I don't think I've ever been brow-beaten so much for actually quoting a source!
The best way to muddle-up the Marasca-Bruno report is not to read it. The second best way to do that is to cherry pick points from it and declare those points to be unblemished and absolute truth.........
And then read the context within the report and say that the thing cannot be made sense of. You've managed both!!!!
Vixen - you simply cannot have it both ways.
StacyHS is absolutely correct - the Marasca/Bruno report had to skate within the lines of established judicial truth. But Mike1711 is also absolutely right - they don't necessarily agree with those judicial truths, but they are bound by them.
Once again, you seem to have a reading deficiency; this has been put to you numerous times, yet you default to your stupid talking points. (Which I'm sure you'll do again.)
If you cannot make sense of it, why do you keep quoting from it to make your silly points? (You'll never in a million years answer that question - like you'll never in a million years offer a peer-reviewed forensic-DNA-expert who agrees with Stefanoni!!!)
Once again, read Section 6.2 of Marasca's report and tell us why it is wrong. Quote from it.
Better still, read Luca Cheli's assessment of it. Read Cheli rather than quote from TMOMK fake-wiki which gets the most basic of facts wrong. (Who was it that got out of Amy Frost what Raffaele said? Do you know what hearsay is, Vixen?)
Now to compare and contrast with Marasca's report.
One of the reasons for annulment was:
The sixth reason claims lack of rationale, because there was no consideration of the violation of
the international recommendations on the sampling and examination of traces of small entity and
the interpretation of the results. Also claimed is misrepresentation of the evidence and manifest
illogicality of reasoning on the results of the genetic examinations carried out on the kitchen
knife and also violation of the proof evaluation standards, according to the article 192 of the code
of procedure.
The issue of, "the violation of the international recommendations" is introduced as a completely new topic by it and it is erroneous and misleading to claim this. There was no fact found that this was the case at all.
Marasca states in Section 6.1
6.1 Firstly, the judges’ statement is erroneous that the motive for homicide does not have to be
determined with precision
Clearly, that is nonsense. Many psychopathic murders are entirely motiveless, or for trivial motive (Brian Lee Draper (born in 1990) and Torey Michael Adamcik (born June 14, 1990) - 'Scream' murder; Erin Caffey, 16, had sex with her boyfriend while her mum and little brothers were lying dead in her home;Baldwin, Echols, and Misskelley
At the time of their arrests, Jessie Misskelley, Jr. was 17 years old, Jason Baldwin was 16 years old, and Damien Echols was 18 years old, convicted of killing and sexually assaulting three eight-year old boys; 16-year old Brenda Spencer: "I don't like Mondays", etc ). Intellectually dishonesty by Marasca when Massei already ruled 'futile motive'.
Marasca states, "contingent on verification of the reliability coefficient of the evidences, by way of clarity,
precision and concordance, with analytic and resulting appreciation of these, individually
considered and subsequently placed in a global and unitary perspective..."
"...This, as will be stated below, cannot be confirmed in this case, because of an evidential
compendium which is equivocal and intrinsically contradictory.
Specifically, none of the possible motives in the scenarios of the appealed sentence have been
firmed up in this case.
The sexual motivation attributed to Guede during the separate procedure against him is not
wholesale extensible to the supposed other attackers; for as has been stated before the hypothesis
of a group erotic game has not been demonstrated; it is not possible to presume for each appellant
a shared or combined motive assuming a sharing in the attack. Such an extension would have to
postulate the existence of trusting interpersonal relationships between the appellants, which
within the particular and sudden character of the criminal pact would lend verisimilitude to such
a move.
Now, though the sentimental relationship between Sollecito and Knox was fact, and though the
girl had occasion to know Guede to some extent, there is no proof that Sollecito would have
known or hung out with the Ivorian."
Incredibly poor reasoning, as Marasca knew Rudy asked to be tried separately in the (correct) belief the other two defendants would make a hostile attempt to pin it all on him. Rudy had met Amanda on social occasions. There is no requirement for them all to know each other and in addition, be great friends, in order to commit a crime. The common factor, was drugs, and Amanda, who almost certainly was the one who let Rudy in / invited him around.
Marasca states in Section 6.2
Another error of judgment resides in the supposed irrelevance of the verification of the exact
hour of Kercher’s death, considering sufficient the approximation offered by the examinations,
even if assumed as correct during the trial pohase.
With regards to this, Sollecito’s defense has reasons to appeal, since they signaled the necessity
of a concrete verification specifically in the evidential proceedings, every consequential
implication. Furthermore, the exact determination of the time of Kercher’s death is an
inescapable factual prerequisite for the verification of the alibi offered by the defendant in course
of the investigation aiming to verify the possibility of his claimed presence in the house at via
della Pergola at the time of the homicide. And for this reason an expert verification was
requested.
So, specifically on this point, it is fair to note a despicable carelessness during the preliminary
investigation phase.
Chieffi has already dealt with this issue and dismissed it.
Marasca then states re Time of Death in relation to the phones:
The appellant’s defense has offered, in this regard, a more reliable analysis, backed up by
incontrovertible facts.
From the examination of the telephonic traffic has emerged that, after the departure from her
English friend’s house at 9 PM, the young woman had, in vain, tried to call her parents in
England, like she used to do every day, while a last contact was registered at 10:13 PM, so that
the temporal range has been further reduced to approximately 9:30/10:13 PM.
See the earlier Chieffi quotes wherein it was specifically dismissed that TOD was necessarily 10:13 and upholding Massei and Nencini.
So you see, Marasca not only rides roughshod over the First Chamber Supreme Court, it reverts back to the expunged Hellmann.
