Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fine]

Mark Waterbury is talking specifically about testing things from the 'pile of debris' in which the bra clasp was found when it was finally collected. The sock wasn't found in that pile of debris, was it? If it was, did they test anything else from that pile? They should have tested objects (plural) found with the sock not for investigative reasons, but as a control test. Unfortunately, like negative controls on the knife, they didn't do it (AKAIK, anyway). You might as well say they don't need to carry out control tests at all as long as they test more than one object from the scene.

Also, doesn't Massei say the reason Meredith's DNA wasn't found on the sock was because they only tested a couple of places on it, while her DNA was probably on other parts of it?

____________________

Let me correct myself. Merdith's DNA was found on her sock where spots of her blood were found. Her DNA was not found on the elastic band, where one might expect to find DNA due to skin contact.

And I find only among the Innocentisti a reference to the clasp being found in a "pile of debris."

And why wouldn't any tested article exposed to the dust on Merdith's bedroom floor constitute a "control"?

///

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I've seen it said many times that they did not test any of the other housemates or their friends. Was this actually confirmed in court testimony? Is it 100% accurate to say that they didn't collect DNA samples from anyone other than Amanda, Raffaele, Rudy and perhaps Patrick? or is it just what you think happened?

I also saw it written many times they didn't even collect fingerprints or shoeprints from anyone, even the Postal Police, but it says in Darkness Descending that they did. What to believe?

If you are provably correct then I do think it's grounds to say they were only interested in evidence that implicated the three convicted.

I can only say that the documentation I have does not include reference samples from anyone except Meredith, Amanda, Raffaele, Patrick, and Rudy.

With regard to fingerprints, they did get reference prints from the other housemates and from Meredith's boyfriend, and they are all marked on a fingerprint map, available at the following URL:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/cottage_fingerprint_map.gif

 

[colonelhall]

Being brought up just after the war, nearly every block in my neighbourhood had houses that were destroyed by bombing. These areas, we called "bomb debris" therefore the term "debris" conjures up very vivid impressions.
Just to help me visualise the scene in the bedroom, could somebody list the items that constituted the debris, of which the clasp was part?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Originally Posted by RoseMontague
The question I asked the other day is that if it is normal to find luminol reactions at non crime scenes. Did you see that question addressed in your research?

Very interesting question. I'd like to know more about this too.

At Sollecito's apartment, they got luminol reactions on the bathroom floor, the bedroom floor, the kitchen floor, and three door handles. They took 14 samples from these areas for DNA testing:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/selected_dna_results.pdf

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Being brought up just after the war, nearly every block in my neighbourhood had houses that were destroyed by bombing. These areas, we called "bomb debris" therefore the term "debris" conjures up very vivid impressions.
Just to help me visualise the scene in the bedroom, could somebody list the items that constituted the debris, of which the clasp was part?

There's a picture on this page:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/bra_fastener.html

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

____________________

Let me correct myself. Merdith's DNA was found on her sock where spots of her blood were found. Her DNA was not found on the elastic band, where one might expect to find DNA due to skin contact.

And I find only among the Innocentisti a reference to the clasp being found in a "pile of debris."

And why wouldn't any tested article exposed to the dust on Merdith's bedroom floor constitute a "control"?

///

Think about the evidence against Guede that was found inside that room:

- fingerprints made with Meredith's blood
- DNA inside Meredith's vagina
- DNA on two articles of Meredith's clothing
- DNA on Meredith's purse
- Bloody shoe prints

You can take away any one, two, or three of those results and still have a pattern of evidence showing that Guede was inside that room when the murder took place.

In contrast, the bra fastener is the only piece of physical evidence found inside that room that can be linked to either Amanda or Raffaele.

Any good criminal investigator knows that DNA can show up in unexpected places. I have previously cited one example, that of the Donnah Winger case:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/winger_case_fluke_dna.gif

This DNA sample on the bra is an anomaly. It doesn't prove anything. And the fact that it was retrieved weeks after the crime, found in a pile of junk that the police created by ransacking the room like a tribe of baboons, further weakens its forensic credibility.

 

[colonelhall]

Thank you for the link to the pictures, Charlie. I can certainly see a pile of rubbish, but I have further questions. Was the clasp part of this pile, as it is shown in a separate picture?
I noticed that it was apparently swept or kicked into another area of the room. Was this done by the cleaning lady, or by the police? If so, did they have a broom?
If the DNA of Raffael got from the rubbish onto the clasp, what was it doing in the room in the first place?
I know that I have little knowledge of police techniques, but I seem to recall cases where DNA found years later has contributed to convictions. Is this so?

I have to say, I still think that the presence of his DNA in the room and, more importantly on her bra clasp, is decidedly suspicious.

 

[RoseMontague]

At Sollecito's apartment, they got luminol reactions on the bathroom floor, the bedroom floor, the kitchen floor, and three door handles. They took 14 samples from these areas for DNA testing:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/selected_dna_results.pdf

Interesting. Turnip juice must be really popular in Italy. I don't recall a claim that these luminol reactions were assumed to be blood.

This is from the Massei report PMF translation page 191:

[Two] additional pieces of evidence were acquired during the second search of the house: an imitation leather handbag, listed as number 166, which had been seen on the mattress in the victim's room during the first search, and was found in the closet of the same room on December 18,

How in the world did that handbag get moved from the mattress to a closet much less the bra clasp moving a few feet to a pile of debris? Dan O. had a good side by side pic of the area of the pile of debris showing how clean it was (no pile) in the first search compared to the second. Maybe he will post this for us. This just gives me more doubt about this evidence.

 

[Fine]

Waterbury's Pixie Dust

Think about the evidence against Guede that was found inside that room:

- fingerprints made with Meredith's blood
- DNA inside Meredith's vagina
- DNA on two articles of Meredith's clothing
- DNA on Meredith's purse
- Bloody shoe prints

You can take away any one, two, or three of those results and still have a pattern of evidence showing that Guede was inside that room when the murder took place.

In contrast, the bra fastener is the only piece of physical evidence found inside that room that can be linked to either Amanda or Raffaele.
Any good criminal investigator knows that DNA can show up in unexpected places. I have previously cited one example, that of the Donnah Winger case:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/winger_case_fluke_dna.gif

This DNA sample on the bra is an anomaly. It doesn't prove anything. And the fact that it was retrieved weeks after the crime, found in a pile of junk that the police created by ransacking the room like a tribe of baboons, further weakens its forensic credibility.

______________________

Therefore, Waterbury's dust theory is incorrect. Otherwise, we should find multiple examples of Amanda's DNA on tested articles recovered from the floor of Meredith's bedroom. Amanda had a bedroom next to Meredith's room and had lived there with Meredith for, what?, seven weeks, while Raffaele had only visited the cottage a few times, never venturing into Meredith's room. Where did Amanda's DNA dust go?

///

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Thank you for the link to the pictures, Charlie. I can certainly see a pile of rubbish, but I have further questions. Was the clasp part of this pile, as it is shown in a separate picture?
I noticed that it was apparently swept or kicked into another area of the room. Was this done by the cleaning lady, or by the police? If so, did they have a broom?
If the DNA of Raffael got from the rubbish onto the clasp, what was it doing in the room in the first place?
I know that I have little knowledge of police techniques, but I seem to recall cases where DNA found years later has contributed to convictions. Is this so?

I have to say, I still think that the presence of his DNA in the room and, more importantly on her bra clasp, is decidedly suspicious.

Certainly it's the best evidence they've got, the one and only piece of physical evidence that does not immediately lend itself to an explanation that is both non-incriminating and far more likely.

As for DNA being used to solve cases after years, indeed there are countless examples. But in this case, the issue is not how much time elapsed, but what happened during that period. In the crime scene photos taken on November 2 and 3, the cottage was not immaculately clean, but outside of the immediate area where Meredith struggled for her life, it was reasonably tidy. The December 18 photos, however, show that the place had been trashed. The contents of drawers and closets had been dumped haphazardly into piles and were spilling onto the floor. Here are some photos for the purpose of comparison:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/kitchen_nov_02_07.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/kitchen_dec_18_07.jpg

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/bed_nov_02_07.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/bed_dec_18_07.jpg

Also note the condition of the gloves in the Dec. 18 kitchen photo:

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

Given this kind of activity at the crime scene, a single DNA trace is not credible physical evidence. Raffaele was on the premises on the day of the murder and again on the day the body was discovered. Two of his fingerprints were found on the outside of Meredith's door. There is no reason his DNA could not have been on the doorknob or any other surface, available to be transferred by an investigator who picked up the bra fastener off the floor, handled it extensively, and then passed it to a second investigator who also handled it.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

______________________

Therefore, Waterbury's dust theory is incorrect. Otherwise, we should find multiple examples of Amanda's DNA on tested articles recovered from the floor of Meredith's bedroom. Amanda had a bedroom next to Meredith's room and had lived there with Meredith for, what?, seven weeks, while Raffaele had only visited the cottage a few times, never venturing into Meredith's room. Where did Amanda's DNA dust go?

///

I'm surprised they didn't find Amanda's DNA or fingerprints somewhere in that room. They found Meredith's fingerprints in Amanda's room. There's an element of randomness when you are dealing with physical traces in a shared residence, which is why the physical evidence against Amanda and Raffaele does not constitute proof of anything except their presence in the building at some point in time.

Don't you think it's odd that they found Meredith and Amanda's DNA on the floor of Filomena's room, but no clear unidentified profile that could belong to Filomena? I think the idea that Amanda went into Filomena's room dripping her own blood and Meredith's blood is completely implausible. I suspect the DNA in both those samples was from a dirty glove.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Having read your posts again I still have no idea what facts you are attempting to claim are true, nor what conclusion you are attempting to draw from those facts.

It might help if you state your point in simple declarative sentences: I believe X to be the case, because of source Y, and I conclude from this Z. If you do have a point, you should be able to express it this way without difficulty.

Thanks Kevin. I see I'm not alone on this - and I was starting to think that I can't grasp what platonov says because my English is poor

 

[Fine]

I'm surprised they didn't find Amanda's DNA or fingerprints somewhere in that room. They found Meredith's fingerprints in Amanda's room. There's an element of randomness when you are dealing with physical traces in a shared residence, which is why the physical evidence against Amanda and Raffaele does not constitute proof of anything except their presence in the building at some point in time.
Don't you think it's odd that they found Meredith and Amanda's DNA on the floor of Filomena's room, but no clear unidentified profile that could belong to Filomena? I think the idea that Amanda went into Filomena's room dripping her own blood and Meredith's blood is completely implausible. I suspect the DNA in both those samples was from a dirty glove.

_____________________

Well, Charlie, Raffaele didn't exactly share the residence. The only other instance of detected DNA for Raffaele in the cottage was found on a cigarette butt in an ash tray. That was not random, and not caused by dirty gloves. Right? If, instead, they had found Rudy's DNA on the same cigarette butt, now that would have been paradoxical and could be explained as contamination. Likewise, if they had discovered Raffaele's DNA on, say, Laura's toothbrush. You get the picture. If the forensic police were being so sloppy shouldn't we expect such paradoxical discoveries? So,....was any DNA discovered which was paradoxical? Or did the cops just hide that information too?

///

 

[Katody Matrass]

I'm surprised they didn't find Amanda's DNA or fingerprints somewhere in that room. They found Meredith's fingerprints in Amanda's room. There's an element of randomness when you are dealing with physical traces in a shared residence, which is why the physical evidence against Amanda and Raffaele does not constitute proof of anything except their presence in the building at some point in time.

Don't you think it's odd that they found Meredith and Amanda's DNA on the floor of Filomena's room, but no clear unidentified profile that could belong to Filomena? I think the idea that Amanda went into Filomena's room dripping her own blood and Meredith's blood is completely implausible. I suspect the DNA in both those samples was from a dirty glove.

I think what should be taken into account is the "element of randomness" in Stefanoni's testing. If she treated other samples like the kitchen knife I bet we would have a profile in every one of them.
I've read that simple handshake is a perfect medium for secondary DNA transfer, that fingerprints can leave enough cells to get a profile, household dust contains human DNA etc.
Yet Stefanoni sometimes can't get a profile from a sock worn by the victim, and sometimes gets a profile from a "bleached" impeccably clean knife blade. I get a feeling that her testing is a bit erratic and I can't stop to wonder why is she so afraid to release the raw data and logs.

 

[Katody Matrass]

So,....was any DNA discovered which was paradoxical? Or did the cops just hide that information too?
///

The fact that they found his DNA on a tiny metal hook of a bra clasp and nowhere else on the victim or in her room is certainly paradoxical.
That they found his DNA only and there is no other trace of his presence in that room and no sign he got himself into any struggle with the victim, or that he got his clothes bloodied or that he discarded any clothes is paradoxical too.
It's paradoxical that they miraculously found his DNA directly after their previous hard evidence were publicly demolished.

 

[JREF2010]

At Sollecito's apartment, they got luminol reactions on the bathroom floor, the bedroom floor, the kitchen floor, and three door handles. They took 14 samples from these areas for DNA testing:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/selected_dna_results.pdf

This is really interesting and a perspective change for me on the luminol evidence. This proves luminol reaction is seen in places that have nothing to do with murder.

Also, it seems a better argument for the luminol footprint evidence, instead of the "might be turnip juice..." defense response.
I recall one of the judges stating, in meaning not exact quote, <yes maybe juice in one hallway,. but everywhere? even in Filomenas room? How would juice be spilled in different parts of the cottage? etc..etc..>

If this is the truth, which it appears it is, then Luminol reaction alone isn't very telling of anything. Instead, the Luminol reaction must be accompanied by a positive for blood of the victim.

thanks again Charlie (and Rose / DanceMe for bringing it up again)

 

[Katody Matrass]

At Sollecito's apartment, they got luminol reactions on the bathroom floor, the bedroom floor, the kitchen floor, and three door handles. They took 14 samples from these areas for DNA testing:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/selected_dna_results.pdf

So we got at least 14 spots reacting with luminol yet none of it is blood?

I guess that settles the question whether what the ILE detects with their luminol testing could only be blood and nothing else.

 

[platonov]

I can provide you a link
http://wildgreta.wordpress.com/2007/12/18/sei-ore-di-interrogatorio-per-amanda-knox-che-crolla/

I give you a translation of the first and last paragraph - and you can see it is a bit different to CD.

...................
.......................
Tears, yells, contradictions – and then just silence. After 6 hours of interrogation in Capanne prison Amanda Knox breaks down: when questioned why she accused Patrick Lumumba, and furthermore when PM Giuliano Mignini asked her to explain how she was able to know specifics about the positions of the body of Meredith Kercher, which could only be known by a person who was present at the house in Via della Pergola in the night of 1st november.

....................
....................

Already in difficulties, the American definitively broke down under the question about Patrick: „Why did you accuse him?“ She did not answer, hesitated for a moment and then started to yell repeating the same phrases (written also in her memorial before she was sent to prison) – „I see the flash! I see the flash“ – and broke in tears. –‚She did exactly the same in the Questura‘ told someone who was assisting at the scene. „She has given a full collaboration“ commented faithfully her lawyers.According to them the positions have not been changed. Amanda continues to declare her innocence whilst the prosecution still claims her complicity of the murder.

I have soon finished the rest of the translation.

MrsColumbo

Thanks for the translation - I look forward to the rest.
One could be churlish and complain that is not AK's own words but if the description posted is even close to accurate it would certainly explain why the Q has not been answered on this board by the Innocentisti.

Do you also do english - english translations ; some posters are claiming not to understand the Q.
Between you and me the jury looks with disdain on this suggestion. Even Old Foss is rolling his eyes.

 

[platonov]

Thanks Kevin. I see I'm not alone on this - and I was starting to think that I can't grasp what platonov says because my English is poor

I have asked MrsColumbo if she can assist in this matter - I don't see how I can be any plainer.

 

[JREF2010]

At Sollecito's apartment, they got luminol reactions on the bathroom floor, the bedroom floor, the kitchen floor, and three door handles. They took 14 samples from these areas for DNA testing:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/selected_dna_results.pdf

I think what should be taken into account is the "element of randomness" in Stefanoni's testing. If she treated other samples like the kitchen knife I bet we would have a profile in every one of them.
I've read that simple handshake is a perfect medium for secondary DNA transfer, that fingerprints can leave enough cells to get a profile, household dust contains human DNA etc.
Yet Stefanoni sometimes can't get a profile from a sock worn by the victim, and sometimes gets a profile from a "bleached" impeccably clean knife blade. I get a feeling that her testing is a bit erratic and I can't stop to wonder why is she so afraid to release the raw data and logs.

So we got at least 14 spots reacting with luminol yet none of it is blood?

I guess that settles the question whether what the ILE detects with their luminol testing could only be blood and nothing else.

The list posted on FOA is focused on DNA, but if the list included a critical column for victim blood test results it would be more concise. imo.