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

[TruthCalls]

You are still not getting that for Stefanoni, a qualified, trained forensic scientist, she would need to come into contact with Sollecito's DNA for it to be 'transferred' to the bra clasp. Hello?

And you can prove Stefanoni didn't touch Raffaele's DNA on the door jam before collecting the clasp how???? And I also assume you can prove nothing came in contact with the clasp from 2 Nov to 18 Dec that could have contaminated the clasp???

BTW, I listed eight things the SP did wrong with the clasp and it apparently went right over your head, or you're intentionally ignoring it because you know what it means for the clasp evidence. Why no comment regarding those massive forensic blunders?

 

[Stacyhs]

There is a bunch of people in the UK who are utterly convinced serial killer Lucy Letby is innocent and they meet up on her birthday in a pub to celebrate her birthday so she doesn't feel alone in prison. There is really no reasoning or logical debate with these people because they have a religious fervour in their eyes and no amount of logic or objective scientific facts can sway them.

As I read this, I suspected I knew exactly where you were going. And sure enough:

They are strikingly similar to to fans of Amanda Knox.

AAAAAAAAAND...there it is. So predictable.

They have the same MAGA-style belief like Donald Trump - who bailed her out -

AAAAAAAAAND ....there it is again. As reliable as winter rain in the PNW.

Why hasn't it been made into a movie? "The MAGA-Knox Connection: How Trump Bailed Out Knox and Made America Great Again" ( Director's Cut with commentary by Vixen).

that she is innocent because they can sense it, whereas the Black guy's DNA is obviously damning.

AAAAAAAND....there it is again: a hyperbolic distortion of the truth with a not-so-subtle innuendo of racism.
She is innocent because the SC of Italy agreed that she was not party to the murder because the evidence failed to support guilt. The infamous "loophole" that you keep claiming got her "off".
Guede is guilty because all the evidence, not just his DNA, proved it BARD.

Two questions for you (that most likely will be ignored):

1. What plausible, innocent explanation is there for Guede's DNA in MK's blood on her purse?
2. What plausible, innocent explanation is there for Guede's handprint in her blood on the pillow under her naked hips?

But we can all intuit that Sollecito's DNA is obviously some mistake because the Rome Scientific Police are too incompetent to understand how to discriminate against the drifter hobo drug dealer burglar thief versus the guy with a 'brand new car'.

LOL. I don't think several independent DNA experts all reviewing the case are 'intuiting" anything. You might want to read their reports. "Intuiting" is never mentioned; the scientific basis for their professional opinions is.
The rest of your comment is just yet more distortion of what I actually said.

Ask Stacyhs: it should be blindingly obvious the latter cannot possibly have pressed his DNA onto the victim's underwear. Who needs reasoning?

FINALLY! So you agree that a person doesn't have to "press" DNA on in order to transfer it.
Of course it's blindingly obvious, but YOU are the one claiming one has to "press" to transfer DNA:

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.

 

[Stacyhs]

Read the Nencini report.

No. It's not my job to search around to support YOUR claim. As you said yourself:

 

[Stacyhs]

When a lower court concludes a sample is made from blood, when lab results say otherwise, it's pretty easy to appeal that "fact". When a court concludes multiple people were involved when forensic evidence only identifies two, and when six of seven forensic pathologists conclude the injuries are consistent or compatible with a lone assailant, it's pretty easy to question that "fact". Accepting three witnesses as credible when each one massively contradicted themselves is easy to appeal. When a court concludes a knife was the murder weapon when there is no credible forensic evidence tying it to the crime, and when the knife doesn't fit the wounds, it's easy to challenge that "fact".

The fact of the matter is the Guede courts established facts that worked against Amanda and Raffaele, even though Amanda and Raffaele did not have any legal representation when these judicial facts were being established. If you were that neutral, impartial person you claimed to be, you would be honest about that, but you aren't.

Vixen conveniently forgets that some of those "judicial facts" she relies on so heavily were legally established while Knox and Sollecito were provisionally guilty (Massei) and BEFORE so much prosecution 'evidence' was destroyed as being "scientifically unreliable" in 2011.

 

[LondonJohn]

Vixen conveniently forgets that some of those "judicial facts" she relies on so heavily were legally established while Knox and Sollecito were provisionally guilty (Massei) and BEFORE so much prosecution 'evidence' was destroyed as being "scientifically unreliable" in 2011.

And the other blindingly obvious fact is that Marasca's SC panel felt obligated to incorporate the "judicial facts" established in the SC confirmation of Knox's criminal slander conviction (prior to the ECHR adjudication and the scandalous re-conviction). Had Marasca's panel done what in reality it should have done - establish not only that there was zero credible, reliable evidence that Knox or Sollecito participated in the murder, but that also there was zero credible, reliable evidence that they were even there at the same time the murder was carried out (by Guede, acting alone) - this would have necessitated a revision trial on that criminal slander conviction in order to align the two SC affirmations.

This is obvious to any legal scholar, as well as to anyone who understands the Italian criminal justice system (or criminal justice in general). It's only not apparent to people whose views are blinded by prejudice and ignorance.

 

[TruthCalls]

And the other blindingly obvious fact is that Marasca's SC panel felt obligated to incorporate the "judicial facts" established in the SC confirmation of Knox's criminal slander conviction (prior to the ECHR adjudication and the scandalous re-conviction). Had Marasca's panel done what in reality it should have done - establish not only that there was zero credible, reliable evidence that Knox or Sollecito participated in the murder, but that also there was zero credible, reliable evidence that they were even there at the same time the murder was carried out (by Guede, acting alone) - this would have necessitated a revision trial on that criminal slander conviction in order to align the two SC affirmations.

This is obvious to any legal scholar, as well as to anyone who understands the Italian criminal justice system (or criminal justice in general). It's only not apparent to people whose views are blinded by prejudice and ignorance.

I've never understood why Marasca referenced her interrogation statement in the first place. It was deemed inadmissible for the criminal trial, and while an oddity of Italian law allowed it to be referred to during trial, Marasca was not, AFAIU, obligated to reference it. It's given the pro-guilt - at least those not honest enough to acknowledge where it was coming from - the opportunity to claim Marasca ruled Amanda was at the cottage during the murder. I understand not wanting to contradict a prior SC ruling, but they should have just ignored it as it had no bearing on the murder charges.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Regarding my comment #4872 on contamination yesterday, I wanted to make two quick points. One is that although Professor Bustin suggested a possible route of DNA contamination, it was enough for him to show that contamination occurred, as opposed to determining the route to a high degree of certainty. Two is that the layout of the facility matters. That is why New Zealand constructed a facility solely for the purpose of low-template DNA analysis, for example. It is why the air handling system has to be designed with DNA experiments specifically in mind, for instance.

 

[SpitfireIX]

AI Overview

Generally, in most legal systems, it's difficult to appeal a finding of fact made by a lower court. Appellate courts typically give deference to the trial court's factual findings, especially when those findings are based on witness testimony and evidence presented at trial. Appeals are usually focused on errors of law, not disagreements about the facts.

You said facts can't be appealed. You were wrong. The above doesn't change that. A US appellate court can and will overturn a lower court's finding of fact when that finding appears to be clearly unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. A great example from this case is the finding that Amanda stole Meredith's rent money, which is clearly unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence .

 

[SpitfireIX]

You are still not getting that for Stefanoni, a qualified, trained forensic scientist, she would need to come into contact with Sollecito's DNA for it to be 'transferred' to the bra clasp. Hello?

As noted, she likely came in contact with it on Meredith's door, which Raffaele had attempted to force open. Hello?

 

[Stacyhs]

You said facts can't be appealed. You were wrong. The above doesn't change that. A US appellate court can and will overturn a lower court's finding of fact when that finding appears to be clearly unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. A great example from this case is the finding that Amanda stole Meredith's rent money, which is clearly unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence .

Obviously, those corrupt judges just didn't understand the evidence!

Guede's DNA in MK's blood on purse = Amanda stole money.
Guede's unemployment, empty bank account (if he even had one) and rent due = Amanda stole money.
Knox's bank account ($4333.00) + job = Knox stole money.

 

[SpitfireIX]

There is a bunch of people in the UK who are utterly convinced serial killer Lucy Letby is innocent and they meet up on her birthday in a pub to celebrate her birthday so she doesn't feel alone in prison.

The Chewbacca defense. I asked you whether you can't honestly see that the tread pattern of the purportedly matching shoe looks absolutely nothing like the print.

There is really no reasoning or logical debate with these people because they have a religious fervour in their eyes and no amount of logic or objective scientific facts can sway them.

Just when I thought it was safe to plug it back in.

They are strikingly similar to to fans of Amanda Knox. They have the same MAGA-style belief like Donald Trump - who bailed her out - that she is innocent because they can sense it . . .

How do you know anyone believes Amanda is innocent "because they can sense it?"

. . . whereas the Black guy's DNA is obviously damning.

Because, unlike Amanda and Raffaele, he had no innocent reason for having been in the cottage. Why is this so hard for you to understand??

But we can all intuit that Sollecito's DNA is obviously some mistake because the Rome Scientific Police are too incompetent to understand how to discriminate against the drifter hobo drug dealer burglar thief versus the guy with a 'brand new car'.

First, we have video evidence of the SP's gross incompetence in the processing of the crime scene, which you continually ignore or attempt to minimize. Second, again, Raffaele had an innocent reason for being in the cottage, which Guede did not.

Ask Stacyhs: it should be blindingly obvious the latter cannot possibly have pressed his DNA onto the victim's underwear.

Straw man. The point is, it could have happened by tertiary transfer.

Who needs reasoning?

Not you, obviously.

 

[Stacyhs]

You are still not getting that for Stefanoni, a qualified, trained forensic scientist, she would need to come into contact with Sollecito's DNA for it to be 'transferred' to the bra clasp. Hello?

This same "qualified, trained forensic scientist" declared that she didn't have to change gloves between handling items unless they were "wet" or the items would obviously dirty the gloves. Because, ya know, DNA is so clearly visible on things and it's so difficult to transfer.

This same "qualified, trained forensic scientist" who 'forgot' to mention the negative TMB tests because, ya know, critical evidence like the prints were not in blood is so forgettable.

Who left the towels so improperly stored that they rotted and the bra clasp rusted?
Who failed to collect critical evidence like the clasp, Kercher's purse, and the jacket she was wearing when killed for 46 days?

 

[Numbers]

This same "qualified, trained forensic scientist" declared that she didn't have to change gloves between handling items unless they were "wet" or the items would obviously dirty the gloves. Because, ya know, DNA is so clearly visible on things and it's so difficult to transfer.

This same "qualified, trained forensic scientist" who 'forgot' to mention the negative TMB tests because, ya know, critical evidence like the prints were not in blood is so forgettable.

Who left the towels so improperly stored that they rotted and the bra clasp rusted?
Who failed to collect critical evidence like the clasp, Kercher's purse, and the jacket she was wearing when killed for 46 days?

And refused repeatedly to turn over the raw DNA data (the automatically generated electronic data files) and the results of the negative and positive controls to the defense and the court's appointed neutral DNA experts.

 

[Numbers]

AI Overview

Generally, in most legal systems, it's difficult to appeal a finding of fact made by a lower court. Appellate courts typically give deference to the trial court's factual findings, especially when those findings are based on witness testimony and evidence presented at trial. Appeals are usually focused on errors of law, not disagreements about the facts.

This AI overview from Vixen's post is not true of the Italian Courts of Appeal. They are entirely free to review and retry the entire case including hearing testimony. The Italian Assize Court of Appeals has a panel of two professional judges and six lay judges, just as an Assize first instance court does.

In the US appeals courts are composed of a panel of judges with no jury. These US appeals courts examine whether the lower court trial followed the law in every relevant detail, and check whether the verdict of the lower court jury was reasonable relative to the evidence presented. If there is a finding by the appeal court that a law was not followed correctly, and it is clear may have affected the trial outcome, or if the jury verdict was found not to be reasonable, there is a retrial at the first instance court with a new jury. In rare cases, a US appeals court may dismiss a case because some flaw is not correctable. Of course, US first-instance courts may also dismiss cases due to an uncorrectable flaw, as occurred in the manslaughter case against Alec Baldwin (dismissed with prejudice because of misconduct by the prosecutor).*

* https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/12/entertainment/alec-baldwin-trial-rust/

 

[LondonJohn]

You said facts can't be appealed. You were wrong. The above doesn't change that. A US appellate court can and will overturn a lower court's finding of fact when that finding appears to be clearly unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. A great example from this case is the finding that Amanda stole Meredith's rent money, which is clearly unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence .

Indeed.

Other findings reached by incompetent and unlawful lower courts which are clearly unreasonable and unsupported by evidence are all of those related to the conclusion that Knox and Sollecito participated in the Kercher murder.

 

[Vixen]

And refused repeatedly to turn over the raw DNA data (the automatically generated electronic data files) and the results of the negative and positive controls to the defense and the court's appointed neutral DNA experts.

A flagrant lie. The Nencini trial showed conclusively that Stefanoni did lodge the raw material with the court. Conti & Vecchiotti were less than truthful when they claimed they were not allowed to have it. As Nencini points out (read the MR) all they had to do was make an application for it. This is the umpty-nineth time I have pointed out this matter of fact yet it seems to be part of the Knox fan club catechism to keep repeating it like a religious article of faith. The only way Knox could be innocent is if Stefanoni is guilty, is the warped reasoning.

 

[Vixen]

Indeed.

Other findings reached by incompetent and unlawful lower courts which are clearly unreasonable and unsupported by evidence are all of those related to the conclusion that Knox and Sollecito participated in the Kercher murder.

Catechism # two: I believe the entire lower courts in the Kercher murder trial were incompetent and unlawful, and .clearly unreasonable and unsupported by evidence. [Repeat daily.]

 

[Vixen]

This same "qualified, trained forensic scientist" declared that she didn't have to change gloves between handling items unless they were "wet" or the items would obviously dirty the gloves. Because, ya know, DNA is so clearly visible on things and it's so difficult to transfer.

This same "qualified, trained forensic scientist" who 'forgot' to mention the negative TMB tests because, ya know, critical evidence like the prints were not in blood is so forgettable.

Who left the towels so improperly stored that they rotted and the bra clasp rusted?
Who failed to collect critical evidence like the clasp, Kercher's purse, and the jacket she was wearing when killed for 46 days?

Catechism #3: I believe in the rotted towels and rusty bra clasp that proves the innocence of Saint Amanda and Raffaele. [fx: makes the sign of the scream, with hands over the ears]

 

[Vixen]

Obviously, those corrupt judges just didn't understand the evidence!

Guede's DNA in MK's blood on purse = Amanda stole money.
Guede's unemployment, empty bank account (if he even had one) and rent due = Amanda stole money.
Knox's bank account ($4333.00) + job = Knox stole money.

Catechism #4: Only poor people commit sadistic murders. [fx: self flagellates with the forty-eight marks of the wounds of Meredith]

 

[Vixen]

And you can prove Stefanoni didn't touch Raffaele's DNA on the door jam before collecting the clasp how???? And I also assume you can prove nothing came in contact with the clasp from 2 Nov to 18 Dec that could have contaminated the clasp???

BTW, I listed eight things the SP did wrong with the clasp and it apparently went right over your head, or you're intentionally ignoring it because you know what it means for the clasp evidence. Why no comment regarding those massive forensic blunders?

Oh dear.

Catechism #5: St. Raffaele's DNA was transferred from the door jamb onto the bra clasp by the demon Stefanoni. [fx kneels at the jamb of the door]