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

[SMK]

I was just having a look at PMF forum, and perchance a poster has posed a question (as yet unanswered there) which has always bothered me as well (if one is looking from the purview that the 2 defendants are guilty):

He/She is asking if anyone there can give a plausible explanation for the following:

If the defendants are guilty and have simulated a break in and cleaned the hallway, what would motivate them to alert police and others (in a 112 emergency call and in an email home) about blood smears and footprints in the bathroom , which could implicate themselves? Why not throw away the mat, and scrub and wipe this sink and faucets during the clean up?

Again, this has always puzzled me : How pro-guilt posters can not be baffled by this. In any case, anyone venture to give a plausible explanation? TIA

 

[Amber29]

I was just having a look at PMF forum, and perchance a poster has posed a question (as yet unanswered there) which has always bothered me as well (if one is looking from the purview that the 2 defendants are guilty):

He/She is asking if anyone there can give a plausible explanation for the following:

If the defendants are guilty and have simulated a break in and cleaned the hallway, what would motivate them to alert police and others (in a 112 emergency call and in an email home) about blood smears and footprints in the bathroom , which could implicate themselves? Why not throw away the mat, and scrub and wipe this sink and faucets during the clean up?

Again, this has always puzzled me : How pro-guilt posters can not be baffled by this. In any case, anyone venture to give a plausible explanation? TIA

Well they could've called 112 a lot sooner than they did but they wanted others there as well. They knew Filomena was on the way. The email was sent days after the discovery and got her whole alibi out to her friends/ family. That whole email is strange to me btw. They had been up and at that clean up who knows how long. It was sloppy not perfect, murder never is. Maybe it wasn't clear to them the blood on the bathmat was clearly a footprint, amanda doesnt describe it as a foot print.

 

[SMK]

Well they could've called 112 a lot sooner than they did but they wanted others there as well. They knew Filomena was on the way. The email was sent days after the discovery and got her whole alibi out to her friends/ family. That whole email is strange to me btw. They had been up and at that clean up who knows how long. It was sloppy not perfect, murder never is. Maybe it wasn't clear to them the blood on the bathmat was clearly a footprint, amanda doesnt describe it as a foot print.

thanks - Yes, that's true. (And yes, the email is odd. )The only explanation I can think of (IF one assumes, for the moment, culpability) is that they really hadn't finished (hence, smears left on the faucets) and that she really did not take any shower (the shower would then be a story concocted to explain why she was there at all).

 

[redheadedgal]

I agree with you in that your first statement can go both ways. I honestly can't gather much from it since I can't read it. Do I think that his analysis of that shoe print completely discounts his findings on the bathmat print? No

it's not that difficult to run each slide through a translator... google worked just fine for me and i easily understood what was being presented.

here is an english version though: http://www.injusticeinperugia.com/footprints-04.html


rinaldi is clearly wrong in claiming the one shoeprint (photo 105) belonged to a woman (amanda).

here is his report: http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Rinaldi_&_Boemia_Technical_Report_--_Italian


if one of his shoeprint findings is so clearly incorrect, logic would dictate that caution should be used in accepting other results.

 

[redheadedgal]

Nonsense. There were two main authors of the letter and seven co-signers. I asked several of the co-signers of the letter, and their responses are found in the updates to this post. For example: Update IV, 5/6/10: In response to my query to another person who signed the letter, Simon Ford confirmed that he signed the letter and replied, “In my opinion, it is always important to review the electronic data underlying a test result, if only to confirm the integrity of the data set. In low level DNA cases such as this, in which the slightest contamination could compromise the test result, it is absolutely essential to review the electronic data for the key samples and the associated controls to check for low level contamination. I cannot think of any valid reason why the prosecutor would chose not to provide the electronic data. In my experience, forensic DNA analysts in the US are invariably happy to turn over the data to support their findings.”

The Hellmann court did not want to hear from the defense expert witnesses; instead it appointed Conti and Vecchiotti, who made the correct decision IMO not to amplify the DNA they found on the knife (it was in the low template region). Incidently, if there have been any new advances in technique between 2011 and today, the people who have claimed so should be able to identify what they are.

I just posted a quote from one of the co-signers, Simon Ford. I also corresponded with Joy Halverson and Marc Taylor. I have also corresponded with Jason Gilder and Dan Krane, and both were sharply critical of the prosecution's withholding of the electronic data files. link I am sorry, but professional commitments are going to limit the amount of time I can spend on this thread for a while. However, the links I supplied should be helpful to those interested in DNA or blood forensics.

The link provided only shows Johnson's and Hampikian's signature. The link did not include the one-paragraph appendix to the open letter which was co-signed by seven additional experts in the forensic DNA field, including Dan Krane and Jason Gilder.

Reality is that two scientists signed that letter expressing their concerns about how the DNA evidence in the case had been handled. Seven more later expressed their agreement with the contents of that letter.

At this point, it's moot. Because during the appeal the court appointed experts came to essentially the same conclusions.

I hadn't heard the pro guilt spin on this that the other seven "withdrew" their signature. That is indeed a clever, but completely dishonest.

thank you !

 

[Allusonz]

Were it not for the false accusations against Ferguson, he would never have been arrested. Were it not for police coercing a witness, he would never have been convicted.

Knox was hoping for the same outcome with Patrick ... that he rot in jail for 40 years while she remain "confused" with "imaginings".

Once again this is not the case.

This is the case of a prosecutor that ignored evidence, withheld exculpatory evidence, committed Brady violations, and was caught.

It is especially egregious when a prosecutor knew that another person not named to date stated that he had committed this crime.

 

[Amber29]

thanks - Yes, that's true. (And yes, the email is odd. )The only explanation I can think of (IF one assumes, for the moment, culpability) is that they really hadn't finished (hence, smears left on the faucets) and that she really did not take any shower (the shower would then be a story concocted to explain why she was there at all).

I for one do not believe she took a shower. I have said it many times the WHOLE story of the morning activities make no sense to me. There are too many "who would do that"s to count. Lol

 

[Allusonz]

The cottage was sealed from Nov 7th till Dec 18th. Why not just say it is too bad the bra clasp wasn't collected right away? It is implied that people were walking around for 47 days and anything could have happened. Why this exaggeration?

It is the same with the interrogation. The false accusation happened within an hour or two, but that doesn't sound good so we add all hours Knox was within a 100 meters of the police station in the previous days to make it more believable.

Same with the DNA on the bra clasp. Four males is an exaggeration, but there is a reason for this. One other male could still be easily explained, even two, so it must be more, so we get some more stutter and turn that into 'other males'.

Luminol evidence. It is exaggerated that this could be 'anything else'. When you check the list there is only a few items that react to Luminol like blood does and they don't make any sense.

Then for Guede the smallest evidence is accepted as proof. Fake break-in. Dust on clothes proves Guede did it even though whoever got the rock could have gotten dust on his/her shoes. A bloody hand print proves Guede did it but somehow it doesn't matter that the sexual assault shows he had no blood on his hands. He is a necrophiliac anyway...etc..

Everything is exaggerated to make the innocent case more believable. That wouldn't be necessary if there really was a case for innocence IMO.

Yes they secured the cottage so well that it was broken into.

To state that no one entered the cottage in the 47 days flies in the face of the investigators themselves stating that they were in there let alone the pictures which show it was not secure.

At the end of the day, this is simply a sidenote, as the PLE showed their incompetence in their collection methods originally.

 

[Allusonz]

I think most withdrew their signatures, leaving one or two.

If Hampikain is an acceptable expert that has something to offer to the trial for the murder of Meredith Kercher, why didn't he testify as a trial expert? Did the defense not value his opinion? Could he not qualify as an expert? Would his "anything is possible" statement fail to stand up in court?

Please supply the link which states they withdrew their signatures. Here are the names of the individuals that agreed with the concerns raised in the original document. Please feel free to contact anyone of them.

Dan Krane, chief executive officer and chairman of the board of directors, Forensic Bioinformatics

Jason Gilder, systems engineer, Forensic Bioinformatics

Joy Halverson, DVM, director, Zoogen Services

Laurence D. Mueller, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology, University of California, Irvine

Marc Taylor, president, Technical Associates

Rick Staub, Ph.D., director of laboratory operations, Orchid Cellmark, Dallas, Texas

Simon Ford, Ph.D., Lexigen Science and Law Consultants

 

[Allusonz]

Amanda Knox has been convicted of calunnia. This conviction has been upheld by SCC. Whether or not she is convicted of murder, she will never be awarded money for a wrongful incarceration. Italy has no concern over this at this point.

The calunnia charge and conviction has always perplexed me. The SCC itself stated these were not reliable.


Maybe someone could explain to me how the SCC that ruled in April 2008 that AK's statement was inadmissible and violated numerous constitutional rights, under Article 63, Article 2, 24, and 111, could now affirm a culinnia charge based on an inadmissible statement?

 

[redheadedgal]

I was just having a look at PMF forum, and perchance a poster has posed a question (as yet unanswered there) which has always bothered me as well (if one is looking from the purview that the 2 defendants are guilty):

He/She is asking if anyone there can give a plausible explanation for the following:

If the defendants are guilty and have simulated a break in and cleaned the hallway, what would motivate them to alert police and others (in a 112 emergency call and in an email home) about blood smears and footprints in the bathroom , which could implicate themselves? Why not throw away the mat, and scrub and wipe this sink and faucets during the clean up?

Again, this has always puzzled me : How pro-guilt posters can not be baffled by this. In any case, anyone venture to give a plausible explanation? TIA

we actually discussed the cleanup/bathmat a few days ago... this was the explanation given by aa9511:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#4

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#4

 

[Amber29]

it's not that difficult to run each slide through a translator... google worked just fine for me and i easily understood what was being presented.

here is an english version though: http://www.injusticeinperugia.com/footprints-04.html


rinaldi is clearly wrong in claiming the one shoeprint (photo 105) belonged to a woman (amanda).

here is his report: http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Rinaldi_&_Boemia_Technical_Report_--_Italian


if one of his shoeprint findings is so clearly incorrect, logic would dictate that caution should be used in accepting other results.

Thank you I answered this in my post you quoted. I don't discount his finding of the bathmat print.

 

[Allusonz]

It is covered in the SCC reasoning report. I know a lot of people don't want to acknowledge this because the only correct judge in their eyes is Hellmann.

Please do not assume what I have or have not read. I have read the entire motivation report in its' original format and I have made very few comments with respect to any view as to their reasoning.

 

[SMK]

we actually discussed the cleanup/bathmat a few days ago... this was the explanation given by aa9511:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#4

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#4

Oh, thanks, I must have missed it or skimmed it. Thank you for the links, very much ETA: yes, they had the same thoughts as I did. another option would be innocence.

 

[Allusonz]

I don't now. His conviction was overturned, and I accept this and am glad for him. I began by being convinced of his innocence. I started to suspect his guilt after reading much of the opposition, and the report of Judge Green's findings. I also found inconsistencies in Chuck Ericson's recantations. Well, the court has spoken. It is done. If Knox and Sollecito are acquitted, I will fully accept that my doubts must have been wrong.

I as well would be curious as to what evidence you believe points to his guilt. Although off topic in this thread, I do believe that it is pertinent in the context of much of what is being discussed with this case.

Please remember the names of Kevin Crane and Investigator Hawes!

 

[Allusonz]

But if "lack of discovery" and these other aspects made the trial unfair, then surely it can be argued before the Italian Supreme Court or Appellate Court or the European Court of human rights (or whatever that division is called).

In the Jeffrey Macdonald case here in the US, Erroll Morris in his book, "A Wilderness of Errors" shows that MacDonald did NOT receive a fair trial (yet everyone still believes, as I do, and Morris does, that he is guilty.) Since Fisher wrote a similar book re the Knox/Sollecito trial, why couldn't something be done in Italy? Otherwise it looks as though public support is being whipped up in America so that extradition can never go forward if there is a guilty verdict.

ETA: I am assuming you are some kind of forensic scientist with some involvement with this case (this I garner from your manner of writing, your highly technical language, and the fact that you examined evidence. ) So obviously you know far better than I what is really afoot here ...

There is still a legal process which usually must be followed by law, as anyone that has followed cases should understand.

This case could be appealed for the next 20 years, and conceivably be never ending, unless someone in the judicial system does what the 3 judges in the Ryan Ferguson case did.

 

[Amber29]

Please do not assume what I have or have not read. I have read the entire motivation report in its' original format and I have made very few comments with respect to any view as to their reasoning.

Don't think I assumed anything about what youve read. I said people don't want to acknowledge it. My apologies if you misinterpreted what I said.

 

[SMK]

I as well would be curious as to what evidence you believe points to his guilt. Although off topic in this thread, I do believe that it is pertinent in the context of much of what is being discussed with this case.

Please remember the names of Kevin Crane and Investigator Hawes!

Well, some of it was just intuitive. He seemed like a person hiding something, ill at ease in an odd way, especially in some of his denials. He failed an initial voice stress test (detecting deception). Judge Green's findings made sense. Chuck Erikson's recanting had some irregularities from Ferguson's story. One wonders what the chances are of a friend insisting that you and he committed a murder in the first place. Where did that smoke come from, without a fire? Erikson in the first trial pointed at Ferguson and said to the jury, "Because I want you to know what THAT MAN did." Do friends do this because they dreamed something up, from some unknown paranoia? Yes, it was a corrupt prosecution and he was unfairly tried. Long life and happiness to him. Just not sure he is innocent. But it's not for me to say....

 

[otto]

It wasn't his foot that had blood on it. It was the pant leg which dripped water and blood mixed onto the floor and his bare foot that then stepped in it before he put his shoes and socks back on.

Where does this information come from?

 

[Allusonz]

1. redheadlegal was the one who originally said that 9 other forensic experts signed the document with Dr. Hampakian.
2. Then Otto said that most of them withdrew.
3. Then the letter was shown, with only Hampakian's signature and 1 other expert.
So yes,
a. where was it said that there were 9?
b. where is it shown that the others withdrew?

Wonders how a document filed with the Court could suddenly be scrubbed of signatures?

Not that it ultimately is important as I don't believe they have changed their original opinion.

In fact, I believe others from various countries have gone on the record stating the same. It ultimately does not change the fact that there are serious issues and concerns.

I won't even go into the fact that Stephanoni and her perjury during her testimony. That is another facet to an already corrupt investigation.