Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#5

[otto]

I also think it is wrong to equate a lamp with a knife. For a lamp as I explained, you have no reason to be touching it often once it is in place, let alone hold onto it for more than a second for the light switch, indeed, maybe it was a light switch in the wall so you do not even have to touch the lamp

With a knife, while eating, you are putting pressure on the knife to cut for 30 seconds or so at a time. It is much more likely to leave DNA when you are using the device in that way.

How is DNA on a lamp different from DNA on a knife ... other than the fact that is was not sweat on the knife and it was between the handle and the blade?

Why wouldn't Knox turn the light on each day? Did she do everything in the dark?

I shouldn't be surprised that there are now excuses for the alleged absence of Knox's DNA on her lamp, but I am. Of course there's no DNA belonging to Knox on her own lamp, even though it was the only light source in her bedroom. This is normal. The absence of her DNA in Meredith's bedroom is also normal, or not normal, or it means that she had never entered the bedroom, but her lamp was there, but she didn't put it there because she had never touched her lamp and even if she did touch her lamp, it was only for a fleeting second and if someone touches something for a fleeting second, no DNA is transferred.

 

[Myvice]

How is DNA on a lamp different from DNA on a knife ... other than the fact that is was not sweat on the knife and it was between the handle and the blade?

Why wouldn't Knox turn the light on each day? Did she do everything in the dark?

I shouldn't be surprised that there are now excuses for the alleged absence of Knox's DNA on her lamp, but I am. Of course there's no DNA belonging to Knox on her own lamp, even though it was the only light source in her bedroom. This is normal. The absence of her DNA in Meredith's bedroom is also normal, or not normal, or it means that she had never entered the bedroom, but her lamp was there, but she didn't put it there because she had never touched her lamp and even if she did touch her lamp, it was only for a fleeting second and if someone touches something for a fleeting second, no DNA is transferred.

I think Guede should have a new trial. I feel like if his attorney had been acting in his best interest he would have insisted that since Guede and Amanda had been partying together, Amanda took Guede's DNA into their house and touched Merideth's underwear while busily doing her laundry and when Merideth wore them....well you know, the DNA transferred to her.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

@Otto:
I could have sworn that in the past few days, someone tweeted that Crini in court had said to the effect, "there was no other occasion for Sollecito to leave a bloody/bare footprint in the cottage".

I cannot seem to locate it now, but I was struck by it, and took note of it. Do you recall it?

IIRC something similar to that sentence is in the CSC motivations report.

 

[SMK]

IIRC something similar to that sentence is in the CSC motivations report.

Thank you so much, Chris.

@OTTO:
(I may have had the wording wrong)
Yes, I think it was in Galati's appeal , and also as Chris says it appears in
The English summary of the Supreme Court of Cassation Motivation- 2013, Analysis of the Footprints and Other Traces; pg 70 of the original: Hellmann is in error in saying the bare footprints of Sollecito and Knox could have been from a prior time.

 

[SweetT]

I'd like to know if that lamp was tested for dna or not also. The only reason I could see there being no dna is if it was wiped clean. I dont touch my lamp much but I would think there would be some dna on the switch at least. Also I may have enough moonlight most nights but there are nights it is pitch dark and or cloudy and a lamp would be needed especially if you partied alot and came in late alot etc. You'd notice if you had no light to turn on. It would be pretty obvious. The moon isnt bright and full every night.

 

[SMK]

Maybe she used both lamps at different times. Maybe she as not going to study that night so she put it on the floor or maybe she was done w the lamp and she was going to give it back to AK. I don't know what possible relevance it could have to a murder<snipped by SMK>

It has no relevance to the murder.

But when taken together with the other indicators that someone in that cottage conducted a clean-up after the murder, it becomes quite relevant:

Hey, what is that lamp from AK's room, doing on the floor there? becomes an investigative question.

 

[Amber29]

Perhaps claims that there was no DNA belonging to Knox in Meredith's bedroom should be re-evaluated. If there was none, then the absence of her DNA on her lamp is a problem. If her DNA was on her lamp and it simply wasn't tested or mentioned during trial, then the claim that there was no DNA belonging to Knox in Meredith's bedroom shouldn't be made.

Yes when it comes to all the other DNA evidence, it's explained because she lived there. Now that we are talking about a lamp, something she probably touched daily and the lack of her DNA (that just so happened to behind Meredith's door) is perfectly normal.

 

[SweetT]

I think I would consider any item at a home where a murder has taken place, whether in the victims room or not to be possible evidence, including a car or a computer etc. I suppose I would be way to thorough in my investigations. I just realize things can get moved or be moved, things can be taken even away from a property and put in a vehicle or another persons home or yard. Yea it would probably take me yrs to piece things together.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Earlier in the day we discussed Rudy's claim that the Amanda and Meredith fought about money. I pointed out that Rudy was never a witness, but there was some resistance to this objection. From the European Convention on Human Rights: "to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;" Either Italy has provisions in its laws to the effect that one has the right to examine witnesses and to challenge the evidence, or it does not. If it does, they have failed to enforce their own laws in this trial. If they do not have such provisions, then they are out of step with the mainstream of thinking in liberal democracies. Attempts to say that it would be OK if a modern nation did not have protections such as these would be special pleading.

 

[otto]

I think Guede should have a new trial. I feel like if his attorney had been acting in his best interest he would have insisted that since Guede and Amanda had been partying together, Amanda took Guede's DNA into their house and touched Merideth's underwear while busily doing her laundry and when Merideth wore them....well you know, the DNA transferred to her.

I have to admit, after hearing so much about how DNA is completely unreliable, bloody footprints are meaningless, false confessions are common, and that evidence not within eyesight of the victim's body should be excluded, Guede must be innocent. Perhaps he can sue for wrongful prosecution and forced false confession, and receive a generous financial award. If he doesn't succeed, he can complain to the human rights commission and, if that fails, he can head to the US and become a darling media child that simply could not commit murder because he's a good kid that came from a good family.

 

[MichaelSmith]

Yes when it comes to all the other DNA evidence, it's explained because she lived there. Now that we are talking about a lamp, something she probably touched daily and the lack of her DNA (that just so happened to behind Meredith's door) is perfectly normal.

Where is proof the lamp was ever tested? I've never seen any. If you can find any and cite it I'd love to see it.

Stefanoni's powerpoint presentation.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/testimonianza2.pdf

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/test_results.pdf

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/e-grams.html

 

[otto]

Earlier in the day we discussed Rudy's claim that the Amanda and Meredith fought about money. I pointed out that Rudy was never a witness, but there was some resistance to this objection. From the European Convention on Human Rights: "to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;" Either Italy has provisions in its laws to the effect that one has the right to examine witnesses and to challenge the evidence, or it does not. If it does, they have failed to enforce their own laws in this trial. If they do not have such provisions, then they are out of step with the mainstream of thinking in liberal democracies. Attempts to say that it would be OK if a modern nation did not have protections such as these would be special pleading.

Guede was in the courtroom as a witness during trial.

"Rudy Guede, pictured in 2009, refused to testify Monday that Amanda Knox was not involved in the death of her roommate."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/06/27/italy.knox.trial/

"The appeal hearing of American student Amanda Knox against her murder conviction in Italy resumes Monday with all eyes on an Ivorian man also convicted in the slaying, who will testify as a witness for the prosecution."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/26/knox-trial-convicted-ivor_n_884684.html#

 

[SMK]

@OTTO:
(I may have had the wording wrong)
Yes, I think it was in Galati's appeal , and also as Chris says it appears in
The English summary of the Supreme Court of Cassation Motivation- 2013, Analysis of the Footprints and Other Traces; pg 70 of the original: Hellmann is in error in saying the bare footprints of Sollecito and Knox could have been from a prior time.

Here is the Galati section (from pdf)

Analysis of prints and other traces

About the luminol foot prints, it is implausible to assume that those prints were left on some other occasion, since – in the Court’s view - luminol basically indicates blood (and in no other circumstance could someone produce such a set of prints in blood). The Cassazione notes that the Massei scenario to explain the footprints was far more plausible, and Hellmann-Zanetti bring no reason to refute it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Guede was in the courtroom as a witness during trial.

But he was not examined with respect to the present claim, that Meredith and Amanda fought about money.

 

[otto]

But he was not examined with respect to the present claim, that Meredith and Amanda fought about money.

He refused to testify. Isn't that his his right.

When are you thinking that he should he have testified?

 

[otto]

Here is the Galati section (from pdf)

Analysis of prints and other traces

About the luminol foot prints, it is implausible to assume that those prints were left on some other occasion, since – in the Court’s view - luminol basically indicates blood (and in no other circumstance could someone produce such a set of prints in blood). The Cassazione notes that the Massei scenario to explain the footprints was far more plausible, and Hellmann-Zanetti bring no reason to refute it.

That's certainly logical ... far more logical than someone splashing around barefoot in a puddle of fruit pulp and then leaving a trail of footprints through the crime scene ... and not cleaning up that mess of fruit pulp.

 

[SMK]

He refused to testify. Isn't that his his right.

When are you thinking that he should he have testified?

Well, in his appeal he was to mention the girls' fight over money, but it doesn't sound too believable:

he's appealing the case and suggesting that Amanda killed Meredith during an argument about money. He claimed that Meredith called Amanda a "drugged-up tart" and that Amanda needed the money for drugs.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/young/amanda_knox/5.html

 

[otto]

Well, in his appeal he was to mention the girls fight over money, but it doesn't sound too believable:


http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/young/amanda_knox/5.html

The prosecution said that there is a prosecution duty to conjecture a motive. His mention of conflict between Meredith and Knox is supported by testimony from friends, family and roommates. His reference to Guede further speaks to motive.

 

[SMK]

The prosecution said that there is a prosecution duty to conjecture a motive. His mention of conflict between Meredith and Knox is supported by testimony from friends, family and roommates. His reference to Guede further speaks to motive.

Right, I understand this. But in the accounts I've read, Guede has Meredith calling Amanda "that *advertiser censored* of a doper" and that "drugged up tart", and to me that doesn't sound like Meredith. Unless she was really furious...but I get the conjecture as to motive...

 

[SMK]

As was stated upthread earlier today, I think Crini should have been a little more broad as to motive, as headlines such as this look slightly ridiculous:

Unflushed toilet may have triggered Kercher's killing

Mr Crini argued that Rudy Guede -- a native of Ivory Coast now serving a 16-year sentence for the murder -- may have inflamed tensions between Ms Knox and Ms Kercher after he defecated in a toilet inside the women's apartment and didn't flush it.

http://www.independent.ie/world-new...have-triggered-kerchers-killing-29787279.html