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

[Stacyhs]

I will try and find the reference for you.

Keep trying.

But here is an illustration of how M-B erred in accepting Bogniorno introducing Gill at all.


Swansea Jack contacted Gill and received this reply:

Thanks for your email.

I cant control how people interpret my comments. I am not getting involved in a debate that specifically addresses the ulitmate issue of innocence/guilt of individuals since that is the purpose of the court. I can only comment on the probative value of the DNA evidence. I dont know definitively how the DNA was transferred - I simply make a list of all of the possibilities. I dont comment on the non-DNA evidence.

Regards, Peter

Exactly WHERE in the email does he say anything about sending a report to Bongio

So, Gill, for the defence, contrary to the instructions of Chieffi directing expert witnesses to spell out the route of the claimed 'possible' contamination (given the defence had a very eminent expert witness present at the testing and had raised no concerns) didn't bother outlining the claimed proposed route of contamination.

You have still not provided any evidence that Gill's work was introduced by Bongiorno or anyone else.

LOL! Every prosecution expert is "very eminent" or otherwise to be believed without question, but every defense expert is "bent" or otherwise corrupt.

 

[Stacyhs]

Er, some guy objects to another person having a different opinion from his own or interests different from his own, or perhaps it's that Simonton Gulf again where Mr. Man in the Street cannot fathom why anyone would want to watch the news or read a book. So anyone who does is relentlessly bullied.

It's not "another person having a different opinion," it's you promoting falsehoods. Proven falsehoods.
You're not being bullied. You're being owned.

 

[TruthCalls]

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.




.






.

Seriously? You're going to ask how it's untrue? Well, let's see... here's a direct quote from the article;

The officer suspected "some kids" were just playing their music too loud, but what he found was no run-of-the-mill summer student party: he later told colleagues it was like a scene from Baghdad.

Gangs of students, high on drink and drugs, were hurling rocks into the road. Cars were swerving to avoid them. Debris littered the road. It was mayhem.

Fearing reprisals, neighbours who had called the police refused to give their names. The police officer called for back-up as the youths began throwing rocks at the windows of houses on the neat, tree-lined streets.

Eventually, after reinforcements had arrived, the students calmed down. Police made only one arrest: the person they held responsible for the party and the disorder.

Her name? Amanda Knox, or, as she prefers to be known, Foxy Knoxy.

So, where to start....

• The officer did NOT tell a colleague it was like a scene from Baghdad.
• No students were hurling rocks.
• No cars were swerving to avoid them.
• No debris littered the road. It was NOT mayhem
• The cop did NOT call for back-up.
• Youths were NOT throwing rocks at the windows of houses on the neat, tree-lined streets.
• As no reinforcements were called, none arrived.
• The police made no arrests. Amanda was told the music was too loud and given a citation because of it.

So either you have not read the police report (which is available on the Internet), in which case you should have said as much, or you're lying.

And this article absolutely prejudiced the trial against Amanda as the prosecution used this specific article in court trying to paint Amanda as someone who could get wild and out of control.

So, you can't find anything in the Belfast article about cleaning receipts, eh? How about this quote from the article;

He recalled clearly how pale the girl looked, and the shade of her blue eyes, her jeans and her hat, and when he saw her pretty face and pert nose in newspaper reports, he said he was sure it was the same girl. He couldn't remember if she had bought anything but 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.

Didn't see that, huh? As you know, no receipts for cleaning products were ever found. This is a flat out lie designed to make Amanda and Raffaele look guilty. There are numerous other lies throughout the article, but if you couldn't even find this, I doubt you saw anything else. Selective blindness?

It makes no difference where the stories originated, they get picked up and repeated globally. A prime example is the DM article cited above. Look, we all know the media was publishing this crap, so I have no idea why you think lying about this helps your cause.

And yes, I DO remember we were discussing the supposed equivalents of defamatory articles about Mignini being 'mentally unstable'. At worst, the article you are referring to is tantamount to calling him names. It neither hurts his ability to do his job nor does it put his freedom at risk. And it was only one article. Conversely, the constant fallacies being published in the media about Amanda convinced a large global population to believe she was guilty. As jurors in Italy are not sequestered, for two years they were exposed to all of this bogus negative coverage, which surely influenced how they perceived the case. So there is no equivalency - what was done to Amanda was far worse, and far more serious.

 

[SpitfireIX]

You do realise you are just being a bully?

No. I'm attempting to hold you accountable for, inter alia, falsely accusing me of personally attacking you, refusing to admit that you subscribe to various conspiracy theories, and repeatedly deploying assorted logical fallacies.

So, again, quote any argumentum ad hominem or personal attack in my post or withdraw the accusation.

 

[Numbers]

Many posts on this thread look back at issues already resolved, essentially debating the definitive final judgment of acquittal (sentenza di assoluzione; CPP Article 530 paragraph 2) of the Knox and Sollecito on the murder/rape and associated charges by the Marasca CSC panel.

There's confusion in a post by Vixen of the broader Italian legal term proscioglimento - which can mean dismissal of a case, exoneration, or acquittal - with the more specific legal term assoluzione - which specifically applies to acquittal under CPP Article 530 (for each of that article's paragraphs related to judgment, whether 1, 2, or 3). Examining the relevant section of the CPP, it is obvious that the Section heading is Sezione I Sentenza di proscioglimento while the four CPP articles under that heading are Art. 529. Sentenza di non doversi procedere, Art. 530. Sentenza di assoluzion, Art. 531. Dichiarazione di estinzione del reato, and Art. 532. Provvedimenti sulle misure cautelari personali.*
Note that this last article of Italian procedural law again uses the word proscioglimento to indicate that for each of the judgments of dismissal (Articles 529, 530, or 531), the judge is required to end the precautionary detention of the defendant (the accused).

* https://www.altalex.com/documents/news/2014/09/03/giudizio-sentenza

 

[Stacyhs]

Many posts on this thread look back at issues already resolved, essentially debating the definitive final judgment of acquittal (sentenza di assoluzione; CPP Article 530 paragraph 2) of the Knox and Sollecito on the murder/rape and associated charges by the Marasca CSC panel.

There's confusion in a post by Vixen of the broader Italian legal term proscioglimento - which can mean dismissal of a case, exoneration, or acquittal - with the more specific legal term assoluzione - which specifically applies to acquittal under CPP Article 530 (for each of that article's paragraphs related to judgment, whether 1, 2, or 3). Examining the relevant section of the CPP, it is obvious that the Section heading is Sezione I Sentenza di proscioglimento while the four CPP articles under that heading are Art. 529. Sentenza di non doversi procedere, Art. 530. Sentenza di assoluzion, Art. 531. Dichiarazione di estinzione del reato, and Art. 532. Provvedimenti sulle misure cautelari personali.*
Note that this last article of Italian procedural law again uses the word proscioglimento to indicate that for each of the judgments of dismissal (Articles 529, 530, or 531), the judge is required to end the precautionary detention of the defendant (the accused).

* https://www.altalex.com/documents/news/2014/09/03/giudizio-sentenza

Let's not confuse the PGP with facts.

 

[Stacyhs]

Seriously? You're going to ask how it's untrue? Well, let's see... here's a direct quote from the article;


So, where to start....

• The officer did NOT tell a colleague it was like a scene from Baghdad.
• No students were hurling rocks.
• No cars were swerving to avoid them.
• No debris littered the road. It was NOT mayhem
• The cop did NOT call for back-up.
• Youths were NOT throwing rocks at the windows of houses on the neat, tree-lined streets.
• As no reinforcements were called, none arrived.
• The police made no arrests. Amanda was told the music was too loud and given a citation because of it.

So either you have not read the police report (which is available on the Internet), in which case you should have said as much, or you're lying.

And this article absolutely prejudiced the trial against Amanda as the prosecution used this specific article in court trying to paint Amanda as someone who could get wild and out of control.

So, you can't find anything in the Belfast article about cleaning receipts, eh? How about this quote from the article;



Didn't see that, huh? As you know, no receipts for cleaning products were ever found. This is a flat out lie designed to make Amanda and Raffaele look guilty. There are numerous other lies throughout the article, but if you couldn't even find this, I doubt you saw anything else. Selective blindness?

It makes no difference where the stories originated, they get picked up and repeated globally. A prime example is the DM article cited above. Look, we all know the media was publishing this crap, so I have no idea why you think lying about this helps your cause.

And yes, I DO remember we were discussing the supposed equivalents of defamatory articles about Mignini being 'mentally unstable'. At worst, the article you are referring to is tantamount to calling him names. It neither hurts his ability to do his job nor does it put his freedom at risk. And it was only one article. Conversely, the constant fallacies being published in the media about Amanda convinced a large global population to believe she was guilty. As jurors in Italy are not sequestered, for two years they were exposed to all of this bogus negative coverage, which surely influenced how they perceived the case. So there is no equivalency - what was done to Amanda was far worse, and far more serious.

Mignini reminds me of a certain orange US president who can't handle any kind of negative coverage. Mignini used lawsuits, or threats of lawsuits, in an effort to intimidate anyone who hurt his fee fees by criticizing him.

 

[SpitfireIX]

He has you dead to rights and you cry bully.

She'd cry "misogynist" if she thought she could get away with it. She's done that in at least one other thread where no other women had posted in a while, but she knows you'd call BS on her. And you may have noticed that she's made a couple of oblique accusations of racism recently.

@Vixen, I should have reminded you in my previous post, as you ought to know quite well by now, having your views challenged is not a personal attack. Pointing out the flaws in your arguments is not a personal attack. Attempting to hold you accountable for false accusations you make is not a personal attack. And, finally, as I've mentioned before, correctly and relevantly pointing out that you lack the expertise to make certain claims is not a personal attack, even if it hurts your feelings.

 

[Vixen]

It's not "another person having a different opinion," it's you promoting falsehoods. Proven falsehoods.
You're not being bullied. You're being owned.

No random guy on the internet 'owns' me, thanks.


.

 

[Numbers]

.... Mignini used lawsuits, or threats of lawsuits, in an effort to intimidate anyone who hurt his fee fees by criticizing him.

Stacyhs, I agree that Mignini used lawsuits or threats of lawsuits against anyone as an intimidation tactic, but I think it was motivated by more than his desire to protect his feelings of self-worth. I believe he was using those intimidation tactics to prevent any disruption of his false narratives, because he wanted his false claims of (sometimes unlikely or impossible) criminal acts to succeed without meaningful opposition.

The remaining issues of the Knox - Sollecito case go beyond the personality and behavior of Mignini, however, and expose the dysfunctions of the Italian judicial system and even the weaknesses of the Council of Europe - ECHR human rights program.

 

[Vixen]

Seriously? You're going to ask how it's untrue? Well, let's see... here's a direct quote from the article;


So, where to start....

• The officer did NOT tell a colleague it was like a scene from Baghdad.
• No students were hurling rocks.
• No cars were swerving to avoid them.
• No debris littered the road. It was NOT mayhem
• The cop did NOT call for back-up.
• Youths were NOT throwing rocks at the windows of houses on the neat, tree-lined streets.
• As no reinforcements were called, none arrived.
• The police made no arrests. Amanda was told the music was too loud and given a citation because of it.

So either you have not read the police report (which is available on the Internet), in which case you should have said as much, or you're lying.

And this article absolutely prejudiced the trial against Amanda as the prosecution used this specific article in court trying to paint Amanda as someone who could get wild and out of control.

So, you can't find anything in the Belfast article about cleaning receipts, eh? How about this quote from the article;



Didn't see that, huh? As you know, no receipts for cleaning products were ever found. This is a flat out lie designed to make Amanda and Raffaele look guilty. There are numerous other lies throughout the article, but if you couldn't even find this, I doubt you saw anything else. Selective blindness?

It makes no difference where the stories originated, they get picked up and repeated globally. A prime example is the DM article cited above. Look, we all know the media was publishing this crap, so I have no idea why you think lying about this helps your cause.

And yes, I DO remember we were discussing the supposed equivalents of defamatory articles about Mignini being 'mentally unstable'. At worst, the article you are referring to is tantamount to calling him names. It neither hurts his ability to do his job nor does it put his freedom at risk. And it was only one article. Conversely, the constant fallacies being published in the media about Amanda convinced a large global population to believe she was guilty. As jurors in Italy are not sequestered, for two years they were exposed to all of this bogus negative coverage, which surely influenced how they perceived the case. So there is no equivalency - what was done to Amanda was far worse, and far more serious.

Unfortunately, when there is a scandalous incident, there is strong public interest. Gossip rags like the DAILY MAIL will feed heavily biased articles towards their imagined audiences. But as ever with the press, what comes first, prurient press or prurient public interest? Was Knox found scandalous because of the terrible, terrible crime committed or was it only scandalous because the press made it so?

As for Mignini he has explained that as a prosecutor he has no choice but to file charges under the Italian Criminal Code, hence all the side shows of people being charged for defaming an officer. As has been pointed out, Italy DOES have and HAS HAD enormous problems with Mafia corruption (and no, this is not a conspiracy theory it is factual) which is why Italy has such draconian laws on defaming officers - Calunnia - that might subvert justice.

This latter issue is very different from writing salacious articles to feed the public's desire to know more about a shocking event.



.



.

 

[Vixen]

No. I'm attempting to hold you accountable for, inter alia, falsely accusing me of personally attacking you, refusing to admit that you subscribe to various conspiracy theories, and repeatedly deploying assorted logical fallacies.

So, again, quote any argumentum ad hominem or personal attack in my post or withdraw the accusation.

Stop talking rubbish. If I have an interest in shipping disasters that happen in my local waters or events that are news in England or elsewhere, then I bloody well will debate them and do not need your approval to do so. Think about it, the guy in the pub who never watches the news or reads books goes mad with rage at anyone who understands current affairs or intellectual issues better than himself. Intimidates them by calling them names because he has never been outside of his own small world of a pint and a fag; and rolled-up trousers at Clacton-on-Sea is the furthest away from home he's ever been. Your claim that the Mafia influence in the Italian Judiciary is 'just a conspiracy theory' really does indicate your lack of the awareness of the wider world. Your saying it is because it's not in your radar doesn't make it so. I mean you are perfectly free to hold any opinion but do try not to censor other people who have a different world view than yourself.

In future, please stick to the topic and not personal attack.



.



.


.

 

[Vixen]

Mignini reminds me of a certain orange US president who can't handle any kind of negative coverage. Mignini used lawsuits, or threats of lawsuits, in an effort to intimidate anyone who hurt his fee fees by criticizing him.

The fact you can't tell the difference between the rule of law and a country's constitution from an opportunistic politician whose only requirement for election to POTUS is to be born in the USA indicates why you are having so much trouble grappling with the implications of various legal issues, which have nothing to do with individuals - such as policemen, judges or prosecutors - but are written into Statute and the Constitution. So, when you blame Mignini for prosecuting Knox and Sollecito you fail to grasp that Mignini was just the representative of the State and it could have been any Luigi, Alessandro or Massimo who issued the charges.




.

 

[Vixen]

She'd cry "misogynist" if she thought she could get away with it. She's done that in at least one other thread where no other women had posted in a while, but she knows you'd call BS on her. And you may have noticed that she's made a couple of oblique accusations of racism recently.

@Vixen, I should have reminded you in my previous post, as you ought to know quite well by now, having your views challenged is not a personal attack. Pointing out the flaws in your arguments is not a personal attack. Attempting to hold you accountable for false accusations you make is not a personal attack. And, finally, as I've mentioned before, correctly and relevantly pointing out that you lack the expertise to make certain claims is not a personal attack, even if it hurts your feelings.

No sorry, you said despite Guede, being at least four to three inches shorter that Delfo, the tall gangly defence guy who tried to climb in Filomena's window but failed, that he would somehow make up for it in having longer arms by virtue of being an African gentleman, and yes, I called BS on you but it WAS your comment and people can call out on that type of outrageous claim based on someone's personal characteristics. By that measure, I presume you believe Lumumba could also have nipped up the wall and broken in as well, given he was born in Zaire. Of course it was a ridiculous claim BY YOU and how interesting you try to turn it round into 'How dare you call me the r-word?'


Please provide the citation of where I supposedly cried 'misogynist'. You really do know how to to scrape the barrel.


My feelings aren't hurt. I am exercising the right of reply. I am trying to help you reevaluate how you respond to people who might hold a different view from yourself and have different interests. It is really nothing to feel threatened by. Honest!




.




.

 

[Vixen]

Stacyhs, I agree that Mignini used lawsuits or threats of lawsuits against anyone as an intimidation tactic, but I think it was motivated by more than his desire to protect his feelings of self-worth. I believe he was using those intimidation tactics to prevent any disruption of his false narratives, because he wanted his false claims of (sometimes unlikely or impossible) criminal acts to succeed without meaningful opposition.

The remaining issues of the Knox - Sollecito case go beyond the personality and behavior of Mignini, however, and expose the dysfunctions of the Italian judicial system and even the weaknesses of the Council of Europe - ECHR human rights program.

ISTM that explanation seems to be the only way the PIP can make it work to explain why Knox and Sollecito were ever arrested and convicted at all.

But do you see how incredibly unlikely it is that one salaried prosecutor assigned at random by dint of being on duty that evening could completely subvert the entire Italian legal system and constitution via the Supreme Courts, especially as Mignini wasn't even around after the Massei trial level?

.

 

[SpitfireIX]

As a matter of legal fact:

As has been pointed out to you, ad nauseam as usual, we're not interested in "legal facts" here. We're interested in the actual innocence or guilt of Knox and Sollecito.

As has also been pointed out to you, one of the great flaws in the Italian legal system is the way in which "legal facts" erroneously established in one trial can have pernicious effects on other trials, or on appeals.

The final judgment makes it very clear Guede acted in conjunction with others.

The final judgment is wrong, for reasons that have been hashed and rehashed many times in the numerous iterations of this thread.

Who the others are becomes clear when it names Knox as definitely being there as of the time of the murder and Sollecito almost certainly.

"Who the others are" is irrelevant, because, as I said, the judgment is wrong.

In effect, whilst it got the pair out of prison, it didn't exonerate them.

Untrue, as discussed, but also irrelevant to the issue of their actual innocence.

Whilst getting out of prison might be great in the short term, in the long term the MR of Marasca-Bruno pretty much damns them for life, in that Knox is said to have covered for Guede by naming Lumumba,

Despite your stubborn refusal to admit it, we know that the police coerced Knox into naming Lumumba, based, inter alia, on their misinterpretation of the "see you later" text.

A few additional points on this. First, you do not get to claim that Knox lied about having been mistreated during the interrogation, due to the failure of the Italian authorities to conduct any kind of an investigation, as they were required to do. And your objection that that was only due to her lawyers' failure to "make a formal complaint" has already been shown to be groundless.

Second, sleep deprivation is a form of mistreatment, and that clearly happened. It also increases suggestibility. You have a psychology degree, so you knew that, didn't you? And recall that we have the wiretap transcript of Knox telling her mother that she'd only slept two hours the last couple of nights.

From The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied (via Researchgate.net):

Effects of Length of Sleep Deprivation on Interrogative Suggestibility​

Mark Blagrove
Swansea University

Abstract

Using the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale, individuals who had not slept for 43 hours showed significantly greater yield to leading questions about a story than did controls. When questioned again following negative feedback, they tended to change their answers more than controls. Individuals who had not slept for 21 hours showed a trend for greater suggestibility. Sleep-deprived individuals scored lower on the Profile of Mood States Energetic, Clearheaded, and Confident scales than did controls. Sleep-deprived individuals thus have reduced cognitive ability or motivation to discriminate and detect discrepancies between original and misleading information. Therefore, it is recommended that police interrogation not occur if the interviewee has been deprived of sleep. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

that the burglary was staged,

It wasn't, as discussed, the police's transparently flawed analysis and your arguments from personal incredulity notwithstanding.

she washed Mez' blood off her hands

As has been explained to you ad nauseam, the fact that Knox's DNA was found in Kercher's blood in a bathroom that they shared does not indicate that Knox washed the blood off.

and that the pair lied and lied and lied.

No.

Is it real freedom or is it just an evasion of justice?

Again, we maintain that the evidence strongly favors the pair's actual innocence, so, even if we were to grant your (incorrect) contention that they were let off only on a technicality, it doesn't matter.

 

[Numbers]

ISTM that explanation seems to be the only way the PIP can make it work to explain why Knox and Sollecito were ever arrested and convicted at all.

But do you see how incredibly unlikely it is that one salaried prosecutor assigned at random by dint of being on duty that evening could completely subvert the entire Italian legal system and constitution via the Supreme Courts, especially as Mignini wasn't even around after the Massei trial level?

.

Vixen, I'm pleased to see that you agree that the Knox - Sollecit case shows that not only was Mignini operating unlawfully in his prosecution of Knox and Sollecito (and Lumumba), but that the highly dysfunctional Italian judicial system shares enormous responsibility for the miscarriages of justice in this case, which continue to this day with 1. the improper and unlawful denial of compensation to Sollecito for unjust detention, 2. the violations of Italian and international (ECHR) law in the re-conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba, and 3. the continued failure of Italy more than 5 years after the final ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy to provide an Action Plan or Action Report to the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers to outline how it planned to resolve the case - the initial AP/AR was due 6 months after the final judgment date.

 

[Numbers]

What's the Knox case about? (I am leaving out Sollecito in this post for clarity.)

Here's the summary by Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (with spacing, bolding, and italics added for emphasis):

The case concerns the lack of an investigation into allegations of ill-treatment by the police in 2007, during the questioning of the applicant, a young woman of foreign nationality and language, subsequently convicted for malicious accusation in the context of criminal proceedings concerning the murder and rape of her flat mate (violation of Article 3 in its procedural limb).

The case also concerns the restriction on the applicant’s access to legal assistance during her questioning by the police, which the European Court found to have had irretrievably impaired the overall fairness of the proceedings (violation of Art. 6 §§ 1 and 3 c)) and

the inadequate assistance provided to the applicant by an interpreter during the police questioning (violation of Art. 6 §§ 1 and 3 e)).

Source: https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-52517

The murder/rape charges against Knox and Sollecito were dismissed by their final and definitive acquittal by the Marasca CSC panel.

For Knox, the case now involves not only the three items identified above - which are in essence human rights violations found against Italy, that must under international and Italian law be resolved by Italy, and the new re-conviction of Knox for calunnia by Italy, despite the finding by the ECHR that the denial of a lawyer during the questioning of Knox had irretrievably impaired the fairness of the proceedings. In my view, this means that Italy cannot lawfully revive the proceedings, even by using Knox's written English Memoriales, which the ECHR had recognized, as the recent re-conviction admits, as a recantation or renunciation of her (coerced) statements written by the police in Italian.

 

[Vixen]

What's the Knox case about? (I am leaving out Sollecito in this post for clarity.)

Here's the summary by Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (with spacing, bolding, and italics added for emphasis):



Source: https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-52517

The murder/rape charges against Knox and Sollecito were dismissed by their final and definitive acquittal by the Marasca CSC panel.

For Knox, the case now involves not only the three items identified above - which are in essence human rights violations found against Italy, that must under international and Italian law be resolved by Italy, and the new re-conviction of Knox for calunnia by Italy, despite the finding by the ECHR that the denial of a lawyer during the questioning of Knox had irretrievably impaired the fairness of the proceedings. In my view, this means that Italy cannot lawfully revive the proceedings, even by using Knox's written English Memoriales, which the ECHR had recognized, as the recent re-conviction admits, as a recantation or renunciation of her (coerced) statements written by the police in Italian.

Problem is, the ECHR doesn't try criminal law. The way Italy dealt with it was to vacate the conviction and send it back to retrial. Remember, Knox isn't the only party here. Lumumba is also a party.

The issue went to Italy's highest echelons and legal professionals as to how to treat this and that was its solution.

My advice would be to stop going to court. The only people getting rich are the lawyers. Just get on with life. You tried to pin a horrible crime on your boss so own up and take it on the chin.

Matthew 5:25 New Living Translation (NLT)“When you are on the way to court with your adversary, settle your differences quickly. Otherwise, your accuser may hand you over to the judge, who will hand you over to an officer, and you will be thrown into prison.





.

 

[Vixen]

As has been pointed out to you, ad nauseam as usual, we're not interested in "legal facts" here. We're interested in the actual innocence or guilt of Knox and Sollecito.

As has also been pointed out to you, one of the great flaws in the Italian legal system is the way in which "legal facts" erroneously established in one trial can have pernicious effects on other trials, or on appeals.


The final judgment is wrong, for reasons that have been hashed and rehashed many times in the numerous iterations of this thread.


"Who the others are" is irrelevant, because, as I said, the judgment is wrong.


Untrue, as discussed, but also irrelevant to the issue of their actual innocence.


Despite your stubborn refusal to admit it, we know that the police coerced Knox into naming Lumumba, based, inter alia, on their misinterpretation of the "see you later" text.

A few additional points on this. First, you do not get to claim that Knox lied about having been mistreated during the interrogation, due to the failure of the Italian authorities to conduct any kind of an investigation, as they were required to do. And your objection that that was only due to her lawyers' failure to "make a formal complaint" has already been shown to be groundless.

Second, sleep deprivation is a form of mistreatment, and that clearly happened. It also increases suggestibility. You have a psychology degree, so you knew that, didn't you? And recall that we have the wiretap transcript of Knox telling her mother that she'd only slept two hours the last couple of nights.

From The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied (via Researchgate.net):

Effects of Length of Sleep Deprivation on Interrogative Suggestibility​

Mark Blagrove
Swansea University

Abstract

Using the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale, individuals who had not slept for 43 hours showed significantly greater yield to leading questions about a story than did controls. When questioned again following negative feedback, they tended to change their answers more than controls. Individuals who had not slept for 21 hours showed a trend for greater suggestibility. Sleep-deprived individuals scored lower on the Profile of Mood States Energetic, Clearheaded, and Confident scales than did controls. Sleep-deprived individuals thus have reduced cognitive ability or motivation to discriminate and detect discrepancies between original and misleading information. Therefore, it is recommended that police interrogation not occur if the interviewee has been deprived of sleep. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)



It wasn't, as discussed, the police's transparently flawed analysis and your arguments from personal incredulity notwithstanding.


As has been explained to you ad nauseam, the fact that Knox's DNA was found in Kercher's blood in a bathroom that they shared does not indicate that Knox washed the blood off.


No.


Again, we maintain that the evidence strongly favors the pair's actual innocence, so, even if we were to grant your (incorrect) contention that they were let off only on a technicality, it doesn't matter.

This topic is under Trials & Errors, so no, I am not going to discuss blind faith and intuition. You want me to pit logic, reason and due process (that goes back a thousand years to Anglo-Saxon law [well, in the UK, Roman /Napoleonic Law in Europe]) against your blind faith. Your argument that Italy's system is incredibly flawed seems to be based on something you read in the US pro-Knox US press promulgating tales of 53-hour torture sessions. All I can say is that you are easily persuaded - an advertisers dream! - as you seem to accept it unquestioningly.

If I were to say to you, I think Ted Bundy is innocent. You are going to say, why on earth do I care what you think?