ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito , sexism issues

Closed Thread
Old 10th April 2017, 07:22 AM   #1
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,882
The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

Mod InfoPart 24 was getting a bit long, so before it started causing problems, I created this thread. As usual, the break is arbitrary and you are free to quote from the previous part as necessary.
Posted By:kmortis



Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
It doesn't clear it up at all. It begs a HUGE question that Marasca/Bruno's panel in March 2015 found as definitive. If it is 'almost certainly blood", why is that foottrack there and only there? The "it's almost certainly blood" assumption is not borne out by any other evidence in the cottage - namely, there are no bloody foottracks in the murderoom itself matchable to either Knox or Sollecito. If it is "almost certainly blood," then like the claim that Knox cleaned blood off of her hands, one needs to default to the final judicial truth of the matter, a judicial truth which resulted in their acquittal.
That's the problem with relying on now-annulled, former motivation reports, and also the discredited reports/findings from Patrizia Stefanoni.

Even if what Stefanoni presented was sound, it still proves nothing in relation to AK and RS's alleged involvement in murder. By extension, even if the guilter assumption is true - that it only could have been blood - the only conclusion still to be drawn is:

her contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house.

Unless you want to argue that the "even if" is a typo, or a figure of speech.
It's ridiculous to believe that what a judge declares as factual when actual scientists and experts overwhelmingly disagree. Was it 6 out of 7 or 7 out of 8 experts say that the evidence did not prove their were multiple attackers but Massei agreed with the one? Stefanoni herself said if TMB didn't react to a substance then it is not blood.

Who really gives a damn what the moronic courts concluded at this point?
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Last edited by kmortis; 10th April 2017 at 09:15 AM.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2017, 08:04 AM   #2
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 792
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
It's ridiculous to believe that what a judge declares as factual when actual scientists and experts overwhelmingly disagree. Was it 6 out of 7 or 7 out of 8 experts say that the evidence did not prove their were multiple attackers but Massei agreed with the one? Stefanoni herself said if TMB didn't react to a substance then it is not blood.

Who really gives a damn what the moronic courts concluded at this point?
From what I was able to find it was 6 of 7. And contrary to what the PGP like to imply, only two of the seven were defense witnesses. Like with so many other issues (e.g., the Luminol traces that were TMB negative, negative for Meredith's DNA but nonetheless still 'judged' to be made with Meredith's blood) these courts had an opinion, evidence and expert witness opinion be damned.

Dr. Lalli (Massei pg 116) wrote:
He excluded, finally, that the biological data alone could indicate the presence and action of several people against the victim.
Dr. Liviero, consultant appointed by the Public Minister (Massei pg 119) wrote:
As for the dynamic of the homicide, with particular reference to whether the action was performed by one or more persons, Dr. Liviero ruled out the existence of scientific elements that would allow us to formulate a response to this question.
Professor Bacci, consultant appointed by the Public Prosecutor (Massei pg 122) wrote:
He indicated that the biological data did not allow for a determination of whether the injuries were caused by one person or by several people, claiming they were compatible with both possibilities
Professor Norelli, consultant for the civil party, (Massei pg 127) wrote:
All this led to the conclusion that one single person could not have carried out all the harmful actions which had occurred in this case.
Professor Introna, consultant for Raffaele Sollecito (Massei pg 137) wrote:
He also stated that the action was that of a single attacker.
Professor Torre, consultant for Amanda Knox (Massei pg 145) wrote:
He maintained that " in any case there is nothing there which could lead me to think that there was more than one attacker"
Prof Cingolani, expert appointed by the judge (GIP) (Massei pg 153) wrote:
He was unable to provide an explanation for such a disproportion, which he held to be compatible with the presence of more than one person, but also with the action of a sole person who acts in a progressive manner

So it's:
4 for "can't say"
2 for "one assailant"
1 for "more than one assailant" (and that one was the "consultant for the civil party")
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2017, 09:36 AM   #3
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Kalevala
Posts: 11,390
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...#post11793524: Truthcalls writes:

Quote:
So what's your point? When Stefanoni testified she indicated no other tests were performed on the traces. After the court ordered the SALs to be turned over to the defense, it was Dr Gino who discovered that TMB tests were performed and they were negative. It matters not WHO testified to what, what does matter is none of the Luminol traces tested positive for blood, and further, most also tested negative for Meredith's DNA. This is just another effort on your part to obfuscate the facts concerning the Luminol traces.

So again, care to try to explain the three traces from Amanda's room which were negative TMB, negative for Meredith's DNA but positive for Amanda's DNA. HOW are those traces made from Meredith's blood? Hint: "Because there was a lot of Meredith's blood in the room next door and what else could it be" are NOT answers.
No, Stefanoni did not test the samples in question with TMB. She did not report that TMB was negative; what Stacyhs quoted was an exchange between Gino for the defense and Comodi cross-examining her, for the prosecution. Gino was referring to Stefanoni's SAL lab reports which shows 'negative' as a default'. Stefanoni was not called to rebut Gino's misapprehension.

For the avoidance of doubt, the samples DID NOT test negative for blood. Therefore, Massei is right and Hellmann is wrong.

Clear now?
__________________
Hyvää itsenäisyyspäivä
100 years Suomi
Happy Independence Day, Finland

Last edited by Vixen; 10th April 2017 at 09:52 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2017, 09:49 AM   #4
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Kalevala
Posts: 11,390
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Mod InfoPart 24 was getting a bit long, so before it started causing problems, I created this thread. As usual, the break is arbitrary and you are free to quote from the previous part as necessary.
Posted By:kmortis





It's ridiculous to believe that what a judge declares as factual when actual scientists and experts overwhelmingly disagree. Was it 6 out of 7 or 7 out of 8 experts say that the evidence did not prove their were multiple attackers but Massei agreed with the one? Stefanoni herself said if TMB didn't react to a substance then it is not blood.

Who really gives a damn what the moronic courts concluded at this point?
Those experts you refer to did not say it was 'categorically just one person' (except perhaps one defense expert in their pay); they simply said they could not categorically say there were several.

These experts concentrated on the physical injuries.

The court heard from experts from various other fields to get a bigger picture than just one niche speciality. It looked at logistics, defence wounds (or lack thereof), the fact of two different knives, the DNA on the sweater and bra clasp, witness testimony. At least two witnessed more than one assailant.

Having heard ALL of the evidence from ALL of the myriad witnesses and seeing or examining the exhibits firsthand, and hearing ALL submissions from each party, it came to the verdict of 'GUILTY' , as charged.

Micheli, Galati, Massei, Nencini, and Marasca all confirm in writing in their written reasons that there was more than one perpetrator and further more that Rudy did not wield the fatal blow.

ETA You will recall Introna was the 'expert' who tried to claim that Mez fell exactly onto the glass shard found in the murder room from Filomena's window, and it was this that caused her hand to bleed, and not someone taunting her with knife flicks.
__________________
Hyvää itsenäisyyspäivä
100 years Suomi
Happy Independence Day, Finland

Last edited by Vixen; 10th April 2017 at 09:57 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2017, 09:57 AM   #5
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,038
catalysts versus oxidants in presumptive blood tests.

In brief, luminol gives positive reactions to substances with peroxidase activity (a type of catalytic activity) and oxidants. TMB gives positive reactions to the former class only (peroxidase-like catalysts). Catalysts speed up chemical reactions but are not consumed, as reactants are. Oxidants are chemical species that accept electrons from reductants. Oxidants are reactants. Some oxidants might be much longer-lived than applied bleach. There is an ingredient in some cleansers that have oxidants, but I don't recall seeing anyone test them in a forensic setting.

If TMB were truly inferior to luminol in every way, then why did Stefanoni use it? Doesn't that call into question her competence? Of course, if the TMB were not run, then a positive luminol result would mean nothing more than the possibility of blood. Even a positive TMB result would not show that blood was certainly present. Only a confirmatory test could do so.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 10th April 2017 at 10:00 AM.
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2017, 10:05 AM   #6
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 792
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...#post11793524:



No, Stefanoni did not test the samples in question with TMB. She did not report that TMB was negative; what Stacyhs quoted was an exchange between Gino for the defense and Comodi cross-examining her, for the prosecution. Gino was referring to Stefanoni's SAL lab reports which shows 'negative' as a default'. Stefanoni was not called to rebut Gino's misapprehenison.

For the avoidance of doubt, the samples DID NOT test negative for blood. Therefore, Massei is right and Hellmann is wrong.

Clear now?
It has always been clear to me.... that you are either misinformed or you are deliberately lying.

First of all, there is no such thing as a default value for a SAL report. Why do you post such nonsense?

The SAL report was reviewed and Dr Gino testified to the results; negative for blood on all Luminol traces. The prosecution did not dispute this, nor could they as the SAL report was introduced as evidence.

I can't even begin to fathom the point of your "Massei is right and Hellmann is wrong" comment since Massei does not question the fact that TMB was used to test all Luminol samples and acknowledges they were negative.

Finally, I think we are all very much aware that Stefanoni did not report the TMB results but if you were paying attention then you would know this is precisely the issue... as the lead lab technician it was her responsibility to know and report the results. She did not. That either indicates incompetence or a deliberate effort to suppress lab results.

Clear now?

Any chance you're going to take a shot at explaining how a trace that is TMB negative for blood, negative for Meredith's DNA but positive for Amanda's DNA could be made from Meredith's blood?
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2017, 10:29 AM   #7
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 792
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Those experts you refer to did not say it was 'categorically just one person' (except perhaps one defense expert in their pay); they simply said they could not categorically say there were several.

These experts concentrated on the physical injuries.

The court heard from experts from various other fields to get a bigger picture than just one niche speciality. It looked at logistics, defence wounds (or lack thereof), the fact of two different knives, the DNA on the sweater and bra clasp, witness testimony. At least two witnessed more than one assailant.

Having heard ALL of the evidence from ALL of the myriad witnesses and seeing or examining the exhibits firsthand, and hearing ALL submissions from each party, it came to the verdict of 'GUILTY' , as charged.

Micheli, Galati, Massei, Nencini, and Marasca all confirm in writing in their written reasons that there was more than one perpetrator and further more that Rudy did not wield the fatal blow.

ETA You will recall Introna was the 'expert' who tried to claim that Mez fell exactly onto the glass shard found in the murder room from Filomena's window, and it was this that caused her hand to bleed, and not someone taunting her with knife flicks.
This could be the first time I've ever heard a pathologist being described as a "niche specialty". That's actually more outrageous than suggesting there is a "negative default value" on a SAL report. You're on a roll... keep it up, it's most entertaining!

Defensive wounds ARE physical injuries and were considered by these seven experts. There is no evidence to support the claim of two knives and all of the wounds were consistent with a single, smaller knife. There was no forensic trace of either Amanda or Raffaele in Meredith's room and that is a major piece of evidence in support of a lone attacker. Witness testimony? Are you referring to the seven expert witnesses already discussed, of which only ONE insisted more than one attacker.

What evidence do you think exists that would prove Guede did not inflict the fatal blow?

You continue to cite the speculation and assumptions by the lower courts (which were overturned by the Supreme Court, btw) without ever being able to cite a shred of evidence to support any of it. Like the "at the cottage at the time of the murder", "washed blood from her hands", etc., all of these conclusions by those courts can either be proven wrong by the evidence or can be shown to not be supported by any evidence.

The wounds on Meredith's hands are classic defensive wounds. To suggest they are the result of "someone taunting her with knife flicks" is just as baseless as suggesting they are the result of falling on glass.

Oh, and BTW, the verdict is NOT GUILTY. You seem to continue to be a bit confused on this. I can send you a copy of the Marasca report if that would help clear things up for you.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2017, 10:30 AM   #8
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Kalevala
Posts: 11,390
Bill Williams writes:

Quote:
So......

A poster here posts a pic of the window below Filomena's to show that it did not have bars on it, except that the pic showed that there were.....

The same poster here posted what she claimed was an observation by Postal Police Battistelli about Knox's demeanor at the scene, and then even that poster backtracked admitting (implying) she (the poster) had just made the whole thing up.....

And now that same poster has provided an Italian language of testimony that few of us here can read (probably even her!) that makes absolutely no point, with regard to the issue at hand....

...... and further claims that Numbers had essentially posted the same erroneous conclusion, but accused Numbers of not having the courtesy to inform the thread.....

Then we find out that this is yet another in a long, long, long series of "so what" responses she has made to this thread to extend meaningless claims unduly.

This describes the behaviour of the poster.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7#post11793547

<yawn> A poster here has made numerous errors yet were one to continuously list them you would not want to have me as a spouse or a parent. Imagine every time you broke a cup, a whole list of your misdemeanours from Year Dot would be set out in front of one.

Re the Italian manuscript between Comodi (counsel for the prosecutor) and Gino (defence), here is an English translation:

Quote:
PRESIDENT - There are other questions for cross-examination only of course on this last point because it had already been exhausted.
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - Yes, yes, but I'll be very brief.
PRESIDENT - Please prosecutor.
PROSECUTOR DOTT.SSA COMODI - About the latter argument is ... quell'accertamento result is negative if it is blood or other material that reacts to that test, however, to TMB but appears to have been found Amanda DNA of those tracks we're talking about?
CONSULTANT - Then aspects that I go to my slide because that memory could say things that are not correct, then we have found for example, 178 tells us that from that material was extracted a Knox profile, 179 idem, 180 idem.
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - Here, then maybe we can not say for sure whether it's human blood or other material could however rule out the possibility of an animal as there is human DNA?
CONSULTANT - Well then back again on the human DNA that could result, not of blood, but as we said last time could come ...
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - From biological material.
CONSULTANT - From saliva, flaking cells.
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - Yeah sure.
CONSULTANT - That's right.
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - Yes of course, but I say there is a given ... on the one hand there is a negative to that ...
CONSULTANT - At tetramethylbenzidine, yes to the TMB.
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - See, in that exam there to where you could not determine what it was that material fact that has been analyzed, right?
CONSULTANT - Yes.

PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - At least it was not possible to establish that it was blood, however, say that confirmation was found Knox's DNA?
CONSULTANT - Of course, the genetic profile of Knox was found.
PROSECUTOR DOTT.SSA COMODI - Okay and about always of this TMB, this analysis at the level percentage according to his experience, this analysis made on tracks with enhanced luminol are more cases in which the analysis is negative, this type of ... it is negative or the TMB are more cases in which it is positive?
CONSULTANT - So, I guess we can say is 50 percent because sometimes luminol gives positive traces that in reality the TMB are negative and sometimes ... I would say a 50 and 50 I can neither say yes or say no on one side or the other.
PRESIDENT - I'm sorry, maybe TMB if you can give us an explanation?
CONSULTANT - E 'tetramethylbenzidine TMB, is an acronym that is ...
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - It 'basically a reaction, what a reaction?
CONSULTANT - Yes, yes it is a clorimetrica reaction that occurs in the presence of tetramethylbenzidine, once used benzidine then they saw that as a carcinogen was better to take it off the market and therefore is used ... but it's exactly the same principle if you have present the sticks that are used to verify the presence, for example, blood in urine works in exactly the same way so we have a clorimetrica reaction.
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - Okay, another question but maybe she has already implicitly answered because going back to S.A.L. cards It should be 'apart from his first ... his first date questions to writing ...
CONSULTANT - So it's the first slide I showed on this thing here.
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - Data writing June 12, 2008.
CONSULTANT - Yes.
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - The data show that brings the report of Stefanoni filed ...
CONSULTANT - If it makes me demand will be 12 ... so yeah I guess ... then connected to this point, it was ... I put what it means because it was my ... I had not realized then that's fine.
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - And the results if there is one ... the result when did the forensic team was announced the enrollment of the suspects?
CONSULTANT - No, I do not know, at this point I guess is 12/11/2007, I guessed right?
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - Why has a different date depending on whether the proceedings are still against persons unknown and then you do the draws against unknown persons and then ...

CONSULTANT - I noted I just could not understand this discrepancy between the two dates, now I have the answer that's great.
PROSECUTOR DOTT.SSA COMODI - then the beginning of the operations in the proceedings against it has become known.
CONSULTANT - Against known, all right.
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - The fact that ... well about the dates in general, date missing some dates ...
CONSULTANT - Yes for example here ...
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - Related ...
CONSULTANT - Refers to this, amplification ...
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - Here, it should be 'well that we were correct its relief although I am told that certain operations are not exactly been made over the first, but in fact that we were correct its importance for the outcome final that miss in the SAL some shows what's involved?
CONSULTANT - But I ...
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - That is precisely the purpose of the final result from the technical and scientific point of view because the formal aspect, administrative, legal, bureaucratic organization like saying so I mean it's something that does not pertain to its specific expertise.
CONSULTANT - Certainly not. Then we say that the relevance that I had done the lack of date regarding the quantification and capillary electrophoresis I resolved alone in that are missing here, however, we find them elsewhere and therefore are indications that we have and that we are useful examination of the documentation, examination of the inquiries that have been made, however what it lacks precisely that is that there is nowhere in all the documents that we have had access to this date is the amplifications, I now I do the example of the lab where I work, for example, we had to create a tab in the registers where, however, indicate the exact date of when it was made because the amplification so we see them also samples of different cases are amplified together just to do this check also on the possible contamination that exist in the laboratory, then to me as part of the consultant knowing or not knowing if that day were amplified ten samples that contained the DNA of the victim and this sample 36 B understands that perhaps I may be of interest, however, because as we said at the quantification Exhibit 36 ​​B gives too low then the indication of this uncertainty in the amount of DNA which could be equal to zero understands that I doubt that there has been a contamination in subsequent operations of amplification, however, I can not verify it until I do not know which samples were amplified together.
PROSECUTOR DOTT.SSA COMODI - Okay, then these data would be served in the good substance does not in order to appreciate the goodness of the findings but in order to verify the possibility of contamination.
CONSULTANT - One and two to see if it really is none of the samples that was delivered was not amplified, for example, twice, three times because it can happen, it can happen that perhaps a reaction amplification, but I say this from personal experience is bad because maybe in that moment you are distracted, you forgot to add something, or is bad because you miscalculated, it is true that you have, however, quantify the amount of DNA is not that so ideally you choose to later boost for course always get the best result you can get is obvious that ... to know if a track is amplified many times gives me the information over and above all for those tracks that we were told of a ... contained a smaller amount of DNA to 200 picograms we said last time to be the limit for considering a low copy number trace, and then whether to ese mpio were performed ... do not speak only of the track 36 B I speak in general of all those tracks that gave results below the quantification of 200 picograms, if for example also for the amplification or not was repeated.
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - In the papers she could look after the deposit of the end of July there are ... there is a list of metrics?
CONSULTANT - There is a list of ...
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - Samples quantified?
CONSULTANT - Yes there is a list of quantified samples fact regarding the quantification I know exactly when they were quantified. "



Any questions?
__________________
Hyvää itsenäisyyspäivä
100 years Suomi
Happy Independence Day, Finland
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2017, 10:39 AM   #9
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Kalevala
Posts: 11,390
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
In brief, luminol gives positive reactions to substances with peroxidase activity (a type of catalytic activity) and oxidants. TMB gives positive reactions to the former class only (peroxidase-like catalysts). Catalysts speed up chemical reactions but are not consumed, as reactants are. Oxidants are chemical species that accept electrons from reductants. Oxidants are reactants. Some oxidants might be much longer-lived than applied bleach. There is an ingredient in some cleansers that have oxidants, but I don't recall seeing anyone test them in a forensic setting.

If TMB were truly inferior to luminol in every way, then why did Stefanoni use it? Doesn't that call into question her competence? Of course, if the TMB were not run, then a positive luminol result would mean nothing more than the possibility of blood. Even a positive TMB result would not show that blood was certainly present. Only a confirmatory test could do so.
An outline of a footprint which was found to be COMPATIBLE with Amanda and INCOMPATIBLE with Raff or Rudy, was highlighted by Luminol which is used by Forensic Police to highlight hidden blood, was found to contain within it the DNA of Amanda Knox.

As Gino, for the defence confirms:

Quote:
PROSECUTOR DOTT.SSA COMODI - About the latter argument is ... quell'accertamento result is negative if it is blood or other material that reacts to that test, however, to TMB but appears to have been found Amanda DNA of those tracks [=footprints highlighted by luminol ~ Vixen] we're talking about?
CONSULTANT - Then aspects that I go to my slide because that memory could say things that are not correct, then we have found for example, 178 tells us that from that material was extracted a Knox profile, 179 idem, 180 idem.
__________________
Hyvää itsenäisyyspäivä
100 years Suomi
Happy Independence Day, Finland
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2017, 10:48 AM   #10
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Kalevala
Posts: 11,390
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
This could be the first time I've ever heard a pathologist being described as a "niche specialty". That's actually more outrageous than suggesting there is a "negative default value" on a SAL report. You're on a roll... keep it up, it's most entertaining!

Defensive wounds ARE physical injuries and were considered by these seven experts. There is no evidence to support the claim of two knives and all of the wounds were consistent with a single, smaller knife. There was no forensic trace of either Amanda or Raffaele in Meredith's room and that is a major piece of evidence in support of a lone attacker. Witness testimony? Are you referring to the seven expert witnesses already discussed, of which only ONE insisted more than one attacker.

What evidence do you think exists that would prove Guede did not inflict the fatal blow?

You continue to cite the speculation and assumptions by the lower courts (which were overturned by the Supreme Court, btw) without ever being able to cite a shred of evidence to support any of it. Like the "at the cottage at the time of the murder", "washed blood from her hands", etc., all of these conclusions by those courts can either be proven wrong by the evidence or can be shown to not be supported by any evidence.

The wounds on Meredith's hands are classic defensive wounds. To suggest they are the result of "someone taunting her with knife flicks" is just as baseless as suggesting they are the result of falling on glass.

Oh, and BTW, the verdict is NOT GUILTY. You seem to continue to be a bit confused on this. I can send you a copy of the Marasca report if that would help clear things up for you.
Three of the ones on her fingers are indeed classic defence wounds -
caused by the victim trying to grab the blade of the knife. However, there are up to 23 knife flicks on Mez' hands, forearm, cheek and chin.

Pathologists will have dealt with the issue of defence wounds. However, pathologists and all expert witnesses focus strictly on their specialist skill. Thus a pathologist will not be an expert in blood spatter or knife trajectories, except with further specialist training in that field.

There is zero proof or evidence, 'it was just one perp and that perp was Rudy'.

None of the courts had any fondness for Rudy. Indeed he was branded a liar, and a sex offender. He was placed in a cage during his trial (unlike the kids).

Yet not one single court said 'Rudy was the lone perp'.
__________________
Hyvää itsenäisyyspäivä
100 years Suomi
Happy Independence Day, Finland
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2017, 11:19 AM   #11
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,631
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
An outline of a footprint which was found to be COMPATIBLE with Amanda and INCOMPATIBLE with Raff or Rudy, was highlighted by Luminol which is used by Forensic Police to highlight hidden blood, was found to contain within it the DNA of Amanda Knox.

As Gino, for the defence confirms:
Quote:
Quote:
PROSECUTOR DOTT.SSA COMODI - About the latter argument is ... quell'accertamento result is negative if it is blood or other material that reacts to that test, however, to TMB but appears to have been found Amanda DNA of those tracks [=footprints highlighted by luminol ~ Vixen] we're talking about?
CONSULTANT - Then aspects that I go to my slide because that memory could say things that are not correct, then we have found for example, 178 tells us that from that material was extracted a Knox profile, 179 idem, 180 idem.
"Compatible" does not identify the footprint source. None of the footprints were ever compared to Filomena, Laura, or Meredith's footprints...all of whom would have walked around the cottage barefoot. The luminol, as has been said repeatedly, highlights would COULD be blood. But, once again, you reject the fact that all these luminol revealed prints tested negative for blood. No, it was not a "default" setting. If this were true, why did the prosecution fail to bring up this (alternative) fact at trial? Why have you not provided any evidence that such a "default" setting exists? I think we know why.

As has also been previously pointed out, samples 178 and 179 were not footprints. They were amorphous blobs with no clear outlines of a foot. As long as the tests for blood were negative, they mean nothing in regards to the murder. The DNA could have been left there at any time quite innocently.

To insist that several TMB tests, both in the cottage and at Raff's apartment, were incorrectly negative because there just wasn't enough blood for the "inferior" TMB to react to is based on nothing but the need to believe it.
If TMB were that "inferior" to luminol, any luminol revealed sample that then tested TMB negative would still have to be considered as potential blood. Negative results would lose any evidentiary value. Odd how that is not the actual case as they are accepted in courts of law as evidence no blood is present.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 10th April 2017 at 11:33 AM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2017, 11:39 AM   #12
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,820
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
An outline of a footprint which was found to be COMPATIBLE with Amanda and INCOMPATIBLE with Raff or Rudy, was highlighted by Luminol which is used by Forensic Police to highlight hidden blood, was found to contain within it the DNA of Amanda Knox.
Why just those three? When Meredith was alive in her room after returning the evening of Nov 1, did someone forensically-sterilize the premises so that any "compatibility" must have been one of the three accused, one definitively convicted?

This is the very definition of a suspect-centred investigation, if this is what you believe.

From a study on such things......
Quote:
Literature Review
Criminal Investigation And Factors Affecting Its Outcome


Although criminal investigation is an important law enforcement activity, it is one of the
least studied police functions. Generally, criminal investigation is viewed as a ‘truth finding’
process at the end of which the crime is solved, and offenders are caught
(Maguire, 2003).
This is evident in the most common definitions of criminal investigation. For example, in the
Department of Justice’s “Managing Criminal Investigations Manual,” criminal investigation
is defined as: “The total police effort to: 1) collect facts leading to the identification,
apprehension, and arrest of an offender, and 2) organize these facts to present the evidence of
guilt in such a way that successful prosecution may occur” (Cawley et al., 1977, p. 1).

However, the truth-finding view of criminal investigation is criticized for being
unrealistic. Empirical studies of criminal investigation showed that instead of trying to
uncover ‘truth’ by focusing on the crime scene of each offense, detectives usually pursue a
suspect-centered approach in which they try to construct a case against the suspects known by
the police.
According to this view, criminal investigation is not a truth-finding process, but an
interpretive activity in which police try to construct the truth by continuously collecting and
analyzing available information (Maguire, 2003; Tong & Bowling, 2006).
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2017, 12:55 PM   #13
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,761
IIRC Amanda Knox was acquitted and set free in 2011 and the acquittal was confirmed by the highest court in 2015.

Did the PGP dig up evidence that these acquittals were the result of corruption?

Did the PGP dig up evidence that neutral well qualified legal and forensic experts found the evidence more than sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, and an acquittal could only be explained by factors not relating to the strength or lack thereof of the evidence?

In other words, have the PGP supported their own position yet or are they just rambling about nonsensical self created beliefs that no standing official court recognizes and nobody in the world but themselves support?

Just curios about that, 25 continuations in. TY.
bagels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2017, 01:06 PM   #14
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 561
Vixen claims that various pieces of evidence existed against Amanda and Raffaele. Vixen claims that Amanda and Raffaele left bloody footprints and the luminal prints were conclusive evidence of this. Claims that solid evidence existed against Amanda and Raffaele face two major hurdles. Firstly, the methods the prosecution had to resort to and secondly PGP having to resort to lying to their case. If there was conclusive evidence Amanda and Raffaele left bloody footprints, this would be damming slam dunk evidence and this evidence would be enough on its own to convict Amanda and Raffaele. If the luminal footprints provided cast iron evidence Amanda and Raffaele had left bloody footprints, why did the prosecution have to resort to the tactics below if they had solid evidence at their disposal :-

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contam...bwork-coverup/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredi...ry-corruption/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/evidence-destroyed/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/milani-report/

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ostid=10793345

https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com/...ele-sollecito/

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html

Vixen often uses falsehoods in her posts. The posts below are just a small example of these falsehoods. If there was solid evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, why do PGP need to resort to countless lies to argue their case?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11430102

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11598412

Last edited by Welshman; 10th April 2017 at 01:10 PM.
Welshman is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th April 2017, 05:21 PM   #15
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,631
Vixen wrote:

Quote:
I didn't mention bleach as it only picks up bleach within at the very outside 72 hours after application (although usually much less than this). TMB reacts to a minute trace of blood. However, it was more important to identify whose blood it was from the DNA, which can only be found from the white blood cells, which are outnumbered by red by 700 to 1000, depending on individual variation.
In photos of the luminol reaction, you can see the top of the ruler the police used is also reacting to the luminol. Was there blood on it, too?

Stefanoni also stated in her testimony of May 22, 2009 (page 52) that

Quote:
there’s also been grass, so also plant chlorophyll gives positive [reaction] to Luminol.
and
Quote:
or else there was something else that was not blood, there was maybe grass, grass residues that were trampled on.
and

Quote:
This is why it is easy to have false positives, because rust also has iron, also chlorophyll does not have iron, but it has a molecule that is very similar to haemoglobin that contains iron, and anyway there is another atom that, let’s say, replaces the iron in effecting this type of reaction, and this [atom] is magnesium. So in effect, iron can be shall we say, indeed, indicative of the presence of haemoglobin, but iron is not the only [atom] that reacts with Luminol: other chemical elements also react, also other metals, and then iron is not the sole constituent … that is, it is not contained in a specific manner in haemoglobin, but it is an atom [which is] contained in a great many molecules, both organic and inorganic.
Once again, the only sample for which Stefanoni had to choose between blood and DNA testing was on the knife. All of the other samples, including the luminol revealed ones, had enough to test for both.

Quote:
As common sense tells you the footprint outlines were in Mez' blood and not turnip juice, then getting the ID was of essence. Knowing it is blood is meaningless, as it is obvious whose blood.
__________________

As the TMB results tell you, the footprint outlines were not in anyone's blood. No one has ever said they were in turnip juice, but that doesn't stop it from being trotted out time and again. It is not known what the luminol reacted to, but what was proven is that it wasn't blood.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2017, 01:24 AM   #16
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 561
The arguments used by PGP regarding the luminol prints don't add up. PGP like to argue that TMB can often give false negatives. If this was true, what use is TMB to determine if blood has been left at a crime scene. If positive luminol and negative TMB does not disprove the presence of blood, why did the prosecution never argue this.

Last edited by Welshman; 11th April 2017 at 01:38 AM.
Welshman is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2017, 07:43 AM   #17
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 792
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Three of the ones on her fingers are indeed classic defence wounds -
caused by the victim trying to grab the blade of the knife. However, there are up to 23 knife flicks on Mez' hands, forearm, cheek and chin.
There is nothing about the wounds that prove anything other than the result of a violent and chaotic assault.

Quote:
Pathologists will have dealt with the issue of defence wounds. However, pathologists and all expert witnesses focus strictly on their specialist skill. Thus a pathologist will not be an expert in blood spatter or knife trajectories, except with further specialist training in that field.
You referred to the pathologists as a "niche specialty" in an attempt to minimize their testimony. A forensic pathologist is responsible for determining the cause of death and 6 of 7 concluded the injuries were consistent or compatible with a lone attacker. There were no other "specialists" that aided in determining the number of attackers. Massei's primary reason for assuming multiple attackers was because he reasoned Meredith, having taken a few karate lessons and being physically healthy could have fended off a single attacker. This presumption is baseless as history is littered with female victims far more capable to defend themselves than Meredith being killed by single male attackers.

Quote:
There is zero proof or evidence, 'it was just one perp and that perp was Rudy'.
No one ever said there was proof of just one perp. However, there is no evidence of more than one perp and there was an abundance of physical evidence of Guede being the perp. To assume Amanda and Raffaele were in that small room along with Meredith and Guede and participated in a violent, bloody murder and yet managed to leave not a single trace of themselves is illogical.

Quote:
None of the courts had any fondness for Rudy. Indeed he was branded a liar, and a sex offender. He was placed in a cage during his trial (unlike the kids).

Yet not one single court said 'Rudy was the lone perp'.

Again, you need to go back and assess the logic used by the courts in coming to the conclusion of multiple attackers. The courts ignored the pathologists who overwhelmingly testified the wounds didn't prove more than one attacker. The courts ignored the fact that there was no physical evidence of more than one attacker in the room - no prints, no fibers, no hair.. nothing. The whole of the physical evidence points to only one attacker.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2017, 07:55 AM   #18
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,820
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Again, you need to go back and assess the logic used by the courts in coming to the conclusion of multiple attackers. The courts ignored the pathologists who overwhelmingly testified the wounds didn't prove more than one attacker. The courts ignored the fact that there was no physical evidence of more than one attacker in the room - no prints, no fibers, no hair.. nothing. The whole of the physical evidence points to only one attacker.
Vixen is not quite right that "no court" found against multiple attackers.

The Hellmann court said it was not its job to comment - that court only ruled for if RS and/or AK had been involved, which it said they were not.

That sidestepped the "judicial truth" as found at Rudy Guede's trial(s).
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2017, 08:09 AM   #19
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 792
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Vixen is not quite right that "no court" found against multiple attackers.

The Hellmann court said it was not its job to comment - that court only ruled for if RS and/or AK had been involved, which it said they were not.

That sidestepped the "judicial truth" as found at Rudy Guede's trial(s).
Agreed. When you go back and review what each of the courts had to say about multiple attackers you either find a rationale based on assumption and speculation, with a healthy dose of disregarding physical evidence, or the court merely defers to the prior court findings.

It is my greatest frustration with Vixen that she refuses to engage in discussion where physical evidence is evaluated. For her to suggest it's relevant that some of the courts ruled multiple assailants without actually reviewing what the basis for that ruling was is tantamount to putting your head in the sand. When Massei isn't mentioning Meredith being healthy or having taken some karate lessons he's 'finding it hard to imagine....'. I guess physical evidence and expert witness testimony isn't what it used to be.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2017, 09:14 AM   #20
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,820
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Agreed. When you go back and review what each of the courts had to say about multiple attackers you either find a rationale based on assumption and speculation, with a healthy dose of disregarding physical evidence, or the court merely defers to the prior court findings.

It is my greatest frustration with Vixen that she refuses to engage in discussion where physical evidence is evaluated. For her to suggest it's relevant that some of the courts ruled multiple assailants without actually reviewing what the basis for that ruling was is tantamount to putting your head in the sand. When Massei isn't mentioning Meredith being healthy or having taken some karate lessons he's 'finding it hard to imagine....'. I guess physical evidence and expert witness testimony isn't what it used to be.
It certainly seems that when someone keeps falling back on, "The court found them guilty!", or "The court said there was multiple attackers," that is also shorthand for, "I haven't a clue how they arrived at that conclusion, but you're stuck with it."

This forum has lots of time, and obviously lots of continuations to come. You'd think that in at least one post in all of what the host-hard-drive will hold would actually deal with the evidence.

Vixen repeats and repeats, "Marasca found that Amanda sloughed off blood from her hands." Yet not once does she deal with the forensics of that claim, regardless of whether or not Marasca had prefaced it with, "even if".

That's a double hurdle. No wonder it's avoided like the plague. As M/B concluded (in acquitting the pair) even if all that is true it still does not ....
Quote:
9.4. However, a matter of undoubted significance in favour of the appellants, in
the sense that it excludes their material participation in the murder, even if it is
hypothesised that they were present in the house on via della Pergola, consists of the
absolute lack of biological traces attributable to them (except the clasp which will be
dealt with further on) in the murder room or on the victim’s body, where instead
numerous traces attributable to Guede were found.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2017, 11:19 AM   #21
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,820
Raffaele Sollecito is now suing all and sundry, the suit is in Genoa.....

Originally Posted by www.ansa.it
He has now sued, according to the law on civil liability of the nine judges including pm, general prosecutors, investigating judge and judges of the Assize Court of Appeal asking for compensation, "for having misrepresented the facts." The process is in Genoa.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 11th April 2017 at 11:21 AM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2017, 12:21 PM   #22
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,631
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Raffaele Sollecito is now suing all and sundry, the suit is in Genoa.....
Quote:
Raffaele Sollecito is seeking €3 million (£2.5 million) in a lawsuit against prosecutors and jurors for his wrongful conviction for the 2007 murder of the British exchange student Meredith Kercher.

The former IT student was convicted, along with his American girlfriend Amanda Knox, of stabbing Ms Kercher to death in the flat that the two women shared in Perugia, but was ultimately acquitted by the Supreme Court in 2015.


Meredith Kercher was found stabbed to death in the apartment she shared with Amanda Knox in 2007
PA WIRE
Mr Sollecito, 33, is using a new law on the civil responsibility of magistrates to sue nine prosecutors and judges who were involved in his case and who he accuses of “ruining his life”.

Mr Sollecito is also seeking to sue 12 jurors who ruled on the murder case in Perugia and, on appeal, in Florence.…
(The Times UK)


The ruling by Marasca on the horrible investigation, that a conviction should never have occurred in the first place, etc could help him.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 11th April 2017 at 12:25 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2017, 12:36 PM   #23
toto
Muse
 
toto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 639
from The Times:
Mr Sollecito is also seeking to sue 12 jurors who ruled on the murder case in Perugia and, on appeal, in Florence. Jurors can be sued only if their conduct is deemed to be gravely unfair or malicious and a judge in Genoa will rule today on whether the jurors can be included in Mr Sollecito’s suit.
To be honest this seems rather a Hail Mary Pass.
__________________
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. Samuel Beckett
toto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2017, 12:58 PM   #24
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,820
Originally Posted by toto View Post
from The Times:
Mr Sollecito is also seeking to sue 12 jurors who ruled on the murder case in Perugia and, on appeal, in Florence. Jurors can be sued only if their conduct is deemed to be gravely unfair or malicious and a judge in Genoa will rule today on whether the jurors can be included in Mr Sollecito’s suit.
To be honest this seems rather a Hail Mary Pass.
I agree, notwithstanding what Stacyhs said, that in essence, Marasca/Bruno said that the initial investigation was so bungled, that it would be impossible to either convict or totally acquit based on it.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2017, 02:51 PM   #25
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,631
Originally Posted by toto View Post
from The Times:
Mr Sollecito is also seeking to sue 12 jurors who ruled on the murder case in Perugia and, on appeal, in Florence. Jurors can be sued only if their conduct is deemed to be gravely unfair or malicious and a judge in Genoa will rule today on whether the jurors can be included in Mr Sollecito’s suit.
To be honest this seems rather a Hail Mary Pass.
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I agree, notwithstanding what Stacyhs said, that in essence, Marasca/Bruno said that the initial investigation was so bungled, that it would be impossible to either convict or totally acquit based on it.
I also agree. I think the jurors take their cues from the two judges. The one person I'd like to see Raff sue, and win, is Mignini.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2017, 03:26 PM   #26
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Kalevala
Posts: 11,390
Originally Posted by toto View Post
from The Times:
Mr Sollecito is also seeking to sue 12 jurors who ruled on the murder case in Perugia and, on appeal, in Florence. Jurors can be sued only if their conduct is deemed to be gravely unfair or malicious and a judge in Genoa will rule today on whether the jurors can be included in Mr Sollecito’s suit.
To be honest this seems rather a Hail Mary Pass.
This is old news - it's the claim Raff lodged way back in February when his compensation application was dismissed. He's appointed a dodgy attorney with a -ahem- shall we say, colourful reputation - against some twelve assorted judges and PM's, including Mignini.

Firstly he'd have to prove it was a wrongful conviction, as the ISC never said he was innocent. Next he'd have to get Martuscelli overturned (compensation claim), then he'd have to explain all his lies. Bit of a **** wit to do all this, just before his next trial with Gumbel, coming up soon.

A normal person with a luckily commuted life sentence would just be happy at their good fortune and just get on with their life.
__________________
Hyvää itsenäisyyspäivä
100 years Suomi
Happy Independence Day, Finland
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2017, 03:38 PM   #27
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,631
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
This is old news - it's the claim Raff lodged way back in February when his compensation application was dismissed. He's appointed a dodgy attorney with a -ahem- shall we say, colourful reputation - against some twelve assorted judges and PM's, including Mignini.

Firstly he'd have to prove it was a wrongful conviction, as the ISC never said he was innocent. Next he'd have to get Martuscelli overturned (compensation claim), then he'd have to explain all his lies. Bit of a **** wit to do all this, just before his next trial with Gumbel, coming up soon.

A normal person with a luckily commuted life sentence would just be happy at their good fortune and just get on with their life.
I don't think this was filed in February as it was reported by ANSA just today.

Love the "normal person" spin.

I'd think a person who was really guilty but who literally got away with murder would want to slide into anonymity and get on with their life away from the limelight. An innocent person would be more likely to continue fighting the injustice despite the attention it brings.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 11th April 2017 at 03:44 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2017, 04:08 PM   #28
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,936
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I don't think this was filed in February as it was reported by ANSA just today.

Love the "normal person" spin.

I'd think a person who was really guilty but who literally got away with murder would want to slide into anonymity and get on with their life away from the limelight. An innocent person would be more likely to continue fighting the injustice despite the attention it brings.

Yes (though frankly I think one could make the argument in every way: one could conceive of how/why a factually innocent person might either a) keep fighting to prove an injustice or b) just want to slide away into anonymity; and by the same token, one could conceive of how/why a factually guilty person might either a) keep fighting to prove an injustice or b) just want to slide away into anonymity.

I think the point here is that it's thoroughly bogus and biassed to claim that

"A normal person with a luckily commuted life sentence would just be happy at their good fortune and just get on with their life."



And on related matters, where does one start with the several flavours of wrong within this series of words:

"...he'd have to prove it was a wrongful conviction, as the ISC never said he was innocent"

Almost as *ahem* wrong as claiming that a judicial fact established in a court process is an actual, immutable, irreversible, fact of truth

(On that last piece of wrong, the quickest and simplest way to show quite how wrong is to consider any number of cases where a man - "Mr A" - has been convicted for a sole-attacker rape and murder of "Ms X" (which necessarily entails the finding of the "judicial fact" that the man raped and murdered Ms X), then many years later DNA analysis reveals that the semen in/on Ms X actually belonged to a whole different man - "Mr B" - who was subsequently convicted of several other rape/murders, and who ultimately admitted to this particular rape/murder of Ms X. That "judicial fact" that Mr A raped and murdered Ms X doesn't look quite so immutable, irreversible and factually truthful now, does it.....?)
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2017, 04:34 PM   #29
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,936
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I also agree. I think the jurors take their cues from the two judges. The one person I'd like to see Raff sue, and win, is Mignini.

It I were in Sollecito's shoes, I'd also take extremely strong issue with the way in which judicial rulings related solely to Knox's criminal slander trial process (rulings which were/are deeply flawed, but that's another matter....) were unlawfully and prejudicially imported into not only the final SC ruling on his murder acquittal (albeit on an "even if" basis in that instance), but also his compensation claim.

From Sollecito's point of view, the fault is particularly egregious. After all, in respect of the trial of his murder charges, the only way in which it ever cropped up that he might (hypothetically or otherwise) have been presence was not only via an imported ruling from Knox's criminal slander trial, but also on the absurd "inference" that if Knox had been there, it was likely that Sollecito would also have been there!

It's also of course worth pointing out that those Knox statements should never have been usable in any form whatsoever against her in the murder trial - and they never implicated Sollecito, so they should never have been used in any way whatsoever against him either. Simply put, none of the courts trying the Knox/Sollecito murder-related charges (up to and including the Marasca SC panel) should never have imported any element of the judgement related to Knox's criminal slander trial in respect of Knox herself, and in turn this would mean that none of the courts should have been able to draw adverse inferences about Sollecito either.

And the fault in respect of Sollecito's compensation claim is pretty much just as egregious. In that instance, the stance of the appeal court was effectively that since - as per the imported "fact" from Knox's criminal slander conviction - Knox was at the cottage at the time of the murder, this means that Sollecito must have been lying to the police at every point OTHER than during that infamous 5th/6th November interrogation (where he DID tell police that Knox had left his apartment for a significant period of time on the night of the murder) - in other words this gave the court reason to find that Sollecito had initially lied to police in his first interviews (in which he had said that Knox was with him in his apartment all evening/night of the murder), then he had told them (a version of) the truth in his 5th/6th Nov interrogation, then he'd gone back to lying to them through the trial process when he again said that Knox and he had been together in his apartment (though he of course could never be 100% certain of whether Knox might have somehow left his apartment when he was sleeping that night, although he rated this (obviously again) as extremely doubtful).


I suspect that if Sollecito were to lose his appeal in the compensation case and if he were to lose this other suit, he would also seek recourse in the ECHR. IMO, he'd have an extremely strong case in a number of related applications: 1) that he had not received a fair trial in the compensation hearing because that hearing had unlawfully used imported inferences from a wholly separate trial process involving a wholly separate individual (in which Sollecito himself had not been truly implicated at all - only through (unlawful) association); 2) that he had not received a fair trial on his murder charges in respect of the aspects of the final SC ruling which made certain inferences about his possible presence in the cottage at the time of the murder which were based on an imported ruling from a wholly separate trial process involving a totally different individual; 3) that he had been unlawfully coerced and bullied by police in the 5th/6th Nov interrogation into confusedly mistaking/conflating dates, resulting in him telling police that events which in fact (and, to a large degree, provably) took place the evening before the murder had taken place on the evening of the murder (and that, in that interrogation, as a clear suspect of having lied to police in his prior statements, he was denied proper access to legal representation and full provision of his rights as a suspect, since the police unlawfully decided not to classify him as an official suspect at that time).
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2017, 04:51 PM   #30
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,820
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
It I were in Sollecito's shoes, I'd also take extremely strong issue with the way in which judicial rulings related solely to Knox's criminal slander trial process (rulings which were/are deeply flawed, but that's another matter....) were unlawfully and prejudicially imported into not only the final SC ruling on his murder acquittal (albeit on an "even if" basis in that instance), but also his compensation claim.

From Sollecito's point of view, the fault is particularly egregious. After all, in respect of the trial of his murder charges, the only way in which it ever cropped up that he might (hypothetically or otherwise) have been presence was not only via an imported ruling from Knox's criminal slander trial, but also on the absurd "inference" that if Knox had been there, it was likely that Sollecito would also have been there!
Thus the separation strategy, following the 2014 Florence conviction. Many on both sides of the fence thought that Sollecito had thrown his co-accused under a bus, but when you actually read his appeal......

...... what he was saying was, "ok, you say 'x' about Knox, what does 'x' have to do with me?" A quick way to figure out that Knox had nothing to do with this was to remove Sollecito from consideration - an innocent Raffaele is her alibi.

The "confessions" have nothing to do with Raffaele. And if not - think about it - they have nothing to do with Knox either.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2017, 05:08 PM   #31
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 792
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
This is old news - it's the claim Raff lodged way back in February when his compensation application was dismissed. He's appointed a dodgy attorney with a -ahem- shall we say, colourful reputation - against some twelve assorted judges and PM's, including Mignini.

Firstly he'd have to prove it was a wrongful conviction, as the ISC never said he was innocent. Next he'd have to get Martuscelli overturned (compensation claim), then he'd have to explain all his lies. Bit of a **** wit to do all this, just before his next trial with Gumbel, coming up soon.

A normal person with a luckily commuted life sentence would just be happy at their good fortune and just get on with their life.
You continue to struggle with the reality of the case. Marasca acquitted them and found there was no evidence of their involvement in the murder. If you've been acquitted then it was a wrongful conviction. If you didn't commit the crime then you are innocent of the crime.

As for your "commuted life sentence"... I'm just amazed you can pack so much 'wrong' into three words. The sentence, be it following Massei or Nencini, never was a life sentence. And the sentence wasn't commuted, which means a reduction from the original sentence, it was eliminated by way of the acquittal.

A normal person who was wrongly accused, wrongly convicted, spent four years in prison including six months of solitary, endured a massive financial hardship and who has had their reputations destroyed would tend to be very angry at those responsible.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2017, 05:31 PM   #32
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Kalevala
Posts: 11,390
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Yes (though frankly I think one could make the argument in every way: one could conceive of how/why a factually innocent person might either a) keep fighting to prove an injustice or b) just want to slide away into anonymity; and by the same token, one could conceive of how/why a factually guilty person might either a) keep fighting to prove an injustice or b) just want to slide away into anonymity.

I think the point here is that it's thoroughly bogus and biassed to claim that

"A normal person with a luckily commuted life sentence would just be happy at their good fortune and just get on with their life."



And on related matters, where does one start with the several flavours of wrong within this series of words:

"...he'd have to prove it was a wrongful conviction, as the ISC never said he was innocent"

Almost as *ahem* wrong as claiming that a judicial fact established in a court process is an actual, immutable, irreversible, fact of truth

(On that last piece of wrong, the quickest and simplest way to show quite how wrong is to consider any number of cases where a man - "Mr A" - has been convicted for a sole-attacker rape and murder of "Ms X" (which necessarily entails the finding of the "judicial fact" that the man raped and murdered Ms X), then many years later DNA analysis reveals that the semen in/on Ms X actually belonged to a whole different man - "Mr B" - who was subsequently convicted of several other rape/murders, and who ultimately admitted to this particular rape/murder of Ms X. That "judicial fact" that Mr A raped and murdered Ms X doesn't look quite so immutable, irreversible and factually truthful now, does it.....?)

That would be an exoneration, and as defined by Numbers in his Uni Minnesota? (Michigan?) legal definition that as well as being acquitted (as 'not guilty'), there must be a factual element, or part element of proven innocence.

Raff and Amanda do not have the latter part of this definition. They are not exonerated. Merely 'not guilty due to insufficient evidence' with Marasca plainly stating that if it were not for the 'flawed investigation' (their own perverse invention) their conviction would have remained certain.

Can you understand the difference between exonerated and 'not guilty', as this seems to be a blind spot for the PIP?
__________________
Hyvää itsenäisyyspäivä
100 years Suomi
Happy Independence Day, Finland
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2017, 05:33 PM   #33
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Kalevala
Posts: 11,390
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I don't think this was filed in February as it was reported by ANSA just today.

Love the "normal person" spin.

I'd think a person who was really guilty but who literally got away with murder would want to slide into anonymity and get on with their life away from the limelight. An innocent person would be more likely to continue fighting the injustice despite the attention it brings.
I reported it way back in February - in fact I think it was Bill Williams who first mentioned it, tapping the side of his nose, as it were.

ETA It wasn't BiWi, it was me. I reported it here.
__________________
Hyvää itsenäisyyspäivä
100 years Suomi
Happy Independence Day, Finland

Last edited by Vixen; 11th April 2017 at 06:14 PM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2017, 05:36 PM   #34
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,820
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I reported it way back in February - in fact I think it was Bill Williams who first mentioned it, tapping the side of his nose, as it were.
I don't know what that means.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2017, 05:38 PM   #35
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Kalevala
Posts: 11,390
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
It I were in Sollecito's shoes, I'd also take extremely strong issue with the way in which judicial rulings related solely to Knox's criminal slander trial process (rulings which were/are deeply flawed, but that's another matter....) were unlawfully and prejudicially imported into not only the final SC ruling on his murder acquittal (albeit on an "even if" basis in that instance), but also his compensation claim.

From Sollecito's point of view, the fault is particularly egregious. After all, in respect of the trial of his murder charges, the only way in which it ever cropped up that he might (hypothetically or otherwise) have been presence was not only via an imported ruling from Knox's criminal slander trial, but also on the absurd "inference" that if Knox had been there, it was likely that Sollecito would also have been there!

It's also of course worth pointing out that those Knox statements should never have been usable in any form whatsoever against her in the murder trial - and they never implicated Sollecito, so they should never have been used in any way whatsoever against him either. Simply put, none of the courts trying the Knox/Sollecito murder-related charges (up to and including the Marasca SC panel) should never have imported any element of the judgement related to Knox's criminal slander trial in respect of Knox herself, and in turn this would mean that none of the courts should have been able to draw adverse inferences about Sollecito either.

And the fault in respect of Sollecito's compensation claim is pretty much just as egregious. In that instance, the stance of the appeal court was effectively that since - as per the imported "fact" from Knox's criminal slander conviction - Knox was at the cottage at the time of the murder, this means that Sollecito must have been lying to the police at every point OTHER than during that infamous 5th/6th November interrogation (where he DID tell police that Knox had left his apartment for a significant period of time on the night of the murder) - in other words this gave the court reason to find that Sollecito had initially lied to police in his first interviews (in which he had said that Knox was with him in his apartment all evening/night of the murder), then he had told them (a version of) the truth in his 5th/6th Nov interrogation, then he'd gone back to lying to them through the trial process when he again said that Knox and he had been together in his apartment (though he of course could never be 100% certain of whether Knox might have somehow left his apartment when he was sleeping that night, although he rated this (obviously again) as extremely doubtful).


I suspect that if Sollecito were to lose his appeal in the compensation case and if he were to lose this other suit, he would also seek recourse in the ECHR. IMO, he'd have an extremely strong case in a number of related applications: 1) that he had not received a fair trial in the compensation hearing because that hearing had unlawfully used imported inferences from a wholly separate trial process involving a wholly separate individual (in which Sollecito himself had not been truly implicated at all - only through (unlawful) association); 2) that he had not received a fair trial on his murder charges in respect of the aspects of the final SC ruling which made certain inferences about his possible presence in the cottage at the time of the murder which were based on an imported ruling from a wholly separate trial process involving a totally different individual; 3) that he had been unlawfully coerced and bullied by police in the 5th/6th Nov interrogation into confusedly mistaking/conflating dates, resulting in him telling police that events which in fact (and, to a large degree, provably) took place the evening before the murder had taken place on the evening of the murder (and that, in that interrogation, as a clear suspect of having lied to police in his prior statements, he was denied proper access to legal representation and full provision of his rights as a suspect, since the police unlawfully decided not to classify him as an official suspect at that time).

Shouldn't have asked Papa Raff and Popovitch to vouch for him then, as the Florence dismissal of his compo claim is predicated on the assumption they are telling the truth, therefore Raff must be lying. for example, Papa Raff said the broken pipes and evening meal happened prior to 20:42 - the last time they spoke - making Amanda a liar when she said both happened at circa 23:00.
__________________
Hyvää itsenäisyyspäivä
100 years Suomi
Happy Independence Day, Finland
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2017, 06:32 PM   #36
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,631
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I reported it way back in February - in fact I think it was Bill Williams who first mentioned it, tapping the side of his nose, as it were.

ETA It wasn't BiWi, it was me. I reported it here.
No, you did not. Your link takes us to this:

Originally Posted by Methos
Quote:
Well, and my post was about your claim that "rumor has it", that Bongioeno and Sollecito had parted ways, so I'm still not getting how your snarky remark should/could be an answer to that post, please explain.

Quote:
She's lodged an appeal, but his complaint against twelve judges in Genoa is with alleged ex-mafia gangster Brizolli (_sp?) is the latest rumour.
This has nothing to do with any "Genoa judges" or "alleged ex-mafia gangster Brizolli".

Last edited by Stacyhs; 11th April 2017 at 06:34 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2017, 07:05 PM   #37
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,631
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Shouldn't have asked Papa Raff and Popovitch to vouch for him then, as the Florence dismissal of his compo claim is predicated on the assumption they are telling the truth, therefore Raff must be lying. for example, Papa Raff said the broken pipes and evening meal happened prior to 20:42 - the last time they spoke - making Amanda a liar when she said both happened at circa 23:00.
Exactly how did Popovitch's testimony counter what Raff said?

No, Amanda said she could not verify the time they ate as she was not looking at the clock. She guessed at the time:

Quote:
We had eaten dinner together, we had talked together, and during that time I hadn't left his apartment. But they were insisting upon putting everything into hourly segments, and since I never look at the clock, I wasn't able to tell them what time exactly I did everything.

Quote:
AK:Um, around, um, we ate around 9:30 or 10, and then after we had eaten and he was washing the dishes, well, as I said, I don't look at the clock much, but it was around 10. And...he...umm...well, he was washing the dishes and, umm, the water was coming out and he was very "bummed" [English], displeased, he told me he had just had that thing repaired. He was annoyed that it had broken again. So, umm...
So, the phone call happened at 8:42 and she said she thought they ate around 9:30 or 10:00. Big deal. She wasn't paying attention to the time. Nowhere did she say it was as "23:00" as you claim.

One would think that, with all the time they had to come up with an alibi story, that they'd have made sure it was solid. I guess they are so ingenious that they can completely remove all evidence of themselves from Meredith's bedroom but they can't get a simple story straight. Riiiiiiiiight.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 12:19 AM   #38
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Kalevala
Posts: 11,390
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
No, you did not. Your link takes us to this:

Originally Posted by Methos





This has nothing to do with any "Genoa judges" or "alleged ex-mafia gangster Brizolli".
I said 14 February 2017

Quote:
She's lodged an appeal, but his complaint against twelve judges in Genoa is with alleged ex-mafia gangster Brizolli (_sp?) is the latest rumour.

This refers to Bongiorno not being a part of this, and Raff's new 'attorney' is Brizolli (_sp?).

It is now in the TIMES and the Italian papers. What is it you are not understanding, when I informed you 'It is old news'?

Kimo sabi?
__________________
Hyvää itsenäisyyspäivä
100 years Suomi
Happy Independence Day, Finland

Last edited by Vixen; 12th April 2017 at 12:21 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 02:10 AM   #39
Lince
New Blood
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 21
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
That would be an exoneration, and as defined by Numbers in his Uni Minnesota? (Michigan?) legal definition that as well as being acquitted (as 'not guilty'), there must be a factual element, or part element of proven innocence.

Raff and Amanda do not have the latter part of this definition. They are not exonerated. Merely 'not guilty due to insufficient evidence' with Marasca plainly stating that if it were not for the 'flawed investigation' (their own perverse invention) their conviction would have remained certain.

Can you understand the difference between exonerated and 'not guilty', as this seems to be a blind spot for the PIP?
It is easy. There is none. And you do not have to legally prove your innocence in civilised countries. Any acquittal means that you simply retain your innocent status.

By the way, your (invented?) definition is woefully inadequate. How big this part factual element of innocence is supposed to be? One spoonful? Two? A quite substantial fact that there is no physical traces of Amanda in the room where the violent crime was committed is not big enough? I guess Amanda was just levitating or possessing the Guede's body while killing Meredith. Happens all the time.

Last edited by Lince; 12th April 2017 at 02:12 AM.
Lince is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 05:38 AM   #40
whoanellie
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 267
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Kimo sabi?
Vixen,
kemosabe does not mean what you seem to think it means. I know you are reluctant to do so but I suggest you look it up on Google.

Capiche?
whoanellie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:28 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.