Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#6

[Yellow]

Is Dr. Galati wrong in his assertion here, and is the Cassazione also wrong?

There is a complicated legal reason why the SC made the statement it did here. The SC cannot fact find, they can only affirm or not affirm lower court findings. I believe the old appellate ruling did not take a stance on this so the SC had no choice but to affirm the lower court's finding on this absent a reason not to. So since the appellate court did not really consider this evidence (I don't think), the SC was not given a reason not to affirm the first courts finding on this. And everyone knows how that first trial was run.

The textra-whatever tests done by scientists as follow ups to luminol tested negative for blood. That is not disputed what those tests turned up; the prosecutor says just to ignore those tests

It is also undisputed that MK DNA did not turn up in the footprint spots. How could there by AK DNA but not MK DNA especially if they were covered in MK blood? One of the posters who is a biochemist explained earlier today more about this.

In order to buy the prosecutors argument you would have to believe that MK blood does not contain her own DNA or that the DNA eroded in some way vanishing MK DNA but not AK, a scientific impossibility I believe

 

[Chris_Halkides]

West Memphis Three?

Three cases in which the forensics seemed to point strongly to guilt are the Lindy Chamberlain case, the Patricia Stallings case, and the Cameron Todd Willingham case. If I had been on any of those three juries, I probably would have voted guilty. In the Stallings case, one sees confirmation bias in the extreme. In the Willingham case the arson investigation was not good by the standards of its time and advances in the field have made it look worse.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Is Dr. Galati wrong in his assertion here, and is the Cassazione also wrong?

The implication that luminol proves blood is simply wrong. Tetramethylbenzidine is sometimes used as a follow-up test, but a particular type of confirmatory test must be positive for one to conclude that human blood is present. Even animal blood is a false positive in a homicide investigation.

With respect to the luminol-positive/TMB-negative/DNA-negative areas, I asked the authors of a recent study on the forensics of body fluid identification for their interpretation. Drs. Virkler and Lednev wrote, “So, there was either no blood and the luminol was wrong, or there was blood and the TMB had interference and the luminol damaged the DNA. We think it is more likely that there was no blood, and that the luminol was reacting with something else, possibly plant matter from the bottom of the shoes causing the footprints (the intensity of the luminol reaction might give some more insight). The prosecution should have used much more convincing evidence to prove the presence of blood.”

Parts 13 and 14 of the Hellmann Zanetti report refer to the luminol-positive areas. Why the CSC claimed that Hellmann did not address this evidence is one of many mysteries with respect to its motivations report.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Chris, were antibody based tests done on the footprints and if so what were the results?

I have never seen a report that antibody-based tests were done on these items of evidence. Some sort of confirmatory test was performed on Rep. 199.

 

[Yellow]

The implication that luminol proves blood is simply wrong. Tetramethylbenzidine is sometimes used as a follow-up test, but a particular type of confirmatory test must be positive for one to conclude that human blood is present. Even animal blood is a false positive in a homicide investigation.

With respect to the luminol-positive/TMB-negative/DNA-negative areas, I asked the authors of a recent study on the forensics of body fluid identification for their interpretation. Drs. Virkler and Lednev wrote, “So, there was either no blood and the luminol was wrong, or there was blood and the TMB had interference and the luminol damaged the DNA. We think it is more likely that there was no blood, and that the luminol was reacting with something else, possibly plant matter from the bottom of the shoes causing the footprints (the intensity of the luminol reaction might give some more insight). The prosecution should have used much more convincing evidence to prove the presence of blood.”

Parts 13 and 14 of the Hellmann Zanetti report refer to the luminol-positive areas. Why the CSC claimed that Hellmann did not address this evidence is one of many mysteries with respect to its motivations report.

Exactly bc if the luminol or textra tests damaged the DNA why did it not equally damage knox DNA? Why only MK, whose DNA would have been of higher qualify if in blood than just skin cells?

 

[otto]

<modsnip>

Is that where they refer to several shallow nicks and cuts in her neck area? Is Guede sadistic? Is Knox sadistic? Sollecito? We have Knox's sadistic short stories about attacking a woman. With Sollecito we only have the cleaver at Halloween, and the stories about his interest in bestiality. With Guede, I don't know of anything that leans towards sadism.

 

[SMK]

Is that where they refer to several shallow nicks and cuts in her neck area? Is Guede sadistic? Is Knox sadistic? Sollecito? We have Knox's sadistic short stories about attacking a woman. With Sollecito we only have the cleaver at Halloween, and the stories about his interest in bestiality. With Guede, I don't know of anything that leans towards sadism.

Thanks; yes it was- and I was also trying to ascertain if this judgement was correct:

Were the smaller wounds signs of teasing before the final blow? Or were the wounds misinterpreted?
Do police and forensic experts have statistics on "taunting wounds"? (I feel they must)

There was an essay supporting the judges back in 2009 called, "A Sadist in the Room". It was brilliantly written, and I have it in my files (somewhere). In it, the author spoke of the evidence as indicating taunting, and the locking away with phones taken as a last, sadistic act.

Also, in the 1960s case of Mary Bell, she inflicted teasing wounds with scissors on one of her victims, leading the detectives to think the crime was the work of a disturbed child (which it was).

 

[Yellow]

<modsnip>

We have no evidence any of the suspects leaned toward sadism so to imply one had more sadism than the other is speculation lacking in any evidence. In the first instances the prosecutor now claims it was not preplanned so that seems to fly in the face of what these judges are saying here. Clearly the act was at least party impulsive spurred by some dispute about cleaning or quietness, they allege.

We also have no evidence of any documented psychological problems before or since, and w AK and RS, no problems with the law or in school (being delinquents, etc).

I think the two smaller wounds can simply be RG holding her at knife point before the attack. At that point, he might have wanted to only rape her so he made those two non fatal marks as a threat as he held at knifepoint. At some point, MK might have screamed or kicked him or something and then the fatal attack happened.

These so-called teasing wounds could also be equally explained bc you have an inexperienced killer. Would you know how much pressure needed to kill someone or where to place the knife for maximum effect? I would suspect many killings involving stabbings could have such superficial marks as well. Also, how do we know for sure the order of the marks? It could be RG went berserk, stabbing like crazy, with some marking being deep and some not, all done in the frenzy of the attack. The murder took up to 10 minutes but I think MK was pretty much out of it after the first few stabs. This story where this was some sort of taunting prolonged attack simply does not accord with the evidence

Nor w the motive. One could perhaps in anger fatally stab someone over an argument but rarely do stabbings over impulsive arguments involve taunting attacks. Many of these stabbing type attacks resulting in overkill result in the stabbings happening in quick succession. Or, as discussed yesterday in some of the cases where this happened w roommates, either a quick single stab done impulsively using an object easily within reach made in anger, sometimes resulting in death , sometimes not,

 

[SMK]

We have no evidence any of the suspects leaned toward sadism so to imply one had more sadism than the other is speculation lacking in any evidence. In the first instances the prosecutor now claims it was not preplanned so that seems to fly in the face of what these judges are saying here. Clearly the act was at least party impulsive spurred by some dispute about cleaning or quietness, they allege.

I think the two smaller wounds can simply be RG holding her at knife point before the attack. At that point, he might have wanted to only rape her so he made those two non fatal marks as a threat as he held at knifepoint. At some point, MK might have screamed or kicked him or something and then the fatal attack happened.

These so-called teasing wounds could also be equally explained bc you have an inexperienced killer. Would you know how much pressure needed to kill someone or where to place the knife for maximum effect? I would suspect many killings involving stabbings could have such superficial marks as well. Also, how do we know for sure the order of the marks? It could be RG went berserk, stabbing like crazy, with some marking being deep and some not, all done in the frenzy of the attack. The murder took up to 10 minutes but I think MK was pretty much out of it after the first few stabs. This story where this was some sort of taunting prolonged attack simply does not accord with the evidence

Nor w the motive. One could perhaps in anger fatally stab someone over an argument but rarely do stabbings over arguments involve taunting attacks.

Yes, thank you. It is the same thing which keeps recurring:

The old interpretation of sadism and the evidence to support it, vs the newer streamlined and simpler one of an argument - and the Lone Wolf theory there to dismiss the first two with ALL of the evidence tied up with Occam's Razor simplicity and elegance.

It reminds me of different historical and political interpretations.

Sadly, I can find evidence and arguments to support all 3 theories, depending on how I shift my perspective. So how and where to draw the line?

 

[Yellow]

Thanks; yes it was- and I was also trying to ascertain if this judgement was correct:

Were the smaller wounds signs of teasing before the final blow? Or were the wounds misinterpreted?
Do police and forensic experts have statistics on "taunting wounds"? (I feel they must)

There was an essay supporting the judges back in 2009 called, "A Sadist in the Room". It was brilliantly written, and I have it in my files (somewhere). In it, the author spoke of the evidence as indicating taunting, and the locking away with phones taken as a last, sadistic act.

Also, in the 1960s case of Mary Bell, she inflicted teasing wounds with scissors on one of her victims, leading the detectives to think the crime was the work of a disturbed child (which it was).

this Mary Bell case involved a very clear case of psychological problems which psychologists testified at trial. She also mutilated the genitals and she herself had suffered sexual abuse,

Like Bell, many of these sadistic attacks are done more by serial killers who often do weird strange sex things as well such as mutiliating the private areas. There is absolutely no evidence of that here. Taunting cases either involves such serious psychological problems or very clear motives (like husband/wife killings).

 

[Yellow]

:seeya:

Yes, thank you. It is the same thing which keeps recurring:

The old interpretation of sadism and the evidence to support it, vs the newer streamlined and simpler one of an argument - and the Lone Wolf theory there to dismiss the first two with ALL of the evidence tied up with Occam's Razor simplicity and elegance.

It reminds me of different historical and political interpretations.

Sadly, I can find evidence and arguments to support all 3 theories, depending on how I shift my perspective. So how and where to draw the line?

It is whether you think the prosecutions theory is the Only reasonable one consistent with the evidence. If you think any of the other theories (including ones of none or partial involvement such as maybe lying about being in the cottage that night but no involvement in the murder) you must acquit. If you think she possibly or even probably did it, you too must acquit.

 

[otto]

this Mary Bell case involved a very clear case of psychological problems which psychologists testified at trial. She also mutilated the genitals and she herself had suffered sexual abuse,

Like Bell, many of these sadistic attacks are done more by serial killers who often do weird strange sex things as well such as mutiliating the private areas. There is absolutely no evidence of that here. Taunting cases either involves such serious psychological problems or very clear motives (like husband/wife killings).

BBM
There was a sexual assault and we don't know the details.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

IIUC one or two of the wounds in Meredith's neck had bruising from the hilt of the knife. That sounds consistent with an intent to kill.

 

[SMK]

:seeya:

It is whether you think the prosecutions theory is the Only reasonable one consistent with the evidence. If you think any of the other theories (including ones of none or partial involvement such as maybe lying about being in the cottage that night but no involvement in the murder) you must acquit. If you think she possibly or even probably did it, you too must acquit.

Right; that is the legal aspect. But I really want to know what happened.

Just taking the knife wounds in isolation: The smaller wounds interpreted by the prosecution as signs of taunting, before the final blow:

It could be:

A. Just as they say (which to my thinking would mean some altercation had begun on the afternoon of Nov 1, was simmered over for hours, and Knox went with the other two that evening to the cottage for a "show down"; due to a group dynamic fueled by drugs and alcohol, it escalated into homicide. )

OR:

B. Guede as lone wolf robber holding Kercher (who surprized him) at knife point; her struggles make the smaller wounds; her scream causes the fatal wound. Or as Halkides said, he "readied" for the slash with intent.

How will it ever be determined??? (even if acquittal is in the offing due to reasonable doubt, which although a great rule of thumb, does not always lead to the truth)

I believe if Guede were put under hypnosis with a heavy dose of sodium penathol, he would speak truth and tell us if he was the lone wolf or with the other two.

 

[Yellow]

:floorlaugh:

BBM
There was a sexual assault and we don't know the details.

If there was any evidence of any kind of sick sexual thing, I am sure the prosecution would have used it. It would be more logical to imply that the lack of such evidence means it did not occur than to imply the fact that it did occur

Bc otherwise we should think all sexual assaults could involve weird sexual mutilations as in most cases there is no mention of the specifics of an attack. To the contrary, where there is evidence of sick sexual things, that is front and center at a rape trial

 

[SMK]

If this text, Clinical Forensic Medicine, can be trusted, there is no way to determine if
a. the smaller wounds are from taunting or
b. the smaller wounds are from holding the victim at bay with knifepoint:

p. 208

Minor incised wounds may be identified if the knife is held against the skin (often seen in the neck area) or if the tip of the knife has been used to taunt the compliant...

http://books.google.com/books?id=zp...nsics knife wounds which are taunting&f=false

So it is all a matter of how the defense or prosecution interpret this in light of all the other evidence.

 

[Yellow]

Right; that is the legal aspect. But I really want to know what happened.

Just taking the knife wounds in isolation: The smaller wounds interpreted by the prosecution as signs of taunting, before the final blow:

It could be:

A. Just as they say (which to my thinking would mean some altercation had begun on the afternoon of Nov 1, was simmered over for hours, and Knox went with the other two that evening to the cottage for a "show down"; due to a group dynamic fueled by drugs and alcohol, it escalated into homicide. )

OR:

B. Guede as lone wolf robber holding Kercher (who surprized him) at knife point; her struggles make the smaller wounds; her scream causes the fatal wound. Or as Halkides said, he "readied" for the slash with intent.

How will it ever be determined??? (even if acquittal is in the offing due to reasonable doubt, which although a great rule of thumb, does not always lead to the truth)

I believe if Guede were put under hypnosis with a heavy dose of sodium penathol, he would speak truth and tell us if he was the lone wolf or with the other two.

The thing is, it need not be determined. If the evidence supports either scenario, the system is set up so we err on the side of letting 10 guilty men go free than to have one imprisoned if he did not do it.

We do not always know what went down in a murder,

The physical evidence is doubtful in the first scenario. First you have to believe that two guys are going to join in w AK over some dispute about cleaning. As far as I know, this has never happened in the history of crime. You also have to believe that there was a preexisting thing between the three, of which there is no evidence that they did drugs together. No one even saw the three together, no texts, nothing

Then you have to believe a murder weapon would not have MK blood on it. And you would also have to believe that somehow AK and RS left no DNA trace in the murder room, yet left footprints in other areas of the cottage, why no footprints in murder room? If used bleach there would have been luminol hits. There is no evidence they even were in the room

Then you also have to believe in the trace of AK's footsteps were made in MK blood, but there is no evidence of MK DNA

 

[SMK]

:floorlaugh:

If there was any evidence of any kind of sick sexual thing, I am sure the prosecution would have used it. It would be more logical to imply that the lack of such evidence means it did not occur than to imply the fact that it did occur

Bc otherwise we should think all sexual assaults could involve weird sexual mutilations as in most cases there is no mention of the specifics of an attack. To the contrary, where there is evidence of sick sexual things, that is front and center at a rape trial

This may be a liability of the switch from Mignini -Sex game and humiliation to Crini- argument over house cleaning. There has been a switch of tactics.

 

[otto]

:floorlaugh:

If there was any evidence of any kind of sick sexual thing, I am sure the prosecution would have used it. It would be more logical to imply that the lack of such evidence means it did not occur than to imply the fact that it did occur

Bc otherwise we should think all sexual assaults could involve weird sexual mutilations as in most cases there is no mention of the specifics of an attack. To the contrary, where there is evidence of sick sexual things, that is front and center at a rape trial

Sexual assault, in and of itself, is a "sick sexual thing".

 

[SMK]

The thing is, it need not be determined. If the evidence supports either scenario, the system is set up so we err on the side of letting 10 guilty men go free than to have one imprisoned if he did not do it.

We do not always know what went down in a murder,

The physical evidence is doubtful in the first scenario. First you have to believe that two guys are going to join in w AK over some dispute about cleaning. As far as I know, this has never happened in the history of crime. You also have to believe that there was a preexisting thing between the three, of which there is no evidence that they did drugs together. No one even saw the three together, no texts, nothing

Then you have to believe a murder weapon would not have MK blood on it. And you would also have to believe that somehow AK and RS left no DNA trace in the murder room, yet left footprints in other areas of the cottage, why no footprints in murder room? If used bleach there would have been luminol hits. There is no evidence they even were in the room

Then you also have to believe in the trace of AK's footsteps were made in MK blood, but there is no evidence of MK DNA

But if all of the above is true, then why was this case ever sent to trial in the first place? Something is not adding up.......