Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

A bullet in a wall. A secret stash. A concrete anchor. Many times more information gathered will make a new search fruitful as new items are subject of the search. Though I don't know the details of the Scott Peterson case I doubt that they examined the boat and bags of concrete mix when they first went to the house

It is absurd to say that the police must gather all evidence on the first visit or it is useless.

I have multiple times used the word "Trace Evidence"

Trace evidence is created when objects contact. Material is often transferred by heat induced by contact friction.

The importance of trace evidence in criminal investigations was shown by Dr. Edmond Locard in the early 20th Century. Since then, forensic scientists use trace evidence to reconstruct crimes, and to describe the people, places and things involved in them. Studies of homicides published in the forensic science literature show how trace evidence is used to solve crimes. Trace evidence is important in accident investigation, where movement of one part against another will often leave a tell-tale mark. Such analysis is of great use in forensic engineering.

Further down the page. . . . .

Protection

The first preservation is to photograph in situ, and then remove the objects showing key traces, protect them, and analyse under controlled laboratory conditions.

Many techniques are used in the protection of trace evidence from criminal investigations, although all must be photographed as soon as possible, and while still in place. Samples may be collected by shaking, brushing, taping, vacuuming, swabbing and hand picking. Great care may be needed to prevent contamination with other substances (such as natural oil and sweat on the hand of the collector). In some cases, such as with oil or grease, a solvent extraction can be used to collect the evidence for analysis. The method used for collection is generally dependent on both the type of evidence and from where or what sort of object it is being collected.

Trace Evidence is also found in much smaller amounts at crime scenes.

 

[Strozzi]

Thanks both. What exactly is a (or the) United States Code?

I wonder whether there are any cases? What does 'unjustly deprived' of liberty mean? Does it mean only 'otherwise than in accordance with the law of the foreign power' (itself not free from ambiguity) or merely 'unjust'? And how is it 'made known' to the President? You just write him a letter or convene a four-week hearing in the Oval Office to make submissions? There must be a department in the White House which exists to have things made known to it on the President's behalf.

Good questions, Anglo. I know a lawyer in Washington DC who ought to know the answers to that. I'll send him an email with your questions.

 

[Grinder]

Well that's extremely pedantic. I took the other posters to be referring specifically to the collection of DNA evidence, but I'm happy to be corrected by them.

frankly I don't give a damn what those saying those things now say.

here

I was addressing the repeated contention that the video was just theater and that the way they showed the clasp has nefarious meaning. If as I understand it the defense was watching from the van it doesn't have the same meaning as if it was done without them watching. There may have been audio that I'm not aware of.

They seem to have gone to the crime scene to pick up one item of evidence and made a big show out of it. They then could not follow proper crime scene procedures. . ..That is not a show?

ETA - I'm sure the best CSI people return to crime scenes and in some cases more than 46 days later.

Maybe to see if there is something about the lay of the crime scene.
Collecting evidence at that point is close to useless however

No reference to DNA. This has been an ongoing meme that a crime is useless if it isn't sealed off for the duration.

One poster here thinks that Filomena's room is of no value because the PP and Filomena entered it.

Depending on what the evdience is even trace DNA just because a period of time went by doesn't make it useless. As earlier mentioned if the bra had contained a small amount of Raf's DNA from semen it would be very powerful evidence.

Btw they didn't go to pick up one piece - another error I know pedantic but in the end details matter

 

[Desert Fox]

frankly I don't give a damn what those saying those things now say.

here



No reference to DNA. This has been an ongoing meme that a crime is useless if it isn't sealed off for the duration.

One poster here thinks that Filomena's room is of no value because the PP and Filomena entered it.

Depending on what the evdience is even trace DNA just because a period of time went by doesn't make it useless. As earlier mentioned if the bra had contained a small amount of Raf's DNA from semen it would be very powerful evidence.

Btw they didn't go to pick up one piece - another error I know pedantic but in the end details matter

I used the term "Trace" repeatedly. While DNA was the main item I was arguing, I also was thinking of hairs and the like. Any evidence that is easily tracked or carried is a potential contaminant. Edit: Not every post, sure, but enough times that I thought it was clear what I meant.

Remember I used the term "Virtually" not "Completely"
There is always a certain amount of case by case basis.
They were perfectly in their right to go back into the crime scene and investigate.

Collecting items for trace evidence collection however seems to have made no sense. Even if it had made sense, then not following proper handling procedures made a farce out of even that.

Edit-2: The issue here is what did the prosecution hope to gain by this second collection. I think it is pretty well know that it is interesting how this occurred right after the shoe print evidence against Raff fell apart.

 

[Bill Williams]

One poster here thinks that Filomena's room is of no value because the PP and Filomena entered it.
Depending on what the evdience is even trace DNA just because a period of time went by doesn't make it useless. As earlier mentioned if the bra had contained a small amount of Raf's DNA from semen it would be very powerful evidence.

Btw they didn't go to pick up one piece - another error I know pedantic but in the end details matter

That would be me. I'm not sure I said strictly what you claim...... in relation to the claim that Filomena's room was "rummaged about in" prior to the discovery of Meredith I probably did.....

..... what use is the condition in which that room was later seen by cops in determining that it had been "staged" to look like a break in if it had been "rummaged about in", between the time of the break-in (staged or not) and the time cops arrived late afternoon Nov 2?

I'm going to risk this, because the term has been used by Desert Fox without any complaint from you, but what the cops later saw was not the room, in situ. It was altered.

Ok.... back to regularly scheduled haranguing.

 

[Grinder]

I used the term "Trace" repeatedly. While DNA was the main item I was arguing, I also was thinking of hairs and the like. Any evidence that is easily tracked or carried is a potential contaminant. Edit: Not every post, sure, but enough times that I thought it was clear what I meant.

Remember I used the term "Virtually" not "Completely"
There is always a certain amount of case by case basis.
They were perfectly in their right to go back into the crime scene and investigate.

Collecting items for trace evidence collection however seems to have made no sense. Even if it had made sense, then not following proper handling procedures made a farce out of even that.

Edit-2: The issue here is what did the prosecution hope to gain by this second collection. I think it is pretty well know that it is interesting how this occurred right after the shoe print evidence against Raff fell apart.

You use trace more than once. others didn't. The meme about them going in after the shoes were ruled out is a bit off in that the revisit had been scheduled for some time and the police knew the shoes didn't match for some time as well.

Some trace evidence would be of meaning as I have demonstrated. The bra clasp could have meaning but the mixed and varied DNA make it near if not completely worthless.

Whether F's room was in situ or not didn't impact the initial impressions by the PP. As with many crimes the first discoverers didn't know the extent of the crime at the beginning. Had Rudi's DNA and hair been found on the window it would have been perfectly solid evidence even though F had gone in the room with a PP.

The issue with most all trace evidence of the LCN DNA nature in a house used by someone is that it could be there for innocent reasons. I asked before without reply: what would people think if the clasp had been picked up immediately with the same result? The fact is that Raf could have touched it while on the drying rack or Meredith could have dried her hands on a towel previously used by Raf and then touched it. LCN DNA needs to be clearly from the crime - now if it was lcn but from semen that would be another story.

 

[Bill Williams]

You use trace more than once. others didn't. The meme about them going in after the shoes were ruled out is a bit off in that the revisit had been scheduled for some time and the police knew the shoes didn't match for some time as well.

Some trace evidence would be of meaning as I have demonstrated. The bra clasp could have meaning but the mixed and varied DNA make it near if not completely worthless.

Whether F's room was in situ or not didn't impact the initial impressions by the PP. As with many crimes the first discoverers didn't know the extent of the crime at the beginning. Had Rudi's DNA and hair been found on the window it would have been perfectly solid evidence even though F had gone in the room with a PP.

The issue with most all trace evidence of the LCN DNA nature in a house used by someone is that it could be there for innocent reasons. I asked before without reply: what would people think if the clasp had been picked up immediately with the same result? The fact is that Raf could have touched it while on the drying rack or Meredith could have dried her hands on a towel previously used by Raf and then touched it. LCN DNA needs to be clearly from the crime - now if it was lcn but from semen that would be another story.

I beg to differ. Acc. to all what the postal police found confusing is that the scene in Filomena's did not look like a burglary.

Unfortunately, the Postal Police could not be hermetically sealed after their initial comments/reaction. There is not way after the discovery of Meredith's body, and the leaking of details of, "police say that the scene was staged to look like a break in," for the postals not to then equate the two slightly different interpretations.

 

[Grinder]

I beg to differ. Acc. to all what the postal police found confusing is that the scene in Filomena's did not look like a burglary.

Unfortunately, the Postal Police could not be hermetically sealed after their initial comments/reaction. There is not way after the discovery of Meredith's body, and the leaking of details of, "police say that the scene was staged to look like a break in," for the postals not to then equate the two slightly different interpretations.

Bill the PP looked at the room before F returned. The only issue of anything being altered was the glass on top of things.

Why would say the PP should be hermetically sealed?

My recollection is that the scene was immediately thought to be sealed. I also seem to remember that you stated that the room was spoiled for any evidence because F and the PP entered.

quicquid

 

[Chris_Halkides]

problems with biological evidence over a gap in time

Dried blood has a tendency to flake, and it is a serious contamination risk IMO. DNA, particularly low template DNA, is also very questionable as evidence with respect to the long gap. My present position is that biological evidence such should be taken at a deep discount, and I am strongly inclined to throw it out completely. Another issue is that by the 18th of December, the suspects had already been arrested and supposedly grave indications of guilt existed. This fact increases the odds of unconscious bias, conscious bias, or evidence tampering on the part of the FP.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill the PP looked at the room before F returned.
True.

The only issue of anything being altered was the glass on top of things.

Not sure what this refers to. Initially Battistelli had said, "this is not burglary." My contention is that it was later when the real cops discovered a need for the room's condition to have been faked, that Battistelli altered his recollection to be consistent with what the real cops were saying.

Why would say the PP should be hermetically sealed?

It is a "what if". What if the postal cops had never become aware of the need for the break-in to have appeared staged? What would they have said in that case? It's rhetorical.

My recollection is that the scene was immediately thought to be sealed. I also seem to remember that you stated that the room was spoiled for any evidence because F and the PP entered.

quicquid

I do not recall saying "any evidence", I made the point many moons ago that since folk were allowed to rummage through their room (picking up clothes on the floor? Disturbing the glass which was supposed to have been only on top of the clothes? Who knows, moving the bag with the rock in it..... stealing one's own laptop from behind crimescene tape....), and all this happens before the horrible discovery, what can be said about any forensic information found in the days afterwards?

This is not rocket science. It's, "O let's just pretend it did not happen, and pretend that by the time Napoleoni or Mignini got there, they were looking at the room as staged by Knox and Sollecito." In situ.

It's called the "let's pretend" version of police investigation.

Isn't it "quidquid"?

 

[Grinder]

Dried blood has a tendency to flake, and it is a serious contamination risk IMO. DNA, particularly low template DNA, is also very questionable as evidence with respect to the long gap. My present position is that biological evidence such should be taken at a deep discount, and I am strongly inclined to throw it out completely. Another issue is that by the 18th of December, the suspects had already been arrested and supposedly grave indications of guilt existed. This fact increases the odds of unconscious bias, conscious bias, or evidence tampering on the part of the FP.

All DNA is suspect when the people knew each other well, unless the source was clearly connected to the crime. As I said earlier if the DNA was on the clasp and was from semen that would need some splaning.

The clasp DNA isn't bad because of the time maybe the movement but mainly because of the mixture of people on it and the lack of supporting evidence like on the rest of the bra.

 

[Desert Fox]

I do not recall saying "any evidence", I made the point many moons ago that since folk were allowed to rummage through their room (picking up clothes on the floor? Disturbing the glass which was supposed to have been only on top of the clothes? Who knows, moving the bag with the rock in it..... stealing one's own laptop from behind crimescene tape....), and all this happens before the horrible discovery, what can be said about any forensic information found in the days afterwards?

This is not rocket science. It's, "O let's just pretend it did not happen, and pretend that by the time Napoleoni or Mignini got there, they were looking at the room as staged by Knox and Sollecito." In situ.

If a crime scene looked messed up, I would assume that either the robber tossed the room or the resident grabbed something (or several somethings) from the room.

 

[Desert Fox]

You use trace more than once. others didn't. The meme about them going in after the shoes were ruled out is a bit off in that the revisit had been scheduled for some time and the police knew the shoes didn't match for some time as well.

Some trace evidence would be of meaning as I have demonstrated. The bra clasp could have meaning but the mixed and varied DNA make it near if not completely worthless.

Whether F's room was in situ or not didn't impact the initial impressions by the PP. As with many crimes the first discoverers didn't know the extent of the crime at the beginning. Had Rudi's DNA and hair been found on the window it would have been perfectly solid evidence even though F had gone in the room with a PP.

The issue with most all trace evidence of the LCN DNA nature in a house used by someone is that it could be there for innocent reasons. I asked before without reply: what would people think if the clasp had been picked up immediately with the same result? The fact is that Raf could have touched it while on the drying rack or Meredith could have dried her hands on a towel previously used by Raf and then touched it. LCN DNA needs to be clearly from the crime - now if it was lcn but from semen that would be another story.

Let us suggest that Guede argued "I robbed the house but I never touched Meredeth. Never encountered anybody and was never in her bedroom. I tried the door handle of her room but was locked."

Let us say that they collected the bra clasp using proper procedures in the initial investigation and found his DNA on it. Because he claims to have never been in her room or touched her, if his DNA, even LCN, was on the clasp it would at least have a weak meaning."

Let us now say that after six weeks they come back and collect the the bra clasp. They find it on the floor having been effectively kicked around and the investigators also do not follow proper protocols. Assuming they find his DNA, it is no longer really usable evidence (or at least should not.) The DNA could have come from the investigators tracking it into the room originally or from handling the door knob.

 

[Bill Williams]

Grinder - I realize you're not on good terms about Candace Dempery, but on pp. 61-62 of her book she quite accurately describes the role the postal police play in the coming rhetorical war that continues to this day.

"From that point on, all was conflict and contradiction....", the point in question being the arrival of the postal police. Indeed, even their arrival time became a crucial propaganda point....

"..... a battle of words. Raffaele and Amanda were on one side: prosecution, witnesses and police, on the other. All sides agreed that the couple was outside at this point, on the lawn. The disagreement: had Michele Battistelli and Fabio Farzi, two officers from the Postal Police, hot on the trail of Filomena's cell phone, arrived after Raffaele called the Carabinieri?.... the Postal Police insisted they arrived first...."

The battle to control the narrative began there - whatever sins you think Dempsey had, she's nailed that point.

You see it wasn't just the arrival time of Battistelli and Farzi which was crucial to maintain the theory that Amanda and Raffaele had been up all night faking a crime-scene. (For the record, even in convicting AK and RS, even Judge Massei in 2009 believed that Raffaele had called the Carabinieri before the postals arrived....)

It also included the initial comments of the Postals about the condition of Filomena's room. These initial comments later became Battistelli being able to tell (at trial) that this was a faked break-in, although he himself was not trained in anything like that. For him (later as he insisted) the position of the glass "on top of the clothes" was the clue, although no photographs concurred with his assertion.

It also included the postals saying that AK and RS had been caught with a mop and bucket - a mop and bucket which was forensicly proved to have had nothing to do with the murder, or any alleged clean-up.

What is hidden, mainly, is the postals mishandling of the crime-scene - allowing Filomena to rummage about in her room "for a couple of minutes". As much as the postals can be forgiven for that, because no one at that time thought this scene said "murder", incredibly Filomena was allowed to go fetch her laptop. "Allowed" might be the wrong word, but when she later brought that laptop to surrender it at the Questura, the cops there nearly had apoplexy.

The whole episode with the postals is a mini-version of the whole debate. At the end of the day, the postals contribute nothing to the understanding of this horrid crime because they simply blew it. It did not stop Mignini from trying to make hay out of them, but even Judge Massei, even in convicting AK and RS, disbelieved the postals....

Dempsey simply nails it on pp. 61-62 as to the problems they introduced in this case, and how the point of complete disagreement begins with them.

 

[acbytesla]

All DNA is suspect when the people knew each other well, unless the source was clearly connected to the crime. As I said earlier if the DNA was on the clasp and was from semen that would need some splaning.

The clasp DNA isn't bad because of the time maybe the movement but mainly because of the mixture of people on it and the lack of supporting evidence like on the rest of the bra.

The problem with the time Grinder is the opportunity for foul play. There is a reason that providing a chain of evidence is important.

But I agree with you that there are far worse problems with DNA from the bra clasp than the 46 days. That is rather minor in the scheme of things compared with the other issues. The poor collection procedures. The multiple male alleles. The lack of EDF files that would allow a better analysis by everyone. The DNA being LCN DNA. The lack of any repetitive tests. I'm sure that there are others I haven't listed.

 

[Strozzi]

I used the term "Trace" repeatedly. While DNA was the main item I was arguing, I also was thinking of hairs and the like. Any evidence that is easily tracked or carried is a potential contaminant. Edit: Not every post, sure, but enough times that I thought it was clear what I meant.

Remember I used the term "Virtually" not "Completely"
There is always a certain amount of case by case basis.
They were perfectly in their right to go back into the crime scene and investigate.

Collecting items for trace evidence collection however seems to have made no sense. Even if it had made sense, then not following proper handling procedures made a farce out of even that.

Edit-2: The issue here is what did the prosecution hope to gain by this second collection. I think it is pretty well know that it is interesting how this occurred right after the shoe print evidence against Raff fell apart.

Yes, and I have said several times that there was no way that Stefanoni was going to mobilize her busy lab assistants in Rome, return with them to the Perugia crime scene, coordinate support from the Perugia police and Mignini's office, give proper notification to defense lawyers to come observe via video from a police van outside, go into the cottage, recover the bra clasp, treat it like the crown jewel, drop it to the floor in order to photograph it in situ, take it back to her Rome lab for testing - do all that and THEN discover that it did not have Raffaele's DNA on it. She knew she would "cook the books" in her lab with it.

What she did not anticipate was the DNA of five people - including 2 Y-chromosome amiga - on it, which suggests either a dirty floor or a dirty process in the lab. Which is why after testing it (switching lab machines in the process), Stefanoni removed the bra clasp from the plastic evidence envelope it was stored in and put the clasp in a liquid-filled test tube to deteriorate it so it could never be re-tested.

Machiavelli, this is what being compatible with means.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

improper collection of the clasp

All DNA is suspect when the people knew each other well, unless the source was clearly connected to the crime. As I said earlier if the DNA was on the clasp and was from semen that would need some splaning.

The clasp DNA isn't bad because of the time maybe the movement but mainly because of the mixture of people on it and the lack of supporting evidence like on the rest of the bra.

The clasp should have been excluded because it was not collected properly. They should have used disposable tweezers or something equivalent.

 

[Strozzi]

If a crime scene looked messed up, I would assume that either the robber tossed the room or the resident grabbed something (or several somethings) from the room.

After Filomena, Amanda, and their respective boyfriends and Filomena's 2 other friends were ordered out of the cottage, what did the two Postal Police do? In what rooms did they go? what did they touch?

Did one of the Postal Police move Amanda's bedroom lamp to the floor just inside Meredith's door and then lie about it like he lied about not entering the room and lifting the duvet up off the victim?

 

[anglolawyer]

Grinder

Have you actually watched the Dec 18 video from end to end? It's quite a performance and well worth four hours of your free time.

 

[acbytesla]

Grinder

Have you actually watched the Dec 18 video from end to end? It's quite a performance and well worth four hours of your free time.

Out of curiosity anglo.. Do you have a link for it? I haven't watched it.