The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 31

[Vixen]

Stephony testified in court that she went crazy on that knife, she basically claimed she's the best in the world but won't share her discoveries.
Maybe she's allergic to the Nobel.
You struggle to understand what happened in this case and hate the outcome

She identified the DNA of thousands of victims of the Indonesia tsunami in 2004 so appears to know her stuff. All of her tests were witnessed by an expert for the defence and he did not raise any complaints about her methods. She cannot fake the results as the analysis is all done by computer. IN addition, she is a professional, objective scientist and had zero interest in framing anyone.

 

[Bill Williams]

You are still not getting it.

Consider this. A person X, the defendant, is tried and at the trial the facts found are:

• he was not where he claimed to be as of the time frame of the murder
• his phone was switched off prior to this
• the victim's body is found locked in her room
• Defendant X lives there so would know about the key to lock the door
• The defendant's bare footprints are highlighted by luminol in a luminol sensitive substance that chemically reacts to it, such as blood
• Defendant X's DNA and blood is mixed in with that of the victim's.
• A knife is found that has the victim's DNA on the blade and his DNA on the handle.
• The defendant's DNA is on the victim's underwear.
• The defendant X lies in his police statements, changing his story several times.
• Defendant X is seen hanging about outside the house when police arrive.
• Defendant X, as per phone logs, calls the police after the police have arrived.

So these are the facts as found by the court after hearing all of the evidence put in front of it. including cross-examination of expert witnesses for both sides.

Defendant X is found 'Guilty'

Defendant X appeals. The appeal is dismissed and the 'Guilty' verdict is upheld.

It goes to the Supreme Court who changes the verdict to 'Not Guilty due to insufficient evidence and the pro-forma standard sentence structure as on all such verdicts, 'for not having committed the crime'.


As the Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to fact-find and in the case of Defendant X, it has egregiously and unusually dismissed the case without sending it back to the court it claims erred.

So do you now see the problem? Defendant X has a 'not guilty' verdict but the damning facts remain in perpetuity as listed above.

Proverbs 22:1 – “A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches, loving favor rather than silver and gold.”

"Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; 'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name But he that filches from me my good name. Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed.” ― William Shakespeare, Othello


So what is better in your view: a short prison sentence but a list of damning legal facts found, in perpetuity, or a proper due process, even it means going back to court?


So yeah you can go around quoting the pro-forma but it doesn't change the fact of 'Your knife, her DNA'.

Another word salad, which has no actual bearing on what happened 8 years ago, much less 15.

 

[Bill Williams]

She identified the DNA of thousands of victims of the Indonesia tsunami in 2004 so appears to know her stuff. All of her tests were witnessed by an expert for the defence and he did not raise any complaints about her methods. She cannot fake the results as the analysis is all done by computer. IN addition, she is a professional, objective scientist and had zero interest in framing anyone.

Name one, just one forensic DNA expert who would agree with what you've just claimed. Guilters have proposed two - one who also conceded that Stefanoni had not followed international standards, the other who admitted to not seeing the negative controls, meaning any 'support' one might give to Stefanoni was meaningless.

Do you know of another in your 'inside sources', or in your 'word on the ground'? Or are you just guessing?

 

[Vixen]

Another word salad, which has no actual bearing on what happened 8 years ago, much less 15.

It was an EXAMPLE by way of illustration of why Marasca-Bruno's verdict is an absolute clanger or 'dropped a bollock', as they say in England.

 

[Bill Williams]

It was an EXAMPLE by way of illustration of why Marasca-Bruno's verdict is an absolute clanger or 'dropped a bollock', as they say in England.

Still no idea what you're getting at, other than flooding the thread with nonsense.

Then again, if you reveal who you mean by 'word on the ground', or 'inside sources' I may become informed.

Otherwise it's just blather.

 

[Stacyhs]

Still only one person's opinion.

Uh-huh..."still only one person's opinion". And that person being Chief Inspector of the Central Operational Service of the State Police Letterio Latella. Are you saying that the professional opinion of the Chief Inspector of the division that handles IT, Technology, Logistics and Communications of the State Police is not credible?

Imagine if Guede had bumped into Sollecito.

Imagination is a wonderful thing...in children. Not so much in adults desperately trying to spin lies into facts.

If Italians are as racist as you say they are, he might well have called him a racist slur.

'Our imagination has the great but terrible power to create a far worse situation than reality ever could.'

His description of Sollecito is pretty spot on.

Really? You still want to claim that Sollecito is left-handed? You still want to claim he owned a Napapijri jacket and white cap with a red band? Guede did get the fact he spoke native Italian! Chestnut hair? What an usual hair color in central Italy! And slightly shorter than him? Most Italian men are shorter than Guede as the average Italian man is 5' 9" and Guede is 5' 11". Funny how he didn't mention his 'attacker' wearing glasses, though.

Sollecito seems terrified about 'what he might say about me'.

Sure. He's just quaking in his boots.

I noticed you have failed to answer my question: what was the motivation for Guede to claim “black man found, here’s the guilty party” other than to set up a scenario where he'll be blamed because he's black?
Come on, Vix. Take a shot at it!

 

[Guss]

She identified the DNA of thousands of victims of the Indonesia tsunami in 2004 so appears to know her stuff. All of her tests were witnessed by an expert for the defence and he did not raise any complaints about her methods. She cannot fake the results as the analysis is all done by computer. IN addition, she is a professional, objective scientist and had zero interest in framing anyone.

Now that's hilarious.
Something tells me you're not her mother or a member of the family, a groupie fits.
Winning the case at all costs no matter what line crossed was clearly their motto.

 

[Vixen]

Uh-huh..."still only one person's opinion". And that person being Chief Inspector of the Central Operational Service of the State Police Letterio Latella. Are you saying that the professional opinion of the Chief Inspector of the division that handles IT, Technology, Logistics and Communications of the State Police is not credible?



Imagination is a wonderful thing...in children. Not so much in adults desperately trying to spin lies into facts.




'Our imagination has the great but terrible power to create a far worse situation than reality ever could.'



Really? You still want to claim that Sollecito is left-handed? You still want to claim he owned a Napapijri jacket and white cap with a red band? Guede did get the fact he spoke native Italian! Chestnut hair? What an usual hair color in central Italy! And slightly shorter than him? Most Italian men are shorter than Guede as the average Italian man is 5' 9" and Guede is 5' 11". Funny how he didn't mention his 'attacker' wearing glasses, though.



Sure. He's just quaking in his boots.

I noticed you have failed to answer my question: what was the motivation for Guede to claim “black man found, here’s the guilty party” other than to set up a scenario where he'll be blamed because he's black?
Come on, Vix. Take a shot at it!

Stop being familiar with me. Comodi's comments are in the specific context of Guede in Milan, where he did find himself without a place to stay for the night and an employee of the nursery recommended he crash there.

 

[Welshman]

Marasca-Bruno's motivation report stands. That, there were multiple attackers, the pair lied and lied and lied, the burglary was staged, Knox was present during the murder, and almost certainly Sollecito and in addition, Knox named Lumumba to cover up for Guede.

Definitive means completely, fully. A para 530 acquittal, 'insufficient evidence' does not meet that threshold.

There is one certainty in life and that is Vixen will repeatedly attack Amanda and Raffaele for telling numerous lies. If Amanda and Raffaele are such prolific liars, why are there so many holes in this claim :-

1)Vixen lies on an industrial scale in her posts which indicates the facts don't support the case for guilt which means PGP such as Vixen have to resort to lying. PGP having to resort to lying because the facts don't support the case for guilt and Amanda and Raffaele having to resort to lying because the facts don't support the case for innocence can't both be true.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11938562#post11938562

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11942852#post11942852

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11598412#post11598412

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11427461#post11427461

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11951893#post11951893

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11982023#post11982023

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12107306#post12107306

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12200863#post12200863

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12297573#post12297573

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12297575#post12297575

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13170726#post13170726

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13920821#post13920821

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13941551#post13941551

2)If the prosecution had such a solid case against Amanda and Raffaele that Amanda and Raffaele would have to resort to lying, why would the prosecution need to resort to the tactics such as suppressing evidence, destroying evidence etc of which I have given a small example below. The prosecution told numerous lies where they spread false information to the media about bleach receipts, the washing machine running, Amanda showering in a bloody bathroom and a missing Harry Potter book. Prosecutor Comodi lied to the Amanda in court she called her mother at 12.00 pm when records show she called her mother at 12.00 pm. Amanda was lied to she had HIV. The fact the prosecution had to resort to lying indicates the prosecution had a lack of evidence and facts didn't support their case. How do you reconcile this with Amanda and Raffaele having to resort to lying to cover up evidence and the facts not supporting the case for innocence. Both can't be true.

The prosecution hid the results of early and decisive DNA tests excluding Raffaele Sollecito as the sexual assailant, securing on improper grounds the pre-trial incarceration of Sollecito and Knox (and Lumumba) to the severe prejudice of the defense;
The prosecution concealed the initial results for tests performed on the two key items of evidence, i.e., the kitchen knife (Rep. 36b) and the bra clasp (Rep. 165b), and instead, produced only the results of suspicious “do over” tests (re-runs), without disclosing the data from the initial tests or even the fact that the subsequent tests were “do overs”;
The prosecution concealed that the kitchen knife profile was generated within a set of tests for which 90% of the results have been suppressed, strongly suggesting the occurrence of a severe contamination event that the prosecution continues to hide;
The prosecution claimed that contamination of the bra clasp was impossible, even though the bra clasp profile was produced during a set of tests for which there is documented proof of contamination;
The prosecution falsely portrayed the DNA laboratory as pristine and perfectly maintained, even though the lab’s own documents demonstrate that it was plagued with repeated contamination events and machine malfunctions that were known to the lab;
The prosecution has withheld the results from a massive number of DNA tests (well over 100), including probably exculpatory profiles relating to the sexual assault and a secondary crime scene downstairs;
The prosecution has hidden all of the records of the DNA amplification process—the most likely place for laboratory contamination to have occurred—including all of the contamination-control tests for this process.

Lies told by the prosecution

https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com...old-about-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html

3)If the facts supported the prosecution's case and went against the defence case and the defence case could only be argued by resorting to lying, how does Vixen explain people were able to make effective arguments against the prosecution's case without resorting to lying? An example is the appeal document written by the defence for the Hellman trial below

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Appeal.html

4) I recall Vixen demanding that Amanda take a lie detector test. If Amanda was such a prolific liar and there are numerous documented instances of Amanda lying, why would it be necessary to do this? There are so many posts from Vixen with lies, it would not be necessary to ask Vixen to take a lie detector test.

5)If Amanda was such prolific liar, why does Vixen have to resort to lying to support this claim as per the posts below? With Vixen I wouldn't need to resort to lying to show Vixen has lied because I have plenty of genuine instances of lying to use.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11849235#post11849235

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11952561#post11952561

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12389273#post12389273

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12390810#post12390810

6)If Amanda is such a prolific liar, why do PGP have to resort to using body language to support this claim when this should not be necessary if Vixen and other PGP have a mountain of documented instances of lying to draw on? I would not need body language to show Vixen has lied because she has written numerous posts with lies.

 

[Numbers]

Marasca-Bruno's motivation report stands. That, there were multiple attackers, the pair lied and lied and lied, the burglary was staged, Knox was present during the murder, and almost certainly Sollecito and in addition, Knox named Lumumba to cover up for Guede.
Definitive means completely, fully. A para 530 acquittal, 'insufficient evidence' does not meet that threshold.

A post full of malarkey. Malarkey means foolish nonsense. There's a list of useful synonyms at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/malarkey

BTW, "definitive" in the legal sense of a judgment or settlement means "conclusive, ending all controversy and discussion in a lawsuit" or legal case. "A definitive judgment is final and not provisional"; thus, when someone (me, for example) states that the Marasca CSC panel judgment was "definitive and final" one is (I am) being somewhat redundant.

See: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/definitive

In Italy, final acquittals are truly final (CPP Articles 648 and 649), but final convictions may be subject to revision, if the reasons for revision are based upon the requirements of CPP Article 630 or Italian Constitutional Court judgment number 112 of 2011 (which provides that revision may be requested based upon a final judgment of the ECHR).

ECHR judgments become "final" (that is, 3 months after publication for a Chamber judgment, immediately after a Grand Chamber judgment) and are marked "FINAL" on the first page in an English document, but "DEFINITIF" in a French document. The 3-month wait for a Chamber judgment to become final allows for an applicant or respondent state to seek referral of the case to the Grand Chamber (granted only in exceptional cases). Italy sought and was denied referral to the Grand Chamber of the Chamber judgment in the ECHR case Knox v. Italy.

See: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf
Articles 43 and 44

 

[Stacyhs]

I am guessing Sollecito's defense persuaded the court that it was fruitless testing the pillow because Sollecito might have had sex on it at some point.

Let's not guess or imagine; let's just use logic and common sense. If Sollecito knew it was his, there is no way he would have wanted it tested. The defense requested it be tested during the first appeal trial, but again, for some odd reason, it was denied. It was the defense who did not want it tested during any trial, not the defense.

The court decided even if a stain was found it doesn't necessarily mean it happened on the night of the murder.

Another example of the illogic of the Massei's reasoning. Guede had never been in the upstairs apartment. If it turned out to be his, it had to be deposited at the time of the murder. If it turned out to be Sollecito's, that would have been damning evidence of his presence in the room the night of the murder. If it turned out to be Silenzi's, it would have been irrelevant.

No way around it: there was NO logical reason for the prosecution not to want it tested.

If the pillow is still in the archives, maybe it is time to requisition it and other evidence now that DNA technology is even more advanced.

Legally it will make no difference. I also think it should be tested now, but if RS requests it, he will have to pay for it.
Of course, with their record, the police will have let it rot, otherwise be made worthless for testing, or lost it.

 

[Stacyhs]

She identified the DNA of thousands of victims of the Indonesia tsunami in 2004 so appears to know her stuff. All of her tests were witnessed by an expert for the defence and he did not raise any complaints about her methods. She cannot fake the results as the analysis is all done by computer. IN addition, she is a professional, objective scientist and had zero interest in framing anyone.

Were those victims' DNA LCN or not? Did she have actual bodies/ body parts, to get the samples from? Drowning victims are usually intact. That would lead us to a logical answer of "No, not LCN"

She was brought bodies/body parts. Contamination was highly unlikely as tests could be repeated.

If she is so professional, why did she "forget" about multiple significant pieces of evidence that she tested for blood with TMB? Why did she continually refer to them as "luminol revealed" which she had to have known implied blood was found when she knew damn well it wasn't?

It's plausible that Stefanoni had little to no training in LCN DNA analysis. If she had, the prosecution would have made sure to highlight that to raise her credibility. They did not. Hell, she couldn't even find her own 'striation' in the knife she claimed the DNA came from. Nor could anyone else.

 

[LondonJohn]

Marasca-Bruno's motivation report stands. That, there were multiple attackers, the pair lied and lied and lied, the burglary was staged, Knox was present during the murder, and almost certainly Sollecito and in addition, Knox named Lumumba to cover up for Guede.

Definitive means completely, fully. A para 530 acquittal, 'insufficient evidence' does not meet that threshold.

Oh boy, you still have no idea whatsoever.

And as an aide memoire: a person can only be definitively proven to be factually innocent if that person can provide cast-iron unimpeachable proof that he/she did not commit the crime (usually in the form of a cast-iron alibi that is definitively verifiable through either electronic or through (reliable, disinterested) witness evidence).

And as has been explained to you many, many times now, not only is a defendant not required to provide evidence of innocence (rather, it's entirely the state's case to demonstrate proof BARD of guilt, for rather obvious jurisprudence and ethics reasons...), but also there will always be plenty of people who factually did not commit the crime who cannot prove they did not commit the crime.

For example, I've pointed out several times now that there was a street-location stabbing murder that took place at around 3:30am several years ago now, around 1/2 mile away from my (then) apartment in London. I was factually asleep alone* at the time, and therefore was not providing any provable interaction with electronic devices/networks. There also was not CCTV in or around the front door of my apartment, and I'd be extremely confident that there was not CCTV in any of the small residential streets between my apartment and the murder scene. It was therefore clearly theoretically possible that I had left my apartment at, say, 3:15am, walked through the back streets, committed the murder, returned to my apartment, cleaned myself extremely thoroughly, and disposed of the knife somewhere very distant the following day. In other words, I could not prove I had not committed the murder.

Now, I realise that under your warped and incorrect view of criminal justice, ethics and morality, my inability to provide a cast-iron alibi would/should somehow count against me. And similarly, if I were to be acquitted in court under the Italian system, you'd incorrectly think that an "insufficient evidence" acquittal would somehow leave a cloud of suspicion/guilt hanging over my head - even though it would be utterly impossible for an Italian court to acquit me in any other manner.

 

[LondonJohn]

She identified the DNA of thousands of victims of the Indonesia tsunami in 2004 so appears to know her stuff. All of her tests were witnessed by an expert for the defence and he did not raise any complaints about her methods. She cannot fake the results as the analysis is all done by computer. IN addition, she is a professional, objective scientist and had zero interest in framing anyone.

It's already been patiently explained to you, several times, that the collection/analysis/matching of relatively large masses of DNA evidence is entirely different - and hugely more simple, straightforward and reliable - from the collection/analysis/matching of tiny amounts of trace DNA.

In the matter of identifying tsunami victims, there was a rather large amount of DNA evidence available to be collected/analysed/matched. In fact, "a rather large amount" in that instance took the form of.... the entire body of the victim.

The collection and analysis of DNA from a donor body would be very, very simple, straightforward and reliable - even in a lab which was slapdash and had very few advanced anti-contamination measures. And matching that DNA would also in most cases have been very simple, either via a surviving blood relative or the provision of hair etc.

By contrast, it's exponentially more difficult to collect/analyse/match minuscule low-template levels of DNA. Not only is there the huge possibility of contamination at every step in the process, but also it's way more difficult to match reliably because of all the inevitable noise present on the analysed sample.

Stefanoni was sufficiently competent to do the former type of DNA work, and her lab was sufficiently suitable to allow for reliable results.

Stefanoni was utterly incompetent to do the latter type of DNA work, and her lab was hopelessly unsuitable for the generation of reliable results (you've been told many times what the mandatory procedural & equipment/lab space conditions are for reliable low-template DNA work.... and that Stefanoni and her lab met approximately none of them.)

Hope that helps explain things with sufficient clarity.

 

[Numbers]

You are still not getting it.

Consider this. A person X, the defendant, is tried and at the trial the facts found are:

• he was not where he claimed to be as of the time frame of the murder
• his phone was switched off prior to this
• the victim's body is found locked in her room
• Defendant X lives there so would know about the key to lock the door
• The defendant's bare footprints are highlighted by luminol in a luminol sensitive substance that chemically reacts to it, such as blood
• Defendant X's DNA and blood is mixed in with that of the victim's.
• A knife is found that has the victim's DNA on the blade and his DNA on the handle.
• The defendant's DNA is on the victim's underwear.
• The defendant X lies in his police statements, changing his story several times.
• Defendant X is seen hanging about outside the house when police arrive.
• Defendant X, as per phone logs, calls the police after the police have arrived.

So these are the facts as found by the court after hearing all of the evidence put in front of it. including cross-examination of expert witnesses for both sides.

Defendant X is found 'Guilty'

Defendant X appeals. The appeal is dismissed and the 'Guilty' verdict is upheld.

It goes to the Supreme Court who changes the verdict to 'Not Guilty due to insufficient evidence and the pro-forma standard sentence structure as on all such verdicts, 'for not having committed the crime'.

As the Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to fact-find and in the case of Defendant X, it has egregiously and unusually dismissed the case without sending it back to the court it claims erred.

So do you now see the problem? Defendant X has a 'not guilty' verdict but the damning facts remain in perpetuity as listed above.

Proverbs 22:1 – “A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches, loving favor rather than silver and gold.”

"Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; 'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name But he that filches from me my good name. Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed.” ― William Shakespeare, Othello


So what is better in your view: a short prison sentence but a list of damning legal facts found, in perpetuity, or a proper due process, even it means going back to court?


So yeah you can go around quoting the pro-forma but it doesn't change the fact of 'Your knife, her DNA'.

There's a load of malarkey in the above post.

A careful reading of CPP Articles 530 and 533, in conjunction with CPP Articles 606, 620, and 621 will convince the disinterested (objective) reader that the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC) is authorized under law to:

1. consider the legal validity or admissibility of evidence and the legal validity of inferences made from evidence as well as the legal validity of the grounds of a lower court judgment that is under appeal;

2. annul that lower court judgment for failing to meet the lawful requirements for the items in clause 1;

3. pronounce a sentence of acquittal when it becomes clear that the alleged evidence of guilt vanishes to the extent that a guilty verdict cannot be lawfully invoked because guilt can not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the Knox - Sollecito case, all the alleged evidence of guilt was shown to be absent or totally unreliable, so there was no lawful alternative to an acquittal. Such acquittals are provided for under CPP Article 530 paragraph 2:

Il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione anche quando manca, è insufficiente o è contraddittoria la prova che il fatto sussiste, che l'imputato lo ha commesso, che il fatto costituisce reato o che il reato è stato commesso da persona imputabile

where "manca" translates to MISSING, while "insufficiente" and "contraddittoria" translate to INSUFFICIENT and CONTRADICTORY, respectively.

According to Italian law, any lack of certainty in the evidence of guilt or contradiction in evidence (that is, there is evidence of probable innocence that contradicts evidence suggesting possible guilt) does not allow a verdict of guilty and requires, under law, a verdict of acquittal that is the same legally as though there was no alleged evidence of guilt.

See: https://www.brocardi.it/codice-di-p...timo/titolo-iii/capo-ii/sezione-i/art530.html

One should read the explanation of CPP Article 530 provided by the Brocardi Italian law firm as well as the text of CPP Article 530 if one has any issues understanding the text's legal meaning.

 

[Numbers]

Let's not guess or imagine; let's just use logic and common sense. If Sollecito knew it was his, there is no way he would have wanted it tested. The defense requested it be tested during the first appeal trial, but again, for some odd reason, it was denied. It was the defense who did not want it tested during any trial, not the defense.



Another example of the illogic of the Massei's reasoning. Guede had never been in the upstairs apartment. If it turned out to be his, it had to be deposited at the time of the murder. If it turned out to be Sollecito's, that would have been damning evidence of his presence in the room the night of the murder. If it turned out to be Silenzi's, it would have been irrelevant.

No way around it: there was NO logical reason for the prosecution not to want it tested.


Legally it will make no difference. I also think it should be tested now, but if RS requests it, he will have to pay for it.
Of course, with their record, the police will have let it rot, otherwise be made worthless for testing, or lost it.

I disagree with this statement.

I believe that the prosecution would not want it tested because they knew, or felt confident, that it would not show Sollecito's DNA profile. And, if in fact they had tested the seeming semen stain of the pillow, the prosecution was suppressing the result.

If it showed Kercher's boyfriend's DNA profile, it would not be relevant.

If it showed Guede's DNA profile, it would severely damage the prosecution case against Knox and Sollecito. In part, that is because it would contradict Guede's statements describing his sexual contact with Kercher during the relevant time as only digital. That contradiction would potentially demolish the prosecution's effort to use the record of Guede's conviction and his uncross-examined statements against Knox and Sollecito.

 

[Stacyhs]

Stop being familiar with me.

I'll stop being 'familiar' when you stop being familiar with someone you had zero interaction with by calling her "Mez". How long have we been exchanging posts? Years. Besides, this is just an attempt to distract from the fact that you still refuse to...can't...answer "what was the motivation for Guede to claim “black man found, here’s the guilty party” other than to set up a scenario where he'll be blamed because he's black?

Nor have you answered this: Are you saying that the professional opinion of the Chief Inspector of the division that handles IT, Technology, Logistics and Communications of the State Police is not credible?\

Comodi's comments are in the specific context of Guede in Milan, where he did find himself without a place to stay for the night and an employee of the nursery recommended he crash there.

Nice try. You claimed "It was self-professed Knox advocate, Nina Burleigh, who brought the slur into common usage for Guede, with the press pack simply copying whatever went before."

I proved Comodi used it in 2008, well before Burleigh.

Barbie Nadeau described him as a 'drifter' in her book BEFORE Burleigh.

And BEFORE Nadeau was Brit journalist Richard Owens.

All of which you failed to acknowledge.

 

[Stacyhs]

I disagree with this statement.

I believe that the prosecution would not want it tested because they knew, or felt confident, that it would not show Sollecito's DNA profile. And, if in fact they had tested the seeming semen stain of the pillow, the prosecution was suppressing the result.

If it showed Kercher's boyfriend's DNA profile, it would not be relevant.

If it showed Guede's DNA profile, it would severely damage the prosecution case against Knox and Sollecito. In part, that is because it would contradict Guede's statements describing his sexual contact with Kercher during the relevant time as only digital. That contradiction would potentially demolish the prosecution's effort to use the record of Guede's conviction and his uncross-examined statements against Knox and Sollecito.

I can see that. I should have said, "There was no honest and ethical reason for the prosecution not to want it tested".

 

[Stacyhs]

• he was not where he claimed to be as of the time frame of the murder

• 
  
  This was never proved. The incompetent police fried his computer. Oh, wait...according to you, he destroyed the three computers himself! LOL!
  
  

  [*]his phone was switched off prior to this

  
  This does not prove he wasn't home.
  
  

  [*]the victim's body is found locked in her room
  [*]Defendant X lives there so would know about the key to lock the door

  
  Suspect X is familiar with Italian door locks. Suspect X's DNA is found in victim's blood on victim's purse. .
  
  

  [*]The defendant's bare footprints are highlighted by luminol in a luminol sensitive substance that chemically reacts to it, such as blood

  
  The defendant has lived there for several weeks. Defendant has not acquired ability to levitate. The defendant's footprints all test negative for blood with blood sensitive substance that chemically reacts to it.
  
  

  [*]Defendant X's DNA and blood is mixed in with that of the victim's.

  
  Defendant X's DNA, not blood, is mixed with victim's blood in bathroom they shared.
  
  

  [*]A knife is found that has the victim's DNA on the blade and his DNA on the handle.

  
  A single knife is taken at random from cutlery drawer filled with knives and the victim's DNA is not found on the blade. Defendant's DNA found on handle. Defendant cooked with knife.
  
  [

  *]The defendant's DNA is on the victim's underwear.

  
  Victim's underwear collected many weeks later and videotaped being collected across room, in pile of of debris, and touched with visibly and admittedly unchanged gloves. No other evidence of defendant found in room.
  
  

  [*]The defendant X lies in his police statements, changing his story several times.

  
  Defendant X is coerced into signing a statement prepared by police in unrecorded interrogation where Defendant X is denied right to have lawyer present.
  

  [*]Defendant X is seen hanging about outside the house when police arrive.

  
  Defendant X is seen sitting on fence waiting for police to arrive.
  
  
  

  [*]Defendant X, as per phone logs, calls the police after the police have arrived.

  
  Defendant X, as per phone logs, video, and witness statements calls police before they arrive.

So these are the facts as found by the court after hearing all of the evidence put in front of it. including cross-examination of expert witnesses for both sides.

Defendant X is found 'Guilty'

Defendant X appeals. The appeal is dismissed and the 'Guilty' verdict is upheld.

Defendant X appeals. The appeal is accepted and the "Guilty" verdict is overturned.

It goes to the Supreme Court who changes the verdict to 'Not Guilty due to insufficient evidence and the pro-forma standard sentence structure as on all such verdicts, 'for not having committed the crime'.

It goes to the Supreme Court who annuls the verdict and rules definitively 'Not Guilty due to insufficient evidence and the pro-forma standard sentence legal structure as on all such verdicts, 'for not having committed the crime'.

As the Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to fact-find and in the case of Defendant X, it has egregiously and unusually dismissed the case without sending it back to the court it claims erred.

As the Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to fact-find and in the case of Defendant X, it has egregiously and unusually dismissed the case without sending it back to the court it claims ruled erred.

So do you now see the problem? Defendant X has a 'not guilty' verdict but the damning facts remain in perpetuity as listed above.

So do you now see your problem? Defendant X has a "not guilty" verdict because your list is a product of your imagination.

Proverbs 22:1 – “A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches, loving favor rather than silver and gold.”

"Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; 'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name But he that filches from me my good name. Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed.” ― William Shakespeare, Othello


Irrelevant.

So what is better in your view: a short prison sentence but a list of damning legal facts found, in perpetuity, or a proper due process, even it means going back to court?

What is better? Being definitively acquitted with no prison sentence, a list of prosecution claims (and yours) being disproved for the junk they were.

So yeah you can go around quoting the pro-forma the verdict and it doesn't change the fact of 'Your knife, not the murder weapon'.

Lordy, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[Numbers]

I can see that. I should have said, "There was no honest and ethical reason for the prosecution not to want it tested".

Now I agree 100% with your statement.

I also point out the amazingly large number of "incompetent" errors by the police and prosecution in the case.

Could some or all of the "incompetent" errors be intentional acts done for some unethical and dishonest purpose, such as, for example, creating false appearances of culpable evidence against innocent but convenient suspects?

It's not an easy question to answer IMO.

IIRC, I once read that an appeals court in the US had stated that a string of seeming incompetent actions by police in a case was no different in effect on the defendant than police misconduct, but I've been unable to find a source.