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

[Stacyhs]

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.

Why do so many people believe Trump's lies when he's a pathological liar? Intellectual dishonesty? Narcissism?

 

[Vixen]

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."




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.


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 .


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


Hellmann MR pg 60



Only in your guilt-colored imagination.

And your qualifications in biochemistry...? Your 'interpretation' of Brioca and Stefanoni's results tops theirs because..?

 

[TomG]

1. You are mischaracterizing my statements in my post. I have not stated that "Douglas Preston had a massive grudge against Mignini".

2. You are claiming without any evidence that Douglas Preston's writing about Mignini, the Knox - Sollecito case, or the Kercher murder/rape case showed racism. Your statements without evidence are not credible.

3. Here's a table of the number of ECHR cases against Italy and some other states that resulted in an ECHR judgment. In each case, there was a complaint made against the Respondent State and thus, by implication, a non-ECHR judiciable complaint about one or more persons of authority in that state. Do these complaints all equate to "grudges" in your system of "logic"?

Italy: 2644 ECHR cases judged
France: 1161 ECHR cases judged
UK: 580 ECHR cases judged
Germany: 378 ECHR cases judged

Even higher in "grudges" than Italy:

Russia: 4116 ECHR cases judged
Turkiye: 4096 ECHR cases judged

Note that each ECHR case is based upon on or more complaints; the ECHR often combines several similar complaints against one Respondent State.

Hi Numbers. I've sent you a direct message regarding a discussion I'm having on another forum. I'm not sure if the forum rules would allow me to discuss it here. Let me know that you have it.

 

[Vixen]

Here are some of the characteristics of a conspiracy theory (from the Wikipedia articles with my additions in square brackets):

1. A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy when other explanations are more probable.

2. The hypothesized conspiracy involves or includes, generally, powerful, sinister groups [or groups or individuals claimed to be powerful and sinister].

3. This hypothesized conspiracy has certain specific characteristics, including but not limited to opposition to the mainstream consensus among those qualified to evaluate its accuracy [such as the forensic scientists and legal experts who have commented on the Knox - Sollecito case].

4. Conspiracy theories are identified as lay theories: Unlike formal scientific theories, lay theories often reflect intuitive beliefs that may diverge significantly from empirical findings.

5. Conspiracy theories are generally designed to resist falsification either by evidence against them or a lack of evidence for them.

6. Conspiracy theories are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and the absence of evidence for it are misinterpreted as evidence of its truth.

7. A conspiracy theory tends to become a matter of faith rather than a hypothesis that can be proved or disproved.

Conspiracy theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Belief - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Circular reasoning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's good you brought this up. A conspiracy theory is something that is only in someone's mind and not factually established. So we have people ignoring cold hard objective scientific results of Knox' absolutely certain presence at the scene of the murder (and see also the DNA results of Knox and Guede's presence on Mez' bra, which US journalist Ted Simon quickly hushed up after an intervention from Gogerty-Marriott PR agency, with Knox & Sollecito's counsels walking off the case).). So in the world of the conspiracy theorist, or in this case, the PR spinners, facts are no longer facts. Truth is no longer the truth. A tree is no longer a tree, an ant is no longer an insect and the sky can be any colour you like today. PR guys and conspiracists believe if you argue hard enough, a fact can be anything you want it to be. In a country where the president is a criminal this is especially true. The unemployment figures can be whatever you say they are. 'FACT.' You can sack anyone who says otherwise. But in the real, authentic and honest world. the truth always remains the truth, no matter how hard and vehemently you argue against it. In the case of the Kercher murder, only one of us can be telling the truth. It can't be true that Knox and Sollecito are guilty and innocent at the same time. The hard scientific facts very clearly show they were involved in the murder and this doesn't change because of some poster heckling or inserting a load of emojis in their messages and shouting they know better than the Rome forensic scientists.

 

[Vixen]

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.

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.

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!

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.

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...

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...

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.

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!

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...

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!!!

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...

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

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!

The audacity... KILL HER!

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...

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

I think you nailed it Vixen!

Sarcasm doesn't actually override the facts. Motive is not required in a criminal case, just a proof of mens rea. Sure we can only speculate as to the motive behind the crime but what happens immediately before and after a crime can give us a good idea. For example, Ruth Ellis acquired a gun from a friend, who also helped her practice shooting it. So whilst some believe her act of murder was 'a crime of passion' those of us who are rational can see the clear premeditated intent which shows it was not just a moment of uncontrollable 'passion'. Likewise, given the clear hard scientific factual evidence of Knox' presence in particular at the crime scene it can be ruled out the pair had an alibi spending the evening together innocuously watching the Wonderful World of Amelie - which had already been downloaded days ago, or the Naruto, an auto P2P download. So what would be need to lie? Plus, we saw within half an hour of receiving Lumumba's message not to come in to Le Chic, BOTH Knox and Sollecito switched off their phones, which remained switched off for the duration of the murder. And then there is the cold hard scientific irrefutable DNA evidence. The only argument you and the PIP have is 'It was a set up by Mignini and Stefanoni'. How credible do you think that sounds to your own ears?

 

[Vixen]

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.

How classy your hating the victims of crime. Of course you hate Lumumba and Mez. That is the only way you can rationalise your irrational admiration for a cruel murderer. But do you think Knox has any respect for people who claim her innocence? I doubt it. No more than she has any respect for Trump who bailed her out with cash.

 

[Numbers]

How does the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy treat the Italian government's objections to admissibility, which claimed that there was other evidence of calunnia included in Knox's Memoriales, in addition to her interrogation statement? (Excerpts quoted are Google translations of the French text; wording in square brackets is mine.)

Here's the Italian Government's objections of the admissibility of the complaints under Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3c:

142. The Government observed that the statements made by the applicant on 6 November 2007 in the absence of legal counsel had been declared unusable in relation to the offences under investigation, namely the murder of M.K. and the sexual violence perpetrated against him. However, they stated that, according to the settled case-law of the Court of Cassation (judgments nos. 10089 of 2005, 26460 of 2010 and 33583 of 2015), spontaneous statements made by a person under investigation in the absence of legal counsel could in any event be used where, as in the present case, they constituted an offence in themselves. In their view, this is compounded by the fact that the applicant had the assistance of a lawyer from the moment the first indications of her responsibility for the murder of M.K. appeared.

143. Furthermore, the Government alleges that the applicant was convicted of malicious denunciation not only on the basis of the statements made on 6 November 2007, but also because of a "multitude of other circumstances", recalled in the Assize Court's conviction of 5 December 2009 (see paragraph 80 above).

Let's look back at paragraph 80 and the preceding paragraphs to review the ECHR's summary of the relevant Massei Court reasoning:

77. The Assize Court considered that the applicant's accusations against D.L. were evident from the statements she made during the night of 5 to 6 November 2007.

78. It noted that the applicant had also referred to these accusations in the conversation she had with her mother on 10 November 2007, while her phone was being wiretapped, and that she had expressed regret in this regard. The Assize Court considered that this constituted confirmation of the accusations and an awareness of their injustice. It considered that this awareness also stemmed from the applicant's responsibility for the crime of murder and [sexual] violence against M.K.

79. The Assize Court also observed that it should be ruled out that the applicant had made the aforementioned statements due to pressure exerted by the investigators, which she would have been unable to resist.

80. In the opinion of the Assize Court, such an argument could not be upheld for the following reasons:

(i) there had been no confirmation or proof (riscontro) of the pressure the applicant had allegedly been subjected to by the investigators;

(ii) since D.L. was not known to the police, the police officers had no reason to disclose his name to the applicant in order to influence her statements;

(iii) in her [Memoriale 1] statement of 6 November 2007 (which was included in the case file as it constituted evidence concerning the applicant (corpo di reato) for the crime in question), the applicant had written: "I confirm the statements I made last night regarding events that may have taken place at my home with D.L. (...) in these flashbacks I have, I see D.L. as the murderer."

What was the response of the ECHR to the Italian government's objections? It rejected them, in paragraph 145, providing its reasoning in the merits based on its case law and more specificly elsewhere: paragraph 20 citing relevant passages from Memoriale 1 that demonstrate confusion and a renunciation of certainty in her interrogation statements, paragraph 23 which states that during the validation of arrest hearing, where Knox has her first access to a lawyer, the defense claims that Knox's statements were made due to a violation of her self-determination, and paragraph 24, where relevant passages from Knox's letter to her lawyer are reproduced.

145. Noting that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds, the Court declares it admissible.

20. At around 1 p.m., the applicant asked the police officers for paper so that she could write a statement in her mother tongue, English. This text was then brought to the attention of the police. In it, she explained that she was in a very confused situation and that she intended to clarify her position. She gave a detailed account of the events of the evening of 1 November 2007, which she allegedly spent with R.S. She essentially stated that she had spent the evening and the night at R.S.'s house. She also stated that she was unable to remember all the details and stated that she had smoked a joint with R.S. that evening. The other relevant parts of this document read as follows:

1. (...) regarding this "confession" from last night, I wish to explain that I strongly doubt the veracity of my statements because they were made while I was in shock and under extreme stress and exhaustion. Not only was I informed that I had been arrested and [would be] placed in prison for thirty years, but I was also slapped on the head when I failed to correctly recall a fact. I understand that the police are under a lot of pressure and therefore I understand the treatment I received. However, it was under this pressure and after hours of confusion that I was able to provide these answers. In my mind, I had seen D.L. in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court, I saw him at the front door of my house. I saw myself in the kitchen, covering my ears with my hands because, in my head, I could hear M.K. screaming. However, and I have said this many times so that I can explain myself clearly: these things seem unreal to me, they seem like a dream and I am not sure if these are events that actually took place or [if they are] dreams that came from my imagination in an attempt to answer the questions (...) that were asked of me. The truth is that I am not sure of the truth and here is why: [....]

23. Meanwhile, on 8 November 2007, at the hearing before the preliminary investigation judge in Perugia to validate the arrest, the applicant's defence, which contested the arrest, had stated that the applicant's statements to the police on 6 November 2007 did not constitute a confession but merely cooperation with the authorities. It added that the applicant was deeply shaken and that her memories were unreliable because she had been disturbed to the point of being deprived of her free will ("capacità di autodeterminazione").

24. On 9 November 2007, the applicant wrote two texts in English, addressed to her two lawyers[2]. The relevant parts of one of these texts read as follows:

"To my lawyers

1. (...) What I would like to offer you is assistance, as I know my position is somewhat confused. I will write to you as best I can everything I know, and in particular, I would like to tell you about this so-called 'confession' that the police received from me. I will begin with this 'confession' because I know it is the most confusing part, and therefore, I will begin with [the account of] that night.

2. On the night of Monday, 5 November 2007, and the morning (...) of 6 November 2007, [I experienced] one of the worst experiences of my life, perhaps the worst. Around 10:30 p.m., R.S. and I arrived at the police station after having lunch at a friend of R.S.'s. It was R.S. who had been called by the police, not me, but I still accompanied him to the police station where he was to answer questions, in order to support him, as he had done for me many times.
[....]
11. The interpreter then told me that she had been in a terrible car accident and had not been able to remember what happened for a year. She told me that I might have seen something terrible that I could not remember. Since I could not remember, I began to think that this was true. (...)

12. They were urging me to give them the killer's name, or I would spend the next 30 years in prison. They told me they had already arrested the killer and all they wanted was for me to say his name, but I didn't know. My head was a blank slate. Now, now, now! They were yelling at me. One of the officers hit me twice on the back of the head. In my head, I was searching for some answers. I was really confused. I thought I had been at my boyfriend's house, but what if it wasn't true? What if maybe I couldn't remember? I tried, tried, tried, but I couldn't remember anything.

13. All the police officers left, except one. He told me he was the only one who could save me from thirty years in prison, and I told him I didn't remember anything. So I asked to see the message on my phone again to see if I remembered sending it, and when I saw the message, I thought of [D.L.]. That was all I could think of: D.L. I imagined meeting him on the basketball court, I imagined him in front of my house, I imagined covering my ears to avoid hearing [M.K.] screaming, and then I said "D.L."

14. I said [D.L.], and now I totally regret it because I know what I said hurt someone, and I have no idea if [D.L.] was involved in this or not. Then I became hysterical, I cried and I was worried about what was going to happen to me. My mind was so confused. [The police] told me they had to write down what I had just said, but I said I wasn't sure (...) my mind was confused, but they weren't interested.

15. While they were writing this "confession," which they didn't call that, they asked me if I agreed to them writing certain things. I didn't provide any explanations, I just answered yes or no according to the images of D.L. [that I had in my head], but I always told them I wasn't sure; none of it seemed real. They asked me why he did it, and I didn't know. Why would someone kill someone else? I told them he must be crazy. They asked me if I was afraid of him, and I said yes. My mind was so confused, and the idea that he had killed someone frightened me. But I had never been afraid of him before; he was always kind to me.

16. After all that, [the police] finally allowed me to sleep. I thought about everything (...) and as I calmed down I became certain that the things I had said about [D.L.] were not true. (...) in particular, I had not told R.S. that I had to go to work (...) I remember very clearly telling him that I did not have to go to work (...) Also, I had never told him to lie. Why should he have lied? (...) I told the police about my doubts, but they told me not to worry, that little by little I would remember. So I waited. (....) »

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

 

[Numbers]

It's good you brought this up. A conspiracy theory is something that is only in someone's mind and not factually established. So we have people ignoring cold hard objective scientific results of Knox' absolutely certain presence at the scene of the murder (and see also the DNA results of Knox and Guede's presence on Mez' bra, which US journalist Ted Simon quickly hushed up after an intervention from Gogerty-Marriott PR agency, with Knox & Sollecito's counsels walking off the case).). So in the world of the conspiracy theorist, or in this case, the PR spinners, facts are no longer facts. Truth is no longer the truth. A tree is no longer a tree, an ant is no longer an insect and the sky can be any colour you like today. PR guys and conspiracists believe if you argue hard enough, a fact can be anything you want it to be. In a country where the president is a criminal this is especially true. The unemployment figures can be whatever you say they are. 'FACT.' You can sack anyone who says otherwise. But in the real, authentic and honest world. the truth always remains the truth, no matter how hard and vehemently you argue against it. In the case of the Kercher murder, only one of us can be telling the truth. It can't be true that Knox and Sollecito are guilty and innocent at the same time. The hard scientific facts very clearly show they were involved in the murder and this doesn't change because of some poster heckling or inserting a load of emojis in their messages and shouting they know better than the Rome forensic scientists.

So are you claiming that the judges of the Marasca CSC panel and of the ECHR Chamber judging Knox v. Italy were suffering from conspiracy theories in their minds?

 

[Numbers]

Hi Numbers. I've sent you a direct message regarding a discussion I'm having on another forum. I'm not sure if the forum rules would allow me to discuss it here. Let me know that you have it.

I sent a DM reply. I thought that the topic was relevant, but being from another forum DM was best. Summarizing my message: the post is mostly incorrect.

 

[Vixen]

So are you claiming that the judges of the Marasca CSC panel and of the ECHR Chamber judging Knox v. Italy were suffering from conspiracy theories in their minds?

As you know, Supreme Court judges do not deal with the fact or evidence finding; the only way to 'correct' those is via reassessing the issue in a fact-finding court. We saw how Marasca-Bruno needed an extra three months beyond the statutory deadline of producing an MR because it must have been incredibly difficult to get around the facts. So instead we have ramblings about Gallileo and the scientific method (as if these legal guys understand science!) and how the investigation was 'flawed' - that bit as a soundbite for the US press to latch onto - and something vague about 'press interference'. So in effect, the pair got out of jail but the hard scientific facts and circumstantial evidence remains unchanged, as of course, it must. Even sending it back to a merits court cannot changed hard solid facts. For example, the phone logs, the computer data, the internet data, the luminol data, the DNA data, the behaviour data, the witness statement data, the cross examination in court, the exhibits and the witness testimony. It had to use a rarely used get-out clause of 'insufficient evidence', usually applied to pre-trial hearings and corrupt politicians with - 'ow you say eet - <ahem!> 'influence'. Horses heads on pillows and what have you.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... Even sending it back to a merits court cannot changed hard solid facts. For example, the phone logs

Just to pick one item out of this gallop, do you think the phone logs support your imagined tale?

 

[Vixen]

Just to pick one item out of this gallop, do you think the phone logs support your imagined tale?

Certainly. Sollecito denied he'd switched off his phone and it was simply a case there was no mast signals permeating his walls. Likewise, MK's, and AK's phone activities tell a story. As does Lumumba's text message timeline chronology of events. In addition, RS claims he was on his PC all evening but his internet provider <fx clatter clatter> says, no.

 

[TomG]

I sent a DM reply. I thought that the topic was relevant, but being from another forum DM was best. Summarizing my message: the post is mostly incorrect.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you mentioned early this month for a deadline for any new application to the ECHR regarding the reconviction of calunnia. It gets confusing from there since the current status is that an action plan is still being anticipated from Italy. Are you monitoring any Hudoc page link that would display whether she has made any other application?

 

[TomG]

I sent a DM reply. I thought that the topic was relevant, but being from another forum DM was best. Summarizing my message: the post is mostly incorrect.

I've sent another PM. Did you get it?

 

[TruthCalls]

Sarcasm doesn't actually override the facts. Motive is not required in a criminal case, just a proof of mens rea. Sure we can only speculate as to the motive behind the crime but what happens immediately before and after a crime can give us a good idea. For example, Ruth Ellis acquired a gun from a friend, who also helped her practice shooting it. So whilst some believe her act of murder was 'a crime of passion' those of us who are rational can see the clear premeditated intent which shows it was not just a moment of uncontrollable 'passion'. Likewise, given the clear hard scientific factual evidence of Knox' presence in particular at the crime scene it can be ruled out the pair had an alibi spending the evening together innocuously watching the Wonderful World of Amelie - which had already been downloaded days ago, or the Naruto, an auto P2P download. So what would be need to lie? Plus, we saw within half an hour of receiving Lumumba's message not to come in to Le Chic, BOTH Knox and Sollecito switched off their phones, which remained switched off for the duration of the murder. And then there is the cold hard scientific irrefutable DNA evidence. The only argument you and the PIP have is 'It was a set up by Mignini and Stefanoni'. How credible do you think that sounds to your own ears?

Sarcasm underscores the lunacy of your claims. For example, you pointing out Meredith's money was stolen, and suggesting this would be a motive for Amanda, while failing to recognize the person who was definitively present as Meredith died, the person who left his DNA on Meredith's handbag, the person who had no money, no job, and no family to turn to, is really the one who had the motive. And this from a person who claims to be "impartial, neutral and entirely objective". This is why we collectively laughed when you made that claim.

You are correct, a motive is not "required", but when you don't have a forensic case against someone, it's beneficial during trial to show why something was done. In this case, not only do you not have any forensic evidence of their involvement, but there is no reasonable, credible motive. As for mens rea, the only person this applies to is Guede. His presence in the cottage was to commit a crime. That Meredith came home unexpectedly and caused Guede to commit a different crime from the one he intended to is irrelevant. Mens rae does not exist for Amanda and Raffaele.

...but what happens immediately before and after a crime can give us a good idea.

I agree. So what happens immediately before the crime? In this case, Amanda and Raffaele both had prior commitments, which freed up, so they could spend a quiet evening together. Meanwhile Guede was canvasing the cottage, breaking in, looking to burglarize it.

So what happens immediately after the crime? In this case Amanda and Raffaele hung around the cottage, called Filomena, called Vanessa, called the Carabinieri. They stayed because they wanted to help. Conversely, Guede went out drinking and dancing before fleeing the country.

So yeah, actions before and after are very telling, and Guede can't escape his actions.

Likewise, given the clear hard scientific factual evidence of Knox' presence in particular at the crime scene

Um, perhaps this is new to you, but the murder took place in Meredith's bedroom and there is a total lack of evidence of Amanda being there. Your delusional interpretation notwithstanding.

Plus, we saw within half an hour of receiving Lumumba's message not to come in to Le Chic, BOTH Knox and Sollecito switched off their phones, which remained switched off for the duration of the murder.

You people bring this up all the time, so perhaps you could take a moment and explain this. I assume you believe they turned their phones off so they wouldn't be GPS tracked to the cottage, correct? This would suggest they were aware this could be done if the phones were on. So, given this, please explain why they would choose to turn them off instead of leaving them turned on and remain in the apartment, providing them an alibi. Are you under the misguided notion that all young people must carry their phones with them at all times?

And then there is the cold hard scientific irrefutable DNA evidence.

Absolutely agree. Guede's DNA, along with his shoe prints, and a bloody palm print are all over Meredith's bedroom, where she was sexually assaulted and murdered, while there is nary a trace of either Amanda or Raffaele. It's all anyone really needs to know.

 

[Numbers]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you mentioned early this month for a deadline for any new application to the ECHR regarding the reconviction of calunnia. It gets confusing from there since the current status is that an action plan is still being anticipated from Italy. Are you monitoring any Hudoc page link that would display whether she has made any other application?

The CoM expectation of an Action Plan, which Italy was required by international law to deliver 6 months after the final judgment Knox v. Italy, has nothing to do with Knox's potential new application to the ECHR, if she and her lawyers have chosen to make such application.

I haven't checked whether she has made an application or not; that information may not be available to the public until some time after the application (if it is made) is received and under gone preliminary review. Last time I checked (one minute ago), Knox had not announced any application on her website.

 

[TomG]

The CoM expectation of an Action Plan, which Italy was required by international law to deliver 6 months after the final judgment Knox v. Italy, has nothing to do with Knox's potential new application to the ECHR, if she and her lawyers have chosen to make such application.

I haven't checked whether she has made an application or not; that information may not be available to the public until some time after the application (if it is made) is received and under gone preliminary review. Last time I checked (one minute ago), Knox had not announced any application on her website.

Thanks for that. Can you post the link so I can monitor it myself?

 

[Numbers]

Thanks for that. Can you post the link so I can monitor it myself?

First, here's the link to the ECHR's case law on admissibility, including individual applications; 120 pages long, it covers Convention Article 34 and 35:

https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Admissibility_guide_ENG

Amanda Knox's website includes a tab for Press, where she provides a drop down menu for "legal updates". In that section, she includes the MRs (in the original Italian) of the Florence Court of Appeal provisional re-conviction and the CSC final re-conviction for calunnia, and some other information.

Information on how an individual may apply to the ECHR is contained in the link downloadable at this website:

Your application to the ECHR - How to apply and how your application will be processed

This brochure, describing the various stages of the procedure by which the Court examines an application, is intended to answer the main questions that applicants might ask, especially once their application has been sent to the Court. Available in 16 languages here

edoc.coe.int

I'm not aware of an ECHR site that lets the public know if a particular application has been submitted. If anyone knows of one that currently exists, please post the link (or DM me).

To know that an application has been received, reviewed, and deemed by the ECHR to be a case worthy of adjudication, see the HUDOC website, and search "Communicated Cases" under "Document Collections". One can filter by Respondent State, for example, Italy:

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22respondent%22:[%22ITA%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22COMMUNICATEDCASES%22]}

There is one more information ECHR website that may be of some interest. That is the ECHR State of Proceedings Online. If one knows the application number for a case, one can enter that and find out where the application is in the ECHR process. But the information supplied is limited; it simply reports the last stage reached, such as "Communicated", the application date, date of the stages already reached, and the name of the applicant's representative. It predicts nothing about the dates of potential future events or stages.

I hope the above helps satisfy your questions.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Certainly.

Well I asked because I keep notice people in this thread demolishing your stories precisely because they have the phone logs which contradict your telling of events. It would be tiresome to quote them all but this argument has chased its own tail for so many years that you must be familiar by now.

Since now we have Search back again it's the work of a moment to search this thread or its predecessors for mention of the word "logs" and hey presto.

 

[Stacyhs]

And your qualifications in biochemistry...? Your 'interpretation' of Brioca and Stefanoni's results tops theirs because..?

It's not my interpretation, Vixen. It is established forensic science and I've quoted and cited the evidence for you already several times. Like I said, even Stefanoni's testimony supports what I said:

"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

Prof. Chris Halkides Ph.D.(Biochemistry), Prof. at Univ. of Wilmington teaching biochemistry, organic chemistry, and forensic chemistry at the University of North Carolina, Wilmington:

Mixed DNA is commonly observed and is not equivalent to mixed blood. In general DNA samples cannot be dated, and any two profiles within a sample may have been deposited at different times. The mixed DNA in the bathroom may have been created by Meredith's blood falling on Amanda's biological matter that was already there.

Here's yet another biochemist who says the same thing:

A principle that can be used to frame possible interpretations is that we know that blood has a high level of DNA in it. So, if there is an apparent mixture of two individuals, and one of the individuals is present at a very high level while the other one is minute, there are at least two possible explanations (neither of which are necessarily more likely). 1: There is a lot of blood from one person mixed with a small amount of blood from a second person or 2: The major DNA donor was bleeding and the blood was deposited on an area that contained a trace DNA component from a second individual (e.g. saliva, perspiration, touch DNA). Another issue is that there is no way to determine if both sources of DNA were deposited in/on the stain at the same time."
(DNA ISSUES SURROUNDING THE AMANDA KNOX CASE, Mehul Anjaria, BS biochemistry, MS Criminalistics, MBA DNA Consulting,LLC and member of Panel of Expert Witnesses of the County of Los Angeles Superior Court)

Are you now going to claim that Halkides and Anjaria don't have any qualifications in biochemistry or are you going to go for the usual they're "bent" and a "shill for the PR machine" accusation?

How about you providing evidence that DNA in mixed samples can determine what the source of both DNAs are and that they have to be deposited at the same time?