Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 27

[acbytesla]

Here's a little something for Vixen who has claimed that Prof. Vinci found Amanda's DNA on Meredith's bra and that a defense lawyer left the case due to it.

Based on theories developed by Peter Gill, Peter Balding created a software program that


https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23790-software-says-knoxs-dna-not-on-crime-scene-bra-clasp/

I hate to throw water on the post. But my response is 'so'? To my knowledge no one ever said it was. It was allegedly Raffaele's DNA that Stefanoni claimed was on the bra clasp.

I remember reading this article a long time ago wondering if Balding meant to say Sollecito and ended up saying Amanda. But without clarification, it would be wrong to put words in Balding's mouth.

 

[Stacyhs]

I hate to throw water on the post. But my response is 'so'? To my knowledge no one ever said it did. It was allegedly Raffaele's DNA that Stefanoni claimed was on the bra clasp.

I remember reading this article a long time ago wondering if Balding meant to say Sollecito and ended up saying Amanda. But without clarification, it would be wrong to put words in Balding's mouth.

The "so" has to do with Vixen's claims that a defense lawyer left the case because Vinci had found Amanda's DNA on the bra.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/oct/28/meredithkercher-italy

The implication being, of course, that it was evidence she was in the murder room and of her guilt. I pointed out that it was a "may be on the bra" case at the time (2008). This article is supporting evidence that her DNA was not on the bra. Of course, we know that was never brought into court as it wasn't true.

 

[acbytesla]

The "so" has to do with Vixen's claims that a defense lawyer left the case because Vinci had found Amanda's DNA on the bra.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/oct/28/meredithkercher-italy

The implication being, of course, that it was evidence she was in the murder room and of her guilt. I pointed out that it was a "may be on the bra" case at the time (2008). This article is supporting evidence that her DNA was not on the bra. Of course, we know that was never brought into court as it wasn't true.

You see, I never knew that.

As Rosanna Rosana-Danna use to say, 'never mind'.

 

[Stacyhs]

You see, I never knew that.

As Rosanna Rosana-Danna use to say, 'never mind'.

It took me a bit to find it, but here is Vixen's claim regarding Pascelli walking off the case because Amanda's DNA was found on the bra:

If you want to insist that these should be evidence, then you have just shot yourself in the foot - in fact you seem to do this on a regular basis! - as fragments of Amanda and Rudy were found on the other bra fabrics. And Pascelli for the defence walked off the case after seeing Vinci's report, leaving a €50K bill, suggesting he no longer had confidence in his clients' innocence.

Continuation 26, post 2434

 

[Methos]

Here's a little something for Vixen who has claimed that Prof. Vinci found Amanda's DNA on Meredith's bra and that a defense lawyer left the case due to it.

Based on theories developed by Peter Gill, Peter Balding created a software program that

compares a full DNA profile of a suspect with an incomplete DNA profile found at a crime scene. By incorporating factors such as the natural decay of a DNA sample, or the presence of DNA from another person entirely, the software can provide a probability score that a suspect was at the crime scene. Using the software on a sample from a bra clasp found near Kercher’s body suggests it is very unlikely that the item carries Knox’s DNA.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23790-software-says-knoxs-dna-not-on-crime-scene-bra-clasp/

It took me a bit to find it, but here is Vixen's claim regarding Pascelli walking off the case because Amanda's DNA was found on the bra:

If you want to insist that these should be evidence, then you have just shot yourself in the foot - in fact you seem to do this on a regular basis! - as fragments of Amanda and Rudy were found on the other bra fabrics. And Pascelli for the defence walked off the case after seeing Vinci's report, leaving a €50K bill, suggesting he no longer had confidence in his clients' innocence.

Continuation 26, post 2434

Well, the "Vinci found Amanda's DNA on the bra" nonsense was talked about in Continuation 21 and the "Pascelli for the defence walked off the case after seeing Vinci's report" confusion should have been cleared in Continuation 25.

 

[acbytesla]

You see, I never knew that.

As Rosanna Rosana-Danna use to say, 'never mind'.

Correction.... It was Emily Litella...ooops.

 

[Welshman]

The "so" has to do with Vixen's claims that a defense lawyer left the case because Vinci had found Amanda's DNA on the bra.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/oct/28/meredithkercher-italy

The implication being, of course, that it was evidence she was in the murder room and of her guilt. I pointed out that it was a "may be on the bra" case at the time (2008). This article is supporting evidence that her DNA was not on the bra. Of course, we know that was never brought into court as it wasn't true.

If I recall correctly, Vixen did have an explanation why the prosecution never used Amanda's DNA on the clasp. She claimed that the prosecution decided not to use the DNA because the quantity was not enough. I have never come across any record of the prosecution carrying out tests on the clasp and deciding Amanda's DNA was insufficient.

 

[Bill Williams]

If I recall correctly, Vixen did have an explanation why the prosecution never used Amanda's DNA on the clasp. She claimed that the prosecution decided not to use the DNA because the quantity was not enough. I have never come across any record of the prosecution carrying out tests on the clasp and deciding Amanda's DNA was insufficient.

Alternately Vixen has also offered two other explanations.

1) the convicting courts "bent over backwards" to give the pair the best result possible, but still convicted them.

2) once the court got enough evidence to convict them, they didn't bother to sift through the other "incriminating" stuff.​

How anyone would know any of this is another matter.

 

[Stacyhs]

Alternately Vixen has also offered two other explanations.

1) the convicting courts "bent over backwards" to give the pair the best result possible, but still convicted them.

2) once the court got enough evidence to convict them, they didn't bother to sift through the other "incriminating" stuff.​

How anyone would know any of this is another matter.

How anyone can claim to know any of this is another matter.

 

[TruthCalls]

Let's remember that it was Mach's brightest day when Guede went on TV and said he didn't **** Meredith because he had no condom.

Guede claimed neither he or Meredith had a condom. I'm surprised the Guede groupies didn't call him on this one since they often reference the claim made by Butterworth that Amanda made Meredith feel uncomfortable by leaving condom's and a rabbit vibrator in a beauty bag in the bathroom.

 

[TruthCalls]

If I recall correctly, Vixen did have an explanation why the prosecution never used Amanda's DNA on the clasp. She claimed that the prosecution decided not to use the DNA because the quantity was not enough. I have never come across any record of the prosecution carrying out tests on the clasp and deciding Amanda's DNA was insufficient.

It couldn't have been any more insufficient (if that a double negative of sorts?... maybe should say "..any less sufficient...") than the non-existent DNA not found on the knife. That didn't stop them from running with that one though.

 

[Stacyhs]

Guede claimed neither he or Meredith had a condom. I'm surprised the Guede groupies didn't call him on this one since they often reference the claim made by Butterworth that Amanda made Meredith feel uncomfortable by leaving condom's and a rabbit vibrator in a beauty bag in the bathroom.

These people actually believe Guede. Logic has nothing to do with their thinking.

I think it's hysterical that they think Meredith would be offended or feel uncomfortable about a pink bunny vibrator in a cosmetic bag. Amused? Yes. Shocked or offended? No.

 

[Bill Williams]

These people actually believe Guede. Logic has nothing to do with their thinking.

I think it's hysterical that they think Meredith would be offended or feel uncomfortable about a pink bunny vibrator in a cosmetic bag. Amused? Yes. Shocked or offended? No.

Even worse Judge Nencini believed Guede, and Guede never gave testimony to the Florence court.

 

[Planigale]

I find Vixen reassuring. That the case that Vixen makes for the guilt of Sollecito and Knox is dependent on provable falsities. This is reassuring that no real case for their guilt can be made.

A nice example is the continued repetition that Sollecito was into violent Manga, a case actually argued by Mignini. But as actually came out from the police testimony, the Manga magazines were still in their original cellophane wrappers - unread. Actually evidence that Sollecito was not into Manga. I wonder did Mignini know before the police testimony that the magazines were unread in which case he was deliberately misleading the court, certainly acting unethically and arguably criminally? If not then he was just incompetent.

Yet even though this testimony from the police is available, we still get Vixen coming up with the Sollecito was into violent Manga untruth.

 

[sept79]

Even worse Judge Nencini believed Guede, and Guede never gave testimony to the Florence court.

Why?

--Ignorance

--Incompetence

--Pressure from above or within the judicial ranks

--Bias

--Anti-American

-- ?

 

[Bill Williams]

--Pressure from above or within the judicial ranks

My completely biased uninformed opinion?

He felt compelled to convict because of the 2013 ISC quashing of the 2011 Hellmann acquittals.

And even though many are correct in saying that declaring "motive" is not necessary for a conviction, in a highly circumstantial case it becomes vital.

Nencini's court had heard from the prosecutor, Crini, that the motive had been the overall cleanliness in the upstairs flat. Pooh in the toilet caused them the attack Knox..... wait a minute, it wasn't Knox who was attacked.....

So to fulfill the expectation to convict, Nencini turned to a motive that at least was on paper somewhere and "made sense". Crini's motive had the wrong person attacked!

Except the "she was killed by Knox over a rent money dispute" comes from Guede - the real perp - who lied about his fraudulent presence in the cottage that night, and lied about how his DNA had got into the victim's vagina.

But for Nencini, there was one element of that story that if Guede had lied about, then there would have been no credible motive. Meredith, acc. to Guede had let Knox in, and acc. to Guede an argument broke out over rent money.

I mean, in their directive to convict, the ISC had said that the "sex game gone wrong" theory/motive had not received enough attention at the Hellmann trial in 2011. So perhaps the only thing Hellmann's and Nencini's court agreed upon was that the sex game motive had been bunk.

But..... Nencini believed he'd been tasked to convict. Ergo Guede must have been right on that one, uncross-examined lie he'd told.

That's what needs to happen to retie the judicial pretzel into a conviction shape, when you're ordered to do it.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[TruthCalls]

My completely biased uninformed opinion?

He felt compelled to convict because of the 2013 ISC quashing of the 2011 Hellmann acquittals.

And even though many are correct in saying that declaring "motive" is not necessary for a conviction, in a highly circumstantial case it becomes vital.

Nencini's court had heard from the prosecutor, Crini, that the motive had been the overall cleanliness in the upstairs flat. Pooh in the toilet caused them the attack Knox..... wait a minute, it wasn't Knox who was attacked.....

So to fulfill the expectation to convict, Nencini turned to a motive that at least was on paper somewhere and "made sense". Crini's motive had the wrong person attacked!

Except the "she was killed by Knox over a rent money dispute" comes from Guede - the real perp - who lied about his fraudulent presence in the cottage that night, and lied about how his DNA had got into the victim's vagina.

But for Nencini, there was one element of that story that if Guede had lied about, then there would have been no credible motive. Meredith, acc. to Guede had let Knox in, and acc. to Guede an argument broke out over rent money.

I mean, in their directive to convict, the ISC had said that the "sex game gone wrong" theory/motive had not received enough attention at the Hellmann trial in 2011. So perhaps the only thing Hellmann's and Nencini's court agreed upon was that the sex game motive had been bunk.

But..... Nencini believed he'd been tasked to convict. Ergo Guede must have been right on that one, uncross-examined lie he'd told.

That's what needs to happen to retie the judicial pretzel into a conviction shape, when you're ordered to do it.

Your mileage may vary.

I suspect you're correct but ignorance and incompetence also clearly play a role. How do I know? ...because Nencini put his signature on a motivation report that was so littered with errors, baseless presumption and countless logic-free conclusions that he made even the Massei report look credible. You just can't do that without a healthy dose of ignorance and incompetence. JMHO.

 

[bagels]

As komponisto pointed out, just try to construct an argument for acquittal that is compliant with the Chieffi report. It was an evidence-interpreting directive to convict.

BTW anytime Chieffi is mentioned it's always worth remembering some of his greatest hits:

-The break-in must be staged because Meredith would have heard the glass break
-Quintavalle must be legitimate because he says he recognized Amanda's blue eyes in court
-Curatolo must be legitimate because he was able to identify the two most famous defendants in Italy in court sitting next to their lawyers on trial

Just for fun let's try to think of an acquitting report that is compliant with Chieffi's directive:

"Quintavalle must have seen an identical blue eyed twin of Knox buying bleach that morning, and Curatolo must have merely witnessed Knox and Raffaele in an animated discussion on the deeper themes in Amelie that the two forgot they had outside because they were so engrossed in the debate, and Meredith didn't hear Rudy breaking in because she was practicing her loudest scream in Italian that woke Nara."

So yeah, Nencini went ahead and convicted.

This case really centers around Chieffi. If it weren't for his court it would be a provocative but otherwise unremarkable wrongful conviction case similar to many others with bumbling local authorities and judges. But it's not everyday you get the highest court in the land writing room temperature IQ level reasoning and transparent corruption for the world to see. Really kicked things up a notch.

 

[RoseMontague]

Just checking in. Has anything new come out about the case recently?

 

[Numbers]

Just checking in. Has anything new come out about the case recently?

The newest development is that the CSC has issued the motivation report for the decision denying Raffaele Sollecito compensation for unfair detention. I don't know if the CSC short-form verdict on Rudy Guede's request for a revision trial has been issued yet.

Here's a summary of the case, from my previous post #49 in this continuation:

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have been finally and definitively acquitted of the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher by the March, 2015 verdict of the Supreme Court of Cassation of Italy. According to Italian law, they can face no other legal action, criminal or civil, regarding the matters for which they have been acquitted.

Amanda Knox was finally convicted of the crime of calunnia (false accusation) against Patrick Lumumba by the March, 2013 verdict of the Supreme Court of Cassation. However, convictions in Italy are not necessarily definitive, and may be retried by an Italian revision court (a court of appeal) under certain conditions. One such condition, according to Italian law (a judgment of the Italian Supreme Constitutional Court) is a final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that the conviction was the result of an unfair trial, or was otherwise unfair, and that the legal proceedings must be reopened at the request of the convicted person. The ECHR is an international court that hears claims of violations of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention), a treaty to which Italy is a charter signatory. Italy is obligated to follow the terms of the Convention under international and Italian law.

Amanda Knox lodged an application with the ECHR in November, 2013 (within the deadline, which is based on the date of delivery of the motivation report, and not the short-form verdict) claiming that Italy violated her rights under the Convention. The case was communicated to Italy by the ECHR in April, 2015, to allow Italy to prepare a defense, if it so chooses. The ECHR considers this case a "noteworthy pending case", meaning it considers the claims and potential outcome of significance for human rights in the Council of Europe states (that is, all the states that are signatories of the European Convention of Human Rights). A date for the publication of the ECHR judgment has not been announced; the ECHR has tens of thousands of pending cases before it, and it can be quite slow in reaching judgments.

There have also been some satellite cases in Italy related to the main Knox - Sollecito trials. These include, but are not limited to:

1. A case accusing Amanda Knox of false accusation against the police, regarding her statements in court, at her trial, about their behavior toward her during the Nov. 5-6, 2007 interrogation. Knox was finally acquitted on these charges in January, 2016.

2. A case accusing Raffaele Sollecito of criminal defamation against the police, regarding certain statements he had published in a book (which was not publicly available in Italy) he co-authored with Andrew Gumbel. Sollecito and Gumbel were acquitted in October, 2017 on these charges. Prosecutor Mignini had joined this case with a civil lawsuit, as allowed and rather usual in Italian cases. Mignini has withdrawn his suit. I suspect this will be a final acquittal, but I don't believe the time limit for an appeal by the prosecution has run out (I think it will by the end of December, 2017), and I am not sure when the statute of limitations will expire on the charges.

3. There were some additional cases, such as a defamation suit against Knox's parents by Mignini. I am not sure what has happened to those; I suspect the case against Knox's parents and any other such cases have been allowed to expire. But I'm not sure of that.

4. The request by Sollecito for compensation on account of unjust detention was recently finally denied by the Supreme Court of Cassation. His lawyers indicated that this will be taken to the ECHR, because the Convention mandates that there be acknowledgment and compensation for unfair detentions.

5. Rudy Guede, the only person convicted of the murder/rape of Kercher, has appealed the first rejection of his request for revision of his conviction. The Supreme Court of Cassation is expected to issue a ruling on this appeal by the end of November, 2017.