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.
You've never heard of a victim of a sexual assault being assaulted more than once, or by more than one person?
Let's suspend credulity and imagine for the sake of academic argument that Guede was indeed paying a social visit to Mez and they got romantic, as he claims, but he didn't have any condoms, hence just heavy petting (and his bodily fluids were not present internally). So then as he claims Knox turned up, angry because Lumumba had just rung up telling her not to come in, believing that Kercher had stolen her job. Kercher is angry that her rent money is missing (and her fingerprints were found looking in the drawers of Knox' room). Guede claims he objected to Mez' tone. The courts decided Guede held Mez' arms behind her back whilst a fatal knife wound was inflicted on one side of her neck and two more lesser stabs with a different knife on the other side. There are also numerous knife flicks marks suggesting a period of torture and tormenting. There were no defence wounds aside from a minor one, which is why the court determined there wer multiple assailants, and as upheld by Marasca-Bruno CSC. So Guede claims the pair ran off, leaving him to fetch towels to try to stem the wounds. Luminol shows his shoeprints heading directly to the front door, away from the murder room. There were no bare footprints identified as Guede's.
So, who returned to (a) drag the body from its original position by the closet [wardrobe], (b) place it onto a sheet [cops said they believed this was a sign of wanting to carry the corpse away), (c) undress it, with the bra cut off or torn off with a knife, a pillow placed under the hips and placed so that anyone entering the room would be met with the obscene vision (cf Boston Strangler) except that someone decided to cover the body with a duvet. The court determined the burglary was staged because papers scattered from Filomena's room were on top of the duvet, therefore after the murder.
So why would Knox and Sollecito want to return to stage a rape and burglary scene (and a theatrical one at that when nothing was stolen except Mez' phones and credit cards)? Precisely for the same reason Knox pointed at Lumumba: to divert suspicion away from herself, as being resident there. To cover up the signs of a sadistic torture based on her rage and Sollecito's need for 'extreme experiences' and his knife fetish.
Kokomanni is an unreliable witness, being heavily involved in Albanian gang drug smuggling of cocaine, but he was pinged in the area and witnessed as being there as of the time frame. So I tend to believe him when he says he saw Knox, Guede and Sollecito outside 7 via Pergola absolutely stoned out of their minds, waving a knife and claiming to be waiting for a friend 'to give her a birthday party' (presumably the knife Knox was waving was to cut the birthday cake, in explanation). It all fits with what likely happened, especially as Knox and Sollecito said afterwards they would never take drugs again.
Vixen constantly bangs on about how Amanda and Raffaele killed Meredith with Guede and Amanda covered for Guede. PGP conveniently forget the numerous problems with this scenario :-
• Amanda barely knew Rudy, Raffaele did not know Rudy at all and Amanda and Raffaele had only been dating six days. Three virtual strangers came together to commit a brutal sex crazed murder.
• Amanda only had brief contact with Guede and in six years the prosecution could not find any evidence of regular contact with Amanda and Guede and Raffaele had never met Guede. Despite this they were able to plan a murder.
• As the links below show witness testimony stated Amanda had a good relationship with Meredith and no evidence has existed Amanda had any animosity towards Meredith. Despite this Amanda was prepared to help a stranger carry out a brutal sexual assault and murder against Meredith.
• The phones of Amanda and Raffaele were tapped in the three days between the discovery of Meredith’s body and the interrogations. Despite this Amanda and Raffaele make no mention of Rudy a man they were supposed to have committed a brutal murder and sexual assault with.
• Amanda spoke only basic Italian and Rudy did not speak English. Despite this Amanda and Rudy were able to plan a murder together.
• There is no contact between Amanda and Raffaele with Rudy after the murder. Is it credible that people could committ a brutal sexual assault and murder together and never contact each other again.
• As per the link below, the evidence which should have existed if Amanda and Rafffaele killed Meredith with Rudy is missing.
• A woman was supposedly willing to help a stranger carry out a brutal sexual assault and murder against another woman. A scenario with no known precedent.
• The evidence against Guede was solid, credible and irrefutable as seen in the link below.
The evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was full of holes and had no credibility. The knife was an example of this as can be seen from my post below. If Amanda, Raffaele and Guede committed the same crime together, how is the difference in the quality of the evidence explained?
• The methods the prosecution had to resort to with regards to Amanda and Raffaele were clearly the methods prosecutors would resort to when they have a weak case, lack of evidence and the facts don’t support their case as can be seen from the links below. The prosecution didn’t have to resort to these tactics when it came to Guede which indicated the prosecution had plenty of evidence and a slam dunk case. How is this massive difference explained if Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy committed the same crime?
• The evidence suggests Meredith was killed between 9.00 pm and 10.00 pm. Raffaele was using his computer at 9.10 pm and 9.26 pm which gives them an alibi for the time Guede murdered Meredith.
• The posts below show some of the falsehoods by Vixen in her posts showing PGP have to resort to lying to argue the case for Amanda and Raffaele’s guilt. I have never heard anyone resorting to lying to argue the case for Rudy’s guilt. How is this difference explained if Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy committed the same crime?
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
You mean the one he signed under the same conditions as Amanda signed hers? Without the legally required lawyer present and no recording? Do you want to contend he never said he was coerced into signing that through threats and intimidation? Or that he said it wasn't true that she'd gone out? That one?
Having heard the submissions and further weighing of evidence, as stipulated by Chieffi Supreme Court, from all parties, the Nencini Appeal Court preferred the case presented by the prosecution, and that is why Crini's submissions are the legal facts found, as set out in the Nencini motivations report.
Once again, you evade providing evidenced to support your own claim.
I repeat: The ONUS IS ON YOU to quote and link to the actual statement where Vecchiotti stated that there was a scratch/striation on the knife. You have the date of the document. Should be easy enough for you to access it and link to it. Stalling is a common and transparent tactic.
Just how the convicting court did and the confirming SC did: by the evidence.
The fact is you made a claim and you CAN'T provide a single instance of anyone saying that because it never happened. You know that, I know that, and the readers of this thread know that.
The fact that a lot of black people are wrongly convicted or accused of crimes is shameful, but that doesn't mean every black person convicted or accused is innocent any more than the lack of this happening to white people as a rule means that white people are automatically guilty.
Read it straight from the horse's mouth: Sollecito says so himself in his ghostwritten book that he and his defence team didn't want the pillow tested because (he claims) he was worried Stefanoni would try to pin the stain on him.
Sigh. Another misdirection. No one ever denied that Sollecito said that. Do you really think no one noticed that? This claim of yours was the actual point of Number's and my posts:
In a fair trial you can request whatever material you like be made evidence. There was absolutely nothing stopping Sollecito's lawyers from demanding the pillow be one of the issues.
One of the points of law on which you can bring an appeal is under the rubric of 'New Evidence'. However, for it to be classed as 'new evidence' it has to be evidence that was not known of as of the time of the trial. That is why, when Sollecito's team made an application to have it tested AFTER the trial and he had been found guilty and sentence, the judge threw it out because it was not 'new evidence' as he had the opportunity to have all of that examined and cross-examined at the trial.
1. If one of the parties has requested, in the appeal application or the arguments submitted under Article 585, paragraph 4, that evidence already gathered during the first-instance trial be taken anew or that new evidence be gathered, the court shall order the renewal of the trial evidentiary hearing, if it holds that it is unable to decide on the basis of the available elements of evidence.
Bearing in mind Clause 360, are you really gullible enough to believe this? DING, DING, DING. The other leg has got bells on it.
I would argue it is because no other country would uniquely take it for granted that the Black guy should take the blame and wouldn't describe a non-Black teenage guy living in an apartment, 'a drifter', or the British equivalent: 'a tramp'. And note how Knox automatically pointed the finger at an innocent Black guy, whom she knew to be innocent and was even happy for him to stay in jail and take the rap as a rapist/murderer, despite having a young kid dependent on him. Knox hasn't paid him the damages she was ordered to pay to this day. Spot how she cried hysterically whilst relating to police that Congolese Patrik Lumumba was 'BAD!!!'
You don't need to "argue" it at all and especially with yet more unproved nonsense. All you need to do is quote and cite evidence for your claims. Which is exactly what MarkCorrigan and I have asked you to do repeatedly. Which you still fail to do.
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
You've been asked repeatedly for evidence that Art. 530, para 2 is a "loophole" or "rare" or "little used". Shockingly you have failed to do so but shockingly again, that doesn't stop you from repeating it. I suggest again you stop making statements of fact that you cannot provide evidence for. It should be patently obvious why.
Oh, lordy. Giving two examples of when it was used is not evidencethat Art. 530, para 2 is a "loophole" or "rare" or "little used".
Apparently that went over your head.
Vixen, I've selected a specific part of your response to my post in hopes that you will be able to give a clear response to an alleged issue of Italian law that you claim to exist.
That is, you are claiming, if I understand your response correctly, that because the Marasca CSC panel annulled the Nencini appeal court conviction without a referral (in accordance with CPP Article 620), that the "legal facts" found by the Nencini court stand.
Now Italian law does have some complexity, so could you please explain exactly which Italian law justifies or supports your statement? (Please, no commentary on the laws of other countries - the case is an Italian case and Italian law applies.)
There don't seem to be any media reports from Italy of Parliament members, lawyers, or judges making any comments supporting your claim.
Note also that Amanda Knox has visited Italy twice since the Marasca CSC judgment and was not subject to any police action, and Raffaele Sollecito has apparently lived in Italy since that judgment, likewise without being subject to any police action. This would suggest that the Nencini appeal court verdict was indeed quashed, and the alleged "legal facts" in the Nencini appeal court judgment are likewise annulled, insofar as they were specifically contradicted within the Marasca CSC panel judgment.
Proof: note the date of the Marasca-Bruno Supreme Court verdict - the final one.
Thus the court has decided the 27th of March, 2015 Reporting Judge The president Paolo Antonio Bruno Gennaro Marasca Registered the 7th of September 2015 COURT OFFICIAL Carmela Lanzuise
Fast forward to the next court - note the date: post-Marasca-Bruno of 2015.
P.Q.M. The Court, with regard to art 341 cpp. rejects the request for redress for unjust detention suffered by Rafaele Sollecito, born in Bari 26 March 1984, domicile of choice in care of 26, Piazza San Lorenzo in Lucina, Rome, the office of his defence counsel, attorney Giulia Bongiorno, and orders him to pay the costs of suit herein incurred. Orders this Order be sent to all interested parties. Florence 22 January 2017 Presiding Judge Dr. Silvia Martuscelli Reporting Judge Dr. Paola MASI Filed with Registry [the clerk of court] 10 February 2017 Antonio Bossa Clerk
Where did this court get its legal facts from? It relied on the aforesaid Court of 2015.
Background
Case 2/2016 RID Court of Appeal of Florence, Third Penal Section The Florence Appeal Court, composed of the judges -dottoressa Silvia Martuscelli, Presiding Judge -dottoressa Paola Masi, Recording Judge -Dotoressa Anna Favi, Judge having met in Chambers, and having heard the parties attending the hearing on 27 January 2017, issues the following ORDER regarding Raffaele Sollecito, born in Bari 26 March 1984, domicile of choice in care of 26, Piazza San Lorenzo in Lucina, Rome, the office of his defence counsel, attorney Giulia Bongiorno. With the demand lodged on 25 January 2016, the above-mentioned requested fair compensation for the unjust detention he underwent for the period from 6 November 2007 until 3 October 2011, in connection with criminal case 9066/07 RGNR before the Perugia Assize Court, in which he, accused of the crimes under articles 575-573 c.1 n.5cp1 , 4L.n 110/75, 609 bis e ter n. 2 cp, 624 bis cp, 367 e 61 n. 2 cp, was found not guilty for the reason that 'he had not committed these crimes' (with the exception of those offences which were time-barred) by the definitive verdict issued by the Court of Cassation on 27 March 2015. That judgment annulled, without the possibility of review, the verdict of guilt issued on 30 January 2014 by the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Florence. That court of review was convened following the annulment of the verdict of not guilty issued by the Perugia Court of Assizes of Appeal, which had overturned the verdict of guilt issued by the Perugia Assize Court on 5 December 2009.
In the light of these facts, examined in detail below, we have to decide whether there was an unjust imprisonment for the period above-mentioned, given the later acquittal of the applicant, and whether he himself had contributed to his detention by his wilful misconduct and gross negligence by giving the police, the investigators and the judges, particularly at the beginning of the case, contradictory or frankly false statements; such evaluations have also been set out in the acquittal decision. The statements certainly contributed, in the context of a framework of circumstantial evidence or evidential ambiguity, to guide the investigators initially, and then the judges of merit, toward an overall evaluation (unfavourable to Sollecito) of the evidence gathered, more than all the many clues susceptible to varied interpretation by experts and consultants, so far as to issue two verdicts of guilt.
Who has the jurisdiction? The penal code answers this question:
Art 102 disp. att. cpp2 clearly states that an application for compensation for unjust detention presented following acquittal by the Court of Cassation “the competent court of appeal is that of the district which issued the impugned judgment”. Thus the Court competent to deal with this application is this Florence Appeal Court, because the judgment issued by the Court of Cassation on 27 March 2015 annulled a sentence of guilt issued by the Florence Assizes Court of Appeal.
So the facts found are these, as upheld by Massei – Nenici – Marasca:
As to the merits of the application, it is clear that during the preliminary investigations, and particularly in the initial phase, Sollecito gave statements which were contradictory or untruthful, which contributed to the issuing and continuation of the cautionary custody order.
(follows specific details of these lies, as per facts found by the merits courts)
He stated (as far as this is of interest to us now) 2 ccp: Codice di Procedura Penale, or Criminal Procedure Code 2 that he left the house at Via della Pergola 7 on 1 November 2007 about 17:30, together with Knox, his recent girlfriend. Together they walked around Perugia and then he went with her to his house where they watched a film together on the computer, had supper and went to sleep, remaining together all night until about ten the next morning.
On the evening of 5 November 2007, at 22:40, Sollecito instead told the police that having left her house at about 17:30 or 18:00, they remained together in the city centre until 20:30 or 21:00, but that then he had gone home alone while Knox went to the Le Chic pub (managed by Patrick Lumumba, whom the young woman, from that day on, falsely accused of being the murderer): [3 ->] Sollecito remained alone at home all of the evening, receiving a phone call from his father at 23:00, but Knox had returned only at 01:00 and then together they slept. Sollecito justified the vast difference between this account and the account he had given before saying “I gave you a sacco di cazzate3 in the earlier statement” because he had been convinced by his friend Knox to agree with her statements, which she had already given to the police and which he knew about because “I heard the first statements she made to the Postal Police when they called at the house”
on 8 November 2007 at the interrogation by the GIP of the Perugia Court regarding preventive detention, he changed yet again his version of his and Knox’ movements on the evening and night of 1-2 November 2007, saying he had stayed with her, in her house, until 18:00, he had gone with her into the city centre until 20:00-20:30, after which they had both gone to his house where they had eaten together, even though he didn't recall in detail, and then she “as it was Thursday had to go to work at Le Chic...I remember that she told me later that Le Chic was closed but I seem to remember that she went out anyway”,
He then went on to recount details of a broken sink pipe, to have been helped by Knox to mop up the spill, and then they had both gone to bed, but he didn't remember at what time. He said that “For sure I worked on the computer” but when asked what he had been working at he said “I really can't remember because everyday I am on the computer. I don't remember what I did that day”. In addition he said “I received a phone call from my father because he phones me every night before he goes to 3 literally, “a sack of crap”, meaning “a pack of lies”
On the first occasion Sollecito (as far as is relevant to the present proceeding) repeated that he had remained at his computer for many hours on the evening of 1 November 2007 and he confirmed that he had received at 06:00, on 2 November 2007 when his cell phone was turned on, a good night message sent by his father the previous evening. In the spontaneous declarations given during the first stage proceeding (the only trial of interest to us, since the second stage proceeding led to his definitive release from custody) Sollecito simply restated that he had nothing to do with the crimes or had responded to individual assertions made by some witnesses, without however providing further details of the behaviour of himself or Knox on the evening and night of the murder, and thus not modifying his earlier statements.
Sollecito’s claimed lack of memory has never been upheld, with Florence Court of Appeal wryly stating:
To discover in the morning of 2 November 5 2007 that in his girlfriend's house a murder had occurred, and that it was one of her flatmates who had been killed should have, logically, prompted the young man to have a precise memory of where Knox had passed the time during which all of this had presumably happened, at the very least to be thankful for the circumstances which had kept her away from the house, and thus would have been bound to encourage a precise recall of whether she was at home with him all evening or had been absent during that critical period.
So, using the facts found at Marasca – Nencini – Massei, which were never reverted:
It is also disproved that the young man was working at his computer on the evening of 1 November 2007 until 23:00/24:00. The analysis of his computer shows that between 21:10 and 05:32 there was no human interaction, though the machine remained switched on, downloading films in an automated manner (although Sollecito's expert witness D'Ambrosio claims that a short animated film was viewed between 21:26 and 21:46). The claim that the two slept all night, from 24:00 or 01:00 until 10:00 is also disproved; one of them (there was nobody else in the house) at 05:32 had turned on the computer, and listened to music for half an hour, and at about 06:00 someone had turned on Sollecito's cell phone which was then able to receive a goodnight message from his father sent at 23:14 and which had not been received earlier because the phone was turned off. Finally, it was disproved that Sollecito had received a phone call from his father at about 23:00 on 1 November 2007: the phone logs show that he received no calls on either the fixed or mobile line after about 20:40, [6 ->] and indeed his father explained that having established from this call that his son was with his girlfriend, getting ready to spend the evening together, he avoided telephoning again in order not to disturb them.
Here comes the really damning section, also never reverted (note the date is post-Marasca-Bruno CSC)
It appears though our duty to emphasize that the versions of the young man about his movements and those of Knox during the hours when young Kercher was murdered remain completely false even in the light of the reconstruction of the facts provided in the decision issued on 27 March 2015 by the Fifth Penal Section of the Court of Cassation – a reconstruction which, given its definitive status, is the “judicial truth” [“verità processuale”]6 to which this court must adhere. According to the aforementioned judges, who, although they found Sollecito not guilty of all of the charges ascribed to him, holding his complicity in the murder not proved “beyond a reasonable doubt” (Page 43 of the decision), the murder having been committed with “irrefutable certainty” by Rudy Guede, separately found guilty definitively for having acted “together with other as yet unknown persons”. Many facts connected with the complete reconstruction of the event, exclude that Guede could have acted alone (Page 26 of the cited decision), and at the same time “as for the whereabouts of Amanda Knox, whose presence in the dwelling, site of the murder, is clearly certain in the case, consistent with her admissions, contained also in her hand-written account.” (Page 45 of the decision).
So, reiterating the facts found by the Marasca Court:
In regard to Sollecito “The picture of the evidence which emerges from the impugned judgment is marked by intrinsic unresolved contradictions...It remains, nonetheless, a strong suspicion that he was actually present in the house at Via della Pergola on the night of the murder, but at a time, however, that cannot be determined. On the other hand, given the certainty of the presence of Knox in that house, it is hardly credible that he was not with her.” (Page 49 of the decision) If therefore the fact that Knox was in the house 7 Via della Pergola at the time when young Meredith Kercher was killed constitutes a fact of absolute and indisputable certainty; it is evident that the statements made by Sollecito that she was with him all evening on 1 November 2007 are false, and that one cannot believe his statements that he couldn't remember what he and Knox were doing from the evening of 1 November 2007 until the following morning.
The evidence that remains as legal fact is as follows:
The published decision of the Court of Review also mentions, as “a finishing touch” to add to the previous reasons, the clue of the shoe print compatible with his shoe, the finding in his house of a knife with a DNA trace of the victim (evidence that failed in later evaluations), and the significance of the phone call he 8 made to 112 on the morning of 2 November 2007, but after the arrival of the Postal Police at Via della Pergola, clearly to make it appear that he had reported the break in immediately it was discovered. [8 ->] (Sollecito repeatedly denied this, claiming always to have telephoned 112 before the Postal Police arrived, and he was believed on this point by the Court of Assize of Perugia, but not by the Court of Assize of Appeal in Florence. That Court said that phone logs, a video surveillance camera, and the testimony of Inspector Battistelli showed that the Postal Police had arrived in Via della Pergola at about 12:35, but the two calls made by Sollecito to 112 happened at 12:51 and 12:54.)
In conclusion, Florence CSC threw out Sollecito’s claim for compensation:
Even the judge who acquitted Sollecito thus recognised that the statements containing the elements described above, made in the early days of the investigation, were such as to engender a “strong” suspicion of him, and they were therefore adequate to weigh on the picture of the crime to the point that they justify the issuance of the custody order and its continuation. The behaviour of Sollecito must therefore qualify as an example of “wilful misconduct and gross negligence” which, according to article 314 cpp. in the interpretation always furnished by the Supreme Court, rules out the right of a subject judged innocent to be recompensed for unjust detention.
Source: Public records Florence 22 January 2017 Presiding Judge Dr. Silvia Martuscelli Reporting Judge Dr. Paola MASI Filed with Registry [the clerk of court] 10 February 2017 Antonio Bossa Clerk
The court goes on to sum up its reasoning, which obviously have to be based on facts found by the earlier permissible court findings. Verdict as in second paragraph above.
Q.E.D. ::
The facts found at Nencini and upheld from Massei, stand, except where modified in the written reasons. In addition, another lesson to be drawn is that although it is allowable, even expected, for defendants to lie (assuming they break no laws such as calunnia or perjury, under the principle of the right not to incriminate oneself), nonetheless, it is not to be taken that lies remain unnoted, and can be used against you.
Once again, you evade providing evidenced to support your own claim.
I repeat: The ONUS IS ON YOU to quote and link to the actual statement where Vecchiotti stated that there was a scratch/striation on the knife. You have the date of the document. Should be easy enough for you to access it and link to it. Stalling is a common and transparent tactic.
The fact that a lot of black people are wrongly convicted or accused of crimes is shameful, but that doesn't mean every black person convicted or accused is innocent any more than the lack of this happening to white people as a rule means that white people are automatically guilty.
Sigh. Another misdirection. No one ever denied that Sollecito said that. Do you really think no one noticed that? This claim of yours was the actual point of Number's and my posts:
THIS proved you wrong:
PCC Article 603
Renewal of the trial evidentiary hearing
1. If one of the parties has requested, in the appeal application or the arguments submitted under Article 585, paragraph 4, that evidence already gathered during the first-instance trial be taken anew or that new evidence be gathered, the court shall order the renewal of the trial evidentiary hearing, if it holds that it is unable to decide on the basis of the available elements of evidence.
I see you're still evading providing a link to whatever "Clause 360" is. Why is that?
You don't need to "argue" it at all and especially with yet more unproved nonsense. All you need to do is quote and cite evidence for your claims. Which is exactly what MarkCorrigan and I have asked you to do repeatedly. Which you still fail to do.
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post Testing the stain would also have put an end to speculation that it was RS's.
I agree 100% that it was inexcusable for it to either not have been tested or that it was suppressed. The fact that Vinci found a shoeprint in the stain is further evidence that it was deposited at the time of the murder.
Vinci was given the opportunity at the Nencini Court to make a presentation of the pillow stain.
2014-03-10-Slides-Consultant-Defense-Vinci-pillow-stain.pdf
2014-03-10-Slides-Consultant-Defense-Vinci-pillow-stain.zip
Another whopper. Vinci never testified or gave any presentation in the Nencini trial because the defense request to have the stain tested was denied. There is no record of any testimony by Vinci at the Nencini trial nor does Nencini mention anything about the shoe print on the stain. The only thing you got right here was that Nencini decided the stain could not be dated.
I already did. I think I was pretty clear with this: "Testing the stain would also have put an end to speculation that it was RS's."
Can you give any reasonable explanation why a suspected semen stain found between the legs and directly below the genitals of a suspected sexual assault victim would not automatically be analyzed for DNA? Go on, give us all a reason why it was not. But you won't because there is none.
Oh, lordy. Giving two examples of when it was used is not evidencethat Art. 530, para 2 is a "loophole" or "rare" or "little used".
Apparently that went over your head.
It has been explained and debated at length in the past. Please do a search and refresh the arguments as nothing seems to sink in and you'll be asking the same question next week. If you do not know the background by now, it is easy enough to look it up.
Another whopper. Vinci never testified or gave any presentation in the Nencini trial because the defense request to have the stain tested was denied. There is no record of any testimony by Vinci at the Nencini trial nor does Nencini mention anything about the shoe print on the stain. The only thing you got right here was that Nencini decided the stain could not be dated.
I already did. I think I was pretty clear with this: "Testing the stain would also have put an end to speculation that it was RS's."
Can you give any reasonable explanation why a suspected semen stain found between the legs and directly below the genitals of a suspected sexual assault victim would not automatically be analyzed for DNA? Go on, give us all a reason why it was not. But you won't because there is none.
How a criminal trial works. In a messy murder/presumed burglary/rape there will be numerous pieces of evidence. The forensic police collected about 500 discrete exhibits. A criminal trial by the time you see it, has been meticulously planned and timetabled. This timetable will include numerous pre-hearings and dozens, even hundreds of applications to do this that or other. The parties involved, including the prosecutor and defences have to agree what the issues are and what evidence to examine. It would be quite unwieldy and unnecessary to include absolutely everything, so there needs to be an idea as to what the parties agree on and where there is a dispute. These disputes form the 'issues'. If it is already agreed by the parties that Guede sexually assaulted the victim, as per the forensics, then what is the point in trying to find more DNA when he was already convicted?
How is it a detriment to Sollecito in any way when he was never accused nor convicted of sexual assault, but more a generalised participant in a group enterprise of Aggravated Murder.
You've never heard of a victim of a sexual assault being assaulted more than once, or by more than one person?
Let's suspend credulity and imagine for the sake of academic argument that Guede was indeed paying a social visit to Mez and they got romantic, as he claims, but he didn't have any condoms, hence just heavy petting (and his bodily fluids were not present internally). So then as he claims Knox turned up, angry because Lumumba had just rung up telling her not to come in, believing that Kercher had stolen her job. Kercher is angry that her rent money is missing (and her fingerprints were found looking in the drawers of Knox' room). Guede claims he objected to Mez' tone. The courts decided Guede held Mez' arms behind her back whilst a fatal knife wound was inflicted on one side of her neck and two more lesser stabs with a different knife on the other side. There are also numerous knife flicks marks suggesting a period of torture and tormenting. There were no defence wounds aside from a minor one, which is why the court determined there wer multiple assailants, and as upheld by Marasca-Bruno CSC. So Guede claims the pair ran off, leaving him to fetch towels to try to stem the wounds. Luminol shows his shoeprints heading directly to the front door, away from the murder room. There were no bare footprints identified as Guede's.
So, who returned to (a) drag the body from its original position by the closet [wardrobe], (b) place it onto a sheet [cops said they believed this was a sign of wanting to carry the corpse away), (c) undress it, with the bra cut off or torn off with a knife, a pillow placed under the hips and placed so that anyone entering the room would be met with the obscene vision (cf Boston Strangler) except that someone decided to cover the body with a duvet. The court determined the burglary was staged because papers scattered from Filomena's room were on top of the duvet, therefore after the murder.
So why would Knox and Sollecito want to return to stage a rape and burglary scene (and a theatrical one at that when nothing was stolen except Mez' phones and credit cards)? Precisely for the same reason Knox pointed at Lumumba: to divert suspicion away from herself, as being resident there. To cover up the signs of a sadistic torture based on her rage and Sollecito's need for 'extreme experiences' and his knife fetish.
Kokomanni is an unreliable witness, being heavily involved in Albanian gang drug smuggling of cocaine, but he was pinged in the area and witnessed as being there as of the time frame. So I tend to believe him when he says he saw Knox, Guede and Sollecito outside 7 via Pergola absolutely stoned out of their minds, waving a knife and claiming to be waiting for a friend 'to give her a birthday party' (presumably the knife Knox was waving was to cut the birthday cake, in explanation). It all fits with what likely happened, especially as Knox and Sollecito said afterwards they would never take drugs again.
LOOK! SQUIRREL!! Whatever you do, don't look at all the things I said a dismissive, "Oh, please!" to actually happened as Stacyhs said! Look over here instead!
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.
