The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 28

[Vixen]

This "no motive needed for a conviction" response was always a stupid and desperate response. Establishing a motive may not be legally required, but it is very important to a jury which is why the prosecution always presents motive. People don't do things for no reason unless they are so mentally incapacitated due to illness or drugs that they literally do not know what the are doing.

Rubbish. A motive is only required if you are trying to establish premeditated murder. In Italy, as murder and sexual assault is automatically 'aggravated murder' (the most serious crime of all) there is no onus on the prosecutor to establish motive.

Who knows how a murderer's mind works.

 

[TomG]

From M/B. "From the trial documents no motive had come out that could have induced Knox to a wilful participation to a murder and, contrary to the assertion of the fact finding judge, the motive is absolutely necessary in a trial based on circumstantial evidence."

Hoots

 

[Vixen]

From M/B. "From the trial documents no motive had come out that could have induced Knox to a wilful participation to a murder and, contrary to the assertion of the fact finding judge, the motive is absolutely necessary in a trial based on circumstantial evidence."

Hoots

It shows how defective Marasca-Bruno is.

 

[TomG]

I'd describe any judgement against me as defective if it was based on the same paucity of evidence as in the case against K&S, and further compounded with a law of no motive required.

Hoots

 

[Vixen]

I'd describe any judgement against me as defective if it was based on the same paucity of evidence as in the case against K&S, and further compounded with a law of no motive required.

Hoots

In the merits trial where the evidence is assessed and the facts are found the pair were found guilty as charged by a whole panel of judges and appeal court judges.

The annulment was purely political. Not even Marasca and Bruno could make it a clear not guilty but had to qualify it with a rarely used 'insufficient evidence' instrument which has always been the loophole for corrupt politicians.

In reality, it had no legal remit to retry the facts but should have sent it back to trial if it found legal flaws. Truth is, it couldn't turn it around except by mealy mouthed references to the press, in which it errs as Italy doesn't have subjudice laws ('contempt of court' wherein the press are prohibited from speculating about a case whilst it is live). Clearly it was sleight of hand and back channeling by the misguided Department of State who have some sentimental ideas about the sovereignty of it citizens, together with Raff's father's powerful influences and barrister Bongiorno's political links.

 

[TomG]

In the merits trial where the evidence is assessed and the facts are found the pair were found guilty as charged by a whole panel of judges and appeal court judges.

The annulment was purely political. Not even Marasca and Bruno could make it a clear not guilty but had to qualify it with a rarely used 'insufficient evidence' instrument which has always been the loophole for corrupt politicians.

In reality, it had no legal remit to retry the facts but should have sent it back to trial if it found legal flaws. Truth is, it couldn't turn it around except by mealy mouthed references to the press, in which it errs as Italy doesn't have subjudice laws ('contempt of court' wherein the press are prohibited from speculating about a case whilst it is live). Clearly it was sleight of hand and back channeling by the misguided Department of State who have some sentimental ideas about the sovereignty of it citizens, together with Raff's father's powerful influences and barrister Bongiorno's political links.

You are suggesting that "insufficient evidence" isn't a legitimate legal consideration, which just takes me back to the point I made. What you are arguing for seems to be the endorsement of apparatus to bang-up innocent people for reasons other than justice. I wouldn't like it if it happened to me, but if it happened to you, you'd call it justice? It doesn't matter how far up the garden path you take it, the lack of evidence against K&S is factual and profound, regardless of legal considerations however they are interpreted. It's the facts at the epicentre of the case that will always win the argument and that is there is no factual evidence that K&S were involved in the death of Meredith regardless of M/B. Taking me on a meander up the garden path, while trying to tell me that a patch of impenetrable weeds are actually roses isn't going to help you.

Hoots

 

[TomG]

It shows how defective Marasca-Bruno is.

Is there any legal reference to suggest that M/B were wrong in their assessment?

Hoots

 

[Bill Williams]

From M/B. "From the trial documents no motive had come out that could have induced Knox to a wilful participation to a murder and, contrary to the assertion of the fact finding judge, the motive is absolutely necessary in a trial based on circumstantial evidence."

Hoots

It shows how defective Marasca-Bruno is.

LOL!

It's "defective" because it disagrees with you!

I suppose the Massei report from 2010 was defective too. This is what it had said about motive:

It is not possible, however, to know if Rudy went to Meredith’s room on his own initiative, almost subjugated by the situation which he interpreted in erotic terms (the two young lovers in their room and Meredith who was on her own in the room right next to it) or, instead, he went to Meredith’s room at the urging of Amanda and/or Raffaele.

This Court is inclined towards the first hypothesis.
It cannot see, in fact, the motive for such an invitation on the part of Amanda Knox and/or of Raffaele Sollecito. Besides, Rudy does not seem to have needed to be encouraged to make advances toward Meredith.​

 

[Bill Williams]

You are suggesting that "insufficient evidence" isn't a legitimate legal consideration, which just takes me back to the point I made. What you are arguing for seems to be the endorsement of apparatus to bang-up innocent people for reasons other than justice. I wouldn't like it if it happened to me, but if it happened to you, you'd call it justice? It doesn't matter how far up the garden path you take it, the lack of evidence against K&S is factual and profound, regardless of legal considerations however they are interpreted. It's the facts at the epicentre of the case that will always win the argument and that is there is no factual evidence that K&S were involved in the death of Meredith regardless of M/B. Taking me on a meander up the garden path, while trying to tell me that a patch of impenetrable weeds are actually roses isn't going to help you.

Hoots

In other words, what is copied and pasted below is how the exonerating court put it in 2015:

Nevertheless, even if attribution (of Knox washing blood from her hands) is certain, the trial element would not be unequivocal as a demonstration of posthumous contact with that blood, as a likely attempt to remove the most blatant traces of what had happened, perhaps to help someone or deflect suspicion from herself, without this entailing her certain direct involvement in the murder. Any further and more meaningful value would be, in fact, resisted by the fact - which is decisive - that no trace leading to her was found at the scene of the crime or on the victim’s body, so that - if all the above is accepted - her contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house.​

In other words, even giving the benefit of the doubt those who believe attribution is certain, it still does not satisfy the "trial element". When one considers that attribution is (in reality) uncertain or totally missing, it still means that the "decisive" fact mentioned acquits the pair.

Vixen is the only person left who seems not to get this.

 

[Bill Williams]

Rubbish. A motive is only required if you are trying to establish premeditated murder. In Italy, as murder and sexual assault is automatically 'aggravated murder' (the most serious crime of all) there is no onus on the prosecutor to establish motive.

Who knows how a murderer's mind works.

Yet you call the 2015 Italian Supreme Court defective when it said there was no motive. Make up your mind!

 

[Welshman]

In the merits trial where the evidence is assessed and the facts are found the pair were found guilty as charged by a whole panel of judges and appeal court judges.

The annulment was purely political. Not even Marasca and Bruno could make it a clear not guilty but had to qualify it with a rarely used 'insufficient evidence' instrument which has always been the loophole for corrupt politicians.

In reality, it had no legal remit to retry the facts but should have sent it back to trial if it found legal flaws. Truth is, it couldn't turn it around except by mealy mouthed references to the press, in which it errs as Italy doesn't have subjudice laws ('contempt of court' wherein the press are prohibited from speculating about a case whilst it is live). Clearly it was sleight of hand and back channeling by the misguided Department of State who have some sentimental ideas about the sovereignty of it citizens, together with Raff's father's powerful influences and barrister Bongiorno's political links.

Vixen has been consistent in her hypocrisy by taking the view if something works against Amanda and Raffaele it is fine but if the same thing works in Amanda and Raffaele’s favour it is wrong but is too dishonest to admit this. Complaining that the supreme court acted illegally is an example of this. As can be seen from the link below numerous Italian laws were broken in the interrogations. Vixen s has no objection to this because it worked against Amanda and Raffaele and defends corrupt/police prosecutors. If the supreme court acted illegally it is not the breaking of Italian law that Vixen has an issue with but the fact it worked in Amanda and Raffaele’s favour by annulling the acquittal. The next time Vixen complains the supreme court acted illegally Vixen should be honest and say she only objects to the supreme court acting illegally because it worked in Amanda and Raffaele’s favour. If the supreme court acted illegally and confirmed the Nencini conviction or sent the case back to trial, there would be a deafening silence from Vixen.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/echr-case-law/

If as Vixen claims the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so solid and there was no justification for the supreme court to overturn the Nencinini verdict, why there are massive problems with the prosecution’s case :-

• The evidence which should have existed if Amanda and Raffaele were guilty is missing. Besides the dubious bra clasp, there was no forensic traces of Amanda and Raffaele in Meredith’s room. No reliable witnesses saw Amanda and Raffaele near the cottage on the night of the murder. Amanda and Raffaele were not caught on CCTV coming to and from the cottage. Meredith lost vast amounts of blood but despite this Amanda and Raffaele left no blood traces in the Meredith’s room such as bloody footprints and palm prints. There was no blood transfer in Amanda’s room or Raffaele’s flat. There was no blood on Amanda and Raffaele’s clothing. There were no cuts on Amanda or Raffaele’s hands which should have occurred when trying to stab someone. The prosecution couldn’t find a motive which is proved by the fact the prosecution had to constantly change motives which indicated that each motive suggested was not credible and the prosecution had to find something else. As the link below shows the evidence suggests Meredith and Amanda had a good relationship and Amanda had no hatred towards Meredith. The phones of Amanda and Raffaele were tapped for three days and nothing incriminating was said in their phone calls. Amanda had no history of psychiatric disorders or violence.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-behavior-myths/

• The forensic evidence and eyewitness testimony provided by the prosecution lacked credibility and were full of holes :-

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/luminol/

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-01.html

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-bra-clasp/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-scream-compromised-witness/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/antonio-curatolo/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/marco-quintavalle/

• The prosecution had to resort to these tactics detailed in the links below
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamination-labwork-coverup/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/evidence-destroyed/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-evidence-downstairs-apartment/

https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com...old-about-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11071314#post11071314

• PGP have to resort to lying to argue their case. Below are some of the numerous lies Vixen has told in her posts. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk, why is that in all the time Vixen has been a member of this forum Vixen has consistently been unable to argue the case for guilt on the basis of facts and Vixen can only argue the case for guilty by making things up or resorting to falsehoods which directly contradict the facts of the case eg saying Stefanoni found tissue on the knife when in reality there was no biological material on the knife.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11938562#post11938562

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11942852#post11942852

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11598412#post11598412

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11427461#post11427461

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11951893#post11951893

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11982023#post11982023

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12107306#post12107306

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12200863#post12200863

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12297573#post12297573

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12297575#post12297575

The PGP have set up a fake wiki detailed in the link below
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/anti-amanda-knox-deceptive-wiki/

• Below are the appeal documents prepared by the defence teams of Amanda and Raffaele before the Hellman trial. As you can see the defence were able to make highly effective arguments which punched major holes in the prosecution’s case. How do you explain this if the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk?

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Appeal.html

In view of the above the idea there was a mountain of damming evidence and a slam dunk case against Amanda and Raffaele and the only possible explanation for the supreme court annulling the conviction is political pressure and the court couldn’t give a proper not guilty verdict is utterly ludicrous and it is typical of the gross stupidity of PGP posters to come up with such ridiculous ideas. This is only to be expected from people who are so stupid they think Amanda and Raffaele had to go back to the cottage to stage a rape when Rudy had already raped Meredith.

Vixen constantly bangs on about Amanda and Raffaele telling numerous lies. Lying is something you resort to when the facts are against you. The above facts overwhelmingly support the case for innocence and go against the case for guilt. In view of this why would Amanda and Raffaele need to resort to the type of industrial scale lying we see from Vixen in her posts.

 

[TomG]

The point I was really trying to make is that if all the legal spin is taken out of the equation the fact still remains that there is no factual evidence that K&S were involved in the death of Meredith. This is the stand-alone main feature of the acquittal that M/B couldn't ignore, but even if K&S had been found guilty again, in denial of logic, it would still remain true. I think that I can say that with Chianti-quaffing eloquence and lashings of tranquillity.

Hoots

 

[Stacyhs]

This "no motive needed for a conviction" response was always a stupid and desperate response. Establishing a motive may not be legally required, but it is very important to a jury which is why the prosecution always presents motive. People don't do things for no reason unless they are so mentally incapacitated due to illness or drugs that they literally do not know what the are doing.

Rubbish. A motive is only required if you are trying to establish premeditated murder. In Italy, as murder and sexual assault is automatically 'aggravated murder' (the most serious crime of all) there is no onus on the prosecutor to establish motive.
Who knows how a murderer's mind works.

Please show me where I said the prosecution MUST present a motive. I clearly said establishing a motive is not legally required but that a motive is important to a jury. The prosecution in the Kercher case proposed a (different) motive in all three trials and each judge also cited a motive (or lack of) which demonstrates motives are important to the jury which, in Italy, includes the judges.

Understanding how the "murderer's mind works" is the very reason why the prosecution presents a motive. Why did he kill his wife? For the insurance money. Why did she kill her boyfriend? Because he left her. Like I said, people don't do things for no reason unless they literally don't know what they are doing.

 

[Stacyhs]

In the merits trial where the evidence is assessed and the facts are found the pair were found guilty as charged by a whole panel of judges and appeal court judges.

And a whole panel of appeal judges and Supreme Court judges overturned those convictions. You ignore that time and time again.

The annulment was purely political.

Pure speculation based on your need to disparage the acquittal. Pitiful.

Not even Marasca and Bruno could make it a clear not guilty

Again, nonsense. They made a very clear clear: "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."

but had to qualify it with a rarely used 'insufficient evidence' instrument which has always been the loophole for corrupt politicians.

Nonsense. There is nothing that supports this claim. Again, this is something you pull out of thin air because you have nothing else.

In reality, it had no legal remit to retry the facts but should have sent it back to trial if it found legal flaws.

It didn't 'retry the facts'. It found the judge's verdict of guilty did not meet the requirement of "beyond a reasonable doubt".

10. The intrinsic contradictory nature of the evidence, emerging from the text of the appealed verdict, in essence undermines the connective tissue of the same, leading to its annulment.
In fact, in the presence of a scenario marked by many contradictions, the referral judge should not have come to a verdict of guilt, but - as previously observed – should have reached a verdict of not guilty, given Article 530, section 2, Italian Code of Criminal Procedure.

Truth is, it couldn't turn it around except by mealy mouthed references to the press, in which it errs as Italy doesn't have subjudice laws ('contempt of court' wherein the press are prohibited from speculating about a case whilst it is live). Clearly it was sleight of hand and back channeling by the misguided Department of State who have some sentimental ideas about the sovereignty of it citizens, together with Raff's father's powerful influences and barrister Bongiorno's political links.

The truth is, the above is a whole lot of rubbish based on a fertile imagination and the need to disparage the court because you can't come to terms with the acquittal. Pitiful.

 

[Bill Williams]

I've just been reading about criminal motive. The first thing is to distinguish it from "Mens rea".

But more specifically is pertinence of motive, as a way of measuring criminal liability.

From Wikipedia:

There are four different ways a defendants motive can be pertinent to his or her criminal liability. Motive can be fully inculpatory or exculpatory or only partially inculpatory or exculpatory. When one has acted with a specific motive, lawful behavior becomes illegal, and this is when motive is fully inculpatory. If illegal activity with a particular motive does not hold a defendant responsible then that motive is fully exculpatory. When a motive supplies inadequate defense to a crime, the motive is partially exculpatory. When a motive says the kind of infraction for which the defendant is responsible, the motive is partially inculpatory.

Probably the problem that prosecutors had in this case, one that had no physical evidence tying either K or S to the crime, was to invent a Mens rea for actions that were non-existent.

At the end of the day, the prosecution's failed to show any actions on the part of K or S that were elements of a guilty mind that those actions could have resulted in murder.

 

[Vixen]

You are suggesting that "insufficient evidence" isn't a legitimate legal consideration, which just takes me back to the point I made. What you are arguing for seems to be the endorsement of apparatus to bang-up innocent people for reasons other than justice. I wouldn't like it if it happened to me, but if it happened to you, you'd call it justice? It doesn't matter how far up the garden path you take it, the lack of evidence against K&S is factual and profound, regardless of legal considerations however they are interpreted. It's the facts at the epicentre of the case that will always win the argument and that is there is no factual evidence that K&S were involved in the death of Meredith regardless of M/B. Taking me on a meander up the garden path, while trying to tell me that a patch of impenetrable weeds are actually roses isn't going to help you.

Hoots

'Insufficient evidence' is fine for the preliminary courts but for the Supreme Court to use it after a long fair trial found they were guilty as chargd is just a case of having found a loophole, as suggested by Bongiorno who used the same get-out clause for her political client Andreotti. Berlusconi also used it.

 

[TomG]

Chianti

The point I was really trying to make is that if all the legal spin is taken out of the equation the fact still remains that there is no factual evidence that K&S were involved in the death of Meredith. This is the stand-alone main feature of the acquittal that M/B couldn't ignore, but even if K&S had been found guilty again, in denial of logic, it would still remain true. I think that I can say that with Chianti-quaffing eloquence and lashings of tranquillity.

Hoots

I have to admit solemnly, that I have seriously misled everyone with the content of my last post. I'd now like to qualify the above post to indicate that I would in no way quaff a Chianti since it stinks like furniture polish. I would instead thoroughly recommend an Australian Merlot, possibly the robust "Hardy's Stamp" if anyone is to partake of tranquil eloquence in the foreseeable future. Sincerest apologies to all concerned.

Hoots

 

[Vixen]

Is there any legal reference to suggest that M/B were wrong in their assessment?

Hoots

See the Florence Appeal court in the case of Sollecito's claim for compensation Feb 2018 and as upheld by the Supreme Court. It spells it out very clearly.

 

[Vixen]

In other words, what is copied and pasted below is how the exonerating court put it in 2015:

​

In other words, even giving the benefit of the doubt those who believe attribution is certain, it still does not satisfy the "trial element". When one considers that attribution is (in reality) uncertain or totally missing, it still means that the "decisive" fact mentioned acquits the pair.

Vixen is the only person left who seems not to get this.

There is no requirement in criminal law - contrary to M-B claims and yours - for there to be 100% proof. That is a deliberate misconception. All that is needed is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. In a murder trial that bar is very high. The pair were convicted after a conventionally fair trial, after the courts heard all of the evidence before it. It was beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever.

M-B had to resort to nitpicking about the press as their reason for annulment which is not a legal reason as there is no law in Italy against the press following a court case.

Let's face it, the annulment was pure political.

 

[Stacyhs]

There is no requirement in criminal law - contrary to M-B claims and yours - for there to be 100% proof. That is a deliberate misconception.

Neither the SC nor anyone else has EVER claimed that there must be "100% proof". That is a blatantly false claim, even for you.

All that is needed is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. In a murder trial that bar is very high.

You are right about "all that is needed is reasonable doubt"...which is exactly what M/B said when they acquitted under 530, par. 2.

The pair were convicted after a conventionally fair trial, after the courts heard all of the evidence before it. It was beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever.

Two courts disagree with you that it was not 'beyond a reasonable doubt": Hellmann and Marasca. No, the first court did not hear all the evidence: they didn't hear about the footprints testing negative for blood nor did they hear the results of the independent testing of Conti and Vecchiotti.

M-B had to resort to nitpicking about the press as their reason for annulment which is not a legal reason as there is no law in Italy against the press following a court case.

How easily you ignore the other reasons the court clearly detailed for its reasons to annul including its most important: There is no evidence of either K or S in the room where the murder took place in complete opposition to logic and the amount of forensic evidence of Guede found there. Lying by omission much?

Let's face it, the annulment was pure political.

Let's face it; this claim is pulled straight from your ***.