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

[Grinder]

You do not have to even ask that question, they are making up their excuses already, just in case. I do agree whit what you said about guilty and not guilty, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who claims they are 100% sure of either, not really worth discussing with and there are quite a few on both sides of this.

Name one PGP that isn't absolutely sure they are guilty of something?

There are many of us that have expressed only the certainty that the case made by the ILE didn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

At most every step the ILE screwed the pooch. They destroyed the hard drives. They obviously didn't collect, transport and test the DNA using protocols for regular DNA much less LCN. They neglected to record the interrogations. They denied DNA test data for no reason.

They convicted on compatible not matching evidence regarding the footprints and the mat print. They were not able to find one piece of evidence in the murder room except the highly suspect bra clasp.

I have a hard time using known data to put together a scenario where the kids killed Meredith either with Rudy or while he hid.

I asked one of the PGP here whether the phone records of Meredith showed the pattern Massei attributed to her to explain the weird calls that night. Alas no reply. The phones being "turned off" being a big deal because it didn't fit their phone patterns of 6 days, right.

While I don't know exactly what happened that night, I do know that the evidence presented by the ILE didn't rise to a guilty verdict.

 

[Matthew Best]

There is a hearing on Friday (Oct 4th) and two more later this month. There are a couple more in November and the verdict is expected in December - this is what we've got.

Edit - exact court dates -
September 30; October 4, 23, 24; and November 6, 7, 25, and 26.

Thanks. So the Italian "justice" system continues at its usual glacial pace. I don't understand why they can't get the whole thing done in two weeks.

 

[acbytesla]

You do not have to even ask that question, they are making up their excuses already, just in case. I do agree with what you said about guilty and not guilty, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who claims they are 100% sure of either, not really worth discussing with and there are quite a few on both sides of this.

I'm 99.999999999999 percent sure. I haven't seen a single shred of evidence that points to guilt. And since I've been following the case in detail for several years, I think I've heard every argument over and over and over again. There will not be any new evidence to ever come forth at least not any that is credible.

I guess I'm not worth discussing the case with. But that's ok with me Sherlock. My problem with you is that you have been discussing this case for a long time yourself and you've done it with a fence pole up your backside, constantly hedging your bets. Your position is the very definition of vacillating.

The big argument that the PGP has is that Amanda confessed. HARDLY. I've read her statements and considering that it is very clear that neither statement was actually written by Amanda and don't actually reflect what happened at the cottage and that there is no recording, I can't give it any real credence. Now if Patrick Lumumba's DNA was found on Meredith, then the police might have something. But they don't.

There is a reason that when someone makes a confession in the US, the detectives make them describe in detail what happened. That is so they can match the evidence with the confession. If it doesn't match, it is a false confession and is worthless. This is something they haven't seemed to learn in Italy. Patrick, doesn't match, the knife doesn't match, this is all just a bunch of bs.

 

[NancyS]

I'm 100% certain they are not guilty beyond all reasonable doubt - and that is what should matter - anything else is a miscarriage of justice

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The bra strap is contaminated by definition

Maybe the judges are not asking about "theoretical perspective" of "contamination". They are asking if there is a plausible (probable) alternative explanation for Sollecito's DNA to be on the bra clasp. A credible scenario for how did it get there.
This is the question. Not a question about "contamination" as phenomenon defined in theoretical perspectives.

For all anyone knows, Sollecito's DNA got there the same way the other donors' DNA got there. It doesn't matter. It is contaminated by definition. Period. Full stop.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm 100% certain they are not guilty beyond all reasonable doubt - and that is what should matter - anything else is a miscarriage of justice

Nice NancyS!!!! The Italians are so far away from that threshold which makes this prosecution absurd.

 

[codyjuneau]

.
In my opinion, the judges actions so far make perfect sense if his point of view is the following:

After analyzing the evidence and conclusions from the two previous trials, the judge, and probably the jurors, have determined there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore it is pointless for him to honor defence requests at this time because, despite what the Supreme Court implied, it is not his job to solve the crime. It is only his job to determine Raffaele and Amanda's guilt or innocence. However, to be fair to the prosecution, and to appease the Supreme Court, the judge has allowed the extra test on the knife.

If the test results indicate evidence of guilt, I think he will allow defence requests designed to discredit the findings.

If the test results do not indicate evidence of guilt, the court will retire and come back with an acquittal.
.

 

[Supernaut]

I'm 99.999999999999 percent sure. I haven't seen a single shred of evidence that points to guilt. And since I've been following the case in detail for several years, I think I've heard every argument over and over and over again. There will not be any new evidence to ever come forth at least not any that is credible.

I guess I'm not worth discussing the case with. But that's ok with me Sherlock. My problem with you is that you have been discussing this case for a long time yourself and you've done it with a fence pole up your backside, constantly hedging your bets. Your position is the very definition of vacillating.

The big argument that the PGP has is that Amanda confessed. HARDLY. I've read her statements and considering that it is very clear that neither statement was actually written by Amanda and don't actually reflect what happened at the cottage and that there is no recording, I can't give it any real credence. Now if Patrick Lumumba's DNA was found on Meredith, then the police might have something. But they don't.

There is a reason that when someone makes a confession in the US, the detectives make them describe in detail what happened. That is so they can match the evidence with the confession. If it doesn't match, it is a false confession and is worthless. This is something they haven't seemed to learn in Italy. Patrick, doesn't match, the knife doesn't match, this is all just a bunch of bs.

..... constantly hedging your bets. Your position is the very definition of vacillating.

I'd call it intellectual cowardice. Taking a position which endorses, or is endorsed by authority does not require courage or risk-taking, by definition.

'Sceptics' who defend orthodoxy in science (by which I mean 'cosmology' and 'theoretical physics', not the 'material sciences') irritate me with their pig-headedness, but I don't have any compulsion OR obligation to engage them about anything.

But in this case (literally) there are serious moral issues to be considered, real harm being done here and now, and it goes well beyond being merely irritating - it makes me angry as hell.

 

[Supernaut]

If you say so, it must be true. Much like Diocletus.
Don't you think that, on a skeptic's forum, you might admit that you can't state that as fact?

"Skeptic" (ahem, sceptic) is a word which has been co-opted and subtly twisted to mean something other than it originally did, and should.

 

[Supernaut]

PIP-types, such as myself, are sceptical of the claims made by the Italian authorities, and those made by the PGP-types who endorse them.

 

[RoseMontague]

Please explain why "they could prove contamination" is not a credible reason given the facts that 1) the records obviously CAN prove contamination, and 2) the defense is required to prove contamination.

Quite a conundrum. Great point.

 

[RoseMontague]

For all anyone knows, Sollecito's DNA got there the same way the other donors' DNA got there. It doesn't matter. It is contaminated by definition. Period. Full stop.

Yep. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see this.

 

[Supernaut]

For all anyone knows, Sollecito's DNA got there the same way the other donors' DNA got there. It doesn't matter. It is contaminated by definition. Period. Full stop.

I reckon "touch DNA" is going to be something of a buzz-phrase in the near future.

LCN or LT DNA samples CAN be evidence that some-one touched an object, but unless incredibly stringent precautions are taken during collection there's PLENTY of opportunity for secondary transfer. With the clasp, the cops filmed themselves as good as demonstrating how to transfer DNA from object to object.

[ETA >> and context is vital as well. Touch DNA from Guede was found and used as eviednce, but there was little or no way it could be attributed to secondary transfer, he had never been in the flat before, unlike Raffaele.]

This is about about amplifying samples which are usually so small they are invisible to the naked eye, and often even microscopically, where the material is mixed with other detritus.

It's quite distinct from a scenario where visible and identifiable material from the donor is found (tissue, blood, saliva, mucus, whatever), which makes direct transfer much safer to infer (but not necessarily a certainty).

 

[Supernaut]

Once more, with feeling;

The bra-clasp "findings" are WORTHLESS.

 

[Dan O.]

.
In my opinion, the judges actions so far make perfect sense if his point of view is the following:

After analyzing the evidence and conclusions from the two previous trials, the judge, and probably the jurors, have determined there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore it is pointless for him to honor defence requests at this time because, despite what the Supreme Court implied, it is not his job to solve the crime. It is only his job to determine Raffaele and Amanda's guilt or innocence. However, to be fair to the prosecution, and to appease the Supreme Court, the judge has allowed the extra test on the knife.

If the test results indicate evidence of guilt, I think he will allow defence requests designed to discredit the findings.

If the test results do not indicate evidence of guilt, the court will retire and come back with an acquittal.
.

That was my opinion of what was happening in the Hellmann trial. They are right back at where that one started.

How many do-overs does the prosecution get in Italy?

 

[RWVBWL]

A Sex Game Gone Wrong...

I hope you know I was just teasing you. You wrote a great post, just like always, that's why I copied the whole thing instead of trimming it.
<snip>
Seriously, thanks for sharing. What you have experienced in reality is obviously a thousand times more believable than what the Perugians came up with in their crusty little brains.

Gosh Mary H,
that post was removed by the Mods,
guess they don't like anyone trying to really ask honest down+dirty questions about what really happened to Miss Kercher
in that Sex Game Gone Wrong that an Italian court has apparently stated did indeed happen...


As I'm probably the only 1 here that discusses this tragic case who has personally, himself had to stand in front of a Judge and Jury of unknown people, err peers, for the crime of rape, and discuss in detail what happened that night, well I wanna ask:

Who participates in a Sex Game Gone Wrong and then, after murdering 1 of the women, decides to stage it so it looks like a sex crime?
I mean, come on folks!
Why not re-dress Miss Kercher's corpse and then throw it out of Filomena's broken bedroom window?
Steal a few things and make it look like a Robbery Gone Wrong?

If Amanda+Raff were slick enough to remove all their traces in Meredith's bedroom, while leaving Guede's,
how easy would it have been to stage a better fake tale of what happened that night?
I bet they woulda grabbed that Bra-Clasp too when disposing of Meredith's corpse...

Better yet,
why not stuff Meredith's corpse in the trunk of Raff's black Audi during the dark, drive somewhere into the boonies and then bury her body out there on the way to that pre-planned trip to Gubbio on a long Italian holiday weekend? Develop an alibi, like Guede tried to do when he went out to dance at the nightclubs of Perugia after leaving his DNA inside of Meredith...


Sure, let's play a Sex Game,
then stage the scene + leave the dead victim undressed in her bedroom
with a pillow shoved under her naked buttocks for the cops to find. And cover it to.
Suprise officer!
Right.
Pfffft.

 

[Supernaut]

That was my opinion of what was happening in the Hellmann trial. They are right back at where that one started.

How many do-overs does the prosecution get in Italy?

Dunno. But the Italian CJS seems to have arrogated the power to consign its victims, if not to Hell, to a sort of man-made purgatory.

Kind of medieval, really.

 

[GreyFox]

For all anyone knows, Sollecito's DNA got there the same way the other donors' DNA got there. It doesn't matter. It is contaminated by definition. Period. Full stop.

Precisely why the lawyers need the files. So they can review and determine where the contamination came from (since showing contamination isn't enough). Why can't the lawyers explain this better? The other DNA donors show that contamination is already there!
The files will shed light on how they got contaminated. Without them they are being denied the means to properly defend their clients.
The Kerschers are being denied answers. I don't see how this case will ever be put to rest without it !!! Your talking about the most important pieces of evidence here that if one of these items go the prosecutors way (is validated) it's case closed.
So tell me Mach.....Why would you want to hide the files???
I say Validate the Knife, or the Bra one way or another. Stop screwing everyone around and give the Kerschers the answers they seek. Not more trials !
I wouldn't expect a lot of political support from the states without it. Could all be a waste of the courts time if they don't put forth the effort IMO.

 

[Grinder]

It would appear that all parties except the court itself is interested in a full review of all the evidence. If in a the trial of the second instance nothing new can be brought to the court without a convincing argument before they are allowed to bring it in is a very odd process.

The defense should be making the case that a finding of not guilty from this court needs to include all possible reasonable evidence reviews. If this appeal court doesn't allow this test or that test will the ISC say they should have and send it back again?

But the court is allowing pictures of Raf's fingers which supposedly proves he couldn't have removed the bra because he had no nails - bizarro world

 

[Machiavelli]

For all anyone knows, Sollecito's DNA got there the same way the other donors' DNA got there. It doesn't matter. It is contaminated by definition. Period. Full stop.

You can run for elections, than write a law that says so.
The current jurisprudence is a bit different, as for what matters and what doesn't.

Actually, any DNA finding is - by definition - contamination. Not just the bra clasp. Just any DNA trace finding. If DNA is found on a door handle, it certainly doesn't belong to the door handle, it has another source, it's the trace from something/someone else; it means the door handle is contaminated.

Any DNA trace is contamination.
The relevant question as for a legal point of view, is its significance; that means, an assessment about what was the probable cause of that contamination. Significance aka probative value, is a logical inference/assessment about its probable origin.
The assessment about this probable cause, this is what makes the evidence.
The evidence consists in the assessment about plausible origin, not in the trace itself.

It makes no sense to say 'this is contamination'. Definitions are irrelevant, academic definitions are less than irrelevant, questions about "purity" referred to traces or objects or scene are irrelevant; what is relevant, is the question about its plausible origin. This is what matters, as by the present law.