• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

From the above;

The First Instance Court, commenting on the fact that the accused had made the first contact with the English service used by the victim before calling Filomena Romanelli, hypothesized that the telephone call made to the service of the victim had been done with the sole aim of checking that the cell phones, removed after the murder from the dwelling in Via della Pergola, had not been found by anyone. The comment is valid, since it does not otherwise make sense, even putting aside the timing of the telephone calls which the defendant changed in the course of the hearings, why Amanda Marie Knox, in the event she had had the intention of finding out about her English friend’s condition, not having received a reply from the English telephone service used by Meredith Kercher, did not try to call the other service, the one with an Italian SIM card, of which the accused was perfectly aware.
This is NOT a fact, nor was it proven by the court. It's an opinion, and it's not even a logical one. As has been pointed out, Amanda and Meredith, when talking on the phone, always used Meredith's English phone, not the Italian one. So why would Amanda think of using a phone the two of them never used?

Next, we have this;

From the telephone records it appears that the telephone call made at 12:11:02 pm to the Italian Vodafone service of the victim lasted 3 seconds; the one at 12:11:54 pm to the English service of the victim lasted 4 seconds. Perhaps not even enough time to repeat the first ring. Filomena Romanelli indeed made two unsuccessful calls to the service used by Amanda Marie Knox, at 12:12:35 pm and at 12:20:44 pm, and let the defendant’s telephone ring for 36 seconds the first time, and for a good 65 seconds the second time; an insistence that appears normal for anyone who intends to speak on the telephone with someone who, however, does not immediately answer the telephone.
Here the court is displaying it's utter lack of understanding on how phone systems work. Filomena didn't let the phone ring 36 seconds and later, 65 seconds. As has been noted numerous times, the duration of a call is only based on after the call is answered. In both cases above, Amanda answered the call and spoke to Filomena, and that's how the calls got to 36 and 65 seconds in duration.

And more;

The telephone is allowed to ring for a considerable period of time in the hope of receiving a reply before resigning oneself to ending the call. But that did not happen when Amanda Marie Knox called the two cell phones used by Meredith Kercher. These are two calls that barely registered.
More evidence the court doesn't understand how the phone network works. The two calls were short because (1) Amanda chose not to leave a VM when she started hearing the message and (2) because the phone was out of service and it only took a couple of seconds to understand that message.

And finally;

The fact that the two calls to services used by Meredith Kercher did not alarm the defendant has only one plausible explanation. There was no concern at all in the mind of Amanda Marie Knox when she hurried to make the two telephone calls to the young English woman simply because she knew very well that Meredith Kercher could not have answered the calls; calls which had to be made because Filomena Romanelli insisted, but which the defendant knew [154] were useless.

Here the court has decided, much like yourself, they can read the minds of others. It seems pretty clear to me that Amanda WAS very much concerned, yet the court, because it doesn't understand how the phone system works, has concluded two short calls to Meredith's two numbers is evidence Amanda wasn't concerned.

So, what you posted does establish some facts, such as when the calls were made. But it also clearly established the court didn't understand how phone networks work, and as a result of that ignorance, formed an opinion which has no merit. As for what was proven... other than the court was pretty ignorant on phone networks, it didn't prove a damn thing.


It is opinion based on facts proven at the merits trial. In Italy, the judges are obliged to provide a Motivational Report so they have to interpret the facts found as to what they mean, and this does require the use of inference and deduction. It won't always be right but as long as it is 'within the bounds of reasonableness' it is considered acceptable as legally final, even if another judge on another day sees it differently.

The telephone log testimony can be found here:


March 13th and 14th, 2009- testimony by police and translators on CCTV and cellphone traffic (Massei).

From The Murder of Meredith Kercher net

ETA: Some further facts found at trial:

It is fitting to recall them in their chronological order. The first contact was made at 12:08:44 pm and the telephone call left the service of Amanda Marie Knox, connecting to the cell servicing 130 Via Garibaldi. Amanda Marie Knox was thus at Raffaele Sollecito’s house. The second contact occurred at 12:12:35 pm and it was Filomena Romanelli calling Amanda Marie Knox; as it was Ms. Romanelli calling Knox at 12:20:44 pm; the latter calls were “unanswered” contacts. These last two calls also connected to a cell in service at 130 Via Garibaldi; Amanda Marie Knox was still at the residence of Raffaele Sollecito. The last call between the young women took place at 12:34:57 pm on 2 November 2007, when Filomena Romanelli finally succeeded in speaking to her, connecting with a contact cell that serves the Via della Pergola area. Therefore, from the examination of the telephone records, and in particular from the examination of the contact cells of the calls, as reconstructed by the State Police and by the First Instance Court (see pages 333-353 of the appealed judgment), it is possible to reconstruct with a certain degree of exactitude the movements of Amanda Marie Knox on the morning of 2 November 2007. At 12:07:12 pm she was certainly at 130 Via Garibaldi, at Raffaele Sollecito’s dwelling, where she remained until 12:20:44 pm, when she received a telephone call from Filomena Romanelli. Later, at 12:34:56 pm the defendant was already at 7 Via della Pergola, where she received the last call from Filomena Romanelli. ~ A Nencini 2014
 
Last edited:
Also to be included among the "pretend facts" from incompetent (or dishonest) prosecutors are the judicial facts fabricated from non-credible evidence or otherwise imagined into the motivation report by biased or incompetent judges.


It's a pretty pass when the only defence to the convictions is, 'The prosecutors, forensic scientists and judges were all incompetent and fabricated facts, etcetera'.


.
 
Last edited:
Difficult to follow what trial? Do you think there's a trial going on here? There's no trial. The trial is over. Well over a decade ago. There's no need for anyone to follow it.

Pretend facts "established" by incompetent prosecutors for use in a trial (or malicious hack reporters for use in sensationalist articles about the trial) don't mean anything any more.

The actual historical facts include, finding both MK and AK's DNA (aka "presumed blood" where the word "presumed" is a synonym for "not shown to be by any evidence") in "more or less all of the rooms" in the apartment where they lived means nothing regardless of what color text you post it in.


I would suggest reevaluating, with all due respect, where you get your information from. Who told you the murder investigation was pretend facts "established" by incompetent prosecutors for use in a trial (or malicious hack reporters for use in sensationalist articles about the trial)~ How did you come to start believing that? At what point did you decide Fox News (say) was more factual and of greater relevance than a centuries old legal system in a highly civilised country, Italy; or perhaps you read Nina Burleigh and were persuaded by her fine gift of penmanship and persuasion, as a self-professed advocate for Knox? Maybe your mind just can comprehend that 'that type of person' can't possibly commit 'this type of crime'.


Think about where you get your assumptions because it really is not healthy to imagine a court of law in Italy is less believable than a souped up hagiography by Knox herself.



.
 
Last edited:
It's a pretty pass when the only defence to the convictions is, 'The prosecutors, forensic scientists and judges were all incompetent and fabricated facts, etcetera'.
Vixen, no, that's your absurd twist on reality.

The convictions of Knox and Sollecito for the murder/rape of Kercher were all provisional convictions. As you may be aware, in 2015 - ten years ago - Knox and Sollecito were definitvely and finally acquitted of the murder/rape charges because they had not committed the crime. The reasoning of the CSC panel that definitively and finally acquitted them of the murder/rape charges found that there was no credible evidence against them. It fully quashed the provisional conviction by the Nencini Court of Appeals. The MR of that CSC panel also found that the police investigation (led by a prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini, in accordance with Italian law) that led to the murder/rape charges against Knox and Sollecito had "glaring [noisy, in the Italian idiom] errors", "investigative amnesia", and "guilty [culpable] ommissions". The alleged evidence claimed to link Knox and Sollecito most directly with the murder/rape of Kercher, the alleged DNA of Kercher allegedly on the knife blade and the alleged DNA of Sollecito on Kercher's bra clasp, were found to be non-credible because of the errors in collection and handling of evidence, errors and misconduct in DNA profile testing, and erroneous methods of analysis of DNA profile data, as had been pointed out by the court-appointed experts.

So, here we are, 10 years after the irreversible definitive and final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito, which cannot be reversed under Italian law (CPP Articles 648 and 649), with an anonymous online poster attempting to -- do what, exactly?. If one were trying to show that Knox and Sollecito were in fact guilty despite the well-reasoned argument in the MR of the definitively and finally acquitting CSC panel, shouldn't one use arguments based on Italian law, credible evidence, logic, and reason? I haven't seen any posts anywhere that meet that criteria.
 
I quite understand it can be difficult to follow a trial - rather than carefully placed press releases with 'columnists' or gossip rags with a particular slant in mind - but these are the final facts of the case.

Finally, [we come to] Exhibit no. 177). This is a sample of presumed blood, revealed using the luminol technique carried out on the flooring in the room used by Filomena Romanelli. The analyses attributed the biological trace to an Amanda Knox-Meredith Kercher mix.

LOL. No mention of the negative TMB tests on both samples 176 and 177.

The finding is of unquestionable importance in this trial, considering that the mixed trace of the victim and the defendant was found inside the room of Filomena Romanelli, in a place where – unlike the flat’s small bathroom – there was obviously no regular presence on the part either of Amanda Knox or of Meredith Kercher.
Notice how Nencini just ignores the presence of #176 which had ONLY Meredith's non-blood DNA like it doesn't exist?
Sample #177, again non-blood IIRC, had Kercher as the major contributor and Knox as the minor. I tried to find the citation for that but I can't right now. Maybe someone else knows? If true, then the odds are that it was Kercher who brought in her own DNA and that of Knox mixed with hers. Since they were on the floor, it's likely on the bottom of a shoe or foot.

This room, furthermore, was the site of the simulated entry by unknown burglars set up by the perpetrators of the murder in order to lead the investigations astray during the period following the committing of the crime, when they were therefore in a condition that could transfer the victim’s blood there. [192]
Yet again, Nencini is completely ignoring the TMB negative tests. He makes no mention of them as if they didn't exist.

At the end of this excursus [digression] on the biological traces that proved useful for DNA extraction (many traces, in fact, even if correctly collected, did not give a useful identification of human DNA), it may be noted that the traces of the victim’s blood were found in more or less all the rooms of the cottage, except for Laura Mezzetti’s room,
Oh, boy. The ONLY rooms where MK's blood was found was in her bedroom, the small bathroom, and on the corridor/kitchen floor in Guede's shoeprints. NO blood was found in Romanelli's room as Nencini claims.

thus revealing that, after the murder, the rooms of the cottage were the object of repeated entry on the part of the accomplices, in order either to set up the simulation several times previously mentioned,
Except NO BLOOD was found in FR's room. A fact Nencini totally ignores.

or to carry out a clean-up of the majority of the traces of blood left more or less everywhere – a cleanup activity that was aimed at the whole flat, with the sole exclusion of the room occupied by Laura Mezzetti (where, obviously, no one had any need to enter) and also of Meredith Kercher’s room, which was then locked by key.

Wow. A 'whole flat' clean-up that left visible blood that Knox and Sollecito reported! The corridor and kitchen were NOT cleaned as the INTACT, INVISIBLE shoe/footprints prove. Visible blood was left in the bathroom in the sink, the door jamb, the bathmat, and the light switch. NO evidence of any clean-up was produced.


It is an established fact that Knox and Sollecito spent a lot of time rearranging the crime scene, including trying to move the body closer to the bed.

Why do you still try and gaslight us with this crap? Since you love judicial facts so much, here's one for you: It is a judicial fact that M-B acquitted both of the murder AND of staging the scene.
In addition, Knox' lamp is on the floor of the murder room,
Oh, god, not the lamp yet again. snoring.jpg

which she claimed under cross-examination she had not noticed was missing, despite being the only light in her room, aside from light coming in from across the hall terrace.
Does light not come through a bedroom window in Finland?
Sollecito told Kate Mansey, of the DAILY MIRROR, Mez' body was 'covered in vaseline'. Only someone present would know of the vaseline jar at the murder scene.
Um...NO. Mansey never said anything about Vaseline. It was Marco Zaroli who claimed RS had said:
But her body wasn't found all covered in Vaseline, was it? This is two days after her body was discovered, and lord knows what rumors were already flying around about the TINY, LIPS SIZED POT of Vaseline? After all, Giacomo was already bragging to his buddies about having anal sex with Kercher.
It's hard to accept that someone you have come to consider a celebrity is not who you thought they were.

Spare us this kind of rubbish.
But facing reality is better than fooling yourself.
This is why I've ordered the large economy pack of irony meters from Amazon. :id:
 
Last edited:

That comes straight from Stefanoni's records. That is NOT what I asked for twice and you know it. Obviously, you cannot produce any other forensic expert confirming Kercher's "full 15-allele profile" was on the knife. But I can produce these:
Stefanoni:
Prof. Peter Gill, Ph.D.:


Dr. Lawrence Kobilinsky, Ph. D. John Jay College of Criminal Justice, NY:
Prof. Greg Hampikian, Ph.D.:
 
Some - perhaps PGP individuals and perhaps some judges in Italy - may have trouble understanding the concepts of "credible evidence" and "reliable evidence" and, more importantly, their opposites.

Credible evidence is evidence that has reasonable grounds for being believed or trusted.
Reliable evidence is evidence that is trustworthy and consistent, and it can be verified, for example, by the repetition of a test or observation, or by information from an unimpeachable (absolutely trustworthy) source.

Non-credible evidence is evidence that lacks (is missing) or has inadequate grounds for being believed or trusted.
Non-reliable evidence is evidence that is not trustworthy or not consistent, and it cannot be verified, for example, by the repetition of a test or observation, or information from an unimpeachable (absolutely trustworthy) source.

Let's take a silly example. Mr. X reports under oath that using his new hot-air balloon system, he had ascended from the surface of the earth to reach the surface of the moon, and has returned. He had brought back some moon rocks as evidence of his journey, but unfortunately, they were lost during his descent when his balloon was caught in a storm.

Is Mr. X's report credible or non-credible? Why?

Let's take a second silly example. An Italian prosecutor or witness maintains that Knox and Sollecito selectively cleaned their DNA from the murder room, but left Guede's DNA there. An Italian judge accepts this and uses this rationale to explain why there was no DNA of Knox or Sollecito in the murder room but Guede's DNA was found there.

Is the account of selective cleaning of DNA from the murder room credible or non-credible? Why?
 
Here are the official facts, as established and proven by the courts:



From the telephone records of the cell phone used by Amanda Marie Knox it appears that the first telephone contact of the day on 2 November 2007 was made at 12:07:12 pm to the English service used by Meredith Kercher. Later, at 12:08:44 pm the telephone used by Amanda Marie Knox called Filomena Romanelli’s service. This was the first telephone call made to Ms. Romanelli by the defendant on the [152] day of 2 November 2007, preceded by a first telephone contact with the English service used by the victim. A first discrepancy is immediately noticeable between what the defendant states in the memorial and what is ascertained from the telephone records. At the moment when Amanda Marie Knox rang Filomena Romanelli she had already made a call to the English telephone used by Meredith Kercher, not therefore the opposite. This first version of the facts will then be modified by the accused in June 2009, in the course of her examination during the hearing before the First Instance Court, when the young woman transposed the times of the two telephone calls, matching her own statements to the objective preliminary data that had in the meantime become known and which, on the date of 9 November 2007 could not have been known, as the telephone records had not yet even been acquired. The First Instance Court, commenting on the fact that the accused had made the first contact with the English service used by the victim before calling Filomena Romanelli, hypothesized that the telephone call made to the service of the victim had been done with the sole aim of checking that the cell phones, removed after the murder from the dwelling in Via della Pergola, had not been found by anyone. The comment is valid, since it does not otherwise make sense, even putting aside the timing of the telephone calls which the defendant changed in the course of the hearings, why Amanda Marie Knox, in the event she had had the intention of finding out about her English friend’s condition, not having received a reply from the English telephone service used by Meredith Kercher, did not try to call the other service, the one with an Italian SIM card, of which the accused was perfectly aware. And in fact the defendant, after having had the first conversation with Filomena Romanelli at 12:08:44 pm, and at the latter’s urging, actually made two calls to the service used by Meredith: at 12:11:02 pm to the Italian Vodafone service, and at 12:11:54 pm to the English service. With regard to the two telephone calls mentioned above, an observation must be made that the Court holds to be of definite circumstantial value. It is apparent from the telephone records in the case file that when Amanda Marie Knox made the two telephone calls to the services of the victim, at 12:11:02 pm to the Italian Vodafone service, and [153] at 12:11:54 pm to the English service, she had been expressly encouraged to do so by Filomena Romanelli, with whom she had spoken at 12:08:44 pm. The psychological state in which the defendant obviously should have been, one of understandable apprehension, since having discovered a disturbing environment in the apartment in Via della Pergola, and after speaking with Ms. Romanelli, who had expressed to her the need to check on Meredith Kercher, the only one of the young women of whom there was no certain news, Amanda Marie Knox should have naturally been affected by a certain anxiety in calling Meredith Kercher’s telephone services. From the telephone records it appears that the telephone call made at 12:11:02 pm to the Italian Vodafone service of the victim lasted 3 seconds; the one at 12:11:54 pm to the English service of the victim lasted 4 seconds. Perhaps not even enough time to repeat the first ring. Filomena Romanelli indeed made two unsuccessful calls to the service used by Amanda Marie Knox, at 12:12:35 pm and at 12:20:44 pm, and let the defendant’s telephone ring for 36 seconds the first time, and for a good 65 seconds the second time; an insistence that appears normal for anyone who intends to speak on the telephone with someone who, however, does not immediately answer the telephone. The telephone is allowed to ring for a considerable period of time in the hope of receiving a reply before resigning oneself to ending the call. But that did not happen when Amanda Marie Knox called the two cell phones used by Meredith Kercher. These are two calls that barely registered. And as far as the Vodafone service 348-4673711 is concerned, the records show that the message-bank service began (even if this circumstance should however have created apprehension), as far as the English service with the SIM card inserted in the Sony-Erikson (sic) cell telephone is concerned, nothing appears other than the failure to answer the call. The fact that the two calls to services used by Meredith Kercher did not alarm the defendant has only one plausible explanation. There was no concern at all in the mind of Amanda Marie Knox when she hurried to make the two telephone calls to the young English woman simply because she knew very well that Meredith Kercher could not have answered the calls; calls which had to be made because Filomena Romanelli insisted, but which the defendant knew [154] were useless. Having thrown away the telephones in open countryside (at least that is what Amanda Marie Knox thought) in a place not often visited, nobody would have been able to answer those calls; let alone poor Meredith Kercher whom, the accused


No, those are the facts according to the annulled Nencini.
All else is spin.
What's spin is Raper's commentary.
 
As a footnote: Alessandro Nencini is now higher in rank than Marasca and Bruno, as of 2021.
And? Gill, Hampikian, Conti, Vecchiotti, Koblinsky all have Ph.D.'s in biology whereas Stefanoni only had a B.S. yet you handwave them away.

Nencini was terribly embarrassed by M-B's harsh criticism in 2015.

ETA: The Court of Cassation is higher ranking than the Appeal Court, so just how is Nencini 'higher ranking" than Marasca and Bruno? This claim by Vixen is just another made up 'fact'.
 
Last edited:
It is true that Nencini is president of the Court of Appeals of the Florence District. It's not clear what are the official duties of that position. It may well be to administer the workflow of the courts to assure none of the judges are overburdened.

Contrary to your statement, judges in the Court of Cassation, in a panel, may quash or approve any judgment from a Court of Appea)ls that properly - lawfully - comes before that panel. So saying that the president of the Court of Appeals of a judicial district outranks a CSC judge is neither a meaningful nor true statement.
Vixen and TJMK have been pushing the lie that M-B had no legal right to quash Nencini for over 10 years now.
 
It's a pretty pass when the only defence to the convictions is, 'The prosecutors, forensic scientists and judges were all incompetent and fabricated facts, etcetera'.
OMG. This coming from you who has claimed almost every single defense expert, acquitting judge, lawyer, witness, etc. is 'bent', 'incompetent' or 'paid off'! Are you really this blind to your own hypocrisy?

hypocrsy.jpg
 
Vixen and TJMK have been pushing the lie that M-B had no legal right to quash Nencini for over 10 years now.
In part, they claimed that an annulment (quashing the Nencini judgment) without referral was rare and unlawful (although it's written in CPP Article 620, with 10 lawful reasons for a CSC panel to exercise that authority). In fact, some statistics I saw on the CSC website - an annual report on CSC performance in clearing cases covering a span of years - showed that about half the CSC cases, in many years, were annulments without referral. Many times the PGP make claims without doing the library or online research needed to verify the claims. For their purposes, they. probably don't need verification, because even when shown that their claim is wrong, they simply repeat it. They will misunderstand laws or other information because they don't read past the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article or other source. For example, for Knox's application to the ECHR, PGP were claiming it had been filed too late to be accepted - the PGP posters had failed to get that the deadline was 6 months from the receipt of the MR by the applicant, not the date that the court read out the short-form verdict. A similar example: PGP claimed that Knox's application to the ECHR would be rejected because she hadn't completed every imaginable domestic legal path for redress. The ECHR requirement is that the applicant must complete one domestic path for redress; that means in practice for Italy that once the final (non-appealable) judgment is delivered, the requirement is met. I'm sure there are many more examples from different areas - legal, technical, and historical-evidential.
 
I would suggest reevaluating, with all due respect, where you get your information from. Who told you the murder investigation was pretend facts "established" by incompetent prosecutors for use in a trial (or malicious hack reporters for use in sensationalist articles about the trial)~ How did you come to start believing that? At what point did you decide Fox News (say) was more factual and of greater relevance than a centuries old legal system in a highly civilised country, Italy; or perhaps you read Nina Burleigh and were persuaded by her fine gift of penmanship and persuasion, as a self-professed advocate for Knox? Maybe your mind just can comprehend that 'that type of person' can't possibly commit 'this type of crime'.

Think about where you get your assumptions because it really is not healthy to imagine a court of law in Italy is less believable than a souped up hagiography by Knox herself.

My information that the MK murder trial ended well over a decade ago with the acquittal of AK and MK is quite reliable and accurate.

Your opinion about the rest means no more than mine, which is nothing at all. You might as well argue your strong opinions about how Napoleon should have deployed his cavalry at Waterloo.
 
Vixen, no, that's your absurd twist on reality.

The convictions of Knox and Sollecito for the murder/rape of Kercher were all provisional convictions. As you may be aware, in 2015 - ten years ago - Knox and Sollecito were definitvely and finally acquitted of the murder/rape charges because they had not committed the crime. The reasoning of the CSC panel that definitively and finally acquitted them of the murder/rape charges found that there was no credible evidence against them. It fully quashed the provisional conviction by the Nencini Court of Appeals. The MR of that CSC panel also found that the police investigation (led by a prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini, in accordance with Italian law) that led to the murder/rape charges against Knox and Sollecito had "glaring [noisy, in the Italian idiom] errors", "investigative amnesia", and "guilty [culpable] ommissions". The alleged evidence claimed to link Knox and Sollecito most directly with the murder/rape of Kercher, the alleged DNA of Kercher allegedly on the knife blade and the alleged DNA of Sollecito on Kercher's bra clasp, were found to be non-credible because of the errors in collection and handling of evidence, errors and misconduct in DNA profile testing, and erroneous methods of analysis of DNA profile data, as had been pointed out by the court-appointed experts.

So, here we are, 10 years after the irreversible definitive and final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito, which cannot be reversed under Italian law (CPP Articles 648 and 649), with an anonymous online poster attempting to -- do what, exactly?. If one were trying to show that Knox and Sollecito were in fact guilty despite the well-reasoned argument in the MR of the definitively and finally acquitting CSC panel, shouldn't one use arguments based on Italian law, credible evidence, logic, and reason? I haven't seen any posts anywhere that meet that criteria.
If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk and the supreme court was so wrong in it's judgement, why has Vixen been constantly unable to respond to the motivation report and the arguments used for the acquittal and has to resort to conspiracies involving the mafia, state department, masons etc to explain the acquittal.
 
Vixen, no, that's your absurd twist on reality.

The convictions of Knox and Sollecito for the murder/rape of Kercher were all provisional convictions. As you may be aware, in 2015 - ten years ago - Knox and Sollecito were definitvely and finally acquitted of the murder/rape charges because they had not committed the crime. The reasoning of the CSC panel that definitively and finally acquitted them of the murder/rape charges found that there was no credible evidence against them. It fully quashed the provisional conviction by the Nencini Court of Appeals. The MR of that CSC panel also found that the police investigation (led by a prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini, in accordance with Italian law) that led to the murder/rape charges against Knox and Sollecito had "glaring [noisy, in the Italian idiom] errors", "investigative amnesia", and "guilty [culpable] ommissions". The alleged evidence claimed to link Knox and Sollecito most directly with the murder/rape of Kercher, the alleged DNA of Kercher allegedly on the knife blade and the alleged DNA of Sollecito on Kercher's bra clasp, were found to be non-credible because of the errors in collection and handling of evidence, errors and misconduct in DNA profile testing, and erroneous methods of analysis of DNA profile data, as had been pointed out by the court-appointed experts.

So, here we are, 10 years after the irreversible definitive and final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito, which cannot be reversed under Italian law (CPP Articles 648 and 649), with an anonymous online poster attempting to -- do what, exactly?. If one were trying to show that Knox and Sollecito were in fact guilty despite the well-reasoned argument in the MR of the definitively and finally acquitting CSC panel, shouldn't one use arguments based on Italian law, credible evidence, logic, and reason? I haven't seen any posts anywhere that meet that criteria.

Do you not see, the facts established in court remain the established facts? For example, it is a fact that Knox was at the murder scene and a fact that Mez' DNA is on the murder weapon blade and AK's DNA on its handle. Etc.


.
 

LOL. No mention of the negative TMB tests on both samples 176 and 177.


Notice how Nencini just ignores the presence of #176 which had ONLY Meredith's non-blood DNA like it doesn't exist?
Sample #177, again non-blood IIRC, had Kercher as the major contributor and Knox as the minor. I tried to find the citation for that but I can't right now. Maybe someone else knows? If true, then the odds are that it was Kercher who brought in her own DNA and that of Knox mixed with hers. Since they were on the floor, it's likely on the bottom of a shoe or foot.


Yet again, Nencini is completely ignoring the TMB negative tests. He makes no mention of them as if they didn't exist.


Oh, boy. The ONLY rooms where MK's blood was found was in her bedroom, the small bathroom, and on the corridor/kitchen floor in Guede's shoeprints. NO blood was found in Romanelli's room as Nencini claims.


Except NO BLOOD was found in FR's room. A fact Nencini totally ignores.




Wow. A 'whole flat' clean-up that left visible blood that Knox and Sollecito reported! The corridor and kitchen were NOT cleaned as the INTACT, INVISIBLE shoe/footprints prove. Visible blood was left in the bathroom in the sink, the door jamb, the bathmat, and the light switch. NO evidence of any clean-up was produced.




Why do you still try and gaslight us with this crap? Since you love judicial facts so much, here's one for you: It is a judicial fact that M-B acquitted both of the murder AND of staging the scene.

Oh, god, not the lamp yet again. View attachment 61342


Does light not come through a bedroom window in Finland?

Um...NO. Mansey never said anything about Vaseline. It was Marco Zaroli who claimed RS had said:

But her body wasn't found all covered in Vaseline, was it? This is two days after her body was discovered, and lord knows what rumors were already flying around about the TINY, LIPS SIZED POT of Vaseline? After all, Giacomo was already bragging to his buddies about having anal sex with Kercher.


Spare us this kind of rubbish.

This is why I've ordered the large economy pack of irony meters from Amazon. :id:


FYI Kate Mansey told John Follain that that is what Sollecito told her about the vaseline.



.
 
That comes straight from Stefanoni's records. That is NOT what I asked for twice and you know it. Obviously, you cannot produce any other forensic expert confirming Kercher's "full 15-allele profile" was on the knife. But I can produce these:
Stefanoni:

Prof. Peter Gill, Ph.D.:



Dr. Lawrence Kobilinsky, Ph. D. John Jay College of Criminal Justice, NY:

Prof. Greg Hampikian, Ph.D.:


  1. 15-alleles is not a 'full' allele profile.
  2. A near full 15-alllele profile was identified as being that of Meredith Kercher on the knife blade used in her murder.
  3. I quoted Nencini yesterday in which the courts confirm it is MK's DNA on the blade.
  4. This is factual.


.
 
That comes straight from Stefanoni's records. That is NOT what I asked for twice and you know it. Obviously, you cannot produce any other forensic expert confirming Kercher's "full 15-allele profile" was on the knife. But I can produce these:
Stefanoni:

Prof. Peter Gill, Ph.D.:



Dr. Lawrence Kobilinsky, Ph. D. John Jay College of Criminal Justice, NY:

Prof. Greg Hampikian, Ph.D.:


I see where you err. Academia is a completely separate discipline from the legal profession. Criminal law is not about exchanging academic ideas, criminal law is about applying statutes handed down by the lawmakers (politicians).


.
 
Some - perhaps PGP individuals and perhaps some judges in Italy - may have trouble understanding the concepts of "credible evidence" and "reliable evidence" and, more importantly, their opposites.

Credible evidence is evidence that has reasonable grounds for being believed or trusted.
Reliable evidence is evidence that is trustworthy and consistent, and it can be verified, for example, by the repetition of a test or observation, or by information from an unimpeachable (absolutely trustworthy) source.

Non-credible evidence is evidence that lacks (is missing) or has inadequate grounds for being believed or trusted.
Non-reliable evidence is evidence that is not trustworthy or not consistent, and it cannot be verified, for example, by the repetition of a test or observation, or information from an unimpeachable (absolutely trustworthy) source.

Let's take a silly example. Mr. X reports under oath that using his new hot-air balloon system, he had ascended from the surface of the earth to reach the surface of the moon, and has returned. He had brought back some moon rocks as evidence of his journey, but unfortunately, they were lost during his descent when his balloon was caught in a storm.

Is Mr. X's report credible or non-credible? Why?

Let's take a second silly example. An Italian prosecutor or witness maintains that Knox and Sollecito selectively cleaned their DNA from the murder room, but left Guede's DNA there. An Italian judge accepts this and uses this rationale to explain why there was no DNA of Knox or Sollecito in the murder room but Guede's DNA was found there.

Is the account of selective cleaning of DNA from the murder room credible or non-credible? Why?


Here we come to the crux of the matter. Weighing evidence and finding facts. Before the court can come to a verdict it needs to establish the facts of the matter. How do we get to the facts?

Court scenario. Mr X is charged with illegally parking in front of Piggy-Wiggy store and he refuses to pay the parking fine.

Mr X claims under oath that using his new hot-air balloon system, he had ascended from the surface of the earth to reach the surface of the moon, and has returned. He had brought back some moon rocks as evidence of his journey, but unfortunately, they were lost during his descent when his balloon was caught in a storm.

A witness for the prosecution, Mr A, a traffic warden, testifies he issued a parking ticket at 2:00pm on 10 May 2025 for car reg ABC 1234 at precisely the location of Piggy-Wiggy in Tucson, Arizona. He produces CCTV footage, proof of the time and date the ticket was issued. CCTV footage shows Mr X drove off at 2:25 the same date from the same location.

Witness Ms B confirms Mr X entered the store and has till receipts showing a credit card payment for goods at precisely 2:17, 10 May 2025.

Witness C of Visa credit card co. confirms the card belongs to Mr X, using his PIN.

Witness D, a neighbour of Mr X confirms they stopped to chat outside of the store before he drove off at aforesaid time.

Ask yourself: who does the twelve man jury believe, having been told they must only consider the evidence presented during the hearing?

So Mr. X is found 'Guilty'.

Mr. X appeals and his conviction is overturned on the grounds Mr X suffered a medical psychotic episode in which he believed he was in a hot air balloon and in his hallucinatory state he made 'an emergency landing' at Piggy Wiggy.

Question for you: Does that alter the fact established by the trial that Mr X was illegally parked as of that time date and location and that he was issued a parking ticket by said traffic warden (who may or may not be a vicious bastard lying in wait for the unwary motorist like a predator stalking prey) and was captured on CCTV doing so and as proven by the credit card logs and possibly his phone and car GPS?

No, whilst he may have been acquitted, the facts remain as stated by the original verdict.


Likewise, it remains a fact AK was at the murder scene, her phone logs show what they show and the forensics show what they show, as confirmed by the lower courts and the appeal courts, the acquittal being on an 'insufficient evidence' loophole.



.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom