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

[Allusonz]

Yowza. So translation algorithms have a ways to go before they're flawless, eh? :waitasec:

If they find no DNA, what happens? Does the prosecution then decide that the foot long knife wasn't the murder weapon? Do they retry the whole case, portions of it, or none of it?

Truly not sure what they will do with this CM

They have a number of options but I do have to agree with Nova with respect to how much of a role the pressure is on the Judge

 

[Allusonz]

another article again though a google translation all

http://translate.googleusercontent....le.com&usg=ALkJrhjXkCtInVYuNdHoXLyxDOZuapN3UA

The defenses are waiting are waiting to know the news report in its entirety before giving an opinion the defenders of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox in the aftermath of the first results of tests that will resume next week. "We can not say we're satisfied or dissatisfied," said the lawyer Luca Maori, one of the young lawyers of Puglia. "Let's wait the final results," he added.. "We read about the early data, but we await the results of the survey," said the lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova, Knox's lawyer Luciano Ghirga and together with Maria Del Grosso. "The results have yet to be evaluated - he added - and next week the experts and consultants of the parties the Court will be seen again."

 

[otto]

another article

Amanda Knox got good news today about the DNA on the alleged murder weapon, used to pin her to the stabbing of British roommate Meredith Kercher. Independent experts found nothing incriminating on the kitchen knife

They claimed the tiny bit of metal had traces of Raffaele and at least three other people on it, although his legal team has always cited contamination.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/03/24/amanda-knox-no-incriminating-dna-on-murder-weapon/

Candace Dempsey claims that it's good news that there is no additional DNA on the knife? I don't understand why Dempsey waited until now to announce this good news on her opinion blog. Dr Stefoni reported months ago that she used all the DNA on the knife and that there wasn't any more to test.

 

[Monzoo]

Candace Dempsey claims that it's good news that there is no additional DNA on the knife? I don't understand why Dempsey waited until now to announce this good news on her opinion blog. Dr Stefoni reported months ago that she used all the DNA on the knife and that there wasn't any more to test.

Otto,

In my very quick reading it sounded to me that thay had not found either MK's or AK's DNA.

I agree with you that not finding MK's DNA would be the expected result. I would have expected them to find AK's DNA, however. If it is true, I would think it woud be a blow to the prosecution.

 

[otto]

Otto,

In my very quick reading it sounded to me that thay had not found either MK's or AK's DNA.

I agree with you that not finding MK's DNA would be the expected result. I would have expected them to find AK's DNA, however. If it is true, I would think it woud be a blow to the prosecution.

My understanding is that material was taken from the knife, but that it was too small to analyze. Do you have any English language media links to conclusions about the testing that is going on right now?

Since testing has already been done, and results have already been obtained, I would think that no additional material to test means the previous tests will be examined for accuracy.

I think the goal of the prosecution is to ensure that the correct people are convicted. I don't know if the absence of material for additional tests is a blow for those that pursue justice for victims of violence.

 

[Allusonz]

Candace Dempsey claims that it's good news that there is no additional DNA on the knife? I don't understand why Dempsey waited until now to announce this good news on her opinion blog. Dr Stefoni reported months ago that she used all the DNA on the knife and that there wasn't any more to test.

I am trying to be very careful here as the experts themselves have not submitted a report so please take that into consideration when i post this

I would not expect them to find enough DNA on the blade to retest but IIRC the amount on the handle should of had enough to test

I thought one of the reports did state that there was some DNA but too low to test with any validity

Thus I can only surmise that either there was none there to test on either the handle or the blade or;

The amounts they did find whether it be the handle or the blade was to small to provide a reliable profile

 

[otto]

"Amanda Knox's appeal against her conviction for murdering Meredith Kercher has received fresh impetus after an independent forensic review ruled that there was so little of her DNA on the alleged murder weapon that it cannot be retested.

...

But Manuela Comodi, one of the prosecutors in the trial, said: "There's nothing new and there are no surprises in this. They are the results we expected."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...eives-fresh-impetus-from-forensic-review.html

 

[Allusonz]

My understanding is that material was taken from the knife, but that it was too small to analyze. Do you have any English language media links to conclusions about the testing that is going on right now?

Since testing has already been done, and results have already been obtained, I would think that no additional material to test means the previous tests will be examined for accuracy.

I think the goal of the prosecution is to ensure that the correct people are convicted. I don't know if the absence of material for additional tests is a blow for those that pursue justice for victims of violence.

Here are 2 UK sites


Amanda Knox's appeal against her conviction for murdering Meredith Kercher has received fresh impetus after an independent forensic review ruled that there was so little of her DNA on the alleged murder weapon that it cannot be retested

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...eives-fresh-impetus-from-forensic-review.html

Amanda Knox has been given fresh hope in her murder appeal after DNA tests on a knife by independent experts ‘proved to be insufficient to convict’.

The examinations were part of a review granted earlier this year by an Italian appeal court judge


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ts-knife-proved-insufficient-convict-her.html

 

[otto]

Doesn't it seem funny that now, when a second set of DNA material is not available on objects that have already been tested, people conclude that it was never there in the first place? I can't remember another case where DNA was obtained, tested, and when a second set was not available ... it was decided that it was never there. Usually the conclusion is that all the DNA was used in the first test (that has been said in this case), or that it is too degraded for further analysis (that seems to be true in this case as well).

Can we really conclude that there was never any DNA because a second test is not possible? I think a lot of people convicted on the basis of DNA would like to have second tests performed 4+ years after the crime to see if a second test will confirm the first. If there is not enough DNA for re-testing, should all of those convicted people be released and exonnerated?

 

[Allusonz]

Doesn't it seem funny that now, when a second set of DNA material is not available on objects that have already been tested, people conclude that it was never there in the first place? I can't remember another case where DNA was obtained, tested, and when a second set was not available ... it was decided that it was never there. Usually the conclusion is that all the DNA was used in the first test (that has been said in this case), or that it is too degraded for further analysis (that seems to be true in this case as well).

Can we really conclude that there was never any DNA because a second test is not possible? I think a lot of people convicted on the basis of DNA would like to have second tests performed 4+ years after the crime to see if a second test will confirm the first. If there is not enough DNA for re-testing, should all of those convicted people be released and exonnerated?

I think to be honest this goes back to the previous discussions. When you get a too low reading it means that there is insufficient material to test for a valid profile and Stephanoni over-rode the machine

I think I have stated often that I had issues to the way these tests were performed as they did not conform to accepted protocols/standards of DNA testing

Nothing is funny when a conviction hangs on very small amounts of biological material.

 

[otto]

I think to be honest this goes back to the previous discussions. When you get a too low reading it means that there is insufficient material to test for a valid profile and Stephanoni over-rode the machine

I think I have stated often that I had issues to the way these tests were performed as they did not conform to accepted protocols/standards of DNA testing

Nothing is funny when a conviction hangs on very small amounts of biological material.

The DNA quantity on the clasp was not too low for analysis, but the clasp is now deteriorated so further testing is not possible. Regarding the use of LNC DNA, it is accepted in the US, England and Italy, to name a few places. The LNC DNA results are a match to Meredith, and that is not disputed by the lawyers. I know that much is made of the LNC DNA by people that are unrelated to the case and who may not even be experts in any field (eg: "Bruce Fisher" seems to be an alias, so we don't know anything about his credentials), but the only point that is disputed in the court is contamination, not whether the LNC DNA sample belongs to Meredith.

I think it's funny-strange that anyone would conclude that when there is not enough DNA to perform a second test, the first one must be incorrect. Like I said, I would worry that everyone convicted on the basis of DNA would request a new trial using the argument that the DNA could be faulty (since contamination may have happened). That would clog up DNA labs and courts for years. Is that what people want to see happening in the US?

Also, there is quite a lot of circumstantial evidence to go along with the forensic evidence. There is still so much to explain - everything from the staged break in to footprints to lies and falsely accusing innocent people ... missing alibis. I don't see this conviction as hinging on the retesting of biological material. The prosecution is not surprised to have Dr Stefoni's statement that: "the material was exhausted in the first test" confirmed.

 

[otto]

It's unfortunate that the defense did not attend the first round of DNA testing. Both defense lawyers were invited to attend, and chose not to. Now they're keen to attend, but that may well be because it was already stated in court that there was no remaining DNA to test.

 

[Allusonz]

The DNA quantity on the clasp was not too low for analysis, but the clasp is now deteriorated so further testing is not possible. Regarding the use of LNC DNA, it is accepted in the US, England and Italy, to name a few places. The LNC DNA results are a match to Meredith, and that is not disputed by the lawyers. I know that much is made of the LNC DNA by people that are unrelated to the case and who may not even be experts in any field (eg: "Bruce Fisher" seems to be an alias, so we don't know anything about his credentials), but the only point that is disputed in the court is contamination, not whether the LNC DNA sample belongs to Meredith.

I think it's funny-strange that anyone would conclude that when there is not enough DNA to perform a second test, the first one must be incorrect. Like I said, I would worry that everyone convicted on the basis of DNA would request a new trial using the argument that the DNA could be faulty (since contamination may have happened). That would clog up DNA labs and courts for years. Is that what people want to see happening in the US?

Also, there is quite a lot of circumstantial evidence to go along with the forensic evidence. There is still so much to explain - everything from the staged break in to footprints to lies and falsely accusing innocent people ... missing alibis. I don't see this conviction as hinging on the retesting of biological material. The prosecution is not surprised to have Dr Stefoni's statement that: "the material was exhausted in the first test" confirmed.

Again I want it understood that I have not seen the reports of the experts with respect to this post

We were told in trial testimony that there was sufficient DNA on the bra clasp for retesting but the reports that are being leaked are stating the opposite that in fact it was very low amounts of DNA on the bra clasp itself and now it appears they did not store the bra clasp properly

LCN DNA is very controversial. You and I will simply have to agree to disagree on this and to my knowledge there are only a few places worldwide that are certified to do LCN DNA testing as it cannot be done in a regular DNA laboratory

If the experts are saying that it is too low to get a profile it is simply to low even in LCN DNA testing as there are so many variables. One of the biggest variables is the number of picograms. If you are dealing with 3 or 4 picograms i do not believe you can get a reliable result even in LCN DNA.

I do not understand what Bruce Fisher has to do with this discussion as he is not the 2 experts appointed by the court.

My understanding Otto is that it is also part of the experts mandate to review the DNA testing and to give their opinion on it. Contamination is an issue but it is not the only issue as I have pointed out.

If the experts are adhering to accepted standards and protocols and are indeed stating that there is not enough DNA to test then maybe there are problems with the original testing. I think we will have to wait until the experts present their findings. I must point out though that many experts have been stating this very thing for some time now

As for the break-in, footprints these are very well things that may be reviewed at this point i simply do not know. I think you know i don't agree it was a staged breakin. I as well have expressed my view quite different with respect to the footprints etc.

I have said that I did not believe that ILE had forensically analyzed this crime scene properly from the start.

I also have posted that she was arrested prior to the forensics being returned, in fact to the point that some of it had not even been collected. It was bragged where it states that she was arrested for sobbing uncontrolably, doing a la mosa movement with her hips and eating pizza at 3:00pm in the afternoon with RS. My post on this is back a few pages and as well there is the youtube conversation in which this is stated

 

[otto]

The person using the alias of "Bruce Fisher" is that guy from a link that you posted several times (the picture of the knife). He claimed to be an expert and criticized the DNA testing and court testimony. He stated that all labs release testing details. I disagreed and posted the Nature magazine article that contradicts what "Bruce Fisher" said. He is one of the people that was referenced as an "expert" in our discussions. Do you now agree that he is not an expert, that he isn't using a real name, and that there is no way to determine his credentials?

The bra clasp didn't use LNC DNA. I think we all know that. It was never said that there was enough DNA for retesting of the bra clasp. What was said was that the DNA on the knife was LNC DNA, and that the clasp DNA was ample for testing (not LNC DNA). As it turns out, the clasp has deteriorated, and so has the DNA. That does not mean that there was or was not enough for retesting, but that no further tests can be done.

Is it true that if DNA cannot be retested, then all previous tests should be excluded?

Who bragged that Amanda was arrested because she cried and ate pizza?

 

[Allusonz]

It's unfortunate that the defense did not attend the first round of DNA testing. Both defense lawyers were invited to attend, and chose not to. Now they're keen to attend, but that may well be because it was already stated in court that there was no remaining DNA to test.

The defense was given 2 hours notice and the DNA experts, some of whom were not in Rome could not make it in time. I have asked why such short notice as the DNA was not going anywhere. The other thing that was also pointed out is that many times DNA is collected prior to a suspect being arrested, thus the .fsa files are normally released so that the defense can review the validity of the results. The prosecution continually refused to release all the .fsa files even after being ordered to do so by the Court

 

[Allusonz]

The person using the alias of "Bruce Fisher" is that guy from a link that you posted several times (the picture of the knife). He claimed to be an expert and criticized the DNA testing and court testimony. He stated that all labs release testing details. I disagreed and posted the Nature magazine article that contradicts what "Bruce Fisher" said. He is one of the people that was referenced as an "expert" in our discussions. Do you now agree that he is not an expert, that he isn't using a real name, and that there is no way to determine his credentials?

Contamination is what was alleged in court, and therefore there is an evaluation of the testing. If the appeal judge said something different
The bra clasp didn't use LNC DNA. I think we all know that. It was never said that there was enough DNA for retesting of the bra clasp. What was said was that the DNA on the knife was LNC DNA, and that the clasp DNA was ample for testing (not LNC DNA). As it turns out, the clasp has deteriorated, and so has the DNA. That does not mean that there was or was not enough for retesting, but that no further tests can be done.

Who bragged that Amanda was arrested because she cried and ate pizza?

I post from a number of sites and I understand that you are not particular fond of them. I do not believe I have ever posted anything scientifically written by him and I truly do not know what his credentials are.

I will post the DNA expert reviews etc., but to my knowledge they are not Bruce Fisher.

Actually this is not about this individual this is about finding justice of 2 individuals that I believe were wrongly convicted. It is no different if it is the WM3 etc. I have followed these cases for some time but i do not always post on all of them but I do keep myself informed as I believe there is not sufficent evidence to have convicted them. Again though that is MOO

 

[otto]

I'm interested in justice for Meredith Kercher. At this time, I see Amanda and Raffaele as being responsible for her murder. Justice for people convicted of murder has never been something that interested me.

 

[Monzoo]

Doesn't it seem funny that now, when a second set of DNA material is not available on objects that have already been tested, people conclude that it was never there in the first place? I can't remember another case where DNA was obtained, tested, and when a second set was not available ... it was decided that it was never there. Usually the conclusion is that all the DNA was used in the first test (that has been said in this case), or that it is too degraded for further analysis (that seems to be true in this case as well).

Can we really conclude that there was never any DNA because a second test is not possible? I think a lot of people convicted on the basis of DNA would like to have second tests performed 4+ years after the crime to see if a second test will confirm the first. If there is not enough DNA for re-testing, should all of those convicted people be released and exonnerated?

It is my belief that this is a problem for the prosecution.

The reason we hold scientific testing with such high regard is that it is supposed to be reproducable. Forensic standards are that a certain quantity of the material tested (I don't remember if it 1/4 or 1/3) should be reserved in order to allow retesting.

We already know that the evidence from the knife blade was in such small quantities that it was all used in the original test, not leaving the possibility of a retest. If I remember correctly, the quantity of material left on the handle was described as "abundant". If the independent expert cannot reproduce the prosecution's tests, that could be a very big problem.

The idea that the bra clasp was allowed to rust while in storage is yet another deep problem as far as I am concerned.

We don't convict people because we think they might have done it. Ideally, we convict only those who have been proven to commit a crime beyond a resonable doubt. Compromised evidence is resonable doubt, IMO.

 

[otto]

It is my belief that this is a problem for the prosecution.

The reason we hold scientific testing with such high regard is that it is supposed to be reproducable. Forensic standards are that a certain quantity of the material tested (I don't remember if it 1/4 or 1/3) should be reserved in order to allow retesting.

We already know that the evidence from the knife blade was in such small quantities that it was all used in the original test, not leaving the possibility of a retest. If I remember correctly, the quantity of material left on the handle was described as "abundant". If the independent expert cannot reproduce the prosecution's tests, that could be a very big problem.

The idea that the bra clasp was allowed to rust while in storage is yet another deep problem as far as I am concerned.

We don't convict people because we think they might have done it. Ideally, we convict only those who have been proven to commit a crime beyond a resonable doubt. Compromised evidence is resonable doubt, IMO.

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?

 

[Nova]

"Frequent visitor" ... interesting choice of words. Amanda Knox had met Rudy at the bar, in the square, and at a small party in the downstairs flat in the cottage. That means they met three times. IIRC, your conclusion was that they hadn't really met. Raffaele had been to the cottage three times as far as I know, and in this instance three times means a frequent visitor. In light of this, would that mean that Rudy and Amanda had met frequently, or would it mean that Raffaele had not really been to the cottage?

This may be a problem of semantics, but I don't believe the evidence is that AK "met" RG three times. I think she "met" him once and saw him in passing a couple of times.

If RS had only been to the cottage three times, then you are correct, "frequent" is an overstatement. Since you and others have said he and AK were virtually glued at the hip from the moment they met, I assumed RS had been to the cottage more times in the week he knew AK.

But let's remember that DNA can be transferred by secondary sources. So AK's close interaction with RS for that week may mean that she brought quite a bit of his DNA home with her.

So I'll amend "frequent" to "occasional." Happy? It's still no great mystery that his DNA should be found there.

We don't actually know that proper testing protocols were not followed. I believe that the protocols and testing is what is being reviewed by experts during appeal. I don't think the court if overlooking a review of the DNA analysis in light of the appeal.

I'll admit I haven't read every page of testimony and have relied on what you and others say. But I believe it was demonstrated that no other knives from RS' drawer were tested. We know the bra clasp was passed around, and that other objects were shoved under MK's bed.

What pressures are on the Italian courts to find Knox and Sollecito guilty?

As someone who likes to refer to AK as "the American woman," I think you know the answer to that question as well as I do.

But I admit "political pressure" is an intangible force that can't usually be proven unless somebody speaks up and says they were coerced. So until and unless that happens, it will have to remain merely my opinion that after the fuss in the press, the judges and jury were and are under pressure to find AK (and by association, RS) guilty.