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

[TruthCalls]

The final judgement and the facts proven at trial proves Knox was at the crime scene when Kercher was killed and did wash her blood from her hands. She did accuse Lumumba to cover up for Guede and the burglary was staged. This is the proven findings of fact by the trial court, the appeal court and the supreme court.

No, the final judgement theorized she was there BECAUSE they referred to her interrogation statement. And since we know (1) the statements were provably false and (2) the statements were thrown out, the court did NOT "prove" she was there when Meredith was killed. Further, we also know the court theorized she washed blood from her hands because of the mixed DNA samples, but we also know those samples were 100% consistent with Meredith's diluted blood being collected at the same time as Amanda's latent DNA from using the sink daily. So no, the court did not prove this either, and if you were being honest - and we HAVE had this discussion several times before - then you would admit that at best the court theorized, not "proved", these claims - if you were being honest.

We also know she implicated Lumumba because (1) the police misinterpreted what Amanda meant in her SMS to Lumumba and (2) because they coerced her into implicating him so she could confirm THEIR theory. And regardless, both the ISC and the ECHR threw out the statements because the police violated her rights, so it's moot.

"...to cover up for Guede..." - Yeah, right.. that's why she left the toilet unflushed, his bloody shoe prints in the hallway and his bloody footprint on the bathmat - so they could cover for him. Uh huh...

"...and the burglary was staged." - Well, since Amanda and Raffaele were definitively acquitted of that particular charge, I would suggest you find someone else who would have a motive for staging a break-in. Do you think Filomena slipped by and staged it? Or.... perhaps it wasn't staged, perhaps it was a real break-in, as the physical evidence strongly indicates, and it was the incompetent police and the prosecution-biased courts that got it wrong.

So no, none of your claims were "proven findings of fact", they were rulings by the convicting courts, which were overturned, and not the ruling of either Hellmann or Marasca.

And again, if you wish to keep running around claiming that these things were proven, it would behoove you to include what you think the evidence is. I would remind you we are all capable of reading the court MR's, and we know why they think what they do because the write it into the MR's.

 

[TruthCalls]

I was referring to compare and contrast university laboratory scientists with crime scene forensic scientists. It is irrelevant that Kohberger's crime scene differs from AK/RS/RG's. That is the point: every crime scene is unique with its own limitations. Of course the courts should get to decide whether a DNA sample is relevant or not, Some guy was convicted on a fingerprint from decades ago. A guy in England was convicted of murder because of jumper fibres retrieved decades later. Likewise, the killer of Stephen Lawrence.
Truth Calls claims that the evidence must reach his personal standards of criteria is just a ruse to deny the full DNA profile of Sollecito on Kercher's bra clasp; on the inner bend of the the clasp. Waffling about RFU's doesn't fool the Italians.

WTF are you talking about in that highlighted passage of yours????!!!!

First, I NEVER claimed evidence must reach my personal standards of criteria - EVER - so I would EXPECT you to apologize for lying about what I've said.

Second, I also NEVER claimed Raffaele's full DNA profile wasn't on the clasp - EVER - so I would EXPECT you to also apologize for lying about this.

Third, since when does pointing out the minimum RFU threshold and what alleles get noted in the RTIGF equate to "waffling about RFU's"??

Now, getting to the issue, which is and always has been the suppression of 12 alleles from the bra clasp that were above the 50 RFU threshold, and how that proves Stefanoni was using a suspect centric approach to her analysis.

And if you want more proof of that, let's look at sample 36B. 22 alleles that Stefanoni noted in the RTIGF were BELOW 50 RFU, with 9 below 30!!!Only 6 were over 50, with only one exceeding 100. Despite this, Stefanoni notes a FULL DNA profile of Meredith and reports ALL alleles from her profile in the report.

So let's summarize... on one sample she suppresses 12 alleles OVER 50 because they weren't what she was looking for, then on another sample, she includes 22 alleles UNDER 50 because they were what she was looking for. Sorry Vixen, you can spin this till the cows come home (hell, you're still spinning and they're coming up the driveway already) but there is NO OTHER WAY to look at this other than suspect centric analysis.

 

[Numbers]

No, the final judgement theorized she was there BECAUSE they referred to her interrogation statement. And since we know (1) the statements were provably false and (2) the statements were thrown out, the court did NOT "prove" she was there when Meredith was killed. Further, we also know the court theorized she washed blood from her hands because of the mixed DNA samples, but we also know those samples were 100% consistent with Meredith's diluted blood being collected at the same time as Amanda's latent DNA from using the sink daily. So no, the court did not prove this either, and if you were being honest - and we HAVE had this discussion several times before - then you would admit that at best the court theorized, not "proved", these claims - if you were being honest.

We also know she implicated Lumumba because (1) the police misinterpreted what Amanda meant in her SMS to Lumumba and (2) because they coerced her into implicating him so she could confirm THEIR theory. And regardless, both the ISC and the ECHR threw out the statements because the police violated her rights, so it's moot.

"...to cover up for Guede..." - Yeah, right.. that's why she left the toilet unflushed, his bloody shoe prints in the hallway and his bloody footprint on the bathmat - so they could cover for him. Uh huh...

"...and the burglary was staged." - Well, since Amanda and Raffaele were definitively acquitted of that particular charge, I would suggest you find someone else who would have a motive for staging a break-in. Do you think Filomena slipped by and staged it? Or.... perhaps it wasn't staged, perhaps it was a real break-in, as the physical evidence strongly indicates, and it was the incompetent police and the prosecution-biased courts that got it wrong.

So no, none of your claims were "proven findings of fact", they were rulings by the convicting courts, which were overturned, and not the ruling of either Hellmann or Marasca.

And again, if you wish to keep running around claiming that these things were proven, it would behoove you to include what you think the evidence is. I would remind you we are all capable of reading the court MR's, and we know why they think what they do because the write it into the MR's.

The whole idea that Amanda Knox was covering up for Guede is absurd, because Guede left his DNA inside Meredith Kercher, on her clothing, and on her purse. The police and prosecutor had to concoct this absurdity of a cover-up to help construct their cover-up of their illegal interrogation procedures inflicted on Knox and Sollecito.

 

[Stacyhs]

....and yet you still don't understand.

I think my reply went right over your head.

 

[Stacyhs]

When someone is trying to avoid addressing something or to answer questions they don't want to answer, it's a common tactic to try and redirect from it. It's a form of manipulation. Let's not fall for it.

 

[Stacyhs]

WTF are you talking about in that highlighted passage of yours????!!!!

First, I NEVER claimed evidence must reach my personal standards of criteria - EVER - so I would EXPECT you to apologize for lying about what I've said.

Second, I also NEVER claimed Raffaele's full DNA profile wasn't on the clasp - EVER - so I would EXPECT you to also apologize for lying about this.

Third, since when does pointing out the minimum RFU threshold and what alleles get noted in the RTIGF equate to "waffling about RFU's"??

Apologize? Hell, you won't even get an acknowledgment that you never claimed either of those. She still hasn't even acknowledged that I never said "evidence collected after 46 days isn't permissible".

Now, getting to the issue, which is and always has been the suppression of 12 alleles from the bra clasp that were above the 50 RFU threshold, and how that proves Stefanoni was using a suspect centric approach to her analysis.

And if you want more proof of that, let's look at sample 36B. 22 alleles that Stefanoni noted in the RTIGF were BELOW 50 RFU, with 9 below 30!!!Only 6 were over 50, with only one exceeding 100. Despite this, Stefanoni notes a FULL DNA profile of Meredith and reports ALL alleles from her profile in the report.

So let's summarize... on one sample she suppresses 12 alleles OVER 50 because they weren't what she was looking for, then on another sample, she includes 22 alleles UNDER 50 because they were what she was looking for. Sorry Vixen, you can spin this till the cows come home (hell, you're still spinning and they're coming up the driveway already) but there is NO OTHER WAY to look at this other than suspect centric analysis.

Be prepared for another side trip about comparing and contrasting university laboratory scientists with crime scene forensic scientists. Which, of course, has nothing to do with your posts.

 

[Welshman]

I was rather thinking of 'hate preacher' Hamzu with the hook. The UK was handtied from doing anything with this chap because he took out an Article 8 edict from the ECHR, citing 'the right to family life'. Yet as soon as he touched down in the USA, he was carted off to jail. The ECHR does have teeth, for example, it could - and did - issue emergency judicial orders to stop a state (i.e., the UK) from summarily deporting an asylum seeker off to Rwanda. The problem is, so many convicted criminals use the ECHR as another court of appeal. In the case of Knox and Sollecito, you don't think they give a toss about human rights and a false-positive HIV result or some cop making them accidentally incriminate themself. No, their sole aim is to cash in on their acquittal and to further the fake narrative. Knox criminally tried to subvert justice by pointing police at Lumumba, to cover up for Guede [this is official] and then thought it 'd be great for her new career as an 'exoneree' if she could get this declared a breach of human rights, demand €2m in compensation and at the same time use it as part of her book and tv series about her "MOJ" [sic]. These two couldn't care less about humans right. The ECHR's pending applications are full of applications from people like these, who are just trying their luck, and delaying the genuine cases of human rights abuses.

From a previous post

"Guilters have a consistent history of showing industrial scale hypocrisy and one clear example is when guilters attack Amanda for falsely accusing Lumumba of committing a crime. A cause of this hypocrisy is the guilter belief is that something is unacceptable if it works in Amanda’s favour but acceptable if it works against Amanda but guilters are too dishonest to admit this and give the false impression they have an issue with something in general. Guilters will attack Amanda for doing something but condone the same thing if it is done against Amanda and Raffaele and works against them. There are several instances of people making false accusations against Amanda as per the list below. The instances below of false accusations are acceptable to guilters because they worked against Amanda and Raffaele. You will see no demands those who made false accusations against Amanda and Raffaele should be prosecuted or pay damages to Amanda and Raffaele. Guilters complain Lumumba could have been convicted on Amanda’s testimony but have no issue with Amanda and Raffaele being convicted on the basis of false testimony by witnesses.

• *There are several instances of witnesses who gave false testimony against Amanda and Raffaele. Hekuran Kokomani claimed he saw Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy together on the night of the murder. Kokomani was proved to have lied because he said Amanda had gaps in her teeth and an Italian uncle. Fabio Gioffredi said he saw Amanda, Raffaele, Meredith and Rudy on the October 30th 2007 between 4.30 and 5.30 pm. Raffaele's computer shows itense activity from 5.30 pm to 6.30 pm which proved Fabio had lied. The haters have never criticsed these witnesses for lying. The shop owner Quintavelle initially said he did not see Amanda in his shop the morning after the murder and then changed his story a year later to say he had seen Amanda in his shop. The fact the shop owner changed his story proved he has lied at least once. The haters have defended the shop owner. Curalto initially said he did not see Amanda and Raffaele but changed his story later to say he had seen Amanda and Raffaele. Like Quintavelle, Curalto lied at least once. As the link below shows the English friends of Meredith were caught giving false testimony against Amanda in court http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/the-british-girl
• *The police/prosecution told numerous lies to falsely suggest Amanda and Raffaele were guilty

https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com/list-of-prosecution-and-press-lies-told-about-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/

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

• *Guede lied that Amanda and Raffaele were present at the cottage when Meredith was murdered.

Guilters will attack people for something but will do the same thing themselves if it works against Amanda and Raffaele. Guilters attack Amanda for falsely accusing Lumumba but will falsely accuse people of crimes themselves if it works against Amanda and Raffaele. Below are two instances where Vixen has falsely accused people of crimes. One post accused Hellman of taking a bribe and the other that C&V lied. Guilters regard these false accusations as acceptable as they work against Amanda and Raffaele eg Hellman only found Amanda and Raffaele not guilty due to a bribe.

https://internationalskeptics.com/f...ffaele-sollecito-part-32.363048/post-1456153

https://internationalskeptics.com/f...ffaele-sollecito-part-32.363048/post-145583

It is repulsive how guilters give the false impression they have a general issue with falsely accusing people of crimes when they attack Amanda for falsely accusing Lumumba when their issue is how falsely accusing people of crimes is used."
Besides the above there are numerous other ways guilters show industrial scale hypocrisy when attacking Amanda for naming Lumumba. Guilters have consistently acted as lickspittles and PR agents for the prosecution which means guilters will never criticise the prosecution and ignore any wrongdoing by the prosecution which leads to hypocrisy. Lumumba initially claimed he was dragged from his home, beaten in the interrogation, called a dirty black and denied access to a lawyer. Lumumba was arrested without any investigation. Amanda was never asked questions such as when did Lumumba raise the issue of wanting to kill Meredith, what time did Lumumba kill Meredith, what was he wearing, what weapon did he use. Guilters are completely silent about the treatment Lumumba received at the hands of the police and claim to be concerned over Amanda falsely accusing Lumumba of a crime but any concern over Lumumba vanishes when it comes to how the police treated him.

Guilters claim the annulment of the conviction of Amanda and Raffaele was illegal but guilters had no issue with Amanda being convicted of Calunia on the basis of an illegal interrogation as Amanda was denied access to a lawyer.

Guilters are completely shameless in their hypocrisy.

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen wrote:

The final judgement and the facts proven at trial proves Knox was at the crime scene when Kercher was killed and did wash her blood from her hands. She did accuse Lumumba to cover up for Guede and the burglary was staged. This is the proven findings of fact by the trial court, the appeal court and the supreme court.

For the umpteenth time, the final acquitting court took all of that into account, saying that even if all that had been true, it still did not defeat the one unassailable fact of the case, that no forensic presence of either AK or RS was found in the crime room, at the crime scene.

You make reference to 'the final judgement'. No, the final judgment (the Marasca 2015 ISC acquital) did not accept those things as proofs.

Once again, here it is, because it hasn't been reposted for a while, this English translation taken from the TJMK guilter site.

Nonetheless, **even if** we deem the attribution certain, **the trial element would not be unequivocal**, since it may show also a posthumous touching of that blood, during the probable attempt of removing the most visible traces of what had happened, maybe to help cover up for someone or to steer away suspicion from herself, but not contributing to full certainty about her direct involvement in the murderous action. Any further and more pertaining interpretation in fact would be anyway resisted by the circumstance – this is decisive indeed – that no trace linkable to her was found on the scene of crime or on the victim’s body, so it follows – **if we concede everything** – that her contact with the victim’s blood happened in a subsequent moment and in another room of the house.

** added by me for emphasis. (The whole first sentence, as long as it is, even in the guilter translation, treats the whole issue of 'touching of blood' as complete speculation, or more properly, an unproven prosecution hypothesis.)

The final judgement proves nothing. It simply repeats the unproven prosecution hypothesis(es), so as to speculate that **even if* they'd been true, the one unassailable fact of their innocence still remained.

For the umpteenth time..... not 'proven at trial', but plainly stating it as a probable (not proven, but alleged to have been probable!). Not proven at trial, but 'maybe to help cover up for someone', not proven, but maybe. For heavens sake, not even the guilter translation of the final judgement papers over that.

Why do you?

 

[Bill Williams]

In the UK we're continually being told that the ECHR is an all-powerful dictatorship that stops our governments carrying out their policies.

If the UK left the European Union because of things like this.... yes, I know that ECHR is not strictly EU, but the Council of Europe, but still.

 

[Numbers]

If the UK left the European Union because of things like this.... yes, I know that ECHR is not strictly EU, but the Council of Europe, but still.

One aspect of the ECHR and the Convention that readers may not be familiar with is that, while CoE states may under the CoE leave the CoE (the provisions are described in Convention Article 58) or be expelled from it, it is also possible for member states to organize to change the Convention and how the ECHR interprets the Convention. Getting such a change requires the formalities of having a "protocol" (amendment) to the Convention written up and then subjected to approval by the member states. Here's a 23 May 2025 media article on Italy and Denmark circulating a letter to CoE members seeking to support a change in the ECHR case law on migrants' rights to enter and remain in CoE states; if enough states are interested, this could lead to a protocol that changes the rights of migrants in the Convention.

See: https://www.visaverge.com/legal/italy-leads-eu-push-to-review-european-convention-on-human-rights/

 

[Mojo]

I was rather thinking of 'hate preacher' Hamzu with the hook. The UK was handtied from doing anything with this chap because he took out an Article 8 edict from the ECHR, citing 'the right to family life'. Yet as soon as he touched down in the USA, he was carted off to jail.

Actually, Hamza (it's so much easier to look it up if it's spelled correctly, isn't it?) was arrested in the UK, held pending extradition, sentenced to seven years by a UK court, and eventually extradited to the U.S. Probably because the "UK courts never did bother with the Human Rights Act."

 

[Mojo]

I'm particularly impressed that within a couple of posts Vixen managed to go from complaining that "Americans think the ECHR an incredibly powerful body with the authority to overturn criminal convictions and hand out sums of €2m in compensation" to imagining that the ECHR has the power to issue an "edict" that puts someone beyond the reach of the law.

 

[Disbelief]

....and yet you still don't understand.

There is only one here who does not understand...

 

[Numbers]

Actually, Hamza (it's so much easier to look it up if it's spelled correctly, isn't it?) was arrested in the UK, held pending extradition, sentenced to seven years by a UK court, and eventually extradited to the U.S. Probably because the "UK courts never did bother with the Human Rights Act."

There's a Wikipedia article on Abu Hamza (original name Mustafa Kamel Mustafa)* for those seeking a relatively brief account of a complex story. Vixen's post on this topic was diversionary. The ECHR delayed his extradition to the US, as it does for others whose extradition outside the Council of Europe states is requested, to gain assurance that the conditions of potential incarceration and the potential sentence don't violate the Convention and ECHR case law. Abu Hamza was also convicted of terrorism-related crimes in the UK prior to his extradition to the US.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri

 

[Vixen]

I'm particularly impressed that within a couple of posts Vixen managed to go from complaining that "Americans think the ECHR an incredibly powerful body with the authority to overturn criminal convictions and hand out sums of €2m in compensation" to imagining that the ECHR has the power to issue an "edict" that puts someone beyond the reach of the law.

It did; it stopped a Rwanda deportation.

 

[Mojo]

It did; it stopped a Rwanda deportation.

Hamza was extradited to the USA in 2012. The Rwanda deportation plan was brought in by the Johnson government almost a decade later.

 

[Vixen]

Hamza was extradited to the USA in 2012. The Rwanda deportation plan was brought in by the Johnson government almost a decade later.

We were discussing the purpose of ECHR and whether it had any teeth. It is not designed to be an appeal court for overturning criminal convictions and handing out €2m in compensation. I was simply pointing out it has teeth in other areas, Hamza managed to hang around in the UK since 1998 and took several years before it could finally kick him out thanks to (a) his applications to the ECHR, which took years to process, and (b) the conditions in US justice systems considered to be inhumane that made it so. The AK optimism she'll get €2m eventually and her serious criminal conviction quashed, if she just keeps trying, is misguided as the ECHR are there to deal with genuine cases of human rights abuses. So, yes on the one hand it has clout but not in the way so many AK fans hold high hopes.

 

[Mojo]

We were discussing the purpose of ECHR and whether it had any teeth.

No, we were discussing your claim that "The UK was handtied from doing anything with [Abu Hamza] because he took out an Article 8 edict from the ECHR, citing 'the right to family life'. Yet as soon as he touched down in the USA, he was carted off to jail." In fact, he was arrested in the UK, tried and sentenced, and then after serving his sentence held until he was extradited to the U.S.

 

[Stacyhs]

Nonetheless, **even if** we deem the attribution certain, **the trial element would not be unequivocal**, since it may show also a posthumous touching of that blood, during the probable attempt of removing the most visible traces of what had happened, maybe to help cover up for someone or to steer away suspicion from herself, but not contributing to full certainty about her direct involvement in the murderous action. Any further and more pertaining interpretation in fact would be anyway resisted by the circumstance – this is decisive indeed – that no trace linkable to her was found on the scene of crime or on the victim’s body, so it follows – **if we concede everything** – that her contact with the victim’s blood happened in a subsequent moment and in another room of the house.

Under Italian law, IF Knox had been proven to have "[removed] the most visible traces of what had happened" to "help cover up for someone" or even to "steer away suspicion from herself" that would have been a crime in itself for which she could have been charged. But she wasn't. Why?
IF Knox had cleaned up to divert attention from herself, why on Earth would she have left her own blood on the faucet and "Sollecito's" bloody footprint in the bathroom and pointed them out to police instead of just removing them? It also makes zero sense to leave the mat with the footprint but wash the floor of any other prints. It's completely illogical.

How could Knox have stepped in enough of Kercher's blood to the extent that she left a full "bloody footprint" (according to Massei and the PGP) if "her contact with the victim’s blood happened in a subsequent moment and in another room of the house"? The only other places Kercher's blood was found in the house were Guede's shoeprints in the corridor/kitchen floor and on the bathroom rug. As Vixen is fond of pointing out, blood dries quickly and if Knox had stepped in a dried shoeprint, it would not have transferred enough blood for her to leave an entire bloody footprint. If she stepped on one of Guede's shoeprints while the blood was still wet, it would have smeared the shoeprint instead of leaving them intact as they were.

 

[Vixen]

No, we were discussing your claim that "The UK was handtied from doing anything with [Abu Hamza] because he took out an Article 8 edict from the ECHR, citing 'the right to family life'. Yet as soon as he touched down in the USA, he was carted off to jail." In fact, he was arrested in the UK, tried and sentenced, and then after serving his sentence held until he was extradited to the U.S.

I was referring specifically to the ECHR relevant to this case and nothing else.