Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
bolint said:
What about the alleged computer logs discovered by the defence expert and showing that Raffaele was busy on the computer all night?
Click to expand...

I think Hellmann had reached the point where reasonable doubt had already been met and was eager to get it done.
 
bolint said:
My hypothesis is that
- Rudy is the chief murderer
- Amanda was there at the time of the murder, her involvement is not clear
- Raffaele was probably not there at the time of the murder

As for today's hearing:
It was a mistake by Comodi to attack the experts' past as it was the judge who had selected them based on their past so it was counterproductive, as we have seen it from the judge stopping her.

On the other hand it was a good point that in the 6 days before the testing disputed now the laboratory did not execute other testing related to the Meredith Kercher homicide case.


This lays to rest the frequently heard claim that the lab was full of the victim's DNA.
Click to expand...

Well, is it just a statement that the lab wasn't doing any other testing? Can it be proven? I would not be surprised to learn that it's yet another excuse the police is trying to come up with, since they were heavily criticized after the publication of the report. They're trying too hard IMO.

I love it how everyone on the guilt side is coming up with yet another explanation what came down that night in the cottage and during the investigation, just to fit the current mood.

Apart from the *non existent* evidence, I just can't see three people that barely knew each other, being drunk or high and commiting a crime like this.

Then one of them is leaving the country, two of them stay and clean up the cottage, while still being drung or high. Yet, they're not drunk enough, or high enough, to clean their own traces and leave the traces of third person. But they're drunk enough or high enough to forget to throw out the bathmat that has Raffaele's footprint on it and they were drunk enough and high enough to leavce the glass on top of the clothes. Not to mention that during the murder, they would have to float in and out of the murder room, as there is no evidence of their presence in that room, let's not forget that they were still drunk or high. That makes Amanda and Raffaele truly amazing. They did commit a murder with another person, left no traces whatsoever, they cleaned up the hall and the bathroom(apart from the bathamt), the knife and staged a crime scene. What a mess of a case this is.

It's so obvious they had nothing to do with this murder. I honestly, had very difficult times, when I learned that they're in jail for this murder and I was even more shoecked when I saw that there are sites, just like *the others site* that supports the convictions and are filled with hate and anger towards both Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, at the same time calling Rudy Guede the smartest person and the most humble one. Yeah right.

I'm waiting anxiously for September and hoping for a good end. Amanda, Raffaele and Meredith deserve justice.
 
halides1 said:
a good deal depends on what else the machine was used for in that time and whether or not pre- and post-PCR operations are physically separate in this lab, as they should be. It would only take a tiny fraction of post-PCR DNA to be a significant contaminant in a subsequent PCR reaction. Many of the evidence items had Meredith's profile.

In addition any evidence item for which a negative control were not performed should be tossed, IMO. In other cases the examination of the negative control has turned up problems, as noted by William Thompson in the article, "Tarnish on the Gold Standard."
Click to expand...

Forget this.
With general contamination theories you will never convince a court that the lab was wrong.
You have to be specific and the 6 day break (and possibly other work during that time) makes it illusoric.
 
halides1 said:
bolint,

With due respect, a good deal depends on what else the machine was used for in that time and whether or not pre- and post-PCR operations are physically separate in this lab, as they should be. It would only take a tiny fraction of post-PCR DNA to be a significant contaminant in a subsequent PCR reaction. Many of the evidence items had Meredith's profile.

In addition any evidence item for which a negative control were not performed should be tossed, IMO. In other cases the examination of the negative control has turned up problems, as noted by William Thompson in the article, "Tarnish on the Gold Standard."
Click to expand...

I am reminded of that article which said an unknown profile kept turning up in the same machine on different tests.

British analysts were puzzled when the new technique turned up the same DNA profile from samples taken from the scenes of three very different types of crimes. The prospect of it being the DNA fingerprint of a most versatile criminal was extinguished when it proved to be the DNA of an employee of the German manufacturer of a piece of equipment used by the scientists.
Click to expand...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10408000
 
bolint said:
Forget this.
With general contamination theories you will never convince a court that the lab was wrong.
You have to be specific and the 6 day break (and possibly other work during that time) makes it illusoric.
Click to expand...

You don't have to do that. Reasonable doubt is enough. The experts have told the court there is no way to tell when and how that DNA got there because of the bad science and sloppy techniques. You then look at those items to see if they make sense in terms of the other evidence. As Frank points out in his last article, neither of them make any sense at all.
 
RoseMontague said:
Great point. That was a complete sideshow and a big waste of time.
Click to expand...

Agreed. While the killer's story had and subsequent presentation of Guede to the court had some value, the mafioso was a complete nonsense. It was another mistake on behalf of Amanda's defence team. Ironically it bit Bongiorno, despite the fact she didn't ask for the mafioso (I think behind the scenes she had a few words of truth with Amanda's defence about it).
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Maresca utilized a loophole on the civil side to get the questioning continued. Hellmann wanted everything wrapped up today. There was also a dispute on the prosecution side about August 27, the new date is now September 5. Court will be in session everyday from that point on until it is finished. As we know, nothing is ever final until it happens. We are told that Hellmann was not happy that there would be continued questioning. The prosecution is dragging this out as long as possible. It's all part of the "process" but also a waste of time. September 5 will be a wasted day of useless questions from Comodi that will do nothing more than attempt to muddy the water. The court appointed independent expert report will stand. We can all kid ourselves and think this is a jury trial but the truth is Hellmann controls the jury. His actions clearly show that he is moving for acquittals.

Sorry for the rushed update, busy day.
Click to expand...

Are you in Perugia, or at the trial, or other?

My feeling: Has the prosecution no shame? They used to punish people severely for giving false testimony (back in the 'barbaric' days). They should have to spend at least a small percentage of the time in jail that Amanda and Raffaele spent - say a month in jail for every year spent by Amanda and Raffaele.
 
Last edited:
bolint said:
Forget this.
With general contamination theories you will never convince a court that the lab was wrong.
You have to be specific and the 6 day break (and possibly other work during that time) makes it illusoric.
Click to expand...

Being specific is not a problem. E.g.
cops going to and fro contaminated the knife.
Cop repackaging the knife at the station contaminated it.
Touch DNA got transferred by Amanda some time in a week before the crime or in the days after it.
Steffi didn't run negative controls and her documentation is incomplete - there's no proof that the lab was clean and there's no real proof no victim's DNA were processed in-between.
 
Justinian2 said:
Are you in Perugia, or at the trial, or other?

My feeling: Has the prosecution no shame? They used to punish people severely for giving false testimony (back in the 'barbaric' days). They should have to spend at least a small percentage of the time in jail that Amanda and Raffaele spent - say a month in jail for every year spent by Amanda and Raffaele.
Click to expand...
An interesting point raised earlier:

My hypothesis is that
- Rudy is the chief murderer
- Amanda was there at the time of the murder, her involvement is not clear
- Raffaele was probably not there at the time of the murder
Click to expand...
Let us suppose your hypothesis is correct.

Would that make Amanda Knox an accessory, or merely a witness? I would think that this distinction would be very important for her getting out of jail, or not.

I don't understand Italian law well enough to know if the distinctions we use are the same as they use.
 
BTW bolint, while you're around - you wrote before about Amanda carrying a knife in "North Europe". Do you have a reference for that? Cause she vigorously denied anything like it in her testimony.
 
Katody Matrass said:
Being specific is not a problem. E.g.
cops going to and fro contaminated the knife.
Cop repackaging the knife at the station contaminated it.
Touch DNA got transferred by Amanda some time in a week before the crime or in the days after it.
Steffi didn't run negative controls and her documentation is incomplete - there's no proof that the lab was clean and there's no real proof no victim's DNA were processed in-between.
Click to expand...

That's what I was wondering about.

Can it be proven that the lab was clean and that Meredith's DNA was not processed? If what you say is true, then nothing really changed and the knife is still very much out.

Stefanoni not returning with negative controls violated the rules, that's what's important here and the guilters seem to forget it.
 
Last edited:
Language of sexual homicide

RoseMontague said:
Just an amazing breakdown from the statement analysis dude in a new post.

http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/2011/07/amanda-knox-language-of-sexual-homicide.html
Click to expand...
RoseMontague,

I commented on that post just now. I have problems with people who only examine Amanda's statements and not the statements of ILE. Moreover without the context of Amanda's statement (a recording of the interrogations), attempts to elicit meaning from what she wrote by hand are open to serious question. All I can say with absolute certainty is that her 1:45 and 5:45 statements were false. Perhaps someone can explain to me what I should take away from the fact that two hundred people confessed to kidnapping Lindberg's baby. I am reasonably certain that most or all of those were false statements also.
 
Last edited:
culpable

Darth Rotor said:
Would that make Amanda Knox an accessory, or merely a witness? I would think that this distinction would be very important for her getting out of jail, or not.

I don't understand Italian law well enough to know if the distinctions we use are the same as they use.
Click to expand...
Darth Rotor,

I am no lawyer, but if she saw a crime and did nothing, she would be more than a witness and would bear some culpability under Italian law, IIUC.
 
bolint said:
The valuable time was needed for Alessi and Aviello, wasn't it. :D
Click to expand...


You appear to have forgotten that the court summoned the inmates at short notice to testify in the unforeseen additional period in June that was caused by the delay in the submission of Conti's/Vecchiotti's DNA report. And why did they have to request that delay? Because Stefanoni had refused to hand over to them the source data they needed to conduct a proper investigation.
 
bolint said:
No. Even if she did only what she said in her confession, it is enough to convict her.
And that follows from her presence.
Click to expand...


So her confession/accusation can be used as evidence against her in court, can it? There's a very good reason why self-incriminating statements made without access to legal counsel or caution are not admissible - it's not a mere technicality, you know.

Therefore, what crime(s) do you think that Knox or Sollecito should be convicted of in a criminal court, and on what evidential basis?
 
LondonJohn said:
You appear to have forgotten that the court summoned the inmates at short notice to testify in the unforeseen additional period in June that was caused by the delay in the submission of Conti's/Vecchiotti's DNA report. And why did they have to request that delay? Because Stefanoni had refused to hand over to them the source data they needed to conduct a proper investigation.
Click to expand...

Excellent point, LondonJohn. Looks like the prosecution is really determined to drag and delay the case. They're not gaining Hellmann's sympathy, I guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom