The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 31

[Stacyhs]

That is just politese before savaging them.

M-B hardly used flowery faux-tactful language when they savaged Nencini:

6. We may now proceed to examine the motivational structure of the ruling
under appeal, the object of numerous critiques by the parties.
Even on first reading, discrepancies, inconsistencies, and errores in iudicando
[errors in judgment] that invalidate the overall structure of the argument ab imis [from the deepest] do not escape notice.

6.1 Erroneous, in the first place, is the assertion regarding the substantive
irrelevance of ascertaining the motive of the murderous act.

6.2. Another judicial error is to be found in the finding that the establishment of Kercher’s exact time of death was irrelevant, in the belief that the approximate timing offered by the expert investigations was sufficient, for all that this may have been correct at the trial stage.

8. Then in close succession the points of patent logical inconsistency in the
fabric of the reasoning of the challenged ruling are identified.

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 factfinding judge to arrive at the conviction of the present defendants, already acquitted previously for the murder by the Court of Appeals of Perugia.

There are, furthermore, patent [factual] errors in the reasoning of the ruling under examination.

9. The ascertained errores in iudicando [errors in judgment] and the logical inconsistencies pointed out invalidate the appealed verdict from the funditus[foundations], hence it deserves to be annulled.
The aforementioned reasons for annulling can be summarised in the inability to present an evidentiary framework that can really be considered suitable to support a pronouncement of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as required by Article 533 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure in the text renewed by Article 5 of the law n. 46/2006.

I could go on quoting M-B's detailed dismantling Nencini, but I think they summed it up well:

In fact, in the presence of a scenario marked by many contradictions, the referral judge should not have come to a verdict of guilt, but - as previously observed – should have reached a verdict of not guilty, given Article 530, section 2, Italian Code of Criminal Procedure.

 

[Stacyhs]

I have a speculation as to the answer to that.

So do I, but I'd like to see Vixen's explanation. Not that she'll ever give one.

 

[TruthCalls]

Pick a lane. Was (a) AK trying to cover for Guede or (b) to point the police towards him? Choose (a) or (b).

Here's the thing that makes Vixen's whole comment so ridiculous - if Amanda had been with Guede, the last thing Amanda would want would be for the police to figure out his involvement because surely his implicating her would be the next thing to happen. So to suggest she was trying to point the police towards Guede is in itself rather idiotic. That would be the last thing she'd want to do.

 

[Stacyhs]

Here's the thing that makes Vixen's whole comment so ridiculous - if Amanda had been with Guede, the last thing Amanda would want would be for the police to figure out his involvement because surely his implicating her would be the next thing to happen. So to suggest she was trying to point the police towards Guede is in itself rather idiotic. That would be the last thing she'd want to do.

One thing?

 

[TruthCalls]

One thing?

I was being kind...

 

[whoanellie]

The notion that Amanda fingered Lumumba knowing that the cops would figure out that he was not involved and then turn their attention to Guede is batcrap crazy.

 

[Bill Williams]

What Nencini thought of Vecchiotti

I have spent way, way too much time reading an English translation of the Nencini motivations report - doing word searches on 'Vecchiotti', to glean his attitude to the C&V report, and to listen to his own understanding of what the 2013 Chieffi SC panel tasked him to do.

Suffice it to say that Nencini's words are nothing like what Vixen, TJMK, the fake-wiki, or Krissy-G say. Those four entities stand alone in misrepresenting even a convicting, lower court!

Nencini confirms that the Chieffi SC panel did not necessarily expunge C&V - quite the contrary, Nencini regards them as experts, the equal to Stefanoni (!). What he understands he was charged to do in retrying the case, was to correct the fault Chieffi found in Hellmann, not a fault in C&V, the fault of farming out the judicial decision to test Trace I to C&V, to a non-judicial entity, rather than Hellmann making the decision himself.

Remember the reason why the original court, the Massei court, refused to appoint independent forensic experts? That was because, Massei had argued, at best those independents would agree with Stefanoni, at worst would disagree. Massei had argued that (him being the expert of the experts) it still would belong to the court to decide, regardless of what an independent found.

Nencini goes through the conflicts one by one, the conflicts between Stefanoni and C&V and unilaterally sides with Stefanoni on all of them - often by offering stunningly ignorant reasons why he chose Stefanoni. Like when he explained away the extra-male identities on Trace B from the clasp, probably being from the victim's girlfriends.

Note the 'probably'. That's bad enough. Nencini speculated, fresh from writing on a previous page that evidence was not to be the result of speculation. But the male-identities being from the victim's girlfriends.......!? That's no typo. Nencini is offering it as an innocent explanation as to why he hand-waves away contamination!

Anyway, no sense making this longer than it needs to be. It's just that Vixen, TJMK, the fake-wiki, or Krissy-G stand alone in how they represent Nencini!!!! There's a bizarre agenda to them, where they just make stuff up, even stuff to do with the courts they pretend to support!

 

[Numbers]

I have spent way, way too much time reading an English translation of the Nencini motivations report - doing word searches on 'Vecchiotti', to glean his attitude to the C&V report, and to listen to his own understanding of what the 2013 Chieffi SC panel tasked him to do.

Suffice it to say that Nencini's words are nothing like what Vixen, TJMK, the fake-wiki, or Krissy-G say. Those four entities stand alone in misrepresenting even a convicting, lower court!

Nencini confirms that the Chieffi SC panel did not necessarily expunge C&V - quite the contrary, Nencini regards them as experts, the equal to Stefanoni (!). What he understands he was charged to do in retrying the case, was to correct the fault Chieffi found in Hellmann, not a fault in C&V, the fault of farming out the judicial decision to test Trace I to C&V, to a non-judicial entity, rather than Hellmann making the decision himself.

Remember the reason why the original court, the Massei court, refused to appoint independent forensic experts? That was because, Massei had argued, at best those independents would agree with Stefanoni, at worst would disagree. Massei had argued that (him being the expert of the experts) it still would belong to the court to decide, regardless of what an independent found.

Nencini goes through the conflicts one by one, the conflicts between Stefanoni and C&V and unilaterally sides with Stefanoni on all of them - often by offering stunningly ignorant reasons why he chose Stefanoni. Like when he explained away the extra-male identities on Trace B from the clasp, probably being from the victim's girlfriends.

Note the 'probably'. That's bad enough. Nencini speculated, fresh from writing on a previous page that evidence was not to be the result of speculation. But the male-identities being from the victim's girlfriends.......!? That's no typo. Nencini is offering it as an innocent explanation as to why he hand-waves away contamination!

Anyway, no sense making this longer than it needs to be. It's just that Vixen, TJMK, the fake-wiki, or Krissy-G stand alone in how they represent Nencini!!!! There's a bizarre agenda to them, where they just make stuff up, even stuff to do with the courts they pretend to support!

There are several points of interest in this post.

1. The Chieffi CSC panel criticized the Hellmann appeal court for letting C&V not test the I sample, but if C&V in their professional, expert opinions considered that they were not equipped to test it, that was an acceptable decision by Hellmann. The question would be whether or not there was any other DNA lab truly capable of testing that sample at the relevant time.

IMO, the Chieffi judgment could have legitimately annulled the Hellmann acquittal on the basis of the lack of testing of sample I, and referred the case for testing that sample, if a lab truly capable of testing it was available.** However, the Chieffi judgment also contained a large number of scientifically or legally questionable and arbitrary or otherwise unlawful statements. The legal point Chieffi and several of the Italian courts missed is the presumption of innocence - a principle explicitly guaranteed in an article of the Italian Constitution and in the European Convention - requires that any doubt in a case should be interpreted in favor of the accused.

Regarding the need to resolve conflicts in expert opinions in court cases, the ECHR has recently issued a judgment* that makes clear that the defense has a right to seek a third opinion if there is a conflict between the opinions of the prosecution expert and the defense expert. Therefore, certainly, the judge has the right or authority to seek a third opinion to resolve a conflict between the opinions of the prosecution and defense experts.

* https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-220666
paragraphs 65 -67

** On the other hand, it could be argued legitimately that the collection and storage of the knife were so contrary to the required standards of traceability and prevention of contamination that it should have been excluded as evidence from the beginning.

 

[Stacyhs]

Another example of Massei speculating without any supporting evidence in order to support the kitchen knife as the murder weapon is the explanation of how that knife got to the cottage when the murder was not pre-meditated. To claim that a sharp, pointed, foot-long knife with an exposed blade of just under 9 inches would be carried around in Knox's bag "for protection" at Sollecito's insistence is beyond ludicrous. It becomes even more irrational when you consider that RS had much more appropriately sized and safe knives in his possession that he could have lent her. Add to that the fact that the cloth bag showed zero evidence of having a knife of any kind in it: no cuts, no damage. If the murder were spontaneous as Massei concluded, the murderer would have taken one of the knives from the cottage kitchen. But he had to find a way for Sollecito's kitchen knife to be in the cottage that night, so the "knife for protection in Knox's bag" had to be invented.

 

[Stacyhs]

It's just that Vixen, TJMK, the fake-wiki, or Krissy-G stand alone in how they represent Nencini!!!!

No need to be redundant.

 

[Welshman]

There are several points of interest in this post.

1. The Chieffi CSC panel criticized the Hellmann appeal court for letting C&V not test the I sample, but if C&V in their professional, expert opinions considered that they were not equipped to test it, that was an acceptable decision by Hellmann. The question would be whether or not there was any other DNA lab truly capable of testing that sample at the relevant time.

IMO, the Chieffi judgment could have legitimately annulled the Hellmann acquittal on the basis of the lack of testing of sample I, and referred the case for testing that sample, if a lab truly capable of testing it was available.** However, the Chieffi judgment also contained a large number of scientifically or legally questionable and arbitrary or otherwise unlawful statements. The legal point Chieffi and several of the Italian courts missed is the presumption of innocence - a principle explicitly guaranteed in an article of the Italian Constitution and in the European Convention - requires that any doubt in a case should be interpreted in favor of the accused.

Regarding the need to resolve conflicts in expert opinions in court cases, the ECHR has recently issued a judgment* that makes clear that the defense has a right to seek a third opinion if there is a conflict between the opinions of the prosecution expert and the defense expert. Therefore, certainly, the judge has the right or authority to seek a third opinion to resolve a conflict between the opinions of the prosecution and defense experts.

* https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-220666
paragraphs 65 -67

** On the other hand, it could be argued legitimately that the collection and storage of the knife were so contrary to the required standards of traceability and prevention of contamination that it should have been excluded as evidence from the beginning.

There is a massive elephant in the room which the courts ignored and that was the characteristics of the knife would have made it impossible for the knife to have been used to stab Meredith or contain DNA.

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.

Numerous questions are raised by the use of the knife as evidence

1) If the prosecution had a mountain of solid evidence and a slam dunk case, why did the prosecution have to resort to using evidence totally lacking credibility and full of holes such as the knife and 15 years later PGP have to argue their case on this evidence. If the prosecution had such a solid case, why is that with six years to argue their case a knife whose characteristics would have made it physically impossible to have been used to stab Meredith or contain DNA and has zero credibility is the best evidence the prosecution can come up with?

2)Vixen constantly boasts about how fair the Massei and Nencini courts were. How can it be fair to convict someone on the basis of evidence with no credibility full of holes such as the knife? How can it be fair to convict someone on the basis of DNA which can't exist?

3)Stefanoni had to resort to lying, suppressing evidence and committing fraud which indicated there was no valid DNA on the knife which was completely ignored by all the courts. In view of this how can the supposed DNA on the knife be used as evidence to convict someone? How can the Massei and Nencini courts be fair when the numerous abuses and corruption of the prosecution were ignored?

4) How can it be fair to convict someone on the basis of supposed DNA on the knife when Vixen's idol Stefanoni can't answer a basic question such as how much DNA was on the knife? Would it be acceptable to convict someone of drink driving when the police can't tell what the blood alcohol level was?

5) Vixen constantly bangs on about Amanda and Raffaele telling numerous lies. Defendants resort to lying to explain away damming evidence. Why would Amand and Raffaele need to lie to explain away evidence with no credibility such as the knife?

 

[Numbers]

There is a massive elephant in the room which the courts ignored and that was the characteristics of the knife would have made it impossible for the knife to have been used to stab Meredith or contain DNA.

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.

Numerous questions are raised by the use of the knife as evidence

1) If the prosecution had a mountain of solid evidence and a slam dunk case, why did the prosecution have to resort to using evidence totally lacking credibility and full of holes such as the knife and 15 years later PGP have to argue their case on this evidence. If the prosecution had such a solid case, why is that with six years to argue their case a knife whose characteristics would have made it physically impossible to have been used to stab Meredith or contain DNA and has zero credibility is the best evidence the prosecution can come up with?

2)Vixen constantly boasts about how fair the Massei and Nencini courts were. How can it be fair to convict someone on the basis of evidence with no credibility full of holes such as the knife? How can it be fair to convict someone on the basis of DNA which can't exist?

3)Stefanoni had to resort to lying, suppressing evidence and committing fraud which indicated there was no valid [Kercher] DNA on the knife which was completely ignored by all the courts. In view of this how can the supposed [Kercher] DNA on the knife be used as evidence to convict someone? How can the Massei and Nencini courts be fair when the numerous abuses and corruption of the prosecution were ignored?

4) How can it be fair to convict someone on the basis of supposed DNA on the knife when Vixen's idol Stefanoni can't answer a basic question such as how much DNA was on the knife? Would it be acceptable to convict someone of drink driving when the police can't tell what the blood alcohol level was?

5) Vixen constantly bangs on about Amanda and Raffaele telling numerous lies. Defendants resort to lying to explain away damming evidence. Why would Amand and Raffaele need to lie to explain away evidence with no credibility such as the knife?

Welshman, all good points.

In your point number 3, you left out stating that the unreliable ("invalid") DNA profile was that of Kercher; I took the liberty of inserting that identifier in your quoted post above.

There was no dispute that the DNA profile on the handle was that of Knox. It was there because she had used the knife in Sollecito's apartment to prepare food, not because of any criminal act.

The fabrication of assumptions by Massei and other Italian judges, false inferences from unreliable or fraudulent evidence, is apparently a feature brought over from the inquisitorial Italian judicial system supposedly largely eliminated by the 1988 reforms of the Italian Constitution and Code of Criminal Procedure.

An interesting article authored by a professor and a research fellow from Yale Law School, relying on European legal experts for information, discusses the inquisitional system in Italy (and in France and Germany) as of 1977. One point of interest made in the discussion of the Italian inquisitional system is that the judges did not, in practice, pay attention to any procedural irregularities (violations of procedural law) committed by the police or prosecutor. The power of the police was increased by the failure of the prosecutor or judge to review the actions of the police. The prosecutor or judge did not inquire as to whether an arrest was the result of illegal conduct by the police or whether an interrogation was unlawful. The judge sometimes would ask for a procedure to be redone if the original procedure, such as an interrogation, was found to have been "defective".

At no point, before trial or after, do courts systematically examine dossiers to assure the regularity of police investigations.

Source:

https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstr...J240_December1977_.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
p. 257 -259

 

[Stacyhs]

Interesting, Numbers. This lack of oversight of the police/prosecutors by the court would certainly have emboldened them to break the law. Even though they've supposedly switched from the inquisitorial to accusatorial system, they still have a lot of power and power tends to corrupt. Of course, this is certainly not restricted to Italy.

 

[Methos]

Just for the record:
Looks like Pete finally caught up
Dr Mignini’s 360-Page Blockbuster Book Due To Be Released in One Month

Excerpts:

"Dr Mignini’s book will be released before Christmas by the University Of Perugia Press.
An English edition of the ultra-serious 360-page opus is in the works. We have not seen it yet, but we do understand that it closely mirrors and takes much further the general thrust of this page.

"We have not seen it yet"...OK...

It follows hard on the heels of the Rudy Guede book which has just hammmered home that:
(1) all courts ruled that it had to have been a three-person attack (this was largely based on autopsy and situational evidence and a whole-day reconstruction PRESENTED IN CLOSED COURT);
(2) Knox & Sollecito were definitely at the scene of the crime; there was not a single scrap of evidnce that anyone else was."

"Guede's Book" "hammmered home" something? How?

The President of the Republic and the Italian Supreme Court can each order a reopening of the case and a repeat of the final appeal.
The initiative is said to already have support within Parliament, Cassation, the Ministry of Justice, and the Council of Magistrates.
It is clearly likely to be huge, and could ripple on for years. Knox & Sollecito, their parents, their lawyers, their PR, and others in Italy could find themselves caught up in the net.
Maybe even more in the US: Preston, Ciolino, Moore, Fischer, Heavey, Burleigh, Hampikian, and a dozen others might find diffamazione targets on their backs.

Dream on Pete, dream on

Sollecio and his shadow writer Gumbel already lost a diffamazione trial, in Florence, and Knox lost a calunnia trial in Perugia."

Just for the record: the "diffamazione trial, in Florence" ended with:"«perché il fatto non sussiste»." and we all know how the second Callunia trial against Knox ended...Isn't it interesting, that there are still people out there thinking that "True Justice for Meredith Kercher" can be achieved by lies about almost everyone involved? ... Just my 0,02 Euro

 

[AnimalFriendly]

Just for the record:
Looks like Pete finally caught up

I just read it...."An English edition of the ultra-serious 360-page opus is in the works..."

The ultra-serious opus...bhhahahahah...I wonder if it talks about how Migs & Knox are buds now?. In all seriousness, I'll be surprised if this book is ever translated into English but I have to wonder why not, at least on one level. Migs seems to feel so misunderstood by Americans...you'd think he'd want us to get his side of things. And that goes for Guede too...wonder if his book will be translated into English. Doubt it.

 

[Numbers]

Just for the record:
Looks like Pete finally caught up
Dr Mignini’s 360-Page Blockbuster Book Due To Be Released in One Month

Excerpts:

"We have not seen it yet"...OK...
"Guede's Book" "hammmered home" something? How?
Dream on Pete, dream on ��

Just for the record: the "diffamazione trial, in Florence" ended with:"«perché il fatto non sussiste»." and we all know how the second Callunia trial against Knox ended...Isn't it interesting, that there are still people out there thinking that "True Justice for Meredith Kercher" can be achieved by lies about almost everyone involved? ... Just my 0,02 Euro

I wonder what article of the CPP allows this (a nonsensical claim that is contrary to CPP Articles 648 and 649):

"The President of the Republic and the Italian Supreme Court can each order a reopening of the case and a repeat of the final appeal."

 

[Stacyhs]

Regarding Mignini's "opus" article:

I noticed the "TJMK Main Posters" are given credit for this flight of fantasy. I don't blame the actual author for not taking credit and hiding behind that cover.

I followed their link "The new evidence is of course the small mountain which the Fifth Chambers chose to ignore" to a 2014 article that stated such jewels as these:

Blood was also found ...possibly on a few items in Knox’s bedroom, and also in Luminol-revealed traces found on the floor in the corridor, in Knox’s bedroom and in Romanelli’s bedroom. (crime scene photos, Codispoti 2009)

2-09 Blood traces under the bed indicate someone was likely searching under the bed for something after the assault. (Codispoti 2009)

3-07 Ms. Kercher’s bra was removed after she was dead, as can be seen from blood speckles on the bra that were not found on her chest. (Micheli Motivation report, Codispoti 2009

5-05 A smaller shoeprint similar to Guede’s shoe type was found on the pillow found under Ms. Kercher. Police consultants estimate this was a female sized shoe.

There follows several statements about the footprints including "Five luminol-revealed" ones but no mention of the negative TMB tests. The bathmat footprint is identified as Sollecito's but no mention is made of Dr. Vinci's exclusion of him.
We don't have to wonder why author "Marcello" needs to resort to outright lies and half-truths.

Poor Slick Pete and whatever delusional "Main Posters" he still has left are still trying to be relevant. That bus left the station a long time ago.

 

[Bill Williams]

Mignini's book

Methos:

What's an 'ultra-serious' opus? (Someone else asked, but I still want to know.)

'All courts' did not rule that it was a three-person attack. Hellmann ruled in acquitting the pair that it was beyond to competence of his court to express an opinion on any other, potential suspects.

Pete has been promising dire consequences for years, 'Preston, Ciolino, Moore, Fischer, Heavey, Burleigh, Hampikian, and a dozen others might find diffamazione targets.' That's the biggest yawner of his claim. But it is a laugher that Pete still vacillates with the word 'might'. Use of that word means he's right either way!

Sollecito and his shadow writer Gumbel DID NOT LOSE THEIR DIFFAMAZIONE TRIAL! Pete has predicted that S & G would offer an apology within two weeks of the end of that trial! It's been more than two weeks! Thank you Methos for the link to a story about that, from the Italian press.

As usual, you beat me to a lot of this..... you really are the Library of Congress, Wikipedia, and a law library rolled into one.

 

[LondonJohn]

It’s laughable (but wholly predictable and in keeping with the man) that Mignini still believes he has a dog in the fight that is the Knox/Sollecito trial fiasco. Mignini’s investigation, as it pertained to Knox and Sollecito, was ripped apart and tossed out by his judicial superiors, complete with detailed damning judgements on how he and the police unlawfully pursued Knox/Sollecito using utterly unlawful and non-credible “evidence”.

Frankly, I genenuinely don’t know why anyone outside of the small sad band of travellers who still side with Mignini’s narrative, or also perhaps people researching Mignini’s psychiatric shortcomings, would even want to read his book. It’s gold-plate guaranteed to be a cauldron of self-serving bollocks, which will entirely rewrite history - setting the dogged, brilliant Holmes-esque Mignini, who was, of course always 100% right, up against the evil forces of US media and PR, plus a corrupt/inept appellate process.

Suffice it to say: not on my Christmas present list

 

[LondonJohn]

It’s laughable (but wholly predictable and in keeping with the man) that Mignini still believes he has a dog in the fight that is the Knox/Sollecito trial fiasco. Mignini’s investigation, as it pertained to Knox and Sollecito, was ripped apart and tossed out by his judicial superiors, complete with detailed damning judgements on how he and the police unlawfully pursued Knox/Sollecito using utterly untrainable and non-credible “evidence”.

Frankly, I genenuinely don’t know why anyone outside of the small sad band of travellers who still side with Mignini’s narrative, or also perhaps people researching Mignini’s psychiatric shortcomings, would even want to read is book. It’s gold-plate guaranteed to be a cauldron of self-serving bollocks, which will entirely rewrite history - setting the dogged, brilliant Holmes-esque Mignini, who was, of course always 100% right, up against the evil forces of US media and PR, plus a corrupt/inept appellate process.

Suffice it to say: not on my Christmas present list