Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Dan O.]

...

---IOW he says it was apparent it was closed from the outside because "there was the key behind the door".


(Sorry, google translation.)

After viewing many Google translations I now recognize some of the common errors that Google makes. Logic should tell you that the statement doesn't make any sense. If the key was behind the door then that key could have been used to lock the door from the inside. If however the entire room was searched and no door key was found this would be evidence that the door was locked from the outside. I suspect that Google negated the statement that originally said "there was no key behind the door".

 

[sept79]

Hellmann's acquittal of 2011 based on throwing out witness testimony and appointing Vecchiotti & Conti to carry out a limited exercise.

By not appointing Vecchiotti/Conti was Italian justice supposed to let stand the findings of Stefanoni who lied about sample size, lied about obtaining a positive quantification of DNA in 36B, withheld testing information from the defense for the first 6 months during the trial of first instance, destroyed the bra clasp to prevent additional testing, and refused to show her work (EDFs)?

Are you, Vixen, actually saying that Stefanoni's findings should still be the defining scientific evidence in the Knox/Sollecito prosecution?

 

[Grinder]

How do you know the content of their minds?

Thanks for not asking for cite on that other issue.

Well I know because they told us. They told us it was a staged break in. They told us Raf's nothing was stolen remark to 911 was suspicious. They told us that they had lied about things. They told us that their stories changed. They told us that the PP arrived before Raf called the police. Et more

It is curious that those (now) that say they were suspects also argue that there was no reason in the polices' minds for them to be suspects

 

[Bill Williams]

Thanks for not asking for cite on that other issue.

Well I know because they told us. They told us it was a staged break in. They told us Raf's nothing was stolen remark to 911 was suspicious. They told us that they had lied about things. They told us that their stories changed. They told us that the PP arrived before Raf called the police. Et more

It is curious that those (now) that say they were suspects also argue that there was no reason in the polices' minds for them to be suspects

Fair enough.

Now time for a bit of mischievousness..... string all these things together which you know, and you have a True Crime book! Just saying.

 

[Grinder]

Hey Vixen,
Are you aware that Miss Knox writes on page 115 of Waiting to Be Heard,
The Interpreter balked: "You're a liar."


I wonder when Donnino became a part of The Interrogation Team?

Before she arrived that night for sure. Maybe for as long as she worked there.

 

[analemma]

Hellmann's acquittal of 2011 based on throwing out witness testimony and appointing Vecchiotti & Conti to carry out a limited exercise.

Under Italian law the second level judge has the obligation to review evidence to make sure that mistakes did not occur in the first trial
Witness testimony and DNA results are evidence, so Hellmann had the obligation to examine and evaluate all evidence.
It is very common for second level judges to acquit first level convictions because mistakes were made at the first level.

 

[Samzilla]

63 more days until the motivation report deadline (I expect it to take the full 90).

 

[Kauffer]

63 more days until the motivation report deadline (I expect it to take the full 90).

Do we know for certain that it must be within 90 days? We know it applies to the lower courts, but do we know it applies to Cassation?

 

[Kaosium]

Hellmann's acquittal of 2011 based on throwing out witness testimony and appointing Vecchiotti & Conti to carry out a limited exercise.

The reasoning for this (in quashing Hellmann) was so abominable and dishonest it should be enshrined in a 'hall of shame' somewhere.

I linked them above, read the sections on Curatolo and Quintavalle from Hellmann and then the Cheffi Report on those two 'witnesses' and any cogent observer ought to be able to divine that there's something very wrong with that body and that the original quashing was an embarrassment to Italy, and for that matter the entire EU that allows such travesties of logic and justice to continue.

Unlike the forensic or (other) circumstantial evidence, all you need to know is anything about reliable witness testimony, how memory works and/or possess the logical abilities of a bonobo to realize just how bad those 'witnesses' were and the absurdity of the Cheffi court 'rehabilitating' them.

 

[Samzilla]

Do we know for certain that it must be within 90 days? We know it applies to the lower courts, but do we know it applies to Cassation?

No idea.

It's been almost a month since the acquittal. You'd think with so much extensive discussion about the pending motivation report in the meantimel, if 90 days didn't apply, someone would've mentioned it.

 

[Vixen]

I believe the one page brief-reason for decision say there was "no evidence", not just insufficient evidence. But as you say, we will see.

Still, I wish that poster upthread would repost the distinction between the evidence which was generated by investigation/forensics, vs. the "judicially generated evidence."

The March 2013 ISC reversal of the Hellmann acquittals was based primarily on its view of judicially generated evidence. As for the investigative/forensic evidence, the Chieffi court in March 2013 actually reversed the burden of proof - making the forensics seem plausible.

It turns out, as of March 2015 - there is nothing in the case against AK or RS, forensically or judicially generated, which condemns them. Nothing.

Thanks, that makes sense.

Sorry, can I modify that? SC quotes section 530 para 2, which is "insufficient evidence".

 

[Vixen]

No idea.

It's been almost a month since the acquittal. You'd think with so much extensive discussion about the pending motivation report in the meantimel, if 90 days didn't apply, someone would've mentioned it.

Judicial guidelines are that they are supposed to do it within 90 days. It can be less. I have a feeling they will wait the full 90 days to get the wording right.

It could be later than 90 days, but then they are likely to receive a chiding, which no legal bod likes. They will be keen to honour the court.

 

[Vixen]

The reasoning for this (in quashing Hellmann) was so abominable and dishonest it should be enshrined in a 'hall of shame' somewhere.

I linked them above, read the sections on Curatolo and Quintavalle from Hellmann and then the Cheffi Report on those two 'witnesses' and any cogent observer ought to be able to divine that there's something very wrong with that body and that the original quashing was an embarrassment to Italy, and for that matter the entire EU that allows such travesties of logic and justice to continue.

Unlike the forensic or (other) circumstantial evidence, all you need to know is anything about reliable witness testimony, how memory works and/or possess the logical abilities of a bonobo to realize just how bad those 'witnesses' were and the absurdity of the Cheffi court 'rehabilitating' them.

Problem is, if one of the parties want to bring a witness, then it's part of correct legal process. The other side has the opportunity to cross examine them.

Imagine there's a road accident and the only witness is a very dodgy looking fellow. As an eye witness, his testimony is fine.

 

[Vixen]

By not appointing Vecchiotti/Conti was Italian justice supposed to let stand the findings of Stefanoni who lied about sample size, lied about obtaining a positive quantification of DNA in 36B, withheld testing information from the defense for the first 6 months during the trial of first instance, destroyed the bra clasp to prevent additional testing, and refused to show her work (EDFs)?

Are you, Vixen, actually saying that Stefanoni's findings should still be the defining scientific evidence in the Knox/Sollecito prosecution?

I have no idea. However, you would hope a very high up scientific police officer was trustworthy, professional and credible.

 

[Vixen]

Under Italian law the second level judge has the obligation to review evidence to make sure that mistakes did not occur in the first trial
Witness testimony and DNA results are evidence, so Hellmann had the obligation to examine and evaluate all evidence.
It is very common for second level judges to acquit first level convictions because mistakes were made at the first level.

OK, right.

 

[Vixen]

The point a lot of people don't seem to get is that the ECHR, through the jurisprudence of the court, IS the law in Italy. One of the problems that exists is that whereas there is direction in place from the constitutional court to all the other courts in Italy to interpret Italian law in compliance with the convention, this direction does not appear to have affected investigations. The whole witness/suspect delineation needs urgent attention. There are constitutional implications.

Not all EU countries take ECHR seriously. Theresa May, Home Office Secretary, UK was raging that she wanted Britain to opt out of the ECHR all together.

 

[Vixen]

Hey Vixen,
Are you aware that Miss Knox writes on page 115 of Waiting to Be Heard,
The Interpreter balked: "You're a liar."


I wonder when Donnino became a part of The Interrogation Team?

OMG Appalling! Donnino there as a diplomat, to remove psychological blocks? It's astonishing Amanda's restraint in not leaping across the table to land her one.

Not belittling Amanda's torture, but I always think Raf's was treated far worse by the police, physically manhandled and his shoes removed. No doubt because he informed them he carried a knife. However, six month's solitary confinement and a prison guard threatening to leave him in a blood of blood.

I am curious as to why Raf never complained about police brutality.

 

[Kauffer]

Not all EU countries take ECHR seriously. Theresa May, Home Office Secretary, UK was raging that she wanted Britain to opt out of the ECHR all together.

Theresa May is dangerous. Britain is not in a position to opt out of the ECHR and nor would we want to. Not only that, we are the most compliant member state - We take the convention very seriously indeed.

 

[Grinder]

Problem is, if one of the parties want to bring a witness, then it's part of correct legal process. The other side has the opportunity to cross examine them.

Imagine there's a road accident and the only witness is a very dodgy looking fellow. As an eye witness, his testimony is fine.

Is the dodgy witness fine by you if he is a heroin addict that stated he was high that night and mixed up the nights stating that buses were there that weren't?

Is he just fine if asked by the police if he had seen anything and said no but came forward at the behest of a cub reporter months later?

Where have you been posting the last seven years .org or .net?

 

[Kauffer]

I have no idea. However, you would hope a very high up scientific police officer was trustworthy, professional and credible.

Stefanoni was demonstrably none of these.