Meredith Kercher case

[Ally]

John, John, John, John, john,

Are you still trying to use facts and logic on the "True Believers"? That's so cute. As if facts were even anything they remotely understood.

Who cares that the judge they are talking about wasn't even the one at the trial we are discussing? Who cares that his facts are completely inaccurate and show an even poorer grasp of reality than they do?

Facts don't enter into this discussion. It's all about BELIEF. And belief, my friend, is not something that can be reasoned with.

[John Hacker]

Thanks for making my point so eloquently (using Micheli's own words) Cappucina.

A rough translation of the judges "thinking" (and I use the word reluctantly) is:

"The odds of the DNA of Sollecito. on the hook (as it happens, the fiance of a fellow tenant of the owner of the bra) and that of Kercher on the knife (incidentally, the roommate of the girlfriend of the owner) was statistically identical to the appearance of DNA of the Court or the President the Republic"

This shows such a funamental misunderstanding of the situation that it's frightening that he's in the position that he is.

He'd have a point if court officials and the president had been hanging around Kercher's flat. (They weren't) Or if their DNA had been present in the testing lab used by the incredible, magical Dr. Stefanoni. (It wasn't) And if proper evidence handling and basic testing procedures had been followed. (And of course they weren't)

DNA DOES transfer around a scene when evidence is improperly handled. Labratory contamination DOES occur when proper procedures aren't followed.

Micheli's statement while certainly dramatic, has no relationship to reality and clearly illustrates how much faith can be put into his opinion.

The whole document is full of poorly reasoned garbage like that.

He makes a point of not believing that Knox was shower in the "bloody bathroom", apparently confusing the actual scene with what appeared when the chemical was applied to make everything pink.

He talks about how it would be easier to have broken into the lower floor to gain access, forgetting apparently that there is no connection between the flats and that it simply wouldn't work.

He states that he believes the crime was not premeditated, which if the "evidence" is to be taken seriously is simply preposterous. They just HAPPENED to cart a knife over from Sollecito's?

Clearly Micheli is NOT the sharpest knife in the drawer.

But as I've said before, his opinion isn't relevent to the guilt of Knox or Sollecito because he was not presiding over the their trial, but Guede's. There are occasional references to some of the forensic evidence, but they're being selected and given spin by a man who doesn't have any understanding of what any of it really means, so it's value is minimal except as a starting point to do real research to try and sort out the truth.

It is however a fascinating glimpse into the world of "just is".

[cappuccina]

Read the original forensic material I posted, and you will see that your emotional reaction is wrong.

[Ally]

Science is not a case where you listen to two sides and use judgement. There are standards for scientific evidence for a reason. When the evidence is OBJECTIVELY unreliable (as it clearly was in the case of the knife which would not be admissible in the US or Britain) it should never be presented to the jury as it simply confuses the issue and juries tend to place weight on what the prosecution says over the defense as a matter of course.

They were also exposed directly to Migini's theatrics throughout the case and his constant assaults on the defendent's character will certainly make an impact of some kind.

And with the added questions I personally have about their impartiality that they raised with their choice of accessories...

I am not sure at all sure they're in a better position to judge.

Exactly one and all of what you have said here. When you add in there is no forensic case whatsoever, there is no actual evidence whatsoever that directly links Knox or Sollecito to the murder, you know exactly what did convict this girl: general dislike for her and her behavior and lifestyle.

And that's not a trial, that's a witch hunt.

[cappuccina]

Congratuations! Now I know you are completely illiterate in any language but English. What I posted was from the Italian equivalent of Lexus/Nexus or the different court opinion reporting services - the final decision of the Judge vis a vis Guede's sentencing, but it also includes very detailed excerpts from the original police reports and forensics, i.e., DATA, which you have been complaining that I and others on here have not supplied, that clearly points to Knox's guilt, meaning EVIDENCE of her participation in the torture and murder of Meredith Karcher.

You complained about not having "source" documents. Now you have them, but you cannot read them. That is not my problem; that is your problem.

If you could translate the sentence I posted, you would realize exactly what the judge's reasoning was in this case, and how he arrived at his opinion....only you can't and apparently don't know anyone who would be willing to translate this page for you...disgraziata...

[Ally]

Cappucina,

Congratulations. You've now crossed over into that special breed of poster whose gross stupidity and demonstrated lack of any ability to hold a reasoned or rational conversation has permanently put you on my too stupid to respond to further category.

You haven't managed a coherent argument since you arrived on this thread. You've been nothing but emotional, hysterical, and worse, completely illogical. Now you are just sad.

And if those two posts above are examples of your "wisdom gained through the years and childbirth" can I just say your years and children were wasted, because rarely have I seen such a display of piss poor immaturity and childish tactics.

Congratulations.

[cappuccina]

If you read the material I posted, you will be able to answer most all of your questions. it is as "close to the source" as we can get.

The judge's thinking regarding the DNA evidence is summed up in this sentence:

"Nel caso che ci occupa, la possibilità che venisse fuori il DNA del S. sul gancetto (guarda caso, il fidanzato di una coinquilina della proprietaria del reggiseno) o quello di MK sul coltello (guarda caso, la coinquilina della fidanzata del padrone di casa) era statisticamente identica a quella che ne risultasse il DNA del Giudice o del Presidente della Repubblica, e allora l'obiezione - fondata in un congresso scientifico - perde assai del suo peso in un processo penale."

[John Hacker]

I agree that ‘those involved in a criminal proceeding’ have a duty to appear neutral. But again, if the other defendant had not been Italian, your point would have had more weight. Knox was also involved in a criminal proceeding, right from her first visit to the police station, and her duty was to herself, to come across as a credible witness. To argue otherwise, as Ally seems to be doing, is fine. But look where it landed Knox.

I don't think Sollecito's being Italian has anything to do with possible bias. Knox was painted as the ringleader in the story so she's the one to focus on. Sollecito was just along for the ride in whatever tale Migini was spinning that day and for the verdict as well.

As for Knox, I think she had the duty to tell the truth. Of course we know that at some point she was not doing so, but given that the police chose to violate the law and not tape the interrogation we don't know the point where she did or the circumstances under which it occurred.

Again, regarding the bias in Perugia against the student culture there, your argument would have been stronger if Meredith hadn’t been part of it, or if they had shown any indifference about her fate, assuming she too was into drugs and all sorts. They seem to have taken the crime personally and Meredith - student and foreigner - to their hearts.

As Ally mentioned, she was presented as an angel who died for refusing to take part on Knox's excess. So I don't think your agument holds up too well.

Fair enough, but this assumes that Meredith was aware that the guy holding her down and sexually assaulting her had a knife. It was suggested that Guede’s DNA inside Meredith was from his finger or saliva. Was he holding the knife for her entire ordeal?

We'll never know that. What if he set it down next to him for a second... so what? In movies the victim would see the opportunity, make a leap for the knife and a valiant struggle would occur. Real life doesn't play that way. Once an attacker takes control of the situation and the victim accepts it mentally they tend to hold onto if for a while.

Precisely. So who entered it after the attack, taking blood traces from Meredith with him/her? Those traces were found mixed with Knox’s DNA (which could just be explained if Filomena testified to having invited Knox into her room at some point - did she?). But Guede’s DNA was not found in that room. If you want to make so much of the fact that none of Knox’s was found in Meredith’s room, you have to explain why none of Guede’s was found in Filomena’s, given that someone entered with Meredith’s blood on their person. Burglars don’t tend to go back out through the window they broke to get in if they can walk straight out the front door. And if he went there after the murder in search of valuables (did Filomena report anything missing?) would he not have left his DNA with Meredith’s, or via another bloody footprint, or at least somewhere in that room, if Knox had previously managed to leave her DNA there in innocent circumstances?

Now we're getting to the meat.

DNA testing is expensive. Very much so. As DNA cannot be seen with the naked eye, tests are going to be performed on object that it is likely that someone involved with the crime had touched. Because it was the actual crime scene, a LOT more testing would have been performed in Kercher's room.

The test that found DNA in Filomena's room was on a blood trace. That's the sort of thing that they WILL test. Because the blood effectively dates it to the night of the murder.

DNA can innocently transferred by a number of means, but it's not typically falling off you at every moment. Knox had lived there a while and had plenty of opportunity to shed hair, skin, saliva, whatever. Guede, not so much.

I don't believe Filomena reported anything missing, I would be more inclined to thing Guede went back afterwards to wipe up fingerprints rather than look for stuff to tie him to the crime. Leaving fingerprints at a petty burglery is one thing, but when you've got a corpse on your hands you want to make sure you clean what you can.

But the murder weapons and their clothes would have been a bit more important to remove from the house and would not have been missed by anyone, whereas the victim’s pillow without its case and one of the bathrooms without its mat could only have invited suspicion, because a lone intruder would hardly have gone to the trouble.

A smart intruder would have. Guede left a handprint on the pillow as well which tied him to the crime. A missing pillowcase or bathmat wouldn't be in any way suspicious that would point to anyone more strongly than it's presence if it contained evidence.

If Knox didn’t notice any blood on the bathmat when stepping out of the shower, it can’t have been very visible to anyone cleaning up the worst of the mess. Or are you saying there is no evidence that anyone even tried, and the 'bloodstains' that showed up when the area was chemically treated were just as likely to be fruit juice or bleach? I thought they eliminated any use of bleach, except on the knife.

The blood on the bathmat would be clearly visible to anyone cleaning the floor. It was not that faint. The point I was getting at is that someone going to the shower isn't going to be looking at the floor, where as someone right on the floor could not miss it. There are crime scene photos out there if you're interested.

As far as cleaning goes, no trace of bleach was found. It's not clear at what point it as tested for. Once Luminol has been used it's likely that any test for bleach would turn up empty on the treated surfaces, the reaction changes the chemical nature of the substance it's reacting to.

Theoretically an evidence technician can make a judgement of whether the substance is blood based on the time and strength of the reaction, but after watching the evidence collection team at work and reading the testimony of the DNA "expert", I am going to be a bit leery of taking the expertise of the luminol guys on faith. (Did you watch the collection video? Good grief)

I am not sure if the scene was cleaned or not. It's possible that the traces simply ceased to be visible after a couple of steps, but still left enough for the luminol to reveal. But I have seen the luminol enhanced pictures and seperating out what is supposed to be the footprint makes me inherently suspicious of any analysis based on them.

What else would you expect the defence to raise? If they can't reasonably dispute whose DNA is indicated, they have to go for contamination. If the contamination arguments aren’t wholly convincing, they are obliged to dispute the identification. Where at all possible, both arguments are used to sow vital seeds of doubt in the jury's mind about the robustness of the science and the handling of the evidence. You should see the cartwheels they turn on the A6 thread trying to explain away the DNA evidence. It’s what the defence does, even in cases where the evidence is overwhelming. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t.

You're right there Caz. That's why scientific evidence has standards and there are proper procedures for handling the evidence to make such claims difficult at best to get away with. But here we apparently have no standards.

The sample on the knife was so incredibly small that effective testing with the procedures used by the labratory was impossible. In the case of the clasp they conceended that there was the DNA of several individuals that it was certainly possible resulted from contamination, but not Sollecito... ummm... just cause. (A bed rock argument for the prosecution and it's supporters)

I'm not keen on the use of “most” in a formal scientific review. That could mean anything from 51% to 99% of the peaks being below 50. What was the percentage of peaks above 50, and how high did they go? He doesn’t say outright that none of the peaks were above the magic 150. Why not, if that was the case? Why allow speculation that 49% of the peaks for both handle and blade could still have been high enough to be considered significant, if it’s more like only 1% above 50 and no peaks anywhere near 150?

I would assume because it was intended for a non-technical audience. I would love to have the raw data in front of me, but in a sense it doesn't matter. PCR analysis does not look at an entire strand of DNA, but at 13 specific points. If you match on all of them you're accurate down to the "1 in a million" chance range of it being someone else DNA. Every point you take out of that analysis reduces the accuracy considerably and if more than half are unrealible it's not statistically significant.

And given that the "scientist" CHOSE which peaks she felt were indeed significant (out of the background noise you'll get with the process used and what you have is not science. The raw data itself was insufficient to make a determination or she would not have overriden the machines defaults to force it to display peaks that are scientifically unsound.

The potential for contamination is very hard to rule out, and I agree that it’s always better to rerun samples where possible than leave yourself open. But look at the language here too: this ‘doesn’t appear’ to have been done in this case; the same lab ‘may’ also have been running DNA profiles from other evidence in the case ‘at the same time’, and that tiny amounts of this ‘could’ have contaminated the knife samples. None of this is fact; it’s pure speculation put forward to support the case for possible contamination. Were the samples rerun or not? Did the same lab run different evidence from the case at the same time or not? If they did, were the knife samples contaminated or not? The contamination argument has far more chance with a ‘did’ or a ‘didn’t’ than with a ‘might’ or ‘might not’.

Ok, we're into technical waters here, but with the knife here's the basic deal. When you're doing DNA testing using the PCR method what happens is that the existing sample is run through a process that "unzips" the DNA strands which then attach to free base pairs effectively doubling the size of sample at each run. The standard is for this to happen 28 times.

This allows for a sample size large enough to push the peaks up over the background noise to a happy 150 level. It also allows material for retesting.

The sample that was taken from the knife was so weak that it couldn't do that and was in fact destroyed during the testing, so it couldn't be repeated.

When dealing with samples that small a technique known as LCN DNA testing is occasionally used (although the very unreliability of testing small samples means it's not always admissible) where there are 34 doublings which increases the material by 64 times.

The problem with this is that when dealing with a sample consisting of only a few molecules is that a single DNA strand of contamination is a HUGE problem if you have say 5 strands in your sample as opposed to 100, you have close to 20% contamination as opposed to 1%. And the PCR process does NOT always work properly and can introduce errors when the doubling occurs. The corrupted strands then reproduce. If corruption occurs at an early pass with a tiny sample large portions of it are unreliable in the same way as external contamination.

Testing of samples that small requires all sorts of precautions that were not done in this case. The lab should be positively pressurized, no other samples should be present in the lab, blank samples should be run through the machine to check for contamination prior to running real ones.

This is not speculation put forth to support the case for contamination, it's a condemnation of a process that invites it. DNA testing is a powerful tool, but when it's use has no scientific basis it should be thrown in the bin with phrenology.

My understanding, from the A6 thread and the Hanratty appeal in 2002, is that it’s not uncommon for an evidential sample to be destroyed in the testing of it, and it doesn’t automatically make the unrepeatable result inadmissible as evidence. But certainly, there has to be more than a positive DNA result to make a case for someone’s guilt.

The current legal standard in the US (and I believe Britian) is that enough material must remain to allow for a retest by the defense. Italy is of course using a different standard.

I’m not sure I understand the claim that Sollecito’s DNA ‘could have made its way’ onto Meredith’s bra clasp "through several innocent means". But why even go there if there’s a fair chance it wasn’t his DNA anyway? I can see how it would have got there, and not on the rest of the bra, if he was the one who removed it, either by undoing or cutting the clasp. Alternatively he could have seen the clasp on the floor and picked it up, wondering what it was, before dropping it again. But why just on the clasp if it got there innocently on an earlier occasion, and how exactly? I didn’t think it was very easy for one person to transfer a second person’s DNA (eg skin cells as opposed to blood, saliva or semen) onto another surface in detectable amounts. So I’d want to know the source of Sollecito’s DNA on that clasp and what circumstances would have transferred it there innocently.

The first thing I would suggest is to look at the collection of the clasp, some 47 days after the crime. The technicians wearing their space suits should keep their DNA out of the scene, however they're certainly moving it AROUND the scene with their handling. And we know several people were in their unsuited who could easily have tracked DNA in on their shoes or by other means.

Remember that there were 3 unidentified DNA traces on the clasp so unless Kercher was a much different person that we're led to believe, some form of contamination DID occur.

And here we have the language again: …although Guede's DNA was found ‘everywhere’. What does ‘everywhere’ mean? Does it include the bra? The clasp? If not, why not? Someone removed Meredith’s bra, and the blood pattern indicated that she was still wearing it when stabbed. If Guede’s DNA wasn’t found on the garment either, why would the failure to find Knox or Sollecito’s be so significant? No wait, Sollecito’s DNA was found on the clasp, the bit normally held when trying to undo a bra. How did anyone investigating the scene later, however incompetently, achieve that? I’m genuinely curious to know, because if it were that easy to show the likely transfer of DNA while examining this crime scene, why didn’t the defence team have a field day, both with this and the knife?

The defence DID have a field day with it, but we both know that juries tend to give deference to the prosecution on these things. And given that the weak evidence was even considered admissible and that apparent standard is that "unless contamination is proved it didn't happen" (see my post above) it's clear that the judge was giving all deference to the prosecution and not behaving in a particularly impartial nature.

As far as Guede's DNA it was found in and on the body, as well as on the clothes at several points. I believe it was on the bra strap as well, but I can't recall where I read that. Guede's trial got much less coverage than Knox/Sollecito's.

But if they were involved in holding her down, etc it would be remarkable for no DNA whatsoever to be transferred in the process. If Guede manages it several times and Sollectio and Knox avoid it entirely then they are the luckiest perpetrators I've heard of.

Peace.

[cappuccina]

Here you go, Ally and Mister Hacker; read the judge's reasons for his decision vis a vis Guede's sentencing yourselves; there is a lot more detail here than the media has published...a lot of this is verbatim from statements to police, as well as statements from investigators and forensic scientists and wotnesses/defendants...(it's based on the depositions and testimony taken earlier, and was part of the record at Guede's sentencing...)

http://www.penale.it/page.asp?mode=1&IDPag=750

What, you can't read Italian??...Oh, what a shame...

[John Hacker]

Lets face it, the folks who have been subjected to the most evidence are the jury. In this case the best prosecution evidence trumped the best defense evidence. No interpreter, no translation, no second hand media reports needed. They got the evidence in the raw.

The jury may have come to the wrong verdict, they may have been influenced by press reports. The jurors heard both sides of the emotional, legal and scientific arguements for months on end, and in far more detail than anyone posting on an internet messageboard. They returned a guilty verdict.

Well Jason, here's the problem I have with that. They certainly did hear more detail than we did, but a lot of what was fed to them as reliable was not. Have more exposure to BS doesn't really give them an edge in reaching a verdict.

Particularly the forensice evidence which according to news reports was regarded as key to their decision was simply unreliable. Science is not a case where you listen to two sides and use judgement. There are standards for scientific evidence for a reason. When the evidence is OBJECTIVELY unreliable (as it clearly was in the case of the knife which would not be admissible in the US or Britain) it should never be presented to the jury as it simply confuses the issue and juries tend to place weight on what the prosecution says over the defense as a matter of course.

They were also exposed directly to Migini's theatrics throughout the case and his constant assaults on the defendent's character will certainly make an impact of some kind.

And with the added questions I personally have about their impartiality that they raised with their choice of accessories...

I am not sure at all sure they're in a better position to judge.

I would love to have access to translated transcripts of the testimony, because there are almost certainly things of interest in there, but we do know a great deal about the areas each side focused on and that certainly gives us something to work with in terms of analyzing the verdict.

Hopfully some day we'll have more to work with, but for now I am comfortable asking questions based on what we do know.

[Ally]

Cappucina,

The same personality analysis skills that have led you to conclude with no evidence whatsoever that Knox is a sociopath is the same sort of pathetic profiling that leads you to make idiotic pronouncements about my emotional state or my opinions on this topic. I am not angry about this, I find people who can't argue with facts and are prone to emotional hysteria and claims of "she's a sociopath!" without being able to provide a shred of evidence for their statements to be sad and annoying but not worthy of anger, merely mocking and scorn. After all I am not the one who came on here ranting that she was a sociopath and saying I'd kill myself if I raised a child like her. It seems you have a much deeper investment and are taking this a lot more personally than I am.

Maybe deep breaths and a topic that doesn't require factual debate would be more your style. Considering you can't do anything on this thread but make wildly unsubstantiated claims about people's personal lives and emotional states whether it be Knox or myself and have yet to make an analytical and fact based statement ..... Maybe the People or TMZ sites would be more your speed?

Now how about you get over your obsession with me and return to the topic which is Knox and actually try to make a rational analytical statement on it rather than hysterical pronouncements of suicide lest we start wishing you would.

[cappuccina]

If I ever raised a child who orchestrated a murder of a peer, and then continued to think it was a humorous game afterwards, I would kill myself.

I have no personal animosity towards you. In fact, when you are not completely (i.e., "balls out") volatile and angry, and you are more "evened out", you can be a very witty, funny and intelligent person. You are obviously very angry about this. I have no idea why, and at this point, truthfully, I do not care. I am not going to waste my time re-explaining the obvious to you.

[Ally]

Cappucina,

You are amusing; thanks for the giggle. I love the high and mighty act and saying how I am displaying a personal investment when your first post on this thread was a completely fact devoid rant about what a sociopath Amanda Knox is and how did she manage to get away with it all these years. If you are that untempered and irrational after having children and all the tempering of your years, I'd hate to see what you were like BEFORE you mellowed. However did all your family and friends put up with you if this is what you are like after you've matured?

But I recognize it's easier to rant about yours truly than defend your admittedly weak opinions on Knox, so do continue to derail the thread with your personal animosity towards me rather than factual discussion of the case, since you are so miserably bad at the latter. But if you want to NOT be seen as a complete hysteric, in between your ranting about me you might want to at least throw a single on-topic comment about the thread in there. Wouldn't want to belie the maturity of your years and all...

[cappuccina]

In my experience, usually people act like this when they have some connection to, i.e., emotional investment in a case...meaning, either they are close to someone accused, -OR-, the case at hand brings up something similar that happened to them...

Clearly none of us were there. Clearly, even if we got all the transcripts and newspapers in italian, and we all spoke and read Italian fluently, we would still be "second hand" spectators, a million times removed.

SP, there is more patience that comes with age, but also comes with having children and family responsibilities. You learn to sort out "when to go nuts" and "when to panic" and when not to...Having children also really, really teaches you what is appropriate behavior and what is not, not only in children but adults. I don't give a flying **** if I have the "proper credentials" or not...a ******* parrot could tell that Knox is a sociopath.

For others, going nuts on boards like this is a tension release from their everyday life, and to Ally's credit, she does have a demanding and exhausting job, but that is not in and of itself an excuse.

Truthfully, it is up to her spouse, family, coworkers and friends to deal with this, not us (if, in fact this is how she is "day-to-day"); we can escape from it...

[scarletpimpernel]

Ally,

You cannot distinguish the difference between right and wrong.
neither the difference between odd behaviour
and behaviour with decorum
your own behaviour Ally-anates people.
Defending your position by spouting insults whilst defending with unusual
passion a convicted ruthless murderer says more about you than the issues.
You need to have your head examined, you are a nut-case.

Arrivederci ! Ciao !