Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#13

[otto]

Yes, it would seem that way. And in her book, she makes the claim that anything outside of Meredith's bedroom "only proves that she lived in the cottage". So you see how all is waved away......

Her parents started with that line a few years ago, where they claimed that there was no evidence of Knox in Meredith's bedroom, therefore she was not involved. Essentially, it was an attempt to redefine the crime scene as the bedroom. I found this problematic for three reason: her lamp was in the bedroom but apparently there was no evidence of Knox on her own lamp, one shoe print on the pillow case was attributed to her, and it made no sense that Knox would want to limit the investigation into her "friend's" murder to the bedroom. The evidence of Knox outside the bedroom is disturbing, which is why Knox, her family, and her defense want it to be ignored.

 

[otto]

This photo (TJMK) was taken just inside Meredith's bedroom door. The A, B and C markers point out 3 bloody shoe prints matching Guede's shoes. There are not pools or smears of blood in this area of the bedroom.

There is no reasonable reason IMO for the police to NOT test the floor here with luminol after they had just found bare foot prints with luminol on the other side of this door.

If the only explanation available is that the police are completely trustworthy and infallible and it was their decision to make, I don't accept that. They wanted very badly to place Amanda on this side of Meredith's door.

There is a very detailed analysis of the partial print on the pillow that they said was compatible with Amanda's shoe size (not her shoe) that matches it to the other prints of Rudy's, but if people will not read sites that don't agree with their point if view, not much point in posting it IMO.

Is it stated somewhere that the entrance to Meredith's bedroom was not tested for luminol? Since prints were clearly visible in the bedroom, why was it necessary to use luminol?

 

[quesarita]

Is it stated somewhere that the entrance to Meredith's bedroom was not tested for luminol? Since prints were clearly visible in the bedroom, why was it necessary to use luminol?

Why was it necessary? Because they found invisible prints right outside the door that did not match the visible prints inside the bedroom.

 

[sherlockh]

Why do you think Hellmann is wrong vs Massei about this?

http://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/contents/reasons-for-the-decision/print-on-the-mat/

What do you mean using 'the crime scope' re the bathmat print?

I don't really see the point in analyzing the judge whose decisions were annulled. That has been done in the Galati appeal and the SC report. There is so much wrong with that judge it is going to take me forever. One example is that he 'sees' several things in pictures and then blames Massei for not being subjective analyzing the Crimescope (the device Vinci used) pictures. Hellmann hardly compares, hardly explains. Vinci is right just because Hellmann says so, and he was supposed to be the appeal judge. What a joke of a judge. JMO

 

[sherlockh]

It's not copper residue, it's not iron residue, it's not cat blood, it's not fruit juice, beet juice, graperfruit juice, orange juice, it's not bleach, it's not some other cleaning product - it is Meredith's blood.

I am very disturbed that so many scientists would ignore reason and the totality of the evidence in order to confirm one point of view.

I guess that is why they are not judges.

However, I would expect scientists to also be able to look at something and make an educated guess as to what it is, based on the totality of the circumstances.

This is very disturbing to me.

Given with the research which shows that science and math skills in America are declining, it is very troubling.

I would hope that the scientific community in the United States would be working to re-establish their standing in the world and improve their standards, as well as focusing on education at the grade-school levels so that the next generation will be properly equipped to handle the "threats" from China and India.

The general scientific conclusions from the supporters of their innocence, in this case, seem to be going the opposite direction.

ALL of the above JMO.

It is protocol. They are supposed to say that. Indeed because they are not judges. Even if Luminol just reacts to blood and 'elephant doo doo' then it is called presumptive and the scientist has to say he can't prove that it is blood. The prosecutors can of course reason that it is blood, and the judge will accept that it is 'most likely' blood. That is what happened here. I wouldn't blame the scientists for just doing their work. They were done after the negative TMB testing.

Now here is the 'funny' thing. Imagine the TMB test had been positive. Defense lawyers would then have pointed out that TMB is 'just' a presumptive test, it could have reacted to something else, it is not so sensitive, blabla. Same with Knox's DNA in the murder room for example. If it had been found there then it would be all normal because she lived there. There is always something a defense lawyer can argue. JMO

 

[sherlockh]

Thanks, and yes this is what I had thought: How could it be otherwise?

But I was not able to get an answer from Chris or from anyone else.

He had made it seem (at least to my understanding) like they simply ignored the other prints: As though Laura, Filomena, and Meredith's bare footprints from prior times (to and from the shower) HAD shown up with the luminol, but they didn't mention them, as Amanda's was the only "profile" they sought. I kept asking for clarification but could not get any.

Do you see why I was confused? :waitasec:

Even blog radio guy admits that the Luminol prints could have been made in blood.

 

[otto]

It is protocol. They are supposed to say that. Indeed because they are not judges. Even if Luminol just reacts to blood and 'elephant doo doo' then it is called presumptive and the scientist has to say he can't prove that it is blood. The prosecutors can of course reason that it is blood, and the judge will accept that it is 'most likely' blood. That is what happened here. I wouldn't blame the scientists for just doing their work. They were done after the negative TMB testing.

Now here is the 'funny' thing. Imagine the TMB test had been positive. Defense lawyers would then have pointed out that TMB is 'just' a presumptive test, it could have reacted to something else, it is not so sensitive, blabla. Same with Knox's DNA in the murder room for example. If it had been found there then it would be all normal because she lived there. There is always something a defense lawyer can argue. JMO

When DNA was first introduced to the courtroom, it was presented in terms of probabilities. That is, it was never stated that the DNA is a perfect match, but rather that the probabilities are such that there cannot be any other person with that DNA that fits with other evidence. Essentially, it was presented with certainty based on probability. With foot prints, the best that can be said is that one print is compatible with another print. All of it is circumstantial evidence, so it is inductive evidence rather than deductive evidence.

 

[Amber29]

When DNA was first introduced to the courtroom, it was presented in terms of probabilities. That is, it was never stated that the DNA is a perfect match, but rather that the probabilities are such that there cannot be any other person with that DNA that fits with other evidence. Essentially, it was presented with certainty based on probability. With foot prints, the best that can be said is that one print is compatible with another print. All of it is circumstantial evidence, so it is inductive evidence rather than deductive evidence.

Not only were the prints compatible with AKs foot measurments, her DNA was found in them. In 2 of the luminol samples were mixed DNA of AK and MK. Iirc.

Too many coincidences to explain away.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Not only were the prints compatible with AKs foot measurments, her DNA was found in them. In 2 of the luminol samples were mixed DNA of AK and MK. Iirc.



Too many coincidences to explain away.

The excuse for her DNA ...she lived there.

In Meredith blood .....no reasonable explanation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TorisMom003]

I also have to add, what is the point of obtaining prints or DNA from anyone, if, after they are matched with that person, there is still a chance that it can be matched with any of the other 6 billion people in the world?

Are you proposing that the investigators should have checked those against 6 billion other people, and then after finding no matches, then by process of omission, conclude that they are Amanda's or in the case of bra strap, Raffaele's?

I am suggesting that since there was DNA from more than one male on the bra clasp that it should have been attempted to find out who else left DNA on that bra clasp. Once there was a sample of DNA that belonged to RS, then the bra clasp was done with. However, if the additional testing of the bra clasp showed that the other male DNA belonged to any of the investigators then that would point towards contamination. If the additional testing of the bra clasp showed that the other male DNA belonged to a budy of RG then that puts another person at the scene of the crime that should be investigated and/or on trial. When there are no controls done, no other areas say of the cottage floor tested, to see what results the luminol presents then there is a problem. When there is no desire or attempt to identify the other male DNA that was also found on the bra clasp then there is a problem. When investigators stop their investigation after getting their desired results then there is a problem. One should always follow ALL of the evidence, not cherry pick which evidence they want to use and which results from that evidence they want to use. In looking for the truth about the murder of Meredith, one must look at everything. How the evidence was collected, how the evidence was tested, if any control testing was done, was the proper protocol done when collecting and testing evidence, was all of the evidence tested completely and all DNA on the evidence checked as to who it belonged to. If one sees that there is a lack of professionalism in any of the above, then one should ask why. Why were things not done correctly? Was it a rush to judgement that resulted in skewing the results of the tests of the evidence? Was it a desire to prove that AK and RS were guilty to the point of ignoring evidence that pointed to others?

MOO

 

[otto]

It wouldn't matter how many footprints they found, no one else was tested against the footprints that were found. The footprints that have been attributed to Amanda were not checked against the other three women living in the cottage. Much like the other DNA that was found on the bra clasp was not checked against any one other than RS and RG.

Keeping in mind that luminol is used for crime scene reconstruction, who else should have been included in the print comparison? That is, who else could have been at the crime scene?

With the bra DNA, what other suspects should be compared with the evidence? The discovery of evidence is not a witch hunt, where everyone is compared to the evidence. Instead, probably suspects should be compared with the evidence.

 

[otto]

I am suggesting that since there was DNA from more than one male on the bra clasp that it should have been attempted to find out who else left DNA on that bra clasp. Once there was a sample of DNA that belonged to RS, then the bra clasp was done with. However, if the additional testing of the bra clasp showed that the other male DNA belonged to any of the investigators then that would point towards contamination. If the additional testing of the bra clasp showed that the other male DNA belonged to a budy of RG then that puts another person at the scene of the crime that should be investigated and/or on trial. When there are no controls done, no other areas say of the cottage floor tested, to see what results the luminol presents then there is a problem. When there is no desire or attempt to identify the other male DNA that was also found on the bra clasp then there is a problem. When investigators stop their investigation after getting their desired results then there is a problem. One should always follow ALL of the evidence, not cherry pick which evidence they want to use and which results from that evidence they want to use. In looking for the truth about the murder of Meredith, one must look at everything. How the evidence was collected, how the evidence was tested, if any control testing was done, was the proper protocol done when collecting and testing evidence, was all of the evidence tested completely and all DNA on the evidence checked as to who it belonged to. If one sees that there is a lack of professionalism in any of the above, then one should ask why. Why were things not done correctly? Was it a rush to judgement that resulted in skewing the results of the tests of the evidence? Was it a desire to prove that AK and RS were guilty to the point of ignoring evidence that pointed to others?

MOO

How should police go about discovering who contributed DNA. In the US, a warrant to collect DNA is only granted when there is probable cause. It should not be different in Italy. What other suspect DNA should be compared with the DNA that was found at the crime scene?

It's true that after Sollecito's DNA was found on the bra he was done, as it is significant evidence against him. There was no probable cause to obtain DNA from any other suspects. The two samples of DNA on the bra are not a reason to assume contamination. It's most likely that the new boyfriend from downstairs is a contributor.

Evidence is not "cherry picked". Instead, there are laws that protect innocent people. I don't think that any westernized country forces people to provide DNA simply because investigators found DNA and they don't know who deposited that DNA. I do recall a case in the UK where men from ... was it Yorkshire ... were asked to provide DNA samples to help identify a culprit. That was a very unusual situation and it was strictly voluntary.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that police or experts did something wrong. What I understand is that Knox attracted a few people that are particularly interested in seeing that she is not imprisoned for murder. Hampikian is one of those people. He apparently has an opinion about DNA testing and analysis, but it's a "state secret". I'm sorry, but that's just not good enough. Either there are mistakes and it's made public or it's all smoke and mirrors.

What evidence was ignored? The second DNA sample on the bra? What evidence suggests that Sollecito had a male accomplice? Clearly his DNA has no business being on Meredith's bra. Therefore, he is implicated in the murder. If there is a second male accomplice, Sollecito should speak up.

 

[otto]

The excuse for her DNA ...she lived there.

In Meredith blood .....no reasonable explanation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The theory seems to be that if Guede is in the room, it's lucky if his DNA was found on the cuff of Meredith's sweatshirt. Never mind that he must have handled many parts of the sweatshirt to subdue her without assistance. If Sollecito was in the room, it should have rained DNA everywhere. If his DNA is only found on Meredith's bra, the theory seems to be that we should simply ignore this evidence.

Knox apparently left no DNA on her lamp, which I can only assume is true as she has repeatedly stated that there is no DNA belonging to her in Meredith's bedroom. At the same time, it is very strange that she left DNA in Meredith's blood.

One sample was in Filomina's bedroom, and one in the bathroom?

 

[Linda7NJ]

I am suggesting that since there was DNA from more than one male on the bra clasp that it should have been attempted to find out who else left DNA on that bra clasp. Once there was a sample of DNA that belonged to RS, then the bra clasp was done with. However, if the additional testing of the bra clasp showed that the other male DNA belonged to any of the investigators then that would point towards contamination. If the additional testing of the bra clasp showed that the other male DNA belonged to a budy of RG then that puts another person at the scene of the crime that should be investigated and/or on trial. When there are no controls done, no other areas say of the cottage floor tested, to see what results the luminol presents then there is a problem. When there is no desire or attempt to identify the other male DNA that was also found on the bra clasp then there is a problem. When investigators stop their investigation after getting their desired results then there is a problem. One should always follow ALL of the evidence, not cherry pick which evidence they want to use and which results from that evidence they want to use. In looking for the truth about the murder of Meredith, one must look at everything. How the evidence was collected, how the evidence was tested, if any control testing was done, was the proper protocol done when collecting and testing evidence, was all of the evidence tested completely and all DNA on the evidence checked as to who it belonged to. If one sees that there is a lack of professionalism in any of the above, then one should ask why. Why were things not done correctly? Was it a rush to judgement that resulted in skewing the results of the tests of the evidence? Was it a desire to prove that AK and RS were guilty to the point of ignoring evidence that pointed to others?



MOO

I agree about looking at ALL the evidence. Nit picking forensics and attacking the collection, contamination, not testing every cell ...is counterproductive when looking for the reasonable & truth of the matter.

The nature of the imperfection of a crime scene itself will never be that of a controlled laboratory setting. Things can always be improved. Always.

Attacking forensics is a defense attorneys bread and butter and it's how they manufacture reasonable doubt. It's used to confuse and mislead. In the hopes jurors set aside their common sense, logic and the definition of "reasonable" And sadly, it works too often.
All IMO



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[otto]

@TorisMom003

I just wanted to be sure that I understand correctly ... we are assuming that the other DNA contributor on the clasp should be identified because it would reveal the identify of the real killer, Guede's accomplice, right? We are already assuming that the other male contributor on the clasp; the second DNA contribution that is mixed with Sollecito's, is an authentic contributor and the presence of his DNA is not a result of contamination or a 46 day delay in collection. That is, if the identify of the other contributor could be found, then the Lone Wolf theory could be dropped, and the footprints and broken window could be attributed to this other, yet unidentified culprit.

But, if the sample is mixed, and Sollecito's half is a result of contamination, doesn't that mean that the whole sample is contaminated - as in "anything is possible"? What if the other result is a genuine result, like if it belongs to her boyfriend. Wouldn't that mean that Sollecito's deposit is equally genuine?

It strikes me as odd that anyone would assume that mixed DNA from two contributors on the clasp, one of whom is allegedly falsely convicted, could produce a clean result for the other contributor. Obviously, even if the other contributors were identified, he would provide an innocent explanation ... most likely not as bizarre as "it was planted", or "contamination is possible".

Imagine if police could go on DNA fishing expeditions. First the boyfriend, then the ex-boyfriend, then all the guys that lived downstairs, then people she met at the clubs, all the males in all of her classes. It doesn't work that way. There must be probable cause in order to require a DNA sample, even in Italy.

 

[MichaelSmith]

The theory seems to be that if Guede is in the room, it's lucky if his DNA was found on the cuff of Meredith's sweatshirt. Never mind that he must have handled many parts of the sweatshirt to subdue her without assistance. If Sollecito was in the room, it should have rained DNA everywhere. If his DNA is only found on Meredith's bra, the theory seems to be that we should simply ignore this evidence.

Knox apparently left no DNA on her lamp, which I can only assume is true as she has repeatedly stated that there is no DNA belonging to her in Meredith's bedroom. At the same time, it is very strange that she left DNA in Meredith's blood.

One sample was in Filomina's bedroom, and one in the bathroom?

The lamp wasn't tested.

 

[otto]

The lamp wasn't tested.

That's unfortunate, because it would be helpful to know if anyone else brought the lamp to Meredith's bedroom. If only Knox's DNA is on the lamp, then it's difficult to accept that someone else put it Meredith's bedroom. If someone else's DNA is on the lamp, like Meredith's, then we would all be able to remove that odd piece of evidence from the equation.

Any thoughts on why defense lawyers did not request that it be tested?

 

[otto]

The complaint seems to be that police have not done their jobs because they have not discovered the identity(s) of the other contributors to Sollecito's DNA sample.

How would knowing the identity help? Here are the three outcomes I see (am I missing something?):

1. Guede had an accomplice with DNA on file ... that doesn't help Knox
2. The other contributor is explained (boyfriend) ... minimizes contamination theory, confirms Sollecito
3. The other contributor is unknown (might be someone in the clubs)

What next. If police are doing something wrong, what is their next step ... to command all males that crossed paths with Meredith to provide DNA samples?

 

[otto]

I agree about looking at ALL the evidence. Nit picking forensics and attacking the collection, contamination, not testing every cell ...is counterproductive when looking for the reasonable & truth of the matter.

The nature of the imperfection of a crime scene itself will never be that of a controlled laboratory setting. Things can always be improved. Always.

Attacking forensics is a defense attorneys bread and butter and it's how they manufacture reasonable doubt. It's used to confuse and mislead. In the hopes jurors set aside their common sense, logic and the definition of "reasonable" And sadly, it works too often.
All IMO

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Italian courts seem interested in the truth. The process seems to be very cautious, giving all parties time to think between presenting arguments. It seems methodical. All parties have an opportunity to revisit the decision (verdict). That seems fair as well. It seems lopsided if only the defense is allowed to revisit the decision.

I've been thinking about the point that although Knox's lawyers will deliver closing arguments on January 30, the decision will be delivered that evening. With so much time between trial dates, officers of the court must have time to process the information ... which probably makes it much easier to deliver a decision on a predetermined date.

The experts that processed the crime scene were heavily criticized, so a second report was done. The report had holes like a sieve and was apparently influenced by someone that was not recognized by the court. Hellman was annulled. My hope is that this court views the totality of evidence and examines the excuses in terms of viability ... how likely is it that each piece of evidence requires it's own unique explanation, and the culprit is innocent?

 

[Linda7NJ]

The Italian courts seem interested in the truth. The process seems to be very cautious, giving all parties time to think between presenting arguments. It seems methodical. All parties have an opportunity to revisit the decision (verdict). That seems fair as well. It seems lopsided if only the defense is allowed to revisit the decision.



I've been thinking about the point that although Knox's lawyers will deliver closing arguments on January 30, the decision will be delivered that evening. With so much time between trial dates, officers of the court must have time to process the information ... which probably makes it much easier to deliver a decision on a predetermined date.



The experts that processed the crime scene were heavily criticized, so a second report was done. The report had holes like a sieve and was apparently influenced by someone that was not recognized by the court. Hellman was annulled. My hope is that this court views the totality of evidence and examines the excuses in terms of viability ... how likely is it that each piece of evidence requires it's own unique explanation, and the culprit is innocent?

I completely agree about the Italian system and it's search for the truth. I'm very impressed.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk