The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 31

[Vixen]

Lawyers who played the race card to his advantage.



More creative writing per usual. Burleigh never said he had "numerous convictions for burglary" as you claim. What she did say was that he had "a known burglary habit". Which he did. As for the 'drifter' story, PGP beloved John Follain, wrote in his book that (Comodi believed that)"Raffaele was so devoted to her he followed her blindly; Rudy was a drifter, was easily influenced and fancied Amanda so he followed her too."




Not getting the full story is at least a reasonable excuse for believing Knox is guilty, especially if they frequent gossip rags like the UK and Italian tabloids, biased guilt websites like TJMK, TMofMK and the other now defunct PGP sites or read trash like Nick van der Leek's horribly edited cut and paste books. What is not a reasonable excuse is when people are presented the actual evidence from the trials and handwave away the forensics reports accepted by the courts.

Sorry, I cannot tolerate people who use bigoted language. It reveals a deeply prejudiced mindset which will never be swayed by reasoned debate. So I'll say "goodbye" to you.

 

[Vixen]

At least Nencini's convicting court acknowledged those extra Y-alleles. However, he said that they were probably from the victim's 'girlfriends', and since (acc. to Nencini) girlfriends regularly handle each others' bras, it's no surprise that they'd be on the bra clasp. All of the victim's girlfriends who were sporting Y-alleles.

That's how safe the Nencini conviction was.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_539715385f07c3dedc.jpg[/qimg]

This was all dealt with in court.

Day 10, 20 January 2014

Maori for Sollecito made his case at the Nencini Appeal hearing (as sent down by Chieffi, who directed the DNA should be looked at again) and Crini, for the prosecution responded as follows.

About Guede’s knife wounds to the hand, Crini says there was no sign of any of Guede’s blood at the crime scene, and in any case, as he knew the house, having visited more than once, he would have made a more logical entry.

There was no contamination at the scene and he was pleased the defence no longer claimed contamination in the laboratories.* Professor Novelli had ruled out tertiary transfer of DNA in situ.* Arguments about Low Copy Number DNA were rendered obsolete by the RIS.* He turns to the Conti-Vecchiotti reports and points out straw man use of ‘only’ and their reasoning* à priori, they failed to look at X- and Y-haplotypes together.

Vecchiotti admitted there was a scratch on the blade of the imputed murder weapon.


Bongiorno had said the crime scene was ‘flooded’ with Guede’s DNA.* Crini pointed out that the indications were Guede had free hands and no weapon.* He objected to Vinci’s claims about the small footprint, which Boemia had attributed to a ‘ladies size 36 – 37’, as being Guede’s footprint on a folded part of the pillow case.* The print was ‘too small’ to be Guede’s.

No fight wounds, no defence wounds, no material under the fingernails.* Forced restraint, evidence of two knives.* Compatibility with Sollecito’s footprint on bathmat and between the knife outline on the sheet and Sollecito’s kitchen knife.

Crini said a lack of motive does not mean proof of innocence.

Next it is the turn of Sollecito’s sub-lawyer, who is reprimanded by Nencini for straying into bringing up new issues when the topic was rebuttals.* Sollecito did not lie to the police as it was true the crime was committed by Guede, who broke the glass and climbed in.* The scene was contaminated, there was no Kercher DNA on the bra clasp with Sollecito’s.* Nencini booms, ‘No!’ when the junior lawyer tries to introduce the topic of wiretapping of Sollecito’s family.

The court is adjourned at 6:00 pm.* The next hearing is listed for 30 January 2014, when Knox; lawyer will put his closing rebuttals, followed by the two appointed judges and six lay judges retiring to make their deliberations.

Day 11, 30 January 2014

Carlo Dall Vedova is next to present his rebuttals on behalf of Knox.* Her rights were violated by the Perugian police, he says.* She was in a state of shock when she accused Patrick.

“You cannot put two innocent people in jail to cover up for the mistakes of the judicial system.”

He finishes by saying Rudy Guede is the only murderer, and asks for an acquittal.

Then comes Luciano Ghirga for Knox.* His theme is ‘Reasonable Doubt’.* He argues for a single aggressor saying that the bruise at the back of Merediths head was compatible with a frontal attack.* Judge Micheli, in Guede’s trial determined that the bruise was due to Meredith falling onto her back into a supine position.* Massei ruled Meredith had her head banged against a wall.* He pleads with the court to acquit – as he has to, otherwise the court has no power to – but in the event of a conviction to reject the call for no mitigation and the precautionary measures.

The judges then retire, saying to expect the verdict not before 5:00pm

The deliberations take over twelve hours, into Day 12, 31 January 2014.

The judges and the lay judges reconvene and without further ado, and remaining standing, Nencini announces that the convictions are upheld.* Knox is given 28 years, including 3 years for simple calunnia (rather than aggravated as requested by Crini) and Sollecito 25 years.* His passport is to be confiscated.

So you see, all of this was properly dealt with in court.

 

[Vixen]

'Judicial facts' are 'judicial facts'. We're just going to have to accept it, Bill.

Judicial facts, based on objective, impartial, scientific facts and as weighted, cross-examined and tested at trial.

 

[Vixen]

Piers Morgan was a friend of John Kercher's within the British tabloid industry. As such Morgan said some very inflamed things about the accused.

Then I remember seeing him on his now canceled CNN program, where both Gloria Allred and Jeffrey Toobin were citing what some of the judges had written in convicting AK and RS....

.... but also the smears the judges' implied about the victim. I remember Morgan huffing in disgust that it was said the victim was a participant in a sex game, until it went wrong.

Unfortunately he only briefly held Italian courts to account. His present favourite tactic is to ignore the murder all together, and participate in slut-shaming you know who, just because it's so much fun to slut-shame.

So much for "All for Meredith".

The Italian and British public were much better informed of the case than the US public, who were innundated with Knox-sponsored spin and false stories of 'twelve-man tag teams'.

 

[TomG]

Judicial facts, based on objective, impartial, scientific facts and as weighted, cross-examined and tested at trial.

The problem is that the case is still irreconcilable. If the judicial facts were actual facts the case would resolve to a satisfactory conclusion offering closure for the victim and the Kercher family. The challenge for you is the same as before. You have to validate your judicial facts in a coherent narrative and timeline placing K&S at the crime scene and involved in the murder and still resolve the case. The problem is that you simply can't do it. If that's the case then you have to re-examine your narrative to make sense. You won't do that either. The timeline and narrative that does resolve the case and offer closure is that Rudy was the lone killer with no one else involved. It's the lies masquerading as judicial facts that deny that closure.

Hoots

 

[Vixen]

The problem is that the case is still irreconcilable. If the judicial facts were actual facts the case would resolve to a satisfactory conclusion offering closure for the victim and the Kercher family. The challenge for you is the same as before. You have to validate your judicial facts in a coherent narrative and timeline placing K&S at the crime scene and involved in the murder and still resolve the case. The problem is that you simply can't do it. If that's the case then you have to re-examine your narrative to make sense. You won't do that either. The timeline and narrative that does resolve the case and offer closure is that Rudy was the lone killer with no one else involved. It's the lies masquerading as judicial facts that deny that closure.

Hoots

The DNA, the footprints highlighted by luminol, the lack of an alibi, the numerous lies, the attempt to subvert police investigation to Lumumba, the fact of the 'burglary' scene happening after the victim's death (paper strewn on top of her body and shards of glass from Philomena's room), together with the Sollecito-compatible bloodied footprint on the bathmat, firmly puts them at the scene of the crime.

What was the first big red flag for me about this case? Mez' door locked. A random burglar would not have had a key to lock it. Burglars just want to get away as fast as possible. The only things stolen were possessions of the victim, so clearly a highly personalised crime. A real burglar would have taken the three laptops and the jewellery.

 

[whoanellie]

Barry Sheck was the link. He formed the Innocence Project in 1992 and made a big fuss of linking DNA evidence to convictions. Simpson got off because Sheck really believe the DNA evidence was planted by the police. Hindsight is fine thing. We now know better re Simpson but at the time many prisoners - some who had spent years in solitary - were challenging their convictions. The jury clearly believed there were anomalies in the the DNA in the Simpson case as of the time of the trial.

1) The Innocence Project had nothing to do with 'prison reform'. I'm nitpicking, but you are using the term 'prison reform' incorrectly here.
https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-policy-priorities-prison-reform
2) There is no 'hindsight' involved here.

 

[whoanellie]

Judicial facts, based on objective, impartial, scientific facts and as weighted, cross-examined and tested at trial.

The fact that the court proposed that the Y-chromosome DNA came from Meredith's girlfriends undermines the competency of that court to weigh the relevant scientific facts.

 

[Bill Williams]

The Italian and British public were much better informed of the case than the US public, who were innundated with Knox-sponsored spin and false stories of 'twelve-man tag teams'.

Ah, er, no. Tabloid journalist Nick Pisa openly bragged about not fact-checking the stuff that the prosecution fed the media. Why? He said that if a tabloid reporter took the time required to fact-check, then they'd lose the story, and someone else would get the byline and paycheque.

Indeed, what Piers Morgan discovered in 2014 while with CNN was how the sexification of the salacious, tabloid narrative was starting to smear the victim herself.

Since he was a friend of John Kercher's, he got offended. Indeed, British filmmaker Michael Winterbottom in 2014 made a film about the on-the-ground, tabloid reality of how the trials were covered. Winter bottom came to the same conclusion, noting that the more salacious the reporting got....

.... the more the victim became forgotten.

 

[Bill Williams]

The DNA, the footprints highlighted by luminol, the lack of an alibi, the numerous lies, the attempt to subvert police investigation to Lumumba, the fact of the 'burglary' scene happening after the victim's death (paper strewn on top of her body and shards of glass from Philomena's room), together with the Sollecito-compatible bloodied footprint on the bathmat, firmly puts them at the scene of the crime.

Wow. Regardless of the number of times these factoids are repeated, repeated, repeated, repeated, repeated, and then debunked, they always seem to merit one more citationless repetition.

'The numerous lies' is as example of a long since debunked factoid just chucked in - Regardless of the claim's fact checking.

There were no 'numerous lies'. Indeed the only guilter who tried enumerating them, specifically listing individual 'lies', revealed the source of them... statements made by isolated kids being pressured in the middle of the night to confirm what the cops 'already knew'.

Outside of coercive, overnight interrogation, both of the accused's statements have been remarkably consistent.

Whereas the Italian judiciary now recognizes the investigation as being fraudulent. Which was one rationale offered in 2015 for the Supreme Court to exonerate the pair.

 

[LondonJohn]

If you didn't know that Hellman was inexperienced in murder cases then it is no surprise you are ignorant as to the background of the case.

As for the bra clasp, this was dealt with at trial and the appeal and the evidence was damning for Sollecito.

If you didn't know that Hellman's name was spelled Hellmann, then it is no surprise you are ignorant as to the background of the case.

As for the bra clasp, this was dealt with by the Supreme Court (and by competent forensic scientists the world over), and the evidence was damning for Stefanoni, Mignoni, Massei and Nencini.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's almost as if Vixen is fundamentally ignorant of a) the way the criminal justice system works in general, b) the way the criminal justice system works in Italy, and c) the way the criminal justice system worked in the Knox/Sollecito trials process.

Plus Vixen appears to be inescapably stuck in a time warp preventing her from progressing beyond December 2009.

All very concerning. (Well, not really - I couldn't/could* care less.)


* Depending on your location

 

[LondonJohn]

The DNA, the footprints highlighted by luminol, the lack of an alibi, the numerous lies, the attempt to subvert police investigation to Lumumba, the fact of the 'burglary' scene happening after the victim's death (paper strewn on top of her body and shards of glass from Philomena's room), together with the Sollecito-compatible bloodied footprint on the bathmat, firmly puts them at the scene of the crime.

What was the first big red flag for me about this case? Mez' door locked. A random burglar would not have had a key to lock it. Burglars just want to get away as fast as possible. The only things stolen were possessions of the victim, so clearly a highly personalised crime. A real burglar would have taken the three laptops and the jewellery.

Shame your views are "informed" by a shockingly poor analytical approach then. Fortunately, people much more expert and experienced than you have figured this case out long, long ago. Your bogus views are entirely irrelevant.

 

[Numbers]

Judicial facts, based on objective, impartial, scientific facts and as weighted, cross-examined and tested at trial.

The fact that the court proposed that the Y-chromosome DNA came from Meredith's girlfriends undermines the competency of that court to weigh the relevant scientific facts.

If a court fails to comprehend or acknowledge that a result obtained from "scientific" or "technical" testing is unreliable, just plain wrong, or is being misinterpreted, any "judicial fact" inferred from such results is absolutely unlawful under Italian law, CPP Article 192, paragraph 2.

Here's the text of CPP Article 192, paragraph 2*:

2. L'esistenza di un fatto non può essere desunta da indizi a meno che questi siano gravi, precisi e concordanti.

Translation by Google with help from the legal glossary and text by Gialuz, Luparia, and Scarpa**:

2. The existence of a [judicial] fact cannot be deduced {inferred} from circumstantial evidence unless such evidence is serious, precise, and consistent {concordant}.

As pointed out in the Marasca CSC panel motivation report, the elements of circumstantial evidence, in order to satisfy CPP Article 192 paragraph 2, each element of circumstantial element used in the chain of inference must be certain or reliable; otherwise, the chain of inference falls apart and no lawful judicial fact can be inferred. The words "serious, precise, and consistent" imply that each element of the circumstantial evidence must be meaningful, accurate, and reliable ("certain") in order for the "judicial fact" to be lawfully inferred. In the commentary provided by the Brocardi Italian law firm on CPP Article 192 paragraph 2, it is pointed out that the elements of circumstantial evidence must be of such reliability that no reasonable alternative inference can be drawn*.

Vixen's statements fail to take CPP Article 192 paragraph 2 into account, and the provisionally convicting Italian courts likewise ignored this important Italian law.

Since Vixen's statements rely on unreliable results and unreliable and incorrect inferences derived from unreliable results, they cannot support Vixen's arguments for guilt, and Vixen's arguments for guilt are thus left with no support at all and are invalid. That clear fact apparently does not cause Vixen any reluctance to repeat the arguments.

On the Italian judicial front, however, the Marasca CSC panel verdict and motivation report made clear that there was no credible evidence supporting the guilt of Knox and Sollecito in the murder/rape of Kercher. That final and definitive verdict was delivered in March 2015, about 7 1/2 years ago, and the motivation report was published in September, 2015, about 7 years ago. Some guilters apparently can not or will not understand that judgment and others, such as the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy.

* Source: https://www.brocardi.it/codice-di-procedura-penale/libro-terzo/titolo-i/art192.html

** The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation; M. Gialuz, L. Luparia, and F. Scarpa, eds.; Wolters Kluwer Italia, C 2014.

 

[Bill Williams]

This was all dealt with in court.

Day 10, 20 January 2014

.............

So you see, all of this was properly dealt with in court.

Wow. What you supplied was mainly the prosecution's view of the defence case. At least we know what one side's definition of 'properly' is.

 

[TomG]

The DNA, the footprints highlighted by luminol, the lack of an alibi, the numerous lies, the attempt to subvert police investigation to Lumumba, the fact of the 'burglary' scene happening after the victim's death (paper strewn on top of her body and shards of glass from Philomena's room), together with the Sollecito-compatible bloodied footprint on the bathmat, firmly puts them at the scene of the crime.

What was the first big red flag for me about this case? Mez' door locked. A random burglar would not have had a key to lock it. Burglars just want to get away as fast as possible. The only things stolen were possessions of the victim, so clearly a highly personalised crime. A real burglar would have taken the three laptops and the jewellery.

You are merely adding more unsustainable ex-evidence into the mix. If any of it were true it would coalesce into a complete narrative and timeline placing K&S at the crime scene and involved in the murder. Instead you offer a weak stand-alone "red flag" that is no more than a red herring without a greater context. Meredith died as a result of a sequence of actual events, not as a recycled rag-bag of disproven nonsense. The real truth is that you can't get K&S out of Raffaele's flat on the night of the murder without it sounding ridiculous. So Meredith arrives home to VDP 20.56 approx. What happens next?

Hoots

 

[AnimalFriendly]

attempt to subvert police investigation to Lumumba,

And this attempt came after having "staged a burglary"...tsk tsk...

Sollecito-compatible bloodied footprint on the bathmat, firmly puts them at the scene of the crime.

Had Knox or Sollecito been there at the time of the murder, it would have occurred to them to, you know, just get rid of the bathmat.

A random burglar would not have had a key to lock it.

Guede "had", read took, Kercher's keys.

 

[bagels]

And this attempt came after having "staged a burglary"...tsk tsk...

Lol ya. She staged a break-in, but then immediately forgot she did and told the police she invited the killer in through the front door.

Guilty Amanda reminds me of characters in genre fiction that go from clever to dumb and back to clever exactly when the plot needs them to. I wonder why Guilty Amanda reminds me of fictional characters

 

[Rolfe]

Is this what they call "groundhog day"?

 

[Numbers]

Is this what they call "groundhog day"?

Repetition is the mother of all learning.

Analogous to repeatedly practicing multiplication tables wrong, or learning only slang dialect in language studies, bad repetitions only bring problems. Improper patterns are only remedied through the practice of quality repetitions.

Source: https://breakingmuscle.com/repetition-is-the-mother-of-all-learning/

On the other hand:

Brevity is the soul of wit. (As demonstrated in my posts )

Source: https://literarydevices.net/brevity-is-the-soul-of-wit/