Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[bagels]

Ah. Chieffi's in on the conspiracy now. Ri-i-ight.

No, I think Chieffi believed he was preventing two killers from being released onto the streets, and skirted the law in his pursuit of justice.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Complete red herring. The bra clasp was a strong DNA and the test was sound. There was no call for another test and the defence did not put in any objections or make an application.

In actual fact, Pascali, for the defense walked off the case after reviewing the DNA evidence (the same Pascali on the editorial board with Gill on the scientific journal Gill uses to self-serve his own self-serving hypotheses the bra clasp DNA was transferred from the door knob, to help his clients, the Raff defense) and even defense forensic expert 'Photoshop' Vinci discovered Amanda's DNA on the bra, together with Rudy's.

When your own defense find your DNA on the victim's underclothing, it's time to stop asking the wrong questions, such as "Where is the bra today, eh?" but:

WHAT WAS AMANDA'S DNA DOING ON MEZ' BRA?
You know, the bra Mez was wearing when she was brutally stabbed, stripped and violated?

ETA: Presumably, your next argument will be that the DNA for Rudy is accurate, but the Amanda DNA "must have been a transfer from the door knob".

Can someone elaborate on Vixen's blurry out-of-context screenshot? And does someone have a link to the (translated, preferably) report? I am sure the poor quality of Vixen's "citation" was unintentional, but still.

If Knox's DNA was indeed shown to be on the bra clasp, why was it not admitted as evidence? And why has it never been discussed anywhere else and it magically pops up via random guilter #364 as a crucial piece of evidence 7 years after the fact?

To me, (without bothering to translate all of the text because it is too blurry to read in spots anyway), it looks like Vinci is saying certain specific peaks are COMPATIBLE with Knox's DNA profile. This is irrelevant unless there were an adequate number of matches across the entire electropherogram, particularly if the source had multiple contributors (5 in this case; 3 unknown IIRC), and they were of adequate peak height/quality. In other words, if you mix and match enough DNA sources, of course you are going to be "compatible" with another random person through sheer chance at some number of loci, because we all share quite a bit of DNA with other people. Is this what happened?

Not saying Vixen hasn't posted ground breaking new evidence that proves Knox did it, but I am skeptical (since it wasn't even admitted as evidence in any of the trials, lol).

 

[Vixen]

No, I think Chieffi believed he was preventing two killers from being released onto the streets, and skirted the law in his pursuit of justice.

It doesn't work like that. Chieffi will have been looking at the points of law raised in the appeal, mostly by the prosecution. It found that the grounds for appeal were well-founded. For example, Hellmann completely ignored the prosecution submissions, a breach of judicial protocol. It ruled the reasoning was illogical and piecemeal.

Chieffi's personal opinion would not have come into it.

 

[bagels]

It doesn't work like that. Chieffi will have been looking at the points of law raised in the appeal, mostly by the prosecution. It found that the grounds for appeal were well-founded. For example, Hellmann completely ignored the prosecution submissions, a breach of judicial protocol. It ruled the reasoning was illogical and piecemeal.

Chieffi's personal opinion would not have come into it.

This case is interesting because the PGP read Hellmann like a normal person would read Nencini. Each sees insanity.

One side is obviously suffering from delusion.

 

[acbytesla]

Of course eye witnesses are known to be unreliable, with poor recall, reluctance to come forward. As I explained, that's why a court will look at eye-witness testimony in context with all other evidence.

Eye-witnesses nonetheless are very valuable evidence for the court as to what happened from the perspective of a passerby. It doesn't matter if they are rich man, poor man, beggar man, or thief.

So what the hell is your point? Quintavalle's account DOESN'T hold up to context with the other evidence. A police detective questioned him only days after the murder, his own employees contradict him and the story makes little sense. Surely you can see the illogicality of his story.

Amanda was on TV, in the papers, under discussion almost non stop for a year means his memory is ripe for contamination. There is little reason for anyone to remember the event he described. It's simply not memorable. One would likely not remember the person who came into their store and not spoken with them and left without incident a day after it happened, let alone a year.

So it wouldn't surprise me that something like that happened, but it probably wasn't Amanda and it probably wasn't on that day. And over time, it morphed in Amanda on the day the body was discovered.

You just can't take it seriously. It certainly doesn't rise the level of being considered as part of the evidence in a murder case.

 

[acbytesla]

Ad hominem is all you have.

There is nothing "ad hominem" about it. Very very little of what you post is correct and true. That's what is really sad. The arguments are simply not made in good faith.

 

[Vixen]

This case is interesting because the PGP read Hellmann like a normal person would read Nencini. Each sees insanity.

One side is obviously suffering from delusion.

The difference between you and me is that you see it as a battle of personalities. However, justice is cold and blind. It follows clear protocols. To imagine the Italian judiciary are "guilters" and "haters" is a childlike way of looking at the world.

Hellmann was not cold nor blind, he was a disgrace to his profession.

 

[acbytesla]

In that case, the ECHR claim was lodged too early.

Apparently not. It is still in their caseload.

 

[Vixen]

There is nothing "ad hominem" about it. Very very little of what you post is correct and true. That's what is really sad. The arguments are simply not made in good faith.

It's a shame you cannot substantiate your personal attacks. You have nothing but the logical fallacy of ad hominem.

 

[acbytesla]

The difference between you and me is that you see it as a battle of personalities. However, justice is cold and blind. It follows clear protocols. To imagine the Italian judiciary are "guilters" and "haters" is a childlike way of looking at the world.

Hellmann was not cold nor blind, he was a disgrace to his profession.

LMAO. You have some serious hypocrisy going on there.

 

[bagels]

The difference between you and me is that you see it as a battle of personalities. However, justice is cold and blind. It follows clear protocols. To imagine the Italian judiciary are "guilters" and "haters" is a childlike way of looking at the world.

Hellmann was not cold nor blind, he was a disgrace to his profession.

The injection of personalities is the only thing that explains Chieffi's reasoning on re-analyzing all of the evidence and rejecting the Hellmann court's lawful verdict.

Saying re-test the remaining knife DNA is one thing, saying Quintavalle shouldn't be rejected because he knew Amanda had blue eyes is idiocy and vindictiveness seeping into the court.

But you are ultimately right that justice should be cold and blind, and even the Italians were finally able to look at Chieffi and Nencini and realize the travesty of injustice that was occurring, and correct it.

 

[acbytesla]

It's a shame you cannot substantiate your personal attacks. You have nothing but the logical fallacy of ad hominem.

Again, it's not a personal attack. It's simply revealing the lack of veracity in your posts.

 

[Vixen]

So what the hell is your point? Quintavalle's account DOESN'T hold up to context with the other evidence. A police detective questioned him only days after the murder, his own employees contradict him and the story makes little sense. Surely you can see the illogicality of his story.

Amanda was on TV, in the papers, under discussion almost non stop for a year means his memory is ripe for contamination. There is little reason for anyone to remember the event he described. It's simply not memorable. One would likely not remember the person who came into their store and not spoken with them and left without incident a day after it happened, let alone a year.

So it wouldn't surprise me that something like that happened, but it probably wasn't Amanda and it probably wasn't on that day. And over time, it morphed in Amanda on the day the body was discovered.

You just can't take it seriously. It certainly doesn't rise the level of being considered as part of the evidence in a murder case.

That wasn't the view of the merits court, and that is the only view that counts, as regards to witness reliability.

 

[Vixen]

Again, it's not a personal attack. It's simply revealing the lack of veracity in your posts.

It's a pity you can't get your facts right. You just asserted that there is no such thing as a police video of Raff's apartment.

IOW you were hurling gratuitous abuse just for the sake of it.

 

[Vixen]

LMAO. You have some serious hypocrisy going on there.

Claim you, without any explanation for your scurrilous comment.

 

[acbytesla]

That wasn't the view of the merits court, and that is the only view that counts, as regards to witness reliability.

You just can't account for some people being morons. Unfortunately eyewitness testimony is highly regarded by jurors and yet in reality, is very often the least reliable..

 

[acbytesla]

Claim you, without any explanation for your scurrilous comment.

Did you read what you wrote? Time to go back and juxtapose your post.

To imagine the Italian judiciary are "guilters" and "haters" is a childlike way of looking at the world.

Hellmann was not cold nor blind, he was a disgrace to his profession.

Still laughing

 

[acbytesla]

It's a pity you can't get your facts right. You just asserted that there is no such thing as a police video of Raff's apartment.

IOW you were hurling gratuitous abuse just for the sake of it.

I NEVER said anything of the kind. Is this a false memory?

 

[Bill Williams]

Ad hominem is all you have.

There is nothing "ad hominem" about it. Very very little of what you post is correct and true. That's what is really sad. The arguments are simply not made in good faith.

Since when is it ad hominem to point out that a cite someone has posted (to buttress their argument) actually refutes their argument?

Remember Vixen posting a pic of the window below Filomena's from the outside? She said that this proved it did not have bars on the window, therefore a burglar had nothing to climb on to, to climb up to Filomena's window.

The trouble? The pic clearly showed the bars WERE on the lower window. With the bars on the window below, the climb looks like this.....

 

[Vixen]

The injection of personalities is the only thing that explains Chieffi's reasoning on re-analyzing all of the evidence and rejecting the Hellmann court's lawful verdict.

Saying re-test the remaining knife DNA is one thing, saying Quintavalle shouldn't be rejected because he knew Amanda had blue eyes is idiocy and vindictiveness seeping into the court.

But you are ultimately right that justice should be cold and blind, and even the Italians were finally able to look at Chieffi and Nencini and realize the travesty of injustice that was occurring, and correct it.

You appear to view a court case as some kind of Hollywood script with the good guys in one corner and the baddies in another. Heroes versus villains, like some tacky Greek mythology.

Truth is, law courts are extremely boring places and the machinery of justice slow moving and tedious.

The Chieffi court would have done no more and no less than any other Supreme Court chambers. Their job is consistent and they are all trained to go through the same steps. What they do is:

1. Read through the appeals lodged. They have a very heavy work load and that is all they have time for at this stage.

2. They will then read through the Motivational Reports of the first instance and second instance courts.

3. They will then read the charge sheets.

4. At the hearing, the barristers for each party to the appeal and cross-appeal will submit a skeleton argument (of which the judges will expect brief copies in advance) of what point of law is being appealed.

5. The judges will ask questions.

6. They will then retire to consider the outcome.

7. In Italy, they are obliged to come to a finding ASAP after the hearing.

8. They give their findings, which should be publically available, perhaps as a notice on the court board, or scanned direct to the parties' solicitors.

9. They are required to produce a written reasons report within 90 days.

I promise you, the issue of personalities, nationalities, like, dislike, personal opinion, etc., really do not come into it.