Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Strozzi]

[/HILITE]

The evidence from the wounds including the eccymosis demonstrates that the kitchen knife was not a murder weapon. This knife is too wide for the small wound and too long for the larger ones. At a depth of 8cms, the hilt of the actual knife used as the murder weapon struck the outside of the wounds - with that knife plunged into Kercher with multiple strikes. We can set aside the DNA evidence altogether. This crime was committed in 2007. Detectives in 1907 would have had the tools to arrive at the correct analysis, thus trumping the abilities of these modern day Italian investigators.

The most extraordinary claim with regard to the knife was the attempt to infer that the location of Amanda's DNA was indicative of her holding the knife in a position compatible with a stabbing motion.

In his motivation report to explain his court's conviction, Judge Massei wrote that Amanda transported the large sharp knife in her purse. It was already shown in his court that Amanda's purse has a cloth lining which showed no indication of being snagged or cut by the blade of a (large) knife. Massei's claim is fiction.

 

[Antony]

Fact remains, that is Amanda's blood, deposited either on the eve of 1.11.2007 or on the 2.11.2007, and her blood was mixed with Mez'. Amanda confirmed with Dr Mignini the blood was not there the day before.

Even if the blood came from Amanda's ear, or brushing teeth, it was wet the same time as Mez'. There's no getting away from it.

Vixen, these assertions of yours have no connection with the facts. Please stop posting them. It's embarrassing to read.

 

[Dan O.]

Before you apply the new rules, I am trying to re-familiarize myself with the thread and would like to follow up on an earlier post:
.

There is no restriction on continuing current discussions. In fact, that is what we are trying to encourage. If however you are trying to restart an old discussion that had been dropped then that can count as your topic for the day.

When a topic should be considered dropped is going to be a judgement call. It has to be greater than a day because sometimes posters have commitments and cannot post every day. I think a week is a suitable outer limit.

 

[Dan O.]

Mixed blood on tap

This is a continuation of the topic started yesterday

Dr Gill supports the defense, so is not impartial and objective.

If you analyse his hypothesis, it is astonishingly vapid. If Dr Gill is to be believed, DNA evidence is not valid if the murderer lives in the same household, even if the murderer's blood is mixed in with the victim's.

How fortuitous for the defense, given Amanda's blood was all over the faucet, mixed with Mez' immediately after the murder. Nice one!

Fact remains, that is Amanda's blood, deposited either on the eve of 1.11.2007 or on the 2.11.2007, and her blood was mixed with Mez'. Amanda confirmed with Dr Mignini the blood was not there the day before.

Even if the blood came from Amanda's ear, or brushing teeth, it was wet the same time as Mez'. There's no getting away from it.

You are making claims without evidence. . . .Assuming that Meredeth's DNA was found in the same sample, that does not mean mixed blood but just means mixed DNA.

So what is the evidence for

1) That there was blood present that belonged to Knox
2) That there was blood present that belonged to Kercher.
3) The time of deposition of each (that Knox failed to see a drop of blood or failed to recall seeing a drop of blood is not evidence of time of deposition).
4) That the samples were mixed as opposed to adjacent.

There is some excelent educational material on the evidence in the bathroom at: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/mixed-dna/

The sample collected from the tap is Rep.24

 

[Dougm]

I agree, in general. However, I think the key profiling point is less about Guede fitting the profile, and more about Amanda and Raff NOT fitting the profile.

 

[MichaelB]

This is a continuation of the topic started yesterday

​

There is some excelent educational material on the evidence in the bathroom at: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/mixed-dna/

The sample collected from the tap is Rep.24

It's a shame we don't have Steffi's testimony about the mixed DNA translated.

I have the page numbers marked down as 176-177 http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-co...Trascrizioni-2009-May-23-Stefanoni-Camana.pdf

The trial testimony of Patrizia Stefanoni is clear: Stefanoni was asked by the Judge if the samples were mixed blood. Stefanoni says they certainly contain blood, because a specific test was done, but they were probably more water than blood and it can’t be determined when the DNA was left, and it can’t be ascertained whether it’s blood + blood, blood + saliva, blood + exfoliated cells, etc, and the DNA from the two traces could have been left at different times.

Hopefully we'll have a few of the downstairs neighbours witness statements done soon.

 

[Bill Williams]

I agree, in general. However, I think the key profiling point is less about Guede fitting the profile, and more about Amanda and Raff NOT fitting the profile.

....and profiles never prove anything anyway. What profiling does is help police narrow a potential list of suspects when they are foundering. It does not guarantee that the perp will be within that pool of people generate by the profile.

But it still is a powerful tool. When the evidence is iffy, then a profile can be useful.

However, this case stands or falls not on the profile but on the evidence. The fact that someone this late in the game (post-exoneration) needs to talk about the "mixed blood" factoid is everything people need to read. There was no mixed blood. No one believes that. Not Massei, not Nencini.

Massei refers to it in his 2009 motivations report as "Amanda's biological material mixed with Meredith's blood."

When one sees the video of the collection technique in the bathroom they shared then it is true they were mixed. It was the evidence-collectors who mixed them together.

 

[Dan O.]

It's a shame we don't have Steffi's testimony about the mixed DNA translated.

I have the page numbers marked down as 176-177 http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-co...Trascrizioni-2009-May-23-Stefanoni-Camana.pdf
.

That's an excellent resource, straight from the horse's mouth (so to speak). The DNA result for Rep.24 is right there at the top of page 6 and it's so clear I could read it without Google's help

 

[Grinder]

I thought you were unable to find confirmation for this story. We don't know what is meant by heavily damaged. The claim that the door was closed trapping the cat in the room would support a slow burning fire with smoke damage being the major cause of damage.

I am surprised that Frank has not offered anything pro or con for this story. There should be a trail to follow in either property records or interviewing the neighbors/landlord. Has anyone bothered to ask Nina for the details that weren't in the book?

Tesla contacted her and she railed about guilters and said Diaz was using a police report and she'd look for it but nothing ever appeared.

Nina wrote the house was badly damaged and that it started from a scarf over a lamp. I don't believe the two points work together.

You asked earlier where all this came from. As part of the Rudi was on a crime spree both Cristian and Diaz are brought into the mix.

The Nappy connection seems to bolster the PLE knew Rudi's MO meme. The reason your discovery of the interview sealed the deal on her not being the officer CT dealt with that night is that both Follain and Nina say he later told Nappy when it happened. If she had taken the original report that language would be really strange. It is obvious that the head of the Flying Squad wouldn't work the swing shift under normal circumstances.

 

[Grinder]

And in the course of her fabulously elaborate clean-up, she didn't think to wipe it off.

It is clear she knew it was there as she pointed it out to the PP immediately. She could have wiped it away with a tissue and flushed in seconds.

 

[lonepinealex]

Before you apply the new rules, I am trying to re-familiarize myself with the thread and would like to follow up on an earlier post:



Vixen, I know Nencini claimed Amanda stabbed Meredith, but I don't remember any other judges specifically saying they believed Amanda wielded the knife. Can you direct me to the records supporting these claims? Thank you.

I hope no-one minds me following up on this line of discussion?

Hypothetically, if Nencini had not completely jumped the shark with his insane claim that the position of Amanda's DNA on the knife proved exactly how she held it and used it to stab Meredith, would the ISC have had a tougher job throwing this case out?

Did Nencini put the nail in the prosecution's coffin, making it impossible for any self-respecting judge to endorse his bonkers motivation report?

Even a non-scientist can see that the location of DNA on a knife handle can't tell you much, if anything, about how it was used.

 

[Grinder]

I contend this is a much higher risk strategy, directing the police effectively to seek out Rudy Guede, when in a real world situation she would hope he was under the radar. Remember she had one encounter, and would not expect him to be front and center in the minds of others. And it turns out the police were slow to find him, so a conservative strategy would have been better than her clever aggressive one.

She had more than one encounter. He went to Le Chic opening night and met her there and at least a second visit there.

She didn't give his name because she didn't remember it.

The early FOA meme was that she had never even met him.

ETA - The main meeting and trek to the boys' place happened late one night when the group including Amanda met Rudi in the street. Meredith came down later according to one of Rudi's interviews. He spoke mostly with Meredith and later saw her at a bar watching a rugby match. It would appear he spent more time with her than Amanda.

 

[Dan O.]

Continuation of The Cristian-Monica connection

You asked earlier where all this came from. As part of the Rudi was on a crime spree both Cristian and Diaz are brought into the mix.

What I'm asking is where did the meme start where Cristian was talking to Monica 2 hours later as opposed to 2 months later.

The Nappy connection seems to bolster the PLE knew Rudi's MO meme.

The Rudy MO is another topic that I have commented on. Perhaps someone will bring it up again if they feel there is something to discuss.

 

[Grinder]

I hope no-one minds me following up on this line of discussion?

Hypothetically, if Nencini had not completely jumped the shark with his insane claim that the position of Amanda's DNA on the knife proved exactly how she held it and used it to stab Meredith, would the ISC have had a tougher job throwing this case out?

Did Nencini put the nail in the prosecution's coffin, making it impossible for any self-respecting judge to endorse his bonkers motivation report?

Even a non-scientist can see that the location of DNA on a knife handle can't tell you much, if anything, about how it was used.

I'm quite sure that Steffi made this claim in the Massei trial.

 

[lonepinealex]

I'm quite sure that Steffi made this claim in the Massei trial.

Really? Christ, I thought Nencini had invented it from whole cloth. But Massei ignored this claim? I don't remember reading it in Massei, but it's been a few years since I read his motivation.

 

[Grinder]

What I'm asking is where did the meme start where Cristian was talking to Monica 2 hours later as opposed to 2 months later.

Nina's book. Her language on this point wasn't precise. People wanting Rudi's connection to the PLE read it to mean she was the cop the night of the event. Certain people want the crime wave and the police knowing Rudi well including his MO. As is clear, Nappy spoke with him only after the murder.

 

[Grinder]

Really? Christ, I thought Nencini had invented it from whole cloth. But Massei ignored this claim? I don't remember reading it in Massei, but it's been a few years since I read his motivation.

From Massei - Regarding the analyses carried out on this knife, she (Steffi) showed, in the following terms, the reason why it was decided to sample at points A and B: point B was found on the striation on the face of the blade; point A coincided with the part of the blade which has the knurl [codetta], and this is a sort of rise which stops the hand from sliding when a person grasps the knife and strikes a blow.

 

[Bill Williams]

I hope no-one minds me following up on this line of discussion?

Hypothetically, if Nencini had not completely jumped the shark with his insane claim that the position of Amanda's DNA on the knife proved exactly how she held it and used it to stab Meredith, would the ISC have had a tougher job throwing this case out?

Did Nencini put the nail in the prosecution's coffin, making it impossible for any self-respecting judge to endorse his bonkers motivation report?

Even a non-scientist can see that the location of DNA on a knife handle can't tell you much, if anything, about how it was used.

I'm not sure how anyone with half a brain can defend the Nencini court on anything.

The 2013 ISC referred three issues back to the 2nd grade, appeals court; presumably those three issues formed the core of why the 2013 ISC annulled the Hellmann acquittals/exonerations.

All three of those outstanding items went the defences' way. All three. If 36I had gone any other way than what the RIS Carabinieri found, I'd be a guilter.

Stunningly, Nencini's court convicted anyway. Whereas I do not subscribe to some weird conspiracy theory that Nencini purposely wrote a bizarre motivations report so as to have his verdict thrown out..... it is tempting to believe it.

June 25 is 90 days from the Cassazione exonerations. The Marasca motivations report cannot come quickly enough.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm quite sure that Steffi made this claim in the Massei trial.

I believe you are correct, that Sefanoni made this claim at the Massei trial. But I cannot find any indication from Massei (esp. in his motivations report) that he bought it.

There have been many insane claims throughout these 7 1/2 years of wrongfully prosecuting RS and AK. The claim that one can tell how a knife was held and what it was used for from a single, small sample of DNA has to be right up there.

The whole business of a selective clean-up of the crime scene, that removes two of three forensic footprints - all the while, while those same expert-cleaners miss the faucet and the bathmat has to be the #1 insane claim of the prosecution. Add to this the forensic absence of evidence of a clean, other than the absence of evidence. No swirls detected with luminol, no smell of bleach....

That not one, but two courts convicted partly on that basis speaks volumes of those two courts.

 

[Dan O.]

I hope no-one minds me following up on this line of discussion?

Followups are exactly what we want to encourage. the more the better. The goal is to focus on fewer topics at one time so we can all share our knowledge and try to reach a better understanding.