Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

Raff must be sighing a breath of relief to have his team of great scientists successfully fending off Italian forensic expert results which depend on the precision of mathematical engineers, when all that's needed is a knowledge of fingerpainting.

Precision of mathematical engineers? Funny. Try more akin to say "creative accountants"

 

[Grinder]

Any theory as to why the bathmat was found facing the wrong way from the sink.

Please don't begin your answer, "As Rudy was cleaning up after himself..."

dear gawd is my mat facing the wrong way? how can u tell? oh my.

since amanda moved it to her room maybe she as I don't know which way a mat is to face.

 

[acbytesla]

You silver-tongued charmer.

Thanks. I try.

 

[Grinder]

Bit rich Tesla calling you a PITA. However, blood does have certain interesting properties. As it dries, it does indeed leave a characteristic outline, due to its protein content. So, even if diluted with blood, it doesn't expand on porous material, unlike water which does spread outwards.

Liar!!!! He called me an exacting PITA.

 

[Vixen]

Have you looked at the bath mat?
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Bathmat_Footprint
http://amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/13.jpg
http://amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/page26.jpg

Note how the bath mat has an irregular surface partly flock and partly smooth. The heal is not on the absorbent surface of the mat, it is off the edge. The pictures of the mat in situ show the presence of the heal on the adjacent tile. So first error in your assumptions; the heal print is present and was not removed.

Look at the pictures yourself, then admit that you are wrong in your claim the heal print was cleaned away.

We can note this was dilute blood, there are no 'clots' on the surface as we would see with fresh blood, this was dilute blood that soaked into the mat.

The police 'experts' who examined this were fingerprint specialists. The appropriate experts for examining footprints are forensic anthropologists or forensic podiatrists. When asked about whether he considered the shape of the footprint Lorenzo he relied ‘we didn’t consider it … because I hold that it requires knowledge of orthopedics’. Exactly if you do not have knowledge about anatomy of the foot you are not an expert of footprints.

The sad thing is the footprint analysis is the clearest example of malfeasance as the figures to prove it are given.

The standard footprint is taken standing with a viscous ink (does not run), on a firm non-absorbent surface. No print would be expected to be identical, footprints vary in size from morning to evening by 3 - 5mm depending on parameter, by a similar movement comparing a static stand with a dynamic step. Repeated prints at the same time on the same surface will vary +/- 1mm. A good example of this is the measurement of the same dimensions on the well defined sample print of Sollecito is not identical between Vinci and the Scientific Police. (Also of note Vinci found hairs on the bath mat not noticed by the scientific police).

A priori a footprint by stepping on an absorbent, yielding (will wrap round the foot), surface with a runny (dilute fluid) would be expected to give a larger print than the standard print. The bath mat print was deposited at the end of the day and should be bigger than the standard print taken during the day. The bath mat print has no clear edge.

So what results do the police 'experts' get?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=34277&d=1450198223
50% of measurements are identical. This is just impossible.

But the key measure is the length of the ball of the foot. This is measured as being 50 mm on the bath mat vs. 57mm for Sollecito. If the other measures are mm accurate then this measure MUST exclude Sollecito as the source. One cannot argue that this measure is inaccurate because if one tries to extend this dimension on the bath mat to match Sollecito then most other measures are affected and then increase by 5+ mm and no longer match Sollecito.

It cannot be emphasized too much. The prosecution ‘expert’ was a paid consultant a fingerprint expert with no expertise in footprints a very different issue.

Lorenzo might be a fingerprint bod, but Prof Boemia is a

Forensic Dactyloscopist (the scientific investigation of fingerprints and toe or foot prints to identify the owner) with 30 years' experience. Has identified between 5,000 and 10,000 individuals using footprints.

Boemia also identified the bathmat print as belonging to Raffaele Sollecito. Bongiorno asked about the missing heel, and Boemia explained that you could use other characteristics. A summary of the characteristics Boemia used are in this chart. At one point while being cross-examined by Bongiorno, Boemia responded with the comment that metatarsal profile was a perfect match to Sollecito.
Bongiorno asked about the distortion from the footprint being made by depositing a substance on a soft surface. Boemia explained that because the quantity of blood was small that was not an issue. Bongiorno also asked about possible distortion standing on one foot would cause. Boemia explained that again, because of the quantity of blood, it would have no impact.
Boemia explained that it is impossible for the bathmat footprint to have been made by either Rudy Guede or Amanda Knox. The footprint is compatible with Raffaele Sollecito although it is possible it could be someone who has the same foot characteristics as Raffaele Sollecito.
Luminol Print
One of the Luminol prints could not have been made by either Rudy Guede or Amanda Knox. The print was compatible with Raffaele Sollecito.
Three People in the Cottage
Asked by Judge Massei how many people were present Boemia said that there were definitely three sets of different feet so there were at least three people in the cottage when the murder happened.
Source: http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Pietro_Boemia's_Testimony_(English)

From Boemia's court testimony (cross examination by Raff's counsel----

GB (G Bongiorno) Can you better explain this concept to me?
PB:
It can be seen, it can be seen clearly, that the fringes are stained relatively in short, there’s a small quantity of blood. That is a fringe is made up of a thread of three filaments of…, it’s possible, there are a lot of points, the major part [213] of the fringes, that two filaments are stained and the third isn’t. Therefore that means that in any case the blood hadn’t spread out, it was of a small quantity and hadn’t spread out. The print is in actuality the one that has been deposited. That is there has been no widening.
GB:
For the purposes of establishing whether there was widening and checking these fringes, you’ve had a way of taking the mat and looking at it?
PB:
I have never seen the mat, I’ve worked off photographs, we’ve already said this.
GB:
In the scope of this testing could it be or could it have been useful in any case to also look at this mat?
PB:
No, the photos are rather clear themselves.
GB:
Those enlargements, these; on the basis of this you do not need to see the mat?
PB:
No.
GB:
The possible height and thickness could have an impact, or not?
PB:
I don’t think so, you always have to look at the amount of blood deposited.
GB:
If I have the smallest amount of blood on the bottom of my foot, according to the height and the width [213] evidently this blood can deposit itself a little bit further down or a little bit further up and therefore be a more uniform print, isn’t that so?
PB:
I understand but it always depends on the amount of blood, the amount of blood is not much, therefore it stained what it had to stain and nothing else in short, it hadn’t spread out, Doctor.
GB:
But this evaluation of yours about the scarcity of blood, where does it come from, just from this photo?
PB:
We’re repeating things from the…, I’ve repeated it three times.
--------------Source: ibid

 

[LondonJohn]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The flawed source (tmomk.com) repeats the glaring falsehood that Boemia had "identified between 5,000 and 10,000 individuals using footprints". In fact, that 5K-10K number is the estimate of how many fingerprint analyses Boemia has done! Boemia had not only done less than a handful of attempted footprint analyses, he was also manifestly inept at working with footprints - and, worse still - he was shockingly unaware of his limitations and pseudoscientific approach. Fraud.

And........

You have been told before, Vixen, themurderofmeredithkercher.com is a deeply flawed, highly partisan/biassed and wholly-unacceptable "source". Please only quote from reliable, objective sources in future, OK?

And only a real genius would include the testimony from Boemia in which he stunningly reveals that he - the police's own "expert" - has only ever looked at photographs of the bathmat and has never actually seen (far less examined, tested or measured) the bathmat itself. Only a genius........

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Vixen]

Did I not post this? I'm slipping - as attention goes elsewhere, I suppose.

This piece isn't even subtle - it says that the truly revolutionary conclusion to the 7 1/2 year judicial debacle was finally coming to some justice, namely, "The scientific findings should be done with rigor , the investigations follow at least a decent minimum of logic, you must indicate the motive with a certain likelihood."

As for the Stasi debacle, this piece clearly sees that as a step back to the same old, same old - the roulette wheel of justice as dispensed in the regions and in Rome.

Totally missing is the remaining English-language guilter-narrative. You know - the one where some of the few remaining English-language folk cling to the view that Marasca/Bruno are six inches from being hauled off as enemies of the state; or that M/B found as factual that Knox and Sollecito were actually there.

Where's THAT in the Italian language press within Italy?

So it is, I promise you one last "Hoots!", Grinder, as other things are claiming interest these days.

It's only a newspaper 'opinion piece' designed to be provocative. A column writer has to be outspoken to be successful. It means nothing. Just some hack spouting off.

 

[Welshman]

???

Many, many rape & murder trials, for example, have been prosecuted (with extremely high proportions of safe convictions) on a single piece of circumstantial evidence: the semen DNA of the perp on or in the victim.

And in this case, I totally agree that had it been possible to positively match the bathmat partial print to Sollecito with a high degree of certainty, this single piece of circumstantial evidence could very well have been enough to convict Sollecito in and of itself (and probably Knox too). The prosecution could have offered other supporting circumstantial evidence, but the proven presence of Sollecito's partial foot print in a very dilute mix of Kercher's blood on a bathmat in the cottage bathroom - when Sollecito was claiming to have never even removed his shoes at any time when he was in the cottage after the murder - would have been totally devastating to his defence, and to a large degree to the defence of Knox as well (since their defences were so co-dependent in this respect). Furthermore, the fact that the print was in dilute blood would automatically point to some sort of post-crime washing-up activity.

Of course the truth is that the print cannot be positively matched to Sollecito any more or less than it can be matched to any adult in the world with feet sized in a broad range of around 42-45 (9-11). It most certainly cannot be excluded as a possible match to Guede, and since all the other reliable, credible evidence points to Guede acting alone, I think it's reasonable to suppose that it was indeed Guede who deposited this print.

Lastly (and I've said this many times before), if that bathmat print really HAD been reliably and credibly able to be matched to Sollecito, then I would without doubt argue that a) this should be sufficient on its own to safely convict Sollecito, and very probably to safely convict Knox as well, and b) I would readily switch to a belief that Sollecito (and probably also Knox) participated in the murder.

It is possible for the prosecution to have just one piece of evidence which is enough to convict someone and provide the prosecution with a slam dunk case. For instance, a man hits someone in a pub with a bottle. The man is caugh on the pub CCTV which clearly shows the man hitting the victim with a bottle. This evidence alone provides the prosecution with a slam dunk case. If the prosecution could conclusively prove Raffaele had left the footprint on the bathmat this would have provided the prosecution with one piece of cast iron evidence which would be enough on its own alone to convict Amanda and Raffaele.

If the footprint provided the prosecution with cast iron irrefutable evidence, how do you explain the tactics the prosecution had to resort to? Police/prosecutors should not have to resort to lying if they have hard evidence. Going back to the example I gave of someone being attacked in the pub. The police/prosecution would not have to resort to lying because the CCTV provides them with solid evidence.

The prosecution lied on numerous occasions in the case of Amanda and Raffaele. They feed falso stories to the media about bleach receipts, the washing machine running, the Harry Potter book, Amanda showering in a bloody bathroom. The prosecution lied in court about the time Amanda called her mother, the postal police lied about the time they arrived at the cottage to support the notion Raffaele called the police after the police arrived and other lies. Why did the prosecution have to resort to telling numerous lies if they had a piece of solid slam dunk evidence at their disposal for which the defense had no answer for? Having to resort to lying is a sign the prosecution have a lack of evidence.

If the bathmat footprint evidence was so strong as Vixen claims, why does Vixen continuously have to resort to lying in her posts?

 

[Vixen]

If the prosecution had so much evidence against Amanda and Raffaele and a strong case, why is that PGP have to rely heavily on things which happened outside the murder to argue their case rather than direct evidence which Vixen has done in her post?

The PGP often lie about things which happened outside the murders. The PGP have lied that Raffaele stabbed a girl in school which is debunked in the FAQ section on AmandaKnoxcase.com. Machiavelli lied that Amanda had carried out a rape prank in Seattle. Vixen claims in her post that Amanda won a prize in prison for a story about a murdered woman. Where is the evidence for this? When was this story written? Have the prosecution used it? Has this been mentioned on the TJMK/PMF hate sites who have left no stone unturned in attacking Amanda? If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so strong and there was so much evidence, why do the PGP have to resort to lying about things which happened outside the murder of Meredith?

The story about the anti semitic remark has been discredited which is detailed on Nigel Scott's Groundreport 40 myths articles. If there was a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele, why do the PGP have to rely on discredited stories to argue their case?

A journalist named Charlie Mudede interviewed the Jewish colleague.

The short story was written under the pen name of Marie Pace in prison and won a prize.

The context of my comments is important and was not setting out "external" crime evidence. It was in response to "Bill Williams"' claim Massei made it up about Amanda's violent propensities.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's only a newspaper 'opinion piece' designed to be provocative. A column writer has to be outspoken to be successful. It means nothing. Just some hack spouting off.

Andrea Vogt Barbara "Barbie" Nadeau Nick Pisa Richard Owen
Oh the glorious irony

(More ironic still is that the originator of the irony will not actually spot or understand the irony )

 

[Grinder]

It is possible for the prosecution to have just one piece of evidence which is enough to convict someone and provide the prosecution with a slam dunk case. For instance, a man hits someone in a pub with a bottle. The man is caugh on the pub CCTV which clearly shows the man hitting the victim with a bottle. This evidence alone provides the prosecution with a slam dunk case. If the prosecution could conclusively prove Raffaele had left the footprint on the bathmat this would have provided the prosecution with one piece of cast iron evidence which would be enough on its own alone to convict Amanda and Raffaele.

The video could possibly be enough but it sure wouldn't be the only evidence both direct and indirect the prosecutor would use in your hypothetical. To be fair to Vixen please provide one case where what you described above occurred and they only used a video. No way.

If the footprint provided the prosecution with cast iron irrefutable evidence, how do you explain the tactics the prosecution had to resort to? Police/prosecutors should not have to resort to lying if they have hard evidence. Going back to the example I gave of someone being attacked in the pub. The police/prosecution would not have to resort to lying because the CCTV provides them with solid evidence.

Even if the prosecutor believed his people 100% he would still add to the case. The video wouldn't cover everything and many a cop has gotten off because the "video doesn't show everything"

The prosecution lied on numerous occasions in the case of Amanda and Raffaele. They feed falso stories to the media about bleach receipts, the washing machine running, the Harry Potter book, Amanda showering in a bloody bathroom. The prosecution lied in court about the time Amanda called her mother, the postal police lied about the time they arrived at the cottage to support the notion Raffaele called the police after the police arrived and other lies. Why did the prosecution have to resort to telling numerous lies if they had a piece of solid slam dunk evidence at their disposal for which the defense had no answer for? Having to resort to lying is a sign the prosecution have a lack of evidence.

I don't know where you are getting this. Perhaps GR articles?

While I don't think the bath mat print is worth a damn even if it was worth something other evidence would be added. As I said earlier it would nail Raf and would actually help Amanda. Everything would point to him.

 

[Grinder]

A journalist named Charlie Mudede interviewed the Jewish colleague.

The short story was written under the pen name of Marie Pace in prison and won a prize.

The context of my comments is important and was not setting out "external" crime evidence. It was in response to "Bill Williams"' claim Massei made it up about Amanda's violent propensities.

And what examples of "violent propensities" have you provided? If you said ditsy, that would be one thing but violent?

 

[Vixen]

While agree with much of this, using a GR article by an FOA member isn't very powerful.

Nigel wrote: Myth 5 – ‘My people killed your people’

Irrelevant but often repeated is the story that Amanda is anti-Semitic. It started out in February 2008, soon after the murder, as a quote in the Seattle paper, ‘The Stranger’ in an article written by Charles Mudede. This is the full quote:

“You know, a lot of people are saying she is a sweet girl and they can’t believe she could have done such a thing. But, to be honest, I’m not surprised she is a suspect. Really. The first time I met her, when I got the job here, she asked me if I was Jewish. I told her I was. She then screamed: ‘My people killed your people and began laughing hysterically. I didn’t know what to say. She just kept laughing about her Germans killing my Jews. After that, I did not like her. She really freaked me out.”

It is attributed to an anonymous ‘friend’ of Mudede’s called ‘Matthew’. His identity has never been revealed. It is likely that he does not exist and the quote and the person are figments of Mudede’s imagination. The quote quickly went viral in the heated atmosphere created by Mignini and contributed to the public perception of Amanda as cruel, heartless and likely to be a brutal killer.


How in the world would Nigel know if the quote was real or not. Without checking, I would bet that Matthew was not a friend of Muede but rather a worker at a coffee house that Amanda had worked at - World something" on Roosevelt about 52nd street which was about 4 blocks from her rental house.

While I know it has nothing to do with the murder, I really don't doubt she said it. Watch the drinking video and read the caption under the machine gun and then say she would never have said such a thing.

ETA - well I was right and wrong - the guy was an old friend of Mudede whom he hadn't seen for years and worked at World Cup on Roosevelt with Amanda. I doubt he didn't exist but certainly understand why he didn't want his name associated with the case.

It emphasises Amanda's apparent lack of empathy (Hare diagnostic symptom of psychopathy). I have German friends who converse occasionally about conditions in post-war Germany and they have always been careful to condemn what happened and are mindful that such a comment would be highly offensive to Brits, many Brits killed in WW1 and WW2, as well as Jews.


Maybe there isn't a Jewish population in Seattle of any great size, but in the part of London I grew up, there was a large community. My best friend at school, Barbara, lost two of her grandparents in the Shoah and two were left blind. I can only imagine Amanda was ignorant of Jewish feelings about this or she really was just exhibiting sociopathic traits. Let's give her the benefit of a doubt and put it down to crass stupidity.

 

[LondonJohn]

It is possible for the prosecution to have just one piece of evidence which is enough to convict someone and provide the prosecution with a slam dunk case. For instance, a man hits someone in a pub with a bottle. The man is caugh on the pub CCTV which clearly shows the man hitting the victim with a bottle. This evidence alone provides the prosecution with a slam dunk case. If the prosecution could conclusively prove Raffaele had left the footprint on the bathmat this would have provided the prosecution with one piece of cast iron evidence which would be enough on its own alone to convict Amanda and Raffaele.

If the footprint provided the prosecution with cast iron irrefutable evidence, how do you explain the tactics the prosecution had to resort to? Police/prosecutors should not have to resort to lying if they have hard evidence. Going back to the example I gave of someone being attacked in the pub. The police/prosecution would not have to resort to lying because the CCTV provides them with solid evidence.

The prosecution lied on numerous occasions in the case of Amanda and Raffaele. They feed falso stories to the media about bleach receipts, the washing machine running, the Harry Potter book, Amanda showering in a bloody bathroom. The prosecution lied in court about the time Amanda called her mother, the postal police lied about the time they arrived at the cottage to support the notion Raffaele called the police after the police arrived and other lies. Why did the prosecution have to resort to telling numerous lies if they had a piece of solid slam dunk evidence at their disposal for which the defense had no answer for? Having to resort to lying is a sign the prosecution have a lack of evidence.

If the bathmat footprint evidence was so strong as Vixen claims, why does Vixen continuously have to resort to lying in her posts?

Ah but this is direct evidence - not circumstantial evidence. If you have even one single piece of direct evidence which is found to be credible and reliable, then you're almost always going to be able to convict.

The question was whether it's ever possible to have just one piece of circumstantial evidence which is sufficiently strong to ensure (safe) conviction. And that's where I cited rape/murders where the defendant's semen DNA on or in the victim is often enough to convict all by itself.

(It's possibly worth reiterating once again the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. I think a lot of commentators here get the definitions partially or wholly wrong, and it's clear that a lot of journalists are even more confused and ignorant on the distinction. In simple terms, direct evidence - if judged by the court to be reliable and credible - will prove one or more elements of the crime directly, while circumstantial evidence will prove a peripheral fact which may allow for an inference of guilt.

For example, imagine if Man A walks into a bar and shoots dead Man B with a handgun. Direct evidence would be either a) the confession of Man A to the murder, b) the testimony of other people present in the bar who directly witnessed Man A come in and shoot Man B, or c) video/audio/photographic recordings showing Man A coming in and shooting Man B.

Pretty much everything else would be classified as circumstantial evidence. The police find a gun in Mr A's house, registered to him, locked in a cabinet to which only he has the key, and it's shown to be the murder weapon? Circumstantial. The police find specks of Mr B's blood on Mr A's t-shirt, which Mr A's wife testified he was wearing on the day of the murder? Circumstantial. A witness outside the bar sees Mr A running away from the bar brandishing a handgun shortly after hearing the sound of gunshots from within the bar? Circumstantial. Shoe prints which exactly match a pair of Mr A's shoes (which again Mr A's wife testifies he was wearing that day) are found on the exact spot in the bar where multiple witnesses place the gunman as he took aim and fired? Circumstantial. The bullet found within the victim is found to be from a rare batch of bullets which exactly and exclusively matches a box of bullets (with six bullets missing from the box) found in Mr A's house next to his handgun? Circumstantial.

And so on.....)

 

[Vixen]

Well since the point revolved around the mat and how it was found relating to the missing heel print, it wasn't found in situ or IOW how it was left. Since it had been moved by Amanda any analysis of how it was found by the police is worthless vis-a-vis the missing heel print. Stress on missing.

Or so Amanda says.

 

[LondonJohn]

It emphasises Amanda's apparent lack of empathy (Hare diagnostic symptom of psychopathy). I have German friends who converse occasionally about conditions in post-war Germany and they have always been careful to condemn what happened and are mindful that such a comment would be highly offensive to Brits, many Brits killed in WW1 and WW2, as well as Jews.

I worked for a wine shippers owned by Rudy Nassauer, a well-known Jewish refugee who wrote an acclaimed novel about the German (Nazi) mind. When he visited Germany he felt so angry and had such an urge to beat up Germans, he had to turn around and leave the country.

Maybe there isn't a Jewish population in Seattle of any great size, but in the part of London I grew up, there was a large community. My best friend at school, Barbara, lost two of her grandparents in the Shoal and two were left blind. I can only imagine Amanda was ignorant of Jewish feelings about this or she really was just exhibiting sociopathic traits. Let's give her the benefit of a doubt and put it down to crass stupidity.

Was she a fish? (It's "Shoah" - and the "H" is three keys away from the "L" on the keyboard.....)

But besides that mild insult to Jewish culture...... Knox was two generations removed from (and a whole continent removed from) the atrocities of WWII. It's to be expected that she was rarely either confronted by or sensitised by what her distant relatives might or might not have done 50 years previously 5,000 miles away. Of course it's possible to judge her remarks as somewhat insensitive, naive and ill-judged. But IMO, objectively, it's a massive (and incorrect and unacceptable) stretch to suppose that Knox was being knowingly malicious, hateful or lacking in empathy. Unless one is vindictive and biassed against Knox, of course...........

 

[Vixen]

Ask to believe because of LondonJohn?

Why not because of what Marasca/Bruno wrote in Section 4? They described a flawed investigation and amnesiac judicial reckoning. No use in picking on LondonJohn, every news outlet in Italy which has commented sides with the stuff LJ is saying.

Tell you what - point to **one** Italian source which agrees with you? Mignini and Stefanoni don't count. Massei and Nencini have been annuled.

The press are mindful of libel laws. The mainstream can only publish articles within the confines of legal findings.

In England we have simply ignored Bruno-Marasca completely, apart from a couple of paragraphs on BBC website, giving a factual report of their annulment.

 

[LondonJohn]

The video could possibly be enough but it sure wouldn't be the only evidence both direct and indirect the prosecutor would use in your hypothetical. To be fair to Vixen please provide one case where what you described above occurred and they only used a video. No way.

As I said earlier, there have been plenty of successful prosecutions resulting in safe convictions in the area of rape/murder where just one single item of circumstantial evidence (the defendant's semen DNA on/in the victim) has been presented. That's all the more common in so-called "cold case" prosecutions - typically where clothing and/or samples from the victim have been held in sterile storage - sometimes for decades - until advances in DNA testing have allowed DNA to be recovered and matched from the items. In such cases, prosecutors will almost always go before the courts with a solitary piece of evidence - the DNA match (admittedly sometimes accompanied by the defendant's claim to have never met the victim etc).

Likewise, cases have successfully been tried before where there is only the (reliable, credible) confession of the defendant to go on. I agree it's unlikely that there would be many (any?) cases where only a video recording would be offered up as evidence, since there will almost always be other compelling pieces of probative evidence in such cases.

 

[Vixen]

Rudy never removed his shoes? And you know this..... how? Have you read the M/B report which calls the investigation fundamentally flawed?

The really strange thing is that none of the fake-Wiki's factoids are sustained even by the convicting judges.

M/B spelt it out large that law overrided science.

 

[LondonJohn]

The press are mindful of libel laws. The mainstream can only publish articles within the confines of legal findings.

In England we have simply ignored Bruno-Marasca completely, apart from a couple of paragraphs on BBC website, giving a factual report of their annulment.

Uh do you know the real reason why "we have....ignored Bruno-Marasca"? Here goes:

IT'S BECAUSE THE PUBLIC ARE NOT INTERESTED ANY LONGER.

The case is over in the public's minds (the public are only really interested in the murder element). The public have heard that the Italian Supreme Court essentially excoriated the police, prosecutors and previous lower courts for the dreadful, incompetent and unlawful ways in which they'd handled the case. The public's conclusion is that Knox and Sollecito were unfairly pursued by the Italian police and prosecutors, based on fundamentally flawed "evidence" that was the product of gross incompetence, negligence and probable misconduct.

And now the public have moved on.

That's the reason.