The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

[Mike1711]

Welcome back Mike1711. I apologize for referring to you as Mike1171.

Not much has changed in the thread since your last activity. Machiavelli made a brief appearance to assure us that the prosecutions against Hellmann, Zanetti, Marasca, Bruno, Bruce Fischer and all PIP are just around the corner.

Hello Bill...greetings!! I never left. I am always in the background and read most of the posts.

 

[Bill Williams]

Hello Bill...greetings!! I never left. I am always in the background and read most of the posts.

Part of that is very sad. But then again, Grinder is not around to accuse me of rank hypocrisy for the sentiment! So I'll risk saying it.....

 

[Vixen]

I highly doubt he ever said this. Please provide a link to where Gill said this.

Thank you for your admission that you have never read "Misleading DNA evidence, Reasons For Miscarriages Of Justice" by Peter Gill.

Amazing someone can claim to be an admirer of someone yet never read his works.

 

[Vixen]

On what evidence do you claim it "has no legal meaning"? For some odd reason, I don't tend to believe that the Supreme Court judges would just throw some meaningless finding into their official ruling for the ducks of it.

Read Art 530,2 under the Italian Penal Code on which all Italian criminal law is based.

 

[Vixen]

And that's why I continue to subscribe to the belief that here - ISF (and JREFF before it) - is/was the best place to debate this case. It's because a) this is not a walled garden, b) it does not hold (in an "institutional" sense) a predetermined position on the case, and c) there really are some strong critical thinkers here (and I'm not just talking about many of the regulars in the Knox/Sollecito thread(s), but also other ISF members who have occasionally had a gander at the thread and found that it's not the cesspit that some of the pricks among the ISF membership like to disparage it with mockingly, and that there has been some excellent intellectually-driven debate on the thread (not to mention the fact that the majority of its regular participants came to the correct conclusion long, long ago.....)).

And actually, on that last parentheses-within-parentheses point in the above para, I really do think that this is an important factor, and one which should not be underplayed (nor put down to sheer binary chance). There was (and still is) a group of really good sceptics on this thread who had zero emotional attachment to the protagonists in this case (and, conversely, no axe to grind nor mawkish "victim support" emotional blackmail to employ), and who delved deeply, intelligently, and without binding preconceptions or conclusions.

And they got to the truth. The truth that a) in fact, EVERY SINGLE PIECE of the "evidence" which had persuaded the Massei (and then Nencini) court to pronounce for guilt was fundamentally, fatally flawed; that b) the convicting courts had in fact fundamentally misapplied the law and codes of criminal practice in the ways in which they assessed the evidence ("evidence") and reached their verdicts; that c) the police and prosecutors had demonstrated numerous egregious acts of misconduct, incompetence, omission, tunnel vision and confirmation bias; that d) the criminal case against Knox and Sollecito was therefore utterly flawed, and both of them categorically needed to be acquitted; and that e) the very high likelihood was that neither Knox nor Sollecito had anything whatsoever to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher.

(And that's before we even get to the matter of Knox's criminal slander conviction - on which I strongly believe that history and the ECHR will prove that this conviction was ridiculously flawed and riddled with malpractice and unlawful acts by the authorities - and Sollecito's (and presumably, in the future, Knox's) case for compensation....)
The intelligent, critical thinkers on this board figured it out. They were derided as either nutty, obsessive conspiracy theorists, or as individuals blinded by lust for Knox, or as individuals who (for some reason) got some sort of "kick" out of supporting "guilty" people, as people who were just plain wrong and/or unintelligent in their conclusions (bolstered in many cases by a strange automatic deference to a court judgement - most strange for a forum dedicated to critical thinking...), or as a mixture of some or all of the above.

But they were right. We were right.

ROFL. Don't tell us: just like yourself?

 

[Bill Williams]

Thank you for your admission that you have never read "Misleading DNA evidence, Reasons For Miscarriages Of Justice" by Peter Gill.

Amazing someone can claim to be an admirer of someone yet never read his works.

Thank you for your confirmation that you do not have a link or a citation. Your claim upthread is still bogus.

 

[Vixen]

Grinder raised "perception" also in relation to what Luca Cheli had written.... the latter of whom summarized the M/B report into a few shadows, and some thunder which would have reverberated through the Italian judiciary because of it.

Yet who really cares about what people perceive? It's not even one of Cheli's shadows which would linger.....

The difference between a Paragraph 1 and 2 acquittal is non-existent, yet what has highlighted the comment on this case is that these perceptions predate anything the M/B report would have written either way.

But you are correct, Grinder had wanted to talk about things at that level, presumably to expose PIP hypocrisy.

Incorrect. In law, every word of a statute is carefully crafted to fully mean exactly what it says. You cannot insert words that are not there.

The words, 'did not commit the act' are simply not there under Art 530,2 of the CPP, despite Numbers' convoluted attempts to try to make it so.

 

[Stacyhs]

Jacobs buying guns for her criminal cop-killer psycho partner and teaming up with another alleged cop-killer - also falsely claiming he was exonerated from the death penalty, when Ireland had already abolished it as of the time he was convicted, says it all for me.QUOTE]

You are ignorant in this matter. As I said, Ireland had already determined to commute the death penalty.Hello? Pringle is still alive? <face palm> If you get a death sentence it happens immediately, not 'ten years later' LOL.

So you are in solidarity with scum who think nothing of killing innocent policemen who are just doing their job and protecting the community leaving young families without a dad.

Oh, dear. Why do you forget, and so often, that we can still read what you wrote before so easily?

Originally, you did not say "Ireland had already determined to commute the death penalty". You said "when Ireland had already abolished it as of the time he was convicted".

Pringle was sentenced to death in 1980. The death penalty was not abolished until 1990. Pringle was sentenced to death under a special provision because the victims were gardai

Ireland carried out its last execution in 1954 and by 1986 the sentence was only available for a number of serious offences including treason and the murder of gardaí.

http://www.thejournal.ie/death-penalty-state-papers-3135198-Jan2017/

Yes, his sentence was commuted, but that has never been the issue here. The issue was your claim that "Pringle was never on Death Row" (comment #1897) when, in fact, he certainly was.

As for you last comment above, resorting to such a disgusting accusation says far more about you than me.

 

[Vixen]

Then she was wrong.

OK?

(How are you doing on finding any references to "Norn" being used as slang for "Northern Ireland"....? )

The problem with getting all of one's knowledge from Google leads to falling into the trap of believing information on Google is complete.

Do try to get out more.

 

[Bill Williams]

Incorrect. In law, every word of a statute is carefully crafted to fully mean exactly what it says. You cannot insert words that are not there.

The words, 'did not commit the act' are simply not there under Art 530,2 of the CPP, despite Numbers' convoluted attempts to try to make it so.

Thank you, then, for confirming Mike1711's view that Section 530.2 covers the acquittals where evidence is lacking; as in the case against AK and RS.

Since the acquittal is based on paragraph 2 of article 530....“...when evidence is lacking, insufficient or contradictory...”.

The elephant in the room. To argue that in this context that lacking and insufficient are the same is a subjective argument for repetition. Why would the Italian's repeat themselves? The logical answer is to take on board the definition of "lacking" in its absolute. There is none.

In the AK/RS the evidence is lacking....there is none.​

 

[Vixen]

Classic!!!!!!

You mean the dead guy's clothes - which his widow (if indeed he was married/partnered) took to a charity shop WITHOUT EVEN BOTHERING TO WASH (and, by the way, if unwashed clothes ever do get given to a charity shop, I know for a fact that every major UK charity shop would wash them before putting them on display/sale) - just happened to be bought by a guy who happened to work at the very same place.

The illogicality and poor reasoning just gets better and better.........

I read of a case where a burglar whose underpants - as identified by the DNA -were found at a crime scene claimed someone else was wearing them.

 

[Vixen]

And you are still wrong. Pringle was scheduled to be executed and would have been were it not for the appeals process. The matter of abolishing the death penalty was not raised until three months AFTER Pringles sentence was scheduled to be carried out and a mere two months before his sentence was commuted. There was no "moratorium".

Don't even attempt to be patronising when you cannot even get basic facts right.

Wrong. His execution which was never going to happen, as Ireland had already decided to abolish the death penalty, was just a 'paper' matter until such time it was abolished by law.

 

[Vixen]

Wrong!

Person B and person A were in the same building but two years apart. Person A was murdered in this building and had person B's DNA on her clothing. So - Person B's DNA had been in the building for two years prior to the visit to the building by person A. Person A brushed up against this two year old DNA deposit and the DNA was thus transferred.

Citation please.

 

[Stacyhs]

Thank you for your admission that you have never read "Misleading DNA evidence, Reasons For Miscarriages Of Justice" by Peter Gill.

Amazing someone can claim to be an admirer of someone yet never read his works.

And neither have you as you failed to provide the quote directly from the book including page number. Nice try.

I've never claimed to read that book as I don't own it. However, I've read excerpts that have been provided online. On Amazon, you can search the book for key words. Which I did. Nowhere does your quote, which just happens to be the exact one used by a prolific contributor to TJMK, appear in the book. In fact, in doing my research, I can find no one who has made that claim besides that "prolific contributor" and you. And nowhere has that same prolific contributor provided a citation for it. Why not live dangerously here and actually provide the entire quote and page number or link to them?

 

[Vixen]

Here is another article that mentions the case. If you find any others, would you link to them here? I am looking into DNA on clothing at the moment.

It's unremarkable. Police find unidentified DNA on many subjects.

Find DNA means nothing in itself.

 

[Vixen]

Jacobs buying guns for her criminal cop-killer psycho partner and teaming up with another alleged cop-killer - also falsely claiming he was exonerated from the death penalty, when Ireland had already abolished it as of the time he was convicted, says it all for me.QUOTE]



Oh, dear. Why do you forget, and so often, that we can still read what you wrote before so easily?

Originally, you did not say "Ireland had already determined to commute the death penalty". You said "when Ireland had already abolished it as of the time he was convicted".

Pringle was sentenced to death in 1980. The death penalty was not abolished until 1990. Pringle was sentenced to death under a special provision because the victims were gardai



http://www.thejournal.ie/death-penalty-state-papers-3135198-Jan2017/

Yes, his sentence was commuted, but that has never been the issue here. The issue was your claim that "Pringle was never on Death Row" (comment #1897) when, in fact, he certainly was.

As for you last comment above, resorting to such a disgusting accusation says far more about you than me.

Big deal. So I made a typo.

 

[Bill Williams]

Citation please.

Why are you asking for citations? The best way to get citations is to provide them yourself, like with your claim that Peter Gill had written something.

Nice try.

 

[Stacyhs]

I read of a case where a burglar whose underpants - as identified by the DNA -were found at a crime scene claimed someone else was wearing them.

That has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

So you think those clothes belonging to a man 2 years dead were never washed during those two years? Really?

 

[Vixen]

And neither have you as you failed to provide the quote directly from the book including page number. Nice try.

I've never claimed to read that book as I don't own it. However, I've read excerpts that have been provided online. On Amazon, you can search the book for key words. Which I did. Nowhere does your quote, which just happens to be the exact one used by a prolific contributor to TJMK, appear in the book. In fact, in doing my research, I can find no one who has made that claim besides that "prolific contributor" and you. And nowhere has that same prolific contributor provided a citation for it. Why not live dangerously here and actually provide the entire quote and page number or link to them?

I have provided a citation to this on numerous occasions. The fact you keep asking me to provide the same citation over and over again is just - as acbytesla might put it - taking the piss.

 

[Vixen]

That has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

So you think those clothes belonging to a man 2 years dead were never washed during those two years? Really?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_71669596fa6e1068c8.jpg[/qimg]

The correct metaphor would be 'grasping at straws', not 'scraping the barrel'.

As I said earlier, police often find DNA from unidentified sources. Of itself it means zippo. In the case of the woman on a buiding site, the police were able to identify the DNA because it was on their criminal database (the whole raison d'être of such a record is to do exactly that).

The non-news is they were able to rule this guy out as he had croaked a couple of years earlier. He would have been questioned were he alive, and no doubt immediately eliminated as, like most innocent people, he would have had an alibi. As indeed he did, as it were.