The Knox Appeal- what it will have to explain

Some of the evidence, including forensic, that exists against Knox:
1. Her italian boyfriend, also convicted, would not corroborate her alibi of being at his place all night.
2. A witness testified that he saw both of them in the square, contradicting knox’s alibi
3. Knox’s dna mixed with the victim’s blood in several places of the house, including the room that had the staged break-in
4. Knox’s DNA on a knife that also contained the victim’s DNA revealed through LCN testing. You can dispute the testing method, but it is still evidence entered into the trial; incidentally this is the same interpretation of a US Court ruling that recently admitted the results from an LCN DNA test into evidence at a trial
5. Footprints revealed via luminol that are close to a match for Knox’s foot size.
6. Knox cannot provide a consistent story of what she did the evening of the 1st
7. Knox’s third statement, provided voluntarily to the police, that admits that she cannot account for her actions or whereabouts that evening.
8. Telephone and computer records that conflict with Knox & Sollecito’s stories of what they did on the 1st and the 2nd.
9. Excuses from Knox as to why her DNA was found with the victim’s blood
10. A rationale from Sollecito that the victim’s blood could have been on the knife because she was over for dinner one night, which never happened.

Since much of the press outside of italy has refused to look at the details of the evidence presented at the trial, its easy (and lazy) to conclude based on a limited understanding of the case that the “evidence is flimsy”.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “The Knox Appeal- what it will have to explain

  1. refering to You can dispute the testing method, but it is still evidence entered into the trial; incidentally this is the same interpretation of a US Court ruling that recently admitted the results from an LCN DNA test into evidence at a trial

    Can you cite that US Court ruling? Why is it the same interpetation?

  2. US COURT PRECEDENT re LCN testing: the Queens court is a trial level court (the name “Supreme Court” is misleading) that has no effect in setting a legal precedent. courts at the lowest level of criminal trials can and do issue many rulings – and are routinely slammed down by the appellate courts. the use of this for your arguments is not just flimsy, but extraordinarily flimsy.

    • Actually, the statement I put forth is in response to the statements that the LCN test results would not be admitted in any american court. The queens case provides a court that accepted LCN test results into the trial. In addition, the ruling in the queens case provides an avenue by which similar test results might be admitted in trials in other US courts. But the key point was the first- frequently commentators in defense of Amanda would state that LCN test results would not be admitted in US courts, yet we already have a case where a US court -has- admitted LCN test results.

      • yes, over broad assertions are almost always subject to criticism. and your response is at least partially correct, if that is the reason for citing it.

        Again, there are always wild card rulings, and the “Supreme” court in Queens (trial level court) and its evidentiary admissions have no weight when looking for legal precedents.

        while you may be technically correct, the real issue is whether the appellate courts in the US (for those wanting to hold up US standards as being important) would consider this type of “evidence” worthy of admission. The usual test is whether the probative value outweighs the inflammatory or prejudicial effect of introducing it.

        There is much much concern about the reliability, reproduceability, and standards employed by the relevant labs in the Knox case, and the prejudicial effect it had on the court. That should be the real point raised.

      • There is much much concern about the reliability, reproduceability, and standards employed by the relevant labs in the Knox case, and the prejudicial effect it had on the court. That should be the real point raised.

        You’re right. And those points are points directly regarding the validity of the test results produced during trial; which is exactly what the Queen’s court ruling stated. The test results -are- test results, and the defense can challenge those test results in the same way as you do here.

        However, I repeat, as it was first stated by the Knox family and friends, the argument was that the test results would not be admitted into any court in the US. That argument is now false.

  3. “Evidence that exists”…. You get off to a bad start by stating that Knox’s boyfriend “would not corroborate her alibi” of being at his apartment. He admitted that since he was he could therefore not vouch for her continued presence, and theoretically she could have left while he was sleeping.
    Your citation of that does great disservice to those wanting to argue for her guilt. That comment is a shining example of “flimsy evidence”.

    The balance of your list suffers similarly. Please make a better argument for the prosecution. You are driving people into the pro-Amanda camp, while I believe you mean to do the opposite.

    • See my citations post:
      “http://www.newsweek.com/id/216903

      “Evidence: Conflicting alibis
      Who it hurts: Unknown
      Knox maintains that she spent the night of Nov. 1, 2007, at Sollecito’s house. Sollecito did not take the stand during this trial, and his lawyer told NEWSWEEK that it was, at least in part, because he could not corroborate Knox’s alibi. “”

      Also see the following:
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1568640/Suspect-statements-in-Kercher-murder-case.html
      “At 9pm I went home alone and Amanda said that she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends. We said goodbye. I went home, I rolled myself a spliff and made some dinner.”

      He goes on to say that Amanda returned to his house at around 1am and the couple went to bed, although he couldn’t remember if they had sex.

      • oh my goodness! you are citing a 2007 newspaper article that quotes an article printed in another newspaper that claims to be extracts of police interviews… hearsay upon hearsay? with well documented leaks of misinformation?

        Really?!? so much tabloid reporting – not even first hand tabloid reporting.

        I think I am going to pull back from this conversation as it doesn’t seem genuine or at least well thought out.

        your link:

        “The following are extracts from police interviews with Amanda Knox and her Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, in the murder case of Meredith Kercher, as printed in the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera”

      • That is Sollecito’s last statement on his actions that night. Since you are so into challenging people to find references and cite sources, I challenge you to produce something whereby Sollecito or his team have stated in court (or since those references) that amanda was with him all night. For Sollecito to -corroborate- knoxes alibi, he is required to state exactly that- that amanda knox was positively with him all night. Please produce that reference. If there has been no such statement, then by definition Sollecito -cannot- corrorborate Knox’s alibi that she was with him all night.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s