• 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

What's ironic is that she literally just responded to my listing of court proven facts regarding the clasp by saying "Sorry, I can only go by what was tested and proved in court.". Never mind that everything I listed WAS proven in court, the irony here is everything she just wrote was DISproven in court, or never even made it to court because it was false. Vixen is nothing if not dishonest.
What was proven? Marasca-Bruno Supreme Court was not a merits court and therefore does not do any establishing of facts or weighing up of evidence. Its pontification - pure pie in the sky pfaffing - that Sollecito's DNA was there by a 'flawed' investigation was never a finding of fact by any court with the legal remit to find such a fact.
 
What was proven? Marasca-Bruno Supreme Court was not a merits court and therefore does not do any establishing of facts or weighing up of evidence. Its pontification - pure pie in the sky pfaffing - that Sollecito's DNA was there by a 'flawed' investigation was never a finding of fact by any court with the legal remit to find such a fact.

You really do need a proper education on how lower and appellate courts work. Your current attempt at an understanding is manifestly incorrect. Maybe do some research?
 
Like I said: do go back and read the Marasca SC verdict again, along with the ECHR adjudication. And perhaps read them properly this time?
Neither court is equipped to weigh up evidence. All the ECHR does is based on what is put in front of it. Notice Dalla Vedova didn't dare put the proper case files in front of it re the Calunnia conviction, he slyly used a different court - Boninsegna - who was simply a third party commentator to the the Massei/Nencini court. He can speculate the police showed undue familiarity and what have you but that was just his personal opinion; no more relevant than yours or mine. Out of an entire shopping list of every breach under the ECHR statute book, the greedy pair (Knox and her counsel) only succeeded on one and a procedural point on another. Instead of the €2,000,000.00 compo demanded by the convict she was awarded just €18K, not even enough to reimburse Della Vedova's air fares.
 
Last edited:
Neither court is equipped to weigh up evidence. All the ECHR does is based on what is put in front of it. Notice Dalla Vedova didn't dare put the proper case files in front of it re the Calunnia conviction, he slyly used a different court - Boninsegna - who was simply a third party commentator to the the Massei/Nencini court. He can speculate the police showed undue familiarity and what have you but that was just his personal opinion; no more relevant than yours or mine. Out off an entire shopping list of every breach under the ECHR statute book, the greedy pair (Knox and her counsel_ only succeeded on one and a procedural point on another. Instead of the €2,000,000 compo demanded by the convict she was awards just €18K, not even enough to reimburse Della Vedova's air fares.

LOL cry harder. And as I said, you clearly don't understand the role and remit of appellate-level courts (both in general and in Italy in particular). As it's now been explained to you at least several times, I don't really know what your excuse can be for your continued ignorance (or feigned ignorance perhaps?). I wonder if the penny will ever drop*

* Who am I kidding? Experience and precedence screams "no"

ETA: And Knox's lawyer's name is Dalla Vedova, not "Della" Vedova. You'd think that anyone who'd followed this case for well over a decade would have assimilated this simple fact by now. I guess it's symptomatic of a wider sloppiness and ignorance around facts and concepts.
 
Last edited:
What was proven? Marasca-Bruno Supreme Court was not a merits court and therefore does not do any establishing of facts or weighing up of evidence. Its pontification - pure pie in the sky pfaffing - that Sollecito's DNA was there by a 'flawed' investigation was never a finding of fact by any court with the legal remit to find such a fact.
What was proven? All eight points I cited.. you know, the ones you're too dishonest to address.

It was the Hellmann court (a de novo court, i.e. a fact finding court) which appointed two neutral DNA experts to review the results. It was their conclusion that due to all of the various errors made by the SP, the results could not be considered reliable. Several other forensic DNA experts weighed in and concurred with C&V's opinion regarding the errors and the unreliability of the results.

Of course, you'll attempt to dismiss C&V, just like you do everyone else you disagree with, and you'll ignore all of the proven points that support C&V's conclusion. I'm not sure if this makes you dishonest, misinformed or a victim of your own confirmation bias - maybe all three.

And, of course, you'll fail to acknowledge the defense did not need to prove his DNA was there due to the errors. Indeed, it's not possible to prove it, which is why forensic standards are so strict. All that was needed was to prove the failure of the forensic team to follow procedures and protocols designed to minimize the risk of contamination. Once that was proven (in spades!) the results couldn't be deemed reliable. Marasca understood that.
 
LOL cry harder. And as I said, you clearly don't understand the role and remit of appellate-level courts (both in general and in Italy in particular). As it's now been explained to you at least several times, I don't really know what your excuse can be for your continued ignorance (or feigned ignorance perhaps?). I wonder if the penny will ever drop*

* Who am I kidding? Experience and precedence screams "no"

ETA: And Knox's lawyer's name is Dalla Vedova, not "Della" Vedova. You'd think that anyone who'd followed this case for well over a decade would have assimilated this simple fact by now. I guess it's symptomatic of a wider sloppiness and ignorance around facts and concepts.
Better tell Masi-Martuscelli of the Florence Supreme Court that they have got it all wrong when it says Knox was at the cottage when Kercher was killed. Likewise Marasca-Bruno spells out Knox washed Kercher's blood from her hands and did name Lumumba to cover up for Guede. Plus the burglary was staged. This is set in stone and in the legal annals in perpetuity. ETA: Oh, you spotted a typo. That is the only joy you are likely to get here.
 
Last edited:
What was proven? All eight points I cited.. you know, the ones you're too dishonest to address.

It was the Hellmann court (a de novo court, i.e. a fact finding court) which appointed two neutral DNA experts to review the results. It was their conclusion that due to all of the various errors made by the SP, the results could not be considered reliable. Several other forensic DNA experts weighed in and concurred with C&V's opinion regarding the errors and the unreliability of the results.

Of course, you'll attempt to dismiss C&V, just like you do everyone else you disagree with, and you'll ignore all of the proven points that support C&V's conclusion. I'm not sure if this makes you dishonest, misinformed or a victim of your own confirmation bias - maybe all three.

And, of course, you'll fail to acknowledge the defense did not need to prove his DNA was there due to the errors. Indeed, it's not possible to prove it, which is why forensic standards are so strict. All that was needed was to prove the failure of the forensic team to follow procedures and protocols designed to minimize the risk of contamination. Once that was proven (in spades!) the results couldn't be deemed reliable. Marasca understood that.
Hellmann? Get away with you.
 
Hellmann? Get away with you.
Funny, I say the same about Massei and Nencini yet you keep going back to those overturned opinions. Your dishonesty and disingenuousness is legendary!

You asked what was proven and I told you. I see you chose to ignore that, and we all know why. Having to admit this was proven in court automatically makes the clasp evidence unreliable, something you just can not admit to, so you'll denigrate Hellmann, you'll denigrate C&V, you'll denigrate anyone you disagree with. Just more, strong evidence why your claim of being "impartial, neutral and entirely objective" is so laughable.

Now, one more time. Care to address the list of eight? Ignoring it only proves you agree with it, else you'd offer an alternative explanation for each one that would mean it was correct and proper procedure.
 
Better tell Masi-Martuscelli of the Florence Supreme Court that they have got it all wrong
when it says Knox was at the cottage when Kercher was killed. Likewise Marasca-Bruno spells out Knox washed Kercher's blood from her hands and did name Lumumba to cover up for Guede. Plus the burglary was staged. This is set in stone and in the legal annals in perpetuity. ETA: Oh, you spotted a typo. That is the only joy you are likely to get here.
Pop quiz... WHAT was the evidence used by the court to know Amanda was at the cottage when Meredith was killed.

As an FYI, understand that I know the answer, but I'm curious to see if you do.

Bonus question: WHAT was the evidence used by the courts to conclude Amanda washed Meredith's blood from her hands. Again, I know the answer, but I want to see if you do. Show off this vast case experience of yours and educate us...
 
Funny, I say the same about Massei and Nencini yet you keep going back to those overturned opinions. Your dishonesty and disingenuousness is legendary!

You asked what was proven and I told you. I see you chose to ignore that, and we all know why. Having to admit this was proven in court automatically makes the clasp evidence unreliable, something you just can not admit to, so you'll denigrate Hellmann, you'll denigrate C&V, you'll denigrate anyone you disagree with. Just more, strong evidence why your claim of being "impartial, neutral and entirely objective" is so laughable.

Now, one more time. Care to address the list of eight? Ignoring it only proves you agree with it, else you'd offer an alternative explanation for each one that would mean it was correct and proper procedure.
Hellmann and Conti & Vecchiotti were largely struck out by Chieffi, remember? (Except for the Calunnia conviction, confirmed!) Expunged, binned, shredded.
 
Pop quiz... WHAT was the evidence used by the court to know Amanda was at the cottage when Meredith was killed.

As an FYI, understand that I know the answer, but I'm curious to see if you do.

Bonus question: WHAT was the evidence used by the courts to conclude Amanda washed Meredith's blood from her hands. Again, I know the answer, but I want to see if you do. Show off this vast case experience of yours and educate us...
Mixed DNA: in Filomena's room and in the bathroom. Knox freshly having bled the same time as Kercher. (No, it wasn't from her pierced ear.)
 
Better tell Masi-Martuscelli of the Florence Supreme Court that they have got it all wrong when it says Knox was at the cottage when Kercher was killed. Likewise Marasca-Bruno spells out Knox washed Kercher's blood from her hands and did name Lumumba to cover up for Guede. Plus the burglary was staged. This is set in stone and in the legal annals in perpetuity. ETA: Oh, you spotted a typo. That is the only joy you are likely to get here.

Oh the European Court of Human Rights addresses all this better than (or at least as well as) I might do. And I'll tell you once again: you clearly have no idea what the role/remit is of higher appellate courts. As I also said, it leaves me wondering whether your ongoing display of ignorance on this matter is genuine (in which case there are serious questions to ask about the quality of your knowledge and critical thinking application) or whether it's perhaps due to the old "fingers in the ears" scenario? Neither is a good alternative.
 
Hellmann and Conti & Vecchiotti were largely struck out by Chieffi, remember? (Except for the Calunnia conviction, confirmed!) Expunged, binned, shredded.
Your post demonstrates your high level of ignorance or biased interpretation of legal matters. As you have been told in previous responding posts, the Chieffi CSC panel, under Italian law, did quash the Hellmann Court of Appeal verdict. The Chieffi CSC panel could not, and did not, eliminate the valid (admissible) evidence in the case. Thus, the report of the court-appointed experts, Conti and Vecchiotti, remained in evidence, as did the elements of Stefanoni's lab reports, lab documents, testimony including but not limited to those police who collected the knife from Sollecito's kitchen, and the video recordings of scientific police activities including but not limited to the collection of the bra clasp. Also not eliminated from the record is the fact that Stefanoni did not document, and thus did not provably conduct, certain forensic activities required for reliable LCN - LT DNA profiling. Nor did she provide the defense with the full complement of results for the negative and positive controls that she ran, nor did she provide the defense with copies of the DNR raw data electronic files.
 
Last edited:
Guede has never denied being there. As Micheli and Giordani confirmed, there were at least three murderers present.
It was rather difficult to claim he wasn't there since he knew from monitoring the news while he was on the run in Germany that they had his handprint and shoeprints in blood.

Micheli and Giordani, as mentioned previously, concluded that before the knife and bra clasp were discredited as evidence in 2011.
This conclusion is based on objective scientific data and other circumstantial evidence, such as footprints and mixed DNA. You have this weird logic of 'its either/or' as if you are in charge of the parameters and not the courts.
No, it wasn't. It was based on Stefanoni's later discredited "Kercher's DNA on the blade" and "RS's DNA on the hook".
It was based on Knox's alleged "footprints in blood", etc.
It was based on the erroneous idea that the mixed DNA had to have been deposited the same night.
It was based on the erroneous idea that the rock was thrown from the inside.
 
Hellmann and Conti & Vecchiotti were largely struck out by Chieffi, remember? (Except for the Calunnia conviction, confirmed!) Expunged, binned, shredded.
Yes, Hellmann, just like Massei and Nencini, were "struck out", remember? Apparently not, as you consistently cite from Massei and Nencini as if they were still relevant. C&V were not, could not be "struck out", or in any other way, be discredited. Remember? Again, apparently not.
 
Mixed DNA: in Filomena's room and in the bathroom. Knox freshly having bled the same time as Kercher. (No, it wasn't from her pierced ear.)

Re; presence in the cottage at the time of the murder. It is indisputable that Marasca referenced Amanda's interrogation statement as evidence she was present. However, as you know, those statements were thrown out by the ISC and the ECHR, so the claim remains unsubstantiated, even if you won't admit as much.

Re; washed Meredith's blood from her hands. Congratulations, yes... according to Marasca, it was because of the mixed DNA samples IN THE SINK. However, it is also indisputable that there is no way to rule out Amanda's latent DNA was combined with Meredith's DNA contained in the diluted blood dripped in the sink. Therefore, the claim is factually unsubstantiated, even if you won't admit as much.

Where's your evidence Amanda and Meredith bled at the same time? I'll answer for you - you don't have any.
Where's your evidence Amanda's blood didn't come from one of her pierced ears? I'll answer for you again - you don't have any.

Apparently you think it's compelling to repeat a lie.. but trust me, it's not. Your problem is you're not dealing with people who read a tabloid article and thinks they understand the case. We have several people here who are very well informed of forensic investigations and what evidence exists in this case. So repeating things that are NOT proven by the evidence does nothing but reaffirm your lack of knowledge on such matters.
 

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