- Joined
- Feb 2, 2010
- Messages
- 27,101
- Reaction score
- 12,359
- Location
- Granada, España
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
Any decent human being has sympathy for Meredith Kercher and her family. I do believe that goes without saying.
Do you also regret the lack of evidence that links Amanda or Rafaelle to the murder, or the prosecutor's bizarre methods and history of prosecutorial misconduct?
All high profile cases can be influenced by the media but it seems like the Italian system does not take pains to prevent this by sequestering juries or at least granting a change of venue.
I've seen the "evidence" against Amanda and Rafaelle and it is totally lacking in probative value. If you wish to challenge this assertion with facts of your own, I welcome it.
Well, it must do, because it has certainly gone without saying anywhere here.
I do not regret it because the forensic evidence was pretty clear. Knox's DNA was found on the knife. Is that not a link?
Change of venue is not an option under the Italian judicial system.
I have no idea whether sequestering of juries is.
I know it is in the US system, but so what. The sub judice regulations in the UK would instantly make the sequestering of juries unnecessary, but I note the US hasn't adopted that system. I suspect the Italians haven't adopted sequestration, but that's their system.
What you are railing against is the idea that the trial is not being conducted under US judicial conditions. They may be more familiar and comforting, but are they necessarily more just?
Well, I'm not claiming to have any legal qualifications or investigative abilities. But, then again, I'm guessing you are not qualified to adjudicate under Italian legal regulations.
What's the sub judice regulations?
It is the restriction upon discussion of a case currently subject to legal proceedings. Once a suspect has been charged with an offence it is seen as contempt of court for the details of that case to be discussed publicly for fear of prejudicing the outcome of those proceedings. No one is allowed to speculate on the possible guilt or innocence of a defendant nor on the weight or reliability of evidence within that case. If the case involves minors, nothing may be discussed that might identify the minor in question, whether as a defendant, victim or witness.
This law is deemed unconstitutional in the US as it contradicts the first Amendment. It is however, to my knowledge, observed in the UK, India, Canada and several other jurisdictions.
I'm pleased to hear it.I have sympathy for Meredith and her family.
It was judged to have been THE knife that killed Meredith.Knox's DNA was found on a knife. I bet I could find your DNA on a knife, too. Does that mean you murdered someone with it?
Venue change is pretty obsolete in a world with 24/7 media coverage universally available. It's irrelevant in this case as neither the victim nor the accused came from Perugia and hence there was no local sensibilities to take into account.Perhaps it should be.
Well, things such as secuestration and venue change are commonplace in the US and either rare or simply nothing to do with other jurisdictions. Chain of evidence and evidence handling may be quite different too. There's no universally accepted international set of juridical procedures.[/quote]I said nothing of the sort. I'm railing against the complete lack of evidence and the misconduct of the lead prosecutor.
The point is that unless you have access to all the same facts that the court had access to, you can't make such judgements. I very much doubt you sat through every moment of the case as it was presented to the jury. If you did, how did you manage it?I'm qualified to make conclusions based upon facts. The facts say that Amanda Knox is innocent. Like I said, if you wish to challenge this assertion, then present your case.
I'm pleased to hear it.
It was judged to have been THE knife that killed Meredith.
DNA evidence in the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, Perugia, Italy
The kitchen knife:
The prosecution claims that DNA testing shows the presence of Amanda’s DNA on the handle and Meredith’s DNA on the blade. The following information pertains to the knife:
• The knife was selected from among several knives in the kitchen drawer of Raffaele’s apartment. It was the only knife collected from the kitchen, although it had no visible stains or notable characteristics.
• Testimony has been given in court that this knife could not have made two of the three slash wounds to the victim’s neck, but that a smaller knife could have made all three wounds. Furthermore, this knife did not match a bloody knife imprint left on the bed.
• An extremely sensitive chemical test for the presumptive presence of blood, tetramethyl benzidine (TMB, a chemical capable of detecting at least a 1:10,000 dilution of blood), was negative for both the handle and blade.
• A swabbing of the handle revealed the presence of Amanda’s DNA. This is not unexpected since she had used the kitchen knives to prepare food at Raffaele’s apartment.
• A swabbing of the center portion of the flat edge of the blade was taken for further analysis. This sample tested negative for blood with TMB.
An extremely low level, partial DNA profile was developed for the blade swabbing using the Identifiler kit. The alleles detected were consistent with the DNA of the victim. The highest peak in the electropherogram was approximately 100 relative fluorescence units (rfu), while 21 of the 29 peaks that were detected and labeled as alleles fell between 20 and 50 rfu.
This DNA does not originate from blood. A highly sensitive chemical test for blood was negative, and it is unlikely that all chemically detectable traces of blood could be removed while retaining sufficient cells to produce a DNA profile consistent with the victim.
Numerous samples were collected from the crime scene that were tested and shown to contain high quantities of the victim’s DNA. There exists the real possibility that the low level, partial profile attributed to the knife blade is a result of unintended transfer in the laboratory during sample handling. Numerous examples of this have been documented by other laboratories.
Electronic (.fsa) files that would allow independent analysis of the data have not been disclosed.
Neither the extraction nor amplification of the low template DNA from the kitchen knife blade was duplicated. The test can not be reproduced as the swab and DNA extract were consumed during testing.
Conclusion about the kitchen knife:
No credible scientific evidence has been presented to associate this kitchen knife with the murder of Meredith Kercher.
Signed by:
Elizabeth A. Johnson, Ph.D., Forensic Biology/DNA expert
Greg Hampikian, Ph.D., Professor and Director of the Idaho Innocence Project, Department of Biology Boise State University
Dan Krane, chief executive officer and chairman of the board of directors, Forensic Bioinformatics
Jason Gilder, systems engineer, Forensic Bioinformatics
Joy Halverson, DVM, director, Zoogen Services
Laurence D. Mueller, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology, University of California, Irvine
Marc Taylor, president, Technical Associates
Rick Staub, Ph.D., director of laboratory operations, Orchid Cellmark, Dallas, Texas
Simon Ford, Ph.D., Lexigen Science and Law Consultants
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/files/KnoxSollecitoDNAPetitionSubmitted11.19.09b.pdf
Venue change is pretty obsolete in a world with 24/7 media coverage universally available. It's irrelevant in this case as neither the victim nor the accused came from Perugia and hence there was no local sensibilities to take into account.
Well, things such as secuestration and venue change are commonplace in the US and either rare or simply nothing to do with other jurisdictions.
Chain of evidence and evidence handling may be quite different too. There's no universally accepted international set of juridical procedures.
The point is that unless you have access to all the same facts that the court had access to, you can't make such judgements. I very much doubt you sat through every moment of the case as it was presented to the jury. If you did, how did you manage it?
I repeat, I accord myself neither legal qualifications nor was I there in court throughout the trial. Thankfully judging the guilt or innocence of this girl is not my responsibility. Nor is it yours. It is the responsibility of the Italian judicial system. Let's leave it to them to decide. I'm sure if you have fresh evidence or a different legal interpretation to offer, you can contact her defence team and make your contribution.
I don't currently have time to review everything you've post, for which I thank you, sincerely. I certainly will look at it all and pay close attention.
I never suggested you should be quiet about your position. You have every right to express it, and given the extensive study you and Amanda's supporters have conducted, you have a responsibility to try to bring that info to light. I wish you luck.
One question, why Friends of Amanda? Don't you maintain that the faults in the trial apply equally to Amanda and Raffaele?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?