Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #16

[SkewedView]

This is what the Maud article said:



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!

If you take a look at the RS appeal document, it goes into great detail on each point as to why Massai ruled incorrectly, with references to where the court can look to back those assertions up. The court of course has access to the transcripts etc of the previous trial, which contain the arguments of both sides, so if they were to debate this stuff in session, everyone would be standing around while the Judges and Lay-Judges did the twelve angry men routine...a waste of time, and not ethical to boot, as such a debate is part of the process of reaching a verdict, and thus should occur behind closed doors.

Now, if in the process, they decide that Massai erred in denying independent review of X, Y or Z, then they would then call a new session to arrange for such a review, but the discussion that led up to that point would be private, just as the discussion of the findings of such a review would be.

To put it plain, while evidence and testimony must be presented in the public eye or not at all, the public has no right or need to be privy to the decision making process of Judges or Juries. That we get Motivational Reports in Italy is quite enough to be thankful for, IMO.


ETA: Basically the process we are talking about can be looked at as a drawn out version of normal Jury deliberations, where two of the Jurists have the power to ask for additional tests/reviews/testimony as needed.

 

[evelyn24]

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-





Ouch.

Ouch indeed.

 

[evelyn24]

There is nothing to tie these two kids to MK's brutal murder; this is such a farce. I hope the appellate court sees it my way.

 

[emyr]

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-





Ouch.

The fact that they found rye on the handle of that knife is actually extremely damaging to the prosecution.

If this was the knife that murdered Meredith, it should have been coated in blood, and should have been thoroughly cleaned up. Aggressively, thoroughly. So thoroughly that there were only 7 cells left of Meredith's DNA on the very tip of it.

This clean up left a tiny trace of Meredith and yet also left rye starch on the handle? And no DNA or blood trace on the handle?

When I was shown the image of the results from that knife, even though it was a low copy number, it seemed very clear that Meredith's profile was present. I believed the results were unusable because of sound science reasons, but still the results were troubling. How did these guys get to be so unlucky?

But rye starch remaining on the handle... the knife has now gone from "not meeting scientific standards" to *impossible for me to imagine* that it was the murder weapon.

Which leaves two scenarios:

1) There was contamination somewhere along the line
2) Someone planted the evidence.

Since the DNA was in such tiny quantities, I discount planting. They would have done a better job planting it.

That means contamination. Most likely in the lab.

This was a key piece of evidence. So key that a lot of trouble was gone to to test it. It should have been treated with the most sacrosanct respect.

That means that any DNA result below the 200 RFU threshhold is extremely suspect.

EDITED TO CORRECT: my use of the word "absolute certainty". There's no such thing as absolute certainty and I shoudln't have used the words.

 

[sherlockh]

The fact that they found rye on the handle of that knife is actually extremely damaging to the prosecution.

If this was the knife that murdered Meredith, it should have been coated in blood, and should have been thoroughly cleaned up. Aggressively, thoroughly. So thoroughly that there were only 7 cells left of Meredith's DNA on the very tip of it.

This clean up left a tiny trace of Meredith and yet also left rye starch on the handle? And no DNA or blood trace on the handle?

When I was shown the image of the results from that knife, even though it was a low copy number, it seemed very clear that Meredith's profile was present. I believed the results were unusable because of sound science reasons, but still the results were troubling. How did these guys get to be so unlucky?

But rye starch remaining on the handle... the knife has now gone from "not meeting scientific standards" to absolute certainty that it was not the murder weapon.

Which leaves two scenarios:

1) There was contamination somewhere along the line
2) Someone planted the evidence.

Since the DNA was in such tiny quantities, I discount planting. They would have done a better job planting it.

That means contamination. Most likely in the lab.

This was a key piece of evidence. So key that a lot of trouble was gone to to test it. It should have been treated with the most sacrosanct respect.

That means that any DNA result below the 200 RFU threshhold is extremely suspect.

'Absolute certainty'. The blood was on the top half of the blade. Starch near the handle doesn't mean a thing. You could even say that it indicates that AK didn't clean it all that thoroughly making it more likely that a bit of MK's DNA was found on the tip. I agree that the defense will claim contamination. That is just my opinion, so not absolute certain

 

[Nova]

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.

Yes. I don't see how anyone believes AK and RS can still be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt given what we know about the errors--accidental and deliberate--made by PLE.

(This isn't to say the Perugia court won't still declare them guilty, just that the evidence is too unreliable to be credible.)

 

[Nova]

'Absolute certainty'. The blood was on the top half of the blade. Starch near the handle doesn't mean a thing. You could even say that it indicates that AK didn't clean it all that thoroughly making it more likely that a bit of MK's DNA was found on the tip. I agree that the defense will claim contamination. That is just my opinion, so not absolute certain

Starch near the handle means that as in so many other places, AK and RS magically cleaned blood off the handle while leaving starch.

It's time to give up on that knife. It was always an unlikely murder weapon, but now we know for certain it has nothing to do with the crime.

 

[emyr]

Current evidence promoting guilt for Sollecitot:

1. Is there a plausible explanation for Raffaelle's DNA being on the clasp? (I'm still troubled by this)

Evidence I have dismissed but others might not:
Bloody bathmat footprint:
1) Massai report says it is to be used to rule out someone, not to rule them in.
2) No Sollecito DNA in bathroom.
3) No other blood related DNA tying him to the crime.

Self-serving stories. (these should probably be separately itemized)
1) I don't think making up alibis in your diary counts as guilt
2) Changing the time for when you had dinner doesn't indicate guilt either imo.

He helped create a staged break-in and we know this because he knew nothing was stolen when he shouldn't have known that.
1) Amanda's things weren't stolen and Filomena's valuable things were lying in her room. He could assume there was no theft if a laptop had not been stolen. Sure, he should have said "I don't think anything is stolen." But you can hardly blame him for assuming nothing was stolen after he saw valuable things still lying around unstolen.


Evidence I think no one should use:
Knife:
1) Rye Starch is left on the knife but not blood because it was thoroughly cleaned? Impossible.
2) And it's toted from Raffaele's place to the cottage and then back? Bizarre and not realistic.

He said he called the police but lied. He called the police after they showed up.
1) False.

He was seen by a homeless man the night of the murder when he said he was home with Amanda.
1) False. Proven beyond a doubt because the witness saw buses that night and there were no buses, not even for the discos which were closed.

His bloody shoeprints were found at the scene of the crime.
1) False, as written in the Massai report. There was one print that was somewhat contested and said to match Raffaele's Nike shoes... shoes that had an almost identical tread pattern to Rudy's shoes. So you must believe that Raffaelle happened to wear Nike's with an almost identical tread pattern to Rudy's the night of the murder and left only one footprint in the murder room. Or the shoeprint is Rudy's and is slightly altered from being on cloth.



He did not try hard enough to kick down Meredith's door.
1) The fact that there was proof he tried to kick it down means he tried to kick it down. (The postal police saw evidence of this). So he's supposed to not want the door open so no one suspects him, so he kicks the door enough for it to almost break? Doesn't fly. Or he is trying to kick the door to get back Amanda's lamp, but yet he is faulted because it is easy to kick down the door? Can't have it both ways.

He didn't crowd near the door when it was broken down because he already knew what was there.
1) Amanda was on the phone with her mother during this moment to explain what was happening and Raffaelle stayed beside her.


**********
I think if the bra evidence goes there is no compelling evidence for Raffaelle's guilt. The only exception is that he provided an alibi for Amanda, so if Amanda is guilty he must be guilty because he corroborated her alibi.

I think that doesn't fly because you could say she brainwashed him into beliving her story. After all, if she is influential enough to make him commit murder, then certainly she is able to convince him her alibi is true.

 

[emyr]

'Absolute certainty'. The blood was on the top half of the blade. Starch near the handle doesn't mean a thing. You could even say that it indicates that AK didn't clean it all that thoroughly making it more likely that a bit of MK's DNA was found on the tip. I agree that the defense will claim contamination. That is just my opinion, so not absolute certain

You're right, I should say "absolute certainty" for me. Actually I shouldn't use that word at all.

But the mathematical likelihood of stabbing someone in the neck with a kitchen knife, and the resulting wound ONLY leaving blood on half of the blade is extremely unlikely, especially given the blood spray that is evident in the room. The mechanics of this working out to leave starch on the blade is impossible for me to imagine. If you can come up with a plausible scenario, I'm all ears.

And the prosecution states the knife was thoroughly cleaned and that's why they found it suspicious. So was it thoroughly cleaned or not?

Very hinky.

 

[Nova]

emyr, given what we know of its collection and the fact that it was destroyed soon after, how can you even include the knife as evidence? How did RS get his DNA on just a clasp and nowhere else on the bra (or even in the room, for all we know)? If the clasp wasn't planted for the internet broadcast, it was the result on contamination. And even if it wasn't, we have no way of knowing.

I agree with you about "halfway" breaking in the door. How could RS possibly know how much force was necessary to "halfway" break anything?

 

[SMK]

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-





Ouch.

OMG

 

[sherlockh]

You're right, I should say "absolute certainty" for me. Actually I shouldn't use that word at all.

But the mathematical likelihood of stabbing someone in the neck with a kitchen knife, and the resulting wound ONLY leaving blood on half of the blade is extremely unlikely, especially given the blood spray that is evident in the room. The mechanics of this working out to leave starch on the blade is impossible for me to imagine. If you can come up with a plausible scenario, I'm all ears.

And the prosecution states the knife was thoroughly cleaned and that's why they found it suspicious. So was it thoroughly cleaned or not?

Very hinky.

The knife was collected by a police officer because it looked shiny clean and was laying on top. The guy said he had a hunch. Make of it whatever you will. It is what it is..lol.. There most likely was some blood on the handle as well, but it wasn't covered totally in blood like the top of the blade. The handle is covered by her hand. If Meredith's DNA can remain on the blade then why wouldn't a little starch remain near the handle? We also can't be absolutely sure if the starch was there already in the first place or did it get there sometime after the cleaning. So what can we say with absolute certainty about the starch? Nothing. You will never hear about any starch again IMO.

 

[SMK]

From Perugia Shock:

Scientists Conti and Vecchiotti attack the police:

THE GIANT WITH THE FEET OF STARCH

http://perugiashock.com/2011/07/25/scientists-conti-and-vecchiotti-attack-the-police/

 

[SkewedView]

The knife was collected by a police officer because it looked shiny clean and was laying on top. The guy said he had a hunch. Make of it whatever you will. It is what it is..lol.. There most likely was some blood on the handle as well, but it wasn't covered totally in blood like the top of the blade. The handle is covered by her hand. If Meredith's DNA can remain on the blade then why wouldn't a little starch remain near the handle? We also can't be absolutely sure if the starch was there already in the first place or did it get there sometime after the cleaning. So what can we say with absolute certainty about the starch? Nothing. You will never hear about any starch again IMO.

The point about the starch - along with the confirmation of normal usage type levels of AK's DNA on the handle and the total lack of any bleach is that there was no 'thourough cleaning'. This piece of 'evidence' was bunk from the start - otherwise they would have used standard police procedure and collected all knives in the apartment to test.

When LE just grabs one knife among many, far from the scene of the crime and in a normal, non-suspicious location to boot, and calls it the murder weapon (even though their own experts say that it doesn't fit most of the wounds), and then can't repeat their tests, the hinky meter should go off the scale, and any Judge that doesn't look at it as dubious at best is either incompetent or too biased to deserve to wear those robes...

And the independent experts tested the entire knife for blood and found not a single trace. None. Zero. Zip. So I don't see where you get this idea that 'there was probably some blood on the handle', or that the tip was 'totally covered in blood'.


ETA: And Stephanoni herself came up with negative blood tests as well. Why she then went ahead and labeled some sample areas 'presumed blood' is a mystery at best...I won't bother with going into the implications of this decision of hers...

 

[SkewedView]

I find it amusing that after all these years of hearing constant cries of 'she lies, she lies!' regarding AK, there is silence after the experts provided direct, undeniable proof that Stephanoni and members of PLE blatantly lied in their testimony.

Well, I guess I'll have to say it then. Stephanoni - She lies! She lies! :crazy:

 

[SkewedView]

From Perugia Shock:

http://perugiashock.com/2011/07/25/scientists-conti-and-vecchiotti-attack-the-police/

Regardless of what people may say about Frank, this very in-depth analysis is incredible work. Very informative.

 

[sherlockh]

The point about the starch - along with the confirmation of normal usage type levels of AK's DNA on the handle and the total lack of any bleach is that there was no 'thourough cleaning'. This piece of 'evidence' was bunk from the start - otherwise they would have used standard police procedure and collected all knives in the apartment to test.

When LE just grabs one knife among many, far from the scene of the crime and in a normal, non-suspicious location to boot, and calls it the murder weapon (even though their own experts say that it doesn't fit most of the wounds), and then can't repeat their tests, the hinky meter should go off the scale, and any Judge that doesn't look at it as dubious at best is either incompetent or too biased to deserve to wear those robes...

And the independent experts tested the entire knife for blood and found not a single trace. None. Zero. Zip. So I don't see where you get this idea that 'there was probably some blood on the handle', or that the tip was 'totally covered in blood'.

ETA: And Stephanoni herself came up with negative blood tests as well. Why she then went ahead and labeled some sample areas 'presumed blood' is a mystery at best...I won't bother with going into the implications of this decision of hers...

There was just one shiny knife on top. There weren't many knifes. I can understand that they didn't collect the bread knife. The guy picked it because he picked it. What else can I say about that? They didn't come there to drink tea. It does fit the major wound on MK, as was proven in court by the experts. That there was no more blood after retesting was expected since there was very little to begin with. Negative blood tests is also old news.

The blood on the handle came up in the argument that the whole knife would be covered in blood and therefore there would be no starch since they would have cleaned the entire knife. I hope I say this right

What is more interesting is if the judges will agree that standard testing protocols weren't followed concerning the knife, and that therefore the testing result will be discounted.

 

[sherlockh]

I find it amusing that after all these years of hearing constant cries of 'she lies, she lies!' regarding AK, there is silence after the experts provided direct, undeniable proof that Stephanoni and members of PLE blatantly lied in their testimony.

Well, I guess I'll have to say it then. Stephanoni - She lies! She lies! :crazy:

Silence? Where?

 

[SMK]

Regardless of what people may say about Frank, this very in-depth analysis is incredible work. Very informative.

Yes, I agree.....He always is!

 

[SkewedView]

There was just one shiny knife on top. There weren't many knifes. I can understand that they didn't collect the bread knife. The guy picked it because he picked it. What else can I say about that? They didn't come there to drink tea. It does fit the major wound on MK, as was proven in court by the experts. That there was no more blood after retesting was expected since there was very little to begin with. Negative blood tests is also old news.

The blood on the handle came up in the argument that the whole knife would be covered in blood and therefore there would be no starch since they would have cleaned the entire knife. I hope I say this right

What is more interesting is if the judges will agree that standard testing protocols weren't followed concerning the knife, and that therefore the testing result will be discounted.

I'm sorry, but regardless of the country you are in, it has been standard practice for a century that when you are executing this type of search, you cart away all potential evidence, period. This ensures that you will not miss anything, and also assures the courts that the search was done in good faith. This type of incident is typical of dirty investigations, which this entire affair reeks of being. Seriously - it was more shiny? That LEO (whichever one it was, seeing as two of them claim to have recovered the stupid thing:waitasec: ) should have been reamed out by his superiors for making them look like idiots and sent back to do a serious search and seizure.

Then again, this seems to be typical of PLE, to just take a few items with them and leave tons of potential evidence just lying around (after making a mess of the place - there is nothing methodical about their procedures). I guess that when you have a shill in the lab willing to lie on the stand for you, professionalism and protocol don't really matter too much.

As far as the 'proven fit', the wound was shown to kinda sorta fit the blade, if it was only partially inserted (which given the violence of that strike, makes absolutely no sense). It fits no other wounds, doesn't fit the bloody knife outline on the bed, no other weapon has been offered by PLE, and as just mentioned, little effort was made to find one. Not very convincing 'proof', IMO.

Regarding the blood - once again, Stephanoni herself tested for blood and came up negative, but labeled her findings 'potential blood' anyway. :waitasec: Add in the fact that even with the DNA sample used up, if there had been blood there at all, then tests for blood traces should have come up positive for the experts anyway...yeah, I really don't get the defense of this 'evidence'.