Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[RWVBWL]

"af", not "AF"

Who left this bloody wall print?
Is it a left hand or a right?

Were hand size comparions made to this as was done with the diluted bloody bath mat imprint?

For some reason I've never seen pics of Rudy or Raff's hand in comparison to this photo,

Who left this bloody wall print?

Rudy.
I believe that it is the origin of Rudy's tale of writing 'AF' on the wall.

This picture appeared in the very early news reports with the heading "The murderer left traces."

Rudy saw the picture and later invented the AF story. (The first two lines with the lower crossing indeed resembles somewhat an A)

Greetings Bolint,
Thanks for the response.
I've always wondered abit about the "AF",
and so curious, I wanted to see how Rudy Guede would have wrote it.

What better place to look than his German Prison Diary that he wrote in his own handwriting?

Looking on Page 3 of it (or Page 6 of the translation)
here's the "af, af, af" that Rudy wrote of:
She was moaning, trying to speak. I got up and went to her room
and she, I repeat, she was trying to say something, but I
made out only a sound “af, af, af.” I tried to write on the
wall because she wanted to say something, but there
wasn’t time to look for a pen and a sheet of paper. But I
was only able to capture those two letters.

Here's a screen grab of his handwriting, blown up 300%
and then clone stamped so the surrounding letters are outta the Jpeg.

For some reason I don't see an "af" on the bloody wall finger marks seen above.
Nor an "AF" either...

Just some bloody finger marks dragged downward.

I said it yesterday, I'll mention it again tonight.
I find it odd that the fuzzy bloody bath mat imprint had footprint comparisons made with it. The bloody wall finger marks are much clearer, they were never identified, where's the hand+finger comparison? Heck, ILE even did a knife print comparison, but not the bloody wall finger marks.
Weird...

 

[RWVBWL]

About the knife

Greetings,
In the photograph of the bloody wall prints,
there is much blood from I think, the bottom of the fingers, right?

Don't most believe that this hand did not wield the knife?
Look at how much blood is on the finger marks,
surely the hand holding the knife was covered in much more blood, right?

That blood would saturate that hand, but yet when I look at the knife imprint on Meredith's bed, I do not see any blood where the handle was held. Nor are any blood drops near where the full handle imprint should be.

Heck, there's even 2 blood drops as seen on the wall imprint,
but not on or near the knife handle imprint as seen below:

Do you see why I wonder if a person was wearing gloves as he stabbed Meredith? Why I wonder why the wall print shows nothing, no sign of finger prints or even a slight line of them? Why the knife handle is without even a spot of blood after the part of the handle meets the closed hand+fist?
RW


ETA:
Speaking of The Knife,
here's Machiavelli's comparison photo:

In my humble opinion, that knife would have went thru Miss Kercher's throat
and out her neck if she was stabbed all the way.

As Mach believes, I seem to recall, that Amanda wielded this knife, well I assume that he thinks that is her thumbprint in the middle part of the blade in the imprint. Most people believe it's the real murder weapon knife's handle when seen after viewing other comparison photo's.

But if Amanda was holding the knife that way, shouldn't have some knife cuts on her hand. Did she?

 

[bolint]

For some reason I don't see an "af" on the bloody wall finger marks seen above.
Nor an "AF" either...

Just some bloody finger marks dragged downward.

Of course it is. The "AF" is only Rudy's crazy explanation.
He says he wrote something on the wall and there is no other trace that could be interpreted as any writing. So this must be what he wanted to explain.

 

[Samson]

Greetings,
In the photograph of the bloody wall prints,
there is much blood from I think, the bottom of the fingers, right?

Don't most believe that this hand did not wield the knife?
Look at how much blood is on the finger marks,
surely the hand holding the knife was covered in much more blood, right?

That blood would saturate that hand, but yet when I look at the knife imprint on Meredith's bed, I do not see any blood whatsoever where the handle should be. Nor are any blood drops near where the handle would be.

Heck, there's blood drops as seen on the wall imprint,
but not on or near the knife handle imprint as seen below:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9262[/qimg]

Do you see why I wonder if a person was wearing gloves as he stabbed Meredith? Why the wall print shows nothing, no sign of finger prints or even a slight line of them? Why the knife handle is without even a spot of blood after the part of the handle meets the closed hand+fist?
RW


ETA:
Speaking of The Knife,
here's Machiavelli's comparison photo:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9305[/qimg]
In my humble opinion, that knife would have went thru Miss Kercher's throat
and out her neck if she was stabbed all the way.

As Mach believes, I seem to recall, that Amanda wielded this knife, well I assume that he thinks that is her thumbprint in the middle of the blade. Most people believe it's the real murder weapon knife's handle in any comparison.

But if Amanda was holding the knife that way, shouldn't have some knife cuts on her hand. Did she?

The way to believe the larger outline trumps double placement of the smaller outline matches the way to believe Amanda created criminologocal precedent by repeatedly turning up at the questura as a guilty party.
Neither is true.

 

[Planigale]

Two theories:

For some pro-guilt speakers I think it's like the phenomenon of Catholics who are "more Catholic than the Pope". In theory being Catholic is about following a set body of rules, but emotionally for some people it's about tradition, exclusivity, harshness and so forth and the more you exemplify those traits the more Catholic you are.

In theory being pro-guilt just means believing that as a matter of fact it is beyond reasonable doubt that Knox and Sollecito has something to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher. Emotionally for some it's about working themselves into a frothing frenzy of hate where absolutely everything Knox or Sollecito ever say or do is proof that they are guilty and also the worst people in the universe.

Alternatively, in the case of the Machiavelli collective, what we are seeing is the weird and unfiltered world of Italian law enforcement via Mignini, a florid and fanciful universe where reason of any kind is entirely optional. The Massei and Nencini verdicts are the result of Italian judges being forced to try to corral the fever-dream mess Mignini develops into some kind of logical shape. As a result, while those verdicts are nuts by our standards they are sweet sanity compared to what Mignini and cohorts actually argued for in court and actually believe.

I do post occasionally on PMF, I think my post count is approx. 70. I went there when another poster* went there but my membership at that forum no more makes me a member of a anti-Knox group than your membership here makes you a member of a pro-Knox group.

Amanda Knox walked into the station of her own free will and could have left at any time til she placed herself at the scene of the crime so how could she be coerced?

ETA: *Fiona, we were both members of the IIDB and the RDF


EETA: I registered there as tsit due to a fat finger and I once tried to get it changed but that was about the time of forum split and it hasn't seemed that important.

I think the weasel word is coerce. In this scenario one has a single young woman in a foreign country, whose friend has just been raped and murdered in the room next to hers, it is late at night, she has no where to go other than her boyfriend's flat and he is being questioned by the police. The murderer has not been caught. Walking out alone into the night is not an easy option. All sorts of moral pressure can be applied, to keep her, why don't you want to help us catch the murderer? The murderer is still out there. You want a lawyer do you have something to conceal.

We know that the translator described the scene as chaotic when she arrived, we know that Sollecito said he heard Knox screaming. (IMHO the defence lawyers should have explored what was meant by chaos). The police seemed to have spoken little English and Knox little Italian.

Whether you regard things in terms of evolutionary psychology, Knox was a young female on foreign territory with dominating males she was going to behave in a submissive manner, she was going to submit to what they wanted to do. You can call it a 'Stockholm syndrome'. I do think that sleep deprivation will be an important issue, following on the recent events she would have been sleeping badly she is kept up to the small hours. She would be having micro sleeps, direct into REM sleep with an increasing confusion of reality and dream. Then she is told that she has suppressed the memories, put herself there tell us what happened. That she created a scenario to satisfy her questioners is not surprising. This is a well tested phenomena. As a creative writing student the only surprise is how poor it was.

If you read the statements. They contain no detail. Competent interviewers should have been able to get some facts once she cracked. When did you arrive what time when did Kercher arrive when did Patrik arrive when and where did you meet him when did you leave when did Patrik leave. There is none of this, the whole thing(s) read like a created memory.

No physical threats or torture were required to induce the 'confession', but the psycho-social situation was such as to to lead her into complying with the wishes of the police. So technically not coerced but not freely given either. As you previously said not true but not a lie either as she had been led to believe that she was recognising the suppressed memories of what happened.

 

[Numbers]

I think the weasel word is coerce. In this scenario one has a single young woman in a foreign country, whose friend has just been raped and murdered in the room next to hers, it is late at night, she has no where to go other than her boyfriend's flat and he is being questioned by the police. The murderer has not been caught. Walking out alone into the night is not an easy option. All sorts of moral pressure can be applied, to keep her, why don't you want to help us catch the murderer? The murderer is still out there. You want a lawyer do you have something to conceal.

We know that the translator described the scene as chaotic when she arrived, we know that Sollecito said he heard Knox screaming. (IMHO the defence lawyers should have explored what was meant by chaos). The police seemed to have spoken little English and Knox little Italian.

Whether you regard things in terms of evolutionary psychology, Knox was a young female on foreign territory with dominating males she was going to behave in a submissive manner, she was going to submit to what they wanted to do. You can call it a 'Stockholm syndrome'. I do think that sleep deprivation will be an important issue, following on the recent events she would have been sleeping badly she is kept up to the small hours. She would be having micro sleeps, direct into REM sleep with an increasing confusion of reality and dream. Then she is told that she has suppressed the memories, put herself there tell us what happened. That she created a scenario to satisfy her questioners is not surprising. This is a well tested phenomena. As a creative writing student the only surprise is how poor it was.

If you read the statements. They contain no detail. Competent interviewers should have been able to get some facts once she cracked. When did you arrive what time when did Kercher arrive when did Patrik arrive when and where did you meet him when did you leave when did Patrik leave. There is none of this, the whole thing(s) read like a created memory.

No physical threats or torture were required to induce the 'confession', but the psycho-social situation was such as to to lead her into complying with the wishes of the police. So technically not coerced but not freely given either. As you previously said not true but not a lie either as she had been led to believe that she was recognising the suppressed memories of what happened.

Amanda did state in writing soon afterward that she had been hit by the police - slapped on the head, IIRC, when she "did not remember correctly" {quote as I recall it}. She stated that she was threatened with imprisonment for 30 years, and that she would never see her mother or family again. She stated that she was told that asking for a lawyer would make things worse for her. ECHR requires a suspect be provided a lawyer at first questioning.

Amanda was a beginning speaker of Italian and was 20 years and 4 months old at the time of the interrogation. She may have been sleep-deprived. In the US, she had been a been a college student (honors rank) from a middle-class family. She is not a person of color or otherwise from a "minority" group in the US. Her experience would not, from those factors, lead her to suspect that police would act contrary to legal procedures in speaking to her. She would not have previously experienced or understood the pressures of a coercive police interrogation. Furthermore, as I understand, in her false statement she did not confess to taking part in a murder or rape, but rather to being an "ear-witness."

While her treatment by the police may not have been so severe as to be "torture," it may very well have met the ECHR definition of "inhuman or degrading treatment."

 

[LondonJohn]

Amanda did state in writing soon afterward that she had been hit by the police - slapped on the head, IIRC, when she "did not remember correctly" {quote as I recall it}. She stated that she was threatened with imprisonment for 30 years, and that she would never see her mother or family again. She stated that she was told that asking for a lawyer would make things worse for her. ECHR requires a suspect be provided a lawyer at first questioning.

Amanda was a beginning speaker of Italian and was 20 years and 4 months old at the time of the interrogation. She may have been sleep-deprived. In the US, she had been a been a college student (honors rank) from a middle-class family. She is not a person of color or otherwise from a "minority" group in the US. Her experience would not, from those factors, lead her to suspect that police would act contrary to legal procedures in speaking to her. She would not have previously experienced or understood the pressures of a coercive police interrogation. Furthermore, as I understand, in her false statement she did not confess to taking part in a murder or rape, but rather to being an "ear-witness."

While her treatment by the police may not have been so severe as to be "torture," it may very well have met the ECHR definition of "inhuman or degrading treatment."

I agree.

I also think that another extremely important factor should be brought more to the forefront in examining this issue: it's clear that Knox didn't think she was actually being accused of any crime, but that the police were trying to get her to help them catch the culprit.

I think that this is where the Knox "confession/accusation" differs significantly from many/most of the other known coerced false confessions, and why it makes things even more obvious and rational to explain. In the "classic" false confession - which provably can happen to all sorts of different types of people - the person in question is being directly accused of committing the crime. It's hard for some people to understand why someone would falsely confess to something like a murder, yet we know for certain that it does happen, particularly under certain styles of police interrogation.

But in Knox's case, she wasn't even being accused per se of anything, other than a failure to remember. The police's line appears to have been that they "knew" Knox had arranged to meet up with the killer and had almost certainly let him into the cottage, but that they didn't believe Knox herself had anything directly to do with the murder. And they therefore urged Knox to "remember", since to do so would be to her benefit in two ways: firstly, it would protect her from prosecution for direct involvement or trying to protect the murderer; and secondly, it would protect her from the killer himself, since her statement would enable the police to arrest him immediately and put him behind bars. And in addition, the police appear to have used an element of emotional blackmail in regard to bringing closure to Kercher's family and to honour Kercher herself.

Under these circumstances and conditions, I believe it's easy to see how Knox allowed herself to become coerced into making that statement. I think she genuinely thought she was helping the police, helping Kercher's family and helping herself. I think she credulously bought the police's assertions that they "knew" she had met the killer and that she'd been at the cottage at the time of the murder, even though this was wholly discordant with her own (correct) memory of spending the whole evening/night at Sollecito's apartment.

 

[acbytesla]

If you are saying that the absence of reliable inculpatory evidence against Amanda and Raffaele means that they are innocent, and that the establishment of Meredith's time of death is therefore irrelevant for establishing their innocence, I would mostly agree with that. But establishing time of death is important to the case overall, and it also is one more item derived from bits of evidence that agrees with (is consistent with) their innocence. If Meredith had been murdered at 12 midnight after going to bed, the absence of any reliable probative trace of Amanda and/or Raffaele at the murder scene - her bedroom - would still indicate their innocence.

How do I say this? There is no proof of guilt and none was really provided. That alone should be enough to end this farce. The idea even in the Italian justice system is that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and in this case guilt wasn't proven at all.

That said, I think the TOD is important to proving Knox and Raffaele's innocence or alibi which shouldn't be required since their guilt was never proven with any evidence.

 

[Kauffer]

I undersand Kauffer and can appreciate your line of reasoning. However, do we really know enough about Meredith's prior behavior to say that she had a dependable behavior pattern? And so what? Just because you do something the same way usually, it doesn't mean that you always do it that way.

I don't believe in any way that Amanda and Raffaele had anything to do with this crime. That said, I see your line of reasoning to be speculation. Pretty much like I see the entire prosecution case....speculation. No real evidence. While I agree that your speculation makes more sense, I don't think anyone can prove it or disprove it based on the evidence.

But this is where I think even the pro-innocence groups get sucked into a defensive, post hoc rationalisation in the light of the police and prosecutor's contention that that this was not a single attacker murder and that she was killed after the 9:58/10pm phone activity.

Not one piece of the known timeline, witness testimony or Ms Kercher's known actions in connection with her return home is supportive of any theory other than that she was swiftly attacked and killed. Also, it does not have any probative value in terms of providing support for a three attacker theory let alone one involving Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito.

This part of the timeline - the return home - is omitted from pro-guilt explanations of the crime because it does not fit. If, having failed to speak to her mother at 856, she did not even try to place that call again, then why? If, having told her friend she was tired and wanted to go to bed, she didn't even remove her jacket, then why? What was Ms Kercher doing after she arrived home, if she was not quickly attacked, that was so important, it trumped her concern for her mother and trumped her tiredness?

Yet these are not questions that permit such myriad answers they should be reserved to a fact finding court. It is a matter for investigators to set an investigation on course. When this is compromised, as it was in this case because someone wrongly thought a window was too high to reach, sometimes not even real, clear and compelling evidence is enough to get things back on a course.

 

[Bill Williams]

Amanda Knox walked into the station of her own free will and could have left at any time til she placed herself at the scene of the crime so how could she be coerced?

Amanda did state in writing soon afterward that she had been hit by the police - slapped on the head, IIRC, when she "did not remember correctly" {quote as I recall it}. She stated that she was threatened with imprisonment for 30 years, and that she would never see her mother or family again. She stated that she was told that asking for a lawyer would make things worse for her. ECHR requires a suspect be provided a lawyer at first questioning.

Amanda was a beginning speaker of Italian and was 20 years and 4 months old at the time of the interrogation. She may have been sleep-deprived. In the US, she had been a been a college student (honors rank) from a middle-class family. She is not a person of color or otherwise from a "minority" group in the US. Her experience would not, from those factors, lead her to suspect that police would act contrary to legal procedures in speaking to her. She would not have previously experienced or understood the pressures of a coercive police interrogation. Furthermore, as I understand, in her false statement she did not confess to taking part in a murder or rape, but rather to being an "ear-witness."

While her treatment by the police may not have been so severe as to be "torture," it may very well have met the ECHR definition of "inhuman or degrading treatment."

I agree.

I also think that another extremely important factor should be brought more to the forefront in examining this issue: it's clear that Knox didn't think she was actually being accused of any crime, but that the police were trying to get her to help them catch the culprit.

I think that this is where the Knox "confession/accusation" differs significantly from many/most of the other known coerced false confessions, and why it makes things even more obvious and rational to explain. In the "classic" false confession - which provably can happen to all sorts of different types of people - the person in question is being directly accused of committing the crime. It's hard for some people to understand why someone would falsely confess to something like a murder, yet we know for certain that it does happen, particularly under certain styles of police interrogation.

But in Knox's case, she wasn't even being accused per se of anything, other than a failure to remember. The police's line appears to have been that they "knew" Knox had arranged to meet up with the killer and had almost certainly let him into the cottage, but that they didn't believe Knox herself had anything directly to do with the murder. And they therefore urged Knox to "remember", since to do so would be to her benefit in two ways: firstly, it would protect her from prosecution for direct involvement or trying to protect the murderer; and secondly, it would protect her from the killer himself, since her statement would enable the police to arrest him immediately and put him behind bars. And in addition, the police appear to have used an element of emotional blackmail in regard to bringing closure to Kercher's family and to honour Kercher herself.

Under these circumstances and conditions, I believe it's easy to see how Knox allowed herself to become coerced into making that statement. I think she genuinely thought she was helping the police, helping Kercher's family and helping herself. I think she credulously bought the police's assertions that they "knew" she had met the killer and that she'd been at the cottage at the time of the murder, even though this was wholly discordant with her own (correct) memory of spending the whole evening/night at Sollecito's apartment.

While perhaps not part of it him/herself, tsig has nonetheless passed on the pro-guilt lobby position. It is essential to express that lobby's position as briefly as possible, because on the face of it what tsig said, in brief, is true. All of it.

The more full version, though, has a differing sense about it. All commentators, guilter or innocentisti, have Knox coming to the Questura that night for no apparent reason at all - at least not for a reason directly connected to the murder......

.... save for the occasional guilter who needs to help things along a bit by suggesting she came because she could choose not to sleep, and knew she was about to have an encounter with the police which would end with a false accusation of Lumumba..... all to divert attention from everything else she allegedly knew - namely, that she and Raffaele had murdered in league with Guede.

At the very least, even this sort of guilter needs to modify things a bit, because all commentators agree that it was Ficarra who initiated the interrogation of Knox - well before Sollecito "withdrew" his alibi for Knox. That withdrawal (a confusion over Wednesday and Thursday for Raffaele, where the cops did not allow him to figure it out - maximum confusion) happened when Knox was already in distress, already in interrogation.

Ficarra came out on Napoleoni's orders, and started with attacking Knox on the one known lie everyone was telling about the cottage in general and Meredith in particular.....

..... the drug use. (Remember John Follain's account in his book where Filomena was allowed to rummage through her room in the minutes before the more horrid discovery of Meredith? Remember Filomena's questioning at trial where she admitted that she, "had sinned".) The drug use was the one thing that (despite the murder!) everyone was saying, "don't mention it."

That was the place Ficarra put the interrogative lever into, when going out to see Knox at perhaps 11:30 pm Nov 5th. "It's time for truth". To someone like Knox who was staying behind to help solve the murder of her friend, this was the first blow to her. She'd been caught in the conspiracy..... the conspiracy among the flatmates to hide the drug use.

Knox herself has the timeline of the beginning of the first interrogation a little different than most. Most have Ficarra asking the question about the marijuana use in the cottage outside in the hall, then taking her inside. This is the way Amanda recounts it - Ficarra, acc. to this, just witnessed the "doing the splits" incident:

While I was on the floor, legs splayed, the elevators doors opened. Rita Ficarra, the cop who had reprimanded Raffaele and me about kissing the day before, stepped out.

"What are you doing?" she demanded, her voice full of contempt.

I stood up and returned to my chair. "Waiting," I said.

The silver-haired officer said, "I was just asking Amanda some questions."

Ficarra said, "If that's the case, we need to put it on the record."

She led me through the waiting room and into some office with two desks where I'd spent so much time. As we were walking, she looked at me, narrowing her eyes. "You said you guys don't smoke marijuana. Are you sure you're being honest?"

"I'm really sorry about that." I grimaced. "I was afraid to tell you that all of us smoked marijuana occasionally, including Meredith. We'd sometimes pass a joint around when we were chilling out with the guys or with Filomena and Laura. But Meredith and I never bought any pot; we don't know any drug dealers."

She shut the door and signaled for me to sit down on a metal folding chair, taking the seat across the desk from me. The silver-haired officer pulled up a chair next to me, efectively cutting the room in half. The light was bright. The walls were blank. I had nowhere to look but at the police. They said, "we're going to call in an interpreter."......

...... I still thought they were using me to find out more information about Meredith.​

Knox then says that she thought the questions demanding exact times for miscellaneous stuff on the night of Nov 1 was to test that she was still telling the truth, given the lie about marijuana use.

On page 113, Amanda finally gets to the arrival of the interpretor - Anna Donnino, arriving at 12:30 am. She says that at the time of writing the book, it becomes inconceivable how any of them had managed at all in that last hour, with Amanda speaking little Italian, and Ficarra speaking no English.

Part of the stress and disorientation is the effort to try to understand (or as Knox says in the book: guess) what was being asked of her - all in the context that Knox assumed - she'd been caught in the communal lie about the drug use in the cottage.

However, regardless of the pro-guilt lobby's assertions - it simply is not true that Knox came into the Questura of her own free-will with the intent to accuse Lumumba.

 

[acbytesla]

But this is where I think even the pro-innocence groups get sucked into a defensive, post hoc rationalisation in the light of the police and prosecutor's contention that that this was not a single attacker murder and that she was killed after the 9:58/10pm phone activity.

Not one piece of the known timeline, witness testimony or Ms Kercher's known actions in connection with her return home is supportive of any theory other than that she was swiftly attacked and killed. Also, it does not have any probative value in terms of providing support for a three attacker theory let alone one involving Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito.

This part of the timeline - the return home - is omitted from pro-guilt explanations of the crime because it does not fit. If, having failed to speak to her mother at 856, she did not even try to place that call again, then why? If, having told her friend she was tired and wanted to go to bed, she didn't even remove her jacket, then why? What was Ms Kercher doing after she arrived home, if she was not quickly attacked, that was so important, it trumped her concern for her mother and trumped her tiredness?

Yet these are not questions that permit such myriad answers they should be reserved to a fact finding court. It is a matter for investigators to set an investigation on course. When this is compromised, as it was in this case because someone wrongly thought a window was too high to reach, sometimes not even real, clear and compelling evidence is enough to get things back on a course.

I agree entirely, all of these points fit an early TOD and nothing really goes together with the guilter arguments. But one thing that has happened in this case is the obsession with minutiae that may and I definitely mean may, point in a given direction. But that is all they do. For example, Meredith not removing her jacket. For me this means the least of all the innocent arguments. Have you seen this jacket? It is not a heavy warm jacket but a light running or sweat jacket the kind that Meredith very well might not remove if it was a little chilly inside the cottage. For me, the digestive evidence and Rudy's own statements carry a lot more weight towards that early TOD than the wash, the jacket and the lack of a call back to her mother. The latter to me is much more ambiguous.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Peel and Gill on the relative detection limits of DNA vs. presumptive tests for blood

Three of the luminol-positive stains in the flat had Meredith's DNA. PG-commenters imply that the stains were from Meredith's blood. The lack of reaction with TMB is supposedly because the stains were made with blood that is too dilute for TMB to detect.

In 2004 Peel and Gill (“Attribution of DNA profiles to body fluid stains,” International Congress Series 1261, pp. 53-55) performed a series of experiments, in which a good DNA shedder handled the substrate (cotton or glass) for a blood stain, either before or after the blood from a different individual was placed on the substrate. The blood was either diluted or the stain had been left to sit for some months, allowing for possible DNA degradation over time. They used leucomalachite green as a presumptive test for blood. They wrote, “…the more dilute or degraded the stain, the higher the contribution of the substrate handler’s DNA to the resulting profile. A positive presumptive test could be obtained from samples when a profile originating from the body fluid was no longer detectable.” highlighting mine

The leucomalachite green test is similar to the TMB test. The notion that dilution would make the TMB test negative before it made the DNA test negative runs contrary to the work of Peel and Gill. In addition, it fails to explain why the majority of the stains did not have Meredith's DNA. Do PG commenters believe that the stains were made of different dilutions?

 

[JREF2010]

I said it yesterday, I'll mention it again tonight.
I find it odd that the fuzzy bloody bath mat imprint had footprint comparisons made with it. The bloody wall finger marks are much clearer, they were never identified, where's the hand+finger comparison? Heck, ILE even did a knife print comparison, but not the bloody wall finger marks.
Weird...

We are talking about a police/forensic "goober" team who supposedly don't test a sperm stain from a pillow the raped and murdered victim is laying on.

So not investigating a bloody print on a wall isn't surprising or weird to me anymore in this case. A retarded investigative team lead by a dishonest and egotistical prosecutor and lead investigator....a retarded computer expert team that destroys numerous hardrives, etc..etc..etc..

 

[Numbers]

It may be useful to post a dictionary definition for coerce or coercion:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coerce
co·erced co·erc·ing
Full Definition of COERCE
transitive verb
1
: to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious — W. R. Inge>
2
: to compel to an act or choice <was coerced into agreeing>
3
: to achieve by force or threat <coerce compliance>

co·er·cion
noun \-ˈər-zhən, -shən\
: the act, process, or power of coercing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion

Coercion /koʊˈɜrʃən/ is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force. It involves a set of various types of forceful actions that violate the free will of an individual to induce a desired response, usually having a strict choice or option against a person in such a way a victim cannot escape, for example: a bully demanding lunch money to a student or the student gets beaten. These actions can include, but are not limited to, extortion, blackmail, torture, and threats to induce favors. In law, coercion is codified as a duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in a way contrary to their own interests. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced.
_______
Threats directed at Amanda and/or Raffaele were thus part of their respective coercive interrogations.
Slapping Amanda, even if it did little physical damage to her, was coercive in that it demonstrate the absolute power of the police to do real and substantial physical harm. It was a kind of physical rather than verbal threat.

 

[Numbers]

It may be useful to post a dictionary definition for coerce or coercion:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coerce
co·erced co·erc·ing
Full Definition of COERCE
transitive verb
1
: to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious — W. R. Inge>
2
: to compel to an act or choice <was coerced into agreeing>
3
: to achieve by force or threat <coerce compliance>

co·er·cion
noun \-ˈər-zhən, -shən\
: the act, process, or power of coercing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion

Coercion /koʊˈɜrʃən/ is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force. It involves a set of various types of forceful actions that violate the free will of an individual to induce a desired response, usually having a strict choice or option against a person in such a way a victim cannot escape, for example: a bully demanding lunch money to a student or the student gets beaten. These actions can include, but are not limited to, extortion, blackmail, torture, and threats to induce favors. In law, coercion is codified as a duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in a way contrary to their own interests. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced.
_______
Threats directed at Amanda and/or Raffaele were thus part of their respective coercive interrogations.
Slapping Amanda, even if it did little physical damage to her, was coercive in that it demonstrate the absolute power of the police to do real and substantial physical harm. It was a kind of physical rather than verbal threat.

There is an Italian law, Article 188 in the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the use of coercion in gathering evidence:

http://www.altalex.eu/content/italian-code-criminal-procedure

Article 188
Moral freedom of the person during evidence gathering

1. Methods or techniques which may influence the freedom of self-determination or alter the capacity to recall and evaluate facts shall not be used, not even with the consent of the person concerned.

 

[Bill Williams]

However, regardless of the pro-guilt lobby's assertions - it simply is not true that Knox came into the Questura of her own free-will with the intent to accuse Lumumba.

ETA - ....... or even defaulted to Lumumba once she realized - as the guilter assumption goes - that the jig was up for her, Raffaele and Rudy Guede as conspirators in a horrible crime.

Being caught in the lie about marijuana use, IMO, would make someone young and naive like Knox was (in 2007) even more determined to "help the police".

The clincher for me? It's what Doninno herself, the summoned translator, says. She says upon her own arrival that at 12:30 am, the interrogation was in disarray; so much so that Donnino reports she shifted gears immediately to act as a "mediator".

Knox needed a translator. As did the cops. There is no reason to doubt Knox saying that mainly she was trying to "guess" at the meaning of questions thrown at her, since she did not know the language as well as the situation required. For those who doubt this, why then did Ficarra say the first thing they did was ask for a translator!!!!!????? (You see, the translator is not just for the suspect - it's for the cops, too - unless you believe that the theory the cops went in with was what Knox eventually confessed to!)

It seems everyone was agreed one was needed - and a mediator arrived. Instead of shutting things down until "understanding" could be achieved, Ficarra, et al., were conducting a typical interrogation: firing questions at the suspect until they would concur with the version of events that the cops already knew.

I agree with LondonJohn, perhaps going in to the interrogation at 11:30 pm, all the cops suspected of Knox was that like with the marijuana use, she was also withholding information/knowledge directly applicable to the murder itself..... even if only that she'd heard a rumour being passed around.

My view is that Knox's guesses at what the cops were saying (in Italian) seemed like further lies to them, esp. if it seemed she was answering some other question than asked. They should have waited for the interpreter.

Then Ficarra asks to see the phone. As a result of that, Lumumba is "brought into the room." This now seems like the smoking gun when the cops/Donnino completely mishandle what "see you later" means.

Then they bring Raffaele's cop-induced confusion into Knox's room, which the cops say, "Raffaele is not sustaining Knox's alibi."

All of this - an hour without a translator where language confusions are deemed "lies", then with a translator acting as a mediator, then the phone "See you later", then saying Raffaele was in a separate room saying something different than Knox is saying...... <snap>.

Knox signs.

The Mignini enters. To Mignini, as per his CNN interview in 2010, Knox looks relieved of a burden. Does Mignini ask her if this is true? No - if he had, then he was getting something other than spontaneous statements; a point of law he knew he had to maintain.

To Mignini, Knox looks she's afraid of Lumumba. Does Mignini ask her if this is true? No - if he had, then he was getting something other than spontaneous statements; a point of law he knew he had to maintain.

To Mignini, Knox looks she needs to continue making "spontaneous statements". Does Mignini ask her if this is true? No - if he had, then he was getting something other than spontaneous statements; a point of law he knew he had to maintain.

And as Donnino had done in choosing to be a mediator, rather than a translator, Mignini volunteers to be "as if only a notary", to record all these spontaneous statements Knox was supposed to be itching to make - all acc. to Mignini.

AngloLawyer did a comparison of the 1:45 am and 5:45 am statements, as an evolution of the cops' case against Knox.... showing how it really was the cops' theory which evolved that night - NOT based on what Knox was or wasn't saying, but what it was they wanted her to confess to.

Strangely, the cops at 5:45 am still did not know what to make of Raffaele. But it was enough to go kick down Lumumba's door, and subject him to an interrogation - obviously as a suspect, but similarly with no lawyer and not transcribing/taping of his "interview".

And the mess is born, still around 7 years later - with no justice for Meredith in this pursuit of two innocents.

 

[Kauffer]

Three of the luminol-positive stains in the flat had Meredith's DNA. PG-commenters imply that the stains were from Meredith's blood. The lack of reaction with TMB is supposedly because the stains were made with blood that is too dilute for TMB to detect.

In 2004 Peel and Gill (“Attribution of DNA profiles to body fluid stains,” International Congress Series 1261, pp. 53-55) performed a series of experiments, in which a good DNA shedder handled the substrate (cotton or glass) for a blood stain, either before or after the blood from a different individual was placed on the substrate. The blood was either diluted or the stain had been left to sit for some months, allowing for possible DNA degradation over time. They used leucomalachite green as a presumptive test for blood. They wrote, “…the more dilute or degraded the stain, the higher the contribution of the substrate handler’s DNA to the resulting profile. A positive presumptive test could be obtained from samples when a profile originating from the body fluid was no longer detectable.” highlighting mine

The leucomalachite green test is similar to the TMB test. The notion that dilution would make the TMB test negative before it made the DNA test negative runs contrary to the work of Peel and Gill. In addition, it fails to explain why the majority of the stains did not have Meredith's DNA. Do PG commenters believe that the stains were made of different dilutions?

Thanks for this. I see that at Mr Sollecito's flat there are 14 luminol hits and the extraction is mentioned as "saliva" in 13 of them and "blood" in one. What does this mean? Also, just 4 of these samples produced a profile, none of which is Ms Kercher's. Why have the samples been identified in this manner? The "blood" extraction is an unknown male. Could you perhaps take a look at these and the testing from Guede's apartment and unpack the data? From here:

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/luminoltests/

Thanks

Would you agree that we can rule out the presence of Ms Kercher's blood and/or DNA from the samples at Mr Sollecito's? Would you agree that the absence of transfer evidence - ie blood or other samples from Ms Kercher's room on either Ms Knox or Mr Sollecito's clothes or at his flat, if true of course, is an important piece of exonerating evidence?

 

[Kauffer]

There is an Italian law, Article 188 in the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the use of coercion in gathering evidence:

http://www.altalex.eu/content/italian-code-criminal-procedure

Article 188
Moral freedom of the person during evidence gathering

1. Methods or techniques which may influence the freedom of self-determination or alter the capacity to recall and evaluate facts shall not be used, not even with the consent of the person concerned.

So that would preclude the likes of Anna Donnino acting as a "mediator", recounting personal stories and talking about memory gaps when she should have stayed quiet and translated, then ?

 

[Desert Fox]

So that would preclude the likes of Anna Donnino acting as a "mediator", recounting personal stories and talking about memory gaps when she should have stayed quiet and translated, then ?

I am curious about something kind of peripheral to this. . . .
We all know that the discussion of repressing memories and memory gaps are extremely unreliable. Are police and the legal fields educated on these problems? If not, would this becoming part of proper training help?

 

[RWVBWL]

He said vs He said...

Greetings from rainy Los Angeles!
I was reading in an old book I have and found this passage that intrigues yet bothers me,
it's about the original Massei Trial:

Forensic expert Vincenzo Pascali quit in May, leaving a big hole in the Sollecito team...
<snip>
He was replaced by Francesco Introna, a close friend of Raffaele's father and a brilliant Pugliese scholar who spoke English to the foreign press. During his testimony, Introna dramatically plunged a knife into the neck of a mannequin to prove his point to the jury. He testified that Meredith was killed by just one person, Rudy Guede, who grabbed her from behind and stabbed her in the neck.

A month later, Amanda's own forensic expert, Carlo Torre, told the court that yes, Meredith had been killed by one person, Rudy Guede, but that she had been stabbed from the front. If the defense experts could not even agree on the details of the murder, what hope was there for the jury to take their side?*
* * *

I sometimes ask questions about this case we discuss because heck, if the 2 defense forensic experts couldn't agree on how Meredith was killed, I'm gonna keep an open mind about most everything in this horrible murder case...

Today for example,
I still wonder about the details of a finding that I became better aware of.
Why are there a strangers fingerprints on a womans underwear drawer?
We're talking about a rape and murder.
Laura's fingerprints are there, but someone elses too.
Whose?

CarbonJam72 gave me some thoughts about his/her theory the other day,
But I disagree, I think they mean something.

Read these 2 snippets from Old Perugia Shock I posted the other day:
Scientific police have the technician who makes the prints visible, the one who takes pictures of them, the one who chooses the readable ones (those that have at least 16 points at a fair distance) and the one who looks for matches comparing them with the suspects fingerprints or with the database.

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.<snip>
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.

Link:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10347527&postcount=3005


Amanda left most likely 3 fingerprints on the glass.
But only 1 made it as a complete enough to have made the 97 List of Fingerprints.

Laura left 5 fingerprints.
And there are 13 unattributed fingerprints that made the list.
And it appears at least 1, FR. 17 is on this womans underwear drawer, found pulled open.

Link:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10347501&postcount=3004

Question for you all:
How many unattributed fingerprints would be found on your underwear drawer right now
if it were found pulled open when you came home from work, visiting friends or a night out on the town?

In this rape and murder, this unattributed fingerprint,
along with the 1's from the kitchen sink area, seen below

with blue handle knives nearby, bothers me...
RW


(*) -Book: Angel Face Author B. Nadeau Pages 154-155
PS - I read both sides of the story, help me gain perspective, so to say.
Sorry if it bothers anyone...