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

[Vixen]

Right, so when the courts decided the TMB negative, DNA negative Luminol revealed prints were made from Meredith's blood because 'what else could they be?', that would be a decision, NOT a fact. The PGP would be wise to remember this...

That would not be a 'decision' that would be a finding. A finding would be arrived at after hearing all of the evidence from all of the parties in a listed criminal court of law trial.

I have found some notes I wrote at the time, which remains salient here:

Both Luminol and TMB are presumptive tests. TMB is only able to detect blood to a sensitivity of 1 in 10,000 parts. Luminol on the other hand is extremely sensitive and is capable of detecting blood to a sensitivity of 1 in 1,000,000 parts on the low end and 1 in 100,000,000 parts on the high end which is why Luminol is the bloid detecting tool of choice for CSI teams world wide. Dr Stefanoni clearly explained that due to the minute volume of the traces the majority of the biological matter collected was used to identify individual DNA profiles and not to identify blood. You will find this detailed in the Massei report. So let's look at it in a little more detail. On Dec 18 2007 Deputy Commissioner Arnone and Inspector Ipolito over saw the luminol application at 7 Via Della Pergola. 7 prints were revealed in the hallway between Knox's & Merediths bedrooms of which 3 were of use. 1 is compatible with Sollecito's foot and 2 with Knox's foot of which 1 contained a mixed DNA sample of Knox and Meredith. Now if you had any knowledge at all other than what has been spoon fed to you on IIP you would know that luminol is the tool of choice for CSI teams as substances that react with it to provide false positives are not typically found at crime scenes unless the culprit has attempted to use bleach to remove blood stains. Now as the footprints are limited to the corridor and Knox's room we can rule out luminol reacting to terracotta, paint & ceramic elements in tile. Bleach dissipates within a few days and so we can rule that out too. So we are left with vegetables/fruit juice. What are you suggesting Knox and Sollecito had on their feet? Turnip, parsnip, horseradish, carrot or onion??? The court noted that the abundance of Meredith's blood was likely tracked around the cottage as there is no explanation for other luminol reactive substances being present. Marasca & Bruno farcically suggest fruit juice, so where is the original spillage? Why is the footprint path broken? As for the cherry picked piece of Stefanoni's testimony Amanda fans love to quote did you miss the bit where she clearly states DNA is specific and bleach destroys it? Or maybe even the bit where she states that the minute (remember invisible to the naked eye) traces revealed by luminol were used to identify individual DNA profiles rather than apply a confirmatory test for blood? You will also find Stefanoni states negative TMB results happen on valid luminol results about half of the time This also supported by defence consultant Sara Gino. Luciano Garofano makes a highly valid point that they didn't realise what they had left behind ie the luminol revealed prints. He likens it to stepping in paint, the further you walk away from the source, the feinter your tracks become.

 

[TruthCalls]

Well, we can certainly tell these are YOUR notes....

That would not be a 'decision' that would be a finding. A finding would be arrived at after hearing all of the evidence from all of the parties in a listed criminal court of law trial.

I have found some notes I wrote at the time, which remains salient here:

Both Luminol and TMB are presumptive tests. TMB is only able to detect blood to a sensitivity of 1 in 10,000 parts. Luminol on the other hand is extremely sensitive and is capable of detecting blood to a sensitivity of 1 in 1,000,000 parts on the low end and 1 in 100,000,000 parts on the high end which is why Luminol is the bloid detecting tool of choice for CSI teams world wide.

I can cite dozens of articles and studies that show TMB can detect to 1:100,000 or even higher, but I'll be damned if I can find anything that's going to put Luminol any higher than 1:1,000,000.

Luminol is the tool of choice AT CRIME SCENES because it can be sprayed over large areas, and it's high sensitivity. It's also known to be far more prone to false positives than any other presumptive test, which is why SOP with Luminol positive results is a second presumptive test, normally with TMB or other color changing tests, to eliminate false positive results.

Dr Stefanoni clearly explained that due to the minute volume of the traces the majority of the biological matter collected was used to identify individual DNA profiles and not to identify blood.

Um, we are talking about the Luminol revealed prints. Those were NOT minute traces so there would have been no issue with there being enough trace to do both.

You will find this detailed in the Massei report. So let's look at it in a little more detail. On Dec 18 2007 Deputy Commissioner Arnone and Inspector Ipolito over saw the luminol application at 7 Via Della Pergola.

Yes, let's look at this a little closer. How about you start by justifying the use of Luminol at a crime scene 46 days later, where there was copious amounts of blood found, and where we have video and photographic evidence of people walking through the blood and then walking elsewhere in the cottage. Luminol is almost always used in locations where no blood has been found, but is suspected of being there. So exactly what did they think they would find that they hadn't already found (hint: everything found so far all belonged to Guede, and not of the two others they had sitting in a cell).

7 prints were revealed in the hallway between Knox's & Merediths bedrooms of which 3 were of use.

What is your evidence of 7 prints being revealed, and more importantly, if only three were presented in court, then only three existed.

1 is compatible with Sollecito's foot and 2 with Knox's foot

Compatible only means can't be excluded. Those compatible with Amanda's foot are likely compatible with the other three housemates as well, but we'll never now since no reference prints were taken of them.

of which 1 contained a mixed DNA sample of Knox and Meredith. Now if you had any knowledge at all other than what has been spoon fed to you on IIP you would know that luminol is the tool of choice for CSI teams as substances that react with it to provide false positives are not typically found at crime scenes unless the culprit has attempted to use bleach to remove blood stains.

I have, apparently, far more knowledge than you on this point. First, Luminol is typically ONLY used at crime scenes for reasons mentioned above. And that is precisely where the false positives come from.

Now as the footprints are limited to the corridor and Knox's room we can rule out luminol reacting to terracotta, paint & ceramic elements in tile. Bleach dissipates within a few days and so we can rule that out too. So we are left with vegetables/fruit juice. What are you suggesting Knox and Sollecito had on their feet? Turnip, parsnip, horseradish, carrot or onion???

Nonsense. Luminol will react to ANYTHING with iron in it. There IS a reason it is renowned for false positives, and it's not because criminals keep walking through fruit juice.

The court noted that the abundance of Meredith's blood was likely tracked around the cottage as there is no explanation for other luminol reactive substances being present.

And yet, of 31 Luminol revealed samples, 20 of them (65%) had NO DNA, and of the other 11 samples, only three had Meredith's profile. Imagine that... 31 samples, only three contain Meredith's DNA, ALL test negative for blood, but yeah... this is Meredith's blood

Marasca & Bruno farcically suggest fruit juice, so where is the original spillage?

I would remind you, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. TMB and DNA results prove the samples were not Meredith's blood. What they were is irrelevant, as it's not up to the defense to make that determination. If the prosecution still believed the samples were blood there were plenty more tests they could run. They didn't. Instead they withheld the results of TMB testing and counted on the court being ignorant enough to believe the prosecution, despite test results.

Why is the footprint path broken?

Where was a footprint path broken?

As for the cherry picked piece of Stefanoni's testimony Amanda fans love to quote did you miss the bit where she clearly states DNA is specific and bleach destroys it?

Beach destroys blood as well, so if bleach was used there would be no trace of blood at all.

Or maybe even the bit where she states that the minute (remember invisible to the naked eye) traces revealed by luminol were used to identify individual DNA profiles rather than apply a confirmatory test for blood?

And as previously stated, of the 31 samples, only three returned Meredith's profile.

You will also find Stefanoni states negative TMB results happen on valid luminol results about half of the time

Really now. How about you provide a cite, because the only thing I found Stefanoni admitting to during testimony is that a negative TMB result means no blood is present.

This also supported by defence consultant Sara Gino.

Wrong

Luciano Garofano makes a highly valid point that they didn't realise what they had left behind ie the luminol revealed prints. He likens it to stepping in paint, the further you walk away from the source, the feinter your tracks become.

Why are you citing Garofano? I mean, every time we cite Gill, Hampikian, Halkides, etc., you point out they didn't testify... but now we're supposed to pay attention to Garofano? Did he provide an explanation for how Meredith's blood could be tracked to three separate locations (cottage, Raffaele's apartment, Guede's apartment) and yet ALL be negative with TMB, and all but three negative for Meredith's DNA? Yeah, didn't think so.

 

[Numbers]

That wouldn't be a 'decision'. And BTW all decisions by a judge can be appealed against.

No. A decision is a judgment or order of a court. The Italian word would be "sentenza", or alternative equivalents such as "decisione" or "guidizio".

Legal definition of "decision":

In the legal context, a decision is a judicial determination of parties’ rights and obligations reached by a court based on facts and law. A decision can mean either the act of delivering a court’s order or the text of the court’s opinion on the case and the accompanying court order. The text of a decision usually includes a summary of the facts, a discussion of relevant laws, the court’s reasoning of how the law applies to the issues at hand, the court’s holding (or determination on the legal issues of the case) and the court’s orders. The order, usually at the end of the decision, tells the parties to a case or cases something that they should do.

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/decision

Under Italian law, all lower court judgments are appealable up to a legally specified time limit after they are issued by the court. CSC judgments are not appealable, except by the revision process or the ECHR unfair trial review process (CPP Articles 628 and 628-bis, respectively).

In Italian law, "facts", meaning "judicial facts", are inferences derived from evidence. They are appealable. The Italian legal definition of how to obtain a lawful "judicial fact" is given in CPP Article 192, paragraph 2:

L'esistenza di un fatto non può essere desunta da indizi a meno che questi siano gravi, precisi e concordanti.

Google translation:

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

Source: https://www.altalex.com/documents/codici-altalex/2014/10/30/codice-di-procedura-penale

 

[Welshman]

Well, we can certainly tell these are YOUR notes....

I can cite dozens of articles and studies that show TMB can detect to 1:100,000 or even higher, but I'll be damned if I can find anything that's going to put Luminol any higher than 1:1,000,000.

Luminol is the tool of choice AT CRIME SCENES because it can be sprayed over large areas, and it's high sensitivity. It's also known to be far more prone to false positives than any other presumptive test, which is why SOP with Luminol positive results is a second presumptive test, normally with TMB or other color changing tests, to eliminate false positive results.

Um, we are talking about the Luminol revealed prints. Those were NOT minute traces so there would have been no issue with there being enough trace to do both.

Yes, let's look at this a little closer. How about you start by justifying the use of Luminol at a crime scene 46 days later, where there was copious amounts of blood found, and where we have video and photographic evidence of people walking through the blood and then walking elsewhere in the cottage. Luminol is almost always used in locations where no blood has been found, but is suspected of being there. So exactly what did they think they would find that they hadn't already found (hint: everything found so far all belonged to Guede, and not of the two others they had sitting in a cell).

What is your evidence of 7 prints being revealed, and more importantly, if only three were presented in court, then only three existed.

Compatible only means can't be excluded. Those compatible with Amanda's foot are likely compatible with the other three housemates as well, but we'll never now since no reference prints were taken of them.

I have, apparently, far more knowledge than you on this point. First, Luminol is typically ONLY used at crime scenes for reasons mentioned above. And that is precisely where the false positives come from.

Nonsense. Luminol will react to ANYTHING with iron in it. There IS a reason it is renowned for false positives, and it's not because criminals keep walking through fruit juice.

And yet, of 31 Luminol revealed samples, 20 of them (65%) had NO DNA, and of the other 11 samples, only three had Meredith's profile. Imagine that... 31 samples, only three contain Meredith's DNA, ALL test negative for blood, but yeah... this is Meredith's blood

I would remind you, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. TMB and DNA results prove the samples were not Meredith's blood. What they were is irrelevant, as it's not up to the defense to make that determination. If the prosecution still believed the samples were blood there were plenty more tests they could run. They didn't. Instead they withheld the results of TMB testing and counted on the court being ignorant enough to believe the prosecution, despite test results.

Where was a footprint path broken?

Beach destroys blood as well, so if bleach was used there would be no trace of blood at all.

And as previously stated, of the 31 samples, only three returned Meredith's profile.

Really now. How about you provide a cite, because the only thing I found Stefanoni admitting to during testimony is that a negative TMB result means no blood is present.

Wrong

Why are you citing Garofano? I mean, every time we cite Gill, Hampikian, Halkides, etc., you point out they didn't testify... but now we're supposed to pay attention to Garofano? Did he provide an explanation for how Meredith's blood could be tracked to three separate locations (cottage, Raffaele's apartment, Guede's apartment) and yet ALL be negative with TMB, and all but three negative for Meredith's DNA? Yeah, didn't think so.

If the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was so solid as Vixen constantly boasts, why can her arguments be easily debunked as this post shows.

 

[Vixen]

Well, we can certainly tell these are YOUR notes....

I can cite dozens of articles and studies that show TMB can detect to 1:100,000 or even higher, but I'll be damned if I can find anything that's going to put Luminol any higher than 1:1,000,000.

Luminol is the tool of choice AT CRIME SCENES because it can be sprayed over large areas, and it's high sensitivity. It's also known to be far more prone to false positives than any other presumptive test, which is why SOP with Luminol positive results is a second presumptive test, normally with TMB or other color changing tests, to eliminate false positive results.

Um, we are talking about the Luminol revealed prints. Those were NOT minute traces so there would have been no issue with there being enough trace to do both.

Yes, let's look at this a little closer. How about you start by justifying the use of Luminol at a crime scene 46 days later, where there was copious amounts of blood found, and where we have video and photographic evidence of people walking through the blood and then walking elsewhere in the cottage. Luminol is almost always used in locations where no blood has been found, but is suspected of being there. So exactly what did they think they would find that they hadn't already found (hint: everything found so far all belonged to Guede, and not of the two others they had sitting in a cell).

What is your evidence of 7 prints being revealed, and more importantly, if only three were presented in court, then only three existed.

Compatible only means can't be excluded. Those compatible with Amanda's foot are likely compatible with the other three housemates as well, but we'll never now since no reference prints were taken of them.

I have, apparently, far more knowledge than you on this point. First, Luminol is typically ONLY used at crime scenes for reasons mentioned above. And that is precisely where the false positives come from.

Nonsense. Luminol will react to ANYTHING with iron in it. There IS a reason it is renowned for false positives, and it's not because criminals keep walking through fruit juice.

And yet, of 31 Luminol revealed samples, 20 of them (65%) had NO DNA, and of the other 11 samples, only three had Meredith's profile. Imagine that... 31 samples, only three contain Meredith's DNA, ALL test negative for blood, but yeah... this is Meredith's blood

I would remind you, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. TMB and DNA results prove the samples were not Meredith's blood. What they were is irrelevant, as it's not up to the defense to make that determination. If the prosecution still believed the samples were blood there were plenty more tests they could run. They didn't. Instead they withheld the results of TMB testing and counted on the court being ignorant enough to believe the prosecution, despite test results.

Where was a footprint path broken?

Beach destroys blood as well, so if bleach was used there would be no trace of blood at all.

And as previously stated, of the 31 samples, only three returned Meredith's profile.

Really now. How about you provide a cite, because the only thing I found Stefanoni admitting to during testimony is that a negative TMB result means no blood is present.

Wrong

Why are you citing Garofano? I mean, every time we cite Gill, Hampikian, Halkides, etc., you point out they didn't testify... but now we're supposed to pay attention to Garofano? Did he provide an explanation for how Meredith's blood could be tracked to three separate locations (cottage, Raffaele's apartment, Guede's apartment) and yet ALL be negative with TMB, and all but three negative for Meredith's DNA? Yeah, didn't think so.

Obviously, you would downplay how sensitive luminol is. In answer to your question re the break in the path of footprints; that would be the gap between Sollecito's last footprint in the hallway and his footprint on the bathmat. Unless you are suggesting he performed some kind of triple jump..? But that would mean he was aware of having left his footprints and would have thus removed them.

 

[Vixen]

No. A decision is a judgment or order of a court. The Italian word would be "sentenza", or alternative equivalents such as "decisione" or "guidizio".

Legal definition of "decision":



Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/decision

Under Italian law, all lower court judgments are appealable up to a legally specified time limit after they are issued by the court. CSC judgments are not appealable, except by the revision process or the ECHR unfair trial review process (CPP Articles 628 and 628-bis, respectively).

In Italian law, "facts", meaning "judicial facts", are inferences derived from evidence. They are appealable. The Italian legal definition of how to obtain a lawful "judicial fact" is given in CPP Article 192, paragraph 2:


Google translation:


Source: https://www.altalex.com/documents/codici-altalex/2014/10/30/codice-di-procedura-penale

An 'order' is just another word for a decision. In the English-speaking world, a judgment would be conventionally referred to as a 'verdict' to reflect finality.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

In answer to your question re the break in the path of footprints; that would be the gap between Sollecito's last footprint in the hallway and his footprint on the bathmat.

Guede's footprint. Sollecito wasn't there.

 

[TruthCalls]

Obviously, you would downplay how sensitive luminol is. In answer to your question re the break in the path of footprints; that would be the gap between Sollecito's last footprint in the hallway and his footprint on the bathmat. Unless you are suggesting he performed some kind of triple jump..? But that would mean he was aware of having left his footprints and would have thus removed them.

I don't recall downplaying how sensitive Luminol is. I have always said it has greater sensitivity. What I said was I've never seen it cited to be more sensitive than 1:1,000,000, a far cry from the 1:100,000,000 that you claimed. In fact, the only one who downplayed anything was you, claiming TMB was only sensitive to 1:10,000 when there is plenty of documentation that shows it far more capable than that.

ETA: One such source: Tennessee Bureau of Investigation
"The TMB test is used as a screening or presumptive method for blood and is based on the peroxidase-like activity of hemoglobin. Extremely sensitive (1 part in 300,000 to 500,000), it is of great value as a negative test. A negative test is conclusive evidence of the absence of blood in quantities sufficient for further examination."

That final point is very important for people to understand, and it's consistent with Stefanoni's testimony in court. TMB is used to screen out Luminol false positives, which is why an oh-fer-18 TMB test of Luminol samples, including all nine from the cottage, speaks very loudly. As Stefanoni said, a negative TMB result means the sample isn't blood.

The print in the hallway is unidentified, so calling it his is false. The print on the bathmat is also unidentified, but clearly that print is made from Meredith's blood, so not related to the print in the hallway, which is not.

I guess you didn't find the whole part about only 3 of 31 samples containing Meredith's DNA, and ALL samples tested with TMB (18 total) tested negative for blood, interesting enough to comment?

 

[Welshman]

The size 37 ladies trainer was not attributed by Massei in the MR to Knox because the ASICS shoe it matched was never recovered. Likewise, the hairs went missing. But the forensic scientists have the photographs and the certainty of their presence was inventorised. That proves that the facts established at trial were only the ones that were 100% PROVEN. In the disputed issue of what time Sollecito called the police, Massei let him have the benefit of a doubt. However, Nencini revisited the issue and established beyond a shadow of a doubt by use of CCTV footage and police testimony that Batistelli and Marzi DID arrive BEFORE Sollecito rang up the Carabinieri. This tells you the courts did NOT make up facts to 'please Mignini'. Evidence in a criminal court of law has to be of a very high standard, close to perfect, otherwise it won't be accepted as a fact, as proven by a true and fair view of the aforesaid matters.

I keep asking why is it necessary to lie and make desperate excuses for these lies such as hairs going missing and courts deciding not to use evidence. If there is solid evidence, you should never have to lie to argue your case. If there was solid evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, why is that the only way Vixen can argue there was evidence against Amanda and Raffaele is to lie on an industrial scale.



https://internationalskeptics.com/f...meredith-kercher-part-23.312658/post-11598412

https://internationalskeptics.com/f...ffaele-sollecito-part-26.321793/post-11942728

https://internationalskeptics.com/f...ffaele-sollecito-part-32.363048/post-14614534

It was clearly shown Raffaele called the police before the arrival of the postal police. Why constantly resort to debunked claims if there was a solid case against Amanda and Raffaele? If Italian courts only accept solid evidence, why did they accept the following evidence which had no credibility

The knife was picked at random with no other knives taken from Raffaele’s kitchen or the cottage. Is it credible a knife collected under these circumstances was the murder weapon.
The knife didn’t match a bloody imprint on the bed.
The knife was too large to have caused the two smaller wounds.
There was bruising on the fatal wound which indicated the knife had gone all the way in. The length of the fatal wound was 8 cm whilst the length of the knife was 17 cm which indicated the knife couldn’t have caused the larger wound.
The knife didn’t have any blood or human biological material on it.
The defence had no objection to the knife being opened while the prosecution didn’t want the knife opened.


Luminol Footprints with the following characteristics

All footprints were negative for TMB which is highly sensitive and can detect as few as five red blood cells
None of the luminol prints contained Meredith’s DNA which should have existed if they had been made in Meredith’s blood.
None of the prints were in Meredith’s room
Two of the prints were shapeless blobs which were impossible to determine who they belonged to

A bra clasp with the following characteristics

Not collected for six weeks
The crime scene had been trashed by the time the clasp was discovered
The claps was dirty and damaged by the time it was discovered
Stefanoni didn’t want the claps tested and allowed it to rust
There were other profiles on the clasp which supported co

 

[Numbers]

An 'order' is just another word for a decision. In the English-speaking world, a judgment would be conventionally referred to as a 'verdict' to reflect finality.

You continue your campaign of attempting to introduce confusion.

Not all decisions are orders. A court order directs at least one person or organization to take, or refrain from taking, some action. The order is necessarily a court decision or the result of a court decision. A verdict is also a court decision.

Verdicts, orders, and decisions can all be appealed, at least up to some "supreme" judicial level, within some legally defined time limit, in the Western democracies. In Italy, only criminal case verdicts that have not been appealed by either the defense or the prosecutor within the legally defined time limit, or criminal case verdicts rendered by the Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC), are not considered to be appealable (that is, they are final; all appealable verdicts are provisional). Final verdicts are reviewed and may be changed by revision under conditions laid out in CPP Article 629 - 630 or by a CSC retrial based upon a final ECHR verdict of an unfair trial as laid out in CPP Article 628-bis. (I committed an error in a previous post in misidentifying the CPP Articles for revision.)

Here's a legal definition of "order" (words in square brackets are my additions):

A decision issued by a court or [other] authoritative body. This includes final and non-final orders issued by a court. Also known as court order or judicial order. Outside of judicial orders, [in the US] the executive branch has the power to issue executive orders.

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Order

Here's a legal definition of "decision":

In the legal context, a decision is a judicial determination of parties’ rights and obligations reached by a court based on facts and law. A decision can mean either the act of delivering a court’s order or the text of the court’s opinion on the case and the accompanying court order. The text of a decision usually includes a summary of the facts, a discussion of relevant laws, the court’s reasoning of how the law applies to the issues at hand, the court’s holding (or determination on the legal issues of the case) and the court’s orders. The order, usually at the end of the decision, tells the parties to a case or cases something that they should do. Orders can deal with housekeeping matters, such as scheduling, or with something substantive and important, such as whether the case will be dismissed or not. Decision is often used interchangeably with “judgment”, “ruling”, “opinion” and “order”.

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/decision

Here's a legal definition of "verdict":

A verdict is the formal decision or judgment rendered by a court at the conclusion of a trial or legal proceeding. It represents the culmination of the entire legal process. Verdicts are reached by a judge or a jury, depending on the type of trial and jurisdiction.

In a criminal trial, the verdict may include findings such as guilty or not guilty, reflecting whether the defendant’s guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil trial, the verdict can entail various outcomes, such as liable or not liable and may also specify the amount of damages to be awarded to the prevailing party.

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/verdict

ETA: The ECHR uses its own special definitions for "judgment" and "decision". A judgment is a full judicial review of a case that has been found admissible. A decision is a review of a case that has been found inadmissible; the review is generally not as extensive as that needed for a judgment because of the features that make a decision case inadmissible. These features are usually not trivial (for example, not simply applying past the 4 month deadline) and require some depth of review. ECHR case law is developed from inadmissible case decisions as well as admissible case judgments, although the majority of the case law is from the judgments.

 

[Stacyhs]

The size 37 ladies trainer was not attributed by Massei in the MR to Knox because the ASICS shoe it matched was never recovered.

False. Massei clearly states that there was no attempt to identify the print as an ASICS shoe, but only for dimension comparisons to women's shoes vs men's.

The purpose of the investigation of merchants and shoe manufacturers was not to propose the ASICS as the shoe that produced the print in question; the objective, more modestly, was simply to indicate how the dimensions of the print (held to be sufficiently complete and not merely partial) were in themselves comparable to women's shoes available on the market...

Guede's shoes were never found either.

Likewise, the hairs went missing. But the forensic scientists have the photographs and the certainty of their presence was inventorised.

Another example of the sloppy work of the forensic team. Losing evidence, destroying evidence through improper storage....

That proves that the facts established at trial were only the ones that were 100% PROVEN. In the disputed issue of what time Sollecito called the police, Massei let him have the benefit of a doubt.

LOL. There was no 'benefit of the doubt'. That's YOUR spin. What Massei said (pg 89), and which I've repeatedly pointed out to you but which you've refused to address, is that the postal police made NO mention of the other calls by AK and RS during the time the police claimed they were there:

...the Postal Police (who it can be held that, according [81] to what is maintained by the defendants’ defence, arrived after Raffaele Sollecito’s telephone call to 112, and this by nothing other than the fact that regarding these calls to 112, the Postal Police say nothing; in the same way that they said nothing about those that preceded them, at 12:40 pm and at 12:50 pm; each of these phone calls being of a not brief duration that, therefore, would not have escaped the attention of the two police officers) that there has been a burglary.

A conclusion Hellmann also agrees with and cites Massei:

There has been much discussion on what did ‐ or did not ‐ transpire prior to the call made to 112 with respect to the unexpected arrival of the Police, the Prosecutor conjecturing that the call to the Carabinieri on 112 had been made at the sight of the unexpected arrival of the Police, and made only to corroborate the theory of their innocence. But on the basis of testimony given by the Police personnel on duty and from the schedules recorded on the printouts, even Court of the Assizes of First Instance reached the conclusion that those telephone calls had been made prior to the arrival of the Police, and with no knowledge of their imminent arrival.

However, Nencini revisited the issue and established beyond a shadow of a doubt by use of CCTV footage and police testimony that Batistelli and Marzi DID arrive BEFORE Sollecito rang up the Carabinieri. This tells you the courts did NOT make up facts to 'please Mignini'. Evidence in a criminal court of law has to be of a very high standard, close to perfect, otherwise it won't be accepted as a fact, as proven by a true and fair view of the aforesaid matters.

Nencini accepted Battistelli's claim that he looked at his watch when they arrived and it was 12:35. But neither he nor Marzi say they witnessed any of the almost SEVEN MINUTES of phone calls made by AK and RS:
12:34:56 Amanda to Filomena 48 seconds
12:47:23 Amanda to Edda 88 second
12:50:34 Raffaele to Vanessa 39 seconds
12:51:40 Raffaele to 112 169 seconds
12:54:39 Raffaele to 112 57 seconds

Yet during that time before the arrival of Romanelli/Grande and Altieri/Zaroli around 1:00 are either Knox or Sollecito not with the postal police. No wonder Marasca took Nencini to task for their illogical errors.

 

[Stacyhs]

None of this is relevant other than the fact Nencini established as a fact the carabinieri were called AFTER the the police had already arrived.

It was all relevant to the topic which was your claims that the "PR hoax" was disseminating mis- and disinformation. None of which you provided any evidence for. shocking

As for Nencini 112 claim...see my above post.

 

[Stacyhs]

But we were not talking about the HAIR SHAFT. If the hairs included the hair shaft, it would have been a very easy matter to obtain DNA from them.

Oh, good lord. We most certainly were. We were not talking about roots or follicles. You claimed there were LONG blonde hairs which would mean the HAIR SHAFT which is the part of the hair that has grown out of the skin:

Stop claiming that Knox' bleached hair can't have been the two long golden-coloured hairs, one gripped in Mez' hand and the other across the top of Mez' bag (therefore

Despite 3 forensic sources provided that dyed hair is distinguishable from natural hair under a microscope, which you claimed looked the same, you continue to deny it. Typical.

Hair splits you know. Most hair lying around is split off hair.

Whether that is true or not, it does not change the dyed vs natural differences apparent under a microscope.

As for heritability, yes fair hair tends to be finer than darker hair but that doesn't mean that a strand of fairish hair found at a crime scene means it came from a fair haired person. A piece of bleached hair looks exactly like blonde hair in terms of colour, i.e., little or no melanin.

You're moving the goalpost yet again besides being wrong. I never mentioned BLEACHED HAIR. Our discussion was DYED vs. NATURAL BLONDE. Bleach and blonde dye are not the same thing:

Dyeing is less stressful for your hair than bleaching. This is because bleaching breaks up almost all existing colour pigment in your hair. This can be your own natural colour pigment or colour pigment from hair dye. You might imagine that this is generally a more aggressive process than dyeing, which does not break up all the existing pigment in your hair, but mainly adds colour.

When you bleach your hair, you don't usually add colour pigments, but rather break down existing ones. The melanin ( colour pigments) in the hair shaft is oxidised, giving you colourless hair.

Knox's hair was NOT BLEACHED, it was DYED.

Knox' hair is thick but that doesn't mean the golden coloured hair found clutched in Mez' hand and across her bag were not Knox'.

Thickness has nothing to do with anything so is completely irrelevant as to whether it was Knox's hair. It's just a red herring to the actual topic: that dyed blonde and natural blonde do NOT look the same in appearance or under the microscope.

Your claim they belonged to some Spanish girls Guede knew is laughable.

You've made this same false accusation before and I corrected you then, apparently to no avail. I never said it WAS the Spanish girl's. What I said was that Guede was seen dancing with a girl with long blonde hair:

Vixen said:
The hair found gripped in Mez' hand and across her bag being that of one of Guedé's friends.

I never said that it belonged to one of Guede's friends. I only reported that a friend of his said he was dancing with a girl with long blonde hair the night before. I don't know who it belonged to but, as it wasn't dyed blonde hair, it couldn't belong to Amanda. Something you've repeatedly failed to acknowledge.

Vixen said
The lengths you go to to deny the obvious presence of Knox in Mez' room when she was murdered. Plus her lamp on Mez' floor, which Knox pretended in court not to have noticed was 'missing' from her room, causing some degree of expressed incredulity from Massei, given it was her only source of electric light.

Blah, blah, blah......the lengths you go to in order to ignore quoted and cited forensic sources proving you wrong is gobsmacking. "Knox pretended" is just more of your usual crystal ball mind-reading silliness.
Yeah, just how could Knox not notice her lamp was missing during the day when she had a window and terrace glass door across from her room admitting natural light? So you turn on your bedroom light when there is abundant natural light coming through? I don't. But maybe that's just me.

 

[Stacyhs]

None of this 'whataboutism' cancels out the truth of Meredith Kercher's murder.

I didn't say it did. I was responding to Number's post regarding police and prosecution malfeasance.

 

[Stacyhs]

I certainly have no respect for people who treat heinous criminals as celebrities. You are looking at Team Pro-Victim here.

I certainly have no respect for people who handwave away or just plain ignore quoted and cited evidence, including forensic/scientific facts, that doesn't support their pro-guilt narrative. You are looking at Team Pro-Facts here.

 

[Stacyhs]

You are quite wrong. Marasca-Bruno's final verdict and as written in their Motivational Report says very clearly that Knox substituted the name Patrik for that of Guede, whom she was covering up for.

Re the DNA of Guede and Knox on the bra clasp, even the defence scientific experts said this was so:




Here are the charts showing Knox and Guede's DNA on the bra clasp and fabric.

View attachment 62734

His conclusion said there were some markers compatible with Knox which is why he said her DNA MIGHT BE ON THE BRA FABRIC not that it WAS on it. I previously quoted and cited Vinci saying that and Prof. Balding stating his algorithm said her DNA was NOT on the fabric.

 

[Vixen]

As I've mentioned before, I did not look at the Knox thread(s) for many years because one of the Kercher family was a colleague and it was all a bit too painfully close.

<snip>

You must have really hated the guy..?

 

[Vixen]

Guede's footprint. Sollecito wasn't there.

How fascinating! So Guede came back to do a bit of mopping up? Are you able to offer a theory as to how there are no apparent footprints leading up to the one on the bathmat and why you think he might have left one set of his own shoeprints whilst cleaning his chums'?

 

[Vixen]

False. Massei clearly states that there was no attempt to identify the print as an ASICS shoe, but only for dimension comparisons to women's shoes vs men's.

Guede's shoes were never found either.

Another example of the sloppy work of the forensic team. Losing evidence, destroying evidence through improper storage....

LOL. There was no 'benefit of the doubt'. That's YOUR spin. What Massei said (pg 89), and which I've repeatedly pointed out to you but which you've refused to address, is that the postal police made NO mention of the other calls by AK and RS during the time the police claimed they were there:

A conclusion Hellmann also agrees with and cites Massei:



Nencini accepted Battistelli's claim that he looked at his watch when they arrived and it was 12:35. But neither he nor Marzi say they witnessed any of the almost SEVEN MINUTES of phone calls made by AK and RS:
12:34:56 Amanda to Filomena 48 seconds
12:47:23 Amanda to Edda 88 second
12:50:34 Raffaele to Vanessa 39 seconds
12:51:40 Raffaele to 112 169 seconds
12:54:39 Raffaele to 112 57 seconds

Yet during that time before the arrival of Romanelli/Grande and Altieri/Zaroli around 1:00 are either Knox or Sollecito not with the postal police. No wonder Marasca took Nencini to task for their illogical errors.

The forensic scientific engineers identified the shoe from the shoe imprint which WAS there on the pillow. Your kneejerk denial of facts found doesn't change anything.

 

[Vixen]

Oh, good lord. We most certainly were. We were not talking about roots or follicles. You claimed there were LONG blonde hairs which would mean the HAIR SHAFT which is the part of the hair that has grown out of the skin:

Despite 3 forensic sources provided that dyed hair is distinguishable from natural hair under a microscope, which you claimed looked the same, you continue to deny it. Typical.

Whether that is true or not, it does not change the dyed vs natural differences apparent under a microscope.


You're moving the goalpost yet again besides being wrong. I never mentioned BLEACHED HAIR. Our discussion was DYED vs. NATURAL BLONDE. Bleach and blonde dye are not the same thing:


Knox's hair was NOT BLEACHED, it was DYED.

Thickness has nothing to do with anything so is completely irrelevant as to whether it was Knox's hair. It's just a red herring to the actual topic: that dyed blonde and natural blonde do NOT look the same in appearance or under the microscope.


You've made this same false accusation before and I corrected you then, apparently to no avail. I never said it WAS the Spanish girl's. What I said was that Guede was seen dancing with a girl with long blonde hair:





Blah, blah, blah......the lengths you go to in order to ignore quoted and cited forensic sources proving you wrong is gobsmacking. "Knox pretended" is just more of your usual crystal ball mind-reading silliness.
Yeah, just how could Knox not notice her lamp was missing during the day when she had a window and terrace glass door across from her room admitting natural light? So you turn on your bedroom light when there is abundant natural light coming through? I don't. But maybe that's just me.

Given Knox claimed there was a burglary and that she averred she looked in her room and checked that NOTHING WAS MISSING, how on earth could she miss a table lamp?