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

[sherlockh]

Can anyone clarify exactly what is to occur, when?

Nov 6 will be a discussion of the knife test results, and their implications.

What is to be the theme of Nov 25-6?

And why do they figure it will take another month to render a verdict?

November 25-26, closing arguments and verdict. I haven't seen anywhere that it would take yet another month.

 

[SMK]

November 25-26, closing arguments and verdict. I haven't seen anywhere that it would take yet another month.

Thanks. I sure hope this is right. I keep hearing, "by Christmas; by year's end". I would rather have the verdict come at this month's end, because this has been very protracted as it is.

 

[sherlockh]

It does seem a bit bizarre. But they arrive at it in a handy if somewhat convoluted manner: They believe that C and V discounts the MK DNA, hence, it is not the murder weapon. That Knox's DNA is found on it is simply from cooking.

No victim DNA, ergo, no murder weapon. But this all hinges on Stefanoni's MK DNA being discounted, which obviously, not everyone is in agreement with. The important thing: What will the judges decide?

Exactly, newspapers are merely reflecting the position of the defense lawyers since they are the ones that are talking. The judges will decide and although the C&V report is still part of the case, the conclusions from the Hellmann court were invalid. The SC gave some guidelines.

http://thefreelancedesk.com/wp-cont...ning-on-Amanda-Knox-Case_-English-Version.pdf

The authoritative nature of the observations of the two consultants of the parties would have required that the Court deal with their points, which irremediably conflicted with the assumptions of Prof. Vecchiotti, whose points could indeed be accepted by the Court, but only after evaluation of the opposing points, which were of equal scientific value.

The other experts with at least the same amount of expertise as the court appointed experts must be considered. They had opposing opinions as to the C&V report so lets say this puts the chances that the C&V report will be accepted at 50/50.

The Hellmann Court of Appeal accepted the thesis of probable contamination proposed by the court‐appointed experts, based on their claim that “everything is possible”, which precisely because of its generality is not a usable argument, leading again to an error that is both logical and legal in nature.

This very serious criticism (there were even more) of the court-appointed experts puts the chances that the report will be accepted at much lower than 50%. JMO.

 

[OldSteve]

What do you make of a former FBI agent that categorically dismisses Meredith's DNA on the blade of the knife; a sample that is larger than the trace belonging to Knox on the handle?

What I would have liked, would be to hear what some (any) behavioral and body language experts had say about the actions and story changes, etc...

 

[SMK]

What do you make of a former FBI agent that categorically dismisses Meredith's DNA on the blade of the knife; a sample that is larger than the trace belonging to Knox on the handle?

As you can see from this below piece, the idea may have been planted in Moore's and others' minds, by the prosecution's assertion that this test was going to decide the case. IMO, they should never have said that. They ought to have instead said that everything would be reviewed and taken into consideration in totality.

Amanda Knox Update: Newly tested trace evidence reportedly points away from Knox, but how will prosecutors respond?

In a music canon, there's a lead melody and everything else imitates that lead. In March, the Italian Supreme Court declared that the results of the tests on trace 36-i would be "decisive." The Supreme Court wanted trace 36-i tested. The results will be officially entered into court on November 6.

Following the Italian Supreme Court's lead, the canon to innocence should be the only tune heard that day.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...&utm_campaign=Feed:+cbsnews/feed+(CBSNews.com)

 

[OldSteve]

Cases in which only a extremely tiny spot of DNA upon which innocence/guilt hangs on concern me, and concern me all the more when POI and victim have frequented the same places..

I've been involved in science all my working life - there can ways things happen that defy the way/why we think they happened...

 

[SMK]

Cases in which only a extremely tiny spot of DNA upon which innocence/guilt hangs on concern me, and concern me all the more when POI and victim have frequented the same places..

I've been involved in science all my working life - there can ways things happen that defy the way/why we think they happened...

Right; that's why this whole focus on DNA in this case does not convince huge numbers of people of guilt. The onus should be on the circumstantial evidence, and the case for guilt made to hang on the totality of that.

The CSI focus brings it down to the forensics being too doubtful and could lose the case. I guess that is the effect of being in the 21st century, where science trumps psychology and intuition.

In any case, the prosecution appears to have opened the door to disbelief with their assertion that this tiny bit would make or break the case.

Even Andrea Vogt had said on her site, that if Kercher's DNA was not found, it could easily point to acquittal:

The new forensic testing of the knife ordered by Judge Alessandro Nencini at the start of Amanda Knox’s appeals trial in Florence is going ahead at the Caribinieri RIS laboratories in Rome. But how crucial will the results be to appeal outcome? If the DNA being tested matches the profile of either the victim Meredith Kercher or the other man already in jail for the murder, Rudy Guede, it is a very ominous sign for the defense. If more of Meredith’s DNA is found on the blade, it further confirms the prosecution’s assertion that the kitchen knife found in Sollecito’s flat was indeed the murder weapon. If Rudy Guede’s DNA is found on the blade, it confirms his story that he was stabbed in the palm by a knife-wielding attacker as he came out of the bathroom to see what all the fracas was about. Guede testified that the attacker said in Italian “Black man found, black man guilty,” before running out the door. He claims he found Meredith dying in her room and tried to save her, but, unable to stop the bleeding, eventually panicked and fled. Since Guede had never visited Sollecito’s flat, the prosecution would like argue that his DNA on the blade meant that either Knox or Sollecito brought the weapon back there after the murder and confrontation with Guede.

If, on the other hand, the DNA results are inconclusive, the forensic evidence could be interpreted as weakened and there is more likelihood of acquittal, partial acquittal or conviction on lesser charges, such as omicidio colposo (manslaughter), options that remain open to the court.

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

I am starting to get the feeling that the prosecutors may lose this precisely because they focused on something which arouses doubts in the minds of many reasonable people.

 

[otto]

CBS is reporting that trace 36-I is "decisive". This is not surprising, as CBS has published a number of misleading articles about the case. I haven't been able to find anything in the Supreme Court decision to suggest that their decision will be made based on an analysis of this single piece of evidence.

Sollecito and Knox would like the entire decision to rest on the analysis of one trace of DNA, as long as it is not one of the traces that implicates them.

Actually, I stand corrected. The trace is described as decisive.

http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/GalatiCassationAppeal.pdf

If the DNA sample belonged to Meredith or Guede, it would have been decisive. The fact that it belongs to Knox doesn't seem to mean much, since her fingerprints were found on the handle of the knife. Perhaps it should have been said that the trace could have been decisive, depending on the results.

 

[SMK]

CBS is reporting that trace 36-I is "decisive". This is not surprising, as CBS has published a number of misleading articles about the case. I haven't been able to find anything in the Supreme Court decision to suggest that their decision will be made based on an analysis of this single piece of evidence.

Sollecito and Knox would like the entire decision to rest on the analysis of one trace of DNA, as long as it is not one of the traces that implicates them.

Actually, I stand corrected. The trace is described as decisive.

http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/GalatiCassationAppeal.pdf

If the DNA sample belonged to Meredith or Guede, it would have been decisive. The fact that it belongs to Knox doesn't seem to mean much, since her fingerprints were found on the handle of the knife. Perhaps it should have been said that the trace could have been decisive, depending on the results.

Yes, although I cannot locate it right now, some weeks ago there was an Italian news piece which quoted the Prosecution as saying that it would be "decisive" and "make or break" the case.

But now that Ms. Kercher and Guede's traces have not been found, it seems less relevant. But as they posed it this way initially (the prosecution) , how are they now going to convince the judges to look at the circumstantial evidence and see the DNA results as unimportant? They ought to have said, "If we find Ms Kercher's traces, it will be decisive and conclusive. If not, we will look at the circumstantial evidence." But perhaps this does not need to be said? Do you see how even Vogt felt inconclusive results such as were received could point to an acquittal? ETA: Or is this all just media stuff, and the case is proceeding along different lines?And can you tell me where in that document the trace is so defined?

 

[otto]

Yes, although I cannot locate it right now, some weeks ago there was an Italian news piece which quoted the Prosecution as saying that it would be "decisive" and "make or break" the case.

But now that Ms. Kercher and Guede's traces have not been found, it seems less relevant. But as they posed it this way initially (the prosecution) , how are they now going to convince the judges to look at the circumstantial evidence and see the DNA results as unimportant? They ought to have said, "If we find Ms Kercher's traces, it will be decisive and conclusive. If not, we will look at the circumstantial evidence." But perhaps this does not need to be said? Do you see how even Vogt felt inconclusive results such as were received could point to an acquittal? ETA: Or is this all just media stuff, and the case is proceeding along different lines?And can you tell me where in that document the trace is so defined?

http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/GalatiCassationAppeal.pdf ; p.5

I think that too much is made of the word "decisive". I'm thinking that when the appeal was made, evidence that was excluded from Hellman's report was labelled as decisive in the sense that it was "relevant" evidence, or evidence that has a role in the decision. I think it's a huge leap to then state that this same evidence will dictate the verdict.

 

[SMK]

http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/GalatiCassationAppeal.pdf ; p.5

I think that too much is made of the word "decisive". I'm thinking that when the appeal was made, evidence that was excluded from Hellman's report was labelled as decisive in the sense that it was "relevant" evidence, or evidence that has a role in the decision. I think it's a huge leap to then state that this same evidence will dictate the verdict.

BBM- makes a great deal of sense. I think the media blitz had made such a leap as you state, and spun it - until one could no longer make heads nor tails of all. Thanks. and thanks also for the document citation.

 

[otto]

BBM- makes a great deal of sense. I think the media blitz had made such a leap as you state, and spun it - until one could no longer make heads nor tails of all. Thanks. and thanks also for the document citation.

It looks like the word "decisive" has been taken completely out of context, and reworded to imply that the 36-I trace, and the testimony from Aviello (the sex change former mafia liar that claims his brother murdered Meredith), are the "decisive", or deciding, pieces of evidence in the verdict. On page 5 of the report, they are both defined as "decisive evidence". I'm pretty sure that, in context, "decisive evidence" means evidence that should be considered in the decision/verdict, not that the verdict will be based solely on these two pieces of evidence.

 

[SMK]

It looks like the word "decisive" has been taken completely out of context, and reworded to imply that the 36-I trace, and the testimony from Aviello (the sex change former mafia liar that claims his brother murdered Meredith), are the "decisive", or deciding, pieces of evidence in the verdict. On page 5 of the report, they are both defined as "decisive evidence". I'm pretty sure that, in context, "decisive evidence" means evidence that should be considered in the decision/verdict, not that the verdict will be based solely on these two pieces of evidence.

I bolded this last because it makes the distinction - which has got lost in so many discussions - so clearly. Thanks for the clarification/illumination.

 

[SMK]

@Otto: Was wondering if you had read this one yet (published Nov 1):

http://allthingscrimeblog.com/2013/...manda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-accomplice/

 

[OldSteve]

Right; that's why this whole focus on DNA in this case does not convince huge numbers of people of guilt. The onus should be on the circumstantial evidence, and the case for guilt made to hang on the totality of that.

The CSI focus brings it down to the forensics being too doubtful and could lose the case. I guess that is the effect of being in the 21st century, where science trumps psychology and intuition.

In any case, the prosecution appears to have opened the door to disbelief with their assertion that this tiny bit would make or break the case.

Even Andrea Vogt had said on her site, that if Kercher's DNA was not found, it could easily point to acquittal:


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

I am starting to get the feeling that the prosecutors may lose this precisely because they focused on something which arouses doubts in the minds of many reasonable people.

BBM's - Excellent!

IMO that's the object of defense lawyers when faced with good circumstantial evidence - set up as many straw dogs as possible; nothing like lots of bland scientific data requiring lengthy explanation, or long discussions about forensic details that may not be all that relevant...

 

[sherlockh]

Cases in which only a extremely tiny spot of DNA upon which innocence/guilt hangs on concern me, and concern me all the more when POI and victim have frequented the same places..

I've been involved in science all my working life - there can ways things happen that defy the way/why we think they happened...

DNA spots are usually tiny The reasoning the previous court upheld was that 'anything is possible' and therefore the DNA evidence didn't really count. That was rejected by the SC. Just to say 'something' could have happened doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It needs to be more specific. How many tiny DNA spots do you really need on that bra clasp to prove that he touched it?

 

[SMK]

DNA spots are usually tiny The reasoning the previous court upheld was that 'anything is possible' and therefore the DNA evidence didn't really count. That was rejected by the SC. Just to say 'something' could have happened doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It needs to be more specific. How many tiny DNA spots do you really need on that bra clasp to prove that he touched it?

I think what is worrisome about the clasp is that it was collected so late, and improperly handled. Or at least that is what I was long led to believe. (addendum: I really did not know that DNA evidence always consisted of tiny bits. )

 

[otto]

@Otto: Was wondering if you had read this one yet (published Nov 1):

http://allthingscrimeblog.com/2013/...manda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-accomplice/

Thanks. That opinion piece seems to touch on all the relevant reasons why investigators concluded that more than one person was involved in the murder.

 

[sherlockh]

I think what is worrisome about the clasp is that it was collected so late, and improperly handled. Or at least that is what I was long led to believe. (addendum: I really did not know that DNA evidence always consisted of tiny bits. )

Well 'tiny' is a relative term. I just meant that usually you don't see touch DNA. For blood it is of course different.

I never understood how the 'improper handling' and 'late' (what does it matter if it is left behind locked doors?) collection of the bra clasp inside the bedroom, is supposed to explain contamination coming from outside the bedroom. Even if the bra clasp was collected right away there would still be the defense argument of contamination. That is basically the only defense they have.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Can anyone clarify exactly what is to occur, when?

Nov 6 will be a discussion of the knife test results, and their implications.

What is to be the theme of Nov 25-6?

And why do they figure it will take another month to render a verdict?

:seeya:

RBBM: AND -- on November 6 -- Rafaelle is supposed to show up at court ...

So we wait and see ... and IF he does show up, it is going to be interesting !

:moo: