Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #15

[Allusonz]

If you read the quote Otto pulled from the middle of the report (I posted the English traanslation earlier), there appears to be DNA from more than one male. One fraction of one of these profiles is merely compatible with RS.

Yes Monzoo I would have to agree. The more I am looking at the reports here that seems to be the case is that certain values were similar

Sorry worked all day so am trying to catch up here lol

 

[dgfred]

@SMK- So that basically says: there is no way to declare with 'certainty' that it is Meredith's dna on the knife... and if there is it was possibly contaminated. Right? And why would Meredith's dna need to be 'blood' dna, couldn't it be something else?

 

[dgfred]

@SMK- So that basically says: there is no way to declare with 'certainty' that it is Meredith's dna on the knife... and if there is it was possibly contaminated. Right? And why would Meredith's dna need to be 'blood' dna, couldn't it be something else?

Sorry to quote myself but:

What is 'certainty' anyway? Which is it, Meredith's dna is definately/possibly on there or it is on there but might have been 'contamination'?

This is kind of covering all the bases is it not?

 

[SMK]

@SMK- So that basically says: there is no way to declare with 'certainty' that it is Meredith's dna on the knife... and if there is it was possibly contaminated. Right? And why would Meredith's dna need to be 'blood' dna, couldn't it be something else?

1. I suppose there should be blood cells/dna if the knife slashed her throat. I have to say, this looks very, very weak for evidence, and bad for the prosecution. I am an extreme pessimist, but even I can see at this point that it leans heavily in favor of the defense now.

2. I simply have no other way to interpret what I am reading. I do not see any "spin"; I see findings which bolster the defense and weaken the case for the prosecution.

3. What gets me angry, is that the PMF forum has so many really brilliant people, really eloquent and sharp, and they were dead wrong about what this report would find. They totally failed at calling it, and I trusted them, and really was set to accept that the dna evidence would be called, "Professional, strong, and worthy of inclusion" as they predicted. Instead: We have really nearly a total reversal of that. It makes Fisher seem to be the sophisticated one now, and they, sort of idiotic. I guess I allow bravado to fool me. Fisher's is the victory today.

 

[otto]

Wrong. They already have been.

There is indeed a hearing at the end of July to discuss the report.

 

[SMK]

There is indeed a hearing at the end of July to discuss the report.

It will not make any difference. The die is cast now. This time, I am trusting my own predictions.

 

[Allusonz]

There is indeed a hearing at the end of July to discuss the report.

Yes Otto there is but the wording in this document is extremely strong. They also did not limit it to the testing they were able to do but also with respect to the review of the original testing.

You can't get something worded much stronger than what I am seeing here and the presentation in court like any court would have to happen. It looks to be extremely well done

 

[miley]

Sorry to quote myself but:

What is 'certainty' anyway? Which is it, Meredith's dna is definately/possibly on there or it is on there but might have been 'contamination'?

This is kind of covering all the bases is it not?

it was never there

(here - regarding the dna on the knife)

HAMPIKIAN: Would this have made it into a U.S. court? I don't think this would have made it on to a U.S. lab report.​

cnn - Murder Abroad

he wouldn't have even put pen to paper - that speaks volumes

 

[otto]

Most entertaining to read all the remarks about the Meredith Kercher support website!

 

[Allusonz]

chris halkides wrote this a few weeks ago in reference to the raw data request but I'm applying it here:
"This ends the debate about whether or not the forensic files were ever released to the defense during the trial of the first instance."
read more View-from-Wilmington

Yes Miley and I am so glad that they were released I still wonder if the defense received it or just the experts

 

[SMK]

Yes Otto there is but the wording in this document is extremely strong. They also did not limit it to the testing they were able to do but also with respect to the review of the original testing.

You can't get something worded much stronger than what I am seeing here and the presentation in court like any court would have to happen. It looks to be extremely well done

Right. I am particularly impressed, as I am so, so pessimistic and cautious: Whenever I get good news, I do not trust it. So to impress me, it has to be strong.
This is like thinking you have cancer, and expecting the doctor's report to say so, and in very strong language, the doctor says again and again that he has found none.

 

[SMK]

Most entertaining to read all the remarks about the Meredith Kercher support website!

Worse has been said of the Fisher/Hendry team, so what is good for the goose is good for the gander. It is a flawed site.

 

[otto]

Yes Otto there is but the wording in this document is extremely strong. They also did not limit it to the testing they were able to do but also with respect to the review of the original testing.

You can't get something worded much stronger than what I am seeing here and the presentation in court like any court would have to happen. It looks to be extremely well done

There was no possibility to retest the DNA, contamination cannot be ruled out but has not been proven, and for the rest, I guess we'll have to wait until the people at the Meredith Kercher support website (the "flawed" site) translate the report.

I suspect it will become a battle of the experts.

 

[Allusonz]

Right. I am particularly impressed, as I am so, so pessimistic and cautious: Whenever I get good news, I do not trust it. So to impress me, it has to be strong.
This is like thinking you have cancer, and expecting the doctor's report to say so, and in very strong language, the doctor says again and again that he has found none.

Even I have to admit I am very surprised at how strong the wording is and how far they took the review but it did need to be strong in order to put any suspicions to rest. That was one of the reasons I was being so overly cautious but after reviewing this further....I don't believe the report could be any more scathing

ETA The other thought to this is I now wonder what RG could do?

 

[SMK]

This is being mocked at PMF. They claim there are no such thing as international standards, but what is ISO (International Standards Organization) then? The FBI is ISO accredited for DNA forensics testing (if I am reading their webpage correctly). I am almost tempted to join and enter the scrum, but I have refrained so far.

Ha, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Take it with a grain of salt, and consider the source:

I was so taken in, so fooled by those people - they had me convinced of their power to predict, convinced that Fisher's predictions would fall flat, and today the opposite happened. This is the greatest contradiction PMF could undergo, and denial will do nothing to change that. I will never trust one of their predictions again. :razz:

 

[dgfred]

It will not make any difference. The die is cast now. This time, I am trusting my own predictions.

I just hope your trust/predictions/BF's predictions/etc are not premature. It might be a 'razzapalooza' if the hopes don't pan out in the end. It is a sort of 'match' (tho tragic), in that the trial will does have highs and lows for both sides... only in the end will WE as observers for the most part find out the judges/jurors decisions. If PMF bothers you so much, why don't you register and post your opinions in a polite way... if not confrontational or rude I'm sure you would get answers from good-faith honest posters like Fiona and Yummi, at least in my opinion you would.

This for example will be one report, the prosecution and Meredith's lawyer will counter with other reports/experts/opinions and the court/judge/jurors will weigh the value of each IMO. As I stated before, IMO the entire case does not rely on just these two pieces of the mosaic of evidence anyway.

 

[dgfred]

Right. I am particularly impressed, as I am so, so pessimistic and cautious: Whenever I get good news, I do not trust it. So to impress me, it has to be strong.
This is like thinking you have cancer, and expecting the doctor's report to say so, and in very strong language, the doctor says again and again that he has found none.

What if your doctor told you there 'might' be cancer in your system, but he can not be 'certain'... and 'if' there is it 'might' be caused by contamination?
How much would you trust that?

 

[Allusonz]

I guess you can keep paying to see specialists till you get one that says what you want to hear. My count to date I think was at 11 experts not including these 2 experts. The same would apply to doctors

 

[SMK]

I just hope your trust/predictions/BF's predictions/etc are not premature. It might be a 'razzapalooza' if the hopes don't pan out in the end. It is a sort of 'match' (tho tragic), in that the trial will does have highs and lows for both sides... only in the end will WE as observers for the most part find out the judges/jurors decisions. If PMF bothers you so much, why don't you register and post your opinions in a polite way... if not confrontational or rude I'm sure you would get answers from good-faith honest posters like Fiona and Yummi, at least in my opinion you would.

This for example will be one report, the prosecution and Meredith's lawyer will counter with other reports/experts/opinions and the court/judge/jurors will weigh the value of each IMO. As I stated before, IMO the entire case does not rely on just these two pieces of the mosaic of evidence anyway.

I see what you are saying, and I have always been EXTREMELY wary of premature victory celebrations. This news, though, is different. Last week, some New Yorkers were saying that gay marriage could not possibly win, and that it was going to be "a long, hot summer" for NY gay advocates. Well, it sailed through. "For the times, they are a changin'"....... Guess what the gays said to the anti - gay alliance? you guessed it, :razz:

 

[SMK]

What if your doctor told you there 'might' be cancer in your system, but he can not be 'certain'... and 'if' there is it 'might' be caused by contamination?
How much would you trust that?

I would say, this doctor in good faith could not ethically make a diagnosis of cancer , nor recommend radiation or chemotherapy. I would say he would not put me in the cancer ward, with such a strange diagnosis. And then I would tell him: (you fill in the razz blanks)