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

[Vixen]

It's amazing what doesn't phase you. You call Raffaele's book a pack of lies, yet the one criminal and civil action against RS and AG where that is in question gets dropped.

Must be the conspiracy.

AIUI the issue was whether his pack of lies was available in Italy. Gumbel's & Sollecito's counsel assured the court there were only three copies in Italy, in Italian, presumably the three in front of the court in evidence.

Whilst it may break criminal law in Italy, Italy has no jurisdiction what Sollecito does in the USA.


So, yes, it remains a pack of lies. We can see the defendants' lawyers are in concurment with this as they have advised the book should no tbe for sale in Italy.

In effect, the lawyers agree it breaks Italian law; i.e., it is a criminal pack of lies.

 

[Vixen]

If the Supreme Court had, as Vixen claims, confirmed that the pair were at the house at the time of the murder it would mean that they knew Guede had killed Meredith and had lied to the police about it. Would that not constitute obstruction of justice for which they could be charged? Yet they have not.

Under Italian law, the guilty are allowed to lie about their involvement. So Knox & Raff broke no law by lying on an industrial scale to the police and the courts.


However, this put a kybosh on their ability to claim compensation, as their behaviour has been legally labelled, 'misconduct'.

 

[Welshman]

Here you are: Skip to 8:30:

https://youtu.be/P_6vDLq64gE

When PGP discuss lying yet again the words “surely it is not humanly possible for people to be this stupid” springs to mind. Examples of jaw dropping gross stupidity I have seen from PGP when it comes to the subject of lying.

• PGP have no concept whatsoever of the gross hypocrisy they show when they attack Amanda and Raffaele for lying although this hypocrisy is blatantly obvious. The hypocrisy is highlighted in the post below.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11997763#post11997763

• PGP posters tell blatant lies in their posts which are easily disproved and then they talk about the techniques used to spot when people are telling lies. They have absolutely no idea of the irony in this.

• My post below shows the most effective way of spotting lies is when people tell things where there is conclusive evidence what they say is untrue. As can be seen from the response to my post, PGP couldn’t understand this simple concept. In addition, PGP are so stupid they think pointing out that they tell lies on an industrial scale is a compliment.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12095117#post12095117

• Vixen constantly boasts about all the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. The fact PGP have to resort to lying to argue their case destroys the notion of a slam dunk case against Amanda and Raffaele. In fact having to resort to lying indicates the PGP don’t have a case. PGP can’t understand this simple concept.

 

[Bill Williams]

AIUI the issue was whether his pack of lies was available in Italy. Gumbel's & Sollecito's counsel assured the court there were only three copies in Italy, in Italian, presumably the three in front of the court in evidence.

Whilst it may break criminal law in Italy, Italy has no jurisdiction what Sollecito does in the USA.


So, yes, it remains a pack of lies. We can see the defendants' lawyers are in concurment with this as they have advised the book should no tbe for sale in Italy.

In effect, the lawyers agree it breaks Italian law; i.e., it is a criminal pack of lies.

None of what you said is true. Indeed, you cannot find one Italian citation to buttress this claim of yours. But you do have a fertile imagination. (You do know, don't you, that Raffaele has appeared on Italian TV?)

 

[Stacyhs]

Oh, dear. Isn't "clearly" a synonym for "obviously"? Maybe it's not in British English.

By the way, still waiting for those citations, including the one that supports your claim that "many judges immediately start sniffing a lie when people in the witness box use words like, 'Obviously'. It's often a flag they are trying to persuade the court a thing is obvious when it is anything but." and that "Police, barristers and judges are trained to be alert to lying."

Here you are: Skip to 8:30:

https://youtu.be/P_6vDLq64gE

Umm...no. I watched the video and nowhere does she support any of the claims you made that I highlighted above. Nowhere. She does talk about "qualifiers" but the use of "obviously" is not included. Her examples were "In all truth" and "In all candor". Nowhere does she say that "police, barristers, and judges are trained to be alert to lying" either.

This is simply a video discussing how to spot some possible signs of deception but she also makes clear that "these behaviors are just behaviors. They are not proof of deception. They are just red flags. We're human beings. We make deceptive flailing gestures all over the place all day long. They don't mean anything of and by themselves."

What I did find most interesting was when she said this:

An honest person is going to be cooperative. They're going to show they're on your side. They're going to be enthusiatic. They're going to be willing and enthusiastic at getting you to the truth. They're going to be willing to brainstorm, to name suspects, provide details. They're going to say 'Hey, maybe it was those guys in payroll who forged those checks'.

Which is exactly what Amanda did. She stayed to help the police instead of going home or to her cousin in Germany. She cooperated with the police day after day, giving them names of any men who had come to the cottage when asked. She only complained about being tired and having to repeat the same things day after day.

So no, your video does not support your claims. Try again.

Just to be clear, I do believe that body language can tell us many things, including if someone is lying sometimes. A mother can often read when her child is lying, hiding something or upset...but not all the time. It is not a science, it is not infallible. This is exactly why "experts" come to differing conclusions when seeing the same thing. For example, when saying "no" to a question and jerking the head down, one expert may say it's a sign of really saying "yes" when another says it may be nothing more than a gesture of strong emphasis of that "no".

 

[Stacyhs]

Article 26.3 Source: NATIONAL BAR COUNCIL MINISTRY OF JUSTICE Code of Conduct for Italian Lawyers(Approved by the National Bar Council
during the session of January 31st 2014)

Hmmm...that's not what it says. I wondered why you didn't bother to actually quote it. But I will:

Article 26 Carrying out the representation
1. The acceptance of representation requires the competence to carry it out.

2. A lawyer, in case of representations requiring competences different from his, shall advice the client and the assisted party on the need for another colleague with such competences in order to integrate his representation.

3. Failure to perform actions related to representation of the assisted party, or the late or negligent performance of such actions, constitutes a violation of professional duty if such behavior results from inexcusable and careless disregard of the assisted party’s interests.
4. If the defending counsel nominated by the court should not be able to attend a hearing, he must explain the reasons therefore to the responsible authority in a timely manner, or must arrange for another lawyer who, once accepted the assignment, assumes the responsibility for the representation at that hearing. 5

. The breach of duties under sub-sections 1 and 2 entails the enforcement of warning as disciplinary sanction. The breach of duties under sub-sections 3 and 4 entails the enforcement of censure as disciplinary sanction.

http://ccbe.eu/fileadmin/speciality...Italy_Code_of_Conduct_for_Italian_Lawyers.pdf

 

[Stacyhs]

Under Italian law, the guilty are allowed to lie about their involvement. So Knox & Raff broke no law by lying on an industrial scale to the police and the courts.


However, this put a kybosh on their ability to claim compensation, as their behaviour has been legally labelled, 'misconduct'.

Not quite. Defendants cannot commit perjury for what they say in court as they take no oath not to lie. This does not give them impunity to lie to the police during the investigation with no legal consequences. And try to remember that they were found "not quilty".

"However, this put a kybosh on their Raffaele's ability to claim compensation, as their his behaviour has been legally labelled, 'misconduct'"

No court has made such a ruling on Amanda as she has not applied for compensation.

 

[Stacyhs]

AIUI the issue was whether his pack of lies was available in Italy. Gumbel's & Sollecito's counsel assured the court there were only three copies in Italy, in Italian, presumably the three in front of the court in evidence.

Whilst it may break criminal law in Italy, Italy has no jurisdiction what Sollecito does in the USA.


So, yes, it remains a pack of lies. We can see the defendants' lawyers are in concurment with this as they have advised the book should no tbe for sale in Italy.

In effect, the lawyers agree it breaks Italian law; i.e., it is a criminal pack of lies.

No, the issue was whether Sollecito had committed defamation against the police and Mignini. Once a single copy was available in Italy, the lawsuit could be, and was, filed.

How you can say with a straight face that his lawyers "agree that it breaks Italian law" when the court said otherwise is beyond nuts...but somehow not surprising.

Please give a citation for your claim that "they have advised the book should not be for sale in Italy". Unless you can do so, the claim will be consigned to the steadily growing dung heap known as Mount False and Citationless Claims.

 

[Bill Williams]

Please give a citation for your claim that "they have advised the book should not be for sale in Italy". Unless you can do so, the claim will be consigned to the steadily growing dung heap known as Mount False and Citationless Claims.

The usual suspects always spin the latest disaster for Mignini as a victory. A failed criminal defamation case , plus a dropped civil suit is painted as, "they have advised that the book shout not be for sale in Italy."

Hoots!

 

[Stacyhs]

The usual suspects always spin the latest disaster for Mignini as a victory. A failed criminal defamation case , plus a dropped civil suit is painted as, "they have advised that the book shout not be for sale in Italy."

Hoots!

Now, now...Raff did have to apologize to Mignini for his "pack of lies". Oh, wait.....

 

[Bill Williams]

Now, now...Raff did have to apologize to Mignini for his "pack of lies". Oh, wait.....

I missed that. But the nutters said it was going to happen, so it must have happened.

 

[Numbers]

Some, primarily guilters (aka PGP), have doubted that the Italian judicial system has some problems, and likewise have doubted the role of the ECHR in calling attention to those problems based on particular cases as they come before the ECHR.

Here is one example of a case where the Italian courts violated the Italian law and the Convention article against double jeopardy. The ECHR found a violation of the Convention, Article 4 of Protocol No. 7.

"Grande Stevens v. Italy 8640/10 18647/10 18663/10 ...
4 March 2014

The applicants were two companies and their chairman, together with the authorised representative of one of the companies, and a lawyer who had advised them. The case concerned their appeal against the administrative penalty imposed on them by the Italian Companies and Stock Exchange Commission (“Consob”) and the {subsequent} criminal proceedings to which they were subject after having been accused of market manipulation in the context of a financial operation involving the car manufacturer FIAT. The applicants complained, inter alia, that criminal proceedings had been brought against them in respect of events for which they had already received an administrative penalty. The Italian Government submitted that Italy had made a declaration to the effect that Articles 2 to 4 of Protocol No. 7 applied only to offences, proceedings and decisions classified as criminal under Italian law, which was not the case for the offences proscribed by Consob."

The ECHR judgment held:

1. The reservation by Italy did not contain "as a brief statement of the law concerned", required by Convention Article 57, which Italian laws were to be included under the reservation. Therefore, the reservation was too vague and not valid under the Convention's requirements in Article 57.

2. "There were valid grounds for considering that the procedure before Consob concerned “a criminal charge” against the applicants, and the sentences imposed by Consob and partly reduced by the court of appeal had become final in June 2009. From that date, the applicants ought therefore to have been considered as having been “already finally convicted for an offence” for the purposes of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. Yet the new set of criminal proceedings which had been brought against them in the meantime were not closed and resulted in judgments being delivered at first and second instance. The proceedings before Consob and the criminal courts concerned the same conduct by the same persons on the same date. It followed that the new set of proceedings concerned a second “offence” originating in identical facts to those which had been the subject-matter of the first, and final, conviction."

"237. In these conditions, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case and the urgent need to put an end to the violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (see paragraph 228 above), the Court considers that the respondent State must ensure that the new set of criminal proceedings brought against the applicants in violation of that provision and which, according to the most recent information received, are still pending, are closed as rapidly as possible and without adverse consequences for the applicants ....

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT

6. Holds, unanimously, that the respondent State must ensure that the new criminal proceedings, opened against the applicants in violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 and which, according to the most recent information received, are still pending in respect of Mr Gabetti and Mr Grande Stevens, are closed as rapidly as possible (see paragraph 237 above)"

Source: The Factsheet on Double Jeopardy (Non bis in idem), the legal summary of the case, and the judgment text

 

[Numbers]

Some, primarily guilters (aka PGP), have doubted that the Italian judicial system has some problems, and likewise have doubted the role of the ECHR in calling attention to those problems based on particular cases as they come before the ECHR.

Here is one example of a case where the Italian courts violated the Italian law and the Convention article against double jeopardy. The ECHR found a violation of the Convention, Article 4 of Protocol No. 7.

"Grande Stevens v. Italy 8640/10 18647/10 18663/10 ...
4 March 2014

The applicants were two companies and their chairman, together with the authorised representative of one of the companies, and a lawyer who had advised them. The case concerned their appeal against the administrative penalty imposed on them by the Italian Companies and Stock Exchange Commission (“Consob”) and the {subsequent} criminal proceedings to which they were subject after having been accused of market manipulation in the context of a financial operation involving the car manufacturer FIAT. The applicants complained, inter alia, that criminal proceedings had been brought against them in respect of events for which they had already received an administrative penalty. The Italian Government submitted that Italy had made a declaration to the effect that Articles 2 to 4 of Protocol No. 7 applied only to offences, proceedings and decisions classified as criminal under Italian law, which was not the case for the offences proscribed by Consob."

The ECHR judgment held:

1. The reservation by Italy did not contain "as a brief statement of the law concerned", required by Convention Article 57, which Italian laws were to be included under the reservation. Therefore, the reservation was too vague and not valid under the Convention's requirements in Article 57.

2. "There were valid grounds for considering that the procedure before Consob concerned “a criminal charge” against the applicants, and the sentences imposed by Consob and partly reduced by the court of appeal had become final in June 2009. From that date, the applicants ought therefore to have been considered as having been “already finally convicted for an offence” for the purposes of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. Yet the new set of criminal proceedings which had been brought against them in the meantime were not closed and resulted in judgments being delivered at first and second instance. The proceedings before Consob and the criminal courts concerned the same conduct by the same persons on the same date. It followed that the new set of proceedings concerned a second “offence” originating in identical facts to those which had been the subject-matter of the first, and final, conviction."

"237. In these conditions, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case and the urgent need to put an end to the violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (see paragraph 228 above), the Court considers that the respondent State must ensure that the new set of criminal proceedings brought against the applicants in violation of that provision and which, according to the most recent information received, are still pending, are closed as rapidly as possible and without adverse consequences for the applicants ....

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT

6. Holds, unanimously, that the respondent State must ensure that the new criminal proceedings, opened against the applicants in violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 and which, according to the most recent information received, are still pending in respect of Mr Gabetti and Mr Grande Stevens, are closed as rapidly as possible (see paragraph 237 above)"

Source: The Factsheet on Double Jeopardy (Non bis in idem), the legal summary of the case, and the judgment text

To make the implications of the ECHR judgment discussed above clear, if Italy were to restart the trials of someone who was finally acquitted - such as Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito, whether calling such renewed trials criminal, civil, or even "administrative", there would be a violation of Italian law and the European Convention on Human Rights, and a case on this brought before the ECHR would result in the ECHR calling for an immediate halt to any such trial.

The same would be true for a retrial for same facts of someone finally convicted, if the goal of such a trial would be to increase the penalty rather than to decrease the penalty or to produce an acquittal. That is why an Italian revision trial cannot, under Italian law or the European Convention on Human Rights, legally increase the penalty for Rudy Guede for the facts relating to his conviction for the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher.

 

[bagels]

If the Supreme Court had, as Vixen claims, confirmed that the pair were at the house at the time of the murder it would mean that they knew Guede had killed Meredith and had lied to the police about it. Would that not constitute obstruction of justice for which they could be charged? Yet they have not.

Not to mention finding Knox washed blood from her hands.

I had this conversation a couple times with Mach. I thought it was obvious the Supreme Court didn't believe she was at the crime scene or washed blood from her hands, because otherwise they would have found her guilty of something. Mach's view is the court believed her guilty but due to corruption acquitted her. My problem with this view is if they were puppets of the defense they would have parroted defense arguments, which they didn't. Mach's view is they went out of their way to reject the defense arguments on certain issues, but acquitted anyway, telegraphing their corruption for no reason (except to wink-wink at the five PGP that would read it).

IMO the most likely scenario is they realized the weakness of the case and the poor prospects of pursuing extradition and put together a report that procedurally tied up all their loose ends with the Chieffi report, the calunnia conviction, etc that all made for the final wacky contradictory report.

 

[Numbers]

Not to mention finding Knox washed blood from her hands.

I had this conversation a couple times with Mach. I thought it was obvious the Supreme Court didn't believe she was at the crime scene or washed blood from her hands, because otherwise they would have found her guilty of something. Mach's view is the court believed her guilty but due to corruption acquitted her. My problem with this view is if they were puppets of the defense they would have parroted defense arguments, which they didn't. Mach's view is they went out of their way to reject the defense arguments on certain issues, but acquitted anyway, telegraphing their corruption for no reason (except to wink-wink at the five PGP that would read it).

IMO the most likely scenario is they realized the weakness of the case and the poor prospects of pursuing extradition and put together a report that procedurally tied up all their loose ends with the Chieffi report, the calunnia conviction, etc that all made for the final wacky contradictory report.

No, convicting someone of a charge not included in the appeal court's verdict of conviction - if that is your meaning here - would not be an action legally possible for the Supreme Court of Cassation.

If the CSC believed Knox or Sollecito guilty of some crime not in the charges forwarded from the appeal court, the CSC would have remanded (referred) the case back to an appeal court, noting the possibility that other charges may apply in the case - if such charges were not already beyond the statute of limitations. If the charges were beyond the statute of limitations, legally there could be no referral on them, but the CSC could comment specifically that those charges would have been relevant but were now moot because of the statute of limitations.

The fact that there was no referral and no commentary on other possible charges by the Marasca CSC panel strongly indicates exactly that the CSC considered that evidence showed that Knox and Sollecito had not committed the murder/rape of Kercher and had not committed any other crime associated with that act. Current Italian law, contrary to the misrepresentations of the guilters, does not allow for any kind of intermediate final verdict between guilty (BARD) and acquittal (not guilty); final dismissals, including those for exceeding the statute of limitation, count as final acquittals.

It is noteworthy that in quashing the Nencini appeal court verdict convicting Knox of aggravated calunnia against Lumumba, the Marasca CSC panel made clear it was reinstating the original final verdict convicting Knox of "simple" calunnia against Lumumba, and the final sentence for calunnia originally imposed, and already served by Knox, by the Hellmann appeal court and made final by the Chieffi CSC panel. Furthermore, the Marasca CSC panel provided commentary within their motivation report justifying the (simple) calunnia conviction and even claiming that an ECHR judgment in favor of Knox (against Italy) "... would not be able, in any way, to undermine the internal [Italian Court] judgment, nor open the prospect for a revision of the verdict and sentence ...." {Section 2.2, p 23}.

ETA: Two points about the Marasca CSC panel comments about Knox's ECHR case and the possibility of revision of her calunnia conviction and sentence:

1. The commentary shows how the CSC can state something if it believes someone is guilty, or alternately, if it is trying to cover the police and courts against blame; and

2. The commentary ignores the facts that in a revision, none of the statements Knox made or wrote without her lawyer would be usable against her, in accordance with ECHR case law. Thus, there would be no case of calunnia against her. And according to the Italian Supreme Constitutional Court (an organization different from the trial courts including the CSC), revision must be considered if the ECHR indicates a convicted person may request retrial because the original proceedings were unfair.

 

[TruthCalls]

Popovic is no help to Raff:

Florence Appeal Court throwing out Raff's compo claim on grounds of his wilfully fraudulent and deceitful conduct.

Popovic is no help to Raffaele? I guess that depends on what your definition of help is. Popovic was an eyewitness who twice placed Amanda at Raffaele's apartment in direct contradiction to the recollection Raffaele gave the police (once, under pressure, and in contradiction to every other statement he ever gave, before AND after the interrogation). This supports Raffaele's contention that the police confused him and denied him access to a calendar when he asked for one. This, in turn, tells us two more things; (1) Raffaele's statement did NOT constitute Raffaele no longer supporting their alibi and (2) the police were out to coerce statements from the two of them to match what they thought happened - they were not interested in the truth.

You are free to play stupid if you want but since not a single court question the veracity of Popovic's testimony and since that testimony proves Raffaele's statement was from a different evening, you going on about Amanda being out till 1am does nothing but underscores your dishonesty. To everyone else it means there's an eyewitness to confirm their alibi at least until 20:45.

 

[Bill Williams]

Popovic is no help to Raff:

Florence Appeal Court throwing out Raff's compo claim on grounds of his wilfully fraudulent and deceitful conduct.

Popovic is no help to Raffaele? I guess that depends on what your definition of help is. Popovic was an eyewitness who twice placed Amanda at Raffaele's apartment in direct contradiction to the recollection Raffaele gave the police (once, under pressure, and in contradiction to every other statement he ever gave, before AND after the interrogation).

What is plain as day is that some accept what courts say, even if what they say is against the evidence. Indeed, that had been the whole problem with this case. What is even worse is when the latter courts accepted something as factual, simply on the ruling of a former court - even with no evidence to support that former factoid.

A notable exception was when the 2015 5th Chambers said that Judge's Nencini's 2014 finding that Raffaele's DNA had been found on the knife was factual. Apparently, even in Italy, there are limits to just making stuff up and having a latter court accept it.

 

[TruthCalls]

What is plain as day is that some accept what courts say, even if what they say is against the evidence. Indeed, that had been the whole problem with this case. What is even worse is when the latter courts accepted something as factual, simply on the ruling of a former court - even with no evidence to support that former factoid.

A notable exception was when the 2015 5th Chambers said that Judge's Nencini's 2014 finding that Raffaele's DNA had been found on the knife was factual. Apparently, even in Italy, there are limits to just making stuff up and having a latter court accept it.

Well, I'm sure Vixen would claim that we're doing the same thing.. we dismiss Massei and Nencini, but accept Hellmann and Marasca. But what she won't acknowledge is we don't blindly accept what anyone says without evaluating the merits of the claim based on facts, science and logic. How many times has Vixen claimed Marasca ruled Amanda was at the cottage at the time of the murder or that she washed Meredith's blood from her hands. But when asked to offer even a shred of evidence that would support those conclusions she can't. Courts are not infallible, as this case proves. No matter which side of the fence you sit on, two of these courts were right and two were wrong. So it should always come down to verifying the facts, validating the logic. And if you can't do that then you shouldn't accept something as fact simply because it's what you want to believe. I still think one of the most fascinating reads of all is Massei on the Luminol traces. I mean, Massei destroys at least a half dozen rules of science or logic because it was hell bent on declaring the traces were made from Meredith's blood and no amount of science or reason was going to stop him. And rather than criticize Massei for these massive blunders, Vixen embraces it. Hardly the hallmark of someone interested in the truth.

 

[Vixen]

Well, I'm sure Vixen would claim that we're doing the same thing.. we dismiss Massei and Nencini, but accept Hellmann and Marasca. But what she won't acknowledge is we don't blindly accept what anyone says without evaluating the merits of the claim based on facts, science and logic. How many times has Vixen claimed Marasca ruled Amanda was at the cottage at the time of the murder or that she washed Meredith's blood from her hands. But when asked to offer even a shred of evidence that would support those conclusions she can't. Courts are not infallible, as this case proves. No matter which side of the fence you sit on, two of these courts were right and two were wrong. So it should always come down to verifying the facts, validating the logic. And if you can't do that then you shouldn't accept something as fact simply because it's what you want to believe. I still think one of the most fascinating reads of all is Massei on the Luminol traces. I mean, Massei destroys at least a half dozen rules of science or logic because it was hell bent on declaring the traces were made from Meredith's blood and no amount of science or reason was going to stop him. And rather than criticize Massei for these massive blunders, Vixen embraces it. Hardly the hallmark of someone interested in the truth.

The facts are as found at trial - the merits hearing. If the judge finds - after hearing all of the evidence put in front of the court- that Knox washed her hands of Mez' blood, then that is that. Expert witnesses opined that for her DNA to dominate Mez' DNA (who was bleeding profusely) then she either sloughed off live skin cells containing DNA, which only happens with vigorous rubbing, or she was bleeding heavily herself.

Either way she was at the sink mixing in her DNA with Mez' life blood. The blood drip pattern and its manner of diluting gradually as it got nearer the water source (the cotton bud box had almost pure blood on it, whereas in the sink and bidet, it was more and more diluted) is what forensic police expect to see when someone places a knife dripping with blood under the tap.

The footprint on the bathmat in Mez' blood didn't come from nowhere. It was identified as compatible with Sollecito's.

The trial court's finding of fact is perfectly sound.

That Marasca can examine this fact and pass a veridct of 'not guilty' when neither of the lower courts found any such thing, is what is perverse.

 

[Bill Williams]

The facts are as found at trial - the merits hearing. If the judge finds - after hearing all of the evidence put in front of the court- that Knox washed her hands of Mez' blood, then that is that. Expert witnesses opined that for her DNA to dominate Mez' DNA (who was bleeding profusely) then she either sloughed off live skin cells containing DNA, which only happens with vigorous rubbing, or she was bleeding heavily herself.

Nope. The fact finding court was clear that their conclusion that Knox had done all that was not based on any evidence. It simply "fit" with all the other factoids which those convicting courts determined were factual not because of evidence, but just because they found it so.

That's the trouble with your continual citation of what are now expunged court proceedings. It's been 2 1/2 years since the acquittals.... so it's a long, tired reach to continue to claim stuff which has long since been ruled out.