Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Here's a bit from the other side demonstrating once again a missing link in a brain:

Sadly, this appears to be the new standard in the exoneration biz. Even if the defendant's DNA was the main profile found on the evidence, any random bits of DNA floating around creates RD that "other attackers" were involved.

Even though RS and AK's complete profiles were found at the crime scene, incomplete profiles were grasped on by the MB court as proof of contamination. Odd, then the standards used to convict Guede were found wanting in the other two defendant's favour.

Why is it difficult for the PGP and Italians to understand that DNA found of Rudi is more significant than the kids' DNA because one kid lived there and the other had been there several times as well as the fact that the only DNA of the visitor kid was found on a piece of bra that had been moved around the floor and had clear signs of some contamination?

Why do they keep up with their silly Rudi's DNA shouldn't count either meme? Okay don't use it, fine. Just use his palm print, shoe prints and Skype and court admission he was there. Even though his DNA wasn't all LCN and had no business being there and some of it was found in the first tested samples gathered the day after not a month and half later, the PGP act as if it is just like Raf's. Of course, Amanda's is only on a knife that had been cleaned and used for cooking.

If anything, the DNA would free Amanda from any connection and only leave Raf and Rudi.

Why do people from Seattle (thankfully, not all of them, or even most of them) have a fetish about supporting one of their own, even if it's someone involved in a heinous crime (as decreed by Supreme Court judges)?

 

[Vixen]

Alternatively, if all that talk of science and molecular biology makes you think I am on the Amanda Knox pagan witch sorceress payroll, realize nobody ever in all 3 trials asserted the bra clasp had Amanda's DNA on it, meaning Amanda's DNA wasn't on it.

You're from Seattle, right?

 

[Mr Fied]

Why do people from Seattle (thankfully, not all of them, or even most of them) have a fetish about supporting one of their own, even if it's someone involved in a heinous crime (as decreed by Supreme Court judges)? innocent of a heinous crime as decreed by the highest court.

There you go, FIFY.

 

[Vixen]

Grinder, I would argue very simply that there is this irrational hatred of Amanda. Why, I have no clue. As far as I can tell, she is not special in any way. She is attractive but she is no super model. She seems to be more of a nerd than anything else as well.

It just seems to be all about getting Amanda

A young woman, Mez, funny, beautiful, English, is found brutally murdered, stabbed and throttled, 47 injuries, including numerous knife cuts. Her housemate, Amanda, is found at the scene. She was present during the murder, washed Mez' blood from her hands, had a grudge about being snubbed by Mez over Halloween, covered up for murder accessory Rudy, impeded police investigation, said all kinds of disgusting things about Mez, got off on the murder and coldly manipulated the media.

What's to love?

 

[Bill Williams]

Why do people from Seattle (thankfully, not all of them, or even most of them) have a fetish about supporting one of their own, even if it's someone involved in a heinous crime (as decreed by Supreme Court judges)?

Bizarre post this one is. They were acquitted a year ago.....

 

[Vixen]

Well the thing is they seem to be after every person charged with anything. They hate the "Innocence Project' in general and really hate Scheck in particular. The quote above was about another case. For them DNA should only be used to prosecute not for defending a person charged.

The DNA alleged to be on the knife is less than 1/10,000 of a grain of salt yet the PGP act like secondary or tertiary transfer is a far-fetched idea.

The different reasons various PGP have focused on this case are hard to determine. I strongly believe certain middle aged Seattle women were jealous of Amanda's youth and one being ex-pat herself has a problem with how Americans behave in her adopted havens of culture.

That's a ridiculous motive to put forward, unless you have a Dorian Grey-style painting locked up in your attic. For every ten Ugly Americans abroad there must surely be one lovable one? Seriously, though, American culture is very popular in some parts of Europe, if you are feeling unloved. Tom of Finland came from near my neck of the woods and adopted California as his home. Likewise, Michael Monroe of Hanoi Rocks (now back home). There are burger joints everywhere.

In the meantime, perhaps a more plausible explanation about the public revulsion felt over the murder is the sheer frivolity of the motive (drugs, thrills and sex) and the outrageous cruelty meted out to an innocent popular woman on the brink of her adult life.

 

[Vixen]

Bizarre post this one is. They were acquitted a year ago.....

They were acquitted and upheld by Bruno-Marasca to be "strongly suspicious" and not innocent.

 

[Mr Fied]

A young woman, Mez, funny, beautiful, English, is found brutally murdered, stabbed and throttled, 47 injuries, including numerous knife cuts. Her housemate, Amanda, is found at the scene. She was present during the murder,

No

washed Mez' blood from her hands

,
No

had a grudge about being snubbed by Mez over Halloween,

No

covered up for murder accessory Rudy,

No

impeded police investigation

,
No

said all kinds of disgusting things about Mez,

No

got off on the murder and coldly manipulated the media.

No

What's to love?

If it wasn't so disturbing it would be funny.

 

[Desert Fox]

A young woman, Mez, funny, beautiful, English, is found brutally murdered, stabbed and throttled, 47 injuries, including numerous knife cuts. Her housemate, Amanda, is found at the scene. She was present during the murder, washed Mez' blood from her hands, had a grudge about being snubbed by Mez over Halloween, covered up for murder accessory Rudy, impeded police investigation, said all kinds of disgusting things about Mez, got off on the murder and coldly manipulated the media.

What's to love?

What happened to Meredith Kercher is horrible but punishing somebody who has nothing to do with it is not justice. . . . Amanda Knox (and for that matter Raffaele Sollecito) had nothing to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher.

 

[Grinder]

That's a ridiculous motive to put forward, unless you have a Dorian Grey-style painting locked up in your attic. For every ten Ugly Americans abroad there must surely be one lovable one? Seriously, though, American culture is very popular in some parts of Europe, if you are feeling unloved. Tom of Finland came from near my neck of the woods and adopted California as his home. Likewise, Michael Monroe of Hanoi Rocks (now back home). There are burger joints everywhere.

In the meantime, perhaps a more plausible explanation about the public revulsion felt over the murder is the sheer frivolity of the motive (drugs, thrills and sex) and the outrageous cruelty meted out to an innocent popular woman on the brink of her adult life.

Dorian Gray. I do believe those alleged motives were rejected. It was because Rudi pooped.

 

[Bill Williams]

A young woman, Mez, funny, beautiful, English, is found brutally murdered, stabbed and throttled, 47 injuries, including numerous knife cuts. Her housemate, Amanda, is found at the scene. She was present during the murder, washed Mez' blood from her hands, had a grudge about being snubbed by Mez over Halloween, covered up for murder accessory Rudy, impeded police investigation, said all kinds of disgusting things about Mez, got off on the murder and coldly manipulated the media.

What's to love?

You make it sound like Marasca/Bruno knew they were guilty but acquitted anyway. Oh wait, that IS your position.

It boils down to:

1) even though, vs.
2) even if​

You believe that Marasca/Bruno are saying "even though" Amanda wiped blood from her hands she is innocent. What Section 9.4 to 10 of the M/B report says - because they cannot reexamine evidence - is "even if" this evidence is true, the Nencini court should have acquitted.

If the "Amanda wiped blood from her hands" evidence HAD BEEN reexamined, the M/B court woul have had to consider that the PLE (or whoever it was) claimed the "wiping blood from her hands" indirectly and falsely.

Some claim that the levels of DNA of Amanda in her own bathroom could only come from her own blood. There is no evidence at all she was bleeding, and the claim relies upon slipping in "mixed blood" in through the back door.

There was no mixed blood. Knox was not bleeding that night. The collection video of the swabs take in the bathroom show how the Scientific Police themselves acquired large amounts of Amanda's DNA from her own bathroom. Rudy himself admits to going into that bathroom, fresh from attending a mortally wounded victim.

There was none of the victim's blood nor her own blood found on Amanda's clothes... the clam you keep repeating that "she wiped Meredith's blood from her hands" is derived by faulty assumptions - such assumptions M/B could not rule on from an evidentiary point of view:

But Section 5 could, and did, rule on whether or not this faulty evidence should have been used to convict.

They ordered the annulling of the Nencini conviction, and acquitted the kids without remand.

 

[acbytesla]

Why do people from Seattle (thankfully, not all of them, or even most of them) have a fetish about supporting one of their own, even if it's someone involved in a heinous crime (as decreed by Supreme Court judges)?

It's because WE KNOW that she wasn't involved. It's really obvious to anyone with a brain.

 

[Bill Williams]

They were acquitted and upheld by Bruno-Marasca to be "strongly suspicious" and not innocent.

The best part of this post is your ability to backtrack if need be.

 

[Grinder]

It's because WE KNOW that she wasn't involved. It's really obvious to anyone with a brain.

Even one of your favorites here only says the prosecution didn't present evidence to convict BARD. You don't KNOW she wasn't involved.

 

[Vixen]

You make it sound like Marasca/Bruno knew they were guilty but acquitted anyway. Oh wait, that IS your position.

It boils down to:

1) even though, vs.
2) even if​

You believe that Marasca/Bruno are saying "even though" Amanda wiped blood from her hands she is innocent. What Section 9.4 to 10 of the M/B report says - because they cannot reexamine evidence - is "even if" this evidence is true, the Nencini court should have acquitted.

If the "Amanda wiped blood from her hands" evidence HAD BEEN reexamined, the M/B court woul have had to consider that the PLE (or whoever it was) claimed the "wiping blood from her hands" indirectly and falsely.

Some claim that the levels of DNA of Amanda in her own bathroom could only come from her own blood. There is no evidence at all she was bleeding, and the claim relies upon slipping in "mixed blood" in through the back door.

There was no mixed blood. Knox was not bleeding that night. The collection video of the swabs take in the bathroom show how the Scientific Police themselves acquired large amounts of Amanda's DNA from her own bathroom. Rudy himself admits to going into that bathroom, fresh from attending a mortally wounded victim.

There was none of the victim's blood nor her own blood found on Amanda's clothes... the clam you keep repeating that "she wiped Meredith's blood from her hands" is derived by faulty assumptions - such assumptions M/B could not rule on from an evidentiary point of view:

But Section 5 could, and did, rule on whether or not this faulty evidence should have been used to convict.

They ordered the annulling of the Nencini conviction, and acquitted the kids without remand.

Washing off blood was Bruno-Marasca's final decree, based on evidence presented in the merits courts from five sets of expert witnesses. They upheld this.

Bruno-Marasca acquitted under Section 530 para 2, which is equivalent to "not proven", because of "insufficient evidence". It is not, "found innocent and exonerated".

Bruno-Marasca court was illegal as under the penal code for serious crime, it didn't have the jurisdiction to dismiss the charges or overrule the Chieffi court. Under the code, it should have remitted any dispute about the evidence back to the lower court.

In Italy, there is nothing unusual about the length of proceedings.

 

[Mr Fied]

Washing off blood was Bruno-Marasca's final decree, based on evidence presented in the merits courts from five sets of expert witnesses. They upheld this.

Utter bollocks. Show one piece of evidence that proves Amanda washed Meredith's blood off her.

Bruno-Marasca acquitted under Section 530 para 2, which is equivalent to "not proven", because of "insufficient evidence". It is not, "found innocent and exonerated".

They found the pair not guilty. They were presumed innocent until the final verdict. The final verdict was that they were not guilty of the charges against them. They are innocent.

Bruno-Marasca court was illegal as under the penal code for serious crime, it didn't have the jurisdiction to dismiss the charges or overrule the Chieffi court. Under the code, it should have remitted any dispute about the evidence back to the lower court.

I can tell it was illegal by all the legal proceedings taking place. Remind me how many are ongoing.

In Italy, there is nothing unusual about the length of proceedings

.

This doesn't make it right.

Just because the system finally reached the correct verdict does not make the system immune from criticism.

 

[Mr Fied]

Bruno-Marasca acquitted under Section 530 para 2, which is equivalent to "not proven", because of "insufficient evidence". It is not, "found innocent and exonerated".

They were acquitted and upheld by Bruno-Marasca to be "strongly suspicious" and not innocent.

acquit
/əˈkwɪt/
verb
past tense: acquitted; past participle: acquitted
1.
free (someone) from a criminal charge by a verdict of not guilty.
"she was acquitted on all counts"

synonyms: absolve, clear, exonerate, exculpate, declare innocent, find innocent, pronounce not guilty;

 

[Bill Williams]

Washing off blood was Bruno-Marasca's final decree, based on evidence presented in the merits courts from five sets of expert witnesses. They upheld this.

Bruno-Marasca acquitted under Section 530 para 2, which is equivalent to "not proven", because of "insufficient evidence". It is not, "found innocent and exonerated".

Bruno-Marasca court was illegal as under the penal code for serious crime, it didn't have the jurisdiction to dismiss the charges or overrule the Chieffi court. Under the code, it should have remitted any dispute about the evidence back to the lower court.

In Italy, there is nothing unusual about the length of proceedings.

You and Machiavelli say all this is what makes the Bruno-Marasca findings illegal and contradictory. Yet you don't say why claiming "washing Mez's blood off her hands" is part of that. Is M/B only contradictory on the points you wish it to be?

Truth is, M/B is only fuzzy on those points where Supreme Court Sections try not to conflict with one another.

Truth is - the "she washed Mez's blood from her hands," implies Knox's own blood was found mixed with Kercher's. There was no mixed blood. I posted upthread Stefanoni's own words wherr she told the Massei court that her forensic protocols, as sloppy as they were, do not discover mixed blood.

None of either Knox's or Kercher's blood were found on Knox nor was Knox's blood found on Kercher. Therefore the M/B court did the best they could do - they acquitted because the whole evidentiary framework used to covict the pair was bogus.

They did this a year ago. Right now it is only you, Machiavelli and Tudy Guede claiming otherwise. Has Rudy's claims on RAI3 blown the lid off this conspiracy? Are Hellmann and Bruno and Marasca and Vecchiotti now under arrest?

No. Mignini has been censured by his peers and Knox has been acquitted of defamation against those who hit her at interrogation. It is clear how this is playing out in Italy.

 

[LondonJohn]

A young woman, Mez, funny, beautiful, English, is found brutally murdered, stabbed and throttled, 47 injuries, including numerous knife cuts. Her housemate, Amanda, is found at the scene. She was present during the murder, washed Mez' blood from her hands, had a grudge about being snubbed by Mez over Halloween, covered up for murder accessory Rudy, impeded police investigation, said all kinds of disgusting things about Mez, got off on the murder and coldly manipulated the media.

What's to love?

Why does it make any difference if "Mez" (Kercher) was "funny, beautiful"? Is that somehow important in the whole vindictiveness narrative?

 

[LondonJohn]

You make it sound like Marasca/Bruno knew they were guilty but acquitted anyway. Oh wait, that IS your position.

It boils down to:

1) even though, vs.
2) even if​

You believe that Marasca/Bruno are saying "even though" Amanda wiped blood from her hands she is innocent. What Section 9.4 to 10 of the M/B report says - because they cannot reexamine evidence - is "even if" this evidence is true, the Nencini court should have acquitted.

If the "Amanda wiped blood from her hands" evidence HAD BEEN reexamined, the M/B court woul have had to consider that the PLE (or whoever it was) claimed the "wiping blood from her hands" indirectly and falsely.

Some claim that the levels of DNA of Amanda in her own bathroom could only come from her own blood. There is no evidence at all she was bleeding, and the claim relies upon slipping in "mixed blood" in through the back door.

There was no mixed blood. Knox was not bleeding that night. The collection video of the swabs take in the bathroom show how the Scientific Police themselves acquired large amounts of Amanda's DNA from her own bathroom. Rudy himself admits to going into that bathroom, fresh from attending a mortally wounded victim.

There was none of the victim's blood nor her own blood found on Amanda's clothes... the clam you keep repeating that "she wiped Meredith's blood from her hands" is derived by faulty assumptions - such assumptions M/B could not rule on from an evidentiary point of view:

But Section 5 could, and did, rule on whether or not this faulty evidence should have been used to convict.

They ordered the annulling of the Nencini conviction, and acquitted the kids without remand.

Exactly. All enlightened, open-minded, intelligent critical thinkers who approach the matter objectively and logically can understand this pretty easily. Others can not.