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

[acbytesla]

.
I believe the Carabinieri also performed their tests with more modern equipment than Stefanoni used, which Justice Nencini enquired about.

Also, the Carabinieri presumably performed the tests in a lab qualified to test such infinitesimal amounts of DNA, which Stefanoni did not.

I believe this re-trial is being conducted properly and fairly, by an intelligent experienced judge, the Carabinieri are displaying professional expertise, and consequently Raffaele and Amanda will be re-acquitted.
.

It definitely appears that way to me cody. But I've been wrong before. I was beyond confident that the ISC would confirm Amanda's acquittal. I thought it was a joke when I read that they threw out Hellman's decision.

So, I'm not going going to pop any champagne until the fat lady sings.

 

[moodstream]

Is it really moodstream? What the RIS testified today that a minimum of two tests and controls used during Low Template or Low Copy DNA. Stefanoni only ran a single test. But lets say for argument sake that it was Ms. Kercher's DNA. What was said today is that 36B's results simply are not credible.

Because of Stefanoni's lack of rigor and adherence to minimum standards, the matched profile to Ms. Kercher was more likely the result of contamination as anything else.

That's easy to accept. My understanding of statistics is well short of rudimentary, but the odds of this particular knife being used in this crime I would guess would be several factors right of the decimal point even had it been smeared with Ms Kerchers DNA.

But a lot of people equate DNA with fingerprints. My own guess is that it would be close to impossible for the amount of Ms Kercher's DNA found on the knife to have come from any direct transfer of any kind. If it was cleaned, it would be clean, and if not, there should be lots more. As evidence, its unbelievably flimsy.

That won't keep guilters from proclaiming it's validity though, and I think the general public and the news media seem unable to look through these claims to reality. I just hope the appeals court can.

 

[AnimalFriendly]

I actually do think it is significant. I think they were stirred by him.

Hi all - it sounds like things went well for the Defense today overall

RE: Sollecito's statement, I thought I'd read a few weeks ago that he was going to reveal some exculpatory evidence relating to his computer hard drives, etc.? I guess that didn't happen but does anybody know if it's still a possibility, i.e., that his lawyers may present something during closing arguments?

 

[acbytesla]

That's easy to accept. My understanding of statistics is well short of rudimentary, but the odds of this particular knife being used in this crime I would guess would be several factors right of the decimal point even had it been smeared with Ms Kerchers DNA.

But a lot of people equate DNA with fingerprints. My own guess is that it would be close to impossible for the amount of Ms Kercher's DNA found on the knife to have come from any direct transfer of any kind. If it was cleaned, it would be clean, and if not, there should be lots more. As evidence, its unbelievably flimsy.

That won't keep guilters from proclaiming it's validity though, and I think the general public and the news media seem unable to look through these claims to reality. I just hope the appeals court can.

Of course not moodstream. I'm not sure at this point if the murder was on video they would drop the argument that Amanda and Raffaele were involved.

No one really should need the DNA results to come to the conclusion that this knife wasn't involved in the murder. That it is even considered realistically as such is a joke. When you consider where the knife was found, what type of knife it is, the idea that the knife was transported back and forth from the apartment to the cottage and then back to the apartment is just tooo bizarre to really ever consider.

I don't know if Stefanoni actually discovered DNA that matches Meredith Kercher on the knife of Raffale's DNA on the bra clasp. My guess is that she didn't. This is why she has never turned over the EDF files. They would expose her for the fraud she is.

 

[Onofarar]

Hmmm, are you sure this is the sequence LJ? My assumption would be that they have to make a decision initially as to how the sample is going to be divided - into two or three (or more) separate parts, depending on how much material is available - and that they then analyze all the samples they have, comparing the results at the end of the process. Given the uncertainty of LCN in general, it seems odd that they would leave a third sample untested if it was available and just say "We have two, that'll do". But I'm just guessing here.

Well at least here in the land of obscure state police labs and their manuals of proper DNA procedures which C&V had the audacity to reference in their report (I mean the good ole USofA) most DNA evidence would be divided in thirds with two tested by the police (contracted) lab and one third left for the defense to use for their own test by their own experts. (Except maybe in "Hang 'em High Michigan" where the police apparently don't want to share hardly anything from their DNA work

 

[LondonJohn]

Well, then, the fix is in. Machiavelli tweeted that the "evidence phase" is done... two more days of hearing in December, and two in January with a decision on Jan 10.

How are they going to do all that in the time allowed?

Closing arguments.

All the evidence and testimony they need is already in the record. They can easily cover off all these points and more inside a five-hour court day.

That's why I think it's critically important that they are clear, concise and relatively non-technical in their closing. They need to list each point, and spend very little time in getting to the heart of the matter for each point. No rambling discourse or detailed technical arguments. They can refer the court to the relevant evidence and testimony to support their arguments, but don't need to regurgitate the finer details of that evidence/testimony in their closing.

I think it's a very achievable task, provided it's approached in the right fashion. I think what the court needs to see from the defence in closing is short, sharp, passionate demolition of the prosecution case, with enough reference to the underlying evidence/testimony to enable the court to check the details during deliberation.

That's my take anyhow. Let's see what actually happens, and what strategy the defence teams do decide to adopt for closing. I may be wrong; I may be utterly misguided. But I seriously think that a "cut-through-the-BS" approach gives by far the best chance of success.

 

[Matthew Best]

You mean to say, that if the prosecutions fails in this appeal, they will appeal yet again? That seems a bit much but, I guess OK, as Italy goes...What I had meant by "all over" is an Acquittal, and the prosecution saying it would not appeal. Guess that was unrealistic.

Well, that's not actually what I was talking about. I was simply responding to your post which was about the "pro-guilt commentator group" and saying it will never be over for them.

 

[moodstream]

Of course not moodstream. I'm not sure at this point if the murder was on video they would drop the argument that Amanda and Raffaele were involved.

No one really should need the DNA results to come to the conclusion that this knife wasn't involved in the murder. That it is even considered realistically as such is a joke. When you consider where the knife was found, what type of knife it is, the idea that the knife was transported back and forth from the apartment to the cottage and then back to the apartment is just tooo bizarre to really ever consider.

I don't know if Stefanoni actually discovered DNA that matches Meredith Kercher on the knife of Raffale's DNA on the bra clasp. My guess is that she didn't. This is why she has never turned over the EDF files. They would expose her for the fraud she is.

Yea, if you look at the timing of when each of these items was found it’s an easy guess that the evidence was produced at the request of the prosecution. I am not saying it was manufactured, but it was delivered in response to a direct request to produce something that could be used to counter - for the knife, the fact that Lumumba was innocent and an unrelated 3rd man was the guilty party, and for the bra clasp, the fact that Sollecito's sister shredded the shoe evidence, the only convincing evidence the prosecution had.

 

[LondonJohn]

Hi all - it sounds like things went well for the Defense today overall

RE: Sollecito's statement, I thought I'd read a few weeks ago that he was going to reveal some exculpatory evidence relating to his computer hard drives, etc.? I guess that didn't happen but does anybody know if it's still a possibility, i.e., that his lawyers may present something during closing arguments?

The defence expert's report on Sollecito's computer has apparently been entered into evidence for the first time in this current trial. The first time we'll know whether there's anything exculpatory to Sollecito (and/or Knox) in that report will be during closing arguments.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Well, that's not actually what I was talking about. I was simply responding to your post which was about the "pro-guilt commentator group" and saying it will never be over for them.

Likely not. But certainly a final acquittal and a lack of appeal of that, would go a long way to putting out the flames for many. Such an event is far from certain, though.

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, I was wondering if Sollecito was arrested and detained as soon as he'd finished testifying today?

What's that? No, of course he wasn't? It was nothing more than a wild, rabid, wish-fulfillment guess from various pro-guilt commentators?

Oh.

 

[Rolfe]

Likely not. But certainly a final acquittal and a lack of appeal of that, would go a long way to putting out the flames for many. Such an event is far from certain, though.

If this is an acquittal, it's a dead cert the prosecution will appeal again. Who knows what the Supreme Court will do then! I was gobsmacked when I heard they'd overturned Hellmann. I was sitting in my car waiting to get into a car wash when it was announced on the radio, and so sure was I that the acquittal would be confirmed that's what I thought I'd heard at first. It was only as the discussion continued that the truth penetrated my stunned brain.

So who knows. This game of ping-pong could go on until both defendants are dead of extreme old age.

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

Likely not. But certainly a final acquittal and a lack of appeal of that, would go a long way to putting out the flames for many. Such an event is far from certain, though.

I suspect that many of the most fevered pro-guilt commentators will for ever refuse to abandon a belief in Knox's/Sollecito's guilt. They've already shown a remarkable penchant for the black art of ex-post-facto rationalisation, and I would bet that they will continue to employ such wooly and warped thinking in the future too. Many of them probably also feel simply too deeply invested in guilt to "admit defeat".

I would be very confident that a small online community (or couple of communities ) will keep up the (perceived) "fight for Meredith" long after any acquittals are finalised and confirmed. And provided they do not harass Knox, Sollecito or their families, they should just be considered irrelevant nonentities at that point.

I'm sure there are still small online communities devoted to showing how Lindy Chamberlain was guilty of killing her baby, but "got away with it".....

 

[LondonJohn]

If this is an acquittal, it's a dead cert the prosecution will appeal again. Who knows what the Supreme Court will do then! I was gobsmacked when I heard they'd overturned Hellmann. I was sitting in my car waiting to get into a car wash when it was announced on the radio, and so sure was I that the acquittal would be confirmed that's what I thought I'd heard at first. It was only as the discussion continued that the truth penetrated my stunned brain.

So who knows. This game of ping-pong could go on until both defendants are dead of extreme old age.

Rolfe.

I think that if the SC annulled any acquittal from the Nencini appeal court, the reaction would be so forceful - both outside and within Italy - that the whole integrity of the Italian criminal justice system would be placed in the balance.

After all, SC reversals are essentially the SC saying: "The appeal court judge (and judicial panel) cannot do its job properly". I think that can just about be accepted once, but twice consecutively would be a disastrous indictment of Italian justice.

Again, perhaps we'll see...

 

[smkovalinksy]

If this is an acquittal, it's a dead cert the prosecution will appeal again. Who knows what the Supreme Court will do then! I was gobsmacked when I heard they'd overturned Hellmann. I was sitting in my car waiting to get into a car wash when it was announced on the radio, and so sure was I that the acquittal would be confirmed that's what I thought I'd heard at first. It was only as the discussion continued that the truth penetrated my stunned brain.

So who knows. This game of ping-pong could go on until both defendants are dead of extreme old age.

Rolfe.

All very true- but if there is an acquittal, what new evidence/ammunition would be left for the prosecution to fight with? That was my thinking. For some reason, I had an intuition Hellmann would be overturned; do not know why....

 

[smkovalinksy]

I suspect that many of the most fevered pro-guilt commentators will for ever refuse to abandon a belief in Knox's/Sollecito's guilt. They've already shown a remarkable penchant for the black art of ex-post-facto rationalisation, and I would bet that they will continue to employ such wooly and warped thinking in the future too. Many of them probably also feel simply too deeply invested in guilt to "admit defeat".

I would be very confident that a small online community (or couple of communities ) will keep up the (perceived) "fight for Meredith" long after any acquittals are finalised and confirmed. And provided they do not harass Knox, Sollecito or their families, they should just be considered irrelevant nonentities at that point.

I'm sure there are still small online communities devoted to showing how Lindy Chamberlain was guilty of killing her baby, but "got away with it".....

Yes, I know that there are obsessive types who never give up, never change their thinking. But as with those who still believe Lindy guilty---they are disenfranchised for the most part. Deflated, as it were.....

 

[acbytesla]

If this is an acquittal, it's a dead cert the prosecution will appeal again. Who knows what the Supreme Court will do then! I was gobsmacked when I heard they'd overturned Hellmann. I was sitting in my car waiting to get into a car wash when it was announced on the radio, and so sure was I that the acquittal would be confirmed that's what I thought I'd heard at first. It was only as the discussion continued that the truth penetrated my stunned brain.

So who knows. This game of ping-pong could go on until both defendants are dead of extreme old age.

Rolfe.

Is it really dead certain Rolfe? It gets tiring getting your ass kicked all over the school yard. But given what I've seen in the Debra Milke, Ryan Ferguson case and others, I'd say you were right. These morons never seem to go quietly unto that good night.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think that if the SC annulled any acquittal from the Nencini appeal court, the reaction would be so forceful - both outside and within Italy - that the whole integrity of the Italian criminal justice system would be placed in the balance.

After all, SC reversals are essentially the SC saying: "The appeal court judge (and judicial panel) cannot do its job properly". I think that can just about be accepted once, but twice consecutively would be a disastrous indictment of Italian justice.

Again, perhaps we'll see...

Be aware that the following is from some who has yet to predict anything right. By God, Peter Q. has a better record than me!

But this case has enough of a profile in the U.S. if not the world, that any screwing with this case will be brutal for Italy.

Even the most supportive press in the U.S. will only let Italy hit this fat once.... er, twice.... but a third time?

 

[yimyammer]

Nothing he said was unexpected, but the fact that he said it in court today was news and the fact that he was a nice looking lad that would appeal to a significant portion of the readers of that column suggests spending a few moments on what he said was the right choice if you were trying to write a piece on the trial that would have commercial value.

I would think it might also be beneficial (even if only slightly) that he was in court making a statement versus not attending and staying abroad in the Dominican Republic

 

[LondonJohn]

Hehehehe

the same pro-guilt commentator - nothing if not persistent (or should that be "unable to back down") - is still trying to claim that "at least two" means "probably three"

Let me try a different tack here to get the message across as plainly as I can:

Suppose I am taking an exam tomorrow, that consists of twelve questions.

In order to pass the exam, I need to get "at least eight" answers correct.

So:

If I get exactly eight answers correct, do I pass the exam?

If I get nine answers correct, do I pass the exam?

If I get seven answers correct, do I pass the exam?


For the final time: "at least two" means axiomatically that "two are acceptable". Whether "three might be better" is true or not is irrelevant. Two are acceptable. Less than two (i.e. one) is unacceptable. End of story. For ever.