This is a great post from another board. If the facts are getting in the way of your "Amanda Knox is guilty" belief, take comfort and keep the following in mind:
Amanda Knox is guilty because Guantanamo Bay exists and Americans need to take a good hard look at their own legal system.
Amanda Knox is guilty because in an American court of law, a black man in her position would have been found guilty.
Amanda Knox is guilty because traces of her DNA were found in Meredith Kercher’s blood in the bathroom which THEY SHARED(although, interestingly, not in Kercher’s bedroom, which they did not share).
Amanda Knox is guilty because she kept a sex toy in the bathroom.
Amanda Knox is guilty because she likes to smoke dope.
Amanda Knox is guilty because she had a Myspace page with a picture of herself pretending to shoot a rifle.
Amanda Knox is guilty because even though not a speck of her DNA was found in the room where the murder took place, she was photographed canoodling with her Italian boyfriend as the police searched the site.
Amanda Knox is guilty because she bought sexy lingerie underwear just days after the murder since she was not able to access her belongings in the house that was being investigated as a crime scene.
Amanda Knox is guilty because she wasn’t visibly upset at the police station and did a cartwheel at the suggestion of one of the police officers.
Amanda Knox is guilty because Patrick Lumumba sent her a text message which the police found and insisted she and Lumumba were co-conspirators in Meredith Kercher’s murder.
Amanda Knox is guilty because after three days of intense interrogation by the Perugian police without access to an attorney, she succumbed to police interrogation and said she heard Patrick Lumumba murder Meredith Kercher.
Amanda Knox is guilty because she did not apologize enough to Patrick Lumumba after he was released from jail.
Amanda Knox is guilty because she wore a t-shirt to a court hearing with the words “All You Need Is Love” emblazoned in red across it.
Amanda Knox is guilty because her parents had to resort to hiring a Public Relations Firm to defend her in response to questionable negative publicity in European tabloids.
Amanda Knox is guilty because, according to a Sky News interview with a British psychiatrist analyzing pages from her prison diary, she wrote too much about herself and her feelings, and not enough about murder victim Meredith Kercher.
Amanda Knox is guilty because it’s much more interesting to read about a Satan-worshipping, nymphomaniac murderess on drugs than it is to read about an average American exchange student learning Italian.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Thursday, December 17, 2009
A few well thought out post from around the internet
"...the theory of intent was a satanic rite to celebrate halloween, then it was a sex game gone bad, then it was an argument over Meredith's missing rent money, then it was revenge on the "smug," "prissy" girl, then it was "sometimes there is no reason."
Mignini changed his story more times than Amanda and Raffaele put together, but that doesn't seem to bother his true believers."
- Notfromaroundhere
"A year before Merideth's murder he was kicked out of the house that he had been adopted into when he was 15 because, his adoptive father, Paolo Caporali said, he was such a "tremendous liar" and that he (Caporali) had "thought I could help him to build a future, but with the passing of time I realised that I had made a mistake."
He had been caught (in the month before Merideth's murder) three times with stolen goods in his backpack-stolen goods from places he had broken into. At one, when challenged he threatened Cristiano Tramontano with a knife and then ran off.
He was identified by those he stole from all three times by eye witnesses or because he actually had the stolen goods on him but although the police were called he was never kept in jail for any of these crimes but was let go. This has caused the defense to wonder if Guede had been a police informer to get off so completely.
Where did the money Guede have come from that allowed him to go kick up his heels (literally) at a local bar in the early morning hours after the murder, and manage to travel to Milan and then Germany for a couple of weeks? It could well be that cash that Merideth had taken out of the bank because she was returning home to celebrate her mother's birthday. Her purse had been opened by the killer and the cash was gone.
The truth is that Rudy Guede acted alone the way he always had. He was used to breaking and entering, was used to carrying a knife, was used to taking and doing what he wanted, was used to stealing and lying. He also understood the Italian justice system and how it worked.He found Merideth alone in bed in the apartment building,and decided to add an easy sexual encounter as an afterthought to the robbery he had planned. But Merideth fought back hard, he brought out the knife to convince her to calm down, she didn't and she ended up getting killed in the heat of the struggle.
So what is this all about? Why accuse Amanda and Raffaele? First because of the collusion between the prosecutor Magnini and the tabloid press.He made the blunder of leaking his speculation about the case to them almost instantaneously-with no facts to back him up-just raw speculation. They ran with it. When facts changed face needed to be saved Magnini just "razzle-dazzled" us all until the red herrings got in the way of common sense and logic and we all became blinded by his convoluted snow job.
Obviously this lack of justice hurts Merideth's family alot because the truth is actually alot easier to live with than the horrendous crazy speculations of the prosecutor's.In the one view their daughter and sister fought bravely to the end for her own justice and even though she did lose she is portrayed as brave and strong-not a helpless victim. However under the prosecutor's speculation Merideth was only a poor defenceless victim set upon and held down and violated horrendously by a friend and two men she had barely met.
Merideth's family will never again have their sister and daughter while on earth. They will have only the memories. If I were her sister, mother, father, I would want very much to visualize a srong defiant and brave fighter to the end-a warrior- than see my loved one forever more as nothing more than a mere victim who couldn't fight back. I really don't think that's the way it went. In my mind's eye Merideth will always be the fighter, and even though she died in the end she died fighting her killer, Rudy Guede. She died as young and as strong and as brave a girl as her family and friends always knew her to be.
Amanda was nowhere around when this valiant struggle was ongoing and neither was Raffaele. I believe, after reading about Amanda and Raffaele as much as I have lately and feeling like I've gotten to know them that if they had been there they would have joined Merideth in her fight and then there would have been such a better ending for everyone."
- Seeker-finder
Mignini changed his story more times than Amanda and Raffaele put together, but that doesn't seem to bother his true believers."
- Notfromaroundhere
"A year before Merideth's murder he was kicked out of the house that he had been adopted into when he was 15 because, his adoptive father, Paolo Caporali said, he was such a "tremendous liar" and that he (Caporali) had "thought I could help him to build a future, but with the passing of time I realised that I had made a mistake."
He had been caught (in the month before Merideth's murder) three times with stolen goods in his backpack-stolen goods from places he had broken into. At one, when challenged he threatened Cristiano Tramontano with a knife and then ran off.
He was identified by those he stole from all three times by eye witnesses or because he actually had the stolen goods on him but although the police were called he was never kept in jail for any of these crimes but was let go. This has caused the defense to wonder if Guede had been a police informer to get off so completely.
Where did the money Guede have come from that allowed him to go kick up his heels (literally) at a local bar in the early morning hours after the murder, and manage to travel to Milan and then Germany for a couple of weeks? It could well be that cash that Merideth had taken out of the bank because she was returning home to celebrate her mother's birthday. Her purse had been opened by the killer and the cash was gone.
The truth is that Rudy Guede acted alone the way he always had. He was used to breaking and entering, was used to carrying a knife, was used to taking and doing what he wanted, was used to stealing and lying. He also understood the Italian justice system and how it worked.He found Merideth alone in bed in the apartment building,and decided to add an easy sexual encounter as an afterthought to the robbery he had planned. But Merideth fought back hard, he brought out the knife to convince her to calm down, she didn't and she ended up getting killed in the heat of the struggle.
So what is this all about? Why accuse Amanda and Raffaele? First because of the collusion between the prosecutor Magnini and the tabloid press.He made the blunder of leaking his speculation about the case to them almost instantaneously-with no facts to back him up-just raw speculation. They ran with it. When facts changed face needed to be saved Magnini just "razzle-dazzled" us all until the red herrings got in the way of common sense and logic and we all became blinded by his convoluted snow job.
Obviously this lack of justice hurts Merideth's family alot because the truth is actually alot easier to live with than the horrendous crazy speculations of the prosecutor's.In the one view their daughter and sister fought bravely to the end for her own justice and even though she did lose she is portrayed as brave and strong-not a helpless victim. However under the prosecutor's speculation Merideth was only a poor defenceless victim set upon and held down and violated horrendously by a friend and two men she had barely met.
Merideth's family will never again have their sister and daughter while on earth. They will have only the memories. If I were her sister, mother, father, I would want very much to visualize a srong defiant and brave fighter to the end-a warrior- than see my loved one forever more as nothing more than a mere victim who couldn't fight back. I really don't think that's the way it went. In my mind's eye Merideth will always be the fighter, and even though she died in the end she died fighting her killer, Rudy Guede. She died as young and as strong and as brave a girl as her family and friends always knew her to be.
Amanda was nowhere around when this valiant struggle was ongoing and neither was Raffaele. I believe, after reading about Amanda and Raffaele as much as I have lately and feeling like I've gotten to know them that if they had been there they would have joined Merideth in her fight and then there would have been such a better ending for everyone."
- Seeker-finder
Application of Process Logic
Occam’s Razor: The simplest theory supported by the facts is usually the best
Fact: Rudy Guede was seen and reported to police on three separate break-ins in the weeks prior to the murder. Witness said he threatened them with a large knife on two occasions.
Fact: Rudy Guede’s DNA was found in the victim, on her, his fingerprints all over the room as well as saliva. No such evidence of Knox was found in the bedroom. Of Sollecito, all that was found was a small DNA sample on a bra clasp left on the scene for 47 days after the murder. DNA of three other unidentified individuals were also on the bra clasp. A bloody foot print under the body reported in the press as Knox’s was at trial identified as Guede’s.
Fact: No viable connection between Guede and Knox and Sollecito was ever established or even a viable motive for the crime.
Based on FACTS which theory does the evidence support? That Rudy Guede, a known burglar, aware of the residence through downstairs contacts broke into the house assaulted and killed Meredith Kercher,
Or
Three relative strangers, two with no criminal behavior whatsoever became involved in a drug fueled sex game (or whatever) that resulted in the death of Meredith Kercher.
- 1 in 3 convictions in Italy are overturned on appeal. A recent poll by Euromedia Research revealed that only 16% of Italians trust the judicial process in their country.
- The prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini, is himself undergoing prosecution for misconduct in the “Monster of Florence” case and facing 10 months in jail.
Neither facts nor logic support this conviction, and there is plenty of reasons to doubt the credibility of the judicial process in this case and the officials who administered it.
Fact: Rudy Guede was seen and reported to police on three separate break-ins in the weeks prior to the murder. Witness said he threatened them with a large knife on two occasions.
Fact: Rudy Guede’s DNA was found in the victim, on her, his fingerprints all over the room as well as saliva. No such evidence of Knox was found in the bedroom. Of Sollecito, all that was found was a small DNA sample on a bra clasp left on the scene for 47 days after the murder. DNA of three other unidentified individuals were also on the bra clasp. A bloody foot print under the body reported in the press as Knox’s was at trial identified as Guede’s.
Fact: No viable connection between Guede and Knox and Sollecito was ever established or even a viable motive for the crime.
Based on FACTS which theory does the evidence support? That Rudy Guede, a known burglar, aware of the residence through downstairs contacts broke into the house assaulted and killed Meredith Kercher,
Or
Three relative strangers, two with no criminal behavior whatsoever became involved in a drug fueled sex game (or whatever) that resulted in the death of Meredith Kercher.
- 1 in 3 convictions in Italy are overturned on appeal. A recent poll by Euromedia Research revealed that only 16% of Italians trust the judicial process in their country.
- The prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini, is himself undergoing prosecution for misconduct in the “Monster of Florence” case and facing 10 months in jail.
Neither facts nor logic support this conviction, and there is plenty of reasons to doubt the credibility of the judicial process in this case and the officials who administered it.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Justice for Meredith Kersher?
First,what I'd like to do right now is correct something that I've failed to acknowledge thus far on this blog. When all is said and done this story is about justice for murdered Meredith Kercher. In the end, wasn't that what all this was suppose to be about? As a father of two teen girls, the idea of sending one of them to college, only to have her murdered horrifies me. The horrific murder of Meredith Kercher is a tragedy that rends the heart. Compounding that tragedy is the poor way that the investigation into her murder proceeded. Say what you will about Amanda Knox and Rafael Sollecito, it was the police early on that brought Lumumba into the investigation on little more that a text message on her phone. Getting Knox a 19 year old girl, in a foreign country with only a moderate handle on the language, in shock over the bloody death of her roommate to confess and name an accomplice would seem to be a moderate task for veteran police intimately familiar with interrogation techniques.
Unfortunately, after two weeks they were begrudgingly forced to release Lumumba due to lack of evidence and an air tight alibi. So much for "case closed". It was the investigators who were unbelievably bragging to the press about how they closed the case in record time. They were the ones coming up with suspects without forensic evidence to justify their "hunches". To put it plainly, they screwed the pooch with their cavalier attitude and macho bravado, and had the temerity to brag about how good they were and pat themselves on the back for "a job well done." In the end, when it comes to why true justice for Meredith Kercher seems unlikely THEY are the ones to whom that responsibility fell. That's not a treatise on the Italian justice system, that's cold hard FACT. If one were to try to find the point where this became less about finding justice for a murdered girl, and a salacious media circus focused on an attractive American college student, this was it.
For surely, if they'd acted like police professionals, played their cards close to the vest and waited till all the forensic results came in they could have convincingly solved the case just two weeks later, put Rudy Guede behind bars and been heroes.
As it stands now, at best they look like fools, and the justice for Kercher seems painfully unreachable as the injustice of Knox and Sollecito's conviction prevents Kercher's family from finding any peace. For surely, if the evidence was properly collected, and analyzed would we be questioning it now? It was the Italian police who left the bra clasp in kercher's bedroom for 47 days, and they were the ones who had a lab tech use unsupported methods to amplify low copy DNA on a blade that doesn't exactly MATCH Kercher but can't exclude her and presented these to the press as the "smoking gun."
Finally, they were the ones that continually leaked information to the press, most of it never making it to trial in an effort to smear Knox and make her look like some type of she devil temptress American teenager gone wild in a foreign country.
Initially, when the verdict came it, although I disagreed with it, criticizing the entire Italian justice system for the inane actions of certain officials seemed off the mark. Now, after more reading on the subject, I am not so sure that questioning the justice system that Knox now finds herself irrevocably entangled so extreme.
Statistically, 1 in 3 convictions are overturned on appeal. Ouch! That's certainly a big waste of resources. Shouldn't they take their time and get it right the first time? According to a November poll by Euromedia Research Group, only 16 percent of Italians fully trust it; just two years ago, the figure was 28 percent. And Italian civil rights groups are intense in their criticism of what they view as kangaroo courts.
If the Italians don't have confidence in their own justice system, why should we?
It was the actions of the Italian officials that brought sharp criticism to this trial,for surly the strength of the trial and the convictions that resulted are only as good as the investigation that preceded it, yes?
Unfortunately, after two weeks they were begrudgingly forced to release Lumumba due to lack of evidence and an air tight alibi. So much for "case closed". It was the investigators who were unbelievably bragging to the press about how they closed the case in record time. They were the ones coming up with suspects without forensic evidence to justify their "hunches". To put it plainly, they screwed the pooch with their cavalier attitude and macho bravado, and had the temerity to brag about how good they were and pat themselves on the back for "a job well done." In the end, when it comes to why true justice for Meredith Kercher seems unlikely THEY are the ones to whom that responsibility fell. That's not a treatise on the Italian justice system, that's cold hard FACT. If one were to try to find the point where this became less about finding justice for a murdered girl, and a salacious media circus focused on an attractive American college student, this was it.
For surely, if they'd acted like police professionals, played their cards close to the vest and waited till all the forensic results came in they could have convincingly solved the case just two weeks later, put Rudy Guede behind bars and been heroes.
As it stands now, at best they look like fools, and the justice for Kercher seems painfully unreachable as the injustice of Knox and Sollecito's conviction prevents Kercher's family from finding any peace. For surely, if the evidence was properly collected, and analyzed would we be questioning it now? It was the Italian police who left the bra clasp in kercher's bedroom for 47 days, and they were the ones who had a lab tech use unsupported methods to amplify low copy DNA on a blade that doesn't exactly MATCH Kercher but can't exclude her and presented these to the press as the "smoking gun."
Finally, they were the ones that continually leaked information to the press, most of it never making it to trial in an effort to smear Knox and make her look like some type of she devil temptress American teenager gone wild in a foreign country.
Initially, when the verdict came it, although I disagreed with it, criticizing the entire Italian justice system for the inane actions of certain officials seemed off the mark. Now, after more reading on the subject, I am not so sure that questioning the justice system that Knox now finds herself irrevocably entangled so extreme.
Statistically, 1 in 3 convictions are overturned on appeal. Ouch! That's certainly a big waste of resources. Shouldn't they take their time and get it right the first time? According to a November poll by Euromedia Research Group, only 16 percent of Italians fully trust it; just two years ago, the figure was 28 percent. And Italian civil rights groups are intense in their criticism of what they view as kangaroo courts.
If the Italians don't have confidence in their own justice system, why should we?
It was the actions of the Italian officials that brought sharp criticism to this trial,for surly the strength of the trial and the convictions that resulted are only as good as the investigation that preceded it, yes?
Friday, December 11, 2009
Logic Trumps Innuendo
As I surf the net, reading a variety of comments in regards to this case there is much speculation about evidence in this case. Much of it was not used at trial, but somehow made it into the public consciousness through ongoing press leaks during the investigation, such as:
"Knox was seen with a mop and bucket the morning of the murder." What does that mean exactly? The innuendo would be that she cleaned the crime scene, but see the logic problems posed by that below.
"Knox purchased bleach the morning of the murder, there are receipts." No receipts were presented at trial, but even if there were what how is that probative?
"The found the murder weapon in Sollecito's flat." They found his knife, in his flat, in his drawer. Logic alone makes it unlikely that this is the murder weapon, and the prosecution's own analysis reinforces this. See logic question below as to why.
"Meredith's bra had Sollecito's DNA on it." Left on the floor of Knox's flat for 47 days after the murder, a variety of DNA including Sollecito's was found on the seperated clasp, not the bra itself.
... and on and on. I offer no explanation in this article for these, but simply pose some logic questions that address conflicting and incompatible ideas with the facts. This approach certainly reveals some troubling problems with the case against Knox and Sollecito. The unspoken question at the end of each of these is simply, "If this is so, how is that possible?"
Logic problem 1: They had the temerity to properly dispose of their bloody clothes and shoes, but then took the murder weapon home, cleaned it thoroughly, and put it back in the drawer?
Logic Problem 2: They cleaned the knife so well that luminal had no reaction, no blood was found on the knife, but the low copy skin DNA of the victim somehow remained on the blade???
Logic Problem 3: With a mop and bucket they somehow managed to selectively clean the murder scene clean of their DNA and fingerprints but leave behind Rudy Guede's??
Logic Problem 4: The bra clasp collected 47 days after the murder had Sollecito's DNA on it, but the bra itself did not???
Logic Problem 5: Meredith Kercher's bedroom door was locked from the inside and had to be broken down to gain entry. How did Knox get in there and remove all of her and Sollecito's fingerprints and DNA and leave behind Rudy Guede's?
"Knox was seen with a mop and bucket the morning of the murder." What does that mean exactly? The innuendo would be that she cleaned the crime scene, but see the logic problems posed by that below.
"Knox purchased bleach the morning of the murder, there are receipts." No receipts were presented at trial, but even if there were what how is that probative?
"The found the murder weapon in Sollecito's flat." They found his knife, in his flat, in his drawer. Logic alone makes it unlikely that this is the murder weapon, and the prosecution's own analysis reinforces this. See logic question below as to why.
"Meredith's bra had Sollecito's DNA on it." Left on the floor of Knox's flat for 47 days after the murder, a variety of DNA including Sollecito's was found on the seperated clasp, not the bra itself.
... and on and on. I offer no explanation in this article for these, but simply pose some logic questions that address conflicting and incompatible ideas with the facts. This approach certainly reveals some troubling problems with the case against Knox and Sollecito. The unspoken question at the end of each of these is simply, "If this is so, how is that possible?"
Logic problem 1: They had the temerity to properly dispose of their bloody clothes and shoes, but then took the murder weapon home, cleaned it thoroughly, and put it back in the drawer?
Logic Problem 2: They cleaned the knife so well that luminal had no reaction, no blood was found on the knife, but the low copy skin DNA of the victim somehow remained on the blade???
Logic Problem 3: With a mop and bucket they somehow managed to selectively clean the murder scene clean of their DNA and fingerprints but leave behind Rudy Guede's??
Logic Problem 4: The bra clasp collected 47 days after the murder had Sollecito's DNA on it, but the bra itself did not???
Logic Problem 5: Meredith Kercher's bedroom door was locked from the inside and had to be broken down to gain entry. How did Knox get in there and remove all of her and Sollecito's fingerprints and DNA and leave behind Rudy Guede's?
Patrick Lumumba
Who is Patrick Lumumba? Lumumba is a Kenyan born business man who owns "Le Chic" a club in the town where Amanda Knox lived. She worked for him briefly, and falsely implicated him during her confession to investigators during her interrogation.
Her explanation for this, in her own words, can be found here. As a father, I found this a little gut wrenching to listen to, so be warned.
It's also been said that Knox expressed little remorse for this. Once again, simply untrue. Knox, an avid writer, kept a journal of her experiences in prison (more on the infamous "diary" in another article). While the wisdom of even keeping such a journal is questionable, as a writer myself, I can certainly understand why she did it.
In the journal she writes:
On Nov. 25 she says, "Why would I be in here for 20 years if I am, in reality, completely innocent? The only thing I screwed up on was when I said I saw Patrick, but I never said his name with any sort of malicious intent behind it. I only said it to say something. I was trying so hard to know something, and I know what I said was wrong, which is why I'm telling the truth, that I've remembered, now."
On Nov. 29, shortly before the diary was seized, she returns to this topic.
"I'm so sorry for all this confusion and in particular for what I did to Patrick. I'm happy that he has been set free."
She also publicly expressed remorse for implicating Lumumba:
At the Nov. 30 court hearing Knox burst into tears when asked why she had accused Patrick, her former employer at Le Chic.
Says the Times of London: "Ms. Knox told the judge that she was sorry for the trouble that she had caused Diya Patrick Lumumba, a Congolese bar owner for whom she worked part time, by falsely claiming that he had had sex with Ms Kercher before murdering her. 'I am sorry for Patrick and for the whole situation,'" she said.
Why did she implicate him in the first place?
Give a listen to the link above, and that lays it out pretty plainly. After hours of interrogation, after being threatened with life in prison, and told that investigators had proof she had met with Lamumba the night of the murder she included him in her "imagined" version of the crime. Note, that it was the investigators who first brought up Lamumba, NOT Knox.
Investigators failed to record any of this, and this confession was not used in court, but many site this as evidence as proof of Knox's guilt. The fact that the confession is not accurate seems to me to indicate that it was a false confession obtained under duress in an attempt to placate the interrogators.
Her explanation for this, in her own words, can be found here. As a father, I found this a little gut wrenching to listen to, so be warned.
It's also been said that Knox expressed little remorse for this. Once again, simply untrue. Knox, an avid writer, kept a journal of her experiences in prison (more on the infamous "diary" in another article). While the wisdom of even keeping such a journal is questionable, as a writer myself, I can certainly understand why she did it.
In the journal she writes:
On Nov. 25 she says, "Why would I be in here for 20 years if I am, in reality, completely innocent? The only thing I screwed up on was when I said I saw Patrick, but I never said his name with any sort of malicious intent behind it. I only said it to say something. I was trying so hard to know something, and I know what I said was wrong, which is why I'm telling the truth, that I've remembered, now."
On Nov. 29, shortly before the diary was seized, she returns to this topic.
"I'm so sorry for all this confusion and in particular for what I did to Patrick. I'm happy that he has been set free."
She also publicly expressed remorse for implicating Lumumba:
At the Nov. 30 court hearing Knox burst into tears when asked why she had accused Patrick, her former employer at Le Chic.
Says the Times of London: "Ms. Knox told the judge that she was sorry for the trouble that she had caused Diya Patrick Lumumba, a Congolese bar owner for whom she worked part time, by falsely claiming that he had had sex with Ms Kercher before murdering her. 'I am sorry for Patrick and for the whole situation,'" she said.
Why did she implicate him in the first place?
Give a listen to the link above, and that lays it out pretty plainly. After hours of interrogation, after being threatened with life in prison, and told that investigators had proof she had met with Lamumba the night of the murder she included him in her "imagined" version of the crime. Note, that it was the investigators who first brought up Lamumba, NOT Knox.
Investigators failed to record any of this, and this confession was not used in court, but many site this as evidence as proof of Knox's guilt. The fact that the confession is not accurate seems to me to indicate that it was a false confession obtained under duress in an attempt to placate the interrogators.
The Knife and The Bra Clasp
An excellent scientific analysis of the knife and bra clasp can be found here.
The knife bothers me a lot. Logically, if the knife was cleaned so well that even luminal fails to finds traces of blood, how the hell was skin DNA left behind?
The fact that the bra clasp was not recovered for 47 days, and contains DNA from a variety of unknown donors, seems to limit its probative value in this case.
DNA can tell you many things, but it can't tell you HOW it got there, or WHEN it got there. The small amount of DNA on the blade could have gotten there at anytime either before or after the murder, which makes it's probative value non-existent. How this counts as "evidence" is beyond me.
The knife bothers me a lot. Logically, if the knife was cleaned so well that even luminal fails to finds traces of blood, how the hell was skin DNA left behind?
The fact that the bra clasp was not recovered for 47 days, and contains DNA from a variety of unknown donors, seems to limit its probative value in this case.
DNA can tell you many things, but it can't tell you HOW it got there, or WHEN it got there. The small amount of DNA on the blade could have gotten there at anytime either before or after the murder, which makes it's probative value non-existent. How this counts as "evidence" is beyond me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)