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

[DerKritiker2011]

Doesn't Sollecito have five toes?

I don't know anything about missing toes. I only know that after experts testified, the court concluded that the print is similar to Sollecito.

It's obvious, that the gap of sollecitos toe is missing. In reality it isn't compatible with sollecito.

 

[whoanellie]

Last night I googled "Luminol appeal" and found lots of court opinions on the admissability of Luminol tests in different states across the US. In most states luminol tests are admissable as a "presumptive test" and it is up to the jury to determine the weight of the evidence. From wikipedia:
"In medical and forensic science, a presumptive test is an analysis of a sample which establishes either:
1.The sample is definitely not a certain substance
2.The sample probably is the substance"

It does appear that different states have ruled somewhat differently on the question:
There is the case of Palmer v. State from Arkansas which held that
"The mere presence of human blood by luminol testing
without factors which relate that evidence to the crime is not
admissible; luminol tests done without follow-up procedures are
unreliable to prove the presence of human blood or that the substance
causing the reaction was related to the alleged crime.
2. APPEAL & ERROR - PROOF PREJUDICIAL - ERROR FOUND. - Where
the state's proof concerning luminol, including photographs of the
bedroom, was weighed against the evidence generally, which evidence
failed to show that the test results were related to human blood
related to the crime, the supreme court found prejudice in the admission
of the luminol results."

http://opinions.aoc.arkansas.gov/weblink8/0/doc/109012/Electronic.aspx

I don't know if there are subsequent cases in Arkansas overturning this opinion. see also

http://ar.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19930125_0042592.AR.htm/qx

 

[whoanellie]

Last night I googled "Luminol appeal" and found lots of court opinions on the admissability of Luminol tests in different states across the US. In most states luminol tests are admissable as a "presumptive test" and it is up to the jury to determine the weight of the evidence. From wikipedia:
"In medical and forensic science, a presumptive test is an analysis of a sample which establishes either:
1.The sample is definitely not a certain substance
2.The sample probably is the substance"

It does appear that different states have ruled somewhat differently on the question:
There is the case of Palmer v. State from Arkansas which held that
"The mere presence of human blood by luminol testing
without factors which relate that evidence to the crime is not
admissible; luminol tests done without follow-up procedures are
unreliable to prove the presence of human blood or that the substance
causing the reaction was related to the alleged crime.
2. APPEAL & ERROR - PROOF PREJUDICIAL - ERROR FOUND. - Where
the state's proof concerning luminol, including photographs of the
bedroom, was weighed against the evidence generally, which evidence
failed to show that the test results were related to human blood
related to the crime, the supreme court found prejudice in the admission
of the luminol results."

http://opinions.aoc.arkansas.gov/weblink8/0/doc/109012/Electronic.aspx

I don't know if there are subsequent cases in Arkansas overturning this opinion. see also

http://ar.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19930125_0042592.AR.htm/qx

see also this case from Missouri:
http://www.leagle.com/decision/2005452179SW3d273_1451

 

[geevee]

I don't think so. The gap at the toe is missing.

Just wanted to welcome you to WS, DerKritiker.

 

[geevee]

Investigators follow up every lead, regardless of how strange they may seem. That is their job. If someone comes forward with a satanic ritual tip, it should be pursued ... just like in the case of Laci Peterson.

It's worth mentioning that it's well known that some police departments in the US follow tips from psychics. Perhaps Douglas Preston should write about those "crackpots".

Some psychics have been accurate in their information, I can't think of one occasion when a satanic cult was found responisble for a murder, and I bet most of LE can say the same thing. Why they'd pay attention to a tip alluding to such is far beyond me.

 

[geevee]

In this case it seems like anything is possible, LOL.

I was wondering if there were footprints by the bed that would suggest this. He had enough blood on his shoes to leave prints as he left the bedroom so I would assume there would be prints by the bed to suggest this.

I am cooking today. Thanksgiving here tomorrow for 30. Happy Holidays to all!

Happy Holidays to you too, Myvice!

 

[SMK]

It's obvious, that the gap of sollecitos toe is missing. In reality it isn't compatible with sollecito.

The measurements in the Massei report have the probability much higher with Sollecito than with Guede. I don't think it can be seen with precision with just the naked eye.

 

[Yellow]

Some psychics have been accurate in their information, I can't think of one occasion when a satanic cult was found responisble for a murder, and I bet most of LE can say the same thing. Why they'd pay attention to a tip alluding to such is far beyond me.

Along these same lines, I still have yet to find any case where a couple and a stranger get in on a murder together, you may have the couple alone committing murder but I never heard them joining in w a stranger

I also never heard of a case not only where roommates fight over cleaning but you also have 2 other people join in on the fight to murder the person who complained about the cleaning - when they barely knew the victim and where one of the perps barely knew the women who he suddenly felt so strongly about that he would now commit murder for.

Men may kill with a women for sex, they are NOT going to kill over cleaning or being quiet. Men don't get themselves involved in squabbles between women unless it involves them.

In fact has any man (or any person) anywhere killed anyone over a cleaning fight? There was a case posted yesterday of a stabbing (not murder) in a fight about electricity, but I never heard of this cleaning or quietness angle being a motive in any case. Those cases where stabbings do happen usually involved physical fights, w someone grabbing something in anger within easy reach. I doubt MK got in a physical fight w AK, I don't think MK was such a cleaning nut that she would punch someone out over it. Especially when guests were there. I also don't think MK would fight about being quiet,

 

[redheadedgal]

I really don't mean to be naïve but it seems that you are looking at one site that is discrediting the prosecutor and thinking that's fact because it follows with your beliefs, but discrediting another site that refutes Hampkipian because it doesn't follow your beliefs. JMO

mignini's conviction is fact (as many here like to say about AK and RS). the facts about his case can also be found on numerous sites (newspapers) other than IIP.

TJMK's assertion that GH distanced himself from the case is right there on the page steely linked.

that assertion was not a fact. it was speculation. and it was incorrect.

<modsnip>

 

[redheadedgal]

And ... in the very next sentence ...

"Appellant relies on Brenk v. State, 311 Ark. 579, 847 S.W.2d 1 (1993), to support his contention that the reference to &#8220;possible blood&#8221; requires reversal because the blood found underneath Hall's car was not conclusively proven to be Hall's own blood. &#8194; Appellant mischaracterizes this Court's ruling in Brenk. &#8194; The Brenk case confronted the issue of whether evidence of luminol testing should be allowed in light of the fact that luminol does not distinguish between certain metals, vegetable matter, human blood, or animal blood. This Court held that evidence about the use of luminol would not be admissible unless additional tests showed that the substance tested was human blood related to the alleged crime. Brenk clearly does not apply to the facts of the instant case because luminol was not used and because serological testing showed that the substance found underneath Hall's car was, in fact, human blood."

:facepalm:

This Court held that evidence about the use of luminol would not be admissible unless additional tests showed that the substance tested was human blood related to the alleged crime.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ar-supreme-court/1130394.

 

[Yellow]

The measurements in the Massei report have the probability much higher with Sollecito than with Guede. I don't think it can be seen with precision with just the naked eye.

Either way it is in dispute, maybe bc it is not on a fiat surface it makes it hard to tell. What the trial court said is not gospel, they were wrong on some thingsm and one cannot site to Massai as saying everything is settled, bc if that was the case this whole case would be over by now bc we would accept everything said in the trial courts report as true.

If it cannot be proven whose foot it is, given the necessity of proving that in light of all the bad DNA evidence and the doubts about the murder weapon, it makes the circumstantial case even weaker

Prosecution has to prove that footprint stuff without any reasonable argument to support the defense. Bc they have little else once you take away the bad DNA and the statement to police

Indeed the new appeals judge said that he finds no reason C&V is unreliable so I think we almost can take as given that the DNA evidence for bra and knife will be same as Hellmann report

The question then is that once you get rid of DNA can you still make out a circumstantial case without it. That is why footprints is key.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I don't know that the Luminol tests were discredited per se, just that secondary tests did not find dna, there may be other tests to determine what exactly the Luminol did react to, it may have been blood, just no dna was recoverable (or identifiable) for whatever reason - too little, degraded by other substances on the floor, etc).

When a presumptive test is positive, one should perform a confirmatory test. A positive forensic DNA test is not a confirmatory test for blood. "For example, while examining the clothing of a suspect, a forensic biologist might visually locate a brown stain that presumptively tested positive for blood and was then DNA typed. The DNA type is found to match the victim. Knowing that the loci tested are higher primate specific, what conclusions can be drawn? The only unqualified conclusion that can be offered is that the stain contains DNA that matches the victim. It has not been proven to be blood."

On the other hand if a separate confirmatory test for blood came up positive, then one would conclude that blood was present. "The method of choice today is the ABAcard® HemaTrace test strips manufactured by Abacus Diagnostics, Inc....The pink dye becomes visible as a band in the test region at concentrations of human hemoglobin above about 0.05 µg/ml."

 

[Yellow]

View attachment 39207Here are some images, but I am aware this is a pro-prosecution view and taken from Massei. I understand what you are saying - so you expect a similar ruling and motivational report as Hellmann?

I am not sure what they will say regarding guilt, but I am confident that at least the DNA findings of Hellmann will be the same, given that the judge said he sees no reason they are unreliable. And what evidence did prosecution submit to discredit C&V? They would need to discredit their qualifications and they did not.

Just in logic, who will they think is more reliable, the prosecution who was not even certified to do DNA testing let alone DNA testing for low carbon DNA OR experts from one of Italy's best forensic scientists, who the court picked out - and all parties I assumed concurred in? Not to mention that the C&V are supported by the work of 19 defense experts, leaders in DNA from the US who risk their reputation. I have worked w expert witnesses, most care more about their professional reputation than a few thousand extra bucks.

So I think the way to think of this case now is to accept that the DNA on bra and knife is essentially thrown out - can the prosecution still make a circumstantial case without it (as well as without the inadmissible police statement). This is essentially what the SC's problem with Hellmann was - he did not answer this question,maybe bc he thought that once you get rid of DNA, the case is pretty weak so he failed to address it.

To make out a claim of guilt, the footstep evidence is pretty much their main argument together w the cleaning story. It is whether you believe that evidence is so sound to prove that guilt is the only reasonable scenario.

The prosecution knows this too, that is why I think they emphasized some of these circumstantial factors a little more and why they sticked to the cleaning story, if they base this without the DNA, they have an ironclad verdict; AK has little chance on appeal. If they base it on DNA, this will get overturned at some point or the US will not extradite. No higher court is going to base a conviction on unreliable DNA evidence, they will not set that precedent.

With a circumstantial case without DNA there is little argument on appeal. Court of public opinion is another story. It should not matter, but it will be a huge deal in the media if they try to extradite her.

 

[SMK]

I am not sure what they will say regarding guilt, but I am confident that at least the DNA findings of Hellmann will be the same, given that the judge said he sees no reason they are unreliable. And what evidence did prosecution submit to discredit C&V? They would need to discredit their qualifications and they did not.

Just in logic, who will they think is more reliable, the prosecution who was not even certified to do DNA testing let alone DNA testing for low carbon DNA OR experts from one of Italy's best forensic scientists, who the court picked out - and all parties I assumed concurred in? Not to mention that the C&V are supported by the work of 19 defense experts, leaders in DNA from the US who risk their reputation. I have worked w expert witnesses, most care more about their professional reputation than a few thousand extra bucks.

So I think the way to think of this case now is to accept that the DNA on bra and knife is essentially thrown out - can the prosecution still make a circumstantial case without it (as well as without the inadmissible police statement). This is essentially what the SC's problem with Hellmann was - he did not answer this question,maybe bc he thought that once you get rid of DNA, the case is pretty weak so he failed to address it.

To make out a claim of guilt, the footstep evidence is pretty much their main argument together w the cleaning story. It is whether you believe that evidence is so sound to prove that guilt is the only reasonable scenario.

The prosecution knows this too, that is why I think they emphasized some of these circumstantial factors a little more and why they sticked to the cleaning story, if they base this without the DNA, they have an ironclad verdict; AK has little chance on appeal. If they base it on DNA, this will get overturned at some point or the US will not extradite. No higher court is going to base a conviction on unreliable DNA evidence, they will not set that precedent.

With a circumstantial case without DNA there is little argument on appeal. Court of public opinion is another story. It should not matter, but it will be a huge deal in the media if they try to extradite her.

I am aware that there would be a massive outcry, yes, in the media and in the public over here.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The measurements in the Massei report have the probability much higher with Sollecito than with Guede. I don't think it can be seen with precision with just the naked eye.

Elsewhere I have seen people overlay the measurements onto the print, and there is a striking lack of correspondence between the two. In addition, Rinaldi did slipshod work with respect to the two parallel lines on the pillowcase, and Vinci demolished his argument forcefully. Therefore, the parallel lines nonsense dents his credibility with respect to the bathmat, independent of the questionable validity of his measurements. He is not as bad as Louise Robbins, though.

 

[whoanellie]

:facepalm:

again, something wasn't read correctly. the 1993 brenk decision about luminol was used as part of the appeal in the ayers case. the judge in the ayers case determined the brenk cite re: inadmissibility of luminol wasn't valid to the current 1998 case. this in no way invalidates the 1993 court's determination about the requirements for luminol evidence.

Up above I posted some other cases. I had not seen your post about the Brenk case.

 

[Yellow]

When a presumptive test is positive, one should perform a confirmatory test. A positive forensic DNA test is not a confirmatory test for blood. "For example, while examining the clothing of a suspect, a forensic biologist might visually locate a brown stain that presumptively tested positive for blood and was then DNA typed. The DNA type is found to match the victim. Knowing that the loci tested are higher primate specific, what conclusions can be drawn? The only unqualified conclusion that can be offered is that the stain contains DNA that matches the victim. It has not been proven to be blood."

On the other hand if a separate confirmatory test for blood came up positive, then one would conclude that blood was present. "The method of choice today is the ABAcard® HemaTrace test strips manufactured by Abacus Diagnostics, Inc....The pink dye becomes visible as a band in the test region at concentrations of human hemoglobin above about 0.05 µg/ml."

Chris, someone yesterday said the reason why there is blood but not DNA is because of the white blood cells (or red, I am not sure which). Given your biochemistry background what is your view? Can you have blood without DNA? Why no MK DNA here and is that significant that there is no MK DNA?

 

[SMK]

Elsewhere I have seen people overlay the measurements onto the print, and there is a striking lack of correspondence between the two. In addition, Rinaldi did slipshod work with respect to the two parallel lines, and Vinci demolished his argument forcefully. Therefore, I question Rinaldi's objectivity. He is not as bad as Louise Robbins, though.

Yes, I understand they had a vested interest in making the match - although I had hoped the measurements would be empirical and objective. I see on IIP that they believe there was a real error in the measurements (see attached) and link

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-03.html

 

[Yellow]

I am aware that there would be a massive outcry, yes, in the media and in the public over here.

The reason I mention it is AK will have no problem making out a case if the decision is based on bad DNA, but if it is upheld as a circumstantial case, I am not sure there is much they can legally do. Yet the public outcry will be insane, bc even if they do not rely on DNA, the narrative will be all about the DNA. In that situation, I don't know what will happen re extradiction.

Even if convicted, I don't think they would extradite her. At worse, they would make her serve in a US prison, they can make deals like that, like at some point they were trying to do that for holloway case for him to serve in Holland, though it did not work out for some reason. AK will never serve time in an Italian prison, I am confident,

 

[redheadedgal]

Up above I posted some other cases. I had not seen your post about the Brenk case.

awesome! and only one case was requested lol