Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[Vixen]

There is no record of the prosecution presenting the hairs Vixen mentions as evidence. If Amanda's hair had been found in the room the prosecution would have used it. Vixen boasts about all the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele and how strong the case was. If this was true, why does Vixen have to resort to making claims about evidence which the prosecution never made. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk, why is it that Vixen can't argue her case on actual evidence presented by the prosecution?

You are wrong. All the hair samples collected are in the forensic list of 498 physical samples found at the scene and remain in the court documentation.

Hairs

(Dr. Stefanoni Genetic Test, SAL report, Dr. Stefanoni slide presentation)
Of the over 480 tests prepared on samples, 93 of these constituted hairs or fibers. 86 were human hairs of varying length, in varying colors. The most significant colors noted were black, blonde, chestnut, light chestnut and red chestnut.
Only 3 hairs yielded DNA; all 3 hairs yielded DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA. All 3 hairs were chestnut colored and over 15 cm long.
35 hairs were chestnut in color; the vast majority of these were found in Ms. Kercher’s room. 2 were also found on a kitchen sponge at Sollecito’s apartment.
7 hairs were black in color. 6 of these were 4 cm long or less, and so likely Guede’s hair. 4 of these were on the duvet and 1 was on the mattress cover, both in Ms. Kercher’s room. 1 was also on a sponge at Sollecito’s apartment.
21 blonde hairs were analyzed, and were likely Knox’s hairs. Most were found at Sollecito’s apartment, 10 on a sponge in the kitchen and 5 on a sweater.
Of the 6 blonde hairs found at the cottage, 2 were on the duvet, 1 was inside the small bathroom sink, 1 was on Ms. Kercher’s purse and 1 was on her mattress cover.
4 light chestnut hairs were found. 3 of these were 9 cm long or less. 1 was found on the kitchen sponge; 1 was found on the bra and one was found on Ms. Kercher’s sweat jacket. Sollecito had light chestnut colored hair.

From http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Evidence_List#Other_biological_traces

 

[Vixen]

Now there are THREE strands of "blonde hair"!!!!!!!!

Where are these "hairs" now, Vixen? Are they blonde? Whose "hairs" are they? What did the careful forensic analysis of these "three hairs" show? Are they human hairs, Vixen? Is there evidence that they are human hairs, Vixen? Is there evidence of the origin of these "hairs", Vixen?

You have nothing. Other than your prejudices, coupled with an agenda and extraordinarily poor reasoning.

I think I'll make up something not in evidence from the crime scene myself! Hey Vixen: did you know there was a piece of paper lying on top of Kercher's body, written and signed by Guede, which said (English translation) "I, Rudy Guede, murdered Meredith Kercher all by myself. I am not sorry"? It was there! I saw it once in one of the photos. I guess those photos must have got lost or something. It wasn't entered in evidence in any court. But it was definitely there. Which gives me the right to assume it as fact

One was lost, but there remains a police photograph of it and the other two, whilst not having their follicles, and thus no DNA could be extracted, remain in police/court possession as exhibits.

Perhaps you'd like to hazard a guess as to whom the blonde haired co-perpetrator is(you know, the one who helped raid Mez' bag and place it on the bed)?

 

[Vixen]

Vixen apparently still cannot get his/her head around the woolly thinking that is leading to highly selective reference to judicial verdicts. By Vixen's "reasoning", for example, Stefan Kiszko killed Lesley Molseed - because a court once ruled that he killed her. Never mind any reference to a subsequent (and, obviously, superior) verdict from the Court of Appeal that Kiszko cannot possibly have been the murderer (it was subsequently proven BARD to have been committed by another man altogether), resulting in the acquittal of Kizsko. But, as I say, per Vixen's shoddy "reasoning", one is allowed simply to take the lower court's decision (if, that is, one has an agenda to propagate the myth that Kiszko is guilty of the Molseed murder......).

The Supreme Court in Italy fully and unconditionally acquitted Knox and Sollecito. That means, Vixen, they both stand COMPLETELY INNOCENT IN LAW AND ETHICS of any involvement in the murder of Kercher. If the SC really had thought that Knox and/or Sollecito were present in the cottage at the time of the murder, or any other bull scat along those lines, then without a shadow of doubt the SC would have sent the case back once again to the appeal court to determine exactly what crime Knox and/or Sollecito actually committed (because being party to a murder and lying to police about it is a serious criminal offence).

It's astonishingly clear to anyone with any critical faculties and even a shred of intellect that the SC was certain that there was no evidence that Knox or Sollecito committed any form of crime with respect to the murder of Kercher. Which is precisely why the SC threw the whole disgraceful case out. Whether True Believers kid themselves otherwise is entirely irrelevant - they're simply wrong and deluded.

Kiszko was found to have an extreme form of Klinefelter's syndrome, which AIUI, meant he had no seminal fluid at all, never mind an infertile one, so could not have left the fluid found over Leslie Molseed's body. In addition, the real killer was found.

What on earth does Kizsko have to do with this case?

Poor logical reasoning: 'If A=B, then A=C.'


No!!!

 

[Vixen]

Oh, I see. You want to pick and choose which bits of the judicial process to take notice of, and which bits to ignore. OK then. That's made your position perfectly clear.

The Marasca-Bruno verdict will be expunged in due course as 'illegal', but until then, the trial and appeal findings remain perfectly valid, aside from some of the DNA evidence (the knife and bra-clasp) ruled out by Marasca.

 

[LondonJohn]

Kiszko was found to have an extreme form of Klinefelter's syndrome, which AIUI, meant he had no seminal fluid at all, never mind an infertile one, so could not have left the fluid found over Leslie Molseed's body. In addition, the real killer was found.

What on earth does Kizsko have to do with this case?

Poor logical reasoning: 'If A=B, then A=C.'


No!!!

You didn't follow, did you? I'll explain again:

You stated, in support of your (incorrect) belief that Knox and Sollecito participated in the Kercher murder, that "the trial and first appeal judges found all three guilty as charged, naming Rudy as the accessory to the crime and Amanda the inflicter of the mortal wound."

OK so far?

Now, I was pointing out that this is exactly analogous to, say, someone who harbours a similarly ignorant and irrational belief in the guilt of Stefan Kiszko stating, in support of their belief, that "his first trial decided he had definitely committed the murder, and his first appeal came to the same conclusion".


Can you seriously not see the point here? If not, things are even worse than I thought, comprehension/intellect-wise.

 

[LondonJohn]

One was lost, but there remains a police photograph of it and the other two, whilst not having their follicles, and thus no DNA could be extracted, remain in police/court possession as exhibits.

Perhaps you'd like to hazard a guess as to whom the blonde haired co-perpetrator is(you know, the one who helped raid Mez' bag and place it on the bed)?

Gosh! You really, seriously, need to write to Mignini and/or the Perugia prosecutors' office IMMEDIATELY and inform them of this amazing information! After all, if it's an easy and obvious set of inferences that a) these are human hairs, b) these hairs came from the head of Knox, c) they have to have been shed from Knox's head during the murder, and d) they therefore link Knox clearly to participation in the murder (not to mention "helping to raid Mez' Mez's Kercher's bag"), then this evidence alone might be enough to convict Knox.

Why didn't the prosecution use it?!!!!! What the hell is going on?! Are those dunderheads - Mignini included - so stupid as to be unable to see what you see so clearly?! I am flabbergasted, if what you say is intelligent and accurate, that these hairs never even featured in any of the trials, and were never once used in prosecution argument.

I can't understand it! can you explain it, Vixen? Maybe it has something to do with the "mountain of evidence" the prosecution already had, eh?

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Perhaps you'd like to hazard a guess as to whom the blonde haired co-perpetrator is(you know, the one who helped raid Mez' bag and place it on the bed)?

Perhaps you'd like to hazard a guess as to whose DNA was found on Mez' bag? Because THAT is the person PROVEN to have raided Mez' bag. Anyone else is just a figment of your imagination.

 

[Bill Williams]

Why didn't the prosecution use it?!!!!! What the hell is going on?! Are those dunderheads - Mignini included - so stupid as to be unable to see what you see so clearly?! I am flabbergasted, if what you say is intelligent and accurate, that these hairs never even featured in any of the trials, and were never once used in prosecution argument.

I can't understand it! can you explain it, Vixen? Maybe it has something to do with the "mountain of evidence" the prosecution already had, eh?

That was something Machiavelli (if anyone remembers him at this point) kept saying. He'd bring up factoid evidence - in response to someone saying, "If that was true, then why didn't the prosecution enter it at trial?", he'd say, "Well, you never put everything into a trial once you have enough to get a conviction."

Can anyone spot problems with that!?

• 1) How did the prosecution know where that "conviction sweet-spot" was during the trial - unless guilt had been determined BEFORE the trial?
  
• 2) Why do the nutters always point to the 1,000s of pages of court documentation, if by definition this "good stuff" didn't make it into those pages? Why do they even need to refer to stuff NOT in those pages, if those pages are enough to secure guilt?

The only page of court documentation which needs, now, referring to is the final page of the Italian Supreme Court motivations' report issued Sept 2015 which said they were exonerated.

 

[Vixen]

That was something Machiavelli (if anyone remembers him at this point) kept saying. He'd bring up factoid evidence - in response to someone saying, "If that was true, then why didn't the prosecution enter it at trial?", he'd say, "Well, you never put everything into a trial once you have enough to get a conviction."

Can anyone spot problems with that!?

• 1) How did the prosecution know where that "conviction sweet-spot" was during the trial - unless guilt had been determined BEFORE the trial?
  
• 2) Why do the nutters always point to the 1,000s of pages of court documentation, if by definition this "good stuff" didn't make it into those pages? Why do they even need to refer to stuff NOT in those pages, if those pages are enough to secure guilt?

The only page of court documentation which needs, now, referring to is the final page of the Italian Supreme Court motivations' report issued Sept 2015 which said they were exonerated.

A heads up: justice is moving in on the corrupt judges.

Watch this space.

 

[Bill Williams]

A heads up: justice is moving in on the corrupt judges.

Watch this space.

Sigh.

You've been reading Peter Quennell again. Sigh.

 

[Vixen]

Gosh! You really, seriously, need to write to Mignini and/or the Perugia prosecutors' office IMMEDIATELY and inform them of this amazing information! After all, if it's an easy and obvious set of inferences that a) these are human hairs, b) these hairs came from the head of Knox, c) they have to have been shed from Knox's head during the murder, and d) they therefore link Knox clearly to participation in the murder (not to mention "helping to raid Mez' Mez's Kercher's bag"), then this evidence alone might be enough to convict Knox.

Why didn't the prosecution use it?!!!!! What the hell is going on?! Are those dunderheads - Mignini included - so stupid as to be unable to see what you see so clearly?! I am flabbergasted, if what you say is intelligent and accurate, that these hairs never even featured in any of the trials, and were never once used in prosecution argument.

I can't understand it! can you explain it, Vixen? Maybe it has something to do with the "mountain of evidence" the prosecution already had, eh?

As there was no DNA to associate the hair to any particular individual, why would you need it when you have plenty of other evidence.

BTW If you are going to use your favourite tool of debate, sarcasm (and Oscar Wilde is right) at least try to make it original, although one cannot expect what you cannot manage, as far as wit goes.

“My mind reels with sarcastic replies!”
― Charles M. Schulz, The Complete Peanuts, Vol. 7: 1963-1964

 

[Welshman]

A heads up: justice is moving in on the corrupt judges.

Watch this space.

How can Vixen be in a position to accuse people of being corrupt when she slavishly defend corrupt police/prosecutors who committed numerous abuses. How does Vixen explain this hypocrisy?

 

[sept79]

A heads up: justice is moving in on the corrupt judges.

Watch this space.

Do keep us informed of these exciting developments . . . . .

 

[LondonJohn]

As there was no DNA to associate the hair to any particular individual, why would you need it when you have plenty of other evidence.

BTW If you are going to use your favourite tool of debate, sarcasm (and Oscar Wilde is right) at least try to make it original, although one cannot expect what you cannot manage, as far as wit goes.

“My mind reels with sarcastic replies!”
― Charles M. Schulz, The Complete Peanuts, Vol. 7: 1963-1964

But your post seemed very clear that any idiot could easily draw a clear, unambiguous chain of inferences (strands are human hair; hair belongs to Knox; hair was deposited by Knox during murder; strong evidence of Knox's participation in murder).

Are you now rowing back on that and saying that these strands of "hair" are actually not probative evidence against Knox in any meaningful way? Because if so, then we can agree on this.

And let's now turn to the "plenty of other evidence" crap. Firstly, if the prosecution is in possession of good, credible, reliable evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused, then the prosecution will - almost without fail in any case, barring a slam-dunk (e.g. reliable, corroborated confession), enter that evidence into a trial and use it in argument. Secondly, in this particular case, even if the prosecution hadn't (for some unfathomable reason) used this hair "evidence" in the Massei trial (assuming for a moment, that is, that this evidence was as good an indicator of Knox's participation as you'd like to think it is.....), then it was abundantly clear to the prosecution by the time of the Nencini trial that the case was on shaky ground. It's a virtual guarantee that the prosecution would have used this "hair" evidence at that point, were it of any actual value. Which it is not. Which is why it was not used.

And I'm devastated to learn that my sarcasm is not "original". In what way is it unoriginal? How can I make it better and more original? I realise, as you point out, that I very well might not be intellectually capable of constructing "good" sarcasm, but I live in hope.......

 

[LondonJohn]

Do keep us informed of these exciting developments . . . . .

I'm on tenterhooks!!!! Just as I was when the morons told us, ooh, some FIVE YEARS AGO, that Hellmann was corrupt and was about to be investigated, exposed and "taken down". So maybe "moving in on the corrupt judges" similarly means that nothing will have happened in five more years from now. On account of there having been no corruption involved.

Or............. Mignini is a member of the judiciary. I've always thought of him as arrogant, egocentric, mendacious, stuffed full of hubris, morally and religiously super-zealous and self-righteous, cunning, sly, deceptive and incompetent, rather than corrupt. But maybe Vixen knows something we don't.....

 

[Welshman]

But your post seemed very clear that any idiot could easily draw a clear, unambiguous chain of inferences (strands are human hair; hair belongs to Knox; hair was deposited by Knox during murder; strong evidence of Knox's participation in murder).

Are you now rowing back on that and saying that these strands of "hair" are actually not probative evidence against Knox in any meaningful way? Because if so, then we can agree on this.

And let's now turn to the "plenty of other evidence" crap. Firstly, if the prosecution is in possession of good, credible, reliable evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused, then the prosecution will - almost without fail in any case, barring a slam-dunk (e.g. reliable, corroborated confession), enter that evidence into a trial and use it in argument. Secondly, in this particular case, even if the prosecution hadn't (for some unfathomable reason) used this hair "evidence" in the Massei trial (assuming for a moment, that is, that this evidence was as good an indicator of Knox's participation as you'd like to think it is.....), then it was abundantly clear to the prosecution by the time of the Nencini trial that the case was on shaky ground. It's a virtual guarantee that the prosecution would have used this "hair" evidence at that point, were it of any actual value. Which it is not. Which is why it was not used.

And I'm devastated to learn that my sarcasm is not "original". In what way is it unoriginal? How can I make it better and more original? I realise, as you point out, that I very well might not be intellectually capable of constructing "good" sarcasm, but I live in hope.......

If the there was a slam dunk case against Amanda and Raffaele, why did Vixen have to lie about Curt Knox paying two million dollars to the PR firm.

 

[LondonJohn]

The Marasca-Bruno verdict will be expunged in due course as 'illegal', but until then, the trial and appeal findings remain perfectly valid, aside from some of the DNA evidence (the knife and bra-clasp) ruled out by Marasca.

I missed this gem from earlier!

I cannot help but enjoy and admire the declarative confidence of a statement such as "The Marasca-Bruno verdict will be expunged in due course as 'illegal'".

In the real world, one would need pretty good evidence to even suggest such a course of events, never mind to state it as virtual certainly. But in bizarro world, of course, one can say anything one wants - so long as it fits the agenda and the prejudice. Evidence be damned!

 

[Stacyhs]

Now there are THREE strands of "blonde hair"!!!!!!!!

Where are these "hairs" now, Vixen? Are they blonde? Whose "hairs" are they? What did the careful forensic analysis of these "three hairs" show? Are they human hairs, Vixen? Is there evidence that they are human hairs, Vixen? Is there evidence of the origin of these "hairs", Vixen?

You have nothing. Other than your prejudices, coupled with an agenda and extraordinarily poor reasoning.

I think I'll make up something not in evidence from the crime scene myself! Hey Vixen: did you know there was a piece of paper lying on top of Kercher's body, written and signed by Guede, which said (English translation) "I, Rudy Guede, murdered Meredith Kercher all by myself. I am not sorry"? It was there! I saw it once in one of the photos. I guess those photos must have got lost or something. It wasn't entered in evidence in any court. But it was definitely there. Which gives me the right to assume it as fact

Oh, my. Is she back to the blonde hairs that would have been easily identified as being dyed? Seems to me that the police would have mentioned that since Amanda dyed her hair blonde. It's amazing how Vixen trots on back to something we discussed ad nauseam earlier and brings it up yet again. I'd have thought she'd have dropped it, but no...

 

[Stacyhs]

A heads up: justice is moving in on the corrupt judges.

Watch this space.

Oh, I will, I will! The entertainment you provide is endless!
Say, why didn't any of the courts mention those blonde hairs were dyed? You know, like Amanda's hair?

 

[acbytesla]

A heads up: justice is moving in on the corrupt judges.

Watch this space.

So Chieffi, Nencini and Massei are going down? Not surprising.