• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

That is incorrect. The greater part of Hellmann's court was evsicerated but a small part remains valid.


Consider this: if Hellmann was bribed to throw the case and the defendants released from a rightfully convicted prison sentence, does the verdict of Hellmann and Marasca-Bruno vis-a-vis Vecchiotti still stand, if found out?

Think about it.

If Massei was bribed to convict..If Chieffi was bribed to annul...if Nencini was bribed to convict.....if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
 
In the questura when no-one had been formally told yet that it was Meredith Kercher, let alone cause of death?



At that point none of the friends could have suspected Knox would be charged and convicted of murder and sexual assault (= Aggravated Murder).





Stop trying to downplay Knox' thoroughly outrageous behaviour.
You are saying Amy wanted to hit Knox and this is significant because it was before she knew Knox was under suspicion. Can you provide any evidence for this? It would help if such evidence was not in the form of something attested later, which might merely be revisionist hindsight in the manner of "I always knew she was a wrong 'un".
 
There are slides of the cuts on Guede's hand available. They are quite superficial compared to some of the knife cuts you can see on Google of victims who tried to defend themselves by grabbing the blade.


The merits trial did cover all angles from all sides.

Except I wasn't talking about him getting cut from trying to defend himself, I'm talking about getting cut when a bloodied knife slides in the attacker's hand as they stab someone. It's a very common occurrence, and his wounds were exactly where you would expect to see them if this is what happened. He was smart enough to know he would need to come up with an excuse for how he got them, which he did when he spoke of fighting with the unidentified Italian man, but he then changed his story and that excuse no longer worked.

Typically this would be considered very critical evidence, but it doesn't appear it was ever brought up in any trial. So much for the merits trial covering all angles from all sides.

I'd also expect anyone with an impartial, open mind about the case to accept this was potentially a major piece of evidence that the prosecution failed to present, but I see you're happy with letting sleeping dogs lie.
 
Except I wasn't talking about him getting cut from trying to defend himself, I'm talking about getting cut when a bloodied knife slides in the attacker's hand as they stab someone.

Steve Moore talked about his FBI training, where they were shown the aftermath of what happens when knives are used.

Except they were given magic markers, instead of knives. After the briefest of melees, both attacker and defender were covered in marks, not just on their hands.

Both AK and RS were seen within hours of the attack, neither had those signs on them of knife use.

For what it's worth.
 
Steve Moore talked about his FBI training, where they were shown the aftermath of what happens when knives are used.

Except they were given magic markers, instead of knives. After the briefest of melees, both attacker and defender were covered in marks, not just on their hands.

Both AK and RS were seen within hours of the attack, neither had those signs on them of knife use.

For what it's worth.

Exactly, and I think it's worth quite a bit. It's evidentiary value is comparable to a positive GSR test, especially when the suspect has no explanation for being cut.
 
It's amazing how many judges, even SC judges, and forensic experts in Italy are bent and liars. What's even more amazing is that the only honest ones are those who just happen to agree with you.

Hardly 'amazing'. Consider this: a merits court states incorrectly that Mr X is, say, transgender. This mistake is repeated at the second instance appeal court and then becomes a final finding of fact at the Supreme Court. That is how one wrong incidence gets repeated by several.

Thus, Massei rubber-stamped Stefanoni's DNA findings (and the defence expert witnesses were there). All good. The Hellmann is bribed, shall we say (I believe he was) to hire 'independent experts' to override the first court. The independent witnessess, Vecchiotti (who is known to be a sympathiser of suspected murderers as she was fined €100K or so for refusing to test their DNA) so someone who is corrupt and probably bought with the same bribe. The prosecutor appeals. Chieffi excoriates Hellmann and criticises him for failing to explain WHY he appointed independent experts. Hellmann is absolutely trashed and the case sent back down to Nencini of a similar level court. This time, Nencini gets the R.I.S. to test the DNA that Vecchiotti and Conti falsely claimed was 'too low copy'. His experts Novelli Torrecelli confirm the DNA results of Sollecito ont he bra hook and confirm that there was no plausible contamination that could have caused it. Conviction upheld. The defence appeals to the Supreme Court V chamber. The V. Chamber pulls Vecchiotti and Conti out of the shredder and pieces it back together.

So you see, there is nothing 'amazing' about more than one incidence of corruption, given Bruno himself was once accused of Mafia involvement and Bongiorno from a Sicilian mafia-loving background herself, who represented Mafia-accused Andreotti (and got him off on 530.2).

This is what is meant by the slippery slope: let one piece of corruption slip by, and soon you have an avalanche. This is why ethics guidances advise not to let even the slightest standards slip or thus begins the slippery slope.
 
Is that why so many merit court verdicts are annulled on appeal?


According to Notebooks of Legal Research of Legal Advice
The appeals in Italy: Why did the reforms not work?
by Bruna Szego , (pg 21)
nearly 47% of first instance courts in Italy are overturned on merit grounds:

Even then, only limited parts of the original merits trial are tried again. You can't introduce 'new evidence' such as the pillow if you cannot explain why you didn't introduce it as evidence at the trial as it was known of at the time (and therefore does not fulfil the criteria of 'new').
 
Questions that are somewhat difficult to answer include how many acquittals are there in Italy per year, and for those obsessed with thinking that an acquittal under CPP Article 530 paragraph 1 is normal while one under Article 530 paragraph 2 is abnormal or bent, how many of each of those occur per year.

I have found an answer to the first question in an article from a responsible Italian media source, but have no data on the second question.

According to a 25 October 2020 article in Il Messaggero, over the period 1991 - 2019, there were 28,893 cases of judicial error in Italy. These are the totals of unjust detentions (accused persons had their cases dismissed, typically by acquittal) and acquittals after a revision hearing. That is an average (mean) of about 1000 per year.

The compensation cost to Italy for these cases totaled 823,691,326 EUR or an average of about 28,400,000 EUR per year.

One thought from this information is that, since the Ministry of Finance and the prosecutor are parties to a compensation hearing, to reduce yearly costs, the Italian compensation judge may go to some length of creative if unfair legalism to find an applicant not eligible for compensation. I suggest that may be the real reason, or one of the reasons, that Sollecito was denied compensation for unjust detention.

Source: https://www.ilmessaggero.it/italia/...a_dati_ultime_notizie-5545829.html?refresh_ce

No, the reasoning was that Sollecito brought his custody on himself by constantly changing his signed police witness statement. There is a clause that allows Italy to refuse compensation if the claimant is deemed to have committed 'misconduct' causing him to be taken into custody.
 
Except I wasn't talking about him getting cut from trying to defend himself, I'm talking about getting cut when a bloodied knife slides in the attacker's hand as they stab someone. It's a very common occurrence, and his wounds were exactly where you would expect to see them if this is what happened. He was smart enough to know he would need to come up with an excuse for how he got them, which he did when he spoke of fighting with the unidentified Italian man, but he then changed his story and that excuse no longer worked.

Typically this would be considered very critical evidence, but it doesn't appear it was ever brought up in any trial. So much for the merits trial covering all angles from all sides.

I'd also expect anyone with an impartial, open mind about the case to accept this was potentially a major piece of evidence that the prosecution failed to present, but I see you're happy with letting sleeping dogs lie.

Did Knox' and Sollecito's attorneys bring this up in court? The issues are decided in advance of a trial at the prehearings. It's not a case of a judge suddenly having a lightbulb moment.
 
Steve Moore talked about his FBI training, where they were shown the aftermath of what happens when knives are used.

Except they were given magic markers, instead of knives. After the briefest of melees, both attacker and defender were covered in marks, not just on their hands.

Both AK and RS were seen within hours of the attack, neither had those signs on them of knife use.

For what it's worth.

The victim was restrained so they met with no fight back.
 
The victim was restrained so they met with no fight back.

Once again, you need to pick a lane.

Guilters used to make a big deal about the mark on Knox's neck. Guilters speculated that Knox had been hit so that her nose bled.

Now you're saying there had been no fight back.

Pick a lane.
 
LondonJohn, thanks for reminding us that the Chieffi CSC panel had already annulled the acquittal of the murder/rape charges part of the Hellmann appeal court verdict. So Vixen's comment is perhaps ambiguous or uninformed. Since Vixen apparently fabricated the apparently false information in the post quickly, the error is understandable.

In response to the ECHR final judgment Knox v. Italy, the Italian authorities will be overturning Knox's wrongful conviction for calunnia against Lumumba. However, contrary to Vixen's post, it will not be done by a law passed by the Italian Parliament, but rather by the revision hearing process already established under Italian law (CPP Articles 629 -647 and Italian Constitutional Court judgment #113 of 2011). There may indeed be parliamentary action to bring forth new laws about interpretation and questioning of persons by the police and prosecutor.
As I understand it the ECHR judgement allows a reopening of unfair court proceedings which may result in a review of the calunnia conviction. However, we have to take Amanda's considerations into account. She has already personally indicated that she would not go back to Italy to testify in any proceedings. If that's the case then Italy as the respondent state might just say that they have gone as far as they can go, leaving it all to wither on the vine. I think the ideal situation would be for the calunnia conviction to be annulled according to article 620 (without referral) as with the other charges against her. If they do that then surely there would be an opportunity to sue for a miscarriage of justice that could amount to a lot of money. Would Italy want to make it so easy?

Hoots
 
As I understand it the ECHR judgement allows a reopening of unfair court proceedings which may result in a review of the calunnia conviction. However, we have to take Amanda's considerations into account. She has already personally indicated that she would not go back to Italy to testify in any proceedings. If that's the case then Italy as the respondent state might just say that they have gone as far as they can go, leaving it all to wither on the vine. I think the ideal situation would be for the calunnia conviction to be annulled according to article 620 (without referral) as with the other charges against her. If they do that then surely there would be an opportunity to sue for a miscarriage of justice that could amount to a lot of money. Would Italy want to make it so easy?

Hoots

TomG, I think I see what you mean, and I don't disagree with the spirit. I am not sure that the legalism you suggest makes sense in a revision hearing. I don't believe that CPP Article 620 is available to the revision hearing court. That article is for the use of a CSC panel reviewing a lower court case that has been appealed. The revision hearing is a kind of resetting of a case based on CPP Article 630 and/or Italian Constitutional Court judgment 113 of 2011 (ECHR judgment of an unfair trial).

I believe that the legal avenue must be in accordance with CPP Article 631, which seems to require that the case can only have a verdict based on one of CPP Articles 529 (case should not have been prosecuted), 530 (acquittal), or 531 (extinction, case was beyond statute of limitations when the original final verdict was given). Possibly, as the ECHR seems to have implied in their judgment, an absolute nullity may be applied (CPP Articles 177 - 185), which would be in line with CPP Article 529. An absolute nullity is for a case where there was a mistake in so procedure so profound that it cannot be corrected, and the case must be abandoned. That may be essentially in accordance with CPP Article 529. However, Knox could not have committed calunnia because she had no intent to falsely accuse Lumumba, as evidenced by her being coercively interrogated without the legally required fair interpreter or defense lawyer, so an acquittal under CPP Article 530 would also make sense.
 
Last edited:
Did Knox' and Sollecito's attorneys bring this up in court? The issues are decided in advance of a trial at the prehearings. It's not a case of a judge suddenly having a lightbulb moment.

So you condone the incompetence of the investigation as you believe ignoring a possible semen stain on a pillow underneath the victim of a rape is OK, and apparently you think it's fine to ignore cuts on the hand of a stabbing suspect as well, right?
 
Questions that are somewhat difficult to answer include how many acquittals are there in Italy per year, and for those obsessed with thinking that an acquittal under CPP Article 530 paragraph 1 is normal while one under Article 530 paragraph 2 is abnormal or bent, how many of each of those occur per year.

I have found an answer to the first question in an article from a responsible Italian media source, but have no data on the second question.

According to a 25 October 2020 article in Il Messaggero, over the period 1991 - 2019, there were 28,893 cases of judicial error in Italy. These are the totals of unjust detentions (accused persons had their cases dismissed, typically by acquittal) and acquittals after a revision hearing. That is an average (mean) of about 1000 per year.
The compensation cost to Italy for these cases totaled 823,691,326 EUR or an average of about 28,400,000 EUR per year.

One thought from this information is that, since the Ministry of Finance and the prosecutor are parties to a compensation hearing, to reduce yearly costs, the Italian compensation judge may go to some length of creative if unfair legalism to find an applicant not eligible for compensation. I suggest that may be the real reason, or one of the reasons, that Sollecito was denied compensation for unjust detention.

Source: https://www.ilmessaggero.it/italia/...a_dati_ultime_notizie-5545829.html?refresh_ce

This number of acquittals should be considered a minimum, because there are cases where the accused cannot lawfully be detained in prison prior to trial - these are where the potential sentence is less than 5 years of imprisonment or the alleged crimes did not include illegal financing of a political party (CPP Article 280, paragraph 2), and certain other precautionary measures are only to be applied if the potential sentence is more than 3 years of imprisonment (CPP Article 280, paragraph 1). So there are crimes where the accused may be finally acquitted and no compensation may be required by law based on the potential sentence. There are also cases such as occurred in the instance of Sollecito, where the accused is finally acquitted, but compensation is denied because the compensation court rules that the accused is responsible in whole or part for his arrest and detention because of his gross negligence (CPP Article 314, paragraph 1).
 
Last edited:
Hardly 'amazing'. Consider this: a merits court states incorrectly that Mr X is, say, transgender. This mistake is repeated at the second instance appeal court and then becomes a final finding of fact at the Supreme Court. That is how one wrong incidence gets repeated by several.

Thus, Massei rubber-stamped Stefanoni's DNA findings (and the defence expert witnesses were there). All good. The Hellmann is bribed, shall we say (I believe he was) to hire 'independent experts' to override the first court. The independent witnessess, Vecchiotti (who is known to be a sympathiser of suspected murderers as she was fined €100K or so for refusing to test their DNA) so someone who is corrupt and probably bought with the same bribe. The prosecutor appeals. Chieffi excoriates Hellmann and criticises him for failing to explain WHY he appointed independent experts. Hellmann is absolutely trashed and the case sent back down to Nencini of a similar level court. This time, Nencini gets the R.I.S. to test the DNA that Vecchiotti and Conti falsely claimed was 'too low copy'. His experts Novelli Torrecelli confirm the DNA results of Sollecito ont he bra hook and confirm that there was no plausible contamination that could have caused it. Conviction upheld. The defence appeals to the Supreme Court V chamber. The V. Chamber pulls Vecchiotti and Conti out of the shredder and pieces it back together.

So you see, there is nothing 'amazing' about more than one incidence of corruption, given Bruno himself was once accused of Mafia involvement and Bongiorno from a Sicilian mafia-loving background herself, who represented Mafia-accused Andreotti (and got him off on 530.2).

This is what is meant by the slippery slope: let one piece of corruption slip by, and soon you have an avalanche. This is why ethics guidances advise not to let even the slightest standards slip or thus begins the slippery slope.


Your post is filled with unfounded speculations, accusations and assumptions. Moreover, it does not address my point at all: Only those judges, experts, and even witnesses who do not agree with you are the ones who are bent/corrupt/incompetent while those that do are honest and honorable.

I won't bother going over all the problems with your post as most of them have been addressed before numerous times and members here are familiar with them. However, the following is a good example of how one of your repeated claims of mafia association, including Raffaele's family, is both a smear and dishonest:
"Bruno himself was once accused of Mafia involvement and Bongiorno from a Sicilian mafia-loving background herself."

Let's take a look at the facts of your attempt to connect Judge Bruno to the mafia:
ACCUSES WITHOUT REASONS.At 5 in the morning of November 11, 2004, the judge of Cassation Paolo Antonio Bruno, originally from Reggio Calabria, surprisingly underwent a house search, on a mandate from the Catanzaro prosecutor's office signed by the then prosecutor Luigi de Magistris. The indictment, in legal jargon the "provisional indictment" reported on the warrant, was completely generic. It was only understood that Bruno was accused of external competition in a mafia association, but he himself, despite being a judge, could not understand what specific crimes he would have committed, because the formulas used were rather indeterminate. Bruno was emotionally overwhelmed, considering himself the victim of a mistake, but at the same time he could not offer any defense. In the following two years, in fact, everything fell into a strange limbo: neither de Magistris nor his superiors summoned Bruno to interrogate him, despite the fact that Bruno himself, through his lawyers, had requested numerous times to be heard. The Cassation judge was never able to know even for which alleged episodes he had been investigated.

In January 2006, suddenly a new twist: the Catanzaro prosecutor's office realized that it was not competent to investigate Bruno and referred his file di lui to other colleagues. Thus it was that, finally, on 8 November 2006, with a two-year delay, Paolo Antonio Bruno was interrogated for the first time.The sentence of the Salerno court, in 2015, harshly criticized the behavior of the Catanzaro prosecutor's office, because it "formulated very serious charges (such as that of external competition in a mafia association) devoid of any element or support and omitting any even minimal motivation" , and also because he "failed to listen to the defendant even in the face of repeated requests".

[De Magistris'] accusatory hypothesis concerned an alleged mafia-political-journalistic dome. Councilor Bruno was not directly involved in this investigation: however, according to de Magistris he had tried to "fix" the Cassation trial of one of the politicians involved in the dome investigation (a trial prior to de Magistris'investigation). It is a pity however that, contrary to the accusatory hypothesis, in reality that trial in February 2004 had not ended in favor of the political defendant, but with the rejection of his appeal by the Cassation. Furthermore, the accusatory hypothesis did not even take into consideration the fact that, at the time, Bruno was not even a member of the judging panel of the politician's trial, and that he did not even work in the criminal section of the Cassation which dealt with these cases. In fact, Bruno worked in a completely different office, the Massimario, that is, the archive of the sentences of the supreme court. and that he didn't even work in the criminal section of the Cassation that dealt with these cases.

What was the reason De Magistris accused Bruno?

The same morning of the politician's trial in the Supreme Court, Bruno met an old friend with whom he had a coffee at the bar: the friend then went to attend the public hearing of the politician's trial, of which he had previously been a collaborator. A coffee at the bar with a friend: this infinitesimal "link" between these events, an episode that proved to be completely innocent and random in the trial, in the minds of the Catanzaro prosecutors had become the reason to suspect Bruno even of external competition .

Everyone that De Magistris had accused along with Bruno was acquitted:
...in May 2009 also acquitted all the people involved in the investigation into the Reggio dome due to the non-existence of the fact, ie because the alleged criminal association had never actually existed).In fact, the judges underlined that there was nothing against Bruno.

You just repeat the crap over on TJMK which is where this accusation against Bruno is found by Macchiavelli with no mention of Bruno being completely cleared. Obviously, neither you nor they bothered to find out anything more. Or...it's deliberately left out in order to present Bruno as corrupt.

Maybe now you'll stop repeating this false claim against Bruno's corruption?
 
Once again, you need to pick a lane.

Guilters used to make a big deal about the mark on Knox's neck. Guilters speculated that Knox had been hit so that her nose bled.

Now you're saying there had been no fight back.

Pick a lane.

It likely started as fight which escalated, with Guede then holding Mez' arms behind her back forcibly, as shown by his DNA on her sleeve cuff, bruising around her wrists and a shoulder injury consistent with an arm being twisted back violently. Lady-sized digit prints around her mouth as though someone had tried to hold her mouth shut from screaming.


Knox was certainly bleeding - forensic evidence on the cotton bud box - and the injury on her neck and her flushed features did make it look as though she had been in a fight.


No contradiction there.
 
Last edited:
That is the court that weighs up the evidence and establishes the facts of the case.
That is the important court if you want to make sure your evidence is heard.

Even then, only limited parts of the original merits trial are tried again. You can't introduce 'new evidence' such as the pillow if you cannot explain why you didn't introduce it as evidence at the trial as it was known of at the time (and therefore does not fulfil the criteria of 'new').

When the courts that "weigh up the evidence and establish the facts of the case" are overturned 47% based on those supposedly 'established facts', then there's a problem with, as my linked article said, "the quality of the judgments delivered by the judges of 1st grade".

Your segue into the pillow/new evidence bit has nothing to do with my post concerning the high reversal rate of merit courts in Italy.
 
Your post is filled with unfounded speculations, accusations and assumptions. Moreover, it does not address my point at all: Only those judges, experts, and even witnesses who do not agree with you are the ones who are bent/corrupt/incompetent while those that do are honest and honorable.

I won't bother going over all the problems with your post as most of them have been addressed before numerous times and members here are familiar with them. However, the following is a good example of how one of your repeated claims of mafia association, including Raffaele's family, is both a smear and dishonest:
"Bruno himself was once accused of Mafia involvement and Bongiorno from a Sicilian mafia-loving background herself."

Let's take a look at the facts of your attempt to connect Judge Bruno to the mafia:


What was the reason De Magistris accused Bruno?



Everyone that De Magistris had accused along with Bruno was acquitted:


You just repeat the crap over on TJMK which is where this accusation against Bruno is found by Macchiavelli with no mention of Bruno being completely cleared. Obviously, neither you nor they bothered to find out anything more. Or...it's deliberately left out in order to present Bruno as corrupt.

Maybe now you'll stop repeating this false claim against Bruno's corruption?

I never said he was convicted.
 
When the courts that "weigh up the evidence and establish the facts of the case" are overturned 47% based on those supposedly 'established facts', then there's a problem with, as my linked article said, "the quality of the judgments delivered by the judges of 1st grade".

Your segue into the pillow/new evidence bit has nothing to do with my post concerning the high reversal rate of merit courts in Italy.

47% of first instance courts. That means it went to Appeal (second instance) on a point of law. The Appeal Court can decide to relook at one or two specific pieces of evidence depending on the issue being sent back. However, the trial is not rerun. There is only one trial.
 
It likely started as fight which escalated, with Guede .....

Wow. Only 'likely'?

Knox was certainly bleeding - forensic evidence on the cotton bud box - and the injury on her neck and her flushed features did make it look as though she had been in a fight.

No contradiction there.

Only 'as though'? You do know that there was no forensics presented like that? Probably not.

So, backing up a bit, are you ready to concede that you simply made up stuff about what the British friends testified to?
 
So you condone the incompetence of the investigation as you believe ignoring a possible semen stain on a pillow underneath the victim of a rape is OK, and apparently you think it's fine to ignore cuts on the hand of a stabbing suspect as well, right?

It may well have come up - you need to look at the court papers (Micheli). As for the knife wounds, there was quite a long discussion on Guede's finger wounds, which might help if you do a search.
 
47% of first instance courts. That means it went to Appeal (second instance) on a point of law. The Appeal Court can decide to relook at one or two specific pieces of evidence depending on the issue being sent back. However, the trial is not rerun. There is only one trial.

"An appeal is aimed at challenging the judgment on both points of law and findings of fact." For example: Massei finding that Knox's footprints were in blood with the TMB tests were all negative. Massei constructing the entire "Knox carried the knife for protection in her bag" entirely out of thin air with no supporting evidence.

The Appeal Court can look back of MANY specific pieces of evidence, not just one or two.

"However, the trial is not rerun. There is only one trial."

Oh, please. Stop with the legal nitpicking distraction. We all know how it works in Italy. I


Please stop
 
The victim was restrained so they met with no fight back.

IF Kercher had been restrained, then there would be forensic evidence of it. Where is the DNA of either Knox or Sollecito on Kercher's clothing or body from being forcibly gripped?

Your claim also means you'd have to admit Knox did not have a scratch on her neck and it was ,in fact, a hickey.
 
I never said he was convicted.

You said he was investigated for mafia involvement and he got off.

That's very loaded term. It suggests he managed to get away with it, rather than being innocent and completely exonerated which appears to be the case.

It's twisting the facts dishonestly in my view.
 
It may well have come up - you need to look at the court papers (Micheli). As for the knife wounds, there was quite a long discussion on Guede's finger wounds, which might help if you do a search.

You mean like this from Prof. Vinci? Note that he says these were not considered by the court.




 
Wow. Only 'likely'?



Only 'as though'? You do know that there was no forensics presented like that? Probably not.

So, backing up a bit, are you ready to concede that you simply made up stuff about what the British friends testified to?

Read Robyn Butterworth's deposition for yourself.

http://www.themurderofmeredithkerch...07-Deposition-Police-UK-Butterworth-typed.pdf

According to Nina Burleigh, Butterworth 'wanted to kick' Knox because of her provocative behaviour.

These are not street-fighting young ladies easily rattled.

According to Butterworth, Knox said: "How do you think I feel? I found her." She quoted Knox as saying Ms Kercher was "in the closet covered by a blanket".
At one point, Knox said Ms Kercher "(expletive) bled to death," according to Butterworth. Hayward also quoted Knox as saying Ms Kercher would have "died slowly and in a lot of pain".
Ms Kercher was found with a stab wound in the neck in a pool of blood under a duvet in her bedroom.
Yesterday's line-up of witnesses, mostly Ms Kercher's British friends, also talked about a problematic relationship between Ms Kercher and Knox. Some broke into tears as they recalled their friend.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/world/arid-30398891.html

Witness Amy Frost, who was also at the police station, said Miss Knox "made faces", such as crossing her eyes and sticking her tongue out. She was "giggling" and kissing Mr Sollecito, said Miss Frost.



Looks flushed to me.
 

Attachments

  • 20100217-tows-amanda-knox-2-300x205.jpg
    20100217-tows-amanda-knox-2-300x205.jpg
    39.4 KB · Views: 1
47% of first instance courts. That means it went to Appeal (second instance) on a point of law. The Appeal Court can decide to relook at one or two specific pieces of evidence depending on the issue being sent back. However, the trial is not rerun. There is only one trial.

"An appeal is aimed at challenging the judgment on both points of law and findings of fact." For example: Massei finding that Knox's footprints were in blood with the TMB tests were all negative. Massei constructing the entire "Knox carried the knife for protection in her bag" entirely out of thin air with no supporting evidence.

The Appeal Court can look back of MANY specific pieces of evidence, not just one or two.

"However, the trial is not rerun. There is only one trial."

Oh, please. Stop with the legal nitpicking distraction. We all know how it works in Italy. I


Please stop

Vixen's statement in the quoted post is absolutely false. Vixen chooses to make statements about Italian law without any reference to those laws as compiled in writing in the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (Codice di Procedura Penale, CPP). Possibly Vixen has never read those laws, even when they have been cited or reproduced in the continuations of this thread.

For the record:

Appeals of a first-instance trial judgment in Italy are governed by a number of Italian laws, but any such appeal is made through an application written in accordance with CPP Article 581. Among the requirements of that article, the application for appeal must contain the arguments of the LEGAL reasons and of the FACTUAL ELEMENTS that support each request of the appeal. The relevant text is in paragraph 1, subparagraph D of CPP Article 581:

dei motivi, con l'indicazione delle ragioni di diritto e degli elementi di fatto che sorreggono ogni richiesta

Furthermore, in accordance with CPP Article 603, the trial evidentiary hearing may be renewed on any of the following (relevant) conditions:

1. On the request in the application for the appeal (CPP Article 581) or in the extension allowed for submission of additional arguments (CPP 585, paragraph 4) of one of the parties, that the first-instance trial evidence be taken again or that new evidence be gathered, the judge shall order a renewal of the trial evidentiary hearing, provided that the judge holds that he cannot decide the case on the basis of the available first-instance record.

2. The judge shall order the renewal of the trial evidentiary hearing if new evidence arises or is discovered after the first-instance trial.

3. The judge shall order the renewal of the trial evidentiary hearing ex officio (on his authority as judge) if the judge holds that to be absolutely necessary.

Sources:

https://www.brocardi.it/codice-di-procedura-penale/

https://canestrinilex.com/assets/Up...-Code-of-Criminal-Procedure-canestriniLex.pdf
 
"An appeal is aimed at challenging the judgment on both points of law and findings of fact." For example: Massei finding that Knox's footprints were in blood with the TMB tests were all negative. Massei constructing the entire "Knox carried the knife for protection in her bag" entirely out of thin air with no supporting evidence.

The Appeal Court can look back of MANY specific pieces of evidence, not just one or two.

"However, the trial is not rerun. There is only one trial."

Oh, please. Stop with the legal nitpicking distraction. We all know how it works in Italy. I


Please stop

Appeals have to lodged in accordance with the Penal Code:


3.1. The Form of the Appeal
The Italian Code of Criminal procedure states that both the accused and the public
prosecutor are entitled to appeal a judgement18. The Legislative Decree 11/2018
reduced the cases in which these subjects may lodge an appeal. In particular, whereas
before the legislative reform the conviction could be appealed by both the accused

and the public prosecutor, now such a possibility is accorded only to the accused,
while the prosecutor may lodge an appeal against such a decision only when it has
established the presence of an aggravating circumstance with special effect or of a
penalty of different kind from that provided for the crime (Art. 593 para. 1 Code).
Conversely, the power to appeal a judgement of acquittal, which before the reform
was accorded without distinctions to both the parties, is now generally recognized to
the public prosecutor. Even the accused may lodge an appeal against an acquittal,
except when such a decision has ascertained that the criminal act did not occur or the
accused did not commit it (Art. 593 para. 2 Code)19.
The appeal shall be lodged within the terms strictly specified by law (Art. 585 Code). The act shall indicate, under penalty of inadmissibility: a) the sections and the subsections of the decision to which the appeal refers; b) the requests, also evidentiary and c) the arguments, with specification of the legal and factual reasons sustaining each request (Art. 581 Code). Law 103/2017 introduced an important specification
with regard to the form of the appeal. It provides that, in addition to the elements
previously indicated, the appeal shall also contain the evidences which are claimed to
be non-existent, have not been gathered, have not been assessed, or have been
erroneously evaluated.

The Court of Appeal review is bound by the subsections of the first-instance decision
to which the arguments refer (Art. 597 para. 1 Code), but the Court of Appeal can
decide independently from such arguments
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/498175
 
You said he was investigated for mafia involvement and he got off.

That's very loaded term. It suggests he managed to get away with it, rather than being innocent and completely exonerated which appears to be the case.

It's twisting the facts dishonestly in my view.

He would hardly be a Supreme Court Judge if he did have any convictions.


It is a statement of fact that he was once accused of Mafia involvement.
 
Appeals have to lodged in accordance with the Penal Code:


https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/498175

Vixen, examine (read) your source material more closely.

It contains the following text:

The appeal has a hybrid structure. Indeed, it is both an instrument for the control of the first-instance judgment, which may lead to the annulment of the decision, and a remedy that allows, within the limits of the subsections of the decision to which the appeal refers, a new evaluation of the factual and legal aspects of the case addressed by the first-instance judge.

Source: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/498175

page 20, Section 3.

In other words: the appeal of the first-instance trial may address POINTS OF LAW and ISSUES OF FACT.

That's contrary to what you claimed in your earlier posts, which was that an appeal of a first-instance trial was allowed to address ONLY POINTS OF LAW.

BTW, the code of law being discussed is the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, NOT the Italian Penal Code (which is the listing of criminal offenses as defined under law and their punishments) .
 
Last edited:
It likely started as fight which escalated, with Guede then holding Mez' arms behind her back forcibly, as shown by his DNA on her sleeve cuff, bruising around her wrists and a shoulder injury consistent with an arm being twisted back violently. Lady-sized digit prints around her mouth as though someone had tried to hold her mouth shut from screaming.

So who held her down while Guede was sexually assaulting her? Where is their DNA on her?

Guede's DNA was on the inside of the sleeve cuff which was pulled inside out when found indicating it was deposited after being pulled off her arm, not while being held by her wrists. It would have been on the outside of the cuff.


"Lady-sized digit prints": totally made up. Lalli never says they are compatible with a woman's hand. This is what he said in his testimony pgs 99-100:

QUESTION - Therefore both the previous lesions under jaws that these on the nose and the mouth both derive
by the action of a hand anyway are they compatible?

ANSWER - Yes they are compatible with the action of a hand, yes.

Stop making up things.


Knox was certainly bleeding - forensic evidence on the cotton bud box - and the injury on her neck and her flushed features did make it look as though she had been in a fight.

Amanda's blood was not found on the cotton bud box; her DNA of biologic material was. Or do you think she never touched that box in the weeks she had been living there? You either have a profound ignorance of mixed DNA or intentional blindness. I suspect it's the latter. Knox's and Sollecito's mixed DNA was found in several places in his apartment, none of it blood. Sollecito's was found mixed with another male's DNA, none of it blood. The DNA on the bra hook contained Meredith's, Sollecito's, and that of other people. Did they all touch the bra hook at the same time?

"The injury on her neck": you mean the hickey? Dr. Lalli reported Knox had NO injuries on her. You know that.

Her " flushed features"? That has to one of your more 'out there' claims and a new one. Even IF she had been in a struggle with Kercher (which she wasn't) no one saw her until more than 12 hours later so who reported any "flushed features"? Tell me exactly what "flushed features" you're talking about (i.e. making up). She looks rather pale in this picture, the first one taken of her at the crime scene.




No contradiction there.

Your scenario does not fit the forensic evidence.
 
Last edited:
It may well have come up - you need to look at the court papers (Micheli). As for the knife wounds, there was quite a long discussion on Guede's finger wounds, which might help if you do a search.

Nope, sorry.. never came up. (thanks Stacy.. as many times as I've read the various MR's I was fairly certain the court never heard anything on it but I appreciate you confirming it.)

So again, do you condone the investigation ignoring a possible semen stain and cuts on Guede's right hand consistent with what someone might get when stabbing someone?

You really can't admit the investigation screwed up, can you.
 
Read Robyn Butterworth's deposition for yourself.

I have. And this was AFTER Knox's arrest. Please don't tell me this wouldn't affect how she saw things.

Butterworth's statements are not always accurate. That doesn't mean she's lying, but that her memory is mistaken or she was confused...something Amanda and Raffaele are never afforded by the PGP. For example, in her Nov. 7, 2007 Deposition to the British police...and after Amanda's arrest...RB said that Amanda had said "she had seen Meredith's body in the closet with a blanket/sheet over her."
This never happened as Amanda was at the far end of the hallway with no view into the room at all. What had happened was that Amanda had mistakenly inferred that from what she was hearing from those around her. I suspect Butterworth's "memory" is being affected by knowing Knox has been arrested for the murder of her friend.


http://www.themurderofmeredithkerch...07-Deposition-Police-UK-Butterworth-typed.pdf

According to Nina Burleigh, Butterworth 'wanted to kick' Knox because of her provocative behaviour.

Burleigh gives no indication when RB allegedly said she wanted to kick Knox. It's certainly not in her Nov. 2 or Nov. 7 or Feb. 8 depositions and not in her testimony.

These are not street-fighting young ladies easily rattled.

Personal opinion based on ?.

Looks flushed to me.

It was cold. Cheeks are normally red when cold. As I already said, that picture was taken more than 12 hours after even the prosecution's late time of attack. Are you really claiming she's 'flushed' that long after the alleged fight?
 

Back
Top Bottom