Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

There is no court. There is no case. Well there's the ECHR case but something tells me you're not interested in discussing that lol

Not to mention the fact that "particulars", "particularisation" and "bill of particulars" really don't mean what Vixen thinks they do. They only refer to the judicial concept of being specific about accusations. For example, in a civil action, the plaintiff cannot just bring a claim on the grounds that "Mr X cost me £20,000 in losses". Instead, the plaintiff must detail the particulars of the claim - in this instance, exactly how, when and why Mr X caused him to incur these losses. Particularisation is virtually never even an issue in a criminal case, since it would take an exceptionally inept prosecutor (worse even than Mignini....) to issue an indictment which didn't present the crown's case in sufficient detail as to make any request for a bill of particulars moot and unnecessary.

And the whole thing is of precisely zero relevance to the current discussion - it seems like nothing more than a strange attempt to scour a legal dictionary for some term which looks relevant to throw into the debate, perhaps in a misguided attempt to appear erudite and educated?

 

[Bill Williams]

And the whole thing is of precisely zero relevance to the current discussion - it seems like nothing more than a strange attempt to scour a legal dictionary for some term which looks relevant to throw into the debate, perhaps in a misguided attempt to appear erudite and educated?

This started with Vixen saying that AK and RS had no alibi for the evening other than each other.

You replied that similarly neither did the couple across the street from the cottage. Both couples also shared the attribute that nothing tied either to the crime - with the additional fact that no CCTV camera caught any of them en route to or fleeing from the cottage.

Then Vixen goes off on particulars and other nonsense. I wish she'd answer the question about one, just one expert who agrees with Stefanoni's work.

No dice.

 

[LondonJohn]

This started with Vixen saying that AK and RS had no alibi for the evening other than each other.

You replied that similarly neither did the couple across the street from the cottage. Both couples also shared the attribute that nothing tied either to the crime - with the additional fact that no CCTV camera caught any of them en route to or fleeing from the cottage.

Then Vixen goes off on particulars and other nonsense. I wish she'd answer the question about one, just one expert who agrees with Stefanoni's work.

No dice.

And neither couple was the subject of reliable, credible eye/earwitnesses placing them anywhere other than where they claimed to be (inside their own residences), and neither couple was tied in any way to the murder via reliable, credible forensic evidence linking them to the crime. And it's a near-certainty that neither couple factually participated in the murder - though that will forever be impossible to prove with 100% certainty (although it should have been, if Perugia's CCTV cameras were working properly....).

Maybe the nutters over at one or both of the PMFs can now switch their vindictive bile over to poor Mr and Mrs Bianchi. Who knows, perhaps they can dig back through the Bianchis' histories and find some small character flaws that they can magnify, vilify and mock. And they can relentlessly pursue the Bianchis safe in the knowledge that they're doing so in the name of dear Meredith.

 

[Bill Williams]

Maybe the nutters over at one or both of the PMFs can now switch their vindictive bile over to poor Mr and Mrs Bianchi. Who knows, perhaps they can dig back through the Bianchis' histories and find some small character flaws that they can magnify, vilify and mock. And they can relentlessly pursue the Bianchis safe in the knowledge that they're doing so in the name of dear Meredith.

There was a rumour the B.'s many years ago had had premarital sex. Obviously psychopaths.

 

[whoanellie]

There was a rumour the B.'s many years ago had had premarital sex. Obviously psychopaths.

I heard that they did it on a train on top of a dead body.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Annella]

Darkness Descending is a primary source in that it quotes Stefanoni and Garafano directly. Apart from that, it is pure tabloidese.

In terms of the Kercher case, Peter Gill had nothing to do with it, apart from providing Bongiorno for Raff an appendix to the appeal to the supreme court. He didn't see any evidence first hand and was not cross-examined.

You asked me to explain my research methods, and I responded accordingly.

Appealing to the crowd is a logical fallacy. Just because there are a dozen friends of Amanda Knox and agents of Gogerty-Marriott sock-puppeting on here, shouldn't lead you to believe they represent the views of the majority population.

It's also a logical fallacy to resort to ad hominem. It means you have really lost the plot.

As you appear to have time on your hands Vixen, can I suggest a forthcoming course you may benefit from? In your own country too!

https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/forensic-crim-justice

 

[Planigale]

I rather think you are missing the point.

Here we have a highly stylised murder scene, with attackers who had obviously arrived, armed up to the gills with knives.

And all you can chunter is, 'Oh, it must have been Rudy who was disturbed as he burgled.'

You claimed that the victim in this crime was positioned after death to emulate a scene in 'Blood : the last vampire. You claimed that this was a scene where a slayer had killed someone at halloween.

You claimed you like to go to primary sources. I asked for your primary sources for this claim. Will you give them?

Method and I gave you links to real primary sources.
1) Mignini did not claim that the murder scene resembled a scene in the Manga.
2) I linked to the actual Manga for you to read. This demonstrates there was no Halloween scene. There was no Buffy style slayer. In almost all details there is no resemblance between the scene in the Manga and the murder scene. Most of the persons surrounding the victim on the floor in the Manga are bound captives.

It is a simple question where did the idea about the murder scene resembling a scene in this Manga come from? Where did the halloween allusion originate from? Just give your primary source. Then we could evaluate the evidence you rely on.

We know it was not Mignini because we have his quotation in the court record.

I don't think you made this idea up yourself. I think that you have accepted it because it fits your preconceptions. I have challenged you on the factual accuracy before. You stick to this despite the fact that it is demonstrably false. This is a provably false hypothesis. That you will not accept the falsity just shows that you have a closed mind. You cannot accept that something that fits your beliefs is objectively untrue.

Much of the 'evidence' you have quoted here has been shown be demonstrably false. You alleged there was a bloody fingerprint of Knox - false. You alleged there were fingerprints of Sollecito inside the victim's bedroom - false. You make false claims about the quantity of Sollecito's DNA on the bra fastener. you refuse to accept the demonstrable fact that steffanoni made false statements to the court both verbally and in writing regarding DNA testing of the knife. what is clear is that you accept any nonsense as true if it fits what you believe and refuse to even view the evidence if it contradicts your beliefs.

You did psychology, is this what psychologists term ego defence mechanisms?

 

[Methos]

"Blood The Last Vampire" was mentioned by Mignini in his closing arguments to judge Micheli:

A questo va aggiunta, ai fini della ricostruzione della personalità dei tre imputati (su Amanda e Raffaele si tornerà in seguito), l'innegabile tendenzad i questi soggetti (in particolare del Sollecito) alla lettura di racconti particolarmente violenti, in particolare il manga "Blood The Last Vampire", fumetto rinvenuto nell'abitazione del Sollecito, contenente scene estreme di violenza e di sesso, oltre alla spiccata predilezione per tutti i tipi di coltelli.

It's interesting how some of the myths about this case were born...

Thank you, Methos, for confirming it wasn't 'just a story' I made up, or even PMF.

The court records only "confirm" that PM Mignini mentions the manga title "Blood: The last Vampire" in his closing arguments before judge Micheli. The "the body was placed in a way to resemble a scene in the book" originated somewhere on the internet (not sure if it was on PMF, on the forum dedicated to a card came or somewhere else.

This seems to be an addition to the old "satanic ritual" thingy. See below.

I rather think you are missing the point.

Here we have a highly stylised murder scene, with attackers who had obviously arrived, armed up to the gills with knives.

And all you can chunter is, 'Oh, it must have been Rudy who was disturbed as he burgled.'

You claimed that the victim in this crime was positioned after death to emulate a scene in 'Blood : the last vampire. You claimed that this was a scene where a slayer had killed someone at halloween.

You claimed you like to go to primary sources. I asked for your primary sources for this claim. Will you give them?

Method and I gave you links to real primary sources.
1) Mignini did not claim that the murder scene resembled a scene in the Manga.
2) I linked to the actual Manga for you to read. This demonstrates there was no Halloween scene. There was no Buffy style slayer. In almost all details there is no resemblance between the scene in the Manga and the murder scene. Most of the persons surrounding the victim on the floor in the Manga are bound captives.

It is a simple question where did the idea about the murder scene resembling a scene in this Manga come from? Where did the halloween allusion originate from? Just give your primary source. Then we could evaluate the evidence you rely on.

We know it was not Mignini because we have his quotation in the court record.

[...]

Do you remember the "discussion" about the "satanic ritual"?

It came out that PM Mignini never used the word "satanic", but he definitely made the connection to Halloween and pagan sacrificial rites in the same closing arguments. On page 46 it reads:

E va sottolineato che, in ogni caso, per soggetti, morbosamente attratti dalla commistione di sesso e di violenza, è tutt'altro che inverosimile la connessione di tale progetto alla tradizione di Halloween, perché se è vero che la notte tra il 31 ottobre e il primo novembre era passata (e Meredith l'aveva trascorsa con le sue amiche connazionali), è altrettanto vero che, alle 21 circa del primo novembre e per le successive tre ore, si fosse ancora nella giornata di Ognissanti e che quello che non si fosse potuto realizzare nella notte di viglia della Festività dei Santi, si potesse realizzare nella notte di passaggio da quest'ultima alla Festività dei Defunti.
Non ci si poteva lasciar scappare quell'occasione.

Translation (Courtesy of RaffaeleSollecito.org):

“It should be emphasized that, in any case, for those pathologically addicted to the commission of sex and violence, it is not far-fetched to connect the project to the tradition of Halloween, because if it is true that the night between October 31 and November 1 was passed (and Meredith had spent with her ​​friends and fellows), it is equally true that, at 9 pm circa of the first of November and for the next three hours, it was still the day of All Saints’ Day and what you do not was able to achieve on the eve night of Holiday of the Saints, could be realized in the night to pass from the last one to the “Holiday of the deads”.
(google): One could not let this occasion escape.

and then on page 49:

Inoltre, i tre e soprattutto Sollecito, erano tutti dipendenti dalle suggestioni "culturali" erotico - omicide di cui s'è parlato e quella notte era ancora la giornata della Festività dei Santi, "erede" cattolica del capodanno celtico Samhain, con tutte le implicazioni che hanno il loro punto centrale nella vigilia della Festa, cioè nella notte tra il 31 ottobre e il primo novembre,

Translation (Courtesy of RaffaeleSollecito.org):

“Moreover, the three, and especially Sollecito, were all addicted to the suggestions of erotic – mudering “culture”, which has previosly been discussed and that night it was still the day of the Holiday of Saints, “inheritor” of the Catholic Samhain Celtic New Year, with all the implications that have their central point in the Holiday eve, that is the night between October 31 and November 1.”

As I wrote: It's interesting how some of the myths about this case were born...

 

[Methos]

Darkness Descending is a primary source in that it quotes Stefanoni and Garafano directly. Apart from that, it is pure tabloidese.

[...]

That is true only for Garofano, because he was one of the authors. So I guess those opinions he gave in the book were really his. It doesn't change the fact that some of the things he said were (and still are) nonsense.

Stefanoni is not "quoted". The authors give a fictionalised account of what "she could have said" on a certain occasion to people that weren't even there (as the court records show).

So I'd leave out the "Apart from that," from the last sentence and it fits.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Darkness Descending is a primary source in that it quotes Stefanoni and Garafano directly. Apart from that, it is pure tabloidese.

1) You use Darkness Descending constantly as a source of information on here.

2) You say above that Darkness Descending is pure tabloidese.

3) You say you only use primary sources.

See the problem here Vixen?

In terms of the Kercher case, Peter Gill had nothing to do with it, apart from providing Bongiorno for Raff an appendix to the appeal to the supreme court. He didn't see any evidence first hand and was not cross-examined.

Peter Gill invented LCN analysis. This is the analysis that was used on the alleged pagan sex orgy chef's knife. He is THE primary source for interpretation of LCN analysis. HE IS THE ONE WHO INVENTED THE TECHNIQUE.

No one saw all the evidence first hand, Vixen. Some investigators saw the crime scene. Some saw the autopsy. Some saw the sample collection. Some saw the DNA analysis. Some saw the remaining forensic testing.

Guess what? It's all (supposed to be) documented. Therefore experts can, at a later time, examine the procedures and analyses. This is what Gill did. This is what every other independent expert (who have all stated unequivocally that the evidence does not support guilt of Amanda and Raffaele) did. This is what happens every. single. time. there is a criminal investigation. Yet you fail to understand this.

Why is that? Is it because all of the independent experts have sided with the defense? And this causes you anxiety because it is proof you've been on the wrong side of this for ~8 years? And you're too emotionally unstable to admit that you've been trying to smear innocent people and protect Rudy, the true murderer? And you have friends trying to profit off Meredith's murder by writing book after book of ********? (All for Mez!!!)

You asked me to explain my research methods, and I responded accordingly.

You explained your methods in your accountancy case study history. Um, do you really need me to explain to you how your accountancy case study history is not the same thing as the murder trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito? Only you, Vixen.

Appealing to the crowd is a logical fallacy. Just because there are a dozen friends of Amanda Knox and agents of Gogerty-Marriott sock-puppeting on here, shouldn't lead you to believe they represent the views of the majority population.

Vixen, I am citing the top forensic genetics experts on the planet. I am citing well-established principles of molecular biology, genetics, and forensics. I am citing empirical, peer-reviewed work published in Forensic Science International: Genetics, the top forensic genetics journal on the planet.

Nowhere in here am I "appealing to the crowd".

You, however, are claiming an omnipotent PR campaign has paid off every expert in the world. Which is your explanation for why every DNA expert has sided with Amanda, Raffaele, and the pro-innocence side. There isn't enough money in the world to pull off this conspiracy of yours, Vixen.

You are part of a well known nutso cult that is obsessed with smearing the reputation of Amanda Knox and are part of a disinformation propaganda campaign designed to discredit anyone who disagrees with you. And you claim the opposite side has a "PR campaign" and that the innocence side is some minority, when EVERY INDEPENDENT EXPERT has sided with us. You are either saying this to distract others from your true intentions, or you are seriously, severely mentally ill and cannot accept reality for what it is.

We have asked you dozens of times for two things 1) an independent DNA expert that has refuted Gill et al., and has stated the investigators collected, analyzed, and interpreted the evidence correctly and this shows Amanda/Raffaele are guilty. and/or 2) a single well known legal commentator or otherwise legal expert that has stated "there is plenty of evidence here that shows Amanda/Raf are guilty beyond reasonable doubt". You haven't provided a single person.

You can't find ANYONE on this entire planet that supports you that isn't a TJMK or PMF member. How has this not hit you like a ton of bricks, Vixen?

It's also a logical fallacy to resort to ad hominem. It means you have really lost the plot.

Let me explain this clearly to you, Vixen. I am NOT saying you are wrong because you are either a) an idiot, or b) a super nut. I am saying you are wrong because the entirety of modern science, forensics, genetics, and the scientific method itself combined with basic logic, reason, and probability says you are wrong. We have demonstrated that to you hundreds of times and have cited the very top people in their respective fields who have published articles ON THIS VERY CASE in the top forensic genetics journals in the world.

Therefore, saying you are a) an idiot, or b) a super nut isn't a logical fallacy because I am not using it to support an argument, I am simply stating established fact.

You, however, saying the top forensic geneticists in the world are corrupt, stupid, incompetent, and accepting bribes IS an ad hominem. Because you have not refuted their argument(s) with a single piece of evidence or logic. You have attempted to refute their arguments (which, again, are published in the very top forensic journals in the world) by saying they are incompetent and corrupt.

Therefore, when I say people who use ad hominem arguments against the top experts in the world by claiming they were paid off by Donald Trump or Richard Branson and Amanda is an evil sex demon are either a) idiots or b) super nuts, I am not using an ad hominem myself because I'm not supporting any argument with that statement. I am stating established fact. Because people who suggest the entirety of forensic science has been paid off by Amanda Knox HAVE TO BE either a) idiots or b) super nuts. It is logically impossible for them not to be, because people that claim those types of things meet every definition of stupid and/or nuts in every dictionary that has ever been written.

Is that clear to you now?

 

[Vixen]

And neither couple was the subject of reliable, credible eye/earwitnesses placing them anywhere other than where they claimed to be (inside their own residences), and neither couple was tied in any way to the murder via reliable, credible forensic evidence linking them to the crime. And it's a near-certainty that neither couple factually participated in the murder - though that will forever be impossible to prove with 100% certainty (although it should have been, if Perugia's CCTV cameras were working properly....).

Maybe the nutters over at one or both of the PMFs can now switch their vindictive bile over to poor Mr and Mrs Bianchi. Who knows, perhaps they can dig back through the Bianchis' histories and find some small character flaws that they can magnify, vilify and mock. And they can relentlessly pursue the Bianchis safe in the knowledge that they're doing so in the name of dear Meredith.

There is ample evidence linking the kids to the crime even without DNA evidence, as there was Hanratty. There was no DNA found in Raff's car, even though he drove it all the time, and two independent witnesses saw a dark coloured car parked at the cottage within its grille gates circa 22:30 that night,despite an inch by inch analysis of it. There was no sign of any of Amanda's fingerprints on her own shiny metallic lamp (strangely, given the material) found on Mez' floor, despite her needing it as a night light. Absence of DNA or a fingerprint is not 'proof of absence'.

All three had a fair trial and were found guilty.

To pretend that some fictitious couple is on exactly the same level as Hanratty, Raff and Amanda is an absurdity, not least as a court of law would have no grounds, no cause, no charges, no reference to relevant sections of the Penal Code, or any particulars by which to begin to judge them.

"A man who is less than just, is less than a man" ~ Plato

 

[Vixen]

As you appear to have time on your hands Vixen, can I suggest a forthcoming course you may benefit from? In your own country too!

https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/forensic-crim-justice

Frightfully kind. I wish you well.

 

[Vixen]

Not to mention the fact that "particulars", "particularisation" and "bill of particulars" really don't mean what Vixen thinks they do. They only refer to the judicial concept of being specific about accusations. For example, in a civil action, the plaintiff cannot just bring a claim on the grounds that "Mr X cost me £20,000 in losses". Instead, the plaintiff must detail the particulars of the claim - in this instance, exactly how, when and why Mr X caused him to incur these losses. Particularisation is virtually never even an issue in a criminal case, since it would take an exceptionally inept prosecutor (worse even than Mignini....) to issue an indictment which didn't present the crown's case in sufficient detail as to make any request for a bill of particulars moot and unnecessary.

And the whole thing is of precisely zero relevance to the current discussion - it seems like nothing more than a strange attempt to scour a legal dictionary for some term which looks relevant to throw into the debate, perhaps in a misguided attempt to appear erudite and educated?

You haven't got a clue have you? You have no conception that a court of law has ways of determining guilt other than by reference to ALLEGORY.

Perhaps there is an Aesop's fable that demonstrates the ALLEGORY of your failure to comprehend.

 

[Mike1711]

There is ample evidence linking the kids to the crime even without DNA evidence, as there was Hanratty. There was no DNA found in Raff's car, despite an inch by inch analysis of it. There was no sign of any of Amanda's own fingerprints on her own shiny metallic lamp (strangely, given the material) found on Mez' floor, despite her needing it as a night light. Absence of DNA or a fingerprint is not 'proof of absence'.

All three had a fair trial and were found guilty.

To pretend that some fictitious couple is on exactly the same level as Hanratty, Raff and Amanda is an absurdity, not least as a court of law would have no grounds, no cause, no charges, no reference to relevant sections of the Penal Code, or any particulars by which to begin to judge them.

"A man who is less than just, is less than a man" ~ Plato

...and here we go full circle on this endless merry-go-round of whack-a-mole.

Let's be clear. All the evidence you go back to, has been raised here by you already and it has been thoroughly trounced...not just here, but in a court of law.

Why do you continue to lie? The fact is that three out three have NOT been found guilty in a court of law. Only one has.

I really don't want to call you a compulsive liar so don't make me.

 

[Vixen]

This started with Vixen saying that AK and RS had no alibi for the evening other than each other.

You replied that similarly neither did the couple across the street from the cottage. Both couples also shared the attribute that nothing tied either to the crime - with the additional fact that no CCTV camera caught any of them en route to or fleeing from the cottage.

Then Vixen goes off on particulars and other nonsense. I wish she'd answer the question about one, just one expert who agrees with Stefanoni's work.

No dice.

I see it now Bill. You are confused. You launch into the Tennessee Two Step with the Bianchis (_sp?) on one hand and the kids on the other, and you can't tell one from the other, nor left from right. Oh dear, two left feet leaves Bill tripping over himself, headlong into the orchestra pit.

 

[Vixen]

...and here we go full circle on this endless merry-go-round of whack-a-mole.

Let's be clear. All the evidence you go back to, has been raised here by you already and it has been thoroughly trounced...not just here, but in a court of law.

Why do you continue to lie? The fact is that three out three have NOT been found guilty in a court of law. Only one has.

I really don't want to call you a compulsive liar so don't make me.

They were all three found guilty at a trial. Hanratty at the Old Bailey, and the kids by Massei and Nencini. None of the evidence is trounced. The grounds for annulment were outwith the jurisdiction of the Fifth Chamber (for example, press interference, and the 'flawed investigation' has never been tried in a court and found to be a fact).

 

[Bill Williams]

...and here we go full circle on this endless merry-go-round of whack-a-mole.

Let's be clear. All the evidence you go back to, has been raised here by you already and it has been thoroughly trounced...not just here, but in a court of law.

Why do you continue to lie? The fact is that three out three have NOT been found guilty in a court of law. Only one has.

I really don't want to call you a compulsive liar so don't make me.

They were all three found guilty at a trial. Hanratty at the Old Bailey, and the kids by Massei and Nencini. None of the evidence is trounced. The grounds for annulment were outwith the jurisdiction of the Fifth Chamber (for example, press interference, and the 'flawed investigation' has never been tried in a court and found to be a fact).

It is whack-a-mole, isn't it.

It's been said here a thousand times, and even on the hate sites, that no verdict is final until/unless signed off on by the Italian Supreme Court. All lower court verdicts are provisional.

You simply ignore this and return to "they were all three found guilty at trial." No they were not. Only Guede was found guilty "at trial", because the trial has three grades to it - a 1st grade trial, a 2nd grade appeal, and the Cassation verdict.

Indeed, when RS and AK stood provisionally convicted by Nencini's court - this was the reason all sides expressed that it was not double-jeopardy; because they'd not been convicted yet - not even by Massei, and not until an ISC panel said they were. Which in the case of RS and AK never happened.

Please drop these obvious lies of yours. You just keep reposting them as if it had not been explained. A hundred times.

 

[Bill Williams]

This started with Vixen saying that AK and RS had no alibi for the evening other than each other.

You replied that similarly neither did the couple across the street from the cottage. Both couples also shared the attribute that nothing tied either to the crime - with the additional fact that no CCTV camera caught any of them en route to or fleeing from the cottage.

Then Vixen goes off on particulars and other nonsense. I wish she'd answer the question about one, just one expert who agrees with Stefanoni's work.

No dice.

I see it now Bill. You are confused. You launch into the Tennessee Two Step with the Bianchis (_sp?) on one hand and the kids on the other, and you can't tell one from the other, nor left from right. Oh dear, two left feet leaves Bill tripping over himself, headlong into the orchestra pit.

These rhetorical riffs on your part are entertaining, they truly are.

Yet you've STILL not addressed LJ's issue. Sometimes it seems that all you have are these diversionary riffs - which actually do lighten the atmosphere around here, but it would perhaps be better if you dealt with the issue at hand.

Those who don't enjoy your talents for a turn of phrase might think you were avoiding issues.

Like naming one forensic-DNA expert who agrees with Dr. Stefanoni. One. You tried to slip Prof. Novelli in, but it turns out that Novelli agrees that multiple amplifications is proper protocol, something Dr. Stefanoni did not do.

You would have been better to sidetrack things into another diversionary rhetorical riff, than offer Novelli!

Hoots!

 

[Stacyhs]

There is ample evidence linking the kids to the crime even without DNA evidence, as there was Hanratty. There was no DNA found in Raff's car, even though he drove it all the time, and two independent witnesses saw a dark coloured car parked at the cottage within its grille gates circa 22:30 that night,despite an inch by inch analysis of it. There was no sign of any of Amanda's fingerprints on her own shiny metallic lamp (strangely, given the material) found on Mez' floor, despite her needing it as a night light. Absence of DNA or a fingerprint is not 'proof of absence'.

All three had a fair trial and were found guilty.

To pretend that some fictitious couple is on exactly the same level as Hanratty, Raff and Amanda is an absurdity, not least as a court of law would have no grounds, no cause, no charges, no reference to relevant sections of the Penal Code, or any particulars by which to begin to judge them.

"A man who is less than just, is less than a man" ~ Plato

Are you now claiming that the car was washed down with bleach destroying any DNA? If so, why no claims by the police of a strong odor of bleach? After all, the said they could smell it in his apartment. But, strangely, not in the cottage within hours of the alleged "clean up".

Were there no fingerprints or no identifiable fingerprints? Smudged, therefore unidentifiable, fingerprints are common to find as the prosecution expert, Privitera, testified.

 

[Mike1711]

They were all three found guilty at a trial. Hanratty at the Old Bailey, and the kids by Massei and Nencini. None of the evidence is trounced. The grounds for annulment were outwith the jurisdiction of the Fifth Chamber (for example, press interference, and the 'flawed investigation' has never been tried in a court and found to be a fact).

Let me assure you that when asked about previous convictions against AK and RS there is but one against AK...calunnia.

Soon to be set aside.

A small wager, Vixen? Tell you what...$10k you get if the calunnia charge stands, $1k I get if the calunnia charge is annulled. My $1k goes to charity.

Come...money and mouth.