This is (yet another) goalpost shift. The matter in hand was the way in which Knox and Sollecito were acquitted under Italian law. You argue - incorrectly - that their acquittals were the equivalent of the Scottish "not proven". In fact, their acquittals were under the section of the code which covers everything from zero evidence of guilt right up to just insufficient evidence to prove guilt BARD. In other words, everything except instances where a defendant can positively prove his/her innocence, or where a court determines that no criminal act was committed by anyone. So, actually and factually, the Knox/Sollecito
acquittals were not equivalent to a Scottish "not proven". They were closely equivalent to an England&Wales/US "not guilty", except for the fact that the Italian system has a separate form of acquittal for proof of innocence and no crime having been committed. And all of this has nothing to do with your strange diversion into what the meaning of "vacated" means in US law.
Not likewise at all. Next.
Another bizarre diversion, addressing another poster to boot! You do realise, don't you, that each case has to be taken on its own merits? And the merits show clearly that in the Knox/Sollecito case, both should safely have been acquitted and exonerated, and it's highly likely that neither was involved in the murder. FWIW, my (less detailed) knowledge of the Avery and Bamber cases leads me to (provisionally) believe that Avery was probably framed for the first murder but probably committed the second, and that Bamber very probably was the person who committed the family murders. But neither is directly relevant in any way to the Knox/Sollecito case, which is what we are discussing here.
(In addition, there's a rich circular logic fail in your (deliberately emotive) statement about Bamber: "You do know he shot two twin boys. Think about his victims." You're basically "arguing" that Bamber is guilty because he's guilty. If Bamber were in fact innocent and wrongly convicted (which is not what I personally believe, remember), then he DIDN'T "shoot two boys" and he had no "victims". One might employ the same poor logic to say something like "I believe Stefan Kiszko to be guilty. You do know he raped and killed a young girl. Think about his victim".............
No, no and no. If "Raff ripped of Mez' KERCHER'S bra", then how come there is epithelial DNA on the tiny metal hook yet none on the fabric of the bra (which is, necessarily, where "Raff" would have had to be holding the bra, tightly, in order to "rip it off"?
Second, the bra clasp was ORIGINALLY under the body (i.e. at 1pm on 2nd November 2007). But then it was (unbelievably and hideously incompetently) not only not collected by the inept crime scene analysts, it was also literally kicked and swept around the floor of Kercher's bedroom. It was in fact finally found and recovered from within a pile of dust and detritus debris under a rug near Kercher's dresser, well over a metre from where it was at the time of the initial discovery. And since the incompetent police and PM did not even keep a proper log of what happened in the cottage and who went in and out, and since the incompetent police and PM effectively disregarded the cottage as a crime scene as soon as they left on around 7-8 November, nobody can possibly know what happened to that bra clasp between then and when it was finally collected in mid-December. We know, for example, that cleaners were in the cottage during that period, and that major objects were moved around in Kercher's room. And it's clear that the bra clasp was swept up at some time, into the pile in which it was found in mid-December.
On top of those massive problems, there's also the additional massive problem of the incompetent and pro-contamination way in which the bra clasp was treated when it was finally identified and collected in mid-December. Again, we can be thankful that a video exists of the whole charade. It would be laughable - if it wasn't so very serious - to see the forensics goons pass the parcel with the bra clasp (with visibly dirty gloves) and place it back down onto a different part of the bedroom floor to label and photograph it.
At all of these points there was AMPLE (and extremely reasonable) possibility of tertiary contamination at a low template level (and contrary to the propaganda on the likes of PMF and TJMK, Sollecito's alleged DNA on the bra clasp was in low-template quantities). It's very likely that Sollecito's DNA was on the outer surface and door handle of Kercher's bedroom door, as well as in other areas of the girls' cottage (and remember, the fact that the police only found Sollecito's DNA on one cigarette butt categorically does not mean that this was the only deposit of Sollecito's DNA in the cottage. The police have already admitted, for example, that they didn't even bother to test the outer surface of Kercher's bedroom door, since they deemed it "irrelevant".........
And then we come to the elephant in the room. The presence of multiple other male partial profiles on the bra clasp. This cannot be anything other than environmental contamination. It's risible to suggest (as some of the incompetent lower courts did!) that this could have come from random men somehow touching Kercher's bra. This was contamination, pure and simple. And if DNA from random men (perhaps they were males from the CSI team, or Mignini) ended up on that bra clasp, then it's self-evidently true that it's a reasonable inference that Sollecito's alleged DNA ended up on that clasp via contamination too.
Do look up DNA testing. It is a very exact science. And look up crime scene analysis at the same time.
The circumstances surrounding the discovery of the bra clasp are highly suspect. The police were initially claiming footprints in Meredith’s room matched Raffaele’s shoes. Raffaele’s family showed this was not the case. It is very convenient that bra clasp turns up immediately when a piece of evidence collapses. It is strange how the police make a big drama of the discovery of the bra clasp. Vixen never mentions the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the clasp. If the bra clasp was such a solid piece of evidence how do you explain the following :-
• The prosecution have to suppress evidence and tamper with evidence as detailed in the link below :-
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/bra-clasp-contamination/
• Stefanoni can’t tell how much DNA was on the clasp as seen from the testimony below :-
QUESTION – The quantification of the trace on the clasp.
RESPONSE – Utilizing the Applied Biosystems Quantifiler kit.
QUESTION – And what is the quantity, exactly?
RESPONSE – I’m sorry, I don’t understand, the quantity of what? Of the entire DNA sample?
QUESTION – Yes, yes.
RESPONSE – At the moment I don’t have it but, let’s say, it’s a suitable quantity to have it amplified, that’s why it was amplified.
QUESTION – Yes, you know, the two of us have already seen in the preliminary hearing, that one of the things that we point out is the quantity of the trace. I was interested in if this trace was quantified.
RESPONSE – With the appropriate software for the quantification that is practically included with the instrument, in the 7700 that we use.
QUESTION – Yes, what I’m asking you is this: granted that we are talking here, you said it already, with a trace on the hooks, is that correct?
RESPONSE – Yes.
QUESTION – Because there is no DNA that you have attributed to Sollecito on the small piece of cloth, correct?
RESPONSE – Correct.
QUESTION – Nor on the bra.
RESPONSE – Correct.
QUESTION – So given that we are therefore talking about DNA that is only on the hooks I wanted to know what the quantity was.
RESPONSE – I cannot tell you, numerically I don’t know, certainly is was… since the product of amplification is completely, let’s say a result absolutely of good quality. I suppose that at least in the amplification test tube there was at a nanogram of DNA in total.
QUESTION – However, you understand well that this is an assumption of yours. I wanted to know if you were able to give me the documentation of this.
RESPONSE – Ah, the documentation of that quantification, yes, but not now however. Unfortunately, that is, numerically the number that came out of the analyzing software, I don’t have it now.
QUESTION – Are you able, nevertheless, to produce the quantity?
RESPONSE – Yes, the quantity, yes.
QUESTION – So you will be able to tell us how much of a trace there was?
RESPONSE – How much total DNA there was, because there was a mix, I don’t distinguish DNA of the victim quantitatively from the DNA of Sollecito, I can distinguish it… rather, I can make a quantitative relationship between the two DNA only looking at the electropherogram. Therefore, looking at the electropherogram I estimated it to be a 1 to 6 ratio. That is, the victim’s DNA is 6 times more than the DNA of Sollecito, however…
QUESTION – Let’s start by saying this, therefore in the area of the trace found on the hook we have a quantity of DNA attributable to the victim,
which is 6 times more than that of Sollecito?
RESPONSE – Yes.
QUESTION – The quantity, however, the number you cannot tell me?
RESPONSE – The total, no, I don’t have it here.
If the pro
• The prosecution allow the bra clasp to rust making it useless for testing. If the bra clasp was valid evidence, why did the prosecution not want the bra clasp tested?
