Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Diocletus]

Fine,

I'm sorry, I don't see what you do. It might be frost? This is a Dec 18th photo. The things Stefanoni claims to have put in the freezer would have already been removed.

Ah, the age-old question: is it evidence or is it peas?

BTW, anyone know if any of the items seized from Raffaele's place were brought to via pergola . . . and, presumably, stored in the fridge? If not, where were these items stored before being taken to Rome?

 

[Diocletus]

Poor Knox. The jury couldn't follow her hired gun.

That girl has the worst luck!

Well, Nadeau couldn't follow the hired gun. But, since Barbie seems to be about as smart as a 3rd grader, that doesn't tell us much.

 

[RoseMontague]

BLNadeau: Torre showing slides of knife. Says no way it was murder weapon.
@BLNadeau: First up sara gino for #amandaknox
@BLNadeau: Sara gino talks too fast. Jury can't follow in #amandaknox appeal #knox
BLNadeau: No more questions for gino in #amandaknox appeal. Next up carlo torre. #knox #peruogia 7 minutes ag
BLNadeau: Judge tells torre not to speak as quickly as gino b/c hard to folo. #amandaknox #knox #perugia 5 minutes ago

Moving fast, anything of significance?

 

[Wildhorses]

Moving fast, anything of significance?

Tweets aren't clear, but seems the prosecution's asked for further tests and is spending a long time justifying the request.

If time stamps are right, the prosecutions talked longer than the experts.

This is Hellman's moment of truth. If he caves...

 

[Diocletus]

According to current Barbie twitters, the prosecution is making some requests. I'm guessing that this means the forensics issues are done.

One request is unspecified, but I think might be the request for more testing with modern LCN equipment--you know, the request that implies that Stefanoni's "LCN" testing was inadequate. Cleverly, judge questions why such testing would be necessary. I'd love to hear that answer.

A second request is to recall Aviello--is this just an effort to take a pot shot at Bongiorno, who maybe isn't even in court to respond to this? Cowardly if so.

 

[Wildhorses]

Why would anyone want to recall Aviello?

Only reason I can think of is: STALL, STALL, STALL. Keep those suckers in prison as long as possible.

Can't imagine how the prosecution would justify such a request. I'm not aware of why it'd be a dig at Bongiorno, who I hope is there.

 

[Diocletus]

If the judge denies the prosecution request for LCN testing, then I think that tells us that he thinks the knife was contaminated, and therefore, the issue of identifying the DNA allegedly on the knife is irrelevant.

 

[Teddy2007]

From Barbie's tweets, it sounds like the judge has gone off to decide on whether to allow the independent review of the knife. This is an important moment. I think his decision will tell us a lot about whether he's already made his mind up on the DNA.

 

[Diocletus]

One thing for sure: the prosecution definitely thinks that they have lost the knife. Thus the Hail Mary request for LCN testing. How far we've come from about 6 months ago when the prosecution steadfastly refused a request to open the handle.

 

[Wildhorses]

All the haggling about further testing concerned the knife -- not the bra clasp.

To me that means the message about Stef's slipshod collection procedures got through. They've given up on the bra clasp.

I hope Hellman knows the facts about the knife and the absurdity of further testing. It's always been the iffiest evidence.

Nina Burleigh mentions that when the knife was collected it was packaged twice by a cop who'd spent the morning at the Meredith's house.

 

[Wildhorses]

One thing for sure: the prosecution definitely thinks that they have lost the knife. Thus the Hail Mary request for LCN testing. How far we've come from about 6 months ago when the prosecution steadfastly refused a request to open the handle.

Interesting. I interpreted it as meaning the prosecution thinks they've lost the bra clasp -- hence the focus on the knife.

I still don't understand why they requested more time with Aviello.

I agree with Teddy the judge's decision on retesting is crucial. Remember the starch? Murder weapons have blood, not bread crumbs.

 

[billyryan]

Hellmann decision on whether or not to allow further testing of the knife will indicate if he his willing to stand up to the powers that be in Perugia in the interests of justice

 

[Diocletus]

Interesting. I interpreted it as meaning the prosecution thinks they've lost the bra clasp -- hence the focus on the knife.

I still don't understand why they requested more time with Aviello.

I agree with Teddy the judge's decision on retesting is crucial. Remember the starch? Murder weapons have blood, not bread crumbs.

I think they've given up on the clasp, too, but that's a separate issue.

The prosecution wants Aviello to come back to testify that Bongiorno tried to bribe him . . . unless I have my jailbirds mixed up.

 

[Diocletus]

The premise for the new LCN testing has to be that there was a failure to identify Kercher's DNA on the knife. This is interesting, because I thought that the prosecution was still contending that the DNA was in fact there. Even Vecchiotti said that Kercher's complete profile came out of the machine. But then she said it's not reliable. So, does the prosecution concede that it's true, the profile is not reliable, and therefore the need to do LCN testing to try to get a reliable profile?

Also, Hellmann said that the contamination could have occurred before the DNA sample was fed into the machine. New LCN testing would not cure that problem for the prosecution--it could only confirm that we have a Meredith profile that could have arrived at the machine via contamination. What's the use of that?

 

[LondonJohn]

If the judge denies the prosecution request for LCN testing, then I think that tells us that he thinks the knife was contaminated, and therefore, the issue of identifying the DNA allegedly on the knife is irrelevant.

Exactly. And I also think that there are other reasons for refusing requests for a "re-re-test". The first is that Conti and Vechiotti had the knowledge and equipment to conduct the most sensitive tests currently possible, and the second (and more significant) is that there was no blood on the knife. And if the knife was allegedly used to stab Meredith Kercher, it's to all intents impossible that there would be Meredith's DNA on the knife but none of her blood. Therefore it doesn't matter how advanced or sensitive a DNA test might be - there will be none of Meredith's DNA found that was deposited there during her stabbing.

I will now go out on a limb and say that Hellmann will definitely throw out the prosecution requests. And that he will be judicially correct to do so. And that therefore this ruling will form no basis for any subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court. I might be wrong, but that's how I see things right now.

 

[RoseMontague]

Exactly. And I also think that there are other reasons for refusing requests for a "re-re-test". The first is that Conti and Vechiotti had the knowledge and equipment to conduct the most sensitive tests currently possible, and the second (and more significant) is that there was no blood on the knife. And if the knife was allegedly used to stab Meredith Kercher, it's to all intents impossible that there would be Meredith's DNA on the knife but none of her blood. Therefore it doesn't matter how advanced or sensitive a DNA test might be - there will be none of Meredith's DNA found that was deposited there during her stabbing.

I will now go out on a limb and say that Hellmann will definitely throw out the prosecution requests. And that he will be judicially correct to do so. And that therefore this ruling will form no basis for any subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court. I might be wrong, but that's how I see things right now.

Same here, LJ. Testing the knife for what the prosecution claimed was completely used up in the first test and what the independent experts have already called unreliable (and starch). It makes no sense to me. Time to close this thing out, in my opinion.

 

[LondonJohn]

London John, could you please elaborate on your statement that you do not think it is a fact that Knox/Sollecito are innocent?

The evidence leads me to conclude that they are innocent. Would you mind describing a scenario that both allows for their participation in the murder and fits the constraints of the (admittedly relatively sparse) established facts?

I am extremely curious.

This is a very important point. TO start with, understand that I believe that Knox and Sollecito had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher (or the aftermath). The issue is one of certainty. In the absence of a cast-iron alibi, it's impossible for anyone outside of Knox/Sollecito themselves (and probably also Guede) to know with absolute certainty whether or not they are innocent.

It's not important to know with certainty that someone is innocent of a crime in order to a) believe that they are almost certainly innocent, and b) to know with certainty that they should be acquitted of that crime. To illustrate this , let me re-use an analogy. Suppose you lived in Boise, Idaho ten years ago. Suppose that someone was killed in Boise ten years ago, and the case remained unsolved. Suppose the police knocked on your door tomorrow and arrested you for the murder, and you were subsequently charged with the murder. Suppose that the evidence against you were that a) you had know the victim, and had had a visible argument with him in a bar the day before the murder, and b) a car of same common make and colour as yours was seen near the remote rural spot where the victim's body was dumped.

Now, it's likely that this evidence would be insufficient to convict you of the murder. But if you didn't have an alibi for the night of the murder, you wouldn't be able to prove your innocence. Your friends and family would hopefully believe strongly that you were totally innocent, but only you would know that for sure. But that's not the important point here: the point is that if the state charges someone with a criminal offence, the state has to prove beyond all doubt (based in reason) that the person committed the crime. Otherwise the person should be acquitted and presumed innocent. Whether the person actually is innocent or not is not the issue - either from a legal perspective or from an ethical perspective.

 

[LondonJohn]

I was wondering why on earth Bongiorno was not at the hearing at such a crucial time.

She has important political business in Rome: Italy is sliding slowly towards economic and political chaos. Berlusconi's attempt to force through austerity measures (demanded to appease international capital markets) has failed miserably, and there is now a very real chance that Italy will default on its sovereign debt - maybe even before Greece. This is major crisis time for Italy.

And this is a perfect illustration of why I think that Bongiorno made a massive error of judgement in agreeing to take Sollecito's brief. I've been saying this for a very long time now, and this latest episode is just further proof of my point. I think Bongiorno put her own ego (and possibly monetary considerations) before her fundamental duty to serve her client properly. It should have been totally clear to her from the very outset that she would be unable to conduct an adequate defence for Sollecito while also holding down an important full-time job in politics. I think, frankly, that she too should be subjected to an inquiry after this is all over: I think her initial decision to take the case was unethical and improper.

Please note though that this is not a comment on her competence or legal abilities/experience, However, I also think that she was unqualified to defend a murder suspect (having only defended corruption/bribery suspects before), and that she should probably have turned down the case on those grounds too - recommending a respected murder defence lawyer instead.

 

[Dougm]

She has important political business in Rome: Italy is sliding slowly towards economic and political chaos. Berlusconi's attempt to force through austerity measures (demanded to appease international capital markets) has failed miserably, and there is now a very real chance that Italy will default on its sovereign debt - maybe even before Greece. This is major crisis time for Italy.

And this is a perfect illustration of why I think that Bongiorno made a massive error of judgement in agreeing to take Sollecito's brief. I've been saying this for a very long time now, and this latest episode is just further proof of my point. I think Bongiorno put her own ego (and possibly monetary considerations) before her fundamental duty to serve her client properly. It should have been totally clear to her from the very outset that she would be unable to conduct an adequate defence for Sollecito while also holding down an important full-time job in politics. I think, frankly, that she too should be subjected to an inquiry after this is all over: I think her initial decision to take the case was unethical and improper.

Please note though that this is not a comment on her competence or legal abilities/experience, However, I also think that she was unqualified to defend a murder suspect (having only defended corruption/bribery suspects before), and that she should probably have turned down the case on those grounds too - recommending a respected murder defence lawyer instead.

I have thought this is odd as well, and although she is obviously high profile, have often thought that Raffaele would be better off having someone who can dedicate full time to the case.

 

[Wildhorses]

Both requests denied!!!