The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 31

[Vixen]

According to Raffaele's book "Honor Bound" he discusses the subject of the semen stain on page 185. He said that the prosecution argued that it may be an old stain. Raffaele's defence team gained permission to inspect the pillowcase and claimed that there was semen on one of Rudy's shoe prints so the semen must have been fresh. "how could the prosecution have missed this?" Raffaele's defence team didn't pursue the matter since they didn't trust the Polizia Scientifica "as far as we could spit" so the issue was lost.

Hoots

You are gullible if you believe that. There is no way the "defence team gained permission to inspect the pillowcase and claimed that there was semen on one of Rudy's shoe prints so the semen must have been fresh", because (a) it was not on the evidence list and (b) any forensic testing has to be done in the presence of an expert for the other party.

Let's say the defence did sneak a test (purely hypothetical because to do so they would need to cut out some of the fabric and have a prosecution witness) and they discovered it was Guede's (although, how, without knowing his DNA profile beggars belief) you can be sure they would have put in an application to have it formally tested and entered into the evidence. If they discovered it was Sollecito's, no wonder they kept quiet until the merits trial was over!

Never happened. The fact Sollecito has to put this red herring into his book simply highlights his guilt and his deviousness that he seeks to mislead his reader and point them to the 'other guy'.

 

[Vixen]

If I understand correctly, it was Judge Massei and the prosecution who dropped the investigation of the seeming semen stain found on the pillow.

A defense expert pointed out the seeming semen stain; it was the responsibility of the Italian authorities to investigate it.

No, it was not on the evidence list. In the pre-trial hearings the defence had every opportunity to request it be entered as one of the issues to be examined. As it transpired, they kept shtum and only made the request after the hearing. As you know, if you want to present evidence, it is no good doing it after the trial.

 

[Vixen]

Many Italian acquittals are based upon CPP Article 530 paragraph 2.

Large numbers of cases appealed to the CSC are annulled without referral every year.

"Annullamento senza rinvio" (annulled without referral) cases number from a minimum of about 2600 to a maximum of about 7300 for the years 2011 to 2021.

See: https://www.cortedicassazione.it/ca...cms/documents/AG2022_ANNUARIO_penale_2021.pdf

These are cases that already had 'not guilty' at the the lower courts.

 

[Vixen]

Your ability to spin things is impressive. However, we can go back read what is actually said:

and


This ITALIAN journalist of color wrote an article on systemic and endemic racism in Italy and she has a book on, too:




Once again, we can read what I really said, and your spin on it is...ahem...interesting:






None of this has anything to do with Italy's systemic and endemic racism which you deny exists. What we've seen is you deliberately twisting what I said to suit your own agenda.




LOL! I do have to admire your persistence, even if it's to blatantly wrong.

Want more proof that Italy has its own systemic/endemic racism? Read on:






Why should Trump send money to a non-American citizen? How many of your fellow Finns sent money to Guede, Knox, or Sollecito? Did you send money to Guede? No? Why not? Should we infer you're racist because of that? I don't think so.



I see. Everyone is America 'just knows that" do they?




We finally agree on something. Guede wasn't being racist, he was using race to create sympathy for himself. That's called playing the race card in his favor. As I posted earlier, this was Judge Michelli's view of Rudy's nonsense:






I could not agree with you more! Now that you recognize this, perhaps you'll refrain from repeating it.



Ok... I'll bite: how do the phone logs show them elsewhere between 9:00 and the next morning...the hours in which the murder definitely took place?

This should be good......

No, Guede was not 'playing the race card'. He concurs that it might have been his own internal narrative. It is only YOUR conjecture that he was 'playing the race card'. I wonder why you delight in using that phrase.

As for the Italian racism you highlight, it is not generational or systemic in the way the US prosecutor you cited was (bribing a witness to put two Black guys in jail knowing it would be extremely difficult for them to prove innocence). Italians can be as racist as anyone, especially as they are given permission from their far right governments. However, it is nonsense to say that Mignini prosecuting Knox and Sollecito is a parallel with your US prosecutor. Inverse racism? Really.


As for the phone logs, it is a legal finding of fact* that the phone logs prove Knox was not home with her boyfriend all night. Do read Marasca-Bruno.


*As well as objective scientific evidence.

 

[Vixen]

You're right; they'll be looking up what the Marasca-Bruno Supreme Court says:
(The SC) "...annuls the ruling under appeal without referral with respect to the crimes under charges A), D) and E) of the rubric because the appellants did not commit the act."

Standard pro-forma statement that follows, 'Not guilty'. However, it is followed by 'because of insufficient evidence', which means the facts are as found but more evidence is needed.

 

[Welshman]

Chieffi followed the correct legal process. Knox and Sollecito appealed their convictions. Due process sent it to the Appeal Court (Hellman). Hellman off his own bat appointed Conti & Vecchiotti. Vecchiotti refused to test a DNA sample near the knife handle. Hellman overturned the Massei verdict. This time the prosecutor appealed (this is where Napoleon Roman Law differs from US/UK law, where prosecutors cannot appeal against a 'not guilty' verdict [except perhaps under some kind of mistrial with some kind of wrongdoing, even then it is rare [cf the case where a newspaper reporter calling himself a Sheikh persuaded a rock star to order some cocaine, and he then had a 'gotcha!' moment: the judge dismissed the case regardless of any guilt]). 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'). Having had a guilty at the merits trial and then at the Appeal Court with outstanding 'merits' now settled, the Supreme Court of Marasca-Bruno should have by convention sent it back down to have the 'errors' rectified. It did not do this, hence the findings of fact by Massei and Nencini stands. Hellman's does not. Do you follow this?

Could Vixen explain what was the point of testing the knife when the charactarstics of the knife would have made it impossible for the knife to have had DNA on it

The knife was picked at random with no other knives taken from Raffaele’s kitchen or the cottage. Is it credible a knife collected under these circumstances was the murder weapon.
The knife didn’t match a bloody imprint on the bed.
The knife was too large to have caused the two smaller wounds.
There was bruising on the fatal wound which indicated the knife had gone all the way in. The length of the fatal wound was 8 cm whilst the length of the knife was 17 cm which indicated the knife couldn’t have caused the larger wound.
The knife didn’t have any blood or human biological material on it.
The defence had no objection to the knife being opened while the prosecution didn’t want the knife opened.

 

[Numbers]

Many Italian acquittals are based upon CPP Article 530 paragraph 2.

Large numbers of cases appealed to the CSC are annulled without referral every year.

"Annullamento senza rinvio" (annulled without referral) cases number from a minimum of about 2600 to a maximum of about 7300 for the years 2011 to 2021.

See: https://www.cortedicassazione.it/ca...cms/documents/AG2022_ANNUARIO_penale_2021.pdf

These are cases that already had 'not guilty' at the the lower courts.

Please provide evidence for your statement.

To those interested in facts:

If the CSC were to annul without referral a "not guilty" verdict (an acquittal or a dismissal), it would need to substitute a different verdict.

If it substituted a guilty verdict, it would be trying the merits without conducting an adversarial trial with the opportunity for the defense to question witnesses, which would be contrary to Article 111 of the Italian Constitution. Furthermore, the accused must be allowed the opportunity to appear and testify in person, otherwise a trial which results in a conviction is considered unfair, a violation of Convention Article 6, by the ECHR.

Vixen's statement appears to be a falsehood invented to cover up Vixen's apparent ignorance of Italian law and the realities of Italian judicial practices.

 

[Welshman]

Having attempted to explain this quite a few times now, I have a feeling it will be futile but here goes. In the US Southern States until quite recently segregation was enshrined in law. The large prisons had evolved around a system of slavery as apparently the prison named 'Angola' where Albert Woodfox was incarcerated for 42 years largely in solitary, was a continuation of a slave plantation from when slavery was the law for US Blacks. Many of the prison officers were generational, in the same way many of the UK mining and steel industry were traditional from father to son for generations. So the prisoners were largely Black who had been kept out of social mobility and the prison officers from a tradition of Ku Klux Klan, whereby discrimination, hateful slurs, and sporadic beatings were the norm and it was a waste of time to complain as the prisoner would only be persecuted more. This was systemic as the judges themselves had jury systems that disadvantaged the Blacks, as they were not property owners, etcetera, etcetera. This can be traced back sociologically and historically to colonialism. So it was common for prosecutors to cut corners and bribe witnesses to testify against Black prisoners, especially ones who had become violent through radicalisation. The US government was terrified of a race war by the radicalised Black Panthers who often radicalised others in prison, so a counterintelligence drive to stamp out the movement (COINTELPRO) resulted in multiple assassinations of Black Panther members and any prisoner suspected of being a ringleader was victimised. They were dangerous. They did not hesitate to slit white prison guards' throats. So they would end up in solitary for years.

When another poster claimed that prosecutors in Italy were equally corrupt as US ones, she didn't know what she was talking about (and pretends to still not know).

The idea that Mignini is a bent prosecutor who fixed it to pin a murder and rape on two innocent 'kids' when it was 'obvious the Black drifter, bum, hobo' did it' is utterly ludicrous.

Yet the PIP really believes this fantasy.

This post is an example of blatant hypocrisy from PGP when they accuse of PIP of believing in fantasies when making utterly absurd claims divorced from reality in the same post.

Firstly, Vixen claims the notion that Mignini was a bent prosecutor who railroaded innocent people is nonsense when corruption was committed by the prosecution on an industrial scale and numerous dirty tricks were carried out by the prosecution to gain a conviction. For instance, Stefanoni covered up the negative TMB results which showed the luminol prints were not made in blood. By telling lies to the media, the prosecution used false information to imply Amanda and Raffaele were involved in a crime which would work against Amanda and Raffaele. The abuses committed by the prosecution have been totally ignored by Vixen.

*Violating the rights of Amanda and Raffaele during the interrogations by denying access to lawyers and not taping the interrogation.

*Suppressing evidence and committing fraud and the list below is a small example of this.

"The prosecution hid the results of early and decisive DNA tests excluding Raffaele Sollecito as the sexual assailant, securing on improper grounds the pre-trial incarceration of Sollecito and Knox (and Lumumba) to the severe prejudice of the defense;

The prosecution concealed the initial results for tests performed on the two key items of evidence, i.e., the kitchen knife (Rep. 36b) and the bra clasp (Rep. 165b), and instead, produced only the results of suspicious “do over” tests (re-runs), without disclosing the data from the initial tests or even the fact that the subsequent tests were “do overs”;

The prosecution concealed that the kitchen knife profile was generated within a set of tests for which 90% of the results have been suppressed, strongly suggesting the occurrence of a severe contamination event that the prosecution continues to hide;

The prosecution claimed that contamination of the bra clasp was impossible, even though the bra clasp profile was produced during a set of tests for which there is documented proof of contamination;

The prosecution falsely portrayed the DNA laboratory as pristine and perfectly maintained, even though the lab’s own documents demonstrate that it was plagued with repeated contamination events and machine malfunctions that were known to the lab;

The prosecution has withheld the results from a massive number of DNA tests (well over 100), including probably exculpatory profiles relating to the sexual assault and a secondary crime scene downstairs;

The prosecution has hidden all of the records of the DNA amplification process—the most likely place for laboratory contamination to have occurred—including all of the contamination-control tests for this process."

*Telling numerous lies. The prosecution fed false stories to the media about the purchase of bleach receipts, the washing machine running, showering in a bloody bathroom and a missing Harry Potter book. Prosecutor Comodi lied to Amanda in court asking her why she phoned her mother at 12.00 pm when she actually phoned her mother at 12.47. Amanda was lied to she HIV. The postal police lied about the time of arrival to give the impression Raffaele had phoned the police after they arrived. The link below details the lies told by the prosecution.

http://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com/l...ele-sollecito/

Secondly, as per the link below, the evidence overwhelmingly shows Guede acted alone and as per the list I have compiled the notion of Amanda and Raffaele committing murder with Guede has more holes in it than a string vest and Vixen has consistently refused to explain why the scenario of Amdana and Raffaele committing murder with Guede is full of holes but despite this Vixen claims the notion of Gude acting alone without the involvement of Amanda and Raffaele is far fetched.

http://amandaknoxcase.com/rudy-guede/

• Amanda barely knew Rudy, Raffaele did not know Rudy at all and Amanda and Raffaele had only been dating six days. Three virtual strangers came together to commit a brutal sex crazed murder.

• Amanda only had brief contact with Guede and in six years the prosecution could not find any evidence of regular contact with Amanda and Guede and Raffaele had never met Guede. Despite this they were able to plan a murder.

• As the links below show witness testimony stated Amanda had a good relationship with Meredith and no evidence has existed Amanda had any animosity towards Meredith. Despite this Amanda was prepared to help a stranger carry out a brutal sexual assault and murder against Meredith.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda...ehavior-myths/

• The phones of Amanda and Raffaele were tapped in the three days between the discovery of Meredith’s body and the interrogations. Despite this Amanda and Raffaele make no mention of Rudy a man they were supposed to have committed a brutal murder and sexual assault with.

• Amanda spoke only basic Italian and Rudy did not speak English. Despite this Amanda and Rudy were able to plan a murder together.

• There is no contact between Amanda and Raffaele with Rudy after the murder. Is it credible that people could committ a brutal sexual assault and murder together and never contact each other again.

• As per the link below, the evidence which should have existed if Amanda and Rafffaele killed Meredith with Rudy is missing.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI2.html

• A woman was supposedly willing to help a stranger carry out a brutal sexual assault and murder against another woman. A scenario with no known precedent.

• The evidence against Guede was solid, credible and irrefutable as seen in the link below.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/rudy-guede/

The evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was full of holes and had no credibility. The knife was an example of this as can be seen from my post below. If Amanda, Raffaele and Guede committed the same crime together, how is the difference in the quality of the evidence explained?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7#post11377317

• The methods the prosecution had to resort to with regards to Amanda and Raffaele were clearly the methods prosecutors would resort to when they have a weak case, lack of evidence and the facts don’t support their case as can be seen from the links below. The prosecution didn’t have to resort to these tactics when it came to Guede which indicated the prosecution had plenty of evidence and a slam dunk case. How is this massive difference explained if Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy committed the same crime?


http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contam...bwork-coverup/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredi...ry-corruption/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/evidence-destroyed/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-...irs-apartment/
https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com/...ele-sollecito/
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post11071314
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post11071314

• The evidence suggests Meredith was killed between 9.00 pm and 10.00 pm. Raffaele was using his computer at 9.10 pm and 9.26 pm which gives them an alibi for the time Guede murdered Meredith.

• The posts below show some of the falsehoods by Vixen in her posts showing PGP have to resort to lying to argue the case for Amanda and Raffaele’s guilt. I have never heard anyone resorting to lying to argue the case for Rudy’s guilt. How is this difference explained if Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy committed the same crime?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11938562
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11942852
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11598412
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post11427461
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11951893

 

[Numbers]

Standard pro-forma statement that follows, 'Not guilty'. However, it is followed by 'because of insufficient evidence', which means the facts are as found but more evidence is needed.

This has been gone over many times in this thread and earlier continuations.

Vixen's statements in this post are false.

 

[Vixen]

Please provide evidence for your statement.

To those interested in facts:

If the CSC were to annul without referral a "not guilty" verdict (an acquittal or a dismissal), it would need to substitute a different verdict.

If it substituted a guilty verdict, it would be trying the merits without conducting an adversarial trial, which would be contrary to Article 111 of the Italian Constitution.

Vixen's statement appears to be a falsehood invented to cover up Vixen's apparent ignorance of Italian law and the realities of Italian judicial practices.

That's exactly the rule it did break. This is why the 'judicial facts' do nnot match the verdict insofar the judicial facts are pretty damning and quite contrary to Knox and Sollecito's stories. Sure in the short term, there was the short-term gratification of getting out of jail come hell or highwater but in the long term it leaves a massive question mark over the two, especially as the verdict against Guede names him as an accessory in cohorts with others but not the actual killer. No closure for anyone, not for the Kercher family, not for Knox, Sollecito or Guede.

It is not just conjecture either because the motivations report was over three month's late - and Italy is very strict in deadlines. Insiders say that Marasca was heard shouting at the others. He firmly believed guilt had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The motivations read as it does (highly damaging for the pair, and as evidenced in Sollecito's and Knox' inability to claim compensation) because word on the ground is that political intervention halted proceedings, and in light of the US State Department saying it would not extradite, the decision was to just 'do an Andreotti' and have done with it.

If the US press and PR companies had not interfere, Knox and Solleciot could have taken a lesser charge of manslaughter, out in half the eight-year sentence, free to get on with the rest of their lives.

 

[Vixen]

This has been gone over many times in this thread and earlier continuations.

Vixen's statements in this post are false.

It is a paragraph 560 is it not? This means a not proven verdict.


The only get-out clause Marasca-Bruno could use without having to refer it back to the lower courts.

 

[LondonJohn]

That's exactly the rule it did break. This is why the 'judicial facts' do nnot match the verdict insofar the judicial facts are pretty damning and quite contrary to Knox and Sollecito's stories. Sure in the short term, there was the short-term gratification of getting out of jail come hell or highwater but in the long term it leaves a massive question mark over the two, especially as the verdict against Guede names him as an accessory in cohorts with others but not the actual killer. No closure for anyone, not for the Kercher family, not for Knox, Sollecito or Guede.

It is not just conjecture either because the motivations report was over three month's late - and Italy is very strict in deadlines. Insiders say that Marasca was heard shouting at the others. He firmly believed guilt had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The motivations read as it does (highly damaging for the pair, and as evidenced in Sollecito's and Knox' inability to claim compensation) because word on the ground is that political intervention halted proceedings, and in light of the US State Department saying it would not extradite, the decision was to just 'do an Andreotti' and have done with it.

If the US press and PR companies had not interfere, Knox and Solleciot could have taken a lesser charge of manslaughter, out in half the eight-year sentence, free to get on with the rest of their lives.

So.... the practice of providing actual evidence to support your (wild and baseless) claims is not something you're either willing or able to do, huh?

 

[LondonJohn]

It is a paragraph 560 is it not? This means a not proven verdict.


The only get-out clause Marasca-Bruno could use without having to refer it back to the lower courts.

As I was saying.... the practice of providing actual evidence to support your (wild and baseless) claims is not something you're either willing or able to do, huh?

 

[Numbers]

That's exactly the rule it did break. This is why the 'judicial facts' do nnot match the verdict insofar the judicial facts are pretty damning and quite contrary to Knox and Sollecito's stories. Sure in the short term, there was the short-term gratification of getting out of jail come hell or highwater but in the long term it leaves a massive question mark over the two, especially as the verdict against Guede names him as an accessory in cohorts with others but not the actual killer. No closure for anyone, not for the Kercher family, not for Knox, Sollecito or Guede.

It is not just conjecture either because the motivations report was over three month's late - and Italy is very strict in deadlines. Insiders say that Marasca was heard shouting at the others. He firmly believed guilt had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The motivations read as it does (highly damaging for the pair, and as evidenced in Sollecito's and Knox' inability to claim compensation) because word on the ground is that political intervention halted proceedings, and in light of the US State Department saying it would not extradite, the decision was to just 'do an Andreotti' and have done with it.

If the US press and PR companies had not interfere, Knox and Solleciot could have taken a lesser charge of manslaughter, out in half the eight-year sentence, free to get on with the rest of their lives.

The above post is totally nonsensical.

 

[Numbers]

It is a paragraph 560 is it not? This means a not proven verdict.


The only get-out clause Marasca-Bruno could use without having to refer it back to the lower courts.

Vixen's post above must be considered profoundly hilarious or profoundly sad.

Vixen has clearly written the above post without attempting to align with any aspect of Italian law enacted and recorded by the Italian Parliament.

There is neither a paragraph 560 nor an operative Article 560 in the relevant Italian Code of Criminal Procedure. Article 560 was repealed by a law passed on 16 December 1999. It related to the former procedure for an accused to request an abbreviated trial of the type that Guede requested and received.

The Marasca CSC panel annulled the Nencini appeals court verdict under CPP Article 620, paragraph 1, subparagraph L and acquitted Knox and Sollecito of the charges related to the murder/rape of Kercher under CPP Article 530, paragraph 2, because the accused had not committed the act.

Acquittals under CPP Article 530, paragraph 2 are very common. They result from the prosecution submitting a case without providing credible evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or where the alleged evidence is contradictory and thus cannot prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There is nothing unusual about the use of CPP Article 530, paragraph 2, in an Italian acquittal.

To claim that it is somehow unusual or fraudulent is similar to the lies told in recent years that ballots cast in US elections must be counted by the end of election day. To the contrary, often both election laws and the mechanics of the counting may require a count to last for several days, depending on the number of ballots cast and how they were cast.

Source: https://www.brocardi.it/codice-di-procedura-penale/libro-ottavo/titolo-iv/art560.html

 

[Stacyhs]

Chieffi Supreme Court didn't just 'quash' Hellman it eviscerated him

LOL. Except the Hellmann verdict was later proved correct by Marasca-Bruno. Read it and weep:

8.1. An element of evidence of unchallengeable relevance - for the reasons
explained hereinafter - is represented by the total absence of biological traces
attributable with certainty to the two defendants in the murder room or on the body of the victim, whereas, instead, abundant traces surely attributable to Guede have
been found.
This was an insurmountable monolithic barrier on the path taken by the fact finding judge to arrive at the conviction of the present defendants, already acquitted previously for the murder by the Court of Appeals of Perugia

and he was retired pronto, with none of his colleagues speaking to him because of his obvious egregiousness in letting the pair go, Knox never to return.

NONE of them? Not a single one? ZERO? LOL! The fact some of his fellow judges behaved the way they did shows just how deeply their unprofessional, anti-Knox bias was. Shame on them.

"Letting them go"? You mean acquitting them for the same reasons the Marasca SC also acquitted them?

Not to mention his conspiracy with Conti & Vecchiotti, who, not for the first time refused to test the D.N.A. sample of a defendant later found guilty of murder.

Hahahahahahahaha!
Now there's a conspiracy between C & V and Hellmann? I guess all those other forensic experts that agree with them, including Peter Gill and Greg Hampikian, are in on this conspiracy, too?

Who wasn't corrupt, bent, incompetent, paid off, etc. according to you? Oh, yes...the Perugia police. Hmmm, haven't Monica Napoleoni, Lorena Zugarini, Stefania Squarta, and three more police officers been sentenced to more than 3 years in prison? Why, yes...yes, they have. So much for these 'honest and ethical police'.

However Hellman got Knox out of prison and that's the main thing, eh?

Yes, acquitting the innocent is the main thing.

Who cares if the merits court established she had viciously knifed someone.

Correct! Who cares about a first level court finding that was overturned not once, but twice, because it was based on an incorrect DNA analysis by someone who didn't know how to properly analyze extremely low DNA!

 

[Guss]

Chieffi followed the correct legal process. Knox and Sollecito appealed their convictions. Due process sent it to the Appeal Court (Hellman). Hellman off his own bat appointed Conti & Vecchiotti. Vecchiotti refused to test a DNA sample near the knife handle. Hellman overturned the Massei verdict. This time the prosecutor appealed (this is where Napoleon Roman Law differs from US/UK law, where prosecutors cannot appeal against a 'not guilty' verdict [except perhaps under some kind of mistrial with some kind of wrongdoing, even then it is rare [cf the case where a newspaper reporter calling himself a Sheikh persuaded a rock star to order some cocaine, and he then had a 'gotcha!' moment: the judge dismissed the case regardless of any guilt]). 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'). Having had a guilty at the merits trial and then at the Appeal Court with outstanding 'merits' now settled, the Supreme Court of Marasca-Bruno should have by convention sent it back down to have the 'errors' rectified. It did not do this, hence the findings of fact by Massei and Nencini stands. Hellman's does not. Do you follow this?

Vixen the screeching cry to authority is getting old don't ya think?
You should be analyzing the evidence with just a wisp of neutral common sense if you want to see reality, anyone who can't see the hilarity of the knife and one of the great embarrassments of Italy has a bad case of blinding bias (or has rocks in the noggin).
Are you not curious why Stephony went crazy on that knife?
We all know what the courts did, why keep repeating instead of analyzing the timelines and evidence for yourself?

 

[Numbers]

....

The Marasca CSC panel annulled the Nencini appeals court verdict under CPP Article 620, paragraph 1, subparagraph L and acquitted Knox and Sollecito of the charges related to the murder/rape of Kercher under CPP Article 530, paragraph 2, because the accused had not committed the act.

Acquittals under CPP Article 530, paragraph 2 are very common. They result from the prosecution submitting a case without providing credible evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or where the alleged evidence is contradictory and thus cannot prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There is nothing unusual about the use of CPP Article 530, paragraph 2, in an Italian acquittal.

....

Here is one quote from the Italian media underscoring that there's nothing unusual about the Marasca CSC panel verdict annulling the conviction by the Nencini court and fully acquitting Knox and Sollecito on the murder/rape charges:

Ma il 27 marzo 2015 la Cassazione mise definitivamente fine al procedimento assolvendo i due “per non avere commesso il fatto”.

Source: https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/20...sistema-informatico-e-danneggiamento/5934847/

 

[Stacyhs]

Having attempted to explain this quite a few times now, I have a feeling it will be futile but here goes.

Perhaps that's because your explanation is lacking?

>snipped for total irrelevancy<

When another poster claimed that prosecutors in Italy were equally corrupt as US ones,

Please keep your fiction confined to your literary efforts. They have no place here. I never said any such thing. This is what I replied to your post:

Quote:

The idea that some rogue prosecutor can successfully persecute a couple of sweet kiddies is just a PIP fantasy.

Well, actually, dishonest prosecutors have been found to have done exactly that in some cases. Example: the
Stanley Mozee and Dennis Allen case (the prosecutor surrendered his law license in lieu of being officially disbarred) for withholding exculpatory evidence and lying about evidence. Example: the Adnan Syed case where prosecutors suppressed exculpatory evidence. Example: the George Bell case where the prosecutor hid exculpatory evidence and lied about evidence.
But then again, you think that all the prosecutors, police, and convicting judges were all honest and ethical while claiming that every acquitting judge, defense lawyer and expert that supported innocence was 'bent' or 'bought off'..

I've corrected you before, so please stop twisting what I actually said.

she didn't know what she was talking about (and pretends to still not know).

Wait a minute. Did I not know what I was talking about or am I only pretending to still not know?

The idea that Mignini is a bent prosecutor who fixed it to pin a murder and rape on two innocent 'kids' when it was 'obvious the Black drifter, bum, hobo' did it' is utterly ludicrous.

Hmmmm....but didn't the black guy do it? Are you contending that Guede was only convicted because he was black and not because his DNA, palm print, and shoe prints in blood were found in, under, and around the victim's body?

Who has called Guede a 'bum' or 'hobo'? 'Drifter' is what he's been called by some media and, oh yes...by Prosecutor Manuela Comodi and Judge Michelli:

Analogamente, hanno scarso peso le vicende del 27 ottobre a Milano, salvo al fine dimostrare che negli ulitimi giorni it GUEDE si muoveva un po' come uno sbandato...

(Michelli Report,pg 80)

"sbandato": drifter ( per Google translate, Collins Reverso, Yandex, Easy Translation )

English translation per Catnip on TMofMK:

[216] Similarly, there is scarce weight in the proceedings of the 27th of October in Milan, save for the purpose of demonstrating that in the final days Mr GUEDE was moving about like a stray [or: drifter, dropout]..."
(Micheli report, pg. 68)

Yet the PIP really believes this fantasy.

I'm a PIP and I don't believe that "Mignini is a bent prosecutor who fixed it to pin a murder and rape on two innocent 'kids' "so that would tend to disprove your claim.

 

[Stacyhs]

It had to use the get-out clause 'Insufficient Evidence', usually only available to bent politicians, such as Andreotti and Berlusconi (who was found to have lied his way through court). Lucky them.


Nothing to be proud of.

Another entirely unsupported by evidence arsefact. You've made this same claim many times and have failed, despite repeated requests, to provide a single piece of evidence. Why is that?

HINT: If you cannot provide supporting evidence for what you claim is a 'fact', then stop making it.