Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#3

[SMK]

That article makes no sense.
One the one hand:

"According to a letter sent from the offices of Cantwell and Smith, Thursday’s “educational briefing” will feature analysis and insight from three expert panelists. Retired ... Justice Mike Heavey ... Steve Moore ... John Douglas, a former FBI ... will discuss his analysis of this international criminal trial."

On the other hand

"Spokespeople for both Cantwell and Smith could not immediately say whether either lawmaker would attend the briefing."

Is this a congressional briefing, or a room reserved by Senators for a private interest group?

On the one hand:

"Congress to Convene Briefing on Amanda Knox"

On the other hand

“The panel will address issues related to convictions of Americans abroad and international criminal law.”

Again, what exactly is going on ... Congress convening a briefing on Knox, or a visitor room, educational briefing about international criminal law where Senators are not in attendance? If it's about international criminal law, which one of Heavey, Moore, or Douglas is the expert?

ETA: I just noticed that "blog" is in the URL. That explains why the article doesn't really make any sense, and does not inform

I kind of had the same confusion, and noticed the same strange contradictory explanations. On the one hand, the headline makes it appear the the US Congress will be taking action on this issue of Knox being retried in Florence. On the other, it seems to be the same players (Cantwell, Moore, Heavey) doing the same type of thing as was done in the past (private panel talking about Knox case). I don't think it makes much sense.

 

[SMK]

When Comodi cross-examined Vecchiotti, Vecchiotti said that a six-day gap in testing should be sufficient [presumably to exclude in-lab contamination] if that is the way things went (I am basing this on how the exchange was reported in Follain's book). There are some ifs, ands, and buts that need to be stated IMO.

One is that gaps in the testing have nothing to do with contamination outside of the laboratory. That is worth keeping in mind with respect to the bra clasp, where contamination outside of the lab is so likely. I have examined the egram of the Y chromosomal profiling. There are between 2 to 4 additional male contributors to the DNA besides Raffaele. We are all agreed that four other men did not take part in the crime; therefore, the bra clasp is contaminated by definition. DNA forensic scientist Van Oorshot wrote, "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."

Two, the six-day gap argument is problematic on multiple grounds, especially with respect to the knife profile (I discussed this extensively elsewhere). There is a one-day gap in the contamination that occurred in the Farah Jama case, and there is a two-day gap that occurred in the Jaidyn Leskie case. If a one-day and a two-day gap are demonstrably insufficient to rule out contamination, what is so special about a six-day gap?

Three, the claim looks even more suspect when one realizes that DNA can persist on laboratory tools for at least three months, as a 2006 study by Poy and Van Oorshot showed. These authors also noted, "To further help evaluate the above finding swabs were taken from gloves worn whilst examining a heavily soiled dress during routine casework examination. A significant amount of DNA was retrieved which exhibited a genetic profile that matched that of samples taken from the exhibit."

I am now returning to lurker status, but may occasionally be available through PMs.

Your posting is so technical that I get lost in the details. But I can see you really have probed deeply into all of the forensics - an area in which I find myself less apt than in the broader psychological and intuitive aspects of the case. Nice to see you and Otto discussing all, though.

 

[SMK]

ETA: I just noticed that "blog" is in the URL. That explains why the article doesn't really make any sense, and does not inform

I guess you're right. Does an ABC news blog allow just any posting , without editorial approval?

 

[sherlockh]

We will have to agree to disagree about the interpretation of one of my previous comments, but let me say again that I am not implying a particular sequence of events at the present time. Let's try this again, looking at the bigger picture. Rudy's bloody shoe prints put him in the murder room at the time of the attack or just after. So does his hand print. So does the fact that he had to discard some of his clothing. That same kind of evidence just does not exist against AK or RS. Why not?

What is there to disagree? I was addressing your question 'why did they not leave bloody foot/shoe prints?'. A question that needs not to be asked if you not imply a certain sequence of events.

If you include the possibility that Guede went to the bathroom after the murder to get towels without blood on his shoes, then you must include the possibility that the others also left the room after the murder without blood on their shoes/feet. So there was no need to ask that question.

Same goes for the bloody hand print and some of the other traces Guede left. These could all have been left after the murder. So to speculate that Knox and Sollecito must have left more traces when you don't even know the sequence of events in which Guede left his traces makes no sense.

What is left is 3 DNA traces of Guede that indicate his involvement. The scenario has Sollecito and Knox threatening Meredith with knives. The obvious location where they would leave DNA is on the knife, but of course this doesn't count because they all loved to cook so much. So this kind of reasoning doesn't go anywhere.

Whoever stabbed Meredith, strangled her, caused the bruising by the neck and face did not leave any traces of these actions. I understand the last line of defense is 'Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence' but it is not true and it is not going to work. JMO.

 

[sherlockh]

Your posting is so technical that I get lost in the details. But I can see you really have probed deeply into all of the forensics - an area in which I find myself less apt than in the broader psychological and intuitive aspects of the case. Nice to see you and Otto discussing all, though.

<modsnip> My theory is that RS's DNA is on the bra clasp is because he touched it. I can provide lots of examples that DNA can be left this way. No need to go into complicated DNA transfer theories that hardly ever happen. Just keep it simple.

 

[OldSteve]

The "new" verdict is expected before Christmas... I was thinking about my mentioning how I don't it when POI's change their stories, etc.... when it struck me, what about courts changing their "stories" aka verdicts????
While the changing of stories/accounts, and even false accusation are actions typically done by those who are guilty; I'm also bugged by putting them through thru multiple trials....
While I have some doubt about their involvement - I have no doubt about not wanting to see Amanda dragged back to Italy... Italy had its chance twice - and if they messed it up, that enough as I find that akin to the changing of stories that bugs me..

 

[SMK]

The "new" verdict is expected before Christmas... I was thinking about my mentioning how I don't it when POI's change their stories, etc.... when it struck me, what about courts changing their "stories" aka verdicts????
While the changing of stories/accounts, and even false accusation are actions typically done by those who are guilty; I'm also bugged by putting them through thru multiple trials....
While I have some doubt about their involvement - I have no doubt about not wanting to see Amanda dragged back to Italy... Italy had its chance twice - and if they messed it up, that enough as I find that akin to the changing of stories that bugs me..

It would seem so, but Italy has this procedure of appeals and reviews and Supreme Court rulings, that we in the US do not have. To them, it is not exactly a new trial or retrial with different verdicts, but the upholding or annulling of past decisions based on further review and discussion. I will admit that nearly 7 years on, it does seem overly protracted, and certainly goes against our presupposition of "the right to a speedy trial".

 

[SMK]

The "new" verdict is expected before Christmas... I was thinking about my mentioning how I don't it when POI's change their stories, etc.... when it struck me, what about courts changing their "stories" aka verdicts????
While the changing of stories/accounts, and even false accusation are actions typically done by those who are guilty; I'm also bugged by putting them through thru multiple trials....
While I have some doubt about their involvement - I have no doubt about not wanting to see Amanda dragged back to Italy... Italy had its chance twice - and if they messed it up, that enough as I find that akin to the changing of stories that bugs me..

Also, Steve, do you mean that even if the court should find AK and RS Guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher, that it is "too late" for them to serve time for the crime? Or that you would not really believe the verdict? Just wondering...

 

[redheadedgal]

My theory is that RS's DNA is on the bra clasp is because he touched it. I can provide lots of examples that DNA can be left this way. No need to go into complicated DNA transfer theories that hardly ever happen. Just keep it simple.

the bra clasp that was handled with dirty gloves?
the bra clasp that was passed person to person?
the bra clasp that was placed back onto a dirty floor?
the bra clasp that also contains DNA from three other people?

THIS is considered acceptable and reliable evidence?


Johnson/Hampikian:

&#8220;Handling and movement of this sample has compromised its probative value. The laboratory results for this sample cannot reliably be interpreted to show that the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito was actually on the bra clasp at the time of Meredith Kercher&#8217;s murder, and it does not establish how or when this DNA was deposited or transferred.&#8221;

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/33260353/The-trial-of-Amanda-Knox-and-Raf

 

[SMK]

the bra clasp that was handled with dirty gloves?
the bra clasp that was passed person to person?
the bra clasp that was placed back onto a dirty floor?
the bra clasp that also contains DNA from three other people?

THIS is considered acceptable and reliable evidence?


Johnson/Hampikian:

Yes, its not a very pristine or clear piece of evidence by any means. It also sat far too long before being collected, making it suspect in forensic terms from the very beginning.

 

[OldSteve]

Also, Steve, do you mean that even if the court should find AK and RS Guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher, that it is "too late" for them to serve time for the crime? Or that you would not really believe the verdict? Just wondering...

Just like I'm not a fan of those who change their stories, I also not a fan of trying and retrying these two... I feel the legal system had it's chance and blew it. I also don't like the way the evidence in this case can be looked at in different ways, and feel there was no "slam-dunk" showing guilt. So, I'm faced with opposing feelings pulling me in opposite ways.

Now that Amanda is home, so be it... Do I feel she got away with murder - not sure... do I feel they were involved in some way? - not as not sure as I am about being not sure about their getting away with murder...

And then thoughts about the horrible way Meredith's short life ended... how do I resolve those?

 

[SMK]

Just like I'm not a fan of those who change their stories, I also not a fan of trying and retrying these two... I feel the legal system had it's chance and blew it. I also don't like the way the evidence in this case can be looked at in different ways, and feel there was no "slam-dunk" showing guilt. So, I'm faced with opposing feelings pulling me in opposite ways.

Now that Amanda is home, so be it... Do I feel she got away with murder - not sure... do I feel they were involved in some way? - not as not sure as I am about being not sure about their getting away with murder...

And then thoughts about the horrible way Meredith's short life ended... how do I resolve those?

Yes, there are lots of conflicting feelings. And it is not a "slam -dunk" case, true.

But in terms of the legal system "blowing it": The courts convicted Knox and Sollecito and sentenced them to 25 and 26 years in Dec. 2009. Then there was the process of Appeal, when Hellmann acquitted the 2 defendants. Is this the point at which you believe they blew it?

Had the convictions been upheld, there would still be an appeal right now, on the part of the defense.....The way the Italian system works...

 

[otto]

It would seem so, but Italy has this procedure of appeals and reviews and Supreme Court rulings, that we in the US do not have. To them, it is not exactly a new trial or retrial with different verdicts, but the upholding or annulling of past decisions based on further review and discussion. I will admit that nearly 7 years on, it does seem overly protracted, and certainly goes against our presupposition of "the right to a speedy trial".

Knox and Sollecito had the right to a speedy trial, but they chose the drawn out trial process that is ongoing. Guede chose the speedy (fast track) trial.

I agree that it's important to clarify that this is not a second, or third, trial. There was a trial where Knox/Sollecito were found guilty. They appealed that decision and the appeal court decided that they should not have been found guilty. That decision was successfully appealed by the prosecution, and the decision was annulled. Essentially, what we are seeing is an appeal of the original verdict, but we are hearing it for the second time.

 

[otto]

Yes, its not a very pristine or clear piece of evidence by any means. It also sat far too long before being collected, making it suspect in forensic terms from the very beginning.

For Sollecito's DNA on the clasp to be a result of contamination at the cottage, there has to be an original source for the DNA. Other than the DNA on the cigarette butt that was collected, where did Sollecito's DNA come from? Knox seems rather adamant that none of her DNA was in Meredith's bedroom. That is, she seems very confident that no DNA was missed. Are we to believe that no DNA was missed ... but at the same time ... Sollecito's DNA was missed, even though he was at the cottage only once or twice ... and it landed in Meredith's bedroom on the clasp?

 

[otto]

Just like I'm not a fan of those who change their stories, I also not a fan of trying and retrying these two... I feel the legal system had it's chance and blew it. I also don't like the way the evidence in this case can be looked at in different ways, and feel there was no "slam-dunk" showing guilt. So, I'm faced with opposing feelings pulling me in opposite ways.

Now that Amanda is home, so be it... Do I feel she got away with murder - not sure... do I feel they were involved in some way? - not as not sure as I am about being not sure about their getting away with murder...

And then thoughts about the horrible way Meredith's short life ended... how do I resolve those?

It is always difficult for people from the US to accept that a prosecutor has the right to appeal a verdict. People from other countries do not see a problem with this. OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony are two examples of people that got away with murder because the prosecution could not appeal a verdict. Although people from the US probably take this in stride as a downside of preventing the prosecutor from appealing a verdict, countries were a prosecutor can appeal a verdict see it as a strength. I think that it is rare where a prosecutor appeals a verdict, and I think it is only done when there is a very strong case for success.

In this case, we know that there was a strong case because instead of one or two points being re-opened for discussion, the entire decision was annulled. That is as bad as it can get for a verdict.

 

[SMK]

For Sollecito's DNA on the clasp to be a result of contamination at the cottage, there has to be an original source for the DNA. Other than the DNA on the cigarette butt that was collected, where did Sollecito's DNA come from? Knox seems rather adamant that none of her DNA was in Meredith's bedroom. That is, she seems very confident that no DNA was missed. Are we to believe that no DNA was missed ... but at the same time ... Sollecito's DNA was missed, even though he was at the cottage only once or twice ... and it landed in Meredith's bedroom on the clasp?

I was just wondering , Otto, although this may seem like an idle question (but to my thinking it actually seems quite important): How do you think this case could be or would have been conducted, regarding Knox and Sollecito, if it were in the days prior to DNA and high-tech forensics( for example if similar had occurred in 1950)?

 

[OldSteve]

Yes, its not a very pristine or clear piece of evidence by any means. It also sat far too long before being collected, making it suspect in forensic terms from the very beginning.

Agree - I don't like the whole idea of DNA being used when those involved all had access to the cottage and interacted with one another... DNA does not provide a time-stamp as to when it got where it's found, nor can show "layering" as to who's DNA was placed below or on top of another's.

Collection of DNA is hit and miss - just little tiny samples taken; we can't scan and entire room, entire articles of clothing, sheets, etc., such that complete picture is presented of every bit of DNA that can be gotten.

 

[otto]

I was just wondering , Otto, although this may seem like an idle question (but to my thinking it actually seems quite important): How do you think this case could be or would have been conducted, regarding Knox and Sollecito, if it were in the days prior to DNA and high-tech forensics( for example if similar had occurred in 1950)?

I have no doubt that they would have been convicted. The circumstantial evidence (omitting the DNA) is very strong, especially when we look at the lies, absence of alibi, shifting stories, concocted stories, false accusations, bizarre reaction to discovering a crime scene, staged break in and so on. I'm also of the opinion that if this case had been tried in the US, the verdicts would have been the same. Additionally, if it had been a woman from the US that was murdered in Perugia, I suspect that we wouldn't be reading about how to get around extradition laws.

 

[SMK]

I have no doubt that they would have been convicted. The circumstantial evidence (omitting the DNA) is very strong, especially when we look at the lies, absence of alibi, shifting stories, concocted stories, false accusations, bizarre reaction to discovering a crime scene, staged break in and so on. I'm also of the opinion that if this case had been tried in the US, the verdicts would have been the same. Additionally, if it had been a woman from the US that was murdered in Perugia, I suspect that we wouldn't be reading about how to get around extradition laws.

Yes; I think you're right, and absolutely right on about the extradition.

There is also much talk these days about the 21st century 'CSI effect': Jurors don't trust their own minds and demand rock-solid CSI proof (which is usually lacking) as in the Casey Anthony type cases where its obvious that there is culpability, but the defendant is let off for weak forensics.

Forensic science too - to me - almost seems to weaken cases: So much argument over specks of blood or dna or starch, etc. : Almost more human and robust to "get down to common sense" as in the old Perry Mason days. :snooty:

 

[otto]

It is indeed most ungracious; very vulgar, cynical, and hateful. For their part I am sure they are convinced that Maresca is in it now for the book money, and is using the Kerchers and their grief over their daughter. The two sides have been very angry and spiteful to eachother; reminds me of U.S. politics

In Italy, it is normal for the victim to have a voice, if only through the appointment of a lawyer. Maresca is the trusted legal advisor chosen by the victim's family to represent the interests and voice of Meredith Kercher during the trial. It is simply beyond belief that Senator Cantwell would select someone that slanders the victim's voice as a spokesperson for her cause.

You mention "book money". Did Meredith's legal representative write a book about the murder of Meredith?