• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Rubbish. It was a continuous line of drips.
Click to expand...



Uh, no it wasn't.

And I beseech you to actually watch the video of the world-class moronically incompetent crime scene analyst conducting her gold-standard astonishingly inept collection of forensic material in the small bathroom sink using swabs.

Who knows, the penny might finally drop if you watch that video......
 
Vixen said:
You can read all about it in Massei.

Another one who has never read the court documents. Just the handouts from, Friends of Amanda Knox (the FOAKers) laying out the 'party line' which you are meant to toe.
Click to expand...

Really? So help me out then and point me to Stefanoni's testimony where she says she's dealing with mixed blood samples. Harry claims it was during her testimony on 22/23 May, 2009 during the Massei trial. I've been through the transcripts of her testimony several times over the years and I'll be damned if I can ever remember her making this claim.

Are you sure you're not related to Harry Rag? I mean, you both use incredibly childish commentary when you can't make valid points.
 
LondonJohn said:
To paraphrase my earlier movie quote: Who are you going to believe? Stefanoni or your own lying eyes (which saw Stefanoni and other goons clearly touching that hook in the video)?
Click to expand...

Of course, Vixen isn't being quite accurate with her 'recollection' of what she said during her testimony. She claimed she tried to be careful, but could not say for sure if she touched it or not. She especially got hazy when the defense raised the prospect of playing back the video.

Vixen's comment is particularly ironic since she just accused me of not reading the documents when I said Stefanoni didn't say something that she clearly does not say in her testimony. So basically this is twice now were Vixen is wrong about what Stefanoni says in testimony, but we're the ones not doing the reading.

ETA: Here's her exact quote as per her testimony 22 May, 2009;

DOMANDA – Io finisco la domanda, in udienza preliminare io le chiesi: “Lei ha toccato con i guanti i gancetti?” – e lei mi ha risposto, è agli atti e ne chiediamo l’acquisizione – “No, i gancetti, no”, ora le richiedo: lei ha toccato con i guanti i gancetti?

RISPOSTA – Allora io le posso dire: è pure possibile, io non lo ricordo perfettamente, ricordo sicuramente che ho toccato tra la stoffa, perché ho cercato di evitare, se poi sono stati toccati io non lo escludo questo.
Click to expand...

Google translation:

QUESTION - I finish the question, in a preliminary hearing I will I asked, "Did you touch the hooks with your gloves?" - and she has me replied, it is on the record and we ask for its acquisition - “No, i hooks, no ", now I ask you: you have touched with gloves i hooks?

ANSWER - So I can tell you: it is also possible, I do not I remember perfectly, I certainly remember that I touched between the cloth, because I tried to avoid, if they were touched I do not exclude this.
And then, of course, we have the video to confirm she does indeed touch the hooks.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Uh, no it wasn't.

And I beseech you to actually watch the video of the world-class moronically incompetent crime scene analyst conducting her gold-standard astonishingly inept collection of forensic material in the small bathroom sink using swabs.

Who knows, the penny might finally drop if you watch that video......
Click to expand...

If Vixen had actually read Stefanoni's testimony she would have known she testified to basically connecting the dots, and she saw no harm in this because they because she felt they looked to be the same shade of pink so she assumed it was likely the same source. Never mind that it could still be two different contributors to those two pink dots, but she completely ignores there will likely be latent DNA between the dots, seeing as this is a bathroom sink.

Like I said, it's incredibly ironic that Vixen accuses me of not reading the testimony and then she continual gets the facts of that testimony wrong. Like Harry, I'm almost embarrassed for Vixen - almost.
 
Vixen said:
What rot. It was determined that Knox' DNA (certainly blood because of the high RFU's and domination) was deposited the same time as......
Click to expand...

Right. Your DNA expert, Stefanoni, said none of this was possible to determine. Judge Massei ruled against every forensic-DNA expert - including Stefanoni - in saying otherwise.

I know you're not deliberately lying by saying the above, so you must just be mistaken.
 
LondonJohn said:
As you have now been told multiple times: the verdicts and MRs of Massei, Chieffi and Nencini are null and void. They are worthless. They don't even exist judicially. Nothing within them carries any value whatsoever now.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, the verdicts of the quashed judgments are not in effect.

The evidence presented within the trials, including the reports of the experts, is not deleted or disappeared when a verdict is quashed. However, whether or not evidence is credible or even admissible on legal grounds is a decision made by each court.

For example, there was never any court decision finding the Conti-Vecchiotti report, which was submitted to the Hellmann appeal court at its request, inadmissible, and the inability of C&V to test sample I, because it was LCN DNA and their lab was not equipped to test LCN DNA, criticized by the Chieffi CSC panel MR, was overcome by the test on that sample by the Carabinieri scientific lab as part of the Nencini appeal court proceedings. Sample I was found to be Amanda Knox's DNA, consistent with her DNA being on the handle of that knife from Sollecito's kitchen and its use by her to prepare food there.

On the other hand, the alleged presence of Meredith Kercher's DNA on the blade of that knife, which Stefanoni had claimed based on her testing, was rejected by the Marasca CSC panel MR as not credible or reliable evidence, because Stefanoni's methods did not follow the international standard protocols for the testing of LCN DNA to obtain her results, as pointed out in the C&V report. The lack of scientific credibility or reliability of that alleged evidence precludes it from being used to legally establish any fact in an Italian court, under CPP Article 192.2*. That is one of the clear statements of the texts on page 26, sections 4.1 and 4.2, and on pages 38 - 42, section 7.1, of the translation of the Marasca CSC panel MR.

The final CSC judgment is, of course, the final decision as to what evidence is credible or reliable, and not any prior judgment, unless there is a revision hearing for a claimed wrongful conviction. Revision hearings for acquittals are not allowed under Italian law.

Under Italian treaty obligations and its Constitution, the Italian courts must consider any ECHR judgment of an unfair trial that is brought to their attention in accordance with Italian law.

All the judgments, including quashed provisional judgments, including all the court transcripts and motivation reports, remain as legal documents which may be considered as evidence before the ECHR in any relevant human rights case.

* "The existence of a fact cannot be inferred from circumstantial evidence unless such evidence is serious, precise, and consistent."
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Guede left four samples of DNA, Amanda Knox, five.
Click to expand...

Guede left four samples of DNA IN THE MURDER ROOM INCLUDING ON AND IN THE VICTIM. Knox left five NOT IN THE MURDER ROOM IN A HOUSE SHE HAD LIVED IN FOR WEEKS. Guede also left a bloody palm print under the victim's body and bloody shoe prints around the body of the victim.

That you would even present this as some kind of evidence is mind boggling. Think very, very hard and you might be able to figure out the difference in importance.
 
Stacyhs said:
I'm really worried about you, Vix, if you think that addresses any of my questions/points in any conceivable way.

They assumed Kercher's blood would be here and there so they failed to clean up visible shoe prints in that blood which could be used to identify the killer (and did), to wipe up Knox's blood since she knew she'd been "bleeding profusely" according to you (she probably knew nothing about DNA, right?), or to wash or get rid of the bath mat Raff knew he'd stepped on in blood (they were either trying to put one over on the police or didn't know about footprint analysis, right?). Stop embarrassing yourself with these repeated attempts to justify your illogical and irrational reasoning.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
The aim was to clean up all the blood in the hallway so it couldn't be asked of them, 'how come you didn't see it?'
Click to expand...

But they didn't clean up all the visible blood in the hallway, did they? If that had been their aim, they'd have used the mop to wash down the floor. But they didn't, did they?

For some reason, you think they didn't want to be asked about the bloody shoe prints in the hallway but they were completely unconcerned about being asked about the blood on the faucet or on the bath mat. :boggled:
 
Numbers said:
Just to be clear, the verdicts of the quashed judgments are not in effect.

The evidence presented within the trials, including the reports of the experts, is not deleted or disappeared when a verdict is quashed. However, whether or not evidence is credible or even admissible on legal grounds is a decision made by each court.
Click to expand...

This.

Courts reach verdicts. Courts can also allow or disallow the entry of evidence - for instance, evidence must be obtained legally.

Following Vixen's logic, which I wish she would apply to the 2013 Supreme Court, the ISC doesn't dispute evidence once entered. Indeed, the 2013 Chieffi panel **did not** quash Conti-Vecchiotti's report.

It quashed Hellmann's acquittal partly on the grounds that Hellmann had abdicated his judicial decision regarding Sample 33C to Conti-Vecchiotti's recommendation about it.

So, at the Nencini trial, Sample 33C was analyzed by the Carabinieri science lab - who incidentally brought the negative controls with them to court. Unlike Stefanoni and Mignini, they did fight to keep them out of court. They just brought them as a matter of basic transparency.

Sample 33C turned out to be Knox's, so it added nothing to the case. So, Hellmann may have been judicially wrong in abdicating his judicial role to the experts, but what the hell.... once settled, the case in 2014 was essentially where it had been in 2011 when Hellmann had acquitted.

There had been NO challenge, otherwise, to the credibility of the C/V report, except in English language hate sites like TJMK.

The 2015 Supreme court then acquitted, on the basis that even if all that other evidence had been true, the best the prosecution(s) had been able to do was place AK/RS in another part of the cottage at a later time.

Neither the 2013ISC nor the 2015ISC quashed the C/V report, because as Vixen reminds us, an Italian ISC does not do that once the report is legally entered into evidence.

This is quite separate from having every other forensic-DNA expert in the world side with C/V over Stefanoni. But this latter reality should settle the matter......

..... for reasonable people.
 
Vixen said:
Stefanoni under oath in court said she was careful not to touch it.
Click to expand...

And she got laughed at when the VIDEO showed otherwise. But who are we to believe: "Gloves only need to be changed if the samples are wet" Stefanoni or our own eyes?


BTW In any case, only Sollecito carries around his own unique DNA so it certainly was not produced by anyone else.
Click to expand...

Has anyone, anywhere, or in any way claimed otherwise? No. Read this very carefully: We do NOT contend that it's not RS's DNA on the hook. We contend that it got there by cross contamination. I know you don't want to accept that despite the findings by so many DNA experts, but we don't always get what we want, do we?
 
Vixen said:
Pathetic, isn't it. The only excuse they could find to annul the verdict was a finding never found by the merits court.
Click to expand...

You mean the merits court whose verdict was thrown out for multiple reasons?
The court the SC found should never have convicted on the lousy evidence in the first place? That court?
 
If we follow Vixen's logic generally, anyone convicted in the first instance court should remain convicted indefinitely. No appeals as they would be ruled on by a court that didn't partake in the original merits court, and thus are automatically invalid.

But actually that is giving Vixen slightly too much credit, because it actually involves a trial. I've seen nothing to suggest from Vixen that charges filed by a prosecutor aren't the equivalent of rendering a guilty verdict.
 
Vixen this may be hard to believe but some of us couldn't care less if Knox is guilty or not and are basing our conclusion on the facts.

The very best position you can take on a Knox did it scenario is that she got incredibly lucky teaming up with a burglar she couldn't be connected to and refused to testify against her, who left the bulk of the evidence and in fact all of the indisputable evidence that could be directly connected to the crime. With she herself leaving very little if any evidence, which was mishandled by the police, who generally mishandled the entire investigation (such as not recording the interrogations etc). That is putting it mildly with the amount of coincidences and leaps of faith needed to make that view work.

That is the very best position a pro guilt person could take. Nothing beyond that is tenable. That's why no other pro guilt posters post here anymore. They can't do any better than that without having their position destroyed by facts and reality. Most people don't like to be repeatedly proven wrong, you're a rare exception.
 
bagels said:
Vixen this may be hard to believe but some of us couldn't care less if Knox is guilty or not and are basing our conclusion on the facts.

The very best position you can take on a Knox did it scenario is that she got incredibly lucky teaming up with a burglar she couldn't be connected to and refused to testify against her, who left the bulk of the evidence and in fact all of the indisputable evidence that could be directly connected to the crime. With she herself leaving very little if any evidence, which was mishandled by the police, who generally mishandled the entire investigation (such as not recording the interrogations etc). That is putting it mildly with the amount of coincidences and leaps of faith needed to make that view work.

That is the very best position a pro guilt person could take. Nothing beyond that is tenable. That's why no other pro guilt posters post here anymore. They can't do any better than that without having their position destroyed by facts and reality. Most people don't like to be repeatedly proven wrong, you're a rare exception.
Click to expand...

This "best case for guilt" was anticipated by Mignini himself who once quipped that perhaps Knox had remained outside the room, directing the murder from there. Think what you want about Mignini saying that, but it's his implicit concession that nothing places Knox in the room.

It would have spared everyone years of misery, if he'd just riffed on that quip, and connected the dots as they eventually were by the 2015 ISC. That misery includes the Kerchers themselves who wouldn't have been judicially misled all those years.
 
Not related to the 10,,000 rehashing of the trial and the ultimate exoneration of Knox and Sollecito.

I just thought I would post this little tidbit about Amanda .

Apparently Lady Gaga posted a tweet today saying "Fame was prison".

Amanda replied, "I hear you, but...prison is prison."
 
bagels said:
If we follow Vixen's logic generally, anyone convicted in the first instance court should remain convicted indefinitely. No appeals as they would be ruled on by a court that didn't partake in the original merits court, and thus are automatically invalid.

But actually that is giving Vixen slightly way too much credit, because it actually involves a trial. I've seen nothing to suggest from Vixen that charges filed by a prosecutor aren't the equivalent of rendering a guilty verdict.
Click to expand...

NT
 
I can't help but wonder how Vixen is doing with that "readily available on the internet" quote from Curt Knox regarding the $2 million PR campaign.

Somehow, I'm beginning to suspect it just ain't coming. But, then again, I'm a cynic.
 
Tutorial No. 2

Today's exercise

Apparatus
I want you all to take a small glass of fruit juice and another of tap water.

Method

1. Take a small amount of the fruit juice and mix it 1:1 with the water. Stir. Put aside.

2. Taking a small amount of the water, say a teaspoon, pour it onto a thick absorbent kitchen towel, or cloth. Leave to dry overnight.

3. 24 hours later, take a teaspoonful of the juice and pour it onto the spot where the water had been poured the previous day. Leave to dry.

4. Take a teaspoon of your stirred fruit juice/water from the day before and por onto a separate sheet of kitchen towel. Leave to dry.

5. Next day, compare the two sheets of kitchen towel.

Results

1. The paper with the fruit juice added to the water 24 hours later is much darker and shows as a separate stain to the water (see around the edges).

2. The mixed fruit juice and water remains a paler colour than the fruit juice added later, as above.

Conclusion

Now imagine scenario one represents Knox' DNA/blood left in the sink sometime before the murder. It is possible to differentiate them as two separate stains left at different times. It will reveal two separate incidences of water and blood but n'er the two were mixed.

In scenario two, the diluted blood of the victim and Knox are deposited in the sink and bidet at the same time means the streak is pale pink (as discovered by Giao (_sp?) and Stefanoni and contains a mix of Knox and Mez', which were deposited at the same time and a separation of the two fluids cannot be ascertained.

Knox' DNA/blood mixed in with Mez' DNA/blood and diluted with water was found as a long narrow streak in the sink and again in the bidet and confirmed by DNA tests showing it was:

- of Knox and the victim

- it was a single sample of blood and water mixed together at the same time

- the mixed DNA was of Knox and Kercher

- the mixed sample tested positive for human blood.

Here endeth today's lesson.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom