The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

[Stacyhs]

Big deal. So I made a typo.

A TYPO?????

Sure. It. Was.

 

[Vixen]

A TYPO?????

Sure. It. Was.

Let me spell it large: PRINGLE WAS NEVER IN DANGER OF BEING EXECUTED.

 

[Stacyhs]

I have provided a citation to this on numerous occasions. The fact you keep asking me to provide the same citation over and over again is just - as acbytesla might put it - taking the piss.

LOL! I have not asked you to provide a citation for this before, much less "over and over again". And no, you have not provided a citation for this anywhere that I've looked. And I have looked. I even looked for it on TJMK just in case that "prolific contributor" who has made the same claim, had done so. Didn't find one.

If, in fact, you have provided a citation on numerous occasions, it should be easy for you to do so again. Why not do so? Wouldn't that be a lot easier and much more effective than this song and dance routine?

 

[Vixen]

Thank you, then, for confirming Mike1711's view that Section 530.2 covers the acquittals where evidence is lacking; as in the case against AK and RS.

​

It is not an acquittal, it is an annulment. That annulment was under Art 530,2 - which is NOT the same as Art 530,1 - citing 'insufficient evidence'.

It cannot be clearer.

 

[Stacyhs]

Let me spell it large: PRINGLE WAS NEVER IN DANGER OF BEING EXECUTED.

Let me spell it large: IT WASN'T A TYPO AND STOP SHIFTING THE GOALPOST. YOU CLAIMED PRINGLE WAS NEVER ON DEATH ROW. HE WAS, AS PROVED. YOU CLAIMED THE DEATH PENALTY HAD ALREADY BEEN ABOLISHED. IT HAD NOT BEEN, AS PROVED. NOW STOP PLAYING WORD GAMES AND JUST ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG LIKE A GROWN-UP.

 

[abaddon]

Wrong. His execution which was never going to happen, as Ireland had already decided to abolish the death penalty, was just a 'paper' matter until such time it was abolished by law.

Still wrong. I told you before. Mostly, I simply read this thread and only post when you get yet another fact egregiously wrong. This is yet another such occasion.It didn't even reach the level of a 'paper' matter until four months after sentence was passed, three months after sentence was scheduled to be carried out and even then it was immediately dismissed by then minister for justice Gerry Collins.

 

[Stacyhs]

The correct metaphor would be 'grasping at straws', not 'scraping the barrel'.

As I said earlier, police often find DNA from unidentified sources. Of itself it means zippo. In the case of the woman on a buiding site, the police were able to identify the DNA because it was on their criminal database (the whole raison d'être of such a record is to do exactly that).

The non-news is they were able to rule this guy out as he had croaked a couple of years earlier. He would have been questioned were he alive, and no doubt immediately eliminated as, like most innocent people, he would have had an alibi. As indeed he did, as it were.

No. You are scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to find a reasonable explanation for the DNA. But, yes, grasping at straws is also apropos. At least you recognize it.

Your attempt to divert the topic from its original point is not working. It has nothing to do with the DNA contributor having nothing to do with the crime or it being in the database. It's about your claim that DNA does not transfer after 24 hours, which, in this case, it did.

Having trouble finding that citation for your claim that Gill said DNA doesn't transfer after 24 hours?

 

[TruthCalls]

It's unremarkable. Police find unidentified DNA on many subjects.

Find DNA means nothing in itself.

This has to be deliberate on your part... you couldn't possibly not understand this as badly as you're pretending to.

This has nothing to do with unidentified DNA, nor does it have anything to do with someone wearing someone else clothes.

DNA was found on the body of the victim. That DNA belonged to someone who had done some construction work in the lab where the victim was found. The DNA was at least two years old as that is when the person had died, although it was likely older than that. Therefore, 2+ year old DNA was transferred onto the victim. This completely destroys the claim you've been making that DNA transfer is not possible after 24 hours.

Mike1711 asked you to explain why transfer of Raffaele's DNA would not have been possible after 47 days when DNA was able to be transferred after 2+ years. Aside from the two entirely disingenuous responses that completely avoided the point, you've offered no explanation. Not surprising, but notable.

 

[Planigale]

Obviously the DNA was deposited on the clothing by the person whose DNA it belonged to. You claim he was dead two years as of the date of the murder. However, if he had at any time worn that clothing (perhaps his widow donated his clothes to a charity shop, as often happens in the UK) it's not improbable a local fellow in the same area could have bought it.

Or try this one, a time travelling murderer!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26324244

 

[Mike1711]

This has to be deliberate on your part... you couldn't possibly not understand this as badly as you're pretending to.

This has nothing to do with unidentified DNA, nor does it have anything to do with someone wearing someone else clothes.

DNA was found on the body of the victim. That DNA belonged to someone who had done some construction work in the lab where the victim was found. The DNA was at least two years old as that is when the person had died, although it was likely older than that. Therefore, 2+ year old DNA was transferred onto the victim. This completely destroys the claim you've been making that DNA transfer is not possible after 24 hours.

Mike1711 asked you to explain why transfer of Raffaele's DNA would not have been possible after 47 days when DNA was able to be transferred after 2+ years. Aside from the two entirely disingenuous responses that completely avoided the point, you've offered no explanation. Not surprising, but notable.

Thank you, TruthCalls. You have more patience than I.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Peter Gill's book and secondary transfer

And neither have you as you failed to provide the quote directly from the book including page number. Nice try.

I've never claimed to read that book as I don't own it. However, I've read excerpts that have been provided online. On Amazon, you can search the book for key words. Which I did. Nowhere does your quote, which just happens to be the exact one used by a prolific contributor to TJMK, appear in the book. In fact, in doing my research, I can find no one who has made that claim besides that "prolific contributor" and you. And nowhere has that same prolific contributor provided a citation for it. Why not live dangerously here and actually provide the entire quote and page number or link to them?

I have read his book in its entirety. In fact I have read some sections several times. No such claim about secondary transfer exists in his book.

Here are some references on DNA transfers in mortuary or forensic examiner settings. Might be worth looking into the dates when each body was examined to get an idea of the persistence of DNA in this particular setting. These references come from Forensic Science International 216 (2012) 121–126, a paper by T Schwark and coworkers.

[9] T.Toledano,L.Quarino,S.Leung,P.Buffolino,H.Baum,R.C.Shaler,Anassessment of DNA contamination risks in New York City Medical Examiner facilities, J. Forensic Sci. 42 (1997) 721–724.
[10] G.N. Rutty, Human DNA contamination of mortuaries: does it matter? J. Pathol. 190 (2000) 410–411.
[11] G.N. Rutty, S. Watson, J. Davison, DNA contamination of mortuary instruments and work surfaces: a significant problem in forensic practice? Int. J. Legal Med. 114 (2000) 56–60.

 

[Bill Williams]

It is not an acquittal, it is an annulment. That annulment was under Art 530,2 - which is NOT the same as Art 530,1 - citing 'insufficient evidence'.

It cannot be clearer.

I am not sure your continual PR efforts around "acquittal" vs "annulment" help your case. What else is new.

One legal definition of "annulment":

Annulment Definition:

To make void forever; to cancel an event or judicial proceeding both retroactively and for the future so that in the eyes of the law, it never occurred.​

To annul is to state that the criminal charges against the parties were baseless, and should not have occurred.

ETA - in terms of Italian law, to annul meant that legally speaking neither the Massei nor Nencini convictions had ever occurred.

Have it your way.

 

[Stacyhs]

I have read his book in its entirety. In fact I have read some sections several times. No such claim about secondary transfer exists in his book.

Here are some references on DNA transfers in mortuary or forensic examiner settings. Might be worth looking into the dates when each body was examined to get an idea of the persistence of DNA in this particular setting. These references come from Forensic Science International 216 (2012) 121–126, a paper by T Schwark and coworkers.

[9] T.Toledano,L.Quarino,S.Leung,P.Buffolino,H.Baum,R.C.Shaler,Anassessment of DNA contamination risks in New York City Medical Examiner facilities, J. Forensic Sci. 42 (1997) 721–724.
[10] G.N. Rutty, Human DNA contamination of mortuaries: does it matter? J. Pathol. 190 (2000) 410–411.
[11] G.N. Rutty, S. Watson, J. Davison, DNA contamination of mortuary instruments and work surfaces: a significant problem in forensic practice? Int. J. Legal Med. 114 (2000) 56–60.

Chris, I rather suspected you had and I was hoping you would see this exchange here. Well done.

It comes as no surprise to me that Gill never said what Vixen and that prolific contributor on TJMK have claimed several times. The fact that Vixen would not quote and cite the source was proof to me that she could not.

 

[Methos]

It is not in the statute so has no legal meaning.

You are not very good at law, as you omit to mention that Art 530,2 does NOT include the words 'did not do it'.

On what evidence do you claim it "has no legal meaning"? For some odd reason, I don't tend to believe that the Supreme Court judges would just throw some meaningless finding into their official ruling for the ducks of it.

Read Art 530,2 under the Italian Penal Code on which all Italian criminal law is based.

Incorrect. In law, every word of a statute is carefully crafted to fully mean exactly what it says. You cannot insert words that are not there.

The words, 'did not commit the act' are simply not there under Art 530,2 of the CPP, despite Numbers' convoluted attempts to try to make it so.

ROFLMAO...
Sorry, but are you still dancing around the semantics of the "formulas available to Italian courts to announce an acquittal" vs. "the wording of Art. 530 c.p.p."?

It is not an acquittal, it is an annulment. That annulment was under Art 530,2 - which is NOT the same as Art 530,1 - citing 'insufficient evidence'.

It cannot be clearer.

Riiight, it is an annnulment, BUT this "Annullamento senza rinvio" is based on Art 620.L c.p.p. (google translation):

Art. 620 - Cancellation without referral
1. In addition to the cases specifically provided for by law, the court shall deliver a judgment of annulment without a referral:
(A) whether the act is not provided for by law as a criminal offense, whether the offense is extinguished or if the criminal proceedings should not have been initiated or continued;
(B) the offense does not belong to the jurisdiction of the ordinary court;
(C) whether the contested measure contains provisions which exceed the powers of the jurisdiction, limited to the same;
(D) whether the contested decision is a measure which is not permitted by law;
(E) whether the sentence is null and void within the limits of Article 522 in relation to a concurrent offense;
(F) whether the sentence is null and void within the limits of Article 522 in relation to a new fact;
(G) whether the conviction was pronounced by mistake;
(H) whether there is a contradiction between the judgment or the order under appeal and another party relating to the same person and the same subject, pronounced by the same or by another criminal court;
(I) whether the judgment under appeal has decided in the second instance on a matter for which the appeal is not admissible;
(L) in any other case where the court considers the referral to be superfluous or can it itself determine the punishment or take the necessary measures.

only in combination with Art 530.2 c.p.p., the relevant article is 620.L c.p.p..
As you wrote: "It cannot be clearer.", one only has to actually read (and understand) the verdict/motivations report and the law behind it...
Just my two cents (Euro).

 

[LondonJohn]

The problem with getting all of one's knowledge from Google leads to falling into the trap of believing information on Google is complete.

Do try to get out more.

Oh don't worry. I "get out" considerably, thank you.

And I know with 100% certainty that I am correct on this matter and you are wrong.

(Can I presume that you've had zero luck finding any reference whatsoever for "Norn" being used to refer to NI, despite quite a long search.......? )

 

[LondonJohn]

Incorrect. In law, every word of a statute is carefully crafted to fully mean exactly what it says. You cannot insert words that are not there.

The words, 'did not commit the act' are simply not there under Art 530,2 of the CPP, despite Numbers' convoluted attempts to try to make it so.

Do you mean Art 530.2?

(We in UK (and US) use the full stop punctuation mark to indicate digital fraction separations, whereas most continental European countries - including Italy - use the comma punctuation mark)

 

[Stacyhs]

It is not an acquittal, it is an annulment. That annulment was under Art 530,2 - which is NOT the same as Art 530,1 - citing 'insufficient evidence'.

It cannot be clearer.

Yes, we've been over this cherry picking several times; trial/appeal courts acquit while Supreme Courts annul. And yet...the Italian themselves use the term "acquit" when referring to the Supreme Court.

To annul: annullare
To acquit: assolvere

Notice which verb was used in these Italian reports:

I dubbi di Gennaro Marasca, il giudice napoletano che ha presieduto il collegio
di Cassazione che ha assolto i due imputati dell’omicidio di Meredith a Perugia

Google translation: The doubts of Gennaro Marasca, the Neapolitan judge who chaired the college
Of the Supreme Court who acquitted the two defendants of Meredith's murder in Perugia

http://corrieredelmezzogiorno.corri...ie-7eabcfb6-d6d3-11e4-98fd-eb61b2c716f3.shtml

La Quinta sezione penale della corte di Cassazione presieduta da Gennaro Marasca ha assolto Amanda Knox e Raffaele Sollecito

"The Fifth Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation presided over by Gennaro Marasca has acquitted Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito"
http://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/20...a_cassazione_per_raffaele_e_amanda-110591376/

Innocenti: Raffaele Sollecito e Amanda Knox sono stati assolti dalla Corte di Cassazione dall'accusa di aver ucciso otto anni fa a Perugia la studentessa inglese Meredith Kercher

I"nnocent: Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox have been acquitted by the Supreme Court on the charge of murdering eight years ago in Perugia English student Meredith Kercher.


http://www.ansa.it/umbria/notizie/2...rdi_f773ff5b-0710-4452-884c-d0bfde02b778.html

Now, can you quit banging this drum, beating this dead horse, etc.?

 

[LondonJohn]

I read of a case where a burglar whose underpants - as identified by the DNA -were found at a crime scene claimed someone else was wearing them.

That's totally irrelevant. I dare say there have been cases where the defendant has claimed aliens came down and did it. And in those cases - just as in the case you claim to have "read of" in your post above - it would have been a racing certainty that the court would have dismissed the claims for the fantasies that they were.

The difference is that you were SERIOUSLY proposing that just such a fantasy set of events might genuinely have "explained" the DNA findings in the case being discussed.

 

[LondonJohn]

Big deal. So I made a typo.

It wasn't a "typo". It was a factual misrepresentation.

 

[Vixen]

Still wrong. I told you before. Mostly, I simply read this thread and only post when you get yet another fact egregiously wrong. This is yet another such occasion.It didn't even reach the level of a 'paper' matter until four months after sentence was passed, three months after sentence was scheduled to be carried out and even then it was immediately dismissed by then minister for justice Gerry Collins.

Did you not read the article I cited in The Irish Examiner called 'Pringle is no Death Row Poster Boy' by Michael Clifford.

Here's an excerpt that proves Pringle was never under any threat of being executed.

In October 1980, the Special Criminal Court found all three guilty of the capital murder of police officers and sentenced them to death. The last execution in the country had occurred in 1954 and there was no chance the sentence would be carried out. It was duly commuted to 40 years in prison the following May. Pringle spent six months, not 15 years, on death row in a country that had long ceased to carry out executions. Capital punishment was finally abolished in 1990.

OK?