WARNING:GRAPHIC PHOTOS Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #8

[Nova]

Would this be the same father that claimed Amanda was beaten and deprived of the necessities of life for 54 hours prior to falsely accusing an innocent man (in reality it was 2 hours)? Of course he's not a valid source ... he's a family member with an agenda.

I feel idiotic having to make remarks like the above. I never thought I would be discussing anything serious and have to point out that family members are not reliable sources of information ... but it seems to be necessary here ... often.

Wow, otto, I'm honored to be the one to explain this to you. EVERYONE on the planet has his or her agendas, whether or not s/he is related to a criminal defendant.

I think it's fine to point out that AK's stepfather has a vested interest and may not be your favorite source in this case. I also think it's fine that you believe his testimony should be qualified by his interest in the outcome.

As for his claims of AK being beaten and deprive for 54 hours, perhaps that was his understanding at the time. As for his claim that the defense was given only 2 hours' notice before DNA testing began, one would think the prosecutor or the lab would be anxious to counter this impression.

So you should be able to cite a contrary source...

 

[otto]

Wow, otto, I'm honored to be the one to explain this to you. EVERYONE on the planet has his or her agendas, whether or not s/he is related to a criminal defendant.

I think it's fine to point out that AK's stepfather has a vested interest and may not be your favorite source in this case. I also think it's fine that you believe his testimony should be qualified by his interest in the outcome.

As for his claims of AK being beaten and deprive for 54 hours, perhaps that was his understanding at the time. As for his claim that the defense was given only 2 hours' notice before DNA testing began, one would think the prosecutor or the lab would be anxious to counter this impression.

So you should be able to cite a contrary source...

Sheesh ... you want me to search articles from 4 years ago to clarify that defense experts were invited to the DNA testing? When I have loads of time, I'll do that. For now, all I can do is reference the fact that it seems to be accepted that defense experts were invited ... with the added usual criticism that someone (Dr Stefanoni?) did something wrong and didn't provide enough lead time. Out of curiosity, are defense experts that are observing the ongoing DNA test evaluation from Rome, or from somewhere else?

As for people with agendas ... yes, a doctor has an agenda, perhaps better stated as a responsibility, to diagnose illness. A stepfather has an agenda to protect a child regardless of what is going on. Both have agendas ... only one can be viewed as an objective agenda.

 

[dgfred]

a

As Allusonz has pointed out numerous times, we have a statement from a prosecutor that the defense "has everything it needs." Logically, that statements appears to imply there is material/info the defense does NOT have, but which the prosecutor has decided the defense does not need.

The prosecutor could have said, "The defense has everything we have." That, BTW, is a common statement by American prosecutors, one I have heard in numerous cases. But it doesn't appear to be what the Perugia prosecutor said. (I say "appear" because I am always allowing for problems in translation.) It also isn't what the defense lawyers from AK and RS claim in their appellate briefs.

If you have evidence to the contrary, that in fact the defense has seen everything the prosecution has seen, perhaps YOU would like to cite that.

The 2-hour notice claim comes from AK's stepfather. You may believe him or not. Personally, I don't know for sure, but his claim is consistent with the behavior of prosecutors in this case, so I tend to believe it.

In terms of forum protocol, however, I think you are being unfair to Allusonz. We all have sources we trust better than other sources. Those of us who believe guilt was NOT demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt still read and cite pro-verdict sites. (In fact, I try to do so whenever possible.) We don't simply discard everything from anybody with whom we disagree.

'Appears to imply'

'Could have said'

proof 'evidence to the contrary' of my statement: It is the Italian Law that the defense has everything the prosecution uses to find guilt. It is silly to claim otherwise IMO.

'may believe him or not'

'unfair to Allusonze' :waitasec: (by asking for a legitimate cite insteaded of unfounded rumors?)

'simply discard everything from anybody with whom we disagree' Pot/Kettle

*for instance the example of the prosecution in the statement 'consistant with the behavior of prosecutors in this case'??? hdear:

 

[dgfred]

Wow, otto, I'm honored to be the one to explain this to you. EVERYONE on the planet has his or her agendas, whether or not s/he is related to a criminal defendant.

I think it's fine to point out that AK's stepfather has a vested interest and may not be your favorite source in this case. I also think it's fine that you believe his testimony should be qualified by his interest in the outcome.

As for his claims of AK being beaten and deprive for 54 hours, perhaps that was his understanding at the time. As for his claim that the defense was given only 2 hours' notice before DNA testing began, one would think the prosecutor or the lab would be anxious to counter this impression.

So you should be able to cite a contrary source...

Wow Nova, I find it hard to believe you want someone to cite a contrary source to an unfounded (wouldn't this be a major issue at appeal if so?) rumor basically. Would the prosecutor or the lab NEED to counter the impression made from a rumor? :shakehead:

Same for the 54 hours malarky.

 

[Monzoo]

I feel like we are getting bogged down in minutiae again.

The idea that AK and RS were able to be represented at the initial forensic testing is of limited use, in my opinion. In most cases, wouldn't you expect a suspect to be arrested after evidence is found and tested? (Shouldn't that be the basis for arrest?)

In this case, there were three people initially charged, before forensic testing, and presumably had notice of the testing. RG was not arrested until after the initial testing had taken place. Does that mean his rights were not respected, since he did not have the option to be represented at the testing? Of course not. He was arrested because of what was found during the testing.

Defendants SHOULD have access to all information about the tests, however. They need this information in order to do their own analysis. Allusonz has provided many cites of the defense teams stating that they did NOT get everything (including their appeal arguments).

This is one of the things about which the independent experts will hopefully be able to help us expand our knowledge. They will presumably have access to ALL of the documents. We are, right now, awaiting their analysis of the original testing since they were (reportedly) unable to repeat any of the findings of the initial tests.

If the court's experts find the forenic testing to be unreliable, and consequently throw out both the knife and bra clasp as evidence, do you still think that the prosecution's burden of proof beyond a resonable doubt i still met? Why or why not? Do you accept that AK and RS could be factually guilty but not proved in court to have committed the crime beyond a resonable doubt, and thus entitled to aquittal?

 

[Monzoo]

Now it appears that Antonio Cuartolo has changed his story...

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2011/03/26/knox-trial-witness-changes-story-55578-28408650/

 

[minazoe]

first...Amanda's dna could rightly be on every item in that house and it would not prove anything.

the fact that the supposed murder weapon isn't even the murder weapon and has dna on it is moot...

they cannot acertain one peice of evidence that shows anything concrete. They cannot even accuratley describe the murder or connect the wounds on Meredith to the correct weapon.

the bra clasp doesn't hold up and even if they find the dna, what does it proove?

someone touched the bra.

I am convinced that wether they are guilty or not...they must be released.

because they have ZERO evidence.

 

[minazoe]

also, the fact that Amanda Knox was deeply infatuated and in the throes of young sexual puppy love...and that she immediatley wanted to move on from the horror of her roomates murder and get back to making out all over Italy does not make her guilty either.

 

[sherlockh]

Now it appears that Antonio Cuartolo has changed his story...

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2011/03/26/knox-trial-witness-changes-story-55578-28408650/

Not changed. He doesn't know on what date Halloween is

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42271478

 

[Monzoo]

Not changed. He doesn't know on what date Halloween is

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42271478

LOL... I stand corrected.

 

[Allusonz]

People were convicted for centuries without DNA evidence. In this case we have two instances of DNA evidence that cannot be retested, but this case does not rest solely on that particular DNA evidence. Evidence that was not used until about 20 years ago, and which cannot be re-tested does not suggest to me that there is reasonable doubt about the guilt of the three convicted parties.

What if Rudy comes back and insists that his DNA should be retested. What if those results cannot be reproduced. Do we then have reasonable doubt about Rudy's participation in the murder?

I think Otto that standard operating procedures/protocols are essential whether it is for DNA testing, driving an automobile, or whether we are posting right in this forum.

The purpose of these procedures/protocols ensure that there are checks and balances in place to avoid consequences further down the road.

If you are driving an automobile you must know the signs, drive in the proper lane for everyones safety, not drive while impaired, and have a valid drivers license just to name a few. The consequences of abusing any of these can be and are deadly in various scenerios.

The same holds true in DNA testing. These protocols/procedures are put in place so that issues such as we are discussing here do not arise.

LCN DNA is still controversial first I believe because people need to become more educated with respect to it. It is also much more costly to operate as these labs must have various sterialization procedures in place. I believe there is a place for LCN DNA in forensic science but what I do not want to see is people performing these tests without the knowledge, without the proper environment, and every individual must recognize that there are still limitations even with respect to LCN DNA. If we are testing a sample of 200 picograms I would personally assume that there is a greater chance for a more accurate profile. If you are talking 5 picograms, I would have to seriously review the testing methodology as I have not seen where you can get a valid profile with these numbers. Maybe with the advancements we are seeing in technology this will become a mute point but till the world as a whole accepts these procedures/protocols we are going to continue to run into issues.

One of the biggest misconceptions is that people think that in LCN DNA all the DNA is used. Although technically correct, part of the protocol is that it must be amplified so that a remaining sample that has been amplified can be reviewed and saved.

Stephanoni as I have pointed out did not use any sort of scientific protocol/procedure normally used. It is not even in the scientific writings on this. The nine areas that Stephanoni did not conform to standard protocols/procedures were:


1. The DNA wasn’t amplified enough; the very weak fluorescence was simply blown up.
2. The test site was not remote from other DNA tests to avoid contamination.
3. Specialized LCN-quality entry procedures to avoid contamination were not used.
4. A positive pressure environment was not maintained to exclude contamination.
5. Special LCN sterilization procedures to destroy errant DNA were not used.
6. The entire sample was consumed in a single test; no comparison of tests was possible.
7. No sample was retained for future reference. The test can never be reproduced.
8. No negative control tests were run to check for contamination.
9. No control tests to check for field contamination were performed

http://www.sciencespheres.com/
http://freeaman.001webs.com/pdfs/LCN_DNA_II.pdf

I did read the article you cite with great interest. What we do not know in these particular cases is how low the DNA was. Was it 200 picograms or 5 picograms? It appears that rulings were made based on the validity of the both the samples and testing protocols and procedures.

 

[Allusonz]

Imagine what would happen if convicted murderers were able to silence the movie industry! What kind of crazy censorship is that!

One thing I would never want to see is any serial killer/murderer profit from either book or movie sales.

 

[Allusonz]

Not changed. He doesn't know on what date Halloween is

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42271478

He does indeed sound like a character. I truly do not believe much weight was ever put on his testimony MOO

 

[Allusonz]

Otto as for the defense experts i have heard conflicting statements so please dont take this as gospel

I believe from the names I have seen that they are from Italy, the UK, and the US but I have also heard much different reports. I think we will have to wait till the appointed experts present their findings till we will actually know for sure

 

[otto]

I think Otto that standard operating procedures/protocols are essential whether it is for DNA testing, driving an automobile, or whether we are posting right in this forum.

The purpose of these procedures/protocols ensure that there are checks and balances in place to avoid consequences further down the road.

If you are driving an automobile you must know the signs, drive in the proper lane for everyones safety, not drive while impaired, and have a valid drivers license just to name a few. The consequences of abusing any of these can be and are deadly in various scenerios.

The same holds true in DNA testing. These protocols/procedures are put in place so that issues such as we are discussing here do not arise.

LCN DNA is still controversial first I believe because people need to become more educated with respect to it. It is also much more costly to operate as these labs must have various sterialization procedures in place. I believe there is a place for LCN DNA in forensic science but what I do not want to see is people performing these tests without the knowledge, without the proper environment, and every individual must recognize that there are still limitations even with respect to LCN DNA. If we are testing a sample of 200 picograms I would personally assume that there is a greater chance for a more accurate profile. If you are talking 5 picograms, I would have to seriously review the testing methodology as I have not seen where you can get a valid profile with these numbers. Maybe with the advancements we are seeing in technology this will become a mute point but till the world as a whole accepts these procedures/protocols we are going to continue to run into issues.

One of the biggest misconceptions is that people think that in LCN DNA all the DNA is used. Although technically correct, part of the protocol is that it must be amplified so that a remaining sample that has been amplified can be reviewed and saved.

Stephanoni as I have pointed out did not use any sort of scientific protocol/procedure normally used. It is not even in the scientific writings on this. The nine areas that Stephanoni did not conform to standard protocols/procedures were:


1. The DNA wasn’t amplified enough; the very weak fluorescence was simply blown up.
2. The test site was not remote from other DNA tests to avoid contamination.
3. Specialized LCN-quality entry procedures to avoid contamination were not used.
4. A positive pressure environment was not maintained to exclude contamination.
5. Special LCN sterilization procedures to destroy errant DNA were not used.
6. The entire sample was consumed in a single test; no comparison of tests was possible.
7. No sample was retained for future reference. The test can never be reproduced.
8. No negative control tests were run to check for contamination.
9. No control tests to check for field contamination were performed

http://www.sciencespheres.com/
http://freeaman.001webs.com/pdfs/LCN_DNA_II.pdf

I did read the article you cite with great interest. What we do not know in these particular cases is how low the DNA was. Was it 200 picograms or 5 picograms? It appears that rulings were made based on the validity of the both the samples and testing protocols and procedures.

Do I understand correctly that you think that the DNA on the knife does not belong to Meredith?

 

[otto]

One thing I would never want to see is any serial killer/murderer profit from either book or movie sales.

That kind of sidesteps the point. It is Amanda Knox, a convicted murderer, who is attempting to supress a movie about the murder of Meredith Kercher.

 

[otto]

also, the fact that Amanda Knox was deeply infatuated and in the throes of young sexual puppy love...and that she immediatley wanted to move on from the horror of her roomates murder and get back to making out all over Italy does not make her guilty either.

That makes her a bit ice cold though, doncha think?

 

[otto]

I feel like we are getting bogged down in minutiae again.

The idea that AK and RS were able to be represented at the initial forensic testing is of limited use, in my opinion. In most cases, wouldn't you expect a suspect to be arrested after evidence is found and tested? (Shouldn't that be the basis for arrest?)

In this case, there were three people initially charged, before forensic testing, and presumably had notice of the testing. RG was not arrested until after the initial testing had taken place. Does that mean his rights were not respected, since he did not have the option to be represented at the testing? Of course not. He was arrested because of what was found during the testing.

Defendants SHOULD have access to all information about the tests, however. They need this information in order to do their own analysis. Allusonz has provided many cites of the defense teams stating that they did NOT get everything (including their appeal arguments).

This is one of the things about which the independent experts will hopefully be able to help us expand our knowledge. They will presumably have access to ALL of the documents. We are, right now, awaiting their analysis of the original testing since they were (reportedly) unable to repeat any of the findings of the initial tests.

If the court's experts find the forenic testing to be unreliable, and consequently throw out both the knife and bra clasp as evidence, do you still think that the prosecution's burden of proof beyond a resonable doubt i still met? Why or why not? Do you accept that AK and RS could be factually guilty but not proved in court to have committed the crime beyond a resonable doubt, and thus entitled to aquittal?

It does look like there was enough evidence to arrest Amanda and Raffaele without DNA evidence. That evidence hasn't gone anywhere, and neither has the DNA evidence. All we know today (based on a leak) is that new testing is not possible. That doesn't negate previous tests.

I think Amanda's confession, after 2 hours of questioning on the evening of Nov 5, will always be a problem for the defense.

 

[Nova]

Let's face it guys, you are all snarky to one another. I have given this thread more leeway than most because you all seem to be ok with being mutually combative to one another. If you all know the score and can go back and forth in a somewhat civil manner,everyone is equally as sassy, then I figure you all know what you are getting into.

So carry on but please don't pretend for a minute that only one side or the other is being snarky. At least own it.

Thank you, J. And thanks to you, Salem and believe09 for the leeway.

FWIW, I've exchanged any number of perfectly cordial PMs with the same posters with whom I've traded snarks in public posts. There's nothing going on here that lessens my respect or affection for posters such as otto, dgfred, flourish and others.

 

[Nova]

Would you like Rudy to be released because his DNA tests cannot be reproduced?

Good and fair question:

1. RG's case is different because the quantity of his DNA found is so much greater.

2. I do not believe that ALL his DNA was used up in testing; there was simply too much of it.

3. AK and RS, on the other hand, were convicted in large part on the basis of infinitesimal amounts of DNA.