The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 28

[Stacyhs]

They haven't been exonerated.

I suggest you take that up with Judge Boninsegna who wrote in his MR:

The case is a follow-on of a more complex and serious one, regarding the murder of Meredith Kercher, a young English student, which occurred in Perugia between 01-Nov and 02-Nov-2007. Those proceedings concluded with the exoneration of the defendant of murder, that she was accused of together with her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, and with her conviction for calumny against Patrick Lumumba, after two Assizes trials in Perugia, with initially a conviction followed by exoneration, a partial annulment by the Court of Cassation, for the murder, another appeal trial in Florence, and finally, the definitive annulment of the conviction of the second level verdict delivered in the referral trial.

I know this sticks in your craw, but it is what it is: they were exonerated.

EDIT: Ha, Bill! You beat me to it...but it bears repeating.

 

[acbytesla]

You forget that, to Vixen, the fact Raff held a knife in his left hand in a photo is proof he is left-handed. The fact he wore a scarf years later in a photo is evidence of him 're-enacting what he wore (despite pics of Mignini, Lumumba and Maresca also wearing scarves) and Raff having a knit cap that did not match Guede's description are all evidence of his guilt.

No I didn't. I said in my earlier post that Vixen sees everything through the lens that they are guilty and then applies her bias to everything.

Oh, still no admission that the charter claim was nonsense.

 

[Stacyhs]

No I didn't. I said in my earlier post that Vixen sees everything through the lens that they are guilty and then applies her bias to everything.

Oh, still no admission that the charter claim was nonsense.

Yep. It's working backwards from a conclusion and then fitting everything to that bias regardless whether it makes sense or not or if there's a perfectly reasonable and innocent explanation.

 

[acbytesla]

Yep. It's working backwards from a conclusion and then fitting everything to that bias regardless whether it makes sense or not or if there's a perfectly reasonable and innocent explanation.

You can read anything a particular way if you choose to. That she sees that Raffaele has a knife and that must mean he's a killer or that there was a rumor that Raffaele attacked a girl in school years earlier must be true even though a police detective looked into the rumor and found nothing to confirm it. She ticks each one off as proof whereas an unbiased person cannot consider it.

 

[Stacyhs]

You can read anything a particular way if you choose to. That she sees that Raffaele has a knife and that must mean he's a killer or that there was a rumor that Raffaele attacked a girl in school years earlier must be true even though a police detective looked into the rumor and found nothing to confirm it. She ticks each one off as proof whereas an unbiased person cannot consider it.

It was even less than a rumor that Raffaele had attacked a girl; Volturno found no evidence that a girl had ever been attacked with scissors, much less by Raffaele.

I don't remember if it was in this group or elsewhere, but I do remember a discussion I was involved in about the alleged scissors attack. A PGP in that discussion claimed that the school records had been destroyed to protect Raffaele because someone had 'gotten to' the school principal. In truth, it was the standard procedure for the records to be destroyed after a certain period of time had passed as Volturno testified. But this PGP saw this as evidence that Raffaele was somehow being protected by the Mafia. Gotta love 'em.

 

[Vixen]

Nonsense. You're the one watching movies and taking your clues from them.
No offense, but you really don't have a clue. Its not that knives can't also be weapons. Of course they can. But millions of law abiding men carry a knife.

My father always had a knife on him at all times as well. He gave me a similar one when I was about ten. My best friend is a police officer and you would be hard pressed to ever finding him without his knife. Me, I keep one in the glove box of both my vehicles, my toolbox, my fishing tackle box and usually one in my pocket. When I come home at night I place it on the dresser valet with my watch.

It means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. One cannot or should not read a thing into that Raffaele had a knife on him, unless you condemn every man with a knife.

FYI it is illegal to carry an offensive weapon in a public place in England. This includes knives, batons and coshes.

 

[Vixen]

Ignoring all the irrelevant puukko bit, flick knives have far more than 'one purpose'. My BIL carries one and uses it quite frequently...and never against a person.

That last highlighted part is just too funny for words. As for Hellmann's "lack of experience of a murder case", we went over that ages ago. I presented a couple murder cases he had previously presided over. Or do you think the Italians would appoint unqualified judges to preside over a high profile murder case like this one was in 2011? Your assessment is nothing more than your own opinion based on nothing but ....your own opinion.

When you come to Europe, leave your knives and guns behind.

 

[Vixen]

You forget that, to Vixen, the fact Raff held a knife in his left hand in a photo is proof he is left-handed. The fact he wore a scarf years later in a photo is evidence of him 're-enacting what he wore (despite pics of Mignini, Lumumba and Maresca also wearing scarves) and Raff having a knit cap that did not match Guede's description are all evidence of his guilt.

Guede said the man in question 'held a knife in his left hand'. He said nothing about the man being 'left-handed'. Please brush up your debating skills.

 

[Vixen]

Good Lord, Vixen... you crack me up. Yeah, they haven't been exonerated...

That is correct. The words 'innocent' and 'exonerated' appear nowhere in the Supreme Court's judgment. The verdict was annulled 'due to insufficient evidence'.

Logic should inform you this does not mean the same as an unequivocal 'not guilty'.

 

[Vixen]

The only opinion which counts, is the opinion of the Italian judiciary. This is what Boninsegna wrote in 2016 in acquitting Knox of defamation against the cops....

​

It is beyond me why this needs to be repeated. It may be because some cannot admit that they'd been exonerated in 2015.

That's just careless typing by the court staff.

Exonerated in law has a specific meaning, not the common or garden variety, as is apparent in Boninsgna's chummy version.

 

[Vixen]

I suggest you take that up with Judge Boninsegna who wrote in his MR:



I know this sticks in your craw, but it is what it is: they were exonerated.

EDIT: Ha, Bill! You beat me to it...but it bears repeating.

Citation please that the Italian version uses the proper Italian legal term for exoneration, and your version is not just a revised 'amandaknox.com' one.

 

[LondonJohn]

That is correct. The words 'innocent' and 'exonerated' appear nowhere in the Supreme Court's judgment. The verdict was annulled 'due to insufficient evidence'.

Logic should inform you this does not mean the same as an unequivocal 'not guilty'.

Uhhhh... not this "insufficient evidence" canard again, Vixen.

It doesn't imply what you think it implies. (FYI, every single acquittal in an Italian court (and for that matter in an England & Wales court), other than if the court deems that no crime was even committed or where the defendant can prove his/her innocence BARD to the court, is due to "insufficient evidence". And as you've been told dozens of times now, "insufficient evidence" encompasses everything from just falling short of proof to the BARD standard, right down to zero evidence whatsoever. But of course I'm near-certain that this won't stop you from continuing to try to misdirect with the "insufficient evidence" sleight-of-hand - even though it reeks of intellectual dishonesty and/or ignorance....)

 

[LondonJohn]

That's just careless typing by the court staff.

Exonerated in law has a specific meaning, not the common or garden variety, as is apparent in Boninsgna's chummy version.

I must say I LOVE this "careless typing by the court staff" bullcrap! Well played!!!

 

[Vixen]

I must say I LOVE this "careless typing by the court staff" bullcrap! Well played!!!

It is a legal fact that the pair are not exonerated.

Therefore, Boninsegna is incorrect. However, I don't believe his words have been accurately translated by your lot.

The defence arguments of Knox and Sollecito are predicated on lies, so no surprise their PR is also full of them.

 

[Myriad]

I must say I LOVE this "careless typing by the court staff" bullcrap! Well played!!!

I can just picture the scene in the Italian judiciary typing pool.

TYPIST: "Mama mia!* I hit the wrong keys again! I meant to type colpevoli come il peccato** but my finger slipped and it came out as amiamo questa ragazza americana!***"

SUPERVISOR (slaps back of TYPIST'S head, Vaudeville comedy style) "Samatta yu!**** Now we have to drop all charges and let the obviously still guilty suspects go free! It makes no sense, but that's our ancient sacred law."


*Italian for "Kemo Sabe"
**Italian for "Amanda Knox"
***Italian for "insufficient evidence"
****Italian for "Giuliano Mignini"

 

[Bill Williams]

That's just careless typing by the court staff.
Exonerated in law has a specific meaning, not the common or garden variety, as is apparent in Boninsgna's chummy version.

How can we be sure it's not you making typing errors!?

 

[Bill Williams]

Guede said the man in question 'held a knife in his left hand'. He said nothing about the man being 'left-handed'. Please brush up your debating skills.

We must believe what Rudy Guede said. That is axiomatic. Therefore we must believe that his digital penetration of the victim was consensual and not merely a typing error.

 

[Bill Williams]

It is a legal fact that the pair are not exonerated.

Therefore, Boninsegna is incorrect. However, I don't believe his words have been accurately translated by your lot.

The defence arguments of Knox and Sollecito are predicated on lies, so no surprise their PR is also full of them.

This is so confusing. It's so hard to decide. Who to believe? An Italian court, or an anonymous internet poster?

Let me get back to you....

 

[Vixen]

We must believe what Rudy Guede said. That is axiomatic. Therefore we must believe that his digital penetration of the victim was consensual and not merely a typing error.

Out of context again. You must stop doing that, BiWi.

The context was, someone argued that Rudy made up his story about a strange man 'on the threshold of Meridith Kercher's room'. I remarked that he managed to describe Raff surprisingly accurately, i.e., a fluently Italian man (and thus, not a sundry Albanian as claimed by Knox and Raff's defences viz a viz their star witness,Aviello), shorter than himself, brown hair (as opposed to Italian black), held the blade in his left hand, was wearing a jacket with a Napapirje logo and wore on his head a white beanie with a red stripe. He said the figure was backlit, from the dim light in Mez' room and the hall light having been switched off whilst he was in the loo.

The PR-gang jumped in and claimed (falsely) that (a) Raff was taller (b) was right-handed, so therefor could not be the man in Rudy's description (c) did not own any such clothing and (d) all Italians have mousy hair.

So, it is nothing to do with 'belief in Rudy', but rather, 'how did Rudy manage to describe Raff so accurately'?

Do try to keep focussed.

 

[Vixen]

I can just picture the scene in the Italian judiciary typing pool.

TYPIST: "Mama mia!* I hit the wrong keys again! I meant to type colpevoli come il peccato** but my finger slipped and it came out as amiamo questa ragazza americana!***"

SUPERVISOR (slaps back of TYPIST'S head, Vaudeville comedy style) "Samatta yu!**** Now we have to drop all charges and let the obviously still guilty suspects go free! It makes no sense, but that's our ancient sacred law."


*Italian for "Kemo Sabe"
**Italian for "Amanda Knox"
***Italian for "insufficient evidence"
****Italian for "Giuliano Mignini"

<roflmao> Very droll, I am sure. However, fact is, a legal fact cannot be reversed merely by another person, albeit a judge (from a lower court), making an incorrect statement.

The Supreme Court did not at any point declare the pair to be exonerated. No lower court can outrank it and replace the judgment with a new one, notwithstanding the fact only a court of law can come to a decision on an issue and the issue of guilt and exoneration in respect of the aggravated murder charge was not available for any party to plead at the Boninsegna court.

To make it simple. You get a parking ticket. You apeal it. You fail and are told to pay the penalty.

You then go to a Family Law court to finalise your divorce. The judge happens to write in his summing up that you succeeded in your appeal against your parking ticket.

Homework: what is the actual legal situation in respect of the parking ticket?

I'll just get into my listening pose.