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

[otto]

Sorry it is not.

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

This is a case of a very sloppy investigation, in which an innocent man was wrongly convicted on tampered testimony of Trump and Ferguson.

The prosecutor and investigators are the ones that should be in jail. Period!!! Any LE that uses these tactics to get a "false confession", should be held accountable whether here or in Italy. They are suppose to be the professionals. Period.

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".

 

[dgfred]

Have you ever seen a tape of ILE interviewing witnesses?

 

[dgfred]

Mss AK- while we are sitting around here talking and getting stuff from the vending machines your boyfriend has dumped your alibi telling us that he told us a bunch of crap because you told him to. He didn't think of the inconsistancies... so he says.

Questioning gets much more serious at that point as it should because she is now a person of interest but still just a witness. Ask about the txt and who it was.
Eventually it is Patrick= now AK is a full-blown suspect.

That is why the is no video. IMO it is clear-cut.

 

[Amber29]

It has made for many unsafe theories again being tried to be introduced into the discussion. This is wrong. It does not matter what country you are from.

Italy does have one reason to make sure that AK is found guilty and that happens to be money for being wrongly incarcerated.

Politics should not overlap with any judicial system. Unfortunately, we are seeing this happening with a great deal of frequency.

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.

 

[Amber29]

AK's and RS's appeals requested the knife be taken apart.

It was the PROSECUTOR's that OBJECTED.

Please tell me what is wrong with this picture?

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.

 

[SMK]

I did notice that there was a shift from "absolute guilt" to "let's take another look at the case", and it has made for interesting dialogue.

Actually, my shift was not from 'absolute guilt' but 'absolute innocence' . Yes, it is always good to facilitate objective debate. Re the Ryan Fergeson case, I had originally believed in his innocence, then when I had finally become fully convinced of his guilt, his conviction was overturned.

 

[whoanellie]

Why do you think Ferguson is guilty? What evidence is there.

 

[SMK]

Why do you think Ferguson is guilty? What evidence is there.

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.

 

[redheadedgal]

I wonder how many cases the US would have against them if the European Convention of Human Rights was reviewing US cases ...

While reading that article that was linked, I too wondered where America would fit if they were included.

in the last thread, it was asserted that what happens in the US, it's laws, procedures, etc. aren't applicable to italy... but now comparisons b/w the two countries are desirable?

another contradiction.

otto: Doesn't matter what is typical in the US.

Amber29: Please explain why whatever happens in the US should be practiced by everyone else in the world.

 

[redheadedgal]

If Knox and Sollecito are acquitted, I will fully accept that my doubts must have been wrong.

courts do not always get it right... do you believe casey anthony is innocent?

 

[SMK]

courts do not always get it right... do you believe casey anthony is innocent?

Well, no, but the judgment had to be accepted.

We don't fully know that Ryan Ferguson is innocent (plenty of odd things abound in that story) but since his conviction is overturned, and the ruling is final, it has to be respected.

Knox and Sollecito may in the end be wrongfully convicted or acquitted, but where does one draw the line. It would be up to the families to continue fighting.

I recall a case (and I will have to look it up; it had to do with someone on an army base, in connection with the rape and murder of a nieghbor) where a man was "falsely accused " then found to be innocent. Years later, DNA proved his guilt.

 

[SMK]

in the last thread, it was asserted that what happens in the US, it's laws, procedures, etc. aren't applicable to italy... but now comparisons b/w the two countries are desirable?

another contradiction.

In today's world, there has to be international standards and protocol (in many cases when compared to Europe, Canada, the Netherlands, the US is a rogue state, which has gone its own way.)

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Discussions about how long DNA can survive miss the point. The American Bar Association’s standards for collecting evidence reads in part, “Standard 2.1 Collecting DNA evidence from a crime scene or other location

(a) Whenever a serious crime appears to have been committed and there is reason to believe that DNA evidence relevant to the crime may be present at the crime scene or other location, that evidence should be collected promptly.”

The reason for being prompt is to minimize the chances of contamination: “The most important aspect of evidence collection and preservation is protecting the crime scene from the time the first officer or responder arrives until the last piece of evidence has been noted and collected without being contaminated.” When I told a former police officer whose job it was to secure crime scenes about the collection of the clasp, the first words out of his mouth were, "Contaminated, contaminated."

 

[SMK]

Discussions about how long DNA can survive miss the point. The American Bar Association’s standards for collecting evidence reads in part, “Standard 2.1 Collecting DNA evidence from a crime scene or other location

(a) Whenever a serious crime appears to have been committed and there is reason to believe that DNA evidence relevant to the crime may be present at the crime scene or other location, that evidence should be collected promptly.”

The reason for being prompt is to minimize the chances of contamination: “The most important aspect of evidence collection and preservation is protecting the crime scene from the time the first officer or responder arrives until the last piece of evidence has been noted and collected without being contaminated.” When I told a former police officer whose job it was to secure crime scenes about the collection of the clasp, the first words out of his mouth were, "Contaminated, contaminated."

This is why the 47 days makes the bra clasp less than acceptable.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Three points. One, whether or not Knox and Sollecito are ultimately acquitted or convicted, my view is that the trials have been unfair due to a lack of discovery and views about DNA forensics that don't conform to the real world. If every case involving DNA evidence in Italy were to be decided with the same set of implicit rules, false convictions are almost inevitable. I set forth my reasons here some time ago. It's a long read, so pour yourself a nice cup of tea first.

Two, one keeps hearing over and over about the putative contradiction between accepting the evidence against Guede and not against Knox. There are a number of reasons why this paradox is not a contradiction. The strongest evidence against Guede is his bloody handprint, his SODDI defense to the contrary notwithstanding. The second most powerful evidence against him is the set of his bloody shoeprints. It is tough to screw up these two forms of evidence IMO, but if someone can offer reasons to believe that ILE did so against Guede, then they have made a very good start to rebutting the case against him. The DNA evidence against him fills out the picture, but it could be discarded entirely and there would still be enough evidence to convict him.

I have not examined the DNA evidence against Guede nearly as thoroughly as the evidence against Knox and Sollecito. However, if it were low template work, I would not accept it (I don't believe any of it is, based on my memory of it). If his DNA were mixed with that of several other males, I would have serious doubts about its value. If someone recovered a knife that belonged to him and found Meredith's DNA at low template levels but did not find blood, I would very seriously doubt the results.* If a piece of evidence with his DNA were stored in a closed container with extraction buffer and became unusable, I would be very unimpressed with it. The problems with the DNA evidence against Knox and Sollecito lies in these particulars, among others.

Three, an article by Castellini and other information from Italian news sources from 5 November (thank you for finding both of them, Malkmus) confirm what Sollecito implied in his book: The two were suspects in fact before they entered the station on the night of 5 November. If Sollecito's allegedly pulling her alibi was so important, then she was even more a suspect at that point. Finally, she was surely a suspect as of the time of the 12:45 statement. Therefore, there is absolutely no excuse that the interrogation leading up to the 5:45 statement was not recorded, and any claim that she was not really a suspect by the time of the 12:45 statement is highly dubious.

*BTW someone doubted that Guede was smart enough to hide a knife. Yet he hid the knife that at the very least made the wounds that could not have been made by the large kitchen knife (obviously I believe it was the knife that made all of the wounds).

 

[Amber29]

in the last thread, it was asserted that what happens in the US, it's laws, procedures, etc. aren't applicable to italy... but now comparisons b/w the two countries are desirable?

another contradiction.

It was simply a question not a contradiction. It was more in response to people who act like the American justice is the "better" of the two. I stand by my statement you quoted. Thank you.

 

[SMK]

Three points. One, whether or not Knox and Sollecito are ultimately acquitted or convicted, my view is that the trials have been unfair due to a lack of discovery and views about DNA forensics that don't conform to the real world. If every case involving DNA evidence in Italy were to be decided with the same set of implicit rules, false convictions are almost inevitable. I set forth my reasons here some time ago. It's a long read, so pour yourself a nice cup of tea first.

Two, one keeps hearing over and over about the putative contradiction between accepting the evidence against Guede and not against Knox. There are a number of reasons why this paradox is not a contradiction. The strongest evidence against Guede is his bloody handprint, his SODDI defense to the contrary notwithstanding. The second most powerful evidence against him is the set of his bloody shoeprints. It is tough to screw up these two forms of evidence IMO, but if someone can offer reasons to believe that ILE did so against Guede, then they have made a very good start to rebutting the case against him. The DNA evidence against him fills out the picture, but it could be discarded entirely and there would still be enough evidence to convict him.

I have not examined the DNA evidence against Guede nearly as thoroughly as the evidence against Knox and Sollecito. However, if it were low template work, I would not accept it (I don't believe any of it is, based on my memory of it). If his DNA were mixed with that of several other males, I would have serious doubts about its value. If someone recovered a knife that belonged to him and found Meredith's DNA at low template levels but did not find blood, I would very seriously doubt the results.* If a piece of evidence with his DNA were stored in a closed container with extraction buffer and became unusable, I would be very unimpressed with it. The problems with the DNA evidence against Knox and Sollecito lies in these particulars, among others.

Three, an article by Castellini and other information from Italian news sources from 5 November (thank you for finding both of them, Malkmus) confirm what Sollecito implied in his book: The two were suspects in fact before they entered the station on the night of 5 November. If Sollecito's allegedly pulling her alibi was so important, then she was even more a suspect at that point. Finally, she was surely a suspect as of the time of the 12:45 statement. Therefore, there is absolutely no excuse that the interrogation leading up to the 5:45 statement was not recorded, and any claim that she was not really a suspect by the time of the 12:45 statement is highly dubious.

*BTW someone doubted that Guede was smart enough to hide a knife. Yet he hid the knife that at the very least made the wounds that could not have been made by the large kitchen knife (obviously I believe it was the knife that made all of the wounds).

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 ...

 

[sherlockh]

This is why the 47 days makes the bra clasp less than acceptable.

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.

 

[SMK]

1. 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. 2. That wouldn't be necessary if there really was a case for innocence IMO.

Two above BBM and enumerated:
1. This exaggeration has been bandied about as fact: Ergo, I took it as fact. I really thought many people milled about and sauntered in and out for 47 days (CSI people and Mignini and the like.)

2. It certainly does create a din and a roar in which one cannot even think straight anymore, and that may be its purpose: To distract. I feel spun around by facts and counterfactuals and revisions, to the point where I feel this case is about something else entirely.

 

[otto]

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

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?