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

[Nova]

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.

And you have no problem with the prosecutor deciding what the defense needs and what it doesn't?

Or is it that you yourself have some way of deciding what the defense needs? I ask because you also insist the defense has "any necessary files".

I think we all get that you are willing to take the prosecutors' words at face value. That doesn't make anything Allusonz has posted disingenuous.

 

[Nova]

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

Well, it wouldn't happen in the U.S. But Italy seems very fond of libel, slander and perjury charges, so who knows what may be possible over there?

 

[Nova]

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

I see nothing wrong with Allusonz' citation. The blogger names his source, AK's stepfather, and everyone is free to believe him or not.

Personally, I have no independent opinion on the stepfather's credibility, but given the way the prosecutor(s) behaved in other instances (not to mention another case), I have no problem believing insufficient notice was given to the defense.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Just posted on my Comcast homepage:

http://www9.comcast.net/articles/news-world-europe/20110325/EU.Italy.Knox/

Knox trial: Experts find low DNA in review
By ALESSANDRA RIZZO, AP
5 hours ago

PERUGIA, Italy — Independent forensic experts reviewing evidence in Amanda Knox's appeals trial have found very low traces of DNA on the knife allegedly used in the murder of her roommate, possibly too small to determine in a retest whether the American's DNA was on it, news reports and a lawyer said Friday.

If confirmed, the finding could boost Knox's chances of having her murder conviction overturned. However, defense lawyers were cautious in their reaction, and an attorney representing the victim's family said the finding had been expected and that even low DNA traces might be analyzed...

 

[Nova]

Just posted on my Comcast homepage:

http://www9.comcast.net/articles/news-world-europe/20110325/EU.Italy.Knox/

Knox trial: Experts find low DNA in review
By ALESSANDRA RIZZO, AP
5 hours ago

PERUGIA, Italy — Independent forensic experts reviewing evidence in Amanda Knox's appeals trial have found very low traces of DNA on the knife allegedly used in the murder of her roommate, possibly too small to determine in a retest whether the American's DNA was on it, news reports and a lawyer said Friday.

If confirmed, the finding could boost Knox's chances of having her murder conviction overturned. However, defense lawyers were cautious in their reaction, and an attorney representing the victim's family said the finding had been expected and that even low DNA traces might be analyzed...

Thank you.

And, yes, the prosecution's position seems to be, "We used up all the DNA on the knife, so just take our word for what was there."

 

[Allusonz]

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.

Interview with Dr. Greg Hampikian, Director of the Idaho Innocence Project, Forensic DNA Expert, consultant to AK defense, dated JANUARY 24, 2011 states that the prosecution has not given the defense all the information requested. If the written word is hard to understand maybe it will be simplier to hear it

Otto as well I still await your cite that Dr. Greg Hampikian is Bruce Fisher

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

 

[dgfred]

And you have no problem with the prosecutor deciding what the defense needs and what it doesn't?

Or is it that you yourself have some way of deciding what the defense needs? I ask because you also insist the defense has "any necessary files".

I think we all get that you are willing to take the prosecutors' words at face value. That doesn't make anything Allusonz has posted disingenuous.

Is that the facts as you understand them? Yeah, I decide :crazy: :floorlaugh:

Did the prosecutor decide what the defense 'needed' or did they turn over ALL information that was requested by the court??? THAT is what is being questioned as disingenuous!

No amount of twisting the statement, as is being done now, can HIDE the fact that these 'claims' by A are not the facts of the case.

***Where is it stated as a 'fact' of the trial that the prosecution did not turn over all required files WHEN REQUESTED BY THE COURTS?

***Where is it stated as a 'fact' that the defense was given '2 hours notice' of the upcoming testing?

***Where is it stated as a 'fact' that the prosecution 'REFUSED' to turn over required files?

Can these 3 questions be answered truthfully then all who read here can form their own opinion regarding what is 'genuous' or not??????

 

[dgfred]

Interview with Dr. Greg Hampikian, Director of the Idaho Innocence Project, Forensic DNA Expert, consultant to AK defense, dated JANUARY 24, 2011 states that the prosecution has not given the defense all the information requested. If the written word is hard to understand maybe it will be simplier to hear it

Otto as well I still await your cite that Dr. Greg Hampikian is Bruce Fisher

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

Your snarkiness is noted both in this post and the last... but I realize why you are resorting to this because your 'proof' is so weak and you really have zero argument worth debating regarding these accusations.

 

[otto]

I see nothing wrong with Allusonz' citation. The blogger names his source, AK's stepfather, and everyone is free to believe him or not.

Personally, I have no independent opinion on the stepfather's credibility, but given the way the prosecutor(s) behaved in other instances (not to mention another case), I have no problem believing insufficient notice was given to the defense.

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.

 

[dgfred]

I see nothing wrong with Allusonz' citation. The blogger names his source, AK's stepfather, and everyone is free to believe him or not.

Personally, I have no independent opinion on the stepfather's credibility, but given the way the prosecutor(s) behaved in other instances (not to mention another case), I have no problem believing insufficient notice was given to the defense.

Ah, easy to see why you doubt the evidence then IMO.

 

[otto]

Interview with Dr. Greg Hampikian, Director of the Idaho Innocence Project, Forensic DNA Expert, consultant to AK defense, dated JANUARY 24, 2011 states that the prosecution has not given the defense all the information requested. If the written word is hard to understand maybe it will be simplier to hear it

Otto as well I still await your cite that Dr. Greg Hampikian is Bruce Fisher

He isn't. He's a biologist. See Nature article on DNA analysis for accurate info.

I'm really sick with the flu right now, and can't think straight, so all the pseudo experts have blurred together in my head as one faceless, nameless, talking head.

Bruce Fisher (alias) is the guy with the injustice in perugia blog ... a self-published guy that is afraid to use his own name even on the cover of a book.

 

[sherlockh]

Just posted on my Comcast homepage:

http://www9.comcast.net/articles/news-world-europe/20110325/EU.Italy.Knox/

Knox trial: Experts find low DNA in review
By ALESSANDRA RIZZO, AP
5 hours ago

PERUGIA, Italy — Independent forensic experts reviewing evidence in Amanda Knox's appeals trial have found very low traces of DNA on the knife allegedly used in the murder of her roommate, possibly too small to determine in a retest whether the American's DNA was on it, news reports and a lawyer said Friday.

If confirmed, the finding could boost Knox's chances of having her murder conviction overturned. However, defense lawyers were cautious in their reaction, and an attorney representing the victim's family said the finding had been expected and that even low DNA traces might be analyzed...

Thanks for the link. I am actually surprised they found anything at all on the knife. I have seen Stefanoni often ridiculed and accused of lab contamination. It seems to me that this makes it less likely that Stefanoni was hallucinating or contaminating the machine. Of course, it would be worse for the defense if they identified more DNA of Meredith, but I am not sure if they finished testing it yet? Other then that I don't think there is a rule that single tested DNA should be omitted as evidence in a trial. If there is then so be it. If not, then just submit it with the footnote that it could only be single tested. The judges then can put a lighter weight to the evidence. Is that not how it works?

 

[JBean]

Your snarkiness is noted both in this post and the last... but I realize why you are resorting to this because your 'proof' is so weak and you really have zero argument worth debating regarding these accusations.

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.

 

[dgfred]

Yeah, I can take it. Only when one sides post are edited and the other's is not is when it can get quite frustrating. What about legitimate cites/links for accusations made in post... are they required in this thread?

 

[dgfred]

Thanks for the link. I am actually surprised they found anything at all on the knife. I have seen Stefanoni often ridiculed and accused of lab contamination. It seems to me that this makes it less likely that Stefanoni was hallucinating or contaminating the machine. Of course, it would be worse for the defense if they identified more DNA of Meredith, but I am not sure if they finished testing it yet? Other then that I don't think there is a rule that single tested DNA should be omitted as evidence in a trial. If there is then so be it. If not, then just submit it with the footnote that it could only be single tested. The judges then can put a lighter weight to the evidence. Is that not how it works?

Stefanoni admitted at trial there was little to test in the first place and it was used up. So no suprise there was none for re-testing.
That is a part of the debate here, should the first testing be found as valid and reliable will that be considered 'enough'? I believe your are correct about the 'weight' the judges can put to different pieces of evidence in Italy.

 

[JBean]

Yeah, I can take it. Only when one sides post are edited and the other's is not is when it can get quite frustrating. What about legitimate cites/links for accusations made in post... are they required in this thread?

Just alert on any posts that you feel they have been moderated unfairly. More than happy to take a look at them.

From what I have read in this thread it seems you all have made pretty sound decisions on your own as to what links and sites you each determine to be reliable. Trying to give you some room to freely discuss as much as possible without much interference. Give the sites as much weight as you think they deserve.

 

[otto]

Interview with Dr. Greg Hampikian, Director of the Idaho Innocence Project, Forensic DNA Expert, consultant to AK defense, dated JANUARY 24, 2011 states that the prosecution has not given the defense all the information requested. If the written word is hard to understand maybe it will be simplier to hear it

Otto as well I still await your cite that Dr. Greg Hampikian is Bruce Fisher

I feel like I'm in a deja vu moment ... The defense has their experts at the ongoing evaluation of the DNA results. Everything that was perceived to be wrong will be set right before May 9 ... and it is still unlikely that whatever internal testing methods that were used will be introduced in court. It was Hampkipian that said test methods are normally introduced in court, and that isn't true (http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/464347a.html).

 

[otto]

Thank you.

And, yes, the prosecution's position seems to be, "We used up all the DNA on the knife, so just take our word for what was there."

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

 

[otto]

Stefanoni admitted at trial there was little to test in the first place and it was used up. So no suprise there was none for re-testing.
That is a part of the debate here, should the first testing be found as valid and reliable will that be considered 'enough'? I believe your are correct about the 'weight' the judges can put to different pieces of evidence in Italy.

The obvious point that seems to be repeatedly overlooked is that the knife and clasp are only two pieces of evidence. There is still so much evidence to overcome after this.

 

[Nova]

a

Is that the facts as you understand them? Yeah, I decide :crazy: :floorlaugh:

Did the prosecutor decide what the defense 'needed' or did they turn over ALL information that was requested by the court??? THAT is what is being questioned as disingenuous!

No amount of twisting the statement, as is being done now, can HIDE the fact that these 'claims' by A are not the facts of the case.

***Where is it stated as a 'fact' of the trial that the prosecution did not turn over all required files WHEN REQUESTED BY THE COURTS?

***Where is it stated as a 'fact' that the defense was given '2 hours notice' of the upcoming testing?

***Where is it stated as a 'fact' that the prosecution 'REFUSED' to turn over required files?

Can these 3 questions be answered truthfully then all who read here can form their own opinion regarding what is 'genuous' or not??????

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.