Tuesday, October 06, 2015
TJMK/Wiki Translation Of The Marasca/Bruno Report #2 Of 7: Summaries Five And Six
Posted by Our Main Posters
“Justice and Peace” by Corrado Giaquinto 1762. Click here to go straight to Comments.
1. Overview Of The Series
Marasca/Bruno Report #1 Of 7: The Four Opening Summaries
Marasca/Bruno Report #2 Of 7: Summaries Five And Six
Marasca/Bruno Report #3 Of 7: Dismissal Of Appeal Claims, Nencini Scope
Marasca/Bruno Report #4 Of 7: Continuing Dismissal Of Various Claims
Marasca/Bruno Report #5 Of 7: Some “Incongruencies” By Previous Courts
Marasca/Bruno Report #6 Of 7: Why The DNA Evidence Was All Useless
Marasca/Bruno Report #7 Of 7: Attempt At Why Court Blinked At Guilt
2. Overview Of The Post
The purpose of the series was summarised in Post #1.
With this post we are 2/5 of the way through the judgment and summaries of the appeal grounds still continue. These are new grounds by Knox’s and Sollecito’s teams.
As previously, Sollecito’s team throw in everything but the kitchen sink. Knox’s new grounds are about 1/4 of that length, and mainly request that Knox’s appeal to ECHR Strasbourg be awaited before this verdict comes down.
Translation was by a professional translator with extensive finalization by Machiavelli with some help from the Wiki team of the judicial terms used and the accuracy of the English relative to what is in the report. Our own critiques will be posted separately in Comments and other posts.
Please consider this pre-final. Suggestions for improved translation are welcome. The PDF version to go on the Wiki will be the final.
1. Further Knox Appeal Grounds
4.1. In favor of Knox, two further reasons were submitted.
In the first one, objected to is the violation of article 606 lett. a), b) e) of the code of criminal procedure, criticizing the entire reasoning process of the appealed verdict, which exceeded the fixed standard of the - already exorbitant - annulment ruling , with violation of articles 627 par. 3, and 623 of the code of procedure. Criticized, particularly, is the anomalous examination of the merits within the annulment ruling.
In the second reason, objected to is the contradiction and manifest illogicality in the rationale according to article 533 of the code of criminal procedure.
And at the end, a delay of the judgment is proposed while waiting for the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, following the presentation to the international judicial body on the appeal of 11.22.2013, for alleged violation of the right to an equal trial, according to the article 6 par. 3 lett. a/c ECHR; for alleged violation of defense rights, according to the article 48 par. 2 of the Chart of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; and for the violation of the prohibition on torturing, according to the articles 3 ECHR and 4 of the Chart of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
2. Further Sollecito Appeal Grounds
4.2 Also Sollecito’s defense proposed new reasons, listed as follows.
The first new reason challenges the incorrect reasoning on the time of Kercher’s death. As defense has stated a careful examination of objective elements would have allowed the setting the time of death in a period of time between 9-9:29 and 10:13 PM.
The exact determination of the time of death [exitus] was fundamental to proving the actual presence of the accused at the crime scene, at the time of the aggression.
In particularl the examination carried out on the victim’s cell phone revealed subsequent contacts between 9 and 9:13 PM, as reported in the Pellero report on the SMS and the aforementioned cellular phone. This would have allowed acquiring ““ if not the certainty of the young English woman being alive until 10:13 PM, considering the possibility of accidental phone connections ““ at least useful information in this regard.
More precisely, the following contacts took place during the considered period of time:
1) a first call, at 8:56, to her home number, in England, remained unanswered and not followed by a new call, strange considered the habits of the girl, who was used to calling her family every day;
2) another contact, maybe accidental, at 9:50 PM, on a voice mail, lasted a few seconds, without waiting for an answer;
3) a contact, at 10PM, with the English bank Abbey, which failed obviously because it was not preceded by the international prefix;
4) at 10:13, an SMS was received by the cellular phone, in the place where it was abandoned, in via Sperandio.
On the other hand, the examination carried out on Sollecito’s computer registered an interaction at 9:20 PM and a subsequent one at 9:26 PM, not found by the postal police, but discovered by the defense expert D’Ambrosio by means of a different operative system application (MAC), for the watching of an animated cartoon (Naruto) of the length of 20 minutes, demonstrating that Sollecito was at home until 9:46.
This helps to demonstrates the non-involvement of the accused, also evident from the Skype contact occurred between Guede and his friend Benedetti.
To be sure, a new IT analysis by judge-appointed experts would have been necessary, as requested in vain by the defense.
The previous [a quo] judge, then, also committed an obvious misrepresentation in the evaluation of Curatolo’s testimony, not realizing that the declarations of the witness were, actually, in favor of the accused, especially in the part where he states to have seen the couple in piazza Grimana at 21:30 PM until 12:00 AM. Therefore, there was an internal contradiction of the judging: it wasn’t true what was stated at p. 50 concerning the supposed absence of extrinsic elements confirming that the two accused, from 9:30 PM to 12:30 PM of the next day, would have been in a different place than the one where the homicide took place.
Within the reconstruction of the crime, then, it was not taken in account that witnesses Capezzalie and Monachia located the harrowing scream that they heard at a time around 11 ““ 11.30 PM. However, Ms. Capezzali was contradicted by other witnesses, residents of the area, who declared they didn’t hear anything.
Furthermore, not examined was the video clip captured by the camera placed near the parking lot which had filmed the passing by of a person similar, in features and clothes, to Guede. The time of filming was 7:41 PM, though 7:39 PM effectively because of a clock error of 12 or 13 minutes.
Also the autopsy, in observing the gastric situation, allowed the fixation of the hour of death between 9:30 and 10 PM. Furthermore, during the cross-examination hearing, the forensic pathologist Dr. Lalli rectified an error contained in his technical report, pointing out that the time of death would have had to be set not at “not less than 2-3 hours from the last meal (that took place around 6 PM, with the English friends)” but at “not more than 2-3 hours from the last meal”.
Considered this uncertain conclusion, a new analysis by judge-appointed experts [perizia] was requested in vain, in the new reasons for appeal, dated 29 July 2013.[17]
So, in the light of the trial data, as stated by the defense, the time of death of the young English woman would have had to be approximately set between 9 and 10:13 PM.
The second new reason challenges the failure to order a judge appointed experts review [perizia] in order to verify or otherwise the possibility of a selective cleaning of the crime scene which would have removed only the traces referable to the two accused, leaving only Guede’s ones. In fact, in Kercher’s room multiple traces of Guede were found but none of Sollecito.
Incorrect reasoning is also suggested on the supposed alteration of the crime scene by the accused. It was not, however, considered that Sollecito had no interest in polluting [the scene].
The third reason challenges a flaw in rationale regarding the plantar imprints presumed as female footprints (size 37 EU) demonstrating a participation of more than one person in the crime.
With reference to the imprints, there was an obvious error in the judgment, also present in the judgment of annullment of Cassation (p. 21), considering that the only imprint retrieved in Kercher’s room belonged to Guede.
The fourth reason again claims violation of the law, with reference to the article 606 lett. c) and e) regarding the evidence on the participation to the crime and the violation of the articles 111 Const, 238, 513 and 526 of the code of penal procedure on the usability of the interrogation of Guede and the observance of the evaluation standards on a charge of complicity.
The fifth reason claims misrepresentation of the evidence and manifest illogicality, related to the results of the genetic investigation on the knife (item 36) and also on the supposed “non-incompatibility” of the instrument with the most serious wound observed on the victim’s neck. Claimed further is the violation of the evaluation standards of evidence according to article 192 of the code of criminal procedure.
The sixth reason claims lack of rationale, because there was no consideration of the violation of the international recommendations on the sampling and examination of traces of small entity and the interpretation of the results. Also claimed is misrepresentation of the evidence and manifest illogicality of reasoning on the results of the genetic examinations carried out on the kitchen knife and also violation of the proof evaluation standards, according to the article 192 of the code of procedure.
The seventh reason claims incorrect reasoning with reference to the violation of the international recommendations on the sampling and analysis related to the genetic examinations carried out on the brassiere hook (item 165 B) and the objected-to contamination of the item, after the inspections carried out by the Criminal Investigation Department.
The eighth reason challenges the violation of articles 192 and 533 of the code of criminal procedure on the interpretation of the genetic examination on the item 165 B and lack of rationale on the objected violation of the international recommendations in matter of interpretation of mixed DNA.[18]
The ninth reason challenges a violation of article 192 of the code of criminal procedure and manifest illogicality of evidence for misrepresentation of the scientific investigation, considering the failure of the DNA proof in this case.
The tenth reason challenges a manifest illogicality in the motivation in the luminol evidence related to the supposed presence of blood imprints in areas of the house of via della Pergola and also on the bathmat, and manifest illogicality of rationale related to the mixed traces of Knox and Kercher and the evaluation of the circumstantial evidence in relation to the participation of more than one person to the crime.
The eleventh reason challenges a manifest illogicality or contradictory nature in the motivations related to the evaluation of the motive of the murder.
The twelfth reason argues the same incorrect reasoning and misrepresentation of the evidence related to the time of the 112 call.
The thirteenth reason argues the same incorrect reasoning in relation with the alibi and the supposed tentative of Sollecito to cover for the supposed co-perpetrator Amanda Knox.
The fourteenth reason challenges the violation of the law principles stated by Cassation and the violation of the judicial standards of “beyond reasonable doubt” according to article 533 of the code of criminal procedure.
Posted by Our Main Posters on 10/06/15 at 02:43 AM in Defendants in court, Amanda Knox, Raff Sollecito, The officially involved, Supreme Court, Appeals 2009-2015, Cassation 2015, Report translation, Cassation critiques, Machiavelli critique
Comments
“4) at 10:13, an SMS was received by the cellular phone, in the place where it was abandoned, in via Sperandio.”
10:13? a.m.? Nov. 1st, 2007? NO! at 00:10: 31 a.m., 2.11.07 an SMS was received by the cellular phone, in the place where it was abandoned, in via Sperandio. This was 10:31 mins after the midnight of 1.11.07, in the morning of 2.11.07
“On the other hand, the examination carried out on Sollecito’s computer registered an interaction at 9:20 PM and a subsequent one at 9:26 PM, not found by the postal police, but discovered by the defense expert D’Ambrosio by means of a different operative system application (MAC), for the watching of an animated cartoon (Naruto) of the length of 20 minutes, demonstrating that Sollecito was at home until 9:46.”
This indicates that the cartoon ended at about 9:46. How does it indicate that Sollecito “was at home until 9:46”? He could have gone out after the 9:26 “interaction”. Does the ending of the cartoon represent an “interaction? Needing Sollecito’s presence? If so why not say so? There is no allegation that Sollecito even watched the cartoon!
“Within the reconstruction of the crime, then, it was not taken in account that witnesses Capezzalie and Monachia located the harrowing scream that they heard at a time around 11 – 11.30 PM. However, Ms. Capezzali was contradicted by other witnesses, residents of the area, who declared they didn’t hear anything.”
Declarations of other residents of the area, who “didn’t hear anything” are not contradictions of Ms. Capezzali’s testimony!
Absence of Corroboration is not Presence of Contradiction; there are many non-contradictory explanations of the different Perceptions e.g. the neighbours were asleep at the time Ms. Capezzali heard the scream, which did not awaken them.
“Also the autopsy, in observing the gastric situation, allowed the fixation of the hour of death between 9:30 and 10 PM. Furthermore, during the cross-examination hearing, the forensic pathologist Dr. Lalli rectified an error contained in his technical report, pointing out that the time of death would have had to be set not at “not less than 2-3 hours from the last meal (that took place around 6 PM, with the English friends)†but at “not more than 2-3 hours from the last meal.”
Allowing “fixation” of estimated hour-range of time of death “not less than 2-3 hours from the last meal” assumes that the lethal attack on Meredith did not affect the behavior of her Alimentary Tract - a most improbable assumption
The above Faulty Defense-Assertions are Obfuscations.
Posted by Cardiol MD on 09/29/15 at 07:11 AM | #
The 8:56pm call was by Mez was on her way home. It does not follow she must have died shortly after, as she didn’t ring her parents again. There could be numerous readons: false imprisonment, mugging, incapacitation. Her attackers likely prevented her calling for help, which would explain their theft, with almost nothing else stolen.
Regarding Naruto, How do we know RS didn’t put it on, and then immediately nip out as prearranged with AK? Both their phones were switched off, so they were well aware of covering their tracks.
The claim Capezelli hearing a scream could be disregarded as her neighbors didn’t hear it, is ridiculous; the logic of a simpleton.
Posted by Slow Jane on 09/29/15 at 01:20 PM | #
OT but is this “our” AK or someone with the same name?:
http://www.ballardnewstribune.com/2015/09/28/features/distance-and-open-spaces
If it’s Knoxious it seems she really does see herself as starring in her own movie, playing a character not unlike the daffy but sweet-natured “Amelie” in the film she watched on the night of the murder: note how she says “the world out here doesn’t feel Amanda-sized”.
Her sheer determination to let us all know we’ve got her totally wrong only reinforces the belief that we’ve got her bang to rights.
Posted by Odysseus on 09/29/15 at 01:54 PM | #
@Odysseus
Nice point since the more guilty a person is the more hysteria they exhibit. Anything to cover their tracks. I’m speaking here of the knoxious supporters who have exhibited rabid responses. Knox on the other hand being in her secret little make believe world just wafts through life as if nothing can touch her and her future is assured. Pride comes before a fall etc:
Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 09/29/15 at 03:54 PM | #
Grahame
And how fitting that she should now try to play the character from a film she saw immediately before losing any semblance of innocence, before the fall. It’s her best shot at trying to remember something uncorrupted within.
Posted by Odysseus on 09/29/15 at 04:58 PM | #
The obfuscations splendidly pointed out by Cardiol and mentioned by Slow Jane are so similar in their intent and child like construction to the changing alibis, best truths, pricked hand whilst cooking etc etc of Knox and Sollecito that they could almost have been written by them.
If appears that the defence lawyers were so intertwined with this pair of morons that they also lost their faculties and started writing/thinking the very worst kind of drivel just like their clients.
No wonder they were so surprised at the verdict. It’s akin to getting a pass in a maths test without answering any of the questions. You would have to question the honesty of the examiner!
Posted by davidmulhern on 09/29/15 at 10:07 PM | #
@Grahame Rhodes: I like the way you think about the future of DNA research. Optimism is appropriate, that DNA refinements may one day nail the true perps.
@Odysseus: Verrrry interesting, your link to Amanda Knox story at http://www.ballardnewstribune.com
Yes, the Ballard News story sounds like “our” Knox. She wanted to put distances and open spaces in between herself and her supporters after Supreme Court said she was likely at the murder scene!
She claims to have moved to a new house in this article, to be taking dance classes, and to be driving her Subaru over 800 miles out to Park City, Utah for last weekend’s (Sept. 25-26) Northface Endurance race, a half-marathon. “I’m not ready” is the opening hook of the story. She claimed she trained for two months, and refers back to her soccer years and of outrunning your opponents.
Reading between the lines of her imagery I see references to her Japanese visit, to her soon coming out of a cocoon, and to the James Bond movie, “Skyfall” (2012) with Daniel Craig.
In the movie’s final scene in Scotland, Judi Dench who plays “M”, dies but M’s killer gets a knife in the back from James Bond. Actor Ralph Fiennes becomes the new M.
The MI5 building in London, Vauxhall, gets blown up. The evil agent who felt betrayed by M is envious that Bond is M’s true favorite. He lures Bond to an island and tells him that M has also betrayed Bond, by sending Bond out when Bond was not ready, and so was likely to die in her service. Raoul taunts Bond that they are both like tortured rats in the hands of a duplicitous M.
Bond seeks out leads to the vengeful agent in the casinos of Macau, through Raoul’s lovely mistress Severine.
Later in custody in London before he cleverly escapes, the villain Raoul Silva, a master of cyberterrorism, faces off with M and calls her “mother”.
In Skyfall, M quotes from the poem “Ulysses” by Alfred Lord Tennyson when she is brought before a public hearing. She says she fears for England because the new enemies are unknown cyberterrorists, shadow entities. The final line of British tenacity she quotes: ‘to strive to seek to find and not to yield’.
Knox is heading east again, getting out of claustrophobic Seattle after her big “win” of the acquittal. Maybe heading for Skyfall.
Posted by Hopeful on 09/30/15 at 12:52 AM | #
Correction: Skyfall is MI6, not MI5.
Posted by Hopeful on 09/30/15 at 12:57 AM | #
@Hopeful
Nice connection to Skyfall (puts on must see list).
She is certainly heading for a fall of some kind, which as Graham reminds us pride has preceded.
Posted by Odysseus on 09/30/15 at 11:35 AM | #
Some of the timings (re cell phones and computers) in the Maresca report are not accurate, and they have become further confused in translation to 12hr format.
But I have to take issue with Cardiol: the significant (according to the defence) interaction with Meredith’s UK phone (on the Wind network) occurred at 22.13 on Nov 1. That is 10.13 pm.
Where the cellphone was situated at this time is significant in relation to TOD
This interaction is claimed by Pellero (a Sollecito defence consultant) to have occurred in Via di Sperandio. (Unconvincing IMO). The prosecution positions the phone in Via della Pergola.
But it is not credible to try to move this (indisputably) important connection made by this phone away from the recorded time of 22.13 on Nov 1.
Posted by Sallyoo on 09/30/15 at 11:33 PM | #
@Sallyoo - the timings are both confused and confusing.
Of course.
My Comment on this TJMK Post began with this Quote from Sollecito’s Appeal Grounds:
“4) at 10:13, an SMS was received by the cellular phone, in the place where it was abandoned, in via Sperandio.”
Via Sperando is where Ms. Lana lived.
Not only did this quote exemplify the confused and confusing, obfuscatory time references, it gave a vague time for the call that whether am or pm, on any date (unspecified), whose content was definitely false.
Your “have to take issue” Comment is a reference to the call made at 10:13 pm on Nov. 1, 2007, whose only relevance is where “10:13” is to be found.
This is irrelevant to the definitely false, and obfuscatory statement I quoted, or are you saying it was an innocent misprint?
Posted by Cardiol MD on 10/01/15 at 06:46 AM | #
According to Massei Pellero said the 10.13 pm interaction could have occurred when Meredith’s phone was in the S. Angelo Park as he was able to connect to the same cell station from there as was available from the cottage. The park is quite large and is between the cottage and Via Sperando. The point being that one can not therefore be certain that the phone was still at the cottage at that time and if it wasn’t then Meredith must have already have been attacked and killed.
As I understand it the preceding phone activity had no cellular connection and therefore we can have no idea where the phone was when that happened.
It doesn’t follow from the above that Meredith was already dead. All it might suggest is that it is possible her phone had been taken from her by then, and this would fit for proponents (like me) of the double attack theory i.e Meredith threatens to report Knox to the police over the missing rent money and so they deprive her of her phones (when the preceding phone activity at and just before 10 pm occurred), lock her into her room and run off. They later tool up and return.
Posted by James Raper on 10/01/15 at 09:54 AM | #
Meredith’s phones have always intrigued me.
The defence would have us believe that Guede acted alone, left his DNA in Meredith’s room, palm print in blood, footprints in blood, DNA inside Meredith, shit in the bathroom etc. This nonchalant killer, having first broken in from a barely accessible location without leaving a single trace of himself anywhere in the “break in room”, then stole her phones but decided just to throw them away. In fact, despite his original intention being burglary, he stole nothing from Filomena’s room either. Quite why he decided to steal the phones in those circumstances is anybody’s guess. If it was to disable them, he could merely have crushed them underfoot. But wait, that couldn’t have been the reason because they were left turned on and that led to their discovery.
Anyway, this guy who leaves plenty of clues about himself in the cottage, presumably wipes Meredith’s phones down before disposing of them. Must just have been the phones and Filomena’s room he thought he needed to attend to, to cover his tracks!
I’m assuming this must have been the case at least as I don’t recall hearing whether Meredith’s phones yielded any DNA or fingerprints. Happy to be told I’ve got it wrong if I have missed something previously but it seems to me that virtually everything I’ve read about phones has centred on timing of calls and location of cell phone activity. I’ve missed it if DNA swabs and fingerprinting were done on them. If tests
were done and yielded nothing, it virtually confirms that Guede never handled them given his nonchalance regarding leaving evidence elsewhere.
The gargantuan lack of logic in painting Guede as the sole killer, something the defence did consistently, has been exploded by the final motivation report which seems to accept that three people did it.
I wonder if the phones could yet yield evidence if they weren’t properly processed first time around. I’m hopeful that some other evidence may yet emerge from items that still remain safely in storage somewhere. As previous posters have stated, advances in technology may yet prove to be Knox’s undoing.
Posted by davidmulhern on 10/02/15 at 12:10 PM | #
Good points davidmulhern, especially para. 1.
It all strains credulity (what else is new?) - unless apparently one is a simpleton in which case for personal, pathetic reasons it’s altogether preferable that an “angel-face” is found innocent rather than guilty since the latter would entail confronting inner turmoil and the realisation of the depth of one’s absolute stupidity. Or of course unless one’s profession requires the wearing of a funny hat and one is amenable to being given a nice back-hander, thank you very much.
Your point about the possibility of DNA/fingerprints on the phones is also well made. I haven’t read about any testing either.
Posted by Odysseus on 10/02/15 at 03:34 PM | #
@davidmulhern & Odysseus:
Am looking for reports of search for DNA/fingerprints on the phones, without success, so far.
The Lana Family’s DNA/fingerprints were probably on them.
Haven’t found refs to what the Police did, yet.
Posted by Cardiol MD on 10/02/15 at 06:02 PM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Where next:
Click here to return to The Top Of The Front PageOr to next entry TJMK/Wiki Translation Of The Marasca/Bruno Report #1 Of 7: The Four Opening Summaries
Or to previous entry TJMK/Wiki Translation Of The Marasca/Bruno Report #3 Of 7: Dismissal Of Appeal Claims, Nencini Scope