The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 28

[Stacyhs]

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.

No, no, no. Nice try but no cigar. The two were concerned with totally different things. One was a murder trial and the other a lawsuit for compensation for wrongful arrest and imprisonment.

While the court acknowledged Sollecito’s unjust imprisonment in the light of his eventual acquittal, it said in a ruling that he contributed by making “contradictory or even frankly untrue” statements in the early stages of the investigation, which constituted “intent or gross negligence”. The court ruled that this eliminated Sollecito’s right to compensation.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...pensation-claim-imprisonment-meredith-kercher

 

[TomG]

'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.

I'm not offering "insufficient evidence" as an argument, I'm offering it as a fact regardless of legal considerations. It's a fact that M/B couldn't ignore. K&S are acquitted.

Hoots

 

[LondonJohn]

I must say, it's a genuine delight to see people being schooled in the law by a person whose arguments vividly demonstrate little or no understanding of the law.

Strange times, indeed!

 

[TomG]

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.

Hmmm! What does it spell out clearly?

Hoots

 

[Vixen]

Hmmm! What does it spell out clearly?

Hoots

The pair lied and lied and lied. Raff deliberately and knowingly mislead the police as did Knox. Knox WAS present during the murder of Meredith Kercher, did wash of Mez' blood from her hands and did cover up for Guede.

This is spelt out large.

The Supreme Court signed off on this judgment.

 

[Stacyhs]

The pair lied and lied and lied. Raff deliberately and knowingly mislead the police as did Knox. Knox WAS present during the murder of Meredith Kercher, did wash of Mez' blood from her hands and did cover up for Guede.

This is spelt out large.

The Supreme Court signed off on this judgment.

I'll repeat this since you seem to have missed it:

While the court acknowledged Sollecito’s unjust imprisonment in the light of his eventual acquittal, it said in a ruling that he contributed by making “contradictory or even frankly untrue” statements in the early stages of the investigation, which constituted “intent or gross negligence”. The court ruled that this eliminated Sollecito’s right to compensation.

And had been repeatedly shown to you, but which you (also) choose to ignore, Knox's "presence" in the cottage was a previous definitive ruling by another Supreme Court which could not be overturned by a following S.C.. No matter how many times I have asked for someone to do so, no one has been able to provide an example of this being done regarding rulings in the same case. Why is that, Vix? Could it be because SC rulings are final?

did wash of Mez' blood from her hands

You have been asked repeatedly to show the forensic evidence that supports this and you have failed to do so. No forensic expert did either. Nor did Massei.

and did cover up for Guede.

Again, no evidence of this. Logic and evidence suggests otherwise when:

Knox pointed out Guede's feces in the toilet, left Guede's visible bloody shoe prints in the hallway, left the pillowcase with Guede's palm print on it, and pointed out the bloody footprint on the bathmat (or do you want to claim that it was Sollecito's and she was really trying to pin it on her alibi?). Use some common sense here and stop being intellectually dishonest.

 

[TomG]

The pair lied and lied and lied. Raff deliberately and knowingly mislead the police as did Knox. Knox WAS present during the murder of Meredith Kercher, did wash of Mez' blood from her hands and did cover up for Guede.

This is spelt out large.

The Supreme Court signed off on this judgment.

For any of this to have any credibility these points would have to be contained in a sustainable narrative of the crime; however, no such pro-guilt narrative exists. If you'd like to offer a sustainable theory of the crime to accommodate these points, fire away, I'd love to hear it!

Hoots

 

[Myriad]

The Supreme Court signed off on this judgment.

But courts and judges cannot create evidence. And there is no evidence that Knox or Sollecito or anyone besides Guede committed the murder.

 

[AnimalFriendly]

The pair police and prosecutors lied and lied and lied.

FIFY

Knox WAS present during the murder of Meredith Kercher, did wash of Mez' blood from her hands and did cover up for Guede.

Several other posts above have already laid to waste your repetitious nonsense. I just find it amusing that you do not understand the simple concept that judicial "facts" are not necessarily empirical facts. Pathetic. Just pathetic.

 

[bagels]

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.

*in Stat Department meeting*

Exhibit A: Amanda Knox. This is our subject, she's a killer and rapist.

*slide change*

Exhibit B: Meredith Kercher. Here's the victim, a nice young student from Britain studying abroad in Italy. She had her throat sliced open by Amanda and died slowly, choking up her own blood. Amanda celebrated this act by kissing her boyfriend on TV.

Now your task will be to free poor Amanda from the grips of Italian justice. Let's remember who we're fighting for people!

 

[Stacyhs]

FIFY



Several other posts above have already laid to waste your repetitious nonsense. I just find it amusing that you do not understand the simple concept that judicial "facts" are not necessarily empirical facts. Pathetic. Just pathetic.

Remember the 'judicial fact' that a woman wearing tight jeans could not be raped? She had to have cooperated because it would be too difficult for the rapist to remove her tight jeans against her will.

Although a later SC ruled that this could happen in an unrelated case, the previous ruling stood and that defendant remained acquitted. The later SC's ruling could not change that previous judgment just as Marasca had to deal with the previous SC definitive ruling that Knox had been in the apartment when Kercher was killed on Knox's calunnia conviction.

 

[Stacyhs]

*in Stat Department meeting*

Exhibit A: Amanda Knox. This is our subject, she's a killer and rapist.

*slide change*

Exhibit B: Meredith Kercher. Here's the victim, a nice young student from Britain studying abroad in Italy. She had her throat sliced open by Amanda and died slowly, choking up her own blood. Amanda celebrated this act by kissing her boyfriend on TV.

Now your task will be to free poor Amanda from the grips of Italian justice. Let's remember who we're fighting for people!

And just look at all those other murderers and rapists our State Dept. has forced foreign governments to release just because they're American! That's why there are no Americans in foreign jails. Americans can rape and murder on foreign soil with no fear. The State Dept. has their backs.

 

[TomG]

FIFY



Several other posts above have already laid to waste your repetitious nonsense. I just find it amusing that you do not understand the simple concept that judicial "facts" are not necessarily empirical facts. Pathetic. Just pathetic.

Hah! it seems that in this case judicial facts are the enemy of empirical facts. We have the whopping great lies of the staged break-in and multiple attackers sanitised as judicial facts when the empirical evidence indicates otherwise.

Hoots

 

[Bill Williams]

StacyHS, I was going to point out the exact points you pointed out. Vixen keeps on and on and on and on repeating falsehoods, as if mere repetition proves something.

The 2015 Supreme Court DID NOT RETRY FACTS. How many times does that need to be repeated to counter Vixen's falsehoods. As posted here, ad nauseam, the 2015 Supreme Court exonerated based on saying that even if the body of facts that the Nencini found as factual were, indeed, factual, they still did not justify, in law, a conviction. I have copy and pasted the relevant section of the 2015 Motivations Report dozens of times.

So I repost your back and forth with Vixen just so that it gets bumped to the top.

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".

Not even Stefano Maffei, a bona fide Italian lawyer who believes the pair were guilty argues this way. (And Maffei is the only lawyer in Italy of repute I can find that argues against K and S.)

Thread split for length. Continued here.

Posted By: zooterkin