Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

I take a few hours to hike 15 miles and find almost five additional pages of discussion.

Even if Amanda loses this new publicity stunt out of the Italian legal system, I don't see any way she will be extradited. I doubt even the rest of Europe or Canada will pay much attention.

I know soon after exoneration, she said she might like to go back to Italy. I am sorry but I recommend against it. I kind of suggest that Raff finds employment outside of Italy as well.

Right now, Mignini and his gang of thugs looks petty. I'd love to see how the Italian media covers both the motivation and the new trial in the coming months.

 

[Kauffer]

The Marasca CSC panel MR did mention Amanda's calunnia conviction and in fact justified it, IIUC. The MR also seemed to indicate no revision was possible even if ECHR ruled in Amanda's favor. (I am relying on a very rough Google translation for this.)

By addressing Amanda's calunnia conviction explicitly, and re-justifying it, the Marasca CSC panel MR has become a document relevant to the ECHR case. (Alternatively, the MR could simply have stated that the CSC had previously ruled on the matter and the Marasca panel did not have the authority to change that ruling.)

What are the implications, if any, for the ECHR for the calunnia conviction review in this Marasca panel MR?

Perhaps, if (or, better, when) the ECHR judges in Amanda's favor, the ECHR will unfavorably criticize that part of the CSC MR. But are there other opinions on the effect on the calunnia ECHR case of this section of the Marasca panel MR?

Yes. This but is fascinating, if true. The council of ministers will have no truck with this nonsense and Italian law, even at this point in its development does not permit a verdict to stand in the event of an upheld application with regard to an unfair trial. I think we need to read the whole report for context, but clearly, despite the acquittal, these people are deluded. They've even noted the interrogation duress yet blamed Amanda for the statements the police typed up for her to sign. Yet, additionally, it seems they have criticised the use of the 1st memoriale as indicative of guilt under Art 606. Moreover, they also appear to have cited the European convention more than once, stating that the right to a fair trial was compromised.

 

[Planigale]

I do wonder how much of the outcome was a consequence of dealing over the verdict. In common law jurisdictions you can get dissenting opinions and even judges agreeing on the verdict may differ in reasoning, and may produce additional comments to the definitive ruling. I wonder if the comment on the callunia was the result of some sort of internal deal.

I do think that ECHR will take a dim view of the PM Mignini pretending to be a notary. They will take an even dimmer view of the continued denial of counsel during which she produced her written comments.

Someone above made a comment about translation. I think this was a good point. Anyone reading in English what Knox wrote gets an overwhelming feeling of uncertainty. i do wonder if the Italian version fails to convey that sense and instead conveys more certainty. It would be interesting to back translate the Italian version. I have only seen the original English not the Italian translation given to the courts.

 

[carbonjam72]

The Marasca CSC panel MR did mention Amanda's calunnia conviction and in fact justified it, IIUC. The MR also seemed to indicate no revision was possible even if ECHR ruled in Amanda's favor. (I am relying on a very rough Google translation for this.)

By addressing Amanda's calunnia conviction explicitly, and re-justifying it, the Marasca CSC panel MR has become a document relevant to the ECHR case. (Alternatively, the MR could simply have stated that the CSC had previously ruled on the matter and the Marasca panel did not have the authority to change that ruling.)

What are the implications, if any, for the ECHR for the calunnia conviction review in this Marasca panel MR?

Perhaps, if (or, better, when) the ECHR judges in Amanda's favor, the ECHR will unfavorably criticize that part of the CSC MR. But are there other opinions on the effect on the calunnia ECHR case of this section of the Marasca panel MR?

I saw a few different google translations on this point, and I'm not sure this is what the motivation report actually said.

It looked to me like they were conceding an ECHR claim was going to be successful. I'm not really sure what they were saying. Maybe Dr Cheli can assist us?

 

[Kauffer]

I saw a few different google translations on this point, and I'm not sure this is what the motivation report actually said.

It looked to me like they were conceding an ECHR claim was going to be successful. I'm not really sure what they were saying. Maybe Dr Cheli can assist us?

The PMF people are making whoopee with claims the report concedes that Amanda was at the cottage on the night of the murder and that it is scarcely credible that Raffaele was not there too. If this is true, it's extraordinary and disappointing.

 

[Strozzi]

The use of article 530 para II. The only time it has ever been used by ISC was in politician Andreotti's case, with avvocato Bongiorno representing him. In that case, Andreotti had originally been found not guilty at the merits hearing, anyway.

Amanda and Raff were never found not guilty by a lower court.

The wording and timing of the Marasca Bruno report confirms everybody's worst fears as to the integrity of this bench on this occasion.

At least the ensuing outcry will help ensure it joins Hellmann's report in the annals of spiked reports. The pair will be sacked for their scurrilous comments about good upright honest police.

What fantasy! The Perugia police and scientific forensic processors have to be good upright honest police to make the guilt meme work.

 

[davefoc]

In fairness to Machiavelli he's referring only to the calunnia charge about the slap on the head at interrogation for Amanda, currently begire a court.

Thank you for pointing that out. I'm not sure that's much of a defense of the statement however. "She is guilty by any standard of proof". Meaning that Machiavelli is sure by any standard of proof that Knox wasn't slapped? Really? He's seen the interrogation videos? He was there? He has seen the report from a thorough investigation of Knox's claim and he thinks the investigators proved that Knox wasn't hit? Or it doesn't matter to Machiavelli whether she was hit or not, she's guilty because she claimed they did?

There seems to be no rational interpretation of Machiavelli's claim unless he is privy to information that he hasn't shared with us and with information that has never been released to the public.

 

[Bill Williams]

The PMF people are making whoopee with claims the report concedes that Amanda was at the cottage on the night of the murder and that it is scarcely credible that Raffaele was not there too. If this is true, it's extraordinary and disappointing.

Once again the remaining guilters are at odds with what is being reported in Italy in Italian. Did they also take note at PMF that the Marasca court says the two didn't do it?

 

[Strozzi]

AFAIK Mignini arriving in the interrogation room at 3 am is within the realm of possibility.

What is at issue, though, is *when* Mignini arrived at the Questura. Guilter favourable sources are mixed on this. There is reason to believe he was in the control room watching Ficarra's interrogation of Knox and Chiacchiera's interrogation of Sollecito on closed-circuit.

And, oh yes, forgetting to flip the record switch "for budgetary reasons".

If one can get a transcript of this calunnia trial, one might be able to put together a reasonable timeline of who said what and when, in each of the interrogations.

If there is competent cross-examination, that is.

Where was Knox between about 1 am and Mignini's arrival in the interrogation room at 3am? Who was with her? What was going on?

 

[bagels]

The PMF people are making whoopee with claims the report concedes that Amanda was at the cottage on the night of the murder and that it is scarcely credible that Raffaele was not there too. If this is true, it's extraordinary and disappointing.

If they're referring to the Machiavelli tweet you linked, I google translated the passage upthread and don't see anything in it that clearly supports what he's claiming. We need a proper translation of course but my best read is they're saying since Amanda's testimony appeared to match up with what was later confirmed by the forensic examination (there was a sexual attack), this justified the Chieffi court proposing the sexual game motive and wasn't improper based on their point of view at the time. Or something like that

 

[LondonJohn]

If they're referring to the Machiavelli tweet you linked, I google translated the passage upthread and don't see anything in it that clearly supports what he's claiming. We need a proper translation of course but my best read is they're saying since Amanda's testimony appeared to match up with what was later confirmed by the forensic examination (there was a sexual attack), this justified the Chieffi court proposing the sexual game motive and wasn't improper based on their point of view at the time. Or something like that

Nothing I've read implies in any way that the ISC report "concedes that Knox was at the cottage on the night of the murder".

What I think Machiavelli may well have done is taken the ISC ruling on the criminal slander charge and distorted it - either willfully or through ignorance - to infer that the ISC believed that what she said in her false statement was somehow true in respect to Knox being in the cottage covering her ears etc. I think that's a totally bogus reading of the situation. And reading some of Machiavelli's other tweets from today, I think he's incapable at this point of objective analysis.

 

[bagels]

Nothing I've read implies in any way that the ISC report "concedes that Knox was at the cottage on the night of the murder".

What I think Machiavelli may well have done is taken the ISC ruling on the criminal slander charge and distorted it - either willfully or through ignorance - to infer that the ISC believed that what she said in her false statement was somehow true in respect to Knox being in the cottage covering her ears etc. I think that's a totally bogus reading of the situation. And reading some of Machiavelli's other tweets from today, I think he's incapable at this point of objective analysis.

That's what it looked like to me as well but I just saw this Barbie Nadeau article that says,

"The judges wrote that they had to “exclude [Knox and Sollecito’s] participation in the material murder, despite the assumption of their presence in the house on Via della Pergola,”

The guilters would have a point with such reasoning. It's logically impoverished and could only be read as supporting guilt.

 

[Strozzi]

Yes, yes, of course. But the motavazione has criticised Amanda for implicating Lumumba despite stating that she was under duress! These people need teaching about human rights. The ECHR case is essential in this matter. It is not over. It will be over when they rule and Italy vacates that verdict.

One more remedy I want to see is Italy compensate Amanda for 4 years in prison for crimes she did not commit, not just 1 year which Italy might calculate she is owed, due to pretending that she voluntarily committed Clunia in her own free will without police coercion.

Raf should be compensated for 4 years of imprisonment for a crime he did not commit. Every day spent in solitary should be compensated at an even high price.

 

[Bill Williams]

Where was Knox between about 1 am and Mignini's arrival in the interrogation room at 3am? Who was with her? What was going on?

No one, really, has done a timeline. I'd always thought that 1:45 am was a landmark for when the first interrogation was suspended, if you believe Mignini that is.

Knox's own account of it has everything running together, as everyone was yelling and accusing and more than likely hitting.

The one landmark she reports is when she "broke" about Lumumba. Another was when a person came in who she thought was the mayor, turned out to be Mignini.

She certainly could have used a lawyer and a competent translator. Then again if it had been videotaped none of us would be talking about it almost 8 years later!

 

[Machiavelli]

Interesting that he said "she is guilty". Did he forget Sollecito? It's seems like his anger is only directed at Knox. Is that because the motivation for Machiavelli all along has been some sort of deep seated hatred of Knox and he just didn't care about Sollecito?

Come on I was just answering to a specific thread topic:

 

[Machiavelli]

Nothing I've read implies in any way that the ISC report "concedes that Knox was at the cottage on the night of the murder".

What I think Machiavelli may well have done is taken the ISC ruling on the criminal slander charge and distorted it - either willfully or through ignorance - to infer that the ISC believed that what she said in her false statement was somehow true in respect to Knox being in the cottage covering her ears etc. I think that's a totally bogus reading of the situation. And reading some of Machiavelli's other tweets from today, I think he's incapable at this point of objective analysis.

Ask an Italian speaker what that means:

 

[carbonjam72]

Barbie is unreliable and fatally biased

The PMF people are making whoopee with claims the report concedes that Amanda was at the cottage on the night of the murder and that it is scarcely credible that Raffaele was not there too. If this is true, it's extraordinary and disappointing.

That's what it looked like to me as well but I just saw this Barbie Nadeau article that says,

"The judges wrote that they had to “exclude [Knox and Sollecito’s] participation in the material murder, despite the assumption of their presence in the house on Via della Pergola,”

The guilters would have a point with such reasoning. It's logically impoverished and could only be read as supporting guilt.

I know LJ has posted on this as well, but that meme is going off of Mach's claim that ISC confirms Amanda & Raf were definitely at the house at the time of the murder.

This type of translation uncertainty isn't confined to Mach. Compare two statements from Barbie, and the UK's Independent:

Here's the Independent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...cted-case-says-italys-top-court-10490495.html

QUOTE: The court said the path the case took was “objectively wavering, whose oscillations are ... the result also of stunning weakness or investigative bouts of amnesia and of blameworthy omissions of investigative activity”.

It said had the investigation not been so shaky, “in all probability” the defendants’ guilt or innocence could have been determined from the earliest stages. END QUOTE

Now look at Barbie's translation on the same point, and Barbie I believe claims to be fluent in Italian:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...r-amanda-knox.html?via=desktop&source=twitter

QUOTE: Citing the lack of “whole proof” based on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, the court squarely blamed investigators for their faulty police work, accusing them of “investigative amnesia” and “guilty omissions,” which the high court judges said led to the absence of a solid case that could have easily gone the other way.
"In the opinion of the Supreme Court, if it were not for the weak investigation and if the investigation had not been affected by guilty omissions, the court would, in all likelihood, be allowed right now to outline a framework, if not on absolute certainty at least of tranquil reliability, in view of the guilt of Knox and Sollecito for the charge of killing the British student Meredith Kercher in Perugia on Nov. 1, 2007.” END QUOTE

Barbie appears to force a translation of ONLY GUILT, that suits her narrative. Or, is the Independent misinterpreting the language in adding "guilt OR Innocence"? Seems like the Independent got it right as a matter of plain reading.

If the absence of any trace of Amanda and Raf was the "monolith" that the court could not get around to find a certainty of guilt, than in what possible logical way can Barbie's interpretation that there was a feasible case that "could easily have gone the other way"?

Barbie Nadeau is a flawed messenger. She has provided fact, context and insight, but she is by her nature, conduct, and work product, inherently a treacherous source relied upon at one's own risk. Much like Rudy Guede, some of what he says is true as well.

 

[Machiavelli]

I do wonder how much of the outcome was a consequence of dealing over the verdict. In common law jurisdictions you can get dissenting opinions and even judges agreeing on the verdict may differ in reasoning, and may produce additional comments to the definitive ruling. I wonder if the comment on the callunia was the result of some sort of internal deal.

I do think that ECHR will take a dim view of the PM Mignini pretending to be a notary. They will take an even dimmer view of the continued denial of counsel during which she produced her written comments.

Someone above made a comment about translation. I think this was a good point. Anyone reading in English what Knox wrote gets an overwhelming feeling of uncertainty. i do wonder if the Italian version fails to convey that sense and instead conveys more certainty. It would be interesting to back translate the Italian version. I have only seen the original English not the Italian translation given to the courts.

Uncertainty is an irrelevant element as for the crime of calunnia. Only malice is relevant, not certainty. Calunnia is the malicious placing of false evidence against an innocent, no matter if such evidence is certain or solid. An expression of doubt has the same potential of being a crime of calunnia as an expression of certainty, as long as it is a malicious.

 

[Bill Williams]

Uncertainty is an irrelevant element as for the crime of calunnia. Only malice is relevant, not certainty. Calunnia is the malicious placing of false evidence against an innocent, no matter if such evidence is certain or solid. An expression of doubt has the same potential of being a crime of calunnia as an expression of certainty, as long as it is a malicious.

Welcome back, Machiavelli. How was trial?

 

[Kauffer]

Uncertainty is an irrelevant element as for the crime of calunnia. Only malice is relevant, not certainty. Calunnia is the malicious placing of false evidence against an innocent, no matter if such evidence is certain or solid. An expression of doubt has the same potential of being a crime of calunnia as an expression of certainty, as long as it is a malicious.

Did you notice in the report whether the callunia verdict was mentioned as being unshakeable even in the event of an adverse ECHR decision?