Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[acbytesla]

That's very quixotic of you.

No, it's quixotic of you. But even that book ended.

 

[Planigale]

Nothing Aviello or Alessi testified was accepted as a fact by the court as they were both found to be unreliable witnesses.


Curatalo was found to be a reliable witness.

The problem is if Curatalo is a reliable witness he provides Knox and Sollecito with an alibi since ha says they were present from about 19.30 to near midnight, meaning that they could not have participated in the murder. So the prosecution had to argue he was reliable in some of his testimony but not all. A sense check would suggest that seeing a young couple at some distance in the dark one does not know and then being able to offer a positive identification when asked nearly a year later is dubious.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>For the umpteenth time, Marasca reiterated (did not challenge nor dismiss, as it did the knife/bra DNA evidence) that Amanda was there, at the scene of the crime and shed her DNA as she washed off Mez' blood.

Do let us know what on earth she was doing coming into contact with Mez' blood.

Amanda did not come into contact with Meredith's blood; her DNA did. Anyone who thinks they can claim otherwise is dreaming.

 

[Mary_H]

Even if you ignore the knife and bra clasp evidence, there is still more than enough evidence to convict Amanda and Raff. There's the scientific, objective luminol traces, the phone logs, lack of alibi, and the myriad lies, all centred around the key murder times.

Are you calling the Italian Supreme Court incompetent?

 

[Mike1711]

It's his job to argue for the maximum sentence for the charges filed. This is what prosecutors do the world over. The pair were charged with aggravated murder, which could have been a lesser charge had they not persisted in lying about their involvement.

Lesser than innocent doesn't exist. Extra innocent??

 

[Welshman]

The problem is if Curatalo is a reliable witness he provides Knox and Sollecito with an alibi since ha says they were present from about 19.30 to near midnight, meaning that they could not have participated in the murder. So the prosecution had to argue he was reliable in some of his testimony but not all. A sense check would suggest that seeing a young couple at some distance in the dark one does not know and then being able to offer a positive identification when asked nearly a year later is dubious.

Having to rely on the testimony of Curatalo is one of numerous factors which demolishes the notion the prosecution had a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele and a mountain evidence. If the prosecution had a mountain of solid evidence and a slam dunk case, why did the prosecution have to resort to using the testimony of someone who had Amanda and Raffaele away from the murder scene during the murder and is actually damaging to the prosecution's case? This indicates the prosecution had such a weak case and a lack evidence, the prosecution were desperate enough to use the testimony of someone who provided Amanda and Raffaele an alibi for the time of the murders.

 

[Welshman]

Even if you ignore the knife and bra clasp evidence, there is still more than enough evidence to convict Amanda and Raff. There's the scientific, objective luminol traces, the phone logs, lack of alibi, and the myriad lies, all centred around the key murder times.

Vixen constantly boasts about how strong the case against Amanda and Raffaele. If this was true, how does Vixen explain the conduct of the prosecution and the tactics they had to resort if they had a slam dunk case as detailed in my post below

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

 

[Mike1711]

For the last time, you will not find proper DNA samples in house dust. That's not how DNA profiling works. Fragments of 6 - 8 alleles were found on the bra fabric of Amanda and Rudy, which are not considered adequate evidence (but yet caused Gill's pal Pascali to walk off the case, no doubt under the priniciple a defence lawyer can no longer represent a client he believes to be guilty).

For the umpteenth time, Marasca reiterated (did not challenge nor dismiss, as it did the knife/bra DNA evidence) that Amanda was there, at the scene of the crime and shed her DNA as she washed off Mez' blood.

Do let us know what on earth she was doing coming into contact with Mez' blood.

For the last time Marasca repeating judicial truths should in no way be construed as his believing or agreeing with them. How could he agree??? He isn't tasked with investigating the "truths" so he wouldn't know one or the other way. Marasca repeating any "truth" from a lower court means nothing more than as if a parrot repeated the "truth". It is how Italian Law works....dammit!

Your red herring argument on dust and DNA is typical of your goal post moving abilities. Nodody...yes, nodody has placed significance on the DNA content of dust. It was merely stated as a fact. A fact of which you seem to have been totally unaware.

 

[Bill Williams]

For the last time Marasca repeating judicial truths should in no way be construed as his believing or agreeing with them. How could he agree??? He isn't tasked with investigating the "truths" so he wouldn't know one or the other way. Marasca repeating any "truth" from a lower court means nothing more than as if a parrot repeated the "truth". It is how Italian Law works....dammit!

Your red herring argument on dust and DNA is typical of your goal post moving abilities. Nodody...yes, nodody has placed significance on the DNA content of dust. It was merely stated as a fact. A fact of which you seem to have been totally unaware.

Give Vixen some credit. Vixen does not ignore subsequent Italian legal opinions about what the 2015 Italian Supreme Court action meant.

Acc. to the subsequent Boninsegna court, the one acquittals Knox of defamation for the claim she made that she'd been hit at interrogation - Boninsegna wrote that the 2015 Italian Supreme Court exonerated AK and RS.

Vixen does not dispute that. Vixen calls Boninsegna a "lickspittle" for claiming such as a judicial truth.

 

[Bill Williams]

Just to give Vixen more to chew on, and to buttress the point you make to her (which she seemingly cannot grasp)......

Boninsegna could very well disagree with the 2015 exoneration of Sollecito and Knox.

But as Boninsegna implies in his motivations report - written to support an exoneration of Knox for defamation - he is bound by the murder exonerations as a judicial fact.

It's not Boninsegna's job to revisit those exonerations, and it was not the ISC's job to revisit facts of the case, even those arrived at wrongly.

 

[Vixen]

Just to give Vixen more to chew on, and to buttress the point you make to her (which she seemingly cannot grasp)......

Boninsegna could very well disagree with the 2015 exoneration of Sollecito and Knox.

But as Boninsegna implies in his motivations report - written to support an exoneration of Knox for defamation - he is bound by the murder exonerations as a judicial fact.

It's not Boninsegna's job to revisit those exonerations, and it was not the ISC's job to revisit facts of the case, even those arrived at wrongly.

Boninsegna obviously used the word as a descriptive term, rather than a legal one, because as you know, the pair were NOT found innocent. The word innocent does not appear in Marasca's judgment.

 

[Vixen]

For the last time Marasca repeating judicial truths should in no way be construed as his believing or agreeing with them. How could he agree??? He isn't tasked with investigating the "truths" so he wouldn't know one or the other way. Marasca repeating any "truth" from a lower court means nothing more than as if a parrot repeated the "truth". It is how Italian Law works....dammit!

Your red herring argument on dust and DNA is typical of your goal post moving abilities. Nodody...yes, nodody has placed significance on the DNA content of dust. It was merely stated as a fact. A fact of which you seem to have been totally unaware.

Nodody? Stacy claims household dust explains Amanda's DNA mixed with Mez, with someone else claiming it's a 'false positive'.


You couldn't make it up.

 

[Bill Williams]

Boninsegna obviously used the word as a descriptive term, rather than a legal one, because as you know, the pair were NOT found innocent. The word innocent does not appear in Marasca's judgment.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

Right. Judges, in legal documents, refrain from using legal terms. Right.

And as for innocence, the pair were innocent, legally speaking, from the start to the finish of the process. Even Judge Nencini reflected this when, even in convicting them in 2014, said that Knox was legally abroad because her conviction was not definitive until the ISC said so. That's Italian law.

When the 2015 ISC exonerated them - legally exonerated - their innocent status remained.

That you insist on playing word games here is the most undercutting of all to your PR offensive against the pair.

 

[acbytesla]

Nodody? Stacy claims household dust explains Amanda's DNA mixed with Mez, with someone else claiming it's a 'false positive'.


You couldn't make it up.

And yet you do.

 

[Numbers]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

Right. Judges, in legal documents, refrain from using legal terms. Right.

And as for innocence, the pair were innocent, legally speaking, from the start to the finish of the process. Even Judge Nencini reflected this when, even in convicting them in 2014, said that Knox was legally abroad because her conviction was not definitive until the ISC said so. That's Italian law.

When the 2015 ISC exonerated them - legally exonerated - their innocent status remained.

That you insist on playing word games here is the most undercutting of all to your PR offensive against the pair.

Yes. From the Constitution of the Italian Republic, translation from the Italian Senate website:

Art. 27
Criminal responsibility is personal.
A defendant shall be considered not guilty until a final sentence has been passed.Punishments may not be inhuman and shall aim at re-educating the convicted.
Death penalty is prohibited.

and here's a few other Constitutional provisions, there are several others that apply in this case:

Art. 24
Anyone may bring cases before a court of law in order to protect their rights under civil and administrative law.
Defense is an inviolable right at every stage and instance of legal proceedings.*
The poor are entitled by law to proper means for action or defense in all courts.
The law shall define the conditions and forms of reparation in case of judicial errors.

Art. 28
Officials of the State or public agencies shall be directly responsible under criminal, civil, and administrative law for acts committed in violation of rights. In such cases, civil liability shall extend to the State and to such public agency.
* Includes the interrogation of a suspect or a witness who becomes a suspect because of an incriminating statement, according to Italian procedural law, CPP Art. 64 and 63, respectively.

 

[Stacyhs]

No, Amanda did not say that nor is it a fact that her blood was on the faucet "fresh from the night of the murder". This is her testimony:

"MIGNINI: When you saw the bathroom for the last time, were there
traces of blood in it?
AK: No. "

The inference is that the couple tiny drops of blood on the faucet were not there in fact until the murder. However, they could well have been there and Amanda simply did not see them. If they were, in truth, from her cleaning her infected ear, the drops could have fallen as she was cleaning them and she didn't notice it. She cannot say there was blood if she did not see it. It doesn't mean the tiny drops weren't there.

Shedding of epithelial cells occurs naturally and without having to use "intense" (or any) friction. Dust itself contains naturally shed epithelial cells. "Household dust may contain some human DNA from shed epithelial cells. " (Crime Reconstruction. Chisum, Turvey, pg 274)

Once again you are misrepresenting by omission. Amanda admitted it was her blood on the faucet/tap. I can only imagine you denied this because you have a mission to conceal the true facts.

I omitted nothing. Neither I, nor anyone else, has ever said that Amanda's blood was not on the faucet. You claimed her blood on the faucet was "fresh from the night of the murder" and "Amanda said so herself" I pointed out that just because she didn't SEE her blood on the faucet does not mean it wasn't there before the murder. It could have been deposited earlier. I can only imagine you are making false claims about what I said because you have a mission to twist things like a pretzel.

As for dust, it only contains fragments, not sequences adequate for DNA testing. The DNA found for Raff on the bra clasp was a clear 17 alleles - all above the US standard of 50 RFU's, to control against background contamination (of the very dust particles you are talking about) - and only 10-11 is needed legally to confirm a match to an identitified person. Out of 23 chromosomes there was a match on seventeen. The probability of that happening by chance or caused by a fragment in a pile of dust is literally 3bn to one against in this case. Not only was the autosomal profile tested but a second one was run on the Y-haplotype, which matched only Raff and his close male relatives. Stefanoni is female so it would not have come from her, glove or no glove.

Nice attempt at diversion. Why all this info that has nothing to do with what I said? You claimed that Amanda had to have washed her hands of Meredith's blood leaving epithelial cells mixed in the blood. "Shedding DNA that only comes from intense friction (rubbing of hands together). This is not a scientific fact. Epithelial cells are shed naturally and copiously without "intense friction" and are found even in dust. These cells contain DNA. As for the content of your claim, Planigale has already addressed that.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes. From the Constitution of the Italian Republic, translation from the Italian Senate website:

Art. 27
Criminal responsibility is personal.
A defendant shall be considered not guilty until a final sentence has been passed.Punishments may not be inhuman and shall aim at re-educating the convicted.
Death penalty is prohibited.

and here's a few other Constitutional provisions, there are several others that apply in this case:

Art. 24
Anyone may bring cases before a court of law in order to protect their rights under civil and administrative law.
Defense is an inviolable right at every stage and instance of legal proceedings.*
The poor are entitled by law to proper means for action or defense in all courts.
The law shall define the conditions and forms of reparation in case of judicial errors.

Art. 28
Officials of the State or public agencies shall be directly responsible under criminal, civil, and administrative law for acts committed in violation of rights. In such cases, civil liability shall extend to the State and to such public agency.
* Includes the interrogation of a suspect or a witness who becomes a suspect because of an incriminating statement, according to Italian procedural law, CPP Art. 64 and 63, respectively.

Obviously when the Italians wrote their Constitution, they only used descriptive terms, rather than legal words with legal weight.

(I just wanted to beat Vixen in replying to why quoting the Italian Constitution is useless...... I bet the authors of the Constitution are in on this Masonic conspiracy - knowing full well that this American Luciferina would need those words to weasel out of a murder charge!)

 

[Stacyhs]

Nodody? Stacy claims household dust explains Amanda's DNA mixed with Mez, with someone else claiming it's a 'false positive'.


You couldn't make it up.

Ummmm, no I never claimed that at all. YOU twisted what I said. THIS is what I said;

"Shedding of epithelial cells occurs naturally and without having to use "intense" (or any) friction. Dust itself contains naturally shed epithelial cells. "Household dust may contain some human DNA from shed epithelial cells. " (Crime Reconstruction. Chisum, Turvey, pg 274) "

This was in response to your claim that epithelial cells in the mixed blood/DNA could only have come from "intense rubbing" of Amanda's hands washing off blood. Bringing up dust was to point out that it doesn't take "intense rubbing" for epithelial cells to be naturally discarded. But that went right past you like so much else. Once again, stop claiming I have said something I have not. I NEVER claimed dust was the source of Amanda's DNA in Meredith's blood.

 

[Bill Williams]

Ummmm, no I never claimed that at all. YOU twisted what I said. THIS is what I said;

"Shedding of epithelial cells occurs naturally and without having to use "intense" (or any) friction. Dust itself contains naturally shed epithelial cells. "Household dust may contain some human DNA from shed epithelial cells. " (Crime Reconstruction. Chisum, Turvey, pg 274) "

This was in response to your claim that epithelial cells in the mixed blood/DNA could only have come from "intense rubbing" of Amanda's hands washing off blood. Bringing up dust was to point out that it doesn't take "intense rubbing" for epithelial cells to be naturally discarded. But that went right past you like so much else. Once again, stop claiming I have said something I have not. I NEVER claimed dust was the source of Amanda's DNA in Meredith's blood.

In fairness to Vixen, she's just parroting Nencini's bizarre assertion in his motivation report that:

1) it is the height of coicidence that Knox's DNA from skin cells just happened to fall onto the victim's blood found in the small bathroom

2) And this whopper: "For the loss of biological material that is useful for DNA extraction, there must be a considerable rubbing action that leaves behind biologically significant traces."​

It is from THAT that Nencini asserts that the only reason Knox could have been rubbing that forcefully was to clean blood off of her hands.

This Court holds that the multiplicity of evidence objectively conflicts with the fortuitousness proposed by the Defense, but that it should be considered, on the contrary, a fact leading towards a conclusion of correspondence between the person who – on the night between 1 and 2 November 2007 – washed the victim’s blood from themselves in that bathroom and Amanda Knox.​

So, Nencini infers that Knox must have cleaned blood from her hands.... why? Because there was evidence presented to the court that this had happened?

No, because Nencini otherwise could not explain why Knox's DNA had so fortuitously landed on the three spots which the Scientific Police made those wide swabs.

Once again, no evidence, just a Judge with a hunch. Aside from the fact that this begs a rather large question of how all that blood got on to Amanda, with no evidence of Amanda in the murder room and no evidence of blood on Amanda's clothes.....

.... this is why The Italian Supreme court, in exonerating the pair, has that discussion in it's own 2015 motivation report about the perils of a judge setting himself up as an expert of the experts.

When the 2015 Supreme Court motivation report gets around to listing this "Knox rubbed blood from her hands," in its motivations report, the whole topic had already been destroyed and trashed by the Supreme Court's prior logic. The ISC is conceding that Nencini's lower, fact-finding court had "found that as a fact - but had so trashed Nencini's reasoning as illegal and illogical, that by the time you get to that "even if" part of the report in Section 9, The Supreme Court wants the reader to roll their eyes at the claim - not suppose that the ISC was adopting the claim.

Unless, of course, you're part of a PR-guilt campaign.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>I omitted nothing. Neither I, nor anyone else, has ever said that Amanda's blood was not on the faucet. You claimed her blood on the faucet was "fresh from the night of the murder" and "Amanda said so herself" I pointed out that just because she didn't SEE her blood on the faucet does not mean it wasn't there before the murder. It could have been deposited earlier. I can only imagine you are making false claims about what I said because you have a mission to twist things like a pretzel.<snip>

Wait a sec, Stacyhs. Is that what you meant to say?

Amanda's blood was not on the faucet. She never said so, either.