Wednesday, February 05, 2025
The 2015 Cassation Annulment Revisited As A Matter Of Italian Law
Posted by James Raper
Florence Apeal Judge Nencini whose verdict was being overturned
My New Analysis
This relates to the “confirmed guilty” Knox verdict two weeks ago by the First Chambers, which should also have handled the final 2015 appeal that was whisked away to the Fifth Chambers for reasons widely seen as very murky in Italy. As further explained here, a bizarre sentencing report resulted.
The appeal’s lead judge was Gennaro Marasca, and the rapporteur (drafter of the report, sick during the writing phase which against regulation was extended) was Paolo Antonio Bruno. Both were political appointees, from Naples, and both have retired now. M-B below for short.
The “acquittal” was said to be, according to Marasca, after the verdict, due to Article 530, Section 2. In other words, insufficient and/or contradictory evidence.
In fact M-B did not state this explicitly at the time of the verdict, nor explicitly in their Motivation (as that would be beyond their remit – the Supreme Court can only affirm a verdict, or annul it and – other than in the circumstances provided for by Article 620, to which I will come in a bit - send it back to the appeal court for re-consideration).
Instead they inserted it into their Motivation with a heavy dose of sophistry, outright dishonesty and underhandedness. The Nencini Motivation was annulled because –
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.
The arrogance, intellectual dishonesty and the pernicious imposition of its own bias into the case that the above displays, and evident throughout the Report, is quite staggering.
“The intrinsic contradictory nature of the evidence (ed : much of which they have ignored) emerging from the text of the appealed verdict” is a sweeping and entirely untrue statement as it relates to Nencini’s Motivation.
There were a few insignificant factual mistakes in his Motivation but what contradictions are there, other than those M-B have conjured up out of thin air?
Well, I suppose there is M-B’s bizarre, and merit lacking, adherence to the Independent Experts’ conclusions, despite Nencini’s effective debunking of the same.
In my book, in Chapters 33 and 34, I show just how, and why, the 5th Chamber’s assertion, that the DNA profile of Meredith Kercher on the knife, and the DNA profile of Raffaele Sollecito on the bra clasp, have “no probative or circumstantial relevance”, is an assertion itself completely lacking in merit and, more importantly, has no conception in or connection with a valid ground for appeal.
The 5th Chamber’s judges would have known that too. One cannot find an error - that is, a manifest illogicality, defect or contradictoriness (as required for a valid ground for appeal - Section 1, paragraph (e), of Article 606 (grounds for appeal to the Supreme Court)) in Nencini’s take down of the 2011 Independent Experts’ Report and his re-affirmation of this evidence and it’s relevance.
If there is one the 5th Chamber does not state what it is.
As to the DNA on the knife blade having no probative or circumstantial relevance, such an assertion is most certainly an egregious error from which the 5th Chamber’s Motivation as a whole cannot recover.
Nor could it be true of the DNA on the bra clasp even if that evidence is, hypothetically, open to an argument about contamination.
It could never be the case that disagreeing with the Independent Experts and the 5th Chamber is an error in itself (which is basically how the 5th Chamber sees it), justifying an annulment.
That, and a host of other errors of logic, I submit, is why they ruled out a referral. After all, if I can demonstrate that, then a referral judge would have had no problem doing so.
But let us consider what they go on to say -
“At this point only one matter remains to be resolved, regarding the type of annulment - i.e., whether it should be decided with or without a new trial - which depends, obviously, on the objective possibility of further investigation which could unravel the perplexing aspects, and offer answers of certainty…”
The grounds for any annulment without further referral are stated in Article 620.
M-B choose para (l) of the Article to justify their decision to dispense with a referral.
“…. A new trial would be useless, thus the verdict of annulment without a new trial, in accordance with Article 620 para (l) of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, thus applying a sentence of not guilty which would also have been reached by any new referral judge….”
Para (l) states that an annulment without further referral can occur –
“(l) If the Court of Cassation (i.e the Supreme Court) holds it can either reach a decision if no further ascertainment of the alleged offences is needed, set a new sentence based on the decision of the merit court, or take any other necessary decision, and in any other case in which it believes referral is superfluous.”
There is quite a bit to unpack and interpret there as it relates to the 5th Chamber’s decision.
I am not entirely clear what “if no further ascertainment of the alleged offences is needed” means in our case. Is further evidence needed to ascertain the alleged offences?
It would appear that the 5th Chamber thinks not, or at any rate can be obtained to add to what we have.
However we have the evidence there is, not just the DNA evidence, and I submit, it is pretty compelling as to guilt.
Indeed no further ascertainment is needed. Amongst all the other things Meredith’s DNA was most certainly on the knife blade and Sollecito’s on the bra clasp.
As to “a new sentence based on the decision of the merit court”, that can surely only be a reference to the appropriate form of punishment (the decision being the verdict from Nencini’s appeal court – the merit court).
Setting a new sentence is not what is happening here.
But perhaps their justification falls within the remit of the wording “or take any other decision, and in any other case in which it believes referral is superfluous”.
The latter is most likely their lifebelt (which boils down to – certainly for M-B, given the content of their Motivation – “we will say and do what we like, no rationale required”), and remember, this is all about whether there should be an annulment without further referral.
Therefore the only justification seemingly available to them is this catch-all one, prone to misuse, as it is here (there is no “thus” at all about a not guilty verdict, as they would have it above), and deployed, I would submit, in a pathetic attempt to promote the ascendency of the 5th Chamber over the 1st Chamber.
An annulment without a further appeal hearing would, of course, leave us with the Massei trial verdict.
So M-B, as we have seen, simply impose their own preferred verdict upon the Florence appeal court as a matter of, as they would have it, logic.
Really?! That is gaslighting.
M-B did not annul and order a new appeal hearing because (and they knew it) their Motivation would have been torn to shreds.
If there had been a further referral would, as M-B say, gaslighting again, the referral judge have, as a matter of evidence and logic also have entered a not guilty verdict? Would he heck!
Or would the referral judge have had to comply with the terms of the referral were it in effect to include instructions to enter a not guilty verdict? Were such a referral to include such instructions then what would be the point of a referral?
It would indeed be superfluous. But such a fix would be a little bit too obvious.
Does Article 621 help?.
No. This Article states that “in the case provided for by para (l) of Article 620 the Court of Cassation shall proceed to the determination of the sentence or give the necessary instructions”.
However since the word “sentence” (rather than decision, or verdict) is being used here surely the provision must be construed as a reference to the applicable punishment.
The words “sentence” and “decision” are distinguished from each other and given, without any confusion, their usual meanings elsewhere in the Articles and so I see no reason for there to be any confusion here.
The M-B Motivation would and certainly could have been torn to shreds by a, be it brave, no nonsense referral judge, if only for the bit mentioned earlier about the DNA evidence having “no probative or circumstantial relevance”.
At any rate there is no provision in the Italian Code of Criminal Practice that I can find that could have pevented that from happening and a guilty verdict being re-affirmed.
Attentive followers of the case will recall Article 628 and understand that it’s provision in no way ties the hands of the referral judge, applyimg, as it does, to any appeal to the Supreme Court against his verdict.
And any appeal would be unlikely to find its way back to the 5th Chambers. Knowing, and fearing, the foregoing is the real reason why the 5th Chambers ruled out a referral.
These judges on the 5th Chamber’s appeal panel were completely lacking in integrity and a disgrace to their high office.
Posted by James Raper on 02/05/25 at 09:25 AM in Hoaxes Sollecito etc
Comments
Very important. Last nail in the coffin. Law-school stuff.
So, in a small way, First Chambers and Nencini got their own back. We have seen this before: things are forced off path and then often right themselves.
Good old Italy. Judge Hellman (annulled appeal) was retired early; so was Judge Boninsegna (second calunnia). Marasca & Bruno seem to have hightailed it out before their time was up. One or other or both is believed to have been leaned on; a heated argument might have happened between them on the night in March 2015 that the verdict was read out.
Nencini is now chief judge for Tuscany and he broadly oversaw Knox’s repeat calunnia trial last year. You can see him standing at left with the retrial prosecutor and judges in the image atop this post.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/05/25 at 10:39 AM | #
Reference the alert in the Headsup box at the top, NY stock prices dropped sharply today.
There are still some talking heads hustling “great buys” on the US’s three financial channels, they do that so the viewers do not disappear. Don’t be fooled. After the crash of 2008 which hurt many viewers they were heavily criticized for doing that.
Reference politics generally, here is a polling report that went up behind the Washington Post “pay wall” today. Enjoy.
Washington Post
New polling shows Trump’s approval ratings declining — and a number of major warning signs appearing.
February 20, 2025 at 10:07 a.m. ESTToday at 10:07 a.m. EST
Analysis by Aaron BlakePresident Donald Trump came into office claiming a sweeping and historic mandate, but that was always oversold.
Trump’s win was relatively modest, historically speaking. And while his approval rating upon taking office reached a new all-time high for him — around 50 percent — his “honeymoon” phase still paled in comparison with every modern president not named Trump.
And now, after one month in office, whatever honeymoon (and mandate) Trump enjoyed appears to be slipping away.
Multiple polls this week have shown his approval rating dropping into more normal territory for him, in the mid-40s. And a new Washington Post-Ipsos poll crystallizes a number of warning signs for Trump’s agenda of drastic and legally dubious change.
Indeed, Americans seem to be quite concerned by how far Trump is going, and most of his signature policies and initiatives appear to be quite unpopular — especially those spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk.
There’s a lot of new data, so let’s break down the big findings.
Trump’s declining approval ratingsFirst, the top lines.
-Follow PoliticsTrump’s approval ratings this week in polls — including the Post-Ipsos poll and others from Reuters, Quinnipiac University, CNN and Gallup — have ranged from 44 percent to 47 percent. In all of them, more disapprove than approve of him.
That’s a reversal from the vast majority of previous polls, which showed Trump in net-positive territory.
And in the Post-Ipsos poll, significantly more Americans strongly disapprove of Trump (39 percent) than strongly approve of him (27 percent).
-Most of his big policies are political losersA big question has been whether Trump’s drastic attempts to overhaul the federal government might hurt him. And it appears that’s happening.
The Post-Ipsos poll queried participants on about a dozen Trump policies and efforts, including mass deportation, banning transgender people from the military, shuttering the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and pardoning Jan. 6 defendants. All but two were unpopular, by an average of 25 points.
Similarly, the CNN poll tested five Trump initiatives and found the same thing. In each case, more called them a “bad idea” than a “good idea,” by an average of 23 points.
-Americans really don’t like his government cuts and tariffsThose averages, of course, depend on what things you test. But some of them loom large as strikes against Trump.
A big one is the shuttering of USAID. Americans oppose it by 21 points in the Post-Ipsos poll (59-38) and 25 points in the CNN poll (53-28).
Another is Trump’s tariffs. The CNN poll shows Americans oppose his tariffs on aluminum and steel by 15 points (49-34), while the Post-Ipsos poll shows nearly 2-to-1 opposition to his 25 percent tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada. About 7 in 10 Americans think tariffs generally increase the price of products in the United States.
Still another is the firings of large numbers of government workers, which is opposed by 19 points (58-39) in the Post-Ipsos poll.
About the only Trump proposals on which Americans lean in support are the 10 percent tariffs on China (50-45) and mass deportation (51-45).
But even that last one comes with a major caveat: Americans strongly oppose deporting undocumented immigrants who aren’t criminals (57-39), who arrived as children (70-26) and who have U.S. citizen children (66-30).
That accounts for a huge number of would-be deportees, and it suggests that a true mass-deportation operation could be politically problematic.
-The Musk problem growsThe finding about the firings of government workers gets at one of the biggest emerging strikes against Trump: Musk.
The writing has been on the wall that Americans are skeptical of the influence suddenly wielded by the world’s richest man, who has spearheaded those firings through the U.S. DOGE Service, which he leads, and the situation appears to have gotten worse. DOGE stands for the Department of Government Efficiency.
In the CNN poll, Musk having a prominent role in the administration is viewed as a “bad thing” (54-28) by a nearly 2-to-1 ratio. The Post-Ipsos poll showed Americans disapprove by a similarly wide margin (52-26) of Musk “shutting down federal government programs that he decides are unnecessary.”
And Americans said 63 to 34 that they are concerned about Musk’s team getting access to their data, which is the subject of high-profile legal fights.
Even 37 percent of Republican-leaning voters said they are at least “somewhat” concerned about Musk getting their data.
It has become pretty clear that Americans are increasingly paying attention to Musk’s exploits, and they don’t like what they are seeing.
-Trump’s Jan. 6 pardons for violent offenders are an albatrossPerhaps no Trump action is as unpopular as one of his first ones: pardoning virtually all Jan. 6 defendants.
Previous polling has focused only broadly on the pardons, without drilling down on the most controversial among them: the pardons of violent offenders — i.e., the many convicted of assaulting police.
Well, the new Post-Ipsos poll tested that, and Americans oppose those pardons by a massive margin: 83 to 14 percent.
Even Republican-leaning Americans oppose those pardons 70 to 27.
-The economy looms largeA big caveat with all of these unpopular policies and efforts is how much people actually view them as affecting their lives. Perhaps people really don’t like the pardons, for instance, but what do they mean to them personally?
But the new polling does highlight perhaps the most significant emerging problem for Trump: the economy. While this has long been his strength, that no longer appears to be the case.
The Post-Ipsos poll shows Americans disapprove of his handling of the economy 53 to 45. Those are his worst economic numbers since 2017.
The Reuters poll shows his economic approval at 39 percent, which is lower than it ever was in his first term.
It’s possible to read too much into these numbers. They could be in large part a reflection of continued economic unrest and persistent inflation, rather than anything specific to Trump. He has had only a month in office.
But the data also suggest that Americans see Trump as misplacing his priorities.
In the CNN poll, 62 percent say Trump hasn’t gone far enough in trying to reduce the price of everyday goods. Perhaps most strikingly, even a majority of Republican-leaning voters (51 percent) say this.
The Reuters poll shows just 32 percent approve of his handling of inflation — lower than his handling of the economy.
You begin to see the potential narrative forming. To the extent economic concerns continue and inflation doesn’t disappear as fast as Trump repeatedly promised it would under his watch, Americans could see Trump as focusing on a whole bunch of things they don’t like while neglecting what’s important to them.Trump isn’t that unpopular yet, historically speaking. It’s normal to be in the mid-40s these days.
But he’s giving people plenty of reasons to dislike what he’s doing. And he’s damaging his claims to a mandate in the process.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/20/25 at 04:39 PM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Where next:
Click here to return to The Top Of The Front PageOr to next entry Promo Of New Book By Knox Groupie Anne Bremner Stands Corrected
Or to previous entry US’s Financially Beleagured Associated Press Again Shows Anti-Italy Pro-Mafia Bias