Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[smkovalinksy]

If you follow the answers during cross examination today, especially those elicited by the extremely effective Maresca, they lead to a rather alarming conclusion:.

...the arguments C&V are falling back on would essentially in fact rule out the use of DNA as evidence in any trial and nullify all past convictions in the world that ever used DNA evidence.

But since the *professors* really have little or no experience in the real world of trials, I suppose they do not realize the practical implications of the scholarly academic paper they produced with the help of the Missouri Highway Patrol Handbook.

And then the shocking admission that they found their own dna on the bra clasp.

This also says quite a bit about how well C&V are holding up when finally being exposed to a few questions from the other side

So you feel the experts are more or less being exposed as ivory tower know-nothings with no empirical experience, and that the prosecution is winning?

 

[Diocletus]

If you follow the answers during cross examination today, especially those elicited by the extremely effective Maresca, they lead to a rather alarming conclusion:.

Thanks for the heads up. Where does one go to find the "answers" you reference?

 

[LondonJohn]

If you follow the answers during cross examination today, especially those elicited by the extremely effective Maresca, they lead to a rather alarming conclusion:.

...the arguments C&V are falling back on would essentially in fact rule out the use of DNA as evidence in any trial and nullify all past convictions in the world that ever used DNA evidence.

But since the *professors* really have little or no experience in the real world of trials, I suppose they do not realize the practical implications of the scholarly academic paper they produced with the help of the Missouri Highway Patrol Handbook.

And then the shocking admission that they found their own dna on the bra clasp.

This also says quite a bit about how well C&V are holding up when finally being exposed to a few questions from the other side

Unfortunately, you don't know what you are talking about. Vecchiotti was explaining that there are so many peaks on the DNA chart from the clasp (because so many different people's DNA was present) that it is possible to match a large number of different people against the peaks. She showed that it was possible to match nine of her own peaks, and told Hellmann that she would probably be able to match a large number of his peaks as well.

You and others have ignorantly and erroneously concluded that Vecchiotti (and Conti) are somehow attacking DNA evidence per se. That's utter nonsense. In fact everything that you have "concluded" in your little cut-and-paste quote is both ignorant and unintelligent:

the arguments C&V are falling back on would essentially in fact rule out the use of DNA as evidence in any trial and nullify all past convictions in the world that ever used DNA evidence.

The truth is that Conti and Vecchiotti have clearly demonstrated that the sheer number of peaks on the bra clasp - caused by the presence of multiple people's DNA on the clasp - makes it relatively meaningless to try to match any one person's DNA to the results from the clasp tests. The only person whose DNA is certainly there is Meredith's. The jumble of other peaks at lower amplitudes and areas means that a huge number of other people could be matched to the clasp with varying accuracy.

PS: Any news yet on who was Knox's lead lawyer in the first trial? I'm desperate to find out

 

[curi0us]

If you follow the answers during cross examination today, especially those elicited by the extremely effective Maresca, they lead to a rather alarming conclusion:.

...the arguments C&V are falling back on would essentially in fact rule out the use of DNA as evidence in any trial and nullify all past convictions in the world that ever used DNA evidence.

But since the *professors* really have little or no experience in the real world of trials, I suppose they do not realize the practical implications of the scholarly academic paper they produced with the help of the Missouri Highway Patrol Handbook.

And then the shocking admission that they found their own dna on the bra clasp.

This also says quite a bit about how well C&V are holding up when finally being exposed to a few questions from the other side

Where are you getting your information from? Can you post a link? I would appreciate it if you could direct me to sources of information that could help me be better informed about the recent events in court.

 

[Dougm]

If you follow the answers during cross examination today, especially those elicited by the extremely effective Maresca, they lead to a rather alarming conclusion:.

...the arguments C&V are falling back on would essentially in fact rule out the use of DNA as evidence in any trial and nullify all past convictions in the world that ever used DNA evidence.

No idea how you see it this way. How can you possibly defend the DNA collection and testing procedures used in this case? No, other police agencies in other places do not do things like this. C&V's arguments are that DNA is perfectly valid when it is collected and tested in a competant manner.

But since the *professors* really have little or no experience in the real world of trials, I suppose they do not realize the practical implications of the scholarly academic paper they produced with the help of the Missouri Highway Patrol Handbook.

I guess you prefer the techniques shown in the DNA collection videos. Do you think it is OK for the police to wipe down a crime scene with swabs in a manner that smears several areas together? To not wear the appropriate clothing? To remove the face masks and not wear hair covering? To claim not to go from one room to the other without changing shoe covers, then be shown on video doing just that? To override the recommended DNA machine settings on only one piece of evidence, against accepted protocols, when you don't do it with any other piece of evidence that similarly shows the DNA is too low to test (knife)? To go back over a month later for a bra clasp, then pick it up with unclean gloves, hand it back and forth, drop it back on the floor? To store the evidence in the wrong type of container? To store the bra clasp in such a way that it becomes rusted and unusable?

Oh, and while you belittle the Missouri Highway Patrol handbook (are police in US states somehow less competant than those in Perugia?), what about the other sources they cited, FBI, ENFSI, etc?

And then the shocking admission that they found their own dna on the bra clasp.

Is this really how you see this? What is your take on the significance of that? They apparently also said they could find Hellmann's DNA on it. Do you understand why they said this? What they are saying is that with all of the mixed profiles on the clasp, due to either contamination or who knows what, it is not possible to tell who's DNA is on it, there could be many, many people, or none of them. It was an example of how messed up the collection procedures were, and how inaccurate any reading of the profiles is.

 

[MiloMinderbinder]

And then the shocking admission that they found their own dna on the bra clasp.

That's a dishonest thing to state. Their argument was that the only complete match on the bra clasp was that of MK. The other DNA found was only a portion, and those portions could, when used selectively as the prosecutors had, point to anyone else.

 

[shuttlt]

This case is never going to die. Anybody want to take a bet of one kudos that the prosecution case doesn't collapse due to this expert report stuff and somehow everybody's still debating away here and on PMF come October?

 

[pilot padron]

And yet another OOOOPS from C&V

Seems the photo that the C&V Report used to to back up their declaration that there was a tear in the protective glove worn by a member of the scientific police....

OOOPS, the 'tear' is actually only a fold..one of several in the glove.
And this was found without photo shopping or manipulating horizontal and vertical scales as was done with some 'evidence' of innocence presented here earlier .

Sure seems to me that even this early and not nearly complete revelation of this "other side of the story" is making those "truth shall set them free at any hour" cheers we heard here when the Report was leaked by the Defense and was then yet totally unquestioned, appear to be more and more of a mere pipe dream.

And of course, Doctor Stefanoni has yet more of this dramatic devastation of the Professors' *Academic* Report to present tomorrow

 

[Katody Matrass]

There are quite a few reports of Stefanoni's appearance in court. I think she is questioned first by Comodi and I am not certain she has yet been questioned by the defense attorneys. If Stefanoni avoided questions I doubt it would have been those from Comodi. Maybe she was first giving a lesson on forensics before being questioned by Comodi?

Here is one of many articles concerning Stefanoni's appearance (as the day ends there will probably be more information as the articles update):

http://www.libero-news.it/news/8150...ologa-scientifica-difende-lavoro-polizia.html

Thanks for that! It seems that she indeed avoided defence's questions for now, by turning her testimony into full blown lecture. I think Comodi was cooperative, but Hellmann might get irritated. I think he's quite fed up with the delaying tactics, has his mind made up and is determined to push forward with the proceedings. Reportedly he reminded both ladies that he expects questions and answers, not a dissertation.
I guess we'll wait until tomorrow for some real sparks and confrontation between the parties.

 

[Dougm]

This case is never going to die. Anybody want to take a bet of one kudos that the prosecution case doesn't collapse due to this expert report stuff and somehow everybody's still debating away here and on PMF come October?

I'd take your bet, except that I agree with your side! A case with this many ins and outs and ups and downs is not going to die easily or quickly. Or at all, IMO (at least when it comes to the discussion boards here and elsewhere).

 

[Katody Matrass]

That must've been entertaining! Where do you get the updates?

Just something I glanced over at the IIP forum.

 

[charlatan]

Carla Vecchiotti, one expert questioned Monday over the extraction of DNA profiles from the mixed trace on the bra clasp, said the data was so mixed that a very high number of genetic profiles could be extracted, depending how one combined the data.

"I could find yours, too," Vecchiotti told the presiding judge. "I'm there, too," she said, adding that some data was compatible with her own DNA. She said Kercher's profile was the only certain one.

Methinks the prosecution may regret pressing the court appointed experts. The more we hear from them the more damning their conclusions look.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I'd take your bet, except that I agree with your side! A case with this many ins and outs and ups and downs is not going to die easily or quickly. Or at all, IMO (at least when it comes to the discussion boards here and elsewhere).

I agree that the prosecution is willing to drag this out as long as they can, piling more jailhouse snitches and papers "found in the garage".

 

[Dougm]

I agree that the prosecution is willing to drag this out as long as they can, piling more jailhouse snitches and papers "found in the garage".

I also think there are some for which this will never be over. There could be a video tape of the crime, and they would say it was a conspiracy and someone edited out Amanda and Raff. And if they stay in jail, I don't think their families or those who support them will stop either.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Methinks the prosecution may regret pressing the court appointed experts. The more we hear from them the more damning their conclusions look.

True, but they must realize how little the rest of their "10 000 pages" matter. They have no choice but to dig themselves deeper into the hole by ferociously defending the "pack of monkeys on the loose" method that the cops used on the crime scene. Without the two DNA pieces they're done, they know it. Just as Hellmann knows that after Toto's demise the DNA is the only thing that holds the case together.

 

[Dougm]

Methinks the prosecution may regret pressing the court appointed experts. The more we hear from them the more damning their conclusions look.

Agree. Despite all the spinning coming from the prosecution side, my take is that C&V's conclusions were pretty black and white, and they are quite clear on what they concluded and why they concluded it. It seems when there is an argument where one side very clearly has so many of the facts on their side, the other side might be wise to want to stop talking about this piece of the case, and hope it is not given too much weight. But they seem to prefer bluster over there, so I guess we will see. If I were Comodi and Stefanoni, I think I would prefer that C&V were not questioned indepth.

 

[JREF2010]

Unbelievable, whether you think they are innocent or not. Well, postpone or exonerate must be the only option. How could a court of law in any country accept evidence of guilt after a four trial process, when it's not properly examined?

If Hellmann doesn't postpone to examine, how can he convict?

I think he could make a decision without the controls, based on the results that there wasn't any blood found on the knife and the knife was not cleaned.

The low RFU readings of this nearly invisible and weak DNA chart might not be needed so much at this point...at least for the knife.

Stefanoni's own work confirmed there was no blood on the knife, what was new to this Appeal was finding the knife had not been cleaned.

You bring an interesting point, imo. But I think for the knife the controls could only verify the tool was clean, and not that the DNA wasnt from other touch contamination also.

Again add that with the non blood/non cleaned issue and the knife is probably going to the "garbage evidence bin".

 

[Dougm]

True, but they must realize how little the rest of their "10 000 pages" matter. They have no choice but to dig themselves deeper into the hole by ferociously defending the "pack of monkeys on the loose" method that the cops used on the crime scene. Without the two DNA pieces they're done, they know it. Just as Hellmann knows that after Toto's demise the DNA is the only thing that holds the case together.

Well, I hope you are right.

But don't you know that every one of those 10,000 pages contains evidence against Knox and Sollecito?

 

[Katody Matrass]

Seems the photo that the C&V Report used to to back up their declaration that there was a tear in the protective glove worn by a member of the scientific police....

I bet the photos where they pass around evidence and fondle it with dirty gloves are all optical illusion, too.
Do you think the video in which Steffi giftwraps the mop to walk it around the bloody crime scene was also just Fata Morgana?

 

[pilot padron]

You are entitled to your personal take on finding her own dna

Is this really how you see this? What is your take on the significance of that? They apparently also said they could find Hellmann's DNA on it. Do you understand why they said this?.....It was an example of how messed up the collection procedures were, and how inaccurate any reading of the profiles is.

However, the conclusion below is much more aligned to my thinking and that of most other neutral and/or non FOA sources that I have seen today.

"This was a bizarre comment by Vecchiotti, which may call into question her own methods and possible contamination on her part."