Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[Vixen]

This is the problem with Vixen never giving citations. At most what can be said is that Vixen read on one of the nutcase websites that Vecchiotti hsd ruled out contamination.

Reading the C-V report shows how much they trashed Stefanoni her lab and her work. If I remember they cited the lack of adequate documentation available to tbe court from Stefanoni to tell one way or another about contamination.

But there I am with no citation of my own. So it's up to you.

Not a nutcase website; as if I would condescend to read one of those - it's in Vecchiotti's own testimony. Do read it.

 

[Vixen]

Blah blah blah.

Fresh from misrepresenting Vecchiotti at trial. Someone else provides the citation - no wonder you didn't provide it.

Once again, you quote something as proven with no citation, just an equally stupid assertion from the nutter websites.

I don't frequent nutter websites. I only browse bonafide ones.

It is common knowledge what Vecchiotti testified. If you read the court documents, you wouldn't need to ask me for the sources.

 

[Vixen]

This one is based on this exchange between judge Hellmann and Prof. Vecchiotti during cross examination on September 5th, 2011 (page 79):


Translation:


ETA: This exchange was about the possibility, that 36b could have been the result of contamination, not on contamination in general...

36b is what we are talking about.

 

[Bill Williams]

Not a nutcase website; as if I would condescend to read one of those - it's in Vecchiotti's own testimony. Do read it.

Once again, no citation.

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't frequent nutter websites. I only browse bonafide ones.

It is common knowledge what Vecchiotti testified. If you read the court documents, you wouldn't need to ask me for the sources.

Once again, no citation. Just an assertion of superiority, with a bad track record.

 

[Vixen]

Once again, no citation.

Do see Methos, above. If he knows what the citation is, how come you do not?

It has been discussed often enough.

 

[Vixen]

Once again, no citation. Just an assertion of superiority, with a bad track record.

ibid.

 

[Bill Williams]

ibid.

LOL! If it went well.

 

[toto]

Do see Methos, above. If he knows what the citation is, how come you do not?

It has been discussed often enough.

"If it went well" is not the same as saying there was no contamination.

 

[Bill Williams]

"If it went well" is not the same as saying there was no contamination.

Unless you're reading one of the summaries from one of the nutter websites. TJMK, one of the warring PMFs, or the fake-wiki which, by the way, is not a wiki.

 

[Vixen]

"If it went well" is not the same as saying there was no contamination.

The correct translation is:

President - say if six days seem to be sufficient or not, because there was no risk of contamination, the question is this. Outdated

C. - are sufficient, admitted that it went so.

http://translation.babylon-software.com/italian/to-english/

It was admitted under oath that six days was sufficient to expire any reasonable risk of contamination.

 

[Vixen]

Unless you're reading one of the summaries from one of the nutter websites. TJMK, one of the warring PMFs, or the fake-wiki which, by the way, is not a wiki.

Babylon is an entirely neutral translation site.

It's rather childish to label anyone who disagrees with you or who states facts which contradict your false assertions, 'nutters'.

Come on, Bill. You have a better vocabulary than that.

 

[Methos]

As it presently sits in Italy, when it is left up to the defence to bring forth exculpatory evidence, that is tantamount to the defence accusing the prosecutor of not doing his duty.

In a culture where professional honour is both valued highly and protected through criminal sanction - a defender risks calunnia simply by bringing something to court missed (willfully?) By the prosecutor.

No wonder the convicting courts ripped into folk such as Conti-Vecchiotti. The mere need for the court itself to ask for independent analysis casts a pall on the Court's attitude towards tbe prosecutor.

Marasca-Bruno's motivations report covers this, because despite the legislation you cite, the judge seems also to be expected to be more of an expert than the expert.

That is a very silly assertion. A court of law is a legally privileged context. The prosecutor CANNOT prosecute a barrister for bringing up an issue in an open court. There is no such thing as 'libel' or slander' in a court of law. This is why newspapers love quoting judges and QC. The more scathing and acerbic, the better the headlines.

Yoy are right on one thing this time. "There is no such thing as 'libel' or slander' in a court of law." (Art 598 c.p.):

Art. 598 - Offese in scritti e discorsi pronunciati dinanzi alle autorità giudiziarie o amministrative
Non sono punibili le offese contenute negli scritti presentati o nei discorsi pronunciati dalle parti o dai loro patrocinatori nei procedimenti dinanzi all'autorità giudiziaria, ovvero dinanzi a un'autorità amministrativa, quando le offese concernono l'oggetto della causa o del ricorso amministrativo.Il giudice, pronunciando nella causa, può, oltre ai provvedimenti disciplinari, ordinare la soppressione o la cancellazione, in tutto o in parte, delle scritture offensive, e assegnare alla persona offesa una somma a titolo di risarcimento del danno non patrimoniale. Qualora si tratti di scritture per le quali la soppressione o cancellazione non possa eseguirsi, è fatta sulle medesime annotazione della sentenza.

But there is a solution for this... (Art. 368 c.p.)

In this case the prosecutor did not need to to prosecute "a barrister for bringing up an issue in an open court", because in Florence Judge Nencini made clear that "bringing up an issue in an open court" by a defense lawyer is indeed "calunnia".
Defense closing arguments Dec 17th, 2013 (pages 193-195):

Pertanto credo che... ora a integrazione, il collega Magnante è precisissimo, Presidente, per tornare al discorso dell’HIV, noi abbiamo trovato i riferimenti. Stanno nel diario. Nel diario a pagina 33, sequestrato, lei parla che “la scorsa notte” – parliamo del 22 novembre 2007, quindicesimo giorno, questo è il suo diario personale – “la scorsa notte, poco prima di andare a letto mi hanno fatto scendere per vedere ancora un altro dottore; aveva i risultati di un test che mi aveva fatto, secondo i quali ero positiva all’HIV; mi ha anche detto di non preoccuparmi perché potrebbe trattarsi di un errore; mi faranno il test la prossima settimana. La mia testa, un atroce mal di testa, come mai? Sono in prigione per un crimine e potrei anche avere l’HIV. Voglio sposarmi, voglio avere dei bambini, voglio creare qualcosa di positivo, voglio diventare vecchia, voglio il mio tempo, voglio la mia vita. Perché tutto questo? Non riesco a credere”. Ecco la lista delle persone con cui ha avuto... quindi c’è un riferimento ben preciso su questo. E la circostanza viene anche riferita alla mamma, quindi c’è l’intercettazione e c’è anche la deposizione del 19/06 del 2009, pagina 83, di Edda Mellas, che è la mamma, la quale anche lei dice che appunto la figlia avrebbe riferito, confidato, che in carcere a un certo punto gli hanno fatto un accertamento medico ed è risultata positiva all’HIV. E poi spiega che poi in realtà il problema si è risolto. Quindi la circostanza viene provata da questi elementi.
PRESIDENTE – Sì. Ora, mi scusi l’interruzione, ma volevo chiarire questo aspetto perché non vorrei si desse l’impressione, o aver dato l’impressione di essere, come dire, estremamente pignolo su questioni di certificati. Ma siccome se Dio vuole è tutto registrato, possiamo risentirlo se vogliamo...
AVV. DALLA VEDOVA – No...
PRESIDENTE - ...nella parte della sua arringa, si capiva che vi erano state due analisi fatte, si capiva, per ottenere delle informazioni dalla Amanda Knox e poi, una volta ottenute le informazioni, si era tranquillizzata la Amanda Knox sul fatto che non era più sieropositiva. Ora, siccome tutta questa attività, se fosse avvenuta, e mi pare di capire che non è avvenuta, con queste finalità, avrebbe dei profili di rilevanza penale, e questa Corte...AVV. DALLA VEDOVA – Certo.
PRESIDENTE - ...aveva l’obbligo...AVV. DALLA VEDOVA – Certo.
PRESIDENTE - ...di segnalarli, io ho voluto chiarire questo aspetto, perché poi verba volant, scripta manent. Il verbale è qualcosa che deve corrispondere alla realtà. Oggi, ora viene fuori in maniera molto esatta, che fu fatto quindi un accertamento su Amanda, che fu sbagliato, come tante volte capita, fu ripetuto e fu... e queste notizie provengono da Amanda Knox. Adesso è chiarito l’aspetto, ma non era un’attività, come dire, cervellotica della Corte.
AVV. DALLA VEDOVA – No.
PRESIDENTE – Era per non ritrovarsi poi nella spiacevole situazione, in Camera di Consiglio, di dover decidere che cosa fare di un verbale. Ecco, non volevamo trovarci in questa spiacevolissima situazione. Bene. Detto questo, prego.

V&C were hardly independent, as was proven, when they handed the defense a DVD but not the prosecution. Legal breach #1. When the carabinieri turned up to seize said DVD, they ran crying to Hellmann, who told them straight they must give the other party a copy.

Source... Please...

 

[Methos]

Can someone confirm something. As Vixen habitually lies in her posts, what she says needs to be checked. Vixen claims that C&V testified at the Hellman trial that contamination was ruled out but later said in the Netflix documentary there was an issue with contamination which contradicts what they said at trial. Is it the case that C&V did not rule out contamination at the Hellman trial and this is yet another of Vixen's lies.

This is the problem with Vixen never giving citations. At most what can be said is that Vixen read on one of the nutcase websites that Vecchiotti hsd ruled out contamination.

Reading the C-V report shows how much they trashed Stefanoni her lab and her work. If I remember they cited the lack of adequate documentation available to tbe court from Stefanoni to tell one way or another about contamination.

But there I am with no citation of my own. So it's up to you.

This one is based on this exchange between judge Hellmann and Prof. Vecchiotti during cross examination on September 5th, 2011 (page 79):


Translation:


ETA: This exchange was about the possibility, that 36b could have been the result of contamination, not on contamination in general...

36b is what we are talking about.

Really? This one looks like "contamination in general" is the topic..., to me.

 

[Vixen]

Yoy are right on one thing this time. "There is no such thing as 'libel' or slander' in a court of law." (Art 598 c.p.):

But there is a solution for this... (Art. 368 c.p.)

In this case the prosecutor did not need to to prosecute "a barrister for bringing up an issue in an open court", because in Florence Judge Nencini made clear that "bringing up an issue in an open court" by a defense lawyer is indeed "calunnia".
Defense closing arguments Dec 17th, 2013 (pages 193-195):



Source... Please...

Your very own Candace Dempsey, bleating about the Italian police persecuting V&C.

 

[toto]

The correct translation is:

President - say if six days seem to be sufficient or not, because there was no risk of contamination, the question is this. Outdated

C. - are sufficient, admitted that it went so.

http://translation.babylon-software.com/italian/to-english/

It was admitted under oath that six days was sufficient to expire any reasonable risk of contamination.

No, your translation is gibberish.

 

[Methos]

Your very own Candace Dempsey, bleating about the Italian police persecuting V&C.

"Your very own Candace Dempsey"??? Where? When?

Hint: It's not mentioned in her book...

Again you seem to move on very fast. What about the "contamination" and "diffamazione/calunnia" issues? Not interested in them anymore?

 

[Vixen]

Yoy are right on one thing this time. "There is no such thing as 'libel' or slander' in a court of law." (Art 598 c.p.):

But there is a solution for this... (Art. 368 c.p.)

In this case the prosecutor did not need to to prosecute "a barrister for bringing up an issue in an open court", because in Florence Judge Nencini made clear that "bringing up an issue in an open court" by a defense lawyer is indeed "calunnia".
Defense closing arguments Dec 17th, 2013 (pages 193-195):



Source... Please...

The translations I get are the following:

Art. 598 - Offenses in writings and speeches before the judicial or administrative authorities are not punishable offenses contained in the writings presented or in the speeches by the parties or their sponsors in proceedings before'judicial authority, or before a'administrative authorities, when offenses relate to'subject matter of the dispute or the administrative appeal.

Art. 368 - slander Anyone with this complaint, lawsuit, request or instance, even if anonymously or under a false name, directed to'judicial authority or to a'other authority that has obligation to report or to the International Criminal Court, blames a crime someone that he knows innocent, i.e. simulates a load of him the traces of an offense is punished with imprisonment of from two to six years .

http://www.leggeonline.info/leggi/codicepenale/art368/calunnia/

President - ...in part of its plea, understood that there were two analyzes made, understood, to obtain information from Amanda Knox and then, once obtained the information, was reassured the Amanda Knox on the fact that it was no longer HIV positive. Now, since all this activity, if it had occurred, and I understand that has not occurred, with these objectives, would have the profiles of a criminal offense, and this Court... AVV. FROM THE WIDOW - Certainly.

(Translation: Babylon)


The defence were directed by the judge Nencini that their bringing up the HIV issue had nothing to do with his court, not because he believed it to be 'calunnia'.


In a court case, only listed issues can be discussed. These issues are decided in advance by all parties at the preliminary stages. You can't just suddenly start talking about the weather, you know.

It is a judge's job to keep control of the court room.

 

[Vixen]

"Your very own Candace Dempsey"??? Where? When?

Hint: It's not mentioned in her book...

Again you seem to move on very fast. What about the "contamination" and "diffamazione/calunnia" issues? Not interested in them anymore?

She wrote some online article about it. It should be readily found on google.

Here we go: http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/07/26/italians-cops-harass-scientists-in-amanda-knox-trial/

Patience. See calunnia issues, above.

 

[Welshman]

Considering the ludicrous nonsense they write on the TJMK/PMF sites, it is perfectly acceptable to call these sites nutter sites.