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

[otto]

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.

Having access to the testing, and knowing which points prosecutors would emphasis, is indeed different. It seems that defence had complete access to the DNA information, but did not know which DNA analysis prosecutors would focus on until ... after December, July, April? But defence did receive the information prior to trial, didn't they?

 

[otto]

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.

I don't know. Apparently the defence is complaining that they did not have access to DNA analysis. We know they were invited to the testing. Were they prevented from taking notes? Were they permitted to observe but not entitled to results? That seems ... not quite right. Is it true that the defence was not permitted access to .fsa files or resulting information from the forensic lab regarding DNA analysis?

 

[otto]

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.

All of the lawyers for Amanda and Raffaele were unable to travel to Rome to oversee and review DNA analysis? Isn't Amanda's English speaking lawyer from Rome?

The lawyers had every opportunity to attend and object, but did not.

I think what the defence objects to is that, prior to December, they were not informed which DNA reports prosecution intended to use during trial. That's a step away from preventing the defence from having access to DNA analysis ... that which is alleged in some articles.

 

[Monzoo]

All of the lawyers for Amanda and Raffaele were unable to travel to Rome to oversee and review DNA analysis? Isn't Amanda's English speaking lawyer from Rome?

The lawyers had every opportunity to attend and object, but did not.

I think what the defence objects to is that, prior to December, they were not informed which DNA reports prosecution intended to use during trial. That's a step away from preventing the defence from having access to DNA analysis ... that which is alleged in some articles.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by different reports. Shouldn't the defense have access to all evidence being used againt them?

Can you link the articles which talk about this? I would like to be able to fully understand your argument.

 

[Nova]

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.

Yes, but everything you state applies just as well to RS. I don't understand why you see it as only relevant to AK.

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.

I'm not shifting the burden of proof to the prosecution. We know the bra clasp, for one, was left to sit for over a month, put in the garbage at some point, then passed around among the techs, yes? A likelihood of contamination can be reasonably inferred; that it was not during trial inspires no confidence in the Italian judicial system.

 

[Nova]

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?

I honestly don't know, except to say that after more than two decades of working with lawyers that they do not like surprises. The prosecution got the verdicts it wanted; it may want to avoid the introduction of any new evidence just on the off chance new evidence will call the verdicts into question.

On the other hand, the defense already lost. If their clients are assuring them that knife wasn't used to murder MK, what have they got to lose from additional testing? Anything found now might raise new questions; why not take the shot?

I.e., it may just be a matter of procedural principle.

 

[Nova]

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

Wow! What an eye-opener! This case gets shadier and shadier the more one reads about it.

I'd already dismissed the knife evidence on common sense grounds and had my doubts on the bra clasp. I didn't realize so many DNA experts were accusing the Perugia lab of "manipulating" the data to get the desired result.

I like this quote from the blogger: "Good science doesn't change when it crosses international borders."

 

[Nova]

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

That's exactly what it says at Malkmus' link.

 

[Nova]

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?

Most labs give info to the party who paid for it, i.e., in this case, the prosecution. Per the links supplied, it was the prosecution's job to turn the paper data over to the defense. (This would be consistent with U.S. procedure as well.)

The point isn't that MK's lawyer didn't turn over the info; the point is that MK's lawyer HAD the info, so obviously it was available, yet the prosecution didn't turn it over to the defense. The defense was merely showing there was no reason for them not to have it. They weren't accusing MK's lawyer of misconduct, at least not as I read it.

 

[Nova]

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.

BBM: Per the links provided, the reason might be that a lab tech had written "too low" next to one set of results and the prosecution didn't want anyone to see that.

 

[Nova]

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?

I still can't figure out your insistence that the knife and whatever evidence is found on it speaks only to AK. It is RS' knife. They both had access to it.

As for the bra clasp, DNA on it could result from prior contamination regardless of whether the testing was faulty. That the jury chose to shrug off this possibility may be legally binding, but we don't have to ignore the possibility.

 

[Nova]

All of the lawyers for Amanda and Raffaele were unable to travel to Rome to oversee and review DNA analysis? Isn't Amanda's English speaking lawyer from Rome?

The lawyers had every opportunity to attend and object, but did not.

I think what the defence objects to is that, prior to December, they were not informed which DNA reports prosecution intended to use during trial. That's a step away from preventing the defence from having access to DNA analysis ... that which is alleged in some articles.

<modsnip>. The issue isn't which of 12 possible arguments the prosecution was planning to use; the prosecution isn't required to divulge its strategy.

The issue is that the defense didn't get the actual lab results--the numbers which are used to draw a conclusion--in time for all of its experts to weigh in on the veracity of the prosecution's conclusion. For this reason, some of the defense's DNA experts couldn't and didn't sign the report.

This appears to matter because most of the DNA experts involved (admittedly, most are those hired by AK) think the numbers found on the knife are too low to match to anyone.

 

[Nova]

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

It can't hurt the defense, certainly, but I'm sure the prosecution will argue it was a kitchen knife, used by others and carelessly washed.

 

[Allusonz]

All of the lawyers for Amanda and Raffaele were unable to travel to Rome to oversee and review DNA analysis? Isn't Amanda's English speaking lawyer from Rome?

The lawyers had every opportunity to attend and object, but did not.

I think there is a misunderstanding here with respect to a few things

The lawyers were given 2 hours notice of the DNA testing. Forensic DNA testing is not the area of expertise of a lawyer nor what they practice or trained for.

The forensic DNA experts were not able to attend on such short notice. One of the things that has always perplexed me was why the short notice? The DNA was not going anywhere

Conversely, a forensic DNA expert is not whom you would hire to represent you in a Court of Law as that is not their area of study

 

[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 I am bad Otto, I did not explain myself fully here.

During one of the hearings the defense realized that MK's lawyer had information not disclosed to the defense of AK or RS.

I totally agree that MK's lawyer is not there to represent either AK or RS but their lawyers are entitled to full disclosure. Normally this would happen through the Examinations for Discovery. This did not happen and has been repeatedly ignored and not disclosed.

As I tried to explain in other threads this is not accepted standard or protocol worldwide with respect to DNA

 

[miley]

It can't hurt the defense, certainly, but I'm sure the prosecution will argue it was a kitchen knife, used by others and carelessly washed.

But wouldn't that ruin the prosecution's theory that the knife practically jumped out because it was extra "shiny" and bleach cleaned?

What if they find signs that the knife has already been taken apart and put back together - probably impossible to do, just a thought.
OR
Amanda said Raphaele cooked fish for supper and used a knife to cut the fish. What if they find fish residue under the handle - do you think that would help establish their alibi at all?

 

[Allusonz]

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.

Although the forensic DNA experts can attend and observe, they cannot physically perform the tests/touch the equipment etc. They can note that the testing was not done under accepted worldwide protocols as I have pointed out before

Thus it is common procedure/protocol worldwide to give the defense ALL the .fsa files so that independant experts can ascertain how they arrived at their conclusions/results

The prosecution has not complied with these requests

 

[Allusonz]

Wow! What an eye-opener! This case gets shadier and shadier the more one reads about it.
I'd already dismissed the knife evidence on common sense grounds and had my doubts on the bra clasp. I didn't realize so many DNA experts were accusing the Perugia lab of "manipulating" the data to get the desired result.

I like this quote from the blogger: "Good science doesn't change when it crosses international borders."

BBM

I think Nova just had a light bulb moment

 

[Nova]

But wouldn't that ruin the prosecution's theory that the knife practically jumped out because it was extra "shiny" and bleach cleaned?

Good point. I forget about the "shininess" claim, probably because I can't decide whether to believe it. You may well be right that the prosecution doesn't want any evidence found that undercuts their claim that the knife was washed with bleach. Frankly, that makes more sense than any claim I've heard to date.

What if they find signs that the knife has already been taken apart and put back together - probably impossible to do, just a thought.
OR
Amanda said Raphaele cooked fish for supper and used a knife to cut the fish. What if they find fish residue under the handle - do you think that would help establish their alibi at all?

As I understand it (third-hand, through translators--add your own disclaimers here), the issue isn't whether they had fish for dinner, but at what time. Fish DNA on the knife won't tell us that.

 

[Nova]

BBM

I think Nova just had a light bulb moment

Indeed. I haven't a clue what happened on that fateful night in Perugia, but I don't think the prosecutor does either.

As I said, I've always found the tiny amounts of DNA found on the knife and bra clasp to be terribly convenient, that is, too convenient. Now I find the prosecutor and lab "playing the numbers" to get any results at all.

And what a coincidence that these two bits of DNA are the only forensic artifacts that put either RS or AK at the scene at the time of the crime!

I don't know that RS or AK are innocent; but I've seen enough to be convinced that there are many reasons to question the verdicts other than xenophobia.