Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

I provided a reference in support of my opinion, can you provide a reference saying game theory is probability theory?

As I said, the evidence for Guede being present is that he gave details that he would only have known were he present. His bloody handprint was found. Do you deny he was present? The DNA evidence was not essential. I am sure he would have been convicted in the 1980's before DNA was used. In the way the Italian system works there was no gain in Guede pleading guilty, he gained from the fast track trial where he agreed to accept the evidence as given. We know his case was initially an unknown third person committed the crime, Guede has never directly accused Sollecito or Knox.

Do you believe Guede was wrongly convicted? I know you believe that Sollecito and Knox committed a crime. and you quote much false evidence in favour. No matter the fact much of the evidence you quote e.g. bloody fingerprints of Knox or absent bleach receipts or non-existent bleach stains on Sollecito's shoes you seem to have no doubt that your original opinion based on false evidence is true. There is evidence that would change my opinion e.g. Sollecito's DNA and semen confirmed as present on the pillow case. Is there any evidence that would change your opinion?

I don't need to "quote reference" having studied the topic [personal info now edited out] Is that a good enough reference?

As Bruno-Marasca pointed out, being present does not necessarily mean you did it. You can't just take Rudy's (or Amanda's or Raff's) word for it they are innocent, you have to undertake objective independent forensic investigation. The court accepted Rudy applied a compress to Mez' neck, for there were three bloodsoaked towels at the scene. Thus it is not a surprise his handprint is also in blood. Do you follow the logic?

You can't just say, Oh let's blame it all on Rudy and save the American and Italian. It shows a lapse in judgement to let prejudice enter into it.

The Italians exhaustively recreated the crime scene - and they are a very insular people, by no means liberal towards migrants (indeed, Rudy was placed in a cage at his trial) - and it was inescapable that all three showed hard scientific evidence of being involved in the crime. If you are going to call the investigation flawed, then it was flawed for all three of them.

As you know, I am of the opinion all three were involved, having stalked Mez and subjected her to unwelcome harassment for their own thrills.

 

[Bill Williams]

Simply repeating your position makes it no more right than the first time you expressed it.

Ignoring the correctives to this position makes it no more true.

The "same process" you claim provided vastly different results. The original process showed that the crime pointed away from Sollecito, Knox AND Lumumba. Those were the three who the cops said closed the case. THEN the original forensics came back pointing to an unknown fourth party - which turned out to be Rudy.

It is bizarre your argument is this "same process" stuff. You have no idea what you're talking about or what it means. You just say the first thing that pops into your head with no regard to gow it contradicts other stuff.

And who pointed the finger at Patrick Lumumba?

Spurting out the first thing which pops into your head is alive and well.

Try this exercise. There's a little arrow beside each name in the "Originally posted by" box, right to the right of the person being quoted. This is a handy tool in the ISF-software that allows one to track a conversation.

The conversation here was this: you claimed it was the "same process" that was used to incriminate Rudy Guede with the DNA evidence as what was claimed to incriminate AK/RS. You have been shown repeatedly why this is not the case. You said each set of so-called incriminating evidence was found in the same context and conditions.

Not true, and demonstrably not true.

Now? Where has your wanderings of free-spirit, brain-storming "just blurt it out" detectiving got to?

The original DNA sweep came back after the cops has closed the case around Lumumba, Sollecito and Knox.

If that had closed the case, then the original DNA sweep pointed to an unknown fourth man, and to none of the original three.

Your answer to this? "And who pointed the finger at Patrick Lumumba?" I give up. You win.

 

[acbytesla]

Scene: Courtroom.

JUDGE: Do I have the attorney for the defence? Whom do I have in front of me?

ACBYTESLA (For it is he): Acbytesla, your honour. I submit the prosecution are a bunch of lying, corrupt, incompetent ********. As for Stefanoni, she is a bat **** crazy old cow. Mignini is an evil Christian anti-satanist who believes in the magic Jew and wants to burn dear sweet Amanda at the stake as a witch and decent Raff just because he likes a bit of hard porn and prodding girls with his knives -

JUDGE: <bangs his gavel> May I interrupt you? In my court we treat each other with courtesy and respect, but you have done nothing but hurl insults and haven't put forward one single submission that comes under my jurisdiction -

ACBYTESLA: But it's common sense, your Honour. The kids are fine citizens, much admired and beloved in Seattle, where they are feted wherever they go as the demigods they deserve to be as representatives of truth, justice and the American Way. Amanda is delightful and Raff a real cherub with a cheeky boyish grin. Why, just the other day, I threw down my raincoat so that he wouldn't have to step in a puddle -


JUDGE: <bangs gavel incessantly> Send this man down! Remove him from my court!

<fx Acbytesla is carried away kicking and screaming and whistling the Star Spangled Banner>

BILL WILLIAMS <fx wipes brow> OMG! OMG! OMG!

Very funny. But of course like most plays and movies, total fiction. The one thing you keep on proving is your ability to make it up as you go. Seriously, you missed your calling in life. You should haved become a screenwriter.

 

[acbytesla]

And who pointed the finger at Patrick Lumumba?

The police...Ninja'd by Bagels. She did tee that up

 

[acbytesla]

Can anyone doubt:

1) This case is over - defintively settled March 2105 in acquittal
2) Andrea Vogt is a weather-vane journalist​

Not one tweet from Ms. Vogt about this - but her highly inflammatory BBC documentary (done with Russell) on the Perugian murder was shown on German TV recently. "(N)ow it has changed from poor Rudy racism and Perugia prosecution propaganda to an almost balanced presentation of an unsolved murder mystery..."

Apparently they achieved this "balanced" approach by trimming it to 45 minutes from 90 minutes.

Can anyone be happy with the way Andrea Vogt has covered this in the last decade? She's gone from being an "Amanda knows something she's not telling us," journalists, from being the major same-day court conduit to the American hate sites.........

............. to being someone who outs guilters and says the case is over, finished in acquittal.

[qimg]http://www.custom-product.com/upload/848/883uij3/mini-cock-design-weather-vane-wv-03-917.jpg[/qimg]

Would you rather she act like the astronomer Liz Houle? About the only thing I do give Andrea credit for is knowing when it's over. I know a few people else who still need to learn that lesson. Not going to mention names....But it is tempting.

 

[Vixen]

I know quite a bit about law and particularly Roman Dutch Law (emphasis "Roman"). When the first English translations of the B/M were released I was one of the first who pointed out that the Appeal Court repeating previous findings (Judicial Facts) was commonplace and shouldn't be seen to be an underpinning of a lower court "judicial fact".

I refer you to the Oscar Pistorius case where the lower court errors are enshrined as "fact" despite some of the "facts" being obviously incorrect. For example the time of death of Reeva Steenkamp is determined by the lower court in contradiction to the forensic science (very similar error in the TOD of MK). This error favours Pistorius. The South African Appeal Court is prevented from overturning this obvious error because it cannot rule on facts when the state appeals. Where SA Law differs from Italian Law (it seems) is that in Italy the defendant cannot appeal points of fact whereas in South Africa the defendant can appeal points of fact.....but the state can't.

Despite explaining this to you, you refuse to accept it. Despite having no background in law you continue with your mantra of the B/M report saying AK "was there". Despite being told by someone qualified in this area you refuse to accept it.

Unlike you I am not an expert in many fields. (I play rubbish chess with a rating of around 1600....and I would never beat a grandmaster in a million years )

Why do I bring this up?

When I read some of the detailed and enlightening posts of many here it is obvious to me that people like Tesla, Bill, Grinder, LondonJohn , Planigale, Bagels and very many others have logical and insightful stuff to contribute.

Why not take a break from your preconceived ideas and look at the (lack of) evidence?

The truth will set you free. Try it.

Bruno-Marasca do uphold the lower court finding that Amanda was at the scene. It is true of UK law that facts found are not for a higher court to overturn. If there is a point of law in how the lower court treated it (for example, wrong case precedent or an interpretation that is not within the bounds of a reasonable court [=perversity]) then, if it is material, they will send it back down for the disputed fact/s to be weighed up again. If it is an obvious error or not material, then a higher (appeal) court might correct the error itself there and then, although they are usually loath to do so.

In Italy all defendants automatically get two appeals. In the UK, you can appeal, but you have to get it past the sift in the higher court. Nine out of ten appeals fail at the sift stage. However, you can still appeal yet again, if you are still not happy.

Once convicted in the UK, it is is quite rare for (a) an appeal to be allowed, or (b) to get it overturned on appeal. Usually it requires a clear miscarriage of justice, or new evidence coming to light. The US system is derived from the UK's (adversarial, as opposed to Latin Europe's information-gathering largely inquistorial system).

AIUI Judge Massepi (_Sp?) erred in how she treated the fact of who was in the bathroom, this was the basis of the appeal (her erroneous interpretation), not the fact itself.

Sorry, Planigale lost all credibility when he or she claimed that the finding of DNA 36(i) as Amanda's on the knife cancelled out the finding of Mez' on the blade.

Tesla and Bill are spin doctors, and bagels is a "Rudy-did-it theorist", regardless of the real facts.

Re your sarcastic chess comment: do have a look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11135436#post11135436

 

[Vixen]

Can anyone doubt:

1) This case is over - defintively settled March 2105 in acquittal
2) Andrea Vogt is a weather-vane journalist​

Not one tweet from Ms. Vogt about this - but her highly inflammatory BBC documentary (done with Russell) on the Perugian murder was shown on German TV recently. "(N)ow it has changed from poor Rudy racism and Perugia prosecution propaganda to an almost balanced presentation of an unsolved murder mystery..."

Apparently they achieved this "balanced" approach by trimming it to 45 minutes from 90 minutes.

Can anyone be happy with the way Andrea Vogt has covered this in the last decade? She's gone from being an "Amanda knows something she's not telling us," journalists, from being the major same-day court conduit to the American hate sites.........

............. to being someone who outs guilters and says the case is over, finished in acquittal.

[qimg]http://www.custom-product.com/upload/848/883uij3/mini-cock-design-weather-vane-wv-03-917.jpg[/qimg]

It's not over until all the "side shows" have been wound up. The obvious corruption will not go unchallenged. It will only take any one of the three to confess and Amanda and Raff could still be tried, if new evidence comes up, as they were only acquitted on "insufficient evidence".

Andrea Vogt, although freelance, is a professional journalist. Heck, she is not sitting at her desk arguing on online forums. The court acquittal is a legal fact, and for a journalist, an actual fact. Just as courts are an establishment tool, so are the major newspapers. Newspapers give you the establishment view.

 

[bagels]

Amanda and Raff could still be tried

Why do you believe this? It's something you just decided to make up and believe out of thin air. They just found a knife from OJs property, my understanding is that it is probably too small to be the murder weapon, but everyone knows it wouldn't change a single thing if it was. The case is closed. As is this one.

 

[Desert Fox]

It's not over until all the "side shows" have been wound up. The obvious corruption will not go unchallenged. It will only take any one of the three to confess and Amanda and Raff could still be tried, if new evidence comes up, as they were only acquitted on "insufficient evidence".

Andrea Vogt, although freelance, is a professional journalist. Heck, she is not sitting at her desk arguing on online forums. The court acquittal is a legal fact, and for a journalist, an actual fact. Just as courts are an establishment tool, so are the major newspapers. Newspapers give you the establishment view.

OJ Simpson could walk in front of a microphone and say "I killed Nicole Brown Simpson" and he could never be tried criminally for her murder again. This is one of the cornerstones of the legal system of every Western country. Once one has been acquitted, one cannot be retried.

The reason for this is simple. There have been problems historically where somebody is found not guilty and the state does not like the verdict. As a result, the state tried over and over again until a verdict of guilt is found.

 

[Vixen]

Spurting out the first thing which pops into your head is alive and well.

Try this exercise. There's a little arrow beside each name in the "Originally posted by" box, right to the right of the person being quoted. This is a handy tool in the ISF-software that allows one to track a conversation.

The conversation here was this: you claimed it was the "same process" that was used to incriminate Rudy Guede with the DNA evidence as what was claimed to incriminate AK/RS. You have been shown repeatedly why this is not the case. You said each set of so-called incriminating evidence was found in the same context and conditions.

Not true, and demonstrably not true.

Now? Where has your wanderings of free-spirit, brain-storming "just blurt it out" detectiving got to?

The original DNA sweep came back after the cops has closed the case around Lumumba, Sollecito and Knox.

If that had closed the case, then the original DNA sweep pointed to an unknown fourth man, and to none of the original three.

Your answer to this? "And who pointed the finger at Patrick Lumumba?" I give up. You win.

It's called moving on in the discussion. You brought up the fact police arrested Patrick originally and it seemed apposite to remind you who fingered him.

The sweater with Rudy's DNA on the cuffs was collected at the same time as the bra clasp from exactly the same crime scene and the same forensic teams.

It enabled Massei to construct a scenario which fit in with the pathologist's report into Mez' significant shoulder injury from having her arms wrrenched behind her back, which had Rudy being the person who did so, because of the DNA on the cuff.

I can't see any of the PIP creating a huge propaganda campaign that the sweater cuffs must be similarly contaminated or transferred by tertiary or other touch.

You will recall Rudy's claim he was in the bathroom, so you can't assert, "Rudy was there so it must have been him, as he said he was there himself."

If Raff's DNA collection was contaminated, then so, too, was Rudy's by the same criteria.

 

[Vixen]

Why do you believe this? It's something you just decided to make up and believe out of thin air. They just found a knife from OJs property, my understanding is that it is probably too small to be the murder weapon, but everyone knows it wouldn't change a single thing if it was. The case is closed. As is this one.

The kids were acquitted under section 530 para 2, "insufficent evidence". This is an exclusively lower court toolkit (until now, as a one-off) as a means of dropping charges, but enabling the prosecution to bring charges again at a later date within statute of limitations. As it is just a dropping of charges, double jeopardy doesn't come into it. There is no statute of limitation for murder.

In OJ Simpson's case, he was found not guilty, full stop, period, hence has double jeopardy.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's called moving on in the discussion. You brought up the fact police arrested Patrick originally and it seemed apposite to remind you who fingered him.

The sweater with Rudy's DNA on the cuffs was collected at the same time as the bra clasp from exactly the same crime scene and the same forensic teams.

It enabled Massei to construct a scenario which fit in with the pathologist's report into Mez' significant shoulder injury from having her arms wrrenched behind her back, which had Rudy being the person who did so, because of the DNA on the cuff.

I can't see any of the PIP creating a huge propaganda campaign that the sweater cuffs must be similarly contaminated or transferred by tertiary or other touch.

You will recall Rudy's claim he was in the bathroom, so you can't assert, "Rudy was there so it must have been him, as he said he was there himself."

If Raff's DNA collection was contaminated, then so, too, was Rudy's by the same criteria.

You haven't a clue why this post is meaningless do you. You have no clue why it does not address anything in the thread do you.

 

[Bill Williams]

The kids were acquitted under section 530 para 2, "insufficent evidence". This is an exclusively lower court toolkit (until now, as a one-off) as a means of dropping charges, but enabling the prosecution to bring charges again at a later date within statute of limitations. As it is just a dropping of charges, double jeopardy doesn't come into it. There is no statute of limitation for murder.

In OJ Simpson's case, he was found not guilty, full stop, period, hence has double jeopardy.

You have no conception of the ludicrousness of the distinction you claim do you.

 

[acbytesla]

You have no conception of the ludicrousness of the distinction you claim do you.

It's called "denial". The finality of the acquittal is just to hard for Vixen.

 

[Vixen]

OJ Simpson could walk in front of a microphone and say "I killed Nicole Brown Simpson" and he could never be tried criminally for her murder again. This is one of the cornerstones of the legal system of every Western country. Once one has been acquitted, one cannot be retried.

The reason for this is simple. There have been problems historically where somebody is found not guilty and the state does not like the verdict. As a result, the state tried over and over again until a verdict of guilt is found.

OJ was found not guilty and therefore double jeopardy kicks in.

Italy differs in that even if you are found not guilty, the prosecution can appeal. They cannot in the US or the UK.

Whilst the USA has strong double jeopardy laws, in the UK if significant new evidence comes up, you can be tried again (for example in the Stephen Lawrence case; however, this is very rare and was mostly due to a national newspaper campaign).

Another key difference between the UK and the USA is in the fifth amendment. Italy has a similar "right to remain silent" as the USA, as an inalienable right. In the UK, you have the right to stay silent, but are warned that an unfavourable inference may be drawn from it, if you refused to cooperate with initial police inquiries.

So, no, it is "not a cornerstone of every Western country", except in a broad sense. In the USA it is quite commonplace for police to "drop charges" and then charge again later.

 

[Desert Fox]

The kids were acquitted under section 530 para 2, "insufficent evidence". This is an exclusively lower court toolkit (until now, as a one-off) as a means of dropping charges, but enabling the prosecution to bring charges again at a later date within statute of limitations. As it is just a dropping of charges, double jeopardy doesn't come into it. There is no statute of limitation for murder.

In OJ Simpson's case, he was found not guilty, full stop, period, hence has double jeopardy.

If I recall correctly, the jury thought that OJ Simpson was probably guilty but they feel that the prosecution had not proven their case. That is basically philosophically the same as insufficient evidence.

 

[LondonJohn]

Please take note: Hellmann-Zanetti was scuppered, scrapped, scratched out.

By the exact same token as this BS, Massei was "scuppered, scrapped, scratched out." And Nencini was "scuppered, scrapped, scratched out."

Pathetic intellectual dishonesty and poor thinking.

 

[bagels]

The kids were acquitted under section 530 para 2, "insufficent evidence". This is an exclusively lower court toolkit (until now, as a one-off) as a means of dropping charges, but enabling the prosecution to bring charges again at a later date within statute of limitations. As it is just a dropping of charges, double jeopardy doesn't come into it. There is no statute of limitation for murder.

In OJ Simpson's case, he was found not guilty, full stop, period, hence has double jeopardy.

Amanda was found Not Guilty, full stop, period, hence has double jeopardy. I hope this helps.

Para 1 & 2 are both Not Guilty acquittals. Para 1 means the crime did not exist or the defendants are provably innocent. Para 2 means the crime did exist but there wasn't enough evidence to prove the defendants did it. There's no procedural differences between the verdicts. You will never find anyone to say otherwise except the voices in your head.

 

[LondonJohn]

I disagree with you on this. I think Steffanoni was likely adequately trained in the laboratory analysis of DNA. Where she failed was that she appears to have had little training in forensic science, the special need for maintaining good documentation and particularly in crime scene investigation. She moved from being a neutral expert to being an agent of the prosecution, I suspect she had never been formally trained in giving evidence.

While I would agree that this is broadly true, I would contend that this only applied to working with larger PCR levels of DNA, and I would further contend that Stefanoni had very probably never received proper training in low-template DNA work. I strongly suspect that Stefanoni either entirely "winged it" when it came to LCN work, or that she had a small amount of knowledge-by-osmosis that she deemed to be sufficient. Either way, the evidence shows starkly that she was not only incompetent in the area of low-template DNA analysis, but also that she was mendacious and obfuscatory in trying to cover up her incompetence in court.

And I also agree with your submission that Stefanoni had probably never been properly trained in giving evidence in court. In addition, I strongly suspect that Stefanoni had scant (or even no) training in working crime scenes. In fact, that is possibly the most baffling and inexplicable thing - that a lab analyst such as Stefanoni was leading the crime scene analysis and evidence collection. It's incredibly unusual for this to ever be the case, since a) substantially different skill sets are required for each role, b) lab analysts tend to be educated, trained and qualified solely in the specialised field of lab analysis, and c) it's far better practice for the lab analyst to have no prior connection to the evidence being analysed - for two key reasons: 1) the possibility of prior contamination, and 2) the need for the lab analyst to see the evidence without any preconceptions or other information about it, which might result (either consciously or unconsciously) in a biassed interpretation of that evidence.

ETA: IIRC, Stefanoni was only in charge of the crime scene investigation and evidence collection because Mignini specifically requested it. I'd like to know a lot more about how and why a PM from Perugia could draft in a lab analyst from Rome to head up the crime scene evidence collection, especially when there must have been plenty of specialist crime scene investigators sitting in the Perugia police HQ, and when there would have been reams of high-quality CSI specialist officers based in Rome (had Mignini wanted to get the best possible CSIs on account of the importance and high profile of this case). So IMO it's highly baffling why Mignini requested (and obtained) Stefanoni to head up the CSI work, and how/why he was allowed to do so..............

 

[Vixen]

If I recall correctly, the jury thought that OJ Simpson was probably guilty but they feel that the prosecution had not proven their case. That is basically philosophically the same as insufficient evidence.

No. OJ had a full trial and the verdict was 'Not Guilty'. As the prosecutors cannot appeal this, it was final.

In the Bruno-Marasca they used penal code 530 para 2 which doesn't use the Italian word for acquittal, it uses the phrase "charges dropped".

This makes sense, as section 530 para 2 is not within the normal jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (the judges erred in using it), and is a means for a lower, merits court to leave the door open for a case with "insufficient evidence" to be brought back if better evidence does come up within SOL.

Source: Translator's note to Marasca: The Italian word for “acquittal” is actually “assoluzione”; while the term
“proscioglimento” used instead, in the Italian Procedure Code, actually refers only to non-definitive
preliminary judgements during investigation phase, and it could be translated as “dropping of
charges”. Note: as for investigation phase “proscioglimento” is normally meant as a not-binding
decision, not subjected to double jeopardy, since it is not considered a judgement nor a court’s
decision.