Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

More correctly "his employee (Marina Chiriboga) stated that she did not see Knox in the store on Nov. 2."

She also stated she remembers Quintavalle told her he just saw a girl, she answered to Quintavalle she didn't see her, but also told she couldn't tell if anyone entered because in that moment she was working in the storage room.

 

[Grinder]

You are playing dictionary games again.

While I did not write the questioned description, "moot" as used here apparently means either:
1. Of no practical importance; irrelevant; or
2. Of no legal significance; hypothetical

It does not mean "obsolete".

No game. The word moot is moot itself if one looks at the various meanings,

Subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision.

Definition of moot
1
: a deliberative assembly primarily for the administration of justice; especially : one held by the freemen of an Anglo-Saxon community
2
obsolete : argument, discussion

adjective
1.
open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful:
a moot point.
2.
of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.
3.
Chiefly Law. not actual; theoretical; hypothetical.
verb (used with object)
4.
to present or introduce (any point, subject, project, etc.) for discussion.
5.
to reduce or remove the practical significance of; make purely theoretical or academic.
6.
Archaic. to argue (a case), especially in a mock court.
noun
7.
an assembly of the people in early England exercising political, administrative, and judicial powers.
8.
an argument or discussion, especially of a hypothetical legal case.
9.
Obsolete. a debate, argument, or discussion.


I misread obsolete as being a definition. Though that fit with how it was used. I'm still not clear what effectively moot means.

Obviously CPP Article 530 and its 4 paragraphs remain Italian law so they remain of legal significance. I suggest that a meaning which may be sensible is that the law is of no practical importance because CPP Article 533.1 governs the finding of guilt. However, in practice the Italian courts are clearly still using CPP Article 530.

I should add that it is not my position that CPP Article 530 is irrelevant or lacks legal significance; one or more parts of it may be redundant because of CPP Article 533.1. There is no harm in the redundancy as long as no confusion results.

Well if the ISC statement from Mach is correct it does have significant importance.

 

[Grinder]

There are plenty of examples Grinder. How much is effected varies greatly.

I do believe you mean affected, but perhaps I'm wrong.

 

[Machiavelli]

Oh, they were amplified all right. Stefanoni amplified all sorts of "negative" samples, e.g., 36b. She never saw an insufficient quantification that she didn't immediately stuff into her amplification machine.

Prove it. Prof. Potenza was there, so he must have recorded all those alleged amplifications.

The single "knife" and "clasp" controls that you mention might or might not be for the knife and clasp, but are not the only controls relevant to those items.

I'm afraid you're adding too many possibilities. Court papers say only one thing: the knife and bra clasp negative controls were deposited when they were requested (although, they were requested late, after the investigation was closed)

There are also dozens of other controls that Stefanoni did not produce, and we already know that some quantification controls that she did produce show that she was amplifying contamination in her filthy lab.

If there is "filthy" lab, that must be the one where Vecchiotti works, you know the one where she kept a refrigerator without thermometer in the basement, the institute with rotting bodies left in corridoors that was closed by an judge's order because "all tests would be unreliable".
The truth is, you do't "know" anything, you only make blatantly false statement. You were caught regurgitating lies many times.
The false allegation that "contmination" was found in negative controls is just another attempt to make wild statements drawing some foolish "conclusion". The truth is, that even Vecchiotti report states that "it is normal to find some isolated alleles in negative controls", this is no evidence of "contamination" the defence is looking for.

 

[Diocletus]

She also stated she remembers Quintavalle told her he just saw a girl, she answered to Quintavalle she didn't see her, but also told she couldn't tell if anyone entered because in that moment she was working in the storage room.

Who cares.

It's judicial truth that Quintavalle = useless.

 

[Mike1711]

Then that's even worse, and means they are judging the evidence based on what's available in the prosecution's appeal

It cannot be true that the appeal court decide on a case without access to a complete court record.

Mach. is wrong or the Italian legal system is completely broken.

 

[Grinder]

This is only your opinion. But there is no factual basis in it. The rules are that to say a witness is lying, there must be significant evidence of that. The SC (Chieffi) said that if a judge thinks a witness is unreliable, needs to bring valid reasons for that conclusion. Hellmann did not report truthfully about the content of Quintavalle's testimony and other documents on the point, while "reasons" alleged are prejudicial, illogical and insufficient.
This is an unsupported and illogical inference. At the Massei trial Quintavalle openly stated that he didn't want to be a witness and tried to avoid that; he was reluctant to provide information to authorities and did not present his information voluntarily, on his initiative.
To assume that Quintavalle lies when he provides testimomny against Knox makes no sense. While from an Italian perspective, the contrary makes sense, it makes perfect sense that he omitted to present the full information he had, in order to avid becoming a witness.
Contrarily to what you say, the police (Volturno's) testimony fully supports Quintavalle's version. Volturno clearly stated that he did not ask questions about Knox's presence in the store, Quintavalle never denied her presence and in fact there was no information of that kind in Volturno's hand written notes.

From the PGP wiki:

In practice the first investigative task that I carried out was as regards two containers of Ace bleach that had been seized at Raffaele Sollecito’s house on 16 November 2007. Immediately after the seizure I went around the shops in the environs of Raffaele Sollecito’s place of residence trying to understand from where they could have been purchased from, and for this purpose I was showing people the photograph of Raffaele Sollecito, the photograph of Amanda Knox. After a couple of days we tracked down the shop which was a Conad-Margherita shop situated right at the start of Corso Garibaldi, where both the owner and the shop assistants were to identify, from the photographs that we placed before them, Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox. Raffaele Sollecito was a usual customer of this shop, while the girl had been seen two or three times in his company.
GM:
Together with Sollecito?
OV:
Yes, yes, in his company. In this shop we asked also if by chance they had noticed in the days immediately prior to the murder or straight after if they remembered whether these persons had acquired this product, although they didn’t remember. I have to preface this with the shop is subdivided into two levels, one is higher up where the entrance is and the other is lower down. The one higher up is where all the products are that people take and then go straight to the cashier, while the one below is the delicatessen, cheeses, etc etc where there were two girls working, in addition to the owner, who I think I remember was called Quintavalle. One in particular, an Ecuadorian girl, at the time I recall that it was interesting, she said to us that she had a friend who was doing the cleaning at Raffaele Sollecito’s house and she indicated the cellular device with which we then contacted her, although as for the bleach nothing came out of it, either a person or a mention of something. We were checking that…

 

[Diocletus]

Prove it. Prof. Potenza was there, so he must have recorded all those alleged amplifications.

No, he wasn't. A lot of the testing was done in secret.

Potenza was not there when Stefanoni did the bra clasp runs, and in particular, when she did the secret re-run of an undisclosed bra-clasp test, which secret re-run yielded the allegedly incriminating profile.

Another interesting fact: Potenza's report mentions only two amplifications of the knife blade on the first day of testing. So, how is it that Stefanoni came up with three, one of which was said to be incriminating.

I'm afraid you're adding too many possibilities. Court papers say only one thing: the knife and bra clasp negative controls were deposited when they were requested (although, they were requested late, after the investigation was closed)

Not sure why it's adding "too many possibilities" to expect a lab tech. to produce the underlying paperwork: Berni and Barni did. In fact, while we have them in mind, recall that they ran positive and negative controls for their LCN profiles, and produced that data as a part of their work product. Stefanoni only ran batch-level controls, which is totally insufficient, particularly in the realm of LCN testing. That's cuz she's a clown.

If there is "filthy" lab, that must be the one where Vecchiotti works, you know the one where she kept a refrigerator without thermometer in the basement, the institute with rotting bodies left in corridoors that was closed by an judge's order because "all tests would be unreliable".

Wow. That would be devastating if they were the ones who actually tested the crime scene samples . . . but, they didn't so who cares.

The truth is, you do't "know" anything, you only make blatantly false statement. You were caught regurgitating lies many times.
The false allegation that "contmination" was found in negative controls is just another attempt to make wild statements drawing some foolish "conclusion". The truth is, that even Vecchiotti report states that "it is normal to find some isolated alleles in negative controls", this is no evidence of "contamination" the defence is looking for.

Still waiting for you to refute this: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/lab-data-suppression/

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes, I will continue to call your information misleading, false, and confused.

You will remain in need to apologize, and your statement will continue to be unsupported and in the face of jurisprudence.

Please be sure to let Maresca, the Kerchers' lawyer, and the Kerchers themselves know that they should restart the civil action based upon your scholarly review.

What Maresca will decide to do is not relevant to the point. Btw, Maresca did say that the Kerchers will consider further legal actions. But that's irrelevant.
The point is it is not my scholarly review.
It is the Cassazione rulings of 2004 & 2006, to which you are unable to quote a contrary ruling. You go on claiming such jurisprudence statuition is "false" and that there is SC jurisprudence contrary to it, but you fail to cite any.

I can assure you that the civil and criminal branches of the CSC are separate.

It's good to have your assurance.

Apparently you do not understand what is meant by a "civil law" system in contrast to a "common law" system. The first is intended to only rely on statute law, the second is intended to rely on statute law and precedent. The "civil law" system is not to be confused with courts concerned with civil actions - that is, law suits.

Apparently you think in order to interpret Italian law it is sufficient to read the Cpp. Apparently you think what we call "jurisprudence" is something that doesn't exist (because in your world, civil law systems are not supposed to have "case law").
In fact we don't call SC rulings "case law", we call it "jurisprudence", it's not exactly the same thing but it's the same thing in the context we are dicussing about.

The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure covers criminal matters, such as trials for alleged criminal acts, and also the law suits that victims of crimes or their relatives (when the victims can not act, due to death, for example) may bring to the court.

The Italian Code of Civil Procedure covers non-criminal injuries or torts. Wrongful death is precluded as a cause of action (law suit) in an Italian civil court against a finally acquitted person if the injured person has already had the case heard during the criminal proceedings, or had that possibility, and the accused in the criminal proceeding has been finally acquitted because "the accused did not commit the act".

All this is completely made up. The code of civil procedure does not have limitations of sorts in its application. It may well be used in criminal matters and it has been, even on famous cases.

If you believe otherwise, please contact Maresca, the Kercher lawyer to let him know the law that you have found, since Maresca said after the final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito, "it is now all over". He did not say he was restarting any law suit.

See above.

And if the Kerchers themselves do not wish to restart a law suit, then it is all over, whether or not the law allows them to start a new suit. But you should contact them, too, with your remarkable legal findings, so they are fully aware of their options. Seriously, if it is important for justice - and not simply another hoax on the internet that you are promulgating.

But who I talk with, respectfully speaking, is not your business.

Don't let my opinion or skepticism from my reading of the CPP hinder you.

I think this won't happen.

 

[Grinder]

It cannot be true that the appeal court decide on a case without access to a complete court record.

Mach. is wrong or the Italian legal system is completely broken.

Are you talking about Hellmann or M&B? Hellmann was a trial de nova as you know so they not only had access they called witnesses including Curatolo.

Do supreme courts typically have a full court record? In some case they would need a truck and I don't mean hand truck.

 

[acbytesla]

I do believe you mean affected, but perhaps I'm wrong.

That is correct. Mea culpa

 

[acbytesla]

No game. The word moot is moot itself if one looks at the various meanings,

Subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision.

Definition of moot
1
: a deliberative assembly primarily for the administration of justice; especially : one held by the freemen of an Anglo-Saxon community
2
obsolete : argument, discussion

adjective
1.
open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful:
a moot point.
2.
of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.
3.
Chiefly Law. not actual; theoretical; hypothetical.
verb (used with object)
4.
to present or introduce (any point, subject, project, etc.) for discussion.
5.
to reduce or remove the practical significance of; make purely theoretical or academic.
6.
Archaic. to argue (a case), especially in a mock court.
noun
7.
an assembly of the people in early England exercising political, administrative, and judicial powers.
8.
an argument or discussion, especially of a hypothetical legal case.
9.
Obsolete. a debate, argument, or discussion.


I misread obsolete as being a definition. Though that fit with how it was used. I'm still not clear what effectively moot means.



Well if the ISC statement from Mach is correct it does have significant importance.

Why do you insist on the first definition? What's wrong with;
"2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic."?

 

[Bill Williams]

Who cares.

It's judicial truth that Quintavalle = useless.

Machiavelli argues judicial truth when he needs to, atgues factoid evidence when juducial truth is against him, and corruption when at the end he's lost.

 

[bagels]

She also stated she remembers Quintavalle told her he just saw a girl, she answered to Quintavalle she didn't see her, but also told she couldn't tell if anyone entered because in that moment she was working in the storage room.

That didn't happen on the 2nd. Quintavalle saw nothing, said nothing, and asked about nothing, on the 2nd. Because nobody was in his store that morning. He made it up.

 

[Machiavelli]

No, he wasn't. A lot of the testing was done in secret.

Potenza was not there when Stefanoni did the bra clasp runs, and in particular, when she did the secret re-run of an undisclosed bra-clasp test, which secret re-run yielded the allegedly incriminating profile.

Another interesting fact: Potenza's report mentions only two amplifications of the knife blade on the first day of testing. So, how is it that Stefanoni came up with three, one of which was said to be incriminating.

Yes because in your dreams when a plate number is followed by "bis", it means that it was done in secret when Potenza was not there and not reported. And too bad Potenza never noticed the "swap" that took place under his watch, didn't notice the alleged new test result is different from the one he witnessed. And no matter that, for some strange reason, in all tests that were done under Potenza's watch, he never cried "contamination" of negative controls; and it's a really strange coincidence that Stefanoni felt confident she could hide contamination in all tohse tests (wonder why the need to run secret ones, then?).
It's nice to see feel free from the need to have a speck of evidence or logic in your delusional rambling. It's nice to feel wild and free.

 

[Mike1711]

Is it all on computer these days? I'm sure they have access to any and all the information.

In South Africa the complete record is made available to each of the five appeal Judges in hard copy before the appeal is heard. This record can amount to tens of thousands of pages.

Modern technology will certainly supersede this and in various countries it may well be the case already.

...but a complete record is made available, including the entire court transcripts.

Without this an appeal us a farce.

 

[bagels]

It's false. He was extremely vague about the clothes she was wearing.

He says a grey coat and a light blue cloth around her neck. Amanda was in the newspaper wearing a grey coat and a light blue cloth near her neck. He is describing the newspaper photo, it is obvious. The grey coat wasn't hers, she was handed it by Raffaele shortly before the photo was taken.

Hellmann was just caught lying. And making up specious excuses contrary to the rules.

Hellmann had a witness that claims he recognized the girl in the newspaper stories arrested for the murder when he saw the paper, and then that the police came into his store and didn't show him pictures of Amanda, even though they did, and he didn't mention seeing her to the police, and then he didn't report this for a year. Hellmann rightly and logically concluded he was an unreliable witness. End of.

 

[Machiavelli]

That didn't happen on the 2nd. Quintavalle saw nothing, said nothing, and asked about nothing, on the 2nd. Because nobody was in his store that morning. He made it up.

This is what you believe. But you have no evidence to support what you say. There is no evidence pointing to your theory, and there is also no logical consistncy within it. Even the motive for Quintavalle to suddenly "falsely accuse" someone would be unknown.

 

[Machiavelli]

Who cares.

It's judicial truth that Quintavalle = useless.

It's judicial truth that is proven fact Amanda Knox was there when Meredith was killed, she heared her screaming, she voluntarily falsely accused an innocent, there are multiple perpetrators, Guede was not holding the murder weapon, Knox washed her hands of Meredith's blood.
If you want to make a list of "judicial truths" in B/M verdict, you are welcome. Don't forget any.

 

[Diocletus]

It's judicial truth that is proven fact Amanda Knox was there when Meredith was killed, she heared her screaming, she voluntarily falsely accused an innocent, there are multiple perpetrators, Guede was not holding the murder weapon, Knox washed her hands of Meredith's blood.
If you want to make a list of "judicial truths" in B/M verdict, you are welcome. Don't forget any.

Those things don't matter because . . . innocent.