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

[SMK]

“The research was hard because no one spoke English over there, contrary to belief,” Burleigh said. “I took Italian classes and worked with a translator and I’ve learned what it’s like to work in a country where the concept of freedom of speech doesn’t exist. They do certainly have legal right to free speech, just not as extensive as ours.”

http://www.columbiachronicle.com/metro/article_8cd702e7-c560-591a-80bc-00ae83e6a7f6.html

.......... :waitasec:

 

[otto]

Yes, I understand that she was allowed no contact with him, nor the Kerchers. I am just having a hard time understanding why, if she got the information from primary or secondary documents, why no one else has published it anywhere. Unless as Harmony says, it came from interviews with the victims.... :waitasec:

I don't think the information could have come from interviews with victims because "no one spoke English", she doesn't speak Italian, and "the concept of freedom of speech doesn’t exist".

 

[SMK]

I don't think the information could have come from interviews with victims because "no one spoke English", she doesn't speak Italian, and "the concept of freedom of speech doesn’t exist".

It would seem so :crazy:

 

[Bill C]

Is it protocol anywhere that evidence is compared to all parties that were at a crime scene?
Is there probable cause for a Judge to demand a DNA sample from the friend of Filomina that broke the door on Meredith's bedroom?

Not normally but when one has 2-4 sets of male DNA on a critical piece of evidence that could be contamination it would seem wise to do so unless you have scientific bias and don't WANT to find contamination because it would make the prosecution's case weaker. Remember what I said in another post, namely it is easier to disprove contamination at the time of initial testing than it is to prove contamination after the fact. Of course Steffanoni has proven her prosecution bias at every step of her work instead of being an impartial scientist. I use the Rome cabinerri experts as an example of scientists exhibiting such impartiality. They did AND MADE AVAILABLE TO THE DEFENSE the necessary controls for their work eliminating the possibility of contamination intoduced by their lab. Is there any wonder why I have so little respect for Steffanoni's scientific integrity and the ISC insistence that AK and RS have to prove contamination ?

 

[otto]

Not normally but when one has 2-4 sets of male DNA on a critical piece of evidence that could be contamination it would seem wise to do so unless you have scientific bias and don't WANT to find contamination because it would make the prosecution's case weaker. Remember what I said in another post, namely it is easier to disprove contamination at the time of initial testing than it is to prove contamination after the fact. Of course Steffanoni has proven her prosecution bias at every step of her work instead of being an impartial scientist. I use the Rome cabinerri experts as an example of scientists exhibiting such impartiality. They did AND MADE AVAILABLE TO THE DEFENSE the necessary controls for their work eliminating the possibility of contamination intoduced by their lab. Is there any wonder why I have so little respect for Steffanoni's scientific integrity and the ISC insistence that AK and RS have to prove contamination ?

Dr Stefanoni's work was heavily criticized so it was re-evaluated during Hellman's appeal. It is evident that C&V relied on "state secrets" from a US scientist who was not recognized by the court. Their scientific conclusions was that "anything is possible". Because the Hellman decision was annulled, Dr Stefanoni's work had to again be examined.

Any criticism of Dr Stefanoni's work has been put to rest on the basis that it has been carefully reviewed several times and there do not appear to be any valid concerns. Perhaps we will learn something new when the report from this trial is released, but I doubt it.

If an investigator dropped DNA onto the bra, all it proves it that an investigator sneezed or whatever in Meredith's bedroom. It does not mean that Sollecito's DNA flew into Meredith's bedroom, or that his DNA on the bra is a result of contamination. They're mutually exclusive elements. David Balding clarified that it can pretty much be dismissed that Sollecito's DNA was somewhere in the cottage, that it attached to a glove (secondary transfer) and was then deposited on the bra in Meredith's bedroom (third transfer).

 

[redheadedgal]

"Walked in cooper rich soil" now...that's rich!!!

Copper-rich soil?!!

What is all this about copper in the soil? What does dirt have to do with luminol revealed prints in the cottage? Is someone trying to say that the luminol revealed prints were caused by copper rich soil that leaked into the water system?

... or am I completely misunderstanding the new, novel excuse?

am i the only one who's ever walked barefoot outside?

I don't know how they did it. But it makes sense to me that they would stage the rape, just like they staged the rest. And it makes no sense for anyone to be doing any raping in an accidental scenario.

so it's possible that amanda planted evidence inside of MK but it's impossible (and ridiculous) that something other than blood caused the luminol reaction? is this correct? imo, the first assertion is much more unlikely than the second, which is supported by the studies of several researchers.

whatever caused the luminol reaction cannot be dated. if it isn't blood, it's something. i am merely attempting to help along that discussion but it seems to be only a topic for ridicule. i'll move on then.

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.

prove it. the forensic investigators couldn't...

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

i haven't had time to listen yet... so i will, and then be back on this...

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.

i find it odd that the assertion about there being no prints found on the lamp (a) has been made repeatedly, over and over, in these threads seemingly when there's never been any evidence to support that it was tested (b). how would someone ever conclude (a) without (b)??? and then assert it as fact for so long???

I guess your idea of "reasonable" is far from my definition.

at least i am attempting to theorize, with supporting research, what could've made the luminol images in the cottage. i believe this shows more "reasonableness" than continually asserting something is blood, when there is no supporting proof, unlike my theory.

if luminol degrades blood to the point a TMB test is useless, WHY is it constantly used following a luminol reaction??

 

[redheadedgal]

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.

Luminol degrades the sample, so if TMB was applied to the same sample where luminol was applied, it is expected that it would not give a positive result.

so luminol degrades a sample of blood enough to not give a positive finding for blood in a TMB test, but luminol does not degrade a sample enough to give, not one, but two, full dna profiles ??

 

[sherlockh]

at least i am attempting to theorize, with supporting research, what could've made the luminol images in the cottage. i believe this shows more "reasonableness" than continually asserting something is blood, when there is no supporting proof, unlike my theory.

*Snipped*. Both are theories. One is supported by information that there is copper rich soil in the region, but fails to explain why Knox never mentioned walking barefoot in that soil, why there is no trail from the front door, why nobody else walked in the copper rich soil, why the copper rich soil is invisible, why the copper rich soil just so happened to react to Luminol in a similar way blood does.

The other is supported by the positive Luminol testing which as already shown is acceptable in court as a presumption that it is blood, the compatibility with both their feet (it is is even more unlikely that both would have forgotten the copper rich soil excursion), the compatibility with the male Luminol footprint with the visible bathmat print, the presence of DNA in a few footprints, cleaning evidence related to the murder, staging evidence.

The judge will rule based on common sense, and weigh the evidence accordingly although I haven't heard the soil theory in court. JMO.

The use of luminol is universally accepted as a presumptive test for blood. The State sought its admission as a presumptive test. The State satisfied the Frye test by proving the reliability of the underlying scientific theory upon which the luminol test is based. The scientific technique upon which the luminol test is based has been generally accepted as reliable, and Wilson had been trained to follow the procedures established to test the phenomenon and used those methods properly pursuant to the training.

The fact that luminol also detects some other substances is irrelevant to its universal acceptance as a presumptive blood test. This fact goes to the weight, not the admissibility, of the evidence. In challenging the weight of this evidence, the defendant elicited testimony that informed the jury that luminol also reacts to other substances.

http://www.kscourts.org/cases-and-opinions/opinions/supct/1998/19980724/76921.htm

 

[aa9511]

Thanks for this, Otto--- Yes, this is what I wanted to be sure of.

Because I had been led to believe:

• 
  [*]there were fruit juice/rust/bleach footprints of all 4 girls in that cottage, (from prior times)
• but only Amanda's were mentioned by the CSI; the others were buried in silence
• and they falsely said it was blood.

So you see why I was completely baffled about the whole luminol issue???

But now you and aa have clarified that what I was told was simply not true, or had been misunderstood by me. Thanks.

Sorry if this is out-of-order, I am just catching up..........

bbm

I don't know why someone would try to mislead you like that.

If the bolded part were the case, I would be the first to seriously re-consider all the evidence and thus the entire case. I am saying that truly from my heart.

But that's not the case....it was only Amanda's!

Edit: I don't know why it's not bolded. I bolded this line:
][*]there were fruit juice/rust/bleach footprints of all 4 girls in that cottage, (from prior times)

 

[aa9511]

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......

Of course, because otherwise how would she use her standard explanation:

-There is no forensic evidence of me in Meredith's bedroom
-therefore I did not participate in Meredith's murder
-therefore I wasn't there
-therefore I'm innocent.

 

[aa9511]

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

Yes, exactly, that was my point. I was speaking of the scientists who claim that the forensic evidence supports her innocence. They are saying that well, the TMB is negative, therefore it is not 100% proved that the footprints are from blood. Therefore they allow themselves to dismiss the prints altogether, becaues there is this small minute chance that it could be bleach or fruit juice or whatever. Even though they know that nothing is 100% prove-able. If it cannot be 100% prove-able that it is not blood, then how can they dismiss the footprints as not being in blood because it is not 100% proved to be blood?

 

[aa9511]

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

Ok, I understand. But you were also using the same argument re: Amanda's luminol prints. That why weren't they profiled against the other roommates? And I said, if they were a match for Amanda, that means they were a match for Amanda. That would automatically mean that those footprints wouldn't match against the other roommates.

I understand your point about the bra strap. But I don't see how that disqualifies the other evidence found. For example, if Amanda had not been involved in the murder, then we would not have found DNA of hers mixed with Meredith's. I don't see what RS' DNA on the bra strap has anything to do with the other evidence found.

There is more than one forensic date point in this case which point to Amanda's involvement.

In Raven Abaroa case, I believe IIRC, they did not find a single piece of DNA linking anyone to the stabbing of his wife. Yet 11 jurors still voted Guilty, only one not-guilty, and the case is going to re-trial.

Please, I ask you, if in that case there was no DNA evidence, why did 11 people still vote Guilty for this man?

And in this case, there are multiple pieces of DNA evidence against Amanda, and you are asking for the jury to vote not-guilty?

I know why. Because in Abaroa's case, his wife was murdered. And he was cheating on her, IIRC. There was motive.

In this case, there is no clear motive.

That is why it is ok to have 11 people vote Guilty for a man with no DNA evidence linking him to the crime, and it is deemed by some as NOT OKAy to have jurors vote Guilty for a woman with multiple pieces of forensic evidence linking her to the crime.

So the conclusion I reach is that for the supporters of her innocence, it is all about the motive.

Some have put into their minds that there is no reasonable motive that they can think of, thus that means that Amanda and Raffaele are not guilty. From there, there are conclusion drawn from each point of evidence, conclusions drawn for the sole purpose of excusing them of involvement in the murder.

To me, this is just as faulty as what the supporters of her guilt are always accused of - that we just want to believe Amanda and RS had something to do with it, and therefore we falsely judge each piece of evidence as going in favor of our argument that they are guilty.

So to me, there is a HUGE double standard.

 

[redheadedgal]

The other is supported by the positive Luminol testing which as already shown is acceptable in court as a presumption that it is blood, the compatibility with both their feet (it is is even more unlikely that both would have forgotten the copper rich soil excursion), the compatibility with the male Luminol footprint with the visible bathmat print, the presence of DNA in a few footprints, cleaning evidence related to the murder, staging evidence.

Stefanoni herself, moreover, clarified (preliminary hearing of October 4 2008) that, while a positive test result could be deceptive due to reactivity of the chemical [evidenziatore] with other substances, a negative result gives certainty that no blood is present.

http://hellmannreport.wordpress.com...ed-by-luminol-with-useful-biological-profile/

 

[Tugela]

The court concluded that Knox made the prints with blood and that the print on the bath mat was made by Sollecito. I'm simply accepting the conclusions of the court, which is a rather normal thing to do.

And the court after them reached a completely different conclusion. In fact, neither court was expert in these matters, and relied on what people told them, on the assumption that these people were doing their job properly. But, it is clear from the evidence presented that the folk collecting, processing and interpreting the evidence were NOT doing their job properly. The first court chose to overlook this malpractice and just take them at their word, in short the judge failed to exercise critical thought in evaluating the evidence - if he had he would have disregarded it due to the substantial and numerous errors and failings. The second court took the position that the malpractice could not be overlooked, and therefore they disregarded that evidence since it was essentially tainted and in doubt. That is how the two courts reached their respective conclusions.

 

[Tugela]

If an investigator dropped DNA onto the bra, all it proves it that an investigator sneezed or whatever in Meredith's bedroom. It does not mean that Sollecito's DNA flew into Meredith's bedroom, or that his DNA on the bra is a result of contamination. They're mutually exclusive elements. David Balding clarified that it can pretty much be dismissed that Sollecito's DNA was somewhere in the cottage, that it attached to a glove (secondary transfer) and was then deposited on the bra in Meredith's bedroom (third transfer).

It is only fair to point out that the clasp was only gathered almost two months after the murder, even though investigators knew where it was. At that point they were fully committed to the theory that RS was involved. Unfortunately all of their forensic analysis showed no trace of RS being there on the scene. So, what happens next? They suddenly discover that the clasp is "missing" and then it is "recovered", and low and behold of all the items collected, this and only this object has RS DNA on it. What are the odds of that? How convenient. And then, this critical, definitive, piece of evidence is mysteriously stored inappropriately so that it is completely degraded, so that no one else can come along and double check their supposed findings. Again, how convenient.

Then we look at how this item was collected. Unfortunately for the prosecution the collection position did not match the position of the item in the original scene. Really?????? They think this is acceptable?????? So it was moved. This cannot be disputed. As a result of that, who knows where it was moved to before being collected, but what we can say is that the providence of this evidence is compromised. There is no way that anyone can exclude the possibility that one of the investigators took the clasp, contaminated it with RS DNA, then put it back to be found (but without realizing it, in the wrong place).

Why would an investigator do this? Simple: at that point their "theory" was invested in RS being a key player in the murder, but they had zero evidence to show it. So they "found" some. They have an obvious motive.

We know for a fact that the investigators did not play by the rules or follow the law. For example, they were required to record interviews and ensure availability of lawyers when interviewing suspects. So to get around that, they called them "witnesses" so that they could engage in malpractice to force out statements that complied with their theory of the crime. And then they all look the other way and say "oh no, everything was done right and innocently, we all say this". Yeah right, how stupid do they thing we are? This is probably just how that particular police department works. They are not above bending the rules to "make" their case, and if they bend them a little, who knows how far they bend them when they think no one is looking.

In my opinion this LE group is corrupt. Their actions speak for themselves. You cannot trust anything they say or do, I simply refuse to believe anything they claim unless they can prove it beyond all reasonable doubt. The bar is that much higher because of the low and questionable quality of their police work. And I sure as hell am not simply just going to take their word for it.

 

[sherlockh]

http://hellmannreport.wordpress.com...ed-by-luminol-with-useful-biological-profile/

We just discussed this. The Luminol results were positive for blood.

 

[MichaelSmith]

Was just reading Micheli for the first time in a while.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TNqWuL7pRFxbm_avm3hcdT8VGWiNJDhYkwGBAvzbVBI/edit?pli=1

11. When Guede returned to Perugia he attended a christening and appeared confused and restless and was advised by a friend to speak to a monk at the monastery for psychological help but he disappeared and wasn't seen again till October.

12. One of his friends said he hadn't been playing basket ball in a month.

13. Another friend said he hadn't seen Guede in the 2 weeks before the murder but he knew he he'd been drinking a lot.

 

[Harmony 2]

Is it protocol anywhere that evidence is compared to all parties that were at a crime scene?
Is there probable cause for a Judge to demand a DNA sample from the friend of Filomina that broke the door on Meredith's bedroom?

I am not familiar with protocol but comparing evidence to parties at the crime scene was done twice in the Casey Anthony case. A hair at the remain's site was compared to investigators who had been at the scene. Also, dna found on the duct tape was compared to lab techs. Results indicated that the dna belonged to a woman who had handled the evidence at the lab.

 

[Harmony 2]

This study delves deeply into sexual murder and burglary. Some of the more deviant information is not relevant to this case. I quoted the sections that I found interesting.

Forensic clinicians have long observed that many sexual murderers often have a history of burglary.

Unfortunately,the details of many of the burglaries were not explored probably because they were seen as unrelated to the progression of crimes culminating in homicide.

Among the 52 offenders who committed a sexual murder, 22 (42.3%) had a history of burglary…
Fifty-seven women were murdered in their residences. Among these women, 44 (77.1%) were killed by an offender who had a history of burglary.

The cases and clinical descriptive data presented show a clear relationship between burglaries and sexual homicide in slightly more than one-third of the cases.

The vast majority of break-ins are committed for gain. Nevertheless, a number of burglaries are sexually motivated and are very important in the understanding and prediction of serious violent crime, particularly sexual homicide.

The relationship of burglary to sexual murder has been informally noted by many investigators, but a study of the rates of burglary
and sexual homicide has never been previously attempted.

http://www.jaapl.org/content/27/2/227.full.pdf

 

[Harmony 2]

I don't think the information could have come from interviews with victims because "no one spoke English", she doesn't speak Italian, and "the concept of freedom of speech doesn’t exist".

The lawyers and the cottage window climber on the Channel 5 documentary spoke English as does Maria Del Prato so that negates that "no one spoke English".


Maria Del Prato
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfA7rrmfedE