Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Annella]

Can someone elaborate on Vixen's blurry out-of-context screenshot? And does someone have a link to the (translated, preferably) report? I am sure the poor quality of Vixen's "citation" was unintentional, but still.

If Knox's DNA was indeed shown to be on the bra clasp, why was it not admitted as evidence? And why has it never been discussed anywhere else and it magically pops up via random guilter #364 as a crucial piece of evidence 7 years after the fact?

To me, (without bothering to translate all of the text because it is too blurry to read in spots anyway), it looks like Vinci is saying certain specific peaks are COMPATIBLE with Knox's DNA profile. This is irrelevant unless there were an adequate number of matches across the entire electropherogram, particularly if the source had multiple contributors (5 in this case; 3 unknown IIRC), and they were of adequate peak height/quality. In other words, if you mix and match enough DNA sources, of course you are going to be "compatible" with another random person through sheer chance at some number of loci, because we all share quite a bit of DNA with other people. Is this what happened?

Not saying Vixen hasn't posted ground breaking new evidence that proves Knox did it, but I am skeptical (since it wasn't even admitted as evidence in any of the trials, lol).

Its all Machiavelli's fault. He has recently brought up this piece of non evidence at twitter and Vixen has grabbed it with both hands it seems. Shame she isn't into homework but I guess with a MENSA brain you don't need distractions such as homework.

 

[Vixen]

Since when is it ad hominem to point out that a cite someone has posted (to buttress their argument) actually refutes their argument?

Remember Vixen posting a pic of the window below Filomena's from the outside? She said that this proved it did not have bars on the window, therefore a burglar had nothing to climb on to, to climb up to Filomena's window.

The trouble? The pic clearly showed the bars WERE on the lower window. With the bars on the window below, the climb looks like this.....

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_53971524324c05488e.jpg[/qimg]

The bars on the lower windows are not and were not relevant. Once again, we are led down an alleyway of distraction. The salient point is, the upper window did not have bars and and any climber would not have been able to grip them as the PIP climber did in the C5 video, which was obviously heavily doctored.

 

[Vixen]

I NEVER said anything of the kind. Is this a false memory?

Er, you did. You jumped onto planigale's bandwagon when she/he claimed there was no police video of Raff's apartment.

 

[Vixen]

Did you read what you wrote? Time to go back and juxtapose your post.



Still laughing

How is that hypocrisy? Hellmann was severely excoriated and made to retire.

 

[acbytesla]

You appear to view a court case as some kind of Hollywood script with the good guys in one corner and the baddies in another. Heroes versus villains, like some tacky Greek mythology.

Truth is, law courts are extremely boring places and the machinery of justice slow moving and tedious.

The Chieffi court would have done no more and no less than any other Supreme Court chambers. Their job is consistent and they are all trained to go through the same steps. What they do is:

1. Read through the appeals lodged. They have a very heavy work load and that is all they have time for at this stage.

2. They will then read through the Motivational Reports of the first instance and second instance courts.

3. They will then read the charge sheets.

4. At the hearing, the barristers for each party to the appeal and cross-appeal will submit a skeleton argument (of which the judges will expect brief copies in advance) of what point of law is being appealed.

5. The judges will ask questions.

6. They will then retire to consider the outcome.

7. In Italy, they are obliged to come to a finding ASAP after the hearing.

8. They give their findings, which should be publically available, perhaps as a notice on the court board, or scanned direct to the parties' solicitors.

9. They are required to produce a written reasons report within 90 days.

I promise you, the issue of personalities, nationalities, like, dislike, personal opinion, etc., really do not come into it.

I promise you they do. People are not automatons. While officers of the courts ideally are dispassionate and without bias, often the facts do not bear that out. They have their own prejudices and preconceived ideas even if they don't realize it.

 

[Vixen]

You just can't account for some people being morons. Unfortunately eyewitness testimony is highly regarded by jurors and yet in reality, is very often the least reliable..

If you had your way, all the prosecution witnesses would have been barred from giving evidence. Good job you are not a barrister as you would have a very nasty surprise when you discover a judge will dismiss your application to have them all barred. The judge will allow them to give testimony and be cross-examined, as it is in the public interest to do so (completeness of evidence). Tough titties if you don't agree with it.

 

[bagels]

You appear to view a court case as some kind of Hollywood script with the good guys in one corner and the baddies in another. Heroes versus villains, like some tacky Greek mythology.

Truth is, law courts are extremely boring places and the machinery of justice slow moving and tedious.

The Chieffi court would have done no more and no less than any other Supreme Court chambers. Their job is consistent and they are all trained to go through the same steps. What they do is:

1. Read through the appeals lodged. They have a very heavy work load and that is all they have time for at this stage.

2. They will then read through the Motivational Reports of the first instance and second instance courts.

3. They will then read the charge sheets.

4. At the hearing, the barristers for each party to the appeal and cross-appeal will submit a skeleton argument (of which the judges will expect brief copies in advance) of what point of law is being appealed.

5. The judges will ask questions.

6. They will then retire to consider the outcome.

7. In Italy, they are obliged to come to a finding ASAP after the hearing.

8. They give their findings, which should be publically available, perhaps as a notice on the court board, or scanned direct to the parties' solicitors.

9. They are required to produce a written reasons report within 90 days.

I promise you, the issue of personalities, nationalities, like, dislike, personal opinion, etc., really do not come into it.

And yet their decision was so bad it had to be corrected by an unprecedented SC acquittal under M&B.

If Chieffi was doling out dispassionate justice they would have rubber stamped Hellmann. If they wanted to throw the prosecution a bone and cross their t's and dot their i's they could have ordered the knife DNA tested, when no MK DNA confirm acquittal.

They didn't do that. They said Quintavalle recognized Amanda's blue eyes in court and thus was reliable. Curatolo mentioned the spacemen in white suits, and thus was reliable. They went miles out of their way to conduct their own re-investigation of the case, and they did a spectacularly terrible job at it.

 

[acbytesla]

How is that hypocrisy? Hellmann was severely excoriated and made to retire.

Hellmann WAS NOT forced to retire. Another falsehood. You can't help yourself can you?

Yes, Chieffi did not like his decision. But that does not make him as you said "a disgrace to his profession".

 

[acbytesla]

If you had your way, all the prosecution witnesses would have been barred from giving evidence. Good job you are not a barrister as you would have a very nasty surprise when you discover a judge will dismiss your application to have them all barred. The judge will allow them to give testimony and be cross-examined, as it is in the public interest to do so (completeness of evidence). Tough titties if you don't agree with it.

No, but I would hold an extremely high skepticism toward all eyewitness testimonies and totally dismissive of memories conjured up a year later.

 

[Vixen]

I promise you they do. People are not automatons. While officers of the courts ideally are dispassionate and without bias, often the facts do not bear that out. They have their own prejudices and preconceived ideas even if they don't realize it.

You are completely wrong and have been watching too much Columbo.

The judges in the higher courts do not even SEE the defendants.

In the same way doctors take the Hippocratic Oath, soldiers, sailors and airmen take an Oath of Allegiance to the Queen professionals to their professional body, judges - being souped up barristers - take a vow of allegiance to the court.

They are supposed to be above bribery and corruption. Sure, there'll be a rogue judge, or a judge might have an off day, but that is why we have the safety net of being able to appeal.

Appeals are always based on points of law, to ensure the lower court judges did not have an off day and inadvertently erred in how the law should be applied.

Judges are only interested in applying the law correctly, their courts being instruments of the state. I promise you they could not give a toss about Rudy, Amanda and Raff, on a personal level.

 

[acbytesla]

Er, you did. You jumped onto planigale's bandwagon when she/he claimed there was no police video of Raff's apartment.

No, I jumped on the bandwagon when your link disproved your comments.

 

[Vixen]

No, but I would hold an extremely high skepticism toward all eyewitness testimonies and totally dismissive of memories conjured up a year later.

You get the opportunity to do this in your closing submissions.

The court gets to decide who's reliable, and who's not, not you.

 

[Vixen]

No, I jumped on the bandwagon when your link disproved your comments.

You didn't even click the link. You just took the opportunity to make yet another reckless ad hominem attack.

The link worked for me. Do let me know if it is broken.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/crime-scene-videos/

 

[acbytesla]

You are completely wrong and have been watching too much Columbo.

The judges in the higher courts do not even SEE the defendants.

In the same way doctors take the Hippocratic Oath, soldiers, sailors and airmen take an Oath of Allegiance to the Queen (or the King, in my father's case), professionals to their professional body, judges - being souped up barristers - take a vow of allegiance to the court.

They are supposed to be above bribery and corruption. Sure, there'll be a rogue judge, or a judge might have an off day, but that is why we have the safety net of being able to appeal.

Appeals are alwyas based on points of law, to ensure the lower court judges did not have an off day and inadvertently erred in how the law should be applied.

Judges are only interested in applying the law correctly, their courts being instruments of the state. I promise you they could not give a toss about Rudy, Amanda and Raff, on a personal level.

No, it's not Columbo. Great show by the way. Loved Peter Falk. I'm talking the real truth about courtrooms. People are prejudiced. Every single one of us. We're human and we often can't or won't separate reality from the actual truth. I'd say your posts are proof of this phenomenon. But there are countless other examples. Such as the differences in sentences handed down on minorities as opposed to Caucasians in the US. Or between sexes.

 

[Vixen]

No, it's not Columbo. Great show by the way. Loved Peter Falk. I'm talking the real truth about courtrooms. People are prejudiced. Every single one of us. We're human and we often can't or won't separate reality from the actual truth. I'd say your posts are proof of this phenomenon. But there are countless other examples. Such as the differences in sentences handed down on minorities as opposed to Caucasians in the US. Or between sexes.

You are quite wrong. In the same way a policeman is expected to be squeaky clean, a judge is also expected to put the law above all else.

The issue of social inequality is not straightforward, for the poor are more likely to commit petty crimes, for obvious reasons. The real question you should be asking is what comes first? Is it society that has caused these inequalities, or is the police or the press?

In the meantime, if you have a law against, say theft, a judge is duty bound to find someone gulity of theft, guilty. They are expected to show mercy and they can take mitigating or aggravating factors into account when sentencing. However, the extent of how far they can go, is closely proscribed. Sentencing is set by congress. A judge cannot just apply any sentence, it has to fit the statute book.

So, the fact that 80% (IIRC from the Oscar Ceremony speeches) of prisoners in the USA are black, is a reflection of the society you live in. Don't blame the judges though, they are just applying the laws set by your legislature.

 

[acbytesla]

You get the opportunity to do this in your closing submissions.

The court gets to decide who's reliable, and who's not, not you.

Now you're moving the goalposts again. Your post said "if you had your way" and I addressed that directly. But keep in mind that the Hellman court ruled that Quintavalle was not credible and BM acquitted the couple so I'm not the only one who thought Quintavalle's testimony didn't pass the smell test.

 

[Grinder]

That wasn't the view of the merits court, and that is the only view that counts, as regards to witness reliability.

Do you think Massei would have changed his assessment if he knew Curatolo was a heroin addict for years, had been charged for dealing, was using that night and mentioned buses that weren't running that night? Does it bother you that Massei altered Curatolo's testimony based on mistaken assumptions about the buses?

Hellmann called him as a witness and that's when all the heroin issues came out. In addition ole Curatolo seeing them from 9:30 until just before midnight gave them an alibi.

 

[Numbers]

I believe this was Maresca's quote as translated.

Seven and a half years after the murder of Ms Kercher in Perugia, and a number of legal proceedings, Franceso Maresca, the lawyer representing the Kerchers, said yesterday: “The family is in shock after the verdict. They don’t wish to make any other declarations. I’ve had to explain to them there are now no avenues open to them. There is a great sense of bitterness.”

I went to the Italian coverage where he says no further appeals - I can see that the brits could have translated no further appeals as "no avenues..." Perhaps you can find an Italian pub where he says it's all over no further avenues possible.

You POV may be correct on Maresca but that doesn't prove there is no difference between a .1 and a .2

In this site (Corriere), Maresca (or Arline Kercher) is quoted as saying "I currently have no plan" when asked if there was a plan. He (or Stephanie Kercher) is then quoted as saying "You asked me if there would be another appeal - he (?) added - and I've had to say no."

There is also a 1.35 minute video of Maresca speaking to the press (in Italian, of course) on the site. I don't know Italian and so can't say what he has said, but it must have been more than the printed quotations attributed to him by Corriere.

http://www.corriere.it/esteri/15_ma...ti-1ee94466-d4d8-11e4-831f-650093316b0e.shtml

And I don't know if the Maresca quote provided in the Independent is a version of the same information provided by the Carriere:

Seven and a half years after the murder of Ms Kercher in Perugia, and a number of legal proceedings, Franceso Maresca, the lawyer representing the Kerchers, said yesterday: “The family is in shock after the verdict. They don’t wish to make any other declarations. I’ve had to explain to them there are now no avenues open to them. There is a great sense of bitterness.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...er-about-italian-courts-verdict-10141391.html

I have posted in relevant detail the language of CPP Article 452 and 454. Those are relevant "proof" of my POV. They are the foundation for my POV - they are the evidence that led me to the view I have. If the Italian procedural law meant to say that CPP 530.1 and 530.2 had different legal effects on the civil trial or for future civil trials, it (in Articles 452 and/or 454) would have said so explicitly in those articles, or it would have had language specifying that the article(s) applied to 530.1 and not mentioned 530.2. That's how the CPP articles are written to express the intent of the lawmakers.

I am curious about the CSC ruling mentioning CPP Articles 530.1 and 530.2 that Mach provided, but I am wary of accepting that they mean what is suggested by Mach. It is easy to present information out of context, and thus be misleading. Furthermore, despite the statement that CSC rulings may have some general significance (somewhat true for interpretations), Italian law does not have precedence in the common law sense; courts must judge each case by the statute law.

ETA: And the appeals that are referred to by Maresca must mean appeals in the civil case; that civil case of the Kerchers was his legal responsibility. If there can be no appeals, then there could only be either a total end to the civil case, or a new civil case. But CPP Article 454 clearly states that a final acquittal of any type precludes a new civil case on the same acts as one that has been tried with the criminal proceedings. Again, there is no mention of Article 530.1 or 530.2 in Article 454, which would make it fully general to any final acquittal.

ETA2: So, again, we will see if there is any new civil action. You may await it, while I am awaiting instead the MR of Knox's 1st instance acquittal for calunnia against the police and the ECHR communication of her case against Italy.

 

[Vixen]

Do you think Massei would have changed his assessment if he knew Curatolo was a heroin addict for years, had been charged for dealing, was using that night and mentioned buses that weren't running that night? Does it bother you that Massei altered Curatolo's testimony based on mistaken assumptions about the buses?

Hellmann called him as a witness and that's when all the heroin issues came out. In addition ole Curatolo seeing them from 9:30 until just before midnight gave them an alibi.

Curatolo was an intelligent guy who chose his alternate anarchist life style. There are people who have been addicted to heroin or alcohol for years yet manage to function on a day to day level, and it doesn't rule them out as being witness to an accident or a crime.

IMV Curatolo was a perfectly credible witness. I believe him when he says he saw the pair. Sure, his sense of the exact time is not brilliant, but anarchist free spirits don't tend to wear watches.

Buses were running. So Curatolo called them halloween buses and confudged those with the night before. It doesn't change the thrust of his testimony as he would not have known about the forensic police next morning unless he really was where he said he was. The kiosk owner confirmed he was there on his bench the murder night. Photographers confirmed the drive to the cottage could be seen from that vantage point.

 

[acbytesla]

You are quite wrong. In the same way a policeman is expected to be squeaky clean, a judge is also expected to put the law above all else.

The issue of social inequality is not straightforward, for the poor are more likely to commit petty crimes, for obvious reasons. The real question you should be asking is what comes first? Is it society that has caused these inequalities, or is the police or the press?

In the meantime, if you have a law against, say theft, a judge is duty bound to find someone gulity of theft, guilty. They are expected to show mercy and they can take mitigating or aggravating factors into account when sentencing. However, the extent of how far they can go, is closely proscribed. Sentencing is set by congress. A judge cannot just apply any sentence, it has to fit the statute book.

So, the fact that 80% (IIRC from the Oscar Ceremony speeches) of prisoners in the USA are black, is a reflection of the society you live in. Don't blame the judges though, they are just applying the laws set by your legislature.

No, I'm NOT wrong. Proof is in the pudding.

According to the Open Society Foundation on racial differences of sentencing of similar crimes with similar criminal history over the last 20 years they concluded the following.

There is evidence of direct racial discrimination (against minority defendants in sentencing outcomes);
Evidence of direct discrimination at the federal level is more prominent than at the state level;
Blacks are more likely to be disadvantaged in terms of sentence length at the federal level, whereas Latinos are more likely to be disadvantaged in terms of the decision to incarcerate;
At the state level, both Latinos and blacks are far more likely to be disadvantaged in the decision to incarcerate or not, as opposed to the decision regarding sentence length.

Young black and Latino males tend to be sentenced more severely than comparably-situated white males;
Unemployed black males tend to be sentenced more severely than comparably-situated white males.
Blacks pay a higher "trial penalty" than comparably-situated whites;
Whites receive a larger reduction in sentence time than blacks and Latinos for providing "substantial assistance" to the prosecution;
Blacks and Latinos with a more serious criminal record tend to be sentenced more severely than comparably-situated whites;
Blacks are more likely to be jailed pending trial, and therefore tend to receive harsher sentences;

Do you really want to go down this road?