To ask if you think that Knox is guilty?

[superstarheartbreaker]

I have no idea but it seems that her kissing her boyfriend at the time was seen as suspicious whereas I don't think that this is suspicious at all. DNA is...kissing one's lover.no. It's not even that inappropriate to kiss ones lover in the face of tragedy.
Didn't she do cartwheels though?

I may be wrong (perhaps DrankSangria can correct me if so) but as far as I can see the current prosecution theory goes something like this.

Guede frequented the downstairs apartment and had a passing acquaintance with Kercher, Knox and Sollecito. Kercher invites Guede to the apartment. Guede defecates in the bathroom but does not flush the toilet. Knox discovers this. Tensions between Knox and Kercher over cleaning the apartment come to a head. The row escalates into physical violence. Kercher is stripped. Guede restrains and sexually assaults Kercher while Knox and Sollecito attack her with two knives. One of the knives is Sollecito's penknife (as far as I am aware this was a new theory advanced at the latest hearing with no forensic evidence in support). The other is a kitchen knife from Sollecito's apartment (sometimes referred to as the double-DNA knife). I am unclear as to whether the prosecution suggest that Sollecito or Knox went to Sollecito's apartment to get this knife or whether they simply had the knife on them. It is certainly part of the prosecution's case that this knife was not normally in the apartment shared by Knox and Kercher. The attack continues until Kercher is dead. Some or all of the three then stage the scene to look like a break-in. Guede leaves. Knox and Sollecito clean the room, moving the body away from the wardrobe and removing all evidence of their own involvement but leaving evidence of Guede's involvement. At some point Sollecito removes a shoe and sock, gets blood on his foot then hops to the bathroom where he leaves a bloody footprint on the bathmat. Knox and Sollecito then return to his apartment taking the knife with them. They clean his apartment with bleach. Presumably they dispose of the clothes they were wearing as well.

I do not find that even vaguely credible.

I think the Prosecution said that AK had been carrying the massive knife around in her handbag for safety purposes. There were other knives in the apartment of course.

The fact that RG was carrying quite a large knife on at least one of the occasions he was caught burgling is not considered relevant, apparently

prh47 -

Quite. Even Silent Witness, which is ridiculous, would not have a storyline like that.

I suppose there may be some incredible set of circumstances in which RS and AK were indeed involved in the murder.

But there is certainly not any evidence which places this beyond 'reasonable doubt'. Nowhere near.

I think the Prosecution said that AK had been carrying the knife around in her handbag for safety purposes

You are right. I missed that. However, I understand they do not have any evidence to support this conjecture. Their theory, of course, is that Knox and Sollecito replaced the knife in his flat after the murder rather than disposing of it. The argument given by the prosecutor at the first appeal was that as the knife was part of the inventory of Sollecito's flat they would have had to replace it if it had gone missing so they kept it to save that cost.

I wonder if AK lied initially to the Police because she was enjoying the excitement of the murder and, in a sick way, wanted to be part of all the action.

I wonder is she got caught up in it and didn't know how to escape.

RS loved her so went along with it?

Hadn't they known each other longer but only got together as a couple just before the murder?

I definitely think there is an element of AK that is enjoying the fame and limelight.

TheOne, you should have warned about the graphic content with the blood on that page. It was pretty vivid.

The trouble is that's obviously a website set up by a lobby for the defendants in the trial. They are obviously going to give greater credence to any opinion which argues in their favour, whether it is a mainstream view or not. I saw the argument from the American consultants. However, it is difficult for "Josephine Bloggs" to put this into perspective. I wonder if this is the view commonly taken by the wider international forensic science community. I mean most international police forensics departments as well. Didn't the same forensics do the Guede dna tests. Are these also viewed as dodgy by the same people?

I wonder how the Judge (& Co) assess the forensics report and the Independent report. Will they have other expertise?

I wonder if any other courts use or have used the same methods employed in this trial. That would be interesting to know. These methods must be used somewhere.

That sounds like an interesting job Sangria. Are all the evidence and arguments from the Florence trial on the internet yet? Do the court put them up and do you think they will be translated into English? (that sounds like an interrogation, just curious)

I see someone was referred to as being a troll for speculating on something which was in disagreement with some peoples view. But that's what everyone of us is doing on this site and all the other sites. And these speculations grow legs and get elevated to definitive statements. Although of course we won't admit it.

Sorry, birdsighland, I didn't go all the way to the bottom so hadn't seen those images.

Yes, that site is pro AK & RS, but the site you've been quoting is anti-them - I was trying to show that relying on information from a single site isn't helpful

Birdsighland - In normal jurisprudence an independent report would trump a report by experts engaged by the defence or the prosecution unless there was very strong evidence to discredit it.

I do not know of any jurisdiction that would accept the Italian court's view that it is up to the defence to prove contamination has taken place rather than being up to the prosecution to prove that there has been no contamination.

I do not know of any jurisdiction that would accept the Italian court's view that the skill and good sense of the operator is more important than whether or not they followed correct procedures.

Just to emphasise those last two points, the Italian Cassazione accepted that the prosecution expert had not followed the correct procedures in handling exhibits and analysing possible DNA samples but decided it didn't matter.

I can understand them deciding that they preferred the evidence of Stefanoni to that of the independent experts, although that would be an unusual outcome to say the least. For them to accept the independent experts report but say it doesn't matter flies in the face of reason and shows a complete failure to grasp even the most basic principles of science.

Yes, but on the substantive issues, I wonder if the police dna forensics is carried out the same way accepted by other police forensics? And if so would same conclusion be reached?

Since it is in such dispute, I wonder if any reputable comparative studies have been done with other jurisdictions? Statistically significant and all that.

Is Guede's dna evidence disputed too? As it was the same forensics team.

I wonder if the police dna forensics is carried out the same way accepted by other police forensics

In this case no. That was the point made by the independent report. Stefanoni was using her own methods which did not conform to the internationally established procedures for Low Count Number DNA analysis.

Guede's DNA evidence is not disputed. In his case there was no requirement for Low Count Number DNA analysis and the evidence available suggests that the testing complied with the internationally established procedures for the tests that were conducted.

Sorry - I've said Low Count Number twice. Should be Low Copy Number.

I'm amazed at how involved some posters are about this, and the determination to try and prove AK and RS are innocent. Seems very odd.

I wonder if the police dna forensics is carried out the same way accepted by other police forensics

Just to add, that is the whole point of internationally established procedures for DNA testing. Everyone is supposed to use them. That is the standard against which laboratories are accredited. If all or most police forensic laboratories used the approach taken by Stefanoni that would be the international standard.

Note that Stefanoni's laboratory was not accredited for LCN DNA profiling. Note also that Stefanoni refused to provide her notes, records, printouts, etc. until the appeal court told her to do so.

AnneEyhtMeyer - Any apparent miscarriage of justice attracts people who will try to put it right. There have been long campaigns to correct such injustices in various UK cases. I happen to believe that AK and RS are innocent. I certainly do not see any way that the evidence against them gets anywhere near the standard required to convict (especially remembering that the Italian courts are supposed to require a higher standard of proof than the UK courts). Why is it odd for me to say that? Why is it odd for me to correct people who post things that are either disputed or downright wrong on this thread?

It's a very easy case to lose yourself in and become a bit obsessed by!

Oh, and undecidedanduncertain, I like Silent Witness!

I think it is an odd obsession to be so involved in a case that has nothing to do with you. Some comments seem to be being taken personally.

I also wonder about the veracity of a lot of the comments on this thread. There is a tone of superciliousness on a lot of the pro AK side.

I certainly haven't taken anything personally.

I don't post anything as fact unless I have checked it against source material. If I have been unable to do so I say that. If the facts are seriously disputed I say that. I don't attempt to hide facts that are a problem for the defence. Whenever there are claims of a miscarriage of justice in any case I check the facts carefully. I don't accept such claims blindly.

As for nothing to do with me, I am very concerned about miscarriages of justice. They shouldn't happen. This particular miscarriage (if that is what it is) may not affect me or anyone I know but, unless the errors that led to it are acknowledged and dealt with, next time it could be me or someone I love.

Ah, that's the reason why they had the 2nd appeal isn't it. They were instructed to look at the case as a whole and not just the dna evidence as this was an area of dispute (or something to that effect).

I see from here thefreelancedesk.com/front_featured/amanda-knox-appeal-2/ that there were 30 expert reports (about various things, I guess)

The way the courts in Italy work the appeal is actually always a rehearing of the whole case. It was sent back for second appeal because the Cassazione (sometimes referred to on this thread as the Supreme Court) quashed the acquittal from the first appeal. I've alluded to their view of the DNA evidence above. I cannot imagine any other court at a similar level in the Western world arriving at the same conclusions. The British courts certainly would not take the view that it is up to the defence to prove contamination, nor would they take the view that an improperly conducted test is valid because the person conducting the test is experienced. They would agree with scientists - if a test is not conducted properly the results are not valid, and if you can't prove that a sample has not been contaminated the results are worthless.

and if you can't prove that a sample has not been contaminated the results are worthless.

Sorry if I'm being dim but how can you do that?

I understand you can prove the process used and the precautions taken, that you can say everything that could be done to stop contamination was but how can you prove there was no contamination?

If the process is followed properly there is no opportunity for contamination. The process covers the way the item is handled to ensure that it does not come into contact with anyone. It also covers certain aspects of testing with control samples to rule out contamination in the laboratory.

You cannot, of course, rule out contamination before the item is collected but you should be able to show that there has been no opportunity for contamination thereafter.

Birdsigh- not that interesting in my case! The most exciting thus far is the odd lost passport interview with tourists. Sadly (or, I suppose, happily) not many Brits/Americans/Ozzies get involved in nefarious activities in my neck of the woods.

I imagine too, that if there were a really serious case ongoing, then a "proper" translator would be called, not little old me. (though again, this is Italy, so who knows!)