The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

[Vixen]

Since he was caught in the school, with school property in his backpack your highlighted comment above is factually false. Now, if you want to claim he was not "convicted" for burglary I would agree... but failure of the police to charge someone doesn't alter the known facts.

It's also your right to think Guede somehow legally obtained the stolen laptop and mobile phone from the law office, but the fact remains they were stolen and they were in his possession. And Tramontano AND his girlfriend witnessed Guede in their apartment where things were stolen. Tramontano saw Guede at Domus that evening and recognized him and had him thrown out. This too is extremely compelling.

I get it... you're a Guede apologist. Not necessarily because you like him but because you find it necessary in order to carry on your crusade against Amanda and Raffaele. But there is no doubt there is evidence of Guede carrying out burglaries in the area prior to the murder. You should give this a rest and get back to finding evidence that Amanda washed Meredith's blood from her hands....

There was no 'school property' in Rudy's backpack. The knife belonging to the nursery was picked up in error by the police as his, it wasn't in the backpack and he did not have a knife on entering the property, so the theory he was a rapist burglar who took a knife with him in the hope of raping a woman falls flat. We know who does carry an knife don't we?

Let's face it Amanda covered up for Rudy because the pair were friends and in it together. Prisoners dilemma and all that. When Rudy read Amanda had blamed Patrick I am sure it warmed the cockles of his heart.

 

[Bill Williams]

There was no 'school property' in Rudy's backpack. The knife belonging to the nursery was picked up in error by the police as his, it wasn't in the backpack and he did not have a knife on entering the property, so the theory he was a rapist burglar who took a knife with him in the hope of raping a woman falls flat. We know who does carry an knife don't we?

Let's face it Amanda covered up for Rudy because the pair were friends and in it together. Prisoners dilemma and all that. When Rudy read Amanda had blamed Patrick I am sure it warmed the cockles of his heart.

O Lord, you're not on about "prisoner's dilemma" again are you?

For the umpteenth time, check the link below about what the prisoner's dilemma refers to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

And for the umpteenth time, RG and AK were not friends. If they'd been friends you would be able to provide proof.

How about also providing the "elegant proof" of sloughing blood from her hands? O right, the proof does not exist.

 

[Vixen]

O Lord, you're not on about "prisoner's dilemma" again are you?

For the umpteenth time, check the link below about what the prisoner's dilemma refers to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

And for the umpteenth time, RG and AK were not friends. If they'd been friends you would be able to provide proof.

How about also providing the "elegant proof" of sloughing blood from her hands? O right, the proof does not exist.

You have been told umpty-nine times that to shed skin that contains ample DNA, it needs to be live skin, not dead. The only way to remove live skin is to rub it vigorously, as in Amanda vigorously rubbing her hands together to remove Mez' blood. You do know her DNA is mixed in with the murder victim's blood?

This is is a legal fact.

Florence court, and now the recent fourth chambers Cassazione confirms it. She was present when Mez was killed and did wash off her blood (and did not explain her conduct to the police at any time).

As you know, blood dries rapidly within at least an hour. If Knox happened to wander along after the murder, we have to ask why she stayed around to tidy up (no sign of any blood in the hallway or on the murder door when police arrived next day) and why she didn't immediately seek help.

 

[Bill Williams]

You have been told umpty-nine times that to shed skin that contains ample DNA, it needs to be live skin, not dead. The only way to remove live skin is to rub it vigorously, as in Amanda vigorously rubbing her hands together to remove Mez' blood. You do know her DNA is mixed in with the murder victim's blood?

This is is a legal fact.

Florence court, and now the recent fourth chambers Cassazione confirms it. She was present when Mez was killed and did wash off her blood (and did not explain her conduct to the police at any time).

As you know, blood dries rapidly within at least an hour. If Knox happened to wander along after the murder, we have to ask why she stayed around to tidy up (no sign of any blood in the hallway or on the murder door when police arrived next day) and why she didn't immediately seek help.

O Lord. Yes, you have mentioned this all before. It's all bunk.

 

[TruthCalls]

Unfortunately for your idols, no other 'multiple attackers' have been identified. In fact, according to Raff and Amanda 'there are no other attackers'.

It's amazing how they know 'Rudy did it by himself' when police, pathologists and the courts state unequivocally he did not.

I wonder why the kid are so adamant they are wrong. Could it be they are the multiple attackers?

What's amazing is that you STILL don't seem to understand the point LJ was making.

As for Amanda and Raffale... it's called looking at the evidence available and coming to a conclusion. There is no forensic evidence of anyone else in the room where Meredith was murdered but Guede so why not conclude he did it alone? Neither of them have ever said they "know" he did it by himself. There's just nothing to make them think otherwise.

And no, all but one pathologists testified the evidence was consistent or compatible with a lone killer. It was the courts that decided multiple attackers. It was the courts that also ignored the fact that there wasn't a shred of forensic evidence of anyone else being there. Three people involved in this violent, bloody murder. One of them has blood all over his clothes and leaves his DNA, shoe prints and palm print in the murder room while the other two have no blood on their clothes and leave no forensic trace of themselves. Yeah, it's logical from this to conclude three people did it. Then again, it was also the courts that decided some Luminol positive traces were made from Meredith's blood despite them being TMB negative and not having Meredith's DNA. Brilliant judges...not.

 

[TruthCalls]

There was no 'school property' in Rudy's backpack. The knife belonging to the nursery was picked up in error by the police as his, it wasn't in the backpack and he did not have a knife on entering the property, so the theory he was a rapist burglar who took a knife with him in the hope of raping a woman falls flat. We know who does carry an knife don't we?

Let's face it Amanda covered up for Rudy because the pair were friends and in it together. Prisoners dilemma and all that. When Rudy read Amanda had blamed Patrick I am sure it warmed the cockles of his heart.

The school's kitchen knife was in his backpack so stop claiming there was no school property. And I didn't say he had a knife upon entry.. the point is he broke into the school and he had the schools property in his backpack. That makes him a burglar. THAT is what was being discussed.

I have no idea who's theory you are referring to in the highlight above but it certainly isn't anyone I know of on this board or any other. I don't think rape or murder was ever on Guede's mind.

It's been proven repeatedly that Amanda didn't know Guede any better than you might know a cashier at a store. There is zero evidence of them ever being in contact with one another. Guede wasn't even friends with the boys downstairs. I have no idea why you waste your time making things up. It only serves to further discredit you.

 

[Vixen]

The school's kitchen knife was in his backpack so stop claiming there was no school property. And I didn't say he had a knife upon entry.. the point is he broke into the school and he had the schools property in his backpack. That makes him a burglar. THAT is what was being discussed.

I have no idea who's theory you are referring to in the highlight above but it certainly isn't anyone I know of on this board or any other. I don't think rape or murder was ever on Guede's mind.

It's been proven repeatedly that Amanda didn't know Guede any better than you might know a cashier at a store. There is zero evidence of them ever being in contact with one another. Guede wasn't even friends with the boys downstairs. I have no idea why you waste your time making things up. It only serves to further discredit you.

He did not break in: FACT. The nursery school head testified under oath Rudy did not break in. He was never charged with breaking and entry, or trespass, or burglary. EVER. To this day. And never has been.

The fact you have to dissemble, despite being corrected on numerous occasions - and the court documents in this are readily available - proves you have no confidence in your professed belief in the kids' 'innocence'.

 

[TruthCalls]

You have been told umpty-nine times that to shed skin that contains ample DNA, it needs to be live skin, not dead. The only way to remove live skin is to rub it vigorously, as in Amanda vigorously rubbing her hands together to remove Mez' blood. You do know her DNA is mixed in with the murder victim's blood?

This is is a legal fact.

Florence court, and now the recent fourth chambers Cassazione confirms it. She was present when Mez was killed and did wash off her blood (and did not explain her conduct to the police at any time).

As you know, blood dries rapidly within at least an hour. If Knox happened to wander along after the murder, we have to ask why she stayed around to tidy up (no sign of any blood in the hallway or on the murder door when police arrived next day) and why she didn't immediately seek help.

Good lord, this gets old. Neither court examined evidence related to the crime. They ruled on whether Raffaele should receive compensation. I realize you're desperate for something to support your baseless claims, but citing courts that didn't even look at the evidence is really reaching.

Since Amanda used the bathroom to do many things, including but not limited to washing up and brushing her teeth, to claim that finding her DNA proves she washed Meredith's blood from her hands is ridiculous. Saliva contains thousands of times more DNA than would be found from rubbing your hands, especially if you are doing so under running water which will send most of it down the drain. And BTW, why would Amanda "vigorously" rub her hands anyway? Blood washes off very easily. Just putting your hands under running water will remove most of it.

You continue to just fabricate narratives that are entirely unsupported by any facts and think it means something.

 

[TruthCalls]

He did not break in: FACT. The nursery school head testified under oath Rudy did not break in. He was never charged with breaking and entry, or trespass, or burglary. EVER. To this day. And never has been.

The fact you have to dissemble, despite being corrected on numerous occasions - and the court documents in this are readily available - proves you have no confidence in your professed belief in the kids' 'innocence'.

Was he authorized to be in the school - yes or no? NO, he was not. FACT. Was he in the school - yes or no? YES, he was. FACT. Was a knife taken from the school kitchen found in his backpack - yes or no? YES, there was. FACT. It is irrelevant whether he was charged with breaking in. It doesn't change the FACTS that he was in the school illegally and that he had school property in his backpack.

I am citing indisputable FACTS. You're the one who is implying that because he wasn't charged with a crime it means he didn't do it. There are four witnesses who saw Guede coming out of del Prato's office when they entered the school. The police have it documented the knife, the laptop, the mobile phone and the gold woman's watch were all found in Guede's backpack. Yet you try to claim he didn't break in and accuse me of dissembling. Laughable.

ETA: What del Prato testified to was that there was no damage done to the door. One does not need to "break" something to break in. She did NOT testify that he did not break in. That is a lie.

 

[Stacyhs]

Your 'pantomime' debating technique ('Oh, no it's not!' to every point) is incredibly boring.

As I said, Rudy moved into his bedsit nearby Raff beginning of September that year. Since youth unemployment in Italy is circa 25%, it is hardly an indication of a ne'er-do-well to be out of work for a few months.

In addition, both he and Amanda were 20-year olds, so if anything, the person who should have behaved more responsibly ought to have been the older Raff.

Lying to investigators and obstructing them from completing their enquiries is grossly irresponsible.

And your "I've told you umpty-nine times" debating technique is also incredibly boring and, more importantly, ineffective.
I notice that you ignore all the supporting evidence I gave. Rather than disprove it with evidence, you merely resort to "As I said". That is not proof.

You said Guede moved to Perugia in early September. Now you change that to "his bedsit nearby Raff". Regardless of when he moved to Perugia or even nearby Raff, there is no proof whatsoever that they ever had any knowledge of the other.

No, it's not a sign of a ne'er do well to be unemployed in Italy. But what is indicative of his character is the fact that his own foster family, who tried to help him out of the kindness of their hearts, threw him out and wanted nothing to do with him. For his own foster sister to say that he was a liar who didn't seem to know right from wrong is a strong condemnation of his character.

How did Raff not act more responsibly than Amanda or Guede? Are you really claiming that Guede did not lie to investigators or obstruct their enquiries? He lied so often that his foster family called him a "big liar" who "didn't know right from wrong". Judge Michelli said he changed his story whenever new info came out in the press that contradicted his previous story.

If anyone is being spouting apologist nonsense, it's you. Your attempt to whitewash Guede's past and character simply does not fit the facts.

 

[Welshman]

Good lord, this gets old. Neither court examined evidence related to the crime. They ruled on whether Raffaele should receive compensation. I realize you're desperate for something to support your baseless claims, but citing courts that didn't even look at the evidence is really reaching.

Since Amanda used the bathroom to do many things, including but not limited to washing up and brushing her teeth, to claim that finding her DNA proves she washed Meredith's blood from her hands is ridiculous. Saliva contains thousands of times more DNA than would be found from rubbing your hands, especially if you are doing so under running water which will send most of it down the drain. And BTW, why would Amanda "vigorously" rub her hands anyway? Blood washes off very easily. Just putting your hands under running water will remove most of it.

You continue to just fabricate narratives that are entirely unsupported by any facts and think it means something.

Vixen has been constantly banging on about how the supreme court decided that Amanda washed Meredith’s blood off her hands. Why did the supreme court decide to annul the convictions of Amanda and Raffaele if they felt that damming evidence of their involvement in Meredith’s murder existed? Have the prosecution claimed that Amanda washed Meredith’s blood from her hands and made any attempt to support this. If the prosecution have never claimed that Amanda washed Meredith’s blood from her hands and provided no evidence of this, how do you explain this if Amanda had done this? If conclusive evidence existed that Amanda had washed Meredith’s blood off, surely the prosecution would have used this. If damming evidence existed against Amanda and Raffaele, why is that the conduct of the prosecution and the tactics they resorted to were clearly the conduct you would expect if prosecutors had a weak case and a lack of evidence? In addition, if solid evidence existed against Amanda and Raffale, why does Vixen need to constantly resort to falsehoods in her posts as detailed in my post below.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11837643#post11837643

 

[Stacyhs]

Was he authorized to be in the school - yes or no? NO, he was not. FACT. Was he in the school - yes or no? YES, he was. FACT. Was a knife taken from the school kitchen found in his backpack - yes or no? YES, there was. FACT. It is irrelevant whether he was charged with breaking in. It doesn't change the FACTS that he was in the school illegally and that he had school property in his backpack.

I am citing indisputable FACTS. You're the one who is implying that because he wasn't charged with a crime it means he didn't do it. There are four witnesses who saw Guede coming out of del Prato's office when they entered the school. The police have it documented the knife, the laptop, the mobile phone and the gold woman's watch were all found in Guede's backpack. Yet you try to claim he didn't break in and accuse me of dissembling. Laughable.

ETA: What del Prato testified to was that there was no damage done to the door. One does not need to "break" something to break in. She did NOT testify that he did not break in. That is a lie.

She also testified that the front door lock was broken and all it took was a strong push to open it. In fact, she was there that morning with a locksmith who had come to fix it. When someone tries to break into a place the logical first action is to check a door to see if it's unlocked and to give it a push. She also said that besides the knife taken from her kitchen he had a set of stolen keys.

 

[Stacyhs]

Unfortunately for your idols, no other 'multiple attackers' have been identified. In fact, according to Raff and Amanda 'there are no other attackers'.

It's amazing how they know 'Rudy did it by himself' when police, pathologists and the courts state unequivocally he did not.I wonder why the kid are so adamant they are wrong. Could it be they are the multiple attackers?

The testimony of Dr. Lalli, the pathologist:

"Prosecutor Mignini questioning
Question: Now, I’m getting towards the end but I still have some questions. On the basis of this, of the description of these, of these widespread lesions, we have seen on various parts of the body, they are of various types, on the basis of this description of these findings that you carried out, you, let’s get to the question: if these lesions were caused by one or more persons, what do you respond?

Answer: So…

Question: One, or more than one?

Answer: So, I can say that fundamentally the basic biological data is not able to give, the examination, the analysis of the biological data is not able to provide sufficient elements to give an adequate response to this question. So, to say if it was one person, or if there were more than one who participated in the activity, let’s say carried out against the victim, it is very difficult to be able to specify. Considering the location of the wounds, etcetera, it’s conceivable that there were – this is a judgement of yours truly – conceivable that there were more than one, however there is no biological evidence that tells us: one or more than one, no."

That is far from "unequivocal". On a side note, Lalli also thought that only one knife was used when asked by Mignini. And we know the kitchen knife could not possibly have made all the knife wounds...but a smaller knife could have.

It doesn't matter what the police said. They also said Lumumba was the killer and rapist. They said lots of things that later turned out to be false.
The courts were also wrong about it as there is not a single shred of evidence placing anyone other than Kercher and Guede in that bedroom. Even M&B concede that which is the primary reason they acquitted AK and RS. They could not get past that fact.

 

[TruthCalls]

The testimony of Dr. Lalli, the pathologist:

"Prosecutor Mignini questioning
Question: Now, I’m getting towards the end but I still have some questions. On the basis of this, of the description of these, of these widespread lesions, we have seen on various parts of the body, they are of various types, on the basis of this description of these findings that you carried out, you, let’s get to the question: if these lesions were caused by one or more persons, what do you respond?

Answer: So…

Question: One, or more than one?

Answer: So, I can say that fundamentally the basic biological data is not able to give, the examination, the analysis of the biological data is not able to provide sufficient elements to give an adequate response to this question. So, to say if it was one person, or if there were more than one who participated in the activity, let’s say carried out against the victim, it is very difficult to be able to specify. Considering the location of the wounds, etcetera, it’s conceivable that there were – this is a judgement of yours truly – conceivable that there were more than one, however there is no biological evidence that tells us: one or more than one, no."

That is far from "unequivocal". On a side note, Lalli also thought that only one knife was used when asked by Mignini. And we know the kitchen knife could not possibly have made all the knife wounds...but a smaller knife could have.

It doesn't matter what the police said. They also said Lumumba was the killer and rapist. They said lots of things that later turned out to be false.
The courts were also wrong about it as there is not a single shred of evidence placing anyone other than Kercher and Guede in that bedroom. Even M&B concede that which is the primary reason they acquitted AK and RS. They could not get past that fact.

What the other pathologists had to say;

Dr. Liviero, consultant appointed by the Public Minister (Massei pg 119) wrote:
As for the dynamic of the homicide, with particular reference to whether the action was performed by one or more persons, Dr. Liviero ruled out the existence of scientific elements that would allow us to formulate a response to this question.
Professor Bacci, consultant appointed by the Public Prosecutor (Massei pg 122) wrote:
He indicated that the biological data did not allow for a determination of whether the injuries were caused by one person or by several people, claiming they were compatible with both possibilities
Professor Norelli, consultant for the civil party, (Massei pg 127) wrote:
All this led to the conclusion that one single person could not have carried out all the harmful actions which had occurred in this case.
Professor Introna, consultant for Raffaele Sollecito (Massei pg 137) wrote:
He also stated that the action was that of a single attacker.
Professor Torre, consultant for Amanda Knox (Massei pg 145) wrote:
He maintained that " in any case there is nothing there which could lead me to think that there was more than one attacker"
Prof Cingolani, expert appointed by the judge (GIP) (Massei pg 153) wrote:
He was unable to provide an explanation for such a disproportion, which he held to be compatible with the presence of more than one person, but also with the action of a sole person who acts in a progressive manner

So that's six out of seven experts stating a lone attacker can not be rule out. Yet Vixen writes "...when police, pathologists and the courts state unequivocally he did not."

 

[TruthCalls]

She also testified that the front door lock was broken and all it took was a strong push to open it. In fact, she was there that morning with a locksmith who had come to fix it. When someone tries to break into a place the logical first action is to check a door to see if it's unlocked and to give it a push. She also said that besides the knife taken from her kitchen he had a set of stolen keys.

She also said in an interview that she was frightened by Guede and believes he is likely the one who had broken in 1-2 weeks prior and stolen 2000 euros. Of course that's just her opinion but if we look at all the B&E evidence osmotically it's a reasonable conclusion.

 

[TruthCalls]

Vixen has been constantly banging on about how the supreme court decided that Amanda washed Meredith’s blood off her hands. Why did the supreme court decide to annul the convictions of Amanda and Raffaele if they felt that damming evidence of their involvement in Meredith’s murder existed? Have the prosecution claimed that Amanda washed Meredith’s blood from her hands and made any attempt to support this. If the prosecution have never claimed that Amanda washed Meredith’s blood from her hands and provided no evidence of this, how do you explain this if Amanda had done this? If conclusive evidence existed that Amanda had washed Meredith’s blood off, surely the prosecution would have used this. If damming evidence existed against Amanda and Raffaele, why is that the conduct of the prosecution and the tactics they resorted to were clearly the conduct you would expect if prosecutors had a weak case and a lack of evidence? In addition, if solid evidence existed against Amanda and Raffale, why does Vixen need to constantly resort to falsehoods in her posts as detailed in my post below.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11837643#post11837643

Notice how the banging stops when she's asked to provide the evidence of such a conclusion. That's because she knows what the evidence was. The SP swabbed a large section of the sink where a diluted trace of Meredith's blood was found and in the process they picked up Amanda's DNA as well. That is the extent of the evidence. Since it was Amanda's sink and her DNA should have been there, it is impossible to draw any conclusions from the evidence. Vixen, Mach and the other 2-3 PGP that remain can bang on all they want about Amanda washing Meredith's blood from her hands but unless someone turns up some evidence never presented at any of the numerous trials, it remains nothing more than a PGP wet dream.

 

[Stacyhs]

Notice how the banging stops when she's asked to provide the evidence of such a conclusion. That's because she knows what the evidence was. The SP swabbed a large section of the sink where a diluted trace of Meredith's blood was found and in the process they picked up Amanda's DNA as well. That is the extent of the evidence. Since it was Amanda's sink and her DNA should have been there, it is impossible to draw any conclusions from the evidence. Vixen, Mach and the other 2-3 PGP that remain can bang on all they want about Amanda washing Meredith's blood from her hands but unless someone turns up some evidence never presented at any of the numerous trials, it remains nothing more than a PGP wet dream.

Yes...funny that. Both she and Mach go strangely silent. Of course, I'm voting for "you've been told umpty-nine times" as the most eloquent proof of all time.

 

[Planigale]

Good lord, this gets old. Neither court examined evidence related to the crime. They ruled on whether Raffaele should receive compensation. I realize you're desperate for something to support your baseless claims, but citing courts that didn't even look at the evidence is really reaching.

Since Amanda used the bathroom to do many things, including but not limited to washing up and brushing her teeth, to claim that finding her DNA proves she washed Meredith's blood from her hands is ridiculous. Saliva contains thousands of times more DNA than would be found from rubbing your hands, especially if you are doing so under running water which will send most of it down the drain. And BTW, why would Amanda "vigorously" rub her hands anyway? Blood washes off very easily. Just putting your hands under running water will remove most of it.

You continue to just fabricate narratives that are entirely unsupported by any facts and think it means something.

This is the Knox as Lady Macbeth meme.

 

[Bill Williams]

Notice how the banging stops when she's asked to provide the evidence of such a conclusion. That's because she knows what the evidence was. The SP swabbed a large section of the sink where a diluted trace of Meredith's blood was found and in the process they picked up Amanda's DNA as well. That is the extent of the evidence. Since it was Amanda's sink and her DNA should have been there, it is impossible to draw any conclusions from the evidence. Vixen, Mach and the other 2-3 PGP that remain can bang on all they want about Amanda washing Meredith's blood from her hands but unless someone turns up some evidence never presented at any of the numerous trials, it remains nothing more than a PGP wet dream.

In fairness to Vixen, she HAS provided "evidence" of such a conclusion, and it is this as per her posy upthread:

You have been told umpty-nine times that to shed skin that contains ample DNA, it needs to be live skin, not dead. The only way to remove live skin is to rub it vigorously, as in Amanda vigorously rubbing her hands together to remove Mez' blood. You do know her DNA is mixed in with the murder victim's blood?

This is is a legal fact.

Florence court, and now the recent fourth chambers Cassazione confirms it. She was present when Mez was killed and did wash off her blood (and did not explain her conduct to the police at any time).

As you know, blood dries rapidly within at least an hour. If Knox happened to wander along after the murder, we have to ask why she stayed around to tidy up (no sign of any blood in the hallway or on the murder door when police arrived next day) and why she didn't immediately seek help.​

This despite even Patrizia Stefanoni saying that it isn't so, that this can not be divined as outlined by Vixen.

So much for the eloquent proof.

What all are missing is the style of argument that M/B adopted in Sept 2015 in their motivations report. Starting in Section 9 they try a summary of all the salient facts as before the Nencini court, assembled from both sides. They run though those arguments, and conclude that even if the worst case scenario for the pair is true.....

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.​

10. The intrinsic contradictory nature of the evidence, emerging from the text of the appealed verdict, in essence undermines the connective tissue of the same, leading to its annulment.

In fact, in the presence of a scenario marked by many contradictions, the referral judge should not have come to a verdict of guilt, but - as previously observed – should have reached a verdict of not guilty, given Article 530, section 2, Italian Code of Criminal Procedure.​

M/B specifically say IT WOULD NOT BE UNEQUIVOCAL AS A DEMONSTRATION OF POSTHUMOUS CONTACT WITH THAT BLOOD AS A LIKELY ATTEMPT TO REMOVE TRACES - "WOULD NOT BE"...... (of course, the run on sentence does not help....)

My wish is that people would actually follow the argument M/B makes in the whole of Section 9 of their report, rather than cherry-picking.....

 

[Stacyhs]

But, Bill...you've been told umpty-nine times otherwise. Why can you just not accept that eloquent proof?