Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #18

[Allusonz]

The CSI's may want to use a variety of chemicals on the crime scene themselves, which luminol may interfere with.

If you read the published CSI literature, you woll see that it is general practice that luminol is applied last in any crime scene. There is no rush in any case, since it will reveal blood that is months or even years old.

The issue as you very well know goes beyond the use of luminol.

 

[Allusonz]

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

Yet....

 

[Allusonz]

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'.

Baed on his reasoning in the Motivation Report I would have to challenge that

 

[SkewedView]

No, LCN testing has been used in the European system for years and since it's the Europeans that pioneered it and are at the cutting edge of the field, I would suggest that they know best regarding it's use...being the experts and all.

There is no such thing as 'extremely low count'. There LCN DNA and it is either LCN or it isn't, there are not catagories of LCN. Although, I see some commenters who don't understand the first thing about it are trying to arbitrarily introduce them.

Yes, it has been in use for years - the whole time with no clear consensus on how to properly interpret the results, and, as I stated, a growing body of data suggesting that the introduction of LCN DNA to court systems was in fact premature and irresponsible (please note, this is not even close to the first time such a thing has happened with a new potential forensic tool). Until there is a solid body of research and a well tested and confirmed method of interpretation for the results of these tests, they should be banned from court use, IMO.

 

[SkewedView]

The consensus is the technology. If the technology exists, then it should be done.

An observational technology is useless if you don't know how to properly interpret the results you get from it. Just because we can extract profiles at stachostatic levels does not mean that we can get meaningful results from them at any reliable rate.

Just because we can do a thing, does not mean that we should.

 

[SkewedView]

Yeah, they get paid by the hour like most people.

Since the Italian system has functioned well for many years with the roles of experts never being the issue in any other cases, I find it strange that some who have little or no knowledge about the Italian system are trying to insinuate (with no evidence it should be said) that it has suddenly just become one and only for this case. If you have any evidence there is a problem other than smear via innuendo, I'm happy to hear it. If not, I see no purpose in continuing with this line of discussion. I don't do the conspiraloon stuff.

The Italian system traditionally compensates all experts that testify in trial, just like in most other nations. Thus you have paid experts working for one side trying to debunk paid experts working for the other, except when the experts are being employed by the court itself, theoretically a nuetral body. Thus the only experts in trials that you can truly count on to not have a motivation to skew their testimony are those employed by the court itself. I was the one who originally posted about this, and I stand by it, as it is a well known but unavoidable weakness of most criminal justice systems.

 

[Fulcanelli]

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

Thus a wage is still being "paid" just as defense experts are "paid".

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.

 

[Allusonz]

So? Raffaele's and Amanda's defence have claimed lots of things. It don't make it so.

It's old by the way. They were trying to claim about the cartoon way back in the pre-trial with Micheli. It didn't wash then (just like most of the things they argued) and it won't wash now.

It seems that people seem to think the content of the Raffaele's and Amanda's appeal documents is 'new'. Most of it, is simply repeating what they have argued/presented already in the pre-trial and trial.

You of course must realize that this is a de novo review in which they can decide to agree or disagree with the reasoning of the trial of the first instance without calling additional witnesses? They also consider the arguments in the appeal and as you have stated this is not new it is information that has been in fact known

 

[Fulcanelli]

I know of no other witnesses that support Curatolo. Am I missing something?

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

 

[Allusonz]

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.

I believe that SV has stated my stance on this quite adequately. Each side brings in witnesses for their own purposes. The only neutral ones in this case would be the court appointed experts

 

[Allusonz]

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.

I disagree. Dr. Lalli is a prime example ......

 

[Allusonz]

You'll have to ask C & V. They made no formal application to do so.

Yet all the representatives including the ones for the prosecution determined not to retest....I would of made the same determination considering it tested negative for blood. Thus why was there no objection from the prosecution representatives at this time? Now they want new experts? Ridiculous and absurd

 

[Allusonz]

The consensus is the technology. If the technology exists, then it should be done.

There are many examples of technology being available. The problem is putting it into practice where there are protocols/procedures and methods to monitor whether the science is being utilized in a proper way

Many advances have been made in many areas of science. In the case of LCN DNA there still is alot of controversy thus these issues should be addressed before innocent people are sent away or condemned to death

 

[emyr]

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

Wasn't he there every night? How is that a corroborating witness?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Actually there weren't private disco buses either. The discos were also closed for the holiday.

EDITED TO ADD:
The prosecution countered that the public buses weren't running but the disco buses were, and people were dressed in costumes on the 1st as well, because Halloween was still being celebrated. As you are stating here. But on the 1st, there were no buses running, not public or private. The discos who regularly ran buses in the Piazzo, both public and private on the 31st were questioned and they confirmed in court that they did not run buses the next day on the 1st, because of the holiday. All of the discos who ran buses on the 31st were questioned and all said they did not run the buses. The prosecution said other discos might have been running buses, but they have never provided a shred of evidence of these mystery discoes. These discos who had not run buses in the Piazza before, but randomly decided to run them the 1st.

Curatolo is remembering events from the 31st, OR his memory is poor and he is getting multiple events confused. Either way, his testimony cannot be used because the truth cannot be ascertained from his memory.

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.

 

[otto]

I didn't ask if she was starving, nor do I think she went to the police station for fun and to do stretchy splits and cartwheels. I asked if she had been denied food and water during her questioning. I believe that is true. I don't find that to be as important as the fact that there were over a dozen people in the room and that they were aggressive and antagonistic. But it is true.

snip

No one asked her to go to the police station on the night that she was arrested, she just went there.

So it's not important whether she had had something to eat and drink just before she decided to stop in at the police station. What is supposedly important is whether she claimed she was hungry and thirsty immediately after having a meal, whether she requested food and drink through the interpreter and whether the response was yes or no? Why is this important? If she claimed she was hungry, she was lying. If she was thirsty, she should have requested a class of water and remained silent until it arrived. Did she request water?

Why would we believe anything Knox says? It is a proven fact that she and the truth are strangers. Are you thinking that it has only been proven a few times that she lied in connection with the investigation, so everything that has not yet been proven to be a lie must be true?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I believe my post was misunderstood. I stated that there were labs certified to do LCN DNA testing. I did not mention where.

There are a couple of labs worldwide which are certifed to test LCN DNA which would include not only N. America but Italy

Where?

And no, it doesn't include Italy.

 

[Allusonz]

snip

No one asked her to go to the police station on the night that she was arrested, she just went there.

So it's not important whether she had had something to eat and drink just before she decided to stop in at the police station. What is supposedly important is whether she claimed she was hungry and thirsty immediately after having a meal, whether she requested food and drink through the interpreter and whether the response was yes or no? Why is this important? If she claimed she was hungry, she was lying. If she was thirsty, she should have requested a class of water and remained silent until it arrived. Did she request water?

Why would we believe anything Knox says? It is a proven fact that she and the truth are strangers. Are you thinking that it has only been proven a few times that she lied in connection with the investigation, so everything that has not yet been proven to be a lie must be true?

Even Mignini admitted in the CNN interviews that she would of been called in anyway...

ETA Maybe it was Giobbi...one of the 2

 

[Allusonz]

Where?

And no, it doesn't include Italy.

Is it being stated that Italy is not part of the world. Dang I will have to check my map again. I could of sworn there was a country by that name :giggle:

 

[Fulcanelli]

Actually, if you refer back to the testimony it was that easy. They simply counted the rings on the soles of the shoes of RS and RG

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.