Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[MDDVS]

I agree that information that is missing, can't be replaced if it isn't captured originally. However, I would have thought that if one knew the original parameters of the photographic instrument, that an evaluation of pixels that are present might allow for a mathematical interpolation of pixel measurement and enhancement, that could allow for things like, better sharper images.

So, if for example, there's a pattern say; 1,2,3,4.....9.10,11,12; one might guess the intervening values as 5,6,7,8.

I was under the impression that some facial recognition software have used this technique, having real world investigators going back to the original site of the photographs to take precise measurements of identifiable objects in frame, so as to help reconstruct the photos underlying physical characteristics.

So the photograph may lack clarity based on the original, but the missing information might yet be susceptible to approximation, by which the object or scene being photographed could be reconstructed in a more cognizable form. It's actually not technically real or direct evidence anymore. But it could conceivably be good enough to allow a reading of the plate from a state of being unreadable, to possibly readable.

I could have sworn this is an actual discipline. I will be heartbroken if I've been duped by pseudo science, as it seems like such an obvious extension of the basic math. I'd be shocked if this isn't real.

It's not a pseudo-science I just meant that there are limits to what you can do

 

[LondonJohn]

Chris_Halkides

My point as ever is a simple one, namely Dr Gill did not appear as an expert witness in the trial or subsequent appeals and at this stage of the process I fail to see how his opinion can or will have any impact on proceedings next week. Judicially speaking Conti & Vecchiotti have been knocked into the deep rough and I do not recall Dr Budowle expert testimony.

I do find this all rather bizarre, it is almost though some folks believe experts such as Dr Gill and Dr Budowle transcend a judicial process.

You find it bizarre that commentators would find it interesting and relevant that an acknowledged world expert in (and founding father of) DNA profiling has publicly expressed his strong opinion - backed by a detailed and reasoned argument that itself is based on proper analysis - that the DNA evidence in this case is fatally flawed?

Frankly, I personally find it utterly bizarre that you find it bizarre. Firstly, you do realise (don't you?) that the debate here is as much about seeking the truth as it is about the narrower issue of whether Knox and/or Sollecito will be convicted in the Italian courts. And secondly, you obviously appear ignorant of the salient fact that the opinion of Gill (and others) may very well have an important part to play in the final judicial chapters of this sorry mess.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh ok, well the simple reality in this case like any other murder case it will be resolved in a court of law, whether an Italian court or ECHR, it will be a judicial reality.

So are you suggesting that "judicial realities" are set in stone? There are plenty of people who've been fully exonerated after wrongful convictions who would disagree with you, I'd imagine.

And if you believe that the court's view is the only one of any importance, why are you even reading this thread, let alone writing comments such as this in it? Surely, by your reckoning, any sort of debate about the case here (i.e. outside of the courts) is worthless and pointless. I know if I thought that sort of thing about any particular issue I'd have to question just why I was reading and participating in the debate. For example, I think the argument that the Moon landings were a hoax is ridiculous and provably incorrect, so I don't see any value whatsoever in having a debate here (or anywhere else, for that matter) on the subject. Unsurprisingly, I don't visit (let alone post in) any Moon Landing Hoax threads here - and neither do I drop in on any of those threads to tell them that they're wasting their time

 

[codyjuneau]

What is the relevance of Dr Gill’s opinion in the context of this case and the judicial proceedings? He was not called as an expert witness by either defence teams during the trial or any of the subsequent appeals; he certainly will not be appearing before the court of cassations next week, that’s for sure.

.
Well, to quote tsig, "That's why all this speculation on evidence, contamination, he said/she said is completely meaningless."


Cody
.

 

[Samson]

What is the relevance of Dr Gill’s opinion in the context of this case and the judicial proceedings? He was not called as an expert witness by either defence teams during the trial or any of the subsequent appeals; he certainly will not be appearing before the court of cassations next week, that’s for sure.

You have made it crystal clear that you are supporting the Kercher family and their civil prosecution CoulsdonUK. Remember the message to Vibio. Meanwhile this thread will continue with or without you, hopefully with, because you are assured of multiple replies .

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill Williams,

I realize that this is incidental to your main argument, but Nencini may have felt that he needed to discuss the minor profiles because Novelli's table acknowledged that there were indeed additional contributors to the YSTR electropherogram. As profoundly as I disagree with Novelli on some things, I agree with him that there were such contributors, and I recently posted a portion of the electropherogram that shows some of the peaks which necessitates this conclusion.

Nencini adopts the strange argument about Vecchiotti's claim that there were multiple minor contributors to 165B, by saying that Stefanoni never said there weren't.

Indeed, Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni actually never asserted that trace 165 B revealed the presence of only two contributors, but rather that “The analysis of trace B allowed the extrapolation of a genetic profile coming from the mixture of biological substances belonging to at least two individuals of which at least one male”.​

Highlighting in the original.​

This, perhaps, explains why Massei back in his 2010 report makes at least two references to "minor contributors" (plural) and just leaves it at that.

Before Nencini goes into his stumble about these extra male contributors including, "amica", one runs into the real problem, the suspect-centric nature of the analysis that Stefanoni did.

But the real question that is relevant for justice is not represented by the presence of several contributors in the mixed DNA trace found on the hook of the clasp of the bra that Meredith Kercher wore on the evening she was killed, but by the presence of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA.​

On this, at least Massei, back in 2010, discussed the accusation that this was suspect-centric. Meassei eventually denies it was - why? Because Massei asked Stefanoni and she said it wasn't!!

Nencini reaches back to the Massei trial of 2009 and the criticisms of Sollecito's expert, Prof. Tagliabracci, that Stefanoni had conducted such a suspect-centric examination. On page 246, Nencini actually gives a fairly decent definition of what that is - taking his info from Prof. Tagliabracci.

On page 247, Nencini held that Stefanoni had, during the first trial, given an "adequate response" to the criticism of conducting a suspect-centric analysis.

And once again, Nencini reserves the burden of proof, saying that it was not just good enough to claim she'd done it, as Prof. Tagliabracci claimed Stefanoni did. Instead of having any documentation from Stefanoni, except her word (Stefanoni is not on trial here!) Nencini says:

Prof. Tagliabracci’s criticism is founded on an unproven and unprovable suspicion, namely that the biologist doing the work being already in possession of reference samples supposedly used the “suspect-centric” method. On the basis of this assertion, even leaving aside the observation that Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni is an employee of the state police, a public official charged with duties belonging to her office that go beyond professional obligations, and also leaving aside the fact that one should provide proof that she had any interest in “constructing” evidence against a defendant rather than another person, one would still reach the conclusion that in all the investigations in which a DNA sample has been acquired from a suspect, no genetic investigations could ever be of any use. Essentially, genetics in the penal process could only be of service to the Judge insofar as they would indicate unknown individuals, and without any DNA samples having already been taken from the crime scene. In all the cases in which the Scientific Police acquired a DNA sample before identifying the presumed perpetrator of the crime, any result of the analysis performed on the DNA would inevitably be considered unreliable, since the result would be obtained on the basis of the suspect-centric method, a circumstance asserted here as an axiom.​

In short, Stefanoni is to be believed (in the absence of international protocols being demonstrated to the court), simply because.

This is also Machiavelli's assertion. To contest Stefanoni's work, one needs to first charge her with a crime. Stefanoni has no obligation to deposit anything with the court other than her verbal opinions.

 

[Diocletus]

Oh ok, well the simple reality in this case like any other murder case it will be resolved in a court of law, whether an Italian court or ECHR, it will be a judicial reality.

You never know what might happen. We just had a guy busted by HBO.

 

[Numbers]

What is the relevance of Dr Gill’s opinion in the context of this case and the judicial proceedings? He was not called as an expert witness by either defence teams during the trial or any of the subsequent appeals; he certainly will not be appearing before the court of cassations next week, that’s for sure.

Chris_Halkides

My point as ever is a simple one, namely Dr Gill did not appear as an expert witness in the trial or subsequent appeals and at this stage of the process I fail to see how his opinion can or will have any impact on proceedings next week. Judicially speaking Conti & Vecchiotti have been knocked into the deep rough and I do not recall Dr Budowle expert testimony.

I do find this all rather bizarre, it is almost though some folks believe experts such as Dr Gill and Dr Budowle transcend a judicial process.

Oh ok, well the simple reality in this case like any other murder case it will be resolved in a court of law, whether an Italian court or ECHR, it will be a judicial reality.

You are entitled to your point of view on these matters, but you are not fully correct in several respects. The Conti & Vecchiotti report continues to exist in the dossier of the court, as does the letter from Dr. Budowle regarding DNA. While the verdict of the Hellmann court was set aside (annulled) by the CSC, the records of the Hellmann court, including its testimonies and its motivation report, are not somehow destroyed by the annulment. All these dossier materials are extant and may be reviewed by the CSC or, if the murder case reaches it (as a claim against Italy for one or more violations of the Convention), by the ECHR.

Regarding Professor Peter Gill and his recent book, Misleading DNA Evidence: Reasons for Miscarriages of Justice, Raffaele Sollecito references Chapter 5 of that book in his recent appeal supplement to the CSC. Thus, Dr. Gill and his opinions, as expressed in the book chapter, are indeed before the CSC. He has summarized many of his opinions on the case and DNA analysis in his recent Italian TV interview. For the benefit of those interested, I copy here an English language summary of the part of Mr. Sollecito's appeal supplement relating to Dr. Gill's book. The summary may be found at: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/. {Bold emphasis and text in { } added.}

Ninth Reason:
The Limits of DNA Evidence.

It is fundamental that the judges of the Court of Cassation ask themselves what are the limits found by a judge during the assessment of a scientifically controversial result.

How has a judge to consider forensic evidence when different experts give opposed opinions on it?

What is certain is that the judge has to explain his choice extensively and without contradictions, but it is also certain that the forensic evidence itself must satisfy severe standards, namely that of beyond any reasonable doubt, before being used to convict.

To this end, the judge has to consider that DNA itself is not always a reliable tool, sometimes leading to out and out miscarriages of justice. This is the subject of a recent work by one of the most worldwide renown experts on the forensic use of DNA, Peter Gill.

In his book {Misleading DNA Evidence: Reasons for Miscarriages of Justice} Gill details how wrong conclusions can be drawn from a scientifically improper view of DNA as evidence, how much contamination is important and at the same time underestimated.

Miscarriages of justice may happen when DNA analysis is too concerned in finding matching profiles and neglects how and when the DNA was deposited.

The book also stresses the importance of strict controls on every link of the chain of recovery and custody of the evidence and also of a complete documentation, while in these proceedings we are still waiting for the Raw Data Files pertaining to the original 2007-2008 tests.

Therefore a judge cannot accept a given test result without having before ascertained the quality of the evidence, with a particular attention to determine “how, where and when” a given DNA was laid down.

Chapter Five of Gill’s work deals with the DNA in the Kercher case and his analysis fully supports the conclusions of the defense with respect to the lack of evidentiary value against the defendant of the DNA evidence collected and analyzed in this case.

 

[Numbers]

Nencini adopts the strange argument about Vecchiotti's claim that there were multiple minor contributors to 165B, by saying that Stefanoni never said there weren't.

This, perhaps, explains why Massei back in his 2010 report makes at least two references to "minor contributors" (plural) and just leaves it at that.

Before Nencini goes into his stumble about these extra male contributors including, "amica", one runs into the real problem, the suspect-centric nature of the analysis that Stefanoni did.

On this, at least Massei, back in 2010, discussed the accusation that this was suspect-centric. Meassei eventually denies it was - why? Because Massei asked Stefanoni and she said it wasn't!!

Nencini reaches back to the Massei trial of 2009 and the criticisms of Sollecito's expert, Prof. Tagliabracci, that Stefanoni had conducted such a suspect-centric examination. On page 246, Nencini actually gives a fairly decent definition of what that is - taking his info from Prof. Tagliabracci.

On page 247, Nencini held that Stefanoni had, during the first trial, given an "adequate response" to the criticism of conducting a suspect-centric analysis.

And once again, Nencini reserves the burden of proof, saying that it was not just good enough to claim she'd done it, as Prof. Tagliabracci claimed Stefanoni did. Instead of having any documentation from Stefanoni, except her word (Stefanoni is not on trial here!) Nencini says:

In short, Stefanoni is to be believed (in the absence of international protocols being demonstrated to the court), simply because.

This is also Machiavelli's assertion. To contest Stefanoni's work, one needs to first charge her with a crime. Stefanoni has no obligation to deposit anything with the court other than her verbal opinions.

Bill,
You have identified one of the instances where Nencini clearly has violated the principle of "equality of arms" and adversarial process that the ECHR case-law demands of a fair trial.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill,
You have identified one of the instances where Nencini clearly has violated the principle of "equality of arms" and adversarial process that the ECHR case-law demands of a fair trial.

Related to equality of arms, is the thing known as "Public Interest Immunity", where the court can order non-disclosure to the other side if it will damage the public interest.

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to a fair trial; an 'implied' right stemming from this is that of 'equality of arms' – the idea that hearings should be adversarial and both parties should have access to the same evidence and witnesses. The European Court of Human Rights has held that Article 6 (especially the 'implied' rights) is not an absolute right and that measures restricting the rights of the defence so as to safeguard an important public interest are lawful if "strictly necessary".
It is of note that fewer (Public Interest Immunity) certificates have been issued in recent years. For example, MI6 have not succeeded in obtaining a PII certificate since the 1995 Tomlinson case, and have thus been subject to court scrutiny for investigations such as the inquest into the death of the Princess of Wales, and allegations that their officers partook in torture.​

Given that Nencini pretty much spells out that Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni is immune from examination, as an employee of the state police, and a public official charged with duties belonging to her office that go beyond professional obligations. Does this not mean that in Italy a Public Interest Immunity is implied!?

 

[Numbers]

Related to equality of arms, is the thing known as "Public Interest Immunity", where the court can order non-disclosure to the other side if it will damage the public interest.

Given that Nencini pretty much spells out that Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni is immune from examination, as an employee of the state police, and a public official charged with duties belonging to her office that go beyond professional obligations. Does this not mean that in Italy a Public Interest Immunity is implied!?

Bill,
You raise an interesting point. The ECHR allows certain evidence, or information relating to evidence, to not be disclosed to the defendant or the public under certain circumstances. However, this non-disclosure must be limited to cases of necessity and must not infringe the rights of the defendant to a fair trial. An example of information that could be withheld from a defendant would be the identity of a police informant in an organized crime case, or of information relating to national security in an espionage case. But in cases where information is to be withheld, the prosecution is not permitted to make the decision to withhold information on its own presumption. The material proposed to be withheld must be subjected to a review by a judge, who shall authorize the withholding, and also must identify and notify (or have the prosecution notify) the defense of any material of importance to their defense. IMO, there would not be any valid rationale for withholding any information from the defense in the Amanda Knox - Raffaele Sollecito case. In particular, for example, there would be no valid rationale for the raw data of the DNA profiling (EDFs) to be withheld, nor for the putative semen stain on the pillow found under the victim, nor any DNA profile found by the police in their investigation and testing. These are clear violations of "equality of arms" and the right of the defendant to be provided proper facilities for his or her defense and contrary to ECHR case-law.

 

[MichaelB]

CCTV Images of broken down car and tow truck frame by frame (never before seen)

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/cctv-images-of-tow-truck/

 

[TruthCalls]

In short, Stefanoni is to be believed (in the absence of international protocols being demonstrated to the court), simply because.

This is also Machiavelli's assertion. To contest Stefanoni's work, one needs to first charge her with a crime. Stefanoni has no obligation to deposit anything with the court other than her verbal opinions.

I particularly like this part of the quote from Nencini;

Prof. Tagliabracci’s criticism is founded on an unproven and unprovable suspicion, namely that the biologist doing the work being already in possession of reference samples supposedly used the “suspect-centric” method. On the basis of this assertion, even leaving aside the observation that Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni is an employee of the state police, a public official charged with duties belonging to her office that go beyond professional obligations,

So exactly what is an unproven suspicion? Suspicion is perception based on other factors. Her failure to disclose the 'other' alleles when even she can't defend having done so justifies suspicion of her behavior. However, how she handled 36B - lying about Real Time PCR, documenting it as "positive" for DNA when it was negative (indeed, identical to the results of 36C, which was properly documented as negative), lying about the quantity of the sample - as well as lying about the use of TMB on the Luminol positive traces, are all reasons to not trust Stefanoni. That Nencini would make public his admiration of Stefanoni is questionable if not illogical. She did nothing to deserve getting the benefit of the doubt when it came to the accusation of Stefanoni using a "suspect-centric" method. I think it's equally obvious that she was tasked to find Meredith's DNA on the blade. When all her tests told her there was nothing on the blade she was stuck and so chose 36B, apparently employing that same 'intuition' the cops used when they first collected it.

 

[codyjuneau]

CCTV images of Rudy Guede frame by frame

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/cctv-images-of-rudy-guede/

CCTV images of white car frame by frame

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/cctv-images-of-white-car/

I wonder if the video image can be forensically enhanced to recover the car's license plate. It is clearly in the video frame, unless I'm mistaken. Perhaps that video is susceptible to enhancement, and the witness could be traced through the license plate?

Hard to imagine they wouldn't come forward, unless they were there for illicit business, like Kokomani, and didn't feel like coming forward only to be fitted up on a murder charge, which obviously is not out of Mignini's ball game. I wouldn't blame drug dealers for getting the hell out of dodge either, if they were in the vicinity of a high profile murder, given the police antics.

.
Thanks for the information Michael, you Bgood.

The last frame of the white car CCTV appears to show the light colored car either starting to go into the parkade, or starting to pull over to the side of the road. Are there any more frames after this? If not, do you know why?

CJ, in the parkade, and just before the electric barrier gate, on the driver's side, there is some kind of access control box. If the car went into the parkade, and if the driver is required to insert an identity card to to open the gate, it might still be possible to access the archived records using the timestamps on the video, to find out who owned the car (just like it might still be possible to find out who made the bomb threat phone call, or to find out exactly when the mechanic was called, or to retrieve the archived interrogations tapes, etc.).

It appears to me that the light colored car arrived and backed into the cottage driveway, just as the male was walking out of the parkade. Once backed in, the headlights were turned off. Then, after roughly 10 minutes, the headlights came on again, and the car slowly drove out of the driveway, and the final frame indicates that he might either be going into the parkade, or pulling over to the side of the road (roughly where I always assumed the broken down car was).

I am having trouble understanding how the tow truck videos (that MichaelB posted later) from Telecamera 7 and 11 relate to each other. Also what view of the tow truck are we seeing? Is there a reference picture of the tow truck anywhere?

I am also wondering if the two Telecameras use separate time-stamps, or share the same time-stamp. It would be interesting to see ALL the frames for these videos to see their relationship time wise, and otherwise.

Cody
.

 

[MichaelB]

Have a look at this. It's mentioned in the appeal. One of the stooges turned on the tap in the bathroom and washed away possible evidence within 2 hours of the body being discovered. Why?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSYSP8xR1vc

 

[codyjuneau]

.
Another thought on the CCTV videos. We have seen frames from Telecamera 7 of people looking out towards the street from 21:44 to 21:52 (uncorrected CCTV time) http://amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/cctv-perugia.jpg

Do we have the video capture from Telecamera 11 for that same time period. It might give an indication of what the people are looking at.

Cody
.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

You find it bizarre that commentators would find it interesting and relevant that an acknowledged world expert in (and founding father of) DNA profiling has publicly expressed his strong opinion - backed by a detailed and reasoned argument that itself is based on proper analysis - that the DNA evidence in this case is fatally flawed?

Frankly, I personally find it utterly bizarre that you find it bizarre. Firstly, you do realise (don't you?) that the debate here is as much about seeking the truth as it is about the narrower issue of whether Knox and/or Sollecito will be convicted in the Italian courts. And secondly, you obviously appear ignorant of the salient fact that the opinion of Gill (and others) may very well have an important part to play in the final judicial chapters of this sorry mess.

So are you suggesting that "judicial realities" are set in stone? There are plenty of people who've been fully exonerated after wrongful convictions who would disagree with you, I'd imagine.

And if you believe that the court's view is the only one of any importance, why are you even reading this thread, let alone writing comments such as this in it? Surely, by your reckoning, any sort of debate about the case here (i.e. outside of the courts) is worthless and pointless. I know if I thought that sort of thing about any particular issue I'd have to question just why I was reading and participating in the debate. For example, I think the argument that the Moon landings were a hoax is ridiculous and provably incorrect, so I don't see any value whatsoever in having a debate here (or anywhere else, for that matter) on the subject. Unsurprisingly, I don't visit (let alone post in) any Moon Landing Hoax threads here - and neither do I drop in on any of those threads to tell them that they're wasting their time

As previously stated Dr Gill was not called as a witness in the trial or subsequent appeals. Maybe you can provide an example of a trial judge taking into consideration an expert opinion someone who was never called as a witness in court.

I would imagine that a legal summary of this case has already been prepared along with submitted appeals from both defence teams and this will form the deliberations of court of cassation judges, so no it is not set in stone, but I do believe it is absurd to believe Dr Gill appearance on Italian TV last week will have any impact on deliberations next week.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

You are entitled to your point of view on these matters, but you are not fully correct in several respects. The Conti & Vecchiotti report continues to exist in the dossier of the court, as does the letter from Dr. Budowle regarding DNA. While the verdict of the Hellmann court was set aside (annulled) by the CSC, the records of the Hellmann court, including its testimonies and its motivation report, are not somehow destroyed by the annulment. All these dossier materials are extant and may be reviewed by the CSC or, if the murder case reaches it (as a claim against Italy for one or more violations of the Convention), by the ECHR.

Regarding Professor Peter Gill and his recent book, Misleading DNA Evidence: Reasons for Miscarriages of Justice, Raffaele Sollecito references Chapter 5 of that book in his recent appeal supplement to the CSC. Thus, Dr. Gill and his opinions, as expressed in the book chapter, are indeed before the CSC. He has summarized many of his opinions on the case and DNA analysis in his recent Italian TV interview. For the benefit of those interested, I copy here an English language summary of the part of Mr. Sollecito's appeal supplement relating to Dr. Gill's book. The summary may be found at: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/. {Bold emphasis and text in { } added.}

Ninth Reason:
The Limits of DNA Evidence.

It is fundamental that the judges of the Court of Cassation ask themselves what are the limits found by a judge during the assessment of a scientifically controversial result.

How has a judge to consider forensic evidence when different experts give opposed opinions on it?

What is certain is that the judge has to explain his choice extensively and without contradictions, but it is also certain that the forensic evidence itself must satisfy severe standards, namely that of beyond any reasonable doubt, before being used to convict.

To this end, the judge has to consider that DNA itself is not always a reliable tool, sometimes leading to out and out miscarriages of justice. This is the subject of a recent work by one of the most worldwide renown experts on the forensic use of DNA, Peter Gill.

In his book {Misleading DNA Evidence: Reasons for Miscarriages of Justice} Gill details how wrong conclusions can be drawn from a scientifically improper view of DNA as evidence, how much contamination is important and at the same time underestimated.

Miscarriages of justice may happen when DNA analysis is too concerned in finding matching profiles and neglects how and when the DNA was deposited.

The book also stresses the importance of strict controls on every link of the chain of recovery and custody of the evidence and also of a complete documentation, while in these proceedings we are still waiting for the Raw Data Files pertaining to the original 2007-2008 tests.

Therefore a judge cannot accept a given test result without having before ascertained the quality of the evidence, with a particular attention to determine “how, where and when” a given DNA was laid down.

Chapter Five of Gill’s work deals with the DNA in the Kercher case and his analysis fully supports the conclusions of the defense with respect to the lack of evidentiary value against the defendant of the DNA evidence collected and analyzed in this case.

Gosh; so you believe the judges assigned to deliberate this case next week have been (are) wading through dossier after dossier reading letters from Dr Budowle or extracts from Dr Gill’s book?

You could be right.

However, given the thousands of third level trials per year I believe it is just as likely that summaries are prepared for the deliberating judges; Italian Supreme Court researchers, lawyers and possible other judges prepare summaries including defence appeals, this is one of a thousands of cases that will be heard this year.

I’d be surprised if the defence is given more than an hour to argue their case.

But hey, I could be completely wrong, we’ll find out next week.

 

[Dan O.]

Have a look at this. It's mentioned in the appeal. One of the stooges turned on the tap in the bathroom and washed away possible evidence within 2 hours of the body being discovered. Why?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSYSP8xR1vc

Two possibilities: the paramedics washed up after verifying that Meredith was dead. They could not have needed to do this as they would be wearing disposable gloves. The other possibility is that "We washed the sink" is a generic phrase reffering to the perpetrators having washed in the sink.

If ther are already talking about using Luminol in the bathroom this first day, why do they spray the whole room in phenotheylin and turn everything pink?

 

[LondonJohn]

As previously stated Dr Gill was not called as a witness in the trial or subsequent appeals. Maybe you can provide an example of a trial judge taking into consideration an expert opinion someone who was never called as a witness in court.

I would imagine that a legal summary of this case has already been prepared along with submitted appeals from both defence teams and this will form the deliberations of court of cassation judges, so no it is not set in stone, but I do believe it is absurd to believe Dr Gill appearance on Italian TV last week will have any impact on deliberations next week.

*sigh*

OK. Here's a thought experiment for you. Supposing that, tomorrow, a piece of evidence turned up for the first time which totally exonerated Knox and Sollecito. Suppose, for example, that there had been a CCTV camera covering the entrance to Sollecito's apartment building, which had been constantly recording on the night of the murder, and which showed that Knox and Sollecito had entered the apartment building at (say) 5.30pm on the night of the murder and that neither had re-emerged from the apartment building until the following morning (repeat: this is a thought experiment. I'm not suggesting that such evidence is going to turn up....).

If such evidence did turn up at this stage, do you think it would be irrelevant? Do you think that since it had not been entered into evidence in any of the trial, it would have no potential bearing on the outcome? And aside from any impact on the trial process, do you think it would have any bearing in the search for the actual truth as to what happened that night in Perugia?