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

[aa9511]

With all due respect, your argument carries a definitive prosecution bias. You make no room for the possibility that certain portions of DNA evidence may have been innocently collected improperly (as an example the DNA from the bra clasp) or innocently analyzed improperly ( as an example the Low quantity DNA from the knife where only one sample was run and no controls are available for the defense or the court to even look at) while other DNA evidence was collected and analyzed properly (ie- AK's low quantity DNA on the knife and much of RG's DNA in the murder room. In this case it just so happens that the knife DNA and the bra clasp DNA are critical pieces of evidence. Your argument also doesn't take into account the POSSIBILITY (please don't jump on me too hard for this) that there might be a prosecution bias from the people doing the collection, anlysis and storage that would permit "mistakes" to be made with critical pieces of evidence. In other words the forensic scientists MIGHT have an a priori expectations of what the results of their testing should reveal. Any scientist worth his salt will tell you that such apriori expectations can lead to fallacious results if extreme attention to detail in performing tests and analyzing the data is not paid.
I would argue that a jury made up of people like yourself (maintaining the arguments that you made above) would hamstring a defense team. They could NEVER or almost NEVER win an argument with you questioning prosecution evidence even when that evidence is scientifically suspect.

bbm

Yes, I believe most people would question why certain samples are vulnerable to contamination whereas others collected and tested in the same way are not. Example: Meredith's DNA on knife, and Amanda's DNA on knife.

 

[Bill C]

Accepting my interpretation of the study? What is your interpretation of the study? This has nothing to do with experts testifying in court. It simply proves that luminol can glow, be tested with tmb and get a negative result, even in a controlled test that was absolutely blood. Luminol is for sure a more sensitive test than tmb.

I mean I don't argue that there can be false negative TMB tests for blood. But there can also be false positive luminol tests for blood. Therefore when faced with a test that is +luminol and -TMB, it is INCUMBANT to do additional tests. The fact that Steffanoni did not do those tests suggests either incompetence or a serious prosecutional bias (she interpreted the results the way the prosecution wanted her to when she had NO scientifically justifiable right to do so).

 

[Bill C]

bbm

Yes, I believe most people would question why certain samples are vulnerable to contamination whereas others collected and tested in the same way are not. Example: Meredith's DNA on knife, and Amanda's DNA on knife.

But MK's and AK's DNA from the knife were NOT tested in the same way. MK's DNA had a single test and no available controls at least none that have ever been seen by the court or the defense. AK's DNA was tested twice and had the appropriate controls run. The first was done by Steffanoni and the second done by the Carbonari's (sp) lab in Rome. You tell me, if you were on trial for murder, which lab would you want evaluating DNA evidence?

 

[redheadedgal]

Originally Posted by otto
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.

what C & V actually stated in court was:

The most damaging testimony to the prosecution's case concerned the alleged murder weapon, the knife retrieved from knox's boyfriend's apartment did not, in the view of the scientists, have any dna material from the victim on the blade. As the prosecution had insisted.

A crucial piece of evidence was dropped on the floor to be photographed. Then lost. Only to be retrieved 46 days later. Video like this showed officers walking unsupervised through the crime scene. One officer handled evidence with dirty gloves. All this and more led independent forensic scientists appointed by the court to label the prosecution's dna evidence as contaminated and unreliable.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43884484/...tack-amanda-knox-trial-evidence/#.Ut7u6HbTn4g

 

[SMK]

Yes, I see what you are saying now. I don't know about that.

You know what could have also happened? So she gets accidentally struck with the knife. At this point, Rudy is the one holding her b/c in the inital prank, he was the one "assigned" the role of going in first and grabbing her. He drops her.

They panic, think of what to do, decide they have to make it look like someone came in and intentionally murdered her.

Amanda and RS cannot bring themselves to do the stabbing part.

Rudy does the stabbing, b/c he is at this point overwhelmed with panic and he knows that if they don't do it, then he has to do it, and do it fast so he can get out of there.

He does it, flees the scene. Amanda and RS run off to Raffaele's to clean up and think of a plan. They come up with the cover-up, how they will stage the body and the burglarly.

That would also explain why none of the 3 pointed fingers. Rudy can't, because he knows he did most of the stabbing after the accidental part. RS and Amanda can't, because first of all and most obvious, then they would have to admit that their whole story of not being there is a lie, and wait, no we actually were there and played an active role in all of this. Second, the accidental stike which lead to all of this was done by one of them. Third, the whole idea which led to all of this (prank) was theirs. Fourth, they did not call for help (obviously). Fifth, they engaged in a cover-up/staging of a body. Etc.etc.. This would account for all 3 of them not naming each other, obviously they all 3 would have things to hide, even if Rudy did most of the overkill stabbing.

This also would partly explain Amanda and RS insistence in their innocence. After all, they only did physically stabbed her once and that was accidental.

Yes, when I began to try and fit Knox and Sollecito into the scenario (because of serious questions about certain to-this-day unexplained things) I too felt Guede was the killer and thus the 2 could say with clear conscience that they did not participate (at that moment). Your post resonates with spirit and intuition - sorry I cannot type more but have eyedrops in and the page is a blur but thumbs up

 

[SMK]

Yes, I see what you are saying now. I don't know about that.

You know what could have also happened? So she gets accidentally struck with the knife. At this point, Rudy is the one holding her b/c in the inital prank, he was the one "assigned" the role of going in first and grabbing her. He drops her.

They panic, think of what to do, decide they have to make it look like someone came in and intentionally murdered her.

Amanda and RS cannot bring themselves to do the stabbing part.

Rudy does the stabbing, b/c he is at this point overwhelmed with panic and he knows that if they don't do it, then he has to do it, and do it fast so he can get out of there.

He does it, flees the scene. Amanda and RS run off to Raffaele's to clean up and think of a plan. They come up with the cover-up, how they will stage the body and the burglarly.

That would also explain why none of the 3 pointed fingers. Rudy can't, because he knows he did most of the stabbing after the accidental part. RS and Amanda can't, because first of all and most obvious, then they would have to admit that their whole story of not being there is a lie, and wait, no we actually were there and played an active role in all of this. Second, the accidental stike which lead to all of this was done by one of them. Third, the whole idea which led to all of this (prank) was theirs. Fourth, they did not call for help (obviously). Fifth, they engaged in a cover-up/staging of a body. Etc.etc.. This would account for all 3 of them not naming each other, obviously they all 3 would have things to hide, even if Rudy did most of the overkill stabbing.

This also would partly explain Amanda and RS insistence in their innocence. After all, they only did physically stabbed her once and that was accidental.

Yes, when I began to try and fit Knox and Sollecito into the scenario (because of serious questions about certain to-this-day unexplained things) I too felt Guede was the killer and thus the 2 could say with clear conscience that they did not participate (at that moment). Your post fills the gaps and resonates with spirit and intuition - sorry I cannot type more but have eyedrops in and the page is a blur but thumbs up

 

[quesarita]

Yes, when I began to try and fit Knox and Sollecito into the scenario (because of serious questions about certain to-this-day unexplained things) I too felt Guede was the killer and thus the 2 could say with clear conscience that they did not participate (at that moment). Your post resonates with spirit and intuition - sorry I cannot type more but have eyedrops in and the page is a blur but thumbs up

OK, well I will still (respectfully) disagree with you both. Someone who commits a hit and run (parallel situation) can say whatever they want, but not with a clear conscience. Allowing, much less encouraging Rudy to further stab and undress and violate Meredith would not allow someone to say with clear conscience that they were innocent, IMO.

 

[quesarita]

But what I see is very CLEAR shape of shoeprints from Rudy's shoes, and the other blue in the hallway are not as clear of a shape. They do look smudged to me. If you compare to the red, look at the difference between the two. You can CLEARLY tell the very precise shape of a shoeprint from the red, not so much from the blue in the hallway.

For the clean-up, I imagine they brought some gloves with them, would you not imagine they would have thought of that going back to the murder scene? Even I would think of that.

Any footprints of theirs around Mereith's body when she died would have been filled in with her flowing blood.

I do not believe there would have necessarily been a lot of evidence to clean up in the murder room. Because like I said, the footprints would have filled in. And if everything after Wound #1 was a part of their "staging/cover-up," then wouldn't you think they woudl be careful not to leave much evidence of themselves?

I'm also still baffled by the idea that these two college students were able to so perfectly clean parts of the crime scene that footprints attributed to them appear only outside of the bedroom, without help or technical information.

If footprints in the hall were made by someone with bare feet stepping in blood, there would have been similar footprints in the bedroom walking away from the blood, as Rudy's shoe prints were. These would have had to be COMPLETELY removed, by someone doing a better job than in the hallway, apparently.

Again, they COMPLETELY remove footprints from the small bathroom, except for the print on the bath mat. Why leave that if they knew it came from Raffaele? The other prints they were "leaving" were from a shoe. Better to dispose of the mat with their other cleaning materials, no?

Raffaele's apartment and car were meticulously searched and tested for blood, and none found. I find it astounding that first-timers at crime scene clean-up could manage so well, while leaving so many traces of Rudy.

Meanwhile at the same time, they were so inept at staging a break-in they tried to break a window from inside the room, reportedly (not in my opinion).

 

[aa9511]

But MK's and AK's DNA from the knife were NOT tested in the same way. MK's DNA had a single test and no available controls at least none that have ever been seen by the court or the defense. AK's DNA was tested twice and had the appropriate controls run. The first was done by Steffanoni and the second done by the Carbonari's (sp) lab in Rome. You tell me, if you were on trial for murder, which lab would you want evaluating DNA evidence?

But this brings me back to what I previously asked you about - either it is a match for Meredith's DNA or it's not? If it was not Meredith's DNA, how was it a match to Meredith's DNA?

And the reply you gave me was that no, you were arguing that Meredith's DNA got there through contamination.

So how does all of that - "MK's DNA had a single test and no available controls at least none that have ever been seen by the court or the defense. AK's DNA was tested twice and had the appropriate controls run"- support contamination?

 

[aa9511]

Yes, when I began to try and fit Knox and Sollecito into the scenario (because of serious questions about certain to-this-day unexplained things) I too felt Guede was the killer and thus the 2 could say with clear conscience that they did not participate (at that moment). Your post resonates with spirit and intuition - sorry I cannot type more but have eyedrops in and the page is a blur but thumbs up

It would also explain the two knives going in different directions, etc. - if one thinks about it, that does support "staged killing" - perhaps they meant for it to look like not one but two or more burglars were there. In case the evidence pointed to there being more than one person at the scene (gee, I wonder where they got that idea from??).

They could have come up with that idea (two knives) and told Rudy, or Rudy could have thought of it himself to make the murder look more intentional.

In any case, I do believe all 3 were involved in the staged killiing. I believe after Rudy did the overkill, he fled, and RS and Amanda did the rest.

 

[quesarita]

But this brings me back to what I previously asked you about - either it is a match for Meredith's DNA or it's not? If it was not Meredith's DNA, how was it a match to Meredith's DNA?

And the reply you gave me was that no, you were arguing that Meredith's DNA got there through contamination.

So how does all of that - "MK's DNA had a single test and no available controls at least none that have ever been seen by the court or the defense. AK's DNA was tested twice and had the appropriate controls run"- support contamination?

I should let Bill C answer this, but I'll respond with what I picked up as a non-technical person.

As I read it, MK's dna on the knife could not be retested and was not tested with proper controls, so it could have been in the results by contamination (her dna was already present in the lab); but AK's dna was retested (from a new place on the knife) and was tested with proper controls.

AK's dna (on the knife handle) was from using the knife, which she agreed she had done. Whatever washing was done to the knife did not remove it.

 

[SMK]

OK, well I will still (respectfully) disagree with you both. Someone who commits a hit and run (parallel situation) can say whatever they want, but not with a clear conscience. Allowing, much less encouraging Rudy to further stab and undress and violate Meredith would not allow someone to say with clear conscience that they were innocent, IMO.

Yes, I see what you mean. In my original theory (prior to the prank theory) I believed Knox let Guede into the cottage with the intention of a robbery/scare on Meredith, and then was horrified to realize what he had done. Will post more later, cannot think straight right now :scared:

 

[otto]

what C & V actually stated in court was:





http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43884484/...tack-amanda-knox-trial-evidence/#.Ut7u6HbTn4g

During cross examination, C&V could not deny that the DNA was a match to Meredith.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Double_DNA_Knife

No Lab Contamination

"During cross-examination Vecchiotti was asked by prosecutor Comodi if a gap of several days between analysing samples was enough to remove the possibility of cross-contamination in the laboratory. "They're sufficient if that's the way things went," replied Vecchiotti.[139]"

John Follain, Death in Perugia: The Definitive Account of the Meredith Kercher Case from her Murder to the Acquittal of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, Hodder & Stoughton 2011; p. 408.

 

[aa9511]

OK, well I will still (respectfully) disagree with you both. Someone who commits a hit and run (parallel situation) can say whatever they want, but not with a clear conscience. Allowing, much less encouraging Rudy to further stab and undress and violate Meredith would not allow someone to say with clear conscience that they were innocent, IMO.

I don't think Rudy undressed and violated Meredith. I think he did the stabbing overkill afterwards. Then he fled. Then Amanda and RS came back and did the rest of the staging. Somehow they got Rudy's DNA to make it look like rape....if he was bleeding from his cut finger, would there not be blood of his on the doorknobs, etc.?

No, not "clear conscience," but think about it in relative terms. All 3 did things out of desperation. But relative to Rudy, I could see them convincing themselves that their part was not "as bad." Because Rudy did the actual stabbing overkill. And their stab was only accidental, and all the rest was to "cover up" the accident. And like I said earlier, perhaps they think that Meredith would have died anyway from that accidental wound, so is it better that one life goes or 3 lives? Because of an accident?

I'm not saying their thinking is normal. Far from it. But I DO think that their actions were made out of desperation, with no intent on harm, and so I can see them using that train of thought to justify their actions.

If you think about it, what's done is done. They have to now come to terms with what they did. And I believe it would be easier for them to come to terms since their acts were out of desperation, and they did not physically stab her except for the accidental wound.

I am not saying this is normal and I am not making excuses for them. But I can see the mind-set behind trying to cope with your actions, trying to justify them, so that you can move on with your life.

 

[aa9511]

I'm also still baffled by the idea that these two college students were able to so perfectly clean parts of the crime scene that footprints attributed to them appear only outside of the bedroom, without help or technical information.

If footprints in the hall were made by someone with bare feet stepping in blood, there would have been similar footprints in the bedroom walking away from the blood, as Rudy's shoe prints were. These would have had to be COMPLETELY removed, by someone doing a better job than in the hallway, apparently.

Again, they COMPLETELY remove footprints from the small bathroom, except for the print on the bath mat. Why leave that if they knew it came from Raffaele? The other prints they were "leaving" were from a shoe. Better to dispose of the mat with their other cleaning materials, no?

Raffaele's apartment and car were meticulously searched and tested for blood, and none found. I find it astounding that first-timers at crime scene clean-up could manage so well, while leaving so many traces of Rudy.

Meanwhile at the same time, they were so inept at staging a break-in they tried to break a window from inside the room, reportedly (not in my opinion).

But I don't think their DNA/presence would be "all over" if they knew after the accidental wound that they had to be careful at that point not to leave evidence of themslves. The accidental wound could not even required them to physically touch Meredith with anything but the knife. As I said, I believe Rudy was the one already holding Meredith as part of the prank.

After that, Meredith goes down. At that point, Amanda and RS KNOW they have to limit their presence. That is not really rocket-science.

If Rudy does the overkill, Amanda and RS and Rudy all flee - they clean up at the Raffaele's, Amanda and RS come back and already KNOW they have to limit their presence and take care not to leave traces, or else clean up those traces.

They would automatically thus take note of each and every place they touch. I would think any perp would do that upon having to return to the scene of the crime.

I doubt Raffaele's place was checked as closely as the murder cottage.

 

[otto]

OK, well I will still (respectfully) disagree with you both. Someone who commits a hit and run (parallel situation) can say whatever they want, but not with a clear conscience. Allowing, much less encouraging Rudy to further stab and undress and violate Meredith would not allow someone to say with clear conscience that they were innocent, IMO.

The prosecution case has all three culprits involved in the murder. Absence of evidence in Meredith's bedroom, or on either side of her body, is not evidence of absence. There is evidence that more than one person was directly involved in her murder. Evidence at the crime scene implicates Rudy Guede, Amanda Knox and Raffale Sollecito.

However, it would not be surprising to learn that all three perceive that their role was minimal, and therefore that they are not responsible for the murder. Guede has already stated as much.

 

[otto]

I'm also still baffled by the idea that these two college students were able to so perfectly clean parts of the crime scene that footprints attributed to them appear only outside of the bedroom, without help or technical information.

If footprints in the hall were made by someone with bare feet stepping in blood, there would have been similar footprints in the bedroom walking away from the blood, as Rudy's shoe prints were. These would have had to be COMPLETELY removed, by someone doing a better job than in the hallway, apparently.

Again, they COMPLETELY remove footprints from the small bathroom, except for the print on the bath mat. Why leave that if they knew it came from Raffaele? The other prints they were "leaving" were from a shoe. Better to dispose of the mat with their other cleaning materials, no?

Raffaele's apartment and car were meticulously searched and tested for blood, and none found. I find it astounding that first-timers at crime scene clean-up could manage so well, while leaving so many traces of Rudy.

Meanwhile at the same time, they were so inept at staging a break-in they tried to break a window from inside the room, reportedly (not in my opinion).

For some strange reason, at this particular murder, it seems to be assumed that it rains DNA and that everyone that wields a knife must be covered head to toe with blood. I cannot begin to imagine where that idea originates.

 

[aa9511]

I should let Bill C answer this, but I'll respond with what I picked up as a non-technical person.

As I read it, MK's dna on the knife could not be retested and was not tested with proper controls, so it could have been in the results by contamination (her dna was already present in the lab); but AK's dna was retested (from a new place on the knife) and was tested with proper controls.

AK's dna (on the knife handle) was from using the knife, which she agreed she had done. Whatever washing was done to the knife did not remove it.

Yes, but Meredith's DNA being there as a result of contamination, means that if the DNA was retested and tested with controls, it would still be Meredith's DNA. So I don't know what use would be re-testing, testing with controls, if we all agree that it was Merediths' DNA, but we only disagree about how the DNA got there.

 

[otto]

But this brings me back to what I previously asked you about - either it is a match for Meredith's DNA or it's not? If it was not Meredith's DNA, how was it a match to Meredith's DNA?

And the reply you gave me was that no, you were arguing that Meredith's DNA got there through contamination.

So how does all of that - "MK's DNA had a single test and no available controls at least none that have ever been seen by the court or the defense. AK's DNA was tested twice and had the appropriate controls run"- support contamination?

Lab contamination has been ruled out, and there is no explanation for how Meredith's DNA got to Sollecito's kitchen drawer unless we accept Sollecito's lies. Contamination is impossible.

The DNA in the knife that was identified by Stefanoni is a match to Meredith's DNA.

Low Copy DNA arguments are obsolete given that the sample of Knox's DNA was smaller than the sample of Meredith's DNA, and her sample is accepted without question.

 

[aa9511]

Yes, I see what you mean. In my original theory (prior to the prank theory) I believed Knox let Guede into the cottage with the intention of a robbery/scare on Meredith, and then was horrified to realize what he had done. Will post more later, cannot think straight right now :scared:

Sorry, but I believe that for it to get to the extent it did (being on trial for murder), Amanda and RS were there. They could have still been there, but not done the actual stabbing (except for the accidental one), according to my theory. This would account for their actions afterwards - i.e., denying to investigators, not naming Rudy, not confessing about the prank, etc..

R u ok SMK, what happened to your eye?