• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yup :)

Barbie Latza Nadeau ‏@BLNadeau 2m

Bongiorno hammers point that international standards in DNA must be followed (they were not for #meredithkercher sample on tip of knife)
Click to expand...


Could be close to game over for the knife.......
 
Curiously, Machiavelli suddenly stopped tweeting updates from the courtroom some 15 minutes ago.

I wonder why that could be..............
 
C'mon Barbie:

Barbie said:
DallaVedova asks about international protocol, backfires slightly b/c RIS expert says he doesn't want to dis italian methods, are valid too
Click to expand...

La Nazione said:
Meredith process, the Ris emphasize the importance of following the international guidelines in the analysis # meredithnazione
Click to expand...
 
It sounds like Dalla Vedova should just shut up. The Carabinieri appear to have already confirmed the critical point: that low-template DNA results should never be considered valid unless/until they have been duplicated between two different amplification samples.
 
It sounds to me like Barbie is misunderstanding: if Italian methods are "in line with global standards", as the RIS guy said, then it means Italian methods also require double testing. He's not defending Stefanoni's work, but defending the standard to which Italian DNA testing is (or should be) carried out. Barbie's jumped from that to assuming "Italian methods" and Stefanoni's methods are one and the same thing, so that by defending the former he's defending the latter as well.

Barbie Latza Nadeau ‏@BLNadeau dallavedova manages to get RIS expert to defend Italian methods, says they are in line with global standards, this was crux of 1st appeal
Click to expand...

At any rate, I think the RIS guy's statement that double testing is required in DNA typing is enough to exclude the knife all on its own.

Barbie Latza Nadeau ‏@BLNadeau 1m
judge asks what minimum testing is for validation of DNA, RIS says "at least two" #amandaknox
Click to expand...

And...game over for the knife.
 
Excellent:

Barbie Latza Nadeau ‏@BLNadeau 2m

judge asks what minimum testing is for validation of DNA, RIS says "at least two" #amandaknox
Click to expand...

That right there - if it's accurate reporting - is enough all by itself to exclude the Meredith Kercher sample on 36B.

I now feel highly confident (again with the proviso that this report is accurate) to say that the knife is now worthless as evidence against Knox and Sollecito. Just as it should be, and as we've all been arguing for years. A big step forward on the road to their acquittals.
 
katy_did said:
It sounds to me like Barbie is misunderstanding: if Italian methods are "in line with global standards", as the RIS guy said, then it means Italian methods also require double testing. He's not defending Stefanoni's work, but defending the standard to which Italian DNA testing is (or should be) carried out. Barbie's jumped from that to assuming "Italian methods" and Stefanoni's methods are one and the same thing, so that by defending the former he's defending the latter as well.
Click to expand...


Yes, that's exactly what I took from that exchange as reported as well. It's not Italian standards/protocols per se that are the problem at all. It's the fact that Stefanoni manifestly didn't apply proper Italian (and, by extension, international) standards and protocols in her work.

By contrast, the Carabinieri scientists appear both to have understood and followed all the necessary standards and protocols. It's these standards and protocols that they are defending - not Stefanoni's incompetent and mendacious warping/ignorance of them.
 
katy_did said:
At any rate, I think the RIS guy's statement that double testing is required in DNA typing is enough to exclude the knife all on its own.

And...game over for the knife.
Click to expand...


Great minds........ :D

Now let's hear what Sollecito has to say.

Still nothing from Machiavelli. Perhaps he's sulking or crying :)
 
Sollecito statement appeared to be nothing new - it seems to have been part restatement of innocence, part complaint about persecution, part means of conveying respect to the court. So much for the feverish speculation of various pro-guilt commentators....


And that's it for the day. Without a shadow of a doubt, a very big win for the defence.
 
Ampulla of Vater said:
Raff twice denied knowing Guede.
Click to expand...


Yes, but it would still remain feasible (if very unlikely) that Sollecito could never had known Guede yet for some reason decided to collaborate with him in a sexual assault and murder.

In that respect, Sollecito's protestations of not knowing Guede (which, incidentally, I believe) are somewhat irrelevant to any judgement of his guilt/non-guilt/innocence. All that really matters is whether there is sufficient credible evidence tying him to the crime to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I now believe the knife is totally discredited as probative evidence against both Sollecito and Knox. But Sollecito now has to deal with a number of other crucial issues - the bra clasp DNA, the bathmat partial print, the break-in issue (including his "nothing was stolen" remark to the police), the evidence of Curatolo (which contradicted his claims to have been in his apartment all night), and his computer/phone activity.

I believe that each of these items of evidence (and "evidence") is entirely defendable and refutable. But they will each have to be tackled convincingly by Bongiorno and her team in closing arguments.

There's no doubt, however, that step one on the route to acquittal has definitely been reached today.
 
Hilariously (and rather pathetically), a certain pro-guilt commentator is trying to claim that the phrase "at least two" - as apparently spoken by the Carabinieri expert in response to how many duplicate low-template DNA tests are required for validation of the results - actually suggests three tests and really implies three :D :D

However, back in the normal, rational world, "at least two" means " a minimum of two", which means "two or more". Therefore it means that two would be sufficient, and so would three, four, five etc.

Some total loss of rational thinking ability among certain pro-guilt commentators, I think :p
 
LondonJohn said:
Yes, but it would still remain feasible (if very unlikely) that Sollecito could never had known Guede yet for some reason decided to collaborate with him in a sexual assault and murder.

In that respect, Sollecito's protestations of not knowing Guede (which, incidentally, I believe) are somewhat irrelevant to any judgement of his guilt/non-guilt/innocence. All that really matters is whether there is sufficient credible evidence tying him to the crime to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I now believe the knife is totally discredited as probative evidence against both Sollecito and Knox. But Sollecito now has to deal with a number of other crucial issues - the bra clasp DNA, the bathmat partial print, the break-in issue (including his "nothing was stolen" remark to the police), the evidence of Curatolo (which contradicted his claims to have been in his apartment all night), and his computer/phone activity.

I believe that each of these items of evidence (and "evidence") is entirely defendable and refutable. But they will each have to be tackled convincingly by Bongiorno and her team in closing arguments.

There's no doubt, however, that step one on the route to acquittal has definitely been reached today.
Click to expand...

Yes. I wonder what the spin on this will be from the pro-guilt side.
 
RoseMontague said:
Yes. I wonder what the spin on this will be from the pro-guilt side.
Click to expand...


Well, according to another prominent pro-guilt commentator (and forum moderator), the "real big news" from today is that the appeal will go on until mid-January!

You couldn't make it up! I suppose that a behavioral scientist might suggest that this was a combination of massive denial and cognitive dissonance.
 
LondonJohn said:
Hilariously (and rather pathetically), a certain pro-guilt commentator is trying to claim that the phrase "at least two" - as apparently spoken by the Carabinieri expert in response to how many duplicate low-template DNA tests are required for validation of the results - actually suggests three tests and really implies three :D :D

However, back in the normal, rational world, "at least two" means " a minimum of two", which means "two or more". Therefore it means that two would be sufficient, and so would three, four, five etc.

Some total loss of rational thinking ability among certain pro-guilt commentators, I think :p
Click to expand...

To be fair, I would say that "at least two" implies "preferably more, but two at a minimum". IIRC the recommended standard for LCN is three, but because that's often not practical due to the material being very scarce, two tests are accepted instead.
 
LondonJohn said:
Well, according to another prominent pro-guilt commentator (and forum moderator), the "real big news" from today is that the appeal will go on until mid-January!

You couldn't make it up! I suppose that a behavioral scientist might suggest that this was a combination of massive denial and cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...

If you read Vogt's report, it is almost as if DNA was not even discussed.

http://thefreelancedesk.com/front_featured/amanda-knox-appeal-2/
 
And here is Andrea Vogt's comment on her previous report...

The key question is how will the judge and jury interpret the new DNA test results? Much will hinge on the Nov. 6 arguments. As I have cautioned in the past, all reports previously released to Nov. 6 arguments should be considered incomplete, as it is the day of the hearing and the debate that commences before the judge and jury that really matters. Watch here for updates.
Click to expand...

Wow. She did not even address her key question in her Nov. 6 report.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom