• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
It wasn't a reasonable, or conventional, request by Vecchiotti & Conti. They were simply being vexatious by making ever more and more unreasonable "fishing expedition" demands. The only way to stop this type of harassing behaviour is to nip it in the bud. And the judge did.
Click to expand...

Mike1711 said:
The defence are entitled to full disclosure. FULL.
Click to expand...

The most disingenuous argument ever, is this "fishing expedition" excuse offered above. When Manuela Comodi was presented with this issue, she said that the prosecutors will decide what the defence needs to defend their clients.

Contrast this with the way Crini and the RIS Carbinieri proceeded in Florence with regard to 36I. They headed off at the pass any potential "fishing expeditions" by simply passing everything to the defence. Everything. If Bongiorno had complained about not getting everything, then she'd be asked what she needed and shown it was already forwarded.

This is what didn't happen with Stefanoni. Defence are allowed to go on fishing expeditions if they don't have everything, and it is the court's responsibility to see to it that they get all relevant material.

Turn the question around..... what irrelevant material did the defence ever ask for? Stefanoni's shoe size?
 
acbytesla said:
I do. Definitely. A "not guilty" verdict is the very definition of "exoneration". If we choose to continue that he is guilty is our issue.
Click to expand...

This should clear the matter up:


exonerate
ɪɡˈzɒnəreɪt,ɛɡ-/
verb
1.
(of an official body) absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing.
"an inquiry exonerated those involved"
synonyms: absolve, clear, ACQUIT, declare innocent, find innocent, pronounce not guilty, discharge; More
2.
release someone from (a duty or obligation).
"Pope Clement V exonerated the king from his oath to the barons"
synonyms: release, discharge, relieve, free, liberate; More
Click to expand...
 
Mike1711 said:
No....no court can drop charges. I did not say that a lower court could drop charges. A lower court can dismiss a case, but it cannot drop charges. Only the prosecuting authority can drop the charges if it is obvious that they're going to lose the case.

B/M were entitled to use 530.2 which they did. Your interpretation is incorrect.
Click to expand...

You clearly do not know how to read a legal document.

The references to the different sections are very easy to look up.

Shouldn't someone claiming to be an expert lawyer look up what the actual section says instead of putting your own self-serving spin on it?
 
Planigale said:
<snip>

It would be interesting to see the proportion of para 1 findings vs para 2 in Italian courts.
Click to expand...

The proportion of para 1 acquittals is virtually 100%.

The para 2 one in this case is a complete abberation, arising from Bruno-Marasca's agenda to get the kids off the hook by using whatever ambit they could.
 
Bill Williams said:
The request for the EDF's (disclosure) predated C&V's arrival on the scene. The proper method was rehearsed at the Nencini trial when the RIS Carbinieri brought everything with them to the court concerning the testing of 36I. They had done their work properly and because of professional pride wanted the whole world to see that they'd done their job right, including (without being asked) making full disclosure.

The lack of disclosure on Stefanoni's part is only partly reflective on her. The judicialry, including Hellmann, caved in to the notion that to demand disclosure was tantamount to accusing Stefanoni of a crime.

This is a reversal of the burden of proof - amongst other things. It is up to the prosecution to show in the most transparent way possible that their case is valid, both in law and in science.

The best anyone can really say about Stefanoni's work is that she told us that her work was solid but gave no one the means to check her work. Massei is particularly alarming in the latitude he gives Stefanoni purely on her say-so, not because anyone has checked her science.

C&V checked her science. They said it was bogus. From Peter Gill on down, from the journal Forensic Science International:Genetics on down, , they say her work is bogus.

And that is without seeing the edf's. In point of fact there is no one outside the Italian legal community who vouch for Stefanoni's work.

Vixen has given us the reason why. Speaking metaphorically, she says they are all "like whores".

There it sits.
Click to expand...

Utter rot. All five sets of attorneys and their appointed DNA experts were mandated to attend every aspect of Stefanoni's testing. That only Patumi (for Maori/Raff) and Torrecelli (for Maresca) bothered to turn up, shows a grossly negligent dereliction of duty on the defenses' part and a contempt of court.

Thus, it is even more despicable that at a later date they had the nerve to defame Stefanoni.
 
Vixen said:
You clearly do not know how to read a legal document.

The references to the different sections are very easy to look up.

Shouldn't someone claiming to be an expert lawyer look up what the actual section says instead of putting your own self-serving spin on it?
Click to expand...

I've never claimed to be an expert lawyer.

I have looked up what the sections say and can't find foundation to your assertion.

Which why I ask again for an explanation.

Do you understand that courts of law cannot drop charges.
 
Bill Williams said:
I'm waiting for Mike1711 to wade in on why he as a lawyer from a Dutch-descended system is comfortable using "exoneration". However you're now implying there is a difference in "what's next" between 1 and 2. Every cite I read says there isn't. What there is, is chatter that judges/panels still want to send a message. Words are written about that in Italy. The vastly prevalent point of view about this case is that it sends the message that former courts ruled as if rolling dice, with no implied message about guilt.

Except to exonerate.
Click to expand...

Well I don't think he's a lawyer. I don't think SA has the same code as CPP 530. And it's not just a legal issue. Since the Italians are aware of para 1 and para 2 as demonstrated by Cheli, the question is what perception does a 2 versus a 1 give. There is no doubt that a 1 is exoneration.

Do you think everyone found not guilty has been exonerated? Simple.
 
Bill Williams said:
Me neither. At first blush paragraph 1 vs. paragraph 2 acquittals are like two sides of the same coin. Heads it's an acquittal, tails it's also an acquittal.

Many claim it, but no one can show what different avenues on some hypothetical possibility trees there are flowing from paragraph 2 than from paragraph 1. Vixen is hanging her hat on her claim that paragraph 2 is a "dropping of the charges". Machiavelli has given similar nonsense. (Although Machiavelli has the considered advantage of being Italian, and knows his way around some of these issues - enough to spin things as he wishes; but that's another conversation.....)

No less that Francesco Maresca talks about the acquittal being definitive, and ends the matter. Sounds like an exoneration to me! Andrea Vogt quotes Maresca and says that arm-chair detectives who talk as if there's something else available, are actually adding to the victim's family's nightmare.

I'm just hoping that someone will say what all the fuss is about in saying the pair are exonerated. Some Italian newspapers are comfortable using the word, internationally renowned DNA experts use it too. Heck, Barbie Nadeau recently used it on CNN, when addressing that other murder, this time of an American which made the news.

Are they all reading from the PR handbook? That's an impressive reach that this fictional PR superpower has.
Click to expand...


That's because, like so many legal terms, a word that has a specific legal meaning, for example "suspect", "prejudice", "aggravated", etc., can have a much looser meaning in common parlance.

It is incorrect to use the word "exonerated" as the kids were not found "innocent", as per para 1, but remain heavily suspect but were acquitted due to "insufficient evidence". This does have an actual legal effect. (a) It puts an effective kybosh on the kids claiming compensation, or at least there will be a contributory liability attached to any award and reduced accordingly, and (b) leaves the door open for a civil claim by the victim's family for wrongful death, case dismissed through no fault of the victim's.
 
Grinder said:
Well I don't think he's a lawyer. I don't think SA has the same code as CPP 530. And it's not just a legal issue. Since the Italians are aware of para 1 and para 2 as demonstrated by Cheli, the question is what perception does a 2 versus a 1 give. There is no doubt that a 1 is exoneration.

Do you think everyone found not guilty has been exonerated? Simple.
Click to expand...

I studied law. I'm not a lawyer.
 
bagels said:
Amanda was examined head to toe after her arrest and had no wounds from which she could have bled.

The day of the discovery she interacted with countless police officers face-to-face that spend their careers responding to domestic altercations and fights, not one of them thought she had been involved in such a thing.

She used that sink every day and used it that very morning. Her own DNA being found in her own sink is one of the silliest pieces in the PGP bag of tricks tbh.

You've got nothing here.
Click to expand...

Amanda's DNA being found in her bathroom is perfectly normal. If Stefanoni's work was valid and the forensic evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was so solid, why does Vixen have to resort to using Amanda's DNA in her bathroom as evidence of guilt. Surely PGP should be able to do better than this if the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was so solid.
 
Mike1711 said:
I've never claimed to be an expert lawyer.

I have looked up what the sections say and can't find foundation to your assertion.

Which why I ask again for an explanation.

Do you understand that courts of law cannot drop charges.
Click to expand...

Take it up with Bruno-Marasca because that is exactly the penal code clause they quoted.
 
Welshman said:
Amanda's DNA being found in her bathroom is perfectly normal. If Stefanoni's work was valid and the forensic evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was so solid, why does Vixen have to resort to using Amanda's DNA in her bathroom as evidence of guilt. Surely PGP should be able to do better than this if the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was so solid.
Click to expand...

This is a prolific amount of DNA, of that produced by white blood corpuscles, rather than from some other substance. In addition we can SEE the blood in the bidet, sink, light switch and on the tap.

There are also mixed DNA samples in Amanda's footsteps in Filomena's room and a clear speck of visible blood.

There can be no innocent explanation for Amanda's DNA, almost certainly derived from her blood, being mixed with a murder victim's within the very narrow time frame of the blood drying.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
This is a prolific amount of DNA, of that produced by white blood corpuscles, rahterr than from some other substance. In addition we can SEE the blood in the bidet, sink, light switch and on the tap.

There are also mixed DNA samples in Amanda's footsteps in Filomena's room and a clear speck of visible blood.

There can be no innocent explanation for Amanda's DNA, almost certainly derived from her blood, being mixed with a murder victim's within the very narrow time frame of the blood drying.
Click to expand...

So? When do you get this. AMANDA LIVED THERE!
 
Vixen said:
This is a prolific amount of DNA, of that produced by white blood corpuscles, rahterr than from some other substance. In addition we can SEE the blood in the bidet, sink, light switch and on the tap.
Click to expand...

Yes Rudy walked in there tracking in Meredith's blood. I'd wager a little money that this includes the blood on the tap, although there's no way to get it independently tested at this point.

But it is logical to conclude, as the PGP love to point out, there was an ocean of blood a few steps away, the killer walked into the bathroom and tracked that blood in there, nobody mentioned blood being in there before the murder, therefore the simplest and most logical conclusion is all the visible blood stains were made in the victim's blood.
 
bagels said:
Yes Rudy walked in there tracking in Meredith's blood. I'd wager a little money that this includes the blood on the tap, although there's no way to get it independently tested at this point.

But it is logical to conclude, as the PGP love to point out, there was an ocean of blood a few steps away, the killer walked into the bathroom and tracked that blood in there, nobody mentioned blood being in there before the murder, therefore the simplest and most logical conclusion is all the visible blood stains were made in the victim's blood.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It is a hard scientific fact that Mez' blood was trailed into Filomena's room by Amanda from (a) the luminol and (b) the mixed Amanda/Mez DNA.

We can assume that for Amanda to trail blood, she must have been there whilst Mez was dead or dying and her blood had not yet dried. There is no DNA trace of Rudy in the room.

If Rudy was in there earlier, as he claims, looking out of Filomena's window, then it's clear he wasn't leaking any DNA in order to do so. Fingerprints fade after about 24 hours. Those that have been in contact with the greasy sebacious layers of the skin will "stick" longer. Likewise, DNA, being a protein, doesn't usually stick unless there are moist or oily conditions, such as saliva, perspiration, moist skin cells, blood and other bodily fluids.

Amanda left a LOT of DNA on that specific night (this we know, for Mez' prolific DNA shedding from her fatal injuries, was not a normal every day domestic condition and it mixed with Amanda's bloodshed).
 
Last edited:
Planigale said:
I understand the point you are making but you are wrong. A para 1 determination would either be no crime had taken place - clearly nonsense here; or Knox and Sollecito had committed the act but had legitimate cause to do so or were not convictable for some other reason e.g. diplomatic immunity. So in a way paragraph 1 would not exonerate; if there was no crime, you cannot be exonerated. Alternatively para 1 might imply that they had committed the crime but were not convictable again not really an exoneration. Para 2 accepts a crime was committed but they were not guilty of it - that is an exoneration. It is as much an exoneration as anyone tried and found not guilty gets.
Click to expand...

While I have great respect for your science comments you seem unable to understand this law. I've posted the law before and told you para 1 includes no crime (i.e. there was no rape) or the defendants did not commit the crime, which would be an exoneration. Para 2 says the evidence wasn't sufficient or had conflicts.

Art . 530. Judgment of acquittal .
1. If the crime does not exist , if the accused does not have it
committed , if the offense is not or is not
required by law as a crime or if the offense is
He has been committed by a person not due or not
punishable for another reason , the judge ruling
acquittal containing the reason
device.
2. The court ruling of acquittal also
when there is insufficient or contradictory
proof that the thing certain , that the defendant has
It committed , that the action constitutes a criminal offense or the offense
He was committed by the person responsible.
3. If there is evidence that the act was committed in
presence of a justification or a cause
staff of non-punishment or there is doubt
the existence of the same, the judge ruling
acquittal pursuant to paragraph 1 .​

http://www.legislationline.org/documents/section/criminal-codes

Do you have a different version of 530?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom