Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chieffi 2013 ruled only on the legal direction Hellmann gave (or didn't give) to Vecchiotti.

As you say, {1} the ISC does not rule on the merits of the evidence. {2} You contradict yourself.

While {2} is correct, {1} is not accurate.

Every CSC review of an appeal may review the evidence as documented in the appealed judgment and how that evidence was evaluated as documented in the appealed judgment when those are among the "grounds of the judgment" that have been appealed.

And the evidence and how it was evaluated within the appealed decision are only reviewed by the CSC within the context of "the grounds of the judgment {which necessarily includes the evidence and the way the evidence was evaluated} being lacking, contradictory or manifestly illogical."

As an appeal court, the CSC does not admit new evidence - it may examine evidence as recorded in the documents of the appealed judgment. If a CSC panel believes that there is new evidence to be considered, it will refer the case to a second-level court. Although called "appeal" courts, the second-level courts are legally permitted to consider cases de novo or admit new evidence.

Previous rulings of the CSC (what would be considered case-law in common law jurisdictions) and published academic articles in law or science are not considered new evidence and may be included in a motivation report of a CSC panel to justify the reasoning of a judgment.
 
Last edited:
ENSFI Standards apply only to ENFSI members and a criterion for membership is you need to be a stipulated EUROPEAN country.

How do I function on a daily basis? Obviously being an accountant, I am of the same ilk as the Ben Affleck character in the film of the same name ('The Accountant', 2016), which must be, high on the asperger scale. This shows in that I only warm to prime numbers, otherwise I go into a strop. For example, a locker chosen in whcih to leave my belongings at the British Library must be a three-digit prime number.

Morning starts with a handful of red or black grapes (for their phenol content, supposedly good for kidney health; did you know your kidneys circulate your entire blood stream forty times a day), tomato juice with either two slices of lemon or a dash of Worcester sauce and salt, an orange or clementine, (to get the daily Vitamin C out of the way), a handful of mixed roast nuts, a calcium tablet with vitamin D, methylated vitamin B12 and B2 and Methylated follate to deal with the MTHFR mutation discovered in my DNA. DNA haplotype U5 is wonderful in the prime number respect, although my subclade U5a2a, is ahem, well, two is a wonderful number, too. A cafetiere of coffee, which must be arabica, preferably either Kenyan or Columbian, although robusta is great for espresso, preferably Lavassa is imbibed mornings only.

Then I will walk to work, exactly 5,237 steps, in precisely 27.5 minutes in a leafy conservation area with near zero traffic

Work will be memorising pi to 193 digits in quiet moments, liaising with numerous persons, preparing endless spreadsheets, computing figures and designing fancy pivot tables, whilst juggling seven (!) balls in the air.

Lunch is usually a smoked salmon bagel with cream cheese, a squeeze of lemon and a peck of black pepper, or leftovers from a previous evening or weekend meal.

Afternoon will be tea, together the correct ritual of using loose leaf top drawer quality only (no teabags nonsense) with the correct paraphenalia, such as a dainty bone china jug for the milk and proper tea cup, saucer and teaspoons, which ought to be shared by at least two persons, as in, 'tea for two'. If there are any social or networking functions, I hover by the door, ready to escape when no-one is looking.

Evenings will involve a freshly cooked meal usually involving items from the following group: onions, garlic, green pepper, quorn, kidney beans, lentils, peas, new potatoes, fresh salmon or other choice fish (but not prawns, due to an unpleasant allergy), pasta, rice, soup and to satisfy my ancient hunter-gatherer, pre-farmer DNA, a choice cut of sirloin steak now and again. Not all of them all at once. (Did you know, peas are fruit, grapes are berries and peanuts are legumes, not nuts?) If any wine is drunk, it must be high end and of a grape of a certain year. Thankfully, as this tends to be expensive, I don't get to drink a lot, mainly as I believe it to be a waste of money.

Whenever I go on a flight, I must have a proper airline meal and a glass of bubbly. This dates back to when I had a fear of flying. Now I have grown to enjoy it. However, the bubbly remains a fond habit, although it is no longer free.

In my spare time, like the Ben Affleck's character, I spend my time obsessively hunting down money launderers and tax dodgers and have a penchant for works of art, chamber music and ballet. As a barely functioning individual, I struggle to draw intricate pencil sketches of St Pancras Station in complex linear detail or compose symphony orchestral music to the level of Nigel Kennedy. Indeed, from my knowledge of how 'European' differs from 'International' it is clear it is a great struggle for me to get through any day...How do I function...?

We-eeeell.

I cannot be bothered to deal with most of the nonsense you post but I had to laugh at this one.

Do you really think you can post this nonsense here without people knowing? It may be a 'big' word to you, but people here know what phenol is and how toxic it is.

For some one who claims some sort of mathematical competency you have no sense of numbers. Renal blood flow about 1l / min, circulating volume about 5l. So kidneys filter the blood about 288 times / day. You'd need to be a sloth to have a metabolism as slow as you claim.

Still this is the accountant who does not understand the difference between VAT exempt and zero rated goods.
 
I cannot be bothered to deal with most of the nonsense you post but I had to laugh at this one.

Do you really think you can post this nonsense here without people knowing? It may be a 'big' word to you, but people here know what phenol is and how toxic it is.

For some one who claims some sort of mathematical competency you have no sense of numbers. Renal blood flow about 1l / min, circulating volume about 5l. So kidneys filter the blood about 288 times / day. You'd need to be a sloth to have a metabolism as slow as you claim.

Still this is the accountant who does not understand the difference between VAT exempt and zero rated goods.

Obviously, I was referring to the phenols in fruit and vegetables.

I did say 'the entire blood stream'.

"They clean all your blood 40 times
per day. They also regulate your
blood pressure." http://www.kidneyresearchuk.org/file/health-information/Are-your-kidneys-ok-leaflet.pdf

Claim you. Tell me about flat rate VAT or TOMS. Or is basic VAT the sum of your knowledge?


BTW I don't claim any particular competency. Spot the tongue in cheek. :/
 
"Expungment" legal definition:

Expungement is the process of legally destroying, obliterating or striking out records or information in files, computers and other depositories relating to criminal charges. State laws, which vary by state, govern the expungement of criminal records. The records cannot be accessed for general law enforcement or civil use. An expunged record may usually not be considered by any private or public entity in employment matters, certification, licensing, revocation of certification or licensure, or registration. However, some states allow expunged records to be accessed for employment or licensing in certain sensitive positions, such as law enforcement or work involving children or elderly persons.

Source: http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/criminal-law-and-procedure-expungement/

In the common law legal system, an expungement proceeding is a type of lawsuit in which a first time offender of a prior criminal conviction seeks that the records of that earlier process be sealed, making the records unavailable through the state or Federal repositories. If successful, the records are said to be "expunged". Black's Law Dictionary defines "expungement of record" as the "Process by which record of criminal conviction is destroyed or sealed from the state or Federal repository."[1] While expungement deals with an underlying criminal record, it is a civil action in which the subject is the petitioner or plaintiff asking a court to declare that the records be expunged.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expungement

Obviously, no Italian court has "expunged" any report from any expert.

In Italy, revision trials are used to revise (reverse) wrongful convictions; such revisions produce acquittals or other dismissals.

Obviously, I was using the colloquial term. But fair enough. Speaking of legal bods, I guess it helps to use the correct jargon.
 
The Nencini, Chieffi, Hellmann, and Massei motivation reports are of historical interest and reviewable by a potential Italian revision court (which by Italian procedural law, can only revise convictions) or by the ECHR in a case alleging violations of the European Convention on Human Rights relating to those documents.

Thus, whether the Nencini MR recognized that international protocols were not followed is not as relevant as the fact that the Marasca CSC panel MR, in its final and definitive acquittal, adopted, based upon the position of the Conti - Vecchiotti report, other reports (including the Berti - Berni report) and expert opinions, and prior CSC judgments, that international standards or protocols for the repeatability and reliability of scientific data introduced into evidence must be followed for a fact to be inferred from that data.

ETA: As an imperfect analogy, the Nencini motivation report has the same status in Italy and the Council of Europe States as the US Supreme Court's Dred Scott opinion (1857) has in the US. Historical reviews can reveal the errors and arbitrary reasoning in such judgments, and how they compare to current law, or how they reflect the biases of their authors and times, but they have been supplanted as law. The Dred Scott decision was supplanted by the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the US Constitution; the Nencini decision by the Marasca CSC panel final and definitive acquittal. A difference is that the ECHR of the Council of Europe can use the Nencini motivation report as evidence in any case brought by Knox or Sollecito alleging that Italy violated rights listed in the European Convention of Human Rights in their trials.


I disagree. Not even the Supreme Court has carte blanche to apply the law in whatever way it wishes. Under the Italian Penal Code in respect of serious crime, any dispute about evidence shall be remitted back to the merits court. Marasca acted illegally. It simply did not have the authority to retry the case on paper.
 
While {2} is correct, {1} is not accurate.

Every CSC review of an appeal may review the evidence as documented in the appealed judgment and how that evidence was evaluated as documented in the appealed judgment when those are among the "grounds of the judgment" that have been appealed.

And the evidence and how it was evaluated within the appealed decision are only reviewed by the CSC within the context of "the grounds of the judgment {which necessarily includes the evidence and the way the evidence was evaluated} being lacking, contradictory or manifestly illogical."

As an appeal court, the CSC does not admit new evidence - it may examine evidence as recorded in the documents of the appealed judgment. If a CSC panel believes that there is new evidence to be considered, it will refer the case to a second-level court. Although called "appeal" courts, the second-level courts are legally permitted to consider cases de novo or admit new evidence.

Previous rulings of the CSC (what would be considered case-law in common law jurisdictions) and published academic articles in law or science are not considered new evidence and may be included in a motivation report of a CSC panel to justify the reasoning of a judgment.

And what is lacking, contradictory or manifestly illogical in the Marasca judgment is that a sister Chambers of the Supreme Court ruled the Hellmann judgment was lacking, contradictory or manifestly illogical for the very reason of Vecchiotti & Conti serious shortfalls in the presentation of the report to the Nencini court.

It was outside its remit to overrule the Chieffi Court. If it had a problem with the genetic evidence, it ought legally have remitted it back to the appeal court.
 
Again, just to be absolutely clear:

The Conti - Vecchiotti report remains part of the documented legal record of the Knox - Sollecito trials.

The Chieffi CSC panel motivation report took issue with some of the interpretations of the Conti - Vecchiotti report by the Hellmann court; the Chieffi MR preferred certain other alleged expert statements and relied on interpretations of those statements.

The Chieffi MR also criticized the Conti - Vecchiotti effort for not DNA profiling one sample - 36(I) - that was detected by them on the knife blade. C - V indicated that there laboratory was not equipped to test such a small (LCN DNA) sample. This sample was later tested, as part of the Nencini trial, by Berti and Berni, experts with the Carabinieri Scientific Lab. Berti and Berni were able to obtain LCN DNA profiles in duplicate from the sample and produced a full report, including raw DNA data, which was provided to the court and to the defense. This sample 36(I) was totally excuplatory - with identifiable alleles consisting solely of Knox's DNA.

The Marasca CSC panel MR points out the contrast of the compliance with international protocols of the Berti - Berni effort with that of Stefanoni.

The Marasca MR also includes the following statement about the DNA evidence collection:

"In this regard it suffices to consider the methods of collection and storage of the two objects of major investigative interest in the current judgment: the kitchen knife (exhibit n. 36) and the bra clasp fastener of the victim (exhibit n. 165/b), for which the sentence {the Nencini court motivation report} did not hesitate to qualify the work of the investigators in terms of lack of professionalism (f. 207)."
 
False statement about Italian law: Under the Italian Penal Code in respect of serious crime, any dispute about evidence shall be remitted back to the merits court.
The Italian Penal Code has no such laws about procedure; it is entirely a list of crimes, defining their elements and their punishments on conviction. All laws about procedure are in the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP).

The CSC is entitled by law to make a judgment without referral when it believes that a referral is superfluous according to CPP Article 620.1(L).

The CSC is governed in the cases it reviews by CPP Articles 606 and 609, as I have previously posted. The Chieffi and Marasca CSC panels followed those procedural laws.

The Chieffi CSC panel violated other procedural and Constitutional laws and arbitrarily interpreted scientific facts, thereby harming a person's rights, in its motivation report. These violations may be considered violations of the Convention.

ETA: It should also be pointed out that the Marasca CSC panel reviewed the Nencini court judgment, not the Chieffi CSC panel motivation report. However, the Marasca panel did point out one violation of procedural and Constitutional law within the Chieffi MR, since the Nencini court incorporated it into its MR. That is, the use to convict Knox and Sollecito of statements by Guede, although Guede by his own legitimate option choose not to be examined by the defense. This is a violation of the Italian Constitution, Article 111:

The guilt of the defendant cannot be established on the basis of statements by persons who, out of their own free choice, have always voluntarily avoided undergoing cross-examination by the defendant or the defence counsel.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. Not even the Supreme Court has carte blanche to apply the law in whatever way it wishes. Under the Italian Penal Code in respect of serious crime, any dispute about evidence shall be remitted back to the merits court. Marasca acted illegally. It simply did not have the authority to retry the case on paper.

I remember when the PIP kept saying in 2013/2014 that Chieffi acted illegally in annulling Hellmann because the Chieffi court re-examined the evidence and overturned the acquittal for no other reason than they disagreed with the Hellmann court's findings, rather than any actual significant procedural violation supporting an annulment.

The PGP didn't care that the ISC was acting as its own out of control personal trial de novo deciding a case that went through a yearlong trial in a couple hours in their chambers, throwing in their own opinion on each and every item of evidence they re-interpreted.

Well you know what they say, what goes around comes around. Welcome to Italy :p
 
False statement about Italian law: Under the Italian Penal Code in respect of serious crime, any dispute about evidence shall be remitted back to the merits court.
The Italian Penal Code has no such laws about procedure; it is entirely a list of crimes, defining their elements and their punishments on conviction. All laws about procedure are in the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP).

The CSC is entitled by law to make a judgment without referral when it believes that a referral is superfluous according to CPP Article 620.1(L).

The CSC is governed in the cases it reviews by CPP Articles 606 and 609, as I have previously posted. The Chieffi and Marasca CSC panels followed those procedural laws.

The Chieffi CSC panel violated other procedural and Constitutional laws and arbitrarily interpreted scientific facts, thereby harming a person's rights, in its motivation report. These violations may be considered violations of the Convention.


Of course materiality is important. However, you can hardly argue that the issue about the DNA evidience was immaterial. Things such as typos or minor oversights can be ignored as immaterial to the overall verdict. There is no way the DNA of the knife and bra clasp falls under that category.

I saw the Penal Code section myself. Yes, the process of a court is governed by court procedural practice rules, rather than by statute, hence the term 'Code'.

The Fifth Chambers simply did not have the jurisdiction to acquit the pair because:

(a) the dispute about the quality of the evidence should have been referred back to the merits courts, with clear directions.

(b) it was not a matter of trivial materiality.

(c) Several of the appeal points allowed were res judicata. For example, Tagliabracca, defence scientific expert, being allowed to argue the investigation was 'suspect-centric' when it had already been argued in a previous appeal and failed.

(d) There is zero case law in a murder defendant being found guilty by two merits court and then being acquitted without remission back to the trial court. The closest are political trials. For example, Berlusconi succeeded in a para II 'not guilty due to insufficient evidence', and it later transpired the agent of his acquittal himself gave corrupt evidence to bring about the acquittal. The other is Andreotti, a then prominent Italian Statesman who at least had been found 'Not guilty' by the first instance trial court. It is unprecedented.
 
Last edited:
So funny :D We went through this exact charade in 2013, except the roles were in reverse with the PIP on the defensive after a horrid ISC decision.

A PIP post back in 2013, impotently wailing against the ISC for overstepping their authority:

The point is that the SC also issued a motivations report, which set out the "reasons" behind their decisions. Contrary to your assertions, it does not contain any legal criticism of H-Z, but instead engages in challenging their interpretation of the evidence and findings of fact. This is not their role to do - and indeed, it makes a mockery of the trial process as the SC hearing cannot possibly establish facts (in contradiction of an actual fact-finding trial), in a hearing lasting a single day and without hearing any witnesses.

The joyous PGP waving off the criticisms and saying the ISC can do what it wants:

The context for me is the ruling of the Supreme Court, there will be a new trial so it is not a personal opinion or assertion as you put it but a simple fact of events.

Clearly the Supreme Court had a different interpretation of its role than the one you posted.

The joke is on us for ever taking this nation's judicial system seriously :p
 
I remember when the PIP kept saying in 2013/2014 that Chieffi acted illegally in annulling Hellmann because the Chieffi court re-examined the evidence and overturned the acquittal for no other reason than they disagreed with the Hellmann court's findings, rather than any actual significant procedural violation supporting an annulment.

The PGP didn't care that the ISC was acting as its own out of control personal trial de novo deciding a case that went through a yearlong trial in a couple hours in their chambers, throwing in their own opinion on each and every item of evidence they re-interpreted.

Well you know what they say, what goes around comes around. Welcome to Italy :p

I remember this claim of at least some of the PIP that the Chieffi CSC panel had exceeded its lawful authority by examining the evidence. That, of course, was not correct. On the other hand, the conclusions that the Chieffi CSC panel drew were indeed incorrect and based on arbitrary reasoning on the science and other factors, as well as other procedural and Constitutional violations.
 
I remember when the PIP kept saying in 2013/2014 that Chieffi acted illegally in annulling Hellmann because the Chieffi court re-examined the evidence and overturned the acquittal for no other reason than they disagreed with the Hellmann court's findings, rather than any actual significant procedural violation supporting an annulment.

The PGP didn't care that the ISC was acting as its own out of control personal trial de novo deciding a case that went through a yearlong trial in a couple hours in their chambers, throwing in their own opinion on each and every item of evidence they re-interpreted.

Well you know what they say, what goes around comes around. Welcome to Italy :p

Chieffi correctly sent it back down, although he took it out of Umbria and Hellmann's hands and into Tuscany instead with a completely different judge, Nencini, at Florence, whom we can be sure was a superior sort.
 
Er, let me get this right. You are claiming a 'rock' travelling at 28 mph came in through the shuttered window from 12'4" below, or even from 6'6" from across the car park, with the restriction of a shoulder high railing, in full view of passing traffic...?

Just to help you get this straight...it was between 8:30 and 9:00 PM and well after dark on a holiday. Cars have these things called "headlights" that allow them to be seen easily. Guede could see if any cars were coming from the only direction that would be able to see him. Using his genius mentality, he concluded that, if he waited until no cars were coming, he would not be seen. How he figured that out can only be credited to having incredible reasoning powers.

He didn't throw it from below but from across from the parking area for the logical reasons discussed earlier. Ballistic expert Francesco Pasquali's testimony on how the glass was broken:

"I would say that on the basis of these results, which appear to us rather explanatory of the behavior of… of what we found on the site and what was documented by the State Police, we have formed the conviction that the rock was thrown from the outside towards the inside, and in particular we conclude, to put it this way, that there are sufficient and proven grounds to believe that the position of the broken glass discovered on the floor, which is to give a precise response to the query posed, that the broken glass found on the floor inside Filomena Romanelli’s room and on the windowsill of the window of the same, is attributable to the throwing, from the outside towards the inside, of the rock (inaudible) discovered. These are our conclusions."

The prosecution presented no expert testimony as to how the glass was broken nor did the run any experiments to test it. What does that suggest to you?
 
Chocolate? Did someone say chocolate...?

A Day in the Life of an Imaginary PIP

Awakes to the household sounds of Mom and Dad pottering around getting ready for work. Head pounds, vaguely remembers the night before, hauling himself out of the basement, through the screen door, and then down the porch steps, di Caprio-style, on his stomach, and goodness knows how he managed it, into the car. He had to drive very slowly with one eye shut – the bourbon shots from Dad’s drinks cabinet had given him double vision – managed to get a Big Mac and fries and back home, before the gas ran out.

With one eye, he looks at the time in the bottom right hand corner: 7:20 am and his half-completed tweet under the name ‘@Mad_Dog’ in response to a PGP who’d accused him of not having,’read the court documents’.

‘The kids are innocent!...’ He has written in the most witty way he knows how. He racks his still sleepy brain trying to think of a counter argument and not be levelled with the response, ‘Simpleton!’

But it’s all too much. There are marks on his forehead from where he dropped off to sleep with his head buried on his keyboard, discarded Macdonald wrappers surrounding him and a half eaten pizza slice in the drawer with something green growing on it.

Mom pops her head around the door, ‘There’s some toast and marmalade for you on the breakfast table – ‘

Stops in her tracks. ‘Darling, you look terrible! When is the last time you went out into the sunshine -?’

‘Mom, don’t nag, I am on a valuable mission –‘

‘Son, you are 44 and you used to have such a promising career in the FBI –‘

‘Mom, this is my career: a keyboard warrior. I am protecting truth , justice and, er, the American way from foreigners in a country smaller than the entire state of Californ-i-a. I am helping to make America great again.’

Mom backs out of the room. Dad can be heard hollering in the background, ‘Take out the papers and the trash, or you don’t get no spending cash…’

Our hero blots it all out, until at last the door slams for the last time as everyone else in the house heads for work. Problem with regularly being woken up with just three hour sleep is being unable to give a clever reply to the likes of the PGP without being held up to ridicule.

Browsing, he comes across a tweet, ‘#AmandaKnox accused an innocent man’.

He maximises his Marriott crib sheet page and scrolls down until he gets to PR factoid #101: 'Of course she did, she was interrogated 53 hours without sleep, food or drink, was slapped about the head by police tag teams of twelve, who changed every hour on the hour, especially dispatched from the Rome elite torture squads, designed to breakdown homely virginal Apple-Pie American girls.’

A notification flashes up onscreen: an email has arrived from ‘Supertanker HQ’ marked, ‘Top Secret’ ‘For Your Eyes Only’. Our hero feels a rush of adrenaline race through his body. They are instructions for the day:

• ‘Damage limitation: There is a positive review for John Follain’s book – all warriors to down mark it and write arguments against in the comments section.

• A few more glowing reviews for ‘Waiting to be Heard’ needed.

• A few more guilters and haters spotted.

• Action plan: Agent 007 to investigate their backgrounds and expose them.

• Agent Zit to write wordpress article defaming hater ‘Harry Rag'. Oh, and keep up the "What a POS Nick Pisa is" twitter campaign.'

It’s all in a day’s work for our hero. He sends a DM to Agent 007 who lives in New Zealand and calls herself @Moana. Her avatar is a fierce-looking seagxxxx albatross, and chuckles to himself. ‘That’ll wind’em up.’

A good thing about the folks waking him up early, means he gets to have an egg and sausage McMuffin before they stop serving breakfast. With a bit of luck, his welfare check will turn up in the post soon. He climbs out of the basement, wading through the empty wrappers and coke tins, to keep watch for the postman. He keeps forgetting to bow before the picture of the kids he has pinned up on his door.

‘Who turned on the sun,’ he blinks, as he stumbles out of the darkness. Aha! He’s got it. That’s what he’ll respond to that hater. ‘Rudy did it alone!’ Heh.


Onwards and upwards.

The fact that you would spend the amount of time it took to write this nonsense (that I doubt anyone even bothered to read) indicates you really need to get a life outside ISF.
 
While {2} is correct, {1} is not accurate.

Every CSC review of an appeal may review the evidence as documented in the appealed judgment and how that evidence was evaluated as documented in the appealed judgment when those are among the "grounds of the judgment" that have been appealed.

And the evidence and how it was evaluated within the appealed decision are only reviewed by the CSC within the context of "the grounds of the judgment {which necessarily includes the evidence and the way the evidence was evaluated} being lacking, contradictory or manifestly illogical."

As an appeal court, the CSC does not admit new evidence - it may examine evidence as recorded in the documents of the appealed judgment. If a CSC panel believes that there is new evidence to be considered, it will refer the case to a second-level court. Although called "appeal" courts, the second-level courts are legally permitted to consider cases de novo or admit new evidence.

Previous rulings of the CSC (what would be considered case-law in common law jurisdictions) and published academic articles in law or science are not considered new evidence and may be included in a motivation report of a CSC panel to justify the reasoning of a judgment.

I believe you may be right.
 
Chieffi correctly sent it back down, although he took it out of Umbria and Hellmann's hands and into Tuscany instead with a completely different judge, Nencini, at Florence, whom we can be sure was a superior sort.

A PGP agrees Chieffi was correct.

Disagrees M&B were.

Shocking. Just totally unexpected.
 
"I saw the Penal Code section myself. Yes, the process of a court is governed by court procedural practice rules, rather than by statute, hence the term 'Code'."

The above quote is a lovely example of statements that are wrong - that is, false. There is no Penal Code section addressing criminal procedures.

There several different legal codes* in effect in Italy, a "civil law"** jurisdiction.

For the Kercher case and Knox - Sollecito trials, the relevant codes include the following:

Codice penale (Criminal Code, CP)
----- a list of crimes, defined by their elements, and with specified punishments upon conviction

Codice di procedura penale (Code of Criminal Procedure, CPP)
------ a list of legal procedures applicable to police and prosecution conduct of an investigation, criminal trials, civil actions accompanying criminal trials, defendant rights including rights to a defense lawyer, extradition, actions to resolve miscarriages of justice, and so on.

There are over 746 articles in the CPP. For example, there are two CPP Articles, 63 and 64, which state that a suspect under questioning must have a lawyer, and that a witness who becomes a suspect when under questioning must be given the opportunity to have a lawyer.

The CP and the CPP are both based upon laws passed by the Italian parliament. The CPP is not a list of court practice rules.

There is a book, The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation, edited by Mitja Gialuz, Luca Luparia, and Federica Scarpa, Wolters Kluwer Italia (C) 2014, that I recommend to those interested in learning more about Italian criminal procedure.

Italian language (original) versions of the CP and CCP (as well as other codes, such as the codes of civil (tort) law and civil law procedures) may be found online, including at the CSC website:

http://www.cortedicassazione.it/corte-di-cassazione/

The codes are listed under the button labeled "Normattiva". After one clicks on "Normattiva", on the new page one then clicks on the button "Constituzione e Codici" (Constitution and Codes).
______
*"Code" in this context means a list of laws. For example, the "US Code"*** means the list of US Federal laws (statutes).

**"Civil law" here means the law is intended to be entirely based on acts passed by the legislature, and not at all on precedents of earlier court decisions (this latter system, based on precedent, is called "common law" and is the traditional English system; of course, the modern English, American, other "common law" systems rely on both legislative acts and precedent.)

***United States Code

The United States Code is the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States. It is divided by broad subjects into 53 titles and published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives. The U.S. Code was first published in 1926. The next main edition was published in 1934, and subsequent main editions have been published every six years since 1934. In between editions, annual cumulative supplements are published in order to present the most current information.
Source: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionUScode.action?collectionCode=USCODE
 
Last edited:
Just to help you get this straight...it was between 8:30 and 9:00 PM and well after dark on a holiday. Cars have these things called "headlights" that allow them to be seen easily. Guede could see if any cars were coming from the only direction that would be able to see him. Using his genius mentality, he concluded that, if he waited until no cars were coming, he would not be seen. How he figured that out can only be credited to having incredible reasoning powers.

He didn't throw it from below but from across from the parking area for the logical reasons discussed earlier. Ballistic expert Francesco Pasquali's testimony on how the glass was broken:

"I would say that on the basis of these results, which appear to us rather explanatory of the behavior of… of what we found on the site and what was documented by the State Police, we have formed the conviction that the rock was thrown from the outside towards the inside, and in particular we conclude, to put it this way, that there are sufficient and proven grounds to believe that the position of the broken glass discovered on the floor, which is to give a precise response to the query posed, that the broken glass found on the floor inside Filomena Romanelli’s room and on the windowsill of the window of the same, is attributable to the throwing, from the outside towards the inside, of the rock (inaudible) discovered. These are our conclusions."

The prosecution presented no expert testimony as to how the glass was broken nor did the run any experiments to test it. What does that suggest to you?

No, that is not what I am asking. If the 'rock' weighing 9lbs 4oz is thrown from a distance of 6'6", please show me how you calculate (a) it went flying through the window at 28 mph and (b) at what sort of acceleration did it achieve this. Whilst you are busy, perhaps you can tell us the quickest it can take for a car to go from 0 - 28 mph, how much horsepower is needed and the distance travelled in so doing.

You reckon you can do this within six feet?
 
No, that is not what I am asking. If the 'rock' weighing 9lbs 4oz is thrown from a distance of 6'6", please show me how you calculate (a) it went flying through the window at 28 mph and (b) at what sort of acceleration did it achieve this. Whilst you are busy, perhaps you can tell us the quickest it can take for a car to go from 0 - 28 mph, how much horsepower is needed and the distance travelled in so doing.

You reckon you can do this within six feet?

nw9liLe.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom