The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

[Bill Williams]

I am quoting Marasca-Bruno:




Please ask if you have any further misapprehensions.

I'm fine. You've still missed that your explanation for what Judge Massei in 2010, destroys your claim about what you reposted. You can repost your interpretation of Marasca-Bruno (2015) all you wish, but you've managed to undercut your own argument.

No matter.

 

[Stacyhs]

Police are always suspended whilst under disciplinary investigation (cf Vanessa Sollecito).

She is still salaried and within the police force until such time that matter is heard.

Think about it. If Zugarini was suspended over 4 years ago and, during the ensuing investigation, found not to have been involved in anything illegal, that would have automatically absolved Napoleoni since she was never accused of being the actual person who used the computer illegally. And yet, here we are, four years later and Napoleoni is going to trial. What does that suggest to you?

More importantly, Zugarini was suspended by a JUDGE, not by the police force. The police will suspend an officer while still under investigation. A JUDGE will suspend an officer when it's been proved they committed an offense.

That still leaves Profazio, one of the actual interrogators.

 

[Stacyhs]

And I'm still waiting for you to tell me what Del Prato's testimony said that conflicted with what I said. Although I'm not really expecting an answer. Par for the course.

 

[Stacyhs]

M/B:

Another element against her is the mixed DNA traces, her and the victim’s one, in the “small bathroom”, an eloquent proof that anyway she had come into contact with the blood of the latter, which she tried to wash away from herself (it was, it seems, diluted blood, while the biological traces belonging to her would be the consequence of epithelial rubbing).

What is being ignored here is that NO FORENSIC EVIDENCE identifies what the source of Knox's DNA is. Stefanoni herself says it cannot be identified. You and Mach have repeatedly been asked to identify the scientific evidence that identified the source as epithelial cells from saliva. You have not because it does not exist. You know it, we know it. That it could well have been from saliva (brushing teeth) or previous hand washing is completely logical and possible.

 

[Stacyhs]

She was on an 'adrenaline high', as per about twenty eyewitnesses at the questura. Still buzzing next day when she did her cartwheels for the nice policeman.

Oh, PUHLEEZE! Not ONE witness said she was on an "adrenaline high" That is ALL YOU.
Pitiful. Just pitiful. And indicative of your pure desperation.

 

[Stacyhs]

So Amanda washes her hands of Meredith's blood but then for some illogical and totally inexplicable reason, she doesn't bother to wash the sink of that blood. No. Instead, she just leaves that blood there along with the blood on the faucet, the blood in the bidet, the blood on the light switch and Raffaele's bloody footprint on the bathmat. Not only does she not clean it up, she points it out to the police. Yep...totally plausible. Only in the PGP mentality does that make a shred of sense.

 

[Bill Williams]

M/B:




What is being ignored here is that NO FORENSIC EVIDENCE identifies what the source of Knox's DNA is. Stefanoni herself says it cannot be identified. You and Mach have repeatedly been asked to identify the scientific evidence that identified the source as epithelial cells from saliva. You have not because it does not exist. You know it, we know it. That it could well have been from saliva (brushing teeth) or previous hand washing is completely logical and possible.

..... and when Vixen is asked to show the "elegant proof" as mentioned in the 2015 M/B report - as they summarized "the elements favourable to the hypothesis of guilt", as in......

9.2 The aspects of the objectively contradictory nature [of evidence] can be, as shown below, illustrated for each defendant, in a synoptic presentation of the elements favourable to the hypothesis of guilt and of the elements against it, as they are shown, of course, by the text of the challenged ruling and of the previous ones.​

It turns out that the reference is all the back to the 2010 Massei report, the one summarizing the reasons for the first-instance conviction.

And back then Massei said it is impossible to come to the conclusion that Knox sloughed blood from her hands from the forensics which were before his court. Repeat - even Judge Massei said there was no forensic explanation for the claim.

And when shown this Vixen says, "The source of the DNA in the mixed-DNA is not important," totally undercutting her original claim that it must have originated from Knox at the time of the murder, rather than normal DNA residue from a bathroom the victim and Knox had shared for weeks.

Instead of explaining why she'd undercut her own argument, she returns to simply re-posting that part of Section 9 of the M/B report, which said that even if this were true - even if there'd been solid forensic evidence to back up this prosecution claim....

......... that the 2013-14 Nencini court should STILL have acquitted.

In other words, Vixen has no answer to why she'd undercut her own claim.

No matter. All the principals have long since gotten on with their lives.

 

[TruthCalls]

..... and when Vixen is asked to show the "elegant proof" as mentioned in the 2015 M/B report - as they summarized "the elements favourable to the hypothesis of guilt", as in......

​

It turns out that the reference is all the back to the 2010 Massei report, the one summarizing the reasons for the first-instance conviction.

And back then Massei said it is impossible to come to the conclusion that Knox sloughed blood from her hands from the forensics which were before his court. Repeat - even Judge Massei said there was no forensic explanation for the claim.

And when shown this Vixen says, "The source of the DNA in the mixed-DNA is not important," totally undercutting her original claim that it must have originated from Knox at the time of the murder.

Instead of explaining why she'd undercut her own argument, she returns to simply re-posting that part of Section 9 of the M/B report, which said that even if this were true - even if there'd been solid forensic evidence to back up this prosecution claim....

......... that the 2013-14 Nencini court should STILL have acquitted.

In other words, Vixen has no answer to why she'd undercut her own claim.

No matter. All the principals have long since gotten on with their lives.

It really doesn't matter what any judge says, or how someone chooses to interpret it. The science speaks for itself. The type of DNA was not determined, nor can it be determined how or when it was deposited. There is NOTHING in the DNA collected that can tell anyone under what circumstance it got there. Anyone who claims to know how it got there is a liar. At best all one can do is speculate.

All Vixen is doing by continuing to claim Amanda washed Meredith's blood from her hands is prove that either she doesn't understand the science or she's dishonest. If she wants to continue to prove that, then so be it, but she's fooling no one except maybe herself.

 

[bagels]

Like many points from the Chieffi report, the prosecution's point that it's incriminating that Amanda's own DNA was found in her own sink she used every day and that very morning is a point I highly encourage the PGP to spread loud and proud, so they can do our work for us.

 

[Bill Williams]

Like many points from the Chieffi report, the prosecution's point that it's incriminating that Amanda's own DNA was found in her own sink she used every day and that very morning is a point I highly encourage the PGP to spread loud and proud, so they can do our work for us.

Any theory of guilt which relies on the DNA (or lack of same) relies on not one, but two clean-ups - both clean-ups to the meticulous microscopic level.

We all know about the clean-up in the murder-room, where Knox and Sollecito used their patented DNA detector (AKA the lamp) to identify three sets of DNA - Knox's Sollecito's and Rudy's), cleaning up perfectly two, and leaving the third (Rudy's).

But the other clean-up was just prior to Meredith's arrival at the cottage that horrible night.

Someone - probably Knox, because the PGP love to blame her for everything - cleaned the cottage, and especially the small bathroom, to the molecular level to sterile lab-like conditions. You could eat your dinner off of that floor after the clean Knox did.

Why? So that anything (DNA, etc) found in her own bathroom would have to have been deposited during the murder.

NASA is looking for "clean room" technicians as they assemble interplanetary probes. I strongly urge Ms. Knox to throw in an application down in Houston.

She's got talent - and, more importantly, the equipment (if they'll ever return the lamp to her!).

 

[Vixen]

..... and when Vixen is asked to show the "elegant proof" as mentioned in the 2015 M/B report - as they summarized "the elements favourable to the hypothesis of guilt", as in......

​

It turns out that the reference is all the back to the 2010 Massei report, the one summarizing the reasons for the first-instance conviction.

And back then Massei said it is impossible to come to the conclusion that Knox sloughed blood from her hands from the forensics which were before his court. Repeat - even Judge Massei said there was no forensic explanation for the claim.

And when shown this Vixen says, "The source of the DNA in the mixed-DNA is not important," totally undercutting her original claim that it must have originated from Knox at the time of the murder, rather than normal DNA residue from a bathroom the victim and Knox had shared for weeks.

Instead of explaining why she'd undercut her own argument, she returns to simply re-posting that part of Section 9 of the M/B report, which said that even if this were true - even if there'd been solid forensic evidence to back up this prosecution claim....

......... that the 2013-14 Nencini court should STILL have acquitted.

In other words, Vixen has no answer to why she'd undercut her own claim.

No matter. All the principals have long since gotten on with their lives.

Let go, Bill, let go!

You have got it wrong. When I said the source was not important, I was of course referring to Knox, as it is her DNA mixed in with Mez' blood.

 

[Vixen]

Think about it. If Zugarini was suspended over 4 years ago and, during the ensuing investigation, found not to have been involved in anything illegal, that would have automatically absolved Napoleoni since she was never accused of being the actual person who used the computer illegally. And yet, here we are, four years later and Napoleoni is going to trial. What does that suggest to you?

More importantly, Zugarini was suspended by a JUDGE, not by the police force. The police will suspend an officer while still under investigation. A JUDGE will suspend an officer when it's been proved they committed an offense.

That still leaves Profazio, one of the actual interrogators.

As I know nothing about the case, I will await the outcome.

 

[Vixen]

That would make sense if the call went through and she didn't answer indicating no one was home. That is not the case here. The call never went through. Please don't tell me you would not immediately redial a dropped call.




I never said he was "hiding" in the bathroom. HE said he was in the bathroom when Meredith was attacked.
No one knows for sure exactly where Meredith was when she made that initial call. Perhaps she'd already walked into the house and locked the door, alerting Guede, and walked back to her bedroom. He left the bathroom without flushing the toilet as to not alert her and found the door locked. She placed her books and purse on her bed, took her phone and came out of her room heading for the living room to sit there and talk to her mother as she thought she had the place to herself. She had dialed her mother but it didn't go through and saw Guede before she could redial.


He didn't at first. He saw the phone in her hand and found the other one while stealing her wallet from her purse. You know, the one that had his DNA on it. Not Amanda's. Not Raffaele's.





See above.

No, I do not. I simply keep calm and carry on.

What is this, Rudy-I-was everywhere-man?

Lobbing 10lb boulders, shinning up 12'4" walls, shinning back down to snatch Mez' phone out of her hand owing to his X-Ray vision and ability to see round the corner in the dark from 12'4" up and recognise his target.

Sheesh.

 

[Bill Williams]

Let go, Bill, let go!

You have got it wrong. When I said the source was not important, I was of course referring to Knox, as it is her DNA mixed in with Mez' blood.

You have no idea what's wrong with this reply, and why it still does not remedy the way you undercut your own argument.

 

[Stacyhs]

As I know nothing about the case, I will await the outcome.

Nice try. The fact remains that at least two officers directly involved in the interrogations of AK and RS were involved in incidents that undermine your delusion that the police were above reproach.

 

[Vixen]

M/B:




What is being ignored here is that NO FORENSIC EVIDENCE identifies what the source of Knox's DNA is. Stefanoni herself says it cannot be identified. You and Mach have repeatedly been asked to identify the scientific evidence that identified the source as epithelial cells from saliva. You have not because it does not exist. You know it, we know it. That it could well have been from saliva (brushing teeth) or previous hand washing is completely logical and possible.

Read the court documents.

From Massei, quoting Stefanoni (Dr Stefanoni to you):

Traces that appeared to be of a blood nature [101] were also present on the box of cotton buds, on top of the toilet seat, on the light switch and in the bidet, ‚and there was always the drop upwards, really on the edge and the same continuity up to the bidet siphon, of the common colour and in the same line‛ (pages 134 and 135).

Traces were present also over the bathroom door, not watered down but a vivid red colour.

She specified that she had attended a course where ‚collecting biological substance is taught" (page 148).

She was equipped with gloves, overalls and shoecovers.

She could not remember how many times she changed her gloves but if she noticed that they were spotted proceeded to change them.

The evidence collecting in the small bathroom she did it with a ‘carta bibula’, which is an absorbent paper [disc] and to a question put to her by the defence of Amanda Knox, she stated the following: "when we say finding a drop upstream and a drop downstream ... on the inside for example of the sink ... a drop on the edge of the sink and for continuity there was a drop that ended up towards the sink siphon and had a continuity, is not that one was to the right, one to the left, one here and one over there; it had its own continuity, I had deemed it proper to use the same disc of absorbent paper, as they were equal in colour, pink‛. [- 'DILUTED BLOOD' = Marasca]

Such material singled out was pink, of "washed blood ... in the sense it did not have the characteristic red colour of blood‛.

The same colour other than in the bathroom sink was noted inside the bidet (p. 152).

She specified further that it was not a strip, but "more little specks < with the same continuity‛ (page 153): they were ‚drippings< that gave this continuity‛ and the colouring was the same, always pink.

She did not believe then it might be different traces because of the continuity between the different drops.

and

[198] In the small bathroom, three traces of the victim's blood were found on the bathmat; on the light switch plate with two switches there were traces "of diluted blood, blood presumably mixed with water, as it was pale pink in colour" (page 76) which also came from the victim; a sample was taken from the front part of the faucet of the sink, which yielded the genetic profile of Amanda Knox; another sample taken from a specimen visible to the naked eye on the edge of the drain of the bidet yielded the genetic profiles of the victim and of Knox, a genetic mixture also found on the box of cotton buds near the sink.
The drippings found inside the sink appeared to be diluted blood, pink in colour, proven by testing to be human blood and yielding the genetic mixture of the victim and Knox.
On the toilet cover there was a bloody substance which yielded the genetic profile of the victim; this was also found on the door-frame. Near the toilet flush was another stain presumed to be blood, but which ended up yielding a negative result.

and

Moving on to the findings taken from the small bathroom, it was pointed out that there was a substance most likely of a blood-derived nature on the ‚edge of the bidet drain‛; the sample was taken during the inspection in order to extract the specimen that yielded a genetic result of a mixed profile: victim plus Knox. It was positive for human blood.

The same procedure was done on the container of cotton swabs that was on the sink. The collected sample revealed a mixed genetic profile: victim plus Knox and it tested positive for human blood.

On the left part of the sink there was a trace, this too, most likely of a blood-derived nature since it was of a pinkish colour, like the others.

This particular trace originated from the high part and went towards the drain, towards the lower part. The analysis provided the following results: human blood and the genetic profile of the victim plus that of Amanda Knox.

The samples taken from the toilet lid in the small bathroom provided as a genetic result: victim profile and human blood.

The trace present on the right side of the inside part of the bathroom door frame was positive for human blood and it revealed the genetic profile of the victim.

So, we see, the (dead) victim's blood is all over the small bathroom and the diluted blood indicates the purpose was to clean it off. Stefanoni in Darkness Descending believes the drips were from the knife.

As to method of collection and how it was concluded that the DNA mix happened on the same night:

Regarding the method used to collect [repertazione] the blood stains by means of a small piece of paper that was used to collect a small quantity of blood and then this blood was ‚re-smeared‛ using that same piece of paper (cf. video of November 3, 2007 at 4:45 PM and beyond), she explained that this method ‚may not seem suitable for evidence collection [repertazione+‛ but, in reality and in that specific context, it was suitable ‚due to the nature of the traces that were collected‛.

In this regard she pointed out that ‚both the traces on the sink as well as the traces in the bidet were clearly rosy traces, so they appeared as certainly diluted traces, and they were apparently all of the same origin because they were drippings <they were like a sort of rivulet that started from the top and ended in the drain‛ (page 154).

She pointed out again, to stress the necessity of keeping in mind the context of the evidence collection [repertazione], that such a work method was not used for different traces, objects, and different areas such as the faucet and the cotton swabs.

Rather, it did apply to the evidence which was like a continuous rivulet of pinkish water that was found in the sink or in the bidet.

In response to specific questions regarding these traces, she stated that if they had originated from two different people and in a independent and distinct way, one from the other, what would have formed would have been a mixture of the trace: two DNA that would be separated at the start but that would have joined to form a single trace.
She believed it improbable however, to think of such an origin for the trace, which was proven mixed, and this because of the fact that the same area was affected and because of the much diluted blood appearance.

She stressed, as well, that both of the two specimens recovered in the bidet ‚were<more abundant on the rim and on the plug on the drain, compared to the part, which is let's say, slanted, where there is a very narrow line of the substance<However, she stressed, to the naked eye, this link was evident" (page 157).

In effect, the mixed samples came from similarly diluted 'rivulets' of pink liquid (water + blood). = Deposited the same time at the same event.

For the completeness of Stefanoni's evidence, as presented to the court and accepted:

The questioning of Dr. Stefanoni continued during the hearing of the following day, May 23, 2009.

During this hearing, the subject of the mixed traces of Knox and the victim found in the small bathroom was dealt with: traces on the box of cotton buds, in the sink and in the bidet.

It was further recalled that Knox's blood was present on the faucet of the sink, and Dr. Stefanoni declared that it was coagulated, not fresh blood, and that it was not possible to specify the moment at which this blood had been deposited on the front part of the faucet.

The witness reaffirmed that the mixed trace found in the sink was pink, as was the one in the bidet.

In relation to this colouring, she defined it as that of a diluted substance, rinsed blood.

She explained [228] that the traces were dry, and it was not possible to date them or to determine whether the trace ascribable to Knox had arrived there before the victim's, or vice versa.

She explained that the trace was very light pink, and that the photos and images did not give a visual representation of the reality of the facts as they were observed at the crime scene.

She confirmed that it was a streak.

With reference specifically to the trace found in the bidet, she explained that the trace was not exactly around the drainage outlet, "we didn't exactly go around the outlet, or underneath it, or go scraping on it directly; we went a little bit over...to a place a little bit to the side, here; not exactly the drain outlet itself" (page 12). S

he emphasised that the trace appeared as "a unicum (‚unique specimen‛) of this drip that started from higher up", so therefore it was not exactly at the drain, or more precisely, the interstice between the ceramic and the metal (page 12, hearing on May 23, 2009).

She subsequently emphasised that both in the bidet and in the sink, the traces were not separate, but presented themselves as physically united, without any break in continuity, and thus each one appeared to constitute a unicum, "a trace that I needed to analyse and consider in toto during the analyses...as from their visible aspect they were very diluted, really very, very diluted blood, I made sure that everything was taken that was possible to take, from the top towards the bottom", she explained (pages 13-14).


From the videos of the crime scene inspection, made on November 3, 2007 as has been already stated, it was shown that, concerning the trace on the bidet, the evidence collection from the upper part of the edge of the bidet was continued with the same swab down to the lower part.

Dr. Stefanoni maintained that this was correct methodology, since the trace formed one single drip, even though in the images it was not visible as a unit "because it is located practically underneath this hollow, which is not illuminated...however, there was a very thin thread of continuity" (page 15).

And:

100) found on the box of cotton-buds, in the bidet and inside the bathroom sink.

[243] With regard to the specimen on the box, she highlighted the presence of 4 alleles in the first locus and stressed that the presence was very clear, without too much "background noise" (page 100).

The profile in question, therefore, should correctly be interpreted as being composed of a mixed specimen; and the profiles matched those of Amanda and Meredith.
For the specimen found in the sample recovered in the bidet it was noted that the various alleles, in comparison to those related to the sample on the cotton bud box, were composed by peaks, some of which were much smaller and therefore, she added, ‚we certainly have a specimen with a major donor compared to another donor ... however ... these are alleles that we can identify clearly, although the quantity is much smaller‛ and therefore even this sample should be interpreted as indicative of a mixed trace with the DNA profile of Amanda and Meredith (page
101).

Even the specimen taken inside the washbasin shows DNA from one major donor compared to another, however the presence of several alleles was clear in various loci and therefore it should be considered that a mixed sample was present "with the presence certainly of at least two profiles‛.

She noted that there were also small peaks, difficult to interpret in truth, which could suggest the presence of other donors. However, she emphasised that ‚the alleles present are all very clear‛ and match the profiles of Meredith and Amanda‛ (pages 101 and102).

Massei thus sums up and concludes:

In the bidet there was a substance which appeared to be diluted blood, and which was shown to be a mixed trace specimen having the biological profiles of Amanda and Meredith.

Also in the sink, there was a substance which appeared to be diluted blood, and which was shown to be a mixed trace specimen with the same result.

On the front part of the tap of the sink, there was coagulated blood which was shown to belong to Amanda.

On the box of cotton buds/Q-tips sitting on the sink/washbasin there were stains and these showed the presence of blood and a mixed trace from Amanda and Meredith.

On the light switch in the same bathroom there was a mark which proved to be the victim’s blood.

The sky-blue mat found in that bathroom was stained with blood which was shown to be from the victim.

On the outcome of such tests, not only these but also others of a biological nature, carried out in observance of the provisions contained in Article 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code, no significant and specific criticisms were made.

Instead, the defendants’ teams maintained that these traces and the outcome of the analyses with reference to the mixed sample traces were irrelevant.

In this regard, starting from the scientific data which emerged, according to which DNA analysis does not permit the age of the sample/trace to be determined, nor, in the case of a sample/trace indicating the presence of several biological profiles, can it be established whether their apposition-formation was contemporaneous or not, it was affirmed that, since it concerned a bathroom which was used both by Meredith and by Amanda, the presence of mixed traces seemed to be a completely normal circumstance, and had no significance.

All the more so since the samples had been taken using the same blotting paper which had been used for various parts of the bidet and the sink.

The Court, however, believes that the presence of the biological trace specimens that were found is of great importance.
First, it should be recalled that Amanda Knox, in the course of her own examination (questioning), declared that when she left the house on Via della Pergola on the afternoon of November 1st, the bathroom was clean.

It should then be highlighted that in that same bathroom various [300] trace specimens were found, of a mixed nature and testing positively for blood.

It is true that, according to what was asserted and explained, it is not possible with a mixed trace specimen that tested positive for human blood to determine which of the trace’s contributors the blood belongs to.

In this case, however, non-mixed traces were also found, which were shown to be of a haematological nature [i.e. blood] and turn out to have the biological profile of the victim.

Such traces, in particular the dribble of blood left on the right inside edge of the door and the stains left on the light switch (see photographic illustrations 141, 142; 158, 159) lead to the deduction that whoever entered that bathroom had his or her hands covered in Meredith’s blood.

The Massei court adjudged:

The above observation leads to the deduction that whoever went into the bathroom at that point (after the stabbing of Meredith) must have had to do so to clean him/herself of Meredith’s blood with which he/she was staining the various things he/she touched or leaned against: the door, the light switch, the mat.

And it is probable - not necessary, but probable - that during the following act of scrubbing the hands to remove the blood, he/she left the mixed trace consisting of Meredith’s blood and of cells which had been removed by rubbing during the act of washing.
An entirely probable outcome given the likelihood of the act of scrubbing, yet not a necessary one, since the running water which was used in the shower stall or in the bidet or in the sink, or in several of these sanitary fittings, might well have rinsed away the washed-up blood and the cells which had been lost during this washing.

At this point, one may turn for the resulting evaluations to the trace specimens found in the sink, in the bidet, on the cotton-bud box, traces which tested positive for human blood and which were attributed to Meredith and to Amanda.

[301] While it is not possible to use the genetic scientific data (Dr. Stefanoni explained the impossibility of determining the date, the succession or the simultaneity in the depositing of the components of the mixed trace specimen and the impossibility of attributing the haematological component to one or the other of the contributors), the information previously put forward provides answers which are entirely consistent with the circumstantial evidence that has emerged and which the Court considers convincing.

Amanda was not wounded; in the days following no one spoke of wounds that she might have had; the examination which was carried out on her when measures restricting her personal freedom were taken ruled out the presence of wounds.

Meredith’s situation was the complete opposite.

In relation to this and to the circumstance by which haematological stains attributable to Meredith were found on the inside of the door, on the toilet-seat cover, on the light switch, it should be deduced that the haematological components found in the sink, in the bidet, on the box of cotton buds were also from Meredith.

Nor can it otherwise be argued for the presence of a drop of Amanda’s blood on the tap of the sink.

This consisted of a spot of coagulated blood, with respect to which Amanda explained that it came from her own ear having been pierced; this spot, furthermore, was located towards the inside of the sink: distinct, separate and morphologically different, therefore, from the trace found in the sink itself.

This Court also considers that the components of the mixed trace specimens were deposited simultaneously, and were deposited by Amanda.

Against this conclusion, the observations with respect to the shared use of the bathroom by the two young women, the resulting likelihood of their biological traces being present, and the way in which these specimens were gathered [by the police], are not valid, in the sense that they are not considered either convincing or plausible, neither in relation to the overall situation present in the bathroom, which has been described, nor with [regard to] the statements made by Gioia Brocci and by Dr. Stefanoni, who both stated that the trace specimens present in the bathroom and in the bidet were of the same colour, as of diluted blood, and appeared to constitute one single trace, one [part] in the bidet and one in the sink. The drop at the top [302] and the drop at the bottom had continuity and formed a continuous pattern.

The specimens were collected accordingly, just like any other specimen which necessarily occupies a certain space, and which the technician does not collect one little spot after another.

It should also be noted that the statements according to which the traces in the sink and in the bidet each constituted a single specimen correspond to the act of cleaning the victim’s blood, an action previously mentioned and during which it would have been easy to leave a mixed sample, constituted precisely of biological material from the victim (blood) and biological material from whoever was cleaning (cells lost during scrubbing/rubbing).

It should further be noted that such mixed trace specimens, with the morphology shown, were found both in the sink and in the bidet.

It should be considered that those in the sink occurred when Amanda, as has been said, washed her hands which were stained with Meredith’s blood; in the bidet it should be considered that they [the traces] originated from a similar activity, but in relation to the feet, which must also have been covered with blood as can be inferred from the print of a bare foot left on the sky-blue mat, stained with Meredith’s blood.

This print will be dealt with subsequently.

Reference to it is made now in order to make the point that the presence of such a print of a bare foot brings one to consider that Amanda (also) could have had bare feet, stained with Meredith’s blood.

The mixed trace specimens found in the sink and in the bidet and on the box of cotton buds therefore signify that Amanda, soiled with Meredith’s blood, entered the bathroom which was right next door to the room in which Meredith had been stabbed; putting her hand against the door she left a mark on it and the dribble of blood which remained is a sign [proof] of this, and left a mark also - still with Meredith’s blood - on the light switch; she touched the cotton-bud box which was on the sink and left a mixed trace specimen of herself and of Meredith; to clean her hands she used the sink in which, through the act of scrubbing, she left her own biological trace mixed with that of Meredith, and used the bidet, most likely to wash her feet, which must have become *blood+ stained in Meredith’s room, where there were widespread and abundant traces of blood even on the floor, and where the blood was spattered over various parts of the room, and also in the bidet [303] she left a trace specimen of what appeared to be diluted blood, which contained both her own DNA and that of Meredith.

Are you SURE there is 'no evidence' of Amanda Knox rubbing her hands of Meredith Kercher's blood?

So Stacyhs knows better than Massei, Marasca and Martucelli and more recently, the latest Supreme court ruling 28 June 2017.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH - <pause for breath> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

 

[Stacyhs]

No, I do not. I simply keep calm and carry on.

Of course you'd keep calm. Running around in a panic screaming would be a rather odd reaction. No, the logical action would simply be to redial the dropped call. After all, whatever reason you had for making the call in the first place still exists. You'd redial.

What is this, Rudy-I-was everywhere-man?

He was where the physical evidence and or his testimony shows he was; the larger bathroom, the hallway, the little bathroom, Kercher's room. And most likely Laura's room from his past history.

Lobbing 10lb boulders, shinning up 12'4" walls, shinning back down to snatch Mez' phone out of her hand owing to his X-Ray vision and ability to see round the corner in the dark from 12'4" up and recognise his target.

Please point out where I presented any such scenario as a possibility. I suggest you read what I wrote again before posting.

Back to "boulders", I see. For some reason you think that Amanda or Raffaele are capable of "lobbing 10 lb. boulders" across a room, but not Guede. Sheesh.

 

[Vixen]

Nice try. The fact remains that at least two officers directly involved in the interrogations of AK and RS were involved in incidents that undermine your delusion that the police were above reproach.

No, I don't believe 'police are above reproach'. However, there are so many controls and procedures in place (for example, individual police officers only know what's going on on a 'need to know' basis) as well as report writing, line management, training, oath of integrity, probity, even if one cop - or even two or three - was bent, it cannot possibly permeate the entire force AND the prosecutor AND the forensic scientists.

That is crazy conspiracy theory.

 

[Vixen]

Nice try. The fact remains that at least two officers directly involved in the interrogations of AK and RS were involved in incidents that undermine your delusion that the police were above reproach.

It's an ugly divorce spat between Napoleoni and her ex-husband.

People can behave very very badly in their private life, yet still be good at their job.

More fool Zugarini if she thought she'd help out Nappy and accessed confidential info she should not have.

Time will tell if it has anything whatsoever to do with the Kercher case.

Police deal with tens of thousands of prosecutions every year.

 

[Bill Williams]

Are you SURE there is 'no evidence' of Amanda Knox rubbing her hands of Meredith Kercher's blood?
So Stacyhs knows better than Massei, Marasca and Martucelli and more recently, the latest Supreme court ruling 28 June 2017.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH - <pause for breath> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Yes, I'm sure. So was Massei who made his decision about it on other grounds. He had to, because as he said.....

While it is not possible to use the genetic scientific data (Dr. Stefanoni explained the impossibility of determining the date, the succession or the simultaneity in the depositing of the components of the mixed trace specimen and the impossibility of attributing the haematological component to one or the other of the contributors), the information previously put forward provides answers which are entirely consistent with the circumstantial evidence that has emerged and which the Court considers convincing.​