Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[katy_did]

As far as I know, he was not told Meredith's DNA was found on the knife, I believe he saw a report about it on the television news. He has not spoken to the police since his arrest, and he had time to think how to respond to this information (if at all).

He wrote about cooking and pricking Meredith with the big knife lie in his prison diary. An innocent person, even if they knew little about DNA, would have said there is no way in hell that Meredith's DNA could be found on that knife. It has to be some sort of mistake.

He didn't.

If the only place he said it is in his prison diary, it's even less significant than I thought and will have no impact on the appeal, which was the original topic (sounds like it wasn't even raised in the court case itself).

I'm interested in objective, hard evidence, not what Sollecito wrote in response to information he didn't have the knowledge to refute. As I said, my doubts about the verdict are based on the fact the two key pieces of evidence are dubious, not on what Sollecito did or didn't write in his diary.

 

[piktor]

If the bra clasp don't fit... you still gotta convict

However I personally do not think the forensic evidence is all that crucial to the conviction

Circumstantial cases need a good narrative. The best narrative wins.

Forensics of minute allelle and nanogram import, as have been discussed here will not matter to the judges that much because, mostly, they are trained lawyers, not molecular biologists with a doctorate in forensic genetics under their belt.

There are other forensics at play here. The old fashioned type: blood splatter analysis, defensive wound and trauma force imprints on the victim. Alibis that don't exonerate, the web of tales coming from the accused, etc.

Then, Italian courts allow "character analysis" of the accused as legitimate evidence. In this case, it is a huge hurdle for the defence. Does anyone here buy Bongiorno's "Seattle's Eloise" ethereal utterance about Knox?

You can discard the molecular minutiae and the shaky nanogram discord and the judges still have lots of good old fashioned policework material to convict with.

AND, this case is tried under Italian law and Italian rules, not under American, British or International laws and procedures. Knox and her Italian lawyer have both stated this trial has been fair, despite Sen. Maria Cantwell and her pointless protestations.

 

[Alt+F4]

If the only place he said it is in his prison diary, it's even less significant than I thought and will have no impact on the appeal, which was the original topic (sounds like it wasn't even raised in the court case itself).

I'm interested in objective, hard evidence, not what Sollecito wrote in response to information he didn't have the knowledge to refute. As I said, my doubts about the verdict are based on the fact the two key pieces of evidence are dubious, not on what Sollecito did or didn't write in his diary.

Not having the knowledge to refute this information is one thing, making up an elaborate lie to attempt to explain it is something quite different.

Sollecito has an explaination for why Meredith's DNA was found on the big knife. Why don't you consider that objective, hard evidence?

As for the diary itself, I believe it was seized by the police then later sold to the media to help pay for Sollecito's defense. I don't know if it was presented as evidence at the trial, if it wasn't, then you can bet we'll see it at the appeal.

If Sollecito isn't denying the DNA evidence, why should you? As for Amanda Knox, if she were given the opportunity to have a separate appeal she might win. As long as her fate is tied to his, she's doomed to many years in an Italian prison. The evidence of his guilt is overwhelming.

 

[Alt+F4]

Then, Italian courts allow "character analysis" of the accused as legitimate evidence. In this case, it is a huge hurdle for the defence. Does anyone here buy Bongiorno's "Seattle's Eloise" ethereal utterance about Knox?

I would have thought a "character analysis" of Amanda Knox would have helped her case. She has no history of violence, no motive and barely knew the two other defendents. God knows why her PR machine didn't even try to stop the media from referring to Sollecito as her "boyfriend". They knew each other for less than two weeks before the murder. buddy would have been the more accurate term, boyfriend implies she might at a minumum be willing to lie for him.

 

[katy_did]

Not having the knowledge to refute this information is one thing, making up an elaborate lie to attempt to explain it is something quite different.

Sollecito has an explaination for why Meredith's DNA was found on the big knife. Why don't you consider that objective, hard evidence?

As for the diary itself, I believe it was seized by the police then later sold to the media to help pay for Sollecito's defense. I don't know if it was presented as evidence at the trial, if it wasn't, then you can bet we'll see it at the appeal.

If Sollecito isn't denying the DNA evidence, why should you? As for Amanda Knox, if she were given the opportunity to have a separate appeal she might win. As long as her fate is tied to his, she's doomed to many years in an Italian prison. The evidence of his guilt is overwhelming.

Simply, I don't consider Sollecito's words to be the 'hard evidence' you apparently do. He assumed the DNA on the knife to be a fact, not something he could simply deny and it would magically disappear. Why would he have any reason to doubt the results the Scientific Police had come up with, having no scientific knowledge himself?

For me, it's clear that someone put in this situation is more likely to seek an innocent explanation for the fact he's presented with than to call the police liars. For you, this is evidence as to his guilt. Either way, I think the appeal will focus on hard scientific evidence, not a speculative sentence in a journal.

 

[Alt+F4]

Simply, I don't consider Sollecito's words to be the 'hard evidence' you apparently do. He assumed the DNA on the knife to be a fact, not something he could simply deny and it would magically disappear. Why would he have any reason to doubt the results the Scientific Police had come up with, having no scientific knowledge himself?

Then why didn't he just say he had no idea how the DNA could have gotten on the knife (or more wisely say nothing)? Instead, he made up an elaborate lie to explain it. He knew that knife had been used on Meredith. His defense team just can't sweep his admission under the rug.

 

[katy_did]

Then why didn't he just say he had no idea how the DNA could have gotten on the knife (or more wisely say nothing)? Instead, he made up an elaborate lie to explain it. He knew that knife had been used on Meredith. His defense team just can't sweep his admission under the rug.

He would certainly have been wiser to say nothing, but this is easy to see in hindsight. As I said, he was presented with information he presumed to be a fact. How could he have denied it was there, when he believed there was hard scientific evidence to show it was?

If you can't see how he could have grasped for an innocent explanation when presented with presumably solid scientific evidence, then OK. I disagree, and very much doubt the prosecution will use this in the appeal (don't you think they would have already done so, if they believed it to be important?). The case won't come down to what Sollecito wrote in his diary.

 

[shuttlt]

If you can't see how he could have grasped for an innocent explanation when presented with presumably solid scientific evidence, then OK.

Bit of a quibble, but it's not really grasping for an innocent explanation, so much as making up an untrue innocent explanation. The way you put it, I read it as if he's truthfully trying to reconcile the facts as he knows them with the story of the DNA.

 

[Fulcanelli]

If the only place he said it is in his prison diary, it's even less significant than I thought and will have no impact on the appeal, which was the original topic (sounds like it wasn't even raised in the court case itself).

I'm interested in objective, hard evidence, not what Sollecito wrote in response to information he didn't have the knowledge to refute. As I said, my doubts about the verdict are based on the fact the two key pieces of evidence are dubious, not on what Sollecito did or didn't write in his diary.

So, things the accused say 'do not matter'? My, how convenient.

His diary was always intended for public consumption. His family sold copies of it to the media and originally, the defence claimed to have intended to use it in his defence. Furthermore, since it was written by his own hand and relates to the crime, it also qualifies as a legal document and therefore, evidence.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I have followed this thread from the beginning, but have left posters like Fiona and Fulcanelli to make the running.

I have to say that this is the most ludicrous post in the whole thread.

Agreed, although it has some stiff competition.

 

[Fulcanelli]

You're quite right. Knox and Sollecito going back into the room hours later to stage a sexual assault on top of a sexual assault is a far more likely possibility, and not at all ludicrous.

Finally, you've got something exactly right.

 

[Fulcanelli]

In terms of the appeal, under the Italian system it's essentially a new trial, of course, so no new evidence needs to be presented for them to be acquitted; the court simply needs to come to a different conclusion based on the existing evidence, which given its controversial nature is very possible. The refusal of the judge to allow an independent review of any of the forensic evidence will doubtless help, too.

Why, you think the defence have something 'new' to present? Or, the same old tired arguments that led 8 judges to a unanimous guilty verdict?

Only 12% of Italian appeals result in the overturning of a guilty verdict.

I think you're deluding yourself.

 

[Fulcanelli]

He would certainly have been wiser to say nothing, but this is easy to see in hindsight. As I said, he was presented with information he presumed to be a fact. How could he have denied it was there, when he believed there was hard scientific evidence to show it was?

If you can't see how he could have grasped for an innocent explanation when presented with presumably solid scientific evidence, then OK. I disagree, and very much doubt the prosecution will use this in the appeal (don't you think they would have already done so, if they believed it to be important?). The case won't come down to what Sollecito wrote in his diary.

Newsflash...the guilty also grasp for innocent explanations.

 

[piktor]

I would have thought a "character analysis" of Amanda Knox would have helped her case. She has no history of violence, no motive and barely knew the two other defendents.

I could not convict Knox on her school achievements. I would exonerate her with flying colors.

There is this little contratemps at Pergola 7 that has the world in a fit. I am not privy to the wealth of information the more than 20 judges reviewing this case have had access to. They have all agreed that the investigation is correct and the accused belong in jail. The verdict handed down last December, after a year-long trial, was unanimous.

Knox has said it has been a fair trial. Her Italian lawyer has said it has been a fair trial.

Again, the narrative spelled by the defence does not fly with the people that sit in judgement.

One of the judges reviewing her jailed status and deciding not to grant her bail said at her ruling that Knox should remain in jail or "she could kill again". How's that for judicial constipation.

I believe Ms. Knox is intelligent, above average, really, and a good, hard working scholar.

She has failed miserably in the biggest test of her life. She is not a believable witness and her own obfuscations and equivocations have landed her where she is now, rightfully so.

 

[Kestrel]

You're quite right. Knox and Sollecito going back into the room hours later to stage a sexual assault on top of a sexual assault is a far more likely possibility, and not at all ludicrous.

You should have added a smilie to this post. True believers often take subtile satire at face value when it doesn't have a smilie.

 

[Fulcanelli]

You should have added a smilie to this post. True believers often take subtile satire at face value when it doesn't have a smilie.

Well, we all know you can't see the logic of the fact Kestrel. One needs to open their eyes to do that. Therefore, I think those basing their ideas on faith are looking you back right in the mirror. In contrast, those who base their conclusions on logic and facts require no faith.

 

[Dan O.]

Not having the knowledge to refute this information is one thing, making up an elaborate lie to attempt to explain it is something quite different.

You are presenting the claim that what Raffaele wrote in his diary is a lie. Do you have evidence to back that up?

Only two days before the murder, the three of them - Raffaele, Amanda and Meredith went to the Chocolate Festival together. They could have stopped at Raffaele's place for lunch or a snack before of after the festival or on one of the preceding days as friends often do.

 

[piktor]

Logic, reason, evidence trump innocence proffered without proof

In contrast, those who base their conclusions on logic and facts require no faith.

This is the crux of the trial.

Some of the evidence is shaky. Some of the evidence I would discard because it is puny.

And, still, there is a homicide that has to be cleared up.

As long as the defence comes up with Seattle Eloise and the accused come up with stubborn forgetfulness, the prosecution owns the driving narrative.

The investigation makes sense. The defence and the accused can't help themselves.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

small correction to comment #2599

I noticed an error in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph of one of my comments about the knife electropherogram (#2599). The words “signal-to-noise ratio” should be replaced with “peak height in RFU.” The quantities signal-to-noise ratio and peak height are proportional but not equal. With respect to these two unlabeled peaks in locus D3S1358, neither of which is part of Ms. Kercher’s profile, are yet they are as intense as some of those attributed to Ms. Kercher.

Chris

 

[Kestrel]

Well, we all know you can't see the logic of the fact Kestrel. One needs to open their eyes to do that. Therefore, I think those basing their ideas on faith are looking you back right in the mirror. In contrast, those who base their conclusions on logic and facts require no faith.

Rudy Guede's DNA was found inside Meredith and on her clothing. Rudy left a handprint in the blood of the victim in the room where the victims body was found. Footprints from Rudy's shoes in the victim's blood were found in the same room. From these facts, we can logically conclude that Rudy sexually assaulted Meredith.

Given this, why do you persist in believing that the sexual assault was staged hours later?