Classic question in the Amanda Knox case.....

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.

Amanda Know appeal, it's contemporary fit with MOJ's in NZ..

When the Amanda Knox appeal was previewed in November 2010 an ex FBI investigator referred to 'golden bullet' evidence. That being evidence not found initially, but found sometime later and by all appearances when it was most 'needed.'


This of course is similar to the Crewe case here in NZ and also the Bain and Scott Watson cases. The spent cartridge cases 'missed' in the Crewe garden despite a grid search but discovered weeks later and finally years later revealed as having been planted. So to the Bain case where despite days of searching a lens was discovered in one of the rooms by a Detective not tasked with the job of searching, making the 'find' after hours in what ultimately proved to be a discredited link between David Bain and that room on the morning of the killers. So to the Watson case, hairs somehow missed on an early inspection found later. On each of these occasions the 'event' of the discoveries led to strengthening already weak circumstantial cases. The FBI retired investigator called that 'golden bullet' evidence and it also occurred with some DNA samples found in the crime scene of what I'm calling the 'Knox' weeks after the initial searches.

But reading more details of the Knox appeal there are other familiar 'issues' with the evidence. One of the prime witnesses happens to be a convicted drug dealer who has given 'important' evidence in 2 earlier murder trials no less. So too for Watson, a convenient gaol house informer pulled in to provide evidence of 'disclosures' made by Watson to a complete stranger. Thomas in the Crewe case verballed, David in the Bain case, leading questions put to him during is statements and later magnified to other 'significant' meanings.


Then we have the suggested 'motives' in all 4 cases, each it could be said deliberately prejudicial and of no probative value. In effect too prejudicial and without enough verified substance to be put to a Jury. In the Knox case it was 'sex' games gone wrong despite there being no proof of that. Arthur Thomas had to overcome the sinister suggestion that he had harboured a long term affection for one of the victims which might have driven him on to murder - a bloody big might, with no real place to be put before a Jury. David Bain had levelled at him the suggestion that he was in a girlfriend boyfriend relationship with his sister Laniet. The two deceased in the Scott Watson case provided an 'opportunity' that the crime was sex driven, a young potential couple, handsome and beautiful by turn, a purity destroyed by someone, anyone and Scott would do.

So common also is the motive of sex in some way intended sex, or denied sex, wrongful sex - all bases covered. The mere idea to reside in a Juror's mind where doubt might surface - 'oh yes sex, I shall convict.' If there is no viable link, nothing strong enough to overcome the potential prejudice as to why the beautiful young women, or partners might die then call the 0800 sex line, that will be worth a call but it won't be justice.