• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

Status
Not open for further replies.
sept79 said:
--Why did Stefanoni lie about sample size in a "fact finding" court (Micheli)?

--Why did the "fact finding" court (Massei) ignore the "fact" that Stefanoni hid the "facts" from the defence and from the court for the first six months of the court of first instance? And, Massei's "fact finding" court ignored this connivance by the scientific police. Why?

--Why did every Italian court fail to have Stefanoni deliver the DNA EDF data to the defence? Why would a "fact finding" court function in this manner?


--------------------------------------------------


What would I propose to put in place of a trial at a court of law? How about an attempt at delivering justice instead of proceeding according to one's biases.
Click to expand...


Nencini looked into the points raised, as above, by the defences in appeal and DISMISSED them.

It decreed Stefanoni HAD deposited all the data with the court.

(Cue Bill Williams...)
 
bagels said:
The courts found them innocent. You disagree with that. Stop pretending that you respect the court decisions.

Rudy's testimony with regards to the small bathroom is relevant because it has been a consistent detail since his initial story before he was even arrested and, more importantly, is corroborated by physical evidence at the scene. Corroborated testimony is of great value. I know for many PGP this is their first case and they don't know how evidence works, so I hope this helps.

We don't think Amanda is innocent because her DNA isn't in the bedroom. We think Amanda is innocent because that is the natural state of everyone until proven guilty.


A trial at a court of law is fine. It (eventually) freed the innocent students in this case, for example.
Click to expand...


The word 'innocent' in respect of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito appears exactly...NOWHERE in the Marasca judgment.

It acquitted. However, we can see from its scathing criticisms of the pair they knew them to be guilty.

Writing it LARGE that KNOX WAS THERE when Mez was murdered, did COVER UP FOR RUDY when she lied about Patrick and tried to frame him, WASHED OFF MEZ' BLOOD FROM HER HANDS and that Raff was almost certainly there with her.

The pair, Marasca write, 'lied on umpteen occasions'.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The word 'innocent' in respect of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito appears exactly...NOWHERE in the Marasca judgment.

It acquitted. However, we can see from its scathing criticisms of the pair they knew them to be guilty.

Writing it LARGE that KNOX WAS THERE when Mez was murdered, did COVER UP FOR RUDY when she lied about Patrick and tried to frame him, WASHED OFF MEZ' BLOOD FROM HER HANDS and that Raff was almost certainly there with her.

The pair, Marasca write, 'lied on umpteen occasions'.
Click to expand...

At least you now concede that Cassation acquitted the pair.

You still have not pointed to the evidence which supports what you claim M/B found as factual.
 
Vixen said:
The word 'innocent' in respect of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito appears exactly...NOWHERE in the Marasca judgment.

It acquitted. However, we can see from its scathing criticisms of the pair they knew them to be guilty.

Writing it LARGE that KNOX WAS THERE when Mez was murdered, did COVER UP FOR RUDY when she lied about Patrick and tried to frame him, WASHED OFF MEZ' BLOOD FROM HER HANDS and that Raff was almost certainly there with her.

The pair, Marasca write, 'lied on umpteen occasions'.
Click to expand...

Nice try. Courts don't use the word "innocent". They either convict, acquit, or annul.

I see you are, once again, telling us what Marasca-Bruno really believed. Have you thought about setting up a "Psychic" stand on the Blackpool Boardwalk?

There is no scientific evidence that Amanda washed her hands of Meredith's blood. That's why you've failed repeatedly to present it. It is not even possible to determine. You know it. We know it.

If they really believed that Knox did COVER UP FOR RUDY when she lied about Patrick and tried to frame him, WASHED OFF MEZ' BLOOD FROM HER HANDS and that Raff was almost certainly there with her, the would have upheld Nencini. NEWS FLASH: THEY DIDN'T.

Hmmmm....leaving all Guede's forensic evidence and visible bloody shoeprints behind is a very odd way of "covering" for him. That's normally what someone would do when they're trying to frame someone.

As already stated, we know Guede had bloody hands due to his palm print found under Meredith, yet none of his DNA was found in that sink. Maybe he just walked all the way back to his apartment with bloody hands. Oh, wait, none of Meredith's blood was found in his sink. Just where did he wash off his bloody hands?

"Umpteen"? Please, don't put something in quotes that was never said.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Erratum: legally speaking, it was just an annulment.
Click to expand...

Yep. Because that's what they are legally empowered to do.

...pursuant to Articles 620 letter L) and 530, section 2 Italian Code of Criminal Procedure; excluding the aggravating circumstance under Italian under Article 61 n. 2 Penal Code, in relation to the crime of calumny, annuls the ruling under appeal without referral with respect to the crimes under charges A), D) and E) of the rubric because the appellants did not commit the act.
Click to expand...

So, how do you explain the use of "did not commit the act"?
 
Vixen said:
Erratum: legally speaking, it was just an annulment.
Click to expand...

Well, not "just" an annulment. As Marasca-Bruno wrote, they annuled Nencini's conviction because Nencini should have acquitted:
In other words, the use of logic and intuition cannot, in any way, compensate for the lack of evidence or the inefficiency of the investigations.
Faced with missing, insufficient or contradictory evidence, the judge should simply accept it and issue a verdict of acquittal, according to Article 530, section 2 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, even if he is really convinced of the guilt of the defendant.​
Click to expand...
 
Vixen said:
The word 'innocent' in respect of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito appears exactly...NOWHERE in the Marasca judgment.

It acquitted. However, we can see from its scathing criticisms of the pair they knew them to be guilty.

Writing it LARGE that KNOX WAS THERE when Mez was murdered, did COVER UP FOR RUDY when she lied about Patrick and tried to frame him, WASHED OFF MEZ' BLOOD FROM HER HANDS and that Raff was almost certainly there with her.

The pair, Marasca write, 'lied on umpteen occasions'.
Click to expand...

Since I don't care in the least about the Italian courts these contradictions aren't relevant to me. You're the one that professes to take them seriously, yet faults their final official ruling, which was to absolve the students of guilt in the murder of MK, for all time. If you can't accept that, you can't accept the Italian courts, so stop appealing to their authority.
 
An example of why when I read Massei's summing up of the case and verdict against Knox and Sollecito it convinced me this was a miscarriage of justice.

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.
Click to expand...

Massei seems to think that Knox's view of the bathroom being clean (and remember there was testimony that Knox was not good at cleaning) is equivalent to laboratory levels of cleanliness. That DNA present in the bathroom could not be attributable to events prior to the crime because the bathroom had been cleaned.

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.
Click to expand...

Massei says that the DNA in the bidet must result from scrubbing of feet stained with blood of the victim resulting in simultaneous deposition of DNA of victim and perpetrator. He then references the bloody print on the bathmat. Yet the one thing prosecution and defence experts agreed upon was that the print could not have been made by Knox. According to Massei's logic then Sollecito's DNA should have been found in the bidet, but not Knox's.

Massei says

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,
Click to expand...

So this is where Massei overrules the experts (becoming the expert of experts) who say that the time, order or mechanism of deposition of DNA cannot be known. Massei irrationally excludes the possibility that Knox's DNA in the bathroom could be attributable to any action other than scrubbing to remove blood even though the DNA of only one of the accused was present, and according to his logic the DNA of all three should have been present. In addition blood stains for instance on the light switch were of the victim only (remember that these are of the same pink colour as the 'mixed' DNA samples in the bidet and basin). That these are pink tell us that they were deposited after washing so should by Massei's theory contain contain exfoliated epithelial cells of Knox. Instead the mixed DNA in the bathroom is found only in the places one would expect DNA to be deposited by routine bathroom activities.

What is clear is Massei had to create an explanation for the verdict but could not create one that is internally consistent or logical.
 
bagels said:
Since I don't care in the least about the Italian courts these contradictions aren't relevant to me. You're the one that professes to take them seriously, yet faults their final official ruling, which was to absolve the students of guilt in the murder of MK, for all time. If you can't accept that, you can't accept the Italian courts, so stop appealing to their authority.
Click to expand...

...... that is, assuming that those points Vixen and Machiavelli raise are actual contradictions. The two hearings concerning Raffaele's compensation would certainly be something V and M could point to as "proof".

But no matter. The Marasca-Bruno report has troubling aspects to it for all sides. It writes patent falsehoods: no, Knox did not further accuse Lumumba after the interrogation as recorded in M/B; “conflitto in giudicato” means that M/B simply robotically accept "judicial truths" like multiple attackers and the lack of a break-in; and that interrogations in Italy are "institutionally immune" from coercion.

It's as LondonJohn says - courts in Italy seem forbidden to criticize the police or prosecutors; even as much as M/B said on at least two occasions in the report that the investigation was inept. The flip side to that, is that M/B still acquitted (annuled Nencini's conviction) even within that judicial landscape.

We can argue all this stuff until we're blue in the face - at the 25th Continuation of this thread it looks like we have!!! Perhaps it is time for all of us (save for the calunnia) to simply move on since at the end M/B actually did acquit.

BTW - it's telling that PMF.ORG has been down and abandoned for some weeks now, and no one seems to have noticed!
 
Bill Williams said:
...... that is, assuming that those points Vixen and Machiavelli raise are actual contradictions. The two hearings concerning Raffaele's compensation would certainly be something V and M could point to as "proof".

But no matter. The Marasca-Bruno report has troubling aspects to it for all sides. It writes patent falsehoods: no, Knox did not further accuse Lumumba after the interrogation as recorded in M/B; “conflitto in giudicato” means that M/B simply robotically accept "judicial truths" like multiple attackers and the lack of a break-in; and that interrogations in Italy are "institutionally immune" from coercion.

It's as LondonJohn says - courts in Italy seem forbidden to criticize the police or prosecutors; even as much as M/B said on at least two occasions in the report that the investigation was inept. The flip side to that, is that M/B still acquitted (annuled Nencini's conviction) even within that judicial landscape.

We can argue all this stuff until we're blue in the face - at the 25th Continuation of this thread it looks like we have!!! Perhaps it is time for all of us (save for the calunnia) to simply move on since at the end M/B actually did acquit.

BTW - it's telling that PMF.ORG has been down and abandoned for some weeks now, and no one seems to have noticed!
Click to expand...

The horse is most definitely dead. Let's face it, most of us are still here for the sport of debating with PGP (which at this point is Vixen and sometimes Mach... most PGP have wised up or retreated to a PGP controlled site) and it is with absolute certainty that at this point you could show Vixen a video of the crime being committed by Guede alone and she'd find an excuse and still blame Amanda and Raffaele.

I've got the club championship coming up in a couple of weeks... I think I'll take your advice and, sans ECHR news, stop wasting my time posting here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom