Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[moodstream]

Not only that but what happened to the container, and the rags/mop they used also.

Maybe the police should go back and ask the shop keeper if he saw Amanda + Raffaele walking back the other way carrying pails full of blood.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

The DNA of RS came as a result of Raffaele’s attempt to open the bra with his fingers. This attempt didn’t succeed immediately, considerable force was employed by fingers on the metal hook, so to deform it. Once the clasp was deformed the opening would be even more difficult, so somebody decided to cut the strap. The many skin cells found attached to the metal are the consequence of manual force applied on the metal clasp to open it.

Why do you suppose he didn't just unfasten it the normal way, instead of bending the hook with his fingers?

 

[Fine]

It was a horrible crime, and I don't like viewing or sharing the photos, but people following the case should have the information they need to understand what really happened. This was not a "sex game" or any kind of escalating group dynamic. A solitary assailant, armed with a pocket knife, attacked and fatally injured Meredith in a blitz attack that lasted just a couple of minutes. After she was incapacitated and dying, he removed her clothing and sexually assaulted her.

Here is a list of some of the material that I have posted over the past several months in the context of this ongoing discussion:

PDFS:

* * *

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


* * *

___________________
Charlie,

This entry from your list of samples taken from Meredith's bedroom:

"Rep. 111: Gummy white substance on left wall of wardrobe .... No profile"

This appears to be chewing gum. But if chewing gum shouldn't it have revealed a DNA profile of the person---Meredith or an assailant---who had chewed the gum? Did the prosecution or defense ever incorporate this "gummy white substance" into a crime scenario?

///

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Now I am no scientist, doctor, detecive or CSI crime buff, BUT I feel that there should have been at least some of Amanda Knox's or Raffaele Sollecito's bloody fingerprints, or hair, or other type of DNA -(in sufficent quantities on which to perform more than 1 test upon)-
in the bedroom that Miss Kercher died in.

I have been reviewing the work of a man whose specialty is accident reconstruction, which involves forensic analysis similar to what criminal investigators do. He has poured immense effort into a reconstruction that is detailed and credible. It is horrific material. I have tried to tone it down as best I can, but it is a story that must be told, for the sake of everyone involved in this case, because it is the truth about what happened to this beautiful young woman.

 

[platonov]

Machiavelli,
So with this in mind, I wonder if it was Amanda Knox looking to buy a replacement bathroom mat the next morning at the store where the guy who owned it didn't recognise them until a year later.
Why not just throw it away, blame it on the unknown murderer?
Same goes with the "super cleaned" knife, that had that itsy, bitsy dot of DNA, not blood, of Miss Kercher on it...
Why not just throw it away, for it was a pretty common knife, from all that I have read.
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

Why indeed - a burglar turned opportunist rapist/killer who also steals bathmats is even more believable.
Perhaps that story would have worked ? Too late to try it now so we may never know.

DNA in Italy as in many parts of the world is by its nature itsy bitsy.Are you suggesting this is not the case elsewhere.

.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

___________________
Charlie,

This entry from your list of samples taken from Meredith's bedroom:

"Rep. 111: Gummy white substance on left wall of wardrobe .... No profile"

This appears to be chewing gum. But if chewing gum shouldn't it have revealed a DNA profile of the person---Meredith or an assailant---who had chewed the gum? Did the prosecution or defense ever incorporate this "gummy white substance" into a crime scenario?

///

I'm not aware of any attention being paid to this, because it didn't yield a profile. It seems like it could have been a number of things, maybe some kind of adhesive or cosmetic.

 

[Antony]

The DNA of RS came as a result of Raffaele’s attempt to open the bra with his fingers. This attempt didn’t succeed immediately, considerable force was employed by fingers on the metal hook, so to deform it. Once the clasp was deformed the opening would be even more difficult, so somebody decided to cut the strap. The many skin cells found attached to the metal are the consequence of manual force applied on the metal clasp to open it.

The cutting of the bra strap didn’t cause the bra to come off. The bra remained in place hanging to its shoulder straps, while Meredith was still wearing her blue sweater and white t-shirt. The blue sweater was not removed until after her death. The bra was also not taken off until after her fatal wounding, probably after her death.

Your points are well-answered by Mary_H (msg no 13008). As I said earlier, it's not clear to me why you are convinced by this sort of explanation. In my (male) experience of undoing bra straps, nobody would need to touch the metal hooks while doing so, even if the bra didn't come undone normally. Your explanation simply doesn't bear examination.

Those called here “unidentified profiles” ought to be considered as unidentified DNA sequences, not as separate, unidentified individuals. Those profiles are consistent with segments of Meredith’s DNA and with Amanda’s DNA. Those profiles are anyway probably all females, since there is no other Y-haplotype sequence except one compatible with Sollecito.

What's being female got to do with not being implicated?

I think it is obvious why the reading implicate Raffaele alone: because Raffaele was a suspect being a liar in the investigation, because his DNA is not supposed to be on that metal clasp, and has no innocent justification for being there. Amanda and Meredith’s DNA mean little, her boyfriend has an alibi, possible others unidentified are not in the suspects list yet,

OK, this starts to show why someone with their mind already made up might think this "convincing", but it smacks of circular reasoning to me: this alleged DNA is the only hard evidence that would make Raffaele a "suspect". If it were added to other DNA evidence of Raffaele at the murder scene, then you might have a point, but of course there is none.

As for the unidentified profiles, it cannot be assumed they have an innocent reason for being there without them being identified. There is no justification to use the reading to make Raffaele a suspect, and simply declare the others as "not on the suspect list".

and anyway they won’t make go away the fact that Raffaele’s DNA is on the clasp.

Lame. In the video showing the collection of the clasp, it is found in a room that has been ransacked after the murder was discovered, it is handled and rubbed by at least 2 people wearing gloves with visible dust on them, and dropped on the floor where they have been walking. If it is indeed Raffaele's DNA, then it almost certainly got on the clasp in the same way as the unidentified profiles: at the time it was collected.

For the statement about the “astonishing assertion”, I consider this an important point to detail in different posts. I disagree logically on your (and others) statement about the implications expressed by the category “evidence properly obtained”. It is not true – meaning it is not a strict logical always true statement - that evidence requires to be “properly obtained”, and it is not true that improper techniques (in this case: allegedly improper techniques) necessarily determine the evidence to be invalid. It is not true, besides, that collecting technique was “improper”: and concepts like “proper” or “good” or “correct” are always relative and contextual, they depend on something like, the use, the logical conditions (“good/proper for what? At what conditions?”).

A lot of words saying not very much. "Proper" here means that all parts of the process (collection, handling and analysis) should take place in conditions that protect the specimen from contamination. This manifestly did not occur here.

It's not for the accused to prove contamination of evidence; it's for the prosecution to show that contamination is not a factor. Not only do they fail to do that in this case, but the known circumstances of this piece of evidence are ones where contamination is overwhelmingly likely.

 

[platonov]

Right so he left his supposed DNA on only the clasp because LOL he couldn't get her bra off. Seriously? Then got off her body and had Guede cut it off. Ok this is starting to make sense.

No you haven't got it quite right yet.

You think the prosecution case is that RS' DNA came to be on the bra clasp because RG cut it off.

I can see why you don't accept the guilty verdict.

.

 

[platonov]

Your points are well-answered by Mary_H (msg no 13008). As I said earlier, it's not clear to me why you are convinced by this sort of explanation. In my (male) experience of undoing bra straps, nobody would need to touch the metal hooks while doing so, even if the bra didn't come undone normally. Your explanation simply doesn't bear examination.

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

.

Does your experience extend to removing the underwear of a female victim during the course of a sexual assault / murder.

If not its hardly relevant to this aspect of the case.

Why do you suppose he didn't just unfasten it the normal way, instead of bending the hook with his fingers?

Perhaps he was inexperienced, panicked or trying to impress his girlfriend with his knifework.

.

 

[platonov]

It is obvious from the appearance of the hooks that they were deformed when someone tried to pull the bra off without unhooking it. There is no need to touch bra hooks when removing a bra -- usually just the two sides of the cloth clasp are pushed together, and the loss of tension allows the hooks to unhook themselves; in fact, fingers can get in the way. I believe all the defendants were experienced enough to know how to unhook a bra.

In the unlikely event someone forcefully used his hands that night to try to unfasten the bra at the clasp, it is much more likely the DNA would be embedded in the woven fibers of the absorbent cloth than on the smooth metal surface of the hooks. Similarly, in the event the piece were moved or swept around the room over time, biological material would be less likely to adhere to the metal than to the cloth. Yet investigators insist the material was found on the hooks and not on the cloth.

The videotape also makes it clear that when the bra clasp was allegedly retrieved in Meredith's bedroom, the hooks were rubbed, contaminated and heated beyond the point where biological material would remain on them undisturbed, if at all.

If you would like to see an "astonishing assertion," reread Machiavelli's assertion from above:

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

.

Leaving aside arguments about bra straps are you claiming the video was faked /manipulated.

Or that the bra clasp had been removed and tampered with and then replaced in the room or what. ?

What is the extent of the conspiracy exactly?


ETA The 'heated beyond the point ' is fantastic even by the standards of this thread and as such requires no rebuttal - But if you wish to elaborate with the relevant technical details feel free to do so.

.

 

[Mary_H]

For the statement about the “astonishing assertion”, I consider this an important point to detail in different posts. I disagree logically on your (and others) statement about the implications expressed by the category “evidence properly obtained”. It is not true – meaning it is not a strict logical always true statement - that evidence requires to be “properly obtained”, and it is not true that improper techniques (in this case: allegedly improper techniques) necessarily determine the evidence to be invalid. It is not true, besides, that collecting technique was “improper”: and concepts like “proper” or “good” or “correct” are always relative and contextual, they depend on something like, the use, the logical conditions (“good/proper for what? At what conditions?”).

With the help of the other people who have responded to this post, I think I finally understand what you're getting at, Machiavelli.

You are saying that good evidence can be found under bad conditions; therefore, bad conditions should not be used as a measure of whether or not the evidence is valid. Is that right? You're telling us that the baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater.

As you suggest, this argument is logically true. However, it is an argument that, at least in this case, stands to benefit only the prosecution. To counter the evidence, the defense has to make the case that, even though good evidence can be found under bad conditions, bad conditions definitely increase the likelihood that the evidence will be bad, too. Whether or not the judges believe them remains to be seen at trial.

This puzzle actually is similar to the subject of the missing interrogation tape. The practice of taping interrogations is intended to protect both the suspect and the police against false allegations. However, in this case, the failure to tape the interrogation has worked only in favor of the prosecution and the police. There has been no penalty for either of them; the prosecution profited from it in the civil/criminal trial, and the police will profit from it at the calunnia trial.

Similar to your argument about the investigation conditions, the prosecution most likely holds that, while missing interrogation tapes can point to misbehavior on the part of the police, it is logically true that they don't always. Again, the defense is left to throw itself on the mercy of the court, with only the hope that the judges will find validity in what probably happened as opposed to what possibly happened.

 

[Chris C]

No you haven't got it quite right yet.

You think the prosecution case is that RS' DNA came to be on the bra clasp because RG cut it off.

I can see why you don't accept the guilty verdict.

.

Guede's DNA is on the back of the bra if I remember correctly. Right next to where the clasp used to be at. Sollecito's supposed DNA is on the metal portion of the clasp. Which means its not on any of the fabric.

 

[Chris C]

Does your experience extend to removing the underwear of a female victim during the course of a sexual assault / murder.

If not its hardly relevant to this aspect of the case.




Perhaps he was inexperienced, panicked or trying to impress his girlfriend with his knifework.

.

Guede's DNA is found in the area of where Meredith's underwear was worn at. So who removed the underwear?

 

[Chris C]

Leaving aside arguments about bra straps are you claiming the video was faked /manipulated.

Or that the bra clasp had been removed and tampered with and then replaced in the room or what. ?

What is the extent of the conspiracy exactly?


ETA The 'heated beyond the point ' is fantastic even by the standards of this thread and as such requires no rebuttal.

.

Well there is video evidence that the clasp had been moved prior to their return to Meredith's room.

 

[Mary_H]

Leaving aside arguments about bra straps are you claiming the video was faked /manipulated.

Or that the bra clasp had been removed and tampered with and then replaced in the room or what. ?

What is the extent of the conspiracy exactly?

.

The fact that the video starts with the investigators already holding the bra clasp in their hands raises valid questions about when and where in the room it was found.

As Charlie Wilkes has pointed out a couple of times, the investigators found the bra clasp the day after their only other piece of evidence (bloody shoe prints) fizzled on national TV. We are left to draw our own conclusions about the convenience of this new piece of evidence. As someone on Perugia Shock wrote today, "Can you imagine a worse place for your DNA to end up?"

Nope, I can't.

ETA The 'heated beyond the point ' is fantastic even by the standards of this thread and as such requires no rebuttal - But if you wish to elaborate with the relevant technical details feel free to do so.

Have you seen the video?

 

[platonov]

The fact that the video starts with the investigators already holding the bra clasp in their hands raises valid questions about when and where in the room it was found.

As Charlie Wilkes has pointed out a couple of times, the investigators found the bra clasp the day after their only other piece of evidence (bloody shoe prints) fizzled on national TV. We are left to draw our own conclusions about the convenience of this new piece of evidence. As someone on Perugia Shock wrote today, "Can you imagine a worse place for your DNA to end up?"

Nope, I can't.

The video you have seen perhaps - the court (or this forum) is not going to be swayed by your lack of exposure to the details of the case.

What the defence and court have seen is a different matter as many here keep pointing out. What have they had to say on this ?
I am already aware that Charlie Wilkes has described the whole case as a hoax [in response to a Q of mine] - the fact that the conspiracy theory is supported by more that 1 person doesn't add to its merits.

ETA In response to your edit - you want me to prove your 'fantastic' claim.
I respectfully decline.
I dont think your response "Have you seen the video? "would carry much more weight in court than it does here.

.

 

[RoseMontague]

I disagree logically on your (and others) statement about the implications expressed by the category “evidence properly obtained”. It is not true – meaning it is not a strict logical always true statement - that evidence requires to be “properly obtained”, and it is not true that improper techniques (in this case: allegedly improper techniques) necessarily determine the evidence to be invalid. It is not true, besides, that collecting technique was “improper”: and concepts like “proper” or “good” or “correct” are always relative and contextual, they depend on something like, the use, the logical conditions (“good/proper for what? At what conditions?”).

I think the way the authorities collected the evidence in this case leads to a lot of doubt about that evidence, more than reasonable doubt as far as I am concerned.

Finally, you must always bear well in mind that the most important aspect of the pieces of evidence is their being many, in a system, consistent with each other.

I think this is the main point we disagree on and one I have trouble following your logic on. As I have stated before if each individual piece of evidence is doubtful, I tend to view the whole pile of evidence as doubtful. I think the connection to guilt becomes more tenuous as each doubtful piece is placed on top of another rather than the "consistent" nature of that evidence making the individual pieces more convincing.

1. Meredith's DNA on the knife blade: Doubtful (In my opinion there was no DNA on that blade at all, there is no proof that it was ever transported and the large bag/large knife for protection theory is pure fantasy. In addition the testing method has not been proven to be accurate and definitely goes against established standards and protocols).

2. Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp: Doubtful (The timing and method of collection is in dispute and the other unidentified profiles increase doubt and also increase the very real possibility that DNA came on the clasp by means other than people handling the clasp. The fact that there is no other evidence of Raffaele's presence in that room also increases the doubt about this piece of evidence.)

3. Luminol prints: Doubtful (No evidence of blood, no proof when the prints were made, no proof as to who made the prints, nothing to show that the DNA detected was DNA already on the floor and if it was Meredith's blood you would expect her DNA to be in the vast majority of the samples)

4. Blood mixed with DNA sample sink: Doubtful (Amanda lived there and used that bathroom, none of that can be dated and it would normally be found there as a matter of course)

5. Nara: Somewhat Doubtful (If she heard a scream it probably was not at the time she indicated she heard it.)

6. Curatolo: Doubtful (It appears you agree on this one.)

7. Quintavalle: No way (Meaning I doubt him well beyond a reasonable doubt for numerous reasons covered several times in this topic.)

8. Amanda Lied: Solid (Others here may disagree.)

9. Raffaele Lied:: Solid (Ditto)

10. Cell phone evidence: Some solid, some doubtful, some disputed. (We can get into the individual records if you want, none of the calls proves an alibi, some of the calls seem to show an earlier time of death possibility, there is dispute on this as well as the meaning of forgotten calls, lengths of calls, order of calls, etc).

11. Motive: Non-Existent (In my opinion the possibilities that the prosecution and the court have presented are all unbelievable)

I am not doubtful I am forgetting some things.

ETA: I left off the behavior stuff because you indicated you give them little importance but I guess the best way to characterize such things as cart-wheels, noise tickets, sex on a train, etc would be that the significance of these type of things are disputed.

 

[Dan O.]

The fact that the video starts with the investigators already holding the bra clasp in their hands raises valid questions about when and where in the room it was found.

That video starts with the investigators suited up in the living room of the cottage. It suspiciously misses the task of checking the seals that were tampered with over a month prior.

There is a long segment where they pretend to be trying to photograph where one of the footprints was near the foot of the bed. (maybe they should have reviewed the footage of the prints being completely erased from the last visit).

When the bra clasp is rediscovered under the cord to Amanda's lamp, they first stand around pointing fingers at it as if this is the most important discovery of the case.

After picking it up and passing it around, they put it down on a clear spot on the floor and photograph it as if this new spot is where it was found.

None of the idiots involved showed they had a clue about proper procedures for documenting and preserving evidence (except the camera man that gave us this evidence).

 

[Dan O.]

Have you seen the video?

That is a silly question. Looking at the evidence would be an admission of not knowing "the truth".

 

[RoseMontague]

I dont think your response "Have you seen the video? "would carry much more weight in court than it does here.

The video carries weight with me. The fact that it doesn't seem to give the court any doubt about this evidence is part of what we are discussing.