Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

This is really pointless. The bathmat footprint and the one Rinaldi claims was Raffaele's (which is not the same one Kermit claimed is Raffaele's, incidentally) are very obviously not 'identical' or 'twins'. You ignore that fact and continue to claim they are. What's the point of discussing anything if you're just going to stick to your ingrained beliefs regardless, and ignore anything which doesn't fit?

So you assert. Yet the court has assigned it to Raffaele all the same. They must have their reasons, no?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I don't believe the drying rack is blocking Amanda's door. There are two photos Charlie posted of the drying rack - the photo to the right appears that the rack is mostly past Amanda's door.

It may not be blocking it. But then, it's not the optimum setting for a boogie runway is it?

 

[stilicho]

II told you that it is commonplace for police investigators to ask for voluntary DNA samples from people in the course of their investigations, and I told you that the compliance rate is generally quite high. I specfically said that generally, such requests are made on a relatively small scale (e.g. tenants and known visitors) when the crime scene is known and limited (such as in the case under discussion here), and added for your edification regarding the use of this investigative technique in Canada, that sometimes requests are expanded beyond the immediate if the case warrants it, and cited an example of such an expansion.

I've been trying to locate something on par with a police training manual but so far no luck. I did find this story, though:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/10/national/main665938.shtml

Mass DNA collection has been used to crack criminal cases in Europe, but in this country the technique has been used only sporadically.

Authorities in Baton Rouge, La., collected DNA swabs from about 1,200 men in 2003 in an attempt to catch a serial killer. An arrest was eventually made, but authorities say it wasn't the result of the mass DNA effort.

Investigators in Virginia and Nebraska have also done mass DNA testing, with little success.

It's tough without either a police manual or resorting to news stories and anecdotes to demonstrate that DNA swabbing is not ordinarily applicable to those not detained, already under arrest, or convicted. If anyone has a pdf from a police manual--regardless of jurisdiction--it would be helpful here.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Haha. If that's true....he just sounds like a bastion of credibility doesn't he?

I think you are misrepresenting him pretty unfairly here. The footprint being assigned to Raffaele was not dropped as a result of investigations by the Sollecito family...but rather because Rudy turned around and said it might be his. Once that happened, it cast too much reasonable doubt fir it to be assigned to Raffaele, whether it was or wasn't his. In fact, one of the prosecution footprint experts (there was more then one) in the trial actually still assigned the footprint to Raffaele (that may even have been Rinaldi...I don't quite recall).

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Cool. Now, why are you so certain ?

The starting premise is deeply improbable. The authorities took a strong public position before they had analyzed the evidence or really understood what was going on. Then they came up with a list of evidence that is all flawed or irrelevant to the crime. They don't have the physical evidence that they would have if Amanda and Raffaele had been involved. But they do have conclusive evidence against Guede.

I have followed a lot of similar cases in the US.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Oh, I don't know if I can bother to answer this... You're making the assumption the footprints were there, then saying the fact they are no longer there is evidence they were cleaned up. Since the first of your assumptions hasn't been established, the conclusion you draw from it isn't logical.

How is it not logical? Someone left a bloody footprint on the bath mat. There is no source for that blood in the bathroom, so they must have walked to the bath mat from somewhere 'else' (outside the bathroom) to get to the mat to leave the print. If they walked there, then where are the prints leading up to the mat? This isn't an assumption, but a fact ruled by the laws of physics. The only explanation is that the prints were cleaned. The only alternative, is that they didn't walk to the mat but flew and so didn't leave prints in the first place, so which is it, what is the 'logical' explanation? Do you have a logical alternative, for if you do, let's hear it?

If it was never mentioned, then you obviously don't have any evidence it was there before the door was broken down, do you? I think that if it had been there, it would have been talked about by the eight people present at the time. It would be a possible safety hazard, for one thing, depending on what it was connected to. You don't find it just a little odd there was no discussion about it?

But let's suppose it was there, and was therefore presumably plugged into the corridor at some point. Since there's no plug socket near the door, what could it have been used for? The cable would only have stretched to just inside the door.

I still don't understand why it would have been talked about. Safety hazard? Why? It wasn't plugged into anything and the person kicking the door in didn't need to enter to do so...so what's the danger? WHY would this have formed a topic of discussion?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Actually, all of the surfaces in the bathroom were covered with a layer of water. Have you ever taken a shower without steaming up the bathroom? I have often wondered why the investigators didn't take the steam into account when determing the age of the blood spots. After the shower, the spots all would have had more water in them than they had before the shower; this had to affect the investigators' ability to determine when they had been placed there.

There is a way the bathmat footprint could be Amanda's. On her way to the bathroom in her bare feet, she could have picked up some blood residue from Rudy's shoeprints and walked it into the bathroom, especially if her feet were sweaty or the blood was still dampish. Her footprints would have been very faint on the floor, but if the bathmat was wet from the previous day's showers or from Rudy washing up, it would have absorbed more blood from her foot than the floor did.

When she got out of the shower, the room was steamy, but she noticed the blood on the bathmat. Any footprints she had made on the floor would have been diluted by the steam, and when she moved the bathmat across the floor, that would have taken care of cleaning those up.

If she stepped off the bathmat at the bathroom door, her feet would still have been damp enough to pick up more residue of Rudy's footprints in the hallway, thus leaving her one footprint in the hallway that may have had blood in it.

If there was no blood on the bathmat until Amanda put it there, that would explain why she hadn't noticed it before her shower.

Perhaps (although I don't believe it was from any shower, at least not in the late morning of the 2nd). But that would only wet the bathroom, not the corridor.

I don't think the investigators used any test to determine the age of the blood stains in the bathroom, with or without taking steam into account. But it doesn't matter, we had Amanda to tell us the age...the blood was there in the morning, but by her own testimony, had not been there the afternoon before...meaning it could only have been deposited the night of the murder.

Blood residue from Rudy's footprints? Why did this blood only suddenly appear when she stepped on the mat? Not that Rudy's footprints would have explained the volume of the blood on the mat in any case and certainly not walking with dry feet on a dry floor on dry bloody footprints as everything would have been when Amanda went 'to' the bathroom.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Cool. Now, why are you so certain ?

Great question.

 

[Fulcanelli]

What side is Fulcanelli arguing for again? He's posted over 80 times today, but he is so coy about his real feelings about the case.

I didn't know you were keeping count.

 

[Fulcanelli]

They didn't even have to test the bra calsp -- they could just SAY they tested it, and show the results of another DNA test instead. Or, they could just wipe some of Raffaele's DNA on it from his clothing or a napkin.

They couldn't do the same with Patrick then? If they were playing that game, they couldn't assign a high profile of Amanda to the clasp too then? And if they had fabricated the bra clasp in such a fashion....why would they have also invented two partial unknown female profiles on the clasp too? Not only do you not have any evidence to support your assertion of evidence fabrication, your accusations make no logical sense in the context of the wider picture.

 

[RWVBWL]

Actually, all of the surfaces in the bathroom were covered with a layer of water. Have you ever taken a shower without steaming up the bathroom? I have often wondered why the investigators didn't take the steam into account when determing the age of the blood spots. After the shower, the spots all would have had more water in them than they had before the shower; this had to affect the investigators' ability to determine when they had been placed there.

There is a way the bathmat footprint could be Amanda's. On her way to the bathroom in her bare feet, she could have picked up some blood residue from Rudy's shoeprints and walked it into the bathroom, especially if her feet were sweaty or the blood was still dampish. Her footprints would have been very faint on the floor, but if the bathmat was wet from the previous day's showers or from Rudy washing up, it would have absorbed more blood from her foot than the floor did.

When she got out of the shower, the room was steamy, but she noticed the blood on the bathmat. Any footprints she had made on the floor would have been diluted by the steam, and when she moved the bathmat across the floor, that would have taken care of cleaning those up.

If she stepped off the bathmat at the bathroom door, her feet would still have been damp enough to pick up more residue of Rudy's footprints in the hallway, thus leaving her one footprint in the hallway that may have had blood in it.

If there was no blood on the bathmat until Amanda put it there, that would explain why she hadn't noticed it before her shower.

Hi Mary H,
I was just reading your recent post, and that does indeed make sense, well to me at least. From what I have read, it was a bit cold in the apartment that morning, so I bet that any bathroom window was not opened at the time Miss Knox showered. Hence, the bathroom steam effect could have been really, really good. I think I recall reading something about Miss Knox luving to taking long hot showers, and that wasn't cool, for some reason that I forget. A steamy bathroom on a cold Novemebr morning can be easy to visualize.
If Miss Knox was indeed dragging that bathroom mat around after exiting the shower, there probably would have been some kind of possible "clean-up" unintentionaly done from someone who might not have been involved in a murder.
Excellant point, in my opinion.
Have a nice rest of the day,
RWVBWL

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

It's tough without either a police manual or resorting to news stories and anecdotes to demonstrate that DNA swabbing is not ordinarily applicable to those not detained, already under arrest, or convicted. If anyone has a pdf from a police manual--regardless of jurisdiction--it would be helpful here.

It's something you learn if you read about criminal investigations. One case that comes to the top of my mind is the Central Park Jogger. They got a DNA sample from her boyfriend that matched some DNA on her clothing. They didn't suspect him of being involved in the crime. They wanted to eliminate those samples as relevant to their investigation.

 

[Mr.D]

It tends to move more slowly when the Brits are asleep.

You're right. To clarify: It moves really fast for those of us who are -10 UTC. By the time I check in the morning, you guys have bickered and ignored each other through three or four separate topics!

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

How is it not logical? Someone left a bloody footprint on the bath mat. There is no source for that blood in the bathroom, so they must have walked to the bath mat from somewhere 'else' (outside the bathroom) to get to the mat to leave the print. If they walked there, then where are the prints leading up to the mat? This isn't an assumption, but a fact ruled by the laws of physics. The only explanation is that the prints were cleaned. The only alternative, is that they didn't walk to the mat but flew and so didn't leave prints in the first place, so which is it, what is the 'logical' explanation? Do you have a logical alternative, for if you do, let's hear it?

One possible way is the blood was already on the mat - Amanda stepped on it getting out of the shower, did her bathmat shuffle to the bedroom, while drying herself off, her heal stepped onto it as well - thus leaving the othe prints, but still this requires some clean up as well.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

contamination is sporadic

If so many samples were taken from Meredith's bedroom, then how was only this single sample contaminated? Again, were the only traces of Raffaele in the room not brought in during the first round of evidence collecting, but rather 46 days later?

You, and others, affirm that the DNA arrived via contamination. Yet nothing else in that room was contaminated. To believe this, one must believe that at no other time during the initial collection of evidence, you know, when those videos of Bruce's were filmed, did any of the multitude of Policemen, Investigators, etc manage to contaminate any of the places tested in the bedroom. No, it wasn't until the handful of forensics scientists returned 46 days later that Raffaele's DNA was transferred via contamination into the bedroom. That just seems unlikely, Charlie.

BobTheDonkey,

First, contamination and secondary/tertiary transfer are both possibilities with respect to the bra clasp, not just contamination alone. Second, you argued that it is unlikely that only one sample would show contamination, not others. Yet the DNA profile of Ms. P only showed up in two items of Jaidyn Leskie’s clothing, but not anywhere else, including the negative controls. This fact was cited by the lab as a reason to exclude the possibility of contamination. Moreover, the lab in question complied with the requirements of its accreditation and the technicians used a 0.05% solution of hypochlorite to clean their benchtops. Yet, the contamination happened despite these precautions, and contrary to their argument. As an aside, it is worth bearing in mind that not all equipment would tolerate being treated with bleach, variable volume pipettors come to mind in this regard.

Halides1

 

[Fulcanelli]

Just some questions:



1. Why do you think Knox and Sollecito repeatedly told the police a pack of lies and gave multiple conflicting alibis?

2. Who do you think staged the break-in in Filomena’s room?

3. Who do you think tracked Meredith’s blood into the bathroom that Knox and Meredith shared?

4. Why did Amanda Knox voluntarily admit that she was involved in Meredith's murder on 6 November 2007?

5. Why did Amanda Knox accuse Diya Lumumba of murdering Meredith despite knowing full well that he was completely innocent and why didn't she recant her false and malicious allegation when he was in prison?

6. Why won't Sollecito corroborate Amanda Knox's alibi that she was at his apartment on the night of the murder?

 

[Fulcanelli]

One possible way is the blood was already on the mat - Amanda stepped on it getting out of the shower, did her bathmat shuffle to the bedroom, while drying herself off, her heal stepped onto it as well - thus leaving the othe prints, but still this requires sone clean up as well.

There are multiple problems....but just to name one...we have a completely covered right foot, leading to an orgy of right prints, but not even so much as a partial for the left. This alone, excludes the bath mat as being the source...

Two partials, or one complete with one partial I can accept, but one complete and absolute nada for the other I cannot. The probability for that scenario is almost zero.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

BobTheDonkey,

First, contamination and secondary/tertiary transfer are both possibilities with respect to the bra clasp, not just contamination alone. Second, you argued that it is unlikely that only one sample would show contamination, not others. Yet the DNA profile of Ms. P only showed up in two items of Jaidyn Leskie’s clothing, but not anywhere else, including the negative controls. This fact was cited by the lab as a reason to exclude the possibility of contamination. Moreover, the lab in question complied with the requirements of its accreditation and the technicians used a 0.05% solution of hypochlorite to clean their benchtops. Yet, the contamination happened despite these precautions, and contrary to their argument. As an aside, it is worth bearing in mind that not all equipment would tolerate being treated with bleach, variable volume pipettors come to mind in this regard.

Halides1

So, in other words, DNA evidence is always invalid as it may, at any time, have come from contamination/tertiary+ transfer.

 

[RWVBWL]

_________________________________________________________________

Hi HumanityBlues,
Though I have never met Mr. Rinaldi, his workmanship in this particular instance shows, to me at least, that he is probably just another cog in the machine: go to work, punch in, have lunch, punch out, go home. Wake up, do it again.

Personally, I found it very hard to believe that it was a member of Raffaele Sollecito's family, instead of Mr. Rinaldi, who correctly ID'ed the shoe prints as belonging to Rudy Guede, not Raffaele Sollecito.

If I was this guy, I would have been simply embarrassed that a family member of the guy that my bosses were trying to keep locked up showed proof that I did not know how to do my job!

How the heck can this be considered a very "professional" investigation, with the quality of workmanship that is shown time and time again?
Job well done in Perugia, I think not! But that's my opinion only, viewed from Los Angeles...
RWVBWL

Post Script: After a little bit of thought, maybe this particular investigation was done professionally,
but by many folks who were not at the top of their class...

Interrogation!
The one specialty that I believe that the police in Perugia do very, very well!
They can even "convince' a naive, young foreign woman to "imagine" that she was in her own apartment as a brutal murder went down...
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Just some questions:



1. Why do you think Knox and Sollecito repeatedly told the police a pack of lies and gave multiple conflicting alibis?

Because they are guilty to some degree and they changed their stories to go with new information they were told.

2. Who do you think staged the break-in in Filomena’s room?

I think they staged the broken window, but I do believe the room was just a mess to begin with, they needed to show a way the bad guy got into the house.

3. Who do you think tracked Meredith’s blood into the bathroom that Knox and Meredith shared?

Amanda - when she cleaned herself up, but this most likely done well after the murder - middle of the night, I also think thats when she showered as well, not @ 11:00 AM

4. Why did Amanda Knox voluntarily admit that she was involved in Meredith's murder on 6 November 2007?

Simple, she cracked under pressure - most of what she told was the truth, just change Patrick's name with Rudy.

5. Why did Amanda Knox accuse Diya Lumumba of murdering Meredith despite knowing full well that he was completely innocent and why didn't she recant her false and malicious allegation when he was in prison?

I think she was affraid to say Rudy, Rudy was still on the loose and I don't think she thought she would end up in jail either, Patricks name was suggested and she exchanged one black man for another, probally the only two black people she knew. Patrick pissed her off when he fired/slashed her hours and offered her job to Meredith, I think Meredith pissed her off too and we all know how that ended up.
6. Why won't Sollecito corroborate Amanda Knox's alibi that she was at his apartment on the night of the murder?

Actually, I think his last words on that are he believes she was with him the whole night, but he's not sure. Actually, I'm not so sure he was there during the murder itself, I think when Rudy started the slashing, Amanda ran out and got Raff, RS was the one who planned the fake break-in and coverup, to protect Amanda. He may have been there as well, I'm 50 / 50 on that one.

Hows that