Meredith Kercher murdered - Amanda Knox convicted, now appeals #5

[SleuthyGal]

The defense states in the affidavit that the testing dates for the knife were not available to them. We also know that the defense was invited to attend the testing. If they had attended the testing, wouldn't they know exactly on which dates the was done? Was this information that was deliberately withheld, omitted, or was it information that was readily available to the defense but they chose not to attend the testing?

It doesn't matter. We can spend all day splitting hairs over the wording in a document or who was invited to what and when and why or why not, and try to figure out exactly what they mean by "not available to them." And we'll never know because *we* weren't part of that process.

Bottomline is this: they (the defense) need all the data to look at. If they didn't get it, they should have. If they still don't have it, they need to be given it. If someone withheld anything from the defense that makes me suspicious, as there is never a good/legal reason to 'hide' evidence, discovery, or data from the other side (whichever side that may be). We're talking about now. They need all the data.

 

[SleuthyGal]

dgfred says: pro-AK circles

Pro-AK and pro-RS implies a bias for the defense, when I suspect a more appropriate term is "pro-truth."

None of us personally know AK or RS and we have no personal/emotional attachment to them nor any reason to favor them. We are trying to determine what is true and what is not true, what is valid and what is not valid in this case, and some of us (at least I) think the evidence does not prove "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" because of the questions and open issues surrounding some of the physical evidence. At the same time, many of us do not believe the prosecution's theory of the murder and think it's possible a couple of college kids may have been convicted of a murder they didn't commit. Notice I said "may."

I'm only on one side: the truth.

I may never really know the truth of this case, but I'm certainly hopeful that more info will become known.

 

[Nova]

...The statement from the prosecutor claiming that the defense has all the information they need does not mean that the prosecution withheld information....

Of course it means exactly that. If the prosecutor meant the defense has all the information "that exists", he could and would have said so.

 

[dgfred]

Pro-truth would not be twisting statements and making excuses for every single piece of evidence.

Pro-AK and Pro-RS are just what they say... the defense or 'pro-innocence'.

Pro-guilt would be the other side.

Pro-truth is what both sides seek I would presume, and hope. Bias is/has been shown by both sides IMO.

Determining what is valid and what is not is one thing, fussing and angry about every post disagreed with is another. I for one want this thread to stay open.

 

[otto]

Of course it is a defense appeal document. It is up to the Judge(s) to decide whether their appeal point/request/complaint/etc is VALID. Seems like this one wasn't in the Judge's opinion and they did in fact have all necessary testing information.

That does seem to be the conclusion. My understanding is that both Amanda and Raffaele had, in the last paragraph of the appeal, an objection that they did not have information about the dates that the knife was tested and some extra notes about the bra clasp analysis. The reason for the objection was that the lack of this information impaired their ability to argue that there was contamination and fuzzy testing. This objection, along with all the objections, excluding three, in the 2-300 page documents, was denied.

Even if Meredith's blood was analyzed, and then a day or two later the knife was analyzed, it if not sufficient to conclude that the DNA identified on the knife was a result of contamination in the lab. Also, I'm pretty sure that there was quite a discussion during the trial about the notes that were made by Dr Stefanoni during the knife analsysis ... where she indicated that she increased the machines sensitivity in increments to try to obtain results. Eventually, she did obtain results, and those are available online (I can post them if anyone wants to see the comparison of Meredith's DNA to the knife DNA). The sample from the knife is weaker than Meredith's sample, but it seems clear that the samples are most likely from the same person. It is very clear that the knife sample is not from a completely different person.

Definitely looking forward to the reassessment of the testing ...

 

[Nova]

Well hey.
Has anyone in the pro-AK circles found out who AK's 'special' friend was that she was calling just after the murder and before she was arrested?

'The prosecution denied' :maddening: ... it is the Judge's decision, the prosecution can not deny anything.

Surely since the prosecution got a conviction, based on the knife evidence already presented they think any further testing is not needed.

If more of Meredith's dna is found... IMO the defense will wish they hadn't asked for additional testing.

The defense should be hoping (really hoping) the experts find the evidence already presented on the knife lacking in some way. Their only hope really.

You are right that the Court is the final arbiter.

But there are rules of discovery and each side decides what it has to divulge to be in compliance with those rules. It is the norm, not the exception, to play fast and loose with discovery. It is part of the "gamesmanship" of an adversarial trial system. (And BTW, it isn't always about withholding info; sometimes the opposite tactic is taken and one side tries to bury the other, hoping the important stuff will be missed in the overwhelming volume of paper.)

Either side may appeal to the Court (and in some systems, to an appellate court) if it feels it didn't get material was due.

 

[Nova]

Pro-AK and pro-RS implies a bias for the defense, when I suspect a more appropriate term is "pro-truth."

None of us personally know AK or RS and we have no personal/emotional attachment to them nor any reason to favor them. We are trying to determine what is true and what is not true, what is valid and what is not valid in this case, and some of us (at least I) think the evidence does not prove "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" because of the questions and open issues surrounding some of the physical evidence. At the same time, many of us do not believe the prosecution's theory of the murder and think it's possible a couple of college kids may have been convicted of a murder they didn't commit. Notice I said "may."

I'm only on one side: the truth.

I may never really know the truth of this case, but I'm certainly hopeful that more info will become known.

Amen. I have no emotional attachment to the defendants. I'd just like to know what happened that night, but even the prosecutor himself told half-a-dozen different, sometimes conflicting stories.

 

[otto]

Of course it means exactly that. If the prosecutor meant the defense has all the information "that exists", he could and would have said so.

The facts according to the appeal documents (actual summaries translated to English; not using auto-translators) are that the defense believed that some information that they needed, in order to argue that the lab results were faulty, was not available to them. I have been unable to ascertain whether this was due to the prosecution blacking out some information, or whether that information was simply not included in the report. I have seen quotes from Amanda's stepfather, and other comments in the media, but I prefer to look at translated court documents and trial testimony. I'm of the opinion that each lawyer and parent has an agenda that is probably skewing their presentation of the information a little bit in their favor ... so ... from the horses mouth ... hard to say why the defense does not have the information that they need to impugn the lab.

 

[Nova]

Pro-truth would not be twisting statements and making excuses for every single piece of evidence.

Pro-AK and Pro-RS are just what they say... the defense or 'pro-innocence'.

Pro-guilt would be the other side.

Pro-truth is what both sides seek I would presume, and hope. Bias is/has been shown by both sides IMO.

Determining what is valid and what is not is one thing, fussing and angry about every post disagreed with is another. I for one want this thread to stay open.

But that works both ways, fred. "Pro-truth" would not blindly accept every claim of the prosecutor or court when, in fact, some of those claims strain credulity.

 

[Allusonz]

I guess I'm having a problem understanding the problem. The lab completed DNA analysis. We know that. I'm assuming that all parties could request the information from the labs, and that seems to be true. The DNA analysis started on Dec 21, 2007, ended on May 20, 2008, the report was dated June 12, 2008 and delivered to the prosecution. Those dates tell use that complaints from defence that they did not receive the information in April are baseless. The trial started Dec 4, 2008 and the DNA evidence (Stefoni) was introduced May 22, 2009.
It seems that the important question is:

Was the information made available to the defence prior to trial?

If the DNA analysis was made available to the defence prior to the start of the trial, how did that present a problem for the defence?

these requests were not baseless and you should check the requests of 2009 made by the defense of both AK and RS

you simply cannot ignore that many requests which were made formally

the prosecution withheld the evidence from the defense

 

[Nova]

The facts according to the appeal documents (actual summaries translated to English; not using auto-translators) are that the defense believed that some information that they needed, in order to argue that the lab results were faulty, was not available to them. I have been unable to ascertain whether this was due to the prosecution blacking out some information, or whether that information was simply not included in the report. I have seen quotes from Amanda's stepfather, and other comments in the media, but I prefer to look at translated court documents and trial testimony. I'm of the opinion that each lawyer and parent has an agenda that is probably skewing their presentation of the information a little bit in their favor ... so ... from the horses mouth ... hard to say why the defense does not have the information that they need to impugn the lab.

No, it isn't hard to say. It's been explained many times here. It's explained in the appeals and in the media accounts. It's been explained by the personal experience of posters.

I can't say for sure whether pages were omitted or redacted, but the former is more likely. Blacking out parts of pages is rather a red flag for the opposition and is usually reserved for court-approved omissions (things like the names of juveniles or confidential informants, or trade secrets in a civil trial).

Now. Whether the missing info is necessary is a matter of opinion. The defense believes it is. Maybe they are wrong, but in fairness, they haven't seen it yet, have they?

 

[SleuthyGal]

Pro-truth would not be twisting statements and making excuses for every single piece of evidence.

Evidence has to be able to stand up to rigorous scrutiny and interpretation. What may be seen as "making excuses" is an attempt to scrutinize, to test validity, to see if there are other ways to view the evidence. If the evidence wilts under such examination and close inspection and, yes, questioning, then how strong can that evidence really be?

Although ironically, lots of AK and RS statements have been twisted and exaggerated with no source or proof.

Pro-truth is what both sides seek I would presume, and hope. Bias is/has been shown by both sides IMO.

I don't know about that, as I think each side wants to win, first and foremost.

Determining what is valid and what is not is one thing, fussing and angry about every post disagreed with is another. I for one want this thread to stay open.

Not sure what is fussing and angry. None of this is personal to those not involved in the case, or at least I hope it's not. The case is compelling for lots of reasons and bears scrutiny. Being able to hold up evidence to the light and dissect/tear it apart is the delight of many sleuthers/case followers. It can make for some interesting discussion.

As my byline says, I'm looking for facts, not rumors.

 

[Nova]

these requests were not baseless and you should check the requests of 2009 made by the defense of both AK and RS

you simply cannot ignore that many requests which were made formally

the prosecution withheld the evidence from the defense

Absolutely. I am out of ways to explain that withholding evidence isn't even unusual. It's part of the game: you withhold what doesn't help your case and force the opposition to go after it. In theory, doing so is unethical, but in an adversarial process, what is "ethical" tends to become what one can get away with.

 

[Allusonz]

I have posted on the DNA and LCN DNA many times as this is something that has been an issue from the start

Maybe some of you did not realize the ramifications of withholding information and in this particular instance it happens to be the .fsa files.

I think everyone can agree that if you have a murder weapon, lets say it is a rope according to the prosecution (this is make believe all)

That if you heard that the prosecution will not allow the defense to see the rope, measure it, re-analyze it etc., you would not be saying hold it something is wrong if you are truly trying to get to the truth

I dont believe any of you would say hold it, we should solely rely on the prosecution report and believe it blindly. This would create chaos

If it is allowed to happen with DNA it will create chaos. LCN DNA is even scarier if you circumvent the worldwide accepted standards/protocols with either the rope, the DNA, or LCN DNA.

 

[Allusonz]

I would also like to state with respect to LCN DNA that it is NOT widely accepted. There is currently alot of controversy amoung the experts themselves. There are very few labs world wide that are even authorized to do LCN DNA testing and there is a reason for it. Again, I have posted many links in previous threads to this.

These are VERY LOW numbers when you are discussing this and even 1 picogram is added through contamination or other methods it could conceivably change the entire results.

Yes, there has been some allowed, but this again had to do with much higher numbers than what we are discussing here for the most part

 

[Monzoo]

The facts according to the appeal documents (actual summaries translated to English; not using auto-translators) are that the defense believed that some information that they needed, in order to argue that the lab results were faulty, was not available to them. I have been unable to ascertain whether this was due to the prosecution blacking out some information, or whether that information was simply not included in the report. I have seen quotes from Amanda's stepfather, and other comments in the media, but I prefer to look at translated court documents and trial testimony. I'm of the opinion that each lawyer and parent has an agenda that is probably skewing their presentation of the information a little bit in their favor ... so ... from the horses mouth ... hard to say why the defense does not have the information that they need to impugn the lab.

Otto,

If you have access to human-translated appeals, could you point them out to me? I have only found machine-translated copies -- I would love to find them in a more readable format.

 

[Allusonz]

As well you can play around with what i call the "legal lingo" all you want. There is a way in which it must be presented and it is very formal.

The bottom line is this

Did the defense request the information
Did the prosecution provide the information

If not that is prosecurtorial misconduct and they can be removed from their jobs, and in fairly recent court case involving the Duke Lacrosse players we did indeed see how far reaching the ramifications can go

 

[Allusonz]

Again for your reading pleasure

http://www.sciencespheres.com/2009/10/lcn-dna-profiling-part-ii-watch-where.html

 

[Nova]

As well you can play around with what i call the "legal lingo" all you want. There is a way in which it must be presented and it is very formal.

The bottom line is this

Did the defense request the information
Did the prosecution provide the information

If not that is prosecurtorial misconduct and they can be removed from their jobs, and in fairly recent court case involving the Duke Lacrosse players we did indeed see how far reaching the ramifications can go

Just to be clear, it is rare for a prosecutor (or defender) to actually be fired for withholding information. The Duke case was extraordinary.

There is a large range of lesser sanctions from giving the opposition extra time to review the withheld evidence to fining the side that failed to divulge it. These are more common consequences of withholding info.

As I said above, often nothing happens as the whole thing is blamed on a "clerical error" or the like.

 

[Allusonz]

Just to be clear, it is rare for a prosecutor (or defender) to actually be fired for withholding information. The Duke case was extraordinary.

There is a large range of lesser sanctions from giving the opposition extra time to review the withheld evidence to fining the side that failed to divulge it. These are more common consequences of withholding info.

As I said above, often nothing happens as the whole thing is blamed on a "clerical error" or the like.

Very true Nova, but it does also illustrate what can happen where there are no checks and balances. That case was true beyond the norm, but it does illustrate how much power they can have