The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[Stacyhs]

My word. Your deliberate omission of key facts informs us you know perfectly well the pair did it.

Exactly what "key facts" would those be?

Are you actually resorting to that stupendously stupid claim that we know the pair are guilty but we defend them anyway? REALLY?

 

[Vixen]

Exactly what "key facts" would those be?

Are you actually resorting to that stupendously stupid claim that we know the pair are guilty but we defend them anyway? REALLY?

In your heart you know it. We can tell because of your systematic denial or revision of established facts.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

You are so ignorant of forensic science you believe a 17-allele high RFU sample of DNA is an accident of random contamination which managed to somehow replicate it self out of nowhere, as Raff had never been in the room prior to the murder.

I'd say this is one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard, but it's not. This is middle of the road for you.

"Contamination" does not mean "replicate itself out of nowhere". It means it was contaminated. Jesus Christ. The clasp had 5 DNA contributors to it. i.e. it was contaminated by the definition of contamination. Raffaele had been in the house, right outside the room, multiple times, and touched the doorknob and tried to break down the door. His DNA was tracked into the room. The clasp had been kicked around and found under a pile of clothes weeks after the murder. You can't be this dense.

Knox' blood is mixed in with Mez' blood (hello? a murder victim's blood) both diluted at the same time and in exactly the same straight line in the sink and bidet.

This is equally idiotic. You can't "time stamp" blood. Of course they both had their DNA in the sink. THEY LIVED TOGETHER AND BOTH USED THE BATHROOM. Like what planet are you from.

Do you still believe DNA is a protein? Can you stop attacking others' knowledge of forensic science? It makes you look literally insane.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 12

 

[Stacyhs]

Er, present in the cottage during the murder of the young Meredith Kercher,

Established JUDICIAL fact by a previous SC regarding Guede's trial that Marasca Bruno could not dispute.

did wash her hands of Mez' blood,

Unfounded by any forensic evidence which even Stefanoni admitted. You've been asked repeatedly to provide the evidence that Knox washed her hands of Kercher's blood and have repeatedly failed to do so. Why? Because none was presented.

did stage a burglary,

Acquitted of staging a burglary (charge E) by Marasca Bruno.

did falsely accuse Lumumba to cover up for Guede and there

During an illegal interrogation as found by the ECHR making the conviction unsafe. Italy has been directed to correct said error.

were multiple attackers.

Once again, as made a judicial fact by a previous SC court ruling which M/B had no power to dispute.

..isn't sufficient evidence, according to Marasca-Bruno.

Do one.

See the above.

 

[Vixen]

I'd say this is one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard, but it's not. This is middle of the road for you.

"Contamination" does not mean "replicate itself out of nowhere". It means it was contaminated. Jesus Christ. The clasp had 5 DNA contributors to it. i.e. it was contaminated by the definition of contamination. Raffaele had been in the house, right outside the room, multiple times, and touched the doorknob and tried to break down the door. His DNA was tracked into the room. The clasp had been kicked around and found under a pile of clothes weeks after the murder. You can't be this dense.



This is equally idiotic. You can't "time stamp" blood. Of course they both had their DNA in the sink. THEY LIVED TOGETHER AND BOTH USED THE BATHROOM. Like what planet are you from.

Do you still believe DNA is a protein? Can you stop attacking others' knowledge of forensic science? It makes you look literally insane.



I'm actually back to thinking you are a troll and don't actually believe any of this. People just AREN'T this dumb and stubborn.

OUTED. You are not 'an expert biological chemist' as you have tried to present yourself.

You are actually HIGNORANT.

 

[Stacyhs]

You are so ignorant of forensic science you believe a 17-allele high RFU sample of DNA is an accident of random contamination which managed to somehow replicate it self out of nowhere, as Raff had never been in the room prior to the murder.

Lessee here...Ph.D's in forensics who agree with me:

Dr. Peter Gill
Prof. Greg Hampikian
Prof. Conti
Prof. Vecchiotti
Prof. Bruce Budowle
Dr. Elizabeth Johnson
Dr. Dan Krane
Dr. Jason Gilder
Five other forensic experts who signed the open letter authored by Johnson and Hampikian.
Dr. Chris Halkides

Hmmmm...all these Ph.D's in forensics vs. Stefanoni's "Dr." which means she graduated from a four year university. Lessee here.....who knows more about forensics? Take a wild guess.

Knox' blood is mixed in with Mez' blood (hello? a murder victim's blood) both diluted at the same time and in exactly the same straight line in the sink and bidet.

So truly hignorant.

Ha ha ha ha ha!!!! Not even your beloved Massei said that Knox's blood was mixed with Kercher's. Why is that, Vix? Could it possibly be because it's forensically impossible to establish the source of Knox's DNA?

Please present the evidence that both were "diluted at the same time and in exactly the same straight line in sink and bidet". You can't. You know why? Because the fricking police video shows the collection wasn't IN a straight line and the same swab is used on different locations in the sink and bidet. DNA deposition can't be dated and pre-existing DNA can be picked up at the same time as DNA next to/underneath newer DNA.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/mixed-dna/

Or perhaps you are just a troll.

What was that that Socrates said again....?

 

[Stacyhs]

Unfortunately for you, Massei and Nencini, partly, were a merits trial in which facts were established from the evidence presented from all parties. It is commonly accepted that trial by a highly qualified judge (=fifteen years' practice as a successful barrister) plus twelve of your peers (in Italy there is a whole panel of judges, tribunal style as well as the jury) is the fairest possible way to weigh up guilt or innocence with the bar for 'guilty' for serious crime so high, it is difficult to ever get a conviction (for example only about 2% of rape trials succeed and in the UK two out of three persons standing trial can expect the jury to find them 'not guilty' and walk, to the despair of the police). Italy was hugely sympathetic to these two youngsters yet it could find no other verdict but GUILTY AS CHARGED.

The Supreme Court is not a merits court it is simply a 'paper work' court.

The Hellmann and Marasca ones were obviously as bent as an eleventy pence piece.

ETA: It was proven Raff gave a false alibi. He claimed to be surfing the net all evening. A blatant lie.

Ah, yes...here we go again with the "bent" accusations. You're a one hit wonder, aren't ya?

 

[Vixen]

Lessee here...Ph.D's in forensics who agree with me:

Dr. Peter Gill
Prof. Greg Hampikian
Prof. Conti
Prof. Vecchiotti
Prof. Bruce Budowle
Dr. Elizabeth Johnson
Dr. Dan Krane
Dr. Jason Gilder
Five other forensic experts who signed the open letter authored by Johnson and Hampikian.
Dr. Chris Halkides

Hmmmm...all these Ph.D's in forensics vs. Stefanoni's "Dr." which means she graduated from a four year university. Lessee here.....who knows more about forensics? Take a wild guess.



Ha ha ha ha ha!!!! Not even your beloved Massei said that Knox's blood was mixed with Kercher's. Why is that, Vix? Could it possibly be because it's forensically impossible to establish the source of Knox's DNA?

Please present the evidence that both were "diluted at the same time and in exactly the same straight line in sink and bidet". You can't. You know why? Because the fricking police video shows the collection wasn't IN a straight line and the same swab is used on different locations in the sink and bidet. DNA deposition can't be dated and pre-existing DNA can be picked up at the same time as DNA next to/underneath newer DNA.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/mixed-dna/




What was that that Socrates said again....?

They agree with you?


Gosh.

In addition, you have completely revised what the merits court found as a fact regarding the blood in the bathroom. They were confirmed mixed DNA and also tested POSITIVE for blood.

Your denying it, doesn't make it not so.

 

[Stacyhs]

Hello? The legal standard in a criminal court is 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.

No, dear...BARD stands for Beyond A Reasonable Doubt. "All" is sometimes used but "a" is the form presented in legal dictionaries. Google each and you'll find "all" brings up a novel whereas "a" brings up the legal definition.

Beyond A Reasonable Doubt

beyond a reasonable doubt
The standard in a criminal case that must be met by the prosecution in order to convict the defendant. It means the evidence is fully satisfied, all the facts are proven and guilt is established.

https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/beyond-a-reasonable-doubt.html

In a civil court you only needed to show a 51-49% probability weighting to win your case.

This wasn't a civil case.

In a murder trial, the level or BARD will be something like 99.9% to 0.01% residual doubt, on the assumption no-one but the killer/s was/were present at the crime so we'll never know the 100% truth.

Now you've got it! So will you now stop claiming that Marasca acquitted them because he just didn't have quite enough evidence to uphold the conviction?

You don't really believe the pair were found guilty because Guede claimed the lock on the door was faulty. (Which it was, actually.) Seriously?

Nope. And I never said or even suggested that. Nor did Planigale. As was previously discussed. You really must work on your reading comprehension. Seriously.

 

[Stacyhs]

Only someone seriously deluded or a troll would think you can be convicted of murder by a judge and jury in civilised Europe for once having thrown a riotous party.

I quite agree. Pity the prosecution resorted to this party as evidence of Knox's 'wild' ways and that she was a liar during the first trial:

The prosecutor cited a British newspaper story that described a raucous and out-of-control scene with rocks being hurled onto cars. Knox's lawyer, Carlo Dalla Vedova, cited a Seattle law enforcement official who said the matter was resolved quickly as a minor administrative issue. The tabloid reported "just gossip," Dalla Vedova said. And the lawyer for Kercher's family, Francesco Maresca, weighed in with reference to an FBI report that implied the truth was somewhere in between: that rocks were thrown but it was resolved with a minor citation.

And what does any of it have to do with the death of Meredith Kercher?

The prosecution's reference to a Daily Mail article about the party appeared aimed at showing jurors a glimpse of Knox's wild side -- and implying that she sometimes didn't tell the whole truth.

https://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/At-issue-in-Amanda-Knox-murder-trial-How-wild-1304516.php

Grow up, please.

I'm not the one calling people trolls and courts/experts 'bent' solely because they didn't convict Knox and Sollecito. Or saying silly things like these:

Gill was about 74 retired and like John Douglas, decided to prostitute himself out as a 'gun for hire'. Hoping to cash in on his influential name.

or

Yeah and you smell of poo.

 

[Stacyhs]

OUTED. You are not 'an expert biological chemist' as you have tried to present yourself.

You are actually HIGNORANT.

Disprove, with evidence, one thing that NotEvenWrong said. Go on. Put down the Annie Green Springs Green Apple (Hignorant?) and try something new: convince us with evidence.

 

[Stacyhs]

They agree with you?


Gosh.

More correctly put; I agree with them. As did the Supreme Court when it came to the bra and knife evidence. They certainly did not agree with Stefanoni or you. But what forensic experts do?

In addition, you have completely revised what the merits court found as a fact regarding the blood in the bathroom. They were confirmed mixed DNA and also tested POSITIVE for blood.

Your denying it, doesn't make it not so.

Oh dear, oh dear. I haven't revised a thing. What part of this is difficult for you to understand?

"Not even your beloved Massei said that Knox's blood was mixed with Kercher's. Why is that, Vix? Could it possibly be because it's forensically impossible to establish the source of Knox's DNA?"

They confirmed that there was Knox's DNA...repeat DNA...mixed with Kercher's blood. Which is what I've said all along. YOU said it was "mixed blood".
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12862439#post12862439

Really, Vix. Please take a remedial reading comprehension course.

 

[Methos]

Remember, Dr. Gill is also bent. He's likely a Mason or mafioso. As are all the other many forensic experts who have disagreed with and criticized Stefanoni's findings.

Gill was about 74 retired and like John Douglas, decided to prostitute himself out as a 'gun for hire'. Hoping to cash in on his influential name.

Making things up again?
Prof Peter Gill's CV

Date of birth: 10/2/1952

 

[Bill Williams]

They agree with you?


Gosh.

In addition, you have completely revised what the merits court found as a fact regarding the blood in the bathroom. They were confirmed mixed DNA and also tested POSITIVE for blood.

Your denying it, doesn't make it not so.

You are in essence correct. It was mixed DNA, and there was blood from one source!

Mixed DNA is hardly surprising - the victim and Knox had shared that bathroom for weeks. The blood came from the victim, transferred from the murder room by Rudy Guede who confessed to being in both rooms at the time of the murder.

The 2015 Supreme Court was correct in saying that this does not convict anyone else.

Get over it.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen
Gill was about 74 retired and like John Douglas, decided to prostitute himself out as a 'gun for hire'. Hoping to cash in on his influential name.

Apart from being wrong about Gill's age, just what does that have to do with his professional expert opinion? Additionally, do you have any evidence that Gill 'cashed in' by giving that opinion? No. You. Do. Not. It's just another baseless and nasty lie pulled out of your seemingly endless supply of crap.

 

[bagels]

In your heart you know it. We can tell because of your systematic denial or revision of established facts.

It's true, I think she did it but don't want to admit it. She was obviously acquitted (twice) not because the case and evidence was bad but because the mafia rigged the verdict for her and her Harry Potter boyfriend. That's what all of us secretly believe, just like you. Nothing delusional going on here.

Rofl.

 

[Stacyhs]

It's true, I think she did it but don't want to admit it. She was obviously acquitted (twice) not because the case and evidence was bad but because the mafia rigged the verdict for her and her Harry Potter boyfriend. That's what all of us secretly believe, just like you. Nothing delusional going on here.

Rofl.

You forgot the Masons. That's what convinced me.

 

[bagels]

When Rudy told his friend on Skype everything in the papers was wrong - Amanda wasn't there at all - and he met Meredith alone, it's confusing at first because it might give you the impression everything in the papers was wrong, Amanda wasn't there, and he met Meredith alone. But that's just what the mafia masterminds want you to think.

Rudy knew the conversation was being monitored by the police, so said Amanda wasn't there to throw them off. But he admitted to being there because he knew the evidence against him, which hadn't been made public yet, would connect him to the scene indisputably, so he had to admit to being there while denying involvement. However, the publicly announced evidence at the time against Amanda, which was her confession, and her DNA on the recovered murder weapon....Well Rudy knew the mafia was already working hard to rig it to make it look like the cops beat the confession out of her and erased the interrogation tapes so they couldn't disprove it, and the DNA results would be rigged in the appeals trial, so he knew this otherwise damning ironclad evidence against her wouldn't last, meaning he was free to boldly claim Amanda wasn't there.

You just have to be smart enough to piece these things together or you might get the impression he was just a psycho killer who stabbed a girl to death and raped her.

 

[LondonJohn]

Even if Knox and Sollecito had taken a selfie it doesn't prove they done it, is M-B's defective reasoning.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

They were (correctly) acquitted because there was no credible, reliable evidence pointing to their guilt. That you still cannot fathom this after all this time points, I'm afraid, to either your innate bias or your intellect.

 

[LondonJohn]

Forensic science conclusively and objectively damns the pair of them.

No, Vixen. No it doesn't.

I'm not surprised though that you're incapable of figuring out just how horribly and terminally tainted the forensic "evidence" against Knox and Sollecito in this case actually was. Fortunately, more intelligent people in the Italian Supreme Court were able to figure it out........