Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#4

[Chris_Halkides]

Thanks. So I presume Hellmann accepted their conclusions, and this current Nencini court overturned and rejected them. Thanks once more.

I have no idea why you would presume that. IIUC all of the previous evidence, including Conti and Vecchiotti's report, still stands before the Nencini court.

 

[whoanellie]

OK, granting all of this: Why was the Supreme Court so disdainful in it's rejection of C & V????

Can you be more specific? What in the Supreme Court opinion is "disdainful" of C&V's report?

 

[SMK]

I have no idea why you would presume that. IIUC all of the previous evidence, including Conti and Vecchiotti's report, still stands before the Nencini court.

I presume it because I've seen it posted and asserted numerous times in various places. Sorry, but the ignorance didn't spring spontaneously from my mind, but was suggested to me: I came by it honestly.:blushing:

 

[SMK]

Can you be more specific? What in the Supreme Court opinion is "disdainful" of C&V's report?

cannot find it now, but I believe Otto or dgfred had said something to the effect of the SC saying it "strayed far from science" or something akin to that. :blushing:

 

[Chris_Halkides]

So the suggestion is that because the judges sitting on the Supreme Court in Italy did not study DNA anaylsis, they are in no position to rule on cases where DNA evidence is presented?

The CSC preferred to trust a prosecution witness, most of whose academic work is not in DNA forensics over two independent witnesses, whose academic work is more relevant. Besides being questionable in its own right, the CSC was trying to rule on facts (through the back door), even though it is not supposed to do so.

If the CSC wanted to make better rulings on DNA it could look to how Australia has dealt with the Farah Jama or the Jaidyn Leskie cases, each of which was the subject of a special enquiry. A former Australian Supreme Court Judge, Frank Vincent wrote in his report on the Jama case: “Precisely how it [contamination] may have happened cannot be determined as the deposition of the minute quantity of material involved could have occurred in a number of ways. It is possible to speculate about the probability of transference through various mechanisms, but ultimately pointless to do so.”

 

[SMK]

Just came across this now so am adding it as more media grist for the mill:

Popular forensic crime writer says Amanda Knox is innocent
By Associated Press and KOMO Staff Published: Nov 14, 2013 at 9:05 AM PST

NEW YORK -

Popular crime writer Patricia Cornwell said she has no doubts that Amanda Knox is innocent and had nothing to do with the murder of her British roommate Meredith Kercher in Italy.

Cornwell, who is widely known for writing a popular series of novels featuring medical examiner Dr. Kay Scarpetta, said in an interview with the Associated Press that she follows modern stories closely, from the trial of Casey Anthony to the murder of Jon Benet Ramsey.

She believes the Amanda Knox case in Italy is an example of a poorly investigated crime, rejecting speculation that British exchange student Meredith Kercher was killed as part of a wild sexual ritual.

Knox, a Seattle college student, was studying abroad in Perugia, Italy, at the time of the murder. She and then-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito were jailed for four years, then freed, and are currently being tried again.

"The case is not the elaborate scenario it's been spun to be," says Cornwell. "Instead, it's more a sexual predator who went after this woman and tried to rape her, or did. And it's a very violent assault."

"They've made a great big deal about the victim's stomach contents and how they placed the death at a certain time because her food had not really digested all that much. It's like, 'Hello, when you go into flight or fight mode, your digestion either shuts down completely or at least it slows, because all the blood is going to your extremities so you can defend yourself or run.' And if somebody is being assaulted, their digestion quits. I've seen it in the morgue where somebody who ate 8-10 hours earlier - their food is exactly as they swallowed it."

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/...buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer

 

[redheadedgal]

As I said in my previous post, I don't really trust these so-called "independent" investigators that have come out of the woodworks everywhere.

you asked for the opinion of someone from a university... and was given one.

I have a very difficult time believing they do it for free. If they are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, why? That means they feel some sympathy/empathy for Amanda or Raffaelo. That would in itself lend itself to bias. If they getting paid for it, by whom is the main question?

b/c you disagree with the expert opinion provided, motives are immediately questioned?

about the opinion piece slamming hampikian on TJMK another poster provided... did someone pay for that to be written? how is that more credible than the conclusions of hampikian?

... who do nothing but confuse and complicate and generally muddy-up the waters.

like the inaccuracies, blatant lies and mistruths on TJMK and other similar sites?

Especially not from the US.

I would prefer to stick to only the formal case files.

so, when one doesn't like the information received, the goal posts are changed? now no american opinions are acceptable? only case files are? those includes C&V, who are not american.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

It is not known if there is one other contributor or more. What is known is that Sollecito's DNA is on Meredith's bra clasp and there is no good reason for it to be there. There is no reasonable explanation for contamination because there is no original source for the contamination. We are to believe that Sollecito's DNA, from nowhere, flew into Meredith's bedroom and landed on her bra clasp.

I have examined egrams from both the autosomal and YSTR DNA from the clasp. With respect to the YSTR results, even using criteria that would minimize the number of other contributors, it come out to 2 other males besides Sollecito. If I use criteria for peak size similar to the knife, I count four other males besides Sollecito. A claim to the effect that one contributor is Silenzio is pure conjecture.

 

[Monzoo]

I would suggest that plenty of evidence implicates Knox, Sollecito and Guede. DNA analysis confirms that the DNA from one of the culprits is where it should not be: on Meredith's underwear. Is it reasonable to exclude this DNA evidence simply because the victim's boyfriend DNA may also be in the same location?

Where is the evidence that the victim's boyfriend is one of the contributors? How about the other contributors -- they found indicators from more than two men.

The fact that the bra clasp sat in Meredith's bedroom for more than a month, to me, means that it is useless as a piece of evidence. The fact that the prosecution tries so hard to keep it in the trial, to me, shows just how weak their case is.

 

[whoanellie]

cannot find it now, but I believe Otto or dgfred had said something to the effect of the SC saying it "strayed far from science" or something akin to that. :blushing:

Do you believe everything they post?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

From the cassation reasoning regarding C&V

"The error in reasoning is obvious, [according to the Prosecutor General], in that the burden of proof falls on the one who asserts, not on the one who denies: if the refutation of scientific evidence entails a circumstance of fact which is the contamination of a piece of evidence, then that circumstance must be specifically proved. Nothing was said in the judgment about how the DNA found on the blade of the knife and Sollecito’s DNA on the clasp of the bra worn by Meredith could have been the result of contamination, considering how far apart in time the two tests were carried out [from other tests]. In addition, the negative controls by the biological geneticist from the Scientific Police were represented as not having been done, but turned out in fact to have been done. Nor could the experts indicate any specific source of contamination, limiting themselves instead to asserting that anything is possible."

In how many cases of forensic DNA contamination is the route proved, and in how many cases is it unknown? One can offer plausible arguments about how the contamination occurred, but they would be difficult to prove.

I am 100% certain that the negative controls were never given to the defense in the form of electronic data files, which is by far the most useful way to examine the information. The claim that the negative controls were ever deposited in any form rests on Stefanoni's testimony in 2008 (IIUC). IMO it is a misreading of her testimony (link to a comment at JREFF here). Therefore, the CSC is 0 for 3 in this passage.

 

[SMK]

Do you believe everything they post?

Well, I have always found them to be pretty reliable in what they post. I believe IIRC that I saw the quote to that effect, as well. Just too frazzled to find it at the moment.

 

[SMK]

I would suggest that plenty of evidence implicates Knox, Sollecito and Guede. DNA analysis confirms that the DNA from one of the culprits is where it should not be: on Meredith's underwear. Is it reasonable to exclude this DNA evidence simply because the victim's boyfriend DNA may also be in the same location?

Yes, true. But what stunned me is that Halkides said there were profiles of "2-4 males" in addition to Sollecito? Sounds like contamination, if true? Just very puzzled at this info......

 

[Amber29]

In how many cases of forensic DNA contamination is the route proved, and in how many cases is it unknown? One can offer plausible arguments about how the contamination occurred, but they would be difficult to prove.

I am 100% certain that the negative controls were never given to the defense in the form of electronic data files, which is by far the most useful way to examine the information. The claim that the negative controls were ever deposited in any form rests on Stefanoni's testimony in 2008 (IIUC). IMO it is a misreading of her testimony (link to a comment at JREFF here). Therefore, the SC is 0 for 3 in this passage.

So I give you a passage from the reasoning and you still stand by the claim that your 100% sure the negative controls were not done? I guess again the judges are wrong and you are right.

And why didn't the defense ever fight this at the Massei level. This too is from the cassation reasoning:

"All the more so given that the second instance court completely ignored the fact that the original tests were made in accordance with the provisions of Article 360 Criminal Procedure Code, without any criticisms having been lodged during the various phases of the operations, and without the suspects or their legal representation having requested a pre‐trial hearing [regarding testing procedures]."

 

[aa9511]

@aa. If bones or other material can be collected MANY years later (moved, falling apart, missing pieces, dirt, decay, etc.) and the findings be ok... why can't a clasp that moved a couple of feet and was sealed at a crime scene be ok? The knife wasn't delayed... same mess happens with it- wrong analysis, bad analysis, rigged analysis, contamination, planting, on-and-on, bla-bla-bla. Merit is relative.

No video tape of witnesses- What? she was already a suspect.
Confession- she was confused and being hit by ghost.
Accusation- police forced it out of her.
RS prison diary- he just writing out loud and the police stole it/copied was illegal.
Bathmat boogie- everybody does that on a bloody bathmat.
Hellmann completely overturned- Hellmann and C&V still right.


Should we continue?

bbm

Good point(s), dgfred!

 

[aa9511]

Guys, I know we all disagree a lot, but I really value this forum and all of your insights.

here, here! Cheers to that! It took me a long while to get used to all the back-and-forth....I was used to being on threads where we all agreed on the same thing. Quite a change on here! But now I'm getting used to you all

 

[dgfred]

Interesting the thought that C&V are still before the court when the judge that appointed them and his ruling has been completely dumped. If your entire decision(s) are said to be illogical and thrown away... why would that part still be relevant? It's not IMO and not likely in the current discussions at trial.

 

[SMK]

Interesting the thought that C&V are still before the court when the judge that appointed them and his ruling has been completely dumped. If your entire decision(s) are said to be illogical and thrown away... why would that part still be relevant? It's not IMO and not likely in the current discussions at trial.

This was what I had read many times, and surmised as well. Thanks, for a minute CH had me feeling that I had come to an illogical conclusion. :facepalm:

 

[Monzoo]

@aa. If bones or other material can be collected MANY years later (moved, falling apart, missing pieces, dirt, decay, etc.) and the findings be ok... why can't a clasp that moved a couple of feet and was sealed at a crime scene be ok? The knife wasn't delayed... same mess happens with it- wrong analysis, bad analysis, rigged analysis, contamination, planting, on-and-on, bla-bla-bla. Merit is relative.

No video tape of witnesses- What? she was already a suspect.
Confession- she was confused and being hit by ghost.
Accusation- police forced it out of her.
RS prison diary- he just writing out loud and the police stole it/copied was illegal.
Bathmat boogie- everybody does that on a bloody bathmat.
Hellmann completely overturned- Hellmann and C&V still right.


Should we continue?

A bone can be used to find the DNA within the bone itself. It would not be useful for finding DNA of persons who had been near the bone, which is what we are looking at in regards to the bra clasp.

There is a difference between DNA from human remains vs. DNA left by people who may have touched an object. Do you really not understand the difference?

 

[aa9511]

Just came across this now so am adding it as more media grist for the mill:

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/...buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer

Eh, I see it as another who wants to get her name in the news. After all, she seems to make quite a business commenting on the "trial of the day." It pays for her to have an opinion on popular cases.