Meredith Kercher case

[scarletpimpernel]

[QUOTE=Ally;108673]

Hello Ally

And I call myself Queen Mean but it doesn't make it my actual name.

Ally,

Yes, the first part is not true, you are no Queen
just mean.

What you also said to other posters who did not agree with you was mean.
You got the verdict wrong but don't lash on to others. I had it here

[Ally]

Aha ! Ally here it is... this is your own quote where you are saying people are being convicted without any evidence. Your own words. Maybe you should stop calling me a liar and watch what you say in the future. According to you, people are " being convicted without any evidence " Only because you fail to see the evidence.

I have been trying to decide whether it's a lack of English ability or a lack of mental ability that leads you to make such absolutely idiotic statements or to completely misrepresent what someone writes, all the while claiming you have it down exactly. I don't know, and I don't care. It's pointless to argue with anyone as incapable of it as you are.

Ta.

[Ally]

[QUOTE=caz;111235]

You did argue in one breath that the McCanns were wholly responsible for the behaviour that led to a bad person taking their daughter and ruining all their lives. And you did argue in the next that it was ‘SOLELY’ Knox's immature, spoiled and stupid behaviour - no actual evidence against her - that led to bad people sending her to prison and ruining her family's lives. So what are you planning to do about those bad people who took such unjust advantage of Knox’s behaviour? Having a go at ME for things I never wrote and very obviously don't believe is hardly going to help.

Ah so it's bad of me to infer things you didn't say but you are free to do it? I didn't say the McCanns were "wholly" responsible. I said they were responsible. In some cases responsibility for an atrocity is SHARED.

Strap a pair on and address what's actually been written or, more to the point, what needs to be addressed if Knox is going to walk away from HER behaviour choices.

Strap on a pair? My your sexism is interesting. I'll address that more in a minute, but thank you I feel completely able to refute the arguments given with the ovaries I have without any need to strap on anything. And I have already refuted it. And I don't see any point repeating myself when none of you have managed to argue anything on its merits and can ONLY argue her behavior, which is not evidence.

Yeah, right, because nutjobs who cut women's throats can always maintain perfect decorum among the lies, while anyone innocent, whose housemate has just had her throat cut, can afford to throw all decorum to the wind and act like she couldn't give a shi*.

Wow. Someone is acquiring a gutter mouth. You so rarely cuss. I must be rubbing off on you. But what precisely are you arguing here? On the one hand, you are condemning her because she couldn't control her behavior or behave decorously but you are saying it's because she's a nutjob who slashes women's throats that she can't maintain decorum? So anyone who behaves inappropriately is a nutjob and only nutjobs slashers are inappropriate? Uhm...okay that would be a GREAT argument if it were actually supported by fact, but since many, many nutjobs who slit women's throats have made it through police interrogation without turning cartwheels or alerting police, Gary Ridgeway for one, that's not exactly indicative of anything.

Well you can argue this one 'til the cows come home for all the good it will do the chick you have taken under your wing

.

You know what I find interesting, getting back to the sexism, is the absolute girly arguments the women on this thread are showing. When a man argues that she's guilty, no big. But if a women argues it, suddenly it's cause she's their BFF and "a chick taken under the wing" and other such bullshit. How about I just don't agree that the evidence is sufficient to convict. I have said all along she may well be guilty but the EVIDENCE is lacking. I am not the one behaving or responding on emotion that would be you all. You have yet to put forth a solid, logical fact base case for her guilt and still rely on nothing more than cartwheels and kisses as your "evidence" of her guilt.

Again, regarding the bias in Perugia against the student culture there, your argument would have been stronger if Meredith hadn’t been part of it, or if they had shown any indifference about her fate, assuming she too was into drugs and all sorts. They seem to have taken the crime personally and Meredith - student and foreigner - to their hearts.

In trial and the media, Meredith was held up as the naive waif who Knox was insanely scornful and envious of because she WOULDN'T partake in the drugs and sex culture Amanda subscribed to. She was described as "morally innocent" and it was often repeated that she did not partake in the drug culture that Amanda did.

Precisely. So who entered it after the attack, taking blood traces from Meredith with him/her? Those traces were found mixed with Knox’s DNA (which could just be explained if Filomena testified to having invited Knox into her room at some point - did she?). But Guede’s DNA was not found in that room. If you want to make so much of the fact that none of Knox’s was found in Meredith’s room, you have to explain why none of Guede’s was found in Filomena’s, given that someone entered with Meredith’s blood on their person. Burglars don’t tend to go back out through the window they broke to get in if they can walk straight out the front door. And if he went there after the murder in search of valuables (did Filomena report anything missing?) would he not have left his DNA with Meredith’s, or via another bloody footprint, or at least somewhere in that room, if Knox had previously managed to leave her DNA there in innocent circumstances?

I disagree that you have to explain Guede's DNA not being in Filomena's room as if it were equivalent. Walking into a room and leaving no DNA is an entirely different scenario than participating in a rape and murder and leaving no DNA. The two activities are not equivalent.

I’m not sure I understand the claim that Sollecito’s DNA ‘could have made its way’ onto Meredith’s bra clasp "through several innocent means". But why even go there if there’s a fair chance it wasn’t his DNA anyway? I can see how it would have got there, and not on the rest of the bra, if he was the one who removed it, either by undoing or cutting the clasp. Alternatively he could have seen the clasp on the floor and picked it up, wondering what it was, before dropping it again. But why just on the clasp if it got there innocently on an earlier occasion, and how exactly? I didn’t think it was very easy for one person to transfer a second person’s DNA (eg skin cells as opposed to blood, saliva or semen) onto another surface in detectable amounts. So I’d want to know the source of Sollecito’s DNA on that clasp and what circumstances would have transferred it there innocently.

Caz, do you believe that anything collected 46 days after the initial crime that has been proven to have been moved from the time the police first examined the crime scene to the time it was collected with no explanation of how or when it was moved, can possibly be considered untainted evidence?

[cappuccina]

I have no problem reading Italian, and have been reading the newspapers and other things I can get my hands on...

I agree with you Jason...

[scarletpimpernel]

For the first time since I have started studying true crime, there's been a conviction in a case I've followed where I haven't been convinced of the person's guilt.

I find it interesting because I was having a conversation with a lot of people recently about a case here in the states where there is also no evidence whatsoever that a particular individual is guilty, but everyone knows full well he is, and I have been posing the question to all and sundry: if you were on his jury, without any evidence, would you convict if you KNEW he'd done it.

But I think the worst of it is, I am not even fully convinced she's done it in this case. I just wish there had been one single piece of physical evidence that was unimpeachable against either one of them.

Or barring that, a solid motive.

The lack of motive, the lack of evidence and the lack of any real information just makes me wonder if she was convicted based on a media trial and not a real one.

Aha ! Ally here it is... this is your own quote where you are saying people are being convicted without any evidence. Your own words. Maybe you should stop calling me a liar and watch what you say in the future. According to you, people are " being convicted without any evidence " Only because you fail to see the evidence.

[jason_c]

Hi Jason,

I keep seeing that statement over and over as some sort of final pronouncement --the jury returned a guilty verdict.

So? What really does that have to do with anything? Are you saying juries never get it wrong? Are you saying that because they returned the guilty verdict we don't have the right to question? Are you saying their motivations and reasons for doing so are irrelevant?

The jury returned a guilty verdict. So....?

Of course the verdict can be questioned. And yes, juries get it wrong.

Juries also get hear the most detailed of evidence. Far more detailed than any of us on here, and far more than any journalist.

The firefight on this thread is largely centred on who can paraphrase from the best website(or post links to them). Since these are invariably in English we are subjected to mostly US and British views. A distinct lack of direct translated evidence from the Italian speaking court are available to us.

As in ripperology the most reliable evidence generally comes from official documents.

[caz]

So you believe that turning cartwheels is sufficient for being found guilty of murdeR?

Ally, I'm getting tired of you doing this when what I have said is the complete opposite. I wrote that of course the silly girl didn't deserve to be convicted of murder ‘SOLELY’ (your word) because she turned cartwheels after her housemate was murdered.

Is this what you are doing with the case evidence too - turning what has actually been written on its head? Remind me, are you defending Knox or doing your best to stitch her up here?

You did argue in one breath that the McCanns were wholly responsible for the behaviour that led to a bad person taking their daughter and ruining all their lives. And you did argue in the next that it was ‘SOLELY’ Knox's immature, spoiled and stupid behaviour - no actual evidence against her - that led to bad people sending her to prison and ruining her family's lives. So what are you planning to do about those bad people who took such unjust advantage of Knox’s behaviour? Having a go at ME for things I never wrote and very obviously don't believe is hardly going to help. Strap a pair on and address what's actually been written or, more to the point, what needs to be addressed if Knox is going to walk away from HER behaviour choices.

In fact, one could argue that her turning cartwheels could be total evidence of her innocence because wouldn't a guilty person have TRIED to maintain some level of decorum and pose of grief?

Yeah, right, because nutjobs who cut women's throats can always maintain perfect decorum among the lies, while anyone innocent, whose housemate has just had her throat cut, can afford to throw all decorum to the wind and act like she couldn't give a shi*. Well you can argue this one 'til the cows come home for all the good it will do the chick you have taken under your wing.

And if either Sollecito or Kercher had gotten 1/10 of the media exposure that Knox had, or if the prosecution had posed Sollecito as the mastermind and not just her lust filled dupe that argument might have merit. But it is quite clear the Knox was held up as THE person on trial, and unfortunately for Sollecito he was hanged with her rope.

Well that's certainly not the impression given by the UK media right up until the verdicts. We saw more of that picture of Sollecito dressed up as a surgeon with a knife in one hand and a bottle of bleach in the other than we did of Knox. And overall I thought of the older Sollecito as the more dominant one; the bad boy (considering that image) catching the eye of a naïve younger student and being the one to comfort and reassure her after her housemate was found murdered.

They knew the degree of media coverage this was recieving in the US and how the Italian system was being portrayed here, so perhaps it was simply a raised middle finger at the press…

… I'd like to point out that in my opinion at least, those involved a criminal proceeding have the duty do so with the appearance of neutrality or the entire process is suspect.

As a side not, another consideration regarding bias is not an Italy vs. foriegners one, but one internal to Perugia. There is a great deal of tension between those who live there permanantly vs the students that flock there. This is fairly typical in college towns but it particularly strong in Perugia which is considered the "drug capital of central Italy" due to the market the students create. A college student who has admitted smoking pot isn't going to be a popular one in any case, Italian or American.

Hiya John,

That’s a fair point to concede, that the Italian system was being roundly trashed in the US and that this behaviour may have led to more jurors than usual sporting flag pins.

I agree that ‘those involved in a criminal proceeding’ have a duty to appear neutral. But again, if the other defendant had not been Italian, your point would have had more weight. Knox was also involved in a criminal proceeding, right from her first visit to the police station, and her duty was to herself, to come across as a credible witness. To argue otherwise, as Ally seems to be doing, is fine. But look where it landed Knox.

Again, regarding the bias in Perugia against the student culture there, your argument would have been stronger if Meredith hadn’t been part of it, or if they had shown any indifference about her fate, assuming she too was into drugs and all sorts. They seem to have taken the crime personally and Meredith - student and foreigner - to their hearts.

I am not sure that her "ability to defend herself" plays in when you have an armed attacker. The guy with the knife is called "Sir", especially after you're cut the first time.

Fair enough, but this assumes that Meredith was aware that the guy holding her down and sexually assaulting her had a knife. It was suggested that Guede’s DNA inside Meredith was from his finger or saliva. Was he holding the knife for her entire ordeal?

Kercher's DNA in Filomena's room is in no way evidence of a "staged break-in", it merely shows that the room was entered after the attack.

Precisely. So who entered it after the attack, taking blood traces from Meredith with him/her? Those traces were found mixed with Knox’s DNA (which could just be explained if Filomena testified to having invited Knox into her room at some point - did she?). But Guede’s DNA was not found in that room. If you want to make so much of the fact that none of Knox’s was found in Meredith’s room, you have to explain why none of Guede’s was found in Filomena’s, given that someone entered with Meredith’s blood on their person. Burglars don’t tend to go back out through the window they broke to get in if they can walk straight out the front door. And if he went there after the murder in search of valuables (did Filomena report anything missing?) would he not have left his DNA with Meredith’s, or via another bloody footprint, or at least somewhere in that room, if Knox had previously managed to leave her DNA there in innocent circumstances?

If we were to assume for a moment that Knox and Sollecito are guilty, they already cleanly disposed of at least one knife and the clothes they were wearing. How much more work would disposing of a bathmat and pillow case be? The mark on the case is poor enough that I can see that being left, but I find it hard to believe anyone scrubbing tiles clean of bloody foot prints would miss THAT one. It's one thing to walk in to take a shower and not look closely at your surrounding, but when you're scrubbing the floor it would be absurd to believe that it could be missed.

But the murder weapons and their clothes would have been a bit more important to remove from the house and would not have been missed by anyone, whereas the victim’s pillow without its case and one of the bathrooms without its mat could only have invited suspicion, because a lone intruder would hardly have gone to the trouble. If Knox didn’t notice any blood on the bathmat when stepping out of the shower, it can’t have been very visible to anyone cleaning up the worst of the mess. Or are you saying there is no evidence that anyone even tried, and the 'bloodstains' that showed up when the area was chemically treated were just as likely to be fruit juice or bleach? I thought they eliminated any use of bleach, except on the knife.

Knife: We know that the defense raised issues about the DNA count level.

What else would you expect the defence to raise? If they can't reasonably dispute whose DNA is indicated, they have to go for contamination. If the contamination arguments aren’t wholly convincing, they are obliged to dispute the identification. Where at all possible, both arguments are used to sow vital seeds of doubt in the jury's mind about the robustness of the science and the handling of the evidence. You should see the cartwheels they turn on the A6 thread trying to explain away the DNA evidence. It’s what the defence does, even in cases where the evidence is overwhelming. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t.

The lab says that DNA taken from the knife's blade produced a series of peaks that matched Kercher's DNA, while DNA from the handle produced peaks that matched Knox's.

To minimise the risk that some peaks arise from contamination, most US labs only count peaks falling above a height threshold of 150 relative fluorescence units (RFUs) and all dismiss those below 50. The trouble with the DNA found on the knife is that "most of the peaks are below 50", says Greg Hampikian of Boise State University in Idaho, who signed the letter and reviewed the DNA evidence.

I'm not keen on the use of “most” in a formal scientific review. That could mean anything from 51% to 99% of the peaks being below 50. What was the percentage of peaks above 50, and how high did they go? He doesn’t say outright that none of the peaks were above the magic 150. Why not, if that was the case? Why allow speculation that 49% of the peaks for both handle and blade could still have been high enough to be considered significant, if it’s more like only 1% above 50 and no peaks anywhere near 150?

The potential for contamination is very hard to rule out, and I agree that it’s always better to rerun samples where possible than leave yourself open. But look at the language here too: this ‘doesn’t appear’ to have been done in this case; the same lab ‘may’ also have been running DNA profiles from other evidence in the case ‘at the same time’, and that tiny amounts of this ‘could’ have contaminated the knife samples. None of this is fact; it’s pure speculation put forward to support the case for possible contamination. Were the samples rerun or not? Did the same lab run different evidence from the case at the same time or not? If they did, were the knife samples contaminated or not? The contamination argument has far more chance with a ‘did’ or a ‘didn’t’ than with a ‘might’ or ‘might not’.

My understanding, from the A6 thread and the Hanratty appeal in 2002, is that it’s not uncommon for an evidential sample to be destroyed in the testing of it, and it doesn’t automatically make the unrepeatable result inadmissible as evidence. But certainly, there has to be more than a positive DNA result to make a case for someone’s guilt.

I’m not sure I understand the claim that Sollecito’s DNA ‘could have made its way’ onto Meredith’s bra clasp "through several innocent means". But why even go there if there’s a fair chance it wasn’t his DNA anyway? I can see how it would have got there, and not on the rest of the bra, if he was the one who removed it, either by undoing or cutting the clasp. Alternatively he could have seen the clasp on the floor and picked it up, wondering what it was, before dropping it again. But why just on the clasp if it got there innocently on an earlier occasion, and how exactly? I didn’t think it was very easy for one person to transfer a second person’s DNA (eg skin cells as opposed to blood, saliva or semen) onto another surface in detectable amounts. So I’d want to know the source of Sollecito’s DNA on that clasp and what circumstances would have transferred it there innocently.

And here we have the language again: …although Guede's DNA was found ‘everywhere’. What does ‘everywhere’ mean? Does it include the bra? The clasp? If not, why not? Someone removed Meredith’s bra, and the blood pattern indicated that she was still wearing it when stabbed. If Guede’s DNA wasn’t found on the garment either, why would the failure to find Knox or Sollecito’s be so significant? No wait, Sollecito’s DNA was found on the clasp, the bit normally held when trying to undo a bra. How did anyone investigating the scene later, however incompetently, achieve that? I’m genuinely curious to know, because if it were that easy to show the likely transfer of DNA while examining this crime scene, why didn’t the defence team have a field day, both with this and the knife?

Love,

Caz
X

[Ally]

The jury may have come to the wrong verdict, they may have been influenced by press reports. The jurors heard both sides of the emotional, legal and scientific arguements for months on end, and in far more detail than anyone posting on an internet messageboard. They returned a guilty verdict.

Hi Jason,

I keep seeing that statement over and over as some sort of final pronouncement --the jury returned a guilty verdict.

So? What really does that have to do with anything? Are you saying juries never get it wrong? Are you saying that because they returned the guilty verdict we don't have the right to question? Are you saying their motivations and reasons for doing so are irrelevant?

The jury returned a guilty verdict. So....?

[Ally]

[QUOTE=scarletpimpernel;111185]Hello John

If you look back on the first post Ally made on this thread she simply says that she doesn't "see" the evidence. Go on, go and look at it, that was her very first post lest I will be accused of being a liar.

You're a liar. My very first post says nothing of the sort. Neither does my second or third or fourth or.... See this is what happens when you just believe something, but don't actually have the evidence to prove it.

Ally has swallowed Knox's lies about Knox being " tortured " by the police in interrogation, I will tell you something... it would take me more than a simple clip around the ear to confess to being at the scene of a murder. I'm surprised Knox didn't say she was water-boarded by the police too. The police have denied such allegations and are currently suing Knox's parents for difamation, as they went around all the American media spreading these lies.

And yet the police officer accused has a history of doing it. And the police CONVENIENTLY don't have a taped recording of the interrogation. I mean come on, that's police tactics 101. Since WHEN do police not record interrogations?

I have no idea why The Times On Line link I posted earlier, doesn't work here, where it clearly says "that Knox regrets her lies " however, if you type that link on Google then you can read it. Here it is:

Yes we know moron. She lied. We get it. We GET IT. She lied. We don't care. Where's the EVIDENCE she committed MURDER? Not lies, MURDER?

Every single shred of evidence does not meet acceptable standards of proof in any reasonable country. The scientist MANIPULATED the DNA test to get the results she wanted. It would be tossed out in ANY country that had a scientific standard and the fact that it was allowed in Italy, is a joke.

Whether Knox did it or not, the justice system has a responsibility to give defendants fair trials that are not witch hunts and fake science. And it failed entirely in this case.

[Ally]

Ally, insulting me and others and acting like a toddler in the midst of a tantrum because her mommy would not take her for an ice cream does not lend any "academic" credibility to your assertion that Knox is innocent.

And your acting like a vapid mindless cretin who can't form an argument above "she did it, we all know she did it, so there" doesn't do your position any favors either. I at the very least have been examining the facts and discussing them. I have YET to see a single rational statement from you concerning THE FACTS of this case. All you can do is drum your heels and beat your fists and say SHE DID IT SHE DID IT! And you talk about me throwing tantrums. At least my tantrums are interspersed with facts. You should try it sometime.

Taking the absurd position that no one's behavior has any connection to their guilt or innocence and that we can always act how we want when we want to doesn't do it either.

It's not an absurd position. As I have said if it is behavior that DIRECTLY relates to the victim, you can occasionally read something into it. But just because someone doesn't behave how you think they ought to in the aftermath of a murder?? ..To say YOU can read guilt or innocence into that without any need for actual evidence? No offense but it's idiotic pronouncements like that, that are the reason we have trials. Where there is supposed to be EVIDENCE. Because it's halfwitted philosophy and mob mentality like that the justice system is supposed to mitigate. And allowing a prosecutor to enter a trial and call a defendant a whore and a she devil and whip up that very same mob mentality to cover for their serious lack of facts, is just pathetic.

Everything else you spout is your own conjecture, opinions you have formed from reading the same newspapers and weblinks as everyone else here, and all over the world.

Yes but at least reading them I am capable of analyzing and seeing both the strengths and flaws of an argument. I have yet to see anything remotely resembling analysis from you.

[scarletpimpernel]

Lets face it, the folks who have been subjected to the most evidence are the jury. In this case the best prosecution evidence trumped the best defense evidence. No interpreter, no translation, no second hand media reports needed. They got the evidence in the raw.

The jury may have come to the wrong verdict, they may have been influenced by press reports. The jurors heard both sides of the emotional, legal and scientific arguements for months on end, and in far more detail than anyone posting on an internet messageboard. They returned a guilty verdict.

Amen ! The theatrics of the parents abroad, the expensive lawyers for the defense didn't do a blind bit of difference to the jurors who came out with a guilty verdict and heard all the 100 witnesses for the prosecution. Sollecito even had a well connected ex-member of parliament to defend him.

In the end, the jurors didn't buy this "innocent" abroad theatrics. Everyone knows that foreign students have at the very least a three year intensive course in Italian before going to Italy or Spain or anywhere else. They did not buy that Knox was "tortured" by the police either. The police are currently suing her parents for difamation.

[scarletpimpernel]

Ok. I should probably let this go, but I won't.

Ya know Cappuccina, as Ally said as the beginning of this thread, she was in your corner initally. Based on what Knox had said, she was squarely in favor of "guilty". I know. I discussed this case with her at length months ago and she was unmoved.

But after digging into it she's seeing doubt. I wouldn't presume to speak for her views at this (or any other) point, but as she has looked at things her view has evolved. I've yet to see any suggestion that you've looked.

Hello John

If you look back on the first post Ally made on this thread she simply says that she doesn't "see" the evidence. Go on, go and look at it, that was her very first post lest I will be accused of being a liar.

Ally has swallowed Knox's lies about Knox being " tortured " by the police in interrogation, I will tell you something... it would take me more than a simple clip around the ear to confess to being at the scene of a murder. I'm surprised Knox didn't say she was water-boarded by the police too. The police have denied such allegations and are currently suing Knox's parents for difamation, as they went around all the American media spreading these lies.

I have no idea why The Times On Line link I posted earlier, doesn't work here, where it clearly says "that Knox regrets her lies " however, if you type that link on Google then you can read it. Here it is:

http:/www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5047102.ece

http:/www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5169197.ece

There were 100 witnesses who testified for the prosecution at this trial are you saying all of these witnesses lied too ?

[jason_c]

Ok. I should probably let this go, but I won't.

Ya know Cappuccina, as Ally said as the beginning of this thread, she was in your corner initally. Based on what Knox had said, she was squarely in favor of "guilty". I know. I discussed this case with her at length months ago and she was unmoved.

But after digging into it she's seeing doubt. I wouldn't presume to speak for her views at this (or any other) point, but as she has looked at things her view has evolved. I've yet to see any suggestion that you've looked.

Lets face it, the folks who have been subjected to the most evidence are the jury. In this case the best prosecution evidence trumped the best defense evidence. No interpreter, no translation, no second hand media reports needed. They got the evidence in the raw.

The jury may have come to the wrong verdict, they may have been influenced by press reports. The jurors heard both sides of the emotional, legal and scientific arguements for months on end, and in far more detail than anyone posting on an internet messageboard. They returned a guilty verdict.

[John Hacker]

And, by the way... the "Expert" who "got Simpson off" was a man named Barry Scheck who co-founded the innocence project with Peter Neufeld. 3 years prior to OJ's trial. I watched every minute of that long, bad joke and as far as the DNA went, it was a loser from day one.

The state's DNA "experts" couldn't (and didn't try to) defend their evidence handling and for good reason... They ignored protocols, had no controls and could not make a claim to scientific "proof" in any sense of the word. All Scheck was point that out.

The reality is people who "got Simpson off" were the ones that substituted passion for facts, pushed drama over substance, and above all, theatrics. (I.E. The camera hungry prosecutors, Clark and Darden)

Why does this sound familiar?

[John Hacker]

Ok. I should probably let this go, but I won't.

Ya know Cappuccina, as Ally said as the beginning of this thread, she was in your corner initally. Based on what Knox had said, she was squarely in favor of "guilty". I know. I discussed this case with her at length months ago and she was unmoved.

But after digging into it she's seeing doubt. I wouldn't presume to speak for her views at this (or any other) point, but as she has looked at things her view has evolved. I've yet to see any suggestion that you've looked.