Court-appointed experts file report in Amanda Knox case: DNA results are unreliable.

[pnwmom]

If there is any justice in Perugia, this report -- filed during their current appeal trial -- should mean that Knox and Sollecito are freed by the fall. But if logic and justice had prevailed from the beginning, charges against the two students would have been dropped almost 4 years ago, when all the DNA, fingerprint, hair, and shoeprint evidence from the room where Meredith Kercher was murdered turned out to be linked to a known burglar, Rudy Guede. He was convicted in a separate trial and sentenced to 15 years in prison; Knox faces 26 years and Sollecito, 25.

(Six weeks after the evidence was initially collected, after the results had come back linking ALL the evidence to Guede, the investigators went back to the room and collected the bra clasp that has been the only item said to have Sollecito's DNA. Now even that has been discredited.)

During the original trial, the prosecution refused to allow the defense to examine the DNA evidence, or to allow the defense or even independent investigators to review the raw DNA data files. The judge in the appeal trial ordered the prosecution to provide the raw DNA files to court-appointed DNA experts, but the prosecution stonewalled on this till about a month ago. Now we see why. The only DNA result that the investigators found reliable was the finding of Amanda's DNA on the handle of a knife in Raffaele's kitchen, where she had cooked. The DNA experts disagreed, however, with the prosecution lab's claim that Kercher's DNA was found on the blade of that knife.

http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Experts-contest-DNA-evidence-at-Knox-trial-1445293.php

Prosecutors maintained in the first trial that Knox's DNA was found on the handle of a kitchen knife they believe to be the murder weapon, and that Kercher's DNA was found on the blade. They say Sollecito's DNA was found on the clasp of Kercher's bra.

Those findings were disputed by the defense, and the appeals court granted an independent review.

The experts say in the report filed to the Perugia court on Wednesday and obtained by The Associated Press that the genetic profile attributed to Kercher is "unreliable" and cannot be attributed with certainty. They said results may have been contaminated on both the blade and bra clasp.

Regarding the blade, the experts said: "We believe that the technical tests are not reliable." The document said the tests did not conform to international standards and procedures. "It cannot be ruled out that the result obtained ... may stem from contamination," said the report's conclusions.

The experts reached a similar conclusion regarding the bra clasp.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. That's the problem with trials in which there's no video of the person being murdered

I don't mean to come across funny. It's just that most trials for murder involve only circumstantial evidence, and circumstantial evidence is more often that not plenty. But then when you have someone changing her story every two seconds, the likelihood of that person coming across as a sincere person who had nothing to do with the murder, is pretty slim.

[pnwmom]

2. She changed her story only once, after an overnight interrogation

that didn't end until 5:45 am. On her fourth solid day of questioning, she was tag-teamed by pairs of investigators working for an hour at a time, without a lawyer or an interpreter (and she spoke very little Italian), or food, water, or even bathroom breaks, until she finally broke at 5:45 a.m. and said what they wanted her to say: that she could imagine being in the cottage and hearing Meredith scream, and she could imagine the bar-owner, Patrick, being there, too. After a few hours sleep, she withdrew that statement, saying that she had been mistaken. Before and since that one statement she has been consistent.

If this case had been tried almost anywhere else, Amanda and Raffaele would have been released as soon as more than 100 items of evidence from the murder room came back linked to Rudy Guede, a known burglar, and none to either of them. But Mignini, the prosecutor, had announced that the "case was closed" BEFORE the results of any of the DNA or fingerprint evidence came in. Rather than admit he had been wrong, he made up this fantastical story of a ritual cult sex murder and constructed a case around that. (He's done that before, by the way; he is now appealing a conviction for abuse of office in ANOTHER case where he falsely accused someone of a series of ritual sex murders. He was allowed to try Amanda while under indictment in that case and even after he was convicted.)

[Sarah Ibarruri]

3. I saw a very good documentary on that.

She gave every impression of someone that was not to be trusted. Her roommate had just died, and her behavior was not one of a completely innocent person, but quite the opposite.

She was smooching during the investigator, like she cared a rat's ass that the roommate had just been murdered. She lied during the investigation, to the police, no less. Why on earth would someone innocent do that? They wouldn't, unless they're mentally ill, which she clearly is not.

Whether she murdered the roommate or not (and it certainly looks like she participated in some regard), she's not someone trustworthy.

Let's see what the courts over there determine.

[pnwmom]

4. The courts could find her guilty -- that wouldn't make her so.

Your attitude is the same as Mignini's -- you are finding her guilty because you don't like her, not because there was any actual evidence placing her at the crime. She didn't deliberately lie to the police -- after an exhausting all-night interrogation she finally broke down and agreed with what they were insisting was the truth. Why would someone do that? Are you kidding? The real question is why they wouldn't let her have an attorney -- which is required by Italian law -- or an interpreter.

That confession, by the way, was tossed by the original trial judge, because it was improperly obtained. But Mignini released it so people like you would think she was guilty anyway. Also, in a bizarre, only-in-Italy twist, even though the confession got tossed, the jury was allowed to read it anyway. Why? Because the SAME jury heard both Amanda's criminal and civil trial, which ran concurrently, and the confession was allowed in the civil trial.

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-neverending-nightmare-of-amanda-knox-20110627

Hellmann ordered new analyses of the DNA tests by independent experts — a request that was refused, for no particular reason, during the original trial. There have been indications that the readings on the knife and the bra clasp will be ruled too weak to satisfy international forensics guidelines. If this is what the independent experts conclude, the Knox team anticipates a full acquittal.

Italian observers are skeptical. The Italian judicial system is carefully designed to ensure that no one is penalized or shamed egregiously. As in Italian politics, everyone gets a little something. The initial criminal trial is closer to an inquisition, and favors the prosecution. Sentences tend to be harsher than merited. But that is because the trial is merely a prologue to the mandatory appeal, which often results in a reduced sentence.

SNIP

If Judge Hellmann decides to acquit, he will not only defy the judge of the first trial, but also the judges who concluded that Guede, Knox and Sollecito acted together. The system is designed to thwart such embarrassments. The pressure on the judge is especially high in a case that has brought international disdain to the entire Italian judicial system. This is why many Italians expect Hellmann to follow the precedent set by Guede's case, and reduce Knox's and Sollecito's sentences each by eight years. Italian honor would be preserved, and with time off for good behavior, Knox would be released in time to be a mom.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

5. I don't care either way. I just really think all her behaviors are suspicious, and right now...

She's going to have to find one hell of a proof that she's not a liar, she's sincere, and that she had nothing to do with killing her roommate, whom she hated.

When there's circumstantial evidence (which is in a majority of murder cases), lying through one's behind, acting suspicious, and behaving as if you don't care a rat's ass is definitely not the way to prove you have nothing to do with that circumstantial evidence.

Good luck to her. She truly is an idiot.

[pnwmom]

6. There was no evidence presented at trial that she hated or even disliked

her roommate. The prosecution provided no motive at all. You are responding to lies in the tabloids that were never part of the trial evidence.

What is the circumstantial evidence you are referring to? The only witnesses who placed her outside the cottage that night turned out to be completely unreliable. One of them was deaf and mentally ill (but claimed to have heard two sets of feet running on the opposite side of her house), and the other said he saw Amanda on the wrong night (Halloween) and acknowledged that he was a heroin addict who had used heroin that day. Other than that, all there was was DNA and fingerprint evidence in the bathroom and other parts of the cottage where Amanda lived -- which is meaningless BECAUSE that's where she lived -- plus the now thoroughly discredited DNA results purporting to show Kercher's DNA on a knife found in Raffaele's kitchen that didn't match the murder weapon (which was outlined in blood on the bedsheets). Though police collected more than 100 pieces of evidence linking Rudy Guede to the bedroom where the murder occurred, they found not a single piece linking Amanda to the room -- no DNA, no fingerprints, shoe prints, fiber, or hair. And they found nothing from Kercher on Amanda or in her apartment, except for the speck of DNA that the DNA experts have now found unreliable. The idea that Amanda somehow could have erased (or bleached) every speck of her own and Sollecito's invisible DNA or fingerprints from the room, while leaving only Guede's, is beyond ludicrous.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

7. Ok. If she's innocent, then hopefully she'll go free

And stay out of trouble, particularly overseas.