Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #15

[Nova]

Are there any false murder confessions associated with this particular case?

Word game of the day. It's true: there were coerced statements that weren't really confessions. But the principle is the same.

And you once argued vehemently that by putting herself at the scene of the crime, AK had in fact "confessed" to either being an accomplice or failing to aid a dying MK.

But basically you are now right: what was coerced were false statements, not confessions to murder.

 

[otto]

A few threads back you spent several days insisting that Knox' statement WAS a confession, despite all insistence to the contrary. I'm glad you've seen the light.

Knox inadvertently stated that she was at the scene of the crime at the time of the murder when she accused Patrick of murder.

The false confession comments have been connected to her accusations against Patrick ... that she was forced and coerced after two hours to accuse an innocent man of murder.

Knox has not confessed to murder. She accused an innocent man of murder.

 

[Nova]

OK, so the overall position now is that RS's dna IS/IS NOT on the clasp... but if there it is due to contamination??? Dang, that's a winner every time... all bases covered.

No, what the independent experts said is that there are reasons to consider the testing of the bra clasp unreliable. (If you want my personal opinion, I think deliberate contamination is quite possible; but, no, I can't prove that at this point.)

IMO, since ILE destroyed the clasp so it can't be retested, the clasp can't be used as evidence against anyone.

 

[otto]

RS had been to the apartment numerous times (even if he and AK tended to sleep at his place). Presumably, his DNA was in many places in the cottage, even if those weren't the places that ILE chose to test.

I think he was at the cottage 3 times, and the only DNA of his that was found at the cottage was on a cigarette butt in the kitchen that was collected at the time of the murder. If there was no other DNA of his at the cottage, where did the flying DNA come from?

I'm surprised that gigantic clumps of DNA from Laura, Filomina and Knox, who all lived at the cottage, didn't also fly into the locked bedroom and attach themselves to the bra clasp.

 

[dgfred]

@ Nova- Well that is probably the defense position too... not that it will go unopposed.

 

[Nova]

My understanding is that there are certain protocols that the academics allege were not followed by Dr Stefanoni. For example, regarding the LNC DNA, one of the criticisms is that the LNC DNA should have been tested in a different lab, rather than in the same lab. This is an extra step that is recommended in order to absolutely ensure that lab contamination cannot be a factor. This does not mean that lab contamination did occur, but that a step that is recommended to further advance the belief that it could not have occurred was not done.

So Stefanoni's results shouldn't be used against anyone.

Let's not forget who has the burden of proof here. If a lab fails to prove its findings are not the result of contamination, then those findings shouldn't be considered by the jury.

Sorry about the triple negative. Let me rephrase: a lab must prove its findings are free from contamination if those findings are to be used in court. Stefanoni can't do that because she didn't follow accepted protocols.

 

[Nova]

Knox inadvertently stated that she was at the scene of the crime at the time of the murder when she accused Patrick of murder.

The false confession comments have been connected to her accusations against Patrick ... that she was forced and coerced after two hours to accuse an innocent man of murder.

Knox has not confessed to murder. She accused an innocent man of murder.

Well, actually ILE accused an innocent man and browbeat AK into agreeing.

 

[otto]

So Knox is a chronic liar but Guede is a reliable witness. Could you be any more transparent?

All three convicted murderers are untruthful ... that was establish in the days shortly after the murder.

 

[Nova]

I think he was at the cottage 3 times, and the only DNA of his that was found at the cottage was on a cigarette butt in the kitchen that was collected at the time of the murder. If there was no other DNA of his at the cottage, where did the flying DNA come from?

I'm surprised that gigantic clumps of DNA from Laura, Filomina and Knox, who all lived at the cottage, didn't also fly into the locked bedroom and attach themselves to the bra clasp.

Oh, stop. You know perfectly well the cottage wasn't tested from roof to floor. If no other DNA from RS was found, that doesn't prove no other DNA existed.

The assertion was that contamination of the bra clasp was unlikely. Well, that works both ways. At least. What are the odds that RS happened to leave his DNA ONLY on a cigarette and the bra clasp?

 

[otto]

Word game of the day. It's true: there were coerced statements that weren't really confessions. But the principle is the same.

And you once argued vehemently that by putting herself at the scene of the crime, AK had in fact "confessed" to either being an accomplice or failing to aid a dying MK.

But basically you are now right: what was coerced were false statements, not confessions to murder.

Not really. There is no false murder confession to discuss in connection with this case.

Knox placed Patrick at the scene of the murder, and in doing so she implied that she was at the cottage at the time of the murder. It has been argued that even if she was there, that didn't mean that she was guilty.

 

[dgfred]

So Stefanoni's results shouldn't be used against anyone.

Let's not forget who has the burden of proof here. If a lab fails to prove its findings are not the result of contamination, then those findings shouldn't be considered by the jury.

Sorry about the triple negative. Let me rephrase: a lab must prove its findings are free from contamination if those findings are to be used in court. Stefanoni can't do that because she didn't follow accepted protocols.

Are you looking at both 'points of view' regarding protocols?

Who's accepted protocols anyway?

Are they just not guidelines and not rules?

Didn't we already know that LCN wasn't accepted everywhere? What is new about that?

Contamination has to be proven by the defense... not the lab. But that 'should' be decided by the court if the reasoning is valid.

 

[Nova]

All three convicted murderers are untruthful ... that was establish in the days shortly after the murder.

And yet, depending on what you are pretending to prove, you happily cherry-pick from the testimonies of each of them.

 

[emyr]

I don't see any glaring errors here, but there are others who know the case better than I.

Ron Hendry (you can google him) makes a good case for both the break-in and RG as a lone assailant.

Most of your questions are answered if RG is on the toilet and surprised by MK returning home.

I think I pretty much understand where the facts lie now. I'm kind of playing devil's advocate on both sides, but if I'm honest, the things that actual trouble my peculair way of thinking are these, in order of concern. :

Againt the Defense:
Why no one showed you could climb THROUGH the window. (did a full physical recreation). Why only her bare left foot flouresced in the absence of other people's feet. Why is there no DNA of Rudy in the bathroom. Why would Rudy lock Meredith's door. Why would Rudy steal the phones and then throw them away. And I do find it a bit suspicious that Raffaelle was a knife aficionado. AND, even with the new report, how did Raffaelle get unlucky enough to have his DNA migrate and not someone elses. (Though it appears the report may be saying that the DNA is not provable as his, I'll reserve this point until after I read it.)

I am not really concerned at all about anything else. But I would imagine most people would find her testimony troubling. I just don't.

For the prosecution, my concerns are:

The evidence of bias by the DNA team (using methods they shouldn't have, using suspect-oriented thinking which I think is clear.) The evidence of bias by the police (which always happens, but generally causes errors), the lack of bloody clothes associated with the defendant, the fact that the knife wounds match a knife Rudy owned, the tight room space that the murder would have to be committed in, the lack of pre-meditation by the defendants, the lack of ability to collude prior to the murder for the defendants, the lack of motivation for a murder. Why, if Amanda was told Raffaelle was selling her out, would she point the finger at Lumamba instead of Raffaelle? The assumption that there was a thorough clean-up yet they missed the bloody footprint. Why, if they were staging the scene, wouldn't they both have "discovered" the body and called the police, so as to explain why their DNA might be in the room?

Edited to add: And the fact that they had only been dating for a week, and everyone agrees they barely knew Rudy.

 

[Nova]

Are you looking at both 'points of view' regarding protocols?

Who's accepted protocols anyway?

Are they just not guidelines and not rules?

Didn't we already know that LCN wasn't accepted everywhere? What is new about that?

Contamination has to be proven by the defense... not the lab. But that 'should' be decided by the court if the reasoning is valid.

I believe the lab has a burden of showing it followed generally accepted protocols to prevent contamination. Stefanoni did not do so.

Literally "proving" contamination is nearly impossible, as we have discussed.

 

[otto]

So Stefanoni's results shouldn't be used against anyone.

Let's not forget who has the burden of proof here. If a lab fails to prove its findings are not the result of contamination, then those findings shouldn't be considered by the jury.

Sorry about the triple negative. Let me rephrase: a lab must prove its findings are free from contamination if those findings are to be used in court. Stefanoni can't do that because she didn't follow accepted protocols.

I would like to see all the prisoners in the US step forward and require that DNA tests that convicted them be tested as follows: DNA be retested and, barring that, the Rome experts complete an evaluation of the analysis was done. I wonder how many prisoners could have DNA evidence tossed out because there was insufficient DNA to retest, or contamination could be not be ruled in or out.

 

[dgfred]

I believe the lab has a burden of showing it followed generally accepted protocols to prevent contamination. Stefanoni did not do so.

Literally "proving" contamination is nearly impossible, as we have discussed.

Again... accepted protocol FOR WHOM? Were these not discussed at the first trial anyway? I believe it/they were and the court accepted DrS's testimony on her testing methods and results. This is another analysis that does not agree, but once again that will be up to the court to decide.

Yes, proving contamination is problematic... but then again contamination is possible in EVERY instance of evidence. So that is a tough one for either side.

 

[otto]

Oh, stop. You know perfectly well the cottage wasn't tested from roof to floor. If no other DNA from RS was found, that doesn't prove no other DNA existed.

The assertion was that contamination of the bra clasp was unlikely. Well, that works both ways. At least. What are the odds that RS happened to leave his DNA ONLY on a cigarette and the bra clasp?

You walked right into that one ... the cottage was not tested from roof to floor, and just because no additional DNA was found, it doesn't mean it wasn't there. Exactly. So much has been made of the suggested absence of Knox and Sollecito DNA in Meredith's bedroom ... but just because it wasn't found, doesn't mean it wasn't there. In fact, if Sollecito's DNA was on the clasp, it is most likely because he was in the bedroom during the murder. If Sollecito's DNA supposed flew into the locked bedroom after the murder, then it raises the question of why the DNA from the roommates wasn't also flying into the locked bedroom and attaching itself in large quantifies to the clasp ... why only DNA from Sollecito?

 

[otto]

And yet, depending on what you are pretending to prove, you happily cherry-pick from the testimonies of each of them.

It is not cherry picking to point out that eye witness testimony places Knox and Sollecito at the murder and committing the murder. That is in fact part of the evidence. It is also a fact that all three convicted murderers were untruthful when questioned by police as witnesses, so anything they say has to be independently verified.

 

[emyr]

I would like to see all the prisoners in the US step forward and require that DNA tests that convicted them be tested as follows: DNA be retested and, barring that, the Rome experts complete an evaluation of the analysis was done. I wonder how many prisoners could have DNA evidence tossed out because there was insufficient DNA to retest, or contamination could be not be ruled in or out.

I wonder how many were convicted using LCN DNA.

Contamination was an issue because the sampel size was so tiny, that if you had a tiny amount of contamination, it taints the result.

It's very easy to rule out contamination. Before you begin, you do a control test and see if the results come back positive for DNA. If they do, you are contaminated. Clean the machines, test again. If you are going to test something that will yield the result in tiny tiny peaks, then you must do a control at that size, not at the previous large result size.

It's less of a problem when you use large samples, because their peaks far outweigh the tiny peaks from tiny contamination. This is why everyone talks about "noise". Noise is basically contamination. Even in the casey anthony trial, they got DNA on the duct tape. It happens.

 

[dgfred]

I wonder how many were convicted using LCN DNA.

Contamination was an issue because the sampel size was so tiny, that if you had a tiny amount of contamination, it taints the result.

It's very easy to rule out contamination. Before you begin, you do a control test and see if the results come back positive for DNA. If they do, you are contaminated. Clean the machines, test again. If you are going to test something that will yield the result in tiny tiny peaks, then you must do a control at that size, not at the previous large result size.

Probably everyone that committed the crime in Italy... since they use it.

But emyr, if the original sample is too small to do the controls and retesting, your 'method' would not be feasible.