Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[katy_did]

...and yet his DNA was found nowhere else in the room. So where did the "contamination" come from?

This is not the first time I've asked this question, and I've yet to see a plausible response. Perhaps you can do better?

Did they ever test Amanda's lamp for DNA? Presumably not, since it's still sitting in the room when they go and pick up the bra clasp 46 days later. Coincidentally, right next to the bra clasp...

Of course, if you really want to delve into this...since the metal was hidden as Dan O postulates, isn't it therefore less likely that the DNA came from contamination vs direct physical contact? If the metal of the clasp was covered while the clasp was on the floor, the DNA must be like a heat-seeking missile even more-so. The DNA had to not only land on nothing else in the room, but had to also avoid landing anywhere else on the clasp, and yet manage to navigate itself directly to the hidden clasp after traveling all the way from the cigarette butt in the kitchen.

Realistically, when the clasp was grasped by Sollecito so he could cut it off, it's not hard to imagine that his fingers rubbed against the metal of the clasp. Or perhaps when he moved the body, he grasped the bra strap at the clasp and managed to rub his finger against the metal. Anyone that's ever grasped a bra clasp can assure you that touching the metal isn't as difficult as Dan O makes it out to be...

No, the clasp wouldn't be covered when it was on the floor, only while it was fastened. It would have been entirely covered while she was wearing it, hence what Dan O is saying is that it would be very difficult to leave your DNA on it while you were cutting it.

To me, the position where the DNA was found (and especially taking into account the lack of Sollecito's DNA on the rest of the bra) is more consistent with someone picking up the separated bra clasp and running a finger over it, than it would be with him having it left it there while cutting it.

 

[stilicho]

It seems that the basis for your argument is to believe implicitly in everything the police claim (despite their being proven liars) and disbelieve absolutely everything Knox says, except when it suits you to selectively believe. I'm not quite sure what kind of metaphorical shag that would be. The police are the ones with the evidence to prove or disprove what Amanda says, yet they have consistently refused to do either. Amanda clearly cannot provide any evidence beyond her word, unless she recorded the interview herself.

It's clear you don't understand how the truth is discovered either in court or in everyday life. The stories of abuse related through the media were quickly whittled down to mere couple of taps by an unidentified woman with brown hair. Did AK ever identify this woman? Did her legal team find out who it was?

It is implausible to believe AK because she changes her story as the wind. Her testimony and voluntary written statements are packed full of contradictions.

It is not we who are selecting statements to prove or disprove anything that AK said or did or had done to her. It is AK herself who is creating such a mass of contradictory claims that it becomes impossible to believe her instead of the prosecution or the police.

Try the IN THEIR OWN WORDS portion of the PMF site if you haven't yet. Most of her own conflicting statements are featured there and her testimony (or one day of it) is translated in full on the InSession boards.

 

[katy_did]

It's clear you don't understand how the truth is discovered either in court or in everyday life. The stories of abuse related through the media were quickly whittled down to mere couple of taps by an unidentified woman with brown hair. Did AK ever identify this woman? Did her legal team find out who it was?

I'm not talking about 'abuse' here, I'm just talking about the way the confession was obtained. The police implying Meredith might have screamed isn't at all abusive, it's just misleading if they then suggest Knox was the one to introduce it. As far as the cuffs to the back of the head go, I strongly suspect Knox is telling the truth about those, if only because she first mentioned them in her handwritten statement to the police in which it would have been rather stupid to lie; at that point, she had no reason to think anyone other than the police would read it. It's not especially surprising she didn't know the woman's name, but how many female police officers with long chestnut coloured hair can there have been in the interrogation room?

It is implausible to believe AK because she changes her story as the wind. Her testimony and voluntary written statements are packed full of contradictions.

It is not we who are selecting statements to prove or disprove anything that AK said or did or had done to her. It is AK herself who is creating such a mass of contradictory claims that it becomes impossible to believe her instead of the prosecution or the police.

Try the IN THEIR OWN WORDS portion of the PMF site if you haven't yet. Most of her own conflicting statements are featured there and her testimony (or one day of it) is translated in full on the InSession boards.

To be fair to Knox, she's really just changed her story once, during the interrogation, and then reverted to her original story after that. That's not really changing her story like the wind.

However if we are to disbelieve what she says on the grounds that she's a liar, shouldn't we apply an equal degree of scepticism to EVERYTHING she says, including her claims to be at the crime scene on the night of the murder - not just cherry pick those statements that fit with our particular theory of what happened?

 

[odeed]

I don't understand the logic in cutting the bra clasp off, especially when the victim was dead.

Also was the bra removed before being cut, or was it cut while still on the victim?

This is interesting from a psychological standpoint.

Why are you all so obsessed with vindicating some random American girl arrested and convicted in a foreign country?

Why are you all so obsessed with vindicating some random American girl Italian guy arrested and convicted in a foreign country?

 

[Moss]

Maybe I'm a bit dense here, but why was AK allowed to write about bumps on the head if the police was able to force her into a phony story in the first place? Is that a case of brilliantly good and dastardly stupid at interrogation at the same time?

 

[stilicho]

However if we are to disbelieve what she says on the grounds that she's a liar, shouldn't we apply an equal degree of scepticism to EVERYTHING she says, including her claims to be at the crime scene on the night of the murder - not just cherry pick those statements that fit with our particular theory of what happened?

You've hit the nail on the head.

AK is disbelieved because her memory is inexplicably muddled only during the interval that's important. It's razor sharp when pointing to the unflushed toilet, for example and as a contrast. We know the toilet was unflushed and AK's memory was so clear about it that she mentioned it to the investigators, to her roommates, and in an email to her friends before her questioning on the evening of 05 NOV 2007.

Do you see how this works? If her memory is unaffected when we can verify it, and lapses when we have other explanations that she cannot reconcile with her innocence, then we have a pretty good idea that those are the times when she is to be disbelieved.

Try it yourself some time if you have kids that tell fibs.

 

[stilicho]

I don't understand the logic in cutting the bra clasp off, especially when the victim was dead.

I don't understand why they locked the door to the victim's room, either, but they did it. The pair was so intent on framing RG that they really overdid the cover-up.

Why did AK write this in her 06 NOV 2007 "gift" to the police?

Is there any other evidence condemning Patrik or any other person?

Any other person? Why would she think that there was any other person involved in the crime unless she knew? It's hard to ask people on a forum dedicated to reason and logic to dispose of those tools and step into the shoes of criminals entirely devoid of either of them. But you have to if you want to understand what they did or why they did it.

These two will go down in history as a couple of the dumbest criminals ever.

 

[katy_did]

AK is disbelieved because her memory is inexplicably muddled only during the interval that's important. It's razor sharp when pointing to the unflushed toilet, for example and as a contrast. We know the toilet was unflushed and AK's memory was so clear about it that she mentioned it to the investigators, to her roommates, and in an email to her friends before her questioning on the evening of 05 NOV 2007.

Do you see how this works? If her memory is unaffected when we can verify it, and lapses when we have other explanations that she cannot reconcile with her innocence, then we have a pretty good idea that those are the times when she is to be disbelieved.

Well, quite - her memory is fine before and after the illegal interrogation, but becomes confused only for a brief period during it. Remember that she was told they had hard evidence placing her at the scene, and that if she didn't remember being there, it was because she'd blanked it out (this she says in the statement she handed to her interrogators). Rather hard to argue against that kind of logic.

It's entirely possible that had they told her they had 'hard evidence' that there was never any poo in the toilet (hmm, the term 'hard evidence' conjurs up some unfortunate images there!) she may have become confused about that too, but of course, that was never the focus of the interrogation.

 

[Kestrel]

I don't understand why they locked the door to the victim's room, either, but they did it. The pair was so intent on framing RG that they really overdid the cover-up.

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that AK and RS locked the door to Meredith's room?

Do you really believe the Rudy Guede is an innocent man who was framed?

 

[Dan O.]

...and yet his DNA was found nowhere else in the room. So where did the "contamination" come from?

From the DNA evidence, it's obvious that Raffaele was never in Meredith's room so we must look outside of the room for the source of the contamination. Also, since there is no time marker on the DNA to say when it attacked to the clasp, the event could have happened before or after that night.

Prior to the night of the murder, the bra would likely have been washed. It's been speculated before that the hook could have picked up contamination in the wash. Subsequent to the wash, the bra would have been hung on the drying rack in the hall outside Amanda's and Meredith's rooms that all the girls shared. Raffaele has been through this hall in the previous week so could have come in contact with the clasp at that time (perhaps trying to solve the mystery that plagues all young men).

Subsequent to the murder, the clasp may have been kicking around in Meredith's room for a month. We really don't know what happened to it in the time between when it was photographed in the first investigation and when it was subsequently collected visibly changed over a month later.

Once back at the lab the hook was subjected to manipulation using various tools and handled by (Dr?) Patrizia Stefanoni where we see the famous photo of her contaminated glove in the lab where she claims contamination was never found. This same lab would have handled and amplified Raffaele's DNA for a reference.

This is not the first time I've asked this question, and I've yet to see a plausible response. Perhaps you can do better?

Of course, if you really want to delve into this...since the metal was hidden as Dan O postulates, isn't it therefore less likely that the DNA came from contamination vs direct physical contact? If the metal of the clasp was covered while the clasp was on the floor, the DNA must be like a heat-seeking missile even more-so.

Do you really have no concept of how this clasp works?

The DNA had to not only land on nothing else in the room, but had to also avoid landing anywhere else on the clasp, and yet manage to navigate itself directly to the hidden clasp after traveling all the way from the cigarette butt in the kitchen.

Inconceivable isn't it. Almost like an invisible hand had to transfer that DNA.

Realistically, when the clasp was grasped by Sollecito so he could cut it off, it's not hard to imagine that his fingers rubbed against the metal of the clasp. Or perhaps when he moved the body, he grasped the bra strap at the clasp and managed to rub his finger against the metal. Anyone that's ever grasped a bra clasp can assure you that touching the metal isn't as difficult as Dan O makes it out to be...

And he managed to do this without touching any other part of the strap? He would need to grab the strap and pull on it to put tension on the elastic so the knife will cut through the strap. Doing so would leave DNA on the strap right where they found Rudy's DNA.

 

[katy_did]

I don't understand why they locked the door to the victim's room, either, but they did it. The pair was so intent on framing RG that they really overdid the cover-up.

There is, of course, a perfectly rational explanation as to why Guede would have locked the door - to delay the discovery of the body as long as possible, to give himself time to get the money together to leave the country. To hide what he'd done from Meredith's housemates. No need to put it down to illogical reasoning in his case.

Guede would also have needed to take Meredith's keys to get out of the house anyway, since she would have locked the door behind her. And Guede, unlike Knox, would not have been aware that the front door latch was broken, so he didn't lock it behind him and the door blew open overnight (the first thing to arouse Knox's suspicion, of course).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Mixer case

...and yet his DNA was found nowhere else in the room. So where did the "contamination" come from?

This is not the first time I've asked this question, and I've yet to see a plausible response. Perhaps you can do better?

Of course, if you really want to delve into this...since the metal was hidden as Dan O postulates, isn't it therefore less likely that the DNA came from contamination vs direct physical contact? If the metal of the clasp was covered while the clasp was on the floor, the DNA must be like a heat-seeking missile even more-so. The DNA had to not only land on nothing else in the room, but had to also avoid landing anywhere else on the clasp, and yet manage to navigate itself directly to the hidden clasp after traveling all the way from the cigarette butt in the kitchen.

“in 2002, while investigating the 1969 murder of University of Michigan law student Jane Mixer, the Michigan State Police Crime Laboratory in Lansing found DNA of two men on her clothing. The profiles were searched through a database and matched two Michigan men, Gary Leiterman and John Ruelas. Police immediately suspected that Leiterman and Ruelas had been involved in the murder, but there was a problem — Ruelas was only four years old when Mixer was killed and had been living with his parents in another city. According to news accounts, police could find no link between young Ruelas and Mixer.29 That did not deter Washtenaw County Assistant Prosecutor Steven Hiller who charged Leiterman with the murder. Hiller ‘created a scenario placing a young Ruelas at the [murder] scene as a chronic nose-bleeder whose blood dropped on Mixer.’30 There is, however, another possible explanation for this ‘cold hit.’ Examination of laboratory records revealed that known samples of DNA from both Leiterman and Ruelas were being processed in the Michigan State lab on the same day as the old samples from the Mixer murder.31 Both men were being tested in connection with other cases unrelated to the Mixer murder. Although the Michigan State laboratory maintains that cross-contamination of samples across cases was impossible, it seems a very strange and unlikely coincidence that two men who, according to the prosecutor, were present when Mixer was murdered in 1969 just happened to have their DNA tested (for other cases) on the very same day as samples from the Mixer case were tested. Leiterman was nevertheless convicted of Mixer’s murder in 2005.”

“29. Maryanne George, Murder case mystery deepens. Detroit Free Press, Jan 15, 2005.
30. According to news accounts, Hiller offered no evidence to support this theory. Liz Cobbs, Judge raises possibility evidence may have been contaminated at State Police lab, Ann Arbor News, May 11, 2005.
31. Author’s interview with Professor Dan Krane (a defense expert in the case). Also, Thersa Mask, Mixer’s dad is clear on one thing, Detroit Free Press, July 13, 2005.”
http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/0/6285f6867724e1e685257124006f9177

BobTheDonkey,

Which is more likely, that Ruelas was at the crime scene or that this is a case of contamination?

Chris

 

[odeed]

There is, of course, a perfectly rational explanation as to why Guede would have locked the door - to delay the discovery of the body as long as possible, to give himself time to get the money together to leave the country. To hide what he'd done from Meredith's housemates. No need to put it down to illogical reasoning in his case.

Guede would also have needed to take Meredith's keys to get out of the house anyway, since she would have locked the door behind her.

Yet in locking the door, he goes and breaks the window of Kercher flatmate and stages a break in, thus ensuring that the police will be called when it is discovered.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

“in 2002, while investigating the 1969 murder of University of Michigan law student Jane Mixer, the Michigan State Police Crime Laboratory in Lansing found DNA of two men on her clothing. The profiles were searched through a database and matched two Michigan men, Gary Leiterman and John Ruelas. Police immediately suspected that Leiterman and Ruelas had been involved in the murder, but there was a problem — Ruelas was only four years old when Mixer was killed and had been living with his parents in another city. According to news accounts, police could find no link between young Ruelas and Mixer.29 That did not deter Washtenaw County Assistant Prosecutor Steven Hiller who charged Leiterman with the murder. Hiller ‘created a scenario placing a young Ruelas at the [murder] scene as a chronic nose-bleeder whose blood dropped on Mixer.’30 There is, however, another possible explanation for this ‘cold hit.’ Examination of laboratory records revealed that known samples of DNA from both Leiterman and Ruelas were being processed in the Michigan State lab on the same day as the old samples from the Mixer murder.31 Both men were being tested in connection with other cases unrelated to the Mixer murder. Although the Michigan State laboratory maintains that cross-contamination of samples across cases was impossible, it seems a very strange and unlikely coincidence that two men who, according to the prosecutor, were present when Mixer was murdered in 1969 just happened to have their DNA tested (for other cases) on the very same day as samples from the Mixer case were tested. Leiterman was nevertheless convicted of Mixer’s murder in 2005.”

“29. Maryanne George, Murder case mystery deepens. Detroit Free Press, Jan 15, 2005.
30. According to news accounts, Hiller offered no evidence to support this theory. Liz Cobbs, Judge raises possibility evidence may have been contaminated at State Police lab, Ann Arbor News, May 11, 2005.
31. Author’s interview with Professor Dan Krane (a defense expert in the case). Also, Thersa Mask, Mixer’s dad is clear on one thing, Detroit Free Press, July 13, 2005.”
http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/0/6285f6867724e1e685257124006f9177

BobTheDonkey,

Which is more likely, that Ruelas was at the crime scene or that this is a case of contamination?

Chris

Was Sollecito a 4yr old at the time of the murder?

Was any other item with Sollecito's DNA tested that day? Given that the only other place his DNA was found was on the cigarette butt collected during the initial collection of evidence, I'm going to suggest that this is a highly unlikely scenario.

Care to try again?

 

[Dan O.]

Non sequitur.​

How are you and Kestrel trying to explain that photo? What the media did with it has no bearing on the trial.

How are you claiming that the jurors were immune to the media reports and public opinion? Did Mignini have them all locked up in isolation for 2 years?

Argument from incredulity.​

Regardless of where evidence of RS showed up at the crimescene, you'd find it impossible to believe it wasn't also found somewhere else. This is what I mean when I suggest that you'd never convict anyone of a crime, anywhere, because sufficient evidence would be thrown out unless more--always more--was also found.

You are quite right that I would never convict someone on the basis of the paltry evidence found against Amanda and Raffaele. The evidence against Rudy Guede however is very damning. Why was he given a half sentence in the short trial when it is known that he hasn't yet told the truth about what he did that night?

This is a turtles-upon-turtles approach to investigation and (I think) you know it. Regardless of the mountains of evidence against RS and AK, you suggest it's simply "this much" short.

It's a mountain of rubbish. None of the evidence places Amanda or Raffaele at the scene at the time of the murder.

Even the defence teams weren't that stubborn and naive, Dan O. Why are you? What is your angle?

The defense has a limited opportunity to present their case to the jury. The constraints of the trial prevent them from exploring every track.

I have the experience and resources to counter the lies that I see presented and cannot be bullied over by weak repeated arguments. That there are a couple of innocents imprisoned as a result of those lies gives me incentive to keep going.


The question should be reflected right back at you. What's your angle?

 

[katy_did]

Yet in locking the door, he goes and breaks the window of Kercher flatmate and stages a break in, thus ensuring that the police will be called when it is discovered.

Only if you buy into Mignini's theory that the break-in was staged*. The more obvious explanation is that Guede entered or tried to enter that way, and that he was there when Meredith got back; i.e. that the break-in happened before the murder. Not much he could do about the broken window after the fact, except to hope that Filomena wouldn't be home for a few days (which she wasn't, of course. Who knows, if not for the wide open door and the unflushed toilet, it may well have taken a few days for anyone to find Meredith).

* Mignini does have rather a history of believing apparently simple crimes and events to be staged, even to the point of staging a break-in himself (his men broke into Mario Spezi's car, removed the radio to make it look like a theft and attached a bugging device to the electrical leads). Worth looking into.

 

[odeed]

All this talk of DNA contamination misses the point that no one has showed the DNA contamination from Knox and Kerchers two flatmates, Filomena Romanelli and Laura Mezzetti. The defense has not showed that Kerchers DNA was mixed with Romanelli/Mezzetti thus weakening the evidence against Knox.

And I don't understand why the effort to exonerate Sollecito, who provided no alibi for Knox during the trial, when there is evidence for Knox being at the murder.

 

[odeed]

Only if you buy into Mignini's theory that the break-in was staged*. The more obvious explanation is that Guede entered or tried to enter that way, and that he was there when Meredith got back; i.e. that the break-in happened before the murder. Not much he could do about the broken window after the fact, except to hope that Filomena wouldn't be home for a few days (which she wasn't, of course. Who knows, if not for the wide open door and the unflushed toilet, it may well have taken a few days for anyone to find Meredith).

* Mignini does have rather a history of believing apparently simple crimes and events to be staged, even to the point of staging a break-in himself (his men broke into Mario Spezi's car, removed the radio to make it look like a theft and attached a bugging device to the electrical leads). Worth looking into.

I expect that Guede did not who room it was and when they would be back (minutes, hours or days).

 

[odeed]

One more thing, all the people trying to defend Knox and Sollecito by throwing doubt on the police investigation, forensic evidence, the prosecutor motives, or Italian justice system has not questioned the guilt of Rudy Geude, and whether he could be innocent, despite being convicted by the same people.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA against Guede

One more thing, all the people trying to defend Knox and Sollecito by throwing doubt on the police investigation, forensic evidence, the prosecutor motives, or Italian justice system has not questioned the guilt of Rudy Geude, and whether he could be innocent, despite being convicted by the same people.

Fulcanelli has made the same point specifically with respect to the DNA evidence. However, Guede's lawyer never challenged the DNA evidence against him, IIRC. I accept the DNA evidence against Guede provisionally: If someone has an argument to make against this evidence, let's hear it.