Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
If the sentences for Knox and Sollecito were annulled because of 'lapses in collection of evidence', then why aren't you agitating for a similar annulment int he case of Guede, whose evidence was collected at the same time as the other two and analysed in the same laboratory by the same scientists?
The bra with Guede's DNA was collected on Nov. 2, the bra clasp with Sollecito's on Dec. 18. The swabs taken from MK's vagina were collected on Nov. 2. Neither the bra nor the jacket had unidentified YDNA on them like the clasp. One tiny hook being contaminated when directly touched by dirty gloves, dirt/debris, etc. is much more likely than both the jacket and the purse being contaminated. Latex gloves have been proved to be excellent sources for transferring DNA.
Plus, the video showing the collection of the purse and jacket do NOT show them being handled in the areas where Guede's DNA was found...unlike the bra clasp. What are the odds that NO evidence of Knox would be found in that room and ONLY ONE piece of evidence of Sollecito's presence out of hundreds of samples taken?
Another example of the police incompetence: not collecting the purse in which a burglar/killer would likely go through, or the jacket Kercher was wearing when attacked until Dec. 18.
Are you handwaving away the bloody shoeprints of Guede found on Nov. 2? You know, the ones those 'crack' cops ineptly identified as Sollecito's? How about Guede's bloody fingerprints found on the pillow under Kercher?
As for the claim Sollecito's DNA was LCN, that is another popular lie put out by the detractors. It was not low LCN. It was a very strong DNA sample of Sollecito's, which matched on the maximum of 17 pairs of alleles.
Quantification revealed an average concentration of 0.115 nanograms per microliter, for a total quantity of extract of 5.775 nanograms, an amount permitting PCR amplification and STR analysis.
Which lessons the chance of contamination on the bra collected on Nov. 2, right?
But what makes you think the door was closed between Nov. 2 and Dec. 18 when the clasp was collected? It's a fact that people had been in the cottage during those 6 weeks with no record of who did what. Or do you think the clasp walked its way across the room? The Dec.18 video shows the apartment and Kercher's bedroom in a completely different state than on Nov. 2.
For the first time, scientists have shown that human DNA can be collected from air samples.
The researchers sucked out air samples from the burrows of naked mole-rats, as well as the room they were housed in, and then used existing techniques to check for DNA sequences within the sampled air. Low and behold, they detected the presence of naked mole rats in burrows, but they also detected eDNA of the species within the surrounding too.
Furthermore, they were also able to identify the presence of human DNA in both the room and burrows. They initially speculated that this might be due to contamination, but it became apparent that the genetic material was moving away from its original source and spreading thoughout the environment.
This argument has never been able to hold water yet you've been trying to use it for how many years now? Let's review just a few of the flaws in your argument...
1. Guede's fingerprint, made in blood, can not be the result of contamination, and therefore can not be compared to anything collected against Amanda or Raffaele.
2. Most of the evidence against Guede was collected by the Scientific Police techs on 2 Nov. The knife, used against Amanda, was collected by the Perugia police and was days later. (i.e., not the same time or the same forensic team)
3. The DNA collected from inside Meredith, which matched Guede's profile, was obtained by the coroner. (not the same time or the same forensic team).
3. Guede had never been in the upstairs portion of the cottage, so none of his forensic evidence could be of an innocent nature.
4. All of Guede's DNA samples were of substantial quantity. Raffaele's DNA on the clasp was of LCN quantity. It would be very difficult to deposit Guede's DNA, in the quantities found, by way of contamination. Not true for Raffaele.
The legal findings are that Guede was let into the cottage by either Knox or Kercher. Given that was the finding after all of the evidence had been heard from all sides it is reasonable to accept Guede's story that he was visiting because he did know (a) Knox and (b) Mez, as they had met before and exchanged friendly words and even smoked a joint together,
Guede's story is that he was making out with Kercher and that would explain the presence of his fingerprints and DNA. There was no sign of seminal fluid so if there was a motive of rape, it did not happen (as Micheli wryly pointed out).
The legal finding was that there was no burglary, therefore Guede's legal position is that his motive was not burglary. The legal finding (including the final Supreme Court's one) is that the burglary was staged. The only thing stolen (as per the legal facts) were Mez' personal effects: her rent money and her two phones. The person charged with the theft of the phones was Knox, not Guede. The charge of theft was consequently dropped. The official court motivation states that the personal property of Mez was not stolen as part of a burglary but rather to prevent Mez from calling for help. Think about that. The person/s who callously tortured her and left her to slowly die in agony deliberately locked the door of her room, stopped her from texting a last goodbye to her folk and from calling for help.
5. Every forensic trace of Guede's was confirmed by lab results. There were no contradictory results. The same can't be said for evidence used against Amanda and/or Raffaele. For e.g.,
The sample taken from the blade of the knife that supposedly was Meredith's DNA tested negative for blood, negative for human biological material and repeatedly generated a "Too Low" reading during quantification, which indicates either no DNA or to little to accurately profile. This substantiates the claim that Meredith's DNA was not on the blade.
The Luminol samples all tested negative for blood using TMB, and all but two did not contain Meredith's DNA. This is virtually impossible to be the case if the traces were made from Meredith's blood.
6. The two 'damning' DNA traces against Amanda and Raffaele, 36B and 165B, were only tested once, which by the very forensic regulations that Italy supposedly abides by, rendered the results "unreliable". This wasn't the case for any of the samples for which Guede's DNA profile was found.
7. Not all evidence against Amanda or Raffaele was claimed to be contamination. Her DNA in the bathroom was clearly hers. The claim is that it is latent... that is, she used the bathroom daily and deposited that DNA days before the murder.
So for me personally, no, I'm not seeing a lack of consistency here. Just a misrepresentation of the facts by you.
My advice to you is either figure out how you can successfully argue these points, and others, or you should just give up on this lame claim.
The D.N.A. belonging to Sollecito was not LCN. It was amplified numerous times, and with a high R.F. U, It was irrefutably his D.N.A. found on the dead girl's bra hook. Guede claims to have hung around to help stem the blood so no surprise his handprint in blood is there. You haven't explained how come Sollecito's and Knox' bare footprints were highlighted in luminol as wading through Mez' blood. Guede's luminol-highlighted footprints were by his trainers (not bare feet) and led straight towards the front door. The footprint in blood on the bathroom bathmat was found scientifically by the forensic police expert to be compatible with Sollecito's bare foot (they use statistical terminology) and not compatible with Knox' or Guede's.
None of Guede's D.N.A. or blood was found in Filomena's room, yet Knox' D.N.A. was found on Filomena's carpet mixed in with Mez' blood. Her blood was mixed in with Mez' in the bathroom. Blood takes as little as 30 minutes to dry so Knox must have been in contact with Mez' still wet blood for them to have mixed. Knox confirmed to police the bathroom had been cleaned prior to the day of the murder.
So I invite you to come out of the fantasy of a 'rogue prosecutor' and look at the scientific evidence and court findings with an objective eye.
According to the above Italian media article, the CSM stated that Mignini's actions in withholding a lawyer based only on his oral instructions, without getting the legally required approval of a judge, were a "grave e inescusabile violazione di legge" (serious and inexcusable violation of the law).
Possibly the censure of Mignini by the CSM for violating Italian procedural law in denying Sollecito a lawyer, a violation of his defense rights, will be part of the evidence considered by the ECHR in the case Sollecito v. Italy.
IIRC this refers to some written statement which Sollecito had received verbally anyway but by an oversight didn't get the written copy, an oversight that was soon rectified when pointed out. The sort of human error that happens in any court case and is usually of no consequence to the outcome or legal proceedings.
IIRC this refers to some written statement which Sollecito had received verbally anyway but by an oversight didn't get the written copy, an oversight that was soon rectified when pointed out. The sort of human error that happens in any court case and is usually of no consequence to the outcome or legal proceedings.
"IIRC" doesn't count as evidence for a claim. No, it wasn't due to some oversight about a copy of a written order. It was because Mignini didn't bother with a written order at all.
The sentence is linked to the detention of Raffaele Sollecito and in particular to the prohibition to confer with the defender that Mignini issued only orally and not with a written provision, as required by the rules that November 6, 2007.
Another clerical error? Like the one where the clerk made an error in writing "annuls the ruling under appeal without referral with respect to the crimes under charges A), D) and E) of the rubric because the appellants did not commit the act"?
IIRC this refers to some written statement which Sollecito had received verbally anyway but by an oversight didn't get the written copy, an oversight that was soon rectified when pointed out. The sort of human error that happens in any court case and is usually of no consequence to the outcome or legal proceedings.
The procedural law violated by Mignini would appear to be CPP Article 104. That law allows a judge, upon the request of a public prosecutor, during preliminary investigations to temporarily deny the right of a suspect to speak to a lawyer. For certain serious crimes, the prosecutor may deny the right of an arrested accused person to speak to a lawyer prior to the accused's first appearance before the arrest hearing judge, but only if the prosecutor provides a detailed reasoning for the case file. Failure of the prosecutor to provide the detailed reasoning in writing results in a nullity.
The legal findings are that Guede was let into the cottage by either Knox or Kercher. Given that was the finding after all of the evidence had been heard from all sides it is reasonable to accept Guede's story that he was visiting because he did know (a) Knox and (b) Mez, as they had met before and exchanged friendly words and even smoked a joint together,
Guede's story is that he was making out with Kercher and that would explain the presence of his fingerprints and DNA. There was no sign of seminal fluid so if there was a motive of rape, it did not happen (as Micheli wryly pointed out).
The legal finding was that there was no burglary, therefore Guede's legal position is that his motive was not burglary. The legal finding (including the final Supreme Court's one) is that the burglary was staged. The only thing stolen (as per the legal facts) were Mez' personal effects: her rent money and her two phones. The person charged with the theft of the phones was Knox, not Guede. The charge of theft was consequently dropped. The official court motivation states that the personal property of Mez was not stolen as part of a burglary but rather to prevent Mez from calling for help. Think about that. The person/s who callously tortured her and left her to slowly die in agony deliberately locked the door of her room, stopped her from texting a last goodbye to her folk and from calling for help.
OK, so you're going to have to explain to me what any of this has to do with comparing how evidence was collected/stored/tested/evaluated and how it differed between Guede and Amanda/Raffaele - you know, the subject that was being discussed.
The D.N.A. belonging to Sollecito was not LCN. It was amplified numerous times,
The DNA belonging to Raffaele absolutely was LCN. The total DNA sample was not LCN, but the amount attributed to Raffaele (1/7th the total amount) equals LCN. Further, it was not amplified numerous times, as noted in the C&V report.
C & V Report said:
Various peaks (cf. table of autosomic STRs and Y-chromosome haplotype) which should have been considered alleles until proven otherwise, were not taken into consideration in the analyses; yet their presence was indicative of the fact that, besides Kercher and Sollecito, other unidentified individuals were represented in the genetic traces found at the crime scene. In this regard, it was necessary to proceed to further amplifications of the extracted DNA in order to confirm the presence of the various haplotypes present at the crime scene — something which was not done, even though a sufficient amount of extracted material was available (cf. SAL: 50 μL of extracted material).
... and with a high R.F. U, It was irrefutably his D.N.A. found on the dead girl's bra hook. Guede claims to have hung around to help stem the blood so no surprise his handprint in blood is there. You haven't explained how come Sollecito's and Knox' bare footprints were highlighted in luminol as wading through Mez' blood. Guede's luminol-highlighted footprints were by his trainers (not bare feet) and led straight towards the front door. The footprint in blood on the bathroom bathmat was found scientifically by the forensic police expert to be compatible with Sollecito's bare foot (they use statistical terminology) and not compatible with Knox' or Guede's.
None of Guede's D.N.A. or blood was found in Filomena's room, yet Knox' D.N.A. was found on Filomena's carpet mixed in with Mez' blood. Her blood was mixed in with Mez' in the bathroom. Blood takes as little as 30 minutes to dry so Knox must have been in contact with Mez' still wet blood for them to have mixed. Knox confirmed to police the bathroom had been cleaned prior to the day of the murder.
So I invite you to come out of the fantasy of a 'rogue prosecutor' and look at the scientific evidence and court findings with an objective eye.
The legal findings are that Guede was let into the cottage by either Knox or Kercher. Given that was the finding after all of the evidence had been heard from all sides it is reasonable to accept Guede's story that he was visiting because he did know (a) Knox and (b) Mez, as they had met before and exchanged friendly words and even smoked a joint together,
No, it's not reasonable at all to believe Guede's story. Not even Guede claimed Knox was there when he arrived so she could not have let him in. Evidence to the contrary shows Guede's entire story about being invited over by Kercher is nothing but a lie.
That the burglary was staged was made a judicial fact in 2013 so Marasca Bruno had no choice but to accept it as such. However, they did acquit RS and AK of having staged the burglary. Legally that means that someone else had to have staged the "confirmed" burglary. Who would that be? Maybe the two unidentified men who left DNA on Kercher's bra?
No one, including you, has ever shown evidence of Knox and Guede being friends or ever having socialized outside that one night downstairs when they spent little time even speaking to each other.
Guede's story is that he was making out with Kercher and that would explain the presence of his fingerprints and DNA.
Why do you think he included all that in his story? Because he knew they would find his DNA in her and his fingerprints. Guede was not stupid and had plenty of time to concoct his story to fit what he was reading in the papers and hearing on TV.
There was no sign of seminal fluid so if there was a motive of rape, it did not happen (as Micheli wryly pointed out).
But there was sign of seminal fluid between her legs on the pillow under her hips. Prof. Vinci's examination of the stains resulted in his finding that it was seminal fluid. Sollecito's team requested it be test during the appeal trial which the prosecution fought, and for some God knows why reason, it was refused.
The legal finding was that there was no burglary, therefore Guede's legal position is that his motive was not burglary. The legal finding (including the final Supreme Court's one) is that the burglary was staged.
As I said, the final SC could not have found otherwise as it would have created a judicial conflict with the 2013 Chieffi SC. They could no more say it wasn't staged than they could say there was only one person involved, even if that's what they thought.
The only thing stolen (as per the legal facts) were Mez' Meredith's personal effects: her rent money and her two phones. The person charged with the theft of the phones was Knox, not Guede. The charge of theft was consequently dropped.
Yeah...when only Guede's DNA in Kercher's blood was found on that purse, he was unemployed, and had been caught red-handed with a stolen knife and stolen objects from burglary just days before, including cell phones. That it was Knox charged with that theft is a perfect example of Giuliani cherry picking Guede's story to bolster his rationalization for arresting Knox.
The official court motivation states that the personal property of Mez Meredith was not stolen as part of a burglary but rather to prevent Mez Meredith from calling for help.
I see...so stealing her money and credit cards prevented her from calling for help when she was physically incapable of doing so. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
Think about that. The person/s who callously tortured her and left her to slowly die in agony deliberately locked the door of her room, .
Um...that kind of gaslighting might work on those who don't know the case, but not on us. Knox was in no condition to text or call anyone. She was incapable of rising from the floor and texting/calling anyone as she lay suffocating in her own blood. As Massei stated, she died in the same position in which she had been assaulted. There is no indication she ever moved or tried to move from that location.
The D.N.A. belonging to Sollecito was not LCN. It was amplified numerous times, and with a high R.F. U, It was irrefutably his D.N.A. found on the dead girl's bra hook.
Sure, the hero tried to save her instead of calling 112 with one of her phones, then went out dancing, and then fled the country. Why? Because the "left-handed, Napapijri wearing killer had claimed "Black man found, black man convicted". Uh-huh.
You haven't explained how come Sollecito's and Knox' Knox's bare footprints were highlighted in luminol as wading through Mez' Meredith's blood.
What part of "all tested negative for blood with TMB" is still confusing you? As for it being Sollecito's footprint, that was never confirmed. There was no DNA in the alleged footprint of Sollecito or in those attributed to Amanda in the hall. They were only "compatible" meaning they could not be ruled out. Was the one allegedly belonging to RS ever compared to Giacomo? No. Were the ones allegedly belonging to Amanda ever compared to the other women living in that house? No.
In regards to the luminol-enhanced print in the hallway, Vinci said his measurement showed it to be considerably shorter than Sollecito's foot. He did not say whether he thought it could belong to Knox. Rinaldi in his report in May attributed two other luminol-enhanced prints to Knox, but said this one was Sollecito's.
Yeah, that's why I call them shoeprints, not footprints. They also were all around and under Kercher's body in her blood. Something NOT found with Knox and Sollecito. I wonder how they managed to swing her body around, lift her hips up, place a pillow under them, etc without stepping in any of that blood covering the floor or leaving any DNA or fingerprints?
The footprint in blood on the bathroom bathmat was found scientifically by the forensic police expert to be compatible with Sollecito's bare foot (they use statistical terminology) and not compatible with Knox' Knox's or Guede's.
Uh-huh. And Prof. Vinci...you know the one who was able to show that "woman's size 37 shoe as claimed by the forensic police expert" was just another partial print of Guede's...not only examined the mat from photos but also the mat itself and used Crimescope to highlight the details neither of which the police expert did. And guess what? He found it was not Sollecito's print.
None of Guede's D.N.A. or blood was found in Filomena's room, yet Knox' Knox's D.N.A. was found on Filomena's carpet mixed in with Mez' Meredith's blood.
WHAT? LOL! Um...no...no blood and no carpet. TMB tests were negative. Why do you keep ignoring the TMB tests while the courts did not? Well, except for Massei even after stating the TMB tests were negative. It was one of the several reason he was annulled.
So how do you explain the sample found next to the mixed sample that contained ONLY Meredith's Non-blood DNA? How do you think that got there? The other sample was predominantly Kercher with Knox as smaller contributor. It more logical and likely Kercher brought Knox's DNA in on her own foot at the same time she left the other one or stepped on a bit of Knox's pre-existing DNA on the floor
Her blood was mixed in with Mez' Meredith's in the bathroom. Blood takes as little as 30 minutes to dry so Knox must have been in contact with Mez' Meredith's still wet blood for them to have mixed.
Still repeating the lie, I see. Why do you think not a single court, not even Massei, called it mixed blood or claimed it was Knox's blood mixed with Kercher's? Not even Stefanoni claimed it was Knox's blood.
Mixed DNA does not have to be 'wet' to mix. DNA can be mixed years between being deposited and completely dry. Why? Because they can both be wiped up at collection when the swab is rubbed over the area and it picks up both. Or do you think the swab can discern which DNA to pick up? Simple test, Vix: sprinkle a bit of flour on the counter. An hour later, sprinkle some corn meal over that flour. Both dry, right? Then take a swab and rub it over the area. Do you think you'll only get the corn meal or the flour but not both?
Not only that, but Brocci used the same swab to vigorously wipe different areas! BIG NO-NO! In the sink, she wipes the bowl (where Knox said she brushed her teeth the morning of Nov. 2) and then the rim where the blood was with the same swab. In the bidet, she wipes the rim and then around the drain where DNA would of anyone using it would be deposited...again with one swab. She broke a basic and critical anti-contamination protocol over and over again.
Knox confirmed to police the bathroom had been cleaned prior to the day of the murder.
Not seeing a few tiny drops on the faucet does not mean it wasn't there. Use some logic: If she'd been bleeding or had blood on her hands from stabbing Meredith, she'd have cleaned up the bathroom instead of pointing the blood out to police. But, no, you think she left a rug with Sollecito's bloody footprint on it and visible traces of blood! And, according to you, they had about 12 hours to clean up!
So I invite you to come out of the fantasy of a 'rogue prosecutor' and look at the scientific evidence and court findings with an objective eye.
I'm not the one, in a single post, claiming mixed blood was in the bathroom, ignoring negative TMB tests on footprints, claiming blood in Filomena's room on a carpet, no less, or claiming blood has to be wet to get mixed profiles.
Still repeating the lie, I see. Why do you think not a single court, not even Massei, called it mixed blood or claimed it was Knox's blood mixed with Kercher's? Not even Stefanoni claimed it was Knox's blood.
Whenever guilters bring out the mixed-blood lie, it should be pointed out, as you did, that none of the courts - not even convicting ones - believed in it.
Yet it formed the backbone of the on-line guilter campaign - during those days when they flooded comments sections of newspaper articles about it.
That lie even became contentious during the infamous Wikipedia struggle over the 'Murder of Meredith Kercher' entry. That contention was solved by intervention of no less than Wikipedia owner Jumbo Wales, who restored Wiki-policy to the entry. One obsessive guilter produce 35 talk pages - thirty five! - of complaint until he was eventually banned.
One of the litmus tests of this case is 'mixed blood', meaning that if someone posts relying on that as 'evidence', then they've just broadcast that they know nothing about what even the convicting courts said.
Yes, that was his office. Forgot to give him a written copy of something. A clerical error and Sollecito went after him out of vindictiveness.
You guys are absolutely desperate to claim Mignini is a crook and I notice Anne Bremner did so in her tv interview plugging her book. So any old lie to pretend Knox is innocent and the victim of a bent prosecutor.
There is in fact a very good and very obvious reason why that document was never provided to the court - and it's nothing whatsoever to do with a "clerical error". What happened was as follows: Mignini had denied Knox and Sollecito access to legal counsel because he'd unlawfully invoked a section of the Italian CPP that was solely intended to be used for suspects of organised crime (drug dealers, mafiosi and terrorists).
And this is entirely why Mignini - and his office (LOL) - was unwilling and unable to supply the official documentation to the court. Mignini didn't want his unlawful act to be cemented in an official written format... because he knew very well that having his law-breaking set out in such a format - and signed off by him personally - meant he might later have to suffer serious repercussions.
Mignini was using one* of the insidious and unlawful "tricks of the trade" that are seemingly endemic throughout the Italian prosecutorial network: denying a suspect any access to legal counsel prior to their appearance before a judge (meaning it becomes much easier for the PM to get the judge to do what the PM wants) by unlawfully invoking the "no legal access for suspected organised-crime members" article in the CPP... then "forgetting" to submit the required paperwork to the court.
The actions of the police and PM in the Knox/Sollecito trial saga are a very strong illustration of just how institutionally - and how casually and frequently - Italian law enforcement groups are "gaming" the system, usually in an unlawful manner. It also lays bare the dreadfully poor levels of accountability and oversight that are (not) being applied to law enforcement groups & individuals. The Italian criminal justice system is very clearly not fit for purpose, and it requires drastic reform. Which will never happen of course, because we're talking about Italy here.
* Another one from the "toolkit" that was unlawfully utilised by Mignini was the way in which he - in concert with the Perugia police - engineered & choreographed Knox's written output following her interrogation on 5th/6th November 2007. The part he played was one where he carefully disguised his true role in the prosecution process, and instead sought (successfully, it would appear) to appear avuncular and "on her side"; once he'd done that, his objective was to prompt Knox to tell him everything she'd just told the police - on the (false) premise that he knew nothing of what had said/written. And through this devious and unlawful process, he was aiming - successfully in this instance - for Knox to (unwittingly) provide him with a "spontaneous declaration" that could later be used in court against her. Disgusting.
Whenever guilters bring out the mixed-blood lie, it should be pointed out, as you did, that none of the courts - not even convicting ones - believed in it.
Yet it formed the backbone of the on-line guilter campaign - during those days when they flooded comments sections of newspaper articles about it.
That lie even became contentious during the infamous Wikipedia struggle over the 'Murder of Meredith Kercher' entry. That contention was solved by intervention of no less than Wikipedia owner Jumbo Wales, who restored Wiki-policy to the entry. One obsessive guilter produce 35 talk pages - thirty five! - of complaint until he was eventually banned.
One of the litmus tests of this case is 'mixed blood', meaning that if someone posts relying on that as 'evidence', then they've just broadcast that they know nothing about what even the convicting courts said.
Thanks. Yeah, the "mixed blood" lie is like a cockroach: you can kill them individually but never wipe them out completely. The Machine over on TJMK was still promoting it in 2020. I think Trump has a rival for the Big Lie. From TJMK's 2020 article:
In this post, I’m going to debunk the myth that Dr Stefanoni never claimed there was mixed-blood evidence once and for all by providing verbatim quotations from her official report for the Massei court in 2009 and her testimony at the Micheli trial in 2008.
But when we look at what Stefanoni actually said, it's obvious that a big assumption is being made that it's Knox's blood that Stefanoni is referring to and not just her DNA. The bolded titles are the Machine's, not Stefanoni's.
Mixed blood in Filomena’s room:
‘‘a genetic profile deriving from a mixture of biological substances (presumably containing blood) belonging to at least two individuals both of female gender. The comparison made between the genotype deriving from the trace of the Rep. 177 with those belonging to KERCHER Meredith Susanna Cara and KNOX Amanda Marie’‘.
Notice that she does not say the bio substances are blood or that both are blood. Also notice that the Machine leaves out the negative TMB test.
Mixed blood in the bidet
‘a genetic profile deriving from a mixture of biological substances containing human blood belonging to KNOX Amanda Marie (to a lesser extent) and KERCHER Meredith Susanna Cara’‘.
Again, she used "biological substances" not "mixed blood" and only that it contained human blood. There's a scientific reason for that: it's not possible in a mixed sample to determine if the blood comes from one person and the other DNA is from saliva, sperm, etc. Being a bidet, it's quite possible that the source of Knox's DNA was blood: from her period. But, that's irrelevant to the murder.
Mixed blood on the cotton bud box and the basin
‘‘a genetic profile deriving from a mixture of biological substances certainly containing blood substances belonging to at least two individuals both of female gender. The comparison made between the genotype deriving from the two traces analyzed with those belonging to KERCHER Meredith Susanna Cara and KNOX Amanda Marie’‘
Yet again, "biological substances" from two individuals, "containing "blood". Hmm..but it does not say blood from two people.
Mixed blood in the hallway
‘‘a genetic profile deriving from a mixture of biological substances (presumably containing blood) belonging to at least two individuals both of female gender. The comparison made between the genotype deriving from the trace of the Rep. 183 with those belonging to KERCHER Meredith Susanna Cara and KNOX Amanda Marie’‘.
And one more time: Presumed to contain blood, and a mixture biological substances.
No mention of the negative TMB tests.
But let's take a look at what Stefanoni actually testified to in court about the mixed DNA and blood:
QUESTION - It is not datable, but the fact that it is on the same point with these characteristics which hypothesis of the formation of the track suggests?
ANSWER - That it is definitely a mixture of biological substances that we cannot establish to be blood and blood, blood and saliva, blood and flaking cells, this we cannot establish, we can only say that surely there is blood, and therefore that the formation can be so much contextual, therefore blood of the one and the other profile how much we say differently affixed, here, in different times even if on the same points, so this maybe can be..
Stefanoni did say it was the mixed blood of both to Micheli, but we know that she either mispoke or was just plain sloppy because it's a scientific fact that it cannot be determined if Knox's DNA is from blood as Stefanoni goes on to confirm in her testimony
The Machine's article is intellectual dishonesty at best and outright intentional misinformation at worst. Something I've come to expect from anything written on TJMK. The biggest shame is that the ignorant or the willfully blind believe it.
I’ll also put the mixed-blood evidence under the microscope and analyse the reasons why some of Italy’s top DNA experts from the Scientific Police and the RIS Carabinieri believe Amanda Knox’s blood was mixed with Meredith’s blood in different locations in the cottage.
Who are these "top DNA experts" of Italy according to the Machine?
He names Stefanoni (who admits she cannot distinguish if Knox's DNA is from blood, saliva, flaking skin cells, etc.) who basically just repeats Garafono's claim in Darkness Descending.
The explanation attributed to Dr Stefanoni is basically the same as General/Professor Garofano’s in the book.
“However, here is the electropherogram and you can see that the RFU value is very high, so the sample is undoubtedly blood, which is the body fluid that provides the greatest amount of DNA.
In some cases you see higher peaks of Amanda’s DNA than Meredith’s. Amanda has been bleeding. (Luciano Garafano, Darkness Descending, page 371).
There are several reasons why Garofano’s interpretations are wrong. In response to a question of mine, Professor Dan Krane wrote, “Inferring tissue source from peak heights is just plain silly -- to the point of being absolutely outrageous. It hardly bears more comment than that, but if high peaks mean blood then what would you expect from semen which has a ten to one hundred fold higher concentration of DNA?” Professor Greg Hampikian concurred with the view that peak heights were not an indication of whether or not blood was the source of DNA. The peak heights for Raffaele’s profile on the cigarette butt were reported to me as being about the same height as those on the cotton box, and the former are presumably from saliva.
Thanks. Yeah, the "mixed blood" lie is like a cockroach: you can kill them individually but never wipe them out completely. The Machine over on TJMK was still promoting it in 2020. I think Trump has a rival for the Big Lie. From TJMK's 2020 article:
The Machine's article is intellectual dishonesty at best and outright intentional misinformation at worst. Something I've come to expect from anything written on TJMK. The biggest shame is that the ignorant or the willfully blind believe it.
Who are these "top DNA experts" of Italy according to the Machine?
He names Stefanoni (who admits she cannot distinguish if Knox's DNA is from blood, saliva, flaking skin cells, etc.) who basically just repeats Garafono's claim in Darkness Descending.
It's been debunked for another reason as well - Meredith's blood trace in the bathroom is highly diluted, which would dramatically reduce the concentration of blood, and hence the RFU value. Amanda's DNA could have come from saliva from brushing. Undiluted saliva would result in a higher RFU value than heavily diluted blood. Harry has been extensively schooled on this subject but I guess it's just too good a lie to let go. I thought he finally crawled back under his rock but just found him retelling this lie on Twitter.
There is in fact a very good and very obvious reason why that document was never provided to the court - and it's nothing whatsoever to do with a "clerical error". What happened was as follows: Mignini had denied Knox and Sollecito access to legal counsel because he'd unlawfully invoked a section of the Italian CPP that was solely intended to be used for suspects of organised crime (drug dealers, mafiosi and terrorists).
And this is entirely why Mignini - and his office (LOL) - was unwilling and unable to supply the official documentation to the court. Mignini didn't want his unlawful act to be cemented in an official written format... because he knew very well that having his law-breaking set out in such a format - and signed off by him personally - meant he might later have to suffer serious repercussions.
Mignini was using one* of the insidious and unlawful "tricks of the trade" that are seemingly endemic throughout the Italian prosecutorial network: denying a suspect any access to legal counsel prior to their appearance before a judge (meaning it becomes much easier for the PM to get the judge to do what the PM wants) by unlawfully invoking the "no legal access for suspected organised-crime members" article in the CPP... then "forgetting" to submit the required paperwork to the court.
The actions of the police and PM in the Knox/Sollecito trial saga are a very strong illustration of just how institutionally - and how casually and frequently - Italian law enforcement groups are "gaming" the system, usually in an unlawful manner. It also lays bare the dreadfully poor levels of accountability and oversight that are (not) being applied to law enforcement groups & individuals. The Italian criminal justice system is very clearly not fit for purpose, and it requires drastic reform. Which will never happen of course, because we're talking about Italy here.
* Another one from the "toolkit" that was unlawfully utilised by Mignini was the way in which he - in concert with the Perugia police - engineered & choreographed Knox's written output following her interrogation on 5th/6th November 2007. The part he played was one where he carefully disguised his true role in the prosecution process, and instead sought (successfully, it would appear) to appear avuncular and "on her side"; once he'd done that, his objective was to prompt Knox to tell him everything she'd just told the police - on the (false) premise that he knew nothing of what had said/written. And through this devious and unlawful process, he was aiming - successfully in this instance - for Knox to (unwittingly) provide him with a "spontaneous declaration" that could later be used in court against her. Disgusting.
The fact of the matter is, Sollecito's attorney complained to the independent regulatory body on her client's behalf. The matter was investigated. The professional standards body found that compliance had been breached by the Public Prosecutor's office and the matter rectified. Case closed.
So you see there was no corruption. There was a transparent system of ethics and professional standards by which any breach could be investigated and acted on. The fact that Sollecito had redress indicates that the system works.
All matters pertaining to the D.N.A. were dealt with at (a) the merits court and (b) the Appeal court, which also revisited matters of fact finding as specifically directed by the Supreme Court of Chieffi on limited matters still outstanding.
The presiding judge was Alessandro Nencini, a large well-built man with a deep baritone voice. He was aged 58, and was the President of the Second Chamber of Appeal of the Court of Florence. He was assisted by Judge Luciana Cicerchia, who was President of the Court of Assizes. In Italy, the junior judge writes up the motivational report and the presiding judge signs it off.
On day one, whilst Sollecito lounged on a beach in the Dominican Republic and Knox hiding in Seattle, despite pleas by her attorney, Della Vedova to turn up.
Day 1 30 September 2013
Present today are the lawyers: Luciano Ghirga and Carlo Dalla Vedova, representing Knox, Giulia Bongiorno and Luca Maori for Sollecito, Alessandro Crini for the prosecution, Francesco Maresca for the Kerchers, and civil lawyers Carlo Pacelli for Patrick Lumumba, Letizia Mangini for Tattanelli – the owner of the cottage - and Viera Fabiani for the Kerchers. Patrick Lumumba is present as a witness.
The Kercher family are not present, due to the ill health of John and Arline, but have been asked to write a letter to read out to the court, but which Raffale’s lawyer objects to. However, Nencini rules that the letter is admissible.
Sollecito’s father, Francesco is here in person and is seen writing copious notes. He has told the press his son will make an appearance at some point.
Nencini spends fifty minutes summarising the main issues of the hearing: the facts leading up to the case being remitted back to the second instance appeal court as lodged by the prosecution and upheld by the Chieffi Supreme Court, when it expunged Hellmann’s acquittal, together with a summing up of the case so far against Rudy Guede, tried separately and convicted, serving a sixteen year reduced sentence in Viterbo.
Nencini requested the defence applications, of which they have several, and grants their request to have the imputed murder weapon, a kitchen knife, to be re-tested for the Kercher DNA on the blade and the Knox DNA on the handle. In addition, for another sample on the knife near the handle to be tested, which independent, court-appointed, experts, Conti & Vecchiotti had declined to do in the Hellmann hearing, claiming it was ‘too low copy’.
In Italy, an Appeal court is allowed to revisit facts found at the trial, but is limited to what is allowed under the accepted points of law of the appeal application.
Nencini dismisses the defence application to retest the bra clasp, which had a full profile of Sollecito’s DNA and another to test what the defence claim was a sperm stain on the pillow found underneath the body, on the grounds there would be no way of knowing when the stain occurred. The defence had not requested this at the all-important trial stage because, as Raffale states in his book Honor Bound his defence team – meaning himself on his instructions – were afraid it would be revealed as Sollecito’s.
Fast forward to the last day of the Nencini Appeal before the verdict:
Day 10, 20 January 2014
Amanda Knox has made a startling confession during in the eleven-day interim since the last session. She has written a blog boasting that she once staged a break-in.
“She admitted that the hazing prank, played on her flat-mates at the University of Washington, involved messing up the flat and hiding things to make it appear as if items had been stolen.”
She says she caused ‘distress’ to the victim and was ‘forced to apologise’.
There is still a closing submission due from Sollecito’s other lawyer, Luca Maori. Present is Sollecito. Absent are Bongiorno and Lumumba, a civil party. 9:30 sharp and “No-Nonsense Nencini” (Niente Sciocchezzi Nencini) runs a tight ship, conscious of time and good order.
Maori claims the murder weapon is not the so-called Double DNA knife as the wounds are not compatible with it. In addition, Sollecito’s boxcutter knife that he always carries with him, is not, either.
Meredith was killed at 9:00 pm, whilst he or Knox provably was at home at that time. The bathmat footprint is not Sollecito’s. One by one he refutes all of the prosecution’s evidence: the window shutters were open, the intrusion through the window was not staged, the stone was thrown from the outside, and his key note is “Rudy is the sole assassin”.
He argues the computer evidence is wrong and that Sollecto manually download the Naruto film at 21:26, after putting the film ‘Amélie’ into a folder at 21:10. The forensic IT experts had claimed the download was a file sharing peer-to-peer which needed no human interaction at Sollecito’s end.
He attacked witnesses Curatalo and Quintavalle as ‘unreliable’, as well as Giofredi ,who had claimed to have seen Meredith with the three others, in a group of four.
At 11:30 Bongiorno arrives with her three assistants. In the meantime, Maori attacks the ‘changing motives’. The only things certain are the presence of Rudy guide in the house that night, and the death of Meredith Kercher.
After a break, it is time for Prosecutor Crini to make his rebuttals. He sets out Sollecito’s sidetracking of the investigation. He affirms that Postal Police Officer Battistelli arrives ten minutes before his car, on foot, at 12:35. This is the time he recorded on his report, lodged the same day at the police station. Sollecito’s phone calls, to his sister and the police at 12:51 and 12:54, respectively, were ‘too late’. He denied the CCTV time was seven minutes slow, as claimed by the defense.
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.
He states that Boemia and Rinaldi used compatibility measurements, whereas Vinci was ‘just conjecture’. The former were objective as they identified the footprint thought to have been Sollecito’s to Guede.
He refutes Maori’s ‘alibi theory’ regarding Curatalo, failing to quote his testimony that refuted Sollecito’s alibi. He cited the expert computer witnesses of 14 Mar 2009 and December 2010 who found no computer activity, as claimed.
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 points 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.
He says a lack of motive does not mean proof of innocence.
Bongiorno had called all the English girls ‘unreliable’ because they were English and had been coached by the lawyers. This, Crini avers, is a weak claim by the defence as it is well-documented elsewhere that there were tensions in the cottage. John Kercher backed up a claim Meredith told him she had an argument about Knox’ lack of cleanliness.
He finished by urging the court to convict the pair and to take precautionary measures to ensure they serve their sentence, such as the removal of Sollecito’s passport, house arrest or immediate detention.
Next up is Pacelli again for Lumumba. “There was no idyllic relationship between Amanda and Meredith, they could not stand each other”
He claims Knox named Lumumba as a substitute for Guede. Nencini cut him short, advising him he was only there to talk about the calunnia, and not the murder. Pacelli promised to finish in five minutes. His client had still not received the €22K ordered against Knox. He ends by urging the court to convict, calling her, ‘Amanda Knox the liar, the diabolical slanderer.’
Next, is the turn of the Kercher’s civil lawyers, Fabiani for Meredith’s brother, Perna for her sister and Maresca for the family, reaffirming what they said earlier in the hearing.
Maresca makes headline news by averring that Perugians were angry with Hellmann’s acquittal because it was ‘scandalous’ and ‘had been decided in advance’.
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.
Media reaction from The Daily Beast has the following reaction:
Conventional wisdom in Italy, based on how presiding judge Alessandro Nencini has been ruling so far and how the high court ruled on the acquittal, is that Knox and Sollecito stand a good chance of having their murder convictions upheld.
The Verdict
Day 11, 30 January 2014
“It hit me like a train” – Amanda Knox
“It was completely unexpected, it was devastating” – Raffaele Sollecito
Today is the big day of the verdict. Knox is said to be camped out at her parents’ home in Seattle. Sollecito arrives in court with his father.
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.
Over in Seattle, neighbours report hearing anguished screams coming from the Knox family home. Knox is quoted by The Independent as saying she hadn’t seen it coming. Sollecito is later seen near the Austrian border , arrested and his passport confiscated. He denies he was trying to flee. He, too, claimed the verdict was, ‘totally unexpected’.
Both parties have an automatic appeal to the Supreme Court. Extradition requests and detainment of Sollecito will be deferred until then.
So you see, all of this, evidence for and against was well-argued in court and there is no need to go through it again.
The annulment by the Supreme Court of Marasca-Bruno was a political one and the findings of fact stand. Marasca-Bruno added that in their view Knox named Lumumba because she was covering up for Guede.
Sollecito is later seen near the Austrian border , arrested and his passport confiscated. He denies he was trying to flee. He, too, claimed the verdict was, ‘totally unexpected’.
Vixen gives no citation as to the origin of this factoid-laden, faceless summary of the Nencici trial, as if cut-and-paste is a substitute for argument.
Out of a torrent of factoids this one stands out. When the Nencini verdict was announced, Sollecito was across the border already in ( IIRC) Slovenia. He and the person he was with immediately returned to Italian territory, voluntarily.
He was not arrested. His passport was confiscated. Yet he was not deemed a flight risk, or he would have been put in preventative detention, like they'd endured between their arrests in 2007 and the 2009 trial.
It would be possible to go through Vixen's cut-and-paste refuting factoids one by one. Notably, the anonymous piece fails to mention that the 3 anonymous, extra Y-haplotype samples found on the bra-clasp...
... we're reported by Nencini to have probably belonged to the victim's girlfriends.
Acc. to Vixen who never argues with merits courts findings, in Italy it is now a judicial fact that women carry Y-chromosomes. Because that's what one court wrote!
What is stark about the press coverage of Sollecito during Jan 2014, was the claim that he'd been 'caught trying to flee'.
Yet the basic fact under that value-laden reporting, was that he didn't when he had clear opportunity.
Indeed the basic fact was also that he'd not been put in preventative detention. Somehow that went unnoticed. If Italy itself thought he was 'caught fleeing' what would have police done? Suddenly Italy regarded him as both unlikely to either flee or offend again, which are two criteria of preventative detention.
It has only been in the last, nearly eights years where questions like that become obvious. No wonder others are stuck in 2014!
The matter was investigated. The professional standards body found that compliance had been breached by the Public Prosecutor's office and the matter rectified. Case closed.
Vixen gives no citation as to the origin of this factoid-laden, faceless summary of the Nencici trial, as if cut-and-paste is a substitute for argument.
Out of a torrent of factoids this one stands out. When the Nencini verdict was announced, Sollecito was across the border already in ( IIRC) Slovenia. He and the person he was with immediately returned to Italian territory, voluntarily.
He was not arrested. His passport was confiscated. Yet he was not deemed a flight risk, or he would have been put in preventative detention, like they'd endured between their arrests in 2007 and the 2009 trial.
It would be possible to go through Vixen's cut-and-paste refuting factoids one by one. Notably, the anonymous piece fails to mention that the 3 anonymous, extra Y-haplotype samples found on the bra-clasp...
... we're reported by Nencini to have probably belonged to the victim's girlfriends.
Acc. to Vixen who never argues with merits courts findings, in Italy it is now a judicial fact that women carry Y-chromosomes. Because that's what one court wrote!
If you work as a professional with literally hundreds of thousands of clients a year, sooner or later someone will complain that service fell short. Enter the independent regulatory bodies (ombudsmen) who are there to ensure standards are upheld. When you have staff of several hundred, sooner or later someone will cut corners or fail in a duty owing to (a) ignorance, (b) a disappointed client who didn't get the outcome they wanted (especially in the legal profession: we had an arch lever file of bankrupts furious that their property was worth less than they believed on the free market or angry at the legal fees) or other complaint, such as timeliness.
The fact redress is available and is transparent and independent, with compensation where necessary and censure of the offender then that shows a fair and ethical system.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
