[Continuation] The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[Stacyhs]

Vixen, please provide a citation from Italian law that supports your implication that an Italian trial may be declared a "mistrial".

All Italian trial proceedings are public records that remain in the judicial archives of Italy.

Your misdirection leaves out that the Massei court and Nencini court of appeals judgments were quashed and the verdicts have no legal effect, except as evidence of flawed proceedings and judgments.

Watch this space.

The same space we're watching for Raffaele's public announcement that he lied in his book and the apology he'll be making to Mignini any moment now?
The same space we're holding for your evidence that 503.2 is rare and a loophole for Mafia types? This thread is overflowing with spaces we're watching for your oft requested but never produced citations.


Annnnnny moment....annnnnnnnnny moment....annnnnnnnnny moment now..............................................................................

 

[Numbers]

One other point here is to do with the definition of the terms “Meredith was killed” (and similar) and “where the murder happened”.

Because - as I mentioned a few posts previously - while the evidence shows that the attacker (Guede) stabbed Kercher in the neck while Kercher was on all fours directly in front of the wardrobe/closet….. the evidence also shows that the attacker (Guede) then moved/dragged Kercher’s body round almost immediately to the position in which it was found the following day. And Kercher survived the movement of her body, ultimately dying in the position in which she was discovered.

So, with that in mind, it’s incorrect to say that Kercher “was killed” in front of the wardrobe/closet. The whole crime (carried out by Guede alone) was a whole continuous chain of acts, beginning with (almost certainly) a verbal confrontation, followed by a physical confrontation (and evidence suggests that this may have occurred both near to Kercher’s bedroom door, and on/around her bed. The restraint and the stab wounds to the neck took place in front of the wardrobe/closet, then her body was immediately pulled round and away from the wardrobe/closet, to a position where the perimortem sexual assault took place (by Guede) and where Kercher eventually bled out and died. The most that any sincere and intelligent observer can therefore state is that Kercher was fatally stabbed in front of her wardrobe/closet. But the evidence shows conclusively that, in effect, the whole of Kercher’s bedroom must be considered as the place of her murder.

LondonJohn, would this be the point at which Guede placed the pillow under Kercher's body, or is there any evidence it was somehow under her due to chance?

 

[Stacyhs]

'Humiliated? That is a term much used by the DAILY EXPRESS. You'll be talking about 'fury' next.

Does anyone else see the irony in Vixen's post here in regard to using Daily Express vocabulary?

She seemed very excited by the Vaseline jar in Mez' room. How weird.

The pair were also witnessed whispering loudly in a theatrical 'Chinese whisper' that Knox thought Shaky was a very dodgy character, clearly trying to draw the police's attention to Shaky as a suspect. (Turkish Lives Matter.)

It was cold-bloodied bullying behaviour by Knox, laughing and giggling in front of Mez' devastated friends - bullies laugh at other people's misfortune - and Sollecito was teaching Knox how to say 'I spit on your dead relative's grave' in Italian. Bragging about how Mez' throat was slit and how she had died in agony. Knox was on a Joanna Dehenney-style high, yelling that she had just made up a song about murder and that she 'could murder a pizza'. Completely off her head - the murderer's high. Essays written about rape and murder of young women.


No way was that 'just an inappropriate teenage reaction'. At best it reveals a truly nasty and unpleasant character and at worst..

.

Regarding the highlighted: you were asked for a citation for this claim. You've failed jaw-dropp) to produce one. Just a rough estimate, but I'd say about 85% of the citations you're asked for never arrive. And that 85% is generous. If you ever give up accounting or editing for van der Leek, you could have a very lucrative career in writing for the tabloids.

 

[Bill Williams]

It was cold-bloodied bullying behaviour by Knox, laughing and giggling in front of Mez' the victim's devastated friends - bullies laugh at other people's misfortune - and Sollecito was teaching Knox how to say 'I spit on your dead relative's grave' in Italian. Bragging about how Mez' the victim's throat was slit and how she had died in agony. Knox was on a Joanna Dehenney-style high, yelling that she had just made up a song about murder and that she 'could murder a pizza'. Completely off her head - the murderer's high. Essays written about rape and murder of young women.

No way was that 'just an inappropriate teenage reaction'. At best it reveals a truly nasty and unpleasant character and at worst..

Regarding the highlighted: you were asked for a citation for this claim. You've fails jaw-dropp) to produce one. Just a rough estimate, but I'd say about 85% of the citations you're asked for never arrive. And that 85% is generous. If you ever give up accounting or editing for van der Leek, you could have a very lucrative career in writing for the tabloids.

In Vixen's defence, she did give a citation for this claim. She said she was merely repeating what the British girls said when testifying.

When shown that all that they'd testified to was how they found Knox to be 'weird', and that she'd made Meredith feel uncomfortable with condoms and a toy vibrator in her toiletries in the bathroom.... also that they did not want their comments to be misconstrued as accusing Amanda....

... and that they'd said nothing of the sort about bullying or laughing or that she was completely 'off her head', Vixen just clammed up and changed the subject.

 

[Stacyhs]

The phrase not wanting to accuse Knox was something written by the author of one of the trial books.

The purpose of the British friends of Mez was to describe verbatim their own experience of the matter in their own words. When giving witness testimony you need to be factual and objective and not ascribe motive to the person you are referring to. All of the witnesses will have been told to not project feelings and thoughts on to others. In other words, 'show, not tell'. You should not - for example - say, 'Mr. X was really nervous when I confronted him'. The correct format is, 'When I confronted Mr X, I noticed profuse perspiration broke out on his forehead and he began to tremble noticeably.'

I agree; they should have been told this...yet when it came to testifying in court, Amy Frost said:

PRESIDENT - Excuse me, excuse me, please, let’s ask the question. Excuse the witness. Here, the interpreter, you can ask the. if you remember telling the English police. that Amanda Knox was proud to have found Meredith’s body.
WITNESS - Yes, I remember this, because that was the attitude. that to me... that I thought she had..

PRESIDENT - so this "Amanda was proud to have. found Meredith’s body," she said, there. witness, and this being proud had done. derive from how Amanda had seen her, she, the witness, had seen Amanda Knox after the discovery of the body, at the police station.

WITNESS - yes, I heard, I thought she was... yes.

(Testimony, Feb. 13,2009)

The British witnesses had no knowledge of how the murder happened nor even who was responsible. It is not their job to accuse. That is the duty of the prosecutor.

They knew that her throat had been cut because they were told that at the questura by someone which is why one said she hope he hadn't suffered. No, it's not their job to accuse, but it's no secret who they believed had killed their friend...not from the evidence but from what they were being told by the police and what they were reading in the media. Give me a break.

 

[Stacyhs]

Ask the Mafia. Ask any of them, whose law has the upper hand at the end of the day?

It would have been quicker to have just replied "yes".

 

[Stacyhs]

In Vixen's defence, she did give a citation for this claim. She said she was merely repeating what the British girls said when testifying.

When shown that all that they'd testified to was how they found Knox to be 'weird', and that she'd made Meredith feel uncomfortable with condoms and a toy vibrator in her toiletries in the bathroom.... also that they did not want their comments to be misconstrued as accusing Amanda....

... and that they'd said nothing of the sort about bullying or laughing or that she was completely 'off her head', Vixen just clammed up and changed the subject.

Let me see if I can muster up some surprise.


Nope.

 

[Numbers]

Neither Massei nor Nencini were declared 'mistrials' so the court documents pertaining to these hearings stand in law and remain in the legal archives as public record.

Vixen, please provide a citation from Italian law that supports your implication that an Italian trial may be declared a "mistrial".

All Italian trial proceedings are public records that remain in the judicial archives of Italy.

Your misdirection leaves out that the Massei court and Nencini court of appeals judgments were quashed and the verdicts have no legal effect, except as evidence of flawed proceedings and judgments.

Vixen has not yet provided a citation from Italian law that supports the notion that there are or could be "mistrials" under Italian legal procedures.

In her post, Vixen borrowed a legal term used in US judicial practice and in the judicial practice of some other countries and tried to apply it to Italy, without defining what it could mean.

In the US, a "mistrial" is well-defined as:

1. A jury is unable to reach a verdict (in almost all states, juries in civil as well as criminal cases must unanimously reach a verdict for any verdict to be declared). When there is a "hung jury" - the jury and judge become convinced that the jury will not be able to reach unanimous agreement on a verdict - the judge declares a mistrial, and a new trial must be started.

2. A serious procedural error or misconduct has occurred that will, in the opinion of the judge, prevent the trial from continuing as a fair trial. In this case, the judge adjourns the case without any decision on the merits and awards a new trial.

For Italy, there are no lawful judicial procedures that match this definition of a US "mistrial". For example, there are NO JURIES in Italy. The panel of lay judges in an Italian assize court is sometimes called, in the US, UK, or other common-law countries, a "jury", but it functions as a panel under the supervision of the two professional judges and is not required to come to a unanimous verdict. The assize court verdict, under Italian law, is the one agreed upon by the majority of the panel of lay and professional judges.

In Italy, many of the kinds of misconduct of concern in the US or other jurisdictions with a jury cannot happen. The panel of lay judges is not at all forbidden to read or hear about the case and they are not sequestered, and they are not interviewed prior to trial about any preconceptions or beliefs potentially related to the case. They do not receive "jury instructions" about the law publicly during the trial. There apparently is no public record of what instruction, if any, they may receive from the professional judges during the deliberation after the public phase of the trial.

Italian procedural law does not have any provision for declaring a "mistrial" in case of a procedural error or misconduct. For certain kinds of procedural errors, Italian law allows the judge to declare a "relative nullity" or "absolute nullity". For a "relative nullity", the trial is halted and "rewound" to the point before the procedural error, and the trial proceeds with the error corrected. For an "absolute nullity", the trial is stopped and no new trial can be held. A procedural error in Italy may be, for example, the absence during some sessions of a judge, the prosecutor, or the defense lawyer. Absence of the defense lawyer during pretrial interrogation is also considered a procedural error leading to a nullity, according to a CSC judgment. The procedural laws on "nullities" are given in CPP Articles 177 - 185.

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mistrial

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen has not yet provided a citation from Italian law that supports the notion that there are or could be "mistrials" under Italian legal procedures.

In her post, Vixen borrowed a legal term used in US judicial practice and in the judicial practice of some other countries and tried to apply it to Italy, without defining what it could mean.

Similarly, Vixen (and a few other guilters) throw about the uniquely Scottish verdict of 'not proven', which they say falsely is a parallel to 530.2 in the Italian code.

Strangley, this fall the Scottish g'vt has moved to abolish 'not proven' as an option to juries. The reason is because functionally, 'not proven' has exactly the same effect as 'not guilty', meaning that the accused is acquitted and deemed innocent of the charges.

Remaining guilters ignore all that in falsely applying the verdict to Italy. They wish that it meant 'not quite guilty', or 'if there'd only been one more infinitesimal reason to believe that the person did it, then we'd push our decision across the line from not guilty to guilty.'

In reading about 'not proven', it came from the time in Scotland circa 1700, when juries only ruled on the facts of a case 'proven' or 'not proven', rather than the case's outcome. The term then migrated into outcomes, leaving Scottish courts with a three-verdict system.

Since two of those options are functionally identical, it was this fall when First Minster Nicola Sturgeon announced that the 'merged' verdict, one of acquittal, will leave Scots law with a two-verdict system of 'guilty' and 'not guilty'.

Yet Vixen and others grouped around the TJMK webpage still insist that 'not proven' is the reason why the March 2015 final verdict of acquittal will eventually be reversed. (Peter Q. has been promising a reversal for 7 years now. Perhaps he was emboldened because his predicted reversal of the Hellmann provisional acquittal was, in fact, reversed in 2013. Provisionally. Only to then be re-reversed, definitively, in 2015!!)

It gets pretty desperate when you have to reach into Scottish law to make your point about an Italian legal outcome!

 

[Numbers]

If the final ruling is as a result of corruption and bribery, then it will automatically ipso facto be found null and void.

Vixen, please provide a citation from Italian law that supports your statement.

Contrary to your statement:

No exceptions to the finality of final acquittals are allowed in accordance with CPP Article 648.

The accused person who has been finally dismissed ("prosciolto", meaning cleared or acquitted) or convicted shall not be tried again for the same offense, even if the conduct is considered differently in terms of the legal definition, stage of the offense, or circumstances, according to CPP Article 649.

A legal document cannot cloak a criminal act. It is automatically null and void.

For example, say I am a high up judge and you offer me €2m euros to fix a verdict and I carry it out accordingly. That contract you had with me is legally null and void because no individual can over rank the law of the State. So were it to be discovered the verdict was a result of bribery and corruption then I am afraid it would be nullified.

So you admit to not having support in an Italian law for your false statement, which is a fabrication you either created or obtained from some unreliable source.

Vixen, you have so far not posted any citation or reliable source to support your (absurd) original statement in your first post quoted above, or in your subsequent post.

As far as I know, there is no way to lawfully reverse a final acquittal in Italy, even if the final acquittal was the result of some misconduct or illegal act.

Of course, if there were credible evidence of such misconduct or illegal act, the persons committing such acts could be held accountable under the laws in the Italian Criminal Code (Codice Penale). A prosecutor who learned about such alleged criminal acts would be absolutely obligated under the Italian Constitution and Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) to take immediate steps to investigate and prosecute such allegations. Similarly, the police would be obligated under Italian law to notify a prosecutor if they became aware of such allegations of misconduct or illegal acts.

To my knowledge, no such police or prosecutorial activity relating to allegations of misconduct or illegality in the final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito on the murder/rape charges has been or is going on in Italy. Since the final acquittal by the Marasca CSC panel happened 7 years ago, one would think that any such police or prosecutorial activity would have been reported in the reputable or responsible media by now. (Guilter websites are not among the reputable or responsible media.)

Of interest, Italian procedural law does provide the possibility of a revision hearing for a final conviction if it is proven ("dimostrato", meaning "established" or "proven") that the judgment of conviction was attributable to false documents or false statements given during the trial, or any other criminal act defined as an offense under Italian law (CPP Article 630, paragraph 1, subparagraph D). The revision hearing will only be granted if the arguments based on the evidence and law are such as to prove, if ascertained, that the convicted person would be dismissed from the charges under CPP Article 529, 530, or 531 (CPP Article 631).

 

[Bill Williams]

If the final ruling is as a result of corruption and bribery, then it will automatically ipso facto be found null and void.

Of course, if there were credible evidence of such misconduct or illegal act, the persons committing such acts could be held accountable under the laws in the Italian Criminal Code (Codice Penale). A prosecutor who learned about such alleged criminal acts would be absolutely obligated under the Italian Constitution and Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) to take immediate steps to investigate and prosecute such allegations. Similarly, the police would be obligated under Italian law to notify a prosecutor if they became aware of such allegations of misconduct or illegal acts.

To my knowledge, no such police or prosecutorial activity relating to allegations of misconduct or illegality in the final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito on the murder/rape charges has been or is going on in Italy.

This is important. Guilters completely ignore that one thing that would have to happen first, is an investigation into that alleged 'corruption and/or bribery'. There is no 'ipso facto' about it, although putting 'ipso facto' into airquotes certainly adds a bit more credibility to the claim.

Late in 2015, prosecutor friendly journalist Andrea Vogt reported on an Italian citizen who actually tried to go into a Florence court to initiate such proceedings. That citizen was laughed out of court.

It caused Andrea Vogt to report on the looney-tunes activity of guilters, who on the one hand claimed to be supportive of the Kerchers - but who on the other hand were continuing the false narrative that the March 2015 ISC acquittals could be reversed.

Andrea Vogt, already prosecution-friendly, said that those activist-guilters were merely extending the pain that the Kerchers must feel, always having the case thrown back into the media - after the Mar 2015 settled things definitively.

When Andrea Vogt said something like that (7 years ago !!!!) it's amazing that people like Peter Q. continue harassing the Kerchers with false hopes.

 

[Vixen]

Why? Are you suggesting there will be evidence forthcoming that the Supreme Court of Italy was bribed to overturn the Nencini verdict and acquit Knox and Sollecito? You must have a really low opinion of the Italian judicial system. Does your low opinion apply to all things Italian?

Would you be willing to place a wager on your prediction. How much money are you willing to bet on it? Name your amount and a reasonable time frame for the evidence to appear.

Objective truth is enough for me.

 

[Vixen]

*sigh*

Post-Marasca, yes. But pre- the ECHR adjudication.

But of course for as long as Italy continues dragging its feet over complying with the ECHR directed remedy - which, in practice, will necessitate Italy quashing Knox’s criminal slander verdict and acquitting her - Italian courts still have to comply with the SC-signed-off facts found in that Knox conviction.

However, for any educated/intelligent/objective observer, we now know that the Knox criminal slander convictions - and the courts’ “reasoning” behind it - are a totally worthless crock of ****. We can therefore safely discount in their entirety all references & reconciliations incorporated by other courts (eg Marasca) and throw them out of those other courts’ own reasonings.

The ECHR does not have the power to quash a criminal conviction.

 

[Vixen]

One other point here is to do with the definition of the terms “Meredith was killed” (and similar) and “where the murder happened”.

Because - as I mentioned a few posts previously - while the evidence shows that the attacker (Guede) stabbed Kercher in the neck while Kercher was on all fours directly in front of the wardrobe/closet….. the evidence also shows that the attacker (Guede) then moved/dragged Kercher’s body round almost immediately to the position in which it was found the following day. And Kercher survived the movement of her body, ultimately dying in the position in which she was discovered.

So, with that in mind, it’s incorrect to say that Kercher “was killed” in front of the wardrobe/closet. The whole crime (carried out by Guede alone) was a whole continuous chain of acts, beginning with (almost certainly) a verbal confrontation, followed by a physical confrontation (and evidence suggests that this may have occurred both near to Kercher’s bedroom door, and on/around her bed. The restraint and the stab wounds to the neck took place in front of the wardrobe/closet, then her body was immediately pulled round and away from the wardrobe/closet, to a position where the perimortem sexual assault took place (by Guede) and where Kercher eventually bled out and died.

The most that any sincere and intelligent observer can therefore state is that Kercher was fatally stabbed in front of her wardrobe/closet. But the evidence shows conclusively that, in effect, the whole of Kercher’s bedroom must be considered as the place of her murder.

There is no such court finding. In fact, the Micheli and Massei court found that Guede did not have a weapon. So you just made up that stuff about Guede, based on your own prejudices and fantasies. Trying reading through the evidence with an objective eye.

 

[Vixen]

Oh, my. Read what Altieri said again...this time very slowly so you can comprehend what he actually said:


I'll break it down for you:

1. Altieri didn't say the police or the medic told HIM what he'd seen.
2. Altieri overheard the medic talking to the officer.

Clear now?

>Irrelevent word salad unfounded in any fact snipped<




Please refrain from twisting and misrepresenting what I say to further your own agenda. Nobody believes these twisted and false accusations of yours. Gaslight yourself all you want, but don't pull that crap on me.



Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I never denied Knox said that or something similar. THIS is what I said:



"]This is what RB actually said: "And then Amanda said: "what the **** do you think? She bled out."

So, Vixen, please point out exactly where in YOUR quote from RB, does she use the word "slowly" or "slow"? Go on, we'll wait.




AS shown above, it's YOU, not me, trying to rewrite history by adding your OWN word to what RB said.




Please do something about your lying. Why should I have to keep disproving them?

What do you not understand about 'bled out'?

Altieri did not 'overhear' anything. He made it up. The medics did not appear until many hours later and would not have conversed loudly in front of the likes of him. He lied to help out the pair.

 

[Vixen]

Yes.


Yes. Yet they went above and beyond telling the court that they did not want to have their testimony seem like they were accusing Knox.

Yet, once again, you have an opportunity to disavow what you claimed earlier in this thread. You claimed that the slanderous things you accused Knox of (bullying, laughing etc.) were not your words. You said you were only quoting the English girls testimony.

I will repeat this until you address why you misspoke like that.

She was laughing and joking. Sticking her tongue out. Rudely interrupting a quiet reflective moment when one of Mez friends expressed a wish Mez had not died in pain to SWEAR and brutally state she suffered a slow painful death from a slit throat, when noone even knew the cause of death as of that stage.

There are a hundred and one possible reasons for cause of death.

A website states as some types of bullying behaviour:

Bullying behaviours

• negative facial or physical gestures, menacing or contemptuous looks
• playing nasty jokes to embarrass and humiliate


We remember Knox brags about turning over her classmate's room to frighten and distress her.

 

[Vixen]

Does anyone else see the irony in Vixen's post here in regard to using Daily Express vocabulary?

She seemed very excited by the Vaseline jar in Mez' room. How weird.

The pair were also witnessed whispering loudly in a theatrical 'Chinese whisper' that Knox thought Shaky was a very dodgy character, clearly trying to draw the police's attention to Shaky as a suspect. (Turkish Lives Matter.)

.

Regarding the highlighted: you were asked for a citation for this claim. You've failed jaw-dropp) to produce one. Just a rough estimate, but I'd say about 85% of the citations you're asked for never arrive. And that 85% is generous. If you ever give up accounting or editing for van der Leek, you could have a very lucrative career in writing for the tabloids.

You are obviously not familiar with the case.

 

[Vixen]

Similarly, Vixen (and a few other guilters) throw about the uniquely Scottish verdict of 'not proven', which they say falsely is a parallel to 530.2 in the Italian code.

Strangley, this fall the Scottish g'vt has moved to abolish 'not proven' as an option to juries. The reason is because functionally, 'not proven' has exactly the same effect as 'not guilty', meaning that the accused is acquitted and deemed innocent of the charges.

Remaining guilters ignore all that in falsely applying the verdict to Italy. They wish that it meant 'not quite guilty', or 'if there'd only been one more infinitesimal reason to believe that the person did it, then we'd push our decision across the line from not guilty to guilty.'

In reading about 'not proven', it came from the time in Scotland circa 1700, when juries only ruled on the facts of a case 'proven' or 'not proven', rather than the case's outcome. The term then migrated into outcomes, leaving Scottish courts with a three-verdict system.

Since two of those options are functionally identical, it was this fall when First Minster Nicola Sturgeon announced that the 'merged' verdict, one of acquittal, will leave Scots law with a two-verdict system of 'guilty' and 'not guilty'.

Yet Vixen and others grouped around the TJMK webpage still insist that 'not proven' is the reason why the March 2015 final verdict of acquittal will eventually be reversed. (Peter Q. has been promising a reversal for 7 years now. Perhaps he was emboldened because his predicted reversal of the Hellmann provisional acquittal was, in fact, reversed in 2013. Provisionally. Only to then be re-reversed, definitively, in 2015!!)

It gets pretty desperate when you have to reach into Scottish law to make your point about an Italian legal outcome!

That is incorrect. As I cited a couple of weeks ago, the Not Proven option is being abolished because jurors tend to have a belief that it means guilty but just needs a bit more evidence and that it can be retried when this further evidence turns up. This is the same reason it is frowned upon in Italy because can be misused by the influential guilty who are looking for an opt-out clause, and what better opt-out clause than a claim the case doesn't quite reach, a 'Beyond A Reasonable Doubt'. (BARD: itself a bar that is subject to individual interpretation.)

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Objective truth is enough for me.

There is no such court finding.

Can you really not see the irony in your writing these two things, one after the other?

"It doesn't matter what the final court outcome was, I hold to the objective truth."

"Oh, no, wait: It doesn't matter what the objective truth was, I hold to the court findings."

Pick a lane, as someone once said.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, you have so far not posted any citation or reliable source to support your (absurd) original statement in your first post quoted above, or in your subsequent post.

As far as I know, there is no way to lawfully reverse a final acquittal in Italy, even if the final acquittal was the result of some misconduct or illegal act.

Of course, if there were credible evidence of such misconduct or illegal act, the persons committing such acts could be held accountable under the laws in the Italian Criminal Code (Codice Penale). A prosecutor who learned about such alleged criminal acts would be absolutely obligated under the Italian Constitution and Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) to take immediate steps to investigate and prosecute such allegations. Similarly, the police would be obligated under Italian law to notify a prosecutor if they became aware of such allegations of misconduct or illegal acts.

To my knowledge, no such police or prosecutorial activity relating to allegations of misconduct or illegality in the final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito on the murder/rape charges has been or is going on in Italy. Since the final acquittal by the Marasca CSC panel happened 7 years ago, one would think that any such police or prosecutorial activity would have been reported in the reputable or responsible media by now. (Guilter websites are not among the reputable or responsible media.)

Of interest, Italian procedural law does provide the possibility of a revision hearing for a final conviction if it is proven ("dimostrato", meaning "established" or "proven") that the judgment of conviction was attributable to false documents or false statements given during the trial, or any other criminal act defined as an offense under Italian law (CPP Article 630, paragraph 1, subparagraph D). The revision hearing will only be granted if the arguments based on the evidence and law are such as to prove, if ascertained, that the convicted person would be dismissed from the charges under CPP Article 529, 530, or 531 (CPP Article 631).

I don't have a citation as I am only repeating what I have heard on the grapevine.

 

[Bill Williams]

She was laughing and joking. Sticking her tongue out. Rudely interrupting a quiet reflective moment when one of Mez the victim's friends expressed a wish .....

When asked to provide a citation for this, you claimed you were repeating the British friends' court testimony.

When shown that they'd never said anything other than that they found Knox weird, you first disappeared, and now are doubling down on your slander.

Would you right now admit that you were in error attributing this slander to the British friends?

 

[Vixen]

Can you really not see the irony in your writing these two things, one after the other?

"It doesn't matter what the final court outcome was, I hold to the objective truth."

"Oh, no, wait: It doesn't matter what the objective truth was, I hold to the court findings."

Pick a lane, as someone once said.

Please take the time to find out the difference between a court verdict and a court finding, instead of heckling from the back of the hall for the fun of it.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... Rudely interrupting a quiet reflective moment when one of Mez friends expressed a wish Mez had not died in pain to SWEAR and brutally state she suffered a slow painful death from a slit throat, when noone even knew the cause of death as of that stage.

This horribly twisted interpretation is absolutely staggering.

 

[Bill Williams]

That is incorrect. As I cited a couple of weeks ago, the Not Proven option is being abolished because jurors tend to have a belief that it means guilty but just needs a bit more evidence and that it can be retried when this further evidence turns up. This is the same reason it is frowned upon in Italy because can be misused by the influential guilty who are looking for an opt-out clause, and what better opt-out clause than a claim the case doesn't quite reach, a 'Beyond A Reasonable Doubt'. (BARD: itself a bar that is subject to individual interpretation.)

This is complete bullocks. If it weren't you'd supply citations. I know, I know, you claim you supplied them 'weeks ago'. I don't believe you.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I don't have a citation as I am only repeating what I have heard on the grapevine.

Please take the time to find out the difference between "objective truth" and stuff you heard "on the grapevine".

 

[Bill Williams]

Please take the time to find out the difference between a court verdict and a court finding, instead of heckling from the back of the hall for the fun of it.

For someone who just a moment ago admitted to passing on anonymous internet speculation..... through 'the grapevine'.

So much for a commitment to court documents.

 

[Vixen]

When asked to provide a citation for this, you claimed you were repeating the British friends' court testimony.

When shown that they'd never said anything other than that they found Knox weird, you first disappeared, and now are doubling down on your slander.

Would you right now admit that you were in error attributing this slander to the British friends?

Please just read Robyn Butterworth's testimony or any of the chapters fromt he various books in the matter.

RB: Amanda. Amanda's behavior seemed strange, for me it was difficult to be around her because she showed no emotion, everyone was very upset as she seemed to show no emotion and didn't even feel emotions compared to all the others who were troubled. GM: Remember if there were girls crying? RB: Yes, we all we cried, I didn't see Amanda cry. GM: The two Italian flatmates were there? RB: Yes, they were there. GM: And they way they were. ? Crying? RB: Yes, I feel like I remember that Laura hugged me and we both cried. Then I also remember Filomena was very upset. GM: While Amanda was ... She looked, she said, you know, felt it was insensitive and not crying.

<snip>

GM: Another thing before I go any further on the story of Amanda. The two, Raffaele and Amanda, you passed the written, kissing, had of effusions? Behold, during an attendance in the antechamber of the police headquarters. RB: Yes, I remember kissing, he joked. Sometimes they even laughed at times, I remember that Amanda did as a Bigmouth, pulled out his tongue to Raphael. I remember that they had moved the chairs to stay closer and that Amanda had put his feet on Raphael. Remember that showing affection, kissing, I don't remember seeing that they exchanged business cards. GM: Amanda told what had happened on the morning of 2? RB: He did not speak directly with me but I was there in the room, then I heard what she was saying. Remember I said that Meredith was in the closet, wrapped in a blanket. GM: Then she said she saw? Amanda. RB: I can't remember if she said she saw Meredith. Remember I said that Meredith was in the closet wrapped in a blanket GCM: In the closet? What? RB: Yes. Remember this, because she used the word "closet" that is an American term, whereas I would have said "wardrobe" which is British

<snip>

RB: Remember the thing because it troubled me. I was sitting, Nathalie was on the ground and Nathalie said: "well, I hope at least that has not suffered". And then Amanda said: "what the **** do you think? She bled out "

GM: Then, he said "what do you think-with the phrase he used--has bled out." He said so. RB: Yes, as if to say, "sure she suffered, of course, must've hurt" GM: Behold, you knew at that moment it was dead Amanda? You and present? AK: That GCM: Meredith, of course, Yes, as Meredith's death. RB: No, no one told us anything

So here we have this one person at the questura amongst the following:

Amy Frost, Sophie Purton, Samantha Rosenhurst, Nathalie Hayword I think his surname, Jade Bidwell, Helen Power, then of course Laura and Filomena, Amanda and Raffaele. The boyfriend of Filomena, can't remember her name, I just know it was her boyfriend. The girl who lived downstairs, i don't know their names. Remember James and Stephen. The man working on Merlin pub, Pisco, I think this is his name.

On an adrenaline high bragging she knew the cause of death, laughing, giggling, using obscenities to state the victim had her throat slit and 'bled out' (for those with limited knowledge, this means slowly). I would say that is bullying behaviour in the form of jeering and mocking other's misfortune and death of their dear friend aged 21 with her whole life ahead of her. That is sickening behaviour. Even if Knox is unaffected by the death there is no need for the appalling lack of manners and decorum at such a solemn and sad moment.

People have been told off for failing to observe the minutes silence for the war dead. It is brash hooliganism to ignore it and over-ride it.

 

[LondonJohn]

The ECHR does not have the power to quash a criminal conviction.

Do you have reading comprehension problems? I suggest you read my post again, this time more carefully. I explain everything (correctly) within the post.

 

[Vixen]

This horribly twisted interpretation is absolutely staggering.

Next time you see a victim of a road accident, try going up to the relative of the deceased and yelling in their face, 'Of course they are ******* dead, they had their chest crushed and their face smashed in and what is more they ******* bled to death in great agony' <fx giggle laugh with your lady friend>

 

[Vixen]

This is complete bullocks. If it weren't you'd supply citations. I know, I know, you claim you supplied them 'weeks ago'. I don't believe you.

I provided you with the citation about a week ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven

 

[Vixen]

For someone who just a moment ago admitted to passing on anonymous internet speculation..... through 'the grapevine'.

So much for a commitment to court documents.

Learn to know the difference between court document, finding of fact (in the legal sense) and what may happen in the near future. The future is ipso facto uncertain and therefore cannot be an objective truth, other than for tax and death, as Mark Twain famously said.

But you knew that.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't have a citation as I am only repeating what I have heard on the grapevine.

"On the grapevine" AHAHAHAHAHA!

Enlighten us as to what and where this "grapevine" might be! Is it anything to do with Quennell, by chance? Or perhaps the small band of maladjusted nutters who still refuse to accept that they were bang wrong about everything to do with this sad fiasco of a criminal case, and who engage in a mixture of denialism and tragic wish-fulfilment on various social media platforms?

I want access to the "grapevine", Vixen! Especially if it's got all the real lowdown on developments in the case! Let me in!! Please!!!!!

 

[Guss]

If someone is murdered in your home then I am afraid you will almost automatically be considered a suspect until such time you can be ruled out.

Throw in a couple of kisses and the mop and you have a full blown Vixen suspect, it's funny to watch you try to wiggle your way out of these.
Oh the hilarious roller coaster continues, quite amusing.

 

[LondonJohn]

I provided you with the citation about a week ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven

Unsurprisingly, there's zero mention of the Italian criminal justice system in that article. So, unsurprisingly, you've elected to (try to) misdirect rather than apply some intellectual honesty and back up your claim properly.

You need to supply reliable-source evidence that 530.2 in Italy maps precisely* onto the Scottish "not proven" verdict. Simple as that. Your Wikipedia article is entirely useless in the context of proving your claim.


* And you'll never find any such (reliably sourced) evidence, because 530.2 does not map precisely onto "not proven". In fact, if one were drawing a comparison with Scotland, 530.2 maps onto a) all "not proven" verdict, and b) virtually all "not guilty" verdicts. The only "not guilty verdicts to which 530.2 does not map are those where there's a directed acquittal on account of factual innocence being found (and in Italy, these are 530.1 verdicts).

 

[Bill Williams]

That is incorrect. As I cited a couple of weeks ago, the Not Proven option is being abolished because jurors tend to have a belief that it means guilty but just needs a bit more evidence and that it can be retried when this further evidence turns up. This is the same reason it is frowned upon in Italy......

Your argument is not with me, it's with Scotland's First Minster Nicola Sturgeon.

The only people in all the world who claim that there's a 'not prove' in Italy are posters associated with Peter Q's site. All one needs to is a Google search on the Scottish First Minister's name and 'not proven', to find out proponents of Peter Q's misinformation is.... well, misinformation.

 

[Bill Williams]

I provided you with the citation about a week ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven

.... which has nothing to do with Italy. So why is it relevant to this thread?

 

[LondonJohn]

Your argument is not with me, it's with Scotland's First Minster Nicola Sturgeon.

The only people in all the world who claim that there's a 'not prove' in Italy are posters associated with Peter Q's site. All one needs to is a Google search on the Scottish First Minister's name and 'not proven', to find out proponents of Peter Q's misinformation is.... well, misinformation.

It's difficult to determine whether the pro-guilt commentators' misunderstanding of what 530.2 means (and what it does not mean) is born of sheer ignorance or a knowing attempt to deceive. I think it's probably a mixture of both.

After all, it obviously suits the pro-guilt narrative and mindset to pretend that the classification of Knox's/Sollecito's acquittals on the murder-related charges necessarily implied that they "got off by a whisker". And of course, bound up with this is the misinterpretation/misunderstanding/misdirection around the term "insufficient evidence".

As the saying goes: people are entitled to their own opinions, but people are not entitled to their own facts. In the grand scheme of things however, the ignorance and/or misdirection of a tiny group of overinvested, obsessive, vindictive individuals (on this and on many, many other matters related to the case) doesn't matter one jot. Thankfully, justice eventually prevailed wrt the Knox/Sollecito trial process, and the people who actually matter - Knox and Sollecito themselves, their legal counsel, their families and friends, and the members of the Marasca SC panel - know the facts and the truth of the situation. And in the end, that's really all that matters.

 

[Bill Williams]

Please just read Robyn Butterworth's testimony or any of the chapters fromt he various books in the matter.

I've quoted to you one of the chief true-crime books used by guilters. John Follain said the British girls testified that they found Knox (socially) weird, but were concerned about not being seen to accuse Amanda.

As for Butterworth, she offered nothing that justifies your over-the-top somewhat hysterical characterization of her testimony.

Thanks for posting it, though, so that we're both looking at the same data.

 

[LondonJohn]

.... which has nothing to do with Italy. So why is it relevant to this thread?

Indeed. And in itself, it's rather telling that Vixen thought this link would somehow suffice in proving her claim. Would it be a function of intellectual dishonesty, or an inability to conduct effective research and analysis?

I'd welcome Vixen supplying reliable and reliably-sourced evidence that the Italian 530.2 acquittal maps exactly and exclusively to the current Scottish "not proven" acquittal. I'd also, incidentally welcome Vixen supplying reliable and reliably-sourced evidence to prove her claim that 530.2 is a very rarely-used form of acquittal, and on the rare occasions when it is used, it's as a mechanism to get corrupt public officials, business people or mafiosi "off the hook".

I say I'd welcome Vixen supplying the above evidence, but I (and you) already know that it will be impossible for her to do so - because neither of her claims is correct.

 

[LondonJohn]

I've quoted to you one of the chief true-crime books used by guilters. John Follain said the British girls testified that they found Knox (socially) weird, but were concerned about not being seen to accuse Amanda.

As for Butterworth, she offered nothing that justifies your over-the-top somewhat hysterical characterization of her testimony.

Thanks for posting it, though, so that we're both looking at the same data.

It's also a well-known phenomenon, if Person A knows (or is even just acquainted with) Person B, that if B is accused by the authorities of a serious crime, A's impression of B will often (very often) change - sometimes dramatically - for the worse. In this particular case, it's possible that the change was also adversely affected by the fact that the victim was a friend of A.