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

[Stacyhs]

You have been told several times now that there are more professions than academia. Only an ignoramus believes a research fellow is better qualified than a professional expert.

Repeating something 'several times' by you does not make something true. We have many, many examples of that.

What qualifies someone as a forensic expert?

To qualify as an expert witness, the forensic scientist must have a solid, documented background of education, training, and experience in the scientific discipline used to conduct the examinations, testing, or analyses about which the forensic scientist wants to testify.

"Krane is one of the world’s foremost DNA experts, testifying as an expert witness in more than 100 criminal trials in which DNA evidence was presented."


Dr. Greg Hampikian is a forensic DNA expert and case consultant with more than 30 years of experience.
He served as a DNA expert in more than 3 dozen exonerations.
In both Idaho cases, his lab worked with police to identify new DNA genealogy matches that led to new convictions decades after the crimes.

He testified as a forensic expert in the Chad Daybel murder trial.

As a forensic DNA expert, he has worked on DNA cases both nationally and worldwide, with many of those cases leading to exonerations of individuals on death row.

Only an ignoramus would imply that Prof. Dan Krane and Prof. Greg Hampikian are NOT 'professional experts'.

 

[Stacyhs]

Nencini rejected Tagliabracci's claim it was suspectcentric. The Rome Scientific Police follow ENFSI.

You weren't asked if the Rome Scientific Police follow ENFSI. The question was whether Stefanoni and her team did. You refused to answer simple Yes or No questions about those standards and it clear why that is: they didn't.

It is the professional standard. Just like I automatically abide by my professional accountancy standards and HMRC/taxation standards. You aren't a member of the profession unless you have shown yourself competent in these standards. It's rather facile to keep claiming Stefanoni wasn't up to ENFSI standards just because you say so.

True. But it's NOT just our say so. It's the say-so of the police's own video, the C&V report, and her own testimony.

 

[Stacyhs]

This is what the Massei court concluded about Prof Vinci's claims:

However, the Court cannot agree with one point of departure, which is the operation that consists of detaching the small mark from the big toe print, since this results in a clearly visible resizing of the big toe.

This operation rests on the assumption that there is an interruption of continuity in the print (tables on pp. 45-46 of the report), but this starting point is not at all convincing, given that the photograph provided as documentary evidence of this appears to show exactly the contrary. The base of the material in the disputed point (in this portion of the mat, the terrycloth [also] has a decorative protuberance) shows that the trace of blood is a single unit on all of the curl (flourish), and is uniformly linked, forming a single unit with all the other parts of the material on which the big toe was placed. For these reasons, the proof that this mark is actually the mark of the second toe (missing in the morphology of Sollecito's foot) appears totally weak and unsatisfactory.

Finally, although it is possible to agree that in the calculation of the width of the big toe (of approximately 30mm.) the point of measuring may fall in an unstained place, nevertheless a comprehensive view of the bathmat clearly shows why this was done. Considering (see attached photo 17 of the ERT showing a complete view of the bathmat print) that the small region under discussion is part of the tip of the big toe, the point on the right of the toe giving the 30mm measurement lies along the line descending perpendicularly from that tip, without any widening.

In brief, the suggestion that the extension of the big toe trace be sacrificed, interpreting it instead as the print of the second toe, appears far from realistic. Furthermore, the association of the bathmat footprint with Guede's foot (see the CDROM provided by Professor Vinci showing the "superimposition sequence" for Guede's foot and for Knox's) appears, frankly, as strained, given that Guede's footprint, apart from having a morphology [380] which is generally longer and more tapered, also has a second toe print which unequivocally falls quite far from the big toe print, so that the small mark whose detachment from the big toe is in question here could hardly be attributed to the second toe of the co-accused.

Finally, there is a piece of data which the Court has uncontrovertibly adopted: the same images of the bathmat, shown in deepened colours by the lighting equipment of the Crimescope, do actually increase the impression of solidity of the size of the big toe (and also of the metatarsus), and augment the perception of the unity with the rest of the small mark whose detachment was suggested.

The consequence is that the Court does not hold as practicable the alternative version aimed at confuting or undermining the judgement of probable identity formulated by the Scientific Police, which instead finds itself strengthened.

Perugia, 4-5 December 2009 Drafters [Estensori]^[1]:

Dr Beatrice Cristiani, judge

Dr Giancarlo Massei, president.

---

[1] Estensore = a person who draws up a legal document

And this is what Hellmann's report concluded about Rinaldi and Boemia's report:

"The circumstance, raised by the Prosecutor’s consultants Rinaldi and Boemia cited in the sentencing report, of its being useful only for negative but not for positive comparisons, the incontrovertible morphological differences with the reference footprint taken from Sollecito, the differences in dimension supported by Professor Vinci and the ones raised by the said Rinaldi and Boemia make it impossible to accept the evaluation of the first instance of probable identity between the two footprints."

"As a result of the different metric evaluation of the latter, based on the well‐founded observations of Professor Vinci, the dimensional elements of Guede’s foot are no longer incompatible with the ones left with Meredith’s blood on the textile of the bathmat."

 

[Stacyhs]

Yes, just like OJ Simpson was free in reality.

And, in reality, OJ Simpson ended up being tried and convicted of more crimes: kidnapping and armed robbery.
Guess who's going to trial for repeated rape and violent assault this Nov. 4th?

 

[Bill Williams]

No, I'm not saying he didn't have a 'full measure of training'. I'm saying I'm surprised that the head of the Carabinieri forensics dept. would not have a higher degree than just a B.S. in biology which is the same as Stefanoni. I think it would be the usual for the head of a police scientific dept. to have more training than a basic B.S.

Count me as surprised as well.

 

[Stacyhs]

From Vixen's post #6142 above:

With the knife in RS' drawer, which was 'extra shiny'

Finzi never testified that it was 'extra shiny' or even 'shiny'. He said it was 'very clean' using only the words "pulito" and "pulitissimo" whereas the word for "shiny" is "lucido":

"No, the knife was very clean, no blood stain. In the presence of blood we would call the Scientifica, but the knife was spotless and very clean."

"W - very clean, no stain on it, no food - stain, no stain of any sort, it was washed, clean, it was clean."

and stood out as being of the approximate right size they were looking for and suspiciously shiny clean -

Again, he never said that. This is what he actually testified when asked why he chose that knife to collect:

MAORI – A mere opinion or a scientific evaluation? Maybe you knew the shape of the wounds, and therefore…

W - No, no, I say again , I never saw Meredith’s wounds, people had reported to me …so in my opinion that knife could be…its blade might be compatible with the wounds, it might be…

BONGIORNO – as you know, the depth of a wound may also depend on the force exerted on…

W – I don’t know, I am not a police doctor. They told me the wounds were large, they told me nothing else.

BONGIORNO – so, you are saying that large wounds imply large blade.

W – No, I thought…I merely thought the knife might be compatible with…

BONGIORNO – and what about all other knives of the cutlery? In your opinion they were not compatible, but your valuation was probably a bit summary, i.e. based on a vague information; so, it was worth the trouble to take many knives, wasn’t it?

W – The police intuition of detectives is very strong, I had police intuition and took it.

Your claim that it was the "approximate right size they were looking for and suspiciously shiny clean" is disproved by Finzi's own testimony.

Vixen:
and bleach would have destroyed the hema rings of any blood thereon -

And bleach would also have destroyed any DNA of Kercher's on it. You can't have it both ways, Vixen, no matter how badly you want it.

 

[Numbers]

And this is what Hellmann's report concluded about Rinaldi and Boemia's report:

"The circumstance, raised by the Prosecutor’s consultants Rinaldi and Boemia cited in the sentencing report, of its being useful only for negative but not for positive comparisons, the incontrovertible morphological differences with the reference footprint taken from Sollecito, the differences in dimension supported by Professor Vinci and the ones raised by the said Rinaldi and Boemia make it impossible to accept the evaluation of the first instance of probable identity between the two footprints."

"As a result of the different metric evaluation of the latter, based on the well‐founded observations of Professor Vinci, the dimensional elements of Guede’s foot are no longer incompatible with the ones left with Meredith’s blood on the textile of the bathmat."

As far as I am aware, at the time relevant to the Knox - Sollecito case, Italy had no specific requirements on evaluating evidence given by technical consultants or experts. The primary constraints would be that the expert's testimony and report must reflect the truth of what the expert did and found, and no inference or "judicial fact" could be lawfully drawn from such testimony or report except in conformance to Italian law, specifically CPP Article 192, paragraph 2: the evidence must be serious, precise, and consistent.

In apparent contrast, the current US standard, Federal Rule of Evidence 702, updated in 2023, the Daubert Test, limits expert opinion as evidence under the following conditions:

• The expert is qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education
• The opinion helps the court understand evidence or determine a fact
• The opinion is based on sufficient facts* or data
• The opinion uses reliable methods
• The expert reliably applied those methods to the case

Thus: Experts may testify beyond personal knowledge and interpret technical data, but their opinion must be reliable, relevant, and within their area of expertise.
*"Facts" here meaning empirically determined scientific facts.
The 2023 revision of FRE 702 added the following limitations:

• Judges must find that each element of Rule 702 is satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence
• Courts must not defer admissibility to jury judgment when reliability is at issue
• The expert’s application of methods must be reliably tied to the case facts

This update limits overstatements and speculative leaps in expert testimony.

The issue of reliability of the method is determined by the examination of four non-exclusive factors"

1. Testability – Can the theory or method be tested?
2. Peer review – Has it been published and reviewed by others?
3. Error rate – Is there a known or potential rate of error?
4. General acceptance – Is the method widely accepted in the relevant field?

It should be noted that some of Stefanoni's key methods and conclusions had never been published or reviewed by other experts. When some of the those methods and conclusions, which had resulted in the most decisive alleged evidence against Knox and Sollecito, were reviewed by other well-known experts, including the court-appointed experts Conti and Vecchiotti, they were vigorously rejected as baseless, totally defective, or apparently falsified.

Source:

https://www.forensisgroup.com/resources/expert-legal-witness-blog/understanding-the-scope-and-limitations-of-expert-opinions-in-legal-proceedings

 

[TruthCalls]

WAIT! Article 360 IIRC of the Italian CPP states that all parties must be notified when there is a forensic sample that is too small to be duplicated, as in an LCN. The defense is required to send their own expert witness along. Knox didn't bother, so has no legal come back for ignoring the edict.

That's not the issue, so why waste our time with it. It's the RESULTS that matter. 22 out of 28 alleles BELOW 50 RFU. She doesn't have a profile. And she only got that because she over amplified the sample. And she only amplified it once, which renders the results unreliable. ALL DNA FORENSIC standards and protocols would support this conclusion.

Sollecito, true to form, sent the most expensive and top of the field genetic experts, one was Torre and the other Patuma [_sp?]. As the printout of the PCR is done by computer, there is no way Stefanoni could have fiddled the result in front of those experts, who reported back no objections re cleanliness standards, contamination, method or result.

No, but she can suppress the results she didn't like, such as the 12 alleles that were over 50 RFU, found on the knife in sample 165B, which is a clear indication of possible contamination. She didn't want that headache, so she just leaves them off - you know, suspect centric analysis.

Fact is, the knife striation yielded a near full profile (15-loci) of Mez, when she had never been near RS' apartment.

Fact is, it is impossible for DNA to survive in a scratch on a steel knife blade that has been cleaned so thoroughly that no blood could be found anywhere on the knife.

Likewise, the finding of a full profile of Sollecito on the bra clasp, which had been viciously torn or cut off Mez' torso.

Likewise, leaving the clasp on the floor to be kicked around for 46 days, and then to MASSIVELY violate the most basic RULES for collecting forensic samples.

You can rationalise that 'there must have been contamination from somewhere' but it's all cloud cuckooland OJ-Simpson-style 'get out clause' what-iffing.

No, what I can do is insist that a forensic investigation bear some semblance of a competent investigation, and request of the courts that they hold the forensic team to the letter of the law. You don't get to screw around with the evidence and then try to condemn someone with it.

In the real world the Rome Forensic Scientific Police identified DNA that proved that RS together with ALL of the other evidence was factually at the scene of the crime.

In the real world, Stefanoni's forensic team screwed up the investigation massively. And despite all of their mistakes, all they could muster with Raffaele was one unreliable LCN trace.

 

[Bill Williams]

That's not the issue, so why waste our time with it. It's the RESULTS that matter. 22 out of 28 alleles BELOW 50 RFU. She doesn't have a profile. And she only got that because she over amplified the sample. And she only amplified it once, which renders the results unreliable. ALL DNA FORENSIC standards and protocols would support this conclusion.

No, but she can suppress the results she didn't like, such as the 12 alleles that were over 50 RFU, found on the knife in sample 165B, which is a clear indication of possible contamination. She didn't want that headache, so she just leaves them off - you know, suspect centric analysis.

Fact is, it is impossible for DNA to survive in a scratch on a steel knife blade that has been cleaned so thoroughly that no blood could be found anywhere on the knife.

Likewise, leaving the clasp on the floor to be kicked around for 46 days, and then to MASSIVELY violate the most basic RULES for collecting forensic samples.

No, what I can do is insist that a forensic investigation bear some semblance of a competent investigation, and request of the courts that they hold the forensic team to the letter of the law. You don't get to screw around with the evidence and then try to condemn someone with it.

In the real world, Stefanoni's forensic team screwed up the investigation massively. And despite all of their mistakes, all they could muster with Raffaele was one unreliable LCN trace.

There is only one bit of evidence that the striation on the knife existed. No, it was never physical evidence, in the sense that a random person could take hold of the knife and see the striation.

It was not even photographical - as per Massei's report.

The only evidence? Stefanoni's word. Otherwise there was none. Massei wrote, in defending Stefanoni on this point, that it was seen in S.'s lab, only because S. shone a light on it at the right angle, which has not been duplicated since.

My view? The striation did not exist. If I'm wrong, show me.

 

[Numbers]

There is only one bit of evidence that the striation on the knife existed. No, it was never physical evidence, in the sense that a random person could take hold of the knife and see the striation.

It was not even photographical - as per Massei's report.

The only evidence? Stefanoni's word. Otherwise there was none. Massei wrote, in defending Stefanoni on this point, that it was seen in S.'s lab, only because S. shone a light on it at the right angle, which has not been duplicated since.

My view? The striation did not exist. If I'm wrong, show me.

Relevant excerpts from the Conti - Vecchiotti Report:

G.U.P hearing on 04.10.08, pages 17-18: " .... the [location] of sample B was not just chance…the sample was taken at that point because, again only from a visual inspection, that is, with no instrument…streaks were visible to the naked eye".

Court of Assizes (record of the 23.05.09 hearing, page 81): “these scratches were the only element which could, so to speak, guide me in a sample which otherwise was completely random, as happened subsequently; the other samples which were taken from the knife, .... were done more or less in a random manner because there was no fact, no element which would have led me to take a sample at this point, say, rather than another”.

Court of Assizes (record of the hearing on 23.05.09), page 94): “sample B was taken at this point on the basis that no significant biological trace was visible, so to speak, to the naked eye. [Sample] A was taken at that point, naturally on the handle, as also with D and F, with the intention of possibly finding DNA from the person who had handled that weapon [arma]”.In particular, it is apparent that three samples were taken from the handle of the knife (samples indicated with the letters A-D-F) and four samples from the blade (samples indicated with the letters B-C-E-G) for a total of seven samples.

The summary tables of the tests carried out on the samples and the results obtained are reproduced below, as shown on pages 77-78 of the RTIGF:[Tables present in the original omitted in this excerpt]

From the above tables, it is clear that the blood tests [using TMB] carried out on the samples indicated by the letters B-C-E-G (knife blade) were negative for the presence of blood. [These were the samples presumed to have blood by Stefanoni.]

The “species-specific” test was performed on the aforementioned samples, and also tested negative for the human species. The hypotheses formulated by the Technical Consultant about the nature of the material analyzed are wholly arbitrary in that they are not supported by any scientifically objective confirmation.

On page 78 of the RTIGF, the following tables [reporting the DNA quantification] are shown:
[Tables present in the original omitted in this excerpt.]

The above tables show that DNA quantification for all samples was performed with Real Time PCR, using the 7700 Sequence Detector ABI PRISM™ apparatus from the company Applied Biosystems.

On the other hand, no information is given about the kit used for the DNA quantification. [An unusual and concerning omission of vital forensic test information from the RTIGF.]

Regarding the quantification result for the samples indicated by the letters A and B, the expression “positive” is reported, but no numerical value is given for the DNA detected [an unusual and concerning omission of vital forensic test information from the RTIGF]; conversely, the quantification result was “negative” for the samples indicated with the letters C-D-E-F-G.

It should be emphasized that from an examination of the Real Time PCR reports exhibited, it appears that quantification using this method was only carried out, on 18 December 2007, on the DNA extracts [from Samples D, E, F, and G]. These samples all tested negative for the presence of DNA (c.f. Real Time Report DNA=0.00).

A report is also attached relating to quantification of the extracts from the [following] samples, dated 13 November 2007: [A, B, and C].

[This was] performed using the Qubit Fluorometer™ from the company Invitrogen, and using the dsDNA HS Kit. This is a selective test for double-stranded DNA, but not specific for human DNA. Samples with a DNA concentration range between 0.2-100 ng can be accurately and easily quantified.

Using the Qubit Fluorometer™, the following [DNA] concentration values for the samples were obtained:

• Sample A (sample code ID 47329): 0.08 ng/μl
• Sample B (sample code ID 47330): too low [This is the result for the presumed DNA from the alleged scratch on the knife blade]
• Sample C (sample code ID 47331): too low

From this, it can be inferred that what is reported on page 78 of the RTIGF (and confirmed in the GUP questioning, page 178, where it is claimed that quantification was performed using Real Time and that quantification of the Y [chromosome] was not carried out) is not consistent with what was performed in reality. In fact, the tables show that quantification of the DNA extracted from all the samples taken from Exhibit 36 was carried out using the 770 Sequence Detector ABI PRISM™ equipment (Applied Biosystems); in contrast, it is apparent from the attached cards that the aforementioned method was only performed on samples D-E-F-G. A different method was employed for samples A-B-C using the Qubit Fluorometer™, and not mentioned in the final Technical Report, as would have been due and correct.

Regarding the interpretation of the quantification, it should be noted that on page 78, the following is stated: “the samples testing positive to quantification (samples A and B) were subjected to amplification and subsequent capillary electrophoresis…”.

As regards the quantification of sample A (knife handle) the results obtained with the Qubit Fluorimeter™ show that the concentration of DNA in this sample was equal to 0.08 ng/μl. Taking into account that the “quantity of extract” was 50 μl (c.f. SAL), and multiplying 0.08 ng/μl x 50 μl, the total [amount] of DNA was equal to 4 ng: certainly a significant quantity, which allowed sample A to be considered positive to quantification.

On the other hand, it is not possible to comprehend the criteria adopted in the assessment of the positive quantification result for sample B and the negative result for sample C, given that the same result, “too low”, was obtained for both samples: that is, a value which must be considered not only below the sensitivity threshold of the Fluorimeter indicated by the manual (DNA concentrations equal to 0.2 ng/μl), but below 0.08 ng/μl, a value which the Fluorimeter detected for sample A.

Nor is it comprehensible, considering the negative results on sample B, what Dr. Stefanoni reported during the GUP questioning (page 178) where she stated that the DNA in sample B, quantified with Real Time PCR (it is recalled that such quantification as confirmed during the hearing was never carried out or, at least, no documentation was provided to support this claim), was “in the order of some hundreds of picograms”, a value which does not appear in any of the documents provided to us (SAL, Fluorimeter report, Real Time report, RTIGF)

The point of reproducing here these excerpts of the Conti - Vecchiotti Report is that they revealed severe deficiencies in Stefanoni's methods, reporting, and testimony that make the only possible conclusion under Italian or international law be that Sample B has no probative value in relation to the murder/rape of Kercher. The body of evidence surrounding the forensic testing, testimony, and reporting by Stefanoni instead suggests questions about the competence and integrity of Stefanoni and her work on this aspect of the case.

Source: https://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com...tic-tests-conducted-by-the-scientific-police/

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen said

In the real world the Rome Forensic Scientific Police identified DNA that proved that RS together with ALL of the other evidence was factually at the scene of the crime.

Then, given Judge Nencini's rulings about that, you must accept the three other unidentified males were also at the crime scene, in the room during the cruel murder.

Except that Nencini treated those differently, including i.d.'ing those males as 'amica' of the victim, girlfriends of the victim who had handled the bra at another time.

Yes, you read that right, that's what Nencini found as a judicial fact. Nencini never explained why that same reasoning shouldn't apply to RS....

Can you?

 

[LondonJohn]

Then, given Judge Nencini's rulings about that, you must accept the three other unidentified males were also at the crime scene, in the room during the cruel murder.

Except that Nencini treated those differently, including i.d.'ing those males as 'amica' of the victim, girlfriends of the victim who had handled the bra at another time.

Yes, you read that right, that's what Nencini found as a judicial fact. Nencini never explained why that same reasoning shouldn't apply to RS....

Can you?

Indeed. And this is one of many reasons why the Marasca SC panel correctly adjudicated that the Nencini court was laughably and egregiously wrong & unlawful in its verdict and supporting "reasoning".

 

[Vixen]

Well, since your posts invariably get the simple, basic tenets of criminal justice so embarrassingly wrong, I'd be almost amused to have you "trouble me" with those "matters of complexity". So, just for a laugh, why don't you have a crack at it?

Your fantasy that Guede did it alone is purely a fictional uncorroborated unsupported one, based probably on the late-Ron Hendry's claims. The aim was to provide an 'alternative scenario'. Why is it conjecture?

• The pathologists report which showed 48 wounds, including numerous knife flicks, stab wounds in the neck of two different sizes, one of which was mortal, breaking the hyoid bone, with which it met resistance. Little to no defence wounds. When someone comes at you with a knife, the reflex is to grab it to deflect it away - it can take your fingers off - yet Mez had just one or two small cuts to her hand where she had tried to do just that. The wounds to her shoulder and wrists, shows both arms were forcibly held back behind her back (hence, the zero defence wounds. Think about it.) Finger marks around her mouth where someone had tried to stop her from screaming (probably) and strangle marks. As the police demonstrated this would not be possible for one sole attacker.
• Judges, who are legally trained to be objective and to just concentrate on the evidence presented before the court all agreed there were multiple attackers. This includes Massei, Micheli, Giordani, et al, and this remains the legal position and entered into legal fact.
• The legal position as decreed in court is that Guede did not apply the fatal wound but was guilty of aggravated murder because he did nothing to stop the other attackers and was likely the person who restrained Mez' arms, from the DNA on her sweatshirt cuffs. I note AK/RS fans never claim this DNA is contaminated, despite being collected the same time by the same team of forensic police.
• The team of luminol police headed by Insptr. Ilpoti [_sp?] found at least three sets of footprints highlighted by luminol. One set, booted, of Guede and two sets, bare-footed of Knox and Sollecito. A ladies size 37-trainer was imprinted on the pillow beneath the body.
• The burglary took place after the murder, This is because paper the 'burglar' scattered over Filomena's room is also scattered on top of the body on top of the duvet. A shard of glass from the burglary that happened after the murder is trailed into the murder room. Knox DNA mixed with Mez is identified in Filomena's room.
• There is no forensic trace at all of Guede in Filomena's room.
• Guede never even tried to conceal his presence, yet one side of his booted footprints have been cleaned from the hallway.
• Yet London John thinks he hopped along the hallway to hide he was there and also came back to mop up the footprints leading up to the bathmat.
• When the 'third person' was caught Knox asked her father Curt, 'Is it Rudy?' when even he didn't know at that stage having kept glued to the news.
• Knox informed everyone at the Questura after the body was found, of course Mez suffered, she had her '◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ throat slashed'.
• AK and RS both switched off their phones from about 20:45 until 6:00am next morning (RS) and 12:00pm next day (AK) whereupon she quickly rang up Mez' phones to preclude her knowing anything about Mez' death the night before.
• When AK rang up Filomena, Filomena urged her to ring up Mez but AK failed to mention she already had. Didn't tell Filomena her window was smashed until Filomena herself rang AK after the plainclothes police arrived.

So yes, your conspiracy theory that the sole killer was Rudy Guede who hopped about on one leg to avoid detection is an extremely simple one. Not one defence expert witness bothered arguing this. It also employs the logic fallacy of flippancy, a subset of the non sequitur. You actually think it's amusing to pretend AK is 'innocent' in the same way anti-vaxxers find it fun to deny COVID. Maybe even exciting to be part of a nod-wink conspiracy club, where you all bounce off each other.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, you are so absolutely wrong in your post. When a first-instance or Court of Appeal judgment is quashed, that is, annulled in full by a higher court, the "facts" of the quashed judgment disappear; they no longer have validity under Italian law. What does remain valid, unless specifically ruled unusable (inadmissible) by the higher court, is the evidence.

There were no signs of a clean-up in the hallway or in the murder room. Clean-ups leave evidence such as swirls.

It's impossible to distinguish one person's DNA from another's DNA except with highly technical DNA laboratory testing, so there was no clean-up leaving Guede's DNA but eliminating Knox's and Sollecito's DNA.

The acquittal of Knox and Sollecito for the murder/rape of Kercher by the Marasca CSC panel was indeed a real and definitive final acquittal which can never, ever be reversed under Italian or international law.

Your comments about "influence", "back-channeling", and "political" factors resulting in a "political acquittal" are nonsense that reflects your biased views and ignorance of forensic and legal principles, and are not supported by a fair reading of the Marasca CSC panel MR.

Look, you cannot appeal against a fact. You can only appeal on points of law. If a court finds as a fact you were at, say, location X, then you cannot appeal against it. You might be able to try the point of law of 'new evidence' to prove you were somewhere else but even then that is only likely to be allowed if it has any impact on the verdict. If this is a possibility it will be sent back to the merits court for the 'new evidence' to be weighed up.

 

[Vixen]

Repeating something 'several times' by you does not make something true. We have many, many examples of that.


"Krane is one of the world’s foremost DNA experts, testifying as an expert witness in more than 100 criminal trials in which DNA evidence was presented."


Dr. Greg Hampikian is a forensic DNA expert and case consultant with more than 30 years of experience.
He served as a DNA expert in more than 3 dozen exonerations.
In both Idaho cases, his lab worked with police to identify new DNA genealogy matches that led to new convictions decades after the crimes.

He testified as a forensic expert in the Chad Daybel murder trial.

As a forensic DNA expert, he has worked on DNA cases both nationally and worldwide, with many of those cases leading to exonerations of individuals on death row.

Only an ignoramus would imply that Prof. Dan Krane and Prof. Greg Hampikian are NOT 'professional experts'.

What? Since when were any of these persons present at the trial? If they were not court appointed by the trial judge, they certainly do not count as expert witnesses. It seems - whoooo-oooosh! - once again it has gone over your head.

 

[AmyStrange]

What? Since when were any of these persons present at the trial? If they were not court appointed by the trial judge, they certainly do not count as expert witnesses. It seems - whoooo-oooosh! - once again it has gone over your head.

Bwahahahahaha... thanks for another laugh and for helping to prove me right again.

 

[LondonJohn]

Your fantasy that Guede did it alone is purely a fictional uncorroborated unsupported one, based probably on the late-Ron Hendry's claims. The aim was to provide an 'alternative scenario'. Why is it conjecture?

• The pathologists report which showed 48 wounds, including numerous knife flicks, stab wounds in the neck of two different sizes, one of which was mortal, breaking the hyoid bone, with which it met resistance. Little to no defence wounds. When someone comes at you with a knife, the reflex is to grab it to deflect it away - it can take your fingers off - yet Mez had just one or two small cuts to her hand where she had tried to do just that. The wounds to her shoulder and wrists, shows both arms were forcibly held back behind her back (hence, the zero defence wounds. Think about it.) Finger marks around her mouth where someone had tried to stop her from screaming (probably) and strangle marks. As the police demonstrated this would not be possible for one sole attacker.
• Judges, who are legally trained to be objective and to just concentrate on the evidence presented before the court all agreed there were multiple attackers. This includes Massei, Micheli, Giordani, et al, and this remains the legal position and entered into legal fact.
• The legal position as decreed in court is that Guede did not apply the fatal wound but was guilty of aggravated murder because he did nothing to stop the other attackers and was likely the person who restrained Mez' arms, from the DNA on her sweatshirt cuffs. I note AK/RS fans never claim this DNA is contaminated, despite being collected the same time by the same team of forensic police.
• The team of luminol police headed by Insptr. Ilpoti [_sp?] found at least three sets of footprints highlighted by luminol. One set, booted, of Guede and two sets, bare-footed of Knox and Sollecito. A ladies size 37-trainer was imprinted on the pillow beneath the body.
• The burglary took place after the murder, This is because paper the 'burglar' scattered over Filomena's room is also scattered on top of the body on top of the duvet. A shard of glass from the burglary that happened after the murder is trailed into the murder room. Knox DNA mixed with Mez is identified in Filomena's room.
• There is no forensic trace at all of Guede in Filomena's room.
• Guede never even tried to conceal his presence, yet one side of his booted footprints have been cleaned from the hallway.
• Yet London John thinks he hopped along the hallway to hide he was there and also came back to mop up the footprints leading up to the bathmat.
• When the 'third person' was caught Knox asked her father Curt, 'Is it Rudy?' when even he didn't know at that stage having kept glued to the news.
• Knox informed everyone at the Questura after the body was found, of course Mez suffered, she had her '◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ throat slashed'.
• AK and RS both switched off their phones from about 20:45 until 6:00am next morning (RS) and 12:00pm next day (AK) whereupon she quickly rang up Mez' phones to preclude her knowing anything about Mez' death the night before.
• When AK rang up Filomena, Filomena urged her to ring up Mez but AK failed to mention she already had. Didn't tell Filomena her window was smashed until Filomena herself rang AK after the plainclothes police arrived.

So yes, your conspiracy theory that the sole killer was Rudy Guede who hopped about on one leg to avoid detection is an extremely simple one. Not one defence expert witness bothered arguing this. It also employs the logic fallacy of flippancy, a subset of the non sequitur. You actually think it's amusing to pretend AK is 'innocent' in the same way anti-vaxxers find it fun to deny COVID. Maybe even exciting to be part of a nod-wink conspiracy club, where you all bounce off each other.

I really can't be bothered to debunk this farrago of untruths, ignorance and misrepresentations - they've all been comprehensively demolished in these threads many times before. And why is Vixen so obsessed with (what she, often mistakenly, believes to be) logical fallacies? It's just weird.

 

[Numbers]

{1}Look, you cannot appeal against a fact. {2}You can only appeal on points of law. If a court finds as a fact you were at, say, location X, then you cannot appeal against it. You {3}might be able to try the point of law of 'new evidence' to prove you were somewhere else but even then that is only likely to be allowed if it has any impact on the verdict. {4}If this is a possibility it will be sent back to the merits court for the 'new evidence' to be weighed up.

Your post is full of nonsense. I've numbered the nonsense statements 1 through 4. These issues have been gone over many times in this thread.

Firstly, we must remember to confine this type of discussion to Italian law.
In Italian law, "facts" are "judicial facts" that are inferences that must be derived in accordance with CPP Article 192, paragraph 2, based on evidence that must satisfy certain requirements: serious, precise, consistent. Furthermore, there are other legal constraints (CPP Articles 63, 64, 188, and 191, among them) on the evidence that is lawfully usable in a trial. So "facts" can be appealed all the way to the CSC in Italy, under points of law, all the way to the CSC. The issue of new evidence is typically associated with the revision process; the appeal process would be limited to known evidence not gathered. All the courts, including the CSC, consider a case upon its merits. You may be confusing the fact that the CSC does not hear testimony with your invention of "merits courts" - which Italian criminal court is not one that considers the merits of a case, in your view?

 

[Vixen]

Your post is full of nonsense. I've numbered the nonsense statements 1 through 4. These issues have been gone over many times in this thread.

Firstly, we must remember to confine this type of discussion to Italian law.
In Italian law, "facts" are "judicial facts" that are inferences that must be derived in accordance with CPP Article 192, paragraph 2, based on evidence that must satisfy certain requirements: serious, precise, consistent. Furthermore, there are other legal constraints (CPP Articles 63, 64, 188, and 191, among them) on the evidence that is lawfully usable in a trial. So "facts" can be appealed all the way to the CSC in Italy, under points of law, all the way to the CSC. The issue of new evidence is typically associated with the revision process; the appeal process would be limited to known evidence not gathered. All the courts, including the CSC, consider a case upon its merits. You may be confusing the fact that the CSC does not hear testimony with your invention of "merits courts" - which Italian criminal court is not one that considers the merits of a case, in your view?

Here you go:

AI overview

• Material Facts:
  The court focuses on establishing material facts, which are facts that are relevant to the legal issues in the case.
  
• Conclusive Findings:
  Once the court makes a finding of fact, it is considered conclusive, unless overturned on appeal due to clear error.
  

4. Role of the Trier of Fact:

• Judge or Jury: The "trier of fact" is the entity that decides which facts are established. In many cases, this is a jury. In other cases, particularly in bench trials (where there is no jury), the judge serves as the trier of fact.
  

 

[Vixen]

I really can't be bothered to debunk this farrago of untruths, ignorance and misrepresentations - they've all been comprehensively demolished in these threads many times before. And why is Vixen so obsessed with (what she, often mistakenly, believes to be) logical fallacies? It's just weird.

Why? Because too many posters are content with logical fallacy debating based on ad hom, whataboutism (tu quoche), non sequiturs and they rarely deal with the points in debate. It's as if people prefer a bunch of emojis and flame wars rather than the matter at hand.