Ah, I see where the misunderstanding is. The out of sight debates would be on the actual rulings and reasonings of Massai, which of course many of us consider to be illogical nonsense at best...
Any actual expert reviews would be done just like this last one, of course, but for most of the items in the RS appeal document, the refuting testimony was provided in the original trial - Massai simply chose to ignore that testimony, or to go so far as to discredit the expert himself for the stupidest of reasons (how can a Judge not know that ballistics is the study of moving objects, which a thrown rock of course is?:waitasec
![Smile :) :)]()
. This court may choose to take a different view on any of these points, based simply on the transcripts from the original trial and their own logic/common sense. Remember, Italian Law requires that verdicts be accompanied by a document detailing what motivated said verdict, in detail (thus the existance of the Massai report), so this court will need to decide how much of the former court's reasoning it agrees/disagrees with so that it can comply with the above Law.
This is what the Maud article said:
Most of this evidence isn’t due to get discussed again in court. It will, instead, be discussed by the judges in private. So, whatever happens over the next few sessions, it may be that there is no real indication of what the verdict will be until the moment it is announced.
I do not understand this.
I do no understand who the judges, without the jury, are going to discuss this "in private." maybe he's referring to the rest of the jury as lay judges in this instance, but still, every other bit of evidence has been laid out and disputed in court, according to the requests of the appeals of the defendants. I do not understand why they would suddenly decide that the judges and layjudges are going to go in a room and shut out the lawyers, the defendants, and the prosecution to make "private" deliberations about this rest of this "crucial" evidence that others feel will still convict the pair.
I don't even think they CAN do it at this point because, after that report, how in the world do they trust that what's been investigated is even right? After Massaei said no to things that Hellman agreed to, which turned out to be game changers, how could Hellman possibly trust Massaei's other choices in the first trial?
Anyways, that's besides the point because my main point, if you will please suffer me, is I don't understand how they can go in closed chambers. I get that he might mean the layjudges, too, but still don't understand how they are allowed to take this behind closed doors.
Thanks!
ETA: cause if they mean:
1. the footprints, we already know there's a dispute there over the measurements.
2. TOD--we already know at least 3 experts agreed on VERY different times.
3. Alibi--we all know their alibi was sabotaged by the postal police.
And I'm just getting started! So anything they try to make a closed decision choice about, I'll bet you will come right back up to bite them in the butt before the supreme court.
Someone said in here that you can't believe that every bit of evidence from the prosecution is incorrect. I believe you can believe that. Because if someone is actually innocent, then the circumstantial evidence is just being interpreted incorrectly. Period. Evidence of guilt can NEVER be correct if the person is in fact innocent.
I'll have to sit and think about what evidence in this case that does not point to guilt that I believe, that the prosecution also presented, just interpreted wrong. Offhand, I come up with
1. RS's knife collection.
2. AK's DNA on the knife from RS's house.
3. A hard to substantiate alibi
I'll think more, but yeah, the prosecution was right that these things above existed, but they dont mean the two are guilty. Let me know if any of you come up with some.