The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

[TruthCalls]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

It raises the thought that if the Scientific Police had not done a forensic-DNA sweep, the fake-Wiki would claim that Knox had cleaned the whole cottage!

Every so often I forget just how stupid the fake-Wiki actually is.

I'm not sure how you could actually manage to forget that, but...

I recently read what they had to say about Curatolo (I can't help myself, it's like looking at the wreckage after a bad accident - you know you don't want to see it but you look anyway). I swear Vixen must have written that section. It's the same old argument - yes, he says he saw them on the night when people were in costume boarding disco buses but despite this the courts ruled him credible. So there it is... courts say it's good, PGP agrees with it, therefore dispensing with fact, logic and reason is perfectly acceptable.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Every so often I forget just how stupid the fake-Wiki actually is.

Originally Posted by TruthCalls

I'm not sure how you could actually manage to forget that, but...

Forgive me for I am unworthy....... and a sinner.

Originally Posted by TruthCalls

I recently read what they had to say about Curatolo (I can't help myself, it's like looking at the wreckage after a bad accident - you know you don't want to see it but you look anyway). I swear Vixen must have written that section. It's the same old argument - yes, he says he saw them on the night when people were in costume boarding disco buses but despite this the courts ruled him credible. So there it is... courts say it's good, PGP agrees with it, therefore dispensing with fact, logic and reason is perfectly acceptable.

Damn you, now you made me look.

The section on Curatolo was done in two sittings, in Dec 2013 and Oct 2014 by an editor nic'ed "Jarod"

The sole edit to the original Dec 2013 article was the Oct 2014 edit to incorporate Nencini's motivations report on the subject:

Originally Posted by Jarod

At Knox and Sollecito's second appeal, in 2013, Judge Nencini carefully considered the evidence given by Curatolo at the original trial and at the annulled Hellmann appeal. He devotes several pages of his [[The Nencini Sentencing Report (English)|Sentencing Report]] to transcribing parts of the testimony and discussing its merits. He echoes the Supreme Court judgment in noting that the Court must not make "a judgment of the witness’s reliability on the basis of anthropological assessments" and states that Curatolo's testimony "must be evaluated on the basis of the ordinary interpretative criteria of evaluation that the criminal Court employs in every proceeding".

Quote:

Nencini concludes:

"''Mr. Curatolo’s testimony, in conclusion, must be evaluated by this Court together with all the other circumstantial evidence that emerges and that leads us to conclude that the alibi provided by Amanda Marie Knox and affirmed by Raffaele Sollecito is an unfounded alibi.''"

There we have it.

Consider this - Judge Massei in 2010 had written that there was no forensics supporting the notion that Knox had sloughed blood off of her hands, but Massei decided she must have anyway - why? Because the surmise that she had done that fits so well into all the other "evidence".

Yet all that other evidence had been generated the same way - no forensics to support any single item, but all the surmises added up to guilt.

I believe this to be why the Section 5 of Cassation, the Marasca-Bruno panel finallly concluded:

Quote:

Now, if it goes without doubt that factual reconstruction is a task pertaining
exclusively to the fact finding judge and it is not up to the Court of Legitimacy to
establish if the related decision does indeed offer the best possible reconstruction of
the events, nor to approve the reasoning behind it, having this [Supreme] Court to
limit itself to verify if said reasoning is compatible - according to an expression often
used in jurisprudence - “with common sense and with the limits of an acceptable
latitude of evaluation” (among others, Section 5, n.1004 of 30/11/1999, filed in
2000, Moro G, Rv 215745), as well as compliant with the elements of evidence,
according to the modified text of Article 606, section e) of the Italian Code of
Criminal Procedure; it is true that the reconstructive version chosen, even if
compliant with the rules of ordinary logic, must, nevertheless, agree with the facts
discovered at trial and be the result of a process of critical evaluation of the
evidence acquired according to the procedure. In other words, the use of logic and
intuition cannot, in any way, compensate for the lack of evidence or the inefficiency
of the investigations. Faced with missing, insufficient or contradictory evidence, the
judge should simply accept it and issue a verdict of acquittal, according to Article
530, section 2 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, even if he is really
convinced of the guilt of the defendant.

Once again I'm reminded of a poster to this very thread - way way back when - who said that the problem with the way this case was handled was that:

all the evidence used against RS and AK has been judicially created

.... not created by the actual evidence. This perhaps begins with the Rudy trial establishing the judicial fact of multiple attackers - based on no evidence whatsoever. By the time the RS/AK trials came around, even with 8 of 9 experts saying a single attacker was a distinct possibility - the courts were stuck with the non-evidence-generated judicial fact. After that, even more surmises could be wedged in, not because there had been evidence to support each additional surmise, but because each surmise "fit" the judicially created conclusions. And on and on. Like a house of cards.

So hats' off to Jarod. In two sittings Jarod has established the judicial fact (for the fake-Wiki) that Curatolo was a credible witness. Why?

Because Nencini said so.

The fake-Wiki should be retitled, "The Nencini summary-Wiki, and let's ignore anything else anyone else had said."

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by TruthCalls

I'm not sure how you could actually manage to forget that, but...

I recently read what they had to say about Curatolo (I can't help myself, it's like looking at the wreckage after a bad accident - you know you don't want to see it but you look anyway). I swear Vixen must have written that section. It's the same old argument - yes, he says he saw them on the night when people were in costume boarding disco buses but despite this the courts ruled him credible. So there it is... courts say it's good, PGP agrees with it, therefore dispensing with fact, logic and reason is perfectly acceptable.

Indeed.

And it raises, once again, the gigantic spectre of just HOW the Massei and Nencini courts found him a credible/reliable witness?!

And I'm afraid it also therefore raises the spectre of just how the Knox/Sollecito defence teams were not able to show these two courts convincingly just how SPECTACULARLY unreliable and lacking in credibility Curatolo was. Yes..... I know that there's an argument to say that certain courts were almost (apparently) determined to find Knox and Sollecito guilty, but I still believe that Knox and Sollecito were extremely poorly defended in certain key areas - most notably the "mixed blood/DNA" evidence, the footprint evidence, the knife and blood clasp DNA evidence, and the testimony of Curatolo and Quintavalle.

And to deal just with the "Curatolo as credible/reliable witness" issue, I still find it almost beyond belief that apparently nobody in Knox's/Sollecito's combined defence teams had a look (prior to the first Massei trial) at Curatolo's police statement, realised that there were glaring factual inconsistencies and falsehoods, and took the (easy) steps to produce the additional evidence to show to the court when it came to dealing with Curatolo in the trial.

And - as I have grown weary of pointing out - the most glaring and obvious (and easy to sort out) factual inconsistency/falsehood was around Curatolo's claims of seeing hordes of revelling students in costumes/masks in the square, and the unmarked white disco buses picking these people up, on the very night when he claims to have seen Knox and Sollecito hanging around the square all evening, which he also claims was the night of the murder (1st November 2007). Seriously, did NOBODY on the combined defence teams read this and immediately figure out that the night Curatolo was dealing with could not possibly have been the night of the murder, on account of the fact that the "hordes of student revellers in costumes/masks and disco buses" issue could ONLY refer to the previous evening Halloween, 31st October? And that was (of course) because the out-of-town clubs held big party night on the night of Halloween (where customers were invited to dress up in costumes/masks, and when the out-of-town clubs operated white buses to pick up customers from Piazza Grimana), yet not a single one of the out-of-town clubs was open on the following night - 1st November, the night of the murder - and therefore none of them was operating the white unmarked buses that night (plus, of course, there would have been no hordes of student revellers in costumes/masks on the following night of 1st November, since a) there were no Halloween parties that night, and b) that was a night when it was customary to gather as a family and commemorate dead relatives).

All it would have taken was a phone call to each of the out-of-town club owners, followed by a subpoena from each of them stating that none of their clubs was open on November 1st 2007, and none of them was therefore operating the white unmarked bus service on November 1st 2007.

And, at a stroke, that easy step would have rendered Curatolo's statement fundamentally factually inaccurate, and wholly incompatible with the night of the murder.

It seems that either a) nobody on the combined defence teams even spotted this at all, and/or b) the defence strategy in respect of Curatolo was entirely focussed on questioning his reliability/credibility on the (wholly subjective, and thus wholly arguable) matter of his status as a shambling homeless man.

Whatever the truth was about how the defence teams handled the Curatolo situation, it's a factual truth that they never presented proper, reliable evidence to either the Massei or Nencini courts (in the form of subpoenas from all the out-of-town club owners, and/or bringing some/all of these club owners in as defence witnesses at trial) that there were no white unmarked buses picking up revellers from Piazza Grimana on the night of the murder.

Unbelievable.

[bagels]

The reason Curatolo is a bogus witness has nothing to do with disco buses or heroin or any of that crap. It's because the night of the murder he later claims to have seen a young woman in a "serious argument" with a man and this "serious argument" featuring a young woman was so notable to him, that he remembered her and the young man months later, in a town full of young male and female students.

Yet when he was interviewed by the police 12 hours after the murder about a young woman being brutally killed, steps away from where a young woman was supposedly confronting a man in a notable suspicious "serious argument", he knew nothing. Saw nothing.

Hellmann doesn't mention this because Italy has a stupid judicial system and they aren't allowed to imply someone is just lying and making **** up. But in a serious system this would absolutely be the end of his testimony. The PGP don't care because this case has never ever been about the evidence to them.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Planigale

Since they never took a reference sample from Romanelli they would never know if they found a DNA sample to match her. If you don't look you don't find.

Add that to the fact that the "bloody footprints" attributed to Knox were never compared to the footprints of the other 3 girls living in that house. Think about that for a minute. Three other girls lived in that cottage and the police never bothered to compare their footprints to the luminol enhanced footprints. Why? Most likely because they assumed they were in blood so therefore could only belong to Amanda.

[TruthCalls]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Add that to the fact that the "bloody footprints" attributed to Knox were never compared to the footprints of the other 3 girls living in that house. Think about that for a minute. Three other girls lived in that cottage and the police never bothered to compare their footprints to the luminol enhanced footprints. Why? Most likely because they assumed they were in blood so therefore could only belong to Amanda.

They didn't take any reference prints because they had tunnel vision. The ONLY thing they were concerned with was whether the prints could be used to exclude Amanda. Once it was determined she couldn't be excluded, the prints were ipso facto, Amanda's.** But they're really only useful if they're made with Meredith's blood. Two different tests prove they weren't but that didn't dissuade a prosecutor on a mission to convict. Curatolo's testimony clearly eliminates him having seen Amanda and Raffaele in Piazza Grimana, but placing them there was to important to their theory that they simply ignored anything that said otherwise. And on it goes.

** I truly believe if Amanda could have been eliminated as having made the prints the TMB and DNA results would not have been ignored... but the prints, not fitting in with their theory, would have.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by TruthCalls

They didn't take any reference prints because they had tunnel vision. The ONLY thing they were concerned with was whether the prints could be used to exclude Amanda. Once it was determined she couldn't be excluded, the prints were ipso facto, Amanda's.** But they're really only useful if they're made with Meredith's blood. Two different tests prove they weren't but that didn't dissuade a prosecutor on a mission to convict. Curatolo's testimony clearly eliminates him having seen Amanda and Raffaele in Piazza Grimana, but placing them there was to important to their theory that they simply ignored anything that said otherwise. And on it goes.

** I truly believe if Amanda could have been eliminated as having made the prints the TMB and DNA results would not have been ignored... but the prints, not fitting in with their theory, would have.

It's like the kitchen knife. It could not be excluded from one wound out of several so, ipso facto, it's the murder weapon despite no blood being found anywhere on it. And of course, it's perfectly logical that, after stabbing a girl to death with it, they'd want to put it back in their kitchen drawer and slice bread with it. Uh huh.

[Numbers]

Best Documentary or Nonfiction Special {Emmy Awards} Nominations:

Amanda Knox (Netflix)

A House Divided (Vice Special Report)

L.A. Burning: The Riots 25 Years Later (A&E)

13th (Netflix)

ETA: Source: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lis...t-2017-1018828
(Brought to attention by european neighbour on IIP)

[Numbers]

The ECHR case-law considers "judicial facts" that are not reasonably supported by evidence - arbitrary or improper reasoning - and that are used to convict a violation of the Convention. Here's an example:

Here's a recent ECHR case finding a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 6.1, because a conviction was based on arbitrary or improper reasoning in which an important defense argument was ignored by the courts. This case-law is relevant to the Italian courts convicting Amanda Knox of calunnia against Patrick Lumumba because that conviction was also based on a failure to logically and objectively refute reasonable defense arguments, although the ECHR may for simplicity examine only the issues of coercion and denial of legal representation during the interrogation.

This is the summary of the recent case:

Nikolay Genov v. Bulgaria (no. 7202/09) {13 July 2017}

The applicant, Nikolay Dimitrov Genov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Pazardzhik (Bulgaria). The case concerned his complaint that the courts had failed to consider his case fairly during criminal proceedings against him.

In 2008 Mr Genov was convicted for having acquired counterfeit US dollars. The court ruled that he had acquired the notes at some time between March 2005 (when such possession was first criminalised) and January 2007 (when the notes were found in a search of his house). However, at trial, evidence had been given suggesting that Mr Genov had acquired US dollars in 2002 (before the possession of counterfeit notes was criminalised), and also in subsequent years. Mr Genov appealed his conviction, claiming that it had never been established that he had taken possession of the counterfeit notes at a time when this had been a criminal offence. However, both of his appeals were dismissed.

Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Genov complained that the domestic courts had failed to respond to his argument that it had not been shown that he had carried out the offence at a time when it had been unlawful.

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Here is an excerpt from the judgment giving more details of the ECHR reasoning:

32. However, the Court is not satisfied that the domestic courts gave a sufficiently reasoned answer to the argument at issue. Even though the Regional Court and the Court of Appeal restated in their summaries of the relevant facts what the applicant had said, namely that in 2002 his brother had given him money to buy US dollars, they did not analyse that statement or indicate whether they considered it credible. More importantly, they did not explain why and on the basis of what evidence they considered that the applicant had acquired the counterfeit bank notes much later, namely after 26 March 2005 (see paragraphs 11 and 13 above). Apart from the statements of the applicant and his brother, no evidence was collected concerning that question. It appears that the courts merely “adjusted” the time when the offence must have been committed, correcting the time initially indicated in the indictment (see paragraph 7 above), to take into account the date on which such an offence had been criminalised.

33. Nor did the Supreme Court of Cassation comment on the argument at issue, even though the applicant clearly raised it in his appeal on points of law (see paragraphs 14-15 above).

34. The Court therefore concludes that the domestic courts failed to give sufficiently reasoned judgments, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

35. There has accordingly been a violation of that provision.

[Bill Williams]

The NetFlix documentary is up for an Emmy:

Outstanding Documentary or Nonfiction Special
“Amanda Knox” (Netflix)
“The Beatles: Eight Days A Week – The Touring Years” (Hulu)
“A House Divided (Vice Special Report)” (HBO)
“L.A. Burning: The Riots 25 Years Later (A&E)
“13th” (Netflix)

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

The NetFlix documentary is up for an Emmy:

Outstanding Documentary or Nonfiction Special
“Amanda Knox” (Netflix)
“The Beatles: Eight Days A Week – The Touring Years” (Hulu)
“A House Divided (Vice Special Report)” (HBO)
“L.A. Burning: The Riots 25 Years Later (A&E)
“13th” (Netflix)

Oooooops, Numbers beat me to it.

[Stacyhs]

[quote=TruthCalls;11918417]You have to have unidentified DNA before having reference profiles is necessary, and you have to be taking sampling before you can generate DNA profiles, unidentified or otherwise. I find a total of five samples from Romanelli's room. One from the rock, one a hair from the window, one from the window frame and the two that were Luminol positive. Ferguson seems to make the same foolish error so often made by PGP. A lack of sampling resulting in a lack of DNA profiles does not in any way suggest DNA traces aren't present in the room. You just need to find them. Obviously the police jumped to the conclusion the room was staged and didn't bother to properly test it. Romanelli was in her room on two occasions after the police arrived so there is no doubt her DNA is in there. But why let this obvious fact get in the way of good PGP insinuation.

And before Vixen resurfaces to jump on this... there were 156 samples taken from Meredith's bedroom and an additional 24 taken from her body (that I can find, perhaps there were even more). Attempting to equate this with the five samples taken from Romanelli's room would be really, really stupid. Especially since it would be relatively easy to take minor steps to avoid leaving a forensic trace of yourself entering a room through a window, but far more difficult to do so when stabbing and sexually assaulting someone in a small room.[/QUOTE]

It would be perfectly logical and practical for Guede to have worn gloves while breaking into the cottage. Not only was it a cold night, but it would make sense to wear gloves while pulling himself up gripping the window sill and then clearing away glass. It also would make sense for him to have rummaged through Filomena's room while wearing them and then to have removed them to use the toilet which explains why he then left his DNA, fingerprints, and bloody palm print.

[bagels]

I think it's a fairly safe bet that this is the only time in human history where it's been discussed if a guy with a history of hopping through upper floor windows found at the scene of an upper floor window hopping did said window hopping.

In all other cases people just go "yeah he went in through that window, obviously."

Really makes u think.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by bagels

I think it's a fairly safe bet that this is the only time in human history where it's been discussed if a guy with a history of hopping through upper floor windows found at the scene of an upper floor window hopping did said window hopping.

In all other cases people just go "yeah he went in through that window, obviously."

Really makes u think.

But it's not the first time in human history that when shown that it was eminently possible to climb in through the window.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JL6nIkaYLs

That the response from some is conspiratorial, eg. that the video had been faked.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by bagels

I think it's a fairly safe bet that this is the only time in human history where it's been discussed if a guy with a history of hopping through upper floor windows found at the scene of an upper floor window hopping did said window hopping.

In all other cases people just go "yeah he went in through that window, obviously."

Really makes u think.

But, but, Bagels...the police knew right away that no one could climb in through that window! I mean, burglars never climb in through second story windows. And that guy videotaped climbing up so easily to the window and sitting on the sill... that was faked. And the police knew the break-in was faked because no glass was found under the items...um...except Filomena said there was.

And remember, there was no grill on the window below, either.
And so it goes....

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

The NetFlix documentary is up for an Emmy:

Outstanding Documentary or Nonfiction Special
“Amanda Knox” (Netflix)
“The Beatles: Eight Days A Week – The Touring Years” (Hulu)
“A House Divided (Vice Special Report)” (HBO)
“L.A. Burning: The Riots 25 Years Later (A&E)
“13th” (Netflix)

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Oooooops, Numbers beat me to it.

But your post has more information!

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Numbers

But your post has more information!

You were showing a confirmation bias against The Beatles! Shame!

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

You were showing a confirmation bias against The Beatles! Shame!

I found this info:

Documentary or Nonfiction Special
“Amanda Knox” (Netflix)
“The Beatles: Eight Days a Week – The Touring Years” (Hulu)
“A House Divided (Vice Special Report)” (HBO)
“L.A. Burning: The Riots 25 Years Later” (A&E)
“13th” (Netflix)

Source: http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/2017...ns-1202494465/

The list from this source agrees fully with your information.

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by Numbers

The ECHR case-law considers "judicial facts" that are not reasonably supported by evidence - arbitrary or improper reasoning - and that are used to convict a violation of the Convention. Here's an example:

Here's a recent ECHR case finding a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 6.1, because a conviction was based on arbitrary or improper reasoning in which an important defense argument was ignored by the courts. This case-law is relevant to the Italian courts convicting Amanda Knox of calunnia against Patrick Lumumba because that conviction was also based on a failure to logically and objectively refute reasonable defense arguments, although the ECHR may for simplicity examine only the issues of coercion and denial of legal representation during the interrogation.

This is the summary of the recent case:

Nikolay Genov v. Bulgaria (no. 7202/09) {13 July 2017}

The applicant, Nikolay Dimitrov Genov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Pazardzhik (Bulgaria). The case concerned his complaint that the courts had failed to consider his case fairly during criminal proceedings against him.

In 2008 Mr Genov was convicted for having acquired counterfeit US dollars. The court ruled that he had acquired the notes at some time between March 2005 (when such possession was first criminalised) and January 2007 (when the notes were found in a search of his house). However, at trial, evidence had been given suggesting that Mr Genov had acquired US dollars in 2002 (before the possession of counterfeit notes was criminalised), and also in subsequent years. Mr Genov appealed his conviction, claiming that it had never been established that he had taken possession of the counterfeit notes at a time when this had been a criminal offence. However, both of his appeals were dismissed.

Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Genov complained that the domestic courts had failed to respond to his argument that it had not been shown that he had carried out the offence at a time when it had been unlawful.

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Here is an excerpt from the judgment giving more details of the ECHR reasoning:

32. However, the Court is not satisfied that the domestic courts gave a sufficiently reasoned answer to the argument at issue. Even though the Regional Court and the Court of Appeal restated in their summaries of the relevant facts what the applicant had said, namely that in 2002 his brother had given him money to buy US dollars, they did not analyse that statement or indicate whether they considered it credible. More importantly, they did not explain why and on the basis of what evidence they considered that the applicant had acquired the counterfeit bank notes much later, namely after 26 March 2005 (see paragraphs 11 and 13 above). Apart from the statements of the applicant and his brother, no evidence was collected concerning that question. It appears that the courts merely “adjusted” the time when the offence must have been committed, correcting the time initially indicated in the indictment (see paragraph 7 above), to take into account the date on which such an offence had been criminalised.

33. Nor did the Supreme Court of Cassation comment on the argument at issue, even though the applicant clearly raised it in his appeal on points of law (see paragraphs 14-15 above).

34. The Court therefore concludes that the domestic courts failed to give sufficiently reasoned judgments, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

35. There has accordingly been a violation of that provision.

To emphasize that the Convention, according to the ECHR, allows a conviction only if the accused is found "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", that the burden of proof is on the prosecution for each element of a charge, and if there is any doubt the "presumption of innocence" requires an acquittal or similar dismissal for that charge, here is another excerpt from Genov v. Bulgaria:

30. Furthermore, the applicant’s argument was clearly relevant, as national law did not criminalise the mere possession of counterfeit bank notes, but only the possession of such notes in large quantities .... This not being the case, the initial criminal charge against the applicant of possession of counterfeit bank notes was subsequently dropped ... and he was indicted and brought to court for having “acquired” such notes. However, acquiring counterfeit bank notes was criminalised only on 26 March 2005, which made it crucial to show both that the applicant had acquired the counterfeit notes after this date and that he had been aware that they were counterfeit, a requirement which was in line with the presumption of innocence, which places the burden of proof of all elements of the accusation on the prosecution and requires that any doubt should benefit the accused (see, for example, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, 6 December 1988, §§ 76-77, Series A no. 146, and Melich and Beck v. the Czech Republic, no. 35450/04, § 49, 24 July 2008).

31. The national courts were therefore obliged to examine the applicant’s argument and give a reasoned answer to it. This obligation, contained implicitly in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see paragraph 27 above), was also provided for in Articles 301 and 339 of the Code of Criminal Procedure {of Bulgaria}.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by Numbers

I found this info:

Documentary or Nonfiction Special
“Amanda Knox” (Netflix)
“The Beatles: Eight Days a Week – The Touring Years” (Hulu)
“A House Divided (Vice Special Report)” (HBO)
“L.A. Burning: The Riots 25 Years Later” (A&E)
“13th” (Netflix)

Source: http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/2017...ns-1202494465/

The list from this source agrees fully with your information.

I think 13th should win myself.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

I think 13th should win myself.

I go with them in this order:

1. “13th” (Netflix)
2. “A House Divided (Vice Special Report)” (HBO)
3. “L.A. Burning: The Riots 25 Years Later” (A&E)
4. “Amanda Knox” (Netflix)
5. “The Beatles: Eight Days a Week – The Touring Years” (Hulu)

[Vixen]

Apologies in advance if this is already dealt with. However, there is such a thing as a certificate of exoneration, as I understand you guys have been disputing this.

See (d) - this is likely the similar reasoning of the Florence Court for denying Raffy any compensation:

Quote:

d) The petition shall state facts in sufficient detail to permit the court to find that the petitioner is likely to succeed at trial in proving that the petitioner is innocent of the offenses charged in the indictment or information or his or her acts or omissions charged in the indictment or information did not constitute a felony or misdemeanor against the State of Illinois, and the petitioner did not by his or her own conduct voluntarily cause or bring about his or her conviction.  The petition shall be verified by the petitioner.

[TruthCalls]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Apologies in advance if this is already dealt with. However, there is such a thing as a certificate of exoneration, as I understand you guys have been disputing this.

See (d) - this is likely the similar reasoning of the Florence Court for denying Raffy any compensation:

From your link;

Illinois Statutes Chapter 735. Civil Procedure § 5/2-702. Petition for a certificate of innocence that the petitioner was innocent of all offenses for which he or she was incarcerated

Another Vixen lie

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by TruthCalls

From your link;

Illinois Statutes Chapter 735. Civil Procedure § 5/2-702. Petition for a certificate of innocence that the petitioner was innocent of all offenses for which he or she was incarcerated

Another Vixen lie

It's unclear why one even needs such a certificate. Should not a record of the court outcome be enough?

It's not as if one's innocence is in legal doubt even without a laminated card in your wallet.....

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

It's unclear why one even needs such a certificate. Should not a record of the court outcome be enough?

It's not as if one's innocence is in legal doubt even without a laminated card in your wallet.....

In the US, for some states, the "certificate of innocence" is a way to document that a person released from prison was wrongfully convicted and should receive compensation. According to the introductory information in the Illinois statute, it was a replacement or supplement to an earlier procedure requiring a pardon from the governor. Here is an excerpt:

"§ 2-702.  Petition for a certificate of innocence that the petitioner was innocent of all offenses for which he or she was incarcerated.

(a) The General Assembly finds and declares that innocent persons who have been wrongly convicted of crimes in Illinois and subsequently imprisoned have been frustrated in seeking legal redress due to a variety of substantive and technical obstacles in the law and that such persons should have an available avenue to obtain a finding of innocence so that they may obtain relief through a petition in the Court of Claims.  The General Assembly further finds misleading the current legal nomenclature which compels an innocent person to seek a pardon for being wrongfully incarcerated. ...."

See, for example:

http://codes.findlaw.com/il/chapter-...5-5-2-702.html

[LondonJohn]

Good grief. Another epic fail of an argument from the pro-guilt PoV.

Well, I say "good grief", but obviously at this point I'm very far from surprised.......

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Good grief. Another epic fail of an argument from the pro-guilt PoV.

Well, I say "good grief", but obviously at this point I'm very far from surprised.......

I am not sure there was an argument from the PGP POV. What does an Illinois state law have to do with an Italian law, which if anything must be compared to the Italian Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights and ECHR case law?

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by TruthCalls

From your link;

Illinois Statutes Chapter 735. Civil Procedure § 5/2-702. Petition for a certificate of innocence that the petitioner was innocent of all offenses for which he or she was incarcerated

Another Vixen lie

As far as Illinois is concerned, Vixen was for all intents and purposes correct, not lying at all. She had just conflated the terms "exonerated" and "innocence".

There probably is a rarefied distinction between the terms in legalese, but for us folks up here in the cheap seats they are virtually the same in ordinary parlance.

Apparently Knox is speaking at yet another bar association meeting, this time in Southern California with another noted exoneree on the 27th. One could perhaps add that two innocent people are speaking to lawyers without mangling the meaning of the words in plain speech.

[Numbers]

There is no doubt that the Italian law, CPP Article 314.1, states, in translation:

"Whoever is dismissed by a final judgment because the criminal act did not occur, or they did not commit it or the act does not constitute an offence or it is not deemed an offence by law, is entitled to equitable compensation for the precautionary detention he served, if he did not cause or contributed to cause it intentionally or by gross negligence."

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

As far as Illinois is concerned, Vixen was for all intents and purposes correct, not lying at all. She had just conflated the terms "exonerated" and "innocence".

There probably is a rarefied distinction between the terms in legalese, but for us folks up here in the cheap seats they are virtually the same in ordinary parlance.

Apparently Knox is speaking at yet another bar association meeting, this time in Southern California with another noted exoneree on the 27th. One could perhaps add that two innocent people are speaking to lawyers without mangling the meaning of the words in plain speech.

Lying? Maybe not technically. But intentionally misleading? I think so. Whether or not Knox can claim to be an "exoneree" has been a topic of dispute here. Vixen claimed that she cannot as she was never "exonerated" despite being found "not guilty" and that she "did not commit the act" by M/B. She also made this false statement:

Originally Posted by Vixen

The verdict was 'annulled'. The US equivalent appears to be 'vacated'.

In the USA it is technically a lie to claim you are 'exonerated' (as Sunny Jacobs does and Knox) unless you have a certificate saying so.

The link she provided clearly says "certificate of innocence" but Vixen chose to substitute that with "exoneration". I doubt that was unintentional.

[Lince]

Originally Posted by Numbers

There is no doubt that the Italian law, CPP Article 314.1, states, in translation:

"Whoever is dismissed by a final judgment because the criminal act did not occur, or they did not commit it or the act does not constitute an offence or it is not deemed an offence by law, is entitled to equitable compensation for the precautionary detention he served, if he did not cause or contributed to cause it intentionally or by gross negligence."

Should intent to be proven? Or righteous belief is enough to rubber stamp the actions or statements as intentional, e.g., as lies, whenever convenient?

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Lince

Should intent to be proven? Or righteous belief is enough to rubber stamp the actions or statements as intentional, e.g., as lies, whenever convenient?

Yes, intent would need to be proven on the "he caused or contributed to cause it intentionally or by gross negligence" part.

But in Sollecito's case, the courts (up to and including the SC) appear to have adopted a sleight-of-hand "argument" by incorporating the (settled) judgement from Knox's criminal slander conviction - a conviction for an entirely separate crime committed (until the ECHR demands remedy, that is...) by an entirely different person.

The leger-de-main goes something like this:

1) Knox's criminal slander verdict decrees that she was present at the cottage at around the time of the murder* (this was also improperly incorporated into the Marasca SC verdict, but that's another matter.....)

2) Therefore Sollecito must, de facto, have lied to the police when - in his initial interviews (i.e. prior to 5th November) - he "claimed"** that Knox and he were together in his apartment all evening/night of the murder

3) In addition, Sollecito tried to "mislead" police further in his 5th/6th November interrogation.

4) Therefore, it's an incontrovertible truth that Sollecito showed culpable intent in his participation in the investigation***


* though god knows how: the courts in this case chose to rule that Knox was lying in saying she met Lumumba and took him to the cottage etc, but at the same time that Knox was telling the truth about having gore to the cottage.

** of course this was actually the factual truth

*** it seems not to matter one iota that Sollecito never tried to mislead in respect of his OWN movements etc (i.e. matters which could have led to his incarceration for four years.....). The Italian criminal justice system is not fit for purpose.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

The link she provided clearly says "certificate of innocence" but Vixen chose to substitute that with "exoneration". I doubt that was unintentional.

I'll go with misleading...... but there's a nuance that everyone is missing here.

Both Knox and Sollecito spent time in prison, but that time (one year for Knox, four years for Sollecito) was solely because of precautionary detention.

Neither the Massei nor the Nencini convictions count, not until Cassation confirms them which in this case it did not.

This is different than in the US where a lower court conviction is a conviction, and any jail time is because if guilt. If a person is subsequently released on appeal because the appeals court reverses the conviction, then in the US that person could be said to be both innocent and exonerated.

As it relates to the murder, under Italian law the pair had never been convicted, not really. Nor did the Hellmann acquittal count as an acquittal, not until Cassation signed off on it.

No one here knows, not really, if Cassation's 2015 annulling of Nencini was a de jure agreement or reinstatement of Hellmann's acquittal - where is Grinder when you need him?

So "exonerated" has the nuance to it that someone had first been legally an definitively convicted of murder. Neither Sollecito nor Knox had been, indeed, in the eyes of Italian law they'd been innocent throughout without interruption.

However, there is also a de facto sense of "exonerated". In the US and Canada that term is perhaps used that way, towards Knox, even among 100s of lawyers as she's referred to as such in multiple bar associations and law schools in two countries.

Someone has to keep Grinder's spirit alive! Vixen may have been purposely misleading, but she was not entirely wrong.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

I'll go with misleading...... but there's a nuance that everyone is missing here.

Both Knox and Sollecito spent time in prison, but that time (one year for Knox, four years for Sollecito) was solely because of precautionary detention.

Neither the Massei nor the Nencini convictions count, not until Cassation confirms them which in this case it did not.

This is different than in the US where a lower court conviction is a conviction, and any jail time is because if guilt. If a person is subsequently released on appeal because the appeals court reverses the conviction, then in the US that person could be said to be both innocent and exonerated.

As it relates to the murder, under Italian law the pair had never been convicted, not really. Nor did the Hellmann acquittal count as an acquittal, not until Cassation signed off on it.

No one here knows, not really, if Cassation's 2015 annulling of Nencini was a de jure agreement or reinstatement of Hellmann's acquittal - where is Grinder when you need him?

So "exonerated" has the nuance to it that someone had first been legally an definitively convicted of murder. Neither Sollecito nor Knox had been, indeed, in the eyes of Italian law they'd been innocent throughout without interruption.

However, there is also a de facto sense of "exonerated". In the US and Canada that term is perhaps used that way, towards Knox, even among 100s of lawyers as she's referred to as such in multiple bar associations and law schools in two countries.

Someone has to keep Grinder's spirit alive! Vixen may have been purposely misleading, but she was not entirely wrong.

Misleading, yes, regarding "innocence" vs "exoneration". But entirely wrong when she claimed this:

"In the USA it is technically a lie to claim you are 'exonerated' (as Sunny Jacobs does and Knox) unless you have a certificate saying so." No one has to have a certificate to be called an exoneree.

One does not need a "certificate" to be exonerated.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Misleading, yes, regarding "innocence" vs "exoneration". But entirely wrong when she claimed this:

"In the USA it is technically a lie to claim you are 'exonerated' (as Sunny Jacobs does and Knox) unless you have a certificate saying so." No one has to have a certificate to be called an exoneree.

One does not need a "certificate" to be exonerated.

Vixen just makes stuff up.

Or she reads it on Peter Quennell's TJMK site and passes it on. In that case, Quennell just made it up.

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

I'll go with misleading...... but there's a nuance that everyone is missing here.

Both Knox and Sollecito spent time in prison, but that time (one year for Knox, four years for Sollecito) was solely because of precautionary detention.

Neither the Massei nor the Nencini convictions count, not until Cassation confirms them which in this case it did not.

This is different than in the US where a lower court conviction is a conviction, and any jail time is because if guilt. If a person is subsequently released on appeal because the appeals court reverses the conviction, then in the US that person could be said to be both innocent and exonerated.

As it relates to the murder, under Italian law the pair had never been convicted, not really. Nor did the Hellmann acquittal count as an acquittal, not until Cassation signed off on it.

No one here knows, not really, if Cassation's 2015 annulling of Nencini was a de jure agreement or reinstatement of Hellmann's acquittal - where is Grinder when you need him?

So "exonerated" has the nuance to it that someone had first been legally an definitively convicted of murder. Neither Sollecito nor Knox had been, indeed, in the eyes of Italian law they'd been innocent throughout without interruption.

However, there is also a de facto sense of "exonerated". In the US and Canada that term is perhaps used that way, towards Knox, even among 100s of lawyers as she's referred to as such in multiple bar associations and law schools in two countries.

Someone has to keep Grinder's spirit alive! Vixen may have been purposely misleading, but she was not entirely wrong.

If the PGP argument is purely semantic, about the meaning of "exonerated", it is not worth pursuing. The PGP use an idiosyncratic definition of "exonerated" and there is no benefit in debating the validity of their agenda-based definitions. As you and others have pointed out, according to the Italian Constitution, Knox and Sollecito were never finally convicted of Kercher's murder/rape, and thus never lost the presumption of innocence for those charges under Italian law.

The real legal question regarding Raffaele Sollecito's request for compensation, and the final denial thereof by the Italian judicial system, is whether that denial was reasonable, fair and legal under the Italian Constitution and the European Convention of Human Rights (including ECHR case law). Significant issues relating to that include the fairness or lack of fairness (arbitrariness) of the evaluation of evidence by the Italian courts deciding on compensation, and the legality under Italian and international law (the Convention and ECHR case law) of Sollecito's arrest and detention.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by TruthCalls

From your link;

Illinois Statutes Chapter 735. Civil Procedure § 5/2-702. Petition for a certificate of innocence that the petitioner was innocent of all offenses for which he or she was incarcerated

Another Vixen lie

In this context innocent/exonerated are interchangeable. 'Exonerated' is the legal term for 'proven innocent'.

[TruthCalls]

Originally Posted by Vixen

In this context innocent/exonerated are interchangeable. 'Exonerated' is the legal term for 'proven innocent'.

The legal terms used in court are convict/guilty or acquit/not guilty. A court will never declare someone "exonerated" if/when they are found not guilty. Further, to be exonerated means to be found innocent after previously having been found, or assumed to have been, guilty. If someone is indicted for a crime, goes to trial and is acquitted, it would not be proper to consider them an exoneree as they were never previously considered guilty.

But in truth none of that really matters. The real point here is you made the claim one can not be considered an exoneree unless they have a "Certificate of Exoneration". Forgetting for a moment the incorrect usage of exoneration in the name of this State of Illinois certificate, you offered no evidence to suggest this certificate was required in order to be considered an exoneree. And certainly what the State of Illinois does has no bearing on someone would was exonerated of a crime in Italy.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

It's unclear why one even needs such a certificate. Should not a record of the court outcome be enough?

It's not as if one's innocence is in legal doubt even without a laminated card in your wallet.....

It's vital if you want your criminal record wiped and perhaps apply for compensation.

None of the following are exonerated:

Amanda Knox
Raffaele Sollecito
Damian Echols
Ryan Ferguson
SunnyHorrendous Jacobs

The latter three have merely had their convictions 'vacated' and the former two 'annulled'.

[bagels]

Originally Posted by Vixen

In this context innocent/exonerated are interchangeable. 'Exonerated' is the legal term for 'proven innocent'.

Sorry but Amanda Knox was already declared "totally innocent" by the most respected person in the world, Donald John Trump, 45th President of the United States of America.