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

[SMK]

I'm actually beginning to think forensic evidence should not be allowed in any trial. I get the feeling that DNA is transferred so easily that there is no way for it to be tested accurately.

People were charged with crimes before we had forensics to rely on but people relied on common sense. I fear that may have gone out the window.

Yes, I have also read some troubling things about DNA evidence. One was an article in The New York Times, (2009) about an Israeli scientist who proved DNA could be fabricated, and crime scenes engineered. There is faulty DNA and bad storage and improper testing. Transfer can convict an innocent. Plus interpretation can be a non-exact science; widely differing standards further complicate things. And as you note, obscuring of logic and common sense is an unintended consequence. I wonder how the Kercher murder case would have been handled/argued in an era prior to forensic science?

 

[dgfred]

I'm actually beginning to think forensic evidence should not be allowed in any trial. I get the feeling that DNA is transferred so easily that there is no way for it to be tested accurately.

People were charged with crimes before we had forensics to rely on but people relied on common sense. I fear that may have gone out the window.

I think it is more a problem with jurors understanding.

EVERY case that has a suspected killer on trial has their defense questioning the dna evidence. Collection, testing, etc.
The jurors have to decide if they proved their point or not.

In this case we have the court basically accepting the dna evidence... and the supporting public saying that anything and everything was done wrong or contaminated. There is a difference IMO.

The biggest obstacle for this IMO is that AK lived there. That is their patented answer. The spot of Meredith's blood just happened to fall on a spot of AK's dna IN FILOMENA's room. Yeah... that's it.

 

[dgfred]

Yes, I have also read some troubling things about DNA evidence. One was an article in The New York Times, (2009) about an Israeli scientist who proved DNA could be fabricated, and crime scenes engineered. There is faulty DNA and bad storage and improper testing. Transfer can convict an innocent. Plus interpretation can be a non-exact science; widely differing standards further complicate things. And as you note, obscuring of logic and common sense is an unintended consequence. I wonder how the Kercher murder case would have been handled/argued in an era prior to forensic science?

Here ya go:

LE forced a confession out of her.
LE beat the accusation of Patrick out of her.
The luminol or (bloody bare prints) are in fruit juice.
Her ears or nose or armpit was bleeding and her blood mixed with Meredith's.
Everybody shuffles across a cottage naked on a bloody bathmat.
The killer with shoes took one off and made a bloody bare print.
The knife was planted. The knife was made into a murder weapon.
RS wrote about pricking Meredith while in prison and the dirty cops took it.

Regardless of what Patrick says... he was not demoting AK and she had a good work ethic.

Regardless of what Meredith's friends say... AK and Meredith were bff.

Regardless of what Meredith mentioned to others... she was completely happy with AK.

Regardless of what has been accepted by the courts... we will argue every single bit of evidence as wrong until we are blue in the face.

:seeya:

 

[Amber29]

Here ya go:

LE forced a confession out of her.
LE beat the accusation of Patrick out of her.
The luminol or (bloody bare prints) are in fruit juice.
Her ears or nose or armpit was bleeding and her blood mixed with Meredith's.
Everybody shuffles across a cottage naked on a bloody bathmat.
The killer with shoes took one off and made a bloody bare print.
The knife was planted. The knife was made into a murder weapon.
RS wrote about pricking Meredith while in prison and the dirty cops took it.

Regardless of what Patrick says... he was not demoting AK and she had a good work ethic.

Regardless of what Meredith's friends say... AK and Meredith were bff.

Regardless of what Meredith mentioned to others... she was completely happy with AK.

Regardless of what has been accepted by the courts... we will argue every single bit of evidence as wrong until we are blue in the face.

:seeya:

Don't forget the excuses that discredit EVERY eye witness.

 

[SMK]

Here ya go:

LE forced a confession out of her.
LE beat the accusation of Patrick out of her.
The luminol or (bloody bare prints) are in fruit juice.
Her ears or nose or armpit was bleeding and her blood mixed with Meredith's.
Everybody shuffles across a cottage naked on a bloody bathmat.
The killer with shoes took one off and made a bloody bare print.
The knife was planted. The knife was made into a murder weapon.
RS wrote about pricking Meredith while in prison and the dirty cops took it.

Regardless of what Patrick says... he was not demoting AK and she had a good work ethic.

Regardless of what Meredith's friends say... AK and Meredith were bff.

Regardless of what Meredith mentioned to others... she was completely happy with AK.

Regardless of what has been accepted by the courts... we will argue every single bit of evidence as wrong until we are blue in the face.

:seeya:

Well, actually, I asked how it would be handled in a pre-forensic scientific era. And in a former era, there might have been more weight , not less, given to the circumstantial evidence, even though it is not direct and relies on inference.

 

[SMK]

Don't forget the excuses that discredit EVERY eye witness.

True. I was recently reading about Quintavalle. Do you think there are legitimate reasons for him waiting one year to come forward?

 

[aa9511]

Thanks. Some bath mats in the US have a rubber bottom that would make it difficult to shimmy across the floor on. Some don't. Some bath mats are just like towels. Some are much heavier. On a smooth floor what Amanda described would be easy to do I believe.

bbm

I had to leave during the bathmat discussion this morning, so just going back and looking over what I missed. Sorry to keep bringing up this point, but I can't let it go when there is something very illogical where the illogical part of it must be pointed out.

Smooth floor, hard floor, rocky floor, marble floor, sticky mat, smooth mat, thick mat, thin mat, blue mat, red mat, green mat, and white mat - there is nothing there to excuse away the fact that a boogie would have disturbed the footprint.

It could have been disturbed either one or both of two ways:

- the water dripping down off of Amanda would have dripped on part or perhaps all of the footprint, diluting parts or all of it. The resulting footprint would have looked much different than the one which was actually found.

- if Amanda had stepped on all or part of the footprint, it would have been disturbed.

Facts are facts. The fact of the footprint being found the way it was is in evidence, and thank God there is photographic evidence so no one can say it was some other way.

We can hypothesize all we want, but there are facts in this case which we can't go around.

 

[Amber29]

True. I was recently reading about Quintavalle. Do you think there are legitimate reasons for him waiting one year to come forward?

Something about not realizing how important it was and that he even talked it over with employees. It is terrible that he waited but Raffaele was awake at 530am which IMO lends credibility to what Quintavalle saw.

 

[SMK]

Something about not realizing how important it was and that he even talked it over with employees. It is terrible that he waited but Raffaele was awake at 530am which IMO lends credibility to what Quintavalle saw.

That's true. I was surprised to see his name mentioned in the arguments which overturned Hellmann.

 

[aa9511]

The temperature range was 46-59 degrees on November 2, 2007 in Perugia. The exterior door was allegedly left open all night. It would have been cold in the cottage. If Knox had a shower, then after she got out of the shower, when faced with the choice of taking extra time to avoid dripping some water on the floor or running for a towel, I'm inclined to think that she would run for a towel ... which everyone seems to agree was kept in her bedroom. It would have been too cold in the cottage for anyone to be more worried about some water drops than staying warm. Furthermore, Knox was not described as concerned about cleanliness, so it is not reasonable to believe that she was concerned about a few water drops on the floor - which would have evaporated in no time.

Remember the supposed water from the leak at RS's place, which they left there for 16 hours?

 

[aa9511]

So I am assuming the theory behind all this is, that Knox never took a shower at all. And the bathmat story and the noticing of smears on the faucet, and drops, etc. were all concocted later: They were a story inserted into the narrative to explain away the bathroom which had not been cleaned (due to the sudden arrival of the postal police). (not saying this is the truth, but that it is a possible truth to account for her strange story).

Yes, and also her whole excuse for coming to the cottage in the first place was to take a shower, get cleaned up. When the actual reason she came, IMO, was to take care of the crime scene, crime scene being the whole house, not just the murder room. So how was she gonna explain why she came to the cottage? And yes, I believe she was worried that no one would believe her if she said she just didn't see the things, like the bloody mat, feces, etc.. She was trying to walk the fine line of not knowing too much and not knowing too little. Right in the middle, so she wouldn't stand out either way.

But of course the mind doesn't think in logical ways when forced to think up things on the spot.

 

[aa9511]

Additionally, either Knox stripped in her bedroom and then went to the bathroom naked without a towel to take a shower, or the clothes that she was wearing were in the bathroom with her. If she was worried about a bit of water dripping - which I don't believe for a minute - she could have wiped her feet on whatever clothes she was now going to put in the laundry.

Perhaps Knox was entertained by the idea of someone being in the cottage with her while she pranced around naked. She is, after all, a very unusual woman.

Oooooh Otto good point about the clothes! I did not think of that!

 

[Myvice]

Well I still can't get past the part of Guede not getting any blood on his shoes during the murder but going in to wash the blood off his pants after taking his shoes and socks off, leaving a bloody print on the soggy bloody mat, then going back in to the bedroom to take the rent money that he somehow knew was there even though it was the second of November, getting his shoes all bloody and leaving tracks everywhere, getting the door all bloody on the inside of the bedroom but not on the outside as he locks the door.

I can't understand how anyone could be cleared by DNA several years after the fact when DNA gets contaminated so easily. I'm obviously not a scientist so I just don't get it.

 

[otto]

Indeed we did, and we found that the claim that the clock was fast was hearsay (hearsay is generally not allowed as evidence). The problem with the claim that the clock was fast is that the Carabinieri would have to be calling for directions when they were already there.

I didn't mention a clock in terms of understanding the sequencing of events.

 

[aa9511]

Exactly, what if this innocent man with an accusation of a brutal knife murder against him had no confirmable alibi. Here the police have a witness who claimed that she was at the scene during the murder and gave detailed information regarding the murder and named the killer as PL. Luckily he had an alibi but the police were right to make absolutely sure his alibi was cast iron before allowing what they were led to believe was a dangerous killer of a defenceless young woman out on the streets.

Whiterum, you are exactly right. The baseless and false accusation of an innocent person is not something to take lightly. Now, I can already predict the responses to them so let me add that the accusations against Amanda are not baseless. There is circumsantial evidence a/g her as well as physical evidence. With Patrick, there would have been no evidence expect for someone's word, someone claiming to be an eye witness.

You are exactly right.....if he had no confirmable alibi, I believe he would have been charged and imprisoned based solely on Amanda's word and testimony. And before people start blaming that on the "Italian justice system," let's go to the Kent Heiholt case where Ryan Ferguson just got let out of prison after serving 10 years based on 2 "witness accounts," when it turns out BOTH OF THE WITNESSES WERE LYING. And THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER LINKING HIM TO THE CRIME. The only thing was the witness accounts. We cannot blame the jury in that case, they had two people with "direct knowledge" telling them he was involved....his friend who originally had a "dream" that the two committed it, and then went on to fabricate the details, and another witness who saw two white men, first saying he couldn't see their faces clearly, and then all of a sudden after a visit in jail from the prosecutor, could suddenly remember Ryan's face and pointed him out in a line-up. And this happened in the U.S.A..

So I find it difficult to grasp how people who are so up-in-arms over Amanda the Innocent going to prison, could take what she did in accusing Patrick so lightly and chalk it up to "pressure." Amanda's life should not be worth any more than Patrick's life. I 100%, fully with the whole of my heart, believe Patrick would have spend years and years in prison had it not been for his confirmed alibi. Given that they would have an eye-witness account "proving" he did it. Who would have been easier to believe did it, Amanda or Patrick? And that is wrong, and what Amanda did to him was WRONG.

And if so many think it's some kind of anti-Americanism, that's why they "want" Amanda, let's think for a minute who LE would have rather believed committed the crime - Amanda or Patrick? With Amanda, they have the whole of U.S. against them, so much media attention, constant scrunity and second-guessing of their skills. With Patrick, probably only a few outside his family and friends would have cared what happened to him because it would have been easy for them to believe he did it.

 

[otto]

Well, actually, I asked how it would be handled in a pre-forensic scientific era. And in a former era, there might have been more weight , not less, given to the circumstantial evidence, even though it is not direct and relies on inference.

In a pre-DNA time, Knox's false accusation would be very important, as would the changing alibis provided by Sollecito and Knox. Sollecito's statement that he "told a load of rubbish" is important, as is his fabrication about Meredith having dinner at his apartment. The staged break-in leaves little doubt that the only person in a position to do this is Knox. Then, we have the drug abuse by all three suspects, and the claims from Knox that she was so stoned she, in all honesty, doesn't remember anything from the night of the murder. She describes her memory of the events on the night of the murder as "imaginings" and "flashbacks". They claimed that they ate dinner at 10:30 until it was proven that this was a lie. They claimed they slept until 10:30 AM until this was proven a lie.

Luminol and fingerprint analysis have been around for a long time and are typically accepted by the court. DNA is also typically accepted by the court, but in this case, some foreigners have chosen to argue that DNA analysis is, generally speaking, completely unreliable. If we omit the luminol and DNA analysis, I think there is still enough for a conviction.

 

[SMK]

<modsnip>


Yes, well I thought his "Grilled Swiss" was most clever! Yes, I understand, and am trying to maintain a large and generous mind about all

 

[Harmony 2]

I just got home from work and encountered an extensive amount of broken quotes that keep getting quoted.

headsup: In 5 minutes (to allow for completing any posts in progress) I am going to close the thread for 20 minutes to make the repairs... thanks

 

[Harmony 2]

Thread is now open.. carry on

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I'm actually beginning to think forensic evidence should not be allowed in any trial. I get the feeling that DNA is transferred so easily that there is no way for it to be tested accurately.

People were charged with crimes before we had forensics to rely on but people relied on common sense. I fear that may have gone out the window.

BBM: Exactly !

Way too much emphasis is put on DNA and forensic, IMO, and the REST of the very important evidence/statements seem to get tossed ...

:moo: