Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

It seems to me that it is reasonable to expect a similar weight of physical evidence that was left by Guede. I have always thought it to be Amanda's good fortune that nothing of her was found in Kercher's room. If they misconstrued the bathroom DNA, imagine what they would have done with stuff in the bedroom! But it would not have been odd if hers, Romanelli's and Mezzetti's traces had shown up there, had they taken reference samples to allow them all to be isolated of course. But not bloody shoe prints or DNA on the corpse.

Exactly. All Amanda's DNA proves is that she was in the cottage at some time and since she lived there it proves NOTHING. I am so with your line of thinking about how lucky Amanda was by the fact that they didn't find her DNA in Mez's bedroom. It always stuns me that anyone thinks finding Amanda's DNA in her own home to mean anything.

 

[Desert Fox]

It seems to me that it is reasonable to expect a similar weight of physical evidence that was left by Guede. I have always thought it to be Amanda's good fortune that nothing of her was found in Kercher's room. If they misconstrued the bathroom DNA, imagine what they would have done with stuff in the bedroom! But it would not have been odd if hers, Romanelli's and Mezzetti's traces had shown up there, had they taken reference samples to allow them all to be isolated of course. But not bloody shoe prints or DNA on the corpse.

Not suggesting it is conclusive but it would have been something. . . . .

Anything new out of Dershowitz, by the way

 

[Kauffer]

Not suggesting it is conclusive but it would have been something. . . . .

Anything new out of Dershowitz, by the way

As far as I know he's stayed quiet. His opinion of the evidence was 5th rate columnist stuff not top grade lawyer, but he was selling a book at the time and he wanted attention. He actually said consistently that there was reasonable doubt of Amanda's guilt, which makes it all the more reprehensible that he started casting aspersions.

 

[acbytesla]

As far as I know he's stayed quiet. His opinion of the evidence was 5th rate columnist stuff not top grade lawyer, but he was selling a book at the time and he wanted attention. He actually said consistently that there was reasonable doubt of Amanda's guilt, which makes it all the more reprehensible that he started casting aspersions.

Yea. There may not be anyone I disrespect more than Dershowitz. He proved it in the OJ trial and then proved it again with his remarks about Amanda Knox that he is a whore. That integrity means nothing to him. He'll do or say anything for a buck. I guess I shouldn't be that surprised since he is a lawyer since integrity in a lawyer is pretty much an oxymoron.

 

[Desert Fox]

Yea. There may not be anyone I disrespect more than Dershowitz. He proved it in the OJ trial and then proved it again with his remarks about Amanda Knox that he is a whore. That integrity means nothing to him. He'll do or say anything for a buck. I guess I shouldn't be that surprised since he is a lawyer since integrity in a lawyer is pretty much an oxymoron.

Most of the big names in the innocent projects are lawyers. Often they work pro-bono.

 

[davefoc]

There were quite a few posts on the "mixed blood" issue and whatever I say here is going to be repetitive but I wanted to summarize the situation as I understand it to validate that I fully understand the claims.

1. The sink where the samples were taken was used both by Kercher and Knox and not by the other people that lived in the house.
2. As a result of the routine use of the sink by Kercher and Knox it would be expected that DNA would be found from both of them in samples taken from the sink.
3. Samples were taken from the sink in areas that tested positive for blood that contained a combination of Kercher and Knox DNA.
4. Some of the samples that were found to contain a mixture of Kercher and Knox DNA. These samples were not tested to determine the blood types present so there is no evidence to suggest that the samples contained blood of two individuals since it would be expected that the routine use of the sink by both Kercher and Knox would make it so that a sample with mixed Kercher and Knox DNA is an expected result even without the presence of blood.
5. The samples from the sink were taken by swiping across the areas that tested positive for blood and not dabbed. The nature of the collection of the samples greatly increased the likelihood that Knox's DNA would be found in the sample because her DNA would be expected to be common place in the sink and any swipe across the sink whether there was blood present in the area or not would likely test positive for Knox DNA.
6. A sample of the small blood stain on the top of the spout was tested and found to contain only Knox DNA.
7. The blood found on the top of the spout was reported by Knox to be from minor bleeding that Knox had experienced from where her ears had been pierced.

Questions
1. Are there any errors or significant omissions in the above list?
2. Were samples done in areas that didn't test positive for blood to determine whose DNA was present without the presence of blood? If so what were the results of that testing?
3. Is it known what the relative concentrations of Knox to Kercher DNA was in the areas where mixed DNA was found?

 

[carbonjam72]

So much for Mignini's defamation lawsuit against Raffaele Sollecito and Andrew Gumbel.

Raffaele is now doing a book tour...... IN ITALY!!!

http://www.tusciaweb.eu/2015/05/raffaele-sollecito-viterbo/

Haven't had chance to google translate this yet, but this is a surprising development. Has Mignini thrown in the towel yet (unimaginable given his history, there's no bet dumb enough for him not to doubledown on so far), or, are they just tweaking his nose because they know they have momentum on their side?

I wonder if Raf & gumble and attorney Brizioli heard something behind the scenes that telegraphs an imminent victory (like a leaked draft of the motivation report that repudiated mignini and the cops in no uncertain terms)?

 

[christianahannah]

Haven't had chance to google translate this yet, but this is a surprising development. Has Mignini thrown in the towel yet (unimaginable given his history, there's no bet dumb enough for him not to doubledown on so far), or, are they just tweaking his nose because they know they have momentum on their side?

I wonder if Raf & gumble and attorney Brizioli heard something behind the scenes that telegraphs an imminent victory (like a leaked draft of the motivation report that repudiated mignini and the cops in no uncertain terms)?

I don't think this is a tour of Raffaele promoting his book but rather that he is a guest of the book being promoted titled "Temi Desnuda."

 

[Mary_H]

There was a long strand of blond hair across the top of Mez' open bag on the bed, there was Amanda's lamp, absent from Amanda's fingerprints, ladies size 37 shoeprint. DNA on knife handle and blade.

As there was a time delay of 14-15 hours, we can infer the fact police could find no fingerprints, at all, there was a good old cleanup, including wiping all surfaces.

ETA At Raf's apartment, there was a sponge with the same African hair, Mez' hair, Amanda's hair and Raf's hair as found in the murder room. Raf's DNA was under a pillow, under the body, itself under a duvet, on a clasp concealed by fabric overlap.

See here:

Hairs

(Dr. Stefanoni Genetic Test, SAL report, Dr. Stefanoni slide presentation)
Of the over 480 tests prepared on samples, 93 of these constituted hairs or fibers. 86 were human hairs of varying length, in varying colors. The most significant colors noted were black, blonde, chestnut, light chestnut and red chestnut.
Only 3 hairs yielded DNA; all 3 hairs yielded DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA. All 3 hairs were chestnut colored and over 15 cm long.
35 hairs were chestnut in color; the vast majority of these were found in Ms. Kercher’s room. 2 were also found on a kitchen sponge at Sollecito’s apartment.
7 hairs were black in color. 6 of these were 4 cm long or less, and so likely Guede’s hair. 4 of these were on the duvet and 1 was on the mattress cover, both in Ms. Kercher’s room. 1 was also on a sponge at Sollecito’s apartment.
21 blonde hairs were analyzed, and were likely Knox’s hairs. Most were found at Sollecito’s apartment, 10 on a sponge in the kitchen and 5 on a sweater.
Of the 6 blonde hairs found at the cottage, 2 were on the duvet, 1 was inside the small bathroom sink, 1 was on Ms. Kercher’s purse and 1 was on her mattress cover.
4 light chestnut hairs were found. 3 of these were 9 cm long or less. 1 was found on the kitchen sponge; 1 was found on the bra and one was found on Ms. Kercher’s sweat jacket. Sollecito had light chestnut colored hair.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Evidence_List#Hairs

Again, for the lab to say there were hairs of specific colors in a certain place is not the same as for them to identify the hairs as belonging to specific people. Only three hairs were identified by DNA, and they all belonged to Meredith.

 

[davefoc]

...

There is no getting away from it. Yes, you might try to downplay it by saying, "Amanda lived there".

How do you explain five mixed DNA traces all together found at the murder scene of Amanda and Mez. Not Amanda and Filomena, not Filomena and Mez, not Amanda and Laura, not Laura and Mez, not Laura and Filomena. Of the probability of 16% of finding one such permutation (4 x 4), the probability of finding FIVE of *just Amanda and Mez mixed DNA* is ( 0.16 x 0.16 x 0.16 x 0.16 x 0.16).

IOW Vanishingly remote. Easily within the 0.01 significance level, or three standard deviations, that this occurred purely by chance, "because Amanda lived there".

...
How do we say "wrong again Vixen".

Theses were not random samples. There was one characteristic that biased the sample selection. Do you know what that was? Also, the living area for the 4 girls was not uniformly distributed over the entire cottage. Can you come up with a formulation that properly considers the distribution? The answer is: no. And the reason is because the pretend doctor didn't collect a proper data set.

Vixen, did you notice this post by Dan O.? Do you understand his point? I believe that his point was that only Kercher and Knox shared the sink in question. How would that fact affect your calculation?

 

[Grinder]

1. The sink where the samples were taken was used both by Kercher and Knox and not by the other people that lived in the house.

Correct in general. It was probably used by the friends of M and A as well.

2. As a result of the routine use of the sink by Kercher and Knox it would be expected that DNA would be found from both of them in samples taken from the sink.

Yes if Amanda's wasn't there the PGP would claim more evidence of a clean up. In fact they make that claim about fingerprints.

3. Samples were taken from the sink in areas that tested positive for blood that contained a combination of Kercher and Knox DNA.

Yes. They didn't dab but dragged and it was done by a non technician IIRC.

Some of the samples that were found to contain a mixture of Kercher and Knox DNA. These samples were not tested to determine the blood types present so there is no evidence to suggest that the samples contained blood of two individuals since it would be expected that the routine use of the sink by both Kercher and Knox would make it so that a sample with mixed Kercher and Knox DNA is an expected result even without the presence of blood.

Don't know about blood types.

5. The samples from the sink were taken by swiping across the areas that tested positive for blood and not dabbed. The nature of the collection of the samples greatly increased the likelihood that Knox's DNA would be found in the sample because her DNA would be expected to be common place in the sink and any swipe across the sink whether there was blood present in the area or not would likely test positive for Knox DNA.

Yes.

6. A sample of the small blood stain on the top of the spout was tested and found to contain only Knox DNA.

AFAIK one spot tested positive for Amanda's blood.

7. The blood found on the top of the spout was reported by Knox to be from minor bleeding that Knox had experienced from where her ears had been pierced.

I believe she just guessed that but didn't specifically remember. No wound or sign of trauma was seen on her by the PLE. There were blood spots on her pillow.

 

[Kauffer]

Exactly. All Amanda's DNA proves is that she was in the cottage at some time and since she lived there it proves NOTHING. I am so with your line of thinking about how lucky Amanda was by the fact that they didn't find her DNA in Mez's bedroom. It always stuns me that anyone thinks finding Amanda's DNA in her own home to mean anything.

As a postscript to this, here is the bizarre "cardiol" at TJMK recently:

"Meredith stops screaming, but now her blood seems to be everywhere, including over her attackers, and they quickly abandon her, already evading the accountability they are fully aware is theirs."

vixen had the temerity to cite Locard on transfer evidence not realising that Locard's principle tends to exonerate both Amanda and Raffaele. Cardiol cites the principle without even realising he's doing it.

The PGP thinks that Kercher's blood was "everywhere", including "over her attackers". I agree with them other than there is no s in attacker. One of the reasons why Amanda and Raffaele must be innocent is because not one tiny drop of Kercher's blood was found on their clothes, at Raffaele's flat or in his car - not a pinprick's worth.

 

[Grinder]

As a postscript to this, here is the bizarre "cardiol" at TJMK recently:

"Meredith stops screaming, but now her blood seems to be everywhere, including over her attackers, and they quickly abandon her, already evading the accountability they are fully aware is theirs."

vixen had the temerity to cite Locard on transfer evidence not realising that Locard's principle tends to exonerate both Amanda and Raffaele. Cardiol cites the principle without even realising he's doing it.

The PGP thinks that Kercher's blood was "everywhere", including "over her attackers". I agree with them other than there is no s in attacker. One of the reasons why Amanda and Raffaele must be innocent is because not one tiny drop of Kercher's blood was found on their clothes, at Raffaele's flat or in his car - not a pinprick's worth.

The bleach man it was the bleach. They went home or was it the middle of the night laundromat and washed everything and then bleach their shoes and clothes except for the knife which through sheer arrogance they left unbleached just to give CSI a chance much like leaving the blood on the faucet.

 

[acbytesla]

There is no getting away from it. Yes, you might try to downplay it by saying, "Amanda lived there".

How do you explain five mixed DNA traces all together found at the murder scene of Amanda and Mez. Not Amanda and Filomena, not Filomena and Mez, not Amanda and Laura, not Laura and Mez, not Laura and Filomena. Of the probability of 16% of finding one such permutation (4 x 4), the probability of finding FIVE of *just Amanda and Mez mixed DNA* is ( 0.16 x 0.16 x 0.16 x 0.16 x 0.16).

IOW Vanishingly remote. Easily within the 0.01 significance level, or three standard deviations, that this occurred purely by chance, "because Amanda lived there".

How do we say "wrong again Vixen".

Theses were not random samples. There was one characteristic that biased the sample selection. Do you know what that was? Also, the living area for the 4 girls was not uniformly distributed over the entire cottage. Can you come up with a formulation that properly considers the distribution? The answer is: no. And the reason is because the pretend doctor didn't collect a proper data set.

Excellent reply Dan. I have to wonder if your reply will nudge Vixen towards thinking more critically or will she just continue to post arguments?

Vixen's argument that there should be an even distribution of DNA throughout the cottage could only be true if we knew that the individuals involved used the entire space in the exact same proportions. And since we know that each had their own room and that Laura and Filomena shared one bathroom and Amanda and Meredith shared another and we know that Amanda and Meredith spent more time with each other than with the Italian girls we KNOW that this is NOT true.

So the question to Vixen is "do you acknowledge that your logic about the distribution of DNA is flawed?

 

[LondonJohn]

There is none of their DNA mixed in Mez' blood from the murder night?

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/apostrophe

(You could always go with "Mezzy Baby's", but most serious objective debaters of this topic prefer to use proper names rather than diminutives (e.g. "Mez") that might have been used by close friends or family - in other words "Meredith", "Kercher" "Ms Kercher" or "Meredith Kercher".)

 

[davefoc]

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/apostrophe

(You could always go with "Mezzy Baby's", but most serious objective debaters of this topic prefer to use proper names rather than diminutives (e.g. "Mez") that might have been used by close friends or family - in other words "Meredith", "Kercher" "Ms Kercher" or "Meredith Kercher".)

I think this post could be characterized as "piling on" or "pedantic", but I am guilty as well since I'm responding to it.

I agree that referring to Meredith Kercher formally in this thread is best. The use of a diminutive implies weakly a friend or family relationship by the poster that probably didn't exist.

My sense of it is that you are also right about the use of apostrophe followed by an s to denote the possessive of a singular noun ending in z. Unfortunately your source doesn't go specifically to that issue although this statement could be interpreted to agree with you since an exception is not provided for names that end in z.

With a singular noun or most personal names: add an apostrophe plus s:

However this source does go specifically to the issue:
http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/apostrophes/apostrophes-with-names-ending-in-s-ch-or-z/

Rule: To show singular possession of a name ending in ch or z, add ‘s on the end of the name.

I worried a bit that there might be a British/American English split on this issue. However the Oxford English Dictionary combined with the American source I provided seems like good evidence that Mez's is the proper construction.

 

[Bill Williams]

Haven't had chance to google translate this yet, but this is a surprising development. Has Mignini thrown in the towel yet (unimaginable given his history, there's no bet dumb enough for him not to doubledown on so far), or, are they just tweaking his nose because they know they have momentum on their side?

I wonder if Raf & gumble and attorney Brizioli heard something behind the scenes that telegraphs an imminent victory (like a leaked draft of the motivation report that repudiated mignini and the cops in no uncertain terms)?

One can hope.

I for one am a relative latecomer to the Italian legal process, and have spent 3 3/4 years wondering if there was anything sane about the Italian courts. This was even in relation to coming on board here just prior to the 2011 acquittals by the Hellmann court...

... but the meter pegged to radioactive with the 2013 ISC reversals of those acquittals. The March 2015 complete exonerations by the ISC seems to have brought a level of sanity back to this 7 1/2 year nightmare (for the Kerchers, but also for RS and AK and their families)....

.... but then Mignini STILL drags Gumbel and Sollecito into court over Honor Bound. If it were me, I would not care what Mignini said from this point on, or even if he still had any influence in Italian courts.... I'd be out there plugging that book - in Italy.

Knox's book (apparently) is now in the U.K. I look forward to the day when there can be similar forums around Knox's book, in Italy and from an Italian version of it.

But for today.... Go Raffaele, Go Andrew!

 

[LondonJohn]

I think this post could be characterized as "piling on" or "pedantic", but I am guilty as well since I'm responding to it.

I agree that referring to Meredith Kercher formally in this thread is best. The use of a diminutive implies weakly a friend or family relationship by the poster that probably didn't exist.

My sense of it is that you are also right about the use of apostrophe followed by an s to denote the possessive of a singular noun ending in z. Unfortunately your source doesn't go specifically to that issue although this statement could be interpreted to agree with you since an exception is not provided for names that end in z.



However this source does go specifically to the issue:
http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/apostrophes/apostrophes-with-names-ending-in-s-ch-or-z/



I worried a bit that there might be a British/American English split on this issue. However the Oxford English Dictionary combined with the American source I provided seems like good evidence that Mez's is the proper construction.

Yep, "Mez's" is the proper construction. There's no doubt about that (and no UK/US split on the matter either). But, as you agree, I think it's improper and partisan to be using a familar diminution of the victim's name in any discussion/debate on the case that's supposed to be objective. In my (and your) opinion, therefore, the victim in this case ought to be referred to within this debate as "Meredith", "Kercher", "Ms/Miss Kercher" or "Meredith Kercher".

 

[Bill Williams]

I wrote this for another service about John Follain's "A Death in Italy." It was in response to someone who'd recently read the book, and was surprised to come out of it thinking to himself that Follain was not a guilter, but a fence-sitter.

* * * * * * * *

I consider myself a lay-expert on John Follain. I have the scars from Grinder at ISF to prove it!

It's an intriguing thought that John Follain might be a fence sitter in relation to RS & AK's actual innocence. Most certainly the main problem with his book, "A Death in Italy", is that his sources are almost solely from police and prosecutor - those are the only people who would talk to him. The only material from the AK-camp seem to come solely from leeked, secret recordings done when Amanda was talking to family in prison.

Many assume Follain's book supports guilt - most certainly a lot of the (former-)guilters do. Follain is the hero and basic source for many of them. Yet many also finish the book thinking exactly as you have opined..... "I get the felling this guy actually thinks they are innocent!"

Follain renders the interrogations of Knox as kindly police flooding her with chammomile tea and biscuits, until Knox breaks under all that kindness, and names Lumumba out of the blue. Follain barely knows Anna Donnino exists.

A repetition of what I've said about his book - and truly it saves you the cost of buying the thing, is this..... the book has three great themes, presented in this order:

1) The PLE were right to suspect AK and RS as being involved in this murder.

2) How the case fell apart at trial.

3) The reactions of Meredith's family and friends.

There. You do not need to buy the book.

Some final things about the book. Follain constantly puts dialogue into the mouth of Edda Mellas making her look like the Oracle at Delphi. For some unknown reason, he has her anticipating the major turns at trial as they come up.

Follain also betrays a creepy interest in Amanda Knox's underwear wearing habits. I don't know how to state it, other than that.

But finally, in relation to Mignini. Follain records, but completely misses the implications of, his presentation of Giuliano Mignini. On one page he has Mignini saying that Knox is an actress and a liar and not to be believed. The very next he has Mignini saying, in effect, "Well, we had to arrest Lumumba, Amanda accused him."

How those two things go together uncommented upon by Follain betrays either his stupidity as an author, or he really is trying to undercut Mignini's credibility.

But then there's a bit even more creepy than the underwear. At one point Follain relates how deflated Mignini was, to see Amanda making a bond so quickly with her lawyers once in front of Mattieni. Until then, Amanda had been under the total control of Mignini with no rights and no representation.

Follain plays it by having Mignini get all melancholy, seeing Amanda develop trust of others so quickly, has Follain putting this in to Mignini's mouth: "Now we'll never know the truth."

WTF? Anyway if you have read this far, you can save yourself Cdn$26.95, the price I paid for the piece of crap.

 

[Vixen]

Yep, "Mez's" is the proper construction. There's no doubt about that (and no UK/US split on the matter either). But, as you agree, I think it's improper and partisan to be using a familar diminution of the victim's name in any discussion/debate on the case that's supposed to be objective. In my (and your) opinion, therefore, the victim in this case ought to be referred to within this debate as "Meredith", "Kercher", "Ms/Miss Kercher" or "Meredith Kercher".

Conscious that my education is of a higher standard than yours, I have helpfully reproduced below the advice on BBC's webpage, "Learning English":



When people's names end in 's', you can either add ' or 's (Charles' or Charles's) and choose pronunciation accordingly, either /iz/ or /isiz/. You might sometimes need to choose the latter to make the meaning clear.
For example, if you speak the sentence:
'My house is older than Mrs Evans''
with just /iz/ at the end, you may be saying that your house is older than Mrs Evans herself, or that your house is older than Mrs Evans' house! But if you say:
'My house is older than Mrs Evans's''
with /isiz/ at the end, it is clear that you are talking about houses in both cases!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv20.shtml

Clear now?