Hello Solnishko, and welcome from me as well.
Well that is no longer certain. I have just learned that Sollecito's forensic expert, Pascali I think, claims that knox's dna was also on the victim's bra. I have not yet found the source but it is discussed on PKM. I am not so good at navigating that site as Stilicho is, so it will take me some time to track it down if I succeed at all. And as it is 3 am it is not likely to be tonight.
I can't post links yet, but here's a clip from a Guardian article from October 27, 2008, regarding the DNA on the bra clasp:
Francesco Vinci, a forensic expert hired by Sollecito's legal team, said the DNA of all three suspects and two other unidentified people might be on the bra.
Sollecito's lawyers say this proves their theory that the clasp was contaminated with outside DNA after police mistakenly left it on the floor of Kercher's bedroom for weeks before testing it. "There is a mix of DNA due to contamination and it is not usable as proof," said Sollecito's lawyer, Giulia Bongiorno, before entering court today.
I've also seen articles that state that it was Kercher, Sollecito and three unidentified people as well. The problem with news stories is that they're often not 100% accurate, if the prosecution doesn't want to tip their hand on that particular aspect. And, the fact that it was sitting there for six weeks leaves a lot to question.
They can't repeat the test because the sample was very small. That is not in dispute. The fact of the dna was attested by Dr Stefanoni and it was confirmed by a forensic expert acting for the victim's family. So far as I am aware the defence did not argue that: Sollecito said the dna came from the victim when she was cooking with them at his home. There is no evidence at all she ever visited his home. Sollecito had only known Knox for a few weeks (and he says he only became close to her on 24th September - though he might have changed that again). The girls were not close and did not socialise together: nor do any of Kerchner's friends remember any mention of a visit to his home.
It's also been confirmed that Kercher's DNA on the knife was not from blood. From ABC News International on May 22, 2009:
Stefanoni testified today that Knox's DNA was found on the handle of the kitchen knife the prosecution believes is the murder weapon. This knife was found in Sollecito's house. She said Kercher's DNA was on the blade. Stefanoni said, however, that the DNA in these samples was not from blood.
Well perhaps: but the knife is not the only factor: there are 47 separate wounds and they are scattered all over her body in such a way as to convince the various judges and the two prosecutors that there was more than one assailant. There are defence wounds which show she fought hard. If the killer put his knife down to get another from somewhere it is hard to see why or how while his victim was fighting: and harder yet to see why he would if she was already passed out and not resting.
But, the million dollar question here is: Why is there only Guede's DNA on Kercher's body? If Sollecito and Knox were so heavily involved in the crime, their DNA would be everywhere in that bedroom. All over the bed, all over the floor, all over the victim. The only DNA they've found is Guede's. That strikes me as incredibly odd that Sollecito and Knox managed to clean away their own DNA, but not that of Guede. In fact, impossible. We shed DNA and cellular materials heavily throughout normal activity. During a crime like this, there will be sweat, blood, saliva, mucous, skin and hair shed, which will get all over the place. Why is it not there?
Again, perhaps. The forensic scientists do not agree with you, but that is the question and I am not competent to judge. Nonetheless you still have to account for the fact that the victim's blood is there: that there is a footprint which appears to match Sollecito's. That this footprint is clearly visible, as is a long streak of blood and other smaller blood spots on the toilet and the bidet and the tap and the light switch. Yet this woman, who returned to her home to find the door open but no one home, proceeds to have a shower. I find that rather odd. Maybe it is just me.
Guede brought the victim's DNA in there. It doesn't have to mean that Knox and Sollecito are responsible for it and I'm not convinced that the footprint is Sollecito's, as he has a hammer toe which wouldn't leave a print, as it isn't able to touch the ground at all.
The fact that the door was open doesn't strike me as odd. I come home to an open door occasionally, as the latch on the front door is faulty and doesn't latch all the way, unless it's slammed shut. Blood all over the bathroom... these are young women living there. Women have periods that can make a mess. I cut my hand up on Thanksgiving and, rather than clean up the bloody mess, I dealt with the cuts on my hand and, yes, there were blood smears all over the bathroom and kitchen sinks. If I'd needed medical attention, I wouldn't have cleaned up first. If there were huge pools of blood... yeah, that would make me wonder why she took a shower, rather than freak out. But smears and drops? Not so much. It wasn't a blood bath in there.
It is not admitted that they did hard drugs: it is admitted that they smoked cannabis. There has been some evidence that Sollecito may have taken LSD as a younger man: but at no point has it been suggested that Knox took hard drugs. Withdrawal is not a possibility.
The crime happened on November 1st: Sollecito was asked to attend the police station as a witness on November 5th and Knox voluntarily accompanied him. She did not wish to leave and therefore they interviewed her too. They were not addicts and they knew they were going to be interviewed: if they were high they were behaving very strangely indeed: and despite all that has been said about inappropriate behaviour this has never been suggested: not by them and not by the police. [/quote]
Pot does enough to whack people out. I'm not implying that they were high when they were interviewed, but they admitted to being stoned that night and the possibly don't remember exactly what they were doing or where they were. Having that kind of a blackout, on the night that someone was murdered... yeah, that'd freak me out.
They were not interrogated for an extended length of time without food or sleep. Sollecito never claimed that, and Knox admitted that she lied about it. At the outset they were witnesses and they were free to leave at any time. I do not know what time the interview began: but the couple went to the police station about 10 pm ( I don't know why it was so late but I think they do that sort of thing in Spain as well). Knox's interview was terminated at 1.45 am when she accused Lumumba and placed herself at the scene. The police testified to this and so did Knox. She was again questioned about 4 hours later, according to her statement. She agrees that she was offered food and drink and the opportunity to go the bathroom throughout. She admits she lied about physical abuse and threats. I do not know if she was left alone to sleep between times: but this is nothing like the picture you have painted.
When the second session opened she was a suspect. Since the written statement she made about Lumumba at that stage was admitted in evidence in his case against her on the grounds that there was "no possibility of coercion" then, I am taking it that she had the lawyer and the interpreter she was entitled to since that is the only way that can be true. And indeed interpeters testified at the trial.
If this was anything like you describe you would be perfectly correct. But what you have presented is fantasy.
As far as the interrogations, I haven't read all that much about them. But... truth be told, I could crack someone in a matter of minutes, if I had to. Psychological stress can exhaust someone very quickly. The initial interrogation lasted 4 hours. Four hours being questioned... that's a LONG time, even if she was allowed food and bathroom breaks. The US uses a form of this kind of interrogation for married couples seeing a green card for one party. It's particularly nasty to be isolated and grilled like that. Add the fact that they were on drugs on the night in question, which I presume is illegal in Italy...
Add to that police accusing her of hiding something, insisting that she knows something, threatening her with prison time, smacking her upside the back of the head.
When I was in the military, at one point in training, our CO's would grab each one of us, put us in an interrogation room and question us about a crime that someone had committed. They threatened us with court martial, firing squads, hit us, kicked us... you name it, they did it. Two soldiers were waterboarded, for all intents and purposes.
You know, there were only two people who didn't admit to knowledge and give details about this crime. Some true, some ********, but once you gave details, you were treated really well and sent back to the barracks. They weren't investigating a crime at all, but rather testing us psychologically. Our officers found out a lot of interesting things that had been happening, because so many guys cracked and spilled their guts.
They wanted to see who they could trust, should any of us fall into enemy hands. But, had they really wanted to extract information, that was the way to do it. To see hardened, trained soldiers crack... I can't imagine how a 20 year old college student would fare.
