The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

Part 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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Williams (Post 11792818) 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?

via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/2or2cEE