Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

I see that FulcaMichael is willing to "bet his life" that the police bugged Filomena's and Laura's phones (and those of their boyfriends) in the week after the murder. That one could turn out to be very interesting

Incidentally, the very fact that Knox/Sollecito's phones were bugged and other conversations of theirs were eavesdropped upon makes it even less credible that their formal interviews in the police HQ were not similarly recorded. I am now of the view that either a) recordings of these interrogations do exist, but have been destroyed or hidden (for obvious reasons); or b) a deliberate decision was taken not to record the interrogations, as the police had decided in advance to use "non-standard" techniques...

 

[christianahannah]

The following is a partial list of questions commonly asked by one who believes AK and RS are guilty of one who believes they are innocent. Please feel free to jump in with your personal opinion.

I believe these questions are asked by both sides to support whatever their position is on the case. I will take the plunge and answer what I can (questions are in bold, your answers in italics, mine in regular).

How would you account for Meredith's DNA being on the blade of the double DNA knife?

I think the testing sample was likely contaminated with Meredith's DNA. Stephanoni didn't use control samples that would likely show contamination. It becomes difficult to find contamination when you don't test for it. Probably the reason it did not show up.

The explanation for Meredith's DNA being on the knife is not innocent. I don't believe contamination to be the cause; a possible alternative is it was either one of the murder weapons or it had contact with the murder weapon. "Probably" and "likely" do not convince me of contamination.

How would account for the abundant amount of Sollecito's DNA being on Meredith's bra clasp?

There was not an abundant amount of Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp. His appeal makes a solid case that his DNA is actually LCN.

I believe this is an especially strong specimen of Sollectio's DNA. I am not sure if this was a mixture of Sollectio's and Meredith's DNA.

Is it a coincidence that there were five instances of Amanda Knox's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood in three different locations in the cottage?

The only instance of Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood is in the mixed sample in the bathroom sink. Rudy washed up after killing Meredith. Amanda's DNA being in the bathroom is because she lived there. If this question is referring to the Luminol revealed footprints, they were tested for blood and there was no blood.

Rudy was able to wash off and not leave any of his DNA in the bathroom but was able to leave Meredith's blood and have it mix with Amanda's blood in just the right place in the sink? Concerning the footprints (and this will lead into the next question) there is the possibility that there was an attempt to clean them by the luminol photos, however, this may be open to interpretation.

Who do you think cleaned up the trail of bloody footprints that led up to the blue bathmat?

There was no trail of cleaned up bloody footprints, see answer to last question.

There was cleaning of the bath area by whoever made the print, whether a shoe was taken off and cleaned or a bare foot cleaned.

Why were there three traces of Meredith's blood in Amanda Knox's room?

Meredith's blood was not found in Amanda's room.

This I have to research more. I cannot answer that which I am not sure of.

 

[LondonJohn]

The following is a partial list of questions commonly asked by one who believes AK and RS are guilty of one who believes they are innocent. Please feel free to jump in with your personal opinion.

How would you account for Meredith's DNA being on the blade of the double DNA knife?

I think the testing sample was likely contaminated with Meredith's DNA. Stephanoni didn't use control samples that would likely show contamination. It becomes difficult to find contamination when you don't test for it. Probably the reason it did not show up.

How would account for the abundant amount of Sollecito's DNA being on Meredith's bra clasp?

There was not an abundant amount of Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp. His appeal makes a solid case that his DNA is actually LCN.

Is it a coincidence that there were five instances of Amanda Knox's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood in three different locations in the cottage?

The only instance of Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood is in the mixed sample in the bathroom sink. Rudy washed up after killing Meredith. Amanda's DNA being in the bathroom is because she lived there. If this question is referring to the Luminol revealed footprints, they were tested for blood and there was no blood.

Who do you think cleaned up the trail of bloody footprints that led up to the blue bathmat?

There was no trail of cleaned up bloody footprints, see answer to last question.


Why were there three traces of Meredith's blood in Amanda Knox's room?

Meredith's blood was not found in Amanda's room.

I love that this is part of a test posed to all new posters on certain other forums! And heaven help you if your answers to these questions don't tally with the "answers" held by the self-appointed "examiners". Dissent will not be tolerated!

 

[Mary_H]

<snip> In fact, I think (and I imagine that many criminal defence lawyers would agree) that Knox should not have testified in the trial whatsoever."

<snip>

Why do you think this?

 

[LondonJohn]

Why do you think this?

Because she had nothing to gain by going on the stand, and potentially a lot to lose. It's fairly well-established (through trial and error - no pun intended!) that defendants on trial for serious crimes usually benefit from not taking the stand. By testifying, they open themselves up to cross-examination which may make them look weak, indecisive and/or evasive - even if they are not culpable of the crime. And the jury already know that the defendant denies guilt, from the "not guilty" plea. Better (in most trial lawyers' eyes) to let the defence attorneys represent the interests of the accused, which theoretically minimises the chances of misinterpretation or rash statements under cross-examination.

It might be interesting to find out one day whether Knox's lawyers recommended that she remain silent in court, but that she (and/or her family) overruled the lawyers. TBH, I wouldn't be overly surprised if that's what happened. Although, if these are the same lawyers who (allegedly) encouraged Knox to keep a prison diary detailing her thoughts and musings, then I have to question the their judgement regarding the whole issue of Knox's post-arrest silence. Nothing regarding any aspect of the case should have been written down or spoken to anyone without her lawyers being present in a controlled environment - full stop.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

bra clasp and knife

I believe these questions are asked by both sides to support whatever their position is on the case. I will take the plunge and answer what I can (questions are in bold, your answers in italics, mine in regular).

How would you account for Meredith's DNA being on the blade of the double DNA knife?

I think the testing sample was likely contaminated with Meredith's DNA. Stephanoni didn't use control samples that would likely show contamination. It becomes difficult to find contamination when you don't test for it. Probably the reason it did not show up.

The explanation for Meredith's DNA being on the knife is not innocent. I don't believe contamination to be the cause; a possible alternative is it was either one of the murder weapons or it had contact with the murder weapon. "Probably" and "likely" do not convince me of contamination.

How would account for the abundant amount of Sollecito's DNA being on Meredith's bra clasp?

There was not an abundant amount of Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp. His appeal makes a solid case that his DNA is actually LCN.

I believe this is an especially strong specimen of Sollectio's DNA. I am not sure if this was a mixture of Sollectio's and Meredith's DNA.

ChristianaHannah,

Meredith’s profile is strong on the bra clasp, but the traces of Raffaele’s DNA are weak, approximately 6 to 10-fold weaker than Meredith’s DNA. Maybe Raffaele’s DNA got there the same way several other people’s DNA did.

There are at least two ways the knife may have been contaminated. The first officer who handled the knife gave it to a second officer, who had come from Meredith’s flat. The lab was full of Meredith’s DNA; just look at the pdf that Charlie linked; most of the samples had Meredith’s profile. And bear in mind that LCN work, when done properly, is done under much more stringent conditions that standard DNA profiling. This implies that LCN is more susceptible to contamination, a point I have addressed on this thread and the previous one on many occasions.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I believe these questions are asked by both sides to support whatever their position is on the case. I will take the plunge and answer what I can (questions are in bold, your answers in italics, mine in regular).

How would you account for Meredith's DNA being on the blade of the double DNA knife?

I think the testing sample was likely contaminated with Meredith's DNA. Stephanoni didn't use control samples that would likely show contamination. It becomes difficult to find contamination when you don't test for it. Probably the reason it did not show up.

The explanation for Meredith's DNA being on the knife is not innocent. I don't believe contamination to be the cause; a possible alternative is it was either one of the murder weapons or it had contact with the murder weapon. "Probably" and "likely" do not convince me of contamination.

This is what I call "not an argument". There is no information here, and no logical reasoning. You are just asserting that you believe Meredith's DNA on the knife is good evidence.

Whether the DNA evidence on the knife is good evidence or not is not strictly a matter of opinion: it is a scientific question. You need to approach it with relevant scientific facts or arguments. Or to put it another way, you have to show us the evidence that led you to form your opinions, not merely state what your opinions are.

How would account for the abundant amount of Sollecito's DNA being on Meredith's bra clasp?

There was not an abundant amount of Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp. His appeal makes a solid case that his DNA is actually LCN.

I believe this is an especially strong specimen of Sollectio's DNA. I am not sure if this was a mixture of Sollectio's and Meredith's DNA.

Again, what "you believe" is not an argument. You need to show us why you believe it, or in other words show evidence.

Is it a coincidence that there were five instances of Amanda Knox's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood in three different locations in the cottage?

The only instance of Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood is in the mixed sample in the bathroom sink. Rudy washed up after killing Meredith. Amanda's DNA being in the bathroom is because she lived there. If this question is referring to the Luminol revealed footprints, they were tested for blood and there was no blood.

Rudy was able to wash off and not leave any of his DNA in the bathroom but was able to leave Meredith's blood and have it mix with Amanda's blood in just the right place in the sink? Concerning the footprints (and this will lead into the next question) there is the possibility that there was an attempt to clean them by the luminol photos, however, this may be open to interpretation.

Why is it in the least bit strange to you that Rudy washed blood off himself leaving no DNA of his own but leaving traces of the blood he washed off himself?

As for the blood landing in "just the right place", this is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy again. Amanda's DNA would have been all over her bathroom, and even if the police used proper evidence-handling procedures (and we know they did not) there is nothing extraordinary in scattered drops of blood landing on spots that held Amanda's DNA. You could scatter someone's blood droplets in your own bathroom right now and probably land on some of your own DNA.

Who do you think cleaned up the trail of bloody footprints that led up to the blue bathmat?

There was no trail of cleaned up bloody footprints, see answer to last question.

There was cleaning of the bath area by whoever made the print, whether a shoe was taken off and cleaned or a bare foot cleaned.

This strikes me as a non sequitur.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Why do you think this?

Because of confirmation bias, almost anything you say to a crowd that think you are guilty will just make them think you are guiltier. It's much wiser to just shut up and let the lawyers and the facts do the talking.

This is also why the prosecutions's campaign to poison public opinion against AK and RS was completely immoral and would not have happened in any well-run, ethical investigation. It is very hard or impossible to organise a fair trial when the people deciding the case have been influenced by a dishonest PR campaign beforehand.

 

[Dan O.]

The explanation for Meredith's DNA being on the knife is not innocent. I don't believe contamination to be the cause; a possible alternative is it was either one of the murder weapons or it had contact with the murder weapon. "Probably" and "likely" do not convince me of contamination.

As if this hadn't been discussed before... There are many possible explanations for the DNA being found on Raffaele's kitchen knife.

• The knife was used in the murder of Meredith and somehow after being cleaned with bleach, still held Meredith's DNA.
• Someone who had lived at or visited Meredith cottage picked up shed skin cells of Meredith on a rag or their clothing and transfered it to the knife back at Raffaele's apartment.
• An officer who had previously been to the murder scene discovered the knife in Raffaele's apartment and inadvertently (or otherwise) transfered Meredith's DNA to the knife before collecting it as evidence.
• A detective at the Perugia police station who had previously been to the murder scene, transfered Meredith's DNA to the knife while repackaging it for shipment to Rome.
• A lab technician in Rome who had previous been to the murder scene transfered Meredith's DNA to the knife while unpacking it.
• The swab used to sample the knife had previously been contaminated with Meredith's DNA from testing other evidence also processed at the lab.
• A few cells worth of Meredith's DNA from PCR amplification of one of the many samples tested at that lab had become airborne and due to the lack of positive airflow containment that is required in all accredited labs that do LCN DNA work, managed to contaminate the swab taken from the knife.

As an expert in crime scene DNA analysis, how are you going to rule out all of these potential sources of contamination to save your conclusion that the DNA was the direct result of the crime?

Rudy was able to wash off and not leave any of his DNA in the bathroom but was able to leave Meredith's blood and have it mix with Amanda's blood in just the right place in the sink? Concerning the footprints (and this will lead into the next question) there is the possibility that there was an attempt to clean them by the luminol photos, however, this may be open to interpretation.

I contend that since Amanda lived at that cottage and used that bathroom, her DNA in the form of dead skin cells could be found on virtually every surface. So any blood dropped on a surface in that bath would have a high likelihood of mixing with Amanda's DNA. If you can describe how you would rule out this substrate DNA as a contributor to the result you will show that you are smarter than miss "BA in Biological Sciences".

 

[Mary_H]

Because she had nothing to gain by going on the stand, and potentially a lot to lose....snip... Although, if these are the same lawyers who (allegedly) encouraged Knox to keep a prison diary detailing her thoughts and musings, then I have to question the their judgement regarding the whole issue of Knox's post-arrest silence. Nothing regarding any aspect of the case should have been written down or spoken to anyone without her lawyers being present in a controlled environment - full stop.

Thank you, LJ. Just one more baffling example of how differently they do things in Perugia.

 

[Mary_H]

Because of confirmation bias, almost anything you say to a crowd that think you are guilty will just make them think you are guiltier. It's much wiser to just shut up and let the lawyers and the facts do the talking.

This is also why the prosecutions's campaign to poison public opinion against AK and RS was completely immoral and would not have happened in any well-run, ethical investigation. It is very hard or impossible to organise a fair trial when the people deciding the case have been influenced by a dishonest PR campaign beforehand.

Excellent points; thank you.

 

[JREF2010]

I see that FulcaMichael is willing to "bet his life" that the police bugged Filomena's and Laura's phones (and those of their boyfriends) in the week after the murder. That one could turn out to be very interesting

Incidentally, the very fact that Knox/Sollecito's phones were bugged and other conversations of theirs were eavesdropped upon makes it even less credible that their formal interviews in the police HQ were not similarly recorded. I am now of the view that either a) recordings of these interrogations do exist, but have been destroyed or hidden (for obvious reasons); or b) a deliberate decision was taken not to record the interrogations, as the police had decided in advance to use "non-standard" techniques...

I agree, and some of these recorded events happened at the HQ.
One recorded event at the HQ, I was just reading in Candace Dempseys book, Murder In Italy, talks about the police listening-in on Laura and Filomena, with Amanda at the HQ. The police/squad recorded this conversation and it was leaked to the press obviously. This case had more leaks than a rusty bucket.

So I'm starting to agree (a), that the police have hidden or destroyed the tapes, that did exist.

It just makes more sense and the shoe fits.

But there's more going on if this is the way things are being done. Only one of the 13 HQ interrogators could confirm the accused statement.

I can't even imagine any police officer speaking up for Amanda or Raffaele because they'll be sued and faced with prison time, in addition to losing the job. Due to this "intimidation" I doubt the truth will ever be known.

 

[Kevinfay]

Londonjohn,

Are you sure that the Motivations Report will be offically released in English?, I can't see any reason it should be, any more than in French, German or any other language.

Personally, it doesn't matter to me, but I'd welcome an English version, because it shows how both sets of supporters should attempt to weigh the evidence ... scales of justice, etc?

If the Report wasn't so fair minded in approach, I'm sure that one side or the other would have had a translation published by about the 5th of March?.

Anyway, there is plenty of time, so I'm going to study the appeals documentation together with the Report. I believe that the jury could not take into account the fact that Guede only blamed RS and not AK. I think there are other things from the Guede trial that couldn't be taken into account, but can be on appeal?. For me, that will simply give AK a chance of being found not guilty of the actual murder.

Anyway, there is plenty of time before November.

 

[Antony]

Last year the police union said in the press that they would back the charges against Knox and her family, especially since it is a high profile case and they were sick of having there members being accused of brutality as part of so many defenses.

Kevin, if the Italian police are facing repeated accusations of brutality by defendants in unconnected cases, then it might just be because they're true. They can easily avoid them by following basic procedure like recording interviews and conducting them in the presence of independent lawyers representing defendants.

Another simple remedy would be to avoid practices like "interviewing" defendants for many hours at a stretch, and overnight, and then getting them to sign statements at 5.30 in the morning. This is what Amanda Knox was subjected to.

There are different ways in which they can respond to complaints like this. In democracies, we would expect an impartial investigation to be conducted into the complaint. The other way is to threaten legal action against the complainants, and thereby to convince them to withdraw the complaint - and of course, actually to take legal action if they won't withdraw.

This is the sort of thing that used to happen in Stalinist Russia. It creates a situation where making a complaint against the police is, in effect, prohibited in law. What does it achieve? Well, the main effect is to give the police carte blanche
to abuse suspects, knowing that any complaint will result in action being taken against the suspect, and not against them.

This factor makes Amanda's claims far more convincing than the police's denials.

If my daugher was murdered I wouldn't want the police to be hindered by the fear of unfounded allegations. Knox could help herself by identifying the officer who she alleges struck her?.

If my daughter was murdered, the last thing I would want is for the police to focus their investigation exclusively on her flatmate and her boyfriend, which is what has happened here. Meanwhile, it was only because of the diligence of th German police that the real killer was even caught.

 

[katy_did]

Why is it in the least bit strange to you that Rudy washed blood off himself leaving no DNA of his own but leaving traces of the blood he washed off himself?

Indeed, in fact this is Massei's explanation as to why they didn't find DNA from Raffaele in the blood drops in the bathroom. Running a bloody hand or foot under the tap water wouldn't necessarily result in loss of DNA, I wouldn't have thought. Cleaning your teeth in the sink or washing your bloody ear piercing would, though.

And after all, we know for sure Rudy went into the bathroom several times to get towels; he first talked about that when he was arrested in Germany, and how would he have known blood-soaked towels were in the bedroom if he didn't fetch them himself? It's hardly the sort of thing that would be reported in the press. So even though we know for definite Rudy was in the bathroom with bloody hands (from handling the first blood-soaked towel) somehow we're supposed to believe he didn't leave any blood in there, it was someone else who happened to be in there with bloody hands too...

 

[katy_did]

Does anyone know where (in Massei's report or elsewhere) Filomena testified that her room was 'tidy' when she left it? I just saw this on PMF:

Filomena testified that the state in which her room was found was not the state in which she had left it. How do you explain her testimony?

Well, I'd probably explain it with the broken window and the glass everywhere. But I'm curious as to whether Filomena did say anything more specific about its state of tidiness.

(And also a bit suspicious about possible distortions ever since it turned out that the statement 'Filomena said Amanda never told her she phoned Meredith' should actually have read 'Filomena never said Amanda told her she phoned Meredith'!)

 

[RoseMontague]

The question has come up if there was a 3rd DNA profile found on the mixed sample of the sink and the answer to that question is yes. Amanda's appeal pg 138/139:

From reading the electropherograms for tracks mixed Knox - since Kercher
analyzed here can not exclude the presence of an additional track
Biological attributable to third female subject.
Dr. Stefanoni said:
Ø <<could not exclude a third person because it profiles
very balanced>> (May 22, 2009 hearing transcript, p.. 222).
Ø <<In that case there may be a third person
always female but the same features in
this mixture>> (May 22, 2009 hearing transcript, p.. 229).
Ø <<And she mixed in genetic profiles that relate to the Knox preclude us
was a third person? R - This is what I was trying to
say. I can not just exclude>> (hearing transcripts
hearing May 22, 2009, p.. 222).

Dalla lettura degli elettroferogrammi relativi alle tracce miste Knox – Kercher sin
qui analizzate non è possibile escludere la presenza di una ulteriore traccia
biologica riconducibile ad un terzo soggetto di sesso femminile.
La dott.ssa Stefanoni ha dichiarato:
Ø <<non poteva escludere una terza persona perché si trattava di profili
molto bilanciati>> (trascrizioni udienza 22 maggio 2009, pag. 222).
Ø <<In quel caso potrebbe essere presente anche una terza persona
sempre di sesso femminile che però le stesse caratteristiche presenti in
questo misto>> (trascrizioni udienza 22 maggio 2009, pag. 229).
Ø <<E lei nei profili genetici misti che riguardano la Knox esclude che ci
fosse una terza persona? R – È proprio questo che stavo tentando di
dire. Io non lo posso escludere proprio>> (trascrizioni udienza
dibattimentale 22 maggio 2009, pag. 222).

 

[LondonJohn]

Just one example:
In the Micheli it is written, that
Photographs of Meredith’s body show clear white areas where the bra prevented blood from falling onto Merediths body. These white areas corresponded to those areas where blood was found on her bra. This was particularly true in the area of the right shoulder strap which was soaked from the wound to Meredith’s neck.

So, this bra was obviously removed after the bleeding ended.

But hey, why not spin this around again as it is one of the main conventions in this thread.

But this "one" example that you've given is no evidence whatsoever of a separate clean-up long after the event. The bra clearly was moved after Meredith stopped breathing with any effort - the mist of blood drops came from aspiration. But this therefore implies that the bra could have been moved very shortly after the attack took place. It's entirely consistent with the killer waiting for Meredith to stop breathing (or only breath very shallowly) before moving her bra. It's also of course consistent with the bra being moved much later on that night or the following morning, but it by no means proves that this is the time when the bra movement took place.

 

[Kestrel]

If my daugher was murdered I wouldn't want the police to be hindered by the fear of unfounded allegations. Knox could help herself by identifying the officer who she alleges struck her?.

You are repeating a classic myth about this case. Amanda Knox did not know the name of the policewoman who hit her, but did describe this woman in court. Claiming that she did not or could not identify this woman is simply false.

To put this in perspective, if a woman claimed to have been raped by a bald man with a tattoo of a skunk on his arm, would you be claiming she was a liar because she didn't know her attackers name?

 

[Danceme]

This is what I call "not an argument". There is no information here, and no logical reasoning. You are just asserting that you believe Meredith's DNA on the knife is good evidence.

Whether the DNA evidence on the knife is good evidence or not is not strictly a matter of opinion: it is a scientific question. You need to approach it with relevant scientific facts or arguments. Or to put it another way, you have to show us the evidence that led you to form your opinions, not merely state what your opinions are.

Again, what "you believe" is not an argument. You need to show us why you believe it, or in other words show evidence.

Why does it not work the other way around? There is evidence presented in court that the DNA on the knife is real yet there are those here who say it is contaminated or fabricated with nothing to back that up but pure speculation based on a belief in a conspiracy against an Amaerican woman and an Italian man. The assertions that the DNA results are not real with regards to the crime are merely opinion with no basis in fact. They are beliefs only and not an argument.

Why is it in the least bit strange to you that Rudy washed blood off himself leaving no DNA of his own but leaving traces of the blood he washed off himself?

As for the blood landing in "just the right place", this is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy again. Amanda's DNA would have been all over her bathroom, and even if the police used proper evidence-handling procedures (and we know they did not) there is nothing extraordinary in scattered drops of blood landing on spots that held Amanda's DNA. You could scatter someone's blood droplets in your own bathroom right now and probably land on some of your own DNA.

As should have been her fingerprints, all over the house in fact, yet they're not. Why is that?

As if this hadn't been discussed before... There are many possible explanations for the DNA being found on Raffaele's kitchen knife.

• The knife was used in the murder of Meredith and somehow after being cleaned with bleach, still held Meredith's DNA.
• Someone who had lived at or visited Meredith cottage picked up shed skin cells of Meredith on a rag or their clothing and transfered it to the knife back at Raffaele's apartment.
• An officer who had previously been to the murder scene discovered the knife in Raffaele's apartment and inadvertently (or otherwise) transfered Meredith's DNA to the knife before collecting it as evidence.
• A detective at the Perugia police station who had previously been to the murder scene, transfered Meredith's DNA to the knife while repackaging it for shipment to Rome.
• A lab technician in Rome who had previous been to the murder scene transfered Meredith's DNA to the knife while unpacking it.
• The swab used to sample the knife had previously been contaminated with Meredith's DNA from testing other evidence also processed at the lab.
• A few cells worth of Meredith's DNA from PCR amplification of one of the many samples tested at that lab had become airborne and due to the lack of positive airflow containment that is required in all accredited labs that do LCN DNA work, managed to contaminate the swab taken from the knife.

An example of the same speculation not based in any fact whatsoever. Show us the evidence the same detectives handled evidence from both Rafaelle's flat and Meredith's cottage when the court testimony said they did not.