Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #16

[wasnt_me]

Well we can look at the bright side of this. The mop was not considered the murder weapon or a motive :giggle:

No, it's a gift, apparently--according to Stephanoni's actions.

 

[wasnt_me]

According to this, it was not the judge who read the police letter:

The director of Italy’s scientific police, Piero Angeloni, read a letter in court defending the experts and said that each year they process 4,500 crime scenes and have never been condemned so harshly for their work: “Never has anyone questioned our methods this way.”

No I think they got their facts wrong on this. Seems like Angeloni is the writer of the letter.

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2011/07/30/news/update-2-final-hearing-amanda-knox-today-not-so-f

Mellas explained that Comodi countered that details proving the prosecution's original DNA results were in the case files and should be discussed in court, and that she had access to the files.

"The judge said, 'OK. There will be a 30 minute recess to find those files'. When court resumed Comodi said the files could not be found. The judge said, 'You've been shown to not be forthcoming, and honestly, it wouldn't change the outcome because we now have their report so I won't allow it (in the future.)

"At the end of the day I think the judge had enough. So overall it was a good day, but in the beginning the civil prosecution requested their DNA experts are allowed to speak. They'll take any chance they have go up there. They see it as another chance to put doubt in the minds of the jury.

 

[otto]

Yes it crumbled and will continue to the reason I state this is that most of what has been said now was said by many for a number of years now. Thus it really was never there

Contamination in the lab has been put into question because there were 6 and 12 day gaps between evidence testing and testing of other crime scene evidence. Contamination of the blade in the field has been ruled out because Meredith had never been to Sollecito's apartment. Contamination of the clasp in the field has been put into question because when asked where that contamination could have come from, "anything is possible" is not an answer.

 

[emyr]

Contamination in the lab has been put into question because there were 6 and 12 day gaps between evidence testing and testing of other crime scene evidence. Contamination of the blade in the field has been ruled out because Meredith had never been to Sollecito's apartment. Contamination of the clasp in the field has been put into question because when asked where that contamination could have come from, "anything is possible" is not an answer.

Contamination of the blade in the field has not been ruled out because there is no clear "chain of title" for the evidence. There are two different officers claiming they retrieved the knife and bagged it. There is evidence that the knife was left un-bagged with other evidence from the cottage crime scene. Did the person touch the evidence from the cottage and then touch the knife? They said they did no such thing, but they also can't remember how they actually retrieved the knife.

If the current news is correct (which it may not be) then Hellman was most interested in the fact that the knife could not have been cleaned if there was starch on it.

On this single fact alone the knife could very well be dismissed.

Where and how the contamination occurred is a moot point if the starch definitively proves to Hellman that this is not the murder weapon.

 

[otto]

Contamination of the blade in the field has not been ruled out because there is no clear "chain of title" for the evidence. There are two different officers claiming they retrieved the knife and bagged it. There is evidence that the knife was left un-bagged with other evidence from the cottage crime scene. Did the person touch the evidence from the cottage and then touch the knife? They said they did no such thing, but they also can't remember how they actually retrieved the knife.

If the current news is correct (which it may not be) then Hellman was most interested in the fact that the knife could not have been cleaned if there was starch on it.

On this single fact alone the knife could very well be dismissed.

Where and how the contamination occurred is a moot point if the starch definitively proves to Hellman that this is not the murder weapon.

The knife was collected five days after the murder. How can it be said that the knife was not washed since the starch could have got onto the knife at any time in the following five days?

I thought the evidence was that the knife was put in a box at the apt.

 

[Nova]

How does this ugly coping apply to someone like Ms Anthony versus Knox? It seems they both have it ... according to arguments put forth to defend their behavior.

Repetition and refusal to acknowledge the responses of others is not proof. There is no basis on which the behavior of Anthony and Knox is comparable. Saying they are similar is a deliberate falsehood.

 

[Nova]

The knife was collected five days after the murder. How can it be said that the knife was not washed since the starch could have got onto the knife at any time in the following five days?

I thought the evidence was that the knife was put in a box at the apt.

But when did the knife get "unusually shiny" if it was being used for cooking during those five days and still had pasta or something similar on it?

At the very least, the starch suggests what most of us already knew: that this knife is one more area where ILE lied.

 

[SkewedView]

Just a small observation here:

Perhaps it would behoove us to distinguish between Italian LE in general and Perugian LE specifically in posts - painting all the LEAs in an entire country with the same brush smacks of nationalism, much like various comments about 'American behavior' etc do. Sorry if this sounds like a lecture, it's not really, just an observation/suggestion.

 

[Nova]

Just a small observation here:

Perhaps it would behoove us to distinguish between Italian LE in general and Perugian LE specifically in posts - painting all the LEAs in an entire country with the same brush smacks of nationalism, much like various comments about 'American behavior' etc do. Sorry if this sounds like a lecture, it's not really, just an observation/suggestion.

Good point. I will do so in the future. In fairness, most of what I have read on the subject, including Italian sources, did tend to lump all of ILE together. But you're right: we're now talking about specific actions by PLE and should say so. Thanks.

 

[SkewedView]

Good point. I will do so in the future. In fairness, most of what I have read on the subject, including Italian sources, did tend to lump all of ILE together. But you're right: we're now talking about specific actions by PLE and should say so. Thanks.

Just to be clear, I was not specifically addressing you, but posters in general - it's something that I've been meaning to bring up, and this just happened to be when I had a chance and wasn't distracted. Just didn't want you to feel singled out, since we've all done this.

 

[Malkmus]

On September 5, the experts will be back in court to answer to other parts of the process. Then there is the comparison between the consultants and the discussion that could lead to a sentence within that month.

http://translate.google.com/transla...20Ieri%20duro%20confronto%20su%20tracce%20dna

 

[Salem]

You can't have a trial strategy when all the rulings are against you

I respectfully disagree with this. Strategy plays an important role in the "why" all rulings are for or against you.

Salem

 

[Allusonz]

I respectfully disagree with this. Strategy plays an important role in the "why" all rulings are for or against you.

Salem

I will simply agree to disagree. For example when a defense team is only allowed to use Italian experts and not the ones of their own choice no matter what nationality they are ties the defenses hands behind their backs

 

[Allusonz]

Some of you might find this article interesting

"Conti and Vecchotti further state:

“Nor is it comprehensible, considering the negative results on sample B, what Dr. Stefanoni reported during the GUP questioning (page 178) where she stated that the DNA in sample B, quantified with Real Time PCR (it is recalled that such quantification confirmed during the hearing was never carried out or, at least, no documentation was provided to support this claim), was in the order of some hundreds of picograms”, a value which does not appear in any of the documents provided to us (SAL, Fluorimeter report, Real Time report, RTIGF).”


http://forensicdnaconsulting.wordpr...rt-in-the-amanda-knox-case-part-i/#comment-60

 

[sherlockh]

Contamination of the blade in the field has not been ruled out because there is no clear "chain of title" for the evidence. There are two different officers claiming they retrieved the knife and bagged it. There is evidence that the knife was left un-bagged with other evidence from the cottage crime scene. Did the person touch the evidence from the cottage and then touch the knife? They said they did no such thing, but they also can't remember how they actually retrieved the knife.

If the current news is correct (which it may not be) then Hellman was most interested in the fact that the knife could not have been cleaned if there was starch on it.

On this single fact alone the knife could very well be dismissed.

Where and how the contamination occurred is a moot point if the starch definitively proves to Hellman that this is not the murder weapon.

Nobody said the knife could not have been cleaned. The term used was 'not thoroughly cleaned' which is a different thing as not cleaned. They say starch could not have been there if it was thoroughly cleaned but they 'forget' to mention that Meredith's DNA survived that 'thorough' cleaning in the first place. So how thorough is thorough exactly? And as Otto pointed out, they also 'forgot' to mention how one can be absolutely certain when that starch exactly came onto the knife.

I suspect that the 2 different officers will be dealt with in the next hearing as Hellmann has called several new witnesses, but besides Stefanoni I don't know exactly who the others are. So not really sure on that one.

 

[emyr]

Nobody said the knife could not have been cleaned. The term used was 'not thoroughly cleaned' which is a different thing as not cleaned. They say starch could not have been there if it was thoroughly cleaned but they 'forget' to mention that Meredith's DNA survived that 'thorough' cleaning in the first place. So how thorough is thorough exactly? And as Otto pointed out, they also 'forgot' to mention how one can be absolutely certain when that starch exactly came onto the knife.

I suspect that the 2 different officers will be dealt with in the next hearing as Hellmann has called several new witnesses, but besides Stefanoni I don't know exactly who the others are. So not really sure on that one.

“There was also the deputy chief of police Chiacchiera, Passeri, Ranauro, Camarda, Rossi and Sisani. In the house there was a strong smell of bleach. He remembered the terms following the first action that he reported at the time: “I was with my back to the door; there was the dishware drawer; I opened it. I opened the top cutlery drawer ... we had clean gloves on, new. The first thing [99] I saw was a big knife. Let me state beforehand that it was extremely clean‛. (This is from PMF)

 

[OldSteve]

The defense in AK and RS had a strategy. They were just blocked and shut down at every single turn.

1. Alibis--whoopsie! someone fried your computers. Sorry.
2. Break in was real. experienced, rock-throwing thief etc, etc, etc.--Oh, no, it's staged because RF saw glass on top of her laptop.
3. TOD. professionally figured out. Oh, no, because our park-resident drug addict saw you roaming the streets for 3 hours, and the half deaf woman heard a scream. Oh, and she ate a mushroom. Dont try to tell us she didn't.
4. MK's irregular cell phone calls. No, oh that? she was just playing with her phone.
5. bathmat print measured wrong and can't really be measured at all. Oh, yeah? watch us do it. There. It's yours. now what?
6. No DNA at the crime scene. What about this rusty, old bra clasp?
7. Footprints in the hall unrelated to the crime. (tucks the TMB tests under her bra) Well, luminal means blood and they're your prints, too. Prove they aren't.
8. No motive. We say, drugs, sex, and rock and roll. Isn't that the American way? always leads to murder.

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh: :goodpost:
Thanks for making me laugh at the same time making really good points!

 

[Salem]

I will simply agree to disagree. For example when a defense team is only allowed to use Italian experts and not the ones of their own choice no matter what nationality they are ties the defenses hands behind their backs

Oh, I agree. No argument from me. However, I would speculate that the strategy behind this was a move of protest from the prosecutor's side. And for whatever reason, the prosecutor won this argument.

Again, I am not arguing the merits of the case or the facts of the case. I am merely watching how each side chooses to fight for the verdict they want. That's all. I am recognizing that in some cases it appears that the evidence and the facts do not wholly determine the outcome of a case.

Salem

 

[otto]

Just a small observation here:

Perhaps it would behoove us to distinguish between Italian LE in general and Perugian LE specifically in posts - painting all the LEAs in an entire country with the same brush smacks of nationalism, much like various comments about 'American behavior' etc do. Sorry if this sounds like a lecture, it's not really, just an observation/suggestion.

When you use the acronym LE, which police force are you referring to?

 

[otto]

Oh, I agree. No argument from me. However, I would speculate that the strategy behind this was a move of protest from the prosecutor's side. And for whatever reason, the prosecutor won this argument.

Again, I am not arguing the merits of the case or the facts of the case. I am merely watching how each side chooses to fight for the verdict they want. That's all. I am recognizing that in some cases it appears that the evidence and the facts do not wholly determine the outcome of a case.

Salem

This article explains the use of expert witnesses in Italy: http://www.jstor.org/pss/1189442

It looks like expert witnesses appear according to the trial judge for the purpose of getting to the truth, not according to lawyers for the purpose of swaying an argument. When there are Italian experts in a particular field, what would be the purpose of introducing foreigners with the same credentials and expertise?