The Knox murder retrial in Italy
John Blubaugh
be overturned. It is a good example of why evidence should be kept as pure
as possible so that it can be tested by independent experts. Those
experts, hired by the court, have found no DNA on the knife that was
supposed to be the murder weapon. They have told the court that all of the
evidence was contaminated and could not be used to convict Knox and her
boyfriend. This is what happened in the O.J. case and it is what would
have happened if LHO had ever gone to trial. The evidence is contaminated,
therefore, it cannot be considered at all.
JB
Anthony Marsh
But you have to remember where this case was tried. Italy.
She was a woman and she had weird sex. That's all they needed.
Jason Burke
> Has anyone noticed that the verdict in the Knox trial in Italy is about to
> be overturned. It is a good example of why evidence should be kept as pure
> as possible so that it can be tested by independent experts. Those
> experts, hired by the court, have found no DNA on the knife that was
> supposed to be the murder weapon. They have told the court that all of the
> evidence was contaminated and could not be used to convict Knox and her
> boyfriend. This is what happened in the O.J. case and it is what would
> have happened if LHO had ever gone to trial.
Yeah, 'cause they were real big on DNA evidence in the early-mid 1960s.
Why not apply today's standards to an almost 50-year-old case?
Bud
> Has anyone noticed that the verdict in the Knox trial in Italy is about to
> be overturned. It is a good example of why evidence should be kept as pure
> as possible so that it can be tested by independent experts. Those
> experts, hired by the court, have found no DNA on the knife that was
> supposed to be the murder weapon. They have told the court that all of the
> evidence was contaminated and could not be used to convict Knox and her
> boyfriend. This is what happened in the O.J. case
What DNA evidence did Ito disallow?
>and it is what would
> have happened if LHO had ever gone to trial.
What DNA evidence is there against Oswald?
> The evidence is contaminated,
> therefore, it cannot be considered at all.
Poor thinkers ignorant of the law might make this claim, but do the
courts say?
> JB
Anthony Marsh
> On 8/1/2011 10:54 AM, John Blubaugh wrote:
>> Has anyone noticed that the verdict in the Knox trial in Italy is
>> about to
>> be overturned. It is a good example of why evidence should be kept as
>> pure
>> as possible so that it can be tested by independent experts. Those
>> experts, hired by the court, have found no DNA on the knife that was
>> supposed to be the murder weapon. They have told the court that all of
>> the
>> evidence was contaminated and could not be used to convict Knox and her
>> boyfriend. This is what happened in the O.J. case and it is what would
>> have happened if LHO had ever gone to trial.
>
> Yeah, 'cause they were real big on DNA evidence in the early-mid 1960s.
> Why not apply today's standards to an almost 50-year-old case?
>
DNA analysis today is settling some questions about old cases. Even the
pharoahs, proving who was related to whom.
Anthony Marsh
Excuse me. I think he was making analogies, not saying that each case is
EXACTLY the same as the other. Tampering with evidence, destruction of
evidence, cross-contamination, mishandling evidence. That can be a problem
for ANY trial.
Jason Burke
Missed the point totally, Tony. Blubaugh's claim (note the quotes):
"This is what happened in the O.J. case and it is what would have
happened if LHO had ever gone to trial."
comes down to "they wouldn't have tried Oswald until DNA evidence was
available."
I don't think you can hold someone for 40+ years in this country without
a trial. But then I never did go to law school...
bigdog
Thank you for that opinion, Judge Blubaugh.
I guess we can't ever figure out what happened now since according to
you the evidence is all contaminated. We might as well shut down this
forum. Unless of course you think there is some uncontaminated
evidence out there that hasn't been found.
Anthony Marsh
> On 8/2/2011 3:32 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 8/2/2011 12:21 PM, Jason Burke wrote:
>>> On 8/1/2011 10:54 AM, John Blubaugh wrote:
>>>> Has anyone noticed that the verdict in the Knox trial in Italy is
>>>> about to
>>>> be overturned. It is a good example of why evidence should be kept as
>>>> pure
>>>> as possible so that it can be tested by independent experts. Those
>>>> experts, hired by the court, have found no DNA on the knife that was
>>>> supposed to be the murder weapon. They have told the court that all of
>>>> the
>>>> evidence was contaminated and could not be used to convict Knox and her
>>>> boyfriend. This is what happened in the O.J. case and it is what would
>>>> have happened if LHO had ever gone to trial.
>>>
>>> Yeah, 'cause they were real big on DNA evidence in the early-mid 1960s.
>>> Why not apply today's standards to an almost 50-year-old case?
>>>
>>
>> DNA analysis today is settling some questions about old cases. Even the
>> pharoahs, proving who was related to whom.
>>
>
> Missed the point totally, Tony. Blubaugh's claim (note the quotes):
>
> "This is what happened in the O.J. case and it is what would have
> happened if LHO had ever gone to trial."
>
> comes down to "they wouldn't have tried Oswald until DNA evidence was
> available."
>
No, YOU missed the point. He wasn't talking about literally the cases
were exactly the same. He was making a comparison of the mishandling of
evidence and possible evidence tampering.
> I don't think you can hold someone for 40+ years in this country without
> a trial. But then I never did go to law school...
>
He didn't say that, but nowadays they do.
Not 40 years. 23 years. DNA was first used in 1987.
And DNA can still be used to solve 40-year-old crimes.
DNA could be used in the JFK case, but the DOJ refused to do any.
Ace Kefford
Just seeing if this will update sometime.
Bud
> On 8/2/2011 4:41 PM, Bud wrote:
> >> Has anyone noticed that the verdict in the Knox trial in Italy is about to
> >> be overturned. It is a good example of why evidence should be kept as pure
> >> as possible so that it can be tested by independent experts. Those
> >> experts, hired by the court, have found no DNA on the knife that was
> >> supposed to be the murder weapon. They have told the court that all of the
> >> evidence was contaminated and could not be used to convict Knox and her
> >> boyfriend. This is what happened in the O.J. case
> >
> > What DNA evidence did Ito disallow?
> >
> >> and it is what would
> >> have happened if LHO had ever gone to trial.
> >
> > What DNA evidence is there against Oswald?
> >
> >> The evidence is contaminated,
> >> therefore, it cannot be considered at all.
> >
> > Poor thinkers ignorant of the law might make this claim, but do the
> > courts say?
> >
> >> JB
> >
> >
>
>
> Excuse me. I think he was making analogies,
Thats a silly thing to think. He was comparing apples with oranges, and
showing a poor understanding of both.
John Blubaugh
You are so full of crap. I didn't intend my statement that way. The
similarity is that the evidence in the Kennedy case was allowed to be
contaminated. It doesn't matter if it was because of DNA or fiber
evidence. And, for your enlightenment, many cases have gone back years to
use DNA techniques to examine old evidence.
JB
John Blubaugh
If the purpose of this forum was to convict, LHO, then you are right,
it might as well be closed down because the evidence collected is
mostly useless for that purpose because of contamination.
JB
bigdog
You seem to insist on rejecting all of the evidence in the JFK
assassination. Why don't you make it simple for us and tell us what
evidence we have that passes Blubaugh's Rules of Evidence so we can start
to finally get to the bottom of what happened.
Jason Burke
"I'm full of crap"!?!
Show me some evidence, ANY evidence, that you have that ANYONE other
than LHO was involved in the shootings of Tippit and Kennedy.
You know you can't.
And I'M the one who is "full of crap"??? Better look in the mirror, Bucko.
John Blubaugh
The CTs have done this over and over again. Google search if your
memory is that bad.
JB
John Blubaugh
I an not insisting on anything. I'm just point out that the evidence was
not collected properly and that it was not handled properly after that and
I believe much of it would have been inadmissable because of that. Perhaps
if LHO had not been killed some of that might have been different but I
doubt it.
JB
bigdog
evidence there was that is acceptable under Blubaugh's Rules of
Evidence and you failed to provide any. Not surprising when ALL the
evidence points to Oswald and according to BROE, any evidence that
points to Oswald must be rejected. That leaves us with no evidence at
all. So with no evidence, what do you hope to accomplish?
jas
It's the John Blubaugh "Shawshank Redemption" cry: everyone here's
innocent, didn't you know that?
John Blubaugh
Your post and question is just silly. Not ALL of the evidence points
toward LHO and some of the evidence you like to cite all of the time
doesn't point toward anyone at all.
JB
bigdog
Well I started a thread three weeks ago asking CTs to cite evidence that
implicates someone other than Oswald and you bailed on that one too. You
bail every time you are asked to cite evidence to support your beliefs. If
there is evidence that points to someone other than Oswald, why are you
always incapable of presenting it?
Jason Burke
Gee. Another vague and nonsensical comment. Can you actually show some
evidence that points away from Oswald?
Thought so.
> JB
>
John Blubaugh
Why do you keep asking the same questions even though they have been
answered over and over again? If I cite evidence, you will just say that
evidence is no good because it doesn't point in the direction you want. I
have played this game with you before. Look up the old results.
JB
bigdog
Because it hasn't been answered over and over again. It has been
dodged over and over again. You never answer the questions that are
asked. "Learn to google" is not an answer.
> If I cite evidence,
The biggest "if" on aaj.
> you will just say that
> evidence is no good because it doesn't point in the direction you want.
On the contrary, I would be delighted if you or your cohorts would
actually cite some evidence for a change because it would give us
something worth discussing. If you followed the thread I started in
which I asked the CTs to present evidence that someone other than
Oswald was involved, you would know that I acknowledged the accoustics
evidence does meet that criteria. That doesn't mean that I accept the
conclusions reached by the accoustics team, but I accept that it is
evidence that is worth examining. On the other hand you never offer
evidence, just your own assumptions and speculations and those will
never constitute evidence anywhere.
> I have played this game with you before.
Yes, you are very good at playing dodgeball.
> Look up the old results.
>
Look up the old threads. Learn to google. That's all you've got.
That's all you have ever had. You can't present any real evidence
because you simply don't have any.
Jason Burke
Big 'if' there JB, since you've never cited evidence, or anything
resembling evidence.
John Blubaugh
Of course I have and so have lots of other people...... Look it up in
your Funk and Wagnals.... or just Google it.
JB
bigdog
you. I'll bet even your fellow CTs get a chuckle out of it when you
pull the same old stunt. You don't cite evidence because you have
none. Everything you believe is faith based. You assume what you want
to believe which is why you can never articulate those beliefs.
John Blubaugh
I doubt it. They are as tired of playing your silly game of asking for
the same information over and over again. I'll bet they won't play
either. What I believe is not faith based, you are the one with that
problem. You would believe anything the government, the police or the
WC told you without question. That is a definition of faith.
JB
bigdog
They can't provide any evidence either but at least they aren't
foolish enough to claim they have cited evidence when they know damn
well they haven't.
> I'll bet they won't play
> either. What I believe is not faith based, you are the one with that
> problem. You would believe anything the government, the police or the
> WC told you without question. That is a definition of faith.
>
Last I checked, the government told us it was a conspiracy. Which one
of us blindly accepts that conclusion?