Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

I don't mean that they did not follow the script but that they don't have the nuance. . . . .Look at the confessions that the Glenn Ford got out of the Norfolk Four.

I am reading that now.
Danial Williams was broken by a 31 year old female detective.
I found it strange that one so youthful could be entrusted to this important task.

 

[Desert Fox]

I am reading that now.
Danial Williams was broken by a 31 year old female detective.
I found it strange that one so youthful could be entrusted to this important task.

According to "The Wrong Guys", page 31, it was Ford who actually broke him.

 

[Samson]

According to "The Wrong Guys", page 31, it was Ford who actually broke him.

Ford wrapped it up. 31 year old Maureen Evans, two years a homicide detective "solved" the case almost immediately and secured a plethora of seemingly inculpatory admissions.
There is no suggestion Ford would have achieved anything without this preparatory work.

 

[Desert Fox]

Ford wrapped it up. 31 year old Maureen Evans, two years a homicide detective "solved" the case almost immediately and secured a plethora of seemingly inculpatory admissions.
There is no suggestion Ford would have achieved anything without this preparatory work.

That is not what "The Wrong Guys" states. What is your source?

 

[Samson]

That is not what "The Wrong Guys" states. What is your source?

I am reading the Wrong guys right now, up to page 69 where they are hammering Joe Dick with fabrications.
Sometimes I restate things as I interpret them. Mo Evans got plenty from Williams before Ford was let loose on him.

 

[Desert Fox]

I am reading the Wrong guys right now, up to page 69 where they are hammering Joe Dick with fabrications.
Sometimes I restate things as I interpret them. Mo Evans got plenty from Williams before Ford was let loose on him.

I don't see what you see with Williams, sorry. I originally got interested in this case when I watched a forensic files. It was suppose to promote their guilt and I just thought that it was BS. My sister saw it though and thought it showed that they were guilty. I wish I could find that episode online.

My argument is that Ford was able to get full confessions from sailors, whom in some cases were both tough and intelligent (Tice and Wilson). The Italian police were ionly able to get a half-ass confession from Amanda.

How much you want to bet that Ford could have broken Amanda and Raff?

 

[Vixen]

I just did a word search for "mestruale" in Stefanoni's original Italian testimony transcript. No results.

IF she testified it wasn't menstrual blood in the bidet, please provide the quote and link to this testimony.

Try Stefanoni's interview in Darkness Descending.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, yesterday I asked you to quote and cite where Raff's defense expert said "the radials on the print were too indistinguishable" in regard to the alleged size 37 female shoeprint on the pillowcase.

You have not done so. Why is that?

It's a quote from Raff' defense forensic expert in Gary King's book, The Murder of Meredith Kercher.

Please inform yourself before coming to conclusions.

 

[Vixen]

These are the latex gloves left by the police when searching Sollecito's and casually thrown in his bin? The latex gloves that Mignini never presented in evidence.

The rags (not presented in evidence), that contained no evidence of blood no DNA of the victim? So what is the relevance, that Sollecito was a bit OCD?

So Sollecito had a full and nearly full bottles of bleach - pretty much evidence that not much bleach had been used. But perhaps used to bleach Sollecito's shoes another allegation you have made that you have never provided any evidence to back up. Another thing never presented in court. The finger marks may be well known that is certainly no evidence of veracity. Lots of people believe in ghosts you try arguing that means ghosts are real. Lots of people believe in the twin towers being blown up by the US government, does not make it true.

Sarcasm rarely goes far in a criminal court.

 

[Vixen]

This past year has been quite the "meta-Vixen" experience. Vixen has virtually retried the case using tired, old and now long-since discredited "evidence" - a case which thankfully ended in the annulling of convictions more than 12 months ago.

This past year of Vixen's posts have not just been a review of evidence against the pair.... it's been a review of the claim of evidence against the pair, mostly assertions without proof. Just like resulted (incredibly) in two lower court convictions, both convictions without proof, really. (Convictions based on judicial truths generated elsewhere!)

But here's the deal. When cites HAVE been given this past year, we're given pointers to information that either says no such thing or actually disproves the assertion Vixen had been making. (Cf. the pictures of the bars on the windows below Filomena's window, all to prove that the bars were not there!)

This is the meta-Vixen experience and a year-long primer on why this case had always been riddled with errors and incompetent investigation. Recently, the Italian justice-system HAS been holding the original PLE/Mignini to account - cf. Knox's acquittal for calunnia for claiming a slap at interrogation and Mignini's censure from his own peers.

There is the police, pathologists and the forensic scientists who know the true facts, having been at the crime scene, analysed the DNA and interviewed all the witnesses to the case, and then there are the Barry Scheck-style defense attorneys who try to spin and twist the findings to get their client off "on a technicality".

Then we have the FOA PR brigade who believe they can do an advertising job on the public by employing teams of shills to spin out false tales of 53 hour long interrogations, to conceal the fact Amanda did knowingly and maliciously accuse Patrick of rape and murder within minutes (90") of walking into the questura of her own volition, after having eaten a substantial meal with Raff and friends. So we're supposed to believe she was starved by the police into confessing her presence at the scene. <fx brummie accent: yes mate!>

 

[Vixen]

This is the guilters' last stand.

The claim (first) that Paragraph 2 of the section is similar to Scotland's "not proven", and (second) that legally speaking the Italian courts decided that Knox and Sollecito were "almost but not quite guilty".

The Achilles Heel of this reasoning?

Even if this were a Scottish case - which it isn't - even in Scotland there is no difference in legal consequence between not guilty and not proven, not to mention the claim that this means the accused are completely innocent; as they entered the courtroom deemed.

People mistakenly think that the courts are motivated by perception. Indeed there are perhaps many levels of "signalling" going on here between judges. Books will be written about that, and this thread will make it to 35 continuations no doubt because of "perception" and the eye of the beholder.

But these things remain - Italy is not Scotland, Paragraph 2 in Italy covers everything from completely-bald-face-innocent to getting-off-by-a-whisker-of-reasonable-doubt.

Two ways of telling where any one case lies on that spectrum is to:

1) read the motivations report
2) watch subsequent legal actions​

On both those counts, it does not look good for the original PLE/Mignini types.

Come off it.

 

[Vixen]

I keep Googling with different search terms for Forensic tests determining whether blood is the result of menstruation and cannot find almost anything. What does seem true is that it may be higher in DNA than regular blood as the uterine lining is shed as well.

Maybe someone knows more definitively and can share?

I can't believe how ignorant people are. I am no medic, but even I know menstrual "blood" is only a small percentage of actual blood. The rest being various body fluids. Of course the first thing Stefanoni would do would be to establish this, and so she did and said the blood in the bathroom was not of that type. Full stop.

 

[Vixen]

1. There is a clear difference between the circumstances of acquittal covered in 530.1 and 530.2.

2. However, that is categorically not to say that 530.1 in any way is equivalent to "not guilty" while 530.2 in any way is equivalent to "not proven".

3. In fact, 530.1 is equivalent to "provably factually innocent", and 530.2 is equivalent to the E&W or US definition of "not guilty" of all other types except for "provably factually innocent".

4. Another way of representing this is that E&W or US "not guilty" encompasses all of 530.1 and 530.2. A small subset of E&W or US "not guilty" falls into the Italian 530.1 bracket (i.e. where the defendant is found not guilty because he can prove his factual innocence, or where the court determines that no crime occurred), and the majority of E&W or US "not guilty" falls into the Italian 530.2 bracket.

5. Even then, 530.1 and 530.2 are semantic and arcane distinctions, since under current Italian law there are only two possible outcomes of a criminal trial: guilty or not guilty (cf current Scottish law where there are three possible outcomes: guilty, not guilty, and not proven).

6. It is, and forever will be, impossible for Knox and Sollecito to be acquitted of the murder charges under 530.1, since the crime of murder clearly did occur and since neither Knox nor Sollecito can prove their factual innocence in court.

7. Prof. Anna Bull is an expert in Italian history and Italian politics. She is not an expert in Italian law, and to the best of my understanding she's never undertaken academic work in the area of Italian legislation and codes of criminal procedure.

Wrong. 530.1 covers the types of 'not guilty' as we in the US/UK/common law/Roman; 530.2 is most closely allied to the Scottish 'not proven'. (Insufficient evidence.) What is difficult in understanding this?

 

[Vixen]

Isn't that akin to "not guilty"? I believe many people can't prove their whereabouts on November 1st 2007 from 9 to 12. So are they innocent or not guilty ?

Yes, it's true. The prosecution did not prove the guilt of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. But that is true about you Grinder and Toto and Nara me as well. Are we innocent? Or are we "not guilty"? It's the same thing with the exception you or I could be still charged with Meredith's murder.

What you fail to understand is that you Grinder and Toto and Nara me as well have not been charged. The bring a criminal charge, the prosecutor first needs to assess what cause the police have and if satisfied there is reasonable cause to believe someone may have committed a criminal offence, as decreed by statute passed by the relevant government, the prosecutor then needs to make a case at assizes to bring said person to trial, as would be his or her right under habeus corpus.


The idea that the police fingered Raff and Amanda as an amusing pastime, is one of the most ludicrous PIP factoids of all.

 

[Vixen]

Actually pretty easy depending on the circumstances. One way if fairly fresh is just to look under a microscope for endometrial cells. The squiggly bits are actually endometrium not clots (although some people with abnormally heavy periods can have real clots). The blood component - variable but usually about 1 to 2 thirds by volume is just blood and will test as blood. There are additional chemicals from the vaginal fluids that can be tested for. A washed stain like in the bidet would be hard to definitively exclude as being menstrual fluid as it seemed to contain no solid content. I am also not sure how good Steffanoni's microscopy skills were given her error over the starch grains.
There are a variety of chemical tests for vaginal secretions and a fibrinolytic product immunoassay (D dimer) that will identify menstrual blood.But to do these Steffanoni would have needed a separate swab which she did not take (at least when videoed). I also am uncertain how reliable in this circumstance they would be to exclude as menstrual source conversely if positive then the result would be pretty certain; although given the location one might argue for contamination by vagina secretions.

Have you informed Stefanoni of all this? I suggest you contact her urgently, as she clearly needs the assistance of your erudite knowledge.

I am sure you don't mean to insult her.

 

[Vixen]

Well, when one is using the term "not proven", I would say it's a given that one is looking specifically and exclusively at the tiny number of jurisdictions such as Scotland which use "not guilty" and "not proven" as two separate legal forms of acquittal. And notwithstanding the obvious fact that the distinction is in practice meaningless, opaque and indefinable, the perception at least is that a "not proven" verdict means that the court thinks the defendant committed the crime, but that there's just not enough evidence to prove guilt to the BARD standard.

So I suppose one workable definition of the difference would be that all acquittals where a "balance of probabilities" standard would result in a guilty verdict, but where the BARD standard is not met, qualify as "not proven". And all acquittals where the "balance of probabilities" standard is not met (as well as BARD of course not being met) qualify as "not guilty".

And if one accepts this as a working definition of "not proven" (and the way it differs from "not guilty"), then it's axiomatically clear that 530.2 DOES NOT equate to "not proven". One can be acquitted on 530.2 where there is not one single piece of evidence of guilt - in other words the "balance of probabilities" standard would be a million miles from being met. And in other words, it's entirely possible (and indeed probable) for a large number of 530.2 verdicts to equate to "not guilty" as opposed to "not proven" under the above definition/delineation. Of course, 530.2 also would encapsulate all "not proven" verdicts, but that's not the important point here.

The important point is that 530.2 clearly also encapsulates the majority of "not guilty"-equivalent verdicts under the above definition/distinction of "not guilty" vs "not proven" - in fact, 530.2 encompasses all "not guilty" verdicts except for those occasions where the defendant can prove factual innocence (very rare) or where the court deems no crime took place at all (e.g. rape charges where a court rules that the sex was consensual - also comparatively rare).

Your use of clever adverbs fail to conceal that that your statement - which you present as learned fact - is utter, complete, arrant nonsense.

 

[Vixen]

But just to make things simpler, here's a little workable example just to illustrate the point as clearly as possible:


Scotland:

Man is tried for criminal offence.

Court is shown enough evidence of guilt to prove guilt on "balance of probabilities", but not to BARD standard.

Court acquits man.

Verdict is "not proven".


Italy:

Man is tried for criminal offence.

Court is shown enough evidence of guilt to prove guilt on "balance of probabilities", but not to BARD standard.

Court acquits man.

Court uses 530.2 to acquit man.


So far so good for the "530.2 = "not proven"" crowd


BUT


Scotland:

Man is tried for criminal offence.

Court is shown zero credible, reliable evidence of guilt.

Man is however unable to prove his factual innocence.

Court acquits man.

Verdict is "not guilty"


Italy:

Man is tried for criminal offence.

Court is shown zero credible, reliable evidence of guilt.

Man is however unable to prove his factual innocence.

Court acquits man.

Court uses 530.2 to acquit man.


WOOPS! We appear to have a Scottish "not guilty" verdict which corresponds with a "530.2" Italian verdict!

What now.......?

I hope you are not a mathematician, as none of this adds up.

 

[Vixen]

There is no doubt that if there is a blood stain (say Luminol positive, TMB positive and immunoassay positive) on a sheet or knickers and it is reasonably fresh (hours to days) then one can with reasonable certainty attribute to menses by looking for endometrial cells, testing for amylases from vaginal fluids, and testing for fibrinolytic products that would not be present in a 'normal' blood stain. There are more modern methods not then available to Steffanoni.

Could she have tested? Yes.
Did she? I do not know.

If the test was positive then the attribution to menses would be reasonable. I am not sure how certain a negative attribution would be. This would very much depend on the particular test and the quality of the sample.

You have been told she did.

 

[Vixen]

LOL! Why does Grinder split hairs!!!???? How long have you been on this thread!?

There is no point in engaging Grinder on this. So far no one has answered the relevant question - what is the difference in legal consequence between #2 and #1? Grinder goes back and forth on the perception issue....

.... and then brings in Scottish practise of "not proven" to try to disinguish a difference in perception; not a difference in legal consequence.

Fundamentally Grinder does not disagree with what you've said above. He's not a guilter, not by a long shot.

For my money, people should read Cheli's piece, linked to above. Pay special attention to the "shadows" which Cheli says exists from the Marasca/Bruno report. Pay attention also to the "light" and the "thunder" that the Maraca/Bruno report lobs at the PLE and all the courts below it - and possibly even Section 1 of ISC which is a peer-panel to Bruno/Marasca's Section five of the ISC.

This case has been plagued by some who cherry-pick stuff from documents. Read all of Cheli's opinions on this. Once again, the "shadows" of significance for Cheli which reside in the Sept 2015 motivations report are precisely the ones he writes about in the section (strangely enough) called "shadows"!!!!

1) the “conflitto in giudicato” which has always frightened the judges of Italy’s highest court.
2) the calumny against Lumumba, particularly the M/B reference to Knox being interrogated in a “context institutionally immune to anomalous psychological pressures” - really!?, a police-interrogation makes one immune from psychological pressures!? Really!?
3) the importance of the memorale attributed to Knox and signed by her after the interrogation
4) the ruling concerning the presence of Knox alone or of Knox and Sollecito at the time of the murder or later that night, of which Cheli says: "Here more than shadow we should talk of fog, a thick one indeed."​

To make any other point about "shadows" requires cherry-picking and ignoring the main thesis of Cheli's piece.

Ah, I see why you are confused. You keep referring to an "interrogation", when in fact, Amanda voluntarily offered to help compile a list of frequentees to the cottage. As soon as she incriminated Patrick and herself, the interview was terminated.

 

[Vixen]

Not me. I'm asking for a cite to the difference in legal consequence, precisely so that all of us chumps way up here in the cheap seats can hear something from someone who knows what they're talking about.

Or, as John Lennon said, those in the Royal Boxes, rattle your jewellery.

If the pair had been acquitted under 530.1, I have a feeling you would miraculously understand the difference.