Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

Vixen said:
Nencini did not just 'rule on the merits of the First Instance', it weighed up the merits, found facts and cross-examination was by all the parties on the specific issues Chieffi Supreme Court sent back down to it*. No wonder you are confused about what is factual and what is not.

*(in place of Hellmann, which was so egregious it wasn't sent back down to him).
Click to expand...
Whether from ignorance or knowing intent, Vixen's statement is false, because Italian law requires that when the CSC quashes a Court of Appeal verdict and refers that case back to a Court of Appeal, that court MUST, by law, NOT BE the one headed by the judge of the quashed case. The law specifying this is CPP Article 623, paragraph 1, subparagraph c). The case is referred back to a different Court of Appeal judge in that judicial district, or if there is none available, to one in the nearest different judicial district.
 
Numbers said:
Whether from ignorance or knowing intent, Vixen's statement is false, because Italian law requires that when the CSC quashes a Court of Appeal verdict and refers that case back to a Court of Appeal, that court MUST, by law, NOT BE the one headed by the judge of the quashed case. The law specifying this is CPP Article 623, paragraph 1, subparagraph c). The case is referred back to a different Court of Appeal judge in that judicial district, or if there is none available, to one in the nearest different judicial district.
Click to expand...
Yes, in this case from Perugia to Florence. In Mignini's case it was from Florence to Genoa.
 
Numbers said:
Whether from ignorance or knowing intent, Vixen's statement is false, because Italian law requires that when the CSC quashes a Court of Appeal verdict and refers that case back to a Court of Appeal, that court MUST, by law, NOT BE the one headed by the judge of the quashed case. The law specifying this is CPP Article 623, paragraph 1, subparagraph c). The case is referred back to a different Court of Appeal judge in that judicial district, or if there is none available, to one in the nearest different judicial district.
Click to expand...
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. No wonder this poster* can't tell the bottom from the top.

*Vixen
 
Numbers said:
I'm not sure what Vixen means by "merits court". But here's a definition of "decision on the merits" in contrast to a "procedural" decision:
Click to expand...
She constantly uses the "the merits court" when referring to Massei. I've never seen her use it for any other court until this one.
Numbers said:
Source: https://legalclarity.org/what-does-a-decision-on-the-merits-mean-in-legal-cases/

Note that the source is about US legal procedures; I have excerpted those parts of the source text that are relevant to both US and Italian courts. US appellate procedures, also discussed in the source text, are quite different from Italian ones.

Not only can the Italian appellate court (Court of Appeal) rule on the merits found by the first instance court, the judge of the Court of Appeal may choose to renew the trial evidentiary hearing (CPP Article 603). The judge may do so at the request of one of the parties (defense, prosecutor, or private party, if any) or on the judge's own decision (if he believes it necessary).
Click to expand...
I understand that the appellate court reviews the first court's evidence and arguments. If that makes it a "merits court" than I stand corrected. Unlike some people, I can admit error when I'm wrong.
 
Vixen, do ENFSI guidelines include
1. not changing gloves between handling items at the crime scene,
2. only changing gloves when something is obviously dirty, or when the item is wet,
3. handing evidence around to several others,
4. collecting evidence without tongs,
5. storing evidence so that it rots or rusts?

These are easy Yes or No questions.
 
Stacyhs said:
She constantly uses the "the merits court" when referring to Massei. I've never seen her use it for any other court until this one.

I understand that the appellate court reviews the first court's evidence and arguments. If that makes it a "merits court" than I stand corrected. Unlike some people, I can admit error when I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
I very clearly stipulated Nencini's merits hearing. Look, I don't want to be unkind, as I know it's not your fault you can only see the 'small' stuff. You can't help it you don't understand what merits means. I wish you well.
 
Vixen said:
I very clearly stipulated Nencini's merits hearing. Look, I don't want to be unkind, as I know it's not your fault you can only see the 'small' stuff. You can't help it you don't understand what merits means. I wish you well.
Click to expand...

Good, now answer the other questions:

Stacyhs said:
Vixen, do ENFSI guidelines include
1. not changing gloves between handling items at the crime scene,
2. only changing gloves when something is obviously dirty, or when the item is wet,
3. handing evidence around to several others,
4. collecting evidence without tongs,
5. storing evidence so that it rots or rusts?

These are easy Yes or No questions.
Click to expand...
 
Vixen said:
I very clearly stipulated Nencini's merits hearing.
Click to expand...
No, you very clearly stipulated "the Nencini merits court", not "hearing". The Nencini trial (Sept. 30, 2013-Jan. 30, 2014) was not a "hearing".

What part of "She constantly uses the "the merits court" when referring to Massei. I've never seen her use it for any other court until this one," confuses you? Exactly what do you think I was referring to by "until this one" if not "the Nencini merits court"?
Vixen said:
Look, I don't want to be unkind, as I know it's not your fault you can only see the 'small' stuff. You can't help it you don't understand what merits means. I wish you well.
Click to expand...
Being patronizing is just a way of making yourself feel superior.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
No, you very clearly stipulated "the Nencini merits court", not "hearing". The Nencini trial (Sept. 30, 2013-Jan. 30, 2014) was not a "hearing".

What part of "She constantly uses the "the merits court" when referring to Massei. I've never seen her use it for any other court until this one," confuses you? Exactly what do you think I was referring to by "until this one" if not "the Nencini merits court"?

Being patronizing is just a way of making yourself feel superior.
Click to expand...
Now, I don't intend to know what another poster meant by some usage, but I suspect that Vixen means, or implies, that a court is a "merits court" if it agrees with her position and thus is "meritorious" compared to some other court that disagrees with her position and thus is "bent".

I don't recall seeing the terminology "merits court" except on this website, possibly originating from one poster. In the US, I think "hearing on the merits" is a more common usage, because a court may have hearings on substantive issues such as the evidence and the laws, in contrast to a "hearing on procedure" or "procedural hearing" which would be devoted to such topics as, for example, court jurisdiction, possible change of venue to avoid prejudice, trial scheduling, possible jury sequestration, or the functioning of the evidence discovery phase (at a minimum, the prosecution sharing its evidence with the defense, in a criminal case). It should be noted that all current lawful trials in modern democracies are intended to be trials on the merits.

Hearings are different from trials because they are not meant to reach a verdict, but rather are formal proceedings within or before a trial to resolve specific issues within a larger legal case.

Here are excerpts from a larger article on the meaning and scope of a legal hearing (in the US):

The purpose of a hearing is to address specific legal or factual questions, not to determine the final outcome of a case. For instance, a hearing may be held to rule on a motion, which is a formal request for the court to take action. This could include deciding whether a certain piece of evidence will be admissible later.

Hearings are also used to handle procedural matters, such as setting schedules or resolving discovery disputes over the exchange of information. By addressing these issues, hearings streamline the legal process. This can sometimes lead to a settlement, avoiding the need for a trial.

The primary distinction between a hearing and a trial is their scope and finality. A hearing addresses a specific motion or question, while a trial is designed to resolve the entire dispute. A trial culminates in a final judgment that determines guilt in a criminal case or liability in a civil one.

Another difference is the presence of a jury. Trials frequently involve a jury to decide the facts, while the judge rules on the law. Hearings are conducted before a judge, who acts as the sole decision-maker on the issue, as they often involve questions of legal procedure.
Click to expand...

Source: https://legalclarity.org/what-a-court-hearing-is-and-how-it-differs-from-a-trial/
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The courts accepted Stefanoni's reports. Crini successfully argued at the Nencini merits court that C& V’s report had been full of references to American standards which led to specious claims by the defence that Stefanoni had not followed ‘international standards’ : it is noted.

The Italian Scientific Police follow the guidelines of the ENFSI – the European Network Forensic Science Institutes. Dr Stefanoni observed that they followed these specific guidelines whereas Conti and Vecchiotti basically picked and mixed a random selection of international opinions:


“We followed the guidelines of the ENFSI, theirs is just a collage of different international opinions”.
The Chieffi Court (Supreme Court) The next level of appeal court overturned completely Hellman’s findings. It rebutted that the DNA sample of Meredith’s was ipso facto low quality just because it was LCN. ‘The experts’ had claimed, relying on their US sources that LCN sampling should only be done on special projects, such as missing persons or cadaver identification, and that there was not the technology as it was ‘too innovative’. Chieffi did not buy this, pointing to embryology studies. He scoffed at the idea of ‘the experts’ being more expert than Professor Novelli or Dr Torricelli. He censured Hellmann for failing to consider their equivalent expert knowledge. Chieffi was particularly critical of ‘the experts’ refusing to test the remaining knife sample, calling their reasoning, ‘intellectually dishonest’. 25 March 2013, Chieffi ordered the case back to the Appeal court to consider the DNA evidence again, amongst other issues, and that the knife sample be tested. One suspects ‘the experts’ were loath to test the sample in case it turned out be further DNA of Meredith, and this may be why Chieffi smelt a rat.

The Nencini Court (Appeal Court) Nencini made it clear in a newspaper interview it was not within his remit to criticise ‘the experts’, but rather, to assess the legal rectitude of the Massei court decision, which Hellmann patently failed to do. However, criticise he does. He directs to Barni that ‘no US standards’ are to be quoted. In upholding the findings of the Massei court he makes the following point in his reasoning about the DNA of the knife and bra clasp: He upholds that the Forensic Police, aside from some human error, acted correctly and dismissed defence claims that Stefanoni had withheld raw data, and as claimed by ‘the experts’, citing documentary proof the information had been deposited. Nencini reinstated the convictions, 31 January 2014, and dismissed the claim of contamination. The sample on the knife ‘the experts’ had claimed was ‘starch’ and ‘too low LCN’ was successfully tested and found to be that of Amanda Knox.

The claim it was contaminated was Marasca-Bruno pulling it out of thin air, a claim which was never tried, tested, cross-examined nor proven in a merits or Appeal Court. The reason the pair were acquitted was thanks to interference from outside the court.
Click to expand...
Once again... this is a discussion of whether Stefanoni was suspect centric in her analysis. You can continue to trot out non-sequitur comments, but we can all see you're refusing to address the issue because you know she absolutely was. Why not address the actual issue for a change!

As for following ENFSI... I call your attention to Section 8.2 of the ENFSI Best Practices Manual for Scene of Crime Examination.

8.2 Preservation and Packaging
The material for recovery needs to be protected from interference or alteration and from the possibility of subsequent degradation and contamination. Health and safety issues must also be taken into consideration.

Suitable containment is normally achieved through the selection and correct use of approved packaging material. Packaging materials must be appropriate for the given applications and compliant with organizational SOPs.

Precautions must be taken to ensure the integrity of evidence, reduce the risk of contamination and minimize degradation. These will include:
  • sealing containers to prevent accidental loss or contamination
  • providing adequate protection to containers during transportation and storage to prevent loss through damage / contamination
  • checking items at all stages of transfer throughout the chain of custody to ensure that their integrity has not been compromised
  • all items should be packed and sealed as soon as they are taken, using bags or containers of an appropriate size
Packages should be sealed in such a way that all gaps are covered and secure, e.g. folded bags should be sealed with adhesive tape along all open edges and not by stapling.

Once sealed, packages should not be re-opened outside of the laboratory environment. If under exceptional circumstances they are re-opened then comprehensive documentation detailing the conditions under which they are opened must be made.
Click to expand...

I'm quite certain they did NOT follow ENFSI standards with the knife, as the bold passage above underscores. That knife should NOT have been removed from the collection bag until it got to the lab. Failure to comply with ENFSI SHOULD have rendered the knife inadmissible.

So now you have TWO issues to address... suspect centric analysis, and failure to comply with ENFSI standards.

And my guess.... you'll either ignore this, or veer off on an unrelated tangent because you just can't admit when you're wrong.
 
Stacyhs said:
Exactly. It's the same in Italy; a trial and a hearing are two very different things.
Click to expand...
Yes. In Italy, a hearing is called "udienza" (cognate of "audience"). A trial is called "giudizio" or "dibattimento".

However, according to Reverso Context, "giudizio" can also mean "judgment", "opinion", "court", "judge", or "wisdom"; "dibattimento" can also mean "debate", "hearing", "proceedings", "litigation", "oral argument", or "discussion"; "udienza" can also mean "audience", "court", "arraignment", "trial", "session", "meeting", "inquest", and a few other English words.

So, as in English, context matters.
 
Context always matters. As when Knox told her mother, "I was there, why would I lie?" and the tabloids made it appear she was talking about the cottage the night of the murder and not Raffaele's apartment.
I do think Vixen knows the difference between a "merits court" and a "merits hearing".
 
Vixen said:
Your arguments are all centred around obvious lies, which is why I don't have the time to bother with them.
Click to expand...
No. You're just claiming that as an excuse to avoid discussing the fact that the the shape of the big toe clearly doesn't match Raffaele's reference footprint.

Vixen said:
If you want to pretend the footprint is Guede's, that's your decision. You can't force me, who can see the truth of the matter, to pretend it belongs to anyone other that RS . . .
Click to expand...

1755478966838.png

1755479360529.png

1755479782261.png

So, Vixen, if you can "see the truth of the matter," then please explain to us why the big toe prints look nothing alike, the measurements don't fit, and most of the reference points don't line up.

Vixen said:
. . . together with ALL the other evidence against him.
Click to expand...
Which is also either inconclusive or fatally defective.
 
The NY Times has an 18 August 2025 article on the Hulu mini-series The Twisted Tale of Amanda Knox that will be streamed starting 20 August 2025. Here's an excerpt:

The mini-series recreates this legal roller coaster [of Knox's arrest, trial, conviction, imprisonment, acquittal, and release] in an unconventional style. It is a prison drama, a courtroom drama, a love story and an anxious horror tale. And it is largely in Italian.
....
The series also depicts Knox’s decision, in 2022, to return to Italy to confront Giuliano Mignini, her nemesis during and after the trial. Mignini, the lead Italian prosecutor, had fixated on and promoted the image of Knox as a conniving, sex-crazed murderer. (He compared Knox to Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, during the proceedings.) Tabloid headlines smeared her as “Foxy Knoxy,” a childhood nickname lifted from her Myspace page.
Click to expand...

 
SpitfireIX said:
No. You're just claiming that as an excuse to avoid discussing the fact that the the shape of the big toe clearly doesn't match Raffaele's reference footprint.



View attachment 63026

View attachment 63027

View attachment 63028

So, Vixen, if you can "see the truth of the matter," then please explain to us why the big toe prints look nothing alike, the measurements don't fit, and most of the reference points don't line up.


Which is also either inconclusive or fatally defective.
Click to expand...
The second image demonstrates how Crimescope makes the footprint more visible and defined against the rug.

You can clearly see how Vinci photoshopped the image to make it appear to be Guede's larger foot for which he was reprimanded...er...accused of doing! :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom