Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

I can't say whether Officer Battistelli or Luca Altieri were lying, mistaken, blocking out a horrific image, etc. Their stories conflict and, as such, the motivations makes no determination either way.

On page 109 of the motivations there is this paragraph of what Dr. Lalli observed when he arrived at the cottage:



If Officer Battistelli were able to see this description from the doorway he may have been able to determine that Meredith was indeed dead.

It is possible that the photos that have been public may have been photographed in a way so that Meredith's head was not visible out of respect for her family.

But one of the troubling aspects is that while Massei makes no definitive judgement on whether Battistelli or Altieri were correct, he implicitly decides that there was no contamination of the murder room prior to its examination by the forensics team. He appears not to even consider the possibility that Battistelli tracked evidence into or out of Meredith's room, despite the fact that he would have to have walked across a floor contaminated by blood in order to lift up the duvet, and he had already walked extensively in the hallway and Filomena's room. Hmmmmmm.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I'm sure Piktor is aware that the side view in that first video has the projectile (which in any case isn't analogous to a thrown rock) travelling from right to left, as opposed to the more conventional left to right.....

Indeed
And I have no doubts being that observant, piktor linked the fake video only as a joke.

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, here's a far more relevant video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkKlD-mkvVY

Note that in this case the hanging venetian blind directly behind the glass actually causes the brick to rebound back outside the house, yet no visible pieces of glass are seen falling to the ground. A few larger pieces fall vertically down onto the sill. Now where have I seen that before?

 

[RoseMontague]

By the way, here's a far more relevant video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkKlD-mkvVY

Note that in this case the hanging venetian blind directly behind the glass actually causes the brick to rebound back outside the house, yet no visible pieces of glass are seen falling to the ground. A few larger pieces fall vertically down onto the sill. Now where have I seen that before?

Hard to really tell what smaller pieces are doing with this one. It's not the best angle or quality.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

On DNA contamination

To all,

At Perugia Murder File, The Machine asked rhetorically (27 July 2010) who has claimed DNA contamination besides O. J. Simpson, Scott Peterson, Raffaele Sollecito, and Amanda Knox.

Here is a partial list: Farah Jama, Gary Leiterman, Gregory Turner, and Profile N, a mild-mannered Christchurch resident who was the victim of one crime but falsely suspected in another. The case of Profile N is reminiscent of Ms. P, whose DNA was found on items of clothing in the Jaidyn Leskie case. Profile N and Ms. P. both had their lives disrupted because of DNA contamination, but neither one was charged with a crime. All of these cases have been examined carefully, and all suspects but Mr. Leiterman have been cleared. Some think that Mr. Leiterman should be, given that the prosecution had to explain the presence of the DNA of a four year old from another city along with Mr. Leiterman’s on evidence from the deceased, Jane Mixer. If we broaden the scope of the question a little bit to include human error such as mislabeling samples, we can also include Lazaro Sotolusson in Nevada. This list is by no means comprehensive. Although it is very difficult to estimate how frequently contamination occurs, it might be helpful to consider the question indirectly.

William Thompson is a lawyer who specializes in probability theory as it relates to DNA profiling. In 2008 he wrote an article, “The Potential for Error in Forensic DNA Testing (and How That Complicates the Use of DNA Databases for Criminal Identification).” (available on the web as a pdf file)

“Doubt was also cast on a number of convictions in Queensland when a forensic scientist who had previously worked for a state forensic laboratory publicly expressed concerns about the reliability of the lab’s work. He told The Australian newspaper that it was not uncommon for the lab to mix up DNA samples from different cases.[62] For example, he said that analysts’ own DNA, from blood samples used as analytical controls, often was mixed up with (or found its way into) casework samples, creating false matches: “[Q]uite often my (colleague) would walk down the aisle and say, ‘I’ve just committed another rape on the Gold Coast.’”[62] The analyst said that while many such errors were caught, sample limitations made it impossible to resample or retest in some questionable cases.”
62. A. McDonald, “DNA evidence claim clouds convictions,” The Australian, July 8, 2006.

Note the use of the words, “often,” “many,” and “another,” which suggest that contamination is not a rare event. I realize that a technician contaminating a sample with his or her own DNA may seem different from a technician contaminating a sample with someone else’s DNA, but in the Gregory Turner case, both happened at the same time.

 

[RoseMontague]

But one of the troubling aspects is that while Massei makes no definitive judgement on whether Battistelli or Altieri were correct, he implicitly decides that there was no contamination of the murder room prior to its examination by the forensics team. He appears not to even consider the possibility that Battistelli tracked evidence into or out of Meredith's room, despite the fact that he would have to have walked across a floor contaminated by blood in order to lift up the duvet, and he had already walked extensively in the hallway and Filomena's room. Hmmmmmm.

This was the origin of the whole circumstantial discussion that became quite rather detailed, if I recall (being somewhat simple-minded and all).

 

[christianahannah]

Oh, I didn't realise that Filomena's window was actually shot by an airgun pellet or bullet. You learn a new thing every day.

Of course glass panes will react in different ways if they are being struck by a small projectile moving at very high speed. Filomena's window, by contrast, was struck with a large, blunt object, moving at relatively low speed.

And, thankfully for all of us, there have been many academic studies on the distribution of glass from windows broken with exactly these sorts of blunt objects travelling at these sorts of speeds. The studies are very useful in helping to establish what sort of glass evidence might travel backwards onto someone breaking a window in the course of committing a burglary.

Rose posted a link to some of these studies a few posts up. You might want to read some of the papers cited in that link. They all demonstrate that all of the larger pieces of broken glass would either fall forward or vertically downward, and that the only pieces propelled backwards by more than a foot or so would be well below 1mm in size (that's around 1/32 inch for you imperially-minded colonials...).

So, in fact, the glass distribution in this case is very consistent with a window being broken from the outside with a rock. One would expect sub-1mm pieces of glass to have projected backwards beyond the window sill and onto the grass below, but unfortunately the Perugia police don't seem to have conducted a sufficiently thorough search of the ground below the window. Shame, that.

While there is disagreement on this forum concerning how glass falls when broken, it appears from the motivations that the ground underneath the window was searched for even small pieces of glass.

Page 51:

The next fact to consider is that the pieces of glass from the broken pane were distributed in a homogeneous manner on the inside and outside parts of the windowsill, without any displacement being noted or any piece of glass being found on the ground underneath the window.

Same page:

It can moreover be observed that the presence of many pieces of glass on the outside part of the windowsill increases the probability of finding some small pieces of glass on the ground underneath, since there seems to be no reason that so many pieces of glass would all stop just at the edge of the windowsill without any of them flying beyond the edge and falling down to the garden below.

Page 52:

The presence of the shutters pulled inwards, as described by Romanelli would have prevented the pieces of glass from falling to the ground below, as indeed they did not, but as they surely would have had the stone been thrown from the outside.

 

[LondonJohn]

Hard to really tell what smaller pieces are doing with this one. It's not the best angle or quality.

Agreed, but it would be easy to see large (>6 inches) pieces of glass if they had been falling to the floor.

A month or two back, I posted a youtube link to a high-speed camera film of a plank of wood breaking a pane of glass. That was more instructive in showing that large bieces fell inwards or vertically downwards. But I can't find it right at the moment to re-post it.

 

[LondonJohn]

While there is disagreement on this forum concerning how glass falls when broken, it appears from the motivations that the ground underneath the window was searched for even small pieces of glass.

Page 51:



Same page:



Page 52:

Umm, I think that Massei here may be erroneously referring to large, easily-identifiable pieces of glass, since he seems to be labouring under the delusion that large pieces would have been found on the grass if the window had been broken from the outside. There is no evidence whatsoever that the police conducted a fingertip search of the ground below the window to look for sub-1mm particles of glass.

 

[Katody Matrass]

While there is disagreement on this forum concerning how glass falls when broken, it appears from the motivations that the ground underneath the window was searched for even small pieces of glass.

No, christianahannah, the quotes you provided don't say the ground was searched. Massei just says that nothing was found, and he simply forgets to say why

 

[Katody Matrass]

Thanks, halides1,
the broader perspective on the DNA tests reliability you provide is invaluable and eye-opening.

 

[RoseMontague]

Agreed, but it would be easy to see large (>6 inches) pieces of glass if they had been falling to the floor.

A month or two back, I posted a youtube link to a high-speed camera film of a plank of wood breaking a pane of glass. That was more instructive in showing that large bieces fell inwards or vertically downwards. But I can't find it right at the moment to re-post it.

This study is an old one but still valid:

http://unbox.org/wisp/trunk/glass/t...the_xfer_of_frags_to_indivs_stndng_nearby.pdf

 

[RoseMontague]

No, christianahannah, the quotes you provided don't say the ground was searched. Massei just says that nothing was found, and he simply forgets to say why

I am not certain either way on this one. To me, it is similar to insisting that there are bloody footprints despite blood not being found. I am not sure the distinction between that and insisting there is glass on the ground despite none being found.

One will have to judge this one with other evidence in mind.

 

[Chris C]

This method of break-in would have given Guede multiple egress paths. Were the police to pull up outside, a quick exit from the back would have been possible. Wasn't there a car parked outside?

Yup, a car that wasn't Sollecito's was parked at Knox's/Kerchers Apartment

Funny how they ignore this fact.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

secondary transfer and the pillow

I guess anything is possible.

What kind of DNA would Raffaele have left on the couch that would have been transferred to the pillow? And if that happened (transfer of DNA from Raffaele to couch to Meredith's pillow to bra clasp), I definitely wouldn't want the pillow tested if I were Raffaele's attorneys.

Let us assume Meredith put the pillow underneath her head. Then it is not unreasonable to see Raffaele's DNA from skin or hair transferring from the couch to the pillow to the clasp, although this would be tertiary transfer. Katy suggested tertiary transfer (and I suggested secondary transfer) from the towels that Rudy used, but some questioned whether the towels started off in the bathroom.

There are a number of possible routes by which DNA might be deposited. I think that the most important thing is to avoid the mistake of equating Raffaele's DNA that was observed by Dr. Stefanoni's profiling with all of his DNA that was present in the apartment. There is not the slightest reason to do so, IMO. Raffaele's DNA was probably on the door, in the hallway, in the bathroom, and in Amanda's room.

 

[Chris C]

Surprisingly, a smashed glass pane does not in its entirety travel forward when broken. Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpTvuUwLAgY

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6092799&postcount=3214

There is also no guarentee that all the glass broke on the initial throw. Its very possible that only a small section of the glass broke right where the rock made contact, and that the rest was broken while unlatching the window. Also considering that most of the glass was broken on the bottom of the window, it reduces how far it will travel opposite of the rock.

Also 2 things I want to point out about that video. 1st nearly all that glass that fell towards the person striking the window was caused when the stick was pulled back out of the window. 2nd everything above the stick fell straight down and had a slight delay while the window finished cracking upwards.

So if we used what happened in that video and applied it to the Filomena's window this is what would happen.
If window is latched. The rock would hit the bottom corner of the window and take all the glass in with it. The remaining glass above the rock would break loose and fall straight down.
If window is unlatched. The rock would hit the bottom corner of the window and take all the glass it contacts in with it. The window will start to swing inwards as the glass above it breaks loose and the majority of it fall inside the window sill as it breaks loose and falls.

Things you have to understand. This window isn't struck at high velocity. Which means it doesn't shatter, it cracks and then breaks apart. The outside frame of the glass, is held in place by something. Which means if the velocity doesn't shatter the window but instead cracks it, you can expect very little to no blow back. Also I notice that almost every video someone shows had an object striking the center of the glass. Ever break a car window? Hit it in the corner of the window. Depending on the pressure of the inside of the car compared to outside of the car the glass will blow in or out. Roll your windows up tight in your car when a hurricane comes through and your glass in your car will blow outwards if the pressure drops to fast.

Because of where that rock hit that window, the fact that its a blunt object and not a speeding projectile, it can cause some strange things.

 

[Justinian2]

Hi RWVBWL. I think Rudy meant only to hold the knife against Meredith's throat to threaten and control her, but things got out of hand. There are more effective ways of killing someone, if that is your intent. You could stab them in the heart, slit their throat, or hit them on the head with a heavy object.

I think Rudy wanted to believe he was making amends when he got the towels. He also wanted to believe Meredith was still alive when he left, which is why he took the phones and locked the door -- to delay any calls for help. He seems to have been in quite a bit of denial, to have gone dancing at a nightclub after the crime.

page 135

The second stab wound was much smaller, with a path that crossed the larger wound. He noted the presence of a reddish, scraped area, indicative of the fact that "ʺthere was an impact on this region of skin by the near part of the handle of the knife, and,"ʺ he emphasised, "ʺthis is the sign that the knife blade penetrated completely"ʺ (page 31 of the transcripts). He added that "ʺon the other hand, it makes absolutely no sense during a fatal attack...for the blade to be thrust only partially into the wound as if it were some kind of game. When an attacker strikes in order to kill,he strikes completely and with all the strength he has, and that means that the blade entered completely."ʺ The abrasions were present only around the lower edge of the wound, and this indicated that what caused the abrasions was the impact against the skin of the lower edge of the knife handle, and thus, as described by Dr. Lalli, the path of the wounds must necessarily incline upwards. If the blade had entered perpendicularly to the skin, we could have expected scrape marks on both edges of the wound. And furthermore, the penetration must have been by the complete blade of a length of at most 8-*‐‑9 cm: "ʺIf the blade had been longer, it would have gone through the neck and come out the back and there would have been an exit wound from the blade in front of the hyoid bone; the hyoid bone is not a suitable structure [133] to stop the path of a knife...the hyoid bone is so easily broken and so small, so important but still so fragile that it could not possibly stop the thrust of a knife blade or a knife point. So the knife actually sectioned the hyoid bone, which means that this wound, the main wound in the left part of the neck, was caused by a knife with a 9cm blade"ʺ (pages 31-*‐‑32, hearing on June 20, 2009).

It sounds like Guede intended to kill. Don't know why the alleged accomplices where needed or how they were used.

 

[Mary_H]

Let us assume Meredith put the pillow underneath her head. Then it is not unreasonable to see Raffaele's DNA from skin or hair transferring from the couch to the pillow to the clasp, although this would be tertiary transfer. Katy suggested tertiary transfer (and I suggested secondary transfer) from the towels that Rudy used, but some questioned whether the towels started off in the bathroom.

There are a number of possible routes by which DNA might be deposited. I think that the most important thing is to avoid the mistake of equating Raffaele's DNA that was observed by Dr. Stefanoni's profiling with all of his DNA that was present in the apartment. There is not the slightest reason to do so, IMO. Raffaele's DNA was probably on the door, in the hallway, in the bathroom, and in Amanda's room.

It is also possible Raffaele's DNA was not on the bra clasp at all, and the lab results were faked.

The video of the forensics team examining the bra clasp doesn't show them finding it, it only shows them handling it after "finding" it. Does anyone know if there are any photos or videos of the bra clasp as it lay on the floor in the pile of debris before the investigators picked it up? What was to stop the team from bringing the bra clasp with them from the lab and staging the whole "discovery" of it six weeks after the murder?

 

[Chris C]

It is also possible Raffaele's DNA was not on the bra clasp at all, and the lab results were faked.

The video of the forensics team examining the bra clasp doesn't show them finding it, it only shows them handling it after "finding" it. Does anyone know if there are any photos or videos of the bra clasp as it lay on the floor in the pile of debris before the investigators picked it up? What was to stop the team from bringing the bra clasp with them from the lab and staging the whole "discovery" of it six weeks after the murder?

Actually if you read the appeals, they claim the DNA isn't even Sollecito's and want LCN testing done to prove it.

 

[Fine]

Yup, a car that wasn't Sollecito's was parked at Knox's/Kerchers Apartment

Funny how they ignore this fact.

_____________________

One of my favorite topics, Chris, if only because ---at first blush--- the car would seem to be highly relevant. Wasn't this parked car sighted by the tow truck driver? The only description I've seen is that it was a "dark car." Why do you say the car was not Raffaele's car?....just because the cops found no trace of Meredith in Raffaele's car?

So........what do you make of this "fact" and why do you think it has been "ignored"? (And please don't tell me that Mignini drives a dark car.)

///