What points of law determined by Chieffi did the Marasca report go against?
I'm reading it now, and they seemed to disapprove of Stafanoni's lab work. In particular, her insistence on non-recognized methods of analysis - regarding non-repeatable tests of low copy number DNA samples, her attribution of partial profiles which lack sufficient specificity to be counted as evidence (a very interesting point), and her dogmatic insistence that the knife was the murder weapon - even though it tested negative for blood.
Actually, it's you (possibly the defensive argument) that is dogmatic, a belief that testing negative to some tests means that it is not the murder weapon (regardless of further information).
And of course, they didn't seem to approve at all of her wearing dirty gloves to pass around the bra clasp, and found it inexplicable that she didn't retrieve the bra clasp on the first trip but instead waited 46 days after many people had trampled through the crime scene.
Chieffi's contention that 'contamination must be proven' seems to have been refuted, in favor of international scientific protocols as pointed out by C & V - for whom they had nothing but praise.
Chieffi called C&V dishonest. And that verdict is final.
The point that contamination shall be proven - at least shown to be probable - is a point of law the B&M court cannot overturn.
Alleged "international protocols" actually are non- existent. C&V cite many opinions and recommendations that don't have any status of "protocols", most of them are rules of peculiar systems and jurisdictions. But anyway a piece of evidence can't be dismissed preliminarily based on " protocols". This also belongs to the principles of the Italian system. It's true that Bruno/Marasca is idiotic beyond that. They go even further in their legal nonsense, as I said some posts ago.
Of particular interest to our conversation, in light of previous posts, is that this court found it impossible to believe that Amanda and Raf could have participated in the murder without leaving any trace of themselves in the room where the murder occurred, and stated the obvious impossibility of a 'selective clean-up' since its just impossible.
They also didn't approve of the "experts" who fried the computers with an electric shock, and destroyed potentially useful information.
Which is even more telling about how rotten and false this judgement is.
Since it's false that computer data was destroyed. This is a lie by the defence, which the court copies and pastes (among many other things) without checking the papers. Two of the three disks were recovered completely, the third had recoverable data, which Massei didn't want to recover as he considered them not interesting.
I don't see how you can interpret this judgement as a victory.
Oh, and its fairly clear that this court did not conclude Amanda and Raf were in the house, since they clearly stated that it could not be determined with tranquility that Amanda & Raf's mutual alibi were not entirely true.
And yet, as I said, the report also states that Knox's presence at the murder is a proven fact and that it's certain. It states that both before and after the statement about "tranquillizing certainty"; it even explains at length in support of their certainty.
I realize this is crazy and inconsistent. But so is the verdict.
That's the part that sticks in my throat. They couldn't determine that Amanda and Raf never left Raf's apartment, that they were just home the whole night, minding their own business. Happy as can be, until they crossed paths with 'Perugia's finest', Giobbi of the swiveling hips and psychological investigations, and the recalcitrant unrepentant criminal & media whore Giuliani Mignini.
You need to clean your mouth. Mignini never talked to the media. This is actually why the pro Knox slanderous campaign went on undisturbed. Sticking to the verdict, they stated very clearly that Knox was in the house, but also that she had Meredith's blood on her hands, and that Guede did not kill alone (and his "motive" as a lone burglar would be even less compatible than those of Knox and Solkecito).
It also calls Knox slanderous multiple times and repeats many times there is evidence against them.
Interpret all this how you want, but this is what it says.
.
ETA: the issue of motive was also fascinating. They highlighted the complete separation of Amanda & Raf from Rudy Guede, how Raf had never even known him, how there was zero communication between them, AND, how the issue of a completely irrational and missing motive in this case was fatal to a finding of guilt - because in a circumstantial case such as this, only motive can tie together the circumstantial evidence. Without motive, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, there can be no finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, because there's nothing tying the the purported evidence together into a coherent whole. I'm actually gaining a little bit more of an appreciation for Italian jurisprudence. But the calunnia conviction is just dumb as can be, cruel really, and ECHR will just have to explain that to you all.
No, they did not state any "complete separation" between "Knox and Sollecito" on one side and Guede the other (they rather hinted some separation between Sollecito and Knox).
Lack of mutual acquaintance between Sollecito and Guede could be an argument if one had to defend Sollecito alone. But Knox herself is a link.
Motive is something else. Also here B&M depart from jurisprudence and reason. Motive is not evidence, it's not an object actually. It's subjective. It's part of a context. It's correct that a murder has to be put into a context. But there isn't a special requirement that the judge understands the motive completely or even less that "proves" something that belongs to the subjective shpere.
