The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 31

[Vixen]

We do have an Italian law firm online to help understand the CPP and other Italian law codes.

For CPP Article 603, see the explanations of the CPP Article, which follow the text of the article, under the heading "Spiegazione dell'art. 603 Codice di procedura penale":

https://www.brocardi.it/codice-di-procedura-penale/libro-nono/titolo-ii/art603.html

From my reading of the Google translated text and the explanation, your understanding of CPP Article 603 is correct.

Is it correct that Sollecito appealed for the pillow's seeming semen stain to be DNA profile tested in his appeal to the Hellmann Court of Appeal, and Hellmann did not act on the request, and that Sollecito also appealed for the DNA profile test of the stain in his appeal to the Nencini Court of Appeal and Nencini did not act on the request? Did either of the courts' motivation report or trial transcript show a reason why the judge declined to order the test?

To answer my own questions, in part, here is an excerpt from the summary of Sollecito's appeal of the Nencini court conviction from the Marasca CSC panel motivation report (p. 11 - 12 of the translation*):



So Sollecito requested DNA testing of the seeming semen stain on the pillow in his appeal to the Nencini court and it was (according to Sollecito) denied by the judge without any rational coherent explanation.

* http://amandaknoxcase.com/files/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/marasca-bruno-motivations-report.pdf

One legalistic reason - not necessarily a rational or coherent reason - for the judge to deny the admission of new evidence is the requirement of CPP Article 603, paragraph 2 that the judge must follow the procedure of CPP Article 495, paragraph 1 before deciding on the admission. CPP 495, paragraph 1 requires the judge to hear all the parties to the case, including the prosecutor, before deciding on the admission. And that is how the judge, if he is biased or lacks courage and integrity, enables the prosecutor to decide that evidence favorable to the accused is not admitted into a trial in Italy.

No, it was not 'an appeal' it was an application. Note correct legal terminology.

It is for a party to make an application and for the judge to either accept or dismiss it. Any decision by a judge can be appealed. The appeal is against the decision.

 

[Vixen]

Nope. That isn't what I asked for even if it were true, which it isn't.

Louisiana does not allow slavery. The 13th Amendment is the amendment which explicitly bans slavery across the entire USA.



Indentured servitude is a vile practice to be sure, and that it is used on prisoners makes it especially heinous, but it is not slavery. Even if it was slavery, it is not a racist policy because it does not specify the race of those involved. Whatever your opinion of the usage of prisoners to do unpaid (or barely paid) labour is (and I think it's disgusting) it is not a racist policy.

So come on, show me an explicitly or implicitly racist law or statute from the USA. You claimed they had it so show it.


You brought it up. But it is true that it should really be taken to another thread except in the limited scope in which it applies here.


Pretentious use of Latin aside, yes. That's entirely possible. Why wouldn't it be?


Mhmm. Ok. Here's the thing though, even if you are 100% correct about this and your opinion on this case, which you are pretty obviously not, that is not what I was arguing nor asking about. I understand that is certainly a part of the overarching thread topic and quite worthy of discussion here, but it is not what I was discussing.

Do keep up with current affairs. Lousiana still has legalised slavery.

From CNN Updated 5:36 PM EST, Tue November 15, 2022 (please note the date):

A measure to remove slavery and indentured servitude as punishment for a crime from the constitution of Louisiana failed on Election Day after voters were told to reject it because of confusing and ambiguous language.

Louisiana had been one of five states to put the amendment on its ballot. Voters in Alabama, Oregon, Tennessee and Vermont approved measures to update their constitutions.

Although the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution prohibited slavery in 1865, it allowed an exception “for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,” and the proposed amendments asked voters to either explicitly rule out slavery and indentured servitude as potential punishments or remove the terms from state law altogether.

In Louisiana, 61% voters rejected the amendment that would have changed the state’s constitution by explicitly prohibiting the punishments.
Voters had been asked to mark yes or no to the question, “Do you support an amendment to prohibit the use of involuntary servitude except as it applies to the otherwise lawful administration of criminal justice?”

Thus to claim Italy has the same systemic racism is not correct. The idea that Italian prosecutors are prone to cut corners the same way that has been almost traditional - or at least salient in recent cases - that against certain demographs (that is populations subject to historical slavery) based on historical mores makes such practice par for the course. To claim Mignini exercised a similar mind set towards Knox is pure conspiracy theory.

If you want to understand why the 13th Amendment hits Black populations in the U.S.A. hardest, ROLLING STONE, explains briefly here, for your edification:

The ballot measures address a caveat in the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude “except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.” The loophole was exploited by many former slaveholding states, including Louisiana, to criminalize newly freed former slaves and create involuntarily held workforces during Reconstruction. Louisiana has long been home to the Louisiana State Penitentiary, a sprawling prison-farm nicknamed “Angola.” Malcolm Alexander, a former inmate who was wrongfully convicted and incarcerated for almost four decades and exonerated in 2018, described working at Angola as something “like you see in old pictures of slavery … we even had a quota we had to meet at the end of the day.”

This clearly cannot be the case for Italy, no matter how right wing or fascist its recent history.

 

[Vixen]

Nah, that wasn't the point you were making at all:



You agree that a defendant on trial is a 'criminal' before they are convicted? Revealing. :eye-p




But it does. If you a poster is caught here on ISF lying, misrepresenting and dishonestly twisting things, s/he's going to get a reputation for being totally full of it. Someone might keep count of all of them like The WAPO did with all Trump's lies, and post them periodically.

The subject of the thread is Knox and Sollecito and not Trump. Clear now?

 

[Vixen]

That has nothing to do with the tsumani victims' testing which were not LCN samples nor with Stefanoni's convenient memory loss regarding the negative TMB tests.

As for "The defence's expert forensic witness was there, some quite renowned fellow, whose name escapes me, but he witnessed Stefanoni's treatment of the DNA sample and he did not complain of any irregularities"

Please provide evidence that a defense expert witness observed Stefanoni's analysis of the alleged sample of Kercher on the knife. Considering the fact that Stefanoni kept receiving 'too low' results and repeatedly lowered the machine's parameters to well beyond unreliable levels, I highly doubt any expert witness would not notice and complain.




I can find no such defense concurrence. Please quote.

What do you mean provide evidence there was a witness to the testing? My my, you are deep into your conspiracy theory. Did you not know it is compulsory for witnesses of the other party to be present?

 

[Vixen]

I already did.





Wrong again:


It was in his headline:






Nope.

"racist trope"....how is being described as a "drifter" racist? I guess that makes Manuela Comodi a racist, too? You really have dug into this whole 'racist" thing. I suggest you put down the shovel; it's not working.

That goes to show how deeply embedded unconscious bias and racism is embedded in the consciousness of the USA-readership aimed press. How else do you explain that it is a given that a teenager aged 19 who grew up in a wealthy middle-class home (richer than Knox') and who leaves home at 18 to live in a bedsit immediately becomes a hobo or an itinerant in the mind. It is clearly racist shorthand for 'Black'.

 

[Vixen]

That has nothing to do with the tsumani victims' testing which were not LCN samples nor with Stefanoni's convenient memory loss regarding the negative TMB tests.

As for "The defence's expert forensic witness was there, some quite renowned fellow, whose name escapes me, but he witnessed Stefanoni's treatment of the DNA sample and he did not complain of any irregularities"

Please provide evidence that a defense expert witness observed Stefanoni's analysis of the alleged sample of Kercher on the knife. Considering the fact that Stefanoni kept receiving 'too low' results and repeatedly lowered the machine's parameters to well beyond unreliable levels, I highly doubt any expert witness would not notice and complain.




I can find no such defense concurrence. Please quote.

Do look up the Nencini Appeal court transcripts, in which Conti and Vecchiotti concur under oath that there was a striation on the knife.

What is the point in continuing to argue there was not?


How a court works from your POV:

PROSECUTION: Oh yes it is!

DEFENCE: Oh no it's not!

PROSECUTION: Oh yes it is!

DEFENCE: Oh no it's not!

Repeat ad infinitum.

In the real world, evidence is presented during a criminal trial, together with witnesses, who are subjected to cross-examination by counsel for all parties, and evidence from both defence and prosecution. Justice is weighted in favour of the defendant as it always has t be greater that a 50% probability of guilt (civil law) and much much higher in serious cases such as murder, as much as near certainty >99% certain (there will always be an element of uncertainty due to such acts carried out in great secrecy, subterfuge and great desire to avoid identification as the perpetrator). It is only after hearing all of the evidence from al; of the parties that a court has to decide whose evidence has the greater probability of being the correct one.

It is no good claiming there was no scratch on the knife and no phone logs saying this or that, if the courts have decided for as a matter of fact BARD that there were.

(Cue: "Oh no, they don't!")

 

[Vixen]

Some PGP, including IIUC Vixen, maintain that the Marasca CSC panel judgment in the Knox - Sollecito case of annulment without referral was highly unusual and perhaps even contrary to law.

Since the CSC publishes outcome statistics in a report available online, it would be of interest to see the details of annulments with referral compared to annulments without referral for the two years in which a CSC panel reviewed a judgment of a Court of Appeal that had tried Knox and Sollecito.

In 2013, the Chieffi CSC panel reviewed the Hellmann Court of Appeal judgment. The prosecutor had appealed the acquittal on the murder/rape charges, and one of the accused (Knox) had appealed the conviction for calunnia.

The Chieffi CSC panel judgment annulled with referral the Hellmann court judgment with respect to the acquittal for the murder/rape charges for both accused and for the aggravating factor for the calunnia charge against Knox, but confirmed Knox's conviction for calunnia - that is, it rejected her appeal.

Here are the statistics for CSC outcomes in 2013:

Annulment with referral: 5,205 cases (New trial required.)
Annulment without referral: 4,108 cases (No new trial, acquittal/dismissal.)
Inadmissible: 33,980 cases (Appeal arguments fail to comply with law.)
Rejected: 8,421 cases (Appeal arguments rejected; appealed judgment accepted.)

In 2015, the Marasca CSC panel reviewed the Nencini Appeal Court judgment. Both accused had appealed the conviction on the murder/rape charges and Knox had appealed the aggravating factor added to the calunnia final conviction.

The Marasca CSC panel judgment annulled without referral the conviction on the murder/rape charges, and acquitted the accused as not having committed the act of the crime; this invalidated the aggravating factor for calunnia; another charge (carrying a knife) was dismissed as past the statute of limitations.

Here are the statistics for CSC outcomes in 2015:

Annulment with referral: 5,383 cases (New trial required.)
Annulment without referral: 4,530 cases (No new trial; acquittal/dismissal.)
Inadmissible: 33,071 cases (Appeal arguments fail to comply with law.)
Rejected: 7,389 cases (Appeal arguments rejected; appeal judgment accepted.)

Bottom line: Annulment without referral is not unusual and is a common lawful CSC judgment (CPP Articles 620 and 621). All annulments without referral are accompanied by a dismissal of some form, such as, for example, the statute of limitations was exceeded, there was a nullity (a severe lapse in the judicial procedure), or the appealed judgment should have been an acquittal based on the errors in logic or grounds of the judgment derived from the evidence. One can readily understand this aspect by carefully reading CPP Article 620, which provides a list of the grounds for an annulment without referral, together with CPP Article 606, which provides a list of the lawful arguments acceptable for an appeal to the CSC.

The source for the CSC outcome statistics is Table 5.4 in:

https://www.cortedicassazione.it/ca...cms/documents/AG2022_ANNUARIO_penale_2021.pdf

These would be the case where the lower courts verdict was 'not guilty' and the prosecution appealed. There is no way a merits court and appeal court finding and upholding a verdict of guilty both times will be reversed without referral, except under case of mistrial or other 'in the public interest' - also rare. To have a finding of certain of guild BARD overturned as due to insufficient evidence has to as a matter of due process and conventional protocol be returned to the lower court to rectify the issue.

We know what happened here. Political interference.

 

[Vixen]

Higher up? Since Dan Krane wasn't in the Carabinieri or any police, that's a rather odd claim to make. It's like saying Capt. Smith, RAF, is 'higher up' than Capt. Jones of British Airways.

It's best to look at academic levels and training.

Luciano Garofano



INFORMAZIONI PERSONALI Garofano Luciano
http://bandicontratti.unicz.it › c-v-garofano
Laurea (degree) in biological sciences/ equivalent to Bachelor of Science
Specialization in forensic toxicology
Command of the Chemical-Biological Section of the Carabinieri Scientific Investigation Center in Rome.
Commander of the Biology Section Carabinieri Scientific Investigation Center in Rome.
Commander of the Parma RIS (Carabinieri Scientific Investigations Department)


Prof. Dan Krane: More than just a 'blog writer' :

Postdoctoral research Washington Univ. School of Medicine and Harvard Univ.
Ph.D in biochemistry from Penn State
Listed as one of the top 15 DNA experts in the world by Forensic Colleges

Interim Dean of Wright State University
Prof. of Biology Wright State Univ.
Lead author of the bestselling undergraduate textbook in the field of bioinformatics,
President of Forensic Bioinformatics, which has reviewed testing from hundreds of cases around the world every year since 2002.




Citation needed. Please stop making claims stated as fact without providing any evidence.

Speaking of...

STILL WAITING for any cited quotes that anyone has claimed "Knox wouldn't be friends with a black man". Why is that, Vix?

You know perfectly well I am not allowed to because you complained. Stop being a hypocrite. Cease and desist your demand.

 

[LondonJohn]

You know perfectly well I am not allowed to because you complained. Stop being a hypocrite. Cease and desist your demand.

Got nothing wrt the pretty yawning gulf in qualifications, positions and experience between Garofano and Krane, huh?

 

[Welshman]

I haven't demanded 'Amanda' takes a lie detector test. I agree with the Italians, criminals are gonna lie. A defendant is entitled to not incriminate themselves, therefore they can say whatever it takes to get themselves off the hook.

BTW I am not under arrest so it matters diddly squat whether I lie or not.

Vixen refused to answer any of my questions. If you are going to viciously attack someone for something and there are things which don't add up in your accusations, you have an obligation to explain these things to back up your accusations. For instance, Mr A constantly attacks Mr B for being a drunk driver which is a serious accusation. The following applies to

*Mr B has never been charged with drunk driving,
*No one has witnessed Mr B drinking alcohol and then going driving.
*No one has witnessed Mr B driving his vehicle in the manner of a drunk driver.
*No one has witnessed Mr B being drunk before entering or after exiting his vehicle.

The accusation made by Mr A that Mr B is a drunk driver is not supported by evidence and Mr A has an obligation to explain his accusation when there is no evidence to support it. It would not be acceptable for Mr A to refuse to answer why he is accusing Mr B of being a drunk driver when there is no evidence to support it.

Since coming on this forum Vixen has repeatedly and obsessively viciously attacked Amanda and Raffaele for lying. Amanda has been called a psychopath and pathological liar. As I pointed out there are numerous holes in this idea which undermine the notion Amanda has told numerous lies and Vixen has an obligation to explain these things if she is to accuse someone of lying.

I will use one example from my previous post below. Vixen constantly bangs on about Amanda telling numerous lies. If Vixen had a mountain of genuine instances of Amanda lying to draw from, it would be necessary to lie to show Amanda has lie. If Vixen has to resort to lying to sustain the idea Amanda had lied, this indicates Vixen doesn't have genuine instances of Amanda lying to draw form and it is necessary to lie to sustain the notion Amanda has lied. This undermines the notion Amanda has told numerous lies. If Vixen is to viciously attack Amanda for lying, Vixen has an obligation to explain such holes in the notion Amanda has lied.

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...5#post11849235

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post11952561

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post12389273

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0#post12390810

If Vixen thinks that her lying can be brushed away as a non issue, she has another thing coming. Vixen lying creates numerous issues

*Vixen boasts about how solid the case was but if this was the case, why does Vixen have to resort to lying to argue the case for guilt? When the facts are on your side, you don't need to lie. If Vixen has to resort to lying, this indicates the facts don't support the case for guilt.

*Vixen attacks Amanda and Raffaele for lying which is hypocritical. How does Vixen explain this hypocrisy?

*Vixen has falsely accused Amanda of lying.

*Vixen has attacked Amanda for lying when there are numerous occasions when lies have been told about Amanda.

*Vixen calls people morons when she can't grasp the simplest things eg it is hypocritical to attack people for lying when lying yourself and Vixen doesn't understand she is attacking people for lying when lying herself.

*Vixen has attacked Amanda and Raffaele for lying when telling numerous lies about Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[Vixen]

Got nothing wrt the pretty yawning gulf in qualifications, positions and experience between Garofano and Krane, huh?

So Krane is an academic, sitting in his ivory tower pontificating about this and that, churning out papers. Garafano actually set up Italy's first DNA laboratory and headed the R.I.S. He was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Carabinieri. A doer not a talking head.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen refused to answer any of my questions. If you are going to viciously attack someone for something and there are things which don't add up in your accusations, you have an obligation to explain these things to back up your accusations. For instance, Mr A constantly attacks Mr B for being a drunk driver which is a serious accusation. The following applies to

*Mr B has never been charged with drunk driving,
*No one has witnessed Mr B drinking alcohol and then going driving.
*No one has witnessed Mr B driving his vehicle in the manner of a drunk driver.
*No one has witnessed being drunk before entering or after exiting his vehicle.

The accusation made by Mr A that Mr B is a drunk driver is not supported by evidence and Mr A has an obligation to explain his accusation when there is no evidence to support it. It would not be acceptable for Mr A to refuse to answer why he is accusing Mr B of being a drunk driver when there is no evidence to support it.

Since coming on this forum Vixen has repeatedly and obsessively viciously attacked Amanda and Raffaele for lying. Amanda has been called a psychopath and pathological liar. As I pointed out there are numerous holes in this idea which undermine the notion Amanda has told numerous lies and Vixen has an obligation to explain these things if she is to accuse someone of lying.

I will use one example from my previous post below. Vixen constantly bangs on about Amanda telling numerous lies. If Vixen had a mountain of genuine instances of Amanda lying to draw from, it would be necessary to lie to show Amanda has lie. If Vixen has to resort to lying to sustain the idea Amanda had lied, this indicates Vixen doesn't have genuine instances of Amanda lying to draw form and it is necessary to lie to sustain the notion Amanda has lied. This undermines the notion Amanda has told numerous lies. If Vixen is to viciously attack Amanda for lying, Vixen has an obligation to explain such holes in the notion Amanda has lied.

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...5#post11849235

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post11952561

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post12389273

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0#post12390810

If Vixen thinks that her lying can be brushed away as a non issue, she has another thing coming. Vixen lying creates numerous issues

*Vixen boasts about how solid the case was but if this was the case, why does Vixen have to resort to lying to argue the case for guilt? When the facts are on your side, you don't need to lie. If Vixen has to resort to lying, this indicates the facts don't support the case for guilt.

*Vixen attacks Amanda and Raffaele for lying which is hypocritical. How does Vixen explain this hypocrisy?

*Vixen has falsely accused Amanda of lying.

*Vixen has attacked Amanda for lying when there are numerous occasions when lies have been told about Amanda.

*Vixen calls people morons when she can't grasp the simplest things eg it is hypocritical to attack people for lying when lying yourself and Vixen doesn't understand she is attacking people for lying when lying herself.

*Vixen has attacked Amanda and Raffaele for lying when telling numerous lies about Amanda and Raffaele.

Read Sollecito's own signed police statement where he confirms he was lying.

 

[Stacyhs]

Do keep up with current affairs. Lousiana still has legalised slavery.

From CNN Updated 5:36 PM EST, Tue November 15, 2022 (please note the date):



Thus to claim Italy has the same systemic racism is not correct. The idea that Italian prosecutors are prone to cut corners the same way that has been almost traditional - or at least salient in recent cases - that against certain demographs (that is populations subject to historical slavery) based on historical mores makes such practice par for the course. To claim Mignini exercised a similar mind set towards Knox is pure conspiracy theory.

If you want to understand why the 13th Amendment hits Black populations in the U.S.A. hardest, ROLLING STONE, explains briefly here, for your edification:

This clearly cannot be the case for Italy, no matter how right wing or fascist its recent history.

Do stop this irrelevant Louisiana "slavery" bit. It's nothing but an attempt to divert from the fact that even Judge Michelli agreed Guede's "Black man found, black man convicted" was 'self-serving"... "because it served him for justifying his reluctant behaviour in calling for help,
not to mention his subsequent decamping". "It's true...that phrase lingers on the pen nib, because – and in somewhat moving terms" it sets him up as a victim of racism. That has ZERO to do with your continuing red herring which is as transparent as glass.

 

[Stacyhs]

The subject of the thread is Knox and Sollecito and not Trump. Clear now?

What is very clear is that you continue to make claims as fact and then refuse to provide evidence that they are facts when repeatedly asked to do so. Clear now?

 

[Stacyhs]

What do you mean provide evidence there was a witness to the testing? My my, you are deep into your conspiracy theory. Did you not know it is compulsory for witnesses of the other party to be present?

Nice try. I did not say provide evidence that 'there was a witness to the testimony", now did I?

You said, "It is statutory in Italy for a witness from both parties to be present in forensic testing," and I replied "Citation needed."
If it is "statutory" then there is a statute stating that. So, I repeat "citation needed".

Repeating your claim or changing what you originally said does not make it more credible. As I said earlier, "you continue to make claims as fact and then refuse to provide evidence that they are facts when repeatedly asked to do so."

 

[Stacyhs]

That goes to show how deeply embedded unconscious bias and racism is embedded in the consciousness of the USA-readership aimed press.

Oh, Vix, Vix, Vix....sigh. Stop trying to gaslight us.

You: "In the case of Meredith Kercher's murder, there was a huge U.S.A-based campaign to pin the entire crime onto the African guy, Rudy Guede, with a certain author claiming that he was a drifter..."

Of course, I asked you to cite one such campaign which you, unsurprisingly, failed to do. I then quoted and cited 4 different examples of non-Americans using the term: An Italian judge, two Italian newspapers, and a British newspaper.

You then doubled down on your claim:

"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 also proved this claim was wrong: "Burleigh referred to Guede as a drifter on page 84 in her book published in 2011, while Barbie Nadeau...popular with the PGP crowd...referred to him as a ' local drifter' on page xvii in her "list of characters" in her book published in Jan. 2010.

And even earlier was a British journalist:

Richard Owens in the Times, Oct 28, 2008: Rudy Guede: engaging drifter who boasted ‘I will drink your blood’"

I also quoted and cited Michelli's Report also referred to him as a "drifter" in 2009, also preceding Burleigh's book.

Like shooting fish in a barrel.

How else do you explain that it is a given that a teenager aged 19 who grew up in a wealthy middle-class home (richer than Knox') and who leaves home at 18 to live in a bedsit immediately becomes a hobo or an itinerant in the mind.

I don't know, Vix, why don't you ask all the people I cited and quoted above who were NOT Americans?

It is clearly racist shorthand for 'Black'.

Nope. That is you trying to make it so. It isn't working.

 

[Vixen]

Nice try. I did not say provide evidence that 'there was a witness to the testimony", now did I?

You said, "It is statutory in Italy for a witness from both parties to be present in forensic testing," and I replied "Citation needed."
If it is "statutory" then there is a statute stating that. So, I repeat "citation needed".

Repeating your claim or changing what you originally said does not make it more credible. As I said earlier, "you continue to make claims as fact and then refuse to provide evidence that they are facts when repeatedly asked to do so."

Clause 360.

 

[Stacyhs]

Do look up the Nencini Appeal court transcripts, in which Conti and Vecchiotti concur under oath that there was a striation on the knife.

As I said: I found no such concurrence. I remember someone said:



Oh....that was YOU! Yet again, you make a claim which you refuse to provide evidence for.

What is the point in continuing to argue there was not?

What is the point in continuing to make claims you refuse to provide evidence for?

How a court works from your POV:

PROSECUTION: Oh yes it is!

DEFENCE: Oh no it's not!

PROSECUTION: Oh yes it is!

DEFENCE: Oh no it's not!

Repeat ad infinitum.

How a debate works from your POV:

Vixen: Fact

Us: Citation, please.

Vixen: It's a FACT!

Us: Citation, please.

Vixen: It's a FACT!

Us: Citation, please.

Vixen: It's a FACT! Do look it up!

Irrelevant word salad snipped

It is no good claiming there was no scratch on the knife and no phone logs saying this or that, if the courts have decided for as a matter of fact BARD that there were.

(Cue: "Oh no, they don't!")

It is no good claiming that the defense concurred there was a scratch without quoting and citing.

It is no good claiming the phone logs proved something when those phone logs from the court records and quoted in the Massei motivation prove no such thing. You know, sort of like when Massei claims Knox's footprints were in the victim's blood when he specifically says they tested negative for blood and Stefanoni agreeing that such tests prove no blood is present. Or when he stated that a cell tower does not serve Sollecito's apartment when he stated 3 other times in that same report that it does.

(Cue: "Oh no, they don't!")

 

[LondonJohn]

So Krane is an academic, sitting in his ivory tower pontificating about this and that, churning out papers. Garafano actually set up Italy's first DNA laboratory and headed the R.I.S. He was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Carabinieri. A doer not a talking head.

You probably want to look properly into Krane's work history. I know that's what I would do, if only to brief myself sufficiently well that I'd avoid any attempt to smear him by way of (incorrectly) linking him exclusively to academia*.


* Not to mention the (rather obvious) fact that, in any event, academics can be just as expert as - or even more expert than - practitioners. It's strange and incorrect to think/claim anything different.

 

[TruthCalls]

AFAIAA the only DNA of Guede's found was of the epithelial type, not bodily fluid type.

It does seem strange not to test an item found under the body. The court's finding was that Knox and Sollecito returned after the murder and Guede had fled to rearrange the body to make it look like a rape motive and then faked a burglary.

For the life of me I can't figure out why Amanda and Raffaele would return to the cottage to stage a sexual assault after Guede.... drum roll.... sexually assaulted Meredith. Then again, maybe the scene is exactly as Guede left it, or is that too obvious for you?