Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

Well, the same one alluded to by several posters who addressed you directly.

I have copied and pasted this sentence from LashL's earlier question to you (I'm hopeful she won't mind me repeating the exact sentence). Please could you give us an English translation word by word for the following sentence uttered by Judge Hellman? (You do not need to write anything else whatsoever - just a simple word for word translation).


''Nel nostro caso non abbiamo richiamato il secondo comma dell'articolo 530 del Codice''

But I have already spoken about it, I had already answered. I assumed that the meaning was obvious, provided that is reported correctly by the newspaper. The sentence says they did not mention the second paragraph. But this is something I had already noticed when they read the verdict.
The problem for me is he did not say "we apply the 530.1", neither.
(moreover he only made declarations consistent with 530.2 speaking about "sufficience" and "contradiction" of evidence)
I need to know what is mentioned, not what is not mentioned.
To me, he has not taken a position. He must say that in a positive phrasing, he must say what he wants and what he decides, not what he does not want and doed not decide. To me, until now Hellmann has just been contradictory in his declaration and appears to me as not taking any position.

Finally: here people talk as if the 530.1 - 530.2 consisted in one choice simple once for all. But in fact the virdict is not simple, there are five charges on Knox and four on Sollecito. Acquittals also had different formulas. There is no reason to assume that necessarily all the four remaining charges must have the same paragraph.
A 530.1 on the staging, just to make an example, if accepted by the Supreme Court would cause the Rudy verdict to crumble, and he would be almost certainly set free, for years (or for ever), while awaiting a new trial (without him taking any risk of sentencing increase in any case).

 

[JREF2010]

There was a verdict that was based on something that is the most important thing is this case, evidence.

Thats why I doubt the SC will be interested in reviewing it, there wont be any new evidence.

And what would be changed ?

Will Curatolo become credible?

Will the knife grow blood stains on it?

Did Hellman and Zanetti break rules?

Will the luminol blobs all of a sudden become positive for blood?

Will the rock in Filomenas room have any new meaning?

The bra clasp will still have a DNA chart with ignored higher peaks, and lower peaks used against the accused.

I think it will be struck down as fast as Rudys was.
Migninni wasted enough of everyones time and money on this "investigation run amuck."

 

[Ammonitida]

Thats why I doubt the SC will be interested in reviewing it, there wont be any new evidence.

And what would be changed ?

Will Curatolo become credible?

Will the knife grow blood stains on it?

Did Hellman and Zanetti break rules?

Will the luminol blobs all of a sudden become positive for blood?

Will the rock in Filomenas room have any new meaning?

The bra clasp will still have a DNA chart with ignored higher peaks, and lower peaks used against the accused.

I think it will be struck down as fast as Rudys was.
Migninni wasted enough of everyones time and money on this "investigation run amuck."

Every trial in Italy eventually goes to the Supreme Court for review. However, it's not a trial like the previous "appeals" were and therefore will not deal with the stuff you mentioned. To the dismay of the loser/guilters who still fantasize about a nullification, the verdict of the second trial will be confirmed.

 

[JREF2010]

Ok I give up. Since my questions are not worthy of answers, I'll stick to reading here.

I enjoy your questions, and always waiting for someone to attempt to answer them too.

Maybe if you ask in the Satanic Sex Orgy Drug and Drunk Induced Crimes without Evidence forum would help?

 

[Scorpion NITE]

Well, the same one alluded to by several posters who addressed you directly.

I have copied and pasted this sentence from LashL's earlier question to you (I'm hopeful she won't mind me repeating the exact sentence). Please could you give us an English translation word by word for the following sentence uttered by Judge Hellman? (You do not need to write anything else whatsoever - just a simple word for word translation).

''Nel nostro caso non abbiamo richiamato il secondo comma dell'articolo 530 del Codice''

But I have already spoken about it, I had already answered. I assumed that the meaning was obvious, provided that is reported correctly by the newspaper. The sentence says they did not mention the second paragraph. But this is something I had already noticed when they read the verdict.
The problem for me is he did not say "we apply the 530.1", neither.
(moreover he only made declarations consistent with 530.2 speaking about "sufficience" and "contradiction" of evidence)
I need to know what is mentioned, not what is not mentioned.
To me, he has not taken a position. He must say that in a positive phrasing, he must say what he wants and what he decides, not what he does not want and doed not decide. To me, until now Hellmann has just been contradictory in his declaration and appears to me as not taking any position.

Finally: here people talk as if the 530.1 - 530.2 consisted in one choice simple once for all. But in fact the virdict is not simple, there are five charges on Knox and four on Sollecito. Acquittals also had different formulas. There is no reason to assume that necessarily all the four remaining charges must have the same paragraph.
A 530.1 on the staging, just to make an example, if accepted by the Supreme Court would cause the Rudy verdict to crumble, and he would be almost certainly set free, for years (or for ever), while awaiting a new trial (without him taking any risk of sentencing increase in any case).

Thank you - I actually read your similar reply above when you answered a different question (I think you were responding to LondonJohn) but that is not what we were after in this question - see the bit I highlighted above.
Why can you not simply translate the sentence?

''Nel nostro caso non abbiamo richiamato il secondo comma dell'articolo 530 del Codice''

We can then make our own minds up about what Hellman is saying.

It's only a dozen words - please translate them.

Thanks.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

Every trial in Italy eventually goes to the Supreme Court for review. However, it's not a trial like the previous "appeals" were and therefore will not deal with the stuff you mentioned. To the dismay of the loser/guilters who still fantasize about a nullification, the verdict of the second trial will be confirmed.

LondonJohn and I (maybe others too) keep repeating - they can not change a verdict from guilty to innocent. IF they accept the appeal is allowable in the first place - THEN the Supreme Court can send it for a new trial if they feel it warrants it.

That won't happen, of course.

 

[Poppy1016]

I enjoy your questions, and always waiting for someone to attempt to answer them too.

Maybe if you ask in the Satanic Sex Orgy Drug and Drunk Induced Crimes without Evidence forum would help?

I really just wanted to see what Machiavelli would say in reply to my questions. JREF members have always been polite to me and I thank all of you for your dilligence.

 

[Poppy1016]

In my opinion, Machiavelli sounds disturbingly similar to Mignini. I believe there is more to their relationship than he admits to.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

Amanda Knox: What's in a face?

Interesting article in 'The Guardian' - food for thought:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/08/amanda-knox-facial-expressions?newsfeed=true

It would appear that a number of my fellow posters enjoyed reading the Guardian's article above, so hopefully, you will also like the article I am linking to below (also from The Guardian). Good to see the better quality UK Media showing things in a more intellectual manner than some of the trashy tabloids have been prone to do.

Funnily enough, a lot of the points made seem to have been noted on this very thread by some of our more esteemed posters.

Not quite the 'waste of time' thread some have intimated but then we always knew that anyway.

Link below:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...-cadwalladr-amanda-knox-kercher?newsfeed=true

 

[charlatan]

They wouldn't / couldn't reaffirm it anyway. There would have to be a whole new trial.

Yep, but some people still cling to the belief the supreme court can simply pretend evidence entered during the trial of the second instance never existed. I wanted to emphasize just how ridiculous this notion is even if we were to indulge them and imagine the supreme court has unbounded authority. Any "redo" of the case must contend with the revelations that have emerged during the appeal, thus any redo is dead on arrival.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

In my opinion, Machiavelli sounds disturbingly similar to Mignini. I believe there is more to their relationship than he admits to.

That's at least three people who have mentioned the similarities and I have to admit that I believe that Mignini definitely monitors forums or shall we say, has them monitored - in fact, I seem to recall that he has allegedly previously contacted the 'Guilter Forum' on more than one occasion (this claim is actually their own).

He looks as if he has a decent appetite - I hope he is given his 'just desserts' by the Court.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

They wouldn't / couldn't reaffirm it anyway. There would have to be a whole new trial.

Yep, but some people still cling to the belief the supreme court can simply pretend evidence entered during the trial of the second instance never existed. I wanted to emphasize just how ridiculous this notion is even if we were to indulge them and imagine the supreme court has unbounded authority. Any "redo" of the case must contend with the revelations that have emerged during the appeal, thus any redo is dead on arrival.

Fair enough - just wanted any 'lurkers' / 'readers' to be clear on the process.

 

[Kaosium]

That's the way they play the game in Italy. They tell them, like they told Amanda, 'it'll go worse for you' or they'll try to say they called but no one answered, they do their best to dissuade someone. There's a link I can't find this instant, I know it's buried back in the first continuation from a legal resource in Europe which is where I read that. I thought it was the European Bar Association, but I didn't find it there in a cursory search. I did find this though and wanted to make this point as Diocletus got me to thinking about



At 10:40 PM, November fifth 2007 Raffaele signed a statement that said Amanda had parted with him at the town center at about 9 PM on November first and didn't return home until about 1 AM later that night. He also intimated he went along with her version (which was right!) as he didn't think about the 'contradictions'--which didn't exist. The police would use that (and who knows might have personally believed) to later tell her Raffaele had said she asked him to lie. This suggests that Amanda had been lying all week about her alibi and might have tried to influence Raffaele into thinking something that was 'false' about the night of the murder.

The idea that Amanda was free to leave the Questura at that point is ludicrous, and as I recall one of the officers--think it was Ficarra or Napoleoni--said in court she was detailed to make sure Amanda didn't leave the building. She wasn't going anywhere, I know I sure as hell wouldn't have let her leave under those circumstances and I'm finding out compared to the police in Perugia I'm some kind of 'criminal' coddling bleeding heart!

Incidentally, if the police had as much mistaken and coincidental reasons to be suspicious as they should have had (and there's more they could have had) by 10:15 PM, November fifth I'd have had a talk with that young lady myself if I were them. I still suspect this started out as a tragedy of errors that spun out of control, but I do believe in the beginning they just wanted to solve a murder and make their people feel safe and impose justice for the gruesome death of person who died far before her time.

I found the passage I was looking for, it was actually in the European Bar Association link I tried to post but messed up. Here it is.

 

[Fine]

Deleted

 

[Fine]

Now that Amanda has "escaped," Patrick's attorney, Carlo Pacelli, is now asking the Knox/Mellas clan---and the United States of America--- whether Amanda will pay the court ordered damages to Patrick (oh, and Pacelli's legal fees). HERE.

///

 

[Draca]

Here is a translation of the interview with Raffaele's aunt, from Porta a Porta:

Here is a translation of the interview with Raffaele's aunt, from Porta a Porta:

------------
Quote:
Q: What do you mean when you say "Raffaele has given me a lesson in life"?

A: It's because Raffaele has always had faith in his moral compass and values. For a 24-year-old young man, it would have been very simple to point the finger just to get himself out. It would have been very easy to ask his lawyers to separate his defense from Amanda's. This did not happen -- even though some of us tried to suggest it to him...

Q: That would have been betraying Amanda?

A: Not betraying Amanda, betraying himself! Raffaele has never had any element that could have made him doubt Amanda's innocence; so that he was extremely proper and upstanding, giving us a life lesson. Raffaele specifically wrote to me "I would not be able to look myself in the mirror for the rest of my life, if I even thought I had said the slightest thing that could have caused the investigators to do harm to Amanda, which probably could help me. This I cannot allow. I am the one who has to look myself in the mirror. I must be freed, Amanda must be freed; we are both innocent. I would rather have an unjust life sentence than freedom at the price of convicting a girl who is also innocent." This is Raffaele.

Q: Tonight you all are going to write a short message on Facebook which will be a sort of goodbye from Raffaele Sollecito to the most popular social network in the world.

A: Yes, Raffaele specifically asked me to post a message in his name, a "hello everyone, Raffaele Sollecito will never again be on Facebook". Raffaele will have a personal account, an address which will be in the non-public domain, for the nearest and dearest people.

Q: So, we can expect Raffaele to retreat from the world? [literal translation: So, an "anti-character" [anti-personaggio] is what we should be expecting from Raffaele?]

A: Raffaele has always said: "I want to be free again, and being free again means having my anonymity back."
--------


Komponisto!

Thank you for this translation. Wow, when I first supported Amanda and Raffaele I did so because I thought they were innocent and Amanda was being attacked by crazies and corruption. To find out they are both exceptional individuals is a real blessing. This is so touching. It reminds me also of Steve Moore saying he couldn't stop supporting Amanda with out removing every mirror in his house. Amanda and Raffaele have gone through together an unbelievable event. Their continued friendship says a great about both of them

Thank you!

 

[Scorpion NITE]

''48 HOURS'' - the popular CBS News Video presents:​

Amanda Knox: The untold story


For those of you (like me) who missed this last night - here is the link - I'm off to watch it!!


http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7383976n&tag=contentMain;contentBody

 

[CDHost]

Now that Amanda has "escaped," Patrick's attorney, Carlo Pacelli, is now asking the Knox/Mellas clan---and the United States of America--- whether Amanda will pay the court ordered damages to Patrick (oh, and Pacelli's legal fees). HERE.

///

This guy is a lawyer and is addressing a civil judgement to the United States? He should be addressing this to the state of Washington, and this doesn't require an urgent appeal just a normal transfer of judgement with the protections for both sides. I don't think it will get transfered but this seems like yet more games from regarding Amanda.

 

[Draca]

Now that Amanda has "escaped," Patrick's attorney, Carlo Pacelli, is now asking the Knox/Mellas clan---and the United States of America--- whether Amanda will pay the court ordered damages to Patrick (oh, and Pacelli's legal fees). HERE.

///

The slander charge will be appealed won't it? So they probably wouldn't fork over money to the self-seeking Patrick Lumumba for a while. Frank Sfarzo suggests that the Supreme Court would do away with that charge.

Perugia Shock:
(The process will anyway be completed at the Supreme Court, which will sweep away that last absurd charge of slander).

 

[Freddy]

Now that Amanda has "escaped," Patrick's attorney, Carlo Pacelli, is now asking the Knox/Mellas clan---and the United States of America--- whether Amanda will pay the court ordered damages to Patrick (oh, and Pacelli's legal fees). HERE.

///

It's an interesting question whether an American court would honor the judgment, since the offending statement was procured as a result of obvious coercion (by American legal standards). A federal law was recently in the works (I think it passed) that would forbid American courts to honor foreign defamation judgments based on speech that would be protected by the First Amendment were it uttered or printed in America.

However, this judgment was obtained as a result of what would in America be violations of her Fifth Amendment rights to counsel and against self-incrimination (since the very same words incriminated her as well). It probably violated numerous other rights she would have been entitled to under the US Constitution as well, but the right to free speech is not one of them. So even if that law is in force, it doesn't seem to apply.

But I believe an American court would still have at least some discretion as to whether to honor the judgment, and if there is any discretion at all it is very unlikely the Knoxes will be ordered to pay Mr. Lumumba. The circumstances of the statement at issue are such that an American court would consider it presumptively involuntary as a matter of law.

I feel bad for Mr. Lumumba, as he was clearly an innocent victim and has suffered greatly. But he is not a victim of any malice on Knox's part. He is a victim of the interrogation practices of the police. Those tactics were outrageous and not even designed to seek the truth, but rather to "confirm" what the police had already decided was the truth - and they decided that with no evidence. Mr. Lumumba should sue the police, and I hope he does so successfully. He deserves to be made whole, but not at the expense of Amanda Knox, who should also sue the police.