• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
So if the DNA were discovered and the guy never had been in the cottage before the murder you wouldn't pursue it? Do you have any information that the cottage was robbed during the hiatus?

Now let's say the police decided that it would be worthwhile tracking this guy down and he had no alibi, Koko admitted he drove him there night (questioning recorded), he had a history of violence and Rudi finally conceded he was the "blond guy" would the DNA have any probative value?

Even without the above the discovery of the DNA would be of value and should have moved the investigation in a new direction.

I might consider it an investigatory tool but at least I would be extremely loathe to present in court. If in a jury, it was presented as evidence of guilt (and there was no other strong evidence), I would vote "not guilty."

If, on the other hand, the bra clasp was collected at the time of the murder and proper procedures were followed, might not quite tip to guilty but it would be a strong item of evidence.
 
Thank you dear sir. I go from the last spot I was when I resume being on the thread so I didn't see the link until after responding. My deepest apologies.
No apology necessary. Have you tried clicking on the first unread post button when you arrive at the thread? It takes you to the first unread post! :)
 
This post above needs to be tweeted and retweeted.

How can anyone (with a straight face) say that the December search produced any meaningful forensics? The whole case against Raffaele rests upon the bra-clasp; that is before even considering that Judge Nencini is about to be given the ISC stamp of approval that woman have Y-haplotypes!

The mattress is missing. Say that again, the mattress is missing.

The United Sections of Cassation needs to review that video, as does the US State Department.

Bill the mattress was moved by the detectives after the CSI was supposed to be done. Nencini's mistake, if he in fact made it as you describe, has absolutely nothing to do with the second search and does nothing to shine light on the value of forensics found after the non-CSI search.

While I don't accept the case against Raf, you misrepresent what the case against him is. You are purposely misrepresenting in order to deceive and we all know what that means.

They say the footprint on the bathmat matches. They say he lied about staying in all night. They say he turned off his phones to avoid detection. They say that he called the police after the postals arrived. They say that his knife had Meredith's DNA on it.

I don't believe the clasp is good evidence and state that so that no one here gets confused, but I don't believe that it was not possible to have discovered something on the 18th of value. No one has refuted that had they found Raf's semen or blood on the clasp or elsewhere it would have been great evidence. Same is true of anyone else like Koko or his buddy.
 
No apology necessary. Have you tried clicking on the first unread post button when you arrive at the thread? It takes you to the first unread post! :)

Stop being pedantic :p

Yes I know how to go to the last post but I PREFER to take up the thread where I left it and bore people with responses that have already been covered :o
 
IIRC it was stolen much later when the cottage was broken into and people lit candles and had some sort of rite. I think it was a Lutheran or Methodist rite :rolleyes:

Here I thought it was were the blood samples from the Bojangles in the WM3 case :D

Seriously, I think I remember at least seeing the security tape was broken long before the second go through. That does put all evidence, especially trace, in a very questionable light at best.

I keep asking that, if they were determined to go back, why they could not have at least followed proper protocols. This was not some some tiny US city police department. Actually I have seen better procedures out of the police in some small US cities, even in one case actually keeping the whole camper that was the scene of a murder.
 
I might consider it an investigatory tool but at least I would be extremely loathe to present in court. If in a jury, it was presented as evidence of guilt (and there was no other strong evidence), I would vote "not guilty."

If, on the other hand, the bra clasp was collected at the time of the murder and proper procedures were followed, might not quite tip to guilty but it would be a strong item of evidence.

I didn't say they wouldn't turn up other evidence and without a doubt the discovery would be very significant for the investigation.

If the guy couldn't explain at all how his DNA was in the cottage I would be prone to convict him especially if he didn't have an alibi and was associated with a guy, Koko, that admitted being there that night.

If the substance was semen or blood I wouldn't need more.

If the clasp had been found immediately and had all the other donors I wouldn't think more of it than I do now. Frankly I don't believe that it picked up Raf's DNA on the floor but rather it was placed there or arrive from Meredith touching Raf or a towel and then transferred it to the clasp.
 
I repeat a question: If they had found LCN DNA of Koko or an Albanian gang member on the December search does anyone think that discovery would not be significant because of time or the movement of the contents?


For all we know they are on the clasp - there are unidentified profiles after all. Anyway, I'm afraid I wouldn't consider it significant evidence, no. There's too much contamination and disruption in that crime scene for any DNA evidence collected in December to be compelling as far as I'm concerned. Wasn't the cottage broken into between the two collection dates? Plus the lab work seems incompetent. I don't think Rudy's DNA collected in December should be admissible either - they screwed up.

If they found a hidden stash of someone's (e.g. Rudy's) clothes, or the knife, somewhere other than the cottage, that would be significant. But the cottage was completely trashed, clothes and shoes all over the place - bloody items mixed with non-bloody. Any amount of DNA transfer could have occurred, and who knows who the residents of that cottage came into contact with in the preceding months?
 
Bill the mattress was moved by the detectives after the CSI was supposed to be done. Nencini's mistake, if he in fact made it as you describe, has absolutely nothing to do with the second search and does nothing to shine light on the value of forensics found after the non-CSI search.

While I don't accept the case against Raf, you misrepresent what the case against him is. You are purposely misrepresenting in order to deceive and we all know what that means.

They say the footprint on the bathmat matches. They say he lied about staying in all night. They say he turned off his phones to avoid detection. They say that he called the police after the postals arrived. They say that his knife had Meredith's DNA on it.

I don't believe the clasp is good evidence and state that so that no one here gets confused, but I don't believe that it was not possible to have discovered something on the 18th of value. No one has refuted that had they found Raf's semen or blood on the clasp or elsewhere it would have been great evidence. Same is true of anyone else like Koko or his buddy.
Grinder, you said upthread the bra clasp discovery was unrelated to the shoe ring thing. How do you know this? My understanding of the sequence is:

1 shoe ring discovery
2 Francesco and relative blab about it on phone
3 Cops pick that up
4 Cops 'find' clasp
5 Family goes public with shoe rings
6 Cops announce clasp result
 
The focus was on Amanda, Raffaele, Patrick and Rudy

Police video shot on December 18, 2007: Part 1, Part 2.


Thanks for the links Methos!
I too plan on watching the full version...


I actually do agree with Grinder that the performance surrounding the collection of the bra clasp isn't necessarily an outlier.

As anglo says, the whole video of the 18th December search is illuminating... it's proper cargo cult science. The police make a song and dance of putting marker letters next to items that they've just dug out from a pile of clothes and photographing them in positions that they've just decided upon. As if those locations of items have any relevance at all.

It's like they're acting out what they should have done on the 2nd November.

At the beginning of one of the videos, they spend ages removing a huge pile of clothes from the bed (which no longer has the mattress), then place Meredith's purse on the bed slats with a marker and photograph it - why?? Then, after all that, they seal it in an evidence bag. It's a joke.

They do make the biggest performance of the finding of the bra clasp, but they do make a performance of the other "finds" too. Just not to the same extent.

The worst bit for me is when they pick up the blood soaked jacket. They spend about ten minutes examining all the creases and patches of blood, as if they're looking for extra evidence - like they do with the bra clasp. What are they expecting to see? What kind of procedure could possibly even involve examining an item in (pretend) detail at the crime scene, instead of bagging it up carefully for the lab? The goon holding the jacket then proceeds to turn the sleeves the right way round, even though the fact that they are inside out is evidence of the way the coat was removed from Meredith!

Cargo cult science. It could well be for the benefit of the defence watching in the van, but either way it's all a performance, and looks intended to make crucial evidence collected far too late (for no reason except incompetence) look like it's valid.


Hi Lonepinealex
Your post is interesting to me, because I now know, from reading of an exchange between MichaelB and jar, that Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni only had 5 DNA profiles to compare any evidence she collected to test against!

Dr. Stefaoni had DNA profiles from Miss Meredith Kercher,
and only the people that the police thought were guilty and were pursuing to convict:
Patrick Diya Lumumba, Rudy Guede, Raffaele Sollecito, and Amanda Knox.
No one else.


Here folks,
have a read of this exchange found on IIP:
Written by jar of PMF.org:
<snip>
Stefanoni did find some DNA profiles that are unrelated to the perps. She identified these with their gender and gave them numbers. I believe these numbers were not simply to enumerate the profiles but to distinguish them as quite separate profiles but I may be wrong. If the latter is the case then there is no match in these unattributed profiles. They are all separate people.

What none of us know is what comparison profiles were available to her eg Filomena, Laura etc. However fingerprint comparisons were obviously available for these two girls and for Giacomo Silenzi as their fingerprints were located in the flat so it would be surprising, if not incredible, if their DNA profiles (and those of the investigators) were not also available for comparison.

Of the unattributed profiles these were found on the cigarette stubs in the ash tray and on discarded tissues with blood found in the driveway and on the road. Had there been any match between the tissues and the cigarette stubs that would have been most interesting.
<snip>


Reply by MichaelB:
<snip>
Patrizia Stefanoni Testimony p144

Q – Just to clarify here before answering the questions of my colleague has said that you had a profile … four genetic profiles.
A – By reference, yes.
Q – In fact there were five.
A – And the victim’s.
Q – Of course the victim’s, then we say that the genetic profiles were five in total, the two defendants, the victim, Lumumba, and Rudy?
A – Yes.
Q – And nothing else?
A – No


jar's reply:
<snip>
he has quoted Stefanoni's testimony to confirm that she was working with 5 comparison DNA profiles only : Meredith, Lumumba, Knox, Sollecito and Guede. Furthermore I have checked and he is right. Stefanoni had those profiles and only those profiles for reference purposes. That can go on the record.jar


I have to wonder,
what about any unattributed DNA or fingerprints?
 
Unattributed DNA and Fingerprints....

I'd like to add some fingerprint info from old Perugia Shock:
"At the end 108 pictures were taken, each one containing one to three signs. It would be too long to say what was found where. Also there's a bit of confusion with full or partial fingerprints or stains but at the end we may say that of these signs 97 could be said to be fingerprints. 47 belonged to Meredith Kercher, 17 to Rudy Guede, 5 to Raffaele Sollecito, 5 to Filomena Romanelli, 5 to Laura Mezzetti, 4 to Giacomo Silenzi, 1 to Amanda Knox, 13 were not attributed to anyone.

The experts were not surprised at all that there weren't fingerprints, for instance, on Amanda's guitar or on the knives lying on the kitchen sink. They explained that if you wash the cutlery and then you dry it with a dish cloth you don't leave any fingerprint (for not to speak if you use washing gloves).
Scientific police were not surprised at all that there was only one Amanda's fingerprint in the whole house. On a glass there were 3 signs, one of them was recognized as Amanda's fingerprint. The other 2 signs, unreadable, must be the other fingers she used to grab the glass.
We thought, for instance, that Meredith's cellphones were submerged with fingerprints since the many people who touched them before knowing they were so important. And instead only two prints were found on them and one inside one of them.

Now that we know that is so difficult to leave fingerprints, that it's so easy to cancel them, and that there were so many of them we can hardly maintain that a clean-up was performed, even just in the kitchen. The lack of Amanda's fingerprints can be more likely explained with the fact that she wasn't there the night of the crime and that when she came back she didn't have occasion to leave fingerprints having taken a shower and having not touched the right surfaces in the right way.
If we then start to finally consider those 13 unattributed fingerprints, together with the unknown DNA detected, and the other clues that we have seen (two male people running) we understand again that the scenario could be really different from the depicted one and insisting on Amanda and Raffaele maybe had the effect of misleading the investigation from the right direction."


From another old Perugia Shock post:
"Raffaele's fingerprints were found on Laura's door,
and nothing of him and Amanda was in Meredith's room. Amanda had only one, on a glass.
As we can see their fingerprints locations are perfectly compatible with the check of the apartment Amanda and Raffaele did when, in the morning after the crime, they found out there was something strange in the house.

Anyone else?
Among the 13 unattributed fingerprints only 4 were found in Meredith's room. 2 on a little calendar and 2 on the door. So not really central locations. But 4 is still an important number if we consider that the main actor left only one. Will they ever find an owner?"


Hmmmm.
ILE had fingerprint samples from Meredith, Giacomo, Filomena, Laura, Amanda, Raffaele, and Rudy Guede.
And they had DNA profiles from Meredith, Amanda, Raffaele, Rudy, and even Patrick.

BUT they DID NOT have DNA profiles of Filomena, Laura, nor even Giacomo?

If she had them,
might Dr. Stefanoni had been able to further narrow down those unattributed DNA profiles found+tested?

Or did they belong to someone else who had no reason to be at Meredith's flat that night?

I sometimes wonder to whom those unattributed fingerprints that were found in Meredith Kercher's flat belonged too, + now I'm gonna wonder who's DNA did the unattributed profiles belong to. Something to keep in mind when I watch the crime scene video that Metho's linked above...
RW
 
Last edited:
No apology necessary. Have you tried clicking on the first unread post button when you arrive at the thread? It takes you to the first unread post! :)

I just create a bookmark http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=281429&page=200. That automatically takes me to the last page in the thread. And then work backward from there. Usually I am only a page or two behind. Unless the page is larger than 200. I guess I could create a page =500. The thread never goes that high.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of DNA...

I found this long ago post from Fine a moment ago,
any chance that Diocletus can have a look at it?

"Charlie
This entry from your list of samples taken from Meredith's bedroom:

"Rep. 111: Gummy white substance on left wall of wardrobe .... No profile"

This appears to be chewing gum. But if chewing gum shouldn't it have revealed a DNA profile of the person---Meredith or an assailant---who had chewed the gum? Did the prosecution or defense ever incorporate this "gummy white substance" into a crime scenario?"
///


Reply from Charlie Wilkes:
"I'm not aware of any attention being paid to this, because it didn't yield a profile. It seems like it could have been a number of things, maybe some kind of adhesive or cosmetic."


Hey Diocletus, or anyone else:
What do you think?
Gum?
Cosmetics?
Adhesive?
Weird that apparently no attention was paid to this...
RW
 
...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.


Didn't you get the memo? Laura testified that there was a second mop in the garden.
 
I didn't say they wouldn't turn up other evidence and without a doubt the discovery would be very significant for the investigation.

If the guy couldn't explain at all how his DNA was in the cottage I would be prone to convict him especially if he didn't have an alibi and was associated with a guy, Koko, that admitted being there that night.
If the substance was semen or blood I wouldn't need more.
If the clasp had been found immediately and had all the other donors I wouldn't think more of it than I do now. Frankly I don't believe that it picked up Raf's DNA on the floor but rather it was placed there or arrive from Meredith touching Raf or a towel and then transferred it to the clasp.

YOu run into the argument of why they did not test the semen sample they seem to have had under her body?
Makes me wonder, maybe the Italian police lost the sample and do not want to admit it?
 
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.


I know part 3 of that video got lost in transport. I didn't know that there was a part 4. Have you got links?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom