Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#6

MichaelSmith said:

I don't think tweets from some anonymous agenda driven blogger are credible or should be taken seriously.

Click to expand...

you are correct... as per "rules etiquette and information" thread:

Social Networks

Regarding Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and other social networking or blog websites: Links may be used to direct posters to view something on a social networking page. But postings on social networking sites are not considered fact; they are rumor. Copying and pasting, or taking screen caps, directly from these pages is not allowed. Paraphrasing is okay. (Exception: If the Twitter or Facebook post belongs to a verified news station, it may be copied. But a link should still be provided.)

Also, social networking pages may only be linked if they are directly related to a case, i.e. the victim or suspect. We don't want to post to someone's mother, brother, employer, milkman, or postal carrier just because they know the main player. We also NEVER link to minor's pages (unless they are the victim). And be sure that the page actually belongs to the person being discussed. Do not link to someone if you are not 100% sure it is the correct person. And if a social networking is set to private and you get in the back way, you may not post what you find. Private means private!

Rules Etiquette & Information - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Italian Prosecutor Crini referenced Peter Gill and David Balding during the appeal in the murder of Meredith Kercher. That is what is important, not who said it first, or last, or how it was said. David Balding demonstrates why Sollecito's DNA is a strong sample. There is no concern about additional contributors. Knox is not a contributor to the DNA on Meredith's clasp, so we can rule out that she transferred the DNA to the clasp.

"Using this uncertain designation for the six subthreshold alleles, the estimated dropout rate for Knox is close to 100%. A separate analysis with her as the queried contributor returned an LR < 1, also favoring a conclusion of no DNA from her."

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/30/12241.full?sid=a253ef82-c033-47a6-8d9b-c5abfbd8c926

otto said:

Bottom line, Balding identifies two very strong DNA contributors on the clasp: Sollecito and Meredith. He states that the standards for acceptable DNA are much lower in the UK than in Italy, meaning fewer criteria are required to make a positive identification. Four alleles suggest DNA from another source, but he also discusses "drop in" DNA that is calculated within the probabilities. He states that the 4 alleles are very low, possibly fragmentary DNA from degraded cells.

Click to expand...

I go by C&V which even the court now said they do not consider it unreliable. What would be the reason to trust balding over C&V? Also, usually on these sort of things, there is some sort of intl consensus. It is not a question that low copy DNA especially ones done by labs not qualified to do it is considered unacceptable.

otto said:

Some people were tweeting from the court room during the trial. I posted a couple of them that directly relate to Crini's remark about Gill and Balding. If the suggestion is that the tweets are lies, then please provide information beyond the phrase: "liar".

Click to expand...

Tweets may not be lies but they are not always objective facts. If CD was tweeting you would certainly say it cannot be trusted. Any random person could be tweeting from the courtroom and would have their own spin on the evidence

If tweeting, "court is starting now" that is a fact no matter who tweets. But if they tweet "evidence proves bra clasp is RS DNA" that is just what the prosecution is arguing, it is neither true nor false, just argument.

otto said:

Italian Prosecutor Crini referenced Peter Gill and David Balding during the appeal in the murder of Meredith Kercher. That is what is important, not who said it first, or last, or how it was said. David Balding demonstrates why Sollecito's DNA is a strong sample. There is no concern about additional contributors. Knox is not a contributor to the DNA on Meredith's clasp, so we can rule out that she transferred the DNA to the clasp.

"Using this uncertain designation for the six subthreshold alleles, the estimated dropout rate for Knox is close to 100%. A separate analysis with her as the queried contributor returned an LR < 1, also favoring a conclusion of no DNA from her."

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/30/12241.full?sid=a253ef82-c033-47a6-8d9b-c5abfbd8c926

Click to expand...

You cannot rule out DNA was transferred from AK. It need not also contain her DNA. RS DNA could have been on her clothes, which were in that mess and then it transferred to the clasp. You don't need her DNA there too

You also this random male DNA there. What is the explanation for that? Seems like contamination to me. If MK had all these boyfriends, we would also see more DNA on other parts

Yellow said:

I go by C&V which even the court now said they do not consider it unreliable. What would be the reason to trust balding over C&V? Also, usually on these sort of things, there is some sort of intl consensus. It is not a question that low copy DNA especially ones done by labs not qualified to do it is considered unacceptable.

Click to expand...

The DNA on the clasp is not low template DNA.

otto said:

The defense was in court throughout the trial and their experts were heard throughout the trial. It is not true that the trial is for the prosecution and the appeal is for the defense.

Click to expand...

That is how it works out effectively though. The first trial is effectively a presentation of the prosecutions case with the defence offering a rebuttal. The second trial, or appeal, allows the defence to attack the prosecutions case, with the prosecutor offering a rebuttal. This mimics the two phases of a trial in the US system, more or less. Obviously it is not exactly the same.

During the presentation of the prosecution's case the defence will call witnesses as rebuttal, but in the first trial they had to rely primarily on the prosecution's witnesses for evidence. In the second trial they used their own experts to examine the evidence, and it was at that point the level of misconduct in the first trial was revealed. That is what led to the acquittal.

Tugela said:

By the time the stain was ready for testing the investigators probably had already settled on a scenario, and that stain potentially would have knocked their ideas off. So, they would have not been in a hurry to test it, and in the end it just simply was not done (probably because they felt they had enough evidence already, so why risk throwing a spanner in the works with a potentially unknown result).

Click to expand...

It is very scary how prosecutors use their discretion to cherry pick evidence. In the David camm case (he sat 13 years in prison and just got out), the prosecutors told defense there was no DNA hit when later it turned out there was a hit pointing to someone else. Pros later said, "oh, I told police to look it up in Codis, I don't know why they told me there was no match." also there, prosecutors failed to analyze all this touch DNA pointing to that same 3rd party, the real killer

Makes you wonder what prosecutors did or did not analyze here that could have really impacted the case

Yellow said:

You cannot rule out DNA was transferred from AK. It need not also contain her DNA. RS DNA could have been on her clothes, which were in that mess and then it transferred to the clasp. You don't need her DNA there too

You also this random male DNA there. What is the explanation for that? Seems like contamination to me. If MK had all these boyfriends, we would also see more DNA on other parts

Click to expand...

What random male? There are four unidentified alleles that are of little interest as they do not present a profile. All that is known is that they are DNA, fragmentary and degraded. Knox's DNA is not on the clasp. There are two very strong DNA samples and they belong to Meredith and Sollecito.

Please expalin a realistic scenario where Knox would have handled Meredith's bra such that she transferred Sollecito's DNA to the clasp of the bra. Keep in mind that Sollecito had been at the cottage twice. His DNA was identified on cigarette butts in the kitchen and in one other location. Additionally, secondary transfer is very unlikely, so the probability that DNA was transferred three time before it was allegedly transferred to the clasp is extremely unlikely.

Additionally, it is well worth reading the two links I provided regarding Balding.

Yellow said:

I go by C&V which even the court now said they do not consider it unreliable. What would be the reason to trust balding over C&V? Also, usually on these sort of things, there is some sort of intl consensus. It is not a question that low copy DNA especially ones done by labs not qualified to do it is considered unacceptable.

Click to expand...

BBM. Is there a link of this? Seems a bit early for such conclusions.

otto said:

I can't imagine why Knox would be handling Meredith's bra.

Click to expand...

She wouldn't need to touch MK's bra. She could touch the tap (or whatever) in the bathroom. If MK then touched that tap (or whatever), and afterwards put her bra on, then there could be DNA transferred that way.

Tugela said:

That is how it works out effectively though. The first trial is effectively a presentation of the prosecutions case with the defence offering a rebuttal. The second trial, or appeal, allows the defence to attack the prosecutions case, with the prosecutor offering a rebuttal. This mimics the two phases of a trial in the US system, more or less. Obviously it is not exactly the same.

During the presentation of the prosecution's case the defence will call witnesses as rebuttal, but in the first trial they had to rely primarily on the prosecution's witnesses for evidence. In the second trial they used their own experts to examine the evidence, and it was at that point the level of misconduct in the first trial was revealed. That is what led to the acquittal.

Click to expand...

Not at all. Conti and Vecchioti were supposed to be independent experts appointed by the court. They were not defense experts. Unfortunately, they made many mistakes. For example, they concluded that there was no DNA on the knife. We know that was not true, so that was a significant error. That places all of their results in question. Their conclusions were illogical and they did not complete the job with which they were tasked. Hellman apparently didn't care that his direction to the experts was ignored. Hellman's ruling was illogical and he viewed the case as fragments, rather than a complete picture. Therefore his decision was overturned.

Tugela said:

She wouldn't need to touch MK's bra. She could touch the tap (or whatever) in the bathroom. If MK then touched that tap (or whatever), and afterwards put her bra on, then there could be DNA transferred that way.

Click to expand...

I think there needs to be a link demonstrating that what you suggest is possible. This discussion about the transfer of DNA seems to have strayed so far from reality that it simply doesn't make sense anymore.

Could you please provide a link.

Yellow said:

It is very scary how prosecutors use their discretion to cherry pick evidence. In the David camm case (he sat 13 years in prison and just got out), the prosecutors told defense there was no DNA hit when later it turned out there was a hit pointing to someone else. Pros later said, "oh, I told police to look it up in Codis, I don't know why they told me there was no match." also there, prosecutors failed to analyze all this touch DNA pointing to that same 3rd party, the real killer

Makes you wonder what prosecutors did or did not analyze here that could have really impacted the case

Click to expand...

That's like Conti and Vecchioti, who claimed that there was no DNA on the knife. They were simply incompetent.

SMK said:

Well, I still wonder about the oddities:

• with Knox and her behavior (NOT the things like cartwheels or kissing- those never bothered me and never struck me as suspect --I mean the first call to her mother, the changing her mind about the door. )
• How can the police/CSI be wholly wrong about the dna evidence? Maybe they are still right about some of it?
• How can all of the prosecution witnesses be wrong (Cuarotollo or whatever his name is, Quantavalle etc.?)
• What about the switched off phones?
• The appearance of simulation?

I guess this is a very odd case. I just don't know what to think. I guess I will simply have to be uneasy about a lot of things.....

Click to expand...

I could see the locked door comment being weird, but it could also be some sort of translation issue. It could also be consistent w a very naive girl feeling that something bad was behind that door and not wanting to see that. At that point, I think everyone probably felt something was not right and MK could have been hurt.

The calls to her mother- strange but also could be consistent w AK being a ditz and forget the time change. Or perhaps she did not mean to dial her mother, and it dialed anyway. That happens to me sometimes. Given the call was only 88 seconds I doubt she said "mom, I murdered someone, come quick." If the call had nefarious implications, it should have been longer.

Police are not wholly wrong about the DNA, bc quite frankly, there was hardly any DNA besides RG. They did not analyze the DNA in a lab certified to do DNA and are relying on samples discredited by the independent experts. They were likely wrong bc they were too much in a mindset to find evidence to get their suspects rather than to get evidence to solve the crime. We have seen in other cases how this mindset often results in the prosecution simply getting alot of things wrong bc they are missing evidence.

Many of the prosecution's witnesses are telling the truth. Some like the heroin addict or shop Keeper need to be analyzed by looking if they had any underlying motivation for their testimony. I see no reason to discredit the roommates testimony, the prosecutor may have manipulated what they actually said to be more nefarious than what they actually said. Like the roommates failed to say anything about this cleaning thing being a huge dispute between the girls. What they said about the cleaning is consistent w what most girls says to their roommates. Nothing that said suggests AK or MK were very angry about the subject.

The prosecutor also chose to bring out certain things, there are perhaps clarifying details that may not have been brought up in cross exam that could be significant. Also, I think initially the roommates probably qualified their testimony by not being 100% certain about things, but by the time of trial they were coached to be more definite than they were in pre trial testimony. This is common w witnesses in a civil case, you coach the witnesses to support your side.

Switched off phone? Again a little odd if they never did it before. But AK maybe did not want to hear from PL in case things heated up and he called up back. Maybe they did not want to be interrupted. Maybe it was not charged or battery ran low and AK did not want to go back for her charger. The reason for this could depend on what habits were for this. What is the nefarious reason for this? That they did not want their phones pinging off cell towers?i think these csi arguments are too sophisticated for 2 people who spontaneously committed murder, you would not be thinking straight, you would not be thinking about cell phone towers. Indeed, that is often why we get good cell phone stuff bc it is something people forget about in the heat of a murder.

What evidence is there of cleaning? Would not they have to physically use something to clean the floor with? What then? It wasn't the mop. What did they use, paper towels? A shirt? Where is that evidence then? And you also have to prove only AK wanted to clean but RG also had an incentive to clean up the main rooms, so no one would discover the scene till morning

otto said:

I think there needs to be a link demonstrating that what you suggest is possible. This discussion about the transfer of DNA seems to have strayed so far from reality that it simply doesn't make sense anymore.

Could you please provide a link.

Click to expand...

This links says tertiary transfer is not a real possibility, but secondary is. Dr. Balding excluded Knox for the bra clasp so who is left? Meredith?

Unlike tertiary transfer, the very real possibility of secondary transfer does pose the potential for problems both in the lab and at the crime scene.

Click to expand...

http://www.lawofficer.com/article/needs-tags-columns/transfer-theory-forensic-dna-a

otto said:

That's like Conti and Vecchioti, who claimed that there was no DNA on the knife. They were simply incompetent.

Click to expand...

Speaking of DNA on the knife. Linked table was provided by Sollecito claiming that Meredith's DNA on the knife is not reliable. Apparently they did 2 tests but on the same sample. Looks like a pretty close match to me.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/download/file.php?id=8837&mode=view

:floorlaugh:

otto said:

That's like Conti and Vecchioti, who claimed that there was no DNA on the knife. They were simply incompetent.

Click to expand...

The prosecution needs to prove them incompetent. It cannot just be their conclusions are wrong, they have to attack their qualifications first, then explain why they are wrong. Very rarely are court appointed experts ignored. If C&V are so incompetent , other independent experts should be appointed. That is what most courts would do in this situation, they would not just take prosecution experts at their word, there would be new experts. Why doesn't the prosecutor call for that?

What is wrong with their qualifications? Why is the prosecution guy better? Those questions need to be addressed, and it seems to me that prosecutor is attacking thir arguments without attacking their qualifications. They have to do both. The prosecution has the burden here to show why not reliable.

Apparently judge nenci said during one of the first hearings in this case "there's no reason to consider the independent experts unreliable." If you read Italian you can probably go to the transcript of one of those hearings and read exactly what was said

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

otto said:

Not at all. Conti and Vecchioti were supposed to be independent experts appointed by the court. They were not defense experts. Unfortunately, they made many mistakes. For example, they concluded that there was no DNA on the knife. We know that was not true, so that was a significant error. That places all of their results in question. Their conclusions were illogical and they did not complete the job with which they were tasked. Hellman apparently didn't care that his direction to the experts was ignored. Hellman's ruling was illogical and he viewed the case as fragments, rather than a complete picture. Therefore his decision was overturned.

Click to expand...

One cannot discredit an expert by pointing to a disagreement w their decision. Their was only low copy DNA on that knife, many experts would not consider that reliable under intl standards

Expert witnesses (independent ones) are only disregarded if there is some serious qualification issue or if the experts were caught taking money from one side. The court is simply not going to disregard the C&V just bc the prosecutor says so, you need to prove that they did not do a test they should have performed, they lied about their credentials, etc

AK and RS were intimate, RS DNA could have been on her shirt, which was in that pile. It could also be contaminated in the unaccredited lab. I do not knew all the details but there were 50 violations of DNA evidence collecting so it could have happened during any one of them as well

Maybe RS washed his hands in the cottage after bathroom and used a towel and that towel was in that mess.

Yellow said:

Apparently judge nenci said during one of the first hearings in this case "there's no reason to consider the independent experts unreliable." If you read Italian you can probably go to the transcript of one of those hearings and read exactly what was said

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

Click to expand...

Snipped. Lol..so somebody on another site makes something up, and then we have to prove that it is wrong? I don't think so. That quotation should have been sourced. If you don't have a real source then we can safely assume that this never happened.