Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

FIFY - the bolded section indicates that it is only what is specified in the arguments for the appeal., which I believe is what Mach said.

Actually generally you can't. If you want to read the contents of a case, you must go to the courthouse.

Mach's point was that the ISC only reviews the appeal documents which may refer to specifics of the case including evidence.

Are you basing the statement they have access on anything but your opinion?

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



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.



It's good to have your assurance.



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.



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.



See above.



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



I think this won't happen.

I am amused by all your falsehoods and misrepresentations.

I am awaiting to hear about the civil action that Maresca or some other lawyer for the Kerchers will start against Knox and Sollecito for the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher.

Since you are an Italian speaker and, I presume, resident in Italy, please let us know any news on this front with a citation from a reliable source as soon as possible.

I regret that you are offended by my suggestion that you contact Maresca or the Kerchers. It would be to their benefit if they did not have the insights into Italian law that you do, if the Kerchers wished to pursue the case, and if I am mistaken in my analysis regarding CPP Article 652.

On the other hand, I can understand how you would wish to claim to be offended if your information that you are providing here on ISF is not correct.

You may have forgotten your history of providing false or misleading information in your previous posts, which tends to raise my level of caution in accepting your statements without full verification.

In fact, it was your frequent citing of the CPP in previous posts that was one factor that motivated me to get the excellent book edited by Gialuz, Luparia, and Scarpa with the English translations of the CPP and some interesting essays. Somehow there were differences between how you stated the meaning of some of those CPP articles and the CPP texts provided by the neutral Italian lawyers and their professional team of translators.

 

[bagels]

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.

Why he did it I don't know, nor do I care. After the Nencini conviction he spoke with the media and claimed he saw Rudy too. He's just a full-of-it blowhard.

 

[Diocletus]

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.

Wow. How to deconstruct this rant.

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.

"Bis" means re-run. True, Potenza did not report a re-run, which suggests that he wasn't there for either the first run or the re-run, and therefore did not know that it was a re-run. Not sure why a "swap" is necessary.

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;

We have no information that any controls were shared with Potenza, in particular the contaminated 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?).

Not a coincidence at all--it's easy to do. All you do is produce the clean backup data and refuse to cough up anything else. Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing.

She had to run the secret bra clasp test because the first one didn't yield anything useful, and she had already made a big deal about the bra clasp. Simply re-run the text when no one else is around and wah-la! an incriminating profile.

 

[js202]

Somehow there were differences between how you stated the meaning of some of those CPP articles and the CPP texts provided by the neutral Italian lawyers and their professional team of translators.

Say it ain't so! "Somehow," indeed.

 

[Grinder]

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

Tesla you jumped in to answer a question directed at someone else. I'm not insisting on any particular definition. I am trying to get the author of the expression to nail down what he meant by it.

To me saying 530 has no practical value or meaning is obviously false. I believe just a little while ago Numbers made a comment stating 530 most definitely remains and has meaning.

here:

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.​

I don't expect you to trouble yourself and you can't possibly know the answer. There are many meanings for the word moot.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

The judicial truth is that Quintavalle's offerings are useless. Why are you still trying to argue evidence, when the courts have ruled it useless?

 

[Grinder]

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.

That dinner date should go well.

 

[bagels]

Machiavelli still hasn't adequately explained why the Supreme Court striking down Hellmann's conclusions about Quintavalle was not the Supreme Court re-reasoning about the evidence in a more preferred way. And he isn't going to be able to.

Was Hellmann wrong when he said Quintavalle did not report this incidence for a year? No.

Was Hellmann wrong when he said Quintavalle was shown a photograph of Amanda knox by the police on the 15th in relation to the murder, after Quintavalle had already seen her photo in the newspaper which is when he claimed he first recognized her as being in his store the morning of the discovery - and that Quintavalle did not mention seeing her? No.

Was Hellmann wrong when he said none of the other shop workers could verify Quintavalle's story? No.

But the Supreme Court said Hellmann was wrong. Why? Because they wanted Quintavalle to be a reliable witness. They weighed in on the evidence. I know it, they know it, Mach knows it, everybody knows it.

So to throw a hissy fit about M&B reasoning about the evidence is the most disingenuous or delusional (take your pick) stunt the PGP have ever pulled.

 

[Diocletus]

Machiavelli still hasn't adequately explained why the Supreme Court striking down Hellmann's conclusions about Quintavalle was not the Supreme Court re-reasoning about the evidence in a more preferred way. And he isn't going to be able to.

Was Hellmann wrong when he said Quintavalle did not report this incidence for a year? No.

Was Hellmann wrong when he said Quintavalle was shown a photograph of Amanda knox by the police on the 15th in relation to the murder, after Quintavalle had already seen her photo in the newspaper which is when he claimed he first recognized her as being in his store the morning of the discovery - and that Quintavalle did not mention seeing her? No.

Was Hellmann wrong when he said none of the other shop workers could verify Quintavalle's story? No.

But the Supreme Court said Hellmann was wrong. Why? Because they wanted Quintavalle to be a reliable witness. They weighed in on the evidence. I know it, they know it, Mach knows it, everybody knows it.

So to throw a hissy fit about M&B reasoning about the evidence is the most disingenuous or delusional (take your pick) stunt the PGP have ever pulled.

The abortion of the decision that is Chieffi was overruled sub silentio by Marasca. It's worthless.

 

[Bill Williams]

That dinner date should go well.

You're the only other with a standing invite to be there. Take note, Machiavelli has dibs on choosing the wine. That should always be left to sn Italian.

 

[acbytesla]

Tesla you jumped in to answer a question directed at someone else. I'm not insisting on any particular definition. I am trying to get the author of the expression to nail down what he meant by it.

To me saying 530 has no practical value or meaning is obviously false. I believe just a little while ago Numbers made a comment stating 530 most definitely remains and has meaning.

here:

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.​

I don't expect you to trouble yourself and you can't possibly know the answer. There are many meanings for the word moot.

I disagree with your premise that the choice of paragraph (1)or (2) has any significant (practical) difference and thought the OP's meaning in fact was clear and unambiguous. I was just surprised that you needed clarification as to what "effectively moot" meant in the context in which it was used.

 

[Welshman]

If the “Stefanoni’s work was perfectly fine and anyone who criticizes her work such as C&V are clueless idiots who have been bribed” line that Machiavelli and Vixen constantly promote is true, how do you explain the behaviour of PGP:-
1) As can be seen from my post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10485386#post10485386 the PGP lie. Vixen habitually lies in her posts. If the forensic evidence against Amanda and Raffael was valid, why do PGP have to resort to lying?
2) Vixen and Machiavelli have consistently described C&V as clueless buffoons. The natural assumption PGP should have no difficulty reporting their report. I asked Machiavelli to rebut C&V’s report. He came up with a lame excuse saying he was not paid to rebut their report. Vixen has likewise never rebutted C&V’s report. No one from the TJMK/PMF hate sites has written a rebuttal of C&Vs report. Vixen came up with the ludicrous idea Peter Gill had been paid off by Raffaele’s defence team. Having to resort to this argument is a sign of desperation and a clear indication PGP have no response to Peter Gill’s criticism. If C&V were so incompetent, why is that in the five years since the publication of their report, PGP have not been able to rebut their report and answer the criticism of Stefanoni’s work made by C&V?
3) My post here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11174476#post11174476 raised issues about the conduct of the prosecution. I asked Vixen to address the issues raised in my post. The only point Vixen attempted to answer was the one about why the prosecution could not rebut C&Vs report by saying the prosecution did submit a written rebuttal for which there is no record. If the forensic evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was valid, why could Vixen not address the other issues I raised in my post? Last year I asked Machiavelli how much DNA was on the knife which like Stefanoni he could not answer. If the forensic evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was valid, why is that eight years after Meredith’s murder Machiavelli could not answer a basic question such as how much DNA was on the knife?

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

Quintavalle actually says he was wearing a cap or a hat (which she doesn't have in photos), says she was wearing a "coat" (which she doesn't have in photos) and that she had a scarf, that she was wearing losely (maybe a shawl) that he remembers as "something like" blue, or a similar colour (she doesn't wear anything like that in any photo).

Si c'aveva dei occhi azzurri chiarissimi, c'aveva un cappello, io dico cappello, non mi ricordo se fosse una cuffia o qualche cosa altro, comunque un copricapo ce l'aveva, jeans me li ricordo. Poi questo cappotto grigio, una sciarpa, io nel mio ricordo è un colore azzurrino, qualcosa di simile. Un pochino abbondante qui davanti al viso, così, non stretta, così una sciarpa come si porta...

It is not true he descrbes Amanda Knox the same way as she appeared in newspaper pictures. She doesn't wear a scarf or a shawl to cover her face in photos, se doesn't wear a cap, and she doesn't wear a coat.
Remind that in order to claim that a witness is lying you need evidence, and what you cite is nothing.

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.

No. The witness only said things that were confirmed by the police witness, and always offered consistent explanations for why she said things and for why he omitted to say others.
Also, the witness was questioned by Massei, not by Hellmann.
The witness offered a plausible and sensible explanation for why she omitted to relate about certain details on the first police visit, and the police confirmed they didn't question him on such point, they only questioned about something else.
The police witness said they had shown the photo of Sollecito and Knox to Quintavalle, and what he answered is that he saw her in his company at his shop "two or three times":

Dopo alcuni giorni rintracciammo il negozio che era un negozio Conad – Margherita sito subito all’inizio di Corso Garibaldi, dove sia il titolare che le commesse riconobbero nelle fotografie che noi ponemmo in visione, Raffaele Sollecito ed Amanda Knox. Raffaele Sollecito era cliente abituale di questo negozio, mentre la ragazza era stata vista due o tre volte in sua compagnia.

So the truth is, Quintavalle immediately answered he saw Knox "two or three times", the police reports together with Sollecito, without specifying dates or times.

DOMANDA – Lei ha prima detto che aveva delle fotografie di Amanda e Raffaele.

RISPOSTA – Esatto.

DOMANDA – E le ha fatte vedere alle persone che si trovavano all’interno dell’alimentari?

RISPOSTA – Sì.

DOMANDA – Quindi sia il titolare sia le commesse.

RISPOSTA – Sì.

DOMANDA – E ha chiesto se queste persone si erano presentate o meno all’interno del negozio nei giorni precedenti.

RISPOSTA – No, io ho chiesto se erano clienti del negozio, perché l’ho fatto con tutti i negozi di Corso Garibaldi, non solo con il Quintavalle, esibendo le foto chiedevo se erano clienti.

Volturno says he didn't ask specifically if Knox went in the shop in the days immediately prior to the murder. He also says he only asked the same questions to all shop owners in via Garibaldi, but didn't ask if they saw Knox or Sollecito specifically the day of the murder or in specific days.
Volturno was interested in what they bought, rather than about days.
In fact he says he immediately went on to the point of asking them about bleach in the days around the murder, that was what he was interested in:

RISPOSTA – No, però dato che avevo chiesto... aspetti, io ho chiesto al titolare e alle due commesse se avevano mai visto queste persone all’interno del negozio e mi dissero: “sì, sono clienti abituali, solo che lui viene più spesso e lei è venuta in un paio di occasioni”. Poi chiesi se avevano acquistato della candeggina nei giorni successivi all’omicidio e nessuno mi disse: “no, non sono in grado” e la (Kiriboga) mi disse: “io sono in grado ancora di meno del Quintavalle perché mi trovo nel reparto salumi che è sotto, mentre la candeggina è sul lato del negozio sopra che è a vista del signor Quintavalle”.

It is true Quintavalle doesn't remember that Volturno showed him photos of Knox. But it is also true that Quintavalle knew Sollecito well already, and it's likely that he did't even look at photos, and anyway Volturno recorded that yes, he saw that Knox was there in his company at least a couple of tims. Quintavalle says he begun to realize only some days later that the girl who came in the store alone that morning and Amanda Knox were the same person, as he was taking a coffee while observing a big photo on a newspaper. He immeditately talked about this with Chiriboga, and she confirmed. He said he didn't feel 100% sure it was the same person because, he says, the newspaper photo didn't show her eyes colour that well. However he did not report of this to the police, because he didn't like the idea of becming a witness. It was an acquaintance of him, his neighbour, who convinced him that he should talk since what he knew might be relevant.

 

[Grinder]

I disagree with your premise that the choice of paragraph (1)or (2) has any significant (practical) difference and thought the OP's meaning in fact was clear and unambiguous. I was just surprised that you needed clarification as to what "effectively moot" meant in the context in which it was used.

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

So it would be effectively of no practical value or meaning. Why not just say it is of no practical value? It's because effective is a weasel word.

But there are many meanings for moot and I'd like to know what was meant.

As you can imagine I really don't care that you are toeing the current PIP line on this. It sure was important a year ago when you all thought it was a one. It wasn't effectively moot back then.

 

[Machiavelli]

The abortion of the decision that is Chieffi was overruled sub silentio by Marasca. It's worthless.

Chieffi is not overrlued by Marasca. Chieffi is still fully valid. This is the interesting part!

 

[Grinder]

Volturno says he didn't ask specifically if Knox went in the shop in the days immediately prior to the murder. He also says he only asked the same questions to all shop owners in via Garibaldi, but didn't ask if they saw Knox or Sollecito specifically the day of the murder or in specific days.
Volturno was interested in what they bought, rather than about days.
In fact he says he immediately went on to the point of asking them about bleach in the days around the murder, that was what he was interested in:

Do you remember what type of investigative tasks you carried out? First list them, then describe them.
OV:
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…​

[/QUOTE]

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Oreste_Volturno's_Testimony_(English)

 

[bagels]

Quintavalle actually says he was wearing a cap or a hat (which she doesn't have in photos),

says she was wearing a "coat" (which she doesn't have in photos) and that she had a scarf, that she was wearing losely (maybe a shawl) that he remembers as "something like" blue, or a similar colour (she doesn't wear anything like that in any photo).

Wow a grey coat with what in a newspaper print would probably looks like a light blue scarf. What a coincidence!

Remind that in order to claim that a witness is lying you need evidence, and what you cite is nothing.

Although I am claiming he is lying, I am not the court. The court is not claiming that he is lying, merely that he is unreliable. This is well established and well supported. This is another incidence of the PGP trying to reverse the burden of proof. Prove an invisible flying spaghetti monster isn't watching over us?

It is true Quintavalle doesn't remember that Volturno showed him photos of Knox. But it is also true that Quintavalle knew Sollecito well already, and it's likely that he did't even look at photos, and anyway Volturno recorded that yes, he saw that Knox was there in his company at least a couple of tims. Quintavalle says he begun to realize only some days later that the girl who came in the store alone that morning and Amanda Knox were the same person, as he was taking a coffee while observing a big photo on a newspaper. He immeditately talked about this with Chiriboga, and she confirmed.

You are obscuring the timeline. He saw Knox in the newspaper just after the arrest. This would have been the 7th or so. This is when he claims he recognized her as the girl that was in his shop.

Then the police came in on the 15th with her photo in connection to the murder investigation, and we're supposed to believe that when the police were holding a photo of Knox, who he recognized right in front of his face, in questioning related to the murder, that he failed to mention to them that he had seen this girl on the 2nd, even though he already recognized her as the girl from the 2nd from an earlier newspaper photo.

This is why Hellmann tossed his testimony in the trash, which is exactly where it belongs.

 

[acbytesla]

So it would be effectively of no practical value or meaning. Why not just say it is of no practical value? It's because effective is a weasel word.

But there are many meanings for moot and I'd like to know what was meant.

As you can imagine I really don't care that you are toeing the current PIP line on this. It sure was important a year ago when you all thought it was a one. It wasn't effectively moot back then.

I don't think "moot" is a "weasel" word at all. I am surprised that you think that. As to what you think of me. I too find that also to be "moot".

 

[acbytesla]

Chieffi is not overrlued by Marasca. Chieffi is still fully valid. This is the interesting part!

Actually, that is not true. The BM ruling makes all previous rulings "moot".

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli still hasn't adequately explained why the Supreme Court striking down Hellmann's conclusions about Quintavalle was not the Supreme Court re-reasoning about the evidence in a more preferred way. And he isn't going to be able to.

Actually, i did, and Chieffi did so better.

The Chieffi panel also pointed out that they did not assess whether Quintavalle was reliable or not. What they assessed is that he cannot be ruled unreliable for the reasons brought by Hellmann.

(he might be found to be unreliable for other reasons, if a judge finds them, as for Chieffi's view).

The reasons brought by Hellmann are based on misreporting the testimonies, his reasoning was based on cherry picking and omitting information, and inference about reliability of witness was based on flimsy grounds violating the law. Chieffi's is a point of law about the reasons that one can use to declare Quintavalle's testimony unreliable, and such point of law is definitive.
The fact that Bruno/Marasca violated the point is only evidence that their ruling is illegal.

Was Hellmann wrong when he said Quintavalle did not report this incidence for a year? No.

But he was wrong when he inferred that he was unreliable because of this. Such inference itself is illogical (as estblished by Chieffi).

Was Hellmann wrong when he said Quintavalle was shown a photograph of Amanda knox by the police on the 15th in relation to the murder, after Quintavalle had already seen her photo in the newspaper which is when he claimed he first recognized her as being in his store the morning of the discovery - and that Quintavalle did not mention seeing her? No.

But Quintavalle already told Massei that he still did not feel 100% sure about it after seeing the newspaper photo, and he did not want to report things to the police because he didn't want to become a witness.
Based on Quintavalle's statements, Massei found that his explanations were plausible and that Quintavalle was a credible witness.
Massei's reasoning is logical, Hellmann's is not.

Was Hellmann wrong when he said none of the other shop workers could verify Quintavalle's story? No.

Chieffi finds Hellmann was omissive and apparently dishonest on this. Hellmann omits to report that, albeit Chiriboga didn't see Knox in the shop, yet she did confirm Quintavalle's story in the part where he remembers of talking with his employees about having seen the girl, and asks them whethr they saw her too.

But the Supreme Court said Hellmann was wrong. Why? Because they wanted Quintavalle to be a reliable witness. They weighed in on the evidence. I know it, they know it, Mach knows it, everybody knows it.

The Supreme Court explained very well why Hellmann was wrong: because he twisted the content of Quintavalle's testimony and of other witnesses, he cherry picked some things and omitted others, he omitted information and testimony that needs to be considered and reported or refuted, and because he drew inference in a way that is illogical and contrary to common sense (like assuming a witness is unreliable just because comes out late), and because the reasons/evidence he brought mentioned for concluding that the witness is unreliable are flimsy and thus contrary to the rules.

Chieffi can't tell whether Quintavalle is reliable or not, but could tell that the reasons why Hellmann found him unreliable are unaceptable.

So to throw a hissy fit about M&B reasoning about the evidence is the most disingenuous or delusional (take your pick) stunt the PGP have ever pulled.

I don't have sufficient command of English to respond to you with an adequate colloquialism, but you may fill yourself the dots :
......

Chieffi was transparent following the rules, they did not assess Quintavalle as a witness but focused on the unlawful reasons reasons brought by Hellmann, while B/M nstead are a manifest fraud, because they only re-assess the witness in the merits, because they violate art. 627, and because they violate points definitively established by the SC.