The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

[Vixen]

If Vixen wants to repeat what she thinks Marasca/Bruno said in their Sept 2015 motivations report, then it bears repeating what THEY ACTUALLY SAID....

​

"Even if the attribution is certain..." "if all the above is accepted."

Even if what the lower court said was true, Marasca-Bruno say is is STILL IRRELEVANT TO THE MURDER BECAUSE:

​

We can quibble with whether or not M/B's recounting of the logic of what Nencini had had before him is true or not, but we cannot quibble with what they'd said.

Vixen thinks M/B ruled that they were indisputable facts. Do you ever notice that Vixen has never once provided a cite?

I know the reason why.

Because the cite is as per above.

Which part of "would have occurred after the crime" does Vixen not understand?

Originally Posted by Marasca-Bruno
Nevertheless, even if attribution is certain, the trial element would not be
unequivocal as a demonstration of posthumous contact with that blood, as a likely
attempt to remove the most blatant traces of what had happened, perhaps to help
someone or deflect suspicion from herself, without this entailing her certain direct
involvement in the murder. Any further and more meaningful value would be, in fact,
resisted by the fact - which is decisive - that no trace leading to her was found at the
scene of the crime or on the victim’s body, so that - if all the above is accepted - her
contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another
part of the house.
"Even if the attribution is certain..." "if all the above is accepted."

Even if what the lower court said was true, Marasca-Bruno say is is STILL IRRELEVANT TO THE MURDER BECAUSE:
Originally Posted by Marasca-Bruno
her
contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another
part of the house.

You still fail to address why Amanda did not call the emergency services promptly if she had nothing to do with it. You have evaded explaining why she covered up for Rudy, as explicitly stated by Marasca. She could not wash off blood much after 0.30' to 1.00' of the bloodshed, given how quickly it dries.

Or will it be another merry-go-round of 'what Marasca writes is just a judicial truth as this was what it is stuck with from the trial court'.

 

[Stacyhs]

If you want an answer, ask nicely.

Please, Vixen, will you answer by questions and address the points I made? Pretty please with sugar on top?

 

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Marasca-Bruno
Nevertheless, even if attribution is certain, the trial element would not be
unequivocal as a demonstration of posthumous contact with that blood, as a likely
attempt to remove the most blatant traces of what had happened, perhaps to help
someone or deflect suspicion from herself, without this entailing her certain direct
involvement in the murder. Any further and more meaningful value would be, in fact,
resisted by the fact - which is decisive - that no trace leading to her was found at the
scene of the crime or on the victim’s body, so that - if all the above is accepted - her
contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another
part of the house.

My response above, applies.

When will you explain the above points I have raised (without resorting to 'oh the cops framed her').

 

[Vixen]

Please, Vixen, will you answer by questions and address the points I made? Pretty please with sugar on top?

I already explained about rubbing off the epithial (_sp?) cells, but it seems to have gone - whoooosh - over your head.

Ditto court decorum.

Ditto Nencini's finding the murder was based on a dispute about Amanda's hygeine.

Etcetera, etcetera.

 

[Stacyhs]

Don't hold your breath. I'm still waiting for answers as to

1) what forensic evidence supports that claim that Amanda washed her hands of Meredith's blood and that the DNA was derived from epithelial cells.

2) exactly who was wearing "skimpy shorts and vests" in court.

3) why, if Duncan was banned for the Vaseline tweet, she was only banned several months later.
4) why Capezalli could not have imagined such a horrible scream when she imagined two events that did not, in fact, happen.

5) exactly who said that Amanda was "good at dodging the bath at all other times, apart from the murder night."

These are just the latest questions that go unanswered.

These questions have all been answered. Simply asking them over and over again, despite my going to the trouble to link you to sources and court documents, is vexatious. I doubt you even looked at the references or gave them a minute's consideration.

Heads up: I will come back to you about the Hellmann/Stefanoni TMB issue.

No, Vixen, they were not answered. Not a single one of the above questions was answered. If you'd like to prove that they were, then quote your replies here or, at least, provide the comment number. Pretty please.

 

[Vixen]

No, Vixen, they were not answered. Not a single one of the above questions was answered. If you'd like to prove that they were, then quote your replies here or, at least, provide the comment number. Pretty please.

I am not convinced you are asking in good faith, as you seem little interested in the responses. A week down the line, you will be feigning ignorance again.

My pet peeve is time-wasting.

 

[Stacyhs]

Don't hold your breath. I'm still waiting for answers as to

1) what forensic evidence supports that claim that Amanda washed her hands of Meredith's blood and that the DNA was derived from epithelial cells.

2) exactly who was wearing "skimpy shorts and vests" in court.

3) why, if Duncan was banned for the Vaseline tweet, she was only banned several months later.

4) why Capezalli could not have imagined such a horrible scream when she imagined two events that did not, in fact, happen.

5) exactly who said that Amanda was "good at dodging the bath at all other times, apart from the murder night."

These are just the latest questions that go unanswered.

I already explained about rubbing off the epithial (_sp?) cells, but it seems to have gone - whoooosh - over your head.

Ditto court decorum.

Ditto Nencini's finding the murder was based on a dispute about Amanda's hygeine.

Etcetera, etcetera.

1). I said FORENSIC evidence. The court provided NONE. Neither did you.

2) WHO was wearing "skimpy shorts and vests"? Not answered

3) NOT answered
.
4) NOT answered.

5) NO, Nencini said it was over GUEDE'S unflushed toilet, NOT about Amanda's not bathing. So, NOT answered.


My pet peeve is people side stepping answering questions.

 

[abaddon]

I am not convinced you are asking in good faith, as you seem little interested in the responses. A week down the line, you will be feigning ignorance again.

My pet peeve is time-wasting.

How interesting. You are content to time waste when it suits, yet condemn time wasting. How do you rationalise that?

 

[Bill Williams]

Or will it be another merry-go-round of 'what Marasca writes is just a judicial truth as this was what it is stuck with from the trial court'.

Probably this.

More importantly, as upthread M/B wrote that even if all of it is true it still does not put them there at the time of the crime.

 

[acbytesla]

Probably this.

More importantly, as upthread M/B wrote that even if all of it is true it still does not put them there at the time of the crime.

'Even if' destroys all that Vixen nonsense. That and a total lack of a case.

 

[Bill Williams]

'Even if' destroys all that Vixen nonsense. That and a total lack of a case.

In fairness the compensation trial sees it Vixen's way, as per Presiding Judge Dr. Silvia Martuscelli and Reporting Judge Dr. Paola Masi.

 

[TruthCalls]

I already explained about rubbing off the epithial (_sp?) cells, but it seems to have gone - whoooosh - over your head.

Ditto court decorum.

Ditto Nencini's finding the murder was based on a dispute about Amanda's hygeine.

Etcetera, etcetera.

Except the Scientific Police failed to test the samples to determine what the source of DNA was. Amanda's DNA was likely from saliva from brushing her teeth. That wasn't a whoosh going over Stacy's head, more like a thump of another failed explanation falling woefully short.

Nencini pulled a ridiculous 'theory' out his backside. There was ZERO evidence to support such a theory. A theory based on Martians would have had more credibility and just as much evidence to support it.

etc., etc.

 

[Stacyhs]

Except the Scientific Police failed to test the samples to determine what the source of DNA was. Amanda's DNA was likely from saliva from brushing her teeth. That wasn't a whoosh going over Stacy's head, more like a thump of another failed explanation falling woefully short.

Nencini pulled a ridiculous 'theory' out his backside. There was ZERO evidence to support such a theory. A theory based on Martians would have had more credibility and just as much evidence to support it.

etc., etc.

Exactly. Nenicini wrote:

"The presence of mixed Kercher-Knox traces on the cotton-bud box, on the bidet, and on the washbasin leads to the conclusion that it was Amanda Knox who washed her hands and feet, both stained with the blood of Meredith Kercher and, in so doing, by rubbing [her hands and feet], losing epithelial cells that were useful for DNA extraction."

This would be a slam dunk for Amanda's guilt if this were not her own bathroom where she, without a doubt, would have left her own DNA quite innocently and unconnected to the murder. But it was her bathroom that she used everyday. Imagine her DNA in her own bathroom. Preposterous!

No test determined the source of Amanda's DNA being epithelial. In fact, Stefanoni said the source was not identified. It was Nencini's conclusion based on his failure to understand what we...or most of us...know; mixed DNA can be left at the same time or at entirely different times and mixed when collected. Mixed DNA of Amanda and Raff, and Raff and an unknown male were found in his apartment, too.

Another example of Nencini's failure to understand the forensic evidence is his conclusion that Amanda had blood on her feet when none of the footprints tested positive for blood (except for the bath rug print which was definitely not Amanda's).

So, no, Vixen has not provided any forensic evidence Amanda washed her hands of blood.

 

[Lince]

I said the law courts:

In regard to Sollecito “The picture of the evidence which emerges from the impugned judgment is marked by intrinsic unresolved contradictions...It remains, nonetheless, a strong suspicion that he was actually present in the house at Via della Pergola on the night of the murder, but at a time, however, that cannot be determined. On the other hand, given the certainty of the presence of Knox in that house, it is hardly credible that he was not with her.” (Page 49 of the decision) If therefore the fact that Knox was in the house 7 Via della Pergola at the time when young Meredith Kercher was killed constitutes a fact of absolute and indisputable certainty; it is evident that the statements made by Sollecito that she was with him all evening on 1 November 2007 are false, and that one cannot believe his statements that he couldn't remember what he and Knox were doing from the evening of 1 November 2007 until the following morning.

Florence 22 January 2017
Presiding Judge
Dr. Silvia Martuscelli
Reporting Judge
Dr. Paola MASI

"A fact of absolute and indisputable certainty". Just wow. I understand that some Italian judges live as some kind of god-like creatures in a higher dimension where any guesses and theories of their own and those of their colleagues become the cornerstones of a new reality they routinely build with their immense powers. Only this would explain their absolute certainty about certain facts. It is their brand new created world, after all. Of course, it would have all the absolute properties their creators intended.

 

[Bill Williams]

"A fact of absolute and indisputable certainty". Just wow. I understand that some Italian judges live as some kind of god-like creatures in a higher dimension where any guesses and theories of their own and those of their colleagues become the cornerstones of a new reality they routinely build with their immense powers. Only this would explain their absolute certainty about certain facts. It is their brand new created world, after all. Of course, it would have all the absolute properties their creators intended.

If you doubt it, you are committing calumny. Off with your head!

 

[Mr Fied]

Except the Scientific Police failed to test the samples to determine what the source of DNA was. Amanda's DNA was likely from saliva from brushing her teeth. That wasn't a whoosh going over Stacy's head, more like a thump of another failed explanation falling woefully short.

Nencini pulled a ridiculous 'theory' out his backside. There was ZERO evidence to support such a theory. A theory based on Martians would have had more credibility and just as much evidence to support it.

etc., etc.

This is where, to any sensible open minded observer, this whole issue of judicial facts falls down.

A judge has an opinion that flies in the face of any scientific results, and has no evidence to back it up. Then, every court that follows, has to abide by these judicial facts, absolutely ludicrous.

There is absolutely no evidence of Amanda or Raff being at the cottage at the time of murder, or of Amanda washing blood from herself, a judges opinion cannot make up for there being no evidence.

The same as with these so called motives for murder. Which one is a judicial fact? The sex game gone wrong, the personal hygiene issue, the rent money or the poop in the toilet?

If each court up the ladder trumps the previous one, then surely the only judicial fact that matters is that two of the accused have been found not guilty of murder/rape/sexual assault.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

This is where, to any sensible open minded observer, this whole issue of judicial facts falls down.

A judge has an opinion that flies in the face of any scientific results, and has no evidence to back it up. Then, every court that follows, has to abide by these judicial facts, absolutely ludicrous.

There is absolutely no evidence of Amanda or Raff being at the cottage at the time of murder, or of Amanda washing blood from herself, a judges opinion cannot make up for there being no evidence.

The same as with these so called motives for murder. Which one is a judicial fact? The sex game gone wrong, the personal hygiene issue, the rent money or the poop in the toilet?

If each court up the ladder trumps the previous one, then surely the only judicial fact that matters is that two of the accused have been found not guilty of murder/rape/sexual assault.

Yes this is exactly right.

The only real way to discern the truth is to look at empirical evidence. Pretty sure that's what this entire forum is based on (well, that and trolling people trying to have a legitimate discussion, but I digress).

Two ways to look at the case:

1) Look at the empirical evidence and think critically --> oh look, looks like these initial tabloid reports got some stuff wrong, and the prosecutor obsessed with satanism and pagan sex orgies may not be the real life incarnate of Sherlock Holmes. Imagine that! Looking at the actual evidence shows it was certainly Rudy Guede who did it by himself because Amanda and Raffaele seem to have been at Raf's apartment during the time window when the murder could have occurred, and they didn't leave any scientific evidence of themselves at the crime. (Well, aside from the "evidence" that was there because Amanda lived there and Raffaele visited. But we aren't retarded so we know that's not evidence they committed a murder. Just that they had been at the house. Since, you know, Amanda lived there.)

2) Alternatively we can do the whole logical fallacy / Vixen thing --> oh look the lowest preliminary court found them guilty. Must be guilty! Appeal to authority! Can't be wrong! But oh wait the highest court in Italy has found them innocent. OK so looks like even if I Vixenize my logic they still must be innocent because the higher authority found them innocent. Not perfect reasoning of course (lol) but still even with this logical fallacy of appealing to authority the correct conclusion is innocent.

And I guess the third alternative is to form internet hate cults dedicated to spreading lies and misinformation everywhere, because the alternative is that we were inexplicably stupid enough to take tabloid sources as fact and a crazy sex-obsessed prosecutor as infallible. And then crazy enough to still be trying to manipulate discussion with lies and misinformation and trolling 8 years later. And since we know we're not crazy and super, super dumb then the only possible explanation is that every forensic scientist in the world and the Italian Supreme Court, and Hellman, and all of Seattle and the entirety of the U.S. and those evil pro-murder groupies have been paid off by Donald Trump and the Freemasons.

So yes I guess there is that third option. I wonder which way is the best way to think about a crime analytically using the critical thinking skills that the JREF forum was founded upon lol?

 

[Numbers]

This is where, to any sensible open minded observer, this whole issue of judicial facts falls down.

A judge has an opinion that flies in the face of any scientific results, and has no evidence to back it up. Then, every court that follows, has to abide by these judicial facts, absolutely ludicrous.

There is absolutely no evidence of Amanda or Raff being at the cottage at the time of murder, or of Amanda washing blood from herself, a judges opinion cannot make up for there being no evidence.

The same as with these so called motives for murder. Which one is a judicial fact? The sex game gone wrong, the personal hygiene issue, the rent money or the poop in the toilet?

If each court up the ladder trumps the previous one, then surely the only judicial fact that matters is that two of the accused have been found not guilty of murder/rape/sexual assault.

This type of judicial "reasoning" - where a court adopts a judgment contrary to the evidence or fabricates a scenario not supported by evidence to enable a conviction in a criminal case or disadvantage a party in a civil or administrative case has been found to be inviolation of Convention Article 6.1, right to a fair trial, by the ECHR. The ECHR calls such reasoning "arbitrary", "manifestly unreasonable", or "manifestly inadequate". "As the {ECHR} Court has often noted, the rule of law and the avoidance of arbitrary power are principles underlying the Convention" (from Taxquet v. Belgium).

Examples in the ECHR case law include:

HIRVISAARI v. FINLAND 49684/99 27/09/2001 See paragraphs 30 - 33.

TATISHVILI v. RUSSIA 1509/02 22/02/2007 See paragraphs 61 - 63.

TAXQUET v. BELGIUM 926/05 16/11/2010 See paragraph 90.

TCHANKOTADZE v. GEORGIA 15256/05 21/06/2016 See paragraphs 107 - 109.

NAVALNYY AND OFITSEROV v. RUSSIA 46632/13 28671/14 See paragraph 101 and citations therein.

GRADINAR v. MOLDOVA 7170/02 08/04/2008 See paragraphs 107 -117. Note that failure of the convicting court to give sufficient reasons for conviction, for example, concerning issues of fabricated evidence, led to a finding of a violation of Convention Article 6.1.

 

[Vixen]

TMB - the Facts

There is some confusion over the luminol/TMB issue, as Massei said the luminol traces (used extensively globally by forensic police to highlight 'invisible' blood, or blood that has been cleaned up) were not tested with TMB, whereas Hellmann says it was, and the TMB was negative.

Luminol relies on a reaction to the iron element in haemoglobin, which gives blood its red colour on exposure to oxygen. The problem is, other organic substances also react to luminol on the same priniciples, namely some root vegetables, such as parsnip, and even horse radish sauce. Therefore, it is commonplace to follow up a positive luminol result with a specific test for blood, TMB. Nota Bene Luminol is exponentially a far more powerful indicator of blood than TMB. It is to TMB what the Hubble telescope is to binoculars, as someone succintly put it.

Hellmann made a serious error when he wrote the luminol enhanced traces tested negative for blood. Stefanoni's final DNA report was issued in June 2008. The SALs are a laboratory log, not intended for public consumption.


They were presented to Hellmann after Stefanoni had testified, so she could not have been cross examined. Hellmann wrongly introduced the SAL reading into his report - It’s obvious from looking at the log that there are some fields which repeat by default, hence the SAL report on traces 176-84 say TMB negative. It's the technical reports that should be the final word, not the SAL's.

So, Massei got it right, and Hellmann didn't.

Please refer to these source documents:

Stefanoni's DNA results. NB: As there was such a small quantity of the presumed blood, she preferred to use it for ID-profile, rather than TMB. (It's an 'either', 'or' choice. We already know it's almost certainly blood, given the shape of the foot-shaped outline of the luminescense and no corresponding area where the kids could have accidentally stepped on a parsnip/horse radish spillage, together with the indisputable fact there was copious blood loss from the victim on the surrounding floors.)

Stefanoni's DNA Result's

Stefanoni's Laboratory Log (SAL)


I trust that clears that up.

 

[Bill Williams]

I trust that clears that up.

It doesn't clear it up at all. It begs a HUGE question that Marasca/Bruno's panel in March 2015 found as definitive. If it is 'almost certainly blood", why is that foottrack there and only there? The "it's almost certainly blood" assumption is not borne out by any other evidence in the cottage - namely, there are no bloody foottracks in the murderoom itself matchable to either Knox or Sollecito. If it is "almost certainly blood," then like the claim that Knox cleaned blood off of her hands, one needs to default to the final judicial truth of the matter, a judicial truth which resulted in their acquittal.

Nevertheless, even if attribution is certain, the trial element would not be
unequivocal as a demonstration of posthumous contact with that blood, as a likely
attempt to remove the most blatant traces of what had happened, perhaps to help
someone or deflect suspicion from herself, without this entailing her certain direct
involvement in the murder. Any further and more meaningful value would be, in fact,
resisted by the fact - which is decisive - that no trace leading to her was found at the
scene of the crime or on the victim’s body, so that - if all the above is accepted - her contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house.​

That's the problem with relying on now-annulled, former motivation reports, and also the discredited reports/findings from Patrizia Stefanoni.

Even if what Stefanoni presented was sound, it still proves nothing in relation to AK and RS's alleged involvement in murder. By extension, even if the guilter assumption is true - that it only could have been blood - the only conclusion still to be drawn is:

her contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house.​

Unless you want to argue that the "even if" is a typo, or a figure of speech.