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

[Vixen]

Maybe I missed it. Did Vixen ever cite a peer reviewed, forensic expert who stood by Stefanoni's work? For the record, there were exactly two - one who did at trial, but conceded that Stefanoni's lab procedures did not conform to international standards, another was someone who said that his remarks were provisional because he'd never had access to the negative controls. Neither of which gave Stefanoni what amounted to a ringing endorsement.

You can read the legal document of Fifth Chambers Marasca & Bruno, in which they spell out that Knox washed off Mez' blood and that the burglary was staged. As you know, shards from the burglary room were deposited into Mez' room after her door was supposedly locked by the killer. Likewise, the same bits of card torn up and scattered over Filomena's room to make it look like a burglary, were also found ON TOP of the duver covering the body, which means the murder came first.

In addition, Sollecito's full DNA sequence was found on the torn-off bra clasp UNDER the body so he or whoever did that while she was still alive and standing.

 

[catsmate]

Maybe I missed it. Did Vixen ever cite a peer reviewed, forensic expert who stood by Stefanoni's work? For the record, there were exactly two - one who did at trial, but conceded that Stefanoni's lab procedures did not conform to international standards, another was someone who said that his remarks were provisional because he'd never had access to the negative controls. Neither of which gave Stefanoni what amounted to a ringing endorsement.

Of course not.

 

[catsmate]

You can read the legal document of Fifth Chambers Marasca & Bruno, in which they spell out that Knox washed off Mez' blood and that the burglary was staged. As you know, shards from the burglary room were deposited into Mez' room after her door was supposedly locked by the killer. Likewise, the same bits of card torn up and scattered over Filomena's room to make it look like a burglary, were also found ON TOP of the duver covering the body, which means the murder came first.

In addition, Sollecito's full DNA sequence was found on the torn-off bra clasp UNDER the body so he or whoever did that while she was still alive and standing.

That was unsupported speculation.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

While looking for information on another case, I found this quote: "Commenting on this in his October 2006 [Jaidyn] Leskie inquest findings, Coroner Graeme Johnstone concluded: "Clearly, contamination occurred somewhere in the laboratory process. Precisely how and where this has occurred in the laboratory has not been able to be determined."" In a very few cases with which I am familiar, it is possible to identify the route of contamination, but it is more the exception than the rule.

 

[Stacyhs]

You can read the legal document of Fifth Chambers Marasca & Bruno, in which they spell out that Knox washed off Mez' blood and that the burglary was staged. As you know, shards from the burglary room were deposited into Mez' room after her door was supposedly locked by the killer. Likewise, the same bits of card torn up and scattered over Filomena's room to make it look like a burglary, were also found ON TOP of the duver covering the body, which means the murder came first.

In addition, Sollecito's full DNA sequence was found on the torn-off bra clasp UNDER the body so he or whoever did that while she was still alive and standing.

We've all read the Marasca-Bruno Report.

1. "they spell out that Knox washed off Mez' blood"

Now, please provide any expert testimony from any court that provided scientific evidence that
a) Knox's DNA in the sink was from epithelial cells and
b) Knox's DNA in the bathroom was deposited the night of Nov. 1, 2007.

2. "the burglary was staged"

You can read the 2010 Giordano-Ianelli SC MR that confirmed the break-in was staged making it a judicial fact that no following court, including another SC, could legally overturn.

• [CCP] Article 628(2): a later appeal against the referral judgment may concern only matters not already decided by Cassation, or a failure to comply with Article 627(3).

3. "As you know, shards from the burglary room were deposited into Mez' room after her door was supposedly locked by the killer. "

As we know, whenever you start a sentence with "As you know" whatever follows is likely to be whatever YOU have imagined.
Just for giggles, what evidence do you have for any of that claim?

4. "Likewise, the same bits of card torn up and scattered over Filomena's room to make it look like a burglary, were also found ON TOP of the duver covering the body, which means the murder came first."

Oh, dear. Not quite. The paper in Filomena's room was NOT "the same bits of card" as the two paper receipts found on top the duvet covering Meredith's body.. Photos show a roll of toilet paper on her bedstand and scattered pieces of postcard and memo sized paper, but not "torn". I can find no evidence that there were any "bits of card torn up scattered over F's room" anywhere.

I see you're just parroting the false commentary from TMofMK: "Two receipts were found on the duvet. This suggests the crime scene was further manipulated to make it look like someone had stolen something from Meredith's purse."
LOL!
FACT: Something had been stolen from M's purse: her wallet and likely one or both of her phones. When pulled out of the purse, the two receipts probably fell out and landed on the duvet next to the bed where her purse was found.

Just HOW would scattering paper in Filomena's room make it "look like a burglary"? A broken window, items pulled out of her wardrobe and scattered all over the floor were not enough to indicate a burglary? Sheesh.


5. "In addition, Sollecito's full DNA sequence was found on the torn-off bra clasp UNDER the body so he or whoever did that while she was still alive and standing."

Again, you are stating facts not in evidence. We have no idea if RS's DNA was on the clasp when it was "UNDER the body" or if it was deposited later during the following six weeks. We DO know that room was not secured during those six weeks with numerous people coming and going, the room turned upside down, and the police did NOT follow anti-contamination protocols.

Really, Vixen, you're not talking to a bunch of ignorant YouTube commenters who know diddley-squat about this case. We know you and your M.O.

 

[Numbers]

Stacyhs, thanks for your excellent post (#7,805), and especially for your reminding us of CPP Article 628, paragraph 2, which limits the court of remand from re-examining points of law or judicial facts previously decided by a Court of Cassation. Such re-examination, only available for a conviction requires either a revision hearing (CPP Articles 629 - 647) or the recently adopted CPP Article 628-bis (Remedies for the implementation of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: Art. 628-bis. Request for the elimination of the prejudicial effects of decisions adopted in violation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms or its Additional Protocols)

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

 

[Vixen]

We've all read the Marasca-Bruno Report.

1. "they spell out that Knox washed off Mez' blood"

Now, please provide any expert testimony from any court that provided scientific evidence that
a) Knox's DNA in the sink was from epithelial cells and
b) Knox's DNA in the bathroom was deposited the night of Nov. 1, 2007.

2. "the burglary was staged"

You can read the 2010 Giordano-Ianelli SC MR that confirmed the break-in was staged making it a judicial fact that no following court, including another SC, could legally overturn.


3. "As you know, shards from the burglary room were deposited into Mez' room after her door was supposedly locked by the killer. "

As we know, whenever you start a sentence with "As you know" whatever follows is likely to be whatever YOU have imagined.
Just for giggles, what evidence do you have for any of that claim?

4. "Likewise, the same bits of card torn up and scattered over Filomena's room to make it look like a burglary, were also found ON TOP of the duver covering the body, which means the murder came first."

Oh, dear. Not quite. The paper in Filomena's room was NOT "the same bits of card" as the two paper receipts found on top the duvet covering Meredith's body.. Photos show a roll of toilet paper on her bedstand and scattered pieces of postcard and memo sized paper, but not "torn". I can find no evidence that there were any "bits of card torn up scattered over F's room" anywhere.

I see you're just parroting the false commentary from TMofMK: "Two receipts were found on the duvet. This suggests the crime scene was further manipulated to make it look like someone had stolen something from Meredith's purse."
LOL!
FACT: Something had been stolen from M's purse: her wallet and likely one or both of her phones. When pulled out of the purse, the two receipts probably fell out and landed on the duvet next to the bed where her purse was found.

Just HOW would scattering paper in Filomena's room make it "look like a burglary"? A broken window, items pulled out of her wardrobe and scattered all over the floor were not enough to indicate a burglary? Sheesh.


5. "In addition, Sollecito's full DNA sequence was found on the torn-off bra clasp UNDER the body so he or whoever did that while she was still alive and standing."

Again, you are stating facts not in evidence. We have no idea if RS's DNA was on the clasp when it was "UNDER the body" or if it was deposited later during the following six weeks. We DO know that room was not secured during those six weeks with numerous people coming and going, the room turned upside down, and the police did NOT follow anti-contamination protocols.

Really, Vixen, you're not talking to a bunch of ignorant YouTube commenters who know diddley-squat about this case. We know you and your M.O.

This is what your favourite Judge was laughed by his colleagues out of court for. A one-by-one piecemeal dismissal of evidence. One wonders how he ever got called to the bar.

 

[Stacyhs]

This is what your favourite Judge was laughed by his colleagues out of court for. A one-by-one piecemeal dismissal of evidence. One wonders how he ever got called to the bar.

Your comment, in a nutshell, is just proof that you CAN'T provide any expert testimony from any court that provided scientific evidence that
a) Knox's DNA in the sink was from epithelial cells and
b) Knox's DNA in the bathroom was deposited the night of Nov. 1, 2007.

In fact, no one has ever produced any forensic expert backing that claim, including Stefanoni. She never testifies that the source of Knox's DNA is from epithelial cells. What Stefanoni does testify is that when Knox's DNA was deposited cannot be determined or if they were even left at the same time:

Q: “Can you say whether the Knox trace was left first and then the victim’s, or vice versa, or whether they were left at the same time?”
https://www.themurderofmeredithkerc...stimony/2009-05-22-Testimony-MC-Stefanoni.pdf
Stefanoni: “No, it is not possible to establish this scientifically.”

“DNA cannot be dated; therefore, the timing of a trace cannot be determined… it is not possible to establish a before and an after.”

You can't acknowledge that the rest of your claims are equally unfounded which is why you ignored them and skipped right to a silly non sequitur.

As for Hellmann being 'laughed out of court', you're confusing the later vindicated judge with Curatolo.

But you won't even acknowledge those facts because they totally undermine your position.

If you're anything, you're predictable.

 

[AnimalFriendly]

Haven't heard from Pete for a while.

Define "a while". Have you tried contacting him? If so, what was the result of this effort?

I do find it amusing that the big media blitz PQ promised for about 10 years after the 2015 SC acquittal...never materialized. Of course, annoucing this after a final acquittal was a bit wacky to begin with.

 

[Stacyhs]

Define "a while". Have you tried contacting him? If so, what was the result of this effort?

I do find it amusing that the big media blitz PQ promised for about 10 years after the 2015 SC acquittal...never materialized. Of course, annoucing this after a final acquittal was a bit wacky to begin with.

Ten years of "Marasca ruling was illegal and it will be overturned" blah, blah, blah.....

 

[Stacyhs]

I see TJMK is still gone. I guess Pete and his "main contributors" finally accepted they are no longer relevant.