Meredith Kercher case

[Ally]

Are you serious? I am really not sure if you are serious. An expert forensic team writes in their report that:

Taking into account that none of the recommendations of the international scientific community relative to the treatment of Low Copy Number (LCN) samples were followed, we do not accept the conclusions regarding the certain attribution of the profile found on trace B (blade of knife) to the victim Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher, since the genetic profile, as obtained, appears unreliable insofar as it is not supported by scientifically validated analysis;

4. International protocols of inspection, collection, and sampling were not followed;

5. It cannot be ruled out that the result obtained from sample B (blade of knife) derives from contamination in some phase of the collection and/or handling and/or analyses performed.

And you cannot draw the obvious conclusion that it shouldn't be admissible in trial? You do study true crime, right? You do have some basic understanding of chain of evidence and rules of procedure, right? I mean this isn't the first time you are hearing these terms? Anyone with a basic understanding of procedure would realize that those words mean one thing: inadmissible. It's not a psychic prediction; it's A=B.

But all that aside, you attempting to state that the objections to the blog come down to that specific entry and their not "predicting" the exact words the experts would use, is oh wait, what's that term.... yes a straw man argument, as that is not something I have ever said. There is more to that blog than that specific date.

And you know, I almost went back and pulled some quotes from it to prove their stupidity, and then I realized what I was doing. I had actually copied and pasted one here where they criticize Conti and Vecchiotti for establishing standard forensic practice by sourcing a variety of accepted authorities rather than just using one source like the prosecution did...because academic rigor is such a joke you know, and then I realized.... You almost got me. Good try.

[Chris]

Ally

Yes, I know what the report says. As I've told you, I have already looked at it. And John has already quoted it above.

What we're discussing is how the blog post by "Maundy Gregory" responded to that report. Obviously in discussing that, it's important to be clear about exactly what the report really said. That is why I wanted to clarify whether the report did actually say the risk of contamination was "unnacceptably high" or whether the DNA findings had "no evidentiary value." We've clarified that - it didn't. Nor did it say the findings were "inadmissible."

You've refused to discuss this several times on the basis that I'm a "complete idiot" and so on (and I see you're now suggesting I may be "seriously mentally defective"). Well, if you've changed your mind and you do now want to comment on how the blog post responded to the report, please be my guest. But as it is, I don't even know whether you've read the blog post:

http://maundygregory.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/knife/

[Ally]

What we're discussing is how the blog post by "Maundy Gregory" responded to that report. Obviously in discussing that, it's important to be clear about exactly what the report really said. That is why I wanted to clarify whether the report did actually say the risk of contamination was "unnacceptably high" or whether the DNA findings had "no evidentiary value." We've clarified that - it didn't. Nor did it say the findings were "inadmissible."

Okay dokey. First, I have said I am not going to comb through 3000 pages of that blog pointing out every time they go wrong. I still am not going to. As for the rest, if you want to have a conversation about those precise words, you need to have it with John, since he's the one who used those precise words. But he's busy and I am bored. I would categorize you as just completely incapable of understanding nuance. You shriek on and on about "who said PRECISELY what". And screaming "I didn't say that" when in fact, anyone with half a brain would say that you did because most people are capable of understanding intent and context and oh, synonyms, you know words that have the same meaning but aren't the same? Let me explain how HUMAN BEINGS operate. They realize that there are more than one way to say something, and MOST human beings are adept at reading between the lines.

When a forensic expert tosses out the results of another and says they are unreliable, that the theories they formulated were "wholly arbitrary in that they are not supported by any objective confirmation" , "completely inadequate" and that the testimony of the original forensic scientist at trial was DIFFERENT than the report information provided and that the claims made there did not appear to be written in her report, when you add that they claimed risk needed to be minimized and here were the procedures needed so that there was no high risk of contamination and repeat minimal and high when discussing collection and handling procedures, and then at the end of their very long report, they basically say: didn't follow procedure, didn't test right and there were possibilities of contamination at EVERY LEVEL Of collection, handling and testing, you can pretty much state that they are saying:

"unacceptably high risk" If it were an acceptably high risk, they wouldn't have refused to accept the conclusions of the previous finder. See how that works? Did they exactly say unacceptably high? No. But when they talk about minimizing risk, and then toss out the conclusion you can make a determination what the missing value is in this determination: 2+ ___ =4.

You need to minimize risk in testing, we are tossing out your conclusions. Ergo, the risk was unacceptably high.

In the small words. They wouldn't. have tossed. the conclusions. if the risk. was not. UNACCEPTABLY HIGH.

"no evidentiary value" is also one of those things that are self-evident. If you find that the police have totally frakked up an investigation and collected evidence and mishandled it at every stage: collection, handling and testing and you state that, you are saying, that it has no evidentiary value. That's where those synonyms and awareness of trial speak comes in handy.

Small words: If the police. totally fukk up handling the items. the "evidence" is worthless.


"inadmissable" already pretty much covered but I'll go one further. Who thought, after reading that report that the scientists would actually stand up in court and go "well yes, our findings show that they totally frakked up in collection, handling and processing, that at every stage and level there were opportunities for contamination to occur, the scientist didn't follow established testing procedures and testified to things that don't appear to be supported by data, the cops played kickball with the evidence, but what the hell! Let's have it in anyway! Admit it!"

See this is where deduction comes in handy and if you can't do the whole 2+2= ____ thing, uhm, true crime ain't your field.

John stated that the blog author would have done better to forget trying to redeem the knife and bra. Anyone reading that report, and looking at it with an objective eye, would have come to the same conclusion. The blog author glosses over and completely ignores several damning things included in the report in an effort to attempt to rehabilitate these two pieces of evidence, when anyone with half a brain could see they were completely beyond rehabilitation.

Now why YOU want to continue attempting to argue this blog is awesome! I don't know. But the subject here isn't is Chris's blog awesome. It's, the trial of Amanda knox and sollecito and the MURDER of Meredith Kercher, not whether the biased blog that sneers at academic rigor is awesome or not.

[Chris]

Ally

I'm not sure why you've gone to such lengths to argue that what the report says is equivalent to those phrases, or implies those phrases. That isn't what I asked John. I simply asked him whether it contained those phrases.

What you've posted might be relevant to the discussion of that blog post, but to discuss that sensibly you'd need to read it first. And of course, I didn't suggest that you should "comb through 3000 pages of that blog." I provided you with a link to the specific blog post under discussion. You just need to click on it, and there it will be. Here's the link again:

http://maundygregory.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/knife/

[Ally]

Chris,

I have already told you. This thread is not about your blog. Let me make it more clear. You threw up a blog as the holy grail, and now you have your ego bruised, because the two people who actually know something about the case have told you its crap. And now, rather than discussing the actual CASE you are fixated on this blog and proving its worth as some sort of sop to your ego and your pride.

You completely ignored everything in my post to go back and fixate on saving your pride, because you refuse to just accept that your absolute inability to read, leaves you deaf, dumb and blind to the nuance and the lack of credibility in that blog. You are incapable of reading the scientific report yourself and going back and reading how that blog completely ignores the damning statements contained therein, cherry picks select statements and glosses over the facts reported. And all because it's a blow to your pride.

Now. I am going to make it even more clear. I started this thread. It's mine. If you want to go and discuss your holy blog, make your own thread.

Any further attempts to drag this thread off topic regarding that blog, will be reported for being off topic.

If you want to discuss the case, the actual case, the evidence and your opinions on it, then feel free to discuss it.

[Chris]

Now. I am going to make it even more clear. I started this thread. It's mine. If you want to go and discuss your holy blog, make your own thread.

Any further attempts to drag this thread off topic regarding that blog, will be reported for being off topic.

That's fine, Ally. The situation couldn't be clearer.

[Garry Wroe]

When the BBC interviewed a specialist in forensics a few weeks ago, it was stated that a case review had determined that the crime scene evidence gathering procedures had fallen way short of international standards and thus could not be accepted in any EU criminal court. Incorrect clothing had been worn, for instance; gloves rather than tweezers used to retrieve samples; items had been moved about the crime scene and then left for weeks before being collected. In short, the risk of cross-contamination was such that the forensics used to convict Knox could no longer be considered safe.

It turns out that he was right.

We can argue over semantics for ever more, but the reality is that the initial investigation was procedurally flawed. Even if new evidence were to emerge, there is no possibility that Knox or anyone else will be convicted. The original investigation has rendered that a certainty. Thus Knox will be cleared at the next stage of appeal. Case closed.

[Ally]

When the BBC interviewed a specialist in forensics a few weeks ago, it was stated that a case review had determined that the crime scene evidence gathering procedures had fallen way short of international standards and thus could not be accepted in any EU criminal court. Incorrect clothing had been worn, for instance; gloves rather than tweezers used to retrieve samples; items had been moved about the crime scene and then left for weeks before being collected. In short, the risk of cross-contamination was such that the forensics used to convict Knox could no longer be considered safe.

It turns out that he was right.

We can argue over semantics for ever more, but the reality is that the initial investigation was procedurally flawed. Even if new evidence were to emerge, there is no possibility that Knox or anyone else will be convicted. The original investigation has rendered that a certainty. Thus Knox will be cleared at the next stage of appeal. Case closed.

I agree with you. But I dont think it's particularly relevant that anyone else ever be convicted. I believe they have the sole and correct perpetrator already behind bars: Guede. So I believe that the case actually is closed now, and there is no need for further investigation.

Editing to add: I do think it's a shame that they traded down his sentence to secure his testimony against Knox and Sollecito and now he will walk free, much, much too soon.

[Garry Wroe]

It's relevant, Ally, for the simple reason that the Prosecution remains insistent that more than one person was directly involved in the murder.

[Ally]

IMO, and it is PURELY my opinion, I believe the only reason the prosecution holds to a multiple attacker theory is because without it, they have no case against against Knox and Sollecito and they only hold to it because they believe they were involved, despite there being no evidence to support this.

What I mean is, say tomorrow, video evidence surfaced that proved without dispute that Knox and Sollecito were not involved by showing their whereabouts...for example, say a neighbor was video recording THEM that night and that they could not have done it, I don't think the prosecution would still hold to the multiple murderer theory.

I think the multiple murder theory is purely in connection to them. There is nothing that was done that could not have been accomplished by a single individual and nothing that conclusively points to more than one person being involved. So I really do believe that if Knox and Sollecito were somehow miraculously ruled out, so would the multiple murderer theory. I don't think they'd go looking for other parties.

Again... my opinion only.

[Garry Wroe]

I tend to agree with you, Ally. But the fact is that we simply can't be sure. The initial investigation was so badly botched that something of significance may have been overlooked. If so, there can now be no hope of bringing additional offenders to justice. The Defence would simply cite the original mistakes and allege more of the same. In other words, there would be no hope of securing a conviction.

Meanwhile, Amanda Knox may have served four years for a crime she did not commit, and the Kerchers are unlikely to know the true facts relating to Meredith's murder.

Hardly a satisfactory outcome.

[caz]

Hi Everyone,

Knox served time, in my opinion, for being her own worst enemy. She seemed to do everything in her power to put people's backs up. It shouldn't have made any difference to the professionals involved - the police, the lawyers, the forensic scientists et al - but even they are human, and juries are all too human. I'm not excusing anyone here, nor am I blaming Knox for being convicted of murder in the face of insufficient and/or flawed evidence.

But I still can't see why or how she dropped that innocent man in the poo, even under huge pressure to agree with what the police were suggesting about his involvement. You see, if she was not in the house that night and only found out what had happened to her housemate the morning after, she could not logically have testified that any specific individual was present, let alone involved. She totally dropped herself in the poo along with her bar boss, by saying she had heard Meredith screaming. If she had stuck to the 'truth' about not being there at all, but with her boyfriend in his flat all night, she could also have said, truthfully and logically, that she obviously had no clue as to who could have been involved, or how many, or if her boss had gone to that house or stayed in the bar.

Hearing the screams was the weirdest and daftest lie of all to tell, and absolutely not necessary, if she had no involvement whatsoever because she wasn't there and had no idea who was.

Any ideas, apart from the usual 'flustered and confused stoodent' argument?

Love,

Caz
X

[Ally]

Hi Caz,

What I don't get, is why people think it's incredibly impossible for people, while under hours or rigorous investigation, to confess to whatever the police want to hear. Or why it has to be more than flustered and confused and one more of course....scared.

I have already put up a case in which four navy sailors ALL confessed to a crime that they did not commit. After the first one's DNA didn't match, the cop in charge much like here, decided on multiple people theory because he "knew" what had gone on, and coerced confessions from THREE more sailors, of all whom implicated other innocent men in their confessions and said it was a group rape. They ALL implicated the men the police pointed them to, and they all confessed FALSELY one despite having an airtight alibi (he still went to prison) and they all gave details of what the other men did that night in the rape and murder in their confessions. And just like Amanda, the next day after their head cleared they went...wait...what just happened.


All of those men gave bizarre stories and embellished greatly in their accounts describing things they weren't there to witness but "described" (imagined) in great detail, so I am not sure why you think it's so bizarre that Amanda "imagined" hearing Kercher scream. Why is it the weirdest and daftest lie of all? In their confessions, those four guys gave detailed images of raping a woman they'd never met and you think someone imaging a murder victim screaming is the weirdest lie? That's probably the most normal of things to invent in a murder scenario invention.

You may not understand how someone can break down under hours of rigorous testimony, falsely confessing and falsely accusing in the process, but the fact is, it happens, and it probably happens more than we know.

[John Hacker]

Chris,

There really isn't much more to be said about that blog. I think the 5 summary points in the report more then demonstrate what I was saying and focusing on the word "inadmissible" and it's timeline doesn't change that.

A more interesting question (to me) is this:

Given the experts report on the collection and analysis done on the knife, do you believe that it has any evidentiary value or be valid in court?

John

[John Hacker]

But I still can't see why or how she dropped that innocent man in the poo, even under huge pressure to agree with what the police were suggesting about his involvement. You see, if she was not in the house that night and only found out what had happened to her housemate the morning after, she could not logically have testified that any specific individual was present, let alone involved. She totally dropped herself in the poo along with her bar boss, by saying she had heard Meredith screaming. If she had stuck to the 'truth' about not being there at all, but with her boyfriend in his flat all night, she could also have said, truthfully and logically, that she obviously had no clue as to who could have been involved, or how many, or if her boss had gone to that house or stayed in the bar.

Hearing the screams was the weirdest and daftest lie of all to tell, and absolutely not necessary, if she had no involvement whatsoever because she wasn't there and had no idea who was.

Any ideas, apart from the usual 'flustered and confused stoodent' argument?

Heya Caz,

We don't really know what occurred at the interrogation as we should have. Although it was required by law to be recorded in this case it wasn't done.

Knox's version is that the police saw the text from Lamumba, assumed it meant there was a plan to meet and they attempted to get her to implicate him. The "scream" story allegedly came about when the police told her that they knew they were both there and asked her to imagine what had happened.

But of course we'll never know for sure.

We also know that false confessions happen all the time. Here's a couple of links that might interest you.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200304/the-false-confession

Although it is difficult, if not impossible, to estimate the number of false confessions nationwide, a review of one decade's worth of murder cases in a single Illinois county found 247 instances in which the defendants' self-incriminating statements were thrown out by the court or found by a jury to be insufficiently convincing for conviction. (The Chicago Tribune conducted the investigation.)

http://truth.boisestate.edu/jcaawp/9901/9901.pdf

That one is a bit of a hard slog to go through, but you might find the section titled "Interrogative Suggestibility" on page 24 interesting. It matches fairly closely with what Knox reported.

John