Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

Status
Not open for further replies.
CoulsdonUK said:
Foot analysis like everything else in this “TV show” is only relevant if the court decides on further analysis. I am disappointed not because of some of the conclusions but it is so sloppy and lacking in detail.
Click to expand...

Not at all. It only needs the court to allow further expert testimony, from someone who can show the court how it's impossible to draw conclusive comparisons between the standing-foot reference prints made in print ink on smooth white paper and the dilute-blood-soaked partial print made with potentially with an entirely different footfall and/or weight distribution, on a heavily tufted cotton towelling bathmat.

In my view, it would be absolutely straightforward for a competent and experienced forensic podiatrist to show the court that the bathmat print cannot be used as evidence against Sollecito. It should also be able to show a court that further tests would only go to prove that the print cannot in fact be positively linked to any one person, save that it was made by an adult male with slightly-larger-than-average feet.
 
Matthew Best said:
I don't know why I thought it would be any better than that, but it was very disappointing, managing to mis-state both the prosecution's case AND the defence's case.
Click to expand...

It was extremely sloppily made and badly-researched in large parts. An instructive piece of sloppiness was that Knox's name was misspelled "Know" in a huge screen-filling white-on-black caption showing one of the "five questions"...

Having said that, I think that a few very interesting new things came out of it - chiefly the demonstrable ease of the climb, the bathmat print analysis by an expert in the field, and (to a degree) the sound tests from within Capezzali's bedroom.
 
Matthew Best said:
I don't know why I thought it would be any better than that, but it was very disappointing, managing to mis-state both the prosecution's case AND the defence's case.
Click to expand...
I completely agree; a complete waste of time. No one will be happy with its conclusion.
 
Channel 5 programme

I agree with LJ that the programme was shallow and barely scratched the surface of what is wrong with the basis of the case. Missing the fact that a young woman with a knife held to her throat is actually unlikely to put up a struggle, was bad - but they also said something about the scene not looking like a burglary with few items missing. Of course, the crime scene resembled what it was: an aborted burglary.

It had a curious choice of "5 Key Questions" - for example, the sound expert concluded that it was impossible for Nara Capazzeli to have heard ... the footsteps running up the metal staircase. Duh. What about the question of whether she heard the scream?

One of the interesting things to me, though, was the changing demeanour of the prosecution advocate during the course of the programme: she started out very confident and assertive, but became quieter and quieter towards the end. I think the demonstration by the climber getting up to the window in a matter of seconds was when she saw her task for what it was.
 
Matthew Best said:
The program is rubbish so far, but the demonstration of the climb to the window was excellent, and totally convincing. I presume nobody will now be suggesting that it couldn't be done by Guede?

Hah! I'm only joking! Of course they will still insist it couldn't be done. Their beliefs are impervious to evidence like this.
Click to expand...

Yes it's only a show... what's good to see is the climb, the guy with the invisible "DNA" powder, and not one reference to "weird behviours" somehow closing the case. Remember, before ANY of these forensics came in the PLE had declared, "caso chiuso" through behavioural observation only - eating pizzas, saying "ta-da" and crying at random moments.

One had even said, "She buckled (ie. at interrogation) and told us what we already knew." Which was that Lumumba was involved. Caso chiuso.

At least now we know the climb in the window is doable - easy in fact. At least there's one sane DNA expert who actually demonstrates the method of contamination, not to mention a critical piece of evidence been moved about the crime scene for 47 days.

This Channel 5 thing may not have been perfect... but it is certainly better than the cartoon Mignini prepared for trial that had, amongst other things, Knox bringing a lamp into Meredith's room..... I mean, where'd THAT come from? Certainly not the evidence.

It is good at least to see the British tide turn. The Kerchers actually do deserve the truth.
 
Bill Williams said:
Yes it's only a show... what's good to see is the climb, the guy with the invisible "DNA" powder, and not one reference to "weird behviours" somehow closing the case. Remember, before ANY of these forensics came in the PLE had declared, "caso chiuso" through behavioural observation only - eating pizzas, saying "ta-da" and crying at random moments.

One had even said, "She buckled (ie. at interrogation) and told us what we already knew." Which was that Lumumba was involved. Caso chiuso.

At least now we know the climb in the window is doable - easy in fact. At least there's one sane DNA expert who actually demonstrates the method of contamination, not to mention a critical piece of evidence been moved about the crime scene for 47 days.

This Channel 5 thing may not have been perfect... but it is certainly better than the cartoon Mignini prepared for trial that had, amongst other things, Knox bringing a lamp into Meredith's room..... I mean, where'd THAT come from? Certainly not the evidence.

It is good at least to see the British tide turn. The Kerchers actually do deserve the truth.
Click to expand...

How did you watch it Bill? Do you get UK C5 on cable/sat in your part of our (in)glorious commonwealth?! Or were C5 allowing non-UK IP addresses to stream it live online?
 
CoulsdonUK said:
Foot analysis like everything else in this “TV show” is only relevant if the court decides on further analysis. I am disappointed not because of some of the conclusions but it is so sloppy and lacking in detail.
Click to expand...

Welcome to our world. The whole investigation is lacking. The PLE destroy their hard drives (alibi) and yet continue to prosecute???
 
LondonJohn said:
Not at all. It only needs the court to allow further expert testimony, from someone who can show the court how it's impossible to draw conclusive comparisons between the standing-foot reference prints made in print ink on smooth white paper and the dilute-blood-soaked partial print made with potentially with an entirely different footfall and/or weight distribution, on a heavily tufted cotton towelling bathmat.

In my view, it would be absolutely straightforward for a competent and experienced forensic podiatrist to show the court that the bathmat print cannot be used as evidence against Sollecito. It should also be able to show a court that further tests would only go to prove that the print cannot in fact be positively linked to any one person, save that it was made by an adult male with slightly-larger-than-average feet.
Click to expand...

Yes it only needs the court to allow further expert testimony.
 
Briars said:
No Red herring. How often do we hear that they were dragged in at a late hour,
Sollecito wanted to wait until after his late dinner and dessert.Amanda tagged along that is why she was left to stretch in the hall. Wasn't it Frank who claimed the officer said she was called in?

I think the police were able to see if and when either defendants were in a habit of turning off their phones.
Click to expand...

Cell phone records do not show when phones are turned on or off. This is acknowledged in Massei.

In Raffaele's description of his interrogation in Honor Bound, there is no mention of phones or of the police asking him about his. We know Amanda told the police during her interrogation that she had turned off her phone on Nov. 1.

It's been so long since this controversy was put to rest that I can't even remember how they learned Raffaele turned off his phone, but I assume he told them.
 
I wanted to see how the climb could be done, so I am very happy too. Happy too that the window was broken from the outside. I would have thought the scream as allegedly heard would be worth testing. But generally a good programme for the defence I would have thought.
 
LondonJohn said:
How did you watch it Bill? Do you get UK C5 on cable/sat in your part of our (in)glorious commonwealth?! Or were C5 allowing non-UK IP addresses to stream it live online?
Click to expand...

I I can't tell you ALL my secrets. You might then doubt that I'm a miracle worker. (Cf. Scotty in the 23rd Century.)
 
CoulsdonUK said:
Yes it only needs the court to allow further expert testimony.
Click to expand...


Hmm. To refresh your memory, here's what you originally wrote, and where my response was directed (I've highlighted the most relevant part for ease):
Foot analysis like everything else in this “TV show” is only relevant if the court decides on further analysis
Click to expand...

Expert testimony is not analysis.....
 
toto said:
I wanted to see how the climb could be done, so I am very happy too. Happy too that the window was broken from the outside. I would have thought the scream as allegedly heard would be worth testing. But generally a good programme for the defence I would have thought.
Click to expand...

But the window could also have been broken during a supposed "staging" by holding the window open at - say - right angles to the wall, then throwing or pushing the rock through the glass, making contact with the outside-facing surface of the glass first. If that had happened, then everything would have taken place within the room. And of course it's also plausible that any "staging" could have involved Knox or Sollecito actually throwing the rock from outside anyhow.

It seems clear that the important thing about the "staging" is showing that the evidence is in fact entirely compatible with someone (Guede) opening the exterior shutters, throwing the rock through the window from the outside, then re-scaling the wall and climbing in through the window. If that can be shown - and I firmly believe it can - then it totally neutralises the "staging" theory at source.
 
The channel five programme asked if Rudy killed Meredith with Raffaele and Amanda. The programme neglected to mention that Amanda barely knew Rudy, Raffaele did not know Rudy at all and Amanda and Raffaele had only know each other six days. The programme did not ask the question was it credible that three virtual strangers would commit a brutal sexual assault and murder together.

There is one aspect of the media coverage which angers me. The media have not shown the massive level of misconduct which occurred in this case and how flawed the evidence against Amanda and Raffale was. How many media outlets have asked why the interrogations of Amanda and Raffaele were not recorded and they were denied access to lawyers ? How many media outlets have listed the evidence which was suppressed in this case and the numerous lies told by the police and prosecution? Despite this Machiavelli claims the media was biased in favour of Knox.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom