Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #18

[Malkmus]

Wanted to make himself useful? Why not just do charity work? Why stop at only three times? What about all those crimes he didn't come forward about? Someone being a tramp...and wanting to make themselves useful. You do understand, those are not exactly two things that easily go together?

What's dubious about his 'tale'? He only claimed he saw them sitting on a bench. Reading you, one would thing he'd claimed he saw them doing something fantastic...like levitating across the basketball court.

Fulcanelli, since you believe Curatolo's tale, how does it fit with the rest of the prosecution's theory or the evidence even, that Amanda and Rafaelle were at the basketball court from 9:30 to 11:30? What were they doing for that two hours, and how does it fit with any a prank or orgy gone wrong between them, Meredith and Rudy with her dying at 11:30?

 

[Malkmus]

All her files are reviewed...by her bosses, as well as a range of independent experts. Listening to you, one would think this is the first case she's worked on...like all these people just started the job at the start of the Meredith Kercher case and have worked on that case alone ever since. The shock may be, this case is not the centre of the universe...

Watching the evidence collection video, one would think this as well.

 

[Malkmus]

No, the didn't simply do that. And Raffaele was not exonerated in regard to the shoes (although, exonerated is not quite the right word...given the benefit of the doubt) due to his family counting the rings of the shoes, contrary to popular myth. It was actually a combination of the report by the criminal investigators, the finding of a certain shoe box at Guede's apartment combined with Guede turning around and saying the shoe print was probably his.

Out of curiosity, as I'm not very clear on this, why wasn't he released when his shoerprints didn't match? How soon after was further evidence collected keeping him behind bars?

 

[Malkmus]

Strange that no judges thought that she had lied under oath, despite their actually being there.

Fulcanelli, I recently brought up that Stefanoni said on the stand that nothing was brought into the murder room by her team, yet on video we see them bringing the mop from the closet, inexplicably, into her room. This seems to be a clear-cut lie. It seems undebatable that she has lied on the stand. It seems there was also some bending of the truth when it came to the Luminol prints and blood testing.

 

[Malkmus]

Since he has many years of experience in investigating murder cases, I would hazard he has all the experience required...especially considering that he's classed as the 'expert of experts'.

Who is this "expert of experts"? Hellman or Massei?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Ir)Oh, and Italian law explicitly forbids the pre-trial release of info about a case once charges have been pressed - all in the interests of a fair trial. However, you are correct that at the time that this stuff was released, it was perfectly legal, as it was during the nearly year long period that AK & RS were detained but not charged.

SkewedView,

After reading Benjamin Sayagh's article "Arrested Abroad," I came to think that Italy's precautionary detention law was seriously flawed. Now I think it is worse. That is truly mind-boggling.
ETA
Does this run afoul of any treaties or international agreements to which Italy is a party?

 

[sherlockh]

Speaking for other posters who are no longer here, and asserting as fact that they've all moved on because they agree with the verdict is presumptuous, and still just a guess, end of debate.

I didn't say all. I just said it is normal. Just like you will see a forum like PMF slow down when the verdicts are confirmed, and the injustice forum will continue more actively and vica versa. It all depends on who is still fighting for the cause. But I agree, lets move on

 

[wasnt_me]

There were several things found in the samples, none of it cellular material. It also tested negative for blood. The list of the extracts is found in the following section:

http://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com/...tocentrifugation-to-detect-cellular-material/

Thanks. I thought I had read this, and that's why I do not understand why in court the prosecution is saying that C&V should have retested it. If there was no blood and no cellular material, what were they supposed to retest?

 

[emyr]

No, the prosecution agreed that the disco buses weren't running, but have maintained that the local transport and tour buses were.

It is 'possible' that Curatolo is confusing some details from different nights, however, one of those details is not having seen Amanda and Raffaele together in the park, since by their own admission they had never gone into the park together on any other night.

And actually, if a witness misremembers a detail or two incorrectly, that is not a reason to reject their testimony and in fact judges will often brief juries on that very thing. This is because it is a human fact that people may confuse certain small details. What is the overiding requirement is that their key elements are correct and that the court finds them convincing.

I understand that you find Curatola a compelling and believable witness, but I personally find him useless. Minor details, such as getting someone's tie color incorrect is not a reason to reject someone's testimony. But remembering people dressed in costumes, and disco buses is not minor, IMHO:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8601-500202_162-20047813-2.html?assetTypeId=30

Judge: So, you saw Amanda and Raffaele?


Curatolo: Yeah, it was Halloween when I saw them. I know this because I saw the kids getting on the disco buses all dressed up in costumes. That’s how I also know what time it was.

Judge: When is Halloween?


Curatolo: I don't know. Maybe end of October or beginning of November, I think.

Judge: You aren’t sure? What about your case now? You are in prison, correct? How long will you be there?

Curatolo: I don’t know. I don’t understand the case against me really. I understand nothing.

Judge: Ok, so how did you live in the park? Were you always there?

Curatolo: Always, yes. I never left. I just lived there. On a bench mostly.

(questions regarding where Toto poops omitted)

Judge: Never mind. So, are you certain the buses were disco buses and not tour buses?

Curatolo: Yes, definitely disco buses. They look different from other buses.

Prosecutio*n: No, no, you must be mistaken?

Curatolo: No. I am certain they were disco buses.

Judge: Do you take drugs?

Curatolo: Yes, heroin.

Judge: Were you taking drugs on that night?

Curatolo: I always take drugs, so most certainly I was high that night…but that’s ok. heroin does not make you hallucinat*e or anything.

 

[SkewedView]

Thanks. I thought I had read this, and that's why I do not understand why in court the prosecution is saying that C&V should have retested it. If there was no blood and no cellular material, what were they supposed to retest?

Proponents of the use of LCN DNA recommend continue the testing procedures anyways even if the sampled area comes up negative in the quantification step, which is what PS did in the first place. While this strikes me as being a rather irresponsible practice, it is a common enough procedure that the prosecution could justify calling for such a thing - had they not agreed with the decision of the Independent Experts previously, that is.

 

[Malkmus]

Judge: Never mind. So, are you certain the buses were disco buses and not tour buses?

Curatolo: Yes, definitely disco buses. They look different from other buses.

Prosecutio*n: No, no, you must be mistaken?

Curatolo: No. I am certain they were disco buses.

Judge: Do you take drugs?

Curatolo: Yes, heroin.

Judge: Were you taking drugs on that night?

Curatolo: I always take drugs, so most certainly I was high that night…but that’s ok. heroin does not make you hallucinat*e or anything.

Says it all right there!

ETA: Funny seeing the prosecution saying "No, no, you must be mistaken?". Had he changed his mind because of that... hmm

 

[RoseMontague]

Hi Rose,

Thanks...you've helped prove the point that their report isn't worth the paper it was written on. They found things which in their report they claimed not to find or didn't bother mentioning it then claimed it existed on the stand.

The first example, they claimed to have found no DNA on the knife blade (as you cite from their report). It then transpired in court the other day that thet did find DNA on the blade, but didn't bother testing it. Their claim in court was, they didn't bother testing it to extract a profile because they deemed it 'too small' to be valid. However, their machines (which have advanced since the knife was originally tested in 2007) was actually quite capable of extracting a profile from samples of that volume. Indeed, Meredith Kercher's expert was actually present as an observer during these tests and asked them why they didn't test the DNA , despite having the capability...they told her they'd decided not to. She testified to this on the stand during the appeal. Therefore, their claim there was no DNA on the blade in their report was a 'lie'. Being one to follow this case as closely as you do, I'm surprised you didn't know this? Did you not follow the latest bout of appeal hearings?

The second example. On the stand the independent expert claimed she found as many as 17 profiles on the bra clasp "although I did not mention this in my report". In other words, she considered that important enough to claim on the stand, but not to even mention in her report, much less provide evidence in it to support it. So, what we are left with from her is an unsupported claim from her, not mentioned in her report, of finding 17 profiles on the clasp that no other expert who had looked at the clasp could find. As for the claim she could see her own alleles on it, that was flat out deceit designed for people who don't understand DNA...one cannot construct the profiles of whoever one likes from a bunch of stray alleles found on a sample...DNA profiling doesn't work like that.

I believe they prosecution was wanting the experts to test to find DNA with more sensitive instruments (then test it, if found), the report indicates that not only no DNA was found on the knife blade, but the blood tests were negative, and there was not cells found from skin, blood, or tissue in a second test, just some granular particles determined to be starch.

This on a sample that the prosecution claimed used up the entire thing in one run. So the prosecution request amounts to a fishing expedition.

The reason C&V found those extra peaks is because they finally got the raw data the defense had been asking for and did not get.

And it was not deceit, it is like picking a card hand from a full deck when a sample is that mixed with profiles from many different people. It does not surprise me in the least.

ETA. SkewedView's opinion on this is also a good possibility. Continue with the test even if no DNA was found. Still a fishing expedition with no evidence the fish will be biting.

 

[wasnt_me]

.



Going to give this a shot wasnt_me. What I will try and do is give a brief overview then give backup info from the experts report all from the same link which is provided in your post. (My comments are bolded)

[/url]

Wow. I appreciate you. The song "say what you need to say...say what you need to say...." comes back to mind! LOL, but only because it was so detailed and thanks for that.

I didn't appear to me, unless I need to read it again (which I will anyways) that she explained why sample B had the DNa but sample C didn't, even though the first reading in the report was NO for both of them. Is that right? And how did she address this, if at all, in court? Or was it in those papers that she was ordered to turn over?

 

[RoseMontague]

Also Fulcanelli,
I would like to see your cite for the claim that C&V lied, or that any of the experts objected to C&V not proceeding with further testing at the time.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

When either a sample provides only a partial profile or it provides a mixture, subjectivity is likely to come into the analysis, as noted by Dr. Dan Krane. Here is a short quote from an interesting article in the New Scientist that is food for thought: "If DNA analysis were totally objective, then all 17 analysts should reach the same conclusion. However, we found that just one agreed with the original judgement that Robinson 'cannot be excluded'. Four analysts said the evidence was inconclusive and 12 said he could be excluded."

 

[wasnt_me]

No, the certification had nothing to do with 'LCN testing' and the certification was a new one, only having just recently been created. No labs in Italy at the time had them and the Rome lab was the first in Italy to get the certification. Moreover, they had to change nothing nor introduce nothing new to get it as they were fully up to the certification standard. This was all heard in the trial and is in the Massei Report. It isn't an issue, never was.

again, looking for independent corroberation of the facts on this, but thanks.

 

[wasnt_me]

We don't know 'what' respect Hellman has for their assertions yet, do we? And we won;t know, until the judges write their report.

There is no degree of respect. One either respects or one does not respect, so there is no question of "what."

It is not logical for Hellmann to choose experts that he did not or does not respect. Whether he agrees with their findings doesn't change whether he respects them. I'm not sure why you'd assert that he didnt respect them to be telling him the truth to the best of their ability. And not sure what logical reason he'd use to appoint people to this task that he could not respect enough to believe their assessment. Belief is up to him and his jury, but I'm really not following the logic behind him not respecting experts he appointed himself.

 

[wasnt_me]

Because RS and AK have lied repeatedly (and have reason to lie) and because Nara and Curatolo have other witnesses that lend support to their testimony.

That's also not true that the witnesses have people to support their testimony. They contradict other witnesses, but as Mass stated, he chose to believe them, namely Nara, anyway. The bum contradicts Nara in that he hears no scream at all. Neither do other street witnesses or the other ear witness. Additionally, Nara doesn't know what day it was and in fact sees a newspaper that couldn't yet exist the next morning. Even in seeing this nonexistent newspaper and then seeing the unfolding crime scene (also right outside her window), she doesn't bother to walk across and tell the police of this dredful scream she'd heard only 15 hours or so earlier. The way she describes the scream, it seems that it wouldn't be forgettable. In fact, hearing a scream like that, she should have called the police immediately, but maybe she, like RG, had no phone.

Even RG contradicts her in his earlier statements. He tells of a scream, himself. IIRC, he's the only other person to do it, but he says MK died between 920 and 930, which logically fits the rest of the evidence.

I am unaware of AK and RS's "repeated lies." there have been a few, but not repeated.

 

[wasnt_me]

Well, your claim was they are paid for testimony (like a special testimony bonus or something).

But your missing the big difference. The prosecution experts will testify no matter what, even if they may not have a strong argument. Whereas, the defence experts won't be hired by the defence unless they are willing to find some way to argue for innocence...so their hiring is dependent on the testimony they're willing to give.

In PS's case, I have to say that her job and reputation depending upon what she testified to. As for the other experts on the prosecution side, I honestly do not know that every single one of them works for the government. Is that true? they were not independent experts hired for the case? I only know about PS, not the rest. what I know from her, she investigated the case, took the swabs, and even wrapped the mop, so I think that when her team announced 5 days into the case that it was solved, she felt the pressure for her work to prove that. Not commission, but motivation all the same.

 

[wasnt_me]

The kiosk owner at the park. They testified that Curatolo was there in the park when he said he was there.

That's not corroberation of Nara's testimony, and it's not corroberation of Curatolo's. Was this owner there all night, watching Curatolo? If so, then said owner must have testified to also seeing RS and AK. If the owner was not there all night, then Curatolo has the same alibi AK and RS do.