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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I often wonder if AK's odd stories are a result of bad coaching from lawyers. Surely they would have advised both of them about how to answer certain questions. I feel as if the bathroom mat boogie thing and the pricking MK with a knife might have been bad legal advice. They just seem so formulated and I'd be surprised if they weren't discussed prior to the trial.

What does everyone else think about this?

Obviously this wouldn't apply to other things said in the interrogation, but I do wonder about some of the things said on the stand.

In theory, lawyers can't put words in their clients' or witnesses' mouths. They have to work with whatever story the client provides. Of course, they can advise on "how" testimony is worded, but if their client says she shimmied across the floor on the bathmat, that's the story they have to work with.
 
I am feeling like we are still not getting the whole picture on the DNA. I would love to be able to talk to an unbiased specialist on it, like from a university, for example.

as well as C&V, greg hampikian has the expertise (and career) you asked for... he is a Ph.D., dna expert, professor and lecturer: http://www.law.uc.edu/node/2837

he co-wrote this letter denouncing the dna evidence, and iirc, 9 other dna experts signed it as well:

No credible scientific evidence has been presented to associate this kitchen knife with the murder of Meredith Kercher.

Handling and movement of this sample has compromised its probative value. The laboratory results for this sample cannot reliably be interpreted to show that the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito was actually on the bra clasp at the time of Meredith Kercher’s murder, and it does not establish how or when this DNA was deposited or transferred.

DNA testing results described above could have been obtained even if no crime had occurred. As such, they do not constitute credible evidence that links Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to the murder of Meredith Kercher.

http://friendsofamanda.org/files/KnoxSollecitoDNAPetitionSubmitted11.19.09b.pdf
 
Are you saying that Sollecito has tried to re-write history in his book by pretending that he was talking about a knife at the cottage? Originally, he said that he pricked Meredith with a knife when she had dinner at his apartment.
No. It would be better for you to read the entire passage for yourself to understand the context better.
 
I confess I don't understand the whole business of Hampikian's opinions on the DNA results being a trade secret.

I also fail to understand how he would get 9 other DNA experts in collusion with his opinions.

The whole thing is very worrisome to me. He claims the dna results would have been the same, if no crime had been committed. What motivates him to say this and how could he motivate 9 others to say this? But none of the 10 was officially consulting in the case, is this right?

Then it comes out that the info is protected as a trade secret because it is unpublished?

So does someone like Vogt believe he was paid off or something? Or that his analysis was part of PR for his Innocence Project work? I guess I really don't grasp any of this well, at all..... :(

In any case I am assuming Hampikian's analysis was not officially part of the defense. And it is said that as of late, he has fallen silent on his role in the Knox case.
 
I confess I don't understand the whole business of Hampikian's opinions on the DNA results being a trade secret.

I also fail to understand how he would get 9 other DNA experts in collusion with his opinions.

The whole thing is very worrisome to me. He claims the dna results would have been the same, if no crime had been committed. What motivates him to say this and how could he motivate 9 others to say this? But none of the 10 was officially consulting in the case, is this right?

Then it comes out that the info is protected as a trade secret because it is unpublished?

So does someone like Vogt believe he was paid off or something? Or that his analysis was part of PR for his Innocence Project work? I guess I really don't grasp any of this well, at all..... :(

In any case I am assuming Hampikian's analysis was not officially part of the defense. And it is said that as of late, he has fallen silent on his role in the Knox case.
Dr Hampikian referred to Ms. Knox as a client in an interview in 2010, and he went to Perugia in 2010 to meet with her lawyers. Others who signed the letter may or may not have consulted unofficially. The reason that they all signed was that they recognized poor quality forensics when they saw it, just as Conti and Vecchiotti did. One of the signers has his own forensics company, as well as being a university professor, and all of the signers are professionals in the field.

Hampikian's consultations with the Knox defense team are protected by attorney-client privilege. In addition, if one is doing research, one usually wants to make everything ship-shape before publishing it. I would not want emails of my conversations with fellow scientists made public. It's not a matter of having anything to hide but rather a matter of not wanting to release a scientific story that is incomplete. LondonJohn has some very good posts on the matter at James Randi Educational Foundation Forum. So Andrea is shocked to find that a university professor is doing research. Her next expose will be a secret film of Starbucks selling coffee.
 
So is the implication that the clasp dna of Sollecito's may have been planted, due to the shoe destroying their link to Sollecito?
That is not how I read it. It sounds as if ILE knew that they were going to lose the one piece of forensic evidence against Sollecito, which might compromise their ability to hold him in custody (in solitary, no less). It is pretty outrageous how far the phone tapping goes in Italy, however. A long time ago Talking Heads sang,

"We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed"

The Talking Heads never lived in Italy, where IIUC the laws against this are often ignored.
 
That is not how I read it. It sounds as if ILE knew that they were going to lose the one piece of forensic evidence against Sollecito, which might compromise their ability to hold him in custody (in solitary, no less). It is pretty outrageous how far the phone tapping goes in Italy, however. A long time ago Talking Heads sang,

"We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed"

The Talking Heads never lived in Italy, where IIUC the laws against this are often ignored.
I remember those lines of David Byrne. Perhaps things are different in Italy...
 
(BBM) responding to bolded text

The explanation is that Filomena's DNA profile was not obtained to compare evidence to. IIRC

Thanks Harmony. Do you know if, when they tested the sample, they could tell if there was a 3rd, unspecified, individual's DNA on it? I would assume they would be able to tell that, but not sure. Actually, upon thinking about it, I'm pretty sure they would be able to tell, because what about the murders where they initially have no clue and no leads, but they find someone's DNA in a sample. Now, maybe they can't match that DNA to someone, but they were at least able to identify the DNA strands (or whatever they are!) of an individual.

So that still leaves Meredith's DNA and Amanda's DNA in Filomena's room. When in reality, the prepoderance and possibly ALL of the DNA in that room should be Filomena's. That means that we have to believe that not one, but two (!), remote possibilities happened in that both Amanda and Meredith's DNA got into the room............in the same exact spot! What are the chances of those two DNA's coming together in ONE SPOT? I would contend, virtually iimpossible.
 
Several experts on the subject have commented on the DNA in this case. Once they make a statement that favors Amanda Knox, they are immediately labeled biased and rejected as an independent source.

It's the same thing that has happened with independent investigators like Steve Moore and John Douglas.

Ummm, I don't know about that. I've seen several you-tubes on the webz with people claiming to be "unbiased," however when you hear them talking you clearly see they are twisting everything around. Then I do some research and come to find out.....VOILA...they are actually "hired" in some way by the Knox team.

I also add to that that few people do things for free. I have hard time believing a truly, truly, "neutral" person would take their time out of their busy professions to study this and give an opinion. JMO.

I am discovering that I would rather not listen to anyone speak on this subject on you-tubez. Or even read any opinion articles, I just don't know the story behind it. That's the problem with the webz.
 
I feel like you are looking at that the wrong way. Me personally, I DO think it's wrong that RG is going to get out soon - very wrong. Especially since he did nothing to help investigators with the case, to confirm 100% who did it with him, since he gave no details and many lies. If he had at least told some truths to help the investigators, I could see how in that case it would warrant a few years taken off. They would have to offer him some incentive to talk, so I don't see how they could have done it any other way. EXCEPT NOW HE DIDN"T TALK AND HE IS STILL GETTING A SHORT SENTENCE. So yes, it's very wrong.

But as for the part about Amanda and Raffaelo, if you look at it from the viewpoint of "they are guilty," then you see where some of us are coming from. They participated in the slaying of a young girl, and yet they're walking around FREE. YES, THEY ARE FREE RIGHT NOW. I don't care about how "miserable" their lives are. They are free to see their families, to live with their boyfriend/girlfriend, to go to parks and restaurants, to go to NYC and other cool places, to travel, to go to school, to eat a nice steak dinner, etc.. Meanwhile, Meredith is gone forever. Does that seem right to you? Why is it so wrong that if someone believes they're guilty, that they find it wrong that that guilty person gets to walk away from the horror that they did. WALK AWAY.

You are looking at it from the viewpoint that they're innocent. That's why it doesn't make sense to you.

JMO

I think a lot of this comes down to philosophy. For me? I would much rather have a guilty person go free than an innocent convicted. In regards to this case, I do not see rational evidence pointing to the involvement of AK and RS. Are you OK with them going to prison even if there is not evidence to prove it, so long as you feel they are guilty?

In reality, they are either innocent or guity of the murder. A separate question is whether the prosecution has presented their case beyond a reasonable doubt. You may have a different opinion on the first question -- I see no rational reason to debate the second. (That is, if you are working within a fair justice system.)
 
To whom was he offering an explanation when he wrote the diary? IMO he was trying to grapple with a mystery, and he was doing so during a period in which he had extremely limited contact with his lawyers and family. He was speaking to himself, in other words.

Why people are concerned with what Raffaele said about the knife is a much bigger mystery. Why not examine the knife itself as evidence, which no words can change? The fact that it is low template DNA, the lack of an actual groove, and above all the lack of blood speak forcefully that Stefanoni's result was due to contamination.

Yes, as a result of the CLEANING OF THE KNIFE WITH BLEACH. That would be the whole purpose of cleaning the knife, I presume.

Let's think about the knife for a sec. It's not like the phones where they could've just thrown it out and not lose much if someone happens to find it. If someone found the bloody knife, whoa, all bets stop there. They couldn't throw it is the trash somewhere, what if it was found? They absolutely had to clean off that knife. If it was found by anyone, it would have lead directly to them. They couldn't risk just throwing it off somewhere.

Now, think about the scene Rudy left in there. His poo was in the toilet, his handprint, his DNA, his footprints....he didn't try to clean any of it. He could've at least flushed the toilet, that would have been extremely easy. Flushed with the toilet paper, takes 1 second if he wanted to even attempt to disguise his presence in the villa and what he did. Washed his hands first so no fingerprints on the handle.

Wouldn't it make sense that he would just throw the knife out with the phones? Or throw the knife out somewhere, but seeing as he's not very bright, it probably would have been close to the walking streets and it hasn't been found in so many years?

I think we all agree that RG is not very smart. I can't see him hiding this knife(s) so well that no one has found any trace of it for years and years.

On the other hand, it would make sense that Amanda and RS would bring the knife back and clean it all off with bleach. Put it back in the drawer like nothing ever happened. They had to put it back in the drawer....where else would they put it? Remember they know this is the murder weapon. Yes, he had other knives in other places, but would they really take a chance of putting the murder weapon in a conspicuous place? No, the best place to keep it was in an ordinary place where it would not look out-of-place and would not raise any red flags.

Also, they couldn't throw away the clean knife either, what if someone (investigators) found it? A cleaned-off knife in the trash would look very strange after what they did. I'm coming at this from the viewpoint of, they committed it and they know they're guilty. When you look at it from that view, the things they do make a lot of sense in terms of they never wanted to get caught.
 
I think a lot of this comes down to philosophy. For me? I would much rather have a guilty person go free than an innocent convicted. In regards to this case, I do not see rational evidence pointing to the involvement of AK and RS. Are you OK with them going to prison even if there is not evidence to prove it, so long as you feel they are guilty?

In reality, they are either innocent or guity of the murder. A separate question is whether the prosecution has presented their case beyond a reasonable doubt. You may have a different opinion on the first question -- I see no rational reason to debate the second. (That is, if you are working within a fair justice system.)

I think what you're saying about reasonable doubt being the standard for a verdict is what Hellmann was trying to say in his statement to the press:

ROME — The Italian judge who was part of the jury which acquitted Amanda Knox said Wednesday the American and her ex-boyfriend might know the "real truth" about who killed her British roommate.

Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann said in a state TV interview that "maybe" the two defendants know what happened in the 2007 slaying of Meredith Kercher in the flat the two women shared in Perugia, the Umbrian town where they were student.

Hellmann, who was also one of the eight jurors, said "the real truth could be different." But based on trial evidence, the jury acquitted them, he said. In Italy, the presiding judge is part of the jury, along with another judge, and six civilians.

In his first public comments since Knox and her Italian co-defendant, Raffaele Sollecito, were acquitted Monday night, the judge stressed on state TV that the verdict was the fruit of the "the truth that was created in the trial."
"But the real truth could be different," Pratillo Hellmann added. "They could also be responsible, but the proof isn't there."
"So maybe they know, too, but as far as we (the jury) go, they didn't," he added.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44790728/ns/world_news-europe/#.UoY6k8TfnlZ
 
as well as C&V, greg hampikian has the expertise (and career) you asked for... he is a Ph.D., dna expert, professor and lecturer: http://www.law.uc.edu/node/2837

he co-wrote this letter denouncing the dna evidence, and iirc, 9 other dna experts signed it as well:



http://friendsofamanda.org/files/KnoxSollecitoDNAPetitionSubmitted11.19.09b.pdf

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. Especially not from the U.S..

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?

Why would they do it unless they were getting paid for it, or they have some emotional reason such as sympathy? It does nothing for their careers. No one is going to remember that so-and-so professor wrote such-and-such thing about this case, it's not going to win them any Nobel prizes or give them research grants, oh but they might make money if they are getting paid. It is my belief that professors mostly want to get their work published in reputable journals, that is how they gain reputation and achievement. No reputable journal is going to publish their work on the Amanda Knox case.

Sorry, I am not going to read a single one of these so-called "independent" investigators, who do nothing but confuse and complicate and generally muddy-up the waters. I would prefer to stick to only the formal case files.
 
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. Especially not from the U.S..

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?

Why would they do it unless they were getting paid for it, or they have some emotional reason such as sympathy? It does nothing for their careers. No one is going to remember that so-and-so professor wrote such-and-such thing about this case, it's not going to win them any Nobel prizes or give them research grants, oh but they might make money if they are getting paid. It is my belief that professors mostly want to get their work published in reputable journals, that is how they gain reputation and achievement. No reputable journal is going to publish their work on the Amanda Knox case.

Sorry, I am not going to read a single one of these so-called "independent" investigators, who do nothing but confuse and complicate and generally muddy-up the waters. I would prefer to stick to only the formal case files.
Well (admitting I missed a lot of the finer details in this case) were there any independent Italian DNA experts who confirmed Hampikian's findings?
 
Well (admitting I missed a lot of the finer details in this case) were there any independent Italian DNA experts who confirmed Hampikian's findings?

I don't know, SMK. Probably Otto or Amber could answer that. By the way, thanks to all on here who have studied this case so extensively and are so helpful in posting links from the files and giving me (and probably others) very informative information (informative information? LOL! You know what I mean!). And thanks to all of the posters who make this thread so much fun!

Since it sounds like Hampikian virtually discounted all of the DNA evidence, I'm thinking probably Conti and Vecchiotti backed up some of his information, and IIRC they also discounted most (if not all?) of the DNA.
 
I wrote a comment about the diary and its illegally being confiscated a week or so ago, but apparently it was not noticed. The knife is covered on pages 91-92 in Honor Bound. "I was feeling so panicky that I imagined for a moment that I had used the knife to cook lunch at Via della Pergola...Something like that had in fact happened...My hand slipped and the knife I was using made contact with her skin for the briefest of moments...But of course I wasn't using my own knife at the time." He concludes by saying that there was no connection between the incident and what he had imagined.

On pp. 107-108 he wrote, "I showed Luca Maori a prison diary I'd been keeping so he could assess whether any of it might be useful in court...I agreed he should take to his office for safekeeping." The prison guards ordered Maori to hand it over. Maori called Mignini who instructed the guards to return the diary, but Raffaele believes that pages from the diary were photocopied in the interim. Some of the pages were leaked to La Nazione. The fact that he gave it to Maori with the purpose of possibly helping his defense is what makes it covered by attorney-client privilege IMO. Some things in life are gray. This isn't one of them.

IMO quoting a suspected murderer (out on appeal) that wrote a book is kind of sketchy... but IMO it will come in handy for the prosecution with all the contradictions/made-up stories. AK's too.

:jail: = I want my jailhouse journal back :scared: :tantrum:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
115
Guests online
2,116
Total visitors
2,231

Forum statistics

Threads
601,096
Messages
18,118,458
Members
230,994
Latest member
truelove
Back
Top