Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #15

[SMK]

This does not seem like a leak to me, and I have been working in press for 2 decades. It looks like they decided to report it early:

Amanda Knox DNA evidence contaminated, appeal court hears:
Experts brand as unreliable the key evidence that Raffaele Sollecito's DNA was found on victim Meredith Kercher's bra
The appeal by Amanda Knox and her Italian former boyfriend against their convictions for the killing of British student Meredith Kercher took a sensational turn on Wednesday when independent, court-appointed experts dismissed as unreliable forensic evidence crucial to the prosecution case.

Two Rome university professors said there was no certainty that traces of DNA found on the alleged murder weapon belonged to Kercher.

They added that the vital piece of evidence which linked Knox's ex-boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, to the scene of the murder – a trace of his DNA on Kercher's bra clip – could have got there by contamination, as the defence maintained at the trial.

The breakthrough for the appellants came just two days after their case suffered a hefty setback.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/29/amanda-knox-dna-evidence-contaminated

 

[dgfred]

Really? Who decided?

 

[SMK]

Of course she is going to report on what was 'leaked'. That doesn't really help with who leaked it in the first place.

Why would it be leaked if it was to just be presented to the court tomorrow and their reports on the findings wouldn't be presented until July?

Isn't this just like 'negative' media influencing the public that was spoken so much of before... only it is 'positive' for the defendants?

Why would they need to present the results in court in July when everyone (public) will already know?

I cannot answer this fred, but if you look at my article I posted in my last post, I see a bit of something already.

 

[mdana]

Of course she is going to report on what was 'leaked'. That doesn't really help with who leaked it in the first place.

Why would it be leaked if it was to just be presented to the court tomorrow and their reports on the findings wouldn't be presented until July?

Isn't this just like 'negative' media influencing the public that was spoken so much of before... only it is 'positive' for the defendants?

Why would they need to present the results in court in July when everyone (public) will already know?

Uh, to make it part of the official proceedings?

 

[dgfred]

Uh, to make it part of the official proceedings?

Why wait?

 

[dgfred]

I cannot answer this fred, but if you look at my article I posted in my last post, I see a bit of something already.

What the 'breakthrough' part just after the disaster of two days ago?

 

[mdana]

Of course she is going to report on what was 'leaked'. That doesn't really help with who leaked it in the first place.

Why would it be leaked if it was to just be presented to the court tomorrow and their reports on the findings wouldn't be presented until July?

Isn't this just like 'negative' media influencing the public that was spoken so much of before... only it is 'positive' for the defendants?

Why would they need to present the results in court in July when everyone (public) will already know?

Why wait?

Seems to be the Italian way. This is a very long drawn out process with most of the court dates on the weekend. To be fair, I think mostly meeting on the weekend is to accommodate RS's lawyer.

 

[SMK]

What the 'breakthrough' part just after the disaster of two days ago?

I spotted a flaw in that last article I posted. Wanted to see if you noticed it....

ETA:

Ok, I understand now. The 2 Professors from Rome were part of the independent panel , and these were asked to author a report for the court, which they did. It is 145 pp long, and within it they contest the DNA of the knife and the bra clasp, and also question blood evidence.

 

[SMK]

OK, this one from CNN states that the court was told, and that it is in a 145 pp report. :waitasec:

(CNN) -- American student Amanda Knox's bid to overturn her conviction for the murder of her British roommate in Italy may have been given a boost by fresh DNA analysis, Italian news agency ANSA reported Wednesday.
Forensic specialists told a court in Perugia that evidence linking her to the alleged murder weapon was unsound, according to ANSA.
[. . . ]
The forensic experts, who reviewed police findings that identified DNA from both Knox and Kercher on a knife found at the home of Knox's ex-boyfriend Rafaele Sollecito, said the "assertions are not sustainable," ANSA reported.
"There is no conclusive scientific evidence regarding the nature of the blood," ANSA quoted from the 145-page report.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/06/29/italy.knox.dna/

Same with this one from the Sun:

Amanda Knox DNA proof 'unreliable'
By STAFF REPORTER
Published: Today
AMANDA Knox's hope of walking free from jail rose dramatically today after traces of DNA used to convict her were deemed "unreliable".
American Knox, 23, is appealing her conviction and 26-year sentence for killing British student Meredith Kercher.

. . . a report ordered by a judge found that part of the evidence used to convict her could be contaminated.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...reliable.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=News#ixzz1QgqRI5NL

 

[emyr]

I think without the knife and the bra clasp, there is no way the two can be convicted of murder. But they could be still convicted of being an accessory to murder. I wonder if throwing out that evidence means a new trial? I don't know how italy works.

I think I said this before, but if what is stated here is true: that the courts must presume the burglary was staged and that it is a fact that there was more than one person involved in the crime, then you have to look at the remaining evidence and say whether there is a reasonable doubt that this other person (or persons) were NOT Amanda and/or Raffaelle. This is like the Central Park case someone referred to earlier.

I don't use the staged break-in as evidence because the defenses explanation sways me. However, if I am required to believe the break-in was staged then I would believe that Amanda and Raffaelle were present that night, they did not participate in the murder, but they were afraid they would be found guilty of the crime, so they covered it up.

I also think the criminal parade and Rudy could prove to be quite damaging to the defense. Just from a psychological level, it feels like a circus, and jurors might feel like they are trying to cover up and/or distract from the facts.

I don't really understand the process, but you usually try to keep it straightforward for a judge. But juries are highly emotional, so you jazz it up for the juries. But that can backfire on you.

 

[SMK]

Why wait?

According to CNN, they did not wait. They gave the report already to the appeals court. The info was leaked, but it is already in possession by the court, so it has no negative impact, as far as I can see. The declarations of June 30 and July 25 are simply to officiate it. The info remains what it is.

 

[dgfred]

I just don't believe someone 'in the court' would leak the information early on what was just supposed to be submitted tomorrow... something seems very strange to me. :waitasec:

'not being able to rule out contamination' doesn't exactly mean the evidence WAS contaminated in my eyes.

But, if you didn't know... my eyes are brown like another certain 'part' of the case :innocent: (were's flourish when you need her :floorlaugh: ).

 

[SMK]

I just don't believe someone 'in the court' would leak the information early on what was just supposed to be submitted tomorrow... something seems very strange to me. :waitasec:

'not being able to rule out contamination' doesn't exactly mean the evidence WAS contaminated in my eyes.

But, if you didn't know... my eyes are brown like another certain 'part' of the case :innocent: (were's flourish when you need her :floorlaugh: ).

Well, let us just examine your worst suspicions. You think this is a PR spin put out by Bruce Fisher. OK, how will this help in the long run, if it is just a half-truth and does not overturn the conviction???

 

[dgfred]

No I didn't say... or think anything about BF. :truce: Come on link-buddy.

I just think picking a few select parts (leaked anonymously) of some 140 pages 'by the court' before the day it was supposed to be even submitted is
quite strange. I don't even think completely throwing out both pieces of evidence exonerates AK and RS (they have many more 'problems'), I am just curious of the 'leak' and by whom. I have never liked using the knife evidence at all, I didn't really think it was even necessary for a conviction. But when RS made his 'pricking' statement, I definately thought it might be a main part of the crime... he sure did. As for the bra clasp, I think the dna evidence on it was good, because there was no reason at all for his dna profile to be on the clasp... but I also found it incomprehensible that it could not be retested because of 'bad' storage since there was supposed to have been an abundant sample of his dna on it. As many here think, I have never suggested that these two pieces made or broke the case. I find the lack of an alibi (no computer use) and the evasive/contradictory statements/lying much more 'suspicious' :innocent: . I also find comparing the email home to her first statement to prosecutors and judges quite telling. There ya go :twocents: .

 

[SMK]

No I didn't say... or think anything about BF. :truce: Come on link-buddy.

I just think picking a few select parts (leaked anonymously) of some 140 pages 'by the court' before the day it was supposed to be even submitted is
quite strange. I don't even think completely throwing out both pieces of evidence exonerates AK and RS (they have many more 'problems'), I am just curious of the 'leak' and by whom. I have never liked using the knife evidence at all, I didn't really think it was even necessary for a conviction. But when RS made his 'pricking' statement, I definately thought it might be a main part of the crime... he sure did. As for the bra clasp, I think the dna evidence on it was good, because there was no reason at all for his dna profile to be on the clasp... but I also found it incomprehensible that it could not be retested because of 'bad' storage since there was supposed to have been an abundant sample of his dna on it. As many her think, I have never suggested that these two pieces made or broke the case. I find the lack of an alibi (no computer use) and the evasive/contradictory statements/lying much more 'suspicious' :innocent: . I also find comparing the email home to her first statement to prosecutors and judges quite telling. There ya go :twocents: .

:razz::razz::razz:

 

[ohiogirl]

I wouldn't have expected this to change the mind of any of the guilty thinkers. They have been insisting on it for too long.
I am just happy that some of the inconsistencies (in my mind) are being addressed. I don't think I will ever understand a justice system that convicts people first and investigates later. jmo and I am happy to hear this.

 

[dgfred]

Can you name any 'innocent thinkers' here that changed their mind after all these threads and the courts decisions? :waitasec:

 

[SMK]

Can you name any 'innocent thinkers' here that changed their mind after all these threads and the courts decisions? :waitasec:

Well, I can tell you I thought they were guilty from Jan. 2008- Spring 2010.......

 

[miley]

I just don't believe someone 'in the court' would leak the information early on what was just supposed to be submitted tomorrow... something seems very strange to me. :waitasec:

seriously? since day one, this case has centered around leaked information ...
what seems strange is the fact that it's in favor of the defense.

'not being able to rule out contamination' doesn't exactly mean the evidence WAS contaminated in my eyes.

from SMK's link above:

(snip) ...court-appointed experts dismissed as unreliable forensic evidence crucial to the prosecution case.​

 

[dgfred]

Right when you joined here? :fence: