Chieffi ruled that Hellman's verdict and reasoning was defective and erred in (a) appointing his own scientists without giving a rationale and (b) the scientist V&C refusing to test the sample. It also heavily criticised Hellman's ignorance of how evidence is weighed in a criminal court (he had little experience of murder and serious crime, which is why Bongiorno pressed for a business court). This time the case was 'sent back down' to the Appeal court but instead of sending it back as per convention to the same court that erred on points of law (Hellman, who was disgraced) it went to Nencini, in another district. This time the sample was properly tested by the R.I.S. and Nencini properly treated the issue of DNA evidence, as directed by Chieffi. All other salient points remained the same a Massei, the only issues being appealed being as directed by Chieffi. Nencini upheld Massei's guilty verdict but had had a different motive (which wasn't necessary for an aggravated murder verdict anyway so he went for the low-hanging fruit of 'row over cleanliness') premeditation was not needed to be proven either (as it was 'aggravated').
You're close, you're sooooooooooooooo close!
Nencini had no problem with C & V's appointment, which is demonstrated by the time he spent in his own motivation's report sifting through it. He accepted the conclusion that there were further Y-haplotypes on the bra-clasp, he just referred to them as female-Haplotypes, even though females don't have them.
Then again, you would regard that as a 'judicial fact' that further appeals courts could not monkey with.
But similarly, Maresca-Bruno took the evidence as well as the verdict from the Nencini trial and assessed whether or not it justified it's guilty finding.
Rather than me argue with you on how wrong the Chieffi court had been in hearing the prosecution appeal of Hellmann, I have never ever denied the right for the Chieffi panel to do what it did, legally speaking.
Please remember, it is you claiming that 'facts' as found at merits trials are immutable and unchangeable at Supreme Court level.
Regardless of how a 'motive' is folded into a court's reasoning, the Chieffi panel ordered the next court, the Nencini court, to reinvestigate the 'sex game gone wrong' theory. A theory ignored by both previous merits courts, Hellmann as well as Massei.
So, it is all right for you to have Chieffi monkey around with 'facts' as found by merits courts. It resurrected a theory, and ordered the next court to investigate it.
What happened to that? Nencini ignored it, and came up with yet another 'motive'. Whether or not a motive is mandatory in a court's finding is immaterial. The fact is, that ALL courts treated motive as key, and spend inordinate time, each of them, trying to fabricate one - even ones that none of the lawyers had brought.
Massei had written that he saw no reason for AK or RS to have initiated an attack against the victim, that Rudy's motive as a botherer of women was sufficient for him. Massei said, in effect, that it was inexplicable to think of AK and RS of joining in with what was essentially Rudy's crime.
Neither Chieffi nor Nencini EVER rescinded that, except that they ignored it and fabricated even more different reasons for the crime to have been committed.
What the 2015 Supreme Court said, was that even if all the stuff that the Nencini court had been true, there was nothing that put the pair in the room at the right time. Therefore it acquitted.
But it is still interesting how you allow Chieffi latitude because you agree with him, but deny that same latitude to Marasca because you don't agree with the conclusion.
Like I say, consistency is not your long suit.
By the way, C&V were never anything but independent forensic experts. How you came up with them being beholden to the court is beyond me.
ETA - I do agree with you that there is a major rift within Italian law - their legal system is legislatively stuck midway in a transition. Chieffi was (as was Professor Stefano Maffei) in the Inquisatorial-minded old system, and Italy morphed half-way to the western Adversary system. You're right, the former tries to link a million and one factoids, regardless of whether or not each factoid is relevant or has little merit, the latter is atomistic where even one glaring hole brought against an accused can force a acquittal on reasonable doubt grounds. That's why when guilters back in 2011 complained about Hellmann's acquittal, even the guilters conceded that the DNA evidence had fallen apart, but that there was still 'all the other evidence'.
'All the other evidence' is one reason this ISF thread is so long - those items have been debated and debunked ad nauseam.
Indeed, you're on to something, seen the Inquisatorial way, they perhaps look guilty. They certainly did to Professor Stefano Maffei, someone with unimpeachable credentials in Italian law. Seen the Adversarial way, they are innocent and obviously innocent.
