The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[Stacyhs]

If I wanted to convince an educated and reasonable adult that Amanda Knox was innocent I would hand them the guilter translation of the Massei report and nothing more and tell them to knock themselves out.

Your brain probably cant fathom that but normal people would read parts like "ignore the laws of physics and the glass spray pattern proving the opposite, the rock was thrown from inside because i say so" and so on and realize, oh the merits court is not using any sort of reason or logic and the presented evidence doesn't begin to prove the conclusions they reach.

Massei's logic included such gems as declaring the footprints (never conclusively identified as Amanda's) and TMB negative as "Amanda's bloody footprints" because "what else could they be?"
Then there's this gem: Amanda carried around a foot long (31 cm) kitchen knife with exposed almost 7 inch (17.5 cm) blade in her cloth bag (which had no nicks or cuts from said blade) to protect herself on Raff's insistence. Uh huh

 

[bagels]

Massei's logic included such gems as declaring the footprints (never conclusively identified as Amanda's) and TMB negative as "Amanda's bloody footprints" because "what else could they be?"
Then there's this gem: Amanda carried around a foot long (31 cm) kitchen knife with exposed almost 7 inch (17.5 cm) blade in her cloth bag (which had no nicks or cuts from said blade) to protect herself on Raff's insistence. Uh huh

Before the guilter translation of the Massei report was released, there was a PIP translation in progress because they felt it important for English speakers to see first hand the convicting judge's bad reasoning. To quote one of the volunteer translators:

"The translator, komponisto, believes that Knox and Sollecito are not only innocent but obviously so, and that the Massei-Cristiani report is of interest to students of human rationality, skepticism, and critical thinking as a case study in atrocious reasoning on the part of a judicial authority — about concrete empirical facts, not subtleties of jurisprudence."

The guilters are oblivious to this because they're drowning under an avalanche of self delusion and think there's a conspiracy to hide the brilliant conclusions of Massei and Chieffi from the public lol

 

[Bill Williams]

And of course they would ultimately ask the question, why do we need to fit in this sloppy and at best ambiguous evidence into a convoluted and improbable crime scenario that doesn't make sense or fit into a coherent picture or timeline.....

The guilter-nutter point of view is that "all the other evidence" is somewhat thin when taken separately.

But their view continues to say that when assembled it leads to a guilt-conclusion. Indeed, at least one reputable Oxford-trained Italian lawyer, Stefano Maffei, cites this as his reason for believing in guilt.

Still, when items contained in that "all the other evidence" start including phantom striations on a bleach-cleaned kitchen knife, innocently carried in a cloth bag (with no evidence of it ever having been in the bag)...... etc., etc.......

It starts looking like a collapsed house of cards rather than cards neatly assembled one on top of another.

So, Vixen, over to you. What long-since debunked bit of guilter nonsense are we going to be talking about next? We've not nearly gone one trip around the merry-go-round since the ECHR ruled that Knox's rights had been violated at interrogation, and that Italy is treaty bound to remedy the calunnia conviction in relation to Lumumba.

Wanna post the pic of the window under Filomena's room again? The one where you said it had no bars over it, where the pic showed bars over the window..... surely the merry-go-round will cover that again?

 

[bagels]

The guilter-nutter point of view is that "all the other evidence" is somewhat thin when taken separately.

But their view continues to say that when assembled it leads to a guilt-conclusion. Indeed, at least one reputable Oxford-trained Italian lawyer, Stefano Maffei, cites this as his reason for believing in guilt.

I liked the way anglolawyer put it a while back, so I will just quote his post verbatim:

There is a difference between 'unreliable' and 'bogus', firstly. Nothing can shore up bogus evidence. But something which is, viewed in isolation, not reliable can be shored up by something else and turned into useful evidence. It's got a name - corroboration. It's very difficult to use this case as an illustrative example because most of the so-called evidence is indeed bogus but, in a proper case and like I said before, if a hurricane had blown the house away after the luminol tests but before TMB then the resulting evidence would not be fundamentally worthless and incapable of proving anything. It could conceivably have probative value if other evidence existed that showed, say, there had been all-night cleaning activity in the house (lights on, noise, use of cleaning materials, mop with traces of blood etc).

Let's step back and remember why we are discussing this in the first place. It's because Galati, the ISC and Nencini claim that Hellman erred in looking at evidence in isolation and not taking the above principle into account. The guilters now parrot this as though it resolves everything. It doesn't. Weak evidence may not survive direct assault. It may never make it, not because it is weak (weak evidence is still evidence) but because it is destroyed altogether. The luminol hits are a good example, as are the knife, the bra clasp, Curatolo, Quintavalle and many things besides.

The other thing about circumstantial evidence is it should all point to just one thing. Only one thing that actually happened. The Thing That Actually Happened gave off evidence like radiation and the sensors detecting it should be able to describe its path through space time accurately. What we have instead is a mėlange of inconsistent and irreconcilable junk that cannot be made to fit no matter how hard you try. That there are many out there, including Italian judges, willing to make fools of themselves in the attempt doesn't alter the fact.

But I think ultimately there is no tangible internally consistent reason or reasons any guilter believes in Knox's guilt. The belief has entrenched itself in them in a way that even they can't separate or identify its nature. This is why you will never get a guilter to answer basic procedural questions, like what would it take to establish reasonable doubt, or what items of evidence could you remove before you would acknowledge reasonable doubt, and so on. Meanwhile your average PIP can easily rattle off a dozen ways compelling evidence could soundly convict Knox.

This thread started 10 years ago as an argument over cartwheels and it evolved into a thorough repudiation of any guilter position to the point where none of them find posting her tenable except Vixen managing with a straight face and no hint of irony to claim the acquittals are literal mafia conspiracies and an international court finding violations in the interrogation doesn't mean there were violations in the interrogation.

We've sucked this one dry.

 

[Bill Williams]

Let's step back and remember why we are discussing this in the first place. It's because Galati, the ISC and Nencini claim that Hellman erred in looking at evidence in isolation and not taking the above principle into account. The guilters now parrot this as though it resolves everything. It doesn't. Weak evidence may not survive direct assault. It may never make it, not because it is weak (weak evidence is still evidence) but because it is destroyed altogether. The luminol hits are a good example, as are the knife, the bra clasp, Curatolo, Quintavalle and many things besides.

The other thing about circumstantial evidence is it should all point to just one thing. Only one thing that actually happened.

Thanks bagels for finding this. I don't think I've ever heard the guilter-nutters do this, cite circumstantial, somewhat shakey circumstantial evidence which points to one thing which actually happened.

They have used it all these years to point to one thing which they believe: that Knox is guilty, with a somewhat passing mention of Sollecito, and Guede isn't even a passing thought.

This is why their accounting for motive is all over the map, and why T.O.D. is all over the map. True, they actually do not need to demonstrate motive, but how many posts here on ISF/JREF have speculated on that, and how many did the convicting courts and various prosecutions cycle through? hy so many if they actually didn't need one.

Anyway, thank you to a/l for reminding us of how to sift through all this, and how Galati, the 2012 SC, and Nencini booted it when it came to assessing bogus evidence, which, as the 2015 SC said, even if true did not justify a conviction.

 

[TruthCalls]

If there is a case for tertiary contamination it is up to the person claiming it to demonstrate the path of contamination.

All these 'experiments with talcum powder' the murderer deniers like to cite are based on dust flying around in a short time frame. Gill himself very clearly writes that secondary contamination is unlikely after 24 hours. The lunatic PIP's are trying to have people believe Raff's DNA got on the bra clasp from (1) the door and then (2) the glove and then (3) onto the crook of the bra clasp = TERTIARY transfer, after six weeks.

Conti came out with nonsense about'DNA is like dust flying around' omitting to mention that DNA fragments from shedding skin will only show a few alleles, which is why the forensic standard in the UK is 'must be at least ten alleles to be robust evidence'. Mez' DNA on the knife was FIFTEEN alleles matching (despite the LCN) and Raff's an irrefutable SEVENTEEN alleles - considered a full house from a sample that was not LCN and had high RFU's. It is neither here nor there that fragments of background noise DNA of four or five alleles were also found because you cannot discount they are the sort of dust Conti was referring to. The testing methods were witnessed by defence forensic experts and they raised no complaints.

If you believe that you'll believe OJ Simpson was hundreds of miles away when Nicola and Goldman were butchered or some 'bushy haired stranger' killed Susan Smith's children.

You keep making this claim, Vixen, but this is most definitely NOT how the legal system works WRT forensic evidence. All that is required by the defense is to show that basic precautions to prevent contamination were not followed. In doing so they show contamination COULD have happened, and that's enough to render the evidence useless.

If a tech picks up an object and places it in a baggie from a kitchen draw and later DNA from one of the residents is found on the object, how would anyone prove whether the DNA was on the object when it was picked up or transferred to the object when placed in the baggie? You can't, but the mere fact that a baggie kept at the residence was used automatically rendered the DNA on the object useless because there is the CHANCE the DNA came from the baggie. If the tech used new, clean, sterile gloves and places the object in a new, clean, sterile collection bag, seals the bag, and then the bag is opened within the confines of a sterile lab which is following all necessary protocols, and then the DNA is detected, it could be said with confidence the DNA was on the object when it was collected. That is why procedures and protocols exist, so they can be followed and so evidence can be considered reliable.

 

[TruthCalls]

Thanks bagels for finding this. I don't think I've ever heard the guilter-nutters do this, cite circumstantial, somewhat shakey circumstantial evidence which points to one thing which actually happened.

They have used it all these years to point to one thing which they believe: that Knox is guilty, with a somewhat passing mention of Sollecito, and Guede isn't even a passing thought.

This is why their accounting for motive is all over the map, and why T.O.D. is all over the map. True, they actually do not need to demonstrate motive, but how many posts here on ISF/JREF have speculated on that, and how many did the convicting courts and various prosecutions cycle through? hy so many if they actually didn't need one.

Anyway, thank you to a/l for reminding us of how to sift through all this, and how Galati, the 2012 SC, and Nencini booted it when it came to assessing bogus evidence, which, as the 2015 SC said, even if true did not justify a conviction.

Actually, while this may be technically correct, I've heard several experts say that in weak or purely circumstantial cases a motive is almost always required 'by the jury' in order to convict.

Any honest juror, who views the evidence presented by the prosecution in this case with an honest, open and unbiased perspective would, I believe, demand a reasonable, logical motive in order to convict. Amanda and Raffaele were two young college kids, totally infatuated with each other, alone in his place and with plans to go out of town the following day. Each had a history that was actually passive in nature. Neither had any issues with Meredith and every reason to remain at his place and enjoy each other's company. There is just no way a juror wouldn't struggle with the "why would they do this" question. Then tell the juror there was a person who had a recent history of committing B&E's, and this person's forensic trace was all over Meredith's bedroom while there was no forensic trace of either Amanda or Raffaele in her room and the acquittal would be almost an automatic.

Of course, this does require an honest, open and unbiased perspective, which explains why Vixen doesn't get it....

 

[AnimalFriendly]

Don't tell me. You think OJ Simpson is innocent.

No surprise there.

Don't tell me. You think Michael Morton is guilty.

No surprise there.

 

[Bill Williams]

Of course, this does require an honest, open and unbiased perspective, which explains why Vixen doesn't get it....

I'm taking bets as to which well worn factoid Vixen will trot out next.

Send me PM with your guesses.

 

[Stacyhs]

Don't tell me. You think Michael Morton is guilty.

No surprise there.

Vixen thinks Ryan Ferguson and the Memphis 3 are all guilty despite the prosecutions' cases completely falling apart.
I think Vixen has a very difficult time even with the concept of wrongful convictions.

 

[AnimalFriendly]

Vixen thinks Ryan Ferguson and the Memphis 3 are all guilty despite the prosecutions' cases completely falling apart.
I think Vixen has a very difficult time even with the concept of wrongful convictions.

Yeah, I know but that's mostly, or all, due to these people's connection to or friendship with Amanda Knox. In the case of the WM3, she & the other guilter nutters also can't stand the fact that John Douglas has spoken out regarding their obvious innocence as well as that of Knox & Sollecito.

 

[AnimalFriendly]

It is a legal fact that Knox and Guede were present during the 'murder of the young Meredith Kercher' and Sollecito 'almost certainly'.

Try to grasp the simple concept that something being a judicial "fact" does not make that something an empirical fact by default. It's something most people learn in junior high civics class.

 

[Stacyhs]

Yeah, I know but that's mostly, or all, due to these people's connection to or friendship with Amanda Knox. In the case of the WM3, she & the other guilter nutters also can't stand the fact that John Douglas has spoken out regarding their obvious innocence as well as that of Knox & Sollecito.

I agree. Anything and everything relating positively to Knox must be disparaged in the effort for 'true justice'. If that means attacking people not only on a professional level, but also a personal one, it's not a problem. It's all for Meredith.

 

[Welshman]

If there is a case for tertiary contamination it is up to the person claiming it to demonstrate the path of contamination.

All these 'experiments with talcum powder' the murderer deniers like to cite are based on dust flying around in a short time frame. Gill himself very clearly writes that secondary contamination is unlikely after 24 hours. The lunatic PIP's are trying to have people believe Raff's DNA got on the bra clasp from (1) the door and then (2) the glove and then (3) onto the crook of the bra clasp = TERTIARY transfer, after six weeks.

Conti came out with nonsense about'DNA is like dust flying around' omitting to mention that DNA fragments from shedding skin will only show a few alleles, which is why the forensic standard in the UK is 'must be at least ten alleles to be robust evidence'. Mez' DNA on the knife was FIFTEEN alleles matching (despite the LCN) and Raff's an irrefutable SEVENTEEN alleles - considered a full house from a sample that was not LCN and had high RFU's. It is neither here nor there that fragments of background noise DNA of four or five alleles were also found because you cannot discount they are the sort of dust Conti was referring to. The testing methods were witnessed by defence forensic experts and they raised no complaints.

If you believe that you'll believe OJ Simpson was hundreds of miles away when Nicola and Goldman were butchered or some 'bushy haired stranger' killed Susan Smith's children.

It is a sign of the industrial scale stupidity of PGP that they come up with ludicrous claims which are blatantly contradicted by the facts. One ludicrous claim is the idea there were solid DNA profiles on the knife and clasp.

The idea there was a solid DNA profile on the knife is ridiculous for the following reasons :-

The characteristics of the knife would have made it physically impossible for the knife to have stabbed Meredith and DNA to exist.

• During the interrogation Amanda and Raffaele were never accused of stabbing Meredith and the statements the police prepared statements for Amanda and Raffaele which said nothing about Amanda and Raffaele stabbing Meredith. How do you explain this if Amanda and Raffaele had stabbed Meredith? This is something which is often overlooked about the knife.
• The circumstances surrounding the collection of the knife are highly suspect. Only one knife was taken from Raffaele’s apartment and no knives were taken from the cottage. Below is Inspector Finzi’s testimony about the knife. As can be seen Inspector Finzi’s says he had not seen the wounds. Inspector Finzi had no data on the size of the knife wounds and there is no record the prosecution measured the knife to compare with the knife wounds. In view of this how was Inspector Finzi able to tell this was the knife used in the murder?
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/freque...ked-questions/
• The knife did not match a bloody imprint on the bed.
• The knife did not match the wounds and was too big to have caused the wounds.
• There was no blood on the knife.
• When C&V tested the knife it was negative for the human species which meant there was no human biological material on the knife.
• Vixen and other PGP like to claim two knives were used. The problem with this argument is that when Inspector Finzi gave his testimony regarding the collection of the knife, he said nothing about two knives and that Raffaele’s knife had only caused one of the wounds. If the two knife theory was valid, why did the prosecution not claim this from the start?
• The defence teams had no objection to the knife being opened whilst the prosecution opposed opening the knife. If the knife had been used to stab Meredith, there was a possibility that blood would enter the area between the blade and handle which can’t be washed off. Why did the defence teams have no objection to the knife being opened when there was a possibility there might be blood in the area between the blade and handle which would be damming evidence. Why did the prosecution oppose opening the knife if they were so certain the knife had been used by Amanda or Raffaele to kill Meredith?
• When Stefanoni tested the knife the results kept coming back too low and this continued after she switched to LCN. The result of too low indicates there was no DNA on the knife.

The prosecution had to resort to the tactics in the links below. Anyone with a functioning brain cell should understand that the prosecution don’t need to resort to these tactics if you have slam dunk evidence. PGP posters are so staggeringly thick they can’t understand this simple concept.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/lab-data-suppression/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/

As can be seen the link at the bottom Vixen’s idol Stefanoni couldn’t answer the simple question how much DNA existed on the knife. PGP posters are so staggeringly stupid they can’t understand the simple concept that if a solid DNA profile existed on the knife, Stefanoni should be answer a basic question like how much DNA on the knife.

PGP have to resort to lying when discussing the knife. Below are some of the numerous falsehoods Vixen has said in her posts and many of these lies concern the knife. :-

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11938562#post11938562
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11942852#post11942852
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11598412#post11598412
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11427461#post11427461
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11951893#post11951893
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11982023#post11982023
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12107306#post12107306
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12200863#post12200863
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12297573#post12297573
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12297575#post12297575

The notion the bra clasp had a solid DNA profile is ridiculous for the following reasons.

The crime scene had been trashed, the bra clasp was dirty and damaged by the time the clasp was collected.

When it came to the clasp, the prosecution had to resort to similar tactics as with the knife as can be seen on the link below. Prosecutors don’t need to resort to these tactics if they have solid evidence.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/bra-clasp-contamination/

Vixen’s idol Stefanoni claimed she changed gloves when collecting the clasp which was a lie caught on video. Prosecutors should not need to lie when they have solid evidence.

Contrary to what Vixen says the defence found the DNA profile was weak and doubted if the DNA profile was unique to Raffaele. Below is from Raffaele’s appeal document for the Hellman court

“The prosecution claimed that there was an abundant amount of DNA on the clasp. It was stated by the prosecution that Raffaele’s DNA on the clasp was abundant. This is not the case. Raffaele’s DNA was mixed with other DNA. Testing confirmed the victim’s DNA was present along with at least three other unidentified people. The defense argues that proper analysis the DNA on the clasp shows that Raffaele’s DNA is not abundant at all. With proper testing, Raffaele’s alleged DNA is only 1/6 of the total sample. The prosecution agreed with this analysis. That calculation is a best case scenario. In actuality, it could easily be less than 1/6. This lowers the genetic material that is attributed to Raffaele to well under 200 picograms, the standard minimum to be used for normal DNA analysis. In order for the sample to be tested properly, LCN analysis would have been necessary. LCN testing was not done by the prosecution’s experts on the clasp. The defense argues that proper testing shows that some strands do not match Raffaele’s DNA. The defense expert was only able to test a few strands. The court did not understand that if any strands did not match then it wasn’t Raffaele’s DNA. The defense argues that additional testing will prove that the DNA does not belong to Raffaele. This additional testing should be granted on appeal”

As can be seen from the link, Stefanoni can’t answer the basic question how much DNA is on the clasp. This is uncanny similar to Stefanoni being unable to say how much DNA was on the knife.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-bra-clasp/

The prosecution deliberately let the clasp rust making it useless for testing. If the bra clasp was such a slam dunk piece of evidence, why didn’t the prosecution want the clasp testing? This bears an uncanny resemblance to the prosecution not wanting to open the knife.

 

[TruthCalls]

Try to grasp the simple concept that something being a judicial "fact" does not make that something an empirical fact by default. It's something most people learn in junior high civics class.

Funny thing is, it's not even a 'legal' "judicial fact". The ONLY basis by which any court could claim there is evidence of Amanda being present at the cottage at the time of the murder is her interrogation statements. But since the Supreme Court ruled them inadmissible for her criminal trial, no court can use that as evidence. Take that away and there is nothing. This was an error Marasca's court made when they inadvertently gave the PGP some fodder. Of course, all three of the remaining PGP have been told this numerous times yet they continue to repeat it. Go figure.

 

[whoanellie]

Vixen thinks Ryan Ferguson and the Memphis 3 are all guilty despite the prosecutions' cases completely falling apart.
I think Vixen has a very difficult time even with the concept of wrongful convictions.

For the life of me I can't figure out what Vixen's point is regarding OJ. OJ was found not guilty - at least in criminal court. Doesn't that establish some sort of "judicial fact" or something? At this point even Vixen can't keep track of her own pretzel logic.

 

[Stacyhs]

For the life of me I can't figure out what Vixen's point is regarding OJ. OJ was found not guilty - at least in criminal court. Doesn't that establish some sort of "judicial fact" or something? At this point even Vixen can't keep track of her own pretzel logic.

Hell, she can't even decide if Knox was covering for Guede or setting him up! Is this "she was covering for him" Tuesday or "she was setting him up" Wednesday? Some days, she might go for both!

 

[whoanellie]

Hell, she can't even decide if Knox was covering for Guede or setting him up! Is this "she was covering for him" Tuesday or "she was setting him up" Wednesday? Some days, she might go for both!

Every day is "Vixen posts nonsense" Saturday.

 

[Welshman]

Hell, she can't even decide if Knox was covering for Guede or setting him up! Is this "she was covering for him" Tuesday or "she was setting him up" Wednesday? Some days, she might go for both!

PGP posters can't see the contradiction between claiming Amanda was both trying to incriminate and cover up for Guede. Yet another example of gross stupidity by PGP.

 

[RoseMontague]

..... a striation that no one saw, which Stefanoni claimed could only be seen by her. The knife still exists. No one else has seen what Stefanoni claimed.

BTW - guilter-nutters once posted a picture of that knife claiming it showed the striation. Then I posted the sentence in the Massei report which claimed that no pics of the striation were possible. Then guilter-nutters clicked out crickets.

It's not a good strategic ploy on your part to mention the non-existent striation.

We know a test was done for blood and it was negative. Stefanoni found MK's DNA on the blade and AK's DNA on the handle. I see what appear to be scratches on the blade in one of the pics.