Fine,
I strongly question whether either Amanda or Raffaele has used the word amnesia to describe their state of mind. I agree that their accounts of that evening were not perfectly consistent, and I suspect that the use of cannabis had something to do with this. However, their interrogations would be expected to produce a great deal of confusion if they are innocent and yet they kept being told that they were not remembering things correctly, etc.
The luminol prints were probably not made in Meredith's blood for reasons already discussed. How, specifically, do you tie them to the crime? How do you answer the criticisms of the knife and bra clasp as put forth in the Johnson/Hampikian open letter?
_____________________________________
Halides,
In my opinion that Open Letter is full of vague truisms about "possibilities" with no mention of the frequencies which would contribute substance to their statements. Just a couple cheerleaders waving their tissue pom-poms. Let's look at the resounding conclusion they draw:
_______________________________________________
"Summary:
DNA testing results described above could have been obtained even if no crime had occurred. As such, they do not constitute credible evidence that links Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to the murder of Meredith Kercher."
_______________________________________________
The first sentence would be true of most any DNA testing results, given the possibility of lab contamination and "innocent" transfer. And it's true of virtually all evidence. (Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle
could have been found in the Texas Book Depository even if no crime had been committed.) So it's just a vague truism. So how can they conclude ---
as such---from this that the results don't constitute credible evidence against the lovebirds? They can't draw any such conclusion. (Finding Oswald's rifle there wasn't credible evidence?) It's a textbook fallacy that---if followed--- would make most DNA results useless in most criminal cases.
I hope the two experts appointed by the APPEALS Court can present a more persuasive document than the Johnson/Hampikian Open Letter. Otherwise the lovebirds ain't goin' nowhere.
Personally, if I were on the Judicial Panel ---"the jury"---in the APPEALS court, I'd be impressed if I were shown some video demonstrations of "innocent" transfer. Say, in the case of the bra clasp, a video of college kids sharing a joint---and therefore spit---which led to one of the smokers, a girl, later depositing a guy's DNA onto her bra as she removed it later. Or, in the case of the kitchen knife, a cop quickly removing his gloves from one location, going to another where he puts on another pair of gloves, and in doing so transfers DNA from the first pair of gloves to the second pair, and then onto a knife he handles. Nothing proves possibility better than actuality.
///
