• 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 Seven: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Diocletus said:
What would they talk about? They hardly heard any testimony.

The decision will be made a the "jury" that knows the least about the case. Because, you know, the Italian system is evolved over 2000 to years to be vastly superior to any other system, in particular the Anglo-Saxon system.
Click to expand...

What's there to talk about? I thought it had been said many times that the jury was supposed to consider all previous testimony and fact-finding.

I guess not, huh? Why is no one complaining?

I missed most of this trial... so I don't really know what went on. Maybe the lawyers walked them through the case. Maybe not. I can't see how the jury could even hope to distinguish truth from fiction if all they're going on is Lawyer A said this, Lawyer B said that.

ETA: Obviously people are complaining. I just haven't seen complaints about the absurd brevity of the deliberations.
 
Last edited:
PCR conditions versus capillary electrophoresis data

Diocletus said:
Interesting. And where would one locate more basic data, such as STR parameters (e.g., cycle numbers), amplification curve, plate set-up and control results?
Click to expand...
I will have to get back to you with respect to cycle numbers, but suffice it to say that it obviously should be discoverable. It might be part of the machine logs. With respect to the electronic data files, Dr. Jason Gilder responded to a question of mine: "Each tested sample has its own file. The file contains the full electropherogram trace information along with other information about the testing conditions (e.g., date, time, injection time, voltage, temperature, current, the RFU threshold used by the analyst). If you have the electronic data, you can use the DNA analysis software (GeneScan & Genotyper or GeneMapper ID) to independently analyze the electronic data. That allows you to examine the results as closely as possible (zoom in on the electropherogram to evaluate low-level results) and establish the RFU threshold of your choosing."
ETA
The appendix to this article has a model discovery form. It does not discuss the PCR amplification phase of the experiment specifically, but it does have a point (6) that reads, "Data files: Please provide copies of all data files used and created in the course of performing the testing and analyzing the data in this case. These files should include all data necessary to, (i) independently reana- lyze the raw data and (ii) reconstruct the analysis per- formed in this case. For analyses performed with GeneScan and Genotyper, these materials should include..."
 
Last edited:
This all feels so moot now that we are running into the FOURTH attempt at getting closure, especially in the knowledge that no matter which way it goes tonight, it still won't be over.
 
CoulsdonUK said:
That’s a shock!

Murder victim’s brother believes in prosecution’s case. Defendant’s family believe in their innocence; go figure!
Click to expand...


You did not address the reason for his post IMO. And your comment about "That's a shock" belies your stance on this case. Which is your right, but nonetheless your post is rather a non-comment on the case. There is a pattern of the old appeal to authority and thus respect whatever comes down from them. This forum is, I believe, designed for thinking people, thus they spend a lot of time thinking for themselves. You can argue with the analysis of course. But I totally agree with Diocletus (sp?) that it is time for the Kerchers to do their own thinking and stop doing the same veneer of passing off responsibility to the "system".
 
Wildhorses said:
What's there to talk about? I thought it had been said many times that the jury was supposed to consider all previous testimony and fact-finding.

I guess not, huh? Why is no one complaining?

I missed most of this trial... so I don't really know what went on. Maybe the lawyers walked them through the case. Maybe not. I can't see how the jury could even hope to distinguish truth from fiction if all they're going on is Lawyer A said this, Lawyer B said that.
Click to expand...

I just kidding sort of. Point being that the Supreme Court's decision stripped the defendants of the ability to have the jury pass on the credibility of the witnesses, because in effect, there are no live witnesses before this court.

Reading a bunch of transcripts in lieu of live testimony isn't a very good way to make sense of the evidence.
 
Did I just see Bongiorno doing pirouettes at the front of the room?

ETA: CNN appears to be full of crap. Italian sources are still holding on the 20:00 update.
 
Last edited:
AmyStrange said:
-

Most times, when it takes a little bit of time to come up with a verdict, it's a good sign for the defense. It means that at least one person is arguing innocence. In this case, I would venture to say it's more than one person,

d

-
Click to expand...

I was wondering about that, I thought this came up last time.

Why is a longer deliberation better for the defense?
Massei's ran into the evening, Hellmans ..I dont recall.

I hope Nencini is behaving himself and not doing the Mignini stuff.
Seems there should be some "watchdog" in the room to make sure the Judge isnt leading the votes....maybe one lawyer from each side could sit in, silent observer of the deliberations? just a thought.
 
bolint said:
Yes. His father told Corriere, and Maori to La Nazione. It is not known where they are now.
Click to expand...

Oh NO. Wow, that knocks the hope out of me.

The jury is probably arguing over some dumb thing like how much to increase the calumnia charge.

Poor Raff. I hope he makes it out of the country. I'm devastated to hear this. Godspeed, Raff.
 
JREF2010 said:
I was wondering about that, I thought this came up last time.

Why is a longer deliberation better for the defense?
Massei's ran into the evening, Hellmans ..I dont recall.

I hope Nencini is behaving himself and not doing the Mignini stuff.
Seems there should be some "watchdog" in the room to make sure the Judge isnt leading the votes....maybe one lawyer from each side could sit in, silent observer of the deliberations? just a thought.
Click to expand...

Hellmann deliberated from noon to 8:30 pm. Nencini started at around 10 am...

I honestly don't know what to expect. I still have this awful feeling that it's going to be the worst outcome, but deep inside I'm still hoping.

The suggestion with lawyer present is a good one, but I guess, it will never happen.
 
Diocletus said:
Very interesting. Anyone know the voting requirement? I don't believe that unanimity is required . . . simple majority?
Click to expand...

I believe the verdict requires majority vote. I believe the number of judges is an even number so that in the case of a tie the senior judge's vote is the deciding vote. Machiavelli could clarify that for us if he were here today.
 
Wildhorses said:
Oh NO. Wow, that knocks the hope out of me.

The jury is probably arguing over some dumb thing like how much to increase the calumnia charge.

Poor Raff. I hope he makes it out of the country. I'm devastated to hear this. Godspeed, Raff.
Click to expand...

I don't think he is on a ship with running engine.
 
Since I decided to be hopeful a week or so back I won't change my mind now! But... if they were both to be found not guilty I would have thought that would be rather straightforward. But if they were to be found guilty I could see they might take more time to work out sentences, including the calunnia charge, whether Rafaelle is to have his passport revoked etc. Must be nerve racking for A and R and their families. (Also probably the same for the Kercher family).
 
-

JREF2010 said:
I was wondering about that, I thought this came up last time.

Why is a longer deliberation better for the defense? Massei's ran into the evening, Hellmans ..I dont recall.
I hope Nencini is behaving himself and not doing the Mignini stuff.
Seems there should be some "watchdog" in the room to make sure the Judge isnt leading the votes....maybe one lawyer from each side could sit in, silent observer of the deliberations? just a thought.
Click to expand...
-

Mostly because at least one or more people are arguing innocence (not guilty). In this case, I think it's more than one person.

The timing of the Massei's court, meant it must have taken a little while to convince the "not guilty" camp to vote "guilty".

The Hellmann decision came just after noon last time here in Seattle, IIRC.

How about if they recorded the interro...er discussion (deliberations) for later review?

d

-
 
Last edited:
Diocletus said:
I just kidding sort of. Point being that the Supreme Court's decision stripped the defendants of the ability to have the jury pass on the credibility of the witnesses, because in effect, there are no live witnesses before this court.

Reading a bunch of transcripts in lieu of live testimony isn't a very good way to make sense of the evidence.
Click to expand...

Reading transcripts *could* be a good way. It just takes time.

I'd expect it to take days of jury meetings just to identify what aspects of the reading needed to be clarified. No way, no way could people read the those transcripts and "decide" on a verdict in a few hours.

I'm heartsick that Raff left. That's the writing on the wall. I knew it was looking bad, knew the SC report rendered this whole exercise absurd... I just hoped for a ray sanity.
 
Wildhorses said:
I missed most of this trial... so I don't really know what went on. Maybe the lawyers walked them through the case. Maybe not. I can't see how the jury could even hope to distinguish truth from fiction if all they're going on is Lawyer A said this, Lawyer B said that.
Click to expand...

You didn't miss much. They met for a couple of hours each week to discuss their lunch orders. lasagna or pizza and whether to drink beer or wind with their orders. Their was no new evidence except finding more of Amanda Knox's DNA on a knife that she admitted using for cooking purposes. Other than that, the lawyers droned on and on and on. (After all, they charge by the hour)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom