Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

I know this is beating a dead horse but three minutes in, Steve Moore talks about Luminol only being presumptive and not evidence of blood by itself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btLcKkKnA0U

 

[Bill Williams]

Most every time I've made the point that there is a difference there has been a push back that 530 is moot, not really used, that because they're both acquittals it doesn't matter anyway but there is a difference and the Italians know it. Cheli made that clear both in his article and to katy_did.

This often comes up when certain PIP go off on how Italians are reacting, statements of full exoneration and of course the synoptic meme.

A eureka moment. (Or is that "an" eureka moment?)

Simply chucking the word "meme" into a sentence is not "making an argument".

The use of the term "synoptic" in the Marasca/Bruno report is not something begun by Marasca/Bruno. If you'd bother to actually "make an argument", rather than hand-wave-dismiss things you'd know.

My own first recollection of the concept is as katy_did pointed out way back in Nov 2011, following he first acquittals. (Katy_did, apparently, pays attention!) She pointed out Kercher lawyer Francesco Maresca's reaction to the Hellmann acquittals 4 1/2 years ago, which was to imply that Hellmann had no right to dismiss prosecution evidence, beginning the belief that once an Italian prosecutor says something is so (cf. judicially generated evidence), a court still has to include it in their judgement even if it is slim evidence. Apparently, acc. to Maresca, even unconvincing evidence still needs to be taken into account.

Of course, those of us on the side of reason ignored that muse - except that lo and behold, the Chieffi Section 1 panel of ISC referred to this in their annulment of Hellmann in 2013 - they said that Hellmann erred in not taking into account all the evidence "osmotically", or as the PGP-translators put it "organically".

Nencini seemed to put this into effect by convicting in early 2014, bringing all sorts of spurious "evidence" into play to convict the pair, this time over an argument about rent money. Such argument was only ever witnessed by Rudy Guede and unknown to everyone else - and also required one to go nose-blind to all the other spurious claims Rudy made.....

.... but remember, in the Chieffi-osmotic world, it is still evidence; regardless of its pedigree.

Pay attention, Grinder, because this is the way an argument is constructed.

Into this, the Marasca/Bruno panel acquits: some Italians seem very comfortable using the word "exonerate" for all the reasons people like Numbers and LondonJohn and others have expressed.

Lo and behold, Marasca/Bruno release their own motivations report with that pesky "synoptic" section which concludes their scathing indictment of police, courts, and press in Italy for creating this mess.

What they do with their concluding section is as the outline in Section 9.2/9.3 says they are about to do. They're going to assemble this fictional, synoptic amalgam of the prosecution case(s) as well as the defence case. To me this looks very much like the project Francesco Maresca and Chieffi promised would necessarily lead to conviction.

Not so, say Marasca/Bruno. Even if all this stuff was assembled in one place - including the judicially generated factoids - it still would not be enough to convict anyone.

Why?

For the answer to why, refer to Sections 1 to 9.1 in the M/B report. With M/B's synoptic section, they are directly addressing the best face of what a former ISC panel had implied - when viewed "osmotically" the court must convict.

Not so, say Marasca Bruno.

Of course, chucking the word "meme" into a short, two word rebuttal to this is was can be confused as an argument.

The best thing about all this is that on these issues there is no early-FOA to blame.

 

[Mike1711]

Your formatting really wins the day

The judge pronounces acquittal even when there is insufficient or contradictory evidence

The M&B report makes it clear that the investigation was bungled. They make it clear the DNA evidence wasn't handled properly. But they chose para 2 and not 1. While normally a para 2 would be sent down again and a para 1 would be unusual at the ISC level, this court found a two but didn't send it down.

Luca Cheli article is educational on this. He anticipated a MR with light and shadows because of the para 2 acquittal.

From my reading there are questions left hanging by this ruling. Most likely not a new court case on the murder, but in the press as demonstrated by the RAI show and press reaction.

Pleased you like my formatting. Made my day?

The M&B case makes it very clear. The case was so badly bungled so as to make proof of innocence (which is only required for the Grinders of the world) an impossibility.

The case is therefore (in effect) dismissed. Paragraph 2:-Lack of evidence.....or in this case zero evidence which is a "lack of" in the absolute.

In this case it cannot be proved that A &R were not at the house at the time of the murder (just like it's impossible to prove that the tooth fairy wasn't there either).

However, just as the tooth fairy cannot be proved to have not done X, so too in this case can it not be proved that A&R did not do X.

....which should never be misconstrued...

AS

DOUBT

THAT

THE

TOOTH

FAIRY

MIGHT

HAVE

DONE

X.

We all know the tooth fairy didn't do it and we all know it can't be proved....unless of course the tooth fairy has an alibi.

Which is why it's Paragraph 2.

 

[acbytesla]

It is actually Amanda who goes on television bragging "You can't prove I was there".

By the same argument, there is no proof Rudy burgled Filomena's room.

Get your timeline right, and things become logical.

What part of my time line is wrong.? Please, I want to know. There is no evidence that identifies anyone other than Filomena set foot in her room. But the smashed window and evenly scattered glass in the room indicates it was broken by someone throwing a rock from outside the cottage. There is evidence that Rudy participated in two other break ins in the 2 weeks proceeding this. Logic suggests that Rudy was attempting a third.

 

[Bill Williams]

From my reading there are questions left hanging by this ruling. Most likely not a new court case on the murder, but in the press as demonstrated by the RAI show and press reaction.

The "questions" left hanging were few and did not seem to gather momentum. One piece I read (through Google translate) which said something akin to, "The Supreme Court ruled that Amanda Knox was at the crime-scene," went further than the few others which mentioned this by adding, "this included her being at the crime-scene with others just before the discovery," leaving the reader with the sense that the scene had been horribly corrupted forensically.

The RAI show has introduced something very different, though. There seems to be something akin to a "business-startup", where the business is Rudy Guede's claimed innocence. My view is that Guede is purposely cherry-picking from M/B to make it seem like they are saying that AK/RS were almost but not-quite guilty, based on the synoptic section.

What is to be seen is whether or not that "start-up" catches on. So far it seems to be being ignored, and that RAI3 interviewer is having eyebrows raised around her for pitching Guede softballs. But even that is really too soon for any of us to be generalizing about what is "going on in Italy".

For sure, though, what is "going on judicially in Italy," is that all the satellite prosecutions which Mignini, et al., generated from their Perugian folly are disappearing either through acquittals or time-limits.

 

[Numbers]

Your formatting really wins the day

The judge pronounces acquittal even when there is insufficient or contradictory evidence

The M&B report makes it clear that the investigation was bungled. They make it clear the DNA evidence wasn't handled properly. But they chose para 2 and not 1. {1.} While normally a para 2 would be sent down again and a para 1 would be unusual at the ISC level, this court found a two but didn't send it down.
Luca Cheli article is educational on this. He anticipated a MR with light and shadows because of the para 2 acquittal.

{2.} From my reading there are questions left hanging by this ruling. Most likely not a new court case on the murder, but in the press as demonstrated by the RAI show and press reaction.

Grinder,

I am disappointed that you have not yet spelled out the LEGAL CONSEQUENCES of the Marasca CSC panel acquittal being given under CPP Article 530.2 rather than 530.1. Is your statement that I labelled {2.} an indication that you accept that there are no such legal consequences?

For your statement that I have labelled {1.}, do you have citations in support? Do you have statistics regarding CSC final definitive judgments from a reliable source that indicate how often CSC annuls cases without remand, or issues acquittals based on which part of CPP Article 530 has been invoked either by the CSC itself, or by the appeal court when the CSC accepts the appeal court judgment and makes it the final and definitive judgment?

If it is unusual for the CSC to annul without remand for lower court review and issue an acquittal or other form of dismissal, why do you believe that the CSC did so in this case? Note that the CSC may not convict if the lower court it reviews has acquitted; it must remand for a retrial if the CSC judgment is that the acquittal was not justified.

For your statement that I have labelled {2.}, could you detail the questions that you believe the CSC motivation report left hanging? I would be interested in learning of any suggestions the CSC has made in the MR that there is reliable or credible evidence of guilt of murder and/or rape by Knox and Sollecito. You may exclude the controversial (to some) sections after Section 9.2, since those statements have been discussed extensively on ISF.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder,

I am disappointed that you have not yet spelled out the LEGAL CONSEQUENCES of the Marasca CSC panel acquittal being given under CPP Article 530.2 rather than 530.1. Is your statement that I labelled {2.} an indication that you accept that there are no such legal consequences?

I stated above I nor anybody here can be sure if there is a difference. I don't believe Vixen is correct that para 2 is the same as dropping the charges. I mentioned above that here in the US people can be charged by the Feds after a state has acquitted for the same act.

For your statement that I have labelled {1.}, do you have citations in support? Do you have statistics regarding CSC final definitive judgments from a reliable source that indicate how often CSC annuls cases without remand, or issues acquittals based on which part of CPP Article 530 has been invoked either by the CSC itself, or by the appeal court when the CSC accepts the appeal court judgment and makes it the final and definitive judgment?

LJ was the source of the para 1 being the choice for an ISC ruling that ended a case. I asked earlier for any examples of other cases in which the ISC declared innocence without sending back.

If it is unusual for the CSC to annul without remand for lower court review and issue an acquittal or other form of dismissal, why do you believe that the CSC did so in this case? Note that the CSC may not convict if the lower court it reviews has acquitted; it must remand for a retrial if the CSC judgment is that the acquittal was not justified.

The PGP believe it was corruption. I believe they wanted to end the debacle asap.

For your statement that I have labelled {2.}, could you detail the questions that you believe the CSC motivation report left hanging? I would be interested in learning of any suggestions the CSC has made in the MR that there is reliable or credible evidence of guilt of murder and/or rape by Knox and Sollecito. You may exclude the controversial (to some) sections after Section 9.2, since those statements have been discussed extensively on ISF.

This has been covered extensively here as you note. Clearly the MR was written in such a way as to allow Rudi to point the finger at the kids.

 

[LondonJohn]

LJ was the source of the para 1 being the choice for an ISC ruling that ended a case. I asked earlier for any examples of other cases in which the ISC declared innocence without sending back.

Bloody Hell.

For the last time (seeing as I'm being misrepresented once again), the exact words I wrote (words that were written within a couple of days of the acquittals/annulments, when all anyone had to work with were a very short statement from the Marasca SC Panel, plus rumours and media interpretation) were these:

But at the same time, the overwhelmingly prevailing opinion was that if this was a "reasonable doubt" case in the eyes of the SC, then the case would without doubt have been sent back down to the appeal court level for (yet) another trial. The fact that this didn't happen, and that the SC totally acquitted, would seem to strongly support a belief that the SC ruled that there was entirely no case to answer. In other words, a "Paragraph 1" acquittal.

Please note the words "the overwhelmingly prevailing opinion" and "would seem to strongly support a belief". NOT ONCE did I ever say - or even imply - that the decision not to remand the case back to appeal-level retrial meant that these must have been 530.1 acquittals.

Now, please stop misrepresenting my words and position. Can you do that? OK. Fine then.

 

[Grinder]

Bloody Hell.

For the last time (seeing as I'm being misrepresented once again), the exact words I wrote (words that were written within a couple of days of the acquittals/annulments, when all anyone had to work with were a very short statement from the Marasca SC Panel, plus rumours and media interpretation) were these:

But at the same time, the overwhelmingly prevailing opinion was that if this was a "reasonable doubt" case in the eyes of the SC, then the case would without doubt have been sent back down to the appeal court level for (yet) another trial. The fact that this didn't happen, and that the SC totally acquitted, would seem to strongly support a belief that the SC ruled that there was entirely no case to answer. In other words, a "Paragraph 1" acquittal.

Please note the words "the overwhelmingly prevailing opinion" and "would seem to strongly support a belief". NOT ONCE did I ever say - or even imply - that the decision not to remand the case back to appeal-level retrial meant that these must have been 530.1 acquittals.

Now, please stop misrepresenting my words and position. Can you do that? OK. Fine then.

Yes your posts are often filled with similar language . Even without the context it is clear you were saying since it wasn't sent down, it was a paragraph 1 verdict.

The fact that this didn't happen (sent down to appeal court), and that the SC totally acquitted, would seem to strongly support a belief that the SC ruled that there was entirely no case to answer. In other words, a "Paragraph 1" acquittal

Clearly when there is "no case to answer" you believe it is a paragraph 1 acquittal.

So what do they do when there is "a case to answer"? Is that a paragraph 2?

 

[Grinder]

Here's another of your lectures:

A Paragraph 1 acquittal would have been impossible in practice in this instance. As has been explained numerous times now, a 530.1 acquittal is, in practice, only ever used where the court determines either a) that no crime at all even took place, or b) that the defendant could more-or-less prove his/her innocence to the total satisfaction of the court. Neither applied in the case before Marasca's SC panel. Therefore the ONLY option available to it was 530.2 - which it duly issued, together with a written explanation that it was pretty much the strongest possible "flavour" of 530.2: one where there's zero credible, reliable evidence against the accused.


It was impossible yet The fact that this didn't happen, and that the SC totally acquitted, would seem to strongly support a belief that the SC ruled that there was entirely no case to answer. In other words, a "Paragraph 1" acquittal.

Remember the second quote was during the debate about which one it would be. You certainly weren't agreeing with the PGP that it couldn't be a 1. After the fact a 1 became impossible.

 

[acbytesla]

Bloody Hell.

For the last time (seeing as I'm being misrepresented once again), the exact words I wrote (words that were written within a couple of days of the acquittals/annulments, when all anyone had to work with were a very short statement from the Marasca SC Panel, plus rumours and media interpretation) were these:

But at the same time, the overwhelmingly prevailing opinion was that if this was a "reasonable doubt" case in the eyes of the SC, then the case would without doubt have been sent back down to the appeal court level for (yet) another trial. The fact that this didn't happen, and that the SC totally acquitted, would seem to strongly support a belief that the SC ruled that there was entirely no case to answer. In other words, a "Paragraph 1" acquittal.

Please note the words "the overwhelmingly prevailing opinion" and "would seem to strongly support a belief". NOT ONCE did I ever say - or even imply - that the decision not to remand the case back to appeal-level retrial meant that these must have been 530.1 acquittals.

Now, please stop misrepresenting my words and position. Can you do that? OK. Fine then.

Got a Grinder, I mean pebble in your shoe?

 

[Grinder]

Got a Grinder, I mean pebble in your shoe?

Read the quotes. Discuss the issue not the poster.

 

[acbytesla]

Read the quotes. Discuss the issue not the poster.

Seriously? Did you have your sense of humor surgically removed? Lighten up Grinder. Honestly, laughing is a good thing.

 

[LondonJohn]

Here's another of your lectures:

A Paragraph 1 acquittal would have been impossible in practice in this instance. As has been explained numerous times now, a 530.1 acquittal is, in practice, only ever used where the court determines either a) that no crime at all even took place, or b) that the defendant could more-or-less prove his/her innocence to the total satisfaction of the court. Neither applied in the case before Marasca's SC panel. Therefore the ONLY option available to it was 530.2 - which it duly issued, together with a written explanation that it was pretty much the strongest possible "flavour" of 530.2: one where there's zero credible, reliable evidence against the accused.


It was impossible yet The fact that this didn't happen, and that the SC totally acquitted, would seem to strongly support a belief that the SC ruled that there was entirely no case to answer. In other words, a "Paragraph 1" acquittal.

Remember the second quote was during the debate about which one it would be. You certainly weren't agreeing with the PGP that it couldn't be a 1. After the fact a 1 became impossible.

I don't appreciate my expressions of opinion being given the pejorative term "lectures". And using posts from different time periods (with different information sets upon which to base one's opinion) is low and disingenuous. I expected better.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

At no point did Mignini refer to 'satan' or 'satanic rites'. Mignini may have considered it rather unchristian to commit murder. Your take on this is, "What a warped loony so-and-so!"

No, my take on it is specifically:

It is best to gather actual evidence before making formal accusations and constructing theories of manga vampire sex orgy murders (that's the one you and Mignini believe, right?).

It is bad to pick a suspect because she had a funny look to her and shifty eyes, then construct a wild implausible manga sex theory vampire slaying fantasy so that there is a motive, going back to the crime scene to "find" evidence of the people you want to convict because there was none the first time around a month and a half earlier, repeating DNA tests dozens of times until you get the positive result you want, and making up lies and misinformation to poison the well and get people of dubious analytical abilities to believe in the manga vampire murder orgy theory.

But definitely no satanic rite. I don't want to make your actual theory of the crime look silly or anything.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

I cannot reveal my source. Try OGGI if you want a public source.

A journalist (who makes everything up!) can never reveal her source!!!

What issue of OGGI? Got a copy online? Lol I know the answer is no because there is nothing in OGGI that supports your claim. Who are we kidding.

Sure, you can speculate a satanic rite. However, there is no evidence the alleged perps are satanists, although Raff showed a strong leaning towards the dark side.

You mean because Raf reads Manga (which is immensely popular in some cultures) and collects knives? Yeah total evil psychopath, that Raffaele.

Hey at least he doesn't come on the internet and spread lies and misinformation to try to smear the reputation of innocent people. He has that going for him.

 

[Grinder]

I don't appreciate my expressions of opinion being given the pejorative term "lectures". And using posts from different time periods (with different information sets upon which to base one's opinion) is low and disingenuous. I expected better.

I don't imagine you do. Go read your posts on 530 and you'll see the reason. I don't believe you have any special knowledge about Italian law in general or 530 in particular.

The quotes from different period percisely showed that when paragraph 1 suited you as a viable option you sorta guessed that's what had been used but after the court ruled you reversed and said paragraph 1 was basically impossible.

Here was a recent post:

No, I think you're misunderstanding 530.1 vs 530.2.

530.1 can only be used where the court can be fully satisfied that the defendant(s) did not commit - and cannot have committed - the crime. In other words, it's a declaration of factual innocence. For instance, supposed I was tried for a crime but I proved to the satisfaction of the court that I was in a totally different place at the time, then I should be acquitted under 530.1.

530.2 is in effect used for every other type of acquittal or annulment. To go back to the example of a murder that occurred a mile or so away from my flat one night while I was asleep alone in my bed (with which of course I had no involvement whatsoever). Had I somehow been tried for that murder, there would (by definition) have been no reliable, credible evidence of my guilt for the crime. And I'd have been acquitted. But if I wasn't able to PROVE my factual innocence, then I would have been acquitted on 530.2, because the courts could never state that I definitively didn't - and couldn't have - committed the crime.

And in any case, this whole 530.1/530.2 fiasco is yet another example of the arcane, messy, unfit-for-purpose nature of the Italian criminal codes. There IS only one actual form of acquittal in Italy now. But owing to sloppy legislation/codification and reactionary attitudes, the courts are still required to state which para of 530 they are using for the acquittal.

So it's all moot. But even then, it bears repeating that 530.1 is only for provable factual innocence - something that obviously it will forever be impossible for Knox or Sollecito to prove (just as it would forever be impossible for me to prove my factual innocence for that local murder).​

I'd say lecture like including analogies.

I understand 530 as well as you do and don't need these. The fact it was a 2 does make a difference and when the discussion was about which one it would be you guessed a 1. Parse it however you want, when the PGP said it was a 2 you said most likely a 1. Now you say a 1 is basically impossible. There was no more proof of innocence back when you made the para 1 guess. Cheli knew it made a difference and I believe he knows Italian law better than anyone here.

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't imagine you do. Go read your posts on 530 and you'll see the reason. I don't believe you have any special knowledge about Italian law in general or 530 in particular.

The quotes from different period percisely showed that when paragraph 1 suited you as a viable option you sorta guessed that's what had been used but after the court ruled you reversed and said paragraph 1 was basically impossible.

Here was a recent post:

No, I think you're misunderstanding 530.1 vs 530.2.

530.1 can only be used where the court can be fully satisfied that the defendant(s) did not commit - and cannot have committed - the crime. In other words, it's a declaration of factual innocence. For instance, supposed I was tried for a crime but I proved to the satisfaction of the court that I was in a totally different place at the time, then I should be acquitted under 530.1.

530.2 is in effect used for every other type of acquittal or annulment. To go back to the example of a murder that occurred a mile or so away from my flat one night while I was asleep alone in my bed (with which of course I had no involvement whatsoever). Had I somehow been tried for that murder, there would (by definition) have been no reliable, credible evidence of my guilt for the crime. And I'd have been acquitted. But if I wasn't able to PROVE my factual innocence, then I would have been acquitted on 530.2, because the courts could never state that I definitively didn't - and couldn't have - committed the crime.

And in any case, this whole 530.1/530.2 fiasco is yet another example of the arcane, messy, unfit-for-purpose nature of the Italian criminal codes. There IS only one actual form of acquittal in Italy now. But owing to sloppy legislation/codification and reactionary attitudes, the courts are still required to state which para of 530 they are using for the acquittal.

So it's all moot. But even then, it bears repeating that 530.1 is only for provable factual innocence - something that obviously it will forever be impossible for Knox or Sollecito to prove (just as it would forever be impossible for me to prove my factual innocence for that local murder).​

I'd say lecture like including analogies.

I understand 530 as well as you do and don't need these. The fact it was a 2 does make a difference and when the discussion was about which one it would be you guessed a 1. Parse it however you want, when the PGP said it was a 2 you said most likely a 1. Now you say a 1 is basically impossible. There was no more proof of innocence back when you made the para 1 guess. Cheli knew it made a difference and I believe he knows Italian law better than anyone here.

Fool me four times, even more shame on me.

I read this post four times in an attempt to give you the benefit of the doubt. Basically you're saying that neither you nor LJ are Italian lawyers so anything either of you say is simply your opinion.

LJ has, upthread, described adequately how his views on this have changed as new (and specifically more) information became available. What you've done in your post is to set those words (meant to be seen in an evolving context) into granite not making the proper distinction = thus cmmitting some sort of logical fallacy which probably has a name!

Then you cite authority, armed only with your "belief" that he knows Italian law more than anyone here. And before evading the issue by turning this back onto me - can you at least cite the basis of that belief - particularly in the light that aside from actual guilters, you are one of the harshest critics of FOA there is.

Next you will be citing Candace Dempsey as an expert. Then all of us will throw up our hands because the temptation will be too great to address the poster, and not the post!

 

[Numbers]

I stated above I nor anybody here can be sure if there is a difference. I don't believe Vixen is correct that para 2 is the same as dropping the charges. I mentioned above that here in the US people can be charged by the Feds after a state has acquitted for the same act.



LJ was the source of the para 1 being the choice for an ISC ruling that ended a case. I asked earlier for any examples of other cases in which the ISC declared innocence without sending back.



The PGP believe it was corruption. I believe they wanted to end the debacle asap.



This has been covered extensively here as you note. Clearly the MR was written in such a way as to allow Rudi to point the finger at the kids.

Grinder, thank you for your prompt response.

I can assure you, based on my reading of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) in an English translation by Italian legal experts (professors of criminal procedural law) and Italian academic experts in legal translation, all from the University of Trieste, that to the best of my knowledge there is no difference in legal consequences for an acquittal for "the accused did not commit the crime (act)" based on CPP Article 530.2 compared to an acquittal for "the accused did not commit the crime (act)" based on CPP Article 530.1.

There may be a difference in perception between the two paragraphs, at least for some, in Italy and even elsewhere.

The information in Vixen's posts on this issue is not correct.

The issue you mention of the potential in the US for Federal charges to be filed after a State acquittal on apparently similar charges is not germane to the Italian situation, since Italy does not have a federal structure; Knox and Sollecito were tried under Italian national law.

Often in the US, the Federal charges are actually different in concept from the State charges - for example, State charges may allege a murder, while Federal charges may allege a violation of civil rights by means of the murder.

I don't have any of the statistics relating to the supposed rarity of annulment without remand for retrial by the CSC, but CPP Article 620, Annulment without referral, provides 10 different situations (in sections letters [A] through [L]) in which the CSC may annul a case without referral to a lower court. Section L is remarkable in giving the CSC essentially freedom to make any judgment that is otherwise legal; its text is:

CPP Article 630
1. In addition to the cases specifically provided for by the law, the Court of Cassation shall deliver a judgment of annulment without referral:
(L) in any other case in which the Court of Cassation believes the referral is superfluous or may proceed to the determination of the sentence or take the necessary decisions.

My gut feeling, based partly on statements by Italian non-lawyers familiar with legal issues, is that CPP Article 630 (L) acquittals are relatively rare. Possibly in agreement with you, I firmly believe that the CSC took this route to end as quickly as possible what they saw as a miscarriage of justice and a mark against the Italian judicial system.

Based on your comment responding to my request for you to list the non-lacking part of the evidence for guilt or contradictory evidence for guilt, I believe that there is no such text in the CSC motivation report outside of Section 9, which has been discussed in detail on ISF. That Section includes, in Section 9.2, text that indicates that hypotheses supposedly showing guilt - apparently abstracted from the Nencini court motivation report or other trial documents - are provided in Section 9 to refute the conjecture that those hypotheses, even if true, demonstrate the guilt of Knox or Sollecito for the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher.

Some posts in ISF have ignored the meaning of Section 9.2. However, not considering relevant sections of a text in order to present a distorted meaning of the text is merely a way of presenting false information, and not a way to present a valid credible argument.

 

[Bill Williams]

Based on your comment responding to my request for you to list the non-lacking part of the evidence for guilt or contradictory evidence for guilt, I believe that there is no such text in the CSC motivation report outside of Section 9, which has been discussed in detail on ISF. That Section includes, in Section 9.2, text that indicates that hypotheses supposedly showing guilt - apparently abstracted from the Nencini court motivation report or other trial documents - are provided in Section 9 to refute the conjecture that those hypotheses, even if true, demonstrate the guilt of Knox or Sollecito for the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher.

Some posts in ISF have ignored the meaning of Section 9.2. However, not considering relevant sections of a text in order to present a distorted meaning of the text is merely a way of presenting false information, and not a way to present a valid credible argument.

Thank you, Numbers. You have presented in a very short, readable form what the Marasca/Bruno report attempts in Sections 9.2ff.

There's a couple of guilter-posters at IIP who ridicule anyone who points out the use of the word "synoptic" in that section. It is all they really have, though, ridicule - because they wish that word to be ignored, or they want to hold their thumb over it while stampeding you into the rest of Section 9. As such, no one that I know of has attempted a guilter-scenario for M/B that includes even a mention of 9.2/9.3 except to say something dismissively hand-wavy, "9.2/9.3 doesn't mean what innocentisti claim it means....." then they move on without even an attempt to say why one should think otherwise.

Why? For obvious reason. They join Rudy Guede to try to make M/B sound as if the only thing written in it was in 9.4ff. And THEN, make brief mention of the beginning and middle of the report to try further to claim that it is then an illogical report.

None of us on this thread are lawyers. But even so, your words bear repeating to those who try to get M/B to mean something they did not mean, namely, "However, not considering relevant sections of a text in order to present a distorted meaning of the text is merely a way of presenting false information, and not a way to present a valid credible argument."

As such, there remain some, for obvious reason and motive, wish M/B to be interpreted as, "If there was just one more slim-factoid of judicially generated evidence, we would have convicted them."

Thank you, thank you, thank you.