The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

[abaddon]

It is easy. There is none. And you do not have to legally prove your innocence in civilised countries. Any acquittal means that you simply retain your innocent status.

By the way, your (invented?) definition is woefully inadequate. How big this part factual element of innocence is supposed to be? One spoonful? Two? A quite substantial fact that there is no physical traces of Amanda in the room where the violent crime was committed is not big enough? I guess Amanda was just levitating or possessing the Guede's body while killing Meredith. Happens all the time.

We have been over this ad nauseum. Vixen still appears to be unable to grok that courts do not find anyone innocent.

Vixen,
kemosabe does not mean what you seem to think it means. I know you are reluctant to do so but I suggest you look it up on Google.

Capiche?

And this one back in part whatever of this thread.

 

[Vixen]

It is easy. There is none. And you do not have to legally prove your innocence in civilised countries. Any acquittal means that you simply retain your innocent status.

By the way, your (invented?) definition is woefully inadequate. How big this part factual element of innocence is supposed to be? One spoonful? Two? A quite substantial fact that there is no physical traces of Amanda in the room where the violent crime was committed is not big enough? I guess Amanda was just levitating or possessing the Guede's body while killing Meredith. Happens all the time.

'Exonerated' is NOT a synonym for 'innocent'.

This is where the PIP and the Innocence Projects are going wrong.

 

[Vixen]

We have been over this ad nauseum. Vixen still appears to be unable to grok that courts do not find anyone innocent.

And this one back in part whatever of this thread.

Let me patiently explain it to you. I know legal language has a lot of nuance which can can be too subtle for some to pick up.

In Italy, the vast majority of acquittals are under Art 530, para 1 : 'not guilty'.

The kids were NOT found 'not guilty' under this article.

They were acquitted under the ground of Article 530,para 2|: 'not guilty due to insufficient evidence'.

Exonerated means 'once convicted of a crime but now known to be innocent, because DNA evidence, for example, shows it was someone else committed the crime. There has to be an element of 'new evidence' proving the impossibility of the defendant having committed the crime.

Marasca makes it crystal clear the pair are not exonerated. Indeed it underlines their 'highly suspicious behaviour'. It confirms Amanda WAS at the scene of the crime, and Raff therefore almost certainly, also. She did wash off the victim's blood and she did cover up for Rudy.

It makes it clear there is a near certainty they committed the crime. However, it let them off due to 'undue pressure from the media' and 'investigative flaws' (the former is not covered by Italian statute and the latter not pleaded nor defended by anyone).

Let me know if you are still Heap Big Confused.

 

[Vixen]

Exactly how did Popovitch's testimony counter what Raff said?

No, Amanda said she could not verify the time they ate as she was not looking at the clock. She guessed at the time:






So, the phone call happened at 8:42 and she said she thought they ate around 9:30 or 10:00. Big deal. She wasn't paying attention to the time. Nowhere did she say it was as "23:00" as you claim.

One would think that, with all the time they had to come up with an alibi story, that they'd have made sure it was solid. I guess they are so ingenious that they can completely remove all evidence of themselves from Meredith's bedroom but they can't get a simple story straight. Riiiiiiiiight.

Yes she did, read the court documents.

Even Leopold and Loeb - super geniuses - screwed up (to use Sean Spicer's term for 'to make a mistake') - one of them left his bespoke eyeglasses near the body.

They did not remove all evidence of themselves from the murder room.

 

[Bill Williams]

One would think that, with all the time they had to come up with an alibi story, that they'd have made sure it was solid. I guess they are so ingenious that they can completely remove all evidence of themselves from Meredith's bedroom but they can't get a simple story straight. Riiiiiiiiight.

Yes she did, read the court documents.

................

They did not remove all evidence of themselves from the murder room.

Please point to one court document which makes this claim or finds this as factual. Here's a place to start:

(All from Marasca-Bruno, the first was the summary in it of Knox's appeal.

The hypothesis of an alleged selective cleaning of the crime scene by the
defendant was completely illogical, with it being basically impossible to remove
some genetic traces while leaving others untouched.​

Then in discussing the total lack of incriminating traces of either AK or RS in the murder room, Marasca-Bruno wrote:

To overcome the relevance of such a negative element - undeniably favourable
to the defendants - it has been claimed in vain that, after staging the break-in, the
authors of the crime performed a “selective” cleaning of the crime scene, in order to
remove only those damning traces attributable to them, while leaving behind,
instead, those attributable to others.

This hypothesis is patently illogical. To fully understand its degree of
inconsistency it is not really necessary to appoint court experts, even if this has
been requested by the defences. That such a selective cleaning, moreover capable
of escaping detection by luminol, whose use by the investigators (also to find traces
of non-haematic origin) is nowadays part of everyday knowledge, is, for sure,
impossible, according to the basic laws of ordinary experience.

After all, the assertion itself of a presumed carefulness in the cleaning is factually proven wrong, since in the “small bathroom” traces of blood have been
found on the mat, on the bidet, on the tap, on a Q-tips box and on the light switch.​

Indeed, the condition of the bathroom when compared to the murderroom puts the factual lie to the claim. Why would they be so meticulous about the bedroom and not the bathroom?

 

[Lince]

Let me patiently explain it to you. I know legal language has a lot of nuance which can can be too subtle for some to pick up.

In Italy, the vast majority of acquittals are under Art 530, para 1 : 'not guilty'.

The kids were NOT found 'not guilty' under this article.

They were acquitted under the ground of Article 530,para 2|: 'not guilty due to insufficient evidence'.

Exonerated means 'once convicted of a crime but now known to be innocent, because DNA evidence, for example, shows it was someone else committed the crime. There has to be an element of 'new evidence' proving the impossibility of the defendant having committed the crime.

Marasca makes it crystal clear the pair are not exonerated. Indeed it underlines their 'highly suspicious behaviour'. It confirms Amanda WAS at the scene of the crime, and Raff therefore almost certainly, also. She did wash off the victim's blood and she did cover up for Rudy.

It makes it clear there is a near certainty they committed the crime. However, it let them off due to 'undue pressure from the media' and 'investigative flaws' (the former is not covered by Italian statute and the latter not pleaded nor defended by anyone).

Let me know if you are still Heap Big Confused.

In a wider sense, exonerate = absolve from blame or accusation, acquit, exculpate, so it definitely fits here. Amanda and Raffaele were proclaimed legally not guilty (= legally innocent) of the crime by the Supreme Court. Which article was used does not matter, since the legal effects are the same.

According to the definition you brought, I admit you are right and I am wrong. However, the problem is that, IMHO, this definition is not actually applicable here since the conviction was not finalised. New evidence for innocence can be needed to reopen/reconsider a completed case that went through the entire standard legal process. In this instance, SC did not reconsider the case, they admitted that there is actually no case to convict and thus acquitted the defendants. As a result, Amanda and Raffaele automatically retained their legal innocence status.

Constantly repeating the same imagined things from the Marasca verdict does not make them more convincing. A summary of judicial facts from the previous verdicts is not equivalent to the actual SC conclusions much like an overview of the related work in a scientific paper does not mean that the authors are claiming the overviewed results for themselves. Not to mention all significant "figures of speech" you dismiss such as "even if", "alleged", "hypothesized", etc.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes she did, read the court documents.

Even Leopold and Loeb - super geniuses - screwed up (to use Sean Spicer's term for 'to make a mistake') - one of them left his bespoke eyeglasses near the body.

They did not remove all evidence of themselves from the murder room.

Blah...blah...blah...bull...bulll...bull. so much meaningless nonsense. Persistence that only produces hot air. No one believes your posts but the very tiny number of nutters left and even they are bored.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'd love to see evidence to support this alleged "fact" that "in Italy, the vast majority of acquittals are under Art 530, para 1 : 'not guilty'" (and that therefore only a tiny minority of acquittals are under 530.2).

I very, very strongly suspect that this is what is colloquially known as an "ass-fact", and that in fact the available evidence supports exactly the opposite.

But perhaps Vixen would care to supply the evidence to support her extremely declarative assertion. How about, say, a list of all acquittals in Italy between 2000 and 2015, with the number (and percentage of total) that were under 530.1, and the number (and percentage of total) that were under 530.2? Then this issue could be settled properly. Couldn't it, Vixen.

 

[LondonJohn]

"It makes it clear there is a near certainty they committed the crime. However, it let them off due to 'undue pressure from the media' and 'investigative flaws' (the former is not covered by Italian statute and the latter not pleaded nor defended by anyone)."

What a load of nonsense. And deliberately mendacious nonsense at that. None of the above is true in any way whatsoever (other than the correctly-observed fact by the Marasca SC panel that the Mignini-led police investigation was disgracefully inept, incompetent, misdirected and riddled with malpractice).

 

[TruthCalls]

Let me patiently explain it to you. I know legal language has a lot of nuance which can can be too subtle for some to pick up.

In Italy, the vast majority of acquittals are under Art 530, para 1 : 'not guilty'.

The kids were NOT found 'not guilty' under this article.

They were acquitted under the ground of Article 530,para 2|: 'not guilty due to insufficient evidence'.

Exonerated means 'once convicted of a crime but now known to be innocent, because DNA evidence, for example, shows it was someone else committed the crime. There has to be an element of 'new evidence' proving the impossibility of the defendant having committed the crime.

Marasca makes it crystal clear the pair are not exonerated. Indeed it underlines their 'highly suspicious behaviour'. It confirms Amanda WAS at the scene of the crime, and Raff therefore almost certainly, also. She did wash off the victim's blood and she did cover up for Rudy.

It makes it clear there is a near certainty they committed the crime. However, it let them off due to 'undue pressure from the media' and 'investigative flaws' (the former is not covered by Italian statute and the latter not pleaded nor defended by anyone).

Let me know if you are still Heap Big Confused.

Checking some online references for the word "exonerate"

From Dictionary.com:

1. to clear, as of an accusation; free from guilt or blame; exculpate: He was exonerated from the accusation of cheating.

From Merriam Webster:

Legal Definition of exonerate
exonerated exonerating

1: to relieve especially of a charge, obligation, or hardship
2: to clear from accusation or blame — compare acquit, exculpate

From Collins:

If a court, report, or person in authority exonerates someone, they officially say or show that that person is not responsible for something wrong or unpleasant that has happened.

1. to relieve of (a duty, obligation, etc.)
2. to free from a charge or the imputation of guilt; declare or prove blameless; exculpate

At no point do any of these references suggest one must first be convicted before they can be exonerated. In fact, the example from Dictionary.com is to exonerate from an accusation. However, if we accept your interpretation of the word then I agree, they are not exonerated, but not for the reason you suggest. In Italy you are not convicted of a crime until the Supreme Court upholds the conviction. Since this never happened to Amanda and Raffaele, they were never convicted and therefore, by your definition, they can't be considered exonerated.

However, your interpretation of being exonerated is obviously flawed. You claim;

"There has to be an element of 'new evidence' proving the impossibility of the defendant having committed the crime."

How then do you explain the very lengthy list of people who have been exonerated, not because they suddenly came up with evidence that proves they didn't commit the crime, but because new evidence proves someone else did?

As for your continued claims of being there, washing blood, covering for Guede... please stop. We've been over it a thousand times. You and a couple of other remaining PGP think there's something to it. The rest of us know otherwise. If you think any of these claims have any validity to them then it should be easy for you to cite evidence to support it. You don't because you can't because none exists. You know that, we know that... so why continue with such foolish claims?

What the Marasca report makes perfectly clear is that there isn't a shred of evidence of either Amanda or Raffaele being involved in the crime, ergo they are innocent. Exonerated in my book but if it makes you feel better to think otherwise then by all means, indulge yourself.

 

[acbytesla]

I'd love to see evidence to support this alleged "fact" that "in Italy, the vast majority of acquittals are under Art 530, para 1 : 'not guilty'" (and that therefore only a tiny minority of acquittals are under 530.2).

I very, very strongly suspect that this is what is colloquially known as an "ass-fact", and that in fact the available evidence supports exactly the opposite.

But perhaps Vixen would care to supply the evidence to support her extremely declarative assertion. How about, say, a list of all acquittals in Italy between 2000 and 2015, with the number (and percentage of total) that were under 530.1, and the number (and percentage of total) that were under 530.2? Then this issue could be settled properly. Couldn't it, Vixen.

Yes I'm sure you're right.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 9.

 

[abaddon]

Let me patiently explain it to you. I know legal language has a lot of nuance which can can be too subtle for some to pick up.

Unnecessary. Been in court, sworn my oaths to a non-existent god, old hat.

In Italy, the vast majority of acquittals are under Art 530, para 1 : 'not guilty'.

So not innocent.

The kids were NOT found 'not guilty' under this article.

So not innocent again.

They were acquitted under the ground of Article 530,para 2|: 'not guilty due to insufficient evidence'.

So not innocent yet again.

Exonerated means 'once convicted of a crime but now known to be innocent, because DNA evidence, for example, shows it was someone else committed the crime. There has to be an element of 'new evidence' proving the impossibility of the defendant having committed the crime.

You claimed that new evidence was inadmissable on any appeal. Oops.

Marasca makes it crystal clear the pair are not exonerated. Indeed it underlines their 'highly suspicious behaviour'. It confirms Amanda WAS at the scene of the crime, and Raff therefore almost certainly, also. She did wash off the victim's blood and she did cover up for Rudy.

Obviated by the actual evidence and also by your own claims.
Remember the 30 second claim?

It makes it clear there is a near certainty they committed the crime. However, it let them off due to 'undue pressure from the media' and 'investigative flaws' (the former is not covered by Italian statute and the latter not pleaded nor defended by anyone).

"Let them off" ???

Let me know if you are still Heap Big Confused.

Let me know when you find a cell phone mast acting like a swivel eyed loon.

 

[Mr Fied]

Let me patiently explain it to you. I know legal language has a lot of nuance which can can be too subtle for some to pick up.

In Italy, the vast majority of acquittals are under Art 530, para 1 : 'not guilty'.

The kids were NOT found 'not guilty' under this article.

They were acquitted under the ground of Article 530,para 2|: 'not guilty due to insufficient evidence'.
Exonerated means 'once convicted of a crime but now known to be innocent, because DNA evidence, for example, shows it was someone else committed the crime. There has to be an element of 'new evidence' proving the impossibility of the defendant having committed the crime.

Marasca makes it crystal clear the pair are not exonerated. Indeed it underlines their 'highly suspicious behaviour'. It confirms Amanda WAS at the scene of the crime, and Raff therefore almost certainly, also. She did wash off the victim's blood and she did cover up for Rudy.

It makes it clear there is a near certainty they committed the crime. However, it let them off due to 'undue pressure from the media' and 'investigative flaws' (the former is not covered by Italian statute and the latter not pleaded nor defended by anyone).

Let me know if you are still Heap Big Confused.

visti gli artt. 620 lett. I) e 530, comma 2 cod. proc. pen.; esclusa l'aggravante di
cui all'art. 61 n, 2 cod. pen., in relazione al delitto di calunnia, annulla senza rinvio la sentenza impugnata in ordine ai reati di cui ai capi a), d) ed e) della rubrica per non avere i ricorrenti commesso il fatto.
pursuant to Articles 620 letter L) and 530, section 2 Italian Code of Criminal
Procedure; excluding the aggravating circumstance under Italian under Article 61 n.
2 Penal Code, in relation to the crime of calumny, annuls the ruling under appeal
without referral with respect to the crimes under charges A), D) and E) of the rubric because the appellants did not commit the act.

 

[TruthCalls]

"It makes it clear there is a near certainty they committed the crime. However, it let them off due to 'undue pressure from the media' and 'investigative flaws' (the former is not covered by Italian statute and the latter not pleaded nor defended by anyone)."

What a load of nonsense. And deliberately mendacious nonsense at that. None of the above is true in any way whatsoever (other than the correctly-observed fact by the Marasca SC panel that the Mignini-led police investigation was disgracefully inept, incompetent, misdirected and riddled with malpractice).

Deliberately mendacious... I think that sums up this quote quite nicely. One has to wonder if Vixen thinks everyone is an idiot that can't read for themselves.

The Marasca report makes it very clear there isn't a shred of evidence to indicate their involvement in the crime, so the complete opposite of what Vixen claims. The only reference to the media in the report was in exploring reasons why the investigation was so flawed; that pressure from the media caused the investigators to rush their investigation. As for investigative flaws, what the court said was that without such an incompetent investigation there would be more certainty as to guilt or innocence. Vixen prefers to assume they were let off due to the investigative flaws but the flip side to that argument is - and this is my belief - a competent investigation would have clearly shown they were not involved and no charges would have ever been filed.

 

[Bill Williams]

visti gli artt. 620 lett. I) e 530, comma 2 cod. proc. pen.; esclusa l'aggravante di
cui all'art. 61 n, 2 cod. pen., in relazione al delitto di calunnia, annulla senza rinvio la sentenza impugnata in ordine ai reati di cui ai capi a), d) ed e) della rubrica per non avere i ricorrenti commesso il fatto.
pursuant to Articles 620 letter L) and 530, section 2 Italian Code of Criminal
Procedure; excluding the aggravating circumstance under Italian under Article 61 n.
2 Penal Code, in relation to the crime of calumny, annuls the ruling under appeal
without referral with respect to the crimes under charges A), D) and E) of the rubric because the appellants did not commit the act.

I guess having an Italian court say you "didn't commit the act" is not good enough for some. Some interpret "did not commit the act" is a euphemism for, "they were proven to have done it, but a foreign government and powerful media interests intervened."

It's all so confusing.

 

[Bill Williams]

Deliberately mendacious... I think that sums up this quote quite nicely. One has to wonder if Vixen thinks everyone is an idiot that can't read for themselves.

The Marasca report makes it very clear there isn't a shred of evidence to indicate their involvement in the crime, so the complete opposite of what Vixen claims. The only reference to the media in the report was in exploring reasons why the investigation was so flawed; that pressure from the media caused the investigators to rush their investigation. As for investigative flaws, what the court said was that without such an incompetent investigation there would be more certainty as to guilt or innocence. Vixen prefers to assume they were let off due to the investigative flaws but the flip side to that argument is - and this is my belief - a competent investigation would have clearly shown they were not involved and no charges would have ever been filed.

I truly miss Grinder.

Up until now i'd not know the definition of "mendacious". If Grinder had been here, I'd have had an education long ago. (He once corrected me for misspelling "et al.", pointing out with no small barb that "et" does not have a period after it, since it is a Latin word all by its onsey.)

It often hurt - sometimes it hurt badly! - but I do miss the guy.

 

[Bill Williams]

What the Marasca report makes perfectly clear is that there isn't a shred of evidence of either Amanda or Raffaele being involved in the crime, ergo they are innocent. Exonerated in my book but if it makes you feel better to think otherwise then by all means, indulge yourself.

I do not believe that this is entirely true. One of the side-effects of staying on top of Vixen's claims of what M/B's report says and doesn't say is that one tends to read the thing multiple times!

It's a bit more than simply not "being involved in the crime". M/B take issue with the way the Nencini court assembled its evidence. I hope I am not simply drawing distinctions where there aren't any, but the M/B report.....

.... says that the evidence presented at/by the lower court at best puts Knox/Sollecito at the crimescene after the crime was committed and not once in the murderroom itself.

At best. Even if the hypothesis that Nencini assembled out of facts he'd considered "factual" is true, it still did not create judicial guilt.

 

[TruthCalls]

I do not believe that this is entirely true. One of the side-effects of staying on top of Vixen's claims of what M/B's report says and doesn't say is that one tends to read the thing multiple times!

It's a bit more than simply not "being involved in the crime". M/B take issue with the way the Nencini court assembled its evidence. I hope I am not simply drawing distinctions where there aren't any, but the M/B report.....

.... says that the evidence presented at/by the lower court at best puts Knox/Sollecito at the crimescene after the crime was committed and not once in the murderroom itself.

At best. Even if the hypothesis that Nencini assembled out of facts he'd considered "factual" is true, it still did not create judicial guilt.

Actually, as a 'conclusion' to the report, and in summary, I think it's safe to say the report concludes there isn't a shred of evidence of their involvement. How they actually reach that conclusion is spread throughout the report but it doesn't waiver. The report carefully addresses each and every illogical conclusion of the Nencini court and dismantles the arguments. In the end the report concludes that even if some of the claims were true, there is no indication they were ever in Meredith's bedroom where the murder took place. Certainly, even if viewed through guilt colored glasses, to make the claim "It makes it clear there is a near certainty they committed the crime" is being deliberately mendacious.

But I agree, lately I've had both Massei and Marasca reports open almost by default so I can go back and see if maybe that most recent, outrageous claim by Vixen was true, and in the process I've managed to read various sections multiple times.

Oh, and I also agree.. I miss Grinder.

 

[Mr Fied]

visti gli artt. 620 lett. I) e 530, comma 2 cod. proc. pen.; esclusa l'aggravante di
cui all'art. 61 n, 2 cod. pen., in relazione al delitto di calunnia, annulla senza rinvio la sentenza impugnata in ordine ai reati di cui ai capi a), d) ed e) della rubrica per non avere i ricorrenti commesso il fatto.
pursuant to Articles 620 letter L) and 530, section 2 Italian Code of Criminal
Procedure; excluding the aggravating circumstance under Italian under Article 61 n.
2 Penal Code, in relation to the crime of calumny, annuls the ruling under appeal
without referral with respect to the crimes under charges A), D) and E) of the rubric because the appellants did not commit the act.

Is this what they call a judicial fact?

 

[Stacyhs]

I said 14 February 2017

Quote:
She's lodged an appeal, but his complaint against twelve judges in Genoa is with alleged ex-mafia gangster Brizolli (_sp?) is the latest rumour.

This refers to Bongiorno not being a part of this, and Raff's new 'attorney' is Brizolli (_sp?).

It is now in the TIMES and the Italian papers. What is it you are not understanding, when I informed you 'It is old news'?

Kimo sabi?

I misunderstood what you wrote due to the way you phrased it.

his complaint against twelve judges in Genoa

I read this as him suing 12 Genoese judges. A more clear way to have written it would have been "his lawsuit against 12 judges will be heard in Genoa."

Why at you putting "attorney" in quotes?

And I see you've already been informed (again) that you are using "kemosabe" incorrectly.

By the way, his attorney is Alfredo Brizioli.