Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

Jeannie or Samantha?

That's easy. Jeanie, definitely.

 

[Bill Williams]

Jeannie or Samantha?

That's easy. Jeanie, definitely.

Cretin.

 

[acbytesla]

Cretin.

So?

 

[sept79]

I agree that the Marasca CSC panel will need to annul the Nencini court verdict reasoning (its motivation report) in some detail.

I suspect that they will then re-iterate the major conclusions of the Hellmann court motivation report, perhaps without actually reviving that specific court's verdict of innocence due to Italian formal legalisms. The Marasca CSC panel will still be able to refer to the DNA report of the outside experts, Conti and Vecchiotti, and to the DNA report from the Carabinieri lab.

I am unsure whether or not the Marasca CSC panel MR will refer to the Chieffi CSC panel MR, and if it does make any reference, how it would frame such a review. Marasca may give a more neutral interpretation of the Chieffi MR than most readers have done, and state that Nencini did not properly interpret Chieffi.

I am also wondering how the Marasca CSC panel MR will treat the many violations of Italian law and ECHR case-law in this case, and the State Police forensic work, which was "incompetent" (intentionally, IMO) and unfair.

Given all of the incompetence preceding Marasca's CSC panel, maybe there won't ever be a motivation report . . .

 

[acbytesla]

Given all of the incompetence preceding Marasca's CSC panel, maybe there won't ever be a motivation report . . .

There will be. I think what will be interesting will be how much it criticizes any of the prosecuting judge motivations, if at all. I don't expect to say anything except to say Nencini overstepped his mandate and based on his instructions and the result of those instuctions, the responsible decision would have been an acquittal.

 

[RWVBWL]

Boy,
the motivation couldn't come soon enough.
I might as well ask the fellas on the forum the most important question. Ginger or Mary Ann?

Me,
I sometimes,
sometimes, sometimes like to take a different perspective when I look at things.
Especially in this horrible rape + murder we discuss...

That said,
I've wondered something,
maybe some of you Women
might help me out,
ok?

Hey Girlz,
which 1 would it be?
Gilligan?
The Skipper?
The Millionaire and his Wife?
or
The Professor?

Better yet!
Would it be Patrick Lumumba?
[SIZE="-7"]Raffaele Sollecito[/SIZE]?
Rudy Guede?

Or
Giacomo?

 

[Ken Dine]

Boy, the motivation couldn't come soon enough. I might as well ask the fellas on the forum the most important question. Ginger or Mary Ann?

Eeny, meeny, miny, moe ...BOTH!

 

[acbytesla]

Eeny, meeny, miny, moe ...BOTH!

Did you ever have to make up your mind?
You pick up on one and leave the other one behind
It's not often easy and not often kind
Did you ever have to make up your mind?
Did you ever have to finally decide?
And say yes to one and let the other one ride
There's so many changes and tears you must hide
Did you ever have to finally decide?
Sometimes there's one with deep blue eyes, cute as a bunny
With hair down to here and plenty of money
And just when you think she's that one in the world
Your heart gets stolen by some mousy little girl
And then you know you better make up your mind
And pick up on one and leave the other one behind
It's not often easy and not often kind
Did you ever have to make up your mind?
Sometimes you really dig a girl the moment you kiss her
And then you get distracted by her older sister
When in walks her father and takes you in line
And says, "Better go home, son, and make up your mind"
Then you bet you'd better finally decide
Lovin Spoonful

 

[Strozzi]

Not sure where you live, but here in America anything said in a courtroom is absolutely privileged, as it should be.

Of course, Amanda is also being sued for writing allegations of police abuse in her book, "Waiting to be Heard," and while that would also be privileged here, or at least, the cops suing Amanda would need to come up with more than "She said, He said" proof.

Now, if the Italian cops could produce video of the Nov 6th interrogation to prove that Amanda lied with 'MALICE' (i.e., saying something she knew was untrue with an intent to damage the reputation of another person she didn't like), then she could possibly be successfully sued in America, too.

Of course, the action was initiated in the Italian judicial hell-hole, so it goes by their rules, not that any Italian cop will ever see a dime from Amanda.

These Italian lawsuits are clearly intended to intimidate people, as well as bleed them dry of money in order to shut them up, even if what they say is true.

The above highlighted information is true for calunia charges as that is a criminal matter. Mignini or prosecutorial colleagues will gladly prosecute these as they are salaried state employees. It costs them nothing to bring an action and bleed the defendant, as we have seen. They get paid for it.

They do it to clear their teammates and harm their defendant enemies. Perhaps also to live out their righteous fantasies. Pity the defendant and the Italian taxpayers.

No wonder so many Italians evade their full tax obligations - they don't get value for their tax dollars. They probably don't have great confidence in their public servants.

It would be interesting to know who are the lawyers representing the police in the civil litigation against Amanda (and parents?). What is their relationship to the police officers they represent? Do they expect to be rewarded in defending the "maligned" police by being handed public work to represent (and earn fees) defending various criminal defendants at taxpayer expense?

 

[Ken Dine]

MOO - Marasca/Bruno will go to great pains to explain why their decision does not contradict the Chieffi decision at all.

It will boil down Chieffi's MR to its essence, namely the three issues referred back to the Appeals' level for further fact-finding.

All three of those things went the defence's way. Therefore, whatever it was that Chieffi believed was wrong with Hellmann's report/verdict, was now settled. The jailhouse snitch was not taking money from the Sollecitos, the motive for the crime had nothing to do with a sex-game gone wrong, and the RIS Carbinieri proved that Sample 36I did not place the knife at the scene.

You have obviously thought about this more than I have, and no matter how they try to do it, it will be interesting to see how they try to juggle & harmonize everything.

Since the ruling will be in Italian, at first we're going to need to rely on media summaries, I suppose, since it could take weeks (or months) to get proper translations. I suppose we could use machine translations, though?

Perhaps Marasca/Bruno will try to salvage Nencini's inanities by saying (in proper legalese) that Nencini had had a brain-fart. That perhaps Nencini's court exceeded its mandate by bringing in Rudy Guede's version of why Amanda might have been involved - the phantom rent-money dispute between Knox and Kercher.

(The one thing - among many - that makes Rudy's version of events unbelievable, is that he makes Meredith out to be a rather harsh person, and there is NO evidence - other than from Rudy - to suggest that.)

In my opinion, Amanda was the sort who would have lent money to a roommate in need, and in the neighborhood of a few hundred bucks involved, Amanda would probably not even be that concerned about it getting a few hundred paid back.

So, Marasca has plenty of room to write a report in which he'll say is 100% consistent with the Chieffi annulment of Hellmann.

Questions were raised;
Questions were tested at the Florence trial;
All questions were resolved in the defence's favour; and
Nencini had a brain fart and convicted on matters he had no mandate to express an opinion on​

Hellmann's verdicts were annulled and it is unclear if the rest of the facts - as found - were swept into the dustbin along with them. Most certainly, instead of just negating Conti-Vecchiotti with a wave of a hand, Nencini tried to argue against some of the points raised by C&V. Why even raise them, even to try to refute them, if the whole thing had been trashed?

That's the interesting part for me, is how they'll deal with Hellmann. Will they just ignore Hellmann's verdict as you seem to imply? Dunno?

It will more than likely be a MR which restores everyone to one big happy family, with no mention at all of the judicial politicking that Hellmann referred to publicly, and to which Machiavelli will only refer to on English language internet services.... it may even lay claim to being the proper "osmotic reasoning", taking all things considered.

I agree that your highlighted part is likely, but not sure about how they'll go about the rest of it?

Which reminds me.... can ANYONE point to ANYTHING in Italy, in Italian, where this is even on the radar any more?

NOPE. They probably have some other ongoing debacle today that fills their press with their usual nonsense. Actually, not too much different here.

 

[Strozzi]

. . .

Hey Girlz, which 1 would it be? Gilligan? The Skipper? The Millionaire and his Wife? or The Professor?
Better yet!
Would it be Patrick Lumumba?
[SIZE="-7"]Raffaele Sollecito[/SIZE]?
Rudy Guede?

Or
Giacomo?

I imagine most women here would prefer the professor over Gilligan, the Skipper who got them lost, or the millionaire. The professor is smarter, even if he is not Mensa grade.

As for Lumumba, Guede, Giacomo, or Soloecito - that should be an easy choice. Only one is honorable and showed his honesty when it would have been easy to fold and harm an innocent person.

 

[Bill Williams]

You have obviously thought about this more than I have, and no matter how they try to do it, it will be interesting to see how they try to juggle & harmonize everything.

I've also got a lot wrong. Ask acbytesla and carbonjam72. I did, however, use the term in situ correctly in a sentence once and ironically got no end of grief from one of the more finicky dictionary-huggers in the thread!!!!

That's the interesting part for me, is how they'll deal with Hellmann. Will they just ignore Hellmann's verdict as you seem to imply? Dunno?

I have no memory of implying that. Marasca has the job of, de facto, restoring Hellmann's verdicts while showing why the remand-issues from Chieffi's section of the ISC have been satisfied and signed-off on. Nencini may win boob of the year for his trouble.

They probably have some other ongoing debacle today that fills their press with their usual nonsense. Actually, not too much different here.

Still, I wish someone reading this would do us all a favour and show where Omicidio di Meredith Kercher has ANY currency these days in Italy, in Italian. Anywhere. There's a lot of bleating in English from an ever declining group of haters (usual suspects), which only go to show haters gotta hate.

 

[acbytesla]

I've also got a lot wrong. Ask acbytesla and carbonjam72. I did, however, use the term in situ correctly in a sentence once and ironically got no end of grief from one of the more finicky dictionary-huggers in the thread!!!!
I have no memory of implying that. Marasca has the job of, de facto, restoring Hellmann's verdicts while showing why the remand-issues from Chieffi's section of the ISC have been satisfied and signed-off on. Nencini may win boob of the year for his trouble.

Still, I wish someone reading this would do us all a favour and show where Omicidio di Meredith Kercher has ANY currency these days in Italy, in Italian. Anywhere. There's a lot of bleating in English from an ever declining group of haters (usual suspects), which only go to show haters gotta hate.

Frankly, I think it is quickly becoming irrelevant everywhere. I have a Google alert for the term "Amanda Knox" and it seems like a long while since I read anything new.

 

[Numbers]

EXACTLY! We’re all sitting here waiting for the final report, and discussing bleach and lamps ad nauseum while we wait is a total waste of time.

What can be more relevant to this case is discussing why people believe what they believe, especially when the evidence contradicts their beliefs.
....

Most of your post was OT; these astronomical issues should be confined to their own thread or to PM.

I agree that the issue of why people believe things contrary to evidence deserves some consideration. I don't believe that the science of psychology has advanced far enough to allow a complete listing of all the possible objectively valid answers to that question. There is also the issue of whether or not the statements of some individuals truly reflect their beliefs, or are rather made for purposes of discussion or provocation, or with the intent of inflicting psychological pain on others. All of these factors, and the unquestioned belief in authority - but perhaps only when it acts unfairly - seem to have played roles in this case.

Another factor is failure of a person to maintain a consistent frame of reference and objectivity. Does the innocence of an actually innocent person somehow vanish when police allege that person has committed a crime, or when a court unfairly convicts that person, only to re-emerge if that person is finally exonerated? The concept of "presumption of innocence" is meant to maintain a consistent frame of reference and place the burden of proof on the prosecution, but there are people who comment on this case, and even Italian judges, who apparently reject this concept in practice.

 

[Numbers]

Given all of the incompetence preceding Marasca's CSC panel, maybe there won't ever be a motivation report . . .

There is actually a provision in the Italian Constitution that reasons must be provided for all verdicts.

Of course, the Marasca CSC panel appears to have blown past the timelines for the reasoning as set out in Italian procedural law (the CPP).

 

[RWVBWL]

You Did It

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oTTNHveadw

This **** is too funny!


Weird how Amanda Knox and [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele Sollecito[/SIZE],
DID NOT,
as Strozzi recently, IIRC, pointed out,
get any bleach splatter stains on their clothing
as they, while stoned + Fying High Again,
did an incredible clean-up to remove only their fingerprints and their DNA from in the murder room.

I'm kinda stoned right now.

These stoners in this rape + murder case we discuss left all of Rudy Guede's DNA and bloody shoe prints there,
surely a job for a specialist like somebody from the Smart Patrol/Mr DNA,
err a brilliant Dr who had to get special permission to drive 2 hours down from Rome,
a Dr. like Stefa-(too low, too low, too low)-nonononi
to get to work on this case + figure it all out, right?

A normal stoner,
like me as I am right about now woulda got at least some bleach on their clothin',
right?

A normal stoner
like me woulda left plenty of swirl marks as I, err they
tried to remove blood from certain locations.

It's kinda difficult to forever remove blood without a trace, from what I can tell.
Just as it's kinda difficult writing this post which I have had to re-edit + check for spellin' errors and, well what ever it is I check for as I re-read the darn post!

I'm stoned.
Hahaha.


A normal stoner
like me would not have been able to remove all
nor even any of my, err their DNA from Mez's vagina
while leaving just the "poor" black dudes DNA inside there,
right?

A normal stoner
like me would not have had a drug test after bein' arrested by ILE
and have it come back negative for cannabis, right?

Heck,
if I was a gnarly druggie,
the after-arrest drug results should have tested positive for cocaine or even heroin,
right?


Heya missy-rapper,
where are them after-arrest
drug test results?

And where's the bleach stains on
[SIZE="-7"]Raffaele[/SIZE] and Foxy Knoxy's clothin?

You claim that you are from the streets
but yet you can not figure out the ******** case
against Amanda Knox and [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele Sollecito[/SIZE]?
Pffffft.

Pity You.
You ain't that street wise,
chick...


Gosh,
old Mig'i' deserves some kinda Hollywood award,
for he's fooled some smart(?) street rapper chick and other pep's into believin' his tall tale
that Amanda Knox killed Meredith because she was always behavin' like a lil' saint and never had her some sex-so we'll show ya!, err make that AK stole Mez's rent $$$, err, the bathroom was dirty, err AK brought men over, err, Mez was a cheapie and nev

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breaches of rule 10

 

[acbytesla]

There is actually a provision in the Italian Constitution that reasons must be provided for all verdicts.

Of course, the Marasca CSC panel appears to have blown past the timelines for the reasoning as set out in Italian procedural law (the CPP).

I'd bet there are clauses that allow that time line to be exceeded. Such as, we're going on Holiday. Or it's too hot to work. Or the espresso machine broke down and you can't expect us to work without coffee. Or wine.

 

[Planigale]

The other potential issue to consider is the ECHR views on length of trials. It would be a bit of a cop out but an argument for not returning the case to a lower court for a further trial and then further review at cassation would be that this would breach Knox / Sollecito's human rights. There is an argument that if the state cannot achieve a safe conviction within say seven years than the prosecution should fall. This is different from a conviction having been obtained and a subsequent appeal being made. The initial trial has not been completed because there has been no cassation confirmation of finding of guilt or innocence by the lower court (until now?).

 

[Numbers]

The other potential issue to consider is the ECHR views on length of trials. It would be a bit of a cop out but an argument for not returning the case to a lower court for a further trial and then further review at cassation would be that this would breach Knox / Sollecito's human rights. There is an argument that if the state cannot achieve a safe conviction within say seven years than the prosecution should fall. This is different from a conviction having been obtained and a subsequent appeal being made. The initial trial has not been completed because there has been no cassation confirmation of finding of guilt or innocence by the lower court (until now?).

I don't follow the logic of your post.
The CSC - Marasca panel - annulled the Nencini court verdict and acquitted on the grounds of actual innocence. This was within its authority under procedural law.
ECHR rulings on length of trials depend on many factors, such as complexity of the case.

 

[Planigale]

I don't follow the logic of your post.
The CSC - Marasca panel - annulled the Nencini court verdict and acquitted on the grounds of actual innocence. This was within its authority under procedural law.
ECHR rulings on length of trials depend on many factors, such as complexity of the case.

I am not debating how long the trial should be before it breaches human rights, but ECHR has frequently criticised Italy on the length of time to complete a trial (as we see here). This is not a particularly complex case. Nor do I know enough about the Italian law to know whether or not this was a usual or unusual or illegal action by cassation. But they obviously had a choice to prolong the case by returning the case to yet another second level trial with yet another review by cassation, or stop the case, they decided on the latter. I just wonder whether the need to achieve completion will be part of their justification for not doing what would seem to be the more routine option of redirecting to yet another second level court.