• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 31

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stacyhs said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Statute being Clause 360.
 
Stacyhs said:
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?



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:



The note below as referenced:



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 :


It makes no mention of your claim.
Click to expand...


I object to your obnoxious sexist language.
 
Stacyhs said:
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?



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:



The note below as referenced:



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 :


It makes no mention of your claim.
Click to expand...

Numbers said:
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":



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:



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
Click to expand...

At the risk of introducing some clarity into the discussion, I will point out the following:

1. Some of the PGP have falsely claimed (due to ignorance or bias or whatever) that "proscioglimento" as an Italian legal term only applies to CPP Article 529, Sentenza di non doversi procedere (Judgment of not having to proceed). That is false because as shown in the relevant CPP section, "Proscioglimento" is used as the section heading for four CPP articles. Three of those articles relate to each of three different kinds of dismissals or not guilty judgments: Art. 529, Not having to proceed; Art. 530, Acquittal; and Art. 531, Extinction due to exceeding the time allowed under the statute of limitations. The fourth law, Art. 532, states that the accused who has been dismissed under any of the three laws (Art. 529, 530, 531) must be immediately released from detention unless there is another legal reason for continuing detention.

2. Even if the Marasca CSC panel MR uses the word "proscioglimento" in its text, the actual legal reason - defined by CPP article number - for the dismissal is found in the text of the PQM (For These Reasons; operative verdict) section at the end of the MR. The final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito on the murder/rape charges was thus under CPP Article 530, paragraph 2. There are some other details in the PQM; one charge went extinct due to the statute of limitations and the aggravating factor for Knox's calunnia was eradicated by the acquittal on the murder/rape charges.

3. Some PGP insist that the acquittal was for "insufficient evidence". There is no such acquittal in Italian law since the reforms of 1988. The acquittal is because the accused did not commit the act of the crime. The Marasca CSC panel make clear in their MR that there was no credible evidence that Knox and/or Sollecito had committed the crimes listed in the charges relating to the murder/rape. The MR confirmed that the final conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba remained in place; this conviction was found unfair by the ECHR in its final judgment Knox v. Italy, due to the violations of international law committed by Italy during her interrogation.
 
Vixen said:
The Statute being Clause 360.
Click to expand...

The Statute being Clause 360 which does not say what you said it did. :shocked:

And you still have provided absolutely zero evidence of ARTICLE 530.2 being 'rare' or a 'loophole' used almost exclusively for the mafia. Just as you never provided any evidence that Raffaele met with mafioso in the Dominican Republic...or much of anything else.
 
Last edited:
Numbers said:
At the risk of introducing some clarity into the discussion, I will point out the following:

1. Some of the PGP have falsely claimed (due to ignorance or bias or whatever) that "proscioglimento" as an Italian legal term only applies to CPP Article 529, Sentenza di non doversi procedere (Judgment of not having to proceed). That is false because as shown in the relevant CPP section, "Proscioglimento" is used as the section heading for four CPP articles. Three of those articles relate to each of three different kinds of dismissals or not guilty judgments: Art. 529, Not having to proceed; Art. 530, Acquittal; and Art. 531, Extinction due to exceeding the time allowed under the statute of limitations. The fourth law, Art. 532, states that the accused who has been dismissed under any of the three laws (Art. 529, 530, 531) must be immediately released from detention unless there is another legal reason for continuing detention.

2. Even if the Marasca CSC panel MR uses the word "proscioglimento" in its text, the actual legal reason - defined by CPP article number - for the dismissal is found in the text of the PQM (For These Reasons; operative verdict) section at the end of the MR. The final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito on the murder/rape charges was thus under CPP Article 530, paragraph 2. There are some other details in the PQM; one charge went extinct due to the statute of limitations and the aggravating factor for Knox's calunnia was eradicated by the acquittal on the murder/rape charges.

3. Some PGP insist that the acquittal was for "insufficient evidence". There is no such acquittal in Italian law since the reforms of 1988. The acquittal is because the accused did not commit the act of the crime. The Marasca CSC panel make clear in their MR that there was no credible evidence that Knox and/or Sollecito had committed the crimes listed in the charges relating to the murder/rape. The MR confirmed that the final conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba remained in place; this conviction was found unfair by the ECHR in its final judgment Knox v. Italy, due to the violations of international law committed by Italy during her interrogation.
Click to expand...

I object to your obnoxious posting of facts! :p
 
Numbers said:
At the risk of introducing some clarity into the discussion, I will point out the following:

1. Some of the PGP have falsely claimed (due to ignorance or bias or whatever) that "proscioglimento" as an Italian legal term only applies to CPP Article 529, Sentenza di non doversi procedere (Judgment of not having to proceed). That is false because as shown in the relevant CPP section, "Proscioglimento" is used as the section heading for four CPP articles. Three of those articles relate to each of three different kinds of dismissals or not guilty judgments: Art. 529, Not having to proceed; Art. 530, Acquittal; and Art. 531, Extinction due to exceeding the time allowed under the statute of limitations. The fourth law, Art. 532, states that the accused who has been dismissed under any of the three laws (Art. 529, 530, 531) must be immediately released from detention unless there is another legal reason for continuing detention.

2. Even if the Marasca CSC panel MR uses the word "proscioglimento" in its text, the actual legal reason - defined by CPP article number - for the dismissal is found in the text of the PQM (For These Reasons; operative verdict) section at the end of the MR. The final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito on the murder/rape charges was thus under CPP Article 530, paragraph 2. There are some other details in the PQM; one charge went extinct due to the statute of limitations and the aggravating factor for Knox's calunnia was eradicated by the acquittal on the murder/rape charges.

3. Some PGP insist that the acquittal was for "insufficient evidence". There is no such acquittal in Italian law since the reforms of 1988. The acquittal is because the accused did not commit the act of the crime. The Marasca CSC panel make clear in their MR that there was no credible evidence that Knox and/or Sollecito had committed the crimes listed in the charges relating to the murder/rape. The MR confirmed that the final conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba remained in place; this conviction was found unfair by the ECHR in its final judgment Knox v. Italy, due to the violations of international law committed by Italy during her interrogation.
Click to expand...

The notion the supreme court acted illegally in annulling the convictions of Amanda and Raffaele is a useful tool for PGP to use regardless whether this is true or not because they can argue Amanda and Raffaele were acquitted on improper grounds which is why Vixen constantly uses this argument and will never accept the supreme court acted properly despite Numbers pointing repeatedly the supreme didn't act illegally. If Vixen accepts the supreme court acted within the law, the argument Amanda and Raffaele were acquitted illegally and improperly which would be of great value to the PGP can't be used.
 
Vixen said:
So, in other words, like Sollecito's late phone call to the police after they had already arrived, just another feeble gesture. WHY make an application that was 'too late'? Why claim in his book that he and his counsel were worried the forensics would show it was his? do you really believe his absurd claim of being afraid of being fitted up, given that it is a computer that analyses the STR's and RFU peaks, and in addition the computer has no innate knowledge of what his DNA profile is so can hardly fake it. In addition, his counsel would have the right to send an expert witness to observe proceedings.

Having established Guede sexually assaulted the victim, via epithelial traces, what is the further need? The guy stands convicted.

In fact, I am betting Sollecito breathed a sigh of relief it wasn't tested and his faux indignation conceals a pathetic attempt to throw off suspicion from himself.
Click to expand...

YOU are the one who made the claim a request was made "AFTER the trial and he had been found guilty and sentence" so I provided quotes from both Massei and Nencini MR's proving this to be wrong, and THIS is how you respond? Just admit you were wrong.

What is the further need? Because Guede's story was consensual petting, which ended because of no condom, and him heading off to the bathroom. In other words, no orgasm. So now, if the stain is tested and it turns out to be semen belonging to Guede, that puts the sexual assault into an entirely different light.
 
Vixen said:
You've never heard of a victim of a sexual assault being assaulted more than once, or by more than one person?

Let's suspend credulity and imagine for the sake of academic argument that Guede was indeed paying a social visit to Mez and they got romantic, as he claims, but he didn't have any condoms, hence just heavy petting (and his bodily fluids were not present internally). So then as he claims Knox turned up, angry because Lumumba had just rung up telling her not to come in, believing that Kercher had stolen her job. Kercher is angry that her rent money is missing (and her fingerprints were found looking in the drawers of Knox' room). Guede claims he objected to Mez' tone. The courts decided Guede held Mez' arms behind her back whilst a fatal knife wound was inflicted on one side of her neck and two more lesser stabs with a different knife on the other side. There are also numerous knife flicks marks suggesting a period of torture and tormenting. There were no defence wounds aside from a minor one, which is why the court determined there wer multiple assailants, and as upheld by Marasca-Bruno CSC. So Guede claims the pair ran off, leaving him to fetch towels to try to stem the wounds. Luminol shows his shoeprints heading directly to the front door, away from the murder room. There were no bare footprints identified as Guede's.

So, who returned to (a) drag the body from its original position by the closet [wardrobe], (b) place it onto a sheet [cops said they believed this was a sign of wanting to carry the corpse away), (c) undress it, with the bra cut off or torn off with a knife, a pillow placed under the hips and placed so that anyone entering the room would be met with the obscene vision (cf Boston Strangler) except that someone decided to cover the body with a duvet. The court determined the burglary was staged because papers scattered from Filomena's room were on top of the duvet, therefore after the murder.

So why would Knox and Sollecito want to return to stage a rape and burglary scene (and a theatrical one at that when nothing was stolen except Mez' phones and credit cards)? Precisely for the same reason Knox pointed at Lumumba: to divert suspicion away from herself, as being resident there. To cover up the signs of a sadistic torture based on her rage and Sollecito's need for 'extreme experiences' and his knife fetish.

Kokomanni is an unreliable witness, being heavily involved in Albanian gang drug smuggling of cocaine, but he was pinged in the area and witnessed as being there as of the time frame. So I tend to believe him when he says he saw Knox, Guede and Sollecito outside 7 via Pergola absolutely stoned out of their minds, waving a knife and claiming to be waiting for a friend 'to give her a birthday party' (presumably the knife Knox was waving was to cut the birthday cake, in explanation). It all fits with what likely happened, especially as Knox and Sollecito said afterwards they would never take drugs again.
Click to expand...

So, putting aside all of that BS you just spewed... Guede definitively sexually assaulted Meredith. If Amanda and Raffaele were there, they'd know that and therefore not need to stage that which had already happened. None of the crap you just laid out changes that. OTOH, assuming Amanda and Raffaele were quietly spending the evening alone at his apartment as they both have said, there is absolutely nothing in the physical evidence that would be inconsistent with Guede committing the crime on his own. What the courts chose to theorize is irrelevant. They also decided Curatolo, Quintavalle and Capezzali were all credible, so clearly they are prone to faulty reasoning.
 
TruthCalls said:
So, putting aside all of that BS you just spewed... Guede definitively sexually assaulted Meredith. If Amanda and Raffaele were there, they'd know that and therefore not need to stage that which had already happened. None of the crap you just laid out changes that. OTOH, assuming Amanda and Raffaele were quietly spending the evening alone at his apartment as they both have said, there is absolutely nothing in the physical evidence that would be inconsistent with Guede committing the crime on his own. What the courts chose to theorize is irrelevant. They also decided Curatolo, Quintavalle and Capezzali were all credible, so clearly they are prone to faulty reasoning.
Click to expand...

Only the convicting courts found Curatolo, Quintavalle and Capezzali credible which just goes to show how irrational their reasoning was.
 
TruthCalls said:
YOU are the one who made the claim a request was made "AFTER the trial and he had been found guilty and sentence" so I provided quotes from both Massei and Nencini MR's proving this to be wrong, and THIS is how you respond? Just admit you were wrong.

What is the further need? Because Guede's story was consensual petting, which ended because of no condom, and him heading off to the bathroom. In other words, no orgasm. So now, if the stain is tested and it turns out to be semen belonging to Guede, that puts the sexual assault into an entirely different light.
Click to expand...

It was a manky old pillow covered in numerous stains. In law you cannot go on a 'fishing expedition', in other words go trawling about hoping to nail someone. That is suspect-centric and in any case, what does it have to do with Knox' and Sollecito's Nencini appeal when Guede was already convicted?

The issues were decided at the prehearing stage of the trial and it is clear neither party thought the pillow as an issue.
 
TruthCalls said:
So, putting aside all of that BS you just spewed... Guede definitively sexually assaulted Meredith. If Amanda and Raffaele were there, they'd know that and therefore not need to stage that which had already happened. None of the crap you just laid out changes that. OTOH, assuming Amanda and Raffaele were quietly spending the evening alone at his apartment as they both have said, there is absolutely nothing in the physical evidence that would be inconsistent with Guede committing the crime on his own. What the courts chose to theorize is irrelevant. They also decided Curatolo, Quintavalle and Capezzali were all credible, so clearly they are prone to faulty reasoning.
Click to expand...

According to Guede - who few believe but anyway - he arrived at the cottage at a predestined arrangement (unlikely given Mez mistakenly believed she had a class next day [actually, a Bank holiday] and had told her friends that she needed to finish off some reading, having borrowed a history book that she need to give back to a fellow student. Having got back around 9:00 it is hardly likely she'd want to begin a new relationship having just spent hours at a pizza party with Netflix). According to his version, Knox arrived later and Mez let him in.

Knox in her first statement to the police stated that she had met Patrik in he baseball court and they had returned to the cottage together, with the aim of his having sex with Mez. Mez fought him off and Knox claimed she heard the harrowing screams as he raped and murdered her. (NB: Patrik was entirely innocent with a verified alibi.)

So the legal facts found are tha Knox confessed to being present at the murder scene.
 
Numbers said:
At the risk of introducing some clarity into the discussion, I will point out the following:

1. Some of the PGP have falsely claimed (due to ignorance or bias or whatever) that "proscioglimento" as an Italian legal term only applies to CPP Article 529, Sentenza di non doversi procedere (Judgment of not having to proceed). That is false because as shown in the relevant CPP section, "Proscioglimento" is used as the section heading for four CPP articles. Three of those articles relate to each of three different kinds of dismissals or not guilty judgments: Art. 529, Not having to proceed; Art. 530, Acquittal; and Art. 531, Extinction due to exceeding the time allowed under the statute of limitations. The fourth law, Art. 532, states that the accused who has been dismissed under any of the three laws (Art. 529, 530, 531) must be immediately released from detention unless there is another legal reason for continuing detention.

2. Even if the Marasca CSC panel MR uses the word "proscioglimento" in its text, the actual legal reason - defined by CPP article number - for the dismissal is found in the text of the PQM (For These Reasons; operative verdict) section at the end of the MR. The final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito on the murder/rape charges was thus under CPP Article 530, paragraph 2. There are some other details in the PQM; one charge went extinct due to the statute of limitations and the aggravating factor for Knox's calunnia was eradicated by the acquittal on the murder/rape charges.

3. Some PGP insist that the acquittal was for "insufficient evidence". There is no such acquittal in Italian law since the reforms of 1988. The acquittal is because the accused did not commit the act of the crime. The Marasca CSC panel make clear in their MR that there was no credible evidence that Knox and/or Sollecito had committed the crimes listed in the charges relating to the murder/rape. The MR confirmed that the final conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba remained in place; this conviction was found unfair by the ECHR in its final judgment Knox v. Italy, due to the violations of international law committed by Italy during her interrogation.
Click to expand...

That's only a defence lawyers reinterpretation of the law, M'Lud.
 
Numbers said:
It's so sad that those horrid facts get in the way of the wonderful conspiracy theories!:)
Click to expand...

I stick to the facts. Here we have seen people who had no idea:

  • It was statutory for a representative of the defendant to witness a forensic testing of a sample.
  • That this was as per Clause 360
  • How to look up the Italian Penal Code or what #360 meant (i.e., to scroll down until you reach the Clause, which is in NUMERICAL order
  • the meaning of 'statute'
  • the definition of 'statutory'
  • That they continue to be staggeringly ignorant by claiming it is not statutory despite all facts to the contrary.

The only conclusion is that the idea 'Stefanoni fiddled the results because Mignini made her do it' is the real Conspiracy Theory here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom