Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #15

[Nova]

NO, that's wrong. My two points were 'technicalities' when put up against the main part of the case.

The 'Bug' got some $change$ out the case.

It was him perjuring himself on the stand that was the big stink... and the stupid trying on the gloves disaster.

Those were undeniable blunders, but I've never heard them called "technicalities." That really isn't how we use the word with reference to American courts. At least not as a rule. That was my point to otto.

I readily admit that Simpson was acquitted for reasons I consider stupid. (I also understand that the jury came from a different part of town and may have had reasons to think differently. But that's a discussion for another thread.)

 

[wasnt_me]

I should say that just because I would acquit them doesn't mean the court will (obviously). I will say that I did NOT know, coming into this forum, that those two particular pieces of evidence were under review. I based my opinions on the case off of the Massei report, and it's the caveats present in that report that led me to feel that the three items I named were necesarry to convict. Of those three, two have been discounted. The third is not enough to convict for murder, in my personal opinion, but is enough to convict Amanda as an accessory (not Raffaelle).

The court could obviously find that the accumulation of the other 30 pieces of evidence means that they are guilty still. Specifically the court may find that the murder required more than one person, and the aggregate of the evidence concludes those additional persons must be Knox and Sollecito.

That's possible. And if so, I hope that they revisit RG's stories and realize that he might be lying to cover for an accomplice. Don't get me wrong, I strongly think he was by himself, or an accomplice ran off between the window breaking and MK arriving.

 

[wasnt_me]

This was in latest Time magazine, in their June 30 health section, - thought it was very interesting, because in the past I wrote a blog piece on her possibly having Aspberger syndrome (my son has it, and I recognized some of the traits in her) and now I see this is wondered about openly in Time :



I thought these comments in the piece by Paxton and Sollectio were stunning, as my son displays both of them:


Quote:
She's a little dork who doesn't wear matched socks," says her best friend, Madison Paxton. ...
[Sollecito said]: "I noticed that her opinions on the music were odd. ... She didn't concentrate on the emotions it provoked but only on the rhythm — slow, fast, slow."


http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/...ve-an-autism-spectrum-disorder/#ixzz1QrhBgxDM

You know I have a song for everything. Wanna hear it? here it go:

Cynthia wore the prettiest dress, with different colored socks.
Sometimes, I wondered if the mates were in her lunchbox.
(--starfish and coffee by Prince. Actually a song thought to be about a mentally challengesd school girl.)

 

[wasnt_me]

As I have said before , I wish I could confirm whether or not they are required to pay heed to the high court's ruling on Guede not acting alone, or no. It would be far fairer IMO if they did not. I read somewhere that they did not indeed have to take Guede's ruling into account, but cannot seem to confirm it.

ETA: This is all I could find:



http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/72922...nox-as-guede-loses-final-appeal#ixzz1QsFQKGct

I agree. Rulings get overturned all the time, and so I see no reason that one court can find differently from another. the problem it opens, if you ask me, is that it would then give RG grounds to see a reexamination.

 

[wasnt_me]

That is truly frightening. As we've discussed, "proving" contamination is virtually impossible. The burden should be on the lab to prove its findings were free from contamination. Let's hope Intini was just talking off the top of his head.

I personally think they proved it when they video-taped the investigation of the house. I also think they proved it when they found the bra clasp on the floor, several feet from its original position after others had broken into the house 46 days after the crime. I also think they proved it when that chick gift-wrapped the mop and took it into the murder room.

They broke a lot of the rules I listed last night from the report and that is proof of contamination.

Additionally, as I understand the report, its not just contamination. They didn't find the dna or cells, right? Let me read it again, because that forensic mombo jumbo might have confused me.

 

[Malkmus]

I didn't follow the case, but from what I'm hearing, it sounds like he got off because of alleged contamination - same scam being used in this case.

So you think the independent experts are scamming the court?

 

[wasnt_me]

O.J. Simpson did not get off on a "technicality." He was acquitted of murder by a jury.

Yes, and whatever happened to infallable courts and juries making sound and correct decisions? If the court that acquitted OJ was falliable, then certainly, let's understand that means AK and RS's courts and juries are fallible, too.

 

[wasnt_me]

No, because except in very rare cases, the lab is the only one who can prove it followed correct testing procedures. So it should be required to do so.

The burden of proof would shift only if people in the lab were accused of crimes, such as deliberately planting evidence. (And even then the burden would shift to the prosecuting entity, not to the defense in an affected trial.)

You are completely right and the report that we just got from the labs supports what you say because it is filled with repetitious statements about what they did to avoid contamination in their own tests.

So if these investigators are additionally saying there's contamination, it's because they are experts in how not to contaminate, and they see nowhere that the other investigators followed the rules to avoid it. If they had seen that precautions had been taken, then they would have ruled out contamination.

 

[wasnt_me]

And to my knowledge, no expert has accused the Italian labs of deliberately tampering with evidence in the Knox/Sollecito case. Some of us posters may have said it wouldn't surprise us, but the basic issue is sloppiness by the lab, not intentional tampering with evidence.

I agree, but I find that bra clasp being rediscovered 46 days later on national www stream to be fishy. Sorry. Unless all the evidence collection was live streamed on the web, something was definitely fishy about the ONLY "solid" evidence tying RS to the case being found in this manner.

 

[wasnt_me]

Good quote from Bruce Fisher on the Randi board.

JREF Forum - View Single Post - Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case



In the next few days it would be nice to see those, who have been involved in this heated debate, to take a step back and look at what the DNA report actually says. This debate has gone on for so long that it appears the online debate has become the focus rather than the actual people involved. Right now I see a lot of spin regarding the report which is to be expected for those determined to win their online shouting match, but not very realistic for those looking at this case based on the real lives being destroyed.

The knife and the clasp are gone. They will no longer be viewed as credible after the July hearing. The independent experts were appointed by the court and their results will be accepted.

The spin goes like this; "the DNA is only a small part of the 'mountain of evidence' to convict the two 'love birds.' The 'staged' break in is really what convicted them in the first place"

There is no credible evidence to prove a staged break in but Massei (the judge that refused additional testing on the DNA) said it was staged so that's good enough for those in spin mode now. If that's all you have to secure convictions then it's really time to walk away from the debate.

 

[otto]

So you think the independent experts are scamming the court?

When the legal argument is reduced to "contamination cannot be ruled out" (or ruled in), I am not impressed.

 

[SMK]

When the legal argument is reduced to "contamination cannot be ruled out" (or ruled in), I am not impressed.

Well, this is not what they were trying to convey. Not in the least. We know that much. They said the dna evidence on the knife and bra clasp was unreliable. If you went to a psychic, and I said, "Bear in mind, that person is not reliable, and does not adhere to international standards" you would know what I was saying.

 

[wasnt_me]

I found this over there, too. It throws the time MK got home back into question, if it's indeed MK and if she was wearing a skirt. Or it could be someone else, like the owner of the female unknown DNA found in the house?

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/meredith_arriving_home.ppt

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/1GpOBS_gu0ipDHPgLct4O77PeraLKuIfJhnXa87yZvU?feat=directlink

If it's MK, then the time stamp puts her arriving home after her attempted call to her parents.

However, this person is wearing a skirt. If you click the pictures in the ppt, you can practically see the skirt sway on the way across the street. If MK had on those jeans, then it can't be her in this image. However, the person is appearing to do diagonally across the street to wear the gate to the cottage is.

What do we make of this, as there's really no reason for anyone to walk to walk that direction on the same side of the street as the cottage. There's nothing else on that side of the street but the cottage.

 

[Malkmus]

When the legal argument is reduced to "contamination cannot be ruled out" (or ruled in), I am not impressed.

The report says more than that.
<modsnip>".

The report simply confirms what many of us have thought for a long time now. But apparently, <modsnip>.

 

[Nova]

When the legal argument is reduced to "contamination cannot be ruled out" (or ruled in), I am not impressed.

<modsnip>the affirmative statements proffered by DNA labs are based on the premise that "contamination CAN be ruled out."

Lose the premise, lose the evidence entirely.

 

[otto]

Well, this is not what they were trying to convey. Not in the least. We know that much. They said the dna evidence on the knife and bra clasp was unreliable. If you went to a psychic, and I said, "Bear in mind, that person is not reliable, and does not adhere to international standards" you would know what I was saying.

The LNC DNA analysis, according to the report, should have followed a protocol where the evidence was tested in an alternate lab in order to rule out contamination. It was not. Therefore, contamination cannot be ruled out. With the DNA that is still connected to Sollecito, contaminated at the scene cannot be ruled out, and there are alleles that may be peaks or may be insignificant. What has been conveyed is that contamination cannot be ruled out, and that was one of the tasks the Rome experts were given. I think we have always known that contamination could not be ruled in, and now we know that it cannot be ruled out. Does that help the case? I doubt it.

 

[otto]

The report says more than that.
<modsnip>".

The report simply confirms what many of us have thought for a long time now. But apparently, <modsnip>.

I suspect that Dr Stefanoni and the lab will defend the protocols that are practiced in the lab. I don't think they will allow the lab to be completely discredited without a strong argument ... but we'll have to wait a few more weeks to see how this all plays out.

 

[otto]

<modsnip> the affirmative statements proffered by DNA labs are based on the premise that "contamination CAN be ruled out."

Lose the premise, lose the evidence entirely.

It may be true that contamination of the LNC DNA evidence cannot be ruled out because it was not analysed in a different lab, but that does not mean that the evidence was contaminated.

 

[SMK]

You know I have a song for everything. Wanna hear it? here it go:

Cynthia wore the prettiest dress, with different colored socks.
Sometimes, I wondered if the mates were in her lunchbox.
(--starfish and coffee by Prince. Actually a song thought to be about a mentally challengesd school girl.)

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[SMK]

Good quote from Bruce Fisher on the Randi board.

JREF Forum - View Single Post - Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case



In the next few days it would be nice to see those, who have been involved in this heated debate, to take a step back and look at what the DNA report actually says. This debate has gone on for so long that it appears the online debate has become the focus rather than the actual people involved. Right now I see a lot of spin regarding the report which is to be expected for those determined to win their online shouting match, but not very realistic for those looking at this case based on the real lives being destroyed.

The knife and the clasp are gone. They will no longer be viewed as credible after the July hearing. The independent experts were appointed by the court and their results will be accepted.

The spin goes like this; "the DNA is only a small part of the 'mountain of evidence' to convict the two 'love birds.' The 'staged' break in is really what convicted them in the first place"

There is no credible evidence to prove a staged break in but Massei (the judge that refused additional testing on the DNA) said it was staged so that's good enough for those in spin mode now. If that's all you have to secure convictions then it's really time to walk away from the debate.

For all PMF's attempts to paint him as a buffoon, I have always found Mr. Fisher, in both private communications with me, and within his public declarations, to be sensible and sophisticated, and a really clear thinker. Thanks for bringing him our way this eve.