Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#8

[redheadedgal]

the dna story: http://www.raffaelesollecito.org/?p=420


:floorlaugh:

 

[redheadedgal]

Amanda testified it was a hickey while 2 other witnesses testified saying it wasn't. I get to decide who I believe.

the defendant's testimony is accurate and truthful when it suits one's argument... got it.

aa9511: Look at it from the guilty viewpoint for one minute: Would Laura, who stated that it did NOT look like a hickey to her, have more motivation to lie about the hickey than a guilty Amanda, who actually got the mark from the murder she is denying being anywhere close to?

some posters here were surprised to see that a hickey could look like the photos i linked (which looked like the mark on amanda)... if LM hadn't ever seen one look like that, what would she have stated under oath? something like it doesn't look like a love bite... b/c it isn't purple and more round?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-02-14-knox-italy_N.htm

 

[otto]

The hoodie, the bra clasp and other things were indeed collected on December 18. The same day as the luminol testing.

I agree with SMK about the hoodie and the bra clasp, along with other things, not being removed from the cottage until so long after the crime. There were interviews done and it was known what Meredith was wearing before she was killed. The hoodie itself should have been taken immediately as it would possibly have evidence on it as to who killed Meredith. Same with the bra clasp. Why on earth would any investigator wait so long before going back to the crime scene to take into evidence important items?

DNA doesn't fly and it doesn't vanish, so just like the bra clasp, any DNA on the clothing would still be there even if the object was collected days later.

 

[SMK]

I spoke with a former police officer about this case one time. His job had been to secure crime scenes for investigators. His first words were, "Contaminated, contaminated."

If this is so blatant and obvious as all say, why wasn't this argued before the Italian Supreme Court (I assume it was ) and the case thrown out for compromised evidence? This is what I keep wondering. (as per International and Italian forensic standards).

In any case, just asking, as this is your area of expertise. (I get the feeling I have asked this before, but the answer escapes me now).

I understand that it was argued that CSI people were traipsing in and out of the cottage (although isn't this true of all crime scenes?) but didn't Stefanoni argue something to the effect that "DNA doesn't fly" and it doesn't simply vanish (as per the bra clasp). Something isn't clear in all of this. ETA (or do they suspect planting of DNA?)
In any case it's been said that the quantity of the Sollecito DNA on the bra clasp precludes contamination. Is this true or not? (I have no reference, no means of determining). Thanx smk

 

[Amber29]

the defendant's testimony is accurate and truthful when it suits one's argument... got it.




some posters here were surprised to see that a hickey could look like the photos i linked (which looked like the mark on amanda)... if LM hadn't ever seen one look like that, what would she have stated under oath? something like it doesn't look like a love bite... b/c it isn't purple and more round?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-02-14-knox-italy_N.htm

I believe my words are being taken out of context.

I said when we are talking about a self serving question, for which we have other witnesses who testify to something different. Is that not the way it works?
Amanda is the only person that would've known about blood being in the bathroom. I guess she could've said that her blood might've been there but she didn't say that. I simply agree with her answer of No, I don't twist it to fit "my arguement" like some by saying she misunderstood the question.

I still stand behind the defendant is not the best source in most situations.

 

[SMK]

Just a side note:
On Amanda's blog, she now has a page with all of the characters involved in this trial, some pics, some quotes and dates, for reference:

http://www.amandaknox.com/the-meredith-kercher-murder/names/

 

[otto]

If this is so blatant and obvious as all say, why wasn't this argued before the Italian Supreme Court (I assume it was ) and the case thrown out for compromised evidence? This is what I keep wondering. (as per International and Italian forensic standards).

In any case, just asking, as this is your area of expertise. (I get the feeling I have asked this before, but the answer escapes me now).

I understand that it was argued that CSI people were traipsing in and out of the cottage (although isn't this true of all crime scenes?) but didn't Stefanoni argue something to the effect that "DNA doesn't fly" and it doesn't simply vanish (as per the bra clasp). Something isn't clear in all of this. ETA (or do they suspect planting of DNA?)
In any case it's been said that the quantity of the Sollecito DNA on the bra clasp precludes contamination. Is this true or not? (I have no reference, no means of determining). Thanx smk

I suspect that the "former police officer" in question had nothing to do with the case, as professional ethics prevent police officers from making derogatory remarks that could damage their professional reputation. However, if this former police officer worked in the US, nothing would prevent that retiree from damaging the reputation of a foreign police service, particularly if that retiree had strong opinions about Ms Knox.

All the experts that examined the clasp concluded 100% that Sollecito's DNA is on the clasp. The only way for Sollecito to distance himself from this evidence is to allege incompetence on behalf evidence collection and lab analysis.

 

[sherlockh]

The hoodie, the bra clasp and other things were indeed collected on December 18. The same day as the luminol testing.

I agree with SMK about the hoodie and the bra clasp, along with other things, not being removed from the cottage until so long after the crime. There were interviews done and it was known what Meredith was wearing before she was killed. The hoodie itself should have been taken immediately as it would possibly have evidence on it as to who killed Meredith. Same with the bra clasp. Why on earth would any investigator wait so long before going back to the crime scene to take into evidence important items?

Because everyone needs to be present and defense lawyers love to delay and delay just to make the point that items have been laying around for 46 days or whatever it was. JMO.

 

[otto]

I believe my words are being taken out of context.

I said when we are talking about a self serving question, for which we have other witnesses who testify to something different. Is that not the way it works?
Amanda is the only person that would've known about blood being in the bathroom. I guess she could've said that her blood might've been there but she didn't say that. I simply agree with her answer of No, I don't twist it to fit "my arguement" like some by saying she misunderstood the question.

I still stand behind the defendant is not the best source in most situations.

Imagine asking Charles Manson for his version of reality. Okay, maybe not Charles Manson, but would we ask Jodi Arias to tell us how we should interpret the evidence presented by the prosecution during trial? Arias had her say, and she had an explanation for everything. Given her explanations, if the thread between the ample evidence was loosely enough woven, some might miss the obvious ... thankfully that jury got it right.

I wonder how the prosecutor for the Arias trial would sound if everything he said had to be translated into Italian. Given his eloquence, subtlety, innuendo, and ability to miss nothing, I suspect that a lot would be lost in translation. Dr Mignini is probably no different ... much is lost in translation.

Imagine if a prominent, respected, senior officer of the US court, in a position similar to Dr Mignini in Italy, was badmouthed by a bunch of internet people in Italy. What would people think? What could people in Italy be thinking?

 

[SMK]

Imagine asking Charles Manson for his version of reality. Okay, maybe not Charles Manson, but would we ask Jodi Arias to tell us how we should interpret the evidence presented by the prosecution during trial? Arias had her say, and she had an explanation for everything. Given her explanations, if the thread between the ample evidence was loosely enough woven, some might miss the obvious ... thankfully that jury got it right.

I wonder how the prosecutor for the Arias trial would sound if everything he said had to be translated into Italian. Given his eloquence, subtlety, innuendo, and ability to miss nothing, I suspect that a lot would be lost in translation. Dr Mignini is probably no different ... much is lost in translation.

Imagine if a prominent, respected, senior officer of the US court, in a position similar to Dr Mignini in Italy, was badmouthed by a bunch of internet people in Italy. What would people think? What could people in Italy be thinking?

I think that is what's so perplexing about this case: You have another nation involved, making judgments, ("had Perugian police done their jobs, Guede would have been held solely responsible" etc. ) and that seems (at least in my experience) to be unprecedented, or at least a very unusual occurrence.

 

[SMK]

This kind of thing also is perplexing; I assume Crini means the original Meredith DNA on the knife still holds, while the defense have called it invalid.

Which side is in keeping with international or national standards of evidence? They can't both be right.
One wants to be able to know whether Knox is "conclusively linked to the murder" (and hence, deserving of being held accountable) or not (and perhaps is being sold down the river). It infuriates me that I have no expertise and thus have to just believe what is told me.

Presenting his closing arguments, prosecutor Alessandro Crini urged the Florence court to assess the evidence as a whole rather than separating it out as the previous court had "mistakenly" done. He asked the court to consider witness testimony that had been dismissed by the Perugia appeals court and said new DNA testing of the kitchen knife that was allegedly used to kill Kercher, should be seen as "linking Knox conclusively to the murder".

The defence has argued the opposite, saying that the new DNA testing bolsters Knox's case.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/europe/ama...tate-guilty-verdicts-court-told#ixzz2nVEKECu3

 

[otto]

Because everyone needs to be present and defense lawyers love to delay and delay just to make the point that items have been laying around for 46 days or whatever it was. JMO.

So, I hadn't really thought about it before in terms of 46 days being December 18. The reason that police went back on Dec 18 was to apply luminol and look for blood evidence (I believe that 6 weeks is optimal). It should not be surprising that on Dec. 18, things had been moved in order to expose the floor ... for luminol application. I read a comment earlier about stuff being piled in the hallway, yet that seems like the best way to check for blood evidence in the bedrooms, hallway, living area, kitchen and so on - clear out the stuff. The blood evidence didn't disappear when people walked in the area ... we know that from the luminol evidence. No harm done. They certainly weren't carrying Sollecito's DNA into Meredith's bedroom.

Before the luminol could be applied, evidence had to still be collected (so that wasn't piled in the hallway)? ... the bra was also collected on Dec 18? At the same time as the clasp? What else was collected and was there any contamination of Sollecito's DNA on other objects that were collected for evidence on December 18?

If the bra and the clasp were collected at the same time, and Guede's DNA on the bra is good enough, then I don't see why the DNA on the clasp is a problem.

Contamination in the lab has been ruled out by all parties because of an 8 days gap in Meredith/Sollecito evidence analysis that could result in contamination. Contamination in the field sounds farfetched.

 

[Amber29]

Imagine asking Charles Manson for his version of reality. Okay, maybe not Charles Manson, but would we ask Jodi Arias to tell us how we should interpret the evidence presented by the prosecution during trial? Arias had her say, and she had an explanation for everything. Given her explanations, if the thread between the ample evidence was loosely enough woven, some might miss the obvious ... thankfully that jury got it right.

I wonder how the prosecutor for the Arias trial would sound if everything he said had to be translated into Italian. Given his eloquence, subtlety, innuendo, and ability to miss nothing, I suspect that a lot would be lost in translation. Dr Mignini is probably no different ... much is lost in translation.

Imagine if a prominent, respected, senior officer of the US court, in a position similar to Dr Mignini in Italy, was badmouthed by a bunch of internet people in Italy. What would people think? What could people in Italy be thinking?

It's actually crazy to me that this whole case is blamed on the "evil Mignini". When in actuality he was working along side Comodi.
Even now it's all about The over zealous Mignini, even while its his boss Galati that handled the appeal and prosecutor Crini that has the case in Florence.

Are they all like Mignini, would so many prosecutors pursue a case that has no evidence?

 

[sherlockh]

So, I hadn't really thought about it before in terms of 46 days being December 18. The reason that police went back on Dec 18 was to apply luminol and look for blood evidence (I believe that 6 weeks is optimal). It should not be surprising that on Dec. 18, things had been moved in order to expose the floor ... for luminol application. I read a comment earlier about stuff being piled in the hallway, yet that seems like the best way to check for blood evidence in the bedrooms, hallway, living area, kitchen and so on - clear out the stuff. The blood evidence didn't disappear when people walked in the area ... we know that from the luminol evidence. No harm done. They certainly weren't carrying Sollecito's DNA into Meredith's bedroom.

Before the luminol could be applied, evidence had to still be collected (so that wasn't piled in the hallway)? ... the bra was also collected on Dec 18? At the same time as the clasp? What else was collected and was there any contamination of Sollecito's DNA on other objects that were collected for evidence on December 18?

If the bra and the clasp were collected at the same time, and Guede's DNA on the bra is good enough, then I don't see why the DNA on the clasp is a problem.

Contamination in the lab has been ruled out by all parties because of an 8 days gap in Meredith/Sollecito evidence analysis that could result in contamination. Contamination in the field sounds farfetched.

It is desperation. If you can't explain away the evidence, then attack the whole investigation team and try to get the evidence eliminated on technicalities. The bra clasp was moved a bit. I agree it is a mistake but does that mean RS's DNA suddenly came on it? Of course not. It is a technicality and why would anyone want to eliminate evidence because of that? Maybe if you just have a legal interest in the case, but not if you want justice. As if the killers didn't move around any evidence. Of course they did. The bra clasp came off the bra after all. So should we just ignore all items moved by the killers as well? I think not. JMO.

 

[otto]

It's actually crazy to me that this whole case is blamed on the "evil Mignini". When in actuality he was working along side Comodi.
Even now it's all about The over zealous Mignini, even while its his boss Galati that handled the appeal and prosecutor Crini that has the case in Florence.

Are they all like Mignini, would so many prosecutors pursue a case that has no evidence?

In a word, No. If Dr Mignini was a rogue prosecutor with delusional Satanic fantasies (as has been alleged), he would not be a prosecutor and his colleagues could not put the same facts into evidence. Dr Mignini and the appeal prosecutor differed regarding conjecture speculating on motive, but the facts remain the same.

 

[Myvice]

It's actually crazy to me that this whole case is blamed on the "evil Mignini". When in actuality he was working along side Comodi.
Even now it's all about The over zealous Mignini, even while its his boss Galati that handled the appeal and prosecutor Crini that has the case in Florence.

Are they all like Mignini, would so many prosecutors pursue a case that has no evidence?

Yes, so the prosecution, the police, the interpreter, the roommates, the British Virgins and even Rafeale at one point were all out to get Amanda. did I forget anyone?

ETA: Also the witnesses hearing screams, the store owner, the guy in the piazza, and the media.

Why is it that everyone that was actually there and knew her was against her. People on the internet think she's fine. Why didn't those she surrounded herself with agree with the posters and bloggers?

 

[Amber29]

Yes, so the prosecution, the police, the interpreter, the roommates, the British Virgins and even Rafeale at one point were all out to get Amanda. did I forget anyone?

Well there's a list of Italian judges that belong on that list as well.

 

[sherlockh]

First of all:

Schedule:

Maresca will have to speak for the Civil Parties (Kerchers) this coming Monday, as Crini took his time up last month with his 10 hours of closing arguments.

• So this Mon & Tues: Dec 16, 17 : Civil Parties and begin Defense Knox, Sollecito.
• To be continued Thurs, Fri Jan 9, 10 - with Defense Closings followed by Rebuttals
• Jan 15: Jury begins Deliberation
  

*Snipped*. Thanks for this. Back to reality Monday I wonder if Bongiorno would want to match the 10 hours of Crini.
We might be looking at more delays

 

[Amber29]

It is desperation. If you can't explain away the evidence, then attack the whole investigation team and try to get the evidence eliminated on technicalities. The bra clasp was moved a bit. I agree it is a mistake but does that mean RS's DNA suddenly came on it? Of course not. It is a technicality and why would anyone want to eliminate evidence because of that? Maybe if you just have a legal interest in the case, but not if you want justice. As if the killers didn't move around any evidence. Of course they did. The bra clasp came off the bra after all. So should we just ignore all items moved by the killers as well? I think not. JMO.

So much evidence against RG was collected that day including Meredith's purse and blue sweatshirt. Iirc the pillow was collected that day as well. Lots of key pieces came from the Dec 18th visit.

Strange to me that nothing else was considered contaminated. Especially when you point out that RSs DNA wasn't found on anything else from that day. Weird how they could place RSs DNA on that exact spot on the clasp that was cut from Meredith's bra.

 

[otto]

It is desperation. If you can't explain away the evidence, then attack the whole investigation team and try to get the evidence eliminated on technicalities. The bra clasp was moved a bit. I agree it is a mistake but does that mean RS's DNA suddenly came on it? Of course not. It is a technicality and why would anyone want to eliminate evidence because of that? Maybe if you just have a legal interest in the case, but not if you want justice. As if the killers didn't move around any evidence. Of course they did. The bra clasp came off the bra after all. So should we just ignore all items moved by the killers as well? I think not. JMO.

If the bra (including clasp) was collected at the same time as the hoodie, then how is there a problem with that evidence? Sollecito's DNA was only on the bra clasp. Is that selective contamination 46 days after the murder?

Guede's DNA was also on the bra. That evidence was collected at the same time and there was no problem, but with Sollecito's DNA, the following problems are alleged: contamination, and incompetence in collection methods, lab standards, legal process, and interpretation of results.

Was DNA only found on the bra (in terms of clothing)?