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

Status
Not open for further replies.
The defense needs to hold a parallel trial on YouTube.

Use their own experts. Have an actors play the part of the police chief and detectives. How does the chief explain his "cased closed", "knew what was correct" and "until she buckled" remarks without saying they knew she was involved before the interrogation, i.e. she was a suspect. Why did they stop when she named Patrick? They hadn't stopped before.

Forget the window and proving that there was only one attacker. It is not their job to figure out the murder. That is the job of the prosecution.

They need to make it clear that they need not prove who and how the murder was committed.

Show the luminol prints and ask whether they could possibly be a match to anyone. If the court won't do it, do it on YT.

And more...
 
Grinder said:
Forget the window and proving that there was only one attacker. It is not their job to figure out the murder. That is the job of the prosecution.

They need to make it clear that they need not prove who and how the murder was committed.


And more...
Click to expand...

Unfortunately this is just not true, Grinder. It has always been a case where the defense has had to prove innocence. Just look at the contamination issue -- the court has stated they need to prove contamination, despite the video of the collection process. You don't get much more proof of contamination than what one can see in that video.
 
Grinder said:
Sherlock it's your contention that it was wrapped in F's room. You need to provide the cite. As I said earlier, I recalled that Amanda and raf were sitting in the common area and F asked Amanda to wrap it.
Click to expand...


Like I have already said, perhaps it was the common area, I can not find a cite that says where it was, I have always thought it was in Filomena's room, but could be wrong, but just because I can not find a cite as to where it was done, does not mean it was done in the common area, now does it.
 
Andrea Vogt ‏@andreavogt 25m

Judge rejected all defence motions to reopen debate on #amandaknox case. The knife will be tested for trace DNA.
Expand
Andrea Vogt ‏@andreavogt 29m

Judge in #amandaknox appeal grants prosecution request to hear testimony from mafia turncoat Luciano Aviello. Friday.
Expand
Andrea Vogt ‏@andreavogt 33m

Caribinieri RIS will retest knife for trace DNA in #amandaknox case, judge rules.
Click to expand...

Note who she says will do the testing this time around. Are they truly independent?
 
Ampulla of Vater said:
Unfortunately this is just not true, Grinder. It has always been a case where the defense has had to prove innocence. Just look at the contamination issue -- the court has stated they need to prove contamination, despite the video of the collection process. You don't get much more proof of contamination than what one can see in that video.
Click to expand...

Of course you are correct as things have been allowed to play out. I'm saying that the case is lost in Florence if the defense plays by the court rules only. By making it clear in all forums possible that the responsibilities have been turned on their heads I believe a case is made in Italy and perhaps more importantly here in the US.

If they are not afforded a fair appeal then the Italian system is in fact conducting a double jeopardy trial. They were found innocent and now they are not allowed to have a robust defense. That's DJ.

I agree with the concept that the possibility of contamination must be shown but beyond that it is ludicrous to demand the exact moment of contamination.

Show the luminol prints and show ten reference prints that are close and ask if the viewer can definitely pick out the match. If it is true that no reference prints were taken from F, L, M and previous female tenants make that a major point wherever possible.

It boggles the mind that those kind humanitarians over at schadenfreude.com don't want all the evidence explored.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Like I have already said, perhaps it was the common area, I can not find a cite that says where it was, I have always thought it was in Filomena's room, but could be wrong, but just because I can not find a cite as to where it was done, does not mean it was done in the common area, now does it.
Click to expand...

Sherlock you were making a case about what Amanda knew about the state of F's room because she had been in there wrapping the gift. There is no evidence that she was in there wrapping. If she had been in the room, I'm pretty sure the prosecution and the defense would asked Amanda about F's room and the state of the shutters. Since they didn't I'm very sure she wasn't in tehre.

So either drop the point or come up with something that can back it up.
 
HumanityBlues said:
There's not a great to spin this. It's bad news for them.
Click to expand...

Is that a challenge? :p

The good news is that trial will look like a total farce if the defense handles it correctly.

Had the court allowed all or most of the defense requests and then ruled guilty it would strengthen the verdict at least superficially.
 
Grinder said:
Is that a challenge? :p

The good news is that trial will look like a total farce if the defense handles it correctly.

Had the court allowed all or most of the defense requests and then ruled guilty it would strengthen the verdict at least superficially.
Click to expand...

Ok Perry Mason, whatever you say.
 
The CSC was off-the-charts wrong on DNA

Grinder said:
I agree with the concept that the possibility of contamination must be shown but beyond that it is ludicrous to demand the exact moment of contamination.
Click to expand...
I am not sure what the difference is between the "possibility of contamination" versus contamination itself. No one knows how contamination occurred in the Jaidyn Leskie or the Farah Jama cases, but everyone now agrees that this is what happened (The Aussies should be commended for the thoroughness of their enquiries in these two cases). Moreover, the notion that a six-day gap in testing rules out laboratory contamination of the knife is wrong for multiple reasons, including the two-day and one-day gaps in those two cases, respectively. Link here.

"Perhaps the most serious error the court made is to accept the assertion that there was no contamination without the methods or standards of proof even being defined. Under this court’s implicit rules, the prosecution would need only to offer DNA evidence and perhaps testimony from a friendly witness about the lack of contamination to ensure that the DNA evidence would be accepted in any criminal trial. Even without such testimony, the lack of insistence upon unfettered disclosure would severely hinder the defense from ever successfully challenging forensic DNA evidence on the grounds of contamination or misinterpretation of the data. Under such rules false convictions based upon faulty DNA evidence are inevitable because a defense based upon a theory of contamination would be virtually impossible to prove."

One last point. Some so-called "contamination" defenses are really alibi defenses, in which contamination or some other problem falls out as a by-product. In Farah Jama's case, the alibi defense failed at first. Upon appeal and further study, contamination was accepted, even though the exact moment was elusive. Woe unto the defendant who claims contamination with out an alibi, such as the Gary Leiterman case, even when the evidence of contamination could be understood by anyone with average intelligence and an open mind.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion the defense will have to work really hard to make sure that everyone see how biased the judge is (at least so far). They have to pick apart the prosecution and they have to be loud.

What's really scary is that the carabinieri will test the knife. It's really disappointing.
 
Last edited:
snook1 said:
In my opinion the defense will have to work really hard to make sure that everyone see how biased the judge is (at least so far). They have to pick apart the prosecution and they have to be loud.

What's really scary is that the carabinieri will test the knife. It's really disappointing.
Click to expand...

Could be worse, they could've sent it back to the Scientific Police... Oh well, let's see what the results are.

I'm curious as to what the court will do if the test comes back negative and Aviello talks his usual nonsense. Does the court just say "We didn't really need any of that stuff anyway, you're still guilty"? Do they order more tests?
 
katy_did said:
Could be worse, they could've sent it back to the Scientific Police... Oh well, let's see what the results are.

I'm curious as to what the court will do if the test comes back negative and Aviello talks his usual nonsense. Does the court just say "We didn't really need any of that stuff anyway, you're still guilty"? Do they order more tests?
Click to expand...

I was thinking about it too. If the knife test comes back with a "no DNA of Meredith", what will happen next?

Rhea at IIP reminded people how Hellmann rejected almost all of defense's requests at the start of the first appeal, this is the only thing that keeps me hopeful after today.
 
RandyN said:
So you want us to believe you and ignore Scientific American which is a well respected magazine not known for sensationalism or for lying in their articles...meanwhile you are known for arguing for illogical nonsense...I'm going with SA.
Click to expand...

Geez, I thought Scientific American was kind of a cross between The National Enquirer and Ripley's Believe it or Not. That's the rag that went on and on about the new carbon nanotube processor, and a high efficiency photovoltaic cell. I personally thought the articles about the human genome project was downright scandalous.

So, I can see why Machiavelli doesn't trust SA. After all, it's a well known fact that it is only interested in headlines.
 
halides1 said:
I am not sure what the difference is between the "possibility of contamination" versus contamination itself.
Click to expand...

I believe that if proper protocol had been followed that the results would need to be accepted unless specific contamination could be identified. The part the Italians seem to ignore is following protocol.

Does proper protocol eliminate the possibility of contamination? The latex glove case in Germany demonstrated a case where protocol was followed but contamination occurred anyway. Had the police/prosecutors in Germany arrested someone that fit the DNA found, it would have been incumbent on the defense to find that contamination.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom