The discounting of everyone and everything that implies guilt is the only way someone can make an argument that Knox and Sollecito are innocent. The computer shows no activity = experts are wrong. ISP shows no activity = ISP is wrong. Three different witnesses saw them = all wrong. Luminol shows footprints that match Knox and Sollecito = false positive for the Luminol. Expert says Knox shoe print in victim’s room = expert wrong. Expert says Sollecito’s bloody footprint in bathroom = expert is wrong. DNA = all wrong. This goes on and on.
Given the scenario of accepting that dozens of experts and witnesses are wrong or accepting that the evidence is accurate and they killed Meredith I think the logical choice is obvious.
It is easy to see why an hour on the internet beats a year in the courtroom is just foolish. The idea that a bunch of white knights on the internet could match a small army of experts is ludicrous
I find it much more ludicrous that a small army of experts would have so little disagreement if they weren’t privileging a hypothesis. How likely is it that interviews at 0145 and 0545 would be confused and contradictory if the suspect was innocent, as compared to if the suspect was guilty?
Personally, I think that a slightly confused interview history is slight Bayesian evidence of guilt, because someone with a prepared lie is less likely to appear confused about it than someone trying to tell the truth.
For one, because they do. The website which contains the claims of evidence has several small internal inconsistencies and notes several cases where the prosecution witnesses do not confirm identical beliefs.
One of the damning things about the DNA evidence is that the experts claim odds of “One in a trillion or two” and “Ten billion to one” that the DNA matches a random person. That requires that the odds of a given person having an identical twin about which they are unaware be less than that, and/or that DNA from a given crime scene be expected to match from about one-half of a living human to a miniscule fraction of all humans, if all humans were tested.
The standards for expert testimony are not very strict, either in the United States or Europe, and there remains significant internal controversy on some important matters within the field of DNA testing.
I’ve also seen direct conflicts between the claimed testimony on that page and on other reporting sources, although I lack the tools to evaluate which claim is correct at this time.
The discounting of everyone and everything that implies guilt is the only way someone can make an argument that Knox and Sollecito are innocent. The computer shows no activity = experts are wrong. ISP shows no activity = ISP is wrong. Three different witnesses saw them = all wrong. Luminol shows footprints that match Knox and Sollecito = false positive for the Luminol. Expert says Knox shoe print in victim’s room = expert wrong. Expert says Sollecito’s bloody footprint in bathroom = expert is wrong. DNA = all wrong. This goes on and on.
Given the scenario of accepting that dozens of experts and witnesses are wrong or accepting that the evidence is accurate and they killed Meredith I think the logical choice is obvious.
This site has all the transcripts and is in the process of translating them into English. http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/
It is easy to see why an hour on the internet beats a year in the courtroom is just foolish. The idea that a bunch of white knights on the internet could match a small army of experts is ludicrous
I find it much more ludicrous that a small army of experts would have so little disagreement if they weren’t privileging a hypothesis. How likely is it that interviews at 0145 and 0545 would be confused and contradictory if the suspect was innocent, as compared to if the suspect was guilty?
Personally, I think that a slightly confused interview history is slight Bayesian evidence of guilt, because someone with a prepared lie is less likely to appear confused about it than someone trying to tell the truth.
I’m confused. Why would you expect dramatic expert disagreement in general on matters of fact?
For one, because they do. The website which contains the claims of evidence has several small internal inconsistencies and notes several cases where the prosecution witnesses do not confirm identical beliefs.
One of the damning things about the DNA evidence is that the experts claim odds of “One in a trillion or two” and “Ten billion to one” that the DNA matches a random person. That requires that the odds of a given person having an identical twin about which they are unaware be less than that, and/or that DNA from a given crime scene be expected to match from about one-half of a living human to a miniscule fraction of all humans, if all humans were tested.
The standards for expert testimony are not very strict, either in the United States or Europe, and there remains significant internal controversy on some important matters within the field of DNA testing.
I’ve also seen direct conflicts between the claimed testimony on that page and on other reporting sources, although I lack the tools to evaluate which claim is correct at this time.