Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

And after reading this, I have a question. Is there any way to put a statistic on Raffaele's match? Like 1 in 75,000 or 1 in 400 or whatever? Does anyone know exactly which alleles matched and which didn't?

It would help if we had access to the raw data........

(But I agree, by the way: it's an interesting paper)

 

[isotope1]

isotope,

Charlie Wilkes has explained it here by the following scenario: Guede took off his shoe to clean blood. At some point he stepped into bloody water and put his foot on the bathmat or onto a towel on top of the bathmat making the print. Then he put his shoe back on and went back into the bedroom. Hope this helps.

Halides 1,
How does this square with the fact that no shoe prints (or other prints w/ identifiable blood trace) move from MKs room to bathroom (or in reverse back to bedroom)? And the fact (is it? as per question in previous post) that his bloodied shoe prints appear (per prosecution) to move directly toward front door.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

William Thompson's article

Here is a really interesting paper that explains much of DNA matches and partial profiles:

http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/pageDocuments/H4T5EOYUZI.pdf

This is a good article. Check out page 30 (I have quoted this before) for a discussion of DNA contamination.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Halides 1,
How does this square with the fact that no shoe prints (or other prints w/ identifiable blood trace) move from MKs room to bathroom (or in reverse back to bedroom)? And the fact (is it? as per question in previous post) that his bloodied shoe prints appear (per prosecution) to move directly toward front door.

After the knifing Guede sees he is covered in blood. He sits down on the bed, lays the knife on the bed, takes off his shoes, goes into the small bathroom, takes off his socks to wash off his pants leg, steps on the bathmat with a wet foot covered in diluted blood, puts his socks back on, returns to the bedroom, puts his shoes back on and walks out.

How's that?

And I'm not even on your side! (And, as I've said from the beginning, I'm not on the other side either. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of it all.)

 

[Chris_Halkides]

A tale of two feet

He also took care to clean up all bathroom surfaces, including the missing heel portion on the bathroom's tile floor, except for blood traces of the victim and Knox's. He also managed to shrink the bathmat print to Sollecito's foot size and shape.

As in other scenarios in the cottage, "if it makes little sense but Guede is in the mix, then it's OK" narrative is acceptable.

If it applies to the other two defendants, then it is in line with the "everybody was wrong" scenario.

Piktor,

You are ignoring the Massei report (as others here have discussed), which indicates that the two men did not have very different foot sizes. Also, Professor Vinci ruled out Sollecito as someone who made the bathroom print, as Frank Sfarzo reported and to which I have linked several times.

 

[isotope1]

After the knifing Guede sees he is covered in blood. He sits down on the bed, lays the knife on the bed, takes off his shoes, goes into the small bathroom, takes off his socks to wash off his pants leg, steps on the bathmat with a wet foot covered in diluted blood, puts his socks back on, returns to the bedroom, puts his shoes back on and walks out.

How's that?

And I'm not even on your side! (And, as I've said from the beginning, I'm not on the other side either. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of it all.)

PDiGirolamo,
Well, this is the first scenario I've heard that makes sense of the data. So socks from and to bathroom leave no prints...

And btw, I have no side either, I'm just an amateur skeptic. I like things to make sense.

All the stuff with subjective twists are kind of uninteresting to me, i.e behaviour, forcing stories to fit facts, etc, etc. The meat of the puzzle for me is simply what had to have happened, and what is, on that basis, excluded.

This is why the puzzle of the bare footprint vs shoe prints was of interest...the story has to fit what is known, not what you "wish" might have happened.

thanks!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the disputed loci

And after reading this, I have a question. Is there any way to put a statistic on Raffaele's match? Like 1 in 75,000 or 1 in 400 or whatever? Does anyone know exactly which alleles matched and which didn't?

The Massei report lists seven, D8S1179; D21S11; D7S820; CSF1PO; D16S539; D5S818; FGA. However, it says that the D5 locus was not in dispute after all, leaving the other six.

I do not think one can do the calculation that you suggest, unless one assumes that Dr. Stefanoni was correct in her interpretation at all six of the disputed loci.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Well, aside from your position, I respectfully point out that Kevin Lowe expressed himself in very different terms: as for my comment saying I would prefer to speak of other topic first, he said that the topic of time of death instead should be dealt with before and all the others become "irrelevant" in comparison. He made clear that this single argument should come before the othrs since alone it would cause the other evidence to disappear and should force everybody to declare "game over". So Kevin Lowen was following a reasoning very different from yours. You are building a picture in which the likeliness time of death has merely the value of suggesting element, its meaning due to its being part of a pattern.

You seem to be cherry-picking my statements. My point is that establishing the time of death should come before trivial points which are only relevant if the time of death really was 23:30.

The six above mentioned parametres are arbitrarily estabilshed by you. In reality they are not esteblished data of the case at all, and none of them is even remotely required in a theory of the facts and and in assessing the basis for conviction.

This is simply not correct, and I am finding it increasingly difficult to take your denials seriously.

The evening was described as relaxed by participants, so Meredith was not stressed. The meal was described as small to moderate by participants, and the volume of her stomach contents is consistent with this, so Meredith did not overeat. The participants agree that no alcohol was consumed with the meal. No evidence has ever been found that Meredith was sick or had any gastrointestinal condition, either at the autopsy or at any other time. The latest possible time the meal could be consumed can be established using schoolchild maths based on the length of the DVD they watched.

All of these claims have been established.

I already gave you the related information about my acknowledgments before you asked, and then I gave repeated statements after. I put in clear that my acknowledgmnts on the point are:
1) Even if it was proven that Meredith was attacked exactly at 21:10 I would still consider Amanda guilty.

Even though the prosecution agreed that Raffaele and Amanda were at home at that time, and even though there are computer records showing that they were at home well after that time? I cannot reconcile this claim with rational thinking. If they were not there, they cannot have done it.

2) The court of assise's report contains indeed narrative (or more than one), but the narrative is not the basis of Amanda's conviction, and I do not build reasonings based on the narrative contained in Massei's theory. A change in Massei's narrative would simply lead to formulize a new accusation narrative, not to innocence.

The narrative is the way it is because, rack their brains as they could, Massei and Mignini could come up with no coherent story where Rudy, Amanda and Raffaele killed Meredith at any earlier time. You can be very sure they tried.

3) The defendants are convicted on the basis of evidence, not on the basis of the theory subsequently constructed. The theory is almost always false strictly speaking. A motivation report may also contain more than one conflicting narratives. A time of death at 21:30 for example would falsify part of Massei's narrative, but not falsify the basis of thir conviction nor the evidence.

However if there is no possible theory which makes sense, conforms with the evidence and makes it physically possible for the accused to be present at the time the murder happened, the prosecution argument collapses.

4) Nara's testimony is not falsified by changing the time of death. Only Curatolo would be falsified.

So now it's not certain that Nara heard a scream at 23:30? I don't see any possible reading of her testimony that has her hearing a scream at 21:10, do you?

On the rest, you are merely unfloding a series of arbitrary beliefs of yours. You are not even able to draw conclusions on a singls sentence written by Raffaele Sollecito (or to acknowledge difference between a diganosis of Narcissistic Personality disorder and evidence of narcissistic personality style) yet you feel certain you can deny threads of universal literature and medical culture, you introduce "certain" variants on you own, you accuse others of being not rigorous or blind, you assert the need of new studies targeted to your own needs and you refuse to search the related topics, you deny the existing citations, you start from a premise of distrust towards the interlocutor, you decide that others have "excuses" instead of "reasons", you dismiss opinions you don't know, you use arguments that you declare to be not serious ...

This is the kind of trouble you get in to if you don't approach difficult problems with rigorous logic.

You appear to have convinced yourself based on weak, highly inconclusive arguments (like the diary, the internalised false witness statement and such) that they did it, and so you have to struggle mightily to overturn the much, much stronger arguments based on objective, verified facts that show that they could not possibly have been present at the most likely time of death.

If you start by examining the best and strongest evidence, the computer records, the phone records and the physical evidence at the scene (including Meredith's corpse), you get to the conclusion straight away that it's overwhelmingly likely that Raffaele and Amanda were at home when Rudy murdered Meredith.

 

[Chris C]

But this is a particular case, not ours. In our case, we have a chart in which all loci were found. So it's like having a chart with 6 or 7 numbers instad of 5, like: 4, 16, 23, 39, 48, 72, 84.
In this sequence, all your numbers are found. The fact now could be that your lawyer disputes some of them saying that, albeir they are visible in the sequence - aka, readable on the ticket - they do not belong to you. But this only happens after all of them have been found in the sequence. It's a bit like having a ticket which is made with a backgrund of number, and claiming that on the ticket there are some printed numbers in the sequence that do't belong to the serial number but to the background, and/or that there are some numbers on the backround that instead should be interpreted as part of the serial number.
It is quite obvious that this changes the terms of Halides' example.

Actually i think its more complicated than that. If they used STR Analysis DNA testing, I think the loci have to come in pairs. Like 15, 18 or 23, 39. Which is probably why the dna expert for the defense was able to rule out so many loci. Human DNA has 23 chromosomes. When performing STR Analysis testing they target the 13 CODIS Core STR Loci. So basicly its 13 Loci with 2 numbers. Thats my understanding of how it works. If anyone has a better idea please correct me.

So as an example if Sollecito has a 15,18 and the Loci testing comes back 15,18.1 its not his marker. I think thats how the defense expert was able to eliminate so many loci. Because the prosecutions expert was trying to do a dna match using only 1 number of the pair. Which is probably why they are asking for LCN testing to even see if the remaining loci are correct. Because 18 is not the same as 18.1, so they want a more accurate test done. Once again I'm no expert and I welcome someone to correct me so I can get a better understanding of what I'm reading.

If anyone has ever done a dna test to prove paternity which I have. You might have a better understanding of this if you have the results of your paternity test. I've had to adopt my own child because my name wasn't on the birth certificate. I actually have a copy of my DNA test. Which used 16 chromosomes to compare with.

Example of my Paternity Test.

D3S1358
Mother 14,17
Child 17,17
Father 17,17

vWA
Mother 16,18
Child 15,16
Father 15,17

As you can see I've actually listed 2 of my chromosome markers above. D3S1358 17,17 vWA 15,17

Also I will share this with you. So please no inbred redneck jokes. The mother was from Germany, I was from Mississippi. The mother and I had 3 Genetic Markers that where exact matches. Which also means our daughter had the same markers. My daughter and I share 2 more loci that are exact matches.
D2S1338 25,25
D5S818 12,13
TPOX 8,10
http://www.biology.arizona.edu/human_bio/activities/blackett2/str_codis.html

 

[christianahannah]

But I don't think it's utter nonsense. In fact in my reading this is *not* the actual Massei's argument. These are not the terms in which he expresses himself. Massei's argument is that that the match of all Raffaele's loci is an overwhelming element in comparison to the proposed objections. The dispute on a small number of loci doesn't have the force, in terms of probability, to undermine the finding by Patrizia Stefanoni of a match with all loci of Raffaele's profile.

Hello Machiavelli.

I think I have the same opinion from my first time reading the motivations. I have never thought Massei reasoned it was acceptable for the disputed loci not to match Raffaele.

Massei gives deference to Stefanoni's interpetation over Professor Tagliabracci's interpretation and gives his reasoning for doing so. Massei is not stating that because a majority of the loci matched Raffaele it is good enough even if the rest do not. Massei is saying that Stefanoni's interpretation and method are sound which makes the whole result reliable. Quoted material provided from pages 297-298 Massei Motivations:

"The circumstance now exposed allows, it was held, the following consideration: if, despite the subjective contribution of the geneticist, the interpretative disagreement regarding the non-compatibility of Raffaele Sollecito’s profile with the loci that had contributed to forming trace 165B involved those loci indicated by Professor Tagliabracci during the course of the hearing and at pages 20 and 21 of the previously mentioned memorandum conclusions,it must be held that, for the greatest number of loci at least, the peaks were so clear and the interpretation so sound that they could not be contested. Consequently, the overall result should be considered fully reliable, even disregarding the repetition of the analysis."

Massei gives another reason for the surety of Stefanoni's interpretation: Raffaele's Y-haplotype which matched 17 of 17 loci.

Moreover, the attributability of the biological trace to Raffaele Sollecito does not derive only from the correspondence/match with the gene loci: all 15, plus that of the gender, according to Dr. Stefanoni and Dr. Torricelli; or equal at any rate to a considerable number, according to what was demonstrated by Professor Tagliabracci in court, and explained on pages 20 and 21 of the memorandum conclusions, as has been said.

The attributability of trace 165B to Raffaele Sollecito derives also from examination of the Y-haplotype in respect of which, as was emphasised, it is not possible to consider any objections whatsoever because the haplotype obtained from the trace present in the hooks emerged from the machine which attributed those numbers and in that sequence. And, it must also be emphasised, for the test and the individuation of this haplotype the identity of 17 loci was used, that is the maximum extension of analysis possible, therefore much more precise and individualizing than the one in use until a few years ago, when it was [320] possible to carry out an analysis on only 11 of these loci.

Massei sums up his reasoning:

It would be necessary to believe that in the house where Meredith lived, and where Raffaele Sollecito in those very days had just begun to frequent, there had been a different subject than Raffaele Sollecito but from the same male line of descent, and therefore having the same Y-chromosome. That subject, furthermore, would have had, in addition, gene loci which were not the object of dispute, as we have seen above, which matched with those that constitute the specific, individual genetic heritage of Sollecito Raffaele.

 

[daydreamer]

Amanda herself said it takes 5 minutes, I know, I know, she lies and lies and lies, but on this it is believable because it is all downhill and at a fair slope. I could see it taking longer going the other way, uphill, perhaps 10 minutes.

Try it yourself, hang up the phone, you and your partner prepare for the trip (jackets, doors, step), walk .3 miles at a normal pace, and see how long it takes. If you think .3 miles is wrong , check GoogleEarth.
If its les than 15 mins, I would be surprised. Uphill or downhill won't matter much.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

PDiGirolamo,
Well, this is the first scenario I've heard that makes sense of the data. So socks from and to bathroom leave no prints...

And btw, I have no side either, I'm just an amateur skeptic. I like things to make sense.

All the stuff with subjective twists are kind of uninteresting to me, i.e behaviour, forcing stories to fit facts, etc, etc. The meat of the puzzle for me is simply what had to have happened, and what is, on that basis, excluded.

This is why the puzzle of the bare footprint vs shoe prints was of interest...the story has to fit what is known, not what you "wish" might have happened. thanks!

Herein lies my dilemma. I really wish AK and RS were innocent. I cannot imagine doing such an awful thing to someone else. For some reason, it is easier to imagine a much more disconnected, criminal-type such as RG as the sole perpetrator of the crime. But... there are troubling aspects of the events which, well, trouble me. Therefore I am still withholding judgment until and unless something convincing, one way or the other, is brought to light. I sure wish RG would tell everyone what really happened but I recognize the improbability of that ever happening.

 

[daydreamer]

I walk everyday and I do a 16 minute mile. Though that is a fast pace.

Yep , and I do the same. And that is from start to finish with no "overhead". Breathing heavy at the end. I'll stick with my 15 mins for a normal junt including "overhead".

 

[katy_did]

I think I have the same opinion from my first time reading the motivations. I have never thought Massei reasoned it was acceptable for the disputed loci not to match Raffaele.

Massei gives deference to Stefanoni's interpetation over Professor Tagliabracci's interpretation and gives his reasoning for doing so. Massei is not stating that because a majority of the loci matched Raffaele it is good enough even if the rest do not. Massei is saying that Stefanoni's interpretation and method are sound which makes the whole result reliable. Quoted material provided from pages 297-298 Massei Motivations:

As I said to Machiavelli previously, though, it's the nonsensical reasoning in the first quote you posted that's the issue here, not whether or not Massei believed Stefanoni above Tagliabracci (he obviously did). Here's the full quote, posted by halides earlier:

Consequently, there are apparently a considerable number of loci that are not the subject of dispute, a number which seems to be greater than the number of disputed loci and greater than the number of six loci with reference to which Professor Tagliabracci had previously declared, before the current systems were available‚ it was enough ... we made hypotheses even with six loci‛ (page [319] 103). The circumstance now exposed allows, it was held, the following consideration: if, despite the subjective contribution of the geneticist, the interpretative disagreement regarding the non-compatibility of Raffaele Sollecito’s profile with the loci that had contributed to forming trace 165B involved those loci indicated by Professor Tagliabracci during the course of the hearing and at pages 20 and 21 of the previously mentioned memorandum conclusions, it must be held that, for the greatest number of loci at least, the peaks were so clear and the interpretation so sound that they could not be contested. Consequently, the overall result should be considered fully reliable, even disregarding the repetition of the analysis.

Massei says that since the number of non-disputed loci is in the majority, and since this number is greater than 6 - a number on the basis of which Tagliabracci had previously made assessments - the "overall result should be considered fully reliable". The fact he even brings up Tagliabracci's statement about "[making] hypotheses even with six loci" shows Massei's total lack of understanding of how DNA testing works. He plainly seems to think that 10/16 matching loci is a better match than 6/6...

Thanks for the other quotes you posted, and I agree that this 'more matching than not' argument is not the full extent of Massei's reasoning on the bra clasp; it is his reasoning for rejecting Tagliabracci's theory that some of the loci don't match, though, and it's really a nonsense argument.

 

[katy_did]

Here's the full quote of the section from Sollecito's appeal dealing with the matching/non-matching loci (pages 143/144), posted in part by halides earlier:

10. Finally, as regards the interpretation of the genetic profiles extrapolated from trace 165B, the judgment incurred a serious and irreparable error. In fact, after having taken note of the fact that Prof. Tagliabracci contested the compatibility of only a few loci (D8S1179, D21S11, D7S820, CSF1PO, D16S539, D5S818, FGA) it stated that: “From these conclusions it would appear that the other loci, thus superior in number, would be compatible with the profile of Raffaele Sollecito as well as the locus D5S818, as the consultant himself stated during the hearing (…). This means, therefore, that a conspicuous number of the loci were not disputed, a number higher than that of the contested loci and higher than the number of six loci with reference to which Prof. Tagliabracci declared that previously, when the current systems were not available, “it was enough … we did calculations even with six loci (page 103)” (p. 318 judgment).

The error is obvious: the genetic profile obtained from a trace can be considered identical to a subject only if all the loci analysed are compatible.

If even one locus, amongst all those analysed, produces an incompatible profile, the possibility that the trace was left by that particular subject must be excluded. This means that, with regard to the kit used, made up of 16 loci, we should have found 16 loci compatible, while finding 6 incompatible should lead us to categorically exclude that the two genetic profiles belong to the same person.

If only six loci had been analysed, in order to state that the two profiles belong to the same person, we should find all six loci compatible. The difference between an investigation done with 6 loci and an investigation done with 16 loci is the strength of our confirmation that the trace belongs to the same subject: with sixteen loci we are dealing with a much more peremptory assertion, since the probability of finding one other person in the general population who by chance had the same genetic profile is determined by the number of loci analysed.

If, however, even one single locus (of the six or sixteen examined) gives an incompatible result between the profile of the suspect and that of the trace, it is immediately excluded, that is, the two profiles are different and it must be concluded that the trace was not left by that subject.

The statements of the judgment on this point highlight an ignorance of this fundamental rule of forensic genetics.

The contested judgment erred in its evaluation of the results relative to Exhibit 165B when it held that the compatibility of the profiles should be evaluated on the basis of the ratio between compatible loci and incompatible loci, and that it would be enough for the number of compatible loci to be superior to the number of incompatible loci for us to claim that we were dealing with the same genetic profile.

In reality, it is enough that one single locus is incompatible for us to exclude that we are dealing with the same genetic profile.

 

[Chris C]

It sounds like you guys have it worked that part out then...how about running over some things that are probably old hat for JREF (I am occasional lurker, and newbie poster).

My (admittedly) cursory take has always been that:

1) There is no reason not to believe prosecution's contention that RG moved directly from MKs room to front door, i.e., shoe prints tapering, in one direction, no other prints found outside MKs room, etc etc.

2) Bathmat foot print stands in stark contrast to contention in 1) above.

3) Ergo, minimum second person required at/during scenario.

So I guess my question is...how do we know 1) is absolutely true? Does anyone outside of the case have access to actual documentation of contention in 1) above?

1) RG claims he went into the room and found Meredith dying. He then left the room, went to the bathroom to get some towels, and then went back to Meredith. Guede admits to going to the bathroom where the bloody footprint was found, and then returning back to Meredith. Then he left. Guede's words, not the defenses. Of course guilters try to forget Guede's admissions. Because nearly all contradict what the prosecution convicted knox/sollecito of.

 

[loverofzion]

Machiavelli,

I am confused. The pro-guilt people generally assert that Raffaele stopped covering for Amanda. Although I do not believe that he stopped giving her an alibi myself, let us say he did for the sake of argument. If he is not covering for her, and he has an alibi, then he is innocent. Yet you say otherwise. Would you please explain?

Wdll he stopped covering for her very quickly; but unfortunately his alibi (home all night sleeping) did not hold up under closer scrutiny.

 

[isotope1]

Herein lies my dilemma. I really wish AK and RS were innocent. I cannot imagine doing such an awful thing to someone else. For some reason, it is easier to imagine a much more disconnected, criminal-type such as RG as the sole perpetrator of the crime. But... there are troubling aspects of the events which, well, trouble me. Therefore I am still withholding judgment until and unless something convincing, one way or the other, is brought to light. I sure wish RG would tell everyone what really happened but I recognize the improbability of that ever happening.

We are totally on the same page PD; there are aspects of this case which point to RG as sole perp; but many components don't...it seems most rational to hold back from being solidly pro- or con- until things gel. I am still troubled by some the physical evidence, in which I am most interested. But some of this we simply won't ever have access to...so where does that leave us? Unfortunately this lends to the knee-jerk or impulse decisions which are so prevalent.

 

[loverofzion]

Our narrative is more believable than the prosecution's narrative. There are known precedents for witnesses being coached by lawyers, cops being overly eager and rough with detainees, forensic labs falsifying data, prosecutors and judges being in bed together, subordinates being afraid to defy authority.....

In my opinion, the innocentisti's view rests on experience and knowledge of human nature, while the colpevolisti's does not.

Oh really?
And what are your credentials, professional qualifications, work experience, research etc that would qualify your group as such experts in the field of human behavior?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I guess I'll know it when I see it Kevin. I will happily feel relief and gladness for Amanda and Raffaele if something turns up to unequivocally exonerate them and I will wholeheartedly support their being compensated for their lost years. I don’t hate them and I’m open to changing my mind if something conclusive comes along. So far it hasn’t.

So your thesis is falsifiable, but you just can't imagine any evidence that could falsify it? Forgive me then if I don't trouble myself too much over whether the evidence we present convinces you.

Your argument on stomach contents proving she died at 9:10 or very shortly before or after doesn’t convince me either because it seems too narrow in focus and unsupported by the majority of the literature out there regardless of how many times you shout about it being peer reviewed and post your two or three links. What makes your links and opinions any better than all the other opinions and links by numerous other people, also published in scientific journals, who warn over and over about using stomach contents as reliable proof of anything. Your links are few among many.

You are cherry-picking those comments, taking them out of context, and treating them as absolute statements that trump the specific numbers in those same papers. In context, they are conclusions drawn from and consistent with the numbers.

And now, before you go all snaky again on the t-lag stuff and tell me we just don’t understand while you are the veritable font of knowledge, why don’t you read a couple of these other articles. It seems like you want to believe the argument you’ve created so badly you only look to your couple of abstracts and refuse to glance at differing opinions.

Sorry, but who do you think you are talking to? I am the one who has access to the full text of these articles and actually reads them. I am the one whose views are informed by more than cherry-picked phrases taken from the abstracts of articles you haven't even read.

You are the person who claimed with a straight face that the real facts about t(lag) weren't in the scientific literature but were in "trade periodicals" or some such nonsense. What are the names of these magical journals, Danceme? Who publishes them? Where do you get them?

I don't "refuse to glance at differing opinions", I read them and when you actually read them it turns out they are all saying substantially the same thing, that a t(lag) of five hours in a healthy young woman eating a small-to-moderate sized meal with no alcohol in relaxed circumstances is astoundingly unlikely at best and totally unheard of at worst.

You shout, you insult and you seem hell-bent on proving something even the defense barely touches on. Why isn’t Amanda’s defense using the stomach content argument to prove Meredith was already dead while they sat home and watched Naruto? In Bruce’s summary of her appeal it’s not even mentioned. You've already accused her lawyers of guessing their information and not doing the math so I presume you think they're simply unintelligent and incompetent.

Others here, more familar with the appeals than I, claim that Raffaele's appeals team is well aware of the defence opportunities available in terms of moving the time of death backwards and their alibis forwards. Since I don't think I'm doing any extraordinary intellectual heavy lifting here this doesn't surprise me in the least.

Others have suggested that it is simply a case of the appeals teams working together and not duplicating their efforts. This seems possible, but I know little or nothing about the details of Italian appeals processses.

In that case perhaps it's your moral duty to call them on it. If you are so sure you’ve figured the case out why haven’t you publicized it beyond the JREF thread? Where are the all articles for Injusticeinperugia? Where are the calls to the mainstream press? Why haven’t you shouted from the rooftops? Why haven’t you contacted the defense lawyers? Have you even written to her parents? It’s not like any of these things are beyond the realm of possibility and if you're in any way right you might actually help.

Generally speaking I have real work to do, an article of publishable quality on a topic like this isn't something I can bash out in a lunch break, and arguing about it here is something I do for fun. Not to mention that if I published something with my full name and details your lovely friends at the PMF would be in a much better position to harass me as they have bragged about doing to Moore, and I don't need any of that.

I tend to imagine that their lawyers are well aware of these issues and that the parents get enough emails from strangers on the internet as it is.

However I will look into this further and if indeed it looks like the defence teams are dropping the ball then I will have a moral obligation to put on a different hat and take steps to see that the ball gets picked up.