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

[~n/t~]

i never said that.

but remember -- they decided she was guilty early on when she swivelled her hips.

the fact she falsely confessed? was a bonus imo.

I think it was more than just swivelling her hips.

 

[Nova]

Seems like they need a bit more time for the closing arguments than I had expected.

Nov 25 - closing arguments prosecution
Nov 26 - closing arguments civil
Dec 16 - closing arguments Sollectio
Dec 17 - closing arguments Knox
Jan 9 - rebuttals
Jan 10 - deliberation and verdict

A full three weeks for the jury to mull the prosecution's final arguments before the defense gets to close?

No wonder even Italians think their judicial system is a joke. (Last I heard, the courts' approval rating was 17%, something akin to the U.S. Congress.)

 

[~n/t~]

What does closing arguments civil mean?

 

[Nova]

False confessions are very rare….

Says who? The cops and DAs?

25% of those exonerated by the Innocence Project were convicted in whole or in part by false confessions. (I realize that is 1/4 of wrongful convictions, not 1/4 of all convictions, but not all convictions or coerced statements get to the IP. However, you count them, they are hardly "rare".)

And that says nothing about WITNESSES who are pressured into committing perjury, something that also seems to happen rather regularly if anyone is to be believed.

Just last night I watched a 20/20 on the Riley Fox case, where cops got her grown father to falsely implicate himself in less than a day.

We just like to tell ourselves such things are rare because (to quote Jack Nicholson) we "can't handle the truth"!

 

[otto]

Lol. Its not problematic, otto. It is inadmissable in an Italian court, as testified to by a forensics expert from the Carabinieri.

And do you understand that the reasons for that are good ones? Not just legal technicalities, as your post implies.

All international protocols were followed, and the results were a match to Meredith's DNA (admitted even by C & V). If the results were completely wrong, the DNA sample would not have been a match to Meredith. Instead, the analysis would have given a random result that could not be matched to anyone.

The only reason for the double test is so that the results can be duplicated, but there is no reason to assume that everything in life should be duplicated. In this case, it's simply a "check" that is in place in the event that the defense wants an independent test. Since it was known in advance that the test could not be duplicated, the defense was invited to attend, observe and participate in the single test. The defense had no complaints regarding the test procedure and everyone is in agreement that contamination is nothing more than a theory without plausible explanation. There is no reason to doubt the results, but a technical, legal ruling could result in the evidence being excluded.

 

[otto]

Hope someone can help me understand this. At yesterday's proceedings it appears the knife failed to show it was the murder weapon. Only Amanda's DNA was found on it. So my question is why go ahead with the redo when the most important piece of evidence failed. What else does the prosecution have? Will they regurgitate what was presented at the first trial?

As long as there is insistence that this is a new trial, with only one piece of evidence, it will be difficult to understand the case. If the knife is perceived as the most important piece of evidence, and that only the recent test is relevant, the evidence will be difficult to understand.

In Canada, it is possible for a prosecutor to appeal a decision. In Canada, there is no difficulty in understanding the difference between a trial, and an appeal of a verdict. In Italy, the prosecutor appealed a verdict and we are now hearing the appeal arguments in the appeal. This is not a new trial, this one speck of DNA on the handle on the knife is not the only evidence and there is, to date, no reason to conclude that the knife is the most important piece of evidence. This piece of DNA hidden in the handle of the knife is evidence that was misinterpreted by the last team of experts, so it has been retested as part of the process of ensuring that all the facts are correct.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

We should extradite her *advertiser censored* to Italy so that she has to serve her sentence. I have always felt she killed her and was jealous of her and was a killer and now we have HER DNA on the KNIFE. That's it for me. We really should extradite her. Today.

:seeya: I totally agree with everything you said !

:moo:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

There's nothing incriminating about Amanda's DNA being on the knife. That was good for the defense, not the prosecution.

What would have been bad for the defense would be Meredith's DNA on the knife, but according to today's testimony from the Carabinieri experts, the finding of Meredith's DNA on the knife was invalid and inadmissible.

Meredith's DNA was found on the knife, and it was entered into evidence during the Trial ... this evidence still stands ...

What I find also interesting is what is NOT there : and that is Sollecito's DNA or fingerprints on the knife -- which knife was found in HIS kitchen !

:moo:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

You don't believe that's what they were doing? I believe they were trying to ascertain the truth. Knox wasn't having it.

The truth and Amanda Knox are strangers.

You believe they had some sort of agenda to force Amanda lie repeatedly so they could pin it on her?

RBBM:

:seeya: Is that you Judge Strickland ?

:floorlaugh: I couldn't resist !

:moo: And, I totally agree !

 

[Cappuccino]

Meredith's DNA was found on the knife, and it was entered into evidence during the Trial ... this evidence still stands ...

What I find also interesting is what is NOT there : and that is Sollecito's DNA or fingerprints on the knife -- which knife was found in HIS kitchen !

:moo:

:floorlaugh:

 

[Cappuccino]

All international protocols were followed, and the results were a match to Meredith's DNA (admitted even by C & V). If the results were completely wrong, the DNA sample would not have been a match to Meredith. Instead, the analysis would have given a random result that could not be matched to anyone.

The only reason for the double test is so that the results can be duplicated, but there is no reason to assume that everything in life should be duplicated. In this case, it's simply a "check" that is in place in the event that the defense wants an independent test. Since it was known in advance that the test could not be duplicated, the defense was invited to attend, observe and participate in the single test. The defense had no complaints regarding the test procedure and everyone is in agreement that contamination is nothing more than a theory without plausible explanation. There is no reason to doubt the results, but a technical, legal ruling could result in the evidence being excluded.

Is that right?

Another way to put it would be that you are talking nonsense and Meredith's DNA is not on that knife. The Carabinieri testified about the legal standard of LCN testing necessary for an Italian court. They testified about the standard met by Stefanoni.

Today was a good day for the defense.

:floorlaugh:

 

[dgfred]

Judge also said that this analysis has nothing to do with the earlier testing of the knife. There is no 'rule' that a single test should be excluded. It is up to them of course to accept or exclude it, but it is not new that a double test is better than a single test. There was a reason for that single test, and it was accepted by the first court as evidence.

IMO this is what is being glossed over or missed by the <modsnip>/media/etc.

1- Meredith's dna on the knife from the original testing still stands.
2- The previous finding of AK's dna on the knife still stands.

3- The 'new' test shows AK's dna on the knife.

So it is not that Meredith's dna is/was not on the knife... It was.

 

[~n/t~]

IMO this is what is being glossed over or missed by the <modsnip>/media/etc.

1- Meredith's dna on the knife from the original testing still stands.
2- The previous finding of AK's dna on the knife still stands.

3- The 'new' test shows AK's dna on the knife.

So it is not that Meredith's dna is/was not on the knife... It was.

So why were they acquitted ? This redo shows Meredith's DNA was not on the knife.

Good grief this is all so confusing :scared:

 

[Monzoo]

IMO this is what is being glossed over or missed by the <modsnip>/media/etc.

1- Meredith's dna on the knife from the original testing still stands.
2- The previous finding of AK's dna on the knife still stands.

3- The 'new' test shows AK's dna on the knife.

So it is not that Meredith's dna is/was not on the knife... It was.

I think you are missing a few things. The reports in regards to the kitchen knife that are in front of the current court are:

1. Stefanoni's report and testimony from the first trial.

2. Expert reports and testimony given during the first trial from AK and RS's experts.

3. The Conti-Vecchiotti report from the first appeal.

4. The Cabinieri RIS report just submitted.

It appears to me that the most recent report is in alignment with CV and the defense teams in arguing that the trace Stefanoni found is not reliable evidence. Of course, we will see in January what the judges decide.

 

[dgfred]

Their appeal by Hellmann has been thrown out... so not acquitted.

The 'redo' was for one spot on the knife... not re-testing of the other spots.

The re-test found AK's dna.

 

[~n/t~]

As long as there is insistence that this is a new trial, with only one piece of evidence, it will be difficult to understand the case. If the knife is perceived as the most important piece of evidence, and that only the recent test is relevant, the evidence will be difficult to understand.

In Canada, it is possible for a prosecutor to appeal a decision. In Canada, there is no difficulty in understanding the difference between a trial, and an appeal of a verdict. In Italy, the prosecutor appealed a verdict and we are now hearing the appeal arguments in the appeal. This is not a new trial, this one speck of DNA on the handle on the knife is not the only evidence and there is, to date, no reason to conclude that the knife is the most important piece of evidence. This piece of DNA hidden in the handle of the knife is evidence that was misinterpreted by the last team of experts, so it has been retested as part of the process of ensuring that all the facts are correct.

I'm only basing my post on what's been presented in the media. It does appear that the knife was one of the crucial piece of evidence. I don't know what else they have without a total redo of the first trial in which they were both acquitted based on not enough evidence. I guess I expected this would've been a bombshell but it turned out to be a flop.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

IMO this is what is being glossed over or missed by the <modsnip>/media/etc.

1- Meredith's dna on the knife from the original testing still stands.

2- The previous finding of AK's dna on the knife still stands.

3- The 'new' test shows AK's dna on the knife.

So it is not that Meredith's dna is/was not on the knife... It was.

:seeya: . . . Thank You for this explanation !

 

[dgfred]

I think you are missing a few things. The reports in regards to the kitchen knife that are in front of the current court are:

1. Stefanoni's report and testimony from the first trial.

2. Expert reports and testimony given during the first trial from AK and RS's experts.

3. The Conti-Vecchiotti report from the first appeal.

4. The Cabinieri RIS report just submitted.

It appears to me that the most recent report is in alignment with CV and the defense teams in arguing that the trace Stefanoni found is not reliable evidence. Of course, we will see in January what the judges decide.

Don't think I was missing anything. The question was about the new test and was Meredith's dna on the knife.

The RIS report was not related to the earlier testing. The defense was even cut short trying to discuss them.

 

[Monzoo]

Their appeal by Hellmann has been thrown out... so not acquitted.

The 'redo' was for one spot on the knife... not re-testing of the other spots.

The re-test found AK's dna.

The Hellmann decision was thrown out... Not the evidence presented to that court. The trace they just tested is one found by Conti-Vecciotti.

 

[~n/t~]

Their appeal by Hellmann has been thrown out... so not acquitted.

The 'redo' was for one spot on the knife... not re-testing of the other spots.

The re-test found AK's dna.

Which proves nothing at this point. What exactly were they looking for? The victims DNA? If so it failed, correct?