• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

Status
Not open for further replies.
LondonJohn said:
You do realise, don't you, that:

1) There is zero credible, reliable evidence of Knox's/Sollecito's participation in the Kercher murder;

2) All of the evidence is wholly compatible with Guede being the sole perpetrator;

3) The near-certain truth is that Guede alone attacked and murdered Kercher, while Knox and Sollecito were alone together in Sollecito's apartment at the time?

Because that's what all the evidence (and lack of evidence) says very clearly. And that's what the Italian courts (eventually) confirm. And that's what every single rational, intelligent, well-informed observer of this case has long concluded.

What is it that you still don't understand. Perhaps one of us here can explain it to you? Best regards!
Click to expand...

Someone's hacked LoJo's account.
 
acbytesla said:
I am unaware of that turd being a member here. I have never seen the handle "ergon" at this site.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine him actually posting here as he'd have to defend his outrageous opinions. I know he does post elsewhere but he always ends up retreated to the safety of his controlled sandbox at dot nut, where no one dare question his wisdom. Honestly, I don't miss him.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
A new book about the use and misuse of forensics is coming out, edited by Wendy Koen and C. Michael Bowers. Chapter 7 is about DNA and features the Knox/Sollecito case. Chapter 8 (which is coauthored by Kim Lott and myself) is about presumptive and confirmatory testing for blood, and the Knox/Sollecito case is mentioned.
Click to expand...


Congratulations! This looks like a relevant, interesting and important book. And the synopses suggest that the book will both reflect and further inform the debate that's taken place within this thread - a debate which was long ridiculed by many, including many in positions of authority who should have known far, far better, but which turned out to have been pretty much bang on the money. A lot of people ought to be very ashamed of themselves, but they probably won't be....

The level of scientific discourse within this thread, in particular, has almost always been of a very high standard. It's been people such as Chris (and others, such as Planigale and Rolfe and many additional contributors) who have lent their knowledge, experience and deep understanding of the scientific method in their approach to this case. In addition, there are many here who have employed decent levels of scientific literacy and critical thinking to help advance the debate in the right direction. I am as certain as I can be that all such people have approached this case from a position of the strictest (emotional) neutrality, and have purely let the evidence and the science tell the story and lead to the conclusions. And the conclusions in this case are inescapable: it's only certain incompetent lower Italian courts and a small cadre of over-invested (and largely scientifically-illiterate) pro-guilt commentators who have never "got" the points which the evidence and science were screaming out at us.

It's good to see that one good thing coming out of this sorry fiasco is a further amount of learning, and a clear cautionary tale about the misuse (and abuse) of science within the world of criminal justice. The courts, the media, the scientific community, academia, legislators and the public all need to be made aware that the misapplication of science can be extraordinarily destructive. And, paradoxically perhaps, it's probably because courts and juries are taught to view science as "infallible" - and, most damagingly of all, to view someone testifying as a prosecution scientific "expert" as incontrovertibly correct - that these sorts of grotesque failings occur. A court/jury hears a prosecution "expert" tell them the "science" proves something that in itself proves a person's guilt, then the same court/jury is also likely to dismiss the defence experts' attacks as a case of "they would say that, wouldn't they" while somehow assuming that police/prosecution experts would NEVER claim anything that wasn't totally scientifically robust, credible and reliable.

It's cases such as the Knox/Sollecito trials and the Lindy Chamberlain case which are thankfully helping to bring these sorts of matters to far wider attention across many different communities of interest. In the short/medium-term, it's clear that courts and legislators desperately need to address the benefits and limitations of very-low-template DNA evidence. Courts and juries are just too used to blindly think: "if prosecutors say there's a DNA match, then this is irrefutable evidence that the person in question was there at the scene". Not only do there need to be very clear and mandatory rules about how low-template DNA evidence must be collected, stored, tested and interpreted (hello not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni), there also need to be rules about how courts instruct juries (and/or themselves) in the specific issues pertaining to low-template DNA. This will only become more and more important, and more and more urgent, as new advances enable DNA to be captured and analysed at ever lower quantities.

Beyond that, the wider issue of how scientific evidence is used in criminal trials needs to be re-evaluated. There's simply far too much scientific illiteracy and misunderstanding among courts and juries alike (not to mention the media and the general public). Books such as this one will hopefully lead to two things: a trickle-down of knowledge and understanding, and some more formalised processes to address the sorts of things outlined above.

Again, congratulations to Chris for his contribution to what seems to be an important and relevant piece of academic literature. Here's hoping it makes waves in all sorts of communities of interest.
 
Last edited:
Some of the advantages in having the electronic data files

One of the first things that I brought to the attention of this thread was the failure to release the electronic data files to the defense. Here is a portion of what Ford and Krane say on the subject in Chapter 7: "We know of several cases in which review of electronic data has revealed contamination that had been expunged from the paper case file or instances in which the laboratory had manipulated electronic data in order to cover up errors such as mislabeling of samples or a failed control (a major breach of good scientific practice [Thompson, 2006]). Furthermore, the electronic files are also useful for producing trial exhibits."
 
Chris_Halkides said:
One of the first things that I brought to the attention of this thread was the failure to release the electronic data files to the defense. Here is a portion of what Ford and Krane say on the subject in Chapter 7: "We know of several cases in which review of electronic data has revealed contamination that had been expunged from the paper case file or instances in which the laboratory had manipulated electronic data in order to cover up errors such as mislabeling of samples or a failed control (a major breach of good scientific practice [Thompson, 2006]). Furthermore, the electronic files are also useful for producing trial exhibits."
Click to expand...



Exactly. It's so good to be seeing this highlighted. Especially when prosecutors in the Knox/Sollecito trials process essentially mocked the defence teams on this issue, and protested loudly and vehemently to the courts that a) this kind of stuff was never provided to the defence, and b) the mere request from the defence for its provision was to imply malpractice and deliberate falsification from the police and prosecutors (ironically, while there are many other valid reasons why the courts/defence should be provided with the EDFs, in this particular case there HAD been malpractice and falsification from the police and prosecutors).

And, as you will know far better than I (and as I suspect the book will point out), the issue of court/defence access to raw data files will only become increasingly critical as DNA technology advances to allow for more and more minuscule quantities of DNA to be recovered, tested and analysed. The combination of a) ever-decreasing signal-to-noise ratios, and b) the ever-increasing possibility of secondary- and tertiary-contamination, mean that the raw EDFs will form a hugely important component of discovery. It can only be hoped that the combination of books such as this and a higher level of general understanding of these issues within the criminal justice system will result in far, far better protocols and rules being put in place across the world, with the aim of minimising the chances of future miscarriages of justice related to either poor/improper/falsified police forensic work or the inability of courts to understand the science (and its limitations) properly.
 
LondonJohn said:
Congratulations! This looks like a relevant, interesting and important book......
Click to expand...

I second your entire post, LJ.. congratulations Chris. I look forward to reading it.

However, after watching a program last night about the murder of three year old Riley Fox I am reminded that despite the incredible improvements in forensic science, there is just no getting around corrupt or misguided law enforcement and the courts that do nothing about it.

This case was never very complicated. Guede left behind an abundance of forensic evidence. The details of the crime scene should have made it fairly easy to put a chronology of events together, especially given Guede's recent history of B&E's. And aside from an overactive imagination, there was never any legitimate reason for the investigators to think anyone else was involved. But as we see so often, once tunnel vision set in, almost nothing else mattered. Many of the mistakes made by the forensic team were of the 101 variety. This case didn't require leading edge forensic science or world renowned scientists to figure it out. All it needed was a little honesty and integrity from those who were tasked with investigating and prosecuting it.

There are no limits to where science can take us, but there's just no fixing stupid.
 
Condolences for and memories of Grinder, who recently died, have been moved here.

Discussion of that action has been moved here.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin
 
TruthCalls said:
I second your entire post, LJ.. congratulations Chris. I look forward to reading it.

However, after watching a program last night about the murder of three year old Riley Fox I am reminded that despite the incredible improvements in forensic science, there is just no getting around corrupt or misguided law enforcement and the courts that do nothing about it.This case was never very complicated. Guede left behind an abundance of forensic evidence. The details of the crime scene should have made it fairly easy to put a chronology of events together, especially given Guede's recent history of B&E's. And aside from an overactive imagination, there was never any legitimate reason for the investigators to think anyone else was involved. But as we see so often, once tunnel vision set in, almost nothing else mattered. Many of the mistakes made by the forensic team were of the 101 variety. This case didn't require leading edge forensic science or world renowned scientists to figure it out. All it needed was a little honesty and integrity from those who were tasked with investigating and prosecuting it.

There are no limits to where science can take us, but there's just no fixing stupid.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. An investigation is only as good as those doing the investigation. When those investigators are inept and convinced that their assumptions and hastily formed conclusions are correct, they cease to become
investigators.
 
TruthCalls said:
.
.
This case was never very complicated. Guede left behind an abundance of forensic evidence. The details of the crime scene should have made it fairly easy to put a chronology of events together, especially given Guede's recent history of B&E's. And aside from an overactive imagination, there was never any legitimate reason for the investigators to think anyone else was involved. But as we see so often, once tunnel vision set in, almost nothing else mattered. Many of the mistakes made by the forensic team were of the 101 variety. This case didn't require leading edge forensic science or world renowned scientists to figure it out. All it needed was a little honesty and integrity from those who were tasked with investigating and prosecuting it.
.
.
Click to expand...


The above is about all that needs to be said about this case
 
Para one and para two

On another thread there were a few posts regarding the fact that the para two wording for Amanda Knox's acquittal was legally just the same as para one, but an opinion had been expressed in the past that the perception amongst the public may have been different. I was not aware then, and am not aware now, of any major Italian or any other publication or broadcast (or from any other country) that gave the impression that her verdict was in any way a lesser verdict, and that any "perception" that the public may have had as a result by how the media reported the verdict does not seem to be in any way negative. Are there any links to major media outlets that give the impression that A and R's verdict were in any way slightly lesser than if they had been acquitted under para one? Because I never found any.
 
toto said:
On another thread there were a few posts regarding the fact that the para two wording for Amanda Knox's acquittal was legally just the same as para one, but an opinion had been expressed in the past that the perception amongst the public may have been different. I was not aware then, and am not aware now, of any major Italian or any other publication or broadcast (or from any other country) that gave the impression that her verdict was in any way a lesser verdict, and that any "perception" that the public may have had as a result by how the media reported the verdict does not seem to be in any way negative. Are there any links to major media outlets that give the impression that A and R's verdict were in any way slightly lesser than if they had been acquitted under para one? Because I never found any.
Click to expand...

We had a very good back and forth on this months ago. For me the issue is what is the consequence of each -Section 1 vs. Section 2.

There is no difference in consequence of being acquitted by each. It is not true to say one is "they're definitely innocent" and the other, "they probably did it, just not beyond a reasonable doubt.". One is where the crime never existed (like the transport of the knife), tbe other is when the crime existed ( like the murder) but that the accused didn't do it.

Both are exonerations.

For what it is worth, although he was a solid innocentisi Grinder had a differing point of view on this.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom