The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[Bill Williams]

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.

None of those are, acc. to the first convicting court, the striation in question. On this point the Massei court covered for Stefanoni's incompetence by writing.....

She stated that the other knives that were analysed were kept separate. She
reaffirmed that on the blade of knife Exhibit 36 a striation was visible but ‚placing
the exhibit under a source of illumination < like the conventional sort that has a
Reprovit, which is the instrument we use for photography; it was possible to observe
it only by placing it under a strong spotlight and by changing the angle at which the
light hit the blade, it was only in this way that these striations became visible to the
naked eye < photos were attempted but it was too reflective < only white spots of light came out‛ (page 246).

 

[Vixen]

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.

Oh but it does. Your name on your birth certificate, the details on your marriage certificate, driving licence or passport are all 'judicial' (legal) facts and nobody gives a **** whether they are empirical facts or not. Our whole society is predicated on law: property, land, family, work. There is no point arguing the land belongs to you if the Land Registry shows no it does not.

By that criterion, it is a legal fact that Knox and Guede were together at the crime scene during the time 'the young Meredith Kercher was murdered' and Sollecito 'almost certainly'.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Not like Knox and her supporters claiming hardworking policemen, pathologists, forensic scientist and judges are corrupt and incompetent? It is so characteristic of Knox and her ilk to make scurrilous claims against decent honest professionals. Claiming the police assaulted her and that the prison doctor spitefully told her she had AIDS all turned out to be wicked lies.

Only a guilty person IMV has the motive to falsely claim dishonourable behaviour in law-enforcement agents.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Erm, you forgot the blood.

 

[Bill Williams]

By that criterion, it is a legal fact that Knox and Guede were together at the crime scene during the time 'the young Meredith Kercher was murdered' and Sollecito 'almost certainly'.

No it's not. When the final acquitting Court was not summarizing the prosecution case, it used the word "alleged". This has been posted here many times.

This is aside from the irony that you refuse to accept their acquittal as a judicial fact. You refuse to accept as a judicial fact that all the body of evidence against RS and AK at best puts them in another part of the cottage at a later time.

You also refuse to accept anything in the Boninsegna report as a judicial fact. Once you justify that irony, you'll lay bare the confirmation bias you bring in selecting what is or isn't a really real judicial fact.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Legally he was allowed to walk free, as was Al Capone. In effect, the Supreme Court confirmed Knox and Sollecito took part in the murder, together with Rudy Guede but that there wasn't enough evidence to convict them of murder.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Maybe that has more to do with Amanda's gross stupidity.

 

[Bill Williams]

Only a guilty person IMV has the motive to falsely claim dishonourable behaviour in law-enforcement agents.

Yet you claim dishonesty and dishonourable conduct on every reputable law enforcement person who's said that the provisional convictions were wrong, and have besmirched the reputation of every reputable forensic DNA expert who's said Stefanoni's work was junk.

Hoots. (Sorry, TomG.)

 

[Numbers]

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.

None of those are, acc. to the first convicting court, the striation in question. On this point the Massei court covered for Stefanoni's incompetence by writing.....

I think what Stefanoni was hinting at (or may have said explicitly in her testimony) was that (in her biased estimation) the knife had been so thoroughly washed that there was no blood or tissue on it, even in all the scratches visible under a regular microscope, except for one incredibly narrow "striation" not objectively visible that miraculously held a minuscule amount of tissue.

 

[Bill Williams]

Legally he was allowed to walk free, as was Al Capone. In effect, the Supreme Court confirmed Knox and Sollecito took part in the murder, together with Rudy Guede but that there wasn't enough evidence to convict them of murder.

No the SC did not. They said that at best what was proven was that they were in another part of the cottage at a later time. If at all.

 

[Numbers]

No the SC did not. They said that at best what was proven was that they were in another part of the cottage at a later time. If at all.

And, ironically, the evidence that they were, hypothetically, in another part of the cottage during the murder was only based on inadmissible evidence: Amanda Knox's statements from the Nov. 5/6 interrogations. The Gemelli CSC panel had ruled that those statements could not be used against her for the murder/rape trial because Amanda's defense rights had been violated.

I believe that this failure of the Marasca CSC panel to include this hypothesis without mentioning the Gemelli CSC panel judgment on inadmissibility is indicative of the dysfunction within the Italian judicial system to fully respect Italian law. It's evidence of the tendency to revert to the methods of the inquisitorial system, where there wasn't any concept of inadmissible evidence.

 

[Bill Williams]

Maybe that has more to do with Amanda's gross stupidity.

What is amazing is that at times the guilter-nutters need Knox to be stupid, and at other times a master, cunning criminal. Make up your mind!

 

[Bill Williams]

And, ironically, the evidence that they were, hypothetically, in another part of the cottage during the murder was only based on inadmissible evidence: Amanda Knox's statements from the Nov. 5/6 interrogations. The Gemelli CSC panel had ruled that those statements could not be used against her for the murder/rape trial because Amanda's defense rights had been violated.

I believe that this failure of the Marasca CSC panel to include this hypothesis without mentioning the Gemelli CSC panel judgment on inadmissibility is indicative of the dysfunction within the Italian judicial system to fully respect Italian law. It's evidence of the tendency to revert to the methods of the inquisitorial system, where there wasn't any concept of inadmissible evidence.

Luca Cheli covered this in his section called, "the shadows", meaning that his reading of the M-B report revealed lack of clarity on certain issues.

One of them was what the "after" referred to, in the section which ended with, "even if true all it proved that they'd been in another part of the cottage at a later time".

No one disputes that RS and AK were there at least by 10:30 am on the second - as the first people to unknowingly enter a crime scene. It's just that the Marasca-Bruno report was unclear that the "after" they referred to potentially extended into the next morning, when no one disputed that they were there. Nothing could "time stamp" when they'd been there.

So it had more to do than with an illegally obtained "confession".

 

[Bill Williams]

Legally he was allowed to walk free, as was Al Capone. In effect, the Supreme Court confirmed Knox and Sollecito took part in the murder, together with Rudy Guede but that there wasn't enough evidence to convict them of murder.

Vixen is now not content in alleging that RS and AK were only present during the murder, she now claims that the final acquitting court confirmed that they took part in the murder.

This despite the acquitting court saying, first in relation to to the failure of the lower, convicting court to establish a time-of-death:

The Sollecito defence is right to object in pointing out the need for investigation
of this point and all its implications, especially in a circumstantial case like this one.
Not only that, but the exact determination of Kercher’s time of death is an
unavoidable factual prerequisite for the verification of the defendant’s alibi, in the
form of an inquiry aimed at ascertaining the possibility of his alleged presence in the house on via della Pergola at the time of the murder.​

Then there are all the other times the Supreme Court refers to their presence at the cottage as being only "alleged" (but why let THAT stop you falsely claiming that the court found that they actually, factually took part):

With reference to the alleged bloody traces in the other rooms, mainly in the
corridor, there is even an obvious misrepresentation of evidence​

During the analysis of the aforementioned elements of evidence, it is
certainly useful to remember that, taking for granted that the murder occurred on
via della Pergola, the alleged presence at the house of the defendants cannot, in
itself, be considered as proof of guilt.​

Despite these words, Vixen is sure that the Supreme Court thought it factual that they were there.

 

[bagels]

Maybe that has more to do with Amanda's gross stupidity.

What does that make Mignini her failed prosecutor then haha

 

[whoanellie]

Maybe that has more to do with Amanda's gross stupidity.

Vixen on biochemistry:
Originally Posted by Vixen

DNA, being a protein,

Vixen on cell biology:
Originally Posted by Vixen

She extracted the cell from its nucleus

Vixen on classical mechanics:
Originally Posted by Vixen

If thrown from outside, the impact on the window/shutter (assuming it can get through the gap of the outter shutters, which Massei accept it could not have) would be weight of the object times distance travelled, which is say, 10lb x six feet (72")= 720lbs (kinetic energy) divided by the distance it comes to a halt.

Vixen on dimensional analysis:
Originally Posted by Vixen

In a foot system, it is OK to convert into inches, as the distance at 'stop' level is often a small fraction of the distance travelled, hence it makes sense to convert 6 feet into 72 inches, if the stop distance is a fraction of an inch. (This is just a nicetie, and of course, not mandatory.) the weight of the rock was expressed in lbs for similar reason.

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen on biochemistry:
Originally Posted by Vixen

DNA, being a protein,

Vixen on cell biology:
Originally Posted by Vixen

She extracted the cell from its nucleus

Vixen on classical mechanics:
Originally Posted by Vixen

If thrown from outside, the impact on the window/shutter (assuming it can get through the gap of the outter shutters, which Massei accept it could not have) would be weight of the object times distance travelled, which is say, 10lb x six feet (72")= 720lbs (kinetic energy) divided by the distance it comes to a halt.

Vixen on dimensional analysis:
Originally Posted by Vixen

In a foot system, it is OK to convert into inches, as the distance at 'stop' level is often a small fraction of the distance travelled, hence it makes sense to convert 6 feet into 72 inches, if the stop distance is a fraction of an inch. (This is just a nicetie, and of course, not mandatory.) the weight of the rock was expressed in lbs for similar reason.

Vixen on forensic-DNA analysis:
There is no such thing as tertiary transfer.

 

[whoanellie]

Legally he was allowed to walk free, as was Al Capone. In effect, the Supreme Court confirmed Knox and Sollecito took part in the murder, together with Rudy Guede but that there wasn't enough evidence to convict them of murder.

Al Capone spent 8 years in prison.
Does your belief that the Supreme Court "confirmed Knox and Sollecito took part in the murder" comfort you? Cold comfort indeed.

 

[Stacyhs]

Not like Knox and her supporters claiming hardworking policemen, pathologists, forensic scientist and judges are corrupt and incompetent? It is so characteristic of Knox and her ilk to make scurrilous claims against decent honest professionals.

You mean the 'hardworking policemen' who 1) failed to record the interrogation, 2) failed to provide the legally required lawyer, 3) failed to provide an independent and neutral translator, 4) leaked misinformation/lies to the media, 5) leaked her prison diary to a journalist, 6) conducted an interrogation that was so bad the acquitting SC said “The trial had oscillations which were the result of stunning flaws, or amnesia, in the investigation and omissions in the investigative activity. Those 'hardworking policemen?

Pathologist? Please cite any allegations that the pathologist was "corrupt or incompetent." Lalli was not responsible for the failure to take Kercher's temperature in a timely manner. That was due to Mignini. Put up or shut up.

Stefanoni WAS inept as is shown by her handling of the knife and bra analyses, her failure to wear clean gloves when handling evidence collection, her failure to collect the bra clasp on Nov. 2 when it was identified and labeled, her failure to analyze a suspected semen sample, her improper storage of the bra hook resulting in it rusting....
What competent forensic expert would fail to report negative TMB results on crucial piece of evidence while emphasizing they were luminol positive? She also testified she analyzed the knife sample using Real Time PCR when she actually used the Qubit Fluoromenter. And that's not all the examples.

Unlike the PGP who claimed Hellmann was "bent" (Ferraris, anyone?) no one I'm aware of ever accused Massei of being corrupt. Wrong, yes. Illogical, yes. Corrupt, no.

Claiming the police assaulted her and that the prison doctor spitefully told her she had AIDS all turned out to be wicked lies.

The Boninsegna Court found otherwise. Even the ECHR said there was no evidence because the police failed to conduct an investigation, NOT because it 'didn't happen' as you like to claim..

The police doctor told her she tested positive for HIV; that is indisputable. Knox has never said she was told she had AIDS, only that she tested positive. The "spitefully" bit is all your imagination. There are wicked lies here, but they don't come from Knox.

Only a guilty person IMV has the motive to falsely claim dishonourable behaviour in law-enforcement agents.

You may be right...but Knox didn't falsely claim it. Maybe you need to look at why you keep making false claims.

 

[Stacyhs]

Maybe that has more to do with Amanda's gross stupidity.

I agree that gross stupidity is involved but it's not Amanda's.

Would you please explain how pointing out Guede's feces and his bloody footprint on the rug to the police on Nov. 2 is 'covering' for him? (Don't tell me it's Sollecito's and neither she nor Raffaele knew that!).

If the burglary were staged, how would staging it to look like the law office break in a la Guede be 'covering' for him?

How would leaving his visible bloody shoe prints be 'covering' for him?

Not that I think you'll ever address these. You never do.