Knox left footprints and mixed DNA not only in the bathroom, but in Filomina's room (where there was a broken window). Amanda Knox would have us believe that her bloody footprints in the hallway were caused by fruitjuice (who came up with that myth anyway!), and then there's the story about the bathroom shuffle. The bathroom shuffle came first
Motivation Report has been released
- Thread starter Salem
- Start date
New Posts
-
-
Japan - Miyazawa family of 4 murdered, Setagaya, Tokyo, 30 Dec 2000 #3- Latest: Lalalacasbah
- Status
Knox left footprints and mixed DNA not only in the bathroom, but in Filomina's room (where there was a broken window). Amanda Knox would have us believe that her bloody footprints in the hallway were caused by fruitjuice (who came up with that myth anyway!), and then there's the story about the bathroom shuffle. The bathroom shuffle came first
This is just rehashing arguments that have been beaten to death both here and on other sites. It's obvious that those that believe in A & R's innocense will not convince you or any like-minded individuals of their innocense and vice-versa, so why are we wasting our time here. I suggest we suspend discussions until there is release of the defenses' points of appeal.
Amber29
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,358
- Reaction score
- 357
BBM it's so ridiculous when people use statements like the bolded one to support their opinion. It's simply untrue botched/manipulated investigations happen in MANY US cases, some of which lands a defendant on death row. (Although I completely disagree with the opinion presented in regards to this investigation)
AK very well could've been convicted in the United States as well and it's foolish to state otherwise because there is no way to know and people have been convicted on less. One only has to look at how divided opinion is on this case to know it wouldn't be a slam dunk for either side in a jury room.
redheadedgal
Former Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 4,659
- Reaction score
- 104
i know what tertiary transfer is... and the link does have relevance. was it even looked at? she proves tertiary transfer does occur... which is directly relevant to how sollecito's dna might've been found on the clasp and no where else in that room. and nencini says contamination is not possible ("abolutely unlikely") yet he fails to address the other 3-4 male profiles found on the same clasp. is who's they are and how they got there not important?!!
(i believe Bill addressed the additional profiles a page or two earlier...)
so, can't get more relevant than that.
and about probability: please cite another case where a newly coupled couple, decide to brutally slaughter a young woman, with the help of a male from a totally different background and criminal history, a stranger the male in the coupling had never even met before and the female passed a few times in passing, in a sex orgy, no wait, after an argument over poo, no wait, after an argument about money. tia.
I don't see the relevance by showing something is possible in theory but has a probability of about 0%. The theory is based on one assumption after the other and ends with a totally unlikely transfer method. How in the world can anyone use the words likely or probable then is beyond me.
Yes, a few extra peaks are completely irrelevant as they stand in no comparison to Sollecito's full DNA profile (see prof Balding). Such a quality result indicates that it came from recent primary DNA transfer. What is wrong with primary DNA transfer anyway? It has a very high probability. I never thought they 'decided' to kill Meredith. I rather stick with the evidence discussed in court than making up silly internet theories that have very little to do with what happened in court. Maybe it is better to create a separate thread for these theories as they are totally off topic IMO.
redheadedgal
Former Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 4,659
- Reaction score
- 104
where does "successfully" come from? and yes, nencini does question why more traces of knox were not found in the cottage, which is alluding to a cleanup in MK's bedroom imo: altering the crime scene and destroying numerous traces ("alterando la scena del delitto e cancellando numerose tracce", p. 81).
1a. there was "plenty" of RS's dna? besides the disputed clasp found in MK's bedroom, where was the rest... especially that which proves beyond a reasonable doubt he left it while committing a murder?
1b. AK lived there... it would be expected that her dna would be in the bathroom and various other rooms in the apartment.
2. nencini, p. 81 @ google translate:
original italian:
and, if they left RG's shoeprints (in an effort to frame him), why wasn't his name mentioned in an interrogation? knox supposedly naming PL instead makes no sense considering the above.
Please consider reading the following:
http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/b...run-tampering/
It is a bit dense but the gist of the information is:
1) the negative controls run for the bra clasp SHOULD be able to be run thru 50 amplification cycles without producing any detectable DNA. These controls produced detectable DNA after only 32 cycles implying contamination.
2) positive controls run for the bra clasp were run with a know quantity of DNA but these controls showed ~4X the expected amount of DNA again STRONGLY suggesting contamination.
Also read the conclusion of the report.
Remeber Steffanoni has claimed she has NEVER had contimination in her lab.
Do you think that Nencini, who claimed that some of the other 4 Y-haplotypes found on the bra clasp were contributed by some of Meredith's GIRLFRIENDS, would have been able to grasp the significance of this data if it had been presented to him?
http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/b...run-tampering/
It is a bit dense but the gist of the information is:
1) the negative controls run for the bra clasp SHOULD be able to be run thru 50 amplification cycles without producing any detectable DNA. These controls produced detectable DNA after only 32 cycles implying contamination.
2) positive controls run for the bra clasp were run with a know quantity of DNA but these controls showed ~4X the expected amount of DNA again STRONGLY suggesting contamination.
Also read the conclusion of the report.
Remeber Steffanoni has claimed she has NEVER had contimination in her lab.
Do you think that Nencini, who claimed that some of the other 4 Y-haplotypes found on the bra clasp were contributed by some of Meredith's GIRLFRIENDS, would have been able to grasp the significance of this data if it had been presented to him?
The criminal histories are not all that dissimilar. Sollecito had been detained for drugs. Knox had been convicted of disturbing the peace. Guede had been detained for theft. They all came from broken homes. Sollecito was pursuing a future, but Knox and Guede seemed to be passing time.
Motive for murder is always a bit of a mystery when there is no confession, but it's good that the Italian courts have tried to understand what motivated the trio to commit murder.
Sollecito's DNA on Meredith's underwear is not in question. It is a fact. There has been no logical explanation for how it got there other than direct contact. Contamination is the last resort, desperate plea that convicted murderers use to try to wiggle out of taking responsibility for their actions. Per the ruling when the second verdict was annulled, claiming that contamination could occur does not mean that it did occur, and alleging that contamination could occur is insufficient to negate DNA evidence.
The link appears to be copied from another post and does not work.
Sorry! When you click on the link it will take you to a page. Look in the left hand column and click on batch 5: bra-clasp contamination.
One of the first things I do prior to taking time to read anything is to check the author. I noticed that there is no author for that internet page. Is there any particular reason that the author does not want to take ownership of the content, or was the authors name perhaps removed for some reason?
MichaelSmith
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2012
- Messages
- 631
- Reaction score
- 0
They only had 6 weeks to analyse the lab work because the prosecution violated their rights to a fair trial. The SAL, quantification report and all the raw dated should have been given to them at the pre-trial not a partial handover half way through the trial.
They weren't allowed to call any experts at Nencini....remember? All defense requests were denied except for the photo of his fingernails.
Like I've said many times, Italian courts are kangaroo courts.
The American Bar Association On DNA Disclosure
http://www.americanbar.org/publicat...n_archive/crimjust_standards_dnaevidence.html
In connection with disclosure, American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice: DNA Evidence, 3d ed. © 2007 states as follows:
Part IV: Pre-trial Proceedings
(a) The prosecutor should be required, within a specified and reasonable time prior to trial, to make available to the defense the following information and material relating to DNA evidence:
(i) laboratory reports as provided in Standard 3.3;
(ii) if different from or not contained in any laboratory report, a written description of the substance of the proposed testimony of each expert, the experts opinion, and the underlying basis of that opinion;
(iii) the laboratory case file and case notes;
(iv) a curriculum vitae for each testifying expert and for each person involved in the testing;
(v) the written material specified in Standard 3.1(a);
(vi) reports of all proficiency examinations of each testifying expert and each person involved in the testing, with further information on proficiency testing discoverable on a showing of particularized need;
(vii) the chain of custody documents specified in Standard 2.5;
(viii) all raw electronic data produced during testing;
(ix) reports of laboratory contamination and other laboratory problems affecting testing procedures or results relevant to the evaluation of the procedures and test results obtained in the case and corrective actions taken in response; and
(x) a list of collected items that there is reason to believe contained DNA evidence but have been destroyed or lost, or have otherwise become unavailable;
(xi) material or information within the prosecutors possession or control, including laboratory information or material, that would tend to negate the guilt of the defendant or reduce the punishment of the defendant.
Additionally, the document complete with explanatory commentary is available at the same link.
Quoting from the commentary : Comprehensive discovery is critical in scientific evidence cases, and DNA discovery is no exception. The National Academies 1992 Report recommended extensive discovery in DNA cases: All data and laboratory records generated by analysis of DNA samples should be made freely available to all parties. Such access is essential for evaluating the analysis. (Page 95 of the document/88 of the numbered pages).
In the Meredith Kercher murder trials, the withholding of data supporting (or rather failing to support) forensic evidence, in US terms would amount to a breach of Brady disclosure requirements:
the prosecutor must disclose evidence or information that would prove the innocence of the defendant or would enable the defense to more effectively impeach the credibility of government witnesses.
All parties were invited to attend the DNA testing and analysis. The defendants chose to not attend and chose to not participate. Therefore, there are no grounds for complaining about not having all the information - although I don't believe that was the case.
The appeal requested by Knox/Sollecito was not a retrial where all the arguments could be re-litigated, so it should not come as a surprise that only those points that were successfully appealed would be considered during the trial. New appeal requests by the defence were denied, but that was to be expected. The grounds for appeal had already been argued years ago, prior to the annulled verdict.
What are the conclusions about contamination in the Nencini report?
Footwarrior
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2011
- Messages
- 2,236
- Reaction score
- 1,036
The motivation report dismissed the possibility that the DNA results from the bra clasp could be the result of contamination. Bill C posted scientific evidence that the bra clasp sample was indeed contaminated.
The link that was provided has no author. That makes it extremely difficult to assess the validity of the opinion. Furthermore, the judge's ruling is what counts, not the opinions of persons that have no relation to the case.
thesetup85
Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2013
- Messages
- 33
- Reaction score
- 3
I was addressing the statement made by Moore as how the report suggests that AK/RS got rid of ALL their traces while left behind RGs traces.
The report does NOT say that at all in any capacity.
Hence, Moore is trying to misguide the public as to what the report says or does not say, trying to slander it's credibility.
I was not arguing over validity/logic of the evidence in the report, just pointing out Moore inaccurate reporting (or whatever you want to call that, if not reporting).
As for:
1a. DNA on the bra-clasp is "plenty" in my book. Weather it was from contamination or legit, is still MOO.
1b. AK's DNA being found in the apartment is a no-brainier of course. But what I consider incriminating is the mixed DNA of the MK and AK in places related to the crime (small bathroom, broken-in room) and NOT in the places not related to the crime (living room, other roommates' rooms, other bathroom). This dispels the notion of mixed DNA of the two girls being in the house is to be "expected".
2. No way AK would ever mention RG. That would be mutually assured destruction. AK implication PL was not a calculated move, she did so as a last minute desperate effort to save herself, when confronted with questions she had no answer to.
The leaving of the boot prints, the implicating of PL and the not implicating or RG are not related or part of any plan as you are making it sound like. These are separate events which happened at different places on the timeline.
So there is nothing to make sense of here.
Thank you for reading. All disagreements are made respectfully.
The clasp providence is dubious at best, it should have been inadmissible since it has all the hallmarks of planted evidence.
How do you explain AKs DNA being found in places that should have been full of MKs DNA, but were not?
You can't pick and choose what is convenient to your argument, you have to include all of it, and it is pretty clear that the DNA is from incidental deposition due to the fact that they both lived there.
LE were pressuring AK towards accusing PL, intimidating and confusing her in a language she understood poorly, so it became a self fulfilling prophecy. It was a statement they wanted, so they made it happen. Experienced interrogators can do that. Under American law there is no way their behaviour would be acceptable. As a consequence everything that came out of that interrogation is contaminated through misconduct and should be excluded from consideration. They never provided a reasonable explanation for their failure to record this interview, and IMO the reason is that such a recording would have exposed their misconduct.
The only way they can sustain their argument is to use all this dubious evidence and interpret it selectively. In short, AK was railroaded by a corrupt judicial system.
Id this happened in an American court it would almost certainly be overturned on appeal, there is just so many holes in both their evidence and their interpretation of it. The proper thing for them to have done was an acquittal due to reasonable doubt, but instead they chose to convict the pair to mask the incompetent investigation and protect their "honor". Honor in this story is more important than the truth, that much is clear.
thesetup85
Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2013
- Messages
- 33
- Reaction score
- 3
Thanks for responding.
Can you please give an example of this. I really don't know what you are refering to:
[How do you explain AKs DNA being found in places that should have been full of MKs DNA, but were not?]
Furthermore, when it comes to:
[LE were pressuring AK towards accusing PL, intimidating and confusing her in a language she understood poorly, so it became a self fulfilling prophecy. It was a statement they wanted, so they made it happen.]
There is no evidence that this really happened. All we have is AK and AK's lawyers word that it did, and you are asuming that they are speaking the truth. The fact you choose this as the truth while ignore that AK lied about things like taking a shower the morning of body discovery (eye witness testemony that she smelled stale and not showered) and about MK always locking her door (strongly rejected by other roomate); is a perfect example of what you said earlier:
[You can't pick and choose what is convenient to your argument, you have to include all of it,]
I also noticed how you kept refering to the American Justice system and how this case wouldn't have floated there. I am neither American nor Italian, but I did see how the American Justice system let O.J. and Casey Anthony walk. So forgive me for not giving too much attention to your "Italian vs. American systems" argument.
- Status