Well first of all, you're jumping back and forth between the 2012 and 2014 cases. In the matter of the 2012 case, it wasn't clear at all. In fact, other than one physician witness, the court jumps to a conclusion through non sequitur:
"Only on the date 27 \ 06 \ 2008, did the specialist Dr. Niglio attest as to how the reported damages to the minor (child) were attributable to the vaccination carried out, this theory was definitively confirmed on the date 25 \ 07 \ 2009 by the specialist Dr. MONTANARI."
Also, if you had read the 2012 decision more closely, you'd have seen:
As for the ascertainment, on the part of the parents, of the actual knowledge of the cause of disability, it should be noted that in none of the medical records examined was the clinical picture established definitely as post-vaccine, in the sense of, caused by inoculation of the vaccine, and that the causal relationship is indicated for the first time only in the medical report on 27 \ 06 \ 2008 of the specialist Dr. Niglio.
Even the court admitted that the medical documents didn't clearly show that the symptoms were exclusively post-vaccine.
So here again, we have a theory that is completely dismantled in all scientific inquiry being used in a questionable court by one questionable physician witness, Dr. Montanari, who's already been confirmed to be an unreliable source by his selling of an autism "cure".
End of story on that one.
As far as the 2014 case, you didn't even mention that this case dealt with the hexavalent vaccine, not MMR. It does appear that the GlaxoSmithKline report was one of the main reasons for the questionable decision. But again, a brief review of this report shows that the court made the same mistake you did earlier by confusing "reported reactions" with causality.
If you had bothered to glance at the GlaxoSmithKline report, you'd see that they're pulling autism reports from a section entitled:
"APPENDIX 4E : Cumulative tabulation of all unlisted events from serious unlisted spontaneous reports and all serious unlisted reactions from clinical trial cases reported since launch"
This means that the list (that runs from page 592 to 645) is listing everything that was reported, no matter how absurd, not things that were confirmed causally.
Hell, the report is actually kind of funny.
If you look on page 614 alone you'll see "Forearm fracture", "joint dislocation", and "skull fracture" as reported side effects to the hexavalent vaccine. Also, my favorite "arthropod bite"!
Do you honestly think that this report is evidence that the hexavalent causes broken bones and spider bites?!
Lastly on the 2014 case, there was considerable backlash from the Italian scientific community, and "the Italian Society of Hygiene, Preventive Medicine and Public Health (Società Italiana di Igiene, Medicina Preventiva e Sanità Pubblica (SItI)); the Italian Federation of Pediatricians (Federazione Italiana Medici Pediatri (FIMP)); the Italian Society of Pediatrics (Società Italiana di Pediatria (SIP)); the Cultural Association of Pediatricians (Associazione Culturale Pediatri (ACP)); and the Italian Federation of Doctors of General Medicine (Federazione Italiana Medici di Medicina Generale (FIMMG)) issued a press release to reiterate that there is no link between hexavalent vaccine and autism, or between autism and the vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella.
So once again, science on one side, courts on the other. Considering the court's decision on the earthquake case, and the evidence that shows they didn't understand the GSK report, case closed on that one as well.
The one I linked was 1271 pgs.
That wasn't a scientific study published in a scientific journal, that was a confidential bridging report send to European pharmaceutical regulatory authorities.
Even the actual scientific studies that you linked to were were around a dozen pages, so for some reason you're under the false assumption that the length of peer-reviewed scientific studies rival long novels. Likewise the GSK report is not a peer-reviewed scientific study, so this is just more evidence that you don't have any experience reading scientific journals.
Whether Banks suffered an autistic spectrum disorder or some other ill effect does not matter to me
Well, here we go. You see that you're arguments have been thoroughly debunked and defeated, so you're changing the goalposts and your arguments. Maybe you shouldn't have wasted all of your time trying to futilely prove an autism link, only to admit that an autism/vaccine link wasn't what you were arguing.
You are opposed to me citing court case about vaccines...
I'm not opposed to it at all. In fact I hope you keep it up, since they're so easily debunked when you try to use them as scientific evidence instead of actual scientific journals and publications. Please, keep citing court cases as evidence of whatever it is you're trying to argue, which becomes less clear with every response.
There is little reason to continue with you since you are all about consensus science and can not handle any decent(eerily similar to the Climate Change crowd).
I agree there's little reason for you to continue considering your track record here of failing to check your sources. This is one of the main drawbacks of relying on quack sites like Age of Autism, who list "Jenny McCarthy" as one of their main contributors.
And with that I am done with you. Feel free to post away and thump your chest and claim a victory.
Don't need to chest thump, as all I needed to make clear is that your assertions are not well-defined, are not well-sourced or researched, and have no merit. I've provided the review and documentation to show such, so whether you continue to keep being proven wrong is up to you. Or perhaps you'll consider that in light of being under such vast misapprehensions, you'll actually take a look at the evidence and not let anti-science blogs do your thinking for you.