Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

After the remark quoted, I've only skimmed your rambling and boorish comments. If you can't discuss things in a civil manner, I won't waste my time.

I consider this comment as an indication that probably you were not purposedly lying and felt in good faith. Your post however was objectively a misquoting of what I said, even if you didn't fully realize it.

At any rate, the record now shows that even proof that both of them were not at the cottage when the murder occured would still not be enough for you to concede that Knox and the boyfriend likely are not guilty of it.

That is hardly the only, but merely another, example of your dogmatic and doctrinaire view of this case.

Yes, but I am also expressing a view (a personal reasoning but also what I believe to be a description of the legal context) valid in any case, not aimed to this in particular.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

PDiGirolamo,

I am 100% convinced that AK and RS are innocent, and don't think any of the evidence against them is very good. However, I can name two or perhaps pieces that are at least puzzling, the bra clasp and sample 177, the mixed DNA from Filomena's room. The third one might be the luminol footprints. Everyone knows my position on the bra clasp. I strongly suspect the explanations for the latter two items are innocent, meaning that they are unrelated to the crime. However, I do not know the exact mechanism for how they got there.

post script

Some have suggested that the presence of mixed DNA samples is poor glove or swabbing technique on the part of the forensic team. I think this is a plausible suggestion.

I think it very interesting that you, with such a scientific mind, choose all scientific evidence as the opposite side's strongest proof. Not sure what it means, but it is interesting.

For me, the window is a problem. Not so much evidence of a break-in inside the room but it is the outside. I just do not see someone climbing up there, especially not as a first choice of entry points.

It is also all the lying and not remembering. Not to negate what I wrote earlier, about the behavior; I view them as 2 separate issues. I think you can be goofy, attention starved, and egocentric without lying. And I don't buy the drug excuse unless it were to be some drug I never did, whose effects are unknown to me. Some of my best memories occured under some serious influence. And, yes, I still remember them - this many years later.

I find it hardest to accept the scientific evidence because it certainly appears to be shoddy and/or LCN, at least the majority of it. I do think the bloody bare footprint is troubling as to how it could possibly fit into the scenario without forcing the peg into the hole, so to speak.

 

[Magister]

I wonder if someone would mind helping out here.
Of the UNidentified evidence....
how many footprints/shoeprints?
how many DNA traces?
and where exactly were these found?
Many thanks.

 

[Machiavelli]

research though literature on presumptive blood tests

I post here a bibliography research I made for PMF, so that is available to all JREF readers.

A few conclusion can be said in advance about specificity.
TMB is not more specific. It is just less sensitive to roughly the same array of substances reacting to luminol, in principle reacts to the all susbstances reacting with luminol (depending on the kind of false positive substances and the kind of support, in a variable degree). Definitely TMB is not "more specific" for blood and never considered as such.
In no case – according to literature - TMB is considered a mean suitable for cross testing luminol positive results.
More specific tests do exist, but are all less sensitive. Phenophtalein ("KM test") is actually a chemichal presumptive test said to be more specific than Luminol/TMB by some literature – by contrast, some literature considers it as highly sensitive and unspecific.
There is a highly specific haematic test (an "enzymatic" test for haemoglobin) but lacks sensitiveness in comparison to all chemical presumptive tests so that it can’t get close to their scale of operability.
Moreover: luminol is a direct test, meanis it is made on the surface to be examined. TMB is in most cases indirect: a sample must be collected from a stain and put in contact with a filter and a solution. This additional step diminishes drastically its sensitiveness, and can be determinant in the actual dilution of the sample. If the stain was made visible by means of chemioluminescent reagent as luminol, which employs a layer of liquid solution, the original blood/substance concentration in fact can be reduced and the solvent can literally “dilute out blood” (some of the material report this expression).

Now, the actual available literature about luminol and presumptive tests says much more. Conclusions and implications are many and interesting.
I don't want to encourage here people to post self-made researches, that was defined "ab extracta" (from abstracts) by somebody. I tried to link here material readable for free. Many important studies on the topic seem to be related to two names, Creamer and Quickenden. Articles Webb and Gross seem available only in abstracts. Tobe, Watson, et al., Kent et al., seem to contradict some conclusions of Creamer.


1.
This is a comparative study on blood tests.
Luminol interference on Analysis


Luminol has “far the greatest sensitiveness” :
“Webb et al. [22] conducted a study where the luminol test was compared to four other forensic blood tests. These tests where phenolphthalein, LMG, Hemastix (Bayer) and a forensic light source. The luminol test used was found to have by far the greatest
sensitivity. Under laboratorial conditions CL was detected from luminol treated stains of the used hemoglobin solution (corresponding to blood) diluted up to 5•106 times. A comparably high sensitivity of the luminol test has been reported in other studies [22].
However the sensitivity is probably not as great under the conditions found at a crime scene and here, depending on several factors, perhaps one may “only” see blood diluted to about 1:10000 [14]”.

And it can produce false positives as well as false negatives:
Often these tests are based on the ability of hemoglobin to catalyse the oxidation of a chromogenic compound which produces a colour change [14]. Today the forensic use of about twenty such presumptive blood tests has been described [14]. They have all in common that they produce false positive and negative results to some degree, and therefore they are only presumptive [14].

Common substances that react to luminol are actually in a small number
In 2003 Creamer et al. [5] published a comprehensive study where the blood mimicking behaviour of 250 different substrates and compounds, common at crime scenes, had been measured on. In these test only 9 kinds of substrates or compounds were reported to give strong enough CL to be easy mistaken for blood.
These were preparations of turnip, parsnip, horseradish, bleaches (hypochlorite), copper metal, enamel paint, certain spray paints, furniture polish and interior fabrics in motor vehicles. In a separate study Quickenden et al.
[21] examined the interference with the luminol test for blood in motor vehicles. Also in motor vehicles only a few materials gave strong CL, without the presence of blood or hemoglobin solution.

[reading trhough articles you will see how the only kind of substances that can remain positive for days are metal salts, especially copper based composts; all other substances loose their capability to give positive result editor's note]

Substances are indeed recognizable by the color shade in luminol tests
(…) there are informative tables displaying intensities and wavelength shifts in
the CL [chemiluminescence, editor’s note] produced by the diverse materials.

This particular study relies on previous findings, cited, by which luminol doesn’t affect other presumptive tests (I note that other sources available on the internet apparently disagree with the latter finding).
Gross et al. [11] showedthat luminol treatment of bloodstains do not have a remarkable adverse effect on the use of neither the phenolphtalin (Kastle-Meyer) nor the tetramethylbenzidine tests. Other publications describes in a like manner that
the luminol test do not interfere with the subsequent use of other particular presumptive
blood tests [14].
The use of the luminol test has been found to have an strong adverse effect on subsequent forensic typing of serum protein markers [14].


2.
This is an abstract, probably of the cited article by Webb
“The luminol test was determined to be the most sensitive of the techniques, while Hemastix is a suitable alternative when the luminol test is not appropriate”: (only the abstract is readable)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16645959


3.
This study discusses effects of luminol on different materials, how this may influence the results in other tests and whether stains cleaned with soap or bleach are still visible though luminol.

http://projects.nfstc.org/workshops...ffect of Luminol on Presumptive Tests and.pdf


Among the conclusions, two points are clear: blood stains can still be visible even after a cleanup, and TMB can give false negatives (in accord with article cited in 1. ).

“ Prior to luminol testing, both PT and TMB performed well in detecting the blood on all surfaces which had not been washed.
Both tests gave positive results 7/7 times. Similar results were obtained on the surfaces which had been washed with either water or soap and water. (…) “

“ For those same surfaces tested with TMB, 3/7 gave strong positive results; one weak positive (tile) and three negative results (carpet, sheetrock-V, and sheetrock-H). The results for the PT test after the luminol treatment, both while the surface was still wet from the luminol treatment and after being allowed to dry, were similar to the results obtained before the luminol treatment. The only surface which gave different results after luminol treatment was the tile which was washed with bleach. Prior to luminol testing, the PT test on tile gave a weak positive result, while after luminol treatment the PT results were negative. Four of the surfaces which gave positive results with the TMB test before luminol treatment gave negative results after treatment (both wet and dry), and one of the surfaces which gave positive results before luminol treatment and after
luminol treatment (wet) gave negative results once the surface had dried.”

In this article there is also a table with lists of materials showing some false negatives ( - ) yielded by TMB on stains of blood at full concentration subsequently cleaned, under different conditions :

…
Tile PT TMB
Cleaned w/ soap and H2O PT: + + + TMB: + + +
Cleaned w/ 10% bleach PT: + - - TMB: w - -

….
Sheetrock
Cleaned w/ soap and H2O PT: + + + TMB: + - -
Cleaned w/ 10% bleach PT: - - - TMB: - - -

...


4.
This article is about interpretation of luminescence and the potential of specificity of luminol test by observing the light spectrum. It is straightforward to distinguish blood from bleach if you have a spectrometer (about naked eye I don't know what literature says). This is a study apparently on just two substances. Blood and bleach give different colour spectrums (it is in accord with study 1. ):
http://www.forensictv.net/Downloads...specificty_of_the_forensic_test_for_blood.pdf

"The spectra in Fig. 2 show that the spectral maxima for sodium hypochlorite and for haemoglobin are clearly different and would readily be distinguishable using relatively straightforward spectroscopic equipment. (…)
The spectral peak for the concentrated (150 g/L) haemoglobin is at 455 + - 2 nm which is red-shifted by ca. 25 nm from the sodium hypochlorite peak at 430 + - 3 nm."


5.

An abstract of the cited study (Gross): an article on degradation of DNA after TMB/luminol tests: “Effect of presumptive tests reagents on human blood confirmatory tests and DNA analysis using real time polymerase chain reaction” – only the abstract is readable:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20643520



6.

Evaluation of six presumptive tests for blood (pdf) Another comparative study. This study talks about “false positives” and other substances reacting with blood tests, a comparison (specificity, sensitiveness) of the common different presumptive tests.
http://projects.nfstc.org/workshops...ation of Six Presumptive Tests for Blood,.pdf

this study – in accord with the others - determines that luminol is the most sensitive:

" The luminol reagent reacted instantly, with both the 1:10,000 and 1:100,000 dilution factors producing a blue luminescence.
The luminescence lasted for close to a minute. [p. 104]"

"The Hemastixs reagent strips reacted with the 1:100,000 dilution by first causing a color reaction with the filter paper. At 1 min, one of the samples showed a color change on the filter paper of a green color. The rest of the samples showed this same reaction at between 1 min and 45 sec and 2 min. At 3 min and 45 sec, 17 of the reagent strips were a very light shade of green, (..) The remaining four strips registered a negative result at 4 min."
[editor’s note: positive reaction is a blue color; a 1/ 100.000 dilution equates to 45/50 erytrocytes per mm3 of liquid ; negative controls with TMB also give a green reaction after several minutes, so late or faint green is considered negative]

Another finding was that bleach doesn’t react with luminol after 18h

“ Contrary to the literature findings, this study found that luminol only reacted with blood and the metal salts. Bleach gave no reaction, but this could be because the bleach solution was only 5% concentration, and that it was not tested right away but first allowed to dry for at least 18 h “ (..)

bleach diminishes with time also its interference, aka inhibition of blood own luminescence:
“ Kent et al. (20) noted that when bleach-treated blood is left for several days, the interference by bleach is diminished. “ (..)

Also, several of the substances – like potato – do not react with luminol any more when dry, contrarily to blood:
“This could once again be due to the substances’ drying time before testing” (..) .

Interesting: according to this study, luminol is actually MORE specific than TMB (Hemastix)
“ (..) Based on this, the best overall presumptive blood test in this study was luminol. It had the greatest sensitivity and specificity. It did not destroy the DNA, and it could be reapplied. Its only drawback is that it must be used in near or complete darkness. Leuchomalachite green was found to be as specific to blood as luminol, but its sensitivity was 10 times less, and it destroyed the DNA. Phenolphthalein had equal sensitivity to most of the other tests, but was extremely unspecific, and the amount of recoverable DNA is reduced when this test is used. HemastixTM [TMB] were easy to transport and use, were sensitive, but not very specific although specificity could be increased if the strips were looked at rather than the reaction on the stain.”

[I note that some other studies instead seem to consider phenolphtalin (“Kastle-Meyer test”) as more specific than TMB, editor’s note]


7.

This .ppt (from centralia.edu/academics ) is a classroom text
CENTRALIA


8.

This is another classroom .ppt text: note that these lessons maintain that luminol affects subsequent tests, this one specifies the warning that luminol can "dilute out blood” and therfore affect other subsequent tests

here:
MARSHALL

or here:
http://www.science.marshall.edu/murraye/2008 Forensics Lectures/Crime Scene Forensic DNA.ppt


9.
The abstract of another article highlights the superior sensitiveness of luminol test :
“A sensitive method for determination of serum hemoglobin based on iso-luminol chemiluminescence”

T. Olsson , a, K. Bergströma and A. Thorea
aDepartment of Clinical Chemistry, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge University Hospital, S-141 86 HuddingeSweden
Received 16 November 1981. Available online 20 January 2003. The article is old and searchable on http://www.sciencedirect.com/

“ Abstract:
A simple and rapid method for determination of serum hemoglobin is described. Hemoglobin may be determined in serum within the range of 0.02–400 mg/1 by the sensitive chemiluminescent iso-luminol reaction. The iso-luminol assay was considerably more sensitive than the conventional colorimetric procedure based on tetramethylbenzidine. Precision and accuracy were higher with the iso-luminol assay especially at low levels of hemoglobin. The correlation between the luminescent and colorimetric method was linear but the colorimetric determinations resulted in higher concentrations of hemoglobin. This discrepancy was probably caused by non-heme serum iron which interfered more strongly with the colorimetric method. “


10.

More articles emphasize the greater sensitiveness of luminol. In this research luminol was found to be about 5 times more sensitive than TMB (Hemastix). But the sensitiveness of TMB decreases considerably if it is used with the “indirect” method, though paper/cotton sample:


http://lem.ch.unito.it/didattica/infochimica/2006_Luminolo/determinazionesangue.html

“ Based on the results presented here, the luminol test is clearly the most sensitive blood detection technique commonly used by forensic investigators. The Hemastix® test was the next most sensitive, followed by the KM and LMG techniques. The Polilight® was by far the least sensitive technique, being 50 000 times less sensitive than the luminol test and 10 times less sensitive that the next least sensitive technique investigated here (LMG). Another interesting finding was that the sensitivity of the KM, LMG and Hemastix® tests decreased considerably when applied to filter paper or cotton swabs of bloodstains. While the amount of blood transferred from a stain to a swab may vary considerably, depending on the investigator, this result clearly shows that it is favourable to test a bloodstain directly. The sensitivity of the luminol test was found to be 1:5 000 000 for both the bloodstained cloth and haemoglobin solutions. This was consistent with previously reported literature values [14, 22]. No literature results were found regarding the sensitivity of either the Hemastix® or Polilight® tests for blood; however, previous literature on the active reagent of the Hemastix® test, TMB, determined its sensitivity to be 1:1 000 000 for diluted haemoglobin solutions “

 

[odeed]

Dan Krane noted that each of those hundred cells has about 6.5 picograms of DNA. Do you have any citations to back up your claims about Dr. Krane?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7154189.stm Omagh bombings

http://www.bioforensics.com/downloads/index.html - Dan Krane. Some of the problems associated with LCN (Low Copy Number) testing. The Forensic Institute 2007 Forensic e-Symposium on Human Identification: Profiling of degraded and low amounts of DNA. March 27, 2007

I apologise and withdraw the statement that Krane had defended murders and serial rapist.

I was thinking of a joint Court of Appeal case last year, involving the Reed brothers (murder) and Garmison (serial rapist), both cases involved LCN DNA.

http://www.insidetime.org/articleview.asp?a=665

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/464347a.html

Got mixed up because both articles mentioned Dan Krane, the actual defense experts were Bruce Budowle and Allan Jamieson (who also gave evidence in the Omagh trial), also the victim of the Reed brothers surname was Hoe while the defendant in the Omagh trial was Hoey.

ETA: The appeal for both sets of defendants was rejected by the way, though there were similarities with the Knox case in that LCN DNA (one of the Reed brothers) was found on a knife fragment in the victims home, and the FSS gave the wrong test to the DNA samples in the Garmison case, in that it turned out there was plenty of DNA recovered and an LCN test wasn't actually required, IIRC.

 

[Machiavelli]

PDiGirolamo,

I am 100% convinced that AK and RS are innocent, and don't think any of the evidence against them is very good. However, I can name two or perhaps pieces that are at least puzzling (..)

Just curious. Since you maintain you have a scientific approach, what is the scientific proof you see as conclusive to affirm you are convinced with 100% certainity that they are innocent?

 

[act1roson]

Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly enough. I think it's highly unlikely that Rudy broke in through Filomena's window because there is no evidence of him ever being in that room. I've heard time and time again that Amanda couldn't have murdered Meredith because there is no evidence of her being in the bedroom. Fair enough. So how is it logical that Rudy might not leave evidence of being in Filomena's rooom but it's impossible for Amanda to not leave evidnece of being in Meredith's room?

No one wasn't slashed to death in Filomena's room leaving copious amounts of blood on the floor, which was walked through leaving footprints and making it easy to leave lots and lots of Guede evidence.

Guede most likely had protective clothing and gloves when he scaled the wall and broke in.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a)
IIRC, Rutty noted third party DNA in his results, he followed it with a paper in 2008 examining the effects of saliva in obtaining profiles.

SNIP

But that would not explain the mixed sample in Filomena's room, and also the lack of any DNA from Filomena and Laura, unless the list above includes DNA from unknown females, and reference samples may not have been needed if all the DNA profiles could be attributed to the victim and the three convicted.

Just now I looked at these papers again. The 2008 paper, on which Rutty is a coauthor, does discuss saliva as one possible explanation for innocent DNA transfer to the neck. However, these results are only discussed for less than a paragraph and do not constitute the main thrust of the paper.

No reference profiles from Laura and Filomena were taken, and that is a big omission, IMHO. If we had this information, it might be possible to account for some of the unknown alleles (there were unknown alleles in the bra clasp profile, for example). However, let us consider a hypothetical. Suppose that the forensic team had swabbed the second bathroom. If they had found either Laura’s or Filomena’s profile, it would bolster the argument that the mixed profiles in Amanda’s and Meredith’s sink are meaningless. To put it another way, it would mean that blood dripped in either sink would have a chance of landing on whomever’s DNA was already there.

I have said it before, but I must say it again. The forensic team was not doing a random sampling of all DNA deposited at the flat. Trying to draw conclusions about DNA that stands a good chance of having been deposited innocently is dicey. Why don’t you suggest an explanation for it that ties it to the crime? That way we can all see whether or not it makes sense.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I find it hardest to accept the scientific evidence because it certainly appears to be shoddy and/or LCN, at least the majority of it. I do think the bloody bare footprint is troubling as to how it could possibly fit into the scenario without forcing the peg into the hole, so to speak.

I still do not properly grasp why the guilters see that footprint as such a smoking gun.

We have Rudy's word in his initial statement that he went into the bathroom after Meredith was stabbed and that he was the one who took the towels from the bathroom to the murder room, and the guilter response as far as I can recall is merely "Oh, but Rudy is unreliable". That is very far from being solid grounds to reject his claim - you can question it on those grounds, to be sure, but not reject it.

The footprint was attributed to Raffaele by the prosecution footprint "expert" but we have established comprehensively that he was a dishonest or incompetent stooge, and he based his argument to the court on poor-quality photographs with highly dubious MS Paint-level arrows on them that simply do not match up to the contours of the print.

Better-lit photographs of the print show that the print is as compatible with Rudy as it is with Raffaele or more so.

As such there is nothing to explain. The print is perfectly compatible with a Lone Wolf narrative and perfectly compatible with the Massei narrative. It cannot constitute evidence for either theory against the other, except to the extent that the print does look more like one from Rudy than one from Raffaele.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

beyond me

Just curious. Since you maintain you have a scientific approach, what is the scientific proof you see as conclusive to affirm you are convinced with 100% certainity that they are innocent?

I need some sleep, so this will have to be short. Meredith's stomach contents and her cell phone records, both argue for a TOD between 9 and 10, probably close to 9. Amanda was seen at Raffaele's at about 8:45 and Raffaele' computer showed activity at 9:10, IIRC, although I know that Fulcanelli disputed this. When did Amanda and Raffaele have the time to get messed up, restrain Meredith and kill her? It is beyond me.

 

[Kaosium]

I come to this issue late. Although I vaguely recall hearing about it when the murder first occurred, ever since about the first month of the OJ trial any news of court or crime cases appearing on my television was just cause to change the channel. By and large I tend to believe if a person is convicted of a crime they probably did it, and if there's compelling evidence of innocence that was missed or negligence of authorities they'll get out eventually once the justice machine's gears grind to a halt. At any rate I'm not going to worry about it. I also tend to assume there's nothing inherently superior about the American system, and certainly allow that any modern industrialized country, and many that are not, are perfectly capable of coming to just decisions the vast majority of the time. After all, barring political motivations of tyrannical governments, wherein lies the benefit in convicting innocent people? It's a pain in the ass and costs a lot to incarcerate a person for years for any government.

However, having studiously ignored this and most all other cases for years since I was OJ'd out, I was introduced to this case last summer when while on the road heading to my vacation destination when the crappy motel I was forced to stay in had no remote and news of Amanda Knox appeared on the screen and I had to endure a report of a new development in her situation: she was being charged with slander for saying in court she'd been whupped upside the head a couple times by Italian police during her interrogation. As the brief update noted that even if she was set free on appeal she'd have to serve the slander sentence, and tapes of her interrogation had been erased or destroyed. That struck me as utterly bizarre, and I had to have the whole story being as I can't naturally assume a brief item on an American news program is the final word on an overseas issue.

Given that introduction, I decided to look into this issue and spent a few days reading about the debate online at this and other fora dedicated to discussing it. There were compelling arguments made for both sides of the issue, and while studying it I would go back and forth in my mind as to her innocence or guilt. However there was something that stood out especially, and seemed to me the crux of the case: the absolute lack of physical evidence at the murder site.

At the time this was addressed by those who thought her guilty by claiming that a report due to be translated later in the year would include additional compelling evidence of her guilt, and naturally I assumed that would include a rational explanation of how Amanda Knox and Raffeaele Sollecito managed to kill a woman during a violent struggle without police being able to collect any physical evidence either at the scene or in their things. That is, something beyond a bra clasp that had been kicked around for weeks and a knife plucked at random from a drawer a few blocks away which turned out not to be the murder weapon. Those two might be evidence of something, but a smoking gun tying those two to the murder they are not.

Thus I decided to look back into it later once this report had become available in English, and a few days back I figured enough time had elapsed and started reading again. However, no matter how long and hard I searched, nowhere could I find a rational argument from those who'd once claimed that there was a reasonable theory in this report of how there can be abundant physical evidence of Rudy Guede in Meredith's room, but nothing tying his alleged conspirators to the scene. In fact, despite spending at least 24 hours the last three days on a plethora of various websites, I can't even recall it being addressed very often. Crickets chirp when it is brought up, misdirections abound, but what is the possible explanation of how this occurred?

There must be *something* someone has come up with, so what is it? I ask here as this thread seems to me the best discussion of the case, so many other places the debate seems to have degenerated into drive-bye trolling on the part of a segment of the faction convinced of her guilt.

Also, the facet of the case that first sparked my interest is supposed to start soon, the trial of Amanda for slander for remarks about being whupped upside the head a couple times during her interrogation. As I understand it, there's no tapes of these interviews, thus little hope she can prevail against the Blue Code of Silence that exists in every country, and even if the appeal is in her favor, she will have to serve a six year sentence for slander. I can't help but wonder that now with the Motivations report readily available and, to put it kindly, more suggestive of her innocence than guilt from what I've seen, is it possible that this prosecutor knowing he has little hope of prevailing at the appeal wants to secure the Slander conviction to save face and she will be released with time served in the near future? I would think that eventually Italy will tire of the embarrassment of having the bilges of their justice system on display before the world and there might be pressure from somewhere to just retire this issue with a face-saving gesture.

 

[Kaosium]

That is an interesting theory on the e-mail. I had done an analysis of it when I was on the guilty side and could not get past the importance she put on that pesky mop. Still don't quite get that one even today.

I too was taken aback when I read that E-mail. It did not speak well of her at all, and I couldn't help but wonder how an 'honor student' could have produced such a piece. It looked to me like she'd typed it from a cell phone whilst getting progressively trashed.

However if I am correct she produced that right after she'd been interrogated at length, and if that is so it suggests to me she was trying to get her story straight. Not in an incriminating way, but having endured endless hours of being lied to, accused and threatened about a night where she admittedly was stoned on hash I don't think at that specific moment she was really sure of anything that had happened the night of the murder, and that e-mail was an opportunity to try to piece together what she remembered and to include events the police had told her they had 'evidence' of her doing that she didn't remember. I suspect that's where the mop came in. They probably told her some nonsense about having evidence of her cleaning up the murder scene, and she tried to think about something she might have been doing with a mop that wasn't incriminating.

It's intimidating when people in authority insist you are guilty of something you didn't do and have 'evidence' to prove it. It is a common interrogation technique and yields results in the truly guilty, but any sort of pressure that might convince a criminal to confess might also produce attempts by the innocent to 'explain' the 'incriminating evidence' the subject is being told. I suspect that's what happened with Raffaele and his 'pricking' Meredith with the knife.

At any rate, hello Rose.

Having read the majority of this thread and the debate elsewhere it's almost like I think I know you. I couldn't help but note you seemed like one of the nicer people in this contentious debate, and I like your avatar. I loved that movie!

 

[Kaosium]

For me, the window is a problem. Not so much evidence of a break-in inside the room but it is the outside. I just do not see someone climbing up there, especially not as a first choice of entry points.

The challenge, perhaps? As an extreme example, why would anyone choose to climb Mount Everest? It's dangerous and cold and there's nothing up there but ice and rock. If Rudy knew he could do it, and for crissakes from what I've seen from the picture I myself could and its been twenty years since I made it through boot camp, he might choose that route for a plethora of different reasons, some of them entirely irrational.

It is also all the lying and not remembering. Not to negate what I wrote earlier, about the behavior; I view them as 2 separate issues. I think you can be goofy, attention starved, and egocentric without lying. And I don't buy the drug excuse unless it were to be some drug I never did, whose effects are unknown to me. Some of my best memories occured under some serious influence. And, yes, I still remember them - this many years later.

I know exactly what you mean, but with this caveat: I too have very vivid memories of things experienced under the influence of marijuana, but also of not being able to remember clearly huge portions of things I know for a fact I'd have remembered far better if entirely sober. For example, years back a bunch of us got together to smoke some kind bud and watch vampire movies, being as they were a younger crowd. We saw "Blade 2" and "Van Helsing," two pretty bad movies but the sort I can still find enjoyable when stoned.

I especially enjoyed "Blade 2," in fact to this day I have a mental image of certain scenes, but after the movie I didn't remember much of the totality of it, and we all watched it again! In fact, by the end of the movie the second time around I'd forgotten the hot vampire chick dies in the end and was saddened and astonished! "Van Helsing" I remember virtually nothing of to this day, outside that it had Hugh Jackman and some hot babes, but I recall enjoying the experience, even though I looked it up later and found it is considered by some amongst the worst movies of all time.

I find it hardest to accept the scientific evidence because it certainly appears to be shoddy and/or LCN, at least the majority of it.

I have a problem with any 'scientific' evidence that must remain hidden. As I understand it, the LCN data on the knife cannot be replicated and the computer data has been kept secret. To me that invalidates it entirely, however it doesn't preclude the rest of the data, even if it was worked on by the same person. As an example, if an engineer tells me he has a perpetual motion device but that he refuses to share the secrets of his invention, I won't credit the existence of the device, and will assume he is lying. However that doesn't mean I wouldn't believe him capable of being competent at his job designing more mundane things.

 

[Draca]

Slander charge to save face

is it possible that this prosecutor knowing he has little hope of prevailing at the appeal wants to secure the Slander conviction to save face and she will be released with time served in the near future? I would think that eventually Italy will tire of the embarrassment of having the bilges of their justice system on display before the world and there might be pressure from somewhere to just retire this issue with a face-saving gesture.

Hi Kaosium,

The idea of Amanda being charged with slander and released with time served is a beautiful idea. And Raffaele? Just released? I don't think this court is done with their display of contempt for justice. The slander court refused a new judge request and allowed Matteini. The appeal has allowed Mignini and Comodi back as advisors. I don't think this shows a good faith appeal is anywhere near their intentions. My guess is the judge will deny independent forensic testing, rubber stamp the conviction and it will go to the Supreme Court where they will have a better chance. I hope to be wrong....

 

[Draca]

Meredith's bedroom

However there was something that stood out especially, and seemed to me the crux of the case: the absolute lack of physical evidence at the murder site.

At the time this was addressed by those who thought her guilty by claiming that a report due to be translated later in the year would include additional compelling evidence of her guilt, and naturally I assumed that would include a rational explanation of how Amanda Knox and Raffeaele Sollecito managed to kill a woman during a violent struggle without police being able to collect any physical evidence either at the scene or in their things. That is, something beyond a bra clasp that had been kicked around for weeks and a knife plucked at random from a drawer a few blocks away which turned out not to be the murder weapon. Those two might be evidence of something, but a smoking gun tying those two to the murder they are not.

Thus I decided to look back into it later once this report had become available in English, and a few days back I figured enough time had elapsed and started reading again. However, no matter how long and hard I searched, nowhere could I find a rational argument from those who'd once claimed that there was a reasonable theory in this report of how there can be abundant physical evidence of Rudy Guede in Meredith's room, but nothing tying his alleged conspirators to the scene. In fact, despite spending at least 24 hours the last three days on a plethora of various websites, I can't even recall it being addressed very often. Crickets chirp when it is brought up, misdirections abound, but what is the possible explanation of how this occurred?

There must be *something* someone has come up with, so what is it? I ask here as this thread seems to me the best discussion of the case, so many other places the debate seems to have degenerated into drive-bye trolling on the part of a segment of the faction convinced of her guilt.

A few of us have been posting photos of Meredith Kercher's bedroom lately trying to analyze the crime scene. I've been finding it extremely fascinating how much you can learn just by really trying to read the scene. Did you see that discussion at all? I agree there has been way more discussion analyzing Filomena's window than Meredith Kercher's bedroom. That is one of the reason's I've been trying to bring the discussion back to the bedroom where the murder occurred. There have been a few interesting thoughts coming out I think.

 

[colonelhall]

Regarding the absence of any trace Ms. Knox at the scene of the crime. I note that someone once said that there was not one iota of evidence that puts her in the murder room. In fact, I believe that possibly more than one person has stated this.

I thought that she had already explained to the police that she was in the house at the time of the murder, but in a different room. If this statement is true, then that would explain things. It would still make her an accessory though.

I note the explanations regarding the total lack of one iota of evidence that places Rudy at the scene of the "break-in", namely that the police didn't test the room thoroughly enough or that Rudy wore protective clothing. Was such clothing ever found?

I remain unconvinced by such arguments. At the same time, I am in awe of Kaosium's climbing ability, although unconvinced that Rudy is in the same league.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes
They were on a desperate quest for anything they could use to support their claim.

Why?

Because they had staked their reputations on a public statement that got picked up by the media across Europe and North America. If they had to admit they were completely wrong, that Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick had nothing to do with it and it was all this other guy, Rudy Guede, they'd look like fools. Reporters would ask, "why did you make this dramatic announcement before you even looked at the fingerprint and DNA evidence?"

Once they realized they had screwed up, they went into damage control mode. They had to release Patrick, because he had a multiple witness alibi. So they substituted Rudy for Patrick in the "sex game," and everything else stayed the same. That way they could say they were right all along, and blame Amanda for tricking them into making a false arrest.

Next, they got busy with evidence. They couldn't find any. So they made up stories... "We found bleach receipts!" "We found the book Amanda said she was reading at Raffaele's place, but it was at the cottage!"

Things looked bad when Raffaele's family did the spadework to prove the bloody shoe prints didn't match his sneakers, and announced it on TV. But, lo and behold, the very next day... they found the bra fastener. How about that? Just when it looked like they weren't going to have any proof of Raffaele's involvement, they found exactly what they needed, in a pile of junk that had gotten swept into a corner.

I followed this case for quite awhile before I formed a strong opinion. But at a certain point, it became very, very obvious, to me at least. That is because I have read about many other cases like this. It's a particular interest of mine.

They didn't bother to investigate whose blood was on the tissues in the driveway outside the cottage. They didn't try to figure out whose DNA was on the cigarette butts in the ashtray. All they cared about was finding evidence against Amanda and Raffaele.

Why?

See above.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Regarding the absence of any trace Ms. Knox at the scene of the crime. I note that someone once said that there was not one iota of evidence that puts her in the murder room. In fact, I believe that possibly more than one person has stated this.

I thought that she had already explained to the police that she was in the house at the time of the murder, but in a different room. If this statement is true, then that would explain things. It would still make her an accessory though.

I refer you to our previous discussion of the phenomenon of internalised false confessions. Amanda's statement was an internalised false confession, unless she was some kind of criminal genius who knew enough to fake one but didn't know that such confessions all too often lead to innocent people being convicted.

The key word there is false.

I note the explanations regarding the total lack of one iota of evidence that places Rudy at the scene of the "break-in", namely that the police didn't test the room thoroughly enough or that Rudy wore protective clothing. Was such clothing ever found?

None of the clothes Rudy was wearing when he murdered Meredith were ever found, and nor was the knife he murdered her with or the money he stole. He presumably disposed of them in the time between the murder and his eventual capture.

By contrast, none of the clothes Amanda and Raffaele had ever been known to have owned were ever established by the police to have vanished on the night of the murder. As far as anyone can tell, they did not dispose of a single item of clothing, be it shoes or anything else, after Meredith's murder.

It's almost as if neither they nor any of their clothes were there when it happened. A common trope of conspiracy theories is a villain who is hypercompetent some of the time and a total idiot some of the time - the Massei CT assumes that Amanda and Raffaele were hypercompetent at disposing of their clothing and ensuring that no trace that they had ever worn that clothing existed, hypercompetent and knowing where Meredith's corpse and clothing would be swabbed for DNA and grabbing her by other parts, hypercompetent at cleaning up every trace of themselves in the murder room right down to invisible traces that could yield DNA, and yet total idiots in many other respects.

I remain unconvinced by such arguments. At the same time, I am in awe of Kaosium's climbing ability, although unconvinced that Rudy is in the same league.

Do we need to link youtube vidoes of fit young people climbing again? The idea that it's incredibly difficult for a fit young man to pull themselves up and on to an armpit-high surface is a very feeble argument from incredulity indeed. Especially given the fact that Rudy has been linked to multiple similar crimes, indicating that he's likely to be a better-than-average climber.

 

[Kaosium]

Hi Kaosium,

The idea of Amanda being charged with slander and released with time served is a beautiful idea. And Raffaele? Just released? I don't think this court is done with their display of contempt for justice. The slander court refused a new judge request and allowed Matteini. The appeal has allowed Mignini and Comodi back as advisors. I don't think this shows a good faith appeal is anywhere near their intentions. My guess is the judge will deny independent forensic testing, rubber stamp the conviction and it will go to the Supreme Court where they will have a better chance. I hope to be wrong....

I have read a number of times suppositions Raffaele might be released soon for another reasons, though with all the disinformation being disseminated about this case I am unsure how much faith to put in that. I was also shocked to read that Mingini and Comodi would be associated with the appeal, though perhaps that's just SOP in Italy? It would make some sense for an appeal to include previous prosecutors and police, though in this case it comes across as rather absurd.

As for hope...it would be nice to think Matteini might want some sort of redemption. I know I wouldn't want my reputation tied to the future of a guy like Mingini, whose epitaph might start "Whom Gods Destroy..."

 

[colonelhall]

Kevin Lowe: " refer you to our previous discussion of the phenomenon of internalised false confessions. Amanda's statement was an internalised false confession,"

You may have discussed this, but I don't believe that the defence established this as afact.

Kevin Lowe: "None of the clothes Rudy was wearing when he murdered Meredith were ever found"

So there is no evidence that he wore protective clothing. I very much doubt that a "drifter" as he has been described, would possess protective clothing. Was he wearing such garb at the other incidents that are often quoted?


Kevin Lowe: "Do we need to link youtube vidoes of fit young people climbing again?"
Videos of fit young people are not evidence proving that this method of entry was used. In any case I thought that it was accepted that there was no break-in.