Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[christianahannah]

I got some questions about the bath mat.
1. Whose blood is it. I haven't been able to find where a dna test came back saying it was meredith's
2. What tests where performed on it to verify it was blood.

Charlie Wilkes has posted a pdf file of selected DNA results. The bathmat is included in those results. There were 3 samples taken - all came back the profile of Meredith.

I am not sure what tests were performed to verify it was blood.

 

[christianahannah]

The bathmat was improperly stored and developed a fine crop of mold. It could not be tested for DNA.

It's almost certainly Meredith's blood. Most of the images of this stain were taken after it was chemically enhanced. The stain is much darker than it would have appeared the morning after the murder.

I thought it was the green towel underneath Meredith which yielded no results.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

Originally Posted by katy_did
So lying in Court is indeed an acceptable tactic to use as a lawyer, and Comodi's lie was nothing out of the ordinary. Thanks, that answers my question.

I clearly stated that I don't think Comodi was deliberately lying and in fact such a "tactic" would have been dumb. Am I worrying you too such that you are getting so snipey and silly in your responses?

I did read this the other day but thought someone else may have commented on it. As I can't see that anywhere, I would like to say that I was intrigued by the above from SomeAlibi, who is purportedly a 'defence counsel?' From what I can see, a direct answer over the 'Comodi approach' (lies or not?) was requested by a number of different posters on JREF and, IMHO, other than some extremely evasive responses, an answer was not forthcoming. I will ignore the 'snipey and silly' personal dig at katy_did and focus on the

''...I clearly stated that I don't think Comodi was deliberately lying and in fact such a "tactic" would have been dumb...''

I have to disagree. Far from being DUMB, it would appear to have had the 'desired' effect and would therefore be quite a clever (albeit unfair and cynical) move on Comodi's part. Furthermore, personally, I feel that it is patently obvious to all and sundry that it WAS a deliberate and shrewd ploy by Comodi. It also appears relevant to discuss (despite protestations to the contrary) as it would have further contributed to the overall picture being 'painted' for the court by the prosecution.

I actually put these thoughts to a Barrister (friend of my brother) on Sunday and found it most interesting that he was inclined to agree and stated that any lawyer 'worth his salt' would know this but would probably not admit that it was a deliberate and pre-meditated act.

Hmmm.

Food for thought, indeed.

 

[Kestrel]

I thought it was the green towel underneath Meredith which yielded no results.

You may be right. It may have been the towel that produced no results.

Does anyone know if they tried a Y-STR test on the bathmat?

 

[Chris C]

Didn't he call her a liar in court when she couldn't remember making a call that never happened and the judge backed him up.

 

[piktor]

I have uploaded Rinaldi's presentations:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/rinaldi1.pdf
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/rinaldi2.pdf

You may wish to use your caliper tool to confirm dimensions. Here's my analysis of Rinaldi's measuring error:

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

I measured the footprint samples on Rinaldi2 PDF and the 99mm bathmat measurement matches the Sollecito 99mm footprint measurement.

Guede's measurement is correspondingly narrower.

The samples you have at friendsofamanda.org:

The height of 50 mm on the bathmat is exactly 50mm measured with a ruler. Guede's should be 66.7mm measured with the same ruler but it is 55mm in your photo.

The width measurement on the bathmat is marked 99mm but measured with a ruler it is 94mm. Guede's measurement says 96mm on your photo but the ruler measures 92.5mm.

Conclusion: The height on the bathmat checks in real world dimensions.

The width on the bathmat does not check in real world dimensions, the image has suffered distortion in witdth.

The Guede footprint height does not correspond in real world dimensions, it has suffered distortion in height.

The Guede width measurement does not correspond with real world dimensions, it has suffered distortion in width.

I would not use either photo for any analysis. Three of four measurements are distorted.

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/images/guede_and_bathmat_dimensions_compared.jpg

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi Chris C and others,
I too have a question about the bath mat.
With both the prosecution and the defense believing their "expert's opinion" of whose footprint it is that was left on the bathmat, I ask this:

Why couldn't/didn't the police investigators and defence attorneys agree to have had both suspects, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede, who were in police custody at the time, d
o a few comparable foot print tests using the same exact type of bathmat to see whose foot it was that left that bloody print on the mat?

Just wondering...
RWVBWL

 

[christianahannah]

You may be right. It may have been the towel that produced no results.

Does anyone know if they tried a Y-STR test on the bathmat?

Stefanoni was criticized by a defense consultant for not performing the Y haplotype test on the bedroom door handle.

Page 235:

Dr. Stefanoni’s report was further criticised for not having carried out an analysis to find any Y chromosome in the specimen found on the handle of the door to the victim’s room.

Stefanoni stated earlier in the motivations that the Y haplotype test was not routinely performed.

Page 219:

With respect to the traces present on the door handle of the victim's room, she stated that they had been identified as being from Kercher. Only blood of the victim was found, and Y chromosome testing was not carried out. In this regard, she explained that Y chromosome analysis is not routine, and there was no particular reason for doing it here.

I don't know why the Y haplotype tests were not done on other samples (bathmat, etc.) which yielded Meredith's DNA. I don't know if it is because there was no indication of a mixture DNA - only Meredith's DNA was present?

 

[LondonJohn]

I think the argument that Sollecito's footprint is an exact match to the blood/water bath mat partial print is not a million miles away from those people who see the face of Jesus in a piece of cheese on toast:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rchemel/face-of-jesus-appears-on-cheese-toast-4c

 

[Chris C]

The height of 50 mm on the bathmat is exactly 50mm measured with a ruler. Guede's should be 66.7mm measured with the same ruler but it is 55mm in your photo.

Actually If I remember correctly the defense is stating in their appeals that Rinaldi's measurements are wrong and that Guede's correct measurement is 55. If they are in fact argueing that, its not something thats all that hard to prove/disprove, since its simple measurements. If they are in fact argueing this, I would have to believe its 55 until proven otherwise, because it would hurt the defense more if they are proven wrong over something as simple as that. Whether or not its 55mm is left to be determined at a later date if the courts allow retesting or whether its just misinterpretation of the appeals. However, if it turns out to be 55mm, then Rinaldi looks like an idiot and how much of what he has said can you believe. Since his measurements are wrong and he used the grid of Louise Robbins who was discredited.

 

[katy_did]

I did read this the other day but thought someone else may have commented on it. As I can't see that anywhere, I would like to say that I was intrigued by the above from SomeAlibi, who is purportedly a 'defence counsel?' From what I can see, a direct answer over the 'Comodi approach' (lies or not?) was requested by a number of different posters on JREF and, IMHO, other than some extremely evasive responses, an answer was not forthcoming. I will ignore the 'snipey and silly' personal dig at katy_did and focus on the

''...I clearly stated that I don't think Comodi was deliberately lying and in fact such a "tactic" would have been dumb...''

I have to disagree. Far from being DUMB, it would appear to have had the 'desired' effect and would therefore be quite a clever (albeit unfair and cynical) move on Comodi's part. Furthermore, personally, I feel that it is patently obvious to all and sundry that it WAS a deliberate and shrewd ploy by Comodi. It also appears relevant to discuss (despite protestations to the contrary) as it would have further contributed to the overall picture being 'painted' for the court by the prosecution.

I actually put these thoughts to a Barrister (friend of my brother) on Sunday and found it most interesting that he was inclined to agree and stated that any lawyer 'worth his salt' would know this but would probably not admit that it was a deliberate and pre-meditated act.

Thanks Scorpion, yes, I agree: SomeAlibi was extremely evasive about this whole issue. He said he didn't think Comodi was deliberately lying, so I asked him whether in that case he thought she simply didn't know the time of the phone call and didn't bother checking it (despite it being critical to her whole approach) but again I got a very evasive answer. So I think at that point I gave up!

As you say, it was quite a clever and successful (though dishonest) tactic on Comodi's part, so SomeAlibi's claim that it would have been "dumb" is incorrect; it paid off. And it's very obvious it was a deliberate and calculated move, as I think SA knows, even if he didn't want to admit it.

Interesting to hear what your brother's barrister friend said about it: I was actually pretty curious as to whether or not this kind of thing was generally accepted as a tactic amongst other lawyers and seen as the norm, and was hoping to get an honest and straightforward opinion on that from SomeAlibi; unfortunately, no such luck.

 

[christianahannah]

Thanks Scorpion, yes, I agree: SomeAlibi was extremely evasive about this whole issue. He said he didn't think Comodi was deliberately lying, so I asked him whether in that case he thought she simply didn't know the time of the phone call and didn't bother checking it (despite it being critical to her whole approach) but again I got a very evasive answer. So I think at that point I gave up!

As you say, it was quite a clever and successful (though dishonest) tactic on Comodi's part, so SomeAlibi's claim that it would have been "dumb" is incorrect; it paid off. And it's very obvious it was a deliberate and calculated move, as I think SA knows, even if he didn't want to admit it.

Interesting to hear what your brother's barrister friend said about it: I was actually pretty curious as to whether or not this kind of thing was generally accepted as a tactic amongst other lawyers and seen as the norm, and was hoping to get an honest and straightforward opinion on that from SomeAlibi; unfortunately, no such luck.

katy_did I disagree that Comodi was being dishonest. I think she was speaking in general terms to the time of the phone call - the same way Edda answered when questioned about the time of the phone call. I don't think either one were being dishonest.

Massei had the correct time in the motivations so the judges understood when the call was made in relation to other events which occurred at the cottage, before and after the call.

 

[LashL]

Hello LashL

When I came to the case, I had a lot of questions about the conviction which saw me get a rough ride at the beginning of posting on PMF. I came to a very firm conclusion on the case after a fairly long time. It is, without doubt a tragic set of circumstances for four young people whose lives have been wrecked.

The parts I find most compelling are the "issues" I raised in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6446896&postcount=10933

to which I will also add what does look to me fairly clearly like a staged break-in and the absolute tangle and mass of contradictions that come across in the diaries of Amanda and Raffaele and the multiple contradictory alibis which were serially changed in very short order.

...

Hi, SomeAlibi

Thank you for your response. I must apologize for not being able to get back to this thread since I wrote my prior post inviting a discussion with you. Unfortunately, I got called away by real life events which left me unable to post much (at all), and now I've just become a new Admin of the forum here, so I'm going to have a few very busy days figuring out how certain things work, etc.

So, I just wanted to say thanks for your response and let you know that I will be back to reply to it in detail as soon as I get some time, but it probably won't be for a few days. Regards, Lash.

 

[katy_did]

katy_did I disagree that Comodi was being dishonest. I think she was speaking in general terms to the time of the phone call - the same way Edda answered when questioned about the time of the phone call. I don't think either one were being dishonest.

Massei had the correct time in the motivations so the judges understood when the call was made in relation to other events which occurred at the cottage, before and after the call.

How could Comodi say that at the time of Amanda's phone call - when the break-in and all the evidence in the house had been discovered, including the blood in the bathroom - "nothing had happened"? That call was made immediately before they called the police, while Comodi was implying it was made before Amanda should have been alarmed. And to do that, she had to say it was made "at 12, at midday" (repeated for emphasis).

If Comodi had said, "Why did you call your mother to tell her nothing had happened, immediately before you called the police to tell them about the break-in", I'm not sure that would have made any sense.

What point do you think Comodi was trying to make when she said "Even your mother was amazed that you called her at midday, which was three or four o'clock at night, to tell her that nothing had happened"? Was she really trying to say that Amanda didn't have enough reason to call her mother at that point, given that the call to the police happened immediately afterwards...?

 

[RoseMontague]

Piktor

Thanks for your work on the footprints. I don't have these fancy measuring tools and you can do pretty much anything in a photo at reducing or enlarging but that big toe and 2nd toe of Rudy's fits the batmath and Raffaele's does not, regardless if either photo is shrunk or stretched, in my opinion.

 

[christianahannah]

How could Comodi say that at the time of Amanda's phone call - when the break-in and all the evidence in the house had been discovered, including the blood in the bathroom - "nothing had happened"? That call was made immediately before they called the police, while Comodi was implying it was made before Amanda should have been alarmed. And to do that, she had to say it was made "at 12, at midday" (repeated for emphasis).

If Comodi had said, "Why did you call your mother to tell her nothing had happened, immediately before you called the police to tell them about the break-in", I'm not sure that would have made any sense.

What point do you think Comodi was trying to make when she said "Even your mother was amazed that you called her at midday, which was three or four o'clock at night, to tell her that nothing had happened"? Was she really trying to say that Amanda didn't have enough reason to call her mother at that point, given that the call to the police happened immediately afterwards...?

I think the point that Comodi was trying to make had to do with the forgetfulness of Amanda (as did Massei when also questioning Amanda on the call).

Whether this is a big point or not (forgetfulness) I guess is up to the individual to evaluate. I personally don't think it is, however, I don't have all the information that the court did in reference to the recorded prison conversations or prior questionings of Amanda.

 

[RoseMontague]

If Comodi had said, "Why did you call your mother to tell her nothing had happened, immediately before you called the police to tell them about the break-in", I'm not sure that would have made any sense.

It would not have made sense, nor would it have made Amanda look bad as was the goal Comodi was striving for. What happened was that a break in was discovered, blood was seen, and they were unable to get in touch with Meredith. Comodi's failure to remember the time of the call or the other events of that morning prior to the call is perplexing. I think that it is possible, likely even probable, that it was therefore a deliberate effort to mislead the jury/lay-judges.

 

[colonelhall]

Hmmm! Kestrel. All rather fanciful and not at all believable.

Poor girl was so exhausted that instead of going to bed, she went to the police station with her latest squeeze. You know the guy, she'd met him the previous week. She then entertained the assembled crowd with some gymnastics.

As for the all night screaming session. Who made that one up?

I know that you have your own idea of the suffering that she endured at the handsof the police. but pleeeease get real!

 

[katy_did]

I think the point that Comodi was trying to make had to do with the forgetfulness of Amanda (as did Massei when also questioning Amanda on the call).

Whether this is a big point or not (forgetfulness) I guess is up to the individual to evaluate. I personally don't think it is, however, I don't have all the information that the court did in reference to the recorded prison conversations or prior questionings of Amanda.

Here's a bit more from Amanda' testimony:

GCM: Did you have the habit of calling her at that time? Did it happen on other occasions? At midday in Italy? At a time where in Seattle...people don't usually call each other in the middle of the night.

AK: Yes, yes, of course.

GCM: So either you had a particular motive, or it was a habit.

AK: Yes. Well, since I don't remember this phone call, because I remember the one I made later, but obviously I made that phone call. If I did that, it's because I thought that I had something I had to tell her. Maybe I thought right then that there was something strange, because at that moment, when I went to Raffaele's place, I did think there was something strange, but I didn't know what to think. But I really don't remember this phone call, so I can't say for sure why. But I guess it was because I came home and the door was open, and then --

Amanda thinks Comodi is referring to a phone call she made at midday, when she went back to Raffaele's place and had found the door open - but before they had discovered the break-in. And Comodi not only doesn't correct her, she says repeatedly that this call was made before anything happened, that it was an unusual time to call someone, that she must have had a motive... She even asks "Why did you do it?" All of which becomes a nonsense as soon as we know that they called the police almost immediately after this phone call!

LOL, I appreciate your posts Christiana, and your willingness to always quote and source anything you argue. Sometimes you've even changed my mind. But I wholeheartedly disagree with you on this one.

 

[treehorn]

Color me disappointed.

I'm running down peer-reviewed journals (from as far away as INDIA), and trying to resolve the paradox that is Kevin_Lowe's 'stance' on premises advanced without the support of such journals, and he's suddenly nowhere to be seen.

I'm starting to get the sense that he's a lot less likely to be a MD than a psych major currently in the midst of cramming for his midterm exams...

Or have I missed something? Did Lowe reveal whether he is a doctor/ gastroenterologist/ forensic pathologist?