Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Yet it is you saying that M/B made a mistake, not the PIP's! Hoots!

True. Bruno-Marasca is incredibly poor in logic. For example, the bra clasp lying for 46 days is "contaminated", whereas a sweater in the exact same condition is definitive of Rudy's DNA, even though collected by the same team.

It makes pleadings that were never made (for example, "the kids were there but were not involved", it rules on issues that are not legal points (for example, "too much media attention")

No wonder Prime Minister Renzi has put the kybosh on politician judges like Bruno or Marasca from sitting as a Supreme Court judge ever again.

 

[Vixen]

At least this is progress. You are no longer **explicitly** accusing two innocent people of being murderers. The Dear Reader has all the resources they need to decide for themselves.

The only thing I ask is that they start with the full text of the M/B report, and not go to Nick van der Leek's cut and paste job.

Yes, even Bruno-Marasca aver there were multiple attackers. If they were not Amanda and Raff, and Amanda and Raff were there, as affirmed by Bruno-Marasca, then why are Raff and Amanda not telling?

 

[Vixen]

Just think, you, and thousands like you, have turned this pedestrian murder into a plural (killers) affair because eight years ago a handful of idiots were too fat to imagine climbing into a window.

It's fascinating to me. If Rudy was caught before they had a chance for their imaginations to run wild, none of you would know the name Meredith Kercher, let alone Amanda Knox.

You haven't explained why Raff and Amanda lied prolifically and changed their story on numerous occasions.

 

[Vixen]

No in fact, they are saying nothing of the kind. They are not saying she was there and they are not saying she wasn't. They are saying that "even if" the prosecution and previous courts could prove that she was there it doesn't prove her involvement in the murder

Why is that so hard to understand? This cour was ruling that the logic in the previous rulings was wrong.

"If" is the KEY. It's a "conditional" word. Or as my father use to say "if is a condition contrary to fact".

No. They state it is a legal fact Amanda certainly was there, and almost certainly Raff. They have ruled that this does not mean they were involved in the murder. This is a serious legal error as this was never pleaded by the defence, nor raised as a point of appeal.

If wishes were horses then beggars would ride.

 

[Vixen]

You're getting confused with a Grade 6 essay.

Appeal Judgements do it this way...

1) They summarise the reasons for appeal.
2) They set out the arguments presented in the lower court (court a quo).
3) They consider the legal validity of the court a quo verdict in terms of 2) above.
4) They make a ruling giving reasons for the ruling.

If you look at 2) above you will see that this is what the appeal court lays down (warts and all) in the clauses you guilters love to quote as though it was the appeal court's findings.

In the B/M ruling you will notice (if you care to read and digest it) that:-

....there was a flawed investigation
....there were contradictions by witnesses
....there were contradictions in evidence
....despite the court a quo connecting the (false as above) dots to a presumed presence of AK in the house resulting in a judicial fact......

....it still proves nothing about either AK or RS being part of a murder.....

Because there is absolutely zero evidence of them being in the murder room.

....and the concluding paragraph of the appeal refers to the relevant legal clause declaring a not guilty verdict due to a "lack of evidence".

In fact the conclusion is there is NO evidence. NONE!!

Why is this difficult to understand? Or does it not suit your agenda?

In Section 10, which "Bill Williams" loves to quote, there is no reasoning in there at all (your point 4). This is because it is the conclusion. Any fule know reasoning happens in the main body of the report.

1. Abstract/Verdict sums up the outcome.
2. Summary of the legal issues.
3. Main body based on (2) giving reasoning regarding the points of appeal based on the MR of Nencini.
4. Recommendations
5. Conclusion/reiteration of (1) the verdict.

Bruno-Marasca are in serious legal error in citing Section 530 par 2 as the merits of evidence is for Courts First and Second (merits and appeal) to find.

 

[Vixen]

It does not suit her agenda. BM never says what happened, only that there was a flawed investigation and that Nencini was wrong in its verdict of guilt because of the lack of evidence. And given all the contradictions another trial is unlikely to resolve those contradictions.

Bruno-Marasca acted outside of their remit. They did not have the power to hand Amanda and Raff a pardon.

Quoting Section 530 para 2 is just so much obfuscation, introduced by Avv Bogiorno on the basis she got off her hero Andreotti on mafia charges on that Section. (A legal precedent for one of Italy's most powerful men.)

 

[Vixen]

Synopsis is one of those words I would have expected you to define more traditionally. Certainly in modern usage it differs little from summarise or precis but originally it had a meaning that would be better given as overview, in this case 'presenting all views' would be the best meaning. I suspect that the process being used here is the 'thesis, antithesis, synthesis' approach that appears common in European (continental) argument.

Wrong. A Motivation Report is a legal document and as such does not delve into the traditional academic method of 'thesis, antithesis and synthesis'.

It summarises the legal issues, the grounds of appeal based on what verdict is being appeal against; in this case, Nencini's, who himself was dealing with the issues appealed from Massei, as sent back down by Chieffi with specific directions.

Bruno-Marasca had to accept as res judicata all those issues determined by First Instance court, Masssei, other than those limited issues sent back down by Nencini. All Bruno-Marasca could look at was the DNA issue - cf Vechhiotti and Conti, and various witness issues.

There is no scientific or philosophical weighing up - despite the mention of Gallileo - Bruno-Marasca ruled Nencini should have accepted the V-C report which had been heavily slated by Chieffi. (Here, they err as they had no power to overrule Chieffi.)

Synoptic here simply means summary of the legal issues they were tasked to deal with.

 

[bagels]

You haven't explained why Raff and Amanda lied prolifically and changed their story on numerous occasions.

Amanda was never proven to have lied. Her story allegedly changed for the first and only time when she was taken into police custody behind closed doors in the middle of the night with no recording at the same time they threatened Raffaele and beat up Patrick calling him a dirty black and claimed they got her to "buckle" and tell them what they "knew to be correct." It's not a mystery what happened there in any significant way. Most figure this case out in 5 minutes because seeing a picture of Amanda giving the evil eye next to an evidence bag with a cartoon sized knife in it isn't enough to totally sway their emotions into an absurd conspiracy propped up on nothing - most people anyway.

 

[Vixen]

Amanda was never proven to have lied. Her story allegedly changed for the first and only time when she was taken into police custody behind closed doors in the middle of the night with no recording at the same time they threatened Raffaele and beat up Patrick calling him a dirty black and claimed they got her to "buckle" and tell them what they "knew to be correct." It's not a mystery what happened there in any significant way. Most figure this case out in 5 minutes because seeing a picture of Amanda giving the evil eye next to an evidence bag with a cartoon sized knife in it isn't enough to totally sway their emotions into an absurd conspiracy propped up on nothing - most people anyway.

Sorry, but she lied on numerous occasions. Sundry examples: she claimed she watched the film 'Amelié before Patrick sent his text, both in the prison diary and to her mother, she omitted to mention going into town after leaving the cottage in the afternoon - see prison diary as one example, and Raff "can't remember" if Amanda came home with him or not at the same time. She denied ringing up her mother before the door was battered down. She told police Mez' door was always locked...etc., etc., ad infinitum.

 

[Bill Williams]

Wrong. A Motivation Report is a legal document and as such does not delve into the traditional academic method of 'thesis, antithesis and synthesis'.

It summarises the legal issues, the grounds of appeal based on what verdict is being appeal against; in this case, Nencini's, who himself was dealing with the issues appealed from Massei, as sent back down by Chieffi with specific directions.

Bruno-Marasca had to accept as res judicata all those issues determined by First Instance court, Masssei, other than those limited issues sent back down by Nencini. All Bruno-Marasca could look at was the DNA issue - cf Vechhiotti and Conti, and various witness issues.

There is no scientific or philosophical weighing up - despite the mention of Gallileo - Bruno-Marasca ruled Nencini should have accepted the V-C report which had been heavily slated by Chieffi. (Here, they err as they had no power to overrule Chieffi.)

Synoptic here simply means summary of the legal issues they were tasked to deal with.

Strangely, we're getting somewhere with this post.

With regard to the use of the word "synoptic" in the M/B report, I'd suggest that it's meaning can be inferred from exactly what M/B wrote after its use.

M/B wrote an account of the appealed issues, plus other facts - judicially created or actual - which had been in front of Nencini, or should have been in front of him if Nencini had run a fair process.

Following the use of the word "synoptic" in the report, M/B actually do go about constructing, "a synoptic presentation of the elements favourable to the hypothesis of guilt and of the elements against it, as they are shown, of course, by the text of the challenged ruling and of the previous ones."

Imagine that. M/B say they are going to do something, then they do it. At the conclusion of this artificial construct, then comes the conclusion in Section 10 - Nencinni should never have convicted. Why? Because the artificial construct of the judicial facts and actual-facts are a contradictory mess which prove nothing - not even that they'd been there.

So you're almost there, Vixen. Keep going down the path your last few posts have gone and you'll get there. Be a good lass.

 

[Bill Williams]

Sorry, but she lied on numerous occasions. Sundry examples: she claimed she watched the film 'Amelié before Patrick sent his text, both in the prison diary and to her mother, she omitted to mention going into town after leaving the cottage in the afternoon - see prison diary as one example, and Raff "can't remember" if Amanda came home with him or not at the same time. She denied ringing up her mother before the door was battered down. She told police Mez' door was always locked...etc., etc., ad infinitum.

Those are lies?

 

[Bill Williams]

In Section 10, which "Bill Williams" loves to quote, there is no reasoning in there at all (your point 4). This is because it is the conclusion. Any fule know reasoning happens in the main body of the report.

1. Abstract/Verdict sums up the outcome.
2. Summary of the legal issues.
3. Main body based on (2) giving reasoning regarding the points of appeal based on the MR of Nencini.
4. Recommendations
5. Conclusion/reiteration of (1) the verdict.

Bruno-Marasca are in serious legal error in citing Section 530 par 2 as the merits of evidence is for Courts First and Second (merits and appeal) to find.

I'm glad someone loves to quote Section 10. You fail to show why the reasoning in Section 8 is about factual stuff - as opposed to judicial facts which the lower court considered - and considered wrongly.

It is baffling trying to figure out why you think your reply is a refutation....

 

[Vixen]

I'm glad someone loves to quote Section 10. You fail to show why the reasoning in Section 8 is about factual stuff - as opposed to judicial facts which the lower court considered - and considered wrongly.

It is baffling trying to figure out why you think your reply is a refutation....

The key reasoning is in Section 9, which you and your chums are desperate to evade. Section 9 is Bruno-Marasca's judgment of what the legal facts are.

 

[Bill Williams]

The key reasoning is in Section 9, which you and your chums are desperate to evade. Section 9 is Bruno-Marasca's judgment of what the legal facts as accepted by lower courts princiapally Nencini's as well as others which were assembled into one-synoptic account which even if true proved nothing are.

There I fixed that for you.

 

[bagels]

Sorry, but she lied on numerous occasions. Sundry examples: she claimed she watched the film 'Amelié before Patrick sent his text, both in the prison diary and to her mother, she omitted to mention going into town after leaving the cottage in the afternoon - see prison diary as one example, and Raff "can't remember" if Amanda came home with him or not at the same time. She denied ringing up her mother before the door was battered down. She told police Mez' door was always locked...etc., etc., ad infinitum.

lol you're phoning it in at this point. You gave it a good effort before but give me a break.

 

[acbytesla]

1. Probably
2. About as many who believe Amanda and Raff.

Delusional.

Does Rudy have a large community of people who believe in his innocence? No Do you?

 

[Bill Williams]

lol you're phoning it in at this point. You gave it a good effort before but give me a break.

In all likelihood these responses are on a hotkey, since theyve dealt with ad nauseam since at least 2008. Vixen is one of the few left arguing as if this were still 2008 when the prosecution owned all the info. They were under no legal obligation to release any evidence they'd collected until the official charge had been laid - almost a year after the horrible murder and incarceration.

Vixen argues as if this were 2008 and all these dialed-in factoids have not long since been debunked.

 

[JREF2010]

Delusional.

Does Rudy have a large community of people who believe in his innocence? No Do you?

You bring up a good point, who and how many believe him?

If Rudy doesnt end up like Toto, he will have to move away from Italy to another country, to be free of the Italy police/prosecutors charges if he is to continue the discussion for the truth. That's my thought anyway.

Then Rudy could possibly profit financially from telling the truth in interviews and a book deal, and at least explaining debated issues like the footprint on the mat etc. I don't believe he will be able to resist the financial offers for a book deal, if he can get outside of Italys legal system. If he survives long enough to be released from his prison, wont he still be a loser without interest in working for a living? Taking the easy way out seems to be his MO.

Watching the Avery case on Making of a Murderer, Netflix....who knows what the prosecution and system will do to protect their innocence. Rudy could at a minimum release Amanda and Raffaele from his theory and go back to his original story of they werent there, and tell how his Fast Track was allowed so easily for a murder case.

more to come Im sure....

 

[acbytesla]

You bring up a good point, who and how many believe him?

If Rudy doesnt end up like Toto, he will have to move away from Italy to another country, to be free of the Italy police/prosecutors charges if he is to continue the discussion for the truth. That's my thought anyway.

Then Rudy could possibly profit financially from telling the truth in interviews and a book deal, and at least explaining debated issues like the footprint on the mat etc. I don't believe he will be able to resist the financial offers for a book deal, if he can get outside of Italys legal system. If he survives long enough to be released from his prison, wont he still be a loser without interest in working for a living? Taking the easy way out seems to be his MO.

Watching the Avery case on Making of a Murderer, Netflix....who knows what the prosecution and system will do to protect their innocence. Rudy could at a minimum release Amanda and Raffaele from his theory and go back to his original story of they werent there, and tell how his Fast Track was allowed so easily for a murder case.

more to come Im sure....

Sorry, I see Rudy in a damned if he does or damned if he doesn't position. No one is going to believe that cock n bull story he told before about how some unknown person came in while he was nodding off on the toilet. If he admits killing Meredith as most of us know that he did during the burglary, no one will pay him for that especially since there was the sex element to his crime. If he gives the guilters what they want and say it was Amanda and Raffaele who killed Meredith every one else will condemn him as a liar and say "sure". Now maybe some online publishers will pay him for click bait.

 

[Desert Fox]

True. Bruno-Marasca is incredibly poor in logic. For example, the bra clasp lying for 46 days is "contaminated", whereas a sweater in the exact same condition is definitive of Rudy's DNA, even though collected by the same team.

It makes pleadings that were never made (for example, "the kids were there but were not involved", it rules on issues that are not legal points (for example, "too much media attention")

No wonder Prime Minister Renzi has put the kybosh on politician judges like Bruno or Marasca from sitting as a Supreme Court judge ever again.

Somebody else might have addressed this later but I will go ahead and address this.

Amanda and Raff both were at the cottage and one would expect their DNA in the background. As such, it is always possible to pick it up in the environment. Guede however has no real reason to be there.