Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

In the US, there have been many cases of wrongful conviction, and while not all have been corrected, as of May 15, 2016, there have been 1,783 exonerations of the wrongfully convicted since 1989. Source:

http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/about.aspx

It is indeed an interesting phenomenon that a few anonymous internet posters focus on one case of wrongful provisional conviction in Italy, which was corrected by the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation one year ago, by their acquittal of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito of the rape/murder of Meredith Kercher.

Only Knox's allegedly wrongful final conviction for calunnia against Patrick Lumumba remains legally standing, and that case awaits review by the European Court of Human Rights, which will, based on ECHR case-law, be certain to find that Knox's defense rights were violated in that conviction (IMO).

It is striking that a first-instance Italian court has recently provisionally acquitted Knox of the charges of calunnia against the police for claiming in her trials and appeals that Italian police had mistreated her during her November 5/6 interrogation to coerce her to make statements against Lumumba. That court found that Knox was not guilty - had not committed the crime of calunnia against the police - because her defense rights had been violated during the interrogation.

Many of the posts against Knox and/or Sollecito misrepresent the facts or assume that an accused must prove themselves innocent, rather than that the State must prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt under Italian law.

Thus, for example, the State must establish that DNA profile results were obtained accurately and were not the result of contamination; it is not the obligation of the accused to demonstrate that there was contamination. In fact, a careful reading of Stefanoni's results show that there was indeed contamination in her DNA lab results in this case; see:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamination-labwork-coverup/

The contamination would more likely affect the allegedly incriminating evidence against Knox and Sollecito rather than the evidence against Guede.

The amount of DNA allegedly on the blade of the knife taken from Sollecito's kitchen was actually "too low" to be detected by the Qubit fluorometer used by Stefanoni for quantification. Thus, any DNA attributed to the knife blade is likely to be merely contamination. It is up to the State to show that it somehow was not. And the State did not show that it wasn't contamination, or that validated procedures of DNA profile analysis were followed. The suppression of DNA electronic raw data by the State show that the State is hiding something - most likely widespread contamination in Stefanoni's DNA lab.

The DNA on the bra clasp included that from several males, several of whom remain unidentified. The clasp was shown in the police video tape to have been handled by the dirty gloves of the scientific police when recovered. This is contamination by definition.

So the posts continuing to claim that they are somehow guilty, contrary to the final and irreversible acquittal of Knox and Sollecito by the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, and contrary to all the evidence and lack of evidence as understood from a scientific and reasoned viewpoint, are indeed one of the larger mysteries of this case.

In the USA it may well be so that there are many wrongful convictions, perhaps as many as 5%. In the USA there is greater motivation to campaign for Innocence as (1) unlike most Western civilised countries, the USA has life without parole (only recently rescinded for children); (2) it has the death penalty; (3) even then, to successfully appeal against Death Row, there is a 15-stage appeal process which takes years and includes confessing the crime and expressing remorse to the family (I agree with this; so many killers are defiant, adding insult to injury); and, finally, it is difficult to (4) get an appeal hearing at all.

None of this applies to the kids. They were tried in Italy, which bends over backwards for defendants. They automatically got two appeals. In Italy some 50% of convictions get overturned at Supreme Court. They do not get life without parole. There is no death penalty.

The reasons for the acquittal were cited by Bruno-Marasca as being 'a flawed investigation' and 'media interference' even though they present no evidence put forward there was any contamination and Italy has no sub judice laws against press reporting. The MR itself is deeply flawed. Bruno has been moved sideways to act as fifth chambers president, to take him off the judiciary and onto administrative work with a fancy title as recompensation. Marasca immediately retired.

 

[Annella]

I exaggerated to make a point. He is clearly tall and lanky by Italian standards. This means he has better reach and more deltoid, pectoral and elbow leverage than someone shorter.

You exaggerated Vixen?? Surely not!!

 

[Vixen]

Scaling that wall isn't rock climbing. All the climber, and Guede, had to so was stand on the grill and then pull himself up to the ledge with his arms which is what the climber did. Vixen is attempting to cloud that fact by claiming it takes special training and skill. Umm..no. All it takes is a guy with decent upper body strength.

No. It was the FOA - selling a programme to C5 via a tv production company - who said, we've found someone who can do it; a rock climbing enthusiast.

You note, in the video he has the bars of the upper windows to grip (carefully edited out of the video). It uses a lot of trick photography. Editing to make it look as though he did it in ten seconds flat, without any warm up or practice sessions. It doesn't illustrate how he managed to open the shutters whilst holding a 4.4kg boulder or smash the glass without leaving shards on the ground below and leaving the foliage completely undisturbed.

If you think the video footage is authentic, you are gullible.

 

[analemma]

No. It was the FOA - selling a programme to C5 via a tv production company - who said, we've found someone who can do it; a rock climbing enthusiast.

You note, in the video he has the bars of the upper windows to grip (carefully edited out of the video). It uses a lot of trick photography. Editing to make it look as though he did it in ten seconds flat, without any warm up or practice sessions. It doesn't illustrate how he managed to open the shutters whilst holding a 4.4kg boulder or smash the glass without leaving shards on the ground below and leaving the foliage completely undisturbed.

If you think the video footage is authentic, you are gullible.

Vixen thinks that all of the facts are created by FOA, even the Italian Supreme court.
Anyone can climb to that window in ten seconds flat.
NO ONE CONTENDS THAT RUDY WAS HOLDING A BOULDER WHEN RUDY CLIMBED to the window.
It is clear that Rudy threw the rock thru the window to see if anyone responded, knowing, as an experienced burglar would, that if no one raised an alarm, then no one would be home and it would be safe to make the easy climb.

"You are gullible"...If you are not the pot calling the kettle black.

Come on Vixen-Your arguments are just pathetic and relay upon outright lies that EVERYONE on this forum knows are outright lies.

At least try not to be ridiculous.

 

[Numbers]

....
Both merits courts in this case (Massei, Nencini) found as a fact the kids' direct involvement in the murder based on evidence, scientific, circumstantial, eyewitnesses, alibis and testimony.

All the appeal courts do, including the Supreme Court, is assess whether the correct legal principle have been applied. They cannot - except on trivial issues or clerical errors - overturn a fact found by the merits court.

....

Among the false statements in the above:

Nencini was a second-instance court, and heard only one or two items of new evidence.

Appeal courts in Italy and many other Council of Europe States do not merely hear or assess whether the correct legal principles have been applied.

Second-instance or appeal courts in Italy may hear new evidence or re-hear evidence previously given, in accordance with Italian procedural law. The specific law is CPP Article 603 Renewal of the trial evidentiary hearing. Here is the relevant text of Article 603 as translated by Gialuz, Luparia and Scarpa:

1. If one of the parties has requested, in the appeal application or the arguments submitted under Article 585, paragraph 4, that evidence already gathered during the first-instance trial be taken anew or that new evidence be gathered, the judge shall order the renewal of the trial evidentiary hearing, if he holds that he is unable to decide on the basis of the available elements of evidence.

2. If new evidence arises or is discovered after the first-instance trial, the judge shall order the renewal of the trial evidentiary hearing within the limits of provided for in Article 495, paragraph 1.

3. The renewal of the trial evidentiary hearing shall be ordered ex officio if the judge holds that it is absolutely necessary.

4. {The judge shall order the renewal of the evidentiary hearing if the accused was absent from the first-instance trial for a justifiable reason, such as, for example, not being summoned to the trial.}

5. The judge shall decide on the renewal of the trial evidentiary hearing by order, after hearing the parties.

6. The renewal of the trial evidentiary hearing , ordered under the provisions of the previous paragraphs, shall be performed immediately. In case of impossibility, the trial shall be suspended for a time limit of up to ten days.

In Italy, an appeal (second-instance) court is legally authorized to change any finding of fact or law in a criminal case judgment by a lower court. (However, criminal judgments of conviction that result in only a fine may not be appealed.) The legal authority of the appeal court is given in CPP Articles 581 and 605. The following English translations are from Gialuz et al.:

Article 581 Form of appellate remedies
1. An appellate remedy shall be invoked by means of a written application containing the indication of the appealed decision, the date of the appealed decision and the judge issuing it, as well as:
(a) the sections or subsections of the decision to which the appellate remedy refers;
(b) the requests;
(c) the arguments, with the specifications of the de jure and de facto reasons sustaining each request.

Article 605 Judgment
1. With the exception of the cases provided for in Article 604 {cases of nullity - in which the appeal judge returns the case to the first-instance court or takes other measures in some special circumstances}, the appeal judge shall deliver a judgment confirming or amending the appealed judgment.
....

In Article 605, no limitation regarding evaluation of the law or fact is placed on the appeal court in its authority to amend the appealed judgment.

 

[Bill Williams]

I exaggerated to make a point. He is clearly tall and lanky by Italian standards. This means he has better reach and more deltoid, pectoral and elbow leverage than someone shorter.

Instead, why not present facts to make a point. One of those facts would be that Rudy was/is not an Italian. So why are you comparing the climber in the Channel 5 recreation to "Italian standards"?

 

[Vixen]

Instead, why not present facts to make a point. One of those facts would be that Rudy was/is not an Italian. So why are you comparing the climber in the Channel 5 recreation to "Italian standards"?

Basketball is a game of movement and relies on stamina. Thus a basketball player will work on aerobic strength (heart and lungs) rather than weight-lifting training.

Rock climbers need to work on strength, especially in the hands, arms, shoulders and thighs. They also need to fine tune balance so that if they ever step on a snow bridge they can do a tightrope walk with balancing rods to get out of it.

 

[Vixen]

Among the false statements in the above:

Nencini was a second-instance court, and heard only one or two items of new evidence.

Appeal courts in Italy and many other Council of Europe States do not merely hear or assess whether the correct legal principles have been applied.

Second-instance or appeal courts in Italy may hear new evidence or re-hear evidence previously given, in accordance with Italian procedural law. The specific law is CPP Article 603 Renewal of the trial evidentiary hearing. Here is the relevant text of Article 603 as translated by Gialuz, Luparia and Scarpa:

1. If one of the parties has requested, in the appeal application or the arguments submitted under Article 585, paragraph 4, that evidence already gathered during the first-instance trial be taken anew or that new evidence be gathered, the judge shall order the renewal of the trial evidentiary hearing, if he holds that he is unable to decide on the basis of the available elements of evidence.
2. If new evidence arises or is discovered after the first-instance trial, the judge shall order the renewal of the trial evidentiary hearing within the limits of provided for in Article 495, paragraph 1.

3. The renewal of the trial evidentiary hearing shall be ordered ex officio if the judge holds that it is absolutely necessary.

4. {The judge shall order the renewal of the evidentiary hearing if the accused was absent from the first-instance trial for a justifiable reason, such as, for example, not being summoned to the trial.}

5. The judge shall decide on the renewal of the trial evidentiary hearing by order, after hearing the parties.

6. The renewal of the trial evidentiary hearing , ordered under the provisions of the previous paragraphs, shall be performed immediately. In case of impossibility, the trial shall be suspended for a time limit of up to ten days.

In Italy, an appeal (second-instance) court is legally authorized to change any finding of fact or law in a criminal case judgment by a lower court. (However, criminal judgments of conviction that result in only a fine may not be appealed.) The legal authority of the appeal court is given in CPP Articles 581 and 605. The following English translations are from Gialuz et al.:

Article 581 Form of appellate remedies
1. An appellate remedy shall be invoked by means of a written application containing the indication of the appealed decision, the date of the appealed decision and the judge issuing it, as well as:
(a) the sections or subsections of the decision to which the appellate remedy refers;
(b) the requests;
(c) the arguments, with the specifications of the de jure and de facto reasons sustaining each request.

Article 605 Judgment
1. With the exception of the cases provided for in Article 604 {cases of nullity - in which the appeal judge returns the case to the first-instance court or takes other measures in some special circumstances}, the appeal judge shall deliver a judgment confirming or amending the appealed judgment.
....

In Article 605, no limitation regarding evaluation of the law or fact is placed on the appeal court in its authority to amend the appealed judgment.

Instead of just cutting and pasting, why not read your own posts? If an appeal court judge feels the facts found by the merits court may be defective - he has to send it back down to a merits court . In Italy, a merits court can include the second instance court (Nencini).

In this case, both the first instance and second instance merits courts - the ones that look at the evidence and weigh it up found the pair guilty as charged.

 

[LondonJohn]

Among the false statements in the above:

Nencini was a second-instance court, and heard only one or two items of new evidence.

Appeal courts in Italy and many other Council of Europe States do not merely hear or assess whether the correct legal principles have been applied.

Second-instance or appeal courts in Italy may hear new evidence or re-hear evidence previously given, in accordance with Italian procedural law. The specific law is CPP Article 603 Renewal of the trial evidentiary hearing. Here is the relevant text of Article 603 as translated by Gialuz, Luparia and Scarpa:

1. If one of the parties has requested, in the appeal application or the arguments submitted under Article 585, paragraph 4, that evidence already gathered during the first-instance trial be taken anew or that new evidence be gathered, the judge shall order the renewal of the trial evidentiary hearing, if he holds that he is unable to decide on the basis of the available elements of evidence.

2. If new evidence arises or is discovered after the first-instance trial, the judge shall order the renewal of the trial evidentiary hearing within the limits of provided for in Article 495, paragraph 1.

3. The renewal of the trial evidentiary hearing shall be ordered ex officio if the judge holds that it is absolutely necessary.

4. {The judge shall order the renewal of the evidentiary hearing if the accused was absent from the first-instance trial for a justifiable reason, such as, for example, not being summoned to the trial.}

5. The judge shall decide on the renewal of the trial evidentiary hearing by order, after hearing the parties.

6. The renewal of the trial evidentiary hearing , ordered under the provisions of the previous paragraphs, shall be performed immediately. In case of impossibility, the trial shall be suspended for a time limit of up to ten days.

In Italy, an appeal (second-instance) court is legally authorized to change any finding of fact or law in a criminal case judgment by a lower court. (However, criminal judgments of conviction that result in only a fine may not be appealed.) The legal authority of the appeal court is given in CPP Articles 581 and 605. The following English translations are from Gialuz et al.:

Article 581 Form of appellate remedies
1. An appellate remedy shall be invoked by means of a written application containing the indication of the appealed decision, the date of the appealed decision and the judge issuing it, as well as:
(a) the sections or subsections of the decision to which the appellate remedy refers;
(b) the requests;
(c) the arguments, with the specifications of the de jure and de facto reasons sustaining each request.

Article 605 Judgment
1. With the exception of the cases provided for in Article 604 {cases of nullity - in which the appeal judge returns the case to the first-instance court or takes other measures in some special circumstances}, the appeal judge shall deliver a judgment confirming or amending the appealed judgment.
....

In Article 605, no limitation regarding evaluation of the law or fact is placed on the appeal court in its authority to amend the appealed judgment.

Exactly. If the SC deems that the law has been incorrectly applied when determining findings of fact, the SC has absolute authority to quash those findings of fact. In the Knox/Sollecito trials, the lower courts very clearly made unlawful inferences and failed to apply the proper tests to various parts of critical evidence, most notably the testimony of Curatolo, Quintavalle and Capezalli, all of the blood "evidence", all of the DNA "evidence", the footprint "analysis" and the "simulation" of the break in. The SC correctly deemed that the lower courts had abjectly and unlawfully failed to understand and account for the extremely serious flaws in each of these areas, to the extent that none of them should in fact have been of any probative value whatsoever.

Oh, and in passing, I see that Vixen's list of the types of evidence: "...based on evidence, scientific, circumstantial, eyewitnesses, alibis and testimony" shows that she does not even understand what circumstantial evidence is (hint: all scientific evidence is circumstantial, and all witness testimony is circumstantial unless the witness actually saw/heard the crime being committed - thus Curatolo, Quintavalle and Capezzali all offered (discredited) circumstantial evidence in this case). This is a pretty basic judicial principle to misunderstand, but is of course revealing in itself in respect of sloppy thinking and levels of ignorance.

 

[LondonJohn]

BTW, I wonder if Vixen predicts (hopes?) that Knox will have a full-scale nervous breakdown in which she up sticks and moves to a remote country; joins a religious sect to retreat from the world; has a fullblown screaming and crying fit in a public place or assaults a complete stranger who presses a trigger on her dread of being exposed for what she is.

Personally, I predict (and hope) that Knox will live her life in peace and tranquillity, gain proper closure on the part of her life between November 2007 and March 2015 which was so damaged, and have loving relationships with her family, friends and any partners.

Each to his/her own, I suppose........

 

[Bill Williams]

Instead, why not present facts to make a point. One of those facts would be that Rudy was/is not an Italian. So why are you comparing the climber in the Channel 5 recreation to "Italian standards"?

Basketball is a game of movement and relies on stamina. Thus a basketball player will work on aerobic strength (heart and lungs) rather than weight-lifting training.

Rock climbers need to work on strength, especially in the hands, arms, shoulders and thighs. They also need to fine tune balance so that if they ever step on a snow bridge they can do a tightrope walk with balancing rods to get out of it.

Huh!? What on earth are you talking about? Is this another of your "exaggerations" to make a point? What does "rock climbing" have to do with an act which only required a reasonable fit person? Namely, Rudy climbing in through Filomena's window?

This thread is bizarre, even for you.

 

[acbytesla]

Basketball is a game of movement and relies on stamina. Thus a basketball player will work on aerobic strength (heart and lungs) rather than weight-lifting training.

Rock climbers need to work on strength, especially in the hands, arms, shoulders and thighs. They also need to fine tune balance so that if they ever step on a snow bridge they can do a tightrope walk with balancing rods to get out of it.

You know little about what you're talking about. A highly valued skill in basketball is ball handling which is aided by strong hands and fingers something that is also valuable in climbing. Body strength is also valuable for blocking out, posting up and more. Basketball players spend a lot of time lifting weights. Also basketball players especially guards and small forwards have ideal bodies and skills that would make climbing easy.

 

[bagels]

In this case, both the first instance and second instance merits courts - the ones that look at the evidence and weigh it up found the pair guilty as charged.

Nope.

 

[Numbers]

Instead of just cutting and pasting, why not read your own posts? If an appeal court judge feels the facts found by the merits court may be defective - he has to send it back down to a merits court . In Italy, a merits court can include the second instance court (Nencini).

In this case, both the first instance and second instance merits courts - the ones that look at the evidence and weigh it up found the pair guilty as charged.

Another set of falsehoods in your post.

The appeal court is the second-instance court. There are 3 levels in Italy: first-instance, appeal (second instance), and Supreme Court of Cassation.

The Hellmann and Nencini courts were both second-instance courts.

The appeal or second-instance court is legally authorized to hear new evidence, review previously gathered evidence, and to review the way the evidence has been interpreted. It also is authorized to review how the law is interpreted and applied.

The "renewal of the trial evidentiary hearing", if decided upon by an appeal judge, is held by the appeal (=second-instance) court.

The appeal judge sends the case back to the first-instance court only under certain unusual circumstances relating to "cases of nullity" (CPP Article 604.1). If the nullity of 604.1 was due to judgment of an appeal court, the new appeal court remands the judgment to another branch of that court if possible (Article 604.8). The circumstances include that the accused was convicted of a different criminal act than the the appeal judge believes was the correct criminal act to be charged, or that the aggravating or mitigating circumstance for determination of the penalty of the conviction was not properly set by the first-instance court in the opinion of the appeal court, or certain other nullities, such as the accused not being summoned to trial or absence of legal counsel (Article 604.4). Otherwise, the appeal judge is required to judge the case on its merits, even in the case where the first-instance court erroneously, in the opinion of the appeal court, concluded that the offense was extinguished or should not have been prosecuted (CPP Article 604.6, and Articles 604.2, 604.3, 604.5, 604.7).

So again, in general, in Italy, the appeal court judges on the merits including new evidence it hears, previously recorded evidence, interpretation of evidence, and on law. The appeal court returns the case to a first-instance court or to another appeal court for retrial under rare circumstances of "nullity", which means, for example, that the accused was not summoned to the first-instance trial or that his lawyer did not attend the first-instance trial.

 

[js202]

You know little about what you're talking about. A highly valued skill in basketball is ball handling which is aided by strong hands and fingers something that is also valuable in climbing. Body strength is also valuable for blocking out, posting up and more. Basketball players spend a lot of time lifting weights. Also basketball players especially guards and small forwards have ideal bodies and skills that would make climbing easy.

Indeed to all of this. Uh, and then there's also the ability to jump heights above 10 feet, which helps with blocking, slam dunking and stuff. But as an aspirant to the professional Italian league, and the most skilled outdoor court baller in Perugia, I doubt Rudy would've been very good at jumping.

 

[acbytesla]

Indeed to all of this. Uh, and then there's also the ability to jump heights above 10 feet, which helps with blocking, slam dunking and stuff. But as an aspirant to the professional Italian league, and the most skilled outdoor court baller in Perugia, I doubt Rudy would've been very good at jumping.

It really is a joke that Vixen is unwilling to acknowledge that for a young athlete like Rudy this would be easy. It's a perfect example of intellectual dishonesty. I certainly couldn't make this climb today, but I sure as hell could have at 20. And I'm 5'7" and no way could I ever dunk a basketball.

 

[recursive prophet]

Some indeed may be posting here, and even in response to Vixen's posts, to provide objective, valid and truthful information, which may not be known or readily available to readers of this thread.

My intent has been and continues to be to help supply such information when appropriate - that is, when I am (or believe that I am) confident I have such information.

I hope none here think my questions were meant to in any way disparage the efforts of those here wishing to 'set the record straight' in the face of ongoing challenges to the facts in the case. My interest is the ingredients that enable this and other such megathreads to continue even after the major issues that begat them have been resolved. My sincere thanks to all who have contributed insights itt to my understanding of this larger topic.

And before you know it you go from having a Sunday newspaper understanding of the case, to being able to draw a map of the Perugian town square from memory, but you're no better off than where you started.

I don't recommend it.

LOL, been there, still have the T-shirt. In fact I think the recent revival of the wind cart thread at TR and my again finding myself unsure about all the facts involved is what inspired my interest in the how and why of such threads.

Of course in a physics debate, tests can be run that eventually establish who was right or wrong beyond any doubt. Unfortunately for those involved in this thread, I see no such light at the end of the reality tunnel unless the Italian police were to get a flat out confession from the murderer. Seems pretty unlikely to me, but good luck. I'll be watching, but doubt I'll participate further as I don't have time for yet another never ending labyrinth.

If anyone here can tell me, I still would like to know if Amanda is active at all in any of these threads about her. Also, is this the most active ongoing one, or are there others that are even more active?

And again, thanks for all the helpful posts, and good luck in resolving all this eventually. Do remember when you look back on your efforts in years to come, that an aged prophet told you back in 2016 you will be blown away that you devoted so much time rebutting the arguments of those you had no hope of reaching. I have reminded others countless times of big Al's gem about doing the same thing over and over and expecting/hoping for different results, though tbh it didn't ever change their behavior.

 

[analemma]

Basketball is a game of movement and relies on stamina. Thus a basketball player will work on aerobic strength (heart and lungs) rather than weight-lifting training.

Rock climbers need to work on strength, especially in the hands, arms, shoulders and thighs. They also need to fine tune balance so that if they ever step on a snow bridge they can do a tightrope walk with balancing rods to get out of it.

I was unaware that FOA said that Rudy walked on a tightrope to the window....while carrying the infamous 4.4 Kiloton boulder to throw thru the window.
I must have missed the part where FOA reported that there were tons of snow bridges to navigate during the climb to the cottage window

 

[analemma]

You know little about what you're talking about. A highly valued skill in basketball is ball handling which is aided by strong hands and fingers something that is also valuable in climbing. Body strength is also valuable for blocking out, posting up and more. Basketball players spend a lot of time lifting weights. Also basketball players especially guards and small forwards have ideal bodies and skills that would make climbing easy.

These skills are important to professional burglars, like Rudy

 

[Bill Williams]

I hope none here think my questions were meant to in any way disparage the efforts of those here wishing to 'set the record straight' in the face of ongoing challenges to the facts in the case. My interest is the ingredients that enable this and other such megathreads to continue even after the major issues that begat them have been resolved. My sincere thanks to all who have contributed insights itt to my understanding of this larger topic.

In no way shape or form have you disparaged anyone, not to my reading of your posts. My only quibble, perhaps, is that the topic you're interested in - the megathread and why it continues - is for me a smaller topic; albeit one that interests me too, at least enough to want to participate in it.

IIRC you expressed an opinion - implied one at least - to Numbers, that the major issues have been resolved in that the Italian courts formally acquitted Knox and Sollecito of murder; and have begun the process of acquitting all and sundry of the parasitical prosecutions against Knox, Sollecito and their families. And that if Numbers is correct (which I'm not entirely sure he is!) that ECHR will put the kibosh of the Lumumba-calunnia.....

If anyone here can tell me, I still would like to know if Amanda is active at all in any of these threads about her.

My guess is "no", but that's a guess. It is interesting to me that you have not included Raffaele in that. Raffaele once had a page up called, "Ask Raffaele" where he responded to questions put to him, but what I'm stuggling with is....

..... why is it even important if they are or are not?

Also, is this the most active ongoing one, or are there others that are even more active?

There is an Italian language sub-forum devoted to the Murder of Meredith Kercher on a service that has a larger forum on the Monster of Florence history in Italy. That one has pretty much wound down - and the posting to it has nearly ceased.

And again, thanks for all the helpful posts, and good luck in resolving all this eventually.

What is the "this" being resolved? I'm assuming it is not the legal case now ended in acquittal because of what you said above. "Resolving" is a puzzling word to use if your main issue is why people keep posting at one another....

Do remember when you look back on your efforts in years to come, that an aged prophet told you back in 2016 you will be blown away that you devoted so much time rebutting the arguments of those you had no hope of reaching. I have reminded others countless times of big Al's gem about doing the same thing over and over and expecting/hoping for different results, though tbh it didn't ever change their behavior.

As explained above, I may be one of the few who's had movement in this, which was the result mainly of debate with people I (then) disagreed with. I've also made claims which under further critical review could not be sustained, well.... not in the way I was trying to sustain them.

And when it comes to Vixen's posts, it's not so much rebutting the claims she makes, it is trying to find out the sources for those claims. Still your point stands - after 50+ or 60+ of her bogus claims where when even the citation she provides doesn't back up the claim, it does make you wonder what's the point of tackling claim #61.

Thank you aged prophet.