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

[Vixen]

Vixen has still failed to give a single example of when Knox "even demonstrates Kercher's scream by placing her hands over her ears whenever she talks about it." Nor has she provided "a single court that found that Knox was referring to anywhere but Sollecito's apartment when she said "I was there. I can't lie about this".

Two more assfact accusations from her that she will never admit are false even though she cannot back them up with any evidence. Pretty much par for the course.

Knox herself says she put her hands over her ears to block the scream whilst - she claims - 'Patrick' was next door raping and killing Mez. Mignini relates that when he interviewed her she persistently covered her ears when the topic came up. She was also seen banging her forehead with her hand. A court doesn't have to make a determination on every issue. It only makes findings of facts on the most salient ones. The MR already runs to a huge number of pages. There is zero point in deciding on absolutely every single one of the near 500 physical exhibits, never mind each word in a tapped private conversation. But it is scientifically proven that Knox in a tapped conversation with her mother regarding Patrick DID admit to Edda that (a) she wrongly accused him and (b) DID say, 'I cannot lie, I was there'. She DID NOT say 'at Sollecito's'. You just made that bit up. There would be no reason to say that because she already told police she and Sollecito were together all evening having a romantic time.

 

[Vixen]

We have, repeatedly, and again just recently. Fringe resets are yet another play from the guilter/CT/woo playbook. Also, what part of "I'm qualified to evaluate the work of the prosecution's 'experts', and you're not," was unclear?


Do you think that continually repeating these lies will somehow make them true? It's obvious from Vinci's CrimeScope photo that the first and second toe prints are touching, a fact which the prosecution's 'experts' failed to notice, presumably due to their only working with visible-light photographs of the bathmat, rather than the actual mat itself enhanced under infrared light. This caused them to mismeasure the width of the big toe and wrongly to assert that only four toe prints were visible. Because this is so obvious from the CrimeScope photo, you and other guilters are forced to lie and claim that Vinci was reprimanded/accused of using Photoshop, despite the fact that you have no evidence of this. So why did you lie about it?

Further, when I asked you to account for the obvious large discrepancies between the bathmat print and Raffaele's reference print, your ridiculous excuse was that the cotton thread pile pattern would have somehow acted as a hard surface and prevented part of the foot from contacting the mat and imprinting it with diluted blood. When I pointed out the absurdity of this, you fell back to your go-to defense, namely, parroting the first-instance court's ruling on the matter, as if that were some sort of infallible holy writ, even though that ruling is clearly erroneous.

Vinci was well paid by Dr Sollecito to do anything to rescue his wayward son. Vinci used photo shop to try to make the footprint look more like Guede's but the court didn't buy it. You know, the two judges and six lay judges who (a) were present in court for ALL of the hearing, (b) heard and saw ALL of the evidence, testimonies and presentations, including from ALL of the experts and (c) after having deliberated at length amongst themselves.

But SpitfireIX, a random on an internet forum, demands we reject all of that and go along with his keyboard warrior views instead, based on a hunch, a prayer and fingers crossed the suckers will suck it up!

 

[Vixen]

There are at least two false statements in your post quoted above. The false statements are apparently the result (or associated with) exercises of imagination uncoupled from any knowledge of reality. It's your apparent lack of knowledge, together with your failure to investigate (perhaps due to a lack of curiosity or desire) the known facts in adequate detail, that leads to the absurd failures - that is, lack of correspondence to reality - of your imagined scenarios. Here are brief comments giving the realities:

1. The Marasca CSC panel verdict, as stated in its MR, found that there was no credible, reliable evidence of Knox and Sollecito being guilty of the murder/rape of Kercher. It found that the failures of the investigators including the scientific police to follow the standards of a reliable investigation in evidence collection and testing of evidence, including the critical DNA evidence, meant that the prosecution's alleged critical evidence was totally unreliable and thus not credible. The Marasca CSC panel apparently relied upon the report (not merely notes) of the court-appointed experts, Conti and Vecchiotti. Your allegations of impropiety by the Marasca CSC panel lacks is not supported by any credible evidence; your imagination (or that of Guilter partisans) cannot replace reliable evidence.
:
2. Your statement that "Einstein, he could clearly see that the speed of light was relative to where one is standing" is also an absurdly false statement. It does demonstrate that you have imagined incorrectly some principle of science, found from empirical evidence and sound logic, apparently the result of a failure to sufficiently investigate or to comprehend facts and ideas. Rather than diverting the thread, I refer the interested reader to these Wikipedia articles:

Theory of relativity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Special relativity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

General relativity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes, M-B said they were acquitted based on insufficient evidence* claiming the possibility of contamination** made the case for guilt unproven. It did state clearly the facts found were that:

• Amanda Knox was DEFINITELY and CERTAINLY present when the young Meredith Kercher was killed.
• Knox DID wash off Mez' blood from her hands.
• The burglary WAS staged.
• that Sollecito was almost certainly with her
• that Amanda Knox DID pervert the course of justice by criminally and falsely telling police Patrick Lumumba raped and kiiled Mez.
• that Amanda Knox did point police at Lumumba to COVER UP FOR GUEDE.
• that the pair lied and lied and lied at every stage and far from assisting police did everything to impede investigation.

*using an article in CPP that most commonly relates to pre-trial.
** using a formerly struck out finding by Hellmann and heavily criticised Conti & Vecchiotti report described as 'intellectually dishonest', which Dr Gill used to write a report for Bongiorno to flap in M-B-s faces over the course of two days, when all other parties' barristers were only allowed 20 minutes to present their skeleton argument to the Supreme Court.

Conclusion: the pair got off on a technicality, as I said, with the evidence proven at the fact-finding trial remaining proven as facts found.

 

[Vixen]

<snip>

Quote and cite where he does so. If you can't, then I'll consign it to the assfact bin.

<snip>

Straight from the horse's mouth, as it were:

November 7 Prison Diary

“I do not know if it is right that I must pay so much for not being able to focus on the moments in the time during November 1, but after this experience, believe me, I will never touch a joint again in my life.

I was psychologically tortured at police headquarters. They handcuffed me and made me strip naked in front of Forensics [scientifica]. I was even barefoot. I cannot even blame them, given my stupidity. Due to the fact that I smoke cannabis, I forget even what I had to eat and also because I carry along with me a knife to mark tables and trees and I carry it so often that I brought it with me to police headquarters as well.”

This, despite papa Francesco urging him to stop being a prat.

In a phone intercept from November 5, we hear Raffaele’s papa [Francesco] warning him to take his knife out of his pocket.

Francesco: Oh, these days don’t go around with the small knife in your pocket you, eh.

Raffaele: why?

Francesco: Because if the police should see it, etc., they’ll start to bust your balls

Raffaele: ah.

Francesco: eh.

Raffaele: Alright, but no, they didn’t take it from me during the three days I was at the Police Station.

Francesco: It’s because they didn’t noticed you had it, but you cannot take that along with you as you normally do, you know, legally speaking? So, in a mess such as that, in which unfortunately you found yourself in, it would be preferable that you don’t create further problems for yourself.

From his memoir:

“[Referring to a night out in Germany] I have no idea what was in that cocktail, but the episode taught me how swiftly drinks or drugs can change our perceptions and our personalities. Or rather, it should have taught me. I smoked no more than three joints with Amanda in the few days before the murder, but that was three joints too many.”- Raffaele Sollecito

Raffaele’s Prison Diary (partial), November 16, 2007:

“I saw on TV yesterday evening that the knife that I had at home (the one from the kitchen) has traces of Meredith and Amanda (latent)... I was breathless and I also got into a total panic because I thought that Amanda had killed Meredith or that she had at least helped someone kill her. But I saw Tiziano today who calmed me down: he told me that the knife could not have been the murder weapon, according to the medical examiner, and that it has nothing to do with anything because Amanda could have taken it and carried it from my house to her house since the girls didn’t have a knife like that one, they are causing a commotion for nothing... I feel as if I were living in a nightmare reality show. The ʹnightmare reality showʹ. Unbelievable!

I am starting to have perpetual panic and anxiety attacks caused by (...) due to the wait for the results from Forensics…”

Raffaele’s Prison Diary (partial), November 18, 2007

“They are keeping me in jail because of the kitchen knife that has a DNA trace belonging to Meredith. It seems like a horror movie... Thinking back and remembering, I remembered that that night father sent me a goodnight SMS message to be indiscreet (knowing that I was with Amanda), then, the following day, Amanda kept on telling me that if she had not been with me, she would be dead now… Thinking and reconstructing, I think that she always remained with me; the only thing I do not remember exactly is if she went out for a few minutes in the early evening.

I am convinced that she could not have killed Meredith and then come back home. The fact that there is Meredith’s DNA on the kitchen knife is because on one occasion, while we were cooking together, I, while moving around at home [and] handling the knife, pricked her hand, and I apologized at once but she was not hurt. So the only real explanation for that kitchen knife is this one.

I am worried because if they found such a small trace they can find other [small traces] on the rags and so on... What a nightmare! First of all they should prove that that the knife is indeed the murder weapon: the blade, the type of cut, the obvious traces on the blade, etc. Then if they want to find invisible traces of Meredith in my house, they will find many at this rate! There must be a divine justice to all this! I continue to wake up in the morning with accusing faces that stare at me as [if I were] a murderer...

What an absurd story. They are all prepared to point at me when nothing is known yet. I hope that father is well, and also all those who are watching this absurd matter. I hope that the real truth comes out. None of the three is involved!!! I have read in the newspapers that this story is becoming really big in the media and all this scares me a lot, because if these [journalists] do not get the sensational development it will become impossible to stop them... the disappointment of the masses, the money that will [be used] to compensate Patrick, me and Amanda...

Why not use the key you insist they had?
Additionally, if they KNEW they had left Knox's lamp in the bedroom and were trying to retrieve it but failed, why would they not have had an explanation ready for the police as to why it was there? Something as easy and plausible as "When we saw her here this afternoon, she asked if she could borrow it for her desk as I was staying with Raffaele and not using it." But no, instead she says she doesn't know how it got to Kercher's bedroom. You think they are so smart that they can remove all evidence of her from the bedroom, but they can't make up a plausible reason for the lamp being there? They're incredibly smart when you need them to be but incredibly stupid when you need them to be. You want to have it both ways.

Would, could, should...oooh, you've found an alternative explanation!!! That must be it! In actual fact, Knox' defence, on becoming aware of HER lamp on Mez's floor, (plus claiming in court not to have noticed it missing whilst having her quick shower in the dark on the murder morning to get ready to go to Gubbio) tried to put forward a defence that any of DNA from Knox found in the murder room would be due to contamination from HER lamp, as it was on the floor by the bed. So Knox was clearly sure HER DNA would be in the murder room and she had a clever answer for it!


As the above illustrates, the pair were loving their infamy and running circles around the investigators.

 

[Welshman]

Yes, M-B said they were acquitted based on insufficient evidence* claiming the possibility of contamination** made the case for guilt unproven. It did state clearly the facts found were that:

• Amanda Knox was DEFINITELY and CERTAINLY present when the young Meredith Kercher was killed.
• Knox DID wash off Mez' blood from her hands.
• The burglary WAS staged.
• that Sollecito was almost certainly with her
• that Amanda Knox DID pervert the course of justice by criminally and falsely telling police Patrick Lumumba raped and kiiled Mez.
• that Amanda Knox did point police at Lumumba to COVER UP FOR GUEDE.
• that the pair lied and lied and lied at every stage and far from assisting police did everything to impede investigation.

*using an article in CPP that most commonly relates to pre-trial.
** using a formerly struck out finding by Hellmann and heavily criticised Conti & Vecchiotti report described as 'intellectually dishonest', which Dr Gill used to write a report for Bongiorno to flap in M-B-s faces over the course of two days, when all other parties' barristers were only allowed 20 minutes to present their skeleton argument to the Supreme Court.

Conclusion: the pair got off on a technicality, as I said, with the evidence proven at the fact-finding trial remaining proven as facts found.

As per my previous posts, the notion C&V is false as the facts overwhelmingly show they would not need to resort to dishonesty and Vixen couldn’t explain why C&V would need to resort to lying and what the lies they said. The false accusation that C&V were dishonest is yet another example of repulsive industrial scale hypocrisy by guilters :-

*Vixen accuses Amanda and Raffaele’s supporters of refusing to acknowledge facts whilst she has consistently been unable to come up with a single claim backed up with facts. Claiming that C&V were dishonest when the facts clearly show they would not need to resort to dishonesty is just one example.

*Guilters such as Vixen obsessively attack Amanda, Raffaele and others for lying whilst spreading malicious lies such as C&V were dishonest.

*Vixen attacks Amanda for falsely accusing Lumumba of a crime whilst falsely accusing C&V of a crime saying they were dishonest.

*Guilters attack C&V for being corrupt and dishonest whilst defending Stefanoni who as detailed below told lies and engaged in the massive suppression of evidence and Vixen has told lies herself about the knife.

Vixen boasts about the solid evidence against Amanda and Raffaele but why are there are massive holes in this claim? If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was a slam dunk, why resort to making claims that have more holes in them than a string vest? Here are just a few :-

*The characteristics of the knife would have made it impossible to have been used to stab Meredith or contain her DNA. Why would the prosecution need to use this type of evidence if they have solid credible evidence at their disposal and a slam dunk case?

*If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so solid, why did Stefanoni have to resort to the tactics detailed below by lying and engaging in the massive suppression of evidence? If the prosecution had solid evidence why did Stefanoni have to go out of her way using dubious methods to find Meredith’s DNA on a knife that couldn’t have contained her DNA?

*If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so solid, how do you explain the arguments Vixen has to resort to? Vixen has told several lies as detailed below and has falsely accused C&V of being dishonest. Why resort to lies if the case against Amanda and Raffaele was a slam dunk? Why resort to false claims such as Meredith’s DNA was on the knife when it was impossible for Meredith’s DNA to be on the knife? The facts overwhelmingly show the notion C&V would need to resort to dishonestly is utterly absurd. Why resort to utter absurdities if the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so solid?

* As can be seen from the below, the defence were able to rip apart the knife as evidence and supposed DNA of Meredith on the knife. How were the defence able to do this if the case against Amanda and Raffaele was a slam dunk. A key characteristic of solid evidence and a slam dunk case is that it can’t be rebutted. Why doesn’t this apply in the case of Amanda and Raffaele?




“The notion C&V would need to resort to lying is one of the most absurd claims made by guilters even by their standards. Lying is something you resort when the facts are against you and it is bizarre to claim people would need to lie when the facts support their arguments. As an example someone has been accused of running someone over in their car. An Expert testified that the suspect could not have run over the victim. He examines CCTV of when the car ran over the victim. The make, number place and model of the car are completely different from the suspect’s car. The footage of the driver is on CCTV and bears no resemblance to the suspect. The incident occurs hundreds of miles from where the suspect lives. There is CCTV footage of the suspect’s vehicle in another location at the time the victim was run over. People accuse the expert of lying to reach his conclusion. Would it not be strange to accuse the expert of having to lie to support the notion the suspect didn’t run over the victim when the fact overwhelmingly support this conclusion.

When guilters accuse C&V of lying this suggests the knife was a solid piece of evidence with a full DNA profile of Meredith and C&V had to resort to lying to reach the conclusion there was no DNA of Meredith. If this was the case, why exactly would C&V need to lie when there are massive problems with the knife as evidence and the facts overwhelmingly show there was no DNA of Meredith on the knife as per the below from the appeal document written by defence for the Hellman court. What exactly were the lies told by C&V?

“The forensic findings regarding the knife

The knife retrieved from Raffaele's apartment is not compatible with the wounds found on Meredith Kercher. It is not logical to conclude that two different knives were used. The medical examiner described that one shorter knife or object was used. Raffaele’s kitchen knife could not have created two (those on the right side with short height and only 1.5cm depth) of the three wounds. The prosecution’s experts agreed that a shorter knife could have created all three of the wounds. The insertion of the knife was very forceful leaving an exit wound on the other side of Meredith’s neck. The knife went in only 8cm, not 17cm. There is clear indication by bruising that the handle struck on the entry side making the blade only 8cm, not 17cm, especially given the size of the knife.



The kitchen knife does not match the size of the knife that left the bloody imprint on Meredith's bed cover. The knife that made the imprint on the bed matches all three wounds. The greater width of the third insertion is from the knife being sawed back and forth as it went in and out. Experts said the kitchen knife was not incompatible with the one wound on the left, but that many other knives were more compatible. One expert, Professor Torre, said it was not compatible at all due to the length of the knife along with evidence that was left by the handle. Professor Torre felt all wounds were made by the same blade, one that was 8cm.

Genetic testing of the knife

The defense argues that the court should have excluded the DNA testing on Raffaele's kitchen knife. Dr. Stefanoni testified her job was to show objective proof by precise analysis, including use of scientific evidence as reflected by the IFIC. Her own notes reflect that the DNA on the knife blade was showing a finding of “too low, too low, too low ...” The testing done on the knife also showed it was not blood. Dr. Stefanoni initially stated that there was a finding of “a few hundred” picograms and she used real-time PCR for findings. When data was later provided to the defense it showed that it was actually under 10 picograms, and could even be ZERO. Dr. Stefanoni created her own form of LCN DNA to achieve the desired results. To make her finding she ran the test once, it destroyed the sample so no other testing can ever be done.



Dr. Stefanoni had to hand set the machine to get beyond the “too low” finding, which stopped her from testing dozens of other samples but pushing the machine to levels that are not permissible, but they provided her with the desired result that she needed on the knife. Dr. Stefanoni’s results show findings below peaks of 50 RFU which are not reliable. “

If there was such a solid DNA profile on the knife, C&V would have to lie to claim otherwise why would Stefanoni have to resort to the tactics below

• The prosecution hid the results of early and decisive DNA testing excluding Sollecito as the sexual assailant, securing on improper grounds the pretrial incarceration of Sollecito and Knox (and Lumumba) to the severe prejudice of the defense.
• The prosecution concealed the initial results for tests performed on the two key items of evidence , i.e., the kitchen knife (Rep. 36B) and the bra-clasp (Rep. 165B), and instead, produced only the results of suspicious “do over” tests (reruns), without disclosing the data from the initial tests or even the fact that the subsequent tests are “do overs”.
• The prosecution concealed that the kitchen knife profile was generated within a series of tests for which 90 percent of the results have been suppressed, strongly suggesting the occurrence of a severe contamination event that the prosecution continues to hide.
• The prosecution claims that contamination of the bra clasp was impossible, even though the bra clasp profile was processed during a series of tests for which there is documented proof of contamination.
• The prosecution falsely portrayed the DNA lab as pristine and perfectly maintained, even though the lab’s own documents demonstrate that it was plagued with repeated contamination events and machine malfunctions that were known to the lab.
• The prosecution has withheld the results from a massive number of DNA tests (well over 100), including probably exculpatory profiles relating to the sexual assault and the secondary crime scene downstairs.
• The prosecution has hidden all of the records of the DNA amplification process—the most likely place for laboratory contamination to have occurred—including all of the contamination control tests for this process.”

*A few more questions for Vixen

1)Stefanoni told the following lie. How do you reconcile Stefanoni having to resort to lying to give the impression Meredith’s DNA was on the knife which indicates there was no DNA of Meredith on the knife with DNA on the knife being so solid C&V would have to resort to lying to show there was no DNA on the knife. Both can’t be true.

“Patrizia Stefanoni claimed the amount of DNA on the knife blade was “in the order of some hundreds of picograms”. She claimed quantification had been performed by real-time PCR, which was untrue ( see C-V report – Knife quantification ).

The truth: A test was performed with a Qubit Fluorometer which was negative (no DNA). Two other previous tests for blood were also negative. Cytological tests that should have been performed were not. The test results after PCR (very low RFU), and a failure to perform negative control tests or implement adequate measures to prevent contamination, suggest contamination occurred from previous tests of Meredith’s DNA, that is Meredith’s DNA was not on the knife blade.”



2)Below are several falsehoods from Vixen regarding the knife which indicates the notion the knife could have been used to stab Meredith or contain her DNA lacks credibility and lying is necessary to make the knife appear credible as evidence. How do you reconcile this with C&V having to resort to lying to show there was no DNA on the knife as the knife was a solid piece of evidence with clear evidence of Meredith’s DNA on the knife? Both can’t be true.

Post dated 10.05.2016

Claim: Only one was of sufficient quality to produce a near full profile (15 alleles : legal standard UK =10) of the murder victim, Mez.

Truth: The prosecution never claimed there were 15 alleles on the knife.

Post dated 11.05.2016

The defence on all sides have agreed without challenge that the DNA on the knife did indeed yield a near perfect profile of Mez.

Truth: The defence teams have never accepted there was a full DNA profile of Meredith on the knife and there is no record of this.



Post dated 22.03.2016

Claim: Stefanoni found 12 bits of tissue on the blade.

Truth: Stefanoni found no such tissue on the blade and the prosecution have never claimed there was any human biological material on the blade. When C&V tested the knife it was negative for the human species.

3) When I asked previous poster Machiavelli if he could respond to the report written by C&V he consistently refused to do so. Why was Machiavelli unwilling to rebut the C&V report if it could easily be rebutted? If there was clear evidence C&V had lied, this would be an effective rebuttal.

 

[Stacyhs]

Knox herself says she put her hands over her ears to block the scream whilst - she claims - 'Patrick' was next door raping and killing Mez.

Ah...in her police typed up 'confession' which differs from her own account on Nov. 6 in which she's imagining it:

In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am convinced that they unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my mind has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked.

She later testified that the police told her that she must have heard Mreredith scream. When she denied that, they insisted it was not possible for her to not hear it, so she said. "I don't know, maybe I had my ears covered." Since there is no recording, we have no idea when or why Amanda herself screamed and covered her ears, if she even did.

Mignini relates that when he interviewed her she persistently covered her ears when the topic came up.

Quote and cite where he says she did this aside from the above retracted statement and below from the Nov. 3 visit to the cottage:

"She started hitting the palms of her hands on her ears as if there was the memory of a noise, a sound, a scream - Meredith's scream. Undoubtedly, I started to suspect Amanda."

Note that this is MIGNINI'S ACCOUNT. Nowhere in her testimony or in her book or anywhere else I'm aware of does she say she did what Mignini claims. You have failed to produce any evidence of your claim.
Also note that he is admitting she was a suspect, not just a witness, in Mignini's mind two days before the interrogation.

She was also seen banging her forehead with her hand.

Has it ever occurred to you that being emotionally overwhelmed with anxiety and stress might be the cause of that and not because she killed Kercher? Of course it hasn't because everything must be viewed through guilt-colored glasses. There is no possible alternative innocent explanation for anything!

A court doesn't have to make a determination on every issue. It only makes findings of facts on the most salient ones. The MR already runs to a huge number of pages. There is zero point in deciding on absolutely every single one of the near 500 physical exhibits, never mind each word in a tapped private conversation

IOW, you still CANNOT give any examples that Knox ""even demonstrates Kercher's scream by placing her hands over her ears whenever she talks about it." Nor have you provided "a single court that found that Knox was referring to anywhere but Sollecito's apartment when she said "I was there. I can't lie about this".

. But it is scientifically proven that Knox in a tapped conversation with her mother regarding Patrick DID admit to Edda that (a) she wrongly accused him and

A bit of your usual misrepresentation there. Knox didn't say she'd KNOWINGLY or WRONGLY accused him. In fact, she did tell her mother, "I mean, I know I said something bad, but, I mean, I didn’t… I didn’t mean to," and "I was like sobbing but like it’s okay when I’m here; I feel bad for what I did to Patrick because I… the only reason I said his name was because he was the 1st person that came to mind when I was talking about it, and I imagined I like that I could have seen him, but like I know that’s impossible I just imagined that because I was under a lot of stress

(b) DID say, 'I cannot lie, I was there'. She DID NOT say 'at Sollecito's'. You just made that bit up. There would be no reason to say that because she already told police she and Sollecito were together all evening having a romantic time.

Yet more of your twisting the truth, Vixen. I never said she didn't say that and I even quoted exactly what she said from the court transcript. I also never said SHE said "at Sollecito's'"...that's YOUR invention. I said, "Even your beloved "merits trial" Massei understood she was referring to Raffaele's apartment. " Do you understand what "referring to" means?

"I was there, I don't have any interest in lying, I am not afraid of the truth," and "It's stupid, I can't say anything other than the truth because I know I was there, I mean, I can't lie, there's no reason to do it,"

Why don't you explain to us exactly how the above makes any sense if she's NOT referring to Sollecito's apartment? If she's 'not afraid of the truth' then why isn't she saying she was at the cottage that night? It makes no sense whatsoever if she's NOT referring to RS's apartment. Even you should be able to figure that out.

From Massei:

"Regarding the conversation with her mother and father in which she says, among other things, 'I was there, I have no interest in lying, I am not afraid of the truth,' and also: 'It’s stupid, I can’t say anything other than the truth, because I know I was there, I mean, I can’t lie, there’s no reason to do it,' she explained that the reference to being 'there' meant being at Raffaele’s apartment."

Massei does NOT dispute this.

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen said:
a knife Sollecito himself said she carried in her bag from his apartment,

Nothing, absolutely nothing you provided below states Raffaele said that SHE (i.e. Amanda) carried a knife in her bag from his apartment.

Straight from the horse's mouth, as it were:

You need to shoot the horse if you think that's what's being said.

November 7 Prison Diary

“I do not know if it is right that I must pay so much for not being able to focus on the moments in the time during November 1, but after this experience, believe me, I will never touch a joint again in my life.

I was psychologically tortured at police headquarters. They handcuffed me and made me strip naked in front of Forensics [scientifica]. I was even barefoot. I cannot even blame them, given my stupidity. Due to the fact that I smoke cannabis, I forget even what I had to eat and also because I carry along with me a knife to mark tables and trees and I carry it so often that I brought it with me to police headquarters as well.”

This, despite papa Francesco urging him to stop being a prat.

In a phone intercept from November 5, we hear Raffaele’s papa [Francesco] warning him to take his knife out of his pocket.

Francesco: Oh, these days don’t go around with the small knife in your pocket you, eh.

Raffaele: why?

Francesco: Because if the police should see it, etc., they’ll start to bust your balls

Raffaele: ah.

Francesco: eh.

Raffaele: Alright, but no, they didn’t take it from me during the three days I was at the Police Station.

Francesco: It’s because they didn’t noticed you had it, but you cannot take that along with you as you normally do, you know, legally speaking? So, in a mess such as that, in which unfortunately you found yourself in, it would be preferable that you don’t create further problems for yourself.

He's only referring to a pocketknife HE, not Amanda carried.

From his memoir:

“[Referring to a night out in Germany] I have no idea what was in that cocktail, but the episode taught me how swiftly drinks or drugs can change our perceptions and our personalities. Or rather, it should have taught me. I smoked no more than three joints with Amanda in the few days before the murder, but that was three joints too many.”- Raffaele Sollecito

What has this to do with anything? Smoking a few joints doesn't turn someone into a homicidal maniac or our high school and colleges campuses would look like a scene out of a horror flick.

Raffaele’s Prison Diary (partial), November 16, 2007:

“I saw on TV yesterday evening that the knife that I had at home (the one from the kitchen) has traces of Meredith and Amanda (latent)... I was breathless and I also got into a total panic because I thought that Amanda had killed Meredith or that she had at least helped someone kill her. But I saw Tiziano today who calmed me down: he told me that the knife could not have been the murder weapon, according to the medical examiner, and that it has nothing to do with anything because Amanda could have taken it and carried it from my house to her house since the girls didn’t have a knife like that one, they are causing a commotion for nothing... I feel as if I were living in a nightmare reality show. The ʹnightmare reality showʹ. Unbelievable!

I am starting to have perpetual panic and anxiety attacks caused by (...) due to the wait for the results from Forensics…”

Again, he does NOT say she carried a knife in her bag as YOU claimed! He's trying to figure out how Kercher's DNA got on his kitchen knife (it didn't).

Raffaele’s Prison Diary (partial), November 18, 2007

“They are keeping me in jail because of the kitchen knife that has a DNA trace belonging to Meredith. It seems like a horror movie... Thinking back and remembering, I remembered that that night father sent me a goodnight SMS message to be indiscreet (knowing that I was with Amanda), then, the following day, Amanda kept on telling me that if she had not been with me, she would be dead now… Thinking and reconstructing, I think that she always remained with me; the only thing I do not remember exactly is if she went out for a few minutes in the early evening.

I am convinced that she could not have killed Meredith and then come back home. The fact that there is Meredith’s DNA on the kitchen knife is because on one occasion, while we were cooking together, I, while moving around at home [and] handling the knife, pricked her hand, and I apologized at once but she was not hurt. So the only real explanation for that kitchen knife is this one.

NO WHERE in that does he say that Amanda carried a knife in her bag.

I am worried because if they found such a small trace they can find other [small traces] on the rags and so on... What a nightmare! First of all they should prove that that the knife is indeed the murder weapon: the blade, the type of cut, the obvious traces on the blade, etc. Then if they want to find invisible traces of Meredith in my house, they will find many at this rate! There must be a divine justice to all this! I continue to wake up in the morning with accusing faces that stare at me as [if I were] a murderer...

What an absurd story. They are all prepared to point at me when nothing is known yet. I hope that father is well, and also all those who are watching this absurd matter. I hope that the real truth comes out. None of the three is involved!!! I have read in the newspapers that this story is becoming really big in the media and all this scares me a lot, because if these [journalists] do not get the sensational development it will become impossible to stop them... the disappointment of the masses, the money that will [be used] to compensate Patrick, me and Amanda...

And? What the hell does this have to do with what we were discussing?

Would, could, should...oooh, you've found an alternative explanation!!! That must be it!

Ooooh...you're avoiding answering my question! Why would Knox, knowing her lamp was in MK's room, not have come up with a plausible explanation instead of saying she didn't know how it got there? You don't have a logical answer and you know it. So do I.

In actual fact, Knox' defence, on becoming aware of HER lamp on Mez's floor, (plus claiming in court not to have noticed it missing whilst having her quick shower in the dark on the murder morning to get ready to go to Gubbio)

Ahem....you're actually trying to claim that it was the "dark of the morning" at 10:30? Maybe in Finland, but not in Perugia where today, coincidentally Nov. 2, sunrise was at 6:46 am. Maybe it rose hours later back in 2007?

tried to put forward a defence that any of DNA from Knox found in the murder room would be due to contamination from HER lamp, as it was on the floor by the bed.

Then you can provide the evidence of that. Right?

So Knox was clearly sure HER DNA would be in the murder room and she had a clever answer for it!

Her 'clever answer' was "I don't know how my lamp got in Meredith's room"? I guess we have different definitions of what 'clever' is. Oh, and exactly how much of her DNA was actually found in Meredith's room? Oh...wait....NONE. How clever she was to be able to find all that invisible DNA and analyze it that night with her "My Little DNA Kit" (Hasbro, Fun for All Ages!)

As the above illustrates, the pair were loving their infamy and running circles around the investigators.

Well, frankly, it wouldn't have been difficult for a monkey to run circles around those investigators. Nonetheless, your comment is just more of the usual rubbish.

 

[Stacyhs]

As per my previous posts, the notion C&V is false as the facts overwhelmingly show they would not need to resort to dishonesty and Vixen couldn’t explain why C&V would need to resort to lying and what the lies they said. The false accusation that C&V were dishonest is yet another example of repulsive industrial scale hypocrisy by guilters :-

*Vixen accuses Amanda and Raffaele’s supporters of refusing to acknowledge facts whilst she has consistently been unable to come up with a single claim backed up with facts. Claiming that C&V were dishonest when the facts clearly show they would not need to resort to dishonesty is just one example.

*Guilters such as Vixen obsessively attack Amanda, Raffaele and others for lying whilst spreading malicious lies such as C&V were dishonest.

*Vixen attacks Amanda for falsely accusing Lumumba of a crime whilst falsely accusing C&V of a crime saying they were dishonest.

*Guilters attack C&V for being corrupt and dishonest whilst defending Stefanoni who as detailed below told lies and engaged in the massive suppression of evidence and Vixen has told lies herself about the knife.

Vixen boasts about the solid evidence against Amanda and Raffaele but why are there are massive holes in this claim? If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was a slam dunk, why resort to making claims that have more holes in them than a string vest? Here are just a few :-

*The characteristics of the knife would have made it impossible to have been used to stab Meredith or contain her DNA. Why would the prosecution need to use this type of evidence if they have solid credible evidence at their disposal and a slam dunk case?

*If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so solid, why did Stefanoni have to resort to the tactics detailed below by lying and engaging in the massive suppression of evidence? If the prosecution had solid evidence why did Stefanoni have to go out of her way using dubious methods to find Meredith’s DNA on a knife that couldn’t have contained her DNA?

*If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so solid, how do you explain the arguments Vixen has to resort to? Vixen has told several lies as detailed below and has falsely accused C&V of being dishonest. Why resort to lies if the case against Amanda and Raffaele was a slam dunk? Why resort to false claims such as Meredith’s DNA was on the knife when it was impossible for Meredith’s DNA to be on the knife? The facts overwhelmingly show the notion C&V would need to resort to dishonestly is utterly absurd. Why resort to utter absurdities if the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so solid?

* As can be seen from the below, the defence were able to rip apart the knife as evidence and supposed DNA of Meredith on the knife. How were the defence able to do this if the case against Amanda and Raffaele was a slam dunk. A key characteristic of solid evidence and a slam dunk case is that it can’t be rebutted. Why doesn’t this apply in the case of Amanda and Raffaele?




“The notion C&V would need to resort to lying is one of the most absurd claims made by guilters even by their standards. Lying is something you resort when the facts are against you and it is bizarre to claim people would need to lie when the facts support their arguments. As an example someone has been accused of running someone over in their car. An Expert testified that the suspect could not have run over the victim. He examines CCTV of when the car ran over the victim. The make, number place and model of the car are completely different from the suspect’s car. The footage of the driver is on CCTV and bears no resemblance to the suspect. The incident occurs hundreds of miles from where the suspect lives. There is CCTV footage of the suspect’s vehicle in another location at the time the victim was run over. People accuse the expert of lying to reach his conclusion. Would it not be strange to accuse the expert of having to lie to support the notion the suspect didn’t run over the victim when the fact overwhelmingly support this conclusion.

When guilters accuse C&V of lying this suggests the knife was a solid piece of evidence with a full DNA profile of Meredith and C&V had to resort to lying to reach the conclusion there was no DNA of Meredith. If this was the case, why exactly would C&V need to lie when there are massive problems with the knife as evidence and the facts overwhelmingly show there was no DNA of Meredith on the knife as per the below from the appeal document written by defence for the Hellman court. What exactly were the lies told by C&V?

“The forensic findings regarding the knife

The knife retrieved from Raffaele's apartment is not compatible with the wounds found on Meredith Kercher. It is not logical to conclude that two different knives were used. The medical examiner described that one shorter knife or object was used. Raffaele’s kitchen knife could not have created two (those on the right side with short height and only 1.5cm depth) of the three wounds. The prosecution’s experts agreed that a shorter knife could have created all three of the wounds. The insertion of the knife was very forceful leaving an exit wound on the other side of Meredith’s neck. The knife went in only 8cm, not 17cm. There is clear indication by bruising that the handle struck on the entry side making the blade only 8cm, not 17cm, especially given the size of the knife.



The kitchen knife does not match the size of the knife that left the bloody imprint on Meredith's bed cover. The knife that made the imprint on the bed matches all three wounds. The greater width of the third insertion is from the knife being sawed back and forth as it went in and out. Experts said the kitchen knife was not incompatible with the one wound on the left, but that many other knives were more compatible. One expert, Professor Torre, said it was not compatible at all due to the length of the knife along with evidence that was left by the handle. Professor Torre felt all wounds were made by the same blade, one that was 8cm.

Genetic testing of the knife

The defense argues that the court should have excluded the DNA testing on Raffaele's kitchen knife. Dr. Stefanoni testified her job was to show objective proof by precise analysis, including use of scientific evidence as reflected by the IFIC. Her own notes reflect that the DNA on the knife blade was showing a finding of “too low, too low, too low ...” The testing done on the knife also showed it was not blood. Dr. Stefanoni initially stated that there was a finding of “a few hundred” picograms and she used real-time PCR for findings. When data was later provided to the defense it showed that it was actually under 10 picograms, and could even be ZERO. Dr. Stefanoni created her own form of LCN DNA to achieve the desired results. To make her finding she ran the test once, it destroyed the sample so no other testing can ever be done.



Dr. Stefanoni had to hand set the machine to get beyond the “too low” finding, which stopped her from testing dozens of other samples but pushing the machine to levels that are not permissible, but they provided her with the desired result that she needed on the knife. Dr. Stefanoni’s results show findings below peaks of 50 RFU which are not reliable. “

If there was such a solid DNA profile on the knife, C&V would have to lie to claim otherwise why would Stefanoni have to resort to the tactics below

• The prosecution hid the results of early and decisive DNA testing excluding Sollecito as the sexual assailant, securing on improper grounds the pretrial incarceration of Sollecito and Knox (and Lumumba) to the severe prejudice of the defense.
• The prosecution concealed the initial results for tests performed on the two key items of evidence , i.e., the kitchen knife (Rep. 36B) and the bra-clasp (Rep. 165B), and instead, produced only the results of suspicious “do over” tests (reruns), without disclosing the data from the initial tests or even the fact that the subsequent tests are “do overs”.
• The prosecution concealed that the kitchen knife profile was generated within a series of tests for which 90 percent of the results have been suppressed, strongly suggesting the occurrence of a severe contamination event that the prosecution continues to hide.
• The prosecution claims that contamination of the bra clasp was impossible, even though the bra clasp profile was processed during a series of tests for which there is documented proof of contamination.
• The prosecution falsely portrayed the DNA lab as pristine and perfectly maintained, even though the lab’s own documents demonstrate that it was plagued with repeated contamination events and machine malfunctions that were known to the lab.
• The prosecution has withheld the results from a massive number of DNA tests (well over 100), including probably exculpatory profiles relating to the sexual assault and the secondary crime scene downstairs.
• The prosecution has hidden all of the records of the DNA amplification process—the most likely place for laboratory contamination to have occurred—including all of the contamination control tests for this process.”

*A few more questions for Vixen

1)Stefanoni told the following lie. How do you reconcile Stefanoni having to resort to lying to give the impression Meredith’s DNA was on the knife which indicates there was no DNA of Meredith on the knife with DNA on the knife being so solid C&V would have to resort to lying to show there was no DNA on the knife. Both can’t be true.

“Patrizia Stefanoni claimed the amount of DNA on the knife blade was “in the order of some hundreds of picograms”. She claimed quantification had been performed by real-time PCR, which was untrue ( see C-V report – Knife quantification ).

The truth: A test was performed with a Qubit Fluorometer which was negative (no DNA). Two other previous tests for blood were also negative. Cytological tests that should have been performed were not. The test results after PCR (very low RFU), and a failure to perform negative control tests or implement adequate measures to prevent contamination, suggest contamination occurred from previous tests of Meredith’s DNA, that is Meredith’s DNA was not on the knife blade.”



2)Below are several falsehoods from Vixen regarding the knife which indicates the notion the knife could have been used to stab Meredith or contain her DNA lacks credibility and lying is necessary to make the knife appear credible as evidence. How do you reconcile this with C&V having to resort to lying to show there was no DNA on the knife as the knife was a solid piece of evidence with clear evidence of Meredith’s DNA on the knife? Both can’t be true.

Post dated 10.05.2016

Claim: Only one was of sufficient quality to produce a near full profile (15 alleles : legal standard UK =10) of the murder victim, Mez.

Truth: The prosecution never claimed there were 15 alleles on the knife.

Post dated 11.05.2016

The defence on all sides have agreed without challenge that the DNA on the knife did indeed yield a near perfect profile of Mez.

Truth: The defence teams have never accepted there was a full DNA profile of Meredith on the knife and there is no record of this.



Post dated 22.03.2016

Claim: Stefanoni found 12 bits of tissue on the blade.

Truth: Stefanoni found no such tissue on the blade and the prosecution have never claimed there was any human biological material on the blade. When C&V tested the knife it was negative for the human species.

3) When I asked previous poster Machiavelli if he could respond to the report written by C&V he consistently refused to do so. Why was Machiavelli unwilling to rebut the C&V report if it could easily be rebutted? If there was clear evidence C&V had lied, this would be an effective rebuttal.

Now, now....don't go confusing the PGP with facts. Heads might explode!

 

[AmyStrange]

Ah, I see the stupid person is back!

 

[AmyStrange]

You don't seriously think insults changes the facts found...? Insult away! The facts and reality remain what they are.

Someday, I hope you get the facts right and get back to reality too.

Good luck with that.

 

[Numbers]

Yes, M-B said they were acquitted based on insufficient evidence* claiming the possibility of contamination** made the case for guilt unproven. It did state clearly the facts found were that:

• Amanda Knox was DEFINITELY and CERTAINLY present when the young Meredith Kercher was killed.
• Knox DID wash off Mez' blood from her hands.
• The burglary WAS staged.
• that Sollecito was almost certainly with her
• that Amanda Knox DID pervert the course of justice by criminally and falsely telling police Patrick Lumumba raped and kiiled Mez.
• that Amanda Knox did point police at Lumumba to COVER UP FOR GUEDE.
• that the pair lied and lied and lied at every stage and far from assisting police did everything to impede investigation.

*using an article in CPP that most commonly relates to pre-trial.
** using a formerly struck out finding by Hellmann and heavily criticised Conti & Vecchiotti report described as 'intellectually dishonest', which Dr Gill used to write a report for Bongiorno to flap in M-B-s faces over the course of two days, when all other parties' barristers were only allowed 20 minutes to present their skeleton argument to the Supreme Court.

Conclusion: the pair got off on a technicality, as I said, with the evidence proven at the fact-finding trial remaining proven as facts found.

Vixen's post quoted above is a combination of outright lies and misleading statements. Vixen's conclusion is false; Knox and Sollecito were finally acquitted on the murder/rape charges not on a "technicality", but because, as the Marasca CSC panel MR stated, the case, as embodied in the provisional conviction by Judge Nencini's Florence Court of Appeal, was fundamentally flawed and could never be remedied because of the clamorous (glaring) errors of the investigation. The Marasca CSC panel MR stated in substance that there was no reliable, credible evidence of Knox or Sollecito have had any involvement in the murder/rape. In fact, there was no reliable, credible evidence that either had been in the room where Kercher had been raped and murdered.

The bullet points listed in Vixen's post are all false. The Marasca CSC panel MR indicated in its Section 9 that hypothetically, even if Knox had been in the flat at the time of the murder/rape, there was no evidence of her involvement.

Vixen's statement that the acquittal was made "using an article in CPP that most commonly relates to pre-trial" is false. The CPP article cited by the Marasca CSC panel MR was paragraph 2 of CPP Article 530, which states (Google translation with help from Collins Reverso):

2. Il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione anche quando manca, è insufficiente o è contraddittoria la prova che il fatto sussiste, che l'imputato lo ha commesso, che il fatto costituisce reato o che il reato è stato commesso da persona imputabile.

2. The judge pronounces a sentence of acquittal also when there is no, insufficient, or contradictory evidence that the act occurred, that the defendant committed it, that the act constitutes a crime, or that the crime was committed by an indictable person.

VIxen's statement about the court-ordered Conti - Vecchiotti report is meritless; that report remained valid evidence in the court file. The C-V report established beyond a shadow of a doubt, based on scientific police records (and failures to record) of evidence collection and Stefanoni's test records, that her DNA testing for the alleged critical DNA evidence against Knox and Sollecito did not meet the scientific standards required to be credible and reliable.

 

[TruthCalls]

Straight from the horse's mouth, as it were:

November 7 Prison Diary

“I do not know if it is right that I must pay so much for not being able to focus on the moments in the time during November 1, but after this experience, believe me, I will never touch a joint again in my life.

I was psychologically tortured at police headquarters. They handcuffed me and made me strip naked in front of Forensics [scientifica]. I was even barefoot. I cannot even blame them, given my stupidity. Due to the fact that I smoke cannabis, I forget even what I had to eat and also because I carry along with me a knife to mark tables and trees and I carry it so often that I brought it with me to police headquarters as well.”

This, despite papa Francesco urging him to stop being a prat.

In a phone intercept from November 5, we hear Raffaele’s papa [Francesco] warning him to take his knife out of his pocket.

Francesco: Oh, these days don’t go around with the small knife in your pocket you, eh.

Raffaele: why?

Francesco: Because if the police should see it, etc., they’ll start to bust your balls

Raffaele: ah.

Francesco: eh.

Raffaele: Alright, but no, they didn’t take it from me during the three days I was at the Police Station.

Francesco: It’s because they didn’t noticed you had it, but you cannot take that along with you as you normally do, you know, legally speaking? So, in a mess such as that, in which unfortunately you found yourself in, it would be preferable that you don’t create further problems for yourself.

From his memoir:

“[Referring to a night out in Germany] I have no idea what was in that cocktail, but the episode taught me how swiftly drinks or drugs can change our perceptions and our personalities. Or rather, it should have taught me. I smoked no more than three joints with Amanda in the few days before the murder, but that was three joints too many.”- Raffaele Sollecito

Raffaele’s Prison Diary (partial), November 16, 2007:

“I saw on TV yesterday evening that the knife that I had at home (the one from the kitchen) has traces of Meredith and Amanda (latent)... I was breathless and I also got into a total panic because I thought that Amanda had killed Meredith or that she had at least helped someone kill her. But I saw Tiziano today who calmed me down: he told me that the knife could not have been the murder weapon, according to the medical examiner, and that it has nothing to do with anything because Amanda could have taken it and carried it from my house to her house since the girls didn’t have a knife like that one, they are causing a commotion for nothing... I feel as if I were living in a nightmare reality show. The ʹnightmare reality showʹ. Unbelievable!

I am starting to have perpetual panic and anxiety attacks caused by (...) due to the wait for the results from Forensics…”

Raffaele’s Prison Diary (partial), November 18, 2007

“They are keeping me in jail because of the kitchen knife that has a DNA trace belonging to Meredith. It seems like a horror movie... Thinking back and remembering, I remembered that that night father sent me a goodnight SMS message to be indiscreet (knowing that I was with Amanda), then, the following day, Amanda kept on telling me that if she had not been with me, she would be dead now… Thinking and reconstructing, I think that she always remained with me; the only thing I do not remember exactly is if she went out for a few minutes in the early evening.

I am convinced that she could not have killed Meredith and then come back home. The fact that there is Meredith’s DNA on the kitchen knife is because on one occasion, while we were cooking together, I, while moving around at home [and] handling the knife, pricked her hand, and I apologized at once but she was not hurt. So the only real explanation for that kitchen knife is this one.

I am worried because if they found such a small trace they can find other [small traces] on the rags and so on... What a nightmare! First of all they should prove that that the knife is indeed the murder weapon: the blade, the type of cut, the obvious traces on the blade, etc. Then if they want to find invisible traces of Meredith in my house, they will find many at this rate! There must be a divine justice to all this! I continue to wake up in the morning with accusing faces that stare at me as [if I were] a murderer...

What an absurd story. They are all prepared to point at me when nothing is known yet. I hope that father is well, and also all those who are watching this absurd matter. I hope that the real truth comes out. None of the three is involved!!! I have read in the newspapers that this story is becoming really big in the media and all this scares me a lot, because if these [journalists] do not get the sensational development it will become impossible to stop them... the disappointment of the masses, the money that will [be used] to compensate Patrick, me and Amanda...



Would, could, should...oooh, you've found an alternative explanation!!! That must be it! In actual fact, Knox' defence, on becoming aware of HER lamp on Mez's floor, (plus claiming in court not to have noticed it missing whilst having her quick shower in the dark on the murder morning to get ready to go to Gubbio) tried to put forward a defence that any of DNA from Knox found in the murder room would be due to contamination from HER lamp, as it was on the floor by the bed. So Knox was clearly sure HER DNA would be in the murder room and she had a clever answer for it!


As the above illustrates, the pair were loving their infamy and running circles around the investigators.

Wow, I find it fascinating how you always tell us how intelligent and clever you are, and then you write responses like this.

You claimed Raffaele said Amanda carried a knife in her bag from the apartment, and your proof is that Raffaele said he had his pocket knife in his pocket. Do you not understand the difference between Raffaele carrying his pocket knife in his pocket and Amanda carrying a large kitchen knife in her bag, or is the fault ours for paying too much attention to details? I mean, I honestly can't bridge the gap between your claim and your response.

Then you follow it up with this response regarding the lamp. You haven't explained why they wouldn't have just used the key to open the room and fetch the lamp. And then, as Stacy points out, you suggest Raffaele was trying to break down the door to retrieve the lamp, yet find themselves completely unprepared to provide an explanation for the lamp. And no, it's not an "alternative explanation", it's a question. IF we assume they killed Meredith, and IF we assume they brought the lamp into the room for nefarious reasons, and IF we assume they forgot it in the room, and IF we assume they realized they left it in the room, and IF we assume they couldn't just simply unlock the door and grab it, then SURELY we also have to assume they'd be extremely focused on how they're going to explain it being in the room.

As with most of your comments, your reasoning lacks any consistency. They realized they left the lamp in the room, but were unprepared for explaining it. They staged a burglary, but they didn't take anything to make it look like a burglary. They scrubbed the cottage clean yet still left a mess in the bathroom, including Raffaele's footprint on the bathmat. They were caught unprepared when the police arrived yet it was they who raised the alarm. And on and on. I don't remember if you've ever made the claim, but one of my all-time favorites is that Amanda wiped her lamp clear of her prints before forgetting it in the room! That's pro-guilt logic for ya!

And BTW, I don't know about the Netherlands, but by 10am in Italy it's NOT dark anymore, and with a window on one side, and glass french doors on the other, lighting was no problem. But as always, you have to spin everything in a negative way. It's why you have no credibility. If you at least made an honest effort to be factual and logical, things might be different, but you never do.

 

[Stacyhs]

Yes, M-B said they were acquitted based on insufficient evidence* claiming the possibility of contamination** made the case for guilt unproven. It did state clearly the facts found were that:

• Amanda Knox was DEFINITELY and CERTAINLY present when the young Meredith Kercher was killed.

M-B had no legal authority to contradict the previously finalized calunnia verdict which stated the above. You know that and we know that.

• Knox DID wash off Mez' blood from her hands

Based on what evidence presented in court? None. The claim it was from her epithelial cells is scientifically unproved as the source of her DNA or even when it was deposited in the sink could not be scientifically proved. You know that and we know that.

• .
• The burglary WAS staged.

So where are the photos of the glass on top all the items from the wardrobe on the floor? Why did Filomena testify she saw glass both on top and underneath things?

• that Sollecito was almost certainly with her

Based on the calunnia conviction that Knox was there and the unproven assumption that he was probably with her.

• that Amanda Knox DID pervert the course of justice by criminally and falsely telling police Patrick Lumumba raped and kiiled Mez.

A statement coerced by illegal means and repeatedly retracted by her.

• that Amanda Knox did point police at Lumumba to COVER UP FOR GUEDE.

If she were trying to cover up for Guede, why did she leave his bloody shoeprints in the hallway and point out his feces in the toilet to police? Why, as you've claimed, did she clean up all her own DNA from the bedroom while leaving his DNA? Why did she leave the pillowcase with his bloody shoeprints and handprint on it? That's some way to cover up for Guede.

• that the pair lied and lied and lied at every stage and far from assisting police did everything to impede investigation.

Anything they said that you don't want to accept as true is claimed to be a lie by you. Exactly what did they do that impeded the police aside from Knox's retracted accusation of Lumumba during a highly controversial interrogation?

*using an article in CPP that most commonly relates to pre-trial.

Where do you come up with this kind of nonsense? Do you really think we don't know that's a pile of rubbish?

** using a formerly struck out finding by Hellmann and heavily criticised Conti & Vecchiotti report described as 'intellectually dishonest',

A finding pretty much reinstated by M-B. As for your often repeated lie about C&V being described as "intellectually dishonest", this is what AI said about Nencini's criticism of them:

"No, the document does not explicitly state that Conti and Vecchiotti were dishonest. It critiques their methodology and conclusions, pointing out errors and inconsistencies in their analysis and approach, particularly regarding the trace "I" on the knife (reperto 36) and the hook of the bra (reperto 165 B). The document highlights that their decision not to analyze the trace "I" was based on an incorrect assessment of the available technology and the feasibility of analyzing the sample. However, it does not accuse them of dishonesty, but rather of making errors in their professional judgment and methodology."

That criticism was not agreed with by M-B which accepted C&V's report as accurate.

which Dr Gill used to write a report for Bongiorno to flap in M-B-s faces over the course of two days, when all other parties' barristers were only allowed 20 minutes to present their skeleton argument to the Supreme Court.

What evidence do you have that Gill wrote anything "for Bongiorno" and not on his own because he recognized the flaws in the prosecution's claims? Or is that yet another of your baseless accusations which you invent out of whole cloth?
Are you implying yet again that M-B were bent because they allowed a careful examination of the critical DNA evidence?

Conclusion: the pair got off on a technicality, as I said, with the evidence proven at the fact-finding trial remaining proven as facts found.

Conclusion: Art. 503 para. 2 is a Code of Criminal Procedure verdict based on a defendant being innocent until proven guilty BARD. That is not a 'technicality'. Stop making up crap to suit your bias.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Vinci was well paid by Dr Sollecito to do anything to rescue his wayward son.

Back to the BS where every expert (or "expert") who backs the prosecution's case is honest, competent, and conscientious, but every expert who criticizes the prosecution's case is "bent," "incompetent," "paid off," etc.

Vinci used photo shop to try to make the footprint look more like Guede's but the court didn't buy it.

I see now. You're following the Yes, Minister strategy for discrediting an unwelcome report. You've accused Vinci of using Photoshop despite there being no credible evidence that he did, so now you can claim that he's "been accused of using Photoshop."

You're just claiming he used Photoshop because you're desperate to maintain this facade of the court of first instance's infallibility, because if you admit that they got even one thing wrong, you'll be forced to admit that they could have gotten other things wrong, too.

You know, the two judges and six lay judges who (a) were present in court for ALL of the hearing, (b) heard and saw ALL of the evidence, testimonies and presentations, including from ALL of the experts and (c) after having deliberated at length amongst themselves.

(d) were, as we've discussed, not competent to evaluate expert testimony (e) were, as we've also discussed, not sequestered, and thus exposed to months and months of highly prejudicial derogatory (mostly false) media coverage about Amanda and Raffaele, and (f) used to the Inquisitorial system, where suspects are assumed guilty until proven innocent.

But SpitfireIX, a random on an internet forum . . .

Bull. Everyone accepted your claim to be a Chartered Accountant, until you made several pronouncements that properly called that into question, such as your conflating having a tax shelter investment disallowed with tax fraud, and even then most people (including me) merely questioned your competence. And no one disputed your claim to have a psychology degree. (Note: Disputing your interpretation of your credentials, such as your claim that a CA is equivalent to a Master's Degree, is not the same as disputing that you have the credentials.) I said two years ago in the Estonia thread that I have a BS in Mechanical Engineering Technology.

. . . demands we reject all of that and go along with his keyboard warrior views instead . . .

That's extremely rich coming from you.

. . . based on a hunch, a prayer and fingers crossed the suckers will suck it up!

Bull. I pointed out several specific and general points of incompatibility between the bathmat print and Raffaele's reference print, and, as I've mentioned several times, your ridiculous explanation was that the cotton-thread pile would have somehow acted as a hard surface and prevented the foot from contacting part of the mat and depositing diluted blood. I've also mentioned several times the measurement error that the prosecution's experts made due to their failure to notice that the first and second toe prints were merged. But you have to pretend that I just have a "hunch," because, as I mentioned, you can't face up to the awful possibility that the court of first instance could possibly have made an erroneous ruling.

 

[Stacyhs]

Vinci was well paid by Dr Sollecito to do anything to rescue his wayward son.

What the hell are you going on about here? Or is this just your usual monkey flinging crap along the same lines as Dr. Sollecito being a close relative of mobster Rocco Sollecito/mafia got Raffaele acquitted?

Vinci used photo shop to try to make the footprint look more like Guede's but the court didn't buy it.

What part of Crimescope is a forensic alternate lighting source are you not understanding?

You know, the two judges and six lay judges who (a) were present in court for ALL of the hearing, (b) heard and saw ALL of the evidence, testimonies and presentations, including from ALL of the experts and (c) after having deliberated at length amongst themselves.

And another two judges and six lay judges after hearing the evidence and testimony acquitted the pair. Then five judges exonerated them. Your really are the definition of cherry-picking.

But SpitfireIX, a random on an internet forum, demands we reject all of that and go along with his keyboard warrior views instead, based on a hunch, a prayer and fingers crossed the suckers will suck it up!

But Vixen, random on an internet forum, demands we reject science and logic and go along with her keyboard warrior claims of every single defense lawyer, expert, witness, etc. is bent, paid for, mafia connected, or otherwise dishonest.

 

[Numbers]

M-B had no legal authority to contradict the previously finalized calunnia verdict which stated the above. You know that and we know that.

Based on what evidence presented in court? None. The claim it was from her epithelial cells is scientifically unproved as the source of her DNA or even when it was deposited in the sink could not be scientifically proved. You know that and we know that.

So where are the photos of the glass on top all the items from the wardrobe on the floor? Why did Filomena testify she saw glass both on top and underneath things?

Based on the calunnia conviction that Knox was there and the unproven assumption that he was probably with her.

A statement coerced by illegal means and repeatedly retracted by her.

If she were trying to cover up for Guede, why did she leave his bloody shoeprints in the hallway and point out his feces in the toilet to police? Why, as you've claimed, did she clean up all her own DNA from the bedroom while leaving his DNA? Why did she leave the pillowcase with his bloody shoeprints and handprint on it? That's some way to cover up for Guede.

Anything they said that you don't want to accept as true is claimed to be a lie by you. Exactly what did they do that impeded the police aside from Knox's retracted accusation of Lumumba during a highly controversial interrogation?

Where do you come up with this kind of nonsense? Do you really think we don't know that's a pile of rubbish?

A finding pretty much reinstated by M-B. As for your often repeated lie about C&V being described as "intellectually dishonest", this is what AI said about Nencini's criticism of them:

"No, the document does not explicitly state that Conti and Vecchiotti were dishonest. It critiques their methodology and conclusions, pointing out errors and inconsistencies in their analysis and approach, particularly regarding the trace "I" on the knife (reperto 36) and the hook of the bra (reperto 165 B). The document highlights that their decision not to analyze the trace "I" was based on an incorrect assessment of the available technology and the feasibility of analyzing the sample. However, it does not accuse them of dishonesty, but rather of making errors in their professional judgment and methodology."

That criticism was not agreed with by M-B which accepted C&V's report as accurate.




What evidence do you have that Gill wrote anything "for Bongiorno" and not on his own because he recognized the flaws in the prosecution's claims? Or is that yet another of your baseless accusations which you invent out of whole cloth?
Are you implying yet again that M-B were bent because they allowed a careful examination of the critical DNA evidence?


Conclusion: Art. 503 para. 2 is a Code of Criminal Procedure verdict based on a defendant being innocent until proven guilty BARD. That is not a 'technicality'. Stop making up crap to suit your bias.

Stacyhs, I agree with your helpful and generally well-written post.

There is, however, an apparent typo that may confuse some readers.

CPP Article 503 is a law regulating the examination (questioning) during the trial of private parties involved in a criminal case.

CPP Article 530 is a law regulating the declaration of a judgment of acquittal following a trial based upon specific findings on the merits and law of a case. For example, an acquittal must be declared under this law if there if the evidence of guilt does not exist, is insufficient, or is contradictory.

CPP Article 533 is a law regulating the declaration of a judgment of conviction following a trial; it specifies that a judgment of conviction may be declared only if the guilt of the accused for the specific alleged offense is proven beyond a reasonable doubt (BARD).

 

[Stacyhs]

Stacyhs, I agree with your helpful and generally well-written post.

There is, however, an apparent typo that may confuse some readers.

CPP Article 503 is a law regulating the examination (questioning) during the trial of private parties involved in a criminal case.

CPP Article 530 is a law regulating the declaration of a judgment of acquittal following a trial based upon specific findings on the merits and law of a case. For example, an acquittal must be declared under this law if there if the evidence of guilt does not exist, is insufficient, or is contradictory.

CPP Article 533 is a law regulating the declaration of a judgment of conviction following a trial; it specifies that a judgment of conviction may be declared only if the guilt of the accused for the specific alleged offense is proven beyond a reasonable doubt (BARD).

Yep, a typo on my part. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[euroneighbour]

Rudy Guede's trial begins:

Rudy Guede di nuovo a processo a Viterbo per le accuse della ex fidanzata - Umbria 24

È iniziato questa mattina nel palazzo di giustizia di Viterbo il processo a Rudy Guede, accusato nel 2023 di violenza sessuale dalla ex fidanzata. Il 38enne ivoriano, già condannato a 16 anni per l’omicidio della studentessa inglese Meredith Kercher avvenuto a Perugia nel 2007, ha scontato la...

www.umbria24.it

 

[Numbers]

Rudy Guede's trial begins:

Rudy Guede di nuovo a processo a Viterbo per le accuse della ex fidanzata - Umbria 24

È iniziato questa mattina nel palazzo di giustizia di Viterbo il processo a Rudy Guede, accusato nel 2023 di violenza sessuale dalla ex fidanzata. Il 38enne ivoriano, già condannato a 16 anni per l’omicidio della studentessa inglese Meredith Kercher avvenuto a Perugia nel 2007, ha scontato la...

www.umbria24.it

Euroneighbour, thanks for bringing this news to our attention.

 

[Stacyhs]

Rudy Guede's trial begins:

Rudy Guede di nuovo a processo a Viterbo per le accuse della ex fidanzata - Umbria 24

È iniziato questa mattina nel palazzo di giustizia di Viterbo il processo a Rudy Guede, accusato nel 2023 di violenza sessuale dalla ex fidanzata. Il 38enne ivoriano, già condannato a 16 anni per l’omicidio della studentessa inglese Meredith Kercher avvenuto a Perugia nel 2007, ha scontato la...

www.umbria24.it

Thanks for this.

 

[Stacyhs]

Guede's lawyer in his current rape trial is Carlo Mezzetti. I wonder if he's related to Laura, who is also now a lawyer. Probably just a coincidence they share the same surname.

 

[TomG]

Here's an article that's being discussed on the Reddit forum. It might be of some interest.

Maresca, il legale dei Kercher: “Non c’è spazio per nuove ipotesi”

Il legale della famiglia di Mez si dice sorpreso delle dichiarazioni dell’allora pm Mignini sul quarto uomo: “Alla sorella Stephanie ho detto che non ci sarà un prosieguo giudiziario. Il caso è chiuso con tutti gli interrogativi”

www.lanazione.it

Hoots

 

[Numbers]

Here's an article that's being discussed on the Reddit forum. It might be of some interest.

Maresca, il legale dei Kercher: “Non c’è spazio per nuove ipotesi”

Il legale della famiglia di Mez si dice sorpreso delle dichiarazioni dell’allora pm Mignini sul quarto uomo: “Alla sorella Stephanie ho detto che non ci sarà un prosieguo giudiziario. Il caso è chiuso con tutti gli interrogativi”

www.lanazione.it

Hoots

I believe the linked article you have found provides remarkable evidence of the dysfunction of the Italian legal system and the outrageous statements of some of the key players (Maresca - the Kerchers' lawyer, and Mignini - the prosecutor), and the role of the Italian media of sensationalizing and providing one-sided comments on a case, apparently to seek clicks or readers.

 

[Stacyhs]

They didn't even get the night of the murder right.

"The young English girl Meredith Kercher was killed in the bedroom of a student house in Via della Pergola on Halloween night."

This is just more typical lawyer ********.

"...all the scientific and testimonial findings spoke of the presence of more people"

WHAT scientific and testimonial findings? No forensic finding places either of them there that night. Knox's DNA cannot be dated to that night. None of her footprints were in blood. The knife and bra clasp were discredited. No reliable witness placed them there. ONLY Maresca's own expert claimed the murder could ONLY have been committed by more than one person.

Today, Sollecito's defense lawyers are talking about an unexamined trace of semen?

"I remember that all the tests were conducted in the presence of the consultants. There were over 300 items of evidence, and therefore the investigation was comprehensive on all the traces found."

The suspected semen stain (unbelievably!) was never tested. It's not credible that Maresca doesn't know that.

"I don't think there are the conditions to give value to that hypothetical crime news collected by Dr. Mignini'."

He got that right.

"I believe that the evidence was collected sufficiently and with satisfactory professionalism because in the end the much-discussed bra clasp was the only shortcoming of the forensic police, but only in the collection of evidence, because the DNA extraction instead allowed for an absolutely clear genetic profile, which left no room for discussion."

LOL! He very conveniently forgets that Stefanoni's analysis of Kercher's alleged DNA on the knife was found to be "scientifically unreliable".
He also conveniently doesn't mention that C&V didn't deny RS's DNA was on the clasp, only how it got there. I wonder how Maresca thinks those other 2-3 unidentified men's DNA got on the bra hook? Did they all touch it?

"We are certain that there were other people with Guede, and the Supreme Court itself says so, placing Knox at the crime scene but not convicting her, and condemning Amanda for slander, but it is not known for whom or for what. Justice was absolutely not perfect."

No, "we" are not "certain" at all since nothing places anyone else there that night but Guede. They based that on a retracted confession unsupported by any evidence.

 

[Numbers]

They didn't even get the night of the murder right.


This is just more typical lawyer ********.


WHAT scientific and testimonial findings? No forensic finding places either of them there that night. Knox's DNA cannot be dated to that night. None of her footprints were in blood. The knife and bra clasp were discredited. No reliable witness placed them there. ONLY Maresca's own expert claimed the murder could ONLY have been committed by more than one person.




The suspected semen stain (unbelievably!) was never tested. It's not credible that Maresca doesn't know that.


He got that right.



LOL! He very conveniently forgets that Stefanoni's analysis of Kercher's alleged DNA on the knife was found to be "scientifically unreliable".
He also conveniently doesn't mention that C&V didn't deny RS's DNA was on the clasp, only how it got there. I wonder how Maresca thinks those other 2-3 unidentified men's DNA got on the bra hook? Did they all touch it?



No, "we" are not "certain" at all since nothing places anyone else there that night but Guede. They based that on a retracted confession unsupported by any evidence.

Stacyhs, thanks for analyzing the nonsensical and false statements from Maresca (and Mignini) in the article.

On another Maresca statement in the article, from my reading of the Marasca CSC panel MR, I don't see that the MR text supports his claim that the MR states that it was certain that Knox was in the cottage at the time that Kercher was murdered. My understanding is that it states that even if Knox had been present in the cottage at that time, there is no credible, reliable evidence supporting her presence in Kercher's bedroom at any time - including the time of the murder - or any involvement in the murder.