Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[anglolawyer]

Exactly, so why was Bruno pleading it?

You evidently don't know what pleadings are. There is a clue in the word itself. They are expressions of a party's object in pursuing the suit. Judges have no such goals. They are the persons to whom the pleas are addressed.

Italian judges seem to have an interpretative power of their own which permits them to make findings which neither side has contended for. I think that's what you are talking about. Its certainly not 'pleading'.

 

[Vixen]

Well in court proceedings that would be routine violations of the 5th and 6th amendments over here what do you expect. They found it as a "judicial fact" that Rudy didn't act alone and Amanda willingly lied about a man she knew to be innocent.

Well, at least Raff gets his revenge on Amanda, via Bruno accepting Bongiorno's submissions. Most notably, he, Raff was sitting in front of his 'puter watching Naruto until 21:46, whilst Amanda was at the scene, sliding to the floor, with her hands over her ears, shutting out the "heartbreaking" scream. LOL schadenfreude for that &$@#ing *~!&$ refusing to marry him so he could get a green card.

It's turned into a soap opera. How will Amanda take revenge, when Raff gets €'ms in compo, whilst she gets zilch, zippo, nada, as time served for felony? Confused? You won't be, after the next episode of Housebreakers of Perugia.

 

[Vixen]

You evidently don't know what pleadings are. There is a clue in the word itself. They are expressions of a party's object in pursuing the suit. Judges have no such goals. They are the persons to whom the pleas are addressed.

Italian judges seem to have an interpretative power of their own which permits them to make findings which neither side has contended for. I think that's what you are talking about. Its certainly not 'pleading'.

Heh, it's called IRONY. <fx flashing lights>

 

[anglolawyer]

Heh, it's called IRONY. <fx flashing lights>

That's not the word I would use.

 

[analemma]

In any case, Bruno will never be promoted beyond "Junior" judge, as his reasoning reads like a schoolboy dumping all his knowledge onto the examiner instead of doing what he's asked to, which is answer the question.

Bruno states at least five times the traces of Rudy were "numerous" and "abundant", when in fact, there were only about five traces.

Dreadful. I don't know how he passed his law exams.

Bruno's rantings about the illogicality of selective cleaning is a straw man, as the prosecution never did argue the perps selectively removed their own DNA.
He puts forward defense arguments for Amanda and Raff, which are nowhere to be found in the pleadings (a very elementary legal error). Apparently, although it is certain beyond reasonable doubt Amanda and almost certainly Raff (if perhaps, later) was present in the cottage when the murder was committed, that doesn't mean they had anything to do with it.
He confirms it is beyond reasonable doubt Rudy could NOT have been the sole perpetrator, but says to connect Amanda who definitely was there, would be "illogical".
What a Bloody Fool!
He should be sacked, and Marasca with him, for signing off this pile of treacly garbage.

Learn to live with the truth.
It all makes sense to me, just like Hellmann.
So now the whole Italian Supreme Court is fools because they do not see guilter induced hallucinations?
You are so blinded by your hatred that you cannot understand what you are reading.
No, I did not see any of the contradictions or errors you seem to think are in this document and I will not even attempt to determine what your foaming at the mouth rants mean, since we all know that the rants here and your rants in general are never referenced back to facts.
Do you really think that anyone will believe that it "is logical" to conclude that a cowardly and frustrated anonymous poster who spews venomous untruths and distortions from the safety of a hate filled cave is capable of even understanding the ISC legal concepts, and more importantly, the need to adhere to legal concepts, a need that is emphasized and explained forcefully on almost every page of this motivation?
I am willing to respond to explicit criticisms, with references, but really, who, or what, will we be blamed next?
Maybe we should try out the Mafia-CIA-Space Alien Mind Warp Rays or contamination of the Italian water supply by FOA-Marriott-State Department sponsored Ninja Turtles.

 

[Grinder]

What is the exact Italian word for circumstantial used in this report? Do they have more than one word for it?

Why does the translation equate annulment to acquittal? Is that in the original text or an interpretation?

Article 530(2) from my searches includes mental condition as a reason for the not guilty verdict. Is there a copy of the law available from a neutral site?

 

[Vixen]

Learn to live with the truth.
It all makes sense to me, just like Hellmann.
So now the whole Italian Supreme Court is fools because they do not see guilter induced hallucinations?
You are so blinded by your hatred that you cannot understand what you are reading.
No, I did not see any of the contradictions or errors seem to think are in this document and I will not even attempt to determine what your foaming at the mouth rants mean, since we all know that the rants here and your rants in general are never referenced back to facts.
Do you really think that anyone will believe that it "is logical" to conclude that a cowardly and frustrated anonymous poster who spews venomous untruths and distortions from the safety of a hate filled cave is capable of even understanding the ISC legal concepts, and more importantly, the need to adhere to legal concepts, a need that is emphasized and explained forcefully on almost every page of this motivation?
I am willing to respond to explicit criticisms, with references, but really, who, or what, will we be blamed next?
TurtlesWarriors.

ROFL. You missed out this bit:

Really? Did you miss where it said the murder certainly was not carried out by an unknown burglar; that Amanda was there (fact, by her own account) and covering for Rudy (in case anyone saw him leave the house, and couldn't tell one black guy from another, even if one was young, slender and tall, and the other short, stocky and middle-aged, according to Bruno's brilliant armchair detective skills) and did wash off Mez' blood from her hands. That Raff was with her when she claimed to arrive 10:30 next morning.

Bruno & Marasca still top of your Christmas card list?

PS Learn to live with the truth.

 

[Vixen]

That's not the word I would use.

What word would you use? "Pontificating"?

 

[Grinder]

I did find this: the judge must pronounce an acquittal verdict also where the evidence is missing ,insufficient,or contradictory (Art. 530, paragraph 2 CCP) from this source - https://books.google.com/books?id=i...h0cJwKK#v=onepage&q=article 530 italy&f=false

Criminal Law in Italy, Second Edition 2nd Edition
by Astolfo Di Amato

It appears they were not found innocent as that would have been 530(1)

 

[Vixen]

What is the exact Italian word for circumstantial used in this report? Do they have more than one word for it?

Why does the translation equate annulment to acquittal? Is that in the original text or an interpretation?

Article 530(2) from my searches includes mental condition as a reason for the not guilty verdict. Is there a copy of the law available from a neutral site?

Because the fact of annulment of the case comes before the acquittal, as a result thereof.

If they were innocent, they would just be acquitted.

As you know, no new evidence or legal point was put forward to demonstrate innocence.

Instead Bruno-Marasca have had to concentrate on mocking the police investigators as the basis of the annulment.

Using a box of the Christmas packaging type, etc. Wow, B-M's contempt for the police shines through.

 

[bagels]

What is the exact Italian word for circumstantial used in this report? Do they have more than one word for it?

Why does the translation equate annulment to acquittal? Is that in the original text or an interpretation?

Article 530(2) from my searches includes mental condition as a reason for the not guilty verdict. Is there a copy of the law available from a neutral site?

If there was any functional or procedural differences between annulment and acquittal wouldn't they be in the prosecution's ability to retry the case? Which we know they cannot do here.

 

[analemma]

ROFL. You missed out this bit:


Bruno & Marasca still top of your Christmas card list?

PS Learn to live with the truth.

No one bothers to try to interperate your vague and unreferenced rants any more.
As I said : I will respond to referenced, quoted passages, but I will not waste time on unreferenced BS hate posts.
And Yes, they do.

 

[Ken Dine]

I did too but it doesn't mean what we would like to think. It means the choice between testing a sample, to see what it consists of, and testing it for DNA. The judges seem to have decided that only one of these was possble. Not sure C-V would agree with that.

Was it Vixen who has been adamantly claiming here for months that the Hellmann directed Conte-Vecchiotti DNA report has been effectively ridiculed out of existence, yet there were several instances in this court's ruling which held that the Conte-Vecchiotti DNA report was still very relevant to their opinion.

Go figure?

 

[Vixen]

I did find this: the judge must pronounce an acquittal verdict also where the evidence is missing ,insufficient,or contradictory (Art. 530, paragraph 2 CCP) from this source - https://books.google.com/books?id=i...h0cJwKK#v=onepage&q=article 530 italy&f=false

Criminal Law in Italy, Second Edition 2nd Edition
by Astolfo Di Amato

It appears they were not found innocent as that would have been 530(1)

Bearing in mind, 530 para 2, is not within the supreme court's jurisdiction.

Bruno & Marasca might just as well have thumbed their noses and waggled their fingers.

 

[Bill Williams]

Because the fact of annulment of the case comes before the acquittal, as a result thereof.

If they were innocent, they would just be acquitted.

As you know, no new evidence or legal point was put forward to demonstrate innocence.

Instead Bruno-Marasca have had to concentrate on mocking the police investigators as the basis of the annulment.

Using a box of the Christmas packaging type, etc. Wow, B-M's contempt for the police shines through.

The real question, though - is that contempt well placed? I believe it is.

"No legal point was put forward to demonstrate innocence"? You're kidding, right? The M-B motivations shows clearly stated how there was nothing put forward to demonstrate their guilt..... no one needs to demonstrate innocence.

Once again, the guilter's Achilles Heel shines through.

 

[Vixen]

No one bothers to try to interperate your vague and unreferenced rants any more.
As I said : I will respond to referenced, quoted passages, but I will not waste time on unreferenced BS hate posts.
And Yes, they do.

ROFL. Thanks for giving me the best laugh of the day.

 

[Bill Williams]

Was it Vixen who has been adamantly claiming here for months that the Hellmann directed Conte-Vecchiotti DNA report has been effectively ridiculed out of existence, yet there were several instances in this court's ruling which held that the Conte-Vecchiotti DNA report was still very relevant to their opinion.

Go figure?

The C&V report was still very relevant to the Nencini court, because Nencini took great pains to contrast and compare C&V with Stefanoni, in the vain attempt to show why Stefanoni was superior.

Marasca-Bruno? Much of what Stefanoni did was "disturbing".

 

[Grinder]

The language reminds me of Sir Humphrey speaking to Jim Hacker. They seem absolutely terrified that people will be able to understand what they are saying. At times it is not clear whose voice they speaking with.

Of all the mistakes made by the ICSI why they picked the cardboard box is baffling.

On a first read I was heartened to see the section on the use of science beyond the scope of judges (or jurors) to be able to comprehend and the need for some form of neutral experts to at least aid the deciders. Of course, this is a brilliant point. In fact perhaps could be the greatest contribution to future trials using LCN or other esoteric science.

 

[Bill Williams]

The language reminds me of Sir Humphrey speaking to Jim Hacker. They seem absolutely terrified that people will be able to understand what they are saying. At times it is not clear whose voice they speaking with.

Of all the mistakes made by the ICSI why they picked the cardboard box is baffling.

On a first read I was heartened to see the section on the use of science beyond the scope of judges (or jurors) to be able to comprehend and the need for some form of neutral experts to at least aid the deciders. Of course, this is a brilliant point. In fact perhaps could be the greatest contribution to future trials using LCN or other esoteric science.

Agreed on all.

 

[analemma]

As you know, no new evidence or legal point was put forward to demonstrate innocence.
Instead Bruno-Marasca have had to concentrate on mocking the police investigators as the basis of the annulment.
Using a box of the Christmas packaging type, etc. Wow, B-M's contempt for the police shines through.

B-M's contempt for the police shines through.
I agree with you on this: The contempt shines through on every Page, as it should.
The stupidity and bias of the Italian Police have made a laughing stock of Italy, and the ISC does not want the Italian Police to do it again, which is the purpose of both the content and tone of this Motivation.