Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #16

[SMK]

There is a sort of "game over" victory aura to the defense now. It has been said that putting down the independent experts would only alienate Judge Hellman at this point, and that Stephanoni is really done for. I hope the optimism is warranted, as in this excerpt from the Knox continuation forum discussion:

The court must decide "not guilty" at this point. The court cannot decide to re-examine just three pieces of evidence, have them all blow up in most spectacular fashion, and then go against the advice of its own experts in returning a guilty verdict. Otherwise, the whole exercise would appear farcical and Hellmann would be the joke. Won't happen.

It is curious that the court has not examined computers and TOD, which in combination would create an alibi amounting to a finding of "actual innocence" as opposed to "not guilty." With Curatalo out of the way, I believe that the record does contain enough information to push TOD back to the 9:00 to 10:00 range (phones, Skype, food). This is certainly enough to establish a partial alibi, which, given that someone else has already been convicted of the murder, should be enough to acquit.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=215085&page=4

http://www.umbria24.it/meredith-in-aula-i-periti-per-le-tracce-di-dna-sui-reperti-foto-f-troccoli/52473.html

 

[sherlockh]

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'.

You make it sound as if they should have collected half the kitchen. It doesn't work like that. They collected the suspicious kitchen knife. Nothing wrong with that. They also collected RS's personal knife which could have well caused the other wounds, and seems to match the bed print. Unfortunately no DNA on that one. So if anybody really thinks they planted evidence to frame these kids then why no DNA on that knife?

Again the real question is will this test result be accepted by the appeal court. And isn't it funny that for years I read posts that this knife doesn't mean a thing since AK's DNA on the handle doesn't connect her to the murder, but now it is suddenly the one and only piece of evidence...lol...

 

[Sonata]

And isn't it funny that for years I read posts that this knife doesn't mean a thing since AK's DNA on the handle doesn't connect her to the murder, but now it is suddenly the one and only piece of evidence...lol...

I can't speak for everybody else but my understanding is that they were saying the knife is of no significance because the DNA was so low and of course AK would be on the handle as she cooked at RS's place. It was also the ONLY piece of evidence that directly connected AK to the murder.

What I'm saying is that those two views are not incompatible at all so it isn't that strange to hear people saying both things.

 

[emyr]

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?

Well, if the justice system is predicated on "innocent until proven guilty" I agree with you.

For me, the problem is the knife seems impossible to explain as a murder weapon. If it is impossible to explain because the scenarios are so implausible then that means the knife got contaminated somewhere along the line. Since the amount of the DNA was low it's unlikely to be planted or they would have done a better job of it.

But, if there are three DNA profiles on the bra clasp, and if Sollecito's ratio of DNA to Meredith's DNA is 8 to 1, then it is STILL highly implausible that it's not Raffaelle's DNA on there. There's not copious amounts of RS's DNA there, but there's not super-tiny amounts either. I read over the Massai parts where he went through exactly the scenarios RS's DNA could have been deposited at the scene and it would always be a highly unlucky confluence of events to cause the contamination.

On the other hand, I believe the lab must have contaminated the knife because there's no way it could be the murder weapon. However, if RS's DNA is the result of lab contamination, it is three times the amount of the contamination of the knife and it also just so happens to be RS, the person who probably had the least amount of DNA in the machines and the lab.

So it's still a troubling piece of evidence. However, since we are supposed to lean in favor of innocent until proven guilty, then we must dismiss it. But there is a difference, as others have said, in "not proven guilty" as opposed to "clearly innocent" in people's minds.

...
But. But! I am not giving weight to the fact that Mignini was found guilty of prosecutorial misconduct. I am not giving weight to the fact that the Massai report said nothing had been removed or brought into the room (it had). I am not giving weight to the fact that Massai said gloves were changed (they hadn't been). I'm not giving weight to thef act that Massai said there had been zero evidence of contamination in the lab (I believe there has to have been). And I'm not giving weight to the fact that Stefanoni was actively looking at the evidence for proof that Sollecito was guilty (as evidenced by her excluding anything that might undermine her evidence and not turning over that information to the defense in accordance with the law).

 

[sherlockh]

I can't speak for everybody else but my understanding is that they were saying the knife is of no significance because the DNA was so low and of course AK would be on the handle as she cooked at RS's place. It was also the ONLY piece of evidence that directly connected AK to the murder.

What I'm saying is that those two views are not incompatible at all so it isn't that strange to hear people saying both things.

How can it ever connect her directly to the murder if her DNA can be from cooking? It is circumstantial evidence just like the rest of the evidence.

 

[Sonata]

How can it ever connect her directly to the murder if her DNA can be from cooking? It is circumstantial evidence just like the rest of the evidence.

Because they were claiming that MK's blood was found on the blade, even though now we hear that isn't so.

It was the key forensic evidence connecting AK to the murder scene.

 

[SkewedView]

You make it sound as if they should have collected half the kitchen. It doesn't work like that. They collected the suspicious kitchen knife. Nothing wrong with that. They also collected RS's personal knife which could have well caused the other wounds, and seems to match the bed print. Unfortunately no DNA on that one. So if anybody really thinks they planted evidence to frame these kids then why no DNA on that knife?

Again the real question is will this test result be accepted by the appeal court. And isn't it funny that for years I read posts that this knife doesn't mean a thing since AK's DNA on the handle doesn't connect her to the murder, but now it is suddenly the one and only piece of evidence...lol...

At the time, they had no idea what the murder weapon looked like, and so yes, they should have grabbed every darned knife and knife-like object in that apartment, as well as from the cottage. That is what a normal search and seizure would entail. But no, we get a guy (or two?) grabbing one knife and ignoring the rest. For an idiotic reason. Yeah, that makes sense.

Who needs planted evidence when you have a lying shill in the lab to hide, twist, fudge and just plain make up test results for you? Seriously, the demo that was done yesterday proves with their own words and pictures that Stephanoni and at least certain members of PLE don't hesitate to blatantly lie on the stand in order to get the results that they want, so it makes sense to wonder where else they've done this. Especially given that Stephanoni's tests can't be duplicated and proceeded in a manner that, as recorded, made little sense to the independent experts.

Hers certainly wouldn't be the first government lab in the world to be caught messing around with evidence to gift wrap convictions for LE and prosecutors, not by a long shot. And before we start an argument over her credentials, far more illustrious careers have ended in that manner, so they really mean nothing.



Regarding whether this review will be accepted by the court...it's the courts of Italy, the home of 'girls in tight pants can't be raped', so who can say?

 

[sherlockh]

Because they were claiming that MK's blood was found on the blade, even though now we hear that isn't so.

It was the key forensic evidence connecting AK to the murder scene.

Meredith's DNA makes it conclusive that the knife was used to murder her. This could have been RS, AK or RG since their presence in the cottage has been proven by other evidence. It is then the blood trail from the bedroom to the bathroom with the mixed DNA traces, the dynamics of the murder and common sense (why would RS use the kitchen knife if he has his own knife, and RG was using his hands for something else) that connects AK to the murder weapon. The knife is important evidence but does not stand by itself. So what will actually change if you take away the knife as evidence? I guess we will have to wait a few more months to know the answer

 

[SMK]

Meredith's DNA makes it conclusive that the knife was used to murder her. This could have been RS, AK or RG since their presence in the cottage has been proven by other evidence. It is then the blood trail from the bedroom to the bathroom with the mixed DNA traces, the dynamics of the murder and common sense (why would RS use the kitchen knife if he has his own knife, and RG was using his hands for something else) that connects AK to the murder weapon. The knife is important evidence but does not stand by itself. So what will actually change if you take away the knife as evidence? I guess we will have to wait a few more months to know the answer

So in your opinion, all is the media is empty fireworks and a ruse, and the convictions are a done deal. You may be right; I hope you are not. I do not believe AK or RS were involved in MK's death. I never believed that knife was the right one, never thought it was the murder weapon.

 

[trillian]

Meredith's DNA makes it conclusive that the knife was used to murder her.

Except that it isnt at all conclusive that the DNA on the knife is Merediths. Even looking at the original report, it is still not conclusive. Per the experts.

Do you question their conclusions?

 

[wasnt_me]

Ouch indeed.

"The video showed us a close-up of a hair stuck to the glove over the index finger of a guy handling the bra clasp. Then they go to a quote from (Prosecution DNA Scientist) Patrizia Stefanoni saying, 'We never touched the bra clasp without using a tongs.' They are all passing the bra clasp around and the experts kept on pausing and then giving testimony from the police and Stefanoni. Then another quote. She says, 'OK. We may have touched it, but only with clean gloves' and then close-up of hair on his glove. Then you see the guy get down on the ground with his hands on the floor.

Wow to this statement. Seriously. Wish I'd been there for that!

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

 

[wasnt_me]

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.

I guess I'm not making my misunderstanding clear. I understand what you're saying, but it still falls outside the scope of my point. I guess what I personally feel, if Italy would ever listen to me (hee hee) is that items to review should have already have been determined and no matter what other items results are, all the items decided upon need to be reviewed. This cherry-picking what to view as they go along is not cool.

And I do believe that if it is in the appeal, then yes, it should have been reviewed, even if before the actual court sessions to determine which things would actually be shown in court. Do I make sense? I don't believe it's fair to pick and choose what to view as we go along, and I don't think it's fair for anything to be determined valid or not from behind closed doors now that the appeal has started. that should have been done before day one. They should have brought up on the docket that they'd review the knife, the clasp, witnesses x, y, z, the footprints, the computers, but NOT R, S, T items because they already deem them valid. Do I make sense?

This deciding crap as we go along doesn't make sense to me. I guess i'm making two points in this post, one spun off my old point, but my two points are linked, I guess. I don't think I ever heard of in the US that the jury and judge go behind closed doors to determine if a piece of evidence is valid. I thought that stuff was determined before hand in preliminary hearings.

 

[wasnt_me]

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.

She blew up the results and blew up the results and blew up the results until the noise started to show something. She then cherry-picked the noise to get MK's DNA. In my opinion, it's the same thing that happened with the bra clasp. Cherry-picking with the profile right in front of her. I don't know how else you can explain coming up with someone's profile (that you've never seen before on an item) that simply doesn't have it on there. Except for the contimination theory. The chance of getting such a low, low amount of contimination is mindboggling to me. That's why I think she just constructed it by looking at the DNA. JMO, though, which I heavily base also on the fact that she wouldn't let others see her files and she lied about the TMB test.

 

[wasnt_me]

'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 means everything since it soaks up blood. unless you're saying AK cooked with the knife after murdering someone with it, the starch would have absorbed the blood. So the starch being there means the blood wasn't there. Add to it that this knife only possibly matches on wound on MK, and add the chances of AK and RS just walking about with this big knife, and it's apparant that this is not the murder weapon. I do not understand how it's logical for anyone to think that it is. When first reports surfaced, they said it was a flick knife or box cutter. This knife in no way resembles that. It's time to let the knife die.

 

[wasnt_me]

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.

In my opinion, the evidence you've presented here is all ludicras, but I do understand that some people will sit around using it as a compass to guilt.

As for him and the hallway, just wanted to add, there were a gang of people in that hallway. We've seen from the pictures how tiny it is. It makes no sense that every single person that was at the house at that time should have been eagerly crowded around that tiny hallway. Why should we expect that? Because we know there was a dead body behind the door. Maybe RS expected that the room would be empty, as were the others? Maybe the door getting knocked down didn't register to him as he was with AK, who was talking to her mom as you say. Maybe all this was happening so fast he didn't have time to push his way through the crowded hallway to be the first to see MK?

As you guys can tell, I ain't at work today either. We've moving our offices, and they are having technical difficulties with the network.

 

[trillian]

'Absolute certainty'. The blood was on the top half of the blade.

What blood? The knife tested negative for blood.

 

[wasnt_me]

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?

LOL. That's funny. Just imagine he'd planned to "half way break it" but wound up knocking it open! LOL I think he probably knocked against it and then he either saw AK trying to go out on the balcony or decided that he didn't want to be responsible for breaking down the door if on the other side was more of what they saw in the house.

As for him knowing stuff was stolen or not, that's kind of crazy to use against him. AK had ALREADY told RF on the phone that nothing appeared to be stolen. So why would RS disbelieve her? RF was the one who didnt believe it and asked AK to go back to the house and doublecheck. RF saw no reason to rush back to the house herself, as she sent her BF while she was at a fair or something like that? She arrived an hour later? So if she saw no need to rush back while MK was MIA, then why all the pressure on AK and RS to break down the door or be frantic to find MK? From what I understand, RF was not calling MK off the chain. Let me know if I'm wrong.

Not pinpointing RF, just using her as a reference. We assume her innocence and her behavior does mirror AK and RS's behavior.

1. when she first heard about it, she was in no rush to call police or get home.
2. She wondered where MK was, as did AK. She wondered if things were stolen and according to testimony, AK already had the answer, which was no. She had that answer because she walked around the house and she saw a laptop in her own room, she saw the TV in the kitchen. She had no need to go into RF's room or LM's room on her first trip to the house. Once they went in RF's room, they saw the busted window. How are they to know things were missing fromm RF's room?
3. Busted window prompted them to make more calls and get to the police. Busted window also apparently made RF decide to bring herself home. That's when the situation suddenly escalated. Of course in her own room RF can see that nothing was stolen once she got there. It was only for her to determine. For example, say her laptop wasn't there. What if AK had said it was stolen, but RF returned with it in a bag under her arm?
4. RS attempted to break the door down. When RF arrived, after checking out her own room and her own stuff, she decided the door needed to be broken down, too.

So I don't see how AK and RS acted any differently than RF. Their only misfortune was discovering the scene first. I think had RF discovered it first, she probably would have called all her friends over there, called around for the roommates, and busted the door down. She would have had more urgency because she would have seen her room busted it all up. AK didn't see that first trip, which was why she didn't have the urgency at first.

I wonder what would have happened if LM had arrived home first. She just would have seen crap in her toilet, been grossed out, and gone about her day. Who knows how she would have interpreted the front door being open, since it was a trick door. Even the police didn't keep that door closed. After they'd sealed it up, there's a picture of it wide open with no cops there. A blogger took it and I posted it in the last thread or early in this thread. So if the police couldn't lock it properly, it's logical for the roommates to assume someone else hadn't locked it properly or someone else might be home but outside or downstairs (if they did not know the boys were on vacation, as AK claimed she didn't.)

So these assertions against the couple become absurd, really. IMO of course.

 

[wasnt_me]

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.

For all this to happen, as you claim could be possible, MK would only have been nicked by this knife, not killed. Either the police investigators smelled bleach and knew the knife had been cleaned by bleach or they were making stuff up. Either they saw that it had been unusally clean or they were making stuff up. If they make an assertion like that, as being the POLICE, they should have been able to see the starch and determine that it was not esp clean. They are the police, not lay people. as such, it's their job to see stuff that normal people don't notice. It's called investigating. And in such an important case, pulling the first knife out the drawer and calling it the murder weapon is negiligent police work. Seriously.

 

[wasnt_me]

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:

Worth repeating....:twocents:

 

[wasnt_me]

There is a sort of "game over" victory aura to the defense now. It has been said that putting down the independent experts would only alienate Judge Hellman at this point, and that Stephanoni is really done for. I hope the optimism is warranted, as in this excerpt from the Knox continuation forum discussion:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=215085&page=4

http://www.umbria24.it/meredith-in-aula-i-periti-per-le-tracce-di-dna-sui-reperti-foto-f-troccoli/52473.html

These youngsters have a right to be optimistic. After what RG did on the stand, after all these lies, lies, lies and accusations, after all this defamation they've been through, after being unable to mourn their own dead friend properly, after losing their freedom for 4 years, they have a right to feel good about the first bit of good news they've heard since 2007. Let them smile and be happy. The defense and supporters should NOT be cautious. They should continue to push in this very vain to shame the court into doing what's right. The court should know what the public thinks. The prosecution used public opinion. The defense should as well. They must fight. Their llives are at risk. They shouldn't care about alienating anyone because their lives are at stake. Slavery didn't end with caution, America wasn't founded upon American's fearing to alienate the crown, Hitler was stopped because people stood up and said NO. I can go on and on, but basically, I got a song for it. You knew I would.

"You gotta FIGHT...FOR YOUR RIGHT.....To party!!!!!"
(I have no idea who sings it. Queen? Def leopard? I don't know).