Continuation Part Nine: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[MichaelB]

PMF's grand ayatollah legal scholar 'popper' has just said Spiros Gatsios didn't testify. He should double check that......as well as a lot of other things.

 

[Strozzi]

re: "semen" stain.

I'm not well informed on the subject. So I have questions:

Did any forensic experts actually claim it was semen?

I know that the defense wanted it tested at the last appeal. Did they ask for it to be tested at the first appeal? What was Hellman's response?

If the stain had been tested and DNA had been found, how would it have affected things?

If it had been Sollecito's the outcome would have been obvious, but if it had been Guede's? If instead, it had been of an unidentified male, what new slant would it have brought to the trial?

Could the stain have been dated, as to when it was left? If it could not have been dated... would it have been useful just the same? If so, how?

The stain was tentatively identified as semen by the way it visualized under a special light used by forensic investigators.

The defense asked for the semen stains to be analyzed in the Hellman appeal trial, and possibly in the Massei trial. The prosecution objected. The Kercher family attorney, Maresca, also objected to testing the semen - isn't that odd ? - given that the Kercher family said they want all the facts known.

It's importance would depend on to whom it was identified. If, for example, the stains' DNA is identified as belonging to any of the four women's boyfriends, there would be different explanations of how it got there and it's importance (probative value).

If it was Guede's, it would show he was more engaged in the events than he or the prosecution want known. If it belonged to witnesses Kokoman or Curatolo, then prosecution (and witness) claims as to who was where and who did what that evening would be revealed to be blatantly false.

Even if the lab cannot match the DNA to a specific male in a DNA database (Sollecito, Guede, Lumumba), the DNA data might be compared to DNA ancestral databases to narrow the ancestral (ethnic) origins of the male contributor. Suppose the results show the contributor to be of Rumanian/Bulgarian origin? Suppose Finnish/northern Slavic origin? Suppose Libyan origin? Suppose Italian? Suppose English/Irish with 20 percent Danish origins?

The data can tell possible or probable eye color, hair color (blond?), whether hair is straight or curly, whether ear lobes are probably attached or not.

 

[Vibio]

The Vinci report (linked above) clearly states that "non è possibile allo stato la datazione delle tracce" The it is not possible to date when the stains were left.

Considering that fact, as well as the possible scenarios for any DNA found (they all sound pretty inconsequential)...plus the fact that both Hellman and Nencini turned down requests to have the stains tested....well, sorry but it all sounds like a mountain-out-of-whatever.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the putative semen stain and its interpretation

Vibio's intellectually lazy comparison to a judge in the US has now fallen apart: it shows a case where a bad judge got removed and punished (the system worked). Now on to the putative semen stain, which Professor Vinci (re)discovered. Photographs of the stain show treads, which to my eyes look like Rudy's shoe prints. If it is Raf's semen, then game over. If it is Rudy's, it is more evidence that he lied (which damages his credibility as a pseudo-witness) and more evidence of his deep involvement, despite the untiring efforts of some PG commenters to minimize his role. It also would effectively date the stain, because Rudy had not been there previously. If it is from an unknown male, then the case looks completely different. Has there ever been another case where the prosecution failed to test a putative semen stain?

The DNA test should have been among the first that they did. But Vibio's comparison to the clasp is also facile. It is less the length of time that the clasp spent uncollected, and more the fact that the apartment was not treated in the way that one has to (in order to collect forensic evidence properly), in the intervening 46 or so days. The clasp had been moved, and it was noticeably dirtier. Meredith's room had been basically trashed in the intervening time. The icing on the cake is that they collected it with dirty gloves and put it back on the ground.

The length of time (about 46 days) itself is of greater significance for Filomena's room, where Meredith's dried blood is a serious contamination hazard, as I have previously discussed on several occasions.

 

[MichaelB]

The Vinci report (linked above) clearly states that "non è possibile allo stato la datazione delle tracce" The it is not possible to date when the stains were left.

Considering that fact, as well as the possible scenarios for any DNA found (they all sound pretty inconsequential)...plus the fact that both Hellman and Nencini turned down requests to have the stains tested....well, sorry but it all sounds like a mountain-out-of-whatever.

And I'm not surprised you'd say that It's more fun letting your imagination run wild with the girl on girl fantasy plunging the knife into her friends throat aided by her two gimps and then running off to the park to toss the phones and doing all the 'cleaning and staging' and keeping the murder weapon to cook with.

 

[RWVBWL]

Crime Scene Video

re: "semen" stain.

I'm not well informed on the subject. So I have questions:

Did any forensic experts actually claim it was semen?

I know that the defense wanted it tested at the last appeal. Did they ask for it to be tested at the first appeal? What was Hellman's response?

If the stain had been tested and DNA had been found, how would it have affected things?

If it had been Sollecito's the outcome would have been obvious, but if it had been Guede's? If instead, it had been of an unidentified male, what new slant would it have brought to the trial?

Could the stain have been dated, as to when it was left? If it could not have been dated... would it have been useful just the same? If so, how?

Hi Vibio,
Will you, an Italian speaker, please take 1 +1/2 minutes of your life to click the link I am posting again below and watch and listen to Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni discuss testing the seminal fluid with her lab assistant Alessa that investigators found and knew about on 3 Nov. 2007? This was over a year before the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito even commenced.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlXKyMh48KQ&app=desktop

Thanks,
RW

PS-Speaking of Alessa,
here is another Alessa,
Alessa Quizon from Hawaii dukin' it out in the surf off Huntington Beach, California right now,
if your landlocked and wanna watch some of the Worlds Best girlz and boyz compete in the surf, here's a link:
http://www.aspworldtour.com/


Heya Strozzi,
Thanks for the PM link,
I enjoyed it, as I've surfed there before
and a best friend of mine is a Texan who surfs and who now lives+rips here in California pretty hard!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

testing does not provide dates

The Vinci report (linked above) clearly states that "non è possibile allo stato la datazione delle tracce" The it is not possible to date when the stains were left.

Considering that fact, as well as the possible scenarios for any DNA found (they all sound pretty inconsequential)...plus the fact that both Hellman and Nencini turned down requests to have the stains tested....well, sorry but it all sounds like a mountain-out-of-whatever.

More misleading argumentation from Vibio (why am I not surprised). Neither DNA profiling nor any test for blood provides a date. Does that mean we should not perform such tests? Moreover, discussion of what Hellmann did dodges the question of why the tests were not done in the first place. Again, can anyone think of another case of a putative semen stain that the forensic police chose not to test?

 

[Dan O.]

So did Meredith come home and start to set up her laptop to play some music while she studied that night using Robyn's borrowed history book titled "Early Modern Europe, 1450-1789", which was printed in English?

The timing of certain events with the computer could have been determined preciesly. the power manager within the computer knows how long it has been running on battery since the power cord was unplugged, it knows when the computer wakes and sleeps. There should not be a question of whether Meredith turned her laptop on that evening, whether someone unplutted the laptop to plug in the lamp. These should be known events with precise timing. It is only through the incompetence or even deliberate will not to know on the part of the ILE that these are not known.

 

[Vibio]

Again, can anyone think of another case of a putative semen stain that the forensic police chose not to test?

Ah...world wide? In the US? Give me a minute...I'm thinking...I'm thinking: off the top of my head, I can't come up with any. Obviously then... no such cases exist.

 

[Vibio]

Another question, which I can't find an answer to: in the first trial, did the defense request a test of this stain or make any objection that it was not tested?

Thanks in advance.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yeh but the DNA from semen is nuclear. There's no ifs or buts. The DNA on the clasp was LCN and contamination in the machine in the lab.

Exactly. But then you'd have to have at least a passing knowledge of DNA typing to understand the important differences such as this one, plus the fact that it's not the time between the crime occurring and the DNA collection/testing that's important. Once the item carrying the DNA has been collected by the police, and assuming it's properly collected and stored (which in itself appears to be a challenge for the "crack" forensics team in this case...), then it could remain in storage for decades and still be equally reliable for the purposes of DNA typing.

But no, the old "46 day" thing keeps getting trotted out by various pro-guilt commentators as some sort of "gotcha". I can't decide whether it's sheer ignorance or vindictive bias that makes such people unable to understand that the important thing about the 46 days in the case of the bra clasp (and the reason why it's entirely incomparable to the decades after which correctly-stored items - which were originally collected and stored soon after a crime - are tested) is that nobody knows what the heck happened to that bra clasp in those 46 days. During those 46 days, it was, without doubt, kicked around and covered in dust and debris, in a house where uncontrolled numbers of people - including burglars! - were coming through the premises and in and out of the room in which the clasp was found.

And anyhow, regardless of the 46 days, the most serious problems appear to have arisen on day 46 - the day when the clasp was eventually identified and collected by the "crack" forensic team on their return to the crime scene. I guarantee that no honest, experienced forensic investigator would fail to condemn in the strongest terms the way (documented on video for posterity!) that the clasp was handled with dirty gloves, handed around, placed again onto an unclean floor and treated like some sort of pass-the-parcel by the forensics goons. It further beggars belief that they didn't apparently even bother to test the exterior of Kercher's door for DNA (on the ludicrous premise that it was unimportant since it was the hallway-facing surface of the door!), when it was significantly likely that Sollecito's DNA may have been present on that surface and on the exterior door handle of that door.

But anyhow, back to the putative DNA stain on the pillow. Beyond all possible doubt, it should have been tested. There is zero downside to it being tested. I doubt it would be Kercher's boyfriend, since (IIRC) they only had sex in his room. And anyhow, it appears to have been wet at the time that Guede's shoe print was deposited, which appears to time it to around the time of the murder.

If that is the case, then if the stain is reliably Sollecito's semen, then he's guilty of murder (when you set this evidence against his version of events), and most courts would find Knox guilty of murder as well. And I personally would have no problem whatsoever saying: "Well now a reliable, credible piece of evidence has appeared, linking Sollecito indisputably to the murder scene, where there was none before. I now consider that he is guilty of participation in the murder, and by extension I believe Knox participated too."

If the stain is Guede's semen, then it DOES make a difference (as others have pointed out). It gives the lie, once and for all, to Guede's story of being a minor player caught up in someone else's horrible crime, and it also has material relevance to how and when Kercher was moved during and after the attack (she was moved by swinging her legs round clockwise shortly after she was stabbed, but was not moved again after death).

If the stain is someone else's semen altogether, then obviously the police and prosecutors should be looking for that person PDQ. And if it's not semen at all, well we're merely where we were before, and we haven't lost anything by conducting the test.

There's no rational argument for not testing this stain. None at all. Therefore one has to start wondering if there might be other reasons why the prosecutors seem so very reluctant to have it tested............

 

[Vibio]

Therefore one has to start wondering if there might be other reasons why the prosecutors seem so very reluctant to have it tested............

What were Hellman's stated reasons for not having it tested? Why did he feel it was not important.

And if anyone could answer my above question: "in the first trial, did the defense request a test of this stain or make any objection that it was not tested?"

I'd appreciate it.

 

[NancyS]

The Vinci report (linked above) clearly states that "non è possibile allo stato la datazione delle tracce" The it is not possible to date when the stains were left.

Considering that fact, as well as the possible scenarios for any DNA found (they all sound pretty inconsequential)...plus the fact that both Hellman and Nencini turned down requests to have the stains tested....well, sorry but it all sounds like a mountain-out-of-whatever.

So you're suggesting that Meredith looks like the kind of girl to sleep on a pillow covered in semen stains? Poor girl, the pro-guilt side will even insult her memory to continue supporting the non-sensical and total failure to investigate the semen stain. There is no excuse for not testing this stain.

 

[LondonJohn]

What were Hellman's stated reasons for not having it tested? Why did he feel it was not important.

IIRC, Hellmann didn't have to give a reason for refusing the test. But I will offer my own reasons why he refused the defence request: 1) the prosecutors informed him that there would be nothing to be gained by testing the stain, and Hellmann believed them*; 2) Hellmann realised - correctly - that the whole case hinged on a few other important areas, namely the DNA evidence, and the testimony of Curatolo and Quintavalle.

And if anyone could answer my above question: "in the first trial, did the defense request a test of this stain or make any objection that it was not tested?"

I'd appreciate it.

I thought your "above question" was about the "first appeal trial", not the "first trial". Or do I have that wrong.....?

In any case, I believe that yes, the defence did ask for testing of this stain before the commencement of the Massei trial. I'm not in a location or position to dig out a cite for this right now, so if someone else can put their hands on it easily.....


* And this, in my opinion, is another example of a recurring theme: the improperly close relationship between prosecutors and judges in the Italian criminal justice system. I firmly believe that most criminal judges in Italy are still of the reactionary mindset that the prosecutors are objectively on the side of "truth", while only the defence teams are partisan.

 

[christianahannah]

What were Hellman's stated reasons for not having it tested? Why did he feel it was not important.

And if anyone could answer my above question: "in the first trial, did the defense request a test of this stain or make any objection that it was not tested?"

I'd appreciate it.

Yes, the defense did bring up the testing/non-testing of the stain late in the first trial before the verdict.

There was ultraviolet light done on various items which did not indicate semen. I do not know if this was done on the pillowcase but it can probably be checked from testimony and work records. Vinci had done work on the pillowcase for the defense (May 2009?) but I don't recall when the stain became an issue publicly.

As for Hellmann's reasons not to test the stain I can't recall but shouldn't be difficult to find that information.

 

[MichaelB]

What were Hellman's stated reasons for not having it tested? Why did he feel it was not important.

And if anyone could answer my above question: "in the first trial, did the defense request a test of this stain or make any objection that it was not tested?"

I'd appreciate it.

I've never seen Hellmann state why he denied it and yes they did request Massei order it be tested but on the last day. My guess is they'd convinced themselves the verdict would be not guilty then realised it'd be guilty so it was a Hail Mary.

ETA: both sides lawyers are crap so they're to blame.

ETA2: You really should be asking yourself why the defense only discovered all this May 25 after Steffi had testified and if that's fair to the defendants and why she had ever noticed it and alerted them Professor Vinci seems to have found it easy enough.

 

[RWVBWL]

Yes, the defense did bring up the testing/non-testing of the stain late in the first trial before the verdict.

There was ultraviolet light done on various items which did not indicate semen.

Hi Christianahannah,
Why is Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni talking, by cell phone, with her lab assistant Alessa to test the seminal fluid stain, make that presumed seminal fluid, on the day after Miss Meredith Kercher was found horribly murdered?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlXKyMh48KQ&app=desktop

I do not know if this was done on the pillowcase but it can probably be checked from testimony and work records. Vinci had done work on the pillowcase for the defense (May 2009?) but I don't recall when the stain became an issue publicly.

As for Hellmann's reasons not to test the stain I can't recall but shouldn't be difficult to find that information.

Thanks for the info, Christianahannah,
So ILE investigators did bust out the purple light?!?
Nice to know.

The pillow case either had seminal fluid on it or not.

Semen stains show up pretty good,
I've heard, under UV light.
I've also heard it's not a good idea to bring a UV light
and check your motel room when you visit Las Vegas, hahaha...


Were are the tests results Alessa?
which your boss, Dr. Stefanoni wanted tested on 3 Nov. 2007,
1 day after Miss Kercher was found murdered.

Is there a cover-up being done somehow?



It would be interesting to read courtroom testimony from lab assistant Alessa.
Or have some hard-hitting news reporter interview Alessa to ask her if she did indeed test the seminal fluid that Dr. Stefanoni wanted tested 1 day after Meredith Kercher was found raped and murdered, days before Raffaele+ his new girlfriend Amanda Marie Knox were even arrested.

 

[Bill Williams]

The Vinci report (linked above) clearly states that "non è possibile allo stato la datazione delle tracce" The it is not possible to date when the stains were left.

Considering that fact, as well as the possible scenarios for any DNA found (they all sound pretty inconsequential)...plus the fact that both Hellman and Nencini turned down requests to have the stains tested....well, sorry but it all sounds like a mountain-out-of-whatever.

It still begs the question as to why a presumed semen stain would not be tested by the police when there was no need to get a courts' permission; meaning at the very first. (Unless of course, you are one who says that "the defence" objected to the stain's testing right there on Nov 2!!!)

C'mon, Vibio, is this itself not simply a sign of the way the PLE bungled this? Even you have to wonder....

As I understand it, the reasons why Hellmann refused to allow for a test relate to the admissibility of evidence at that late date. As for that point, though, this is where I totally agree with you..... the defence asks for a test and it is not done. I mean, if it was Sollecito's then I would be a guilter.

And given Nencini's grasp of basic DNA differences between men and women, who knows - maybe Nencini would have found that the stain belonged to one of Meredtih's "amica". Or maybe Amanda herself.

As someone who is way, way up in the bleachers trying to make sense of what is happening down on the playing field below, it looks to me like there was someone who did not want to solve this case, and wanted a reason for prolonging it as it has been. Not testing that stain ranks right up there.

As for there being no "date stamp" to DNA, I curious as to why that does not also apply to Amanda's "biological material" found mixed with Meredith's blood in the very bathroom they shared. Just when was the "date stamp" on Amanda's DNA?

 

[Vibio]

Yes, the defense did bring up the testing/non-testing of the stain late in the first trial before the verdict.

So it didn't even become an issue for the defense until late in the first trial before the verdict.

And then testing was requested for the appeal, and Hellman refused.

Got it. Thanks.


--

 

[LondonJohn]

So it didn't become an issue for the defense until late in the first trial before the verdict.

Got it. Thanks.

You've got it? Good. And what do you infer from it?

You're aware (I'm guessing/hoping) that the police - and by direct extension, the prosecutors - are the chief custodians of all the physical evidence in a criminal case? You're aware that it's actually the responsibility of prosecutors - even in Italy! - to examine ALL evidence that may be of any potential probative value (whether it might potentially point towards or against the defendant(s), or towards someone else altogether)?

If you recognise the above, then you might be able to infer that the prosecutors should have ordered a test of this stain as an obligatory matter of course. Even in Italy. That the defence teams were apparently slow to pick up on the prosecutors' gross lapse in responsibility (and in my view the defence teams were badly deficient in several areas on this case) does absolutely nothing to deflect attention from the fault that should be assigned to the prosecutors on this matter.