Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

C&V failed to test sample 36(i), as they were instructed by the court, falsely claimed it was "too LCN", falsely claimed it was vegetable starch and the guys from Rome demonstrated they were a couple of fraudsters, as it was testable - and with new technology, replicable - and was the DNA of Amanda.

It was C&V who had their knuckles rapped, not Dr.Stefanoni.

36i is an example of circumstantial evidence which has absolutely no probative value. Amanda's DNA on a kitchen knife she used for the purpose for which it was designed - whether you think it might also have been used in the murder or not, doesn't matter. Now, her fingerprint in Kercher's blood on the knife would be a different matter - rather crucial circumstantial evidence. But of course, there was no blood anywhere on the knife, which the prosecution said was bleach cleaned, yet DNA was found. This is an insurmountable problem for a pro guilt interpretation of the knife. And that's before we get on to the size of ALL the wounds being incompatible with its use as a weapon in the murder.

 

[acbytesla]

C&V failed to test sample 36(i), as they were instructed by the court, falsely claimed it was "too LCN", falsely claimed it was vegetable starch and the guys from Rome demonstrated they were a couple of fraudsters, as it was testable - and with new technology, replicable - and was the DNA of Amanda.

It was C&V who had their knuckles rapped, not Dr.Stefanoni.

Do you lie about everything Vixen? Because all three of those things are lies. But hey, prove them. Provide the citations to back your lies up.

1. C&V WERE NOT instructed to test 36I. Hellman said testing it was unnecessary. The Cheiffi court said that Hellman was wrong and should have ordered to have it tested. It was tested in the Nencini trial and nothing incriminating was found,

2.There is no evidence of and none of the judges said that C&V did anything false or unethical.

3. C&V did not have their knuckles rapped. However, the Marasca court tore into Stefanoni's work.

But hey, the truth HAS NEVER MATTERED TO YOU.

 

[Vixen]

<snip>

Also, Marasca reasoned that Nencini was irrational for not suspecting Filomena and Laura, as much as Raffaele, since they also didn't know Rudy nor had ever met him, just like Raf. An unexpected flourish of rationality!

<snip>

.

Blimey. Marasca really is taking the p***.

 

[Kauffer]

1. Motive is typically an inference derived from circumstantial evidence or testimonial evidence.

2. Circumstantial evidence, as I understand it, is evidence that is not derived from testimony, which is, of course, testimonial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence - facts other than the fact attempted to be proven. Testimony can provide both direct or indirect evidence. Forensic evidence, for example, is circumstantial evidence.

Also:

If I witness you breaking into a shop - that's direct evidence.
If I witness you running away from the shop after the alarm rings - that's circumstantial evidence (if we are trying to prove that you broke in to the shop)

 

[Grinder]

Motive is a form of circumstantial evidence. It's a circumstance from which a fact may be inferred, which is what all circumstantial evidence is.

Yes ole brilliance but a very weak form of circumstantial though easy for the weaker minds to comprehend.

Your definition is a bit misleading for many as well, while being conventional. Circumstantial evidence is all evidence which isn't direct AFAIK. Direct evidence is some form of witness evidence including confessions.

 

[anglolawyer]

1. Motive is typically an inference derived from circumstantial evidence or testimonial evidence.

2. Circumstantial evidence, as I understand it, is evidence that is not derived from testimony, which is, of course, testimonial evidence.

Utterly meaningless.

 

[acbytesla]

I've argued with Grinder a lot about the importance of motive. I think when there is a significant amount of circumstantial evidence motive provides the necessary context. In this case, there is not enough circumstantial evidence and ZERO credible evidence of motive.

 

[Planigale]

C&V failed to test sample 36(i), as they were instructed by the court, falsely claimed it was "too LCN", falsely claimed it was vegetable starch and the guys from Rome demonstrated they were a couple of fraudsters, as it was testable - and with new technology, replicable - and was the DNA of Amanda.

It was C&V who had their knuckles rapped, not Dr.Stefanoni.

http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/File:actuarial.png

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, you really need to understand that the (lack of) size of the peaks corresponding to Meredith's alleles means that the probability the peaks were due to contamination is dramatically higher. i.e. it wasn't actually on the knife. This is why peaks below a certain size are discarded. Also, LCN protocol wasn't followed. Meaning the results weren't reliable. i.e. the DNA wasn't actually on the knife and was due to innocent transfer or lab contamination.

There was no blood on the knife. If the knife was used to kill Meredith and it was cleaned, it would have removed the DNA as well. i.e. we know it wasn't used to kill Meredith because there was no blood. There was starch on the knife. It wasn't cleaned. We therefore know the DNA was there due to contamination/innocent transfer. Every expert that has looked at this case has said the exact same thing. The knife doesn't even match the wounds. What on earth do you want? For god's sake, the top forensic geneticist in the world dedicated a chapter in his book to how the evidence didn't implicate Amanda and Raf because it was unreliable and misleading. If you don't understand the basic principles of forensic science, then there is no stronger evidence than the top forensic geneticist in the world (and every other expert who has looked at the case) saying the evidence against Amanda and Raf is bunk. If you do know molecular genetics, then you know it's bunk already.

Do you ever notice that every time you fact check your "sources" they are wrong, so maybe the top forensic geneticist in the world is a bit more reliable for information on molecular genetics?

Dr Gill writes a commercial book for the popular market, to line his coffers, and you believe this is of evidentiary standard in a court of law? This is a murder, not a parlour game.

Gill didn't even see the evidence first hand.

He's a disgrace.

 

[anglolawyer]

Yes ole brilliance but a very weak form of circumstantial though easy for the weaker minds to comprehend.

Your definition is a bit misleading for many as well, while being conventional. Circumstantial evidence is all evidence which isn't direct AFAIK. Direct evidence is some form of witness evidence including confessions.

It's not a weak form. It might be weak in this case but strong in that. Life is too complicated and infinite to formulate such rules. Your schtick that motive is irrelevant or unimportant is just wrong. How could we figure out who shot JR without motive? . You try to dismiss the lack of motive in this case only because it suits your argument that it was reasonable to suspect them. Their lack of any credible motive is a huge problem which ties the guilters up in knots. There is a good reason for that.

Direct evidence is not 'some form of witness evidence' (almost all evidence is given by witnesses - duh) but rather direct evidence of a fact. The subject of the distinction between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence is extremely tedious and unuseful - otherwise I would devote several pages to it Think yourself lucky I am merciful.

 

[anglolawyer]

I've argued with Grinder a lot about the importance of motive. I think when there is a significant amount of circumstantial evidence motive provides the necessary context. In this case, there is not enough circumstantial evidence and ZERO credible evidence of motive.

In this particular case, I'm on your side of the argument. Motive is important.

 

[Vixen]

This is why I keep asking and Vixen keeps demurring in providing an example of a murder knife with DNA but no blood on it.

I have also tried to point out that the amount of material Steffi found was incredibly small, the reason it couldn't be tested twice AIUI. I calculated the amount to be less than 1/100,000 of a grain of salt.

The blood washed away, obviously. You can see the striation on the knife where it was plainly scoured by some kind of steel wool, or abrasive bleach powder. The DNA found was lodged within one of these grooves. There is no law that says it has to be blood. It could be skin, or tissue.

 

[acbytesla]

Hey Vixen. I just called you out for posting 3 more lies to this forum. I would think you would want a retraction and an apology. So? Are you going to post court citations to back up your posts or are you satisfied that these are lies?

 

[Kauffer]

The blood washed away, obviously. You can see the striation on the knife where it was plainly scoured by some kind of steel wool, or abrasive bleach powder. The DNA found was lodged within one of these grooves. There is no law that says it has to be blood. It could be skin, or tissue.

Huh? You're saying that the rigorous cleaning caused the striation within which the DNA of Kercher was lodged? That's madness! Cart before horse; chicken before egg. Your argument must be that the DNA was already there, which would mean it wasn't cleaned, which in turn means the absence of blood is indicative of it not being the murder weapon, or, alternatively, that the knife was rigorously cleaned, but that the striation was so deep and textured that the DNA lodged within was so securely lodged that it couldn't be shifted. But that doesn't work either, because Amanda's DNA is also present, but not within either a real or imagined striation.

Either the knife was cleaned or it wasn't. Whatever you want to choose, you must argue logically from your choice.

 

[bagels]

The blood washed away, obviously. You can see the striation on the knife where it was plainly scoured by some kind of steel wool, or abrasive bleach powder. The DNA found was lodged within one of these grooves. There is no law that says it has to be blood. It could be skin, or tissue.

If only they dumped the knife where they dumped the steel wool and bleach powder can but Raffs landlord is the Rain Man of knives and would have noticed when they replaced a $15 chefs knife.

 

[Numbers]

Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence - facts other than the fact attempted to be proven. Testimony can provide both direct or indirect evidence. Forensic evidence, for example, is circumstantial evidence.

Also:

If I witness you breaking into a shop - that's direct evidence.
If I witness you running away from the shop after the alarm rings - that's circumstantial evidence (if we are trying to prove that you broke in to the shop)

Utterly meaningless.

Yup, I got my definitions mixed up, circumstantial v. testimonial, indirect v. direct evidence.

Here is a better definition:

Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence which creates an inference from which a main fact may be inferred. For example, circumstantial evidence of a murder is not based on first-hand eyewitness accounts, but may consist of threats made, fingerprints at the crime scene, or the presence of the accused in the vicinity of the crime.

Direct evidence, such as eyewitness testimony, is generally considered more powerful, but successful criminal prosecutions often rely largely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. When circumstantial evidence is cumulative, the weakness of such circumstantial evidence is strengthened.

Source: http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/circumstantial-evidence/

However, motive is in practice usually inferred from other evidence [which is what I should have stated in my first post]. For example, a spouse takes out a life insurance policy of his/her marital partner soon before the murder of the marital partner. A motive may be inferred from the evidence of the insurance and timing. Of course, sometimes a person will state his/her motive.

 

[acbytesla]

Dr Gill writes a commercial book for the popular market, to line his coffers, and you believe this is of evidentiary standard in a court of law? This is a murder, not a parlour game.

Gill didn't even see the evidence first hand.

He's a disgrace.

A disgrace is someone who posts about 10 lies in a few days and they aren't even being paid for it.

And that person accused another on this forum of lying through ommision, but in fact that was just one of her lies.

But hey, if you want to start providing court citations to back up ANYTHING that you post, well then I'd owe you an apology.

 

[Grinder]

It's not a weak form. It might be weak in this case but strong in that. Life is too complicated and infinite to formulate such rules. Your schtick that motive is irrelevant or unimportant is just wrong. How could we figure out who shot JR without motive? . You try to dismiss the lack of motive in this case only because it suits your argument that it was reasonable to suspect them. Their lack of any credible motive is a huge problem which ties the guilters up in knots. There is a good reason for that.

Motive is the why not the how or the proof. Many a crime has been dubbed senseless just because of that. Motive is not necessary and only motive isn't enough generally though Scott Peterson was convicted mostly because of it. On the other hand strong circumstantial is enough even in the total absence of motive. A bloody finger print on the knife and in the murder room is pretty damning without an excellent explanation. Better yet power residue on the hand and jacket, prints on the gun that produced markings that matched the bullet markings of the fatal bullet. Who would be convicted, the person that sworn to kill the person or the best friend that had the circumstantial evidence of powder and prints on the gun.

Direct evidence is not 'some form of witness evidence' (almost all evidence is given by witnesses - duh) but rather direct evidence of a fact. The subject of the distinction between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence is extremely tedious and unuseful - otherwise I would devote several pages to it Think yourself lucky I am merciful.

Direct evidence is witnessing of the act (crime). "I saw Tom shoot Linda" is direct evidence and is always some form of testimony. Direct evidence may be a fact or a fiction.

 

[JREF2010]

Ive caught up some reading...the knife, what a flop for the prosecution. why didnt Stefonani test 36i?

Things we know now-
1) The world is not flat.
2) Amanda and Raffaele didnt have anything to do with the murder.

in other words....
1) the world is round
2) rudy guede is a rapist, thief, murderer , liar

more to come, once Rudy can speak freely from his new home in Kenya......or Albania...there he can sell his story and not end up like Toto.
Rudy can write a book titled "I WAS THERE"...and How Migninni, Matteini and Maresca oiled up the Fast Track for me- Chapter 3

 

[bagels]

Motive is the why not the how or the proof. Many a crime has been dubbed senseless just because of that. Motive is not necessary and only motive isn't enough generally though Scott Peterson was convicted mostly because of it. On the other hand strong circumstantial is enough even in the total absence of motive. A bloody finger print on the knife and in the murder room is pretty damning without an excellent explanation. Better yet power residue on the hand and jacket, prints on the gun that produced markings that matched the bullet markings of the fatal bullet. Who would be convicted, the person that sworn to kill the person or the best friend that had the circumstantial evidence of powder and prints on the gun.



Direct evidence is witnessing of the act (crime). "I saw Tom shoot Linda" is direct evidence and is always some form of testimony. Direct evidence may be a fact or a fiction.

I think motive, especially in this case, goes beyond did so-and-so have a reason to kill. It's their motivation to engage in a plausible narrative. AK and RS at 8:40 learn their evening is free. Within 20 minutes they grab their biggest chef's knife to kill Meredith with in Amanda's own house, hope she's actually home, then recruit the local burglar on the way for no reason, and he agrees to tag along and rape the corpse for good measure. These actions are a sequence of social non sequiturs compounding on one another. It's evidence it didn't happen. Could it override AK's blood prints on the knife, no, but lots of different types of credible and probative evidence could be weighed against each other in such a manner.