Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[Bill Williams]

The Supreme Court actually does NOT have any mandate in the merits of assessing evidence at all.
So, in fact, a verdict in the merits by the SC - as this one is - its itself nonsensical. The SC doesn't even have the evidence, they can't assess absolutely anything. They have no mean and no mandate at all. The 5th chambers verdict finding "reasonable doubt" and assessing evidence therefore was completely illegal. And fake.

Wow. If this is true there must be a civil war brewing within the Italian judiciary. This news should be taken to the authorities immediately, and NOT simply repeated ad naseam on some random website in a remote corner of the internet, to someone like me who even you concede cannot hope to understand this case.

Please answer christianahannah's questions more fully. It says everything that I need to hear that you believe them to be complex questions.

What you're talking about is a major judicial coup d'etat that must keep people awake at night, and cause complex maneuvres of police ready to strike with arrests.

 

[Bill Williams]

To the general publis, the 2015 verdict just says "they are guilty, but they made too many mistakes in the investigation, so we had to release them". This is the common understanding. On a superficial level.
But besides this, and below a first superficial phrase, everyone believes corruption and international maneuver.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NOYOHPtAyM

Why is this man not arrested for blowing the whistle on the conspiracy that means every Italian judicial decision is now suspect?

 

[Numbers]

Here is an excerpt from the essay of Mitja Gialuz, Professor of Criminal Procedure, University of Trieste. This essay is the source for information that I previously posted, sometime in summary form (including #2643 of Cont. 23).

Regarding the reforms of 1988 and later:

With regard to the final decision {verdict}, the CPP instead has solely eliminated the acquittal for insufficient evidence, which was inherited from the inquisitorial system based upon the presumption of guilt. The Code only established that the "judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal also in case of insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof that the criminal act occurred, the accused committed it, the act is deemed an offence by law, the offence was committed by a person with mental capacity" {This is the wording of CPP Article 530.2}. It was not clear, however, which was the required standard to convict a person and therefore Article 530 was considered one of the least successful provisions of the 1988 reform.

Despite this failure, since the Nineties {that is, the 1990's} the Supreme Court {CSC} has made reference to the beyond-any-reasonable-doubt standard (BARD): firstly to differentiate the standard required for conviction from that established to adopt a precautionary measure; then to clarify the evidentiary standard with regard to the issue of medical responsibility. This was the situation until, in a historic decision taken by the Joint Chambers in 2002, the BARD standard was declared to be fundamental as standard of proof for conviction. Hundreds of decisions followed which used the formula in the way indicated by the Joint Chambers. {This Joint Chambers ruling constitutes a guidance, not a precedent, to the courts.}

In 2006 Law no. 46 embodied this evolution and changed Article 533, par. 1, by introducing a norm whereby "the judge shall deliver a judgment of conviction if the accused is proven to be guilty of the alleged offence beyond a reasonable doubt". This change has represented a step towards completion, from an accusatorial {adversarial} viewpoint, of the Italian criminal justice system.

Source:
Mitja Gialuz, The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: A reading guide, p. 37 - 38, in:
Gialuz, Luparia, and Scarpa, eds. The Italian Code of Criminal Behavior: Critical essays and English translation, Wolters Kluwer Italia (C) 2014

Note that contrary to a claim of an anonymous poster here, Professor Gialuz makes the statement that the inquisitorial system used "a presumption of guilt" as a standard. It is not my "claim".

 

[Bill Williams]

Note that contrary to a claim of an anonymous poster here, Professor Gialuz makes the statement that the inquisitorial system used "a presumption of guilt" as a standard. It is not my "claim".

It is now clear why Machiavelli claims that the Marasca/Bruno panel ruled that there was reasonable doubt in the kid's innocence.

Fundamentally Machiavelli himself has not moved with the reforms in Italy that shift things to a presumption of innocence where it now belongs to the prosecution and the court to convict only when **guilt** is shown BARD.

It is simply ludicrous to claim that a 530.2 acquittal leaves room for the accused to have doubts expressed about their innocence.

 

[bagels]

This is also a discourse entirely astray from the trial topic. You are actually shifting from the topic of evidence. It is not true, to start with, that prosecutor Crini waited six years - since Prosecutor General Crini took the case in 2014.
The only reason why Crini made the point, in my opinion, is to answer one of the points the defence presented on appeal. Had the defence not presented the point, Crini would not have even looked into the issue.
If you present a question "why didn't the prosecution present this" as if it was an argument, this in my opinion may just show some basic misunderstanding about the dynamics of trials. In courts of law, it is actually normal that evidence is just left out, even big chunks of evidence or whole scenario may be left out, that some potential evidence is not collected on investigation, etc. The fact is that this is how it works, there is always an economy, research is often somehow limited on many aspects on what's needed, things that are deemed unnecessary are not pursued. It appears nobody in the prosecution ever commissioned an expert investigation on the knife print. They did not even look for that piece of evidence.

A prosecution that spends 200 thousand euros on a cartoon and brings in a noise ticket from halfway around the world chooses not to bother submitting evidence that the kitchen knife matches the bloody imprint at the scene. You aren't helping your case by illustrating their incompetence (at best).

This is also not a point.
The civil parties (and the prosecution as well) already thought Vecchiotti was corrupt and they distrusted her. They pointed out that she should have tested the I trace, which was the DNA collected from the handle insertion, as she was ordered to, something which she refused to do.
Regardless whatever we thing about the civil parties strategy, as I said this is not an argument, because one cannot infer anything from that. They didn't want to legitimize Vecchiotti's actions and that was their choice.
By the way, you could argue that there was a possibility that "blood" (as you say) was found (I don't know why don't you say DNA, such was found in trace I by blade insertion - the prosecution and defences wanted *that* to be tested), but the prosecution & civil parties might also assess that the probability of finding "blood" could be low, compared to the probability of not finding it and therefore backfire, or anyway be not worth the risk given that they assumed the evidence should be deemed already sufficient. They obviously assumed that if "blood" was not found, Vecchiotti, given her behaviour, would "use" the void finding in a way hostile to them, as they distrusted Vecchiotti's honesty.

You seem to think you are on the offensive, and not the defense. The prosecution lost, you should be on the side of the PIP looking back with retrospection figuring out what more the prosecution could have done to win their case, such as opening the knife, which they had in their possession long before C&V entered the picture. But of course, that that would be the normal rational response. Since you think the Hellmann court was a giant conspiracy I can see why you wouldn't think this way.

 

[bagels]

The Supreme Court actually does NOT have any mandate in the merits of assessing evidence at all.

Ah, so the Chieffi court must have affirmed Hellmann's verdict and Nencini never happened. Good to know

 

[Numbers]

Ah, so the Chieffi court must have affirmed Hellmann's verdict and Nencini never happened. Good to know

The CSC is allowed by CPP Article 606.1E to evaluate evidence that forms any part of the grounds of the appealed judgment, if the appeal claims that the grounds of the judgment are lacking, contradictory or manifestly illogical, when the defect results from the text of the appeal decision or any document of the proceedings specified in the arguments of the appeal to the CSC.

The CSC is allowed by CPP Article 606.1D to evaluate whether decisive evidence was not gathered during the evidentiary hearing of the appealed trial, although it had been requested, if that is argued by the appeal.

The introduction of new evidence to the CSC is not allowed.

Art. 606 - Casi di ricorso
1. Il ricorso per cassazione può essere proposto per i seguenti motivi:
a) esercizio da parte del giudice di una potestà riservata dalla legge a organi legislativi o amministrativi ovvero non consentita ai pubblici poteri;
b) inosservanza o erronea applicazione della legge penale o di altre norme giuridiche, di cui si deve tener conto nell'applicazione della legge penale;
c) inosservanza delle norme processuali stabilite a pena di nullità, di inutilizzabilità, di inammissibilità o di decadenza;
d) mancata assunzione di una prova decisiva, quando la parte ne ha fatto richiesta anche nel corso dell'istruzione dibattimentale limitatamente ai casi previsti dall'articolo 495, comma 2;
e) mancanza, contraddittorietà o manifesta illogicità della motivazione, quando il vizio risulta dal testo del provvedimento impugnato ovvero da altri atti del processo specificamente indicati nei motivi di gravame.
2. Il ricorso, oltre che nei casi e con gli effetti determinati da particolari disposizioni, può essere proposto contro le sentenze pronunciate in grado di appello o inappellabili.
3. Il ricorso è inammissibile se è proposto per motivi diversi da quelli consentiti dalla legge o manifestamente infondati ovvero, fuori dei casi previsti dagli articoli 569 e 609 comma 2, per violazioni di legge non dedotte con i motivi di appello.

Sources: http://www.leggeonline.info/leggi/procedurapenale/art606/casi_di_ricorso/

Gialuz, Luparia, and Scarpa, eds. The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation. Wolters Kluwer Italia (c) 2014
____
The Chieffi CSC panel and the Marasca CSC panel each used CPP Article 606.1E in their respective motivation reports to evaluate evidence.

 

[Vixen]

Nope. Sollecito's apartment frequently used Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 (and sectors 6 and 9, both of which pointed in the same direction as sector 3). Sollecito's apartment was in a thick-stone-walled building among many other closely-packed thick-stone-walled buildings. Cellular reception in Sollecito's apartment was relatively poor, for this reason. And tests carried out by the defence showed conclusively that a phone within Sollecito's apartment using the Vodafone network would frequently handshake onto this Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 (or s6 or s9) base station transceiver. The Massei report (and the prosecution "expert", on whom the Massei court relied) was simply wrong on this matter.

Massei confirms:

the phone records on the basis of the cell phones the young woman had in her possession on the evening she was killed, ... am on 2 November 2007 that was intercepted by the cell tower no. 25622, a cell tower that could not be affected by signals coming from Via della Pergola,

Your sophist claims that the reason there was no signal on Raff's phone on the murder night was because of 'thick walls in his apartment' do not cut mustard here.

 

[Vixen]

Add in to that the fact that in populous areas, individual network cells overlap by design. People get the notion that cells are distinct. They are not.

Then you have topology/architecture getting in the way. I know of two blackspots within five minutes of my home. Both are proximate to base stations. They remain blackspots due to a confluence of physical circumstances.

Obviously the cell mast information isn't set-in-stone definitive as of itself. However, Amanda herself said she was 'at the basketball court', and even put it in writing voluntarily.

Raff, too, told police she was not with him that evening, and later a called a post-trial press conference to that effect.

 

[Vixen]

No. Please can you stop creating straw men to misrepresent my position?

This is what I wrote:

"He's making (very poor, very immature, very poor taste and very ill-judged) "joke" replies to "joke" questions"

Note firstly the use of quotation marks around the words "joke". These clearly imply that my own opinion is that these were not jokes, but that (IMO) Sollecito and his respondents were considering them as jokes.

Next, note the words in parentheses which precede the first mention of the word "joke". The qualifiers within those parentheses indicate clearly my personal opinion on the words Sollecito wrote.

And lastly, note that I was referring specifically to the words Sollecito wrote (which were usually in reply to knowingly-provocative questions posed to him by other members of the group). I made no mention - nor any value judgement - on any other opinions that might have been posted by other members of this group.

So, once again, it's you who has twisted my position into a disgusting assertion that I might consider "a group advocating rape and murder....specifically targeted at perverts and misogynists" (whether this particular FB group actually meets this description or not...) as a joke. That's a really nasty, defamatory misrepresentation to be making, Vixen. I don't expect you to misrepresent me in this sort of way again. OK?


(And I'd be interested, incidentally, to see the evidence upon which you base your assertion that this FB group "advocates rape and murder" (in anything other than a (bad taste) joking manner) or that it is "specifically targeted at perverts and misogynists".....)

If you are hoping I'll provide you with a connection to pervy webpages, I'm afraid you will be disappointed.

 

[abaddon]

Obviously the cell mast information isn't set-in-stone definitive as of itself. However, Amanda herself said she was 'at the basketball court', and even put it in writing voluntarily.

Raff, too, told police she was not with him that evening, and later a called a post-trial press conference to that effect.

There go the goalposts again. Your claims about the ability of the cell network are and were demonstrably flat out wrong. Do you acknowledge this fact?

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

 

[LondonJohn]

If you are hoping I'll provide you with a connection to pervy webpages, I'm afraid you will be disappointed.

Then I can conclude with confidence that you withdraw your (falsehood) allegations that Sollecito was bragging about getting away with murder, and that he was referencing Kercher in a statement about how to hide a body or cut it up. That's ok, isn't it Vixen? Good.

 

[LondonJohn]

Obviously the cell mast information isn't set-in-stone definitive as of itself. However, Amanda herself said she was 'at the basketball court', and even put it in writing voluntarily.

Raff, too, told police she was not with him that evening, and later a called a post-trial press conference to that effect.

Nope. You simply don't know what you're talking about with respect to the cellphone technology issue (as is the case with so many scientific/technological matters - even schoolchild-level physics......).

 

[LondonJohn]

There continues to be some confusion about Italian law by one or more posters here. Neither the quotation reproduced below nor others I have included in posts are my "claims". They are the words of Professors of Italian Criminal Procedure at several Italian universities.

Perhaps that poster should read the complete references rather than make unsupported statements that contradict essays on Italian law by Italian professors of law. It would not be a good use of ISF posting space for me to provide the full text here of these long essays, some of which are available online.

Here is one of the quotes and its reference and online download sites.



Source: The frustrated turn to adversarial procedure in Italy (Italian Criminal Procedure Code of 1988), Giulio Illuminati; 4 Wash U Glob Stud L Rev 567 - 581 (2005), p 571

Giulio Illuminati, Professor of Criminal Procedure, Head of the Department of Law, University of Bologna

Downloadable sources:
http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies/vol4/iss3/5/
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=827964

I think I (and, I'd imagine, any rational person reading these pages) know which of the contradictory sources has - by a gigantic margin - the most credibility, and therefore which of the two I choose to believe

 

[Vixen]

This post is intended to detail the known current status of the ECHR case of Knox v. Italy 76577/13, which was communicated to the Respondent State, Italy, on 29/04/2016. That Communication is in French, as is typical of Communications and Judgments where Italy is the Respondent State.

Based upon the Case Details, available on HUDOC, there have been two additional Communications to Italy since the original was published. In keeping with standard ECHR practice, the contents of these additional Communications have not been published and thus are not known. However, all Communications include formal requests for information (and sometimes for actions) directed to the Respondent State and may include requests for information from the applicant. Questions or notices directed only to the applicant are not published and are not recorded in the Case Details.

According to the Case Details, the importance level of the case is 3, indicating that the ECHR does not necessarily expect new case-law to be generated from this case and that its judgment will likely require only current case-law. However, this should be considered only the preliminary ECHR view and may change if required by the legal principles invoked in the actual judgment.

At a guess, the judgment may be forthcoming in 2017 or 2018 or even later; there is no way to be certain. The reason cases typically take so long is that the ECHR has a heavy case load, there are relatively long periods allocated to responses after each Communication, and after each Communication, the applicant and Respondent State each get a period of time to comment on the other's response.

The ECHR Court Rules regarding Communications and other notices and the actions taken by the Court relating to them, namely the reviews of admissibility and merit, are given in Rules 54 and 54A:



This is the text in Rule 54 relevant to a Communication and responses thereto. This identifies the current status of the case based on available information.

Source: http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home
Link to Official Texts
"Rules of Court" PDF

Note: "respondent Contracting Party" = Respondent State

The current status, according to ECHR webpage, is as it was in April 2016.

We know that since then, Italy has responded and now Amanda has been ordered to make further 'observations'.


My guess is, that this page is intended for the stakeholders' reference (lawyers and parties connected to the case) and the ECHR becoming aware the page is being accessed by the 'general public', has simply stopped publicly updating it.

 

[Vixen]

There go the goalposts again. Your claims about the ability of the cell network are and were demonstrably flat out wrong. Do you acknowledge this fact?

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

Please refer again to the Massei report which deals in detail this issue and why Massei made its finding.

It's not my finding, it's the court's, based on extensive detailed intricate analysis by expert witnesses.


No doubt the PIP will now weigh in and claim these experts are also involved in the conspiracy to frame the kids.

 

[Vixen]

Machiavelli, Vixen and Briars are full value for milking this Facebook vileness for all it's worth. The young man needs to learn a lesson.

I was initially going to report their posts as fundamentally off topic. Why? Because much like Machiavelli claims to "know" what M/B wrote, I know that Raffaele had nothing to do with Meredith's horrible murder.

Yet, it occurred to me that M, V and B don't think that way. For them this is (pardon the misuse of the term) similar fact evidence, and completely relevant to their position.

So it is relevant to this group, as much as I know it isn't.

Raffaele once rightly complained that once wrongfully convicted you never quite get your life back. The problem with that is that that is true, and you simply have to deal with it.

Participation in and contributions to such a vile Facebook page can never be excused - but Raffaele is showing stunning immaturity on what is now a totally secondary issue, giving the likes of M, V and B legitimate ammunition.

It's secondary to the completely vile nature of that FB group. There's no excuse.

When someone shows you who they are, believe them.




The first time.

~ Maya Angelou

 

[Bill Williams]

Obviously the cell mast information isn't set-in-stone definitive as of itself. However, Amanda herself said she was 'at the basketball court', and even put it in writing voluntarily.

Raff, too, told police she was not with him that evening, and later a called a post-trial press conference to that effect.

Fixed it for you. One check of the mandatory video taping of interrogations in Italy show what happened.

 

[Vixen]

There go the goalposts again. Your claims about the ability of the cell network are and were demonstrably flat out wrong. Do you acknowledge this fact?

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

Please refer to the attached thumbnail, which clearly shows which phone mast - or 'cellullar base station' to use LoJo's americanism - relates to which region.


It is a fact that the one serving Sant'Atonio region (by the carpark serving via Pergola 7) is a super powerful mast.

 

[bagels]

Please refer again to the Massei report which deals in detail this issue and why Massei made its finding.

It's not my finding, it's the court's, based on extensive detailed intricate analysis by expert witnesses.


No doubt the PIP will now weigh in and claim these experts are also involved in the conspiracy to frame the kids.

You're forgetting something very important though, which is that Massei is a complete idiot and forgot he also connected this tower to Raffaele's when he accidentally stopped letting the prosecution type his report:

− 12:07:12 (duration of 16 seconds) Amanda calls the English phone number
00447841131571 belonging to Meredith Kercher. The mobile phone connects to the
cell at [346] Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 9 (the signal from this cell
is picked up at Sollecito’s house)
− 12.08.44 (lasted 68 seconds) Amanda calls Romanelli Filomena on number 347-
1073006; the mobile phone connects to the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto
sector 3 cell (which covers Sollecito’s house)