Of course he would say that. That is his job to make sure that the conviction is beyond all reasonable doubt. That is just simple basics. I can't make the jump to him having reasonable doubt about anything. Or should I now conclude that he has no reasonable doubt about other pieces of evidence where he didn't request any additional info? That is just guess work. He is making sure he has enough information to come to the right conclusions. That is all. The conclusions come later.
*Snipped* They did argue contamination and unprofessional behavior. The argument was not accepted by the Supreme Court.
Right, and as Guede was there at the cottage and on the victim, indisputably and by his own admission, contamination loses its meaning. With Knox and Sollecito, it points to their not being there at all, which is what they assert. wasntme, do you think there is any truth in the article i posted above??:waitasec:
BBM..you can't be serious? The DNA evidence was accepted despite contamination because he admitted he was there? It that your point? Of course, contamination does not lose its value. Never! Rudy's DNA evidence is used against him to prove his participation in the sexual assault and the murder. That is pretty clear I thought.
Yes, that was my point. I guess I really know know and care nothing about CSI ( I did come to this case by way of a psychoanalytical blog, and would hope that viewpoint and perspective is important here as well...)...OK, so it was contaminated. What end will this serve for Mr. Guede....if the DNA should be inadmissible, what does this do for him? I have only been interested in contamination in terms of AK and RS not being there at all. IF i thought they were there during the murder, I would care zip for contamination. Guess I thought all viewed it as I do... I will admit, and restate that I lean toward psychological material, and am bored by forensics and have never paid much attention, which shows....but what is good for the other 2 is good for Guede, of course....
No, it wasn't contaminated otherwise some of his evidence would have been excluded. That was actually my point. I am not really drawing any conclusions to the AK and RS appeal since indeed that is a different trial and now there is the C&V report. Still, it did come up and the Supreme Court concluded the evidence to be reliable. Everyone can think of it whatever they want
I don't think they particularly addressed it unless it was in those missing pages. My conclusion is simply based on that they would have if they had come to the conclusion that any contamination or mishandling would have occurred.
Thanks for the clarification. I admit my purview is rather simple: I have never cared much for Guede as he has a history of break and entry and admitted to sexual contact with the victim on the night of the murder. To me, this precludes his being a case for the innocence project. When the independent panel cried contamination with Knox and Sollecito, I felt this bolstered their not being at the crime scene. I thought this was the point, but apparently there are murky things i do not grasp....
If Guede swore he was never there, I would be interested in the question of contamination. When a man has a history of unlawful entry and admits to having sex with a rape/murder victim the night she died, I lose interest in the finer points.No, it wasn't contaminated otherwise some of his evidence would have been excluded. That was actually my point. I am not really drawing any conclusions to the AK and RS appeal since indeed that is a different trial and now there is the C&V report. Still, it did come up and the Supreme Court concluded the evidence to be reliable. Everyone can think of it whatever they want
Thanks for this, and it angers me that Google News gives such a high ranking to Ground Report (which in turn makes me view the latter as a reliable source) when there is apparently no fact-checking. Did not know that fecal material had no DNA value, would have thought the opposite...I am sure PLE used their best tactics and offers to get Guede's friend to sing. Knox's mother thought Guede's arrest would mean Amanda's release, but of course this was wrong...
This very lengthy critique is continued at:Nina Burleigh: View From A Broad Who Doesn’t Seem To Like Broads Or Being Abroad
In Burleigh’s shoddy book on the murder of Meredith Kercher, she gets the victim’s birthday wrong. But that’s not all she gets wrong. From what I can tell, Burleigh simply skips over much of the key evidence in favor of gossiping about and criticizing other journalists who have covered the case.
She is particularly hard on female journalists, which is odd given that she prides herself on being a modern feminist. I find it very telling, for example, that she indicates what Barbie Nadeau and Andrea Vogt’s husbands do for a living (one works for the UN and one is a university professor), but does not see fit to provide us with any information on what the wives of any of the male journalists do. The implication is clear: these two “females” took up writing as a sort of hobby after trailing behind their menfolk to Europe.
Worse, Burleigh notes that though they are both American born, they are more European in “style” and “craft” which, aside from being absolute nonsense, remains unsubstantiated by any analysis whatsoever. It amounts to saying “they’re sooooo European”. What does that mean? Well, once you know that Burleigh is a relentless and mindless cheerleader for the superiority of all things American, it becomes clear that what she means is that they are inferior journalists because all things European are inferior to all things American.
Burleigh also claims that what she calls Nadeau’s “cosmopolitan speech affect” is an attempt to hide her Middle American roots (in Burleigh’s words, her “rural South Dakota accent”
In fact, Vogt got her undergraduate degree in political science from the University of Idaho and was awarded a Fulbright in journalism that took her to Germany. Her impressive credentials include being trilingual and published in English, German and Italian. I don’t know much about Nadeau’s academic training, but she writes for both Newsweek and the Daily Beast. And the excellent Christopher Dickey thinks quite highly of her.
Meanwhile, back to Burleigh and her seemingly endless supply of sour grapes. At one point in her book, she mentions an Italian female reporter, but only to comment on her boots! One starts to wonder what she has against women, especially her professional peers.
Ah, that explains it, thanks!
Yes, and as he does admit to being there and to being sexual with the victim, it would seem DNA does in fact lose its importance in terms of contamination leading to eliminating him as a suspect, which is what i had conveyed and sherlock objected to.
