PDA

View Full Version : Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #16


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Salem
07-22-2011, 06:28 PM
Guys - please settle down and act like grow ups. You know the rules. Attack the post - not the poster. Follow the TOS, found here: The Rules - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Pay particular attention to this thread about dealing with your fellow posters: Best Practices Dealing with your fellow posters - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


Thanks,

Salem

Thread 15

SMK
07-22-2011, 07:24 PM
So I guess this Monday July 25 is the last court date of the appeal, before the fall verdict. Wonder what will be said.......

emyr
07-22-2011, 10:07 PM
As an "objective" test, I showed my husband the footprints and told him he could bet me $0, $1, $5, or $20, if he could guess which one was right. He bet me $1 and guessed it was Rudy's. Then I said he might be right or he might be wrong, but now I'd show him the measurements instead of just the pictures, and he could bet again. He thought about it, and stated aloud he thought his first bet was wrong, and it was probably RS's. I said he could bet $1 and break even either way or he could double down. He declined to bet.

He also told me to stop goofing around on the internet.

I would also like to second that I enjoy having fred and otto to talk with. I find the debate interesting and I'm glad they have stuck around.

SkewedView
07-23-2011, 01:34 AM
Stripping away the details of the bathmat debate, what it really comes down to is that (bare) footprint analysis is in the subjective, 'soft forensics' category (the same grouping as hair and fiber analysis - note that shoe prints are closer to the objective, 'hard forensics' category, like tire track analysis). What that means is that the analysis (or interpretation as many journal articles more accurately refer to the process) of bare prints is much more of an art than a science, and is generally viewed by the wider forensics community (as well as the archeological community) as being 'unreliable' as evidence. The reason for this state of affairs is the large number of variable factors that can have a large impact on the print left behind as someone moves about - most of which cannot be determined in real world scenarios through anything but sheer guesswork.

The good news is that there is a lot of work being done to try to come up with reliable methods of analysis. The bad news, however, is that at the moment there is no standard method, a sorry situation for something that has been used in courtrooms for decades now. Sure, cases have been decided on such weak evidence, but then, the same can be said for 'he's black, and witness x saw a generically described black man running from the scene'. :sick:

Sonata
07-23-2011, 08:44 AM
AK, RS and all their loved ones must be going mad in anticipation of the final hearing this Monday.

I can't even begin to imagine the stress and nerves.

SMK
07-23-2011, 09:50 AM
AK, RS and all their loved ones must be going mad in anticipation of the final hearing this Monday.

I can't even begin to imagine the stress and nerves.Agreed. This court discussion on Monday will really be the closing arguments on both sides before the Sept./Oct. verdict, August being simply some extension of those arguments if needed, if I have understood correctly.

This is really down to the wire now, and I am eager to see what comes out in the press on Monday.

SMK
07-23-2011, 10:01 AM
Here is a synopsis of what should be the general court discussion on Monday. Too bad it is a dreadful, horrible as usual Google Translation:

PERUGIA - will battle on Monday, July 25 from genetic findings in the appeal trial with Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, 25 and sentenced to 26 years in prison for the murder of Meredith Kercher . . . Prosecution and civil action, lawyers for the victim's family, it will try by all means to counter the results of the survey ordered by the Court that questioned the results of investigations carried out by forensic genetic.

One of the cornerstones, if not the cornerstone, accusing the plant. Doubt, those expressed by the experts, that touch the "relic 36", considered the knife the weapon used to strike fatally Meredith Kercher in the throat, on which the science has isolated the genetic code of the victim and that of Knox on the blade on the handle. . .

Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti, the experts of the Assize Court of Appeal, after having excluded to repeat the analysis, according to the documents of investigation have found that these results "not credible" for the DNA of Sollecito and Kercher on the hook and the same British student on the blade of the knife seized at the home of Puglia (agreeing with the assignment rather than on the handle of the young Italian American girlfriend at the time and therefore often in the home). The experts have not ruled out further that the results are the result of contamination. In 145 pages filed on June 29 last year, experts have said that in the analysis of science "were not followed international procedures of inspection and collection protocols and sampling." "A sharp blow to the scientific evidence," he told the lawyer Luciano Ghirga, one of the defenders of Knox. http://www.leggo.it/articolo.php?id=132850&sez=ITALIA

Allusonz
07-23-2011, 10:02 AM
Agreed. This court discussion on Monday will really be the closing arguments on both sides before the Sept./Oct. verdict, August being simply some extension of those arguments if needed, if I have understood correctly.

This is really down to the wire now, and I am eager to see what comes out in the press on Monday.

This is the part I truly hate. The judge has left open the possibility of examining other things such as TOD etc., thus this appeal could be much longer. They could also make a ruling either way. If they indeed find them guilty again then we would have another appeal at the supreme court level.

SMK
07-23-2011, 10:07 AM
This is the part I truly hate. The judge has left open the possibility of examining other things such as TOD etc., thus this appeal could be much longer. They could also make a ruling either way. If they indeed find them guilty again then we would have another appeal at the supreme court level.
Ah, I see. So they might continue on into August and September with the TOD, etc.? That might be good for the defense, actually. But I am assuming that either way, they will want the verdict by early October?

Yes, if the convictions stand, there will be one last appeal to the High Court. No more than that, correct? I think it would be a very inauspicious sign, though, if the convictions do stand. What is your gut feeling?

Allusonz
07-23-2011, 10:08 AM
@ Nova

Hey!! That slippery slope is only 90 degrees :giggle: I simply cannot imagine you in panty hose thus please don't shave your legs:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

Allusonz
07-23-2011, 10:11 AM
@ Fred

There is simply 6 years that have not been truly accounted for in his reduction. Although alot has been stated in the papers as to what this reduction was the result of there has been nothing formally presented from the Court. Otto has stated many times that Italy does not do deals and I happen to disagree with that. Whether it is a formal plea bargain or a back room deal there is something very strange about his sentence IMO

Sonata
07-23-2011, 10:11 AM
I kind of hope they do go into the TOD, that seems to me to be the best potential to disprove the prosecution at this point.

Allusonz
07-23-2011, 10:15 AM
As per RS's appeal, the Court used the wrong measurements in the Motivational Report. To simply try and ignore such a blatent error is wrong.

The fact is as SV has stated above and which the experts themsevles have said the footprint cannot be attributed to any one person due to the fact that it is a partial print on an uneven surface

Allusonz
07-23-2011, 10:20 AM
I kind of hope they do go into the TOD, that seems to me to be the best potential to disprove the prosecution at this point.

I do as well. I believe that with the computer times and the limited window for the TOD, it would rule them out with complete certainty. We know that RS was on the phone with his father at 8:42 for 3 1/2 minutes and that MK made a call home at 8:56. We also know that there is computer activity acknowledged by the Court till 9:10. According to RS's appeal there is also computer activity at 9:26 with the cartoon and other activity after that.

With the duodenum still empty there is simply no way her TOD could be past 9:30

Malkmus
07-23-2011, 10:24 AM
As per RS's appeal, the Court used the wrong measurements in the Motivational Report. To simply try and ignore such a blatent error is wrong.

The fact is as SV has stated above and which the experts themsevles have said the footprint cannot be attributed to any one person due to the fact that it is a partial print on an uneven surface

I've read the reasoning on IIP for the wrong measurement Rinaldi made and it makes sense. Beyond that, however, one can use their own eyes to see that the measurement is off by comparing the measurement of the height of RS's big toe to the height of the ball of his foot. There's no way that measurement of 66.7mm is correct. That such an obvious and egregious error was made and not caught is atrocious.

Sonata
07-23-2011, 10:25 AM
The sentencing issue is still beyond me. Even if you do the math/rationalisation it still seems crazy when you look at the big picture that the ONE suspect who has been without a doubt proven to have been directly involved in this crime is on by far the smallest sentence.

Again, the measurements/calculations in this trial are all well and good, but where is the human rationalisation and observation of the big picture?

I feel like that general attitude is making people take certain evidence as a given when looking at the big, human picture shows otherwise.

Allusonz
07-23-2011, 10:32 AM
Ah, I see. So they might continue on into August and September with the TOD, etc.? That might be good for the defense, actually. But I am assuming that either way, they will want the verdict by early October?

Yes, if the convictions stand, there will be one last appeal to the High Court. No more than that, correct? I think it would be a very inauspicious sign, though, if the convictions do stand. What is your gut feeling?

This is Italy. I never thought I would see an independent report from Italy so critical which has given me optimism. This particular judge has reversed a murder conviction. Given the world wide attention of this case I believe Italy simply wants to get out of this with their heads held high but I am not certain whether this will happen. The best I can come up with is that I do see some hope.

After reading the report the first time I was extremely surprised. When I took more time with it and got into the guts of the science I don't see how they cannot let them off.

I believe that these experts are confident in their findings and that will show no matter what the prosecution tries to toss at them. Stephanoni and the forensic teams simply did way too many things wrong, some to the point of being unethical and would hope that the Court finds them Not Guilty this time around.

Malkmus
07-23-2011, 10:32 AM
Ah, I see. So they might continue on into August and September with the TOD, etc.? That might be good for the defense, actually. But I am assuming that either way, they will want the verdict by early October?

Yes, if the convictions stand, there will be one last appeal to the High Court. No more than that, correct? I think it would be a very inauspicious sign, though, if the convictions do stand. What is your gut feeling?

I would imagine that there was certain expectation for the independent experts to agree with Stefanoni's results and therefore no need to proceed with opening up reexamination of the other evidence. For if the knife and clasp truly were handled by AK and RS then then that would certainly imply guilt. However, the results are out and Hellman may decide now that reasonable doubt still exists so things such as the Luminol prints and bathmat need to be reexamined - especially considering the shoddy police work the report has exposed. I could be wrong though, but hopefully we'll know Monday.

Allusonz
07-23-2011, 10:35 AM
I've read the reasoning on IIP for the wrong measurement Rinaldi made and it makes sense. Beyond that, however, one can use their own eyes to see that the measurement is off by comparing the measurement of the height of RS's big toe to the height of the ball of his foot. There's no way that measurement of 66.7mm is correct. That such an obvious and egregious error was made and not caught is atrocious.

You are so right. Some though will follow what a select few say without truly looking at those measurements and I don't believe some even know how big 66.7mm is. They are simply going on emotion at this point in time.

SkewedView
07-23-2011, 10:52 AM
Regarding appeals:

Regardless of the result of this appeal trial, this will be going to the Italian Supreme Court, as all three parties (AK/RS, the prosecution, and the Kerchers) have the right to appeal this outcome. That trial will not be like this one, however. Instead it will focus on the rulings of the previous Judges.

When it does get to the ISC, it will be a total crap-shoot, IMO, thanks to the fact that the Italians have no set Supreme Court makeup (they instead have a pool of SC judges to draw from), and that the SC Judges have a history of making bizarre rulings.



I must say, I just love the fact that the Italian system allows such a high level of involvement by victims/their survivors. I really wish that the US had something like this. It helps to alleviate the helplessness that Survivors go through during the trial process, amongst other things. Of course, first the US would need to give defendants more resources (something that needs to be done anyway), to make up for the tag-teaming they would be up against.

wasnt_me
07-23-2011, 11:03 AM
As per RS's appeal, the Court used the wrong measurements in the Motivational Report. To simply try and ignore such a blatent error is wrong.

The fact is as SV has stated above and which the experts themsevles have said the footprint cannot be attributed to any one person due to the fact that it is a partial print on an uneven surface

Exactly, which is why I said all you got to go on is what it looks like. I mean, you could tell if it's a child's footprint versus a grownups, but other than that, you got to just look at it subjectively. Again, RS's toe is the only thing that makes it not look like his foot.

wasnt_me
07-23-2011, 11:15 AM
Regarding appeals:

Regardless of the result of this appeal trial, this will be going to the Italian Supreme Court, as all three parties (AK/RS, the prosecution, and the Kerchers) have the right to appeal this outcome. That trial will not be like this one, however. Instead it will focus on the rulings of the previous Judges.

When it does get to the ISC, it will be a total crap-shoot, IMO, thanks to the fact that the Italians have no set Supreme Court makeup (they instead have a pool of SC judges to draw from), and that the SC Judges have a history of making bizarre rulings.



I must say, I just love the fact that the Italian system allows such a high level of involvement by victims/their survivors. I really wish that the US had something like this. It helps to alleviate the helplessness that Survivors go through during the trial process, amongst other things. Of course, first the US would need to give defendants more resources (something that needs to be done anyway), to make up for the tag-teaming they would be up against.

I like that they let them be involved, too, but only to an extent. I don't think Mascera should be able to object and block evidence or testimony. The victim's family is biased usually, and if the wrong person is on trial, it could be bad if the victim's family is too hurt to objectively see. They seem to counter this by alllowing the accused to make declarations without being questioned. I really like that part much more.

I guess for me, it's just so important that the right people are on trial. So I advocate a defendant's rights. I get boiling angry though when an obviously guilty defendent takes advantage of the system and gets off.

What might be good is for a state appoint lawyer to advocate for the victim from an entirely objective standpoint, meaning, he sits at his own table, not the prosecution's table. He asks his own questions whether they benefit the prosecution or the defense, because he is ultimately looking for justice for the victim. I don't know what the heck Mascara is looking for. I wish he'd help the family see the reasonable doubt, because this is so SO SO hard on them.

Allusonz
07-23-2011, 11:59 AM
I like that they let them be involved, too, but only to an extent. I don't think Mascera should be able to object and block evidence or testimony. The victim's family is biased usually, and if the wrong person is on trial, it could be bad if the victim's family is too hurt to objectively see. They seem to counter this by alllowing the accused to make declarations without being questioned. I really like that part much more.

I guess for me, it's just so important that the right people are on trial. So I advocate a defendant's rights. I get boiling angry though when an obviously guilty defendent takes advantage of the system and gets off.

What might be good is for a state appoint lawyer to advocate for the victim from an entirely objective standpoint, meaning, he sits at his own table, not the prosecution's table. He asks his own questions whether they benefit the prosecution or the defense, because he is ultimately looking for justice for the victim. I don't know what the heck Mascara is looking for. I wish he'd help the family see the reasonable doubt, because this is so SO SO hard on them.

Have to agree here. It has continued to amaze me how actively involved Maresca is in the criminal proceedings. I often get the feeling that he is simply speaking for Mignini as the prosecutor in this appeal has been surprisingly quiet.

SMK
07-23-2011, 12:16 PM
Regarding appeals:

Regardless of the result of this appeal trial, this will be going to the Italian Supreme Court, as all three parties (AK/RS, the prosecution, and the Kerchers) have the right to appeal this outcome. That trial will not be like this one, however. Instead it will focus on the rulings of the previous Judges.

When it does get to the ISC, it will be a total crap-shoot, IMO, thanks to the fact that the Italians have no set Supreme Court makeup (they instead have a pool of SC judges to draw from), and that the SC Judges have a history of making bizarre rulings.



I must say, I just love the fact that the Italian system allows such a high level of involvement by victims/their survivors. I really wish that the US had something like this. It helps to alleviate the helplessness that Survivors go through during the trial process, amongst other things. Of course, first the US would need to give defendants more resources (something that needs to be done anyway), to make up for the tag-teaming they would be up against.
Good points, but I am now recalling an article I read back in the 1990s in the New York Times Sunday magazine. It was something to the effect of, "Why Victim Imapct Statements Should Not be Allowed".

The journalist said he was invited to go to a parole hearing , for a man who had harmed his relative. He gave a statement, and parole was denied. The next day, the inmate committed suicide.

This journalist reflected, and decided that he should not have had any say in the process. Emotion and passion - which victims and their families are understandably filled with - should have no place in the Logic and Ethics of Reason which comprise Blind Justice.

Allusonz
07-23-2011, 12:21 PM
@ miley

Missed you guys to sometimes there are just times when I am trying to see my head over the paper work and truly have to avoid my late night posts as it is very apparent I have been working late and can barely understand my own posts let alone my spelling :giggle:

Allusonz
07-23-2011, 12:25 PM
@ milliac

:welcome:

gives you a designer straight jacket for this case

Malkmus
07-23-2011, 03:36 PM
Another DNA expert weighs in on the evidence and predictions for Monday:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/new-evidence-in-amanda-knox-case/2011/07/23/gIQA31C7UI_video.html

He starts about 1:40 in to the video.

SMK
07-23-2011, 04:34 PM
Another DNA expert weighs in on the evidence and predictions for Monday:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/new-evidence-in-amanda-knox-case/2011/07/23/gIQA31C7UI_video.html

He starts about 1:40 in to the video.
Thanks for posting this Malkmus. This is a well-known forensic scientist and DNA expert, and it sounds very positive for them on Monday. Judge Hellman is expected to uphold the independent findings that the DNA is not reliable as evidence. Of course, if you read Perugia Murder File, they say the opposite. But they were dead wrong in the past, and remind me of the people who hooted with scorn when I suggested days prior to the Casey Anthony verdict that it might well be not guilty on all counts. Guess we shall soon have a better idea of the rulings.....

Nova
07-23-2011, 05:30 PM
This is the part I truly hate. The judge has left open the possibility of examining other things such as TOD etc., thus this appeal could be much longer. They could also make a ruling either way. If they indeed find them guilty again then we would have another appeal at the supreme court level.

Don't we get an appeal either way? I think Italy allows the prosecution to appeal as well.

ETA Never mind. SMK answered this on the preceding page. Yes, either side may appeal.

Nova
07-23-2011, 05:43 PM
Good points, but I am now recalling an article I read back in the 1990s in the New York Times Sunday magazine. It was something to the effect of, "Why Victim Imapct Statements Should Not be Allowed".

The journalist said he was invited to go to a parole hearing , for a man who had harmed his relative. He gave a statement, and parole was denied. The next day, the inmate committed suicide.

This journalist reflected, and decided that he should not have had any say in the process. Emotion and passion - which victims and their families are understandably filled with - should have no place in the Logic and Ethics of Reason which comprise Blind Justice.

Well, I wouldn't go this far. I think victim impact statements have their place, even if their impact is largely ceremonial. That one inmate committed suicide doesn't mean the system is wrong.

But I'm not crazy about relatives of victims having their own lawyer for the criminal case. (They may have lawyers for other purposes outside the courtroom.)

The State already represents the victim and does so in most cases with a huge advantage in resources.

SMK
07-23-2011, 06:08 PM
Well, I wouldn't go this far. I think victim impact statements have their place, even if their impact is largely ceremonial. That one inmate committed suicide doesn't mean the system is wrong.

But I'm not crazy about relatives of victims having their own lawyer for the criminal case. (They may have lawyers for other purposes outside the courtroom.)

The State already represents the victim and does so in most cases with a huge advantage in resources.I see your point, but I actually am against victim impact statements on principle. Everyone knows the loss of someone to crime leaves a hole and is a terrible injustice, but I think the courtroom should be void of passion. Just my own feeling and belief RE philosophy of jurisprudence, about this innovation, and I had a family member fall victim to a very serious and brutal crime, so it is not as though I have no comprehension of it.

SMK
07-23-2011, 06:31 PM
Latest from Barbie Nadeau at The Daily Beast: As she is decidedly pro-conviction and Perugia Murder File is a huge fan of hers, found it surprising:

Knox's Stunning Turnaround

Just a few months ago, all appeared lost for Amanda Knox. But her appeal is proving to be a game changer—and now Barbie Latza Nadeau reports that she could be home by Christmas.

It is 105 degrees in the shade of the prison yard of the Capanne Correctional Facility outside Perugia, Italy, where Seattle native Amanda Knox is serving 26 years for the murder of her British roommate Meredith Kercher.

On July 9, Knox turned 24; it was her fourth birthday behind prison walls. She celebrated over a cappuccino with her Perugian lawyer Luciano Ghirga. On the eve of her birthday, supporters back home in Seattle raised more than $15,000 for her defense at a birthday fundraiser with live music and a silent auction that included a golf weekend donated by Donald Trump. She wrote a letter to the attendees: “Dear Friends, I want so badly to be there to rock out with you. It's so cool and I'm truly honored that you're sharing with me and my loved ones my birthday (and celebrating all those motives like love and truth). Thank you for your support of me and my family. I'm with you in spirit. Spirit hugs. Cheers. Your friend, Amanda." This could easily be Knox’s last birthday behind bars—a notion nearly unimaginable just a few months ago. Yet now there is a very good chance that she will be released this fall.http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/23/amanda-knox-appeal-could-she-get-out-of-jail-this-year.html

emyr
07-23-2011, 06:57 PM
Looking at the Brian Stow situation, I actually was thinking that the Italian system seems less error-prone. Imagine if Giovanni had said something along the vein that Amanda had said?

It's interesting if you think back over the case. If Amanda hadn't falsely implicated Lumamba, then the DNA indicating Guede would have come in while she was still walking around free. There would have been no investigation of Sollecito's place and so no knife, and there wouldn't have been an additional DNA sweep weeks later that would have gotten the bra clasp. She probably wouldn't have been tried at all.

If I was operating off a presumption of guilt, I'd have to think that Amanda and Raf left their flat shortly after Amelia finished playing, in order to pack up Amanda's things to go to Gubbio the next day. They left their turned off cell phones behind in their flat. They ran across Rudy at the basketball court (Amanda said she met Lumamba at the basketball court, so she would be lying as closely to the truth in case there were witnesses). They proceeded together to the cottage and arrived at around 9:45.

I don't know what happened next, but because there is no evidence of blood on clothing and no evidence of cleaning up of DNA in the murder room or hallway, the only thing that makes sense with the evidence provided is that they were naked and attacking Meredith while Rudy was clothed and attacking her. OR, Rudy attacked and killer her and fled, and Amanda and Raffaelle exited from her bedroom at around 11:30pm and found her in her room dead, and Amanda screamed (the scream heard at 11:30). They then got very bloody trying to figure out what happened? Oh, I don't know. The point is, if they were present, they were involved in the attack in such a way that they got no blood on their clothes, only on Amanda's bare left foot... so it must have been close to the time of death so the blood would still be wet enough to get on her feet, but also wet enough to mask her bare footprints in the room.

OR, they only got blood on their bare skin, then they went into the bathroom to wash off the blood, getting blood to fully cover the bottom of Raffaele's foot, and to cover the bottom of Amanda's foot. For some reason, in each scenario it is their left foot. Actually, that makes me think the bathmat print would be Amanda's.

Anyway, teh blood comes from washing off the blood from skin (not clothing) on another part of the body. Oh wait, and that was done in the bidet.... then after cleaning her feet in the bidet she entered the shower with Raffaelle, and they washed off the traces of the murder. The showering has to be done right after the murder to explain the footprints.

Next they needed to come up with a plan to hide their involvement, so at this point they threw away the phones. They have Amanda's keys to lock the door, but they remember they need to retrieve Meredith's keys to make it look properly staged... so they go into her pants or purse to get the keys, but don't leave their DNA while doing this. This is probably when they bring in Amanda's lamp to see. Maybe THIS is when they get blood on their foot, and then they have to hop around to prevent leaving lots of bloody footprints.

They remove what evidence that they can of the fact they were there. Except for the bloody bathmat print. Actually it seems like they just staged a robbery and nothing else, since there's no evidence of cleaning up the murder scene. And there should be swipes seen in the luminol if that was done. Did the bathroom look wiped down?
So they only bother going so far as to make it look like there had been a robbery? And they go back to Raffaele's apartment and turn on his music at 5:30 am. Maybe they went back to his apartment around 12:30 and slept for 5 hours, then went back to the flight at 6amish to stage the scene before Filomena would turn up. But only Amanda went back at that time.

And they went back to Raffaelle's flat and super cleaned it so there would be no trace of any murder evidence there. But they didn't do this at the cottage.. but that's why they have the mop. Because they certainly don't care about a broken sink if they have a murder to cover up. That's not why the mop is there. So why is the mop there?

And they call Filomena so she will meet them at the house and so she will be the one to break open the door? Or so her DNA will be interspersed in the scene? And then after calling her they wandered around with a mop?

The mop only makes sense if they wanted to provide an excuse for a clean up. And the bathmat boogie story only makes sense if Amanda knows that she cleaned up the hallway. Because if Amanda is the murderer she knows what evidence might be there to convict her.

If her breakdown about the knife is a legitimate sign of guilt then that means the knife used to kill Meredith was in the flat. Most likely the knife that was in her suitcase, that was stolen. But if that's true that means the knife at Sollecito's is false, and the prosecution has contaminated evidence.

Nova
07-23-2011, 07:56 PM
I see your point, but I actually am against victim impact statements on principle. Everyone knows the loss of someone to crime leaves a hole and is a terrible injustice, but I think the courtroom should be void of passion. Just my own feeling and belief RE philosophy of jurisprudence, about this innovation, and I had a family member fall victim to a very serious and brutal crime, so it is not as though I have no comprehension of it.

I'm very sorry about your family member, SMK.

I haven't seen any research, but my sense of victim impact statements is that they have no impact whatsoever on verdicts. They just give a momentary voice to victims who are necessarily silenced for the rest of the trial.

That being said, as for banning passion from the courtroom, I'm not sure it's possible or even desirable. But if we're going to discuss philosophies of jurisprudence, I imagine Salem will want us to do so elsewhere.

Malkmus
07-23-2011, 08:04 PM
Latest from Barbie Nadeau at The Daily Beast: As she is decidedly pro-conviction and Perugia Murder File is a huge fan of hers, found it surprising:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/23/amanda-knox-appeal-could-she-get-out-of-jail-this-year.html

This was especially surprising to hear from Nadeau:

the jury will hear for the first time just how badly the Italian forensic team in Rome, led by Patrizia Stefanoni, mishandled the forensics of this case.

Thanks for this. Steve Moore called this just recently on his blog, that BN and Daily Beast would soon change their tune. He was right.

SMK
07-23-2011, 08:06 PM
Amanda Knox DNA appeal sparks legal battle by forensic experts

Forensic scientist threatens to sue after her work on Meredith Kercher murder is attacked in Amanda Knox appeal report

Amanda Knox's appeal against her conviction for the murder of British student Meredith Kercher in Italy faces a fresh challenge. A prominent forensic scientist, whose DNA evidence helped to convict the US student and her former boyfriend, has vowed to overturn the findings of an independent report that says much of her work in the case was unreliable.

Knox returns to court in Perugiaon Monday, armed with the new forensic report, which she hopes will help lead to her being freed.

Kercher was found with her throat slit in the Perugia apartment she shared with Knox in 2007. Knox and her former boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, were sentenced to 26 and 25 years respectively in 2009 for the murder. A third suspect, Rudy Guede, had already been convicted for his role in the killing.

Written by two independent experts from Rome's Sapienza University, the 145-page DNA review rubbishes the work of Patrizia Stefanoni, the police forensic scientist who found Knox's and Kercher's DNA on a kitchen knife at Sollecito's house and identified DNA belonging to Sollecito on a torn bra clasp found beside Kercher's semi-naked body.

The report claims Stefanoni ignored international DNA protocols, made basic errors and gave evidence in court that was not backed up by her laboratory work, rendering the knife and bra strap worthless as evidence. But Stefanoni has vowed to fight back during three hearings devoted to the DNA reviews.

"I am angry about the false statements in this report and ready to come to court to highlight the past record of these experts," she told the Observer. "I am also looking into taking legal action against them. What international DNA protocols are they talking about? The Italian police is a member of the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI), while they are not."

Both Stefanoni and one of the report's co-authors – Carla Vecchiotti – are influential figures in a restricted circle of DNA experts in Italy and are no strangers to headline-grabbing cases. Stefanoni's work helped a British court in June convict an Italian, Daniele Restivo, of the ritualistic murder of Heather Barnett in Bournemouth in 2002. Vecchiotti has recently made the news in Italy with her work investigating a drug addict's death in police custody and the murder of a teenage girl in Puglia.

continued....http://www.u.tv/News/Amanda-Knox-DNA-appeal-sparks-legal-battle-by-forensic-experts/d0df96b7-a107-413a-8aab-c1c9db3cfae1

SMK
07-23-2011, 08:16 PM
I'm very sorry about your family member, SMK.

I haven't seen any research, but my sense of victim impact statements is that they have no impact whatsoever on verdicts. They just give a momentary voice to victims who are necessarily silenced for the rest of the trial.

That being said, as for banning passion from the courtroom, I'm not sure it's possible or even desirable. But if we're going to discuss philosophies of jurisprudence, I imagine Salem will want us to do so elsewhere.:oddsmiley: :blowkiss:

Malkmus
07-23-2011, 09:39 PM
continued....http://www.u.tv/News/Amanda-Knox-DNA-appeal-sparks-legal-battle-by-forensic-experts/d0df96b7-a107-413a-8aab-c1c9db3cfae1"I am angry about the false statements in this report and ready to come to court to highlight the past record of these experts," she told the Observer. "I am also looking into taking legal action against them. What international DNA protocols are they talking about? The Italian police is a member of the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI), while they are not." (snipped)

Well, hell hath no fury...

Stefanoni has right to be angry. She's been humiliated internationally for her disregard of protocol. But good luck saying she followed ENFSI guidelines and the experts aren't. She's fighting for her job now, so the noise she's making is expected, but empty.

From the experts report:

In Guidance on the Production of Best Practice Manuals within ENFSI, ref cod. QCC-BPM-008, 01/05/2008, the following points amongst others are highlighted:

4.3.2 The expert must also evaluate the risk of contamination (or any other problem which could affect the integrity of the evidence) [which may have happened] before the items provided for examination are sent to the laboratory to be examined, or before the start of the analysis…

http://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com/contents/conclusions-1/notes-on-inspection-and-collection-techniques/

Monday should be very, very interesting...

Malkmus
07-23-2011, 09:53 PM
Latest from Barbie Nadeau at The Daily Beast: As she is decidedly pro-conviction and Perugia Murder File is a huge fan of hers, found it surprising:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/23/amanda-knox-appeal-could-she-get-out-of-jail-this-year.html

Although it's odd that BN would write:

Guede is hardly a reliable witness—traces of his fingerprints, DNA, feces, and semen were found at the crime scene in ample quantity

As we all know, no semen was ever attributed to RG. But there is the alleged and untested semen stain. Is this what she is referring to? Is she speculating? Is it a mistake (wouldn't be her first... or fifth)? Or is this more of her "insider" information like the blonde hair collected and lost?

SkewedView
07-23-2011, 10:00 PM
continued....http://www.u.tv/News/Amanda-Knox-DNA-appeal-sparks-legal-battle-by-forensic-experts/d0df96b7-a107-413a-8aab-c1c9db3cfae1

Hah! Did I call it or what? (and to think, I was mostly joking about the independent experts being charged with defamation/slander or being investigated in retribution)

Malkmus
07-23-2011, 10:06 PM
Hah! Did I call it or what? (and to think, I was mostly joking about the independent experts being charged with defamation/slander or being investigated in retribution)

You and Frank ;)

(posted July 19th on PerugiaShock)

It’s so nice to see so much friendship and agreement in the team. Actually they could do some more to defend them. How about suing Conti & Vecchiotti, too?

http://perugiashock.com/2011/07/19/a-farewell-to-weapon/

Allusonz
07-24-2011, 02:24 AM
Don't we get an appeal either way? I think Italy allows the prosecution to appeal as well.

ETA Never mind. SMK answered this on the preceding page. Yes, either side may appeal.

Yes there is if the other side does appeal it

Allusonz
07-24-2011, 02:41 AM
continued....http://www.u.tv/News/Amanda-Knox-DNA-appeal-sparks-legal-battle-by-forensic-experts/d0df96b7-a107-413a-8aab-c1c9db3cfae1

Looks like a desperation move. Not only do they have all the video recordings, she was unable to give the experts some of the documentation (for example some of the SAL's) and the documentation she did give has been refuted by far to many very respected DNA experts prior to the independent ones.

The problems go deeper than Stephanoni. It makes me think that there will be an investigation from the way various players in this have been acting.

I agree Monday should be very interesting....

ETA I feel at times as I read the various posts that I am in a very bad horror film right out of the twilight zone

Allusonz
07-24-2011, 02:45 AM
Although it's odd that BN would write:



As we all know, no semen was ever attributed to RG. But there is the alleged and untested semen stain. Is this what she is referring to? Is she speculating? Is it a mistake (wouldn't be her first... or fifth)? Or is this more of her "insider" information like the blonde hair collected and lost?

BBM

I have always been of the opinion that this had indeed been tested just never been presented. The plot thickens

Allusonz
07-24-2011, 02:56 AM
Hah! Did I call it or what? (and to think, I was mostly joking about the independent experts being charged with defamation/slander or being investigated in retribution)

Yes you as well as Frank did!! This may not yet be the end of it either unless someone steps in and puts a stop to it.

Allusonz
07-24-2011, 03:00 AM
Looking at the Brian Stow situation, I actually was thinking that the Italian system seems less error-prone. Imagine if Giovanni had said something along the vein that Amanda had said?

It's interesting if you think back over the case. If Amanda hadn't falsely implicated Lumamba, then the DNA indicating Guede would have come in while she was still walking around free. There would have been no investigation of Sollecito's place and so no knife, and there wouldn't have been an additional DNA sweep weeks later that would have gotten the bra clasp. She probably wouldn't have been tried at all.

If I was operating off a presumption of guilt, I'd have to think that Amanda and Raf left their flat shortly after Amelia finished playing, in order to pack up Amanda's things to go to Gubbio the next day. They left their turned off cell phones behind in their flat. They ran across Rudy at the basketball court (Amanda said she met Lumamba at the basketball court, so she would be lying as closely to the truth in case there were witnesses). They proceeded together to the cottage and arrived at around 9:45.

I don't know what happened next, but because there is no evidence of blood on clothing and no evidence of cleaning up of DNA in the murder room or hallway, the only thing that makes sense with the evidence provided is that they were naked and attacking Meredith while Rudy was clothed and attacking her. OR, Rudy attacked and killer her and fled, and Amanda and Raffaelle exited from her bedroom at around 11:30pm and found her in her room dead, and Amanda screamed (the scream heard at 11:30). They then got very bloody trying to figure out what happened? Oh, I don't know. The point is, if they were present, they were involved in the attack in such a way that they got no blood on their clothes, only on Amanda's bare left foot... so it must have been close to the time of death so the blood would still be wet enough to get on her feet, but also wet enough to mask her bare footprints in the room.

OR, they only got blood on their bare skin, then they went into the bathroom to wash off the blood, getting blood to fully cover the bottom of Raffaele's foot, and to cover the bottom of Amanda's foot. For some reason, in each scenario it is their left foot. Actually, that makes me think the bathmat print would be Amanda's.

Anyway, teh blood comes from washing off the blood from skin (not clothing) on another part of the body. Oh wait, and that was done in the bidet.... then after cleaning her feet in the bidet she entered the shower with Raffaelle, and they washed off the traces of the murder. The showering has to be done right after the murder to explain the footprints.

Next they needed to come up with a plan to hide their involvement, so at this point they threw away the phones. They have Amanda's keys to lock the door, but they remember they need to retrieve Meredith's keys to make it look properly staged... so they go into her pants or purse to get the keys, but don't leave their DNA while doing this. This is probably when they bring in Amanda's lamp to see. Maybe THIS is when they get blood on their foot, and then they have to hop around to prevent leaving lots of bloody footprints.

They remove what evidence that they can of the fact they were there. Except for the bloody bathmat print. Actually it seems like they just staged a robbery and nothing else, since there's no evidence of cleaning up the murder scene. And there should be swipes seen in the luminol if that was done. Did the bathroom look wiped down?
So they only bother going so far as to make it look like there had been a robbery? And they go back to Raffaele's apartment and turn on his music at 5:30 am. Maybe they went back to his apartment around 12:30 and slept for 5 hours, then went back to the flight at 6amish to stage the scene before Filomena would turn up. But only Amanda went back at that time.

And they went back to Raffaelle's flat and super cleaned it so there would be no trace of any murder evidence there. But they didn't do this at the cottage.. but that's why they have the mop. Because they certainly don't care about a broken sink if they have a murder to cover up. That's not why the mop is there. So why is the mop there?

And they call Filomena so she will meet them at the house and so she will be the one to break open the door? Or so her DNA will be interspersed in the scene? And then after calling her they wandered around with a mop?

The mop only makes sense if they wanted to provide an excuse for a clean up. And the bathmat boogie story only makes sense if Amanda knows that she cleaned up the hallway. Because if Amanda is the murderer she knows what evidence might be there to convict her.

If her breakdown about the knife is a legitimate sign of guilt then that means the knife used to kill Meredith was in the flat. Most likely the knife that was in her suitcase, that was stolen. But if that's true that means the knife at Sollecito's is false, and the prosecution has contaminated evidence.

As well remember they did all of this while allegedly stoned out of their minds. It did not make sense once the real facts came out and it still sounds convoluted :giggle:

SMK
07-24-2011, 08:17 AM
A sexual predator or victim of a witch-hunt?


http://images.smh.com.au/2011/07/23/2512398/1_ipad-art-wide-knox-420x0.jpg

A report that raises serious doubts about the DNA evidence that helped to convict American student Amanda Knox of murder will be presented in an Italian court tomorrow. Was it all a grave miscarriage of justice? Susan Chenery talks to Knox's family in Perugia about their long fight to clear their daughter's name.
WE will never know, most of us, how close we all are to catastrophe. How suddenly a normal day in an ordinary life can shatter and nothing will ever be the same.

There is a lot at stake for the city of Perugia. There will be a great loss of honour if it is found it has framed innocent kids. The prosecution will fight back vigorously.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/a-sexual-predator-or-victim-of-a-witchhunt-20110723-1hu1z.html#ixzz1T1ZS7uvy

iluvmua
07-24-2011, 09:44 AM
IF Amanda is truly innocent.... (Which she is not) Why frame your boss for murder..... why have no alibi (That your boyfriend will not even back up for you). Why have your blood mixed in with the victim ( and It's not just "because Amanda lived there") and your bloody footprints around the house and why stage a break in....... Amanda is not innocent, I believe she was there and knew what was happening.

No innocent person continues to lie and lie to the police and no innocent person frames someone else for murder. Amanda had a reason to lie..

I hope she never gets out.....

Malkmus
07-24-2011, 10:08 AM
IF Amanda is truly innocent.... (Which she is not) Why frame your boss for murder..... why have no alibi (That your boyfriend will not even back up for you). Why have your blood mixed in with the victim ( and It's not just "because Amanda lived there") and your bloody footprints around the house and why stage a break in....... Amanda is not innocent, I believe she was there and knew what was happening.

No innocent person continues to lie and lie to the police and no innocent person frames someone else for murder. Amanda had a reason to lie..

I hope she never gets out.....

Amanda isn’t the first innocent person to accuse another innocent person of murder. See the case of Karl Fonteneau, same age as Amanda.

It was Amanda’s DNA found mixed in with Meredith’s blood, not Amanda’s blood. There is the unknown DNA of other people in those samples too. It could be that of other’s living in the house, but ILE never got reference samples from the roommates so we’ll never know. DNA in her own house does only prove she was in her own house.

If you believe the footprints were made in blood, then what is your theory of why they tested negative for blood, why those results were hidden from the jury, and why the prints have no streak marks?

The evidence for a staged break-in amounts to: It looks so much like a real break-in that it must be fake since Amanda and Rafaelle are guilty. Or do you have definitive proof that it was staged?

Her boyfriend has covered her alibi. But that no longer mattered to police after they wrongly attributed shoeprints (turned out they were Rudy's) to him that they were able to arrest him with.

I look forward to hearing your opinion on these points, as I don’t believe I got a response last time you raised them.

~n/t~
07-24-2011, 10:26 AM
IF Amanda is truly innocent.... (Which she is not) Why frame your boss for murder..... why have no alibi (That your boyfriend will not even back up for you). Why have your blood mixed in with the victim ( and It's not just "because Amanda lived there") and your bloody footprints around the house and why stage a break in....... Amanda is not innocent, I believe she was there and knew what was happening.

No innocent person continues to lie and lie to the police and no innocent person frames someone else for murder. Amanda had a reason to lie..

I hope she never gets out.....

I think she's as innocent as Casey Anthony.

emyr
07-24-2011, 10:35 AM
IF Amanda is truly innocent.... (Which she is not) Why frame your boss for murder..... why have no alibi (That your boyfriend will not even back up for you). Why have your blood mixed in with the victim ( and It's not just "because Amanda lived there") and your bloody footprints around the house and why stage a break in....... Amanda is not innocent, I believe she was there and knew what was happening.

No innocent person continues to lie and lie to the police and no innocent person frames someone else for murder. Amanda had a reason to lie..

I hope she never gets out.....

Just one note: her blood can not be mixed with the blood of the victim because she had no cuts on her body.

sherlockh
07-24-2011, 11:03 AM
Just one note: her blood can not be mixed with the blood of the victim because she had no cuts on her body.
Lol...of course..you can only bleed from cuts on your body ;)

SMK
07-24-2011, 11:10 AM
Lol...of course..you can only bleed from cuts on your body ;)So you mean it was menstrual blood, or a nose bleed, or her ears? How does that point to murder?

emyr
07-24-2011, 11:11 AM
@ miley

Missed you guys to sometimes there are just times when I am trying to see my head over the paper work and truly have to avoid my late night posts as it is very apparent I have been working late and can barely understand my own posts let alone my spelling :giggle:

I should do the same. I keep writing when I am clearly too exhausted to do so. My last post is a tired mess. :)

In any case, to the rest of you: Is there truly no sign of clean-up? Even in the bathroom?

For my "presumption of guilt" scenario, I have to be operating off the idea that both Amanda and Raffaelle have all the facts. If they have all the facts (they know they showered there, stepped in blood there, that Sollecito touched Meredith's bra) then... the result is very convoluted.

The time of death, if they did it, has to be several hours after 9pm. Preferably around 11:30 pm (to have time to leave the evidence, dump the phones, and also to work themselves up into a sexual murderous frenzy). Their initial alibi would focus on how to make certain they were not there around that time. They wouldn't make up lies to explain any evidence of a cover up in the hallway because there was no cover up in the hallway...

Honestly, when I heard about this case when I started I thought it was pre-meditated (turning off their cell phones), which goes farther to explain the evidence collected. But since there is no way it was pre-meditated (both were supposed to be doing something else the night of the murder), then the evidence becomes much more difficult to fit into the correct scenario. The facts as presented really needs a clean-up to have taken place at the cottage. In the absence of the clean-up, we have a very strange story of toting a mop around everywhere.

emyr
07-24-2011, 11:18 AM
Lol...of course..you can only bleed from cuts on your body ;)

As SMK says, how does that work? You'd have to jump through a lot of hoops to get non-cut based blood on the bottom of her foot. Which in any case, isn't true, because as stated elsewhere the evidence as presented by the prosecution showed her DNA was present in the bare footprint, not her blood.

Which makes more sense in either scenario.

sherlockh
07-24-2011, 11:26 AM
As SMK says, how does that work? You'd have to jump through a lot of hoops to get non-cut based blood on the bottom of her foot. Which in any case, isn't true, because as stated elsewhere the evidence as presented by the prosecution showed her DNA was present in the bare footprint, not her blood.

Which makes more sense in either scenario.
That is just your opinion. Makes zero sense to me. You can bleed from your nose or AK's own explanation was that she bled from her ear. The DNA expert did show it was her blood and even if it was 'just' her DNA it does not belong mixed with MK's blood. It does not belong in the middle of the floor in a footprint, it does not belong in a blood stain on a q-tip box and certainly does not belong in the middle of the floor of another roommate. There is zero chance of any innocent explanation for that. <modsnip> That is all I got to say and it is just my opinion :)

sherlockh
07-24-2011, 11:51 AM
I'd agree that there are a lot of people who appear to want her to be innocent no matter what, and a lot of people who appear to want her to be guilty no matter what.

The real problem is trying to spin the facts to fit an agenda. I think it's easy to fall into this trap.

I don't see a straightforward explanation for innocence, but I don't see a straightforward explanation for guilt either. Both involve convoluted stories.
There is no reason why people who think she is guilty would have an agenda or want her guilty no matter what, but there are plenty of reasons why people who think she is innocent want her innocent no matter what. Just look at their family and the media campaign they setup. There is a big difference between the 2 sites. I can criticize the prosecution and the investigation and still think she is guilty. The innocent site has to attack every single investigator and piece of evidence up to a point where it does not make sense anymore. Anyway, like I said. It is just my opinion.

SMK
07-24-2011, 12:13 PM
There is no reason why people who think she is guilty would have an agenda or want her guilty no matter what, but there are plenty of reasons why people who think she is innocent want her innocent no matter what. Just look at their family and the media campaign they setup. There is a big difference between the 2 sites. I can criticize the prosecution and the investigation and still think she is guilty. The innocent site has to attack every single investigator and piece of evidence up to a point where it does not make sense anymore. Anyway, like I said. It is just my opinion.I think many who believe she is innocent hold that belief due to DNA experts such as Dr. Hampakian and others who have revealed the evidence to be unreliable.

And some of us have reasonable doubt as to guilt, which is not equal to believing her "innocent no matter what:.

Even a PR campaign cannot be just spin - it has to have factual data to back it up.

emyr
07-24-2011, 12:28 PM
That is just your opinion. Makes zero sense to me. You can bleed from your nose or AK's own explanation was that she bled from her ear. The DNA expert did show it was her blood and even if it was 'just' her DNA it does not belong mixed with MK's blood. It does not belong in the middle of the floor in a footprint, it does not belong in a blood stain on a q-tip box and certainly does not belong in the middle of the floor of another roommate. There is zero chance of any innocent explanation for that. Only if you really want to you start making up excuses as we see continuously in this thread. Just take a step back and ask yourself if there is really nothing 'hinky' about all those 'coincidences' people are so desperately trying to explain away here? This is websleuths after all. That is all I got to say and it is just my opinion :)

It's not my opinion at all. It's a fact. Amanda's blood was not in the footprints.

Yes her DNA was, and you have a point about that. But just be aware that you undermine that point by insisting the falsity that Amanda's blood was there.

I think you have merged the fact of a drop of Amanda's blood on the sink tap into all of the rest of the evidence. That was the only place where there was blood from Amanda.

It is also a fact that you cannot tell at what time DNA was deposited so we have no way of knowing when Amanda's DNA got on those objects.

The real argument here is not what you just stated, it is this: How can we explain that someone went into the bathroom and cleaned off Meredith's blood and the only DNA we find in those areas is from Meredith and Amanda. If the killer cleaned off in there, where is his DNA?

And that's a good question.

Malkmus
07-24-2011, 12:34 PM
It's not my opinion at all. It's a fact. Amanda's blood was not in the footprints.

Yes her DNA was, and you have a point about that. But just be aware that you undermine that point by insisting the falsity that Amanda's blood was there.

I think you have merged the fact of a drop of Amanda's blood on the sink tap into all of the rest of the evidence. That was the only place where there was blood from Amanda.

It is also a fact that you cannot tell at what time DNA was deposited so we have no way of knowing when Amanda's DNA got on those objects.

The real argument here is not what you just stated, it is this: How can we explain that someone went into the bathroom and cleaned off Meredith's blood and the only DNA we find in those areas is from Meredith and Amanda. If the killer cleaned off in there, where is his DNA?

And that's a good question.

There was more than Just Meredith and Amanda's DNA in those samples. I know I sound like a broken record. But ILE didn't take reference DNA samples of the other girls living in the cottage. So we don't know who it belongs to.

Nova
07-24-2011, 12:42 PM
BBM

I have always been of the opinion that this had indeed been tested just never been presented. The plot thickens

Do you have any thoughts as to what results would cause ILE to conceal the testing?

Nova
07-24-2011, 01:07 PM
That is just your opinion. Makes zero sense to me. You can bleed from your nose or AK's own explanation was that she bled from her ear. The DNA expert did show it was her blood and even if it was 'just' her DNA it does not belong mixed with MK's blood. It does not belong in the middle of the floor in a footprint, it does not belong in a blood stain on a q-tip box and certainly does not belong in the middle of the floor of another roommate. There is zero chance of any innocent explanation for that. Only if you really want to you start making up excuses as we see continuously in this thread. Just take a step back and ask yourself if there is really nothing 'hinky' about all those 'coincidences' people are so desperately trying to explain away here? This is websleuths after all. That is all I got to say and it is just my opinion :)

"Mixed with" does not mean "deposited at the same time." There is nothing remarkable about AK's DNA being found in AK's house.

sherlockh
07-24-2011, 01:11 PM
It's not my opinion at all. It's a fact. Amanda's blood was not in the footprints.

Yes her DNA was, and you have a point about that. But just be aware that you undermine that point by insisting the falsity that Amanda's blood was there.

I think you have merged the fact of a drop of Amanda's blood on the sink tap into all of the rest of the evidence. That was the only place where there was blood from Amanda.

It is also a fact that you cannot tell at what time DNA was deposited so we have no way of knowing when Amanda's DNA got on those objects.

The real argument here is not what you just stated, it is this: How can we explain that someone went into the bathroom and cleaned off Meredith's blood and the only DNA we find in those areas is from Meredith and Amanda. If the killer cleaned off in there, where is his DNA?

And that's a good question.
No fact at all. During the trials the DNA expert pointed out that several mixed DNA spots consisted of both MK and AK's blood. I don't exactly which spots, and if it was the one in the footprint or not, but it certainly was discussed during the trials.

<modnsip>. Sure AK's smear (not drop) of blood right on top of the water tap, in plain sight, can not be dated. <modsnip>, if that is not suspicious then nothing is. JMO.

sherlockh
07-24-2011, 01:18 PM
"Mixed with" does not mean "deposited at the same time." There is nothing remarkable about AK's DNA being found in AK's house.
Not unless she did cartwheels in the hallway and her roommate's room. Maybe the defense forgot to mention this? DNA does not just fall off you when you walk around. This again has been explained during trials by the DNA expert. You really need to touch something and rub your fingers with it which is for example what RG's DNA traces show. All touch DNA. Mixed DNA in the middle of the floor indicates deposited at the same time. Zero doubt whatsoever. Guilty!

Malkmus
07-24-2011, 01:26 PM
Not unless she did cartwheels in the hallway and her roommate's room. Maybe the defense forgot to mention this? DNA does not just fall off you when you walk around. This again has been explained during trials by the DNA expert. You really need to touch something and rub your fingers with it which is for example what RG's DNA traces show. All touch DNA. Mixed DNA in the middle of the floor indicates deposited at the same time. Zero doubt whatsoever. Guilty!

Actually it does. Your skin is constantly exfoliating and your skin cells are probably all over your bed and in dust on the floor. I'm more interested in knowing who the unknown DNA profiles belong to. Do you have any idea?

emyr
07-24-2011, 03:33 PM
No fact at all. During the trials the DNA expert pointed out that several mixed DNA spots consisted of both MK and AK's blood. I don't exactly which spots, and if it was the one in the footprint or not, but it certainly was discussed during the trials.

<modsnip>. Sure AK's smear (not drop) of blood right on top of the water tap, in plain sight, can not be dated. <modsnip>, if that is not suspicious then nothing is. JMO.

I don't see how you can look at what I typed and think I am trying to explain away the obvious. I, in fact, came up with a stronger reason to assume Amanda's guilt.

Let's try it with your facts: Amanda killed Meredith, and then had a spontaneous nosebleed, or rubbed her hand in her own menstrual blood and then picked up a box of cotton buds. Or, Amanda went to wash off Meredith's blood in the bidet, and spontaneously had a nose bleed that transferred Amanda's blood to her foot during this process... OR Amanda was menstruating while cleaning off her foot, therefore transferring both their blood to her foot.

That is quite a hinky smoking gun you have there.

Remember, Amanda was arrested and searched for cuts all over her body, including in her mouth. So it has to be a nosebleed or menstrual blood or a ton of blood to come from her ear so that it would transfer down to her foot.

However, none of the footprints tested positive for blood. The luminol indicated they MIGHT have been made from HIGHLY DILUTED blood (since the blood test was negative with TMB), perhaps from washing ones foot off in the bidet. They did not do a confirmatory test for blood, so we'll never know with certainty.

As for the blood marks in the bathroom. One would presume this blood is Meredith's since she was murdered. These blood marks were tested and confirmed as blood. Then they were tested to see whose profiles were there, and the result was Amanda and Meredith's DNA. (And the Massai reports states that the tests were positive for a DNA mix of Amanda and Meredith, NOT that Amanda's blood was mixed with Meredith's. In fact, he states that Amanda's profile comes from the shedding of her skin cells from vigorous rubbing of her foot... that's his opinion of how her profile showed up)

SO

1) Meredith's blood
2) Amanda's DNA present.


The strength of the evidence is that Meredith's blood is present in the bathroom and the DNA that is present in those watery smears of blood is also Amanda's. This implies AMANDA is washing off Meredith's blood from her skin. So you would EXPECT to find Amanda's DNA (Absolutely not her blood) if she was the murderer.

What is so damaging about this evidence is the samples provided DNA evidence but NOT Rudy's DNA evidence. If he is the only murderer, you would think it was him washing off in that bathroom. Why didn't they find his DNA in there? Bathrooms are notoriously bad places for DNA. YET Amanda and Meredith's DNA was found in the bathroom. One would expect if you could find their DNA you would be able to find someone elses if they were there. Seems reasonable.

In fact, the most damaging piece of this evidence is the cotton bud box. So Rudy, covered in blood, went into the bathroom and washed off, and he went so far as to use cotton buds? That's pretty weird. Actually, now that I think of it in this manner, that's really weird and I think it's really hinky.

But your point about Amanda's blood being on the tap does not seem hinky at all to me. Since if there is a smear of Amanda's blood on the tap then it has to come from her nose or from menstruation. And I don't see how that makes Amanda a murderer or ties her to the murder. Really, I don't.

Malkmus
07-24-2011, 03:36 PM
My tests are real –Stefanoni writes to Perugia Shock– the results don’t come from mistakes. I will defend them for the sake of justice.

http://perugiashock.com/2011/07/23/the-war-over-dna/

Interesting, Stefanoni reads PS...

SMK
07-24-2011, 04:36 PM
Amanda Knox appeal: DNA evidence to be rejected

By Nick Squires, Rome5:10PM BST 24 Jul 2011

Critical DNA evidence used to convict Amanda Knox of the murder of her British flatmate, Meredith Kercher will be rejected by two forensic scientists as the American's appeal against her conviction reaches a key phase.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01933/knox_1933363c.jpg

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/8658035/Amanda-Knox-appeal-DNA-evidence-to-be-rejected.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/8658035/Amanda-Knox-appeal-DNA-evidence-to-be
rejected.html)

Malkmus
07-24-2011, 05:56 PM
Barbie Nadeau will be tweeting tomorrow updates on the trial live:

http://twitter.com/#!/BLNadeau

SMK
07-24-2011, 06:16 PM
I realized just now from reading the Appeal Court Dates page for Knox/Sollecito, that there are court dates tomorrow Monday, and also Friday and possibly Saturday:

July 25 - Independent Experts - First day of hearings in which the independent experts will present their findings

July 29 - Independent Expert Report - This will likely be further discussion about the independent expert report by defense and prosecution experts.

July 30 - Independent Expert Report - If needed for further discussion on report.

Sept - Verdict ?

RayStar
07-24-2011, 06:51 PM
The court is wasting its time and money trying to free this killer. She has been convicted. I believe Amanda and her boyfriend know they are the reason for this young woman's death.
I hope she stays where she is at!

SMK
07-24-2011, 06:53 PM
The court is wasting its time and money trying to free this killer. She has been convicted. I believe Amanda and her boyfriend know they are the reason for this young woman's death.
I hope she stays where she is at!
Appeal is standard practice in Italian jurisprudence. It is the law. The court is not trying to "free a killer" : It is doing a mandatory review. <modsnip>.

wasnt_me
07-24-2011, 07:59 PM
There is no reason why people who think she is guilty would have an agenda or want her guilty no matter what, but there are plenty of reasons why people who think she is innocent want her innocent no matter what. Just look at their family and the media campaign they setup. There is a big difference between the 2 sites. I can criticize the prosecution and the investigation and still think she is guilty. The innocent site has to attack every single investigator and piece of evidence up to a point where it does not make sense anymore. Anyway, like I said. It is just my opinion.

It's ur opinion, but what's your point as it relates to evidence and outcomes in this case? Debating the motives of people's beliefs of innocence or guilt is in no way advancing this conversation, and I hope this site doesn't devolve into attacking people's motives, as the other sites have.

sherlockh
07-24-2011, 08:11 PM
Actually it does. Your skin is constantly exfoliating and your skin cells are probably all over your bed and in dust on the floor. I'm more interested in knowing who the unknown DNA profiles belong to. Do you have any idea?
I was just stating what was said during the trials. Skin that just falls off does not contain any DNA, but I understand you don't believe a word that DNA expert says ;)

wasnt_me
07-24-2011, 08:17 PM
Not unless she did cartwheels in the hallway and her roommate's room. Maybe the defense forgot to mention this? DNA does not just fall off you when you walk around. This again has been explained during trials by the DNA expert. You really need to touch something and rub your fingers with it which is for example what RG's DNA traces show. All touch DNA. Mixed DNA in the middle of the floor indicates deposited at the same time. Zero doubt whatsoever. Guilty!

I concede to this post, I would have to trust the DNA results in this case. As I have already stated, I barely even trust that the "expert" found MK's DNA on MK's bra; so due to what "independent experts" have deemed about the investigative techniques, and by what I saw with my own eyes of Stephanoni wiping several spots with one swab and since I saw with my own eyes how they went room to room without changing their footies, I'm unable to even say with fact and certainty that anything they found wasn't really there until they dragged it there. Or that it was actually there to begin with, as we already see MK's dna was not on the knife.

Maybe it's Stephanoni's bloody footprint on the bathmat, since she or one of her investigators was stepping in blood in MK's room.

Did you know they dragged her blue jacket across the bloody floor, making new blood streaks and then set it over on the hamper, and then did not collect it until Dec 18th?

Did you know that they did NOT do luminol testing until Dec 18th also? And we saw from the Nov 2 videos all the walking around they were doing without changing their footies. So it's very, very possible they tracked Ak's and MK's DNA into RF's room.

Right now, I wouldn't trust their results that it was RG's crap in the toilet, except for that fact that RG admitted it already.

sherlockh
07-24-2011, 08:19 PM
I don't see how you can look at what I typed and think I am trying to explain away the obvious. I, in fact, came up with a stronger reason to assume Amanda's guilt.

Let's try it with your facts: Amanda killed Meredith, and then had a spontaneous nosebleed, or rubbed her hand in her own menstrual blood and then picked up a box of cotton buds. Or, Amanda went to wash off Meredith's blood in the bidet, and spontaneously had a nose bleed that transferred Amanda's blood to her foot during this process... OR Amanda was menstruating while cleaning off her foot, therefore transferring both their blood to her foot.

That is quite a hinky smoking gun you have there.

Remember, Amanda was arrested and searched for cuts all over her body, including in her mouth. So it has to be a nosebleed or menstrual blood or a ton of blood to come from her ear so that it would transfer down to her foot.

However, none of the footprints tested positive for blood. The luminol indicated they MIGHT have been made from HIGHLY DILUTED blood (since the blood test was negative with TMB), perhaps from washing ones foot off in the bidet. They did not do a confirmatory test for blood, so we'll never know with certainty.

As for the blood marks in the bathroom. One would presume this blood is Meredith's since she was murdered. These blood marks were tested and confirmed as blood. Then they were tested to see whose profiles were there, and the result was Amanda and Meredith's DNA. (And the Massai reports states that the tests were positive for a DNA mix of Amanda and Meredith, NOT that Amanda's blood was mixed with Meredith's. In fact, he states that Amanda's profile comes from the shedding of her skin cells from vigorous rubbing of her foot... that's his opinion of how her profile showed up)

SO

1) Meredith's blood
2) Amanda's DNA present.


The strength of the evidence is that Meredith's blood is present in the bathroom and the DNA that is present in those watery smears of blood is also Amanda's. This implies AMANDA is washing off Meredith's blood from her skin. So you would EXPECT to find Amanda's DNA (Absolutely not her blood) if she was the murderer.

What is so damaging about this evidence is the samples provided DNA evidence but NOT Rudy's DNA evidence. If he is the only murderer, you would think it was him washing off in that bathroom. Why didn't they find his DNA in there? Bathrooms are notoriously bad places for DNA. YET Amanda and Meredith's DNA was found in the bathroom. One would expect if you could find their DNA you would be able to find someone elses if they were there. Seems reasonable.

In fact, the most damaging piece of this evidence is the cotton bud box. So Rudy, covered in blood, went into the bathroom and washed off, and he went so far as to use cotton buds? That's pretty weird. Actually, now that I think of it in this manner, that's really weird and I think it's really hinky.

But your point about Amanda's blood being on the tap does not seem hinky at all to me. Since if there is a smear of Amanda's blood on the tap then it has to come from her nose or from menstruation. And I don't see how that makes Amanda a murderer or ties her to the murder. Really, I don't.
Yes, of course it came from her nose. The water tap is right under your nose if you are washing your hands. So what do you do to stop the nosebleed? You grab a q-tip. The prosecutions theory fits perfectly together, even to the smallest details.

The blood on the water tap is strong supporting evidence and points directly at AK being the murderer. Maybe you know many people with blood on the tap but I certainly don't. And now there is blood and a bloody murder. Really what are the chances? I am not sure what is your point. Maybe we are agreeing after all :)

Sonata
07-24-2011, 08:23 PM
Are you suggesting that AK got her nose bashed in the attack?

Because if so isn't it extraordinary that in the photos/body exam afterwards she clearly has no sign of bruising or swelling to the nose?

OldSteve
07-24-2011, 08:26 PM
Yes, of course it came from her nose. The water tap is right under your nose if you are washing your hands. So what do you do to stop the nosebleed? You grab a q-tip. The prosecutions theory fits perfectly together, even to the smallest details.

The blood on the water tap is strong supporting evidence and points directly at AK being the murderer. Maybe you know many people with blood on the tap but I certainly don't. And now there is blood and a bloody murder. Really what are the chances? I am not sure what is your point. Maybe we are agreeing after all :)

But why no AK blood in MK's room? One drop of blood on a water tap doesn't mean much to me - could have come from other parts of her body under any number of circumstances.
Also no bruises were found on AK after the murder...

Nova
07-24-2011, 08:32 PM
I was just stating what was said during the trials. Skin that just falls off does not contain any DNA, but I understand you don't believe a word that DNA expert says ;)

I don't understand how skin cells with DNA are liable to be found in a hat or bandanna...

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/bc000657.pdf


(last page)


...but not on a floor where a bare foot has stepped (per sherlockh).

OldSteve
07-24-2011, 08:44 PM
Regarding skin cell DNA


https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/bc000657.pdf

wasnt_me
07-24-2011, 08:49 PM
Are you suggesting that AK got her nose bashed in the attack?

Because if so isn't it extraordinary that in the photos/body exam afterwards she clearly has no sign of bruising or swelling to the nose?

You can get highly excitable and have a nose bleed without being hit. However you most likely are gonna get your blood on whatever and wherever you were standing at the time unless you for some reason are expecting this sudden blood flow. I doubt AK got a nose bleed so conveniently as she was bending over to the mirror, and I doubt it would have been just a drop or two. I also doubt you can staunch a nosebleed with a q tip as has been implied.

If AK felt that blood was about to come out of her nose, so she rushed to the sink I think that unexpected act would probably have caused her to leave DNA somewhere else as she would have gotten careless in her rush to the bathroom.

The question is, if this happened to AK, where is the rest of her blood? Where are the tissues she used to clean it up?

What's more logical is that when AK let RS pierce her ears earlier that week, they bled. She cleaned them up but did NOT see the small blood spatter on the silver faucet and there it sat until discovered by super stephanoni.

wasnt_me
07-24-2011, 08:51 PM
I don't understand how skin cells with DNA are liable to be found in a hat or bandanna...

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/bc000657.pdf


(last page)


...but not on a floor where a bare foot has stepped (per sherlockh).

Do we not use friction to propel ourselves across the floor? And in that propulsion, would we not shed DNA if barefoot?

wasnt_me
07-24-2011, 08:55 PM
Yes, of course it came from her nose. The water tap is right under your nose if you are washing your hands.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/dsc_0200.jpg

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/dsc_0204.jpg

I don't think you need to hunch over this sink to wash your hands. How many people bend over the sink to wash their hands? I don't. I can't just by that AK is leaning over the sink washing her hands and blood just happens to fall out.

SkewedView
07-24-2011, 09:09 PM
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/dsc_0200.jpg

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/dsc_0204.jpg

I don't think you need to hunch over this sink to wash your hands. How many people bend over the sink to wash their hands? I don't. I can't just by that AK is leaning over the sink washing her hands and blood just happens to fall out.

Actually, the key thing that I noted right away is that the placement of that shelf would make it quite awkward to hunch in such a manner that one's nose would be over the faucet, regardless of one's normal habits. You would have to bend uncomfortably low to put your head under that shelf, or else you would bop your head against the shelf before being able to get your nose over the faucet, which is, I should note, set farther back towards the wall than most modern faucets.

Malkmus
07-24-2011, 09:15 PM
I was just stating what was said during the trials. Skin that just falls off does not contain any DNA, but I understand you don't believe a word that DNA expert says ;)

This may surprise you, Sherlock. But the outermost layer of skin, the epidermis, is made up of dead skin cells. We shed roughly 40,000 skin cells a minute. When you touch something these are the skin cells left behind. I searched and found nothing to back your claim that dead skin cells don't contain DNA. You might not want to rely solely on things the proscution's expert claims. I don't know if you noticed, but her credibility went down the drain just recently.

Malkmus
07-24-2011, 09:17 PM
Yes, of course it came from her nose. The water tap is right under your nose if you are washing your hands. So what do you do to stop the nosebleed? You grab a q-tip. The prosecutions theory fits perfectly together, even to the smallest details.

The blood on the water tap is strong supporting evidence and points directly at AK being the murderer. Maybe you know many people with blood on the tap but I certainly don't. And now there is blood and a bloody murder. Really what are the chances? I am not sure what is your point. Maybe we are agreeing after all :)

You don't get a bloody nose from someone smacking you without some visible bruising...

wasnt_me
07-24-2011, 09:23 PM
I think we also miss the complete obvious, which is why in the world would AK call RF and tell her about blood in the bathroom, if it is her own blood?

Why is she pointing out blood in the sink, in the bidet and on the bathmat?

She's not doing that because she got caught by the PP. Remember, they arrived at least an hour after Ak's calls to RF. I still do not understand why AK is telling anything to RF about blood in the bathroom IF AK had tried to do a clean up. Makes no sense. At no time before the postal police arrived was AK under pressure to have the crime scene revealed to the world. So it stands to reason that even in that time before the PP arrived, she should have been getting that bathmat up off the floor and wiping down the sink and the bidet. But instead, she reports these items to RF as being strange.

Why does she do this? Why does she call RF about these things at 1207pm but the postal police dont arrive until 100pm?

And it's not good enough to say AK was trying to get RF to discover the crime scene, because in their first calls to each other, AK didn't try to persuade RF to go home. To our knowledge, it was RF who told AK to go back to the house and see if anything had been stolen. AK didn't tell RF, "No, you do it." instead, she went back. To my knowledge, we have no testimony from RF that stated Ak tried to pressure her to go to the cottage. In fact, AK only asked RF to come to the cottage after the second trip revealed the broken window.

This is my understanding of it. And it my understanding it correct, then a coverup, clean up is unlikely, as it is unlikely that AK's blood was deposited during a nefarious act.

SMK
07-24-2011, 09:29 PM
From Candace Dempsey, on the eve of the final appellate hearings:


http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/files/2011/07/Amanda-Knox-300x223.png

Once they proudly called themselves the colpevisti (believers in guilt), the hardy band of fast-typing journalists convinced that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito murdered her British roommate in an infamous sex game gone wrong–with the assistance of petty crook Rudy Guede.

The colpeviste scoffed at the naivité of the innocente, a much smaller group of renegade fact-checking journalists and bloggers who figured out early on that the satantic ritual, girls gone wrong, Manga comic, Halloween-influenced crime theories of prosecutor Giuliano Mignini didn’t make a lick of sense. And where, they wondered, was the proof? But the two college students were convicted in December 2009. Rudy was convicted in a seperate trial.

Now, during Amanda and Raffaele’s appeal trial, even the colpeviste have started to sing a different tune–and just in the nick of time. Even Italian journalists are predicting that the two college students could be acquitted in the fall. “If she lived in the U.S., the beautiful blonde with the blue eyes would already be free,” wrote one.

Tomorrow, two highly respected, judge-appointed, independent scientific experts will testify that the DNA evidence used to convict the two college students never amounted to a hill of beans. In their long, meticulous report, Professors Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti of La Spienza University found neither blood nor the victim’s DNA on the alleged murder weapon. As for the bra clasp that supposedly linked Raffaele to the murder scene, they said it was too rusted to retest–and any DNA most likely came from contamination.

In a spectacular display of dirty pool, discredited police forensic scientist Patrizia Stefanoni has even threatened to sue the two experts for casing aspersions on her work. She vows to put up a furious battle in court, claiming that her credentials outrank theirs.http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/07/24/will-eexperts-knox-out-dna-evidence-against-amanda-knox/

SkewedView
07-24-2011, 09:33 PM
This may surprise you, Sherlock. But the outermost layer of skin, the epidermis, is made up of dead skin cells. We shed roughly 40,000 skin cells a minute. When you touch something these are the skin cells left behind. I searched and found nothing to back your claim that dead skin cells don't contain DNA. You might not want to rely solely on things the proscution's expert claims. I don't know if you noticed, but her credibility went down the drain just recently.

To be fair, in my research I found that Stephanoni was partially correct in her assertions - exfoliated skin cells are terrible Nuclear DNA carriers, as the nucleus of the cells are badly degraded by the time that they are ready to be shed, to the point that the great majority of them do not carry viable DNA. However, there are usually still some cells that have viable nDNA (enough to show up on a sensitive enough test, or normal tests if there was enough exfoliation taking place in the sampled area, such as through forceful contact), and all of them have usable mitochondrial DNA (not that the last has any bearing on this case, as such DNA would not be a contamination factor).

As per usual, if you wish me to provide links to the stuff I've found, please ask and I'll do my best to do so in a timely fashion. For now, I'm just too darned tired to find them again.

Malkmus
07-24-2011, 09:41 PM
To be fair, in my research I found that Stephanoni was partially correct in her assertions - exfoliated skin cells are terrible Nuclear DNA carriers, as the nucleus of the cells are badly degraded by the time that they are ready to be shed, to the point that the great majority of them do not carry viable DNA. However, there are usually still some cells that have viable nDNA (enough to show up on a sensitive enough test, or normal tests if there was enough exfoliation taking place in the sampled area, such as through forceful contact), and all of them have usable mitochondrial DNA (not that the last has any bearing on this case, as such DNA would not be a contamination factor).

As per usual, if you wish me to provide links to the stuff I've found, please ask and I'll do my best to do so in a timely fashion. For now, I'm just too darned tired to find them again.

Yes, I've noticed that there is apparent degradation in said cells. At a rate of 40,000 shed per minute what is the percentage of "unreadable" ones? I think my claim is in stark contrast to sherlock's "no dead cells contain DNA". Regardless, I still dont see how AK's DNA found where she lives is proof of anything. If someone bled on my floor and the police collected a sample, my reaction to them finding my DNA in that sample would be a big fat "And...?"

sherlockh
07-24-2011, 09:46 PM
But why no AK blood in MK's room? One drop of blood on a water tap doesn't mean much to me - could have come from other parts of her body under any number of circumstances.
Also no bruises were found on AK after the murder...
I can only speculate on that. Indeed no blood was found in the room. Could have been covered by all the blood from MK that spread on the floor. I dunno. More likely is that AK rushed off after she stabbed her roommate and because of the excitement got a nosebleed. There is also speculations that she stuffed drugs up her nose and the nosebleed was a reaction to that. Again that is just speculations, and there is no way for me to tell for sure.

My main point was that there is nothing normal about blood on your tap, and certainly not in combination with a very bloody murder of your roommate. Then adding the mixed spots in the sink and bidet, but especially the one on the q-tip box is case closed already. For me at least ;)

Malkmus
07-24-2011, 09:48 PM
I think we also miss the complete obvious, which is why in the world would AK call RF and tell her about blood in the bathroom, if it is her own blood?

Why is she pointing out blood in the sink, in the bidet and on the bathmat?

She's not doing that because she got caught by the PP. Remember, they arrived at least an hour after Ak's calls to RF. I still do not understand why AK is telling anything to RF about blood in the bathroom IF AK had tried to do a clean up. Makes no sense. At no time before the postal police arrived was AK under pressure to have the crime scene revealed to the world. So it stands to reason that even in that time before the PP arrived, she should have been getting that bathmat up off the floor and wiping down the sink and the bidet. But instead, she reports these items to RF as being strange.

Why does she do this? Why does she call RF about these things at 1207pm but the postal police dont arrive until 100pm?

And it's not good enough to say AK was trying to get RF to discover the crime scene, because in their first calls to each other, AK didn't try to persuade RF to go home. To our knowledge, it was RF who told AK to go back to the house and see if anything had been stolen. AK didn't tell RF, "No, you do it." instead, she went back. To my knowledge, we have no testimony from RF that stated Ak tried to pressure her to go to the cottage. In fact, AK only asked RF to come to the cottage after the second trip revealed the broken window.

This is my understanding of it. And it my understanding it correct, then a coverup, clean up is unlikely, as it is unlikely that AK's blood was deposited during a nefarious act.

Or, more to your point, why would rs call the police and tell them about blood in the bathroom which includes his own bloody footprint?

SkewedView
07-24-2011, 09:58 PM
Yes, I've noticed that there is apparent degradation in said cells. At a rate of 40,000 shed per minute what is the percentage of "unreadable" ones? I think my claim is in stark contrast to sherlock's "no dead cells contain DNA". Regardless, I still dont see how AK's DNA found where she lives is proof of anything. If someone bled on my floor and the police collected a sample, my reaction to them finding my DNA in that sample would be a big fat "And...?"

Yeah, I didn't bother to comment on that, as I've pointed out such things before and attracted a ****storm, including accusations that 'layman's terms' is somehow insulting/condescending. :waitasec:

The percentage of viable cells is very low indeed, but as you say, given a large enough sample...not to mention, forceful contact, or contact with freshly washed skin can cause live cells to be left along with the dead cells.

That's the cunning beauty of Stephanoni's testimony (amongst others in this trial) - she often takes the truth and then alters it just enough to get the (erroneous) impression across that she wants, a common (albeit unethical) tactic amongst serial expert witnesses. That's why I usually double check what the experts for both sides in a trial say, as you can never tell what ones are going to be shills.

miley
07-24-2011, 10:10 PM
There was more than Just Meredith and Amanda's DNA in those samples. I know I sound like a broken record. But ILE didn't take reference DNA samples of the other girls living in the cottage. So we don't know who it belongs to.

Maybe she did do the control samples and is withholding the information.

When I was re reading Franks older posts, I came across Frank talking about the control tests - indicating Stefanoni preformed them. (DNA 101)
at the time, it didn't quite sink in - but here, in the PS comments, Chris Halkides refers to the tests too:

Chris Halkides says:
July 23, 2011 at 8:08 pm

Frank,
Thank you for a very informative post. If Dr. Stefanoni said that her lab did the controls but did not report them, that is still not good enough, IMO. Curiously negative controls are sometimes faked by the technicians running the equipment, and the defense can sometimes detect this if they have the electronic data files. Forensic science should be transparent.
http://perugiashock.com/2011/07/23/the-war-over-dna/#comments

if this is correct, why is Stefanoni withholding the report? clearly, she doesn't want it revealed, (why?) this is what I've been trying to figure out.

Allusonz
07-24-2011, 10:25 PM
IF Amanda is truly innocent.... (Which she is not) Why frame your boss for murder..... why have no alibi (That your boyfriend will not even back up for you). Why have your blood mixed in with the victim ( and It's not just "because Amanda lived there") and your bloody footprints around the house and why stage a break in....... Amanda is not innocent, I believe she was there and knew what was happening.

No innocent person continues to lie and lie to the police and no innocent person frames someone else for murder. Amanda had a reason to lie..

I hope she never gets out.....

I have to ask this of you. What do you consider to be the most convincing evidence that ties her to this murder? As well, what would it take for you to change your mind? Also what do you consider to be reasonable doubt?

Allusonz
07-24-2011, 10:28 PM
I think she's as innocent as Casey Anthony.

Based on what evidence? What evidence in your mind puts this case beyond a reasonable doubt for you? I am basically asking you the same questions that I have asked in the post above. What evidence if tossed would put this case beyond a reasonable doubt in your mind?

wasnt_me
07-24-2011, 10:31 PM
I can only speculate on that. Indeed no blood was found in the room. Could have been covered by all the blood from MK that spread on the floor. I dunno. More likely is that AK rushed off after she stabbed her roommate and because of the excitement got a nosebleed. There is also speculations that she stuffed drugs up her nose and the nosebleed was a reaction to that. Again that is just speculations, and there is no way for me to tell for sure.

My main point was that there is nothing normal about blood on your tap, and certainly not in combination with a very bloody murder of your roommate. Then adding the mixed spots in the sink and bidet, but especially the one on the q-tip box is case closed already. For me at least ;)

I don't see the big deal about the q-tip box. It's like not even two inches from the faucet. I'm sorry you don't see anything normal about someone not seeing a blood drop on a silver faucet. If she was cleaning her new piercings and a drop or two fell, it's perfectly reasonable that she didn't notice that. Since it wasn't completely dry, it could have possibly even have happened that morning after her shower. I don't know how long it takes blood to dry but I'm thinking if the murder even happened at midnight, it's more than likely the blood would have been dry by 1pm the next day.

Am I correct about this? They said it wasn't completely dry, right? I need to look that back up again.

miley
07-24-2011, 10:32 PM
Yes, of course it came from her nose. The water tap is right under your nose if you are washing your hands. So what do you do to stop the nosebleed? You grab a q-tip. The prosecutions theory fits perfectly together, even to the smallest details.

The blood on the water tap is strong supporting evidence and points directly at AK being the murderer. Maybe you know many people with blood on the tap but I certainly don't. And now there is blood and a bloody murder. Really what are the chances? I am not sure what is your point. Maybe we are agreeing after all :)
You hold your head back, pinch your nose and feel your way to a rag or kleenex
yeah, I'm not buying the whole karate kid kick --

SMK
07-24-2011, 10:32 PM
<modsnip>
I think it was that you said the court was "wasting time and money trying to free a killer"---it sort of irritated, because 1. this appeal is her due under Italian law and 2. many intelligent people believe she was wrongly convicted. Wrongful convictions happen all the time. Casey Anthony was NOT convicted, and yet millions are screaming that she OUGHT to have been. So we are saying Knox ought NOT to have been.

wasnt_me
07-24-2011, 10:33 PM
Or, more to your point, why would rs call the police and tell them about blood in the bathroom which includes his own bloody footprint?

Yep, that, too.

Malkmus
07-24-2011, 10:33 PM
<modsnip>

Raystar, would you like to discuss the reasons for thinking so?

sherlockh
07-24-2011, 10:34 PM
Actually it does. Your skin is constantly exfoliating and your skin cells are probably all over your bed and in dust on the floor. I'm more interested in knowing who the unknown DNA profiles belong to. Do you have any idea?
No idea. The defense tries to throw a whole bunch of objections on the table during the appeal and I certainly don't just accept it as fact. Whether there actually are unknown DNA profiles and the importance of that remains to be seen. So if you don't mind, I rather just sit back and wait till this comes up (if it ever comes up) during the appeals.

Allusonz
07-24-2011, 10:35 PM
Lol...of course..you can only bleed from cuts on your body ;)

If she was hit in the nose and suffered a nose bleed, that required the amount of washing off as you are attempting to state would be required, why in your opinion considering the number of samples taken from MK's room, hallway, and bathroom would only one drop of blood of hers be found?

A nosebleed does not just stop like a water tap. You have also stated in a previous post that if they sprayed luminol in your home no DNA/agents would react to it.

Why are you so certain of this? I ask as my mother was a perfectionist, had people come in to clean regularily, yet when luminol was sprayed it lit up in various spots like a neon light. Do you equate a clean home as being DNA free? This of course would include things such as your vents, furnace/AC etc

Malkmus
07-24-2011, 10:37 PM
No idea. The defense tries to throw a whole bunch of objections on the table during the appeal and I certainly don't just accept it as fact. Whether there actually are unknown DNA profiles and the importance of that remains to be seen. So if you don't mind, I rather just sit back and wait till this comes up (if it ever comes up) during the appeals.

By all means. This is more or less the same stance I've taken as well. Let's wait and see what transpires. You seem to want to take what the DNA experts say rather seriously, so I hope that includes the ones that have no stake in either side...

Allusonz
07-24-2011, 10:38 PM
I should do the same. I keep writing when I am clearly too exhausted to do so. My last post is a tired mess. :)

In any case, to the rest of you: Is there truly no sign of clean-up? Even in the bathroom?

For my "presumption of guilt" scenario, I have to be operating off the idea that both Amanda and Raffaelle have all the facts. If they have all the facts (they know they showered there, stepped in blood there, that Sollecito touched Meredith's bra) then... the result is very convoluted.

The time of death, if they did it, has to be several hours after 9pm. Preferably around 11:30 pm (to have time to leave the evidence, dump the phones, and also to work themselves up into a sexual murderous frenzy). Their initial alibi would focus on how to make certain they were not there around that time. They wouldn't make up lies to explain any evidence of a cover up in the hallway because there was no cover up in the hallway...

Honestly, when I heard about this case when I started I thought it was pre-meditated (turning off their cell phones), which goes farther to explain the evidence collected. But since there is no way it was pre-meditated (both were supposed to be doing something else the night of the murder), then the evidence becomes much more difficult to fit into the correct scenario. The facts as presented really needs a clean-up to have taken place at the cottage. In the absence of the clean-up, we have a very strange story of toting a mop around everywhere.

Oh yikes emyr. Your post made perfect sense. I was merely making the observation that no matter how I looked at the prosecutions hypothesis it simply did not add up the more I looked at it. I am terribly sorry for not making myself clearer last night and apologize

Malkmus
07-24-2011, 10:40 PM
Here I am trying to get ready for bed, yet it's hard to get rest knowing that Perugia is just waking up and getting ready for quite the showdown in just a couple hours...

sherlockh
07-24-2011, 10:43 PM
You hold your head back, pinch your nose and feel your way to a rag or kleenex
yeah, I'm not buying the whole karate kid kick --
Sure, or if you don't have time to hold your head back and are in a rush for 'some reason' then you quickly grab a q-tip, stuff it up your nose and get the hell out of Dodge.

Or the bleeding didn't stop and she followed procedure:
http://www.andorrapediatrics.com/ap_folders/hand-outs/knowledge/nosebleeds.htm
If the nosebleed does not stop, use salt water nose drops and squeeze again. Use a Q-tip and coat the cotton tip with Vaseline. Insert the Q-tip into the nose only as far as the cotton tip and coat the inside lining of the nose.
A jar of Vaseline was found on the crime scene...mmhh...

Allusonz
07-24-2011, 10:46 PM
No fact at all. During the trials the DNA expert pointed out that several mixed DNA spots consisted of both MK and AK's blood. I don't exactly which spots, and if it was the one in the footprint or not, but it certainly was discussed during the trials.

<modsnip>. Sure AK's smear (not drop) of blood right on top of the water tap, in plain sight, can not be dated. <modsnip>, if that is not suspicious then nothing is. JMO.

If she is such an expert why are so many "other worldwide experts" not agreeing with her. There is IMO a fundamental error in reasoning here. Even the Italian experts are calling her out so it cannot even be blamed on them not being Italian. How many experts have stated that her protocols/procedures are not in error?

milliac
07-24-2011, 10:47 PM
@ milliac

:welcome:

gives you a designer straight jacket for this case

Thanks! I spent my weekend reading "murder in Italy". It does seem to be pro defense, and at this point I tend to lean not guilty. Where can I start to see evidence myself?

Having lived in Seattle area for 5 years, I think AK was very misunderstood in a different culture. I now live 2 hours North, but many of the same type of liberal culture and mentality here, just on a smaller scale.

I really laughed during parts of this book, and the prosecution's theory seems so unbelievably ridiculous. Anyway, I am still on a good place believing their innocence, as the law asks us to presume. Maybe I should read a pro prosecution book now. Any suggestions?

sherlockh
07-24-2011, 10:49 PM
By all means. This is more or less the same stance I've taken as well. Let's wait and see what transpires. You seem to want to take what the DNA experts say rather seriously, so I hope that includes the ones that have no stake in either side...
Yes, good plan. Of course I accept whatever comes out of the trials. What else am I supposed to do? :)

Allusonz
07-24-2011, 10:49 PM
The court is wasting its time and money trying to free this killer. She has been convicted. I believe Amanda and her boyfriend know they are the reason for this young woman's death.
I hope she stays where she is at!

I as well have to ask what evidence that has not been disproved to date in your mind makes her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? I see so many that post these things but I am still looking for those very elusive concrete facts that prove she did it

SMK
07-24-2011, 10:50 PM
Here I am trying to get ready for bed, yet it's hard to get rest knowing that Perugia is just waking up and getting ready for quite the showdown in just a couple hours...I know....wish they were not hours ahead of us.........:countsheep:

RayStar
07-24-2011, 10:50 PM
I think it was that you said the court was "wasting time and money trying to free a killer"---it sort of irritated, because 1. this appeal is her due under Italian law and 2. many intelligent people believe she was wrongly convicted. Wrongful convictions happen all the time. Casey Anthony was NOT convicted, and yet millions are screaming that she OUGHT to have been. So we are saying Knox ought NOT to have been.

No, I stand by my post the court is wasting its time and money because she is GUILTY even though this process must proceed. <modsnip>??? Appeals are given and most convictions I have seen are not overturned. Don't know about the Italian courts and could care less as I live in the USA. Amanda is guilty as she was rightly convicted. No wrong conviction there. Casey was not convicted. People can scream till the moon turns blue it won't change the verdict of not guilty for Casey. Besides the hollers weren't members of the jury. Also, the we you mention were not on killer Amanda's jury either. Aren't there people still whooping and hollering about Jesus Christ doing something sinful? Can't stop that.

Malkmus
07-24-2011, 10:53 PM
No, I stand by my post the court is wasting its time and money because she is GUILTY even though this process must proceed. <modsnip>??? Appeals are given and most convictions I have seen are not overturned. Don't know about the Italian courts and could care less as I live in the USA. Amanda is guilty as she was rightly convicted. No wrong conviction there. Casey was not convicted. People can scream till the moon turns blue it won't change the verdict of not guilty for Casey. Besides the hollers weren't members of the jury. Also, the we you mention were not on killer Amanda's jury either. Aren't there people still whooping and hollering about Jesus Christ doing something sinful? Can't stop that.

Raystar, I hope you stick around for the developments in this case. I'd still like to know what evidence you find most compelling for her guilt. Also, remember it's not just Amanda Knox, but Rafaelle Sollecito who is on trial. :)

Nova
07-24-2011, 10:54 PM
Yes, of course it came from her nose. The water tap is right under your nose if you are washing your hands. So what do you do to stop the nosebleed? You grab a q-tip. The prosecutions theory fits perfectly together, even to the smallest details.

The blood on the water tap is strong supporting evidence and points directly at AK being the murderer. Maybe you know many people with blood on the tap but I certainly don't. And now there is blood and a bloody murder. Really what are the chances? I am not sure what is your point. Maybe we are agreeing after all :)

Um, I have quite a bit of trouble with nose bleeds here in the dry desert heat.

It would never occur to me to treat one with a Q-tip. Even now that you've suggested it, I can't imagine how that would work.

RayStar
07-24-2011, 10:55 PM
I as well have to ask what evidence that has not been disproved to date in your mind makes her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? I see so many that post these things but I am still looking for those very elusive concrete facts that prove she did it

In your mind do you realize she is a convicted KILLER. That's on paper not in my mind. ok This is a message board not a fact sheet. Opinions Opinions

Allusonz
07-24-2011, 10:56 PM
I was just stating what was said during the trials. Skin that just falls off does not contain any DNA, but I understand you don't believe a word that DNA expert says ;)

If you truly thought about this statement, and taking into consideration the amount of skin cells alone that are shed, and if you really take into consideration the opinions of the experts stating that one expert is wrong ( I believe my count of experts is close to 20 stating she did not follow proper procedures/protocols) <modsnip>

RayStar
07-24-2011, 10:57 PM
Raystar, would you like to discuss the reasons for thinking so?

There is nothing to discuss. She has been convicted of murder.

Malkmus
07-24-2011, 10:58 PM
In your mind do you realize she is a convicted KILLER. That's on paper not in my mind. ok This is a message board not a fact sheet. Opinions Opinions



So it's whatever on paper that makes up your decision? You know that may very well change.

Malkmus
07-24-2011, 10:58 PM
There is nothing to discuss. She has been convicted of murder.

What a compelling argument...

wasnt_me
07-24-2011, 10:59 PM
"Shout, shout let it all out! These are the things I can do without. Come on, I'm talking to you, so come on!"

--Tears for Fears.

wasnt_me
07-24-2011, 11:00 PM
Um, I have quite a bit of trouble with nose bleeds here in the dry desert heat.

It would never occur to me to treat one with a Q-tip. Even now that you've suggested it, I can't imagine how that would work.

My thoughts exactly.....Maybe 20 q-tips?

RayStar
07-24-2011, 11:03 PM
Raystar, I hope you stick around for the developments in this case. I'd still like to know what evidence you find most compelling for her guilt. Also, remember it's not just Amanda Knox, but Rafaelle Sollecito who is on trial. :)

I probably will not stick around as I hope Amanda stays in prison for the crime of murder of which she was convicted. I don't give a hoot about killer Raffey.

I've had a great time posting on this thread today.

Allusonz
07-24-2011, 11:05 PM
I don't see the big deal about the q-tip box. It's like not even two inches from the faucet. I'm sorry you don't see anything normal about someone not seeing a blood drop on a silver faucet. If she was cleaning her new piercings and a drop or two fell, it's perfectly reasonable that she didn't notice that. Since it wasn't completely dry, it could have possibly even have happened that morning after her shower. I don't know how long it takes blood to dry but I'm thinking if the murder even happened at midnight, it's more than likely the blood would have been dry by 1pm the next day.

Am I correct about this? They said it wasn't completely dry, right? I need to look that back up again.

When you clean recently pierced ears it is usually with q-tips and rubbing alchohol (no not my rubber wine kind :innocent:) and from experience they will often bleed even and especially if infected thus finding a drop of blood from the ear is a reasonable explanation if you truly have no idea how it got there

Allusonz
07-24-2011, 11:07 PM
You hold your head back, pinch your nose and feel your way to a rag or kleenex
yeah, I'm not buying the whole karate kid kick --

Exactly miley yet the toilet paper they found with blood on it did not have her blood on it either :giggle:

Allusonz
07-24-2011, 11:10 PM
Sure, or if you don't have time to hold your head back and are in a rush for 'some reason' then you quickly grab a q-tip, stuff it up your nose and get the hell out of Dodge.

Or the bleeding didn't stop and she followed procedure:
http://www.andorrapediatrics.com/ap_folders/hand-outs/knowledge/nosebleeds.htm

A jar of Vaseline was found on the crime scene...mmhh...

But no blood inside the jar, on the jar. This invisible DNA cleanup etc., is becomming more farfetched the more I question it

Malkmus
07-24-2011, 11:11 PM
I probably will not stick around as I hope Amanda stays in prison for the crime of murder of which she was convicted. I don't give a hoot about killer Raffey.

I've had a great time posting on this thread today.

Look forward to hearing from you again. I'm sure there will be much to discuss...

Salem
07-24-2011, 11:11 PM
STOP with the SNARKINESS! STOP. Enough already. There is more than one opinion on this story and everyone is equally entitled to express theirs, so stop being snarky about it!

If it continues, I will be recommending timeouts.

Salem

Allusonz
07-24-2011, 11:15 PM
Or, more to your point, why would rs call the police and tell them about blood in the bathroom which includes his own bloody footprint?

Especially considering they cleaned up invisible DNA evidence but would leave a footprint on a bathmat. Something is seriously wrong with the logic here

Malkmus
07-24-2011, 11:15 PM
Thanks! I spent my weekend reading "murder in Italy". It does seem to be pro defense, and at this point I tend to lean not guilty. Where can I start to see evidence myself?

Having lived in Seattle area for 5 years, I think AK was very misunderstood in a different culture. I now live 2 hours North, but many of the same type of liberal culture and mentality here, just on a smaller scale.

I really laughed during parts of this book, and the prosecution's theory seems so unbelievably ridiculous. Anyway, I am still on a good place believing their innocence, as the law asks us to presume. Maybe I should read a pro prosecution book now. Any suggestions?

Yeah, that might be tough. :floorlaugh:

The closest was "Angel Face", but Barbie has since done an about-face.

miley
07-24-2011, 11:17 PM
Sure, or if you don't have time to hold your head back and are in a rush for 'some reason' then you quickly grab a q-tip, stuff it up your nose and get the hell out of Dodge.

Or the bleeding didn't stop and she followed procedure:
http://www.andorrapediatrics.com/ap_folders/hand-outs/knowledge/nosebleeds.htm

A jar of Vaseline was found on the crime scene...mmhh...

yeah, but you put a q-tip up your nose? (ouch) - something that absorbs like twisted Kleenex .

the Vaseline was found in Meredith's room correct? why in the world would Amanda seek out vaseline (in Meredith's room) to stop a nose bleed - I'm sorry, I just don't see the logic.

SkewedView
07-24-2011, 11:17 PM
No, I stand by my post the court is wasting its time and money because she is GUILTY even though this process must proceed. Getting irritated at posts on a message board may be harmful to your health. Why waste that energy??? Appeals are given and most convictions I have seen are not overturned. Don't know about the Italian courts and could care less as I live in the USA. Amanda is guilty as she was rightly convicted. No wrong conviction there. Casey was not convicted. People can scream till the moon turns blue it won't change the verdict of not guilty for Casey. Besides the hollers weren't members of the jury. Also, the we you mention were not on killer Amanda's jury either. Aren't there people still whooping and hollering about Jesus Christ doing something sinful? Can't stop that.

Seeing as how the trial and appeals have taken place in Italy, perhaps it actually does matter how things are 'over there'? For your information, Italy has a fifty percent overturn rate on appeal. That's right, the initial trials in Italy are so skewed in the prosecution's favor, that they get it wrong half of the time. Thus why the Italian Justice System does not consider you convicted until all of the appeals have run their course.

Juries and Judges mess up. It happens everywhere that they exist. This is because they are only human, because witnesses and experts on both sides often are mistaken or just plain lie, and because they are usually laymen who have trouble weighing scientific testimony properly. Is it not a good thing for the system to have appeals available to try to catch such errors? Or should we just save the time and money and abandon the innocent to undeserved fates? Keep in mind here that nearly all of those who have been exonerated in the past few decades were labeled by the authorities and media as being 100 percent, without a doubt guilty - oops.

Kimster
07-24-2011, 11:18 PM
STOP with the SNARKINESS! STOP. Enough already. There is more than one opinion on this story and everyone is equally entitled to express theirs, so stop being snarky about it!

If it continues, I will be recommending timeouts.

Salem

Don't make me come in here again. Pay attention to Salem. :saber:

wasnt_me
07-24-2011, 11:18 PM
Exactly miley yet the toilet paper they found with blood on it did not have her blood on it either :giggle:

RG's doo-doo toilet paper? What toilet paper do you mean?

Allusonz
07-24-2011, 11:20 PM
No idea. The defense tries to throw a whole bunch of objections on the table during the appeal and I certainly don't just accept it as fact. Whether there actually are unknown DNA profiles and the importance of that remains to be seen. So if you don't mind, I rather just sit back and wait till this comes up (if it ever comes up) during the appeals.

That is their job. It does not stop an individual from being able to determine what would logically make sense to review in that appeal. This still does not address the basic question of what is left what do you consider to be beyond a reasonable doubt. I am not stating innocence. I do though believe this to be a fair question of anyone and that includes myself

wasnt_me
07-24-2011, 11:22 PM
yeah, but you put a q-tip up your nose? (ouch) - something that absorbs like twisted Kleenex .

the Vaseline was found in Meredith's room correct? why in the world would Amanda seek out vaseline (in Meredith's room) to stop a nose bleed - I'm sorry, I just don't see the logic.

I thought this was a tube of vaseline, as in lip balm, not a jar.

Allusonz
07-24-2011, 11:24 PM
Thanks! I spent my weekend reading "murder in Italy". It does seem to be pro defense, and at this point I tend to lean not guilty. Where can I start to see evidence myself?

Having lived in Seattle area for 5 years, I think AK was very misunderstood in a different culture. I now live 2 hours North, but many of the same type of liberal culture and mentality here, just on a smaller scale.

I really laughed during parts of this book, and the prosecution's theory seems so unbelievably ridiculous. Anyway, I am still on a good place believing their innocence, as the law asks us to presume. Maybe I should read a pro prosecution book now. Any suggestions?

This is one site that I use that has a pretty comprehensive overview of things. Be forewarned it is slanted to the innocent side but at least it is in English. Most questions that are more specific which you may have can usually be googled. Good luck in your journey :)

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/index.html

Allusonz
07-24-2011, 11:25 PM
I thought this was a tube of vaseline, as in lip balm, not a jar.

Dang you are right. Those funky invisible fingerprints again :giggle:

Allusonz
07-24-2011, 11:26 PM
RG's doo-doo toilet paper? What toilet paper do you mean?

The paper found outside with blood on it IIRC it was toilet paper

Malkmus
07-24-2011, 11:27 PM
This is one site that I use that has a pretty comprehensive overview of things. Be forewarned it is slanted to the innocent side but at least it is in English. Most questions that are more specific which you may have can usually be googled. Good luck in your journey :)

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/index.html

You're right in that IIP is the only comprehensive site on the subject, but it is pro-innocence. I almost want to say that anyone who wants a full understanding of the case should read perugiashock from beginning to end. From Frank's perspective you see the evolution from a pro-guilt narrative to a more innocent-minded one. All from someone who was at ground zero, so to say.

miley
07-24-2011, 11:29 PM
Yeah, that might be tough. :floorlaugh:

The closest was "Angel Face", but Barbie has since done an about-face.

that was funny!

Malkmus
07-24-2011, 11:34 PM
Okay bed-time. Much to discuss tomorrow... :offtobed:

miley
07-24-2011, 11:44 PM
I thought this was a tube of vaseline, as in lip balm, not a jar.
dailymail:
Ms Napoleone also told the court she had found a used tub of Vaseline in Meredith's bedroom during a search of the murder scene.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1156969/Shoe-print-matching-Foxy-Knoxys-Merediths-dead-body-police-chief-tells-trial.html#ixzz1T5KiQjrt


I was under the impression it was a jar of vaseline - has this changed?

Allusonz
07-24-2011, 11:45 PM
Do you have any thoughts as to what results would cause ILE to conceal the testing?

When you consider that this was according to the prosecution theory a drug fueled satanic sex orgy as a prosecutor one of the first things I would want to find out is whether there is any semen.

According to numerous media reports at the beginning they stated that there were stains, some still damp that were not blood. Without trying to go into great detail they did do swabs and did find DNA. What perplexed me from the start was the fact that sometimes it was stated as semen and other times skin cells.

You also have RG stating that she rebuffed his advances but they were kinda making out.

We know the pillow is in evidence so it is not one of the items that was tossed into the pile thus it must of been bagged. I would think if they collected it they would of tested it. I am not trying to bait here and if this is off base please mods remove this part as the links that provided more information on this are no longer available.

If you look at the CA trial the defense made sure to bring in the fact the LA was ruled out as the father but interestingly enough they did not ask the same of the results of GA.

I believe that if the information did not support RS if they did not bring this information in then it would remain (or could potentially remain) as a question in the jurors minds.

If that stain did belong to RS it would of been admitted. What though if there was a 4th person? Did it belong to RG? As a prosecutor with that being a major component of my hypothesis that would be one of the first things I would want to know.

<modsnip>

Hope this helps

milliac
07-24-2011, 11:47 PM
A question lingering with me is how far was The bedroom from the bathroom? How is it there wasn't a trail of bloody footprints from the bedroom to the bathroom. Even if cleaned with a towel from the bathroom on the way back to the bedroom, wouldn't it Just be smeared? Sorry. I'm sure it's been asked and answered many times.

Allusonz
07-24-2011, 11:52 PM
A question lingering with me is how far was The bedroom from the bathroom? How is it there wasn't a trail of bloody footprints from the bedroom to the bathroom. Even if cleaned with a towel from the bathroom on the way back to the bedroom, wouldn't it Just be smeared? Sorry. I'm sure it's been asked and answered many times.

There is a layout of the cottage on the site I gave you as well as pictures. If they had attempted to clean it, it would appear much like the wiping of a chalkboard under luminol

miley
07-24-2011, 11:52 PM
Allusonz quote: I believe that if the information did not support RS if they did not bring this information in then it would remain (or could potentially remain) as a question in the jurors minds.

something we see over and over - left for their imagination .. or as Frank says, "hallucination."

Allusonz
07-24-2011, 11:53 PM
yeah, but you put a q-tip up your nose? (ouch) - something that absorbs like twisted Kleenex .

the Vaseline was found in Meredith's room correct? why in the world would Amanda seek out vaseline (in Meredith's room) to stop a nose bleed - I'm sorry, I just don't see the logic.

Would it even stop the nosebleed? You are simply too cute!!

wasnt_me
07-24-2011, 11:59 PM
The paper found outside with blood on it IIRC it was toilet paper

You mean that toilet paper they said didn't match anybody? yeah, with the new DNA questions, we do have to ask ourselves if it could in fact match somebody. Didn't they say they got several profiles off that, too??

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 12:02 AM
dailymail:
Ms Napoleone also told the court she had found a used tub of Vaseline in Meredith's bedroom during a search of the murder scene.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1156969/Shoe-print-matching-Foxy-Knoxys-Merediths-dead-body-police-chief-tells-trial.html#ixzz1T5KiQjrt


I was under the impression it was a jar of vaseline - has this changed?

I dont even know. A "Tub?" What the heck does that mean?

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 12:15 AM
A question lingering with me is how far was The bedroom from the bathroom? How is it there wasn't a trail of bloody footprints from the bedroom to the bathroom. Even if cleaned with a towel from the bathroom on the way back to the bedroom, wouldn't it Just be smeared? Sorry. I'm sure it's been asked and answered many times.

:wagon:

I gave a theory on this. If you notice, the prints on the pillow fade out. and they also say the footprints headed out the front door fade out. So it's obvious that these sets of prints had to be made at different times, because if he'd stepped on the pillow and those prints faded, they wouldn't refresh themselves and fade again on the way out the door. If you notice, the left print makes the prints on the pillow case. My theory is he lost his right shoe in the scuffle, walked on his left shoe (which the blood had faded from by the time he got out the room) and the heel of his right foot (which had blood on it) to the bidet, where he dipped it in there and rinsed it, getting deluded blood on the bathmat. He took the towels back in the room, wiped up his foot and some blood on the floor. They say there were wipe marks in the murder room indicating he wiped up the area by the wardrobe. Then he attempted to rape her or actually raped her. (I don't trust the forensics in the case anymore) In the process of that, got more blood on his foot. Walked over by the bed, tossed the cover on her, dumped the contents of the purse into his bag, cleaned the knife and put it in his bag, left the room. You can see his left and right foot print around the door, as if he closed the door, but you mainly see his left foot headed out the house.

sherlockh
07-25-2011, 12:27 AM
yeah, but you put a q-tip up your nose? (ouch) - something that absorbs like twisted Kleenex .

the Vaseline was found in Meredith's room correct? why in the world would Amanda seek out vaseline (in Meredith's room) to stop a nose bleed - I'm sorry, I just don't see the logic.
Lol..now I have to explain about the Vaseline? Bleeding nose, blood on the top of the tap, Q-Tip box with stains on the box containing mixed DNA (possibly mixed blood). Nothing wrong with my logic. The alternative of RG cleaning up his ears (while mixing MK's and AK's DNA but not his own) or AK making up the story (but of course only later after the evidence was revealed) that she woken up the dried blood by touching a trace and then cleaning her ears causing the diluted stains (not noticing anything) makes a whole less sense to me. And where are those Q-Tips anyway? :)

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 01:10 AM
apparently the blood and the hair on the window sill were exhibits R and S in RF's room. I looked at the hair. Looks to straight to be RG's for the life of me, I can't see the blood on spot S.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/filomenaroom__12_.jpg

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/filomenaroom__9__op_608x404.jpg

In Filomena Romanelli's room a few items were tested: a hairlike fibre [formazione pilifera] on the lower part of the window frame, and a presumed haematological substance on the wooden part of the window which held the broken pane. Both of these items yielded negative results on analysis. During the second search, on the suggestion of the defence’s technical consultant Professor Saverio Potenza, the large rock and two fragments found on the floor of the room were tested, but they yielded negative results. MOT pg 193

miley
07-25-2011, 02:01 AM
Lol..now I have to explain about the Vaseline? Bleeding nose, blood on the top of the tap, Q-Tip box with stains on the box containing mixed DNA (possibly mixed blood). Nothing wrong with my logic. The alternative of RG cleaning up his ears (while mixing MK's and AK's DNA but not his own) or AK making up the story (but of course only later after the evidence was revealed) that she woken up the dried blood by touching a trace and then cleaning her ears causing the diluted stains (not noticing anything) makes a whole less sense to me. And where are those Q-Tips anyway? :)

wait a second sherlockh, I never said there was anything wrong with your logic - I'm just not following it. (you brought up the vaseline) :gum:
maybe we should agree to disagree
piercing your ear at home - adding two or three holes, they tend to get infected and bleed - you can't even sleep on that ear (it hurts)
the Q-Tips were in the bathroom - it was a communal bathroom with shared toiletries...

ETA: btw, I flush q-tips all the time

miley
07-25-2011, 02:06 AM
apparently the blood and the hair on the window sill were exhibits R and S in RF's room. I looked at the hair. Looks to straight to be RG's for the life of me, I can't see the blood on spot S.


I don't know if I've ever seen the hair - where is it? Can you point it out?

SMK
07-25-2011, 08:19 AM
Court is in session right now in Perugia:

Knox trial: DNA experts report to Italian court
Associated Press, 07.25.11, 05:45 AM EDT

PERUGIA, Italy -- Independent experts are presenting the conclusions of their review of the DNA evidence collected against an American student convicted of killing her British roommate in the Italian city of Perugia.http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/07/25/general-eu-italy-knox_8582255.html

Follow Trial Updates on Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/KnoxTrial?sk=wall

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OAv5WYe5H04/Ti1rDmp__II/AAAAAAAAOe0/FXQhfmXelMQ/s1600/224400_123705594390788_114157785345569_161039_5870 906_n.jpg

SMK
07-25-2011, 08:51 AM
Facebook has new video just in from the court room:


http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150738169010157&oid=114157785345569&comments

Malkmus
07-25-2011, 09:25 AM
Nevermind on Nadeau tweets, she's in US.

SMK
07-25-2011, 09:41 AM
Nevermind on Nadeau tweets, she's in US.I know , just found that out - but Facebook has a trial update page, and a video just come in from court, which I have posted above.....

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 09:41 AM
I don't know if I've ever seen the hair - where is it? Can you point it out?

look behind the broken glass next to the R on the right. it's a thin black line. it is hard to see.

SMK
07-25-2011, 09:43 AM
This morning in court in Perugia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw1p-fb6Tyo&feature=player_embedded

SMK
07-25-2011, 09:50 AM
DNA experts highlight problems with Knox case

By ALESSANDRA RIZZO
The Associated Press

PERUGIA, Italy — The investigators who collected the genetic evidence used to convict American student Amanda Knox of murder in Italy made a series of glaring errors, including using a dirty glove and not wearing caps, two independent forensic experts said Monday.

The experts had been appointed by an Italian appeals court to review the DNA evidence used in Knox's trial, including some found on a kitchen knife believed to be the murder weapon and some found on the clasp of the victim's bra.


But the independent experts told the appeals court that the collection of evidence fell below international standards and may have resulted in contamination. They used slides to refer to international protocols for the collection and sampling of evidence, including one from the U.S. Department of Justice and others from various U.S. states.

One of the two experts, Stefano Conti, cited several cases of forensic police entering the crime scene or coming into contacts with objects there not wearing protective equipment such as masks or hair caps. He said that while evidence should be wrapped in paper or kept in a paper bags, police often used plastic bags, heightening the risk of contamination.

"There are various circumstances do not adhere to protocols and procedures," the forensic expert told the court.

In footage and framegrabs shown to the court, two police officers collected the bra clasp, and the glove worn by one of the two appeared to be dirty on two fingers. Conti noted the bra clasp was collected 46 days after the Nov. 1, 2007 fatal stabbing of the 21-year-old Kercher.

"Over those 46 days several objects were moved, and in at the same time several people will have come in and out," he noted, again stressing the risk of contamination.

The other expert, Carla Vecchiotti, explained to the court that the genetic profile on the knife's blade that was attributed to Kercher is dubious and cannot be attributed with certainty. She said the original testing did not follow recommendations of the international scientific community for dealing with DNA testing.

Vecchiotti said the review concurred with the original testing in saying that the genetic profile on the knife's black plastic handle could be attributed to Knox. The knife was found at Sollecito's apartment.

The independent experts, both from La Sapienza University in Rome, will be questioned and cross-examined in the next hearing, scheduled for Saturday. That will be the last hearing before the summer break.


http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/dna-experts-highlight-problems-1043176.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00628/knox_628043a.jpg

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 10:07 AM
they are so slow in italy. why cant the speed this up!

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 10:12 AM
This video says the experts asserted that investigators failed to follow procedure more than 50 times.

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150738169010157&oid=114157785345569&comments

How many more times than 50? my guess is 100.:floorlaugh:

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 10:14 AM
This morning in court in Perugia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw1p-fb6Tyo&feature=player_embedded

did u see how excited rs looks in this video? good for him!

SMK
07-25-2011, 10:28 AM
did u see how excited rs looks in this video? good for him!
Yes, I noticed. :)

I guess Saturday is cross-examination, and then Aug/Sep will be reviewing and coming to the verdict. How I WISH this would just be over. :(

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 10:40 AM
according to this article, they showed the infamous inassailable evidence video in court!:great:


http://www.lettera43.it/cronaca/21785/meredith-perizia-sul-coltello-negativa.htm


Bing translation:


Meredith: the negative knife expertise


There is blood on the weapon. Criticized the scientific work.



(© Ansa) Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti surveyors of the Court of Assizes of appeal during the hearing on July 15, 2011 in Perugia of the process to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to the murder of Meredith Kercher.
.
It was opened on 25 July in Perugia the hearing of the appeal to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, convicted in first instance to 26 and 25 years ' imprisonment for the murder of Meredith Kercher.
Exposing the genetic expertise on Meredith's Bra hook and knife, considered at first instance the murder weapon, the two professors of the University of Rome La Sapienza, Carla Vecchiotti and Stefano Conti, argued that the scientific police work, according to the acts that have had to evaluate it, is not trusted.
CONTAMINATION OF EVIDENCE. The hook bra worn by Meredith Kercher was murdered when he was touched with a glove ' dirty ' science police operators according to the experts of the Corte d'Assise d'appello di Perugia. They supported themselves referring to judges the results of their investigations.
The experts showed the footage of evidence collecting. Images scanned frame by frame ' ' claimed the professor Stefano Conti. «There are a number of circumstances, "he added" that does not correspond to protocols and procedures».
In particular, from the movie of evidence collecting has emerged, according to experts, "the sign of a dirty glove that touched on the hook '. The two engineers have said that there was no trace of blood on the knife, in first instance identified as the weapon with which she is killed Meredith Kercher.
FAIL. In particular, the experts on 9 February, after opening the finds, the knife and the BRA hook performed on knife test to see if there was or not the presence of blood on the knife track. The test gave a negative result.
The test for the presence of cells had highlighted the presence of starch on cell attachment of blade to the handle, which according to the experts would be rye starch. The experts are then exposed to survey techniques in place of the crime. Classroom Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito who put much hope in this expertise.



Yea! I'm so glad. Now, just show the gift wrapping of the mop!

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 10:41 AM
Yes, I noticed. :)

I guess Saturday is cross-examination, and then Aug/Sep will be reviewing and coming to the verdict. How I WISH this would just be over. :(

I hope saturday, the judge orders to see more evidence. I just want all the evidence refuted so they feel vindicated.

I sure right now AK and RS cannot believe their eyes and their ears that someone is actually defending them and someone else is actually listening!

Google translate article. Don't know if it was posted:

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tmnews.it%2Fweb%2Fsezioni%2Fcro naca%2FPN_20110725_00071.shtml

I don't know what's up with the tension in the court room, but I smell a lawsuit....somebody's gonna be suing....could it be the dirty gloves? Yes, the dirty gloves plan to sue the experts! LOL

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 10:56 AM
Another Bing translation:

http://www.tmnews.it/web/sezioni/cronaca/PN_20110725_00133.shtml



Meredith/Experts: No tracks on knife nor Dna quantification



Irregularities in the process of refertamento



Perugia, 25 Jul. (TMNews)-the experts appointed by the Court of appeal, heard here today as part of Meredith, reiterated some irregularities in the procedures of refertamento-in order to prevent cross-contamination of materials-even in inspections inside the home of Raffaele Sollecito was found where the alleged murder weapon.


"The officers did not wear protective suits and had already used gloves and dirty" explain the experts. "In addition, according to testimony by Gup, two agents have admitted having touched, repertato and sealed the knife believed to be the murder weapon. An unclear situation because one of the agents explained that the knife was sealed in police headquarters, while another-according to tabulations-on the spot ". The change of gloves was not systematic, but discretion based on experience of car inspections. The experts have analyzed the previous to their expertise-author Dr. Stefanoni-unable to make new Dna analysis on bra hook of the victim and the alleged murder weapon because "there is [no] evidence of the presence of blood".


On the previous report have been found some anomalies: no Dna quantification over objects ("essential for the determination of the trace and its ricoducibilità), no explanation on the decontamination of numerous finds study, equipment not suitable for the analysis of human blood."From our studies, albeit in the absence of certified values, the amount of Dna is below the threshold of analysis provided for by the protocols have standard ": here the experts explained that also have added that at the tip of the knife there is [no] blood of the victim, while the grip there is genetic material (cells) of Amanda Knox. Therefore, the experts do not corroborate the presence of Dna on the key findings that have lead (among other elements acquired by Pm Mignini and Comfy) conviction of Amanda Knox and Sollecito Raffale.

I think this article must be leaving out the negatives in the translation. I put them in with brackets because we ALL know that no blood was found on the knife.

Allusonz
07-25-2011, 10:56 AM
apparently the blood and the hair on the window sill were exhibits R and S in RF's room. I looked at the hair. Looks to straight to be RG's for the life of me, I can't see the blood on spot S.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/filomenaroom__12_.jpg

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/filomenaroom__9__op_608x404.jpg

IIRC it did test positive with TMB. Yes it did come to think of it but subsequent tests said it was not

Allusonz
07-25-2011, 10:59 AM
The experts finally brought up the fact the mattress was moved which of course would be filled with MK's DNA!!!

"Another element of non-compliance with international protocols, according to experts, the move would be no finding of many objects in the scene of the crime among the various inspections carried out by Science. The leading experts such as moving the hook - after finding 46 days - and the same mattress which was covered with Meredith Kercher. Mattress that was moved without any reason in another room of the house"

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tmnews.it%2Fweb%2Fsezioni%2Fcro naca%2FPN_20110725_00071.shtml

Allusonz
07-25-2011, 11:03 AM
More from ABC news

"The experts also told the court that there was no DNA on Kercher's bra clasp that was recovered from the crime scene six weeks after the murder. Prosecutors had argued that the clasp contained Sollecito's DNA, a devastating piece of evidence that placed him at the scene of the grisly killing.

Before concluding their testimony today, the experts recommended that the bra clasp should be excluded from the case."

http://abcnews.go.com/International/amanda-knox-dna-evidence-challenged-experts/story?id=14151113&rss=rss-wabc-snippet-7091254

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 11:03 AM
Well, I'm off work today because our new offices are not ready. I guess Id better find something to do. I'm so glad they showed that video in court. I do not know how Stephanoni can refute eye witnesses video.

I hope they showed the picture of the person standing in MK's blood, too.

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 11:04 AM
IIRC it did test positive with TMB. Yes it did come to think of it but subsequent tests said it was not

Where is it? I do not see blood on "S."

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 11:05 AM
The experts finally brought up the fact the mattress was moved which of course would be filled with MK's DNA!!!

"Another element of non-compliance with international protocols, according to experts, the move would be no finding of many objects in the scene of the crime among the various inspections carried out by Science. The leading experts such as moving the hook - after finding 46 days - and the same mattress which was covered with Meredith Kercher. Mattress that was moved without any reason in another room of the house"

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tmnews.it%2Fweb%2Fsezioni%2Fcro naca%2FPN_20110725_00071.shtml

Yea! I knew we were onto something with that. they moved it, yeah, it's full of her skin cells, plus, you can't tell me they didn't step in blood and possibly on the bra clasp while moving it.

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 11:08 AM
No! Bra clasp!

I got a song for RS.

"Get your back up off the wall! Dance, come on! Get your back up off the wall! Get down on it, baby, baby!"

:great:

--kool and the gang.

I'm sure that's how he feels, like maybe he can get his back from against the wall for a second.

SMK
07-25-2011, 11:13 AM
You know, I cannot help recalling how adamantly Perugia Murder File insisted, again and again, that the review only would mean "the original findings would be upheld". How wrong they were is now clear:


DNA ON TWO KEY PIECES OF EVIDENCE NO LONGER LINK HER TO THE ATTACK THAT TURNED HER LIFE UPSIDE DOWN.

DNA evidence on the suggested murder weapon and a bra strap was not a positive match with any of the suspects, according to independent DNA experts. Furthermore, the experts suggest that investigators broke numerous protocols when gathering the evidence — putting it in paper bags instead of plastic, and wiping down evidence as they gathered it, doing the opposite of the protocol the experts described. This is a major victory for Knox, who was jailed on that seemingly-faulty evidence.http://shortformblog.com/world/amanda-knox-dna-evidence/

DNA Evidence Used To Convict Amanda Knox Rejected On Appeal


http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2011/07/dna-evidence-used-convict-amanda-knox-rejected-appeal

http://www.radaronline.com/sites/radaronline.com/files/imagecache/350width/AmandaK92.JPG

EXPERTS REPORT NO BLOOD ON KNIFE IN MEREDITH CASE

(AGI) Perugia - Court experts have reported that there was no blood on the knife described as the weapon used to kill Meredith Kercher or on the clasp of the victim's bra.

Experts Carla Vecchiotti and Stefano Conti, from La Sapienza University in Rome, appointed by the Perugia Appeal Court to carry out new DNA tests for the case involving Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito accused of murdering the British student, confirmed at a hearing today the contents of the report presented on June 29thhttp://www.agi.it/english-version/italy/elenco-notizie/201107251654-cro-ren1063-experts_report_no_blood_on_knife_in_meredith_case

Forensic experts in Amanda Knox appeal reject key DNA evidence

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2011/07/25/AP11072511696_244x183.jpg

(CBS/AP) PERUGIA, Italy - Forensic experts have rejected the reliability of key DNA evidence used to convict Amanda Knox, the American student convicted of killing her British roommate in the Italian city of Perugia.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20082917-504083.html

Italy: Knox experts testify that condemning DNA evidence was contaminated

Perugia, 25 July (AKI) - Amanda Knox returned to court Perugia, Italy on Monday as two DNA experts testified that important evidence that convicted the 24-year-old American student is seriously flawed.http://www.adnkronos.com/IGN/Aki/English/CultureAndMedia/Italy-Knox-experts-testify-that-condemning-DNA-evidence-was-contaminated_312280456461.html

The three days of DNA hearings, today, 30th July and 1st August, will be followed in September by final arguments. The verdict is now expected around 25th September.

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 11:18 AM
My thing is this. What can Stephanoni possibly say? What?

Because If I could question her, my first question is why in the world were you in there gift-wrapping a mop?

Secondly, why in the world were you even in there? Don't you know you are not supposed to both collect and test evidence?

Why did you let Mignini into the crime scene without protective gear?

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/mignini8.jpg

And who is this dude chilling on the deck and where are his extra set of footies to get back into the house? And who is the guy standing behind him in the pictures with no gear on with tennis shoes on, standing in the murder hallway?

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?mode=medium&album_id=21&image_id=588

Then I want to ask, is this you? cause if it is or if it isn't, what the heck are you or this person doing out on the street in your protective gear?

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?mode=medium&album_id=21&image_id=1693

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 11:40 AM
Okay, this is Stephanoni. She's not the investigator on the street.
From the look on her face, I hear the Brit. Spears song, "Oops, I did it again!"

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?mode=medium&album_id=20&image_id=170

JBounds
07-25-2011, 12:51 PM
Hope this helps AK because I believe in her innocence.

miley
07-25-2011, 01:31 PM
More from ABC news

"The experts also told the court that there was no DNA on Kercher's bra clasp that was recovered from the crime scene six weeks after the murder. Prosecutors had argued that the clasp contained Sollecito's DNA, a devastating piece of evidence that placed him at the scene of the grisly killing.

Before concluding their testimony today, the experts recommended that the bra clasp should be excluded from the case."

http://abcnews.go.com/International/amanda-knox-dna-evidence-challenged-experts/story?id=14151113&rss=rss-wabc-snippet-7091254

no dna whatsoever?

going back to the planting of the clasp ... I believe the clasp was planted underneath the rug so it could be discovered on video (live). I didn't think it was Stefanoni because she traveled in from out of town that day.. I thought someone put it there for her to discover

but do you believe Stefanoni is capable of fabricating the dna - sort of like Chris H. said about faking the negative controls?

ETA:
By ANDREW POLLACK“You can just engineer a crime scene,” said Dan Frumkin, lead author of the paper, which has been published online by the journal Forensic Science International: Genetics. “Any biology undergraduate could perform this.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 01:54 PM
:wagon::Welcome1:

Hope this helps AK because I believe in her innocence.

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 01:55 PM
no dna whatsoever?

going back to the planting of the clasp ... I believe the clasp was planted underneath the rug so it could be discovered on video (live). I didn't think it was Stefanoni because she traveled in from out of town that day.. I thought someone put it there for her to discover

but do you believe Stefanoni is capable of fabricating the dna - sort of like Chris H. said about faking the negative controls?

ETA:
By ANDREW POLLACK“You can just engineer a crime scene,” said Dan Frumkin, lead author of the paper, which has been published online by the journal Forensic Science International: Genetics. “Any biology undergraduate could perform this.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html

I don't know what to think. I considered that as a possibility up until I realized that they hadn't collected the purse, the jacket, none of that before that same day.

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 02:20 PM
I wonder if this is true. I can't believe it!

The independent DNA experts told the court that the investigating team violated numerous protocols for the proper collection of DNA evidence. A ripple of laughter went through the courtroom at one point as the court was shown video of the detectives collecting DNA evidence, and doing the exact opposite of what the experts had just described was the proper method.

:floorlaugh:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/amanda-knox-dna-evidence-challenged-experts/story?id=14151113

In addition, the experts presented a catalogue of errors allegedly committed by the prosecution's forensic team, including how the evidence could have been contaminated, the original reports were missing certain data, the DNA was not quantified at times, and how control tests were not used.

Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, who led the prosecution's forensic investigation, looked uncomfortable during today's testimony. The prosecution will cross examine the two expert witnesses when the appeal hearing resumes on Saturday, July 30.

emyr
07-25-2011, 02:27 PM
Just read over the Massai report again. (sigh) And was looking over the bathroom and footprint evidence again. The Massai report states that the mixed DNA results from the footprints were also LCN.

I think it's a little weird that Meredith's DNA was found mixed in the footprints in Romanelli's room, but not in all the footprints in the hallway. It seems that you would expect Meredith's DNA to be in the footprints in the hallway, and then fade out in Romanelli's room. Not the other way around. It also does say that there were other peaks present in the footprints.

Does anyone have pictures of the footprints?

SMK
07-25-2011, 02:33 PM
I wonder if this is true. I can't believe it!



:floorlaugh:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/amanda-knox-dna-evidence-challenged-experts/story?id=14151113
:skip::laugh::laugh:

emyr
07-25-2011, 02:33 PM
I don't know what to think. I considered that as a possibility up until I realized that they hadn't collected the purse, the jacket, none of that before that same day.

They hadn't? They collected the purse 46 days later?

milliac
07-25-2011, 02:41 PM
Yeah, that might be tough. :floorlaugh:

The closest was "Angel Face", but Barbie has since done an about-face.


Really? I did put it on hold at the library. I've seen this name "Barbie" around on websites.

SMK
07-25-2011, 03:03 PM
http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/r.GGHyasg5hq2xXIbrX0_w--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0yNDA7cT04NTt3PTQwMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_uk/News/skynews/16036916_400x240.jpg

Kercher Inquiry: 'Glaring Errors' By Police

Police forensic scientists made a series of glaring errors during the investigation into Meredith Kercher's murder, the appeal trial of accused Amanda Knox has heard.http://uk.news.yahoo.com/knox-appeal-dna-comes-under-spotlight-105541702.html

miley
07-25-2011, 03:15 PM
I don't know what to think. I considered that as a possibility up until I realized that they hadn't collected the purse, the jacket, none of that before that same day.

ah, I see what you're saying (about the collection issue) but what about the experts saying "no dna" found on clasp -
isn't there a difference between no dna vs. contaminated dna.

this issue I don't understand.

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 03:16 PM
Just read over the Massai report again. (sigh) And was looking over the bathroom and footprint evidence again. The Massai report states that the mixed DNA results from the footprints were also LCN.

I think it's a little weird that Meredith's DNA was found mixed in the footprints in Romanelli's room, but not in all the footprints in the hallway. It seems that you would expect Meredith's DNA to be in the footprints in the hallway, and then fade out in Romanelli's room. Not the other way around. It also does say that there were other peaks present in the footprints.

Does anyone have pictures of the footprints?

A word about the MOT report, I read elsewhere, so it's hearsay, that the report wasn't translated 100% correctly, and on top of that, Massei takes and disregards evidence at his own discretion. He also disseminates it with his own twist (can't think of a better word), so it's very hard to discern fact from Massei's fiction--I mean interpretation--when reading it.

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 03:21 PM
They hadn't? They collected the purse 46 days later?

Yes, the pillow, all that was sitting right there on the floor on December 18, 2007.

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 03:22 PM
ah, I see what you're saying (about the collection issue) but what about the experts saying "no dna" found on clasp -
isn't there a difference between no dna vs. contaminated dna.

this issue I don't understand.

I don't know about that either. I keep reading two different things. One, there is no RS DNA. 2, it's there, but due to contamination.

I personally think it's not even there, but comprised out of mixed aelles that Stephanonie mixed and matched herself to make it appear.

SMK
07-25-2011, 03:27 PM
UMBRIA's Coverage of today's hearing:

&#x202a;Meredith, i periti parlano di esami "inaffidabili sul coltello e gancetto"&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube

SMK
07-25-2011, 04:08 PM
On the dirty gloves and bad collections:


&#x202a;First Person: Glaring Errors in Knox Case&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube

miley
07-25-2011, 04:21 PM
I don't know about that either. I keep reading two different things. One, there is no RS DNA. 2, it's there, but due to contamination.

I personally think it's not even there, but comprised out of mixed aelles that Stephanonie mixed and matched herself to make it appear.

but was it based on deception or ignorance? (both?) I don't understand why basic rules were broken.. was it all bogus to begin with?
I can't figure it out.

from SMK's yahoo article above: (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/knox-appeal-dna-comes-under-spotlight-105541702.html)
...He also highlighted how instead of putting the clasp into a paper bag it had been placed into a plastic bag adding that the risk of contamination was ''significant'' as a result of how it had been collected.

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 04:42 PM
I don't know what to think, Miley, for real.

I'd hate to say they were railroading her and RS from the start, but dang, we've gotten this far on the unlikely being likely. To know for certain what the intent was, we've gotta go back like I said before to the leader, and his experience with conducting investigations. Mignini being on trial for abuse of office says A LOT, in my opinion. The way he conducted other investigations says a lot, in my opinion. Did she do it on purpose?

She had to have done it on purpose. With mal-intent, I don't know. We see that the footprint analysis was done in the same way. They were suspect centered. We don't even have prints of others who lived in the house for comparison. It was as if they believed RF and LM for not being home, believed their alibis, which I do not know how air tight they were, but still didn't bother to take their footprints just to rule them out as being the ones in the hallway. I'd heard they hadn't even ruled MK's footprints out as possibly being in the hallway.

So when you don't take the inhabitants footprints and DNA just to rule it out as part of the evidence you have found, yes, you're being suspect-centric. When you compare the bloody footprint only to RS and RG, you are being suspect-centric.

Just like in a line-up, people who have nothing to do with the crime are asked to stand there while the victim or witness decides whom they saw at the crime. The footprints should have been the same way. I don't care if Mig himself volunteered his footprint to be slipped in for comparison. It needed to be done to keep the results unbiased.

Same with the DNA. It's possible that she matched up a DNA profile or two, then saw RS's profile and reevaluated her aelles to better match his. We dont know. I can see this happening. She could have thought, Oh, but if I excluded just these few, then "ding, ding ding!" RS's dna appears. That might be her reasoning for saying she didn't do it subject-centrically.

It might be that she did it without his profile first, saw that her results matched no one. Then went back, looked at RS's more (since he's in jail), and saw her "mistakes" in interpreting the DNA. Then she lined it up better with his by editing her results.

That's possible, which is also the reason she probably wanted to hide her files from the defense.

It's possible that she came up with several DNA profiles, scratched her head over it, because it made no sense that all these people had touched MK's bra clasp and she reworked it from there, thinking her first conclusions were errors. Afterward, she sought to hide the effort from the public.

All I can say for sure is that her stuff is wrong and she refused to release the files all the way through to this stage of the appeal. I find it hard to believe that Massei let her get away with that. Glad Hellman did not. Even Micheli severely defends her in RG's report.

My question is, how can they do that? did neither of them see the videos that we saw? Who could both judges have ignored the glaring mistakes in protocol? When you start asking questions like that....things start stinking....

Due to this expert report, the prosecution has become outnumbered. Independent experts that don't have anything to do with the case assert the same thing as the ind. experts appointed by Hellman. Additionally, the defense experts have been screaming the same thing for years. That's two against one, PLUS video and documented evidence that they botched the crime scene and that the experts can't even figure out how she drew her crazy conclusions. How could Hellman deny any of this as the other judges did?

SMK
07-25-2011, 04:44 PM
but was it based on deception or ignorance? (both?) I don't understand why basic rules were broken.. was it all bogus to begin with?
I can't figure it out.

from SMK's yahoo article above: (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/knox-appeal-dna-comes-under-spotlight-105541702.html)
...He also highlighted how instead of putting the clasp into a paper bag it had been placed into a plastic bag adding that the risk of contamination was ''significant'' as a result of how it had been collected.Well, sure is highly suspicious, isn't it? To make such errors seems more than incompetence.

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 04:56 PM
Well, sure is highly suspicious, isn't it? To make such errors seems more than incompetence.

Well, I guess I could have put it as succinctly as this! LOL. I was just saying the exact same thing in like 6 paragraphs! :crazy:

thanks for keeping it simple and to the point, SMK!

SMK
07-25-2011, 05:18 PM
Well, I guess I could have put it as succinctly as this! LOL. I was just saying the exact same thing in like 6 paragraphs! :crazy:

thanks for keeping it simple and to the point, SMK!:great: thanks!

emyr
07-25-2011, 06:27 PM
ah, I see what you're saying (about the collection issue) but what about the experts saying "no dna" found on clasp -
isn't there a difference between no dna vs. contaminated dna.

this issue I don't understand.

DNA degrades over time unless you somehow are able to put it in stasis (like a vacuum). The clasps rusted, and the exposure that caused the rust would have also wiped out any DNA on it.

I noticed that the DNA results on the bra clasp had peaks for Meredith at 1000 and peaks for Raffaelle at around 100. A big point about the bra clasp was that "copious" amounts of DNA was found. I'm not so sure how we know this is true. If Meredith's peaks were at a 1000, that's a strong signal. A peak at a bit over 100 is not extremely strong, but it's not below 50 which is where most people stop paying attention.

emyr
07-25-2011, 06:40 PM
but was it based on deception or ignorance? (both?) I don't understand why basic rules were broken.. was it all bogus to begin with?
I can't figure it out.

from SMK's yahoo article above: (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/knox-appeal-dna-comes-under-spotlight-105541702.html)
...He also highlighted how instead of putting the clasp into a paper bag it had been placed into a plastic bag adding that the risk of contamination was ''significant'' as a result of how it had been collected.

I don't know if I agree with w_m that Stefanoni just made Raffaelle appear. I looked over the documents and the print out shows that all of Raffaelle's Y profile can fit into the profile, and all of his DNA peaks can fit. I think Maundy did a good job showing that Casey Anthony and Amanda Knox weren't there, so we have a real world example of the ability to definitively rule out someone. Raffaelle cannot be ruled out, and that's not just a piece of slightly bad luck, but mathematically very bad luck. (Because Rudy, Amanda, and Casey Anthony can all be ruled out of that profile, so that means statistically more people can be ruled out than ruled in).

That being said, the evidence HAS been extremely weakened that the DNA actually is him on the clasp. That's because we've been shown evidence of additional peaks that were ruled out and that the new experts say there's no reason to rule them out. That means there could be multiple profiles on the clasp, and at a certain level, you can't confirm anyone's profile on the clasp if it becomes too crowded.

As an example, Raffaelle's 30 peaks matches 11 of Meredith's peaks. He matches 6 additional unique peaks of Casey Anthony. That's 17 out of 30 peaks matched with 2 people. Add someone else in the mix and you've probably only got 9 unique peaks left. At that point, can you really be sure that he's on the clasp? Obviously Casey Anthony wasn't on the clasp, but it seems pretty certain that someone else was. The more people on the clasp the less certain you can be. At some point you can rule people out, but not rule them in.

What is still damaging for Sollecito is that the profile resulting from that clasp cannot rule him out.

SMK
07-25-2011, 06:43 PM
This is a reminder to me that however promising things look for the convictions being overturned right now, this case, as in the Casey Anthony case, has no certain outcome until the verdict is read:

Clearly, these findings are good news for the defence. But the big question is how they well they will withstand scrutiny in the courtroom.
[. . . ]
The court feels that both the bra-clasp evidence and the knife evidence are unreliable, then the question at the back of their minds will be whether enough evidence remains to uphold the convictions of Knox and Sollecito.

If the report of the assize court is anything to go by, then there quite plainly is. But the appeal court is not necessarily obliged to agree with the lower court on every point. For the defence, it is probably a vain hope that a different conclusion will be reached on every single item of the prosecution case. But how much evidence will be enough?

Most of this evidence isn’t due to get discussed again in court. It will, instead, be discussed by the judges in private. So, whatever happens over the next few sessions, it may be that there is no real indication of what the verdict will be until the moment it is announced.http://maundygregory.wordpress.com/

milliac
07-25-2011, 07:36 PM
but was it based on deception or ignorance? (both?) I don't understand why basic rules were broken.. was it all bogus to begin with?
I can't figure it out.

from SMK's yahoo article above: (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/knox-appeal-dna-comes-under-spotlight-105541702.html)
...He also highlighted how instead of putting the clasp into a paper bag it had been placed into a plastic bag adding that the risk of contamination was ''significant'' as a result of how it had been collected.

Wow. I just read the comments on that Yahoo article. People are flipping mad and still feel she is guilty. They insist there is other evidence and she shouldn't get off just because the DNA issue. I guess I need to keep investigating what evidence they are talking about. From what I can see, it seems the worse thing she did was to implicate her ex-boss. She really messed that up.

Will we have another veridict like Casey Anthony that upsets the public court of opinion?

SMK
07-25-2011, 07:57 PM
Wow. I just read the comments on that Yahoo article. People are flipping mad and still feel she is guilty. They insist there is other evidence and she shouldn't get off just because the DNA issue. I guess I need to keep investigating what evidence they are talking about. From what I can see, it seems the worse thing she did was to implicate her ex-boss. She really messed that up.

Will we have another veridict like Casey Anthony that upsets the public court of opinion?We may. But it is the judicial courts and judges and juries, and not the court of public opinion, which must be respected.

sherlockh
07-25-2011, 08:03 PM
Wow. I just read the comments on that Yahoo article. People are flipping mad and still feel she is guilty. They insist there is other evidence and she shouldn't get off just because the DNA issue. I guess I need to keep investigating what evidence they are talking about. From what I can see, it seems the worse thing she did was to implicate her ex-boss. She really messed that up.

Will we have another veridict like Casey Anthony that upsets the public court of opinion?
I am sure you have seen the long lists of evidence printed on the internet and in this thread as well. The media campaign that is going on all goes back to the Knox family and their hired propaganda team. People just love innocent and entertainment. It is pretty sad. The knife and bra clasp is not the only evidence but how come it is being reported like that? If you try to be objective for a moment then you see that a little criticism about the media reporting is in its place here.

For as far as I can tell now, the independent experts are not doing the defense any favors. It is just way over the top. They are practically criticizing every part of the investigation and that was not their assignment. I would have expected a far more cautious approach and not insult the whole investigation including the legal system because after all many judges have already looked at this case as well. This is going to backfire on the defense IMO. On the other hand, it is a bit premature to really say where all of this is going ;)

SMK
07-25-2011, 08:07 PM
I am sure you have seen the long lists of evidence printed on the internet and in this thread as well. The media campaign that is going on all goes back to the Knox family and their hired propaganda team. People just love innocent and entertainment. It is pretty sad. The knife and bra clasp is not the only evidence but how come it is being reported like that? If you try to be objective for a moment then you see that a little criticism about the media reporting is in its place here.

For as far as I can tell now, the independent experts are not doing the defense any favors. It is just way over the top. They are practically criticizing every part of the investigation and that was not their assignment. I would have expected a far more cautious approach and not insult the whole investigation including the legal system because after all many judges have already looked at this case as well. This is going to backfire on the defense IMO. On the other hand, it is a bit premature to really say where all of this is going ;)I agree. It is never a good idea to be too sure of anything when there is still a question as to the outcome. Cautiousness and a more tentative approach are always a good idea.

evelyn24
07-25-2011, 08:18 PM
Wow. I just read the comments on that Yahoo article. People are flipping mad and still feel she is guilty. They insist there is other evidence and she shouldn't get off just because the DNA issue. I guess I need to keep investigating what evidence they are talking about. From what I can see, it seems the worse thing she did was to implicate her ex-boss. She really messed that up.

Will we have another veridict like Casey Anthony that upsets the public court of opinion?

Comments on places like Yahoo are not an indication of what the public thinks..lol

Most of the people commenting are from certain websites or have agendas. I think most of the general public don't have an opinion on this case, and the ones that do are split on G vs NG.

milliac
07-25-2011, 08:32 PM
Comments on places like Yahoo are not an indication of what the public thinks..lol

Most of the people commenting are from certain websites or have agendas. I think most of the general public don't have an opinion on this case, and the ones that do are split on G vs NG.

As of Thursday last week I was one of the public who had no opinion or knew details about this case. Most comments on Yahoo seemed to be people not from the US. I was surprised at the hate of Americans over this. Goodness... I am so naive. LOL. I know what you mean though about people with agendas.

Nova
07-25-2011, 08:46 PM
Well, sure is highly suspicious, isn't it? To make such errors seems more than incompetence.

I know you like Mignini, SMK, but I don't believe Stefanoni falsified and forced results without consulting with somebody.

Maybe it wasn't Mignini; maybe it was the lead investigator.

But I don't believe she took these sorts of career risks without being told what she was expected to find.

Nova
07-25-2011, 08:51 PM
This is a reminder to me that however promising things look for the convictions being overturned right now, this case, as in the Casey Anthony case, has no certain outcome until the verdict is read:

http://maundygregory.wordpress.com/

For your sake, my friend, I hope you aren't getting your hopes up too high.

I think the appellate court will produce whatever verdict will best save face for Perugia. I don't know whether that will be rejecting the DNA results and overturning the guilty verdicts of AK and RS in order to show "the system works." Or whether it will be ignoring the independent reports and convicting AK and RS anyway while arguing there is ample evidence with (ETA out) the DNA. (This latter argument makes no sense to me, since without DNA, they can't put either defendant in the murder room, but we have posters here and elsewhere who have no trouble making that argument.)

Nova
07-25-2011, 08:56 PM
I am sure you have seen the long lists of evidence printed on the internet and in this thread as well. The media campaign that is going on all goes back to the Knox family and their hired propaganda team. People just love innocent and entertainment. It is pretty sad. The knife and bra clasp is not the only evidence but how come it is being reported like that? If you try to be objective for a moment then you see that a little criticism about the media reporting is in its place here.

For as far as I can tell now, the independent experts are not doing the defense any favors. It is just way over the top. They are practically criticizing every part of the investigation and that was not their assignment. I would have expected a far more cautious approach and not insult the whole investigation including the legal system because after all many judges have already looked at this case as well. This is going to backfire on the defense IMO. On the other hand, it is a bit premature to really say where all of this is going ;)

I assume this isn't the only thread you read at WS, so I also assume you know how rare it is for a case to generate so many posts and posters who believe the guilty verdicts are erroneous. We can't all be shrugged off as dupes of the Knox so-called p.r. "machine." At most, the Knoxes and their allies never had a fraction of the resources that went into demonizing "Foxy Knoxy."

I'm not saying this means you have to agree she is innocent. But the volume of research that has gone into most of our opinions that AK and RS have not been proven guilty is staggering. Might be something to think about.

SMK
07-25-2011, 08:58 PM
For your sake, my friend, I hope you aren't getting your hopes up too high.

I think the appellate court will produce whatever verdict will best save face for Perugia. I don't know whether that will be rejecting the DNA results and overturning the guilty verdicts of AK and RS in order to show "the system works." Or whether it will be ignoring the independent reports and convicting AK and RS anyway while arguing there is ample evidence with the DNA. (This latter argument makes no sense to me, since without DNA, they can't put either defendant in the murder room, but we have posters here and elsewhere who have no trouble making that argument.)
Yes, believe me, I am aware that verdicts can be the opposite of what one was expecting. It may go totally against the defense. Never halloo until you are out of the woods, as they say.... :(

SMK
07-25-2011, 08:59 PM
I know you like Mignini, SMK, but I don't believe Stefanoni falsified and forced results without consulting with somebody.

Maybe it wasn't Mignini; maybe it was the lead investigator.

But I don't believe she took these sorts of career risks without being told what she was expected to find.I think you have a valid point, there, my good sir. :waitasec:

trillian
07-25-2011, 09:02 PM
Just dropping by to say "yay!". I'm so glad all the botched forensics are coming into the court.
This case is over.
The conviction won't stand. (I have been shocked before though!)

The whole scenario was so over-the-top ridiculous though that I am still mad it has taken this long to put before the court the experts that should have been able to assess the shoddy forensics years ago.

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 09:02 PM
I don't know if I agree with w_m that Stefanoni just made Raffaelle appear.....

As an example, Raffaelle's 30 peaks matches 11 of Meredith's peaks. He matches 6 additional unique peaks of Casey Anthony. That's 17 out of 30 peaks matched with 2 people. Add someone else in the mix and you've probably only got 9 unique peaks left. At that point, can you really be sure that he's on the clasp? Obviously Casey Anthony wasn't on the clasp, but it seems pretty certain that someone else was. The more people on the clasp the less certain you can be. At some point you can rule people out, but not rule them in.

What is still damaging for Sollecito is that the profile resulting from that clasp cannot rule him out.

All of what you just said is basically what I'm saying that she "made him appear" with mismatched peaks and aelles.

SkewedView
07-25-2011, 09:03 PM
I am sure you have seen the long lists of evidence printed on the internet and in this thread as well. The media campaign that is going on all goes back to the Knox family and their hired propaganda team. People just love innocent and entertainment. It is pretty sad. The knife and bra clasp is not the only evidence but how come it is being reported like that? If you try to be objective for a moment then you see that a little criticism about the media reporting is in its place here.

For as far as I can tell now, the independent experts are not doing the defense any favors. It is just way over the top. They are practically criticizing every part of the investigation and that was not their assignment. I would have expected a far more cautious approach and not insult the whole investigation including the legal system because after all many judges have already looked at this case as well. This is going to backfire on the defense IMO. On the other hand, it is a bit premature to really say where all of this is going ;)

<modsnip>?

I'm sorry, but the media reports what it wants, how it wants, and they could give two figs what anyone thinks as long as it works for their agenda of the moment. Is the media going overboard towards the pro-innocence angle right now? Sure, just as they did the same in the opposite direction early in the case (though they seem to be more tasteful about it this time around) - but nobody is to blame for that except for the usual suspects - the media itself, which is as trustworthy as a scorpion.


Regarding the expert report: They did exactly what they were supposed to do: investigate the entire process that led to Stephanoni's findings, from start to finish, since they couldn't reproduce her results. That most every step in the process, from the crime scene to the lab, was replete with sloppy, unprofessional behavior is nobody's fault but PLE and their lab cohorts. What do you propose, that the experts ignore the egregious incompetence displayed by these supposed professionals? That they abandon the basic precepts behind peer review and just become a pair of bobble-heads? If the report seems aggressive, maybe that is a sign of just how badly PLE & company messed things up? Is that really so unbelievable after Mignini himself said in a recorded interview that he wished he had been able to work with the Military Police instead, as he found the Perugian LE to be unprofessional and lacking in detachment?



I do however wholeheartedly agree with you that this is all in the air still - and will be for a good while yet. If there is one thing that I have learned in researching the Italian courts, it's that you can never predict their rulings.

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 09:04 PM
This is a reminder to me that however promising things look for the convictions being overturned right now, this case, as in the Casey Anthony case, has no certain outcome until the verdict is read:

http://maundygregory.wordpress.com/

Who said the rest of the evidence is going to be "discussed by judges in private?" aren't there also "jurors" who need to hear it? I needs a cite on that before believing Maundy.

SMK
07-25-2011, 09:06 PM
Darlin', I hope you only mean you "lost respect" at PMF. Nothing you have done has in any way lessened the mountain of respect you have earned here.Aw, gee, such a kind gentleman! Most appreciated, Nova!:blushing::angel:

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 09:07 PM
Wow. I just read the comments on that Yahoo article. People are flipping mad and still feel she is guilty. They insist there is other evidence and she shouldn't get off just because the DNA issue. I guess I need to keep investigating what evidence they are talking about. From what I can see, it seems the worse thing she did was to implicate her ex-boss. She really messed that up.

Will we have another veridict like Casey Anthony that upsets the public court of opinion?

I hope we do have another casey anthony verdict, because if AK didn't do it, she didn't do it. Let them open up the other "evidence." it should all tumble down the same way, if she's truly innocent.

SMK
07-25-2011, 09:07 PM
Who said the rest of the evidence is going to be "discussed by judges in private?" aren't there also "jurors" who need to hear it? I needs a cite on that before believing Maundy.Come to think of it, you are likely right. Why did I believe him so quickly?:waitasec:

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 09:11 PM
Comments on places like Yahoo are not an indication of what the public thinks..lol

Most of the people commenting are from certain websites or have agendas. I think most of the general public don't have an opinion on this case, and the ones that do are split on G vs NG.

True. A lot of people don't even know who AK and RS even are or they forgot about the case.

SkewedView
07-25-2011, 09:12 PM
Who said the rest of the evidence is going to be "discussed by judges in private?" aren't there also "jurors" who need to hear it? I needs a cite on that before believing Maundy.

The Jurors would be included in such discussions, just like in the regular Italian trials. Recall, the Judges are part of the Jury. I have pointed out in my old 'how the Italian Justice System works' posts that they can discuss and rule on any and all aspects of the original trial, without having to waste the time and resources involved in holding such discussions in open court (not that it would be ethical for them to do such a thing in public view anyway).

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 09:18 PM
I assume this isn't the only thread you read at WS, so I also assume you know how rare it is for a case to generate so many posts and posters who believe the guilty verdicts are erroneous. We can't all be shrugged off as dupes of the Knox so-called p.r. "machine." At most, the Knoxes and their allies never had a fraction of the resources that went into demonizing "Foxy Knoxy."

I'm not saying this means you have to agree she is innocent. But the volume of research that has gone into most of our opinions that AK and RS have not been proven guilty is staggering. Might be something to think about.

Worth repeating. There is no conspiracy of the media. At the beginning of this thing, AK was the same as devil. Now that mistakes are being uncovered, one can't say the media suddenly bought into her PR machine.

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 09:20 PM
:welcome3::wagon:

Just dropping by to say "yay!". I'm so glad all the botched forensics are coming into the court.
This case is over.
The conviction won't stand. (I have been shocked before though!)

The whole scenario was so over-the-top ridiculous though that I am still mad it has taken this long to put before the court the experts that should have been able to assess the shoddy forensics years ago.

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 09:24 PM
Come to think of it, you are likely right. Why did I believe him so quickly?:waitasec:

I don't know if it's right or wrong, but I think that would be an odd detour from the way the case has been unfolding so far. I dont see a valid reason Hellman would retreat to private chambers to deliberate anything BUT the verdict.

I've never heard of open court turning into private chambers before. Anyone else?

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 09:26 PM
The Jurors would be included in such discussions, just like in the regular Italian trials. Recall, the Judges are part of the Jury. I have pointed out in my old 'how the Italian Justice System works' posts that they can discuss and rule on any and all aspects of the original trial, without having to waste the time and resources involved in holding such discussions in open court (not that it would be ethical for them to do such a thing in public view anyway).

Again, I never heard of this. So then AK and RS no longer have the right to hear their appeal?

I would be so disappointed if they did this, and at this point, I don't think Perugia can afford not to be completely transparent. But we'll see....

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 10:08 PM
I just had a thought while cleaning my carpets.

I do not know how the judge and jury can look at another piece of evidence evaluated by PS without having this report in the their minds. Everything is just skeptical now. suspect, don't you think?

If I were the judge or the jury, I personally wouldn't feel comfortable taking any other piece of evidence at face value.

Allusonz
07-25-2011, 10:10 PM
Comments on places like Yahoo are not an indication of what the public thinks..lol

Most of the people commenting are from certain websites or have agendas. I think most of the general public don't have an opinion on this case, and the ones that do are split on G vs NG.

Ultimately there is only one judge here and that is the appeals court.

Having said that it will be very difficult for them not to overturn this contrary to somes opinions as this report crucified every step of the forensics

Allusonz
07-25-2011, 10:11 PM
Note no Nadeau

" Forensics experts confirmed on Monday that investigators made major errors while collecting genetic evidence used against the Seattle native in trial, wearing dirty gloves, not wearing caps, and not following proper "protocols and procedures."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2011/07/25/experts-knox-cops-botched-dna.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Fcheat-sheet+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Cheat+Sheet%29

Allusonz
07-25-2011, 10:15 PM
Just dropping by to say "yay!". I'm so glad all the botched forensics are coming into the court.
This case is over.
The conviction won't stand. (I have been shocked before though!)

The whole scenario was so over-the-top ridiculous though that I am still mad it has taken this long to put before the court the experts that should have been able to assess the shoddy forensics years ago.

Good to see you back again trillian. Have missed your posts!! :)

Allusonz
07-25-2011, 10:18 PM
I know you like Mignini, SMK, but I don't believe Stefanoni falsified and forced results without consulting with somebody.

Maybe it wasn't Mignini; maybe it was the lead investigator.

But I don't believe she took these sorts of career risks without being told what she was expected to find.

I believe that there has been a group mentality that Frank has often referred to in his blogs. This is not the work of one individual but a group and it seems that they have done this very thing for a very long time.

I will hope that there is an investigation and that changes are made and lessons are learned

Allusonz
07-25-2011, 10:25 PM
<modsnip>?

I'm sorry, but the media reports what it wants, how it wants, and they could give two figs what anyone thinks as long as it works for their agenda of the moment. Is the media going overboard towards the pro-innocence angle right now? Sure, just as they did the same in the opposite direction early in the case (though they seem to be more tasteful about it this time around) - but nobody is to blame for that except for the usual suspects - the media itself, which is as trustworthy as a scorpion.


Regarding the expert report: They did exactly what they were supposed to do: investigate the entire process that led to Stephanoni's findings, from start to finish, since they couldn't reproduce her results. That most every step in the process, from the crime scene to the lab, was replete with sloppy, unprofessional behavior is nobody's fault but PLE and their lab cohorts. What do you propose, that the experts ignore the egregious incompetence displayed by these supposed professionals? That they abandon the basic precepts behind peer review and just become a pair of bobble-heads? If the report seems aggressive, maybe that is a sign of just how badly PLE & company messed things up? Is that really so unbelievable after Mignini himself said in a recorded interview that he wished he had been able to work with the Military Police instead, as he found the Perugian LE to be unprofessional and lacking in detachment?



I do however wholeheartedly agree with you that this is all in the air still - and will be for a good while yet. If there is one thing that I have learned in researching the Italian courts, it's that you can never predict their rulings.

This requires more than a thanks.

What is more amazing is that now some are trying to state that:

1. There are the mixed BLOOD profiles of Three now
2. The Knox PR firm paid the independent experts
3. The Mafia paid the experts

This list is much longer but am too tired to type it all out

It is why I am now asking those that believe them to be guilty what their standards for reasonable doubt are as there simply comes a point where you have to say ok this is the line I have for reasonable doubt

Allusonz
07-25-2011, 10:29 PM
Hope this helps AK because I believe in her innocence.

:welcome:

hands you a designer straight jacket :giggle:

Allusonz
07-25-2011, 10:38 PM
ah, I see what you're saying (about the collection issue) but what about the experts saying "no dna" found on clasp -
isn't there a difference between no dna vs. contaminated dna.

this issue I don't understand.

The DNA is in the LCN DNA range. I believe the knife is 10 picograms or less. If an item is contaminated it must be invalidated and both these items should never of even been presented at trial. The testing on the knife has never been documented in any scientific journals. She made it up. If they cannot confirm or repeat the test it is invalidated.

The bra clasp is as well in the LCN DNA range. It is stated

"We can not exclude that the results obtained may result from the phenomena of environmental contamination and / or contamination arising at any stage of the repertoire and / or manipulation of reperto”. finding. "

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&prev=/search%3Fq%3DCorte%2Bd%2527Assise%2Bd%2527Appello% 2Bdi%2BPerugia%26hl%3Den%26prmd%3Divns&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=it&u=http://www.kronaka.it/2011/07/25/amanda-knox-e-raffaele-sollecito-la-verita-e-che-non-ci-sono-prove/

SkewedView
07-25-2011, 10:52 PM
Again, I never heard of this. So then AK and RS no longer have the right to hear their appeal?

I would be so disappointed if they did this, and at this point, I don't think Perugia can afford not to be completely transparent. But we'll see....

Ah, I see where the misunderstanding is. The out of sight debates would be on the actual rulings and reasonings of Massai, which of course many of us consider to be illogical nonsense at best...

Any actual expert reviews would be done just like this last one, of course, but for most of the items in the RS appeal document, the refuting testimony was provided in the original trial - Massai simply chose to ignore that testimony, or to go so far as to discredit the expert himself for the stupidest of reasons (how can a Judge not know that ballistics is the study of moving objects, which a thrown rock of course is?:waitasec:). This court may choose to take a different view on any of these points, based simply on the transcripts from the original trial and their own logic/common sense. Remember, Italian Law requires that verdicts be accompanied by a document detailing what motivated said verdict, in detail (thus the existance of the Massai report), so this court will need to decide how much of the former court's reasoning it agrees/disagrees with so that it can comply with the above Law.

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 11:19 PM
Note no Nadeau

" Forensics experts confirmed on Monday that investigators made major errors while collecting genetic evidence used against the Seattle native in trial, wearing dirty gloves, not wearing caps, and not following proper "protocols and procedures."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2011/07/25/experts-knox-cops-botched-dna.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Fcheat-sheet+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Cheat+Sheet%29

Well, to be fair...I saw SOME caps, just hair was hanging out of them!
:floorlaugh:

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 11:23 PM
The DNA is in the LCN DNA range. I believe the knife is 10 picograms or less. If an item is contaminated it must be invalidated and both these items should never of even been presented at trial. The testing on the knife has never been documented in any scientific journals. She made it up. If they cannot confirm or repeat the test it is invalidated.

The bra clasp is as well in the LCN DNA range. It is stated

"We can not exclude that the results obtained may result from the phenomena of environmental contamination and / or contamination arising at any stage of the repertoire and / or manipulation of reperto”. finding. "

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&prev=/search%3Fq%3DCorte%2Bd%2527Assise%2Bd%2527Appello% 2Bdi%2BPerugia%26hl%3Den%26prmd%3Divns&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=it&u=http://www.kronaka.it/2011/07/25/amanda-knox-e-raffaele-sollecito-la-verita-e-che-non-ci-sono-prove/

And it's that last part you bolded that I'm going with.

wasnt_me
07-25-2011, 11:31 PM
Ah, I see where the misunderstanding is. The out of sight debates would be on the actual rulings and reasonings of Massai, which of course many of us consider to be illogical nonsense at best...

Any actual expert reviews would be done just like this last one, of course, but for most of the items in the RS appeal document, the refuting testimony was provided in the original trial - Massai simply chose to ignore that testimony, or to go so far as to discredit the expert himself for the stupidest of reasons (how can a Judge not know that ballistics is the study of moving objects, which a thrown rock of course is?:waitasec:). This court may choose to take a different view on any of these points, based simply on the transcripts from the original trial and their own logic/common sense. Remember, Italian Law requires that verdicts be accompanied by a document detailing what motivated said verdict, in detail (thus the existance of the Massai report), so this court will need to decide how much of the former court's reasoning it agrees/disagrees with so that it can comply with the above Law.

This is what the Maud article said:

Most of this evidence isn’t due to get discussed again in court. It will, instead, be discussed by the judges in private. So, whatever happens over the next few sessions, it may be that there is no real indication of what the verdict will be until the moment it is announced.

I do not understand this.

I do no understand who the judges, without the jury, are going to discuss this "in private." maybe he's referring to the rest of the jury as lay judges in this instance, but still, every other bit of evidence has been laid out and disputed in court, according to the requests of the appeals of the defendants. I do not understand why they would suddenly decide that the judges and layjudges are going to go in a room and shut out the lawyers, the defendants, and the prosecution to make "private" deliberations about this rest of this "crucial" evidence that others feel will still convict the pair.

I don't even think they CAN do it at this point because, after that report, how in the world do they trust that what's been investigated is even right? After Massaei said no to things that Hellman agreed to, which turned out to be game changers, how could Hellman possibly trust Massaei's other choices in the first trial?

Anyways, that's besides the point because my main point, if you will please suffer me, is I don't understand how they can go in closed chambers. I get that he might mean the layjudges, too, but still don't understand how they are allowed to take this behind closed doors.

Thanks!

ETA: cause if they mean:

1. the footprints, we already know there's a dispute there over the measurements.
2. TOD--we already know at least 3 experts agreed on VERY different times.
3. Alibi--we all know their alibi was sabotaged by the postal police.

And I'm just getting started! So anything they try to make a closed decision choice about, I'll bet you will come right back up to bite them in the butt before the supreme court.

Someone said in here that you can't believe that every bit of evidence from the prosecution is incorrect. I believe you can believe that. Because if someone is actually innocent, then the circumstantial evidence is just being interpreted incorrectly. Period. Evidence of guilt can NEVER be correct if the person is in fact innocent.

I'll have to sit and think about what evidence in this case that does not point to guilt that I believe, that the prosecution also presented, just interpreted wrong. Offhand, I come up with

1. RS's knife collection.
2. AK's DNA on the knife from RS's house.
3. A hard to substantiate alibi

I'll think more, but yeah, the prosecution was right that these things above existed, but they dont mean the two are guilty. Let me know if any of you come up with some.

SkewedView
07-25-2011, 11:37 PM
Oh my, I don't think that this is a good way to get on the Judge's good side:

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2011/07/24/news/update-2-courtroom-was-chuckling-court-appointed-


"Stefanoni and (Co-Prosecutor Manuela) Comodi at the beginning were giggling, trying to laugh it off. Then about two hours into it they weren't laughing any more. Comodi started asking the forensics experts questions, and tried to start an argument. These experts are the court's experts, so they are arguing with the court. The judge slammed his hand down on the table and yelled, 'You will not speak, you will be quiet. And then she was.


Ouch.

SkewedView
07-25-2011, 11:49 PM
This is what the Maud article said:



I do not understand this.

I do no understand who the judges, without the jury, are going to discuss this "in private." maybe he's referring to the rest of the jury as lay judges in this instance, but still, every other bit of evidence has been laid out and disputed in court, according to the requests of the appeals of the defendants. I do not understand why they would suddenly decide that the judges and layjudges are going to go in a room and shut out the lawyers, the defendants, and the prosecution to make "private" deliberations about this rest of this "crucial" evidence that others feel will still convict the pair.

I don't even think they CAN do it at this point because, after that report, how in the world do they trust that what's been investigated is even right? After Massaei said no to things that Hellman agreed to, which turned out to be game changers, how could Hellman possibly trust Massaei's other choices in the first trial?

Anyways, that's besides the point because my main point, if you will please suffer me, is I don't understand how they can go in closed chambers. I get that he might mean the layjudges, too, but still don't understand how they are allowed to take this behind closed doors.

Thanks!

If you take a look at the RS appeal document, it goes into great detail on each point as to why Massai ruled incorrectly, with references to where the court can look to back those assertions up. The court of course has access to the transcripts etc of the previous trial, which contain the arguments of both sides, so if they were to debate this stuff in session, everyone would be standing around while the Judges and Lay-Judges did the twelve angry men routine...a waste of time, and not ethical to boot, as such a debate is part of the process of reaching a verdict, and thus should occur behind closed doors.

Now, if in the process, they decide that Massai erred in denying independent review of X, Y or Z, then they would then call a new session to arrange for such a review, but the discussion that led up to that point would be private, just as the discussion of the findings of such a review would be.

To put it plain, while evidence and testimony must be presented in the public eye or not at all, the public has no right or need to be privy to the decision making process of Judges or Juries. That we get Motivational Reports in Italy is quite enough to be thankful for, IMO.


ETA: Basically the process we are talking about can be looked at as a drawn out version of normal Jury deliberations, where two of the Jurists have the power to ask for additional tests/reviews/testimony as needed.

evelyn24
07-26-2011, 12:44 AM
Oh my, I don't think that this is a good way to get on the Judge's good side:

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2011/07/24/news/update-2-courtroom-was-chuckling-court-appointed-





Ouch.

Ouch indeed.

evelyn24
07-26-2011, 12:46 AM
There is nothing to tie these two kids to MK's brutal murder; this is such a farce. I hope the appellate court sees it my way.

emyr
07-26-2011, 01:47 AM
Oh my, I don't think that this is a good way to get on the Judge's good side:

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2011/07/24/news/update-2-courtroom-was-chuckling-court-appointed-





Ouch.

The fact that they found rye on the handle of that knife is actually extremely damaging to the prosecution.

If this was the knife that murdered Meredith, it should have been coated in blood, and should have been thoroughly cleaned up. Aggressively, thoroughly. So thoroughly that there were only 7 cells left of Meredith's DNA on the very tip of it.

This clean up left a tiny trace of Meredith and yet also left rye starch on the handle? And no DNA or blood trace on the handle?

When I was shown the image of the results from that knife, even though it was a low copy number, it seemed very clear that Meredith's profile was present. I believed the results were unusable because of sound science reasons, but still the results were troubling. How did these guys get to be so unlucky?

But rye starch remaining on the handle... the knife has now gone from "not meeting scientific standards" to *impossible for me to imagine* that it was the murder weapon.

Which leaves two scenarios:

1) There was contamination somewhere along the line
2) Someone planted the evidence.

Since the DNA was in such tiny quantities, I discount planting. They would have done a better job planting it.

That means contamination. Most likely in the lab.

This was a key piece of evidence. So key that a lot of trouble was gone to to test it. It should have been treated with the most sacrosanct respect.

That means that any DNA result below the 200 RFU threshhold is extremely suspect.

EDITED TO CORRECT: my use of the word "absolute certainty". There's no such thing as absolute certainty and I shoudln't have used the words.

sherlockh
07-26-2011, 02:25 AM
The fact that they found rye on the handle of that knife is actually extremely damaging to the prosecution.

If this was the knife that murdered Meredith, it should have been coated in blood, and should have been thoroughly cleaned up. Aggressively, thoroughly. So thoroughly that there were only 7 cells left of Meredith's DNA on the very tip of it.

This clean up left a tiny trace of Meredith and yet also left rye starch on the handle? And no DNA or blood trace on the handle?

When I was shown the image of the results from that knife, even though it was a low copy number, it seemed very clear that Meredith's profile was present. I believed the results were unusable because of sound science reasons, but still the results were troubling. How did these guys get to be so unlucky?

But rye starch remaining on the handle... the knife has now gone from "not meeting scientific standards" to absolute certainty that it was not the murder weapon.

Which leaves two scenarios:

1) There was contamination somewhere along the line
2) Someone planted the evidence.

Since the DNA was in such tiny quantities, I discount planting. They would have done a better job planting it.

That means contamination. Most likely in the lab.

This was a key piece of evidence. So key that a lot of trouble was gone to to test it. It should have been treated with the most sacrosanct respect.

That means that any DNA result below the 200 RFU threshhold is extremely suspect.
'Absolute certainty'. The blood was on the top half of the blade. Starch near the handle doesn't mean a thing. You could even say that it indicates that AK didn't clean it all that thoroughly making it more likely that a bit of MK's DNA was found on the tip. I agree that the defense will claim contamination. That is just my opinion, so not absolute certain ;)

Nova
07-26-2011, 03:51 AM
I just had a thought while cleaning my carpets.

I do not know how the judge and jury can look at another piece of evidence evaluated by PS without having this report in the their minds. Everything is just skeptical now. suspect, don't you think?

If I were the judge or the jury, I personally wouldn't feel comfortable taking any other piece of evidence at face value.

Yes. I don't see how anyone believes AK and RS can still be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt given what we know about the errors--accidental and deliberate--made by PLE.

(This isn't to say the Perugia court won't still declare them guilty, just that the evidence is too unreliable to be credible.)

Nova
07-26-2011, 04:04 AM
'Absolute certainty'. The blood was on the top half of the blade. Starch near the handle doesn't mean a thing. You could even say that it indicates that AK didn't clean it all that thoroughly making it more likely that a bit of MK's DNA was found on the tip. I agree that the defense will claim contamination. That is just my opinion, so not absolute certain ;)

Starch near the handle means that as in so many other places, AK and RS magically cleaned blood off the handle while leaving starch.

It's time to give up on that knife. It was always an unlikely murder weapon, but now we know for certain it has nothing to do with the crime.

emyr
07-26-2011, 04:06 AM
Current evidence promoting guilt for Sollecitot:

1. Is there a plausible explanation for Raffaelle's DNA being on the clasp? (I'm still troubled by this)

Evidence I have dismissed but others might not:
Bloody bathmat footprint:
1) Massai report says it is to be used to rule out someone, not to rule them in.
2) No Sollecito DNA in bathroom.
3) No other blood related DNA tying him to the crime.

Self-serving stories. (these should probably be separately itemized)
1) I don't think making up alibis in your diary counts as guilt
2) Changing the time for when you had dinner doesn't indicate guilt either imo.

He helped create a staged break-in and we know this because he knew nothing was stolen when he shouldn't have known that.
1) Amanda's things weren't stolen and Filomena's valuable things were lying in her room. He could assume there was no theft if a laptop had not been stolen. Sure, he should have said "I don't think anything is stolen." But you can hardly blame him for assuming nothing was stolen after he saw valuable things still lying around unstolen.


Evidence I think no one should use:
Knife:
1) Rye Starch is left on the knife but not blood because it was thoroughly cleaned? Impossible.
2) And it's toted from Raffaele's place to the cottage and then back? Bizarre and not realistic.

He said he called the police but lied. He called the police after they showed up.
1) False.

He was seen by a homeless man the night of the murder when he said he was home with Amanda.
1) False. Proven beyond a doubt because the witness saw buses that night and there were no buses, not even for the discos which were closed.

His bloody shoeprints were found at the scene of the crime.
1) False, as written in the Massai report. There was one print that was somewhat contested and said to match Raffaele's Nike shoes... shoes that had an almost identical tread pattern to Rudy's shoes. So you must believe that Raffaelle happened to wear Nike's with an almost identical tread pattern to Rudy's the night of the murder and left only one footprint in the murder room. Or the shoeprint is Rudy's and is slightly altered from being on cloth.



He did not try hard enough to kick down Meredith's door.
1) The fact that there was proof he tried to kick it down means he tried to kick it down. (The postal police saw evidence of this). So he's supposed to not want the door open so no one suspects him, so he kicks the door enough for it to almost break? Doesn't fly. Or he is trying to kick the door to get back Amanda's lamp, but yet he is faulted because it is easy to kick down the door? Can't have it both ways.

He didn't crowd near the door when it was broken down because he already knew what was there.
1) Amanda was on the phone with her mother during this moment to explain what was happening and Raffaelle stayed beside her.


**********
I think if the bra evidence goes there is no compelling evidence for Raffaelle's guilt. The only exception is that he provided an alibi for Amanda, so if Amanda is guilty he must be guilty because he corroborated her alibi.

I think that doesn't fly because you could say she brainwashed him into beliving her story. After all, if she is influential enough to make him commit murder, then certainly she is able to convince him her alibi is true.

emyr
07-26-2011, 04:16 AM
'Absolute certainty'. The blood was on the top half of the blade. Starch near the handle doesn't mean a thing. You could even say that it indicates that AK didn't clean it all that thoroughly making it more likely that a bit of MK's DNA was found on the tip. I agree that the defense will claim contamination. That is just my opinion, so not absolute certain ;)

You're right, I should say "absolute certainty" for me. Actually I shouldn't use that word at all.

But the mathematical likelihood of stabbing someone in the neck with a kitchen knife, and the resulting wound ONLY leaving blood on half of the blade is extremely unlikely, especially given the blood spray that is evident in the room. The mechanics of this working out to leave starch on the blade is impossible for me to imagine. If you can come up with a plausible scenario, I'm all ears.

And the prosecution states the knife was thoroughly cleaned and that's why they found it suspicious. So was it thoroughly cleaned or not?

Very hinky.

Nova
07-26-2011, 05:27 AM
emyr, given what we know of its collection and the fact that it was destroyed soon after, how can you even include the knife as evidence? How did RS get his DNA on just a clasp and nowhere else on the bra (or even in the room, for all we know)? If the clasp wasn't planted for the internet broadcast, it was the result on contamination. And even if it wasn't, we have no way of knowing.

I agree with you about "halfway" breaking in the door. How could RS possibly know how much force was necessary to "halfway" break anything?