Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[bagels]

The DAILY MAIL article confirms the second test, as is the norm for a first test positive, was done within two weeks.

The DAILY MAIL confirms I am in the 1% of the genius population that can spot the red balloon in this picture sweeping the web.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well, for the type of ELISA test that Knox would most probably have had via the prison in 2007*, the false positive rates for low-risk subjects (which Knox was) were in the order of 0.05-0.1% - in other words, between one in 1,000 and one in 2,000.

But your overarching point still stands, of course. It's statistically very, very unlikely indeed that Knox ever actually had a false-positive ELISA test. Which - as you imply - also therefore throws up considerable questions and concerns over whether Knox was - accidentally (hmmm) or deliberately - given an incorrect notification of a false positive.

* The ELISA has since been improved to give a false-positive rate in the order of magnitude that you suggest.

This is quite nonsensical (example of utter bias), because Knox had just contracted Herpes Simplex, one of the known false-positives factors, and ELISA might have detected a window of early serum cross-reaction.

 

[LondonJohn]

It has to be pleaded in an appeal. The Supreme Court is limited to the issues in that appeal. In this case, all that was still not res judicata were the issues Chieffi sent back down, i.e., the discredited Conti & Vecchiotti claims and the issue of one of the kids' star witnesses, Luca 'Lucy' Aviello (the other being, of course, child kidnapper and murderer, Alessi).

I'm aware that the SC looks at specific points of appeal. That's not the issue here. The issue is whether or not the SC has access to the lower-court transcripts and lower-court documents in the course of enabling it to assess and pass judgement upon the points of appeal.

And unfortunately you don't understand the term "res judicata" properly either. In fact, all that was res judicata prior to the Marasca SC appeal was the core Knox criminal slander conviction (the aggravation element was still "live"). Every single one of the murder-related charges against both Knox and Sollecito was categorically NOT res judicata. Chieffi had sent the entirety of the murder-related charges down for retrial at appeal level (as well as the aggravation element of the criminal slander conviction) - you seem to misunderstand what res judicata actually means, and as such you seem to mistakenly believe it applies to the fact that Chieffi directed the Nencini court to look at certain aspects of the case.

But then....... every single one of the murder-related charges against Knox and Sollecito (together with the aggravation element of the criminal slander conviction) DID then become res judicata following the verdicts of the Marasca SC panel.

 

[Machiavelli]

Interestingly, if you are in Italy and you do an image search for "cluedo", you get this batch of images:

https://www.google.it/search?q=clue...r97RAhVKCMAKHbm4B5AQ_AUICCgB&biw=1366&bih=698

Several of them are high-resolution, very usable images of the Italian version of the Cluedo box.

I wonder why an Italian national, living in Italy, wanting to produce a spoof photoshopped Cluedo box cover to use on a FB group populated exclusively by Italians, might choose a UK version of the box over the many excellent images of the Italian version of the box....?

It's almost as if the photoshopped image originated from someone in the UK. Kind of like that photoshopped image of Knox and Santa Claus.....? Interesting, huh?

But the person who photoshopped it is Italian because of the carachter they chose.

Anyway, Sollecito is the one who posted it.

 

[Vixen]

Last year I looked out for apartment prices in London. There was a lovely small apartment in Brixton, I really liked it. It was about 350k pounds IIRC.
You know as a child I used to live in Brixton and, well I really thought about it.
Now, Had I bought the apartment last year, I think I would have losted approzimately 70k € in... about 8 months I think, just due to the £ dump.
I'm afraid the British citizens may be poised at loosing the same figure of wealth in the near future.
Frankly, I'm afraid they may even loose Scotland and the UK as we know it may cease to exist.
I am not happy about that, and I am not happy about the masochistic turn the UK politics seems to have taken, and I almost can't recognize any more the UK I used to know in the current British society. The atmoshpere is changed, it really looks like a society "sleepwalking in segregation" to me and, while I do like London, I think I won't like to live there anymore.




About a comment of Henry John Woodcock? Well, yes I can.

He's a great prosecutor, btw.

There are far too many people in the UK, but apart from that, it is still a great country when it comes to justice and fairness. (On the whole.)


I don't understand LoJo's prejudice against the Italians, likewise, Nathaniel Rich (ROLLING STONE and all the PIP mockers and jeerers.

 

[Machiavelli]

I'm aware that the SC looks at specific points of appeal. That's not the issue here. The issue is whether or not the SC has access to the lower-court transcripts and lower-court documents in the course of enabling it to assess and pass judgement upon the points of appeal.

And unfortunately you don't understand the term "res judicata" properly either. In fact, all that was res judicata prior to the Marasca SC appeal was the core Knox criminal slander conviction (the aggravation element was still "live"). Every single one of the murder-related charges against both Knox and Sollecito was categorically NOT res judicata. Chieffi had sent the entirety of the murder-related charges down for retrial at appeal level (as well as the aggravation element of the criminal slander conviction) - you seem to misunderstand what res judicata actually means, and as such you seem to mistakenly believe it applies to the fact that Chieffi directed the Nencini court to look at certain aspects of the case.

But then....... every single one of the murder-related charges against Knox and Sollecito (together with the aggravation element of the criminal slander conviction) DID then become res judicata following the verdicts of the Marasca SC panel.

Also the Chieffi points of law are called res iudicata as for the Italian jurisprudence.
For example Chieffi's point that (I know I phrase it incorrectly) "contamination has to be proven", is called res iudicata. (it is actually called giudicato) The SC cannot rule a second time on it, and the parties cannot present a second question about it.

 

[Vixen]

Ooooh the Italian Supreme Court begs to differ with you on that one.......

Show me where on the charge sheet or in the pleadings 'police incompetence' comes up as an issue or as a point of law in the appeals?

'Incompetent investigation' is a completely wrong determination by Marasca as the issue was never weighed up at trial.

You can't just sit in an armchair and add new charges to the charge sheet, even if you are a Supreme Court judge.

 

[bagels]

Show me where on the charge sheet or in the pleadings 'police incompetence' comes up as an issue or as a point of law in the appeals?

'Incompetent investigation' is a completely wrong determination by Marasca as the issue was never weighed up at trial.

You can't just sit in an armchair and add new charges to the charge sheet, even if you are a Supreme Court judge.

It's taking you PGP so much longer to accept what the ISC can and cannot do. We got over Chieffi within a year

 

[toto]

That's nonsense. IIRC somebody claimed she had to 'wait two months' to find out it was negative. The DAILY MAIL article confirms the second test, as is the norm for a first test positive, was done within two weeks.

Thus we see how Amanda's manipulative and cunning self-serving story develops.

AK says it (p.216 WTBH). But how long did the first test take?

 

[Machiavelli]

A friend whose husband died a year or so ago, recently sold the house in Brixton they had lived in since the early '70's, near his constituency, (he was a Lib Dem councillor) for over £1m. This was infinitely higher than when they moved in, even allowing for inflation and other factors.

There are far too many people in the UK, but apart from that, it is still a great country when it comes to justice and fairness. (On the whole.)

I don't understand LoJo's prejudice against the Italians, likewise, Nathaniel Rich (ROLLING STONE and all the PIP mockers and jeerers.

Nathaniel Rich had a crush on Madison Paxton. I suspect his crush was the driving force for his stance. He wanted to look good to her so he bashed Italy.

As for the UK, I quite think the UK is facing a difficult situation. But besides it being a great place to live, and I believe you especially for what concerns London, however my friends wo had been living in the UK for years, they now decided to return back to Italy. Two of them used to live in Bristol and another in London. I know another Italian woman who lives in Belfast but I don't know how she's doing after Brexit by now, if anything changed.
I think that it's maybe not exactly the same thing for foreigneers and "natives". Many Italians now say they feel they are not welcome.

 

[Machiavelli]

Move on. The ISC in 2015 covered all this to the satisfaction of the juduciary of your country. For heaven's sake even Boninsegna called it an absolution.

The SC does not have trial documents and cannot access evidence, and this is a fact.
(One of the many facts you don't want to check).

 

[bagels]

Nathaniel Rich had a crush on Madison Paxton. I suspect his crush was the driving force for his stance. He wanted to look good to her so he bashed Italy.

Haha. We need to get you a job at the CIA running background checks on people. We'll just tell you "this person once said Amanda Knox seemed nice" and you can do your thing. This is a valuable skill.

 

[Vixen]

I'm aware that the SC looks at specific points of appeal. That's not the issue here. The issue is whether or not the SC has access to the lower-court transcripts and lower-court documents in the course of enabling it to assess and pass judgement upon the points of appeal.

And unfortunately you don't understand the term "res judicata" properly either. In fact, all that was res judicata prior to the Marasca SC appeal was the core Knox criminal slander conviction (the aggravation element was still "live"). Every single one of the murder-related charges against both Knox and Sollecito was categorically NOT res judicata. Chieffi had sent the entirety of the murder-related charges down for retrial at appeal level (as well as the aggravation element of the criminal slander conviction) - you seem to misunderstand what res judicata actually means, and as such you seem to mistakenly believe it applies to the fact that Chieffi directed the Nencini court to look at certain aspects of the case.

But then....... every single one of the murder-related charges against Knox and Sollecito (together with the aggravation element of the criminal slander conviction) DID then become res judicata following the verdicts of the Marasca SC panel.

No, it did not. A specific number of issues went to Nencini, and then to Chieffi.

Only the issues Chieffi sent back down were still open to debate. The issue of Calunnia was rubber stamped iirc, and the only issue there was the category of calunnia, whether it was aggravated (= directly linked to the murder) or a discrete act, in other words, an appeal against the sentence and class of crime.

The defence legally could not send things into appeal again that had been settled (dismissed or upheld). For example, the issue of whether Stefanoni had been 'suspect-centric' when she did her DNA testing was dismissed by Massei and Nencini, and yet the defence brought it up again via Gill, in an appendix tacked on to a 300-page further appeal, most of which was indeed res judicata. The First Chambers cannot be outranked by the Fifth Chambers.


Do you now begin to see Marasca came to reasonings outside of its jurisdiction?

 

[Vixen]

AK says it (p.216 WTBH). But how long did the first test take?

She was in custody from circa 7 Nov and her diary entry is 22 Nov 2007 so only two weeks at most.

 

[Bill Williams]

The SC does not have trial documents and cannot access evidence, and this is a fact.
(One of the many facts you don't want to check).

The follow-up to this is, "why then did they annul the verdict," but that's when the conspiratorializing starts.

Move on.

 

[bagels]

No, it did not. A specific number of issues went to Nencini, and then to Chieffi.

Only the issues Chieffi sent back down were still open to debate. The issue of Calunnia was rubber stamped iirc, and the only issue there was the category of calunnia, whether it was aggravated (= directly linked to the murder) or a discrete act, in other words, an appeal against the sentence and class of crime.

The defence legally could not send things into appeal again that had been settled (dismissed or upheld). For example, the issue of whether Stefanoni had been 'suspect-centric' when she did her DNA testing was dismissed by Massei and Nencini, and yet the defence brought it up again via Gill, in an appendix tacked on to a 300-page further appeal, most of which was indeed res judicata. The First Chambers cannot be outranked by the Fifth Chambers.


Do you now begin to see Marasca came to reasonings outside of its jurisdiction?

It's a pointless discussion because the decision can be interpreted from any viewpoint.

The PGP viewpoint is M&B's decision is the corrupt result of outside influence, and many of the more bizarre aspects of the motivation report and the sudden reversal of Nencini would be compatible with this view.

The PIP viewpoint is M&B's decision is the result of recognizing that the Chieffi decision was totally flawed, but lacking the procedural ability or political will to acknowledge this, and acquitting in a haphazard roundabout way trying to satisfy the wrongful conviction while balancing the strict confines of the Chieffi et all findings. And many of the more bizarre aspects of the motivation report and the sudden reversal of Nencini would be compatible with this view.

One thing that isn't up for debate though, is their procedural ability to do what they did. Because well...it was done...two years ago in fact. And remains that way. And in fact, nothing is or will change that.

 

[Machiavelli]

Because you tried to pass off the judge's psychological analysis of Raffaele as a neutral observation, when in fact it was made in the context of Amanda Knox being known to the police as a sexually aggressive woman who used her sexuality to entice men, so naturally Raffaele was found to be her slave.
(...)

And yet, the truth is the judge did not make any judgement about Knox as a sexually aggressive woman who uded sexuality to entice men.

Ricciarelli does not say that about Knox.

What Ricciarelli says instead, is only that Knox is a manipulative liar which is a proven fact.

Knox was not a "shedevil" to the judge, she was merely the dominant personality, therefore she likely had a dominant role in the motives taht lead to the crime.

 

[Vixen]

Reported.

Aw, Hun, that's so unkind.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is quite nonsensical (example of utter bias), because Knox had just contracted Herpes Simplex, one of the known false-positives factors, and ELISA might have detected a window of early serum cross-reaction.

You really shouldn't go around saying things like "nonsensical" and "utter bias" if you don't know what you're talking about.

ELISA is an immunoassay which looks specifically for the antibodies and antigens (via the associated glycoproteins gp41 & gp120/160) associated with HIV. Herpes simplex is either HSV-1 or HSV-2. Both of the HSV viruses are associated with entirely different antibodies and antigens (and different glycoproteins associated with the different antigens) than HIV.

The very earliest, crudest field tests for HIV worked at a level which did often lead to false positives with HSV viruses. But the ELISA test - especially in the refinement in which it would have been used in 2007 in Italy - simply would not have possibly generated a false positive from HSV.

Here's a link to a report which discusses the possibility of false positives from HSV in HIV tests:

http://fieldresearch.msf.org/msf/bi...ositive+HIV+rapid+diagnostic+test+results.pdf

The report is actually about the types of rapid deployment tests for HIV which medical charities typically use in the field in remote places such as sub-Saharan Africa. These tests are an awful lot more "quick and dirty" than a lab-based ELISA test, but even so, the report concludes that there's no evidence to support the notion that HSV causes false positives - even upon these cruder field-based tests (the parts about HSV are in the narrative on p16, where it points out that there's only inconclusiva and unsupported evidence that HSV could produce false positives for HIV, and only in the most basic field tests, and in table form on page 32).

So anyhow...........

 

[Machiavelli]

The follow-up to this is, "why then did they annul the verdict," but that's when the conspiratorializing starts.

Move on.

The SC does not have trial documents and cannot access evidence, this is a fact - do you know what a fact is?

You know, this fact exists. And you don't address it. (except by saying you don't believe me - which is a way of not veryfying it)
You like to address just some other facts. And to ignore others. But you made a statement on this one, you said the SC had the same evidence Nencini had, and they don't; and so your statement happens to be false.