Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL* #2

[SMK]

"While in a foreign country, a U.S. citizen is subject to that country's laws and regulations which sometimes differ significantly from those in the United States and may not afford the protections available to the individual under U.S. law. As our Country Specific Information for each country explains, penalties for breaking the law can be more severe than in the United States for similar offenses. Persons violating the law, even unknowingly, may be expelled, fined, arrested, or imprisoned."

http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/arrest/arrest_6120.html

Of course. There are Europeans or South Americans who come here, and are shocked at some of the strictness of US law, but they are subject to it, and "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

 

[otto]

Yes: As per the extradition article: A judicial officer would find that "double jeopardy" is not applicable to the Hellman appeal being overturned, and the Florence hearing now ongoing. *Recall that this judicial officer would not be likely to be swayed by media or PR.*

The article also says there need be no standard met that she "would have been found guilty in the US of the same crime based on the same evidence": An extradition treaty is about respect of the other state's courts of law and promises to extradite for serious crimes (murder being quite serious).

Again, its not that I believe she is guilty: It's just that if the Italian courts find her so, then it must be honored per the treaty (we would expect the same from Italy, were the shoe on the other foot).

Perhaps Knox should explore moving to a country that will accept a convicted criminal and that will not extradite that same convicted criminal.

 

[SMK]

Perhaps Knox should explore moving to a country that will accept a convicted criminal and that will not extradite that same convicted criminal.

She may find the need to do so; or she may be convinced that she will be found not guilty. It's hard to tell at this point.

I think the knife tests will be decisive: Either they will not have enough material to make 2 tests, in which case they notify the court immediately, or they will, in which case Nov. 6 will be pivotal, based on the findings. I expect it will be wrapped up on Nov. 6.

 

[jgsmith]

I think there's a better chance of Democrats and Republicans holding hands around a campfire while singing Kumbaya, than there is of AK getting extradited. Not saying it shouldn't happen, just that it won't.

Jim

 

[SMK]

I think there's a better chance of Democrats and Republicans holding hands around a campfire while singing Kumbaya, than there is of AK getting extradited. Not saying it shouldn't happen, just that it won't.

Jim

Well, I think you're correct in that there would be a massive public and media outcry against it. On the other hand, just as Secty of State Clinton refused to involve herself pre-Hellman, I think the Judicial Exec just might agree to her extradition. I feel for her, but an international treaty cannot be broken lightly. If the Italian courts speak, it should be respected, whatever the ruling.

 

[Nova]

bbm

If it was just "gut instinct," then why is there evidence upon evidence which supports their "instinct," besides her "coerced testimony?" What about the cell phone and laptop records? If they were really at RS house like they claimed - and that would not be coerced testimony since that actually takes them away from being suspects - then why does it show the laptop wasn't used after 8:30-ish? RS said he was using the computer "all night." That too would not be coerced testimony, why would it be coerced if again, it gives him an alibi against committing the murder or being at the murder scene? What about them saying they were asleep until 10 am, however laptop records show otherwise? What about the phone call to Mom? What about the cell phone records which state the order and times of their calls, calls of whose timing is very suspect? None of that evidence has anything to do with Amanda's "coerced confession."
And that doesn't even go into the forensic evidence found at the crime scene, etc..

Because there isn't "evidence upon evidence" of their guilt. The real killer's (RG) DNA is all over the crime scene. What happened to the DNA of his alleged co-conspirators?

No one has ever explained how AK and RS cleaned up almost all of their own DNA while carefully leaving RG's all over the death room.

As for the phone calls you list, I find nothing suspicious about them.

"I was on my computer" is a naive lie by a young man under the pressure of interrogation. It's hardly the result of a carefully planned thrill killing.

 

[Nova]

bbm

Nova, I don't think it really matters what logical or factual things people say, honestly, in regards to this case. One example I will give is that any evidence, whether circumstantial or forensic, which supports the believe that they are guilty, that evidence is essentially wiped away by those who support the belief in their innocence. All the DNA evidence -- those were obtained by questionable methods, so bleeep - erase all of that. Amanda and Raffaelo's words -- that was obtained b/c of questionable interrogation methods and pressure so bleeeeep - erase all of that. Circumstantial evidence like laptop, cell phone, etc. -- there is no direct proof linking this evidence to the murder, so bleeeeep - erase all of that. So you get my point? So how can we discuss any facts in the case if they are all wiped away?

Well, accepting tabloid reports as facts is not the solution. (This isn't a personal reference to you or your posts, but a general observation.)

 

[Nova]

Thanks for that and including the page number! No, no phone calls to Raffaelo, as I expected. Because I believe Amanda and Raf were in fact together the whole time. If Amanda had gone to the cottage alone and she saw things which struck her as odd (which she claimed she told Raf when she got back to his house), I believe she would have called him either immediately upon seeing those things, or on the way walking back to his house....

You are forgetting that AK and RS hardly spoke a common language. Nor did the roommates other than MK. MK was (for all AK knew) behind a locked door or out.

AK called her mother, the person closest to her who spoke English. What's the mystery?

 

[MaybeNotToday]

You are forgetting that AK and RS hardly spoke a common language. Nor did the roommates other than MK. MK was (for all AK knew) behind a locked door or out.

AK called her mother, the person closest to her who spoke English. What's the mystery?

She was also very young. I remember my college days (about 200 years ago). I was in a car accident and I called her before the police. It didn't matter she was a 6 hour drive away. I wanted Mommy!

 

[otto]

Well, accepting tabloid reports as facts is not the solution. (This isn't a personal reference to you or your posts, but a general observation.)

What do you make of the highlighted portion of this "tabloid report"?



http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/06/28/1219739110.full.pdf

Note: I know that we are not discussing tabloid reports, but for those that want to describe respected journals as "tabloid reports", I have labelled it as such.

 

[otto]

She was also very young. I remember my college days (about 200 years ago). I was in a car accident and I called her before the police. It didn't matter she was a 6 hour drive away. I wanted Mommy!

That makes sense ... you made the call after the accident. In Knox's case, she made the call before anyone at the scene knew that Meredith had lay dead in the cottage.

Let's keep in mind that nothing about the open door and the scene inside the cottage bothered Knox. She found the door open, blood in the bathroom and so on, so she showered and went for lunch.

 

[song22]

Just finished reading up on this case. I originally had the impression that AK was innocent. It made sense to me that she was a victim of shoddy police work and sexism. I heard Sollecito speak and he just didn't seem like a killer to me. I heard some expert say that the killers DNA was found all over the place, so case closed, they caught the bad guy.

I was curious why some folks here were so convinced she was guilty, especially a lot of posters who I respect, so I dug deeper. I now think AK is guilty, but I do have some resevations about the forensic evidence.

I put a lot of weight in the behavior of people in these situations. I hear all the time on websleuths about not judging someone in these extreme situations because you dont know how you would act, but I disagree with that. I think there is a fairly reliable range of normal and doing cartwheels is not in the range. There is also too much lying going on. And I find the cell phone activity suspicious.

but there's not a lot of forensic evidence is there? I read all the documents about the DNA and am fairly well educated about it but I dont get how Amandas DNA would NOT be at the scene since she lived there. Couldn't the footprint just be overlayed or mixed with her DNA which was previously on the floor? So what if the bathroom had recently been cleaned. When we clean the bathroom does that erase all of our DNA?

i also find it odd that the mop had nothing linking it to the crime scene. That should corroborate the story that there was a water spill at sollecitos.

I really think these two are guilty. The cut on Amandas chin, the kanoodling, the different stories, the fact that this was not a lone killer, the footprint on the pillow, amandas lamp on the floor, the fact that AK seemed to know about the scream before that info was shared, and on and on and on. But I didn't see any slam dunk forensic stuff? Anybody want to set me straight or make a case au contraire? IMO sorry about the typos. Im on an ipad.

 

[otto]

Just finished reading up on this case. I originally had the impression that AK was innocent. It made sense to me that she was a victim of shoddy police work and sexism. I heard Sollecito speak and he just didn't seem like a killer to me. I heard some expert say that the killers DNA was found all over the place, so case closed, they caught the bad guy.

I was curious why some folks here were so convinced she was guilty, especially a lot of posters who I respect, so I dug deeper. I now think AK is guilty, but I do have some resevations about the forensic evidence.

I put a lot of weight in the behavior of people in these situations. I hear all the time on websleuths about not judging someone in these extreme situations because you dont know how you would act, but I disagree with that. I think there is a fairly reliable range of normal and doing cartwheels is not in the range. There is also too much lying going on. And I find the cell phone activity suspicious.

but there's not a lot of forensic evidence is there? I read all the documents about the DNA and am fairly well educated about it but I dont get how Amandas DNA would NOT be at the scene since she lived there. Couldn't the footprint just be overlayed or mixed with her DNA which was previously on the floor? So what if the bathroom had recently been cleaned. When we clean the bathroom does that erase all of our DNA?

i also find it odd that the mop had nothing linking it to the crime scene. That should corroborate the story that there was a water spill at sollecitos.

I really think these two are guilty. The cut on Amandas chin, the kanoodling, the different stories, the fact that this was not a lone killer, the footprint on the pillow, amandas lamp on the floor, the fact that AK seemed to know about the scream before that info was shared, and on and on and on. But I didn't see any slam dunk forensic stuff? Anybody want to set me straight or make a case au contraire? IMO sorry about the typos. Im on an ipad.

I don't remember what it was that tipped me towards guilty, but I know it was not DNA evidence. The staged scene was significant, as was the cell phone use before and after the murder. The lies were very problematic for me.

The DNA on the bra clasp, implicating Sollecito, seems to be rather solid evidence. It seems to me that because the DNA is significant, people have tried very hard to explain it as fruit pulp, fruit juice or bleach. What destroys this argument for me is that I have yet to hear that type of argument in a US court case. Why should be believe a theory concocted in the US about an Italian case when that theory has never been presented in a US case. Why is that?

Anyway, I think everyone has one piece of evidence or another that tips them one direction or another.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Just finished reading up on this case. I originally had the impression that AK was innocent. It made sense to me that she was a victim of shoddy police work and sexism. I heard Sollecito speak and he just didn't seem like a killer to me. I heard some expert say that the killers DNA was found all over the place, so case closed, they caught the bad guy.

I was curious why some folks here were so convinced she was guilty, especially a lot of posters who I respect, so I dug deeper. I now think AK is guilty, but I do have some resevations about the forensic evidence.

I put a lot of weight in the behavior of people in these situations. I hear all the time on websleuths about not judging someone in these extreme situations because you dont know how you would act, but I disagree with that. I think there is a fairly reliable range of normal and doing cartwheels is not in the range. There is also too much lying going on. And I find the cell phone activity suspicious.

but there's not a lot of forensic evidence is there? I read all the documents about the DNA and am fairly well educated about it but I dont get how Amandas DNA would NOT be at the scene since she lived there. Couldn't the footprint just be overlayed or mixed with her DNA which was previously on the floor? So what if the bathroom had recently been cleaned. When we clean the bathroom does that erase all of our DNA?

i also find it odd that the mop had nothing linking it to the crime scene. That should corroborate the story that there was a water spill at sollecitos.

I really think these two are guilty. The cut on Amandas chin, the kanoodling, the different stories, the fact that this was not a lone killer, the footprint on the pillow, amandas lamp on the floor, the fact that AK seemed to know about the scream before that info was shared, and on and on and on. But I didn't see any slam dunk forensic stuff? Anybody want to set me straight or make a case au contraire? IMO sorry about the typos. Im on an ipad.

As chief prosecutor for Maricopa County, which includes the city of Phoenix, my office prosecutes about 40,000 felonies each year and includes a staff of 300 prosecutors. In June 2005, we surveyed 102 of those attorneys, all of whom had trial experience, and they reported that the CSI effect is no myth: Of the prosecutors we surveyed, 38% believed they had at least one trial that resulted in either an acquittal or hung jury because forensic evidence was not available, even though prosecutors believed the existing testimony was sufficient by itself to sustain a conviction. In about 40% of these prosecutors’ cases, jurors have asked questions about evidence like “mitochondrial DNA,” “latent prints,” “trace evidence,” or “ballistics”—even when these terms were not used at trial.

On television, if the CSI people do their job right, the jurors will have little choice but to convict. In real life, the false expectation of plentiful scientific evidence can create a bias in the jury if this issue is not properly addressed at trial. The investigative techniques portrayed on CSI are not always available or even reasonable. Yet almost eight out of ten Maricopa County prosecutors believe that jurors are disappointed in the lack of forensic evidence presented at trial.

More at link

http://www.yalelawjournal.org/the-y...d-sentencing/the-csi-effect:-fact-or-fiction/

Often times, said Sgt. Paul McComb, who works with the Pittsburgh police Mobile Crime Unit, there is no physical evidence -- no fingerprints, no blood -- and so he must explain to a jury how that can happen.

"What we need to find is a solution in the courtroom -- how to tell a jury the difference between what's TV and what's reality," added Joe Meyers, a detective with the Pittsburgh police homicide unit.

More at link

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories...frustrates-the-real-forensics-experts-456407/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[aa9511]

"While in a foreign country, a U.S. citizen is subject to that country's laws and regulations which sometimes differ significantly from those in the United States and may not afford the protections available to the individual under U.S. law. As our Country Specific Information for each country explains, penalties for breaking the law can be more severe than in the United States for similar offenses. Persons violating the law, even unknowingly, may be expelled, fined, arrested, or imprisoned."

http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/arrest/arrest_6120.html

Yes, this is true. The person who's travelling takes a risk by going to another country, and by going they are accepting that risk. It makes sense that when you go to another country, you are expected to abide by their laws. So I don't see how the U.S. can turn around and say that her constitutional rights were violated, since those are rights you have inside the U.S..

 

[aa9511]

Perhaps Knox should explore moving to a country that will accept a convicted criminal and that will not extradite that same convicted criminal.

hmmm....interesting. In that case I'm assuming she would have to formally renounce her U.S. Citizenship, or something like that.

If the guilty conviction is upheld, and if the U.S. agrees to extradite her....I really think she will flee the country and go to the Caribbean or somewhere like that. She would have to live like that, because I don't think there's any way she is going to let anyone take her back to Italy, knowing she will be jailed there.

 

[Harmony 2]

Thanks. I had never seen that article before. I skimmed it, but I'm not sure that I understood it correctly as I have never studied anything related to DNA. Is the conclusion that an additional test on the evidence is not only unnecessary, but that a second test may reduce the accuracy of the result?

Also, what do you make of the portion I highlighted?



http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/06/28/1219739110.full.pdf

Sorry Otto, moderating keeps me very busy and I had not had a chance to respond to your query.

If you look at (4) there are four alleles not attributable to Kircher or Sollecito. In addition, Conti's and Vecchiotti's findings of multiple male contributors still brings up the possibility of contamination. Please read the following:

In a separate study, Goray and colleagues illustrated how easily DNA can transfer within and between items from a crime scene during transport to the lab, in a study involving objects such as used cigarette butts and bloodied knives (Forensic Science International Genetics, DOI: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2011.03.013). "There is a distinct possibility for the misinterpretation of a result that could impact negatively on the criminal investigation," says Goray.

(there are several studies in the article that show the possibility of contamination through clothing, gloves, or other means)

http://www.newscientist.com/article...tion-can-affect-court-cases.html#.UlTAcMMo7IV

South Bay Paramedics Likely Brought Innocent Man’s DNA To Murder Scene

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...ely-brought-innocent-mans-dna-to-crime-scene/

How innocent man's DNA was found at killing scene

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/How-innocent-man-s-DNA-was-found-at-killing-scene-4624971.php

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/25/opinion/high-tech-high-risk-forensics.html?_r=3&

Contamination is a crucial issue in the analysis and interpretation of trace DNA. Contaminant DNA may appear as either the major or minor sample within a mixture or, alternatively, may overwhelm the target DNA completely. From a theoretical perspective, any DNA deposit that is not immediately relevant to the crime being investigated can be viewed as contamination. In this light, gross or sporadic contamination may appear at any point: (1) before the crime has been committed; (2) in the interval between the crime and securing the crime scene; (3) during the investigation of the scene; and/or (4) within the laboratory.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3012025/

 

[aa9511]

Well, accepting tabloid reports as facts is not the solution. (This isn't a personal reference to you or your posts, but a general observation.)

However it's ok for someone to accept Amanda's propoganda? Because the words she said when she said she was under intense pressure and that's why she falsely blamed Lumumba and falsely said she was at her cottage that night....those are exactly that....words coming out of her mouth. There is no criteria we can use to determine whether that is the real truth or not, other than if we believe it, we are saying we trust those words that came out of her mouth.

So how can you say someone else is believing tabloid reports - which are just words coming out of a reporter's mouth, and how that's not ok, but at the same time you are saying it's ok to believe the words coming out of Amanda's mouth?

My point is that you are, in your mind, accepting what Amanda says as fact. When we are not sure if it is or it isn't. Amanda's words could also be in one sense a "tabloid report."

 

[sherlockh]

but there's not a lot of forensic evidence is there? I read all the documents about the DNA and am fairly well educated about it but I dont get how Amandas DNA would NOT be at the scene since she lived there. Couldn't the footprint just be overlayed or mixed with her DNA which was previously on the floor? So what if the bathroom had recently been cleaned. When we clean the bathroom does that erase all of our DNA?

*Snipped*. I would have agreed that there is a possibility of overlaying DNA traces if Knox's individual DNA was found all over the place. Why just inside a Luminol footprint? Not even in the bathroom there is Knox's DNA all over. The only individual trace of Knox's DNA in the bathroom was found in a smear of her own blood. Other then that it is all mixed with Meredith's diluted blood. This must have happened with the blood still fresh. Guede left only undiluted blood traces in the bedroom/hallway and his DNA was not found in the bathroom and Filomena's room.

All this overlaying done by somebody else who doesn't even leave his own DNA? Does that make any sense? Then there is the mixed trace in Filomena's room. Where is her DNA in her own room? Looks like DNA isn't really over the place, even if you live there. Is there really any realistic chance that Knox's DNA was laying there in the middle of the floor of another roommate and the killer drops a tiny drop of Meredith's blood (without his own DNA) right on top of it? What is the probability of this series of amazing coincidences vs the simple explanation that it was Knox herself with blood of Meredith on her who was leaving these traces?

 

[aa9511]

You are forgetting that AK and RS hardly spoke a common language. Nor did the roommates other than MK. MK was (for all AK knew) behind a locked door or out.

AK called her mother, the person closest to her who spoke English. What's the mystery?

Then how were Amanda and RS spending 24-7 together since the time they met, which RS has said himself. And how did she communicate all the information to him when she arrived at his house, which he obviously understood and that's why he supposedly walked back to the cottage with her? Sorry, that argument does not make sense to me.