Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #13

[otto]

Um, no, luminol does not indicate if it is blood or something else - that was a Stephanini lie, one that IMO puts all of her testimony in doubt. Luminol is the same color regardless of the substance that it is detecting, thus why they MUST have a confirmation of the presence of blood. If they don't, any DNA found could be from anything, including shed skin (which is all over the place in even very clean households). Saying that something is made up on the internet when it is in fact something that is well known in forensic circles is disingenuous to say the least.

Are you aware of what a forensic scientist means when they say 'comparable'? I'll give you a hint, it is not the same as saying something is a match. Not by a long shot.

Please don't put words in my mouth, especially in such a snarky manner. It is rude and hurts your arguments. I did not by any stretch of the imagination say that 'all judges and independent scientists are ignorant'. Did you actually read what I said, or just cherry pick to attack me? Calm down, go back, and read again.

And if the independent review definitively confirms the clasp and blade, then I will accept their finding.

It is telling that the Judge in the first trial wouldn't allow such a review, and that he pretty much accepted none of the refuting arguments and evidence presented by the defense. Had the Judge not betrayed such blatant bias towards the Prosecution, there would have been far fewer issues with the first trial, if any. Again, however, I understand where that bias came from, and I don't blame the Judge for having it.

Regarding the decision to reject defense requests that all the DNA be retested during the trial, it was the only sensible thing to do. Defense lawyers were asked to attend the DNA testing and they refused, most likely for the purpose of setting up the situation we now see during appeal. If the judge had permitted defense lawyers to test and retest forensic evidence even though they chose not to attend the initial testing, the result would be that all further trials could request that DNA evidence be retested until there was no DNA evidence remaining, and then the defense would argue that there was no evidence.

It was well known during trial that some DNA evidence would be reviewed during appeal.

Experts use the word "compatible", and Dempsey goes on and on about how this means nothing, but in fact it does mean something. A barefoot print can be said to be compatible with someone's foot.

Blood evidence is revealed using luminol, and it was concluded that some of the footprints, but not all, were made with haematic substance (not fruit juice). Two types of tests were done to identfy whether blood was present in the footprints - one of which is more sensitive to blood testing. In some barefoot prints, there was insufficient haematic substance to conclude that it was blood but if some prints were made with blood, it's likely that the others were also made with blood (not fruit juice or whatever other substance people think is revealed using luminol at murder scenes).

All of the experts that have thus far reviewed Dr Stefanoni's work have concluded that it was done correctly. Some people with no connection to the case and who did not attend the trial have accused this expert as being a liar. That's not surprising ... it's coming from the same group that has suggested at one time or another that every single person involved in the investigation of Meredith Kercher's murder is either corrupt or incompetent. Dr Stefanoni has been placed in the "incompetent" category. I guess there's a good reason why she wasn't put into the "corrupt" category ... but who knows what it is.

 

[sherlockh]

Um, no, luminol does not indicate if it is blood or something else - that was a Stephanini lie, one that IMO puts all of her testimony in doubt. Luminol is the same color regardless of the substance that it is detecting, thus why they MUST have a confirmation of the presence of blood. If they don't, any DNA found could be from anything, including shed skin (which is all over the place in even very clean households). Saying that something is made up on the internet when it is in fact something that is well known in forensic circles is disingenuous to say the least.

Are you aware of what a forensic scientist means when they say 'comparable'? I'll give you a hint, it is not the same as saying something is a match. Not by a long shot.

Please don't put words in my mouth, especially in such a snarky manner. It is rude and hurts your arguments. I did not by any stretch of the imagination say that 'all judges and independent scientists are ignorant'. Did you actually read what I said, or just cherry pick to attack me? Calm down, go back, and read again.

And if the independent review definitively confirms the clasp and blade, then I will accept their finding.

It is telling that the Judge in the first trial wouldn't allow such a review, and that he pretty much accepted none of the refuting arguments and evidence presented by the defense. Had the Judge not betrayed such blatant bias towards the Prosecution, there would have been far fewer issues with the first trial, if any. Again, however, I understand where that bias came from, and I don't blame the Judge for having it.

Oh, and your last quote is pure speculation that no unbiased Judge would give any weight to in an Accusitorial System (which is what Italy is supposed to be, but fails at for reasons that I've gone into a few pages back). You don't risk throwing an innocent in prison based on 'well, our tests don't say what we want them to say, but we think it's there but we can't detect it...

Sorry, just claiming 'facts' from 'forensic circles' is not very convincing to me. And I didn't say 'comparable'. I am very calm

http://science.howstuffworks.com/luminol3.htm

Experienced investigators can make a reliable identification based on how quickly the reaction occurs, but they still need to run other tests to verify that it is really human blood.

So yes they can make a reliable identification from the reaction, and yes they need blood tests to verify it is blood, and yes it can still be blood even if the blood test was negative. Stefanoni is very experienced. Name calling is not going to change that.

 

[SkewedView]

I get the impression that you disagree with the Italian legal system, and object to the fact that the Judge was not an expert in forensic analysis.

On the first point, if people wants to avoid the Italian legal system, they shouldn't lie in witness statements and most certainly should not commit murder in Italy. On the second point, no judge, jury, defense lawyer or prosecutor are experts in all things introduced as evidence. Experts are accepted by the courts and provide testimony. Dr Stefanoni's analysis of the evidence has already been reviewed several time by experts and no problems were found in the process. To critique the expert witness based on the judge's summary seems a bit like shooting the messenger because the conclusions based on the expert testimony are disagreeable.

I have to critique the Italian Justice System, because that is where the trials are taking place. If they were in the US or the UK or Pakistan, I'd be critiquing the flaws in those systems, and how they influenced the way the trials progressed. Nothing happens in a vaccuum, and if one doesn't understand all of the factors that contribute to a set of events, it is hard to make good judgment calls about them. I should mention that I find the system in the above mentioned nations just as messed up, just in different ways.

With regards to Stefanoni's analysis and testimony, I keep seeing these blanket statements about expert reviews, but nobody seems willing to back such claims up with links. I trust that this is not another one of those cases.

 

[otto]

I have to critique the Italian Justice System, because that is where the trials are taking place. If they were in the US or the UK or Pakistan, I'd be critiquing the flaws in those systems, and how they influenced the way the trials progressed. Nothing happens in a vaccuum, and if one doesn't understand all of the factors that contribute to a set of events, it is hard to make good judgment calls about them. I should mention that I find the system in the above mentioned nations just as messed up, just in different ways.

With regards to Stefanoni's analysis and testimony, I keep seeing these blanket statements about expert reviews, but nobody seems willing to back such claims up with links. I trust that this is not another one of those cases.

Isn't it a bit pointless to suggest that Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy are innocent because the Italian justice system is unfamiliar to people in the US?

 

[SkewedView]

Sorry, just claiming 'facts' from 'forensic circles' is not very convincing to me. And I didn't say 'comparable'. I am very calm

http://science.howstuffworks.com/luminol3.htm

So yes they can make a reliable identification from the reaction, and yes they need blood tests to verify it is blood, and yes it can still be blood even if the blood test was negative. Stefanoni is very experienced. Name calling is not going to change that.

Here's the problem - there is a good reason why the confirming test is REQUIRED - 'it catalyzed quickly' is purely a judgment call, and is also not verifiable, as the confirming test is. The Ethics of Forensic Scientists and Technicians require that in the absence of said confirmation, their testimony will NOT portray that judgment call as definitive. In the end, for the purposes of a trial, the possibility that it is blood without verifiable confirmation that it is, is simply speculation. Otherwise you are gambling with someone's freedom.

 

[SkewedView]

Isn't it a bit pointless to suggest that Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy are innocent because the Italian justice system is unfamiliar to people in the US?

HUH? :waitasec: Where did you get that from? That's not what I said at all...

Seriously, am I not making any sense to people?

 

[SkewedView]

Oh, and compatible is not anywhere near the same as a match, as the 'soft' forensics have proven again and again. Yes, such evidence is admissible, and often even telling, but it should never be taken as definitive.

 

[sherlockh]

Here's the problem - there is a good reason why the confirming test is REQUIRED - 'it catalyzed quickly' is purely a judgment call, and is also not verifiable, as the confirming test is. The Ethics of Forensic Scientists and Technicians require that in the absence of said confirmation, their testimony will NOT portray that judgment call as definitive. In the end, for the purposes of a trial, the possibility that it is blood without verifiable confirmation that it is, is simply speculation. Otherwise you are gambling with someone's freedom.

The ethics of what? Sorry, you are making me laugh. I am just not sure where you get all that stuff from? We will just agree to disagree I am afraid.

I don't see any issue at all with the luminol findings. I wish we could confirm all the evidence with scientific tests, but it doesn't work like that. Is the staged break-in proven for 100%.. 90%? I don't know. We can't confirm it with a scientific test so should we just forget about it? The blood test was negative but still there is a handful of reliable indications that the luminol findings were blood after all. So it is not 100% but what..95%? And that is a reason to not consider it? I don't think so.

The judges are perfectly capable of understanding the scientific findings, weigh the evidence, put it in context, consider the rest of the evidence..etc...etc...and then there is the verdict. No doubt whatsoever. No gambling required JMO.

 

[SkewedView]

The ethics of what? Sorry, you are making me laugh. I am just not sure where you get all that stuff from? We will just agree to disagree I am afraid.

I don't see any issue at all with the luminol findings. I wish we could confirm all the evidence with scientific tests, but it doesn't work like that. Is the staged break-in proven for 100%.. 90%? I don't know. We can't confirm it with a scientific test so should we just forget about it? The blood test was negative but still there is a handful of reliable indications that the luminol findings were blood after all. So it is not 100% but what..95%? And that is a reason to not consider it? I don't think so.

The judges are perfectly capable of understanding the scientific findings, weigh the evidence, put it in context, consider the rest of the evidence..etc...etc...and then there is the verdict. No doubt whatsoever. No gambling required JMO.

In most developed nations, those who are certified to work in the various forensic fields must follow a code of ethics, both in regards to how they proceed in in the lab and on scene, and how they present their findings in testimony. Most of these ethics are based on the same ethics expected from, say, scientists doing drug trials, but they are more stringent with regards to language that they use in court, and how to define their findings. Following said ethics is key to providing defendants with fair trials (and for maintaining the scientist/tech's standing amongst their peers). Unfortunately, like ethics in other fields (legal, medical etc), these are often played fast and loose by witnesses that are advocating for one side or the other. A lot of this has to do with the fact that this set of ethics is not enforced except through the possibility of peer review. It also doesn't help that many 'experts' are in fact testifying about things that they simply are not certified in (a great example of this is Forensic Anthropology, which has a certifying board that is internationally recognized, and yet few that testify on matters covered by this field are actually certified).

If there was a load of definitive, verifiable evidence to back the soft, judgment call evidence, then no, they wouldn't have been rolling the dice, but all of the so called solid evidence is of dubious value at best. So yes, the Judge did gamble their freedom away. A just system does not imprison people because they 'probably' are guilty. Period. There should be no compromise on that issue. Either the Prosecution has made a solid convincing case, with no viable alternate theories of the crime, or the defendant should get to go home.

In this case, the Prosecution has nothing that definitively places two of the accused at the crime itself, another accused who the vast majority of the evidence implicates beyond a reasonable doubt, and an absolutely nonsensical theory as to why the first two would be involved at all. And yes, I'm aware that you guys think that the evidence against AK & RS is solid as a rock, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

For all the complaining about the OJ case, that trial ended as it should have, because the Judge acted as a fair arbiter between the two sides, not as an inquisitor, and the Prosecution's sloppy casework bit them in the butt even though they should have had him in the palm of their hands. That's how Justice works - better some guilty go free than that the system should victimize the innocent.

 

[SMK]

'hoss'? :blushing:

No, they have 'received' MAXIMUM COOPERATION. Spin nor twisting will work in this instance IMO.

So, child-killers are ok... but Curatolo is not? :waitasec:

'Half-deaf'? :floorlaugh:

Yes, the testing has been verified... if there was any problem with the actual testing and results they would have said so today. Sorry about that. Hope you feel 'passionate' enough to reply. Seems now they only want to make sure through the court transcripts on the reliability of the collection process. That seems to also mean the testing and results of the evidence of AK's and Meredith's on the knife was valid.

I have to agree with you: A homeless heroin addict is a bad witness, but a man who killed an infant a good one? And this idea that the scholarly and demur Meredith ran up high drug debts is absurd and offensive. Rudy, maybe; her boyfriend, maybe; not Meredith. This is not a good development. Of course Toto did not know what the heck he was saying, but maybe Mario will not either.

 

[SMK]

HUH? :waitasec: Where did you get that from? That's not what I said at all...

Seriously, am I not making any sense to people?

You are making sense to me. You are trying to point out the considerable problems inherent in IL. ( and other judicial systems have other flaws of course. )

 

[SMK]

In this case, the Prosecution has nothing that definitively places two of the accused at the crime itself, another accused who the vast majority of the evidence implicates beyond a reasonable doubt, and an absolutely nonsensical theory as to why the first two would be involved at all. And yes, I'm aware that you guys think that the evidence against AK & RS is solid as a rock, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

For all the complaining about the OJ case, that trial ended as it should have, because the Judge acted as a fair arbiter between the two sides, not as an inquisitor, and the Prosecution's sloppy casework bit them in the butt even though they should have had him in the palm of their hands. That's how Justice works - better some guilty go free than that the system should victimize the innocent.

Bravo, well said.

 

[SMK]

The ethics of what? Sorry, you are making me laugh. I am just not sure where you get all that stuff from? We will just agree to disagree I am afraid.

I don't see any issue at all with the luminol findings. I wish we could confirm all the evidence with scientific tests, but it doesn't work like that. Is the staged break-in proven for 100%.. 90%? I don't know. We can't confirm it with a scientific test so should we just forget about it? The blood test was negative but still there is a handful of reliable indications that the luminol findings were blood after all. So it is not 100% but what..95%? And that is a reason to not consider it? I don't think so.

The judges are perfectly capable of understanding the scientific findings, weigh the evidence, put it in context, consider the rest of the evidence..etc...etc...and then there is the verdict. No doubt whatsoever. No gambling required JMO.

Skewed View said:
The Ethics of Forensic Scientists and Technicians require that in the absence of said confirmation, their testimony will NOT portray that judgment call as definitive.

and Sherlock replied, :

The ethics of what? Sorry, you are making me laugh. I am just not sure where you get all that stuff from? We will just agree to disagree I am afraid.:

There is in fact an Ethics of Forensic science and technical expertise, as set forth by The American Academy of Forensic Sciences. I fail to see why SV bringing up these ethics would make anyone "laugh"?

http://www.ehow.com/facts_7257089_code-ethics-forensic-science-technicians.html

See also "Forensic Science, Ethics, and the Expert Witness"

http://www.bioforensics.com/conference08/Addl_Material/experts-bioinformatics.pdf

and also "Ethics in Forensic Science" http://elearn.wvu.edu/Continuing/Forensic_Science/Ethics.php

 

[SMK]

Just an interesting update:

"Stefanoni was a no-show at today's hearing," Amanda's father added.

She is the investigator for Policia Scientifica who handled the DNA findings and testified that Knox’s DNA was on the handle of the knife and the victim DNA on the end of the blade. She also testified that Raffaele’s DNA was on Kercher’s bra clasp.

"Apparently she was not required to be there but everyone was expecting her to be, given that the independent (forensic) experts were having trouble getting everything from her they were asking for," Curt said. "During the hearing today, the experts were granted access to what they were asking for and we became aware that Stefanoni sent the experts some of what they were looking for two days after their report was supposed to be submitted.

"Also, to my knowledge, Stefanonie has never 'blown off' the judge on showing to court," said Curt. "That was Napeleoni who did that at the last hearing."

Stefanoni's reluctance, and possible August verdict:

"There were a lot of letters back and forth," Mellas clarified. "I don't know if there was a specific demand. Her not showing up in itself has nothing to do with anything, but her not handing over all the stuff the forensics experts requested, yes, of course that caused a delay. These experts have been trying to make a report. They need the evidence she has and it looks like she has been reluctant to give it up."

Mellas pointed out that it is "possible" that a verdict may be reached at the beginning of August. He explained, "The forensic experts will give their findings June 30, and the judges want to confer with other DNA experts so that they understand what is being discussed, almost like another third party opinion to help them interpret it and make an appropriate decision. The time allotted runs to July 25. They typically break for summer vacation the month of August, but it is possible they will hear closing arguments, then reach a verdict prior to the summer break. We won't know that until the end of July."

Monica Napoleoni, the head of the prosecution's Homicide Unit, took the stand briefly to explain some of the information gathered for the original murder trial of Meredith Kercher involving witnesses who testified. She did not show at the previous hearing as requested. She tried, but could do nothing to save Antonio Curatolo, a.k.a. "Toto", the prosecution's "super-witness", according to sources in the courtroom.http://www.westseattleherald.com/2011/05/21/news/update-amanda-knox-murder-trial-appeal-hearing-he

 

[sherlockh]

Skewed View said:
The Ethics of Forensic Scientists and Technicians require that in the absence of said confirmation, their testimony will NOT portray that judgment call as definitive.

and Sherlock replied, :

The ethics of what? Sorry, you are making me laugh. I am just not sure where you get all that stuff from? We will just agree to disagree I am afraid.:

There is in fact an Ethics of Forensic science and technical expertise, as set forth by The American Academy of Forensic Sciences. I fail to see why SV bringing up these ethics would make anyone "laugh"?

http://www.ehow.com/facts_7257089_code-ethics-forensic-science-technicians.html

See also "Forensic Science, Ethics, and the Expert Witness"

http://www.bioforensics.com/conference08/Addl_Material/experts-bioinformatics.pdf

and also "Ethics in Forensic Science" http://elearn.wvu.edu/Continuing/Forensic_Science/Ethics.php

Thanks SMK. It helps if you provide some links. Now instead of posting long stories on ethics maybe it is easier to come to the point? Who claimed that something was 100% definitive that wasn't?

 

[SkewedView]

Thanks SMK. It helps if you provide some links. Now instead of posting long stories on ethics maybe it is easier to come to the point? Who claimed that something was 100% definitive that wasn't?

I'm tired, distracted and cranky this morning, so in order to avoid getting snarky or testy, I'm going to wait on debating until later. Sorry for the delay, but I'd rather not accidentally be rude or insulting. Thanks.

 

[SMK]

Thanks SMK. It helps if you provide some links. Now instead of posting long stories on ethics maybe it is easier to come to the point? Who claimed that something was 100% definitive that wasn't?

Did I not provide several links? I am not sure how to answer that last question you posed, but I do know there is an ethics to being an expert witness. Much of what is considered evidence in this case has been refuted - by a formidable US DNA expert - to be "appalling" and not fit to be entered into a case.

 

[SMK]

I'm tired, distracted and cranky this morning, so in order to avoid getting snarky or testy, I'm going to wait on debating until later. Sorry for the delay, but I'd rather not accidentally be rude or insulting. Thanks.

Good idea. I know the feeling......

 

[SkewedView]

Just wanted to make note of something.

See here:
www.heuni.fi/uploads/jrrqu.doc

Due to the oddities of the Italian System, if the sentences of AK & RS are reduced, rather than overturned, not only the Prosecutor, but also the Kerchers, as the Civil Party (the person(s) that has been damaged as a result of the crime - they might even be allowed to represent the Injured Party, MK), can appeal to the Court of Cassation for a greater sentence. The Kerchers are limited to a single appeal.

In addition, Italian law allows for appeals against acquittals in slander and libel cases, which means that unless AK and her parents get their charges straight up tossed by the court, they are in for a very long battle. That is, unless AK is freed in the meantime and they all just decide to flee and never return to the EU, though I find it highly likely that even if AK's sentence is overturned, Mignini will petition the courts to have her preventatively detained for her slander case (allowable as she is a flight risk and the sentencing for slander includes incarceration). In short, even if things go perfect for AK during this appeal, it may still be years before she is able to leave prison.

 

[SMK]

This TOD thing has always been bothersome to me. Reading a discussion this a.m., someone pointed out that it is a shame nothing has come to light that would definitively show innocence of AK and RS, as sometime happens in cases which are revealed to be miscarriages of justice.

Someone replied that TOD based on autopsy results is indeed such a thing, and I have always believed this, but it seems not to factor in to the appeals process.


They put it thusly: In conjunction with the known computer activity data (even so incomplete as it was left after most of that info were destroyed by the cops) and other evidence placing the two at Sollecito's flat around 21:00 - 21:30 it leaves very narrow time window for any sensible murder scenario.http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=196814&page=229

I have always believed this was a huge thing, and am perplexed why it is not being made the crux of the appeal. I guess the defense had little say in what was accepted for review.....