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

[MichaelSmith]

The Hellmann report has been cancelled. All those old arguments turned out to be false.

SC Report (BBM)

There is no failure. There is simply no point to do less sensitive confirmatory testing after a negative TMB test. Stefanoni didn't insist they contained blood. She explained that Luminol is a presumptive blood test, and therefore you can't say with certainty that it is blood.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Patrizia_Stefanoni's_Testimony_(English)

It would help if you can post exactly what she said when posting a link and making a specific argument not your opinion about what she said.

 

[MichaelSmith]

From the blogger https://twitter.com/andreavogt

Andrea Vogt ‏@andreavogt 1h
Kercher atty Maresca: Perugians reacted angrily to #amandaknox acquittal because it was scandalous: acquittal was decided in advance.

There he is lying again and making false accusations against a retired Judge. He should be disbarred.

ETA: Just noticed Amanda has a new Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/AmandaKnoxDefense

 

[SMK]

In this Google translation, we get to hear about the Prosecutor "Horsehair"

and how Raffaelle was seated in the classroom, next to her father :giggle: :giggle: :giggle:

Murder Meredith: The prosecutor asks for "precautionary measures" for Amanda and Raffaele Sollecito

According to the defense, "the alibi of Raffaele is valid." It remains in default the other accused, Amanda Knox, currently in the United States. The defense of Amanda: "He can not wait to end the nightmare." The Attorney General has asked for sentences to 26 years for Sollecito and 30 for the other accused, Amanda Knox, along with a precautionary measure against the defendants "necessary to ensure the eventual execution" of the judgment

January 20th 2014A Florence on the penultimate day of the trial of a call for the murder of Meredith Kercher occurred in Perugia on the night between the first and November 2, 2007. In the classroom, one of the accused, Raffaele Sollecito, sitting beside her father, Francis. The other suspect is Amanda Knox, currently in the United States. Both say they are innocent. Thursday, January 30th is the expected judgment.

Requests for convictions
In the indictment, the pg Horsehair Alexander asked for Sollecito sentenced to 26 years and 30 for the other accused, Amanda Knox, who is in the United States and who is not willing to return to Italy. In addition, the Attorney General has asked for a protective order against the defendants "necessary to ensure the eventual execution" of the judgment of conviction

http://www.rainews.it/dl/rainews/ar...5-ab9f-07a91be246c4.html#sthash.VAab46tI.dpuf

 

[aa9511]

He relies on emotive and inflammatory arguments to make his case. Any student of debate can tell you that you use that strategy when the facts are not on your side.

If you need to use emotion to sway a jury, it is because you know that you cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt, so you try to cloud their minds in other ways.

Oh really, I recall RS's lawyer just a few days ago waving a knife around.......

 

[aa9511]

My argument here is that it could easily be contamination from the forensic lab. Remember large quantities (unlike the low quantity DNA found on the knife) of MK's DNA were run thru that same lab only 6 days earlier. The controls for contamination unfortunately are nowhere to be found. We are expected to take Steffanoni's word for the fact that they were done and were negative. How can you or anyone else trust her after in court she initially failed to disclose the TMB- results from the luminol+ footprints and only did so when confronted with the results on cross-examination. She then insisted that, despite the TMB- tests and her failure to do other confirmatory tests on the samples, the footprints definitely contained blood.

Ok, then you have to dismiss all the DNA collected and all the DNA/forensic evidence tested.

You have to say that all of it is inadmissable b/c, essentially, the technicians, etc.., are sloppy, or whatever reason you choose to use.

How does it look to others when the supporters of her innocence want to pick and choose which DNA evidence to keep and which to toss out?

Of course, to keep all of it out in court, there has to be shown to some proof or something showing that contamination was highly likely, in order to have all the DNA evidence tossed out.

You cannot simply say, no, the knife DNA must be tossed out, but let's keep this one and that one.

 

[quesarita]

Ok, then you have to dismiss all the DNA collected and all the DNA/forensic evidence tested.

You have to say that all of it is inadmissable b/c, essentially, the technicians, etc.., are sloppy, or whatever reason you choose to use.

How does it look to others when the supporters of her innocence want to pick and choose which DNA evidence to keep and which to toss out?

Of course, to keep all of it out in court, there has to be shown to some proof or something showing that contamination was highly likely, in order to have all the DNA evidence tossed out.

You cannot simply say, no, the knife DNA must be tossed out, but let's keep this one and that one.

Earlier you said, "Throw out ALL the DNA evidence," but 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.

So now you want to throw out all forensic evidence as well? Then you'll need a confession, won't you?

 

[Bill C]

Ok, then you have to dismiss all the DNA collected and all the DNA/forensic evidence tested.

You have to say that all of it is inadmissable b/c, essentially, the technicians, etc.., are sloppy, or whatever reason you choose to use.

How does it look to others when the supporters of her innocence want to pick and choose which DNA evidence to keep and which to toss out?

Of course, to keep all of it out in court, there has to be shown to some proof or something showing that contamination was highly likely, in order to have all the DNA evidence tossed out.

You cannot simply say, no, the knife DNA must be tossed out, but let's keep this one and that one.

I would only throwout DNA evidence that was shown to be unreliable because of problems in collection, storage or analysis. I would throwout all the low quantity DNA analyzed by Steffanoni's lab because she has proven herself incapable of adequately evaluating this type of DNA to International standards. The Rome Carbonarri's (sp) analysis of the knife's DNA is a texbook example of how low quantity DNA should be analyzed. Throwout the bra clasp DNA because of the length of time it was left uncollected, the dirty technique used in the collection itself, Steffanoni's failure to attempt to identify the 2-4 other people whose DNA also appeared on the clasp and her failure to store the clasp properly so that it could later be restudied. I would probably also throwout RG's DNA found on the coat sleeve since it remained for days uncollected, sitting in the murder room. From what I can understand, the other DNA collection and analysis has never been credibly questioned (I may be wrong here) and therefore should be admissible. To my mind the prosecution in ANY criminal case should have the burden of proof of showing that evidence presented was collected, stored and analyzed to International standards. Unfortunately, that was NOT the case in the examples above.
There is another point regarding the MK's purported DNA found on the knife. That knife was analyzed extensively for blood and NONE was found. Are you hypothesizing that AK and RS cleaned the knife of blood but left MK's and AK's DNA behind. My experience is that it is easier to degrade DNA through cleaning than it is blood. One might argue that if the knife was cleaned, the area around the handle might be missed because the washer might be holding the knife by the handle. That might explain the presence of AK's DNA there but it is harder to argue that the mid to distal part of the blade (where MK's purported DNA was found) was washed clean of blood but not DNA.

 

[SMK]

In today's article from the Independent , it speaks of Sollecito being prevented from fleeing Italy via passport confiscation or arrest if his conviction is upheld on Jan 30.

Of course we don't know but that the court will choose to acquit both - that said, if the convictions are upheld, what would this mean for Knox in the US? Anyone know? (Otto? :bateyes: )

Also, do you think the predictions expressed in this piece are accurate?

Meredith Kercher murder trial:

Possibility grows that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito will have guilty verdicts reinstated

Prosecutors have asked the Florence Appeals court for "cautionary measures" to be applied against murder suspect Raffaele Sollecito as the feeling mounts that guilty verdicts will be re-instated against Sollecito and his ex-girlfriend Amanda Knox for the killing for Meredith Kercher.

Chief prosecutor Alessandro Crini said the measures could see Sollecito, who denies any part in the brutal 2007 slaying of the British student, have his passport confiscated, be subject to house arrest or even returned to prison, where he has already spent four years after being convicted in 2009 of the murder.<modsnip>[/B]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-have-guilty-verdicts-reinstated-9072880.html

 

[otto]

"If she is convicted, Italy would likely ask the U.S. State Department to take steps to turn her over to Italian authorities. She would be at risk for being sent to Italy if she travels to another country that has an extradition treaty with Italy."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/01/20/amanda-knox-retrial/4659111/

 

[SMK]

"If she is convicted, Italy would likely ask the U.S. State Department to take steps to turn her over to Italian authorities. She would be at risk for being sent to Italy if she travels to another country that has an extradition treaty with Italy."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/01/20/amanda-knox-retrial/4659111/

Thanks for this , Otto.

I guess we will all see what develops at the end of the month.

From the article:

If she is convicted, Italy would likely ask the U.S. State Department to take steps to turn her over to Italian authorities. She would be at risk for being sent to Italy if she travels to another country that has an extradition treaty with Italy.

"This whole trial has been messy, but that will seem like nothing compared to the problems that could emerge with a guilty verdict from this trial," said Massimo Lanzoni, a legal procedures expert with the University of Rome.

eta: Oh sorry- did not know that was a quote in your post above, thought it was you talking :laugh: :giggle:

 

[otto]

Thanks for the link. I would not have known about it if you didn't post it.

Not I.

 

[SMK]

Another of today's news pieces:

I did not know Crini had stated this today (bbm):

Sex-game scenario ruled out in Amanda Knox retrial

FLORENCE, Italy, Jan. 20 (UPI) -- Prosecutors Monday ruled out a sex-game scenario in the death of Amanda Knox's British roommate in Knox's retrial in Florence, Italy.

"I find no traces nor hints of this hypothetical erotic game," prosecutor Alessandro Crini said.

Defense lawyers in Florence wrapped up their closing remarks Monday in the retrial of Knox and ex-boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, in the 2007 death of British student Meredith Kercher. Knox and Sollecito have denied killing Kercher in what prosecutors in the original trial said was a sex game gone wrong. They were convicted in 2009 but acquitted on appeal two years later.Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-N...nox-retrial/UPI-19961390238460/#ixzz2qyzsjz3r

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-N...nox-retrial/UPI-19961390238460/#ixzz2qyzA5JbT

Here is another piece:

FLORENCE, ITALY &#8212; A prosecutor urged a court on Monday to take steps to make sure that American Amanda Knox and her former Italian boyfriend would serve their sentences, if they are convicted of murdering British student Meredith Kercher.

Prosecutor Alessandro Crini preceded his request by noting that Knox has remained in the United States for this trial, while co-defendant Raffaele Sollecito has at times traveled abroad.

"The situation is unusual," Crini told The Associated Press on the sidelines of the court session. "Usually if someone is convicted of murder, they are already in custody."

<modsnip>

Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/201...ourt-hears-final-rebuttals.html#storylink=cpy

From the Boston Herald:
Knox, 26, has been tried in absentia, a status that formally is not prejudicial in her regard since defendants in Italy are not required to appear in court. However, the judge showed some discomfort when her lawyers entered into court record an email statement she sent via her counsel and noted it lacked the legal standing of a personal declaration defendants are allowed to make when they personally appear in court.

If a guilty verdict in this trial is upheld by Italy's top criminal court, Knox would become a fugitive if she failed to return to serve a sentence.

Sollecito's father, Francesco Sollecito, said his son has no intention of fleeing justice, a sentiment echoed by his lawyer Giulia Bongiorno.

"The fact that Raffaele has no intention of escaping the trial is evident by his presence" in the courtroom, Francesco Sollecito said. He said his son has been legitimately looking for jobs abroad, having explained in court that prospective employers in Italy are put off by the notoriety surrounding the case. "He is looking around, because he hopes this story will end soon" the father said.http://bostonherald.com/news_opinio...knox_lawyers_to_have_last_word_before_verdict

 

[SMK]

Amanda Knox Faces Another Guilty Verdict

Surely it’s time for this case to end? Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are about to hear the verdict of an Italian court for the fourth time since Meredith Kercher’s murder in 2009.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/20/amanda-knox-faces-another-guilty-verdict.html

 

[aa9511]

Earlier you said, "Throw out ALL the DNA evidence," but 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.

So now you want to throw out all forensic evidence as well? Then you'll need a confession, won't you?

There is no legitimate court which would allow whatever evidence the defense wants to be tossed out to just be tossed out, without doing it uniformly for all the evidence in a case. This is not about Rudy. I am speaking of looking at it objectively. If someone, either the prosecution OR the defense, asks for a piece of evidence to be tossed out b/c of the likelihood of contamination, then does it not follow that all the evidence collected using the same methods have to be tossed out as well? Or, alternatively, if the evidence is chosen to be kept, then you have to keep all of the evidence.

I am not focused on Rudy here.

If you want all of the evidence tossed out, that is fine what is kept for Rudy or what is not kept. I have no motivation to clear Rudy of anything. Why would I? So what if there is still palm print, shoeprint, etc. etc....that's good! I want Rudy in jail! So toss out all of the evidence in all cases pertaining to Meredith Kercher, the jury would then have the rest of the Rudy evidence, they would still vote guilty or Rudy would plead guilty.

I am not saying this to somehow clear Rudy of something....why??? That makes no sense.

I am saying that there is no legitimate court in the world which would allow certain pieces of DNA evidence thrown out and certain pieces kept b/c of "contamination", when they have all been collected in the same manner. They would either throw away all or keep all.

 

[aa9511]

I would only throwout DNA evidence that was shown to be unreliable because of problems in collection, storage or analysis. I would throwout all the low quantity DNA analyzed by Steffanoni's lab because she has proven herself incapable of adequately evaluating this type of DNA to International standards. The Rome Carbonarri's (sp) analysis of the knife's DNA is a texbook example of how low quantity DNA should be analyzed. Throwout the bra clasp DNA because of the length of time it was left uncollected, the dirty technique used in the collection itself, Steffanoni's failure to attempt to identify the 2-4 other people whose DNA also appeared on the clasp and her failure to store the clasp properly so that it could later be restudied. I would probably also throwout RG's DNA found on the coat sleeve since it remained for days uncollected, sitting in the murder room. From what I can understand, the other DNA collection and analysis has never been credibly questioned (I may be wrong here) and therefore should be admissible. To my mind the prosecution in ANY criminal case should have the burden of proof of showing that evidence presented was collected, stored and analyzed to International standards. Unfortunately, that was NOT the case in the examples above.
There is another point regarding the MK's purported DNA found on the knife. That knife was analyzed extensively for blood and NONE was found. Are you hypothesizing that AK and RS cleaned the knife of blood but left MK's and AK's DNA behind. My experience is that it is easier to degrade DNA through cleaning than it is blood. One might argue that if the knife was cleaned, the area around the handle might be missed because the washer might be holding the knife by the handle. That might explain the presence of AK's DNA there but it is harder to argue that the mid to distal part of the blade (where MK's purported DNA was found) was washed clean of blood but not DNA.

bbm

So it is automatically "credible" if the defense argues against it due to contamination or whatever else reason?

Why would the prosecution argue against the evidence?

The only people who have incentive to argue contamination is the defense, b/c the evidence in "dispute" is harmful towards their clients.

So when you say "the other DNA collection and analysis has never been credibly questioned (I may be wrong here) and therefore should be admissible," what you're really saying is that the defense is not arguing contamination against any other evidence, that is why it is not in "dispute."

Because the defense is the only one who is going to be arguing against it, as I said, b/c only they have the incentive b/c it hurts their clients.

 

[aa9511]

In today's article from the Independent , it speaks of Sollecito being prevented from fleeing Italy via passport confiscation or arrest if his conviction is upheld on Jan 30.

Of course we don't know but that the court will choose to acquit both - that said, if the convictions are upheld, what would this mean for Knox in the US? Anyone know? (Otto? :bateyes: )

Also, do you think the predictions expressed in this piece are accurate?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-have-guilty-verdicts-reinstated-9072880.html

There is overwhelming evidence that they are guilty. I don't see how any jury could look at this evidence and come to any other conclusion. If they do, that's fine I will be wrong.

I also have no doubt that if the conviction is upheld, both Amanda and RS will do anything possible to avoid returning to prison, if that means living the rest of their lives as fugitives somewhre, I believe that is what they will do.

 

[aa9511]

"If she is convicted, Italy would likely ask the U.S. State Department to take steps to turn her over to Italian authorities. She would be at risk for being sent to Italy if she travels to another country that has an extradition treaty with Italy."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/01/20/amanda-knox-retrial/4659111/

Oh don't worry Otto, I'm sure she has already researched which countries DO NOT have extradition treaty with Italy.

 

[aa9511]

Another of today's news pieces:

I did not know Crini had stated this today (bbm):



http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-N...nox-retrial/UPI-19961390238460/#ixzz2qyzA5JbT

Here is another piece:

FLORENCE, ITALY — A prosecutor urged a court on Monday to take steps to make sure that American Amanda Knox and her former Italian boyfriend would serve their sentences, if they are convicted of murdering British student Meredith Kercher.

Prosecutor Alessandro Crini preceded his request by noting that Knox has remained in the United States for this trial, while co-defendant Raffaele Sollecito has at times traveled abroad.

"The situation is unusual," Crini told The Associated Press on the sidelines of the court session. "Usually if someone is convicted of murder, they are already in custody."

<modsnip>

Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/201...ourt-hears-final-rebuttals.html#storylink=cpy

From the Boston Herald:
Knox, 26, has been tried in absentia, a status that formally is not prejudicial in her regard since defendants in Italy are not required to appear in court. However, the judge showed some discomfort when her lawyers entered into court record an email statement she sent via her counsel and noted it lacked the legal standing of a personal declaration defendants are allowed to make when they personally appear in court.

If a guilty verdict in this trial is upheld by Italy's top criminal court, Knox would become a fugitive if she failed to return to serve a sentence.

Sollecito's father, Francesco Sollecito, said his son has no intention of fleeing justice, a sentiment echoed by his lawyer Giulia Bongiorno.

"The fact that Raffaele has no intention of escaping the trial is evident by his presence" in the courtroom, Francesco Sollecito said. He said his son has been legitimately looking for jobs abroad, having explained in court that prospective employers in Italy are put off by the notoriety surrounding the case. "He is looking around, because he hopes this story will end soon" the father said.http://bostonherald.com/news_opinio...knox_lawyers_to_have_last_word_before_verdict

Thanks for the links!

 

[SMK]

There is overwhelming evidence that they are guilty. I don't see how any jury could look at this evidence and come to any other conclusion. If they do, that's fine I will be wrong.

I also have no doubt that if the conviction is upheld, both Amanda and RS will do anything possible to avoid returning to prison, if that means living the rest of their lives as fugitives somewhre, I believe that is what they will do.

Well, Raffaelle's father swears his son will await the verdict Jan 30 in Italy - not in court, but not out of the country. Guess time will tell....

 

[SMK]

Thanks for the links!

most welcome