Pages

Thursday, June 1, 2017

Alleged Confirmations Rejected

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

TJMK's Machiavelli points to court rulings to prove that Amanda Knox and Sollecito were at the murder. It's also just a court ruling that Guede had accomplices, and it's by this fiat that Guede had accomplices that guilters turn the fiat that Amanda and Raffaele were at the murder into claiming they were Guede's accomplices. Guede's sentencing only convicted him with unknown accomplices.

Machiavelli also claims that the Fifth Chamber was an incorrect part of the Italian Supreme Court to review a murder case and that it was forbidden to judge evidence. Guilters think that only the trial court can judge evidence. So how can there be justice when the trial court makes up evidence as it did in the case against Amanda and Raffaele?

Machiavelli bizarrely claims there is a long list of proofs that Amanda and Raffaele were at the murder, although the quotes from Marasca and Bruno fail to show this. Even assuming Machiavelli's quotes from Chapter 4 of the motivation report are confirmation that Guede had accomplices, they don't mention Amanda and Raffaele. The motivation report didn't take up whether the ruling from Guede's trial was valid.

Section 9.4.1 gives Amanda's First Memorandum as the reason for concluding her presence in the kitchen of the villa during the murder, but in that First Memorandum, Amanda claims that that story in her coerced statements is unreal. How could the Fifth Chamber have used that as proof that Amanda was present at the murder?

If in that same section, the Marasca and Bruno referred to Amanda's stating in the 1:45 AM and 5:45 AM statements that Amanda knew before the police did that Meredith had been in sexuial intercourse, why wouldn't this just indicate to the judges that those statements were coerced? Why would they ignore the medical examiner's findings that Meredith had not had sexual intercourse? And is it the judges' logic that Amanda had to be present at the murder in order to falsely accuse Patrick Lumumba of the crime?

What did Marasca and Bruno find compelling about the speculation that Amanda had Meredith's blood on her hands while washing them? That Amanda's DNA in the sink was "the consequence of epithelial rubbing" doesn't prove what Amanda was washing off her hands. Did Marasca and Bruno think the blood in the sink would be less diluted since it was already there when Amanda washed her hands?

Supposedly Marasca and Bruno concluded that Amanda accused Patrick to protect Guede even though they had just declared that Amanda would have to have known that an accusation against Patrick would not be validated by evidence.

The judges mentioned the alleged staged break-in, but then call it ambiguous. Did Marasca and Bruno think Amanda and Raffaele staged the break-in in Filomena's room in anticipation of the postal police arriving in search of Filomena? Doesn't that destroy the motive for stealing the cell phones to keep the murder from being discovered too soon? Not that there was ever any rationale as to what discovery too soon was supposed to mean.

Machiavelli insists that the final verdict is merely a dropping of charges that can be appealed. Maybe the reason there has been no appeal is because of the ruling that no proof would be found to justify returning the case to the trial court. It would hardly make sense that the Fifth Chamber acquitted without recourse to retrial if the confirmation of lower court rulings actually existed that Machiavelli asserts was done. By acquitting Amanda and Raffaele, the Fifth Chamber rejected these rulings the guilters love so much.

No comments:

Post a Comment