The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 31

[Bill Williams]

o Was it within the Micheli court's mandate to rule on the guilt or innocence of Amanda and Raffaele? -NO
o Were Amanda and Raffaele represented at Guede's trial? -NO
o Did both the prosecution and the defense in Guede's trial have a vested interest in finding multiple people involved? -YES

Guess what, I don't give a rats butt what Micheli thought wrt Amanda and Raffaele. There was no evidence to support such a theory. It was nothing more than a baseless, speculative narrative. It allowed Guede the opportunity to minimize his culpability, while it gave Mignini a platform on which to prosecute Amanda and Raffaele.

.... which is why the program of hate against Knox/Sollecito rides so heavily on Micheli, where - as you say - neither Knox nor Sollecito had representation.

Indeed, Guede's fast-track process allowed no cross-examination of him. Think about it, that cross-examination would have come from the prosecutor. Be that as it may, neither Knox nor Sollecito had standing at Guede's process, but as a fast-track one it wouldn't have mattered anyway.

And, as you say, all the information that Micheli wrote about AK and or RS is speculative anyway, not based on evidence, but based on what Mignini told them. Uncross-examined, because with Micheli both defence and prosecutor needed there to be multiple attackers - not because of evidence (which Micheli never heard anyway), but because Guede needed to escape sole responsibility and Mignini still planned on prosecuting AK and RS.

Note this - Mignini not only failed to turn Sollecito against Knox. He also failed to turn Guede against Knox, in the sense of failing to convince Gueded to consent to testifying in a manner in which he could be cross examined. Hell, he would have squealed on Mignini about the terms in which he was offered fast-track and a reduced sentence - a reduction he is currently enjoying going on to Italian TV! Guede remained at arm's length, because if he had testified against them, then he would have faced cross examination by AK's and/or RS's lawyers.

Lessee, why would Guede not want that to happen? Lessee, why would Mignini not want that to happen. Any guesses, Vixen?

 

[Numbers]

o Was it within the Micheli court's mandate to rule on the guilt or innocence of Amanda and Raffaele? -NO o Were Amanda and Raffaele represented at Guede's trial? -NO o Did both the prosecution and the defense in Guede's trial have a vested interest in finding multiple people involved? -YES
Guess what, I don't give a rats butt what Micheli thought wrt Amanda and Raffaele. There was no evidence to support such a theory. It was nothing more than a baseless, speculative narrative. It allowed Guede the opportunity to minimize his culpability, while it gave Mignini a platform on which to prosecute Amanda and Raffaele.

And once again I see you're moving the goal posts. So now it wasn't returning to stage the sexual assault, it was to stage a break-in. But that's not what you have continually claimed. In fact, you claim they moved and undressed the body. Are you now saying they didn't stage anything in Meredith's bedroom, that they only returned to stage a break-in?

And NO, Marasca did NOT rule they returned to stage a burglary. In fact, Marasca acquitted them of that charge (E). Oops.

And NO, Amanda never "bragged" of the prank she, in conjunction with other roommates, pulled off at UW, nor did she ever indicate it was to "bully" a classmate. Oops.

Had Knox and Sollecito been finally convicted of the murder/rape charges, ECHR case law would have applied to the statements against them in the Micheli MR, to the probability methodology of finding guilt in the Massei court MR, and the comments against them and the inversion of proof (for example, regarding contamination in DNA testing) in the Chieffi CSC panel. These are a;; examples of violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence. That principle is in fact enumerated in the Italian Constitution, and the ECHR has a discussion of its case law on presumption of innocence (Convention Article 6.2) in, for example, these documents:

https://ks.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr-ks/presumption-of-innocence

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_criminal_ENG.pdf
p. 67 -75

 

[Stacyhs]

Add this to the way they treated Knox's DNA found in the very bathroom she had used for weeks. When the victim's blood was deposited atop that DNA, then all of a sudden the assumption was that the DNA must have been date-able to the night of the murder.

Add all that to the order Mignini himself gave that the victim's body temperature not be taken in situ... thus ruining a vital test to establish time-of-death.... a time which became vital at trial....

Why the need to actively keep key evidence from the courts? And why the courts inability to sanction investigators, prosecutors and others - indeed Massei and Nencini made excuses for them!

One being saying that the DNA of the semen stain could not be dated, but claimed Knox's in her own bathroom could.

Another mind boggling 'finding' by Massei is that Knox washed her hands of Kercher's blood and that the mixed traces in the bathroom were deposited the night of the murder when there is zero evidence of that. None.

And it is probable - not necessary, but probable - that during the following act of scrubbing the hands to remove the blood, she left the mixed trace consisting of Meredith’s blood and of cells which had been removed by rubbing during the act of washing. An entirely probable outcome given the likelihood of the act of scrubbing, yet not a necessary one, since the running water which was used in the shower stall or in the bidet or in the sink, or in several of these sanitary fittings, might well have rinsed away the
washed-up blood and the cells which had been lost during this washing.

(Massei MR pg. 279)

and

This Court also considers that the components of the mixed trace specimens were deposited simultaneously, and were deposited by Amanda.

(Massie, pg 280)


Massei concludes this right before admitting that:

Dr. Stefanoni explained the impossibility of determining the date, the succession or the simultaneity in the depositing of the components of the mixed trace specimen and the impossibility of attributing the haematological component to one or the other of the contributors

Yet we're constantly told how 'fair' the 'merits court' was in their evaluation of the evidence.

 

[Stacyhs]

You have been watching too much crime drama.

1st COP: Hey, Luigi, we have a right one here!

2nd COP: What Guiseppe, another African migrant?

1st COP: Nah!

2nd COP: Romani?

1st COP: Nope!

2nd COP: I know, one of them thar 'drifters'...

1st COP: Nah, we got ourselves one of us!

2nd COP: Whoa.

1st COP: Not only that, its one of those bleeding wealthy middle classes -

2nd COP: Now you're talking.

1st COP: 'E's got a maid. Dad's a urologist?

2nd COP: A urologist! Bloody hell, you hit the jackpot there, Guiseppe! Bloody urologists!

1st COP: So, yeah, let's get out the nutcrackers and cattle prods.

2nd COP: I'll go get that ultra-bright spotlight.

1st COP: "Ve have ze Vays of making you talk!"

We-eeeell! Really! Forced confession. False memory. Ha-ha.

What a waste of time.

 

[Stacyhs]

But, let me ask you this: Just how does this support Knox's guilt?
What accusations of wrongdoing did I make, Vixen?

Been there. Done that Can't do that.

FTFY

 

[Stacyhs]

Incorrect. Nencini is not expunged. It is the court together with Chieffi and Massei on which Maresca-Bruno hangs its verdict.

While not 'expunged' as it remains part of the trial records, Nencini became legally invalid-worthless, of no import- by the Marasca annulment. In other words, no one gives a damn what Nencini says except the PGP.

 

[Stacyhs]

If you read Micheli, who heard Guede's case, you would know that the facts found that support the verdict is that the three of them participated together. There was no prior sexual assault or consensual activity between Guede and the victim.

It was never a Micheli 'fact found' that 'the three of them participated together' because Micheli was not trying Knox or Sollecito. Micheli found that Guede acted with others, but he cannot say that was Knox and Sollecito.

Whilst Guede was restraining the victim, Knox and Sollecito were bullying Kercher with their knives and he took the opportunity to sexually assault her.

Again, Micheli could make no such finding against Knox and Sollecito.

According to Micheli, Massei, Nencini and Marasca, Knox & Sollecito returned later to stage a scene of burglary . To throw police off the scent, they tried to make it look as though the motive was rape and burglary (done by an outsider rather than a resident, i.e, herself).

BREAKING NEWS! Micheli, Massei, and Nencini verdicts ANNULLED, OVERTURNED, THROWN OUT by Marasca SC. Knox and Sollecito ACQUITTED OF MURDER, STAGING BURGLARY. Film at eleven.

(as Knox bragged she had once done to bully a classmate)

Why this need to invent things that never happened? What is the purpose?

Read the court documents, Therein lies all of the evidence.

We have. And the evidence indicates the pair had nothing to do with Kercher's murder. Guede acted alone.

That was an obvious typo and which was not picked up by the proof readers.

No, a 'typo' is a misspelling or leaving out a word or two. THIS is not a typo:

This makes it reasonable to find it plausible that the girl’s boyfriend could have also left his traces on the bra hook; it is also reasonable to hold that some other one of her girlfriends could have at some point touched the bra hook and left her DNA

The "typo" excuse got old long ago.

You don't know it was semen. Could have been anything, saliva, coffee, tea, you name it.

We don't know for sure what it was or who left it because the idiot Scientific Police failed to test it. Asked many times but never answered: Can you give a logical reason for a suspected semen stain not to be tested in a sexual assault case?

He did write on FaceBook he was desperate for 'extreme experiences' and appeared wearing a shroud and wielding a butchers knife.

He never said he was "desperate" for extreme experiences. Even Matteini wrote in her MR that he "was bored with the same evening routine and 'wishing' to experience 'strong sensations'." (pg 14)

Nor was RS wearing a 'shroud'; it was toilet paper his friends had wrapped him in as a joke. Nor was it a butcher knife; it was a cleaver.
Again, why this need to dishonestly invent things...and always in the extreme?

 

[Vixen]

That is a galactically idiotic thing to post.

The other typo was Nencini's guilty declaration.

I should have thought it was obvious to even the most simple-minded of persons that a Y-haplotype is male. So why anyone cannot instantly see this was a typo by Nencini makes me question their motive. It is rather like the stories you read in the papers, some blowing up a simple clerical error into a news story ('My baby/dead aunt was sent a ballot paper/ I received a wage slip stating £42,000,0000') and you wonder why they don't just give the person concerned the chance to rectify the error instead of making a huge GOTCHA!!! out of it.

Why is it even worthy of mention Bill Williams?

 

[Vixen]

'Knives'? As in plural!?

For one who keeps saying, 'read the court documents', please point to any reference to 'knives'. Of course you won't, because that was not the purpose of your claim. It was to flood this thread with noise.

The stab wounds as assessed by the pathologist were by two different sized knives.


(Or is the pathologist also part of the Mignini Conspiracy?)

 

[Vixen]

Hey Vixen....

Please don't forget to provide a citation that supports the view that police forensic experts are exempt from peer review.

It seems that the appointment of Conti & Vecchiotti by the Hellmann court puts the kibosh on that. Indeed, in early 2011 no one from the guilter websites opposed their appointment, not at all - and certainly not on procedural grounds. The guilt sites simply assumed that Conti & Vecchiotti would sustain Stefanoni.

As usual - the guilters only opposed the appointment on the basis of what they reported!

Indeed, not even the 2013 Chieffi panel said there was anything wrong with independent, outside 'peer review'. What Chieffi objected to was Hellmann's judicial role, for abdicating the decision about further testing on the knife to Conti & Vecchiotti.

Not the right for outside people to do their own peer review of Stefanoni.

As others have asked, why is it that outside of the court - when reading the same court documents that you appeal to - that they universally pan Stefanoni's work, and universally agree with Peter Gill?

Why is that, Vixen?

The following is what peer review looks like. Every other forensic DNA expert is free to follow Gill's reasonings and expose weaknesses. That they don't means something.

https://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973(16)30033-3/fulltext

Vecchiotti & Conti were in a conspiracy with Hellman. Hellman didn't need to appoint two further experts, as they are no higher rank than Stefanoni. They were brought in to trash her. Chieffi criticised Hellman for failing to explain why he appointed tow further experts. Hellman had the power to appoint experts of his own but he was supposed to proved a rationale for it.

 

[Vixen]

o Was it within the Micheli court's mandate to rule on the guilt or innocence of Amanda and Raffaele? -NO
o Were Amanda and Raffaele represented at Guede's trial? -NO
o Did both the prosecution and the defense in Guede's trial have a vested interest in finding multiple people involved? -YES

Guess what, I don't give a rats butt what Micheli thought wrt Amanda and Raffaele. There was no evidence to support such a theory. It was nothing more than a baseless, speculative narrative. It allowed Guede the opportunity to minimize his culpability, while it gave Mignini a platform on which to prosecute Amanda and Raffaele.

And once again I see you're moving the goal posts. So now it wasn't returning to stage the sexual assault, it was to stage a break-in. But that's not what you have continually claimed. In fact, you claim they moved and undressed the body. Are you now saying they didn't stage anything in Meredith's bedroom, that they only returned to stage a break-in?

And NO, Marasca did NOT rule they returned to stage a burglary. In fact, Marasca acquitted them of that charge (E). Oops.

And NO, Amanda never "bragged" of the prank she, in conjunction with other roommates, pulled off at UW, nor did she ever indicate it was to "bully" a classmate. Oops.

Staging the body was probably impromptu rather than premeditated, as was the burglary scene. It was a case of 'What have we done?!' and an attempt to cover up.


They had all night.

The only reason Knox mentioned the 'prank' (ha ha) was because her classmate from UW contacted Perugia Police to inform them of her distressing deed. It was bullying; it was designed to frighten the classmate. She put a ski mask and ended up having to apologise for the distress she caused.

 

[Vixen]

.... which is why the program of hate against Knox/Sollecito rides so heavily on Micheli, where - as you say - neither Knox nor Sollecito had representation.

Indeed, Guede's fast-track process allowed no cross-examination of him. Think about it, that cross-examination would have come from the prosecutor. Be that as it may, neither Knox nor Sollecito had standing at Guede's process, but as a fast-track one it wouldn't have mattered anyway.

And, as you say, all the information that Micheli wrote about AK and or RS is speculative anyway, not based on evidence, but based on what Mignini told them. Uncross-examined, because with Micheli both defence and prosecutor needed there to be multiple attackers - not because of evidence (which Micheli never heard anyway), but because Guede needed to escape sole responsibility and Mignini still planned on prosecuting AK and RS.

Note this - Mignini not only failed to turn Sollecito against Knox. He also failed to turn Guede against Knox, in the sense of failing to convince Gueded to consent to testifying in a manner in which he could be cross examined. Hell, he would have squealed on Mignini about the terms in which he was offered fast-track and a reduced sentence - a reduction he is currently enjoying going on to Italian TV! Guede remained at arm's length, because if he had testified against them, then he would have faced cross examination by AK's and/or RS's lawyers.

Lessee, why would Guede not want that to happen? Lessee, why would Mignini not want that to happen. Any guesses, Vixen?

I don't think you can put the blame on Guede. As in any Prisoners Dilemma, each party will do whatever they perceive is optimal for him- or herself. Knox' and Sollecito's optimal game plan was to gang up on Guede and point the finger at him. Sollecito early on made a decision to distance himself from Knox by claiming she went out alone until 1:00am, telling police she had asked him to give her an alibi.

IMV the problem lies in charging three people with Aggravated Murder. It would have been better off to identify the killer as the Murderer with the other two as the accessories in crime.

 

[Vixen]

While not 'expunged' as it remains part of the trial records, Nencini became legally invalid-worthless, of no import- by the Marasca annulment. In other words, no one gives a damn what Nencini says except the PGP.

Only in your mind.

Marasca-Bruno did a trash-a-thon of all the hard work Massei and Nencini put in. That is why their verdict is so scurrilous. It is up there with the corrupt Andreotti and Berlusconi acquittals.

Bongiorno of course, from Sicily, knows all about pulling strings, so to speak. And I believe Bruno was once suspected of being part of the mob.

 

[Stacyhs]

I should have thought it was obvious to even the most simple-minded of persons that a Y-haplotype is male. So why anyone cannot instantly see this was a typo by Nencini makes me question their motive. It is rather like the stories you read in the papers, some blowing up a simple clerical error into a news story ('My baby/dead aunt was sent a ballot paper/ I received a wage slip stating £42,000,0000') and you wonder why they don't just give the person concerned the chance to rectify the error instead of making a huge GOTCHA!!! out of it.

Why is it even worthy of mention Bill Williams?

I should have thought it was obvious that this was not a tabloid story put out to sell papers, but an official motivation report convicting someone of murder and listing justification for that verdict. It was the responsibility of the court to make sure it was not released until properly edited and verified as accurate.

Surely, even you could see the difference or is the need to handwave it away instead of acknowledging it was a screw-up more important?

 

[Methos]

Just for the record:
Rudy Guede torna in Umbria: «Avrei dovuto fare di più per Meredith»
Omicidio Meredith, Rudy Guede: "Vorrei aver fatto di più quella notte"
Looks like Guede's PR machine is working...
... I wonder what a certain Francesco Maresca is doing right now?

 

[Bill Williams]

I should have thought it was obvious to even the most simple-minded of persons that a Y-haplotype is male. So why anyone cannot instantly see this was a typo by Nencini makes me question their motive.

Wow.

Read Stacyhs's response. It was no typo, if you'd bothered to read what Nencini wrote, he was offering a rationale for extra-haplotypes found on the clasp, one's that weren't from the victim or from Sollecito.

The extra-Y-haplotypes were exposed by Conit & Vecchiotti - rather than expunging C&V, Nencini sought to reinterpret them in the stupidest way possible.

Note - Stefanoni must have known of the extra material on the clasp, but Massei would not let independent analysis. Therefore the existence of those extra thingies almost remained hidden, thanks to Massei and Stefanoni.

Nencini had posited that those extra Y-haplotypes were of no consequence because girlfriends (amica) regularly touched each others bras.

That was no typo. That you would excuse it as such points to the length you'll go to defend the undefensible.

But since Nencini wrote that and made it a judicial fact, I'm sure Italian universities are redoing their curriculums accordingly.

 

[Stacyhs]

The stab wounds as assessed by the pathologist were by two different sized knives.


(Or is the pathologist also part of the Mignini Conspiracy?)

No, he's just wrong.

Carlo Torre disagreed; he testified that a single knife could have made all the knife wounds.

Torre, who is a renowned forensic consultant in Italy and has worked on a number of high-profile cases, told the judges and jurors today he believes the three cuts to Kercher's throat were made by a smaller knife, with a blade that was, at most, 3 inches long. He feels the the big wide slash to her throat was made by the sawing action of the smaller knife.
"The smaller wound is absolutely incompatible with the knife in question," he testified. "For the larger wound, I cannot rule it out, but it could have been made by a myriad of knives," he added in reply to a question from the prosecutor. "Everything leads me to believe that that is not the murder weapon," he said, referring to the knife found in Sollecito's home.

When asked if there could have been two knives involved, a theory put forth by the prosecution when it had to admit that the smaller wounds could not have been made by the big kitchen knife, Torre replied, "It would be the first time in history that a murder was done with two knives."

In another important affirmation, Torre told the court "there is not a single element that leads one to think more than one person could have comitted the crime."

Prof. Vinci also says the alleged murder weapon does not match the bloody outline of a smaller knife left on the bedsheet.

 

[Stacyhs]

Vecchiotti & Conti were in a conspiracy with Hellman. Hellman didn't need to appoint two further experts, as they are no higher rank than Stefanoni. They were brought in to trash her. Chieffi criticised Hellman for failing to explain why he appointed tow further experts. Hellman had the power to appoint experts of his own but he was supposed to proved a rationale for it.

No higher rank than Stefanoni? What do you mean by 'rank'? Neither Conti nor Vecchiotti were in the police so they hold no 'rank' at all. However, both were imminently more qualified and experienced than Stefanoni in forensic science as evidenced by the professors having Ph.D.'s while "Dr." Stefanoni held a mere B.S. in biology.

 

[Stacyhs]

Staging the body was probably impromptu rather than premeditated, as was the burglary scene. It was a case of 'What have we done?!' and an attempt to cover up.

This is a case of "making something up that I think supports my opinion".

They had all night.

Then why didn't they clean up the bathroom in an effort to remove any possible traces of themselves including the rug with "RS's" bloody footprint and Amanda's drop of blood on the faucet? Was it because they knew exactly where their DNA, blood, or fingerprints would be?

The only reason Knox mentioned the 'prank' (ha ha) was because her classmate from UW contacted Perugia Police to inform them of her distressing deed. It was bullying; it was designed to frighten the classmate. She put a ski mask and ended up having to apologise for the distress she caused.

LOL! Why would she mention a college prank?
"Distressing deed"; do you know exactly what this classmate said about this prank...how she described it? No, you don't.

A lot of pranks are designed to momentarily 'scare' someone...like jumping out of a closet and yelling "Boo!". Did the roommate ever complain about this prank? Did she ever consider it bullying? Not that we know of.

"...ended up having to apologise": No one forced Knox to apologize. She saw her roommate was upset so she immediately revealed it was just a prank and apologized.

I'm curious, Vixen: why do you find it necessary to make up/invent/lie about things that never happened? Why do you need to dishonestly twist things using hyperbolically negative language? You present your highly biased opinions and interpretations as if they are facts. Do you get some kind of satisfaction from it? I really do want to know what you think you are accomplishing by this.

 

[Stacyhs]

I don't think you can put the blame on Guede. As in any Prisoners Dilemma, each party will do whatever they perceive is optimal for him- or herself. Knox' Knox's and Sollecito's optimal game plan was to gang up on Guede and point the finger at him.

If that were the plan, and having intentionally left his feces in the toilet, his bloody shoeprints, and the rug (which only would make sense if it were Guede's), then why would Knox name Lumumba? All she had to do was mention Guede as one of the men who'd had contact with Kercher when the police asked her to name anyone she could think of. After all, she'd have known they would have found the 'evidence' she'd left deliberately behind.

Your scenario is illogical.

Sollecito early on made a decision to distance himself from Knox by claiming she went out alone until 1:00am, telling police she had asked him to give her an alibi.

Then why claim otherwise until the interrogation? If that had been his plan, he'd have offered her up earlier. Why describe her actions of the night before? Why not continue to claim she'd gone out? Again, your scenario is illogical.

IMV the problem lies in charging three people with Aggravated Murder. It would have been better off to identify the killer as the Murderer with the other two as the accessories in crime.

Yes, one does have to wonder why the police made Amanda the main culprit when no evidence of her was found in Kercher's bedroom at all. Then again, it was her DNA on the handle of the knife with Kercher's DNA on the blade...which totally blew up in their face.