Seriously. This is just so wrong. Ever heard of ‘innocent until proven guilty’? Ever heard of this pesky thing called ‘evidence’?
Nine nights out of 10, I’m at home reading. That’s about the most ‘coherent’ explanation I could give for any random night, and there’d certainly be no evidence that I didn’t leave the house.
By your brilliant logic, I’d obviously be involved if the girl next door turned up dead. :rolleyes:
It means the victims blood may not have been on the knife at all. That’s what bad technique in forensic PCR does. The DNA that was amplified could have come from anywhere. If a lab is doing PCR on the victims blood, then the victims DNA is being amplified and is a very likely contaminant throughout the lab. PCR is notorious for this.
Of course.
But there’s also a good chance that it was on the knife.
Considered in combination with other evidence, it adds to the likelihood that the BF (& by extension, Knox) was involved with the murder.
You’re bootstrapping.
Either you’re misusing the term, or we just disagree. Whichever …
Nathan S, calunnia sounds somewhat similar to perjury in this country, except that I don’t think it’s possible to commit perjury except in a sworn proceeding. Within that limitation, though, it’s equally possible to commit perjury by falsely claiming that someone is innocent of a crime. Either way, it’s a felony although the maximum penalty in California, which is four years IIRC, is significantly less than the fourteen years it once was.
I don’t think it’s very common for defendants to be tried for perjury alone, unless the prosecutors believe he/she has really committed a more serious offense, or multiple other offenses, for which they lack evidence.
(If this is gibberish I call on Bricker and any other American lawyers to say so)
Well do you agree it would be a pretty big coincidence if it happened?
I’m not sure what you are saying here. Are you disputing that most people (in the West) will ultimately admit to having an adulterous affair in order to exculpate themselves from a murder accusation?
Absolutely. And there is a lot of “evidence” against Amanda Knox. The question is what to make of it.
That would qualify as a coherent account of your whereabouts. It’s reasonably plausible and it’s consistent with available evidence. On the other hand, if your cell phone records indicated that at 2:00 am you made a telephone call from a convenience store 50 miles away and your explanation was that you went out to buy a pack of cigarettes, that would not be a coherent story since presumably there are convenience stores much closer.
Sure, if she just happened to be raped and murdered that same night just outside of the same convenience store 50 miles away.
Thinking about it? I’ve been singing The Band’s version in my head since adultery was first mentioned.
It would be a coincidence only if said husband had a coherent alibi for every other night of his life and it was ‘only’ the night that his wife was murdered that he couldn’t account for.
That might seem odd. And even then, it would hardly be indicative of guilt.
Otherwise, just - no. It doesn’t even qualify as a significant coincidence.
I think you are accusing “alibi” with “reasonably coherent account of whereabouts and actions.” Someone who was alone all night reading would not have an alibi, but they would have a reasonably coherent account of their whereabouts and actions. They would say that they were alone all night reading and their story would match all of the circumstantial evidence.
It’s very rare that an innocent person would not be able to give a coherent account of their whereabouts and actions.
No, there isn’t. There’s no question “what to make of it” because there isn’t really any evidence suggesting Knox had anything to do with Kercher’s murder.
Of course there is. For example the DNA found on the knife; the DNA found on Kercher’s bra clasp; the staged robbery; and so forth.
Now, you may believe that this evidence is fraudulent or not persuasive for some reason. But that doesn’t change the fact that it is inculpatory evidence.
There’s this thing called “science” - ah, never mind.
Yes, that’s right. See, it’s often possible to take a very small biological specimen, like a few drops of blood, and match it to the person from whom the blood or whatever came.
Here’s the Wikipedia article on the subject:
Do you mean the knife that was found at Sollecito’s house that was found to not be compatible with Kercher’s wounds or the bloody outline on her bed? Or the bra clasp that was collected after six weeks that contained Sollecito’s DNA that independent experts have said could have easily gotten there by contamination? Or the staged robbery that retired forensics officer Francesco Pasquali already debunked under oath? Do you mean that evidence?
I’m not sure. As I recall, a knife was recovered at Sollecito’s house which was alleged to have the victim’s DNA on it. I don’t know if you are referring to the same knife or some other knife.
I would think so.
Again, I’m not sure what staged robbery you are referring to. In the Knox case, evidence was presented that a robbery (actually a burglary) was staged.
Same knife.
Same burglary.
I believe that premise is flawed. I’m pretty sure that such a thing is not that rare at all. Especially in the ‘college student, party all night, drink, get stoned and have a good time’ age group.
Probably not all that rare even in other age groups. Drinking and/or drugging tends to have a deleterious effect on short term memory.
There’s a reason why the popular conception of a hangover usually includes something along the lines of ‘OMG, what did I do last night?!!’ And if you still want to play statistics, I’m willing to bet that such memory lapses seldom involve murder…