Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[shuttlt]

But do you also get pissed off about the "mixed blood" and "Knox's bloody footprints" comments also, or do you think these are accurate?

No. Perhaps they would if I got stuck into them. There was a period I was interested in the knife and felt I had some kind of an understanding of it. Really that's the only bit of evidence I've really gotten obsessed with, though it's a long time ago now. It was frustrating that Charlie and Dr Waterbury had all sorts of documents that felt like they would shed light on things, but for what ever reason had decided not to share. In as much as I was interested before in solving the case, I lost interest then. I'm glad the information I was looking for then (Stef's testimony for example), finally seems to be seeing the light of day. It's about time. Does anybody know why now and not then?

The mixed blood, burglary and so on I really don't have enough knowledge for what ever errors there way be to leap out at me in that way. Very little knowledge is required to see the problems with the 57 hour thing. I'd originally intended to start on the knife, as it seemed relatively simple and restricted in terms of how much there was to know and work my way out from there to an understanding of the case. I never really got beyond the knife.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I suspect that he does have Comodi's remarks on tape. Most reporters these days carry small digital dictaphones with them, so that they can make sure that a) they catch all of an interview subject's words, and can replay them over and over during transcription for an article, and b) they have legal protection in the event that the interview subject subsequently claims that (s)he as been misquoted. I would therefore be pretty surprised if Comodi's amazing outburst has not been captured in nice clear digital audio on Mr Pisa's machine.

By the way, would it be deemed newsworthy if a member of Meredith Kercher's close family had been actively (and extremely frequently) engaging on internet message boards, blogs and comments sections, campaigning very aggressively in favour of the convictions of Knox and Sollecito? I think it would be extremely newsworthy.......

Yes, I would agree. I would run a press release on it....I am a press agent...

 

[Grinder]

I absolutely agree with this. Personally I'm here because I find the case interesting. In as much as it's in our power to do anything positive relating to the case, Michael and others have done what can be done.

Well Shuttlt I was looking for you back on Shock and ran into this. Clearly you have a pro-guilt POV. You seem now to be posing as if neutral, which is how I remember you on Shock, posing as neutral.

While I was also pissed to see the misleading hours of testimony and other innocent arguments that I found less than completely honest, I have not believed the case from the very beginning.

I found your statement about the knife not being the murder weapon because of the starch disingenuous. I don't believe it was the murder weapon because it didn't fit the description released by the police immediately, the expert that showed that the hilt had hit the neck which couldn't happen with the knife in question because the wound wasn't large enough, there was no explanation how they moved it back to the flat, it didn't match the bloody outline of the only knife that definitely was used and no adequate explanation was given for why they would bring their own knife instead of using one from the cottage. Also, it is odd that they were able to dispose of bloody clothes, shoes etc. and yet chose to keep the knife.

Now add to all of that that the independent experts said the DNA wasn't reliable and I think a reasonable person would not believe that it was the murder knife.

 

[shuttlt]

If the 6 day claim means anything (no idea if it does), surely it would only rule out contamination in the machine, rather than contamination in the lab in general? When the 6 day thing was reported, a lot of the news articles quoted Vecchiotti as saying "Cross-contamination from sample to sample is still possible" (or WTTE); obviously it's difficult to tell without the transcripts, but it sounds as if this was said in connection with the 6 day claim, that she was suggesting even if you were to rule out this particular contamination route, contamination by another means is still possible. Presumably this cross-contamination could have happened in the lab (e.g. other items present in the lab but not tested on that day) or as the items were stored or handled there. Obviously it could also have happened before its arrival in the lab too.

So I don't think this six day argument, even if valid, necessarily excludes lab contamination, nor that it requires Stefanoni to have lied about the procedures.

It just leaves me struggling to imagine the mechanism by which somehow it's Meridith's DNA and only Meredith's DNA that makes it onto the knife. Are we talking about Meredith's DNA somehow being airborn in the lab in overwhelmingly greater amounts than any other contaminant? If DNA samples got contaminated like that, surely LCN testing would be impossible as all samples would be hopelessly contaminated long before they arrived at the lab. Do they store items relating to the case open in the lab? Was a work surface scrubbed down 7 days previously and then went unused after the last Meredith sample was placed on it. If somehow the transmission route is via the lab, and the 6 day thing is true, its like the bra clasp - how unlucky are Amanda and Raffaele that it's exactly the wrong DNA that makes it onto the knife, not DNA from an unrelated case, or a lab worker. That kind of bad luck can clearly happen, even twice on the same case I suppose. I know Halides can provide countless examples. Still the ovewhelming majority of the time it doesn't happen.

 

[ForTruth]

I don't feel compelled to come to a conclusion on the knife. I don't mind that other people feel a high degree of certainty. There have been things about the case I have been convinced are wrong/misleading - "she confessed after 57 hours of interrogation in which she was denied food water and sleep" always struck me as a willfully misleading choice of words and I argued with Bruce about it for quite a while. Things like that pissed me off. That people stuck to them and insisted they weren't misleading pissed me off. If you want to disbelieve in the knife because it has starch on it, then that's fine by me.

shuttlt forgive me, I haven't been following your posts much since you stopped participating in the original forum at IIP. I've only very sporadically lurked here. If I follow correctly, you tend to believe Knox and Sollecito are guilty until you can see enough evidence to prove otherwise. Forgive me if this is a wrong interpretation, but to me this seems to be what you were saying way back when on the IIP forum and are still saying now. Just curious if I got this right. And if so, really - not enough info has come out to bring you over to the innocence side? I mean, you really need the trial transcripts?

Now about spinning things - if you don't like spinning from the innocence perspective, what are your feelings about the spin on those other sites, particularly TJMK --- things to the effect of "it has been said that amanda was getting so coked up in the days before the crime..." and the weak attempts to prop of the failed prosecution witnesses? Just curious.

 

[Diocletus]

By the way, would it be deemed newsworthy if a member of Meredith Kercher's close family had been actively (and extremely frequently) engaging on internet message boards, blogs and comments sections, campaigning very aggressively in favour of the convictions of Knox and Sollecito? I think it would be extremely newsworthy.......

I'll bite. What do you know?

I would love to read some of those postings.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I'll bite. What do you know?

I would love to read some of those postings.

Ditto...

 

[shuttlt]

I absolutely agree with this. Personally I'm here because I find the case interesting. In as much as it's in our power to do anything positive relating to the case, Michael and others have done what can be done.

Well Shuttlt I was looking for you back on Shock and ran into this. Clearly you have a pro-guilt POV. You seem now to be posing as if neutral, which is how I remember you on Shock, posing as neutral.

Everybody is the amature bloody detective and are forever noting things that they find highly significant. Wow! I used the word "our" and felt that people on PMF were trying to do something positive. I fail to see that that demonstrates that I am posing as anything other than I am.

I found your statement about the knife not being the murder weapon because of the starch disingenuous. I don't believe it was the murder weapon because it didn't fit the description released by the police immediately, the expert that showed that the hilt had hit the neck which couldn't happen with the knife in question because the wound wasn't large enough, there was no explanation how they moved it back to the flat, it didn't match the bloody outline of the only knife that definitely was used and no adequate explanation was given for why they would bring their own knife instead of using one from the cottage. Also, it is odd that they were able to dispose of bloody clothes, shoes etc. and yet chose to keep the knife.

I'm aware of all that. I guess I'm looking for simplicity. I guess I wasn't mentioning it because it's old and the knife apparantly being thrown out is new. Perhaps we now have simplicity with Rolf and his time of death argument. Once things get muddled up with arguments about "why would they have done X, Y and Z" things get complicated for me. The starch things seems like a nice argument. Perhaps I favor it too much. It appeals to me anyway.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

low template work and the bogey of contamination

It just leaves me struggling to imagine the mechanism by which somehow it's Meridith's DNA and only Meredith's DNA that makes it onto the knife. Are we talking about Meredith's DNA somehow being airborn in the lab in overwhelmingly greater amounts than any other contaminant? If DNA samples got contaminated like that, surely LCN testing would be impossible as all samples would be hopelessly contaminated long before they arrived at the lab. Do they store items relating to the case open in the lab? Was a work surface scrubbed down 7 days previously and then went unused after the last Meredith sample was placed on it. If somehow the transmission route is via the lab, and the 6 day thing is true, its like the bra clasp - how unlucky are Amanda and Raffaele that it's exactly the wrong DNA that makes it onto the knife, not DNA from an unrelated case, or a lab worker. That kind of bad luck can clearly happen, even twice on the same case I suppose. I know Halides can provide countless examples. Still the ovewhelming majority of the time it doesn't happen.

shuttlt,

There were many items of Meredith's tested (just look at Charlie's list of selected DNA results and see how often Meredith's profile showed up). Every relevant thing I have been able to learn about low template DNA work indicates that contamination is a bigger worry for it than for conventional DNA testing. Professor Dan Krane responded to a question of mine on the subject, “There is absolutely no question but that contamination is a much greater problem in LCN cases than conventional DNA testing. The reasons that it is a greater problem are both because it is easier to detect contaminants ([Sara] Gino's point) and because it is easier to transfer (and to transfer without knowing) smaller amounts of DNA than larger amounts of DNA.”

 

[billyryan]

It seems that some people elsewhere also don't understand the difference between the evidence/testimony phase of a trial and the argument phase. The case for guilt (and any defensive case) is only made during the argument phase, and is based on the evidence/testimony from the previous phase. Indeed, in most jurisdictions it's forbidden to argue the case during the evidence/testimony phase.

Here's an example: Suppose Mr A is on trial accused of shooting Mr B dead. During the evidence/testimony phase, a gun might be entered into evidence, plus evidence of Mr A's fingerprints on the gun and a receipt showing that Mr A bought the gun three days before the murder. A police officer might give testimony saying that the gun was found in a drawer at Mr A's house (where he lived alone) during a search the day after the murder. Also, a bullet might be entered into evidence, which the autopsy pathologist testified was removed from Mr B's body, and which the pathologist rules was responsible for the death of Mr B. A forensic scientist might testify that comparative tests on the bullet showed that it was definitely fired from the specific gun that was found at Mr A's house.

So, all of that happens in the evidence/testimony phase. At this point, there has been no actual argument related to the guilt (or non-guilt) of Mr A. However, once the evidence/testimony phase is over, the trial moves into the argument phase. It is here that the evidence/testimony from the previous phase is used by the various parties to argue their case. Clearly, in this case the prosecution would argue that the evidence and testimony show that Mr A fired the gun whose bullet killed Mr B, and that Mr A should therefore be found guilty of shooting Mr B dead (whether murder, manslaughter or accidental death, depending on other factors).

In Hellmann's court, the evidence/testimony phase has just concluded. The argument phase will begin on September 23rd. It is only then that all parties will begin to argue their respective cases. And they will have the entire body of evidence/testimony from the first (Massei) trial, plus the additional new evidence entered between December-September in the appeal (Hellmann) trial to base their arguments upon. Therefore if the prosecution want to include..... for example...... the so-called "staging" in their argument, they are perfectly at liberty to do so, based on evidence and testimony in this area from the Massei trial. Similarly, if the defence choose to bring up time of death in their argument, they can do so using the evidence and testimony from the Massei trial. It seems highly unlikely that the prosecutors (or Maresca) will use any of the additional new evidence/testimony in their arguments - since it was pretty much all horribly damaging to the prosecution case. But of course the defence will almost certainly incorporate pretty much all the new Hellmann evidence/testimony in their arguments, as well as all the useful parts of evidence/testimony carried over from the Massei trial.

I follow you perfectly LJ but there is still one thing I am not clear on,Raffaela's defence team claim to have new information on Raffaele computer use on the night of the murder,with the help of his lecturers in the university of foreigners they claim they can prove computer use on the entire night of the crime,since this new evidence has not being tested in court how can it be used in the arguments phase,even if the new evidence is so strong that it would convince Peggy Ganong Peter Quinnell and Harry the machine rag of Raffaelo Solecito's innocence

 

[Bruce Fischer]

You recently wrote: "Brucie, not to be outdone then tries to spin a story about why Sfarzo called him confused over another of his as per custom off the wall asinine comments.
Brucie's spin story is about as credible and as intellectually based as the 2nd grader's dog who got so hungry and ate homework "


I explained the situation perfectly but ... I will explain it to you again.

Frank and I disagreed in the past about Stefanoni's evidence collection procedures. Frank called me confused during that conversation. You have taken that quote and ran with it like Harry Rag/The Machine likes to do with all of his useless quotes. Its okay, I understand your motives.

Recently Frank wrote that Stefanoni should stay in the lab because she made so many mistakes at the cottage when collecting evidence. I posted a link to his article praising him for seeing the truth about Stefanoni.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility.

 

[billyryan]

I suspect that he does have Comodi's remarks on tape. Most reporters these days carry small digital dictaphones with them, so that they can make sure that a) they catch all of an interview subject's words, and can replay them over and over during transcription for an article, and b) they have legal protection in the event that the interview subject subsequently claims that (s)he as been misquoted. I would therefore be pretty surprised if Comodi's amazing outburst has not been captured in nice clear digital audio on Mr Pisa's machine.

By the way, would it be deemed newsworthy if a member of Meredith Kercher's close family had been actively (and extremely frequently) engaging on internet message boards, blogs and comments sections, campaigning very aggressively in favour of the convictions of Knox and Sollecito? I think it would be extremely newsworthy.......

Come on LJ spit it out John Kercher is Harry Rag or collectively the Kercher family are Harry Rag,nobody could put in the amount of time this character has lying unless he was a close family member

 

[Grinder]

Shuttlt,

If there never had been DNA found on the knife, would you or anybody be claiming it was the murder weapon?

The one and only reason it was identified as the murder weapon is the DNA. It was the wrong shape, it tested negative for blood, etc.

Yes, that is all old news but still the truth. Why did the policeman pick this one knife? Why didn't they test all the knives in the cottage?

Everything was against the knife being the murder weapon and now the experts say the tenuous connection to crime is not reliable, that's significant and clearly Comodi gets it.

Had the knife tested positive for blood, had it fit the bloody print, had it matched the wounds (not compatible) then I'd consider it the murder weapon with or without DNA.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Dont worry: Quennell has no idea what he is talking about, and is exhibiting blind bias in an attempt to rationalise the situation and defend his near-indefensible position.

He has no idea of juicial process - either in US/UK or Italian courts. He therefore is not only ignorant of the fact that Guede's trials (including the Supreme Court ruling) have zero material effect upon Hellmann's court's ruling, but he's also ignorant of the fact that the appeal trial is a completely de novo trial. This is not about "overturning" or "upending" the verdict in the Massei court (or any of the Guede rulings for that matter). Hellmann;s court will determine its verdict in total isolation from all other rulings related to this case, and will purely use the evidence/testimony and arguments presented in the Hellmann courtroom to determine a very specific issue: whether sufficient proof was presented in Hellmann's courtroom to prove Knox's/Sollecito's guilt beyond all doubt based in human reason.

Hellmann's court therefore has nothing to do with any other ruling on this case. The only way in which there is any connection with the Massei trial is that all of the evidence/testimony introduced into Massei's court is automatically introduced into Hellmann's court. This is primarily a time- and cost-saving measure: it makes no sense to call all the same witnesses all over again just to give the same testimony and introduce the same evidence. The exception to this, of course, is if new evidence/testimony will offer a different perspective to Hellmann's court. This is exactly why the independent DNA report was ordered by Hellmann, and why Curatolo was recalled to the stand.

Quennell's stuff about the Guede Supreme Court ruling is nothing more than ignorant nonsense. If Quennell or "our Italian lawyers*" knew anything about separation of judicial processes, they would know that Knox's/Sollecito's trial process is empowered to reach verdicts entirely independent from any other trial process. It's actually one of the bedrocks of modern jurisprudence (although those idiots don't know it). In fact, evidence for this is sitting right in front of the idiots' faces: the same Supreme Court ruling on Guede ruled that the lower courts were correct in their finding of fact that the murder occurred at some time before 10.30pm, whereas Massei's court found that the murder took place between 11.30pm and 11.45pm.

I repeat: Quennell simply doesn't know what he's talking about. He's a sad, deluded individual with an agenda to pursue and protect. I'm afraid he's fiddling while Rome burns.

*I love how Quennell consistently refers to things such as "our Italian lawyers" - clearly intending to mislead readers into thinking that TJMK is some sort of organised multinational concern, with bustling offices and a group of dedicated professionals across the globe. In reality, it's one small (in intellect) man sitting in a windowless room stuffed with papers, who has some internet contact with a disparate group of misguided, intellectually-challenged individuals; together, they form a self-deluding self-supporting little group of misfits.

probably in his boxer shorts he's been wearing since Monday...


I have had an epiphany: I have concluded the reason no one has tested the stain is because they all know darn well whose it is. The only reason this particular group (i.e. Perugian authorities) would test it is to prove it to be Raff's and they all know it isn't Raff's, so why bother?

This was a revelation to me because as the second evidence phase has concluded, I finally realized as extremely, inexplicably absurd as it is to not test such a pertinent piece of evidence, that level of absurdity does not exceed the level of certainty held by every stinkin' one of them that it does not belong to RS. This, my friends, is the only possible explanation for the decision(s) not to test its ownership.

 

[RoseMontague]

[/HILITE]

probably in his boxer shorts he's been wearing since Monday...


I have had an epiphany: I have concluded the reason no one has tested the stain is because they all know darn well whose it is. The only reason this particular group (i.e. Perugian authorities) would test it is to prove it to be Raff's and they all know it isn't Raff's, so why bother?

This was a revelation to me because as the second evidence phase has concluded, I finally realized as extremely, inexplicably absurd as it is to not test such a pertinent piece of evidence, that level of absurdity does not exceed the level of certainty held by every stinkin' one of them that it does not belong to RS. This, my friends, is the only possible explanation for the decision(s) not to test its ownership.

LOL. Well put. I agree.

 

[LondonJohn]

[/HILITE]

I have had an epiphany: I have concluded the reason no one has tested the stain is because they all know darn well whose it is. The only reason this particular group (i.e. Perugian authorities) would test it is to prove it to be Raff's and they all know it isn't Raff's, so why bother?

This was a revelation to me because as the second evidence phase has concluded, I finally realized as extremely, inexplicably absurd as it is to not test such a pertinent piece of evidence, that level of absurdity does not exceed the level of certainty held by every stinkin' one of them that it does not belong to RS. This, my friends, is the only possible explanation for the decision(s) not to test its ownership.

I think you're right. But whichever way you cut it, it's inexplicable and unforgivable that the police didn't test a strange stain on a pillowcase that was underneath the victim of a murder with sexual elements. I've heard it said that perhaps the police figured the stain might be Silenzi's (Meredith's new Italian boyfriend's) semen, or even that they actually did test it and found it to be Silenzi's semen. But if that were the case, this fact should have been disclosed and the issue closed off: any "explanation" along the lines of "protecting the victim's privacy" go out of the window, I'm afraid, when people are on trial charged with murder.

I personally think that the stain was Guede's semen. I think it's hard to conclude that he went to the extent of penetrating Meredith (either with his finger or his penis) and didn't engage in any sexual activity of his own. There are numerous examples of men who assault women then reach a climax either as the women is dying or after she is dead - unpleasant but true. It's actually probably a more common occurrence than that of men who rape a woman then kill her after they have reached ejaculation (after which point feelings of aggression and powerlust tend to subside dramatically). As a result, when there is a female victim of rape and murder, it's extremely common for police to find semen on a victim's body or on clothing/ground near the victim, rather than actually inside a victim.

So I think it's not unlikely that Guede initiated a sexual assault on Meredith, at which point she struggled and screamed, and as a result of which he killed her. I think that - horrible as it seems - Guede continued with the sexual assault as Meredith lay dying, and ejaculated onto the pillow. I think that post-ejaculation, his feelings of aggression, lust and a need to dominate subsided dramatically, and he realised just what he had done. I think he spent five or ten minutes thinking about his next move; then he went to the bathroom, cleaned himself in the shower (probably), returned to Meredith's room with towels from the bathroom, possibly went towards the front door then turned round and returned once more to Meredith's room to find the keys he needed to open the front door.

As an aside, I see that Barbie Clouseau says that she has received numerous death threats following her recent reporting from Perugia. Now, even a cursory analysis of her tweets since Monday shows that almost without exception she's made comments that are extremely pro-defence (apart from some late equivocation which might well have been an attempt to ward off any further death threats). I would therefore find it reasonable to assume that those sending death threats are FAR more likely to be on the pro-guilt side of the argument than on the pro-acquittal side. Still, there's a UK solicitor who has issued a stern warning which he will say once and once only, so it's all OK

 

[LondonJohn]

Come on LJ spit it out John Kercher is Harry Rag or collectively the Kercher family are Harry Rag,nobody could put in the amount of time this character has lying unless he was a close family member

Well, I will say this: read a few of John Kercher's published articles about the Knox/Sollecito case, and compare the talking points and writing style with those of various pro-guilt commentators. Let's say that there seem to be some interesting machinations at work......

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Rep 198 and 199

RoseMontague,

I must have missed* this at the time but you commented on these two samples a while back. Two things came to mind, given that the broken window sill stain was positive by TMB, but negative by a specific test (should I take this to mean confirmatory test?). One is that these stains can be compared and contrasted with those that tested positive by luminol, some of which tested negative by TMB. In other words, should Comodi not have said to the jury, blood or turnip juice on the sill, you decide? If they were blood, then the whole staged break-in theory looks even more dubious. Two is that the forensic police must have had the ability to do specific tests. So why did they not do them on the luminol-positive areas in the flat?
EDT
I see that Komponisto translated the information you provided here and diastole also commented on it on the same page.
*apparently forgotten rather than missed

 

[RoseMontague]

RoseMontague,

I must have missed* this at the time but you commented on these two samples a while back. Two things came to mind, given that the broken window sill stain was positive by TMB, but negative by a specific test (should I take this to mean confirmatory test?). One is that these stains can be compared and contrasted with those that tested positive by luminol, some of which tested negative by TMB. In other words, should Comodi not have said to the jury, blood or turnip juice on the sill, you decide? If they were blood, then the whole staged break-in theory looks even more dubious. Two is that the forensic police must have had the ability to do specific tests. So why did they not do them on the luminol-positive areas in the flat?
EDT
I see that Komponisto translated the information you provided here and diastole also commented on it on the same page.
*apparently forgotten rather than missed

That is an excellent point. I can't help but feel that some tests were done that were not reported.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

I think you're right. But whichever way you cut it, it's inexplicable and unforgivable that the police didn't test a strange stain on a pillowcase that was underneath the victim of a murder with sexual elements. I've heard it said that perhaps the police figured the stain might be Silenzi's (Meredith's new Italian boyfriend's) semen, or even that they actually did test it and found it to be Silenzi's semen. But if that were the case, this fact should have been disclosed and the issue closed off: any "explanation" along the lines of "protecting the victim's privacy" go out of the window, I'm afraid, when people are on trial charged with murder.

I personally think that the stain was Guede's semen. I think it's hard to conclude that he went to the extent of penetrating Meredith (either with his finger or his penis) and didn't engage in any sexual activity of his own. There are numerous examples of men who assault women then reach a climax either as the women is dying or after she is dead - unpleasant but true. It's actually probably a more common occurrence than that of men who rape a woman then kill her after they have reached ejaculation (after which point feelings of aggression and powerlust tend to subside dramatically). As a result, when there is a female victim of rape and murder, it's extremely common for police to find semen on a victim's body or on clothing/ground near the victim, rather than actually inside a victim.

So I think it's not unlikely that Guede initiated a sexual assault on Meredith, at which point she struggled and screamed, and as a result of which he killed her. I think that - horrible as it seems - Guede continued with the sexual assault as Meredith lay dying, and ejaculated onto the pillow. I think that post-ejaculation, his feelings of aggression, lust and a need to dominate subsided dramatically, and he realised just what he had done. I think he spent five or ten minutes thinking about his next move; then he went to the bathroom, cleaned himself in the shower (probably), returned to Meredith's room with towels from the bathroom, possibly went towards the front door then turned round and returned once more to Meredith's room to find the keys he needed to open the front door.

As an aside, I see that Barbie Clouseau says that she has received numerous death threats following her recent reporting from Perugia. Now, even a cursory analysis of her tweets since Monday shows that almost without exception she's made comments that are extremely pro-defence (apart from some late equivocation which might well have been an attempt to ward off any further death threats). I would therefore find it reasonable to assume that those sending death threats are FAR more likely to be on the pro-guilt side of the argument than on the pro-acquittal side. Still, there's a UK solicitor who has issued a stern warning which he will say once and once only, so it's all OK

I was thinking about BLN yesterday and with as much ragging as she gets on this thread (some of it is deserved, I admit) I am glad she tweets as it is happening. AFAIK there isn't anyone else who is as informative as she is, in regards to live information during court proceedings.

I also had the same thoughts about who must be threatening her at this point. It is very disheartening. People need to realize how much we all depend upon journalists - of all colors - to keep us informed.