• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bill Williams

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
15,713
The pair lied and lied and lied. Raff deliberately and knowingly mislead the police as did Knox. Knox WAS present during the murder of Meredith Kercher, did wash of Mez' blood from her hands and did cover up for Guede.

This is spelt out large.

The Supreme Court signed off on this judgment.
For the 100th time, the Supreme Court did not say this. In 2015 they wrote, in exonerating, that even if those things were true, all that the Nencini proved was that:

Any further and more meaningful value would be, in fact, resisted by the fact - which is decisive - that no trace leading to her was found at the scene of the crime or on the victim’s body, so that - if all the above is accepted - her contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house.​
Why do you never respond to the ACTUAL TEXT OF THE FINDING!?



Continued from part 28. You can quote or reply to any post from that part or any previous part of the topic.
Posted By: zooterkin
 
Last edited by a moderator:
if all the above is accepted - her contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house.

That "if" is very important. He is not saying it IS true/accepted as fact, he is saying that even IF it were, it still is not enough to surmount the "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement. I do love how Vixen claims BARD is a 'loophole used for corrupt politicians! :eek:
I'm still trying to figure out what blood of Kercher's Knox came into contact with. None of Kercher's blood was found on Amanda, her shoes, or her clothes. The mixed blood and DNA does not depend on Knox having come in contact with the blood at all, but as forensic science has clearly established, DNA/DNA-Blood can become mixed by being deposited one on top of the other at competely different times. There is no forensic evidence that Knox washed her hands of Kercher's blood. None.
 
That "if" is very important. He is not saying it IS true/accepted as fact, he is saying that even IF it were, it still is not enough to surmount the "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement. I do love how Vixen claims BARD is a 'loophole used for corrupt politicians! :eek:

I'm still trying to figure out what blood of Kercher's Knox came into contact with. None of Kercher's blood was found on Amanda, her shoes, or her clothes. The mixed blood and DNA does not depend on Knox having come in contact with the blood at all, but as forensic science has clearly established, DNA/DNA-Blood can become mixed by being deposited one on top of the other at competely different times. There is no forensic evidence that Knox washed her hands of Kercher's blood. None.

This business of "Knox wiped the victim's blood from her hands" all started as a "deduction" that Massei made in his Motivations Report in 2010. It had nothing to do with any evidence offered. Massei deduced it, and his deduction IS DEPENDENT ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT KNOX HAD BEEN IN THE MURDER ROOM DURING THE MURDER - something that the final 2015 exonerating court said was the only certainty, namely, that she'd not been in the murder room.

A judicial fact, especially when it is a deduction with no physical evidence to back it up, does not become a fact-fact just because a judge says so. Marasca-Bruno's final report covers that point when it says that judges are not some sort of supra-expert who knows more than the experts.

Here is the section of the Massei Report that covers this.

The Court, however, believes that the presence of the biological trace specimens that were found is of great importance.

First, it should be recalled that Amanda Knox, in the course of her own examination (questioning), declared that when she left the house on Via della Pergola on the afternoon of November 1st, the bathroom was clean. It should then be highlighted that in that same bathroom various trace specimens were found, of a mixed nature and testing positively for blood. It is true that, according to what was asserted and explained, it is not possible with a mixed trace specimen that tested positive for human blood to determine which of the trace’s contributors the blood belongs to. In this case, however, non-mixed traces were also found, which were shown to be of a haematological nature [i.e. blood] and turn out to have the biological profile of the victim. Such traces, in particular the dribble of blood left on the right inside edge of the door and the stains left on the light switch (see photographic illustrations 141, 142; 158, 159) lead to the deduction that whoever entered that bathroom had his or her hands covered in Meredith’s blood. Furthermore, the sky-blue bathmat with the print of a bare foot in blood, blood which also was shown to be from the victim, indicates that whoever went into this bathroom was barefoot, and must therefore also have been barefoot in Meredith’s room where she had been repeatedly struck, a room which had great blotches of blood, and in one of these whoever transferred the blood to the bathroom and the sky-blue bathmat must have placed his or her foot, and thus must have been moving about that room with bare feet. The above observation leads to the deduction that whoever went into the bathroom at that point (after the stabbing of Meredith) must have had to do so to clean him/herself of Meredith’s blood with which he/she was staining the various things he/she touched or leaned against: the door, the light switch, the mat. And it is probable - not necessary, but probable - that during the following act of scrubbing the hands to remove the blood, he/she left the mixed trace consisting of Meredith’s blood and of cells which had been removed by rubbing during the act of washing. An entirely probable outcome given the likelihood of the act of scrubbing, yet not a necessary one, since the running water which was used in the shower stall or in the bidet or in the sink, or in several of these sanitary fittings, might well have rinsed away the washed-up blood and the cells which had been lost during this washing.​
Massei says that the non-hematological cells found in the blood MUST be from the act of rubbing......

..... something that even Scientific Police lead Stefanoni said was impossible to ascertain, AND WHICH EVEN MASSEI SAYS IS ONLY POSSIBLE, RATHER THAN PROVEN.

So this is what Vixen is hanging her argument on. Not "evidence", but a deduction made by a judge that even the prosecution's expert (Stefanoni) said was impossible to ascertain.

This is repeatedly pointed out to Vixen. Yet Vixen continues repeating the untrue factoid as if it was what the 2015 Supreme Court said.
 
Last edited:
Bill, Massei does the same thing when he deduces that the luminol revealed footprints in the hallway must have been Knox's (despite no DNA identification or comparisons to the other 3 women living there) and that they must have been in Meredith's blood (despite negative TMB results) because "what else could it be?" And this is the epitome of judicial wisdom presented to us from Vixen.
 
Only in your wishes.

Sure...all that DNA, fingerprints, hair, foot/shoe prints of Knox's in Meredith's room sure prove she was there! And don't forget those footprints in Meredith's blood that tested positive for her DNA and MK's blood. Oh...and that bleach she bought so she could clean it all up! Yep, you sure got an iron clad case there!
 
You have been asked repeatedly to show the forensic evidence that supports this and you have failed to do so. No forensic expert did either. Nor did Massei.
It seems that M/B did inherit it from the Massei; however, leading expert Peter Gill rubbishes the theory in his analysis of the evidence:

"Mixtures of Knox and Kercher were found in the washbasin and bidet and Massei inferred: “an activity that, through the action of rubbing, involved the cleaning of the victim’s blood, and could involve the loss of the cells through exfoliation of whoever was cleaning themselves: the two biological traces thus united together in that single trace.” These statements relate to the activity of transfer—not backedup by any scientific evidence beyond the sub-source inference. There is an expectation that mixtures of DNA will be observed as natural background where people share premises. This expectation of mixtures also extends to visitors of premises. Therefore the limitations of interpretation of the DNA evidence are still firmly rooted at sub-source level."

So as I understand it Massei and subsequently M/B had no right to infer that the DNA had reached an "Activity level"; therefore, the theory of Amanda rubbing off epithelial cell while washing off Meredith's blood is fantasy.

Hoots
 
Sure...all that DNA, fingerprints, hair, foot/shoe prints of Knox's in Meredith's room sure prove she was there! And don't forget those footprints in Meredith's blood that tested positive for her DNA and MK's blood. Oh...and that bleach she bought so she could clean it all up!


Stacyhs' post quite succinctly reveals the utter incompetence of judge Massei and all the other convicting Italian judges
 
Only in your wishes.

Ah, er, no. "Wishes" has nothing to do with it.

The final judicial judgment, the one which exonerated the pair, didn't wish anything.

It did what the guilter-nutters plaguing this case never did. It tried to put the guilter factoids onto a timeline, and concluded....

.... that even if true, all that the guilter-nutters factoids proved was that Sollecito and Knox had been in the cottage at a time later than the murder, and not in the murder room.... which no one disputes.

You could help us and compose your own guilter-timeline for the murder, one that implicates the pair.

It has nothing to do with "wishes". It has to do with your inability to construct a factoid-laden timeline that makes sense.
 
Last edited:
Ah, er, no. "Wishes" has nothing to do with it.

The final judicial judgment, the one which exonerated the pair, didn't wish anything.

It did what the guilter-nutters plaguing this case never did. It tried to put the guilter factoids onto a timeline, and concluded....

.... that even if true, all that the guilter-nutters factoids proved was that Sollecito and Knox had been in the cottage at a time later than the murder, and not in the murder room.... which no one disputes.

You could help us and compose your own guilter-timeline for the murder, one that implicates the pair.

It has nothing to do with "wishes". It has to do with your inability to construct a factoid-laden timeline that makes sense.


It's more even than that. It's a total inability to present a set of credible, reliable* evidence that, taken as a whole, proves the guilt of Knox and/or Sollecito BARD for anything related to the murder. Nothing comes even close to doing that. In fact, there's not one single piece of credible, reliable evidence which can only reasonably be explained by way of Knox's/Sollecito's participation in the murder.


* And of course once one places the stipulation of credibility and reliability onto the evidence - as one must - this immediately rules out every single piece of Stefanoni's disgraceful low-template DNA work, plus all of the massively-flawed footprint/shoeprint evidence related to Knox and Sollecito, plus most (if not all) of the shockingly-inept crime scene sample collection by Stefanoni and her goons, plus (it goes without saying....) the bra clasp, for dozens of different reasons related to ineptitude and malpractice.
 
It's more even than that. It's a total inability to present a set of credible, reliable* evidence that, taken as a whole, proves the guilt of Knox and/or Sollecito BARD for anything related to the murder. Nothing comes even close to doing that. In fact, there's not one single piece of credible, reliable evidence which can only reasonably be explained by way of Knox's/Sollecito's participation in the murder.
The irony is that the 2013 First Chambers of the ISC cited the width, rather than depth, of evidence - which in its opinion proved that there was some "there" there.

Which is what Stefano Maffei also cites. "Too much (peripheral) evidence to ignore." Or what Peter Q wrote back in 2011 in virtually conceding that the DNA forensics against K and S were useless - that there was still a claimed "all the other evidence."

When an attempt is made to place it onto a timeline, acc. to the 2015 Supreme Court, there never was any "there" there.
 
The irony is that the 2013 First Chambers of the ISC cited the width, rather than depth, of evidence - which in its opinion proved that there was some "there" there.

Which is what Stefano Maffei also cites. "Too much (peripheral) evidence to ignore." Or what Peter Q wrote back in 2011 in virtually conceding that the DNA forensics against K and S were useless - that there was still a claimed "all the other evidence."

When an attempt is made to place it onto a timeline, acc. to the 2015 Supreme Court, there never was any "there" there.


But to the unscrupulous, ignorant eye, there DID appear to be a very strong width of evidence in this case. The problem was, every single one of these wideranging pieces of evidence was fundamentally flawed in terms of its reliability and credibility.

Look: if proper low-template DNA analysis had been conducted on Sollecito's kitchen knife (and if that knife had been correctly collected, transported and stored prior to analysis), and that analysis had shown Kercher's DNA reliably and credibly on the blade....

.... and if there really was scientifically-valid analysis of the partial footprint on the bath mat, which produced the credible and reliable conclusion that the print was probably Sollecito's and definitely not Guede's....

.... and if the bra clasp had been collected in a timely fashion (i.e. on November 2nd or 3rd) in accordance with accepted protocols and processes, and had been correctly transported and stored, and had been subjected to proper low-template analysis in accordance with accepted protocols and processes, and that analysis had shown the reliable and credible presence of Sollecito's DNA on the clasp....


... well, you could almost certainly have convicted Knox and Sollecito on just those three pieces of evidence alone - never mind all of the other seemingly-credible/reliable pieces of evidence pointing at Knox's/Sollecito's participation.


The problem was this: the police investigators and "scientists" and prosecutors were either mendacious or ignorant in their presentation to the Massei court of the evidence, and in their assessment of the credibility/reliability of that evidence. And the Massei court (and the Chieffi SC and the Nencini appeal court) was simply too beholden to the outdated (inquisition-era) mindset that the police/prosecutors were impartial experts who were purely committed to seeking the truth, and who were more-or-less unimpeacable. And - I'm afraid I have to say once again at this point - the defence teams, in the Massei trial in particular, failed in their duty to ride a horse and carriage through the horrible malpractice, ineptitude and lies presented by the police and prosecutors. Which, IMO, they could rather easily have done.

And all of that adds up to the Massei court rubber-stamping the prosecution case, and Chieffi and Nencini doing more of the same. It's something of a disgrace that it took until the Marasca SC panel for a proper, rational, scientifically-literate approach to the "evidence" to reveal it for exactly what it was: a pile of unreliable, non-credible garbage.
 
But to the unscrupulous, ignorant eye, there DID appear to be a very strong width of evidence in this case. The problem was, every single one of these wideranging pieces of evidence was fundamentally flawed in terms of its reliability and credibility.

<..... sinister deletia .....>​
And all of that adds up to the Massei court rubber-stamping the prosecution case, and Chieffi and Nencini doing more of the same. It's something of a disgrace that it took until the Marasca SC panel for a proper, rational, scientifically-literate approach to the "evidence" to reveal it for exactly what it was: a pile of unreliable, non-credible garbage.

Since the local PMs and courts in Perugia and elsewhere are hand in glove....

The courts, in effect, were signaling that no PM would assemble that much nonsense unless there was some "there" there. As many observers also saw, the courtroom was a place where the best theatrics between lawyers won.....

.... and the most detailed dietrology over wine afterwards won.

It still is stunning to read (from this distance) Massei give a **full** accounting of how the bra-clasp was improperly handled, forensically speaking. It's all there in the Massei report! He just chose to ignore it.

Which is another reason why Vixen is full of it in claiming that the 2015 Supreme Court wrongly brought in new evidence. In law, all that faulty DNA presented at the 2009 trial should have acquitted the pair.

It's all there.
 
Originally Posted by Myriad V
But courts and judges cannot create evidence. And there is no evidence that Knox or Sollecito or anyone besides Guede committed the murder.

Only in your wishes.

Sure...all that DNA, fingerprints, hair, foot/shoe prints of Knox's in Meredith's room sure prove she was there! And don't forget those footprints in Meredith's blood that tested positive for her DNA and MK's blood. Oh...and that bleach she bought so she could clean it all up! Yep, you sure got an iron clad case there!

Stacyhs' post quite succinctly reveals the utter incompetence of judge Massei and all the other convicting Italian judges


Haha! The funniest thing I have read in a long time. This would be like a flat earther claiming Copernicus is wrong, right?

Are you claiming that the things I mentioned in my post above do provide an iron clad case?

May I remind you that all the convicting judges were overturned for very valid reasons with the final Supreme Court ruling that , with the evidence that had been presented, they should never have convicted in the first place?

An objectively wavering process, whose oscillations, however, are also the result of clamorous failures, or investigative “amnesia” and of culpable omissions of investigative activity. Had they been carried out these would, in all probability, have led to a picture if not of certainty, at least of tranquil reliability pointing either towards guilt or innocence of today’s accused. Such a scenario, intrinsically contradictory, constitutes in itself already a first and eloquent signal of an investigation that was never capable of reaching a conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt.

But, I forgot. BARD to you is only a 'loophole' used to acquit corrupt politicians.
 
Haha! The funniest thing I have read in a long time. This would be like a flat earther claiming Copernicus is wrong, right?


If Copernicus said there was evidence Amanda Knox murdered anyone, and a flat earther said there wasn't, the flat earther would be correct and Copernicus would be wrong.

Also, it would probably be the end of the world or something because Copernicus is dead and shouldn't be able to say anything.
 
If Copernicus said there was evidence Amanda Knox murdered anyone, and a flat earther said there wasn't, the flat earther would be correct and Copernicus would be wrong.

Also, it would probably be the end of the world or something because Copernicus is dead and shouldn't be able to say anything.

:D:D:D:D:D
 
If Copernicus said there was evidence Amanda Knox murdered anyone, and a flat earther said there wasn't, the flat earther would be correct and Copernicus would be wrong.

Also, it would probably be the end of the world or something because Copernicus is dead and shouldn't be able to say anything.

I'll let Massei know that you think a keyboard warrior who champions Amanda Knox is a superior legal mind to him.
 
I'll let Massei know that you think a keyboard warrior who champions Amanda Knox is a superior legal mind to him.

I mean, the very first post of this thread chain, 4000 pages and 10 years ago, was by a Knox championing keyboard warrior saying Massei's garbage conviction would be thrown out by a higher court...and well....it was.

It's not a high bar.
 
I'll let Massei know that you think a keyboard warrior who champions Amanda Knox is a superior legal mind to him.

I doubt Massei cares what a keyboard warrior who champions his overturned verdict (that the Supreme Court says should never have been rendered in the first place) has to say about anything. But go ahead; give him a call. Maybe he'll have you over for a glass of prosecco and a cheese plate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom