Motivation Report has been released

[redheadedgal]

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.

nencini mentions several times guede's criminal history and refers to him as a skilled and shrewd thief (p. 78). this directly relates to crimes that occurred at the cottage that night, except nencini then uses this info to inaccurately describe why guede wouldn't use his own MO (rock thrown through a 2nd story window) to break into this home. this makes NO sense.

knox was "convicted" for disturbing the peace? if that's how one needs to frame it (to make it more than it was), sure, but it has no bearing on this case unlike guede's past.

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 believe moore is referring to traces in the bedroom.

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".

were these rooms even tested? and how extensively?

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.

it is too bad PLE did not record this "interview" as it would clear this up once and for all. how many excuses did they give for not recording it? 2? 3? hmmm.

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 there a cite for "she smelled stale"? did nencini mention this?

i understand that the error about meredith's door was due to an english/italian error b/w amanda and raffaele.

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.

jurors in both cases have spoken out to say that the prosecution did not prove their case BARD. and similarly, since every single piece of evidence being used against K/S can be refuted, they should not have been convicted. instead of the prosecution proving it's case (as set out in italian law), the defense has been told to prove theirs. if that isn't backwards, i don't know what is.

 

[Footwarrior]

Knox paid a fine for violating a municipal noise ordinance. An offense in the same class as a parking ticket, not serious enough to be considered a misdemeanor. Rudy's prior offenses were much more serious.

 

[sherlockh]

Knox paid a fine for violating a municipal noise ordinance. An offense in the same class as a parking ticket, not serious enough to be considered a misdemeanor. Rudy's prior offenses were much more serious.

Not true.
http://www.tenantsunion.org/en/rights/seattle-noise-laws
http://web1.seattle.gov/courts/cpi/CaseSummary.aspx?caseNo=202557635

 

[sherlockh]

nencini mentions several times guede's criminal history and refers to him as a skilled and shrewd thief (p. 78). this directly relates to crimes that occurred at the cottage that night, except nencini then uses this info to inaccurately describe why guede wouldn't use his own MO (rock thrown through a 2nd story window) to break into this home. this makes NO sense.

Link?

jurors in both cases have spoken out to say that the prosecution did not prove their case BARD. and similarly, since every single piece of evidence being used against K/S can be refuted, they should not have been convicted. instead of the prosecution proving it's case (as set out in italian law), the defense has been told to prove theirs. if that isn't backwards, i don't know what is.

Last time I checked K/S have both been convicted BARD and not a single piece of evidence has been refuted in court by the defense. Made up conspiracy theories on the internet is not the same as actually refuting evidence in court. JMO.

 

[Bill C]

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.

You asked for the author(s) of the articles demonstrating contamination of the bra clasp. This link below will provide you with the answer.
http://www.google.com/url?url=http:...qQIwAA&usg=AFQjCNGvJRNS0hrkZJ5_xPpuUHLRwY0tSw
I would also direct your attention to their complete analysis of the DNA work carried out by Dr. Steffanoni (referenced at the bottom of the article and carried out by the same 2 scientist). It is very technical and probably slow reading for those inexperienced with DNA analysis but nevertheless beautifully demonstrates the haphazard/ possibly corrupt manner in which Dr. Steffanoni carried out the DNA analysis and also points out her attempts to obfuscate her incompetence.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I
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".

One, the police sampled in a decidedly nonrandom way (as they should). The focused on bloodstains, for example. Therefore, I think it is unwise to draw too many conclusions about where DNA was not found. Two, mixed DNA is a common forensic phenomenon. There are examples in which one can be 100% certain that a mixed sample was not deposited simultaneously, although the general rule that DNA cannot by itself tell an investigator when or how it was deposited is still valid. Finally, the issue of having one's DNA found in one's own bathroom came up during he Duke lacrosse case, and everyone except William Cohan knows that DNA in one's own bathroom was to be expected.
http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2011/09/questions-and-answers-about-mixed-dna.html

 

[otto]

Knox paid a fine for violating a municipal noise ordinance. An offense in the same class as a parking ticket, not serious enough to be considered a misdemeanor. Rudy's prior offenses were much more serious.

Guede had no convictions prior to the murder. Knox did.

 

[otto]

You asked for the author(s) of the articles demonstrating contamination of the bra clasp. This link below will provide you with the answer.
http://www.google.com/url?url=http:...qQIwAA&usg=AFQjCNGvJRNS0hrkZJ5_xPpuUHLRwY0tSw
I would also direct your attention to their complete analysis of the DNA work carried out by Dr. Steffanoni (referenced at the bottom of the article and carried out by the same 2 scientist). It is very technical and probably slow reading for those inexperienced with DNA analysis but nevertheless beautifully demonstrates the haphazard/ possibly corrupt manner in which Dr. Steffanoni carried out the DNA analysis and also points out her attempts to obfuscate her incompetence.

Did Bruce Fischer write the article you referenced:

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/b...run-tampering/?

What is Bruce Fischer's training and experience with DNA analysis?

 

[otto]

One, the police sampled in a decidedly nonrandom way (as they should). The focused on bloodstains, for example. Therefore, I think it is unwise to draw too many conclusions about where DNA was not found. Two, mixed DNA is a common forensic phenomenon. There are examples in which one can be 100% certain that a mixed sample was not deposited simultaneously, although the general rule that DNA cannot by itself tell an investigator when or how it was deposited is still valid. Finally, the issue of having one's DNA found in one's own bathroom came up during he Duke lacrosse case, and everyone except William Cohan knows that DNA in one's own bathroom was to be expected.
http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2011/09/questions-and-answers-about-mixed-dna.html

Is that what is in the Nencini report?

 

[sherlockh]

Back to the actual case in court. Seems like the appeals have been filed. Only in Italian news though. This case does not seem to attract much interest outside Italy anymore. Appeal expected end of this year or beginning next year.
http://www.gonews.it/2014/06/16/omi...ssazione-di-amanda-knox-e-raffaele-sollecito/

 

[Bill C]

Did Bruce Fischer write the article you referenced:

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/b...run-tampering/?

What is Bruce Fischer's training and experience with DNA analysis?

It is not Bruce that's the expert. Read the article. He names 2 scientists who authored the work discrediting Steffanoni's DNA work and her testimony. One of those experts was our own Chris Halkides. As I recommended above, you need to read their work directly (as linked at the bottom of Bruce Fischer's op-ed). For the most part Otto I consider you to be a person who tries to look at evidence objectively. After reading their analysis, I would be VERY disappointed if you did not lose ALL faith in anything Steffanoni produced or testified to. Get back to me when you've finished reading their entire report (all sections).

 

[otto]

It is not Bruce that's the expert. Read the article. He names 2 scientists who authored the work discrediting Steffanoni's DNA work and her testimony. One of those experts was our own Chris Halkides. As I recommended above, you need to read their work directly (as linked at the bottom of Bruce Fischer's op-ed). For the most part Otto I consider you to be a person who tries to look at evidence objectively. After reading their analysis, I would be VERY disappointed if you did not lose ALL faith in anything Steffanoni produced or testified to. Get back to me when you've finished reading their entire report (all sections).

It doesn't really matter which persons, unrelated to the case, are badmouthing the Italian professionals that were doing their jobs to solve the murder of Meredith Kercher. Badmouthing those professionals has been the MO of the Knox camp since this started. Not a single person involved in seeking justice for Meredith has been spared. I have no interest. It's old, it's tiring, and it's unproductive. After seven years, it's perceived as crying wolf. Perhaps one person involved in solving the murder screwed up, but not all of the professionals screwed up ... but that is what Knox would have us believe.

 

[Bill C]

It doesn't really matter which persons, unrelated to the case, are badmouthing the Italian professionals that were doing their jobs to solve the murder of Meredith Kercher. Badmouthing those professionals has been the MO of the Knox camp since this started. Not a single person involved in seeking justice for Meredith has been spared. I have no interest. It's old, it's tiring, and it's unproductive. After seven years, it's perceived as crying wolf. Perhaps one person involved in solving the murder screwed up, but not all of the professionals screwed up ... but that is what Knox would have us believe.

<mod snip> Steffanoni, in your own words, did "screw up", big time and from the analysis presented, it seems to be deliberate. Even assuming that it was a series of honest mistakes, those mistakes essentially eliminate, as even slightly reliable all DNA evidence against AK and RS. Without this evidence, reasonable doubt seems pretty logical. It's only a matter of time before these findings become public knowledge. When they do, my guess is that the ISC will have a difficult time upholding the conviction and even if they do, the ECHR will overturn it.

 

[sherlockh]

Steffanoni, in your own words, did "screw up", big time and from the analysis presented, it seems to be deliberate. Even assuming that it was a series of honest mistakes, those mistakes essentially eliminate, as even slightly reliable all DNA evidence against AK and RS. Without this evidence, reasonable doubt seems pretty logical. It's only a matter of time before these findings become public knowledge. When they do, my guess is that the ISC will have a difficult time upholding the conviction and even if they do, the ECHR will overturn it.

Last week the truth was the DNA came from the door. This week the truth is that the DNA came from the machine. I had one look at the latest one and it is glaringly obvious that the negative controls were done and show that contamination by the machine is impossible. None of these theories are part of the actual case. Can we please just stick with the actual case instead of attacking other posters for not believing this weeks 'internet truth'? JMO.

 

[Footwarrior]

Not true.
http://www.tenantsunion.org/en/rights/seattle-noise-laws
http://web1.seattle.gov/courts/cpi/CaseSummary.aspx?caseNo=202557635

Seattle Municipal Code clearly states that Residential Disturbance is a civil infraction, not a crime.

25.08.805 Residential disturbance penalties.

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, conduct made unlawful by Section 25.08.505 shall be a Class 1 civil infraction as contemplated by RCW Chapter 7.80 and is subject to a monetary penalty and a default amount of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250), plus any statutory assessments. A civil infraction under this section shall be processed in the manner set forth in RCW Chapter 7.80.

So isn't it time you stopped calling it a crime?

 

[otto]

<mod snip> Steffanoni, in your own words, did "screw up", big time and from the analysis presented, it seems to be deliberate. Even assuming that it was a series of honest mistakes, those mistakes essentially eliminate, as even slightly reliable all DNA evidence against AK and RS. Without this evidence, reasonable doubt seems pretty logical. It's only a matter of time before these findings become public knowledge. When they do, my guess is that the ISC will have a difficult time upholding the conviction and even if they do, the ECHR will overturn it.

I don't think so. According to Ms Knox, the prosecutor of a corrupt, medieval country persecuted her, then investigators persecuted her, then the judge persecuted her, then the jury, then a newly assigned prosecutor persecuted her, then another judge and another jury, then the Supreme court and so on and so on and so on. Now, it is Judge Nencini that is picking on the murderer.

I don't think anyone wants to hear it anymore.

"Judge Nencini also says Knox and her defence tried to tamper with evidence and pervert the truth by introducing prisoners as witnesses, whose testimony turned out to be false and induced by “other interests”.

“It is clear how this trial was subject to heavy evidence tampering, both internally (slander) and externally,” Nencini writes."

http://www.theweek.co.uk/news-opini...nife-killed-meredith-says-judge#ixzz34rZpZHLk

 

[MichaelSmith]

A couple more sections of the Nencini Report has been translated. Apparently he doesn't know luminol is sprayed from a bottle because he writes it was "sprinkled" at the crime scene. Ohh dear. He also gets the tow truck drivers name wrong and what time Sophie said goodbye to Meredith on the night of the murder.

http://www.amandaknox.com/the-meredith-kercher-murder/verdicts-motivations/the-nencini-report/

 

[Bill C]

Last week the truth was the DNA came from the door. This week the truth is that the DNA came from the machine. I had one look at the latest one and it is glaringly obvious that the negative controls were done and show that contamination by the machine is impossible. None of these theories are part of the actual case. Can we please just stick with the actual case instead of attacking other posters for not believing this weeks 'internet truth'? JMO.

How can a negative control have a Ct 32 and not contain DNA. If it does not contain DNA it should register a Ct 50 (Ct refers to the number of amplifications a sample goes through before DNA is detected. If the sample is amplified 50 times and shows no DNA, it is considered free of DNA. All negative controls should have a Ct = 50). As I just stated, Steffanoni's work shows negative controls with a CT = 32. Thus they contain DNA, thus THERE IS CONTAMINATION. What's worse, Steffanoni testified that her lab never had contamination, obviously a lie.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Last week the truth was the DNA came from the door. This week the truth is that the DNA came from the machine. I had one look at the latest one and it is glaringly obvious that the negative controls were done and show that contamination by the machine is impossible. None of these theories are part of the actual case. Can we please just stick with the actual case instead of attacking other posters for not believing this weeks 'internet truth'? JMO.

sherlockh,

The door had Raffaele's fingerprints, but I am not saying (and Conti and Vecchiotti did not appear to be saying) that DNA must have come from the door. I am saying that the FP's failure to follow universal guidelines on how frequently to change gloves makes this possibility more likely. You may be confusing the no template controls (NTCs) of quantitation runs (at least one of which showed DNA but should not have) with the negative controls that should have been run and displayed in the form of egrams. The latter have never been released, as has been discussed and documented many times. I have no idea what you mean when you say that the controls show that contamination was impossible. One of the positive controls in the quantitation run had several times the DNA it should have, and that is not the only problem that was uncovered. Facts are stubborn things.

 

[Footwarrior]

So how many unreliable witnesses did the prosecution bring to court in this case?

Toto the heroin addict who saw disco busses on a night they didn't run. Who precisely timed when the suspects entered the square by looking at his watch when he didn't own one.

The storekeeper who changed his story months after the crime, contradicting what he told the police. Who also claimed to have met Amanda's Italian uncle.

The old lady who remembered hearing a scream months after the crime.

The Albanian drug dealer who defended himself from a knife wielding Amanda by throwing olives and a cell phone.

The witness that saw Amanda, Raffaele, Meredith and Rudy walking to the cottage at a time when Raffaele was definitely known to be elsewhere.