Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

Well my question was trying to get at whether 530 is moot (obsolete). Since M&B used 530 it would seem to be being used so what would effectively moot mean? Does that mean the kids were found not guilty using an obsolete law? If that were the case could the PGP argue they weren't acquitted at all?

I would answer that 530 is the law and the acquittal was done in a proper fashion at least to the extent 530 remains a non-obsolete part of Italian law.

All I'm saying is since there is no practical difference between the paragraphs in effect and therefore, it is meaningless. That it is used is more a matter of convention and nothing else. Obviously, the acquittal aspect is not meaningless.

The courts in the US do that kind of thing all the time effecting only small aspects of a law.

 

[sept79]

I am sure that a negative TMB test without any confirmatory test to suggest otherwise must be deemed as negative for blood. Nothing unreal about that. In fact, that is normal forensic protocol.

It's speaks volumes about anyone attempting to state otherwise.

 

[Grinder]

All I'm saying is since there is no practical difference between the paragraphs in effect and therefore, it is meaningless. That it is used is more a matter of convention and nothing else. Obviously, the acquittal aspect is not meaningless.

The courts in the US do that kind of thing all the time effecting only small aspects of a law.

Well others don't agree that the paragraphs have no practical difference and the original statement was that 530 was effectively moot. It is neither moot or effectively moot.

I have no idea what "effecting only small aspects of a law" means. Could you provide an example.

 

[acbytesla]

Actually generally you can't. If you want to read the contents of a case, you must go to the courthouse.

Mach's point was that the ISC only reviews the appeal documents which may refer to specifics of the case including evidence.

Are you basing the statement they have access on anything but your opinion?

I respectfully disagree. The general public may have to but attorneys do not. Court transcripts and associated documents are scanned and may be viewed on computers at the courthouse and printed out for 10 cents a page IIRC, but attorneys can purchase a subscription and access them online. I know this firsthand because I've been to the clerks office on several occasions to do just that.

 

[Grinder]

Yes but if the SC is going to overturn a verdict because they disagree about an eyewitness they better have all the testimony he ever gave, like Hellmann had when he made his judgement and wrote his report.

Otherwise they are running their own personal little trial de novo based on a few tidbits from either side. Which is essentially what Chieffi did - or to be more precise - he just rubber stamped Galati because he didn't want that American witch he had seen on TV getting away with it.

But Hellmann was a court of the second instance and Hellmann was able to recall Curatolo. "Rubber stamping" appeals is common. If the court agrees with side they can have them make a few changes and sign off on them. A lower levels the court will have the prevailing side write the order and the judge signs them with any corrections needed.

 

[Numbers]

....
But you have no basis to conclude I am mistaken. You would need to find a Cassazione ruling that contradicts 2006 rulings, and you won't find any.



They cannot "continue" the civil action. They can start it again, if they want.
Instead, you should apologize for calling my information "false", while you have no basis of sorts to say so and disprove the validity of the civil law rulings that I quoted.

Yes, I will continue to call your information misleading, false, and confused.

Please be sure to let Maresca, the Kerchers' lawyer, and the Kerchers themselves know that they should restart the civil action based upon your scholarly review.

I can assure you that the civil and criminal branches of the CSC are separate.

Apparently you do not understand what is meant by a "civil law" system in contrast to a "common law" system. The first is intended to only rely on statute law, the second is intended to rely on statute law and precedent. The "civil law" system is not to be confused with courts concerned with civil actions - that is, law suits.

The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure covers criminal matters, such as trials for alleged criminal acts, and also the law suits that victims of crimes or their relatives (when the victims can not act, due to death, for example) may bring to the court.

The Italian Code of Civil Procedure covers non-criminal injuries or torts. Wrongful death is precluded as a cause of action (law suit) in an Italian civil court against a finally acquitted person if the injured person has already had the case heard during the criminal proceedings, or had that possibility, and the accused in the criminal proceeding has been finally acquitted because "the accused did not commit the act".

If you believe otherwise, please contact Maresca, the Kercher lawyer to let him know the law that you have found, since Maresca said after the final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito, "it is now all over". He did not say he was restarting any law suit.

And if the Kerchers themselves do not wish to restart a law suit, then it is all over, whether or not the law allows them to start a new suit. But you should contact them, too, with your remarkable legal findings, so they are fully aware of their options. Seriously, if it is important for justice - and not simply another hoax on the internet that you are promulgating.

Don't let my opinion or skepticism from my reading of the CPP hinder you.

 

[bagels]

But Hellmann was a court of the second instance and Hellmann was able to recall Curatolo. "Rubber stamping" appeals is common. If the court agrees with side they can have them make a few changes and sign off on them. A lower levels the court will have the prevailing side write the order and the judge signs them with any corrections needed.

Hellmann had all the testimony from the first trial, and heard from Curatolo again with new testimony, so he was in a position to make an informed judgement about his credibility. The SC were not, they should be limited to points of law, but aren't. Isn't that clear to you?

 

[acbytesla]

Well others don't agree that the paragraphs have no practical difference and the original statement was that 530 was effectively moot. It is neither moot or effectively moot.

I have no idea what "effecting only small aspects of a law" means. Could you provide an example.

Allow me to fire this back at you. What is the practical effect of using paragraph 1 vs 2? In the eyes of the law, they are more innocent of the crime than anyone else on the planet as they never will have to face those charges in the future.

One quick example.
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act - The New York Times
The New York Times › 2013/06/26 › su..

If you want others, there are plenty.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is the same Chieffi that said Quintavalle is a reliable witness because he pointed out Amanda had blue eyes a year later when she had been in on every newspaper and TV station in the world, despite Hellmann having heard Quintavalle and assessing that his failure to recognize Knox's photo the week of the discovery when directly shown it and asked about her, his employees seeing nothing, and him suddenly miraculously remembering he saw her a year later - all qualified him as an unreliable witness.

That is the SC reasoning about the evidence, no matter how you try to spin it. It couldn't be more blatant.

Bruno/Marasca said Quintavalle is unreliable, (on reasons already declared illegitimate by the Supreme Court).
Chieffi never determined Quintavalle is reliable, it found that Hellmann was not consistent nor complete, misreported the sources of information and omitted information from the docs.
Btw it is false that Quintavalle was asked about seeing Knox the morning if Nov. 2. He was asked instead only about whether they had bought bleach or detergents. He never stated that they didn't enter the store, and was not even asked about it, this is what Volturno's notes say. His employee also never denied Knox entered the store.

 

[Numbers]

Actually generally you can't. If you want to read the contents of a case, you must go to the courthouse.

Mach's point was that the ISC only reviews the appeal documents which may refer to specifics of the case including evidence.
Are you basing the statement they have access on anything but your opinion?

Maybe. I understood he was saying that the CSC does not get to see any documents except the appeals themselves.
If that is his point, it is contradicted by the language of CPP Art. 606 (E) {which I have posted earlier}.

The "cognisance of the Court of Cassation" extends beyond the appeal documents, according to CPP Art. 609 (which I have previously posted). It has cognisance over the proceedings (the lower court record) with regard to the arguments raised by the appeals (609.1) and to issues raised ex officio at any stage and instance of the proceedings and [even] on those issues which could not have been raised at the appeal stage (609.2).

 

[bagels]

Bruno/Marasca said Quintavalle is unreliable, (in reasons already declared illegitimate by the Supreme Court).
Chieffi never determined Quintavalle is reliable, it found that Hellmann was not consists nor complete, misreported the sources of information and omitted information from the docs.
Btw it is false that Quintavalle was asked about seeing Knox the morning if Nov. 2. He was asked instead only about whether they had bought bleach or detergents. He never stated that they didn't enter the store, and was not even asked about it, this is what Volturno's notes say.

Read Quintavalle 's testimony. He is transparently lying.

He claims he saw a peculiar blue eyed girl in his store the morning of the murder discovery.

He claims his employees pointed out that Raff had been arrested several days later, and showed him a newspaper with Raff and Amanda's photo. He claims at this point he recognized the girl in the newspaper as the girl in his store on that morning, it was the same girl.

Then the police come in a few days after that and show him pictures of Amanda, obviously at this point his story falls apart, because he would have immediately mentioned to the police the girl they're showing him and asking about bleach is one and the same as the girl in his shop the morning of the murder that he recognized in a shocking newspaper story about the murder. He knows he is caught in a lie so he lies in an attempt to cover it up - he says the police never showed him any photographs or asked anything about Amanda. This was substantially disproved by both the police testimony and his own employees he talked to immediately after the incident.

He then went on to pretend he knew precisely what clothes she was wearing a year later, which remarkably matched the clothes she was wearing in the most famous newspaper photo from the case - describing the very jacket she had only been handed by Raff for the first time just before the photo was taken - something he couldn't have known.

Hellmann knew all this, and ruled correctly on it. Chieffi wiped it away with a pen stroke after he fished it out of his ass.

 

[Diocletus]

"missing amplifictions" of negative samples that were never amplified, don't exist.
Negative controls of knife and clasp can be find in the trial files at the chancellry of preliminary judge in Perugia (where they were deposited on Oct. 04. and 08).

Oh, they were amplified all right. Stefanoni amplified all sorts of "negative" samples, e.g., 36b. She never saw an insufficient quantification that she didn't immediately stuff into her amplification machine.

The single "knife" and "clasp" controls that you mention might or might not be for the knife and clasp, but are not the only controls relevant to those items. There are also dozens of other controls that Stefanoni did not produce, and we already know that some quantification controls that she did produce show that she was amplifying contamination in her filthy lab.

 

[Diocletus]

Bruno/Marasca said Quintavalle is unreliable

Well, that settles it, then. Judicial truth.

 

[Grinder]

Allow me to fire this back at you. What is the practical effect of using paragraph 1 vs 2? In the eyes of the law, they are more innocent of the crime than anyone else on the planet as they never will have to face those charges in the future.

One quick example.
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act - The New York Times
The New York Times › 2013/06/26 › su..

If you want others, there are plenty.

I think you meant affecting small parts of a law. Sure and laws are written stating that should any part of the law be ruled illegal the rest remains.

 

[Numbers]

Well my question was trying to get at whether 530 is moot (obsolete). Since M&B used 530 it would seem to be being used so what would effectively moot mean? Does that mean the kids were found not guilty using an obsolete law? If that were the case could the PGP argue they weren't acquitted at all?

I would answer that 530 is the law and the acquittal was done in a proper fashion at least to the extent 530 remains a non-obsolete part of Italian law.

You are playing dictionary games again.

While I did not write the questioned description, "moot" as used here apparently means either:
1. Of no practical importance; irrelevant; or
2. Of no legal significance; hypothetical

It does not mean "obsolete".

Obviously CPP Article 530 and its 4 paragraphs remain Italian law so they remain of legal significance. I suggest that a meaning which may be sensible is that the law is of no practical importance because CPP Article 533.1 governs the finding of guilt. However, in practice the Italian courts are clearly still using CPP Article 530.

I should add that it is not my position that CPP Article 530 is irrelevant or lacks legal significance; one or more parts of it may be redundant because of CPP Article 533.1. There is no harm in the redundancy as long as no confusion results.

 

[Diocletus]

a Supreme Organ

That's funny. Just today I was thinking that Mignini resembles a Supreme Organ.

 

[sept79]

Bruno/Marasca said Quintavalle is unreliable, (on reasons already declared illegitimate by the Supreme Court).
Chieffi never determined Quintavalle is reliable, it found that Hellmann was not consists nor complete, misreported the sources of information and omitted information from the docs.
Btw it is false that Quintavalle was asked about seeing Knox the morning if Nov. 2. He was asked instead only about whether they had bought bleach or detergents. He never stated that they didn't enter the store, and was not even asked about it, this is what Volturno's notes say. His employee also never denied Knox entered the store.

More correctly "his employee (Marina Chiriboga) stated that she did not see Knox in the store on Nov. 2."

 

[acbytesla]

I think you meant affecting small parts of a law. Sure and laws are written stating that should any part of the law be ruled illegal the rest remains.

There are plenty of examples Grinder. How much is effected varies greatly.

 

[acbytesla]

Maybe. I understood he was saying that the CSC does not get to see any documents except the appeals themselves.
If that is his point, it is contradicted by the language of CPP Art. 606 (E) {which I have posted earlier}.

The "cognisance of the Court of Cassation" extends beyond the appeal documents, according to CPP Art. 609 (which I have previously posted). It has cognisance over the proceedings (the lower court record) with regard to the arguments raised by the appeals (609.1) and to issues raised ex officio at any stage and instance of the proceedings and [even] on those issues which could not have been raised at the appeal stage (609.2).

Ooooooh Snap!

 

[Machiavelli]

Read Quintavalle 's testimony. He is transparently lying.

This is only your opinion. But there is no factual basis in it. The rules are that to say a witness is lying, there must be significant evidence of that. The SC (Chieffi) said that if a judge thinks a witness is unreliable, needs to bring valid reasons for that conclusion. Hellmann did not report truthfully about the content of Quintavalle's testimony and other documents on the point, while "reasons" alleged are prejudicial, illogical and insufficient.

He claims he saw a peculiar blue eyed girl in his store the morning of the murder discovery.

He claims his employees pointed out that Raff had been arrested several days later, and showed him a newspaper with Raff and Amanda's photo. He claims at this point he recognized the girl in the newspaper as the girl in his store on that morning, it was the same girl.

Then the police come in a few days after that and show him pictures of Amanda, obviously at this point his story falls apart, because he would have immediately mentioned to the police the girl they're showing him and asking about bleach is one and the same as the girl in his shop the morning of the murder that he recognized in a shocking newspaper story about the murder.

This is an unsupported and illogical inference. At the Massei trial Quintavalle openly stated that he didn't want to be a witness and tried to avoid that; he was reluctant to provide information to authorities and did not present his information voluntarily, on his initiative.

He knows he is caught in a lie so he lies in an attempt to cover it up - he says the police never showed him any photographs or asked anything about Amanda. This was substantially disproved by both the police testimony and his own employees he talked to immediately after the incident.

To assume that Quintavalle lies when he provides testimomny against Knox makes no sense. While from an Italian perspective, the contrary makes sense, it makes perfect sense that he omitted to present the full information he had, in order to avid becoming a witness.

Contrarily to what you say, the police (Volturno's) testimony fully supports Quintavalle's version. Volturno clearly stated that he did not ask questions about Knox's presence in the store, Quintavalle never denied her presence and in fact there was no information of that kind in Volturno's hand written notes.
There was also no statement by Chiriboga saying she could tell Knox was not there: it's all made up by the pro-Knox crowd.

He then went on to pretend he knew precisely what clothes she was wearing a year later, which remarkably matched the clothes she was wearing in the most famous newspaper photo from the case - describing the very jacket she had only been handed by Raff for the first time just before the photo was taken - something he couldn't have known.

It's false. He was extremely vague about the clothes she was wearing. He said his attention was focused on her eyes and her complexion, had only vague memories about her cloths. IRRC he even stated he remembers something like a "coat" (not a jacket).

Hellmann knew all this, and ruled correctly on it. Chieffi wiped it away with a pen stroke after he fished it out of his ass.

Hellmann was just caught lying. And making up specious excuses contrary to the rules.