Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #16

[SMK]

Who said the rest of the evidence is going to be "discussed by judges in private?" aren't there also "jurors" who need to hear it? I needs a cite on that before believing Maundy.

Come to think of it, you are likely right. Why did I believe him so quickly?:waitasec:

 

[wasnt_me]

Comments on places like Yahoo are not an indication of what the public thinks..lol

Most of the people commenting are from certain websites or have agendas. I think most of the general public don't have an opinion on this case, and the ones that do are split on G vs NG.

True. A lot of people don't even know who AK and RS even are or they forgot about the case.

 

[SkewedView]

Who said the rest of the evidence is going to be "discussed by judges in private?" aren't there also "jurors" who need to hear it? I needs a cite on that before believing Maundy.

The Jurors would be included in such discussions, just like in the regular Italian trials. Recall, the Judges are part of the Jury. I have pointed out in my old 'how the Italian Justice System works' posts that they can discuss and rule on any and all aspects of the original trial, without having to waste the time and resources involved in holding such discussions in open court (not that it would be ethical for them to do such a thing in public view anyway).

 

[wasnt_me]

I assume this isn't the only thread you read at WS, so I also assume you know how rare it is for a case to generate so many posts and posters who believe the guilty verdicts are erroneous. We can't all be shrugged off as dupes of the Knox so-called p.r. "machine." At most, the Knoxes and their allies never had a fraction of the resources that went into demonizing "Foxy Knoxy."

I'm not saying this means you have to agree she is innocent. But the volume of research that has gone into most of our opinions that AK and RS have not been proven guilty is staggering. Might be something to think about.

Worth repeating. There is no conspiracy of the media. At the beginning of this thing, AK was the same as devil. Now that mistakes are being uncovered, one can't say the media suddenly bought into her PR machine.

 

[wasnt_me]

:welcome3::wagon:

Just dropping by to say "yay!". I'm so glad all the botched forensics are coming into the court.
This case is over.
The conviction won't stand. (I have been shocked before though!)

The whole scenario was so over-the-top ridiculous though that I am still mad it has taken this long to put before the court the experts that should have been able to assess the shoddy forensics years ago.

 

[wasnt_me]

Come to think of it, you are likely right. Why did I believe him so quickly?:waitasec:

I don't know if it's right or wrong, but I think that would be an odd detour from the way the case has been unfolding so far. I dont see a valid reason Hellman would retreat to private chambers to deliberate anything BUT the verdict.

I've never heard of open court turning into private chambers before. Anyone else?

 

[wasnt_me]

The Jurors would be included in such discussions, just like in the regular Italian trials. Recall, the Judges are part of the Jury. I have pointed out in my old 'how the Italian Justice System works' posts that they can discuss and rule on any and all aspects of the original trial, without having to waste the time and resources involved in holding such discussions in open court (not that it would be ethical for them to do such a thing in public view anyway).

Again, I never heard of this. So then AK and RS no longer have the right to hear their appeal?

I would be so disappointed if they did this, and at this point, I don't think Perugia can afford not to be completely transparent. But we'll see....

 

[wasnt_me]

I just had a thought while cleaning my carpets.

I do not know how the judge and jury can look at another piece of evidence evaluated by PS without having this report in the their minds. Everything is just skeptical now. suspect, don't you think?

If I were the judge or the jury, I personally wouldn't feel comfortable taking any other piece of evidence at face value.

 

[Allusonz]

Comments on places like Yahoo are not an indication of what the public thinks..lol

Most of the people commenting are from certain websites or have agendas. I think most of the general public don't have an opinion on this case, and the ones that do are split on G vs NG.

Ultimately there is only one judge here and that is the appeals court.

Having said that it will be very difficult for them not to overturn this contrary to somes opinions as this report crucified every step of the forensics

 

[Allusonz]

Note no Nadeau

" Forensics experts confirmed on Monday that investigators made major errors while collecting genetic evidence used against the Seattle native in trial, wearing dirty gloves, not wearing caps, and not following proper "protocols and procedures."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats...t/cheat-sheet+(The+Daily+Beast+-+Cheat+Sheet)

 

[Allusonz]

Just dropping by to say "yay!". I'm so glad all the botched forensics are coming into the court.
This case is over.
The conviction won't stand. (I have been shocked before though!)

The whole scenario was so over-the-top ridiculous though that I am still mad it has taken this long to put before the court the experts that should have been able to assess the shoddy forensics years ago.

Good to see you back again trillian. Have missed your posts!!

 

[Allusonz]

I know you like Mignini, SMK, but I don't believe Stefanoni falsified and forced results without consulting with somebody.

Maybe it wasn't Mignini; maybe it was the lead investigator.

But I don't believe she took these sorts of career risks without being told what she was expected to find.

I believe that there has been a group mentality that Frank has often referred to in his blogs. This is not the work of one individual but a group and it seems that they have done this very thing for a very long time.

I will hope that there is an investigation and that changes are made and lessons are learned

 

[Allusonz]

<modsnip>?

I'm sorry, but the media reports what it wants, how it wants, and they could give two figs what anyone thinks as long as it works for their agenda of the moment. Is the media going overboard towards the pro-innocence angle right now? Sure, just as they did the same in the opposite direction early in the case (though they seem to be more tasteful about it this time around) - but nobody is to blame for that except for the usual suspects - the media itself, which is as trustworthy as a scorpion.


Regarding the expert report: They did exactly what they were supposed to do: investigate the entire process that led to Stephanoni's findings, from start to finish, since they couldn't reproduce her results. That most every step in the process, from the crime scene to the lab, was replete with sloppy, unprofessional behavior is nobody's fault but PLE and their lab cohorts. What do you propose, that the experts ignore the egregious incompetence displayed by these supposed professionals? That they abandon the basic precepts behind peer review and just become a pair of bobble-heads? If the report seems aggressive, maybe that is a sign of just how badly PLE & company messed things up? Is that really so unbelievable after Mignini himself said in a recorded interview that he wished he had been able to work with the Military Police instead, as he found the Perugian LE to be unprofessional and lacking in detachment?



I do however wholeheartedly agree with you that this is all in the air still - and will be for a good while yet. If there is one thing that I have learned in researching the Italian courts, it's that you can never predict their rulings.

This requires more than a thanks.

What is more amazing is that now some are trying to state that:

1. There are the mixed BLOOD profiles of Three now
2. The Knox PR firm paid the independent experts
3. The Mafia paid the experts

This list is much longer but am too tired to type it all out

It is why I am now asking those that believe them to be guilty what their standards for reasonable doubt are as there simply comes a point where you have to say ok this is the line I have for reasonable doubt

 

[Allusonz]

Hope this helps AK because I believe in her innocence.

:welcome:

hands you a designer straight jacket :giggle:

 

[Allusonz]

ah, I see what you're saying (about the collection issue) but what about the experts saying "no dna" found on clasp -
isn't there a difference between no dna vs. contaminated dna.

this issue I don't understand.

The DNA is in the LCN DNA range. I believe the knife is 10 picograms or less. If an item is contaminated it must be invalidated and both these items should never of even been presented at trial. The testing on the knife has never been documented in any scientific journals. She made it up. If they cannot confirm or repeat the test it is invalidated.

The bra clasp is as well in the LCN DNA range. It is stated

"We can not exclude that the results obtained may result from the phenomena of environmental contamination and / or contamination arising at any stage of the repertoire and / or manipulation of reperto&#8221;. finding. "

http://translate.google.com/transla...-sollecito-la-verita-e-che-non-ci-sono-prove/

 

[SkewedView]

Again, I never heard of this. So then AK and RS no longer have the right to hear their appeal?

I would be so disappointed if they did this, and at this point, I don't think Perugia can afford not to be completely transparent. But we'll see....

Ah, I see where the misunderstanding is. The out of sight debates would be on the actual rulings and reasonings of Massai, which of course many of us consider to be illogical nonsense at best...

Any actual expert reviews would be done just like this last one, of course, but for most of the items in the RS appeal document, the refuting testimony was provided in the original trial - Massai simply chose to ignore that testimony, or to go so far as to discredit the expert himself for the stupidest of reasons (how can a Judge not know that ballistics is the study of moving objects, which a thrown rock of course is?:waitasec. This court may choose to take a different view on any of these points, based simply on the transcripts from the original trial and their own logic/common sense. Remember, Italian Law requires that verdicts be accompanied by a document detailing what motivated said verdict, in detail (thus the existance of the Massai report), so this court will need to decide how much of the former court's reasoning it agrees/disagrees with so that it can comply with the above Law.

 

[wasnt_me]

Note no Nadeau

" Forensics experts confirmed on Monday that investigators made major errors while collecting genetic evidence used against the Seattle native in trial, wearing dirty gloves, not wearing caps, and not following proper "protocols and procedures."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats...t/cheat-sheet+(The+Daily+Beast+-+Cheat+Sheet)

Well, to be fair...I saw SOME caps, just hair was hanging out of them!
:floorlaugh:

 

[wasnt_me]

The DNA is in the LCN DNA range. I believe the knife is 10 picograms or less. If an item is contaminated it must be invalidated and both these items should never of even been presented at trial. The testing on the knife has never been documented in any scientific journals. She made it up. If they cannot confirm or repeat the test it is invalidated.

The bra clasp is as well in the LCN DNA range. It is stated

"We can not exclude that the results obtained may result from the phenomena of environmental contamination and / or contamination arising at any stage of the repertoire and / or manipulation of reperto”. finding. "

http://translate.google.com/transla...-sollecito-la-verita-e-che-non-ci-sono-prove/

And it's that last part you bolded that I'm going with.

 

[wasnt_me]

Ah, I see where the misunderstanding is. The out of sight debates would be on the actual rulings and reasonings of Massai, which of course many of us consider to be illogical nonsense at best...

Any actual expert reviews would be done just like this last one, of course, but for most of the items in the RS appeal document, the refuting testimony was provided in the original trial - Massai simply chose to ignore that testimony, or to go so far as to discredit the expert himself for the stupidest of reasons (how can a Judge not know that ballistics is the study of moving objects, which a thrown rock of course is?:waitasec. This court may choose to take a different view on any of these points, based simply on the transcripts from the original trial and their own logic/common sense. Remember, Italian Law requires that verdicts be accompanied by a document detailing what motivated said verdict, in detail (thus the existance of the Massai report), so this court will need to decide how much of the former court's reasoning it agrees/disagrees with so that it can comply with the above Law.

This is what the Maud article said:

Most of this evidence isn&#8217;t due to get discussed again in court. It will, instead, be discussed by the judges in private. So, whatever happens over the next few sessions, it may be that there is no real indication of what the verdict will be until the moment it is announced.

I do not understand this.

I do no understand who the judges, without the jury, are going to discuss this "in private." maybe he's referring to the rest of the jury as lay judges in this instance, but still, every other bit of evidence has been laid out and disputed in court, according to the requests of the appeals of the defendants. I do not understand why they would suddenly decide that the judges and layjudges are going to go in a room and shut out the lawyers, the defendants, and the prosecution to make "private" deliberations about this rest of this "crucial" evidence that others feel will still convict the pair.

I don't even think they CAN do it at this point because, after that report, how in the world do they trust that what's been investigated is even right? After Massaei said no to things that Hellman agreed to, which turned out to be game changers, how could Hellman possibly trust Massaei's other choices in the first trial?

Anyways, that's besides the point because my main point, if you will please suffer me, is I don't understand how they can go in closed chambers. I get that he might mean the layjudges, too, but still don't understand how they are allowed to take this behind closed doors.

Thanks!

ETA: cause if they mean:

1. the footprints, we already know there's a dispute there over the measurements.
2. TOD--we already know at least 3 experts agreed on VERY different times.
3. Alibi--we all know their alibi was sabotaged by the postal police.

And I'm just getting started! So anything they try to make a closed decision choice about, I'll bet you will come right back up to bite them in the butt before the supreme court.

Someone said in here that you can't believe that every bit of evidence from the prosecution is incorrect. I believe you can believe that. Because if someone is actually innocent, then the circumstantial evidence is just being interpreted incorrectly. Period. Evidence of guilt can NEVER be correct if the person is in fact innocent.

I'll have to sit and think about what evidence in this case that does not point to guilt that I believe, that the prosecution also presented, just interpreted wrong. Offhand, I come up with

1. RS's knife collection.
2. AK's DNA on the knife from RS's house.
3. A hard to substantiate alibi

I'll think more, but yeah, the prosecution was right that these things above existed, but they dont mean the two are guilty. Let me know if any of you come up with some.

 

[SkewedView]

Oh my, I don't think that this is a good way to get on the Judge's good side:

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2011/07/24/news/update-2-courtroom-was-chuckling-court-appointed-

"Stefanoni and (Co-Prosecutor Manuela) Comodi at the beginning were giggling, trying to laugh it off. Then about two hours into it they weren't laughing any more. Comodi started asking the forensics experts questions, and tried to start an argument. These experts are the court's experts, so they are arguing with the court. The judge slammed his hand down on the table and yelled, 'You will not speak, you will be quiet. And then she was.

Ouch.