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

[Jack by the hedge]

I should take what AK puts in her words to portray herself as a victim of Italy's legal system with a huge pinch of salt.

You'd feel like their victim too if they jailed you for a murder you had no part in.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Complete nonsense.

Are you denying that the footprints claimed to be Amanda's tested negative for both blood and Meredith's DNA? Are you claiming that there's some corroboration for Guede's claim of blood all over the hallway? Or are you still going to insist that his uncorroborated, contradictory, and clearly self-serving accounts of what happened have any evidentiary value whatsoever?

 

[Vixen]

You'd feel like their victim too if they jailed you for a murder you had no part in.

You have powers of divination? It's a shame Randi is no longer with us to offer his million dollar prize!

.

 

[TruthCalls]

I should take what AK puts in her words to portray herself as a victim of Italy's legal system with a huge pinch of salt. As Filomena, said, Mez never locked her door. Why do you think she immediately contradicted Knox' claim? The only time she locked her door was when she went to visit her family in England, which makes perfect sense. How does AK know she locked her door when changing unless AK rattled her door without knocking?

So what makes Filomena's word gospel? How does FR know Meredith doesn't lock the door? Does she go rattle the door while Meredith is showering or while out with her friends? Again, this is confirmation bias. Filomena is saying what you want to believe, so you believe her. Amanda, nah.. so she must be lying.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You have powers of divination?

I guess I must have. How else could anyone possibly conclude those two had no part in the murder?

 

[Vixen]

Are you denying that the footprints claimed to be Amanda's tested negative for both blood and Meredith's DNA? Are you claiming that there's some corroboration for Guede's claim of blood all over the hallway? Or are you still going to insist that his uncorroborated, contradictory, and clearly self-serving accounts of what happened have any evidentiary value whatsoever?

RG's written statements have a consistence running through them. That is not to say they are true. He is a liar, just like AK and RS. This is why we have detectives to investigate the truth of a matter.

Here is the court testimony re: AK and MK's DNA findings.






Read the court documents.


Please do take the trouble to read it.


From Massei, quoting Dr Stefanoni:

Traces that appeared to be of a blood nature [101] were also present on the box of cotton buds, on top of the toilet seat, on the light switch and in the bidet, ‚and there was always the drop upwards, really on the edge and the same continuity up to the bidet siphon, of the common colour and in the same line‛ (pages 134 and 135).



Traces were present also over the bathroom door, not watered down but a vivid red colour.



She specified that she had attended a course where ‚collecting biological substance is taught" (page 148).



She was equipped with gloves, overalls and shoecovers.



She could not remember how many times she changed her gloves but if she noticed that they were spotted proceeded to change them.



The evidence collecting in the small bathroom she did it with a ‘carta bibula’, which is an absorbent paper [disc] and to a question put to her by the defence of Amanda Knox, she stated the following: "when we say finding a drop upstream and a drop downstream ... on the inside for example of the sink ... a drop on the edge of the sink and for continuity there was a drop that ended up towards the sink siphon and had a continuity, is not that one was to the right, one to the left, one here and one over there; it had its own continuity, I had deemed it proper to use the same disc of absorbent paper, as they were equal in colour, pink‛. [- 'DILUTED BLOOD' = Marasca]



Such material singled out was pink, of "washed blood ... in the sense it did not have the characteristic red colour of blood‛.



The same colour other than in the bathroom sink was noted inside the bidet (p. 152).



She specified further that it was not a strip, but "more little specks < with the same continuity‛ (page 153): they were ‚drippings< that gave this continuity‛ and the colouring was the same, always pink.



She did not believe then it might be different traces because of the continuity between the different drops.

and

[198] In the small bathroom, three traces of the victim's blood were found on the bathmat; on the light switch plate with two switches there were traces "of diluted blood, blood presumably mixed with water, as it was pale pink in colour" (page 76) which also came from the victim; a sample was taken from the front part of the faucet of the sink, which yielded the genetic profile of Amanda Knox; another sample taken from a specimen visible to the naked eye on the edge of the drain of the bidet yielded the genetic profiles of the victim and of Knox, a genetic mixture also found on the box of cotton buds near the sink.


The drippings found inside the sink appeared to be diluted blood, pink in colour, proven by testing to be human blood and yielding the genetic mixture of the victim and Knox.


On the toilet cover there was a bloody substance which yielded the genetic profile of the victim; this was also found on the door-frame. Near the toilet flush was another stain presumed to be blood, but which ended up yielding a negative result.

and

Moving on to the findings taken from the small bathroom, it was pointed out that there was a substance most likely of a blood-derived nature on the ‚edge of the bidet drain‛; the sample was taken during the inspection in order to extract the specimen that yielded a genetic result of a mixed profile: victim plus Knox. It was positive for human blood.



The same procedure was done on the container of cotton swabs that was on the sink. The collected sample revealed a mixed genetic profile: victim plus Knox and it tested positive for human blood.



On the left part of the sink there was a trace, this too, most likely of a blood-derived nature since it was of a pinkish colour, like the others.



This particular trace originated from the high part and went towards the drain, towards the lower part. The analysis provided the following results: human blood and the genetic profile of the victim plus that of Amanda Knox.



The samples taken from the toilet lid in the small bathroom provided as a genetic result: victim profile and human blood.



The trace present on the right side of the inside part of the bathroom door frame was positive for human blood and it revealed the genetic profile of the victim.

So, we see, the (dead) victim's blood is all over the small bathroom and the diluted blood indicates the purpose was to clean it off. Stefanoni in Darkness Descending believes the drips were from the knife.



As to method of collection and how it was concluded that the DNA mix happened on the same night:

Regarding the method used to collect [repertazione] the blood stains by means of a small piece of paper that was used to collect a small quantity of blood and then this blood was ‚re-smeared‛ using that same piece of paper (cf. video of November 3, 2007 at 4:45 PM and beyond), she explained that this method ‚may not seem suitable for evidence collection [repertazione+‛ but, in reality and in that specific context, it was suitable ‚due to the nature of the traces that were collected‛.



In this regard she pointed out that ‚both the traces on the sink as well as the traces in the bidet were clearly rosy traces, so they appeared as certainly diluted traces, and they were apparently all of the same origin because they were drippings <they were like a sort of rivulet that started from the top and ended in the drain‛ (page 154).



She pointed out again, to stress the necessity of keeping in mind the context of the evidence collection [repertazione], that such a work method was not used for different traces, objects, and different areas such as the faucet and the cotton swabs.



Rather, it did apply to the evidence which was like a continuous rivulet of pinkish water that was found in the sink or in the bidet.



In response to specific questions regarding these traces, she stated that if they had originated from two different people and in a independent and distinct way, one from the other, what would have formed would have been a mixture of the trace: two DNA that would be separated at the start but that would have joined to form a single trace.


She believed it improbable however, to think of such an origin for the trace, which was proven mixed, and this because of the fact that the same area was affected and because of the much diluted blood appearance.



She stressed, as well, that both of the two specimens recovered in the bidet ‚were<more abundant on the rim and on the plug on the drain, compared to the part, which is let's say, slanted, where there is a very narrow line of the substance<However, she stressed, to the naked eye, this link was evident" (page 157).

In effect, the mixed samples come from similarly diluted 'rivulets' of pink liquid (water + blood). = Deposited the same time at the same event.



For the completeness of Stefanoni's evidence, as presented to the court and accepted:

The questioning of Dr. Stefanoni continued during the hearing of the following day, May 23, 2009.

During this hearing, the subject of the mixed traces of Knox and the victim found in the small bathroom was dealt with: traces on the box of cotton buds, in the sink and in the bidet.



It was further recalled that Knox's blood was present on the faucet of the sink, and Dr. Stefanoni declared that it was coagulated, not fresh blood, and that it was not possible to specify the moment at which this blood had been deposited on the front part of the faucet.



The witness reaffirmed that the mixed trace found in the sink was pink, as was the one in the bidet.



In relation to this colouring, she defined it as that of a diluted substance, rinsed blood.



She explained [228] that the traces were dry, and it was not possible to date them or to determine whether the trace ascribable to Knox had arrived there before the victim's, or vice versa.



She explained that the trace was very light pink, and that the photos and images did not give a visual representation of the reality of the facts as they were observed at the crime scene.



She confirmed that it was a streak.



With reference specifically to the trace found in the bidet, she explained that the trace was not exactly around the drainage outlet, "we didn't exactly go around the outlet, or underneath it, or go scraping on it directly; we went a little bit over...to a place a little bit to the side, here; not exactly the drain outlet itself" (page 12). S



he emphasised that the trace appeared as "a unicum (‚unique specimen‛) of this drip that started from higher up", so therefore it was not exactly at the drain, or more precisely, the interstice between the ceramic and the metal (page 12, hearing on May 23, 2009).



She subsequently emphasised that both in the bidet and in the sink, the traces were not separate, but presented themselves as physically united, without any break in continuity, and thus each one appeared to constitute a unicum, "a trace that I needed to analyse and consider in toto during the analyses...as from their visible aspect they were very diluted, really very, very diluted blood, I made sure that everything was taken that was possible to take, from the top towards the bottom", she explained (pages 13-14).





From the videos of the crime scene inspection, made on November 3, 2007 as has been already stated, it was shown that, concerning the trace on the bidet, the evidence collection from the upper part of the edge of the bidet was continued with the same swab down to the lower part.



Dr. Stefanoni maintained that this was correct methodology, since the trace formed one single drip, even though in the images it was not visible as a unit "because it is located practically underneath this hollow, which is not illuminated...however, there was a very thin thread of continuity" (page 15).

And:

100) found on the box of cotton-buds, in the bidet and inside the bathroom sink.



[243] With regard to the specimen on the box, she highlighted the presence of 4 alleles in the first locus and stressed that the presence was very clear, without too much "background noise" (page 100).



The profile in question, therefore, should correctly be interpreted as being composed of a mixed specimen; and the profiles matched those of Amanda and Meredith.


For the specimen found in the sample recovered in the bidet it was noted that the various alleles, in comparison to those related to the sample on the cotton bud box, were composed by peaks, some of which were much smaller and therefore, she added, ‚we certainly have a specimen with a major donor compared to another donor ... however ... these are alleles that we can identify clearly, although the quantity is much smaller‛ and therefore even this sample should be interpreted as indicative of a mixed trace with the DNA profile of Amanda and Meredith (page

101).



Even the specimen taken inside the washbasin shows DNA from one major donor compared to another, however the presence of several alleles was clear in various loci and therefore it should be considered that a mixed sample was present "with the presence certainly of at least two profiles‛.



She noted that there were also small peaks, difficult to interpret in truth, which could suggest the presence of other donors. However, she emphasised that ‚the alleles present are all very clear‛ and match the profiles of Meredith and Amanda‛ (pages 101 and102).

Massei thus sums up and concludes:

In the bidet there was a substance which appeared to be diluted blood, and which was shown to be a mixed trace specimen having the biological profiles of Amanda and Meredith.



Also in the sink, there was a substance which appeared to be diluted blood, and which was shown to be a mixed trace specimen with the same result.



On the front part of the tap of the sink, there was coagulated blood which was shown to belong to Amanda.



On the box of cotton buds/Q-tips sitting on the sink/washbasin there were stains and these showed the presence of blood and a mixed trace from Amanda and Meredith.



On the light switch in the same bathroom there was a mark which proved to be the victim’s blood.



The sky-blue mat found in that bathroom was stained with blood which was shown to be from the victim.



On the outcome of such tests, not only these but also others of a biological nature, carried out in observance of the provisions contained in Article 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code, no significant and specific criticisms were made.



Instead, the defendants’ teams maintained that these traces and the outcome of the analyses with reference to the mixed sample traces were irrelevant.



In this regard, starting from the scientific data which emerged, according to which DNA analysis does not permit the age of the sample/trace to be determined, nor, in the case of a sample/trace indicating the presence of several biological profiles, can it be established whether their apposition-formation was contemporaneous or not, it was affirmed that, since it concerned a bathroom which was used both by Meredith and by Amanda, the presence of mixed traces seemed to be a completely normal circumstance, and had no significance.



All the more so since the samples had been taken using the same blotting paper which had been used for various parts of the bidet and the sink.



The Court, however, believes that the presence of the biological trace specimens that were found is of great importance.


First, it should be recalled that Amanda Knox, in the course of her own examination (questioning), declared that when she left the house on Via della Pergola on the afternoon of November 1st, the bathroom was clean.



It should then be highlighted that in that same bathroom various [300] trace specimens were found, of a mixed nature and testing positively for blood.



It is true that, according to what was asserted and explained, it is not possible with a mixed trace specimen that tested positive for human blood to determine which of the trace’s contributors the blood belongs to.



In this case, however, non-mixed traces were also found, which were shown to be of a haematological nature [i.e. blood] and turn out to have the biological profile of the victim.



Such traces, in particular the dribble of blood left on the right inside edge of the door and the stains left on the light switch (see photographic illustrations 141, 142; 158, 159) lead to the deduction that whoever entered that bathroom had his or her hands covered in Meredith’s blood.

The Massei court adjudged:

The above observation leads to the deduction that whoever went into the bathroom at that point (after the stabbing of Meredith) must have had to do so to clean him/herself of Meredith’s blood with which he/she was staining the various things he/she touched or leaned against: the door, the light switch, the mat.



And it is probable - not necessary, but probable - that during the following act of scrubbing the hands to remove the blood, he/she left the mixed trace consisting of Meredith’s blood and of cells which had been removed by rubbing during the act of washing.


An entirely probable outcome given the likelihood of the act of scrubbing, yet not a necessary one, since the running water which was used in the shower stall or in the bidet or in the sink, or in several of these sanitary fittings, might well have rinsed away the washed-up blood and the cells which had been lost during this washing.



At this point, one may turn for the resulting evaluations to the trace specimens found in the sink, in the bidet, on the cotton-bud box, traces which tested positive for human blood and which were attributed to Meredith and to Amanda.



[301] While it is not possible to use the genetic scientific data (Dr. Stefanoni explained the impossibility of determining the date, the succession or the simultaneity in the depositing of the components of the mixed trace specimen and the impossibility of attributing the haematological component to one or the other of the contributors), the information previously put forward provides answers which are entirely consistent with the circumstantial evidence that has emerged and which the Court considers convincing.



Amanda was not wounded; in the days following no one spoke of wounds that she might have had; the examination which was carried out on her when measures restricting her personal freedom were taken ruled out the presence of wounds.



Meredith’s situation was the complete opposite.



In relation to this and to the circumstance by which haematological stains attributable to Meredith were found on the inside of the door, on the toilet-seat cover, on the light switch, it should be deduced that the haematological components found in the sink, in the bidet, on the box of cotton buds were also from Meredith.



Nor can it otherwise be argued for the presence of a drop of Amanda’s blood on the tap of the sink.



This consisted of a spot of coagulated blood, with respect to which Amanda explained that it came from her own ear having been pierced; this spot, furthermore, was located towards the inside of the sink: distinct, separate and morphologically different, therefore, from the trace found in the sink itself.



This Court also considers that the components of the mixed trace specimens were deposited simultaneously, and were deposited by Amanda.




Against this conclusion, the observations with respect to the shared use of the bathroom by the two young women, the resulting likelihood of their biological traces being present, and the way in which these specimens were gathered [by the police], are not valid, in the sense that they are not considered either convincing or plausible, neither in relation to the overall situation present in the bathroom, which has been described, nor with [regard to] the statements made by Gioia Brocci and by Dr. Stefanoni, who both stated that the trace specimens present in the bathroom and in the bidet were of the same colour, as of diluted blood, and appeared to constitute one single trace, one [part] in the bidet and one in the sink. The drop at the top [302] and the drop at the bottom had continuity and formed a continuous pattern.



The specimens were collected accordingly, just like any other specimen which necessarily occupies a certain space, and which the technician does not collect one little spot after another.



It should also be noted that the statements according to which the traces in the sink and in the bidet each constituted a single specimen correspond to the act of cleaning the victim’s blood, an action previously mentioned and during which it would have been easy to leave a mixed sample, constituted precisely of biological material from the victim (blood) and biological material from whoever was cleaning (cells lost during scrubbing/rubbing).



It should further be noted that such mixed trace specimens, with the morphology shown, were found both in the sink and in the bidet.



It should be considered that those in the sink occurred when Amanda, as has been said, washed her hands which were stained with Meredith’s blood; in the bidet it should be considered that they [the traces] originated from a similar activity, but in relation to the feet, which must also have been covered with blood as can be inferred from the print of a bare foot left on the sky-blue mat, stained with Meredith’s blood.



This print will be dealt with subsequently.



Reference to it is made now in order to make the point that the presence of such a print of a bare foot brings one to consider that Amanda (also) could have had bare feet, stained with Meredith’s blood.



The mixed trace specimens found in the sink and in the bidet and on the box of cotton buds therefore signify that Amanda, soiled with Meredith’s blood, entered the bathroom which was right next door to the room in which Meredith had been stabbed; putting her hand against the door she left a mark on it and the dribble of blood which remained is a sign [proof] of this, and left a mark also - still with Meredith’s blood - on the light switch; she touched the cotton-bud box which was on the sink and left a mixed trace specimen of herself and of Meredith; to clean her hands she used the sink in which, through the act of scrubbing, she left her own biological trace mixed with that of Meredith, and used the bidet, most likely to wash her feet, which must have become *blood+ stained in Meredith’s room, where there were widespread and abundant traces of blood even on the floor, and where the blood was spattered over various parts of the room, and also in the bidet [303] she left a trace specimen of what appeared to be diluted blood, which contained both her own DNA and that of Meredith.

I know PGP claim to hate Stefanoni and despise her for her findings, and have no respect for her, but if you could please read the court findings carefully with a reasonable and impartial mind, you will understand the strength of the mixed blood evidence.


This is scientific and objective. This was tested in court.



.

 

[Vixen]

So what makes Filomena's word gospel? How does FR know Meredith doesn't lock the door? Does she go rattle the door while Meredith is showering or while out with her friends? Again, this is confirmation bias. Filomena is saying what you want to believe, so you believe her. Amanda, nah.. so she must be lying.

Filomena's anxiety and alarm was genuine. AK blurted out that Mez' door was always locked because she realised how suspicious the locked door looked given she was the only person home and then she twigged Filomena just caught her lying.





.








.

 

[Vixen]

I guess I must have. How else could anyone possibly conclude those two had no part in the murder?

Think of all the court time and taxpayers' money it would save, if they could simply wheel you out to pronounce the verdict by use of supernatural powers. We should put a patent on you and hire you out!




.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Think of all the court time and taxpayers' money it would save, if they could simply wheel you out to pronounce the verdict by use of supernatural powers. We should put a patent on you and hire you out!

The real secret is not supernatural powers, it's my time machine. Having travelled forward to 2015 I discovered <spoiler alert> a superior court will exonerate the pair. You folk stuck in 2009 don't know this yet.

You're welcome.

 

[Vixen]

The real secret is not supernatural powers, it's my time machine. Having travelled forward to 2015 I discovered <spoiler alert> a superior court will exonerate the pair. You folk stuck in 2009 don't know this yet.

You're welcome.

A pedantic note: they were not technically 'exonerated'.





.

 

[Vixen]

IIRC, the front door lock had been broken some days before the murder, so Meredith Kercher might have taken the precaution of locking her room door when she left the cottage. So perhaps when she returned on 1 November 2007, she had left the keys in the lock after unlocking the door. Then, very suddenly, she was entering her room - had not even taken off her jacket - when Guede rushed in and began his assault on her. This is hypothetical but, I believe, not contradicted by other evidence.

Since it's clear that Guede had touched her bag (purse) and removed some (or all?) of the contents, it is possible that he found her keys in the bag. Locking the bedroom door would then take more thought on his part in this scenario than if he had found the key already in the lock.

There remains the mystery of what happened in the downstairs apartment. Many blood stains were found in that apartment, including one above a light switch mounted on a wall. In the DNA quantification stage of the DNA profiling test, human DNA was detected in samples obtained from those blood stains. However, Stefanoni claimed that she tested the blood stains for species (human, dog, or cat) and she claimed they were from a bleeding cat. However, her data sheets - which are simply pieces of paper where she checked off the species - do not show that she tested the blood stain above the light switch. Furthermore, the documentation of her testing for species that was made available, IIUC, does not convey a sufficient level of confidence that the testing had been done maintaining forensic standards. Meaning, perhaps, that an expert looking at the available data would not be able to say with confidence that the testing had in reality been done. (Note that if the blood was indeed from cat, then the samples taken must have picked up human DNA that had been deposited previously under the cat blood stain. The quantification/replication enzymes used in DNA profiling are highly specific for humans and don't cross-react with cat or other "lower" mammal DNA.)

As I recall Guede hovering over Mez' body says he heard a noise from downstairs, causing him to take fright and quickly depart. It could be RS and AK were in the downstairs bathroom standing on a prop keeping a look out of the window to see if the coast was clear.



.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

A pedantic note: they were not technically 'exonerated'.

I thought you found legal technicalities distasteful. I guess if they suit your purpose, they're suddenly fine.

I suppose you recognise there is a large gulf between the pronouncement that the pair had no part in the crime and stubbornly clinging on to the belief that despite it all they somehow did the murder.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

As I recall Guede hovering over Mez' body says he heard a noise from downstairs, causing him to take fright and quickly depart. It could be RS and AK were in the downstairs bathroom standing on a prop keeping a look out of the window to see if the coast was clear.

To make this fevered imagining of yours coherent, why would he take fright on hearing his accomplices? Makes no sense. You get that, right?

 

[TruthCalls]

Filomena's anxiety and alarm was genuine. AK blurted out that Mez' door was always locked because she realised how suspicious the locked door looked given she was the only person home and then she twigged Filomena just caught her lying.

Really? Were you there to see it, or does that just suit the narrative that you wish to believe? More confirmation bias.

I'm continually impressed with how you can read the minds of others - not.

But I'd still like to know how you know Filomena is correct. How does Filomena know Meredith never locks the door???

 

[Vixen]

I thought you found legal technicalities distasteful. I guess if they suit your purpose, they're suddenly fine.

I suppose you recognise there is a large gulf between the pronouncement that the pair had no part in the crime and stubbornly clinging on to the belief that despite it all they somehow did the murder.

I am afraid that is how Marasca-Bruno, 2015, left the whole thing in a complete mess.

Fast forward to 2017 to Sollecito's claim for millions of euros in compensation:


"..the fact that Knox was in the house 7 Via della Pergola at the time when young Meredith Kercher was killed constitutes a fact of absolute and indisputable certainty."

Martuscelli,Masi, Favi – Florence Court 10 Feb 2017



"the Court noted a lack of correspondence after 20:40, the time of the second visit of Popovic and the last call from Sollecito's father, (or anyway, later than 21:10, the time of the last computer interaction); the falseness of the girl's assertions that she had eaten in the house at 22:00 or 23:00 (because Sollecito's father at 20:40 was told that they had already eaten and that a leak had occurred under the sink while they were washing up); the untruthfulness of her statement that both had slept together all night until 10:00, given the evidence of human interaction with Sollecito's computer at 05:32 and the turning on of his cell phone at about 06:00."

Martuscelli, Masi, Favi – Florence Appeal Court 10 Feb 2017


.

 

[Vixen]

To make this fevered imagining of yours coherent, why would he take fright on hearing his accomplices? Makes no sense. You get that, right?

RG's story was RS attacked him with a knife (and there were knife wounds on RG's hands) before fleeing with AK whose silhouette he saw, he claims.

.

 

[Vixen]

Really? Were you there to see it, or does that just suit the narrative that you wish to believe? More confirmation bias.

I'm continually impressed with how you can read the minds of others - not.

But I'd still like to know how you know Filomena is correct. How does Filomena know Meredith never locks the door???

Filomena and Laura were the main flat tenants, who sublet it to AK and Mez. If Filomena knew immediately Mez' door was never locked, except when she was away in London, then I believe Filomena.


.

 

[TruthCalls]

Filomena and Laura were the main flat tenants, who sublet it to AK and Mez. If Filomena knew immediately Mez' door was never locked, except when she was away in London, then I believe Filomena.

One more time... HOW does Filomena know Meredith never locked her door?

That Filomena and Laura were the main flat tenants who sublet to AK and MK is irrelevant.

 

[TruthCalls]

RG's story was RS attacked him with a knife (and there were knife wounds on RG's hands) before fleeing with AK whose silhouette he saw, he claims.

.

The cut wounds on his hand were also consistent with someone stabbing someone else. You do realize that, right?

 

[SpitfireIX]

How is this relevant? A poster brought up Salem to portray their belief AK was witch hunted by Mignini, without offering any proof whatsoever but hoping to be taken at face value.

The proof has been discussed at great length in this thread; you just refuse to accept it because it doesn't fit the guilter narrative.

Please don't be disingenuous . . .

There goes another one.

. . . and claim the poster wasn't referring to AK's sex.

It is your claim that @Myriad was so referring; therefore, it is your burden of proof. For someone who purports to have a "logical, mathematical, and objective mindset," you seem to have great difficulty grasping this concept.

Further, can you explain how @Myriad was clearly making reference to Amanda's sex when 30% of those intentionally put to death in the Salem Witch Trials were men?

 

[TruthCalls]

I am afraid that is how Marasca-Bruno, 2015, left the whole thing in a complete mess.

Fast forward to 2017 to Sollecito's claim for millions of euros in compensation:


"..the fact that Knox was in the house 7 Via della Pergola at the time when young Meredith Kercher was killed constitutes a fact of absolute and indisputable certainty."

Martuscelli,Masi, Favi – Florence Court 10 Feb 2017



"the Court noted a lack of correspondence after 20:40, the time of the second visit of Popovic and the last call from Sollecito's father, (or anyway, later than 21:10, the time of the last computer interaction); the falseness of the girl's assertions that she had eaten in the house at 22:00 or 23:00 (because Sollecito's father at 20:40 was told that they had already eaten and that a leak had occurred under the sink while they were washing up); the untruthfulness of her statement that both had slept together all night until 10:00, given the evidence of human interaction with Sollecito's computer at 05:32 and the turning on of his cell phone at about 06:00."

Martuscelli, Masi, Favi – Florence Appeal Court 10 Feb 2017

Could you clarify why you claim "they were technically not 'exonerated'" ???


Interesting you quote Martuscelli. Considering all that it got wrong just within the one short paragraph you quoted;

What do you think was the evidence that led the court to write "the fact that Knox was in the house ... at the time when young Meredith Kercher was killed ... a fact of absolute and indisputable certainty." ??? We know MB was referencing her interrogation statements, but those were thrown out. So on what basis can any court make this claim? Can you cite what evidence proves this with absolute and indisputable certainty?

It's also very telling that the court wrote ".... (or anyway, later than 21:10, the time of the last computer interaction)". Apparently they weren't aware it was proven Raffaele downloaded and then launched a Naruto cartoon at 21:26. Ooops... so careless of the court.

It also got it wrong when it wrote "the falseness of the girl's assertions that she had eaten in the house at 22:00 or 23:00 (because Sollecito's father at 20:40 was told that they had already eaten and that a leak had occurred under the sink while they were washing up)". It was 20:42 and Raffaele did NOT say they had eaten, only that he was washing dishes when the sink leaked.

It then assumes when it wrote "the untruthfulness of her statement that both had slept together all night until 10:00, given the evidence of human interaction with Sollecito's computer at 05:32 and the turning on of his cell phone at about 06:00." Of course, one can get up to use the bathroom, check something on the computer or use their cell phone and return to bed, not rising for the day until 10:00.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

RG's story was RS attacked him with a knife (and there were knife wounds on RG's hands) before fleeing with AK whose silhouette he saw, he claims.

This gets madder and madder. You think RG got knifed by RS but didn't run away, until he later heard them downstairs and *then* he ran away. I presume the "he claims" bit means no of course you don't believe that. There's a much more parsimonious explanation for cuts on his hands. He got them while committing the murder.

 

[Vixen]

Could you clarify why you claim "they were technically not 'exonerated'" ???


Interesting you quote Martuscelli. Considering all that it got wrong just within the one short paragraph you quoted;

What do you think was the evidence that led the court to write "the fact that Knox was in the house ... at the time when young Meredith Kercher was killed ... a fact of absolute and indisputable certainty." ??? We know MB was referencing her interrogation statements, but those were thrown out. So on what basis can any court make this claim? Can you cite what evidence proves this with absolute and indisputable certainty?

It's also very telling that the court wrote ".... (or anyway, later than 21:10, the time of the last computer interaction)". Apparently they weren't aware it was proven Raffaele downloaded and then launched a Naruto cartoon at 21:26. Ooops... so careless of the court.

It also got it wrong when it wrote "the falseness of the girl's assertions that she had eaten in the house at 22:00 or 23:00 (because Sollecito's father at 20:40 was told that they had already eaten and that a leak had occurred under the sink while they were washing up)". It was 20:42 and Raffaele did NOT say they had eaten, only that he was washing dishes when the sink leaked.

It then assumes when it wrote "the untruthfulness of her statement that both had slept together all night until 10:00, given the evidence of human interaction with Sollecito's computer at 05:32 and the turning on of his cell phone at about 06:00." Of course, one can get up to use the bathroom, check something on the computer or use their cell phone and return to bed, not rising for the day until 10:00.

It was an automatic P2P download, nobody needed to be there, and in fact, RS actually downloaded Amelié film end of October so seems odd AK says in her book that she turned to RS to say, oh I know a great film Amelie blah blah, referring to the eve of the murder.

The Masi Court's mention of the father's claim is a dig at RS getting his father to vouch for him.

To explain all the flooding RS experienced that night RS' father said this happened before 8:40pm the time he supposedly rang RS because that was the last call proven to go through to RS before the next morning. As RS' phone was switched off from about 9:00pm and his father rang at 11:00pm as per usual, the message went to answerphone, which RS only picked up at about 6:00am.

Likewise Popovic's claim was also used against him.

This is Florence Supreme Court saying we know you did it, and you ain't getting a penny.


.

 

[Vixen]

This gets madder and madder. You think RG got knifed by RS but didn't run away, until he later heard them downstairs and *then* he ran away. I presume the "he claims" bit means no of course you don't believe that. There's a much more parsimonious explanation for cuts on his hands. He got them while committing the murder.

RG claims he went to Mez' aid, trying to staunch all the blood.


.

 

[Vixen]

One more time... HOW does Filomena know Meredith never locked her door?

That Filomena and Laura were the main flat tenants who sublet to AK and MK is irrelevant.

Because she DEMANDED it be broken in!




.

 

[Stacyhs]

The expectation is that if you are going to claim 'contamination' you need to present a plausible path of how that contamination got there specific to the scenario. Otherwise any criminal can claim 'contamination' without proper proof or testing.

You want a 'plausible path'? Here ya go. Prof. Vinci presents it in his court presentation:

https://www.themurderofmeredithkercher.net/docupl/filelibrary/docs/presentations/2008-09-24-Slides-Consultant-Defense-Vinci-finding-bra-clasp.pdf

The Dec. 18 collection of the bra clearly showed egregious violations of anti-contamination protocols including being directly touched by a visibly dirty and admittedly unchanged gloves.

Hellmann was criticised for saying, 'Anything is possible',

Every single court was criticized. That's par for the course. Some criticisms are valid, some are not.
Hellmann was not criticized for saying "Anything is possible". Chieffi (pg. 33) criticized the experts:

Nor could the experts indicate any specific source of contamination, limiting themselves instead to asserting that anything is possible.

using a piece-meal method of evidence testing

Yep. Taking each piece of evidence and ruling on its own inculpatory merit rather than considering everything 'as a whole' as if the 'bigger picture' somehow makes each piece of evidence ruled non-inculpatory now inculpatory.

and failing to explain why he appointed new expert witnesses at all.

Hellmann did give an explanation why the new experts were appointed. From the Chieffi MR (pg 15):

The Hellmann Court of Appeal justified its decision to allow this new assessment by the fact that “the identification of the DNA on the two exhibits and its [11] attribution to the defendants was particularly complex because of the objective difficulty, by persons not having scientific knowledge, to formulate assessments and opinions on particularly technical matters without the assistance of a court‐appointed expert”.

As the next merits court via Nencini Appeal pointed out, C&V's report was riddled with so-called 'US standards',

Citation needed and requested. I can find no such statement in Nencini. He did mention "international standards" on page 253:

...the quantity of material sampled from trace (I) was perfectly analyzable, with a double amplification, and thus suitable to yield a perfectly reliable result according to the oft-cited international standards when analyzed by professionals who wanted to use this kit or who knew about the availability of the kit that made this possible.

clearly written by AK advocates in the US, when C&V were supposed to be independent.

LOL. That is clearly YOUR claim. Unless you can quote and cite evidence of this?

You continue to claim every acquitting judge, defense lawyer, defense expert, defense witness was "bent", "paid off", "incompetent" or in a" conspiracy" to get AK and RS off. Five years ago you were posting this nonsense and you're still at it:

Vecchiotti & Conti were in a conspiracy with Hellman. Hellman didn't need to appoint two further experts, as they are no higher rank than Stefanoni. They were brought in to trash her. Chieffi criticised Hellman for failing to explain why he appointed tow further experts.

But you're not a conspiracist!

Hellman had the power to appoint experts of his own but he was supposed to proved a rationale for it.

Yes, he did and he also provided his rationale for it as I quoted and cited above.

They were very obviously bent, as was Hellmann.

And everyone else who doesn't agree with the PGP narrative.

 

[Stacyhs]

RG claims he went to Mez' aid, trying to staunch all the blood.

He also claims he had a prearranged meeting with Kercher to have sex while Silenzi was out of town. Apparently, Kercher was also "bringing home strange men" and having "sex with multiple partners".

 

[LondonJohn]

Seriously: why are people still being indulgent in rising to "arguments" being made in this thread about matters related to the murder charges against Knox and Sollecito? We* all know that there never was even one reliable, credible piece of evidence linking either Knox or Sollecito to the murder. We all know that the prosecutor and police got all puffed up with hubris, malign methods and motives, tunnel vision and confirmation bias. We all know that in actual fact the only person who is linked by sufficient reliable, credible evidence to constitute proof BARD of participation in the murder was/is Guede. We all know that in actual fact every piece of reliable, credible evidence in this case is wholly compatible with Guede confronting Kercher alone, forcing her into submission with his knife at her throat, initiating a sexual assault upon her, then stabbing her in the neck when she (most probably) struggled and screamed once the sexual assault started.

Frankly, I'm baffled that people can still be bothered to engage with nutjob conspiracy theories, entrenched woeful misunderstandings of various pieces of evidence, and laughable ignorance of science and the scientific method. But then again, I suppose there are still people on this forum who line up to argue back against other wholly-discredited theories around such things as 9/11, the Moon landings or the JFK assassination. In all those examples - as with the murder of Meredith Kercher - all right-thinking people now know the settled truth of the matter. Yet somehow people still get drawn in like moths to a flame to engage with long-discredited conspiracy theories and bogus deductive reasoning. Plus ca change.....


* "We" here means: critical thinkers with at least half-decent powers of analysis, deduction and the scientific method.

 

[Numbers]

To understand the Knox - Sollecito case, one must understand not only the details and alleged details of the case, but also understand the workings of Italy's judicial system - not merely its criminal and procedural laws, but also how the authorities - the police, prosecutors, and courts work in practice. Are the procedural laws strictly followed by the authorities? Are the reasons given by the courts in their judgments logical, reasonable, and consistent with the credible evidence of a case, or are the judgments sometimes unfair? When the authorities make mistakes or act unfairly, perhaps even unlawfully, do the mechanisms of the judicial process result in appropriate correction and redress? How quickly do a necessary correction and redress follow after an unfairness is brought to the attention of the authorities by, for example, a judgment of a violation of the Convention by the ECHR?

Let's gain some idea of the answers to these questions by examining the number of [leading] pending ECHR cases before the CoM and how many of these cases have at least some initial response (an Action Plan or proposed Action Report) from the Respondent State for some states of interest.

Italy; pop. about 59 million. Pending cases: 74; Required AP/AR: 69; Received: 53; Awaited: 17 = 24.6%

Ukraine; pop. about 38 million. Pending cases: 111; Required AP/AR: 111; Received: 107; Awaited: 4 = 3.6%

UK; pop. about 68 million. Pending cases: 7; Required AP/AR: 7; Received: 7; Awaited: 0 = 0%

France; pop. about 67 million. Pending cases: 22; Required AP/AR: 22; Received: 22; Awaited: 0 = 0%

Germany; pop. about 84 million. Pending cases: 6; Required AP/AR: 6; Received: 6; Awaited: 0 = 0%

Spain; pop. about 49 million. Pending cases: 21; Required AP/AR: 21; Received: 20; Awaited: 1 = 4.8%

Turkiye; pop. about 86 million. Pending cases: 139; Required AP/AR: 131; Received: 127; Awaited: 4 = 3.1%

Russia; pop. about 144 million. Pending cases: 246; Required AP/AR: 167; Received: 74; Awaited: 93 = 55.7%*

* Although Russia ceased being a member of the CoE in 2022, under the Convention, it remains legally obligated to work within the Convention to correct and redress violations of the Convention up to 6 months after the date it left and was expelled from the Council of Europe. That means that the ECHR was allowed under the Convention to accept applications against Russia until 16 September 2022. See:

https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/russia-ceases-to-be-party-to-the-european-convention-on-human-rights

Some guilter years ago suggested that Italy could "solve" the Knox ECHR issues by leaving the Council of Europe. That leaving would not release Italy from a legal treaty obligation to redress the violations found by the ECHR in the Knox v. Italy case under the Convention.


Conclusion: Not only does Italy have a relatively large number of ECHR cases finding violations of the Convention - including cases of unfair trials, but also other types of unfair practices by the authorities and government, but it is slower than many other democracies in Western Europe in addressing its mistakes or misconduct.

The data on Leading Pending cases, Required AP/AR, Received AP/AR, and Awaited AP/AR are from the HUDOC EXEC database:

HUDOC-EXEC

hudoc.exec.coe.int

I calculated the percentages for the Awaited AP/AR as NUMBER AWAITED/NUMBER REQUIRED x 100.

 

[Stacyhs]

There were two long blond hairs. One clasped in rigor mortis by the victim's hand. Another long strand across Mez' bag.

So tell me, were those blond hairs natural or died? As I've pointed out to you numerous times and which you ignore: Amanda dyed her hair blonde at the time and dyed hair is easily seen under a microscope.

Guede was seen dancing with a girl with "long, straight blonde hair" on Halloween night at Domus by his upstairs neighbors. (Follain, Kindle location 2894)

Knox' table lamp on the floor beneath Mez' bed

We've discussed this ad nauseum. No one knows who or when the lamp was brought into her room. But per usual, you see no explanation possible other than it was Knox/Sollecito the night of the murder. As I've mentioned many times; if guilty Knox would have simply claimed Kercher borrowed it.

and a ladies size 37 ACSIS stamped in blood on the pillow. Knox is size 37.

Oh, please, don't start with the size 37 shoe bit again.

In addition, only AK would have the key to Mez door to lock her in, being the only other person home.

LOL. You mean Guede didn't know how to lock the door? Oh, wait. I forgot: the locks were custom made for the cottage so he didn't know how put a key in and turn it!

Please don't argue that it is OK to kill your room mate 'because AK lives there, so all mixed DNA and footprints in blood should be disregarded'.

Will you PLEASE STOP MISCHARACTERIZING WHAT PEOPLE SAY? No one said any such thing. Nor were there "footprints in blood" except for the one on the bathmat which could not be scientifically and definitively assigned.

 

[Stacyhs]

I didn't catch it until I reread it a few times, but that's supposed to be a joke. It's a line from a movie. Say it three times fast. And see here.

I've never seen a Carry On film in life despite having subscriptions to both ACORN and BRITBOX.

 

[Stacyhs]

i had thought of this, but someone had mentioned that Filomena stated that Meredith never locked her door. However, I just got Waiting to Be Heard from the library, and Amanda states, on p. 71 (hardback), that she told the Postal Police that Meredith only locked her door when she was changing clothes or out of town for the weekend, and then Filomena interrupted, clearly agitated, to say that Meredith never locked her door, and to demand that the police break it down.

I would say that Amanda is more likely to have been correct on this point. Filomena may well have assumed, just because she'd never known of Meredith's locking her door (in the relatively short time they'd been housemates) that she never did. However, Amanda could well have knocked at least once, and Meredith might have responded, "Just a minute! I'm changing!" (or whatever a young English woman of that time would have said in such circumstances), and then Amanda could have heard the door being unlocked before Meredith opened it. Amanda might also have actually observed Meredith lock her door before she left for the weekend.

Finally, it's possible that Meredith had recently started locking her door, or locking it more frequently, when she was away, but neither Amanda nor Filomena were aware of this. Possibly someone had suggested to her that she do this, or she might have gotten the idea on her own, such as from hearing about a break-in in the area.

All of this is a long-winded way of saying that, even though Filomena stated that Meredith never locked her door, we still can't exclude the possibility that Rudy could have found her keys in the lock.

Filomena worked full time, 5 days a week and spent many, if not most, weekends at her boyfriend's place. How would she know when, or if, Meredith locked her door during the day? OTOH, Amanda was often home during the day as her three classes only took two hours 5 days week (WTBH). She speaks about afternoon sunbathing on the terrace with Meredith after Filomena and Laura went back to work after lunch.

 

[Stacyhs]

Complete nonsense.

 

[Stacyhs]

How is this relevant? A poster brought up Salem to portray their belief AK was witch hunted by Mignini, without offering any proof whatsoever but hoping to be taken at face value. Please don't be disingenuous and claim the poster wasn't referring to AK's sex.

He wasn't referring to AK's sex as he never brought her sex up. Show me exactly WHERE in this statement Myriad references her sex:

Right now, and far into the future, that happens to be a story about malicious and incompetent prosecution of innocent people, which is something few people have any sympathy for once the history comes to light.

Consider the honest well-intentioned prosecutors in Salem, MA in the 1690s who worked so hard to keep the citizens safe from evil. It's so unfair that they ended up vilified just because they killed 25 people, when there was clear testimony and forensic evidence that witches were fraternizing with Satan himself and using the maleficent powers they gained thereby to spectrally assault and torture innocent young girls. The judgment of history is so unfair sometimes! Especially to the ones convinced they're contending against Satan personally, like Ol' Bill Stoughton or Magistrato Giuliano Mignini.

The only reference to any sex is the bolded. The "innocent young girls" being referencing were the girls claiming to be tormented by witches. Those girls were not being accused of anything by the authorities.

 

[Stacyhs]

I should take what AK puts in her words to portray herself as a victim of Italy's legal system with a huge pinch of salt. As Filomena, said, Mez never locked her door. Why do you think she immediately contradicted Knox' claim? The only time she locked her door was when she went to visit her family in England, which makes perfect sense. How does AK know she locked her door when changing unless AK rattled her door without knocking?

Giancarlo Massei didn't believe her story and actually leaned in during the trial to ask her a question personally about it. Here's the exchange:

GCM - Giancarlo Massei; GM - Guiliano Mignini

GM:

You don't remember. So. Listen, another question. Do you remember, on the morning of the 2nd, if Raffaele tried to break down the door of the room?

AK:

Yes.

GM:

How then, when later Romanelli arrived, you said that it was normal for Meredith to lock her door. Yet you tried to break it down. Can you explain this?

AK:

Certainly. When the police came they asked, at least they asked Filomena, if that door was ever locked, and she said "No no no no, it's never, never locked." I said "No, that's not true that it's really never locked," because sometimes it actually was locked. But for me, it was strange that it was locked and she wasn't answering, so for me it was strange, but I wanted to explain that it wasn't impossible, that she did lock her door now and then.

GM:

But usually, you remember her door being open.

AK:

Yes it was usually open or at least...yes.

GM:

But on that morning, I understand that you were said to have stated that Meredith always locked her door. And that it was normal.

AK:

I never said it was always locked. It's just that they didn't understand. I just wanted to explain that it was not always open.

GM:

I see, you didn't explain properly.

GCM:

The pubblico ministero is asking you: okay, you say it was not always open, not always closed, but it was a circumstance which didn't particularly alarm you, so much so that you even said this to Romanelli.

AK:

Yes, because Filomena was answering like that--



GCM: Okay, okay, but it sounds like the locked door didn't alarm you, whereas in fact Raffaele Sollecito had already tried to break down the door. So?



AK: Well, I was worried because she wasn't answering. The fact that the door was locked wouldn't have alarmed me if, say, she had answered, but the fact that she didn't answer when we called her made us think: maybe she's in there and she isn't well or something.



GCM: Yes, but per carita, still on this circumstance. A door is locked, locked, why should I think there is someone inside who isn't answering me? I could just calmly think that nobody is there.


AK:

Also that. But we weren't sure. Sorry--

GCM:

--and if she's not home, why should I be worried? Enough to ruin the door by breaking it down? Why should I think that there is someone there who is not answering me? The simplest answer is that she left, locked the door and left. She's not answering, why call her? The door is locked, she's not there.

AK:

I know. But the fact that there were all these strange things in the house--

GCM:

No, excuse me. Per carita. After this, the other party will continue the examination. I want to say: you find the main door open, you can think that she left and forgot to close it, but she locked her own door. Why should you be so worried that you try to break down her door? I think this is what the pubblico ministero is asking. There. If you could explain why you were so worried in relation to your knowledge. Your motive for trying to break down the door.

AK:

Yes. I was worried that somehow she was inside and had hurt herself, because there were so many strange things in the house, and so I didn't know what to think. But at the same time, she could have been inside or not, but I wanted to be sure, because if she had hurt herself in some way, or if someone was in there, or if she went out because there was something in there, I didn't know. And the fact that the door was locked together with the broken window had me very worried, I didn't know what to think, but I was worried. So I wanted to knock the door down to see if there was something in there. I didn't know what. But at the same time it worried me. And when I said to Filomena "It's not true that it's never locked," I only wanted to explain the truth of the situation. Because someone was saying "No, no, it's never locked," and that wasn't true. I wanted to explain that.

And here's how AK tried to explain away her missing lamp.

GM:

Now, another question. You told us before, this story about the door, about knocking down the door, that Raffaele tried to break down the door. You said that you tried to explain that sometimes she did have her door locked, you told us about this point. Now, I want to ask you this question: Raffaele didn't by any chance try to break down the door to get back the lamp we talked about?

AK:

[perfectly calm reasonable voice] No, we didn't know the lamp was in there.

GM:

You didn't know that your lamp was in there?

AK:

In the sense that the lamp that was supposed to be in my room, I hadn't even noticed it was missing. I tried--

GM:

You didn't see that it was missing?

AK:

No, I didn't see that it was missing. We tried to break down the door because I was so worried after having seen the broken window. I basically panicked. I was thinking, Good Lord, what's going on here? I ran downstairs to see if anyone down there had heard anything, then I tried to see if she was inside. She locked her door when she needed "privacy" [English]. So if she wasn't in there but the door was locked, it seemed strange to me. Also the fact that the window was broken worried me. It wasn't to get something.


FM:

In your room in via della Pergola, was there a central light?

AK:

There was one but it didn't work, so I used the little bedside lamp.

FM:

The lamp.

AK:

The little lamp, yes.

FM:

And you previously stated that you didn't look for the lamp either; you only looked for your computer when you went into your room. You didn't look for your money, you didn't look for your lamp.

AK:

So, I saw the window only the second time that I entered the house. The first time I went into the house I didn't even think of looking to see if anything was missing, because I saw going into the living room, it really looked like someone had just gone out of the house, everything was in order, just as I had left it. But the second time, I didn't even think of looking for the lamp: the computer was the important thing for me. All my documents were in it.

FM:

But the first time, when you took your shower and then you returned to your room, first you undressed and then you dressed, all this, you did it without any light?

AK:

It was the middle of the morning, there was already light.

FM:

Did you open your shutters or were they already open?

AK:

I don't remember.

FM:

To get to your room, to get to the window, you walked in the dark?

AK:

But it wasn't dark in my room. Often --

FM:

I don't know, I wasn't there.

AK:

All right. Usually I only turned on that little lamp at night. Really at night, or in the evening, when I wanted to...So I didn't even think of turning it on. It really wasn't dark in my room when I went in.

GCM:

It wasn't dark, but where was the light coming from? Natural light?

AK:

Natural.

GCM:

And what window was it coming from, this natural light?

AK:

I only have one window, but it was also coming from the other side because there's a balcony.

GCM:

And the door of the bathroom? Meredith's door was closed so no natural light was coming from there. Outside, there's the little corridor, the living room, Romanelli's door, and Laura Mezzetti's door. Which were the doors that let in light?

AK:

The door of the balcony on the other side of the corridor, which lets in light, and then there was the window.

GCM:

So, from the balcony, the corridor, the light actually reached your room?

AK:

Yes.

GCM:

That was the light that you had.

--http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox%27s_Testimony

Yes, we've presented this testimony before which is evidence of exactly nothing against Knox. She didn't know her lamp was missing because there was plenty of natural light. But you won't explain WHY Knox, if guilty, would not have just claimed Kercher borrowed her lamp while she was staying at Sollecito's. It's a perfectly plausible scenario. Which is why I suspect you never address that.

So your depiction of the Italian judiciary as a bunch of clowns eager to 'witch hunt' is so far off the mark. But I know you will never reevaluate your opinion because it is based on a blind loyalty to someone you perceive as a celebrity.

Oh, man. That made me spit my coffee out.

 

[Stacyhs]

You have powers of divination? It's a shame Randi is no longer with us to offer his million dollar prize!

Says the woman who repeatedly tells us what Knox and Sollecito not only 'knew' but what they thought and felt.

 

[Stacyhs]

(snipped)
So, we see, the (dead) victim's blood is all over the small bathroom and the diluted blood indicates the purpose was to clean it off.

Well, no , Sherlock! Even Insp. Clouseau could have figured that one out.

Stefanoni in Darkness Descending believes the drips were from the knife.

Wait. I thought the diluted blood in the sink was from Knox washing her hands of blood?

As to method of collection and how it was concluded that the DNA mix happened on the same night:

Yet again, we see the claim that Knox "during the following act of scrubbing the hands to remove the blood, he/she left the mixed trace consisting of Meredith’s blood and of cells which had been removed by rubbing during the act of washing," which was NEVER substantiated by any science or other evidence. It is 100% the unscientific assumption of the judges.

In effect, the mixed samples come from similarly diluted 'rivulets' of pink liquid (water + blood). = Deposited the same time at the same event.

Scientifically unsupported. Even Stefanoni knew that when and how Knox's DNA was deposited cannot be known. You've had numerous quoted and cited forensic articles stating that.

I know PGP claim to hate Stefanoni and despise her for her findings, and have no respect for her,

I've never seen anyone claim to 'hate' or 'despise' Stefanoni. Again, that's your invention. 'Respect' is another matter. You're right there. It's difficult to respect a forensic expert who makes such basic errors as she made both in the collection and processing of evidence. Who consistently and intentionally keeps referring to "luminol revealed" footprints when she somehow "forgets" to mention they all tested negative for blood.

but if you could please read the court findings carefully with a reasonable and impartial mind, you will understand the strength of the mixed blood evidence.


This is scientific and objective. This was tested in court.

Says the person who accuses every forensic expert who has explained why the mixed DNA/blood does NOT mean "mixed blood" of being bent, paid off, or incompetent. That's including experts far more respected than Stefanoni whose credentials can't hold a candle to theirs.

 

[Stacyhs]

Filomena's anxiety and alarm was genuine. AK blurted out that Mez' door was always locked because she realised how suspicious the locked door looked given she was the only person home and then she twigged Filomena just caught her lying.

Another classic example of you declaring what Knox "thought" in order push your own narrative.

Why would the locked door look suspicious? That she was "the only person home" is also your invention.

HOW WOULD FILOMENA KNOW WHEN MEREDITH LOCKED HER DOOR OR NOT? Did she watch her 24/7? Did she have a camera set up while she was at work 5 days a week? Did she try her door handle all the time? But, you won't answer this 'uncomfortable' question any more than you answer all the other questions you've been asked but ignore.

 

[TruthCalls]

Because she DEMANDED it be broken in!

She demanded it be broken in was because Meredith couldn't be found, her phones were found in Lana's garden, there's blood in the bathroom, the house has been broken into... of course everyone wanted the door broken down.

So one more time... HOW did she know Meredith never locked her door?

ETA: Also, please answer... Could you clarify why you claim "they were technically not 'exonerated'"

 

[Numbers]

A man wrongfully imprisoned for 38 years weeps as a UK court overturns his murder conviction​

Sexual fluid found on [Diane] Sindall’s body could not be scientifically analyzed until recently. A test in 2024 revealed it wasn’t [Peter] Sullivan, defense attorney Jason Pitter said.

“The prosecution case is that it was one person. It was one person who carried out a sexual assault on the victim,” Pitter said. “The evidence here is now that one person was not the defendant.”

Prosecutor Duncan Atkinson did not challenge the appeal and said that if the DNA evidence had been available at the time of the investigation it was inconceivable that Sullivan would have been prosecuted.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission, which examines possible wrongful convictions, declined to refer Sullivan’s case to the appeals court in 2008 because it said testing at the time was unlikely to produce a DNA profile.

A commission spokesperson said that while it made the correct decision based on the evidence at the time, it regretted not identifying the potential miscarriage of justice in its first review.

Source: https://apnews.com/article/uk-murder-conviction-quashed-sullivan-9badb50e7bf076c6319a7aab6249a670

As in the Knox - Sollecito case, there was no credible evidence of the DNA of the (falsely) accused and (wrongfully) convicted Peter Sullivan on the body of the rape/murder victim. The article does not state what evidence led to his 1987 conviction. It states that the ability to conduct DNA testing on a sample of the "sexual fluid" was developed rather recently.