Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
One of the key pieces of evidence against Sollecito is the presence of his DNA on the bra fastener of Meredith Kercher, recovered some six weeks after the original crime scene investigation. Whilst there may be a need to consider in laboratory contamination, there are several explanations for the presence of the DNA that are innocent.

If we consider mechanisms of DNA transfer examples of innocent mechanisms might include the following. Primary transfer occurs when an individual’s DNA is directly transmitted to another individual or object. It does not however imply touch; DNA can be directly transmitted by coughing or sneezing for instance. Thus it is possible that Sollecito’s DNA on the fastener of Meredith Kercher’s bra fastener might have originated from Sollecito coughing or sneezing near the bra, if for instance it was hanging up to dry, or was in a pile to be washed.

Secondary transfer occurs when DNA is deposited on a surface (including an individual) then is transferred from that surface to a second site, an example might be Meredith Kercher shaking hands with, hugging or ruffling the hair of Sollecito, primary DNA transfer depositing Sollecito’s DNA onto Meredith Kercher’s hands. She then transfers Sollecito’s DNA from her hands onto the bra fastener as she puts on her bra.

Tertiary transfer of DNA is when the DNA is further transferred to a third site. This is in fact well recognised in the medical world as a route of disease transmission. For instance medical staff who have acquired EBOLA have often done so through tertiary transmission. The virus contaminates the mask or gloves of the doctor (primary transfer), during removal the virus gets on the hands of the doctor or nurse (intact skin is not a route of entry for viruses) secondary transfer, then from the hands to mucosal membranes when the hands touch the mouth, nose or eyes. (In fact this is a common route of transmission of flu, from a surface contaminated by virus from a sneeze or cough, then to a hand, then to nose or mouth.) In this case tertiary transfer could occur (as suggested by Prof. Gill) when DNA was deposited by Sollecito on the external handle of the door to MK’s bedroom. Trying to force the door open would have provided an excellent mechanism to transfer DNA onto the door knob. Secondary transfer then occurred with Sollecito’s DNA transferring to the gloves of the forensic investigator when they touched the door knob with gloved hands, the smooth surface of the metal knob would be a good surface to pick up DNA from. Tertiary transfer then occurred from the glove to the bra strap. The ‘rough’ fabric of the fastener would have provided an excellent pick up surface for DNA.
 
One of the key pieces of evidence against Sollecito is the presence of his DNA on the bra fastener of Meredith Kercher, recovered some six weeks after the original crime scene investigation. Whilst there may be a need to consider in laboratory contamination, there are several explanations for the presence of the DNA that are innocent.

If we consider mechanisms of DNA transfer examples of innocent mechanisms might include the following. Primary transfer occurs when an individual’s DNA is directly transmitted to another individual or object. It does not however imply touch; DNA can be directly transmitted by coughing or sneezing for instance. Thus it is possible that Sollecito’s DNA on the fastener of Meredith Kercher’s bra fastener might have originated from Sollecito coughing or sneezing near the bra, if for instance it was hanging up to dry, or was in a pile to be washed.
Secondary transfer occurs when DNA is deposited on a surface (including an individual) then is transferred from that surface to a second site, an example might be Meredith Kercher shaking hands with, hugging or ruffling the hair of Sollecito, primary DNA transfer depositing Sollecito’s DNA onto Meredith Kercher’s hands. She then transfers Sollecito’s DNA from her hands onto the bra fastener as she puts on her bra.

Tertiary transfer of DNA is when the DNA is further transferred to a third site. This is in fact well recognised in the medical world as a route of disease transmission. For instance medical staff who have acquired EBOLA have often done so through tertiary transmission. The virus contaminates the mask or gloves of the doctor (primary transfer), during removal the virus gets on the hands of the doctor or nurse (intact skin is not a route of entry for viruses) secondary transfer, then from the hands to mucosal membranes when the hands touch the mouth, nose or eyes. (In fact this is a common route of transmission of flu, from a surface contaminated by virus from a sneeze or cough, then to a hand, then to nose or mouth.) In this case tertiary transfer could occur (as suggested by Prof. Gill) when DNA was deposited by Sollecito on the external handle of the door to MK’s bedroom. Trying to force the door open would have provided an excellent mechanism to transfer DNA onto the door knob. Secondary transfer then occurred with Sollecito’s DNA transferring to the gloves of the forensic investigator when they touched the door knob with gloved hands, the smooth surface of the metal knob would be a good surface to pick up DNA from. Tertiary transfer then occurred from the glove to the bra strap. The ‘rough’ fabric of the fastener would have provided an excellent pick up surface for DNA.

He was / is a smoker and most smokers I have known due tend to cough a lot.
 
There is a case in California where exonerating evidence of the defendant was found in the garage of one of the investigating officers.

Yea, well, there is a case in Perugia where the police forensic scientist who analyzes suspects' DNA found the control data in her garage. :p
 
curriculum vitae provided

In his textbook Advanced topics in forensic DNA typing: methodology, Dr. John Butler wrote, "A copy of the experts curriculum vitae or CV is generally provided to opposing counsel, and may also be entered into the court's record during testimony. The CV contains education background, experience in current and previous positions, traning, and a listing of any professional societies of which the witness is a member along with any scientific articles published." p. 525. I am baffled the refusal of the forensic police to provide this information. It flies in the face of the notion that justice must be seen to be done.
 
"On this knife there are no traces of the victim whatsoever. Nowhere on the knife."

Walter Patumi

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUX2MnFS1rw&feature=youtu.be

Maresca gets "owned" by the experts on this Italian TV show.

Maresca claims Meredith's DNA was found on the "tip of the blade."

Patumi says: "No. It wasn't on the tip of the knife. The test wasn't made on the tip of the knife. The lawyer's imagination."
 
In his textbook Advanced topics in forensic DNA typing: methodology, Dr. John Butler wrote, "A copy of the experts curriculum vitae or CV is generally provided to opposing counsel, and may also be entered into the court's record during testimony. The CV contains education background, experience in current and previous positions, traning, and a listing of any professional societies of which the witness is a member along with any scientific articles published." p. 525. I am baffled the refusal of the forensic police to provide this information. It flies in the face of the notion that justice must be seen to be done.

It may be that there isn't much there. Certainly if she were an accomplished scientist there would be accomplishments to show. Her professional applause comes from police awards banquets where they praise each other for stellar detective work.
 
Last edited:
"On this knife there are no traces of the victim whatsoever. Nowhere on the knife."

Walter Patumi

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUX2MnFS1rw&feature=youtu.be

Maresca gets "owned" by the experts on this Italian TV show.

Maresca claims Meredith's DNA was found on the "tip of the blade."

Patumi says: "No. It wasn't on the tip of the knife. The test wasn't made on the tip of the knife. The lawyer's imagination."

Its sickening to watch Maresca sit there and lie on national tv, his vindictive illness is so visible, his lying so obvious.. a new low even for Maresca. :they found dna on the tip"...what a load of crap he spews. This man has no integrity or honesty it seems.
 
One of the key pieces of evidence against Sollecito is the presence of his DNA on the bra fastener of Meredith Kercher, recovered some six weeks after the original crime scene investigation. Whilst there may be a need to consider in laboratory contamination, there are several explanations for the presence of the DNA that are innocent.

If we consider mechanisms of DNA transfer examples of innocent mechanisms might include the following. Primary transfer occurs when an individual’s DNA is directly transmitted to another individual or object. It does not however imply touch; DNA can be directly transmitted by coughing or sneezing for instance. Thus it is possible that Sollecito’s DNA on the fastener of Meredith Kercher’s bra fastener might have originated from Sollecito coughing or sneezing near the bra, if for instance it was hanging up to dry, or was in a pile to be washed.

Secondary transfer occurs when DNA is deposited on a surface (including an individual) then is transferred from that surface to a second site, an example might be Meredith Kercher shaking hands with, hugging or ruffling the hair of Sollecito, primary DNA transfer depositing Sollecito’s DNA onto Meredith Kercher’s hands. She then transfers Sollecito’s DNA from her hands onto the bra fastener as she puts on her bra.

Tertiary transfer of DNA is when the DNA is further transferred to a third site. This is in fact well recognised in the medical world as a route of disease transmission. For instance medical staff who have acquired EBOLA have often done so through tertiary transmission. The virus contaminates the mask or gloves of the doctor (primary transfer), during removal the virus gets on the hands of the doctor or nurse (intact skin is not a route of entry for viruses) secondary transfer, then from the hands to mucosal membranes when the hands touch the mouth, nose or eyes. (In fact this is a common route of transmission of flu, from a surface contaminated by virus from a sneeze or cough, then to a hand, then to nose or mouth.) In this case tertiary transfer could occur (as suggested by Prof. Gill) when DNA was deposited by Sollecito on the external handle of the door to MK’s bedroom. Trying to force the door open would have provided an excellent mechanism to transfer DNA onto the door knob. Secondary transfer then occurred with Sollecito’s DNA transferring to the gloves of the forensic investigator when they touched the door knob with gloved hands, the smooth surface of the metal knob would be a good surface to pick up DNA from. Tertiary transfer then occurred from the glove to the bra strap. The ‘rough’ fabric of the fastener would have provided an excellent pick up surface for DNA.

I bow to your expertise in these matters and was particularly fascinated by your Ebola example. I was following your argument (written, I think, for science duffers like me) all the way to the end, saying - "Yes", "Yes, I understand that". But your last sentence threw me. Mr Sollecito's DNA is on the "smooth" metal of the "fastener" or the hooks, is it not - rather than, as you described, the "rough" fabric, as part of a mixed profile? Have I misunderstood? Would you kindly clarify?

I have come to think about the issue of Mr Sollecito's DNA in the room, ONLY on the clasp, as an oddity, amongst other things because I had understood that in the first place, metal is not the best repository, fabric is better and and we do not find his DNA on any fabric, including the bra and so the question would be; how likely is it that he could handle the bra and only leave DNA on the hooks? Or, alternatively, could he have simply touched the hooks and no other part of the bra? I had concluded that the answer to the first question was - "not very likely at all" - and the answer to the second question was, "No". With regard to the second question, Giulia Bongiorno posited the "dragonfly" theory, as one the prosecution must hold if they are to believe Mr Sollecito guilty.

Of course, we do not find ANY other physical evidence of his possible presence anywhere in the room, which would be an even greater oddity, I would think, if he left his DNA directly on the hooks. Additionally, Guede's DNA IS found on the bra fabric in what must, I understand, have been a time stamped occurrence.
 
I bow to your expertise in these matters and was particularly fascinated by your Ebola example. I was following your argument (written, I think, for science duffers like me) all the way to the end, saying - "Yes", "Yes, I understand that". But your last sentence threw me. Mr Sollecito's DNA is on the "smooth" metal of the "fastener" or the hooks, is it not - rather than, as you described, the "rough" fabric, as part of a mixed profile? Have I misunderstood? Would you kindly clarify?

I have come to think about the issue of Mr Sollecito's DNA in the room, ONLY on the clasp, as an oddity, amongst other things because I had understood that in the first place, metal is not the best repository, fabric is better and and we do not find his DNA on any fabric, including the bra and so the question would be; how likely is it that he could handle the bra and only leave DNA on the hooks? Or, alternatively, could he have simply touched the hooks and no other part of the bra? I had concluded that the answer to the first question was - "not very likely at all" - and the answer to the second question was, "No". With regard to the second question, Giulia Bongiorno posited the "dragonfly" theory, as one the prosecution must hold if they are to believe Mr Sollecito guilty.

Of course, we do not find ANY other physical evidence of his possible presence anywhere in the room, which would be an even greater oddity, I would think, if he left his DNA directly on the hooks. Additionally, Guede's DNA IS found on the bra fabric in what must, I understand, have been a time stamped occurrence.

I accept your point. I have never been quite sure (and perhaps Mach or another Italian speaker can clarify if the translation is more specific) whether the testing of the bra fastener is limited to the metal, or included the fabric to which the fastener is attached. In point of fact I suspect it is difficult to swab the metal hook without touching the adjacent fabric. My interpretation was that the outer surface - just fabric and the inner surface fabric and metal hooks were tested.
 
...

Of course, we do not find ANY other physical evidence of his possible presence anywhere in the room, which would be an even greater oddity, I would think, if he left his DNA directly on the hooks. Additionally, Guede's DNA IS found on the bra fabric in what must, I understand, have been a time stamped occurrence.


You have it correct. The sample that yealded a profile including a compatibility for Raffaele was from the two hooks. The fabric of the clasp yealded only Meredith's profile.

What are the odds of a single individual touching that clasp getting DNA only on the hook and not on the fabrics? Just trying to figure out how an individual could do that delibrately is enough of a brain teaser but for it to happen accidentally while trying to remove the bra has got to be pretty remote. Now, what are the odds that 4 separate individuals each leave their DNA on those hooks. And if the presence of the DNA of one is an indication of guilt then why is not the presence of the DNA of each of those individuals an indication of each of their guilt? And then, what is the theory that can account for all of those individuals being part of the crime? The fact is that nobody has proposed any such theory. The prosecution has used a suspect centered approach and focused only on the presence of Raffaele's profile and ignored the rest.

The logical conclusion when you look at the whole of the evidence Is that there was an event that transferred the mixed DNA of several individuals to the hook of the clasp. Since there is no theory of these multiple individuals being present at the crime, the event itself is therefore unrelated to the crime.

We can speculate on various paths of this event. Speculation is not evidence but it can give us directions to search for additional evidence. One possible path is that Meredith picked up the DNA of several individuals in the night and morning prior to her murder and transferred these to the bra hook prior to getting dressed that morning. We know that Meredith was interacting with several individuals the night before (there are pictures) and Meredith was in the cottage that morning while Raffaele was there. It may be possible to find individuals from the disco that fill in the rest of the profile. Another possible path is that the clasp was delibrately contaminated by an object of Raffaele's taken from the prison. Identifying other individuals from the prison population that fill in the clasp profile would support this path. A third path is that the DNA was not on the clasp at all but came from contamination in the lab. The EDF's for all testing in the lab over that time frame would show if there were additional low level contamination events. If the DNA profiles of other individuals whoose DNA was being processed in the lab around the same time filled in the profile found on the clasp, that would support this third path.
 
One of the things one sometimes notices in science are results that are too good. People get perfect results and you just know they aren't right. An example of this is the footprint analysis of the bathmat. If you look up about footprint analysis you find that footprints vary in size. They vary by 2 - 5 mm depending on the dimension you measure. They vary from morning to evening. They vary depending on whether the print is standing or walking. They vary depending on how much weight you put on the foot. Measuring footprints is not easy, the dimensions are somewhat subjective so there is some inevitable variation in measurements of about a mm. So what do we find if we look at the footprint analysis.

A B
30 30
39 37
99 99 50 57 39 40
28 28 8 8 99 99 92 92 75 75 40 40
43 42

8/12 measures are identical. Including those only 1 mm difference 10/12 are identical. This would be unlikely for footprints of the same person taken at different times. If you consider these footprints are formed in different ways one with viscous ink on a firm non absorbent surface, the other on an absorbent yielding surface by bloodstained water, the likelihood that footprints from one individual would be so similar in dimensions seems very unlikely. These results are too good. We are all clear about use of callunia charges to suppress criticism of officials; so I want to be clear that all I imply is these results are extremely unlikely, not that there was any fraud involved in the measuring. I am sure the experts concerned were entirely neutral in their measurements, entirely objective, not at all suspect orientated; just very very lucky that all the factors managed to cancel themselves out resulting in 10/12 dimensions being identical.

Now the corollary of this argument is that if the prosecution argument is that the footprint on the bathmat is so exactly matching the reference print of Sollecito, how do they explain the highlighted variation. The ball of Sollecito's foot is larger by 7 mm than the ball of the foot measured. This is akin to having an exact description of someone as being 5' 6'' tall and finding someone who otherwise meets the description and is six foot tall. The ball of Sollecito's foot is too big to have left this print. This is a critical measure because any change in this dimension alters the other dimensions measured. If they had measured the ball of the foot as longer on the bathmat print the great toe would have had to have been smaller. The width of the foot would have been smaller. To get the other dimensions they measured the ball of the foot has to be measured as being too short to be Sollecito's. Either the other dimensions are inaccurate or the length of the ball of foot as measured excludes Sollecito.
 
Last edited:
An amusing exchange

Here is MisterPink and JohnQ engaged in a spat over the DNA evidence down PMF way, in connection with Mr Sollecito's bread knife. Pink, to his credit, actually looks at the real evidence, while JohnQ tries to slap him down suggesting that his approach is the reason why he was once thought a troll! What a mindset!

"That the kitchen knife was ever at the cottage is of course unproven, not to be taken as factual pillar of any theory of how the murder unfolded." MisterPink

"No, there is a whole list of evidence that the knife was transported and used as the murder weapon and Massaei and Nencini concluded this. Why you insist it isn't "proven" is one of those bizarre things you say sometimes." JohnQ

"Let's look at that evidence: It is not at all surprising that Knox's DNA should be, for entirely innocent reasons, on the handle of the top-most knife in the cutlery drawer. Knox told her parents "I'm worried about the knife" but the context is unclear and certainly does not indicate that the knife was the murder weapon. Sollecito said that Meredith's DNA was on the blade because of a cooking incident at his apartment. It's a suspicious thing to say, but his concocted explanation distinctly does not place the knife at the cottage. As for how Meredith's DNA came to be on the blade, apart from being a murder weapon it could have come into contact with her DNA either in Sollecito's apartment during the clean-up, or possibly after it was collected by police.
The evidence against it being a murder weapon is: it doesn't fit one of the wounds and it's simply not that scary a knife compared to many in Sollecito's collection which Knox also handled. It's also bizarre that they would use the knife in the murder then bring it back to Sollecito's apartment and wash it, gambling that it was clean enough that no trace of Meredith would be found. Finally the analysis by the carabinieri showed that Meredith's DNA was not present at the base of the blade, an area which would be virtually impossible to clean without soaking it in bleach, and soaking it in bleach would certainly have destroyed any DNA located farther up the blade.
Given all that, we could guesstimate that the chance of the knife being a murder weapon is somewhere between 10% and 90%." MisterPink

"You are rationalizing in order to support theories which are so improbable as to be ridiculous. This knife's negative imprint in blood was found in Meredith's room. It has been accepted by Massaei and Nencini as the murder weapon. This is why people used to call you a troll." JohnQ
 
Last edited:
I accept your point. I have never been quite sure (and perhaps Mach or another Italian speaker can clarify if the translation is more specific) whether the testing of the bra fastener is limited to the metal, or included the fabric to which the fastener is attached. In point of fact I suspect it is difficult to swab the metal hook without touching the adjacent fabric. My interpretation was that the outer surface - just fabric and the inner surface fabric and metal hooks were tested.

Thanks for this. But of course, when you said:

"The ‘rough’ fabric of the fastener would have provided an excellent pick up surface for DNA."

...I think you were making a further valuable point. If Mr Sollecito grabbed the bra strap, we would have expected him to have left his DNA on the fabric many more times out of a hundred say, than we would have expected him to leave it on the hooks alone. I expect I am not alone here in having attempted the "experiment" of trying to hold a fastened bra strap by the hooks alone. It's pretty much impossible.
 
I've been hacking my way through google translate, on Raf's new appeal doc, 306 pgs, and it is great reading.

http://www.raffaelesollecito.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/SOLLECITO-motivi-nuovi-finale.pdf

The first major point made, is Nencini's refusal to commit to a time of death. The argument is that by refusing to address TOD, Nencini makes it impossible to offer alibi evidence that Raf was not in the place of the crime, when the crime occurred. Because if such is the case, then no other evidence is relevant. It's a great elegant argument. I feel momentum swinging to acquittal. I truly do.

I could see outright acquittal on all charges, except the staging a break-in. And the staging charge being dismissed for lack of evidence.

(The court can use Hellman as a vehicle for finding innocence, except on the staging charge, because Hellman found that the 'staging' never occurred. Where as 'staging' is a judicial truth from Rudy's trials. So declaring innocence by Hellman's view (that the crime never existed) on that charge would create a factual conflict. But if Raf's alibi (hence Amanda's alibi) were accepted as true, then it negates the possibility of their having 'staged' the scene as well.
 
Last edited:
They could have pre-staged the breakin in the afternoon after Meredith left just in case she returned with a date that would kill her.
 
Last edited:
It's a mystery

I've been hacking my way through google translate, on Raf's new appeal doc, 306 pgs, and it is great reading.

http://www.raffaelesollecito.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/SOLLECITO-motivi-nuovi-finale.pdf

The first major point made, is Nencini's refusal to commit to a time of death. The argument is that by refusing to address TOD, Nencini makes it impossible to offer alibi evidence that Raf was not in the place of the crime, when the crime occurred. Because if such is the case, then no other evidence is relevant. It's a great elegant argument. I feel momentum swinging to acquittal. I truly do.

I could see outright acquittal on all charges, except the staging a break-in. And the staging charge being dismissed for lack of evidence.

(The court can use Hellman as a vehicle for finding innocence, except on the staging charge, because Hellman found that the 'staging' never occurred. Where as 'staging' is a judicial truth from Rudy's trials. So declaring innocence by Hellman's view (that the crime never existed) on that charge would create a factual conflict. But if Raf's alibi (hence Amanda's alibi) were accepted as true, then it negates the possibility of their having 'staged' the scene as well.


Really :)
Surely if he can account for his whereabouts between 21.00 and 00.10 that should do the trick.

What is his alibi currently – let us know when you get to it.
& whether or not he is now providing an alibi for AK.

Actually if they both claimed they were together in his flat from 21.00 onwards (till midnight at least) that should suffice. It’s a mystery why GB has missed this :eye-poppi
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom