Saturday, September 26, 2015

TJMK/Wiki Translation Of The Marasca/Bruno Report #1 Of 7: The Four Opening Summaries

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



More judicial artwork in the Supreme Court. Click to go straight to Comments.

1. Overview Of The Post And Series

This is about one-quarter of the report. These sections summarize the crime against Meredith, the legal process, and the appeals Knox and Sollecito filed with Cassation in 2014.

This is our second translation post after this one which showed that Knox and Sollecito were NOT found innocent, far from it.

They were in fact confirmed as being at the scene of the crime, as were Guede and a presumed two others, and lying about it, though for supposed reasons not even the defenses had ever argued.

Translation was by a professional translator with extensive finalization by Machiavelli with some help from the Wiki team of the judicial terms used and the accuracy of the English relative to what is in the report. Resisted was any attempt to employ more fluent English because the Italian itself is far from fluent or coherent.

We’ll post critiques separately in Comments and other posts except for this one.

Notable for its absence is any attempt to explain why the Fifth Chambers pushed aside the First Chambers to handle this murder case, and why in that process at least two laws (bedrock articles of the judicial code) seem to have been broken.

They seem to have been tasked only to assess whether the appeal should be handled by a joint arrangement of all Supreme Court Chambers because of claims by defenses that the unusual amount of publicity and supposed legal complexity required that.

Please consider this pre-final. Suggestions for improved translation are welcome. The PDF version to go on the Wiki will be the final. 

2. The Four Opening Summaries

1. Summary Of The Crimes Against Meredith

This is the original language of Marasca and Bruno. It is their take on the prosecution.

1. Raffaele Sollecito and the United States citizen Amanda Marie Knox were called to account, before the Perugia Court of assize, for the following crimes:

A) within the meaning of Articles 110, 575, 576, first clause , number 5, in relation to the crime sub C) and 577, first clause number 4, in relation to article 61 n. 1 and 5 of the penal code, to have, in conjunction between them and with Guede Rudi Hermann, killed Kercher Meredith, by means of choking and subsequent breaking of the hyoid bone and profound lesion on the left anterolateral and right lateral neck region, caused by a piercing and cutting weapon mentioned in section B), and meta-hemorrhagic shock with observable asphyxical subsequent to the bleeding (caused by the puncture and cutting wounds present on the left anterolateral and right lateral region of the neck and the contextual aspiration of hematic material), and taking advantage of the nocturnal hour and the isolated location of the apartment inhabited by Kercher and the same Knox, as well by two other Italian girls (Romanelli Filomena and Mezzetti Laura), an apartment located in Perugia, in via della Pergola number 7, committing the act for futile reasons, while Guede, with the conjunction of the others, committed the crime of sexual violence;

B) within the meaning of Article 110 of the penal code and 4 law number 110/1975 to have, in conjunction between themselves, brought out of the house of Sollecito, without a justified reason, a big puncture and cutting knife with a total length of 31 cm (seized from Sollecito the 6th of November 2007, exhibit 36);

C) within the meaning of Article 110, 609 bis and ter no. 2 of the penal code to have, in conjunction between themselves and with Guede Rudi Hermann (Guede as material executioner, in conjunction with the co-accused) forced Kercher Meredith to endure sexual acts, with manual and/or genital penetration, by means of violence and threast, resulting in constraining maneuvers which produced lesions, particularly on the upper and lower limbs and on the vulvar region (ecchymotic suffusions on the fore side of the left thigh, lesions on the vestibular-vulvar area and ecchymotic areas on the fore side of the medial third of the right leg) as well as the use of the knife described in point B; 

D) within the meaning of Article 110, 624 of the penal code, acting together, acquiring an unjust profit, in the circumstances of time and place described in point A) and C), took possession of the sum of approximately € 300.00, two credit cards, of Abbey Bank and Nationwide, both from United Kingdom, and two cellular phones owned by Kercher Meredith, stolen from the aforementioned; fact to be qualified within the meaning of article 624 bis of the penal code,  the place of execution of the crime cited in point A) referred to here.;

E) within the meaning of article 110, 367 and 61 n. 2 of the penal code to have, acting together, simulated the attempted burglary and entering of the room of the apartment in via della Pergola, inhabited by Romanelli Filomena, breaking the window glass with a stone found in the vicinity of the house and subsequently dropped in the room, near the window, all of this to obtain impunity from the crimes of homicide and sexual violence, trying to ascribe them to unknown persons who broke in, for this purpose, into the apartment;

All this took place in Perugia, during the night between the 1st and 2nd of November 2007.

Knox only, furthermore, regarding the crime mentioned in point F), within the meaning of article 81 cpv, 368, clause 2, and 61 n. 2 of the penal code, because, with multiple actions within the same criminal plan, knowing that he was innocent, with statements filed during declaration to the Flying Squad and the Police of Perugia on the 6th of November 2007, she falsely blamed Diya Lumumba called “Patrick” for the murder of the young Meredith Kercher, all of this to obtain impunity for everyone and particularly for Guede Rudi Hermann, colored as is Lumumba; in Perugia, during the night between the 5th and the 6th of November 2007.

2. Summary of The Legal Process 2009-2014

This is the original language of Marasca and Bruno. It is their take on the 2009 trial, the 2011 Hellmann appeal, the 2013 Supreme Court appeal, and the 2013 Nencini appeal.

By judgment of 4-5 December 2009, the Court of assize declared Amanda Marie Knox and Raffaele Sollecito guilty for the crimes mentioned in point A) ““ this including the crime mentioned in point C) ““ also in B) and D), regarding the cellular phones, and E) and, for what concerns Knox, also the crime mentioned in F); crimes which fulfill the prerequisite of continuity and, excluding the aggravating factor mentioned in article 577 and 61 n.5 of the penal code, conceded to both extenuating circumstances equivalent to the remaining aggravation circumstances, condemned them to the sentence of twenty-six years of prison for Knox and twenty-five years of prison for Sollecito, plus other consequential terms;

condemned, also, the same accused, jointly, to pay compensation for damages to the civil parties John Leslie Kercher, Arline Carol Lara Kercher, Lyle Kercher, John Ashley Kercher and Stephanie Arline Lara Kercher, damages to be compensated at a separate session, with the immediate payment of the amount of 1,000,000.00 € each in favor of John Leslie Kercher and Arline Carol Lara Kercher and 800,000.00 € each in favor of Lyle Kercher John, Ashley Kercher and Stephanie Arline Lara Kercher;

condemned, also, Amanda Marie Knox to pay compensation for damages to the civil party Patrik Lumumba, to be compensated at a separate session, with the immediate payment of the amount of 10,000.00 €, plus other consequential terms.

condemned, finally, the aforementioned Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to pay compensation for damages to the civil party Aldalia Tattanelli (owner of the apartment in via della Pergola), to be compensated at a separate session, and for Lyle Kercher, John Ashley Kercher and Stepanie Arline Lara Kercher, with immediate payment.

Regarding the appeals proposed by the accused, the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia, by judgment of 3 October 2011, declared Knox Amanda Marie guilty for the crimes referenced in point F), excluding the aggravating factor mentioned in article 61 n.2 of the penal code and excluded the general extenuating circumstances equivalent to the aggravating factors within the means of article 368 of the penal code ““ condemned her to the sentence of three years of prison; confirming strictly for this sentence the civil damages.

absolved the accused from the crimes previously accredited to them on point A), B) and D), to have not committed the act, and from the crime described in point E) because there is no case to answer, rejecting the damages proposed against them by the civil party Aldalia Tattanelli.

regarding the appeals proposed by the Perugia prosecutor-general, by the accused Amanda Marie Knox and the civil parties, this Court of Cassation,  First Criminal Division, with sentence of 25 March 2013, cancelled the disputed sentence referring to the crimes mentioned in point A) ““ incorporated in point C) ““ B), D) and E) and the aggravating factor within article 61 n.2 of the penal code concerning point F) and referred the appeals to the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Florence for new examination.; denying Knox’s appeal, with subsequent circumstances.

During the review the Court of Assizes of Florence, with the trial sentence indicated above, confirming the exisistence of the aggravating factor within the meaning of article 61 n.2 of the penal code, with reference to the crime within the meaning of article 368, second paragraph of the penal code, point F), revises the sentence against Amanda Marie Knox to be twenty-eight years and six months of prison; confirming the trial sentence, with the consequential damages in favor of the constituted civil parties.

Against the aforementioned ruling, the accused’s defendants had proposed different Court of Cassation appeals, each one subject to the following critical reasons.

3. Summary of Amanda Knox appeal

This is Marasca and Bruno summarising the submission of Knox lawyers Dalla Vedova and Ghirga.

The appeal in favor of Amanda Marie Knox, before the presentation of the multiple reasons of which it was constituted, was preceded by a long premise which, on the one hand, anticipated the direction of the entire appeal and, on the other hand, proposed once again the same set of problems already discussed in the original grounds for appeal, such as the constitutional legitimacy issue of the conjunction of articles 627 chapter 3 and 628 chapter 2, regarding the application of a possible “indefinite repetitiveness” of an order of remand by the Cassation and corresponding options of indefinitely appealing a rescission order.

In first arguments the basis for contesting of the entire appeal was presented, represented by the pretentious avoidance of the dictum of the rescission order of this legitimacy Court and the divergent interpretation of the same probative material by two different courts of assizes, Perugia and Firenze, the last, however , based on mere paperwork exam.

Then, it continued into the analytical analysis of the procedural factual circumstances or evidences, which wouldn’t have been validly examined or, illegitimately, perceived in a partitioned way and not from a global and unitary perspective.

Taking into account this, various reasons for the appeal were deduced and reasons summarily presented, according to the terms of article 173, chapter 1, disp. att. code of penal procedure, that is in the terms strictly necessary to the decision.

The first reason challenged the violation and inobservance of the criminal law, according to article 606 lett. b) and c) of the code of criminal procedure and also the incorrect reasoning, according to the same article let. e), about the decisive matter of the asserted reason, of Knox for the commitment of the crime, in violation of article 110 of the penal code.

Contested, in this regard, was what previously assumed in the judgments as to the merits, regarding some claimed disagreements between the aforementioned Knox and Kercher, despite the occurred absolution, with definitive decision, of the finding for theft of the sum of three hundred euros and the collected depositions, including the one provided by Marco Zaroli, regarding the “idyllic” relationship between the two girls. From the records of proceedings there had not emerged any reason that could have induced Knox to mindfully concur in the murder act and, contrarily to the assumption of the judge, the verification of motive during the evidentiary process was absolutely necessary. In this regard, no indications have been offered by the [First Chambers] review judge, despite the specific indication of the rescission order, which had notified a triple possibility: 1) genetic acknowledgement on the death option; 2) changing of an initial program which only included the involvement of the English girl in a not shared sexual game; 3) mere forcing of an erotic group game.

Also, in a scenario of absolute uncertainty the review judges had elaborated an abnormal type of collusion in a crime, the fruit of a singular mixture of different impulses and reasons of the participants: Mr. Guede driven by a sexual motive; Ms. Knox by resentment towards the English woman; Mr. Sollecito by unknown intent.

The second reason highlights a problem of great relevance in the circumstance of the present judgment, that is the right interpretation of the scientific examination results from a perspective of respect of the evaluation standards according to article 192 of the criminal procedural code and the relevance of the genetic evaluation in the absence of repeatable amplification, as a consequence of the minimal amount of the sample and, more generally, the reliability coefficient of investigations carried out without following the regulations dictated by the international protocols, both during the collecting phase and the analysis.

Particularly, anomalies were challenged in the retrieval of the knife (item 36) and the victim’s brassiere hook, which do not exclude the possibility of contamination, as correctly outlined in the Conti-Vecchiotti report, ordered by the Perugian Court of assizes, which also notified the unreliability of the scientific data, precisely because it was not subject to a further examination.

It was also denied that the retrieved knife would have been the crime weapon.

The third reason challenged the law violation and incorrect reasoning, according to article 606 lett. b) and e), regarding the teleological nexus between the crime of calunnia and the homicide. In this regard, the psychological conditions of the accused during the issue of the calumnious declarations dated 11.06.2007 are outlined, her declarations were considered unusable by this Court (with ruling number 990/80); also challenged was a violation of article 188 of the code of criminal procedure, for infringement of the declarer’s moral freedom during the assumption of evidence.

The fourth reason challenged incorrect reasoning regarding the relevant circumstances of the happening, with reference to, firstly, the asserted simulation of theft in Romanelli’s room, without considering that Guede, at the moment of his arrest, presented wounds on his right hand compatible with the hypothesis of a previous breaking of the window’s glass and subsequent climb in order to enter the room, with shards of glass on the windowsill, also in the same way not considered was the criminal record of Guede, who wasn’t new to stealing in apartments, with identical modalities. Moreover, not considered was that not a single genetic imprint of the accused had being retrieved in the room of the murder, while fourteen imprints referable to Guede were retrieved in the same room.

The argument was totally illogical of a purported selective cleaning of the environment carried out by the accused, being almost impossible to remove specific genetic traces, leaving others intact.

The fifth reason denounces the incorrect reasoning in the evaluation of the Curatolo’s and Quintavalle’s declarations, non-adequately interpreted during the examination of the evidence. Also the illogical relevance given to the SMS received by Patrik Lumumba, due to uncertain of the site of the reception, and considering the well-known unreliability of localizations based on the triangulation of telephone cells.

The sixth reason challenged the law violation, in relation to the use of statements considered unusable by this Court, with particular reference to the declarations of the accused contra se at 5:45 AM of 11.6.2007.

Also, it was not considered that the defense report submitted by Knox suffered from the unstable psychological conditions in which she found herself, also from the stress consequent to the violation of her defense rights.

The seventh reason denounces the violation of articles 111 Cost., chapter 2 and 238 of the criminal procedure code, with reference to the irrevocable sentence issued against Guede and the inappropriate interpretation of the declarations produced by the aforementioned, via Skype, to his friend Giacomo Benedetti.

The eighth reason denounces the lack of assumption of decisive evidence, according to article 606 lett. d) of the criminal procedure code and in relation to articles 111 chapter 2 and 238 bis of the criminal procedure code, for failure to re-open court hearing evidentiary phase, denied with order of 09.30.2013, in order to examine Guede, after his accusations against the indicted woman.

The ninth reason signals inconsistency and contradictory nature of motivation and also great inaccuracy, such as the declaration at page 321 about the presence of genetic traces of Sollecito and Kercher on the retrieved knife.

It is argued, also, that the place where the cellular phones of the victim had been retrieved was compatible with Guede’s itinerary towards his house, situated in via del Canerino n. 26.

Inadequate, moreover, was the evaluation of the results of the report provided by Massimo Bernaschi about the computer damage, by suspected electric shock.

The tenth reason denounces the inobservance or erroneous application of articles 627 and 603 of the criminal procedure code referring to the preliminary order of 09.30.13 and 04.17.14.

Requested, also, is the correction of the material error presented in the order dated 04.17.13, referring to the erroneous indication of the place of birth of the accused, who was born in Seattle and not in Washington.

The eleventh reason denounces the violation and inobservance of article 606 lett b), in relation to the quantification of the punishment in point of aggravating circumstance according to article 61 n.2 of the penal code for the crime of calunnia placed on the accused assuming a teleological nexus.

The remand judge [Nencini] had considered the generic mitigating circumstances of minor value, previously considered equivalent, despite the final status of judgment [giudicato] on the point.

4. Summary of Raffaele Sollecito appeal

This is Marasca and Bruno summarising the submission of Sollecito lawyers Bongiorno and Maori.

3. The appeal on behalf of Raffaele Sollecito is explained in terms of twenty-two reasons, which will be also systematically summarised according to the requirements of article 173, chapter 1, of the code of penal procedure.

To this summary explanation has to be added the reference to the introductory part, containing specific requests.

The first concerns the ruling for referral to a United Sections of Cassation panel [Sezioni Unite] on matters asserted of being of maximum relevance and, potentially, capable of generating interpretative contrast:

a) Probative or evidential value of the results of the scientific evidence in case of violation of scientific community international protocols regarding the collection and reading of the data;

b) Usability of declarations produced by Guede during the appeal process. In relation to this, it is inappropriate to relate the review of this appealed sentence to what he has stated during interrogation, reported in the appealed sentence according to article 238 bis; if those declarations were usable, it would be a consent to include in the trial, in violation of the same procedural disposition, declarations produced in absence of cross-examination.

c) Range of explanation of the principle of beyond reasonable doubt, which, from what is stated by the current defense, would be violated in this specific case by the erroneous statement by the remand judge, according to which the lack of procedural collaboration of the accused has exempted the judge from analyzing the alternative hypothesis emerged from the trial papers or the defense perspectives.

d) Reliability limits in witnesses’ declarations (such as the ones from Dramis, Monacchia, Quintavalle and Curatolo), produced some time after the facts, after being solicited by journalists. The question is about the verification of the reliability of witnesses during the procedures who created strong media impact, with particular reference to Gioffredi and Kokomani claims and to the declaration of the former offender Luciano Aviello, who did not hesitate to produce slanderous declarations towards the prosecutor, the defence attorney, and Raffaele Sollecito’s father.

The intervention of the supreme jurisdictional assembly was necessary in order to fix the evaluation standards of oral evidence during trials with strong media exposure, aiming to preserve the credibility of the trial, protecting it from mythomaniac or judicial attention-seeking behavior.

In the introductive part also thoroughly examined is the position of Amanda Knox regarding the erroneous evaluation of the evidence against her, which had reflected negative effects also on the position of Sollecito, with the distorted conviction that the two substantial positions would be linked by an indissoluble bond, almost like a unique communication vessels system or an abnormal “mutual” extension of responsibility.  All of this in order to denounce the erroneous methodological position consisting in the lack of an “identifying” evaluation of the appellant’s role in the tragic happening subject to judgment. And the aforementioned assumption gave headway to a further denouncement of legitimacy, consisting in the remand judge avoiding the dictum of the cancellation judgment, which gave to the remand judge the task of “highlight the subjective position of Guede’s contestants in the light of all the supposable circumstances”, all specifically enunciated.

It is also pointed out that Ms. Knox had never placed, even in her noon report (erroneously considered of confessional nature), Sollecito at the crime scene. On the contrary, from the aforementioned report, it was possible to deduce that the foretold was not present in the house of via della Pergola.

In fact, no trace of Sollecito was found in the room of the murder. The only element of proof against him was represented by the DNA trace retrieved on the brassiere hook of the victim; trace of which relation with the indicted was actually denied by the Vecchiotti-Conti report, which, in this regard, had accepted the observations of the defense advisor Professor Tagliabracci, world-renowned geneticist.

Once this is considered, it is possible to proceed with a brief listing of the reasons for the appeal.

1) The first articulated reason challenged the violation of articles 627, chapter 3 and 628 of the code of criminal procedure for the nonobservance of the principles enounced in those articles, particularly referring to the necessity: a) to ascertain the presence of the suspects on the crime scene; 2) to outline the subjective positions of the Rudy Guede’s assumed co-attackers; 3) to establish the motive of Raffaele Sollecito in relation to the one asserted for Guede.

In strict connection with the aforementioned appeal, also, further reasons of complaint are advanced, specifically contexted within the logic of incorrect reasoning, with regard to the meaning of article 606 lett e) of the code of criminal procedure, connected with the challenged avoidance.

  • The first concerns the appealed denial of the evidentiary phase re-opening, also expressed in the order dated on 30th September 2013, also appealed. The request procedurally proposed by the defense (based on the new reasons of the 29th June 2013 and the minutes of the hearing dated 30th September 2013) was aimed to acknowledge the actual presence of the accused on the crime scene and the role carried out by each one of them on the occasion. It is advanced also:

  • the omitted evaluation of decisive elements regarding Sollecito’s alibi, with particular reference to the results of the integrative report submitted by the technical expert for one of the parties, D’Ambrosio, which demonstrates the interaction of the indicted with his computer;

  • manifest illogicality of the reason in relation to what is expressed by article 522 of the code of criminal procedure; in the absence of motivations capable to exceed the limit of beyond reasonable doubt with regards to supposed participation of Sollecito to the criminal act of murder and to the role he carried out in the crime;

  • lack of reasoning in the motivations report, in relation with articles 192 and 238 bis, with regards to the content of the irrevocable sentence against Guede in order to identify a reason for the murder.

The requested re-opening of the evidentiary phase, aimed to demonstrate the absence of the indicted on the crime scene and the inexistence of any reason,  was illogically denied, especially since the appealed sentence had already asserted an autonomous reason, of sexual nature, against Guede.

Furthermore, the denial of the re-opening of evidentiary phase also includes a law violation in regard to article 627, second paragraph, in accordance to which “if the appeal sentence is annulled and the parties issue a request, the judge orders the re-activation of the evidentiary phase in relation to the assumption of evidence found relevant for the decision”

Even if is not intended to follow the case law orientation in line with the renewing of the appealed preliminary hearing, as for the right to evidence, the appeal judge was, however, obliged to give reason for the denial of the request of re-opening of evidentiary discussion in a rational manner and consistent with the evidentiary framework.

It was, among other things, requested a genetic perizia [examination/investigation by judge-appointed experts] in relation to the stain (apparently of spermatic nature) present on the victim’s pillowcase, in order to verify its nature and possible attribution to an unknown third party; a perizia aimed to acknowledge the effective possibility to carry out a selective cleaning in order to remove only the traces connectable with the current appellants, inside the victim’s room, without removing the ones retrieved and correctly attributed to Mr. Guede; the carrying out of exams on the item 165 B, with previous acquisition from the criminal laboratory department, of the residual DNA sample extracted from the brassiere hook and further genetic exams on the same item, ordering for such purpose a supplementary investigation in order to cancel every reason of doubt on the matter; [11] exams on the stone retrieved inside Ms. Romanelli’s room, in order to identify the presence of DNA on the stone surface; audiometric test [perizia] aimed to acknowledge the possibility of hearing the supposed heart-rending scream coming from the house in via della Pergola and the footsteps with the windows closed, of the witness Capezzali; IT investigation [perizia] on Sollecito’s computer, in order to verify the existence of human interactions during the night between the 1st and 2nd November 2007; anthropometric perizia in relation to the build, height, gait and somatic features of the subject filmed by the parking facility camera, to be compared with the physical features of Guede and his clothes at the moment of the arrest; examination according to the ex-article 197 bis of Guede in regards to the facts happened the night of the murder.

The rejection of the aforementioned evidentiary discussion requests has been motivated by the appeal judge by illogical and off-topic reasoning.

2) Violation of article 606 lett. e), with reference to the wrong reading and interpretation of the content of Knox’s report.

3) Another incorrect reasoning has been deduced with reference to the considered irrelevance of the exact determination of the hour of death of Meredith Kercher (which according to the defense should have been placed between 9 and 10 PM, 10:15 PM at most), with special reference to the exam carried out on Ms. Kercher’s phone records.

4) The same flaw has been challenged regarding the supposed incompatibility of Mr. Curatolo’s declarations with the time of the scream, and the asserted irrelevance of [scientific] exams on the precise hour of death of the young English woman.

5) Also distorted was the interpretation of Capezzali’s declarations, of which has been attached the relative transcription.

6) In regards to flawed reasoning, interpreted according to the new wording of article 606 lett. e) of the code of criminal proceeding, the erroneous interpretation of Mr. Curatolo’s witness declarations is challenged.

7) The same for Mr. Quintavalle’s testimony and the omitted examination of the evidential contribution of inspector Volturno, who submitted the service note according to which the aforementioned Quintavalle had told of having seen Mr. Sollecito and Amanda always together.

8) With reference to the combined provisions of articles 606 lett. e) and 192 of the procedure code it is, then, challenged the erroneous evaluation of the proof in relation to the supposed participation of persons in the crime, with particular reference to the contested examination of the footprints and traces highlighted by luminol.[12]

9) Also challenged is the misrepresentation of the evidence related to the time of the 112 call, also based on the supposed error of the timer of the camera situated near the parking lot.

10) Identical violation is challenged with reference to the supposed alteration of the crime scene carried out by the two suspects.

11) Other case of motivational deficit, a sub-type of evidence misrepresentation, and also contradiction or manifest motivational illogicality, is challenged, according to article 192 of the code of criminal procedure, regarding the supposed falsehood of the provided alibi and the related violation of the principle nemo tenetur se detegere.

Moreover, it should have been considered as a “failed” alibi, not “false”, and as such not suitable to sustain an “evidential conclusion”, otherwise it would be subject to inadmissible inversion of the burden of proof.

12) Also erroneous was the interpretation of the results of the genetic evidence on item 36) and on the supposed compatibility of the seized weapon with the most serious wound observed on the victim’s neck. With regards to this, it was clear the misrepresentation in which the judge was involved, given that on the knife’s blade was not observed any mixed Kercher-Sollecito DNA. On the same instrument had been retrieved traces of starch, proof that it was not true that it had been properly washed in order to remove incriminating traces. Furthermore, the starch, found in plants, has a well-known absorbing capability, so it should have absorbed the blood in case it was used for the commitment of the crime.

Hence, the motivated request to refer the trial papers to a United Sections of Cassation panel.

Furthermore the assumption that the most serious wound on the left side of the victim’s neck would have been inflicted with a single strike was denied by unambiguous emerging proofs, such as the results of the examination submitted by pathologist Cingolani, and also the conclusions of the party’s expert Introna.

13) The motivation of the appealed sentenced was objectionable also in relation to the asserted availability of the kitchen knife for Amanda Knox at the time of the aggression. In this regard, it was illogical to state that the kitchen knife, used for the homicide, wouldn’t have been hidden, considering that the furniture and instruments of the apartment rented by Sollecito were listed in inventory, so that the lack of the knife would have generated suspecion, and according to this it was replaced in its place subsequent to cleaning.

Also clearly illogical was the motivation related to the carrying of the knife on the part of Ms. Knox, with asserted use of the capacious purse in her possession, for supposed reasons of personal defense, for this purpose induced by Sollecito who was familiar with knives. It was not considered that to be true this explanation would exclude the hypothesis of joint concurrence, since it would admit that the suspect woman was alone [13] and not able to take advantage of, in case of aggression by strangers, the supposed defense by her boyfriend.

However, there was no evidence on the supposed concurrence of the appellant in [a charge of] unjustified carrying of thee knife.

14) Obvious also was the flawed reasoning on the results of the genetic investigations on the bra hook, for which a referral to a United Sections of Cassation panel is requested.

With regard to the possible contamination of the item, the appeal judges overlooked the photographic material placed before the court, which clearly demonstrated the possible contamination, regarding the way the hook was treated, with a “hand to hand” passage carried out by persons who wore dirty latex gloves.

Furthermore, a second amplification was not carried out on the hook despite the fact that half of the sample was still available, and remained unused.

Also, the hook, though observed during the first inspection carried out by the scientific police,  was left on the ground, on the floor, and there it remained for some time. It wasn’t true, also, that between the first access and the one during which the hook was finally collected, only two inspections by the investigators took place, in reality there were more and in such occasions everything was put in disarray.

With regard to this, the objections by the defense and the contrary conclusions of the defense adviser professor Tagliabracci, were not considered.

15) A misrepresentation of the evidence also took place in relation to the actual delivery of the progress reports [SAL] on the examinations carried out by Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, of the scientific police.

16) Another reason for complaint with regard to the judge’s motivations context is related to the supposed theft simulation in Romanelli’s room and the absence of motivation in the new reasoning presented in the report of 29th July 2013.

In this regard, it is argued that it was Sollecito who notified the postal police, their having arrived in via della Pergola for other reasons (the retrieval of Kercher’s cellular phones, one of them with the sim card in the name of Romanelli), about the strangeness of the fact that from the room of the housemate of Kercher and Knox, the computer and valuable items were not missing; that the testimony declaration of lawyer Paolo Brocchi and of Matteo Palazzoli, presented in the new submiessions, regarding acts of thievery carried out by Guede with modalities similar to the ones that were supposed to be used for the breaking-into the apartment in via della Pergola, were not considered; nor were properly considered the defense reports about the wounds on the palm of the hand palm of Guede at time of his arrest in Germany; nor that the evidence had been misrepresented with reference to the collocation of the glass shards, given that from the collected testimony declarations [14] it resulted that the shards of glass were placed both under and over the objects present in Romanelli’s room; that, also, a glass fragment was retrieved in Meredith’s room, indicating that whoever unlawfully entered the room had brought that fragment with him. Therefore, it was clear that the sentence under appeal was based on mere speculations, totally detached from the trial’s reality.

17) Challenged also is the violation of article 238 bis of code of criminal procedure, on the fact that through the acquisition [in the trial against Knox and Sollecito] of the irrevocable sentences issued against Guede, it was intended to make use of declarations released contra alios in a different procedural context, although those declarations were issued in absence of the blamed persons. Beyond this point, for which a referral to United Sections of Cassation was solicited,  Guede’s declarations were erroneously evaluated, in violation of the standards dictated by article 192 of the code of criminal procedure and the indications of this Court (p. 57). It was true that those declarations were adopted as a mere confirmation element, but they were still unusable declarations. The sentences about him, after all, also the Supreme Court ones, demonstrated the absolute unreliability of Mr. Guede.

18) Another violation of the article 238 bis of the code of criminal procedure was challenged with reference to the supposed binding effectiveness of external final verdicts [giudicato esterno].

19) Also related to the declarations of Guede, their use constituted a violation of articles 111 Const., 526 chapter 1 bis of the code of criminal procedure, and 6 of the European Convention. And also on this matter, referral to a United Sections of Cassation panel was requested.’

20) In the event that such legal approach is not shared [by the Supreme Court], a question of constitutional illegitimacy was advanced of those laws which allowed bypassing the regulatory prohibitions in regards to the usability of declarations incriminating third parties in the absence of the accused persons, by means of the mere acquisition of irrevocable judgments against the declarant and containing the relative propagations contra alios.

21) Incorrect reasoning was also challenged in relation to the supposed possibility of contamination of the evidence during the appeal, independently from the doubting of sufficient quantity expressed on the point.

22) There was also a lack of rationale also related to the aggravating circumstance of sexual violence.

23) The same also applies with regard to the supposed theft of the victim’s cellular phones. 

24) Clear also is the violation of the principle of the beyond reasonable doubt, because of the omission of the examination of alternative solutions.

Finally, a rationale was omitted on a possible downgrading of the charge from voluntary murder to the less serious charges of aiding a crime or manslaughter, and also the application of mitigating circumstances.




Comments

Just such wonderful, difficult work by Machiavelli who encourages us all to fight on for justice and Italy’s honor.

Please consider this pre-final. Suggestions for improved translation are welcome. The PDF version to go on the Wiki will be the final. 

Slight rephasing of posts to be fair to Catnip, who did fine work on his series of dissections to now follow shortly.

Our posts of Marasca/Bruno starting with this one should really precede him, so we can see first what he is talking about.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/26/15 at 03:38 PM | #

Thanks Machiavelli et al for this. I am commenting here on this ground for appeal by Bongiorno & Maori:

13) The motivation of the appealed sentenced was objectionable also in relation to the asserted availability of the kitchen knife for Amanda Knox at the time of the aggression. In this regard, it was illogical to state that the kitchen knife, used for the homicide, wouldn’t have been hidden, considering that the furniture and instruments of the apartment rented by Sollecito were listed in inventory, so that the lack of the knife would have generated suspecion, and according to this it was replaced in its place subsequent to cleaning.

Also clearly illogical was the motivation related to the carrying of the knife on the part of Ms. Knox, with asserted use of the capacious purse in her possession, for supposed reasons of personal defense, for this purpose induced by Sollecito who was familiar with knives. It was not considered that to be true this explanation would exclude the hypothesis of joint concurrence, since it would admit that the suspect woman was alone [13] and not able to take advantage of, in case of aggression by strangers, the supposed defense by her boyfriend.

However, there was no evidence on the supposed concurrence of the appellant in [a charge of] unjustified carrying of thee knife.

So Sollecito’s Kitchen Knife cannot be The Murder Knife because “it was illogical to state that the kitchen knife, used for the homicide” was “re-placed in its place, with previous cleaning” to Sollecito’s Kitchen Drawer!?

And it is “objectionable” to state such a thing!?

Furthermore, “the asserted availability of the kitchen knife for Amanda Knox at the time of the aggression.”

And, “there was no evidence on the supposed concurrence of the appellant in [a charge of] unjustified carrying of knife.”

Therefore, Sollecito would never have given his “concurrence” to Amanda’s “unjustified carrying of knife”!?

Please God, settle their hash, - Please?

Posted by Cardiol MD on 09/26/15 at 07:13 PM | #

Some great “framing” comments under the previous post:

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/supreme_court_confirms_all_three_were_there_and_lied/#c24599

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/supreme_court_confirms_all_three_were_there_and_lied/#c24601

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/supreme_court_confirms_all_three_were_there_and_lied/#c24602

And see especially this deadly dart by Olleosnep:

The reasoning is contradictory because they don’t consider all the evidence and the little evidence they do consider they consider it wrongly. It’s obvious this judge should never consider murder cases or similar because his threshold for evidence reliability is unreasonably high.

He takes the stance that knife and bra clasp traces were open to contamination, but provides no proof of such contamination or how it could have possibly occurred. He then makes the case that there are no traces in Meredith’s room of K or S because of this, which is not true.

There are the hairs found in the room and the luminol footprints and traces around the rest of the cottage. There are also the luminol traces at RS’s apartment. And hairs found RS’s apartment.

He does not use the combination of other evidence traces to any effect, but only considers each piece in isolation. This is flatly wrong. There are statistical probabilities involved.

It’s obvious there couldn’t have been 6 people at the cottage, since the only traces revealed are for G, K and S. Guede did not kill Meredith with two other persons. There are no significant traces of anyone else. Thrown in the lies, witnesses and calunnia and it’s a closed case, under normal circumstances.

In the end, the reasoning is a contradictory pretzel like Hellmann.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/26/15 at 07:16 PM | #

Hi Cardiol:

Yes those summaries of the appeals really reek of dishonesty. They say things that were not so (such defense witnesses not being considered - they were, but rejected) and leave out many key things that actually happened.

For example. The defenses couldnt get their acts together for nearly seven weeks to accompany Stefanoni’s team to collect the bra clasp. Defense witnesses were at every single DNA processing event and made no complaints about “contamination” so why the beef about no progress reports? Etc etc etc.

The anti-Guede testimony of Brocchi and Palazzoli WAS considered. It was concluded in 2009 that they both lied about break-ins. Brocchi’s office was broken into by at least two others, probably as a legal warning. and he knew that (he never said it was Guede); and Palazolli reported no breakin ever and was merely grandstanding

As we will see in later posts, the Fifth Chambers did not swallow all the defense arguments though they did in fact swallow that one and came up with others of their own equally stretched.

If the Fifth Chambers is going to illegally act like a trial court, it should at least be made to have an actual informed prosecution there as well.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/26/15 at 07:22 PM | #

Pete says, via Olleosnep: “He takes the stance that knife and bra clasp traces were open to contamination, but provides no proof of such contamination or how it could have possibly occurred. He then makes the case that there are no traces in Meredith’s room of K or S because of this, which is not true.”

Can I add, if this was the case, Fifth Chamber are illogical and objectionable to not make the same case for RG’s traces on the sweater and bra cloth.

Posted by Slow Jane on 09/26/15 at 11:24 PM | #

The artwork of the Supreme Court shown as header of this post depicts Lady Justice with a sword in one hand and scales in the other. She is surrounded by small angels. Nearby is a rooster (think Judas Iscariot) and a condemned person with long scraggly hair shouts and falls downward.

We are honored to have Pope Francis here in the USA from Rome this week. At this time of discouragement with Supreme Court decision, I take heart that the LORD encouraged Moses when things looked dark for Israel. God declared His goodness, kindness, mercy and longsuffering nature (Exodus 34:6-7) yet said he would by no means clear the unrepentant guilty. His power and his love are beyond our understanding. He’ll clear up Meredith’s case eventually and set things right.

Divine justice certainly exposed the traitor Benedict Arnold during the American Revolution, at the 11th hour right before he was able to hand West Point over to the British. Benedict Arnold’s betrayal was legendary, but he paid for it.

An American Indian who helped as a guide when Arnold was first fighting heroically for the Colonists gave a prophetic word to him. He called him “Dark Eagle”. He said the dark eagle had come to subdue the wilderness and the wilderness would yield to him. Yet the rock would defy him. The dark eagle would rise high into the sky and many nations would see him with awe. But when his wings touched the clouds and he was at his highest, then the arrow would pierce his heart. Sure enough, Arnold was hailed as a hero of Ft. Ticonderoga and other Colonial victories at first and George Washington had just given him command of West Point and was to meet him for breakfast when word came that Arnold had betrayed them all to the British. Major Andre was caught and executed as a spy but Arnold escaped to England. He later died in infamy in London.

If we are unhappy with enemies triumphing over us, we can take the long view. Triumph may turn to tragedy and vice versa. I find encouragement in Psalm 25.

Posted by Hopeful on 09/26/15 at 11:32 PM | #

Summary of where things stand…

Sparked by this post and the one before, overnight a request came in from a main network for a summary as fast as possible of the whole situation as we see it now, so something quick (see list below) was sent off.

We expected this request sooner or later as media digs more, and we have a smoking-gun link at top right which is quite useful now and then. We also have a new page not showing yet for a master version of whats below.

Here’s the first-draft Cliff Notes one-page version typed in a few minutes to respond quickly to the media request.

(1) Knox came from a deeply troubled home, did drugs in Seattle, went to Perugia seemingly mainly to do more drugs, took only a 6 hour a week course with zero credits not at main University

(2) She worked illegally (no work permit) and was running out of money fast, she was ticking off all around her off with the drugs and unsavory men and sharp elbows and tin ear.

(3) Knox slept with a drug dealer right up to the day of her arrest who she had met and had sex with on a train; because of her connection, he was caught and put away,

(4) The evidence that she led the attack is actually enormous, far more than US or UK juries need, and Italy in 2009 did a very convincing job which US & UK media only partially reported in face of PR.

(5) Knox was never ever interrogated, brutally or not, that is a giant hoax, she was merely asked in the police station 5-6 Nov merely to build a list of names, which she did.

(6) A turncoat Sollecito not police terrified her into accusing Lumumba by saying she had made him lie; her relationship with Sollecits has really been a slow-simmering civil war.

(7) There were six deep court reviews of the evidence, including one by the Supreme Court, prior to the start of trial in 2009 and Knox and Sollecito failed them all.

(8) The 2009 guilty verdicts were fair and in line with what UK & US juries would have found; about 1/3 of the trial was behind closed doors, so few know outside Italy really know how it went.

(9) Her stint on the stand in mid 2009 made her look arrogant, callous and guilty as sin, and not a timid person who police could lean on to “confess” to any crime.

(10) They really got off in 2011 and 2015 appeals only because of bent courts; this is already perceived in Rome and several corrective actions have already been implemented. 

(11) The 2015 “not guilty” verdict was Italy’s weakest version (not innocent”) merely claiming there was not quite enough evidence (because the court cherrypicked it, and omitted moist of the prosecution case).

(12) The Fifth Chambers did state that both were at the house on the night, and cleaned up, and then lied. (Under US and UK law, that is at minimum “accessory after the fact”.)

(13) Knox was convicted of calunnia re Patrick by all courts 2009-2015, even those appeal courts in 2011 and 2015 who otherwise let her off. She is a convicted felon for life.

(14) Knox already faces a second calunnia trial in Florence re her supposed interrogators on the night of 5-6 Nov 2007.

(15) Also Knox faces a trial for dozens of criminal defamations in her book and in interviews for which her own lawyers seem to have no defense - often argued the opposite in fact.

Stressed to media is that we mainly channel what Italy sees and we post quantities of original documents, most translated, on the Wiki and analyse them here; so by any standards our gestalt is highly objective stuff.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/27/15 at 04:08 PM | #

I’d emphasize the multitude of lies told to US media—especially Diane Sawyer et al, which are ruled as such by 5th chambers.  The one and only correct decision by that blatantly corrupt court.  Knox was there.  Knox lied repeatedly on record saying she wasn’t there. 

Knox still in breach of law because she has refuses to pay Lumumba the awarded damages for false accusation and imprisonment.  Knox continues to promote her book of lies and profits from her murder of Meredith.  She is scheduled to speak at a book promotion in Chicago soon. 

The American public deserve to know the facts about their fellow citizen who has brought shame on its nation.  They deserve to be told about how they have been deceived by PR bought with blood money.  No matter how long it takes, the truth must be known.

Posted by whatswisdom on 09/27/15 at 05:03 PM | #

This 15 point Cliff Notes version is exactly what the media need. It is 8 years condensed to this. Unbiased media need to broadcast the shaky Supreme Court decision that has let Knox dubiously walk free.

Posted by Hopeful on 09/27/15 at 05:03 PM | #

Great news Peter that a network is showing interest. I’d add:

1) She lied consistently about the state of her relationship with Meredith immediately prior to her death. Mez’s British friends and family (who knew her better than Knox ever could) testified that Meredith had real issues with her lifestyle and cleanliness.

2) She lied consistently about how much she knew of Guede. It seems to have gone from “an African boy” whose name she didn’t even know to admitting meeting him twice and knowing that he had enquired as to her availability. To say she didn’t even know his name at that point is disingenuous at best.

3) I’d point their researchers in the direction of some of her interviews on YouTube. Particularly the Diane Sawyer one where she nods yes but answers no to the question of whether she had murdered Meredith. Her consistently terrible performances in all interviews with inappropriate grinning, laughing etc should ring alarm bells for any unbiased reporter.

My intention over the next week or two is to write to every major newspaper in the UK and also the Home Secretary pleading that the press and British Govt take more of an unbiased interest in this scandal where a British National was savagely murdered and it seems to have been largely overlooked.

I suspect that the political ramifications that have clearly taken hold in the US and Italy have also had an effect here. Albeit, The Gaurdian excepted, the media coverage here has been less pro Knox than in the US.

It’s still not good enough and I’ll be appealing to the supposedly famous British sense of fair play to give this travesty some more column inches. We had a ridiculous situation where the McCanns basically guilted the government into spending a fortune for something that was entirely their fault and for which they have never paid a legal price either.

I’ll argue that Meredith’s case is even more deserving of further scrutiny.

Posted by davidmulhern on 09/27/15 at 05:33 PM | #

@whatswisdom

Well said.

So let’s review who has suffered from this gob-smackingly perverse verdict? Clearly Meredith’s family, then Guede (by default), Italian jurispudence in general (unfortunately), U.S. reputation abroad (as shown by the lingering but unproven suspicion that State had a hand in it all). 

You have to say that one half-crazy little girl/woman has rarely caused so much havoc. For that reason alone I seriously doubt U.S. State involvement. In fact, come on,  if it’s got to the point that a tiny and obnoxious screwed up tart,  barely beyond puberty, has the capacity to kill and bend US foreign policy -  we might as well all go straight home,  n’est-ce pas?

Otherwise I give up.

Posted by Odysseus on 09/27/15 at 06:57 PM | #

Whatiswisdom, I hadn’t heard she’s touring again.  You have a schedule by any chance?  Just curious. 

As for the book itself, it is extremely malicious, nasty and untrue.  Knox accuses PM Mignini of illegally interrogating her, the police of assaulting her, and the jail guards for sexually assaulting her.  She takes potshots at everyone, including her own lawyers. 

Knox then ‘‘thanks’’ Dalla Vedova and Ghirga in the worst possible way: by listing them as ‘‘contributors’‘.

Pete, DavidM, good points.  A few more:

(19) Knox frequently misrepresents the result of the Cassation 1st Chambers ruling in 2013.  She keeps saying the court ‘‘annulled all rulings and ordered a new trial’‘.  Knox claims she was ‘‘forced back for a 3rd trial’‘.

In reality, the Hellmann appeal acquittal was thrown out, but the Massei trial conviction was left intact.  Knox was not ‘‘forced back’‘, but rather ‘‘allowed to keep appealing’‘.

(20) In a similar vein, Knox misrepresented her legal status when doing her first book tour.  She was not ‘‘presumed innocent, still going to trial’‘, but she was ‘‘guilty, pending further appeal’‘.

(21) Knox re-released her book June 9th, 2015, the day calunnia #2 trial started (for making false accusations).  It can’t be a coincidence, and is likely just a way to rub it in Italy’s face.

(22) Knox rubbed the Florence ruling in Judge Nencini’s face (2014), by attending an Innocence Convention in Portland Oregon just after losing her appeal.

(23) Knox seems to leave out the trouble Oggi got into for quoting he book in Italy.

(24) Similar to Peter’s #11, Hellmann never really found her innocent either.  He said he didn’t have a clue, and wasn’t certain of anything.  Remember his infamous words ‘‘the truth may be otherwise’‘.

Posted by Chimera on 09/27/15 at 08:21 PM | #

I’ve seen “The Last Seduction,” that blackest of black comedies.  No pun intended, but Guede hands down has the role of the hapless loser who winds up with a life sentence while the seductress of the film’s title ends up burning the last tiny piece of evidence in the final frame.  If this was not so real life tragic and sad for Meredith and her family, this would make a movie that would outdo even “The Last Seduction” for macabre irony.

Posted by whatswisdom on 09/27/15 at 08:33 PM | #

Hi whatswisdom

Yes “The Last Seduction” is a real cult movie and theres a similar movie in this, hopefully with a different end. A remarkable Linda Fiorentino suddenly exploded from nowhere, I wish she could have found a repeat, after that her roles were never quite as good.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110308/

On Guede being hornswoggled even Massei nominated Guede as the lead perp. Caused no end of ripple effects, allowed Hellmann to apply full blame. We can never be sure what Massei’s personal position was though as some on the jury thought Knox and Sollecito had got in over their heads (as did Mignini) and murder was never the original intent.

I mentioned here “Gone Girl” but nobody yet has picked up. I hope someone does.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2267998/

That’s what a full-blown NPD case can engineer, and one thing I’ve learned from Meredith’s case is that while the world mostly improves there are more such destructive cases out there than I for one guessed.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_case_for_more_observation_and_firmer_action/

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_psychology_of_the_human_race_puts_us_on_a_rising_curve/

In “Gone Girl” neither victim seemed to me to have it coming, though the reviews and forum on IMDB are seriously divided on that. Most of the men seem horrified at the perp. They should study the 15 minute attack Meredith was put through.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/27/15 at 10:10 PM | #

Hi Chimera

Thanks a lot for adding to the list. On my (11) and your (24) about dopey judges I do think Olleosnep quoted above really got it right.

It’s obvious this judge should never consider murder cases or similar because his threshold for evidence reliability is unreasonably high.

Bruno and Hellmann were the ONLY TWO of several dozen professional judges to process this case.who were not murder judges. Peas in a pod.

Hellmann had handled one murder case previously and messed it up in precisely the same way. Bruno as far as we know none at all.

This is the corrective action the Council of Magistrates (CSM) has so far taken: No “amateur” politically appointed judges like Bruno (or Marasca) are ever again going to make it to the Supreme Court.

Thats not reported in the US. The CSM also edged Hellmann out. That’ not reported either. The US coverage sure leaves a lot out.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/27/15 at 10:34 PM | #

Public amnesia in those that support Amanda Marie Knox is paramount.

Mind you, the media likes a good story since that sells ratings and the future, as I see it and hope for, is a full review by the US media.
Of course several who came out and told the public that Knox was guilty have been shot down (Nancy Grace for example) There are others as well.

However the one thing that Knox and her cult are terrified of is a revue of the evidence. There will be screams of course but it will happen because of we will never let it go. I’m sure that as time goes by there will be those who get tired of pursuing this but that is what the Knox supporters are banking on. Therefore we must keep on championing the truth for Meredith Kercher and make sure one way or the other that true justice is realized

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 09/28/15 at 01:10 AM | #

Hi Chimera.  Here’s the link to the Chicago event.  If I was independently wealthy I’d jet in for a front row seat.  If I couldn’t get a ticket I would find a way to gate crash.  The Q & A session will be riveting, no doubt:

http://www.lawalumni.luc.edu/s/1548/law/index.aspx?sid=1548&gid=3&pgid=2846&cid=4995&ecid=4995&crid=0&calpgid=13&calcid=664

Posted by whatswisdom on 09/28/15 at 03:39 AM | #

Pete, if Bruno and Hellmann were the ONLY TWO of several dozen professional judges to process this case, who were not murder judges.

And, no “amateur” politically appointed judges like Bruno (or Marasca), or Hellmann, are ever again going to make it to the Supreme Court, because of the corrective action the Council of Magistrates (CSM) has so far taken, who appointed them in the first place?

It does seem to be Corrupt Politics, but WHO appointed such amateurs?  WHY? And what was the chain-of-control?

Posted by Cardiol MD on 09/28/15 at 06:10 AM | #

Hello Whatiswisdom.  Thanks for the link.  For anyone who might attend—several things that should be asked about her book, when she’s back on the media circuit:

(1) One of the absurdities in WTBH is that Knox claimed not to speak Italian in 2007, all while giving ‘‘long’’ quotes of conversations in Italian.

(2) Knox claims to be astutely following the case, where she ‘‘gleans’’ her insight that there was only evidence against Guede.  However, she also claims to be oblivious to how she was acting and perceived in court.  So, she is the totally daffy legal expert?

(3) She claims to have been ‘‘cleared’’ by Hellmann, and hence ‘‘double jeopardy’’ rules should apply.  But in her own book, she acknowledges that cases aren’t done until Cassation rules.  FYI ... it isn’t double jeopardy in the USA either if an appeals court lets you out.

(4) Knox and her supporters claim Guede got a break either: (a) for testifying against her; or (b) since he was a mere accomplice.  WTBH admits that he chose in 2008 to go ‘‘short-form trial’’ for the 1/3 deductions.

(5) Knox complains that a ‘‘trap was set’’ for her in the Questura, but in WTBH, she admits that the police only asked for Raffaele, and that she was told to go home.  Some trap.

(6) Knox puts an acknowledgement in at the end of WTBH that some names are changed, ‘‘to protect privacy’‘.  Are Laura, Cera and Lupa are all made up?

(7) While presenting a sweet and clean image in WTBH, Knox hasn’t really answered the allegation that the ‘‘Cristiano’’ from the train to Perugia was actually a drug dealer named Federico Martini that she was sleeping with for drugs.  This is public record.

(8) Without getting into all the details right now, Knox’s account of November 5th/6th changes all the time, in WTBH, in the press, in court.  Yet when pressed for details, Knox’s selective amnesia come back.

In fact, Knox really seems to have no clue at all how contradictory her ‘‘memoir’’ really is.  Sadly, she get interviewed by twits: Diane Sawyer, Simon Hattenstone, Neal Thompson, Robin Roberts and Chris Cuomo who have no idea either.

Posted by Chimera on 09/28/15 at 07:28 AM | #

That link provided by whatswisdom to Knox’s “talk’ in Chicago on 3 December is illuminating. They’re charging $100 for basic attendance ($75 if you’re a young Alumni) with a bribe of one hour of MCLE credit thrown in. It’s a bargain basement $2500 for a table of 8 which gets you some free advertising, a copy of Knox’s tawdry book and, best of all, a private signing with the woman herself. Hospital style breathing mask thrown in to ensure that you don’t inhale any polluted fumes that Ms Herpes Lips 2008 might exhale. Ok, I made the mask bit up.

I can’t imagine this “event” is going to attract much of a crowd at those prices. A few attorneys perhaps trying to make up the last of their 25 hour three yearly MCLE credit but beyond that, what sane student or ordinary member of the public would throw their cash away on this nonsense? I also wonder if Knox will be forthcoming about how much she is receiving also? I hope all Chicago karaoke bars have been pre warned.

The comments section is amusing on the law alumni website promoting this event. Thankfully they don’t appear to have gotten around to vetting the comments yet so the majority of the comments (some from familiar faces) are anti Knox.

If any of our American friends are in the region and could attend, it would be worth getting along to see if throwing a few curved balls at the Q And A session was possible. That’s assuming there is one. Might be worth setting up a “go fund me” page or such like and advertise on a Kercher friendly site to attract donations to pay for it. Unless you already have money to burn and wish to do it for the entertainment value.

Chicago is a wonderful town. I was there in 2008 and spent many happy nights in Buddy Guy’s Blues Club. Met a great blues man, Fernando Jones, and still have his CDs and signed pictures which my daughter now has.

I guess Chicago has seen worse than Knox on its streets. Not by much though!

Posted by davidmulhern on 09/28/15 at 12:19 PM | #

Hi Cardiol MD

On Marasca and Bruno. The full story might take a while. The CSM has ruled that all judges can only rise up to Supreme Court level now through the rigorous career path with standards met and testing. In contrast Marasca and Bruno had been politically appointed judges in the Naples area, which meant they were expected to carry water for someone.

Bruno was accused of unsavory ties but that could not be proven and he was paid a small sum in damages. One possibility is that his primary driving force in this quirky attempt at an eloquent and awe-inspiring document (really, that is how the language reads) was merely to put one over other judges. But its suspected there is more to it.

The Italian system via the CSM is capable of a lot of learning and implements systems change as a result of cases like this. The Renzi government also is promoting legislation to advance systems change and is expected to wind back on all these Supreme Court appeals. Already there may be no possibility ever of a repeat of this travesty. And a route is still open to the victim’s family suing both Knox and the Italian government.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/28/15 at 12:32 PM | #

Hi whatswisdom and davidmulhern

That Knox “innocence” event at Loyola (which was also linked to in the post) may not happen though I’d quite like to see her there and being challenged.

There’s already something of an emailing campaign to open eyes at Loyola. The event is apparently being organized by a fervent woman in the local public defenders office, who also wrote this article.

https://lifeafterinnocence.wordpress.com/2015/09/11/amanda-knox-a-flawed-murder-investigation/

If you want to join in alongside that perhaps consider quoting my 15 points on the case above added to by Chimera. In a week or two there’ll be a version with links to past posts in it.

Please be encouraged. Past email campaigns (which seem to work better than Twitter for this - its easier to back down done quietly) have often proved effective. Many biased commenters on the case were silenced.

Among the successes were (1) Saul Kassin who had to cut his ties with John Jay College of Criminal Justice in NYC and (2) Katie Couric who Kermit helpfully explained things to and who then turned her back on Sollecito.

Click on the image here.

_

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/28/15 at 12:49 PM | #

davidmulhern:  Indeed one of those anti-Knox comments is mine.  I agree with Peter and can’t see this event happening.  It is nice that we’ve been able to generate some discussion at the school.  A few eager law students who want to stand out from the crowd is what we need.  I’ve been emailing reporters with links to here and case wiki site.  Surely there’s a reporter who wants to break the ice in the U.S.? I subscribe to NYT and have tried a couple of reporters with no luck so far.

Posted by whatswisdom on 09/28/15 at 03:16 PM | #

It is very nice to know that the learned judges (or it was the prosecutors?) never considered the money angle. The money trail was NEVER explained satisfactorily.

We can always expect to get a couple of black sheep in any profession (it will be impossible not to have them in any profession); but what is really surprising is the silence of their peers.

I am simply curious about the motivation of the motivation report.

Posted by chami on 09/28/15 at 05:02 PM | #

Hi Chami

Actually theres lots of irritated baaas coming from the white sheep. Low-key baaas for the moment but it wont stay that way.

In Perugia and Florence and Rome, all of those who were involved in the case feel shafted. All of them also look down on Bruno. I doubt he still feels he has a real winner.

I found Mignini’s response absolutely incandescent.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/legal_reading_suggesting_fifth_chambers_encroached_on_first_chamber/

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/28/15 at 05:39 PM | #

Hi whatswisdom

“Surely there’s a reporter who wants to break the ice”.  Sure there are. I’ll put up a list for you later. Our past successes strongly suggest private emails trump public tweeting.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/28/15 at 05:57 PM | #

I’m on it, Peter.  Looking forward to your list.  I’ve been sending short and friendly notes with a link or two via the contact option under journalists’ names.  A fearless scribe could make a big career move and sell a heck of a lot of papers here.  Will also see if I can make some noise in UK.  I do have some contacts in Ireland and maybe could stir up some action via Irish Times and Irish Independent.

Posted by whatswisdom on 09/28/15 at 07:25 PM | #

The parallels between OJ Simpson and Amanda Knox are paramount. For example OJ lived, and still does live in a world of make believe. He was in movies (Police Squad with Leslie Nielson) not the best place to be grounded in reality. In spite of all the evidence that has come to light since his trial his involvement with the murder of Nichole Simpson and Ron Goldman is obvious.

On the other hand the evidence of guilt against Amanda Knox is completely and utterly conclusive, but of course there will always be those who insist that water runs uphill or the earth is flat. The commonality between these two is that both live in a dream world. Knox really believes she had nothing to do with killing Meredith, in fact I think she believes that she was never really there. Mind you Amanda Knox has never really been anywhere at all. The apologists will eventually come out saying it was not her fault because she really is insane.

This kind of thinking is possibly an opening for any news profile to increase their ratings since anything approaching the prospect of guilt will receive howls of vindictiveness. that is the point of course. The louder the screams the more likely there is that people who support her know deep down that she is guilty, either that or people such as Steve Moore who have a web site to protect will be vocal in the extreme.

Eventually the truth will come out one way or the other, then watch the fur fly.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 09/28/15 at 08:39 PM | #

@Pete’s comment above 9/27/15 at 5.10

Thinking about humanity evolving, and how most people are growing and developing or hoping to, or trying to…

And yet there are some who remain on a downward trajectory, because they are in fact not capable of responding to therapy or personal growth.

Which is why for some people the idea of ‘rehabilitation’ is nonsensical (and possibly dangerous) - we have discussed this previously (in the comments under link Pete provided).

We have also discussed the subject of projections, and how harmful they are, and indicative of a non-whole self or imbalance, and how the person who projects is, essentially, psychologically unhealthy.

We saw how the letter to Nencini was projection after projection - unreality personified.

Well, in the following article, actually entitled The Great Mother - about Jung’s archetype - towards the second half of it, there is a useful short summary of what projection is.

Here’s the link:  http://thirdeve.com/tag/great-mother-archetype/

There are 5 brief points - stages to go through in ‘recalling’ or, as I say, ‘owning’ one’s projections. These stages would constitute healing.

The important point being that, as it says -  according to Jung - therapy can help only at stage 4. (Stage 5 is what one creatively finds and makes for oneself afterwards).

The first 3 stages have to be arrived at for oneself, by oneself. They are a sort of ‘dawning’. And without these preliminary stages occurring, it is hopeless, there can be no,improvement, and all is empty words.

Just thought it might be interesting in the context - it’s nice and succinct.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 09/28/15 at 09:34 PM | #

For any priority emailing. Putting aside politics these are the 13 with most reach and influence. There’s maybe another 30 with lower profile.

Tina Brown
Wendy Murphy
Paul Callan
Radell Smith
Anne Coulter
Chris Cuomo
Nancy Grace
Gerald Shargel
Ilana Mercer
Justin Balding
Katharine Hibbert
Michael Day
Sharon Feinstein

I’ve met several. All have been very skeptical of Knox’s innocence. Any one might set off a tidal wave. None are as informed as we could make them. Even that simple list above would surprise them.

Though they are not on the list above, I am quite openly talking about mafia fellow travelers, because it was RS himself who pointed to his connectedness and this is being delved into in Italy.

The Curt Knox/Marriott/Fischer/Heavey/Moore campaign has played out 100% on lines of the mafia playbook.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/28/15 at 10:31 PM | #

Of course there is one little aspect that the protectors of Amanda Knox seem to have overlooked. Not that any of them are deep thinkers God forbid. But as you may notice if you watch any crime shows at all, the science of genetics plus DNA research is advancing all the time. Point being that sooner or later the Italian Government will release absolute concrete evidence which cannot be refuted to prove once and for all that they were right all along. Then the news broadcasters will get hold of it in a effort to counter prove and so it will go on. However the positive thing is that such an event will keep this case in the pubic eye which is the last place that amanda Knox and company want because the more it is in the pubic domain the more people will come to realize the truth.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 09/29/15 at 01:24 AM | #

@SeekingUnderstanding

Thanks - an interesting piece on The Great Mother archetype and projection.

“Ongoing projection must inevitably lead to the decline, decay, and eventual dismissal of whole parts of the personality”. Plus of course a concomitant and pervasive lack of peace, a sense of not being home.

I like this quote I came across the other day:

“To convert a house into a home is a psychological trick—it helps; it is like a tranquilliser. It is like the blanket of linus: it helps one to feel secure, to feel that one is not uprooted, that one has roots, that one has somewhere to go, that one belongs somewhere. Hence we create countries, nations, motherlands, fatherlands, churches, temples and a thousand and one things, but the search is for the home… and you cannot find it anywhere outside.”

Posted by Odysseus on 09/29/15 at 12:19 PM | #

Yes, Odysseus, lovely quote.

So often persons long for belonging…to belong to someone, somewhere….
and so often are in truth just longing for their own whole Self.
Yet, to find that Self may be too difficult for them - if they find being honest impossible - the door is closed. They shut themselves outside their own home…

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 09/29/15 at 08:37 PM | #


Make a comment

Smileys



Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry TJMK/Wiki Translation Of The Marasca/Bruno Report #2 Of 7: Summaries Five And Six

Or to previous entry Supreme Court Confirms All Three Were There And Lied, RS & AK Apologists Desperate To Downplay That