Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #15

[wasnt_me]

Pointing the finger at Lumamba, taking a shower at the crime scene, being inconsistent about when they ate dinner, and not acting appropriately grief-stricken would be enough for many people to convict them both. I disagree strongly with that, but it is true.

Is my understanding of the remaining facts correct?

Homeless guys testimony: Is everyone in agreement that it is not useable?
Shopowner testimony: not useable?
Kokamani testimony: not useable?
Footprint on pillow: not useable?
Placed call to carbineri after police showed up: not true?
Mop: had zero to do with crime, not useable?
.

Footprint on the pillow case is very usable--against RG.

 

[emyr]

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.

If it wouldn't be feasible, then the FSS and ISO says you shouldn't do it at all. And from how they have stated it, I agree with them.

Hopefully those convicts were convicted with a certified lab that abides by those controls. If they were not, then they should appeal. I don't have a problem with that.

Prosecution should be done with sound science, and I'm not going to be moved from that position.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/lcn_testing.html

 

[dgfred]

Good for you.

What they say is feasible and what Italy goes by might not be the same thing. This process that was used has been known from the beginning and was argued in court. The same will happen again, and maybe the findings will be different.

 

[miley]

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.

all kidding aside... contamination either by a)collecting b)manipulating or c)during the analysis.

(bra clasp) other factors:
1-Not proven the presence of cells on the exhibit. (no proof cells even existed - this seems big)

2-The electroforetic curve of the autosomic STRs [the DNA profile, partially attributed to Raffaele Sollecito], was wrongly attributed.

3-The electroforetic curve of the Y-chromosome [attributed to Raffaele Sollecito] was wrongly attributed.

4-The international procedures for inspection, collecting and recording of the exhibit haven’t been followed.

(the experts aren't sure how Stefanoni et al. managed to get their results, but It can’t be ruled out..(see #5)

5- that the result may come from phenomenons of contamination occurred in any phase: collecting, manipulating or during the analysis.

this is my interpretation..
source: http://perugiashock.com/

 

[otto]

all kidding aside... contamination either by a)collecting b)manipulating or c)during the analysis.

(bra clasp) other factors:
1-Not proven the presence of cells on the exhibit. (no proof cells even existed - this seems big)

2-The electroforetic curve of the autosomic STRs [the DNA profile, partially attributed to Raffaele Sollecito], was wrongly attributed.

3-The electroforetic curve of the Y-chromosome [attributed to Raffaele Sollecito] was wrongly attributed.

4-The international procedures for inspection, collecting and recording of the exhibit haven’t been followed.

(the experts aren't sure how Stefanoni et al. managed to get their results, but It can’t be ruled out..(see #5)

5- that the result may come from phenomenons of contamination occurred in any phase: collecting, manipulating or during the analysis.

this is my interpretation..
source: http://perugiashock.com/

The focus of the 145 page report has been more or less one paragraph in the summary (that you posted above), but here is the entire conclusion:

http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/documento/23.$plit/C_2_documento_11_file.pdf

Google translation of the paragraph:

Rep relatively at technical 165B believe that the findings made ​​are not reliable for the following reasons:

1. scientific evidence there is no evidence the presence of cells suspected of flaking on the findings;
2. there was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic pattern of autosomal STRs;
3. 3, there was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic pattern on the Y chromosome;
4. were not followed international procedures and protocols of international inspection and sampling of specimen collection;
5. one can not exclude that the results obtained may result from phenomena including environmental contamination and / or contamination arising at any stage of the repertoire and / or manipulation of that report.

The entire report is also available online at this point.

 

[SMK]

Well it seems many are 'dancing' already.

And she chose that nickname... might as well keep it. :innocent:

:razz:

 

[otto]

all kidding aside... contamination either by a)collecting b)manipulating or c)during the analysis.

(bra clasp) other factors:
1-Not proven the presence of cells on the exhibit. (no proof cells even existed - this seems big)

2-The electroforetic curve of the autosomic STRs [the DNA profile, partially attributed to Raffaele Sollecito], was wrongly attributed.

3-The electroforetic curve of the Y-chromosome [attributed to Raffaele Sollecito] was wrongly attributed.

4-The international procedures for inspection, collecting and recording of the exhibit haven’t been followed.

(the experts aren't sure how Stefanoni et al. managed to get their results, but It can’t be ruled out..(see #5)

5- that the result may come from phenomenons of contamination occurred in any phase: collecting, manipulating or during the analysis.

this is my interpretation..
source: http://perugiashock.com/

I just realized that the translation of what was written in the report is gradually being changed such that the translation no longer accurately reflects the content in the report.

Original:

5. non si puo escludere che i risultati ottenuti possano derivare da fenomemi di contaminazione ambientale e/o di contaminazione verificatasi in una qualunque fase della repertazione e/o manipulazione di detto reporto.

Google Translation:

5. one cannot exclude that the results obtained may result from phenomena including environmental contamination and / or contamination arising at any stage of the repertoire and / or manipulation of that report.

The Translation you provided:

5. that the result may come from phenomenons of contamination occurred in any phase: collecting, manipulating or during the analysis.

 

[miley]

The focus of the 145 page report has been more or less one paragraph in the summary (that you posted above), but here is the entire conclusion:

http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/documento/23.$plit/C_2_documento_11_file.pdf

Google translation of the paragraph:

Rep relatively at technical 165B believe that the findings made ​​are not reliable for the following reasons:

1. scientific evidence there is no evidence the presence of cells suspected of flaking on the findings;
2. there was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic pattern of autosomal STRs;
3. 3, there was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic pattern on the Y chromosome;
4. were not followed international procedures and protocols of international inspection and sampling of specimen collection;
5. one can not exclude that the results obtained may result from phenomena including environmental contamination and / or contamination arising at any stage of the repertoire and / or manipulation of that report.

The entire report is also available online at this point.

okay... I was repeating Allusonz's post from yesterday (from perugia shock) because I think it is suppose to sum up the the 145 pg report... my comments were in response to what you wrote -- my point.. it goes way beyond a "recommended extra step" (and lol at "academics allege")

 

[miley]

I just realized that the translation of what was written in the report is gradually being changed such that the translation no longer accurately reflects the content in the report.

Original:

5. non si puo escludere che i risultati ottenuti possano derivare da fenomemi di contaminazione ambientale e/o di contaminazione verificatasi in una qualunque fase della repertazione e/o manipulazione di detto reporto.

Google Translation:

5. one cannot exclude that the results obtained may result from phenomena including environmental contamination and / or contamination arising at any stage of the repertoire and / or manipulation of that report.

The Translation you provided:

5. that the result may come from phenomenons of contamination occurred in any phase: collecting, manipulating or during the analysis.

I'm confident w/ the translation provided by Frank Sfarzo.

 

[wasnt_me]

Wasn't court in session today?

 

[Monzoo]

Wasn't court in session today?

No court session today -- it was the deadline for the independent experts to submit their written report. Obviously, they were a day early.

I don't think there is another court day scheduled until July 25, when the report submitted yesterday will be discussed.

 

[SMK]

No court session today -- it was the deadline for the independent experts to submit their written report. Obviously, they were a day early.

I don't think there is another court day scheduled until July 25, when the report submitted yesterday will be discussed.

Right. And then August/September will be further review and discussion, then the verdict. I wish it were over at this point.

 

[wasnt_me]

Againt the Defense:
Why no one showed you could climb THROUGH the window. (did a full physical recreation).

The defense did one, but the court wouldn't allow them to show it. You've seen pictures from it, though. It existed, but like in everything else, the judge would not listen to the defense's case. Additionally, the judge even conceded that it doesn't take spiderman to climb that window. So I'm not sure why this is in dispute.

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.

Because AK's wet feet were the only ones inside the cottage after RG took his wet foot out of the shower or the bidet? Or perhaps he used a towel with AK and MK's DNA already on it? Why is it possible for AK and RS to be in the murder room with zero DNA but not possible for RG to be in the bathroom with zero dna when he left his big foot print on the rug? Check out the video of the lady taking bathroom swabs. You'll see she ONLY swabs where there's blood. That doesn't mean RG didn't get DNA on something she did not swab.

Why would Rudy lock Meredith's door. Why would Rudy steal the phones and then throw them away.

I stated in this thread or the last one that RG is known for stealing cell phones. These particular phones were dumped a 5 minute walk from his house. So why wouldn't he take them? This might be the first time he took phones from a murder scene and so he decided to dump them out of fear. Why did RG do ANY of the things he did from craping on the toilet to stabbing MK and to not having a full sexual rape? As far as locking the door, I'm guessin to delay discovery of the body. Perhaps he assumed her roommates would think she was elsewhere over the holiday. It would be stupid for AK to even keep the door locked. If she staged it, she coud have opened it at the opportune time and called the police, pretending as if it had never been locked at all. And whose DNA is on the handle? Do we even know?

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.) [

RS was not the only lucky lottery winner. there were 4 other profiles on the bra clasp, just unidenifiable. RS collecting knives, yet none of his were missing or found to be the murder weapon should instill more confidence, not less.


Hope these answers help. A lot of the questions you ask seem to be subjective. By that I mean, they are questions you ask because you can't imagine it, but not because it's impossible. Keep that in mind. If it's impossible, that's one thing. But if you just can't imagine it happening, that's another. For example, I couldn't imagine anyone tossing a 9lb rock through a 2nd story window, but I got over it because my inablity to imagine it didn't mean it didn't happen. Later, I saw a video of someone doing that exact thing. So....Also I can't imagine someone crapping on the toilet in the middle of a burglary or a seduction, but it happened.

 

[wasnt_me]

This sounds good:

Caso cuiso. Case over. Judges cannot convict if evidence is inconclusive, insufficient or contradictory according to section 930 of the Italian criminal code. Thanks to the report by Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti from Rome’s Sapienza University, nothing ties Amanda and Raffaele to the blood-stained bedroom where Meredith Kercher, Knox’s British roommate, was stabbed to death on Nov. 1, 2007.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/

Anyone know of this section of Italian criminal code that can discuss its affect on the new report?

 

[SMK]

This sounds good:

Caso cuiso. Case over. Judges cannot convict if evidence is inconclusive, insufficient or contradictory according to section 930 of the Italian criminal code. Thanks to the report by Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti from Rome’s Sapienza University, nothing ties Amanda and Raffaele to the blood-stained bedroom where Meredith Kercher, Knox’s British roommate, was stabbed to death on Nov. 1, 2007.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/

Anyone know of this section of Italian criminal code that can discuss its affect on the new report?

Thanks for this post and link!!
Yes, I have seen many a "case over" and Dempsey - despite being mercilessly personally ridiculed by PMF - has been correct on all counts thus far. I just wish it were really and truly over. Sorry, do not know Italian criminal law, but am glad to hear about section 930 from Candace!

 

[SMK]

Here is a piece from today, from Scientific American: This is a highly regarded , sophisticated publication so I give it some weight, when they speak of the "csi effect":

Will Convicted Sex Murderer Amanda Knox Benefit from the CSI Effect? The strange case of Amanda Knox, the 23-year-old American convicted in 2009 of killing her roommate in Italy and sentenced to 26 years in prison, may get new life. Independent forensic experts issued a report on Wednesday casting doubt on the key forensic evidence used to convict Knox and her ex-boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito.

[. . . ]

Given the lack of a clear motive and eyewitnesses other than the defendants, the defense may have a strong case, especially if the CSI effect is real. The idea is that, because of the popular television show (which has an Italian version), jurors demand forensic evidence and value it over other kinds of evidence. Forensic anthropologist Max M. Houck, director of West Virginia University’s Forensic Science Initiative, recounted some possible examples in his July 2006 Scientific American article on the subject:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=will-convicted-sex-murderer-amanda-2011-06-30

and from a poster:

"Did the court rule that Knox and Sollecito did not commit the crime? Yes or no?"

To which the scrupulously-accurate answer will almost certainly be "no" - but it won't be relevant. All that will be relevant will be that the court did not rule that they did commit the crime. And, by the same token, all that's important in the DNA report is that it says that Sollecito's DNA cannot be ruled as being present.

and he continues, reflecting exactly my experience and perspective on the PMF "brilliant predictors":

"Hellmann has requested this report so that he can be shown to have left no stone unturned. The report will confirm Stefanoni's findings, and will close off any further avenues of discussion/appeal for Knox and Sollecito".

Oh dear. Yet those idiots who were making this very argument as recently as last week are now desperately scrabbling for some other rationalisation to shore up their over-invested positions. And of course they've totally...erm..... "forgotten" that this was their previous position on the DNA report. Lovely stuff!

I could not have stated it better myself!

 

[emyr]

Hope these answers help. A lot of the questions you ask seem to be subjective. By that I mean, they are questions you ask because you can't imagine it, but not because it's impossible. Keep that in mind. If it's impossible, that's one thing. But if you just can't imagine it happening, that's another. For example, I couldn't imagine anyone tossing a 9lb rock through a 2nd story window, but I got over it because my inablity to imagine it didn't mean it didn't happen. Later, I saw a video of someone doing that exact thing. So....Also I can't imagine someone crapping on the toilet in the middle of a burglary or a seduction, but it happened.

Those questions were moreso my personal lingering doubts, which are on a different level than what I would call prosecutable doubts. Personally, I find the only objective, verifiable prosecutable evidence which might still stand to be the luminol footprints. And that's only because I haven't had the energy to read the hard science behind the reasons to discount it.

If I were on the jury, with the same evidence that the Messai jury had, and the information just presented by the independent forensic team, I would find there is a reasonable doubt that Raffaelle committed murder and acquit him. I would also find a reasonable doubt that Amanda committed the murder. As for Amanda being an accessory to murder: if, upon reviewing the luminol evidence, I found it plausible that her foot was flourescing from contact with the blood at 11:00 am in the bathroom, or a cleaning product, or some other sample, then I would also acquit her.

Lastly, the three items I found the most implausible all turned out to be true: as you said, that Rudy left a turd in the toilet, which I find astounding. Secondly, that Raffaelle's sink actually had a leak which was a long-term issue that would need a mop. Lastly, that Raffaelle and Amanda had a legitimate reason to turn their phones off that night (they both randomly had commitments canceled and didn't want to be reached).

 

[Nova]

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?

But now you are talking about the most heavily tested room in the house.

The rest of your post is an excellent argument for deliberate contamination by ILE. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[wasnt_me]

Those questions were moreso my personal lingering doubts, which are on a different level than what I would call prosecutable doubts. Personally, I find the only objective, verifiable prosecutable evidence which might still stand to be the luminol footprints. And that's only because I haven't had the energy to read the hard science behind the reasons to discount it.

If I were on the jury, with the same evidence that the Messai jury had, and the information just presented by the independent forensic team, I would find there is a reasonable doubt that Raffaelle committed murder and acquit him. I would also find a reasonable doubt that Amanda committed the murder. As for Amanda being an accessory to murder: if, upon reviewing the luminol evidence, I found it plausible that her foot was flourescing from contact with the blood at 11:00 am in the bathroom, or a cleaning product, or some other sample, then I would also acquit her.

Lastly, the three items I found the most implausible all turned out to be true: as you said, that Rudy left a turd in the toilet, which I find astounding. Secondly, that Raffaelle's sink actually had a leak which was a long-term issue that would need a mop. Lastly, that Raffaelle and Amanda had a legitimate reason to turn their phones off that night (they both randomly had commitments canceled and didn't want to be reached).

Agreed.

I, too, find those things you added to the implausible list to be astounding, but true.

The thing about the luminol, though, stephani hid the results of her TIMB test. I think that's the name of the test that is presumptive for blood. When she was finally court-ordered to hand it over, we saw that it was negative for blood. It begs the question why she was being so stingy with her TMB test AND with her fsa files. But anyway, her answer about the negative result for blood was that just because the test didn't pick it up didn't mean it wasnt there. Well, if the test failed, we have to go with that, don't we? But even so, I gave it to her because it's possible that AK's wet feet tracked through blood on the bathmat and in the hallway.

Things that I find implausible but true about the prosecution. Wow, I think it's too many to name, but let me get started and perhaps others will jump in.

1. knew she was guilty by the sway of her hips.
2. arrested PL without an investigation.
3. Got lost on the way to that landmarkish cottage.
4. Let civilians break down the door.
5. giftwrapped a mop.
6. Swiped DNA samples like they were cleaning snot off a kid's nose.
7. Wore ET investigation suits, but tracked from room to room and in out and out the house in their footies.
8. Couldn't find AK's clothes from Nov 1, though they were on her bed.
9. Left the Bra clasp on the floor for 46 days and used it as key evidence EVEN AFTER strangers had broken into the cottage between the murder and the time of its collection.
10. Totally disheveled the crime scene.
11. Friggin didn't arrest RG before he even started this mess.

One of my burning questions:

How did RG cut his hand? Obviously, it happened in relation to the crime or he wouldn't have made up the excuse about getting sliced by the "intruder."

 

[wasnt_me]

I started reading the DNA report. It reads like a diary, day by day of every little step they took with the evidence. So it's very, very detailed.

Starts back Feb 2011. Also, the significant thing is, people in the room:

-Dr.ssa Patrizia Stefanoni, consulente per la Procura Generale;
-Prof Giuseppe Novelli, consulente per la Procura Generale;
-Dott. Emiliano Giardina, consulente per la Procura Generale;
-Prof.ssa Francesca Torricelli, consulente per la parte civile;
-ProL Adriano Tagliabracci, consulente per Raffaele Sollecito:
-Dott, Valerio Onofri, consulente per Raffaele Sollecito;
-Prof. Carlo Torre, consulente per Amanda M. Knox;
-Dr.ssa Sarah Gino, consulente per Amanda M. Knox;
-Dr. Walter Patumi, consulente per Amanda M. Knox.

Isn't the first one our prestiegious and impetuous investigator?

On that date were present, the following Parties: consultants
-Dr.ssa Patrizia Stefanoni, counsel for the Attorney General;
-Prof. Joseph Novelli, counsel for the Attorney General;
-Dr. Emiliano Giardina, consultant to the Attorney General;
-Prof.ssa Francesca Torricelli, consultant for the civil party;
-ProL Adriano Tagliabracci, consultant for Raffaele Sollecito:
-Dr, Valerio Onofri, consultant for Raffaele Sollecito;
-Prof. Charles Torre, consultant for Amanda m. Knox;
Sarah Gino-Dr.ssa, consultant for Amanda m. Knox;
-Dr. Walter Patumi, consultant for Amanda m. Knox.

So we had reps from the att. gen. office and the defense. A lot of people present to make sure this thing went right.