Amanda Knox

[LadyBeagleEyes]

Her appeal is being heard at the moment, and there is a good chance she'll be freed.
So who did kill Meredith?
If she and her ex boyfriend are deemed innocent, I hope the Italian police will continue to look into the case and get some justice for her.
I don't understand why they say the DNA is flawed, or have Knox's parents just managed to hire some very smart lawyers?
It's such a sad case.

[Portofino]

But Kelly - there WAS a huge amount of DNA at the scene - Guede's. Do you not think it strange that there was NOT one single trace of the other 2 if they were ALL involved? Bra clasp not withstanding of course. In the West case they actually had witnesses that pointed at Rose's equal involvement in what went on in that house.

[Portofino]

And I recall - one of the children was killed when Fred was in prison? They had form for joint sexual assault. Rose had an appalling upbringing and was one messed up individual. And there were MANY victims. I don't think it is fair to compare with this case.

[kelly2000]

In the west case the only witness they had to the abductions and murder was fred West, her defense argued that the other evidence was circumstantial. Sexually abusing people is not the same as killing them. Can i just be clear that i do not believe her, but I think that today there would be a greater chance of her getting a not guilty verdict as people have this obsession with DNA. I also think that will be the reason why Knox gets a not guilty verdict.
And knox's defence have argued that the DNA was not handled in the correct manner i.e claiming international protocols were not followed etc. Now if this is the case it is the case for all DNA not just Knox's, so if she gets a not guilty verdict they would have to have a retrial for Guede as well as the evidence against him is solely DNA, whereas the evidence against the other two is DNA, their own contradictory statements, circumstances, a witness putting them near the scene, etc and is fair less reliant on DNA. I cannot help thinking that the average person going on about the DNA evidence does not know much about it and has never looked at it in a lab. This is one of the reasons I think we should do away with trial by jury, and have several judges make the verdict instead as they will not be swayed in the same way as twelve randoms who think CSI is accurate.

[Portofino]

Kelly - I don't think that is the way it works in Italy.

The other DNA evidence is not in question. This is NOT the CSI effect. That is bollocks to be quite frank. The ONLY DNA that links AK and RS to this crime is a minuscule trace on a knife that had to be amplified and a RS trace on a bra clasp that had knocked round in the dust for 47 days and also contained OTHER PEOPLE's DNA. An independent review says that these results cannot be trusted. That is it. There is NOTHING else that puts them there. Nothing.

Guede's DNA was all over the place and that fact was NOT contested at his trial.

[JLK2]

I bet she gets an offer to do Playboy if she is released.

[Portofino]

WTF?

[redandgreen]

West case not comparable in any way. That was decades after most of the murders so no crime scenes as such. In this case the crime scene was in tact and had clear forensic evidence indicating a single killer. I do think you have a point about forensics being used to bamboozle a jury but that can work either way. Ultimately jurors will have to filter whatever information is presented to them and make a decision based on their own understanding.

[kelly2000]

"That had to be amplified" -do you mean they did PCR, one of the techniques that revolutionized DNA use that is used all the time. This forum and the british media are not in Italy, so although the Italian judges may have a bit more sense, you can certainly see the CSI effect on this forum. i really doubt those slagging off the DNA results have ever spent time studying DNA apart from internet searches, yet they think they can pass judgements on well respected practices like PCR. remember, these accusations were rebuffed by other experts, yet the media did not concentrate on this. Seriously experts trying to claim that international protocols were not followed, despite there being no such thing!

And if the DNA procedures were unreliable for one bit of DNA, then they are for all the DNA. I doubt they decided to swap the way they worked for the DNA that happened to come from the African guy. Her defense claimed the people analysing the DNA mucked up, so they cannot claim that they only mucked up when dealing with DNA that implicated one person, but not another. DNA does not work in such a way that an analysis of a big piece of DNA is going to be more accurate than an analysis of a small piece that maybe underwent PCR.

[kelly2000]

Redandgreen,
Nowadays to a jury I think the lack of DNA evidence would make them more likely to give a not-guilty verdict. A lawyer would simply harp on about how there was no physical evidence, about how the evidence was circumstantial, about how the only witness is dead and cannot be questioned, and was a self confessed killer so unreliable anyway etc. Back then juries were not used to DNA being used, and did not hear of it that often so this was not an issue at the time. It had only first been used to convict someone a few years previously.
In fact today there would be a greater chance of DNA evidence despite the age of the victim's remains and the crime scenes (we can now get DNA from remains that are thousands of years old) thanks to PCR, but according to the defense in this case we should not be able to use DNA evidence gathered in this way. therefore nowadays, there is a very good chance that a jury would be confused by a defense lawyer going on about DNA not being there, and give a not-guilty verdict. remember a not guilty verdict does not mean that a juror thinks they are innocent it means they think there is reasonable doubt, so as soon as a good lawyer puts doubt into their minds the chances of them giving a guilty verdict is tiny.

[redandgreen]

You obvs know more about DNA than I do Kelly. But you don't need a degree in forensics to know that if 4 people are in a room and one of them bleeds to death and there is a wealth of evidence that 1 of the others was also there it would be highly unlikely that there was NO evidence AT ALL of the third and a very tiny disputed scrap of evidence that the fourth was there. Never mind motive, common sense etc.

[Portofino]

I am NOT an expert in DNA. However - this case hinged on 2 items. And they have been deemed BY an expert in DNA to be unreliable. Rudi Guede WAS there - his DNA was everywhere, was the reason he was identified as being there - the other 2 didn't implicate him in any way - and he ADMITTED being there. The others DENY involvement and there is nothing else to place them at the scene. All this talk of juries being confused and the CSI effect is just not relevant. Nothing else about the case put by the prosecution makes any sense.

[redandgreen]

Agree about the general impact of forensics on trials. This particular case is very odd. The prosecutor must be very impressive.

[KellyKettle]

Thanks for posting about Guedes version of events.

[kelly2000]

deemed by one expert, other experts said they were reliable. It as in nearly all cases comes down to which expert the court believes more. As the guilt has to be established beyond all reason ( I assume that is the case in Italy), I presume that the court even if they believe the original scientist, will think that the second one has introduced reasonable doubt as to how much the DNA evidence points to guilt.
One point that I have not heard mentioned in the media, is that as far as I am aware luminol can damage DNA evidence (although even as i write that I realise it does not alter the DNA, or create it only get rid of it), and they used it all over the crime scene I believe.

To be honest i think the most worrying thing about this case is that if the DNA analysis is deemed to have been done badly it means every other case that expert has worked on will be looked at again, including Guedes. Obviously if the DN evidence is at fault this is correct, but it could have huge implications. I am fairly certain that Italian guy with the hair fetish who hacked up his neighbour was convicted using evidence from the same scientist.

[DuelingFanjo]

I think it's crazy that anyone would take anything guede said as the truth!

[Portofino]

It would depend on the circumstances surely? And how much DNA there was to test....30 clear samples vs 2 dodgy ones?

[Portofino]

And the expert did review ALL the forensic evidence, I believe.

[DuelingFanjo]

Wasn't there clear dna evidence that guede had sex with mk which was violent? I doubt he will win an appeal.

[Portofino]

Yes - there was. I think he said it was consensual...

[redandgreen]

It's not the actual testing that is being questioned, more the selection of items to be tested. Testing random items that have no connection to the crime scene and items that have been drifting all over the crime scene for 7 weeks sounds like the bad practice to me.

[redandgreen]

Not sex most likely. But he did sexually assault her. No consent.

[ThePathanKhansWoman]

Oh God when i read threads like this, i just wish with all my heart the Government weren't about to mess about with our Forensic Science Service.

[kelly2000]

portfino,
The original expert also looked at all the dna evidence and the defence rep.s were present for this too. The witnesses can only offer their own opinion.So it really comes down to who the court believes, one expert or the other. they have both been testifying in the appeal despite the fact that veyr little coverage was given to the expert for the prosecution.

Also the idea that small amounts of DNA are unreliable is rubbish. the samples are either good or not, size is unimportant. If you screw up the size of the DNA does not matter, the only difference will be that there is material left over to retest.

Fanjo,
If Knox's appeal is won on the basis that the DNA was incorrectly analysed, then Guede's lawyers will use the same arguement as will every criminal convicted on the basis on DNA evidence examined by the original expert. Also as Guede has been found just as guilty as Knox why is he less reliable than her? He has in fact stuck to his story, she has changed hers several times, and implicated someone else falsely too and is also facing cases of slander against the police and her ex-boss.

[Portofino]

They are saying they expect a verdict on Monday....

So IF AK and RS are freed on appeal, it seems that there is the option to go for ANOTHER trial. But would they review the case and evidence against Guede? It seems wrong to me that HE is the one with the short sentence, when they push for Life for the other 2. Being "sorry" doesn't really cut the mustard in these circumstances....

[Portofino]

Kelly, please go away and READ the facts of what went on. He admitted being there! He was there. His DNA was everywhere. He even took a dump in the toilet and left it there. It is NOT the same as discussing 2 dodgy samples deemed unreliable. AK made a "confession" under duress that was not admissable in court about her boss. Of course he was not there - it was the police that suggested he was - because he was black, and they found a black man's hair at the scene.

To me it's not the DNA that they have deemed unreliable that is key, more the total LACK of DNA at the crime scene when Guede's was there in many places.