Meredith Kercher murdered - Amanda Knox convicted, now appeals #5

[otto]

Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were saying the knife DNA hurts RS because it puts MK's DNA at his house where she had never been; therefore, if that DNA is disallowed, it can only help RS. To me, if the knife DNA is lost, it helps both AK and RS, since both were at the apartment that night and yet we have not a single speck of MK's DNA transferred from the bloody murder scene. And at least we put aside the specter of either or both of them running around town with a foot-long knife in hand. Not absolute proof of innocence, obviously, but better than a claim that puts the victim's DNA on a knife in an apartment she had never visited.

The bra clasp is only slightly more convincing to me than the knife DNA. I think it was invented (perhaps with good intentions) long after the fact to fit the prosecutor's "sex games gone mad" theory. Even if the DNA is retested and shown to belong to RS, how can retesting prove or disprove whether there was contamination?

I see it as evidence that links Amanda and Meredith. The fact that the knife was at Raffaele's apartment does not necessarily implicate Raffaele because Amanda was also at his apartment. Raffaele has also stated that he cannot be sure that Amanda was at his apartment throughout the night.

The prosecution does not have to prove that contamination did not occur. If the defence wants to allege contamination, or that the lab has made serious mistakes, it is up to the defence to prove that this happened. During the trial, defence arguments that the clasp was contaminated during collection were not accepted.

 

[otto]

Are you able to read the Italian in your links? Did the prosecution give any reason for their protest?

For all I know there is a good reason why they don't want the handle removed for retesting, but I am tempted to conclude they simply want the Court to imagine there some unseen quantity of MK's blood hidden in the handle.

What could be under the handle that would help Amanda and Raffaele? Nothing under the handle would be good for the defence, but any evidence of blood from Meredith would be bad. Nothing under the handle would also be good for the prosecution. It seems to me that of all possible outcomes, the only person it could hurt is Amanda. Am I missing anything? Is the objection to looking under the handle simply because what is under the handle has no bearing on what is on the blade?

 

[Malkmus]

What electronic data files were not available to the defence? Do you have a media link ... or is this about the computer that was fried during examination?

What would examining the handle add to the evidence? The DNA was found on the blade of the knife, and from my understanding it was not close to the handle. Suppose there is no additional DNA under the handle, does that negate the DNA on the blade?

No, these files correspond to the DNA testing done by Stefanoni. The defense requested the .fsa files during the original trial and were told by the prosecution that the defense has "everything they need". It is now being requested again as part of the appeals.

The story of the files is explained at length here:
http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/04/prosecutions-failure-to-release.html

and in the appeals:
http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/06/raffaele-sollecitos-appeal.html

and if you need an actual news report:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...nda-Knoxs-lawyers-file-appeal-in-Perugia.html

It has also emerged that the prosecution has failed to deliver to the defence all the paperwork and documentation related to the forensic testing.

 

[Malkmus]

Are you able to read the Italian in your links? Did the prosecution give any reason for their protest?

For all I know there is a good reason why they don't want the handle removed for retesting, but I am tempted to conclude they simply want the Court to imagine there some unseen quantity of MK's blood hidden in the handle.

No, I just used Google translate. There doesn't appear to be any specific reason (what could they possibly say other than "We don't think that's necessary"), although you can check Perugia Shock for a better analysis in English by Frank who attends the hearings:

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/

 

[otto]

No, these files correspond to the DNA testing done by Stefanoni. The defense requested the .fsa files during the original trial and were told by the prosecution that the defense has "everything they need". It is now being requested again as part of the appeals.

The story of the files is explained at length here:
http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/04/prosecutions-failure-to-release.html

and in the appeals:
http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/06/raffaele-sollecitos-appeal.html

and if you need an actual news report:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...nda-Knoxs-lawyers-file-appeal-in-Perugia.html

Wasn't the defence given the opportunity to attend the DNA testing, and didn't all defence lawyers fail to show up for the testing? Isn't it also true that because they were welcome to attend the testing that they would also have full rights to the results, or were defence lawyers invited to the testing but not permitted by the labs to receive the results?

 

[Malkmus]

Wasn't the defence given the opportunity to attend the DNA testing, and didn't all defence lawyers fail to show up for the testing? Isn't it also true that because they were welcome to attend the testing that they would also have full rights to the results, or were defence lawyers invited to the testing but not permitted by the labs to receive the results?

It's the results of the tests on paper, and being able to see the full results of said test that matter more than watching the person actually run the machine. The defense should have been given the .fsa files. The jury wasn't present at the testing either, so it's necessary to have those files to explain to them what was wrong or not. As I stated before the reason they were not given them had nothing to do with their attendance as the explanation from the prosecution was "They have everything they need", which is ambiguous, evasive, and more of an opinion than anything. If you have more questions regarding it I strongly recommend reading the likes I provided, as it does a much better job of explaining everything.

 

[otto]

It's the results of the tests on paper, and being able to see the full results of said test that matter more than watching the person actually run the machine. The defense should have been given the .fsa files. The jury wasn't present at the testing either, so it's necessary to have those files to explain to them what was wrong or not. As I stated before the reason they were not given them had nothing to do with their attendance as the explanation from the prosecution was "They have everything they need", which is ambiguous, evasive, and more of an opinion than anything. If you have more questions regarding it I strongly recommend reading the likes I provided, as it does a much better job of explaining everything.

So even though the defence was invited to attend the testing, they were not allowed to make notes or record the results?

Did the defence ask the lab for the .fsa files?

Was there a reason that defence expected to receive the information from the prosecution rather than directly from the original source?

"They have everything they need" could be true. It could be that defence only had to ask the lab for results to get them? Could they? I don't know, but it seems to me that they should have been permitted the results if they coud attend testing and presumably make notes.

 

[Allusonz]

The independent experts asked that they be able to remove the handle of the knife to look for blood/DNA. Neither the defense for Amanda nor Raffaele objected to this. Hellman has ruled that the handle only be removed if deemed absolutely necessary. The prosecution and lawyer for Meredith did, however, object to the removal of the handle for additional testing.

http://www.umbria24.it/omicidio-mer...tello-va-aperto-per-vederci-chiaro/16995.html

http://www.adnkronos.com/IGN/News/C...-a-periti-per-esame-del-dna_311578772183.html

hey all great to see you all!!! did not realize how much i missed this forum!!!

and Malkmus :welcome:

 

[Allusonz]

What electronic data files were not available to the defence? Do you have a media link ... or is this about the computer that was fried during examination?

It was not the electronic data files that were destroyed if i am interpreting what you are talking about correctly here that was 3 of the 4 hard drives

The data files are the files i have referred to which the defense requested IIRC in April, July, and December by the defense but not disclosed to them specific to the DNA

 

[otto]

It was not the electronic data files that were destroyed if i am interpreting what you are talking about correctly here that was 3 of the 4 hard drives

The data files are the files i have referred to which the defense requested IIRC in April, July, and December by the defense but not disclosed to them specific to the DNA

So the DNA analysis information was not given, but all other disclosures were made? Was it ready ... had the report been released in April, July and December? Was the defence not permitted the original documents from the lab?

 

[Allusonz]

Yes, welcome and thank you!

I wonder why the prosecution and MK's lawyer are objecting to the removal of the handle...

Curious but interesting.

For the time being I am going to put this down to courtroom antics.

In the previous trial most decisions if not all went in favour of the prosecution. Maybe the prosecution was testing the waters since this judge did indeed allow retesting of the DNA

 

[otto]

Curious but interesting.

For the time being I am going to put this down to courtroom antics.

In the previous trial most decisions if not all went in favour of the prosecution. Maybe the prosecution was testing the waters since this judge did indeed allow retesting of the DNA

If there's pasta under the handle, then it wasn't soaked in bleach? I wonder if that's true. I don't know if the stab wounds were so deep as to include the handle. I don't remember that. I remember about 40 injuries to her all over the place, including knicks and bruises. No evidence under the handle does not preclude that it is the murder weapon.

 

[Allusonz]

So the DNA analysis information was not given, but all other disclosures were made? Was it ready ... had the report been released in April, July and December? Was the defence not permitted the original documents from the lab?

Not completely sure what you mean with respect of information given. If you mean in the context of the DNA analysis then no it was not.

Of course it would be ready and available it is essentially required to analyze the raw data.

Again, if memory serves me correctly, MK's family lawyer had some not available to the defense and that prosecution stated that it was not necessary for the defense to receive this information (please do not quote me word for word on this as I am simply going on memory here)

 

[otto]

Not completely sure what you mean with respect of information given. If you mean in the context of the DNA analysis then no it was not.

Of course it would be ready and available it is essentially required to analyze the raw data.

Again, if memory serves me correctly, MK's family lawyer had some not available to the defense and that prosecution stated that it was not necessary for the defense to receive this information (please do not quote me word for word on this as I am simply going on memory here)

Meredith's family lawyer was there to protect Meredith's rights, not to aid the prosecution or defence.

This information "would be ready and available"? ... available to defence only from the prosecution, or also from the lab?

 

[Allusonz]

Meredith's family lawyer was there to protect Meredith's rights, not to aid the prosecution or defence.

This information "would be ready and available"? ... available to defence only from the prosecution, or also from the lab?

Sorry did not realize till just now that malkmus had already answered this previously

Essentially what it is Otto and i am going to quote here

Professor Dan Krane wrote, “The biggest concern that I personally have regarding this case is the refusal of the prosecution to provide the defense with a copy of the electronic data that underlies the DNA test results -- that is virtually unheard of world-wide today and it would be especially important to review that data in a case such as this which seems to involve such low level samples.” According to a knowledgeable source, “Each tested sample has its own file. The file contains the full electropherogram trace information along with other information about the testing conditions (e.g., date, time, injection time, voltage, temperature, current, the RFU threshold used by the analyst). If you have the electronic data, you can use the DNA analysis software (GeneScan & Genotyper or GeneMapper ID) to independently analyze the electronic data. That allows you to examine the results as closely as possible (zoom in on the electropherogram to evaluate low-level results) and establish the RFU threshold of your choosing.” (emphasis added)

Hope that helps Otto

 

[otto]

Sorry did not realize till just now that malkmus had already answered this previously

Essentially what it is Otto and i am going to quote here

Professor Dan Krane wrote, “The biggest concern that I personally have regarding this case is the refusal of the prosecution to provide the defense with a copy of the electronic data that underlies the DNA test results -- that is virtually unheard of world-wide today and it would be especially important to review that data in a case such as this which seems to involve such low level samples.” According to a knowledgeable source, “Each tested sample has its own file. The file contains the full electropherogram trace information along with other information about the testing conditions (e.g., date, time, injection time, voltage, temperature, current, the RFU threshold used by the analyst). If you have the electronic data, you can use the DNA analysis software (GeneScan & Genotyper or GeneMapper ID) to independently analyze the electronic data. That allows you to examine the results as closely as possible (zoom in on the electropherogram to evaluate low-level results) and establish the RFU threshold of your choosing.” (emphasis added)

Hope that helps Otto

That article gives me the impression that at the defence was excluded from access to the DNA information. We know that is incorrect, as they were invited to attend the testing.

I'm not sure what the defence is objecting to unless I have completely misunderstood, and they could not simply request the information from the original source. I understand that they would want to know specifically which DNA reports were going to be used at trial ... do you know when the reports were released? Was it March, April, July, or December?

 

[pittsburghgirl]

If unknown DNA or DNA from someone other than AK was under the handle, that helps her defense.

 

[missyjane77]

That article gives me the impression that at the defence was excluded from access to the DNA information. We know that is incorrect, as they were invited to attend the testing.

Being invited to the testing isn't the same as having access to the information though. Was the defense provided a copy of thece results? Was this copy of the sort that they could analyse themselves? Apparently not...hence the objection.

 

[Monzoo]

So even though the defence was invited to attend the testing, they were not allowed to make notes or record the results?

Did the defence ask the lab for the .fsa files?

Was there a reason that defence expected to receive the information from the prosecution rather than directly from the original source?

"They have everything they need" could be true. It could be that defence only had to ask the lab for results to get them? Could they? I don't know, but it seems to me that they should have been permitted the results if they coud attend testing and presumably make notes.

Hi Otto!
It seems to me we are talking about two distinct and separate things here.

Attending the testing can be a useful thing, I suppose -- but it cannot be a critical element for the defense to use in order to analyze DNA results in most cases. If it were, what would happen in cases where a suspect is not identified until after testing is completed? (IIRC, Chris Mellas -- AK's step-father -- commented on the Perugia-Shock block quite a while ago about the day of testing. It will take me a while to find his comment, but it was to the effect that they were only given a few hours notice, and could not physically travel to Rome in time. No idea if this was actually the case.)

Competely separate from attending the day of testing is the ability to independently analyze the raw machine data. It is this data that the defense argues it has not received. I can see no rational reason why all data should not be shared with the defense.

 

[otto]

If unknown DNA or DNA from someone other than AK was under the handle, that helps her defense.

Meredith's DNA on the blade, Amanda's prints on the knife, and unknown DNA under the handle would not exhonerate Amanda. The results don't even impact Raffaele. If his DNA is confirmed to be on the bra clasp, and no faulty testing of the evidence can be demonstrated, then we have Raffaele at the scene, but no evidence of anyone related to the crime under the knife handle. My next question would be who else did they kill?