Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

By the exact same token as this BS, Massei was "scuppered, scrapped, scratched out." And Nencini was "scuppered, scrapped, scratched out."

Pathetic intellectual dishonesty and poor thinking.

Good self-description, as Massei's and Nencini's reports are not annulled, unlike Hellmann's.

 

[Vixen]

Amanda was found Not Guilty, full stop, period, hence has double jeopardy. I hope this helps.

Para 1 & 2 are both Not Guilty acquittals. Para 1 means the crime did not exist or the defendants are provably innocent. Para 2 means the crime did exist but there wasn't enough evidence to prove the defendants did it. There's no procedural differences between the verdicts. You will never find anyone to say otherwise except the voices in your head.

Does this not spell out to you that the door is left open for sufficiency of evidence?

 

[acbytesla]

No. OJ had a full trial and the verdict was 'Not Guilty'. As the prosecutors cannot appeal this, it was final.

In the Bruno-Marasca they used penal code 530 para 2 which doesn't use the Italian word for acquittal, it uses the phrase "charges dropped".

This makes sense, as section 530 para 2 is not within the normal jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (the judges erred in using it), and is a means for a lower, merits court to leave the door open for a case with "insufficient evidence" to be brought back if better evidence does come up within SOL.

Source: Translator's note to Marasca: The Italian word for “acquittal” is actually “assoluzione”; while the term
“proscioglimento” used instead, in the Italian Procedure Code, actually refers only to non-definitive
preliminary judgements during investigation phase, and it could be translated as “dropping of
charges”. Note: as for investigation phase “proscioglimento” is normally meant as a not-binding
decision, not subjected to double jeopardy, since it is not considered a judgement nor a court’s
decision.

You really believe this nonsense?

Good luck with thar.

 

[Vixen]

While I would agree that this is broadly true, I would contend that this only applied to working with larger PCR levels of DNA, and I would further contend that Stefanoni had very probably never received proper training in low-template DNA work. I strongly suspect that Stefanoni either entirely "winged it" when it came to LCN work, or that she had a small amount of knowledge-by-osmosis that she deemed to be sufficient. Either way, the evidence shows starkly that she was not only incompetent in the area of low-template DNA analysis, but also that she was mendacious and obfuscatory in trying to cover up her incompetence in court.

And I also agree with your submission that Stefanoni had probably never been properly trained in giving evidence in court. In addition, I strongly suspect that Stefanoni had scant (or even no) training in working crime scenes. In fact, that is possibly the most baffling and inexplicable thing - that a lab analyst such as Stefanoni was leading the crime scene analysis and evidence collection. It's incredibly unusual for this to ever be the case, since a) substantially different skill sets are required for each role, b) lab analysts tend to be educated, trained and qualified solely in the specialised field of lab analysis, and c) it's far better practice for the lab analyst to have no prior connection to the evidence being analysed - for two key reasons: 1) the possibility of prior contamination, and 2) the need for the lab analyst to see the evidence without any preconceptions or other information about it, which might result (either consciously or unconsciously) in a biassed interpretation of that evidence.

ETA: IIRC, Stefanoni was only in charge of the crime scene investigation and evidence collection because Mignini specifically requested it. I'd like to know a lot more about how and why a PM from Perugia could draft in a lab analyst from Rome to head up the crime scene evidence collection, especially when there must have been plenty of specialist crime scene investigators sitting in the Perugia police HQ, and when there would have been reams of high-quality CSI specialist officers based in Rome (had Mignini wanted to get the best possible CSIs on account of the importance and high profile of this case). So IMO it's highly baffling why Mignini requested (and obtained) Stefanoni to head up the CSI work, and how/why he was allowed to do so..............

This is rubbish. Regardless of Stefanoni's academic qualifications or lack thereof, she would still have had to undergo professional vocational training.

This is true of any profession. A degree is merely an entry level tool.

 

[LondonJohn]

Very funny. But of course like most plays and movies, total fiction. The one thing you keep on proving is your ability to make it up as you go. Seriously, you missed your calling in life. You should haved become a screenwriter.

I'm bemused (and amused) by a "screenwriter" who doesn't have the first level of comprehension about what "fx" means and how to use it in a screenplay

But it exposes a larger point: if facts and logic are manipulated or ignored, then it's possible to write any kind of fairy tale about anything. I could write that the Earth rotates around the moon, or that Marie Antoinette was King of Sweden. But both of those things would be fiction. And likewise, I could write that there was credible, reliable evidence that Knox and Sollecito participated in the murder of Meredith Kercher - but that would be fiction too.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is rubbish. Regardless of Stefanoni's academic qualifications or lack thereof, she would still have had to undergo professional vocational training.

This is true of any profession. A degree is merely an entry level tool.

Who said anything about purely academic qualifications? Please pay attention.

 

[acbytesla]

Does this not spell out to you that the door is left open for sufficiency of evidence?

You can repeat this as many times as you like. The paragraph of the decision is irrelevant. It is a full acquittal either way and is not subject to review. It is final, final, final.

 

[LondonJohn]

Does this not spell out to you that the door is left open for sufficiency of evidence?

No. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[LondonJohn]

Good self-description, as Massei's and Nencini's reports are not annulled, unlike Hellmann's.

Oh REALLY?! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

(How's that KoolAid tasting?!)


ETA: Enlighten us all as to how the Marasca SC ruling overturning the Massei and Nencini verdicts (and not sending the case back for retrial) is any different to the Chieffi SC ruling overturning the Hellmann verdict. This should be fun!

 

[Vixen]

You really believe this nonsense?

Good luck with thar.

Oo-argh, talk like a pirate day, arr.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm bemused (and amused) by a "screenwriter" who doesn't have the first level of comprehension about what "fx" means and how to use it in a screenplay

But it exposes a larger point: if facts and logic are manipulated or ignored, then it's possible to write any kind of fairy tale about anything. I could write that the Earth rotates around the moon, or that Marie Antoinette was King of Sweden. But both of those things would be fiction. And likewise, I could write that there was credible, reliable evidence that Knox and Sollecito participated in the murder of Meredith Kercher - but that would be fiction too.

I'm not saying she wouldn't have to work on a few things. But this one, so like so many Hollywood writers has a talent for make believe.

 

[Vixen]

Who said anything about purely academic qualifications? Please pay attention.

You have potentially libelled and defamed a perfectly competent professional forensic scientist, and accused her of sleeping with Mignini, all because she objectively found Raff's DNA on the bra clasp, without your offering a single piece of evidence to back up your despicable scurrilous claims about a decent individual.

 

[LondonJohn]

You have potentially libelled and defamed a perfectly competent professional forensic scientist, and accused her of sleeping with Mignini, all because she objectively found Raff's DNA on the bra clasp, without your offering a single piece of evidence to back up your despicable scurrilous claims about a decent individual.

Oh dear oh dear.

This?

Oh, and there's PLENTY of evidence of her incompetence, and her subsequent mendacity and obfuscation. Look it up. I'm afraid it's you who is blind and incapable of seeing the truth here.

You know, when I was picking up my Nobel Peace Prize (the second one I won, not the first), I was talking with my good friend Henry Kissinger, and he told me that the State Department was going to use Stefanoni's incompetent work as justification never to deport Knox had it been requested. I also played chess with Vladimir Putin at the very same event - he was a tough opponent, I tell ya!

 

[Antony]

Enlighten us all as to how the Marasca SC ruling overturning the Massei and Nencini verdicts (and not sending the case back for retrial) is any different to the Chieffi SC ruling overturning the Hellmann verdict. This should be fun!

Not only that, but Marasca/Bruno in effect reinstated the Hellmann verdict, and for the same reasons as Hellmann: that there was no genuine evidence.

 

[LondonJohn]

Not only that, but Marasca/Bruno in effect reinstated the Hellmann verdict, and for the same reasons as Hellmann: that there was no genuine evidence.

Yep.

Hey Vixen: How is the Marasca SC ruling overturning the Massei and Nencini verdicts (and not sending the case back for retrial) any different to the Chieffi SC ruling overturning the Hellmann verdict? Still waiting to hear your answer!

 

[Vixen]

Oh REALLY?! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

(How's that KoolAid tasting?!)


ETA: Enlighten us all as to how the Marasca SC ruling overturning the Massei and Nencini verdicts (and not sending the case back for retrial) is any different to the Chieffi SC ruling overturning the Hellmann verdict. This should be fun!

From the Chieffi report:

P.Q.M. [for these reasons]
Annuls the challenged judgment limited to the crimes in paragraph A (in which par. C is
included), B), D), E) and to the aggravating factor in article 61 number 2 of the Criminal
Code with regard to paragraph F) and remands to a new judgment at the Court of Assizes
of Appeal of Florence. : Public domain.


Clear now?

 

[LondonJohn]

From the Chieffi report:

P.Q.M. [for these reasons]
Annuls the challenged judgment limited to the crimes in paragraph A (in which par. C is
included), B), D), E) and to the aggravating factor in article 61 number 2 of the Criminal
Code with regard to paragraph F) and remands to a new judgment at the Court of Assizes
of Appeal of Florence. : Public domain.


Clear now?

Christ on a bike.

HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT FROM WHAT MARASCA DID TO THE NENCINI (AND MASSEI, BY EXTENSION) VERDICTS?

Stop trying to move the goalposts and give a proper answer. Clear now?

 

[Vixen]

Yep.

Hey Vixen: How is the Marasca SC ruling overturning the Massei and Nencini verdicts (and not sending the case back for retrial) any different to the Chieffi SC ruling overturning the Hellmann verdict? Still waiting to hear your answer!

From Chieffi:

P.Q.M. [for these reasons]
Annuls the challenged judgment limited to the crimes in paragraph A (in which par. C is
included), B), D), E) and to the aggravating factor in article 61 number 2 of the Criminal
Code with regard to paragraph F) and remands to a new judgment at the Court of Assizes
of Appeal of Florence.

Do google the word, "annul" and let us know how you get on.

 

[Vixen]

Christ on a bike.

HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT FROM WHAT MARASCA DID TO THE NENCINI (AND MASSEI, BY EXTENSION) VERDICTS?

Stop trying to move the goalposts and give a proper answer. Clear now?

Massei and Nencini are NOT annulled. They remain key parts of each stage of the due process. Hellmann-Zanetti have been written out of the history, except as a piece of legal curiosity.

 

[acbytesla]

Oh dear oh dear.

This?

Oh, and there's PLENTY of evidence of her incompetence, and her subsequent mendacity and obfuscation. Look it up. I'm afraid it's you who is blind and incapable of seeing the truth here.

You know, when I was picking up my Nobel Peace Prize (the second one I won, not the first), I was talking with my good friend Henry Kissinger, and he told me that the State Department was going to use Stefanoni's incompetent work as justification never to deport Knox had it been requested. I also played chess with Vladimir Putin at the very same event - he was a tough opponent, I tell ya!

Putin's a pushover. Madeline Albright said at lunch the other day that the State Department was thinking about asking Italy to extradite Mignini and Stefanoni to face charges in the US.