Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[anglolawyer]

That's true I failed to consider the plight of poor Rudy. Now I'm just confused. Isn't it interesting that if we imagine Rudy did break in and attack Meredith but the police began the investigation from the premise that the break-in must have been staged, the investigation may have looked remarkably similar to how it actually looked? But we know it couldn't have happened that way because no burglar would climb a wall and no man could ever kill a woman by himself. I'm back to square one.

BTW did you notice that Mach said even if my theory is true Amanda Knox still needs to be punished lol. I get the distinct impression he really doesn't much care for her and this may be influencing his views

In another part of the forest a poster also calling himself Machiavelli used to adopt a lofty and detached tone. Facts were facts. He had no axe to grind. He had looked at Amanda and formed a detached, objective view, informed by his experiences of the theatre. She was obviously guilty. He took no great pleasure in saying so. It was what it was. Now, by contrast, we have a raving obsessive the balance of whose mind has been distoibed, encompassing entire governments, media organisations and whole armies of lawyers and judges within a conspiracy of fiendish complexity, all dangling from strings pulled by the mysterious group that coalesced around the witch for the sheer, wicked pleasure of denying justice. Bring back the old Machiavelli! Free the Machiavelli one!

 

[analemma]

The difference will become apparent in how much compensation your idols get.

You are ALWAYS WRONG
And yet you insist upon making predictions.
Failure to understand the motivation for you is coupled with failed predictions,
ALWAYS
It will become worse for you when the ECHR throws everything out: As these judges would have if they could, but they could not: To many idiots blundered before them.
But they got it right.

 

[analemma]

Translation Page 45: "the use of logic and intuition cannot, in any way, compensate for the lack of evidence or the inefficiency of the investigations"


Well now. What must one add? Doesn't that just about sum it up in one concise sentence?

This Motivation is FILLED with statements like this.
The tone of this document is: You must do your jobs according to the law, regardless of what the press or nutcases say.

 

[Bill Williams]

This Motivation is FILLED with statements like this.
The tone of this document is: You must do your jobs according to the law, regardless of what the press or nutcases say.

Marasca also seemed to take a swipe at Nencini, that perhaps was not all together deserved.

He said something akin to Nencini being mistaken that the ISC in 2013 had, in effect, ordered him to convicte at he Florence, second 2nd-grade trial. However, even if the ISC had ordered this, Nencini had no right to invent and/or skew evidence to manufacture a guilt-narrative.

Many offered the opinion that the ISC in 2013 had, in fact, ordered a conviction and that the fix was in. The very best advice people could, then, offer Raffaele was to get out of Italy.

So which was it? That the ISC had, in fact, ordered a conviction..... or did Nencini invent and/or skew evidence by his onsey?

 

[analemma]

One could equally note that it is diametrically opposed to what the pro-Knoxes have been saying for years.
But all this is not interesting. My first post today was a fact about the law. The rest is the result of an immediate diversion by the pro-Knoxes, who react by steering and directing the discussion on the poster immediately. My responses to comments against me will be shooting aimed at your object of worship, by pointing out facts, this ruffs your feathers and you begin with this hysterical stuff.

We are "hysterical"
From the one who insists the Mafia has sent in the drugged up Ninja Turtles?

 

[Mike1711]

What bit do you think I don't understand?

Answering a question with a question.....???
I repeat....
From which clause/s in the B-M do you lift your information? That's the part of the report you don't understand...and almost the entire report, the evidence, and the case.
An important aspect of sane and logical interaction regarding this case is analysis, interpretation and conclusion. If you want to see a good example of this read the Bruno/Marasca Report. This report analyses the evidence, interprets it logically and comes to the correct conclusion.
QED.

 

[Ken Dine]

Translation Page 45: "the use of logic and intuition cannot, in any way, compensate for the lack of evidence or the inefficiency of the investigations"


Well now. What must one add? Doesn't that just about sum it up in one concise sentence?

Ya, that should have been on page-1 of a two page legal opinion, but Italian judges are paid per their word output, so on and on they unnecessarily drone, thereby burying much of the good stuff.

 

[Mike1711]

As I keep reiterating I have no problem whatsoever understanding the report. You must stop assuming I have difficulty with comprehension.

You haven't quoted me, as you claim, above, where you have written RUBBISH!!! Presumably you wish to give the unwary reader the false impression you are responding to something I wrote.

As I keep saying, I have not mentioned clause 9. Please keep your faux exasperation to yourself.

...and herein lies the essence of your problems.
I haven't claimed to quote you.

 

[moije2]

Marasca also seemed to take a swipe at Nencini, that perhaps was not all together deserved.

He said something akin to Nencini being mistaken that the ISC in 2013 had, in effect, ordered him to convicte at he Florence, second 2nd-grade trial. However, even if the ISC had ordered this, Nencini had no right to invent and/or skew evidence to manufacture a guilt-narrative.

Many offered the opinion that the ISC in 2013 had, in fact, ordered a conviction and that the fix was in. The very best advice people could, then, offer Raffaele was to get out of Italy.

So which was it? That the ISC had, in fact, ordered a conviction..... or did Nencini invent and/or skew evidence by his onsey?

I can see what you mean, a little bit. After all, what was Nencini supposed to think? Real logic, or the Mason inflicted "M" logic? I for one am under no pretense about the "logic" here. After umpteen decisions which are "all over the place", what could one predict? I wouldn't predict anything! The statement of this latest MR that I quoted speaks truth to me. But in the real world of the Italian judiciary there may be all sorts of things, er, indicators, context, judicial truths, osmotic coalescence of half-wit elements into an intelligible whole, and so forth, that would drive a decision. I would not necessarily have seen the wisdom of sticking around Italy to wait for a decision.

We can sit around and be happy that we now have a decision that in large part finally speaks volumes of wisdom. I would not have bet on it, but this case has been my education into the Italian judiciary and I don't pretend to know what they would do. I know enough about US judiciary to say that there is frequently wiggle room for different decisions. Here it seems, there is no lack of wiggle room.

Let's just be thankful that AK and RS are not under the thumb of certain prosecutors to have their lives further sullied by tortured "logic". I personally feel embarrassed for the good citizens of Italy that they have been burdened by this case for all the wrong reasons. Before my racist brethren make accusations of racism, I will add that we in the US can now move our energy to similar idiocies here in this country.

 

[Mike1711]

Thank you for helping me in my struggles. Having passed about twenty accountancy exams, including industry case studies where you have to research a random industry inside out, and then on the day of the exam, you are confronted with unseen questions and a 20-page booklet of dense figures and turgid wording, out of which you have to identify the key issues on the hoof, do some complex calculations, draw some business models and then cobble up a 4,000 word report within three hours in correct format explaining the reasoning for your recommendations, to chartered accountancy standard, it really is so kind of you to help me read a very simple law report.

If I'd prattled on about Gallileo in any of my papers, it'd be a straight 'FAIL'.

"That's nothin' - we had to lick the road with our tongues..."

 

[Planigale]

I think it is b¥ no means certain that the legal representation of the Kerchers was done on a contingency fee basis. The latter are apparently uncommon in Italy, and until 2006? were illegal. Someone may know?

I think a further civil action for damages against Knox is unlikely, until she wins the ECHR case she probably has no assets in Italy. Sollecito may be a better target but decoupled from Knox the case may be more difficult.

The callunia cases are interesting. The justification for Knox being found guilty is that she was not oppressed. Her claims to have been oppressed have resulted in a further case for callunia. There appears to have been no investigation of her claims.

 

[Bill Williams]

I can see what you mean, a little bit. After all, what was Nencini supposed to think? Real logic, or the Mason inflicted "M" logic? I for one am under no pretense about the "logic" here. After umpteen decisions which are "all over the place", what could one predict? I wouldn't predict anything! The statement of this latest MR that I quoted speaks truth to me. But in the real world of the Italian judiciary there may be all sorts of things, er, indicators, context, judicial truths, osmotic coalescence of half-wit elements into an intelligible whole, and so forth, that would drive a decision. I would not necessarily have seen the wisdom of sticking around Italy to wait for a decision.

We can sit around and be happy that we now have a decision that in large part finally speaks volumes of wisdom. I would not have bet on it, but this case has been my education into the Italian judiciary and I don't pretend to know what they would do. I know enough about US judiciary to say that there is frequently wiggle room for different decisions. Here it seems, there is no lack of wiggle room.

Let's just be thankful that AK and RS are not under the thumb of certain prosecutors to have their lives further sullied by tortured "logic". I personally feel embarrassed for the good citizens of Italy that they have been burdened by this case for all the wrong reasons. Before my racist brethren make accusations of racism, I will add that we in the US can now move our energy to similar idiocies here in this country.

So to continue in the anecdotal vein, and to repeat an old observation - when Gloria Allred was on Piers Morgan's old CNN show, just after the 2013 ISC had annulled the Hellmann verdict, the two of them were discussing Italy.

Morgan himself, close to the Kercher family through his media contacts with John Snr., implied he was a tad outraged that the then, ISC had substituted the "sex game gone wrong," as yet another in a series of motives, seeming to suggest that if it had not gone wrong, that otherwise his friend's daughter, the victim here, had been involved in a sex game.

Allred recounted a time in her past when she'd tried to set up a business in Italy. She looked around at the judicial climate, lengthy trials, multiple trials where even a minor business-mishap could keep one in court for a decade.... being bankrupted by a relatively minor concern.

Now, none of that was a horrible murder like the Kercher killing, but Allred did say it gave her an insight to some of the lunacy that she said was demonstrated by the annulling of the Hellmann verdict.

Morgan was more agnostic on the point of guilt or innocence, and repeated the line that Meredith had been forgotten throughout it all.

Just to add to this stream of consciousness - CNN house lawyer, Jeffery Toobin was also on the show. Potential extradition was looming even then for Knox, and Morgan asked Toobin for comment on that.

Toobin said, "Let's cut to the chase, Amanda Knox is not going anywhere. She'll be able to live a long and happy life in the confines of this county. If it were me, I'd advise her to get on with life."

Toobin had been one of the CNN in-house lawyers commenting also on the Oct 2011 acquittals. He was asked to comment then, too, on what was perceived as a dramatic reversal from 2009. Apparently he's a "cut to the chase" sort of guy, because he said simply, "Well, they pretty much had to acquit, because there simply was no evidence against the pair."

My view is that Italy should have let Toobin decide this way back then. It would have saved Marasca from having to say essentially the same thing so many years later - there simply was no evidence.

 

[Matthew Best]

As I keep reiterating I have no problem whatsoever understanding the report. You must stop assuming I have difficulty with comprehension.

Nobody's assuming you have difficulty with comprehension.

They are concluding it.

 

[Ken Dine]

I think it is b¥ no means certain that the legal representation of the Kerchers was done on a contingency fee basis. The latter are apparently uncommon in Italy, and until 2006? were illegal. Someone may know?

I think a further civil action for damages against Knox is unlikely, until she wins the ECHR case she probably has no assets in Italy. Sollecito may be a better target but decoupled from Knox the case may be more difficult.

The callunia cases are interesting. The justification for Knox being found guilty is that she was not oppressed. Her claims to have been oppressed have resulted in a further case for callunia. There appears to have been no investigation of her claims.

GADZOOKS! It seems, that every time Amanda goes to court and defends herself by claiming that the Italian police had FORCED her to say things thru intimidation, that the Italian police will then have another round to sue her over?

This could go on forever + a day!

Seemingly, the only way for Amanda to escape this cycle of Italian callunia madness, would be for Amanda to go into court and LIE by claiming the cops gave her cupcakes, tea and backrubs all night long.

 

[carbonjam72]

A few thoughts on Kerchers and the process as a whole.

I think it is b¥ no means certain that the legal representation of the Kerchers was done on a contingency fee basis. The latter are apparently uncommon in Italy, and until 2006? were illegal. Someone may know?

I think a further civil action for damages against Knox is unlikely, until she wins the ECHR case she probably has no assets in Italy. Sollecito may be a better target but decoupled from Knox the case may be more difficult.

The callunia cases are interesting. The justification for Knox being found guilty is that she was not oppressed. Her claims to have been oppressed have resulted in a further case for callunia. There appears to have been no investigation of her claims.

Thought I remembered hearing the Kerchers (Stephanie?) saying recently they had support over the years from many, including or especially from their Italian attorneys.

John Kercher said they had spent a small fortune on the case, including on travel to Italy, and had no help from the foreign office, just as other families are left without help. (That Grandmother awaiting her death sentence in Bali was denied 8,000 euros IIRC for an attorney to avoid execution, and IIRC a UK court or the foreign office said they were very sorry but couldn't help).

It seems unlikely that the Kerchers could pay for all the hours and corrupt experts' fees, that Maresca's office has expended on the case. Can you just imagine the bill Maresca would produce for services rendered given the chance? Millions of euros, right?

I saw photos on De Spiegel web site yesterday or a few days ago, that showed people on the night of the October 3, 2011 acquittals, it had all the families; Knox, Sollecito and Kercher, up to and reacting to the verdict.

And I remember seeing a picture of Stefanie looking directly into the camera. For the first time I think, I didn't blame them. There was no reason for the Kerchers to be there, just as there was no reason for the Knox's and Sollecito's to be there. They all had to be there, they had no choice.

It was all the wholly unnecessary result of Giuliano Mignini's insane theories, his rush to judgement, his refusal to let go of his suspects when the evidence proved him wrong, his willingness to manipulate a system vulnerable to corruption and influence, his willingness to use the domestic and international press to further his lies about the case, and his willingness to put innocent people in jail rather than face the consequences of his own excesses, abuses and failures in office going back to the 'Narducci trail'.

None of it was necessary. none of the suffering, none of the expense, none of the wasted lost years, and all the torment that went with it. None of the hounding by deranged hate trolls and tabloid journalists, who simply only need a direction to manifest their inherent depravity.

It may not be surprising that a monster like Mignini will avoid prosecution for his role in this and other cases. But it is no less sad or sickening to watch him wriggle away. How Quintavale or Rudy Guede avoids standing trial for calunnia is just beyond me, until one realizes its not a real system of justice. Its all amateur theater, designed to give the appearance of reality, for a short while, and then the actors all go home.

btw, I don't believe there will be any private actions filed against Raf, mainly for the reason that I think he is spoiling for a fight, and fundamentally these jackals are cowards. Amanda probably never wants to waste another minute in a courtroom again. Raf seems like he's itching for the opportunity to give some back to all the scoundrels who screwed with him thinking he was easy pickings. I think its an Italian thing. I can't imagine anyone in their right mind trying to bring this case into a US or UK courtroom, without expecting to be bankrupted.

 

[Kauffer]

Amanda Knox has tortured and killed Meredith Kercher, is also an offender convicted of calunnia and under trial for a repeated offence, so I really don't think there is anything wrong letting the world know this.

In addition, Knox was the object of worship of activists who put on a slandering machine, a filthy media campaign of lies and joined corrupt forces within Italy to pervert the course of some proceedings. No, it's not lousy to go after media spin and corruption.

Bruno / Marasca won't be usable by Knox in her defence, because of art. 530.2; Knox was already indefensible in her Florence calunnia trial, but the statements in the SC ruling possibly make her even more indefensible. B&M only highlight Knox's will (malice) in the crime of calunnia.
Even locate her on the murder scene with certainty (despite they contradict their owns statements in one paragraph), with Meredith's blood on her hands, and highlight the purpose of her calunnia was to cover up for a murderer (who, B&M say, did not kill alone, and had less motive than Knox).

Are you in any doubt that the ECHR will find overwhelmingly for Amanda with regard to her callunia conviction? Are you in any doubt, notwithstanding what the motivation report says, that the verdict will, eventually, be annulled?

 

[Machiavelli]

I'm not wanting to pursue this, really. It would simply make it all the more strange that the minority spin your guilt-opinions put on to things would be for this web-service and this web-service alone.

I don't put spin, only inform about the truth. And I don't belong to a minority - but this is off-topic. If you don't want to pursue things, then don't pursue them, as you do attempting to pollute the forum and prevent discussion: so we let these posts for the moderators to clean.

 

[Machiavelli]

Are you in any doubt that the ECHR will find overwhelmingly for Amanda with regard to her callunia conviction? Are you in any doubt, notwithstanding what the motivation report says, that the verdict will, eventually, be annulled?

The calunnia verdict cannot be annulled and will never be neither annulled nor reversed.

 

[Vixen]

Hoots!

Wait a minute.... I thought you were going to report posters who made those kind of "address to post, not the poster" sorts of remarks!? Hoots!

The facts of this case in question are as per the Marasca-Bruno report, now available in English Pro-Knox Spin. The prosecutors, police, and former judicial officers of Italy's judiciary engaged in a massive blunder. Some of Stefanoni's work was disturbing, and that's a quote from the report.

Nencini, wrongly, took it from the 2013 ISC that he was ordered to convict, so he purposely stretched factoids into a guilt narrative which the facts could not sustain.

And on and on.

FIFY

 

[Machiavelli]

GADZOOKS! It seems, that every time Amanda goes to court and defends herself by claiming that the Italian police had FORCED her to say things thru intimidation, that the Italian police will then have another round to sue her over?

This could go on forever + a day!

Seemingly, the only way for Amanda to escape this cycle of Italian callunia madness, would be for Amanda to go into court and LIE by claiming the cops gave her cupcakes, tea and backrubs all night long.

Knox defence did not denounce any forcing or coercion. Neither any illegal questioning. (they would have been compelled to by their ethics if their client told them it was true).
She claimed false memory syndrome, and years later.