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

[Nova]

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 believe it is quite common for the defense to want to do their own testing, rather than just taking the word of the lab chosen and paid by the prosecution.

And I think you can find any number of cases where it was considered problematic that prosecution testing obliterated all traces of DNA from the object in question. How courts deal with the problem varies.

ETA: Monzoo says all this better than I in his/her last post above.

 

[Monzoo]

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?

If the DNA evidence is declared to be unreliable, then the prosecution will have to rely on the other evidence that they assert proves their case. Since the stardard is beyond a resonable doubt, even in Italy, I don't believe that they can prove their case.

In the question of Rudy, my belief is consistent. If he could throw doubt on the forensics used against him, he could have those pieces of evidence thrown out. Personally, I believe he did commit this murder. However the prosecution must still prove their case. If they don't have sufficient evidence because ILE was sloppy in evidence handling and testing, then that is the prosecution's problem. (I have no idea what kind of chance he would have since his appeals have been exhausted. I confess that I have not studied the evidence aainst RG, and have no solid opinion on how strong it is.)

I would rather a murderer be set free than an innocent person jailed.

 

[otto]

If the DNA evidence is declared to be unreliable, then the prosecution will have to rely on the other evidence that they assert proves their case. Since the stardard is beyond a resonable doubt, even in Italy, I don't believe that they can prove their case.

In the question of Rudy, my belief is consistent. If he could throw doubt on the forensics used against him, he could have those pieces of evidence thrown out. Personally, I believe he did commit this murder. However the prosecution must still prove their case. If they don't have sufficient evidence because ILE was sloppy in evidence handling and testing, then that is the prosecution's problem. (I have no idea what kind of chance he would have since his appeals have been exhausted. I confess that I have not studied the evidence aainst RG, and have no solid opinion on how strong it is.)

I would rather a murderer be set free than an innocent person jailed.

I would rather see justice for Meredith than see three people wiggle out of a conviction because DNA tests confirming their participation in the murder were only performed once.

 

[Monzoo]

I would rather see justice for Meredith than see three people wiggle out of a conviction because DNA tests confirming their participation in the murder were only performed once.

This sounds like you think that your opinion on whether they did it is more important than the judicial principle of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I disagree. (Are you surprised?)

To me, we can only have true justice if we hold ourselves to our principles.

 

[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?

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?

Are you stating that Dr. Greg Hampikian of the Idaho Innocence Project, DNA Expert etc. is Bruce Fisher?

Could I have a cite please

Is this the video of which you are speaking?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vEFPZgW9HA

 

[dgfred]

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

Is there a valid cite for this post that we could see?

 

[dgfred]

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.

It was freely admitted in the beginning that all the material was used up in the first testing done on the knife.

I don't recall anything about 'abundant' material left on the handle. The handle has not been taken apart. Is there a link for that we could see?

I agree that the bra-clasp deterioration is troubling, but I'm not sure if we have the all the facts yet. And if the original testing is ruled as valid and reliable by the 're-testers', wouldn't it be just as bad for the defense?

Is it 'compromised' evidence' anyway if the original testing is valid?
Or is it now because it is not possible to re-test it?

Does a small piece of a large puzzle (the case) mean the whole case is thrown away?

Is 'reasonable doubt' the same in Italian law as we know it here in the US?
Is that looked at in the original trial or at appeal... or both?

Should someone already convicted be 'let off' at the appeal level because original testing on small amounts of material can not be re-tested? Would this be considered a technicality?

If the original testing is found valid and reliable by those re-testing, as it has already by some of the top forensic people in Italy would that be 'enough'???

 

[minazoe]

It was freely admitted in the beginning that all the material was used up in the first testing done on the knife.

I don't recall anything about 'abundant' material left on the handle. The handle has not been taken apart. Is there a link for that we could see?

I agree that the bra-clasp deterioration is troubling, but I'm not sure if we have the all the facts yet. And if the original testing is ruled as valid and reliable by the 're-testers', wouldn't it be just as bad for the defense?

Is it 'compromised' evidence' anyway if the original testing is valid?
Or is it now because it is not possible to re-test it?

Does a small piece of a large puzzle (the case) mean the whole case is thrown away?

Is 'reasonable doubt' the same in Italian law as we know it here in the US?
Is that looked at in the original trial or at appeal... or both?

Should someone already convicted be 'let off' at the appeal level because original testing on small amounts of material can not be re-tested? Would this be considered a technicality?

If the original testing is found valid and reliable by those re-testing, as it has already by some of the top forensic people in Italy would that be 'enough'???

would it be enough? no...because this is an appeal...so they will re question the evidence and have the right to re-test...the evidence could be thrown out in the sense that there is not enough or it is known to be corrupted so it is not reliable. right? so while it doesnt prove innocence it cant prove guilt beyond reason in an appeal.

I think....

 

[dgfred]

IMO 'not enough' to re-test is WORLDS away from 'corrupted'... depending on what definition of corrupted is used. It also would not change the validity of the first testing.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Knox Files Lawsuit Over Lifetime Movie
http://www.fancast.com/blogs/2011/t...awsuit-over-lifetime-movie/?cmpid=FCST_tvnews

TV News
‘Devastated’ Amanda Knox Sues Over Lifetime Movie
by Tracy Phillips
Mar 24th, 2011 | 6:01 PM | Comments 0
Convicted killer Amanda Knox filed a lawsuit Thursday in Italian court against a TV movie she claims “exploited” her, according to the New York Post.

Knox’s legal team is trying to prevent the international distribution of the Lifetime movie “Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy,” which starred Hayden Panettiere and aired on Lifetime in February...

 

[Allusonz]

Is there a valid cite for this post that we could see?

the defense was given only a few hours of notification, yet Rome is a considerable drive from Perugia (in addition to the defense having other responsibilities).
This argument also ignores the fact that several of the experts from the defense only came aboard long after the testing was over. It is absurd to contend that they should be denied free access to the data.

However, another problem with this argument is that it assumes that observing the testing is really that critical in the first place

http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/search?q=dna+disclosure


According to Amanda’s stepfather Chris Mellas, the defense team had asked for the DNA forensic data (this would be expected to include the electronic files and machine logs) but was told that they did not exist. Then the defense learned that the Kercher family’s lawyer had some of this information and demanded that the judge order the release of the data in the summer of 2009

‘Our lawyers asked for everything, every file and record relating to the forensic testing. We were given some of the stuff, like what was on Meredith's shoes or a juice glass but not the full reports on the knife used or the bra-clasp.’ Deputy prosecutor Manuela Comodi brushed off the request for all forensic documentation and added: ‘They have everything they need. That is enough.’” Ms. Comodi’s words imply that the defense did not receive everything, just what the prosecution claims is enough.

http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/04/prosecutions-failure-to-release.html

ETA This is also well documented in the appeals for both RS and AK

 

[dgfred]

Anything at all from a valid sourse besides AK's stepfather or a known FOA blogger?

I call not having all the files needed false.
I call the prosecution refusing to release files when ordered by the court false.
I call not having notice for the testing false.

'well documented at appeals' means nothing IMO as the appeal is what the defense is arguing... not fact. And has yet to be looked at during the appeal so far.

 

[Allusonz]

Anything at all from a valid sourse besides AK's stepfather or a known FOA blogger?

I call not having all the files needed false.
I call the prosecution refusing to release files when ordered by the court false.
I call not having notice for the testing false.

'well documented at appeals' means nothing IMO as the appeal is what the defense is arguing... not fact. And has yet to be looked at during the appeal so far.

Sure fred read the appeals, or the hearing docs pertaining to this as there were enough formal requests. There is even the Court Order to the prosecution telling them to release them all it is all there for you to read

 

[dgfred]

Yes and they turned over all needed information as the courts requested.

Maybe someone else needs to re-read.

So basically what you stated was something from the step-father and a FOA blogger...
not exactly 'valid' cites that were asked for IMO.

 

[Allusonz]

Yes and they turned over all needed information as the courts requested.

Maybe someone else needs to re-read.

So basically what you stated was something from the step-father and a FOA blogger...
not exactly 'valid' cites that were asked for IMO.

I think not google is a great search tool

The issue is complicated by the revelation, about two months ago, that the police withheld some DNA evidence from the defense.

"It seems to be details of the DNA evidence that was not given to everybody because the prosecutor says they don't normally release such details in any trial," Wise explains. "But Raffaele Sollecito's lawyer objected, and they were ordered to produce this extra evidence that was produced over the summer."

http://www.kpic.com/news/national/59176217.html

a) That independent forensic experts examine the DNA evidence used to convict them and for the withheld electronic data files, instrument logs and control tests be released to the defense

http://salem-news.com/articles/november042010/amandaknox.php

 

[otto]

Is anyone watching the controversy over the Meredith Kercher wikipedia article? It seems that Bruce Fisher and 144 of his followers on his blog have petitioned to change the content of the article (http://www.westseattleherald.com/2011/03/23/news/wikipedia-founder-jimbo-wales-reviews-page-about-). It's quite a debate. Bruce Fisher (injustice in perugia blog) is trying to have Barbie Nadeau's book viewed as tabloid gossip, and his book viewed as credible. I found these comments from Bruce Fisher and Jim Wales (wikipedia founder) to be interesting:

Bruce Fisher: "Barbie Latza Nadeau is certainly not a credible source. She is also not an expert. I am not asking to be listed as a credible source. I am simply asking for the book list to reflect the actual books that are currently in print. Barbie Latza Nadeau is a tabloid journalist published by the a tabloid publisher."

Jim Wales: "For the second book, I am unable to find a proper biography of Bruce Fisher at all, but that may be my own failing. Perhaps he is an established expert whose work is relevant, but I see no evidence of it yet.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher

It will be interesting to see how the dust settles. A number of wikipedia editors have quit because of the controversy.

 

[dgfred]

Oh well, IMO everyone that cares enough to investigate logically can see that the information is not valid.

No proof whatsoever that files were NOT given at the times when requested in court.

'POLICE' withheld evidence is NOT valid either. We were speaking of the prosecution and they did NOT fail to give the defense any necessary files.

Still NO cite regarding the '2 hours notice' claim about the testing either. Also NO SUPPORT for the claim of 'refusing' to turn over evidence files.

IMO these statements should not even be allowed to remain here. But, I also understand why they will.

For someone seeking the truth... it is a strange way to sway others to 'your side' using disingenerous debating and misinformation.

 

[otto]

Knox Files Lawsuit Over Lifetime Movie
http://www.fancast.com/blogs/2011/t...awsuit-over-lifetime-movie/?cmpid=FCST_tvnews

TV News
‘Devastated’ Amanda Knox Sues Over Lifetime Movie
by Tracy Phillips
Mar 24th, 2011 | 6:01 PM | Comments 0
Convicted killer Amanda Knox filed a lawsuit Thursday in Italian court against a TV movie she claims “exploited” her, according to the New York Post.

Knox’s legal team is trying to prevent the international distribution of the Lifetime movie “Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy,” which starred Hayden Panettiere and aired on Lifetime in February...

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

 

[otto]

the defense was given only a few hours of notification, yet Rome is a considerable drive from Perugia (in addition to the defense having other responsibilities).
This argument also ignores the fact that several of the experts from the defense only came aboard long after the testing was over. It is absurd to contend that they should be denied free access to the data.

However, another problem with this argument is that it assumes that observing the testing is really that critical in the first place

http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/search?q=dna+disclosure


According to Amanda’s stepfather Chris Mellas, the defense team had asked for the DNA forensic data (this would be expected to include the electronic files and machine logs) but was told that they did not exist. Then the defense learned that the Kercher family’s lawyer had some of this information and demanded that the judge order the release of the data in the summer of 2009

‘Our lawyers asked for everything, every file and record relating to the forensic testing. We were given some of the stuff, like what was on Meredith's shoes or a juice glass but not the full reports on the knife used or the bra-clasp.’ Deputy prosecutor Manuela Comodi brushed off the request for all forensic documentation and added: ‘They have everything they need. That is enough.’” Ms. Comodi’s words imply that the defense did not receive everything, just what the prosecution claims is enough.

http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/04/prosecutions-failure-to-release.html

ETA This is also well documented in the appeals for both RS and AK

So is there a valid citation confirming that defense were not given an opportunity to have experts attend the DNA analysis?

 

[Nova]

I would rather see justice for Meredith than see three people wiggle out of a conviction because DNA tests confirming their participation in the murder were only performed once.

Well, on that subject, what is to keep any prosecutor from simply announcing that DNA incriminating the defendant was found on a murder weapon, but--oh, so sorry!--all the DNA was used up in the testing? All a prosecutor needs is one lab worker whose job may depend on a favorable relationship with the D.A.

Where are the checks and balances if prosecutors are simply allowed to swear to the existence of "invisible" evidence that can't be confirmed by anyone else?

(And before somebody tells me prosecutors and lab workers simply don't do such things, let me point out that judicial systems (in Italy and the U.S.) are full of rules created precisely because some prosecutors and their experts have proven to be corrupt in the past.)