Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
katy_did said:
Well, they say that the positive/negative controls weren't done, or at least there's no evidence in the documentation that they were done.

Some interesting posts about the issue on PMF here and here. It sounds as if the negative controls should have been automatically recorded by the machine?
Click to expand...

Then it is the fault of the machine and not Pati Stefi. Rats.
 
katy_did said:
Well, they say that the positive/negative controls weren't done, or at least there's no evidence in the documentation that they were done.

Some interesting posts about the issue on PMF It sounds as if the negative controls should have been automatically recorded by the machine?
Click to expand...

Thanks.

To me, it sounds like she didn't bother running controls. If she had, files would have been generated (and I assume also a log file).

So I guess observers weren't there. Or weren't paying attention.
 
RoseMontague said:
AP is reporting that at a request from the prosecution, Stefi will be allowed to take the stand.



http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2015772599_apeuitalyknox.html
Click to expand...

That's the first non-CNN report of this I've seen.

Earlier I had heard from non-public sources that Comodi had asked Hellmann to let Stefanoni testify and Hellmann had specifically refused. So either that wasn't true, this isn't true, or Hellmann changed his mind (or was overruled by the rest of the jury, though that seems unlikely).
 
Last edited:
negative control runs

It is my understanding that there should be an electropherogram with no true peaks for each negative control run. Whether or not it would be automatically saved, I cannot say with certainty.
 
RoseMontague said:
AP is reporting that at a request from the prosecution, Stefi will be allowed to take the stand.
Click to expand...

It was predictable. I wonder if some direct confrontation and exchange with the experts is possible? Otherwise the defence should request for the experts to testify again.
 
If I were Stefanoni, I'd hide my head in shame.

Can't imagine what she thinks she'll gain by testifying.

Alright, she'll swear she did controls and remind us that contamination is unheard of in her lab. But you'd think she'd have figured out that one mop-wrapping video is worth a thousand words.
 
komponisto said:
That's the first non-CNN report of this I've seen.

Earlier I had heard from non-public sources that Comodi had asked Hellmann to let Stefanoni testify and Hellmann had specifically refused. So either that wasn't true, this isn't true, or Hellmann changed his mind (or was overruled by the rest of the jury, though that seems unlikely).
Click to expand...

Looks like this was just decided today at the request of the prosecution

This article shows they went to chambers to deliberate the request

http://www.libero-news.it/news/793903/Omicidio-Meredith-periti-su-coltello-no-lavaggio-accurato.html
 
Is she in court today at all? If they schedule her for the back-up Monday hearing she still has a chance to not show up.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Even the tireless Michael/Fulcanelli seems to have lost the will to spin... maybe knowing that it's all going to be over in a month or two has sapped his motivation to spruik.
Click to expand...

Here's a quote:

And of course it had been cleaned. The knife was visibly clean and put away in the kitchen drawer. Who puts a dirty knife back in their drawer? And if the knife had been used and not washed, it would have looked dirty and used. The starch is clearly secondary transfer, which is very easily done considering the the knife was washed, dried and stored in a kitchen.
Click to expand...

The irony of making such an argument given that the knife was sampled, tested, and stored in a (non-LCN) laboratory full of Meredith Kercher's DNA is evidently lost on him.
 
Katody Matrass said:
Why? Because they're deciding whether to hear Stefanoni?

Were you assuming that Stefanoni will not testify?
Click to expand...

Yes. (And putting this together with the AP report, I concluded the Libero News report was slightly old and they've now decided in favor of the prosecution. Maybe I should check that.)

Deciding to hear Stefanoni is more likely in a world where they eventually decide to convict than it is in a world where they eventually decide to acquit, so it's Bayesian evidence against acquittal, and has to lower my probability of the latter. Had it gone the other way, it would have increased my probability of acquittal to near 90%.
 
komponisto said:
Yes. (And putting this together with the AP report, I concluded the Libero News report was slightly old and they've now decided in favor of the prosecution. Maybe I should check that.)

Deciding to hear Stefanoni is more likely in a world where they eventually decide to convict than it is in a world where they eventually decide to acquit, so it's Bayesian evidence against acquittal, and has to lower my probability of the latter. Had it gone the other way, it would have increased my probability of acquittal to near 90%.
Click to expand...

I think the judge had decided originally to let the cross exam of the experts be the end of it before final arguments and the prosecution persuaded him to reconsider.
 
RoseMontague said:
I think the judge had decided originally to let the cross exam of the experts be the end of it before final arguments and the prosecution persuaded him to reconsider.
Click to expand...

That's what it looks like. It's definitely a pro-prosecution decision, although not necessarily a huge one.

I must say I really hope we can get transcripts of these hearings (like we did for the Guede one last month).
 
komponisto said:
Deciding to hear Stefanoni is more likely in a world where they eventually decide to convict than it is in a world where they eventually decide to acquit, so it's Bayesian evidence against acquittal, and has to lower my probability of the latter. Had it gone the other way, it would have increased my probability of acquittal to near 90%.
Click to expand...

Well, there's more than one interpretation.

I think Hellman was trying to spare her further embarrassment. But if she doesn't wish to be spared and emphatically does wish to defend her work, makes sense to me that he'd change his mind.

I don't think she has grounds for a compelling defense. Though I'd have to agree that in Perugia that may not matter.

A lot of people interpret silence as a tacit admission of guilt. Doesn't surprise me that she'd want to go on record with a vigorous defense, especially in such a litigious town.
 
Last edited:
Wildhorses said:
So it's over, eh?

Whew! I'm truly happen for Amanda, Raffaele, and their families.

I've lurked here since Part 1. I foreswore signing up for a JREF account (or any other forum) because reading about the case was time-consuming: I couldn't afford to get hooked on posting. Nevertheless, the C&V hearing was too exciting to sit through alone, so I succumbed (hoping I could post that night).

Thanks ALL for your informative, entertaining, and often passionate posts. I feel like I know most of you. Sure hope I'm not the only devoted long-term lurker... that'd make me too weird.
Click to expand...

No, that's okay. I've been a lurker since Part 1 as well :) Never really felt the need to contribute myself as others made the points far better than I could. I'm sure there's many more of us dedicated lurkers around.
 
komponisto said:
That's what it looks like. It's definitely a pro-prosecution decision, although not necessarily a huge one.

I must say I really hope we can get transcripts of these hearings (like we did for the Guede one last month).
Click to expand...

Yes, the decision itself can be seen as a win for the prosecution but her actual testimony could end up helping the defense case even further. The question I have is some of these reports said she was taking the stand today, but that is the part I doubt.
 
ITN is clueless

http://www.itn.co.uk/home/25251/Knox+makes+second+court+appearance

False statements highlighted:

Knox makes second court appearance

American Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito made their second appearance in Italy, in their appeal against their sentences for the murder of a British student in 2007.

Forensics experts faced cross-examination by the prosecution and defence teams in a court in the city of Perugia on Saturday.

The experts have already attacked key pieces of evidence used to convict Knox and Sollecito of the murder of Meredith Kercher in the university town when they took to the stand on Monday.

The two court-appointed experts, Carla Vecchiotti and Stefano Conti, told an appeal hearing that the knife thought to have been used to kill 21-year-old Kercher carried no trace of blood but may have been contaminated with other DNA traces.
Presenting the findings from a report released last month, they said police had used the same gloves to take different pieces of evidence during their initial examination of the house that Knox and Kercher shared.

Kercher was found half naked in November 2007 lying in a pool of blood with her throat cut.

Knox, 24, her former Italian boyfriend Sollecito and Ivorian Rudy Guede were convicted and jailed in 2009 for the murder after what judges concluded was a frenzied sex game that spiralled out of control.
Click to expand...

EDIT: I just realized that the statement about contamination may have been referring to Stefanoni's finding of Meredith's DNA. I thought it was an incorrect description of Conti and Vecchiotti's starch finding.
 
Last edited:
Kid Le said:
No, that's okay. I've been a lurker since Part 1 as well :) Never really felt the need to contribute myself as others made the points far better than I could. I'm sure there's many more of us dedicated lurkers around.
Click to expand...

Nice to meet you, Kid. Maybe we'll all crawl out of the woodwork at what one hopes is the eleventh hour.
 
This is an interesting argument put forward by Comodi (comfortable Google translation-LOL)

PM, NO LABORATORY TESTS 6 DAYS BEFORE KNIFE - In the 6 preceding days of the knife as the murder weapon shown in the laboratories of forensic examinations were not carried out the investigation into the murder of Meredith Kercher. Lo ha sottolineato il pm Manuela Comodi nel corso dell'esame dei periti della Corte d'assise d'appello di Perugia nel processo a Raffaele Sollecito e ad Amanda Knox. This was underlined by the prosecutor Manuela comfortable during the examination of experts of the Assize Court of Appeal in the trial in Perugia, Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox. Il magistrato si è soffermato sul tema della contaminazione dei reperti ipotizzata dagli esperti. The judge focused on the issue of contamination of the hypothesized findings by the experts. Rispondendo al pm, uno dei periti ha spiegato che "6 giorni sono sufficienti a evitare contaminazioni" in laboratorio. In response to prosecutor, an expert explained that "6 days are enough to avoid contamination" in the laboratory. Quello dei periti da parte del pm è un lungo esame nel quale vengono affrontati tutti i temi al centro dell'elaborato depositato dagli esperti. What the experts from the pm is a long discussion in which all issues are addressed at the center of the paper filed by the experts.
Click to expand...

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=...2011/07/30/visualizza_new.html_760189137.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom