The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 31

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

No, they cannot decline to be cross examined. They can decline to answer any question that self-incriminates.

And your claim that "a person who is guilty will rarely allowed (sic) themselves to be" is just another one of your arsefacts.

But since you seem to believe it, Amanda Knox not only testified, she answered all questions put to her during the cross examination.

You just keep making things up as it suits you. Doesn't work with us.

There were many questions that were disallowed due to 'objections' from her counsel. She answered a limited range of questions, and was found guilty as charged.

A defendant may or may not take the stand to testify, there is no compulsion either way.

Knox was narcissistic enough to believe she could charm the court with her drama queen antics.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Whether a defendant testifies or not will be based on what evidence the police have. Before the trial, each party is entitled to know what evidence will be presented. The parties then have to decide whether or not to take the stand, bearing in mind the onus of proof is on the prosecution. Therefore, someone who is guilty anyway can take the attitude, so prove it! with a high probability he will get off, as juries tend to be sympathetic towards defendants.

What you are trying to do is claim Sollecito did testify his innocence with his 'spontaneous declarations'. No, he did not, as he was not subjected to cross-examination. In that sense, his declarations had little to zero legal weight.

If you don't know what point I'm making, then you are not paying attention. Let's take a little trip down memory lane:

Quote:

Oh dear. It is a pity Sollecito declined to go into the witness box and testify. The trial is the correct place to proclaim innocence.

Quote:

Sorry, are you saying Sollecito evaded cross-examination...

Quote:

...and declined to testify in court under oath. He was no doubt advised by his counsel it would be a mistake to change his alibi.

Quote:

Sollecito had every opportunity to present his evidence of his proclaimed innocence at his trial

Quote:

Did Sollecito submit himself to cross-examination?

Quote:

...did Sollecito take the witness stand to explain how he was innocent?

Quote:

However, if he was so innocent as Stacyhs keeps claiming and Sollecito himself, then someone accused of a horrendous crime who really is innocent, would have no problem at all in taking the stand and being cross-examined.

Quote:

It is also very important to present your evidence at the trial as it means zippo to go running to the press and doing it there. Sollcito was not cross-examined and therefore his utterings had little merit.

Quote:

Of course someone who is innocent can decline to be cross-examined. However, a person who is guilty will rarely allowed themselves to be.

Then there's this doozy:

Quote:

What you are trying to do is claim Sollecito did testify his innocence with his 'spontaneous declarations'.

Come on, Vix. Do you really think I'm not wise to your ways here after all these years? Your statement was:

Quote:

The trial is the correct place to proclaim innocence.

Not "testify": proclaim. Which he did at every trial.

My question for the umpteenth time which you are dancing around like a whirling dervish was:

Quote:

Did Sollecito declare his innocence at his trials?

declare: say something in a solemn and emphatic manner.
"“I was under too much pressure,” he declared"
Similar:
proclaim
announce
make known
state
communicate
reveal

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

There were many questions that were disallowed due to 'objections' from her counsel.

Because the prosecution was attempting to bring in her interrogation statements that had been disallowed by the court to be used against her. She never refused to answer a single question.

Quote:

She answered a limited range of questions, and was found guilty as charged.

Bull. She answered every question in the TWO days she testified that were legally allowed. Yep, found guilty but ultimately acquitted for not having committed the act. Deal with it.

Quote:

A defendant may or may not take the stand to testify, there is no compulsion either way.

I never said otherwise.

Quote:

Knox was narcissistic enough to believe she could charm the court with her drama queen antics.

LOL. I'm not even going to bother to address that nonsense.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

The pair had a lengthy and fair trial, with the best counsel money could buy, Sollecito coming from a well-heeled family. They had the same opportunity to present their case as did the prosecution. The verdict on the merits hearing was guilty as charged beyond any reasonable doubt. The appeal outcome was the same.

Typical that you completely leave out the Hellmann appeal acquittal. You do have a tendency to 'forget' that tidbit o' info.

Quote:

A two-day Supreme Court annulled the convictions after enormous pressure from the US State Department and politcal lobbying by Bongiorno. As Knox had fled to the USA and the US state department said it had no intention of extraditing her, it was clearly felt unfair to imprison Sollecito alone, bearing in mind it was a fact found that Knox was the one who inflicted the fatal wound

.

Again, not even going to bother addressing this nonsense.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

If you don't know what point I'm making, then you are not paying attention. Let's take a little trip down memory lane:











Then there's this doozy:



Come on, Vix. Do you really think I'm not wise to your ways here after all these years? Your statement was:



Not "testify": proclaim. Which he did at every trial.

My question for the umpteenth time which you are dancing around like a whirling dervish was:



declare: say something in a solemn and emphatic manner.
"“I was under too much pressure,” he declared"
Similar:
proclaim
announce
make known
state
communicate
reveal

I despair.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I can't be bothered to look up the Naruto stuff on your behalf because I honestly don't think it has any relevance to the case. It neither proves nor disproves anything to do with the case.

Sure... Going with the "can't be bothered" excuse. But wasn't it you who declared:



Why, yes...yes, it was.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I despair.

No. You. Fail. Again.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Because the prosecution was attempting to bring in her interrogation statements that had been disallowed by the court to be used against her. She never refused to answer a single question.



Bull. She answered every question in the TWO days she testified that were legally allowed. Yep, found guilty but ultimately acquitted for not having committed the act. Deal with it.



I never said otherwise.



LOL. I'm not even going to bother to address that nonsense.

Read the court transcript: it is full of her counsel jumping up to object every five seconds.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Sure... Going with the "can't be bothered" excuse. But wasn't it you who declared:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...86255ddfcc.jpg

Why, yes...yes, it was.

You are the one claiming that the Naruto download is pivotal to the case. You demonstrate that it was.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Read the court transcript: it is full of her counsel jumping up to object every five seconds.

I have. I repeat: the prosecution kept trying to introduce things prohibited by the court.

So quote Knox anywhere refusing to answer a question. You can't. But, I know: you can't be bothered for ....reasons.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

You are the one claiming that the Naruto download is pivotal to the case. You demonstrate that it was.

Are you going to try that one again? The rule is: the person who is asked to answer a question first or to provide evidence of something first must do so before demanding the other person answer or provide evidence otherwise. You're attempting to play your overused tactic of avoiding doing so. Like I said, after all these years, I know you too well.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

So quote Knox anywhere refusing to answer a question. You can't. But, I know: you can't be bothered for ....reasons.

At no time does Knox fail to answer a question legally put to her. Vixen cannot find a contrary cite because there isn't one.

But guilters have always tried to infer that Knox was fully in control of the legal process, to the point of their constant claim that it was she who manipulated the cops at interrogation, for instance. It was her evil, womanly powers, for instance, that forced Mignini to arrest Lumumba simply on her sayso. Indeed, Mignini said that's what he had to do, even though he regarded her as a liar.

It's all part of the guilter conspiracy theory, where even the final acquittal happens because of the influence of powerful American media. Or the Masons.

[AnimalFriendly]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Knox was listening to Meredith's harrowing screams and failed to call for medical assistance?

And somehow this question is never asked of Guede. Pathetic.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Indeed, the final court, writing 5 1/2 years ago concluded that even if the prosecution's judicial facts were true, all they proved was that RS and AK were in another part of the cottage at a later time.

Originally Posted by Vixen

Really? Knox was listening to Meredith's harrowing screams and failed to call for medical assistance?

Aside from not dealing with what I had posted, your post reflects information which simply is not true.

At her all-night interrogation, once the cops had convinced her she really had been in the cottage at the time when **Lumumba** was murdering Meredith, they asked her why she didn't hear screams.

In keeping with the cops Reid Technique derived interrogation method, they would not allow her to say she had not heard the screams. Her response?

"I must have had my hands over my ears."

Her recounting to them - a recounting based on them coercing her to imagine what it would have been like if she'd been at the cottage - her recounting was that she had heard no screams.

However, back to this thread where the topic was why there was no evidence, none at all, that either RS or AK had had anything to do with the horrid crime. Track back an have a go at dealing with actual evidence....

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Aside from not dealing with what I had posted, your post reflects information which simply is not true.

At her all-night interrogation, once the cops had convinced her she really had been in the cottage at the time when **Lumumba** was murdering Meredith, they asked her why she didn't hear screams.

In keeping with the cops Reid Technique derived interrogation method, they would not allow her to say she had not heard the screams. Her response?

"I must have had my hands over my ears."

Her recounting to them - a recounting based on them coercing her to imagine what it would have been like if she'd been at the cottage - her recounting was that she had heard no screams.

However, back to this thread where the topic was why there was no evidence, none at all, that either RS or AK had had anything to do with the horrid crime. Track back an have a go at dealing with actual evidence....

The one thing the PGP cannot deal with is the fact that there is no trace of anyone in Kercher's bedroom where the violent attack/murder occurred other than Guede and the victim. That is why they focus on the nonsense of body language, "canoodling", Knox's sex life, and cartwheels and insist that the statements she signed on Nov. 6 accurately describe what happened including proof she confessed to being at the cottage. Yet:

From the 5:45 statement:

Quote:

...what I can say is that Patrick and Meredith went into Meredith's room, while I think I stayed in the kitchen. I cannot remember how long they stayed together in the room but I can only say that at a certain point I heard Meredith screaming and as I was scared I plugged up my ears.

Vixen:

Quote:

...bearing in mind it was a fact found that Knox was the one who inflicted the fatal wound

Wait... she never said she went into MK's room, so how did she "inflict the fatal wound"? Did she throw the knife from the kitchen, down the hall, where it made a sharp left turn into MK's room where it slashed her throat?

Vixen also conveniently forgets that Knox was acquitted so that "fact found" that she wielded the knife in the first, and overturned, trial is no longer true. Someone needs to stop living in the first and overturned trial.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by AnimalFriendly

And somehow this question is never asked of Guede. Pathetic.

Oh, but he apologized for "not having done more to save Meredith" but he was so scared after he was attacked with a knife in the hallway by 'a tall, left-handed man who was wearing a white cap with a red stripe and Napapijri jacket'!

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

At no time does Knox fail to answer a question legally put to her. Vixen cannot find a contrary cite because there isn't one.

Unlike Knox, who never refused to answer a question, Vixen continues to refuse to answer my simple question:

Did Sollecito declare his innocence at his trials?

Quote:

But guilters have always tried to infer that Knox was fully in control of the legal process, to the point of their constant claim that it was she who manipulated the cops at interrogation, for instance. It was her evil, womanly powers, for instance, that forced Mignini to arrest Lumumba simply on her sayso. Indeed, Mignini said that's what he had to do, even though he regarded her as a liar.

It's all part of the guilter conspiracy theory, where even the final acquittal happens because of the influence of powerful American media. Or the Masons.

You're being kind. Don't forget that the US State Department was also pressuring the courts to acquit Knox. And the mafia...don't forget the mafia!

[TomG]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Rubbish. In his first interview he lied and he admitted he lied when he informed the police he had only lied the first time because 'Amanda asked me to lie'. He has never withdrawn his statement that the pair were not together between circa 8:45 and 1:00 am.

In the meantime he had a massive load of water all over his floors, failed to answer his dad's phone call and lied about that. Had his phone switched off from about 8:45pm. Claimed he slept until 10:00 am next morning yet it is proven they were playing Fight Club and Nirvana at circa 5:00am.

Claims he was on his computer until 1:00am when the last definite user interface was at 9:20 when the Amelie film ended.

His footprint in Meredith's blood was confirmed on the bathmat, and his and Knox' footprints showed up in the hallway, her room and Filomena's room in the luminol.

You still fail to make these alleged lies anything more than the failure of befuddled pot-heads to recollect events properly. As I said previously your alleged lies are totally redundant unless their exposure reveals incriminating evidence of their involvement in the murder; otherwise there is nothing to deliberately lie about.

As far as Raffaele's computer activity is concerned, I can only refer you to the Milani report that indicates otherwise. I also refer you to M/B who rule out any notion of the bathmat footprint belonging to Raffaele "as the technical analysis did not go beyond a conclusion of “probable identity” to one of certainty". The theory is idiotic anyway since Raffaele at no time comes in contact with Meredith's blood. We know what M/B says about the luminol hits, and subsequent TMB testing so it's not worth repeating.

Hoots

[TomG]

Originally Posted by Vixen

The pair had a lengthy and fair trial, with the best counsel money could buy, Sollecito coming from a well-heeled family. They had the same opportunity to present their case as did the prosecution. The verdict on the merits hearing was guilty as charged beyond any reasonable doubt. The appeal outcome was the same. A two-day Supreme Court annulled the convictions after enormous pressure from the US State Department and politcal lobbying by Bongiorno. As Knox had fled to the USA and the US state department said it had no intention of extraditing her, it was clearly felt unfair to imprison Sollecito alone, bearing in mind it was a fact found that Knox was the one who inflicted the fatal wound.

After a prolix excursion up the garden path, all you've done is prove my point. That actual facts resolve the case not judicial facts. K&S were found guilty initially due to judicial facts, not actual facts. You said " bearing in mind it was a fact found that Knox was the one who inflicted the fatal wound". Yet 8.1. makes it quite clear that K&S were physically not involved end of story. DNA expert Peter Gill highlighted the fact that it was the distribution of DNA that was the key factor. In a murder of such brutality and physical intensity you'd expect a distribution of DNA equal to that of the real killer Rudy. No such evidence exists in reality.

Hoots

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by TomG

After a prolix excursion up the garden path, all you've done is prove my point. That actual facts resolve the case not judicial facts. K&S were found guilty initially due to judicial facts, not actual facts. You said " bearing in mind it was a fact found that Knox was the one who inflicted the fatal wound". Yet 8.1. makes it quite clear that K&S were physically not involved end of story. DNA expert Peter Gill highlighted the fact that it was the distribution of DNA that was the key factor. In a murder of such brutality and physical intensity you'd expect a distribution of DNA equal to that of the real killer Rudy. No such evidence exists in reality.

Hoots

But, but, but, Tom....Prof. Peter Gill is a dishonest shill who doesn't know what he's talking about! After all, he thinks that DNA doesn't have to be "wet" in order to transfer and that you need to change gloves between handling pieces of evidence that are....lol...dry! So misinformed!

I think my favorite "judicial fact" found at the Massei trial was that the luminol exposed footprints were made in MK's blood despite the scientific fact that they tested negative for blood. My favorite PGP excuse for this is that there wasn't enough blood for the TMB to detect...in any of those several footprints that lit up so brightly.

Quote:

...the reacting luminol produces enough light for you to see a blue glow. The more blood present, the faster the reaction takes place and the brighter the glow is

https://brightcookie.weebly.com/uplo...21/ch8act3.pdf

Stefanoni's testimony:

Quote:

These are examples that regard this case: they are examples in fact of positive Luminol traces, and as you can see, these are plantar prints, clearly, in short, of bare feet, after the luminescence with Luminol. And here this piece of flooring is shown/reported that corresponds to this, not to this, but to this one here, where as can be seen on two of these intense fluoresences that we have here to the naked eye, with the light [of day] absolutely no trace is visible, no print,

So the footprints lit up with "intense fluoresences" but there was too little blood for TMB, which is extremely sensitive, to detect. Can you spot the problem with this because the PGP don't seem able to.

[Numbers]

Posters and readers may miss in all the posts on whether or not Sollecito proclaimed or testified to his innocence during the proceedings are failing to credit the constraints placed upon such proclamations or testimony under Italian law.

Neither Knox nor Sollecito were allowed, under Italian law, CPP Article 197, to testify on anything in their joined trial - that is, for any of the charges that applied to both of them.

Both Knox and Sollecito proclaimed their innocence during the proceedings by means of spontaneous statements, as provided for under Italian law, CPP Article 494.

For the Massei court trial, these spontaneous statements were given by Sollecito and Knox, respectively, on 3 December 2009.

For the Hellmann court trial, these spontaneous statements were given by Sollecito and Knox, respectively, on 3 October 2011.

For the Nencini court trial, Sollecito gave a spontaneous statement proclaiming innocence on 6 November 2013. Knox sent a letter proclaiming innocence dated 15 December 2013. Under Italian law, an accused may choose not to be present at an appeal trial (such as conducted by the Nencini court), unless attendance is required by the court.

During the Massei court trial, Knox was allowed to testify solely in relation to the criminal charge and civil tort of calunnia against Lumumba, a charge and tort that were leveled against her only. In fact, Knox and her lawyers requested that she be allowed to testify on this charge and tort, as did Lumumba and his lawyer and the prosecution.

Of course, the lawyers understood that the testimony she gave about the interrogation which led to the alleged calunnia would have an impact on the perceptions relating to the allegations of the joined charges against Knox and Sollecito. For example, here is a relevant part of a statement from Knox's lawyer during a discussion among the lawyers about what the legal rules are for which side would question her first:

Quote:

DIF (AVV. Ghirga): I would like to say our point of view on the order of taking this examination [questioning of Amanda Knox], because I do not think it is regulated without conflict by the Code [of Criminal Procedure], I am certainly well aware of the contents of [CPP Articles] 503 and 496 {regulating the order of the lawyers conducting questioning of a witness}, but I am equally aware of two principles, one of positive law which is [since it is] the crime of calunnia that we have here, we insist on being the first to begin the examination for two types of considerations, I mean in general that it is a crime of calunnia [against Lumumba], it has a connotation of absolute autonomy with respect to the crime [against Kercher] that generated it, ... we will find some jurisprudence concerning the problem when the prosecutor and the accused request the examination [questioning] with different consequences in order to evaluate the means of evidence that is carried out and that in this case , and that the examination must contain [and] must respect a principle of globality of the disputes, for which here we would individually have the start of an examination by a defense lawyer on a party who has requested it for a crime, while instead we must respond globally to the meaning of the examination for 6 charges [including 5 generated for the crimes against Kercher], ….

Google translation

Sources:

http://amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-transcripts/

http://amandaknoxcase.com/files/wp-c...nox-amanda.pdf
See p. 18 -19

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Aside from not dealing with what I had posted, your post reflects information which simply is not true.

At her all-night interrogation, once the cops had convinced her she really had been in the cottage at the time when **Lumumba** was murdering Meredith, they asked her why she didn't hear screams.

In keeping with the cops Reid Technique derived interrogation method, they would not allow her to say she had not heard the screams. Her response?

"I must have had my hands over my ears."

Her recounting to them - a recounting based on them coercing her to imagine what it would have been like if she'd been at the cottage - her recounting was that she had heard no screams.

However, back to this thread where the topic was why there was no evidence, none at all, that either RS or AK had had anything to do with the horrid crime. Track back an have a go at dealing with actual evidence....

Bad cops. Nasty cops.

Thankfully, it is the courts who decide guilt.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Oh, but he apologized for "not having done more to save Meredith" but he was so scared after he was attacked with a knife in the hallway by 'a tall, left-handed man who was wearing a white cap with a red stripe and Napapijri jacket'!

No, it was an Italian man shorter than himself.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by TomG

After a prolix excursion up the garden path, all you've done is prove my point. That actual facts resolve the case not judicial facts. K&S were found guilty initially due to judicial facts, not actual facts. You said " bearing in mind it was a fact found that Knox was the one who inflicted the fatal wound". Yet 8.1. makes it quite clear that K&S were physically not involved end of story. DNA expert Peter Gill highlighted the fact that it was the distribution of DNA that was the key factor. In a murder of such brutality and physical intensity you'd expect a distribution of DNA equal to that of the real killer Rudy. No such evidence exists in reality.

Hoots

But judicial facts are founded on cross-examined evidence at a fair hearing with all parties having the right to present their case. The level of probability that needs to be proven for a serious crime such as murder is very high, towards the 95% level of probability or more, that the defendant/s did commit the act, bearing in mind such crimes are done under a cloak of great secrecy. And sure enough about 5% can be overturned on the safety net of the appeal system. In other words, far more criminals are wrongly acquitted than are wrongly convicted. The comparison being a civil case in which level of probability only needs to be 51/49 to win you case.

Your claim that the trial was not fair and the facts found weren't really facts is just laughable.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

But, but, but, Tom....Prof. Peter Gill is a dishonest shill who doesn't know what he's talking about! After all, he thinks that DNA doesn't have to be "wet" in order to transfer and that you need to change gloves between handling pieces of evidence that are....lol...dry! So misinformed!

I think my favorite "judicial fact" found at the Massei trial was that the luminol exposed footprints were made in MK's blood despite the scientific fact that they tested negative for blood. My favorite PGP excuse for this is that there wasn't enough blood for the TMB to detect...in any of those several footprints that lit up so brightly.

https://brightcookie.weebly.com/uplo...21/ch8act3.pdf

Stefanoni's testimony:



So the footprints lit up with "intense fluoresences" but there was too little blood for TMB, which is extremely sensitive, to detect. Can you spot the problem with this because the PGP don't seem able to.

Likewise, Peter Gill was not called to the witness stand to testify and be cross-examined and therefore his theories count for exactly zilch.


He did not examine first hand the forensics, he was not part of the case. He is an armchair expert...rather like yourself.


Gill himself wrote that any secondary transfer of DNA after 24-hours was extremely unlikely. Thus tertiary transfer as the Knox fans like to spout as a reason for Sollecito's DNA being strongly imprinted on the murder victim's bra clasp is simply impossible. There: the DNA is positive evidence of Sollecito definitely having been present in the room.

[TomG]

Originally Posted by Vixen

But judicial facts are founded on cross-examined evidence at a fair hearing with all parties having the right to present their case. The level of probability that needs to be proven for a serious crime such as murder is very high, towards the 95% level of probability or more, that the defendant/s did commit the act, bearing in mind such crimes are done under a cloak of great secrecy. And sure enough about 5% can be overturned on the safety net of the appeal system. In other words, far more criminals are wrongly acquitted than are wrongly convicted. The comparison being a civil case in which level of probability only needs to be 51/49 to win you case.

Your claim that the trial was not fair and the facts found weren't really facts is just laughable.

You have the judicial fact that Rudy was only an accomplice and did not deliver the fatal wound when there is no evidence whatsoever to back it up. You have the judicial fact of multiple attackers when only 1 out of 7 experts who testified actually firmly believed that there must have been multiple attackers. Even Massei conceded that the murder could have been carried out by one person. You have the judicial fact of the staged break-in where alleged glass on top of clothing miraculously disappeared when the crime scene photographs were taken. We even have photographic evidence identified by markers "S" and "R" in Filomena's room that clearly indicate that the rock was thrown from the outside in.

So the real question you should be asking yourself is why judicial facts were concluded in this case not because of the evidence but in spite of it.

Hoots

[Numbers]

Another point of Italian law that has been missed in past commentary. There was often speculation (or hope) by some that Sollecito would "throw Knox under the bus" by implicating her in the crimes against Kercher or withdrawing support for her claim that she was in his flat at the relevant time.

However, Italian law, CPP Article 197 (the law preventing a co-accused from being a witness, unless he has made a statement under the caution of CPP Article 64 paragraph 3 letter c, which apparently requires the police to have warned a suspect against calunnia) and CP Article 110 (the Criminal Code charge which provides that those accused in a joint crime be subjected to the same penalty upon conviction) taken together provide only a very limited and uncertain legal path for a prosecutor and a court to proceed that way.

At a minimum, the police or prosecutor would need to re-interrogate Sollecito under CPP Article 64 and document that he had received the appropriate warnings about being a witness. Then, the prosecutor would need to drop all the charges against Sollecito - this suggests that the prosecutor would need to admit that the alleged bra clasp evidence and any other alleged evidence allegedly implicating Sollecito did not implicate him in a crime. That is because under the Italian Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure, prosecutors must press charges against anyone for which there is evidence of a crime - no selective prosecution is allowed under Italian law. Finally, the prosecution would then need to call Sollecito to testify. But then, the prosecution would have no control of what his testimony would be. And the fact that his testimony may have been part of a deal - not apparently legal in Italy - might be noted by the courts.

[Myriad]

horse apples
fool's gold
Rocky Mountain oysters
horned toad
Matura diamond
shooting star
Texas tea
virtual reality
judicial facts

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Likewise, Peter Gill was not called to the witness stand to testify and be cross-examined and therefore his theories count for exactly zilch.

He did not examine first hand the forensics, he was not part of the case. He is an armchair expert...rather like yourself.

Gill himself wrote that any secondary transfer of DNA after 24-hours was extremely unlikely. Thus tertiary transfer as the Knox fans like to spout as a reason for Sollecito's DNA being strongly imprinted on the murder victim's bra clasp is simply impossible. There: the DNA is positive evidence of Sollecito definitely having been present in the room.

Wow. Despite your opinion about Dr. Peter Gill, he is able to write a peer-reviewed piece about this case for Forensic Science international Genetics. Every reader and lurker to this thread can read this and make up their own mind as to who they are to believe.

https://www.fsigenetics.com/article/...033-3/fulltext

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Bad cops. Nasty cops.

Thankfully, it is the courts who decide guilt.

And the Italian courts did this, by acquitting the pair.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Vixen

But judicial facts are founded on cross-examined evidence at a fair hearing with all parties having the right to present their case.

Thanks for admitting, then, that all the 'judicial facts' which flowed from the Rudy Guede prosecution were not facts at all. A fast track trial like the one Guede agreed to, is like a regular Italian trial without the evidence phase.

Theefore, you have just admitted that none of the 'facts' as found at the Guede trial are operative. Thank you for this admission.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

No, it was an Italian man shorter than himself.

Well, that certainly narrows it down to Sollecito!


Too bad for Guede that Sollecito isn't left-handed and didn't own either a white cap with a red band or a Napapijri jacket. Despite what you claimed.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Likewise, Peter Gill was not called to the witness stand to testify

LOL. Going with that excuse again, I see. How DNA analysis works does not change because one is in the witness box. The fact that the scientific world agrees with Gill and not Stefanoni's ridiculous knife analysis is testament to that fact. Also as Bill W pointed out, Gill's paper was peer reviewed. Can you provide a DNA expert who agrees with Stefanoni's analysis? Nope.

Quote:

and be cross-examined and therefore his theories count for exactly zilch.

I take it then that you will no longer be quoting Balding or Garofano as experts since neither testified in court or were cross-examined? Great.

Quote:

He did not examine first hand the forensics, he was not part of the case. He is an armchair expert...rather like yourself.

Neither did Rinaldi examine the bath mat with the bloody footprint first hand. I take you'll no longer be presenting Rinaldi's findings as evidence of that footprint belong to Sollecito? On the other hand, Vinci did examine it first hand.

If I am an 'armchair expert' then exactly what disqualifies you from that title? Your professional scientific training in DNA analysis?
At least I know that one does not have to be the person who ran a DNA test to be able to interpret the results of those tests. Or are you now saying that Balding, whom you often quote, is now irrelevant too? Balding used the exact same sources as Gill to form his professional opinion.

Quote:

Gill himself wrote that any secondary transfer of DNA after 24-hours was extremely unlikely. Thus tertiary transfer as the Knox fans like to spout as a reason for Sollecito's DNA being strongly imprinted on the murder victim's bra clasp is simply impossible. There: the DNA is positive evidence of Sollecito definitely having been present in the room.

You love to quote that one cherry-picked statement of Gill but ignore his conclusion about the bra clasp:

Quote:

Now with the specific example of DNA on the bra clasp, it is a complex mixture, with at least 2 males and possibly more male components in this mixture. Is it possible that Sollecito’s DNA has been transmitted from one area of the crime scene to another? This of course is a difficult question; and let me come back to… if we’re going to answer these kinds of questions, then the crime scene needs to be managed in a very strictly scientific fashion. The investigators themselves actually become vectors of DNA. For example, if an investigator touches a door handle and then proceeds into the crime scene, and then touches the bra clasp, without changing gloves in between, then I would actually expect DNA transfer to occur. And I think I would be surprised if it did not occur, actually. So this is the crucial question, and the difficulty with a crime scene is you can’t get in a little time machine and go backwards to find out what actually happened, but if there is sufficient doubt in a case, then the possibility of contamination by an investigator is something we should consider seriously, and not dismiss out of hand. My understanding is that there were no DNA swabs taken from the door handle, from the outside, for example, and therefore Sollecito’s DNA profile was not actually recovered outside the room. But my point is, there is considerable uncertainty in the case, because it is not denied that Sollecito had access to the flat, and therefore his DNA will be present in the flat. Then the question is ‘what is the significance of finding DNA on the bra clasp? And what are the possible methods of transfer?’

Since there were other male profiles found on the clasp and you claim transfer is highly unlikely, then you must believe that all those other males touched MK's bra clasp themselves.

We know how the transfer could have occurred because the police video itself shows us, doesn't it? It is also quite possible that the contamination didn't occur in MK's room at all, but in the lab. This is not uncommon and has been demonstrated in several, some infamous, cases. Of course, Stefanoni claimed there has never been such an occurrence in her lab...which was not even certified.

By the way, tertiary transfer has been proved in scientific studies which have been previously presented to you. But you just ignore them because they don't support your agenda.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Thanks for admitting, then, that all the 'judicial facts' which flowed from the Rudy Guede prosecution were not facts at all. A fast track trial like the one Guede agreed to, is like a regular Italian trial without the evidence phase.

Theefore, you have just admitted that none of the 'facts' as found at the Guede trial are operative. Thank you for this admission.

[TomG]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Likewise, Peter Gill was not called to the witness stand to testify and be cross-examined and therefore his theories count for exactly zilch.


He did not examine first hand the forensics, he was not part of the case. He is an armchair expert...rather like yourself.


Gill himself wrote that any secondary transfer of DNA after 24-hours was extremely unlikely. Thus tertiary transfer as the Knox fans like to spout as a reason for Sollecito's DNA being strongly imprinted on the murder victim's bra clasp is simply impossible. There: the DNA is positive evidence of Sollecito definitely having been present in the room.

The fact is that Gill pretty much endorses 8.1. In his PDF on the case Gill refers to the distribution of the DNA as being the key consideration:

"The key consideration was the distribution of DNA profiles of Guede vs Knox and Sollecito. Multiple profiles from multiple evidential items are much less likely to all be contamination incidents, whereas weak (one-off) results are more likely to be contaminants—this was always a recognized difficulty for the prosecution who invented the selective cleaning hypothesis to explain away inconvenient results."

There were multiple instances of Rudy's DNA, footprints, and hand-print at the crime scene while the only alleged evidence of Raffaele on the bra-clasp. You would have to reasonably ask yourself what was it about this hook on a bra-clasp that was so interesting and intriguing not only to Raffaele but another 2 or more male contributors that also left no other traces at the crime scene. Who were the other inter-dimensional assailants?

Peter Gill was a member of the team who pioneered DNA profiling in the 1980's. His opinion is second to none.

Hoots

[Stacyhs]

Yes, Vixen...do explain to us how no one but Guede left multiple pieces of physical evidence behind in a very small room where 4 people were engaged in a violent struggle. I'd love to hear it.

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Thanks for admitting, then, that all the 'judicial facts' which flowed from the Rudy Guede prosecution were not facts at all. A fast track trial like the one Guede agreed to, is like a regular Italian trial without the evidence phase.

Theefore, you have just admitted that none of the 'facts' as found at the Guede trial are operative. Thank you for this admission.

The procedures for a fast-track trial (also called a "summary trial" or "abbreviated trial") are described CPP Articles 438 through 443.

An accused may request a fast-track trial prior to the conclusion of the part of the preliminary hearing where preliminary evidence is reviewed. If the judge agrees to the request for a fast-track trial, the judge uses the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing to determine a judgment. The judgment applies only to the accused who has requested the fast-track trial, as any co-accused not requesting the fast-track trial are not legally represented there, and thus can neither cross-examine nor present defense evidence or arguments.

Some posters have presented false information that in Italy, "judicial facts", once determined by a court, cannot be altered or abolished. In Italy, according to law, legally valid judicial facts must determined by legally valid reasoning based upon legally valid evidence. Thus, appeals courts, the Court of Cassation, and revision courts can, as a matter of law, alter or abolish alleged "judicial facts" in a case under review if the underlying alleged evidence or reasoning is not legally valid.

Italian laws used to determine the legal validity of alleged evidence and of the reasoning used to determine the legal validity of judicial facts include, but are not limited to:

CPP Article 188:

Prohibition of the use of methods or techniques which may influence a person's freedom of self-determination or alter the capacity to recall and evaluate facts.

CPP Article 191:

Prohibition of the use of evidence which has been gathered in violation of the prohibitions set by law.

CPP Article 192:

The existence of a (judicial) fact cannot be inferred from circumstantial evidence unless such evidence is serious, precise and consistent.

Statements made by either the co-accused charged with the same offense or a person accused in joined proceedings shall be corroborated by the other elements of evidence confirming their reliability.

CPP Article 606.1(E):

The Court of Cassation may hear an appeal based upon the argument that the grounds (reasoning) of the judgment are lacking, contradictory or manifestly illogical.

CPP Article 630, Constitutional Court judgment #113 of 2011:

Revision of a conviction may be requested when it is necessary to reopen proceedings in order to comply with a final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, for example, in the case of the ECHR declaring that a conviction was in violation of the right to a fair trial.

[TomG]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Yes, Vixen...do explain to us how no one but Guede left multiple pieces of physical evidence behind in a very small room where 4 people were engaged in a violent struggle. I'd love to hear it.

I remember arguing that very point with Harry Rag on YouTube. He then quoted Peter Gill from his book:

"Sometimes forensic scientists may try to find meaning in the absence of a DNA profile, to prove a negativie: e.g., "Mr X was not in the room because I could not find his DNA." This is a specious argument. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." (page 4)

The problem is that it has nothing to do with the Kercher case, due the key consideration of the distribution of DNA.

He then even e-mailed Gill personally and berated him for limiting his considerations on the case to DNA aspects only. He even posted Peter Gill's response:

"I cant control how people interpret my comments. I am not getting involved in a debate that specifically addresses the ulitmate issue of innocence/guilt of individuals since that is the purpose of the court. I can only comment on the probative value of the DNA evidence. I dont know definitively how the DNA was transferred - I simply make a list of all of the possibilities. I dont comment on the non-DNA evidence."

Rag then had this to say about Gill:

"Peter Gill is an idiot savant who doesn't have a modicum of common sense. He seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that only DNA evidence is admissible in court and no other evidence is valid."

Rag then went on to quote Balding at will, even though Balding's considerations on the case were even more limited to the bra-clasp only.

"David Balding - Professor of Statistical Genetics at University College London - analysed the DNA evidence against Sollecito and concluded it was "extremely strong".

I'm not sure if Rag actually e-mailed Balding berating him for not considering other aspects of the case. Somehow I doubt it.

I miss Rag. He really was very funny at times.

Hoots

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by TomG

He then even e-mailed Gill personally and berated him for limiting his considerations on the case to DNA aspects only. He even posted Peter Gill's response:

"I cant control how people interpret my comments. I am not getting involved in a debate that specifically addresses the ulitmate issue of innocence/guilt of individuals since that is the purpose of the court. I can only comment on the probative value of the DNA evidence. I dont know definitively how the DNA was transferred - I simply make a list of all of the possibilities. I dont comment on the non-DNA evidence."

Rag then had this to say about Gill:

"Peter Gill is an idiot savant who doesn't have a modicum of common sense. He seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that only DNA evidence is admissible in court and no other evidence is valid."

Rag then went on to quote Balding at will, even though Balding's considerations on the case were even more limited to the bra-clasp only.

Wow. I had searched on this thread going way, way back.... and found in July 2015 (is it THAT long ago!) in Continuation 17, pages 22 to 24 a long discussion on Gill and the DNA muddle that Stefanoni had got in. It was a discussion with Machiavelli back then who advanced all the tired guilter tropes.

Because of the solid analysis by Dr. Gill and others, Machiavelli and other guilters had to go on an extended personality smear of experts like Gill, Conti, and Vecchiotti. I also found a blog by a woman pseudo'ed KrissyG which wrote copiously about it all as well. Her experts were not Dr. Peter Gill....

.... They were "Dr. Naseer Ahmad" and a mysterious pseudo called "The Machine". These 'experts' were not named until the bottom of a very long DNA screed on one of the blog pages, leaving the reader unaware of who she was taking her DNA information from.

I am unaware of Naseer Ahmad holding a Ph.D. or a medical degree. He has never even tried to hide that he's an astrologer and a wholistic healer.

'The Machine' is another pseudo of Harry Rag's.

So...... for me as someone who does not know much about forensic DNA, who am I to believe? I've posted upthread one of the published, peer-reviewed papers that Dr. Peter Gill wrote on the DNA forensics in the 2077 Perugian murder case.

Who am I to believe? TomG - at the very least, after calling Peter Gill and idiot savant, Harry Rag at least implies that the DNA forensics in the case is insufficient, and that we're right back to the early Fall of 2011 when the DNA evidence at the second trial was falling apart. At that point, guilters switched to saying that AK and RS were guilty because of "all the other evidence". None of which put either AK or RS in the murder room at the time if the murder.

As the acquitting court said in 2015, all that that kind of evidence established, if true, was that AK and RS had been in another part of the cottage at a time later than the murder. Which no one disputes.

It was just strange to read Continuation 17, pages 22 to 24.... because the full suite of reasons to doubt the Perugian Prosecution case is there. In these pages.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...295746&page=22

[Stacyhs]

Quote:

"Sometimes forensic scientists may try to find meaning in the absence of a DNA profile, to prove a negativie: e.g., "Mr X was not in the room because I could not find his DNA." This is a specious argument. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

(page 4)


True. Yet the PGP have argued that it's clear Guede was never in Filomena's room as none of his DNA was found there (ignoring that only 5 samples were take in that room and a burglar on a cold November night breaking in through a window, necessitating the removal of pieces of sharp glass to open the entrance hole might just possibly be wearing gloves). But it looks like they want to have it both ways as Guede's DNA was never found in the small bathroom either, even though he readily and voluntarily said he went into that room not once, but twice.

Quote:

"Peter Gill is an idiot savant who doesn't have a modicum of common sense. He seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that only DNA evidence is admissible in court and no other evidence is valid."

So (Armchair Expert) Rag is calling world renowned Prof. Gill and the 'father of DNA analysis' an "idiot savant". Narcissism, anyone?

Quote:

"David Balding - Professor of Statistical Genetics at University College London - analysed the DNA evidence against Sollecito and concluded it was "extremely strong".

No one ever claimed it wasn't Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp. It's how it got there that has always been in question. Balding even said in an interview that it could have gotten there by contamination:

Quote:

Balding:The only worry would be if somehow DNA from Sollecito was brought into the room and deposited on item 165B. I don’t know enough about what happened to say if that was likely but I’d guess that people walking in and out of the room etc would be unlikely to do that.

Halkides:The clasp was collected with gloves that were not clean, not with disposable tweezers (videos here and here). The glove was handled by more than one person. Are these concerns sufficient for the clasp to be excluded as evidence? If not, should the clasp be given less weight as evidence because of them?

Balding: Same comment - the only concern is if any of this could have transferred DNA from Sollecito onto item 165B.

Originally Posted by Vixen

Likewise, Peter Gill David Balding was not called to the witness stand to testify and be cross-examined and therefore his theories count for exactly zilch.

He Balding did not examine first hand the forensics, he was not part of the case. He is an armchair expert...rather like yourself.

Fixed that for you, Vix. Looks like you and Rag disagree on the merit of Balding's opinion on this case.