Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #13

[SkewedView]

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.

The thanks was for your providing of the links, whereas the rest was directed at me. Don't worry, I think you're in the clear.

 

[SMK]

The thanks was for your providing of the links, whereas the rest was directed at me. Don't worry, I think you're in the clear.

:floorlaugh:

 

[otto]

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, but it seems to me that in delving into (or critiquing) the foundations of the Italian justice system in order to argue that Knox, Sollecito and Guede are unjustly convicted, we are no longer looking at their participation in the murder, but perhaps exploring whether it is impossible for any crime to be solved in Italy. That can't be true.

The Italian justice system was recently overhauled to avoid judicial error. Within the Italian culture, history and law, the system that exists works for Italians. It seems that people in the US are very happy with their justice system, while people from other countries may view it as extraordinarily harsh. Some people may find it interesting to debate the strengths and weaknesses of various judicial systems, but I don't think it has a place in the context of the upcoming appeals.

Apologies if I gave the wrong impresion.

 

[SMK]

@ Sherlock:

This is what i was referring to (albeit about DNA, not luminol testing):

US DNA Expert: Knox Innocent of Murder

Dr. Greg Hampikian is a professor of biology at Boise State University and the director of the Idaho Innocence Project.
“We take cases primarily from Idaho, we're working on several cases right now in Idaho with people who claim to be innocent who are imprisoned,” said Hampikian.
By using DNA evidence, the Idaho Innocence Project has helped to exonerate seven people across the country. Hampikian's research has taken him around the world.

Two years ago, by chance he became involved with one of the most high profile international murder cases.
“I was trying to study how DNA evidence is used in other countries, and when I looked at the data -- I was appalled,” said Hampikian.
The data he was looking at was from the Amanda Knox case, an American student convicted of murdering her roommate at a home they shared in Perugia, Italy. Knox, as well as her ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, and another man, Rudy Guede, were all convicted in the murder of Meredith Kercher.
"The one piece of evidence that tied her to this case had such a low level of DNA with the victim on it that I think it was probably just one of these casual transfers, certainly not from a stabbing,” said Hampikian.

http://www.nwcn.com/home/Idaho-DNA-expert-claims-Amanda-Knox-is-innocent-of-murder.html

 

[otto]

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.

What evidence shouldn't have been determined to be compatible?

If you follow the upcoming Jason Young trial, you will hear that footprints in the finish on the deck boards, and footprints made with red stuff that appears to be blood in the bedroom are "compatible" with shoes that Jason Young owned (even though the shoes were never found). I bet that evidence will be accepted by the jury.

 

[Allusonz]

With all due respect to your wife, but the blood tests are less sensitive than the luminol one and it is possible to get an indication if it is blood from the luminol glow itself. Besides that, one print had mixed DNA in it. If you live somewhere doesn't mean your DNA is all over the floor. These things are just made up on the internet. Also one print was compatible with the very bloody print on the bathmat.

Just saying all judges and independent scientists are ignorant isn't really going to cut the cake. What if for example the bra clasp is going to be confirmed by the 2 scientists reviewing it, and they rule out contamination? How can any piece of evidence be proven if it is always 'these ignorant judges' or these 'lying scientists'?

And I am going to quote again anyway

Let me see if I understand what you are saying here. You go for an ultrasound and they find a mass. The doctor states that in his OPINION it is benign but to be 100% certain they would like to do a biopsy to confirm it.

From what I can see here you are willing to bet your life on the judgment of one doctor. What if he is wrong?

Luminol reacts to 240 things one of which is blood. The same theory applies to luminol. Just because luminol reacts does not confirm that it is blood thus a 2nd test is done.

We already know Stephanoni perjured herself on the stand. Why would anyone trust what she has said?

As per the Innocence Project:

"Unvalidated or improper forensic science is a leading cause of wrongful convictions. In more than 50% of the DNA exonerations nationwide, unvalidated or improper forensic science contributed to the underlying wrongful conviction.

These problems include: forensic techniques that have not been subjected to rigorous scientific evaluation (such as hair microscopy, bite mark comparisons, firearm tool mark analysis and shoe print comparisons); testing that is improperly conducted or analysis that is not accurate (regardless of whether the forensic technique involved is validated); and forensic misconduct (such as fabricated test results and misleading testimony). "

http://www.innocenceproject.org/fix/Crime-Lab-Oversight.php

 

[Allusonz]

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.

Hands SV a straight jacket with special pockets for your multi-coloured candy :giggle:

 

[SMK]

Let me see if I understand what you are saying here. You go for an ultrasound and they find a mass. The doctor states that in his OPINION it is benign but to be 100% certain they would like to do a biopsy to confirm it.

From what I can see here you are willing to bet your life on the judgment of one doctor. What if he is wrong?

Luminol reacts to 240 things one of which is blood. The same theory applies to luminol. Just because luminol reacts does not confirm that it is blood thus a 2nd test is done.

We already know Stephanoni perjured herself on the stand. Why would anyone trust what she has said?

As per the Innocence Project:

"Unvalidated or improper forensic science is a leading cause of wrongful convictions. In more than 50% of the DNA exonerations nationwide, unvalidated or improper forensic science contributed to the underlying wrongful conviction.

These problems include: forensic techniques that have not been subjected to rigorous scientific evaluation (such as hair microscopy, bite mark comparisons, firearm tool mark analysis and shoe print comparisons); testing that is improperly conducted or analysis that is not accurate (regardless of whether the forensic technique involved is validated); and forensic misconduct (such as fabricated test results and misleading testimony). "

http://www.innocenceproject.org/fix/Crime-Lab-Oversight.php

I think your analogy of the doctor who finds a mass on an Ultrasound is very apt. Indeed, there have been cases of cancer patients known to me, where one doctor has found a return of the cancer, and another doctor has said no, it is only tissue thickening or scar tissue. And this that you post speaks volumes:
In more than 50% of the DNA exonerations nationwide, unvalidated or improper forensic science contributed to the underlying wrongful conviction.

 

[SMK]

What evidence shouldn't have been determined to be compatible?

If you follow the upcoming Jason Young trial, you will hear that footprints in the finish on the deck boards, and footprints made with red stuff that appears to be blood in the bedroom are "compatible" with shoes that Jason Young owned (even though the shoes were never found). I bet that evidence will be accepted by the jury.

It may well be, but ultimately the jury's verdict will come down to many factors: Such as who is Jason Young, what were his precedents and motives, was there a third party like Guede who might have done what they say Jason Young has done....

 

[Allusonz]

Does it not look like desperation to you?

Why would it look like desperation? It is not like we have not known about these individuals for some time now save the latest letter.

The defense did not go to the prison and say hey does any inmate want to help us back up our defense. Information was given to them and like any defense should do they followed this information up by speaking with them.

 

[Allusonz]

I hope you are aware that what you have quoted betrays the utter ignorance of the Judge with regards to the science of forensics. This isn't too surprising, as he took Stephanini at her word, even though she blatantly lied about the properties of Luminol. Luminol will not indicate whether it is being triggered by is blood or something else, thus why there is a test to confirm that it was indeed triggered by blood. Those tests are very sensitive, more so than Luminol. Thus any biological traces found were not blood based, which wouldn't be a problem if AK & MK didn't live there, but since both did...

I've had my wife's biotech professor, a woman with a PHD in this field who has worked with this stuff for years, take a look at this case, and she's utterly horrified by the crank science that the Motivation Report takes as gospel. Quoting from it like it's the bible just doesn't work too well for me, sorry.

Your wife joins many other well respected experts and this is worth repeating

 

[SMK]

@ Otto: Continuing with the Jason Young comparison:

Michelle was found beaten to death in the couple's home. She was pregnant with their second child.

Jason Young refused to talk with investigators in the years since the murder, and he refused to respond to civil lawsuits.http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=7170275

OK, if I find out a Rudy Guede unlawful-entry-druggie guy has been in the neighborhood, and his DNA is found at the scene, and inside of the wife, I am going to think maybe Jason Young is wrongfully accused of his wife's murder. Same with Scott Peterson et al. Guede is the key to this all.

 

[Allusonz]

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.....

Just MHO

Although the prosecution tried to extend the TOD, all of the experts testified to pretty much the same thing. It basically appears that the stomach contents were for the most part in the advanced state of digestion with a 2 - 4 hour window based on the variables of which many are known. Many, including Dr. Lalli felt that it was closer to the 3 hour mark. Dr. Lalli video taped this autopsy the window of time is not as great as the prosecution would like everyone to believe. I do hope it is revisited

 

[otto]

It may well be, but ultimately the jury's verdict will come down to many factors: Such as who is Jason Young, what were his precedents and motives, was there a third party like Guede who might have done what they say Jason Young has done....

My point is that some evidence is deemed "compatible" and some evidence is deemed an "exact match". Footprints are always deemed compatible, and DNA is exact. Aside from the barefoot print that is not compatible with any suspects other than Raffaele, what evidence was considered "compatible"?

 

[Allusonz]

According to today: the re-testers have received 'MAXIMUM COOPERATION' regarding materials needed for their inquiry. Another piece of propaganda bites the dust. Where is the 'they don't have the raw data' crowd???

The first bit of propaganda to bite the dust is: If all these 'new' witnesses say someone was with RG- the 'lone-wolf' theory has gone down in flames.
Oh no... I guess the Supreme Court's ruling the RG was CO-RESPONSIBLE AND CONTRIBUTING was absolutely correct any way it is looked at now.

Another note: Since the re-testers want to see how the knife was collected from RS's... it seems they are verifying the original testing was VALID. So, no problems with Stefanoni's testing. Yep, that about does it for AK and RS IMO.

You are misinformed they asked for "maximum COLLABERATION"

 

[Allusonz]

My understanding is that there were two types of tests done, one standard test and one more sensitive for blood. The conclusion was that some of the barefoot prints were made with a haematic substance, but some prints were to faint to confirm the presence of blood.

Still, what the report says is that Amanda walked in Meredith's blood and then left invisible barefoot prints in the hallway and in Filomina's bedroom. There is mixed evidence of this blood and Amanda's DNA in Filomina's bedroom.

There are all sorts of experts popping out of the woodwork claiming that the evidence presented during the 11 months trial is no good, but the problem is that none of the vocal people speak Italian or attended the trial. The 427 page report is a summary of the jury conclusions, not a detailed explanation of the evidence or a transcript of trial evidence.

A HAEMATIC SUBATANCE is not the same as saying it was Definately HAEMATIC

Like the analagy I used with the lifesaver if you want to save a lifesaver for later are you going to put it in water?

 

[Allusonz]

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 perfect sense to me and I am blonde and take scenic detours :giggle:

 

[SMK]

My point is that some evidence is deemed "compatible" and some evidence is deemed an "exact match". Footprints are always deemed compatible, and DNA is exact. Aside from the barefoot print that is not compatible with any suspects other than Raffaele, what evidence was considered "compatible"?

To be perfectly honest, reading all the counter-prosecution arguments ( by the various people we all know) has made me think that nothing was compatible. It has even been shown - or asserted- that the footprint matched Guede moreso than Sollecito. Add to this, I see shows such as "When Forensics Fail" and read scholarly articles about "The Public's misconception of Forensics as Exact Science", etc.---to tell you the truth, I trust and know nothing anymore. :crazy:

 

[otto]

A HAEMATIC SUBATANCE is not the same as saying it was Definately HAEMATIC

Like the analagy I used with the lifesaver if you want to save a lifesaver for later are you going to put it in water?

"finding 1: present in the bedroom of Amanda Knox; this is the print of right foot, most likely imprinted in a deposit of haematic substance, in which are clearly visible (cf. attached [to the report], following perspective correction): the big toe or 1st toe (which measures 22mm in width); the 3rd toe or middle toe (17mm in length); the metatarsus (80mm wide); a portion of the plantar arch. This finding was considered useful for negative comparisons and the comparison led the technicians to express an opinion of compatibility with Amanda Knox’s right foot"

Within their experts opinions, and the fact that the prints left by Rudy (who admitted being there at the time of the murder) were similarly described, I think its fair to assume the experts are correct.

If the experts are mistaken about prints for Knox and Sollecito, then they are also mistaken about the prints and evidence used to convict Rudy. If Knox, Sollecito and Guede were not involved in the murder ... then who?

 

[otto]

To be perfectly honest, reading all the counter-prosecution arguments ( by the various people we all know) has made me think that nothing was compatible. It has even been shown - or asserted- that the footprint matched Guede moreso than Sollecito. Add to this, I see shows such as "When Forensics Fail" and read scholarly articles about "The Public's misconception of Forensics as Exact Science", etc.---to tell you the truth, I trust and know nothing anymore. :crazy:

What footprint matches Guede more so than Sollecito? The bathmat print? No one associated with the case has been able to argue that the longer, narrower footprint of Guede matches the shorter, wider bloody print on the bathmat.

People have used photoshop to mess with photos that they found on the internet to give the illusion that Rudy's foot is much smaller than it is ... there's a nice powerpoint made by someone named Kermit called Honey, I Shrunk the Black Kid about this. Every trick in the book has been used to try to distance Knox and Sollecito from the evidence, but those who had the actual images in their hands were stumped when trying to explain why Raffaele's foot was compatible with the print on the bathmat. In fact, I was able to match Knox's footprint with the bathmat print with a little photoshop magic.

Here is Raffaele's lawyer looking for an explanation