Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

Bill why do you keep spewing out this misinformation? The Massei trial did indicate shoe prints of a woman's size 36-38 were found but not for sure considering Vinci's presentation. They never matched the ASICS nor did they try.

The purpose of the investigation of merchants and shoe manufacturers was not to propose the ASICS as the shoe that produced the print in question; the objective, more modestly, was simply to indicate how the dimensions of the print (held to be sufficiently complete and not merely partial) were in themselves comparable to women’s shoes available on the market, with the consequence of providing support for the hypothesis of two types of footwear at the murder scene, above all Rudy Guede’s indisputably identified shoe, and, on the other hand, a woman’s shoe, whose dimensions, being indicated as between size 36 and size 38, are compatible with Amanda Knox’s shoe size, which is size 37.

This is correct. But Massei was wrong (even in this qualified way). He - and, of course, the pathetically incompetent and out-of-his-depth Rinaldi (and Boemia) - was demonstrably wrong, since it can be shown beyond doubt that these prints came from exactly the same Nike Outbreaks (i.e. Guede's shoes) that made the other prints, and that it was a grotesque (and exceedingly basic and embarrassing) error to have confused adjacent margins as the width of a single shoe.

And we also have to remember the ludicrous (and highly improper) levels of deference and favour that the Massei and Nencini courts in particular showed to prosecution "experts". In this instance, Massei seems more than ready to "take Rinaldi's word for it" that these were women's size 37 prints - presumably on the shambolic and improper basis that the prosecution's "experts" were/are a) the most highly-trained and reliable experts in Italy, and b) acting diligently, properly and honestly on behalf of the state (and on behalf of "seeking the truth" at all times. By sharp contrast, of course, the same misguided and improper mindset dictates that any perception of the defence's experts should start with the presumption that they are partisan shills who will be perfectly prepared to lie and misrepresent in order to serve their client, and "the truth" be damned.

Broken. System. Riddled. With. Patronage. And. Fundamentally. Unjust. Relationships.

 

[Planigale]

There is no uncertainty the burglary was staged.

Quote from Massei: But the fact that all this was in fact just a simulation, a staging, can be deduced from
further circumstances. From the photos taken by the personnel of the Questura
(photos 47 to 54 and 65 to 66) one can perceive an activity which appears to have
been performed with the goal of creating a situation of obvious disorder in
Romanelli's room, but does not appear to be the result of actual ransacking, true
searching for the kind of valuable objects that might tempt a burglar. The drawers of
the little dresser next to the bed were not even opened (photo 51, for example.

Given this key fact, the question has to be asked, "Cui bono?" from such a staged ransack. OK, so the PIP will dream up an "explanation": "Rudy was interrupted" (note, it has to be Rudy and nobody else to fit their shoe-horned theory).

Be that as it may, Massei further comments: The objects on the shelves in photo 52 appearnot to have been touched at all; piles of clothes seem to have been thrown down
from the closet (photo 54) but it does not seem that there was any serious search in
the closet, in which some clothes and some boxes remained in place without
showing any signs of an actual search for valuable items that might have been there
(photo 54). It does not appear that the boxes on the table were opened (photo 65) in a
search for valuable items. And indeed, no valuable item (cf. declarations of
Romanelli) was taken, or even set aside to be taken, by the - at this point we can say
phantom - burglar. One last aspect which bears repeating is the presence, noted and
checked by several witnesses, of pieces of glass on top of the objects and clothing in
Romanelli's room. This circumstance, which also reveals an activity of simulation, ...there are no two ways about it, the "burglary" was a sham, to conceal the true identity of the perpetrator/s of Mez' murder. The only person having such a motive would be someone who lives there, with direct access to the victim. Amanda herself boasted that she had faked a "prank" burglary on a student colleague once and had been forced to apologise. What type of person could fail to realise the effect of such a "prank"?

Further, Massei ruled: [49] Against any such need to dissimulate, which Amanda would have had, it has
been argued that the aim of sexual violence which the crime appeared to display (the
victim was a young girl and her body was almost completely naked and was in her
own bedroom) should have removed all suspicion from Amanda.

Despite Papa Raff testifying his offspring claimed he had just washed dishes after dinner and had had a mishap with the pipes under the sink when he last spoke at 20:42 of the murder night, Massei comments, "the statements by Amanda Knox in which the hour of dinner is
postponed until 10 pm or even 11 pm constitute an attempt to reduce insofar as
possible the length of time devoid of activity that could be documented in some
way, during the final hours of November 1, 2007, thus creating an alibi that could
put her and Raffaele away from the Via della Pergola house where, precisely during
that time, the murder of Meredith Kercher was being perpetrated."

As we know, a great flurry of activity occurred at the cottage between Mez' last phone signals circa 22:13 and 23:00, with four or five independent witnesses reporting various commotions of some sort. Therefore the PIP expend a great deal of energy trying to contrive a scenario wheein "Rudy killed her straightaway", asserting not only was he there from circa 20:45, but that he hung around until after 22:13, a whole hour and a half or more, and only bothering to steal Mez' two phones, one credit card and €300 in cash, completely ignoring all other valuables in the property, disregarding Filomena's gold jewellery and Amanda's €300 rent, he could easily have stuffed into his pockets, whilst he was busy at his PIP alleged profession of, hello? burglar.

Mez' meal with the "British birds" was any time between 18:30 and 20:30 "Dr. Lalli, knowing that the duodenum was
still empty "because the stomach had not even begun to empty itself" (page 19 of the
transcripts), the time of death must lie between 21:30 pm (three hours after 18:30)
and 22:30 pm (four hours after 18:30), and that this timing agreed with the less rigid
133
data provided by the analysis of the hypostasis, of the rigor mortis and of the body
temperature, considering the uncertainty of the body weight which was guessed
without weighing the body. " Therefore, Rudy by the PIP imaginary timeline must have hung around the cottage at least three-quarters of an hour, if we accept their proposed early time of 21:30 (some half an hour after Mez supposedly "interrupted Rudy the burglar").

As for the strong DNA of Raff found on the bra clasp which was underneath the body and sheet, contamination from other objects was ruled out. None of the hooks were deformed and ruled out having been stepped on. Tertiary transfer would have rendered a negligible amount of DNA, and the defence at no point provided a credible scenario of how that would have happened, anyway, Massei states: For the elements and the considerations indicated above, it is ruled out that the
hooks could contain DNA transferred by contact with other objects.
... It can thus be asserted that no contamination occurred on the hooks on the piece of
bra seen on November 3rd and collected on December 18th. These conclusions are
based on the arguments given above and are consonant with the manner of finding
of the hooks: they form a tiny surface which would be difficult to contaminate; the
piece of bra shows, from the attachment of some threads from the strap of the bra
and by the partial deformation of one of the hooks, that a rather firm and violent
pressure was applied to that piece and in particular to the hooks, a pressure which
adequately and convincingly explains the presence of DNA of the person exerting
this firm and violent pressure.

We know the phone which received a signal at 22:13 was at the cottage at 22:13:19, the phone connected to the 30064 Strada Vicinale Ponte Rio Monte La
Guardia cell, the base radio station which Chief Inspector Latella referred to as the
same one that was detected by their measurements near Meredith’s bedroom (in
addition to having reception in the courtyard of the cottage).
The immediate deduction which the Polizia Giudiziaria arrived at is therefore that
Meredith’s English phone was at Via della Pergola 7 on the date 1 November 2007,
in the time period from 14:31:43 to 15:55:57, and lastly at 22:13:19, when the phone
made a GPRS connection (to which we will return) rather than a voice connection.

Without even mentioning the luminol, footprint and shoeprint evidence and evidence of computer activity which proves Raff was lying when he said he was surfing the net all evening until 03:00, These facts also provide proof of the presence of Amanda Knox and of Raffaele
Sollecito in the house on Via della Pergola when Meredith was killed and clarify the
role that they played, outlining a framework of evidence that leads to a declaratory
judgement of guilt with regard to the crimes imputed to them.


The fact-finding court determined that Amanda wielded the knife which inflicted the fatal wound dynamic requires the presence of a second attacker, of a second knife. This
Court holds that the second attacker is Amanda Knox and the second knife is Exhibit
36. This is not hypothetical or open to argument, it is factual, and in circumstances of This eventuality of death, highly probable, came to be accepted [by the attackers]
and the harmful actions [were] carried out and followed through both by Amanda
and by Raffaele, who acted pursuing the same objective that made them similar to
Rudy: there is therefore the awareness and the will to cause death in the context of
sexual assault.

The pair were acquitted by Bruno-Marasca on the grounds of "insufficient evidence" based on "investigative flaws" and "media attention pressures". They affirmed the facts found by the merits courts stood, save for the fact that although Amanda definitely, and Raff probably, were there at the cottage during the murder, with Amanda washing off Mez' blood from her person (blood dries within half an hour, so she came into contact within that time range) and Amanda covering up for Rudy as the grounds for her criminal calunnia, they couldn't know for sure they had done it.

NB Massei is in the public domain.

Your post seems entirely disconnected from mine.

But addressing your post please note all the 'apparent' not certain. This implies a degree of uncertainty. Also note the way facts are made up; "The drawers of
the little dresser next to the bed were not even opened ", how can you tell if a draw has been opened or not? One can tell that it has been closed there is no way to tell whether it has or has not been opened, this is just fantasy by Massei. then we have the non evidence based; "One last aspect which bears repeating is the presence, noted and checked by several witnesses, of pieces of glass on top of the objects and clothing in Romanelli's room." But no comment that the crime scene photographs do not document this. We have the extraordinary decision that fallible memory supersedes the objective photography. in any case where would one expect the glass other than on top of things? The question is not what was on top but what was underneath and this was never documented. If there was glass under the clothes then the clothes were scattered after the glass was broken, but if the glass was not under the clothes then the glass was broken after the clothes were on the floor. But (what a surprise) this was never properly investigated. the clothes were not lifted and the presence of glass underneath was never documented. Remember Romanelli went into her room to remove her laptop (and other things? Perhaps her stash?) this would have scattered glass across the items on the floor as she checked her room out.

Now you say this;
'As we know, a great flurry of activity occurred at the cottage between Mez' last phone signals circa 22:13 and 23:00, with four or five independent witnesses reporting various commotions of some sort.'
But we do NOT know a flurry of activity occurred, there are no eye witnesses to the happenings inside the cottage other than Guede. What witnesses we have Curatalo, KoKomani place Knox and Sollecito outside the flat. By the time you combine the observations of Popovic, Curatalo and Kokomani exactly when would Knox and Sollecito have had time for this flurry of activity you claim? If you accept the validity of these witnesses then they place Knox and Sollecito away from the flat. Then you have the broken down car and pick up truck who noticed no activity despite being best positioned to do so.

What exactly is "strong DNA"? You say "None of the hooks were deformed ", have you looked at the photos of the hooks? They are deformed, that you claim they are not is just an example of how you ignore documented facts and make stuff up. You say "Tertiary transfer would have rendered a negligible amount of DNA", but this is untrue. See for instance
Meakin, G. and A. Jamieson (2013). "DNA transfer: review and implications for casework." Forensic Science International 7(4): 434-443.
Goray, M. and R. A. H. van Oorschot (2014). "The complexities of DNA transfer during a social setting." Legal Medicine 17(2): 82-91.
Here are papers falsifying your statement.
That Massei thinks the hooks are too small "they form a tiny surface which would be difficult to contaminate", just shows that he does not understand that microscopic nature of DNA. But at least unlike you Massei accepts the hook was deformed, "partial deformation of one of the hooks". Although he obviously does not understand how bra straps work, his hypothesis seeming to be that the hook was directly pulled open by someone pulling at the hook. Instead of the obvious pulling at the strap with a transmitted stress to the hook.

 

[Vixen]

This is correct. But Massei was wrong (even in this qualified way). He - and, of course, the pathetically incompetent and out-of-his-depth Vinci (and Boemia) - was demonstrably wrong, since it can be shown beyond doubt that these prints came from exactly the same Nike Outbreaks (i.e. Guede's shoes) that made the other prints, and that it was a grotesque (and exceedingly basic and embarrassing) error to have confused adjacent margins as the width of a single shoe.

And we also have to remember the ludicrous (and highly improper) levels of deference and favour that the Massei and Nencini courts in particular showed to prosecution "experts". In this instance, Massei seems more than ready to "take Vinci's word for it" that these were women's size 37 prints - presumably on the shambolic and improper basis that the prosecution's "experts" were/are a) the most highly-trained and reliable experts in Italy, and b) acting diligently, properly and honestly on behalf of the state (and on behalf of "seeking the truth" at all times. By sharp contrast, of course, the same misguided and improper mindset dictates that any perception of the defence's experts should start with the presumption that they are partisan shills who will be perfectly prepared to lie and misrepresent in order to serve their client, and "the truth" be damned.

Broken. System. Riddled. With. Patronage. And. Fundamentally. Unjust. Relationships.

Surely you mean Rinaldi. Vinci was the defence expert whose report was riddled with 'bent' data and torn to shreds in cross examination.

 

[Vixen]

Your post seems entirely disconnected from mine.

But addressing your post please note all the 'apparent' not certain. This implies a degree of uncertainty. Also note the way facts are made up; "The drawers of
the little dresser next to the bed were not even opened ", how can you tell if a draw has been opened or not? One can tell that it has been closed there is no way to tell whether it has or has not been opened, this is just fantasy by Massei. then we have the non evidence based; "One last aspect which bears repeating is the presence, noted and checked by several witnesses, of pieces of glass on top of the objects and clothing in Romanelli's room." But no comment that the crime scene photographs do not document this. We have the extraordinary decision that fallible memory supersedes the objective photography. in any case where would one expect the glass other than on top of things? The question is not what was on top but what was underneath and this was never documented. If there was glass under the clothes then the clothes were scattered after the glass was broken, but if the glass was not under the clothes then the glass was broken after the clothes were on the floor. But (what a surprise) this was never properly investigated. the clothes were not lifted and the presence of glass underneath was never documented. Remember Romanelli went into her room to remove her laptop (and other things? Perhaps her stash?) this would have scattered glass across the items on the floor as she checked her room out.

Now you say this;
'As we know, a great flurry of activity occurred at the cottage between Mez' last phone signals circa 22:13 and 23:00, with four or five independent witnesses reporting various commotions of some sort.'
But we do NOT know a flurry of activity occurred, there are no eye witnesses to the happenings inside the cottage other than Guede. What witnesses we have Curatalo, KoKomani place Knox and Sollecito outside the flat. By the time you combine the observations of Popovic, Curatalo and Kokomani exactly when would Knox and Sollecito have had time for this flurry of activity you claim? If you accept the validity of these witnesses then they place Knox and Sollecito away from the flat. Then you have the broken down car and pick up truck who noticed no activity despite being best positioned to do so.

What exactly is "strong DNA"? You say "None of the hooks were deformed ", have you looked at the photos of the hooks? They are deformed, that you claim they are not is just an example of how you ignore documented facts and make stuff up. You say "Tertiary transfer would have rendered a negligible amount of DNA", but this is untrue. See for instance
Meakin, G. and A. Jamieson (2013). "DNA transfer: review and implications for casework." Forensic Science International 7(4): 434-443.
Goray, M. and R. A. H. van Oorschot (2014). "The complexities of DNA transfer during a social setting." Legal Medicine 17(2): 82-91.
Here are papers falsifying your statement.
That Massei thinks the hooks are too small "they form a tiny surface which would be difficult to contaminate", just shows that he does not understand that microscopic nature of DNA. But at least unlike you Massei accepts the hook was deformed, "partial deformation of one of the hooks". Although he obviously does not understand how bra straps work, his hypothesis seeming to be that the hook was directly pulled open by someone pulling at the hook. Instead of the obvious pulling at the strap with a transmitted stress to the hook.

You're once again incorrect. There was Capezzeli (sp?), Nara, Formica, Kokomani, Lombardo, and another witness who claimed to hear raised voices at 3:00am.

Massei makes clear the bra hooks were no more deformed than when last seen, underneath the body.

Raff's DNA was there with strong RFU, STR and high picagrams and all 17 alleles, as well as the Y haplotype of his father's side. There is simply no getting away from it.

You were talking about probabilities: the probability of it NOT being Raff's was estimated at 1/1.3bn IIRC, virtually the whole of the earth's population.

 

[Grinder]

Skimming Massei's report p. 354ff, in relation to Vixen's repetition of "Amanda's size 37's were found in the murder room," left me wondering if she is prepared for the implications of that.

Is Vixen also claiming AK changed shoes mid-participation?

Maybe, maybe not. But Inspector Boemia thought what he saw were women's ASICS . Isn't there ANYTHING which the remaining PGP can raise without causing another difficulty?

Huh!? I was quoting what Massei said from his MR report about Inspector Boemia's claim it was women's ASICs. You claim I'm presenting misinformation, then summarize almost exactly what was printed.

Massei refused to choose, as reprinted above. What's the big deal?

Bill Massei in the MR says they were not claiming the prints came from ASICS.

The purpose of the investigation of merchants and shoe manufacturers was not to propose the ASICS as the shoe that produced the print in question

This is correct. But Massei was wrong (even in this qualified way). He - and, of course, the pathetically incompetent and out-of-his-depth Vinci (and Boemia) - was demonstrably wrong, since it can be shown beyond doubt that these prints came from exactly the same Nike Outbreaks (i.e. Guede's shoes) that made the other prints, and that it was a grotesque (and exceedingly basic and embarrassing) error to have confused adjacent margins as the width of a single shoe.

LJ Vinci was the consultant that showed the little print was really from Rudi's big shoes.

 

[LondonJohn]

Surely you mean Rinaldi. Vinci was the defence expert whose report was riddled with 'bent' data and torn to shreds in cross examination.

Thank you. Yes I did mean Rinaldi. Edited appropriately. Brain freeze.

Oh and Vinci's report was not "riddled with bent data", and nor was it "torn to shreds in cross-examination". Rather, it was/is the prosecution "experts" who have ultimately been left looking amateurish, incompetent and going way, way outside their areas of understanding/experience to give misleading, pseudoscientific and mendacious claptrap as "evidence" to the courts.

 

[Grinder]

You're once again incorrect. There was Capezzeli (sp?), Nara, Formica, Kokomani, Lombardo, and another witness who claimed to hear raised voices at 3:00am.

Massei makes clear the bra hooks were no more deformed than when last seen, underneath the body.

Raff's DNA was there with strong RFU, STR and high picagrams all 17 alleles, as well as the Y haplotype of his father's side. Therre is simply no getting away from it.

The hooks were so small they couldn't be contaminated is what he the idiot said. What were the other alleles from?

The so-called ear witnesses did not hear anything at 3 am. They had times all over the place and Nara had the day mixed up. Kokomani had the time while the truck and car were there and Formica had a couple arguing in Italian.

Remind me who is Lombardo?

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill Massei in the MR says they were not claiming the prints came from ASICS.

The purpose of the investigation of merchants and shoe manufacturers was not to propose the ASICS as the shoe that produced the print in question

Legendary talking past one another.

Agreed. This is all consistent (within the "logic" of the Massei report) that the purpose of the investigation was NOT to agree with (or even express an opinion) on Inspector Boemia's claim.

Next.

 

[Planigale]

You're once again incorrect. There was Capezzeli (sp?), Nara, Formica, Kokomani, Lombardo, and another witness who claimed to hear raised voices at 3:00am.

Massei makes clear the bra hooks were no more deformed than when last seen, underneath the body.

Raff's DNA was there with strong RFU, STR and high picagrams and all 17 alleles, as well as the Y haplotype of his father's side. There is simply no getting away from it.

You were talking about probabilities: the probability of it NOT being Raff's was estimated at 1/1.3bn IIRC, virtually the whole of the earth's population.

So how do any of these witnesses tell us what was happening inside the flat? You claim they are witnesses to a flurry of activity in the flat. But those that claim to see Knox and Sollecito see them outside the flat. The 'ear' witnesses heard an unidentified scream and say nothing about Knox and Sollecito.

Do you know what a picagram is? Because I don't. The DNA was trace, low copy number (by the way these refer to two different attributes and are not synonyms). I do not claim that the profile was not Sollecito's. Although i think the statistics of attribution of mixed DNA are difficult, and my grasp of statistics is better than yours.

 

[Grinder]

But Inspector Boemia thought what he saw were women's ASICS .

Chief Inspector Boemia’s investigation of merchants and shoe manufacturers led him to identify a woman’s shoe brand, ASICS, on which he then focussed his attention in consideration of the specific form of the sole, whose width was equal to 40mm, which contained a circle just next to the hind part of the heel.
Inspector Boemia reiterated during the course of his deposition that the photo 105 print could not have corresponded to that left behind by a man’s shoe, taking into account the different range in width one would expect from a man’s shoe, measuring around 60mm in width.
The purpose of the investigation of merchants and shoe manufacturers was not to propose the ASICS as the shoe that produced the print in question

Now if you have something where Boemia claimed as you said above the prints were left by ASICS shoes now would be a good time to link it.

 

[acbytesla]

Thank you. Yes I did mean Rinaldi. Edited appropriately. Brain freeze.

Oh and Vinci's report was not "riddled with bent data", and nor was it "torn to shreds in cross-examination". Rather, it was/is the prosecution "experts" who have ultimately been left looking amateurish, incompetent and going way, way outside their areas of understanding/experience to give misleading, pseudoscientific and mendacious claptrap as "evidence" to the courts.

I love everything that word mendacious. You don't hear it much. But it is such an apt description.

What amazes me is how Massei doesn't see it or Vixen. This isn't the DNA which is admittedly difficult to comprehend. Vinci shows that it's not a ladies shoe but clearly the very same pair of Nike's as the other prints.

Even I can understand it and I'm not a member of Mensa.

 

[Bill Williams]

Chief Inspector Boemia’s investigation of merchants and shoe manufacturers led him to identify a woman’s shoe brand, ASICS, on which he then focussed his attention in consideration of the specific form of the sole, whose width was equal to 40mm, which contained a circle just next to the hind part of the heel.
Inspector Boemia reiterated during the course of his deposition that the photo 105 print could not have corresponded to that left behind by a man’s shoe, taking into account the different range in width one would expect from a man’s shoe, measuring around 60mm in width.
The purpose of the investigation of merchants and shoe manufacturers was not to propose the ASICS as the shoe that produced the print in question

Now if you have something where Boemia claimed as you said above the prints were left by ASICS shoes now would be a good time to link it.

What I have is upthread. Have fun!

 

[Bill Williams]

However, this was not definitive, it was "insufficient evidence" = get sufficient evidence and come back.

Francesco Maresca said the ISC ruling in March 2015 was definitive, as are all rulings which end the legal process in Italy. It closed the case against AK and RS.

All Rudy did was quote Bruno-Marasca. As they are the law, there is no libel there, contrary to what your chum "Mike" would have us believe.

Rudy was careful not to say that Sollecito was there, lest Sollecito make good on his promise to sue defamers. This is something that we shall see what happens.

It is a legal fact, Rudy was an accessory to murder in consort with Amanda and Raff, according to Judge Micheli. According to Judge Massei, Amanda caused the fatal injury. No court has decreed Rudy did it alone or inflicted the fatal injury.

Why then did they have a fact-finding trial in 2009 in the Massei court? If they'd found as you said, "according to Judge Micheli" that would have been a major miscrriage of justice, as neither AK nor RS opted for a fast-track trial. There was no evidence presented at Rudy's trial!

So, a judicial review, as being pressed for by the Viterbo criminology unit is a distinct possibility.

Yes - a judicial review for Rudy. But an acquittal cannot be reviewed, not even in Italy because of double-jeopardy.

 

[Vixen]

The hooks were so small they couldn't be contaminated is what he the idiot said. What were the other alleles from?

The so-called ear witnesses did not hear anything at 3 am. They had times all over the place and Nara had the day mixed up. Kokomani had the time while the truck and car were there and Formica had a couple arguing in Italian.

Remind me who is Lombardo?

Gianfranco, car mechanic, backed up Kokomani's claim there was a dark car parked in cottage driveway, when he was there helping with breakdown circa 22:30.

Soz, the other witness was Maria Ilaria Dramis, neighbour who heard multiple sets of footsteps under her window, running away from the house.

Of course no court will ever have a 100% correct reconstruction of the crime, unless there's a confession or it happened in front of a witness. There is still plenty of controversy over what most people consider as straight forward cases, for example, Dr Crippen.

Formica had a black or North African man crash into her boyfriend circa that time, running from the direction of the house. Could have been one of the 'partygoers'.

 

[Grinder]

Gianfranco, car mechanic, backed up Kokomani's claim there was a dark car parked in cottage driveway, when he was there helping with breakdown circa 22:30.

Soz, the other witness was Maria Ilaria Dramis, neighbour who heard multiple sets of footsteps under her window, running away from the house.

Of course no court will ever have a 100% correct reconstruction of the crime, unless there's a confession or it happened in front of a witness. There is still plenty of controversy over what most people consider as straight forward cases, for example, Dr Crippen.

Formica had a black or North African man crash into her boyfriend circa that time, running from the direction of the house. Could have been one of the 'partygoers'.

You're once again incorrect. There was Capezzeli (sp?), Nara, Formica, Kokomani, Lombardo, and another witness who claimed to hear raised voices at 3:00am.

You seem to have caught someone's misinformation disease.

 

[Vixen]

Francesco Maresca said the ISC ruling in March 2015 was definitive, as are all rulings which end the legal process in Italy. It closed the case against AK and RS.


Rudy was careful not to say that Sollecito was there, lest Sollecito make good on his promise to sue defamers. This is something that we shall see what happens.


Why then did they have a fact-finding trial in 2009 in the Massei court? If they'd found as you said, "according to Judge Micheli" that would have been a major miscrriage of justice, as neither AK nor RS opted for a fast-track trial. There was no evidence presented at Rudy's trial!


Yes - a judicial review for Rudy. But an acquittal cannot be reviewed, not even in Italy because of double-jeopardy.

An acquittal can't be reviewed but even in the UK or the USA, having charges dropped due to insufficient evidence does not trigger "double jeopardy", although it is covered by statute of limitation. You can be charged again under those circumstances. The kids were not found innocent, nor exonerated.

Micheli upheld in his MR that: [288] At the same time, RUDY is not credible along the entire course of his reconstruction, included therein the particular of his ingress in the house with the blessing of Ms KERCHER, who would have acceded to a prior rendez-vous or perhaps only finding him in front of her then and there, by reason of the moment of tenderness and complicity shared the evening before: and, if it is not true that he heard an invite to him to come in from MEREDITH, if the signs of a break-in were after the death of the girl, if RUDY was in that case in the same context in which there was someone who would have then manifested an interest in making believe there was an ingress of low-life unknown persons, the only conclusion is that Mr GUEDE entered Number 7, Via della Pergola because someone else let him in, the holder of that interest just described (who can be no other than Ms KNOX).

and also...

[303] In short, Mr GUEDE participated in absolutely active terms in the joint action of multiple attackers, even if it was not him dealing the mortal blow: however, the specific role adopted by each of the accused not having been described in point form, it has been clarified in the argument phase by the Public Prosecutor – and it was in any case evident already on the basis of procedural outcomes – that the charge of holding the knife not be raised against him.

and [316] In favour of the detainee there are: the prior clean record, in the face of a rather problematic personal experience; the circumstance that it was not him who was holding the knife that struck the girl; the possibility that Ms KERCHER was in any case being given aid, there being otherwise no explanation for the presence near the body of three towels more or less fully soaked with blood.

and the fact that it was not him who was wielding the knife is not enough to relegate him to second place at the scene of the crime, seeing that it was he himself at the same time offending against the sexual liberty of the young woman.


If being present is not proof of being a perpetrator (Bruno-Marasca) then it follows that neither is Rudy, as Micheli further explains that it wasn't Rduy who went back to undress the body, and stage a mis en scene, not having any motive to.

Source: http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Micheli_Sentencing_Report_(English)

NB Micheli is in the public domain.

 

[Bill Williams]

An acquittal can't be reviewed but even in the UK or the USA, having charges dropped due to insufficient evidence does not trigger "double jeopardy", although it is covered by statute of limitation. You can be charged again under those circumstances. The kids were not found innocent, nor exonerated.

The charges were not dropped. Three trials were concluded by a Cassiazione verdict of acquittal.

This is from the Italian Criminal procedure page on Wikipedia.

When new evidence is discovered, that by itself or together with that presented during the trial might justify an acquittal, the convict, his next of kin, his guardian, his heir — if the convict is dead — or the Procuratore Generale presso la Corte d'Appello (the Public Prosecutor attached to the Court of Appeals) may apply to the Court of Appeals for a review of trial. The Court decides de plano with an ordinanza if the application is receivable; if it deems it is not, the losing party can appeal the ordinanza before the Corte di Cassazione. If the Court of Appeals, or the Court of Cassation, deems that the application is receivable, the second part of the review begins before the Court of Appeals itself. During the new trial, the Court reexamines all evidence and can acquit the defendant or uphold his conviction; the verdict is, then appealable before the Court of Cassation. Even if an application for review was turned down before, the convict can apply again, so long as he presents new evidence. A "not guilty" verdict, which has become irrevocable (that has been upheld by the Court of Cassation, that is to say) can never be reviewed.​

 

[acbytesla]

The charges were not dropped. Three trials were concluded by a Cassiazione verdict of acquittal.

This is from the Italian Criminal procedure page on Wikipedia.

​

When new evidence is discovered, that by itself or together with that presented during the trial might justify an acquittal, the convict, his next of kin, his guardian, his heir — if the convict is dead — or the Procuratore Generale presso la Corte d'Appello (the Public Prosecutor attached to the Court of Appeals) may apply to the Court of Appeals for a review of trial. The Court decides de plano with an ordinanza if the application is receivable; if it deems it is not, the losing party can appeal the ordinanza before the Corte di Cassazione. If the Court of Appeals, or the Court of Cassation, deems that the application is receivable, the second part of the review begins before the Court of Appeals itself. During the new trial, the Court reexamines all evidence and can acquit the defendant or uphold his conviction; the verdict is, then appealable before the Court of Cassation. Even if an application for review was turned down before, the convict can apply again, so long as he presents new evidence. A "not guilty" verdict, which has become irrevocable (that has been upheld by the Court of Cassation, that is to say) can never be reviewed.

We should start a pool for when she gets this. I though that some of the guilters would have a hard time accepting this, but sheesh, in less than a month it will be a year since it became final.

 

[bagels]

Surely you mean Rinaldi. Vinci was the defence expert whose report was riddled with 'bent' data and torn to shreds in cross examination.

The bathmat print analysis from both sides I mostly ignore. To me it's just a blob.

But I found Vinci's report on the shoe prints in the bedroom extremely professional and analytical.

Rinaldi tries in his rebuttal to quibble over 1mm measuring differences based on photoshop while a print that obviously exactly matches in every way Rudy's is sitting right in front of him for anyone to see. It's kind of emblematic of the Italian judicial experience.

 

[Mike1711]

Bill why do you keep spewing out this misinformation? The Massei trial did indicate shoe prints of a woman's size 36-38 were found but not for sure considering Vinci's presentation. They never matched the ASICS nor did they try.

The purpose of the investigation of merchants and shoe manufacturers was not to propose the ASICS as the shoe that produced the print in question; the objective, more modestly, was simply to indicate how the dimensions of the print (held to be sufficiently complete and not merely partial) were in themselves comparable to women’s shoes available on the market, with the consequence of providing support for the hypothesis of two types of footwear at the murder scene, above all Rudy Guede’s indisputably identified shoe, and, on the other hand, a woman’s shoe, whose dimensions, being indicated as between size 36 and size 38, are compatible with Amanda Knox’s shoe size, which is size 37.

It's fine to propose that a print is compatible with a shoe size but this disintegrates into nothing when the shoe tread impression cannot be matched to any shoe on the market of that size. As B/M said...."a flawed investigation". To find the shoe brand to match the tread of a women's size 36 to 38 should not be that difficult and when someone's entire life depends on this finding its criminal in itself to bring into court "evidence" of this nature.

A parallel might be finding a tyre print matching a 205/55R16 size tyre but being unable to find the tyre brand of that size that has the matching tread. This is evidence of a flawed finding and flawed reasoning.

A tyre and a shoe that don't exist?