Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[anglolawyer]

Is there anything in these answers that is ground-breaking or new information? It does verify that the footprints could come from something besides blood, but we already knew that.

The false negative by TMB was known by some here because TMB needs a denser amount of blood mixture which could mean it was blood that was old or very diluted. Given that the prints match no one and the substance wasn't proven to be blood it isn't precise and the gravity is weak.

According to the most recent guidance from the United Sections of the Cassazione [8], the assessment of circumstantial evidence does not stop at a mere summation [sommatoria] of the evidence, and must therefore include the prior evaluation [valutazione preventiva] of each piece of evidence individually, each according to its own qualitative value and degree of precision and gravity; so that it may then be assessed in a unified, global perspective which will tend to bring to light its connections and convergence within a single probative context.
​

Ah, but what about 'the qualitative value'?

 

[Bill Williams]

Let's stop this silliness now, before the mods have to step in to stop Griffinmill further derailing the thread.

I'm professionally trained in giving interviews and assessments, as are many other pro-innocence people here.

The idea that full context and full content are the same thing is utterly absurd. You wouldn't last very long in professional interviewing if your reports quoted the entire exchange verbatim.

You give the context (done) and quote the relevant answers (also done).

It's time for griffinmill to give reasons for distrusting Prof Halkides, or shut up and get going with the information they have been given. No one else appears to have had any problem understanding the context and content of the exchange as presented by Prof Halkides. We should not allow further derailment (malicious or otherwise) just because one person out of dozens is a bit slow on the uptake.

Oddly, the people that have trouble understanding Prof Halkides have all been pro-guilt people. No-one else seems to have any problem, even when the information is well out of their own field of practice.

Well, not exactly. I'm with griffinmill in the "understanding Prof. Halkides" department. I would much rather be poked in the eye with a sharp stick, than sit through a class on Haplotypes, LCN testing, or what-have-you.

What I appreciate about Halkides is that he does not demand to be seen as right. When I was having trouble grasping his comments he took me by the hand and said, "Ok, let's just start with the data..... the data just is." (Which led me to believe that denying data is the engine of wrongful convictions..... it's why Machiavelli will fight you at the suggestion that Stefanoni did just that. Hide data.)

He then went to step two..... which I will not try to duplicate here, because he's probably reading this, I don't want to be seen as an ass-hat too quickly.

What I do recognize,though, is his commitment to method. He's not hereto trumpet himself, or even much defend Knox and/or Sollecito. He says, let's start with the data which just is.

He has also been helpful to me in sorting out the kind of data one would want in a civilized society before locking up innocents for a crime they did not commit.

What I recognize is the method. Halkides follows that annoying scientific method which is the opposite of what the ISC said, eg. "a path of contamination must be demonstrated, not just assumed."

In fact, contamination SHOULD be assumed unless authorities can demonstrate they followed reputable anti-contamination protocols. (It's why I harp on about even Stefanoni admitting to Massei's court 4, count ;em 4!, routes of possible contamination.... and that's even before considering her lab.)

So lump me in with griffinmill. I perhaps understand the specifics of this less than he/she. It's just that I have yet to see a reputable expert defend Stefanoni.... or ANY expert, really.

What's a simpleton like me to think?

 

[Dan O.]

So lump me in with griffinmill. I perhaps understand the specifics of this less than he/she. It's just that I have yet to see a reputable expert defend Stefanoni.... or ANY expert, really.

What's a simpleton like me to think?

Sorry, you don't cut it as a griffinmill. There is a big difference. It's one thing asking to see the data while showing how that data is used, providing authoritative references showing that the data is necessary to evaluate if the conclusions were correct and referring to standard protocols showing that it is normal for the data to be provided. And then there is the griffinmill parrot of that thing where he is demanding to see something that isn't normally provided and has no clue how anything would change if it were provided.

The griffinmill parrot will continue to spam this thread forever, derailing any attempt to move the discussion forward if you let it. Just ignore it and move on.

 

[acbytesla]

I've had it people. This discussion has grown tiresome to the nth degree.

Griffin and Platonov's post demonstrate clearly the difference between those arguing for innocence and those arguing for guilt. Dr. Halkides posts a quality exchange between himself and two experts in the field and Griffin offers nothing but a nonsense argument that Chris's post is deceptive because it might not be complete despite Chris's insistence that it is complete as to the relevant discussion.

There is no quality argument for guilt. There simply isn't. It's either total speculation about Amanda's sex life or drug use or its their insistence that the Luminol stains must be from blood despite multiple negative TMB tests.

When will these guys learn? All the available science not only shows that they were not only not likely involved, but they couldn't have been involved.

Why are they so willing to dismiss.
1. The very likely TOD before 10:00PM even 9:30PM
2. That Amanda and Raffaele were at Raffaele's apartment until at least 9:26PM
3. That it is absurd to think that they carried that cooking knife from the apartment to the cottage and back again.
4. That neither Amanda or Raffaele had ever committed a crime ever before and have never demonstrated any psychological issues that might lead one to think they could have been involved.
5. That there are no bloody footprints of anyone but Rudy and Meredith in her bedroom and there is no realistic way that Amanda and Raffaele could have eliminated their own without providing evidence that they tried to clean up the crime scene.

I could go on listing countless other points like the lack of DNA from Amanda and Raffaele..but the first 5 points should be enough to eliminate them as suspects.

You can't teach people who are too dumb to learn or are unwilling to learn. We are throwing pearls to swine. There is an old Chinese proverb that says "when the student is ready, the teacher will come". I'm convinced that these students will never be ready.

 

[Grinder]

Ah, but what about 'the qualitative value'?

Yes but exactly does that value mean?

According to the most recent guidance from the United Sections of the Cassazione [8], the assessment of circumstantial evidence does not stop at a mere summation [sommatoria] of the evidence, and must therefore include the prior evaluation [valutazione preventiva] of each piece of evidence individually, each according to its own qualitative value and degree of precision and gravity; so that it may then be assessed in a unified, global perspective which will tend to bring to light its connections and convergence within a single probative context.​

 

[Grinder]

He then went to step two..... which I will not try to duplicate here, because he's probably reading this, I don't want to be seen as an ass-hat too quickly.

He has also been helpful to me in sorting out the kind of data one would want in a civilized society before locking up innocents for a crime they did not commit.
What's a simpleton like me to think?

Bill please share with us what data is acceptable to lock up innocents for a crime they did not commit.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill please share with us what data is acceptable to lock up innocents for a crime they did not commit.

Y'know.... the whole reason for an appeals' level is because the process as is, even in a civilized society, is not immune from sending innocent people to jail. I'm reminded of that somewhat cynical line in, "A Few Good Men," where Lt. Kaffee says: You and Dawson, you both live in the same dreamworld. It doesn't matter what I believe. It only matters what I can prove! So please, don't tell me what I know, or don't know; I know the LAW.

And as the Steven Truscott case here in Canada in the 1950s proved, there actually was enough data, acc. to the standards of the day, to send a 14-year old to the gallows. The real problem was not the data, per se, it's just that he actually did not do the crime.

If he'd been 28 instead of 14, we would not be having this discussion.... he'd have been dead for 55 years.

So.... what "data" sent him legally to the gallows in a (a'hem, cough, cough) civilized Canada? Flawed stomach content analysis. He was the last person (other than the perp) to see Lynne Harper alive, within the narrow window the court decided accounted for the murder.

That was the data. You decide if that is enough to send an innocent man boy to the gallows.

It attracted no less than a "trial" at the Supreme Court of Canada in 1967 - a rare, rare, rare event where the provincial courts of appeal are in practise the court of last hope for these sorts of things.....

...... where Truscott himself testified before the Supremes. They voted 8-1 that he was not a credible witness, also that the original jury was right to convict him, and that it was the only person who could have done the crime. (This is a little like saying that AngloLawyer is a real lawyer by a vote of 6 to 4!)

It then took a political/executive action in 2002 to reopen even this. The politician in question directed the Ontario Court to review the evidence (the "data") basically asking, would this still be a conviction in 2002.

Incredibly, they found a new witness who corroborated two boys eyewitness testimony from 1959 that bolstered their alibi for Truscott. The boys had been tagged liars in 1959, but the addition of a new witness in 2002 suddenly made them believable.

New data? Anyway, I won't go on. I think you get the drift.

 

[Desert Fox]

I've had it people. This discussion has grown tiresome to the nth degree.

Griffin and Platonov's post demonstrate clearly the difference between those arguing for innocence and those arguing for guilt. Dr. Halkides posts a quality exchange between himself and two experts in the field and Griffin offers nothing but a nonsense argument that Chris's post is deceptive because it might not be complete despite Chris's insistence that it is complete as to the relevant discussion.

There is no quality argument for guilt. There simply isn't. It's either total speculation about Amanda's sex life or drug use or its their insistence that the Luminol stains must be from blood despite multiple negative TMB tests.

When will these guys learn? All the available science not only shows that they were not only not likely involved, but they couldn't have been involved.

Why are they so willing to dismiss.
1. The very likely TOD before 10:00PM even 9:30PM
2. That Amanda and Raffaele were at Raffaele's apartment until at least 9:26PM
3. That it is absurd to think that they carried that cooking knife from the apartment to the cottage and back again.
4. That neither Amanda or Raffaele had ever committed a crime ever before and have never demonstrated any psychological issues that might lead one to think they could have been involved.
5. That there are no bloody footprints of anyone but Rudy and Meredith in her bedroom and there is no realistic way that Amanda and Raffaele could have eliminated their own without providing evidence that they tried to clean up the crime scene.

I could go on listing countless other points like the lack of DNA from Amanda and Raffaele..but the first 5 points should be enough to eliminate them as suspects.

You can't teach people who are too dumb to learn or are unwilling to learn. We are throwing pearls to swine. There is an old Chinese proverb that says "when the student is ready, the teacher will come". I'm convinced that these students will never be ready.

I sometimes forget this as well but we are not arguing with them to change their minds. You are arguing to change the minds of those who are less committed or are on the fence.
I have argued creation vs evolution for years and while you might sometimes change a creationists mind, it is extremely rare. If you do, it is not going to be there but instead they may come back months or even years later telling you that you were right. Instead though, you are mostly arguing to change the minds of those who are undecided.

 

[anglolawyer]

Grinder - Yes but exactly does that value mean?

According to the most recent guidance from the United Sections of the Cassazione [8], the assessment of circumstantial evidence does not stop at a mere summation [sommatoria] of the evidence, and must therefore include the prior evaluation [valutazione preventiva] of each piece of evidence individually, each according to its own qualitative value and degree of precision and gravity; so that it may then be assessed in a unified, global perspective which will tend to bring to light its connections and convergence within a single probative context.​

I love these discussions of Italian law! I feel the English variant is so colourless and lacking in imagination . There are no inverse relationships between connections and importance (or whatever it was), no manifest illogicity, no osmosis neither. How we manage without these indispensable heaps of crap I have no idea.

You highlight your stuff. I'll highlight mine . I want an explanation of that 'therefore' right in the middle there. The sentence would seem to make more sense without it. Therefore it must be something really, really deep. Whatever could it be?

 

[Desert Fox]

Sometimes I wonder about Italian Law. . .

Defense: We have video of the defendant across the border in Austria at the time of the murder. It would take at minimum several hours for the defendant to get back. She could not have gotten back

Prosecution: We have this great narrative of murder, sex, and drugs. She is practically the "Whore of Babylon."

The Court: Guilty!

I am wondering if Amanda was not Amanda but Armani if she would have not been prosecuted however. There does seem to be a sexism involved in this case and several other Italian cases seem to involve heavy sexism.

 

[Bill Williams]

I sometimes forget this as well but we are not arguing with them to change their minds. You are arguing to change the minds of those who are less committed or are on the fence.
I have argued creation vs evolution for years and while you might sometimes change a creationists mind, it is extremely rare. If you do, it is not going to be there but instead they may come back months or even years later telling you that you were right. Instead though, you are mostly arguing to change the minds of those who are undecided.

Creationism is about belief. Evolution is about facts, observation and self-correcting theories. The real problem I have with creationists is that they claim they are doing science with it. It's like taking someone trained in mythology and sociology and asking them to take pseudo-transferable skills to assemble a jet engine.

Everything you need to know about the politics of creationism, which is the real point (the politics), is contained in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District​

In it, the lone scientist they could find to argue the political side of so-called, "intelligent design", admitted on cross examination that the method/criteria he was applying to "scientize" creationism, should also then classify astrology and shaman healing arts as sciences.

Since it was the evangelical Christian community funding this scientist, you can bet they were not amused to find their lone science proponent being forced to also argue for the scientific legitimacy of astrology. (Call it an epic fail on the stand. The Kitzmiller lawyer said upon his return to his table, "You don't often get sweet opportunities to destroy a witness quite like that. I'm going to remember this!"

The funny part was the judge, a George W. Bush appointee bible-believing conservative, church-going John E. Jones. In his judgment he could not contain his contempt for Creation Science and Intelligent Design, not so much because it wasn't "Biblical", but because as a judge committed to the Constitution of The United States, he could not imagine a more egregious violation of the separation of church and state as envisioned by the constitution's framers.

If you want to believe that stuff Sunday morning, good for you. If you claim entitlement to force it into secular school curriculum, then you were going to have to face John E. Jones.

 

[acbytesla]

Creationism is about belief. Evolution is about facts, observation and self-correcting theories. The real problem I have with creationists is that they claim they are doing science with it. It's like taking someone trained in mythology and sociology and asking them to take pseudo-transferable skills to assemble a jet engine.

Everything you need to know about the politics of creationism, which is the real point (the politics), is contained in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District​

In it, the lone scientist they could find to argue the political side of so-called, "intelligent design", admitted on cross examination that the method/criteria he was applying to "scientize" creationism, should also then classify astrology and shaman healing arts as sciences.

Since it was the evangelical Christian community funding this scientist, you can bet they were not amused to find their lone science proponent being forced to also argue for the scientific legitimacy of astrology. (Call it an epic fail on the stand. The Dover school district lawyer said upon his return to his table, "You don't get sweet opportunities to destroy a witness quite like that. I'm going to remember this!"

The funny part was the judge, a George W. Bush appointee bible-believing conservative, church-going John E. Jones. In his judgment he could not contain his contempt for Creation Science and Intelligent Design, not so much because it wasn't "Biblical", but because as a judge committed to the Constitution of The United States, he could not imagine a more egregious violation of the separation of church and state as envisioned by the constitution's framers.

If you want to believe that stuff Sunday morning, good for you. If you claim entitlement to force it into secular school curriculum, then you were going to have to face John E. Jones.

I know we are straying off topic...but the way of thinking is so similar it is scary. One is based on scientific thinking and one is based on a belief system. I get in this argument frequently with a very religious friend. Even he has given up after many years arguing the creationist story saying that Genesis is more a parable and not meant to be thought of literally. (I find this to be a cop out, but I can't deny that my friend's faith has helped him...so I have no desire to cause a problem with him and his faith)

Scientists have often made mistakes and we have to be careful with what is considered scientific fact. There is a long list of things that once were accepted as such that have since been proven wrong. Science though is more an approach which demands demonstrable proof over and over and over again.

The case for innocence and guilt has been addressed and we are left with the majority of scientific minds coming to the conclusion that the evidence used to convict Amanda and Raffaele to be highly suspect and not scientifically credible. That the DNA doesn't hold up to scrutiny, that the Luminol stains are most likely not from blood, that the digestive evidence shows that Meredith died early in the 9 PM hour. That Nara couldn't have heard what she says she heard.

Opposing this is a serial professional witness who is a junkie. An old woman who even her relatives say is crazy, and a storekeeper who contradicts his own previous statements.

I like Bill how you bring up Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. This is a great case. If you have a chance, I highly recommend that you watch the PBS Nova Special on this. It is great. Here is the link for the show.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

 

[Bill Williams]

I know we are straying off topic...but the way of thinking is so similar it is scary.

The case for innocence and guilt has been addressed and we are left with the majority of scientific minds coming to the conclusion that the evidence used to convict Amanda and Raffaele to be highly suspect and not scientifically credible.

I like Bill how you bring up Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. This is a great case. If you have a chance, I highly recommend that you watch the PBS Nova Special on this. It is great. Here is the link for the show.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

I saw that, and I actually do not think that we're straying off topic at all.

So much of religious experience begins with..... ah, er, a religious experience. A life altering something-or-other. For many it is described as completely life altering.

And then words are applied to an experience.... that's where the problems set in.

The closest positive parallel I can find is the quote from Nelson Mandela who said that when he was released from prison, he had to leave his hate back there, or he'd be in a differing kind of prison for the rest of his life. That's the kind of life altering, "religious" experience which I would call a good one.

There are bad ones too. I don't know of a guilter who did not have an almost immediate repulsion aimed at the caricature we now know as Foxy Knoxy. It remains the reason why Raffaele rarely even rates a mention in their "theories of the crime", except as an afterthought, someone who's left helplessly robotic in comparison to Foxy Knoxy's hypnotic stranglehold.

Peggy Ganong describes this, she said she saw Meredith and Amanda side-by-side in pictures, but had initially got them switched.... and trusted her instinct that the one (who she'd though was Meredith, but was Amanda) was actually the one who looked like an evil killer. When she figured out who was who, her conversion was complete, and she's not moved much since then.

Tell me this is not a religious decision when news-piece comments sections are plastered with things like, "Abundant DNA of the victim found on the knife," and "mixed-blood of Knox and Meredith found all over the cottage," neither of which is true. Yet those are repeated like the Sursum Corda, the ritualistic beginning of a Eucharistic Prayer.... without much thought as to their factuality....

...... the important thing is to say something slutty about Amanda Knox.

And even when Judge Nencini assigns two Y-samples on Merediths bra-clasp to women (amica), we just continue on through the ritual as if nothing has happened.....

I don't think we're wandering at all.

 

[Desert Fox]

Um, I know quite a bit about the creation and evolution debate. I am quite familiar with the Dover trial. Judge Jones is an interesting person. He also ruled that the Pennsylvania law/constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is unconstitutional.

I do see a lot of parallels in how creationists are immune to evidence and the pro guilt side. I have even seen the creationist version of our CourlsonUK poster.

If I am understanding the issue though, numbers of people supporting innocence are slowly going up. As such, sounds like it is worth fighting for.

 

[Grinder]

Y'know.... the whole reason for an appeals' level is because the process as is, even in a civilized society, is not immune from sending innocent people to jail. I'm reminded of that somewhat cynical line in, "A Few Good Men," where Lt. Kaffee says: You and Dawson, you both live in the same dreamworld. It doesn't matter what I believe. It only matters what I can prove! So please, don't tell me what I know, or don't know; I know the LAW.

And as the Steven Truscott case here in Canada in the 1950s proved, there actually was enough data, acc. to the standards of the day, to send a 14-year old to the gallows. The real problem was not the data, per se, it's just that he actually did not do the crime.

If he'd been 28 instead of 14, we would not be having this discussion.... he'd have been dead for 55 years.

So.... what "data" sent him legally to the gallows in a (a'hem, cough, cough) civilized Canada? Flawed stomach content analysis. He was the last person (other than the perp) to see Lynne Harper alive, within the narrow window the court decided accounted for the murder.

That was the data. You decide if that is enough to send an innocent man boy to the gallows.

It attracted no less than a "trial" at the Supreme Court of Canada in 1967 - a rare, rare, rare event where the provincial courts of appeal are in practise the court of last hope for these sorts of things.....

...... where Truscott himself testified before the Supremes. They voted 8-1 that he was not a credible witness, also that the original jury was right to convict him, and that it was the only person who could have done the crime. (This is a little like saying that AngloLawyer is a real lawyer by a vote of 6 to 4!)

It then took a political/executive action in 2002 to reopen even this. The politician in question directed the Ontario Court to review the evidence (the "data") basically asking, would this still be a conviction in 2002.

Incredibly, they found a new witness who corroborated two boys eyewitness testimony from 1959 that bolstered their alibi for Truscott. The boys had been tagged liars in 1959, but the addition of a new witness in 2002 suddenly made them believable.

New data? Anyway, I won't go on. I think you get the drift.

Bill please share with us what data is acceptable to lock up innocents for a crime they did not commit.

 

[acbytesla]

I saw that, and I actually do not think that we're straying off topic at all.

So much of religious experience begins with..... ah, er, a religious experience. A life altering something-or-other. For many it is described as completely life altering.

And then words are applied to an experience.... that's where the problems set in.

The closest positive parallel I can find is the quote from Nelson Mandela who said that when he was released from prison, he had to leave his hate back there, or he'd be in a differing kind of prison for the rest of his life. That's the kind of life altering, "religious" experience which I would call a good one.

There are bad ones too. I don't know of a guilter who did not have an almost immediate repulsion aimed at the caricature we now know as Foxy Knoxy. It remains the reason why Raffaele rarely even rates a mention in their "theories of the crime", except as an afterthought, someone who's left helplessly robotic in comparison to Foxy Knoxy's hypnotic stranglehold.

Peggy Ganong describes this, she said she saw Meredith and Amanda side-by-side in pictures, but had initially got them switched.... and trusted her instinct that the one (who she'd though was Meredith, but was Amanda) was actually the one who looked like an evil killer. When she figured out who was who, her conversion was complete, and she's not moved much since then.

Tell me this is not a religious decision when news-piece comments sections are plastered with things like, "Abundant DNA of the victim found on the knife," and "mixed-blood of Knox and Meredith found all over the cottage," neither of which is true. Yet those are repeated like the Sursum Corda, the ritualistic beginning of a Eucharistic Prayer.... without much thought as to their factuality....

...... the important thing is to say something slutty about Amanda Knox.

And even when Judge Nencini assigns two Y-samples on Merediths bra-clasp to women (amica), we just continue on through the ritual as if nothing has happened.....

I don't think we're wandering at all.

I'd agree that those arguing for guilt have an approach that is similar to a religious experience. They make a "decision" as opposed to coming to a conclusion. I've constantly tested myself on this case. Am I wrong? What is the evidence? Is there something I missed. Am I ignoring something important. What have I overlooked? I think people should do this with just about everything. It's why I am not religious. Religions don't hold up to scrutiny. They all have reasons why they don't. And as my old sales manager use to say, "you have reasons or you have results".

But I'd also say that religions do provide their believers with one important thing and that is faith. I think faith is an important and benefits those that have it. Faith provides one with the belief that everything will work out and that if we take a step forward we will get to the end of our journey.

And this all fine and dandy, but don't try and push what has been proven wrong as right. Don't condemn others because they don't have the same belief system and don't have your judicial system based on nonsense.

 

[Desert Fox]

I would actually argue against faith the way that the religious mean it (faith has many different meanings) but I would argue that this goes way outside the scope of this discussion.

 

[acbytesla]

I would actually argue against faith the way that the religious mean it (faith has many different meanings) but I would argue that this goes way outside the scope of this discussion.

Granted, it is outside the scope of this discussion. Amanda is an atheist, but something kept her going despite being in prison. Faith to me is that reason to get out of bed in the morning. That we believe that our paper money is worthwhile and the local merchant will take our credit card. That the police will be there when we need it, that That we will be rewarded for going to school, working hard and treating others well.

There is no doubt that "faith" is also abused but I see "faith" in one form or another is essential to the human experience. I am not religious, but I do think faith is important. We cannot prove so many things in life, but we often still need to believe in them to some degree whether we can prove them or not.

 

[Grinder]

Anglo this is the quote we spoke about.

Knox looked intently at Guede as he spoke just a few feet away from her in the packed courtroom. In the letter Guede had said: "Everything I want to say I have told the court and my lawyers. Do you think if I had anything to say I would speak with a child killer?"
After Guede had finished his testimony, Knox stood up and said: "The first time that Rudy Guede, Raffaele and I were all together in the same space was in a court room. We have never been in contact. I am shocked and anguished, truly, by what he says."
Sollecito was also granted permission to speak and said: "Guede has never seen me before in his life, not even fleetingly, I don't know how he can say I was with Amanda Knox."

interesting wording by Raf.

 

[Planigale]

Um, I know quite a bit about the creation and evolution debate. I am quite familiar with the Dover trial. Judge Jones is an interesting person. He also ruled that the Pennsylvania law/constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is unconstitutional.

I do see a lot of parallels in how creationists are immune to evidence and the pro guilt side. I have even seen the creationist version of our CourlsonUK poster.

If I am understanding the issue though, numbers of people supporting innocence are slowly going up. As such, sounds like it is worth fighting for.

I remember saying that the pro guilt arguments had a lot of parallels with those for ID or HIV denialism only for Briars to come back trying to defend ID. I think Briars then realised even in our obscure corner of JREF trying to defend ID would rapidly attract the attention of the big boys.

One of the strong themes of this case is the inability of most of the court to distinguish between proper science and pseudo-science. The identification of footprints on the bathmat to anyone is clearly pseudo science - they even reference pseudo -science methodology. That stefanoni used a PCR machine does not make the DNA MK DNA on knife any less pseudo science. Ignoring the empirical study showing the glass distribution could only have arisen from a stone thrown from outside is just appalling.