This is just silly. Their argument about Naruto isn't so much that the forensic investigators were incompetent as much as they just weren't thorough.

You could make this argument about the 9:10 interaction with the computer as well. You can make any argument you want. I don't find that one very credible though.

Probably?

It's 136 of the translation. I didn't think you needed page numbers because most people just search for the text in the document. Stop pwning yourself.

What happens if the Supreme Court re-convicts Knox?

Will the US extradite? Yes, right? Will she run?

Can I ask what level of formal science education you completed?

No not agree with the findings of a previous court and also not hear new testimony is unheard of. Especially on something that is not even close like the bathmat.

To present a lone wolf theory would require Hellman contradict the Supreme Court's own findings. That is never going to happen.

I would say the chances Hellman mentions the bathmat at all in his decision is less than 1%. He will just not mention it.

I hope he does. That will mean an automatic overturn of his decision.

He technically is not bound by anything. That being said if he writes a decision that contradicts the finds on the Supreme Court the Supreme Court will overturn his decision. Rome has already looked at the evidence and they have said it was multiple attackers. A lower court can't contradict that.

One thing that isn't clear is whether or not the Supreme Court can re-convict them or if they would have to refer the matter back to an appellate court. So your question assumes they can just say "Nope, sorry, you're guilty, it's over go to jail" It's possible but it seems more likely there'd be another appeal trial.

I would think the finest lawyers in the land would fight her extradition just because it'd be such a rare case, but it's not going to happen, this is all but over.

Not being thorough is being incompetent.

There is no 9:10pm computer interaction. VLC stopped playing Amelie.avi. That might have been because someone stopped the file or it could be because the movie ended. 9:10pm does not establish human interaction.


If they claim they never left the house and were sleeping until 10:30am then why have four witnesses testified to seeing them out that night, why is there computer activity at 5:30am, and who turns on Raf's phone at 6am?

Amanda Lived in the house.

I have no idea as there is no clear evidence.

I can't explain the lying, but there is no evidence they were there so it's not enough to convict. If Curatolo is the witness you speak of he was not reliable. I also discount the knife DNA. I know you will just say I've been infected by the PR campaign, but if so it appears the appeal court agrees.

I won't be getting into a back and forth disection of this as I have already read all of your arguments and I don't find them convincing.

Cro

They really have no choice. If they don't it will look horrible for the States. The tide will turn by then and most of the population will realize she did it.

She will likely run.

The greatest concern to re-conviction is Raf's dad. He is insanely rich and very well connected. He has no issues using his wealth and connections to influence a system that is very open to being influenced.

Nope. They just re-convict.

There is absolutely no grounds on which to not extradite. The US would likely offer to incarcerate her themselves which is an option but that would be very unpleasant for Knox as US prisons are not quite as nice or soft as Italian prisons.

to henry:

not to beat a dead horse, but if the appeal court is held to the conclusions of the lower court, except in the most egrarious (not sure if this is the exact right word) of situations or when extraordinary "new" evidence is discovered, why would the reversal rate be so high (i think you mentioned 50%, or some percentage that seemed really high).

logically would the reversal rate not be correspondingly low

also had the chance to read rafs prison diary as linked by yammer and i had a hard time, on an overall basis, making heads or tails out of that rambling. could be translation issues again

So you think it is normal that Amanda just happened to bleed in five spots that Meredith's killer would later deposit Meredith's blood. This includes one location in Filomena's room. Remember we are talking mixed blood not just Meredith's blood with Amanda's DNA.

Meredith's blood was located in 7 sources. Amanda's blood was located in 6. Of those 5 were the same sample. So 5 mixed blood, 2 solo Meredith, 1 solo Amanda. What do you estimate the odds of this happening if the source was not Amanda?

There is no clear evidence of who moved the body but someone did and it was not Rudy. So I assume you at least rule out the lone wolf theory?

There are actually four witnesses. There is also computer and phone records. This doesn't prove they killed her but it does prove that they are lying about what they did between 8:42pm and 1pm the next day.

No offence that is because you really can't. You want her to be innocent so you just dismiss that her blood just happened to be mixed with the victim's blood in five different location as normal stuff that you would find in any home. It isn't.

So now you're a DNA expert and would like to compare our qualifications? LOL.

This again is illogical. He is not bound by Massei's reasoning or the court's experts whatsoever. It's clear he doesn't believe the bathmat print was proven to be Raf's yet you still argue on as it was. This is called delusion.

This again is illogical. The Supreme Court ruled that the evidence in Guede's trial supported the motivations. The Supreme Court can also rule that the evidence supported the motivations in the Knox/Sollecito appeal. If these motivations are at odds with each other it may make it possible for Guede to request a new trial or the Supreme Court to order one, but to argue that the Supreme Court can't accept it because Guede's trial came first is asinine especially in light of new evidence like the C&V report.
Again that's illogical.

Further proof that it's illogical is that the defense did in fact argue that Guede acting alone was a likely scenario. If the defense knows that the Supreme Court would automatically reject this argument and invalidate their appeal, why in the world would they make the argument? It doesn't make any sense that they would yet you're arguing they did just that.

If they have issues with any evidence from the previous trial they can re-hear it. There is no limit on what they can hear.

The reason is because the court only experiences first hand the evidence in dispute. They only get to hear the evidence from the previous trial in closing and they are supposed to then go and familiarize themselves with it. Since they only sit thought the most dispute stuff it creates the impression that there is more at question than there actually is.

The Italian system just has a lot of reversals. The number of people acquitted at the first trial and then convicted at the second is about 33% because in those cases you have the opposite effect and more damaging evidence is heard.

Massei made a critical mistake in not allowing the DNA review at the first trial. If he had the issue would not be review-able at this stage and we never would have ended up with the two morons who did the review involved. Reading the review there is a better than 70% chance that they were paid off by Raf's dad.

The only thing really relevant is the lie to explain the knife. The rest is mostly just a rich kid bitching about being in jail.

Expert is a little much but yes I can actually understand what they are talking about and they are forcing the conclusion they want to arrive at.

You are right they can give Rudy a new trial. Think about what you are saying though. These judges have looked at all the evidence and said X. You know expect the very same judges to say not X on the same evidence. Never going to happen. If you think there is any chance of this you simply don't understand the system. There is no new evidence with respect to number of attackers. They already looked at it all. Rome is not just going to say they got it wrong. Plus they didn't.