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

[TruthCalls]

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.

Yet another dishonest view of the facts.

Nothing was presented in any of the trials that would prove Amanda was washing Meredith's blood off her hands. The forensic analysis was entirely consistent with Amanda's DNA already being present in the bathroom she used daily when Meredith's blood was deposited. The court merely fabricated a narrative that wasn't contradicted by the evidence, but it certainly wasn't substantiated by it either. Similarly the Hellmann court concluded Amanda's DNA was latent. Of course that too was not proven, but that's the point. There is no evidence that proves Amanda washed Meredith's blood from her hands and you know that, but you continue to repeat the claim. And rather than cite evidence that indisputably proves it you continue to fall back on the narrative of a court that has since been overturned.

Similarly, the print on the bathmat was analyzed by two different expert witnesses who came to two different conclusions. But what both sides did agree on was the print could not be used to identify anyone, only exclude people. And once again you are dishonest in claiming it was identified as compatible with Sollecito. No, the prosecution's expert made that claim. The defense's expert claimed it was compatible with Guede. You pick and choose what you wish to believe but you can't cite a shred of evidence that proves anything.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yet another dishonest view of the facts.
Nothing was presented in any of the trials that would prove Amanda was washing Meredith's blood off her hands. The forensic analysis was entirely consistent with Amanda's DNA already being present in the bathroom she used daily when Meredith's blood was deposited. The court merely fabricated a narrative that wasn't contradicted by the evidence, but it certainly wasn't substantiated by it either. Similarly the Hellmann court concluded Amanda's DNA was latent. Of course that too was not proven, but that's the point. There is no evidence that proves Amanda washed Meredith's blood from her hands and you know that, but you continue to repeat the claim. And rather than cite evidence that indisputably proves it you continue to fall back on the narrative of a court that has since been overturned.

Similarly, the print on the bathmat was analyzed by two different expert witnesses who came to two different conclusions. But what both sides did agree on was the print could not be used to identify anyone, only exclude people. And once again you are dishonest in claiming it was identified as compatible with Sollecito. No, the prosecution's expert made that claim. The defense's expert claimed it was compatible with Guede. You pick and choose what you wish to believe but you can't cite a shred of evidence that proves anything.

Vixen continually distorts what even the convicting courts found so persuasive about "Knox rubbed Meredith's blood from her hands." The following is the actual way that Judge Massei (in 2010) put it:

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.​

Massei was conceding that there was no proof at all from Stefanoni's work that the blood had come from Knox's hands - it's just that there was other pseudo-circumstantial evidence to lump it in with.

What even the Massei court conceded was determined, not through science but through a circumstantial hunch, is now being played by Vixen as an iron-clad fact presented at trial.

 

[Stacyhs]

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.

Please provide a citation for these "expert witnesses" who "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".

If Amanda was bleeding heavily then why is only a drop of her blood found anywhere? No wounds were found on her during the medical examination (including a "scratch/wound" on her neck). Where do you think this blood would have come from? The only possibility would have been her nose. Let's suppose that's the case. What would cause her nose to start bleeding profusely? Being hit hard is certainly a plausible cause. But where would that have occurred? In the bedroom where Meredith was attacked. Yet not a drop of AK's blood is found anywhere...not dripping or sprayed onto Meredith's clothes, not on her body, not dripping onto the floor, not dripping onto the hallway floor nor the bathroom floor. Not onto her own clothes she was wearing found on her bed. Amanda was not bleeding profusely. The drop of blood found on the faucet is consistent with a slight bleed from an infected ear piercing.

 

[TruthCalls]

Vixen continually distorts what even the convicting courts found so persuasive about "Knox rubbed Meredith's blood from her hands." The following is the actual way that Judge Massei (in 2010) put it:

​

Massei was conceding that there was no proof at all from Stefanoni's work that the blood had come from Knox's hands - it's just that there was other pseudo-circumstantial evidence to lump it in with.

What even the Massei court conceded was determined, not through science but through a circumstantial hunch, is now being played by Vixen as an iron-clad fact presented at trial.

Agreed. Nothing was found by the forensic investigation that would put into doubt the very real scenario of Guede rinsing Meredith's blood off his hands in the sink and leaving a few drips there, on the Q-tip box and on the light switch - all items that likely would have had Amanda's - AND Meredith's - DNA on them already. This is also why DNA experts such as Conti and Vecchiotti, Gill and Hampikian had to be denigrated by the PGP. They know the collection method the forensic team used was improper and that the lab results do not at all prove the court's conclusion. It's why in 10+ years not a single independent DNA expert has ever supported the DNA evidence used by the courts.

All for Meredith, I guess...

 

[Bill Williams]

This is also why DNA experts such as Conti and Vecchiotti, Gill and Hampikian had to be denigrated by the PGP. They know the collection method the forensic team used was improper and that the lab results do not at all prove the court's conclusion. It's why in 10+ years not a single independent DNA expert has ever supported the DNA evidence used by the courts.

All for Meredith, I guess...

The remaining PGP simply cannot name a forensic-DNA expert who supports Stefanoni's work. So they have to engage in unsupported ad hominem on the experts who, in effect, take the defences' side.

They take that side because of the evidence. The remaining PGP need to claim something else.

 

[Stacyhs]

Back to body language and statement analysis...

Statement analysis is not admitted into courts as legal evidence in the UK, the US or in Canada. Why? Because it is not an accepted science such as DNA analysis, footprint/fingerprint analysis, etc.

I could find no mention of body language analysis being accepted as legal evidence in court or not. However, I was also unable to find any cases where it had been admitted into evidence.

 

[Stacyhs]

Yes you beat me to it! What comes of perusing the thread while cooking. You read one post and respond to it then you find someone else has already done so.

But an interesting comparison with the other reference above by Professor Martha Grace Duncan J.D. Ph.D. Professor of Law, Emory University. (Ph.D., Columbia University; J.D., Yale University)
http://law.emory.edu/_includes/docu...rship/faculty-cvs/duncan-curriculum-vitae.pdf

They're having meltdowns over on TJMK over this article. They're practically foaming at the mouth. Just goes to show they have nothing else to talk about. They certainly aren't talking about the (not delivered) "apology" that Quennell decreed would be coming from RS and Gumbel.

 

[whoanellie]

The facts are as found at trial - the merits hearing.

Therein lies your problem.

While others may argue with you about what the various courts have found in this case, I would like to suggest that you would be better off thinking for yourself. That does presume, of course, some ability to do so which in thousands of posts here you have failed to demonstrate.

 

[TruthCalls]

They're having meltdowns over on TJMK over this article. They're practically foaming at the mouth. Just goes to show they have nothing else to talk about. They certainly aren't talking about the (not delivered) "apology" that Quennell decreed would be coming from RS and Gumbel.

Foaming at the mouth aptly describes them. I realize it's just four or five people, but their obsession is quite disturbing, especially Quennell. Heads are exploding over what - one person's opinion on why Amanda was treated as she was? And this coming from people who have been publishing Knox hate articles daily for ten years and counting. These are deeply troubled people.

 

[Stacyhs]

Foaming at the mouth aptly describes them. I realize it's just four or five people, but their obsession is quite disturbing, especially Quennell. Heads are exploding over what - one person's opinion on why Amanda was treated as she was? And this coming from people who have been publishing Knox hate articles daily for ten years and counting. These are deeply troubled people.

In their latest hysterical rant over in Bizarroland, they're now claiming that Amanda smelled of cat pee the morning after the murder which is a sure "sign of cocaine use and not taking a shower". You just can't make this stuff up. Oh, wait...that's exactly what they're doing.

 

[Vixen]

Back to body language and statement analysis...

Statement analysis is not admitted into courts as legal evidence in the UK, the US or in Canada. Why? Because it is not an accepted science such as DNA analysis, footprint/fingerprint analysis, etc.

I could find no mention of body language analysis being accepted as legal evidence in court or not. However, I was also unable to find any cases where it had been admitted into evidence.

In the hands of a skilled witness, such as a police officer, who are trained to give evidence objectively, body language can be useful for a court.

Imagine you have a lady who has been 'mugged' and the 'mugger' has been apprehended by a passerby.

Someone like Stacyhs might say in court.

'It reminds me of the time I did blah blah blah blah, and I wouldn't dream of mugging so I don't believe this poor fellow meant to do it. I have a nephew the same age and I know it is just high jinks, M'Lud, he looks a bit scruffy, but they all do these days, and he was terribly rude to me and I was offended- -'

<fx judge bangs gavel> 'Thank you Madam, you may step down now'.

Police witness:

'On approaching the victim of the robbery, M'Lud, I noticed the victim lying on the pavement. Her tights were laddered at the knee and at the calf. Her skirt was torn and her blouse was ripped at the shoulder.

I asked her what had happened and when she stood up, I noted she was about 5'3", red hair, shoulder length. She was in a state of great distress, with tears rolling down her face and had a large bruise on her eye.

She could barely stand up straight. Her face was red and her voice was shaking. She was crying as she said to me, 'It was 'im what done it, Officer!'

'She at this point pointed at this 'ere young feller me lad, in the dock.

I approached the man she pointed at and M'Lud, he immediately appeared to break out in a sweat across his brows. He began shaking and he waved his fist at the young lady.

He said, 'It wasn't me, honest, Officer'.

He was wearing clothes that were frayed at the cuffs and collar, had holes at the elbows and knees. I noted a bag, shiny of red leather material, at his feet. His shoes were unpolished, M'Lud and the uppers had come away from the sole.

I asked him why the bag was at his feet, whereupon he shouted, '£$"% off, you bloody £$%", etc.etc.'


So you see, you ARE allowed to mention body language. It comes across as far more objective than your method of ascribing motive to people and your subjective opinion.

 

[Vixen]

Therein lies your problem.

While others may argue with you about what the various courts have found in this case, I would like to suggest that you would be better off thinking for yourself. That does presume, of course, some ability to do so which in thousands of posts here you have failed to demonstrate.

I am glad you think it is OK for Harvard Law School to release this pile of crap masquerading as an academic paper.

When will you step away from people peddling propaganda.

 

[bagels]

I am glad you think it is OK for Harvard Law School to release this pile of crap masquerading as an academic paper.

When will you step away from people peddling propaganda.

How many prestigious institutions and esteemed individuals have to write about this case before you realize which side of the story is filled with garbage? The only real mystery left lol

 

[Mr Fied]

In their latest hysterical rant over in Bizarroland, they're now claiming that Amanda smelled of cat pee the morning after the murder which is a sure "sign of cocaine use and not taking a shower". You just can't make this stuff up. Oh, wait...that's exactly what they're doing.

This has been mentioned here before by a certain poster.

Do they not realise how stupid they make themselves look.

So, Amanda either took part in a bloody murder and showered and scrubbed her skin to remove all traces of blood.

Or, she had such bad personal hygiene that she stunk of cats piss, or was it sex?

And the evidence of this cocaine use was?

Which story shall we go with today?

 

[TruthCalls]

This has been mentioned here before by a certain poster.

Do they not realise how stupid they make themselves look.

So, Amanda either took part in a bloody murder and showered and scrubbed her skin to remove all traces of blood.

Or, she had such bad personal hygiene that she stunk of cats piss, or was it sex?

And the evidence of this cocaine use was?

Which story shall we go with today?

Ten years later and they're still doing it -- so no, I don't think they realize how stupid it makes them look. They allow their emotions to rule what they write... they shoot from the hip. Take this paragraph as an example;

In getting there, the jeering flippant Duncan ignores the victim, Meredith (mentioned only briefly and callously). She ignores that Knox was not an exchange student. She ignores the bizarre behavior that was making Knox so unpopular in Perugia. She ignores Knox’s over-the-top drug use, extending back to Seattle. She ignores that Knox was stinking of cat-pee on the morning of the murder, a sign of cocaine use (and of no recent shower).

- The article is about Amanda, how she reacted and how those around her interpreted it. So why would Meredith be mentioned? Regardless, she is referenced throughout and never callously.
- I thought UW had an exchange program with Perugia but regardless, in what way does being an exchange student or not have any bearing?
- There is zero evidence that Amanda was unpopular - it's a typical anti-Knox fabrication.
- Amanda smoked pot, and even at that she didn't smoke a lot. This is another anti-Knox fabrication.
- There was never any claim of Amanda smelling of cat-pee. Also, tests confirmed Amanda wasn't using cocaine. Also, cocaine use does not make you smell like cat-pee.

So in this one paragraph they attack the author, make two irrelevant observations and then make three false claims about Amanda. Yet this is typical for Quennell and his ilk. When you are obsessed about something it's extremely difficult to be rational about it and Quennell is living proof of that.

 

[Bill Williams]

In their latest hysterical rant over in Bizarroland, they're now claiming that Amanda smelled of cat pee the morning after the murder which is a sure "sign of cocaine use and not taking a shower". You just can't make this stuff up. Oh, wait...that's exactly what they're doing.

This has been mentioned here before by a certain poster.

Do they not realise how stupid they make themselves look.
So, Amanda either took part in a bloody murder and showered and scrubbed her skin to remove all traces of blood.

Or, she had such bad personal hygiene that she stunk of cats piss, or was it sex?

And the evidence of this cocaine use was?

Which story shall we go with today?

Ten years later and they're still doing it -- so no, I don't think they realize how stupid it makes them look. They allow their emotions to rule what they write... they shoot from the hip. Take this paragraph as an example;

In getting there, the jeering flippant Duncan ignores the victim, Meredith (mentioned only briefly and callously). She ignores that Knox was not an exchange student. She ignores the bizarre behavior that was making Knox so unpopular in Perugia. She ignores Knox’s over-the-top drug use, extending back to Seattle. She ignores that Knox was stinking of cat-pee on the morning of the murder, a sign of cocaine use (and of no recent shower).

- The article is about Amanda, how she reacted and how those around her interpreted it. So why would Meredith be mentioned? Regardless, she is referenced throughout and never callously.
- I thought UW had an exchange program with Perugia but regardless, in what way does being an exchange student or not have any bearing?
- There is zero evidence that Amanda was unpopular - it's a typical anti-Knox fabrication.
- Amanda smoked pot, and even at that she didn't smoke a lot. This is another anti-Knox fabrication.
- There was never any claim of Amanda smelling of cat-pee. Also, tests confirmed Amanda wasn't using cocaine. Also, cocaine use does not make you smell like cat-pee.

So in this one paragraph they attack the author, make two irrelevant observations and then make three false claims about Amanda. Yet this is typical for Quennell and his ilk. When you are obsessed about something it's extremely difficult to be rational about it and Quennell is living proof of that.

Half the time I think you people are making all this up, just to make Mr. Quennell and the others who are left on that side of the fence look like nutters.

To quote Mr Fied & TruthCalls one last time: "I don't think they realize how stupid it makes them look."

 

[Stacyhs]

In the hands of a skilled witness, such as a police officer, who are trained to give evidence objectively, body language can be useful for a court.

Imagine you have a lady who has been 'mugged' and the 'mugger' has been apprehended by a passerby.

Someone like Stacyhs might say in court.'It reminds me of the time I did blah blah blah blah, and I wouldn't dream of mugging so I don't believe this poor fellow meant to do it. I have a nephew the same age and I know it is just high jinks, M'Lud, he looks a bit scruffy, but they all do these days, and he was terribly rude to me and I was offended- -'

<fx judge bangs gavel> 'Thank you Madam, you may step down now'.

Police witness:

'On approaching the victim of the robbery, M'Lud, I noticed the victim lying on the pavement. Her tights were laddered at the knee and at the calf. Her skirt was torn and her blouse was ripped at the shoulder.

I asked her what had happened and when she stood up, I noted she was about 5'3", red hair, shoulder length. She was in a state of great distress, with tears rolling down her face and had a large bruise on her eye.

She could barely stand up straight. Her face was red and her voice was shaking. She was crying as she said to me, 'It was 'im what done it, Officer!''She at this point pointed at this 'ere young feller me lad, in the dock.

I approached the man she pointed at and M'Lud, he immediately appeared to break out in a sweat across his brows. He began shaking and he waved his fist at the young lady.

He said, 'It wasn't me, honest, Officer'.

He was wearing clothes that were frayed at the cuffs and collar, had holes at the elbows and knees. I noted a bag, shiny of red leather material, at his feet. His shoes were unpolished, M'Lud and the uppers had come away from the sole.

I asked him why the bag was at his feet, whereupon he shouted, '£$"% off, you bloody £$%", etc.etc.'


So you see, you ARE allowed to mention body language. It comes across as far more objective than your method of ascribing motive to people and your subjective opinion.

Once again, you think you know what I would do or say. You don't. So stop it.

Your little scenario is quite amusing but fatally flawed. It's not the man's body language that indicated he was the perp, but the fact that the victim identified him in person and that the stolen bag was at his feet. That is what the officer would base his arrest upon, not his language, not what clothes he was wearing, not the condition of his shoes...all of which are not "body language", by the way.
As you describe the man in such profuse detail he sounds like he could well be homeless and quite possibly have a mental health condition as many homeless men do. A woman accusing him of mugging her when he didn't might well set him into a fit of anger. So what do you have left? Sweating across the brow? Homeless people often have bad experiences with the law and become very nervous when dealing with them. Heck, innocent people can become nervous when being questioned by the police. Try getting pulled over and see if you don't sweat a little bit.

What would be used in court as evidence is the victim identification and the man in possession of the stolen purse. The rest is just irrelevant. But nice writing, by the way. Have you thought of writing fiction?

 

[Stacyhs]

I am glad you think it is OK for Harvard Law School to release this pile of crap masquerading as an academic paper.

When will you step away from people peddling propaganda.

I'm not glad that a few die-hard PGP think it is OK to peddle crap and lies on TJMK proclaiming it's "all for Meredith".

I know this is an utter and complete waste of time, but where is the evidence that Amanda "smelled of cat pee"? Or that she was "unpopular in Perugia"? Or that Amanda's drug use was "over the top and extending back to Seattle"?

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm not glad that a few die-hard PGP think it is OK to peddle crap and lies on TJMK proclaiming it's "all for Meredith".

I know this is an utter and complete waste of time, but where is the evidence that Amanda "smelled of cat pee"? Or that she was "unpopular in Perugia"? Or that Amanda's drug use was "over the top and extending back to Seattle"?

Evidence? Why would you want evidence?

 

[Vixen]

Once again, you think you know what I would do or say. You don't. So stop it.

Your little scenario is quite amusing but fatally flawed. It's not the man's body language that indicated he was the perp, but the fact that the victim identified him in person and that the stolen bag was at his feet. That is what the officer would base his arrest upon, not his language, not what clothes he was wearing, not the condition of his shoes...all of which are not "body language", by the way.
As you describe the man in such profuse detail he sounds like he could well be homeless and quite possibly have a mental health condition as many homeless men do. A woman accusing him of mugging her when he didn't might well set him into a fit of anger. So what do you have left? Sweating across the brow? Homeless people often have bad experiences with the law and become very nervous when dealing with them. Heck, innocent people can become nervous when being questioned by the police. Try getting pulled over and see if you don't sweat a little bit.

What would be used in court as evidence is the victim identification and the man in possession of the stolen purse. The rest is just irrelevant. But nice writing, by the way. Have you thought of writing fiction?

Once again you have changed the context (and the subject), which is a favourite ploy of yours. We were talking about presenting evidence in court which includes description of body language.

You are off with the pixies chuntering about the reasons for arrest.