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

[otto]

Engineers and scientists get similar training in scientific method and deduction.

I certainly see where this is going ... it has to be argued that mechanical engineers are the same as crime scene analysts and blood spatter experts in order to give Ron Hendry any credibility. Personally, I think engineers are engineers, and doctors are doctors. I wouldn't want my doctor building bridges, or an engineer performing surgery. People with expertise in mechanical engineering are not experts in blood spatter analysis simply because they use logic. Mathematicians and lawyers use logic, but they are not the same. Environmentalists and nuclear physicists use scientific method, but they are not the same. 28 years of studying vehicle accidents does not qualify someone to analyse blood spatter, spray and miniscule droplets.

 

[OldSteve]

I think any of us could look at a blood spray pattern and count the gaps where bystanders blocked the spray of blood.

I think any of us can note the paucity of bloody footprints for a crime in which a person was supposedly assaulted by three people wielding two knives.

Exactly - and it's the job of experts or of anyone to present their theories in ways that do not require a jurist to be an expert - the logic of the what is presented has to stand on it's own without the need of advanced training to understand. IMO

 

[otto]

Exactly - and it's the job of experts or of anyone to present their theories in ways that do not require a jurist to be an expert - simily the logic of the what is presented should stand on it's own without the need of advanced training to understand. IMO

Would you like to read my expert analysis of the crime scene and blood spatter/spray? Would you quote me all over the internet as an expert? I think not ... unless I presented credentials indicating that I had training and expertise in the area. Ron is no expert, and there's really no reason to uphold his layperson opinion as anything significant.

 

[Nova]

The accident reconstructionist opinion of this murder makes no sense to me whatsoever. He has no idea what would happen at a murder involving 4 people because he has absolutely no experience in the area. Similarly, he has no training in blood spatter analysis. He is a layperson with an opinion, no different than any of us.

That's only partially true. As a mechanical engineer, Hendry is trained in scientific method, scientific deduction, mechanical processes (which include the flow patterns of liquids), etc. None of that makes him a blood-spatter specialist, but I'm pretty sure he had the class where they teach you that if liquid is splattered over a radius of 180 degrees, then nothing was present within that radius to block the splatter.

More importantly, nobody here has said we must believe something BECAUSE Hendry says it. In the first place, there are others, including specialists, who say the same thing; but let's even set them aside for the moment.

Hendry "shows his work," as they used to say in math class. We can evaluate his conclusions based on the deductions themselves, regardless of his or our formal credentials.

 

[Nova]

Do you have a reference other than the discussion board you linked?

According to the motivation report, the court determined that: "We already mentioned that, at around 21:15 pm, all interaction with Raffaele Sollecito’s computer stops"

pg 77

"Raffaele Sollecito's computer appears to have been activated in order to listen to music at 5:32 am on November 2 for a period of about half an hour"

pg 82

Meredith was not found wearing a jacket, so why would you think that she didn't take it off?

It's been discussed here at length that she WAS still wearing her outer jacket when attacked. I never looked for confirmation.

As for the computer usage, I'll try to find a corroborating source. For the record, however, I don't assume the Motivation Report (grateful as I am to have it) is infallible.

 

[Nova]

Seriously? Prosecutors attend training session with FBI experts to understand blood spatter analysis, and that doesn't qualify them to perform the analysis ... it only makes it easier for them to communicate with experts. There is no way that the average joe can interpret blood drops.

Please notice I never said a layperson could decipher blood splatter as well as an expert.

What I said was that even you or I can tell the difference between a field of splatter that is interrupted and one that is UNinterrupted. That's all Hendry did.

 

[otto]

That's only partially true. As a mechanical engineer, Hendry is trained in scientific method, scientific deduction, mechanical processes (which include the flow patterns of liquids), etc. None of that makes him a blood-spatter specialist, but I'm pretty sure he had the class where they teach you that if liquid is splattered over a radius of 180 degrees, then nothing was present within that radius to block the splatter.

More importantly, nobody here has said we must believe something BECAUSE Hendry says it. In the first place, there are others, including specialists, who say the same thing; but let's even set them aside for the moment.

Hendry "shows his work," as they used to say in math class. We can evaluate his conclusions based on the deductions themselves, regardless of his or our formal credentials.

If I have time later, I'll have a better look at Ron's opinion. Do you have a link?

 

[Nova]

Raffaele's DNA was found in two places in the cottage: on a cigarette butt in the kitchen, and on the bra. For contamination to occur, the DNA from the butt, that was collected during the initial search, had to jump off the butt and travel down the hallway to the last bedroom, and then jump onto the bra. That's incredulous. The bra was not contaminated in the lab because the analysis was done at a separate time, and after the other items were analyzed.

If it is concluded that there was no contamination of the knife in the lab, then the only alternative is that Knox brought the knife from Raffaele's apt to her cottage at some time.

Whoa! RS' DNA can only be found where they test. That it was only found in two places does not mean it existed only in those two places; on the contrary, such a conclusion is extremely unlikely (even if AK and RS did spend more of their time at his apartment).

No, that is not the only conclusion re the knife. MK's DNA could have been brought to the knife at RS' apartment through secondary transfer. Unlikely, perhaps, but not more unlikely than running around Perugia with a 1' steak knife.

 

[otto]

It's been discussed here at length that she WAS still wearing her outer jacket when attacked. I never looked for confirmation.

As for the computer usage, I'll try to find a corroborating source. For the record, however, I don't assume the Motivation Report (grateful as I am to have it) is infallible.

I don't recall a lengthy discussion about Meredith being found wearing a coat. How do you suppose her bra was removed if she was wearing a coat?

If we can't rely on facts that were introduced in court, I don't think we can rely on any other source.

 

[Nova]

Dempsey is the blogger that first stated that Meredith's bedroom was too small to accommodate the murder. She made this remark in her list of criticisms of the movie. She seems to like the discussion she inspired with her shrinking bedroom comment, as one of her recent opinion blogs now describes the bedroom as the size of a postage stamp.

As I recall it, her point was merely that the set designers had expanded the size of MK's room for purposes of filming and she (Dempsey) found this misleading. And it is.

Nobody has ever contended that four people couldn't fit into the room. The issue is whether the forensic remains--particularly blood stains--would be the same if four had done so.

 

[otto]

Please notice I never said a layperson could decipher blood splatter as well as an expert.

What I said was that even you or I can tell the difference between a field of splatter that is interrupted and one that is UNinterrupted. That's all Hendry did.

Hendry is a layperson when it comes to crime scene analysis. We can all offer those opinions, but why rely on some guy's opinion when we have the trial summary?

 

[Nova]

I don't recall a lengthy discussion about Meredith being found wearing a coat. How do you suppose her bra was removed if she was wearing a coat?

If we can't rely on facts that were introduced in court, I don't think we can rely on any other source.

It was discussed at length while you were on your break. As I said, I never verified the info independently. I'll see what I can find when I get a chance.

 

[otto]

Whoa! RS' DNA can only be found where they test. That it was only found in two places does not mean it existed only in those two places; on the contrary, such a conclusion is extremely unlikely (even if AK and RS did spend more of their time at his apartment).

No, that is not the only conclusion re the knife. MK's DNA could have been brought to the knife at RS' apartment through secondary transfer. Unlikely, perhaps, but not more unlikely than running around Perugia with a 1' steak knife.

So you're suggesting that Raffaele's and Amanda's DNA may have been all over Meredith's bedroom but it wasn't tested? Or ... their DNA was all over the cottage but only Raffaele's DNA flew into Meredith's bedroom, landing on her bra?

Meredith's DNA flew over to Raffaele's apartment, climbed in the kitchen drawer and glued itself to the knife? Flying DNA is more likely than boyfriend/girlfriend taking a knife from one residence to another?

 

[Nova]

I certainly see where this is going ... it has to be argued that mechanical engineers are the same as crime scene analysts and blood spatter experts in order to give Ron Hendry any credibility. Personally, I think engineers are engineers, and doctors are doctors. I wouldn't want my doctor building bridges, or an engineer performing surgery. People with expertise in mechanical engineering are not experts in blood spatter analysis simply because they use logic. Mathematicians and lawyers use logic, but they are not the same. Environmentalists and nuclear physicists use scientific method, but they are not the same. 28 years of studying vehicle accidents does not qualify someone to analyse blood spatter, spray and miniscule droplets.

No, but if I were to choose between my son-in-law the engineer and a poet to perform surgery, I'd go with my SIL. Likewise, he's an expert at cars, robots, nuclear radiation and other scientific fields. Given my background in the arts, I turn to him for advice about scientific and technical matters all the time.

Once again, nobody is saying something must be so because Hendry says it is so. We have been examining his claims just as we examine one another's.

 

[otto]

As I recall it, her point was merely that the set designers had expanded the size of MK's room for purposes of filming and she (Dempsey) found this misleading. And it is.

Nobody has ever contended that four people couldn't fit into the room. The issue is whether the forensic remains--particularly blood stains--would be the same if four had done so.

And for this we're going to rely on the opinion of a retired accident reconstructionist?

 

[otto]

It was discussed at length while you were on your break. As I said, I never verified the info independently. I'll see what I can find when I get a chance.

I was reading ... not posting. I would like to know how her bra was removed while she was wearing a coat.

 

[Nova]

Exactly - and it's the job of experts or of anyone to present their theories in ways that do not require a jurist to be an expert - the logic of the what is presented has to stand on it's own without the need of advanced training to understand. IMO

To my mind, this is what Hendry does. And unlike some (not all) of the ILE experts, Hendry's analysis does NOT seem tailer-made to fit a wild theory from the prosecution.

 

[Nova]

Would you like to read my expert analysis of the crime scene and blood spatter/spray? Would you quote me all over the internet as an expert? I think not ... unless I presented credentials indicating that I had training and expertise in the area. Ron is no expert, and there's really no reason to uphold his layperson opinion as anything significant.

As a matter of fact, I HAVE quoted you and your analysis, otto. Many times. Didn't you notice?

I did so not because you claim to be an expert, but because I trusted your integrity in performing research and because you presented arguments that were convincing.

 

[otto]

To my mind, this is what Hendry does. And unlike some (not all) of the ILE experts, Hendry's analysis does NOT seem tailer-made to fit a wild theory from the prosecution.

Oddly, his opinion seems to neatly wrap itself around Amanda the victim, doesn't it?

 

[Nova]

I was reading ... not posting. I would like to know how her bra was removed while she was wearing a coat.

I don't know that we had a special convocation on the subject, but I suspect everyone will agree the coat came off first.