The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 31

[Stacyhs]

Aw, come on, you guys! Stop littering up the argument with all those pesky facts! Why use facts when we can just make stuff up? It's so much more entertaining and creative to let our imaginations just run wild!

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Methos

Just for the record:
Rudy Guede torna in Umbria: «Avrei dovuto fare di più per Meredith»
Omicidio Meredith, Rudy Guede: "Vorrei aver fatto di più quella notte"
Looks like Guede's PR machine is working...
... I wonder what a certain Francesco Maresca is doing right now?

What next, a reunion concert at the Hollywood Bowl?

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

No, he's just wrong.

Carlo Torre disagreed; he testified that a single knife could have made all the knife wounds.







Prof. Vinci also says the alleged murder weapon does not match the bloody outline of a smaller knife left on the bedsheet.

Vinci was dealt with at the merits court.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

This is a case of "making something up that I think supports my opinion".




Then why didn't they clean up the bathroom in an effort to remove any possible traces of themselves including the rug with "RS's" bloody footprint and Amanda's drop of blood on the faucet? Was it because they knew exactly where their DNA, blood, or fingerprints would be?



LOL! Why would she mention a college prank?
"Distressing deed"; do you know exactly what this classmate said about this prank...how she described it? No, you don't.

A lot of pranks are designed to momentarily 'scare' someone...like jumping out of a closet and yelling "Boo!". Did the roommate ever complain about this prank? Did she ever consider it bullying? Not that we know of.

"...ended up having to apologise": No one forced Knox to apologize. She saw her roommate was upset so she immediately revealed it was just a prank and apologized.

I'm curious, Vixen: why do you find it necessary to make up/invent/lie about things that never happened? Why do you need to dishonestly twist things using hyperbolically negative language? You present your highly biased opinions and interpretations as if they are facts. Do you get some kind of satisfaction from it? I really do want to know what you think you are accomplishing by this.

'Would could should.' What people's friends say about them gives one an indication as to their character. Sollecito liked animal porn, taking lots of drugs, dressing up in a shroud and a butcher's cleaver, demanding 'extreme experiences', attacked a girl at school with scissors; whilst Knox looked for the nearest Black guy to frame for her crime. She bullied her classmate by donning a sinister ski mask and overturning her room. Went to Italy for sex and drugs.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by whoanellie

I thought Amanda named Lumumba to turn attention away from Guede. Now she's trying to finger Guede. Make up your mind.

Trying to point police towards him without letting on that she was with him.

Nothing mysterious about it.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Rather than expunging the C&V report, a report to the Hellmann trial which panned Stefanoni's original, first trial evidence....

Nencini accepts it, but attempts to explain it away. Nencini accepts C&V's conclusion that there are unknown contributors to Trace B, as it was called. Nencini argues, though, that extra contributors are not relevant, nor even evidence of contamination (!).


So, rather than 'expunging' the C&V report, Nencini says he has no reason to doubt Vecchiotti's observations. What he's quibbling about is whether or not C&V said that Stefanoni asserted that there were only two contributors to Trace B. The quibble is that C&V criticised S. for not saying 'only' two contributors, Nencini said it was unclear if she'd used the word 'only'!

For Nencini, the sole evidentiary import of Trace B is that Sollecito was found as one of the contributors. It seems to escape him that if the extra ones were the result of contamination, then probably Sollecito's was too. With NO evidence regarding those extra contributors, he simply handwaves them away with galactically stupid reasoning.

Why does Nencini say that the extra ones cannot be the result of contamination? Read it and see if you agree:


Nencini continues by saying that extra contibutors are irrelevant, the issue is that Sollecito's is on Trace B.

Why? Because for Nencini is was 'perfectly normal' for innocent, extra contributors to be on that bra-clasp.

One cannot argue that him confusing Y-haplotypes with women, as being a typo. Read what he said.



That's a huge typo - in the range of it being a galactically stupid reason for denying that those extra contributors to Trace B could be contamination.

Nencini seems galactically uninterested in the identity of those extra contributors. Or the fact of them.

Those who make excuses for the convicting courts simply hand wave away things like that, not relying on evidence but on assumptions and guesses.

Yet, the other thing revealed when one actually reads the Nencini report, is that he says, "the Court has no reason to doubt the observations raised by Prof. Carla Vecchiotti concerning the technical report submitted by the Scientific Police"

He did not expunge it, he simply granted himself as the 'expert of the expert' like the eventual acquitting court said was part of the problem with this case when judges did that.

That is just politese before savaging them. Haven't you noticed the flowery faux-tactful language of Italian judges.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

You still appear not to understand this correctly.

The Massei and Nencini verdicts & MRs (and the reasoning that those courts used in order to arrive at their verdicts) is now totally expunged.

However, the evidence, testimony and argument that took place in those courts still stands, and was indeed available to the Marasca SC panel. And of course the Marasca SC panel's entire remit & responsibility was to examine the reasoning/verdicts of the lower courts and decide whether those lower courts followed the law or not*.

When the Marasca SC panel quashed the convictions, by definition it simultaneously struck out the judgements of the related lower courts. The Massei and Nencini verdicts are no longer extant in a legal sense.


* For example, the Marasca SC panel judged - correctly - that the lower courts had erred grossly in law when they accorded weight and significance to Stefanoni's DNA "evidence". The SC ruled - correctly - that any fair court acting in accordance with the law should/would have entirely discounted Stefanoni's "evidence" as fundamentally unreliable and worthless.

The facts found by Massei that weren't 'rectified' by Nencini remain as the legal facts of the matter. Read Marasca-Bruno report. It doesn't have the jurisdiction to weigh up evidence or the fact found, so Nencini's findings stand.

M-B claimed it annulled the sentences because of 'press interference' and some waffle about 'investigative amnesia'. That is hwo incredibly strong the case was against the defendants. That was the only way M-B could wriggle out of it, by claiming a preposterous 'insufficient evidence'. It was subjected to outside political pressure. Politically appointed judges are now banned in Italy, as being corrupt as hell.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Numbers

Vixen's statements are remarkable examples of either falsehoods resulting from bias or an inability to comprehend Italian law, even when explained on this site, or both.

The Nencini appeal court judgment was the judgment directly under review by the Marasca CSC panel. The Marasca CSC panel does mention the Chieffi CSC panel judgment in relation to the Nencini appeal court judgment. It criticizes the Chieffi CSC panel MR for straying into the merits, while one of its many criticisms of the Nencini MR is that the Nencini court did not use its lawful authority to evaluate the evidence independently of the perceived Chieffi MR directions.

The Nencini judgment was annulled without referral to a lower court by the Marasca CSC panel, under Italian law CPP Article 620, paragraph 1, subparagraph L. "Annulled" (quashed, invalidated) is not the same as "expunged" (removed from the record).

An Italian court of appeal trial has the same provisions as a first-instance trial, as applicable (CPP Article 598). The judge of the court of appeal may order the renewal of the trial evidentiary hearing if he deems it necessary, with or without the request of a party to the trial (CPP Article 603).

According to CPP Article 627, in the case of an annulment with referral, the referral court of appeal judge has the same authorities or powers as those of the judge whose judgment was annulled by the CSC, and the referral judge shall order the renewal of the trial evidentiary hearing, at the request of the parties, for the gathering of evidence that is relevant for the decision. The referral judge conforms to those judgments of law decided upon by the CSC in its referring judgment.

See: https://canestrinilex.com/assets/Upl...estriniLex.pdf

It may be so that a second instance (appeal court) has the power to relook at limited specific evidence and the facts. However, it remains statutory that an appeal can only be lodged under the terms of points of law only, as clearly set out per statute.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by TruthCalls

For those who don't believe in, or don't understand what a coercive interrogation can do, I point them to the Riley Fox murder. An innocent, despondent father coerced into confessing to her murder despite overwhelming evidence - ignored by the police - that someone else committed the murder. Tunnel vision on steroids. By comparison, coercing Amanda was like shooting fish in a barrel.

There is zero evidence Sollecito was coercively interrogated. Stop trying to make out he was some kind of Prisoner of War or subjected to US-style good-cop/bad cop tv drama-style stuff.

Sollecito voluntarily told the police a pack of lies, not once, not twice but three times and he has still never retracted his claim Knox was out alone until 1:00am.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by TruthCalls

Once again, you aren't answering the question. I asked why they would stage a sexual assault when a sexual assault had already happened and you say "it was probably impromptu", as if that was an answer.

Indulge me for a moment as I propose an appropriate answer for you....

"yeah, your right. It doesn't really make any sense to think they staged the body when she had already been sexually assaulted."

You see how easy that is? Next we can work on admitting it makes no sense to stage a burglary and then not take anything, or to stage a break-in when you already know the front door latch is broken.

Just because something doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it didn't happen. Next you'll be claiming that women just do not commit this type of crime, when the annals of crimes shows they absolutely do commit horrendous crimes.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Numbers

Vixen has claimed that the Marasca CSC panel annulment of the Nencini appeal court judgment without referral was somehow unusual, unethical, or unlawful.

I previously provided some statistics taken from a table for the years 2011 - 2021 from the CSC website showing that annulments without referral were almost as common as annulments with referral. In my post, I gave the annulment with and without referral for the years 2013 (Chieffi judgment year) and 2015 (Marasca judgment year), and the maximum and minimums for the 11-year period.

Here, to provide readers with a more concise general summary of the CSC table showing, for criminal cases, the yearly number of annulments with and without referral, I present the totals for the 11-year period, the arithmetic average (mean), and the maximum and minimum.

Annulments with referral, 2011 - 2021:

Total 56,494

Mean 5136

Max 6582

Min 3821


Annulments without referral, 2011 - 2021:

Total 51,369

Mean 4670

Max 7322

Min 2614

Source: https://www.cortedicassazione.it/cas...enale_2021.pdf

Table 5.4

Thanks for the figures. However, you still haven't broken them down into those who were annulled without referral that were not:

1. case were rhe defendant/s were found 'Not Guilty' at the first or second instant court or both.
2. the case was adjudged outside the statute of limitation.
3. declared a 'mistrial' or 'in the public interest'.
4. the defendant was deceased in the interim.

I take it you did not manage to find a single similar case as Knox' and Sollecito's, where the pair were found guilty of a serious crime by both the merits court and the appeal court.

This is what I was referring to when I pointed out Andreotti and Berlusconi.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Vixen

That is just politese before savaging them. Haven't you noticed the flowery faux-tactful language of Italian judges.

Really? That's the response?

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Sollecito voluntarily told the police a pack of lies, not once, not twice but three times and he has still never retracted his claim Knox was out alone until 1:00am.

You obviously do not read.

[whoanellie]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Just because something doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it didn't happen. Next you'll be claiming that women just do not commit this type of crime, when the annals of crimes shows they absolutely do commit horrendous crimes.

Just because you believe Knox and Sollecito are guilty, it doesn't mean they are. Just because an Italian court believes Y-DNA came from Meredith's girlfriends, it doesn't mean it did.

[TruthCalls]

Originally Posted by Vixen

There is zero evidence Sollecito was coercively interrogated. Stop trying to make out he was some kind of Prisoner of War or subjected to US-style good-cop/bad cop tv drama-style stuff.

Sollecito voluntarily told the police a pack of lies, not once, not twice but three times and he has still never retracted his claim Knox was out alone until 1:00am.

Well yes, that's true, but only because the police failed to record the interrogation as they were obligated to do. I wonder why that is?

I never claimed he was some kind of prisoner of war.. more nonsense from you. What I did was point out a case where a father, completely innocent, was coerced into confessing the murder of his young daughter. Take from it what you want, which in your case I assume is nothing because police never do unethical things.

According to Raffaele, the police wrote the statement and included the paragraph about Amanda telling him to lie. He requested it be removed but the police duped him into keeping it in and signing it.

As for never retracting his claim of Amanda being out alone until 1:00am, I agree with Bill... you must not read. Not only that, but for anyone even remotely interested in the truth (and clearly the police were not) his 'account' of the evening was impossible because Popovic witnessed Amanda at his apartment twice, but that didn't stop the police from running with it anyway.

BTW, why do you suppose the police refused to let him look at a calendar? If you're interested in the truth then you should want to take every step possible to ensure you're getting things right. However, if you're trying to confuse someone, and if they are unsure of dates, then what better way than to deny them a calendar.

[AnimalFriendly]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Trying to point police towards him without letting on that she was with him.

Is that why she said she was cowering in the kitchen covering her ears? Yeah, the kitchen...that room where people cook and make meals and the room that just also happened to be in the cottage. Putting oneself in the room one over, during a murder, isn't likely to get the cops off your case. Especially incompetent ones who need all the help they can get.

[Vixen]

Nencini's reasoning:

Quote:

Over the course of approximately 50 pages of his 337 reasoning report, Nencini does a thorough analysis of all the court evidence, lab data and depositions by all the forensic consultants, and essentially debunks Vecchiotti and Conti’s report. He reveals that the two experts overlooked available data, altered the meaning of forensic police statements to fit their thesis, erred in their interpretation methods and falsely claimed the technology didn’t exist to test a small trace of DNA that was later successfully tested.
The harsh Vecchiotti-Conti review begins on page 195 of Nencini’s report. The possibility of contamination so hotly debated by consultants and made credible to the point of being included in the independent experts’ written report actually “has no significance” in the criminal trial, he wrote, and was “misleading.”
Meredith’s blue sweatshirt where Guede’s DNA was found, he wrote, not just on the tiny hook of the bra clasp. He notes records show there were no other items containing Sollecito’s DNA handled that day, ruling out making laboratory contamination. Nencini accepts there may have been professional lapses on part of the forensic police, but determines that none of those oversights were so grave as to have negatively impacted the forensic analysis with regard to the case. The absence of contamination is also proven by the records of negative and positive controls performed by much-maligned forensic biologist Patrizia Stefanoni. Those controls were done and had been referred to in court, but Vecchiotti and Conti overlooked this, claiming there was no record of them.
Nencini considers several pages of statistical and genetic analysis made by various consultants in both the first and second appeals. On page 221, he writes that “the behavior of Vecchiotti was “censurable” because before providing an imprecise report in a trial, she should have requested the controls documentation from the forensic police and only in the case of that data not being provided, come to the conclusions that she did.

Source notes

Quote:

This Court considers that speaking of the contamination of exhibits in a generalized way and allowing for abstract possibilities, as was several times repeated by the Defense and by the court-appointed experts, Prof. Carla Vecchiotti and Prof. Stefano Conti, even in their written conclusions [points 4) and 5) of the conclusions of the technical report, signed by them, and quoted several times], has absolutely no meaning in the context of a criminal trial, and is objectively deceptive.

Nencini report

[TruthCalls]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Just because something doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it didn't happen. Next you'll be claiming that women just do not commit this type of crime, when the annals of crimes shows they absolutely do commit horrendous crimes.

An interesting response from someone who for years has argued Guede would never have broken in through Filomena's window when it would have been easier to break in from the back porch.

So I'm assuming you can't come up with a credible explanation, and there is no evidence they did such a thing, but nonetheless you'll continue to insist they did it. Another classic case of confirmation bias.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

You obviously do not read.

Perhaps you can provide a citation as to when Sollecito changed his testimony.

[TruthCalls]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Nencini's reasoning:

Source notes

Nencini report

All C&V did was point out the multitude of failures to follow basic procedures during collection and storage to minimize the risk of contamination, the failure to amplify the sample a minimum of two times as per ENFSI standards and the failure to properly interpret the results. Everything observed and documented by C&V was supported by international forensic standards as documented by the ENFSI, but Nencini, in his infinite wisdom, felt he knew better than two highly respected experts and dismissed their findings as objectively deceptive. No wonder Marasca destroyed Nencini in their MR.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Nencini's reasoning:

Source notes

Nencini report

Nice try.

The first quote is from an unsourced comment on Nencini which means nothing unless you source it. It also stands contrary to what Dr. Peter Gill wrote in his peer review journal article cited above.

Also, you've listed one tidbit from Nencini's report, in a long section he wrote about the defence having to show a route of contamination, writing that after setting out the law - a law he himself violates:

Originally Posted by Nencini

While it can, with reason, be asserted that it is not the duty of the objecting party to prove the
occurrence of contamination – since this would otherwise constitute an inadmissible inversion of
the burden of proof......

He then proceeds to reverse the burden of proof.

Finally his reversal is shown by his handling of the Y-haplotype evidence, of more than two contributors to Trace B. After saying that the defence (or C&V) needed to show a route of contamination, he defends the additional Y-haplotypes as perhaps belonging to the victim's girlfriends...

... after saying that the defence simply could not idly speculate about contamination. Meaning, that Nencini himself is just idly speculating, and therefore he has revered the burden of proof, a burden that he wrote did not belong to the defence.

So nice try. But I am glad that you actually immersed yourself in the 'sources', but that first citation of yours is not a source. It is anonymous, and it falls contrary to identifiable, peer-reviewed sources, like Peter Gill.

(I feel more four-year old stuff will follow.)

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Perhaps you can provide a citation as to when Sollecito changed his testimony.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. *You* are asking for a citation!

Sollecito NEVER GAVE TESTIMONY! He was coerced at interrogation - where a mandatory video record WAS NOT DONE. At court he did not testify. He wrote a book about what he believed, and got in trouble with his family for not turning on Knox, in exchange for a plea deal.

If it is testimony you want, there is no testimony of anything he said about the crime.

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Thanks for the figures. However, you still haven't broken them down into those who were annulled without referral that were not:

1. case were rhe defendant/s were found 'Not Guilty' at the first or second instant court or both.
2. the case was adjudged outside the statute of limitation.
3. declared a 'mistrial' or 'in the public interest'.
4. the defendant was deceased in the interim.

I take it you did not manage to find a single similar case as Knox' and Sollecito's, where the pair were found guilty of a serious crime by both the merits court and the appeal court.

This is what I was referring to when I pointed out Andreotti and Berlusconi.

Vixen, thanks for your almost reasonable if wrong-headed response.

I would have provided a more detailed analysis of the CSC verdicts for the many thousands of cases annulled without referral, but the CSC website doesn't seem to have those statistics available. The purpose of the CSC statistics appears to be documentation of the CSC case-flow, and not the actual final judgment (guilt, acquittal, or another type of dismissal, such as extinction due to exceeding the statute of limitations).

It should also be recognized that each case may involve several criminal charges, and the verdict for a case with more than one charge could be divided: guilt on one or more charges, acquittal on one or more charges, and dismissal on other charges. According to Italian law CPP Article 624, an annulment may be partial, and the parts of the lower court judgment not annulled by the CSC or not essentially related to those annulled parts shall be considered final.

The Chieffi CSC panel verdict, for example, while annulling the Hellmann appeal court verdict of acquittal on the murder/rape charges with referral, confirmed the Hellmann appeal court verdict finding Knox guilty of the charge of calunnia against Lumumba, but with referral on the charge of an aggravating factor.

Note that the Chieffi CSC panel in annulling the Hellmann cour t acquittal did not choose to impose a verdict of guilt, but referred the case for a retrial. This was in part because the Chieffi panel wished to have the knife-blade sample that the C-V team was unable to test subjected to DNA profiling.

However, it may also have been motivated by concerns about the legality under Italian and international law of a cassation court annulling a well-reasoned acquittal and substituting a conviction without hearing the accused. A cassation court does not hear testimony and does not hear the accused, witnesses, or experts, but only hears briefly lawyers and prosecutors, and reviews the case and trial records in the light of other legal and institutionally accepted documents. Therefore, substitution by a cassation court itself of a verdict of guilty for an appealed verdict of acquittal or dismissal annulled by the cassation court may be contrary to Article 111 of the Italian Constitution. It may also be a violation of international law under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This last issue, concerning the case law of the ECHR regarding an appeal or cassation court overturning a verdict of acquittal and substituting a verdict of guilt without hearing the accused, is somewhat complex. The ECHR has published online a lengthy discussion of the applicable ECHR case law:

https://ks.echr.coe.int/documents/d/...ance-acquittal

One of the cases cited in the above results in the following case law principle:

When an appeal (or cassation) court overturns a verdict of acquittal and substitutes a verdict of guilt without hearing the accused, and there are complex issues with law and fact entangled, the ECHR has found a violation of Convention Article 6.

See:

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-96583
paragraphs 46 - 48

Otherwise, regarding your points in your quoted post, one can always theorize a conspiracy, and one can fill a lack of details on the verdicts in annulments without referral with imagined but extremely unlikely or unlawful outcomes of verdicts of guilt.

Under CPP Article 620, paragraph 1, for all the subparagraphs except possibly for H, I, and L it is very clear that the only verdict that the CSC could deliver would be a dismissal such as an acquittal. Under subparagraph H, where there is a contradiction in judgments or sentences for the same act, the CSC adopts the less stringent judgment or sentence (which may not have been an acquittal). Under subparagraph I, the appealed judgment as a court case should not have been conducted under Italian law, and the CSC apparently substitutes consideration of the previous judgment. Under subparagraph L, there may be a possibility of the CSC annulling an acquittal and substituting a guilty verdict, but this would only be (perhaps) lawful if the judgment of acquittal under appeal had a truly horrendous error; for example, suppose a man was accused of raping a woman, and all the credible evidence supported a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, but the appeal court delivered an acquittal solely on the basis that the man was a great athlete needed for Italy's success in a World Cup match. That case would, I suspect, possibly qualify for the CSC delivering an annulment without referral and with a judgment of guilt. It should also be noted that CPP Article 620 para. 1, subpara. L applies to reductions of a sentence after conviction, in a partial annulment without referral.

For the text of CPP Article 620, see:

https://www.brocardi.it/codice-di-pr...ii/art620.html

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. *You* are asking for a citation!

Sollecito NEVER GAVE TESTIMONY! He was coerced at interrogation - where a mandatory video record WAS NOT DONE. At court he did not testify. He wrote a book about what he believed, and got in trouble with his family for not turning on Knox, in exchange for a plea deal.

If it is testimony you want, there is no testimony of anything he said about the crime.

Nor, because of the violation of Italian CPP Article 63 by the Italian police (and Mignini) in Sollecito's interrogation, could any of his statements made during that questioning be lawfully used against him in the (murder/rape) trial. In fact, I believe the Italian prosecutors and courts didn't use them for those trials - if that is incorrect, please post a correction.

The ECHR case Sollecito v. Italy is going to be about, in part, whether those statements could lawfully be used against him in the compensation for unfair detention hearings.

[AnimalFriendly]

Originally Posted by Vixen

when the annals of crimes shows they absolutely do commit horrendous crimes.

So "horrendous crimes" are sometimes committed by females, the gender that makes up half the human race. What a relevation.

Do the "annals of crimes" "show" where females direct 2 males, for whom no evidence exists of either male having so much as prior ever met the other male, to commit murder against another female...who barely knew either male? The "annals of crimes" must be chock full of examples of this so I'm sure you won't mind presenting just one other reasonably relevant example outside the scope of Kercher's murder. I'll wait.

[IsThisTheLife]

Really?

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Please note the topic of this thread and where it is situated.


Please keep your ad hominem to yourself.

Vixen, what is an ad hominem attack?

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Vinci was dealt with at the merits court.

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense "..at the merits court" mantra as if it actually means something special in the context of a trial process which ends up in the appellate courts?

Either you (still, incredibly) don't (won't?) understand what it is that appellate courts actually do, why they do it, and why they trump what you fatuously keep referring to as "the merits court"...

... or you DO understand the appellate process - and that appellate courts have the (fair and just) power to strike out verdicts from lower courts if those lower courts have erred in law so badly that the lower-court verdict should have been different - and you're desperately trying to misdirect.

Which of those is it, Vixen? And what sad guilter site did you assimilate "merits courts" from, anyhow?

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

'Would could should.' What people's friends say about them gives one an indication as to their character. Sollecito liked animal porn, taking lots of drugs, dressing up in a shroud and a butcher's cleaver, demanding 'extreme experiences', attacked a girl at school with scissors; whilst Knox looked for the nearest Black guy to frame for her crime. She bullied her classmate by donning a sinister ski mask and overturning her room. Went to Italy for sex and drugs.

Oh dear. You just don't understand the law, the facts of this case, and the truth of the matter, do you? And I suspect that, by this point, you never will. Just as a small, rapidly diminishing group of nutters will insist until their dying day that the US Government brought down the Twin Towers (and that they have the evidence to "prove" it), or some other nutters in a similar sad small group will insist until their dying day that the Moon landings were faked on a Hollywood sound stage (and that they have the evidence to "prove" it).

Fortunately, your abject inability to analyse this case properly - on either a judicial or evidence basis - is utterly immaterial. Knox and Sollecito are correctly acquitted and absolved, Guede correctly stands guilty of an assault/murder that he carried out all by himself. Mignini is correct discredited. Italian criminal justice is correctly discredited. The guilter nutters are correctly discredited. All good.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Trying to point police towards him without letting on that she was with him.

Nothing mysterious about it.

LMAO. Can you even SEE what you're writing and proposing?! (Obviously not.)

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

That is just politese before savaging them. Haven't you noticed the flowery faux-tactful language of Italian judges.

Erm, what you wrote is, without politesse (note spelling), utter bollocks.

For a court to state that it has no reason to doubt Conti's/Vecchiotti's excoriating criticism of Stefanoni's incompetent forensics work wrt Knox/Sollecito means...

...wait for it...

...that the court has no reason to doubt it.

Courts do not state in one breath that they accept a certain piece of evidence or testimony as trustworthy, then in the next breath explain that in fact they do not believe in the trustworthiness of that evidence/testimony.

Again, can you seriously not see the ever-more-absurd lengths you're going to as you twist and turn to make words mean something different from what they clearly actually mean? (Obviously not: a damnation in itself, of course.)

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

The facts found by Massei that weren't 'rectified' by Nencini remain as the legal facts of the matter. Read Marasca-Bruno report. It doesn't have the jurisdiction to weigh up evidence or the fact found, so Nencini's findings stand.

M-B claimed it annulled the sentences because of 'press interference' and some waffle about 'investigative amnesia'. That is hwo incredibly strong the case was against the defendants. That was the only way M-B could wriggle out of it, by claiming a preposterous 'insufficient evidence'. It was subjected to outside political pressure. Politically appointed judges are now banned in Italy, as being corrupt as hell.

Nope. You have no idea what you're talking about. I don't know where you got the lens you're reading the Marasca MR through, but I'd take it back for a refund and lodge a complaint - because that lens is presenting you with a view of the report that is wildly different from the truth of the report.

Why are you doing this at this point, Vixen? Anyone can read the Marasca MR report - even a seven-year-old - and see clearly the true reasons why that panel threw out the convictions for good (and at the same time laid into the disgraceful lack of application of law exhibited by the lower courts). I'll give you a clue: the substance of the acquittals had nothing whatsoever to do with "press interference", and the references to "investigative amnesia" were a (fully correct) severe criticism of the disgusting way in which Mignini and the police carried out the investigation into Knox and Sollecito.

Oh and you STILL don't understand what it means - and what it doesn't mean - to be acquitted due to insufficient evidence. Once again: there's plenty of material available, on jurisprudence in general, and on the Italian criminal justice system in particular. Either would be useful in educating you on this matter. Plus, entirely unsurprisingly, you've still failed to supply this thread with any reliable evidence to support your (incorrect and fatuous) claim that "insufficient evidence" acquittals are a) extremely rare in Italian lower or appellate court verdicts, and b) are mainly employed in Italy as some sort of sleight-of-hand to get corrupt politicians/businessmen off the hook.

Are you going to supply that evidence, Vixen? Or, as usual, are you not going to? I mean, I can tell you now that you'll waste your time looking for (reliable) evidence on the matter, because your claim is flat wrong. It'll still be entertaining to watch you try, though. So, let's see your evidence, eh?

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

There is zero evidence Sollecito was coercively interrogated. Stop trying to make out he was some kind of Prisoner of War or subjected to US-style good-cop/bad cop tv drama-style stuff.

Sollecito voluntarily told the police a pack of lies, not once, not twice but three times and he has still never retracted his claim Knox was out alone until 1:00am.

Once more with (no) feeling: please educate yourself on coercive false statements, and the role of law enforcement officers in eliciting coerced false statements. As you've now been told many times, there's plenty of high-quality material available online about this matter, as well as videos of it taking place in front of your eyes. It's noteworthy though that you choose to employ ridiculous hyperbole you your (personal, and incorrect) interpretation of how a coerced false statement is elicited.

One more thing: just to help you further, try looking at the version of events Sollecito eventually gave the police (after unlawful coercion), and see now closely it matched the factual events of the previous evening/night (ie the evening/night of 31st October/1st November). It's a 100% match, Vixen. Sollecito was coerced into mixing up the two dates, because he was being threatened by the police with serious repercussions if he didn't stop "covering up" for Knox, and because he was being instructed by the police that they (the police) knew for certain that Knox had been present at the murder.

Do some (proper) research, Vixen.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Thanks for the figures. However, you still haven't broken them down into those who were annulled without referral that were not:

1. case were rhe defendant/s were found 'Not Guilty' at the first or second instant court or both.
2. the case was adjudged outside the statute of limitation.
3. declared a 'mistrial' or 'in the public interest'.
4. the defendant was deceased in the interim.

I take it you did not manage to find a single similar case as Knox' and Sollecito's, where the pair were found guilty of a serious crime by both the merits court and the appeal court.

This is what I was referring to when I pointed out Andreotti and Berlusconi.

LOL no idea whatsoever. Even when the statistics are literally being spoon-fed to you.....

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Nencini's reasoning:

Source notes

Nencini report

Nencini's reasoning and motivation has been struck out (correctly) by the Supreme Court.

How can you STILL not understand this properly? Do some reseach.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Vinci was dealt with at the merits court.

Yes, he was; the merit court did not disagree that is was the outline of a knife on the bedsheet.

Quote:

The reconstruction offered by Professor Vinci certainly appears suggestive.
Some doubt remains in the reconstruction of the dimensions of the knife derived in relation from the marks found on the bed sheet.

What they questioned were the dimensions based on some assumption that

Quote:

If these marks indeed derived from the knife placed on the bed sheet, then they should in fact have been more abundant, and should have outlined the shape of the knife with greater precision, for the following reason: the knife, if it was placed on the bed sheet, was placed there immediately after it had been used to strike Meredith; therefore, the fresh and abundant bloodstains present on the blade should have been imprinted onto the bed sheet in a more evident and copious way than is actually appreciable.

Massei is assuming a lot there. That is the outline of a knife in blood on the sheet. Whether Massei assumes it should have left more blood is irrelevant because the photos show what it did leave.

No expert has claimed that the outline on the bed was left by the knife taken from Sollecito's kitchen. TJMK self-appointed expert Ergon who is, IRL, an astrologer and self-declared alien god, did do his own analysis and claimed it was the kitchen knife that left the outline. Yeah. Really.


Speaking of commenters who don't know what they're talking about on guilt biased websites, this claim was made on TMofMK:


"One of Sollecito's pocket knives, the CRKT knife, had a bloodstain with a mixture of Sollecito's and Knox's DNA."

The RTGIF report for this knife:

TMB result: negative

Likely substance containing DNA: "exfolitated cells"

Compatability note: "mixture of biological substances belonging to at least two individuals; Sollecito's is in more quantity, Knox's DNA is in lesser quantity, with profile recovered incomplete or minimally accented"

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

'Would could should.' What people's friends say about them gives one an indication as to their character. Sollecito liked animal porn, taking lots of drugs, dressing up in a shroud and a butcher's cleaver, demanding 'extreme experiences', attacked a girl at school with scissors; whilst Knox looked for the nearest Black guy to frame for her crime. She bullied her classmate by donning a sinister ski mask and overturning her room. Went to Italy for sex and drugs.

This is a good time to repeat:

I'm curious, Vixen: why do you find it necessary to make up/invent/lie about things that never happened? Why do you need to dishonestly twist things using hyperbolically negative language? You present your highly biased opinions and interpretations as if they are facts. Do you get some kind of satisfaction from it? I really do want to know what you think you are accomplishing by this.

[MarkCorrigan]

I have a speculation as to the answer to that.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
I thought Amanda named Lumumba to turn attention away from Guede. Now she's trying to finger Guede. Make up your mind.


Trying to point police towards him without letting on that she was with him.

Nothing mysterious about it.

Pick a lane. Was (a) AK trying to cover for Guede or (b) to point the police towards him? Choose (a) or (b).

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Nencini's reasoning and motivation has been struck out (correctly) by the Supreme Court.

How can you STILL not understand this properly? Do some reseach.

Too bad it has been struck down. Nowhere in Nencini's motivations report does he question Hellmann's right to appoint independent experts, like Conti and Vecchiotti.

What Nencini tries to argue, even in conceding that C & V are experts in their own right, is that Nencini knows more about forensic DNA analysis than the experts do.

Or as Marasca-Bruno wrote in 2015, while exonerating the pair, while trying to explain the 'conflict' of findings of the scientific community over against 'the primacy of law and .... in deference to the rules of criminal procedure itself':

Originally Posted by Marasca-Bruno

7. The second criticism that must be raised against the ruling under appeal....

This cultural debate, while respecting the principle of freely-held opinion of the
judge, also proposes to critically reexamine the now-obsolete and dubiously credible
notion of the judge as “peritus peritorum” [expert of experts]. Indeed, this old
maxim expresses a cultural model that is no longer current, and is in fact decidedly
anachronistic, at least to the extent that it expects to assign to the judge a real
ability to master the flow of scientific knowledge that the parties pour into the
proceeding; a more realistic formulation, by contrast, sees the judge as wholly
oblivious to those contributions, which are the fruit of a scientific training that he or
she does not, need not, and cannot possess. This is all the more true with regard to
genetic science....

Nencini, with no formal training in forensic genetics, set himself up as a referee between Stefanoni and C&V, and on every issue chose Stefanoni - whose findings, by the way, M-B called 'in violation of international protocols'.

It was that process that Nencini chose, to have the judge make highly technical scientific decisions, which M-B said was anachronistic

While at the same time conceding that C&V were experts, and duly and legally appointed by Hellmann to review Stefanoni's work.