Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

Status
Not open for further replies.
Numbers said:
....
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.
....
Click to expand...

For reasons unknown to me, the Codice penale is not one of the 23 Codici (codes) listed on the CSC Normattiva site. Go figure.

If a reader here is interested in some good reading (in Italian) of the Codice penale, I recommend this site:

http://www.altalex.com/documents/codici-altalex/2014/10/30/codice-penale

which states (Google translated):

We publish the consolidated text of the revised penal code, most recently, with the changes, most recently, by Law 28 July 2016, n. 153, by Law 29 October 2016, n. 199 and Legislative Decree no. 29 October 2016, n. 202.
__
There are at least 734 articles in the Codice penale (there are actually more than 734, because the Italian practice is to sometimes squeeze in additional articles as [NUMBER]-bis (bis means "second") and so forth).

Examples of interesting CP articles are CP Art. 368 Calunnia and CP Art. 375 Frode in processo penale e depistaggio [Fraud and Misdirection in the Criminal Trial and/or Investigative Process]. CP Art. 375 was enacted by a law passed 11 July 2016.

Here's a translation of CP Article 375:

Unless the fact (of the crime) constitutes a more serious offense, the following acts are punished with imprisonment of from three to eight years: the public official or the person providing a public service, in order to prevent, obstruct or divert the criminal investigation or process: a) artificially changes the material evidence, or the state of the places, things or persons connected with the crime; b) being required by judicial authorities or the judicial police to provide information in a criminal case, falsely states or denies the truth, or remains silent, in whole or in part, about what he knows about the facts of the case. If the fact (of the crime) is committed by destruction, suppression, concealment, damage, in whole or in part, or fabrication or artificial alteration, in whole or in part, of a document or an object to be used as evidence or in any case is useful to the discovery of the crime or its investigation, punishment shall be increased by a third to half. ...
____

I would like to believe that CP Art. 375 was enacted as the response of the Italian parliament to the actions of the police and prosecution in the Knox - Sollecito case and any similar cases in Italy.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
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. :/
Click to expand...

OK you have referenced the kidney thing. I think the leaflet is wrong. Glomerular filtration is about 100ml/min that is about 144 l/day. So I can see that if you considered each kidney separately and took the blood volume as 5 l then you could get a value of 14 / day / kidney. However, about 40% of the blood is cells and is not filtrable, so you need to consider plasma volume (3l), so the correct value should be each kidney filters the (entire volume of) blood 24 times day.

you are talking about phenolic compounds in foods, viewed as antioxidants, looking at 'health' web sites they (incorrectly) refer to phenol. The problem is the 'misuse' of technical terms. Not everything on the web is correct and even information leaflets can be wrong.
 
Stacyhs said:
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?
Click to expand...

Pasquali built a window, found a stone of equivalent mass and density and threw it from appropriate distance and height proving that it would have the effect of breaking the window and distributing glass fragments as found. So we know the throw as described is possible.
 
Planigale said:
Pasquali built a window, found a stone of equivalent mass and density and threw it from appropriate distance and height proving that it would have the effect of breaking the window and distributing glass fragments as found. So we know the throw as described is possible.
Click to expand...

Yes.

And the prosecution never showed how their theory of the "staged" break-in window breakage was possible or consistent with the glass fragment distribution or the fracture pattern of the window glass. The prosecution presented no objective evidence of a staged break-in.
 
Last edited:
Planigale said:
Pasquali built a window, found a stone of equivalent mass and density and threw it from appropriate distance and height proving that it would have the effect of breaking the window and distributing glass fragments as found. So we know the throw as described is possible.
Click to expand...

If Amanda and Raffaele are guilty why is that they wanted the evidence tested but the prosecution opposed testing the evidence.
 
Planigale said:
OK you have referenced the kidney thing. I think the leaflet is wrong. Glomerular filtration is about 100ml/min that is about 144 l/day. So I can see that if you considered each kidney separately and took the blood volume as 5 l then you could get a value of 14 / day / kidney. However, about 40% of the blood is cells and is not filtrable, so you need to consider plasma volume (3l), so the correct value should be each kidney filters the (entire volume of) blood 24 times day.

you are talking about phenolic compounds in foods, viewed as antioxidants, looking at 'health' web sites they (incorrectly) refer to phenol. The problem is the 'misuse' of technical terms. Not everything on the web is correct and even information leaflets can be wrong.
Click to expand...

I suggest you get in touch with Kidney Research UK Org https://www.kidneyresearchuk.org/about-us/our-people to point out the error of their ways. I am sure they will appreciate it as misconceptions can continue unnoticed unless someone points it out.

Re the food and nutrition industry, terms like 'iron', Vitamin A, B, C, D, E K, etc., 'phenols' / 'polyphenols' are simply consumer friendly terms, which everybody understands.

I have medics in the family who will use long medical terms to explain they have cramp in their leg or a common cold, as an amusing in-joke. I see no need for snobbery.

How many consumers are going to recognise the following terms in bold, which make up the constituent parts of phenols in grapes:

Purple grape juice contained the largest number of individual phenolic compounds and also the highest concentration of total phenolics. The main components were flavan-3-ols, anthocyanins, and hydroxycinnamates, which accounted for 93% of the total phenolic content.
Click to expand...
 
Numbers said:
Yes.

And the prosecution never showed how their theory of the "staged" break-in window breakage was possible or consistent with the glass fragment distribution or the fracture pattern of the window glass. The prosecution presented no objective evidence of a staged break-in.
Click to expand...

You cannot prove a negative. In any case, even if the rock did come from the outside, that doesn't preclude staging.

The court was satisfied that the prosecution forensic trajectory experts showed that the rock in all probability beyond reasonable doubt was thrown from inside the room, based on factors such as angle, resting place, distribution of glass and estimated velocity.
 
Welshman said:
If Amanda and Raffaele are guilty why is that they wanted the evidence tested but the prosecution opposed testing the evidence.
Click to expand...

In a law court trial, the level of proof needed is simply man-in-the-street common sense, unlike an academic research paper. It simply is not reasonable to expect some defendants should have to be given higher significance levels than others.
 
(Philosophical) Burden of proof:

In epistemology, the burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi (shorthand for Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant {evidence or proof} for their position.

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.

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

Legal burden of proof in Italy:

CPP 533 Conviction of the accused person
1. The judge shall deliver a judgment of conviction if the accused is proven to be guilty of the alleged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. ...

CPP 192 Evaluation of evidence
1. The judge shall evaluate evidence specifying the results and reached and the criteria adopted in the grounds of the judgment.
2. The existence of a fact cannot be inferred from circumstantial evidence unless such evidence is serious, precise and consistent.....
____

Role of the CSC:

CPP Article 606 Cases of appeal to the Court of Cassation

1. The appeal to the CSC may be lodged if it based on the following arguments:
....

(E) the grounds of the judgment* are lacking, contradictory or manifestly illogical, when the defect results from the text of the appealed decision or from other documents of the proceedings specified in the arguments for the appeal to the CSC.

*The evidence and the evaluation of evidence are necessarily parts of the "grounds for judgment in accordance with CPP Article 192.2.

____
The claim that the break-in was staged is a positive claim, not a negative one.

To be at all credible, it should have been proven by the presentation of evidence in court. No such objective evidence was presented by the prosecution; that is, the claim of a staged break-in was presented as a conclusory statement - consisting of an assertion for which no supporting evidence is offered. In fact, the claim of a staged break-in was refuted by the objective evidence presented by the defense.
 
Last edited:
Numbers said:
(Philosophical) Burden of proof:

In epistemology, the burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi (shorthand for Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant {evidence or proof} for their position.

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.

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

Legal burden of proof in Italy:

CPP 533 Conviction of the accused person
1. The judge shall deliver a judgment of conviction if the accused is proven to be guilty of the alleged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. ...

CPP 192 Evaluation of evidence
1. The judge shall evaluate evidence specifying the results and reached and the criteria adopted in the grounds of the judgment.
2. The existence of a fact cannot be inferred from circumstantial evidence unless such evidence is serious, precise and consistent.....
____

Role of the CSC:

CPP Article 606 Cases of appeal to the Court of Cassation

1. The appeal to the CSC may be lodged if it based on the following arguments:
....

(E) the grounds of the judgment* are lacking, contradictory or manifestly illogical, when the defect results from the text of the appealed decision or from other documents of the proceedings specified in the arguments for the appeal to the CSC.

*The evidence and the evaluation of evidence are necessarily parts of the "grounds for judgment in accordance with CPP Article 192.2.

____
The claim that the break-in was staged is a positive claim, not a negative one.

To be at all credible, it should have been proven by the presentation of evidence in court. No such objective evidence was presented by the prosecution; that is, the claim of a staged break-in was presented as a conclusory statement - consisting of an assertion for which no supporting evidence is offered. In fact, the claim of a staged break-in was refuted by the objective evidence presented by the defense.
Click to expand...

Corr:

Crook Hellmann claimed Rudy did it. However, the dodgy Marasca-Bruno Supreme Court upheld the burglary was a staged scene.

There are no two ways about it. No amount of sophistry will help.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
You cannot prove a negative. In any case, even if the rock did come from the outside, that doesn't preclude staging.

The court was satisfied that the prosecution forensic trajectory experts showed that the rock in all probability beyond reasonable doubt was thrown from inside the room, based on factors such as angle, resting place, distribution of glass and estimated velocity.
Click to expand...

Anytime you bring up the rock being thrown inside, I'm going to post this image:

UojNsnx.jpg


Until you have the guts to stand by your word and quote it back saying "Yes, that is a roughly made but more or less accurate illustration of what I believe occurred."
 
Vixen said:
In a law court trial, the level of proof needed is simply man-in-the-street common sense, unlike an academic research paper. It simply is not reasonable to expect some defendants should have to be given higher significance levels than others.
Click to expand...


I find that these two sentences woefully define the poster and his/her arguments . . . . .
 
Question: Where does this "28mph" velocity for the rock come from? If it's anything to do with Pasquali's work, I can't see this number mentioned in his report from a quick skim.

Anyone?
 
LondonJohn said:
Question: Where does this "28mph" velocity for the rock come from? If it's anything to do with Pasquali's work, I can't see this number mentioned in his report from a quick skim.

Anyone?
Click to expand...

Better than Dr Tesla's 100 mph (if you remember him before he got banned for being even too annoying for this thread)

BTW since Vixen wont quote my image and agree with it, I will take that as a concession that the rock was thrown from outside. Otherwise there should be no reason not to take confident pride in the visual representation of the very theory one claims to believe. I guess even some PGP have their limits on what they can admit with a straight face.
 
LondonJohn said:
Question: Where does this "28mph" velocity for the rock come from? If it's anything to do with Pasquali's work, I can't see this number mentioned in his report from a quick skim.

Anyone?
Click to expand...

Like most of Vixen's factoids lit is pull straight out of thin air.
 
bagels said:
Anytime you bring up the rock being thrown inside, I'm going to post this image:

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/UojNsnx.jpg[/qimg]

Until you have the guts to stand by your word and quote it back saying "Yes, that is a roughly made but more or less accurate illustration of what I believe occurred."
Click to expand...

It's not accurate at all, for at the crime scene, there was an inner shutter behind the window pane. No glass was found outside. If thrown from outside, the impact on the window/shutter (assuming it can get through the gap of the outter shutters, which Massei accept it could not have) would be weight of the object times distance travelled, which is say, 10lb x six feet (72")= 720lbs (kinetic energy) divided by the distance it comes to a halt. Now it would have come to a stop almost immediately, say a generous 0.08inches, to give an impact of 9,000lb.

Such a force would surely cause it to fall directly to the ground below, or at least bounce off the window sill.

You appear to be saying the rock flew straight through the window, regardless of air resistance to such a heavy object, to land roughyl six feet away, under a chair. I would say, that the law of gravity means it should have immediately gone into freefall downwards on impact with the window and shutter. Did it bounce and then roll? It did chip. However, it was in the shape not dissimilar to a discarded paving stone, so would not have rolled at all, or even bounced, given it was some kind of sandstone, limestone or granite - an extremely heavy substance.

We note the shard of glass embedded in the shutter that lies immediately behind the pane. This shows it could only have been thrown from inside the room (not to mention the room was ransacked BEFORE the window was smashed, as glass was on top of the clothes, which had been strewn about pretty half-heartedly).

Doubtless, it was placed under the chair by the stager/s, as it should have fallen directly beneath the shutter on impact (being a dead weight and meeting resistance). Obviously, if it was immediately below the pane, it would have been clear to anyone it had been thrown with the window already in that (opened) angle, so whoever, moved the rock under the chair, where it was half inside a bag, so maybe it was picked up by means of the bag to avoid fingerprinting it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom