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

[SpitfireIX]

Whoa! I didn't say he was a member of the mafia.

Bull. You quoted Naseer Ahmad in this post saying:

It turns out Raffaele Sollecito belongs to a very well connected Mafia family and this may be one of the reasons why and how he was acquitted, with the help of some corrupt judges and DNA experts. . . .​

His father, Italian surgeon Francesco Sollecito, is known as "the urologist to the Dons" but the Sollecitos of Bari are themselves a well known Italian crime family. . . .​

You referred to this as "insight," (from a person who claims to be God on Earth) so you don't get to claim "Oh, but I didn't actually say it."

However, it would be no surprise if he has contacts (and he was put in touch with Bongiorno,who is hardly a good barrister but seems to get results for her wealthy clients).

So you've got no evidence.

In addition, he might well be a close relative of Rocco.

Again, you've got no evidence. And even if he is, that doesn't prove that Francesco is connected with the Mafia.

Certainly there was some kind of sting going on, first with Hellmann and C&V, and then with Marasca- Bruno.

No. You have provided no real evidence of this; you just have to accuse every jurist and expert who doesn't support your guilter fantasy of corruption because you're too emotionally invested in Amanda's guilt to even consider the possibility that she could actually be innocent.

Yours is the conspiracy theory because you believe AK and RS were set up by the prosecutor, a ridiculous idea[.]

No. You've been corrected on this at least a hundred times. But you'll never admit it, because mischaracterizing what we've said is your way of avoiding having to deal with our arguments by dismissing them with your childish, "I know you are but what am I?" responses.

The more extreme cognitive dissonance is resolved by people in the smoking/drinking example as being 'the nanny state is trying to control our behaviour', so that affords a psychological solution for some. Others shrug and make out they do not care.

Irrelevant.

Your attitude here is to try to pick piecemeal holes in the evidence that convicted the pair because you need to discover flaws that prove the pair were wrongly convicted.

The holes are many, giant, and glaring. The fact that you and your ilk are unwilling or unable to see that is obvious, your denials notwithstanding.

Reality tells you that you can't carry someone's full profile DNA from one spot to another.

No. You are not qualified to make that determination, and those who are qualified disagree with you.

Tertiary Transfer of DNA by Examination Gloves Between Evidentiary Items at Crime Scenes

This is from a demonstration at an American Academy of Forensic Sciences seminar, where several trials were run with plastic cups and examination gloves. In 2/3 of the trials, tertiary transfer of a full profile was observed. But you will, of course, either ignore this or come up with some sort of special pleading where it doesn't matter, just as you have with all the other papers that have been linked discussing tertiary transfer.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Vixen, I renew the question that you avoided. How did the DNA profiles of two unknown males get on the bra clasp along with Raffaele's?

 

[SpitfireIX]

And I renew the other question you also avoided. Why did you claim that Prof. Gill's claim about DNA transfer's only happening after 24 hours referred to inanimate objects, when he clearly stated that it referred to living people?

 

[Vixen]

@Vixen, I admire your sticking with this against the opposition. That being said, you are almost certainly wrong. This thing that Knox and Sollecito were found responsible for the killing but not guilty of murder? Where is that from.

The only evidence for Sollecito's and Knox's guilt is Knox's confession. False confessions are a thing, most folks exonerated of murder they were convicted of have confessed.
Here's a whole list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_confession#Cases_by_country.

The cognitive dissonance here seems to be all you.

The final Supreme Court in the murder matter was 2015. In 2017, the final Supreme Court dealing with Sollecito's compensation reaffirmed Knox was at the cottage during the murder of Mez as a matter of 'absolute certainty'. This is objective and factual. Reality.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, I renew the question that you avoided. How did the DNA profiles of two unknown males get on the bra clasp along with Raffaele's?

As I patiently explained before, a crime scene is rarely a sterile one. It is not a hospital ward. In a grotty students accommodation there WILL be dust on the floor no matter how often you clean up. This can come in with your shoes or outdoor clothing from outside. All trained forensic scientists at crime scene know it is not a sterile laboratory they are looking at, which is why in criminal law there is a legal standard of a DNA sample of needing to be significant to at least 11 alleles (or markers/loci). The bra that was torn from Mez' body was found some distance from the corpse, at her feet. Therefore the fact of fragments of DNA from 'unknown males' can be safely disregarded as background noise. What can't be explained is how Sollecito's FULL - above and beyond tough legal standards - is on the inner bend of the bra clasp which had fallen off or had been ripped off and was found UNDER the body. It really is not possible for Stefanoni to have 'transferred it with her glove' six weeks later. She denies it was 'dirty' . The photo the defence has desperately put forward likely shows a shadow of some sort. There is really no feasible way in which Sollecito's DNA is well and truly on that bra clasp without his having pressed it on. You are in conspiracy cuckoo land if you believe DNA flies underneath locked doors and underneath bodies. Face reality, Sollecito placed his DNA on her bra.

 

[Vixen]

And I renew the other question you also avoided. Why did you claim that Prof. Gill's claim about DNA transfer's only happening after 24 hours referred to inanimate objects, when he clearly stated that it referred to living people?

Sollecito is a living person.

 

[Vixen]

Bull. You quoted Naseer Ahmad in this post saying:

It turns out Raffaele Sollecito belongs to a very well connected Mafia family and this may be one of the reasons why and how he was acquitted, with the help of some corrupt judges and DNA experts. . . .​

​

His father, Italian surgeon Francesco Sollecito, is known as "the urologist to the Dons" but the Sollecitos of Bari are themselves a well known Italian crime family. . . .​

You referred to this as "insight," (from a person who claims to be God on Earth) so you don't get to claim "Oh, but I didn't actually say it."


So you've got no evidence.


Again, you've got no evidence. And even if he is, that doesn't prove that Francesco is connected with the Mafia.


No. You have provided no real evidence of this; you just have to accuse every jurist and expert who doesn't support your guilter fantasy of corruption because you're too emotionally invested in Amanda's guilt to even consider the possibility that she could actually be innocent.


No. You've been corrected on this at least a hundred times. But you'll never admit it, because mischaracterizing what we've said is your way of avoiding having to deal with our arguments by dismissing them with your childish, "I know you are but what am I?" responses.


Irrelevant.


The holes are many, giant, and glaring. The fact that you and your ilk are unwilling or unable to see that is obvious, your denials notwithstanding.


No. You are not qualified to make that determination, and those who are qualified disagree with you.

Tertiary Transfer of DNA by Examination Gloves Between Evidentiary Items at Crime Scenes

This is from a demonstration at an American Academy of Forensic Sciences seminar, where several trials were run with plastic cups and examination gloves. In 2/3 of the trials, tertiary transfer of a full profile was observed. But you will, of course, either ignore this or come up with some sort of special pleading where it doesn't matter, just as you have with all the other papers that have been linked discussing tertiary transfer.

We can demonstrate anything in a laboratory.

 

[Vixen]

Which is pretty much what Chief of Police De Felice admitted to that very day:


IOW: That guilty ***** finally broke down and verified what Off. Ficarra was able to figure out once she saw that text that Knox sent to Lumumba. She was confirming she'd meet up with that POS Lumumba later that night and take him to the cottage to force Kercher to have sex with him!

That's the story you tell yourself.

 

[Vixen]

impossible to take this seriously.

On what fantastical grounds do you propose they decided stabbing her friend in the neck was not criminal?

How did you persuade yourself this desperate nonsense was possible?

Welshman very clearly said he was incredulous that RS and AK could ever do such a thing, therefore it must be a miscarriage of justice.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Welshman very clearly said he was incredulous that RS and AK could ever do such a thing, therefore it must be a miscarriage of justice.

That's no answer. How did you convince yourself it was possible that the court decided Amanda really did deliberately kill Meredith with a knife to the neck yet there was no crime so it was fine?

That is what you said they decided, right? In what parallel universe is that a possible decision? In what magical world are you not wrong about this?

 

[Vixen]

Bull. You quoted Naseer Ahmad in this post saying:

It turns out Raffaele Sollecito belongs to a very well connected Mafia family and this may be one of the reasons why and how he was acquitted, with the help of some corrupt judges and DNA experts. . . .​

​

His father, Italian surgeon Francesco Sollecito, is known as "the urologist to the Dons" but the Sollecitos of Bari are themselves a well known Italian crime family. . . .​

You referred to this as "insight," (from a person who claims to be God on Earth) so you don't get to claim "Oh, but I didn't actually say it."


So you've got no evidence.


Again, you've got no evidence. And even if he is, that doesn't prove that Francesco is connected with the Mafia.


No. You have provided no real evidence of this; you just have to accuse every jurist and expert who doesn't support your guilter fantasy of corruption because you're too emotionally invested in Amanda's guilt to even consider the possibility that she could actually be innocent.


No. You've been corrected on this at least a hundred times. But you'll never admit it, because mischaracterizing what we've said is your way of avoiding having to deal with our arguments by dismissing them with your childish, "I know you are but what am I?" responses.


Irrelevant.


The holes are many, giant, and glaring. The fact that you and your ilk are unwilling or unable to see that is obvious, your denials notwithstanding.


No. You are not qualified to make that determination, and those who are qualified disagree with you.

Tertiary Transfer of DNA by Examination Gloves Between Evidentiary Items at Crime Scenes

This is from a demonstration at an American Academy of Forensic Sciences seminar, where several trials were run with plastic cups and examination gloves. In 2/3 of the trials, tertiary transfer of a full profile was observed. But you will, of course, either ignore this or come up with some sort of special pleading where it doesn't matter, just as you have with all the other papers that have been linked discussing tertiary transfer.

Naseer Ahmad was extremely well versed in this case. He came from the same part of Lahore as Mez' mother, Arlene, and as a consequence of his interest, he spent a lot of time in Perugia and attended some of the trial and followed it closely. He was also extremely intelligent and therefore I respect what he has to say. It does not follow that one has to agree with everything he says. You have to be aware when reading anyone's opinion that it is their view. You will agree that the view of a MAGA-voting moron has less caché than someone educated in Economics. For example, PM Carney of Canada (re tariffs). Likewise, I will take the view of Naseer more seriously than someone simply repeating soundbites about 'haters' like a nine-year-old simply because - I dunno - perhaps it makes them feel part of a granfalloon, with dopamine hits from being with fellow MAGA Reform types who feel the same happy buzz in spouting off ill-considered nonsense as each other.

 

[Vixen]

That's no answer. How did you convince yourself it was possible that the court decided Amanda really did deliberately kill Meredith with a knife to the neck yet there was no crime so it was fine?

That is what you said they decided, right? In what parallel universe is that a possible decision? In what magical world are you not wrong about this?

Understand how a criminal court works. Part one: finding of facts. Facts cannot be appealed. Part 2: the appeal. An appeal can be on legal points (point of law) or procedural points (such as a mistrial, a jury member was amiss, the judge was drunk or fell asleep). You cannot appeal against established facts. Part 3: the Supreme Court (if you are given permission) which deals with whether (a) the case was carried out within the confines of the constitution, (b) is a grey area of law that would help in being clarified for future cases, or, (c) 'In the public interest', or what is known colloquially as 'a miscarriage of justice'. The Supreme Court of Marasca-Bruno decided that there was not enough evidence to bring the case to trial. This edict is normally reserved for the arraignment stage. The fact Bongiorno convinced them that Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp was unsafe doesn't actually erase the facts found at the merits and appeal stages. In fact, this finding is so unusual it was only ever recently applied in the cases of politicians Andreotti and Berlusconi and we all know how thoroughly corrupt they were.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Again, that's no answer.

You claim to believe the court decided Amanda stabbed Meredith's throat but it was fine as there was no crime.

If that is what you believe, explain in what bizarro-world that was a decision they could have reached.

If it's not what you believe, please stop saying it is.

 

[Vixen]

Again, that's no answer.

You claim to believe the court decided Amanda stabbed Meredith's throat but it was fine as there was no crime.

If that is what you believe, explain in what bizarro-world that was a decision they could have reached.

If it's not what you believe, please stop saying it is.

Read carefully. I didn't say there was 'no crime' I said it is a fact that Knox was found as an established fact to have wielded the knife that killed Mez (from objective scientific testing) that was accepted as an established fact by the merits and appeal courts. The Supreme Court decreed it was not sufficient evidence to determine the crime of aggravated murder because Sollecito's objective scientifically established DNA on the bra clasp might have been contaminated by Stefanoni transferring it from elsewhere via her latex glove.

 

[LondonJohn]

For "objective scientific testing", read "grossly incompetent scientific testing by a functionary who manifestly had no idea how to handle, test and interpret low-template DNA, who (objectively) lied about the results, the underlying data files, and the negative controls, and whose handling of the crime scene (eg the disgraceful broad-brush swabbing of the sink which (unsurprisingly) resulted in the finding of mixed DNA) was demonstrably shockingly sloppy and improper".

Which is precisely why the Maresca SC panel correctly threw out all of not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni's negligent, ignorant and mendacious "evidence" against both Knox and Sollecito. I guess one has to understand forensic science, especially in a low-template environment. Meanwhile the ignorant Guede fan-people continue their ignorant shout into the abyss......

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Read carefully. I didn't say there was 'no crime' I said it is a fact that Knox was found as an established fact to have wielded the knife that killed Mez (from objective scientific testing) that was accepted as an established fact by the merits and appeal courts. The Supreme Court decreed it was not sufficient evidence to determine the crime of aggravated murder because Sollecito's objective scientifically established DNA on the bra clasp might have been contaminated by Stefanoni transferring it from elsewhere via her latex glove.

You mean garbage forensic evidence that should never have been accepted and without which the whole fairy story evaporates.

When that became clear the just result was to declare the pair had nothing to do with Guede's crime. The end.

 

[Welshman]

Naseer Ahmad was extremely well versed in this case. He came from the same part of Lahore as Mez' mother, Arlene, and as a consequence of his interest, he spent a lot of time in Perugia and attended some of the trial and followed it closely. He was also extremely intelligent and therefore I respect what he has to say. It does not follow that one has to agree with everything he says. You have to be aware when reading anyone's opinion that it is their view. You will agree that the view of a MAGA-voting moron has less caché than someone educated in Economics. For example, PM Carney of Canada (re tariffs). Likewise, I will take the view of Naseer more seriously than someone simply repeating soundbites about 'haters' like a nine-year-old simply because - I dunno - perhaps it makes them feel part of a granfalloon, with dopamine hits from being with fellow MAGA Reform types who feel the same happy buzz in spouting off ill-considered nonsense as each other.

Someone who believes Amanda and Raffaele felt it necessary to stage a rape when Rudy had already raped Meredith and tak the opinions of a nutjob like Naser Ahmed seriously are not in a position to call people morons.

 

[Numbers]

There's a new final court decision - the recent final re-conviction for calunnia. The CoM is not authorized under the Convention to examine such court decisions; the responsibility falls to the ECHR under the Convention. The CoM only supervises the states in their response to past ECHR judgments. So there needs to be a new ECHR judgment to rule whether or not the new final re-conviction for calunnia satisfies or does not satisfy the Convention's requirements. The CoM can and will continue to supervise Italy's response to the Knox v. Italy judgment of 2019. It can't supervise the final re-conviction without an ECHR judgment on that re-conviction, it could only complain to the ECHR about it under Article 46. It's the complexity of the Convention itself that requires this.

See Convention Article 46 and its ECHR case law for more information.

Here is the text of Convention Article 46 (my emphasis by bolding):


ARTICLE 46
Binding force and execution of judgments

1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.

2. The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution.

3. If the Committee of Ministers considers that the supervision of the execution of a final judgment is hindered by a problem of interpretation of the judgment, it may refer the matter to the Court for a ruling on the question of interpretation. A referral decision shall require a majority vote of two-thirds of the representatives entitled to sit on the committee.

4. If the Committee of Ministers considers that a High Contracting Party refuses to abide by a final judgment in a case to which it is a party, it may, after serving formal notice on that Party and by decision adopted by a majority vote of two-thirds of the representatives entitled to sit on the committee, refer to the Court the question whether that Party has failed to fulfil its obligation under paragraph1.

5. If the Court finds a violation of paragraph 1, it shall refer the case to the Committee of Ministers for consideration of the measures to be taken. If the Court finds no violation of paragraph 1, it shall refer the case to the Committee of Ministers, which shall close its examination of the case.

How this relates to the re-conviction of Knox for calunnia:

1. Italy quashed the first conviction. It may argue to the CoM that it satisfied the final judgment in that act.

2. Italy could claim that the re-conviction is a new action, not covered by the original ECHR judgment.

3. The CoM is not authorized to state (legally declare) that a state action is a violation of the Convention. That is only within the authority of the ECHR. The CoM can refer the case back to the ECHR for non-compliance with Article 46, but only if 2/3 of the Ministers agree.

4. Knox is the party injured by the re-conviction, which under ECHR case law may be considered a new action. If she wishes to correct the harm by having the ECHR declare the re-conviction a violation of the Convention which Italy must redress, she must lodge an application to the ECHR by the time limit (4 months after she and her lawyers received the MR).

 

[Vixen]

For "objective scientific testing", read "grossly incompetent scientific testing by a functionary who manifestly had no idea how to handle, test and interpret low-template DNA, who (objectively) lied about the results, the underlying data files, and the negative controls, and whose handling of the crime scene (eg the disgraceful broad-brush swabbing of the sink which (unsurprisingly) resulted in the finding of mixed DNA) was demonstrably shockingly sloppy and improper".

Which is precisely why the Maresca SC panel correctly threw out all of not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni's negligent, ignorant and mendacious "evidence" against both Knox and Sollecito. I guess one has to understand forensic science, especially in a low-template environment. Meanwhile the ignorant Guede fan-people continue their ignorant shout into the abyss......

That's not what it says on the tin.

 

[Vixen]

Here's an exercise for you all. Put aside all preconceptions and beliefs. Cast aside your rose-tinted spectacles. Pluck out the jaundiced eye. Eschew the romantic fairytales. Then tell me why you think this:



The shoe print found on the pillow UNDER the body. Analysed by totally objective forensic scientists who have nothing to do with Mignini or Stefanoni -selected by pure random chance as two guys skilled in engineering draughtsmanship such that they can provide an extremely accurate technical drawing to a nano-millimetre of a millimetre to identify the blood-soaked shoe print as being as follows:



Convesrion for ACIS - as identified - Ladies trainer size 37.



Is the same shoeprint as this:



Nike Outbreak 2



Men's Size 45 (Europe) 11 US.

In what netherworld is the first - a precisely measured and identified ACIS ladies trainer size 37 the same as the second, a mens Nike Outbreak 2 size 45?

I am sure Stacyhs will be along shortly to provide the usual cock and bull story about how the first is really also Guede's if you squint your eyes a bit. Perhaps perform a little origami.