Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[AmyStrange]

V and C have the backing of thousands of experts...

-

I would really like to see an example of were a judge in an ongoing trial has determined that the public utterances of experts who were never called as witnesses by the defence can or should be included in the trial process.

What would be the legal mechanism to allow this in <insert your country of choice>?

I cannot recall this ever happening during an ongoing trial in the manner some people are suggesting in this case, it is not relevant to the legal process what Dr Balding states, he wasn’t a witness; it doesn’t matter what Ron Hendry declares about the case he was never called as a witness.

I grant you (American) public opinion will matter if Amanda’s conviction is confirmed and extradition requested.

-

You realize that V and C are experts because they studied other expert's work in the area. Do you really think that each genetic expert learned his craft from scratch? That they discovered all that's known about DNA themselves? They are not only expressing their opinion, but the opinions and resulting research and experiments and proofs and conclusions of thousands of experts, researchers and scientist before them (from the beginning of scientific history to date) who were never personally involved in or called to testify at the trial,

d

-

 

[sept79]

One has to wonder what the reaction of Coulsdon/UK would be if a video were to surface which showed Guede (all by himself) attacking and killing MK? Wonder if he/she would suggest that Knox/Sollecito were moving so quickly that the video just couldn't capture them?

 

[lonepinealex]

One has to wonder what the reaction of Coulsdon/UK would be if a video were to surface which showed Guede (all by himself) attacking and killing MK? Wonder if he/she would suggest that Knox/Sollecito were moving so quickly that the video just couldn't capture them?

Nah, Amanda and Raffaele seamlessly edited the video while they were doing their miracle clean up.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

One has to wonder what the reaction of Coulsdon/UK would be if a video were to surface which showed Guede (all by himself) attacking and killing MK? Wonder if he/she would suggest that Knox/Sollecito were moving so quickly that the video just couldn't capture them?

-

it would probably be postulated that Raffaele and Amanda were the ones taking the video (or what Alex said in post #3443), in my opinion,

d

-

 

[Diocletus]

Well, I've skimmed through some of Nencini. All I can say is that no one outside of the small group of internet warriors on both sides of this case is ever going to read that pile. Doubt that anyone will ever get past the third page.

 

[js202]

One has to wonder what the reaction of Coulsdon/UK would be if a video were to surface which showed Guede (all by himself) attacking and killing MK? Wonder if he/she would suggest that Knox/Sollecito were moving so quickly that the video just couldn't capture them?

Of course, given that this video would be at odds with the "reasoning" of the Italian Supreme Court, and, more important, was not included in evidence at the Nencini trial, it should be thrown out. And remain strictly the province of the punters at inconsequential places like JREF.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Well, I've skimmed through some of Nencini. All I can say is that no one outside of the small group of internet warriors on both sides of this case is ever going to read that pile. Doubt that anyone will ever get past the third page.

-

I didn't get past the first sentence where Nencini positively states that all three strangled Meredith because her hyoid bone was damaged, even though there is more evidence the bone was damaged by the knife rather than by strangulation,

d

-

 

[Desert Fox]

-
I didn't get past the first sentence where Nencini positively states that all three strangled Meredith because her hyoid bone was damaged, even though there is more evidence the bone was damaged by the knife rather than by strangulation,

Pretty damn sure that it is harder for three people to strangle somebody instead of one

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Pretty damn sure that it is harder for three people to strange somebody instead of one

-

Ha ha, good catch d, but Nencini probably meant (PDF p4, "in complicity amongst themselves") that they worked together to strangle Meredith, or in other words, while two of them held her down, the third did the actual strangling, or they each took turns strangling her,

d

-
ETA: It could also mean that while one of them strangled Meredith, the other two just looked on and didn't do anything to help her

 

[Desert Fox]

Ha ha, good catch d, but Nencini probably meant (PDF p4, "in complicity amongst themselves") that they worked together to strangle Meredith, or in other words, while two of them held her down, the third did the actual strangling, or they each took turns strangling her,
-

I think we should see if Nencini wants to come to the United States to join Judge David Burnett?

 

[Samson]

CoulsdonUK,

Stefanoni's laboratory stored the bra clasp in a closed container in the presence of aqueous extraction buffer, conditions that were almost guaranteed to produce decomposition, and did exactly that. Yet the SCC criticized Conti and Vecchiotti but not Stefanoni. I wonder why.

I also wonder why there exists no cogent explanation for the SCC's preferring less qualified over more qualified DNA experts. I also wonder why the Nencini court turned up additional (mildly) exculpatory DNA evidence yet convicted.

Chris, This extract turned up on PMF, it looks relevant, but I am alittle confused

7) With regard to the request for a reexamination of Exhibit 165B and the performance of a new genetic test, the impossibility of repeating this action, [29] even if considered necessary for the purpose of the decision, can be derived from the observation that the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia had already made this request of the court-appointed experts, who reported to the Court that it was not possible to perform another such examination because of the poor preservation of the Exhibit (see page 87 of the sentence of the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia); and this was done, however, without the Defense consultants making any objection. So, unless one has to consider the legal experts appointed by the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia and the consultants of the parties as being incompetent professionals for neglecting genetic traces useful for the further examinations requested of them by the Judge - and this would then cast doubt on the reliability of every scientific statement made by them in the trial – this Court must conclude that it is objectively impossible to repeat the examination because a piece of evidence is not properly conserved and the material necessary for performing the examination cannot be extracted;

 

[AmyStrange]

Using Nencini speak is fun and easy to learn

-

I think we should see if Nencini wants to come to the United States to join Judge David Burnett?

-

they'd probably strangle each other, because (using Nencini speak) they'd misinterpret each other's statements as being complicit with the strangling of the other,

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Chris, This extract turned up on PMF, it looks relevant, but I am alittle confused

7) With regard to the request for a reexamination of Exhibit 165B and the performance of a new genetic test, the impossibility of repeating this action, [29] even if considered necessary for the purpose of the decision, can be derived from the observation that the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia had already made this request of the court-appointed experts, who reported to the Court that it was not possible to perform another such examination because of the poor preservation of the Exhibit (see page 87 of the sentence of the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia); and this was done, however, without the Defense consultants making any objection. So, unless one has to consider the legal experts appointed by the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia and the consultants of the parties as being incompetent professionals for neglecting genetic traces useful for the further examinations requested of them by the Judge - and this would then cast doubt on the reliability of every scientific statement made by them in the trial – this Court must conclude that it is objectively impossible to repeat the examination because a piece of evidence is not properly conserved and the material necessary for performing the examination cannot be extracted;

-

Let me give a shot at translating this. Even though it does include a lot of legal double-speak, it basicly says that the court must conclude that specimen 165B could not be retested because the bra-clasp was not properly stored and thus extracting more material for retesting is impossible.

It also adds that because of this it should not be concluded that they are incompetent professionals which would then cast doubt on every scientific statement made by them at the trial.

Correct me if I'm wrong here Chris,

d

-

 

[Diocletus]

-


-

Let me give a shot at translating this. Even though it does include a lot of legal double-speak, it basicly says that the court must conclude that specimen 165B could not be retested because the bra-clasp was not properly stored and thus extracting more material for retesting is impossible.

It also adds that because of this it should not be concluded that they are incompetent professionals which would then cast doubt on every scientific statement made by them at the trial.

Correct me if I'm wrong here Chris,

d

-

But what does it say about the competency of the person who improperly stored the specimen?

 

[AmyStrange]

-

But what does it say about the competency of the person who improperly stored the specimen?

-

In my opinion, the quote is referring to the court appointed experts, and not the ones who stored the bra-clasp.

BUT if you read between the lines though, which in my opinion reads, we're not the idiots (incompetent professionals) here, but the ones who stored the clasp are (the real idiots),

d

-

 

[lonepinealex]

-


-

In my opinion, the quote is referring to the court appointed experts, and not the ones who stored the bra-clasp.

BUT if you read between the lines though, which in my opinion reads, we're not the idiots (incompetent professionals) here, but the ones who stored the clasp are (the real idiots),

d

-

I read it the other way round. Man alive it's an obtuse document.

 

[Desert Fox]

I read it the other way round. Man alive it's an obtuse document.

When it comes up, the US should write a refusal for extradition that is just as obtuse as the Italian documents I have seen. Seems fair. Either that or just two letters "No"

Waiting for one of out pro guilt side to argue that it is not obtuse though.

 

[lonepinealex]

If the above exchange is anything to go by, it's already obtuse enough to essentially serve as a word-form rorschach test. The ISC can decide to interpret it any way it wants, which is handy.

 

[Samson]

It is worth noting that on PMF the Nencini motivations report is 10 xmas's in a day for them. Even the lawyer Jar who was critical is thrilled to pieces.
There is clearly a huge job to take the thing to bits, but to make it digestible. It is a work of fiction, and this must be made palpable.
It is heart breaking frankly.

 

[carbonjam72]

The imponderable imponerables...

One has to wonder what the reaction of Coulsdon/UK would be if a video were to surface which showed Guede (all by himself) attacking and killing MK? Wonder if he/she would suggest that Knox/Sollecito were moving so quickly that the video just couldn't capture them?

1. Amanda and Raf unearthed a Klingon cloaking device from nearby ancient Etruscan ruins, thus committing an additional act of antiquities theft.

2. Video is shot at 30 fames per second, and they fiendishly moved in between the frames with perfect timing. So they're still guilty.

3. It doesn't matter what is on the video, it only matters what the Italian court acknowledges is on the video. So therefore it changes nothing.

4. The part where Amanda and Raf were present wasn't recorded because they ran out of video tape stock at the time, due to budget cuts.

5. The imagery of Amanda and Raf just isn't apparent, because the imagery of Amanda and Raf can be assumed to have been there, but damaged when taken out of the video camera, and is now unreviewable.

6. It's tape of a different murder featuring Meredith and Rudy look-alikes, and therefor irrelevant. This is demonstrated by the fact that Amanda and Raf aren't in the tape, and since we know they were there at the time, we may conclude osmotically that the tape must therefore be a fake.

7. The video was shot on a different night, when all four people were playfully 'staging a murder scene'. Amanda directed, and Raf was the 'best boy'.

I'll leave the rest to CouldstonUK.