Yeah but RS could easily have made a deal for little time or no time at all. They don't have a strong case against him at all and a very weak motive. If he pinned it on AK, Mignini would have been all over that. But he never turned on her. I think he was even offered at some point to go free if he turned on her. His family urged him to do it. But his conscience would not allow it. That is telling to me.
Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#5
- Thread starter Harmony 2
- Start date
- Status
Yeah but RS could easily have made a deal for little time or no time at all. They don't have a strong case against him at all and a very weak motive. If he pinned it on AK, Mignini would have been all over that. But he never turned on her. I think he was even offered at some point to go free if he turned on her. His family urged him to do it. But his conscience would not allow it. That is telling to me.
There is an AP article like last week where they said the new tests on the knife showed only AK DNA. It was on all the news sites last week I think if you google it.
More specifically the trace 36i tests ordered by the Florence court said there was only AK DNA - not any MK or RG. The news articles call those tests decisive since those are the tests the Supreme Court wanted and finding MK DNA would have been damning for AK. All of these articles from the mainstream press all state the new tests prove that the knife is NOT the murder weapon.
We covered this topic of why all 3 didn't rat each other this morning and also extensively in I think the last thread.
Let's say RS says, oh yeah, it was her. She did it. Yup. Stabbed her. Did this and did that. Well then Amanda is gonna turn around and say, Oh wait a minute, just wait right there. No, you see he did most (or all) of the stabbing. He did this and this and this. And you know what, I wasn't even in the room, I was standing over there in the kitchen.
IF RS had played a lesser role and had less of an involvement in the crime than Amanda and RG, that might be the case that he would rat out Amanda for some kind of plea deal. But if he was an active/equal/or main particpant, ratting out Amanda actually would mean that the extent of his involvement would come out, and he didn't want that. Because as you know, he was denying even ever being at the cottage that night.
So it is incorrect that he could have ratted her out and been a free man.
Yes, I've heard his "conscience would not allow it" line from various interviews he's done. Remember, those are his words and his explanations. So I personally take that with a heavy dose of salt.
Quite frankly we do not know what would have happened if he ratted her out. He would very likely have done it for a deal, given the lack of evidence against him. He would not need to worry about AK testimony at a trial bc there would not be one for him. AK could say all she wanted at her trial and it would come down to whether you believe RS or AK. It would be a better situation than the one he is in now bc he likely would have been given no time or very little time. I mean if the killer RG is getting out soon, surely someone like RS would have been out by now to continue his life.
Point is, as most cases w co defendants, usually there is a deal of some sort where one rats the other out. We don't see any of that here. Mignini would have loved the press conference, bc he would see it as affirmation of his position. He wanted to get AK and w RS testimony he would have a conviction pretty much assured.
Moreover this trial is significant risk to RS if indeed he knows something or was not as intimately involved. He is facing life in prison. If he was there but was a secondary participant anyone in their right mind w a decent lawyer would take a deal rather than take the risk.
WE have discussed this in the last thread, Otto posted a link from a CBS news site that said precisely what you're saying. A lot of the American media reported that......NOT THE MURDER WEAPON. CONCLUSIVE. What they failed to say was that they were only re-testing the sample from the groove of the knife. That's the sample that came back testing postive for Amanda. Merediths' DNA was found on the tip of the knife and confirmed, they did not re-test that one. C&V, I believe, never tested it again. So in fact the first result still stands as of now. That's the way I understand it, others on here will have more knowledge about this.
All I know is that the media here grossly misreported information and skewed facts. I saw that with my own eyes.
Meredith was a studious Erasmus student. Knox had taken a year off to complete a language course in Perguia. Sollecito remarked that Meredith backed away from the drugs, and we know from Knox's own words that gravitated towards drugs.
Knox did nothing different than "most college kids"? I disagree. Most college kids don't lie to foreign police during a murder investigation ... not just with the false accusations against an inncoent man, but the lies about eating perhaps as late as 11 pm, maybe 10:30, or 9:30, or perhaps 8:30, being awake at 5:30 am and listening to music or sleeping until 10 (more problematic alibi material)? Knox was not living in a dorm or with college students. She was living with two legal professionals and an Erasmus student. Meredith had expressed concerms about men that Knox brought to the cottage.
Respectful college kids flush the toilet in a shared accommodation.
Some articles I read state that, they say the prosecution still believes in the other sample
But isn't it true that the sample that the prosecution relies on is low copy DNA? Why would that even be relevant then if low copy DNA is not something scientists consider reliable?
Does the prosecution deny that it is low copy DNA or do they say it is low copy but should still be considered?(even though other courts do not consider that to be relevant)
Moreover it is my understand that neither sample is blood. How could something be the murder weapon in a stabbing and it not be blood DNA? Defies common senses IMO
MichaelSmith
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2012
- Messages
- 631
- Reaction score
- 0
So these "terrible prosecutors," these "corrupt prosecutors," these "fanatic prosecutors,".....you think RS is going to trust that they won't come back and press the murder charge on him again.....and this time they would have a "done deal" so to speak with Amanda's information about his whole involvement and what he did. So you think Amanda tells them how he stabbed her and what he said and what he did......and he believes the prosecutors will still let him walk out of jail????
MichaelSmith
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2012
- Messages
- 631
- Reaction score
- 0
The defence teams lodged new appeal documents with the court in Florence but I haven't seen them online yet.
MichaelSmith
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2012
- Messages
- 631
- Reaction score
- 0
Page 13
Amanda Knox was subjected to examination and investigations and between 2 and 6
November 2007 up to the time of boarding, provided summary information and
responded to questions from the AG as follows:
2 November 2007, 15:30 FRIDAY ': total hours ..............
12.00
Minutes of summary information of Knox, without closing.
Witnesses until 3:00 am on November 3, 2007
November 3, 2007, at 14:45 hours Saturday total ..................
8.00
Minutes of summary information of Knox, without closing.
Witnesses show up at 22.00.
4 November 2007, at 14:45 SUNDAY: total hours .............
12.00
Minutes of summary information of Knox, and access to the house on Via
Pergola from 14.45 to 21 hours. Amanda's phone call to her aunt says 5 hours
interrogation at the police station
5/6 November 2007 01:45 hrs MONDAY '/ TUESDAY': total hours ........
5.00
Minutes of summary information of Knox begin at 2200 hours on 5
November 2009.
November 6, 2007, at 5:45 TUESDAY ': total hours ...................
3.45
Minutes of "spontaneous declarations" of Knox with the next short
memorial. From 1.45 to 5.45 hours and memorial at 14.00.
In five days the Knox has been felt for a total of approximately 53.45 h.
For clarity of exposition summarizes the timing of the investigation against
Knox's on the crucial days 5, November 6, 2007:
Amanda Knox was subjected to examination and investigations and between 2 and 6
November 2007 up to the time of boarding, provided summary information and
responded to questions from the AG as follows:
2 November 2007, 15:30 FRIDAY ': total hours ..............
12.00
Minutes of summary information of Knox, without closing.
Witnesses until 3:00 am on November 3, 2007
November 3, 2007, at 14:45 hours Saturday total ..................
8.00
Minutes of summary information of Knox, without closing.
Witnesses show up at 22.00.
4 November 2007, at 14:45 SUNDAY: total hours .............
12.00
Minutes of summary information of Knox, and access to the house on Via
Pergola from 14.45 to 21 hours. Amanda's phone call to her aunt says 5 hours
interrogation at the police station
5/6 November 2007 01:45 hrs MONDAY '/ TUESDAY': total hours ........
5.00
Minutes of summary information of Knox begin at 2200 hours on 5
November 2009.
November 6, 2007, at 5:45 TUESDAY ': total hours ...................
3.45
Minutes of "spontaneous declarations" of Knox with the next short
memorial. From 1.45 to 5.45 hours and memorial at 14.00.
In five days the Knox has been felt for a total of approximately 53.45 h.
For clarity of exposition summarizes the timing of the investigation against
Knox's on the crucial days 5, November 6, 2007:
I don't know the exact details on that. Whether low-copy or high-copy or everywhere-copy, why was Meredith's DNA found on the knife tip? I don't understand how Meredith's DNA could just magically appear on that knife. If it was the low-copy DNA or low-density DNA or whatever it's called, I would assume that if it was not reliable, they would not have been able to read whose DNA it was. As in, DNA from unidentified female or something like that. Yet it matched it with Meredith's DNA. And there is, IMO, no possibility of transfer/contamination as that knife was found in a totally separate location from Meredith's body and it was completely removed from the whole crime scene.
Nearly 99% of college students do not come into contact w police except maybe campus for drinking. You may be many years removed from college but I work in a college environment and these kids eat at all hours of the night, are awake all hours, sleep late (10am is early - no kids want a 10am class bc they are no up yet!), drink, have sex, do drugs sometimes (mostly pot). Up until that night, nothing AK did was not something many college students did. Some things like the sex or the pots maybe are higher than the median but she would still be within what alot of college kids do.
And I think it was 2-3 guys including RS that AK brought home. That number is not uncommon in a college environment in a 2 month period, she maybe differed from the norm bc she had sex w them but lots of girls bring guys home just for hookups.
Has everyone always every single time in their life flushed the toilet and verified it went through? in any event I think the complaint was that she did not clean the mess all the time, not that she necessarily did not flush. Sometimes those toilets in Europe require a hard push - maybe she thought she flushed but did not push hard enough
In any event all this is meaningless. I don't think you would have anyone under the age of 40 say that anything AK did before that night was not something many college students do. I am not sure dorms are even an option for foreign students, it also seems like AK had little money and she went for the apartment place bc it was cheap. No harm in that. I personally would never in a million years have been allowed to live like that when I was in college - my parents would have thought that place was unsafe.
A deal is a deal. If he made a deal w prosecutors, he would have given the testimony and then got whatever sentence the deal was. I have never heard of prosecutors using deals to get info then reneging on them.i don't think anyone is that corrupt, besides I am not even sure such info would be admissible had the prosecution reneged on a deal.
RS could say he did simply nothing, he could say AK wanted to play sex games, he took MK shirt off, then he got scared and went into the other room. He would have no culpability in the crime and could have blamed it all on AK and RG. Since he did not commit a crime (or maybe only an attempted crime) he would have gotten little to no jail time. Then they would have had a more solid case against AK. Both sides would have benefitted, indeed Mignini would have been thrilled if he got RS to turn. I think he Said on the Katie show that such a deal was offered, one for no culpability.
The scientific community does not accept low copy DNA as valid. The evidence was examined in the same lab along with other evidence of MK. It could easily become contaminated with other evidence in the lab. Moreover, there is a greater chance of false positives - more testing should have been done on that sample to confirm the result. Why doesn't the prosecution do another test? I suspect if the random female DNA turns out to be a technician, the prosecution's case is all but over.
WIth LC DNA they have to blow up the sample and whatever technique they use increases the chances that the result could go wrong. The prosecution did not use the most valid testing to do LC testing, they used an inferior method. Also it is not reproducible bc I think whatever technique they used destroyed the sample. That gave no opportunity for the defense or anyone else to confirm the result.
If that knife was the murder weapon you would not have to rely on the testing on one itself bitsy piece of that knife. MK's DNA would have been all over that knife. The fact that it was not increases the possibility that that test on that very small sample was just a false positive or was contamined,
Indeed, they should have found dna all over that knife, not just low copy but regular dna too. that is just common sense. If you are stabbed 46 times w an object your DNA is going to be all over that object.
And that is not the only problem with that knife. Why is not it blood DNA? There is no blood on that knife. How could you stab someone and not leave any traces of blood? MK's blood DNA would be all over that knife.
And if that is not enough, it also does not match the wounds. If the DNA was blood or if it matched the wounds maybe it would be more convincing but it does not. Or if other parts of the knife also tested positive.
Relying on LC DNA raises an extremely dangerous precedent. It would mean that the state can rely on DNA testing, say it is positive, then give the defense no opportunity to confirm the state's results because it was destroyed. That raises serious civil liberties issues, that is why low copy DNA is not considered admissible bc it just has too many problems with it.
Like I said, if there was low copy DNA all over that knife - and it was blood - there would be a more convincing case. The prosecution asked for more testing hoping they would find more and if they did that would be convincing. But they did not and I think they know that no higher court is going to uphold a verdict based on unreliable DNA evidence because of the horrible precedent it sets. Remember this case is not just about AK. If the SC and the European court of justice allow unreliable low copy DNA here they have to let it in in all cases. That would set Italy apart as one of the few(only?) country that allows unreliable scientific techniques to buttress convictions. It would sorta be like admitting lie detectors as evidence even though the scientific community believes them unreliable in all cases. No court is going to want to set that precedent, at least with the LC technique used by the prosecution here - and the absence or evidence that it was blood or that the murder weapon was a clear match.
Indeed, if I were defense, I would have made the prosecution test random spoons, can openers, etc in that drawer. It probably would have been the same result, and I hardly think a spoon was the murder weapon. The prosecution should really have done this bc if they found those results, they would have known they had a problem. Any good scientists would have tested other stuff in that drawer, just as a matter of common sense. There could have been multiple murder weapons, why test only one?
That is why all the headlines last week were saying that the DNA clears AK. The prosecution needed that DNA to be somewhere else on that knife..,otherwise, there is no way to prove that it was not just a fluke.
No modern democracy is going to take away someone's liberty based on a single DNA strand that is not reproducible tested by unreliable means where 2 court appointed experts say it cannot be relied upon. It was a real blow to the prosecution that the other independent test done at a different time by I suppose a different technician did not confirm the result. It is the prosecutions burden not the defense.
That is why all the headlines last week were saying that the DNA clears AK. The prosecution needed that DNA to be somewhere else on that knife..,otherwise, there is no way to prove that it was not just a fluke.
No modern democracy is going to take away someone's liberty based on a single DNA strand that is not reproducible tested by unreliable means where 2 court appointed experts say it cannot be relied upon. It was a real blow to the prosecution that the other independent test done at a different time by I suppose a different technician did not confirm the result. It is the prosecutions burden not the defense.
So it does come down to a mountain of evidence and a mountain of "explanation", with can openers potentially being part of the "explanation".
MichaelSmith
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2012
- Messages
- 631
- Reaction score
- 0
UNDERSTANDING THE INDEPENDENT DNA EXPERTS REPORT IN THE AMANDA KNOX CASE
http://forensicdnaconsulting.wordpress.com/2011/07/30/understanding-the-independent-dna-experts%E2%80%99-report-in-the-amanda-knox-case-part-i/
DNA and the law in Italy: the experience of the Perugia case
http://www.frontiersin.org/journal/10.3389/fgene.2013.00177/full
- Status