Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Kestrel]

Chris,

I notice that you have ignored what many people here have already said about the DNA evidence on the knife: that the most relevant evidence is how Sollecito came up with another unlikely ad hoc explanation for it. He said that Kercher's DNA was on the knife (whether or not it actually was) because she had pricked herself with the knife when she was cooking at his house. Since this explanation is a pretty desperate fabrication (no one else recalls Kercher ever visiting Sollecito's house), an objective observer is left to wonder why Sollecito and his defense team expected Kercher's DNA to be found on the knife instead of disputing the finding in toto.

Regardless of guilt or innocence of the accused, how does what happened in a courtroom make scientifically dubious claims into scientifically valid claims?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Sollecito's explanation

Mike,

I have dealt with this issue before, but perhaps this is a good time to say more. In response to a question of mine about the meaning of putting the knife into play, BobTheDonkey wrote, “As in, the knife is tied to Kercher. Which, really, is all the DNA evidence does. Since Sollecito's testimony does the same thing, there's no need for the DNA evidence.”

Let us construct a matrix of four possibilities. Either Kercher cut herself with Sollecito’s knife (as he says), or she did not. Either Kercher’s DNA was on the knife, or it is not. Let us say (1) that she did cut herself, and there is DNA present. Then there would be an innocent explanation for the DNA, and nothing ties it to the crime. Now let us say (2) that she did cut herself, but no DNA is present. This would be ascribed to someone’s cleaning the knife, but nothing would tie the knife to the crime. Now let us say (3) that she did not cut herself, and DNA was present. This would favor the prosecution’s case. Finally let us say (4) she did not cut herself, but no DNA is present. Thus nothing would tie the knife to the crime.

You make it clear that you doubt (1) and (2), but you do not give evidence that shows it to be impossible. For the sake of argument, let’s move on. Sollecito’s defense team did dispute the existence of the DNA, and I have stated the case here without scientific rebuttal from anyone. Therefore, (3) is excluded unless someone can offer evidence of its possibility. That leaves us with (4). This would indicate that Sollecito spoke falsely, but it would not tell us whether he did so knowingly or not.

I know that BobTheDonkey said, “Sollecito admitted that Kercher had come into contact with that particular knife, thus, the DNA evidence is valid.” However, Sollecito’s statement cannot bring DNA into existence, or take it out of existence for that matter. I am sorry to be rather blunt, but I don’t find that idea logical at all.

This will have to be my last lengthy post for some time.

Chris

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Mike,

I have dealt with this issue before, but perhaps this is a good time to say more. In response to a question of mine about the meaning of putting the knife into play, BobTheDonkey wrote, “As in, the knife is tied to Kercher. Which, really, is all the DNA evidence does. Since Sollecito's testimony does the same thing, there's no need for the DNA evidence.”

Let us construct a matrix of four possibilities. Either Kercher cut herself with Sollecito’s knife (as he says), or she did not. Either Kercher’s DNA was on the knife, or it is not. Let us say (1) that she did cut herself, and there is DNA present. Then there would be an innocent explanation for the DNA, and nothing ties it to the crime. Now let us say (2) that she did cut herself, but no DNA is present. This would be ascribed to someone’s cleaning the knife, but nothing would tie the knife to the crime. Now let us say (3) that she did not cut herself, and DNA was present. This would favor the prosecution’s case. Finally let us say (4) she did not cut herself, but no DNA is present. Thus nothing would tie the knife to the crime.

You make it clear that you doubt (1) and (2), but you do not give evidence that shows it to be impossible. For the sake of argument, let’s move on. Sollecito’s defense team did dispute the existence of the DNA, and I have stated the case here without scientific rebuttal from anyone. Therefore, (3) is excluded unless someone can offer evidence of its possibility. That leaves us with (4). This would indicate that Sollecito spoke falsely, but it would not tell us whether he did so knowingly or not.

I know that BobTheDonkey said, “Sollecito admitted that Kercher had come into contact with that particular knife, thus, the DNA evidence is valid.” However, Sollecito’s statement cannot bring DNA into existence, or take it out of existence for that matter. I am sorry to be rather blunt, but I don’t find that idea logical at all.

This will have to be my last lengthy post for some time.

Chris

Since you haven't bothered to read the thread, or do unbiased research, I find no need to continue this line of discussion. Fiona has posted quite a few times on the validity of the DNA evidence (scientific).

You are being disingenuous and I have better things to do with my time.

 

[NewtonTrino]

I'm still waiting for someone to give me a good theory about why Amanda and Rudy Guede would work together on this.

I'm not saying that motive it's necessary to prove motive in all murder cases. I don't care necessarily about motive itself but more of what the theory of the crime is. Do we have a consistent theory that fits all of the facts? I don't see anyone giving a good theory for why they would work together. Almost all of the evidence tying Amanda to Rudy is circumstantial or theoretical.

Keep in mind that my mind has been tremendously swayed but in this particular case I think it's important that a relationship be established between Knox and Guede. Maybe this bar is too high but I would rather let some guilty people go than convict innocents. I still have reasonable doubt that she was involved. There's just no reason to think Guede didn't act alone. Almost all of the other evidence is circumstantial or at least isn't 100% guaranteed in it's accuracy.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Sources

Since you haven't bothered to read the thread, or do unbiased research, I find no need to continue this line of discussion. Fiona has posted quite a few times on the validity of the DNA evidence (scientific).

You are being disingenuous and I have better things to do with my time.

BobTheDonkey,

I have read every post in this thread. I have quoted sources that are independent of the prosecution or defense. Fiona has quoted prosecution witnesses and has failed to support her claims about the supervising scientist. It is your statement that is mendacious, not mine.

Chris

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Since you haven't bothered to read the thread, or do unbiased research, I find no need to continue this line of discussion. Fiona has posted quite a few times on the validity of the DNA evidence (scientific).

You are being disingenuous and I have better things to do with my time.

BobTheDonkey,

Is it possible that you are unaware that my posts 557 and 558 specifically rebut one of Fiona's posts? That might explain your claim that I have not read this thread. If so, then I urge you to read them and reconsider your comments.

Chris

 

[quadraginta]

<snip useless misdirection>

I know that BobTheDonkey said, “Sollecito admitted that Kercher had come into contact with that particular knife, thus, the DNA evidence is valid.” However, Sollecito’s statement cannot bring DNA into existence, or take it out of existence for that matter. I am sorry to be rather blunt, but I don’t find that idea logical at all.

This will have to be my last lengthy post for some time.

Chris

Can't contradict the point, so you make one up. Bad form

It isn't that the DNA test is "valid", it is that the accuracy of the test becomes irrelevant when Sollecito supplies an account which indicates that DNA could be expected to be there. No, this doesn't prove that the testing was accurate. It does prove that the accuracy is not in dispute by the accused or their counsel. At that stage what needs proof or disproof is the truth of the account supplied by the accused.

Pissing and moaning about the DNA is a smokescreen only useful to discourage those who aren't paying attention.

If Sollecito didn't have some reason to expect DNA there he wouldn't have testified that he did, would he? What's left is to determine if the reason he offered is acceptable.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The science is worth discussing

Quadraginta,

I did not make anything up, rather I interpreted the meaning of the comments I quoted to the best of my ability, and it sounds as if Kestrel understood those comments to mean much the same as I did. For you to say that I made something up is not much better than BobTheDonkey’s claim that I was being disingenuous. Your statement, “It does prove that the accuracy is not in dispute by the accused or their counsel,” is factually and logically wrong. The defense’s argument is that the claim of DNA being present is dubious, and even if the DNA were there, an innocent explanation for it exists. The second half of their argument in no way invalidates the first.

I am not “pissing and moaning” about the DNA evidence; I am offering objections to it. Instead of anyone seriously engaging the arguments themselves, all I have received in return is personal attacks. If you cannot refute them, the courteous thing to do is to admit it and move on. BobTheDonkey and I may agree about one thing at this point. This discussion as it presently stands is unserious and not worth my time.

Chris

 

[Matthew Best]

Regardless of how the system works...she's either guilty or not and the evidence supports one or the other.

The point is that the evidence was compelling enough to convict her, what makes you think that somehow she's not guilty and would fail to win an appeal based on your system?

I take your point, but the system doesn't work by ignoring how the system works. However, as Fiona has pointed out, I was wrong about the presumption of guilt.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Quadraginta,

I did not make anything up, rather I interpreted the meaning of the comments I quoted to the best of my ability, and it sounds as if Kestrel understood those comments to mean much the same as I did. For you to say that I made something up is not much better than BobTheDonkey’s claim that I was being disingenuous. Your statement, “It does prove that the accuracy is not in dispute by the accused or their counsel,” is factually and logically wrong. The defense’s argument is that the claim of DNA being present is dubious, and even if the DNA were there, an innocent explanation for it exists. The second half of their argument in no way invalidates the first.

I am not “pissing and moaning” about the DNA evidence; I am offering objections to it. Instead of anyone seriously engaging the arguments themselves, all I have received in return is personal attacks. If you cannot refute them, the courteous thing to do is to admit it and move on. BobTheDonkey and I may agree about one thing at this point. This discussion as it presently stands is unserious and not worth my time.

Chris

As I've stated before, it doesn't matter if the DNA evidence on the knife is valid or not. Sollecito himself testified that Kercher had contact with the knife. Other testimony states that Sollectio was lying about Kercher's visit to his apt.

Why, Chris, would Sollecito attempt an innocent explanation for why Kercher's DNA was on the knife if he had no reason to believe the DNA evidence to be valid?

This, right here, this testimony verifies what the DNA expert found - that Kercher was in contact with the knife at some point. That is indisputable at this point. Not only do we have the DNA evidence, we have testimony from one of the killers. And he didn't testify that "maybe she pricked her finger." No, he affirmed it.

Guess what a Judge/Prosecution would say about it? Likely they would agree that the DNA testing is superfluous as Sollecito has testified that the blade was in contact with Kercher's blood. That's as cut and dry as can be.


And, I know, you'll continue to argue this sticking point - but that's because you're being disingenuous about the discussion. You don't care about honestly discussing this trial. Rather, you're only interested in supporting your pre-conceived notions regardless of what anyone else posts that destroys your position.

Take, for instance, this grasping at straws:

You: "No, the DNA evidence is invalid, see, here's a letter from scientists with a vested interest and no chance to run the tests themselves."

Other posters (myself included): "the DNA testing doesn't matter, Sollecito testified that it had been in Kercher's contact. Thus, the knife is irrefutably linked to her."

You: "irregardless, the DNA evidence isn't accurate."

Who cares if the DNA evidence is valid at this point. It's validity or lack-thereof will not exonerate Knox/Sollecito.

That, sir, is being disingenuous and approaching this discussion simply looking to justify your delusions. Have a nice day

 

[stilicho]

That is a curious detail. There has been a lot of speculation about it. Apparently she did not die quickly. Some have suggested that they left her dying and they had to take the cellphones to prevent her calling someone. Given the injuries that is not likely to have been possible: but perhaps they did not know that? It is all guesswork but fiction often portrays superhuman efforts from the nearly dead...

That's almost certainly the issue. I don't have the cite but in Italy it is considered actionable to leave someone in mortal danger. I don't know if they were thinking clearly enough to realise that but for some reason the murderer(s) thought leaving the cellphones at the scene of the crime would be a bad idea.

Remember that before being charged, Ms Knox told some of Meredith's friends that she had bled to death slowly. This is another part of the crime details that at least one suspect knew before the police did. And Ms Knox knew this even though the door to Meredith's room was locked when the postal police arrived.

The most probable scenario is that Guede fled very quickly but that Knox and Sollecito remained long enough to know that Meredith wasn't dead after the initial attack(s).

-----------

Here are the beginning of the PMF entries where Meredith's UK friends first explain Ms Knox' claims about the crime scene and the manner in which Meredith died:

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=4157#p4157

 

[Fiona]

Fiona,

In your comment on the DNA on page 6, part 1a, you wrote, that Dr. Stefanoni is an “internationally respected forensic scientist.” Can you support your statement?

http://www.repubblica.it/2008/10/se...-uccisa8/perugia-uccisa8/perugia-uccisa8.html

Stefanoni, 40 years, BA in Biological Sciences and former researcher in genetics from 2000 police-biologist and now technical director of the Section of Forensic Genetics-Scientific Rome

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wo...to_Await_DNA_Evidence_In_Perugia_Murder_Trial

The forensics specialists include chief of the Italian Scientific Police Unit in Rome, Patrizia Stefanoni.
She was part of the Disaster Investigations Team sent to the scene of the 2004 tsunami to identify victims.

It is her experience in this field is particularly important to the issues you are addressing

You wrote “There was not a big enough sample to allow for a re-test. That is certainly a problem, but it is not enough to overturn the finding.” It is important to bear in mind that low copy number (LCN) DNA profiling was the technique used on the knife: “Because LCN analysis by its nature is not reproducible, it cannot be considered as robust as that associated with conventional DNA typing.”

http://www.denverda.org/DNA_Documents/CMJ Budowle.pdf

Even with those far more stringent protocols, LCN profiles are not allowed as evidence by the vast majority of the world's courts. But let's take a look at these proposed procedures that attempt to place LCN testing on a more reproducible, reliable basis. That way, we can illuminate the deficiencies in Stefanoni's science improv technique.

But the problems with LCN and Dr. Stefanoni’s protocols are more serious. The following paragraphs are from http://www.sciencespheres.com/

Indeed. But your link it to a site which is frankly a disgrace. I will leave that for others to judge as to its worth.

The following quotes are all from the Crown Prosecution Service in the U.K. at: http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/lcn_testing.html This is from an article that supports the use of LCN.

“The FSS LCN test requires an ultra-clean laboratory and so is more expensive and less widely offered than the standard test.... The site of this bespoke laboratory is remote from other DNA Units, operates stringent entry requirements, is fitted with positive air pressure and specialist lighting and chemical treatments to minimize DNA contamination.”

Stefanoni's procedure, in sharp contrast to these requirements, was performed in an ordinary DNA analysis laboratory with other DNA units present. An ultra-clean laboratory, positive air pressure systems, and photo and chemical DNA sterilization are vital techniques to avoid contamination of samples within the laboratory. None of these facilities and procedures appears to have existed for Stefanoni's test. That makes four more technique deficiencies.

“In LCN testing, each sample is divided into three parts or aliquots, and two of these are tested. The third is retained for further testing in the event of a failure or to confirm the presence of a mixture.... Only those DNA components that are seen twice are included in any calculation, to show that the result is reproducible.”

Stefanoni used 20% of the sample to test for blood, which came out negative. Whatever was on the knife, it wasn't Meredith's blood. Then she tested all of the remaining material at once, so there was no possibility of comparing two results, and nothing left for further testing. By the standards of the Crown Prosecution Services, Stefanoni's results would be thrown out by either of these criteria. And that makes two more deficiencies.
[End of Quote]

Stefanoni was well aware of the problems and limitations of LCN testing. All the proper procedures were followed. You will note that the CPS states that because of the need for great care their own site is remote from other laboratories: it does not say this has to be the case. They are providing a service for the whole country and so have a dedicated facility. It is perfectly true that Stefanoni does not have a dedicated facility but she does know the requirements and has submitted a very long and detailed report about what was done and how it was done. She has also testified for many hours and been cross examined on her findings

Dr Stefanoni reported that the locus ascribable to Meredith and identified on the knife blade shows readings of 41 and 28 RFU. Conventionally, RFU values lower than 50 can be defined as low. But she maintained that the profile matched Meredith’s by explaining that there is no immediate correlation between the height of the peaks obtained by electropherogram and expressed in RFU, and the reliability of the biological investigation.

In fact “even if statistically - in most cases - the RFU data is directly proportional to the possibility of a certain interpretation of the analysis result, on the other side many cases of high peaks of difficult interpretation exist (because of background noises), as well as low peaks that are objectively unquestionable, hence the need to proceed to the examination of data that is apparently scarce, but that mustn’t be considered unreliable per se.”

*The use of multiplex PCR and fluorescent dye technology in the automated detection and analysis of short tandem repeat loci provides not only qualitative information about the profile - i.e. which alleles are present - but can provide also quantitative information on the relative intensities of the bands, and is therefore a measure of the amount of amplified DNA.”

So if on one side Dr Stefanoni admits that the RFU readings are low, on the other her experience suggests that many cases of unquestionable matches exist showing readings lower than 50 RFU, and this appears to be the case with Meredith’s DNA sample on the knife.

The fact remains that the DNA was the victim's DNA. The match was not "noise": it was in fact very good indeed and it was confirmed by 2 independent experts (Biondi and Torrricelli)who had the opportunity to examine the findings. You might prefer that the problems in doing this type of work had rendered it impossible or had given ambiguous results: but they didn't. The rest is just smoke from a rabid site. Once again we have more of the "something could have happened": and so it could. It just so happens that there is not a shred of evidence that it did.

You wrote “One may regret the lack of a retest but it does not seem that the defence are arguing that the dna was not there at all.” I find this statement absolutely bewildering. The point of doing a retest is to see whether the DNA is really there or not.

Nope. A retest is certainly desirable. But one clear and unambiguous result is one clear and unambiguous result. Given Dr Stefanoni's work in identifying disaster victims this gives some insight into the kind of work which is required and which I would contend makes her particularly fitted to deal with the current problem.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...aCPLA8&sig=AHIEtbQnS_DkNGSgZnKwM9U6t7B-WsGYiQ

4.1 DNA extraction
Laboratories performing forensic casework will be properly equipped to extract a wide range of samples from minute bloodstains and tissue fragments, to semen stains and saliva swabs. These laboratories will be able to use their own established extraction protocols and there is no need for changing procedures unless the sample number requires a new high throughput method. The situation may be different for clinical or paternity testing laboratories where the extraction methods are not designed for small compromised samples. The extraction step is critical for the human remains and the
personal effects. Both sample types can be limited, compromised and might yield low amounts of DNA. It is critical that the laboratory has experience with compromised samples and that the selected extraction method has been optimized for maximum yield and typing success.

One way to improve the success rate for degraded DNA is to utilize redesigned STR primers that generate shorter amplicons (18-24). Several STR systems with size- reduced fragments were used in collaborative European exercises on artificially degraded DNA and gave complete and correct results (25, 26).

You wrote “She said that there has been no instance of contamination of this sort in her lab in the last 7 years. She pointed to the fact that no DNA from any of her team was found on any of the objects tested:” But Dr. Stefanoni did not perform negative controls, or if she did, she did not report them.

So you have read her detailed report? I have not. Can you link please

You also wrote, “the knife was found and put in a plastic bag, which was then put into a box. There does not seem to be any possibility of contamination at that stage” However, the US department of Justice advises, “Put evidence into new paper bags or envelopes, not into plastic bags.” (http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/nij/bc000614.txt)

Probably good advice. I do not know.

Dr Waterbury summarizes (http://www.sciencespheres.com/) the problems in the LCN DNA analysis of the knife:
So we see that in roughly nine distinct ways, Stefanoni's improv LCN DNA profiling was even worse than unproven and inadmissible LCN DNA profiling tests.

Do you read what you write? I am having a little trouble reconciling this characterisation with the link you provided to the CPS where it says:

LCN methods have been used as evidence in a number of countries, ie; United States (New York), New Zealand, Holland, Italy, Germany, Croatia, Austria and Switzerland. Other countries including Belgium, Sweden, United States, Australia, Canada, Cayman Islands and Bermuda have requested this type of analysis from the FSS, who provided statements and scientists to attend Court.

Not inadmissible, so far as I can see

And my own link shows that LCN techniques have been shown to be reliable in pratice: so not, I think, unproven.

For the rest: it comes from the same site and I am not prepared to waste my time searching through it. So let me ask you some questions instead

1. The DNA wasn't amplified enough; the very weak fluorescence was simply blown up.

How much was it amplified? How much should it have been amplified? What is the significance of this?

2. The test site was not remote from other DNA tests to avoid contamination.

Where is the evidence of contamination?

3. Specialized LCN-quality entry procedures to avoid contamination were not used.

What is your evidence for this? What is the significance of it?

4. A positive pressure environment was not maintained to exclude contamination.

What is your evidence for this? What is the significance of it?

5. Special LCN sterilization procedures to destroy errant DNA were not used.

What is your evidence for this? What is the significance of it?

6. The entire sample was consumed in a single test; no comparison of tests was possible.

Absolutely correct. What is your point?

7. No sample was retained for future reference. The test can never be reproduced.

Absolutely correct. What is your point?

8. No negative control tests were run to check for contamination.

What is your evidence for this?

9. No control tests to check for field contamination were performed.
[End of Quote]

What is your evidence for this?

Now let us turn to the open letter signed by nine DNA experts and see what they say about the knife. A pdf file can be found here: http://www.friendsofamanda.org/articles.html
They say that it is unlikely that the knife could be cleaned of all traces of blood yet retain enough DNA to produce a profile of the victim. They discuss that the highest peak in the electropherogram is only about 100 relative fluorescence units with many falling between 20-50. They note the lack of ability to reproduce this result, and they also note that electronic files that would allow independent analysis of the data have not been disclosed. They conclude, “No credible scientific evidence has been presented to associate this kitchen knife with the murder of Meredith Kercher.”

We have been through this. By their own admission they have not seen the evidence. Equally well qualified experts who have seen the evidence do not agree.

 

[Fiona]

Fiona,

With respect to the bra clasp you wrote on p. 13 that the DNA was “firmly-fixed.” This language might suggest that the DNA did not arise from transfer. However, the letter from nine forensic scientists I cited in a previous comment note, “DNA testing cannot determine how biological material was deposited onto an item of evidence.”

You can read into my language anything you like. I can't stop you

You wrote on p. 6, “aside from this case, there does not seem to be anyone who is denying that Dr Stefanoni is respected in her field.” This may technically be true, but Dr. Waterbury’s demolition of the LCN DNA tests performed under her direction raise extremely serious issues surrounding her credibility, as my previous comment discussed.

I await your link to her detailed report

The bra clasp would be expected to pick up dust. Dr. Waterbury (http://www.sciencespheres.com/) wrote, “Testing a few other items from that pile to see if they, too, had picked up DNA dust from the floor would tell us whether there was anything special about the clasp. Of course, that wasn't done.” With respect to a video posted at this site, he wrote, “The handling of the clasp when it was retrieved from the scene is shown in the video above. The investigators, dressed in fancy white outfits, seem to play some kind of game with it. Why the outfits? They do nothing to prevent mixing contamination of the material at the scene. As shown in the closeup picture, the outfits, and their gloves, quickly become contaminated by DNA from various sources at the scene which can then be transferred to the evidence.”

I await the link to the video

 

[stilicho]

Do we have a consistent theory that fits all of the facts? I don't see anyone giving a good theory for why they would work together. Almost all of the evidence tying Amanda to Rudy is circumstantial or theoretical.

The prosecution supplied one and, while the details or motives or words may be disputed, the theory is credible.

There's just no reason to think Guede didn't act alone. Almost all of the other evidence is circumstantial or at least isn't 100% guaranteed in it's accuracy.

There are overwhelming reasons to think Guede didn't act alone.

[1] He did not lock Meredith's door.

[2] He was not there when the "burglary" was set up.

[3] Prints and DNA evidence not belonging to him were found in the cottage and in Meredith's room.

[4] He did not move the body later. He was somewhere else and his movements after the attack and before the discovery of the body are corroborated.

That's just a thumbnail of the many many reasons we know beyond a reasonable doubt that Guede did not act alone.

I have another question for you since you didn't reply to my question about where you would have begun your investigation upon discovering a body inside a key-locked room with no other point of entry. Maybe you can answer them both at the same time:

What evidence--beyond that accepted by the court for Sollecito's and Knox' guilt--would you find acceptable?

 

[Fiona]

I'm still waiting for someone to give me a good theory about why Amanda and Rudy Guede would work together on this.

I'm not saying that motive it's necessary to prove motive in all murder cases. I don't care necessarily about motive itself but more of what the theory of the crime is. Do we have a consistent theory that fits all of the facts? I don't see anyone giving a good theory for why they would work together. Almost all of the evidence tying Amanda to Rudy is circumstantial or theoretical.

What evidence ties them together in your opinion?

Keep in mind that my mind has been tremendously swayed but in this particular case I think it's important that a relationship be established between Knox and Guede. Maybe this bar is too high but I would rather let some guilty people go than convict innocents. I still have reasonable doubt that she was involved. There's just no reason to think Guede didn't act alone. Almost all of the other evidence is circumstantial or at least isn't 100% guaranteed in it's accuracy.

What makes you think there is no evidence Guede did not act alone?

 

[stilicho]

We have been through this. By their own admission they have not seen the evidence. Equally well qualified experts who have seen the evidence do not agree.

There are relevant posts on PMF here:

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=19669#p19669
http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=22923#p22923

The first link (for those who don't like to read my links) follows the original requests by the Knox and Sollecito defence teams for a "super-expert" in the case of the DNA evidence. That happened in early OCT 2009. When those requests were denied by the court, the Knox team put together the DNA experts (they could only find nine to sign an open letter purporting to be in opposition!?) cited above.

This is worse than the efforts of Richard Gage who at least managed to find a few hundred architects and engineers to oppose the NIST reports. And they're still wrong!

As I said before, the teams are absolutely grasping at the DNA straw, possibly for the appeal, although they appear to be changing tack recently in praising the Italian justice system. The most recent suggestion is that the Knox team is going to try to get Ms Knox an arrangement to serve out her sentence in a US prison. I am still not sure that's the greatest idea since she stands a better chance of serving less time in Italy.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

The most recent suggestion is that the Knox team is going to try to get Ms Knox an arrangement to serve out her sentence in a US prison. I am still not sure that's the greatest idea since she stands a better chance of serving less time in Italy.

That might not be so accurate. Given the US media blitz and the resulting ethnocentrism, apparent in this thread, I could see bringing Knox to the US to serve likely resulting in a very early release.

 

[Matthew Best]

I await the link to the video

I believe it's supposed to be this one:

 

[Grenel]

The cartwheel is immaterial and a red herring - all it tells us is that the person doing the cartwheel was likely in an unstable emotional state at that time - no one in a stable emotional state would do a cartwheel in a police station no matter what reason they were there. Unless of course they were demonstrating a new cartwheel-based martial art. . .

 

[quadraginta]

The cartwheel is immaterial and a red herring - all it tells us is that the person doing the cartwheel was likely in an unstable emotional state at that time - no one in a stable emotional state would do a cartwheel in a police station no matter what reason they were there. Unless of course they were demonstrating a new cartwheel-based martial art. . .

Thanks. I was afraid we weren't going to be able to get a resolution to the cartwheel question. That's a big relief.