Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

You are seeking some facsimile of reason from a poster who has just made a bluntly stupid comparison between a women who killed her family - presumably based, in her mind, upon many years of grievances - to Amanda Knox, who had known Meredith Kercher five weeks. Do you honestly expect a satisfying response?

It is indeed a fatuous and utterly ludicrous comparison - not to mention the type of extremely poor thinking that would come up with "reasoning" along the lines of "I believe that A murdered B, and this significantly informs my view on whether X murdered Y in a totally separate event".

I think that most pro-guilt commentators long ago reached the (incorrect) conclusion that Knox and Sollecito participated in the murder, based on a combination of poor reasoning skills, misinterpretation of evidence, improper deference to the "authority" of the prosecutors and the Massei court, and (in many cases IMO) a personal connection with a victim of violent crime which has dramatically skewed any ability to analyse the case objectively.

And once this conclusion had been formed, it was relatively easy for pro-guilt commentators to satisfy themselves that any pro-innocence/pro-acquittal commentators had some form of vested interest in taking that PoV (either because they were personally connected to Knox/Sollecito, had some sort of sexual lust for Knox, had some sort of "murder groupie" lust in general, or were being paid to adopt this position), and that the subsequent acquitting courts were corrupt.

I find it extremely interesting that again and again one sees pro-guilt commentators stating that pro-innocence commentators "know that Knox and Sollecito did in fact participate in the murder" - it's clearly extremely important to their stance that nobody could have come to any sort of independent, objective, unaffiliated conclusion that Knox/Sollecito should never have been convicted (and that neither in fact might have taken part in the murder).

I at one time "knew" that Judge Hellmann in 2011 came to exactly the right verdict - not-guilty on the murder related charges, but guilty on the calunnia against Patrick Lumumba. Where I'd differed with Hellmann - not based on any expertise on my part, nor even aware if such a thing is possible in Italian law - was that Knox was perhaps guilty of calunnia, but that my, then, understanding of her culpability was that she was convictable but not rally punishable.

I find it extremely interesting that again and again one sees pro-guilt commentators stating that pro-innocence commentators "know that Knox and Sollecito did in fact participate in the murder" - it's clearly extremely important to their stance that nobody could have come to any sort of independent, objective, unaffiliated conclusion that Knox/Sollecito should never have been convicted​

I have never "known" that they were guilty. Early on for me (circa late 2011) it was (then) a matter that neither the prosecution nor the Massei court had reasonably convicted then on the evidence. It was gobsmacking to read in the 2010 Massei report the number of times that he accepted something as factual, simply on the say-so of the prosecution side of things, not because there was any reason to believe (in the positive) the evidence as presented.

Where I've moved since then is that I now know them to be innocent. No one has shown, really, why there was any particular reason to suspect they could have done the murder - with the possible exception.....

...... that in the first few days following the tragic event, it was completely fair ball to suspect a key-holder. However, once the initial forensic sweep had been done, which all-but ruled out Lumumba, Knox and Sollecito, and pointed to the-then unknown fourth perp this case should have been over for the original three.

As I've said, what changed me on the calunnia, was reading Mignini's own words in translation, his interview and recounting of his version of the interrogation - when he came on board. His assurances to Knox that he would act as if only a notary, seeking to preserve the "spontaneity" of her remarks is pure bullcrud.

Then there was John Follain's own accounting of Mignini's behaviour in that period between Knox's arrest and the time she finally had lawyers of her own. Follain meant it as a positive, complimentary view of Mignini, but failed miserably IMO.

And then one must add in the "vigilante for justice" angle - many (if not most) pro-guilt commentators display a form of pride in "fighting for the victim" and "doing the right thing" - conveniently choosing to ignore the fact that if Knox and Sollecito are innocent, then campaigning for their guilt is if anything contrary to "fighting for the victim". Very many pro-guilt commentators see themselves as fighting the good fight against unfair forces set against them - and this goes a long way IMO to explaining the ongoing fallacious pro-guilt belief that some form of industrial-grade PR effort has been waged by Knox (mainly) and Sollecito since almost Day One. It suits the pro-guilt narrative and mindset to believe that they are guardians of morality and "true justice" (interesting words in themselves....) against evil and malign forces.

Overall, I'm satisfied that 1) there is no intellectual rigour to any pro-guilt argument; 2) any objective analysis leads to the conclusion that at the very least Knox and Sollecito should never have been convicted, and at most that they had absolutely nothing to do with the murder; and 3) most if not all pro-guilt commentators have psychological factors influencing their position and the vigour/zeal of their ongoing online commentary. Fascinating to be sure, if somewhat unedifying and often nasty and vindictive.

In my view the bogus claim of an innocence-PR supertanker was shorthand that both Andrea Bogt and Barbie Nadeau used to explain what happened to them. Both initially had near unimpeded access to Seattle newspapers and national outlets like Newsweek. Then other journalists waded in (like Tim Egan and the Rolling Stone) and Vogt's and Nadeau's guilter-voice had competition. Once people looked into it for themselves, Nadeau and Vogt became marginalized.

Vogt had one last gasp with a documentary she co-produced that was played in England just before the final acquittal. Sources there say that what remains of the documentary has been heavily edited to now belong to the "now we'll never know what happened in Perugia in 2007" club, when we actually do know what happened.

Nadeau got pilloried in Winterbottom's film of 2014 - a film based on her own book the rights of which W. bought. He made he look like a tabloid hack, cozying up to Nick Pisa. Lately Nadeau has been making noises that Knox was railroaded.... so go figure.

The long and short of it - if the PR Supertanker ever did exist, both Vogt and Nadeau have been bought off. Vogt chided and outed a prominent, Italian language pro-guilt commentator, who has a very good grasp of English and since 2010 has been part of the pro-guilt push on the usual webpages.

 

[Anode]

...

Nadeau got pilloried in Winterbottom's film of 2014 - a film based on her own book the rights of which W. bought. He made he look like a tabloid hack, cozying up to Nick Pisa. Lately Nadeau has been making noises that Knox was railroaded.... so go figure.

The long and short of it - if the PR Supertanker ever did exist, both Vogt and Nadeau have been bought off. Vogt chided and outed a prominent, Italian language pro-guilt commentator, who has a very good grasp of English and since 2010 has been part of the pro-guilt push on the usual webpages.

Bill, where did you see this? That would be interesting indeed.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

I would also be interested in what motivates those who still find it necessary to defend her, though I'm p. sure I already know their rationale: if they don't then a few folks not really familiar with the case will be misinformed by your 'lies.'

This is part of it. If I had been railroaded, wrongly convicted, and later correctly acquitted and released, I would still defend myself against lies and slander. And I would hope other people would too.

Two, I think there is a rule on the internet that the most efficient way to get the correct answer about some topic is to say something wrong about it. It seems to be human nature to correct blithering stupidity on the internet.

Three, people still have "discussions" with 9/11 truthers, moon landing denialists, and big foot believers. We probably engage with Vixen when she says ridiculous stuff for similar reasons as other people engage with 9/11 truthers on other subforms.

Lastly, isn't it fascinating that we can have a conversation with people who think the exact same way as those who participated in the Salem witch trials three centuries ago? It's like a psychology and sociology experiment in progress. Asking the right questions lets you probe how these people think, so you are better equipped to deal with these kinds of people in the future.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill, where did you see this? That would be interesting indeed.

In this CNN clip about the Ashley Olsen investigation, Nadeau reports from Italy that co-incidentally the lead investigator is the same one who declared "case closed" in the Knox case.... "We'll see if he's learned anything at all from the botched investigation that happened during the Kercher case."

Incidentally, Paul Callan is in that clip, too, and he is singing a different tune, too, than he did before the final acquittal in Italy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7P7_qlO7rA

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Red herring. No one has claimed Amanda's DNA came from spermatozoa. You insist that, because Amanda's DNA in a sample was greater than Meredith's, then the source had to have been blood. Yet no expert testified in court that this was so, including Stefanoni. She clearly testified it is not possible to determine the source. Yet, you insist on claiming that Stefanoni believed this was so because Garofano claimed she said it in DD. That, and "common sense".

As you have never read Darkness Descending it's no surprise you have your attributions wrong.

Then please clarify exactly how my attributions are wrong.

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen, as a long time reader and first time poster itt, may I ask what your goal is in continuing to argue about this case? I would also be interested in what motivates those who still find it necessary to defend her, though I'm p. sure I already know their rationale: if they don't then a few folks not really familiar with the case will be misinformed by your 'lies.' Of course, why that is necessary with Amanda back home and going on with her life remains open to question, and the fact that if they stopped responding to your claims this thread would soon die and nobody would see them.

Does anyone know if Amanda herself has participated in any of these debates, or believes they still serve a useful purpose?

All these are good questions. It would be interesting to read your own surmisings based on what you've read here (and at other places).

 

[Anode]

In this CNN clip about the Ashley Olsen investigation, Nadeau reports from Italy that co-incidentally the lead investigator is the same one who declared "case closed" in the Knox case.... "We'll see if he's learned anything at all from the botched investigation that happened during the Kercher case."

Incidentally, Paul Callan is in that clip, too, and he is singing a different tune, too, than he did before the final acquittal in Italy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7P7_qlO7rA

Yes, I noticed Paul Callan was in the studio too. Thanks for pointing this out.

 

[Anode]

Yes, I noticed Paul Callan was in the studio too. Thanks for pointing this out.

And this one. Paul Callan says Amanda Knox case "was a tragic destruction of a young American's life by shoddy police work..."

It's nice to see that he's changed his tune since the segment where he and Steve Moore were on the air together and on different sides.

 

[Stacyhs]

It is a fact: Mez' DNA was found on the knife blade.
No, it is not a fact. It is what Stefanoni claimed to have found. Conti and Vecchiotti concluded:
"we do not accept the conclusions regarding the certain attribution of the profile found on trace B (blade of knife) to the victim Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher, since the genetic profile, as obtained, appears unreliable insofar as it is not supported by scientifically validated analysis"
Stefanoni's analysis failed due to several reasons which C&V listed. Stefanoni could not replicate her test which, even as the RAI stated, is required to validate LCN analyses. So, no....it not a fact.

Quote:
REPERTOIRE 137: dripping of blood substance from the interior of the basin, in the small bathroom, containing mixture of organic substances belonging to the victim and Knox: the location of the find should be ascribed with certainty to the moment immediately after the crime, because otherwise the trace would be It was eliminated by running water.

REPERTOIRE 66: Mixture of biological substances, containing human blood, belonging to Knox (to a lesser extent) and the victim (to a greater extent), found in the left edge of the drain of the small bathroom bidet. Another very relevant factor, attributed with certainty to the moment immediately after the crime, because otherwise the trace would be eliminated by running water.

REPERTOIRE 24: Substance where blood was found Amanda's genetic profile, is placed on the faucet of the bathroom sink next to the victim's room: the significance of the find there is little to discuss. It 'probably indicative of an injury suffered in the scuffle from Knox and due to the high visibility of the track, it is possible that he could have been left before the crime.
LOL! Pure speculation!

It is an almost decisive evidence against Amanda about her presence at the crime scene the night between 1 and 2 November. As has been said, the bloodstain found appears very visibly, on the sink faucet bathroom adjoining the murder room. The stain, obvious to the naked eye, as verified by the Scientific Police Service of Rome, with the 19:11:07 report, belongs to Amanda Knox, and for size and placement on the faucet, may have been left as a result of the nosebleeds KNOX same.The visibility of the stain is such to exclude, as has been said, that the same may have been left in the days before the crime, as it would surely have been washed.
Any competent lawyer would be screaming "I object, Your Honor! Conjecture!"

Ref. Ril. Photo No.2 blood substance where it was found compatible genetic profile of Amanda and Meredith, found in the bidet in the bathroom adjoining the room the victim;

Ref. Photo no.3 Ril impression Fragment papillary attributed to Amanda Knox highlighted on a glass in the sink of the kitchen-living room

Ref. Ril. THE KNOWN REPERTOIRE 36. Photo 4 knife seized in Sollecito's house where he was found on the handle genetic profile compatible with Amanda Knox and the genetic profile blade compatible with Meredith Kercher. Resets all considerations on this knife and that Meredith could not have had contact under normal conditions with the part of the blade end of the knife. And the track due the accused Knox is significantly right on the handle end, where she began the lateral extension of the handle and where, therefore, be pushed once to the blade penetration and hindered the fingers of those who wield the knife from slipping onto the blade. Another detail of extraordinary importance.
Speculation on the part of TMOMK and debunked by Dr. Peter Gill who wrote "There is not a single reported publication in the world that would support the notion that DNA analysis could reveal how a knife was used. DNA analysis, without additional supporting evidence, can only inform about the potential identity of the originator, i.e. who, but not when, where, how, or why transfer occurred." (Forensic Science Int'l, vol 23)

Source www.themurderofmeredithkercher.com

Ah yes...TMOMK. LOL. Although it has some good information as far as providing transcripts,etc, it falls apart when it begins speculating and conjecturing. They still claim the debunked "mixed blood" nonsense etc. Most of this has nothing to do with the knife, so why did you include it? More red herrings?

In addition, the original source for Mignini was when Amanda asked to make spontaneous statements to him (without interrogation) and she confirmed the bathroom had been clean the day before. __________________

So you keep stating. Yet,despite my repeated requests to provide Amanda's quote and provide the source you have failed provide either. Simply claiming she said something to Mignini is not evidence that she did. Now, please provide a link to the statement that she said the bathroom had been cleaned the day before. I'm getting the feeling that you can't.

 

[Stacyhs]

No, it is not a reference to Federico, although he has indeed been subsequently imprisoned for drug-smuggling, almost always associated with Serious Organised Crime. Try again.

If you weren't referring to Federico, then exactly who is this alleged mob member you claim she slept with when you wrote "I dare say Rudy mixed with the local mob, but even Amanda slept with one of them in a one-night stand"
?

Rock climbing requires training and skill. It is rubbish to claim that someone off the street can develop them on an impromptu basis.
http://www.climbing.com/tag/technique/

Scaling a wall by standing on a grill and pulling oneself up onto a ledge is not rock climbing. It is rubbish to claim that climbing a wall requires training and skill. As the climber said, climbing that wall would be no problem for him or anyone. He did not say it would require training and skill. Try again.

 

[Stacyhs]

Many women are easily 6' when wearing high heels.

1. She's not wearing heels.
2. She's no more than 3 inches shorter than the climber so, if he's 6'7", that would make her 6'4", not 6'.

 

[Stacyhs]

You'd be surprised. Especially when they are athletic.

Scaling that wall isn't rock climbing. All the climber, and Guede, had to so was stand on the grill and then pull himself up to the ledge with his arms which is what the climber did. Vixen is attempting to cloud that fact by claiming it takes special training and skill. Umm..no. All it takes is a guy with decent upper body strength.

 

[recursive prophet]

So the posts continuing to claim that they are somehow guilty, contrary to the final and irreversible acquittal of Knox and Sollecito by the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, and contrary to all the evidence and lack of evidence as understood from a scientific and reasoned viewpoint, are indeed one of the larger mysteries of this case.

I totally agree, and it is a mystery wrapped in an enigma. What is the end game of these people? As I said before I'm pretty sure I know the rationale of those who continue to refute Vixen's conjectures, but suspect it is part of the same mystery.

For instance, I'm fairly familiar with London John's posts here and elsewhere, and consider him to be a very bright and articulate guy. On another site I have even seen him acknowledge that responding to Vixen's posts serves no useful purpose. If the goal is to keep others from being misinformed, stop 'feeding the trolls' and their allegations will soon be relegated to the archives.

It is indeed a fatuous and utterly ludicrous comparison - not to mention the type of extremely poor thinking that would come up with "reasoning" along the lines of "I believe that A murdered B, and this significantly informs my view on whether X murdered Y in a totally separate event".

Heh, hi John. I took my afternoon walk after finishing the paragraph above, and it was a 'speak of the devil' moment when I saw your post. As always you make some good points, but do read all of NEW's post. He has provided some hints on what I'm looking for.

If I had been railroaded, wrongly convicted, and later correctly acquitted and released, I would still defend myself against lies and slander. And I would hope other people would too.

wow. Thanks for sharing, NotEvenWrong. You've made several insightful observations, including this one. I did ask earlier if Amanda was active on any of the discussions on her trial, but hadn't considered what I would do in her place. Yeah, I would be active in refuting all the calumnies, but then I've never had my privacy invaded on a level she has experienced. I can see why she might want to just put it all behind her.

Lastly, isn't it fascinating that we can have a conversation with people who think the exact same way as those who participated in the Salem witch trials three centuries ago? It's like a psychology and sociology experiment in progress. Asking the right questions lets you probe how these people think, so you are better equipped to deal with these kinds of people in the future.

A truly brilliant thought, NEW. Fascinating indeed. Another path that in retrospect I can't believe I've never gone down. So tell me, this being a very logical case for why we bother, why do you think all the message boards are now in steep decline??

All these are good questions. It would be interesting to read your own surmisings based on what you've read here (and at other places).

TBH Bill, most of what I know about this trial I've learned from reading your many long posts on IA. I do see many similarities with other megathreads I've known. People become involved on many different levels, and it becomes kind of addictive. A social setting where introverts especially feel comfortable. You become allies with some, and opponents with others.

As an example, anyone remember the 'Directly Downwind Faster than the Wind' thread? It came here in '08, and had been going on since '06. 10 years later it is still going on at TR. Even after tests were run and observed that showed a prop driven cart doubling wind speed. Now remember, this is a fundamental physics debate, where generally there is a consensus after a few tests are run.

 

[Numbers]

I totally agree, and it is a mystery wrapped in an enigma. What is the end game of these people? As I said before I'm pretty sure I know the rationale of those who continue to refute Vixen's conjectures, but suspect it is part of the same mystery.

....

Some indeed may be posting here, and even in response to Vixen's posts, to provide objective, valid and truthful information, which may not be known or readily available to readers of this thread.

My intent has been and continues to be to help supply such information when appropriate - that is, when I am (or believe that I am) confident I have such information.

Here are some specific examples.

1. Some have claimed that the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC) is allowed to examine the application of law only and not the evidence or evaluation of evidence by a lower court in the appeal of the lower court's decision. These claims have been made by PGP in regard to the Marasca CSC panel motivation report and by PIP in regard to the Chieffi CSC panel motivation report.

However, the CSC may review the evidence and the interpretation of the evidence as documented in the records of the lower court, in accordance with the Italian law, Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) Article 606, paragraph 1(e). The text of CPP Article 606.1(e) is:

1. The appeal to the CSC may be lodged if it is based on the following arguments:

(e) the grounds of the judgment are lacking, contradictory or manifestly illogical, when the defect results from the text of the appealed decision or from other documents of the proceedings specified in the arguments for the appeal to the CSC.

It must be understood that "the grounds of the judgment" include the evidence presented in the lower court and the interpretation of such evidence by the lower court. And if an appeal may by law be lodged on certain arguments, obviously the CSC is allowed by law to respond to those arguments on their substance.

Source: The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation, ed. M. Gialuz, L. Luparia and F. Scarpa, Wolters Kluwer Italia (c) 2014

2. One or more posters (including, IIRC, Vixen) have stated in their posts that the judgment of a first-instance court is more credible or more definitive than that of an appeal court. Such statements are untrue as statements of law, under the Italian Constitution (Article 27), Italian procedural law (CPP Article 648) and ECHR case-law.

In fact, the presumption of innocence applies even after lower court conviction, until there is a final judgment (after appeals are exhausted) of conviction. And a final acquittal is definitive and irreversible (CPP Article 649), while a final conviction may, under some circumstances, be revised (CPP Articles 629, 630, 648 and Italian Constitutional Court judgment 113/2011).

Here is ECHR case-law on the subject:

146. The Court also reiterates that the Convention must be interpreted in such a way as to guarantee rights which are practical and effective as opposed to theoretical and illusory (see, for example, Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37, and Capeau v. Belgium, no. 42914/98, § 21, ECHR 2005‑I). Accordingly, and in the light of the foregoing, it considers that the presumption of innocence cannot cease to apply while the appeal proceedings are still pending simply because the accused was convicted at first instance. To conclude otherwise would contradict the role of appeal proceedings, where the appellate court is required to re-examine the earlier decision submitted to it as to the facts and the law (see Konstas v. Greece, cited above, § 36).

Source: PERICA OREB v. CROATIA 20824/09 31/10/2013

 

[bagels]

I would also be interested in what motivates those who still find it necessary to defend her, though I'm p. sure I already know their rationale: if they don't then a few folks not really familiar with the case will be misinformed by your 'lies.' Of course, why that is necessary with Amanda back home and going on with her life remains open to question, and the fact that if they stopped responding to your claims this thread would soon die and nobody would see them.

It starts by learning a few basics. That there was no DNA or forensic evidence of AK on or around the body, and that the crimes scene and body actually had abundant evidence implicating a local burglar with a history of criminal behavior and similar break-ins. From there it seems clear the case is resolved: AK is certainly innocent, the burglar did it, the police jumped the gun. But then you see all these people convinced that AK isn't just guilty, but guilty beyond any doubt whatsoever. So you think you missed something. Was there some sort of connection between AK and the burglar, and Raffaele? How could such a crime have occurred with the three of them? What is the evidence of it? And before you know it you go from having a Sunday newspaper understanding of the case, to being able to draw a map of the Perugian town square from memory, but you're no better off than where you started.

I don't recommend it.

 

[Vixen]

It is a fact: Mez' DNA was found on the knife blade.
No, it is not a fact. It is what Stefanoni claimed to have found. Conti and Vecchiotti concluded:
"we do not accept the conclusions regarding the certain attribution of the profile found on trace B (blade of knife) to the victim Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher, since the genetic profile, as obtained, appears unreliable insofar as it is not supported by scientifically validated analysis"
Stefanoni's analysis failed due to several reasons which C&V listed. Stefanoni could not replicate her test which, even as the RAI stated, is required to validate LCN analyses. So, no....it not a fact.

Quote:
REPERTOIRE 137: dripping of blood substance from the interior of the basin, in the small bathroom, containing mixture of organic substances belonging to the victim and Knox: the location of the find should be ascribed with certainty to the moment immediately after the crime, because otherwise the trace would be It was eliminated by running water.

REPERTOIRE 66: Mixture of biological substances, containing human blood, belonging to Knox (to a lesser extent) and the victim (to a greater extent), found in the left edge of the drain of the small bathroom bidet. Another very relevant factor, attributed with certainty to the moment immediately after the crime, because otherwise the trace would be eliminated by running water.

REPERTOIRE 24: Substance where blood was found Amanda's genetic profile, is placed on the faucet of the bathroom sink next to the victim's room: the significance of the find there is little to discuss. It 'probably indicative of an injury suffered in the scuffle from Knox and due to the high visibility of the track, it is possible that he could have been left before the crime.
LOL! Pure speculation!

It is an almost decisive evidence against Amanda about her presence at the crime scene the night between 1 and 2 November. As has been said, the bloodstain found appears very visibly, on the sink faucet bathroom adjoining the murder room. The stain, obvious to the naked eye, as verified by the Scientific Police Service of Rome, with the 19:11:07 report, belongs to Amanda Knox, and for size and placement on the faucet, may have been left as a result of the nosebleeds KNOX same.The visibility of the stain is such to exclude, as has been said, that the same may have been left in the days before the crime, as it would surely have been washed.
Any competent lawyer would be screaming "I object, Your Honor! Conjecture!"

Ref. Ril. Photo No.2 blood substance where it was found compatible genetic profile of Amanda and Meredith, found in the bidet in the bathroom adjoining the room the victim;

Ref. Photo no.3 Ril impression Fragment papillary attributed to Amanda Knox highlighted on a glass in the sink of the kitchen-living room

Ref. Ril. THE KNOWN REPERTOIRE 36. Photo 4 knife seized in Sollecito's house where he was found on the handle genetic profile compatible with Amanda Knox and the genetic profile blade compatible with Meredith Kercher. Resets all considerations on this knife and that Meredith could not have had contact under normal conditions with the part of the blade end of the knife. And the track due the accused Knox is significantly right on the handle end, where she began the lateral extension of the handle and where, therefore, be pushed once to the blade penetration and hindered the fingers of those who wield the knife from slipping onto the blade. Another detail of extraordinary importance.
Speculation on the part of TMOMK and debunked by Dr. Peter Gill who wrote "There is not a single reported publication in the world that would support the notion that DNA analysis could reveal how a knife was used. DNA analysis, without additional supporting evidence, can only inform about the potential identity of the originator, i.e. who, but not when, where, how, or why transfer occurred." (Forensic Science Int'l, vol 23)

Source www.themurderofmeredithkercher.com

Ah yes...TMOMK. LOL. Although it has some good information as far as providing transcripts,etc, it falls apart when it begins speculating and conjecturing. They still claim the debunked "mixed blood" nonsense etc. Most of this has nothing to do with the knife, so why did you include it? More red herrings?

In addition, the original source for Mignini was when Amanda asked to make spontaneous statements to him (without interrogation) and she confirmed the bathroom had been clean the day before. __________________

So you keep stating. Yet,despite my repeated requests to provide Amanda's quote and provide the source you have failed provide either. Simply claiming she said something to Mignini is not evidence that she did. Now, please provide a link to the statement that she said the bathroom had been cleaned the day before. I'm getting the feeling that you can't.

Do get your attributions right. Not TMOMK quotes, but direct quotes from the prosecution transcripts.

If you are not aware of what Amanda told Mignini, your opinion of the case is clearly half-baked conjecture. I gave you one of the two quotes, and you tried to attribute it to TMOMK wiki instead of Mignini.

 

[Vixen]

Some indeed may be posting here, and even in response to Vixen's posts, to provide objective, valid and truthful information, which may not be known or readily available to readers of this thread.

My intent has been and continues to be to help supply such information when appropriate - that is, when I am (or believe that I am) confident I have such information.

Here are some specific examples.

1. Some have claimed that the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC) is allowed to examine the application of law only and not the evidence or evaluation of evidence by a lower court in the appeal of the lower court's decision. These claims have been made by PGP in regard to the Marasca CSC panel motivation report and by PIP in regard to the Chieffi CSC panel motivation report.

However, the CSC may review the evidence and the interpretation of the evidence as documented in the records of the lower court, in accordance with the Italian law, Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) Article 606, paragraph 1(e). The text of CPP Article 606.1(e) is:



It must be understood that "the grounds of the judgment" include the evidence presented in the lower court and the interpretation of such evidence by the lower court. And if an appeal may by law be lodged on certain arguments, obviously the CSC is allowed by law to respond to those arguments on their substance.

Source: The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation, ed. M. Gialuz, L. Luparia and F. Scarpa, Wolters Kluwer Italia (c) 2014

2. One or more posters (including, IIRC, Vixen) have stated in their posts that the judgment of a first-instance court is more credible or more definitive than that of an appeal court. Such statements are untrue as statements of law, under the Italian Constitution (Article 27), Italian procedural law (CPP Article 648) and ECHR case-law.

In fact, the presumption of innocence applies even after lower court conviction, until there is a final judgment (after appeals are exhausted) of conviction. And a final acquittal is definitive and irreversible (CPP Article 649), while a final conviction may, under some circumstances, be revised (CPP Articles 629, 630, 648 and Italian Constitutional Court judgment 113/2011).

Here is ECHR case-law on the subject:

146. The Court also reiterates that the Convention must be interpreted in such a way as to guarantee rights which are practical and effective as opposed to theoretical and illusory (see, for example, Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37, and Capeau v. Belgium, no. 42914/98, § 21, ECHR 2005‑I). Accordingly, and in the light of the foregoing, it considers that the presumption of innocence cannot cease to apply while the appeal proceedings are still pending simply because the accused was convicted at first instance. To conclude otherwise would contradict the role of appeal proceedings, where the appellate court is required to re-examine the earlier decision submitted to it as to the facts and the law (see Konstas v. Greece, cited above, § 36).

Source: PERICA OREB v. CROATIA 20824/09 31/10/2013

You raise an interesting point as to the relationship between a legal fact and an actual fact (cf Mike17's analogy of Copernicus [or was it Gallileo?] inquistioned for his scientific views).

On the one hand you have the merits court, which looks at the evidence from all sides and 'finds facts', and these are the bassis on which the case is decided. Both merits courts in this case (Massei, Nencini) found as a fact the kids' direct involvement in the murder based on evidence, scientific, circumstantial, eyewitnesses, alibis and testimony.

All the appeal courts do, including the Supreme Court, is assess whether the correct legal principle have been applied. They cannot - except on trivial issues or clerical errors - overturn a fact found by the merits court.

So, for political reasons Marasca/Bruno acquitted the pair yet underlined their sure presence at the murder. They upheld Amanda washed off Mez' blood and that she covered up for Rudy. IOW they did it in actuality, but legally they found their hands tied.

As an analogy, I was reading about The Nuremburg Trials not so long ago and the reason only a few hundred people were charged with war crimes, and the eight million German card-carrying Nazi party members went scot free, despite acting as prison camp guards sending thousands to their deaths and running concentration camps, as well as rounding up innocent men women and children to be exterminated, was because under the Third Reich rule it was not against the law.

So, in reality, these people were murderers, or colluded in it, yet legally, they were innocent. As Milgram says, "We were just obeying orders, m'Lud.'

As for the kids, they probably have a belief they are entitled to despatch people who annoy them and four years in prison is recompense enough. I have no doubt they genuinely feel aggrieved about this.

 

[Vixen]

1. She's not wearing heels.
2. She's no more than 3 inches shorter than the climber so, if he's 6'7", that would make her 6'4", not 6'.

I exaggerated to make a point. He is clearly tall and lanky by Italian standards. This means he has better reach and more deltoid, pectoral and elbow leverage than someone shorter.

 

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Red herring. No one has claimed Amanda's DNA came from spermatozoa. You insist that, because Amanda's DNA in a sample was greater than Meredith's, then the source had to have been blood. Yet no expert testified in court that this was so, including Stefanoni. She clearly testified it is not possible to determine the source. Yet, you insist on claiming that Stefanoni believed this was so because Garofano claimed she said it in DD. That, and "common sense".



Then please clarify exactly how my attributions are wrong.

Garafano did not claim Stefanoni said it. His section of the book is entirely separate.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, as a long time reader and first time poster itt, may I ask what your goal is in continuing to argue about this case? I would also be interested in what motivates those who still find it necessary to defend her, though I'm p. sure I already know their rationale: if they don't then a few folks not really familiar with the case will be misinformed by your 'lies.' Of course, why that is necessary with Amanda back home and going on with her life remains open to question, and the fact that if they stopped responding to your claims this thread would soon die and nobody would see them.

Does anyone know if Amanda herself has participated in any of these debates, or believes they still serve a useful purpose?

I' ve always been interested in what makes people tick. Hence, my life long enjoyment of good literature, film and the arts.

The heights and depths of the human condition is vast. I want to understand what makes people want to plunder the depths of depravity.

In the case of Meredith Kercher, I feel desperately sorry for her family and that Mez was cruelly robbed of her life for futile trivial motive.

In 'Dead man Walking' based loosely on a true crime in Louisiana (ETA), the nun in the lead role tries to persuade the murderer to acknowledge his culpability before his execution.

Mez' family deserve justice, and I believe good is always victorious over evil, in the end. As Paul says in his letter to the Corinthians, Always run the race to win the prize.