Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #12

[SMK]

I just read an interesting theory that th print got on th bathmat when RG took his shoes off, went to rinse off in the shower, which is pants on, and stepped out of the shower, half onto the mat with water blood on his foot, blood presumably that had washed down from his soiled jeans.

I didn't believe it because the print is faced as if RG is headed toward the shower, but then I remember AK said she'd used the bathmat as a "towel" when she had no towel after her own shower. Is it possible she put the mat back upside down? I hadn't considered this, but I suppose it's possible. i have to look at the pictures again.

What do you think of this theory?

I think it is quite interesting. You just may be on to something!

 

[wasnt_me]

Yeah, I'm still doing my workload for the evening, but if you get a chance to peruse PMF's crime picks, let me know what you think. They also said something about how he sat down on the bed and there are shoe prints to match this. They thought that's when he took off his shoes. Its also when they believe he put the knife down and made the imprint on the sheet.

 

[SMK]

Yeah, I'm still doing my workload for the evening, but if you get a chance to peruse PMF's crime picks, let me know what you think. They also said something about how he sat down on the bed and there are shoe prints to match this. They thought that's when he took off his shoes. Its also when they believe he put the knife down and made the imprint on the sheet.

Very interesting indeed......:waitasec:

 

[Allusonz]

Please explain again briefly about fsa files. : ( sorry

The .fsa files are the raw data files. These are critical in a review and are released to the defense in order to find out the date of testing, the machine settings, etc. and are especially important when you are discussing LCN DNA or DNA that have more than one profile showing. The other point is that usually the person testing never collects the DNA in order to prevent testing bias.

You are going to come across 2 arguments regarding this

The first is that the defense experts were not in attendance and did this on purpose when in fact they were given 2 hours notice and the experts themselves could not attend the testing but they did appoint someone to be present

The falacy with respect to having an expert there is that many think they are involved in the testing when in fact they can only observe not actually touch the machines, there settings etc

Often, DNA is found at a crime scene prior to the arrest of a criminal sometimes we are talking years here. In AK and RS case some DNA experts did not come on till after the testing was done but were asked to review and submit their independant analysis of the DNA.

Many that were asked could not complete their reviews because the prosecution did not disclose not only reports of testing done but as well as the .fsa files.

The prosecutions response after repeated requests and finally being ordered to release these files was Commodi stating that "they have everything they need"

 

[Allusonz]

Some interesting links for you as I simply cannot type all this out

Some points to note though as you go through the documents is that it is pretty normal to release these files. Some claim the files are proprietary when in fact that is quite false. If a lab is using accepted protocols/procedures there would be no reason not to release these as they would have nothing to hide

During the hearings it turned out that the Kercher lawyer had some of this information which had not been disclosed to the defense.

Stephanoni also testified that the luminol prints were not tested for blood and in fact this proved to be false. They were tested with TMB.

So far that is perjury by Stephanoni and withholding evidence by the prosecution as there had been repeated and well documented requests for this information

The requests were made via the defense lawyers, but the prosecution steadfastly refused the requests. According to Dr. Krane, the release of electronic files is the almost universal norm.

a. Electronic data is considered standard discovery and is critical to an independent review.
b. Electronic data must be received prior to commencing an independent review.
c. The laboratory will typically provide you with a CD containing electronic data.”

Then the defense learned that the Kercher family’s lawyer had some of this information and demanded that the judge order the release of the data in the summer of 2009. The prosecution released some data, but not what was asked for

’ Deputy prosecutor Manuela Comodi brushed off the request for all forensic documentation and added: ‘They have everything they need. That is enough.’” Ms. Comodi’s words imply that the defense did not receive everything, just what the prosecution claims is enough

http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/04/prosecutions-failure-to-release.html

http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/06/raffaele-sollecitos-appeal.html

 

[Allusonz]

“But there is more. The lack of full discovery was also found during the course of the trial:

- on July 18 2009, during cross-examination of the technical consultant of Raffaele Sollecito’s defence, Prof. Adriano Tagliabracci, there was an astonishing coup de theatre, in which the prosecution formulated a question which generated the suspicion that the Public Minister was in possession of further laboratory data never made available to the defence. In particular, the data relative to the quantity of the extract used for genetic analysis of the biological material found on the bra clasp of the victim;

- confronted with the reaction of the defence, the office of the Public Minister had to admit that there existed documents compiled by the scientific police never deposited at the conclusion of the investigations (contravening in this way the provision of Article 415 bis c.p.p.), nor sent to the Gup with the request for trial (in violation of Article 416, paragraph 2, c.p.p.).

In other words, the office of the PM denied a complete discovery of the documents of the investigation, extending this breach in the rights of the defence into the trial!”

http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/06/raffaele-sollecitos-appeal.html

 

[Allusonz]

With respect to the LCN DNA testing this is even a bigger mess. Stephanoni used methods never used before and not written up in any scientific literature (basically she overrode the "too low" readings till something showed up )

Here are 2 links which will give you an overview of LCN DNA testing. This is what the current experts are trying to figure out and if I were a betting lady they are not happy campers at this point.

There is lots more to this but it should keep you occupied for a little bit :giggle:

http://freeaman.001webs.com/pdfs/LCN_DNA_I.pdf
http://freeaman.001webs.com/pdfs/LCN_DNA_II.pdf

 

[Allusonz]

.. there are a few interesting theories on Franks site (in comments)
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7877520352483689941&postID=5998415914360261296

Wow Miley, if I did not know better it appears that they are stating possible planting of evidence. Will have to see how this turns out. Simply Wow

 

[Allusonz]

Joy Halverson and Marc Taylor have confirmed that they signed the appendix to the open letter. Marc Taylor wrote, “We have discovered numerous manipulations of the data analysis or the actual physical analysis of the evidence by reviewing the electronic data…The electronic data is clearly the ‘best evidence’ in the legal system.”

http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/04/prosecutions-failure-to-release.html

 

[Allusonz]

Simon Ford confirmed that he signed the letter and replied, “In my opinion, it is always important to review the electronic data underlying a test result, if only to confirm the integrity of the data set. In low level DNA cases such as this, in which the slightest contamination could compromise the test result, it is absolutely essential to review the electronic data for the key samples and the associated controls to check for low level contamination. I cannot think of any valid reason why the prosecutor would chose not to provide the electronic data. In my experience, forensic DNA analysts in the US are invariably happy to turn over the data to support their findings.”

http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/04/prosecutions-failure-to-release.html

 

[Chiquita71]

Thank you for the corrections. I admit members posting on this thread have gathered much more information about this case than I. I came in at the level I was at, as far as information gathering but I was also offering my opinion. I should have provided links. :yes:

It is still my humble opinion that Amanda Knox is guilty of participating in the crime against Meredith. Although, I believe I can say that she is, in fact guilty- because she was found as such by the Italian court. If she were to be found not guilty because she was falsely convicted, then she would be no longer guilty. Of course.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-12-03/...redith-kercher-raffaele-sollecito?_s=PM:WORLD
Before his testimony, prosecutor Manuela Comodi offered a rebuttal to defense claims of sloppy evidence-gathering at the crime scene. She focused on the technical aspects of the evidence against Knox and Sollecito and questioned the forensic arguments used by the defense. She also defended the investigators, calling them professionals who stayed out of the media show surrounding the case.

Comodi rejected allegations that Sollecito's DNA found on a bra belonging to Kercher could have been contaminated. Other than a cigarette butt in the kitchen with Sollecito's DNA on it, she said, investigators did not find his DNA anywhere else in the house. The bra, the prosecutor said, was found in the bedroom where Kercher was killed. Forensics investigators wore gloves when retrieving the bra, Comodi said.

That proves, she said, that Sollecito was at the crime scene when the slaying took place.
(end snip)

Now to play devil's advocate. I do find it strange(stranger than this witness mixing up dates)this witness happened to "give crucial evidence that helped secure the conviction of a Tunisian..." lightening striking twice in front of this homeless man? I find that odd. :waitasec:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/26/amanda-knox-appeal-contradictory-testimony
In 2001, Curatolo gave crucial evidence that helped to secure the conviction of a Tunisian accused of murdering his girlfriend in Perugia, close to an abandoned structure in which Curatolo was sleeping.
(end snip)

:cow:

 

[SMK]

Some interesting links for you as I simply cannot type all this out

Some points to note though as you go through the documents is that it is pretty normal to release these files. Some claim the files are proprietary when in fact that is quite false. If a lab is using accepted protocols/procedures there would be no reason not to release these as they would have nothing to hide

During the hearings it turned out that the Kercher lawyer had some of this information which had not been disclosed to the defense.

Stephanoni also testified that the luminol prints were not tested for blood and in fact this proved to be false. They were tested with TMB.

So far that is perjury by Stephanoni and withholding evidence by the prosecution as there had been repeated and well documented requests for this information

The requests were made via the defense lawyers, but the prosecution steadfastly refused the requests. According to Dr. Krane, the release of electronic files is the almost universal norm.

a. Electronic data is considered standard discovery and is critical to an independent review.
b. Electronic data must be received prior to commencing an independent review.
c. The laboratory will typically provide you with a CD containing electronic data.”

Then the defense learned that the Kercher family’s lawyer had some of this information and demanded that the judge order the release of the data in the summer of 2009. The prosecution released some data, but not what was asked for

’ Deputy prosecutor Manuela Comodi brushed off the request for all forensic documentation and added: ‘They have everything they need. That is enough.’” Ms. Comodi’s words imply that the defense did not receive everything, just what the prosecution claims is enough

http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/04/prosecutions-failure-to-release.html

http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/06/raffaele-sollecitos-appeal.html

Thanks so much for all this!!!

 

[Allusonz]

Thank you for the corrections. I admit members posting on this thread have gathered much more information about this case than I. I came in at the level I was at, as far as information gathering but I was also offering my opinion. I should have provided links. :yes:

It is still my humble opinion that Amanda Knox is guilty of participating in the crime against Meredith. Although, I believe I can say that she is, in fact guilty- because she was found as such by the Italian court. If she were to be found not guilty because she was falsely convicted, then she would be no longer guilty. Of course.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-12-03/...redith-kercher-raffaele-sollecito?_s=PM:WORLD
Before his testimony, prosecutor Manuela Comodi offered a rebuttal to defense claims of sloppy evidence-gathering at the crime scene. She focused on the technical aspects of the evidence against Knox and Sollecito and questioned the forensic arguments used by the defense. She also defended the investigators, calling them professionals who stayed out of the media show surrounding the case.

Comodi rejected allegations that Sollecito's DNA found on a bra belonging to Kercher could have been contaminated. Other than a cigarette butt in the kitchen with Sollecito's DNA on it, she said, investigators did not find his DNA anywhere else in the house. The bra, the prosecutor said, was found in the bedroom where Kercher was killed. Forensics investigators wore gloves when retrieving the bra, Comodi said.

That proves, she said, that Sollecito was at the crime scene when the slaying took place.
(end snip)

Now to play devil's advocate. I do find it strange(stranger than this witness mixing up dates)this witness happened to "give crucial evidence that helped secure the conviction of a Tunisian..." lightening striking twice in front of this homeless man? I find that odd. :waitasec:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/26/amanda-knox-appeal-contradictory-testimony
In 2001, Curatolo gave crucial evidence that helped to secure the conviction of a Tunisian accused of murdering his girlfriend in Perugia, close to an abandoned structure in which Curatolo was sleeping.
(end snip)

:cow:

:welcome:

I wish you luck on your journey in coming to a conclusion with respect to this case. I will leave some links which are easy to read, and although slanted to the innocent side, I believe gives a comprehensive view of the issues related to this case. As well, in my journey I felt it was important to look at both sides, see what made the most sense to me, what theories were simply not possible. Those are only decisions that you can make. Throughout the threads here there is alot of information, so if you do get time to at least glance over them it might be benificial

Commodi is wrong. Period. I have attached a video that shows the collection of the bra clasp and Dr. Greg Hampikian, Director of the Idaho Innocence Project explains the issues in the video which is seen.

Curatolo has now testified at 3 murder investigations which helped the prosecution obtain guilty verdicts. I would not even want to try and calculate the chance of one person being a primary witness to 3 murders.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vEFPZgW9HA

Ron Hendry analysis

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendryindex2.html

The bra clasp

There are a number of videos here which show how the forensics were collected. Remember this was 46/47 days after the murder

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

This should give you a good start at least

 

[wasnt_me]

Thank you for the corrections. I admit members posting on this thread have gathered much more information about this case than I. I came in at the level I was at, as far as information gathering but I was also offering my opinion. I should have provided links. :yes:

No problem. Don't know if you've been in the MK discussion before, but welcome!

I can't really debate the Dna evidence as I don't have the technical know how to do so. However, I can show that they were not using careful techniques to retrieve data. You can see the link below and also review these photos.

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

Gloves discarded on the living room floor. VERY dirty gloves, I might add. That seems to contradict the claim that they switched gloves each time they touched an object.

Wide shot of where dirty gloves were discarded.

This picture, I have to be honest. I had a passing thought that it was altered. However, if it WAS NOT, then you get my drift. Just know that I take this picture with a grain of salt.

They said everyone on had on special gear and didn't go into different rooms and changed their garb everytime. See the guy on the balcony? He's about to track whatever is on the balcony back into the crime scene. See the guy behind him in the doorway? He doesn't even have protective garb on.

And who is this person in the murder room with NO protective gear on? The picture says nov 3, and this guy is in the murder room with no protective gear. Remember the bra clasp is STILL in the room on Nov 3rd.

This isn't a post challenging anyone. And these are just the pictures I could find. I can imagine that there are many more moments like these in video and pictures that were not made public, so I'm just pointing out that there was more than likely contamination, no matter what the prosecution says.

 

[wasnt_me]

Whoa, I just noticed something in this picture. Looks like watery blood drops on the pink bag. I know the bag looks like it has a design, but look closely and tell me if it doesn't look like a watery blood drop.

I'd read others theorize that RG had wet down his jeans before leaving. This bag is in the living room on the way out of the house, so maybe this is what I think it is. You tell me.

If I am right, the question is, where did that bag come from? Was it there on the floor on Nov 1st? If not, where was it that it got the watery blood on it? Was the spot tested? et cetera et cetera. Since the bra clasp got moved, it's possible that bag got taken out of a room, too. Or maybe it was there and RG dripped on it on his way out.

OR maybe you guys will disagree that it is a watery blood drop. So tell me what you think.

 

[Nova]

Whoa, I just noticed something in this picture. Looks like watery blood drops on the pink bag. I know the bag looks like it has a design, but look closely and tell me if it doesn't look like a watery blood drop.

I'd read others theorize that RG had wet down his jeans before leaving. This bag is in the living room on the way out of the house, so maybe this is what I think it is. You tell me.

If I am right, the question is, where did that bag come from? Was it there on the floor on Nov 1st? If not, where was it that it got the watery blood on it? Was the spot tested? et cetera et cetera. Since the bra clasp got moved, it's possible that bag got taken out of a room, too. Or maybe it was there and RG dripped on it on his way out.

OR maybe you guys will disagree that it is a watery blood drop. So tell me what you think.

To me it looks like a file folder or other piece of paper lying on top of the bag. I can't swear that the pink is watery bloodstain, but it doesn't look like a manmade pattern either.

 

[wasnt_me]

See this video of shoddy evidence collecting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APLa0lBfTLo&feature=player_embedded#at=111e

1. she uses ONE swap to wipe two or more spots. She does it at least twice.

2. Also notice the crease in her glove on the top of her right hand. That crease does not change between swabs. She has not changed her gloves. You see the crease through the course of the video. She doesn't once change her gloves.

3. At about 2:37, she folds the blood rug up WITH THE SAME GLOVES. She's applying pressure, therefore, she might be picking up DNA on the gloves.

4. Same creased-gloved hand at 2:49, now swabbing the toilet. I don't know if she's collectng DNA or cleaning the bowl. But what's up with all that rubbing?

5. At 3:52, she does not bother swab the bidet drain. Why not?

6. At the end, she has stepped into the hallway where the footprints were found. She is still wearing her booties, which are like papertowels. Papertowels collect dirt, dust and debris from the floor, so she just brought whatever was on the floor into the footprint corridor.

 

[SMK]

Whoa, I just noticed something in this picture. Looks like watery blood drops on the pink bag. I know the bag looks like it has a design, but look closely and tell me if it doesn't look like a watery blood drop.

I'd read others theorize that RG had wet down his jeans before leaving. This bag is in the living room on the way out of the house, so maybe this is what I think it is. You tell me.

If I am right, the question is, where did that bag come from? Was it there on the floor on Nov 1st? If not, where was it that it got the watery blood on it? Was the spot tested? et cetera et cetera. Since the bra clasp got moved, it's possible that bag got taken out of a room, too. Or maybe it was there and RG dripped on it on his way out.

OR maybe you guys will disagree that it is a watery blood drop. So tell me what you think.

Well, the problem is, it looks too much like the rest of the design on the bag. It it were a white bag, I would say yes. But as it has the design, it is iffy............

 

[wasnt_me]

To me, it looks like watery bloodstains, but I appreciate you and Nova's input, because I have to get second opinions. anyone else with one is welcome to chime in, too. I want to know who used those dirty gloves and where.

 

[wasnt_me]

Is this Laura's room? I'd read that one of her drawers had been left open, proving someone had been in there, searching around. Her underwear drawer is open in this video. I think this is her room because in the next video, they show a room right next to the murder bathroom, which appears to be amanda's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIpuhHP9HKw&NR=1

Laura's room above?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N-ATwpPsm4&NR=1

Amanda's room above? If that's Amanda's room, there are clothes on the bed. Could that be what she'd been wearing the night before? I don't remember what they said she'd been wearing.