• 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.
You said it grinder , Would it really destroy evidence of sent emails?
 
Last edited:
Briars said:
I think Guede is trying to suggest RS ,(man with chestnut hair) said out loud to his companion ( Amanda) lets go. It is really not believable that RS said all this but saying lets go is.
Click to expand...

Why is this "believable" when nothing, not even Rudy's account, put RS even at the scene? Using your criteria it means it's also "believable" that Mel Gibson or you or me said, "Let's go." Do you have an alibi for that night?
 
Amen!
I think you just touched the 'strategic' surface - an "underground" attempt to destroy the most effective points the defense may make.
To me, it would appear that the prosecution is left with so little evidence that they are willing to go all out and just throw the 'kitchen sink' at the case, vainly hoping that something may stick. Jurisprudence 101, Anyone? Before you answer look up the meaning of 'prudence'.
 
Diocletus said:
Yes, and then they violated her rights when they typed that up and presented it to her to sign without allowing her access to counsel.
Click to expand...
They didn't refuse a lawyer if she had wanted one, just like her made up story of being denied food or water.She probably thought having a lawyer meant she wasn't just a casual witness in the kitchen and might have to account further for her actions. She naively thought just Lumumba would be charged.
 
an interesting article on the statistics of DNA mixtures

Linda Geddes wrote an article called, "How DNA evidence creates victims of chance." One of the more interesting things is to see the ranges of numbers quoted, depending on which statistical method is used. Dr. Balding is quoted: "The 1 in 95,000 figure in effect treated these alleles as full-weight evidence that the DNA came from the victim, ignoring the alternative possibility that the allele we saw could have been from the defendant..." This issue also arises in the present case because Mr. Sollecito and Ms. Kercher share a large number of alleles.

There is also a little bit on discovery. "The problem is not confined to the UK. 'In our experience, examination of the underlying data frequently reveals limitations or problems that would not be apparent from the lab report,' says William Thompson of the University of California, Berkeley*, who acts as an expert witness on DNA. However, 'forensic DNA analysts tell us that they receive requests [for DNA lab reports] from defence lawyers in only 10 to 15 per cent of cases in which their tests incriminate a suspect,' Thompson says."
*Professor Thompson is from the University of California at Irvine, IIRC.
 
Seriously Briars,

What the hell do you get out of this?

Are you so internally brainwashed that you can't see there isn't "evidence" beyond a reasonable doubt? That while maybe, there is room for suspicion, there is nothing that rises above that. Raffaele's statement that there was no theft isn't evidence, it is reading tea leaves. So is whether Filomena's door is ajar, so is Amanda's behavior at the Questura.

Evidence is Rudy's shoeprints that match the make model and size of the box that Rudy left in his abandoned apartment that he fled to go to Germany. Evidence is his palm print. Evidence is his DNA on and inside Meredith. What you have is things that make you go hmmm, but not thing that says Amanda and Raffaele murdered Meredith.

Are you so vested in your own opinion that you cannot see this? Are you so afraid of admitting that you were possibly mistaken that you will close your eyes?

I think it's time to take a deep breath and look in the mirror and consider that you, like everyone else is infallible and that it is ok to make mistakes.

Hell, even Edison made a mistake when he dissed alternating current. Einstein made a mistake when he dissed quantum mechanics. Both of them admitted that these were mistakes. Granted, both took a while to do so, but they did. Think about it.
 
Briars said:
They didn't refuse a lawyer if she had wanted one, just like her made up story of being denied food or water.She probably thought having a lawyer meant she wasn't just a casual witness in the kitchen and might have to account further for her actions. She naively thought just Lumumba would be charged.
Click to expand...

Now you're on to something. She naively thought that Lumumba was their suspect, and that they were trying to access her "repressed memories" a theory Donnino planted in her head, in English, with perhaps Ficarra unaware that's how it happened.
 
Is it true that the defense will only get one day to put on their case. The prosecution was given 2 days to ramble on with their pile of meaningless manure.
 
Bill Williams said:
Why is this "believable" when nothing, not even Rudy's account, put RS even at the scene? Using your criteria it means it's also "believable" that Mel Gibson or you or me said, "Let's go." Do you have an alibi for that night?
Click to expand...

The prosecution has always maintained that Rudy lies. That fact doesn't change the bigger lies and news lies by the other two defendants. It was a group crime.
 
Bill have you seen the latest on RS's facebook the DNA results from the knife. The clean sample was run twice and was a match. RIS would prefer a second double test I know but those results! Combine that with the clasp ,short of DNA planted deliberately by a knowing investigator placed on the tip of her glove. A pre planned transfer??
 
Briars said:
The prosecution has always maintained that Rudy lies. That fact doesn't change the bigger lies and news lies by the other two defendants. It was a group crime.
Click to expand...

Judging by the results found on the bra clasp,there must have been 6 or 7 in the attack group.
 
She named Lumumba and placed him at the scene. They were pressing her on where she was and who she met.The basketball court meeting, kitchen , black man wanting Meredith, sexual assault , single scream, was provided by Amanda.
 
Briars said:
She named Lumumba and placed him at the scene. They were pressing her on where she was and who she met.The basketball court meeting, kitchen , black man wanting Meredith, sexual assault , single scream, was provided by Amanda.
Click to expand...

And...case closed. Well done.
 
halides1 said:
Linda Geddes wrote an article called, "How DNA evidence creates victims of chance." One of the more interesting things is to see the ranges of numbers quoted, depending on which statistical method is used. Dr. Balding is quoted: "The 1 in 95,000 figure in effect treated these alleles as full-weight evidence that the DNA came from the victim, ignoring the alternative possibility that the allele we saw could have been from the defendant..." This issue also arises in the present case because Mr. Sollecito and Ms. Kercher share a large number of alleles.

There is also a little bit on discovery. "The problem is not confined to the UK. 'In our experience, examination of the underlying data frequently reveals limitations or problems that would not be apparent from the lab report,' says William Thompson of the University of California, Berkeley*, who acts as an expert witness on DNA. However, 'forensic DNA analysts tell us that they receive requests [for DNA lab reports] from defence lawyers in only 10 to 15 per cent of cases in which their tests incriminate a suspect,' Thompson says."
*Professor Thompson is from the University of California at Irvine, IIRC.
Click to expand...

Thanks, interesting article. Given the general rate of innumeracy, it's not hard to see how DNA evidence gets miscommunicated, misjudged, and misused. I know from experience that getting students to master concepts in basic probability and statistics is extremely challenging . . . really good teachers can do it -- if they have enough time and if the class is motivated & prepared to work.

Asking lawyers to pull it off with random judges and juries, using expert witnesses with limited time and no way to check for understanding as you go? That's never going to work.

The article points toward one of the many problems in this case: pretending to know more than you can know, given the material, equipment, and skills brought to the analysis.

DNA analysts can come under pressure from prosecutors and police, as well as defence lawyers, to render DNA evidence useable. "I'm not sure that the pressure is to drive the numbers in any particular direction, but perhaps to be more certain than you should be at some points," he says.

In really complex cases, analysts need to be able to draw a line and say "This is just too complex, I can't make the call on it," says Butler. "Part of the challenge now, is that every lab has that line set at a different place. But the honest thing to do as a scientist is to say: I'm not going to try to get something that won't be reliable."
Click to expand...
 
Poppy1016 said:
Judging by the results found on the bra clasp,there must have been 6 or 7 in the attack group.
Click to expand...
You are very wrong there are only two profiles that are complete the victim and RS's. Partial profile bits maybe off the victim's hand from doing up her bra are not the same. The ample source of RS needs a reasonable explanation,key here a realistic point of transfer.
 
Briars said:
You are very wrong there are only two profiles that are complete the victim and RS's. Partial profile bits maybe off the victim's hand from doing up her bra are not the same. The ample source of RS needs a reasonable explanation,key here a realistic point of transfer.
Click to expand...

That is not how the independant experts described what was found. Are you professing to know more?
 
Briars said:
She named Lumumba and placed him at the scene. They were pressing her on where she was and who she met.The basketball court meeting, kitchen , black man wanting Meredith, sexual assault , single scream, was provided by Amanda.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you don't know what happened during her interrogation. Neither does anybody else who wasn't present for the whole thing, and that, I'm guessing, is Amanda Knox herself.

I'm far, far more inclined to believe what she says than what someone like Donnino (I wasn't trying to make her think she'd repressed her memories due to trauma when I said I'd repressed my memory due to trauma! Of course not!) or Mignini (There was mixed blood of Amanda and Meredith! There were Amanda's footprints in Meredith's blood!) or Stefanoni (I didn't do a test for blood . . . oh wait, I did!)

All the physical evidence points toward one person, and that person has history, motive, and opportunity. There was a single perpetrator, and he's in prison at the moment.
 
Briars said:
You said it grinder , Would it really destroy evidence of sent emails?
Click to expand...

I didn't read his book. Did he say he sent emails or did he say he wrote them? He had dial-up and back in the day of dial up I sometimes wrote emails off-line and sent them in a batch. It is certainly possible that with his girl friend sleeping he might not have wanted to wake to that lovely noise of modems connecting.

Would the police frying the computers destroy that sort of use history?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom