September 25, 2011 - As I have said before- the prosecution is desperate, and it's starting to show to anyone paying attention. Although the prosecution is good at dramatics, they are short on facts- way short. And it is clear that when they are 'up against the wall', they will resort to just about anything. I hope the jury in this case is paying attention- I do know that both judges are up on the facts and no one is going to confuse them- although the prosecution is giving it a good shot.
At Saturday's hearing Manuela Comodi (one of the prosecutors against Knox & Sollecito) tried to brush away the sound thrashing the prosecution took on the DNA 'evidence' as pointed out by the two DNA court appointed experts. In fact she tried to brush away everything, but some of it was just plain ridiculous. Such as pulling out a bra and giving a 'performance' on how Sollecito cut the bra off the victim Meredith Kercher and thus, 'depositing his DNA- BUT- was the jury aware that it was only one possible way among dozens of others- AND, what proof is there that it was Sollecito that did any such thing- there is none, but like I said it was good dramatics.
I think the really pathetic part came when Ms. Comodi attempted to hold to the DNA and trash the court appointed experts. She made a major error when she suggested that they were not qualified and to really 'blow-it' she actually tried to make the jury believe that it was not starch on the knife as court appointed experts testified on the blade but rather, it was the talc from the gloves used by the police. No shame. I actually went up to the State University Of New York to back up what I thought on the starch bit- and sure enough there can be no confusion between talc (which is a soft rock with numerous minerals- usually ground to a white powder) and RYE BREAD STARCH which is a plant (flour and Calcium Propanoate). But- it was a good try- or should I say- bluff. The court appointed experts had said that there was no blood on the blade- no Kercher DNA, but there was the presence of starch- specifically- starch from RYE BREAD- not corn starch- not talc, and there is no confusing one with the other. Hopefully this did not get by anyone at the time. Comodi's performance today was not one based on fact but no doubt performed to confuse the jury. A desperate act- put forth in the absence of facts.
It has become very clear that this prosecution team is more concerned with winning or losing- rather than innocence or guilt. As to the moral fiber of people who would convict innocents for the sake of their careers- I think we all know the answer to that.
A lot of people long ago believed Knox and Sollecito were guilty because they did not understand the magnitude of the lies and misinformation that has gone on in this case. I know that in Italy they have their own way of doing things that we in the U S and U K do not necessarily go along with- Not that one is better than the other- just different. This case has given a great many people an education as to why things happen the way they do- yet that does not make it right or true, particularly with all the lies that have been told concerning this case. So from all over the world, we ask of Italy and particularly from Judge Pratillo Hellmann and Judge Zanetti- For the love of God, do the right thing- and we all know what that is.
5 comments:
Sorry I could not publish your comment not because you stated what you believed buy that there was a link to a site that is full of misinformation. State what you believe or what you think or feel or even know for a fact, but lies and misinformation is against the policy of this forum. This site will not be used for a 'dumping ground' for misinformation. No it is not a matter of opinion- at this point most people know what the lies are in this case.
Br J Surg. 1975 Dec;62(12):941-4.
Identification of talc on surgeons' gloves and in tissue from starch granulomas.
Henderson WJ, Melville-Jones C, Barr WT, Griffiths K.
Abstract
Particles of talc have been identified on the route surface of surgeons' rubber gloves and in sections of tissue classified as 'starch' or 'foreign body' granulomas. This analytical study indicates that under certain circumstances these granulomas could have been caused by talc contamination.
PMID:1239324[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
The starch on the blade was specifically identified as Rye Bread Starch.
Somewhat related is the confusion that has been sown regarding the bra clasp DNA. The independent experts are making good scientific sense here, saying that there is a certain way that you have to interpret noisy data, where you have to set some threshold for what is "signal" and what is "noise" before you read the data. That way you are not introducing personal biases through the back door via ostensibly "objective" scientific evidence.
What Comodi did was to pick out the "signal" that matched Sollecito's DNA while calling all the others as "noise." This is not allowed, because it destroys what the data itself is telling us. Either all of it is noise (and therefore no Sollecito DNA), or all of it is valid (and therefore there is not only Sollecito's DNA but that of numerous unidentified "others.") These are the only ways in which the data can be interpreted, and what does it mean? Either they found nothing, or there is quite a bit of contamination -- or perhaps more evidence that the police didn't even bother investigating.
The independent experts are of course exactly right, and it is not their job to speculate how the data got to be that way -- e.g. if and how contamination could have happened. That would be unscientific. Their job is to tell us whether or not what the prosecution said about the bra clasp DNA is sustainable, and we know now it is not. The data doesn't support the prosecution's conclusion. I am not sure our friends on the "other side" fully grasp this simple logic, but I hope they think about it more.
I personally think the DNA as originally put forth by the prosecution in the original trial was a 'cock and bull' and that is why they were so upset when this appeals court judge had independent experts review the bra-clasp and knife. Whether they knew that their methods would be called into question or not- I think they were winging it- and it did work at the first trial only because the judge and jury simply believed the prosecution. This time around at the appeal thank God that Judge Hellmann did not take the DNA 'evidence' on faith and got a second opinion.
Thanks for the insight you provided above.
Post a Comment