The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 31

[Stacyhs]

No, you were the one claiming that there was no striation on the knife.
CITATION PLEASE.

Sigh. Nope. Citation provided:

Hell, she couldn't even find her own 'striation' in the knife she claimed the DNA came from. Nor could anyone else.

As for the striation on the knife, if you read Nencini, the defence concurred that there WAS a scratch on the knife. Settled.

I can find no such defense concurrence. Please quote.

I can find no such defense concurrence. Please quote.

Do look up the Nencini Appeal court transcripts, in which Conti and Vecchiotti concur under oath that there was a striation on the knife.

As I said: I found no such concurrence. I remember someone said:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_716696375612ea0390.jpg[/qimg]

Oh....that was YOU! Yet again, you make a claim which you refuse to provide evidence for.

What is the point in continuing to make claims you refuse to provide evidence for?

It is no good claiming that the defense concurred there was a scratch without quoting and citing.

I never said there was no scratch or striation. I said Stefanoni, or anyone else, could ever find it. And you continue to refuse providing a quote and citation for YOUR claim.

 

[Numbers]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Proof: note the date of the Marasca-Bruno Supreme Court verdict - the final one.



Fast forward to the next court - note the date: post-Marasca-Bruno of 2015.



Where did this court get its legal facts from? It relied on the aforesaid Court of 2015.

....

Vixen, thanks for the response to my question.

It appears that you have shown that where the Marasca CSC panel judgment did not explicitly contradict the "legal facts" declared by the Nencini appeal court and other earlier judgments, those "legal facts" remained usable, in the opinion of the Italian judicial system, by the Compensation Court in judging and rejecting Sollecito's claim for compensation for unjust detention.

Of course, whether those "legal facts" were truly usable under Italian law and international law remains debatable. As many posters here are aware, Sollecito has lodged an application with the ECHR on this point, and the case was Communicated* to Italy by the ECHR 1 February 2022 and published 21 February 2022. The questions posed in the Communication is whether or not Sollecito received a fair hearing from the Compensation Court and the CSC (a fair hearing being required by Convention Article 6, and his statements being used contrary to CPP Article 63) and whether the Compensation Court or CSC violated his right to the presumption of innocence (contrary to the Italian Constitution Article 27 and CPP Article 530, and to Convention Article 6.2).

However, regarding your response, I was seeking an answer to a somewhat different question than you chose as the basis of your reply. Perhaps I was not clear enough.

You stated the following in your earlier post:

Fast forward to Marasca and Bruno CSC arising from an appeal by the defendants against Nencini upholding the lower courts conviction. ....

Because it further failed to refer the case back to the second instance court, the legal facts found by Nencini stand.
You have shown that in the opinion of the Compensation Court (and a CSC panel), certain pre-Marasca "legal facts" remained usable, but those specific "legal facts" had apparently not been contradicted by Marasca.
Where is the evidence under Italian law supporting your allegation that the failure of the Marasca CSC panel to refer the case to a lower court means that the "legal facts" found by Nencini stand?


* https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-215997

 

[Stacyhs]

It has been explained and debated at length in the past. Please do a search and refresh the arguments as nothing seems to sink in and you'll be asking the same question next week. If you do not know the background by now, it is easy enough to look it up.

Who do you think you are gaslighting here? We are not playing Ingrid Bergman to your Charles Boyer.

It has never been explained or debated in the past. In reality, you have repeated this claim over and over again and been asked repeatedly to quote and cite evidence that Art. 530, para. 2 is 'rare' and a 'loophole' used for mafia acquittals. You have failed to ever do so. Repeating your claim does not make it true no matter how often you do it.

If you could provide evidence, you would have done so long ago. The fact is: YOU CAN'T. You know it, I know it, and everyone else reading this knows it. So stop it.

 

[LondonJohn]

It has been explained and debated at length in the past. Please do a search and refresh the arguments as nothing seems to sink in and you'll be asking the same question next week. If you do not know the background by now, it is easy enough to look it up.

Uhm it's only you who's making this "argument", Vixen.

And your "argument" that 530.2 is nothing but a "loophole" - together with your clear insinuation that it's an instrument which is primarily used to get corrupt and guilty people off the hook - is either a mistake or a lie on your part.

The reason you misdirect/refuse when asked to provide evidence supporting your claim on this matter is because.... there is no such evidence in existence. In fact, there's ample evidence that 530.2 is actually a very common way to be acquitted in Italy (which, if you understood jurisprudence properly, you'd even be able to figure out logically - since almost all defendants who make it to trial cannot, by definition, prove their innocence).

So, once again: please show the evidence to support your claim wrt 530.2. And that evidence needs to be in the form of a reliable source stating that 530.2 is an extremely rare form of acquittal in the Italian criminal justice system (with statistics to support that statement).

<fx: adopts waiting pose>

 

[Stacyhs]

How a criminal trial works. In a messy murder/presumed burglary/rape there will be numerous pieces of evidence. The forensic police collected about 500 discrete exhibits. A criminal trial by the time you see it, has been meticulously planned and timetabled. This timetable will include numerous pre-hearings and dozens, even hundreds of applications to do this that or other. The parties involved, including the prosecutor and defences have to agree what the issues are and what evidence to examine. It would be quite unwieldy and unnecessary to include absolutely everything, so there needs to be an idea as to what the parties agree on and where there is a dispute. These disputes form the 'issues'. If it is already agreed by the parties that Guede sexually assaulted the victim, as per the forensics, then what is the point in trying to find more DNA when he was already convicted?

How is it a detriment to Sollecito in any way when he was never accused nor convicted of sexual assault, but more a generalised participant in a group enterprise of Aggravated Murder.

What is your point, Caller?

I wish for once you'd give a straight answer to a straight question instead of all the evasive and irrelevant nonsense as demonstrated above. It's a tiresome, overused, and transparent tactic to avoid answering .

How an investigation of a suspected sexual assault works:

1. Evidence is collected and analyzed BEFORE the trial begins.

2. Identification of the rapist is the primary evidence sought.

3. Semen is the primary evidence in identifying the rapist.

4. Forensic scientists will analyze any suspected semen/semen stain found as ASAP.


Not that I expect a straightforward answer, but hope springs eternal:

Can you give any reasonable explanation why a suspected semen stain found between the legs and directly below the genitals of a suspected sexual assault victim would not automatically be analyzed for DNA?
As previously provided, the police video shows Stefanoni saying the suspected seminal fluid is to be given "priority" and sent to Rome.



How is it a detriment to Sollecito in any way, you ask? I've answered that twice already: It would end speculation that it was his semen. What part of that are you not understanding?

 

[Vixen]

Sigh. Nope. Citation provided:












I never said there was no scratch or striation. I said Stefanoni, or anyone else, could ever find it. And you continue to refuse providing a quote and citation for YOUR claim.


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/716696376b94aa7f5a.png[/qimg]

I already told you I researched it and provided you with sources. If you don't wish to accept it that is your prerogative.

You believe your silly conspiracy theory.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, thanks for the response to my question.

It appears that you have shown that where the Marasca CSC panel judgment did not explicitly contradict the "legal facts" declared by the Nencini appeal court and other earlier judgments, those "legal facts" remained usable, in the opinion of the Italian judicial system, by the Compensation Court in judging and rejecting Sollecito's claim for compensation for unjust detention.

Of course, whether those "legal facts" were truly usable under Italian law and international law remains debatable. As many posters here are aware, Sollecito has lodged an application with the ECHR on this point, and the case was Communicated* to Italy by the ECHR 1 February 2022 and published 21 February 2022. The questions posed in the Communication is whether or not Sollecito received a fair hearing from the Compensation Court and the CSC (a fair hearing being required by Convention Article 6, and his statements being used contrary to CPP Article 63) and whether the Compensation Court or CSC violated his right to the presumption of innocence (contrary to the Italian Constitution Article 27 and CPP Article 530, and to Convention Article 6.2).

However, regarding your response, I was seeking an answer to a somewhat different question than you chose as the basis of your reply. Perhaps I was not clear enough.

You stated the following in your earlier post:

Fast forward to Marasca and Bruno CSC arising from an appeal by the defendants against Nencini upholding the lower courts conviction. ....

Because it further failed to refer the case back to the second instance court, the legal facts found by Nencini stand.
You have shown that in the opinion of the Compensation Court (and a CSC panel), certain pre-Marasca "legal facts" remained usable, but those specific "legal facts" had apparently not been contradicted by Marasca.
Where is the evidence under Italian law supporting your allegation that the failure of the Marasca CSC panel to refer the case to a lower court means that the "legal facts" found by Nencini stand?


* https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-215997

This underlines why Marasca-Bruno was defective. It has left issues in the air, rather than settle them. Whilst judges can use discretion as long as it is within the realms of 'reasonable' it is not satisfactory for a serious crime, such as murder, because as is apparent, although presumed legally innocent, the original facts stand against Sollecito.

Whilst it matters not what Fox News or Vanity Fair has to say about the case, nor crime writers or academics, even if they have set up their own business with 'Bio' in the name, as you appear to grasp, the only important issue is the legal position. All else is just noise.

Italy appears to have covered itself insofar it does have a clause that compensation for imprisonment during remand cannot qualify for statutory compensation if the defendant was found to have committed misconduct or negligent behaviour, and that is what the Martuscelli Favi court seems to be relying on.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I already told you I researched it and provided you with sources. If you don't wish to accept it that is your prerogative.

You believe your silly conspiracy theory.

Please, can you either resupply the sources, or link to your posts in which you did so? I've not followed the entire series of threads and it's asking a bit much to search through 30 threads worth of posts looking for it.

 

[Stacyhs]

For crying out loud, just google Italian Penal Code and then scroll down until you get to clause Article 360, numbered, for ease of reference.

FINALLY!! What was so damn hard about saying the Italian Penal Code several requests ago?

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Nice try. I did not say provide evidence that 'there was a witness to the testimony", now did I?

You said, "It is statutory in Italy for a witness from both parties to be present in forensic testing," and I replied "Citation needed."

If it is "statutory" then there is a statute stating that. So, I repeat "citation needed".

Repeating your claim or changing what you originally said does not make it more credible. As I said earlier, "you continue to make claims as fact and then refuse to provide evidence that they are facts when repeatedly asked to do so."

Clause 360.

So what does ARTICLE 360 actually say? Not what you claim it does:

Article 360 ​​Criminal Procedure Code
(DPR 22 September 1988, n. 477)
[Updated 04/29/2022]
Non-repeatable technical checks

3. Counsel as well as any technical consultants appointed have the right to assist in the conferment of the assignment, to participate in the investigations and to formulate observations and reservations (2) .

https://www.brocardi.it/codice-di-procedura-penale/libro-quinto/titolo-v/art360.html

Nowhere does it say they MUST attend, only that they have the RIGHT to do so.

Here's what Luciano Garofano, in D.Descending had to say about this:

Colonel Garofano also pointed out that although the defense experts should be at the police labs for the whole sesson while the testing is going on, to ensure fair play, they don't alwys stay the course. Now let's get to the DNA. The DNA testing is done using machines. There is nothing to see or understand. The legal experts often don't remain the full time during the period of analysis in the labs because everyone knows the procedure.
I have come across some of them before-Dr Pascali, for example, or Dr Torre. They have often been on the defence team whien I was producing analysis for the Prosecutor. Sara Gino works closely with Dr Torre; she's his DNA expert. They must all have been there for at least some of the time when the tests were done, although they do take hours and the costs mount up.

(Darkness Descending, no page number available)

So your oft repeated claim that the defense experts witnessed the testing and made no complaints thus supporting Stefanoni's work as being reliable does not hold up.

Fish. Barrel. Bang. Bang.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I already told you I researched it and provided you with sources. If you don't wish to accept it that is your prerogative.

You believe your silly conspiracy theory.

Please, can you either resupply the sources, or link to your posts in which you did so? I've not followed the entire series of threads and it's asking a bit much to search through 30 threads worth of posts looking for it.

Don't hold your breath.

 

[Vixen]

Who do you think you are gaslighting here? We are not playing Ingrid Bergman to your Charles Boyer.

It has never been explained or debated in the past. In reality, you have repeated this claim over and over again and been asked repeatedly to quote and cite evidence that Art. 530, para. 2 is 'rare' and a 'loophole' used for mafia acquittals. You have failed to ever do so. Repeating your claim does not make it true no matter how often you do it.

If you could provide evidence, you would have done so long ago. The fact is: YOU CAN'T. You know it, I know it, and everyone else reading this knows it. So stop it.

Andreotti:

There is a considerable gap between what the newspapers said and the reality of the facts. As the director of Fatto Quotidiano recalls , even before the first instance sentence, many falsehoods were told about this trial in which Andreotti was accused of mafia-type criminal association and mafia association. It was said, for example, that it was based only on the words of repentants when instead there were witnesses, documents and objective circumstances. “ With the arrival of the first instance sentence there was a liberating cry from the whole political world because Andreotti was all of them. Andreotti's acquittal was the acquittal of a whole system ”.On 23 October 1999, the Court of Palermo acquitted him pursuant to article 530.2, or due to lack of evidence . However, it was enough to read the reasons for the sentence to realize the guilt of the seven times Prime Minister and the 18 times Minister. “ The sentence was very harsh, but no one got away with it, on the contrary they continued to affirm his acquittal without specifying the insufficiency of evidence. It was even said that Andreotti had been beatified, that he had nothing to do with the mafia, despite the fact that the same sentence that acquitted him affirmed it ”.

Given the first instance judgment, the general climate suggested that the appeal process would confirm the previous one, avoiding reopening uncomfortable wounds. On May 2, 2003 however, the judges overturned the result of the first instance : “ In Rome they say paraculi. You declared Andreotti guilty until 1980 because up to that date the offense is statute-barred. If it was 1981 you have to condemn it ”. Despite the statute of limitations, the sentence recognizes the guilt of the defendant for criminal association with the Cosa Nostra, at least until the spring of 1980 . But then comes the lack of evidence. “ Crime committed but therefore prescribed. Andreotti is a mobster who got away with it because too much time has passed ”.

https://sentichiparla.it/politica/il-processo-andreotti-15-anni-dopo/

Berlusconi

Bribery of the Guardia di Finanza (Arces process)
Silvio Berlusconi (owner of Fininvest) was accused of complicity in corruption. The crime was perpetrated by Fininvest's payment of 380 million lira in bribes to three officers of the Guardia di Finanza engaged in tax audits, in the attempt of convincing them to "turn a blind eye" against tax frauds committed by the four Fininvest owned companies (all with headquarters in Milan):

<snip>

Court rulings
First-instance Court (July 1998): sentenced Silvio Berlusconi to 2 years and 9 months imprisonment, for all four bribes.[26]
Court of Appeals (May 2000): For Silvio Berlusconi, the statute of limitations expired for the first three cases, and an acquittal was given on the fourth case, because the court gave him the benefit of the doubt (not proven).

wiki

Do look at the wiki page to see just how many time Berlusconi has got away with fraud and corruption charges, mainly by statute of limitations running out.

By the way, note how Marasca-Bruno use the word "proscioglimento" in the motivation report instead of the proper term "assoluzione".

The term "proscioglimento" (translates as "acquittal") is normally used if a case is "struck out" during pre-trial (Art. 529). This is a decision that is open to appeal and therefore not a "final" decision. Without a definite ruling the case against the defendands could be re-opened.

So be careful what you wish for when demanding the pillow be examined for DNA.

 

[Stacyhs]

I already told you I researched it and provided you with sources. If you don't wish to accept it that is your prerogative.

You believe your silly conspiracy theory.

I never said there was any conspiracy theory about the knife. What I asked for was evidence of your claim that the defense in the Nencini trial concurred that there was a scratch/striation on it.

You're abject refusal to provide a quote and citation is just further evidence that your claim is........false.

Defendant: Honest, Your Honor, I can prove I'm innocent!

Judge: The please do so by providing this proof.

Defendant: I already told you I can prove I'm innocent!

Judge: I'm sorry, but I cannot just take your word as you have earned a reputation for being unreliable as you've lied in court multiple times.

Defendant: For the umpteenth time, I can prove my innocence! Go look it up!

Judge: Where?

Defendant: In the video tape.

Judge: What video tape?

Defendant: At the drug store.

Judge: What drug store?

Defendant: The one that has the video tape.

Judge: Then have your lawyer provide the video tape to the court.

Defendant: Why should we have to do that? I told you where it is.

Judge orders tape by shown in court. Video shows the defendant robbing the cashier.

 

[Vixen]

FINALLY!! What was so damn hard about saying the Italian Penal Code several requests ago?




So what does ARTICLE 360 actually say? Not what you claim it does:




https://www.brocardi.it/codice-di-procedura-penale/libro-quinto/titolo-v/art360.html

Nowhere does it say they MUST attend, only that they have the RIGHT to do so.

Here's what Luciano Garofano, in D.Descending had to say about this:

(Darkness Descending, no page number available)

So your oft repeated claim that the defense experts witnessed the testing and made no complaints thus supporting Stefanoni's work as being reliable does not hold up.

Fish. Barrel. Bang. Bang.

OH FOR GOODNESS SAKE!!! It is for the benefit of the Defendant that they have the right to attend a forensic testing and the right to a defence.

 

[Numbers]

Vixen, thanks for the response to my question.

It appears that you have shown that where the Marasca CSC panel judgment did not explicitly contradict the "legal facts" declared by the Nencini appeal court and other earlier judgments, those "legal facts" remained usable, in the opinion of the Italian judicial system, by the Compensation Court in judging and rejecting Sollecito's claim for compensation for unjust detention.

Of course, whether those "legal facts" were truly usable under Italian law and international law remains debatable. As many posters here are aware, Sollecito has lodged an application with the ECHR on this point, and the case was Communicated* to Italy by the ECHR 1 February 2022 and published 21 February 2022. The questions posed in the Communication is whether or not Sollecito received a fair hearing from the Compensation Court and the CSC (a fair hearing being required by Convention Article 6, and his statements being used contrary to CPP Article 63) and whether the Compensation Court or CSC violated his right to the presumption of innocence (contrary to the Italian Constitution Article 27 and CPP Article 530, and to Convention Article 6.2).

However, regarding your response, I was seeking an answer to a somewhat different question than you chose as the basis of your reply. Perhaps I was not clear enough.

You stated the following in your earlier post:

Fast forward to Marasca and Bruno CSC arising from an appeal by the defendants against Nencini upholding the lower courts conviction. ....

Because it further failed to refer the case back to the second instance court, the legal facts found by Nencini stand.
You have shown that in the opinion of the Compensation Court (and a CSC panel), certain pre-Marasca "legal facts" remained usable, but those specific "legal facts" had apparently not been contradicted by Marasca.
Where is the evidence under Italian law supporting your allegation that the failure of the Marasca CSC panel to refer the case to a lower court means that the "legal facts" found by Nencini stand?


* https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-215997

This underlines why Marasca-Bruno was defective. It has left issues in the air, rather than settle them. Whilst judges can use discretion as long as it is within the realms of 'reasonable' it is not satisfactory for a serious crime, such as murder, because as is apparent, although presumed legally innocent, the original facts stand against Sollecito.

Whilst it matters not what Fox News or Vanity Fair has to say about the case, nor crime writers or academics, even if they have set up their own business with 'Bio' in the name, as you appear to grasp, the only important issue is the legal position. All else is just noise.

Italy appears to have covered itself insofar it does have a clause that compensation for imprisonment during remand cannot qualify for statutory compensation if the defendant was found to have committed misconduct or negligent behaviour, and that is what the Martuscelli Favi court seems to be relying on.

The Marasca CSC panel judgment was incomplete in its failure to note that Sollecito's statements made during questioning without a lawyer were unusable against him, under CPP Article 63, as had been decided previously by another CSC panel. However, that does not make it legally defective, since it never uses Sollecito's statements against him. The lack of completeness in the Marasca CSC panel motivation report neglecting to state that Sollecito's statements under questioning without a lawyer were unusable against him has no bearing on the legal acceptability under CPP Article 620 of the Marasca CSC panel annulment of the Nencini appeal court judgment without referral.

On the other hand, the Compensation Court and CSC judgments rejecting compensation for unjust detention on the basis of Sollecito's statements made under questioning without a lawyer are apparently legally defective. I anticipate that the ECHR judgment will find that Italy violated Convention Article 6 in denying Sollecito compensation on that basis.

Vixen, you have not answered my question:

Where is the evidence under Italian law supporting your allegation that the failure of the Marasca CSC panel to refer the case to a lower court means that the "legal facts" found by Nencini stand?
It appears from your shifting of the goalposts that you have no valid answer. Please provide one if you do.

 

[Vixen]

It is at times like these, we must ask ourselves, "What would Grinder have said?"

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11176888#post11176888

 

[Stacyhs]

Andreotti:

https://sentichiparla.it/politica/il-processo-andreotti-15-anni-dopo/

Berlusconi

wiki

Do look at the wiki page to see just how many time Berlusconi has got away with fraud and corruption charges, mainly by statute of limitations running out.

Sigh. Nowhere in your two quotations about Andreotti or Berlusconi is it stated that 530. 2 is 'rare' or a 'loophole' as you keep claiming. THAT is what you are being challenged to provide evidence for and which you refuse to do. You are not a stupid woman so I find it impossible that you don't understand that. Why do you insist on playing this silly game?

By the way, note how Marasca-Bruno use the word "proscioglimento" in the motivation report instead of the proper term "assoluzione".

The term "proscioglimento" (translates as "acquittal") is normally used if a case is "struck out" during pre-trial (Art. 529). This is a decision that is open to appeal and therefore not a "final" decision. Without a definite ruling the case against the defendands could be re-opened.
So be careful what you wish for when demanding the pillow be examined for DNA.

Citation needed...sigh.

I find no evidence of your claim regarding the highlighted part.

This is the part you are referring to taken from one KrissyG's blog, who quite fancies herself the expert on all things Kercher trial related:

Following the considerations above, it is obvious that a remand [rinvio] would be useless, hence the declaration of annulment without remand, based on art. 620 L) of the procedure code, thus we apply an acquittal [proscioglimento *] formula [see note just below] which a further judge on remand would be anyway compelled to apply, to abide to the principles of law established in this current sentence

The note below as referenced:

*[Translator’s note: The Italian word for “acquittal” is actually “assoluzione”; while the term “proscioglimento” instead, in the Italian Procedure Code, actually refers only to non-definitive preliminary judgments during investigation phase, and it could be translated as “dropping of charges”. Note: as for investigation phase “proscioglimento” is normally meant as a non-binding decision, not subjected to double jeopardy, since it is not considered a judgment nor a court’s decision.]

This claim is not cited. The "Translator" is not named but the same link declares the translators to be "unpaid volunteers from http://www.perugiamurderfile.org". Whether there are any lawyers or, more specifically, Italian lawyers...who knows?

According to this Italian site :

acquittal s. m.[der. to acquit

– The act of acquitting, liberation: p.
from an obligation, from a bond, from a vow.
In the criminal trial, sentence of p., that of not having to proceed or of acquittal issued by the trial judge.

prosciogliménto s. m. [der. di prosciogliere]. – L’atto di prosciogliere, liberazione: p. da un obbligo, da un vincolo, da un voto. Nel processo penale,sentenza di p., quella di non doversi procedere o di assoluzione emessa dal giudice del dibattimento.

It makes no mention of your claim.

 

[Stacyhs]

OH FOR GOODNESS SAKE!!! It is for the benefit of the Defendant that they have the right to attend a forensic testing and the right to a defence.

Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick! Can you not stick to the actual point of the discussion instead of going off into things never in dispute? It's like
trying to pin Jello to the wall.

No one ever said it WASN'T for the benefit of defendants or that the defense didn't have the right to attend the testing!
It has to do with your claim that "It is statutory in Italy for a witness from both parties to be present in forensic testing," which means 'required' to attend and repeated claim that the defense experts witnessed the testing and made no complaints thus supporting Stefanoni's work as being reliable.

 

[Numbers]

It is at times like these, we must ask ourselves, "What would Grinder have said?"

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11176888#post11176888

Grinder asked many searching questions.

One resource he was looking for, IIRC, was an Italian lawyer to answer questions about Italian laws relevant to the Knox - Sollecito case.

Nowadays, we have the benefit of Italian lawyers who have posted useful information on websites listing Italian laws and, for some sites, discussing those laws.

One issue from back in the day was the meaning of certain legal terms. Here's a list that may help those who are willing to understand the difference in legal meaning of "proscioglimento" and "assoluzione":

Capo II - Decisione
Sezione I - Sentenza di proscioglimento
Art. 529 — Sentenza di non doversi procedere"
Art. 530 — Sentenza di assoluzione Art. 531 — Dichiarazione di estinzione del reato
Art. 532 — Provvedimenti sulle misure cautelari personali

Hint: The heading for Sezione I shows that "proscioglimento" is used to mean "dismissal", which covers several different kinds of "not guilty" verdicts under Italian law. The title for CPP Article 530 shows that "assoluzione" is used to mean "acquittal" specifically.

The text of the Note given immediately after the text of CPP Article 530 states:

L'impossibilità di giungere ad un accertamento della colpevolezza conduce alla pronuncia di una formula che corrisponde ad un accertamento positivo dell'innocenza: ciò discende dall'esigenza di annunciare la causa dell'assoluzione nel dispositivo, come prevede il comma 1.

The section "Spiegazione dell'art. 530 Codice di procedura penale", the explanation given by the Italian law firm after the text of CPP Article 530, further explains that there is no legal difference in the effects of an acquittal under paragraph 2 compared to paragraph 1 of CPP Article 530, and explains the meaning of the traditional acquittal formulas.

Source: https://www.brocardi.it/codice-di-p...timo/titolo-iii/capo-ii/sezione-i/art530.html

 

[Stacyhs]

And I'm still waiting for Vixen to quote and cite where the defense concurred there was a scratch/striation on the knife.

 

[Numbers]

Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick! Can you not stick to the actual point of the discussion instead of going off into things never in dispute? It's like
trying to pin Jello to the wall.

No one ever said it WASN'T for the benefit of defendants or that the defense didn't have the right to attend the testing!
It has to do with your claim that "It is statutory in Italy for a witness from both parties to be present in forensic testing," which means 'required' to attend and repeated claim that the defense experts witnessed the testing and made no complaints thus supporting Stefanoni's work as being reliable.

Sorry, but what's this all about?

Recall that major DNA profile testing was done 5-6 November before Knox and Sollecito had lawyers and certainly could not have technical consultants to oversee the testing.

Secondly, the nature of DNA profile tests (and many other forensic tests) is such that even an expert observing the test would not necessarily be able to observe a flaw, error, or misconduct in the sample and other preparation, methodology, or results of a test. A DNA contamination event is not necessarily visible, since a human cell or even a clump of relatively many cells is not visible to the naked eye. White blood cells, which contain DNA, are typically 15 micrometers or less in diameter.*

Observation of the testing is not a sufficient control measure; there must be full access by the defense to the raw DNA data including for all positive and negative controls. That information was suppressed by Stefanoni, with the exception of results for a few controls. Several of the results for the controls did show contamination at the LCN level, but Stefanoni did not discuss those indications of problems in her attempts at LCN DNA testing.

* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK563148/