IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Closed Thread
Old 22nd August 2020, 01:53 AM   #3041
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 4,398
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I love it that Vixen is now using the term, "word salad." The trouble is, though, you just can't chuck it into a post without demonstrating that it is an accurate description.

Bongiorno's appeal document is available on line. It was a brilliant defence of Raffaele. Far, far, far from throwing Knox under a bus, it's basic argument was, "The court has said this about Amanda Knox. Even if that had been true, what does that have to do with Raffaele?"

Indeed, most of the stuff lobbed at Knox, had had nothing to do with Raffaele. And so the first thing the Marasca-Bruno court had to appreciate is, that if that was true then Nencini should not have convicted Raffaele.

And if Raffaele is innocent of this crime, then is turns out to be Knox's alibi. That is powerful stuff, esp. when paired with the final determination - there is no reliable forensics pointing to either of them in the murder room.

Maybe it will take a few more posts before Vixen uses the term "word salad" properly.
Vice versa. All (nearly) the physical evidence presented against the pair was against Sollecito. That is why he idea of splitting the pair was never a viable prosecution strategy despite the view in some pro guilt posters. The bloody footprint was attributed to Sollecito, the bra strap DNA, the knife. Without including Sollecito as a co-conspirator the evidence against Knox becomes trivial. DNA evidence that she was present in her own home, and evidence she touched a knife in her boy friends flat.

This was an interesting (and heartwarming)story in the Sports section of the BBC.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/basketball/53677658
Essentially a young man was convicted because he had no alibi, and an eye witness who failed to identify him in a photo line up was then asked who the assailant looked most like in the photo line up. (Good practice based on science by psychologists shows it is essential to say in a line up that the suspect may not be present, otherwise witnesses will tend to pick whoever most resembles the suspect even if they do not recognise the suspect in the line up. So this was an act very likely to cause a false id.) He was freed after 20 years, because there was essentially no evidence to justify conviction and the prosecution had failed to disclose a fingerprint of an unknown person at the scene to the defence.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 02:33 AM   #3042
TomG
Critical Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 323
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Raffaele Sollecito as described by the prosecutor at the preliminary custody hearings - and no doubt gleaned from the psychiatric reports on the pair - as 'icy cold'.

His footprint in blood was identified on the bathmat and his near complete DNA profile was strongly on the murder victim's bra clasp.

In addition, by his own admission he had been up half the night trying to clear up copious amounts of water all over his apartment floor the same evening.

He created one false alibi after the other.

Anyone who thinks him innocent is simple-minded.
Two items of discredited evidence, and that's the "overwhelming" and "solid" case against Raffaele.

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.
TomG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 02:40 AM   #3043
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,166
It's amusing watching people who are wrong about something persevering ever further down their own hole of wrongness.

Kind of like 9/11 Truthers, or Moon-landing-hoax CTers, or Anti-vaxxers.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 03:34 AM   #3044
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 19,686
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
Vice versa. All (nearly) the physical evidence presented against the pair was against Sollecito. That is why he idea of splitting the pair was never a viable prosecution strategy despite the view in some pro guilt posters. The bloody footprint was attributed to Sollecito, the bra strap DNA, the knife. Without including Sollecito as a co-conspirator the evidence against Knox becomes trivial. DNA evidence that she was present in her own home, and evidence she touched a knife in her boy friends flat.

This was an interesting (and heartwarming)story in the Sports section of the BBC.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/basketball/53677658
Essentially a young man was convicted because he had no alibi, and an eye witness who failed to identify him in a photo line up was then asked who the assailant looked most like in the photo line up. (Good practice based on science by psychologists shows it is essential to say in a line up that the suspect may not be present, otherwise witnesses will tend to pick whoever most resembles the suspect even if they do not recognise the suspect in the line up. So this was an act very likely to cause a false id.) He was freed after 20 years, because there was essentially no evidence to justify conviction and the prosecution had failed to disclose a fingerprint of an unknown person at the scene to the defence.
The evidence against Knox was not 'trivial'. Her blood was mixed in with Kercher's in four places in the bathroom, her bare footprints were in Mez' blood, her lamp was under her bed. Papers scattered across the scene to make it look like a burglary (we know it was after the murder as some were on top of the duvet covering the cadaver) bore her shoe print in Filomena's f
room. There were zero traces of forensic evidence against Guede in Filomena's room - where the mise en scene took place, where one would expect to find fingerprints, blood and DNA had he really climbed
perilously through the shattered glass (and we know he had a glass shattering hammer so would not have needed to throw a 10lb sandstone boulder of irregular shape nor enter through the steep side of the house as he was well familiar with the easy side, having been a visitor on at least three occasions). However, there WAS forensic evidence of Knox' DNA mixed in with Kercher's blood on Filomena's carpet and Knox - for it is only her DNA presence in Filomena's room - trailed a shard of glass from her room into the murder room.

The final written reasons spells out lare that Knox was present whne the murder took place, did wash Kercher's blood from her hands, did tell numerous lies together with Sollecito and named Lumumba to cover up for Guede in a despicable attempt to derail the police investigation, aserious offence for which she correctly served three years, a term that qualifies for deportation back to where she came from after sentence served.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 04:34 AM   #3045
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,891
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The evidence against Knox was not 'trivial'. Her blood was mixed in with Kercher's in four places in the bathroom, her bare footprints were in Mez' blood, her lamp was under her bed. Papers scattered across the scene to make it look like a burglary (we know it was after the murder as some were on top of the duvet covering the cadaver) bore her shoe print in Filomena's f
room. There were zero traces of forensic evidence against Guede in Filomena's room - where the mise en scene took place, where one would expect to find fingerprints, blood and DNA had he really climbed
perilously through the shattered glass (and we know he had a glass shattering hammer so would not have needed to throw a 10lb sandstone boulder of irregular shape nor enter through the steep side of the house as he was well familiar with the easy side, having been a visitor on at least three occasions). However, there WAS forensic evidence of Knox' DNA mixed in with Kercher's blood on Filomena's carpet and Knox - for it is only her DNA presence in Filomena's room - trailed a shard of glass from her room into the murder room.

The final written reasons spells out lare that Knox was present whne the murder took place, did wash Kercher's blood from her hands, did tell numerous lies together with Sollecito and named Lumumba to cover up for Guede in a despicable attempt to derail the police investigation, aserious offence for which she correctly served three years, a term that qualifies for deportation back to where she came from after sentence served.
Sheer repetition of falsehoods, does not a case make.

Should I cut and paste from the Marasca-Bruno report for the umpteenth time?

But, yikes, the post LEADS with mixed-blood. None of the courts who considered this case, including the convicting ones, found for mixed blood. But this thread has been over this countless times. Fresh from saying that the evidence was not trivial, you LEAD with the most popular and debunked factoid.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 22nd August 2020 at 04:36 AM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 09:08 AM   #3046
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,166
Well, to be more accurate, I'd say the two critical points are:

1) There's not one piece of credible, reliable evidence of Knox's/Sollecito's participation in the murder;

2) All the credible, reliable evidence is wholly consistent with Guede as sole perpetrator.


(1) gives me the conclusions that a) neither Knox nor Sollecito should ever have been found guilty in court of anything to do with the murder, and b) there's a very high likelihood that neither Knox nor Sollecito had anything whatsoever to do with the murder*.

(2) gives me the conclusions that a) there's a very high likelihood that Guede alone perpetrated the attack and murder on Kercher (having first broken into the empty cottage), and b) there's an increase in the (already very high) likelihood that neither Knox nor Sollecito had anything whatsoever to do with the murder.


* I really think it's important to reiterate at this point that one ought to be careful using the word "innocent", if it's being talked about in a factual context (rather than a legal one). In the absence of factual proof of innocence**, only Knox and Sollecito know with total certainty whether they're factually innocent.

** And to be totally clear on THIS point, the absence of proof of factual innocence (also defined as a provable alibi) is in no way something which is indicative of guilt. It's in no way uncommon for factually-innocent people to be unable to PROVE that they're innocent - and nor are they required to do so in either law or ethics.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 09:42 AM   #3047
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,891
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Well, to be more accurate, I'd say the two critical points are:

1) There's not one piece of credible, reliable evidence of Knox's/Sollecito's participation in the murder;

2) All the credible, reliable evidence is wholly consistent with Guede as sole perpetrator.


(1) gives me the conclusions that a) neither Knox nor Sollecito should ever have been found guilty in court of anything to do with the murder, and b) there's a very high likelihood that neither Knox nor Sollecito had anything whatsoever to do with the murder*.

(2) gives me the conclusions that a) there's a very high likelihood that Guede alone perpetrated the attack and murder on Kercher (having first broken into the empty cottage), and b) there's an increase in the (already very high) likelihood that neither Knox nor Sollecito had anything whatsoever to do with the murder.


* I really think it's important to reiterate at this point that one ought to be careful using the word "innocent", if it's being talked about in a factual context (rather than a legal one). In the absence of factual proof of innocence**, only Knox and Sollecito know with total certainty whether they're factually innocent.

** And to be totally clear on THIS point, the absence of proof of factual innocence (also defined as a provable alibi) is in no way something which is indicative of guilt. It's in no way uncommon for factually-innocent people to be unable to PROVE that they're innocent - and nor are they required to do so in either law or ethics.
But you don't understand LJ - Knox is hot! Also, when you get $$$$$'s deep in this, you get confirmation biased. But on the bright side, they let you keep the decoder ring.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 09:53 AM   #3048
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,166
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
But you don't understand LJ - Knox is hot! Also, when you get $$$$$'s deep in this, you get confirmation biased. But on the bright side, they let you keep the decoder ring.


And I just spent big money getting the Lamborghini serviced and tuned - there's no way I'm going to risk getting it taken back off me by the fabled Knox PR Supertanker......
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 10:49 AM   #3049
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,845
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Raffaele Sollecito as described by the prosecutor at the preliminary custody hearings - and no doubt gleaned from the psychiatric reports on the pair - as 'icy cold'.
Bwwwwaaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaaaa!!!!!!!! This is no doubt pulled straight pulled from your nether regions!

Quote:
His footprint in blood was identified on the bathmat
No. It. Was. Not. One expert, who never set eyes on the actual bathmat, said it was "compatible". Another expert, who examined the actual bathmat AND used Crimescope to examine it, said it was not even 'compatible'.
Quote:
and his near complete DNA profile was strongly on the murder victim's bra clasp.
Which was attributed to contamination due the failure of the police to collect the bra for 46 days, found across the room, handled by a dirty glove, dropped on the floor, and found nowhere else on that bra clasp or the cloth it was sewn to. All of which you conveniently hand wave away.

Quote:
In addition, by his own admission he had been up half the night trying to clear up copious amounts of water all over his apartment floor the same evening.
You know, Vix, your oft used tactic of hyperbole does not increase your credibility; it actually decreases it. What the hell does his cleaning up a water spill in his apartment have to do with Kercher being killed in another building?

Quote:
He created one false alibi after the other.
He was coerced into making confused statements during an interrogation where he was illegally without a lawyer.
Quote:
Anyone who thinks him innocent is simple-minded.
Anyone who thinks him guilty is too simple-minded to understand the evidence.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 22nd August 2020 at 11:41 AM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 11:22 AM   #3050
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,845
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The evidence against Knox was not 'trivial'. Her blood was mixed in with Kercher's in four places in the bathroom, her bare footprints were in Mez' blood, her lamp was under her bed. Papers scattered across the scene to make it look like a burglary (we know it was after the murder as some were on top of the duvet covering the cadaver) bore her shoe print in Filomena's f
room. There were zero traces of forensic evidence against Guede in Filomena's room - where the mise en scene took place, where one would expect to find fingerprints, blood and DNA had he really climbed
perilously through the shattered glass (and we know he had a glass shattering hammer so would not have needed to throw a 10lb sandstone boulder of irregular shape nor enter through the steep side of the house as he was well familiar with the easy side, having been a visitor on at least three occasions). However, there WAS forensic evidence of Knox' DNA mixed in with Kercher's blood on Filomena's carpet and Knox - for it is only her DNA presence in Filomena's room - trailed a shard of glass from her room into the murder room.

The final written reasons spells out lare that Knox was present whne the murder took place, did wash Kercher's blood from her hands, did tell numerous lies together with Sollecito and named Lumumba to cover up for Guede in a despicable attempt to derail the police investigation, aserious offence for which she correctly served three years, a term that qualifies for deportation back to where she came from after sentence served.
For someone who is constantly banging on about reading the court documents there are just so many false statements in here as to be mind boggling. False statements that have been disproved time and time again, but it all goes right past you because you refuse to accept you are wrong. About anything. Ever. You are the only one to remain on this forum still desperately banging your guilty drum when all others have wisely departed. Bang on, Vix. Bang on.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 11:24 AM   #3051
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,891
Originally Posted by Vixen
His footprint in blood was identified on the bathmat
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
No. It. Was. Not. One expert, who never set eyes of the actual bathmat, said it was "compatible". Another expert, who examined the actual bathmat AND used Crimescope to examine it, said it was not even 'compatible'.
Here we go around the merry-go-round.... ONE. MORE. TIME.

The real footprint expert at the first trial clarified that it had not been a "footprint" to begin with. It had been a foottrack.
Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove breach of rule 12


And that expert had said that the compelling issue in I.D.ing the foottrack, was that the receiving medium had been a terry-cloth material.......

..... Not stable fingerprint paper, where a print on a digit is inked up in a controled setting, and "rolled" onto the stable medium in a controled manner.

This was a foottrack, found on an unstable, terry-cloth medium. I.D.ing it was next to impossible as a result.

As StacyHS says of Vixen:

Quote:
For someone who is constantly banging on about reading the court documents there are just so many false statements in here as to be mind boggling. False statements that have been disproved time and time again, but it all goes right past you because you refuse to accept you are wrong. About anything. Ever.
Vixen had led that series of falsehoods with "mixed blood". Whenever that is mentioned, there is no point reading on.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Agatha; 23rd August 2020 at 12:54 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 11:38 AM   #3052
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,891
What Prof Vinci said about the foottrack... this is from the Massei report of 2010.
Originally Posted by Massei report page 376
[376] Professor Vinci's report on the bathmat – we highlight this from the beginning -
completely contradicts the conclusions of the Rinaldi-Boemia consultancy.
Not only is the possibility of attributing (in the form of a "judgement of probable
identity") the bathmat footprint to Raffaele Sollecito or to Amanda Knox completely
denied, but it is somehow hypothesised that the print could have been made by the
right foot of Rudy Guede.

It must first be noted that Professor Vinci disagrees with the some of the
terminological choices of the consultants of the prosecution. In the opinion of this
technical consultant, one should not speak of "print" but of a "track"[orma], as the
term "print" should be reserved uniquely for prints containing "ridges", not for foot
outlines.


The topics of disagreement also concern the technique used to take footprints. As he
testified in Court, Professor Vinci dissents from the methods used by the technical
operators of the ERT, and also from the R.I.S. of the Carabinieri, of placing the foot
on an inkpad and then on sheets of paper (a method suitable for studying
fingerprints).
He recommends a more modern method, approved by the scientific
community, which would have those submitting to the procedure of footprint
acquisition walk for a length of at least six metres along a paper-covered gangway.

The professor furthermore supports the theory that the technical investigations in
question belong to the domain of forensic medicine, as they require mandatory
orthopaedic and anatomical knowledge. He then criticised the fact that the
investigations were conducted uniquely on the basis of image analysis.....
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 11:44 AM   #3053
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Deputy Admin
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 13,920
Mod Warning Some posters are employing sophistry to insult each other. I will clean the thread up but will you all please stop. If you want to talk about each other, do it somewhere else with different rules. If you are posting here, talk about the case and not each other, even when couched in sophistry.
Posted By:Agatha
__________________
Why can't you be more like Agatha? - Loss Leader
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 01:05 PM   #3054
AnimalFriendly
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 222
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Another expert, who examined the actual bathmat AND used Crimescope to examine it, said it was not even 'compatible'.
And it'd also be nice if Vix acknowledged how the bathmat being left there at all sorta contradicts how Knox & Sollecito pulled off a masterful "clean-up".
AnimalFriendly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 01:08 PM   #3055
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
[...]
So there is nothing improperly unique about an annulment without referral in the Italian judicial system. Even if it were very rare, it is a provision in Italian law, CPP Article 620.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I am willing to bet that except in the case of Knox/Sollecito those other annulments were straightforward upholding the decision of a lower court.
[...]
Originally Posted by Methos View Post
Please explain, how the higlighted and bolded part of your post is supposed to make any sense?
Yes, Vixen. Please answer Methos' question. I think we'd all like to know how your post makes any sense. I certainly can make no sense out of it.

And will you please produce one law expert or law journal article or one legal anything that supports your claim that the M-B annulment violated the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure and is therefore "defective".
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 01:16 PM   #3056
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,845
Originally Posted by AnimalFriendly View Post
And it'd also be nice if Vix acknowledged how the bathmat being left there at all sorta contradicts how Knox & Sollecito pulled off a masterful "clean-up".
She previously explained that as being hubris: They were 'pulling one over' on the police because they figured the police would never be able to identify it as being Raffaele's.

That masterful "clean-up" also missed Knox's (oops..Knox') own visible blood that she pointed out to the police on the faucet. I guess she figured they wouldn't be able to determine that was her blood either.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 01:24 PM   #3057
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,166
Originally Posted by AnimalFriendly View Post
And it'd also be nice if Vix acknowledged how the bathmat being left there at all sorta contradicts how Knox & Sollecito pulled off a masterful "clean-up".


Ah but here's the *brilliant* part of the pro-guilt "argument": where it suits their premise, Knox and Sollecito a) had the skill and cunning (and in-depth understanding of forensic science) and b) the time and space, to pull off this amazing clean-up. But in other parts of their "argument", where it suits their premise, Knox and Sollecito were so stupid as to have done things like leaving the bath mat totally in situ with a visible partial foot track on it, knowing that it was Sollecito who'd left the track and therefore knowing that this might potentially have linked Sollecito to the murder - instead of doing something ludicrously simple (and ludicrously easy to explain innocently later) like rinse the mat under the shower.

Frankly, what makes me far more concerned is that any Italian court could accept the clown-esque pseudoscience from prosecution "experts" (who were anything but) linking the print to Sollecito (and not to Guede), when even any child who's placed a wet foot onto a thick-pile bathmat before could tell you that they don't leave an accurate impression of their foot behind on the mat. And I'm afraid it speaks once again to the way the lower courts (at least) in Italy appear to take every element of the prosecution case as the "truth" - unless/until the defence can conclusively disprove it.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 01:27 PM   #3058
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,166
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
She previously explained that as being hubris: They were 'pulling one over' on the police because they figured the police would never be able to identify it as being Raffaele's.

That masterful "clean-up" also missed Knox's (oops..Knox') own visible blood that she pointed out to the police on the faucet. I guess she figured they wouldn't be able to determine that was her blood either.

Ah gosh yes! The blood which they've decided came from (I think) Knox having been punched on the nose hard enough by Kercher during the (mythical) struggle between the two - a punch so hard that it caused Knox's nose to bleed, yet which left zero visible mark on Knox's face even the lunchtime after.

I think there's a handy idiom to describe this sort of "logic". If only I could put my hand on it......
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 02:39 PM   #3059
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I am unlikely to succeed in providing an argument that will convince those PGP who won't pay attention to actual facts and law, but the concept that the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC) cannot review previously introduced evidence as part of evaluating the logic or illogic of the grounds of an appealed judgment or as part of the evaluation of whether or not alleged evidence was improperly (illegally) admitted or improperly (illegally) not admitted is absolutely wrong. The Italian law on this is CPP Article 606 paragraph 1, subparagraphs E and D, respectively.

Another defect in the PGP view of the CSC's authority is the failure to distinguish the non-binding but important commentary from the binding legal analysis and interpretations of law in a CSC motivation report.
1. Here's the Italian text of CPP Article 606, current in 2020; note that while subparagraph 2-bis was added by a 2018 Italian law, but is anyway not relevant to the Knox - Sollecito case, the provisions of paragraph 1, subparagraphs D and E, important to the Knox - Sollecito case, were added by Italian law in 2006. Reference works on Italian law written prior to this 2006 change would therefore not accurately reflect legal aspects of a CSC appeal review that were critical to the Knox - Sollecito case, for both the Chieffi and Marasca CSC panels.

Quote:
Art. 606.
Casi di ricorso.

1. Il ricorso per cassazione può essere proposto per i seguenti motivi:

a) esercizio da parte del giudice di una potestà riservata dalla legge a organi legislativi o amministrativi ovvero non consentita ai pubblici poteri;

b) inosservanza o erronea applicazione della legge penale o di altre norme giuridiche, di cui si deve tener conto nell'applicazione della legge penale;

c) inosservanza delle norme processuali stabilite a pena di nullità, di inutilizzabilità, di inammissibilità o di decadenza;

d) mancata assunzione di una prova decisiva, quando la parte ne ha fatto richiesta anche nel corso dell'istruzione dibattimentale limitatamente ai casi previsti dall'articolo 495, comma 2; (1)

e) mancanza, contraddittorietà o manifesta illogicità della motivazione, quando il vizio risulta dal testo del provvedimento impugnato ovvero da altri atti del processo specificamente indicati nei motivi di gravame. (2)


2. Il ricorso, oltre che nei casi e con gli effetti determinati da particolari disposizioni, può essere proposto contro le sentenze pronunciate in grado di appello o inappellabili.

2-bis. Contro le sentenze di appello pronunciate per reati di competenza del giudice di pace, il ricorso può essere proposto soltanto per i motivi di cui al comma 1, lettere a), b) e c). (3)

3. Il ricorso è inammissibile se è proposto per motivi diversi da quelli consentiti dalla legge o manifestamente infondati ovvero, fuori dei casi previsti dagli articoli 569 e 609 comma 2, per violazioni di legge non dedotte con i motivi di appello.

(1) Lettera così sostituita dall’art. 8, comma 1, lett. a) della L. 20 febbraio 2006, n. 46.
(2) Lettera così sostituita dall’art. 8, comma 1, lett. b) della L. 20 febbraio 2006, n. 46.
(3) Comma inserito dall’art. 5, comma 1, D.Lgs. 6 febbraio 2018, n. 11.
Source: https://www.altalex.com/documents/ne...per-cassazione

I've previously provided English translations of the relevant sections of CPP Article 606, but in summary, here's what they mean:

606.1B: The CSC has the authority to review and rule on an appeal that alleges misapplications or failures by the lower court to comply with criminal law, or other relevant legal rules.

606.1C: The CSC has the authority to review and rule on an appeal that alleges failure of the lower court to comply with procedural rules including but not limited to exclusion of evidence, inadmissibility, and expiry (statute of limitations).

606.1D: The CSC has the authority to review and rule on an appeal that alleges decisive evidence ("prova") was not gathered ("mancata assunzione" = failure to take in) during the trial evidentiary hearing held by the lower court, if such evidence had been requested at the relevant time.

606.1E: The CSC has the authority to review and rule on an appeal that alleges that the grounds of the judgment ("motivazione" = justification, reasoning), as contained in the text of the lower court's motivation report or other documents of the proceedings, are missing or lacking ("mancanza"), contradictory, or manifestly (clearly) illogical. The "grounds of the judgment" necessarily includes the interpretation of the evidence.

2. According to CPP Article 627 paragraph 3, the referral court must conform to issues of law decided on by in the annulment by the CSC. However, paragraph 2 of CPP Article 627 gives the referral court the same authority as the court whose judgment was annulled to judge the merits of the case and to form interpretations of evidence not legally excluded by the CSC. If relevant and requested by a party, the referral court may conduct a new evidentiary hearing. According to the Marasca CSC panel motivation report's citation of Italian jurisprudence, if the annulling CSC motivation report finds an interpretation illogical, the judgment containing a new interpretation of evidence by the referral court may come to the same conclusion as that of the annulled judgment, as long as the reasoning is not simply identical. (I suspect this may in some cases mean the referral court must include some additional reliable information that contradicts the annulment reasoning.) Excursions into the merits in the annulling CSC motivation report are not binding on the referral court.

Last edited by Numbers; 22nd August 2020 at 03:30 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 02:51 PM   #3060
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,480
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Ah but here's the *brilliant* part of the pro-guilt "argument": where it suits their premise, Knox and Sollecito a) had the skill and cunning (and in-depth understanding of forensic science) and b) the time and space, to pull off this amazing clean-up. But in other parts of their "argument", where it suits their premise, Knox and Sollecito were so stupid as to have done things like leaving the bath mat totally in situ with a visible partial foot track on it, knowing that it was Sollecito who'd left the track and therefore knowing that this might potentially have linked Sollecito to the murder - instead of doing something ludicrously simple (and ludicrously easy to explain innocently later) like rinse the mat under the shower.

Frankly, what makes me far more concerned is that any Italian court could accept the clown-esque pseudoscience from prosecution "experts" (who were anything but) linking the print to Sollecito (and not to Guede), when even any child who's placed a wet foot onto a thick-pile bathmat before could tell you that they don't leave an accurate impression of their foot behind on the mat. And I'm afraid it speaks once again to the way the lower courts (at least) in Italy appear to take every element of the prosecution case as the "truth" - unless/until the defence can conclusively disprove it.
Not just the bathmat print... accepting the samples that lit up with Luminol were Meredith's blood despite negative TMB and DNA results; accepting the break-in as staged despite evidence to the contrary; accepting the knife blade sample as Meredith's DNA despite three separate lab results to the contrary; accepting whatever TOD was needed to make a particular story work; accepting the testimony of Curatolo, Quintavalle and Capezzali as credible when laughable is more appropriate, etc. It's very clear the lower courts simply side with the prosecution. I'm still amazed Hellmann acquitted. Hell, I'm amazed anyone in Italy ever gets acquitted.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 03:04 PM   #3061
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,166
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Not just the bathmat print... accepting the samples that lit up with Luminol were Meredith's blood despite negative TMB and DNA results; accepting the break-in as staged despite evidence to the contrary; accepting the knife blade sample as Meredith's DNA despite three separate lab results to the contrary; accepting whatever TOD was needed to make a particular story work; accepting the testimony of Curatolo, Quintavalle and Capezzali as credible when laughable is more appropriate, etc. It's very clear the lower courts simply side with the prosecution. I'm still amazed Hellmann acquitted. Hell, I'm amazed anyone in Italy ever gets acquitted.

I know. I think it's fairly clear that there's still (or at least there has been at least as late as 2015) a deeply reactionary element - maybe even majority - within the Italian criminal justice community. And that because of this, they have still been assessing criminal charges in a manner consistent with the old - but abolished for many years now - inquisitorial system.

In the Italian flavour of inquisitorialism, it appears that 1) there was a heavy reliance on confessions (and therefore police and PMs developed *interesting* methods for extracting confessions (or sometimes "confessions"....)), and 2) the case presented to the court by the prosecution was viewed by the court as the objective "best truth" of the crime.

In other words, the view of the inquistorial court was along the lines of: "The PM has decided to charge this person(s) and bring them for trial; this is the result of an objective and fair investigation by the PM and the assisting police; the PM would not have decided to bring charges and send to trial unless he/she was convinced by his/her investigations that the defendant(s) before the court truly committed the crime(s); there's no reason to doubt that the PM has done a fair and objective investigation, and therefore there's no reason to doubt that the accused before the court is/are guilty"

And conversely, the defence in such courts was viewed as a self-serving and potentially devious & unscrupulous attempt to "get the defendant(s) off" by any and all possible means, in the face of the prosecution's noble and scrupulously fair objectivity.

Cue 2007, Perugia, Judge Massei presiding........
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 03:15 PM   #3062
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
In case there was any confusion, while an Italian Assize court, whether of first instance or appeal, including the Massei, Hellmann, or Nencini courts, is composed of 2 professional judges and 5 lay "judges", the standard tribunal of the Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC) consists of 5 professional judges.

(A united sections tribunal, also called a "joint chambers" tribunal, of the CSC consists of 9 professional judges. The united sections tribunal is used to decide a case that has caused or may cause a judicial conflict, according to CPP Article 618. Sollecito's appeal after the provisional conviction by the Nencini appeal court requested that the appeal be heard by a united sections tribunal; this was considered unnecessary by the Marasca CSC panel.)

The 5 judges of the Marasca CSC panel were:

Marasca (President of the Panel), Bruno (Reporting Judge), Guardiano, Pistorelli, and Positano.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 03:25 PM   #3063
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,845
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Ah gosh yes! The blood which they've decided came from (I think) Knox having been punched on the nose hard enough by Kercher during the (mythical) struggle between the two - a punch so hard that it caused Knox's nose to bleed, yet which left zero visible mark on Knox's face even the lunchtime after.

I think there's a handy idiom to describe this sort of "logic". If only I could put my hand on it......
If there had been a struggle of that magnitude then where is the evidence of it in the bedroom? Where is Knox's DNA on Meredith or her clothing where she took hold of her? If Knox's (oops... Knox') nose was hit so hard it was bleeding, where are the drops going from Kercher's bedroom into the bathroom? Where is the blood on Knox's clothing which was found on her bed? A bleeding nose wouldn't leave just three tiny pea sized drops. Noses have a large blood supply and bleed copiously. The nosebleed theory does not stand up to scrutiny. It reminds me of their "Knox had a 'wound' on her throat" nonsense.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 03:25 PM   #3064
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,166
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
In case there was any confusion, while an Italian Assize court, whether of first instance or appeal, including the Massei, Hellmann, or Nencini courts, is composed of 2 professional judges and 5 lay "judges", the standard tribunal of the Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC) consists of 5 professional judges.

(A united sections tribunal, also called a "joint chambers" tribunal, of the CSC consists of 9 professional judges. The united sections tribunal is used to decide a case that has caused or may cause a judicial conflict, according to CPP Article 618. Sollecito's appeal after the provisional conviction by the Nencini appeal court requested that the appeal be heard by a united sections tribunal; this was considered unnecessary by the Marasca CSC panel.)

The 5 judges of the Marasca CSC panel were:

Marasca (President of the Panel), Bruno (Reporting Judge), Guardiano, Pistorelli, and Positano.

Yes.

And with respect to the lower assize courts, I would absolutely love to see a proper academic study (not that one probably exists) which examined the interactions of the five lay judges (= ordinary members of the public) and the two professional judges.

For example, how often did the lay judges come to different conclusions from the pro judges? How often did they vote differently from the pro judges? How often were they "persuaded" in the deliberation room to side with the pro judges' conclusions?

It's my sense (and, tentatively, my belief) that the two pro judges essetially called the shots for the judicial body as a whole, in the vast majority of trials. In other words, what the two pro judges thought about the case almost always translated into what the five lay judges thought about the case. In that sense, the inclusion of the five lay members on the judicial panel can be viewed as an utter waste of time, and merely lip-service to the idea of being judged by one's peers. The two pro judges completely ruled (and still rule) the show.

The shadow of Mussolini still looms long over Italian criminal justice, in my opinion....
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 03:28 PM   #3065
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,166
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
If there had been a struggle of that magnitude then where is the evidence of it in the bedroom? Where is Knox's DNA on Meredith or her clothing where she took hold of her? If Knox's (oops... Knox') nose was hit so hard it was bleeding, where are the drops going from Kercher's bedroom into the bathroom? Where is the blood on Knox's clothing which was found on her bed? A bleeding nose wouldn't leave just three tiny pea sized drops. Noses have a large blood supply and bleed copiously. The nosebleed theory does not stand up to scrutiny. It reminds me of their "Knox had a 'wound' on her throat" nonsense.

Of course it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Nor does any single piece of the "evidence" against Knox or Sollecito in this case. Every single one has been properly, scientifically, objectively evaluated - both by genuine world experts and by "lay" commentators who know well how to use the scientific method and who know well how to do proper research and analysis - and has been found to be so lacking in accuracy, reliability and/or credibility as to be functionally useless in any evaluation of Knox's/Sollecito's participation in this murder.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 03:41 PM   #3066
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Yes.

And with respect to the lower assize courts, I would absolutely love to see a proper academic study (not that one probably exists) which examined the interactions of the five lay judges (= ordinary members of the public) and the two professional judges.

For example, how often did the lay judges come to different conclusions from the pro judges? How often did they vote differently from the pro judges? How often were they "persuaded" in the deliberation room to side with the pro judges' conclusions?

It's my sense (and, tentatively, my belief) that the two pro judges essetially called the shots for the judicial body as a whole, in the vast majority of trials. In other words, what the two pro judges thought about the case almost always translated into what the five lay judges thought about the case. In that sense, the inclusion of the five lay members on the judicial panel can be viewed as an utter waste of time, and merely lip-service to the idea of being judged by one's peers. The two pro judges completely ruled (and still rule) the show.

The shadow of Mussolini still looms long over Italian criminal justice, in my opinion....
It's interesting (in a negative sense) that there is no such information, although the assize judges and lay judges allegedly vote to form a judgment.

It's also interesting (in a negative sense) that only one opinion is ever expressed by a CSC panel judgment; no dissents are recorded, in contrast to a US Appeal Court or US Supreme Court (federal or state). The ECHR very specifically allows and records dissenting opinions. I wonder why they are not allowed in the Italian court system.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 03:58 PM   #3067
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,845
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Yes.

And with respect to the lower assize courts, I would absolutely love to see a proper academic study (not that one probably exists) which examined the interactions of the five lay judges (= ordinary members of the public) and the two professional judges.

For example, how often did the lay judges come to different conclusions from the pro judges? How often did they vote differently from the pro judges? How often were they "persuaded" in the deliberation room to side with the pro judges' conclusions?

It's my sense (and, tentatively, my belief) that the two pro judges essetially called the shots for the judicial body as a whole, in the vast majority of trials. In other words, what the two pro judges thought about the case almost always translated into what the five lay judges thought about the case. In that sense, the inclusion of the five lay members on the judicial panel can be viewed as an utter waste of time, and merely lip-service to the idea of being judged by one's peers. The two pro judges completely ruled (and still rule) the show.

The shadow of Mussolini still looms long over Italian criminal justice, in my opinion....
I absolutely agree with you on this. It's the judges, not the lay 'judges' who are leading the decisions in the trials. The lay judges are window dressing. I remember an account in the media where lay judges were coming back to court and asking the (professional) judges what the 'truth' was because they were reading conflicting reports in the media to what they were hearing in court. They looked to the (professional) judges to tell them what the "truth" was.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 04:01 PM   #3068
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,166
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
It's interesting (in a negative sense) that there is no such information, although the assize judges and lay judges allegedly vote to form a judgment.

It's also interesting (in a negative sense) that only one opinion is ever expressed by a CSC panel judgment; no dissents are recorded, in contrast to a US Appeal Court or US Supreme Court (federal or state). The ECHR very specifically allows and records dissenting opinions. I wonder why they are not allowed in the Italian court system.


It very possibly goes all the way back to one word. A word which starts with an M and ends with an I, with "Fascist" in-between.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 04:07 PM   #3069
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,845
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Ah but here's the *brilliant* part of the pro-guilt "argument": where it suits their premise, Knox and Sollecito a) had the skill and cunning (and in-depth understanding of forensic science) and b) the time and space, to pull off this amazing clean-up. But in other parts of their "argument", where it suits their premise, Knox and Sollecito were so stupid as to have done things like leaving the bath mat totally in situ with a visible partial foot track on it, knowing that it was Sollecito who'd left the track and therefore knowing that this might potentially have linked Sollecito to the murder - instead of doing something ludicrously simple (and ludicrously easy to explain innocently later) like rinse the mat under the shower.

.
They didn't even have to go to that trouble. All they had to do was take a bit more water, pour it over the print, and dilute the print more to make the outline completely vague. No explanation at all would have been necessary.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 04:11 PM   #3070
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,891
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Of course it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Nor does any single piece of the "evidence" against Knox or Sollecito in this case. Every single one has been properly, scientifically, objectively evaluated - both by genuine world experts and by "lay" commentators who know well how to use the scientific method and who know well how to do proper research and analysis - and has been found to be so lacking in accuracy, reliability and/or credibility as to be functionally useless in any evaluation of Knox's/Sollecito's participation in this murder.
Strangely, the one bona fide, Italian legal expert who is (or was in 2014) a guilter, Dr. Stefano Maffei, does not - in essence - dispute this.

He takes (or took) the Inquisatorial, holistic approach - as he said, each small dot of evidence, must mean something; not each one individually, but as small dots connected. And as dot- connected, no matter how dubious each one is, means that they're definitely guilty. As he said, I don't think they're guilty, I know they're guilty.

This - even as he conceded in 2014, the DNA evidence had been rightly discarded. None of those dots had been DNA!!!! So said the one, perhaps ONLY independent Italian legal expert professing guilt.

Then there's the Adversarial, atomistic approach. Lose one, main element and all the rest gets tossed, by definition. Meaning, if there's no evidence of either AK or RS in the murderroom and no forensics from the murderroom on them, then the rest is meaningless, even if true.

It also helps if all the rest are small dots of factoids. Dr. Maffei sums them up, Marasca-Bruno discards them, even if true (which they probably had never been to begin with).

There. That's the summary of that 8-year legal ordeal in Italy.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 04:19 PM   #3071
AnimalFriendly
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 222
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post

That masterful "clean-up" also missed Knox's (oops..Knox') own visible blood that she pointed out to the police on the faucet. I guess she figured they wouldn't be able to determine that was her blood either.
It also missed Guede's excrement in the toilet. Which is particularly fascinating given that Knox was simultaneously going to such lengths to "protect" Guede. Imagine, going to all that trouble to "stage a burglary" to protect Guede who by coincidence had already broken into multiple properties. Probably should have staged a terrorist attack instead. And then after going to all that "staging" trouble, to blame Lumumba in a scenario, having accompanied Knox to the cottage, in which he couldn't possibly fill the "burglar" role.
AnimalFriendly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 04:23 PM   #3072
AnimalFriendly
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 222
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
It reminds me of their "Knox had a 'wound' on her throat" nonsense.
Many guilters insisted it was a "scratch" but never got around to explaining why Knox's DNA thus wasn't under Kercher's fingernails.
AnimalFriendly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 04:43 PM   #3073
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,845
Originally Posted by AnimalFriendly View Post
Many guilters insisted it was a "scratch" but never got around to explaining why Knox's DNA thus wasn't under Kercher's fingernails.
Or why the doctor who examined Knox never identified it as a scratch. I guess he could tell the difference between a scratch and a hickey. You know, eight years of medical school and all.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 04:54 PM   #3074
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
Here's the text of some relevant provisions of the Italian Constitution, in the English translation provided by the Senate of Italy. I've highlighted provisions relevant to the Knox - Sollecito case. In some cases these provisions were simply ignored by the Italian courts during some of the trial or pre-trial phases. The bolded provision in Article 111 was called out by the Marasca CSC panel as a Nencini court violation of the Italian Constitution and law.

Art. 27

Criminal responsibility is personal.

A defendant shall be considered not guilty until a final sentence has been passed.

Punishments may not be inhuman and shall aim at re-educating the convicted.
Death penalty is prohibited.

Art. 111

Jurisdiction is implemented through due process regulated by law.

All court trials are conducted with adversary proceedings and the parties are entitled to equal conditions before an impartial judge in third party position.

The law provides for the reasonable duration of trials.

In criminal law trials, the law provides that the alleged offender shall be promptly informed confidentially of the nature and reasons for the charges that are brought and shall have adequate time and conditions to prepare a defence.

The defendant shall have the right to cross-examine or to have cross-examined before a judge the persons making accusations and to summon and examine persons for the defence in the same conditions as the prosecution, as well as the right to produce all other evidence in favour of the defence.

The defendant is entitled to the assistance of an interpreter inthe case that he or she does not speak or understand the language in which the court proceedings are conducted.

In criminal law proceedings, the formation of evidence is based on the principle of adversary hearings.

The guilt of the defendant cannot be established on the basis of statements by persons who, out of their own free choice, have always voluntarily avoided undergoing cross-examination by the defendant or the defence counsel.

The law regulates the cases in which the formation of evidence does not occur in an adversary proceeding with the consent of the defendant or owing to reasons of ascertained objective impossibility or proven illicit conduct.

All judicial decisions shall include a statement of reasons.

Appeals to the Court of Cassation in cases of violations of the law are always allowed against sentences and against measures affecting personal freedom pronounced by ordinary and special courts.

This rule can only be waived in cases of sentences by military tribunals in time of war.

Appeals to the Court of Cassation against decisions of the Council of State and the Court of Accounts are permitted only for reasons of jurisdiction.

Art. 112

The public prosecutor has the obligation to institute criminal proceedings.

Source: https://www.senato.it/documenti/repo...ne_inglese.pdf
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 05:06 PM   #3075
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,891
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Or why the doctor who examined Knox never identified it as a scratch. I guess he could tell the difference between a scratch and a hickey. You know, eight years of medical school and all.
.... or why the police photographer had to note on the photo, that it had to be artificially enhanced so that the presumed hickey was made visible. How many **direct** pieces of evidence do guilter-nutters need before they, too, discount this as one of their evidentiary dots?

Note - Dr Stefano Maffei was not interested in this dot's true evidentiary value, just that it was there to be connected to all the other (meaningless) dots. "When all these are taken as a whole, they are obviously guilty," was Dr Maffei's assessment.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 06:49 PM   #3076
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,480
Just for fun, I felt the need to paste a few recent comments from Vixen that have caused me some confusion and would appreciate it if she could clarify for me.

Quote:
Not necessarily. Suppose you commit a crime as part of a group. The optimal situation for each of you under Nash's Equilibrium Theory(aka prisonners dilemma) is for none of you to grass on any of the others.
This was in response to why didn't Guede testify, especially after he was already definitively convicted of the murder. This would suggest he acted in concert with Amanda and Raffaele. However, if that were the case, under what circumstance would he have not flushed the toilet? His story was he rushed out after hearing Meredith scream (never mind he took the time to wipe)... if his story were true then he wasn't acting in concert with the other two and the question then remains, why not testify?

Quote:
'Raff! I need to go to the cottage tomorrow and get a mop! Whoops I left my lamp under the bed in her room, doh!"
If things happened like this then why did Amanda wipe the lamp clean of prints as you claim she did?

Quote:
I am willing to bet that except in the case of Knox/Sollecito those other annulments were straightforward upholding the decision of a lower court.
I'm with everyone else... this makes NO sense. Please explain....

Quote:
by his own admission he had been up half the night trying to clear up copious amounts of water all over his apartment floor the same evening.
Raffaele said they threw some towels on the water. Exactly when did he say he "had been up half the night trying to clear up copious amounts of water all over his apartment floor" ???
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2020, 07:06 PM   #3077
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,845
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Just for fun, I felt the need to paste a few recent comments from Vixen that have caused me some confusion and would appreciate it if she could clarify for me.



This was in response to why didn't Guede testify, especially after he was already definitively convicted of the murder. This would suggest he acted in concert with Amanda and Raffaele. However, if that were the case, under what circumstance would he have not flushed the toilet? His story was he rushed out after hearing Meredith scream (never mind he took the time to wipe)... if his story were true then he wasn't acting in concert with the other two and the question then remains, why not testify?



If things happened like this then why did Amanda wipe the lamp clean of prints as you claim she did?



I'm with everyone else... this makes NO sense. Please explain....



Raffaele said they threw some towels on the water. Exactly when did he say he "had been up half the night trying to clear up copious amounts of water all over his apartment floor" ???
And what does that have to do with the murder in another building several streets away?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2020, 12:23 PM   #3078
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Here's the text of some relevant provisions of the Italian Constitution, in the English translation provided by the Senate of Italy. I've highlighted provisions relevant to the Knox - Sollecito case. In some cases these provisions were simply ignored by the Italian courts during some of the trial or pre-trial phases. The bolded provision in Article 111 was called out by the Marasca CSC panel as a Nencini court violation of the Italian Constitution and law.

Art. 27

Criminal responsibility is personal.

1. A defendant shall be considered not guilty until a final sentence has been passed.

Punishments may not be inhuman and shall aim at re-educating the convicted.
Death penalty is prohibited.

Art. 111

Jurisdiction is implemented through due process regulated by law.

2. All court trials are conducted with adversary proceedings and the parties are entitled to equal conditions before an impartial judge in third party position.

3. The law provides for the reasonable duration of trials.

4. In criminal law trials, the law provides that the alleged offender shall be promptly informed confidentially of the nature and reasons for the charges that are brought and shall have adequate time and conditions to prepare a defence.

5. The defendant shall have the right to cross-examine or to have cross-examined before a judge the persons making accusations and to summon and examine persons for the defence in the same conditions as the prosecution, as well as the right to produce all other evidence in favour of the defence.

6. The defendant is entitled to the assistance of an interpreter in the case that he or she does not speak or understand the language in which the court proceedings are conducted.

In criminal law proceedings, the formation of evidence is based on the principle of adversary hearings.

7. The guilt of the defendant cannot be established on the basis of statements by persons who, out of their own free choice, have always voluntarily avoided undergoing cross-examination by the defendant or the defence counsel.

The law regulates the cases in which the formation of evidence does not occur in an adversary proceeding with the consent of the defendant or owing to reasons of ascertained objective impossibility or proven illicit conduct.

All judicial decisions shall include a statement of reasons.

Appeals to the Court of Cassation in cases of violations of the law are always allowed against sentences and against measures affecting personal freedom pronounced by ordinary and special courts.

This rule can only be waived in cases of sentences by military tribunals in time of war.

Appeals to the Court of Cassation against decisions of the Council of State and the Court of Accounts are permitted only for reasons of jurisdiction.

Art. 112

8. The public prosecutor has the obligation to institute criminal proceedings.

Source: https://www.senato.it/documenti/repo...ne_inglese.pdf
An analysis of Italian Constitutional issues or violations in the Knox - Sollecito case, based on the quoted sections numbered above.

1. In the Italian judicial system, as in other European ones where the prosecution can appeal a first-instance or appeal court verdict of acquittal (not guilty) just as the defense can appeal a verdict of guilt, it is critical to define when an accused is definitively guilty or not guilty in order to prevent an essentially endless sequence of trials. Furthermore, the legal concept that double jeopardy is absolutely unacceptable, enshrined in post-World War II international European law by the European Convention on Human Rights not until 1984, in Article 4 of Protocol 7*, must be accommodated under Italian law.

Thus, in what appears as a kind of legal fiction to Americans and perhaps to others used to systems based on English Common Law, where the prohibition of double jeopardy begins at the latest with a clear verdict (such as guilty or not guilty) from a first-instance criminal trial, under Italian law, a person convicted at a first-instance criminal trial or at an appeal court trial who appeals the verdict within the legal time limit is not to be considered guilty under law. This means that Knox and Sollecito were never legally guilty of the murder/rape charges under Italian law, although they were provisionally convicted by the Massei first-instance court (verdict of guilt on the murder/rape charges then quashed by the Hellmann appeal court) and the Nencini appeal court (verdict of guilt on the murder/rape charges quashed by the Marasca CSC panel).

Some PGP continually repeat that Knox and/or Sollecito were guilty based on the two provisional convictions; such statements are meaningless legally and reflect a failure to understand Italian constitutional law. The Chieffi CSC panel did not deliver a verdict of guilt on the murder/rape charges; in its legally binding decisions itquashed the Hellmann appeal court acquittal on those charges and asked for a review of the case by a referral court, with an additional DNA test to be performed on a specific sample. (A guilty verdict by an appeal court such as the CSC that had not heard the defendants or the evidence following an acquittal by a lower court would appear to be a violation of ECHR case-law.)

2. An objective observer, such as the ECHR, would find that the Massei and Nencini trials, and the Chieffi CSC panel review, were not impartial; they favored the prosecution and disfavored the defense.

For example, in the Massei trial, contrary to Italian law, Amanda Knox's complaint, implicit in her description of the 5 - 6 November 2007 interrogation before the court, led to Judge Massei allowing the transcript of her statement to be forwarded to Prosecutor Mignin's office for prosecution of alleged calunnia against the police. However, Massei ignored Knox's lawyer's request to have the transcript sent to a prosecutor for investigation, as noted by the ECHR in it judgment Knox v. Italy. When the defense asked for the calunnia against the police trial to be transferred to another jurisdiction to avoid a conflict of interest, a judge of the Perugia courts expressed surprise that a report alleging a crime by the police -a report clearly implicit in Knox's testimony - had not been sent to an independent prosecutor for investigation. This was a violation of Article 112 of the Italian Constitution (number 8, highlighted in the quote above). This was also an element in the evidence leading the ECHR to declare that Italy had violated international law, Article 3 (procedural branch), in its judgment Knox v. Italy.

Another example of partiality from the Massei trial: In evaluating some element of evidence, where there were two or more possible interpretations of the evidence, one suggestive of guilt but others not suggestive, the court would decide on a "probable" interpretation that, with other "probable" interpretations, was "probably" an indication of guilt. This was a clear violation of the Italian legal standard of declaring guilt only if there was proof of responsibility for the crime beyond a reasonable doubt (CPP Article 533).

One example of partiality from the Nencini trial is the violation of clause 7 of Article 111 of the Italian Constitution (numbered 7 above), introducing Guede's statement into the trial by subterfuge and using it as proof of guilt, as pointed out in the Marasca CSC panel MR.

3. The "single" trial stretched out over a period of 8 years, an excessively long period, because the prosecution presented and the Massei and Nencini courts accepted non-credible evidence, denying or delaying defense access to the raw data, without performing the legally appropriate examination of the reliability of the evidence and unfairly denying defense arguments against that evidence.

4. Knox and Sollecito were not informed of their defense rights - respectively, that each was a suspect, each had the right to remain silent, and each had the right to a defense lawyer to be present at the interrogation (CPP Articles 63 and 64).

5. Among other denials and suppressions of evidence by the prosecution aid by the courts, the defense was denied access to the raw DNA data, including almost all negative and positive controls, thereby eliminating, among other checks on the data, the possibility for the defense to evaluate the issue of contamination in the DNA testing.

6. Knox was denied a fair interpreter during the 5-6 November interrogation, a violation of international law, as declared by the ECHR in its judgment Knox v. Italy.

Numbers 7 and 8 in the quote are discussed briefly in section 2 of this clarification - continuation response.

* A "Protocol" in this context is an amendment to a treaty.

The text of Article 4 of Protocol 7:

Quote:
ARTICLE 4

Right not to be tried or punished twice

1. No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State.

2. The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not prevent the reopening of the case in accordance with the law and penal procedure of the State concerned, if there is evidence of new or newly discovered facts, or if there has been a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings, which could affect the outcome of the case.

3. No derogation from this Article shall be made under Article 15 of the Convention.

Last edited by Numbers; 23rd August 2020 at 12:24 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2020, 12:54 PM   #3079
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 4,398
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
...
Another example of partiality from the Massei trial: In evaluating some element of evidence, where there were two or more possible interpretations of the evidence, one suggestive of guilt but others not suggestive, the court would decide on a "probable" interpretation that, with other "probable" interpretations, was "probably" an indication of guilt. This was a clear violation of the Italian legal standard of declaring guilt only if there was proof of responsibility for the crime beyond a reasonable doubt (CPP Article 533).
...
Indeed ECHR case law specifies that when a piece of evidence can be interpreted alternatively i favour of the prosecution case or in favour of the defence, then the courts have to interpret it in favour of the defence. E.g. The DNA of Knox present in the bathroom was either interpreted as being deposited as a consequence of a crime or innocently during normal ablutions. The courts are obliged to accept the defences explanation. This means that you cannot take together many pieces of evidence to conclude guilt, when each individually should be assigned as not proof of guilt. Another example might be some of the telephone geo-location. When the data could indicate a position the prosecution argues for, or there is a reasonable likelihood that it indicates a position the defence argue for then the courts have to accept the defences argument.

To be clear, this means that where there are two reasonably likely alternative explanations, neither can be used as 'proof' of innocence or guilt. What the courts cannot do is decide holistically on guilt and then retrospectively go through and justify the verdict by saying these pieces of evidence support a guilty verdict when there is an innocent explantation for the findings.

In comparison there is no reasonable 'innocent' explanation for Guede's handprint in the victim's blood on the wall of the victim's bedroom where she was murdered. This single piece of evidence unequivocally places Guede at the immediate time and immediate place of the murder, a place where he had no right to be. It was convenient that his and only his bloody shoe prints were within the room, but there was no firm identification in the shoe prints as the shoes were disposed of. It is clearly very unlikely that other people could have moved around in the room with wet blood and not left any prints.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2020, 02:25 PM   #3080
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,363
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
Indeed ECHR case law specifies that when a piece of evidence can be interpreted alternatively i favour of the prosecution case or in favour of the defence, then the courts have to interpret it in favour of the defence. E.g. The DNA of Knox present in the bathroom was either interpreted as being deposited as a consequence of a crime or innocently during normal ablutions. The courts are obliged to accept the defences explanation. This means that you cannot take together many pieces of evidence to conclude guilt, when each individually should be assigned as not proof of guilt. Another example might be some of the telephone geo-location. When the data could indicate a position the prosecution argues for, or there is a reasonable likelihood that it indicates a position the defence argue for then the courts have to accept the defences argument.

To be clear, this means that where there are two reasonably likely alternative explanations, neither can be used as 'proof' of innocence or guilt. What the courts cannot do is decide holistically on guilt and then retrospectively go through and justify the verdict by saying these pieces of evidence support a guilty verdict when there is an innocent explantation for the findings.

In comparison there is no reasonable 'innocent' explanation for Guede's handprint in the victim's blood on the wall of the victim's bedroom where she was murdered. This single piece of evidence unequivocally places Guede at the immediate time and immediate place of the murder, a place where he had no right to be. It was convenient that his and only his bloody shoe prints were within the room, but there was no firm identification in the shoe prints as the shoes were disposed of. It is clearly very unlikely that other people could have moved around in the room with wet blood and not left any prints.
Planigale, thanks for reminding us of this principle of international law.

Here is an excerpt from the ECHR - CoE publication Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights - Right to a Fair Trial (Criminal Limb) on the burden of proof:


Quote:
5. Burden of proof

357.The requirements related to the burden of proof from the perspective of the principle of the presumption of innocence provide inter alia, that it is for the prosecution to inform the accused of the case that will be made against him or her, so that he or she may prepare and present his or her defence accordingly, and to adduce evidence sufficient to convict him or her (Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, §77; Janosevic v. Sweden, §97).

358.The presumption of innocence is violated where the burden of proof is shifted from the prosecution to the defence (Telfner v. Austria, §15). However, the defence may be required to provide an explanation after the prosecution has made a prima facie case against an accused (ibid., §18; Poletan and Azirovik v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, §§63-67).


359.The Court has also held that the in dubio pro reo principle (doubts should benefit the accused) is a specific expression of the presumption of innocence (Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, §77; Tsalkitzis v. Greece (no. 2), §60). An issue from the perspective of this principle may arise if the domestic courts’ decisions finding an applicant guilty are not sufficiently reasoned (Melich and Beck v. the Czech Republic, §§49-55; Ajdarić v. Croatia, §51), or if an extreme and unattainable burden of proof was placed on the applicant so that his or her defence does not have even the slightest prospect of success (Nemtsov v. Russia, §92; Topić v. Croatia, §45; Frumkin v. Russia, §166).
Had Knox and/or Sollecito been finally convicted in accordance with either the Massei or Nencini court reasonings, an application to the ECHR would result in the conviction being found to be in violation of Convention Article 6. However, from the standpoint of the length of time it takes the ECHR to reach judgment on a case, such an unfair final conviction would have most likely have resulted in even longer unjust detention for two innocent persons.

ETA: Looking through your post again, and being perhaps picky, I think that there is perhaps somewhat of an incomplete statement. If there are two explanations or interpretations of an element of evidence, and it is reasonable to consider the weight of the interpretation of guilt equal to the weight of the interpretation of innocence, then the "dubio reo" principle would mean that the interpretation of innocence must prevail for that element. However, if there were other fully convincing evidence of guilt, that equivocal element of evidence would not necessarily be considered a contradiction. On the other hand, as you point out, a court cannot add up all the equivocal elements of evidence as evidence of guilt; they instead add up to evidence of innocence (a not guilty verdict).

In fact, in the Knox - Sollecito case, the primary alleged evidence, the alleged DNA profile of Kercher alleged found on the knife blade and the alleged DNA profile of Sollecito allegedly found on the bra clasp were improperly collected, stored, and analyzed, and thus were not really admissible evidence. They are only evidence of abysmal failures by the scientific police and obvious DNA contamination being used as alleged evidence. The presumption of innocence implies that the prosecution must convincingly demonstrate that any DNA evidence they present is credible, and that the proper forensic science standards relating to, for example, collection, storage, analysis, an freedom from contamination. When the alleged DNA evidence does not meet those standards of credibility, it must not be considered admissible.

Last edited by Numbers; 23rd August 2020 at 03:56 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:43 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.