Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Sherlock Holmes]

. I really don't see what difference it makes about the lock on the front door as to Amanda being there or not, the important thing is who locked Meredith's door. Both Rudy and Amanda would need those keys, depending on who's guilty.

 

[Bob001]

Why would she have thought that accusing Lumumba would get her in trouble? What would the criminal charges be in America?

In the U.S., lying to a police officer can be treated as a serious crime. Martha Stewart didn't go to federal prison for improper stock trading, but lying about it to federal investigators. Falsely accusing somebody else of a crime might also be treated as obstruction of justice, a pretty broad charge that could include almost anything that would impede or misdirect a police investigation. In practice, I'm sure that police expect someone accused of a crime to lie about it if they're guilty, but falsely fingering somebody else for murder would not go over well. There is also the practical matter that if you lie to the cops about something they're not going to believe anything else you say. Of course, going back to square one, since there's no recording and no transcript, and the parties are speaking two languages, we don't know exactly what Knox or the police actually said or meant.

One example:
http://www.southerncaliforniadefenseblog.com/2008/02/if_you_lie_to_the_police_for_a.html

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Why would she have thought that accusing Lumumba would get her in trouble? What would the criminal charges be in America?

Didn't she recieve an extra year for accusing Patrick, I thought that was why she got 26 and RS only 25 but I could be wrong.

 

[Brooktrout]

I also used Google Earth 'Streetview', and no one driving could even see someone locking the door going one way, and going the other, they would only briefly see his back, so locking the main door shouldn't have been a problem or concern.

Interesting. So the killer used google street view before the killing, just to check out the angles? Is there a special app for that?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

In the U.S., lying to a police officer can be treated as a serious crime. Martha Stewart didn't go to federal prison for improper stock trading, but lying about it to federal investigators. Falsely accusing somebody else of a crime might also be treated as obstruction of justice, a pretty broad charge that could include almost anything that would impede or misdirect a police investigation. In practice, I'm sure that police expect someone accused of a crime to lie about it if they're guilty, but falsely fingering somebody else for murder would not go over well. There is also the practical matter that if you lie to the cops about something they're not going to believe anything else you say. Of course, going back to square one, since there's no recording and no transcript, and the parties are speaking two languages, we don't know exactly what Knox or the police actually said or meant.

One example:
http://www.southerncaliforniadefenseblog.com/2008/02/if_you_lie_to_the_police_for_a.html

Perhaps it would behoove you to read the transcript from Amanda's testimony. She very explicitly states what she told the Police. There was no misunderstanding/mistranslation between Amanda and the Police when she claimed that Patrick was guilty. None.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

My, that was easy enough. Why let so many posts go by wasted on conjecture when you could have simply said so to begin with? I, for one, am willing to take you at your word, but others may not be as generous. Perhaps you could share some of these photos?

I am led to wonder why Guede, if he was in possession of the keys and required them to exit the apartment, didn't go ahead and lock the door behind him. Why would he take the time to lock Kercher's bedroom door, allegedly to delay suspicion and discovery, and then leave the apartment entrance ajar?

You make your comment assuming that I knew about these photos all along. I just found out they were available.

Guede may have gotten outside and immediately thought of the fact that he was in public view covered in blood. His thought might have changed as soon as he was outside. This would have been a distraction.

 

[Fiona]

Didn't she recieve an extra year for accusing Patrick, I thought that was why she got 26 and RS only 25 but I could be wrong.

I was replying to this statement

By placing herself in the murder house at the time of the crime, and by "confessing" to letting the killer in and covering for him up to that point, she must have known that she wasn't going anywhere except a police/prison cell in the near future.

I do not think it is at all obvious that Knox would have thought that would happen. Italian law says that if you are there and you do nothing you are guilty of crime (I am paraphrasing somewhat inaccurately but I hope it is enough to convey my meaning). But that is not how UK law sees it and I do not think it is how US law sees it either. At least on the basis of fictional portrayals, the person who is is unwitting witness to a murder; is frightened; and therefore covers for a murderer; is not a crimnal: they are a victim. It is a trope I seem to have seen sometimes on TV. It is also something which has caused problems in some cases of intra familial murder in this country: there have been cases where a child has been killed and it is certain that one of the parents was the perpetrator: yet they have not been able to get a murder conviction because they cannot establish which of them killed the child.

It is certainly true that lying to the police is an offence in itself, and that it would carry charges. But people who commit crime are often not deterred by increased sentences, for example, because they do not believe they will be caught, so that is irrelevant to their calculation.

I believe that Knox wanted out of that police station and some of those who believe her to be innocent agree with that (though our reasons are different). I think it is perfectly possible that she thought this would lead to her release while they pursued Lumumba, and that it would take some time for him to clear himself (if he could do that: I do not think she cared enough but I am prepared to assume she believed he would in time). And I think it is perfectly possible that she believed she could leave the country meantime. Her mother was arriving that day. I do not know if she wanted to talk to RS to get their stories straightened out, as some have suggested. I doubt it. The relationship was too new for real trust: and he had just shown he was not to be relied on no matter what they agreed. I think it far more likely that she thought her mother could help her to get away from Italy sharpish. But, as ever, it is all speculation: we cannot read minds.

 

[Mary_H]

And that's particularly important 'why'? It was always common knowledge that nobody ever doubted. Amanda's mother claiming to the Anglo press that Amanda had changed her story along with her being quizzed about it on the stand reported extensively. This was never some mere 'rumour'. But all of a sudden, you're jumping up and down about it as though it's something nobody has heard about before and is something desperately important.

Are you denying that guilters have claimed many times that it was within Amanda's power to get Patrick out of jail, but that she chose not to?

You probably shouldn't deny it, because on page 304 of the last thread, you wrote:

"Mary, were you asking that I evidence some obscure or little known I may well go running around after you to provide you with a cite. But since you are asking me something commonly known from THE TRIAL and the fact that Amanda left Patrick rotting in prison for two weeks without lifting a finger to get him out was something that PM Mignini greatly laboured in his speeches to the court.

"And here's the other fact for you. Amanda was heard on the night of the 5th twice, by the police and prosecutor respectively. She was not heard again until December and that is the earliest she could have formally withdrawn her accusation of Patrick. She could have requested to have been heard again sooner, any time before that, but she did not."

You seem to be arguing that the only way Patrick was going to get out of jail was for Amanda to formally withdraw her accusation.

In response to claims like these, Amanda's supporters have argued that, 1.) it was not Amanda's responsibility to get Patrick out of jail, 2.) the police should have doubted Amanda's accusation of Patrick in the first place, 3.) Amanda's lawyers would have known by the first time they met with her (November 8th), that she regretted being coerced to name Patrick as a suspect, and they would surely have made it their first order of business to assert she was not at the scene of the crime, and therefore her eyewitness account was false.

In addition to those factors, Patrick's alibi was confirmed around the 15th or 16th, and the police held him until the 20th. Hence, it has always been invalid to lay responsibility for Patrick's extended jail stay on Amanda.

The comment I quoted from you above was made at the end of another debate about this same topic. I notice that in the posts you made previous to that one, you never mentioned this "common knowledge" tidbit from Massei's report, wherein he not only confirms Amanda was recorded in jail on the 10th, but also that the judges, police and prosecutors were aware she had expressed knowledge of the injustice of the false accusation and regret for it.

In fact, the comment you made on page 304 (above) was in response to this previous exchange between you and me:

Fulcanelli: "The thing is Mary, the people that really mattered weren't formally told, the police and prosecutor."

Mary: "Cite?"

Now I can see why you declined to cite.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Are you denying that guilters have claimed many times that it was within Amanda's power to get Patrick out of jail, but that she chose not to?

You probably shouldn't deny it, because on page 304 of the last thread, you wrote:


You seem to be arguing that the only way Patrick was going to get out of jail was for Amanda to formally withdraw her accusation.

In response to claims like these, Amanda's supporters have argued that, 1.) it was not Amanda's responsibility to get Patrick out of jail, 2.) the police should have doubted Amanda's accusation of Patrick in the first place, 3.) Amanda's lawyers would have known by the first time they met with her (November 8th), that she regretted being coerced to name Patrick as a suspect, and they would surely have made it their first order of business to assert she was not at the scene of the crime, and therefore her eyewitness account was false.

In addition to those factors, Patrick's alibi was confirmed around the 15th or 16th, and the police held him until the 20th. Hence, it has always been invalid to lay responsibility for Patrick's extended jail stay on Amanda.

The comment I quoted from you above was made at the end of another debate about this same topic. I notice that in the posts you made previous to that one, you never mentioned this "common knowledge" tidbit from Massei's report, wherein he not only confirms Amanda was recorded in jail on the 10th, but also that the judges, police and prosecutors were aware she had expressed knowledge of the injustice of the false accusation and regret for it.

In fact, the comment you made on page 304 (above) was in response to this previous exchange between you and me:



Now I can see why you declined to cite.

If Amanda had not pointed the finger at Patrick, would he have been in jail for any length of time?

 

[LondonJohn]

I was replying to this statement



I do not think it is at all obvious that Knox would have thought that would happen. Italian law says that if you are there and you do nothing you are guilty of crime (I am paraphrasing somewhat inaccurately but I hope it is enough to convey my meaning). But that is not how UK law sees it and I do not think it is how US law sees it either. At least on the basis of fictional portrayals, the person who is is unwitting witness to a murder; is frightened; and therefore covers for a murderer; is not a crimnal: they are a victim. It is a trope I seem to have seen sometimes on TV. It is also something which has caused problems in some cases of intra familial murder in this country: there have been cases where a child has been killed and it is certain that one of the parents was the perpetrator: yet they have not been able to get a murder conviction because they cannot establish which of them killed the child.

It is certainly true that lying to the police is an offence in itself, and that it would carry charges. But people who commit crime are often not deterred by increased sentences, for example, because they do not believe they will be caught, so that is irrelevant to their calculation.

I believe that Knox wanted out of that police station and some of those who believe her to be innocent agree with that (though our reasons are different). I think it is perfectly possible that she thought this would lead to her release while they pursued Lumumba, and that it would take some time for him to clear himself (if he could do that: I do not think she cared enough but I am prepared to assume she believed he would in time). And I think it is perfectly possible that she believed she could leave the country meantime. Her mother was arriving that day. I do not know if she wanted to talk to RS to get their stories straightened out, as some have suggested. I doubt it. The relationship was too new for real trust: and he had just shown he was not to be relied on no matter what they agreed. I think it far more likely that she thought her mother could help her to get away from Italy sharpish. But, as ever, it is all speculation: we cannot read minds.

But that's my point: how could AK possibly think that what she said in the police station at 01.45 on the 6th was going to persuade the police to let her go home that night? My reasoning - again - is as follows:

AK's "confession/accusation" was self-implicating, whichever way one looks at it. Firstly, she had to know that the police would start from a position that she was telling the truth in this "confession/accusation". And if that was the case, then the police would believe that not only was AK directly involved in the circumstances that led to the murder - but also that she had lied up until that point, and had therefore obstructed justice by protecting the person she knew to be a murderer: Lumumba. She therefore must have known that the police weren't going to say anything like: "Oh, you wouldn't give us this information for days Amanda, and in fact it now appears that you lied to us for days to protect yourself and Lumumba. But now that you've finally told us, everything's OK and you can go home."

And the flip-side to this is that if she knew that she was falsely implicating Lumumba (and that the police were bound to keep her in custody while they investigated her claims), she would also have known this: even if the police had quickly been able to rule Lumumba out (it's not unfeasible, for example, that a police officer might have been drinking in Lumumba's bar on the night of the murder), she'd clearly have come further under the microscope for making a false accusation (regardless of whether "obstruction of justice" charges resulted).

So, I'd argue, at the very moment AK decided to open her mouth and "spill the beans" she must logically have known that what she was about to say wouldn't be resulting in her getting to leave the police station that night. Instead, I'd argue that if leaving the station had been her desired outcome, she would have either a) steadfastly continued to deny any involvement or knowledge of who was involved, or b) pointed the finger at someone else from a distance (e.g. "I met Lumumba, but we parted at the basketball court and he said he was going to see Meredith. I went straight back to Raffaele's. So maybe Lumumba might have done it"). But even option (b) would be risky as a strategy to get herself out of the station, since she'd have known that she'd immediately look suspicious in the eyes of the police for not giving them this vital information earlier.

 

[43degreesNorth]

________________________________

Well, another option for the innocentisti---and you seem to be migrating in that direction LondonJohn--- is that Amanda wasn't coerced into the "confession/accusation," she was instead protecting Raffaele. This makes a lot more sense to me because the discomfort she claims to have experienced at the hands of the police doesn't seem sufficient at all to explain her "singing" after just a couple hours of questioning. Put yourself in Amanda's position.....Raffaele has started to LIE to the cops! Oh my, she thinks, a fully innocent person won't do this. Or would they? Is Raffaele mentally unstable? She's dumbfounded.

So she needs to talk to Raffaele about this. IN PRIVATE. So Amanda concocts the accusation against Patrick---consistent, she hopes, with her boyfriend's new version of events--- in the hope that the cops thank her and then pursue this valuable lead,... while the two lovebirds are permitted to return to Raffaele's flat. (Just the way it happens in Hollywood.) She knows she will get in trouble for lying to the cops, but her highest priority is talking to Raffaele again, to sort things out. IN PRIVATE. Okay, the accusation wasn't exactly fair to Patrick but Patrick would be able to protect himself, he's a big boy. Raffaele needed HELP, and protection. Love is a many splendid thing.

Yeah, Amanda has never explicitly offered this explanation, but if I believed she's innocent, it would make sense to me. (Much more plausible that coercion.) Maybe Amanda's been modest. Or perhaps that motive was "sub-conscious"? Or maybe this motive of protecting Raffaele has always been implicit in her account of the interrogation, in which case her lawyers may wish to mention this in the Appeal Trial.

///

Or maybe she was protecting herself from future threats from a knife wielding violent former lover? Trying to insure she wouldn't be a future target?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Are you denying that guilters have claimed many times that it was within Amanda's power to get Patrick out of jail, but that she chose not to?

You probably shouldn't deny it, because on page 304 of the last thread, you wrote:

I'm not denying anything at all. It was indeed in Amanda's power yo clarify things and she did not. It's no good her privately telling her mother, it's the police, the judge, Patrick's lawyers she needed to tell, to make an official statement to, be it face to face or via sending them a written and signed statement.

In response to claims like these, Amanda's supporters have argued that, 1.) it was not Amanda's responsibility to get Patrick out of jail, 2.) the police should have doubted Amanda's accusation of Patrick in the first place, 3.) Amanda's lawyers would have known by the first time they met with her (November 8th), that she regretted being coerced to name Patrick as a suspect, and they would surely have made it their first order of business to assert she was not at the scene of the crime, and therefore her eyewitness account was false.

Of course it was Amanda's responsibility, it was she that put Patrick in prison in the first place with her bare faced lies! And it doesn't matter whether the police doubted Amanda's accusations or not, they still had to act on them and make an arrest. And it's no good Amanda's lawyers passing on some message, by proxy 'Now Amanda says 'X''', Amanda has to actually say 'X' to the people that matter.

They weren't told because Amanda didn't make a formal statement to the prosecutor again until December.

And just to emphasise, from Mignini's summing up in court:

She initially implicated Lumumba in the murder, and Perugia police held him for two weeks before releasing him without charge.

Mignini, who is expected to make his sentencing request Saturday, said Knox had "knowingly accused an innocent person."

"Amanda didn't move a finger while he was languishing in prison."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jILyIn1jjht-EPaFtXkYVfDtv7uQ


And this is also worth hearing:

The gruesome murder sparked sensational headlines in Britain, fed by rampant rumours as well as repeated leaks to an eager press corps during the investigation, eclipsing the hard facts that incriminated Knox, Mignini said.

"Detectives seeking fame, bloggers and mystery writers conducted a sort of parallel trial" in the media, he said.

"But the trial is being carried out in this courtroom alone," he added.

(Same link as above)

And the trial was carried out in that courtroom, over 11 months, by the professionals...and Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were found guilty of murdering Meredith Kercher in a unanimous verdict.

 

[Fulcanelli]

If Amanda had not pointed the finger at Patrick, would he have been in jail for any length of time?

Nope.

 

[RoseMontague]

But that's my point: how could AK possibly think that what she said in the police station at 01.45 on the 6th was going to persuade the police to let her go home that night? My reasoning - again - is as follows:

AK's "confession/accusation" was self-implicating, whichever way one looks at it. Firstly, she had to know that the police would start from a position that she was telling the truth in this "confession/accusation". And if that was the case, then the police would believe that not only was AK directly involved in the circumstances that led to the murder - but also that she had lied up until that point, and had therefore obstructed justice by protecting the person she knew to be a murderer: Lumumba. She therefore must have known that the police weren't going to say anything like: "Oh, you wouldn't give us this information for days Amanda, and in fact it now appears that you lied to us for days to protect yourself and Lumumba. But now that you've finally told us, everything's OK and you can go home."

And the flip-side to this is that if she knew that she was falsely implicating Lumumba (and that the police were bound to keep her in custody while they investigated her claims), she would also have known this: even if the police had quickly been able to rule Lumumba out (it's not unfeasible, for example, that a police officer might have been drinking in Lumumba's bar on the night of the murder), she'd clearly have come further under the microscope for making a false accusation (regardless of whether "obstruction of justice" charges resulted).

So, I'd argue, at the very moment AK decided to open her mouth and "spill the beans" she must logically have known that what she was about to say wouldn't be resulting in her getting to leave the police station that night. Instead, I'd argue that if leaving the station had been her desired outcome, she would have either a) steadfastly continued to deny any involvement or knowledge of who was involved, or b) pointed the finger at someone else from a distance (e.g. "I met Lumumba, but we parted at the basketball court and he said he was going to see Meredith. I went straight back to Raffaele's. So maybe Lumumba might have done it"). But even option (b) would be risky as a strategy to get herself out of the station, since she'd have known that she'd immediately look suspicious in the eyes of the police for not giving them this vital information earlier.

The problem with your argument is that she has never shown evidence of "logic" in her actions and behavior regarding the police or the courts. If she was thinking with logic she would have done things she did not and would not have done things she did. Her giving this statement in order to go home would have to be considered consistent with her other non logical actions. Common sense is not one of her strong points.

 

[Fulcanelli]

But that's my point: how could AK possibly think that what she said in the police station at 01.45 on the 6th was going to persuade the police to let her go home that night? My reasoning - again - is as follows:

AK's "confession/accusation" was self-implicating, whichever way one looks at it. Firstly, she had to know that the police would start from a position that she was telling the truth in this "confession/accusation". And if that was the case, then the police would believe that not only was AK directly involved in the circumstances that led to the murder - but also that she had lied up until that point, and had therefore obstructed justice by protecting the person she knew to be a murderer: Lumumba. She therefore must have known that the police weren't going to say anything like: "Oh, you wouldn't give us this information for days Amanda, and in fact it now appears that you lied to us for days to protect yourself and Lumumba. But now that you've finally told us, everything's OK and you can go home."

And the flip-side to this is that if she knew that she was falsely implicating Lumumba (and that the police were bound to keep her in custody while they investigated her claims), she would also have known this: even if the police had quickly been able to rule Lumumba out (it's not unfeasible, for example, that a police officer might have been drinking in Lumumba's bar on the night of the murder), she'd clearly have come further under the microscope for making a false accusation (regardless of whether "obstruction of justice" charges resulted).

So, I'd argue, at the very moment AK decided to open her mouth and "spill the beans" she must logically have known that what she was about to say wouldn't be resulting in her getting to leave the police station that night. Instead, I'd argue that if leaving the station had been her desired outcome, she would have either a) steadfastly continued to deny any involvement or knowledge of who was involved, or b) pointed the finger at someone else from a distance (e.g. "I met Lumumba, but we parted at the basketball court and he said he was going to see Meredith. I went straight back to Raffaele's. So maybe Lumumba might have done it"). But even option (b) would be risky as a strategy to get herself out of the station, since she'd have known that she'd immediately look suspicious in the eyes of the police for not giving them this vital information earlier.

Quite simple. She wasn't aware that her role, as she described it in her story, would be regarded by police as a crime. Moreover, the police had let them go home after questioning each time before. In any case, nobody is making the claim that Amanda's a genius and at the time, she was under a loit of pressure and had to give an instant account.

 

[Bob001]

Perhaps it would behoove you to read the transcript from Amanda's testimony. She very explicitly states what she told the Police. There was no misunderstanding/mistranslation between Amanda and the Police when she claimed that Patrick was guilty. None.

Unquestionably she accused Lumumba. The issue is what preceded the accusation? To what degree did the police coerce or pressure her to say what she said, and did she state it as a fact, or as a hypothetical possibility in response to hypothetical questions about who might have been there or who might have been involved? Did she offer the accusation out of the blue, or was she telling the police something they already believed in the false hope that they would let her go? A tape of her interrogation (not the trial) would resolve those questions.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Interesting. So the killer used google street view before the killing, just to check out the angles? Is there a special app for that?

I'm saying, he is not out in the open when locking the door, its fairly concealed. MGYAI

 

[RWVBWL]

Which is actually incorrect, the police had searched those areas, including the spot the butter knife was found and it wasn't there when they searched it. Raffaele's lawyer went in through the gate and walked directly to the spot where it lay, he knew exactly where it was. He claimed Raffaele had told him where to find it. Talk about didgy.

"After one month and a half since the crime occurred a knife was found in the underbrush around the house.
And who found it? The police? No, one from the smiling team.
Of course, they are the ones who want the weapon of the crime to be not Raffaele's knife.
And indeed, as soon as they entered the gate the lawyer went to find the knife and some blood stained hankies. How lucky...
By the way, it's just a round kitchen knife unable to make those cuts. But it's notable that they didn't search around the house previously.
They even didn't search the cliff, which is a natural spot to throw a weapon. I expected that cliff to be cleaned from bushes and searched by a squad of 100 climbers right after the crime. In my dreams. I know it's difficult, very difficult, but... I'd cost less than a single Dna test.
This morning they used a metal detector not in the ravine but through the bushes around the house. Yes, not on november 2nd, today."

Link here: http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2007/12/surprise.html
__________________________________________________________________________

Greetings Fulcanelli,
You wrote that the police did indeed search the area's that I was interested in, such as the surrounding vegatation and the ravine area.

Do you have proof of that, and if so, can you share of that with me?

Curiously, Michael, a Site Admin at PMF, wrote this yestrday:
"It wouldn't be the first time someone acting for Raffaele/the defence have planted evidence in this case. Who can forget the butter knife in the cottage garden?"

When I read that,
I was thinking, "whoa, planted evidence,that's an intersting thing to state",
and so I wondered what Michael was writing about?
And I know that you Fulcanelli, are very well versed in this particular murder case,
and I figured I would ask you what you know of this.

Perugia Shock's Frank Sfarzo,
who, unlike you or I, was right there that day Tuesday December 18, 2007, some 1 1/2 months later, says that the police, using a metal detector, were only searching the bushes around the house, they didn't even search the cliff or the ravine, a natural place to throw a weapon...

So I am still extremely curious to read any in-depth information or links, Fulcanelli, on the police search of the surrounding area of the murder scene that can help me clear up some doubt.
Do you have any?
And I especially want to read more of evidence planting by the someone acting for Raffaele Sollecito or the defense!

Thanks,
RWVBWL

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Unquestionably she accused Lumumba. The issue is what preceded the accusation? To what degree did the police coerce or pressure her to say what she said, and did she state it as a fact, or as a hypothetical possibility in response to hypothetical questions about who might have been there or who might have been involved? Did she offer the accusation out of the blue, or was she telling the police something they already believed in the false hope that they would let her go? A tape of her interrogation (not the trial) would resolve those questions.

Read the transcript from her testimony, already. It's easily found on the PMF site in the "In Their Own Words" section of the forum.

 

[RoseMontague]

There is some valuable information in Raffaele's appeal that answers some of the questions we had regarding the stain on the pillowcase (Google translated):

"This refers in particular to those spots biological substance
(Probably sperm in nature) that were found by the consultant
part, Prof. Win, on May 25, 2009.
Prof. Vinci under discussion was approved by the Court to go
at the forensic laboratory in order to take direct vision
some findings, particularly the blue mat and pillow on which
were impressed footprints shoe.
The consultant noted the occasion with the findings Crimescope,
technical tool that enhances any biological traces latent, left on
crime scene, found on the pillow at the middle third of the board,
where you insert the pillow (the side where the imprint of a shoe is not
attached), a highly fluorescent spot size of 2x3 cm
which is continuing with another smaller spot.
The track, as can be inferred from photos to documents filed in home replicas, and
emerges as the film's science is absolutely visible to the eye
naked, yellowish and with a very particular morphology (almost two
drops joined together by a filament).
It is reasonable to assume that it is a stain of semen, which
assume a clear emphasis in this case, which assumed a
erotic-sexual motive.
The spot, although obvious to the naked eye, was never found in it,
or analyzed. These investigations were not carried out even after the findings of
defense consultant.
With memory, filed on December 4, 2009, the defense has made "several
questions the need for investigations related to such spots "(p. 9 above).
The Court, rejecting any claim on this point, the motivation, "also
admit the nature of these sperm stains on the genetic investigation
not allow their dating in general and in particular not
would determine which were affixed on the night Meredith was
killed. As also shown that Meredith had an active sex life and that
sometimes had relationships in their rooms (see paragraph on the statements of
Her boyfriend James Silence) that investigation, in addition to not assume the character
the absolute need for l.impossibilità dating (see this aspect
As explained by genetics experts), could provide an outcome
irrelevant even to admit the nature of sperm stains
same and is therefore engaged in purely exploratory, not
permitted at this stage of the case because it lacks the requirement dell.assoluta
need instead required "(p. 382 above).
With regard to what is stated in the sentence can not be observed:
1 - The prudence with which it was assessed non-dating of the track would
have led the Court to deal with the same caution all other
biological traces (especially on the hook).
Basically, the problem of non-dating of biological traces
is highlighted exclusively to justify the decision not to
further analysis, requested by this defense, on which traces of nature
(Sperm) and location (on the pillow placed under the body of
Meredith) were of obvious importance to establish the facts.
~ 33
2 - It is very unlikely that Meredith could sleep on a pillow
stained with semen.
3 - The affixing of the night of track in question is supported by
Another factor noted by defense counsel.
Prof. Vinci, through the use of Crimescope, found on the same pillow,
also an imprint of a shoe with concentric circles, which seemed the obvious
luminescent.
Since the biological traces Crimescope shows the luminescence of
fingerprint door reasonably to believe that he was wearing that shoe,
first stepped on the spots above stated, then, with the same
shoe, go to smear the pillowcase.
The presence of an identical material on the spots and then sull'orma shoe
leads to the conclusion that the two stains were applied simultaneously.
4 - The analysis of those tracks, then, requires a deeper way
necessary, whose outcome promises anything but irrelevant."