Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

I think Hellmann had reached the point where reasonable doubt had already been met and was eager to get it done.

This would depend on Hellmann pre-judging the other evidence involved in this case. After all (as I've said before), this means he has to have already rejected the prosecution evidence on the bathmat partial print, the mixed DNA in the bathroom, ToD, the veracity of Quintavalle's testimony and the whole "staging" theory - all before the argument phase of the trial has even taken place!

Let's not forget that this is a standard criminal trial - not an appeal in the US/UK sense of the term. Both sides will present arguments based on the evidence/testimony - and this includes all the evidence/testimony from the first trial, as well as the new stuff that has appeared since January of this year. The judicial panel will then deliberate and deliver a verdict, based on its interpretation of the arguments coupled with its own theories of the crime (again, based on the evidence/testimony).

That brings us to a final point. It's fallacious of other people to suggest that Hellmann's court will not revisit things like the partial print, the break-in, ToD, Quintavalle etc. All of these pieces of evidence/testimony (and more) will be argued in his court in September - it's merely the case that these arguments will be based on the evidence/testimony from the Massei trial rather than any new supplementary evidence. In my view, the defence already has enough ammunition from the evidence/testimony presented in Massei's court to easily make this a reasonable doubt case. And that's why I am highly confident (intellectually, rather than emotionally) that Knox and Sollecito will be rightly acquitted by the end of the Autumn.

 

[Fine]

From ALESSANDRA RIZZO:


The other parties had a different take on the hearing. Francesco Maresca, a lawyer representing the Kercher family, said the cross-examination showed the experts aren't infallible.

"At the end of the day, this review doesn't have solid foundation," he claimed. "It's the experts' very, very personal opinion."

///

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, I'm having mixed feelings after today. The other site is definitely a little bit delusional when it comes to Stefanoni destroying the report, but still, I just don't feel that very much optimistic about the outcome, don't know why, though. Wonder what Bruce will say of today's hearing, also waiting for Frank's new piece.

Don't know if he prevented questioning for that particular reason, but for sure, he tried to keep it clean and neat. At least to the point, where he agreed to the request of having Stefanoni on the stand.

It just buggs me that we have to wait almost whole month for yet another regular court hearing, where the prosecution will continue their quest to keep A and R in jail. I thought it would just go smooth from now on.

Anyone know how long will it take? It was bound to be a last court hearing today, but as we know, it wasn't. Therefore, the whole trial is extended...I'm annoyed.

The trial has to run its proper course. There will be a full argument phase followed by a deliberation and verdict.

On today's proceedings, I think it's amusing (and indicative of ignorance) to see that many pro-guilt commentators find a high degree of significance in Comodi getting Conti/Vecchiotti to agree that the Kercher DNA on the knife might have been there from the time of the murder. Of course that's the case! It's possible! But it's nowhere near the high level of probability required to make it admissible as evidence that the knife was used to kill Meredith Kercher.

That's the whole point: there are multiple places in the collection/handling/storage process that left the door wide open for contamination, and there is still a huge possibility of lab contamination (in spite of all this "6-day" diversionary nonsense - there were reference samples of Meredith's DNA in that lab all through this time). So "might be" isn't good enough to pass muster - how strange that so many pro-guilt commentators seemingly can't understand this.

 

[christianahannah]

5 September with Maresca's cross of C&V reported here as well. Oh, Joy.

Two articles (among many) with more information:

http://www.agi.it/cronaca/notizie/2..._esame_periti_si_torna_in_aula_il_5_settembre

http://www.adnkronos.com/IGN/News/C...ocesso-rinviato-a-settembre_312302047465.html

The Italian news is reporting the September 5 hearing date and giving several reviews of what happened in court today. Google.it keeps up with new developments fairly well.

 

[LondonJohn]

From ALESSANDRA RIZZO:


The other parties had a different take on the hearing. Francesco Maresca, a lawyer representing the Kercher family, said the cross-examination showed the experts aren't infallible.

"At the end of the day, this review doesn't have solid foundation," he claimed. "It's the experts' very, very personal opinion."

///

Of course, this is arrant nonsense. And again, it's something that one would expect the prosecutors to say - not the victim's family's lawyer. Remember that it's virtually inevitable that the prosecution side (which clearly includes Maresca) will make unsupported soundbite statements such as this one. The only views that count are those of the lead judge and his judicial panel.

From where I sit, any rational and reasonable person would have no choice but to conclude that Conti and Vecchiotti a) are credible and experienced experts; b) have successfully demonstrated that the knife and bra clasp are worthless as evidence against Knox and Sollecito; and c) have clearly shown that the working practices of the "crack" forensics team in this case were egregiously bad - thus casting doubt onto many other areas of forensic evidence in this case.

And I am currently under the impression that at least lead judge Hellmann is a rational and reasonable person.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

You're wrong.

ETA: I see Rose elaborated further on why you're wrong...

 

[snook1]

From ALESSANDRA RIZZO:


The other parties had a different take on the hearing. Francesco Maresca, a lawyer representing the Kercher family, said the cross-examination showed the experts aren't infallible.

"At the end of the day, this review doesn't have solid foundation," he claimed. "It's the experts' very, very personal opinion."

///

Doesn't have solid foundation? Is there anything more solid that this? It's the most solid piece of paper in this whole damn thing.

He's awful. Now he claims, that the independent experts appointed by the presiding judge are worthless, beacuse the outcome of their report is just their very personal opinion? Does he know anything about DNA and science? Personal opinion? 145 pages isn't a personal opinion. It's a well written, very proffesional, court document, that changes the pace in a high profile court case and it's not going Maresca's way (though, he should care for finding the truth and not sticking with prosecution).

 

[Darth Rotor]

halides: thanks for your kind reply in post #1 of this thread, but my question was not answered satisfactorily.

I'll wait and see if a response to a very direct and simple question is provided.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

will the tape seal be unbroken

halides: thanks for your kind reply in post #1 of this thread, but my question was not answered satisfactorily.

I'll wait and see if a response to a very direct and simple question is provided.

Darth Rotor,

I am not sure that your question about chain of custody has an entirely simple answer. Dan O. and others have noted that the door was found open at one point, but others here are much better versed on this point than I am. The clasp was in a different place (by over a meter) when it was taken into evidence on 18 December versus when it was first photographed in early November. Others have noted that the room was tossed in the intervening period. My understanding is that the police did this, but it was not the forensic police, suggesting that the level of care would be correspondingly lower. Finally, I note that the flat was the subject of two burglaries in early 2008 (after the clasp was collected). It does not seem as if the flat were all that secure.
ETA
What is your impression to the problems I and others have raised in the collection of the clasp?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Darth Rotor,

I am not sure that your question about chain of custody has an entirely simple answer. Dan O. and others have noted that the door was found open at one point, but others here are much better versed on this point than I am. The clasp was in a different place (by over a meter) when it was taken into evidence on 18 December versus when it was first photographed in early November. Others have noted that the room was tossed in the intervening period. My understanding is that the police did this, but it was not the forensic police. Finally, I note that the flat was the subject of two burglaries in early 2008 (after the clasp was collected). It does not seem as if the flat were all that secure.

Thank you, halides, again.

If LondonJohn won't reply directly, your response will suffice.

Your last sentence got a wry grimace out of me, considering what happened in that flat.

@ bolint: if merely a negligent (or unhelpful) witness is the actual case, then one would think that "credit for time served" would apply.

 

[LondonJohn]

Darth Rotor,

I am not sure that your question about chain of custody has an entirely simple answer. Dan O. and others have noted that the door was found open at one point, but others here are much better versed on this point than I am. The clasp was in a different place (by over a meter) when it was taken into evidence on 18 December versus when it was first photographed in early November. Others have noted that the room was tossed in the intervening period. My understanding is that the police did this, but it was not the forensic police, suggesting that the level of care would be correspondingly lower. Finally, I note that the flat was the subject of two burglaries in early 2008 (after the clasp was collected). It does not seem as if the flat were all that secure.
ETA
What is your impression to the problems I and others have raised in the collection of the clasp?

Yes. I'm *ahem* confused about all this too.

The original question (well, actually a series of questions) posed by Darth Rotor was as follows:

John: is it your belief that chain of custody of the evidence was violated or broken?

If so, did the Knox legal team raise that objection.

If so, what was the ruling?

If not, what have you done to alert her legal team of this issue in her appeal process?

If nothing, why not?

(If you have, tip of the cap).

I supplied what I thought were simple, straightforward and concise answers to all of these questions, as follows:

1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) It was overridden in the first trial as one of a number of poor judicial rulings. It has been correctly addressed in Hellmann's appeal court (watch the hearing on Monday for confirmation of this).
4) N/A*
5) N/A

* and, in any case, this is merely an internet discussion board. Do people discussing the Eurozone debt crisis on economics internet forums feel compelled to email European leaders or the ECB to pass on their views? What a strange question for you to have asked......

So I'm wondering what more information this poster is looking for.

 

[LondonJohn]

Thank you, halides, again.

If LondonJohn won't reply directly, your response will suffice.

Your last sentence got a wry grimace out of me, considering what happened in that flat.

@ bolint: if merely a negligent (or unhelpful) witness is the actual case, then one would think that "credit for time served" would apply.

I replied on 23rd July. Perhaps you...... missed it:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7399278#post7399278


None taken.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not a technicality

Your last sentence got a wry grimace out of me, considering what happened in that flat.

Darth Rotor,

I am at a loss to understand what you mean, but I have seen other comments to which I would like to respond, comments that may or may not reflect your view. There is a strain of thought to the effect of: Knox and Sollecito are guilty. The evidence against them was handled badly. Therefore, if one or more pieced of evidence is excluded, Knox and Sollecito (while factually guilty) will walk on a technicality.

This line of thinking is problematic on at least two grounds. One, if badly handed evidence (with a dubious chain of custody) is not excluded, there is no incentive to collect evidence properly. Doing something correctly is always tougher than doing it sloppily, and the system needs incentives which reflect this fact. Two, the mishandling and poor-quality analysis of the clasp and knife are quite possibly responsible for some or all of the DNA that appears in these two electropherograms. There are reasons for the standards that forensic police adopted, after all.

In my view what happened in that flat is that Rudy, committing a burglary, was surprised by Meredith. Their confrontation escalated into sexual assault and murder. The leniency with which Rudy has been treated makes me gnash my teeth.
ETA
It seems as if I misunderstood the part of your reply about a wry grimace. I interpreted it to be about my ETA, but you italicized what had been my final sentence, about the security of the flat. Of course, my comment was meant to suggest that we know of two burglaries in 2008, but there may have been others.

 

[JREF2010]

Thanks Bruce.

At least the defense experts will be armed with more information this time around and this judge is not inclined to just trust steffi.

No matter how long they drag this out, I just can't grasp any possible reversal of the knife.

All they can do is attack the neutral experts, they can't make blood appear on the knife that wasn't cleaned.

They can insult the neutral experts Hellman appointed; we'll see how that works for them.

 

[LondonJohn]

No matter how long they drag this out, I just can't grasp any possible reversal of the knife.

All they can do is attack the neutral experts, they can't make blood appear on the knife that wasn't cleaned.

They can insult the neutral experts Hellman appointed; we'll see how that works for them.

I have extremely high confidence that Hellmann's court will ultimately rule that both the knife and the bra clasp are inadmissible as evidence against Knox and Sollecito.

Look beyond the white noise from today's hearing, which consisted of predictable prosecution (and Maresca!) attacks. Not one of the attacks has any real substance, as far as I (or anyone remotely familiar with DNA analysis or forensic evidence gathering) can tell. It's incontrovertible, in my opinion, that both the knife and the clasp were identified, handled, collected, transported and stored in such blatant breaches of recognised protocols as to open the door wide to contamination. And in addition to that, the way in which these two items were tested - and the ways in which the test results were interpreted - also flew in the face of the very stringent protocols/procedures that are mandatory for working with DNA of such low volume.

The Conti/Vecchiotti report also, in my view, illustrates to the court that major errors were made in the identification and collection of other pieces of forensic evidence - notably the "smear" swabbing in the sink and bidet of the small bathroom (which, incredibly, appears to have been conducted by the person who also doubled as the photographer!). It will be blindingly obvious to Hellmann's court by now that the entire forensic investigation carried out in the cottage (and in Sollecito's apartment) was conducted by badly-trained incompetents, who were not following even the most basic crime scene protocols.

 

[JREF2010]

From ALESSANDRA RIZZO:


The other parties had a different take on the hearing. Francesco Maresca, a lawyer representing the Kercher family, said the cross-examination showed the experts aren't infallible.

"At the end of the day, this review doesn't have solid foundation," he claimed. "It's the experts' very, very personal opinion."

///

From that link-
"It's not that easy to leave DNA in places," Comodi said.

Fanning herself in the hot courtroom over five hours of relentless questioning, the prosecutor challenged the experts over what is considered the minimum quantity of DNA required for a test to be carried out, suggesting that various scholars differ on the threshold.

How strange?

So the prosecution seems to be offering a familiar reply.

sarcasm-

"ahaa!!! so you can't prove what Amanda said in the interrogation because we didn't record anything!!!!

and now you also lose because you can't prove the contamination because we didnt do controls!!!! "

How do you fight that kind of logic?

 

[LondonJohn]

So.... Nadeau has a new piece on the Daily Soontobedefunct that bigs up the police side of the argument over the DNA report, and which has apparently "benefited" from direct contact with La Stefanoni herself. The "world-class" forensic scientist states that

she is ready to file slander charges against the experts for their accusations and blanket condemnation of her work. She told The Daily Beast that she will also point out that other forensic evidence, including Knox and Kercher’s mixed blood and DNA found in the house, is reliable and is also relevant to the murder.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...cution-pokes-holes-in-forensic-testimony.html

Now, call me Mr Cynical, but isn't it far from uncommon to find a person who has been accused of errors (particularly when those alleged errors my significantly negatively impact upon that person's reputation and even their career) to assertively deny the accusations and claim that (s)he acted entirely properly - even when that person actually did make the errors in question? For my money, Stefanoni's bluster about filing slander charges and about how everything was done correctly etc. etc. is nothing more than that: bluster. It means nothing unless she can effectively show exactly how and why Conti's/Vecchiotti's allegations are wrong. And I don't think she can actually do that, when push comes to shove. But until push does come to shove, she can say pretty much anything she likes. It sort of reminds me about other people connected to this case who made very loud noises about libel actions.......

And it also reminds me that Rudy Guede continues to insist that he had nothing to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher - that he was nothing more than an innocent bystander who happened upon the dying Meredith and who tried in vain to help her. And why does Guede spout this mendacious version of events? Because it's self-serving, in the face of seriously damaging accusations from authorities. And why does Stefanoni currently spout her own.........version of events? Because it's self-serving, in the face of seriously damaging accusations from authorities. Doesn't make it true though, does it? Just ask Guede...

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, the trial in Hellmann's court is a trial de novo (or "trail de nuova" according to capealadin ). The court will examine every single piece of evidence and testimony in this case - both the evidence/testimony carried over from the first trial in Massei's court, and the supplementary evidence/testimony allowed by Hellmann.

Therefore, Hellmann's court will hear arguments from both sides on areas such as ToD, the partial print on the bathmat, the "mixed DNA" in the sink and bidet, Quintavalle's testimony, and so on. All this will take place during the argument phase of the trial - just as happened in the argument phase of the trial in Massei's court towards the end of 2009. Hellmann's court will then retire for the judicial panel (under Hellmann's leadership) to consider all the evidence/testimony, and all the arguments, and to reach a conclusion on its own view of the crime. Only then will Hellmann's court pronounce verdicts.

And I strongly believe that once Hellmann's court hears and understands the fresh arguments on every issue in this case, it will come to the conclusion that there is clearly insufficient evidence to find Knox or Sollecito guilty of any lof the crimes with which they are charged.

BANG!

 

[Darth Rotor]

It seems as if I misunderstood the part of your reply about a wry grimace.

You did.

Think about it: someone got in there and killed someone. You could say "that's not a very secure flat" as a sick joke, but I have a personal anecdote that you may find of interest.

A German friend of mine moved to Italy, back in the 90's. The house he moved into was reasonably new (less than ten years old). His house was broken into twice within three months. Luckily, both times he and his wife were out. Theft. He found out (won't say how) that the reason his house was broken into was that someone who helped build it had kept a key to one of the doors. Compared to American homes, the locks on the Italian doors I have seen are far stronger. He had reason to believe he and his wife lived in a "secure house." Oops.

He changed the door locks on all windows and doors himself, and then spent the next six or seven months arguing with the landlord over who should pay for it. (I guess in the end they split it, but don't know).

A secure flat may mean something different to you than me, but that's where the grimace came from.

How about you lay off the "you're a guilter" sort of prose, eh?

I don't think you understand my curiosity about this case. It LONG predates the trial.

@ LondonJohn: per your last post, this is a new trial, not an appeal to overturn? Or do I misunderstand Italian law?

 

[LondonJohn]

You did.

Think about it: someone got in there and killed someone. You could say "that's not a very secure flat" as a sick joke, but I have a personal anecdote that you may find of interest.

A German friend of mine moved to Italy, back in the 90's. Not a very secure flat, no? The house he moved into was reasonably new (less than ten years old) which. His house was broken into twice within three months. Luckily, both times he and his wife were out. Mostly theft. He found out (won't say how) that the reason his house was broken into was that someone who helped build it had kept a key to one of the doors. Compared to American homes, the locks on the Italian doors I have seen are far stronger. He had reason to believe he and his wife lived in a "secure house."

He changed the door locks on all windows and doors himself, and then spent the next six months arguing with the landlord over who should pay for it. (I guess in the end they split it, but don't know).

A secure flat may mean something different to you than me, but that's where the grimace came from.

How about you lay off the "you're a guilter" prose, eh?

I don't think you understand my interest in this case. It LONG predates the trial.

None taken.