Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Dan O.]

I think the argument that would be made is.

1) The likeliest route of transfer is direct transfer not secondary.
2) There is no legitimate reason for Sollecito to have touched the bra hook of MK.
3) Therefore the likely route of origin of Sollecito Knox on the bra hook is direct contact from Sollecito trying to undo the bra strap, in the absence of other explanations forthcoming from the defence the only opportunity for Sollecito to do this is at the time of the murder.

However, when considering the lack of any other evidence of the presence of Sollecito in the room or on the person of MK, the mixed nature of the DNA, the low level of the DNA, and the issues around its collection, the likelihood that this is due to secondary or tertiary transfer seems likely not merely possible.

While your starting statements are all reasonable, when you add in that multiple profiles were found on the clasp, and that the clasp is an object that is unlikely to be touched by anyone except Meredith herself, an alternate conclusion is reached: It is highly unlikely that several individuals independently touched the clasp therefore the most probable cause is secondary transfer with the likely carrier being Meredith herself.

 

[Numbers]

While your starting statements are all reasonable, when you add in that multiple profiles were found on the clasp, and that the clasp is an object that is unlikely to be touched by anyone except Meredith herself, an alternate conclusion is reached: It is highly unlikely that several individuals independently touched the clasp therefore the most probable cause is secondary transfer with the likely carrier being Meredith herself.

Also, several persons wearing latex gloves touched the bra clasp when it was collected by the police. The gloves themselves were "dirty" - used in previous activity in the cottage, rather than fresh and not previously used - and may have thus picked-up DNA and then transferred the DNA to the clasp. Furthermore, the bra clasp was apparently somewhere on the floor of the murder room (Meredith's bedroom) for 46 days, perhaps being stepped on with DNA-contaminated shoes or booties from time-to-time.

 

[Desert Fox]

Also, several persons wearing latex gloves touched the bra clasp when it was collected by the police. The gloves themselves were "dirty" - used in previous activity in the cottage, rather than fresh and not previously used - and may have thus picked-up DNA and then transferred the DNA to the clasp. Furthermore, the bra clasp was apparently somewhere on the floor of the murder room (Meredith's bedroom) for 46 days, perhaps being stepped on with DNA-contaminated shoes or booties from time-to-time.

I agree with all that. . . . .My argument is that even if we do not consider possible contamination of the crime scene, innocent transfer by Meredeth is perfectly possible.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

It's time again for the well-loved remedial ECHR law course. Today's topic is:

CASE OF PAKSHAYEV v. RUSSIA 1377/04 13/03/2014

Also known as "We have ways to make you talk." But the ECtHR is not amused by them.

On 2 May 1997 the 23-year-old applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. He was given a written note explaining that he could not be obliged to give evidence against himself, his spouse or close relative and that he was entitled to legal assistance from the moment that the arrest record or the detention order was read out to him. He signed the explanatory note and asked for legal assistance.

At 6.30 p.m. on the same day the applicant was questioned. He was not assisted by a lawyer. According to the applicant, he was threatened that if he did not confess the investigator would order his cellmates to rape him. The applicant confessed to the murder.

At 8.20 p.m. on the same day the arrest record was read out to him.

On 3 May 1997 the applicant was brought to the scene of the crime where he repeated his confession and gave details of the murder. He was not assisted by a lawyer.

On 8 May 1997 the applicant was provided with a lawyer.

At the trial the applicant retracted his confession. He admitted that he had been at the victim’s house on the evening of the murder. However, he denied killing her.

On 15 January 2001 the Kondinskiy District Court of the Khanty-Mansiyskiy Region convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. It relied on the applicant’s confession statement of 2 May 1997, testimony by several police officers that the confession had been made by the applicant without any pressure and statements by witness Kh. that he had seen the applicant in the victim’s house several hours before the murder. The court also relied on the autopsy of the victim describing the injuries and establishing the cause of death.

On 18 October 2006 the Khanty-Mansiskiy Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal. It found, in particular, that the District Court’s reliance on the applicant’s confession statement had been lawful. The applicant had been questioned and had confessed before the arrest record had been read out to him. He had not therefore been entitled to legal assistance during that questioning.

.......

As regards legal assistance at the pre-trial stages of the proceedings, the Court has held that the particular vulnerability of the accused at the initial stages of police questioning can only be properly compensated for by the assistance of a lawyer, whose task is, among other things, to help to ensure respect for the right of an accused not to incriminate himself. This right indeed presupposes that the prosecution in a criminal case seek to prove their case against the accused without resort to evidence obtained through methods of coercion or oppression in defiance of the will of the accused. Accordingly, in order for the right to a fair trial to remain sufficiently “practical and effective” Article 6 § 1 requires that, as a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first questioning of a suspect by the police....

The Court further notes that the applicant was undoubtedly affected by the restrictions of his access to a lawyer in that his statement to the police was used for his conviction. Indeed, the confession statement made by the applicant without the benefit of legal advice served as the sole basis for the finding of guilt both in the first-instance and the appeal judgments (see paragraphs 12 and 13 above). The Court therefore finds that, irrespective of whether the applicant had the opportunity to challenge the evidence against him before the courts, the absence of a lawyer while he was in police custody irretrievably affected his defence rights (see Salduz, cited above, §§ 58 and 62; Panovits, cited above, §§ 75-77 and 84-86; and Pavlenko v. Russia, no. 42371/02, § 119, 1 April 2010).

The Court concludes from the above findings that the use of his confession statement made without the benefit of legal advice for the applicant’s conviction undermined the fairness of the proceedings as a whole.

There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention.

Numbers

Thank you for researching and posting these ECHR cases.

In what way do you believe this case is comparable to Amanda and I assume Raffaele case?

The information you provide states the individual was a suspect. Wouldn’t the Italian judiciary state that Raffaele and Amanda were witnesses of interest, rather than suspects? Raffaele and Amanda attended the police station voluntary in response to request to clarify their previous statements. This still bugs me, given Raffaele sister at the time was Caribinieri officer, I assume she may have had, shall I say a professional appreciation of the implication of the requests, I guess Raffaele dismissed sibling advice.

I am sure I have this all wrong, is it not down to how Raffaele and Amanda were treated after they were suspects rather than the murky witnesses of interests?

 

[Welshman]

Incorrect statement (and false conclusion about lyiong). Comodi said "nothing had happened" yet, not referred to concerns but as opposed the previous answer of Knox, where Ms. Knox mentioned the confusion and the many things that were happening after the arrival of the police.

It would make no sense to accuse Comodi of lying, by the way, also because there is not that difference as for the number of things that happened between 12:00 and 12:47; very little happened within that time frame. In the "discovery" of strange clues was almost complete, knowledge about the things that would cause concern was not that different: by around 12 Knox had already discovered all those things which (she says) made her conclude that someone had entered the house and made her feel worried to the point of calling Filomena and call Sollecito. The time after that was basically wasted time. Not answering to Filomena's calls. Waiting and being uncertain whether telling Sollecito over breakfast first, then waiting another fifteen minutes after filomena's last call.



And the proof? Actually, what comes out is that it was Knox and Sollecito who lied about all their timings, which they changed several times, including this one. What we have is the Postal Police report which they wrote before they could know anything about the investigation. Then we have video evidence and the videos do not prove Sollecito's version at all, but even in the best event, the timings only leave room for a minor variation: calling the Carabinieri at 12:54 is still too late.



False.
It's an inocentisti myth. An invention of the knoxophiles.

The picture of the red coloured bathroom was simply never published in Italy.
It was published only by a British tabloid, which bought it from a press agancy together with a batch of tens of photos from the crime scene. The decision to publish the photos was by a British tabloid, presumably for lucrative reason (sell morbid stories), the prosecution or police had nothing to do with it. Neither it is reasonable to assume that the police and prosecution could have any interest in publishing the photo, also considering that in fact in Italy the photo was not published.

Comodi told Amanda in court that she made a call to her mother at 12.00 pm when phone records show the actual time as 12.47 pm. Comodi clearly lied. Machiavelli does not deal with this issue at all but instead writes a load of meaningless drivel.

The two officers from the postal police said they arrived 20 minutes earlier than they did and video evidence proved they were lying. There is a section on murderoferedithkercher.com which deals with call to the carbineri in detail.

Machiavelli claims the police and prosecution had nothing to do with the release of the photo of the bathroom after it had been sprayed with a chemical. The police took the photo and were the only people in a position to release the photo and how can anyone claim the police had nothing to do with the release of the photo.

Machiavelli was unable to respond to the other points I made in my post. Surely if you have just committed a murder, the last thing you want to do is return to the crime scene and report it to the police?

 

[Kauffer]

While your starting statements are all reasonable, when you add in that multiple profiles were found on the clasp, and that the clasp is an object that is unlikely to be touched by anyone except Meredith herself, an alternate conclusion is reached: It is highly unlikely that several individuals independently touched the clasp therefore the most probable cause is secondary transfer with the likely carrier being Meredith herself.

What you suggest is most plausible. Nevertheless, it is so intensely unlikely that the prosecution scenario is the correct one - that Mr Sollecito's profile is coherent evidence of his presence at the crime scene. There is no other evidence of him there and there should be if he was.

As you wonder, no one would have touched the clasp in the process of ripping the bra off Ms Kercher. They would have grasped the fabric. And whose DNA is on the fabric? Our murderer's is, that's whose.

 

[Numbers]

I agree with all that. . . . .My argument is that even if we do not consider possible contamination of the crime scene, innocent transfer by Meredeth is perfectly possible.

Yes. One possibility does not exclude the other.

Another possibility is that on Nov. 1, when Raffaele was over and he and Amanda made lunch, Meredith was present. She and Raff could have shaken hands or hugged, and his DNA could transfer to her hand. Then later she could have transferred it to her bra clasp.

The point is there are several possibilities for innocent transfer.

There could also have been a contamination event in the forensic lab.
There are oddities in the records of the testing of the bra clasp, this is discussed in detail on MMK. There was a secret (non-disclosed) retesting. See:

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/batch-5-bra-clasp-contamination-undocumented-re-run-tampering/

 

[Desert Fox]

Yes. One possibility does not exclude the other.

Another possibility is that on Nov. 1, when Raffaele was over and he and Amanda made lunch, Meredith was present. She and Raff could have shaken hands or hugged, and his DNA could transfer to her hand. Then later she could have transferred it to her bra clasp.
The point is there are several possibilities for innocent transfer.

There could also have been a contamination event in the forensic lab.
There are oddities in the records of the testing of the bra clasp, this is discussed in detail on MMK. There was a secret (non-disclosed) retesting. See:

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/batch-5-bra-clasp-contamination-undocumented-re-run-tampering/

That was exactly what I was suggesting is possible. The pro guilt side seems really touchy about accusing the police and prosecution of wrongdoing or just screwing up. As such, trying to do an end run around that argument.

 

[Numbers]

Numbers

Thank you for researching and posting these ECHR cases.

In what way do you believe this case is comparable to Amanda and I assume Raffaele case?
The information you provide states the individual was a suspect. Wouldn’t the Italian judiciary state that Raffaele and Amanda were witnesses of interest, rather than suspects? Raffaele and Amanda attended the police station voluntary in response to request to clarify their previous statements. This still bugs me, given Raffaele sister at the time was Caribinieri officer, I assume she may have had, shall I say a professional appreciation of the implication of the requests, I guess Raffaele dismissed sibling advice.

I am sure I have this all wrong, is it not down to how Raffaele and Amanda were treated after they were suspects rather than the murky witnesses of interests?

1. The comparable aspect is that when police question - in the sense of interrogate - then the person being questioned must be provided a lawyer and notified of the right to remain silent.

2. The ECtHR defines certain concepts as "autonomous" - meaning defined by the ECtHR for an international and general use, and not merely defined by the law or statement of the individual states of the Council of Europe. Thus, the ECtHR defines "suspect" in a practical sense, by how the person is treated by the state agents (police). There is a practical difference between a police interview and a police interrogation. And despite claims that Amanda was voluntarily at the police station, Giobbi in his court testimony states that he intended to have both Amanda and Raffaele brought in on November 5 for special questioning, that had not been done before in Perugia. And in fact, a large set of police were there and worked as "tag-teams" during the interrogations of Amanda and Raffaele. This "tag-team" method is itself is a sign of an interrogation of a suspect, rather than the interview of a witness.

The failure of the police to produce any contemporary documentation of the verbal exchanges at the interrogation, such as notes or recordings, will be telling to the ECtHR. The ECtHR forms inferences from such absences of official documentation.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Thanks for your reply Vibio.
I guess what I was trying to get at was that even amongst those that are convinced of guilt, there seem to be varying beliefs in how events happened. Even the convicting courts/judges come up with different versions of events.
Even the prosecution witnesses come up with contradictory evidence as to what was seen/heard and when.
Therefore how could anyone convict beyond a reasonable doubt?

Most of us here believe Amanda and Raffaele to be innocent. We generally agree that the crime scene photos and evidence tell a clear story: Meredith was overpowered by an attacker (Guede) who grabbed her from behind, threw her to the floor after a brief struggle, and cut her throat with a knife held in his right hand. He then dragged her into the middle of the room and sexually assaulted her.

Those who argue for guilt, however, do not care about the crime scene. They are fixated on the prosecution's dossier of "evidence" against Amanda and Raffaele: the kitchen knife, the bra fastener, the luminol, and an assortment of shambling, peripheral witnesses. These vague elements cannot possibly add up or tell a story, but they can be used to suggest that something else happened.

The guilters have no idea what, and they don't care. Any wild fable will do, as long as it involves Amanda Knox.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)

What's interesting is that instead of taking photos systematically of the crime scene room and then searching her purse and the letters and so on, the police may have taken a photo or two, searched the purse and moved it, taken another photo, started messing with the letters, etc. Also, when they were done, they piled many of her clothes in a laundry sack (?) or somesuch, including her jacket which turned out to have Guede's DNA on the sleeves.

(...)

According to trial transcripts, the forensic police processed the items in room (collecting samples, close up photos) from the bottom to the front door, in order to not go twice.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes. One possibility does not exclude the other.

Another possibility is that on Nov. 1, when Raffaele was over and he and Amanda made lunch, Meredith was present. She and Raff could have shaken hands or hugged, and his DNA could transfer to her hand. Then later she could have transferred it to her bra clasp.

The point is there are several possibilities for innocent transfer.

There could also have been a contamination event in the forensic lab.
There are oddities in the records of the testing of the bra clasp, this is discussed in detail on MMK. There was a secret (non-disclosed) retesting. See:

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/batch-5-bra-clasp-contamination-undocumented-re-run-tampering/

I'm convinced that Raffaele's DNA WAS NEVER on the bra clasp. That this was the result of laboratory contamination. Keep in mind that the test was never duplicated and it is very clear that there were issues with the machine and some of the runs. We'll never know for sure. I think what the RIS technician said during the last trial and that was a single test would never be considered evidence.

 

[Bill Williams]

Most of us here believe Amanda and Raffaele to be innocent. We generally agree that the crime scene photos and evidence tell a clear story: Meredith was overpowered by an attacker (Guede) who grabbed her from behind, threw her to the floor after a brief struggle, and cut her throat with a knife held in his right hand. He then dragged her into the middle of the room and sexually assaulted her.

Those who argue for guilt, however, do not care about the crime scene. They are fixated on the prosecution's dossier of "evidence" against Amanda and Raffaele: the kitchen knife, the bra fastener, the luminol, and an assortment of shambling, peripheral witnesses. These vague elements cannot possibly add up or tell a story, but they can be used to suggest that something else happened.

The guilters have no idea what, and they don't care. Any wild fable will do, as long as it involves Amanda Knox.

The pro-guilt lobby has a phrase - "the whole cottage is the crime scene" - that is in reality a way to avoid talking about the bedroom.

Massei's conviction is based on this... his constant refrain, "Amanda's biological material is mixed with Meredith's blood," is at least honest; but here's the deal - that refrain refers to forensics outside of the bedroom, and almost (but not quite) always focussed on the bathroom that Amanda and Meredith shared.

Massei never convincingly explains why this is at all an explanation for guilt. Rudy Guede by his own admission was in the murder room, and by his own admission was in that bathroom. Unlike Amanda, he did not have an innocent reason for being in either place that night.

Why Amanda's "biological material" found in the bathroom has been a mystery, only in the sense that why wouldn't her biological material (exfoliated skin cells, etc.) be in that room as a matter of course?

What the pro-guilt lobby has - and what both convicting courts have - are wild assumptions.

The Nencini court, for instance, thinks it has proven that the bra-clasp DNA could not be the result of contamination, because (with no evidence at all to suggest it) Nencini thinks it possible that the three unattributed Y-Haplotypes could be Meredith's boyfriend's, plus two of her "amicas".

That is the level of reasoning used in this case.

It is one thing for anonymous internet commentators to reason this way, it is quite another for courts of a 1st world country to rule this way.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

According to trial transcripts, the forensic police processed the items in room (collecting samples, close up photos) from the bottom to the front door, in order to not go twice.

I believe the crime scene video over self-serving testimony. A tribe of baboons might take a more orderly approach if they were scouring a dung heap for beetles.

 

[Dan O.]

Furthermore, the bra clasp was apparently somewhere on the floor of the murder room (Meredith's bedroom) for 46 days, perhaps being stepped on with DNA-contaminated shoes or booties from time-to-time.

There is no perhaps about this. Between the time the clasp was photographed on the floor under the pillow and when it was picked up and examined 6 weeks later, something completely crushed one of the hooks.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Gary Leiterman, Adam Scott, and negative controls.

I believe the crime scene video over self-serving testimony. A tribe of baboons might take a more orderly approach if they were scouring a dung heap for beetles.

Stefanoni's testimony about lack of contamination is equal parts self-serving and worthless. We know from both the Gary Leiterman and the Adam Scott cases that a laboratory will sometimes ignore a positive result in a negative control. We also know from the Leiterman case that the lab workers may testify that there has been no contamination even when there was, by the laboratory's own notes. That is one reason why discovery of DNA evidence should be entirely unfettered. Comodi's statements about discovery, as much as her--understandable lapses of memory-- with respect to Amanda's phone records are evidence of an extremely peculiar view of what constitutes good professional ethics. MOO.

 

[Desert Fox]

I'm convinced that Raffaele's DNA WAS NEVER on the bra clasp. That this was the result of laboratory contamination. Keep in mind that the test was never duplicated and it is very clear that there were issues with the machine and some of the runs. We'll never know for sure. I think what the RIS technician said during the last trial and that was a single test would never be considered evidence.

I think that it is possible (I don't know how to address probabilities here) that you are right. I would argue that Meredeth's DNA being on the random knife is very likely a lab contamination.

Just arguing though that it could potentially just be innocent transfer however.

 

[Numbers]

There is no perhaps about this. Between the time the clasp was photographed on the floor under the pillow and when it was picked up and examined 6 weeks later, something completely crushed one of the hooks.

Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity in my statement. Here is a clarification:

The bra clasp was stepped on from time-to-time with shoes or booties which may have been contaminated with, and transferred, DNA.

ETA: IIRC, the bra clasp was photographed on or about Nov. 2 and the hooks etc. were essentially undeformed. When the bra clasp was collected 46 days later, the hooks were deformed - one extremely so.

 

[acbytesla]

I think that it is possible (I don't know how to address probabilities here) that you are right. I would argue that Meredeth's DNA being on the random knife is very likely a lab contamination.

Just arguing though that it could potentially just be innocent transfer however.

There is no way to address probabilities. All we can really do is speculate. And there has been far too much of that going on.

 

[MichaelB]

Suppressed SAL Reps.

Sept 14 page 50 http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/.../01/Trascrizioni-2009-Sep-14-Tagliabracci.pdf

AVVOCATO BONGIORNO - No abbiamo bisogno che lei lì legga sempre le cose che dice. CONSULENTE - Allora non sono presenti, non hanno la scheda s.a.l. il reperto 3, il reperto 14, il reperto 29, il reperto 58, i reperti che vanno dal 148 al 151, i reperti che vanno dal 154 al 163 e i reperti che vanno dal 203 al 222, questi sono sprovvisti di s.a.l. pur essendo riportati nella relazione tecnica di indagini forensi. Questo è il reperto 165.

Reps 3, 14, 29, 58, 148-151, 154-163, 203-222

Rep.03 – Nb.2 Sample of presumed biological liquid taken from the pavement near the French window of the room (Rep.3) (not analyzed)

Rep.14 - Sample hair formations taken from the external part of the vagina of the victim (delivered personally by the writer the pathologist Dr. Lalli) - page 19 A.F./39 R;

Rep.29 - Nb. 2 Salivary swab taken of DIYA Lumumba - page 22 A.F./60 R.;

Rep.58 - Green and white toothbrush found inside a glass drinking glass in the bathroom in the apartment used by GUEDE Rudy Hermann (Rep.B) page 25 A.F./97 R.;

Rep. 148 – Towel with trace of presumed blood trace in taken from a hook on the seft side of the bathroom. (sample A) – page 302 A.F./185 R.;
Rep.149 – Plastic filter with trace of presumed blood substance found inside the drain of the sink in the bathroom (sample C) page 3-5 A.F./186 R.;
Rep.150 – Blue jean-type slacks marked “LOOSE-FIT” size 31, with trace of presumed blood substance, found on the bed. (sample D) – page 307 A.F./187 R.;
Rep.151 – Entry ticket “CHAGALL DELLE MERAVIGLIE”, near the Complesso del Vottoriano in Rome, with trace of presumed blood substance, dated 05/29,2007 (sample E) – page 309 A.F./189 R.;
Rep.154 – Nr.1 Hair formation found on the floor of the bathroom (sample 3) – page 311 A.F./190 R.;
Rep.155 – Nr.1 Hair formation found on the floor of the bathroom (sample 4) – page 312 A.F./191 R.;
Rep.156 Nr.1 Hair formation found inside a bathroom glass toothbrush holder (sample 5) – page 313 A.F./192 R.;
Rep.157 – Nr.1 Sample of presumed blood substance taken from the lever of the mixer tap of the faucet of the bathroom sink (sample 6) – page 314 A.F./193 R.;
Rep.158 - Nr.1 Sample of presumed blood substance taken from the inside of the metal connection between the canotto and the trap of the sink (sample 7) – page 315 A.F./194 R.;
Rep.159 Nr. 5 Fragments of leather taken from a brown jacket taken from the bed (sample 8) – page 317 A.F./195 R.;
Rep.160 – Nr.1 Sample of presumed biological trace taken from the caulking in the floor of the kitchen (sample 9) – page 319A.F./196 R.;
Rep.161 – Nr.1 Sample of presumed biological trace found in the receiver of an entry phone fixed to the left wall of the studio apartment (sample 19) – page 320A.F. 197 R.;
Rep.162 – Sample of presumed biological trace of the outer spalla of the left entry door to the studio apartment (sample 11) – page 322 A.F./198 R.;
Rep.163 – Nr.1 Sample of presumed blood evidence revealed by luminol , on the floor placed beneath the bathroom washbasin (sample 12) – page 323 A.F./199 R.;

203 - 222 not translated

So everything to do with Guede was suppressed. Rep 205 is his belt (?) which was TMB positive. Photo of it on page 249 of the RTIGF. http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Polizia-Scientifica-RTIGF-Report.pdf

58 would be interesting because I think they were in his apartment before they said. Otherwise his reference swab number would be much further down the list.