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

[otto]

Yes, obviously ABC news is taking the innocence stance, while something such as TJMK is viewing it altogether differently :

(see this piece of theirs, posted today, at the top: http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php )

By their accounts, the Nov 6 court report will be over 100 pages long

I wonder where they got more than 100 pages from ...

“La valutazione complessiva delle risultanze interpretative poste in essere – scrivono nelle conclusioni delle 91 pagine stilate e depositate oggi – consente di supportare in maniera estremamente significativa l’ipotesi che materiale genetico di Amanda Marie Knox sia presente nella traccia I, e che, quindi, Amanda Marie Knox abbia contribuito, con proprio materiale biologico, alla traccia I.”

http://www.umbriajournal.com/cronac...ltello-dna-di-amanda-knox-72389/#.UnKS5lP-DCN

Google Translate:

"The overall assessment of the results of interpretation carried out - 91 pages of writing in the conclusions drawn and deposited today - you can support very significantly the hypothesis that the genetic material of Amanda Marie Knox is present in the trace I, and that, therefore, Amanda Marie Knox has contributed with its own biological material, the track I."

 

[SMK]

It seems everyone has an agenda. The big question is: is the testing of this single piece of DNA on the handle of the knife the deciding factor in guilt or innocence, or is there a complete set of existing circumstantial evidence, including Meredith's DNA on the blade of the knife, that will be considered when delivering a verdict in this appeal. I guess we'll learn the answer to that question on November 6. If one were to rely exclusively on US media, I think people may conclude that DNA evidence on the handle of the knife is the only evidence that is relevant, and I think that may be a bit of a simplistic interpretation of a nine month long trial. Surely the court did not spend nine months discussing DNA on the handle of the knife. Still, this appeal could go either way, just like that one that was annulled.

Yes, and are we to assume also that much of the material from the original Massei report will weigh in? It seems you cannot just look at bits of evidence in isolation, out of context, or one would hope not...Right, it cannot all come down to the knife DNA; that would be absurd.

 

[SMK]

I wonder where they got more than 100 pages from ...

“La valutazione complessiva delle risultanze interpretative poste in essere – scrivono nelle conclusioni delle 91 pagine stilate e depositate oggi – consente di supportare in maniera estremamente significativa l’ipotesi che materiale genetico di Amanda Marie Knox sia presente nella traccia I, e che, quindi, Amanda Marie Knox abbia contribuito, con proprio materiale biologico, alla traccia I.”

http://www.umbriajournal.com/cronac...ltello-dna-di-amanda-knox-72389/#.UnKS5lP-DCN

Google Translate:

"The overall assessment of the results of interpretation carried out - 91 pages of writing in the conclusions drawn and deposited today - you can support very significantly the hypothesis that the genetic material of Amanda Marie Knox is present in the trace I, and that, therefore, Amanda Marie Knox has contributed with its own biological material, the track I."

Hmmm, I see: Perhaps there are some other Italian pieces which say 100? In any case, it will not be a short report...

 

[whoanellie]

The problem is, they are very polarized: Similar to the Democrats and Republicans in the US.

If you read the pro-guilt books, (such as Nadeau's Angel Face) and the pro-innocence ones (such as Candace Dempsey's Murder in Italy or Bruce Fisher's Injustice in Perugia) you will be convinced of their guilt or innocence, respectively. It's as if they are working from different facts or different scenarios. Very confusing, to say the least.

Ditto the various articles which appear, such as this piece from today:

http://abcnews.go.com/International...ests-find-victims-dna-knife/story?id=20738813

Do you think that the ABC news article you provided the link for showed some sign of bias? Do you think it was written from a pro-innocence as opposed to a pro-guilt point of view?

 

[SMK]

Do you think that the ABC news article you provided the link for showed some sign of bias? Do you think it was written from a pro-innocence as opposed to a pro-guilt point of view?

Well, only in that whenever something is posted on ABC, it is always very rosy for Knox, whereas other writings do not think it is. (they find the news very bad for the defense, contrawise) Of course, it may be that the latter are deluded, as they were prior to the Hellman ruling. I cannpot wait until the verdict on this one----this case spins you round in circles.:scared:

 

[otto]

Throughout this analysis of the 36-I trace of DNA on the handle of the knife, why hasn't anyone in the Knox camp declared that the test is irrelevant because the trace is so small? Isn't the 36-I sample smaller than the trace of DNA belonging to Meredith that was found on the knife blade? When Meredith's DNA was found, the argument was that is was too small to test, independent tests could not be performed and, if that wasn't enough, Meredith's DNA on the knife was alleged to be a result of contamination. Now that Knox's even smaller trace of DNA has been found on the knife, all the arguments are missing. Instead, it is accepted, regardless of size, regardless of whether the tests could be validated and there's no discussion of contamination.

It almost seems like a double standard.

Why is it only the DNA that implicates Knox and Sollecito that is a result of contamination, but DNA that implicates Guede, and DNA that can be explained as having a reasonable explanation, is valid?

 

[whoanellie]

I will suggest that Amanda's DNA on the knife is irrelevant regardless of the amount.

 

[otto]

I will suggest that Amanda's DNA on the knife is irrelevant regardless of the amount.

It simply adds to the evidence that has already been admitted: Knox's fingerprints are also on the handle of the knife.

The other thing we learn from this test is that indeed Conti and Vecchiotti made mistakes, because according to them, there was no DNA on the knife.

 

[OldSteve]

Going back a bit, allowing prosecutors to appeal -
The problem with that is that prosecutors use the state's $$ to cover costs, whereas defendants have to pay out their own pockets... God forbid you have a zealous prosecutor go after you for something - you can easily go broke defending yourself!

 

[otto]

Going back a bit, allowing prosecutors to appeal -
The problem with that is that prosecutors use the state's $$ to cover costs, whereas defendants have to pay out their own pockets... God forbid you have a zealous prosecutor go after you for something - you can easily go broke defending yourself!

I don't see that as an issue. Brad Cooper's preferred lawyer was paid for by the state, and he's a foreigner. Every defendant has that right.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

:rose: :rose: . . . Remembering Meredith . . . :rose::rose:


:rose: :rose::rose: :rose::rose: :rose::rose: :rose::rose::rose::rose:​

 

[SMK]

I will suggest that Amanda's DNA on the knife is irrelevant regardless of the amount.

As the Italian reports imply:
No DNA of Kercher, Guede, or Sollecito: Confirmed DNA of Knox - so the jury would be free to disregard this as the murder weapon, I suppose.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I ordered Angel face but which others are the most factual?

BBM: John Follain's book : Death in Perugia

:moo:

:seeya:

 

[SMK]

Standing outside now and looking objectively, it would seem that the question at the present juncture is, which side is deluded in its thinking?

In 2009, both pro-innocence and pro-guilt camps believed the verdict would go their way; the evidence and all data was pointing to a conclusion of innocence or guilt, respectively, depending on which side one was on - and it was the pro-innocence camp which was deluded then.

With Hellman, again both camps believed the ruling would go their way: The pro-guilt camp strongly believed the convictions would be upheld, thus it was the pro-guilt camp which was deluded in that case.

Once again, both camps believe the evidence clearly points towards acquittal or conviction, respectively: So the question remains, which camp is now deluded in its thinking?
I confess I am right in the middle , and cannot predict which way this will go...ETA: So we have the Nov 6 court date and ensuing discussion of dna findings, then Nov 25-6, then Dec verdict?

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Standing outside now and looking objectively, it would seem that the question at the present juncture is, which side is deluded in its thinking?

In 2009, both pro-innocence and pro-guilt camps believed the verdict would go their way; the evidence and all data was pointing to a conclusion of innocence or guilt, respectively, depending on which side one was on - and it was the pro-innocence camp which was deluded then.

With Hellman, again both camps believed the ruling would go their way: The pro-guilt camp strongly believed the convictions would be upheld, thus it was the pro-guilt camp which was deluded in that case.

Once again, both camps believe the evidence clearly points towards acquittal or conviction, respectively: So the question remains, which camp is now deluded in its thinking?

I confess I am right in the middle , and cannot predict which way this will go...ETA: So we have the Nov 6 court date and ensuing discussion of dna findings, then Nov 25-6, then Dec verdict?

1st BBM: The "FOA" side is very deluded in its thinking ...

The supporters of Knox need to take a look at ALL the evidence -- which is overwhelming against Knox and Sollecito -- and quit believing Knox's "fairy tales" ...


2nd BBM: I have no doubt that this Appellate Court is going to uphold the original Trial Court's GUILTY Verdict ...

The Supreme Court shot down that outrageous Hellmann decision -- and rightfully so !

So this Appellate Court will get it right this time !

:moo:

 

[SMK]

1st BBM: The "FOA" side is very deluded in its thinking ...

The supporters of Knox need to take a look at ALL the evidence -- which is overwhelming against Knox and Sollecito -- and quit believing Knox's "fairy tales" ...


2nd BBM: I have no doubt that this Appellate Court is going to uphold the original Trial Court's GUILTY Verdict ...

The Supreme Court shot down that outrageous Hellmann decision -- and rightfully so !

So this Appellate Court will get it right this time !

:moo:

OK, thanks - one more opinion taken well under advisement. Time will tell...

 

[otto]

Today is the sixth anniversary of Meredith's murder. I suppose her family and friends will spend some time at the cemetery. Knox has told the world how much better Meredith's family will feel if only they would take her to the cemetery. I suspect that Meredith's family would like to take her to a cemetery, but they have certainly been clear that she is not welcome at Meredith's cemetery.

Today, on the anniversary of the murder, maybe Knox will write that she would like to kill for another pizza, or perhaps she will reminisce about how Meredith "f-ing bled to death". Most likely she will find solace making googly eyes at a new beau, play "stick out your tongue" games, use profanity, and flip a couple of cartwheels in memory of how much she suffered ($3.2 million later) when Meredith was murdered.

 

[SMK]

I hope the Kerchers will have a day of beautiful memories of Meredith, and find some solace in that, and have faith that the truth will be found through the courts.

 

[SMK]

Again, both sides are coming to completely divergent conclusions, based on the same data:

• Steve Moore has tweeted that the DNA results have completely dismissed the knife as the murder weapon,
• while TJMK believes the DNA results now fully uphold conviction.

See what I mean? :waitasec:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php (top announcement and Oct. 31 article on website page)

 

[Amber29]

:rose: :rose: . . . Remembering Meredith . . . :rose::rose:


:rose: :rose::rose: :rose::rose: :rose::rose: :rose::rose::rose::rose:​

I second this!