It remains true: there is only one trial (and a continuation thereof in Italy on specific points of law appealed and allowed an extended hearing). It is a fact both these merits hearings (= trial) found the pair guilty as charged, based on the evidence before it. The trial was fair and proper, and Massei bent over backwards to accommodate the kids' submissions.
"Bent over backwards"!? Is not a court
required to receive appropriate submissions from parties which have standing? You make it seem like Massei had the option not to receive submissions, but deigned to lower himself to listen to anything the defence had to say!!!
Hoots!
The Supreme Court overturning the verdict, when both the lower courts had decreed and upheld a 'guilty' verdict was perverse in the extreme.
The Marasca/Bruno court showed how the "connective tissue" of the guilty verdict could not be sustained in law.
Chief of which was the way Nencini (and by extension Massei) handled the forensic-DNA evidence, where both courts elevated themselves as supra-experts over and above what independent experts might say.
Marasca/Bruno acknowledge that this is a thorny legal issue, because it seems that they agree with the former Chieffi panel, who in 2013 had (partially) overturned Hellmann's acquittals on the same sort of issue. IIRC Hellmann had abrogated his judicial responsibility by allowing Conti & Vecchiotti to make a de facto decision for him in the way Sample 36I was handled.
But conversely, Marasca/Bruno cites Italian case law (the cite is in the report) which suggests that when there are competing experts at trial who are saying opposite things - as inevitably happens - the judge simply cannot substitute himself as a judicial forensic-referee without some appeal to an independent voice.
Judge Massei refused to appoint an independent voice, and Nencini (acc. to Marasca) simply sided with Stefanoni over and against Conti-Vecchiotti with no appeal to a second independent voice - other than Nencini's own guesses as to what good forensic-DNA analysis should look like.
Me - I think Marasca/Bruno nailed the issue as to why both Massei and Nencini were defective judgments. As such Section 5 of the ISC was full value for exonerating the kids.
Instead of simply declaring your opposition, it would be nice if you actually quoted what you found so offensive.
Its MR is weak and defective. It errs in numerous legal ways.
It's laughable that you'd claim this, given that it is you who endlessly quote from it when you cherry-pick sentences out of context.
However, you still owe this thread at least one forensic-DNA expert who agrees with Stefanoni's work. No wonder Nencini was stuck with his own ignorance of expert things...... he couldn't think of one either.
