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

[TruthCalls]

I am afraid that is how Marasca-Bruno, 2015, left the whole thing in a complete mess.

Fast forward to 2017 to Sollecito's claim for millions of euros in compensation:


"..the fact that Knox was in the house 7 Via della Pergola at the time when young Meredith Kercher was killed constitutes a fact of absolute and indisputable certainty."

Martuscelli,Masi, Favi – Florence Court 10 Feb 2017



"the Court noted a lack of correspondence after 20:40, the time of the second visit of Popovic and the last call from Sollecito's father, (or anyway, later than 21:10, the time of the last computer interaction); the falseness of the girl's assertions that she had eaten in the house at 22:00 or 23:00 (because Sollecito's father at 20:40 was told that they had already eaten and that a leak had occurred under the sink while they were washing up); the untruthfulness of her statement that both had slept together all night until 10:00, given the evidence of human interaction with Sollecito's computer at 05:32 and the turning on of his cell phone at about 06:00."

Martuscelli, Masi, Favi – Florence Appeal Court 10 Feb 2017

Could you clarify why you claim "they were technically not 'exonerated'" ???


Interesting you quote Martuscelli. Considering all that it got wrong just within the one short paragraph you quoted;

What do you think was the evidence that led the court to write "the fact that Knox was in the house ... at the time when young Meredith Kercher was killed ... a fact of absolute and indisputable certainty." ??? We know MB was referencing her interrogation statements, but those were thrown out. So on what basis can any court make this claim? Can you cite what evidence proves this with absolute and indisputable certainty?

It's also very telling that the court wrote ".... (or anyway, later than 21:10, the time of the last computer interaction)". Apparently they weren't aware it was proven Raffaele downloaded and then launched a Naruto cartoon at 21:26. Ooops... so careless of the court.

It also got it wrong when it wrote "the falseness of the girl's assertions that she had eaten in the house at 22:00 or 23:00 (because Sollecito's father at 20:40 was told that they had already eaten and that a leak had occurred under the sink while they were washing up)". It was 20:42 and Raffaele did NOT say they had eaten, only that he was washing dishes when the sink leaked.

It then assumes when it wrote "the untruthfulness of her statement that both had slept together all night until 10:00, given the evidence of human interaction with Sollecito's computer at 05:32 and the turning on of his cell phone at about 06:00." Of course, one can get up to use the bathroom, check something on the computer or use their cell phone and return to bed, not rising for the day until 10:00.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

RG's story was RS attacked him with a knife (and there were knife wounds on RG's hands) before fleeing with AK whose silhouette he saw, he claims.

This gets madder and madder. You think RG got knifed by RS but didn't run away, until he later heard them downstairs and *then* he ran away. I presume the "he claims" bit means no of course you don't believe that. There's a much more parsimonious explanation for cuts on his hands. He got them while committing the murder.

 

[Vixen]

Could you clarify why you claim "they were technically not 'exonerated'" ???


Interesting you quote Martuscelli. Considering all that it got wrong just within the one short paragraph you quoted;

What do you think was the evidence that led the court to write "the fact that Knox was in the house ... at the time when young Meredith Kercher was killed ... a fact of absolute and indisputable certainty." ??? We know MB was referencing her interrogation statements, but those were thrown out. So on what basis can any court make this claim? Can you cite what evidence proves this with absolute and indisputable certainty?

It's also very telling that the court wrote ".... (or anyway, later than 21:10, the time of the last computer interaction)". Apparently they weren't aware it was proven Raffaele downloaded and then launched a Naruto cartoon at 21:26. Ooops... so careless of the court.

It also got it wrong when it wrote "the falseness of the girl's assertions that she had eaten in the house at 22:00 or 23:00 (because Sollecito's father at 20:40 was told that they had already eaten and that a leak had occurred under the sink while they were washing up)". It was 20:42 and Raffaele did NOT say they had eaten, only that he was washing dishes when the sink leaked.

It then assumes when it wrote "the untruthfulness of her statement that both had slept together all night until 10:00, given the evidence of human interaction with Sollecito's computer at 05:32 and the turning on of his cell phone at about 06:00." Of course, one can get up to use the bathroom, check something on the computer or use their cell phone and return to bed, not rising for the day until 10:00.

It was an automatic P2P download, nobody needed to be there, and in fact, RS actually downloaded Amelié film end of October so seems odd AK says in her book that she turned to RS to say, oh I know a great film Amelie blah blah, referring to the eve of the murder.

The Masi Court's mention of the father's claim is a dig at RS getting his father to vouch for him.

To explain all the flooding RS experienced that night RS' father said this happened before 8:40pm the time he supposedly rang RS because that was the last call proven to go through to RS before the next morning. As RS' phone was switched off from about 9:00pm and his father rang at 11:00pm as per usual, the message went to answerphone, which RS only picked up at about 6:00am.

Likewise Popovic's claim was also used against him.

This is Florence Supreme Court saying we know you did it, and you ain't getting a penny.


.

 

[Vixen]

This gets madder and madder. You think RG got knifed by RS but didn't run away, until he later heard them downstairs and *then* he ran away. I presume the "he claims" bit means no of course you don't believe that. There's a much more parsimonious explanation for cuts on his hands. He got them while committing the murder.

RG claims he went to Mez' aid, trying to staunch all the blood.


.

 

[Vixen]

One more time... HOW does Filomena know Meredith never locked her door?

That Filomena and Laura were the main flat tenants who sublet to AK and MK is irrelevant.

Because she DEMANDED it be broken in!




.

 

[Stacyhs]

The expectation is that if you are going to claim 'contamination' you need to present a plausible path of how that contamination got there specific to the scenario. Otherwise any criminal can claim 'contamination' without proper proof or testing.

You want a 'plausible path'? Here ya go. Prof. Vinci presents it in his court presentation:

https://www.themurderofmeredithkercher.net/docupl/filelibrary/docs/presentations/2008-09-24-Slides-Consultant-Defense-Vinci-finding-bra-clasp.pdf

The Dec. 18 collection of the bra clearly showed egregious violations of anti-contamination protocols including being directly touched by a visibly dirty and admittedly unchanged gloves.

Hellmann was criticised for saying, 'Anything is possible',

Every single court was criticized. That's par for the course. Some criticisms are valid, some are not.
Hellmann was not criticized for saying "Anything is possible". Chieffi (pg. 33) criticized the experts:

Nor could the experts indicate any specific source of contamination, limiting themselves instead to asserting that anything is possible.

using a piece-meal method of evidence testing

Yep. Taking each piece of evidence and ruling on its own inculpatory merit rather than considering everything 'as a whole' as if the 'bigger picture' somehow makes each piece of evidence ruled non-inculpatory now inculpatory.

and failing to explain why he appointed new expert witnesses at all.

Hellmann did give an explanation why the new experts were appointed. From the Chieffi MR (pg 15):

The Hellmann Court of Appeal justified its decision to allow this new assessment by the fact that “the identification of the DNA on the two exhibits and its [11] attribution to the defendants was particularly complex because of the objective difficulty, by persons not having scientific knowledge, to formulate assessments and opinions on particularly technical matters without the assistance of a court‐appointed expert”.

As the next merits court via Nencini Appeal pointed out, C&V's report was riddled with so-called 'US standards',

Citation needed and requested. I can find no such statement in Nencini. He did mention "international standards" on page 253:

...the quantity of material sampled from trace (I) was perfectly analyzable, with a double amplification, and thus suitable to yield a perfectly reliable result according to the oft-cited international standards when analyzed by professionals who wanted to use this kit or who knew about the availability of the kit that made this possible.

clearly written by AK advocates in the US, when C&V were supposed to be independent.

LOL. That is clearly YOUR claim. Unless you can quote and cite evidence of this?

You continue to claim every acquitting judge, defense lawyer, defense expert, defense witness was "bent", "paid off", "incompetent" or in a" conspiracy" to get AK and RS off. Five years ago you were posting this nonsense and you're still at it:

Vecchiotti & Conti were in a conspiracy with Hellman. Hellman didn't need to appoint two further experts, as they are no higher rank than Stefanoni. They were brought in to trash her. Chieffi criticised Hellman for failing to explain why he appointed tow further experts.

But you're not a conspiracist!

Hellman had the power to appoint experts of his own but he was supposed to proved a rationale for it.

Yes, he did and he also provided his rationale for it as I quoted and cited above.

They were very obviously bent, as was Hellmann.

And everyone else who doesn't agree with the PGP narrative.

 

[Stacyhs]

RG claims he went to Mez' aid, trying to staunch all the blood.

He also claims he had a prearranged meeting with Kercher to have sex while Silenzi was out of town. Apparently, Kercher was also "bringing home strange men" and having "sex with multiple partners".

 

[LondonJohn]

Seriously: why are people still being indulgent in rising to "arguments" being made in this thread about matters related to the murder charges against Knox and Sollecito? We* all know that there never was even one reliable, credible piece of evidence linking either Knox or Sollecito to the murder. We all know that the prosecutor and police got all puffed up with hubris, malign methods and motives, tunnel vision and confirmation bias. We all know that in actual fact the only person who is linked by sufficient reliable, credible evidence to constitute proof BARD of participation in the murder was/is Guede. We all know that in actual fact every piece of reliable, credible evidence in this case is wholly compatible with Guede confronting Kercher alone, forcing her into submission with his knife at her throat, initiating a sexual assault upon her, then stabbing her in the neck when she (most probably) struggled and screamed once the sexual assault started.

Frankly, I'm baffled that people can still be bothered to engage with nutjob conspiracy theories, entrenched woeful misunderstandings of various pieces of evidence, and laughable ignorance of science and the scientific method. But then again, I suppose there are still people on this forum who line up to argue back against other wholly-discredited theories around such things as 9/11, the Moon landings or the JFK assassination. In all those examples - as with the murder of Meredith Kercher - all right-thinking people now know the settled truth of the matter. Yet somehow people still get drawn in like moths to a flame to engage with long-discredited conspiracy theories and bogus deductive reasoning. Plus ca change.....


* "We" here means: critical thinkers with at least half-decent powers of analysis, deduction and the scientific method.

 

[Numbers]

To understand the Knox - Sollecito case, one must understand not only the details and alleged details of the case, but also understand the workings of Italy's judicial system - not merely its criminal and procedural laws, but also how the authorities - the police, prosecutors, and courts work in practice. Are the procedural laws strictly followed by the authorities? Are the reasons given by the courts in their judgments logical, reasonable, and consistent with the credible evidence of a case, or are the judgments sometimes unfair? When the authorities make mistakes or act unfairly, perhaps even unlawfully, do the mechanisms of the judicial process result in appropriate correction and redress? How quickly do a necessary correction and redress follow after an unfairness is brought to the attention of the authorities by, for example, a judgment of a violation of the Convention by the ECHR?

Let's gain some idea of the answers to these questions by examining the number of [leading] pending ECHR cases before the CoM and how many of these cases have at least some initial response (an Action Plan or proposed Action Report) from the Respondent State for some states of interest.

Italy; pop. about 59 million. Pending cases: 74; Required AP/AR: 69; Received: 53; Awaited: 17 = 24.6%

Ukraine; pop. about 38 million. Pending cases: 111; Required AP/AR: 111; Received: 107; Awaited: 4 = 3.6%

UK; pop. about 68 million. Pending cases: 7; Required AP/AR: 7; Received: 7; Awaited: 0 = 0%

France; pop. about 67 million. Pending cases: 22; Required AP/AR: 22; Received: 22; Awaited: 0 = 0%

Germany; pop. about 84 million. Pending cases: 6; Required AP/AR: 6; Received: 6; Awaited: 0 = 0%

Spain; pop. about 49 million. Pending cases: 21; Required AP/AR: 21; Received: 20; Awaited: 1 = 4.8%

Turkiye; pop. about 86 million. Pending cases: 139; Required AP/AR: 131; Received: 127; Awaited: 4 = 3.1%

Russia; pop. about 144 million. Pending cases: 246; Required AP/AR: 167; Received: 74; Awaited: 93 = 55.7%*

* Although Russia ceased being a member of the CoE in 2022, under the Convention, it remains legally obligated to work within the Convention to correct and redress violations of the Convention up to 6 months after the date it left and was expelled from the Council of Europe. That means that the ECHR was allowed under the Convention to accept applications against Russia until 16 September 2022. See:

https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/russia-ceases-to-be-party-to-the-european-convention-on-human-rights

Some guilter years ago suggested that Italy could "solve" the Knox ECHR issues by leaving the Council of Europe. That leaving would not release Italy from a legal treaty obligation to redress the violations found by the ECHR in the Knox v. Italy case under the Convention.


Conclusion: Not only does Italy have a relatively large number of ECHR cases finding violations of the Convention - including cases of unfair trials, but also other types of unfair practices by the authorities and government, but it is slower than many other democracies in Western Europe in addressing its mistakes or misconduct.

The data on Leading Pending cases, Required AP/AR, Received AP/AR, and Awaited AP/AR are from the HUDOC EXEC database:

HUDOC-EXEC

hudoc.exec.coe.int

I calculated the percentages for the Awaited AP/AR as NUMBER AWAITED/NUMBER REQUIRED x 100.

 

[Stacyhs]

There were two long blond hairs. One clasped in rigor mortis by the victim's hand. Another long strand across Mez' bag.

So tell me, were those blond hairs natural or died? As I've pointed out to you numerous times and which you ignore: Amanda dyed her hair blonde at the time and dyed hair is easily seen under a microscope.

Guede was seen dancing with a girl with "long, straight blonde hair" on Halloween night at Domus by his upstairs neighbors. (Follain, Kindle location 2894)

Knox' table lamp on the floor beneath Mez' bed

We've discussed this ad nauseum. No one knows who or when the lamp was brought into her room. But per usual, you see no explanation possible other than it was Knox/Sollecito the night of the murder. As I've mentioned many times; if guilty Knox would have simply claimed Kercher borrowed it.

and a ladies size 37 ACSIS stamped in blood on the pillow. Knox is size 37.

Oh, please, don't start with the size 37 shoe bit again.

In addition, only AK would have the key to Mez door to lock her in, being the only other person home.

LOL. You mean Guede didn't know how to lock the door? Oh, wait. I forgot: the locks were custom made for the cottage so he didn't know how put a key in and turn it!

Please don't argue that it is OK to kill your room mate 'because AK lives there, so all mixed DNA and footprints in blood should be disregarded'.

Will you PLEASE STOP MISCHARACTERIZING WHAT PEOPLE SAY? No one said any such thing. Nor were there "footprints in blood" except for the one on the bathmat which could not be scientifically and definitively assigned.

 

[Stacyhs]

I didn't catch it until I reread it a few times, but that's supposed to be a joke. It's a line from a movie. Say it three times fast. And see here.

I've never seen a Carry On film in life despite having subscriptions to both ACORN and BRITBOX.

 

[Stacyhs]

i had thought of this, but someone had mentioned that Filomena stated that Meredith never locked her door. However, I just got Waiting to Be Heard from the library, and Amanda states, on p. 71 (hardback), that she told the Postal Police that Meredith only locked her door when she was changing clothes or out of town for the weekend, and then Filomena interrupted, clearly agitated, to say that Meredith never locked her door, and to demand that the police break it down.

I would say that Amanda is more likely to have been correct on this point. Filomena may well have assumed, just because she'd never known of Meredith's locking her door (in the relatively short time they'd been housemates) that she never did. However, Amanda could well have knocked at least once, and Meredith might have responded, "Just a minute! I'm changing!" (or whatever a young English woman of that time would have said in such circumstances), and then Amanda could have heard the door being unlocked before Meredith opened it. Amanda might also have actually observed Meredith lock her door before she left for the weekend.

Finally, it's possible that Meredith had recently started locking her door, or locking it more frequently, when she was away, but neither Amanda nor Filomena were aware of this. Possibly someone had suggested to her that she do this, or she might have gotten the idea on her own, such as from hearing about a break-in in the area.

All of this is a long-winded way of saying that, even though Filomena stated that Meredith never locked her door, we still can't exclude the possibility that Rudy could have found her keys in the lock.

Filomena worked full time, 5 days a week and spent many, if not most, weekends at her boyfriend's place. How would she know when, or if, Meredith locked her door during the day? OTOH, Amanda was often home during the day as her three classes only took two hours 5 days week (WTBH). She speaks about afternoon sunbathing on the terrace with Meredith after Filomena and Laura went back to work after lunch.

 

[Stacyhs]

Complete nonsense.

 

[Stacyhs]

How is this relevant? A poster brought up Salem to portray their belief AK was witch hunted by Mignini, without offering any proof whatsoever but hoping to be taken at face value. Please don't be disingenuous and claim the poster wasn't referring to AK's sex.

He wasn't referring to AK's sex as he never brought her sex up. Show me exactly WHERE in this statement Myriad references her sex:

Right now, and far into the future, that happens to be a story about malicious and incompetent prosecution of innocent people, which is something few people have any sympathy for once the history comes to light.

Consider the honest well-intentioned prosecutors in Salem, MA in the 1690s who worked so hard to keep the citizens safe from evil. It's so unfair that they ended up vilified just because they killed 25 people, when there was clear testimony and forensic evidence that witches were fraternizing with Satan himself and using the maleficent powers they gained thereby to spectrally assault and torture innocent young girls. The judgment of history is so unfair sometimes! Especially to the ones convinced they're contending against Satan personally, like Ol' Bill Stoughton or Magistrato Giuliano Mignini.

The only reference to any sex is the bolded. The "innocent young girls" being referencing were the girls claiming to be tormented by witches. Those girls were not being accused of anything by the authorities.

 

[Stacyhs]

I should take what AK puts in her words to portray herself as a victim of Italy's legal system with a huge pinch of salt. As Filomena, said, Mez never locked her door. Why do you think she immediately contradicted Knox' claim? The only time she locked her door was when she went to visit her family in England, which makes perfect sense. How does AK know she locked her door when changing unless AK rattled her door without knocking?

Giancarlo Massei didn't believe her story and actually leaned in during the trial to ask her a question personally about it. Here's the exchange:

GCM - Giancarlo Massei; GM - Guiliano Mignini

GM:

You don't remember. So. Listen, another question. Do you remember, on the morning of the 2nd, if Raffaele tried to break down the door of the room?

AK:

Yes.

GM:

How then, when later Romanelli arrived, you said that it was normal for Meredith to lock her door. Yet you tried to break it down. Can you explain this?

AK:

Certainly. When the police came they asked, at least they asked Filomena, if that door was ever locked, and she said "No no no no, it's never, never locked." I said "No, that's not true that it's really never locked," because sometimes it actually was locked. But for me, it was strange that it was locked and she wasn't answering, so for me it was strange, but I wanted to explain that it wasn't impossible, that she did lock her door now and then.

GM:

But usually, you remember her door being open.

AK:

Yes it was usually open or at least...yes.

GM:

But on that morning, I understand that you were said to have stated that Meredith always locked her door. And that it was normal.

AK:

I never said it was always locked. It's just that they didn't understand. I just wanted to explain that it was not always open.

GM:

I see, you didn't explain properly.

GCM:

The pubblico ministero is asking you: okay, you say it was not always open, not always closed, but it was a circumstance which didn't particularly alarm you, so much so that you even said this to Romanelli.

AK:

Yes, because Filomena was answering like that--



GCM: Okay, okay, but it sounds like the locked door didn't alarm you, whereas in fact Raffaele Sollecito had already tried to break down the door. So?



AK: Well, I was worried because she wasn't answering. The fact that the door was locked wouldn't have alarmed me if, say, she had answered, but the fact that she didn't answer when we called her made us think: maybe she's in there and she isn't well or something.



GCM: Yes, but per carita, still on this circumstance. A door is locked, locked, why should I think there is someone inside who isn't answering me? I could just calmly think that nobody is there.


AK:

Also that. But we weren't sure. Sorry--

GCM:

--and if she's not home, why should I be worried? Enough to ruin the door by breaking it down? Why should I think that there is someone there who is not answering me? The simplest answer is that she left, locked the door and left. She's not answering, why call her? The door is locked, she's not there.

AK:

I know. But the fact that there were all these strange things in the house--

GCM:

No, excuse me. Per carita. After this, the other party will continue the examination. I want to say: you find the main door open, you can think that she left and forgot to close it, but she locked her own door. Why should you be so worried that you try to break down her door? I think this is what the pubblico ministero is asking. There. If you could explain why you were so worried in relation to your knowledge. Your motive for trying to break down the door.

AK:

Yes. I was worried that somehow she was inside and had hurt herself, because there were so many strange things in the house, and so I didn't know what to think. But at the same time, she could have been inside or not, but I wanted to be sure, because if she had hurt herself in some way, or if someone was in there, or if she went out because there was something in there, I didn't know. And the fact that the door was locked together with the broken window had me very worried, I didn't know what to think, but I was worried. So I wanted to knock the door down to see if there was something in there. I didn't know what. But at the same time it worried me. And when I said to Filomena "It's not true that it's never locked," I only wanted to explain the truth of the situation. Because someone was saying "No, no, it's never locked," and that wasn't true. I wanted to explain that.

And here's how AK tried to explain away her missing lamp.

GM:

Now, another question. You told us before, this story about the door, about knocking down the door, that Raffaele tried to break down the door. You said that you tried to explain that sometimes she did have her door locked, you told us about this point. Now, I want to ask you this question: Raffaele didn't by any chance try to break down the door to get back the lamp we talked about?

AK:

[perfectly calm reasonable voice] No, we didn't know the lamp was in there.

GM:

You didn't know that your lamp was in there?

AK:

In the sense that the lamp that was supposed to be in my room, I hadn't even noticed it was missing. I tried--

GM:

You didn't see that it was missing?

AK:

No, I didn't see that it was missing. We tried to break down the door because I was so worried after having seen the broken window. I basically panicked. I was thinking, Good Lord, what's going on here? I ran downstairs to see if anyone down there had heard anything, then I tried to see if she was inside. She locked her door when she needed "privacy" [English]. So if she wasn't in there but the door was locked, it seemed strange to me. Also the fact that the window was broken worried me. It wasn't to get something.


FM:

In your room in via della Pergola, was there a central light?

AK:

There was one but it didn't work, so I used the little bedside lamp.

FM:

The lamp.

AK:

The little lamp, yes.

FM:

And you previously stated that you didn't look for the lamp either; you only looked for your computer when you went into your room. You didn't look for your money, you didn't look for your lamp.

AK:

So, I saw the window only the second time that I entered the house. The first time I went into the house I didn't even think of looking to see if anything was missing, because I saw going into the living room, it really looked like someone had just gone out of the house, everything was in order, just as I had left it. But the second time, I didn't even think of looking for the lamp: the computer was the important thing for me. All my documents were in it.

FM:

But the first time, when you took your shower and then you returned to your room, first you undressed and then you dressed, all this, you did it without any light?

AK:

It was the middle of the morning, there was already light.

FM:

Did you open your shutters or were they already open?

AK:

I don't remember.

FM:

To get to your room, to get to the window, you walked in the dark?

AK:

But it wasn't dark in my room. Often --

FM:

I don't know, I wasn't there.

AK:

All right. Usually I only turned on that little lamp at night. Really at night, or in the evening, when I wanted to...So I didn't even think of turning it on. It really wasn't dark in my room when I went in.

GCM:

It wasn't dark, but where was the light coming from? Natural light?

AK:

Natural.

GCM:

And what window was it coming from, this natural light?

AK:

I only have one window, but it was also coming from the other side because there's a balcony.

GCM:

And the door of the bathroom? Meredith's door was closed so no natural light was coming from there. Outside, there's the little corridor, the living room, Romanelli's door, and Laura Mezzetti's door. Which were the doors that let in light?

AK:

The door of the balcony on the other side of the corridor, which lets in light, and then there was the window.

GCM:

So, from the balcony, the corridor, the light actually reached your room?

AK:

Yes.

GCM:

That was the light that you had.

--http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox%27s_Testimony

Yes, we've presented this testimony before which is evidence of exactly nothing against Knox. She didn't know her lamp was missing because there was plenty of natural light. But you won't explain WHY Knox, if guilty, would not have just claimed Kercher borrowed her lamp while she was staying at Sollecito's. It's a perfectly plausible scenario. Which is why I suspect you never address that.

So your depiction of the Italian judiciary as a bunch of clowns eager to 'witch hunt' is so far off the mark. But I know you will never reevaluate your opinion because it is based on a blind loyalty to someone you perceive as a celebrity.

Oh, man. That made me spit my coffee out.

 

[Stacyhs]

You have powers of divination? It's a shame Randi is no longer with us to offer his million dollar prize!

Says the woman who repeatedly tells us what Knox and Sollecito not only 'knew' but what they thought and felt.

 

[Stacyhs]

(snipped)
So, we see, the (dead) victim's blood is all over the small bathroom and the diluted blood indicates the purpose was to clean it off.

Well, no , Sherlock! Even Insp. Clouseau could have figured that one out.

Stefanoni in Darkness Descending believes the drips were from the knife.

Wait. I thought the diluted blood in the sink was from Knox washing her hands of blood?

As to method of collection and how it was concluded that the DNA mix happened on the same night:

Yet again, we see the claim that Knox "during the following act of scrubbing the hands to remove the blood, he/she left the mixed trace consisting of Meredith’s blood and of cells which had been removed by rubbing during the act of washing," which was NEVER substantiated by any science or other evidence. It is 100% the unscientific assumption of the judges.

In effect, the mixed samples come from similarly diluted 'rivulets' of pink liquid (water + blood). = Deposited the same time at the same event.

Scientifically unsupported. Even Stefanoni knew that when and how Knox's DNA was deposited cannot be known. You've had numerous quoted and cited forensic articles stating that.

I know PGP claim to hate Stefanoni and despise her for her findings, and have no respect for her,

I've never seen anyone claim to 'hate' or 'despise' Stefanoni. Again, that's your invention. 'Respect' is another matter. You're right there. It's difficult to respect a forensic expert who makes such basic errors as she made both in the collection and processing of evidence. Who consistently and intentionally keeps referring to "luminol revealed" footprints when she somehow "forgets" to mention they all tested negative for blood.

but if you could please read the court findings carefully with a reasonable and impartial mind, you will understand the strength of the mixed blood evidence.


This is scientific and objective. This was tested in court.

Says the person who accuses every forensic expert who has explained why the mixed DNA/blood does NOT mean "mixed blood" of being bent, paid off, or incompetent. That's including experts far more respected than Stefanoni whose credentials can't hold a candle to theirs.

 

[Stacyhs]

Filomena's anxiety and alarm was genuine. AK blurted out that Mez' door was always locked because she realised how suspicious the locked door looked given she was the only person home and then she twigged Filomena just caught her lying.

Another classic example of you declaring what Knox "thought" in order push your own narrative.

Why would the locked door look suspicious? That she was "the only person home" is also your invention.

HOW WOULD FILOMENA KNOW WHEN MEREDITH LOCKED HER DOOR OR NOT? Did she watch her 24/7? Did she have a camera set up while she was at work 5 days a week? Did she try her door handle all the time? But, you won't answer this 'uncomfortable' question any more than you answer all the other questions you've been asked but ignore.

 

[TruthCalls]

Because she DEMANDED it be broken in!

She demanded it be broken in was because Meredith couldn't be found, her phones were found in Lana's garden, there's blood in the bathroom, the house has been broken into... of course everyone wanted the door broken down.

So one more time... HOW did she know Meredith never locked her door?

ETA: Also, please answer... Could you clarify why you claim "they were technically not 'exonerated'"

 

[Numbers]

A man wrongfully imprisoned for 38 years weeps as a UK court overturns his murder conviction​

Sexual fluid found on [Diane] Sindall’s body could not be scientifically analyzed until recently. A test in 2024 revealed it wasn’t [Peter] Sullivan, defense attorney Jason Pitter said.

“The prosecution case is that it was one person. It was one person who carried out a sexual assault on the victim,” Pitter said. “The evidence here is now that one person was not the defendant.”

Prosecutor Duncan Atkinson did not challenge the appeal and said that if the DNA evidence had been available at the time of the investigation it was inconceivable that Sullivan would have been prosecuted.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission, which examines possible wrongful convictions, declined to refer Sullivan’s case to the appeals court in 2008 because it said testing at the time was unlikely to produce a DNA profile.

A commission spokesperson said that while it made the correct decision based on the evidence at the time, it regretted not identifying the potential miscarriage of justice in its first review.

Source: https://apnews.com/article/uk-murder-conviction-quashed-sullivan-9badb50e7bf076c6319a7aab6249a670

As in the Knox - Sollecito case, there was no credible evidence of the DNA of the (falsely) accused and (wrongfully) convicted Peter Sullivan on the body of the rape/murder victim. The article does not state what evidence led to his 1987 conviction. It states that the ability to conduct DNA testing on a sample of the "sexual fluid" was developed rather recently.