Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Moss]

Hmm, shouldn't there be ecidence that exonerates the two if they were innocent? Oh, I forgot, the Italians conveniently did away with it for sure.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Let's see what the appeal court does with it. Will you accept the verdict of the appeal court when it comes out they are still guilty?

No. When they are confirmed as guilty in the appeal, the same people will be saying 'next time...in the next appeal, then they will be found innocent and it will all go away'. These people use... 'abuse' the concept of the appeal process...they use the concept of it as a means to say that the trial and all the hearings and pre-trial that went before are somehow irrelevant. This of course is a nonsense, but it is a false concept essential to those who don't want to face the truth. That's fine...they can drink as much kool aid as they wish.

I only have a problem when they expect us to drink it too.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Hmm, shouldn't there be ecidence that exonerates the two if they were innocent? Oh, I forgot, the Italians conveniently did away with it for sure.

Yep. Like those nasty little alibis that could have exonerated them if only they hadn't been forced to contradict each other...

 

[piktor]

Barrister Ghirga cuts the Perugia Female Flying Squad to size, to no effect

Dan o's forgotten there was even a trial, let alone a verdict

How do you spell conspiracy: C-A-R-T-W-H-E-E-L

Now, this 24-karat gem:

Seattle's Eloise versus the mighty Perugia Female Flying Squad !

KNOX DEFENSE: FEMALE POLICE 'HAD IT IN' FOR HER

"In closing arguments, Knox's lawyer Luciano Ghirga described a "clash between women from the Perugia flying squad" and his client.

"They had it in for her just because she had condoms and a vibrator in her beauty case," said Ghirga"- FoxNews

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578716,00.html

 

[Fulcanelli]

I notice all the FoA's here seem to forget that. They also seem to forget that the appeal will be much tougher to win because a court has already established as fact most of the things they are arguing over.

To sum it up, they behave as though the trial is still ongoing, that everything is still up in the air and nothing has been concluded. There was a trial and the trial was concluded long ago. At the end of the trial, there was a verdict and that verdict was unanimous.

Sorry to be repetitive, but some people just don't seem to get it.

As for appeals, only 12% are successful. Those are poor odds by anybody's standards. I would also hazard, no unanimous verdicts end up in that 12%, at least, not unless those cases throw up new evidence and arguments. I see nothing new from the defence or their apologists in regard to this case.

They're screwed.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

next?

Especially the part about there possibly having been no crime at all. Next.

Stilicho,

There must have been evidence of sexual contact found on the alleged victim. However, if one does not know whether the woman consented or not, one cannot conclude that there was a rape in the Jama case. I suspect that this is what was meant by saying that the authorities were not sure a crime had been committed.

Do you agree or disagree that contamination occurred in the Jama case and why?

Chris

 

[Fulcanelli]

Stilicho,

There must have been evidence of sexual contact found on the alleged victim. However, if one does not know whether the woman consented or not, one cannot conclude that there was a rape in the Jama case. I suspect that this is what was meant by saying that the authorities were not sure a crime had been committed.

Do you agree or disagree that contamination occurred in the Jama case and why?

Chris

Somehow, I suspect this is all rather off-topic. This is a thread concerned with the murder of Meredith Kercher (please ignore the 'cartwheels' fluff, whatever... title). I think one case is enough for any thread.

 

[piktor]

DNA on the clasp was identified alright!

"unidentified DNA on clasp"

Originally Posted by Fulcanelli:
"It does not have the DNA of 3 unidentified people on it."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...na-found-on-murdered-students-bra-776367.html

..."Comodi also rejected claims that DNA samples had been too small to be incriminating. ''Sollecito's Y chromosome was found on the clasp, and not only his genetic profile,'' she said.

Comodi said the prosecution's case was ''as solid as the house built with bricks by the third pig''...- ItalianNews.it

http://www.italiainformazioni.com/g...ution-explains-defendant-only-found-clasp.htm

 

[Moss]

Stilicho,

There must have been evidence of sexual contact found on the alleged victim. However, if one does not know whether the woman consented or not, one cannot conclude that there was a rape in the Jama case. I suspect that this is what was meant by saying that the authorities were not sure a crime had been committed.

Do you agree or disagree that contamination occurred in the Jama case and why?

Chris

What exactly would the Jama case prove? That there is the possibility of contamination? I think nobody disputed that.
But that does not by itself establish that contamination occured in this case.
Does it really say anything more?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Mixer and Jama

Somehow, I suspect this is all rather off-topic. This is a thread concerned with the murder of Meredith Kercher (please ignore the 'cartwheels' fluff, whatever... title). I think one case is enough for any thread.

I was asked to explain why I included a link to work by William Thompson on DNA contamination considerably upthread, and I hoped to answer that question. Dr. Thompson included the Mixer case and one involving a mentally challenged Australian woman, and I have added the Jama case, as examples of DNA contamination. These examples have relevance to the DNA forensics here in at least two ways. First, they demonstrate that the route of contamination is not always known (usually it is not). Second, they demonstrate that even when the lab testifies that the controls were OK, the contamination happened despite this assurance.

 

[Moss]

And what exactly are the facts that should lead us to believe contamination occurred with knife and/or clasp?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I was asked to explain why I included a link to work by William Thompson on DNA contamination considerably upthread, and I hoped to answer that question. Dr. Thompson included the Mixer case and one involving a mentally challenged Australian woman, and I have added the Jama case, as examples of DNA contamination. These examples have relevance to the DNA forensics here in at least two ways. First, they demonstrate that the route of contamination is not always known (usually it is not). Second, they demonstrate that even when the lab testifies that the controls were OK, the contamination happened despite this assurance.

Great. You've evidenced DNA contamination 'can' happen, which we all already knew. And?

 

[piktor]

And what exactly are the facts that should lead us to believe contamination occurred with knife and/or clasp?

The DNA on the clasp could not have possibly been the result of contamination. The quantity and quality of the Sollecito DNA on the clasp had to come directly from Sollecito himself. Police scientists identified it as coming from finger sweat as the most likely source for it to adhere and because of the ammount of the sample gathered. It also was good quality DNA, prosecutor Comodi said.

 

[stilicho]

...examples of DNA contamination...

Yes, and we have to assume, without anything further to go on, that all this contamination was established during an inquiry or some other official investigation. In the specific cases of the Houston and WA state crime labs, the facts of the cases themselves and/or considerable independent media inquiry and/or audits conducted regularly by the authorities combined to establish contamination.

None of this is evident in the Perugia case. If it is, please show us where.

The biggest problems with trying to tie Meredith's murder to all these other cases are (1) we don't have enough information about the particulars of the other cases, (2) there is considerable evidence of their involvement even without the DNA, (3) the defence teams have not made the allegations that you have. I have always agreed with you that the appeals will be primarily based on some sort of DNA contamination theory but it won't work because the facts of the case are not limited to the DNA evidence. As we've pointed out, the defence teams actually ignored or refused to challenge some of the iron-clad evidence. This is almost surely because they'd rather it not become the focus of the discussion of the verdict and the sentence.

It's such a transparent approach that they have to know already that it won't work.

 

[katy_did]

Mainly that a court found her guilty.

If they're to retain any integrity, anyone who's ever made this argument has to immediately switch to believing in Knox and Sollecito's innocence if they win the appeal. Seems like there'll be quite a mass turnaround.

 

[Fulcanelli]

If they're to retain any integrity, anyone who's ever made this argument has to immediately switch to believing in Knox and Sollecito's innocence if they win the appeal.

Yeah, except you're the only one that thinks there's any chance of that happening. Jam tomorrow...

 

[newton3376]

Are there really some people still arguing that Amanda is innocent?

Really?

Wow...simply incredible.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Are there really some people still arguing that Amanda is innocent?

Really?

Wow...simply incredible.

What can I say...fantasy is a popular genre.

 

[katy_did]

Yeah, except you're the only one that thinks there's any chance of that happening. Jam tomorrow...

We'll see.

 

[Moss]

I'm still interested in my question:

Will you accept the verdict of the appeal court when it comes out they are still guilty? Or is there never a possibility of Amanda and Raffaele being guilty of the murder of poor Meredith?