Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Dougm]

I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or not but I think the DNA evidence against Rudy is very relevant especially when put all together and with the other evidence against him.

Don't want to speak for others, but my POV is that even if the DNA against Rudy were thrown out, there is plenty of other evidence to convict him. I agree the DNA is powerful, but his finger, palm, and shoe prints in Meredith's blood, in a flat where he had never before been, and had no provable reason to be, is plenty, IMO.

 

[carbonjam72]

Don't want to speak for others, but my POV is that even if the DNA against Rudy were thrown out, there is plenty of other evidence to convict him. I agree the DNA is powerful, but his finger, palm, and shoe prints in Meredith's blood, in a flat where he had never before been, and had no provable reason to be, is plenty, IMO.

This is a question that has been bugging me.

The prosecution has the burden of proof for proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Rudy says he was on a date. I doubt it. But whose burden of proof is it?

Rudy says some other dude did it. Whose burden of proof?

Does the burden of proof shift to the defendant once a "case has been made"?

I'm thinking of the case of the one armed man and Dr Sheppard, the basis of the TV show and films "The Fugitive".

I'd have voted guilty. But the fact that Rudy is willing to lie about what happened is nonetheless unsettling.

If you can't vote guilty for Rudy in this case, there may as well not be trials at all. Still...

 

[Chris_Halkides]

taking the temperature or not; quick thoughts on DNA

A reporter covering the Mark Lundy case wrote, "A forensic pathologist says the doctor who examined the bodies of Amber and Christine Lundy did the right thing by not testing the bodies at the scene. Dr Martin Sage, who has more than 30 years experience in forensic pathology, was asked to review the forensic pathology methods used in the investigation. Dr James Pang earlier told the court he decided not to test the bodies for their temperature or rigor mortis in fear of disturbing key evidence. Sage said that was a good move, as the murder was a "whodunnit". 'The priority was finding trace evidence samples, then extract the bodies from the scene.' Taking body temperature involved inserting a probe into the rectum, which could disturb trace evidence if the victim had been sexually assaulted, Sage said. 'There is always a whiff of anxiety with females that there could have been a sexual assault.'"

I have reservations about Dr. Pang's work in the murders of Christine and Amber Lundy, but he may have made the right call. I have many reservations about the forensics of this case, but I am not in a position to disagree with the decision about not measuring the temperature of Meredith's body. However, it does prompt the question, "Why not test the pillowcase stain?"

With respect to Rudi's DNA, you can throw out 100% of it, and there is enough remaining evidence to convict him twice over and have a little to spare (the bloody shoe prints and the cuts on his hands are also strong evidence against him). But the DNA evidence against him is better evidence against him (in general) than the DNA evidence against Amanda, for the simple reason that Amanda lived there but Rudi had never even visited. When I have more time, I will look at the YSTR evidence against Rudi in more detail, but I don't recall that there were as many contributors as there were to the YSTR profile of the bra clasp.

I have said repeatedly that all of the evidence collected on the 18th (against anyone) should either be taken at a deep discount or should be excluded altogether.

 

[LondonJohn]

I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or not but I think the DNA evidence against Rudy is very relevant especially when put all together and with the other evidence against him.

I agree. I have little doubt that if it were not for the bloody palmprint, the DNA in the victim's genitals (found at autopsy, remember, and never questioned as to reliability), and the DNA from the toilet paper, Guede would never even have been identified as a suspect. And even if somehow he had been brought in for interrogation (maybe owing to the nature of the break-in, or because someone grassed him up), he would have claimed that he was never there whatsoever.

In my opinion, the ONLY reason why Guede admitted to being in the cottage was that he (and his lawyers) knew that it was impossible for him to deny it. Remember also that Guede now knew that his Skype call with Benedetti had been recorded by the police, and Guede's voice was on that call admitting to being there! I think Guede also conceded that the shoe prints were his because he saw no downside from doing so - only potential upside by believing that his "honesty" might gain him some credit and would give his overarching version of events some added credibility.

But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that it was solid forensic evidence - in the form of the bloody hand print and the genital DNA (plus the toilet paper DNA) which boxed Guede into a corner from which he couldn't escape. I strongly suspect that had the prosecution only been working with not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni's inept work on the handbag (purse) and tracksuit top (coupled with the astonishing and inexcusable delays in collecting and analysing these pieces of evidence), Guede's lawyers would have fought that evidence tooth-and-nail. As it happened, there was no point whatsoever in them doing so, because there was already extremely strong forensic evidence proving Guede's presence at the murder and his sexual contact with the victim.


(And as an addendum, it ought to be pointed out that a matchable palm print in the victim's blood is FAR stronger evidence of participation in a murder than low-template DNA found in the vicinity of the victim. A bloody palm print is time-stamped to the murder in the way that DNA is not, and contamination is essentially impossible in the case of a palm print (while low-template DNA is extremely susceptible to contamination of course). And if one prefers to think that the police might even have engaged in extremely corrupt malpractice by planting evidence (I'm not one of those people), then it's relative easy to plant a suspect's low-template DNA, while it's virtually impossible to plant a suspect's latent print.)

 

[Dougm]

This is a question that has been bugging me.

The prosecution has the burden of proof for proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Rudy says he was on a date. I doubt it. But whose burden of proof is it?

Rudy says some other dude did it. Whose burden of proof?

Does the burden of proof shift to the defendant once a "case has been made"?

I'm thinking of the case of the one armed man and Dr Sheppard, the basis of the TV show and films "The Fugitive".

I'd have voted guilty. But the fact that Rudy is willing to lie about what happened is nonetheless unsettling.

If you can't vote guilty for Rudy in this case, there may as well not be trials at all. Still...

It should always be the prosecution's job to prove the case. Rudy's story is his attempt to put together an "innocent" version that explains those facts.

The problem is, his version is not supported by past history, logic, or corroboration from other witnesses. He never dated Meredith before. No one heard him arrange the "date" with her. None of Meredith's friends were told she had arranged to meet anyone at her home that night. And his story defies logic. How likely is it that he would be on this "date", go to the bathroom, and someone else would come in and kill Meredith? It is an extremely implausible story. And not supported by any evidence other than Rudy's own testimony.

Looking at Amanda and Raffaele the same way, there is no evidence proving they were at the flat at the time of the murder. Their story is that, given the opportunity to stay home, get high, and have sex, they did just that. Which makes sense, and is not contradicted by any believable evidence. The theory that they would have gone out, found Guede, who they were not friends with, and go and kill Meredith (who they were friends with) instead of staying home is not plausible.

 

[christianahannah]

Hi CHCHCH,

I'm not sure where we left off, but is there any evidence you are aware of that you believe incriminates Amanda or Raffaele in this crime?

I hadn't posted for a time before and after the acquittal due to my being away. I was able to log on quickly sometime in April (not sure exactly but maybe mid month?). If you search around that time or so this may be answered for you in more detail. I think I answered this but maybe not to everyone's satisfaction?

I can see why the police at first were drawn to Amanda and Raffaele as I can to Patrick (and Rudy who was convicted). But Rudy is the only one of the four to have been convicted and the verdict upheld by all three levels of court.

There is a lot of paper to still read through. Is there anything to be found in it? I don't know. However, I am satisfied with the ISC decision and respect it until there would be reason not to.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is a question that has been bugging me.

The prosecution has the burden of proof for proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Rudy says he was on a date. I doubt it. But whose burden of proof is it?

Rudy says some other dude did it. Whose burden of proof?

Does the burden of proof shift to the defendant once a "case has been made"?

I'm thinking of the case of the one armed man and Dr Sheppard, the basis of the TV show and films "The Fugitive".

I'd have voted guilty. But the fact that Rudy is willing to lie about what happened is nonetheless unsettling.

If you can't vote guilty for Rudy in this case, there may as well not be trials at all. Still...

This is a very, very good point, and one which bears examining.

My answer would be twofold: firstly, proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not equal proof beyond all doubt.

But secondly - and more importantly in my opinion - is the coupling of the physical evidence against Guede with a) his version of events, and b) his proven actions and movements in the minutes, hours and days after the murder.

Guede claims that he came across these people running out of Kercher's room having just murdered her, and that he ran into her room and tried to help her. He claims he was traumatised and petrified, and didn't know what to do. I can just about buy that so far. Then he went and cleaned his clothes up (by his own admission). Hmmm, that sounds strange for someone who claims he was traumatised and confused/frightened.

And then Guede goes home, changes his clothes, and goes out clubbing and dancing in the city centre discos for a few hours in the middle of the night. I argue that such behaviour is wholly (and immutably) incompatible with Guede's claims to have been traumatised, confused and extremely frightened. Then he fled to Germany. Hmmmmmmmm.


So, in my opinion, what really proves Guede's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is the combination of the physical evidence, his claimed version of events, and his proven acts/movements after the murder. His post-murder acts/movements totally contradict a key claim made in his version of events (that he was traumatised, confused and terrified). Therefore the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that he lied about his version of events. And the only reasonable conclusion to draw about why he lied is that he was directly involved in the murder.

 

[Dougm]

But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that it was solid forensic evidence - in the form of the bloody hand print and the genital DNA (plus the toilet paper DNA) which boxed Guede into a corner from which he couldn't escape. I strongly suspect that had the prosecution only been working with not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni's inept work on the handbag (purse) and tracksuit top (coupled with the astonishing and inexcusable delays in collecting and analysing these pieces of evidence), Guede's lawyers would have fought that evidence tooth-and-nail. As it happened, there was no point whatsoever in them doing so, because there was already extremely strong forensic evidence proving Guede's presence at the murder and his sexual contact with the victim.

I agree. With the slipshod forensic work done by Stef and gang, Guede's lawyers could have claimed he touched her purse and top when he saw her out at a disco, or something like that. Or they could have claimed the results were mucked up in the lab. But there was far too much more damning evidence to be able to do that.

 

[acbytesla]

I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or not but I think the DNA evidence against Rudy is very relevant especially when put all together and with the other evidence against him.

No, I'm not in any way. What does the DNA prove against Rudy that we didn't know from everything else? I suggest nothing.

 

[Strozzi]

Mez' jacket wasn't even collected for 46 days (same conditions as the bra clasp) yet there is no controversy about Stefanoni finding Rudy's DNA on the cuff.

Rudi was there. He admits he was there. I'm not surprised that Stefanoni found Rudi's DNA on Mez's jacket. We all know he is a gentleman and helped the lady off with her coat.

 

[Dougm]

This is a very, very good point, and one which bears examining.

My answer would be twofold: firstly, proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not equal proof beyond all doubt.

But secondly - and more importantly in my opinion - is the coupling of the physical evidence against Guede with a) his version of events, and b) his proven actions and movements in the minutes, hours and days after the murder.

Guede claims that he came across these people running out of Kercher's room having just murdered her, and that he ran into her room and tried to help her. He claims he was traumatised and petrified, and didn't know what to do. I can just about buy that so far. Then he went and cleaned his clothes up (by his own admission). Hmmm, that sounds strange for someone who claims he was traumatised and confused/frightened.

And then Guede goes home, changes his clothes, and goes out clubbing and dancing in the city centre discos for a few hours in the middle of the night. I argue that such behaviour is wholly (and immutably) incompatible with Guede's claims to have been traumatised, confused and extremely frightened. Then he fled to Germany. Hmmmmmmmm.


So, in my opinion, what really proves Guede's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is the combination of the physical evidence, his claimed version of events, and his proven acts/movements after the murder. His post-murder acts/movements totally contradict a key claim made in his version of events (that he was traumatised, confused and terrified). Therefore the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that he lied about his version of events. And the only reasonable conclusion to draw about why he lied is that he was directly involved in the murder.

Not sure I agree with this, at least not totally. I think that, even if Guede had not gone out dancing, his story was too implausible, and too convenient, to overcome the physical evidence.

Let's say a woman is raped and murdered, and evidence is found that proves I was present at the time. And I was not her boyfriend, or even a friend that was close enough to have been invited over to her home before that night. And that I had sexual contact with her. There is only one story that can possibly explain that -- she invited me over, and the sexual contact was consensual. It is the same story that every rapist tells when evidence is found proving they were there. But it goes against all the other evidence. How was it that she invited me over again? Why? And even if that could be corroborated, I would still probably be convicted, unless there was some proof of someone else coming in and killing her. It wouldn't matter much what I did afterwards, or if I just went home, or went dancing, or whatever. I was a first time visitor to her home, and she ended up dead. And there is no evidence of anyone else raping or killing her.

I think the only reason Rudy did not just confess and take the fast track is because Mig tried to blame Amanda and Raffaele. He was complete toast otherwise. To this day, I think the reason he doesn't confess is because after all this, he would be vilified, and he wants to keep up the ruse, at least to some, that he was the poor guy who was manipulated by the evil Knox.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA on the purse

No, I'm not in any way. What does the DNA prove against Rudy that we didn't know from everything else? I suggest nothing.

acbytesla,

I agree that it is far from the best evidence against him. However, his DNA on her purse is helpful in identifying him as most likely person to have taken Meredith's money. Without it, we have to infer (not unreasonably) that he did so.

 

[christianahannah]

A reporter covering the Mark Lundy case wrote, "A forensic pathologist says the doctor who examined the bodies of Amber and Christine Lundy did the right thing by not testing the bodies at the scene. Dr Martin Sage, who has more than 30 years experience in forensic pathology, was asked to review the forensic pathology methods used in the investigation. Dr James Pang earlier told the court he decided not to test the bodies for their temperature or rigor mortis in fear of disturbing key evidence. Sage said that was a good move, as the murder was a "whodunnit". 'The priority was finding trace evidence samples, then extract the bodies from the scene.' Taking body temperature involved inserting a probe into the rectum, which could disturb trace evidence if the victim had been sexually assaulted, Sage said. 'There is always a whiff of anxiety with females that there could have been a sexual assault.'"

I have reservations about Dr. Pang's work in the murders of Christine and Amber Lundy, but he may have made the right call. I have many reservations about the forensics of this case, but I am not in a position to disagree with the decision about not measuring the temperature of Meredith's body. However, it does prompt the question, "Why not test the pillowcase stain?"

With respect to Rudi's DNA, you can throw out 100% of it, and there is enough remaining evidence to convict him twice over and have a little to spare (the bloody shoe prints and the cuts on his hands are also strong evidence against him). But the DNA evidence against him is better evidence against him (in general) than the DNA evidence against Amanda, for the simple reason that Amanda lived there but Rudi had never even visited. When I have more time, I will look at the YSTR evidence against Rudi in more detail, but I don't recall that there were as many contributors as there were to the YSTR profile of the bra clasp.

I have said repeatedly that all of the evidence collected on the 18th (against anyone) should either be taken at a deep discount or should be excluded altogether.

Would testing of the stain have compromised the other evidence? How does one test a stain on material? Is cutting of the material involved?

Why would you throw out all evidence from December 18? Is it the time frame, method of collection, both, none, or other?

It would be interesting to compare all the y-haplotype results and profiles.

 

[Strozzi]

Chris, I had a DNA test done by "23 and Me" which provided me with data related to health factors and ancestry. (As an American, I found it fascinating to learn of my various ancestry contributors. I had no idea I have so much English and Welsh ancestry and so little German.) I posted the results here a long time ago because it showed the types of information a DNA (saliva) sample can produce.

Could a reputable lab develop ancestral data from a minescule blood sample collected at the murder scene?

If a sample were collected from downstairs, for example, and it showed the contributor was of 70 percent Balkan ancestry, I would think that would be significant, even if the suspect was not identifiable. That would indicate someone other than Rudi or the cat was involved downstairs and give some idea as to his ethnic origin. (Rudi is likely to be 95+ percent West African ancestry with some North African ancestry and zero Neandrathal. Neanderthals did not live in Africa. "Pure" Africans have zero Neandrathal ancestry, whereas the "average" European is about 3.5 percent Neandrathal.)

 

[LondonJohn]

Not sure I agree with this, at least not totally. I think that, even if Guede had not gone out dancing, his story was too implausible, and too convenient, to overcome the physical evidence.

Let's say a woman is raped and murdered, and evidence is found that proves I was present at the time. And I was not her boyfriend, or even a friend that was close enough to have been invited over to her home before that night. And that I had sexual contact with her. There is only one story that can possibly explain that -- she invited me over, and the sexual contact was consensual. It is the same story that every rapist tells when evidence is found proving they were there. But it goes against all the other evidence. How was it that she invited me over again? Why? And even if that could be corroborated, I would still probably be convicted, unless there was some proof of someone else coming in and killing her. It wouldn't matter much what I did afterwards, or if I just went home, or went dancing, or whatever. I was a first time visitor to her home, and she ended up dead. And there is no evidence of anyone else raping or killing her.

I think the only reason Rudy did not just confess and take the fast track is because Mig tried to blame Amanda and Raffaele. He was complete toast otherwise. To this day, I think the reason he doesn't confess is because after all this, he would be vilified, and he wants to keep up the ruse, at least to some, that he was the poor guy who was manipulated by the evil Knox.

No, I disagree. The bloody hand print is the total game-changer here. That forced Guede to admit that he had been in Kercher's room after she had been fatally stabbed. Otherwise he could have claimed that he'd had a consensual sexual fumble with Kercher, then gone home alone before the murderer(s) even entered the cottage.

And once Guede was forced (by way of the bloody hand print) to admit that he was in Kercher's room after she'd been fatally stabbed, his only option was to claim that the only reason he'd been there at that time was that he had arrived in the room after the stabbings had been inflicted (by the "real murderer(s)") and had tried valiantly to save Kercher. OK so far (as a potentially-plausible version of events).

But then the question arises: if he'd been valiantly trying to save Kercher, then why hadn't he called for help - either using the phone in the cottage or by running less than a minute to Piazza Grimana to get someone to call for an ambulance? Ooops - this is now a problem for Guede's version of events. So he decided to deal with it by claiming that he'd been traumatised and terrified (and threatened by the "real murderer(s)"), and therefore he felt unable/unwilling to raise the alarm.

OK - just about plausible. But now comes the bottom of the cul-de-sac into which Guede has just driven himself. He provably went home and went out dancing into the small hours of the night. This behaviour is absolutely incompatible with Guede's claims to have been in a traumatised, terrified state. A person in that state would have holed himself up in his apartment all night. Guede was, as they say, hoist by his own petard.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Vinci report

Would testing of the stain have compromised the other evidence? How does one test a stain on material? Is cutting of the material involved?

Why would you throw out all evidence from December 18? Is it the time frame, method of collection, both, none, or other?

It would be interesting to compare all the y-haplotype results and profiles.

At this link, scroll about a quarter of the way down. There are two oval areas that are connected by a thin band. These were visible with the alternate light source, and Dr. Vinci believes that they are five overlapping stains. After photographing them, I might have moistened one but left the other one intact. I don't believe that cutting is necessary, but me look this up in my copy of Butler for a more definitive answer this evening perhaps.

Professor Vinci wrote, "1) What time do the the stains date back to? The stains from our objective point of view can no longer be reliably dated by any method, nor by the means of elaboration by the laboratory tests conducted. Evidence to that effect would have had to have been made by an examination carried out during the time of the discovery of the corpse, by analyzing the degree humidity of the stain. In order to measure the degree of humidity of the stain one would have used a simple hygrometer for cloth."

The fact that so many non-forensic police had to have been been through the cottage in the intervening time would probably be enough for me to excluded the evidence. The manner of collection of the clasp and the over application of luminol are separate reasons.

 

[Strozzi]

Duplicate

 

[carbonjam72]

No, I disagree. The bloody hand print is the total game-changer here. That forced Guede to admit that he had been in Kercher's room after she had been fatally stabbed. Otherwise he could have claimed that he'd had a consensual sexual fumble with Kercher, then gone home alone before the murderer(s) even entered the cottage.

And once Guede was forced (by way of the bloody hand print) to admit that he was in Kercher's room after she'd been fatally stabbed, his only option was to claim that the only reason he'd been there at that time was that he had arrived in the room after the stabbings had been inflicted (by the "real murderer(s)") and had tried valiantly to save Kercher. OK so far (as a potentially-plausible version of events).

But then the question arises: if he'd been valiantly trying to save Kercher, then why hadn't he called for help - either using the phone in the cottage or by running less than a minute to Piazza Grimana to get someone to call for an ambulance? Ooops - this is now a problem for Guede's version of events. So he decided to deal with it by claiming that he'd been traumatised and terrified (and threatened by the "real murderer(s)"), and therefore he felt unable/unwilling to raise the alarm.

OK - just about plausible. But now comes the bottom of the cul-de-sac into which Guede has just driven himself. He provably went home and went out dancing into the small hours of the night. This behaviour is absolutely incompatible with Guede's claims to have been in a traumatised, terrified state. A person in that state would have holed himself up in his apartment all night. Guede was, as they say, hoist by his own petard.

Or is Rudy claiming that he's so afraid of being framed, he has to go out and set up a fake alibi?

Once Rudy says he's afraid of being framed for a crime he didn't commit, how would his behavior to avoid being discovered, be any different if he were guilty, or innocent but distrustful of the system?

I also thought I saw Rudy's fingerprints on the blue sweatshirt jacket, bloody fingerprints. It looked like he he used it to mop up the blood in the murder room and then just gave up (blood streaks on the floor leading up to the jacket). How would cleaning up the blood from a girl bleeding to death be of any help to her? That's why I'd vote guilty. I'm still troubled by "The Fugitive" situation though. Rudy isn't a super hard vote, but it takes some work to cast the guilty vote in good faith.

There was a case in New York just a few days ago about a 35 year old murder case of Ethan Patz. Case was solely based on a confession by a mentally impaired man who'd gave conflicting accounts over the years, and was rehearsed by detectives for 5-6 hours off camera, before they decided they could turn on the camera. No physical evidence, even though all the areas the defendant mentioned had been thoroughly searched at the time. And another far more plausible suspect. Jury was hung at 11-1 for conviction - on nothing but the confession. I'd say there is zero possibility that defendant committed that crime, and I'm sickened the case ever made it into a courtroom.

 

[Dougm]

No, I disagree. The bloody hand print is the total game-changer here. That forced Guede to admit that he had been in Kercher's room after she had been fatally stabbed. Otherwise he could have claimed that he'd had a consensual sexual fumble with Kercher, then gone home alone before the murderer(s) even entered the cottage.

And once Guede was forced (by way of the bloody hand print) to admit that he was in Kercher's room after she'd been fatally stabbed, his only option was to claim that the only reason he'd been there at that time was that he had arrived in the room after the stabbings had been inflicted (by the "real murderer(s)") and had tried valiantly to save Kercher. OK so far (as a potentially-plausible version of events).

But then the question arises: if he'd been valiantly trying to save Kercher, then why hadn't he called for help - either using the phone in the cottage or by running less than a minute to Piazza Grimana to get someone to call for an ambulance? Ooops - this is now a problem for Guede's version of events. So he decided to deal with it by claiming that he'd been traumatised and terrified (and threatened by the "real murderer(s)"), and therefore he felt unable/unwilling to raise the alarm.

OK - just about plausible. But now comes the bottom of the cul-de-sac into which Guede has just driven himself. He provably went home and went out dancing into the small hours of the night. This behaviour is absolutely incompatible with Guede's claims to have been in a traumatised, terrified state. A person in that state would have holed himself up in his apartment all night. Guede was, as they say, hoist by his own petard.

I agree with your contention that the hand print and other elements you mention are what had him completely pinned down, with no other option than to tell the story he told. What I don't agree with is that those elements were needed to convict him of Meredith's murder. Yes, without the hand print and the internal DNA, he "could have claimed that he'd had a consensual sexual fumble with Kercher, then gone home alone before the murderer(s) even entered the cottage."

But who would believe that? Yes, there was no video of him killing her, but he was in her flat, had sexual contact with her, and she was then killed. And there is no evidence proving anyone else was there at the time.

I agree with you on the most important evidence, but I think we are expecting a case of "beyond any doubt" vs. BARD. Guede could claim he was just an innocent bystander, but, being the last one to see her alive, I think he would have had an extremely difficult time avoiding conviction, without evidence of an alternative perpetrator.

 

[acbytesla]

acbytesla,

I agree that it is far from the best evidence against him. However, his DNA on her purse is helpful in identifying him as most likely person to have taken Meredith's money. Without it, we have to infer (not unreasonably) that he did so.

I agree with this point. Still, I would convict him of the murder without it.

1. There is his palm print in her blood.
2. There are his shoe prints in her blood.
3. He fled the country.
4 There is his admittance that he was there.
5. There are his bizarre stories as to what happened.
6 It is not credible that he had a date with her.
7. There is the evidence that leads to the other break ins.

I think any jury would convict him even if there was not a single sample of his DNA.

Don't you?