Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

I think the point is, even if it did, Raff was IN the apartment with everyone else walking around. Had he never been in the apartment then you might have a case but they'd argue cross contamination.

But being in the apartment the day of the murder? Then the clasp sitting there for days. Think of how DNA can get on something. Shedding skin cells etc. Think of what dust is?

And for such a tiny amount? Oh come now.

In addition, the testing of the bra clasp revealed partial profiles of AT LEAST two other males on the clasp, whom the police (to my knowledge and understanding) never even tried to identify. One of them could have been Kercher's casual Italian boyfriend who lived in the downstairs apartment, but who could the other person have been?

Of course, this finding lends even more weight to the contention that the clasp became hopelessly contaminated when it was being (almost literally) kicked around the floor of Kercher's room in a totally uncontrolled, insecure environment at temperatures ranging from 18C (the melting point of iron) to 330F (the sublimation point of carbon dioxide). And even if Sollecito's DNA really was discovered on the hook of the clasp (and I'm prepared to accept that it was, for the sake of argument), as you say he'd been in that apartment, and his DNA was almost certainly present on the outer face of Kercher's bedroom door resulting from his attempts to open the door. Add in to that the visibly dirty gloves of the "forensics officers" who passed the clasp around themselves like they were excitedly examining a piece of jewellery, and it's manifestly clear that this bra clasp was categorically unfit to be used as evidence in this case. Full stop.

The frightening part is that various of the lower courts in this trial process accepted the DNA as valid and reliable. Thankfully, Marasca's SC panel finally - and definitively - had the intelligence and wherewithal to understand that the clasp was fatally tainted and thus had zero standing as probative evidence.

 

[LondonJohn]

The DNA profile attributed to Raff was allegedly generated from the bra clasp which nobody but the questionable forensic scientist in charge of the investigation can confirm as it was subsequently destroyed and rendered unusable under mysterious circumstances.

Ah yes. Who can forget the way in which "world-class forensic scientist" Stefanoni stored a metal and fabric item of extremely important evidence in a liquid buffer solution in a non-permeable plastic tube? So that it rusted and rotted within months. Great stuff!

 

[Mike1711]

Her response was under cross-examination at the trial.

Read the question and then read your answer.

Do you see that you haven't even remotely addressed the question?

 

[Numbers]

Looking at the above posts, I see that there is some need to clarify Italian procedural law and legal definitions.

First, in Italian legalese, as translated to English, "dropping charges", "acquittal", "dismissing charges", and similar terminology are equivalent.

What is important for a criminal case is whether the dismissal of charges or acquittal may be appealed by the prosecutor or not.

Cases in the lower courts that are judged as acquittals may be appealed by the prosecution; the appeal must be lodged before a time limit set by law. In certain cases of dismissal before trial because prosecution should not have been started (due to lack of evidence or other reasons), as provided for in CPP Article 469, the judge's decision to dismiss charges prior to trial may not be lawfully appealed. That means that the judgment is final, and that means that no new trial of the same person for the same charge may be held, CPP Articles 648 and 649.

If neither the prosecution nor the accused appeal a case before the time limit, the judgment is final. However, if there is a series of appeals, and the case is decided by the CSC, that CSC judgment is final unless it is a conviction. A conviction by the CSC may be subject to a revision trial under certain conditions, such as the finding of new evidence or a judgment of unfair trial by the ECHR, as provided by CPP Articles 629 and 630, and Constitutional Court judgment no. 113/2011. The person acquitted by a final judgment of a lower court (that is, if the deadline for appeals has passed and there was no appeal) or by a judgment of the CSC (which can never be lawfully appealed and is thus final) can never be lawfully tried again on the same charge.

The concept of "double jeopardy" applies to any attempt to retry someone on the same charge after a final judgment of acquittal.

Here are the English translations of texts of relevant Italian procedural laws that may help to clarify the legal terminology and logic:

CPP Article 648 Irrevocability of judgments and criminal decrees

1. Judgments delivered at trial which are not subject to an appellate remedy other than revision are final.

2. If an appellate remedy may be invoked, the judgment becomes final upon expiry of the time limit set to lodge the remedy or to appeal the order declaring its inadmissibility. In case of an appeal in Cassation, the judgment becomes final from the day of delivery of the order or judgment rejecting the appeal or declaring it inadmissible.

3. The criminal decree of conviction is final upon expiry of the time limit set to lodge an opposition or to appeal the order declaring its inadmissibility.

CPP Article 649 Ne bis in idem (Double jeopardy not allowed)

1. The accused person who has been dismissed or convicted by a judgment or criminal decree that has become final shall not be prosecuted again for the same offence, even if his conduct is considered differently in terms of legal definition, stage of the offence or circumstances, without prejudice to Articles 69.2 and 345.

2. If, however, the criminal proceedings are started again, the judge shall deliver a judgment of dismissal or of no grounds to proceed at any stage and instance of the proceedings, specifying the cause in the operative part of the judgment.
____

Summary: Trial judgment cannot be appealed lawfully = final judgment = no new trial ever for that person under those charges; any such trial if begun is unlawful and the judge must halt it (by a dismissal of charges).

I made 3 small changes to the above text: bolded one "final", eliminated one extraneous "the", and added, in bold, that CPP Art. 469 is a measure that applies before trial (in the steps immediately before the trial that prepare for the trial, if it is indeed to be held).
____

There is another Italian procedural law provision, CPP Article 425, which also allows a judge to issue a decision of "no grounds to proceed" but during an earlier pre-trial stage, that of the special evidentiary hearing. There is no language in Article 425 that a judicial decision of "no grounds to proceed" issued during or as a result of the special evidentiary hearing may not be appealed by the prosecutor. And, in CPP Articles 434 through 437, there is provision for revocation of the "no grounds to proceed" decision based on Article 425, as described in CPP Article 434:

If, after delivery of a judgment of no grounds to proceed, new sources of evidence arise or are discovered that, either alone or in addition to the evidence already gathered, may determine the request for committal to trial, the preliminary investigation judge, upon request of the Public Prosecutor, shall order {if he deems the request admissible, in accordance with CPP Articles 435 and 436} the revocation of the judgment.
____

There are major differences characterizing the provisions of CPP Article 425 with Article 469. Article 425 applies only to the special evidentiary hearing, which is not considered a trial but a hearing about evidence, and there is no statement within it that it may not be revoked or appealed, while Article 469 relates to an evaluation of the case by the judge immediately before the trial begins and states explicitly that a decision of "non prosecution" based upon it cannot be appealed.

CPP Article 530.2 relates to judgments of acquittal following trials, and provides a number of reasons that compel a judge to deliver a judgment of acquittal. The language in the article does not restrict its use to the lower courts or in any way preclude its use by the CSC.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

LOL!

Is this a lie or just ignorance?

Stefanoni testfied that she could not remember if she touched it or not. Then she testified that an underling of hers also handled it!
Hoots!

​

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

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

Her response was under cross-examination at the trial.

Read the question and then read your answer.

Do you see that you haven't even remotely addressed the question?

This is how things roll here.

 

[Welshman]

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.

It is strange how Vixen and Machiavelli describe C&V as frauds. If C&V were such frauds why have has no one from the prosecution or PGP been able to rebutt their report.

 

[LondonJohn]

It is strange how Vixen and Machiavelli describe C&V as frauds. If C&V were such frauds why have has no one from the prosecution or PGP been able to rebutt their report.

Indeed. And at the same time, why have international scientific and forensics experts from around the world - most of whom have zero "skin in the game" - lined up to endorse and validate the C/V Report and to criticise in the harshest possible professional terms the work of Stefanoni, Rinaldi, Boemi and other police/prosecution "experts" in this case....?

 

[Welshman]

Indeed. And at the same time, why have international scientific and forensics experts from around the world - most of whom have zero "skin in the game" - lined up to endorse and validate the C/V Report and to criticise in the harshest possible professional terms the work of Stefanoni, Rinaldi, Boemi and other police/prosecution "experts" in this case....?

C&V found numerous flaws in Stefanoni's work. What does that say about Stefanoni if supposedly clueless buffoons can find find faults in her work.

 

[Bill Williams]

It is strange how Vixen and Machiavelli describe C&V as frauds. If C&V were such frauds why have has no one from the prosecution or PGP been able to rebutt their report.

Indeed. And at the same time, why have international scientific and forensics experts from around the world - most of whom have zero "skin in the game" - lined up to endorse and validate the C/V Report and to criticise in the harshest possible professional terms the work of Stefanoni, Rinaldi, Boemi and other police/prosecution "experts" in this case....?

I used to occasionally check the fake-Wiki, if for no other reason than to keep up with what the haters are saying.

I gave up when reading one of their analyses of why, in their view, Conti & Vecchiotti are corrupt. They had a quote from a well known lawyer that, "Vechhiotti had been seen having lunch with one of the defence people," or words to that effect.

That lawyer was Francesco Maresca. This observation was somehow supposed to put the kibosh on the C&V report. At that point it just became useless to consult the fake-Wiki, even if to refute it.

Now if only one can find the strength to apply that reasoning to some of the posters here........

 

[acbytesla]

That's a sweeping generalisation, and as such is a logical fallacy.

No, it's NOT. It's a consistent recurring theme. The whole Amanda is a liar meme that every single PGP practices ad nauseum is beyond hypocritical. We can't get you to tell the truth even after your blatant falsehoods are meticulously demonstrated to you with court citations. Instead you ignore it and move on to another

But it goes beyond this never ending revolving door of mendacity you practice but a willful and deliberate blind eye to the lying police and prosecution. As if their lies are part of the greater good. Which I have to wonder. Is that how you justify your own?

 

[Zephyrgeist]

Vixen

You have claimed repeatedly that you are Neutral on this case.

So...

...with everything that [you think] you know about this case, if you were on the jury, (still being neutral), you'd acquit. Yes?

Or are you a liar?

 

[Bill Williams]

No, it's NOT. It's a consistent recurring theme. The whole Amanda is a liar meme that every single PGP practices ad nauseum is beyond hypocritical. We can't get you to tell the truth even after your blatant falsehoods are meticulously demonstrated to you with court citations. Instead you ignore it and move on to another

But it goes beyond this never ending revolving door of mendacity you practice but a willful and deliberate blind eye to the lying police and prosecution. As if their lies are part of the greater good. Which I have to wonder. Is that how you justify your own?

It's not just hypocritical, it is undemonstrable.

Like I've said before, when I started all this no matter how much, "all the other evidence" against Knox/Sollecito was debunked, the one thing a guilter would not budge on was, "Knox is a liar."

I asked for a list of these lies, and no one was forthcoming except for people like Harry Rag and one independent blogger (way-back when, now departed). It took some doing, but I wasted the better part of an evening tracking Harry Rag's assertions through comments sections of newspieces and the forums....

.... and could only come up with 10 bona-fide allegations of specific lies. Ten. And nine were lies people like Harry Rag claimed **Sollecito** told. I've put that list here on this forum many times.

Strangely, the only bona fide lie that Amanda told in all this - that everyone agrees was a lie - was when she was counseled by Sophie to lie to the cops about Meredith's marijuana use. Doing what she was told, Amanda lied to police about it.

Indeed, it was that lie that gave Detective Rita Ficara the leverage to go out into the hall of the Questura near midnight on Nov 5, 2007, to say to Amanda, "I need to see your phone again, and this time no more lies."

One bona fide lie. About the subject that ALL residents of the cottage wanted to go away, the marijuana use in the cottage. No one more so that Filomena Romanelli who was beginning a legal career of some sort - who had the marijuana use put to her at trial, which she replied, "Yes, I have sinned."

"All the lies Amanda told," is itself one of the biggest lies told in this case for the last 8+ years. It only has currency with the preconceived conclusion that she is guilty.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's not just hypocritical, it is undemonstrable.

<........... sinister deletia ..............>​

Strangely, the only bona fide lie that Amanda told in all this - that everyone agrees was a lie - was when she was counseled by Sophie to lie to the cops about Meredith's marijuana use. Doing what she was told, Amanda lied to police about it.

<........... sinister deletia ..............>​

Indeed, it was that lie that gave Detective Rita Ficara the leverage to go out into the hall of the Questura near midnight on Nov 5, 2007, to say to Amanda, "I need to see your phone again, and this time no more lies."
"All the lies Amanda told," is itself one of the biggest lies told in this case for the last 8+ years. It only has currency with the preconceived conclusion that she is guilty.

For the purposes of this, the calunnia conviction does not count. For one thing, it is hopefully to be before the ECHR.

But for the purposes of this, that was one of the only lies even Harry Rag could muster attributed to Knox. We've been around that merry-go-round a number of times..... but suffice it to say, when senior cops are saying, "She buckled and told us what we already knew....." it is now arguable about who was lying about Lumumba! But that is now for the ECHR.

 

[acbytesla]

It's not just hypocritical, it is undemonstrable.

Like I've said before, when I started all this no matter how much, "all the other evidence" against Knox/Sollecito was debunked, the one thing a guilter would not budge on was, "Knox is a liar."

I asked for a list of these lies, and no one was forthcoming except for people like Harry Rag and one independent blogger (way-back when, now departed). It took some doing, but I wasted the better part of an evening tracking Harry Rag's assertions through comments sections of newspieces and the forums....

.... and could only come up with 10 bona-fide allegations of specific lies. Ten. And nine were lies people like Harry Rag claimed **Sollecito** told. I've put that list here on this forum many times.

Strangely, the only bona fide lie that Amanda told in all this - that everyone agrees was a lie - was when she was counseled by Sophie to lie to the cops about Meredith's marijuana use. Doing what she was told, Amanda lied to police about it.

Indeed, it was that lie that gave Detective Rita Ficara the leverage to go out into the hall of the Questura near midnight on Nov 5, 2007, to say to Amanda, "I need to see your phone again, and this time no more lies."

One bona fide lie. About the subject that ALL residents of the cottage wanted to go away, the marijuana use in the cottage. No one more so that Filomena Romanelli who was beginning a legal career of some sort - who had the marijuana use put to her at trial, which she replied, "Yes, I have sinned."

"All the lies Amanda told," is itself one of the biggest lies told in this case for the last 8+ years. It only has currency with the preconceived conclusion that she is guilty.

I really want to go back and make a comprehensive list of Vixen's lies err false claims and the forum's refutation and post that. I'm convinced as I think most of us are that she is just cycling and recycling through these without regard for the fact that they not only were disproven before her arrival but to her several times.

 

[Welshman]

It's not just hypocritical, it is undemonstrable.

Like I've said before, when I started all this no matter how much, "all the other evidence" against Knox/Sollecito was debunked, the one thing a guilter would not budge on was, "Knox is a liar."

I asked for a list of these lies, and no one was forthcoming except for people like Harry Rag and one independent blogger (way-back when, now departed). It took some doing, but I wasted the better part of an evening tracking Harry Rag's assertions through comments sections of newspieces and the forums....

.... and could only come up with 10 bona-fide allegations of specific lies. Ten. And nine were lies people like Harry Rag claimed **Sollecito** told. I've put that list here on this forum many times.

Strangely, the only bona fide lie that Amanda told in all this - that everyone agrees was a lie - was when she was counseled by Sophie to lie to the cops about Meredith's marijuana use. Doing what she was told, Amanda lied to police about it.

Indeed, it was that lie that gave Detective Rita Ficara the leverage to go out into the hall of the Questura near midnight on Nov 5, 2007, to say to Amanda, "I need to see your phone again, and this time no more lies."

One bona fide lie. About the subject that ALL residents of the cottage wanted to go away, the marijuana use in the cottage. No one more so that Filomena Romanelli who was beginning a legal career of some sort - who had the marijuana use put to her at trial, which she replied, "Yes, I have sinned."

"All the lies Amanda told," is itself one of the biggest lies told in this case for the last 8+ years. It only has currency with the preconceived conclusion that she is guilty.

PGP constantly accuse Amanda of lying but are unable to detail these lies which indicates Amanda has not lied. Basically PGP are lying about Amanda lying which is the ultimate hypocrisy. In my previous post when I attacked for the PGP for lying and condoning the lies of others I backed my claim with evidence.

 

[Vixen]

It is strange how Vixen and Machiavelli describe C&V as frauds. If C&V were such frauds why have has no one from the prosecution or PGP been able to rebutt their report.

In a complaint lodged by PM Dr Mignini 28th May 2015 against Raff's lawyer Maori for disinformation and slander against the prosecution, he makes the following observation about Vecchiotti and Conti improperly fraternising with the defense, in the papers he has filed.

[23] [Maori] launches accusations against the press [although] the accused were able to benefit from a systematic information process in their favour and without any contradiction. One can see the case of, for example, the programme “Porta a Porta” which, in the months immediately preceding the Fifth Chamber judgment, had interviewed only Sollecito or his family and consultants, blatantly ignoring any requirement of an even balance, which instead had occurred previously, and all this in a programme on the public network..

This describes how even some arms of the Italian media became tainted and partisan and how the court officers were forbidden by the code of conduct from offering the kind of contradiction and rebuttal very common on American TV.

[24] Unfortunately, this procedural matter has been marked by pressures (often accompanied by menaces) and defamations which the investigators, themselves as well, have suffered in the media, by a very serious activity of disinformation and from serious attacks on the personal and professional reputation of the investigators by numerous organs of information especially in the United States (like in fact CNN), [and] by the extremely challengeable behaviour of experts who, beyond having “forgottten” the existence of negative controls, had been seen by Dr Mignini (and, according to what has been said to him, also by the biologist at Scientific Police headquarters Dr Patrizia Stefanoni), to be having a long conversation and in a “private” manner, with the defence lawyers of the accused, in particular with Advocate Maori, before the hearing in which the experts were to be examined and cross-examined had started. This had happened in particular on two occasions, both in Piazza Matteotti, in front of the law courts building, one time in front of the main entrance and a second time, further back, in the direction of Via Oberdan, while [on a third occasion] Dr Stefanoni and Dr Comodi had seen them together, amongst the various defence lawyers for the accused, in a bar..

This illegal mingling of supposedly impartial court-appointed consultants with the defense teams, described in public writing here for the first time, should have been enough to see Conti and Vechiotti dismissed as consultants from the case, and further down the road facing charges.

Source: http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php...across_bows_of_fifth_chambers_could_be_cause/

Their ship is coming in.

 

[Bill Williams]

In a complaint lodged by PM Dr Mignini 28th May 2015 against Raff's lawyer Maori for disinformation and slander against the prosecution, he makes the following observation about Vecchiotti and Conti improperly fraternising with the defense, in the papers he has filed.


Source: http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php...across_bows_of_fifth_chambers_could_be_cause/

Their ship is coming in.

Mignini is a sore loser. Instead of looking within for the reasons for him losing this case, he accuses others.... of what? Going to a bar?

This would be laughable if it was not so tragic. Mignini has already been censured by his peers. Mignini can retaliate by lodging all the complaints he wishes.

He lost. He lost big. And what does he claim in return? That Porta a Porta finally adjudicated the case properly in the media? That CNN told the truth?

I see, this is offered in rebuttal..... "This had happened in particular on two occasions, both in Piazza Matteotti, in front of the law courts building, one time in front of the main entrance and a second time, further back, in the direction of Via Oberdan, while [on a third occasion] Dr Stefanoni and Dr Comodi had seen them together, amongst the various defence lawyers for the accused, in a bar.. "

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

All of a sudden the climb in through Filomena is once again impossible. All of a sudden it makes no difference that a bra-clasp lay uncollected for 46 days, and then was destroyed by the Scientific Police for improper storage!

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

 

[Grinder]

In a complaint lodged by PM Dr Mignini 28th May 2015 against Raff's lawyer Maori for disinformation and slander against the prosecution, he makes the following observation about Vecchiotti and Conti improperly fraternising with the defense, in the papers he has filed.


Source: http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php...across_bows_of_fifth_chambers_could_be_cause/

Their ship is coming in.

Does this - Dr Stefanoni and Dr Comodi had seen them together, amongst the various defence lawyers for the accused, in a bar - mean that <Dr. Steffy and <Dr. Comodi were hanging out together?

If this activity is illegal why would they do it in public?

How's that case going?

 

[acbytesla]

In a complaint lodged by PM Dr Mignini 28th May 2015 against Raff's lawyer Maori for disinformation and slander against the prosecution, he makes the following observation about Vecchiotti and Conti improperly fraternising with the defense, in the papers he has filed.


Source: http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php...across_bows_of_fifth_chambers_could_be_cause/

Their ship is coming in.

What ship? The Titanic? Or maybe since it's Italian, it's the Costa Concordia.

I do like how you believe that truejustice is a credible cite.

FYI: Mignini has a history of falsely accusing.

 

[Welshman]

In a complaint lodged by PM Dr Mignini 28th May 2015 against Raff's lawyer Maori for disinformation and slander against the prosecution, he makes the following observation about Vecchiotti and Conti improperly fraternising with the defense, in the papers he has filed.


Source: http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php...across_bows_of_fifth_chambers_could_be_cause/

Their ship is coming in.

As per usual Vixen has not answered my question. My question was if C&V were so incompetent why were the prosecution and PGP unable to write a rebuttal of the report they wrote for Hellman. Vixen did not address this question at all in her reply.