Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Charlie Wilkes]

From what I read Alessi has a history of saying things like this and trying to draw attention to himself and that the judges dismissed him as completely unreliable. I would however, have liked to see someone say they did indeed check out his brother.

My understanding is that the defense looked into Alessi's story, and it didn't check out. It is mentioned in the appeal because the prosecution didn't check it out either, but they were entirely willing to put Kokomani on the stand with his wild story. It shows their bias and lack of diligence.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Isn't it strange how there doesn't appear to have been a decent discussion about the stomach/intestine contents vs time of death on PMF or TJMK? It's hard not to conclude that some of the more perceptive posters on these sites privately realise that this area is looking more and more as if it could blow the prosecution's case out of the water all by itself.

If you tried to have that discussion on PMF I think you'd get banned quick smart. They are very sensitive about people trying to bring up the topic of evidence for an early time of death.

I think they know that they have an argumentative weakness there, which is why they'll ban you if you try to discuss it. However I don't think they actually realise that this issue, as you say, blows the prosecution case completely out of the water. That requires rigorous, joined-up thinking to grasp.

If we can prove using hard, scientific data that Meredith died around or before 21:30 then we lock that data point in and move forward from there. All sorts of things follow directly from that if you think this way:

The prosecution timeline is total rubbish.
The prosecution witnesses who claim to have heard a scream and running feet are mistaken or irrelevant.
Amanda's coerced confession where she claimed to hear a scream is proven to be false on that point as well.
If Curatolo is honest and accurate instead of being a police stooge then his testimony exonerates Knox and Sollecito, however it's more likely he's just a police stooge.
If Curatolo is a lying stooge, then Knox and Sollecito's claim to be at home at the time, backed up by the computer evidence, is very strong indeed, and it follows immediately that Curatolo's statement was a deliberate frame job.
If Curatolo's statement was a lie arranged by the police, it follows that we should also be highly skeptical of other "convenient" pieces of evidence such as the bra clasp and the double DNA knife.

That's all really obvious to us. However they just don't think that way. They don't reason from established facts to inescapable consequences, which is in fact the definition of logical argument. As far as they are concerned hard scientific proof that Amanda died at 21:30 or earlier can be erased and replaced by a sufficient number of "expert" statements, personal opinions or other bits of non-scientific fluff supporting a later time of death.

To us, a 21:30 or earlier time of death leads inescapably to the conclusion that Knox and Sollecito are definitely innocent and almost certainly the victims of a malicious frame job. To them, it's just an annoying bit of trivia which they would rather not talk about. I honestly don't think they realise the logical implications.

 

[christianahannah]

My understanding reading the Massei report is that Stephanoni had 5 reference samples of DNA. Amanda, Raffaele, Rudy, Meredith, and Patrick. Nothing is mentioned about a database that they were run through or other reference samples. Stephanoni claims this lab has had no instances of contamination. Of course, if you don't have reference samples of the lab techs or investigators (or Stephanoni for that matter), these unidentified profiles are not considered contamination even if they possibly were the result of contamination. They are just "unidentified profiles". So easy to avoid having contamination if you know how the game is played. I think this is one reason the defense is asking for the (most likely non existent) contamination logs. Just to show how idiotic this really is.

Rose,

Reference samples were run through a database. Whether all or some, I cannot say. I have not found information about reference samples included from lab technicians (however that does not mean it is not so). I do not know if that is common practice in forensics.

From the PMF English translation Massei Motivations, page 231:

At this point, Dr. Torricelli highlighted the opportunity to check the frequency of this haplotype in the database, i.e., is in the databank already mention by Dr. Stefanoni, in order to check whether it contained an equivalent haplotype. To make this comparison, she explained that the seventeen loci which had been detected were introduced, and with reference to the latest update of this databank consisting of a population of 15,956 individuals, she testified that no one was found who had the same haplotype as Raffaele Sollecito; she also noted that, if 11 loci, rather than 17, had been found and then inserted, 31 subjects with the same haplotype would have been found. She referred to this circumstance in order to highlight how particularly sensitive and selective the current analysis of seventeen loci is.

And page 232:

With reference to the aforementioned database, she pointed out that it is a database containing a population from various countries, from different ethnic groups. She added that the databases are updated by people who work in the field of genetics, and in accordance with the existing controls in that regard.

 

[christianahannah]

My understanding reading the Massei report is that Stephanoni had 5 reference samples of DNA. Amanda, Raffaele, Rudy, Meredith, and Patrick. Nothing is mentioned about a database that they were run through or other reference samples. Stephanoni claims this lab has had no instances of contamination. Of course, if you don't have reference samples of the lab techs or investigators (or Stephanoni for that matter), these unidentified profiles are not considered contamination even if they possibly were the result of contamination. They are just "unidentified profiles". So easy to avoid having contamination if you know how the game is played. I think this is one reason the defense is asking for the (most likely non existent) contamination logs. Just to show how idiotic this really is.

Also (sorry, I hit "submit" too quickly), when unknown profiles are mentioned what exactly does this mean? Are these profiles considered full profiles, partial profiles? How many loci were identified in each profile?

Dr. Stefanoni states on page 224 of PMF English translation Massei Motivations:

In order to ascertain the Y haplotype, with specific reference to for the bra hooks, she reaffirmed that 17 loci were used in evaluating identity, and explained that "it is the maximal possible number that can be considered by the analysis...At this time, we are able to perform our analysis on 17 points, up until three, four years ago it was only possible to do the analysis on 11 of these loci, and before that, a long time ago, on just one genetic locus" (page 126).

Dr. Torrecelli, on page 228 states:

"...recently there had been an increase [in the number of loci examined] from 11 to 17, and this made it possible to distinguish one subject from another with greater precision. She specified, with regard to the case in question, that seventeen loci had been measured on the Y haplotype concerning the clasp (page 88).

So is there analysis of 17 loci on all specimens or only those measuring the Y haplotype? And, if all specimens have 17 loci measured how many are needed to constitute a full profile (by full I mean a profile where one could say with some certainty, along with other conditions, that the profile belongs to a specific person)?

 

[Kestrel]

She was dressed in comfortable clothing. It's harder to explain why she didn't make any further attempt to call her sick mother, who she was worried about, on a quiet evening that would have been perfect for a nice chat.

It's also hard to explain how she lounged around in her room for that length of time without digesting her meal.

The weight of evidence, including the unflushed toilet, the aborted phone call, and the undigested dinner, suggests she walked in on an ambush.

If Meredith used her computer after arriving home, the file system would tell us when. Unfortunately, the Perugia investigators destroyed that piece of the puzzle.

On page 48 of Dempsey's book it's noted that Meredith borrowed a history book from Robyn the night of the murder. Meredith planned to return it the next morning. Does anyone know where that book was found?

 

[Alt+F4]

I imagine a much more likely argument is that they cannot rule out the possibility that they touched something else not in Meredith's room that had his DNA on it and then transferred that DNA to the bra clasp.

RS's appeal is based on the video taken in Meredith's room. If there is other video shot in other parts of the apartment on the same day the bra clasp was taken why isn't it mentioned in RS's appeal?

A possible candidate is a cigarette butt, which I believe is the only other item in that pass that they claim to have found Raffaele's DNA on.

Yes, you're right, his DNA was found on a cigarette butt. Was that butt taken into custody the same day as the bra clasp?

Until they submit to full discovery, however, I'm going to suspect that contamination at the lab is the real explanation for the DNA result.

RS's appeal doesn't agree with you. They say that the contamination occured at the apartment during the collection of evidence, no metion of the lab.

That contamination might have been innocent and might have been deliberate, but if everything there was kosher they would have no reason to hide their files.

As to "hiding the files", why doesn't either the appeal of RS or AK mention these hidden files or ask for them to be surrendered to the defense?

 

[Alt+F4]

To those who are assessing whether or not contamination was likely in the case of the clasp, I would urge you not to equate the DNA from Raffaele that were found with the total amount of his DNA in the cottage. For example, it is likely that he left DNA on one or more towels there because he cooked there. Besides contamination during evidence collection, evidence can also be contaminated in the lab. It is helpful to bear in mind that the post-amplification samples are a potentially serious source of contamination. With respect to the argument in the appeal, I would say that one seldom knows the precise moment of contamination.

Is there any evidence that the invesigators touched a towel before touching the bra clasp in the bedroom?

 

[JREF2010]

I have read, but unfortunately can't find a source immediately to hand, that the defence and/or the appeal team requested that the drives be shipped to the manufacturer so that exactly this procedure could be performed and the data on the drives recovered. However the police have refused to allow this to be carried out.

It's hard to see how refusing to allow the drives to be repaired is consistent with wanting the truth about the case to be established. If you've got nothing to hide, as the saying goes, you've got nothing to be afraid of.

The refusal to repair the hardrive was again, refused by Matteini.


Amanda -
On January 21, 2008 Your Honor appointed an expert to retrieve all data from the hard drives; to create a clone of the single hard drive; and to assess all useful circumstances and determine the reason for the blockage that occurred.
The contents of the hard drive of my computer (as well as those of the other suspects) were not recovered.

Further data could be recovered if the manufacturer Toshiba were appointed, and I would request this because the data in question will further support my claim of non-involvement in any illegal activity.

Judge Claudia Matteini
First of all, the test on your computer determined nothing --either in your favor or against you-- because the hard drive could not be recovered.

And the test did not yield an exact reason for the damage, although it is probable that it is attributable to an error in handling, as any intentional act is excluded.
Obviously, we are facing a totally neutral element with regard to the probatory picture, which therefore remains unchanged.

off Franks Sfarzo piece, on PMF Legal text

 

[Alt+F4]

Actually, if i read the appeals right, they are claiming that the profile they claim is Sollecito on the bra clasp isn't his and want a LCN test to prove it.

Not his at all or not his due to contamination?

 

[Danceme]

Is there any evidence that the invesigators touched a towel before touching the bra clasp in the bedroom?

No, there isn't. On the day they collected the bra clasp, defense reps were in a van outside and video feed of the entire visit was transmitted to them, including the finding and showing of the clasp. Several other items were collected that day as well, including several which contained Rudy's DNA. Charlie posted the list a while back.
Also, Raffaele's cigarette butt was collected the first day, not this visit, so it was not the source of any contamination.

 

[Dan O.]

The handling of Amanda's drive showed an incredible degree of incompetence. When the board swap didn't work, they tore the drive down to expose the bare platters, apparently thinking they might be able to see what was wrong. Now the parts are sitting in a box or bag in an evidence locker. I don't know if recovery from that kind of handling is possible under any circumstances. Toshiba apparently told Amanda's lawyers that if they could do it, it would cost about $10k.

I would think someone with the title of “Chief Technology Officer National Research Council of Italy” would know better. Sure there are parts inside that could break. But unless you have the proper tools (and the proper environment), just looking at them is sometimes enough to break it. There is a reason that every hard drive is covered with little stickers that say "warranty void if removed".

Is there a picture of the current state of Amanda's drive?

If all they did is remove the top cover and didn't go sticking their fingers in poking at things, it may be possible to clean it and still get most of the data off. $10k sounds a bit excessive but when faced with incomprehensible stupidity, it's no so much a matter of how much it costs as how much money does the idiot have.

If the platters were removed (or even if the screws were just loosened), realignment is going to be nearly impossible. There is technology that does predictive dynamic tracking developed for the removable drives. Toshiba "may" have a testbed in their labs that can read such platters but I wouldn't bet on it.

The next level of recovery which I imagine is only employed by the NSA in extreme cases would be the use of a Magnetic force microscope^WP to read the magnetic domains on the plater and reverse engineer the encoding employed by the drive. This process however could take years.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I would think someone with the title of “Chief Technology Officer National Research Council of Italy” would know better. Sure there are parts inside that could break. But unless you have the proper tools (and the proper environment), just looking at them is sometimes enough to break it. There is a reason that every hard drive is covered with little stickers that say "warranty void if removed".

Is there a picture of the current state of Amanda's drive?

If all they did is remove the top cover and didn't go sticking their fingers in poking at things, it may be possible to clean it and still get most of the data off. $10k sounds a bit excessive but when faced with incomprehensible stupidity, it's no so much a matter of how much it costs as how much money does the idiot have.

If the platters were removed (or even if the screws were just loosened), realignment is going to be nearly impossible. There is technology that does predictive dynamic tracking developed for the removable drives. Toshiba "may" have a testbed in their labs that can read such platters but I wouldn't bet on it.

The next level of recovery which I imagine is only employed by the NSA in extreme cases would be the use of a Magnetic force microscope^WP to read the magnetic domains on the plater and reverse engineer the encoding employed by the drive. This process however could take years.

Here's the report with a picture of the open hard drive:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/computer_consultant_report.pdf
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/computer_consultant_report_google_translation.doc

I'm prepared to give these guys the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are stupendously ignorant and this was not intentional.

 

[Malkmus]

Dr. Stefanoni’s comments in Massei’s report (see my comment upthread) indicate that she thinks that contamination is difficult, requiring either liquids to be involved, or perhaps vigorous rubbing. Therefore, to her the lack of glove changing is no big deal.

By that logic it's a wonder she even felt the need to wear gloves in the first place.

 

[Draca]

In regards to why 'nothing' was stolen from the cottage if Rudy Guede was there to rob the cottage I would introduce the term 'Highly Disorganized crime scene'. It explains why Rudy Guede's original goal of burglary was deserted and he grabbed some cash and fled leaving other valuables behind.


“Disorganized crime scene characteristics include a spontaneous crime, knowledge of victim or location, sudden violence to victim, minimal use of restraints, depersonalization of victim, minimal conversation, random and sloppy crime scene, post mortem sex, weapon and evidence present and body left in view and not removed from crime scene.” -- Geographic profiling – Pg. 71, By D. Kim Rossmo


The attack on Meredith Kercher was a resident-surprises-burglar, burglar-rapes-and-robs-resident. It was an opportunistic crime that occurred suddenly. “Some of the hallmarks of these crimes are Highly Disorganized crime scenes, where little, if any attempt has been made to conceal evidence or hide one’s identity. No planning is evident.” Rudy Guede left behind a palm print, finger print, DNA and shoe prints. The crime scene was a literal bloody mess. There was little attempt to hide his identity or clean up the crime scene.

Once a burglar is caught in the act, or if he decides that the opportunity of rape has presented itself, the burglary is really over for all intents and purposes. He either flees, or commits the rape and flees. Burglars know that the longer they spend in a location, the greater their chance of being caught.

Rudy Guede likely left the cottage and was on his way toward the garden within an hour after the murder. He fled the country within a few days. After killing someone, even if he COULD sell items, he knew he wouldn't have time, and any contact with that evidence would be devastating evidence against him. He grabbed what was useful and in reach. He went through Meredith's purse and stole money, phones, keys and left the country.


http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI3.html - Highly disorganized crime scene.

 

[Chris C]

Not his at all or not his due to contamination?

Reading through injustice's translation/interpretation of Sollecito's appeal. It reads in detail about the analysis of the testing on the bra clasp. A few points of contention the defense is bringing up is part of profile that is attributed to Sollecito has strands that doesn't match his dna profile.
( I'm assuming what they are trying to say is the dna profile the prosecution claims is sollecitos only partially matches him. therefore since there are other markers in the profile then it must be someone else. as an example, my cousin would have a dna profile that partially matches me. its also conceivable that people not related to me have a partial dna profile with me.)

The defense also wants LCN testing done on the sample since its well below the 200 picogram limit. Anything below 200 picograms is supposed to be tested using LCN. Thats their claim.

 

[RoseMontague]

Rose, Reference samples were run through a database. Whether all or some, I cannot say. I have not found information about reference samples included from lab technicians (however that does not mean it is not so). I do not know if that is common practice in forensics.

Christiana,
Thanks for correcting my error on this, there was a database that the reference samples were run through for comparison purposes, it would appear. That is what is percentage of people that could have the same loci, from the way I am reading this. Still I don't see anything about running the unidentified profiles through the database, looking for a "hit" or having reference samples from lab techs, etc. I had quoted previously where she mentioned the few reference samples she had and she did not have the samples from Laura and Filomena for example, and unless the lab techs and investigators just happen to be in this "many country" database, I don't see where they even consider this as a possibility or even tried to see if the unidentified profiles could be matched to someone in the database.

I could be way off base on this but it still appears to me that unless you look for contamination or specifically test those unidentified profiles for a possible match to the lab folks or investigators, you are not going to find any evidence of contamination. The report is very vague about this and the same goes for Stephanoni in her statements. When she is asked about contamination she indicates there are no examples of contamination having happened at this lab. In my opinion that could be due to the fact that they are not looking very hard if at all.

 

[LondonJohn]

Christiana,
Thanks for correcting my error on this, there was a database that the reference samples were run through for comparison purposes, it would appear. That is what is percentage of people that could have the same loci, from the way I am reading this. Still I don't see anything about running the unidentified profiles through the database, looking for a "hit" or having reference samples from lab techs, etc. I had quoted previously where she mentioned the few reference samples she had and she did not have the samples from Laura and Filomena for example, and unless the lab techs and investigators just happen to be in this "many country" database, I don't see where they even consider this as a possibility or even tried to see if the unidentified profiles could be matched to someone in the database.

I could be way off base on this but it still appears to me that unless you look for contamination or specifically test those unidentified profiles for a possible match to the lab folks or investigators, you are not going to find any evidence of contamination. The report is very vague about this and the same goes for Stephanoni in her statements. When she is asked about contamination she indicates there are no examples of contamination having happened at this lab. In my opinion that could be due to the fact that they are not looking very hard if at all.

Rose,

I think that you and Christiana are interpreting the term "database" in different ways. The standardised DNA database that Stefanoni used to compare the prints against is purely a reference tool designed to help calculate match probabilities (and it's sometimes used to isolate things like racial groups from partial profiles).

However, what I think you're referring to is a small reference database of all people who were possible sources. This group would include all the housemates, any regular visitors to the house (e.g. Filomena's boyfriend, Meredith's boyfrend), all police officers and forensic personnel, and all lab technicians. I am not aware that this group of samples was ever collected together, and compared with the "unidentified" samples found in the house.

 

[Rhea]

Excellent list of important, pertinent questions, Rhea.

Thank you, Mary_H. Hopefully the new judge in the appeal trial will insert logic and common sense in the analysis of the case this time around …

 

[Chris_Halkides]

secondary transfer of DNA; discovery; log files

Is there any evidence that the invesigators touched a towel before touching the bra clasp in the bedroom?

Alt+F4,

Both Katy_did and I have suggested possible routes of secondary/tertiary transfer of DNA from a towel to the bra clasp. This would not constitute contamination, because it would have occurred before the item was taken into evidence. I offered the towel as an example of an item that might have Raffaele Sollecito's DNA on it.

His DNA may have also ended up on the door or door handle to Meredith’s room. An investigator who touched one such location and then handled the clasp might transfer Raffaele’s DNA to the clasp that way. This example would be both secondary transfer and contamination. With respect to the cigarette butt, it may have been tested earlier, but the defense was not provided with machine logs, as Sara Gino pointed out in a news report. Therefore, one cannot say with certainty when it was tested. Raffalele’s reference sample is another possible source of contamination if not handled properly.

In the previous thread I linked to articles on DNA contamination that pointed out that the exact mechanism of DNA contamination is not always known. It is up to the lab doing the testing to provide the results of the proper controls and to provide protocols and machine logs. The use of negative controls is one way, although an imperfect one, to catch contamination.

I believe that some labs keep a database of their own technicians’ DNA profiles. I have no evidence that Dr. Stefanoni’s lab did so. Good labs also keep a log of contamination events and the changes implemented to lessen the chances of this happening in the future.

On the subject of the non-release of the electronic data files, Raffaele’s appeal indicates that both Dr. Pascali and Dr. Tagliabracci were denied information about the DNA testing. One portion of his appeal at this site was provided by an anonymous translator, and another portion was machine-translated, then read over by an anonymous Italian-speaking individual.

 

[JREF2010]

In regards to why 'nothing' was stolen from the cottage if Rudy Guede was there to rob the cottage I would introduce the term 'Highly Disorganized crime scene'. It explains why Rudy Guede's original goal of burglary was deserted and he grabbed some cash and fled leaving other valuables behind.


“Disorganized crime scene characteristics include a spontaneous crime, knowledge of victim or location, sudden violence to victim, minimal use of restraints, depersonalization of victim, minimal conversation, random and sloppy crime scene, post mortem sex, weapon and evidence present and body left in view and not removed from crime scene.” -- Geographic profiling – Pg. 71, By D. Kim Rossmo


The attack on Meredith Kercher was a resident-surprises-burglar, burglar-rapes-and-robs-resident. It was an opportunistic crime that occurred suddenly. “Some of the hallmarks of these crimes are Highly Disorganized crime scenes, where little, if any attempt has been made to conceal evidence or hide one’s identity. No planning is evident.” Rudy Guede left behind a palm print, finger print, DNA and shoe prints. The crime scene was a literal bloody mess. There was little attempt to hide his identity or clean up the crime scene.

Once a burglar is caught in the act, or if he decides that the opportunity of rape has presented itself, the burglary is really over for all intents and purposes. He either flees, or commits the rape and flees. Burglars know that the longer they spend in a location, the greater their chance of being caught.

Rudy Guede likely left the cottage and was on his way toward the garden within an hour after the murder. He fled the country within a few days. After killing someone, even if he COULD sell items, he knew he wouldn't have time, and any contact with that evidence would be devastating evidence against him. He grabbed what was useful and in reach. He went through Meredith's purse and stole money, phones, keys and left the country.


http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI3.html - Highly disorganized crime scene.

I agree with a lot of what you say, no planning, sloppy, a cash focused burglary if even that, he fled with the keys. Interesting post.

I even tend to think the keys are still probably along the path in the weeds, near where he tossed the cell phones. He surely would have no reason to keep the keys. When the thought of disassociating with the victim arose, the keys and cell phones would be tossed because they have no value and represent association with the victim, while the cash would not be associated as a personal belonging to the victim/crime.

Its possible, the keys are near where the cellphones were found if this disassociation thought occurred.

You mention the "nothing stolen" comment.
The Guilters love to state a Raffaele "gotcha" when he told the police nothing was stolen, as only the murderer would know that.
But Filomena made the same statement.
And in reversal, later the police find Meredith did have things stolen.
So this would make Raffaele wrong in his "nothing was stolen" comment.

For the bloody shoeprints, I don't know. These prints might be misinterpreted as leaving to exit.