Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fiona]

I have started having a wee look about, re DNA evidence. I am probably going to get out of my depth very quickly so if anyone has more expertise than me I would be glad if they would help me out. Complicated subject

The first thing I found is this article

http://www.bioforensics.com/conference04/Transfer/index.html

Which suggests that transfer of DNA can happen quite easily. It is alarming because if this is the case then it is difficult to see how any DNA evidence can be relied upon to the extent we do in practice. However there is no date on this article. I noticed that the references go no later than 2001, so presumably it was written in that year or the next. At least I think that is a reasonable assumption.

I followed the links. The first one is a letter published in "Nature" dated June 1997. it reports the findings of some work done to investigate DNA transfer and on the basis of that speaks to the need for great caution in interpreting small samples. It is very short (being a letter) and I have not yet discovered whether was a subsequent paper.

The second link concerns techniques of obtaining evidence from a very small sample (single cell it says, which I find astonishing). It seems to be the first technique for handling such small samples but the results are positive even so. The authors identify some problems which meant that they only got acceptable profiles in 2/3 of the cells tested and they pointed to problems with amplification and allele "drop out" which meant the work needed validation before it could be used in forensics. It also emphasises the centrality of stringent precautions in collecting and processing such samples because of the danger of contamination.

This letter was also published in "Nature" in 1997. It is my understanding that 1997 is a very long time ago in this field and I think it is quite likely there has been progress since then. I have not had time to investigate more recent work but it seems to me that if they could do that with that degree of success in 1997, then the idea that a very small sample cannot yield reliable results now has to be false. This matters because of the different views about the knife (expressed by Dr Stefanoni and Dr Johnson), discussed upthread.

Of course it may be that subsequent work did not validate these findings: or that other problems have emerged: but in that case I would have expected an internationally respected person like Dr Stefanoni to be aware of that, and that she would not have testified as she did.
http://www.bioforensics.com/conference04/Transfer/FingerprintsFromSingleCells.pdf

The third link is a direct challenge to the first.

http://www.bioforensics.com/conference04/Transfer/SecondaryTransferStudy.pdf

Again this is quite a long time ago and it is a bit technical for me to follow it properly. The bit I gleaned which seems to be relevant to this discussion is in the conclusion, where it says: "the manufacturer [of the test used] recommends using a minimum of 250pg (35 cells)..." That was in 1999. Dr Johnson claimed that the material found on the knife amounted to " 20 human cells or fewer" and this sounds really dodgy to a lay person. But now I know that a) 10 years ago the manufacturers were recommending a minimum of 35 cells: and b] that there were promising results from analysis of single cell samples in 1997. Clearly 20 or fewer is about half of the manufacturers' recommendation in 1999 (though I do not know what Dr Johnson bases her statement about the amount on) This is the problem with soundbite evidence presented to the public. We have no background and no context against which to judge it.

But the article does not say that a smaller sample will give a less reliable result, so far as I can tell: it says it will give no result. Or at least that is how I interpret " at 125 pg or less, peak heights are close to background". I freely admit I may be reading that incorrectly. Dr Stefanoni did not get no results: she got strong results which she was confident in reporting. She (and at least one other expert) did not think there was doubt about the results; and I reiterate that she is internationally respected.

If anyone else has knowledge of the use of forensic DNA and the tests and limits of that I would really be glad if they would pipe up here: but I will do what I can to find more recent work that I can understand







http://www.bioforensics.com/conference04/Transfer/FingerprintsFromSingleCells.pdf

 

[Fiona]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7883286.stm

That is the link I was looking for earlier.

I have no more information than is available to you. ARubberChickenWithAPulley. I cannot find a transcript of Guede's case nor the judge's record of reasoning in english ( I assume he must make one but it is possible it is not required for a fast track hearing: I think it is necessary, for there is still an appeal)

So I do not know if he said what is reported: if he said something less lurid: or if he said nothing of the kind. I do know that in the judge's reasoning it was noted that some of the propositions put by the prosecution were "fantasy". But I do not know if that referred to the kind of content you outline or whether he meant that it was a nice story but with no evidence to suppport it.

It is wrong for a prosecutor to speculate about motive, IMO. But I am reluctant to criticise because it is quite clear on this thread alone that there is very strong expectation from at least some people that they will be provided with a nice tidy case including "motive, means and opportunity". It is almost being said by some that without some believable story about motive there is no possibility of establishing a crime "beyond reasonable doubt" (I do not think I am overegging the views of some posters but if that is an exaggeration I apologise). Doesn't excuse a prosecutor if he indulges in wild speculation, however. If that is what he did it does not seem to have influenced the judge to anyone's detriment: and it is not what he proposed in the trial of Knox and Sollecito.

I have a problem with all of this because to be perfectly honest I get the feeling that some are more likely to believe he is a nutter because he is foreign. Yet all I have read about the Italian system seems to show that prosecutors are well-qualified; subject to strong oversight; and admirably independent from political interference. Mignini says that prosecutors are often challenged in Italy, and when they are there are investigations into their conduct. I honestly do not know if that is as common as he says it is

But even if he is as nutty as a fruitcake it does not seem to me that this has been central to this trial: there is a (probably apocryphal) anecdote told about a solicitor in a British court. He said to have briefed the barrister concerned as follows "we have no case: abuse the opposition"

 

[Tanja]

I have been following this thread with great interest - and I have been reading a lot about the case in British newspapers (I work for a victim's organisation in the UK so it is partly professional interest).

Even though it looks to me there is a reasonable deal of evidence to suggest that Amanda Knox was involved in the crime, there is one thing that is puzzling me: when Rudy Guede was arrested, how come he did not immediatelly implicate Amanda and her boyfriend? If the truth is that all three were involved, why did Guede not make it clear in his testimony? If Amanda was the one to cut Meredith's throat, why didn't Guede say so to try and shift guilt from himself? How much of his testimony is actually known?

 

[Kestrel]

I have been following this thread with great interest - and I have been reading a lot about the case in British newspapers (I work for a victim's organisation in the UK so it is partly professional interest).

Even though it looks to me there is a reasonable deal of evidence to suggest that Amanda Knox was involved in the crime, there is one thing that is puzzling me: when Rudy Guede was arrested, how come he did not immediatelly implicate Amanda and her boyfriend? If the truth is that all three were involved, why did Guede not make it clear in his testimony? If Amanda was the one to cut Meredith's throat, why didn't Guede say so to try and shift guilt from himself? How much of his testimony is actually known?

If Guede's defense was simply that he didn't know anything about the crime, he wouldn't have implicated anyone else in his testimony.

I do question some other assumptions made in this thread. For example, if we know Rudy Guede was involved in the murder, how does the glass on top of scattered clothes prove that Knox was involved?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Or the result of a coerced confession.

Standard police work is standard police work, after all.

I see that JihadJane wishes to slyly assert that it is standard police work to coerce a confession.

Can you support this claim?

DR

 

[shuttlt]

I have been following this thread with great interest - and I have been reading a lot about the case in British newspapers (I work for a victim's organisation in the UK so it is partly professional interest).

Even though it looks to me there is a reasonable deal of evidence to suggest that Amanda Knox was involved in the crime, there is one thing that is puzzling me: when Rudy Guede was arrested, how come he did not immediatelly implicate Amanda and her boyfriend? If the truth is that all three were involved, why did Guede not make it clear in his testimony? If Amanda was the one to cut Meredith's throat, why didn't Guede say so to try and shift guilt from himself? How much of his testimony is actually known?

It's a tangled web and clearly if everyone was acting rationally and towards their own best interests Meredith would not be dead. I don't think we should expect a story to come out of this that makes sense. Almost certainly some of the people involved did stupid, needless things. Whether guilty or innocent, Guede's actions clearly weren't very well advised. He left bloody hand prints all over the place. Whoever cleaned up later was perhaps thinking a little clearer, but didn't have his interests at heart.

As for why he didn't shift the blame when he could, perhaps he thought he was safer claiming that he was innocent and didn't know the identity of the killer and later felt it was better not to change his story? I suppose it's also possible that he really was innocent and his story is true. I've read the thread, but can't actually remember finding anything that contradicts his story in the way the phone, computer and CCTV records contradict Knox and Sollecito.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Footprint evidence. ... snip excellent footprint summary post ...

The footprint and blood stain in Romanelli's room are important. One of them contained a mix of Knox's DNA and Kerchner's blood. Guede's DNA was not found in that room, nor in the bathroom with the footprint. There is no explanation for the pair's presence in that room at all

As I said in my earlier post it was this evidence which led the judge to commit Knox and Sollecito for trial. I do not see how any prosecutor could do otherwise, given the admitted inconsistencies of the defendant's account of the evening in question; the undisputed lies of both (whether due to nerves or immaturity or coerction or for any other reason) and these actual footprints.

Since he made his decision much more has been said about these and other matters: but to pretend there is no case to answer goes beyond what I can accept.

But did the footprint indicate that someone cartwheeled down the hall, bloody footprints and all?

(Nice post).

DR

 

[shuttlt]

If Guede's defense was simply that he didn't know anything about the crime, he wouldn't have implicated anyone else in his testimony.

I do question some other assumptions made in this thread. For example, if we know Rudy Guede was involved in the murder, how does the glass on top of scattered clothes prove that Knox was involved?

I suppose it doesn't, other than her alleged bloody footprints are by the door to the room with the broken window (I am remembering that right, aren't I?). Really though it's more evidence that an attempt has been made to manipulate the crime scene. The problem is that some of this manipulation, the washing machine and the moving of the body for example, couldn't have been done by Guede. If not Guede then who?

Edit--> Judging by the Fiona post, that was just copied, I am misremembering the position of the alleged Knox footprint.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Wow. I'm learning a lot in this thread. Thumbs up.

I'm not.

The OP implied that turning a cartwheel in the police station after being arrested for murder is considered perfectly normal behavior in the US. And yet, she won't tell us where in the US it is considered normal. Because I know it isn't anywhere close to where I live.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If you look at the facts here, Knox's confession was just not enough to convict her. It was crazy, it changed, it was obtained under duress, it wasn't logical, & it didn't fit with the facts in the case. It does however, fit with the facts in the cases of false confessions.

Then you add the fact the physical evidence against Knox and her boyfriend was not enough to convict anyone. The knife was not the murder weapon, the bra clasp was improperly collected evidence, the broken window in no way implicated anyone, let alone Knox.

Add to that the history of the overzealous prosecutor with a history of seeing Satanic cults everywhere including in this case and no evidence to support the prosecutor's proposed motives.

Now add that the actual guilty party was convicted and there was lots and lots of physical evidence in his case.

Where in all of this is the evidence of guilt, let alone guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

What about the cartwheel? Have you forgotten about the cartwheel?

 

[Darth Rotor]

What about the cartwheel? Have you forgotten about the cartwheel?

Someone put the horsewheel before that ...

 

[Fiona]

@ Kestrel.

It doesn't. It is part of chain of evidence, I think.

There are three possibilities:

1.The window was broken from the outside but the person who broke it did not enter the house. The window is high and it is not in the top three routes of obvious entry for a burglar: but since nothing is taken let us suppose that it was vandalism. So on the night that a completely separate murder was being committed, it so happened that some random person happened to break a really high window by throwing a rock through it.

In that case then some other person must have ransacked the room before the window was broken: because the glass was on the top of the scattered stuff and Romanelli testified that she left the room tidy.

2. The window was broken from the outside and an intruder entered that way. Either that was the murderer or it was a random burglar. This window is far from the easiest or safest way to enter that house so it is a curious decision for a random burglar. It is also a curious decision for a murderer if the killer went there with that intent.

In that case, once again, somebody else ransacked the room before that happened.

3. The window was broken from the inside. That is what the expert testimony claims. The defence attempted to challenge that but the failed because their expert accepted under cross examination that the tests he had performed to show the glass scatter could have happened by a rock thrown from outside did not take account of the shutters or the curtains. It seems that window was broken from the inside

4. If the window was broken from the inside then the murderer came in through the door. There is no other sign of entry from anywhere else.

5. Guede says he had a date with Krechner that night. So if that is true it is possible that she let him into the house in the normal way. Let us suppose that this petty thief, with no history of violence, then went mad and violently assaulted and killed her. We have to account for a number of things.

a. His **** is in the toilet: and it is not the toilet Krechner and Knox use.

b. If the statement upthread is correct then the killer locked Krechner's door. It has been stated it was locked from the inside: I have found nothing at all to support that but let us suppose it is true.

In that case he has to have come to the house no earlier than 9pm ( the earliest she got home): he has to have used the toilet He may also have ransacked Romanelli's room (but not taken anything) and then broken the window. He has to have left Krechner's body where it fell long enough to leave evidence of its original position ( I do not know how long that is but the judge said it was "some time"). He then has to move it and cut off the bra clasp. He has to make an attempt to clean up that is really quite extensive, yet forgets to flush the toilet. And then he has to return to Krechner's room; lock the door; and leave through the window. And he has to do all that in an hour and a quarter. Somehow he also has to arrange to put Krechner's clothes in the washing machine and set a timer so that they are washed and still warm at about 1 pm the following day.

If the door was not locked from the inside, but rather from the outside, nothing changes except he leaves through the door and takes the key to Krechner's room.

6. If he did not have a date with Krechner (and his account of how he got that date is not consistent) then he has to have gone to the house on spec. There is no reason to suppose that Krechner would have let him in in that case, though she might have. There is testimony from her friends that she was exhausted (as they all were because they had been up most of Halloween night) and she left their house with the intention of going straight to bed.

Alternatively he may have gone on spec and found the door open because of the dodgy lock; and he may have entered without her help. But he knew she had 3 housemates: I do not see how he could have known that none of them were there nor how he could have been confident the house downstairs was empty. The men who lived there knew him. But all of that could have happened.

The problem with that scenario is the footprints in Romanelli's bedroom. They were discovered using luminol, so they were part of the clean up. And they do not belong to Guede. There is no trace of him in that room. If he cleaned up that room imperfectly then why leave the toilet? Maybe he forgot.

7. It is possible that someone ransacked Romanelli's room and broke the window from the inside earlier in the day. Knox and Sollecito were alone in the house when Krechner left about about 4 pm. There is no evidence that anyone else was in the house that day. So perhaps for some reason they did that before they went to Sollecito's and it was completely unrelated to the murder. The problem with that is they have not said anything of the kind. And even if they did do that and for some reason chose not to admit it there is still the footprints: they were made after the murder because Krechner's blood was there together with Knox's DNA. So now we have to consider that they did this to Romanelli's room; went to Sollecito's house and did not return to the cottage until Knox went there alone at about 11.30 am the following day. And somehow managed to get bloody footprints into a room they had no reason to enter.

I may have missed something here: but that does not seem plausible to me particularly since the judge is convinced that there was more than one assailant.

 

[shuttlt]

Do we know if there was a timer on the washing machine?

 

[commandlinegamer]

I wonder what will happen when we really do have trial by media or even trial by web forum - should be interesting.

BTW on the cartwheel thing - pics or it didn't happen.

 

[Matthew Best]

Fiona - is there a reason you keep calling her Krechner?

 

[JihadJane]

BTW on the cartwheel thing - pics or it didn't happen.

Are you implying that the interrogation never happened either?

 

[Kestrel]

The evidence that Rudy Guede was the murderer is all rather convincing. He was also connected with a prior burglary where entry was gained by breaking an upper floor window.

So what evidence connects Amanda with breaking this window?

 

[shuttlt]

The evidence that Rudy Guede was the murderer is all rather convincing. He was also connected with a prior burglary where entry was gained by breaking an upper floor window.

So what evidence connects Amanda with breaking this window?

I'm really not sure that the broken window means very much. It's a bit suspicious and makes the crime scene look like it has been interfered with. Must there be more to it than that?

 

[Jungle Jim]

Somehow he also has to arrange to put Krechner's clothes in the washing machine and set a timer so that they are washed and still warm at about 1 pm the following day.

Is there really a machine that both washes and dries clothes? I'm only familiar with stand alone washers and dryers.

 

[Beerina]

And the prosecutors, police, jury and judge all say she's guilty.

Fancy that. To think that you might*** be wrong.


***Are

Then there's the issue of the murder knife with her DNA and the victim's blood on it.