Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#12

[aa9511]

And if you do that, you still have Guede's palm print and shoe prints in Meredith's blood, and aspects of his same MO from at least 3 break in the weeks previous; and he's admitted being in the cottage during the murder.

Ok, that's fine. That is up to the courts to decide what the result is, based upon what evidence is give to them.

So, then, if you want to exclude certain DNA evidence, it should have been done equally in respect to all the DNA evidence, b/c it was all collected by the same people and using the same methods.

 

[otto]

Otto seemed shocked that anyone could conjecture that a duly appointed forensic scientist would stoop so low as to possibly
plant evidence (Otto,I'm sorry if my paraphrasing of your comments is incorrect). I would point out that there is precedence in the US where such a scientist has been fired and is being criminally investigated for doing just that and not in just one case but in possibly hundreds of cases she worked on. This ongoing investigation apparently has the potential of throwing hundreds of convictions out the window (I'm sorry but I do not have the specific reference to these cases available at this time).

<respectfully snipped for context>

The defense was invited to attend when the evidence was tested, and chose to not attend. They failed in their responsibility, but that is not an excuse to criticize the testing that was done. It appears that they stayed away to give themselves as much latitude as they needed in terms of criticizing the process. Had they been present, as they were certainly invited, any complaints after the fact could have been avoided.

There were serious problems of incompetence and a tendency to want to appease the prosecution agenda in the North Carolina forensic lab, but there is no foundation for similar allegations against the Italian labs.

 

[Myvice]

I wonder why there was a need to tell the story of RS accidently pricking MK with the knife if the evidence wasn't there to begin with.

 

[Amber29]

I'm just going to say IMO if the forensic team was planting evidence we would have a much stronger case. Why would they stop at the bra clasp? Why not rub the mop head in the blood? Where did they get RSs DNA to rub on the clasp? It seriously weakens an argument to accuse PS of planting evidence and I seriously doubt a juror would believe that.

I can understand some saying contamination is possible and using that as a reason to excuse the bra clasp as evidence but not saying it was planted.

Considering some dont even believe that and still hold the bra clasp as strong evidence, I'd say there could be jurors who agree.

 

[aa9511]

I need to respond to a couple of posts here:
1) I absolutely admit that my claim of planting evidence is both inflammatory and conjecture.Having admitted that, I consider Steffanoni's overall behavior very suspect. During her testimony in court she initially omitted the fact that the TMB tests were done on the luminol footprints and were negative. Why would she have not done further tests to either confirm or deny the presence of blood in the footprints found in the hall and failing to perform those confirmatory tests, how could she in good conscience then claim, in court, that the footprints definitely contained blood. She also claimed to have submitted control studies for her low content DNA analysis. To date, no one has been able to find these controls. Most good forensic scientists would keep copies of their data, just so they could have backup in case data is lost. As I stated in my original post, the timing of the collection of the bra clasp corresponding to the prosecution's discovering that the shoe prints in the hall originally ascribed to RS were in fact made by shoes worn by RG seems suspicious. Additionally, the carnival like collection of the the bra clasp seems a little out of place. Why would they have any reason to think the bra clasp would have any more probative value than the rest of the bra which produced no significant evidence? Finally, wouldn't a good scientist store the tested bra clasp in such a manner as to allow further testing? Steffanoni allowed the clasp to rust thus preventing further testing.Taken together(osmoticallyhttp://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/smilies/blushing.gif) these should produce some degree of suspicion. In my opinion, Steffanoni was either an incredibly incompetent lab scientist and willing to lie to cover up her incompetence or there is something more malevolent at work here. Notice I'm not mentioning the fried harddrives which Steffanoni had nothing to do with. Do these coincidences amount to proof? Absolutely not. But if I were a juror on this case it would force me to take ANYTHING Steffanoni testified to with a grain of salt. Otto seemed shocked that anyone could conjecture that a duly appointed forensic scientist would stoop so low as to possibly
plant evidence (Otto,I'm sorry if my paraphrasing of your comments is incorrect). I would point out that there is precedence in the US where such a scientist has been fired and is being criminally investigated for doing just that and not in just one case but in possibly hundreds of cases she worked on. This ongoing investigation apparently has the potential of throwing hundreds of convictions out the window (I'm sorry but I do not have the specific reference to these cases available at this time).

With respect to Aa9511, I would agree with you. If MK's blood was CONVINCINGLY found on the knife taken from RS apartment, I too would vote for a guilty verdict. However, and it's a BIG HOWEVER, the DNA analysis does NOT meet International standards in 2 main respects: 1) The analysis was not repeated and International Standards for low content DNA analysis as stated by both CV and the Rome laboratory that did the analysis of the DNA requested by the 2nd appeals court both stated that AT LEAST 2 separate runs are REQUIRED; and 2) No controls, even though Steffanoni claims to have submitted them, have ever been available to be examined by the court appointed expert, CV (in the first appeals trial) or by the defense and their experts at ANY time. Without those controls there is no way to rule out contamination. It should be noted that MK's DNA was run through that lab 6 days before the knife sample and Steffanoni claims that 6 days, in and of itself, is enough to eliminate contamination. I might add that if 6 days was enough time for MK's DNA to dissipate from the lab, why didn't the purported DNA from the bra clasp dissipate in the 12 days between the murder and the time the clasp was collected. With low quantity DNA analysis, in particular, controls are absolutely necessary to eliminate the possibility of contamination. The MK DNA on the knife, as analyzed by Steffanoni, would be inadmissible in just about any court in Western Europe and North America, whether or not it was actually present. Unfortunately for the defendants we are dealing with Italy where this sort of evidence may or may not be acceptable. I'm not a lawyer but if AK and RS are convicted on Jan 20th, and the judge uses the knife's DNA to convict, I suspect that the defendants might have a good basis for appeal to the European Union Court.

But Meredith's DNA was found on the knife. I thought this was supposed to be about finding out the "truth," not figuring out what evidence should technically be admitted into court and what should not.

 

[Bill C]

Otto,
This will be my last post before going off to bed. Don't get me wrong, from what I have been able to read, I think the defense for AK and RS has been suboptimal especially the lawyers for AK. I also agree with you that they were remiss in not attending the testing but that doesn't explain why the testing, record keeping and handling of evidence was so poorly performed. Don't you think that accusing the defense of purposely not attending in order to give themselves latitude for future criticism, is conjecture? I admit I conjectured that Steffanoni's "mistakes" were either the result of repeated stupendous incompetence and the willingness to present half truths and/or lies in court to cover-up that incompetence or the result of intentional fabrication and destroying of evidence. I honestly can think of no other possibility, can you?
In the best case scenario, both the defense and the prosecution's forensic experts are incompetent. In the worst case scenario we are dealing with manipulative defense lawyers (God forbid there are such beasts, lol) and a corrupt set of "respected" prosecution experts. In either case, I pity the defendants and the victim's family because there's a good chance that the real truth may never be established. That may have been the case even with a competent trustworthy defense team and forensic scientists but now it appears less likely since with any of the 3 possible verdicts in this case there will always be doubt.

 

[Bill C]

Aa9511,
I lied, I'm not in bed yet. This site is like the Mafia:floorlaugh:, it keeps pulling me back in. Found by whom? Steffanoni? As I said in a previous post, I would take anything Steffanoni said with a very large grain of salt. Having some experience in forensics I honestly think that her work in this case should be completely discredited.

 

[aa9511]

I wonder how often they video-tape the collection of evidence in US cases? For the trials I've followed, I've never seen video of the collection of evidence. In fact, in some cases it would have greatly helped, as in one case there were questions about the state of the scene in the beginning, and suggestions that the defendant and/or his friends moved some things after detectives and others were already on the scene (it was the case involving a cop so he was still at the scene).

I ask this because if there was such video, I have no doubt that every defense in every case would find something wrong with the collection. They would point out many mistakes to the jury. Does anyone on here doubt that every defense would do that? I have no doubt that the defenses would dissect that collection video from start to finish and point out any mistake, no matter how minor. Perhaps even making up mistakes, which would then be the job of the prosecution to point out that actually, no that is not a mistake.

I would also like to point out that if the prosecution supposedly went around planting DNA in different places, how did they "plant" the footprints which showed in luminol? How did they plant invisible footprints?

 

[aa9511]

Aa9511,
I lied, I'm not in bed yet. This site is like the Mafia:floorlaugh:, it keeps pulling me back in. Found by whom? Steffanoni? As I said in a previous post, I would take anything Steffanoni said with a very large grain of salt. Having some experience in forensics I honestly think that her work in this case should be completely discredited.

It is either Meredith's DNA match or it's not, is that not right? How can it be "in the middle"? Or "almost," but not quite?

 

[TorisMom003]

Ok, but I'm sorry, you cannot pick and choose which evidence to keep and which to toss out. It has to be something more objective than that. For example, toss out all the DNA evidence collected at the crime scene. Therefore, no DNA evidence admitted in Rudy's case, and no DNA evidence admitted into Amanda and RS's case.

You have to see how discriminatory it sounds that we are only supposed to exclude evidence which is very damaging towards Amanda or RS, and specifically here for Raffaele, in that it has no explanation other than contamination.

Actually I have said that there is some evidence against RG that shouldn't have been allowed in either. The jacket that was collected the same day as the bra clasp should have been questioned as well. However, since RG had no reason to be in the cottage before and RS did, it does point to RG being there at the time Meredith was killed.

If evidence is questionable based on the way it was collected and/or tested then yes, that evidence should not be allowed in at trial no matter who it may help or hurt. There is also DNA evidence against RG that did not run the risk of contamination. For instance, finding RG's DNA inside of Meredith. There is no logical reason why his DNA should be there at all. And Meredith was not left at the cottage for more than a week before her autopsy was done and testing of the DNA in and on her done.

There are guidelines that must be used when collecting and testing evidence. If those guidelines are ignored then the evidence and whatever results from testing that evidence should be called into question if not ignored completely.

MOO

 

[otto]

It is either Meredith's DNA match or it's not, is that not right? How can it be "in the middle"? Or "almost," but not quite?

All DNA experts, including those in the annulled Hellman decision, agreed that the DNA found on the knife belonged to Meredith. It's pointless to dispute that. It's also pointless to dispute that the DNA on the clasp belongs to Sollecito, as that has also been verified by an independent expert. Those are givens. All that is left is the contamination arguments, and we have yet to hear one that actually fits with reality. The "planted evidence" scenario needs a leg to stand on before it should be considered.

 

[aa9511]

Actually I have said that there is some evidence against RG that shouldn't have been allowed in either. The jacket that was collected the same day as the bra clasp should have been questioned as well. However, since RG had no reason to be in the cottage before and RS did, it does point to RG being there at the time Meredith was killed.

If evidence is questionable based on the way it was collected and/or tested then yes, that evidence should not be allowed in at trial no matter who it may help or hurt. There is also DNA evidence against RG that did not run the risk of contamination. For instance, finding RG's DNA inside of Meredith. There is no logical reason why his DNA should be there at all. And Meredith was not left at the cottage for more than a week before her autopsy was done and testing of the DNA in and on her done.

There are guidelines that must be used when collecting and testing evidence. If those guidelines are ignored then the evidence and whatever results from testing that evidence should be called into question if not ignored completely.

MOO

If there were problems with the collection of evidence, it is the defense's job to point out those problems, and then it is up to the jury who must decide whether or not that argument has validity, and whether or not it compromises the case.

Amanda and RS have a defense team, do they not?

If you and everyone else has seen this video, would Amanda's defense not have access to the video?

Amanda and RS were given a (lengthy) trial, with the defense given equal opportunity to give their side and refute the evidence and the other aspects of the prosecution's case, were they not?

 

[otto]

Actually I have said that there is some evidence against RG that shouldn't have been allowed in either. The jacket that was collected the same day as the bra clasp should have been questioned as well. However, since RG had no reason to be in the cottage before and RS did, it does point to RG being there at the time Meredith was killed.

If evidence is questionable based on the way it was collected and/or tested then yes, that evidence should not be allowed in at trial no matter who it may help or hurt. There is also DNA evidence against RG that did not run the risk of contamination. For instance, finding RG's DNA inside of Meredith. There is no logical reason why his DNA should be there at all. And Meredith was not left at the cottage for more than a week before her autopsy was done and testing of the DNA in and on her done.

There are guidelines that must be used when collecting and testing evidence. If those guidelines are ignored then the evidence and whatever results from testing that evidence should be called into question if not ignored completely.

MOO

Sollecito might have an explanation for being at the cottage on 2-3 occasions prior to the murder, but it sure doesn't explain what his DNA is doing on Meredith Kerchers bra.

In the context of the "contamination theory", there is no reason to assume that evidence implicating Guede was not contaminated. Per Hampikian, anything is possible, so there's never a good reason to rule out contamination.

There is nothing wrong with the results of the examination of the evidence. There is simply too much evidence for each item to be an error due to one concocted scenario after another.

 

[aa9511]

Sollecito might have an explanation for being at the cottage on 2-3 occasions prior to the murder, but it sure doesn't explain what his DNA is doing on Meredith Kerchers bra.

In the context of the "contamination theory", there is no reason to assume that evidence implicating Guede was not contaminated. Per Hampikian, anything is possible, so there's never a good reason to rule out contamination.

There is nothing wrong with the results of the examination of the evidence. There is simply too much evidence for each item to be an error due to one concocted scenario after another.

Also, let's not forget Amanda's and Raffaele's words. How did the prosecution manage to "control" their words? Did they take them to a lab and implant some chips in them or something, and maybe they have a big secret underground control center where they control their minds and what they say.

The alibi, the morning story, what they did in the hours before the discovery of the body, how they explained evidence against them, etc., those were all their own words.

 

[otto]

Also, let's not forget Amanda's and Raffaele's words. How did the prosecution manage to "control" their words? Did they take them to a lab and implant some chips in them or something, and maybe they have a big secret underground control center where they control their minds and what they say.

The alibi, the morning story, what they did in the hours before the discovery of the body, how they explained evidence against them, etc., those were all their own words.

It does seem a bit unusual to return to the beginning of the case and question how the evidence got there, and whether the analysis of that evidence is accurate. The accuracy of the evidence has been independently verified and peer reviewed. Balding confirmed Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp, and Conti & Vecchioti confirmed Meredith's DNA on the knife.

How did the evidence get there? That's a very good question. Lab contamination has been ruled out, even by Conti & Vecchioti. We have Meredith's DNA on a knife at Sollecito's apartment. Clearly there was no glove-to-glove contamination. We have Sollecito's DNA on Meredith's bra. If there was glove-to-glove contamination, what is the origin of the DNA? It wasn't raining DNA at the cottage and his DNA is in how many places ... a cigarette butt in the kitchen that was collected on Nov 2? What is the origin of the contamination. Hampikian's anything is possible is not an acceptable answer per the Supreme Court in Italy.

If the contamination scenario cannot be provided, I think it's a bit much to then attempt to slide into the "planted evidence" scenario. What next, aliens?

 

[TorisMom003]

It does seem a bit unusual to return to the beginning of the case and question how the evidence got there, and whether the analysis of that evidence is accurate. The accuracy of the evidence has been verified. Balding confirmed Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp, and Conti & Vecchioti confirmed Meredith's DNA on the knife.

How did the evidence get there? That's a very good question. Lab contamination has been ruled out, even by Conti & Vecchioti. We have Meredith's DNA at Sollecito's apartment. Clearly there was no glove-to-glove contamination. We have Sollecito's DNA on Meredith's bra. If there was glove-to-glove contamination, what is the origin of the DNA? It wasn't raining DNA at the cottage and his DNA is in how many places ... a cigarette butt in the kitchen that was collected on Nov 2? What is the origin of the contamination. Hampikian's anything is possible is not an acceptable answer per the Supreme Court in Italy.

If the contamination scenario cannot be provided, I think it's a bit much to then attempt to slide into the "planted evidence" scenario. What next, aliens?

Can you link to where Conti and Vecchioti confirmed that it was Meredith's DNA on the knife? I just read the Hellman report on the knife and found this: "To conclude, the circumstantial evidence represented by Meredith Kercher’s DNA on the blade of the seized knife is held to be without foundation". Thanks.

 

[otto]

Can you link to where Conti and Vecchioti confirmed that it was Meredith's DNA on the knife? I just read the Hellman report on the knife and found this: "To conclude, the circumstantial evidence represented by Meredith Kercher’s DNA on the blade of the seized knife is held to be without foundation". Thanks.

Hellman's opinion was annulled by the Supreme Court of Italy because he made serious errors in judgement. During cross examination, I think it was Conti, but it might have been Vecchioti, that confirmed that there was no doubt that the DNA belonged to Meredith ... along with agreeing that there was no possibility of contamination in the lab.

I don't know where the link is. I'm going from memory. I'm not going to look for the links to the fact that the Conti & Vecchioti team were cross examined, and during that cross examination they had to agree that there were several days between testing of Meredith and Sollecito DNA (it was something like seven or ten days between handling of samples and use of machines). They had to admit that there was no realistic scenario of contamination in the lab. I'm sure that someone can find that trial segment. Knox seems to have much of it on her website. Meredith's DNA is also confirmed as Meredith's DNA. Sollecito's DNA on the bra fell under the possible contamination theory due to having been collected on December 18, but again there is still no realistic scenario of how that happened.

 

[TorisMom003]

Hellman's opinion was annulled by the Supreme Court of Italy because he made serious errors in judgement. During cross examination, I think it was Conti, but it might have been Vecchioti, that confirmed that there was no doubt that the DNA belonged to Meredith ... along with agreeing that there was no possibility of contamination in the lab.

I don't know where the link is. I'm going from memory. I'm not going to look for the links to the fact that the Conti & Vecchioti team were cross examined, and during that cross examination they had to agree that there were several days between testing of Meredith and Sollecito DNA. They had to admit that there was no realistic scenario of contamination in the lab. I'm sure that someone can find that trial segment. Knox seems to have much of it on her website. Meredith's DNA is also confirmed as Meredith's DNA. Sollecito's DNA on the bra fell under the possible contamination theory due to having been collected on December 18, but again there is still no realistic scenario of how that happened.

All DNA experts, including those in the annulled Hellman decision, agreed that the DNA found on the knife belonged to Meredith. It's pointless to dispute that. It's also pointless to dispute that the DNA on the clasp belongs to Sollecito, as that has also been verified by an independent expert. Those are givens. All that is left is the contamination arguments, and we have yet to hear one that actually fits with reality. The "planted evidence" scenario needs a leg to stand on before it should be considered.

Regarding the top post, you state that the Hellman report was annulled which sounds as though it should not be considered. In the bottom post you state that ALL DNA experts, including those in the annulled Hellman decision, agreed that the DNA found on the knife belonged to Meredith. This is not true based on reading the Hellman decision. Hellman made his decision based on the findings of the Expert Panel.

 

[otto]

Regarding the top post, you state that the Hellman report was annulled which sounds as though it should not be considered. In the bottom post you state that ALL DNA experts, including those in the annulled Hellman decision, agreed that the DNA found on the knife belonged to Meredith. This is not true based on reading the Hellman decision. Hellman made his decision based on the findings of the Expert Panel.

Yes, all DNA experts that were qualified to testify at trial, or who were selected to complete a peer review (bra DNA), agreed. Opinions from people that were not qualified to testify are irrelevant to the case. Hellman's opinion was annulled, but that does not mean that testimony on which he based his opinion vanished. That testimony still exists and will be considered. His opinion of that testimony has been stricken from the record. We'll see if a second review arrives at the same, or a different, conclusion.

I'm not referencing Hellman's opinion, as that was annulled. I'm referencing the testimony from Conti during the appeal. That should be available at one of the two well known websites that host transcripts. In that court testimony she accepts that the DNA on the knife belongs to Meredith Kercher and that a lab contamination theory is not grounded in reality.

 

[otto]

The only other valid complaint about the DNA analysis of Meredith's DNA on the knife relates to the fact that the analyst pushed the machine, I believe twice, after the sample did not produce a clear result. It's too bad that the defense didn't bother to show up and give an opinion ... rather than register complaints later. In pushing the machine, and the iterations of the parsing of the sample, the analyst got a clear reading that no one can deny is consistent with Meredith's DNA. There's an overlay somewhere that clearly shows the alignment of the sample with her DNA.

Since that test was done, it has been discovered that machines can be pushed to produce a more clear reading of the sample, and it is now accepted that a more refined examination of samples is possible. Conti and Vecchioti stated that there was no DNA on the knife to test, that no test method was available. That was not true, because given more refined (internationally recognized) test methods and better machines, it is possible to test smaller specimens. No one questioned Knox's DNA on the knife ... instead excuses were made, yet it was a smaller sample than the sample on the knife that was matched to Meredith. If Knox's smaller sample is accepted, why isn't Meredith's larger sample accepted?

In any case, these developments in DNA analysis completely deflated the complaint about pushing the machine ... and that left nothing more than the contamination theory, so everyone is eagerly awaiting that explanation. Luca Maori will hopefully address this question in about 45 minutes.