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

[Vixen]

Heh heh...but the knife didn't fit more than one wound and was only capable of making the fatal wound...along with any single edge knife in the country.

NOT her DNA. If it were, Hellmann and Marasca would have convicted. Just as they would have if Knox's footprint were in Kercher's blood. Suck it up, buttercup.

Oh dear. You think this is a game of semantics. Never mind.

 

[Vixen]

I'm overwhelmed by your strong rebuttal there, Vixen! It's like you're channeling Agatha Christie or Poirot!

I know you enjoy frivolity. As if your flippancy has anything at all to do with facts.

 

[Vixen]

You wrote: "And commit a burglary -by turning over two drawers of clothing - without taking anything AFTER the murder." That's nothing you translated. YOU wrote it.


No, it's not a fact at all. Can you present evidence that the papers in Meredith's room were originally from Filomena's room? If not, then it's just another one of your assfacts.

I've already addressed the scattered papers. They could have already been on the duvet when it was pulled over onto Kercher's body or been blown on top from the night stand.

It has been discussed already. Your coming along with a play on semantics really doesn't change objective facts.

 

[Vixen]

Oh, my. What absolute claptrap that contradicts established forensic science.

Tell me, Vixen, if I brush my teeth before going to bed and leave my saliva or buccal cells in the sink then my husband cuts himself shaving the next morning and his blood falls on top that saliva or buccal cells, can the swab that collects that sample differentiate between his blood/DNA and those cells with my DNA? Will that sample contain both his DNA/blood and my non-blood DNA?

HINT: Yes and No, respectively.

I trust Dr. Stefanoni, okay? She is a qualified, trained police forensic officer. If she says it was mixed Knox/Kercher DNA then it is.

 

[Vixen]

False. Were the other men whose DNA was also found on that same hook "gripping it hard"?



And that bra hook was collected 46 days later across the room after numerous people had come in and out of that room. You seem to think RS's DNA HAD to have been deposited during the murder and not at some time during those 46 days or during the collection when it was directly touched by a dirty, unchanged glove.



Rudy Guede. You know...the same guy now under arrest on charges of raping and beating up his girlfriend

So we are back to the tu quoque logical fallacies and a whole load of whataboutism. Guede's alleged assault on his ex-girlfriend has ZERO bearing on the issue of AK/RS guilt/innocence. But you can't see that because you believe in playground taunting as if that changes anything.

 

[Vixen]

Your first statement is false. One example: there was no documentation of the discussion by the interpreter Donnino of her alleged case of traumatic amnesia. During the Massei court trial, Donnino testified to that discussion.

The statement as written in Italian by the police and then signed by Knox. It is not a written record of the questions and answers that occurred during the interrogation. The ECHR in its judgment Knox v. Italy took note of that; it is one contributing factor to the ECHR finding that there was a violation of Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3e (Google translation):



There is also no written record of the police informing her that she had become subject to investigation as a result of her statement, informing her of her right to remain silent, and of her right to have a lawyer.

See: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-189422

In the Kercher murder investigation, witnesses were given appointments to come to the Questura, as ordered, to provide a witness statement. Every and each such witness had the opportunity to bring their lawyer with them, as almost all of them did, including Kokomani. Sollecito was so cocky he told cops he didn't need a lawyer. Knox was not one of those summonsed to the Questura and there was no appointment for her on the date she decided to come along at her own insistence. She volunteered of her own volition it was 'Patrick what dunnit'. A lawyer is not needed for a member of the public to report a crime, which is what Knox did. As soon as she revealed she was at the crime scene, the interview was properly and correctly terminated. It is really tiresome for AK to still trot out the canard that she was beaten up and tortured all night long by tag teams of twelve flying squad from Rome every hour until she broke.

 

[Numbers]

In the Kercher murder investigation, witnesses were given appointments to come to the Questura, as ordered, to provide a witness statement. Every and each such witness had the opportunity to bring their lawyer with them, as almost all of them did, including Kokomani. Sollecito was so cocky he told cops he didn't need a lawyer. Knox was not one of those summonsed to the Questura and there was no appointment for her on the date she decided to come along at her own insistence. She volunteered of her own volition it was 'Patrick what dunnit'. A lawyer is not needed for a member of the public to report a crime, which is what Knox did. As soon as she revealed she was at the crime scene, the interview was properly and correctly terminated. It is really tiresome for AK to still trot out the canard that she was beaten up and tortured all night long by tag teams of twelve flying squad from Rome every hour until she broke.

Vixen's post quoted above is a collection of fictions and misleading statements. If it had any truth in it, the ECHR would not have found in Knox v. Italy that Italy had violated Knox's rights, under the European Convention on Human Rights, to have a fair trial, to have a lawyer, to have a fair interpreter, and to have her repeated credible claims of mistreatment by the police investigated.

 

[Disbelief]

Vixen's post quoted above is a collection of fictions and misleading statements. If it had any truth in it, the ECHR would not have found in Knox v. Italy that Italy had violated Knox's rights, under the European Convention on Human Rights, to have a fair trial, to have a lawyer, to have a fair interpreter, and to have her repeated credible claims of mistreatment by the police investigated.

That's all she has. God could come down from on high, tell the world that RG was the sole guilty party and Vixen would claim he was bent or that Hillary/Trump/Mafia got to him.

 

[SpitfireIX]

But they did document it. The witness statement was typed up and an English translation provided; it was signed by Knox as being true to the best of her knowledge. This was after just 90 minutes in the Questura.

No. As noted, you're being disingenuous, if not deliberately obtuse. "Documenting" means making a record of every question asked and every answer given by the witness, by either written, video, or audio recording.

Now the Police are public servants albeit insular to themselves in most western countries. They really do not wake up in the morning thinking who shall we falsely accuse today?

And we're back to your straw man argument that Mignini and the police decided to frame two people whom they knew to be innocent, rather than what actually happened, which is that they formed an incorrect initial theory, and refused to let go of it even when the evidence should have led them to.

They have oversight, regulations and standards.

Which police forces in even the most liberal democracies violate from time to time. And, as we've repeatedly discussed, Italy is one of the worst, if not the worst, offenders in that regard among Western European democracies.

Italy is pretty much a police state, so yeah, there was a lot of undercover intelligence going on. Donnino wasn't just a 'civil servant' she was actively listening in on wiretaps which is something that would need a warrant in the UK or someone working for the intelligence agencies, without.

Yet you're always telling us how great the Italian judicial system is.

They knew Knox and Sollecito were involved because of the undercover stuff.

No, they didn't, as noted. However, granting, arguendo, that that's true, how does that square with your assertion that Amanda and Raffaele weren't technically suspects, and thus not entitled to lawyers?

 

[SpitfireIX]

Building a case to present in court was the hard part, given Sollecito's <ahem> family connections ('honour bound' and omerta and all that <nudge nudge wink wink>).

What is your evidence that Raffaele and his family were or are connected with the Mafia?

 

[SpitfireIX]

. . . and ability to buy their way out of it via mafia-friendly Bongiorno . . .

As I have discussed, and you have, as usual, ignored, there is no credible evidence that Bongiorno was ever involved in any Mafia corruption. But, of course, that doesn't stop you from conspiracy-mongering.

. . . and hiring a US PR Agency for Knox ('The best investment I ever made' ~ Curt Knox).

Which was done for perfectly understandable reasons, your insinuations of nefarious motives notwithstanding. That aside, this had exactly zero effect on the outcome of the trials or the appeals.

 

[Stacyhs]

So many fibs. Where to even begin? But carry on believing the fairy stories you tell yourself.

Then why don't you address each one of these alleged "fibs" instead of just claiming they're lies?

 

[Stacyhs]

I trust Dr. Stefanoni, okay? She is a qualified, trained police forensic officer. If she says it was mixed Knox/Kercher DNA then it is.

1. You did NOT answer my question: "Will that sample contain both his DNA/blood and my non-blood DNA?"
2. I did NOT say that it wasn't "mixed Knox/Kercher DNA". It was. Now answer the question.

Now that you've declared you "trust" Stefanoni, do you still want to argue that a negative TMB test means no blood is present? You'd be contradicting her as "a trained police forensic officer":

Dr. Stefanoni herself, moreover, clarified (preliminary hearing of October 4, 2008) that, while a positive test result could be deceptive due to reactivity of the chemical marker to other substances, a negative result yields certainty on the absence of blood.

(Hellmann MR.)

You 'trust' Stefanoni (who held a mere BS), but you accuse several other more qualified forensic experts (Ph.D's) of being incompetent or 'bent': Conti, Vecchiotti, Hampikian, Gill.

 

[Stacyhs]

Stacyhs, is there a typo in the hint? Or am I missing something in your example?

No. I'm saying that the mixed DNA in the bathroom (in fact, anywhere) does not have to be from the same source (blood, saliva, buccal, epithelial, etc) or deposited at the same time. So the mixed DNA is not evidence of anything except they both lived in the same house and shared the same bathroom.

 

[Stacyhs]

As has been pointed out, the mafia-friendly Bruno simply repeating back the mafia-friendly Bongiono who spent two and a half days beating the judges about the head with her phony Gill Report regurgitating Conti & Vecchiotti. Nothing at all to do with what was found at trial. However, I do understand that not everyone can grasp the finer details.

Hahahahahaha! And there you go again, right on cue! Accusing a judge and lawyer of being corrupt and mafia connected and accusing Prof. Gill of being corrupt.

One of most prominent and respected forensic experts in the world agreed with C & V so that must make him "bent" in your reality. So, what motive have you conjured up for Gill to present a "phony report"?

 

[Stacyhs]

So we are back to the tu quoque logical fallacies and a whole load of whataboutism.

That's one way to avoid answering questions or addressing facts you don't like!

Guede's alleged assault on his ex-girlfriend has ZERO bearing on the issue of AK/RS guilt/innocence.

It has to do with his character. It reveals what he is capable of and has done. As the sayings go:
"A leopard doesn't change its spots."
"The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior."

But you can't see that because you believe in playground taunting as if that changes anything.

 

[Stacyhs]

What is your evidence that Raffaele and his family were or are connected with the Mafia?

That's an interesting story. Previously, Vixen falsely claimed that RS's family is closely related to the Canadian Sollecito crime family. Why? Because they come from the same area and have the same surname. She claimed that Raffaele's father attended mobster Rocco Sollecito's funeral. As proof of this, she presented a photo claiming it was Dr. S coming out of the church where the memorial was held.


That turned out to be false. The mobster Rocco S was killed May 27, 2016.
The photo Vixen presented as evidence was published in Nov. 2010. It's Dr. Sollecito coming out of the courthouse with defense lawyer Delfo Berretti.

NO evidence that Raffaele's family is closely related to Rocco's branch has ever been presented by anyone, much less Vixen.

 

[Numbers]

No. As noted, you're being disingenuous, if not deliberately obtuse. "Documenting" means making a record of every question asked and every answer given by the witness, by either written, video, or audio recording.


And we're back to your straw man argument that Mignini and the police decided to frame two people whom they knew to be innocent, rather than what actually happened, which is that they formed an incorrect initial theory, and refused to let go of it even when the evidence should have led them to.


Which police forces in even the most liberal democracies violate from time to time. And, as we've repeatedly discussed, Italy is one of the worst, if not the worst, offenders in that regard among Western European democracies.


Yet you're always telling us how great the Italian judicial system is.


No, they didn't, as noted. However, granting, arguendo, that that's true, how does that square with your assertion that Amanda and Raffaele weren't technically suspects, and thus not entitled to lawyers?

There are two possibilities - perhaps not mutually exclusive - for the unlawful and/or illegal actions and inactions during the interrogation:

1. The police and prosecutor suspected Knox and Sollecito according to an initial theory of the crime and proceeded to take coercive actions to force Knox and Sollecito to make statements supporting that theory - that is, to frame them - in order to solve the crime.

2. The police and prosecutor recognized the vulnerability of Knox and Sollecito to be made into suspects and proceeded to take coercive actions to force Knox and Sollecito to make statements providing alleged evidence establishing that they were legitimate suspects and solving the crime - that is, to frame them. The police and prosecutor evolved a theory of the crime before or soon after the interrogation to justify the alleged evidence obtained during the interrogation.

Giobbi, in his testimony during the Massei court trial, stated that he had considered Knox and Sollecito suspicious because of their (noncriminal) behavior. For example, he had found Sollecito's behavior suspicious because Sollecito was eager to meet with Knox when she had been interviewed as a witness prior to the 5-6 November interrogation. Giobbi claimed that because of his suspicions he had arranged for them to be called in for a "special" interrogation on 5 November.

That the police and prosecutor did not undertake to document the interrogation events - the questions and answers or even the personnel present - suggests that they intended to act contrary to procedural and/or criminal law, as they deemed necessary, during the interrogation. The documentation in the record, at least for Knox, IIRC, is a list of names of males acquainted with Kercher supplied early in the interrogation by Knox and the statement in Italian prepared by the police and signed by Knox that implicated Lumumba.

 

[Vixen]

Then why don't you address each one of these alleged "fibs" instead of just claiming they're lies?

You asserted that it was corroborated that Guede burgled Taramantano. Your partner backing you up is not material substantiation. If Guede was never charged or bailed over the Taramantano incident then it has never been substantiated. Likewise the watch you claim he stole from an old lady and set fire to her residence. There was no charge. So when you claimed it was an established fact Guede burgled Taramantano and also, the elderly lady, together with arson, you were lying and you knew it. Alternatively, you lack the ability to establish facts. If so, it is little wonder you are easily taken in by PR and hoaxes.

 

[Numbers]

That's an interesting story. Previously, Vixen falsely claimed that RS's family is closely related to the Canadian Sollecito crime family. Why? Because they come from the same area and have the same surname. She claimed that Raffaele's father attended mobster Rocco Sollecito's funeral. As proof of this, she presented a photo claiming it was Dr. S coming out of the church where the memorial was held.

View attachment 62047
That turned out to be false. The mobster Rocco S was killed May 27, 2016.
The photo Vixen presented as evidence was published in Nov. 2010. It's Dr. Sollecito coming out of the courthouse with defense lawyer Delfo Berretti.

NO evidence that Raffaele's family is closely related to Rocco's branch has ever been presented by anyone, much less Vixen.

This deception by Vixen, or by some other person whose hoax Vixen has repeated, is an example of how false evidence is generated.