Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

There is no way in hell Amanda or her family want her sent back to the U.S. She would end up in federal prison which is much worse then where she presently is.

I doubt it, you know those extradition agreements work? They require actual evidence of the crime for a person to be sent back. That's what this case is lacking: real evidence.

She broke no US laws that I'm aware of, and there's certainly no reason to put her in a US prison.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

facts versus facile comparisons

I've read the rules for Major League Baseball yet i still can't play in the majors.

tsig,

This is a facile comparison. Let me urge to reread the Johnson/Hampikian open letter. They describe the bra clasp as being compromised by its handling. The authors play in the major leagues.

 

[platonov]

Sorry, this is nonsense. We can see the bra clasp being contaminated right in front of our eyes on the video. You are the one being evasive.

Please explain how the DNA could have come to be on the metal part of the bra clasp during the course of the murder. If you can't do that, then you can't pretend that it's evidence of anything.

Not that its necessarily difficult to explain but this idea came up already and was dealt with at the same time as the faked video idea - they must be on the same cycle.

"Perhaps" your arguments are remarkably ill informed as regards what will get one off a murder charge. Precise details of why & how a defendant cut the bra off a dead or dying victim are not necessary to convict.

 

[platonov]

Pundits dont win games.

tsig,

This is a facile comparison. Let me urge to reread the Johnson/Hampikian open letter. They describe the bra clasp as being compromised by its handling. The authors play in the major leagues.

Unless they are going to actually play in the game in Perugia its just shouting from the stands.

.

 

[quadraginta]

Sorry, this is nonsense. We can see the bra clasp being contaminated right in front of our eyes on the video. You are the one being evasive.

Really?

Exaggerate much?

If you were to assert that the video provides evidence of circumstances where contamination might have occurred I'd stand behind you all the way. Thanks to Halides1 we can be assured that such circumstances always exist, though, so this is not particularly useful information.

You seem to be claiming that you can actually see DNA being transferred from one surface to another in that video. I'm afraid that I have to view this claim with a bit more skepticism.

Please explain how the DNA could have come to be on the metal part of the bra clasp during the course of the murder. If you can't do that, then you can't pretend that it's evidence of anything.

One way could have been by Sollecito grabbing hold of it. Exactly when that may have happened is a different question.

 

[Alt+F4]

I doubt it, you know those extradition agreements work? They require actual evidence of the crime for a person to be sent back. That's what this case is lacking: real evidence.

She broke no US laws that I'm aware of, and there's certainly no reason to put her in a US prison.

Why would the federal government want extradition from Italy when she's not charged with any crime in the United States? The State Department (which has not, btw stated she is innocent) stays out of matters like this.

 

[Withnail1969]

Really?

Exaggerate much?

If you were to assert that the video provides evidence of circumstances where contamination might have occurred I'd stand behind you all the way. Thanks to Halides1 we can be assured that such circumstances always exist, though, so this is not particularly useful information.

You seem to be claiming that you can actually see DNA being transferred from one surface to another in that video. I'm afraid that I have to view this claim with a bit more skepticism.

What we can clearly see is what seems to be a bunch of incompetents acting in radical violation of basic rules of forensics.

All they needed to do was pick up the item with sterile tweezers, put it in a sterile bag, and leave. What's so hard about that?

 

[Alt+F4]

I doubt it, you know those extradition agreements work? They require actual evidence of the crime for a person to be sent back. That's what this case is lacking: real evidence.

She broke no US laws that I'm aware of, and there's certainly no reason to put her in a US prison.

Sorry Amanda ain't going free in the U.S.

At the outset it is important to recognize that a transferred prisoner has no right to appeal, modify, set aside, or otherwise challenge his/her foreign conviction in a United States court or administrative agency after being transferred back to the United States. (18 U.S.C. § 3244(1)) Such authority remains with the courts in the sentencing country. However, the United States must execute the sentence imposed by the foreign country.

She would not even be eligible for parole in the U.S.:

In determining an appropriate release date and the length of the supervised release period, the Parole Commission considers many factors, including the nature of the offense, whether the prisoner has accepted responsibility for his actions, and the sentence that would be applied for a comparable federal offense under the United States Sentencing Guidelines.

Bolding mine.
http://travel.state.gov/law/legal/treaty/treaty_1989.html

 

[Kaosium]

Why would the federal government want extradition from Italy when she's not charged with any crime in the United States? The State Department (which has not, btw stated she is innocent) stays out of matters like this.

I meant the US would be unlikely to extradite her to Italy, in the case she 'fled.' That's why she has to be kept locked up in Italy.

 

[Alt+F4]

I meant the US would be unlikely to extradite her to Italy, in the case she 'fled.' That's why she has to be kept locked up in Italy.

Ah ok. Why do you think the U.S. would have refused extradite her back to Italy?

 

[JREF2010]

Add to that RS's appeal which states that it's not his DNA on the bra clasp but if it is...it's there due to contamination.

That's what Maresca claimed in general.

But then its ok for the Prosecution to create a imaginary second knife when the "murder weapon" didn't work too well.

 

[Antony]

Is it deliberate contamination, accidential contamination, planted evidence or simply not his DNA at all? Why is it that those who believe in AK and RS's innocence can't decide on one theory?

This from the person who doesn't agree on the same theory as the official prosecution.

In order for the evidence to be valid, the prosecution have to show (a) that it is Raffaele's DNA, and (b) that it hasn't resulted from contamination during the investigation. AFAICS, they have done neither. Those doubting the evidence have no obligation to settle on one challenge to the evidence to the exclusion of the other.

Whether the contamination was deliberate or accidental is neither here nor there. My view is that the investigators were so reckless with the possibility of contamination that there was hardly a meaningful distinction. It's as though they are putting on an act for the camera: "look, we've found the bra clasp - and here we are examining it!" Having gone against all common-sense precautions against contamination, they seal it up in its (presumably sterile) evidence bag with a flourish.

Same thing with it comes to the large knife. Was Amanda's DNA planted on the knife, did the lab use the instruments incorrectly (....again deliberately or accidentially) or was her DNA never on the handle to begin it?

Don't know if we're reading about the same case. It's not Amanda's DNA on the handle that's in dispute - it's Meredith's DNA allegedly on the blade.

 

[Kaosium]

Sorry Amanda ain't going free in the U.S.



She would not even be eligible for parole in the U.S.:



Bolding mine.
http://travel.state.gov/law/legal/treaty/treaty_1989.html

She is still considered innocent under Italian law.

After that, why would Italy want to keep her? In the unlikely event of a final conviction her fate would be out of the hands of the courts and into the hands of the government who have no reason to keep her. The victim was British, the people of Italy don't seem too interested according to the reports I've read, and all they would get out of it is the cost of incarcerating her. Send the 'murderess' back to the States and let the silly Americans deal with her.

 

[Fine]

* * *
What are your thoughts about the police making the bloody marks under the bed themselves by throwing the bloody boots into the pile of shoes and then later using the blood marks they created to insinuate the crime scene had been staged by Amanda and Raffaele? Perhaps the police deserve some equal time scoffing? Have you looked at Ron's paper on this? What do you not agree about with it? It seems awfully clear that he has nailed this one on the head to me, but then I'm an FOAker.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry11.html

__________________________________

Draca,

I can find no reason to believe Hendry's theory. There's a simple explanation for the presence of those two marks of blood under Meredith's bed, and the cops probably knew the correct explanation. (See photographs in above LINK.) They were left by Meredith herself, the night of her death, with one of her hands, while she was still alive, and on the floor. There was blood on both of Meredith's hands (See Massei Report, English Translation, page 110). There is no "splash" effect in the blood drops---which contradicts Hendry's expectations---because her hand was on or near the floor. The right blood trace even bears a similarity to the pattern of fingers on a person's hand.

On the day Meredith's body was discovered, November 2, 2007, both of the blood traces were covered. The blood trace on the left covered by the Power Strip, the one on the right covered by a large shopping bag. There's a simple explanation. The large shopping bag was probably never moved much during the assault. Meredith's hand slipped under the bag to leave that blood trace, leaving the trace covered by the bag. The power strip came to cover the left blood trace when her arm then became entangled with the lamp cord, which dislodged the lamp from the nightstand and also pulled the Power Strip over that blood trace. So Meredith's actions caused the blood traces and her actions covered the blood traces.


///

 

[Kaosium]

Ah ok. Why do you think the U.S. would have refused extradite her back to Italy?

No evidence. There's no reason for the US to try to cover-up the failings of the Perugian police nor the ridiculous imaginings of Mignini.

 

[Alt+F4]

She is still considered innocent under Italian law.

After that, why would Italy want to keep her? In the unlikely event of a final conviction her fate would be out of the hands of the courts and into the hands of the government who have no reason to keep her. The victim was British, the people of Italy don't seem too interested according to the reports I've read, and all they would get out of it is the cost of incarcerating her. Send the 'murderess' back to the States and let the silly Americans deal with her.

The law doesn't work that way in either Italy (as I understand it) and the United States (which I do).

A final conviction in Italy means one of two things. She does her time in Italy or asks for a prisoner transfer to the United States where....she does her time.

 

[Withnail1969]

__________________________________

Draca,

I can find no reason to believe Hendry's theory. There's a simple explanation for the presence of those two marks of blood under Meredith's bed, and the cops probably knew the correct explanation. (See photographs in above LINK.) They were left by Meredith herself, the night of her death, with one of her hands, while she was still alive, and on the floor. There was blood on both of Meredith's hands (See Massei Report, English Translation, page 110). There is no "splash" effect in the blood drops---which contradicts Hendry's expectations---because her hand was on or near the floor. The right blood trace even bears a similarity to the pattern of fingers on a person's hand.

On the day Meredith's body was discovered, November 2, 2007, both of the blood traces were covered. The blood trace on the left covered by the Power Strip, the one on the right covered by a large shopping bag. There's a simple explanation. The large shopping bag was probably never moved much during the assault. Meredith's hand slipped under the bag to leave that blood trace, leaving the trace covered by the bag. The power strip came to cover the left blood trace when her arm then became entangled with the lamp cord, which dislodged the lamp from the nightstand and also pulled the Power Strip over that blood trace. So Meredith's actions caused the blood traces and her actions covered the blood traces.


///

Makes no sense at all. Why would she pointlessly reach out for nothing and then pull her hand back again while on the point of death?

If she had the strength to do that, and Amanda killed her, why didn't Meredith write Amanda's name, or just her initial, in blood on the wall or floor?

 

[christianahannah]

__________________________________

Draca,

I can find no reason to believe Hendry's theory. There's a simple explanation for the presence of those two marks of blood under Meredith's bed, and the cops probably knew the correct explanation. (See photographs in above LINK.) They were left by Meredith herself, the night of her death, with one of her hands, while she was still alive, and on the floor. There was blood on both of Meredith's hands (See Massei Report, English Translation, page 110). There is no "splash" effect in the blood drops---which contradicts Hendry's expectations---because her hand was on or near the floor. The right blood trace even bears a similarity to the pattern of fingers on a person's hand.

On the day Meredith's body was discovered, November 2, 2007, both of the blood traces were covered. The blood trace on the left covered by the Power Strip, the one on the right covered by a large shopping bag. There's a simple explanation. The large shopping bag was probably never moved much during the assault. Meredith's hand slipped under the bag to leave that blood trace, leaving the trace covered by the bag. The power strip came to cover the left blood trace when her arm then became entangled with the lamp cord, which dislodged the lamp from the nightstand and also pulled the Power Strip over that blood trace. So Meredith's actions caused the blood traces and her actions covered the blood traces.


///

Interesting. I wonder did the police not notice the bloodstains under the bed and on the slats when removing the mattress and before placing the clothing and other items on the mattressless bed? Since they were going through all items in Meredith's room would they have not moved and looked through what was under her bed?

 

[Alt+F4]

No evidence. There's no reason for the US to try to cover-up the failings of the Perugian police nor the ridiculous imaginings of Mignini.

Extradition is not about determining guilty or innocence. It is a formal request based on treaties between nations.

 

[LondonJohn]

This has been discussed extensively in this thread, but I realize it's hard to keep track of everything that gets posted, so I will summarize the problems.

For starters, they trashed the cottage before they were finished collecting evidence. The premises were reasonably tidy, outside of Meredith's room, in photos taken on November 2 and 3, but when the next set of photos was taken, on December 18, the place was a shambles.

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/bed_nov_02_07.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/bed_dec_18_07.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/kitchen_nov_02_07.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/kitchen_dec_18_07.jpg

Also see the pdf on the IIP site:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Meredith_Kercher_murder_reconstruction_graphic_-_Ron_Hendry.pdf

It explains how they threw bloody boots under the bed, and then concluded that the resulting bloodstains were part of the post-crime staging. If that isn't bungling, I don't know what is.

Here are some guidelines for handling DNA evidence, put out by the US Dept. of Justice:

- Wear gloves. Change them often.
- Use disposable instruments or clean them thoroughly before and after handling each sample.
- Avoid touching the area where you believe DNA may exist.
- Avoid talking, sneezing, and coughing over evidence.
- Avoid touching your face, nose, and mouth when collecting and packaging evidence.
- Air-dry evidence thoroughly before packaging.
- Put evidence into new paper bags or envelopes, not into plastic bags. Do not use staples.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/nij/bc000614.txt

Notice the condition of the gloves in this closeup from the December 18 kitchen photo:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/kitchen_dec_18_07_closeup_of_gloves.jpg

Obviously someone handled a lot of stuff with the same pair of gloves, and this is how evidence becomes contaminated. Over the course of several hours of video taken at the crime scene on Nov. 2-3 and on Dec. 18, no one is ever seen changing into a fresh pair of gloves. This is significant, because the video shows sloppy evidence gathering, like this:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/stefanoni_swabbing.jpg

Notice how she rubs the bloodstain, then reverses the tip of the swab and bears down on the bloody spot with her thumb. Unless she changes gloves, this procedure is almost certain to cause DNA transfer between samples, which is why the guidelines listed above tell investigators to change gloves or use a clean instrument before handling each new sample.

Now take a look at this video clip showing another sample being collected:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/dropped_swab.avi

She drops the swab on the floor, then picks it up and resumes her wiping of the bloodstain as though nothing had happened.

These are just a few examples among many documented by the police themselves, in their photos and video.

The "before and after" photos of Meredith's bed are not only clearly indicative of unprofessional police procedures, they are also highly demeaning to the victim herself. I hope that Meredith's family know how her belongings were treated by the police. And what happened to all these belongings? I seem to remember John Kercher saying that the family was very distressed to only receive a very small number of Meredith's belongings back from the police. Did the police just throw away the pile of stuff that is pictured on the bed? And what happened to the presents that Meredith's family know she had bought for them? It's horrible to speculate what might have happened to them....