Meredith Kercher murdered in Perugia, Amanda Knox convicted #3

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
kemo said:
Amanda will have to follow her lawyer's advice as she works her appeal through the Italian Legal System.

The primary reason for NOT testifying is that the Prosecutor gets to cross examine. This can bring out inconsistancies (and outright lies) in statements the defendant has given in the past, prior criminal convictions, expose the jury to the "unpleasant" side of defendant's personality, and perhaps most importantly; "set the table" for the rebutal witnesses by pinning the defendant down to details that subsequent (or occasionally earlier) witnesses will shot down. Because the defense lawyer never knows what the prosecution will ask, they can't be prepared for what might happen.

I, and I suspect most people reading this, are not concerned with the ins and out of the Italian legal system except to the extent that justice is served; i.e. that the guilty are punished and the innocent are freed. We don't have to listen to the judges instructions. We can consider any information we want.
Click to expand...

Well summarized, kemo. But I want to emphasize that the same pitfalls apply whether the witness is guilty or innocent. Few among us have had the experience of having every single word we say challenged in public.

I used to teach and students with disabilities would receive permission to tape my lectures. One was kind enough to type up a copy and give it to me.

I was SHOCKED at things I'd said! And I was telling the truth about the subject as I understood it and I certainly wasn't under the pressure of cross-examination or suspicion of murder. Nonetheless, many things that made perfect sense in my head came out of my mouth quite different. (That was my first year lecturing. I like to believe I got better over time. But most trial witnesses don't get as many chances to practice.)
 
Monzoo said:
It appears that the judge in Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito's appeal has granted an independent review of forensic evidence.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Amanda-Knox-Granted-Review-Of-Evidence-In-Meredith-Kercher-Murder-Trial/Article/201012315858424?lpos=World_News_First_World_News_Article_Teaser_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15858424_Amanda_Knox_Granted_Review_Of_Evidence_In_Meredith_Kercher_Murder_Trial

This seems to be good news for AK and RS ... or is this also bad news? ;)
Click to expand...

From the article;

It looks like they have an open mind to really look at this case again and see a mistake has been made.
Knox's mother Edda Mellas


Ok, remember that if the rulings stand on the evidence.
 
SleuthyGal said:
and hence the problem I have. Lack of statement is not evidence.

And it appears to not matter what she said (or could have said). She spoke? Lies. She didn't speak? covering up. She testified in court? Lies.

There is literally nothing she could say or not say that would placate someone who is determined to find her guilty regardless.

A defendant shouldn't have to say anything. Ever. That is a legal right.

In the U.S. (which yes, I realize this is not the U.S.) a jury is not to infer guilt from a defendant not testifying. And that is a very important part of our constitution.

I don't know the laws in Italy, but a defendant not talking or not taking the stand has no bearing on my opinion in a case. I want to examine evidence. If there are statements, I want to see those statements. Interrogations? Get it on tape and/or video. Wait...no tape recordings? No video? FAIL!
Click to expand...

I agree the defendant shouldn't have to say anything. Nothing prohibits a defendant who is on trial for murder from smiling and laughing when going into court, but I personally would advise against it.
 
Court victory for Amanda Knox as full review of DNA evidence used to convict her is granted

Last updated at 5:08 PM on 18th December 2010


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-evidence-used-convict-her.html#ixzz18VRqUBFN

Amanda Knox won a victory in court today when she was granted a full review of crucial DNA evidence used to convict her of Meredith Kercher's murder.
The appeal hopes of the American 23-year-old rest partly on having the evidence re-examined independently.

After a hearing lasting most of the day, the decision went in her favour, giving her family some hope that the guilty verdict may yet be overturned.
Knox's mother, Edda Mellas, who was in the Perugia court room for the hearing, said: 'There's hope.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-evidence-used-convict-her.html#ixzz18VRZocFy
 
For The Kids said:
Actually i doubt he was paid at all. Whilst he may be a journalist..he wrote that as a grieiving father..and not as a tabloid hack. Incidentally there is nothing matter with The Mail either.
Click to expand...

I defer to your judgment since I don't see many copies this far west. I was reacting to the ads on The Mail's website.

Personally, I don't imagine I'd want to discuss my dead daughter and my family's pain amid ads for gossip on reality-TV stars and the latest on the supposed Jolie/Aniston feud. But as I said, I'm not in Mr. Kercher's shoes.

I believe you are naive, however, as to how tabloid journalism works. I can almost guarantee you Mr. Kercher was paid for that article, and probably paid well. As he has every right to be. (ETA I want to be very clear that I see absolutely nothing wrong with Kercher being paid to write a newspaper article about his daughter's case. He's done nothing wrong; writing is his profession. Why shouldn't he be paid?)
 
From the article. This is huge (for the defense):

The court said it would hear an American scientist for the defense, who will produce evidence aiming to show quantities of DNA found on the knife are too small to be reliable.

An important element in the first verdict, in December 2009, were biological traces from Knox, found on the handle of the knife, and from Kercher, found on the blade.

The court said it would also hear new evidence regarding a bra clip belonging to Kercher that was found to have traces of Sollecito's DNA, but which the defense says was "contaminated" in the 45 days between the murder date and the time the clip was found.

New witnesses will also be heard who, according to the defense, will undermine a key prosecution witness who said he saw Knox and Sollecito a few meters from Kercher's flat on the night of the murder.

The prosecution witness, homeless Antonio Curatolo, said he saw the defendants in a car park where coaches were taking students to a local disco. The defense has now produced the owner of the disco who says it was closed that evening.
 
I hesitate to be too excited, because I have no faith in the Italian "justice" system... but boy- if she could really get someone to look at her case evidence independently- it would be an incredible break for her. Probably the only one she's ever gotten over there. However, according to what I read, it sounds like it will be another Italian judge who will review the evidence? I wonder who will be interpreting/presenting it to this judge? Does anyone know anything further about what we've read?

ETA: I need a memory refresher for one other thing as well. Whatever did Rudy Guede (SP?) tell prosecutors was Amanda and Raphael's role in this murder? Did he implicate them? Did he admit his own guilt? I can't seem to find this info and it would help me greatly. Thanks in advance Sluethers! Y'all rock!
 
mssheila said:
I hesitate to be too excited, because I have no faith in the Italian "justice" system... but boy- if she could really get someone to look at her case evidence independently- it would be an incredible break for her. Probably the only one she's ever gotten over there. However, according to what I read, it sounds like it will be another Italian judge who will review the evidence? I wonder who will be interpreting/presenting it to this judge? Does anyone know anything further about what we've read?

ETA: I need a memory refresher for one other thing as well. Whatever did Rudy Guede (SP?) tell prosecutors was Amanda and Raphael's role in this murder? Did he implicate them? Did he admit his own guilt? I can't seem to find this info and it would help me greatly. Thanks in advance Sluethers! Y'all rock!
Click to expand...

All of this is just my opinion;

Italy isn't a third world nation and I'd put their justice system on par with ours. It seems they really don't have a dog in the fight that would cause them to skew things. Kercher wasn't Italian. This is a case involving two foreigners. If Kercher had been a native Italian I'd be willing to entertain a conspiracy theory more but I think there is a lot of evidence that she was involved, directly or indirectly. In fact since RS's father is a rich Italian man with influence you'd think it would work in RS's favor if the system were corrupt. All courts make mistakes but it bugs me when people view the Italian justice system as somehow a lot more incompetent than any other civilized nations.

If an Italian girl and the son of a very wealthy American killed a British girl in our country I'd be offended if the Italians portrayed our system the way some here portray theirs.

I don't believe the intent on AK or RS's part was to slaughter MK at the beginning, but something got out of hand and RS knew that he and AK would be just as culpable for the death. I'd be willing to bet my life that she was at least involved in the cleanup. Even if the two pieces of evidence are overturned there is significant evidence against them. The knife they have a shot on, but the bra clasp is clutching at straws.
 
Miss Amanda Knox....

I have followed this case relentlessly, not on here, but just in general.

To answer your question:

In 2008, he incriminated them.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3629353.ece

In 2009 he said he saw them leave the murder scene:

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/rudy-guede-amanda-knox-leave-murder-scene/story?id=9117060&tqkw=&tqshow=WN

I don't think he's a very reliable, or credible witness though.

At 1st I thought for d*mn sure she was guilty. Now I'm kinda on the fence.

Everyone deserves a fair trial.
 
I understand that the DNA that will be retested relates to the knife and the bra clasp. If there is insufficient DNA to re-test, then there will be an evaluation of the existing DNA analysis. This evidence seems to relate more to Raffaele than Amanda. If the knife and the bra clasp are excluded, there is less evidence connecting Raffaele to the murder. Amanda is still connected to murder through DNA with the evidence in the bathroom and in Filomina's bedroom.

In addition to the forensic evidence, there are the lies, the inconsistent statements, the inability of Knox and Sollicito to explain what they did the night Meredith was murdererd, false accusations, phone and computer use timelines that do not correlate with statements and many other circumstantial evidentiary facts. We also cannot overlook Amanda's statement that she was in the cottage at the time of the murder.

Even if the knife and bra clasp are excluded, I do not see how this would result in Knox and Sollicito being exonerated. I see this as something that would help Raffaele to some extent, but not Amanda.
 
SleuthyGal said:
From the article. This is huge (for the defense):

The court said it would hear an American scientist for the defense, who will produce evidence aiming to show quantities of DNA found on the knife are too small to be reliable.

An important element in the first verdict, in December 2009, were biological traces from Knox, found on the handle of the knife, and from Kercher, found on the blade.

The court said it would also hear new evidence regarding a bra clip belonging to Kercher that was found to have traces of Sollecito's DNA, but which the defense says was "contaminated" in the 45 days between the murder date and the time the clip was found.

New witnesses will also be heard who, according to the defense, will undermine a key prosecution witness who said he saw Knox and Sollecito a few meters from Kercher's flat on the night of the murder.

The prosecution witness, homeless Antonio Curatolo, said he saw the defendants in a car park where coaches were taking students to a local disco. The defense has now produced the owner of the disco who says it was closed that evening.
Click to expand...

Not so 'huge' IMO. I personally am glad the new review will get rid of all shreds of their being innocent.

Not American scientist, but Italian.
Even if the knife is thrown out, it helps RS much more than it does AK. The test can not be re-done, so the experts will have to look over the test already done.

Since RS's dna was more abundant on the bra clasp, it can be re-tested.
But because the defense has not/can not show contamination... it will be verified IMO.

Curatolo's testimony can not be totally discredited just because of the disco's being closed. The jurors can still believe all, some parts or none of his testimony.

RS's defense will still have to deal with his footprints on the bathroom mat and in the hallway (I think one). Plus his contradictory statements regarding his alibi and 'pricking' Meredith with the knife. Huge in my opinion is the court's decision NOT to review anything else on the computer use. Uh oh alibi.

Even if the knife is thrown out, IMO there is still an abundance of evidence showing the guilty verdict was correct.
 
dgfred said:
Not so 'huge' IMO. I personally am glad the new review will get rid of all shreds of their being innocent.

Not American scientist, but Italian.
Even if the knife is thrown out, it helps RS much more than it does AK. The test can not be re-done, so the experts will have to look over the test already done.

Since RS's dna was more abundant on the bra clasp, it can be re-tested.
But because the defense has not/can not show contamination... it will be verified IMO.

Curatolo's testimony can not be totally discredited just because of the disco's being closed. The jurors can still believe all, some parts or none of his testimony.

RS's defense will still have to deal with his footprints on the bathroom mat and in the hallway (I think one). Plus his contradictory statements regarding his alibi and 'pricking' Meredith with the knife. Huge in my opinion is the court's decision NOT to review anything else on the computer use. Uh oh alibi.

Even if the knife is thrown out, IMO there is still an abundance of evidence showing the guilty verdict was correct.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much what I'm expecting as well. Other than the statement from the homeless guy and the two DNA samples, is anything else going to considered in this appeal?

Barbie Nadeau also said that after this appeal it will be more difficult for anyone to say that the system was not fair.
 
Well, the judge is to have said that 'other' matters would be looked at 'if necessary' after the reports on the knife dna and bra clasp are done.

So I'm guessing that if the bra clasp dna came back to NOT be RS's... then they may look at other matters regarding his defense. I don't think that very likely though. As far as the knife, if their testing was found to be flawed or wrong... then I think it would just be thrown out.

Still doesn't help too much in regards to the other incriminating, even if circumstancial in a way, evidence.
 
Tinsamd said:
Miss Amanda Knox....

I have followed this case relentlessly, not on here, but just in general.

To answer your question:

In 2008, he incriminated them.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3629353.ece

In 2009 he said he saw them leave the murder scene:

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/rudy-guede-amanda-knox-leave-murder-scene/story?id=9117060&tqkw=&tqshow=WN

I don't think he's a very reliable, or credible witness though.

At 1st I thought for d*mn sure she was guilty. Now I'm kinda on the fence.

Everyone deserves a fair trial.
Click to expand...

I am not convinced she is either guilty or innocent, but I certainly don't think she did herself any favors by her behavior either before or during her trial. Regarding Guedo, I certainly believe he knows what had happened (DNA and other evidence appears to be solid he was there when Meredith was murdered), but unfortunately I don't think he makes for a credible witness.
 
dgfred said:
Well, the judge is to have said that 'other' matters would be looked at 'if necessary' after the reports on the knife dna and bra clasp are done.

So I'm guessing that if the bra clasp dna came back to NOT be RS's... then they may look at other matters regarding his defense. I don't think that very likely though. As far as the knife, if their testing was found to be flawed or wrong... then I think it would just be thrown out.

Still doesn't help too much in regards to the other incriminating, even if circumstancial in a way, evidence.
Click to expand...

This is Meredith's DNA overlaid with the sample from the knife. It doesn't look like there is a problem with the match.

MKDNAsuperimposed.jpg


Here's information about the low number count DNA and it's use outside of Italy. Although Amanda's family was able to round up some people that claimed that LNC DNA is not valid, I think it's becoming more widely accepted.

AK__LNC_DNA-1.jpg
 
Sounds like the continued debate on LNC DNA will at least fuel some appeals in the U.S., if nothing else.
 
Hey guys,

Again, I haven't been following the coverage on here, but has this been posted, it's from June 2010? If so, please disregard then, & trust me, I am not suggesting that she is innocent, just something to consider.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-06-10/...nda-knox-meredith-kercher-italian?_s=PM:CRIME

Aviello told Knox's lawyers during the videotaped interviews that his brother, who was staying with him at the time of Kercher's murder, came home one night and said he had killed a girl during a botched robbery. British and Italian media have reported the brother's whereabouts are unknown and neither the lawyers for Knox nor the prosecution would comment further.

"When he came to my house he had a bloodstained jacket on and was carrying a flick knife. He said he had broken into a house and killed a girl and then he had run away," Aviello said in his statement. Originally from Naples, Aviello says he was living in Perugia at the time of the attack.

"I know [he was involved] because my brother confessed to me that he had killed Meredith and he asked me to hide a blood-stained knife and set of keys," he said, according to an attachment to Knox's appeal documents.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 134 more.
Total: 2,538 (members: 135, guests: 2,403)

Online statistics

Members online
135
Guests online
2,403
Total visitors
2,538
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,846
Messages
18,130,597
Members
231,163
Latest member
Kaffro
Back
Top