• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

Status
Not open for further replies.
Be as it may be, (and in any case there were five parties iirc, incl. Raff and Knox as two of them) you are not supposed to present evidence or argue the facts at an appeal. An appeal is strictly for points of law only.

Peter Gill's report based on the legally heavily criticised Conti & Vecchiotti report, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court should never have been allowed. This is because:

  • The Supreme Court does not assess evidence or the facts
  • The proper place for Gill's pontification was the merits court (the trial proper)
  • Gill was never cross-examined
  • His report was never heard in an open court
  • Gill resurrected Conti & Vecchiotti whose report had already been judged and dismissed by the Supreme Court
  • Gill had no first hand knowledege of the trial nor access to the investigation, nor was he ever called as a witness.

It matters not whether there are two parties or six, they each get to have equal representation. The owner of the property simply came along to claim the value of her house had dropped as a result of the crime, so barely took up ten minutes, anyway.


Yeah..... you know nothing about this either.

The WHOLE POINT here is that the lower courts erred in law in the way they assessed and weighted key pieces of the prosecution's physical evidence and testimony. The whole point is that the lower courts waved away defence submissions (and those of the COURT-APPOINTED assessment team in the matter of the forensic "evidence"), and blithely accepted all of that prosecution phys evidence and testimony as credible and reliable.

But, in (Italian) law (but for that matter, in law in any jurisdiction), almost every single piece of the prosecution's key phys evidence and testimony should have been discarded by any properly-constituted court on the grounds of hugely significant issues with its credibility and reliability.

THAT is why it was necessary to submit proper expert opinions on these matters to the Supreme Court.

And THAT is precisely why the Supreme Court (correctly) threw out the case, and why it severely criticised the entire investigation process into Knox and Sollecito and the way the lower convicting courts failed to operate within the law.

PLEASE, read the Marasca MR. You clearly cannot have done so - at least, you cannot have done so for comprehension.
 
Yeah..... you know nothing about this either.

The WHOLE POINT here is that the lower courts erred in law in the way they assessed and weighted key pieces of the prosecution's physical evidence and testimony. The whole point is that the lower courts waved away defence submissions (and those of the COURT-APPOINTED assessment team in the matter of the forensic "evidence"), and blithely accepted all of that prosecution phys evidence and testimony as credible and reliable.

But, in (Italian) law (but for that matter, in law in any jurisdiction), almost every single piece of the prosecution's key phys evidence and testimony should have been discarded by any properly-constituted court on the grounds of hugely significant issues with its credibility and reliability.

THAT is why it was necessary to submit proper expert opinions on these matters to the Supreme Court.

And THAT is precisely why the Supreme Court (correctly) threw out the case, and why it severely criticised the entire investigation process into Knox and Sollecito and the way the lower convicting courts failed to operate within the law.

PLEASE, read the Marasca MR. You clearly cannot have done so - at least, you cannot have done so for comprehension.

Can't. Can't do that.

It is not in the jurisdiction of the Supreme court to assess facts or overturn evidence.
 
...Or Raff and Amanda, bearing in mind Amanda knew where Mez got the key from, which was hanging inside the front door. As you may recall, Mez was tasked with feeding the cat and watering the plants whilst the boys were away.

If anyone had the key to downstairs, it was KNox, not Rudy. He had only visited on three known occasions, mainly to watch sporting events on TV: Rugby World Cup and Formula 1 racing. I doubt the boys would have given him a key.
K&S had nothing to do with the death of Meredith. Why would they go downstairs?

Hoots
 
Yeah, he knew the downstairs apartment well and that there was a low balcony nearby, which is why he wouldn't have bothered with a 13'4" sheer wall and an obviously shuttered window around the other side.
I've seen photographs of the balcony at VDP showing shutters closed, and no reason to suggest that they were vulnerable. There is no evidence that Rudy could have broken in via the balcony. Filomena's external shutters were vulnerable and presented an obvious entry point.

Hoots
 
Can't. Can't do that.

It is not in the jurisdiction of the Supreme court to assess facts or overturn evidence.



As I said: you know nothing about this subject.

(Hint for you: it's nothing to do with the Supreme Court itself "assessing facts or overturning evidence" (FYI, by the way, evidence cannot be "overturned" - evidence is evidence; what it CAN be is disregarded. Yet more ignorance.). It is, however, everything to do with how the law applies in the way evidence is tested and assessed by courts. Please read the relevant Italian legislation and codes of criminal procedure - which by the looks of it you've never done. The Supreme Court does in fact have the remit and the power to assess whether or not lower courts applied the law correctly. Which is exactly what the Marasca SC panel did in this case.)
 
Last edited:
Oh and.....

Vixen: ready to admit yet that your claim of possessing reliable evidence to support the "$2 million PR campaign" was/is a lie?

Your silence on the matter is interesting indeed.........
 
It is a convention in law that each party is treated equally. This means having the same right to opening speeches, witnesses, cross-examination and closing speeches.

What a stupid comment. Being "treated equally" is not measured by a stopwatch. To say any more would be in the hopeless hope that you'd understand. In short, both sides had access to all these things.

Or you might have proof that the prosecution was actually cut off at appeal. Somehow I doubt it.

Back to lurking.
 
Last edited:
Peter Gill's report based on the legally heavily criticised Conti & Vecchiotti report, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court should never have been allowed.

Fresh off claiming that the Supreme Court doesn't deal in evidence, you then claim the 2013 Supreme Court dismissed the Conti-Vecchiotti report.

Consistency is not your strong suit.

For the record, the 2013 Supreme Court overturned the Hellmann acquittals, partly because it claimed that Hellmann had given over his judicial responsibility to C/V over the issue of testing a, then, unknown DNA sample on the knife. In short, the 2013 ISC was criticizing Hellmann, not C/V.

But it sure is entertaining reading your latest double standard. You say that the 2015 ISC had no right to assess evidence, while claiming that the 2013 ISC had the right.

As TomG says, Hoots!
 
Didn't BiWi already give you the quote from Dr Mignini, who has first hand knowledge of these things and as evidenced by Knox cheekily putting in a claim of >€2m for her parents in her ECHR application?

It is mystifying where you get your factoids. I quoted no such thing from Mignini. Which nether region did you pull all this nonsense from?
 
Numbers, in regard to your post about the cat's blood downstairs, etc., there was no motive for the police and/or scientific police to hide or lie about this blood unless you believe they had some nefarious intention. This would have to include outright malicious prosecution of Knox and Sollecito, which I don't believe. I've never believed the police or prosecution knowingly prosecuted two innocent people. Jumped to conclusions too early? Yes. Blinded by their own bias? Yes. Not very good at their jobs? Yes. Screwed up? Yes. Knew Knox and Sollecito were innocent? No.

Looking at the photos of the blood downstairs, they are clearly drops such as would be left by blood dripping straight down or spatter. The photo of the light switch, shows blood spatter, not a smear such as would be left if rubbing against or touching it:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/716695d74ae4a52173.jpg[/qimg]

Additionally, there are several drops of blood on the chair cushion and arm and several droplets and smears of blood on the bed as well as the floor. This is consistent of where a cat would walk, jump on, and settle down for a nap. A cat jumping from a chair to the bed or similar would also explain the blue pillowcase being knocked to the floor. What makes less sense is Guede not dripping all this blood in the bathroom upstairs or as he walks down the hallway and out the front door... but then leaving it on the front stairs, on the floor, on the chair, and bed.

As I said earlier, a hematoma on the cat's ear would account for the amount of blood seen downstairs. Hematoma's are rather common on cat's and dog's ears. My cocker spaniel had one and it bled all over everything. Her long ear was soaked in blood.

I won't pretend to understand all the technical DNA information, but I simply do not believe there was a police conspiracy to hide forensic evidence of Guede downstairs in order to 'get' Knox and Sollecito.

Let's apply some real "logic" here.

1. It is indisputable that the police and prosecution hid and misstated evidence of what occurred in the downstairs flat: 1) DNA profile evidence was suppressed; 2) Stefanoni's testimony and "original" hand-entry work records (SALs) contradicted the machine-output DNA amplification records she provided, thus there was misconduct in that part of her testing and recording (as there was in other relevant parts of her other work in the case); 3) the police and prosecution claimed as certain that the blood was left by a cat but there was no certain evidence of that - in fact, there was forensic evidence suggesting that the blood was human.

2. Contrary to statements that the blood stains consisted only of drops, there are blood stains on the bed in the downstairs flat that are essentially linear or curved marks. These stains may be consistent with marks left by a bloody knife.


3. In his statements to the police, Guede stated that he heard noises in the downstairs flat while he was in the upstairs flat with Meredith Kercher after he had her blood on his clothing; the following is from his 26 March 2008 statement*:

Guede: When Meredith was no longer… at a certain point she… like, I don’t know how to define it, she had like… at a certain point it’s like she slipped away and in that moment I didn’t know what to do, so many thoughts came to mind, I didn’t know whether to go into the street and shout that something had happened, at a certain point I panicked and I said to myself “here no one will believe me” because I repeat, I had blood on my hands, I went down on my knee… when I placed the cushion, I had this left part of my foot, of the left knee anyway that had become drenched because I placed myself next to her trying to help her… I had so many thoughts come to my mind until at a certain point the thing which frightened me the most is that I heard from the floor below, or rather below the house, below as if someone was moving a table, a chair, that classic noise that you hear, and there I became frightened that I wouldn’t be believed about what had happened.

Mignini: Then there was someone else that had gone below?
Guede: I heard a noise as if someone had gone below.
Attorney: Who was going towards…
Mignini: The apartment of the guys.
Guede: Yes.
Attorney: Towards the apartment of the guys or towards the road?
Guede: No, towards the apartment of the guys was my perception… It was as if someone was moving…
Mignini: Yes, then you left.

*Notice Mignini gives him the answer instead of asking if it was him who entered the apartment.

4. Understanding fully the issue of authorities claiming that DNA testing shows that blood is from a cat when the actual DNA test evidence shows that the blood may be from a human does require some minimum technical knowledge. In particular, one element of the PCR DNA replication (amplification) requires that a primer - a length of DNA that has been designed and manufactured to match only human DNA near the STR - assures that if the DNA template (the DNA present in the forensic sample) replicates in the PCR testing, it is human DNA.

5. The downstairs flat issues are only one instance of the police and prosecution misconduct in the case. There are a number of other instances of such misconduct. Whether or not the police and prosecutor "knew" or "believed" Knox and Sollecito to be guilty or innocent is immaterial to the fact that official misconduct occurred. Such misconduct is a violation of international law in the Council of Europe states (including Italy), according to the Convention and ECHR case-law.

6. The following must be considered exculpatory evidence for Knox and Sollecito, based upon the prosecution theory of the crime: 1. there was blood in the downstairs flat that may be from a human based on forensic DNA testing; 2) its deposition patterns, including the linear and curved stains on the downstairs bed, the blood on the pillow case (which according to the flat tenants, had been on a line to dry), and the blood on the light switch, are not consistent with blood deposits from a cat with a bleeding ear but may be consistent with Meredith's murder entering and moving about in the downstairs flat.

Contrary to police or prosecution statements about the presence of a cat with a bleeding ear, the actual witness statement from Marzan, one of the downstairs tenants, includes this 3 November 2007 statement*: "The black cat actually has an injured ear but I am not aware that it has dripped blood".

Because the inferences from the fully truthful reporting of the evidence from the downstairs flat was exculpatory to Knox and Sollecito by the establishment of reasonable doubt, and because according to Italian law (CPP Article 533) a guilty conviction must only be pronounced if there is evidence (proof) of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the police and prosecution untruthfully stated in court and presented false official records (apparently contradicted by DNA machine-generated records) that the blood stains found in the downstairs flat were cat blood.

There was no certain evidence to support that these stains were cat blood and there was clear DNA forensic evidence, blood staine pattern evidence, and witness testimony to support that they were not cat blood. The DNA evidence is conclusive that either the blood stains were from human blood or the surface under the sampled stain contained human DNA or both.

The police and prosecution fabricated arbitrary (not legally justified) reasoning to justify ignoring the downstairs blood stains, just as Judge Massei fabricated arbitrary reasoning to justify the prosecution refusal to DNA test the apparent semen stains found by the defense expert - and surprisingly apparently never recorded by the police - on the pillow under Meredith's body.

*Source: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-evidence-downstairs-apartment/
 
Last edited:
It is mystifying where you get your factoids. I quoted no such thing from Mignini. Which nether region did you pull all this nonsense from?

A partial apology to Vixen. Vixen got part of her claim correct. Mignini did quote from a UK tabloid about the American media. But AFAIR that's it.

So partial apology to Vi.
 
glycophorin A and testing for human blood

Ideally one would test blood itself for its species of origin. There is a protein called glycophorin A on the surface of red blood cells, and a commercial test has been developed for it. A negative result would be consistent with cat blood, but it would not demand that conclusion IMO.
 
...Or Raff and Amanda, bearing in mind Amanda knew where Mez got the key from, which was hanging inside the front door. As you may recall, Mez was tasked with feeding the cat and watering the plants tending to the drugs whilst the boys were away.

If anyone had the key to downstairs, it was KNox, not Rudy. He had only visited on three known occasions, mainly to watch sporting events on TV: Rugby World Cup and Formula 1 racing. I doubt the boys would have given him a key.

FIFY

Let's not twist the facts.
 
He's was caught out shall we say massaging his images so it is OK to call him a crook as a court of law demands honesty.

Vixen has consistently shown disgusting hypocrisy in her posts and attacking Vincini for being crooked and dishonest is an example of this. Vixen slavishly supports and defends crooked and dishonest police/prosecutors who on numerous occasions fed false information to the media, committed perjury, lied in documentation and falsely told Amanda she had HIV.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamination-labwork-coverup/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/evidence-destroyed/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-evidence-downstairs-apartment/
https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com...old-about-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11071314#post11071314

Vixen shows dishonesty by lying on an industrial scale in her posts.

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

Vixen defends dishonest witnesses such as Quintavelle and Curalto who gave false testimony they had seen Amanda and Raffaele. Vixen has no issue with dishonesty when it works against Amanda and Raffaele. If Vincini had been dishonest, Vixen would only object to it because it worked in Amanda and Raffaele’s behaviour. Vixen is being dishonest in her claim that Vincini had resorted to fraud when showing Raffaele could not have left his footprint on the bathmat. If Vincini had used fraud , why didn’t the prosecution make an issue of this and were unable to rebut Vincini’s report. Vixen viciously attacks Amanda and Raffaele for lying and then spread malicious lies about people. Vixen attacks Amanda for falsely accusing Lumumba of a crime and then falsely accuses Vincini of a crime.
 
Can't. Can't do that.

It is not in the jurisdiction of the Supreme court to assess facts or overturn evidence.

This statement is proof you have no clue what the 2015 Supreme Court ruled.

It did not "overturn" evidence. It ruled, as is its constitutional remit, that the evidence Nencini considered, even if true, should have meant that the pair should have been acquitted.

Back to lurking.
 
Are you sure of these points?

Stefanoni did not conduct any forensic test to determine whether or not these blood stains were indeed from a cat, and indeed did not claim to have done any such species-specific test.

[...]
Take a look at the first pages of Stefanoni's report, the presumed bloodstains taken from the lower apartment and the stone stairs are reps. 00 - 10
Anticorpo anti - gatto = positiva

It's interesting that the antibody tests made for traces 00 - 10, weren't made for the "stain on the light switch" (rep 28/page 59).
:confused:
 
Ideally one would test blood itself for its species of origin. There is a protein called glycophorin A on the surface of red blood cells, and a commercial test has been developed for it. A negative result would be consistent with cat blood, but it would not demand that conclusion IMO.

1. Was there any record that Stefanoni or any other authority forensically tested the downstairs blood stains (in addition to the PCR DNA amplification) to determine whether or not they were from a human or non-human source?

2. Is there any doubt that the successful PCR DNA amplification of some of the alleged cat blood samples indicates that there was human DNA in those samples, either from the blood stain, the surface under the blood stain, or both?

3. The document on rapid species-specific forensic identification of human blood you cite is dated April 2016. Were there forensic products available in 2007 to accomplish forensic identification of human blood in contrast to cat or other non-human mammalian blood?

Would HemaTrace or similar products have been a possible test in 2007? I have found an excerpt in a document* dated November 2013 stating:

"The limit of detection of the kit was determined to be 0.07μg haemoglobin/mL. Tests showed specificity to human, higher primate, and ferret blood. Positive results were unaffected by a variety, of contaminants and under a range of conditions, with the exception of stains subjected to a tumble-dryer cycle or prolonged exposure to soil.

The results of this validation support the introduction of the ABAcard® HemaTrace® test for routine use in the forensic identification of human blood."

*Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00085030.2003.10757560
 
Take a look at the first pages of Stefanoni's report, the presumed bloodstains taken from the lower apartment and the stone stairs are reps. 00 - 10


It's interesting that the antibody tests made for traces 00 - 10, weren't made for the "stain on the light switch" (rep 28/page 59).
:confused:

These records show that Stefanoni claimed to have conducted antibody tests specific for human, cat, and dog on some of the blood samples.

Is there any documentation in the records to show her materials and methods for these tests?

For example, HemaTrace is a product based on antibodies to human used to test whether or not a sample contains human blood. Some police agencies consider it presumptive (meaning additional DNA verification is required to be certain the sample contains human blood). For example (source: https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/bca-divisions/forensic-science/Pages/dna-serology.aspx):

"HemaTrace™

The HemaTrace™ test is used to determine if a bloodstain is of human origin. This test is an antigen-antibody reaction. The antibodies are present on the HemaTrace™ card and if the antigen (the heme group of the Hemoglobin molecule) is present, then an antibody-antigen reaction occurs on the test site (T) of the card. The antigens and antibodies bind to each other and form a lattice (chain) which causes a pink dye band to be visible. The control region of the test strip should always have a reaction, and the pink dye band should be visible on both positive and negative results.

Pink line in control region + pink line in test region = presumptively positive result for human blood*.
Pink line in control region only = negative result for human blood.

*Note: both phenolphthalein and Hematrace™ are presumptive tests. Further DNA testing can confirm these results."

However, other sources, such as

http://www.ncids.com/forensic/serology/serology.shtml

consider HematTrace to be confirmatory.

I have found one document (dated 9 December, 2007) that refers to the commercial availability of forensic antibody tests for blood from common non-human species:

"Put in other ways, if an antibody against the human blood antigen comes into contact with a substance containing human blood, the reaction produces a visible line of precipitation, or solid substance between the two solutions. If there is no chemical reaction that produces a precipitate, then the ME can conclude that the blood is not human.

The modern day forensics laboratory contains various antiserums of common animal bloods. Sheep, cow, deer, wolf, and cat antiserums are commercially available. Using these antiserums, a criminalist can determine what species shed the blood."

Source: https://ezinearticles.com/?Forensic-Blood-Testing---Determining-If-Blood-Is-Human&id=873233

Perhaps Stefanoni had such non-human blood antibody tests available. Do her records indicate the specifics of her materials and methods?

In contrast to her records for the DNA testing, which show the materials and methods to some extent - at least she listed the equipment used, for example, in some cases, extraction by "BioRobot "EZ1" (QIAGEN)" and quantification by "7700 Sequence Detector ABI Prism" from "Applied Biosystems", there is no identification of the source for the human, cat, or dog blood antibodies allegedly used. In forensics, the failure to show the source of materials not commonly available (such as cat or dog blood antibody) must lead to questions about the credibility and reliability of the alleged testing.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom