Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[BobTheDonkey]

Was it ever established whether the exterior shutters were closed on any or all of the other windows in the girls' house that night? If all of them were closed except for Filomena's (even if Filomena's were merely ajar), then this might provide some form of explanation as to why her particular window was selected - if there actually was a break-in (as opposed to a staging).

Filomena has testified that her window and shutters were closed.

And this does nothing to negate the rest of the evidence that this was a staged break-in.


But any time the FoA (and co) would like to include all the evidence in their assessment, rather than skipping those that don't fit the rest of the story being sold at the time, it would be a refreshing change.

 

[Malkmus]

How about "none of the above"?

The Case of the Missing Fingerprints has been variously interpreted and neither of them are particularly supportable:

-----------------------------------------------------------

FOA Interpretation:

There were few identifiable fingerprints and therefore the police were sloppy.

"Guilter" Interpretation:

There were few identifiable fingerprints and therefore Amanda cleaned hers up.

-----------------------------------------------------------

There are other likely reasons for the lack of usable fingerprints and they include those I have produced. Fiona presented a link a couple months ago supporting this third option that neither accuses the police nor proves Amanda's complicity.

So it seems your stance on the fingerprints is that it proves nothing, whether we're talking about a clean-up of some sort or sloppy police work? Interesting then that your answer to my post was "none of the above" since that's exactly what I've been saying: You can't use the lack of fingerprints to come to a conclusion that Amanda cleaned hers up, and I never even said anything about it being due to sloppy police work.

 

[Fine]

"absurd mess"

What are the main points that lead you to believe that the break in was staged? How do the pictures prove a staged break-in? Where were those clothes that were on the floor? The night stand and the table are messy. Was that staged? What exactly looks ransacked in that room?
Keep in mind, the court already accepted the fact that the window was accessible. The only argument remaining is in regard to the staging.

_______________

Bruce, do you believe Amanda.............

"filomenas room was closed, but when i opned
the door her room and a mess and her window was open and completely
broken, but her computer was still sitting on her desk like it always
was and this confused me. convinced that we had been robbed i went to
lauras room and looked quickley in, but..." (Amanda Nov 4 email, see PMF> IN THEIR OWN WORDS.)

Do you believe Raffaele.........

"We saw that Filomena's bedroom was in
completely disorder: broken glass on the floor and the room upside
down, it was an absurd mess". (Raffaele, Prison Diary, see PMF> IN THEIR OWN WORDS.)

And this from two eye-witnesses to the scene in Filomena's bedroom, before Filomena and the cops had arrived.


Odd that the staged burglary was central to the prosecution's case and yet the defense never filmed a reenactment of someone climbing up the wall and into Filomena's window. What they did film was a failed attempt, the gentleman not even able to get onto the ledge outside the window.

If a LONE WOLF came in that window he brought his own ladder. Coming prepared, ...perhaps he brought his own rock too.

///

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I am sorry but I am not convinced that Stefanoni is using sloppy collection habits. I would need more information to make that announcement. As to mixture DNA I don't know the science behind it or how easy it is to create such mixtures. It could be a bit more complicated than mixing DNA onto a swab.

If the mixing of DNA was more complicated how would you explain the mixed DNA that was found? What was done to that DNA for it to be mixed?

I have spoken to experts on this matter. If you swab 2 different DNA samples with the same swab, you will mix the DNA.

Stefanoni cleans multiple surfaces several times with a single swab. Meredith's blood also landed on a surface often used by Amanda.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I am sorry but I am not convinced that Stefanoni is using sloppy collection habits. I would need more information to make that announcement. As to mixture DNA I don't know the science behind it or how easy it is to create such mixtures. It could be a bit more complicated than mixing DNA onto a swab.

It is mostly common sense, reflecting the fact that just a few, microscopic cells will yield a DNA profile. Here are some guidelines from a brochure written for investigators, which has been posted the Internet:

To avoid contamination of evidence that may contain DNA, always take
the following precautions:

o Wear gloves. Change them often.

o Use disposable instruments or clean them thoroughly before and after
handling each sample.

o Avoid touching the area where you believe DNA may exist.

o Avoid talking, sneezing, and coughing over evidence.

o Avoid touching your face, nose, and mouth when collecting and
packaging evidence.

o Air-dry evidence thoroughly before packaging.

o Put evidence into new paper bags or envelopes, not into plastic bags. Do
not use staples.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/nij/bc000614.txt

There is no indication that Stefanoni ever changed her gloves at the crime scene, and she did not use an instrument. She handled the bra fastener extensively in front of the video camera, touching the very point - a straightened metal hook - at which Sollecito's DNA was allegedly found. Moreover, in a number of samples, she used a single swab to take material from multiple points on a surface.

 

[Mary_H]

The police did not suggest Patrick's name. This is clearly established in the court testimony.

Here is what is clearly established in the court testimony:

AK: .....Once I was in there, they asked me to repeat everything that I had said before, for instance what I did that night. They asked me to see my phone, which I gave to them, and they were looking through my phone, which is when they found the message. When they found the message, they asked me if I had sent a message back, which I didn't remember doing. That's when they started being very hard with me. They called me a stupid liar, and they said that I was trying to protect someone. [Sigh] So I was there, and they told me that I was trying to protect someone, but I wasn't trying to protect anyone, and so I didn't know how to respond to them. They said that I had left Raffaele's house, which wasn't true, which I denied, but they continued to call me a stupid liar. They were putting this telephone in front of my face going "Look, look, your message, you were going to meet someone". And when I denied that, they continued to call me a stupid liar. And then, from that point on, I was very very scared, because they were treating me so badly and I didn't understand why. [Sigh] I didn't remember, but the interpreter said I probably had forgotten. [Sigh]

<snip>

AK: So what ended up happening was, that they told me to try to remember what I apparently, according to them, had forgotten. Under the amount of pressure of everyone yelling at me, and having them tell me that they were going to put me in prison for protecting somebody, that I wasn't protecting, that I couldn't remember, I tried to imagine that in some way they must have had...it was very difficult, because when I was there, at a certain point, I just...I couldn't understand why they were so sure that I was the one who knew everything. And so, in my confusion, I started to imagine that maybe I was traumatized, like what they said. They continued to say that I hadetomebody, and they continued to put so much emphasis on this message that I had received from Patrick, and so I almost was convinced that I had met him. But I was confused.

<snip>

AK: They were suggesting paths of thought. They were suggesting the path of thought. They suggested the journey. So the first thing I said, "Okay, Patrick". And then they said "Okay, where did you meet him? Did you meet him at your house? Did you meet him near your house?" "Euh, near my house, I don't know." Then my memories got mixed up. From other days, I remembered having met Patrick, at Piazza Grimana, so I said "Okay, Piazza Grimana." It wasn't as if I said "Oh, this is how it went."

<snip>

AK: They hit me twice, before I said the name of Patrick, to make me say a name that I couldn't give.

What is the point of insisting Amanda said Patrick's name first?

 

[Amazer]

What are the main points that lead you to believe that the break in was staged? How do the pictures prove a staged break-in? Where were those clothes that were on the floor? The night stand and the table are messy. Was that staged? What exactly looks ransacked in that room?

Keep in mind, the court already accepted the fact that the window was accessible. The only argument remaining is in regard to the staging.

Location of the rock primarily in my case. In addition the fact that no valuables were taken from Filomena's room. Further the fact that the room had been 'ransacked' as per Filomena's testimony. You can add to that the lack glass on the ground outside the window, lack of markings on the wall indicating someone climbed up. And of course the fact that the glass that was on the sill wasn't disturbed after it broke.

Please post the "photographic evidence" that you are claiming.

The photographic evidence is there on your site Bruce. Look no further.

The glass is only on one side of the sill. There was plenty of glass free sill for Guede to climb in. The photos clearly show this.

Really? How much space?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

_______________

Bruce, do you believe Amanda.............

"filomenas room was closed, but when i opned
the door her room and a mess and her window was open and completely
broken, but her computer was still sitting on her desk like it always
was and this confused me. convinced that we had been robbed i went to
lauras room and looked quickley in, but..." (Amanda Nov 4 email, see PMF> IN THEIR OWN WORDS.)

Do you believe Raffaele.........

"We saw that Filomena's bedroom was in
completely disorder: broken glass on the floor and the room upside
down, it was an absurd mess". (Raffaele, Prison Diary, see PMF> IN THEIR OWN WORDS.)

And this from two eye-witnesses to the scene in Filomena's bedroom, before Filomena and the cops had arrived.


Odd that the staged burglary was central to the prosecution's case and yet the defense never filmed a reenactment of someone climbing up the wall and into Filomena's window. What they did film was a failed attempt, the gentleman not even able to get onto the ledge outside the window.

If a LONE WOLF came in that window he brought his own ladder. Coming prepared, ...perhaps he brought his own rock too.

///

The court agreed that the cottage could have been entered by climbing through Filomena's window. This point is not disputed. There was no need for a ladder. Why would the defense take time to reenact the wall climb when it was agreed by the prosecution that the climb was possible? Your entire line of thinking on this matter is wrong.

Amanda looked into Filomena's room and saw a broken window and saw glass on the floor. It was a mess. Amanda's first thought was a burglary. That is a normal reaction from seeing a broken window.

Note Amanda's exaggeration about the window. She states that the window is "completely broken." This is not the case, only one portion of one window is broken. this is a normal reaction from seeing a broken window like this. She was startled by what she saw. She feared that someone had broken into her home. It is not unreasonable to think that Amanda and Raffaele may have exaggerated the condition of the room just like Amanda did with the window. Once again, this is completely normal behavior due to the circumstances.

Amanda thought it was odd that the computer was still there. Nothing out of the ordinary with Amanda's line of thinking. She was thinking burglary. So in her mind she wondered why a burglar would leave a computer.

Raffaele looked into Filomena's room and saw the broken window and he saw a mess. Filamena's room was a mess. there were clothes on the floor. The table is a mess. The night stand is a mess. There was broken glass on the floor. There was a rock on the floor and a bag that was knocked over by the rock. There is also a purse that was moved by the rock. Raffaele's line of thinking was completely normal.

We don't know if Rudy searched through the room when he came in. There are unanswered questions at any crime scene. This would have accounted for some paper on the floor and some clutter on the bed.

A common PMF talking point is that there was no DNA found from Guede in Filomena's room so he couldn't have been there. There is no DNA evidence to prove anyone disrupted Filomema's room. This is a weak argument when it comes to Filomena's room. This argument is much more credible when it comes to Meredith's room because a violent struggle took place.

If you look at the photos there is no doubt that Filomena's room was not kept very organized by Filomena. It is a small room and clutter would be normal.

If the clothes were thrown on the floor to stage a break in, tell me where the clothes came from. Where were they? There is no logical place for them to go. They were on the floor to begin with.

Look at the night stand and the table. they are very cluttered and not very organized. the room was not tidy. The only reason this is relevant is because the clothes were already on the floor. This accounts for the glass being on the clothes.

No matter what happened in Filomena's room, there is not one shred of evidence that proves Amanda or Raffaele had anything at all to do with the break in or the mess in Filomena's room.

 

[christianahannah]

It is mostly common sense, reflecting the fact that just a few, microscopic cells will yield a DNA profile.

Would this apply to the knife?

Here are some guidelines from a brochure written for investigators, which has been posted the Internet:

To avoid contamination of evidence that may contain DNA, always take
the following precautions:

o Wear gloves. Change them often.

o Use disposable instruments or clean them thoroughly before and after
handling each sample.

o Avoid touching the area where you believe DNA may exist.

o Avoid talking, sneezing, and coughing over evidence.

o Avoid touching your face, nose, and mouth when collecting and
packaging evidence.

o Air-dry evidence thoroughly before packaging.

o Put evidence into new paper bags or envelopes, not into plastic bags. Do
not use staples.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/nij/bc000614.txt

Which of these do you feel Stefanoni failed?

There is no indication that Stefanoni ever changed her gloves at the crime scene, and she did not use an instrument. She handled the bra fastener extensively in front of the video camera, touching the very point - a straightened metal hook - at which Sollecito's DNA was allegedly found. Moreover, in a number of samples, she used a single swab to take material from multiple points on a surface.

How sure are you that Stefanoni never changed her gloves at the crime scene? Have you seen the complete footage of the video Bruce linked showing she did not change gloves? Can you list the items you feel were compromised by Stefanoni's neglect? And, lastly, what other items of evidence were taken in or swabbed the day the bra clasp was collected?

 

[christianahannah]

If the mixing of DNA was more complicated how would you explain the mixed DNA that was found? What was done to that DNA for it to be mixed?

I am not an expert but am interested in the science of DNA. I can't explain DNA mixtures but look to experts to do so.

I have spoken to experts on this matter. If you swab 2 different DNA samples with the same swab, you will mix the DNA.

I would be interested in reading the information your experts have given you concerning mixtures. Is it freely available?

Stefanoni cleans multiple surfaces several times with a single swab. Meredith's blood also landed on a surface often used by Amanda.

Is there a list of the multiple surfaces which Stefanoni cleaned with a single swab? Sadly, Meredith's blood didn't land on a surface - it was placed there by her murderer.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Charlie,

Do you have a list of evidence collected by the forensic police at the flat and the dates the evidence was collected/swabbed? I don't know if such a list is possible.

I have seen video of the bathroom on 2/11/2007 and 3/11/2007 and wondered if it was approx. 24 hours between video of bathroom and video of swabbing of evidence in bathroom. Does anyone have that answer?

Also, back many posts, there was discussion of Amanda's lamp in Meredith's room and where it would plug into. In the video Bruce Fisher links of evidence swabbing, is that a plug on the light switch in the bathroom outside of Meredith's bedroom?

Sorry to quote this post when it has nothing to do with my questions.

The bathroom samples were gathered on Nov. 3, the day after the body was found.

This document lists most of the DNA samples gathered at the cottage:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/selected_dna_results.pdf

Yes, that is an electrical socket in the bathroom. Here is a high resolution photo:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/bathroom_light_switch.jpg

 

[LondonJohn]

It's a bit bemusing that some people (paralegals and so on) are still asserting that a core thread of the argument made by those who think there may be problems with AK/RS's convictions goes something like this: "It's inconceivable that someone such as Amanda Knox (University educated, outgoing, no criminal history, loves animals etc etc) could have been involved in such a horrible crime. Therefore this factor in itself means the convictions must be wrong".

As I've previously stated from my perspective, Knox's background (and that of Sollecito) has nothing to do with my belief that the convictions may not be safe. I suspect that most other people on "my side of the spectrum" - ranging from those who are convinced of AK's innocence to those who think something is not quite right - share this view. I think the situation has become distorted (perhaps deliberately by some), since the analysis of AK's character and background has mostly been offered in response to the way in which negative elements of her character were magnified, leaked to the press, and used against her at the time of the first trial. Character shouldn't have come into it then, and it shouldn't be coming into it now.

 

[Fiona]

Here is what is clearly established in the court testimony:




What is the point of insisting Amanda said Patrick's name first?

I say it because she did.

 

[Matthew Best]

It's like saying "What is the name of the person who posted the words "I say it because she did"?

If someone replies "Fiona", I can then say that they said Fiona's name first. Brilliant!

 

[katy_did]

'le persiane le avevo tirate - però penso di non averle chiuso.'

I have the shelters close-drawn, but I don't think I had them locked.

I know what she means, because the wood of the shelters is old and and bit twisted, and when you close-drawn such shelters, they are fixed. Sometimes quite difficult to latch them - so you would do this only when leaving the house for longer time.

Filomena didn't seem quite as certain whether she closed the shutters when questioned by Mignini on 1 November, immediately after the murder was discovered (from Micheli's report):

ricordava di averne certamente chiusi i vetri, lasciando invece probabilmente gli scuri aperti: delle persiane, pur non essendone sicura al cento per cento, riteneva di averle chiuse senza tuttavia ancorarle entrambe, dal momento che l’imposta di sinistra incontrava resistenza sul davanzale a causa di un rigonfiamento del legno. Il suo ricordo non era più preciso, in quanto reputava di avere sicuramente aperto le imposte la mattina avendo bisogno di luce per cambiarsi...ma si era poi allontanata di fretta perché si trovava già in ritardo.

She remembered having certainly closed the window, but probably leaving the inner shutters open: although she couldn't be 100% sure, she believed she had closed the outer shutters without anchoring both, since the left shutter met resistance on the sill due to a swelling of the wood. Her memory was no longer accurate, since she believed she had definitely opened the shutters in the morning having needed light to change...but had then left in a hurry because she was already late.

 

[katy_did]

Also, back many posts, there was discussion of Amanda's lamp in Meredith's room and where it would plug into. In the video Bruce Fisher links of evidence swabbing, is that a plug on the light switch in the bathroom outside of Meredith's bedroom?

Yes, this is the plug socket in the bathroom I mentioned back then (it was in a photo Charlie posted previously). The problem with it in terms of the light being plugged into it is still the same: it's so high off the ground (above the light switch) that the cable wouldn't reach much beyond the doorway of Meredith's room, and certainly nowhere near where the lamp was found. On the other hand, it would certainly be a very logical place to plug the lamp into if someone was standing in the doorway when using it.

 

[katy_did]

So we have to agree that article is unverifiable. It contains some of the elements discussed in Amanda's testimony but we'd have to verify it from what the arresting officers told the court during their trial. Are there any translations of that?

Raffaele's statement was leaked from the prosecution's office along with Amanda's, which is where Corriere got it from; it's also reproduced in the PMF 'In Their Own Words' section. If you choose to believe it's not actually the statement the police asked him to sign and that Corriere made it up, fair enough, I suppose.

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

The court agreed that the cottage could have been entered by climbing through Filomena's window. This point is not disputed.

Would you be so kind and give a link to this,

because I only know the version of the Massei-report, saying that - given to the evidence of the scene - it was not possible to enter the room from outside.
And the expert of the defense - M.llo Pasquali - could not prove otherwise.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

It's like saying "What is the name of the person who posted the words "I say it because she did"?

If someone replies "Fiona", I can then say that they said Fiona's name first. Brilliant!

And then if you were to append it with: "She's a bad person, she's the murderer. She scares me" you would have approximately the same situation as what happened to Amanda.

Absolutely brilliant!

 

[katy_did]

I'm a bit bemused that anyone can look at the video of Stefanoni and not acknowledge that there's at least a possibility of contamination/transfer (or whatever the appropriate term is here) within the bathroom. At best we could probably say that, from the video, there's no evidence she contaminated the scene from outside the room itself. Probably the reason she wasn't too careful in terms of touching different surfaces with the same swab, making sure her thumb didn't touch one sample and then transfer DNA to another area etc, is that at the time she didn't realize the evidence was going to be used against someone who used the bathroom regularly. Transferring the murderer's DNA from one area to another within the same room (when the murderer had no business being in the house anyway) wouldn't be such a problem.

Presumably that's also the reason she didn't do any control tests. To make sure Amanda's DNA was only in areas where Meredith's blood also was, she'd need to have swabbed different areas of the sink (say), and tested them for DNA. If some of the swabs were positive for Amanda's DNA, that would suggest it wasn't linked to the blood stains but was there simply because Amanda used the bathroom. Stefanoni didn't bother, which suggests she assumed any relevant DNA found would point to someone who had no business being in the bathroom.

As I understand it, 'mixed DNA' is just the term used for DNA deposited in the same place (or in this case, on the same swab); it's not as if some special process needs to happen in order to 'mix' it. The DNA can't be dated to confirm or disprove it was left at the same time. The fact a person's DNA in the bathroom they use every day can be used to convict them in a murder trial is frightening.