Continuation Part Eight: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[carbonjam72]

'Presumable' I would think implies visible, no?

How do you know she was not referring to the vaginal swab?

How would a vaginal swab 'presumably' be semen, not just possibly contain semen, but PRESUMABLY BE semen?

Pretty shocking to see it actually on videotape, but I think we have to call a spade a spade. The Italians aren't just completely incompetent, they have been more than a little dishonest.

The lack of transparency in the prosecution gathering evidence and lack of requirement to share all evidence, prior to trial, or even at or after trial, is a fundamental defect in the Italian system, perhaps this case will finally cure.

Also at issue, are Itlay's draconian 'calumnia laws' wielded as a weapon by the prosecutors and others to silence their critics.

By the way, the website, www.murderofmeredithkercher.com, is an incredible, truth telling, lie destroying resource for this case. There should be one of these for every serious or controversial case.

 

[carbonjam72]

Jury deliberations - USA

By 'wrong', do you mean incorrect or problematic in terms of fairness to the defendant? It does protect the privacy of the jurors, as you aren't allowed to discuss what happened in the jury room. Maybe you'd feel free to do what you felt was correct rather than what was publicly popular if you thought the deliberations were truly private.

I was on a US jury a few years ago, regarding a traffic fatality. And the jury had to determine if it was negligent, reckless, or accidental.

We were told expressly by the judge that jury deliberations were secret, and that we should not discuss anything that happened inside the jury room with anyone out side, while the case was going on. Afterwards though, we could discuss it if we wanted to, but it was our right not to discuss it.

During the case, an article came out in a local newspaper mentioning our case, as one among others where the defendants would bring in their small children to the courtroom and try to evoke sympathy for the defendants. The judge stopped the proceedings and asked if anyone had seen the article, read or discussed it. He reminded us that we were not to look at nor read articles, or discuss any aspect of the case with anyone under any circumstances outside the jury room.

Jury sequestration is perceived to be that important in protecting the rights of the defendant to a fair trial. Compare that to Italy and the vilification of Amanda Knox and Raf. Any possible future request for extradition undoubtedly will take that into account with all the other issues, like 'actual innocence' with prior acquittal.

The only things we were allowed to consider was the evidence the court allowed, and the judge later told us after our verdict things that were excluded from the trial because they were thought to be 'prejudicial' - creating an unfair inference against the defense, for example, that the defendant had been previously convicted for driving without a license. Over a beer after the verdict, more than one juror said had they known this, it would have definitely made them more likely to vote a higher level of guilt, even though the judge expressly stated such a conclusion would have been improper.

On reflection, I'm not actually so sure lay juries are all they're cracked up to be. But at least there is a sense that they all have to agree, and in theory, they've got no 'skin in the game', unlike the judges and prosecutors in Italy, and especially in this case.

In our case, the deliberations got stuck, and went a day or two longer, and I guess the police got curious. Somehow the bolt lock on the jury room door got stuck open, so the door didn't fully close, and our jury room guard sitting outside was I suppose, able to enjoy and provide updates on our deliberations. 'The best laid plans of mice and men...'

 

[Diocletus]

How do you know she was not referring to the vaginal swab?

I think the bigger issue is that we have two swabs on which Stefanoni is supposed to have isolated the sperm (not semen) of the attacker. These swabs quantify positive for human DNA (on November 5) and are in fact amplified. The results of the amplifications have been suppressed by the prosecution. Why?

I suppose that the least problematic result (from the perspective of the prosecution) is that the swabs returned Kercher's DNA. But if that's the case, then did Stefanoni screw up her fractioning process or is Kercher's DNA there due to contamination?

What if we have Kercher plus some unknown alleles that match Rudy, or we just have the profile of Rudy? That would mean that Rudy ejaculated, which is a problem for the prosecution given Stefanoni's prior testimony.

What if we have Kercher plus some unknown guy, or just some mess of alleles that doesn't match Kercher or anyone else that we can identify? That's a huge problem for the prosecution, and exculpatory for the defense.

So where is this profile from November 5?

 

[RWVBWL]

So again if the reason (motive) Rudi killed her was her scream, why couldn't that be the motive (reason) the kids killed her?

And out of curiosity, I thought we resolved the spelling of Rudy's name?

Rudi is how the vast majority of the documents I read from Italian spell it.

Hi Grinder,
It is Rudy, not Rudi.

Once again, by his own hand, written on the last page of his German Prison Diary:


What more proof do you need???

If Rudi is how the vast majority of Italian documents spell it, they are wrong.
Please stop repeating the mistake.
Have a good one!
RW

 

[Grinder]

\
There is a paper in Biotechniques that looked into the use of bleach to destroy DNA sufficiently to prevent its replication by PCR. I have given the citation many times. IIRC the reaction is pretty rapid, even using diluted household bleach.
Prince, A.M. and L. Andrus. 1992. PCR: How to kill unwanted DNA. BioTechniques 12: 358-360.
EDT
Abstract
Avoidance of contamination in the PCR laboratory requires the use of strict precautions. Among these, chemical decontamination of surfaces and equipment is desirable to prevent inadvertent contamination of samples by the gloved hand and by pipettors. We have investigated the use of sodium hypochloride (Clorox), in comparison to concentrated HCl, for PCR sterilization. Ten percent Clorox was found to eliminate all ethidium bromide-stainable DNA and to prevent PCR amplification of a 600-bp DNA segment within one minute of template treatment. RNA was similarly destroyed. By contrast, even 2.0 N HCl did not destroy DNA detectable by PCR within five minutes. Because of its high efficacy, low cost and relatively low corrosiveness, we recommend the use of ten percent Clorox as a decontaminant for elimination of DNA templates in the PCR laboratory.

Thanks for the validation that bleach takes "some time", in fact it depends on the type of household bleach being used

Household bleach sold for use in laundering clothes is a 3-8% solution of sodium​

Once again the context of my original statement was that they should easily have been able to damage the DNA beyond recognition or destroy it completely given all the time they had. As you pointed out a quick wipe might not do the job, but I can't imagine these very clever kids not letting the knife soak awhile in bleach.

 

[Bill Williams]

is this Amanda Knox?

Sorry if this has already been posted but I just saw it on the DM website. It purports to show AK walking through a car park at 8.53 on the night of the murder.

I will go and look for more info.

There's an Italian TV program which plays the car park video in full. The gait is not Amanda's as the TV show shows in a side-by-side frame of the real Knox (without the show acknowledging), and Knox carries her tote bag on the other shoulder.

But AngloLawyer's answer is best.

 

[Diocletus]

No Bond v. US today, which is curious. It's the last big decision left from November, and I think that we are going to see something interesting happen.

Interesting side-note. The court did decide Town of Greece today, which says that a town's prayer practice does not violate the Establishment Clause. For those who care about such things.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Thanks for the validation that bleach takes "some time", in fact it depends on the type of household bleach being used

Household bleach sold for use in laundering clothes is a 3-8% solution of sodium​

Once again the context of my original statement was that they should easily have been able to damage the DNA beyond recognition or destroy it completely given all the time they had. As you pointed out a quick wipe might not do the job, but I can't imagine these very clever kids not letting the knife soak awhile in bleach.

Grinder,

Typically, commercial bleach is about 5%, and what Andrus used was 5.5% (0.07 moles per liter). The bleach described in this article is a 10-fold dilution (0.007 moles per liter) of commercial bleach. There is another paper on this subject that I found on the Promega website, and it noted that if one did not rinse thoroughly after treating glassware with 33-fold diluted bleach, that the residual bleach will cause problems in amplifying wanted DNA later on.
EDT
If one treated DNA with bleach briefly, my prediction is that the peaks would slope downward in height, moving left to right in the egram. That is because the peaks at the right are larger than the peaks on the left.

 

[Grinder]

Hi Grinder,
It is Rudy, not Rudi.

Once again, by his own hand, written on the last page of his German Prison Diary:
[qimg]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/12/ylua.jpg[/qimg]

What more proof do you need???

If Rudi is how the vast majority of Italian documents spell it, they are wrong.
Please stop repeating the mistake.
Have a good one!
RW

Judi, Judi, Judi

http://borsinibellardi.wordpress.com/contents/reasons-for-the-decision/

www.amandaknox.com/it/the-meredith-kercher-murder/trascrizioni/‎


Maybe he was trying to Anglicize it. If not maybe he can get out since they convicted the wrong guy.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder,

Typically, commercial bleach is about 5%, and what Andrus used was 5.5% (0.07 moles per liter). The bleach described in this article is a 10-fold dilution (0.007 moles per liter) of commercial bleach. There is another paper on this subject that I found on the Promega website, and it noted that if one did not rinse thoroughly after treating glassware with 33-fold diluted bleach, that the residual bleach will cause problems in amplifying wanted DNA.
EDT
If one treated DNA with bleach briefly, my prediction is that the peaks would slope downward in height, moving left to right in the egram. That is because the peaks at the right are larger than the peaks on the left.

Avoidance of contamination in the PCR laboratory requires the use of strict precautions. Among these, chemical decontamination of surfaces and equipment is desirable to prevent inadvertent contamination of samples by the gloved hand and by pipettors. We have investigated the use of sodium hypochloride (Clorox), in comparison to concentrated HCl, for PCR sterilization. Ten percent Clorox was found to eliminate all ethidium bromide-stainable DNA and to prevent PCR amplification of a 600-bp DNA segment within one minute of template treatment. RNA was similarly destroyed. By contrast, even 2.0 N HCl did not destroy DNA detectable by PCR within five minutes. Because of its high efficacy, low cost and relatively low corrosiveness, we recommend the use of ten percent Clorox as a decontaminant for elimination of DNA templates in the PCR laboratory.​

This was my original post and it was even more accurate than I said above:

It is a pity that Amanda and Raf weren't quizzed at their first hearing after being arrested as to their knowledge of destroying DNA with bleach. Had they acknowledged this knowledge which can be 100% implied by the MySpace picture of Raf with the cleaver and bottle, then it is 100% certain they would have cleaned the knife in bleach. My micro biologist buddy says that in household bleach destruction would take a little time.

The defense should contend that the smell of bleach indicates the kids cleaned the knife with the substance and therefore the DNA found has to be contamination.

This I believe would resonate with the Italian mind.

So if it would take 1 minute I would say that's a little time. How much longer would 5% take than 10%? I don't care and only mentioned it in the sense that just a wipe might not do.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

nicked DNA

Grinder,

2.5% volume commercical bleach to volume water (that is a 40-fold dilution of commercial bleach) caused extensive nicking of the DNA. Andrus and Prince did not see an effect on the DNA below 2.5%.

 

[JREF2010]

There's an Italian TV program which plays the car park video in full. The gait is not Amanda's as the TV show shows in a side-by-side frame of the real Knox (without the show acknowledging), and Knox carries her tote bag on the other shoulder.

But AngloLawyer's answer is best.

What is this new CCTV?
Of course maybe the Perugia Lying Squad is back at it?

Why 7yrs later? Something "smells foul". Did the police and Mignini just over look this CCTV? Like all the other stuff they overlooked or might have destroyed.

The Perugia police have a amazing knack for releasing media stuff during prime times of the case, as Candace Dempsey noted several times in her book.

My gut instinct is there is some serious foul play in Perugia, and this too is more fake slanderous vindictive crap the Hate Mongers have created.
Time will tell.... if there is enough time.

Maybe Mignini and Monica are sadists?

 

[Bill Williams]

It's incredible. Borsini (Rudy's appeals court judge) and Massei write about Knox's "genetic material" being mixed with Meredith's blood. Out of thin air, Nencini writes about mixed-blood. If it were mixed blood, I'd be a guilter.

Nothing at trial submitted by even the most vile prosecutor has proven mixed blood. It's on issues like this that the case turns; Jesus Mary and Joseph, this is a murder of a young woman just entering her prime, like Knox and Sollecito were. You'd think they'd get this right. What is the matter with Italy?

Now Barbie Nadeau has returned with her assertion that it is "mixed blood". All this after even Harry Rag after years of harping on about it, revised his opinion to "Material mixed with Meredith's blood."

Barbie is also returning with, "Knox knows something she's not telling us." Raffaele continues as the forgotten man, and Rudy Guede is poised to get out of jail, freshly convicted of the theft at the lawyer's office.

Nencini reduces Guede to a virtual innocent bystander, and his DNA and his DNA alone is found inside the victim and in the victim's purse.

Yes, folks, that's the state of this case as the ISC prepares to sign off on wrongful convictions. Soon they will be sending the 1997 exoneration of Galileo back to the 2nd grade level for reconsideration.

 

[Bill Williams]

What is this new CCTV?
Of course maybe the Perugia Lying Squad is back at it?

It's a CCTV of someone coming into the car-park from the direction of the cottage, about 5 or 10 minutes before Meredith is home.

It is obviously not Amanda. Yet if it IS Amanda, it destroys Nencini's thesis. This person is heading away from the cottage, and NOT in the direction of Raffaele's, nor (I believe) the piazza to be seen by Curatolo.

It fits no one's scenario. Yet, the way this goes, they just make up scenarios on the fly anyway.

It's no wonder guilters don't offer timelines of this crime. There simply is no way to squeeze either Knox or Sollecito into it.

Stilicho had one post commenting on the Nencini motivations. Stilicho now believes that "multipleattackers" is now a "procedural fact".

Reading Nencini then so is female Y-Haplotypes, as well as Raffaele's DNA found on the kitchen knife. Nencini gets to make things up.

And the ISC is poised to sign off on it, reducing Italian law to fiction.

 

[GWCarver]

I considered the reason he killed her as his motive. Or that there was no motive but the reason he killed her was because she was screaming





I took this to mean that the scream couldn't be the cause or motive for the kids because....drum roll.... they are innocent.



So again if the reason (motive) Rudi killed her was her scream, why couldn't that be the motive (reason) the kids killed her?

The last line is confusing to me. Are you saying that saying they are innocent doesn't negate Amanda being in the cottage during the murder? Are you suggesting she might have been there but is innocent?

So it seems to me you don't believe that a scream could be the motive (reason) for the kids because they weren't there which you know because they are innocent.

I don't have any idea how to edit all of this to respond to each individual segment, and probably wouldn't do so if I did. (Generally I don't even read such long, drawn out posts because after a while I don't even remember what the discussion was about to begin with.) Anyway, here is the definition of "motive" from the World English Dictionary:

motive (ˈməʊtɪv)
— n
1. the reason for a certain course of action, whether conscious or unconscious

So, if Meredith found Guede in her house and started screaming, his motive for killing her may very well have been to stop her from screaming. Guede has admitted to being in the house when Meredith was killed, and Nara said she heard a scream - Frank Sfarzo talked to her and believed her- so his killing her to keep her quiet is certainly possible. (In your first sentence above, you seem to be saying that killing Meredith for screaming would be an action taken in lieu of a motive, not a motive itself. That is puzzling because my recollection is your inquiring if Meredith screaming was a motive for "the kids" to have killed Meredith was what started this silly exchange.)

As to your overall point, I didn't - and wouldn't - say Amanda and Raffaele didn't kill Meredith to stop her from screaming because they are innocent. A statement like doesn't really say anything and just wastes space.

Finally, you'll recall Amanda was arrested for saying she was in the cottage the night Meredith was killed with her hands over her ears. If that was indeed true, she could have been present when the murder took place but innocent nonetheless. That's what I was talking about.

Grinder, you can have the last word, if you wish, and then we should move on, if you don't mind.

 

[Desert Fox]

To put a fine point of GW Carver's point,

Assume that Amanda and Raffaele were in the house and Meredeth saw them in the house, that is actually normal. Catching them having sex might be embarrassing but not likely to elicit screaming.

If Meredeth caught Amanda stealing her money, Meredeth would not be screaming but yelling, probably something about being a %$#& thief.

Might be a fine point but a real one. Rudy however would be trying to get a panicked woman to be quiet.

 

[Diocletus]

Stilicho had one post commenting on the Nencini motivations. Stilicho now believes that "multipleattackers" is now a "procedural fact".

He's right: multiple attackers is a "procedural fact." What I guess he doesn't know is that "procedural fact" is a euphemism for a fact determined in Rudy Guede's trial.

Without doubt, it is a violation of the ECHR rights to a fair trial, fair tribunal and confrontation, to have a court decide your guilt on the basis of a "fact" decided in some other court's summary, non-public trial of a different defendant. Pretty certain it also violates the Italian constitution, but at this point, that document doesn't seem to be worth a whole lot.

This isn't some immaterial fact, either; it's a fact that undermines the entire defense theory of the crime.

 

[acbytesla]

Acbytesla, from time to time you mention a close Seattle police friend. What does he think, is this business of hurling rocks common? In all honesty I have never really heard of it, but in his precinct a question would be would there be a red alert when there was a second instance, or would he do a Massei theorisation, it could not be Rudy because he would be obviously suspected?
I hope you follow the question.

He's not really familiar with this case Samson, But he and the literature will tell you that a common burglary tactic is breaking in through a window. That burglars will do it for two reasons. One to gain entry and two to make just loud enough noise to startle the people inside. If no one responds, they know that no one is home, if they do, they move on to another target.

To be frank, gaining entry by window breaking doesn't really single out a burglar, I also don't think that the rock throwing is really all that significant. People will use whatever is available. I just don't think you can ignore the "cluster" of burglaries in and around his apartment in such a short time period. Christian, the law office, Ms. Diaz and the cottage are all within a few blocks of Rudy's home. The exception of course is the nursery. None of this proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Rudy committed these crimes. That said, it is far too large a clue to just dismiss.

 

[Desert Fox]

He's right: multiple attackers is a "procedural fact." What I guess he doesn't know is that "procedural fact" is a euphemism for a fact determined in Rudy Guede's trial.

Without doubt, it is an obligation of the ECHR rights to a fair trial, fair tribunal and confrontation, to have a court decide your guilt on the basis of a "fact" decided in some other court's summary, non-public trial of a different defendant. Pretty certain it also violates the Italian constitution, but at this point, that document doesn't seem to be worth a whole lot.

This isn't some immaterial fact, either; it's a fact that undermines the entire defense theory of the crime.

As much as I have problems with US courts, I don't think something like this would fly in a US court.

 

[anglolawyer]

From Amanda's blog, some translated Nonsense text:

it has been much discussed, especially by the defense of the defendants, whether a “selective” clean-up of the crime scene is possible by the authors of the crime. this possibility was denied on the basis of the empirical impossibility of a “naked eye” to identify and select the singular traces, often invisible, to destroy. it was also excluded that someone in the cottage of via della pergola, on the night between november 1st and 2nd, 2007, after having committed the murder of meredith kercher, could “selectively clean” the traces left by the authors of the crime, destroying all of the traces of the defendants in question, and leaving at the crime scene all of those traces that would have lead investigators to rudy hermann guede.

the affirmation, if apparently agreeable theoretically, must be correlated with the case in question, of which there are certain peculiarities.

it is peculiar, for example, that no traces of amanda marie knox were found in the cottage of via della pergola if not those which are refer-able to the murder – nor of raffaele sollecito. for the latter the explanation may be simple, that he had only just begun his sentimental relationship with amanda marie knox, and so had his patronage of her house, but regarding amanda marie knox the explanation is not simple at all, because she had been living there since the previous september.

the lack of biological traces of amanda marie knox at the cottage, if not those refer-able to the murder, is a circumstance that is surely singular and at the same time not easily explainable, if not with conjecture. but there are other examples, all of which have the same vulnus: to likely be conjecture.

From another part of the forest, some translated testimony of the fingerprint guy:

Testimony of Agatino Giunta, Head of the Fingerprinting Section of the Rome Scientific Police:

P211

Massei: … just a curiosity, seeing as you are the expert and so can provide an opinion about this discipline, in which you are a professional. The fact that in a house, in an apartment inhabited by Amanda Knox and samples that can be attributed to her are so few, indeed only one, is it possible to explain it? Can you interpret this fact?
Giunta: Look your Honour, when we go to perform these inspections, we try, I mean we found more than 110/112prints, consider that this is a significant amount, this quantity, among other things, it’s an even bigger quantity if you consider that many prints were not even recorded because as the fingerprint technician was viewing them, he didn’t even think it worth photographing them, because there were so many…Massei: It was a fact that should have been inserted in this situation.
Giunta: So to clarify there can also be many other prints but maybe they are so badly formed, so smudged, so overlapping or even partial that we can’t… I mean, finding a print doesn’t mean that only one exists, maybe there will be also another 5 or 6, another 10 that we, however, didn’t consider. That one was matched however, so among the many that one was one of those that was utilized and matched because it was whole

So how (never mind why) did Amanda remove all her prints from the apartment while leaving all the others? Nencini does not ask himself this question. He simply reasons that since her prints weren't found outside the room (er, why can't they be among those the witness didn't bother to collect?) their absence from the room itself does not prohibit the conclusion she was there. He is positive there was a clean up:

an argument characteristically objective that emerged procedurally was evidence that, after the murder of meredith kercher, selective or not, there was a clean-up of the traces of the murder, and a maneuvering of the body of poor meredith into a position (between the armoire and the wall of the room and covered by a duvet) that certainly doesn’t correspond with the position in which the girl died, at the end of the aggressive phase. someone spent much time within the cottage on the night between november 1st and 2nd, 2007, altering the crime scene and destroying numerous traces. the evidence provided by the scientific police proves this incontestable truth, which the court’s reasoning must take into consideration.

I have a question about all this. What does 'vulnus' mean?