Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[Numbers]

But the Italian Criminal Code defines a 'suspect' as 'the accused'. 'Accused' is a verb which demands a subject and an object. Someone has to do the accusing for one to be 'accused'. Nobody had accused Knox of a criminal offence as of the time she accused Lumumba.



It is all very well your claiming the police did suspect Knox but didn't express it. But the law requires an explicit chronology as to WHEN, name, time and place, a person becomes 'a suspect'. For the avoidance of doubt: Knox became a suspect AFTER she committed the apparent crime of Calunnia, as defined by statute.


.

Your post shows a great lack of understanding in several areas. My earlier reply addressed some of your confusion about nouns, verbs, and differences in the way languages such as English and Italian use words. But I feel my explanations were too brief to be as helpful as possible - and even if your views are fixed, further explanations may be useful for other readers.

Italian legal language, as expressed in the CPP (Codice di Procedura Penale), does not use a word that is the exact equivalent of the English word "suspect" in all its English meanings. Italian law uses a phrase to define only part of what is meant by the English word "suspect". That phrase, in CPP Article 61 is "persona sottoposta alle indagini preliminari" which translates to "person subjected to preliminary investigations". So the Italian law refers to a person who is not simply considered as a person who perhaps should be investigated, but one who the police have begun investigating. In contrast, English usage of "suspect" does not differentiate these two meanings.

Knox was clearly being subjected to a preliminary investigation during her first interrogation on 6 November 2007; the police were oppressively seeking information from her that was different from what she was voluntarily providing, and they took her phone to investigate her phone messages. Furthermore, before the beginning of Knox's interrogation on that day, the police were interrogating Sollecito. The police, according to Sollecito, attempted to coerce him to renounce his alibi for Knox. The ECHR judgment considered that Knox was a suspect or potential suspect and was being investigated during her first interrogation on 6 November; that is why the ECHR found that there was a violation of Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3e (unfair interpreter leading to an unfair trial) during that interrogation (paragraph 183 of Knox v. Italy).

The ECHR states the following regarding the unfair interpretation and its effects on Knox's trial for callunia:

186. The Court notes that, despite the applicant having raised these complaints [about unfair interpretation] before the national authorities, she did not benefit from a procedure capable of shedding light on her allegations.... The authorities failed to assess A.D.'s conduct, to evaluate whether her interpreter duties had been performed in accordance with the safeguards provided for in Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(e), and to consider whether her conduct had had an impact on the outcome of the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant. The Court further notes that no mention is made in the relevant record of the exchanges that took place between the applicant and A.D. during the interrogation of 6 November 2007.

187. In the Court's view, this initial defect therefore had repercussions on other rights which, while distinct from the one whose violation is alleged, are closely linked to it, and compromised the fairness of the proceedings as a whole (Baytar, cited above, § 55, 14 October 2014).

The CPP does not define a suspect as an accused, contrary to your claim. CPP Article 61 states that the rights of the accused (a person charged with a crime in an arrest warrant or trial indictment) extend to the suspect (person submitted to preliminary investigation); that is, the suspect has the same rights as the accused; this includes the right to a defense lawyer during questioning.

 

[Numbers]

Your post shows a great lack of understanding in several areas. My earlier reply addressed some of your confusion about nouns, verbs, and differences in the way languages such as English and Italian use words. But I feel my explanations were too brief to be as helpful as possible - and even if your views are fixed, further explanations may be useful for other readers.

Italian legal language, as expressed in the CPP (Codice di Procedura Penale), does not use a word that is the exact equivalent of the English word "suspect" in all its English meanings. Italian law uses a phrase to define only part of what is meant by the English word "suspect". That phrase, in CPP Article 61 is "persona sottoposta alle indagini preliminari" which translates to "person subjected to preliminary investigations". So the Italian law refers to a person who is not simply considered as a person who perhaps should be investigated, but one who the police have begun investigating. In contrast, English usage of "suspect" does not differentiate these two meanings.

Knox was clearly being subjected to a preliminary investigation during her first interrogation on 6 November 2007; the police were oppressively seeking information from her that was different from what she was voluntarily providing, and they took her phone to investigate her phone messages. Furthermore, before the beginning of Knox's interrogation on that day, the police were interrogating Sollecito. The police, according to Sollecito, attempted to coerce him to renounce his alibi for Knox. The ECHR judgment considered that Knox was a suspect or potential suspect and was being investigated during her first interrogation on 6 November; that is why the ECHR found that there was a violation of Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3e (unfair interpreter leading to an unfair trial) during that interrogation (paragraph 183 of Knox v. Italy).

The ECHR states the following regarding the unfair interpretation and its effects on Knox's trial for callunia:



The CPP does not define a suspect as an accused, contrary to your claim. CPP Article 61 states that the rights of the accused (a person charged with a crime in an arrest warrant or trial indictment) extend to the suspect (person submitted to preliminary investigation); that is, the suspect has the same rights as the accused; this includes the right to a defense lawyer during questioning.

To add some further information, at the risk of confusing anyone who might find that different definitions may be used by different jurisdictions, the ECHR definition of an "accused" (and its use of that word in English or French) does not correspond exactly to the meaning in Italian law.

The ECHR definition can be found in its Guide on Article 6 (Criminal Limb) - Right to a Fair Trial*. The definition is based on its case law and may be found in paragraphs 15 - 21 in part as a list of examples from the cases. To the ECHR, an "accused" is someone who has been either formally charged or whose status has been changed by actions of the police or judicial authorities. Here are some of the relevant paragraphs from the Guide. Note that the ECHR term "reasonable suspicion" is a European and ECHR term comparable to the US legal term "probable cause". Inline citations of the original text are omitted here for brevity and ease of reading):

18. The concept of “charge” has to be understood within the meaning of the Convention. The Court takes a “substantive”, rather than a “formal”, conception of the “charge” contemplated by Article 6.... Charge may thus be defined as “the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence”, a definition that also corresponds to the test whether “the situation of the [suspect] has been substantially affected”....

19. The Court held that a person arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence ..., a suspect questioned about his involvement in acts constituting a criminal offence ..., and a person who has been questioned in respect of his or her suspected involvement in an offence ..., irrespective of the fact that he or she was formally treated as a witness ..., as well as a person who has been formally charged with a criminal offence under procedure set out in domestic law ... could all be regarded as being "charged with a criminal offence” and claim the protection of Article 6 of the Convention. On the other hand, a person questioned in the context of a border control, in the absence of a need to determine the existence of a reasonable suspicion that she had committed an offence, was not considered to be under a criminal charge .... ... [C]oncerning statements given by the applicants to certain French authorities on a US base at Guantánamo, the Court did not consider that the questioning in the context of administrative missions, unrelated to the judicial proceedings, with the aim of identifying the detainees and collecting intelligence, not for the purpose of gathering evidence of an alleged criminal offence, amounted to the existence of a criminal charge.

Thus, Knox who was questioned in respect of her involvement or suspected involvement in an offense even though treated formally a witness during the first interrogation of 6 November was, in the view of the ECHR, an "accused" entitled to the protections of Convention Article 6 and thus to the services of a fair interpreter (Convention Article 6.3e).

* https://ks.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr-ks/guide_art_6_criminal_eng

 

[Vixen]

You mean let's pretend your opinions are facts, right?

That was not the point being made you or me in our exchange, Vixen. Don't try and gaslight me. THIS was the exchange:
Numbers said:


Your response:


YOU brought up Napoleoni's "acrimonious divorce details" which I pointed out had nothing to do with the murder. But which, as Numbers said, is evidence of Napoleoni's and other Perugia police's willingness to break the law as evidenced by their convictions for breaking the law.

Notice that the Rigby and Simpson cases were NOT part of our exchange.


No one has argued otherwise. But violations of Human/Legal rights certainly increase the likelihood of a wrongful conviction.

When you have to resort to such silliness, it doesn't help your argument. No one said it does either. Please remember that you're not talking to a bunch of rubes with no understanding of DNA contamination. But, as has been pointed out time and time again seemingly to no effect, DNA most certainly can be transferred from one object to another by a vector. A vector like dirty, unchanged gloves, DNA tracked in on the bottom of feet or shoes or shoe covers, among others.


Ah, I see you DO have a sense of humor!

That's not denied.


As I said, that is not denied. But the contamination likely took place during the 46 days before collection, therefore BEFORE the lab testing. Seeing no anomalies during the lab testing does not mean contamination can't occur. An improperly sanitized slide or machine can't be seen by an observer.


Citation for "Kercher's near full DNA (15 alleles)" was found.
As you are already aware of Conti and Vecchiotti completely disagree with Stefanoni:
" we do not accept the conclusions about the certain attribution of the profile detected in Sample B to the victim Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher since the genetic profile, as obtained, is unreliable in that it is not supported by scientifically valid analytical procedures.


Blah, blah, blah....the fact remains that Kercher's DNA was not on the knife blade. But what do two medical doctors who are also Ph.D's in forensics know about this compared to a Bachelor of Science in biology "Dr." Stefanoni?

Erm, Chietti of the Supreme Court excoriated Vecchiotti and Conti as being 'intellectually dishonest'. The case was sent back down to the Nencini Appeal Court and it was confirmed there was no contamination and it was a full bona fide DNA profile of Sollecito ON THE VICTIM'S BRA CLASP. Full stop.

 

[Vixen]

Based almost solely on Knox's false and retracted 'confession'. Your resorting to the "legally" excuse is trotted out because you cannot provide any evidence that indisputably places them in the cottage at the time of the murder. If it existed, they would never have been acquitted not once, but twice, and definitively.

The final legal situation is that Knox did knowingly and with mens rea maliciously accuse Lumumba of a hideous crime. Her criminal record in this remains on the file.



.

 

[Vixen]

And yet we know it happens. After all, he is firmly convinced in Knox's and Sollecito's complete innocence.


Zero evidence you say? Then why does Altieri testify he saw a small crack in the door? Why did Privitera testify that he found two of his prints on Kercher's bedroom door?

"Five prints belonged to Sollecito, said Privitera, two of which were found on the outside of Kercher's bedroom door."


You're limiting it to the door. The police...for some reason only they understand...failed to test the OUTSIDE of the bedroom door handle for anything, including DNA. What's the logical place to try and open a closed door?

Dear old gallant and loyal Altieri, forever coming to his friends' rescue. Sadly, for all his attempts to 'help out' the pair, he was deemed an unreliable witness by the court. But, hey, Altieiri managed to break down Kercher's door with no problem at all. Something Sollecito claimed was quite beyond him.

If this were a Shakespeare play, Altieri would be the side-show comedy character, rather like Dogberry in Much Ado About Nothing.

 

[AmyStrange]

Some guilters hide under the cover of darkness because they don't have the guts to post when everyone else is here to debunk their BS... bwahahahahaha



-

 

[Vixen]

To add some further information, at the risk of confusing anyone who might find that different definitions may be used by different jurisdictions, the ECHR definition of an "accused" (and its use of that word in English or French) does not correspond exactly to the meaning in Italian law.

The ECHR definition can be found in its Guide on Article 6 (Criminal Limb) - Right to a Fair Trial*. The definition is based on its case law and may be found in paragraphs 15 - 21 in part as a list of examples from the cases. To the ECHR, an "accused" is someone who has been either formally charged or whose status has been changed by actions of the police or judicial authorities. Here are some of the relevant paragraphs from the Guide. Note that the ECHR term "reasonable suspicion" is a European and ECHR term comparable to the US legal term "probable cause". Inline citations of the original text are omitted here for brevity and ease of reading):



Thus, Knox who was questioned in respect of her involvement or suspected involvement in an offense even though treated formally a witness during the first interrogation of 6 November was, in the view of the ECHR, an "accused" entitled to the protections of Convention Article 6 and thus to the services of a fair interpreter (Convention Article 6.3e).

* https://ks.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr-ks/guide_art_6_criminal_eng

You know as well as I do that words can have both a colloquial, general, meaning and a more precise exact legal meaning. If the ECHR was using the term 'accused' of Knox it was either referring to her (later) convicted status or her later charged status. It could even be as a result of Dalla Vedova misleading the Court by claiming Knox was an official suspect as of the time of her Calunnia. Whilst you are perfectly free to claim anybody walking down the street is a potential 'police suspect' in legal terms, for someone to be 'the accused'/Inpato [sp?]/ Arguido/official suspect/defendant there needs to be a record of WHO is 'THE ACCUSED', [name, time, date] and BY WHOM is doing the accusing [name of authorised official/time date/place] and accused or suspected of WHAT [specific offence under specific criminal code, together with subsection/s]. As of the time of the Calunnia Knox was NOT a legally classified 'accused person'. You can argue semantics all you like that in the minds of the cops she was 'suspect from the beginning' but that doesn't confer on her any immunity against acting illegally without a lawyer. Even when her calumnies against Lumumba were ruled inadmissible in court, giving her the benefit of a doubt, she was STILL found to be guilty of a serious crime (as defined by any crime attracting a sentence of two or more years imprisonment).

If Dalla Vedova told the ECHR Knox was an officially 'accused' person then he was lying.




.

 

[Vixen]

Some guilters hide under the cover of darkness because they don't have the guts to post when everyone else is here to debunk their BS... bwahahahahaha



-

When it is 5:30 am in PNW it is 3:30 pm here.

 

[AmyStrange]

Some guilters hide under the cover of darkness because they don't have the guts to post when everyone else is here to debunk their BS... bwahahahahaha

Yup, that's one of the signs that prove guilters are so wrapped up in their own delusions that they can't handle being proven wrong, and some even use idiotic pictures that are just plain projections of their own dysfunctional cowardice and willful ignorance.


-

 

[Numbers]

You know as well as I do that words can have both a colloquial, general, meaning and a more precise exact legal meaning. If the ECHR was using the term 'accused' of Knox it was either referring to her (later) convicted status or her later charged status. It could even be as a result of Dalla Vedova misleading the Court by claiming Knox was an official suspect as of the time of her Calunnia. Whilst you are perfectly free to claim anybody walking down the street is a potential 'police suspect' in legal terms, for someone to be 'the accused'/Inpato [sp?]/ Arguido/official suspect/defendant there needs to be a record of WHO is 'THE ACCUSED', [name, time, date] and BY WHOM is doing the accusing [name of authorised official/time date/place] and accused or suspected of WHAT [specific offence under specific criminal code, together with subsection/s]. As of the time of the Calunnia Knox was NOT a legally classified 'accused person'. You can argue semantics all you like that in the minds of the cops she was 'suspect from the beginning' but that doesn't confer on her any immunity against acting illegally without a lawyer. Even when her calumnies against Lumumba were ruled inadmissible in court, giving her the benefit of a doubt, she was STILL found to be guilty of a serious crime (as defined by any crime attracting a sentence of two or more years imprisonment).

If Dalla Vedova told the ECHR Knox was an officially 'accused' person then he was lying.

False. The ECHR judgments are written as legal documents. The wording is based on the Convention and precedent (the ECHR case law). The ECHR also, in designated text, will quote the language used elsewhere - for example, in the laws of a state or an international organization.

 

[Numbers]

False. The ECHR judgments are written as legal documents. The wording is based on the Convention and precedent (the ECHR case law). The ECHR also, in designated text, will quote the language used elsewhere - for example, in the laws of a state or an international organization.

To emphasize what the ECHR means in its use of language, here are explanatory paragraphs from the Guide on Article 6 - Criminal Limb*. Note that the ECHR language is defined by the ECHR and is meant for legal purposes. The ECHR is an international court set up by the member states of the Council of Europe - Italy is one of the founding members - and its role is to provide legally binding judgments. Thus, it defines its legal terminology and avoids using colloquialisms or other terminology that would confuse the meaning of its judgments. When necessary, it quotes from other legal sources, such as the laws of a state or an international organization, using their language.

Here are some paragraphs from the Guide on Article 6 - Criminal Limb that explicitly state that the ECHR is using certain terms such as "criminal charge" or "charged with a criminal offense" in accordance with its specific definitions, which have been originally specified in its case law. Inline citations have been omitted for brevity and clarity of reading. In paragraph 19, only the most relevant part of the paragraph is shown. The word "accused" in the ECHR sense is equivalent to "charged with a criminal offense".

15. The concept of a “criminal charge” has an “autonomous” meaning, independent of the categorisations employed by the national legal systems of the member States .... This is true both for the determination of the “criminal” nature of the charge and for the moment from which such a “charge” exists.

17. In using the terms “criminal charge” and “charged with a criminal offence”, the three paragraphs of Article 6 refer to identical situations. Therefore, the test of applicability of Article 6 under its criminal head will be the same for the three paragraphs.

18. The concept of “charge” has to be understood within the meaning of the Convention. The Court takes a “substantive”, rather than a “formal”, conception of the “charge” contemplated by Article 6 .... Charge may thus be defined as “the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence”, a definition that also corresponds to the test whether “the situation of the [suspect] has been substantially affected” ....

19. The Court held that a person arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence ..., a suspect questioned about his involvement in acts constituting a criminal offence ... and a person who has been questioned in respect of his or her suspected involvement in an offence ..., irrespective of the fact that he or she was formally treated as a witness ... as well as a person who has been formally charged with a criminal offence under procedure set out in domestic law ... could all be regarded as being “charged with a criminal offence” and claim the protection of Article 6 of the Convention. ....

* https://ks.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr-ks/guide_art_6_criminal_eng

 

[Vixen]

<snip>

Here are some paragraphs from the Guide on Article 6 - Criminal Limb that explicitly state that the ECHR is using certain terms such as "criminal charge" or "charged with a criminal offense" in accordance with its specific definitions, which have been originally specified in its case law. Inline citations have been omitted for brevity and clarity of reading. In paragraph 19, only the most relevant part of the paragraph is shown. The word "accused" in the ECHR sense is equivalent to "charged with a criminal offense".



* https://ks.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr-ks/guide_art_6_criminal_eng

Exactly. Knox had not been charged with any criminal offence as of the time she committed her criminal offence of Calunnia, hence there was no requirement for a lawyer to be present. IOW the ECHR was misinformed if it believed she was an 'accused' person when she committed the crime.



.


.

 

[Stacyhs]

Erm, Chietti of the Supreme Court excoriated Vecchiotti and Conti as being 'intellectually dishonest'. The case was sent back down to the Nencini Appeal Court and it was confirmed there was no contamination and it was a full bona fide DNA profile of Sollecito ON THE VICTIM'S BRA CLASP. Full stop.

Erm...Chieffi's opinion is not shared by the most prominent forensic experts in the world. Which is why the PIP can quote and cite several experts that agree with C & V.
Nencini was overturned along with his "no contamination" nonsense.
Marasca annulled Nencini, accepted the C & V report, and confirmed there was contamination.
No one here denied RS's DNA profile was ON THE VICTIM'S BRA CLASP which resulted from contamination.

You have a selective memory and conveniently ignore the last two.

 

[Stacyhs]

The final legal situation is that Knox did knowingly and with mens rea maliciously accuse Lumumba of a hideous crime. Her criminal record in this remains on the file.



.

Not necessarily. Knox is planning on appealing. But I understand the schadenfreude you get from the last ruling. It helps remove some of the sting from their exoneration for murder. That exoneration remains on file.

 

[Vixen]

Erm...Chieffi's opinion is not shared by the most prominent forensic experts in the world. Which is why the PIP can quote and cite several experts that agree with C & V.
Nencini was overturned along with his "no contamination" nonsense.
Marasca annulled Nencini, accepted the C & V report, and confirmed there was contamination.
No one here denied RS's DNA profile was ON THE VICTIM'S BRA CLASP which resulted from contamination.

You have a selective memory and conveniently ignore the last two.

Marasca Bruno did NOT say there was contamination. What it said was, [it did] "not exclude the possibility of contamination".

As I outlined before, this was based on Bongiorno's irregular hijacking of two and a half days to read through Gill's report at the appeal hearing. Gill was not cross-examined. He was an advocate for Knox and Sollecito and based his report on C&V's report, who in turn were advised by US campaigners. As bent as a nine-bob note, in other words.

In any case, there is no way Sollecito's DNA was transferred to the bra hook by x 3 tertiary transfer.

This underlines the case for the corrupt interference that went on.


.

 

[Vixen]

Not necessarily. Knox is planning on appealing. But I understand the schadenfreude you get from the last ruling. It helps remove some of the sting from their exoneration for murder. That exoneration remains on file.

Yes, isn't it great that Kercher's killers evaded justice, apart from Guede? I would call that a Pyrrhic victory...rather like OJ Simpson walking. He, too, brought out a book, 'If I DID IT' and profited from his horrible crime.


.

 

[Stacyhs]

Dear old gallant and loyal Altieri, forever coming to his friends' rescue.

Erm....Altieri did not know Sollecito or Knox. He was Paola Grande's boyfriend. From Altieri's Nov. 2 deposition:

At the place waiting for us there were two police officers in plainclothes, Amanda and her boyfriend who I do not know.

Why would he lie for two strangers? Why is every expert, lawyer, judge, and witness who contradicts the PGP narrative "bent" to you?

Sadly, for all his attempts to 'help out' the pair, he was deemed an unreliable witness by the court.

No, he wasn't. Massei never discounted his testimony. In the Battistelli dispute, he made no ruling on who's version was reliable or unreliable. From the Massei MR, pg. 33 English:

Inspector Battistelli has also ruled out having entered this room. On this point, Luca Altieri's version differs: he declared that he had seen Battistelli going in there, right along the wall. [This is] a memory which seems rather circumstantial and that was also communicated to Marco Zaroli, in respect of which, despite the confrontation set out, the version of Battistelli has remained unchanged and the request to check the eventual trace left on the floor (see declarations of Dr Chiacchiera) did not permit the acquisition of further clarifying elements.

But, hey, Altieiri managed to break down Kercher's door with no problem at all. Something Sollecito claimed was quite beyond him.

What? No "cold as ice" or other negative descriptions in fron of his name? You're slipping.
How big was Altieri compared to Sollecito?

If this were a Shakespeare play, Altieri would be the side-show comedy character, rather like Dogberry in Much Ado About Nothing.

Sigh. Yet another attempt to disparage Altieri. I've disproved, with quoted and cited evidence, both of your claims about Altieri. All you have are insults.

 

[Vixen]

Erm....Altieri did not know Sollecito or Knox. He was Paola Grande's boyfriend. From Altieri's Nov. 2 deposition:

Why would he lie for two strangers? Why is every expert, lawyer, judge, and witness who contradicts the PGP narrative "bent" to you?

No, he wasn't. Massei never discounted his testimony. In the Battistelli dispute, he made no ruling on who's version was reliable or unreliable. From the Massei MR, pg. 33 English:




What? No "cold as ice" or other negative descriptions in fron of his name? You're slipping.
How big was Altieri compared to Sollecito?


Sigh. Yet another attempt to disparage Altieri. I've disproved, with quoted and cited evidence, both of your claims about Altieri. All you have are insults.

Altieri was shown up as being completely wrong about seeing a couple of mobile phones.

'Icy cold' is Mignini's description of Sollecito.

There was a recent book brought out here by some prosecutor or cop or whatever, who explained that the creepiest and most chilling criminals he had ever come across were the ones who acted as though they were talking about the weather, having committed horrible crimes. Yes, 'icy cold' fits Sollecito. Complete sangfroid through and through.

.

 

[Vixen]

Erm....Altieri did not know Sollecito or Knox. He was Paola Grande's boyfriend. From Altieri's Nov. 2 deposition:

Why would he lie for two strangers? Why is every expert, lawyer, judge, and witness who contradicts the PGP narrative "bent" to you?

No, he wasn't. Massei never discounted his testimony. In the Battistelli dispute, he made no ruling on who's version was reliable or unreliable. From the Massei MR, pg. 33 English:




What? No "cold as ice" or other negative descriptions in fron of his name? You're slipping.
How big was Altieri compared to Sollecito?


Sigh. Yet another attempt to disparage Altieri. I've disproved, with quoted and cited evidence, both of your claims about Altieri. All you have are insults.

I see Altieri as someone who was eager to help out. A nice guy but misguided. The Popovic woman with her suticase that never happened was similar. People who mean well but just serve to complicate matters.

.


.

 

[Stacyhs]

Marasca Bruno did NOT say there was contamination. What it said was, [it did] "not exclude the possibility of contamination".

You're right...they didn't directly because contamination could not be proved or disproved. But the fact that M-B (pg. 36 MR) declared Nencini in error for his ruling on the bra hook, is evidence that they did think contamination more likely than not:

Therefore hidden here is the judicial error in which the trial judge committed in assigning evidential value to the outcome of the genetic investigation unsusceptible to amplification and resulting from an unorthodox procedure of collection and sampling.

As I outlined before, this was based on Bongiorno's irregular hijacking of two and a half days to read through Gill's report at the appeal hearing. Gill was not cross-examined. He was an advocate for Knox and Sollecito and based his report on C&V's report, who in turn were advised by US campaigners. As bent as a nine-bob note, in other words.

And there it is again: every judge, lawyer, expert, reporter, etc. who doesn't swallow the guilt narrative is "bent".
Not conspiracy minded much there, eh?

In any case, there is no way Sollecito's DNA was transferred to the bra hook by x 3 tertiary transfer.

Not according to the forensic experts. But, then again, you have a degree in forensics. Oh, wait....

This underlines the case for the corrupt interference that went on.

Heh heh heh....sure. And 911 was an inside job, the 2020 election was rigged and stolen, and the 1969 moon landing was shot on a secret backstage lot.