Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Vixen, I am a bit shocked you are now backtracking on your views and saying the witches hanged at the Salem witch trials were innocent. Yeah, perhaps later these "people" or "experts" or "scientists" (whatever you want to call these paid shills) came to the conclusion there was no scientific evidence to support the nineteen people executed by hanging weren't ACTUALLY witches.

But they weren't there to do the primary evidence collection and experiments! How could they POSSIBLY know they weren't witches? The official merit courts found they were witches. It is a judicial truth. A found fact.

The scientists and experts that came later did not even analyze the evidence first hand!! They didn't appear in the Court of Oyer and Terminer as expert witnesses, nor were they cross-examined! All of these experts just wrote a load of drivel that the Salem judges and investigators were ignorant and uneducated, and were based on the false premise "the Salem investigators framed the townspeople".

What the heck! They weren't even Puritan! Much like Amanda they were probably all dirty sluts and would have sex with cocaine dealers on trains if they were around today! Witches all of them!

The Salem witch trials are a totally false analogy to modern day Italy. For a start, they do not have the death penalty.

Please quit with the Salem witch trials.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

The Salem witch trials are a totally false analogy to modern day Italy. For a start, they do not have the death penalty.

Please quit with the Salem witch trials.

Oh I see. So courts which have the death penalty can make mistakes. Courts which do not have the death penalty are infallible and thus the judicial facts they declare are absolute and cannot be challenged.

Can you explain why you believe lower courts which do not have the death penalty are infallible and the ones who do are fallible? Interested in your logic here, Vixen.

 

[Vixen]

So? You are discounting the possibility that she could have become a "Dr." in the meantime.... "Dr." in the Italian sense in that she piled up enough survey courses to get a Bachelor's Degree. Like Stefanoni.

Stefanoni has magnificent hands on experience in the field, when she volunteered to help identify the South Asian tsunami victims.

It's typical of some of the sour-faced bile-filled PIP to degrade and belittle others, just because they happen to differ in opinion from themselves. .

 

[NotEvenWrong]

The Salem witch trials are a totally false analogy to modern day Italy. For a start, they do not have the death penalty.

Please quit with the Salem witch trials.

I think I may have found a problem with your logic Vixen.

There is a case in New York where Adrian P. Thomas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_P._Thomas) was convicted of killing his four month old son.

The case was tried in 2009. There was no death penalty in New York in 2009.

This trial happened after the Knox+Sollecito trial. It was more recent. More modern.

Adrian P. Thomas was later legally exonerated. The court ruled that his confession was coerced. (Sound familiar?)

So it looks like we have another example of a modern case in a modern courtroom in a situation where the death penalty was not allowed, and the court came to the wrong conclusion in the initial trial.

Looks like your theory that modern trials that do not include the death penalty are infallible is indeed completely wrong, because here we have an obvious contradiction to your theory. Have you ever gone to school Vixen? Studied logic in any way? Ever used actual rigorous logic? Have you ever written anything correct in this entire thread? I hope you aren't as crazy as you appear. Did you ever find a single professional scientist on planet Earth who agrees with your views on the DNA evidence? Remember, just one. We are waiting.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm a BSc(Hons) in psychology. This entailed designing and producing at least fourteen lab reports and having them passed, as well as a third year scientific thesis showing which statistical tests one used to assess significance levels. There was a time US degrees were considered the equivalent of two A-levels in England, apart from the Ivy League. If the Italians do four year courses, they might well be at 'doctor' level compared to their US counterparts. It's all relative. My cousin did her PhD in Biochemistry in German (her third language, learnt at school). In Finland, it typically used take five or six years to graduate, thanks to compulsory army conscription for males. My global chartered accountancy body is now amalgamating with the American Institute of CPA's (AICPA), so presumably you are arguing CPA's and chartered accountants are dumb, and all Italian graduates as low grade as US ones.

Stefanoni has magnificent hands on experience in the field, when she volunteered to help identify the South Asian tsunami victims.

It's typical of some of the sour-faced bile-filled PIP to degrade and belittle others, just because they happen to differ in opinion from themselves. .

You have me confused with someone else. It is a simple fact that in Italy, it is a convention that one with a 1st, undergraduate degree can refer to themselves as "doctor", as does Stefanoni.

You said:

If the Italians do four year courses, they might well be at 'doctor' level compared to their US counterparts. It's all relative.​

You really don't get it, do you. Your use of the term, "they might well be" is what is wrong with this case, and with your posts. No one is interested in "might well be". I, for one, am interested in what is.

For the record, it is you who has drawn the parallel that in Italy, when one with a 1st degree goes with accordance with convention and refers to themselves as "doctor", that that is belittling. I said nothing of the kind. I said it was convention.

Stefanoni's skills, degree or no degree, speak for themselves. In the Knox/Sollecito case, she stands alone in her forensic claims. No less than Vecchiotti and Dr. Peter Gill (Gill is a real Ph.D.) say what she contributed to the case was garbage.

It is YOU who then try to belittle Vecchiotti and Gill.

 

[Bill Williams]

The Salem witch trials are a totally false analogy to modern day Italy. For a start, they do not have the death penalty.

Please quit with the Salem witch trials.

The analogy started out not being about Italy, modern day or otherwise, but about your claims.

You kept referring to "judicial facts", particularly the ones generated by the Mattieni, Massei, and Nencini courts. The counter to THAT was to refer to the Salem witch trials. Just because someone is judicially found to be a witch, does not make it so.

Nice move of the goalposts, though.

 

[Welshman]

So Chris is a 'Halide' now?

Sure 'anything is possible'. However, Massei and Nencini (the merits, fact-finding courts which analyses all of the evidence in fine detail from all parties, in a public trial seen to be fair, ruled there was no evidence of contamination, the defence failed to show that this was in anyway feasible or probable. You, sitting in your armchair saying, 'There are many possible routes of contamination', doesn't negate the fact found by a rigorous court of law there was no contamination.

Your argument revolves around the idea that 'the police, prosecutor and forensic scientists were bent, out to frame the kids for some unspecified reason - oh yeah, they hated Americans and thought she was a witch because she slept around and took drugs.' It's as presposterous as saying the police 'fixed' some random drunk driver's breathalyser test because the whole system was intent on framing him for some perceived personal characteristic (perhaps he liked the Birdie Song). Do you see how far you have to reach to predicate your 'bent cops' premise?

Regarding olineageousness. We were discussing how DNA is only found in nucleated cells. These include sebaceous glands which are found at hair follicles and contain lipids (fats) unique to humans, which provide moisturisation of hair and skin, especially on the head and face. The olineageous substance means that if a perp has - say - combed his hair through his fingers, wiped his brow, or touched his face, his or her fingerprints are more likely to remain longer than the normal fingerprint life of <24 hours. We have confirmed there are no sebaceous glands in the fingers, thus zero olineageousness.

In the case of Raff's DNA, the bra-clasp was found under the sheet, under the body, which itself was under a duvet, which had random pieces of 'burglary' papers scattered over it. IOW the bra-clasp was beneath the body before it was placed in position, i.e., post-mortem. (The court established the bra was ripped at the back and removed after death.) Raff left his DNA on the metal clasp as of the time of the murder; in addition, he wasn't convicted of murder on DNA evidence alone, there was a whole stack of other fact-found evidence. As the forensic team were gathering evidence, the defence team were entitled to witness it, and this they did by method of cctv transmission to a van outside, where their forensic experts were watching. We can see from the video that at no time did Stefanoni touch the metal part of the fabric. So there was a speck on her latex glove, either because of a photographic fleck, or because of a trick of light or because of a speck of dirt. None of these could possibly cause Raff's near full-profile (17 alleles) of DNA to appear on the bra-clasp.

As for 'secondary' or 'tertiary' transfer from door knob to clasp, latex is not DNA friendly, as it is organic, non-porous and non-shiny.
Once again we are back in the BS realms of 'Stefanoni tried to frame Raff because, er, he was, er, Italian, um, middle class, er from a respectable family, er, he came from Bari, yeah, that's it.

Regarding rubber: the conditions that apply to fingerprints, apply largely to forensic DNA. Both decay rapidly under most conditions. Here's an explanation of those conditions here:

https://www.quora.com/From-what-can-fingerprints-be-lifted-and-from-what-cant-they-be-lifted


All clear now?

It is strange how the prosecution who according to Vixen had a stack of evidence resorted to the tactics you expect to see when the prosecution have a weak case and lack of evidence. In addition the arguments the PGP resort to are exactly the arguments you expect to see if the prosecution have a weak case and lack of evidence as detailed in my posts below :-

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11345043#post11345043

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11071314#post11071314

Vixen could not explain the conduct of the prosecution or the arguments the PGP have to resort to if the prosecution had a mountain of evidence and a strong case.

 

[Vixen]

Just so that we can at least agree on what the Marasca/Bruno report said about the DNA evidence against K/S, this is how Marasca/Bruno systematically destroy any forensic-DNA interpretation which some use to convict them:

​

​

​

​

Marasca-Bruno also have a section on Italian law with respect to considering forensic-compatibility only, and the way "compatibility" should be factored into a decision, which M/B said Nencini erred in doing - according to the law.

Marasca-Bruno also cite the law with respect to improper handling of forensics - in my view a slap at not only Stefanoni, but the judges prior to the ISC who completely disregarded the issues raised with improper handling.

Marasca-Bruno then quotes from the Conti-Vecchiotti report on why "repeatability" is not only a scientific issue, but hence a legal issue.

​

There's more. But this is why the poster in Vixen's last post is talking through his/her hat when criticizing Marasca-Bruno do not know how to handle the legal issues surrounding DNA.......

...... unless the person wishes to argue that things like repeatability is not a concept a court should concern itself with.

This highlights perfectly how at sea the Bruno-Marasca court were, as any fule 'no that Nencini's report had a typo (it's surprisingly common in legal documents to attribute a wrong name) wherein it said 'Raff's DNA' when OBVIOUSLY it should have read Amanda's.

In addition, the rubbish witnesses wheeled in - Alessi and Aviello - were brought in by BONGIORNO and the defence, so again, remiss to knock Nencini for it.

For this court to take Nencini to task over such trivia and/or the fault of the defence, shows how despicably dishonest and corrupt they are.

 

[Vixen]

Oh I see. So courts which have the death penalty can make mistakes. Courts which do not have the death penalty are infallible and thus the judicial facts they declare are absolute and cannot be challenged.

Can you explain why you believe lower courts which do not have the death penalty are infallible and the ones who do are fallible? Interested in your logic here, Vixen.

The USA is second only to cruel China when it comes to prisoners human rights and execution.

It is a measure of how civilised Italy is compared to yourselves. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

 

[Vixen]

I think I may have found a problem with your logic Vixen.

There is a case in New York where Adrian P. Thomas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_P._Thomas) was convicted of killing his four month old son.

The case was tried in 2009. There was no death penalty in New York in 2009.

This trial happened after the Knox+Sollecito trial. It was more recent. More modern.

Adrian P. Thomas was later legally exonerated. The court ruled that his confession was coerced. (Sound familiar?)

So it looks like we have another example of a modern case in a modern courtroom in a situation where the death penalty was not allowed, and the court came to the wrong conclusion in the initial trial.

Looks like your theory that modern trials that do not include the death penalty are infallible is indeed completely wrong, because here we have an obvious contradiction to your theory. Have you ever gone to school Vixen? Studied logic in any way? Ever used actual rigorous logic? Have you ever written anything correct in this entire thread? I hope you aren't as crazy as you appear. Did you ever find a single professional scientist on planet Earth who agrees with your views on the DNA evidence? Remember, just one. We are waiting.

One big difference is that - as your heroes Bruno-Marasca uphold - Amanda voluntarily proffered the information 'Patrick did it', in the Supreme Court's opnion, to 'cover up for Rudy'.


So she covered up for Rudy and has the audacity to scribble in her 'column' her sarcastic comment, she wished she could have 'stopped Rudy from killing Mez'.

 

[Bill Williams]

Just so that we can at least agree on what the Marasca/Bruno report said about the DNA evidence against K/S, this is how Marasca/Bruno systematically destroy any forensic-DNA interpretation which some use to convict them:
Marasca-Bruno also have a section on Italian law with respect to considering forensic-compatibility only, and the way "compatibility" should be factored into a decision, which M/B said Nencini erred in doing - according to the law.

Marasca-Bruno also cite the law with respect to improper handling of forensics - in my view a slap at not only Stefanoni, but the judges prior to the ISC who completely disregarded the issues raised with improper handling.

Marasca-Bruno then quotes from the Conti-Vecchiotti report on why "repeatability" is not only a scientific issue, but hence a legal issue.
There's more. But this is why the poster in Vixen's last post is talking through his/her hat when criticizing Marasca-Bruno do not know how to handle the legal issues surrounding DNA.......

...... unless the person wishes to argue that things like repeatability is not a concept a court should concern itself with.

This highlights perfectly how at sea the Bruno-Marasca court were, as any fule 'no that Nencini's report had a typo (it's surprisingly common in legal documents to attribute a wrong name) wherein it said 'Raff's DNA' when OBVIOUSLY it should have read Amanda's.

In addition, the rubbish witnesses wheeled in - Alessi and Aviello - were brought in by BONGIORNO and the defence, so again, remiss to knock Nencini for it.

For this court to take Nencini to task over such trivia and/or the fault of the defence, shows how despicably dishonest and corrupt they are.

Read my post again, then read the reply. A complete "own-goal" by Vixen completely ignoring the criticisms Marasca/Bruno's motivation report made of Nencini's understanding of the DNA evidence....

..... while at the same time Vixen brings up issues I did not address in Marasca/Bruno's report on why Nencini's conviction was the result of factual error on Nencini's part, which Vixen calls "a typo". LOL! LOL!

In other words, the use of logic and intuition cannot, in any way, compensate for the lack of evidence or the inefficiency of the investigations.

Faced with missing, insufficient or contradictory evidence, the judge should simply accept it and issue a verdict of acquittal, according to Article 530, section 2 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, even if he is really convinced of the guilt of the defendant.

There are, furthermore, patent [factual] errors in the reasoning of the ruling under examination. Along these lines, the assertion made on page 321, according to which, Sollecito’s DNA was found, along with Kercher’s, in the imperceptible striations on the knife deemed to be the murder weapon (Exhibit 36), is absolutely groundless.​

Thanks for point this out, Vixen. I'd forgotten about it. True, I should have listed the actual, complete fabrications Nencini had used to convict the pair. You've quite graciously pointed it out for me!

Of course you can point to how Crini appealed to the ISC citing this as a typo! Ah, er, no?

And the failure to acknowledge that it is a typo makes one, "despicably dishonest and corrupt"!?

And as for, "the rubbish witnesses wheeled in - Alessi and Aviello", you say that they were "wheeled in" by Bongiorno.

They were "wheeled in" because Judge Chieffi, in annulling the Hellmann acquitals, cited Hellmanns decision NOT to allow them to testify in the 2011 trial as a reason for annulment:

On this point too, the ruling under appeal displays serious failings, both with regard to the management of procedural rules, and the thoroughness of the reasoning, which the next judge will have to remedy. It could not be concluded a priori that (and regardless of whether) Aviello’s contribution would in any case have been insufficient to overcome the ‘resistance test’, not having the hypothetical ability to add any greater weight to the evidence acquired against the defendants.​

Aviello, for one HAD TO BE included in the Nencini trial, by virtue of the issue about it being one of the reasons for annuling the Hellmann acquittal. Sheesh. Do you just make things up as you go? You've scored two own-goals here, Vixen.

Maybe your post was a typo!

 

[Stacyhs]

I think for some people, it's less about true belief in AK's and RS's guilt than the inability to admit they could have been, and are, wrong. They will defend their belief against all facts and evidence rather than admit that.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think for some people, it's less about true belief in AK's and RS's guilt than the inability to admit they could have been, and are, wrong. They will defend their belief against all facts and evidence rather than admit that.

Blame plays big, too. Look at Vixen's rather "remarkable" post.

Nencini writes that Raffaele's DNA was found on the knife. Rather than name it for what it was - a bizarre factoid from a Judge where two lives are on the line - Vixen blames a mysterious "typo". (It's astonishing that Vixen doesn't see this as perhaps the lamest rationale she's offered for something - anything except call Nencini incompetent.)

She then blames people who cannot see this as a clear , innocent mistake on Nencini's part, "despicably dishonest and corrupt"!? Further blame - the responsibility for not cutting Nencini slack on this is the innocentisti.

Then the most clumsy, stupid factoid of them all which Vixen offers - she blames Bongiorno, Raffaele's lawyer, for Aviello appearing at the Nencini trial, saying, he was one of the, "the rubbish witnesses wheeled in" by Bongiorno.

Bongiorno patently had nothing to do with Aviello appearing - but that does not stop Vixen from blaming her for it.

Indeed, the implication Vixen makes is that Chieffi erred in 2013, because it was Chieffi who wrote in 2013 that Hellmann's acquittal should be annulled, partly for refusing to hear Aviello!!!!!!! (Read that again.)

Vixen agrees with Hellmann!!! Aviello is a rubbish witness, therefore Hellmann was correct to not allow him to appear, and Chieffi WAS INCORRECT in using that as a reason (partly) for annulling Hellmann's acquittal.

You cannot make this up. Except that's what Vixen does - makes it up as she goes, with no regard for consistency, logic, or accurate content. The important thing is to blame Knox, Sollecito, their supporters and the scientists who have unanimously supported them.

No cole slaw for her.

 

[Planigale]

Stefanoni has magnificent hands on experience in the field, when she volunteered to help identify the South Asian tsunami victims.

It's typical of some of the sour-faced bile-filled PIP to degrade and belittle others, just because they happen to differ in opinion from themselves. .

Exactly what experience did she gain?

There were whole bodies, from which big samples of DNA of certain origin could be obtained. DNA of relatives would be obtained by mouth swabs and would be of certain origin. There was no crime scene investigation. The work was technician level work. A graduate student could have done this. All it involved was processing large numbers of samples received and entering results into a database. This is all very different from investigating a crime scene. This is very different from interpreting trace DNA findings.

 

[Planigale]

So Chris is a 'Halide' now?

Predominantly a chloride.

Sure 'anything is possible'. However, Massei and Nencini (the merits, fact-finding courts which analyses all of the evidence in fine detail from all parties, in a public trial seen to be unfair, ruled there was no evidence of contamination, the defence failed to show that this was in anyway feasible or probable. You, sitting in your armchair saying, 'There are many possible routes of contamination', doesn't negate the fact found by a rigorous court of law there was no contamination.

Corrected your typo.

The problem is there was contamination. DNA of other people was found on the bra strap. The ruling by the court just shows that they failed to understand the nature of DNA evidence and Steffanoni failed to adequately caution the court. This is not unique to her. See
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328475-000-how-dna-contamination-can-affect-court-cases/
Also see CPS guidance on LCN testing and the precautions needed.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/lcn_testing.html
DNA contamination is real. The responsibility of the processing laboratory is to take action to minimise risks. This case demonstrates contamination. The DNA of an innocent individual was found on the bra hook.

Your argument revolves around the idea that 'the police, prosecutor and forensic scientists were bent, out to frame the kids for some unspecified reason - oh yeah, they hated Americans and thought she was a witch because she slept around and took drugs.' It's as presposterous as saying the police 'fixed' some random drunk driver's breathalyser test because the whole system was intent on framing him for some perceived personal characteristic (perhaps he liked the Birdie Song). Do you see how far you have to reach to predicate your 'bent cops' premise?

I have never argued this. I have argued they were incompetent, and (unconsciously) biased, working within a dysfunctional system. Well recognised cognitive biases were demonstrated leading to errors in conclusions.

Regarding olineageousness. We were discussing how DNA is only found in nucleated cells. These include sebaceous glands which are found at hair follicles and contain lipids (fats) unique to humans, which provide moisturisation of hair and skin, especially on the head and face. The olineageous substance means that if a perp has - say - combed his hair through his fingers, wiped his brow, or touched his face, his or her fingerprints are more likely to remain longer than the normal fingerprint life of <24 hours. We have confirmed there are no sebaceous glands in the fingers, thus zero olineageousness.

The point being that the consequence is 'cell free' DNA, as the apocrine cells rupture.

In the case of Raff's DNA, the bra-clasp was found under the sheet, under the body, which itself was under a duvet, which had random pieces of 'burglary' papers scattered over it. IOW the bra-clasp was beneath the body before it was placed in position, i.e., post-mortem. (The court established the bra was ripped at the back and removed after death.) Raff left his DNA on the metal clasp as of the time of the murder; in addition, he wasn't convicted of murder on DNA evidence alone, there was a whole stack of other fact-found evidence. As the forensic team were gathering evidence, the defence team were entitled to witness it, and this they did by method of cctv transmission to a van outside, where their forensic experts were watching. We can see from the video that at no time did Stefanoni touch the metal part of the fabric. So there was a speck on her latex glove, either because of a photographic fleck, or because of a trick of light or because of a speck of dirt. None of these could possibly cause Raff's near full-profile (17 alleles) of DNA to appear on the bra-clasp.

There is no time stamp for DNA. It cannot be known when it was deposited. You seem to ignore all the movement that the clasp had undergone between discovery of the body, the moving, collection and clearing of material from the room, and its eventual discovery elsewhere. You ignore its being picked up handed round dropped back on the floor. You seem to have no criticism for the fact it was not collected initially. You seem to have no criticism for the fact it was not properly preserved so re testing was not possible. here just seems to be serial mismanagement around this bit of evidence. Not initially collected. When eventually collected, mishandled. When processed in the laboratory not properly stored.

As for 'secondary' or 'tertiary' transfer from door knob to clasp, latex is not DNA friendly, as it is organic, non-porous and non-shiny.
Once again we are back in the BS realms of 'Stefanoni tried to frame Raff because, er, he was, er, Italian, um, middle class, er from a respectable family, er, he came from Bari, yeah, that's it.

Regarding rubber: the conditions that apply to fingerprints, apply largely to forensic DNA. Both decay rapidly under most conditions. Here's an explanation of those conditions here:

https://www.quora.com/From-what-can-fingerprints-be-lifted-and-from-what-cant-they-be-lifted


All clear now?

You again assert latex is unfriendly to DNA whatever that means. Please reference some evidence. The alternative would be PVC gloves? The reference you give says nothing about decay of DNA. You say nothing about why DNA on a shiny (non porous) door handle is subject to decay but DNA on the clasp was not.

 

[bagels]

I think for some people, it's less about true belief in AK's and RS's guilt than the inability to admit they could have been, and are, wrong. They will defend their belief against all facts and evidence rather than admit that.

The PGP have things in common that are above and beyond just having a different opinion about the evidence, that to me demonstrate delusional thinking and fanaticism that I don't understand:

-They don't care that the prosecution took every effort to silence Rudy Guede and keep him from talking about the murder on the stand, instead of leaning on him with their infinite leverage and making him their star witness.

-They don't care that the prosecution botched the interrogation, broke every procedure to insure it would never be admissible, and didn't bother to record it.

-They don't care that the police punched and kicked Patrick and called him a dirty black and shut his bar down for a month.

-They don't acknowledge that Hellmann actually took place in our temporal reality. Every PGP will say bizarre things like all "the merits courts found her guilty" as if Hellmann never happened at all.

-They don't care that the police left potentially vital forensic evidence like bloody towels and semen stains to rot away untested.

-They don't care that Chieffi and Nencini wrote Amanda should be convicted because she was basically already found guilty in Rudy's trial, a conviction that wouldn't have survived a human rights appeal.

Basically it's a list of items I consider "neutral" regardless of your interpretation of the evidence, and yet their positions defy basic logic and reality.

What PGP really have in common is they know in their heart Amanda is guilty. Their brain is just their subservient interpreter.

 

[bagels]

-They don't acknowledge that Hellmann actually took place in our temporal reality. Every PGP will say bizarre things like all "the merits courts found her guilty" as if Hellmann never happened at all.

Oh yeah, and if you get them to elaborate on this, they will say Hellmann was annulled, but if you point out the other merits courts were also anulled and definitively, it doesn't seem to phase them, they honestly can't spot the contradiction. It's all very strange.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh yeah, and if you get them to elaborate on this, they will say Hellmann was annulled, but if you point out the other merits courts were also anulled and definitively, it doesn't seem to phase them, they honestly can't spot the contradiction. It's all very strange.

I think the final sentence in your previous post explains the contradiction adequately.

 

[Bill Williams]

-They don't care that the police left potentially vital forensic evidence like bloody towels and semen stains to rot away untested.

-They don't care that Chieffi and Nencini wrote Amanda should be convicted because she was basically already found guilty in Rudy's trial, a conviction that wouldn't have survived a human rights appeal.

< .....sinister deletia ..... >​

What PGP really have in common is they know in their heart Amanda is guilty. Their brain is just their subservient interpreter.

These three alone should have been enough for anyone to question Ak and RS's judicially found guilt, until the Marasca/Bruno panel of ISC put a stop to it and exonerated them.

Chieffi's contribution to this was his view of the way DNA-forensics should be handled. It's just not enough to show that a sample is the result of contamination, the defence (or whoever claims it) must also show the route of contamination.

Huh!?

I once witnessed a car accident at a busy intersection. The west-bound car was t-boned, and ended up facing east at a spot about 100 feet east of the collision. That's what I saw, a west-bound car ended up facing east 100 feet behind where the t-boning took place.

The cop who attended did not believe me. How could a westbound car, t-Boned from the south end up being pushed 100 feet east!? Great question.

How did this happen? I have no clue. Yet that's what happened. Chieffi's view would have been that it is not just enough to show that the westbound car ended up facing east, I had to demonstrate the physics of how it had happened, or Chieffi would have ruled that the collision had never happened - despite the car being found smashed and pointed eastbound.

Back to Chieffi. Chieffi also wrote that if DNA-evidence is not handled the way Chieffi thought it should be, that would set back all DNA cases since 1986.

Yeah, like that makes one feel better!

Remember how Machiavelli fought tooth and nail to say that Amanda and Raffaele had had legal representation at Rudy's fast track process!? Even Machiavelli knew what was at stake with Chieffi's and Nencini's finding that in essence AK and RS had been convicted along with Rudy - in a non-evidentiary, fast-track process where neither defence (for Rudy) nor prosecution (Mignini) disputed a staged break-in or multiple attackers.

And with neither defence or prosecution disputing those things, the finding was - surprise, surprise - a staged-break in and multiple attackers with no evidence pro-offered. They became non-evidentiary judicial facts that people like Vixen throw around with abandon!

But then there is the key, as you say bagels. Regardless, in their hearts they know RS and AK are guilty, but mostly Amanda.

Me, I'm reminded of Erin Burnett on CNN following the Nencini conviction in 2014 when Steve Moore and Paul Callan were on, Callan arguing a mild-guilt thesis (which he has since recanted).

What was significant for Burnett? While Moore and Callan argued evidence, Burnett, the interviewer, kept breaking in with, "But what about all the weird behaviour Knox did?" Even Callan looked at Burnett strangely..... "What's that got to do with anything?"

What is truly strange is that Burnett's line of thinking is what had pulled this off the rails, and there it was for both Moore, Callan and all CNN viewers to witness.

I knew Knox was guilty ever since seeing her in the "All you need is love" t-shirt. That's the level which large portions of people assess this - and they should never be allowed near a jury pool.

 

[bagels]

Remember how Machiavelli fought tooth and nail to say that Amanda and Raffaele had had legal representation at Rudy's fast track process!?

He should change his name to Kafka