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

[OldSteve]

Things heating up a bit here... all interesting to read...

Two things about this case I find in conflict...

Always bothered by lack of (actually none) AK/RS DNA in Meredith's room and that neither AK/RS had bruises or cuts...

On the other hand, bothered by the story changing, false accusations of AK/RS as well as why AK did not in the long interrogation simply say - Sono innocente, voglio console legale..

 

[dgfred]

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

The evidence is the same as from the 1st trial. I don't understand what you are trying to get at???

Maybe found, but not tested like they were ASKED to do. Their report has be thrashed to shreds also... but you probably know that.

 

[dgfred]

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

They didn't know what it was. C and V didn't test it. Probably very worried exactly that might happen.

I don't know about fail... finding your dna on the supposed murder weapon is NEVER a good thing IMO.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Things heating up a bit here... all interesting to read...

Two things about this case I find in conflict...

Always bothered by lack of (actually none) AK/RS DNA in Meredith's room and that neither AK/RS had bruises or cuts...

On the other hand, bothered by the story changing, false accusations of AK/RS as well as why AK did not in the long interrogation simply say - Sono innocente, voglio console legale..

BBM: It was obvious to investigators that Knox and Raf cleaned up ...

Also, Knox's LAMP was found IN Meredith's room with NO fingerprints on it ... So what was Knox's lamp doing in Meredith's room and WHO wiped the lamp ?

As to "bruises and cuts" : in one of the photos taken of Knox and Raf outside the cottage when LE was investigating the crime scene, you can clearly see a mark on Knox's neck, which IMO, looks like a cut.

 

[~n/t~]

They didn't know what it was. C and V didn't test it. Probably very worried exactly that might happen.

I don't know about fail... finding your dna on the supposed murder weapon is NEVER a good thing IMO.

True but as we know it could be explained away as Amanda using it to cook :drumroll:

 

[dgfred]

Things heating up a bit here... all interesting to read...

Two things about this case I find in conflict...

Always bothered by lack of (actually none) AK/RS DNA in Meredith's room and that neither AK/RS had bruises or cuts...

On the other hand, bothered by the story changing, false accusations of AK/RS as well as why AK did not in the long interrogation simply say - Sono innocente, voglio console legale..

I understand but...

Isn't that knocked out if her dna is on one of the murder weapons and his dna is on the victim's removed bra-clasp?

3 vs 1 with 2 possibly having a knife.

Why accuse anyone? Why change stories? What long interrogation?

 

[Monzoo]

The evidence is the same as from the 1st trial. I don't understand what you are trying to get at???

Maybe found, but not tested like they were ASKED to do. Their report has be thrashed to shreds also... but you probably know that.

I have seen absolutely no evidence that the report is not under consideration. Obviously, the prosecution does not like it. The Supreme Court appeared to side with the prosecution in reopening the case. (IMO, a political rather than judicial decision.)

They, however, are not the court in which this case is currently being heard. ALL evidence from the previous trials is under consideration.

FYI, the trace was not tested during the second trial under agreement from all parties present -- defense and prosecution included. To me, it seems like a big waste of time and resources at this point.

 

[Monzoo]

Things heating up a bit here... all interesting to read...

Two things about this case I find in conflict...

Always bothered by lack of (actually none) AK/RS DNA in Meredith's room and that neither AK/RS had bruises or cuts...

On the other hand, bothered by the story changing, false accusations of AK/RS as well as why AK did not in the long interrogation simply say - Sono innocente, voglio console legale..

I agree that these things are confusing, but the "confessions", to me, make no logical sense if AK was guilty of the crime.

As I look at it, if AK were guilty, she would know who committed the crime. Why accuse her boss, who she knows didn't do it, rather that some stranger? Further, she followed with two retractions the next day as soon as she was at the prison rather than the police station. If she were pinning the crime on someone, why retract? She was isolated at that point-- she had no access to family, friends, or media.

As much as we all would like to think we would never falsely confess or accuse someone, it does happen. IMO, her statements should never be used against her.

 

[~n/t~]

I agree that these things are confusing, but the "confessions", to me, make no logical sense if AK was guilty of the crime.

As I look at it, if AK were guilty, she would know who committed the crime. Why accuse her boss, who she knows didn't do it, rather that some stranger? Further, she followed with two retractions the next day as soon as she was at the prison rather than the police station. If she were pinning the crime on someone, why retract? She was isolated at that point-- she had no access to family, friends, or media.

As much as we all would like to think we would never falsely confess or accuse someone, it does happen. IMO, her statements should never be used against her.

It could go the other way too. If she is innocent why pin it on anybody? She could've just said I had nothing to do with it and asked for a lawyer

 

[Monzoo]

It could go the other way too. If she is innocent why pin it on anybody? She could've just said I had nothing to do with it and asked for a lawyer

In a perfect world, this is what would happen. However, we do know that false confessions, and accusations, do in fact happen.

There are any number of cases out there. Look at the Central Park jogger rape case. The West Memphis Three. Norfolk Four. A few weeks ago, the radio program "This American Life " did a show about confessions-- one of the stories was a woman suspected of murder. She confessed, although she was innocent.

Is there any real reason to keep these statements in as evidence? Back at the beginning of this trial process, they were thrown out of the murder case against AK. They were only allowed in because of the Calunnia case. Why should they now be used as evidence in the murder trial?

 

[~n/t~]

In a perfect world, this is what would happen. However, we do know that false confessions, and accusations, do in fact happen.

There are any number of cases out there. Look at the Central Park jogger rape case. The West Memphis Three. Norfolk Four. A few weeks ago, the radio program "This American Life " did a show about confessions-- one of the stories was a woman suspected of murder. She confessed, although she was innocent.

Is there any real reason to keep these statements in as evidence? Back at the beginning of this trial process, they were thrown out of the murder case against AK. They were only allowed in because of the Calunnia case. Why should they now be used as evidence in the murder trial?

Agree with you about false confession and accusations but I think accusing someone of murder should be allowed into the murder trial. It's up to the jury to decide whether or not it has relevancy or not. The again, I don't know anything about the Italian justice system. Her attorney can have it thrown out, I suppose.

 

[whoanellie]

I agree that these things are confusing, but the "confessions", to me, make no logical sense if AK was guilty of the crime.

As I look at it, if AK were guilty, she would know who committed the crime. Why accuse her boss, who she knows didn't do it, rather that some stranger? Further, she followed with two retractions the next day as soon as she was at the prison rather than the police station. If she were pinning the crime on someone, why retract? She was isolated at that point-- she had no access to family, friends, or media.

As much as we all would like to think we would never falsely confess or accuse someone, it does happen. IMO, her statements should never be used against her.

Excellent post. It seems that she blamed Lumumba because that's who the police wanted her to blame. They had found texts between Lumumba and her on her phone.

Police chief Arturo De Felice said: "Initially the American gave a version of events we knew was not correct. She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them in. They all participated but had different roles."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...reaming-519420

 

[song22]

So I was speculating yesterday that this was a thrill kill kind of scenario with AK and RS wanting to know what it felt like just to kill someone. But then I woke up in the middle of the night with a big wrench in that scenario--Guede. What would he have to do with such a scenario? Why would he be in on it? Doesn't make sense.

This is a tough case for sure. It has me spinning in circles. My gut reaction to AK and RS is that they are guilty. I judge AK for her behavior and the lying. But It is hard for me to make an AK/RS narrative work. I also am tempted just to fall back on Guede as the bad guy.

It didn't seem like AK/RS/and Guede had any kind of real relationship/friendship. Am I missing something there? Also I found these comments under this article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ts-Meredith-Kercher-killer-is-still-free.html about Guede very interesting. The commenter does a run-down of all the previous shenanigans of Guede--are these legit? If so he has a history. But then I'm stumped about how the consensus seems to be that Guede did not act alone.

I "feel" and "think" AK and RS are guilty but I have doubts that bug me. You know, my dad is mentally ill. He behaves very inappropriately in many different situations. Some of it can be blamed on his illness, but some of it he needs to take responsibility for. If he was at a murder scene he very well could turn cartwheels. If he did, it would be his own fault if that made him a suspect. I do think behavior matters. But I have a hard time going on that alone. AK could have a personality disorder or be on the bipolar spectrum and just act odd and inappropriately. I think at the very least this is true. It is not OK to behave as she did. But I need more...JMO

 

[dgfred]

I have seen absolutely no evidence that the report is not under consideration. Obviously, the prosecution does not like it. The Supreme Court appeared to side with the prosecution in reopening the case. (IMO, a political rather than judicial decision.)

They, however, are not the court in which this case is currently being heard. ALL evidence from the previous trials is under consideration.

FYI, the trace was not tested during the second trial under agreement from all parties present -- defense and prosecution included. To me, it seems like a big waste of time and resources at this point.

What? Where have you read that the C and V report is still valid? In fact the judge asked if this new trace could be tested WITHOUT advice from American sources. Kind of a punch to their report... don't you think?

It is not re-opening the case. Hellmanns appeal verdict was squashed.

No, C and V were asked to test any new traces. FYI, they did not do it.
Why would the prosecution want it tested now... but not then. That is false.

 

[Amber29]

I agree that these things are confusing, but the "confessions", to me, make no logical sense if AK was guilty of the crime.

As I look at it, if AK were guilty, she would know who committed the crime. Why accuse her boss, who she knows didn't do it, rather that some stranger? Further, she followed with two retractions the next day as soon as she was at the prison rather than the police station. If she were pinning the crime on someone, why retract? She was isolated at that point-- she had no access to family, friends, or media.

As much as we all would like to think we would never falsely confess or accuse someone, it does happen. IMO, her statements should never be used against her.

Personally I don't think the fact that she included patrik in her confession instead of Rudy means much at all. The fact still stands she knew things she shouldn't have known. For instance that Meredith screamed loudly, there are 2 other witnesses that testified to hearing a blood curdling scream that night.

I also think the fact that Raffaele on hearing of Rudy Guede being arrested wrote:

"I saw father happy and smiling, but I am not 100% calm at the moment because I fear that he might invent strange things"

What strange things is Raffaele concerned Rudy would invent? One would think an innocent person would be happy as his father was that the "real" killer had been found.

 

[SMK]

What? Where have you read that the C and V report is still valid? In fact the judge asked if this new trace could be tested WITHOUT advice from American sources. Kind of a punch to their report... don't you think?

It is not re-opening the case. Hellmanns appeal verdict was squashed.

No, C and V were asked to test any new traces. FYI, they did not do it.
Why would the prosecution want it tested now... but not then. That is false.

I think that you have to understand that many of us - at least in the US, and probably elsewhere - have followed news stories which add profoundly and massively to the confusion.

I just read this piece and one can see that the media is definitely putting something out there, which runs counter to what others believe or have gleaned:

<modsnip>

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

 

[Sonata]

Personally I don't think the fact that she included patrik in her confession instead of Rudy means much at all. The fact still stands she knew things she shouldn't have known. For instance that Meredith screamed loudly, there are 2 other witnesses that testified to hearing a blood curdling scream that night.

I also think the fact that Raffaele on hearing of Rudy Guede being arrested wrote:

"I saw father happy and smiling, but I am not 100% calm at the moment because I fear that he might invent strange things"

What strange things is Raffaele concerned Rudy would invent? One would think an innocent person would be happy as his father was that the "real" killer had been found.

While I agree with you on your last point, I don't think it is odd that Amanda talked about a loud scream. I would think that's one of the first things that comes to mind when anyone thinks of a brutal attack. Its not really evidence of esoteric knowledge.

 

[Monzoo]

What? Where have you read that the C and V report is still valid? In fact the judge asked if this new trace could be tested WITHOUT advice from American sources. Kind of a punch to their report... don't you think?

It is not re-opening the case. Hellmanns appeal verdict was squashed.

No, C and V were asked to test any new traces. FYI, they did not do it.
Why would the prosecution want it tested now... but not then. That is false.

I see no reason to believe it is not still valid. In my opinion, it is illogical to think otherwise.

As far as new testimony, we have Aviello called back by the prosecution to ask further questions. (note: not restate his testimony from the first appeal, but the prosecution wanted to ask NEW questions of him. His testimony during the Hellmann appeal is a part of the case file, and can be used by the current court.) I personally think the entirety of testimony is worthless, but YMMV.

The material tested by Cabinieri RIS is a trace found during C & V's testing. Read their report on it. It was only after C & V reported to the court that the prosecution wanted it tested, but not during the initial testing.

My reading of the fact that the judge asked for not American sources is that they were looking for ways to combat real or perceived anti-Americanism. If they can find the same standards using a non-American source, it will buttress their reasonings when the Supreme Court has to either affirm or reject their verdict. This is, of course, my opinion only. At this point I see this prosecution less about the law and more about politics.

I should also say that I think that the Supreme Court ,despite really really wanting to convict Amanda Knox, knows that they have to give at least the appearance of a fair trial. Can you imagine the outrage internationally if they excluded the C & V report from the case file, and then convicted Amanda Knox? Politically, they just can't do that. It would look like they threw it away just because they didn't like what it said.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

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.

One, Conti and Vecchiotti were absolutely correct when they state that international protocols were not followed. For one thing true LCN work should be carried out in dedicated facilities. "Making the Invisible Visible" stated, Stringent measures are needed to minimise that risk. The ESR has spent $1 million building special anti-contamination areas at its premises in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch. Protocols are being developed for crime scenes where the LCN technique is used and for the handling of samples from collection through to courtroom. LCN crime scenes will be divided into cold, warm and hot zones hot being the crime zone. Clothes are put on and discarded at each zone to minimise the risk of contamination." Contamination can yield a full or partial profile from an individual, as has been seen in a number of cases.

Two, LCN testing requires at least two tests, and only alleles showing up in both tests are accepted. "To avoid or limit the possibility of getting the wrong answer when testing low amounts of DNA, replicate PCR amplifications are performed and a consensus profile developed(9) . The standard practice is to PCR amplify either two or three aliquots of a DNA extract(6) (8) . Alleles that occur more than once (i.e., repeat) in the obtained profiles are deemed &#8220;reliable&#8221; as they have been reproduced in separate DNA tests."

Three, Potenza did object. Even if he had not, the notion that all objections must be raised at the moment of the test is highly questionable. And it obscures the lack of disclosure of the electronic data files and other forensic files. Professor Dan Krane answered a question of mine on this subject: &#8220;Having the electronic data for review is enormously important. Having the opportunity to witness the testing of samples is of marginal utility at best. Reviews of the underlying data for DNA tests often reveals alternative interpretations of the evidence samples, especially in circumstances were small amounts of DNA are involved and it is difficult to distinguish between signal, noise, and technical artifacts. Observing testing rarely provides any more insights than what should be possible from a review of contemporaneous notes that should be part of a lab's case file. Witnessing testing is far from a cure-all. Problems such as contamination of samples can easily arise before a sample arrives in a laboratory yet could not be detected by an expert observing the testing process itself.&#8221;

 

[redheadedgal]

dog.gone.cute: (previous thread)

Here is the link for the Twitter page of reporter Andrea Vogt :

She is one of the few UNbiased reporters covering this case, IMO ...

The evidence is the same as from the 1st trial. I don't understand what you are trying to get at???

...Their report has be thrashed to shreds also...

I have seen absolutely no evidence that the report is not under consideration. Obviously, the prosecution does not like it. The Supreme Court appeared to side with the prosecution in reopening the case. (IMO, a political rather than judicial decision.)

They, however, are not the court in which this case is currently being heard. ALL evidence from the previous trials is under consideration.

I see no reason to believe it is not still valid. In my opinion, it is illogical to think otherwise.

What? Where have you read that the C and V report is still valid?... That is false.

andrea vogt: postscript on the knife

http://thefreelancedesk.com/front_featured/amanda-knox-appeal-2/