This might have made sense had the court started reviewing the DNA evidence, but as we all know that's been pushed back 40 days. So your conclusion (based on what by the way?) is premature.
Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #13
- Thread starter fran
- Start date
- Status
This might have made sense had the court started reviewing the DNA evidence, but as we all know that's been pushed back 40 days. So your conclusion (based on what by the way?) is premature.
Well, HE claims his opinion HAS helped, within the appeal, :snooty::hand: (admittedly not the first trial)
You mean I didn't make sense?
My conclusion is based on my interpretation of what they have requested needing to look over now. Sorry it doesn't 'match' your hope of what it means.
A DNA expert working for the defense is having lunch with a family member of a defendant and a family friend. Not exactly watergate. What exactly do you think this photo proves? Now if this was a photo of the independent experts dining with family of the accused I could see some sort of point here.
It proves or means absolutely NOTHING to me. None of the three has 'helped' the defense's case IMO... in fact IMO CM and JL (aka CW) have hurt more than helped. What Dr H does (or says) is also of no relevance to the court either IMO at this point of the case.
Are you picking on me, Fred?
I honestly don't understand the point you're trying to make. Of course Hampikian's research hasn't made a difference yet because the court hasn't gotten to discussing the DNA evidence yet, and yes things have been delayed because of Stefanoni's stubbornness to release the raw data until now. ONCE the independent experts have reviewed it I'm sure the defense will argue their (and Hampikian's) side. Then we'll see what difference it makes.
Agreed.
Except for the Charlie Wilkes part. I don't know enough about him to know how he has harmed the defense's case. Perhaps you can tell me.
Are you picking on me, Fred?
I honestly don't understand the point you're trying to make. Of course Hampikian's research hasn't made a difference yet because the court hasn't gotten to discussing the DNA evidence yet, and yes things have been delayed because of Stefanoni's stubbornness to release the raw data until now. ONCE the independent experts have reviewed it I'm sure the defense will argue their (and Hampikian's) side. Then we'll see what difference it makes.
Yep, got to get you back buddy.
Not trying to make a point really, just commenting on your post.
The court has discussed the dna evidence throroughly IMO. The defense could not contest it in the trial, and now (since it cannot be retested and found invalid- no material remaining) they are not going to be able to either.
I see you are still harping the 'raw data conspiracy'... that is something I don't understand why you claim this will be the 'fixer' to the defense's problems.
We will see where it all lands in the end, and in the meantime, let it rest :razz:
In the end Hampikian believes the DNA evidence exonerates Knox and points only to one perpetrator: Guede.
The group is currently working pro bono with Knox's attorneys as she appeals her conviction.
http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-national/idaho-innocence-project-concludes-amanda-knox-not-guilty-of-murder-video#ixzz1NOgsq0JE
In the end Hampikian believes the DNA evidence exonerates Knox and points only to one perpetrator: Guede.
The group is currently working pro bono with Knox's attorneys as she appeals her conviction.
http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-national/idaho-innocence-project-concludes-amanda-knox-not-guilty-of-murder-video#ixzz1NOgsq0JE
Hellman saw the necessity for the raw data. So I guess he's at the forefront of this conspiracy. I don't disagree with his request for it.
Furthermore, Dr. Hampikian does indeed state that his Innocence Project looks at cases at home, and abroad, and I doubt a man of his standing would be anything other than objective. He did not know Knox's family prior to/outside of the case, which is the main thing.:razz:
Nah, you know where the conspiracy lies. :innocent:
I don't disagree with them having whatever they want or think they need... I just don't see it helping their cause at all. But I guess the defense side is desperate for any inkling of hope left, like the 5 inmates to testify.
Interesting piece in relation to all of this here: Excerpt, and then continues at link:
The Independent DNA Experts and the Electronic Data Files
Part 28 in the Knox/Sollecito case
Judge Hellmann appointed two independent experts to review the DNA forensic evidence in Amanda Knoxs and Raffaele Sollecitos appeal. Recently, the experts asked for more time, and reports suggested that they did not yet have access to documents the felt were necessary to carry out this task.
According to Candace Dempsey, forensic scientist under whose supervision the tests were carried out, Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, turned aside this request. She wrote to Judge Hellman, In reference to the request of acquisition of CD RAW DATA, one is obligated to explain that the information in the form of this file in the sequencer is never an integral part of the technical report, as far as the object being tested by the forensic geneticist, namely the DNA profile, and that it is already reported in the electropherogram printout, connected to the technical report on which all of the useful date and an evaluation of the genetic profile are reported Finally, the request asked for by the expert consultants relative to the acquisition of the CD RAW DATA appears incomplete in so much as the name of the sample file requested was not specified
To help me consider Dr. Stefanoni's refusal refusal, I have consulted with DNA forensics professionals Dan Krane and Jason Gilder of Forensic Bioinformatics, and I gratefully acknowledge their help. The continued lack of file release with respect to the DNA profiling of this case has been a recurring theme of this blog.
Her arguments against releasing further information are essentially:
(1) All of the necessary data are already in the paper printouts of the electropherograms.
(2) The request for data files is insufficiently specific.
http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2011/05/independent-dna-experts-and-electronic.html
From reading the concluding remarks - and obviously, these DNA consulting experts have NO stake in whether Amanda lives or dies - I can only conclude that Dr. Stefanoni feels she has something to hide, or something to gain from her refusal: I am glad Judge Hellman ruled as he did:
Concluding remarks
The failure of Dr. Stefanoni’s laboratory to provide the data to the independent forensic scientists is a continuation of her refusal to provide them to the defense. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for her to do so. As Dan Krane noted, “It is a fundamental tenet of science that two reasonable experts should be able to independently arrive at the same conclusions after reviewing the same experimental data.”http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2011/05/independent-dna-experts-and-electronic.html
Concluding remarks
The failure of Dr. Stefanoni’s laboratory to provide the data to the independent forensic scientists is a continuation of her refusal to provide them to the defense. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for her to do so. As Dan Krane noted, “It is a fundamental tenet of science that two reasonable experts should be able to independently arrive at the same conclusions after reviewing the same experimental data.”http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2011/05/independent-dna-experts-and-electronic.html
I will agree with you Otto, he is acting as though 2 pieces of DNA evidence is the ENTIRETY of the case, whereas of course - as with the Casey Anthony case - many, many factors entered in. To make an analogy to the Anthony case, I was watching the trial today and they were questioning all kinds of friends, club goers, etc. about Ms. Anthony's behavior and precedents, which were not about forensics at all.
When a link starts with 'according to Candace Dempsey'... well, that's really all that needs to be read IMO. It always seems to be saying what a supporter of AK wrote about what a supporter of AK said... about what a defense 'expert' for AK has said regarding evidence. Sorry.
Right, and that is what I have never been able to pin down about this review and appeal: Are they looking at the case in its wholeness, its entirety, or merely pieces that they deemed acceptable to review? It is very confusing to me, and would seem to make a huge difference, respectively....
- Status
Similar threads
