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

[Vixen]

Yes, I do. Do you understand that both are scientifically established facts?


The experts did explain it when they showed the police video of the sloppy, unprofessional collection of the clasp with visibly dirty gloves directly touching the clasp, etc.
We don't know if the transfer was secondary or tertiary but it was accepted by the final SC that RS's DNA on the bra clasp was contamination by DNA transfer.

Ahem.....
View attachment 60469

And yet, M-B still stands 10 years later. You can make this claim over and over, but you cannot provide any evidence to support it. Like I said, Chieffi did not rule on the murder. M-B did not 'reinstate Hellmann'. If they had, it would now be a judicial fact that the burglary was not staged.

So what? That does not change the scientific facts of his report. This is just another one of your attempts to handwave his report away.

No, it was not 'accepted' it was contaminated. Please try to be accurate instead of spinning an untrue statement. Marasca-Bruno said it was a possibility. Echoing Hellmann's expunged, 'Anything is possible!'. Being 'possible' does not make it so. A criminal court of law does not deal in 'possibilities'.

I think you really believe that if you say on a chat forum 'it was ruled contaminated' it suddenly becomes so, just like magic.




"Just like that" ~ Tommy Cooper

BTW Knee-jerk contradiction is not the same as debating or arguing. It is tiresome.



.

 

[Vixen]

And yet, M-B still stands 10 years later. You can make this claim over and over, but you cannot provide any evidence to support it. Like I said, Chieffi did not rule on the murder. M-B did not 'reinstate Hellmann'. If they had, it would now be a judicial fact that the burglary was not staged.

Oh dear. You seem not to understand how a court of law works. This is how it happened re DNA:

• Massei appointed an independent expert witness re DNA (merits, trial court)
• Hellmann (Appeal Court) appointed fresh 'independent' DNA expert witnesses for the court
• Chieffi (Supreme Court) trashed Hellmann's DNA findings and sent it back down to the Appeal Court to relook at the DNA again ONLY. Everything else stood regarding Massei, including the calunnia conviction [as upheld by Hellmann and rubber stamped by Chieffi].
• The Appeal Court of Nencini, as directed by the Chieffi Supreme Court relooked at the DNA evidence, this time, one of Italy's leading DNA experts was appointed.
• Hellmann's DNA experts C&V were gone, forever banished to the annals of the legal bin, as per Chieffi's Supreme Court edict.
• Nencini Appeal Court upheld Knox and Sollecito's conviction for Aggravated Murder based on their court appointed leading INDEPENDENT expert confirming the DNA was >3bn/1 against not being compatible to Sollecito.
• The Supreme Court of Marasca-Bruno, resuscitated Hellmann's [Supreme Court-expunged] DNA ONLY.
• NOTA BENE: Not the entirety of Hellmann!!!
• Marasca-Bruno erred in this as it did not have the legal power to reinstall C&V.
• The ONLY legal means it can do this would be to send it back down to a lower court to try the issue again (as happened with Nencini)
• The Supreme Court has no power or remit to find facts of its own.
• The Supreme Court's sole purpose is to ensure correct legal procedure.

So your ridiculous claim that M-B reinstated Hellmann is utter rubbish. It reinstated C&V, not Hellmann. _DOH!

This is a legal error, not my opinion.



.

 

[Vixen]

Your post represents total ignorance of the relevant aspects of Italian law.

It's the obligation of the prosecution to demonstrate without reasonable doubt that any technical evidence - including the DNA evidence - is valid, credible, and relevant. The prosecution must show that the samples were gathered properly, testing was done properly, that there was no contamination including through the use and disclosure of all the negative and all the positive controls, and that the interpretation of the results was proper, all in accordance with the internationally recognized protocols. In general, the defense has no way to know how contamination entered into the prosecution's testing; it is the obligation of the prosecution to show that contamination did not occur. This whole concept is basic to the presumption of innocence, Article 27 of the Italian Constitution. The defense rights provided in Article 111 of the Italian Constitution are also relevant: for example, the defense is to be in equal position to the prosecution and the defense has the right to all evidence in its favor.

The Chieffi CSC panel MR included statements intruding into the facts of the case and these were thus outside the lawful authority of the CSC; these were items to be decided by the referral court, the Nencini Court of Appeal. The Marasca CSC panel quashed the Nencini Court of Appeal judgment and published their own MR in accordance with Italian law, where they dealt solely with the lawful issues of the evaluation of evidence; contrary to your implication, the evidence they considered remained valid. Judgments may be quashed, but valid evidence remains valid, while inadmissible evidence becomes invalid. I suggest you review CPP Article 606 and other relevant Italian law.

What report by Gill are you referring to? Please provide a citation reference. How is it relevant to the Marasca CSC MR? Do they refer to it? If they do, please point out where in the MR that reference occurs.

Of course Marasca-Bruno cannot refer to Gill, as his 360-page report, as presented by Bongiorno (as her skeleton 20-minute submission to Marasca-Bruno and panel, in person) because it was NEVER tested at trial level. In other words, no judge ever found any facts arising from it.

Gill got his 'facts' from C&V, whom as you know, were rescinded and that issue was directed to be tried again by Nencini. C&V were never found to be upheld. Thus, M-B bringing C&V back into the equation despite Chieffi ruling the issue to be retried by Nencini, was an error of law and ultra vires.


Hence, it can only be viewed as corrupt.



.

 

[Vixen]

Sorry <snip> but this case is now officially over seventeen years old and not every media outlet keeps their articles online that long. Why, are you going to claim the media didn't publish what I listed?

Well, despite my better judgement I did a quick search and found the following.

Daily Mail bogus reporting about the loud party and other false claims.

ABC Article discussing the pink bathroom and other BS published by the media.

Belfast Telegraph article incorrectly claiming they found a receipt for cleaning supplies from Quintavalle's store.

You know the media published a LOT of false information about the case, ALL very negative towards Amanda and sometimes Raffaele, and it was mostly due to the police feeding it to the media. We all have read the stories, so there's really very little sense in trying to pretend it didn't happen.

The DAILY MAIL article is a factual account of Knox having received a ticket for anti-social partying. How is that untrue? Given the trial was being held in Italy, there was no subjudice on UK newspapers reporting this, as it wouldn't prejudice a trial in another country's jurisdiction*.

The ABC is a US news outlet. What does that have to do with the trial in Italy?

The Belfast Telegraph article is an opinion piece about the cleaniness of houseshare students. I can see nothing about cleaning receipts in there. In fact, my reading of the article is that the paper's lawyers have gone to great care to avoid anything prejudicial.


*As you may recall, we were discussing the supposed equivalents of defammatory articles about Mignini being 'mentally unstable' published in Italy by Friends of Amanda Knox campaigners and complaining about Mignini slapping on charges as a result. You do know that prosecutors are obliged to prosecute if they have sufficient evidence a crime has been committed?

The claim is that the prosecution has behaved similarly and I simply requested one specific example so that we can assess this assertion.




.






.

 

[Vixen]

SpitfireIX, thanks for your well-developed comments and the citation for the article criticizing ECHR just satisfaction practices.
I've emphasized with bold the statements that I believe are most relevant to Knox's case, and indeed in general for ECHR cases, based only on my reading too many ECHR cases (but not as many as others may have read).

I believe that in the vast majority of cases, the ECHR non-pecuniary damage award is a token amount, possibly calculated based on some obscure scale of the severity of the Convention violation (ranked in descending numerical order), the effect the violation has had on the applicant, the moral status of the applicant (persons seeming to be actual criminals ranked lower and may receive no damage award), some estimate of the standard of living in the respondent country, and the roll of a die.

The ECHR awards for costs and expenses are likewise constrained to minimum amounts which seem often restricted to the amounts expended to bring the case before the ECHR, as long as those are documented and "reasonable as to quantum".

I strongly believe that the ECHR approach is that the respondent state is obligated and entitled to evaluate and pay the possibly large amounts needed to cover the damages and expenses incurred in reality by an applicant before bringing the case before the ECHR., and that this process of redress must, according to Convention Article 46, be supervised by the Committee of Ministers. Likewise, the respondent state is obligated and entitled to the selection of the method of non-financial redress, except in certain circumstances such as potential extradition to a non-CoE state, a release from detention of unfairly detained persons (in urgent cases), and in providing urgently needed medical care to a person under state control.

The ECHR - Council of Europe principle governing the substantive and financial redress is the "subsidiary principle", which was formally adopted into the Convention by the entry into force of Protocol 15 on 1 August 2021*. The subsidiary principle was placed into the Preamble of the Convention. Note that the ECHR is given "supervisory jurisdiction" in the Preamble; the supervision of the execution of ECHR judgments by the Committee of Ministers is made explicit in Article 46. Here's the relevant part of the Preamble:



* https://www.coe.int/en/web/podgoric...-convention-on-human-rights-enters-into-force

Americans often seem to have the wrong view of European Courts. Unlike US courts it is not all about litigation for huge sums of 'damages'. It is largely a tribunal system designed to clarify whether statutes have been broken and to recommend a remedy. In the case of the ECHR the remedy will almost invariably be - similar to an Appeal Court in criminal law - to send it back to the offending court to rectify their error on that specific issue.


If Knox was hoping for a €2m payout from ECHR, she has been badly misguided by her lawyers. The process for claiming compensation for wrongful conviction is a separate process and needs a separate application. As in the UK, Italy doesn't usually compensate time on remand, although I am sure law change can be lobbied through parliament or government. In addition, even were Knox to succeed in a wrongful conviction application I very much doubt a claim for PR Agency expenses would be allowable.




.

 

[Vixen]

Because, as has been noted, that's roughly in line with her family's out-of-pocket expenses, plus the €500,000 requested for non-monetary damages. Two other observations about "just satisfaction" awards. First, there's been some criticism that the calculation of awards has been rather opaque, and may tend toward being arbitrary (see here), and second, the ECHR has also been criticized for being "state-centric." That is, the court is most concerned with getting individual states to clean up their acts to ensure that violations brought to its attention are less likely to recur. Actually providing redress to individuals applying to the ECHR seems to be a secondary consideration. Along those lines, it is possible that the ECHR expects Knox to go back to Italy after her conviction has been overturned and apply for compensation through the Italian legal system; partly as a means of testing whether the Italians have made a good-faith effort to redress the situation, and partly as a means of making them "eat their vegetables."


<snip a load of off topic stuff>

You seem to take debating very personally. Perhaps leaving out all the ad homs might be less stressful for you.

Just to add re the above, European courts allowable 'costs awards' are generally restricted to court costs and legal costs. It wouldn't be interested in the costs of a family member flying to and fro from another continent unless a claimant can come up with a legal argument that would require such travel.




.

 

[Vixen]

Who gives a damn if it was slashed or sawed to make the gaping wound? Your pedantry does not change the fact that she died due to her throat being gashed.

Sigh. Neither Zaroli nor Altieri said they SAW the wound, that was postal officer Marsi.
No one said they entered the room. Marsi said he was standing at the door entrance. Do you want to now claim he's lying, too? And why would Battistelli order his fellow officer out?
Yet again, you just make up stuff to suit yourself.

Marsi as a police officer was authorised personnel. There is no way he passed any information about cause of death on to bystanders at the scene as you falsely imply he did.


For all your horrible profanity, yes cause of death is a specific medical issue, and Mez did not die " due to her throat being gashed" as you put it with relish so charmingly.
.

 

[Vixen]

Who gives a damn if it was slashed or sawed to make the gaping wound? Your pedantry does not change the fact that she died due to her throat being gashed.

Sigh. Neither Zaroli nor Altieri said they SAW the wound, that was postal officer Marsi.
No one said they entered the room. Marsi said he was standing at the door entrance. Do you want to now claim he's lying, too? And why would Battistelli order his fellow officer out?
Yet again, you just make up stuff to suit yourself.

By the way here is what the crime scene looked like from the door. Your claim that bystanders could see that the victim had died due to a 'gashed throat' is a shocking lie.







The head is lying at the far corner of the room.

Meredith Kercher case- crime scene photos, videos and surveys

This page has all the files related to crime scene evidence, including crime scene surveys, photos and videos of the cottage, Sollecito's apartment, Guede's apartment, villa Sperandio and Perugia. Meredith Kercher case file library archive.

themurderofmeredithkercher.net

 

[SpitfireIX]

SpitfireIX, thanks for your well-developed comments and the citation for the article criticizing ECHR just satisfaction practices.
I've emphasized with bold the statements that I believe are most relevant to Knox's case, and indeed in general for ECHR cases, based only on my reading too many ECHR cases (but not as many as others may have read).

I believe that in the vast majority of cases, the ECHR non-pecuniary damage award is a token amount, possibly calculated based on some obscure scale of the severity of the Convention violation (ranked in descending numerical order), the effect the violation has had on the applicant, the moral status of the applicant (persons seeming to be actual criminals ranked lower and may receive no damage award), some estimate of the standard of living in the respondent country, and the roll of a die.

The ECHR awards for costs and expenses are likewise constrained to minimum amounts which seem often restricted to the amounts expended to bring the case before the ECHR, as long as those are documented and "reasonable as to quantum".

I strongly believe that the ECHR approach is that the respondent state is obligated and entitled to evaluate and pay the possibly large amounts needed to cover the damages and expenses incurred in reality by an applicant before bringing the case before the ECHR., and that this process of redress must, according to Convention Article 46, be supervised by the Committee of Ministers. Likewise, the respondent state is obligated and entitled to the selection of the method of non-financial redress, except in certain circumstances such as potential extradition to a non-CoE state, a release from detention of unfairly detained persons (in urgent cases), and in providing urgently needed medical care to a person under state control.

The ECHR - Council of Europe principle governing the substantive and financial redress is the "subsidiary principle", which was formally adopted into the Convention by the entry into force of Protocol 15 on 1 August 2021*. The subsidiary principle was placed into the Preamble of the Convention. Note that the ECHR is given "supervisory jurisdiction" in the Preamble; the supervision of the execution of ECHR judgments by the Committee of Ministers is made explicit in Article 46. Here's the relevant part of the Preamble:



* https://www.coe.int/en/web/podgoric...-convention-on-human-rights-enters-into-force

I'm glad you think I'm on the right track here, though I think you're giving me a bit too much credit. You clearly know considerably more about the ECHR than I do.

 

[Numbers]

I'm glad you think I'm on the right track here, though I think you're giving me a bit too much credit. You clearly know considerably more about the ECHR than I do.

Much of what the ECHR-CoE does, including how cases are evaluated for violations of the Convention is available online. In contrast, information on how the Just Satisfaction is calculated is sparse, at best.

There is also surprisingly little information available to the public on the actual workings of the DEJ/CoM in its supervisory efforts with the respondent states. Much of those efforts seem to be private diplomatic-style contacts. The written communications from the respondent states to the DEJ/CoM and of the applicants or NGOs to the DEJ/CoM are, in many cases, made public (after review) in the HUDOC EXEC database, as are the rather diplomatic-style statements of the CoM meetings.

On the same day (24 January 2019) that Knox v. Italy was published, another ECHR case, Cordella and Others v. Italy was published. The latter case concerned the failure of the Italian authorities to take effective measures to prevent harm to residents from a local source of pollution. Knox v. Italy was placed on standard supervision, while Cordella and Others v. Italy was placed on enhanced supervision. The contrast in the amount of information available on HUDOC EXEC for the two cases is striking.

See (Tabs for View and Case Documents in Case Details):

HUDOC-EXEC

hudoc.exec.coe.int

HUDOC-EXEC

hudoc.exec.coe.int

 

[Numbers]

Of course Marasca-Bruno cannot refer to Gill, as his 360-page report, as presented by Bongiorno (as her skeleton 20-minute submission to Marasca-Bruno and panel, in person) because it was NEVER tested at trial level. In other words, no judge ever found any facts arising from it.

Gill got his 'facts' from C&V, whom as you know, were rescinded and that issue was directed to be tried again by Nencini. C&V were never found to be upheld. Thus, M-B bringing C&V back into the equation despite Chieffi ruling the issue to be retried by Nencini, was an error of law and ultra vires.


Hence, it can only be viewed as corrupt.

Thanks for confirming, by your lack of providing any citation, that the alleged 360-page report by Gill does not exist. The claim that there was such a report is a fabrication originated by you or some other person(s).

There is a brief article by Peter Gill titled "Analysis and implications of the miscarriages of justice of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito" in the journal Forensic Science International: Genetics 23 (2016) 9-18. It's 10 pages long.

See: https://www.themurderofmeredithkerc...nalysis-implications-miscarriage-jusstice.pdf

 

[whoanellie]

The DAILY MAIL article is a factual account of Knox having received a ticket for anti-social partying.



.






.

Thanks for the chuckle!

 

[SpitfireIX]

You seem to take debating very personally.

I trust that readers can decide for themselves who's taking things personally. If I were going to take anything personally, it would be your slanderous and ignorant comments about Freemasonry.

Perhaps leaving out all the ad homs might be less stressful for you.

Quote any argumentum ad hominem^WP or personal attack in my post or withdraw the accusation.

Further, as you've been told elsewhere, report any posts that you feel are abusive for moderation, instead of making accusations in-thread for attempted rhetorical effect.

Just to add re the above, European courts allowable 'costs awards' are generally restricted to court costs and legal costs. It wouldn't be interested in the costs of a family member flying to and fro from another continent unless a claimant can come up with a legal argument that would require such travel..

I'll leave it to those more knowledgeable to agree or disagree, but that seems plausible, if not terribly fair. And I mean not terribly fair in general, not just in Knox's case.

As for the section of my post you snipped as "off-topic," the fact that you are a conspiracy theorist who pushes conspiracy theories about this case is at least arguably on topic, and I strongly suspect that the real reason for your snipping, as well as for your completely ignoring my previous post, is the fact that you have no effective rebuttal. However, as I said, I'm confident that the point has been made, and any additional discussion of your other conspiracy theories would indeed be off topic.

That said, one of the parts you snipped concerns your continuing use of the motte-and-bailey fallacy in attempts to defend your conspiracy theory that the Mafia had a hand in Knox and Sollecito's acquittal. That is unquestionably on topic.

 

[Stacyhs]

I requested a specific example. So, are you able to produce the newspaper report, together with the date, so that we can assess the context?

Let's start with the first.

Okay:

1.- It was reported that a receipt for bleach was found.. this was a lie.

:... police who searched Mr Sollecito's house, just a few minutes' walk from the murder scene, found a receipt for cleaning products from the shop."

“Police said that further evidence against Mr Sollecito had come to light in the form of receipts from a shop near his flat for bleach, bought on the morning after the murder and allegedly used to clean an 8in kitchen knife and Mr Sollecito’s Nike trainers. The first receipt was timed at 8.30am on November 2, and the second 45 minutes later, suggesting that the first container of bleach had not been sufficient. The bleach was also used to clean up the flat itself.” (November 19, 2007, Richard Owen for the UK Times)

But let's not forget the vaunted James Raper from TJMK:

"Volturno said he had shown him photographs of Knox and Sollecito and had asked if either had made a purchase in his shop around the time of the murder and, in particular, whether a receipt for “Ace” bleach (found at Sollecito’s apartment) had emanated from his store."

 

[Stacyhs]

No, it was not 'accepted' it was contaminated. Please try to be accurate instead of spinning an untrue statement. Marasca-Bruno said it was a possibility. Echoing Hellmann's expunged, 'Anything is possible!'. Being 'possible' does not make it so. A criminal court of law does not deal in 'possibilities'.

"Please try to be accurate instead of spinning an untrue statement."

Projecting there much?

M-B accepted the C&V report on the165B bra hook:

5. It cannot be ruled out that the results obtained derive from environmental contamination and/or contamination in some phase of the collection and/or handling of the item.

M-B accepted the C&V report on the 36B knife:

Relative to trace B (blade of the knife) we find that the technical analyses performed are not reliable for the following reasons:
4. International protocols of inspection, collection, and sampling were not followed; 5. It cannot be ruled out that the result obtained from sample B (blade of knife) derives from contamination in some phase of the collection and/or handling and/or analyses performed.

I think you really believe that if you say on a chat forum 'it was ruled contaminated' it suddenly becomes so, just like magic.

Another classic example of projecting there, Vixen.

View attachment 60471

"Just like that" ~ Tommy Cooper

BTW Knee-jerk contradiction is not the same as debating or arguing. It is tiresome.

What's tiresome is your knee-jerk handwaving away of any evidence you don't like. What's tiresome is your accusing every defense expert, every acquitting judge, every defense witness, every defense lawyer as being bent, paid off, incompetent, or lying. What tiresome is your repeated claims of the mafia, Trump, or some politician of making the SC annul the convictions. What's tiresome is you blatant twisting of facts to suit your own narrative.

 

[Stacyhs]

Oh dear. You seem not to understand how a court of law works. This is how it happened re DNA:

• Massei appointed an independent expert witness re DNA (merits, trial court)
• Hellmann (Appeal Court) appointed fresh 'independent' DNA expert witnesses for the court
• Chieffi (Supreme Court) trashed Hellmann's DNA findings and sent it back down to the Appeal Court to relook at the DNA again ONLY. Everything else stood regarding Massei, including the calunnia conviction [as upheld by Hellmann and rubber stamped by Chieffi].
• The Appeal Court of Nencini, as directed by the Chieffi Supreme Court relooked at the DNA evidence, this time, one of Italy's leading DNA experts was appointed.
• Hellmann's DNA experts C&V were gone, forever banished to the annals of the legal bin, as per Chieffi's Supreme Court edict.
• Nencini Appeal Court upheld Knox and Sollecito's conviction for Aggravated Murder based on their court appointed leading INDEPENDENT expert confirming the DNA was >3bn/1 against not being compatible to Sollecito.
• The Supreme Court of Marasca-Bruno, resuscitated Hellmann's [Supreme Court-expunged] DNA ONLY.
• NOTA BENE: Not the entirety of Hellmann!!!
• Marasca-Bruno erred in this as it did not have the legal power to reinstall C&V.
• The ONLY legal means it can do this would be to send it back down to a lower court to try the issue again (as happened with Nencini)
• The Supreme Court has no power or remit to find facts of its own.
• The Supreme Court's sole purpose is to ensure correct legal procedure.

So your ridiculous claim that M-B reinstated Hellmann is utter rubbish. It reinstated C&V, not Hellmann. _DOH!

Ahem...try reading what I said again only more slowly:

"And yet, M-B still stands 10 years later. You can make this claim over and over, but you cannot provide any evidence to support it. Like I said, Chieffi did not rule on the murder. M-B did not 'reinstate Hellmann'. If they had, it would now be a judicial fact that the burglary was not staged."

Note the word "not".

This is a legal error, not my opinion.

Since M-B is still in effect after 10 years, and there's no effort to overturn it, I'd say that your "opinion" that's it's a "legal error" is not based on anything but your own inability to accept the final acquittal.

 

[Vixen]

I trust that readers can decide for themselves who's taking things personally. If I were going to take anything personally, it would be your slanderous and ignorant comments about Freemasonry.


Quote any argumentum ad hominem^WP or personal attack in my post or withdraw the accusation.

Further, as you've been told elsewhere, report any posts that you feel are abusive for moderation, instead of making accusations in-thread for attempted rhetorical effect.


I'll leave it to those more knowledgeable to agree or disagree, but that seems plausible, if not terribly fair. And I mean not terribly fair in general, not just in Knox's case.

As for the section of my post you snipped as "off-topic," the fact that you are a conspiracy theorist who pushes conspiracy theories about this case is at least arguably on topic, and I strongly suspect that the real reason for your snipping, as well as for your completely ignoring my previous post, is the fact that you have no effective rebuttal. However, as I said, I'm confident that the point has been made, and any additional discussion of your other conspiracy theories would indeed be off topic.

That said, one of the parts you snipped concerns your continuing use of the motte-and-bailey fallacy in attempts to defend your conspiracy theory that the Mafia had a hand in Knox and Sollecito's acquittal. That is unquestionably on topic.

.

I trust that readers can decide for themselves who's taking things personally. If I were going to take anything personally, it would be your slanderous and ignorant comments about Freemasonry.


Quote any argumentum ad hominem^WP or personal attack in my post or withdraw the accusation.

Further, as you've been told elsewhere, report any posts that you feel are abusive for moderation, instead of making accusations in-thread for attempted rhetorical effect.


I'll leave it to those more knowledgeable to agree or disagree, but that seems plausible, if not terribly fair. And I mean not terribly fair in general, not just in Knox's case.

As for the section of my post you snipped as "off-topic," the fact that you are a conspiracy theorist who pushes conspiracy theories about this case is at least arguably on topic, and I strongly suspect that the real reason for your snipping, as well as for your completely ignoring my previous post, is the fact that you have no effective rebuttal. However, as I said, I'm confident that the point has been made, and any additional discussion of your other conspiracy theories would indeed be off topic.

That said, one of the parts you snipped concerns your continuing use of the motte-and-bailey fallacy in attempts to defend your conspiracy theory that the Mafia had a hand in Knox and Sollecito's acquittal. That is unquestionably on topic.

You do realise you are just being a bully?



.

 

[Vixen]

Okay:

:... police who searched Mr Sollecito's house, just a few minutes' walk from the murder scene, found a receipt for cleaning products from the shop."

“Police said that further evidence against Mr Sollecito had come to light in the form of receipts from a shop near his flat for bleach, bought on the morning after the murder and allegedly used to clean an 8in kitchen knife and Mr Sollecito’s Nike trainers. The first receipt was timed at 8.30am on November 2, and the second 45 minutes later, suggesting that the first container of bleach had not been sufficient. The bleach was also used to clean up the flat itself.” (November 19, 2007, Richard Owen for the UK Times)

But let's not forget the vaunted James Raper from TJMK:

"Volturno said he had shown him photographs of Knox and Sollecito and had asked if either had made a purchase in his shop around the time of the murder and, in particular, whether a receipt for “Ace” bleach (found at Sollecito’s apartment) had emanated from his store."

If police found a receipt and this was reported, how was it a lie? As of 19 Nov 2007, the pair had not been charged with any crime.



.

 

[Vixen]

"Please try to be accurate instead of spinning an untrue statement."

Projecting there much?

M-B accepted the C&V report on the165B bra hook:

M-B accepted the C&V report on the 36B knife:


Another classic example of projecting there, Vixen.

What's tiresome is your knee-jerk handwaving away of any evidence you don't like. What's tiresome is your accusing every defense expert, every acquitting judge, every defense witness, every defense lawyer as being bent, paid off, incompetent, or lying. What tiresome is your repeated claims of the mafia, Trump, or some politician of making the SC annul the convictions. What's tiresome is you blatant twisting of facts to suit your own narrative.

The term, 'It cannot be ruled out' honestly does not mean 'it is confirmed'. Please read legal notices carefully.

Read this again:

5. It cannot be ruled out [≠ does NOT = 'confirmed'] that the results obtained derive from environmental contamination and/or contamination in some phase of the collection and/or handling of the item.

Relative to trace B (blade of the knife) we find that the technical analyses performed are not reliable for the following reasons:
4. International protocols of inspection, collection, and sampling were not followed; 5. It cannot be ruled out [≠ does NOT = 'confirmed']that the result obtained from sample B (blade of knife) derives from contamination in some phase of the collection and/or handling and/or analyses performed.

Herein lies where Marasca-Bruno err. Chieffi gave Hellmann stick for his 'Anything is possible' line. The job of a court is to come to a decision.

So, for example, man takes a paternity test. Hellmann, Marasca and Bruno decide, "He could be the father but it is not ruled out that he is not. Anything is possible!"

Do you see the legal hiccough there?



.



.

 

[Stacyhs]

Of course Marasca-Bruno cannot refer to Gill, as his 360-page report, as presented by Bongiorno (as her skeleton 20-minute submission to Marasca-Bruno and panel, in person) because it was NEVER tested at trial level. In other words, no judge ever found any facts arising from it.


Gill got his 'facts' from C&V, whom as you know, were rescinded and that issue was directed to be tried again by Nencini. C&V were never found to be upheld. Thus, M-B bringing C&V back into the equation despite Chieffi ruling the issue to be retried by Nencini, was an error of law and ultra vires.


Hence, it can only be viewed as corrupt.

Long on words, short on substance.