Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

I am new to this forum but not to this case. Starting to look at the evidence shortly before the 2011 exonerations, I realised that the prosecution's burden was insurmountable as soon as I discovered that there was no physical evidence of Amanda Knox in Meredith Kercher's bedroom. Now, three years on we have extraordinary judicial conjecture based on a misplaced lamp and a demonstrably inept attribution of a size 37 shoe print. Admittedly, we need to add the evidence of the unfortunate boyfriend's presence in the room - the well rehearsed dragonfly theory - but all in all, the pro-guilt meal is rather nutrition less fare.

But here's a thing. Why wasn't Amanda Knox's DNA found in the murder room? It seems to me that it's astonishing good fortune for her that it wasn't. Not because she's a murderer, which she plainly isn't and not because she cleaned the crime scene, which she plainly didn't. In the 42 days that she and Meredith Kercher shared accommodation together, how many times would Ms Knox have been in the room - just hanging out, chatting, trying on clothes and for any number of myriad legitimate reasons? Would the scientists here agree with me that it should have been far more likely than not that her DNA would have been found?

Amanda Knox has been devastatingly unlucky that the circumstances of the murder have meant she has been unable, by a whisker, actually to prove her innocence, but with regard to the lack of evidence of her presence in Meredith Kercher's bedroom, she has surely been very lucky indeed.

AFAIK, no DNA of Meredith Kercher was found in Amanda Knox's room, just as no DNA of Amanda Knox was found in Meredith Kercher's room. Furthermore, the Forensic Police, AFAIK, did not sample for Filomena's or Laura's DNA at all, nor did they obtain reference samples from the two Italian roommates.

While you assume that these young women would be visiting each other in their bedrooms, this may be unlikely, since the bedrooms were small and crowded, while there were common areas - the kitchen/living room and a balcony - where they were known to interact. They shared some meals and sometimes watched TV together, for example.

Your sentence which I have highlighted appears to me to reflect a basic misunderstanding of the principles of justice. It is the prosecution which must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty. And according to the Italian Constitution, a defendant is presumed innocent until the trial process and sentence is final - that is, the CSC finalizes a verdict. Based upon the verdict of the Hellmann court, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito (remember him) were totally innocent of involvement in the rape and murder of Meredith Kercher. All known reliable evidence supports that acquittal, IMO. The quashing of the Hellmann acquittal and the Nencini verdict are a continuation of the violation of the defendants' rights for purposes that I believe are internal to the politics of the Italian judicial system. Eventually, the ECHR will have something to say about these violations of human rights.

 

[acbytesla]

I am new to this forum but not to this case. Starting to look at the evidence shortly before the 2011 exonerations, I realised that the prosecution's burden was insurmountable as soon as I discovered that there was no physical evidence of Amanda Knox in Meredith Kercher's bedroom. Now, three years on we have extraordinary judicial conjecture based on a misplaced lamp and a demonstrably inept attribution of a size 37 shoe print. Admittedly, we need to add the evidence of the unfortunate boyfriend's presence in the room - the well rehearsed dragonfly theory - but all in all, the pro-guilt meal is rather nutrition less fare.

But here's a thing. Why wasn't Amanda Knox's DNA found in the murder room? It seems to me that it's astonishing good fortune for her that it wasn't. Not because she's a murderer, which she plainly isn't and not because she cleaned the crime scene, which she plainly didn't. In the 42 days that she and Meredith Kercher shared accommodation together, how many times would Ms Knox have been in the room - just hanging out, chatting, trying on clothes and for any number of myriad legitimate reasons? Would the scientists here agree with me that it should have been far more likely than not that her DNA would have been found?

Amanda Knox has been devastatingly unlucky that the circumstances of the murder have meant she has been unable, by a whisker, actually to prove her innocence, but with regard to the lack of evidence of her presence in Meredith Kercher's bedroom, she has surely been very lucky indeed.

Welcome aboard Kauffer. I agree with everything you said. Yes it was lucky. They also did not find Amanda's fingerprints in Meredith's bedroom. And yet there are those that argue that finding Amanda's DNA in other various places in the cottage is somehow incriminating. Not sure how anyone can come to that conclusion, but they do.

 

[Kauffer]

If it's not blood it's not evidence

I think I even forget about it. In fact I am not interested at all. I think they did the antibody confirmatory test based on what Stefanoni said at the preliminary hearing, but in fact I don't know and I think it's not interesting. It's irrelevant. A confirmatory test is unnecessary in my opinion in order to assume that the luminol stains are a piece of circumstantial evidence.

If there was in fact confirmatory testing, which demonstrated there was no blood, then how do the luminol hits retain the status of circumstantial evidence? They have been superseded, surely.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

luminol detects the possibility of blood

If there was in fact confirmatory testing, which demonstrated there was no blood, then how do the luminol hits retain the status of circumstantial evidence? They have been superseded, surely.

Some jurisdictions do not even allow luminol evidence into the courtroom if there is no further evidence. Other jurisdictions allow it in, but with the understanding that it has detected the possibility of blood and that this goes to the weight of evidence as opposed to admissibility of evidence.

 

[Numbers]

If there was in fact confirmatory testing, which demonstrated there was no blood, then how do the luminol hits retain the status of circumstantial evidence? They have been superseded, surely.

The luminol footprints allegedly from Amanda Knox which were shown by a second presumptive test, TMB, to not be blood are of course not probative evidence.

They were unethically introduced by the prosecution as probative blood evidence; this is official misconduct (by western democratic judicial standards) since the Italian police and prosecution knew, from the TMB tests, that these luminol hits were not blood and thus not probative.

And I should say welcome to the Forum.
I too am a newbie; I joined here only a few weeks ago.

 

[Kauffer]

AFAIK, no DNA of Meredith Kercher was found in Amanda Knox's room, just as no DNA of Amanda Knox was found in Meredith Kercher's room. Furthermore, the Forensic Police, AFAIK, did not sample for Filomena's or Laura's DNA at all, nor did they obtain reference samples from the two Italian roommates.

While you assume that these young women would be visiting each other in their bedrooms, this may be unlikely, since the bedrooms were small and crowded, while there were common areas - the kitchen/living room and a balcony - where they were known to interact. They shared some meals and sometimes watched TV together, for example.

Your sentence which I have highlighted appears to me to reflect a basic misunderstanding of the principles of justice. It is the prosecution which must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty. And according to the Italian Constitution, a defendant is presumed innocent until the trial process and sentence is final - that is, the CSC finalizes a verdict. Based upon the verdict of the Hellmann court, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito (remember him) were totally innocent of involvement in the rape and murder of Meredith Kercher. All known reliable evidence supports that acquittal, IMO. The quashing of the Hellmann acquittal and the Nencini verdict are a continuation of the violation of the defendants' rights for purposes that I believe are internal to the politics of the Italian judicial system. Eventually, the ECHR will have something to say about these violations of human rights.

Actually no, I haven't misunderstood where the burden of proof lies. I merely point out that if the defendant can prove her innocence, then the case is over. Ms Knox has not proved her innocence, notwithstanding your comments; the prosecution however has not met it's burden, nevertheless. I believe she is innocent though. If they had gone to Gubbio straight from Mr Solllecito's flat for example, there would have been no case. But that too would not have been proof of innocence; they just would not have tried to make a case for guilt.

 

[Machiavelli]

On the basis of the literature luminol could be argued to be better than other presumptive tests if you have a bunch of samples that are contaminated with lemon juice. (...)

Maybe based on the literature that you have read in the last two days.
But there is literature about luminol being far more sensitive than TMB without ascorbic or citric acid or other equivalent reducents, and its being more specific. Reducents are very common on living organisms including human beings, since the body defends its tissues though anti-oxidizing agents; not to speak about that strong chemical reductant called THC (Cannabis) that Knox and Sollecito had assumed in significant amount that day. But his is irrelevant: researches found that luminol is just more sensitive than TMB and more specific, full stop.
There is for example - but it's just an example - this article:

S. Tobe; N. Watson; Nic Dae´id – “ Evaluation of Six Presumptive Tests for Blood, Their Specificity, Sensitivity, and Effect on High Molecular-Weight DNA” - (2007)

(...) Based on this, the best overall presumptive blood test in this study was luminol. It had the greatest sensitivity and specificity. It did not destroy the DNA, and it could be reapplied. Its only drawback is that it must be used in near or complete darkness. Leuchomalachite green was found to be as specific to blood as luminol, but its sensitivity was 10 times less, and it destroyed the DNA. Phenolphthalein had equal sensitivity to most of the other tests, but was extremely unspecific, and the amount of recoverable DNA is reduced when this test is used. HemastixTM [TMB] were easy to transport and use, were sensitive, but not very specific although specificity could be increased if the strips were looked at rather than the reaction on the stain. (....)

It is worth reading; I just quote a table about compared specificities of luminol (left) and TMB (right). NR = no reaction; in brackets the number of positive samples of a total of 25; out of brackets the number of minutes. Dilution is probably 1:10'000 but I'm not sure should read again for that figure.

Saliva - luminol NR - TMB 1 (3)
Semen - luminol NR NR
Potato - luminol NR - TMB 1 (25)
Tomato - luminol NR - TMB 1 (23)
Tomato sauce - luminol NR - TMB NR
Tomato sauce w/meat - luminol NR - TMB 4 (6)
Red onion - luminol NR 1 (21)
Red kidney bean - luminol NR - TMB NR
Horseradish - luminol NR - TMB NR
1M Ascorbic acid - luminol NR - TMB NR
Bleach solution 5% - luminol NR - TMB NR
10% Cupric sulfate - luminol 1 (25) - TMB 1 (25)
10% Ferric sulfate - luminol 1 (25) - TMB 1 (25)
10% Nickel chloride - luminol 1 (25) - TMB 1 (25)

The number of minutes within the reaction needs to be 1 or less for TMB to be declared a positive result. There is a list of substances reacting with luminol and TMB. In parentheses the number of positive results out of 25 samples. For example, tomato gave positive reaction to TMB on 23 samples out of 25; while luminol gave no reaction (“NR”). Red onion yielded 21 positive results to TMB.

Interestingly, chlorine was found non reactive to luminol. Authors assume this is because sample stains were all 18 hours "old". Sodium hypochlorite solution is believed to loose its property of triggering luminol reaction as the time passes due to evaporation.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

less than honest, less than competent computer forensics

Actually no, I haven't misunderstood where the burden of proof lies. I merely point out that if the defendant can prove her innocence, then the case is over. Ms Knox has not proved her innocence, notwithstanding your comments; the prosecution however has not met it's burden, nevertheless. I believe she is innocent though. If they had gone to Gubbio straight from Mr Solllecito's flat for example, there would have been no case. But that too would not have been proof of innocence; they just would not have tried to make a case for guilt.

In my judgment, the lack of duodenum contents and the presence of not fully digested material in the stomach are two strong indicators out of many that the TOD was before 10 PM. If competent, honest people had examined Mr. Sollecito's computer, that might be enough to prove innocence.

 

[Machiavelli]

If there was in fact confirmatory testing, which demonstrated there was no blood, then how do the luminol hits retain the status of circumstantial evidence? They have been superseded, surely.

A confirmatory test may only confirm, or fail to confirm; it cannot demonstrate there wasn't blood.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Sodium hypochlorite cannot evaporate

Sodium hypochlorite solution is believed to loose its property of triggering luminol reaction as the time passes due to evaporation.

Sodium hypochlorite is a salt and cannot evaporate. It can decompose. We discussed this issue here several years ago. Please try to keep up.

 

[acbytesla]

Actually no, I haven't misunderstood where the burden of proof lies. I merely point out that if the defendant can prove her innocence, then the case is over. Ms Knox has not proved her innocence, notwithstanding your comments; the prosecution however has not met it's burden, nevertheless. I believe she is innocent though. If they had gone to Gubbio straight from Mr Solllecito's flat for example, there would have been no case. But that too would not have been proof of innocence; they just would not have tried to make a case for guilt.

My question for you is what does it take to prove her innocence?

It is very clear that the murder took place before 10:00 PM and probably before 9:30 PM because of the digestive evidence and there is computer evidence that puts Amanda and Raffaele at his apartment at 9:23 and there is nothing that ties Rudy to Amanda/Raffaele. Not a phone call, not a text, not an email. There is nothing that even shows Amanda ever set foot in Meredith's bedroom let alone having been involved in a murder.

Rudy on the other hand left dozens of pieces of his physical evidence in Meredith's bedroom. Rudy originally said that Amanda and Raffaele were not there and Meredith died around 9:30 only 7 minutes after Raffaele downloaded the video Naruto to his computer. Granted Amanda and Raffaele are not on a cctv camera at some restaurant the entire evening, but their alibi is pretty strong.

What is sad is the morons that ignore it.

 

[Numbers]

Actually no, I haven't misunderstood where the burden of proof lies. I merely point out that if the defendant can prove her innocence, then the case is over. Ms Knox has not proved her innocence, notwithstanding your comments; the prosecution however has not met it's burden, nevertheless. I believe she is innocent though. If they had gone to Gubbio straight from Mr Solllecito's flat for example, there would have been no case. But that too would not have been proof of innocence; they just would not have tried to make a case for guilt.

How does one prove one's innocence?

Would an alibi where two (or more) witnesses saw the suspect at a different location at the time of the crime qualify? Or being locked in a jail cell at the time of the crime?

I give the examples above since individuals with those proofs of innocence have been wrongfully convicted in the US.

Remember that due to a decision by the prosecutor not to obtain the temperature of Meredith's body until long after it was discovered, the prosecution did not have a reliable estimate of her time of death. Indeed, during the first level trial, the prosecution adjusted the claimed time of death later in order to cast doubt on Amanda and Raffaele's joint alibi.

I point out that the prosecution ignored digestive evidence and cell phone evidence that Meredith's time of death was between about 9:00 pm and 10:00 pm and most likely was between 9:00 and 9:30 pm.

 

[Kauffer]

Some jurisdictions do not even allow luminol evidence into the courtroom if there is no further evidence. Other jurisdictions allow it in, but with the understanding that it has detected the possibility of blood and that this goes to the weight of evidence as opposed to admissibility of evidence.

Yes. I believe the luminol 'evidence' would not have made it into a British court certainly with the TMB results. As far as I am aware, some but not all US jurisdictions would not have let it in at all.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

hand washing versus machine washing

But most detergents are also acid.

Many cleaning solutions are basic, not acidic. Dish detergent is nearly neutral in pH. link Automatic dishwashing detergents are alkaline. link

 

[Bill Williams]

But most detergents are also acid.

A confirmatory test may only confirm, or fail to confirm; it cannot demonstrate there wasn't blood.

Many cleaning solutions are basic, not acidic. Dish detergent is nearly neutral in pH. link Automatic dishwashing detergents are alkaline. link

How do you stand it? By now it is apparent that Machiavelli is not making claims because there's any truth to them, but that they consistently support the untenable court decisions made in Perugia, and now Florence.

Facts are not what is driving this for Machiavelli.

 

[Numbers]

A confirmatory test may only confirm, or fail to confirm; it cannot demonstrate there wasn't blood.

Mach,
Your statement above indicates your deeply-held belief in guilt and your devotion to prejudice over science or fair, logical thinking.

If the presence of blood in a specimen or stain cannot be confirmed by a scientifically valid test, then one cannot logically assume that blood was present. If one can confirm that blood is present by a valid and highly specific test, and there are no contraindications to the specificity, then one can conclude the presence of blood.

Your thinking reminds me of the Holy Inquisitors who refused to believe Galileo's evidence supporting Copernicus and his other work demonstrating sunspots.

 

[Bill Williams]

Actually no, I haven't misunderstood where the burden of proof lies. I merely point out that if the defendant can prove her innocence, then the case is over. Ms Knox has not proved her innocence, notwithstanding your comments; the prosecution however has not met it's burden, nevertheless. I believe she is innocent though. If they had gone to Gubbio straight from Mr Solllecito's flat for example, there would have been no case. But that too would not have been proof of innocence; they just would not have tried to make a case for guilt.

How does one prove one's innocence?
Would an alibi where two (or more) witnesses saw the suspect at a different location at the time of the crime qualify? Or being locked in a jail cell at the time of the crime?

I give the examples above since individuals with those proofs of innocence have been wrongfully convicted in the US.

Remember that due to a decision by the prosecutor not to obtain the temperature of Meredith's body until long after it was discovered, the prosecution did not have a reliable estimate of her time of death. Indeed, during the first level trial, the prosecution adjusted the claimed time of death later in order to cast doubt on Amanda and Raffaele's joint alibi.

I point out that the prosecution ignored digestive evidence and cell phone evidence that Meredith's time of death was between about 9:00 pm and 10:00 pm and most likely was between 9:00 and 9:30 pm.

No one is more interested in proving their innocence than the innocent. For some reason the innocent regard their innocence to be all important.

Of course, though, in court this is not the standard: in Italy or anywhere else, really. Even Inquisitorial systems are interested in proving things beyond a reasonable doubt.

No doubt Machiavelli will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe he once called guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" only a procedural matter, or some such thing.

 

[Desert Fox]

No doubt Machiavelli will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe he once called guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" only a procedural matter, or some such thing.

Yes, I got a very unique answer from he/she about reasonable doubt once

 

[Kauffer]

A confirmatory test may only confirm, or fail to confirm; it cannot demonstrate there wasn't blood.

You can't ring fence your belief in blood like this. The prosecution has to make it's case beyond a reasonable doubt. You want everyone to accept the luminol hits as proof of blood when subsequent presumptive and now possibly lab based confirmatory tests are negative. The weight of evidence isn't on your side. You are attempting to reverse the burden.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

A confirmatory test may only confirm, or fail to confirm; it cannot demonstrate there wasn't blood.

Okay, but if there wasn't blood detected with the luminol AND there wasn't blood detected with the TMB, then why would you even think the prints were made in blood?

It can only be because you want it to fit a specific narrative so badly that you will overlook science.