Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Chris_Halkides]

She's a real nowhere woman

If you were a defense barrister, Chris, you would make darn sure tests that would clear your client's name are carried out. Get your own experts, if necessary.

Or could it be, there is a more sinister reason Avv Bongiorno (barrister for Mafioso [so, she can say, "Boo!" to a goose after all ]) advised her client to "Keep shtum!" about the pillow stain.

Answer my question, Chris. Why did Raf's defense advise Raf not to pursue the pillow stain issue.

The answer is clear to anyone.

Vixen,

We have been answering your questions repeatedly (see above). It is my understanding that they had to ask for permission just to let Dr. Vinci examine it. When are you going to start answering ours? Ms. Bongiorno asked for complete forensic data release for years. She got nowhere. Based upon what we already know, there is a good chance that if full release had occurred, we would have found out that the stain was tested.

 

[Vixen]

You still don't understand it, do you?

Firstly, it's not the job of the defence to analyse the crime scene. That's the job of the police, under direction from the PM.

Secondly, let's think critically for a moment (stick with me here.....) and examine how a "guilty Sollecito" and an "innocent Sollecito" might have approached this issue.

Before we go further, we can actually subdivide "guilty Sollecito" into two subtypes: 1) "guilty Sollecito who left his semen on that pillowcase"; 2) "guilty Sollecito who participated but who did not ejaculate at the murder scene".

Obviously "guilty Sollecito 1" would have tried very hard to prevent that stain from being tested and DNA matched. We can all agree on that. There's maximum downside risk associated with testing and zero upside risk.

"Guilty Sollecito 2" very possibly might have wanted the stain to be tested, if he were certain that it wasn't his. There would be some potential upside to him if it were identified as (say) Guede's semen.

Now let's evaluate the motivation of "innocent Sollecito". Why would "innocent Sollecito" want the stain tested? If he wasn't there, he wouldn't know what it was or where it came from. Granted, there might be some potential upside to "innocent Sollecito" if the stain were tested and found to come from (eg) Guede. But there would also be significant potential downside risk to Sollecito. As others have already pointed out, Sollecito and his legal advisers had already seen grotesque errors from the "crack" police team when it came to the shoe prints (jeez, it took one of Sollecito's young nieces, IIRC, to point out that the number of rings in the shoe print didn't match!), and they'd also been demonstrably incompetent and cavalier in their analysis of the knife and the bra clasp.


See, if you actually stop and THINK about it in an objective and logical manner, it becomes clear that an innocent Sollecito would have little to gain from getting the stain tested, and potentially a fair bit to lose. In addition, one can see a scenario where a guilty Sollecito might actively want to see the stain tested (particularly if he knew what it was and whose it was).

Therefore to equate a) Sollecito demurring over demanding a test on the stain with b) an indication of Sollecito's guilt, is lazy, illogical, biased and wrong on its face. Other than that, excellent work

Bill, so you concur, it was Raf's conscious decision to not bring up the issue of the pillow stain.

Until after the verdict which went against him anyway.

 

[LondonJohn]

Bill, so you concur, it was Raf's conscious decision to not bring up the issue of the pillow stain.

Until after the verdict which went against him anyway.

Firstly, I'm not Bill.

Secondly, did you even read (and comprehend) what I wrote before making that asinine reply?


(PS: I'll remember that "M O U N T A I N O F E V I D E N C E" bit for a long time (and it'll remind me of your position and your approach in a nice concise way). I'm still chuckling about it now. Comedy gold )

 

[Vixen]

Vixen,

We have been answering your questions repeatedly (see above). When are you going to start answering ours? Ms. Bongiorno asked for complete forensic data release for years. She got nowhere. Based upon what we already know, there is a good chance that if full release had occurred, we would have found out that the stain was tested.

Neatly side-stepped, Chris.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

logic fail

Neatly side-stepped, Chris.

Vixen,

No, I did not sidestep anything. I answered you question directly in a comment made prior to the one you just quoted. Did you not read it? I said that to the best of my understanding, there is no legal way for the defense to compel testing of the stain. I also pointed out that it was Sollecito's expert who found the stain with an ALS. If Sollecito knew of the stain and did not want Vinci to examine it, why not tell Vinci not to? Why even hire Vinci? Your position has no logic.

Now again let me ask you: Why does what the defense wants or does not want even matter? Why didn't the FP test the stain in the early days of November in 2007? What stopped them?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*takes sip of water*

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Well, in fairness, the prosecution did present a "mountain of evidence." Most of it can be classed as innuendo, none of it proves anything, and much of it can be trivially debunked by looking at crime scene photos. Every bit of it has been discredited in one way or another. It is a mountain of worthless evidence, contrived to prop up a wild accusation.

Vixen is coming from a realm where all of it is enshrined as holy writ, untouchable by fact or reason.

I'm glad some of you have the patience to keep swatting away at these stale canards.

 

[Grinder]

Enlighten us all about how a test on that stain "would have cleared (Sollecito's) name".

This should be fun

I'll play. If it was Koko's that would pretty much clear Raf or require a timeout for a brand new theory

 

[Numbers]

Just a bit of diversion into the realm of Italian procedural law.

The concept that the CSC may not consider the facts of a case, but only the law, may be a misunderstanding. The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, CPP Article 606, Cases of appeal to the Court of Cassation, gives the legally permissible grounds for an appeal to the CSC, and therefore the grounds on which the CSC may judge an appeal. Under CPP Art. 606 paragraph 1, there are 5 categories of admissible appeal arguments. Those of particular interest in this case include:

b) failure to comply with or misapplication of criminal law or other legal rules which must be considered in the application of criminal law;
c) failure to comply with the procedural rules established under penalty of nullity, exclusion of evidence, inadmissibility or expiry;
d) decisive evidence is not gathered, when a party has requested its gathering also during the trial evidentiary hearing, exclusively in the cases provided for in Article 495, paragraph 2.
e) the grounds of the judgment are lacking, contradictory or manifestly illogical, when the defect results from the text of the appealed decision or from other documents of the proceeding specified in the arguments for the appeal to the Court of Cassation.

{Bold added.}

The wording of CPP Art. 606 para. 1e allows the CSC to make judgments about the evaluation of the facts or evidence of the trial. This may itself be done improperly or illogically, as was the case with the Chieffi CSC panel. Presumably, if the Marasca CSC panel uses CPP Art. 606 para. 1e, they will do so in a logical fashion. They may also apply paragraphs 1b, 1c, or 1d to the case.

(Note: Para. 1a only applies if the judge usurped a formal power not granted to judges by law. It does not apply in this case.)

 

[Bill Williams]

Firstly, I'm not Bill.

Secondly, did you even read (and comprehend) what I wrote before making that asinine reply?


(PS: I'll remember that "M O U N T A I N O F E V I D E N C E" bit for a long time (and it'll remind me of your position and your approach in a nice concise way). I'm still chuckling about it now. Comedy gold )

You're not Bill? Then who is?

 

[Grinder]

c) failure to comply with the procedural rules established under penalty of nullity, exclusion of evidence, inadmissibility or expiry;
d) decisive evidence is not gathered, when a party has requested its gathering also during the trial evidentiary hearing, exclusively in the cases provided for in Article 495, paragraph 2.

How would they know it was decisive? Perhaps it should read "could be decisive". You know like the semen stain...now wouldn't it be a hoot if that's what the acquittal is based on. Oh and the disassembling the knife to check for anything under the handle.

 

[acbytesla]

Neatly side-stepped, Chris.

Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black? HAVE YOU ADDRESSED A SINGLE QUESTION?

 

[Antony]

How would they know it was decisive? Perhaps it should read "could be decisive". You know like the semen stain...now wouldn't it be a hoot if that's what the acquittal is based on. Oh and the disassembling the knife to check for anything under the handle.

Interesting to remember the Chieffi report stating that the re-test of the knife "will be decisive in determining the role of the accused". This coupled with their use of the phrase "manifestly illogical".

Thanks to Numbers for pointing out where these choice of words came from.

 

[acbytesla]

Duplicste

 

[acbytesla]

Well, in fairness, the prosecution did present a "mountain of evidence." Most of it can be classed as innuendo, none of it proves anything, and much of it can be trivially debunked by looking at crime scene photos. Every bit of it has been discredited in one way or another. It is a mountain of worthless evidence, contrived to prop up a wild accusation.

Vixen is coming from a realm where all of it is enshrined as holy writ, untouchable by fact or reason.

.

It isn't a mountain of evidence, it is a mountain of feces. It smells and is of little value.

 

[carbonjam72]

Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black? HAVE YOU ADDRESSED A SINGLE QUESTION?

Your use of caps only heightens the thrill of causing consternation and disbelief, and possibly causing yet another untested stain somewhere out in cyberspace.

We now return to the regularly scheduled programming.

 

[Numbers]

Just a bit of diversion into the realm of Italian procedural law.

The concept that the CSC may not consider the facts of a case, but only the law, may be a misunderstanding. The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, CPP Article 606, Cases of appeal to the Court of Cassation, gives the legally permissible grounds for an appeal to the CSC, and therefore the grounds on which the CSC may judge an appeal. Under CPP Art. 606 paragraph 1, there are 5 categories of admissible appeal arguments. Those of particular interest in this case include:

b) failure to comply with or misapplication of criminal law or other legal rules which must be considered in the application of criminal law;
c) failure to comply with the procedural rules established under penalty of nullity, exclusion of evidence, inadmissibility or expiry;
d) decisive evidence is not gathered, when a party has requested its gathering also during the trial evidentiary hearing, exclusively in the cases provided for in Article 495, paragraph 2.
e) the grounds of the judgment are lacking, contradictory or manifestly illogical, when the defect results from the text of the appealed decision or from other documents of the proceeding specified in the arguments for the appeal to the Court of Cassation.

{Bold added.}

The wording of CPP Art. 606 para. 1e allows the CSC to make judgments about the evaluation of the facts or evidence of the trial. This may itself be done improperly or illogically, as was the case with the Chieffi CSC panel. Presumably, if the Marasca CSC panel uses CPP Art. 606 para. 1e, they will do so in a logical fashion. They may also apply paragraphs 1b, 1c, or 1d to the case.

(Note: Para. 1a only applies if the judge usurped a formal power not granted to judges by law. It does not apply in this case.)

How would they know it was decisive? Perhaps it should read "could be decisive". You know like the semen stain...now wouldn't it be a hoot if that's what the acquittal is based on. Oh and the disassembling the knife to check for anything under the handle.

Interesting to remember the Chieffi report stating that the re-test of the knife "will be decisive in determining the role of the accused". This coupled with their use of the phrase "manifestly illogical".

Thanks to Numbers for pointing out where these choice of words came from.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Grinder, your point is a good one, but perhaps the Italian parliament assumed that the CSC would lump "could be decisive" with "decisive". The question in general of what judgment the CSC makes, such as remanding to a new-second level trial or acquitting, may depend on how CSC evaluates the certainty of the evidence and the soundness of the procedures (assuming that CSC is functioning as a reasonable court and not arbitrarily, as did the Chieffi CSC panel).

The translations of CPP Article 606 and others I have previously cited are from The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation edited by M. Gialuz, L. Luparia, and F. Scarpa. Wolters Kluwer Italia, (c) 2014.

Antony, I too was puzzled by the peculiar wording of the Chieffi judgment (beyond its unreasonable arguments, failures of logic, and ignorance). The judgment motivation reports apparently adopt terminology from the CPP.

 

[Dan O.]

Chris, please don't quote me out of context. Context is all.

<snip>

A very different story from Dan O.'s.

<snip>

You still don't understand it, do you?

I'll say he doesn't understand. None of that had to do with my story.

 

[Kauffer]

Neatly side-stepped, Chris.

I have never seen Chris sidestep an issue and he hasn't here. You, on the other hand have made false claim after false claim, been called out for it with real evidence and have simply moved on to make another false claim.

Why not take stock. You may or may not be in a position to learn. You are certainly not in a position to teach.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Rudi swam with the current

Rudy didn't hang around to cover his tracks.

He is astoundingly stupid and yet you think he was crafty enough to get Raf and Amanda implicated.

Vixen,

This is an astonishing answer. One, it suggests that Amanda and Raffaele did a skillful selective clean-up, except for the bathmat and bra clasp. Two, I don't think Rudi had much to do with getting them implicated, until after it was clear that the Perugian authorities made it clear that they were pressing ahead with a case against the pair. At that point it became very much in his interest to spread the blame to them.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

one good reason

Neatly side-stepped, Chris.

Vixen,

As irrelevant as I think your question is, I still answered it: The defense cannot force this issue. Even if they could, Stefanoni's execrable record of misstating key facts, withholding information, mishandling the clasp, and finally storing it improperly should give anyone in their position strong reservations about asking for the stain to be tested. Can you think of even one reason why it should not have been tested?