian jurists.

Ecco cosa dice l'articolo 530 del codice di procedura penale


L'articolo 530 del codice di procedura penale individua i casi di sentenza di assoluzione.
Il primo comma recita: "Se il fatto non sussiste, se l'imputato non lo ha commesso, se il fatto non costituisce reato o non è previsto dalla legge come reato ovvero se il reato è stato commesso da persona non imputabile o non punibile per un'altra ragione il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione indicandone la causa nel dispositivo".

Il secondo comma, citato dal giudice Francesco Ingargiola, spiega che "il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione anche quando manca, è insufficiente o è contraddittoria la prova che il fatto sussiste, che l'imputato lo ha commesso, che il fatto costituisce reato o che il reato è stato commesso da persona imputabile". Non si tratta quindi di una assoluzione per insufficienza di prove, cancellata con il nuovo codice che prevede in ogni caso l'assoluzione con la formula "perchè il fatto non sussiste".

Il terzo comma fa riferimento ai casi in cui "vi è la prova che il caso è stato commesso in presenza di una causa di giustificazione o di una causa personale di non punibilità ovvero vi è dubbio sull'esistenza delle stesse, il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione a norma del comma 1".

Chiude l'articolo il quarto comma: "Con la sentenza di assoluzione il giudice applica, nei casi previsti, le misure di sicurezza".

(23 ottobre 1999)

 

[Onofarar]

<snip> If Yummi is accurate in this, it means that Mignini was implying that his friendship with Zanetti should have to some degree influenced the way in which Zanetti ruled in the appeal trial. We can add this to the list of Mignini impropriety.

In the USA that would be an "ex parte" conversation and is at least highly unethical.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I think I will bow out of this. Whether the evidence stacks one way or another, there is uneasy leaning towards vilification of the Kerchers that I find troublesome. One might think that it is possible to support justice seen to be done without the necessity for snideness towards the victim's family who are wholly blameless in the matter. Apparently not though. I still think the post I quoted originally reprehensible.

I suggest that before declaring the Kerchers "wholly blameless in the matter" you examine the role their lawyer and even several of the family members had in the whole sordid affair first.

I don't believe that anyone is out to vilify the Kerchers, but rather note that their actions during the trial, and those that continue afterwards, and especially those of the man working on their behalf, have often been unseemly.

The worst thing about this trial has been that instead of keeping his clients informed about what was happening and giving them the truth, their lawyer has been using them as pawns to try and win the prosecution's case. From their own statements, their understanding amd knowledge of the case is incredibily poor, and the only reason for that is because their lawyer, a man that they should have been able to trust, has been treating them like mushrooms for his own benefit.

Since they were the ones that hired him, they aren't "wholly blameless" for his hideous and callous actions, though in reality they have been victimised twice. Once at the hand of Rudy Guede, and once at the hands of the prosecution and their own lawyer. I just hope that when Hellman's report is done they will realise exactly how they have been used and abused by the very person they should have been able to rely on and trust to tell them the truth.

 

[lionking]

I still think the post I quoted originally reprehensible.

And it surely is. I've gotten a bit desensitized to vilification of the Kerchers on this thread, but you are quite right to point it out.

 

[icerat]

Just read on twitter that Kercher's father works for the Daily Mail, which would explain their exclusive interview this morning. Is this true?

 

[LondonJohn]

I understand those paragraphs fully.
As for the judge, he did not refer to Para 1 or Para 2. only the (common) ground.There is a reason
Because making that difference was abolished in the new penal code for protection of the presumption of innocence.

But argue it out with the Italian jurists.

From Yummi (who apparently was there last night, and who has an irrational leaning towards guilt that usually colours his reasoning dramatically):

I have heard Hellman spelling "530 comma 1", otherwise I wouldn't believe it.

You don't know what you're talking about. Please stop going on about it now. You're wrong. I don't intend to waste any more of my time arguing with you about this.

 

[bolint]

which is why Hellmann explicitly quoted 530.1 in his verdict.

Hmmm.
I did not hear it, I'll listen to it again.

 

[JREF2010]

First article today was Migninni condemning the media pressure's, which he him self started with the corrupt non-recorded interrogation leaks, trick of the HIV leaks/Sex list leaks, and all the other Satanic Sex & Drugs slander....he should be locked up for a 2nd charge of power of abuse.

The Kerchers are left confused because MarescaRat became a biased puppet for Migninni instead of a neutral entity.
I hope they can understand the real ToD and put the simple pieces of the case together now without Maresca's relentless, self indulging , self interests.

The hate groups will, hopefully, review Rudys role, they seem to have forgotten he even had a part in this crime.

If they want the full answer and full truth, the hate groups only need to turn their obsession towards their befriended , credible, poor black Rudy.

 

[LondonJohn]

Just read on twitter that Kercher's father works for the Daily Mail, which would explain their exclusive interview this morning. Is this true?

He's freelanced for many papers (more often the Mirror), but quite clearly has close connections at the Mail. He has written pieces for the Mail in the run up to the acquittals. And I would have to agree with you that the Mail's stance on the acquittals very likely has some link to existing relationships with John Kercher. There appears to be little other way to explain the sheer perversity of the animosity expressed in today's opinion piece by Amanda Platell in that paper - provocatively and extraordinarily entitled "What is it about Amanda Knox that so chills the blood?"

We should be happy for her, the innocent victim of this terrible miscarriage of justice.

Yet there is something disquieting about Amanda Knox, something that slightly chills the blood. Those piercing blue eyes, as cold as the steel of the knife that slit Meredith Kercher’s throat, have hardly flinched during her court appearances.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2045078/What-Amanda-Knox-chills-blood.html#ixzz1ZoQxJcNO

IIRC, the Mail's front-page headline in its first editions also struck a curious chord which implied that there was something suspect with the verdict. If John Kercher's influence and connections did indeed have anything to do with the Mail's reporting on the acquittals, then that would shock and surprise me, and would massively diminish any respect for John Kercher and his dignity/decency. He might have had nothing to do with it of course, but......

 

[bolint]

From Yummi (who apparently was there last night, and who has an irrational leaning towards guilt that usually colours his reasoning dramatically):


From Yummi (who apparently was there last night, and who has an irrational leaning towards guilt that usually colours his reasoning dramatically):

Quote:
I have heard Hellman spelling "530 comma 1", otherwise I wouldn't believe it.

No matter what Yummi says, I listened again to Hellmann's reading the verdict, recorded it and listened again.

He does not even mention articolo 530 let alone Para 1.

You don't know what you're talking about. Please stop going on about it now. You're wrong. I don't intend to waste any more of my time arguing with you about this.

OK. I accept it as a retraction.

 

[LondonJohn]

And it surely is. I've gotten a bit desensitized to vilification of the Kerchers on this thread, but you are quite right to point it out.

Care to point out any of this "vilification" of the Kerchers?

And "gotten"? I thought you were Australian?

 

[Stellafane]

You are getting there. Try again, though. Take a look at the actual evidence with a more objective critical eye and maybe you'll see it.

Heh...I guess I can't blame you for being a bit smug at the moment; I'm sure I would be in a similar position.

 

[Dougm]

We should be happy for her, the innocent victim of this terrible miscarriage of justice.

Yet there is something disquieting about Amanda Knox, something that slightly chills the blood. Those piercing blue eyes, as cold as the steel of the knife that slit Meredith Kercher’s throat, have hardly flinched during her court appearances.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2045078/What-Amanda-Knox-chills-blood.html#ixzz1ZoQxJcNO

What do they mean, "have hardly flinched during her court appearances". What planet do they live on?

 

[Onofarar]

Exactly. Not sure why this backlash from US media....

That "legal analyst" would be Dan Abrams (who was fired or demoted previously at NBC). The day before Abrams was asked his prediction on the outcome of the verdict. He "bravely" ventured it was "50/50". After sticking his nck out so far he of course needed to cover his derriere.