Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

Bruce,
Does anyone have the full, unedited video that this defense (ballistics) expert took while recreating the rock throwing? The only one we have is insufficient to prove much of anything. I am definitely interested in the one filmed from the outside vantage point and closeups of the window sill after the window was broken.

 

[Mary_H]

I say it because she did.

But what is the meaning of it, in the big picture? Is it significant?

 

[christianahannah]

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.

There is always the possibility of contamination but possibility is not proof of contamination.

It would be helpful to see the whole video with the jumps in time included. How can one say Stefanoni didn't change gloves unless one sees the whole sequence between swabbings? Was Stefanoni questioned by the defense as to her evidence collection habits at trial? What were her answers? Did the defense challenge her collection habits and answers with its own expert testimony? Was there video of her not changing gloves between swabbings?

As to DNA mixtures, Stefanoni is scrubbing pretty hard on the light switch but only Meredith's DNA shows up. The bath mat footprint would imply friction to leave but only Meredith's DNA shows up. There were other areas of DNA in the bathroom where it was only Meredith's DNA or Amanda's DNA despite vigorous scrubbing by Stefanoni.

This is why I question what are DNA mixtures and how easy are they to happen. I don't know those answers.

 

[Danceme]

The police ran out and arrested Patrick with nothing more that bad information they obtained from a coerced confession. You can spin it anyway you like. Patrick as innocent. They arrested him with nothing else to go on. The facts are very clear in this matter. It was very poor police work.

I can`t see how this is very poor police work. That argument has never worked for me. A supposedly credible witness just said she was there when he killed Meredith. I think it would have been very poor police work to leave him at large, able to flee the country or possibly kill again. Lawyers I have asked agree, the police should most certainly have gone to arrest him after credible eye witness testimony. Arrest him first, investigate more later.

I see a very convincing reason for Guede to stage a break-in. Let's start by assuming for a minute that Guede committed the crime alone (or even possibly with an accomplice as yet unidentified). If Guede had knocked on the front door of the girls' house that night, he might well have been let in by Meredith (who knew him, at least by sight). And if he'd then ended up killing her, he'd have easily come to the following realisation: If he simply left via the front door, there would be no evidence of forced entry. And he'd have realised that the police would therefore quickly summise that whoever killed Meredith either a) had a key to the front door, b) was let in by someone with a key to the front door, or c) did not have a key but was let in by Meredith.

Therefore, it would definitely be in Guede's interest to stage a break-in in this scenario, since it would be his attempt to misdirect the police away from looking for someone whom Meredith would know well enough to let into the house, and towards a stranger-intruder*. Guede would have known that the number of people whom Meredith might have let into the house when she was alone would be a pretty small number, and that he would soon be identified as one of that number. He'd also probably have realised that many of this group of people were away from Perugia that night (including all the boys from downstairs), thereby narrowing down the list even further.

If this were to make sense at all then Rudy should also have been concerned about his bloody shoeprints leading to the front door and his stool in the toilet. If he was thinking so clearly about directing any suspicion away from himself as some vague aquaintance of Meredith`s by staging a breakin, then it simply follows he would also be concerned his stool and shoeprints might eventually have pointed to him and eliminated them.

Amanda was not at the store the morning after the murder. Quintavalle is not a credible witness.

Quintavalle was deemed credible during the trial.

And he is not credible because? My understanding is after Amanda left he asked another employee whether she had seen Amanda and what Amanda bought.

This is also my understanding, and a compelling reason to find him credible despite Bruce`s emphatic pronouncement otherwise.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

I'll just ask questions this time:
1) Why did Guede break into the apartment?
2) What type of knife was the alleged Meredith DNA found on?
3) Did Raffaele frequently carry a knife?
4) Did Filomena say anything in her testimony in regards to the break-in being suspicious?
5) When was the autopsy report completed?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

oops, forgot one:
6) What room was the bra clasp in?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The team failed

Which of these do you feel Stefanoni failed?

The video of the forensic team showed that more than one person handled the bra clasp with gloved hands. They should have used disposable tools, and they had no business passing it forth and back or putting it on the ground.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Stefanoni's bracelet

The issue of how often Stefanoni changed gloves came up in her testimony. There were images of her with the bracelet outside the gloves, and one of the lawyers for the defense suggested that this was evidence that Stefanoni did not change her gloves.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

false accusations

There has been some discussion on this board to the effect that false accusations were not the same thing as false confessions and that false accusations had not been (sufficiently) documented. Here is a case from Georgia where seven of nine eyewitnesses have recanted their testimony, citing police pressure:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94826773
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_Davis_case

The accused man, Troy Davis, was almost executed. Obviously, the details of this case are very different from the one we are considering; however, the idea of a pressured false accusation is not unprecedented.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Quintavalle was deemed credible during the trial.

Quintavalle is attacked very strongly in the Appeal. They point out that he was asked right away by police if he had seen either AK or RS in his store after the murder and he said no. He claimed at trial that he was not asked if he had seen AK and at the time he considered it as an insignificant factor. He claims she was showing an urgency to buy something in the cleaning section but left without buying anything. They checked his roll of tickets and found no bleach detergent was purchased. Yet the court concluded she did get bleach there. The Appeal argues besides being seen with no bleach, there being no receipts for bleach, there was in fact a lot of bleach detergents at the cottage already. They claim the court inexplicably ignored the testimony of Inspector Orestes Volturno who subsequently questioned Quintavalle after the initial questioning that happened within a day or so of the murder. Volturno's service record shows he questioned Quintavalle on Nov. 19, 2007. The record makes it clear he was shown photos of AK & RS and he said they had been to his store 2 or so times but not on Nov. 2 and they were always together.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Sadly, Meredith's blood didn't land on a surface - it was placed there by her murderer.

This wording is not correct. A drop off blood lands on a surface. It is not placed there.

If you wash blood from your hands and the bloody water leaves a streak of blood around the drain, you did not place the streak there.

You imply that the DNA must have mixed before it made contact with the surface. That is false.

 

[RWVBWL]

The video of the forensic team showed that more than one person handled the bra clasp with gloved hands. They should have used disposable tools, and they had no business passing it forth and back or putting it on the ground.

I have to agree with you, Halides1.
The Team Failed!

I still can not believe that the Polizia Scientifica did not just use a sterile, disposable tweezer to pick up and put this important piece of evidence into a new paper bag or envelope, while they video'd their collection of said evidence.

Would you want the forensic police to handle the main piece of evidence used against your child or family member in a murder trial, heck, any trial, to have been handled the same way as these Polizia Scientifica officers did in this video?

http://injusticeinperugia.org/TheBraClasp.html

Hmmm?
RWVBWL

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I have to agree with you, Halides1.
The Team Failed!

I still can not believe that the Polizia Scientifica did not just use a sterile, disposable tweezer to pick up and put this important piece of evidence into a new paper bag or envelope, while they video'd their collection of said evidence.

Would you want the forensic police to handle the main piece of evidence used against your child or family member in a murder trial, heck, any trial, to have been handled the same way as these Polizia Scientifica officers did in this video?

http://injusticeinperugia.org/TheBraClasp.html

Hmmm?
RWVBWL

And what, pray tell, was Raffaele's DNA doing in Meredith's bedroom?

 

[christianahannah]

The video of the forensic team showed that more than one person handled the bra clasp with gloved hands. They should have used disposable tools, and they had no business passing it forth and back or putting it on the ground.

Did Stefanoni testify that the possibility of secondary transfer would be minimal due to the fact that the clasp was not wet and that secondary transfer is difficult under those conditions? I think she may have included contamination in this testimony but I am not sure.

Did the defense offer expert testimony to show that secondary transfer or contamination did/could occur under the conditions of the handling and collection of the clasp?

 

[christianahannah]

The issue of how often Stefanoni changed gloves came up in her testimony. There were images of her with the bracelet outside the gloves, and one of the lawyers for the defense suggested that this was evidence that Stefanoni did not change her gloves.

The problem I have with this post is the word "suggested." Did the defense attorneys show (by video or testimony of others) that Stefanoni didn't change gloves? What was her answer when questioned concerning changing gloves?

 

[christianahannah]

This wording is not correct. A drop off blood lands on a surface. It is not placed there.

If you wash blood from your hands and the bloody water leaves a streak of blood around the drain, you did not place the streak there.

You imply that the DNA must have mixed before it made contact with the surface. That is false.

I do not imply anything other than it was the murderer who put the blood in the bathroom. As to how the DNA mixtures came to be that is better left for the experts to explain.

 

[RoseMontague]

Quintavalle is attacked very strongly in the Appeal. They point out that he was asked right away by police if he had seen either AK or RS in his store after the murder and he said no. He claimed at trial that he was not asked if he had seen AK and at the time he considered it as an insignificant factor. He claims she was showing an urgency to buy something in the cleaning section but left without buying anything. They checked his roll of tickets and found no bleach detergent was purchased. Yet the court concluded she did get bleach there. The Appeal argues besides being seen with no bleach, there being no receipts for bleach, there was in fact a lot of bleach detergents at the cottage already. They claim the court inexplicably ignored the testimony of Inspector Orestes Volturno who subsequently questioned Quintavalle after the initial questioning that happened within a day or so of the murder. Volturno's service record shows he questioned Quintavalle on Nov. 19, 2007. The record makes it clear he was shown photos of AK & RS and he said they had been to his store 2 or so times but not on Nov. 2 and they were always together.

Yes, I believe this is correct. Wasn't this another witness that a journalist brought forward? Was it the same journalist that brought forward according to me?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

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?

I have examined several hours of video, and no one ever changes gloves. If they did so, it was off-camera. Here is a pair of gloves captured in a photo of the kitchen taken on December 18, 2007:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/kitchen_dec_18_07_closeup_of_gloves.jpg

You can see that the fingers are covered with grime.

Here is a sequence of frames captured from police video, showing Stefanoni's procedure for swabbing a sample:

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

In the first frame, she is scrubbing the blood spot with the tip of the swab pointed to the right. In the middle frame, the tip of the swab has been folded back so it points to the left. In the final frame, her thumb bears down on the blood spot on the swab.

I have had the opportunity to review this material with a DNA expert, who confirms the obvious fact that the procedures displayed in this video are highly likely to cause transfer of DNA between samples.

Now, what are the practical implications of this poor procedure? I think it is the most plausible explanation for the screwy results shown in Samples 176 and 177, which were swabs of the floor in Filomena's room, collected on December 18, after investigators used their luminol. They got the footprint images that we have all seen. They also got a reaction in Filomena's room, which was not a shape but rather a diffuse glow in a general area. Sample 176 clearly showed Meredith's DNA with faint markers corresponding to Amanda's profile. Sample 177 clearly showed the DNA of both Meredith and Amanda. Both samples also showed other markers as well, probably those of Filomena, for whom they did not bother to collect a reference DNA sample.

How are we to explain this result? I think the most likely answer is that luminol was applied at the very end of the investigation on December 18, and the material on Samples 176 and 177 was from the fingertips of gloves that had handled other samples containing the DNA of Meredith and Amanda.

 

[LondonJohn]

The problem I have with this post is the word "suggested." Did the defense attorneys show (by video or testimony of others) that Stefanoni didn't change gloves? What was her answer when questioned concerning changing gloves?

The gloves are significant (although it's quite hard for the defence to prove a negative). What's potentially far more significant though is what's irrefutably caught on video camera: numerous instances of swabs being used to smear together numerous areas while collecting evidence. And no amount of "handwaving" (a popular word in certain quarters) will make that go away.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

maybe the third time will be the charm

And what, pray tell, was Raffaele's DNA doing in Meredith's bedroom?

DNA cannot be interrogated to tell us when it was deposited on the bra clasp. Both secondary transfer and contamination (at the point of collection or in the lab) are possibilities. You have been told this many times.

Where is the DNA from the person(s) who restrained Meredith in the multiple attacker scenario?