Amanda Knox found guilty for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy #15

[Madeleine74]

When were AK footprints left? At/around the time of the murder? The next morning?

 

[ashleigh_schwartz]

Thanks. I'll remember to include the viewpoint that investigators are inept and that DNA analysis is junk science because anything is possible and contamination is always possible. In the murders of Michelle Young and Nancy Cooper, there is no murder weapon, but it sounds like it's a good strategy to state that if there is no murder weapon, the husbands have to be innocent ... because in this case, claiming that the murder weapon is not the murder weapon is sufficient to state that the suspect should not be a suspect.

DNA analysis is not junk science. I never said that. Nice straw man.

What I said is that the lab that did do the DNA analysis was not accredited to do that type, which is true. What I also said is that 22 experts (2 independents hired by the court; 20 hired by the defense) disproved their analysis, which is also true.

The investigators were inept. Or do you not think kicking around evidence, crashing into a window, some of the team not wearing gloves, draping their hair on the floor, touching doorknobs, and what not is not incompetence?

The "evidence" you listed that supposedly justifies RS being locked away for 25 years was laughable and even inconsistent (i.e. the knife).

 

[otto]

Did it belong to RS? If not, then no dice. If so, where is the proof?



How is the bra clasp even admissible when the police officers kicked it around the floor and it collected the genetic material of five different persons? In fact, why should it be admissible since it is a fact that this "evidence" was handled in that way by the officers? You can say they "proved" there was no contamination, even though that is doubtful, and the handling of itself was, in fact, contamination.

Not even evidence. MK's DNA was not on the blade; Stefanoni's released notes indicated that the results were too low for a match and what little they found was not even derived from blood.

As I said, he could have said that because it sounded a lot better than saying, "I don't know how that got there!"

So what you got is nothing basically?

Ah, that pretty much affirms my thoughts last night about this being a witch hunt.

So a good reason to ignore evidence is to demand a video of evidence collection and if that is not available, then evidence should be ignored. If there is video, then it should be easy to find fault one way or another. If investigators return to a sealed crime scene to collect more evidence, all evidence from that second date should be excluded because anything could have contaminated the evidence while investigators were sleeping.

I think I could almost argue that every suspect is innocent.

 

[Footwarrior]

A common mistake of amateur sleuths is to presume that all evidence found at a crime scene was left there during the crime. They forget that we all leave fingerprints, DNA, shoe prints and the like even when no crime has occurred. A fingerprint in the victims blood can be tied to the time of the crime, a fingerprint in some other substance may have been left at any time in the recent past.

It's also worth noting that people vary widely in how commonly they leave fingerprints. Some have a lot of natural skin oils that make them more likely to leave prints. Hand them a drinking glass and they will often leave a good print Others have dry skin and seldom leave prints unless you feed them greasy nachos first.

 

[aa9511]

You're correct. It says a guy in a bar and a municipal worker.

I'm not sure how the judge saying RS didn't give a voice to the process translates to the judge saying RS would have gotten off if he ratted out AK.

Sounds like the old Martinez blitz when he walked outside and was asked for his autograph.

bbm

Yes, this is exactly what I compare it too, also. Thank you.

 

[ashleigh_schwartz]

So a good reason to ignore evidence is to demand a video of evidence collection and if that is not available, then evidence should be ignored. If there is video, then it should be easy to find fault one way or another. If investigators return to a sealed crime scene to collect more evidence, all evidence from that second date should be excluded because anything could have contaminated the evidence while investigators were sleeping.

I could almost argue that every suspect is innocent.

<modsnip> If you approve of them kicking "evidence" around the floor and it being admissible despite collecting the genetic material of five different persons after it was collected, then good for you. I guess we shouldn't have standards for collection, DNA analysis, or the prosecution.

 

[Jessica2012]

Jessica, I agree with most of what you said. Totally agree. I do believe he's guilty, based on circumstantial evidence and based on his bathmat footprint and bra clasp DNA, as well as there were more fingerprints found of him than there were of Amanda, and one of those fingerprnts is on Laura's door, indicating he went into Laura's bedroom, which would corroborate that he went into Laura's room to place the 112 call calls to his sister and Amanda calls to her mother. Also his cell phone being turned off at the same time as Amanda's that is a big clue. And, like I said, circumstantial evidence such as inconsistencies in his alibi story, etc.. It is not just one thing or the other for me, it's everything put together as a whole.

But I completely agree that he has the least amount of forensic evidence against him of the three.

And I think that his defense could have tried to give explanations for the circumstantial evidence.

His defense could have tried to put doubt on the bra clasp by way of collection and/or contamination. Also try to put doubt on the bathmat print.

I think, like you, that he has the least amount of evidence against him in this case, out of the 3 of them.

I believe that any lawyer advising him would have, from the very beginning, told him that you need to separate your case from Amanda's case. Because very clearly, he has less evidence against him than there is against Amanda. I believe that any lawyer whatsover would have advised him this way.

But that is not the strategy that he chose. He chose to put his case with Amanda's. I don't believe this was his lawyer's choice, as I said, any lawyer should have seen this was not the best course for him. This means it was his own decision of what he wanted his own defense strategy to be. Why? I believe the answer is very simple - he was afraid to go against Amanda, because he was afraid that at any moment, Amanda could change the strategy of her own defense, and reveal RS's true involvement in all of this. Then he would be completely stuck. He viewed Amanda as a wild card which he did not want to take any chances on. At the same time, Amanda viewed RS in this way, also. But the difference is, RS actually had a better case than her. So it is very intriguing why he would choose a strategy which actually made his case worse for him.

This was my complete mistake aa9511. I have been so confused today and making many mistakes. I completely forgot about the bloody footprint on the bathmat(I don't think this can be explained away). I completely agree with every single point you have written, and it is unfortunate for RS the route he decided to take in his defense strategy in my opinion.

 

[otto]

A common mistake of amateur sleuths is to presume that all evidence found at a crime scene was left there during the crime. They forget that we all leave fingerprints, DNA, shoe prints and the like even when no crime has occurred. A fingerprint in the victims blood can be tied to the time of the crime, a fingerprint in some other substance may have been left at any time in the recent past.

It's also worth noting that people vary widely in how commonly they leave fingerprints. Some have a lot of natural skin oils that make them more likely to leave prints. Hand them a drinking glass and they will often leave a good print Others have dry skin and seldom leave prints unless you feed them greasy nachos first.

In this case, it's not only that it's raining DNA, but also that Meredith was bleeding all over the place. On that basis, Meredith bled all over Filomina's bedroom and Knox rained DNA all over Filomina's bedroom and voila, we have faulty evidence of Knox's DNA in Meredith's blood ... proves nothing. Except, Knox does not leave DNA everywhere and there's no evidence that she does, and Meredith did not bleed all over the place and there's no evidence that she did. Suddenly, the premises that are required in order to dismiss the evidence are faulty ... and we are left with eivdence that Knox was in Meredith's bedroom after the murder, where she got blood on her feet, she walked in the hallway and in her bedroom, leaving trace evidence, and then she left a trace of that blood in Filomina's bedroom mixed with her DNA.

 

[aa9511]

yes, a poster did attempt an overlay which was then disputed by many of us.

mignini himself created the theory of the two knives BECAUSE the knife from RS's apartment DID NOT MATCH the stain on the sheet or the wounds to MK. this is a known case fact.

why would he do this if the knives matched?

an unbiased overlay created by a tv station in italy:

I'm sorry, but I have no idea about that picture of the knife overlay which you posted. It looks like a representation of a knife is being held about 2-3 inches above the imprint, causing a shadow which does not match up with the imprint. Of course, shadows are imprecise. All I see there are shadows.

 

[otto]

Please. There you go with another straw man. Your grasping at straws now. If you approve of them kicking "evidence" around the floor and it being admissible despite collecting the genetic material of five different persons after it was collected, then good for you. I guess we shouldn't have standards for collection, DNA analysis, or the prosecution.

Meredith's sweatshirt, the purse, and the bra were moved or collected on Dec 18. Therefore, they should be excluded. Meredith's body was moved after she was murdered and before she was found, therefore evidence on her body should be excluded. Guede could have used the toilet at any time and there's no reason to assume that it happened on the night of the murder. All we have is a palm print on the pillow, but that can't possibly be connected to Guede ... it's a palm print.

Therefore, Guede is innocent.

 

[ashleigh_schwartz]

I also went over the Massei report and loved how Science Spheres pointed out all of the inconsistencies, speculation, and contradictions in it.

Here is an example about the supposed "factual" staged break-in:

<modsnip>

 

[Linda7NJ]

When were AK footprints left? At/around the time of the murder? The next morning?

Just how often do you believe Amanda's feet soles were soaked in blood?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[otto]

I also went over the Massei report and loved how Science Spheres pointed out all of the inconsistencies, speculation, and contradictions in it.

Here is an example about the supposed "factual" staged break-in:

The window was probably broken because of a storm that blew the rock through the window. Meredith must have opened the door to her murderer, led the murderer to her bedroom, pointed out where she kept her money, pointed out her two cell phones, handed over her keys, and then just done nothing while she was stabbed and violently attacked until she had 43 injuries. Then, she died.

 

[ashleigh_schwartz]

Meredith's sweatshirt, the purse, and the bra were moved or collected on Dec 18. Therefore, they should be excluded. Meredith's body was moved after she was murdered and before she was found, therefore evidence on her body should be excluded. Guede could have used the toilet at any time and there's no reason to assume that it happened on the night of the murder. All we have is a palm print on the pillow, but that can't possibly be connected to Guede ... it's a palm print.

Therefore, Guede is innocent.

I never said evidence should be excluded simply because of the date it was collected on. What I said is that the bra clasp should be ruled contaminated despite what the prosecution "claims" in order to make their case because kicking it around the floor until it gets filthier and filthier is contamination in and of itself (not to mention it collecting five different persons genetic material). Never mind the fact that 22 experts (2 independent experts hired by the court; 20 hired by the defense) disproved their analysis. But let us all ignore them because, hey, the prosecution is clear and precise about everything.

IMO, Stefanoni refusing to hand over some data to the defense was enough to have the trial thrown out for AK and RS.

 

[aa9511]

What bothers me is that Nencini even opened the door to any of this: It is after all the Italian commission which has voted unanimously to investigate him. At worst, this puts the verdict in jeopardy. At the least, it gives the defense a boost for the appeal.

Yes, I agree, this is why I compare it a lot with Juan Martinez and the cane-signing incident. Even Juan's supporters on TV (talking-heads who supported him), said that it was not a good idea since a juror might have seen him. Now, in this case, of course this part of the process was finished and so I guess it's not quite the same, because the verdict was already handed down and finished. However, I think that it is always just best if the parties do not discuss the case until the entire process of the case is finished - in this case, it would be after the Supreme Court signs off on it and it is final.

So I compare it to Juan's "incident," becauase I feel that Juan also made a misjudgement, but it did not affect anything regarding the case itself. That is how I feel about the judge's comments as well.

 

[Linda7NJ]

<modsnip> If you approve of them kicking "evidence" around the floor and it being admissible despite collecting the genetic material of five different persons after it was collected, then good for you. I guess we shouldn't have standards for collection, DNA analysis, or the prosecution.

Are you aware that often a crime scene isn't discovered for quite some time? Days...Months...years..can go by.
Do you think that evidence should just be ignored?
I don't care if that bra clasp was kicked up and down the street and found three months later. It doesn't change the facts. We know whose it was, we know she was wearing it the night of the murder, and there is not a single reasonable explanation for RS's DNA to be on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[otto]

DNA analysis is not junk science. I never said that. Nice straw man.

What I said is that the lab that did do the DNA analysis was not accredited to do that type, which is true. What I also said is that 22 experts (2 independents hired by the court; 20 hired by the defense) disproved their analysis, which is also true.

The investigators were inept. Or do you not think kicking around evidence, crashing into a window, some of the team not wearing gloves, draping their hair on the floor, touching doorknobs, and what not is not incompetence?

The "evidence" you listed that supposedly justifies RS being locked away for 25 years was laughable and even inconsistent (i.e. the knife).

Hampikian has said that anything is possible in terms of contamination and DNA. That suggests to me that DNA is junk science. Crime scene analysts are inept and incompetent, DNA flies, and tertiary contamination is probable, so it's dangerous to view any DNA evidence as meaningful.

There is no evidence placing Guede at the crime scene because DNA evidence cannot be trusted, and the investigators were inept.

 

[otto]

I never said evidence should be excluded simply because of the date it was collected on. What I said is that the bra clasp should be ruled contaminated despite what the prosecution "claims" in order to make their case because kicking it around the floor until it gets filthier and filthier is contamination in and of itself (not to mention it collecting five different persons genetic material). Never mind the fact that 22 experts (2 independent experts hired by the court; 20 hired by the defense) disproved their analysis. But let us all ignore them because, hey, the prosecution is clear and precise about everything.

IMO, Stefanoni refusing to hand over some data to the defense was enough to have the trial thrown out for AK and RS.

If there is a problem with investigators collecting evidence on Dec 18, then the sweatshirt, the purse, the clasp and all the other evidence from Dec 18 is excluded. If the investigators are inept in the collection of one piece of evidence, then they are inept in the collection of all evidence.

Therefore, there is no evidence implicating Guede and he is innocent.

 

[aa9511]

RS will be interviewed on Anderson Cooper tonight on CNN.

Oh, thank you for letting us know. Should be interesting. I wonder if he will give a shout-out to any interested ladies for marriage proposal?

 

[aa9511]

So a good reason to ignore evidence is to demand a video of evidence collection and if that is not available, then evidence should be ignored. If there is video, then it should be easy to find fault one way or another. If investigators return to a sealed crime scene to collect more evidence, all evidence from that second date should be excluded because anything could have contaminated the evidence while investigators were sleeping.

I think I could almost argue that every suspect is innocent.

Why don't we just open up the prisons and release all of the prisoners? I'm sure that would make some people very happy - "first and foremost," the prisoners themselves.