Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #18

[SkewedView]

Thanks. So that would mean that the evidence that was presented in the first trial will be reviewed in terms of determining whether the correct interpretation was made?

Yes indeed, that is a good way of describing the purpose of this appeal. The transcripts (which include testimony that Massai discounted/rejected etc), the motivational report, and the arguments within the appeals docs will be taken as a whole, along with the new testimony, to reach a verdict/sentence. There really is no telling whether the verdict/sentence will be reached by accepting, modifying or rejecting the findings of the original court.

We'll know for sure in a month or so - til then all we can do is speculate on the current court's mood etc, regardless of the commentary of the media, Mellas, Comodi etc.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Actually, I don't really want to take the time to detail all the trace evidence and relate it to this four year old murder. I think that's been done by many from all over the world and it's all over the internet with different interpretations. The footprint was accepted as a match to Sollecito and rejected as a match to Guede. I know that the print has been photoshopped and modified to match Guede, but I could match it to the Queen of England with photoshop. Regarding the activity on the computer while Sollecito was being questioned by police, I don't see how activity on the 6th would omit a record of activity on the 1st. The Stardust file would have the last accessed time on the 6th, but records for the 1st show that there was no activity on the computer after the Amelie movie ended (without being turned off) at 9:10.

otto,

With due respect, you are repeating false and malicious allegations without any proof. Some internet commenters made the claim that Amanda's supporters photoshopped the print, but that claim is nonsense. The prosecution claimed that the print better matched Sollecito (I don't recall their exact wording), but the defense countered it at the trial and in the appeal document. Do you mean the attribution of the print to Sollecito was accepted by Massei? That is neither here nor there.

You are incorrect with respect to the computer evidence. The last undisputed interaction on Sollecito's computer occurred around 9:10, but the defense argued for interactions at about 9:26 and again around 1 AM the following morning. In the amended appeal they discuss the screensaver log files. The time of the previous access to Stardust was lost when the file was accessed again on the morning of the 6th. The police were responsible for damaging three hard drives and the loss of some meta-data; therefore, whatever they say about the computer evidence in this case needs to be taken with generous grains of salt.

I am a biochemist, not a computer scientist, so I cannot say much more than this about computer files. However, I can say a great deal about mixed DNA samples. Mixed DNA does not mean mixed blood, and mixed DNA does not mean simultaneously deposited DNA. The most likely explanation of mixed DNA is cohabitation, just as it is for the mixed DNA samples found at Sollecito's apartment. MOO.

 

[RoseMontague]

That's all a bit confusing for me. There was a trial, a decision was made. There is an appeal and a couple of pieces of evidence are reviewed. But does it then revert back to a situation where nothing from the first trial counts anymore? That doesn't make much sense to me.

An appeal is considered a new trial in Italy. The appeal court can look at the same evidence along with the prosecution and defense appeal filings and require new testimony or expert tests if they feel it is necessary. You are correct in one part however. The court has rejected a few of the defense's legal arguments, and by proceeding to the closing statements has also in effect rejected new testing asked for by the defense teams on the audiometer, the computers, and the semen stain, as well as an request for expert opinion on the Luminol prints.

This means they feel they already have enough information to make a decision, not that they have accepted (or rejected) the first court's interpretation of these items. For a list of the legal arguments rejected by the court at the beginning of the appeal, see this article:

http://translate.google.com/transla...MQFjAG&usg=AFQjCNFEdZnjELJyoVomzuCMPSUtfxjS3Q

 

[Monzoo]

That's all a bit confusing for me. There was a trial, a decision was made. There is an appeal and a couple of pieces of evidence are reviewed. But does it then revert back to a situation where nothing from the first trial counts anymore? That doesn't make much sense to me.

It may be confusing, but this is the way the Italian justice system works, at least as I understand it. The first appeal is considered a trial "de novo." It really is a new trial that uses the testimony, but not the arguments or decisions from the first trial. I recall a quote from Hellmann back in December, when the appeal started, that was someting to the effect that the only thing we know for certain is that Meredith Kercher was murdered. The new testimony is by no means the only aspects of the original case that will be reconsidered. It will all be reconsidered.

Of course, none of us know what the court will ultimately decide. (At least until the end of the month!) It seems to me, however, that most of the new evidence brought into this trial was decidedly favorable to the defense. This seems to me, to be positive for both AK and RS.

 

[otto]

Yes indeed, that is a good way of describing the purpose of this appeal. The transcripts (which include testimony that Massai discounted/rejected etc), the motivational report, and the arguments within the appeals docs will be taken as a whole, along with the new testimony, to reach a verdict/sentence. There really is no telling whether the verdict/sentence will be reached by accepting, modifying or rejecting the findings of the original court.

We'll know for sure in a month or so - til then all we can do is speculate on the current court's mood etc, regardless of the commentary of the media, Mellas, Comodi etc.

Wasn't the Supreme Court ruling for Guede also attached to the Knox/Sollecito files?

 

[RoseMontague]

As he is counting all of the points in the appeals as rejected items for review, Otto is correct in his statement. The appeals doc for RS alone is huge...

Yes, but you can still see the main theme of the appeals and that simply has to do with the court's faulty reasoning. This is best described in the following human translation from Raffaele's appeal.

 

[SkewedView]

Wasn't the Supreme Court ruling for Guede also attached to the Knox/Sollecito files?

As part of the prosecution's appeal (remember, they appealed the sentence as being too lenient) documentation, yes. Hiellman has access to that ruling, and may take it into account, but he is not limited by it in any way, as it was a ruling for an entirely different individual's trial process. He may decide that the high court was correct regarding the multiple assailant theory, or ha may disregard it without consequence, he may even ignore it entirely and yet still reach the same conclusion.

 

[otto]

otto,

With due respect, you are repeating false and malicious allegations without any proof. Some internet commenters made the claim that Amanda's supporters photoshopped the print, but that claim is nonsense. The prosecution claimed that the print better matched Sollecito (I don't recall their exact wording), but the defense countered it at the trial and in the appeal document. Do you mean the attribution of the print to Sollecito was accepted by Massei? That is neither here nor there.

You are incorrect with respect to the computer evidence. The last undisputed interaction on Sollecito's computer occurred around 9:10, but the defense argued for interactions at about 9:26 and again around 1 AM the following morning. In the amended appeal they discuss the screensaver log files. The time of the previous access to Stardust was lost when the file was accessed again on the morning of the 6th. The police were responsible for damaging three hard drives and the loss of some meta-data; therefore, whatever they say about the computer evidence in this case needs to be taken with generous grains of salt.

I am a biochemist, not a computer scientist, so I cannot say much more than this about computer files. However, I can say a great deal about mixed DNA samples. Mixed DNA does not mean mixed blood, and mixed DNA does not mean simultaneously deposited DNA. The most likely explanation of mixed DNA is cohabitation, just as it is for the mixed DNA samples found at Sollecito's apartment. MOO.

I have analysed the online images of the prints myself and I know the difference between the measurements as they were recorded in the beginning and the monkey business that was done on the file using photoshop. I have my own proof because I took the time to understand the bath mat print. The print cannot be matched to Guede because the shape of the bloody footprint is a different width and length than Guede's print.

The appeal remarks regarding the computer are neither here nor there as the information in the defense affidavit was rejected by the court and will not be considered by the court. If there was any keystroke activity on the computer, there would be a record of it. Since Sollecito used file sharing tools, it's quite possible that someone used file sharing to download the Stardust file, or that he was in the queue to download the file and his turn came up at some point when Sollecito and Knox were out. The problem with the computer as an alibi is that there is no human interaction with the computer (keystroke of any kind) from well before 9:10 PM until the following morning around 6 AM.

Perhaps you can explain why Meredith's blood is mixed with Knox' DNA in Filomina's room. Filomina had lived in the cottage much longer than Knox, so one would expect her DNA to be mixed in her bedroom, not Knox's DNA.

 

[RoseMontague]

Wasn't the Supreme Court ruling for Guede also attached to the Knox/Sollecito files?

Yes it was. But, the SC said this:

... [O]ccorre da subito sfuggire al tentativo, perseguito dall'impostazione tutta della difesa, ma fuori luogo nel contesto della decisione, di coinvolgere il collegio nel'avallo della tesi di una responsibilità di altri, che sono Raffaele Sollecito ed Amanda Xnox [sic], per l'omicidio aggravato dalla violenza sessuale, di Meredith Kercher. La decisione a cui è chiamata questa Corte concerne, e solo, la responsabilità del Guede in ordine al fatto contestato e dell'eventuale partecipazione di altri al delitto si dovrà tener conto solo nella misura in cui una tale circostanza valga ad incidere sul tema che costituisce l'impegno esclusivo in punto di riforma o conferma della declaratoria di responsabilità dell'imputato, quest'ultima del tutto condivisa dai giudici di primo e secondo grado.

... [R]ight from the outset we must resist the attempt -- reflected in [literally "pursued by"] the entire structure of the defense case, but out of place in the context of this decision -- to involve the [Cassazione] panel in endorsing the hypothesis that others, Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, were responsible for the murder, aggravated by sexual violence, of Meredith Kercher. The decision that this Court is called to make concerns only the responsibility of Guede with regard to the act under dispute; any participation of others in the crime will be taken into account only to the extent that this circumstance bears on the matter that is our only concern: the modification or confirmation of the judgement of responsibility of the defendant -- the latter being wholly agreed upon by the judges of the first and second level.

 

[RoseMontague]

As part of the prosecution's appeal (remember, they appealed the sentence as being too lenient) documentation, yes. Hiellman has access to that ruling, and may take it into account, but he is not limited by it in any way, as it was a ruling for an entirely different individual's trial process. He may decide that the high court was correct regarding the multiple assailant theory, or ha may disregard it without consequence, he may even ignore it entirely and yet still reach the same conclusion.

Many people have completely forgotten the prosecution's appeal in all of this. Nice to see someone has not. I have the Italian original on my docstoc page but Catnip at PMF did a terrific job with a summary here:

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org./viewtopic.php?p=55733&sid=c8b49845b4d4f1d75d46aa3b62769af2#p55733

I took some time and went through most of these appeal points several months ago at JREF. Basically, I don't see these arguments as very persuasive.

 

[SkewedView]

Many people have completely forgotten the prosecution's appeal in all of this. Nice to see someone has not. I have the Italian original on my docstoc page but Catnip at PMF did a terrific job with a summary here:

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org./viewtopic.php?p=55733&sid=c8b49845b4d4f1d75d46aa3b62769af2#p55733

I took some time and went through most of these appeal points several months ago at JREF. Basically, I don't see these arguments as very persuasive.

Actually, I found that the prosecution's appeal did a good job of pointing out how little sense Massai's reasoning makes, how contradictory his leaps of supposed logic were - though only where it suits them, of course.

 

[RoseMontague]

Actually, I found that the prosecution's appeal did a good job of pointing out how little sense Massai's reasoning makes, how contradictory his leaps of supposed logic were - though only where it suits them, of course.

That was my initial impression as well. After going thru them critically, I came to a different conclusion. I'll try to find that (didn't save it) when I get a chance.

ETA: Here's a link where I went through most of these

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=196814&highlight=prosecution+appeal&page=273

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I have analysed the online images of the prints myself and I know the difference between the measurements as they were recorded in the beginning and the monkey business that was done on the file using photoshop. I have my own proof because I took the time to understand the bath mat print. The print cannot be matched to Guede because the shape of the bloody footprint is a different width and length than Guede's print.

The appeal remarks regarding the computer are neither here nor there as the information in the defense affidavit was rejected by the court and will not be considered by the court. If there was any keystroke activity on the computer, there would be a record of it. Since Sollecito used file sharing tools, it's quite possible that someone used file sharing to download the Stardust file, or that he was in the queue to download the file and his turn came up at some point when Sollecito and Knox were out. The problem with the computer as an alibi is that there is no human interaction with the computer (keystroke of any kind) from well before 9:10 PM until the following morning around 6 AM.

Perhaps you can explain why Meredith's blood is mixed with Knox' DNA in Filomina's room. Filomina had lived in the cottage much longer than Knox, so one would expect her DNA to be mixed in her bedroom, not Knox's DNA.

otto,

I would like to compare your work with Katody Matrass, who analyzed the print at JREF. The reason I asked you to put the mixed DNA in the theory of the crime was so I could decide whether or not it were inculpatory, but you declined.

Very well, all we know about the blob in Filomena's room is that it tested positive for luminol and that it had Meredith's and Amanda's DNA. Luminol is a presumptive test for blood, not a confirmatory test; therefore, you are wrong to talk about Meredith's blood being in Filomena's room. There are problems with the blob as evidence, starting with the fact that the luminol work was done on 18 December, after many non-forensic police had been in the cottage. There is a good chance that biological material of either Amanda or Meredith was transferred into Filomena's room during this period. The boots of one of the forensics workers had a luminol-positive substance on it, as can be seen in one of the photographs. If the material on the boot can be transferred, then we have one of several possible explanations for the luminol reaction.

Another problem with the blobs in Filomena's room is that one of them has extra alleles in it that do not belong to Amanda or Meredith. It was not a complete profile, and Filomena's reference profile was not taken in any case. If the DNA counts as evidence against Amanda, why doesn't it also count as evidence against person X?

I don't think that much should be deduced by the lack of Filomena's DNA, even if the police had been able to identify it. The police should have sampled for DNA a few inches or so away from the blobs. This is called a substrate test (substrate control), and it might indicate whether the DNA deposited had anything to do with the luminol blob. There are luminol-positive blobs in Raffaele's apartment containing Raffaele's and Amanda's DNA. No one asserts that these are part of any crime. Who the idiot is (with respect to my title) is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

otto,

When do you think that Meredith died, and why do you believe in that particular TOD?

 

[otto]

otto,

I would like to compare your work with Katody Matrass, who analyzed the print at JREF. The reason I asked you to put the mixed DNA in the theory of the crime was so I could decide whether or not it were inculpatory, but you declined.

Very well, all we know about the blob in Filomena's room is that it tested positive for luminol and that it had Meredith's and Amanda's DNA. Luminol is a presumptive test for blood, not a confirmatory test; therefore, you are wrong to talk about Meredith's blood being in Filomena's room. There are problems with the blob as evidence, starting with the fact that the luminol work was done on 18 December, after many non-forensic police had been in the cottage. There is a good chance that biological material of either Amanda or Meredith was transferred into Filomena's room during this period. The boots of one of the forensics workers had a luminol-positive substance on it, as can be seen in one of the photographs. If the material on the boot can be transferred, then we have one of several possible explanations for the luminol reaction.

Another problem with the blobs in Filomena's room is that one of them has extra alleles in it that do not belong to Amanda or Meredith. It was not a complete profile, and Filomena's reference profile was not taken in any case. If the DNA counts as evidence against Amanda, why doesn't it also count as evidence against person X?

I don't think that much should be deduced by the lack of Filomena's DNA, even if the police had been able to identify it. The police should have sampled for DNA a few inches or so away from the blobs. This is called a substrate test (substrate control), and it might indicate whether the DNA deposited had anything to do with the luminol blob. There are luminol-positive blobs in Raffaele's apartment containing Raffaele's and Amanda's DNA. No one asserts that these are part of any crime. Who the idiot is (with respect to my title) is in the eye of the beholder.

If you have links to the original prints: bathmat, Guede, Sollecito, I'll do another comparison. It doesn't take long once the measurements have been calibrated.

What's the normal delay between time of the crime and best results using luminol?

 

[wasnt_me]

wasnt_me

Frank posted this some time ago can't remember when. It is a song called Amanda e libera by Al Bano. Thought you might like it :giggle:

Some of the words

Eyes dreaming days of freedom…
Amanda is a number, they constrained her into a rule….
A pack of vile men…
Amanda is free, inside a tear…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxAYdjSx3Ig

ETA Did I forget to mention it is in Italian ? :giggle:

Awesome! A song. Knew we'd have one soon enough! Add it to the RS and AK CD compilation.

 

[wasnt_me]

otto,

There are bloody shoeprints and luminol-positive footprints, but there are no bloody footprints (except the one on the bathroom mat). Any knife could have made the slash wound, but the kitchen knife was too large to have made at least one, possibly two of the other wounds. There is no need to posit two knives in this case when only one would explain the wounds. Your hypothetical depends on when Filomena would arrive versus when the Carabinieri would arrive, and neither would seem to be under A and R's control. Amanda and Raffaele have both had basically two stories: what they said on 5 November and what they have said on every other occasion. If we had recordings of their interrogations, I might change my viewpoint on them, which is that they were coercive. The Supreme court does not rule on matters of fact. They cannot in effect convict Amanda and Raffaele without representation.

Worth repeating. It's amazing that the facts in the case are still unaccepted.

 

[wasnt_me]

IIRC, it is not a question of evaluating the reasoning of the first trial, but evaulating the evidence itself. Hellmann et.al. will use the testimony (but not the arguments) from the first trial, and combine it with the additional testimony and arguments from the currrent trial. Massei's interpretations will have no bearing on Hellmann's decision.

Well, we hope Massei's interpretations will have no bearing. I'd hate to read once again that Nara must have heard a scream in the night, because if she hadn't then she wouldn't have said she had.

 

[wasnt_me]

Chris is correct and these things have been repeated so many times in these 18 threads; however, having Chris "eloquently" repeat them just strengthens the argument. Thanks, Chris, for doing that, because you make the complicated more understandable and you also point out the fine details that get overlooked.

I brought up the luminol on the tech's booties and showed pictures just the other week. Additionally there was luminol glowing all over the ruler that measured the luminol lit prints. there was gobs of luminol in the cracks of the floor, and it lit up too.

Finally, between the tech's feet there were mashed up swipe prints that, to me, appear to come from him walking in the luminol. I'm no CSI investigator or CSI watcher, but I can look at that photo and tell that if every place lit up there was supposed to be blood, then something was wrong with that luminol or with that luminol test.

As for FR's room, the extra alleles may very well belong to FR herself, but we will not know because FR got lawered up before Mignini even arrived on the scene the day of the murder discovery. Personally, unless V&C take a look at the DNA in that "blob" in FR's room, I have no reason to believe that PS got that DNA right, either.

I am very glad that we have been lucky to get a bio-chemist in our thread. Perhaps he can elaborate on his thoughts about the time of death.

 

[otto]

Which foot is the best match to the bloody print?

Here is Guede's print

Now we need Sollecito's print.

I see that Malkmus posted a link to a comparison here: http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=271&p=64681&hilit=reference+print+yummi#p64681

And then I came across this pps all about the bath mat print not matching Guede: http://perugiamurderfile.org/download/file.php?style=1&id=224