Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Well, one can start with these interesting words. Please expand.

After the initial mosey around, the police sealed off the cottage and returned 42 days later to collect sundry items they realised were missing.

 

[Mike1711]

The DNA of Hanratty and Richard III were matched many years after their deaths.

There was a case in the US of a young lad whose DNA was matched 14 years later to a fingerprint or something similar at a murder scene.

The idea DNA has to be collected by a sell by date is a hoax designed by defence lawyers to get their client off.

I never said anything about a "sell by date", and nor did any defense attorney. Again, proof that you simply don't understand.

Neanderthal DNA was deciphered in Spain a few years ago to establish a link between Human and Neanderthal via a gene known as the DRD4.

That's not relevant.

What is relevant is the testing for DNA deposited on a foreign body and not the body itself.

You cannot contaminate yourself with your own DNA for goodness sake! Of course Richard III's body will contain Richard III's DNA.

Unless the body snatchers got their first.

 

[Vixen]

Mike, there's literally no hope of having any kind of rational debate on these sorts of issues if one is going to come up against those sorts of "there was absolutely nothing wrong with the physical forensic evidence in this case - Marasca etc made that all up" mantras. It's an insidious and anhydrous refusal to understand the scientific (and legal-forensic) principles behind all this......

Bruno-Marasca did make it up, as no evidence was presented of improper standards or behaviour.

 

[LondonJohn]

I know. I'm a masochist.

My blood boils at 32C when I see people spouting straight-out scientific nonsense as fact. It's a cold, hard scientific fact that the shockingly inept way in which virtually every piece of forensic evidence was collected, stored, transported, processed, examined, interpreted and presented by the police and prosecutors in this case rendered nearly all of it (and all of that which was use against Knox and Sollecito) as worthless and inadmissible.

Fortunately Marasca's panel could easily and readily see this too.

 

[LondonJohn]

Bruno-Marasca did make it up, as no evidence was presented of improper standards or behaviour.

The Americans are nowhere near Baghdad......

Two words as a starter for 10: CONTI. VECCHIOTTI.

 

[Vixen]

Oh it's way more even than that. The clasp had been swept up into a pile of detritus at some point during that 46 days. By people who'd come in to clear up the mess once the police had "finished their examination of the crime scene". Those cleaners etc were totally undocumented by the way, and nobody knows who they were, how many there were, or when they were there. In addition, the police had utterly failed to secure the premises, meaning that literally anyone could have literally strolled in through the unsecured front door had they so wanted, at any time of day or night on most of those intervening weeks.

By the time the police revisited the cottage and "found" the clasp, almost the entirety of Kercher's room had been turned upside down. The mattress was up against the wall on its side, clothes had been strewn everywhere by the police then picked up and disgracefully crammed into Kercher's suitcases (it's captured on video, and it's a really rather distressing watch). And the bra clasp was well over a metre away from the position in which it was found after the crime, having been swept up with dust, dried blood and all sorts of other crap from the floor into a nasty little pile that was then swept under the small rug in Kercher's room.

Basically, one couldn't get much more of a compromised situation than this.....

Cleaners, my foot. You could have the Italian army in there and yet the DNA still matches Raff with a probabilty of >3billion to one against it could be anyone else's.

 

[acbytesla]

The DNA of Hanratty and Richard III were matched many years after their deaths.

There was a case in the US of a young lad whose DNA was matched 14 years later to a fingerprint or something similar at a murder scene.

The idea DNA has to be collected by a sell by date is a hoax designed by defence lawyers to get their client off.

The point that it was collected 46 days later has to do not with the time but the chain of evidence and the conspicuous search for new evidence AFTER the case against Raffaele collapsed. Combined with the clear failure to change gloves regularly and the passing of the clasp between officers like a bottle of cheap wine. Also it is important to mention that Stefanoni's test was never confirmed and that to this day, Stefanoni has refused to turn over the machine files makes it highly suspect.

But of course you knew all that.

 

[Vixen]

The Americans are nowhere near Baghdad......

Two words as a starter for 10: CONTI. VECCHIOTTI.

The Vechhiotti-Conti report was a fraud and was trashed by Chiefi.

V&C had their labs closed down after cadavers were found crammed in their corridors.

 

[Methos]

Is there an Italian legal boff in the house? Methos?

On the highlighted part: No.

On the question about the use of "proscioglimento" instead of "assoluzione":
I think Machiavelli is refering to article 469 cpp, which reads:

Art. 469 - Proscioglimento prima del dibattimento
1. Salvo quanto previsto dall'articolo 129 comma 2, se l'azione penale non doveva essere iniziata o non deve essere proseguita ovvero se il reato è estinto e se per accertarlo non è necessario procedere al dibattimento, il giudice, in camera di consiglio, sentiti il pubblico ministero e l'imputato e se questi non si oppongono, pronuncia sentenza inappellabile di non doversi procedere enunciandone la causa nel dispositivo.

and indeed refers to the "dropping of the charges" before trial.

The thing is, that the now standing "assoluzione" was according to article 530.2 cpp (not article 469 cpp so any speculation about the consequences of an article 469 cpp "proscioglimento" are useless because article 469 cpp wasn't applied)

Article 530 ccp is headlined "Sentenza di assoluzione" so there shouldn't be any misunderstanding about what a verdict according to article 530 means...

Art. 530 - Sentenza di assoluzione
1. Se il fatto non sussiste, se l'imputato non lo ha commesso, se il fatto non costituisce reato o non è previsto dalla legge come reato ovvero se il reato è stato commesso da persona non imputabile o non punibile per un'altra ragione, il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione indicandone la causa nel dispositivo.
2. Il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione anche quando manca, è insufficiente o è contraddittoria la prova che il fatto sussiste, che l'imputato lo ha commesso, che il fatto costituisce reato o che il reato è stato commesso da persona imputabile.
[...]

The judges use of "proscioglimento" (the word for "acquittal" used in Art. 469 c.p.p.) looks like a thinly veiled criticism of the whole process to me. It looks like these judges are saying: "This should have ended 6 years ago with the application of Art. 469 cpp, it didn't so we had to use Art. 530.2 cpp to put an end to this farce." This would be in line with them telling the judges that they are not allowed to fill the holes in the prosecutions case with their own speculations and them saying that the judges have to acquit when the the prosecution isn't able to make a case BARD, no matter how much the judges themselves want to convict. (my 0.02 Euro)

 

[Vixen]

The point that it was collected 46 days later has to do not with the time but the chain of evidence and the conspicuous search for new evidence AFTER the case against Raffaele collapsed. Combined with the clear failure to change gloves regularly and the passing of the clasp between officers like a bottle of cheap wine, other to mention that the test was never confirmed and that to this day, Stefanoni has refused to turn over the machine files makes it highly suspect.

But of course you knew all that.

As Stefanoni testified they did not touch the clasp itself.

Bruno-Marasca state very clearly that the DNA of Rudy specifically on the sweater is incontrovertible proof of his presence.

But the sweater was also collected after 46 days by the exact same team and the exact same lab conditions.

 

[Mike1711]

This was an extremely strong DNA profile of Raff, and not a partial fragment, as might be found in house dust. Scientific indisputable fact, accepted even by the defence.

I see.

So the DNA laboratories are kept scrupulously dust free....just for the hell of it. ...but that's not really the point is it?

For 46 days the clasp...

A) Collected DNA filled dust and handled by anonymous "contaminated" people
B) Was handled by multiple persons on collection

...and (if I am not mistaken) the raw data and controls were kept secret so the interpreted results are questionable until such time as such data is released for independent scrutiny.

Given Stef.'s lousy record she probably cooked the books.

 

[LondonJohn]

After the initial mosey around, the police sealed off the cottage and returned 42 days later to collect sundry items they realised were missing.

No. It's these words that I'm interested in. Please tell me

1) how the police "sealed off" the cottage;

2) whether or not anyone was inside the cottage from the moment when the crime scene forensics team left on around 7th November to the time they returned in mid-December;

3) If anyone WAS in the cottage at the time: who were they, what were they doing, why were they in there, when were they there, were they obeying strict forensic protocols, were their activities and the things they touched documented?

4) whether the police "sealed" the front door of the cottage so as to a) make it practically impossible for anyone to enter the cottage via that route, and b) make it possible to know with certainty (eg via broken tape) whether or not anyone actually had made an unauthorised entry into the cottage via the front door?

(Hint (or < fx: hint > if one wants to insert some inappropriate and incorrect screenplay directions for no reason whatsoever...): I already know the answers to all of these questions, except for (3), which of course I should know the answer to, but don't... I want to know what YOUR answers are.)

 

[Vixen]

On the highlighted part: No.

On the question about the use of "proscioglimento" instead of "assoluzione":
I think Machiavelli is refering to article 469 cpp, which reads:

and indeed refers to the "dropping of the charges" before trial.

The thing is, that the now standing "assoluzione" was according to article 530.2 cpp (not article 469 cpp so any speculation about the consequences of an article 469 cpp "proscioglimento" are useless because article 469 cpp wasn't applied)

Article 530 ccp is headlined "Sentenza di assoluzione" so there shouldn't be any misunderstanding about what a verdict according to article 530 means...


The judges use of "proscioglimento" (the word for "acquittal" used in Art. 469 c.p.p.) looks like a thinly veiled criticism of the whole process to me. It looks like these judges are saying: "This should have ended 6 years ago with the application of Art. 469 cpp, it didn't so we had to use Art. 530.2 cpp to put an end to this farce." This would be in line with them telling the judges that they are not allowed to fill the holes in the prosecutions case with their own speculations and them saying that the judges have to acquit when the the prosecution isn't able to make a case BARD, no matter how much the judges themselves want to convict. (my 0.02 Euro)

Thanks for your €0.02 worth. Looks like Bruno-Marasca don't have a clue about criminal law.

 

[LondonJohn]

As Stefanoni testified they did not touch the clasp itself.

Seriously? Seriously? Have you seen the video of various members of the "crack" forensics team ACTUALLY TOUCHING THE VERY METAL HOOK UPON WHICH SOLLECITO'S DNA WAS LATER APPARENTLY FOUND?

 

[Mike1711]

As Stefanoni testified they did not touch the clasp itself.
Bruno-Marasca state very clearly that the DNA of Rudy specifically on the sweater is incontrovertible proof of his presence.

But the sweater was also collected after 46 days by the exact same team and the exact same lab conditions.

Why? Could she see the DNA on the clasp and not the fabric?

Something and fishy come to mind. Methinks Stef. tells fibs.

 

[LondonJohn]

On the highlighted part: No.

On the question about the use of "proscioglimento" instead of "assoluzione":
I think Machiavelli is refering to article 469 cpp, which reads:

and indeed refers to the "dropping of the charges" before trial.

The thing is, that the now standing "assoluzione" was according to article 530.2 cpp (not article 469 cpp so any speculation about the consequences of an article 469 cpp "proscioglimento" are useless because article 469 cpp wasn't applied)

Article 530 ccp is headlined "Sentenza di assoluzione" so there shouldn't be any misunderstanding about what a verdict according to article 530 means...


The judges use of "proscioglimento" (the word for "acquittal" used in Art. 469 c.p.p.) looks like a thinly veiled criticism of the whole process to me. It looks like these judges are saying: "This should have ended 6 years ago with the application of Art. 469 cpp, it didn't so we had to use Art. 530.2 cpp to put an end to this farce." This would be in line with them telling the judges that they are not allowed to fill the holes in the prosecutions case with their own speculations and them saying that the judges have to acquit when the the prosecution isn't able to make a case BARD, no matter how much the judges themselves want to convict. (my 0.02 Euro)

Exactly! This is absolutely in line with my interpretation, and I am very confident that it's the correct (or extremely close to correct) interpretation. And given the overall tenor of the Marasca report, and the overarching manner of the acquittals and annulments, this interpretation makes an awful lot of sense.

 

[LondonJohn]

Why? Could she see the DNA on the clasp and not the fabric?

Something and fishy come to mind.

Indeed. Hoist on her own petard.

The actual truth is that Stefanoni and the other goons in white suits passed that clasp among themselves - with visibly dirty gloves - like it was some sort of party curiosity. They clearly handled it all over the item: on the fabric, on the metal, everywhere. Then they placed it back down onto another (still dirty and blood-spattered/smeared) part of the bedroom floor to photograph it!

You couldn't make this sort of **** up. It's all captured on their "how not to process a crime scene" video. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so disgustingly unprofessional and incompetent, and if it hadn't had such an egregiously destructive effect on the lives of innocent people.

 

[acbytesla]

As Stefanoni testified they did not touch the clasp itself. Bruno-Marasca state very clearly that the DNA of Rudy specifically on the sweater is incontrovertible proof of his presence.

But the sweater was also collected after 46 days by the exact same team and the exact same lab conditions.

I don't care about the sweater. Toss it. Toss them both. Does that make anyone think that Rudy isn't guilty?

 

[acbytesla]

Thanks for your €0.02 worth. Looks like Bruno-Marasca don't have a clue about criminal law.

And you're saying that you do? Please tell us your qualifications.

 

[Methos]

Forget the dictionary. We are talking legal jargon.

Think about it, a man is convicted of murder, say, and it later transpires someone else did it. He is given a pardon, exonerated, never again to face the same charge.

Then imagine a man suspected by police of murder. He is charged, but then the prosecutor or the prehearing judge decides there is insufficent evidence per Article 530 Para II and the man is released with the "charges dropped".

Police subsequently within the statutory time limit discover more evidence. They can charge the man with the same murder charge as before.

This is what Article 530 para II provides for.

Nope, that's what Art. 469 cpp is for...