Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[Vixen]

No, but I did shake the hand of a man seen at the murder scene a few days earlier...or was it the library book at the murder scene which I'm sure I borrowed once. ...or perhaps those gloves stolen from my car? Dunno...countless ways to explain the travels of DNA.

No. It doesn't work after 24 hours. That man would not have your DNA on his hands for a 'few days' (unless of course you are some kind of pin-up and he 'ainna gonna wash for a week'). No your DNA cannot walk. It will not creep across the floor towards the body from your imaginary once-borrowed library book. It is complete rubbish to say your DNA could have ended up on the bra clasp, without you specifically stating which path this TERTIARY transfer took.

If say, you did indeed once borrow a library book and a perp borrowed the same book. Then it is a simple matter of the cops interviewing you and establishing that your alibi of having been the last person to borrow the book, would cross you off the list, assuming there is zero reason to suspect you at all. How would cops match your DNA anyway, unless you were already on their database?

 

[Bill Williams]

Annulment = vacated. NOT exonerated.

Sigh.

You then missed "l'assoluzione." Which means "exonerated".

The only outstanding issue is this - was it confirmation bias which caused this omission?

Marasca spells it out large they were at the murder scence,

Everyone agrees that they were at the murder scene. Everyone. The time frame that Marasca sets forth includes the morning of Nov 2, up until the arrival of the Postal Police. No one disputes this.

Amanda washed off Mez' blood from her hands and DID cover up for Rudy. Rudy was one of the killers. What part of the equation escapes you?

Marasca is summarizing the lower courts' evidence, combining it with all sorts of other evidence to demonstrate that there was no way, on the evidence, that Judge Nencini could have reasonably or logically come to a guilty verdict.

Marasca is summarizing the evidence that he received. He was not commenting on whether or not he agreed with it, he was summarizing the mess that the lower courts created.

Which then circles back to the word you seemingly intentionally overlooked, the one mentioned twice in Boninsegna's statement of the "judicial facts" that the Supreme Court left us with.... they were l'assoluzione...... exonerated!

That you have to cut and paste things out of context from The Italian Supreme Court is your problem.

 

[Bill Williams]

If say, you did indeed once borrow a library book and a perp borrowed the same book. Then it is a simple matter of the cops interviewing you and establishing that your alibi of having been the last person to borrow the book, would cross you off the list, assuming there is zero reason to suspect you at all. How would cops match your DNA anyway, unless you were already on their database?

So, why did Nencini NOT direct the prosecutor to find the owners of the three unknown DNA profiles on the bra-hook? And if the could not find them, is it logical them to just shrug your shoulders and say, well at least we have Raffaele's? And then ignore that the other three could have been there by contamination?

Or do you really believe Nencini when he implies that women go around handling each other's bras?

 

[Vixen]

Sigh.

You then missed "l'assoluzione." Which means "exonerated".

The only outstanding issue is this - was it confirmation bias which caused this omission?


Everyone agrees that they were at the murder scene. Everyone. The time frame that Marasca sets forth includes the morning of Nov 2, up until the arrival of the Postal Police. No one disputes this.



Marasca is summarizing the lower courts' evidence, combining it with all sorts of other evidence to demonstrate that there was no way, on the evidence, that Judge Nencini could have reasonably or logically come to a guilty verdict.

Marasca is summarizing the evidence that he received. He was not commenting on whether or not he agreed with it, he was summarizing the mess that the lower courts created.

Which then circles back to the word you seemingly intentionally overlooked, the one mentioned twice in Boninsegna's statement of the "judicial facts" that the Supreme Court left us with.... they were l'assoluzione...... exonerated!

That you have to cut and paste things out of context from The Italian Supreme Court is your problem.

This is a bone of contention. This is another reason Marasca is unsatisfactory from all POV's. Judges are paid generously to arrive at a verdict. Marasca could have given a 'paragraph one', 'not guilty' verdict. However, they did NOT. This does cause problems for both sides.

It is not a jibe. 'The kids are not exonerated'. Marasca has simply swept the matter under the carpet, instead of dealing with it.

In effect, Marasca has sent a memo to Bongiorno, 'Soz, getting the kids outta jail is the best we can do.'

'Oh, and post script, don't bother applying for compo as we have spelt it large the pair told umpteen lies and their behaviour around the murder remains highly suspicious.'

So, yeah, they've been sprung from jail, but it's a pyrrhic victory.

 

[Mike1711]

No. It doesn't work after 24 hours. That man would not have your DNA on his hands for a 'few days' (unless of course you are some kind of pin-up and he 'ainna gonna wash for a week'). No your DNA cannot walk. It will not creep across the floor towards the body from your imaginary once-borrowed library book. It is complete rubbish to say your DNA could have ended up on the bra clasp, without you specifically stating which path this TERTIARY transfer took.

If say, you did indeed once borrow a library book and a perp borrowed the same book. Then it is a simple matter of the cops interviewing you and establishing that your alibi of having been the last person to borrow the book, would cross you off the list, assuming there is zero reason to suspect you at all. How would cops match your DNA anyway, unless you were already on their database?

Aahhhh....yes but what if I didn't know that the murdered person had borrowed the same library book as me? My DNA is on the murdered persons fingers after having read the book....and the murderer has stolen the book.

Come now, Vixen, this is one hypothetical scenario and there are countless others.

The point is that in law the burden of any proof lies with the state and not the accused. The state must prove its case and if DNA evidence is introduced it has to be proved that it was impeccably collected or the court must dismiss the evidence. Which is exactly what B/M Court correctly did.

 

[Vixen]

So, why did Nencini NOT direct the prosecutor to find the owners of the three unknown DNA profiles on the bra-hook? And if the could not find them, is it logical them to just shrug your shoulders and say, well at least we have Raffaele's? And then ignore that the other three could have been there by contamination?

Or do you really believe Nencini when he implies that women go around handling each other's bras?

People's personal data is protected by various data protection legislation in most countries. Satirist comedian, Mark Thomas, liked to send up the establishment, and in defiance of the Public Order Act which was amended to stop people from holding demonstrations without prior permission from the police, he and his 'prankster' pals held a demonstration on the green just outside the Houses of Parliament. It ended up with them getting arrested and charges dropped, yet he learnt his DNA was on a police database because of his very hilarious political statement. He campaigned for years to get it removed, and eventually succeeded.

No doubt a Big Brother world will dawn when everyone's DNA is registered on their birth certificate. However, until then, the police have no method of identifying whose DNA is on the bra clasp, together with Raff's.

Raff's DNA on the bra clasp is just one piece of evidence out of literally hundreds against him.

 

[Bill Williams]

People's personal data is protected by various data protection legislation in most countries. Satirist comedian, Mark Thomas, liked to send up the establishment, and in defiance of the Public Order Act which was amended to stop people from holding demonstrations without prior permission from the police, he and his 'prankster' pals held a demonstration on the green just outside the Houses of Parliament. It ended up with them getting arrested and charges dropped, yet he learnt his DNA was on a police database because of his very hilarious political statement. He campaigned for years to get it removed, and eventually succeeded.

No doubt a Big Brother world will dawn when everyone's DNA is registered on their birth certificate. However, until then, the police have no method of identifying whose DNA is on the bra clasp, together with Raff's.

Raff's DNA on the bra clasp is just one piece of evidence out of literally hundreds against him.

Really? What a load of hooey.

But I'll admit. You can assert anything you wish. At least you're now cured of referring to the victim familiarly.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is a bone of contention. This is another reason Marasca is unsatisfactory from all POV's. Judges are paid generously to arrive at a verdict. Marasca could have given a 'paragraph one', 'not guilty' verdict. However, they did NOT. This does cause problems for both sides.

There is no bone. There is no contention. The ONLY place saying there is, is the nutcases at ...... well, you know where. The Italian Supreme Court, in fact, arrived at a verdict. They annulled the Nencini conviction and exonerated (l'assoluzione) the accused. That was confirmed by the subsequent Boninsegna motivations report, when Knox herself was acquitted of defamation for claiming to be hit at interrogation.

Unsatisfactory "from all POV's"!? Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

It is not a jibe. 'The kids are not exonerated'. Marasca has simply swept the matter under the carpet, instead of dealing with it.

In effect, Marasca has sent a memo to Bongiorno, 'Soz, getting the kids outta jail is the best we can do.'

Not even the Kercher's lawyer believes this. Even as he is now throwing that family under a bus, he advised them to move on. As did Andrea Vogt, who id'ed one of the nutcases, the Monday morning intrepid crime buffs, who took his complaint into a Florence court a while ago and was laughed out of it.

'Oh, and post script, don't bother applying for compo as we have spelt it large the pair told umpteen lies and their behaviour around the murder remains highly suspicious.'

So, yeah, they've been sprung from jail, but it's a pyrrhic victory.

Sigh. At least you refrained from the usual rudeness of referring to the victim by her familiar name.

 

[Stacyhs]

No. It doesn't work after 24 hours. That man would not have your DNA on his hands for a 'few days' (unless of course you are some kind of pin-up and he 'ainna gonna wash for a week'). No your DNA cannot walk. It will not creep across the floor towards the body from your imaginary once-borrowed library book. It is complete rubbish to say your DNA could have ended up on the bra clasp, without you specifically stating which path this TERTIARY transfer took.

If say, you did indeed once borrow a library book and a perp borrowed the same book. Then it is a simple matter of the cops interviewing you and establishing that your alibi of having been the last person to borrow the book, would cross you off the list, assuming there is zero reason to suspect you at all. How would cops match your DNA anyway, unless you were already on their database?

What if the book was not from the library but bought at a store by the murder victim? A book that Mike 1711 happened to thumb through and then put back on the shelf? How on earth would anyone, including the cops, be able to determine that Mike had touched that book?

 

[Welshman]

People's personal data is protected by various data protection legislation in most countries. Satirist comedian, Mark Thomas, liked to send up the establishment, and in defiance of the Public Order Act which was amended to stop people from holding demonstrations without prior permission from the police, he and his 'prankster' pals held a demonstration on the green just outside the Houses of Parliament. It ended up with them getting arrested and charges dropped, yet he learnt his DNA was on a police database because of his very hilarious political statement. He campaigned for years to get it removed, and eventually succeeded.

No doubt a Big Brother world will dawn when everyone's DNA is registered on their birth certificate. However, until then, the police have no method of identifying whose DNA is on the bra clasp, together with Raff's.

Raff's DNA on the bra clasp is just one piece of evidence out of literally hundreds against him.

Vixen still continues to boast about all the supposed evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. Could Vixen explain the conduct of the prosecution and the tactics they had to resort to if they had a mountain of evidence and a strong case as detailed in my post below :-

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

 

[bagels]

Raffaele isn't innocent because the bra clasp evidence is not good enough to prove he did it, although that's certainly a fair point.

He's innocent because Meredith Kercher was murdered by Rudy Guede.

If there was a bloody handprint in Laci Peterson's bedroom that matched a serial sex killer with a history of dumping bodies in the bay, who was also seen in the same area of the bay her body was later found in, Scott Peterson would be a really unlucky innocent guy as well.

Rudy Guede's presence is in itself exculpatory and none of the PGP seem to get that. If Amanda is a secret accomplice with this stranger she can't speak a coherent language with, has no record of communication or even knows the name of, the prosecution can still prove she did it if they can definitively connect her with the suspect by getting him to testify against her. The prosecution did the opposite of this and diligently shuffled Rudy through a separate trial and kept him the **** out of Amanda's trial and away from the judge and lay judges where his very presence would pollute their fantasy narrative that collapsed the moment they matched the rapekit and bloody handprint at the scene of a rock smashed second story break-in murder with a career criminal with a history of rock smashing second story break-ins.

Any PGP post that doesn't begin and end with "the prosecution screwed up and that's why Amanda is free" is the ravings of a delusional person.

 

[Vixen]

What if the book was not from the library but bought at a store by the murder victim? A book that Mike 1711 happened to thumb through and then put back on the shelf? How on earth would anyone, including the cops, be able to determine that Mike had touched that book?

If my uncle had tits, he'd be my aunt.

 

[Vixen]

There is no bone. There is no contention. The ONLY place saying there is, is the nutcases at ...... well, you know where. The Italian Supreme Court, in fact, arrived at a verdict. They annulled the Nencini conviction and exonerated (l'assoluzione) the accused. That was confirmed by the subsequent Boninsegna motivations report, when Knox herself was acquitted of defamation for claiming to be hit at interrogation.

Unsatisfactory "from all POV's"!? Ha ha ha ha ha ha.


Not even the Kercher's lawyer believes this. Even as he is now throwing that family under a bus, he advised them to move on. As did Andrea Vogt, who id'ed one of the nutcases, the Monday morning intrepid crime buffs, who took his complaint into a Florence court a while ago and was laughed out of it.



Sigh. At least you refrained from the usual rudeness of referring to the victim by her familiar name.

I am glad to hear you are happy with Marasca. Sorry to hear about the bee in your bonnet.

 

[Vixen]

Raffaele isn't innocent because the bra clasp evidence is not good enough to prove he did it, although that's certainly a fair point.

He's innocent because Meredith Kercher was murdered by Rudy Guede.

If there was a bloody handprint in Laci Peterson's bedroom that matched a serial sex killer with a history of dumping bodies in the bay, who was also seen in the same area of the bay her body was later found in, Scott Peterson would be a really unlucky innocent guy as well.

Rudy Guede's presence is in itself exculpatory and none of the PGP seem to get that. If Amanda is a secret accomplice with this stranger she can't speak a coherent language with, has no record of communication or even knows the name of, the prosecution can still prove she did it if they can definitively connect her with the suspect by getting him to testify against her. The prosecution did the opposite of this and diligently shuffled Rudy through a separate trial and kept him the **** out of Amanda's trial and away from the judge and lay judges where his very presence would pollute their fantasy narrative that collapsed the moment they matched the rapekit and bloody handprint at the scene of a rock smashed second story break-in murder with a career criminal with a history of rock smashing second story break-ins.

Any PGP post that doesn't begin and end with "the prosecution screwed up and that's why Amanda is free" is the ravings of a delusional person.

Shu-shu-shu, shu-shu-shu, shu-shu-shu-shu-shu-shu-shu sugartown. Another day in sugar town court. Sadly in the real world, the courts found Amanda and Rudy were collaborators. She named Patrik to protect Rudy.

I've got some troubles, but they won't last... ~Nancy Sinatrxxx bagels

 

[Bill Williams]

I am glad to hear you are happy with Marasca. Sorry to hear about the bee in your bonnet.

Sigh.

Yes, the Italian Supreme Court looked at the contradictions of the evidence, and acquitted.

And you're doing great - another good post where there's the avoidance of a weird, inappropriate familiarity.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is a bone of contention. This is another reason Marasca is unsatisfactory from all POV's. Judges are paid generously to arrive at a verdict. Marasca could have given a 'paragraph one', 'not guilty' verdict. However, they did NOT. This does cause problems for both sides.

It is not a jibe. 'The kids are not exonerated'. Marasca has simply swept the matter under the carpet, instead of dealing with it.

In effect, Marasca has sent a memo to Bongiorno, 'Soz, getting the kids outta jail is the best we can do.'

'Oh, and post script, don't bother applying for compo as we have spelt it large the pair told umpteen lies and their behaviour around the murder remains highly suspicious.'

So, yeah, they've been sprung from jail, but it's a pyrrhic victory.

For the umpteenth time: Para 1 is NOT a read-across equivalent of a "not guilty" verdict.

I realise there's a very strong rationalisation-oriented pro-guilt need to believe that "Para 1 = not-guilty and Para 2 = not-proven", but this is simply not factually true.

The truth, in simple language, is as follows:

Para 1 is used where there is proven innocence - typically where it can be shown to the court's satisfaction that the accused factually did not commit the crime (a cast-iron alibi, for example, or where the court determines that another person committed the crime to the exclusion of the accused), or where the court rules that no crime was even committed (this can happen, for example, in rape cases, if a court rules that what took place was consensual sex and not rape). Para 1 in Italy has no equivalent in E&W/US courts - it is a subset of E&W/US "not guilty" acquittal.

Para 2 is used where the court is satisfied that the case against the accused has not been proven BARD. This can range all the way from zero evidence of guilt, right up to plenty of evidence of guilt but just falling short of proof BARD. It is equivalent to "not guilty" in E&W/US courts, with the caveat that there is a small subsection of E&W/US "not guilty" which is covered by Para 1 in Italy.

Knox and Sollecito could (and should) never, ever have been acquitted under Para 1. They were never going to be able to prove their factual innocence to the court (their alibis were mutually supportive). And clearly Kercher ended up dead through a crime committed by another person(s) (rather than by accident or suicide etc). So Para 1 could NEVER apply in this case to Knox or Sollecito.

And neither could Para 1 acquittal, for that matter, apply to any person living in or near Perugia who could not prove their whereabouts on the night of the murder and whom the police/PM might have chosen to prosecute (viz my allegorical Mr and Mrs Bianchi). Had the mad Mignini somehow chosen to prosecute and try Mr and Mrs Bianchi, there would have been no credible, reliable evidence of their guilt either (since they factually had nothing to do with the murder either), and they should/would have been acquitted under Para 2 as well.

<fx this really isn't difficult to understand for anyone with threshold intellect and an open mind>

 

[LondonJohn]

Shu-shu-shu, shu-shu-shu, shu-shu-shu-shu-shu-shu-shu sugartown. Another day in sugar town court. Sadly in the real world, the courts found Amanda and Rudy were collaborators. She named Patrik to protect Rudy.

I've got some troubles, but they won't last... ~Nancy Sinatrxxx bagels

If the Marasca court had found that Knox (or Sollecito) were "collaborators" in respect of the murder, then the court would have found that Knox (and/or Sollecito) had committed a serious criminal offence. As such, the Marasca court would have had to redirect Knox and/or Sollecito to have been retried for a separate, serious criminal offence.

It's sheer fantasy to believe that the Italian SC decided that Knox and/or Sollecito had committed serious criminal offences (with the obvious inference that the SC decided that there was sufficient credible, reliable evidence to support such a verdict) yet threw the entire case against them out of court.

The Marasca SC panel ruled that the entire case against Knox and Sollecito in respect of the murder was a farce. There's no evidence to support any accusation of any criminal act whatsoever. That's why the SC threw the entire case out.

<fx again, not difficult to understand>

 

[LondonJohn]

Sigh.

Yes, the Italian Supreme Court looked at the contradictions of the evidence, and acquitted.

Correct, Biz. The Maz SC panel made the right ruling for the right reasons. Amaz and Raz were unequivocally acquitted and exonerated, and should be considered innocent in law and in ethics. And Migz should be facing severe professional censure for his malpractice.

 

[Stacyhs]

If my uncle had tits, he'd be my aunt.

Now THAT is an intelligent rebuttal. For a 10 year old.

 

[Stacyhs]

Correct, Biz. The Maz SC panel made the right ruling for the right reasons. Amaz and Raz were unequivocally acquitted and exonerated, and should be considered innocent in law and in ethics. And Migz should be facing severe professional censure for his malpractice.

I still wonder about those medals the police were given for their incredible success at solving the murder of Meredith.