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

[kwill]

Interesting that you snipped out my following comment that BOTH Raf on the clasp and Meredith on the blade make the likelihood of contamination less likely to me. The fact that two highly unlikely events is strange to me, unless there is a wider conspiracy.

I snipped it because both these claims are false. The clasp can't be evidence unless we know what happened to it between the day the police saw it and the day they collected it. We don't.

C/V admitted Meredith was on the blade, only argued that is wasn't reliable.

Wait, if it wasn't reliable, it wasn't reliable. It's not evidence. And what happened when the SC asked for a re-test on the knife? They found nothing indicating that it had ever touched Meredith. That was just last November.

I'll admit to disappointment that the bra clasp wasn't collected in a more timely fashion, but it was a closed crime scene. Very few people were allowed in and out.

But somebody touched it, right? It moved a yard across the room. It ended up under a rug. So the issue isn't the timing, or the number of people who were allowed in and out, it's that the thing was compromised. It had evidentiary value on the day after the murder, but that was lost because it wasn't secured.

It's certainly "possible" that Raf's DNA was transferred to the clasp. But highly unlikely, and therefore reasonable doubt is not met. Not to mention, countless cases have been solved in recent years with DNA evidence decades old.

The point is that no one has any way of knowing how unlikely or likely contamination might have been; that's why the clasp can't be evidence. If you're going to hang a whole murder case on a man, you want the evidence against him to be clear and uncompromised. This clasp -- the only thing that ties RS to the murder -- was clearly compromised, because at least one person touched it or it could not have moved across the room and made its way under a rug.

If decades had passed and the thing was exactly where it had last been seen, your point about countless cases would be relevant. But it wasn't decades, and it did move across the room, so no dice.

You don't want to argue about evidence, but you mention the only two bits of supposed forensic evidence against AK and RS. Both of them -- separately -- have been shown to be bogus.

No Kercher DNA or blood on the knife. Not the murder weapon.
No chain of custody on the clasp. No way to know how any of the DNA got on it.

No evidence, no motive, not guilty.

 

[griffinmill]

People are certainly entitled to draw their own conclusions. For myself I do not think that the prosecution have made a coherent case that proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt, primarily because I think there is a strong case that Guede acted alone. If there is a significant probability that Guede acted alone, then this introduces reasonable doubt about Sollecito and Knox being involved.

One of the issues is there is only evidence against Sollecito, the involvement of Knox seems only because she is his alibi. The finding of the MK DNA on the knife blade from Sollecito's flat has a number of technical irregularities, such that it would not be permissible as evidence in the UK. If you want to discuss the reasons why the result is so dubious I and others will do so. If you have made your mind up, then I do not propose to waste time reiterating what has been said before. Knox's DNA on the knife is entirely irrelevant since she handled it since the time of the murder so no conclusions can be drawn from its presence (in contrast to say if it had been dumped and there had been no opportunity for it to have been handled post murder).

The DNA result on the bra hook seems a genuine result. There is certainly a discussion to be had about whether this is due to contamination. There is a discussion to be had about the significance of an isolated DNA finding (by which I mean not being used to identify the source of a biological material such as semen or blood). Forensic scientists in the UK caution about drawing strong conclusions in this situation. There is certainly an argument that if there was a struggle more DNA should have been deposited on the clothes of MK, and certainly given the nature of the crime significant blood should have been deposited on the clothes of anyone present. Certainly there should have been exchange of fibres. In my opinion the lack of fibre exchange and the lack of MK DNA / blood on the clothes and shoes of Sollecito and Knox is positive evidence that they were not present that out weighs the single DNA sample on the bra hook. In my opinion that Stefanoni exaggerated her results means she is not reliable. Examples are claiming epithelial cells present on the bra hook (not shown (no evidence of) to be present), claiming that the location of Knox's DNA on the handle indicates that the knife was used to stab someone, concealing the results of TMB tests.

I think there is an issue about the judge drawing a conclusion that Sollecito cut the bra when the forensic evidence shows that the bra was torn not cut (police forensic science opinion). There has to be a question about if there was direct contact from Sollecito to the bra hook what is the scenario, the bra was not unhooked, it was pulled apart by pulling on the straps with the result that the stitching holding the fastener to the strap gave way, the bra was never unhooked. So there is not a clear mechanism for the deposition. In my opinion this does mean that whilst this finding of the DNA is something to be considered, in itself it has very little value as proof of guilt. If I was on the jury I do not think I would take this one DNA result as proof beyond reasonable doubt, because I think the positive nature of the complete lack of other evidence outweighs this. It is of note the police have never claimed that Sollecito or Knox disposed of the clothes they wore that night.

A) MK on the knife is there. Again, the PIP refuse to just say, "yes, it's there", and then counter it. They prefer to say it wasn't there at all. This is disingenuous.

B) I appreciate you admit the RS bra clasp DNA. I disagree with all your reasons why it would support "reasonable doubt" that it got there by different means than RS himself. PGP hate Stefanoni, PIP love C/V, but I find it curious that C/V don't generally dispute the DNA results, only dispute the validity. Ultimately, I have no way of knowing who is right in this, as I imagine you don't either. Scientists disagree.

C) No interest in dissecting how Raf's DNA got on the clasp vis a vis the murder. It's there, statistically it's overwhelming that he is the most likely person who deposited it, and I'm content to wait for the truth as to how it actually occurred.

 

[Planigale]

I doubt Budowle would assert that every single cleaned knife is cleaned thoroughly of its past use. Depends on how it was cleaned. Haven't read his analysis, but it makes sense that AK and RS probably didn't do a laboratory job cleaning the knife. And of course you neglect to mention other scientists you don't agree with Budowle.

The presence of additional profiles on the clasp was addressed by Balding. They may have significance, but they don't diminish from Raf's undeniable presence on the clasp. You interviewed him so you know this.

But it seems like you're arguing for large scale conspiracy from 2007 on which includes the prosecutor, police, scientists, and judges. Good luck with that.

There are several issues.
There are issues about the knife not matching most of the wounds, all the wounds would be compatible with a smaller knife, a knife that would be compatible with the print found. An assumption has to be made that two knives were used to incorporate this knife into the crime. That most wounds and the print are incompatible with this knife rise a priori doubts prior to its testing.

Blood (haemoglobin) is harder to clean than DNA, the absence of blood on the knife raises serious questions about the presence of DNA, the tests for blood (haemoglobin) are more sensitive than tests for DNA. The sample taken from the blade was tested for DNA and no detectable DNA was found. Other samples with no detectable DNA were not put forward for typing. The absence of blood and the absence of DNA further raise doubts about the knife.

The profile that came up on typing probably matched Kercher, but there are technical issues with interpreting LCN DNA, including that it is impossible to exclude mixed DNA, selection of results, results that were incompatible but above the 50 rfu cut off were ignored by Stefanoni. Internationally agreed standards specify that the test should have been replicated. Stefanoni chose not to do that, she could have done so, she had sufficient sample. Internationally agreed standards specify that because of the danger of contamination when dealing with such a small amount of DNA, special precautions need to be taken in collection, transport and in analysis. None of these precautions were taken. The laboratory should have done environmental controls, (not done). The results of the negative controls have never been reported, in this case the negative controls should have been typed in the same way as the negative (for DNA) swab was. It is unclear why in other cases she chose not to process samples with no detectable DNA but in this case she chose to do so.

Given the limited information given by Stefanoni and the lack of precautions, the correct conclusions are that the profile is probably but not certainly that of Kercher. The origin of the DNA profiled is uncertain, it is most likely to be in laboratory contamination. It may be contamination of the knife unrelated to its use in the crime. I think it is very unlikely that the result represents DNA deposited on the knife due to its being used to murder MK.

 

[acbytesla]

The PGP vs PIP psychology debate is ridiculous. Both claim the other distorts facts. Both malign whichever central players suit them. Both assert cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, prejudice, conspiracy, and sinister intention. Ironically, until the actual truth is known, both will be equally as right as the other.

Moving beyond the towering certitude on both sides, the case comes down to reasonable doubt. The PIP think it means one thing, the PGP think it means another. Based on what the law defines as reasonable doubt, my feeling is the courts made the right decision. They may be innocent, trapped in tragic circumstance, but there isn't enough reasonable doubt to conclude they are not guilty.

I have a life to live and will not answer millions of questions on the "evidence." That said, I believe Raf's DNA on the clasp and Meredith's DNA on the knife are not likely to be the result of contamination, and even less likely when both unlikely events are combined. Even without all the other (admittedly disputed) forensics, the circumstantial evidence is fairly overwhelming.

So I will be PGP until such time as reasonable doubt supports the contrary. At this point, believing in AK and RS requires too vast a conspiracy -- innocently bungled alibis, a wholly corrupt police force, a 2 hour interrogation that resulted in the accusation of an innocent person, forensic evidence that connects all 3 to the crime scene.

AK and RS have quite a task unwrangling themselves from all this, and not surprisingly they haven't.

Again, not an iota of any real detail from one who professes to be PGP. Not really surprising, nor is the insistence that Amanda and Raffaele prove their innocence beyond a reasonable doubt when the burden is to prove 'GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT"

And I'm don't buy for one second that it requires a wholly corrupt police force. Out of curiosity Griffin, would you say the same thing about the Norfolk Four defendants, the West Memphis Three, the Duke Lacrosse team, Ryan Ferguson and the countless other defendants that have been wrongly convicted of a crime?

In fact, I'm not sure it requires a single corrupt police officer for this to be a mistake.

There is in fact is only two pieces of physical evidence that ties Amanda or Raffaele to this crime and both were debunked by court appointed independent experts, not to mention most of the scientific community. The first is the bra clasp which wasn't collected for 46 days and was clearly moved from it's original location. It's collection was video recorded and it showed Police officers passing it from one person to another wearing dirty gloves. This is the same piece of evidence that showed evidence of 4 different males.

The second is a large cooking knife taken from Raffaele's apartment that supposedly had Meredith Kercher's DNA on the blade. The amount was so infinitesimal that no respectable lab in the world would consider it to be legitimate. A knife that would be absurd for anyone to carry and which was examined by both the court appointed independent experts and top lab in Rome. Neither of which could confirm Stefanoni's results.

Since you have a life, you are not willing to have your reasoning addressed in the manner which JREF is all about. I have no problem with someone having an opinion that differs from my own. But the moment, they express that opinion, they should have courage to do more than drop a deuce and walk away.

 

[griffinmill]

Again:

1) The MK sample is indisputably there.
2) The Raf sample is indisputably there.

And I appreciate you're not disputing either.

You're contending laboratory contamination. But to bring this full circle, you're contending laboratory contamination of both Kercher on the blade, and Raf on the clasp.

If it's both, that's two horrendously coincidental mistakes.

Or maybe it's just a big conspiracy.

I tend to believe that the two findings -- Raf on the clasp and MK on the blade -- are too uniquely compelling when taken together. Even before you get to all the other forensics and circumstantial evidence.

As I said before, this is a case of reasonable doubt more than truth. And I keep seeing reasonable doubt tilted to guilt.

 

[acbytesla]

Interesting that you snipped out my following comment that BOTH Raf on the clasp and Meredith on the blade make the likelihood of contamination less likely to me. The fact that two highly unlikely events is strange to me, unless there is a wider conspiracy.

How would you know that contamination are highly unlikely events? Wouldn't that depend on the how it was collected and tested and safeguards were made to prevent that contamination? And wouldn't you say that contamination would almost absolutely be the case in the bra clasp when they discovered alleles from 4 other men on it?

The rest of your argument doesn't make sense. C/V admitted Meredith was on the blade, only argued that is wasn't reliable.

No, that is not what CV said. They said that they were unable to find Meredith's DNA on the knife. What they did say is that Meredith's DNA was represented on the electropherogram provided by Stefanoni. And that her testing procedure was very unreliable, a point that was also made by the Rome lab in the latest trial.

Keep in mind that Stefanoni failed to present the EDF or electronic data files even to Conti and Vechiotti, the independent court appointed experts. (why)

I'm not aware of any expert who has ever said her DNA profile wasn't there at all. And I'm always surprised to see the PIP claim the profile wasn't there instead of saying, "It's there, sure, but obviously a result of contamination (for X,Y,Z reasons.)

In fact not a single expert has ever said that Meredith Kercher's DNA profile was "actually on the clasp" only that her profile was represented by the electropherogram. No one can confirm Stefanoni's results, not even Stefanoni.

I'll admit to disappointment that the bra clasp wasn't collected in a more timely fashion, but it was a closed crime scene. Very few people were allowed in and out. It's certainly "possible" that Raf's DNA was transferred to the clasp. But highly unlikely, and therefore reasonable doubt is not met. Not to mention, countless cases have been solved in recent years with DNA evidence decades old.

In fact this isn't true. You don't have a clue how many people were allowed into that bedroom. What's more, the clasp was not collected for another 46 days after the murder and it was clear that it had moved from where it was during the original collection. It is also clear that total strangers had been int the cottage since the murder. The cottage was not secure...so why do you say these things? Or didn't you know??

 

[griffinmill]

The first is the bra clasp which wasn't collected for 46 days and was clearly moved from it's original location.

I'm just curious. Why does this meme always get repeated? First, the crime scene was closed and no one entered the scene except for a few designated days afforded to both prosecution and defense. For nearly all of the "46 days", no one entered the cottage. Why don't PIP at least acknowledge this? Even if they want to allege contamination, why pretend the scene was open for 46 days?

Second, criminals have been convicted or exonerated on DNA evidence in recent years that is decades old. How is it possible their DNA is absolutely reliable, collected in who knows what way, but the DNA for Knox/Sollecito isn't?

 

[Bill Williams]

Again:

1) The MK sample is indisputably there.
2) The Raf sample is indisputably there.

And I appreciate you're not disputing either.

You're contending laboratory contamination. But to bring this full circle, you're contending laboratory contamination of both Kercher on the blade, and Raf on the clasp.

If it's both, that's two horrendously coincidental mistakes.

Or maybe it's just a big conspiracy.

I tend to believe that the two findings -- Raf on the clasp and MK on the blade -- are too uniquely compelling when taken together. Even before you get to all the other forensics and circumstantial evidence.

As I said before, this is a case of reasonable doubt more than truth. And I keep seeing reasonable doubt tilted to guilt.

Well, you said the circumstantial evidence was there.

But let me fix your mistakes of fact....

1) The MK sample is was indisputably there.
2) The Raf sample is indisputably there.​

If you do not see the issue in moving the claim of present tense, to the fact of past tense, I'm not sure what to say. "Was" is because there was so little of it, it was below the threshhold for forensic testing.... meaning to say both what it was as well as who it belonged to.

If you were to read the Massei report, at least Judge Massei in 2010 addressed this issue. You have to demonstrate BOTH who it belongs to and what it is - and at best Stefanoni alleged it was Meredith's, but was honest enough not to claim she knew what it was....

.... the issue being that it should be Meredith's blood DNA to be forensicly interesting NOT just that it may be Meredith's.

I fear you do not "get" why putting it this way is important. Judge Massei analysed it this way, and then made the astonishing judicial decision that regardless of not knowing what sample 36b was, for him it spoke to guilt.

You see it's like this:

- if 36b is Meredith's blood DNA, then it DOES point to guilt
- if 36b is not blood DNA, then contamination is almost a certainty​

And the court convicted Knox and Sollecito anyways, not knowing. How's that for reasonable doubt!!!!!

Unfortunately it is as you say, Italy's courts have said in effect that unless Knox and Sollecito can prove that it wasn't blood, then they are guilty.

So you, in fact, do understand the Italian courts on this matter, and further agree with their method of reasoning.

The sample 36b was so small, that it was necessarily destroyed in testing. One test. To make a reliable forensic test, required four such destructive tests. In short, the "was" refers to the fact that 36b no longer exists, so aside from Stefanoni's word for it, no one really knows what it was....

..... and Stefanoni is not releasing the electronic data files of her lone test, so that others can verify her work. It's on THIS that you condemn two innocents, and then say that it is too incredulous a situation to suspect conspiracy.

Tell you what, Stefanoni releases the EDFs, I'll stop talking conspiracy.

 

[kwill]

I'm just curious. Why does this meme always get repeated?

Because the clasp moved across the room, ended up under a rug, and nobody knows how that happened.

That's why.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm just curious. Why does this meme always get repeated? First, the crime scene was closed and no one entered the scene except for a few designated days afforded to both prosecution and defense. For nearly all of the "46 days", no one entered the cottage. Why don't PIP at least acknowledge this? Even if they want to allege contamination, why pretend the scene was open for 46 days?

Second, criminals have been convicted or exonerated on DNA evidence in recent years that is decades old. How is it possible their DNA is absolutely reliable, collected in who knows what way, but the DNA for Knox/Sollecito isn't?

Your curiosity should take you to the Massei report, where Stefanoni herself describes four possible routes of contamination. The first route was the 118 medical staff who came into the room without protective clothing on Nov 2.

The second route was Stefanoni herself handling the clasp with an obviously dirty glove, where she could not (at trial) confirm or deny she'd touched the hooks, such touching suggested by the very film she had her own staff take of the collection.

The third route was another Scientific Policeperson who Stefanoni said handled the hook as well. The fourth was the simple act of replacing the hook on the floor after handling it; which Stefanoni conceded at trial could be a possible route of contamination, even though she gave all the caveats as to why she said it didn't happen.

Read Massei's report and assuage your curiosity.

The answer to your second question shows an ignorance of things... sorry... the bedroom Meredith was in had the mattress missing, Meredith's blue track suit top was in the hamper instead of on the floor where it'd been photographed 46 days previous, and the bra-clasp was across the floor. The room had obviously been disturbed.

If no one entered the cottage, who rearranged Meredith's things?

 

[griffinmill]

Because the clasp moved across the room, ended up under a rug, and nobody knows how that happened.

That's why.

And does that result in reasonable doubt the DNA data is so compromised that it can't be reliable? For you, yes. For me the answer is no.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm just curious. Why does this meme always get repeated? First, the crime scene was closed and no one entered the scene except for a few designated days afforded to both prosecution and defense. For nearly all of the "46 days", no one entered the cottage. Why don't PIP at least acknowledge this? Even if they want to allege contamination, why pretend the scene was open for 46 days?

Really, why was the bra clasp MOVED DURING THAT TIME? Why was the seal broken on the door? Maybe the intention was that it was closed, but the facts actually dispute that.

Second, criminals have been convicted or exonerated on DNA evidence in recent years that is decades old. How is it possible their DNA is absolutely reliable, collected in who knows what way, but the DNA for Knox/Sollecito isn't?

This is true, but what difference does that have when the crime scene as been contaminated and compromised? The simple fact that 4 other male alleles were found on the bra clasp should be proof enough that something went wrong in either the collection of the bra clasp or the testing of it. Or do you think 4 men other than Rudy and Raffaele were in that bedroom?

 

[acbytesla]

And does that result in reasonable doubt the DNA data is so compromised that it can't be reliable? For you, yes. For me the answer is no.

It should be consider the fact that both the chain of custody was broken and DNA was found from 4 other men on it. That dirty gloves handled it. All it takes griffin is one person to mishandled it and voila, you have the DNA of the suspects. Raffaele could have touched the doorknob and then a tech opens the door and then touches the bra clap and he could have just transferred Raffaele's DNA from the doorknob to the bra clasp.

But hey, I'm curious. How do you explain that more than a half a dozen of Rudy's shoe prints were found in Meredith's blood and that bedroom and not a single other person's identifiable footprints were found other than Meredith? Not a fingerprint, or footprint or shoe print.

Did Amanda and Raffaele HOVER?

 

[MichaelB]

I'm just curious. Why does this meme always get repeated? First, the crime scene was closed and no one entered the scene except for a few designated days afforded to both prosecution and defense. For nearly all of the "46 days", no one entered the cottage. Why don't PIP at least acknowledge this? Even if they want to allege contamination, why pretend the scene was open for 46 days?

Second, criminals have been convicted or exonerated on DNA evidence in recent years that is decades old. How is it possible their DNA is absolutely reliable, collected in who knows what way, but the DNA for Knox/Sollecito isn't?

Have a look at the before and after photos. The place was trashed and no one could say who did it or why.

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/contamination-photos-before-and-after/

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi Griffinmill,
Are you married?
Say that you found out there were 3 or 4 other fingerprints or DNA samples found on your own wife's bra clasp.

But it should only be hers or yours, right?
1 of those belongs to your neighbor, a good drinkin' buddy,
who has recently been over as you entertained some friends for The Game, or was that The Fight?.

What would her explanation be and your thoughts then be?
Contamination, or she is cheating on you?

 

[kwill]

And does that result in reasonable doubt the DNA data is so compromised that it can't be reliable? For you, yes. For me the answer is no.

Yeah, but to me that makes no sense.

DNA is impossibly tiny and fantastically easy to move. In order for it to be evidence, we need a reasonable amount of certainty about how and when it was deposited.

When a bit of fabric and metal goes from one place to another inside a room without anybody knowing how that happened, with no records even to show who was there and when, much less how the moving took place, or whether it was the only time the thing moved, how can anybody claim that the thing is reliable?

I'm going out on a limb and say that the reason you and others who are persuaded of guilt feel good about ignoring the obvious reasons to dismiss this bra clasp evidence is that you think the "circumstantial" evidence is strong.

But please . .. if you just take the clasp all on its own. Left in a room that was not secured. Moved from its original position. Retrieved by a team with visibly dirty gloves. Picked up, handled, placed on the floor again. Later found to have DNA from not just RS but from 3 other males as well . . . does this seem like the strong link in a chain?

It's absurd.

 

[RWVBWL]

Seminal Fluid?

Greetings all,
I do not speak or read Italian,
but I have always wondered what Dr. Stefanoni,
(who had to get special permission to drive down from Rome to work the forensics in this sensational murder),
was saying.

What is she saying as she picks up the bloody bra, or gift wraps the mop?
Or when she stored evidence in Meredith's freezer?

Reading around, I just found this, posted elsewhere by MichaelB:
Watch the video linked below, it's only a bit longer than a minute.
Dr. Stefanoni is talkin' about seminal fluid found on the pillow lying underneath Miss Kercher's naked genitalia.

Not months and months later, BUT on November 3rd, of 2007,
the day after Meredith was found murdered.

Where's the results? They knew the perp ejaculated.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YlXKyMh48KQ


Hey Vibio, Machiavelli,
correct me if I am wrong, but don't you two JREF posters speak Italian, right?

Is this translation, printed in text on the YouTube video linked above, correct?
If so, Where are the tests results Italy?

 

[Dan O.]

All they have is a faint trace of Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp there is no evidence of when or how it got there. For it to have gotten there during Meredith's murder is one of the least likely paths. The hooks are not exposed when the bra is in it's normal position, the hooks are not touched in the normal removal of a bra and there is strong evidence that it was Rudy that removed the bra by grabing the band behind Meredith's right sholder and ripping it off. There is no evidence that anyone other that Rudy was in the room at the time Meredith was assaulted and murdered and there is evidence that Rudy was alone in that room with Meredith because the door was opened with a bloody hand.

When are those advocating guilt going to address these issues? When are they going to provide a narative that even comes close to being compatible with the evidence?

 

[NancyS]

Again:

1) The MK sample is indisputably there.
2) The Raf sample is indisputably there.

And I appreciate you're not disputing either.

You're contending laboratory contamination. But to bring this full circle, you're contending laboratory contamination of both Kercher on the blade, and Raf on the clasp.

If it's both, that's two horrendously coincidental mistakes.

Or maybe it's just a big conspiracy.

I tend to believe that the two findings -- Raf on the clasp and MK on the blade -- are too uniquely compelling when taken together. Even before you get to all the other forensics and circumstantial evidence.

As I said before, this is a case of reasonable doubt more than truth. And I keep seeing reasonable doubt tilted to guilt.

As they were young students living in close proximity to each other with Amanda living in the same cottage, transfer of these tiny (and disputed) amounts of LCN DNA is always going to be possible. I would argue that these type of DNA evidence isn't really appropriate when considering people who lived together and likely shared towels, clothes, ate together and used the same bathroom. This was also confirmed by the DNA expert (Professor Peter Gill) on the recent radio 4 documentary. I'm just amazed that more traces of their DNA were not found in Meredith's room - if they had been there and involved in a violent struggle and clean-up, they would have left their trace

 

[RWVBWL]

All they have is a faint trace of Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp there is no evidence of when or how it got there. For it to have gotten there during Meredith's murder is one of the least likely paths. The hooks are not exposed when the bra is in it's normal position, the hooks are not touched in the normal removal of a bra and there is strong evidence that it was Rudy that removed the bra by grabing the band behind Meredith's right sholder and ripping it off. There is no evidence that anyone other that Rudy was in the room at the time Meredith was assaulted and murdered and there is evidence that Rudy was alone in that room with Meredith because the door was opened with a bloody hand.

When are those advocating guilt going to address these issues? When are they going to provide a narative that even comes close to being compatible with the evidence?

Hi Dan O.,
I have to respectfully disagree, even though you know much more about this brutal murder case that we discuss than I ever will. I was reading earlier on The Wiki about the cat's blood downstairs, there are soooo many more questions than answers...


Rudy Guede was definitely there in Meredith's apartment that night.
It's an easy story to sell, so to say...

But was someone else too?

Whom do the other DNA on Meredith's bra clasp come from?

Hair formations underneath Meredith's fingernails?
Is that a hair?
Whose fingerprints were found around the cottage that were unattributed for?
Whose semen stains are those?
Do you have the tests results?
Etc.

You can not,
in my humble opinion, state that only Rudy Guede was there that night with 100% certainty...
RW