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

[Numbers]

One issue seen in some posts here, primarily those with a pro-guilt view of Knofx and Sollecito, confuse judicial facts - inferences derived from possibly unreliable or disputed evidence, with empirical facts - that is, inferences derived reliably from repeated controlled observation or experimentation.

To increase the probability that judicial facts have a proper level of reliability to meet the Italian and international standards for determining guilt in a criminal case, the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (Codice di Procedura Penale, CPP) has laws that regulate the admissibility or use of evidence in a trial and further regulates how valid judicial facts - inferences - may be derived from evidence. These CPP laws on evidence have been discussed in posts on this thread and its continuations many times, and we can be confident that the Italian courts were reminded of them by the defense lawyers. The questions are: 1. Did the Italian courts in reconvicting Knox of calunnia follow these Italian laws? and 2. Did the Italian courts follow international laws (ECHR case law), and specifically the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy?

Here are some of the most relevant CPP Articles (Google translation):

Art. 188.
Moral Freedom of the Person in Taking Evidence.

1. Methods or techniques that could influence the freedom of self-determination or alter the ability to remember and evaluate facts may not be used, even with the consent of the person concerned.

Art. 189.
Evidence not regulated by law.

1. When evidence not regulated by law is requested, the judge may accept it if it is deemed appropriate to ensure the ascertainment of the facts and does not prejudice the person's moral freedom. The judge shall grant the evidence after consulting the parties regarding the procedures for obtaining the evidence.

Art. 190.
Right to Evidence.

1. Evidence is admitted at the request of a party. The judge shall issue an order promptly, excluding evidence prohibited by law and evidence that is manifestly superfluous or irrelevant.

2. The law establishes the cases in which evidence is admitted ex officio.

3. Orders regarding the admission of evidence may be revoked after hearing the parties in cross-examination.

Art. 191.
Illegally Obtained Evidence.

1. Evidence obtained in violation of the prohibitions established by law may not be used.

2. The inadmissibility may be raised ex officio at any stage and level of the proceedings.

2-bis. Statements or information obtained through the crime of torture may not be used, except against persons accused of such crime and for the sole purpose of proving their criminal liability.

Art. 192.
Evaluation of Evidence.

1. The judge evaluates the evidence, taking into account in the reasoning the findings obtained and the criteria adopted.

2. The existence of a fact cannot be inferred from evidence unless it is serious, precise, and consistent.

3. Statements made by a co-defendant of the same crime or by a person accused in related proceedings pursuant to Article 12 are evaluated together with other evidence confirming their reliability.

4. The provision of paragraph 3 also applies to statements made by a person accused of a crime related to the one being prosecuted, in the case provided for in Article 371, paragraph 2, letter b).

Cassazione penale, sez. VI, sentenza 01/10/2007 n° 35823 (CSC Criminal Case #35823 judgment 1 October 2007, Maxim pertaining to Article 192, paragraph 2):

The evidence, however serious, if not consistent with each other and not supported by the univocal statements made by the witnesses, cannot serve as proof of the guilt of the accused, who must be fully acquitted.

Source: https://www.altalex.com/documents/news/2013/11/13/prove-disposizioni-generali

 

[Vixen]

I've previously quoted media reports stating he was a "drifter" including Follain.
Even the TJMK darling, Ergon, refers to him as a drifter:

Barbie Nadeau:

Michelli:

How childish.

 

[Vixen]

Goal post moving again. We were discussing the claim that Amanda was at the cottage at the time of the murder, not whether she washed Meredith's blood from her hands. On that score, you comment above is baseless. Stefanoni did not introduce a shred of evidence that would prove Amanda was in the cottage at the time of the murder. How about you point out what that "hard scientific evidence" is.

As for the new goal post position, that Amanda washed Meredith's blood from her hands, we KNOW this was a claim based on the mixed DNA samples from the small bathroom. We also know those results are completely consistent with Meredith's diluted blood landing on Amanda's latent DNA from days of use of the sink. So no, there is no evidence to support this claim either. If you were being honest, you'd admit as much, but I've long since learned that's just too much to ask of you.

BTW, I really don't care what baseless narratives Stefanoni came up with. The diluted blood drops are far more likely to have come from Guede as he was cleaning up before leaving. Stefanoni is just following the prosecution fabricated narrative, nothing more.

The drop was on the faucet and not very obvious. No one said the blood was there "for days", just that it was there prior to Meredith's murder. It could have been there for only a day. I'm sure you're perfect and would never miss something, but for the rest of the human race, we sometimes miss things. But you know, if it was that big and obvious, and they did this extensive clean-up, why was it still there?



Really???!!! I'd love to know what evidence that is, and exactly how turning her phone off so her boss couldn't change his mind proves this. You just love making things up, don't you. Well I think the evidence is quite clear - GUEDE did use his own smaller knife... you know, the knife small enough to have made ALL THREE wounds AND leave the imprint on the bed sheets... and him being the sole attacker explains why only Guede and Meredith left a forensic trace of themselves in the room where she was sexually assaults - also proven to be Guede - and murdered.

The rest of your ridiculous post isn't commenting on.

Knox didn't 'turn off her phone so her boss couldn't change his mind', and is utter nonsense. Knox was furious and in a rage because (a) she believed Mez had stolen her job, (b) Mez had avoided her over Halloween, and she'd had to spend it alone tramping the streets looking for company, which she found only fleetingly, (c) Mez had gone off again that afternoon to socialise with friends for pizza and to watch the film, 'The Notebook', and most jealousy-arousing of all, (d) Mez had 'taken' (in Knox' view) Silenzi as a boyfriend from downstairs, and Knox had barely been back to the cottage since their relationship started. In addition, Knox and Sollecito fantasised about extreme experiences, with Knox sharing her hatred of Mez with him. They both testified they had noticed that same afternoon, vampire makeup still on Mez' chin, and that is when the pair hatched up their vampire-slaying scheme, based on Sollecito's violent pornographic anime comics and extensive knife collection. They thought it would be a laugh (a thrill hazing and killing) as well as exacting revenge for stealing Knox' job, Knox' perceived right to 'have' Silenzi, for Mez snubbing her over Halloween and for showing disgust at her bathroom habits. Rage, anger and jealosuy. We know this plan was hatched because both Knox and Sollecito went to some pains to conceal they went into the old town after Mez had left for the afternoon to see her friends. Knox excludes this from her prison diary time line and police had to squeeze it out of Sollecito in his second interview, when he made up a fake excuse (of needing provisions but then realising he didn't need provisions after all [not dissimilar to Popovic's phony coach luggage claim that also never happened]). Plus, in addition, the pages of the end of October were torn out of Knox' diary. In her email to 25 friends in her contacts list in the early hours of Sunday morning, two days after the murder, Knox claimed she had been desperately worried about Mez' locked door yet plainclothes officers, Batistelli and Marzi, first to arrive, said she didn't even mention the locked door except to claim it was always locked, even when Mez took a shower; it was Filomena who, on arrival, was super surprised by this claim and demanded the door be kicked down. Being her roommate, you'd have thought Knox would be forefront in wanting to know Mez was OK but instead, she and Sollecito stood well away in the kitchen area when the door was broken down.

As for the blood, we are talking about a vivid long streak of red unwatered down blood on the bathroom door, which can't have been there for days (undated) without anyone noticing. Forensics officer, Gioia Brocci found an ‘unusually long streak of blood’ which extended from the rim of the wash basin all the way in a line towards the plughole and another, which followed the same pattern in the bidet. Stefanoni explains her theory to the authors of Darkness Descending:

‘This is the knife moving around,’ she said extending her right arm away from her hips in an arc motion, as though she was throwing a Frisbee. ‘These blood drips were left by the knife. Too many droplets and look, the blood in the basin and bidet is paler, so it’s the knife that has been washed at that particular point’.

Pointing to other drops, she continues, ‘The drops on the box of cotton buds and the basin are dark. This is blood before being washed.’
At the trial the court was impressed with Stefanoni’s expert testimony. Massei found as an established fact, quoting Stefanoni:
‘Traces that appeared to be of a blood nature [101] were also present on the box of cotton buds, on top of the toilet seat, on the light switch and in the bidet, ‚and there was always the drop upwards, really on the edge and the same continuity up to the bidet siphon, of the common colour and in the same line‛ (pages 134 and 135).

Traces were present also over the bathroom door, not watered down but a vivid red colour.

The evidence collecting in the small bathroom she did with a ‘carta bibula’, which is an absorbent paper [disc] and to a question put to her by the defence of Amanda Knox’, she stated the following: "when we say finding a drop upstream and a drop downstream ... on the inside for example of the sink ... a drop on the edge of the sink and for continuity there was a drop that ended up towards the sink siphon and had a continuity, is not that one was to the right, one to the left, one here and one over there; it had its own continuity, I had deemed it proper to use the same disc of absorbent paper, as they were equal in colour, pink‛. Marasca refers to this as ‘diluted blood’. Such material singled out was pink, of "washed blood ... in the sense it did not have the characteristic red colour of blood. The same colour other than in the bathroom sink was noted inside the bidet." (p. 152). Stefanoni specified further that it was not a strip, but "more little specks < with the same continuity‛ (page 153): they were drippings< 'that gave this continuity‛ and the colouring was the same, always pink. She did not believe then it might be different traces because of the continuity between the different drops. This is important, because pro-Knox defenders like to argue, ‘So what? Knox lived there, of course her DNA is mixed with Meredith’s’ or 'It can't be dated.' Indeed, the reader might be asking themself, ‘So the perpetrator rinsed the knife. It doesn’t prove it was Knox’. However, the point is, although the DNA mixed samples are separate, Stefanoni was able to prove conclusively to the satisfaction of the court that the DNA was deposited at the same time, together.

From Massei:

‘[198] In the small bathroom, three traces of the victim's blood were found on the bathmat; on the light switch plate with two switches there were traces "of diluted blood, blood presumably mixed with water, as it was pale pink in colour’ (page 76) which also came from the victim; a sample was taken from the front part of the faucet of the sink, which yielded the genetic profile of Amanda Knox; another sample taken from a specimen visible to the naked eye on the edge of the drain of the bidet yielded the genetic profiles of the victim and of Knox, a genetic mixture also found on the box of cotton buds near the sink. The drippings found inside the sink appeared to be diluted blood, pink in colour, proven by testing to be human blood and yielding the genetic mixture of the victim and Knox.
---

A key thing is, the diluted pink colour. Dried blood does not dissolve in water so Knox’ blood would not have mixed in with the blood being rinsed in the sink unless her blood was wet at the same time. Blood dries within thirty minutes, or up to an hour latest. This is because it contains blood clotting mechanisms. So yes, Knox and Mez blood proven and tested in court as being mixed together and in addition, mixed together at the same time. So we know as a matter of hard, objective, solid, cold, scientific fact that Knox rinsed a knife dripping with Mez' blood in the shared bathroom that morning after the murder. Q.E.D. ::

 

[AmyStrange]

What a maroon

 

[Disbelief]

Knox didn't 'turn off her phone so her boss couldn't change his mind', and is utter nonsense. Knox was furious and in a rage because (a) she believed Mez had stolen her job, (b) Mez had avoided her over Halloween, and she'd had to spend it alone tramping the streets looking for company, which she found only fleetingly, (c) Mez had gone off again that afternoon to socialise with friends for pizza and to watch the film, 'The Notebook', and most jealousy-arousing of all, (d) Mez had 'taken' (in Knox' view) Silenzi as a boyfriend from downstairs, and Knox had barely been back to the cottage since their relationship started. In addition, Knox and Sollecito fantasised about extreme experiences, with Knox sharing her hatred of Mez with him. They both testified they had noticed that same afternoon, vampire makeup still on Mez' chin, and that is when the pair hatched up their vampire-slaying scheme, based on Sollecito's violent pornographic anime comics and extensive knife collection. They thought it would be a laugh (a thrill hazing and killing) as well as exacting revenge for stealing Knox' job, Knox' perceived right to 'have' Silenzi, for Mez snubbing her over Halloween and for showing disgust at her bathroom habits. Rage, anger and jealosuy. We know this plan was hatched because both Knox and Sollecito went to some pains to conceal they went into the old town after Mez had left for the afternoon to see her friends. Knox excludes this from her prison diary time line and police had to squeeze it out of Sollecito in his second interview, when he made up a fake excuse (of needing provisions but then realising he didn't need provisions after all [not dissimilar to Popovic's phony coach luggage claim that also never happened]). Plus, in addition, the pages of the end of October were torn out of Knox' diary. In her email to 25 friends in her contacts list in the early hours of Sunday morning, two days after the murder, Knox claimed she had been desperately worried about Mez' locked door yet plainclothes officers, Batistelli and Marzi, first to arrive, said she didn't even mention the locked door except to claim it was always locked, even when Mez took a shower; it was Filomena who, on arrival, was super surprised by this claim and demanded the door be kicked down. Being her roommate, you'd have thought Knox would be forefront in wanting to know Mez was OK but instead, she and Sollecito stood well away in the kitchen area when the door was broken down.

As for the blood, we are talking about a vivid long streak of red unwatered down blood on the bathroom door, which can't have been there for days (undated) without anyone noticing. Forensics officer, Gioia Brocci found an ‘unusually long streak of blood’ which extended from the rim of the wash basin all the way in a line towards the plughole and another, which followed the same pattern in the bidet. Stefanoni explains her theory to the authors of Darkness Descending:

‘This is the knife moving around,’ she said extending her right arm away from her hips in an arc motion, as though she was throwing a Frisbee. ‘These blood drips were left by the knife. Too many droplets and look, the blood in the basin and bidet is paler, so it’s the knife that has been washed at that particular point’.

Pointing to other drops, she continues, ‘The drops on the box of cotton buds and the basin are dark. This is blood before being washed.’
At the trial the court was impressed with Stefanoni’s expert testimony. Massei found as an established fact, quoting Stefanoni:
‘Traces that appeared to be of a blood nature [101] were also present on the box of cotton buds, on top of the toilet seat, on the light switch and in the bidet, ‚and there was always the drop upwards, really on the edge and the same continuity up to the bidet siphon, of the common colour and in the same line‛ (pages 134 and 135).

Traces were present also over the bathroom door, not watered down but a vivid red colour.

The evidence collecting in the small bathroom she did with a ‘carta bibula’, which is an absorbent paper [disc] and to a question put to her by the defence of Amanda Knox’, she stated the following: "when we say finding a drop upstream and a drop downstream ... on the inside for example of the sink ... a drop on the edge of the sink and for continuity there was a drop that ended up towards the sink siphon and had a continuity, is not that one was to the right, one to the left, one here and one over there; it had its own continuity, I had deemed it proper to use the same disc of absorbent paper, as they were equal in colour, pink‛. Marasca refers to this as ‘diluted blood’. Such material singled out was pink, of "washed blood ... in the sense it did not have the characteristic red colour of blood. The same colour other than in the bathroom sink was noted inside the bidet." (p. 152). Stefanoni specified further that it was not a strip, but "more little specks < with the same continuity‛ (page 153): they were drippings< 'that gave this continuity‛ and the colouring was the same, always pink. She did not believe then it might be different traces because of the continuity between the different drops. This is important, because pro-Knox defenders like to argue, ‘So what? Knox lived there, of course her DNA is mixed with Meredith’s’ or 'It can't be dated.' Indeed, the reader might be asking themself, ‘So the perpetrator rinsed the knife. It doesn’t prove it was Knox’. However, the point is, although the DNA mixed samples are separate, Stefanoni was able to prove conclusively to the satisfaction of the court that the DNA was deposited at the same time, together.

From Massei:

‘[198] In the small bathroom, three traces of the victim's blood were found on the bathmat; on the light switch plate with two switches there were traces "of diluted blood, blood presumably mixed with water, as it was pale pink in colour’ (page 76) which also came from the victim; a sample was taken from the front part of the faucet of the sink, which yielded the genetic profile of Amanda Knox; another sample taken from a specimen visible to the naked eye on the edge of the drain of the bidet yielded the genetic profiles of the victim and of Knox, a genetic mixture also found on the box of cotton buds near the sink. The drippings found inside the sink appeared to be diluted blood, pink in colour, proven by testing to be human blood and yielding the genetic mixture of the victim and Knox.
---

A key thing is, the diluted pink colour. Dried blood does not dissolve in water so Knox’ blood would not have mixed in with the blood being rinsed in the sink unless her blood was wet at the same time. Blood dries within thirty minutes, or up to an hour latest. This is because it contains blood clotting mechanisms. So yes, Knox and Mez blood proven and tested in court as being mixed together and in addition, mixed together at the same time. So we know as a matter of hard, objective, solid, cold, scientific fact that Knox rinsed a knife dripping with Mez' blood in the shared bathroom that morning after the murder. Q.E.D. ::

Pure fiction.

 

[TomG]

What the final Supreme Court Marasca-Bruno decreed in writing was that Knox did wash Mez' blood from her hands.

*But is what Vixen is saying really true? M/B says:

"Another element regarding her is represented by traces of mixed DNA, hers and the victim’s, in the "small bathroom", an eloquent confirmation that she had come into contact with the latter’s blood, which she tried to wash off (it seems we are dealing with washed away blood, while the biological traces belonging to her are a result of epithelial rubbing)."

But then goes on to say:

"The data leads to strong suspicion, although not decisive, considering the well-known considerations regarding the certain nature and attribution of the traces in question."

The considerations of "eloquent proof" while being "not decisive" seem to be contradictory. In fact Massei (page 279) concluded that:

" And it is probable - not necessary, but probable - that during the following act of scrubbing the hands to remove the blood, he/she left the mixed trace consisting of Meredith’s blood and of cells which had been removed by rubbing during the act of washing."

The washed blood hypothesis is again touted by Professor Torricelli (Kercher family DNA expert) in this video at 1:17:38


So it was never at any time "eloquent proof" except possibly from Nencini who said:

"The presence of mixed Kercher-Knox traces on the cotton-bud box, on the bidet, and on the washbasin leads to the conclusion that it was Amanda Knox who washed her hands and feet, both stained with the blood of Meredith Kercher and, in so doing, by rubbing [her hands and feet], losing epithelial cells that were useful for DNA extraction."

Did M/B have the remit to come to such a conclusion anyway?

It's clear as mud to me.

 

[Numbers]

*But is what Vixen is saying really true? M/B says:

"Another element regarding her is represented by traces of mixed DNA, hers and the victim’s, in the "small bathroom", an eloquent confirmation that she had come into contact with the latter’s blood, which she tried to wash off (it seems we are dealing with washed away blood, while the biological traces belonging to her are a result of epithelial rubbing)."

But then goes on to say:

"The data leads to strong suspicion, although not decisive, considering the well-known considerations regarding the certain nature and attribution of the traces in question."

The considerations of "eloquent proof" while being "not decisive" seem to be contradictory. In fact Massei (page 279) concluded that:

" And it is probable - not necessary, but probable - that during the following act of scrubbing the hands to remove the blood, he/she left the mixed trace consisting of Meredith’s blood and of cells which had been removed by rubbing during the act of washing."

The washed blood hypothesis is again touted by Professor Torricelli (Kercher family DNA expert) in this video at 1:17:38


So it was never at any time "eloquent proof" except possibly from Nencini who said:

"The presence of mixed Kercher-Knox traces on the cotton-bud box, on the bidet, and on the washbasin leads to the conclusion that it was Amanda Knox who washed her hands and feet, both stained with the blood of Meredith Kercher and, in so doing, by rubbing [her hands and feet], losing epithelial cells that were useful for DNA extraction."

Did M/B have the remit to come to such a conclusion anyway?

It's clear as mud to me.

Good question.

What we see when we read the MRs of the Italian courts is the influence of the inquisitiorial system that frequently, perhaps continually, worms its way into the "new" post-1988 adversarial Italian judicial system.

What is missing from the MR verbiage is the explicit recognition, under Italian and international law, that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt; suspicion is not sufficient to find an accused guilty. It's important to recall how the collection of the specific forensic samples was conducted to understand fully that no conclusion can be drawn except that the collection was done improperly and the results are therefore non-probative - they can't establish guilt. Under the presumption of innocence, and the fact that the collection consisted of a broad sweep on the surface of a shared bathroom sink (and/or other objects), the only realistic conclusion is that the sink and other objects sampled by broad sweeps were shared by Kercher and Knox - a fact already known.

 

[TruthCalls]

Knox didn't 'turn off her phone so her boss couldn't change his mind', and is utter nonsense. Knox was furious and in a rage because (a) she believed Mez had stolen her job, (b) Mez had avoided her over Halloween, and she'd had to spend it alone tramping the streets looking for company, which she found only fleetingly, (c) Mez had gone off again that afternoon to socialise with friends for pizza and to watch the film, 'The Notebook', and most jealousy-arousing of all, (d) Mez had 'taken' (in Knox' view) Silenzi as a boyfriend from downstairs, and Knox had barely been back to the cottage since their relationship started. In addition, Knox and Sollecito fantasised about extreme experiences, with Knox sharing her hatred of Mez with him. They both testified they had noticed that same afternoon, vampire makeup still on Mez' chin, and that is when the pair hatched up their vampire-slaying scheme, based on Sollecito's violent pornographic anime comics and extensive knife collection. They thought it would be a laugh (a thrill hazing and killing) as well as exacting revenge for stealing Knox' job, Knox' perceived right to 'have' Silenzi, for Mez snubbing her over Halloween and for showing disgust at her bathroom habits. Rage, anger and jealosuy. We know this plan was hatched because both Knox and Sollecito went to some pains to conceal they went into the old town after Mez had left for the afternoon to see her friends. Knox excludes this from her prison diary time line and police had to squeeze it out of Sollecito in his second interview, when he made up a fake excuse (of needing provisions but then realising he didn't need provisions after all [not dissimilar to Popovic's phony coach luggage claim that also never happened]). Plus, in addition, the pages of the end of October were torn out of Knox' diary. In her email to 25 friends in her contacts list in the early hours of Sunday morning, two days after the murder, Knox claimed she had been desperately worried about Mez' locked door yet plainclothes officers, Batistelli and Marzi, first to arrive, said she didn't even mention the locked door except to claim it was always locked, even when Mez took a shower; it was Filomena who, on arrival, was super surprised by this claim and demanded the door be kicked down. Being her roommate, you'd have thought Knox would be forefront in wanting to know Mez was OK but instead, she and Sollecito stood well away in the kitchen area when the door was broken down.

As for the blood, we are talking about a vivid long streak of red unwatered down blood on the bathroom door, which can't have been there for days (undated) without anyone noticing. Forensics officer, Gioia Brocci found an ‘unusually long streak of blood’ which extended from the rim of the wash basin all the way in a line towards the plughole and another, which followed the same pattern in the bidet. Stefanoni explains her theory to the authors of Darkness Descending:

‘This is the knife moving around,’ she said extending her right arm away from her hips in an arc motion, as though she was throwing a Frisbee. ‘These blood drips were left by the knife. Too many droplets and look, the blood in the basin and bidet is paler, so it’s the knife that has been washed at that particular point’.

Pointing to other drops, she continues, ‘The drops on the box of cotton buds and the basin are dark. This is blood before being washed.’
At the trial the court was impressed with Stefanoni’s expert testimony. Massei found as an established fact, quoting Stefanoni:
‘Traces that appeared to be of a blood nature [101] were also present on the box of cotton buds, on top of the toilet seat, on the light switch and in the bidet, ‚and there was always the drop upwards, really on the edge and the same continuity up to the bidet siphon, of the common colour and in the same line‛ (pages 134 and 135).

Traces were present also over the bathroom door, not watered down but a vivid red colour.

The evidence collecting in the small bathroom she did with a ‘carta bibula’, which is an absorbent paper [disc] and to a question put to her by the defence of Amanda Knox’, she stated the following: "when we say finding a drop upstream and a drop downstream ... on the inside for example of the sink ... a drop on the edge of the sink and for continuity there was a drop that ended up towards the sink siphon and had a continuity, is not that one was to the right, one to the left, one here and one over there; it had its own continuity, I had deemed it proper to use the same disc of absorbent paper, as they were equal in colour, pink‛. Marasca refers to this as ‘diluted blood’. Such material singled out was pink, of "washed blood ... in the sense it did not have the characteristic red colour of blood. The same colour other than in the bathroom sink was noted inside the bidet." (p. 152). Stefanoni specified further that it was not a strip, but "more little specks < with the same continuity‛ (page 153): they were drippings< 'that gave this continuity‛ and the colouring was the same, always pink. She did not believe then it might be different traces because of the continuity between the different drops. This is important, because pro-Knox defenders like to argue, ‘So what? Knox lived there, of course her DNA is mixed with Meredith’s’ or 'It can't be dated.' Indeed, the reader might be asking themself, ‘So the perpetrator rinsed the knife. It doesn’t prove it was Knox’. However, the point is, although the DNA mixed samples are separate, Stefanoni was able to prove conclusively to the satisfaction of the court that the DNA was deposited at the same time, together.

From Massei:

‘[198] In the small bathroom, three traces of the victim's blood were found on the bathmat; on the light switch plate with two switches there were traces "of diluted blood, blood presumably mixed with water, as it was pale pink in colour’ (page 76) which also came from the victim; a sample was taken from the front part of the faucet of the sink, which yielded the genetic profile of Amanda Knox; another sample taken from a specimen visible to the naked eye on the edge of the drain of the bidet yielded the genetic profiles of the victim and of Knox, a genetic mixture also found on the box of cotton buds near the sink. The drippings found inside the sink appeared to be diluted blood, pink in colour, proven by testing to be human blood and yielding the genetic mixture of the victim and Knox.
---

A key thing is, the diluted pink colour. Dried blood does not dissolve in water so Knox’ blood would not have mixed in with the blood being rinsed in the sink unless her blood was wet at the same time. Blood dries within thirty minutes, or up to an hour latest. This is because it contains blood clotting mechanisms. So yes, Knox and Mez blood proven and tested in court as being mixed together and in addition, mixed together at the same time. So we know as a matter of hard, objective, solid, cold, scientific fact that Knox rinsed a knife dripping with Mez' blood in the shared bathroom that morning after the murder. Q.E.D. ::

Wow, what a pile of bollocks! I seriously doubt even you believe this.

 

[Bill Williams]

Wow, what a pile of bollocks! I seriously doubt even you believe this.

The real issue with Vixen's screed? It makes Meredith Kercher out to be a bully and a mean girl. Which she wasn't. Not even close. Worse, Vixen does it while appropriating the familiar name Meredith's family used for her.... none of them (her family) described her as a bully or as a mean girl.

 

[Bill Williams]

Good question.

What we see when we read the MRs of the Italian courts is the influence of the inquisitiorial system that frequently, perhaps continually, worms its way into the "new" post-1988 adversarial Italian judicial system.

What is missing from the MR verbiage is the explicit recognition, under Italian and international law, that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt; suspicion is not sufficient to find an accused guilty. It's important to recall how the collection of the specific forensic samples was conducted to understand fully that no conclusion can be drawn except that the collection was done improperly and the results are therefore non-probative - they can't establish guilt. Under the presumption of innocence, and the fact that the collection consisted of a broad sweep on the surface of a shared bathroom sink (and/or other objects), the only realistic conclusion is that the sink and other objects sampled by broad sweeps were shared by Kercher and Knox - a fact already known.

This.

 

[Numbers]

In case any reader believes that the kind of miscarriage of justice that occurred in Italy in the Knox-Sollecito case couldn't happen in the US, see the following news article about the failure of a US city to pay an innocent person for his wrongful conviction for murder:

Youngkin blasts Richmond over city’s failure to pay $5.8M to wrongfully convicted man

If the city does not pay Grimm by Aug. 15, the governor said he will withhold state funding from Richmond.

www.richmonder.org

Here are some excerpts from the article:

Richmond [VIrginia] police arrested Grimm and linked him to the death of a 3-year-old boy who had disappeared from an apartment complex and was found in the James River. Grimm successfully proved his innocence decades later, making his wrongful incarceration case the longest in Virginia history and one of the longest in U.S. history.

Grimm confessed to the murder and sexual assault of the boy. He later recanted his confession, insisting he was innocent and had been coerced into pleading guilty in order to avoid the death penalty.

Due to numerous problems with the prosecution — including suppression of evidence that undermined the case — Grimm won a writ of actual innocence from the Virginia Court of Appeals in 2024. After being denied parole dozens of times, he was paroled in 2020 but continued to pursue his innocence claim.

With help from the Innocence Project and the Arnold & Porter law firm, Grimm presented the court with new evidence showing that hairs linking him to the crime didn’t come from the boy, that DNA crucial to the prosecution didn’t come from him and that the timeline laid out by prosecutors didn’t align with evidence showing high levels of alcohol and drugs in the boy’s system.

A torn shoe belonging to Grimm was also a key piece of evidence in the case, even though testing at the time found no soil or debris indicating the shoe was damaged by the riverbank.

Earlier this year, the General Assembly approved $5.8 million in compensation for Grimm. Under a new law also approved in the 2025 legislative session, when a wrongful conviction is the result of intentional malfeasance by local officials, the locality is now required to match the amount of the state’s compensation.

Another Virginia city, Norfolk, has a similar issue:

"A similar scenario is playing out in Norfolk, where city officials have yet to pay Gilbert Merritt III the $2.62 million it owes for its part in a saga that put him behind bars for 20 years for a murder he did not commit," the [Washington] Post reported, adding, "Youngkin has not been involved in that case."

Earlier this year, the General Assembly passed bills acknowledging the two cases of wrongful incarceration and gave the governor the power to withhold state funding to cities that refused to pay up. Under Virginia law, localities "must at least match whatever compensation the state provides," the report said.

The state paid $5.8 million to Grimm and $2.62 million to Merritt shortly after July 1, when the law took effect.

Source:

MSN

 

[Vixen]

The real issue with Vixen's screed? It makes Meredith Kercher out to be a bully and a mean girl. Which she wasn't. Not even close. Worse, Vixen does it while appropriating the familiar name Meredith's family used for her.... none of them (her family) described her as a bully or as a mean girl.

Meredith a ‘mean girl’? No, more likely, whilst initially the pair got on well, texting and going to a chocolate festival and the concert where Knox met Sollecito; by the time of the murder, the two barely texted/phoned each other at all and we can see from AK’s texts to Mez asking what she was doing at Halloween, hinting very strongly she wanted to join her, that Mez evaded her questions and indeed went out with a group of friends, leaving Knox to twiddle her thumbs. Being American, Halloween was a big thing for her. Not so much for Catholic Italian Sollecito, who was cramming for exams. In retrospect, people were looking for possible reasons for the pair’s frosty relationship – if that’s what it was – and Sophie Purton and dad, John Kercher, mentioned things such as Mez complaining about having Knox’ sex toy and condoms in her face in the bathroom, Knox suddenly singing at the top of her voice whilst they were all out dining, and stuff like that. But four females in a flat share don’t necessarily have a lot in common, each will live their own lives away from the cottage. Each comes with their own prior baggage. Knox says in her writings that she had a thing about rejection at school and hung out with the rejects. So, coming to a new country and still feeling like a reject must have hurt. But Mez wasn’t necessarily being a ‘mean girl’. She hung out with fellow students from Leeds University who were all on the same Erasmus scheme and on similar courses. So it might seem cliquey but that is what people do. It’s possible they fell out over Giacomo downstairs. Knox was heard to say to Mez, ‘You can have him’, as though staking a claim on him herself. Certainly, she was rarely around the cottage after that, preferring to stay at Sollecito’s. It’s true that girls tend to resort to psychological measures when falling out with each other, such as sending one to Coventry, whereas guys might slug out their differences in a car park. Certainly, English girls don’t approve of ‘showing off’ and Knox was variously described as loud and annoying, especially at the Questura after the murder, to which Sophie voiced objections. We can also guess they were not close friends as Knox couldn’t be bothered to attend Mez’ memorial vigil at the cathedral steps and surprised Filomena by suggesting they find somewhere else to rent together because she had paid rent and was annoyed at now being effectively homeless. To Sophie and Filomena, Knox came across as callous and lacking empathy, but all of this might be in retrospect given Knox was arrested for the murder. And exacting revenge is in Knox’ history, for an old classmate from Washington actually rang up Perugia police to report that Knox had a history of ‘hazing’ people. For example, frightening them in a sinister ski mask, or turning over their room to make them think they had been burgled. She seemed to enjoy teaching people a lesson and enjoying their distress. Plus she had experience of setting a mise-en-scène as is the final verdict of the 'burglary' being a staged one, to point investigators to an outside perpetrator.

Of course, people like to speculate as to motive. Crini made Mignini drop the teenage Halloween thrill kill motive and instead settled for one of housemate annoyance over cleanliness and hygiene. Guede's explanation made out the pair got into a violent fight after Mez confronted Knox about missing rent money, which has plausibility, as for a student, €300 was quite a large sum of money to go missing. To the accused, this could well incite rage and a red mist. Interestingly, Mez’ fingerprints were found in Knox’ room which seemed to indicate she was searching for something, perhaps the said missing rent money..? Which was missing. I tend to think Mignini was on the right path and that it was a thrill kill murder of Knox exacting revenge on Mez for snubbing her at Halloween, arousing unhappy feelings of rejection, Mez being popular and with having Giacomo downstairs, exacerbating Knox' jealousy, on top. Reminds me of a passage in a novel by Jean Rhys, who wrote from autobiography. She is sharing a rented accommodation with Ethel, a ‘manicurist’ – probably a 1930’s polite euphemism for ‘prostitute - anyway, one day Jean’s character goes out with friends and on her return, she’s confronted by Ethel having a nervous breakdown, looking at her ‘with hate’ and telling her to get out:

You went out with your pals and enjoyed yourself and you didn't even ask me. Wasn't I good enough to come? But it's always the same thing. You didn't even ask me, she said. 'And oh God, what a life I've had. Trying to keep up and everybody else trying to push you down and everybody lying and pretending and you knowing it. And then they down you for doing the same things as they do…’ ~ JR

So, powerful emotions being stirred by Mez seeming to ‘steal’ her job and going out without her. Lumumba confirmed he was on the verge of firing Knox and taking on Mez, who shook a great mojito cocktail. So yes, cruel vindictive revenge being the motive, with Guede and Sollecito as her facilitators. For them, a kind of Halloween game whilst drugged up to their eyeballs.

 

[Disbelief]

Meredith a ‘mean girl’? No, more likely, whilst initially the pair got on well, texting and going to a chocolate festival and the concert where Knox met Sollecito; by the time of the murder, the two barely texted/phoned each other at all and we can see from AK’s texts to Mez asking what she was doing at Halloween, hinting very strongly she wanted to join her, that Mez evaded her questions and indeed went out with a group of friends, leaving Knox to twiddle her thumbs. Being American, Halloween was a big thing for her. Not so much for Catholic Italian Sollecito, who was cramming for exams. In retrospect, people were looking for possible reasons for the pair’s frosty relationship – if that’s what it was – and Sophie Purton and dad, John Kercher, mentioned things such as Mez complaining about having Knox’ sex toy and condoms in her face in the bathroom, Knox suddenly singing at the top of her voice whilst they were all out dining, and stuff like that. But four females in a flat share don’t necessarily have a lot in common, each will live their own lives away from the cottage. Each comes with their own prior baggage. Knox says in her writings that she had a thing about rejection at school and hung out with the rejects. So, coming to a new country and still feeling like a reject must have hurt. But Mez wasn’t necessarily being a ‘mean girl’. She hung out with fellow students from Leeds University who were all on the same Erasmus scheme and on similar courses. So it might seem cliquey but that is what people do. It’s possible they fell out over Giacomo downstairs. Knox was heard to say to Mez, ‘You can have him’, as though staking a claim on him herself. Certainly, she was rarely around the cottage after that, preferring to stay at Sollecito’s. It’s true that girls tend to resort to psychological measures when falling out with each other, such as sending one to Coventry, whereas guys might slug out their differences in a car park. Certainly, English girls don’t approve of ‘showing off’ and Knox was variously described as loud and annoying, especially at the Questura after the murder, to which Sophie voiced objections. We can also guess they were not close friends as Knox couldn’t be bothered to attend Mez’ memorial vigil at the cathedral steps and surprised Filomena by suggesting they find somewhere else to rent together because she had paid rent and was annoyed at now being effectively homeless. To Sophie and Filomena, Knox came across as callous and lacking empathy, but all of this might be in retrospect given Knox was arrested for the murder. And exacting revenge is in Knox’ history, for an old classmate from Washington actually rang up Perugia police to report that Knox had a history of ‘hazing’ people. For example, frightening them in a sinister ski mask, or turning over their room to make them think they had been burgled. She seemed to enjoy teaching people a lesson and enjoying their distress. Plus she had experience of setting a mise-en-scène as is the final verdict of the 'burglary' being a staged one, to point investigators to an outside perpetrator.

Of course, people like to speculate as to motive. Crini made Mignini drop the teenage Halloween thrill kill motive and instead settled for one of housemate annoyance over cleanliness and hygiene. Guede's explanation made out the pair got into a violent fight after Mez confronted Knox about missing rent money, which has plausibility, as for a student, €300 was quite a large sum of money to go missing. To the accused, this could well incite rage and a red mist. Interestingly, Mez’ fingerprints were found in Knox’ room which seemed to indicate she was searching for something, perhaps the said missing rent money..? Which was missing. I tend to think Mignini was on the right path and that it was a thrill kill murder of Knox exacting revenge on Mez for snubbing her at Halloween, arousing unhappy feelings of rejection, Mez being popular and with having Giacomo downstairs, exacerbating Knox' jealousy, on top. Reminds me of a passage in a novel by Jean Rhys, who wrote from autobiography. She is sharing a rented accommodation with Ethel, a ‘manicurist’ – probably a 1930’s polite euphemism for ‘prostitute - anyway, one day Jean’s character goes out with friends and on her return, she’s confronted by Ethel having a nervous breakdown, looking at her ‘with hate’ and telling her to get out:

You went out with your pals and enjoyed yourself and you didn't even ask me. Wasn't I good enough to come? But it's always the same thing. You didn't even ask me, she said. 'And oh God, what a life I've had. Trying to keep up and everybody else trying to push you down and everybody lying and pretending and you knowing it. And then they down you for doing the same things as they do…’ ~ JR

So, powerful emotions being stirred by Mez seeming to ‘steal’ her job and going out without her. Lumumba confirmed he was on the verge of firing Knox and taking on Mez, who shook a great mojito cocktail. So yes, cruel vindictive revenge being the motive, with Guede and Sollecito as her facilitators. For them, a kind of Halloween game whilst drugged up to their eyeballs.

More crappy fiction.

 

[Welshman]

Knox didn't 'turn off her phone so her boss couldn't change his mind', and is utter nonsense. Knox was furious and in a rage because (a) she believed Mez had stolen her job, (b) Mez had avoided her over Halloween, and she'd had to spend it alone tramping the streets looking for company, which she found only fleetingly, (c) Mez had gone off again that afternoon to socialise with friends for pizza and to watch the film, 'The Notebook', and most jealousy-arousing of all, (d) Mez had 'taken' (in Knox' view) Silenzi as a boyfriend from downstairs, and Knox had barely been back to the cottage since their relationship started. In addition, Knox and Sollecito fantasised about extreme experiences, with Knox sharing her hatred of Mez with him. They both testified they had noticed that same afternoon, vampire makeup still on Mez' chin, and that is when the pair hatched up their vampire-slaying scheme, based on Sollecito's violent pornographic anime comics and extensive knife collection. They thought it would be a laugh (a thrill hazing and killing) as well as exacting revenge for stealing Knox' job, Knox' perceived right to 'have' Silenzi, for Mez snubbing her over Halloween and for showing disgust at her bathroom habits. Rage, anger and jealosuy. We know this plan was hatched because both Knox and Sollecito went to some pains to conceal they went into the old town after Mez had left for the afternoon to see her friends. Knox excludes this from her prison diary time line and police had to squeeze it out of Sollecito in his second interview, when he made up a fake excuse (of needing provisions but then realising he didn't need provisions after all [not dissimilar to Popovic's phony coach luggage claim that also never happened]). Plus, in addition, the pages of the end of October were torn out of Knox' diary. In her email to 25 friends in her contacts list in the early hours of Sunday morning, two days after the murder, Knox claimed she had been desperately worried about Mez' locked door yet plainclothes officers, Batistelli and Marzi, first to arrive, said she didn't even mention the locked door except to claim it was always locked, even when Mez took a shower; it was Filomena who, on arrival, was super surprised by this claim and demanded the door be kicked down. Being her roommate, you'd have thought Knox would be forefront in wanting to know Mez was OK but instead, she and Sollecito stood well away in the kitchen area when the door was broken down.

As for the blood, we are talking about a vivid long streak of red unwatered down blood on the bathroom door, which can't have been there for days (undated) without anyone noticing. Forensics officer, Gioia Brocci found an ‘unusually long streak of blood’ which extended from the rim of the wash basin all the way in a line towards the plughole and another, which followed the same pattern in the bidet. Stefanoni explains her theory to the authors of Darkness Descending:

‘This is the knife moving around,’ she said extending her right arm away from her hips in an arc motion, as though she was throwing a Frisbee. ‘These blood drips were left by the knife. Too many droplets and look, the blood in the basin and bidet is paler, so it’s the knife that has been washed at that particular point’.

Pointing to other drops, she continues, ‘The drops on the box of cotton buds and the basin are dark. This is blood before being washed.’
At the trial the court was impressed with Stefanoni’s expert testimony. Massei found as an established fact, quoting Stefanoni:
‘Traces that appeared to be of a blood nature [101] were also present on the box of cotton buds, on top of the toilet seat, on the light switch and in the bidet, ‚and there was always the drop upwards, really on the edge and the same continuity up to the bidet siphon, of the common colour and in the same line‛ (pages 134 and 135).

Traces were present also over the bathroom door, not watered down but a vivid red colour.

The evidence collecting in the small bathroom she did with a ‘carta bibula’, which is an absorbent paper [disc] and to a question put to her by the defence of Amanda Knox’, she stated the following: "when we say finding a drop upstream and a drop downstream ... on the inside for example of the sink ... a drop on the edge of the sink and for continuity there was a drop that ended up towards the sink siphon and had a continuity, is not that one was to the right, one to the left, one here and one over there; it had its own continuity, I had deemed it proper to use the same disc of absorbent paper, as they were equal in colour, pink‛. Marasca refers to this as ‘diluted blood’. Such material singled out was pink, of "washed blood ... in the sense it did not have the characteristic red colour of blood. The same colour other than in the bathroom sink was noted inside the bidet." (p. 152). Stefanoni specified further that it was not a strip, but "more little specks < with the same continuity‛ (page 153): they were drippings< 'that gave this continuity‛ and the colouring was the same, always pink. She did not believe then it might be different traces because of the continuity between the different drops. This is important, because pro-Knox defenders like to argue, ‘So what? Knox lived there, of course her DNA is mixed with Meredith’s’ or 'It can't be dated.' Indeed, the reader might be asking themself, ‘So the perpetrator rinsed the knife. It doesn’t prove it was Knox’. However, the point is, although the DNA mixed samples are separate, Stefanoni was able to prove conclusively to the satisfaction of the court that the DNA was deposited at the same time, together.

From Massei:

‘[198] In the small bathroom, three traces of the victim's blood were found on the bathmat; on the light switch plate with two switches there were traces "of diluted blood, blood presumably mixed with water, as it was pale pink in colour’ (page 76) which also came from the victim; a sample was taken from the front part of the faucet of the sink, which yielded the genetic profile of Amanda Knox; another sample taken from a specimen visible to the naked eye on the edge of the drain of the bidet yielded the genetic profiles of the victim and of Knox, a genetic mixture also found on the box of cotton buds near the sink. The drippings found inside the sink appeared to be diluted blood, pink in colour, proven by testing to be human blood and yielding the genetic mixture of the victim and Knox.
---

A key thing is, the diluted pink colour. Dried blood does not dissolve in water so Knox’ blood would not have mixed in with the blood being rinsed in the sink unless her blood was wet at the same time. Blood dries within thirty minutes, or up to an hour latest. This is because it contains blood clotting mechanisms. So yes, Knox and Mez blood proven and tested in court as being mixed together and in addition, mixed together at the same time. So we know as a matter of hard, objective, solid, cold, scientific fact that Knox rinsed a knife dripping with Mez' blood in the shared bathroom that morning after the murder. Q.E.D. ::

An issue I keep raising is how do you explain the arguments Vixen constantly has to resort to if there was strong evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. Vixen claims Amand had such a virulent hatred of Meredith she was prepared to resort to murder but why do the facts go against this? Below is from the defence document written for an appeal for the Hellman court.

“As hard as they tried, the investigation did not reveal any objective proof that would connect the “choice of extreme evil” that the court accused Amanda of with the relationship between Amanda and Meredith.



Amanda and Meredith had much in common that would have given them an opportunity to bond in Perugia. Both were in their twenties. Both were foreign students in Perugia. Both got along well with the other residents in the cottage. Both shared a relationship of friendship as a result.



This relationship of friendship was confirmed by Meredith’s boyfriend (see Feb. 14, 2009 transcript p. 93). There was no testimony put forward stating any arguments between Amanda and Meredith. Amanda and Meredith went to the chocolate festival together about two weeks before the crime and were together when they attended a classical music concert. Amanda’s roommate Laura Mezzetti reported seeing Amanda and Raffaele 10 days before the crime in the kitchen of the cottage and said: “I remember that I was cooking pasta for Amanda and later that day Meredith also joined for lunch” Thus, there is clear the evidence showing that Amanda and Meredith had a peaceful friendship.



Signs of friendship between Amanda and Meredith continued to be seen until right before the murder. The evening before the murder, Amanda and Meredith sent SMS messages to each other with “xx” which means with kisses. Meredith had confided to her friends that she felt guilty because Amanda had invited her to go out on the evening of October 31, 2007 as reported by Meredith’s friend, Robyn Butterworth. Amanda and Meredith were planning to be together for the Halloween activities. Amanda had asked Meredith to go out with her.



There is no indication whatsoever of a difficult relationship between Amanda and Meredith despite the prosecution’s desire to demonize Amanda. With absolutely nothing to back up the claim, the prosecution described Amanda as a wicked calculator, a manipulator of men and envious at the same time of the purity of the victim.



This imaginative reconstruction by the court has no basis. The failure to find key pathological elements pertaining to Amanda and Raffaele made it necessary for the court to insert additional elements such as ideas of perversion and depravity that controlled the every day life of Amanda. However, the actual evidence completely contradicts the court’s imagined image of Amanda.”

If Amanda had a virulent hatred of Amanda, why do the above facts completely contradict this. No one presented any testimony Amanda had any animosity against Meredith. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk, why is it necessary to make claims not supported by evidence? Below is among the numerous lies told by Vixen. Why is lying necessary to give the impression Amanda had a motive to kill Meredith?

Post dated 05.06.2016



Claim: Amanda was getting through €300- cash daily - this certainly suggests a drug habit and it would appear Mez was ripped off her rent for dirty money.



Truth: Amanda’s bank statements are available in the link below and do not show 300 euros being taken out every day. The fact Amanda was willing to make her bank statements publicly available indicates Amanda was not taking huge sums from her bank account and was in such dire financial straits she would need to resort to stealing money.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Amanda-Knox-Bank-Records-2007.pdf

The prosecution destroyed Amanda’s computer which Amanda said had photos of her enjoying Meredith’s company. Why would the prosecution need to do this if they had clear evidence Amanda and Meredith didn’t get on?

Amanda and Raffaele had only been dating six days and we are expected to believe in this short time, they were able to build enough trust to commit a brutal murder. Why is it necessary to resort to absurdities to argue the case for guilt?

 

[Welshman]

Meredith a ‘mean girl’? No, more likely, whilst initially the pair got on well, texting and going to a chocolate festival and the concert where Knox met Sollecito; by the time of the murder, the two barely texted/phoned each other at all and we can see from AK’s texts to Mez asking what she was doing at Halloween, hinting very strongly she wanted to join her, that Mez evaded her questions and indeed went out with a group of friends, leaving Knox to twiddle her thumbs. Being American, Halloween was a big thing for her. Not so much for Catholic Italian Sollecito, who was cramming for exams. In retrospect, people were looking for possible reasons for the pair’s frosty relationship – if that’s what it was – and Sophie Purton and dad, John Kercher, mentioned things such as Mez complaining about having Knox’ sex toy and condoms in her face in the bathroom, Knox suddenly singing at the top of her voice whilst they were all out dining, and stuff like that. But four females in a flat share don’t necessarily have a lot in common, each will live their own lives away from the cottage. Each comes with their own prior baggage. Knox says in her writings that she had a thing about rejection at school and hung out with the rejects. So, coming to a new country and still feeling like a reject must have hurt. But Mez wasn’t necessarily being a ‘mean girl’. She hung out with fellow students from Leeds University who were all on the same Erasmus scheme and on similar courses. So it might seem cliquey but that is what people do. It’s possible they fell out over Giacomo downstairs. Knox was heard to say to Mez, ‘You can have him’, as though staking a claim on him herself. Certainly, she was rarely around the cottage after that, preferring to stay at Sollecito’s. It’s true that girls tend to resort to psychological measures when falling out with each other, such as sending one to Coventry, whereas guys might slug out their differences in a car park. Certainly, English girls don’t approve of ‘showing off’ and Knox was variously described as loud and annoying, especially at the Questura after the murder, to which Sophie voiced objections. We can also guess they were not close friends as Knox couldn’t be bothered to attend Mez’ memorial vigil at the cathedral steps and surprised Filomena by suggesting they find somewhere else to rent together because she had paid rent and was annoyed at now being effectively homeless. To Sophie and Filomena, Knox came across as callous and lacking empathy, but all of this might be in retrospect given Knox was arrested for the murder. And exacting revenge is in Knox’ history, for an old classmate from Washington actually rang up Perugia police to report that Knox had a history of ‘hazing’ people. For example, frightening them in a sinister ski mask, or turning over their room to make them think they had been burgled. She seemed to enjoy teaching people a lesson and enjoying their distress. Plus she had experience of setting a mise-en-scène as is the final verdict of the 'burglary' being a staged one, to point investigators to an outside perpetrator.

Of course, people like to speculate as to motive. Crini made Mignini drop the teenage Halloween thrill kill motive and instead settled for one of housemate annoyance over cleanliness and hygiene. Guede's explanation made out the pair got into a violent fight after Mez confronted Knox about missing rent money, which has plausibility, as for a student, €300 was quite a large sum of money to go missing. To the accused, this could well incite rage and a red mist. Interestingly, Mez’ fingerprints were found in Knox’ room which seemed to indicate she was searching for something, perhaps the said missing rent money..? Which was missing. I tend to think Mignini was on the right path and that it was a thrill kill murder of Knox exacting revenge on Mez for snubbing her at Halloween, arousing unhappy feelings of rejection, Mez being popular and with having Giacomo downstairs, exacerbating Knox' jealousy, on top. Reminds me of a passage in a novel by Jean Rhys, who wrote from autobiography. She is sharing a rented accommodation with Ethel, a ‘manicurist’ – probably a 1930’s polite euphemism for ‘prostitute - anyway, one day Jean’s character goes out with friends and on her return, she’s confronted by Ethel having a nervous breakdown, looking at her ‘with hate’ and telling her to get out:

You went out with your pals and enjoyed yourself and you didn't even ask me. Wasn't I good enough to come? But it's always the same thing. You didn't even ask me, she said. 'And oh God, what a life I've had. Trying to keep up and everybody else trying to push you down and everybody lying and pretending and you knowing it. And then they down you for doing the same things as they do…’ ~ JR

So, powerful emotions being stirred by Mez seeming to ‘steal’ her job and going out without her. Lumumba confirmed he was on the verge of firing Knox and taking on Mez, who shook a great mojito cocktail. So yes, cruel vindictive revenge being the motive, with Guede and Sollecito as her facilitators. For them, a kind of Halloween game whilst drugged up to their eyeballs.

The facts overwhelmingly show Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy didn't come together to commit murder as the scenario is absurd and full of holes. Why is it necessary for Vixen to resort to utter absurdities to argue her case.

• Amanda barely knew Rudy, Raffaele did not know Rudy at all and Amanda and Raffaele had only been dating six days. Three virtual strangers came together to commit a brutal sex crazed murder.

• Amanda only had brief contact with Guede and in six years the prosecution could not find any evidence of regular contact with Amanda and Guede and Raffaele had never met Guede. Despite this they were able to plan a murder.

• As the links below show witness testimony stated Amanda had a good relationship with Meredith and no evidence has existed Amanda had any animosity towards Meredith. Despite this Amanda was prepared to help a stranger carry out a brutal sexual assault and murder against Meredith.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda...ehavior-myths/

• The phones of Amanda and Raffaele were tapped in the three days between the discovery of Meredith’s body and the interrogations. Despite this Amanda and Raffaele make no mention of Rudy a man they were supposed to have committed a brutal murder and sexual assault with.

• Amanda spoke only basic Italian and Rudy did not speak English. Despite this Amanda and Rudy were able to plan a murder together.

• There is no contact between Amanda and Raffaele with Rudy after the murder. Is it credible that people could committ a brutal sexual assault and murder together and never contact each other again.

• As per the link below, the evidence which should have existed if Amanda and Rafffaele killed Meredith with Rudy is missing.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI2.html

• A woman was supposedly willing to help a stranger carry out a brutal sexual assault and murder against another woman. A scenario with no known precedent.

• The evidence against Guede was solid, credible and irrefutable as seen in the link below.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/rudy-guede/

The evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was full of holes and had no credibility. The knife was an example of this as can be seen from my post below. If Amanda, Raffaele and Guede committed the same crime together, how is the difference in the quality of the evidence explained?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7#post11377317

• The methods the prosecution had to resort to with regards to Amanda and Raffaele were clearly the methods prosecutors would resort to when they have a weak case, lack of evidence and the facts don’t support their case as can be seen from the links below. The prosecution didn’t have to resort to these tactics when it came to Guede which indicated the prosecution had plenty of evidence and a slam dunk case. How is this massive difference explained if Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy committed the same crime?


http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contam...bwork-coverup/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredi...ry-corruption/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/evidence-destroyed/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-...irs-apartment/
https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com/...ele-sollecito/
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post11071314
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post11071314

• The evidence suggests Meredith was killed between 9.00 pm and 10.00 pm. Raffaele was using his computer at 9.10 pm and 9.26 pm which gives them an alibi for the time Guede murdered Meredith.

• The posts below show some of the falsehoods by Vixen in her posts showing PGP have to resort to lying to argue the case for Amanda and Raffaele’s guilt. I have never heard anyone resorting to lying to argue the case for Rudy’s guilt. How is this difference explained if Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy committed the same crime?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11938562
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11942852
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11598412
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post11427461
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11951893

 

[Stacyhs]

How childish.

How predictable.

 

[Stacyhs]

Knox didn't 'turn off her phone so her boss couldn't change his mind', and is utter nonsense. Knox was furious and in a rage because (a) she believed Mez had stolen her job, (b) Mez had avoided her over Halloween, and she'd had to spend it alone tramping the streets looking for company, which she found only fleetingly, (c) Mez had gone off again that afternoon to socialise with friends for pizza and to watch the film, 'The Notebook', and most jealousy-arousing of all, (d) Mez had 'taken' (in Knox' view) Silenzi as a boyfriend from downstairs, and Knox had barely been back to the cottage since their relationship started. In addition, Knox and Sollecito fantasised about extreme experiences, with Knox sharing her hatred of Mez with him. They both testified they had noticed that same afternoon, vampire makeup still on Mez' chin, and that is when the pair hatched up their vampire-slaying scheme, based on Sollecito's violent pornographic anime comics and extensive knife collection. They thought it would be a laugh (a thrill hazing and killing) as well as exacting revenge for stealing Knox' job, Knox' perceived right to 'have' Silenzi, for Mez snubbing her over Halloween and for showing disgust at her bathroom habits. Rage, anger and jealosuy. We know this plan was hatched because both Knox and Sollecito went to some pains to conceal they went into the old town after Mez had left for the afternoon to see her friends. Knox excludes this from her prison diary time line and police had to squeeze it out of Sollecito in his second interview, when he made up a fake excuse (of needing provisions but then realising he didn't need provisions after all [not dissimilar to Popovic's phony coach luggage claim that also never happened]). Plus, in addition, the pages of the end of October were torn out of Knox' diary. In her email to 25 friends in her contacts list in the early hours of Sunday morning, two days after the murder, Knox claimed she had been desperately worried about Mez' locked door yet plainclothes officers, Batistelli and Marzi, first to arrive, said she didn't even mention the locked door except to claim it was always locked, even when Mez took a shower; it was Filomena who, on arrival, was super surprised by this claim and demanded the door be kicked down. Being her roommate, you'd have thought Knox would be forefront in wanting to know Mez was OK but instead, she and Sollecito stood well away in the kitchen area when the door was broken down.

The above contains a litany of assfacts the majority of which are not even worth discussing because they're so blatantly just a figment of your imagination. However:
1."Popovic's phony coach luggage claim that also never happened" has to be among the most irrational claims you've made. If Popovic wanted to commit perjury and lie about this, then why not give them an alibi for the time of the murder and NOT 15 minutes before Kercher even arrived home? Why would Popovic commit perjury and chance going to prison for RS who was not a good friend or AK whom she'd never met? It's pure delusion.

2. "Batistelli and Marzi, first to arrive, said she didn't even mention the locked door"

And yet Raffaele had mentioned it in his first sentence and several times thereafter in his 112 call so they obviously were NOT trying to hide that:
"Hello, good day, listen ... someone has entered the house breaking the window and has made a big mess and there is a locked door."
"No, there's no theft... they broke a window... there is a mess... there is also a locked door... a mess.
"They didn't take anything, the problem is the locked door, there are bloodstains.
POLICE:
There is a locked door. Which door's locked?
RS:
[The door] of one of the flatmates who isn't here and we don't know where she is."

As for the blood, we are talking about a vivid long streak of red unwatered down blood on the bathroom door, which can't have been there for days (undated) without anyone noticing. Forensics officer, Gioia Brocci found an ‘unusually long streak of blood’ which extended from the rim of the wash basin all the way in a line towards the plughole and another, which followed the same pattern in the bidet. Stefanoni explains her theory to the authors of Darkness Descending:

‘This is the knife moving around,’ she said extending her right arm away from her hips in an arc motion, as though she was throwing a Frisbee. ‘These blood drips were left by the knife. Too many droplets and look, the blood in the basin and bidet is paler, so it’s the knife that has been washed at that particular point’.

Pointing to other drops, she continues, ‘The drops on the box of cotton buds and the basin are dark. This is blood before being washed.’
At the trial the court was impressed with Stefanoni’s expert testimony. Massei found as an established fact, quoting Stefanoni:
‘Traces that appeared to be of a blood nature [101] were also present on the box of cotton buds, on top of the toilet seat, on the light switch and in the bidet, ‚and there was always the drop upwards, really on the edge and the same continuity up to the bidet siphon, of the common colour and in the same line‛ (pages 134 and 135).

Traces were present also over the bathroom door, not watered down but a vivid red colour.

The evidence collecting in the small bathroom she did with a ‘carta bibula’, which is an absorbent paper [disc] and to a question put to her by the defence of Amanda Knox’, she stated the following: "when we say finding a drop upstream and a drop downstream ... on the inside for example of the sink ... a drop on the edge of the sink and for continuity there was a drop that ended up towards the sink siphon and had a continuity, is not that one was to the right, one to the left, one here and one over there; it had its own continuity, I had deemed it proper to use the same disc of absorbent paper, as they were equal in colour, pink‛. Marasca refers to this as ‘diluted blood’. Such material singled out was pink, of "washed blood ... in the sense it did not have the characteristic red colour of blood. The same colour other than in the bathroom sink was noted inside the bidet." (p. 152). Stefanoni specified further that it was not a strip, but "more little specks < with the same continuity‛ (page 153): they were drippings< 'that gave this continuity‛ and the colouring was the same, always pink. She did not believe then it might be different traces because of the continuity between the different drops. This is important, because pro-Knox defenders like to argue, ‘So what? Knox lived there, of course her DNA is mixed with Meredith’s’ or 'It can't be dated.' Indeed, the reader might be asking themself, ‘So the perpetrator rinsed the knife. It doesn’t prove it was Knox’. However, the point is, although the DNA mixed samples are separate, Stefanoni was able to prove conclusively to the satisfaction of the court that the DNA was deposited at the same time, together.

From Massei:

‘[198] In the small bathroom, three traces of the victim's blood were found on the bathmat; on the light switch plate with two switches there were traces "of diluted blood, blood presumably mixed with water, as it was pale pink in colour’ (page 76) which also came from the victim; a sample was taken from the front part of the faucet of the sink, which yielded the genetic profile of Amanda Knox; another sample taken from a specimen visible to the naked eye on the edge of the drain of the bidet yielded the genetic profiles of the victim and of Knox, a genetic mixture also found on the box of cotton buds near the sink. The drippings found inside the sink appeared to be diluted blood, pink in colour, proven by testing to be human blood and yielding the genetic mixture of the victim and Knox.

Stefanoni is NOT a blood spatter analyst. Period.
Raffaele reported there was blood in the bathroom in his 112 call. Amanda pointed it out to Marsi. The blood on the door and light switch had only Meredith's DNA. Amanda's DNA could not be dated to time of deposit or source. If blood dropped onto Amanda's pre-existing saliva, epithelial or buccal cell, it would produce a mixed sample. So, the above is irrelevant.

A key thing is, the diluted pink colour. Dried blood does not dissolve in water so Knox’ blood would not have mixed in with the blood being rinsed in the sink unless her blood was wet at the same time.

So which is it, Vixen? Blood or epithelial cells?
Your problem is that the source of Knox's DNA was never scientifically established because it wasn't possible.
Additionally, your theory that blood has to be wet to have its DNA detected in a mixed sample is not supported by any evidence. DNA can be detected in dried blood so why you think it couldn't be detected when mixed with wet blood is anyone's guess .

Blood dries within thirty minutes, or up to an hour latest. This is because it contains blood clotting mechanisms. So yes, Knox and Mez blood proven and tested in court as being mixed together and in addition, mixed together at the same time.

False. Why do you insist on repeating this rubbish? Even your beloved Stefanoni disagrees with you:

"Furthermore, the same Dr. Stefanoni (pp. 221, 228) admitted that it is not possible to date the moment at which DNA is deposited, nor to determine the chronological order in which traces are left one on top of another."

Hellmann MR pg 60

So we know as a matter of hard, objective, solid, cold, scientific fact that Knox rinsed a knife dripping with Mez' blood in the shared bathroom that morning after the murder. Q.E.D. ::

Only in your guilt-colored imagination.

 

[TruthCalls]

Meredith a ‘mean girl’? No, more likely, whilst initially the pair got on well, texting and going to a chocolate festival and the concert where Knox met Sollecito; by the time of the murder, the two barely texted/phoned each other

Congratulations... you've cracked the case. Amanda and Meredith were having a dandy time together, right up to the point where Amanda met Raffaele, and suddenly those two were inseparable. Yeah, being in lust with your new boyfriend CLEARLY shows Amanda and Meredith were mad and not talking to each other! Good thinking, Vixen. Here I was thinking they were just infatuated with one another, but clearly I was wrong.

at all and we can see from AK’s texts to Mez asking what she was doing at Halloween, hinting very strongly she wanted to join her, that Mez evaded her questions and indeed went out with a group of friends, leaving Knox to twiddle her thumbs.

This stupid meme again? Seriously... how many times do people have to remind you that Meredith accepted an invite from her British friends to go out to dinner. Now, admittedly, Meredith did not get permission from Amanda to go out with her friends, so perhaps this is the genesis of all that murderous hatred Amanda suddenly developed for Meredith.

Being American, Halloween was a big thing for her. Not so much for Catholic Italian Sollecito, who was cramming for exams. In retrospect, people were looking for possible reasons for the pair’s frosty relationship – if that’s what it was – and Sophie Purton and dad, John Kercher, mentioned things such as Mez complaining about having Knox’ sex toy and condoms in her face in the bathroom,

Can you imagine having to use a bathroom where a clear accessories bag has a gag bunny vibrator and some condom's. I mean, this had to drive Meredith out of her mind. How horrible. Worst still, Meredith had no way to ask Amanda to keep it in her bedroom. I can feel the tension from here!

Knox suddenly singing at the top of her voice whilst they were all out dining, and stuff like that. But four females in a flat share don’t necessarily have a lot in common, each will live their own lives away from the cottage. Each comes with their own prior baggage. Knox says in her writings that she had a thing about rejection at school and hung out with the rejects. So, coming to a new country and still feeling like a reject must have hurt. But Mez wasn’t necessarily being a ‘mean girl’. She hung out with fellow students from Leeds University who were all on the same Erasmus scheme and on similar courses. So it might seem cliquey but that is what people do. It’s possible they fell out over Giacomo downstairs. Knox was heard to say to Mez, ‘You can have him’, as though staking a claim on him herself.

Yeah, and you can clearly see Amanda was completely unhappy with her consolation prize, Raffaele. Yeah, I know everyone said it appeared they were completely infatuated with one another, spending every free moment together, but clearly that was all a ruse... Amanda was really fuming that she couldn't snag Giacomao.

Certainly, she was rarely around the cottage after that, preferring to stay at Sollecito’s. It’s true that girls tend to resort to psychological measures when falling out with each other, such as sending one to Coventry, whereas guys might slug out their differences in a car park. Certainly, English girls don’t approve of ‘showing off’ and Knox was variously described as loud and annoying, especially at the Questura after the murder, to which Sophie voiced objections. We can also guess they were not close friends as Knox couldn’t be bothered to attend Mez’ memorial vigil at the cathedral steps

Yeah, that's really telling, huh? Oh, wait... Laura and Filomena didn't attend either! I guess they were not very close friends either, right? And imagine, trying to throw everyone off by claiming she didn't go because Raffaele already had something else to do and she didn't want to go alone. She must think were stupid to believe that...

and surprised Filomena by suggesting they find somewhere else to rent together because she had paid rent and was annoyed at now being effectively homeless.

Amanda was "annoyed", but Laura and Filomena were just looking for a new place to live. I can see where that makes sense... but then again, she really was effectively homeless. Hmmm...

To Sophie and Filomena, Knox came across as callous and lacking empathy, but all of this might be in retrospect given Knox was arrested for the murder. And exacting revenge is in Knox’ history, for an old classmate from Washington actually rang up Perugia police to report that Knox had a history of ‘hazing’ people. For example, frightening them in a sinister ski mask, or turning over their room to make them think they had been burgled.

Stop the presses. Amanda AND OTHER ROOMMATES pulled a prank on someone. Statistically speaking, this was likely somewhere around prank #170,873 out of a total of 247,944 pranks for the year. Yessiree, this clearly establishes a "history of 'hazing' people". It's amazing how someone who is so "impartial, neutral and entirely objective" can actually pick up on things like this.

She seemed to enjoy teaching people a lesson and enjoying their distress. Plus she had experience of setting a mise-en-scène as is the final verdict of the 'burglary' being a staged one, to point investigators to an outside perpetrator.

Of course, people like to speculate as to motive. Crini made Mignini drop the teenage Halloween thrill kill motive and instead settled for one of housemate annoyance over cleanliness and hygiene. Guede's explanation made out the pair got into a violent fight after Mez confronted Knox about missing rent money, which has plausibility, as for a student, €300 was quite a large sum of money to go missing.

You know, I never thought of this. She probably thought that someone who had over $4K in her bank account, more money back in the states, and dating a boyfriend from a wealthy family, could get away with it, especially because everyone would be thinking the guy who had no money, no job and no one else to turn to for funds, and whose DNA was found in Meredith's handbag where she likely kept her money, took it. That's insanely clever of her!

To the accused, this could well incite rage and a red mist. Interestingly, Mez’ fingerprints were found in Knox’ room which seemed to indicate she was searching for something, perhaps the said missing rent money..?

Oh, absolutely. I've heard that some people think it's possible that Meredith actually paid Amanda a visit and happened to touch her closet door during that visit, but come on, that never happens. How lame...

Which was missing. I tend to think Mignini was on the right path and that it was a thrill kill murder of Knox exacting revenge on Mez for snubbing her at Halloween,

Damn it, Meredith accepted an offer to go out to dinner with friends. That's just mean! Clearly motive to savagely murder Meredith! Good thinking!!!

arousing unhappy feelings of rejection, Mez being popular and with having Giacomo downstairs, exacerbating Knox' jealousy, on top.

Oh yeah.... just because Amanda was living her dream and dating someone she was having a blast with doesn't mean she can't be jealous of Meredith dating a guy who wouldn't even acknowledge her when his friends were around. She really missed out on that one! I'd be jealous...

Reminds me of a passage in a novel by Jean Rhys, who wrote from autobiography. She is sharing a rented accommodation with Ethel, a ‘manicurist’ – probably a 1930’s polite euphemism for ‘prostitute

You know, I never knew if someone said they're a manicurist that they're probably a prostitute. That's good to know. Thanks..

- anyway, one day Jean’s character goes out with friends and on her return, she’s confronted by Ethel having a nervous breakdown, looking at her ‘with hate’ and telling her to get out:

You went out with your pals and enjoyed yourself and you didn't even ask me. Wasn't I good enough to come? But it's always the same thing. You didn't even ask me, she said. 'And oh God, what a life I've had. Trying to keep up and everybody else trying to push you down and everybody lying and pretending and you knowing it. And then they down you for doing the same things as they do…’ ~ JR

So, powerful emotions being stirred by Mez seeming to ‘steal’ her job

You know, I realize Lumumba never offered Meredith a job, and Amanda really didn't care for the job anyway... but yeah, clearly this was eating at Amanda!

and going out without her.

The audacity... KILL HER!

Lumumba confirmed he was on the verge of firing Knox and taking on Mez,

Really? And here I thought this was all just the fanciful musings of the pro-guilt. Please do me a favor and provide me a cite to when he said this, just in case I use this somewhere and people ask for evidence. I could say that Vixen told me, but I think there's a couple of folk out there who don't really trust your 'facts'. I can't imagine why...

who shook a great mojito cocktail. So yes, cruel vindictive revenge being the motive

Yeah, she must have really been fuming... I'm surprised she didn't dismember her!

with Guede and Sollecito as her facilitators. For them, a kind of Halloween game whilst drugged up to their eyeballs.

I think you nailed it Vixen!

 

[Stacyhs]

Meredith a ‘mean girl’? No, more likely, whilst initially the pair got on well, texting and going to a chocolate festival and the concert where Knox met Sollecito; by the time of the murder, the two barely texted/phoned each other at all and we can see from AK’s texts to Mez asking what she was doing at Halloween, hinting very strongly she wanted to join her, that Mez evaded her questions and indeed went out with a group of friends, leaving Knox to twiddle her thumbs. Being American, Halloween was a big thing for her. Not so much for Catholic Italian Sollecito, who was cramming for exams. In retrospect, people were looking for possible reasons for the pair’s frosty relationship – if that’s what it was – and Sophie Purton and dad, John Kercher, mentioned things such as Mez complaining about having Knox’ sex toy and condoms in her face in the bathroom, Knox suddenly singing at the top of her voice whilst they were all out dining, and stuff like that. But four females in a flat share don’t necessarily have a lot in common, each will live their own lives away from the cottage. Each comes with their own prior baggage. Knox says in her writings that she had a thing about rejection at school and hung out with the rejects. So, coming to a new country and still feeling like a reject must have hurt. But Mez wasn’t necessarily being a ‘mean girl’. She hung out with fellow students from Leeds University who were all on the same Erasmus scheme and on similar courses. So it might seem cliquey but that is what people do. It’s possible they fell out over Giacomo downstairs. Knox was heard to say to Mez, ‘You can have him’, as though staking a claim on him herself. Certainly, she was rarely around the cottage after that, preferring to stay at Sollecito’s. It’s true that girls tend to resort to psychological measures when falling out with each other, such as sending one to Coventry, whereas guys might slug out their differences in a car park. Certainly, English girls don’t approve of ‘showing off’ and Knox was variously described as loud and annoying, especially at the Questura after the murder, to which Sophie voiced objections. We can also guess they were not close friends as Knox couldn’t be bothered to attend Mez’ memorial vigil at the cathedral steps and surprised Filomena by suggesting they find somewhere else to rent together because she had paid rent and was annoyed at now being effectively homeless. To Sophie and Filomena, Knox came across as callous and lacking empathy, but all of this might be in retrospect given Knox was arrested for the murder. And exacting revenge is in Knox’ history, for an old classmate from Washington actually rang up Perugia police to report that Knox had a history of ‘hazing’ people. For example, frightening them in a sinister ski mask, or turning over their room to make them think they had been burgled. She seemed to enjoy teaching people a lesson and enjoying their distress. Plus she had experience of setting a mise-en-scène as is the final verdict of the 'burglary' being a staged one, to point investigators to an outside perpetrator.

Of course, people like to speculate as to motive. Crini made Mignini drop the teenage Halloween thrill kill motive and instead settled for one of housemate annoyance over cleanliness and hygiene. Guede's explanation made out the pair got into a violent fight after Mez confronted Knox about missing rent money, which has plausibility, as for a student, €300 was quite a large sum of money to go missing. To the accused, this could well incite rage and a red mist. Interestingly, Mez’ fingerprints were found in Knox’ room which seemed to indicate she was searching for something, perhaps the said missing rent money..? Which was missing. I tend to think Mignini was on the right path and that it was a thrill kill murder of Knox exacting revenge on Mez for snubbing her at Halloween, arousing unhappy feelings of rejection, Mez being popular and with having Giacomo downstairs, exacerbating Knox' jealousy, on top. Reminds me of a passage in a novel by Jean Rhys, who wrote from autobiography. She is sharing a rented accommodation with Ethel, a ‘manicurist’ – probably a 1930’s polite euphemism for ‘prostitute - anyway, one day Jean’s character goes out with friends and on her return, she’s confronted by Ethel having a nervous breakdown, looking at her ‘with hate’ and telling her to get out:

You went out with your pals and enjoyed yourself and you didn't even ask me. Wasn't I good enough to come? But it's always the same thing. You didn't even ask me, she said. 'And oh God, what a life I've had. Trying to keep up and everybody else trying to push you down and everybody lying and pretending and you knowing it. And then they down you for doing the same things as they do…’ ~ JR

So, powerful emotions being stirred by Mez seeming to ‘steal’ her job and going out without her. Lumumba confirmed he was on the verge of firing Knox and taking on Mez, who shook a great mojito cocktail.

What a load of crap. In his sworn court testimony, he said NOTHING about even thinking of firing Knox when asked about her work. Nor did he say anything about wanting to hire Kercher nor did he even mention anything about mojitos.

A bitter Lumumba told the Sunday Times just before her 2011 acquittal:

“Meredith was a wonderful person. She told me she knew how to make a mojito cocktail with vodka instead of rum, and she kindly came back again to do one,” Lumumba said."

But even in there he made no mention of wanting to hire her.
Lumumba is a bitter, vengeful man who has lied repeatedly. Was he "beaten, kicked, and punched" by the police as he claims in his DM interview or was he "treated well" and unable to understand Knox's accusation of mistreatment as he later claimed?

“Second, she told her mother in prison later that she was sorry, that she knew I was innocent. But she never told anyone else, she kept this secret. So I think that all this time she hoped that they would find me guilty.”

That is a lie. She told the police on Nov. 6 that her statements about Lumumba couldn't be counted on as true and explicitly told them on Nov. 7 that she didn't know who the killer was as she never went to the cottage that night. She also told her lawyers. As the ECHR ruled. she RETRACTED her accusation.

Yet another lie:

“She’s the world’s best actress. Look at how she cried when she told the cops I was guilty, and I saw her cry twice before a judge but she never said I was innocent,” he said.

He's repeatedly claimed she's never apologized to him and as late as this year:

"Amanda made a mistake, she slandered me and never apologized..."http://www.themurderofmeredithkerch...Z-Lawyers-Knox-Parisi-Maori-Vedova-Ghirga.pdf

That is a lie:
She apologized to him in person in court on Dec. 11, 2010:

“Patrick? I don’t see you. But I’m sorry. I’m sorry, because I didn’t want to wrong you. I was very naïve and not remotely courageous, because I should have been able to endure the pressure thatpushed me to wrong you. I didn’t want to contribute to all that you suffered. You know what it means to have unjust accusations imposed on your skin. You didn’t deserve what you went through. I hope you’ll succeed in finding your peace.”

And he knows that his claim she never apologized is a lie because he mentioned it in 2011:

He dismissed as “crocodile tears” an apology Knox made to him in a statement at an appeal hearing last December. “That was a defence strategy. You can’t say sorry after three years,” he said.

Lumumba lost any sympathy I had for him. He is a bitter, vengeful liar.

 

[Welshman]

View attachment 62702

What a load of crap. In his sworn court testimony, he said NOTHING about even thinking of firing Knox when asked about her work. Nor did he say anything about wanting to hire Kercher nor did he even mention anything about mojitos.

A bitter Lumumba told the Sunday Times just before her 2011 acquittal:

But even in there he made no mention of wanting to hire her.
Lumumba is a bitter, vengeful man who has lied repeatedly. Was he "beaten, kicked, and punched" by the police as he claims in his DM interview or was he "treated well" and unable to understand Knox's accusation of mistreatment as he later claimed?


That is a lie. She told the police on Nov. 6 that her statements about Lumumba couldn't be counted on as true and explicitly told them on Nov. 7 that she didn't know who the killer was as she never went to the cottage that night. She also told her lawyers. As the ECHR ruled. she RETRACTED her accusation.

Yet another lie:


He's repeatedly claimed she's never apologized to him and as late as this year:


That is a lie:
She apologized to him in person in court on Dec. 11, 2010:

And he knows that his claim she never apologized is a lie because he mentioned it in 2011:


Lumumba lost any sympathy I had for him. He is a bitter, vengeful liar.

Vixen lies Lumumba was intending to hire Meredith which made Amanda jealous. Again why is lying necessary to support the idea Amanda had motives to kill Meredith? Why resort to endless lies when there is supposedly hard objective evidence against Amanda according to Vixen? Even if Amanda and Meredith didn't like each other and didn't get on, why should this automatically lead to murder? Plenty of people don't get on but don't murder each other.