This weekend has been the opportunity for the Prosecution to question 2 Court appointed forensic experts, Carla Vechchiotti and Stefano Conti, whose evidence has been that the Prosecution dna evidence used to convict Amanda Knox was unreliable. This pertained to dna samples taken from a knife and a bra clip and said to be proven to be that of Amanda Knox. Evidence which some may recall wasn't 'found' until weeks after intial searches, like that used against AA Thomas, David Bain, Scott Watson and others.
Prosecutor Manuela Comodi asked the loaded, and irrelevant question anyway, whether the experts could be sure there was no dna on the blade just after Kercher's death.
Of course from what I've read the question was not qualified as to being specific about whether or not Knox's dna might have been on the knife shortly after Kercher's death - which if correct, means that the Prosecutor was asking if anybody's dna might have been on the blade. How that could possibly connect to the guilt or innocence of Knoz is beyond me, unless it did exist and was shown not to be that of Knox because the dna Vechiotti and Conti examined was unable to be matched to Amanda Knox. But the Prosecutor uses the common trick of talking about something that doesn't exist, ie the possibility of something, to give an illusion of weight to non-existant evidence against Knox - nothing can only ever be nothing, not possibly something else at an earlier time. So his question ventures to the ground of asking the Court (and on other occasions Jurys)to accept that while something doesn't exist as evidence now, it may have possibly been evidence earlier and therefore should not be discounted.
The way of MOJs, talking about an undetermined event or possibility in order for it to be considered evidence. Vecchiotti in his answer confirmed that they (the scientists) could not exclude the possibility, that dna 'might' have been on the knife shortly after Kercher's death, but said that on the basis of their tests 'done today' there was no traces of dna,' adding that the original procedures were unreliable. So we have it no dna, and original procedures unreliable. How Comodi expects to ever change those facts contains the same motivation we see in NZ cases, such as that against Scot Watson. Rather than except the obvious and their duty to the Law, the Prosecution fudge for another answer. In the Watson case that nobody saw a ketch, apart from 2 Crown witnesses. In the Knox case there was no dna, but perhaps it was there at another point in time.
The court also heard read a letter from a scientific police director Piero Angeloni, defending the work of the original forensic team, another classic measure defending the indefensible rather that letting the victim go. If the testing methodology was flawed no defence of the original forensic team will ever turn non-existent dna into dna, or even into more importantly Amanda Knox's dna.
So its alot like the Bain saga then blood that wasnt blood..evidence
ReplyDeleteof human blood assumed at initial trial but in 1997 Nigel Hall,
another scientist from the VPFSC, said he tested samples taken from 13
areas of the rifle used in the killings..
He found human blood on only one part of the rifle. The other areas
gave results that did not confirm the presence of human blood..
And other dna evidence in the Knox case several inspections were
carried out later and that a month and a half passed before police
found Meredith's bra clasp—with traces of the accused parties' DNA—on
her bedroom floor..
dejavu of a solitary dusty lens found also on the floor many days later..
Very similar in terms of the 'golden bullet' evidence found after thorough initial searches. What is impressive is the Court's willingness to deal with it, appointing independent forensic scientists to report to the Court has effectively taken years off the process that would occur here - and it's being dealt with in the open. It's also removed the onus from an accused who might well be fighting a MOJ and given that onus back to the Prosecuting authority and the Court itself to substantiate the value or otherwise of the suspect evidence.
ReplyDeleteI read Chris Watson's very informative site about the 2 hairs found on the blanket and that there only possible connection was that they were from the same gene pool but couldn't be distinguished as having come from Olivia Hope. That fact, along with how they were 'missed' by a trained specialist on an earlier examination and only came to light after a hair brush belonging to Olivia's sister, was surrendered into custody should have been enough to omit that evidence which was of fragile significance under the circumstances of both its merit and belated discovery. I get the impression that an Italian Court if not throwing it out at trial would have treated it with the same seriousness they are doing with the non-existant dna evidence in the Knox case.