Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #16

[otto]

"Amelie" was "the Knox defense for lying and refusing to answer questions during trial" - FALSE

Amanda "couldn't remember a thing about that stoned night that Meredith was murdered." - FALSE

Amanda "partied hard" after the murder - FALSE

Meanwhile, what was the real evidence against AK and RS is now crumbling to pieces in Perugia.

Did the evidence crumble? That's not what I read.

 

[otto]

So apparently Stefanoni did take the stand:

http://www.newsday.com/news/knox-trial-battle-over-dna-evidence-1.3062850

And she will again during the hearing at the end of the month. I guess Dempsey had it all wrong.

 

[Malkmus]

Did the evidence crumble? That's not what I read.

"Crumbling", present tense, and it's simply my opinion. Any thoughts on the rest of that post?

 

[Malkmus]

And she will again during the hearing at the end of the month. I guess Dempsey had it all wrong.

Actually, I don't believe Stefanoni took the stand today. It was decided she will take the stand at later dates.

The appeals court on Saturday allowed the police chief who conducted the original investigation, Patrizia Stefanoni, to take the stand in future hearings, granting a prosecutors' request.

Dempsey was correct up until today when this changed.

 

[SkewedView]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/amanda-knox-prosector-blasts-dna-report/story?id=14195630&page=2

From page one of the linked article:

First she asked each to list their qualifications and published works. They both reeled off a long list of titles and publications, while Comodi waved a lacy fan at her face and smiled. After they were done, she asked them to list their on-site forensic experience but the judge interjected, saying that even if they had lots of experience they could still make mistakes. "Exactly," she said, smugly.

You know, being smug about playing gotcha games with the experts appointed by the head judge himself (not to mention playing those games on the Judge) seems like a dumb move to me...then again, Comodi & the Kercher's attorney both seem to be doing all that they can to alienate the Judges...weird...


With regards to the letter that was read...well, gee, the big-wigs in the FBI said the same things (trained professionals, never criticized etc) when their labs got caught in the nineties doing the same. Not long after, they replaced or retrained the entire staff of the FBI labs and came up with regulations and controls that are now a gold standard in forensics. Just sayin...

 

[SMK]

Comodi waved a lacy fan at her face and smiled. :razz:

 

[mdana]

Actually - I'm comparing trial strategies - the use of experts, the evidence or lack thereof, the deliberate obfuscation of the evidence or lack of evidence. Nothing more.

Salem

I don't follow trials all the time, but that is just normal competent defense strategy. I think you have grounds for dereliction of duty (or whatever the legal term) against a defense that doesn't employ all the options at its disposal. If I were a defense lawyer, I would throw everything out there I could that I thought might stick, unless I had a strong inclination it might alienate the judge or jury.

 

[wasnt_me]

Thanks wasnt_me, but I don't want to be tipped either way. I love reading these threads and the discussion between all of you posters. And I like not having an opinion because it helps me see the issues more clearly in the trial process.

It is a nice balance after following the CA trial and being just stunned at the verdict in that case. Here, I can see this verdict going either way and I'm okay with that

Salem

Cool..... I'll give a quarter, though....:crazy:

I suppose it does help when you have to monitor a thread if you stay neutral.

Thanks!

 

[wasnt_me]

From page one of the linked article:



You know, being smug about playing gotcha games with the experts appointed by the head judge himself (not to mention playing those games on the Judge) seems like a dumb move to me...then again, Comodi & the Kercher's attorney both seem to be doing all that they can to alienate the Judges...weird...


With regards to the letter that was read...well, gee, the big-wigs in the FBI said the same things (trained professionals, never criticized etc) when their labs got caught in the nineties doing the same. Not long after, they replaced or retrained the entire staff of the FBI labs and came up with regulations and controls that are now a gold standard in forensics. Just sayin...

Not sure what the judge was getting at with that statement, but I'd used it against Stephanoni if I were the defense attorneys. I'd ask her about all her experience, then I'd ask, "And even with your experience, you can still make mistakes?"

 

[mdana]

That leaves me :waitasec: and says to me that strategy plays a much more important role than I previously believed.
Salem

Earlier, I didn't have time to respond to your entire post.

However, I thought this sentence was interesting. Back before the last Congressional election, I was reading Mother Jones and was disturbed by an article about Ken Buck the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate. I would not have voted for him under any conceivable circumstance. Yet, I thought the article was very biased in presenting Buck's handling of a potential rape case from a few years previous.

The case was presented in stark black and white terms in order to villify Mr. Buck. After reading the article I was intrigued and wondered if it was as stark as the article portrayed the case. After reading additional news articles, the police reports, and other research, I came to the conclusion the case was much more complex, and his actions were much more understandable. It was a difficult case to prosecute for a myriad of reasons. The experts quoted in the original article had many of the basic facts wrong and came to some very questionable conclusions. It was a great harbinger for the CA trial in not taking what experts say or write with too much credence without getting all the information.

Long story short, there are a variety of factors that impact a case: media, urban/rural dynamics, religion, political aspirations, current political climate, etc. There have been court cases where I wondered if the judge hated the prosecutor or defense lawyer, because they were so biased towards the other side. There are many cases I wonder if they had been tried in a different jurisdiction or under a different climate, if the verdict would have been reversed. I think the general public has no idea of the vagaries of any trial, and even those of us with more of an interest in the justice system tend to dismiss its impact on a "fair" trial.

 

[sherlockh]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nce-exposed-glaring-errors.html#ixzz1TbzuHVnw

Under repeated and insistent questioning, Vecchiotti acknowledged that DNA belonging to Kercher could have been on the blade of the knife the prosecution claims is the murder weapon. "It is a complete DNA profile, but it is not reliable. Yes, it could be Meredith's," Vecchiotti told the court.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/amanda-knox-prosector-blasts-dna-report/story?id=14195630&page=2

 

[miley]

Frank has a new entry today -
It looks like today, Commodi tried to enter the negative/positive controls. She said they were delivered to the pre-trial in October 2008..

Vecchiotti looking over the papers...
(PerugiaShock.com) ..Frank wrote:

So, Comodi gave to President Helmann two photocopies that document the controls.
The only problem is that Vecchiotti looked at the two pieces of paper and saw they had a different code from the one of the tests made on knife and clasp. Not only that: the codes on the fotocopies were almost unreadable.
Hellman and Zanetti wanted to go look for the proof that the documents had been really filed on October 2008 anyway. But after almost an hour of searching, they couldn’t find anything!​

wow!

 

[Malkmus]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/amanda-knox-prosector-blasts-dna-report/story?id=14195630&page=2

I hope you realize there's a world of difference between "Could be" and "it is".

 

[sherlockh]

I hope you realize there's a world of difference between "Could be" and "it is".

And I am sure you realize the difference between "could be" and "absolutely not" like I have read 10,000 times in this thread

 

[wasnt_me]

Cross-examination of the independent experts will continue September 5. With new witnesses now on the docket, the final outcome of this trial may be pushed back from late September to October. Knox, meanwhile, remains cautiously optimistic about the chances for her release, and the Kerchers remain in limbo, waiting for the final word on what really happened to their daughter.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...cution-pokes-holes-in-forensic-testimony.html

Here comes the drag out....

Additionally, the point made about MK's dna "could be" on the knife is an elementary one. I don't see how it would sway the judge. "Could be" is not the same as "is." Of course the experts couldn't rule it out as being intially found, just as they were saying contamination couldn't be ruled out. They can't say either way because they did not do the original tests and could not retest, but what they can comment on is the unlikelihood that it IS MK's dna and the likelihood that the the evidence WAS contaminated.

It's ironic that in the last weeks, those that believe in guilt asserted that it was known all along that you can't rule out contamination, but in this same line of reasoning, they want to hold onto the "could be" as if it is fact. No. Guilters told reasonable doubters that "can't rule out contamination" meant nothing. Therefore "can't rule it out as MK DNA" likewise means nothing.

Again, we are back to what is "possible" versus what is "probable."

It's possible that it's MK's dna. it's possible that it's stephanoni's DNA. Is it probable? No, in both cases.

The whole point of asserting contamination IS to say shoddy collection techniques make ANY result unreliable, whether it came up MK's or it didn't.

They testified that they saw the profile that Stephanoni complied but and yeah it's possibly MK's but what of the way she compiled it? Didn't they go over how V&C couldn't even figure out the convoluted test she performed to arrive at that conclusion?

I think at this point, the defense must also be allowed to put their experts back on the stand. if the prosecution gets to do it, why can't the defense? Then we'd have renewed testimony from both sides, plus the independent experts.

 

[wasnt_me]

I hope you realize there's a world of difference between "Could be" and "it is".

Great minds think alike. I was just posting my long version of the same thing.

 

[wasnt_me]

Frank has a new entry today -
It looks like today, Commodi tried to enter the negative/positive controls. She said they were delivered to the pre-trial in October 2008..

Vecchiotti looking over the papers...
(PerugiaShock.com) ..Frank wrote:

So, Comodi gave to President Helmann two photocopies that document the controls.
The only problem is that Vecchiotti looked at the two pieces of paper and saw they had a different code from the one of the tests made on knife and clasp. Not only that: the codes on the fotocopies were almost unreadable.
Hellman and Zanetti wanted to go look for the proof that the documents had been really filed on October 2008 anyway. But after almost an hour of searching, they couldn’t find anything!​

wow!

I'm sorry, what did you say? I was too busy to hear you, because I was filling out my "world citizen's arrest" paperwork for Comodi and Stephanoni.

 

[wasnt_me]

And I am sure you realize the difference between "could be" and "absolutely not" like I have read 10,000 times in this thread

Which mean you must understand what contamination means and how it happens, right? And that the whole point of the report was to say that due to the investigators shoddy collection and obsecure testing methods, no they can't rule it out, but they can say it's unreliable.

 

[Malkmus]

And I am sure you realize the difference between "could be" and "absolutely not" like I have read 10,000 times in this thread

It's what the report says that makes a difference. But you can't use DNA evidence against someone if there's a only a possibility it could be theirs. If someone on here says her DNA is "Absolutely not" on the knife it's no different than someone saying it "absolutely is" - both are just speculation. In the court's eyes, however, "could be, but it's not reliable and we can't tell if what was on there was her DNA because it was too small to retest" holds very little weight.

 

[miley]

I'm sorry, what did you say? I was too busy to hear you, because I was filling out my "world citizen's arrest" paperwork for Comodi and Stephanoni.

that would be.. (according to Frank) Comodoni… (Comodi + Stefanoni) LOL!



.