Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Diocletus]

The first time a request of electronic raw data was made was at the end of the Massei trial from Dalla Vedova, and was unintellegible. That was the first mention, oral and not understood by the judge, and was not repeated.

There's only one trial, remember? And lol its still going on.

Anyway, how many times do you have to ask? Isn't once enough?

 

[acbytesla]

Bah. Quote please. (If you manage to quote, then prove it false)



Where? There isn't a single false statement from Stefanoni about luminol footprints. And there isn't any false statement about blood.



Total bs. It was Vecchiotti here who was dramatically caught lying.



It's ridiculous, your mind makes up now on this as a habit. On May 20. 2011 Vecchiotti and Conti themselves stated - before Hellmann - that the police lab had sent them all the data they had requested, and they praised their "complete cooperation". Vecchiotti also repeated on Oct. 30 2011 Stefanoni was "correct and cooperative". There isn't a single refusal of a request from Stefanoni in the record.
It's the simple truth.

What is true is Stefanoni made DNA tests under the incidente probatorio statute, the defence expert was there, but nobody objected about lack of negative controls and nobody came to ask for electronic data.
There wasn't any request about EDF from the defence for two years. The requests the defence made at the preliminary hearing were promptly satisfied, as Bongiorno admits. The first time a request of electronic raw data was made was at the end of the Massei trial from Dalla Vedova, and was unintellegible. That was the first mention, oral and not understood by the judge, and was not repeated. No instance was submitted again.



I don't know what you mean with such statement. The bra clasp DNA sample was amplified more than once, and yielded two sequences each time (includes the Y haplotype).
The tests were done under the procedure known as incidente probatorio, art. 360 of the Code, that qualifies a test as a non-repeatable event.

You know, we've been over this dozens of times (AT LEAST). We've provided quotes from her testimony and we have shown how she lied. That you continue to argue that she didn't is total nonsense. But I expect that from you. Time and time again, you argue that rain is not wet and the desert is not dry and the earth is not round. It wouldn't matter if you had a video of Rudy killing Meredith alone, you would say that it is false.

It's not worth my time to prove that you are again. lying as always.

 

[Numbers]

It's wrong. The transportation of findings facts from a judicial trial to another is not contrary to Art. 111. On the contrary, it was specifically ruled to be compatible with the Constitution and it is fully applied, regulated and provided for by the Code and by jurisprudence.

It is also not true that the inquisitorial system was eliminated by the changing of Art. 111. The whole Constitution itself would be actually incompatible with a comlte removal of some "civil law" and "inquisitorial" foundations, since the Constitution prohibits a separation of bodies between judges and prosecutors (so prosecutors are judges), and strips prosecutors from the discretional power typical of adversarial systems.

The existence of a fast track-trial option, for example, itself is a typical inquisitorial feature. The fast track tria is just an inquisitory trial that ends at the preliminary stage, taking the option means the defendant waives his right to enter an adversarial trial, in exchange for a ban to admission of further evidence and a possible discount. The fast track trial is a discussion about an investigation, judgement entirely decided by an investigating judge behind closed doors, therefore a trial with whole inquisitory features. The only thing that differs from the full inquisitory procedure is that the finding of truth is not taken to the end, but halted while at an approximate stage on a limited set of collected evidence.

The point is: you can see the civil law "inquisitorial" foundations of the Italian system better when you look at the preliminary stages. The trial discussion looks typically adversarial, but this is maybe just about what is more apparent, the investigation and preliminary phase has features that make the inquisitorial foundation instead more apparent.

Hi Mach,

I don't believe you have fully explained the non-adversarial inquisitional foundations of the Italian judicial system. I agree you have pointed out the fast-track trial path (apparently based on clause [sentence number] 9 on Article 111) and that the prosecutors are in the judiciary, but the constitutional validity of the transport of "judicial facts" that have not been examined by defendants from one (fast-track) trial, where they were not represented, to their own adversarial trial, is not clear to me. Could you expound a bit on the constitutional logic involved in this transport?

And doesn't clause 5 entitle the defendants at their adversarial trial to receive the electronic data files, the best evidence of the results from the DNA profile tests, for their defense purposes?

I look forward to your response.

For convenience, I have copied Article 111 below.

From the website of the Senate of the Italian Republic:

https://www.senato.it/documenti/repo...ne_inglese.pdf

{I have numbered and highlighted the sentences of Article 111 for ease of reading and reference.}

Art. 111

1) 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.

7) In criminal law proceedings, the formation of evidence is based on the principle of adversary hearings.
8) 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. 9) 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.

10) All judicial decisions shall include a statement of reasons.

11) 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.

12) 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.

 

[Numbers]

This fabric article looks more like boxer shorts than a pillow to me...but I'm not absolutely sure.

I'm wondering about Guede's mode of entry downstairs (assuming he did enter) and whether he could have come in through the window with the blood stain on the sill, but left through the door, after washing up/changing into "borrowed" clothes perhaps. Any thoughts on this?

I looked at the picture of the fabric article (object) under several different conditions of computer screen backlighting and angle. At the top left of the object I perceived two short legs separated by an inward bay of fabric which I interpreted to be the crotch of underwear briefs. Therefore, I believe that this object is indeed underwear briefs, or less likely, a pillow case cleverly fabricated to look like underwear briefs, perhaps as a fashion statement.

 

[Desert Fox]

10) All judicial decisions shall include a statement of reasons.

Do you think that when the legislature wrote that, they meant these 400 page statements of illogical that they get?

 

[Numbers]

Do you think that when the legislature wrote that, they meant these 400 page statements of illogical that they get?

I'm not knowledgeable about the details of how Italian law addresses (if indeed it is specific) the logic of the Statement of Reasons, also called motivation statements.

I'm aware that the ECHR calls for a Statement of Reasons (except in jury trials, when the prosecution charges as accepted or not by the jury is a substitute). The case-law of the ECtHR calls for coherence in the Statement of Reasons; incoherence may be an unfairness, but I haven't yet seen a clear indication of how unfair ECtHR considers it.

 

[Desert Fox]

I'm not knowledgeable about the details of how Italian law addresses (if indeed it is specific) the logic of the Statement of Reasons, also called motivation statements.

I'm aware that the ECHR calls for a Statement of Reasons (except in jury trials, when the prosecution charges as accepted or not by the jury is a substitute). The case-law of the ECtHR calls for coherence in the Statement of Reasons; incoherence may be an unfairness, but I haven't yet seen a clear indication of how unfair ECtHR considers it.

Watching the states attorney general of Arkansas argue in front of the state supreme court on the Arkansas DNA statute and they wanted to interpret it in a way which effectively made it useless. You kind of know the framers never intended it that way.

Edit: Should state that this is in regards to the West Memphis Three

 

[Dan O.]

Maybe I did not see your answer,
and most of the time I'm not online much,
so I asked again? No biggie, ok?

It's not intelligence smarts that is needed here, It's street smarts or more specifically cell phone smarts. If you were one of the younger generation you would implicitly understand the signals that the phone was giving you.

There is of course the normal ring-ring that says the system is trying to wake the party on the other end of the line but they might be sleeping or busy or left the phone someplace where they don't hear it. Eventually they may wake up, look at their phone and see that you tried to call and may even call you back if they think your calls are important. If you let it ring long enough the call will transfer to voice mail where you can leave a message. If the phone is ringing like this, you can call back repeatedly to show that your call is really important and that they should stop being busy long enough to answer.

If a phone is busy the response would be similar to the no-answer case since most plans have call waiting. You hear several rings while the person on the other end gets annoying clicks of beeps until your call is transferred to voicemail.

Then there is what happens when the phone is turned off. The phone rings once, maybe twice and the call is transferred to voice mail. If there is no voice mailbox you get a recorded announcement that the phone is not available. Calling again and again will not change the fact that the phone is off and will not in any way speed up when the phone gets turned on again. Your call will show in the missed call log if the phone is ever turned on so there is no need to leave a message in most cases.

In Amanda's case, Meredith's english phone rang several times so she hung up before getting transferred to voicemail and called Filomena instead. After the call to Filomena, Amanda called both of Meredith's phones but this time one went straight to voicemail and the other gave a recorded announcement. This is a clear indication that the phones are unreachable and that subsequent calls will be pointless.

The unnecessary calling is even worse than pointless. It would have further drained the battery on Amanda's phone so she wouldn't be able to answer a returned call.

 

[Numbers]

Do you think that when the legislature wrote that, they meant these 400 page statements of illogical that they get?

Another thought on your question.

In Article 111:

Clause 2 calls for adversarial proceeding before an impartial judge in third party position;

Clause 5 gives the defense the right to cross-examine witnesses and to summon and examine witnesses for the defense, and the right to produce all evidence in favor of the defense;

Clause 7 calls for the formation of evidence in criminal law proceedings to be based on the principle of adversary hearings;

Clause 8 states that guilt of a defendant cannot be established on the basis of statements by persons who, of their own free choice, have always avoided undergoing cross-examination by the defense.

I conclude that the Statement of Reasons called for in Clause 10 must be totally consistent with Article 111, including all the clauses pointed out above. Thus, the Reasons should be based on the evidence that was presented by the prosecution and defense, including that produced by cross-examination and the introduction of all other evidence, including any evidence that the court itself introduced during the hearing and which had been examined by the prosecution and defense. The introduction into the Reasons of evidence that had not been examined during the trial by the prosecution and the defense would not appear to be allowed by the clauses listed above. And I would suggest that the Reasons must follow coherent and reasonable logic recognizable by objective persons, such as the judges of the ECtHR.

 

[Dan O.]

Crime Scene video Nov. 3, 2007, Part 1 starts at 0:16:12 , Upstairs still.
At 2:24:51, early in the morning, we see the Bra Clasp, lying next to Meredith's bed -(I thought it was found underneath her pillow, which had been placed under her buttocks and naked genitalia?) I would think that the Bra Clasp, after being moved here, would have been tagged and bagged right then, after investigators video'd and photographed it, using a flash.

No. What you see is the bra clasp where it was sitting under the pillow that is being held up. It's possible to locate exactly where the clasp is in the room from those close up photos by matching defects in the tiles.

 

[anglolawyer]

It's not worth to forget that Conti and Vecchiotti were instead those shown to be obviously frudulent.
And that those who claim Stefanoni was incompetent and a liar were shown (also on this forum) that their idea is totally devoid of factial basis. (not differently than when they were claiming that Chiriboga stated that nobody entered Quintavalle's shop).

What I can't forget is that she destroyed a vital (and highly suspicious) piece of evidence so that it could never be re-tested. What that has to do with Conti, Vechiotti or anybody else I have no idea. Of course, it's only one thing among many but I have promised this thread I will keep bringing it up every time folks get lost in an unnecessary discussion about mixed profiles, cigarette butts, door handles etc.

I have you to thank, Mach, for supplying the cope stone to this part of the debate - by law, all the material in unrepeatable tests must be destroyed. I even remember the smiley you used to accompany this disclosure. The fascist mindset is really something. Laws are for idiots, we think you did it so we'll beat you up, lie and cheat, fling mud and prosecute opponents, smear you in the press and trust our friends to back us up.

 

[ericparoissien]

Vengeance

Here is a YouTube video (...) to some comments from TJ Walker about an interview of Amanda Knox. Not everyone seems to agree with Mr. Walker. Here is a comment from one Eric Paroissien: "The reason why lie detection techniques don't work is because she could very well be sincerely crying about her fear to go back to jail while asked if she feels for Meredith Kercher, associating those two spaces is a muscle training. A 9 year old could do that."

(Sorry, forum rules don't allow me to copy the Youtube link.)
Your quote from a thousand miles away in time/space is well received though.
Yet the concept of revenge that justice drags along with its every breath cripples it, Amanda and Raffaele and Rudy have suffered hell, the punishment must stop. The Italian justice system works as well as any other and won't improve, or the French, or the American system, as long as overpopulation is aggravating.
We can argue the good will of good men and their competence, but huge numbers rule.
But not only numbers:
Every time people talk about justice, there's this elephant in the room that no one wants to discuss, the law professionals don't want to hear about it either: vengeance.
Under the guise of absolute, archetypal, eternal, godly fairness & truth, … we are going for blood.
Besides, no one knows the price of a human life, and the concept of "s/he's won't do it again" (unrepeatable offense) is always dwarfed in the face of retribution.
"Yes, but you wouldn't say that if it happened to your daughter!"
Yes i have a daughter and i went to jail (custody abduction), first in Italy then in France, to protect her and my son, and if anything happens to one's kids, revenge is very continuously present for years in anyone's mind, but it doesn't justify justice. (My kids live with me legally, in peace now.)
Meaning, for Meredith i want vengeance, as a father, stupidly, and for Amanda, Rudy and Raffaele i want things to stop, as a father.
You're playing a card game in a locked room with a stronger, faster, smarter opponent, armed while you're not, and hope to save your skin by showing him that each card he shows, you can show better, while dissing him, and he has concluded long ago that you can't get out of that room alive.
I'd call this typically a masculine strategy; it's time to change it.

 

[Dan O.]

This fabric article looks more like boxer shorts than a pillow to me...but I'm not absolutely sure.

I'm wondering about Guede's mode of entry downstairs (assuming he did enter) and whether he could have come in through the window with the blood stain on the sill, but left through the door, after washing up/changing into "borrowed" clothes perhaps. Any thoughts on this?

Were you aware that there are bars on that window?

 

[anglolawyer]

(Sorry, forum rules don't allow me to copy the Youtube link.)
Your quote from a thousand miles away in time/space is well received though.
Yet the concept of revenge that justice drags along with its every breath cripples it, Amanda and Raffaele and Rudy have suffered hell, the punishment must stop. The Italian justice system works as well as any other and won't improve, or the French, or the American system, as long as overpopulation is aggravating.
We can argue the good will of good men and their competence, but huge numbers rule.
But not only numbers:
Every time people talk about justice, there's this elephant in the room that no one wants to discuss, the law professionals don't want to hear about it either: vengeance.
Under the guise of absolute, archetypal, eternal, godly fairness & truth, … we are going for blood.
Besides, no one knows the price of a human life, and the concept of "s/he's won't do it again" (unrepeatable offense) is always dwarfed in the face of retribution.
"Yes, but you wouldn't say that if it happened to your daughter!"
Yes i have a daughter and i went to jail (custody abduction), first in Italy then in France, to protect her and my son, and if anything happens to one's kids, revenge is very continuously present for years in anyone's mind, but it doesn't justify justice. (My kids live with me legally, in peace now.)
Meaning, for Meredith i want vengeance, as a father, stupidly, and for Amanda, Rudy and Raffaele i want things to stop, as a father.
You're playing a card game in a locked room with a stronger, faster, smarter opponent, armed while you're not, and hope to save your skin by showing him that each card he shows, you can show better, while dissing him, and he has concluded long ago that you can't get out of that room alive.
I'd call this typically a masculine strategy; it's time to change it.

Maybe you're on the wrong thread.

 

[Dan O.]

I thought Meredith's keys were never found? Were downstairs boyfriends keys found?

Meredith's keys were never found. The downstairs keys were in found inside the front entry in the upstairs apartment.

 

[anglolawyer]

Meredith's keys were never found. The downstairs keys were in found inside the front entry in the upstairs apartment.

I assume the cops did not ask to whom they belonged before busting in downstairs. This is why you need Columbo. He would have wondered to whom they belonged, tried them in the upstairs front door and then used them to get in downstairs.

How did Guede get in downstairs? No sign of break in. So he must have used the keys. If he used the keys why would he dutifully return them to the entrance upstairs?

This downstairs business. If those spots of blood are related to the crime upstairs, how come there aren't similar spots upstairs outside the victim's room? If Guede was bleeding what injuries did he have? He sliced his fingers during the stabbing. Is that enough? I can't see it but what do I know? If it's Meredith's blood how was it conveyed downstairs in liquid form and then spattered about?

 

[Dan O.]

I assume the cops did not ask to whom they belonged before busting in downstairs. This is why you need Columbo. He would have wondered to whom they belonged, tried them in the upstairs front door and then used them to get in downstairs.

The downstairs keys were not found until the 4th or 5th. The door downstairs had already been kicked in.

 

[anglolawyer]

The downstairs keys were not found until the 4th or 5th. The door downstairs had already been kicked in.

Where were they found exactly? Had they been hidden? I mean, the case is almost about keys. It's certainly about access to the upper apartment.

 

[Machiavelli]

There's only one trial, remember? And lol its still going on.

Anyway, how many times do you have to ask? Isn't once enough?

So you admit nobody asked for the EDFs to Stefanoni. We come to some admission at last.

 

[Machiavelli]

You know, we've been over this dozens of times (AT LEAST). We've provided quotes from her testimony and we have shown how she lied. That you continue to argue that she didn't is total nonsense. But I expect that from you. Time and time again, you argue that rain is not wet and the desert is not dry and the earth is not round. It wouldn't matter if you had a video of Rudy killing Meredith alone, you would say that it is false.

It's not worth my time to prove that you are again. lying as always.

Look, I think I have shown on this forum, with quotes, how Vecchiotti cheated. And I have shown how you have no argument with any resemblance of sense nor factual foundation for arguing that Stefanoni lied (or that she is incompetent either). And I think you are unable to answer simple points like the ones on my previous post. So I just point out how my position is going to remain well grounded, and I will make it clear probably forever.
You are in the company of other people, Prof. Halkides and prof. Zupancic(?) are two people who think it's appropriate and rational to claim that Stefanoni hid 100 profiles, based on "new evidence that emerged". Arguments on your side are at this level. These are the people who make the claims and such is the level of their rational functioning.