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

[Vixen]

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.

I see you share the same belief as another poster that criminal law is all to do with semantics of the pantomime type, 'Oh yes he is!'; 'Oh no, he's not!' variety.

A fact remains a fact. It doesn't expire after ten years. And a fact is not dependent on whether you believe it or not.

You may well argue about Russian soldiers hiding in grassy knolls and Napoleon at Waterloo but it won't change the facts just because you declare it does.


.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Who said it was a 'slam dunk'? It took at least eight months before formal charges were brought. The trial lasted until 2009 thanks to the courts bending over backwards for Bongiorno's maternity leave, meaning the case was only heard on two days per week. It was 100% fair and based on forensic experts, phone logs, computer logs, luminol and blood analysis, foot and shoe print forensic experts, numerous witness statements, four pathologists, crime scene reconstructionists.

Are you seriously claiming they were all the puppets of the evil prosecutor, Dr. Mignini?


Take a reality check.



.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.

No. It's only a "fact"* that Knox was at the murder scene etc. Not a fact, a "fact". It's a fact that everyone ever wrongly convicted of a crime was convicted of a crime.

* i.e. It's not actually true, even though a court once wrongly decided it was true.

You're just going to have to cling to whatever satisfaction you can get from knowing these two innocent people were once found guilty, because that injustice has long since been corrected.

 

[Vixen]

No. It's only a "fact"* that Knox was at the murder scene etc. Not a fact, a "fact". It's a fact that everyone ever wrongly convicted of a crime was convicted of a crime.

* i.e. It's not actually true, even though a court once wrongly decided it was true.

You're just going to have to cling to whatever satisfaction you can get from knowing these two innocent people were once found guilty, because that injustice has long since been corrected.

Oh really? You know better than literally dozens of highly trained legal boffs?

ETA: Please point to where it is legally stated that it is no longer a fact AK was at the murder scene, bearing in mind the judgment of Masi-Martuscelli in Sollecito's later compo claim, that it is a fact of 'absolute and utter certainty' Knox was there at the murder scene, and he almost certainly was, too.


.



.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Oh really? You know better than literally dozens of highly trained legal boffs?

Are these legal boffs in the room with us now? If so can you ask them if the innocent pair remain convicted or if their convictions were overturned a decade ago?

 

[Vixen]

Are these legal boffs in the room with us now? If so can you ask them if the innocent pair remain convicted or if their convictions were overturned a decade ago?

Their sentences were annulled but the facts of the case remain.

Or do you believe the phone logs and false alibis have disappeared?



.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

They didn't commit the crime, despite the convoluted horror movie you can't stop playing in your head.

 

[TruthCalls]

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).

• 2009-03-13-Testimony-MC-Barbadori-Moscatelli-Sollecito-DAstolto-Colantone-Donnino-Volturno-Knox.pdf
• 2009-03-14-Testimony-MC-Negri-Trotta-Trifici-Gregori.pdf

From The Murder of Meredith Kercher net

ETA: Some further facts found at trial:

So here it's PROVEN to you that the conclusions made by the court were based on an incorrect understanding of how phone networks work, and as usual, the effort goes in one ear and out the other. Unbelievable.

So no, it's NOT based on proven facts, it's based on a wrong understanding of the technology. And no, it's not even "within the bounds of reasonableness". Their conclusion about why Amanda only called the English number is because they apparently didn't realize Amanda and Meredith ALWAYS talked on Meredith's English phone. And their conclusion regarding the length of the calls, and comparing them to the duration of Filomena's calls was completely wrong... the call duration clock begins AFTER the call connects, and the duration of Filomena's two calls were longer because Amanda answered and talked to Filomena. These are embarrassingly stupid mistakes made by the court yet their conclusions are based on these mistakes.

That you'd conclude this is an "opinion based on facts proven at the merits trial" when I just proved the "facts" assumed by the court were false, suggests either you also don't understand how phone networks work, even when it's explained to you, or your being dishonest. Either way, it's not a good look.

 

[TruthCalls]

Oh really? You know better than literally dozens of highly trained legal boffs?

ETA: Please point to where it is legally stated that it is no longer a fact AK was at the murder scene, bearing in mind the judgment of Masi-Martuscelli in Sollecito's later compo claim, that it is a fact of 'absolute and utter certainty' Knox was there at the murder scene, and he almost certainly was, too.

Please point to where it is legally stated Amanda WAS at the murder scene, and what evidence is used to prove that.

I'll help you... M-B points to Amanda's interrogation statement as it's basis for thinking that. However, as history now tells us, the entire interrogation and it's results are null and void. So, given that, what evidence do you think exists that would prove Amanda was at the scene of the crime AT THE TIME OF THE MURDER. Hint: None exists.

"...almost certainly was, too." sounds like speculation to me. Hmmmm....

 

[TruthCalls]

Their sentences were annulled but the facts of the case remain.

Or do you believe the phone logs and false alibis have disappeared?

The phone logs, as interpreted by the courts, has been shredded. What do you think the logs prove that's so damning for them?

Their is no evidence their alibi was false. The court has no evidence that would prove Amanda and Raffaele weren't at his apartment when Meredith was killed, but there is significant evidence to indicate they were.

 

[Myriad]

I see you share the same belief as another poster that criminal law is all to do with semantics of the pantomime type, 'Oh yes he is!'; 'Oh no, he's not!' variety.

A fact remains a fact. It doesn't expire after ten years. And a fact is not dependent on whether you believe it or not.

I'm glad you understand the fact that AK and RS did not commit the murder that RG committed, and the fact that the Italian court system's final conclusion was that AK and RS did not commit the murder that RG committed, have not expired after over ten years. Nor will they ever.

You may well argue about Russian soldiers hiding in grassy knolls and Napoleon at Waterloo but it won't change the facts just because you declare it does.

I would argue actual facts, like that there were Prussian soldiers, not Russian soldiers, at Waterloo.

You can't weaponize ignorance to change history to your liking. Prussians don't change into Russians, just like AK and RS don't change into murderers, just because you loudly fantasize so.

 

[Numbers]

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?
...... the acquittal being on an 'insufficient evidence' loophole.

Vixen, I recognize that your opinions on this are essentially fixed and your biases or other issues may prevent you from understanding Italian law and technical or scientific matters. However, your opinions are not in accord with the credible and reliable evidence. Your hyperbole and misstatements about, for example, "the acquittal being on an 'insufficient evidence' loophole" are absurd and not convincing. But your advocacy for your opinions has led some posters to return to the facts of the case and even more thoroughly rightfully conclude, through the examination of real evidence, that Knox and Sollecito were not guilty of the murder/rape of Kercher and that neither Knox nor Sollecito was present in the cottage at the time of the murder/rape of Kercher.

Some of the Italian courts also have difficulties recognizing which evidence is credible or reliable and which is not. Some of those courts also have had problems comprehending technical and scientific evidence. Some of those courts also had some problems with their violations of Italian procedural laws. Those difficulties and problems lead to some of the Italian courts formulating false "judicial facts". Such false judicial facts should not be confused with facts inferred from fairly and objectively considered credible and reliable evidence.

Knox and Sollecito were rightfully acquitted on the basis that they did not commit the act of the crime - that is what is actually written in the definitive and final acquittal. The remaining issues in the case are the resolution of Sollecito's request for compensation - a case pending before the ECHR - and the legal consequences - before the CoM and the ECHR - of the outcome of the recent re-conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba despite the ECHR judgment finding her original trial for that charge being irremediably unfair.

 

[Numbers]

What's the central problem in the Knox - Sollecito case? I suggest -again - that it revolves around the not infrequent dysfunctions of the Italian courts and instances of a lack of good faith on the part of various Italian authorities. The recent re-conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba, and the denial of compensation to Sollecito for unjust detention are examples of failures of good faith and deviations from the rule of law. I use these terms because they are used by the ECHR in its case law:

....In Kavala v. Türkiye [GC], 2022, the Court further underlined that the whole structure of the Convention rests on the general assumption that public authorities in the member States act in good faith. That structure includes the supervision procedure, and the execution of judgments should also involve good faith and take place in a manner compatible with the “conclusions and spirit” of the judgment. The failure to implement a final, binding judicial decision would be likely to lead to situations incompatible with the principle of the rule of law which the Contracting States undertook to respect when they ratified the Convention....

Source: https://ks.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr-ks/guide_art_46_eng
Paragraph 1, page 6.

Rule of Law may be defined as the application or enforcement of laws equally, in a fair and non-arbitrary fashion, by governmental, police, and judicial authorities.

Good Faith may be defined as fair and honest dealing, without an intent to deceive or misrepresent, and without manipulating or neglecting the enforcement of laws - criminal or procedural - to achieve goals contrary to those or other laws.

 

[Stacyhs]

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

Oh, for heaven's sake. I quoted and cited Zaroli's testimony.

If you want to continue claiming it was Mansey, then quote and cite the evidence.

This is what Follain wrote (pg 124):

Filomena and Laura were surprised to learn that detectives had asked Amanda about Meredith’s sex life. Raffaele claimed to know the reason: in an ice-cold tone, he said it was because Meredith’s body had been found completely covered in Vaseline.

No mention of Mansey saying anything to him about vaseline is anywhere in his book.

 

[Stacyhs]

1. 15-alleles is not a 'full' allele profile.

True. "A full DNA profile comprises 30 alleles."

1. A near full 15-alllele profile was identified as being that of Meredith Kercher on the knife blade used in her murder.

Since a full profile is 30 alleles, one half of that, 15, is hardly a "near full" profile.
As quoted and cited yesterday, several forensic experts disagree that there were even 15 alleles due to several RFU peaks being under 50.

1. I quoted Nencini yesterday in which the courts confirm it is MK's DNA on the blade.

And nowhere in that does he mention any "15 alleles" being in the sample. The SC judges did not agree.

1. This is factual.

This is just another feeble attempt to avoid answering my question:

Can you provide a forensic expert, aside from Stefanoni, who agrees there was a "near full 15-alleles" profile?

 

[Vixen]

They didn't commit the crime, despite the convoluted horror movie you can't stop playing in your head.

It's reaity based on facts, as brught out during the trial
Oh, for heaven's sake. I quoted and cited Zaroli's testimony.

If you want to continue claiming it was Mansey, then quote and cite the evidence.

This is what Follain wrote (pg 124):


No mention of Mansey saying anything to him about vaseline is anywhere in his book.

Corr: Okay, fair enough, I appear to have misremembered this facet.



.


..

 

[Vixen]

True. "A full DNA profile comprises 30 alleles."

Since a full profile is 30 alleles, one half of that, 15, is hardly a "near full" profile.
As quoted and cited yesterday, several forensic experts disagree that there were even 15 alleles due to several RFU peaks being under 50.


And nowhere in that does he mention any "15 alleles" being in the sample. The SC judges did not agree.


This is just another feeble attempt to avoid answering my question:

Can you provide a forensic expert, aside from Stefanoni, who agrees there was a "near full 15-alleles" profile?

A full profile:

24 genetic markers

This DNA profile is based on 24 genetic markers (stretches of DNA found at specific locations in the genome). Each genetic marker contains a short tandem repeat (STR)—a section of DNA that repeats itself, like a word typed over and over again, with the number of repeats varying from person to person.

In forensic DNA analysis 17-alleles is considered a full profile. 15 a 'near-full profile.

.

.

 

[Stacyhs]

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).

That's a long way of saying "No, I cannot quote and cite any other forensic expert confirming Kercher's "15-allele profile" was on the knife."

 

[Stacyhs]

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.

Oh, joy. Yet another scenario courtesy of your imagination.

 

[Vixen]

That's a long way of saying "No, I cannot quote and cite any other forensic expert confirming Kercher's "15-allele profile" was on the knife."

I have not said I cannot.


.