Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Dan O.]

Do you or anyone else know if the gals apartment had a working doorbell?

I believe the only mention of a doorbell was what Rudy said about hearing it while on the toilet. The only visible doorbell in the photos I've seen would be the call button of the intercom. The outside unit however was mounted on the wall behind where the metal gate would be stored when open.

Would Meredith have invited Rudy into the cottage and then locked the gate behind her?

 

[Draca]

The evidence shows that the bra was removed after a major wound was inflicted and before death. The cutting of the strap however may have occurred before blood was drawn and is possibly evidenced by the fact that there is little blood at the site of the cut.

The cut is coincidentally at the location where the hook part is stitched to the strap. This is a weak point where the strap would fail if it were stressed to the point of failure. The characteristic of a cut cord or strap is that all the fibers remain lined up with an even cut through them. A stress failure has the weakest fiber break and snap back into the bundle then the next fiber breaks etc.. The result is an uneven break with a tangle at the end. It should have been easy for the crack team from Rome to figure out that the strap was cut but I won't guarantee they got this right.

Thanks Dan O.,

So were there three cuts? Each strap and near the clasps?

 

[Draca]

Hendry thinks it was torn apart rather than cut. He showed me a bra with similar construction, where the part with the clasp is a separate, stitched-on piece of fabric.

What about the straps? Why would he cut part of the bra off but rip apart another area?

 

[Dan O.]

if there was blood on the bra clasp it would lean towards after the stabbing, if there was no blood on the bra clasp then the knife had not yet seen blood.

or "little blood" from the environment, of being under the pillow, and on the floor in general? Did the bra and the removed bra clasp both show blood at the cut?

There was little blood on the clasp where it was cut. It could either have come from a knife after the knife was wiped off or from the environment. I don't recall seeing a closeup of the cut strap end. A close examination of the fibers would have clarified what happened.

 

[JREF2010]

All that doesnt even include the fact that Sollecito had been in that apartment before and some how he managed only to touch the bra clasp just like the other 3 people.

It's possible all these DNA "signatures" were placed on the bra clasp at the same time. Isn't it true the bra clasp has ample DNA to retest?
How long does a test take in a case like this, days, weeks, months?

That is if the Judge even wants to allow retesting.

 

[Kaosium]

I believe in one of Rudy's statements he says the clothes and shoes were dumped somewhere out of town. Rudy was most definitely a suspect and was already talking to a lawyer before the Italian police could question him. Any admission to even having a knife would be incriminating and his lawyer would have advised him not to talk about it.

Ah, thank you, something that occurred to me that I couldn't seem to remember anything about. I wonder if that murder knife showed up if it would have any effect on the case. I wouldn't think he'd have carried it with him very far...

 

[Mary_H]

In what way was the press conference on the 6th November 2007 improper?

Listening to Nick Pisa report on it, http://video.sky.com/home/related/11489/ITALY+Meredith+Kercher+3+arrested+pisa+phono/true there does not seem to be anything improper said at the time, in fact it seems that the police did not even give out the names of the arrested at the time.

As for the picture hanging in the Giobbi's hallway, I agree that it was improper.

The press conference was improper because officials used it to describe a scenario and motive they had no evidence of, and to declare the case closed, prior to any indictments, evidence collection or trial. By doing so, they violated the suspects' rights to a fair trial based on a presumption of innocence.

Watching the press conference or reading articles quoting the officials would be more informative than going by Nick Pisa's subjective impressions.

 

[Mary_H]

Ah, thank you, something that occurred to me that I couldn't seem to remember anything about. I wonder if that murder knife showed up if it would have any effect on the case. I wouldn't think he'd have carried it with him very far...

Yes, as far as most of us know, most knife-killers dispose of their murder weapons after use. Of course, as a renter, Raffaele was responsible for the inventory of kitchen utensils in his apartment. He had to choose between being questioned by police or questioned by his -- gulp -- landlord.

 

[Kaosium]

Yes, as far as most of us know, most knife-killers dispose of their murder weapons after use. Of course, as a renter, Raffaele was responsible for the inventory of kitchen utensils in his apartment. He had to choose between being questioned by police or questioned by his -- gulp -- landlord.

LOL!

Not Raffaele and Amanda, as Frank from Perugia Shock put it, they wanted to remember their murder with every meal, to taste the essence. Going through the whole sordid story of that 'murder knife' it makes me wonder just how much someone could make selling cheap crap for a 1000% markup to that jury.

I wonder just how hard they searched for Rudy's knife. I suppose it might not have made a difference, they'd have still pretended the other had been at the scene because of that fortuitous DNA 'discovery,' but I wonder if it might have created some doubt...

 

[moodstream]

Murder In Italy

The fact a convoy of cars are leaving the police station is just obvious, the suspects were arrested at the police station, I can’t believe somebody tries to use this as a proof of something.
If Dempsey says she “checked” anything with Bertoldi she is simply illegitimately boasting of something her source didn’t report. What does it mean to “check the route with Bertoldi”? Is that a kind of reconstruction of yours? Elio Clero Bertoldi is a reporter, not a Gps device, he usually reports facts he knows or learns about, and he reports what he knows.
Let’s put it simple: jus admit Demspey made up a story, she reports something for which there are no sources, and police patrols didn’t do anything unprofessional by what we know on the occasion.

Is this your only problem with Dempsey? Is this the extent of the inaccuracies you are aware of in her book?

I have been in discussions with many pro guilt posters who, when the name Dempsey come up, immediately refer to her book as untrustworthy. I have yet to get an explanation of why.

Please tell me everything that is wrong with Murder in Italy.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

What about the straps? Why would he cut part of the bra off but rip apart another area?

He didn't. He tore the bra off with brute force.

The photos show clearly that the shoulder straps were torn. I had thought the back strap was cut, but Ron convinced me otherwise. The piece of fabric to which the hooks were attached was torn off. If you look closely at a photo showing the rest of the back strap, you can see a stitched vertical hem about an eight of an inch from the place where the clasp was torn off. Ron showed me a similar bra, on which the clasps were attached to a separate piece of fabric that was stitched onto the back strap as well as the right shoulder strap.

Download this if you haven't already:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Meredith_Kercher_murder_reconstruction_graphic_-_Ron_Hendry.pdf

I worked with Ron to put that together. I produced large composite images with the crime scene photos at full resolution, which I imported into powerpoint and then exported as a pdf. I allowed a reasonable amount of compression, but I preserved the resolution, so if you look at the pdf at about 400 percent, you will see almost the same level of detail provided in the original photos.

 

[Antony]

There is only one precise question: why is Raffaele Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp.
Not if the bra clasp is contaminated. But why is it contaminated with Sollecito's DNA. This is the question.
Either you have an innocent, reasonable answer to explain why Raffaele Sollecito's DNA is on the clasp, or you haven't.

Machiavelli, this YouTube video can't have escaped your attention - it's been quoted several times on this thread.

It shows investigators "discovering" the bra clasp and then poring over it for some minutes, while subjecting it to prolonged handling by 2 people. Both agents are shown holding it by the metal hook at certain points. Raffaele's DNA was almost certainly transferred to the clasp at this time, right on camera.

The question has to be asked: why would investigators show this sort of interest in an item of evidence, instead of picking it up with tweezers and bagging it straight away? It smacks to me of a clumsy attempt to "document" the discovery of the clasp, because they knew at the time that it would be used as the evidence they were looking for.

 

[Fine]

Better Education

* * *
PS-I recall writing a post where I had mentioned that at least 10 people were in the girls apartment before Meredith's dead body was discovered.Well, if the door to the apartment was left open all night,
who knows how many others might've come into the place overnight?
And might someone have tried to wipe any trace of their own presence in this apartment, if it was found with it's unlocked front door open sometime that cold night?

* * *

_____________________

It gets worse. In Amanda's APPEAL document, in the section entitled Multiple Violations, translated over on Bruce's site, we're told:


"The court has made the claim that Amanda showed signs of guilt by where she was standing when Meredith’s door was opened. There were 12 people in a narrow corridor and it is completely illogical to say that Amanda’s position down the hall yet still inside the home this creates a 'background of guilt.' " (Amanda's Appeal)


No. This is not a translation error. So, how to explain mention of these 12 people? Maybe Amanda's lawyers answered the question themselves, elsewhere in the same document,........


"The defense points out some of the statistics of pot users. The defense states that 74 million Europeans or 22% to the total EU population between 15 and 64 years old indicate they have used cannabis in a 2009 study. ... This practice should be curbed and fought with better education...."

///

 

[RoseMontague]

He didn't. He tore the bra off with brute force.

The photos show clearly that the shoulder straps were torn. I had thought the back strap was cut, but Ron convinced me otherwise. The piece of fabric to which the hooks were attached was torn off. If you look closely at a photo showing the rest of the back strap, you can see a stitched vertical hem about an eight of an inch from the place where the clasp was torn off. Ron showed me a similar bra, on which the clasps were attached to a separate piece of fabric that was stitched onto the back strap as well as the right shoulder strap.

Download this if you haven't already:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Meredith_Kercher_murder_reconstruction_graphic_-_Ron_Hendry.pdf

I worked with Ron to put that together. I produced large composite images with the crime scene photos at full resolution, which I imported into powerpoint and then exported as a pdf. I allowed a reasonable amount of compression, but I preserved the resolution, so if you look at the pdf at about 400 percent, you will see almost the same level of detail provided in the original photos.

To me it looks like it was partially torn and maybe cut the rest of the way. LOL. I wonder how strong that metal clasp is. It almost appears to me to be bent open far enough that the bra would not need to be torn or cut.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, as far as most of us know, most knife-killers dispose of their murder weapons after use. Of course, as a renter, Raffaele was responsible for the inventory of kitchen utensils in his apartment. He had to choose between being questioned by police or questioned by his -- gulp -- landlord.

Of course there's an incredibly logical other option. If that knife had indeed been used in the murder, Sollecito or Knox could simply have bought a replacement kitchen knife and swapped it for the "murder knife".They could easily have done this on Saturday 3rd November (so long as they didn't think they were being followed or surveilled). By all accounts, the knife in question was a popular budget brand, which would therefore likely have been easy to find in many Perugia stores. All that would have been necessary was to scuff up the new knife to simulate wear and tear.

Of course, all this is moot, because that knife was not used in the murder then scrubbed with bleach afterwards. If that had been the case, no DNA on the blade would have survived the scrubbing and exposure to bleach - regardless of the improper procedures adopted by Stefanoni in her LCN quest to find Meredith's DNA. I predict that the knife will be the first piece of "evidence" to be thrown out in the appeal. It should never have been accepted in the first place.

///

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli, this YouTube video can't have escaped your attention - it's been quoted several times on this thread.

It shows investigators "discovering" the bra clasp and then poring over it for some minutes, while subjecting it to prolonged handling by 2 people. Both agents are shown holding it by the metal hook at certain points. Raffaele's DNA was almost certainly transferred to the clasp at this time, right on camera.

The question has to be asked: why would investigators show this sort of interest in an item of evidence, instead of picking it up with tweezers and bagging it straight away? It smacks to me of a clumsy attempt to "document" the discovery of the clasp, because they knew at the time that it would be used as the evidence they were looking for.

The question "why would investigators show this sort of interest in an item of evidence" is a question only put by people unaccustomed to the procedure of evidence formation and collection called incidente probatorio. Which is not a forensic activity, but more like ritualized situation that provides the presence of lawyers, prosecutors and magistrates, experts of the various parties and officers as "screen". These people, in this case, where located in a van cabled to the video camera, talking and listening to voices on microphones. They mean exactly to "document" the collection of the clasp, because they are in a legal procedure legally depending on the attention of other people observing and recognizing the item.

The idea that was transferred to the clasp by touching the metal parts with gloves at certain instants is, well ... let's put the first question: transferred from where? Where did those gloves picked up Sollecito's DNA? Could you show me the source and the moment of the transfer? No source for Raffaele's DNA was found in the house. Even the door handles had been cleaned. It is not enough to assume they touched the metal part at a certain moment, you also have to assume they also touched something mysterious, never discovered, whishc contained some aboudance of Raffaele's skin cells.
Second: how likely is it to touch a microscopic source of DNA and transfer it with a touch? The same microscopic portion of the glove should touch both the source and the point of delivery, and the DNA must be solved in a liquid substance so can be "picked up", and also it must happen that casually this leaves the glove and is deposited on the new surface in that point. And the bra clasp showed dehydrated skin cells attached to the metal.
Why should I assume such a series of events? I will never consider all those events as reasonable. likely occurrence.

 

[Machiavelli]

Glad you clarified that. You believe someone took Meredith's bra off prior to her arriving at the apartment where she was later murdered. (... )

Why don't you stop telling lies, making up what I said. I said something different. You are lying.

 

[Withnail1969]

The question "why would investigators show this sort of interest in an item of evidence" is a question only put by people unaccustomed to the procedure of evidence formation and collection called incidente probatorio. Which is not a forensic activity, but more like ritualized situation that provides the presence of lawyers, prosecutors and magistrates, experts of the various parties and officers as "screen". These people, in this case, where located in a van cabled to the video camera, talking and listening to voices on microphones. They mean exactly to "document" the collection of the clasp, because they are in a legal procedure legally depending on the attention of other people observing and recognizing the item.

The idea that was transferred to the clasp by touching the metal parts with gloves at certain instants is, well ... let's put the first question: transferred from where? Where did those gloves picked up Sollecito's DNA? Could you show me the source and the moment of the transfer? No source for Raffaele's DNA was found in the house. Even the door handles had been cleaned. It is not enough to assume they touched the metal part at a certain moment, you also have to assume they also touched something mysterious, never discovered, whishc contained some aboudance of Raffaele's skin cells.
Second: how likely is it to touch a microscopic source of DNA and transfer it with a touch? The same microscopic portion of the glove should touch both the source and the point of delivery, and the DNA must be solved in a liquid substance so can be "picked up", and also it must happen that casually this leaves the glove and is deposited on the new surface in that point. And the bra clasp showed dehydrated skin cells attached to the metal.
Why should I assume such a series of events? I will never consider all those events as reasonable. likely occurrence.

But why are the investigators handling it, rubbing it, passing it between them, shining torches on it, and eventually putting it on the floor? What is any of that supposed to achieve?

BTW wasn't Raffaele's DNA found on cigarette butts in the kitchen?

 

[Machiavelli]

The problem is that there are several possible answers to that question. Raffaele's DNA might have gotten on the bra fastener when police trashed the place on November 5 or 6. Maybe someone picked it up, handled it, and tossed it over by the desk, just as someone tossed the bloody boots under the bed. Maybe someone stepped on it after walking in an area where Raffaele had sneezed. Maybe one of the the two people who pressed it between their thumb and forefinger on December 18 - at precisely the spot where Raffaele's DNA was found - had touched some other surface or object on which Raffaele's DNA was present. Perhaps one of them grasped the outside handle of the door to Meredith's room, or touched the same area on that door where Raffaele's fingerprints were found.

None of these possibilities can be proven, but they cannot be ruled out either. Once the police botch an investigation, the damage cannot be undone.

No, all this is not enough. The bra was not stepped over, since it was photographed before, and appeared intact. But the point is the investigation is not botched at all, all entries of people in the room are known and the condition in which they took place too, no DNA is supposed to be present in Meredith's room at all, DNA is not supposed to be easilly transferred from an object to another just by their contact, nobody walked from a room to another during police activities, and no DNA from Sollecito was found on "surfaces" in the cottage.
There is no theory of this kind of forensic contamination which is reasonable or likely or backed by any finding. There is no way to explain Sollecito's DNA on the clasp. The reasoning in evidence assessment doesn't work by "ruling out" possible remote hypothesis, it works by bringing in reasonable explanations.

 

[Machiavelli]

But why are the investigators handling it, rubbing it, passing it between them, shining torches on it, and eventually putting it on the floor? What is any of that supposed to achieve?

This video has an audio. You have to listen to tha audio to understand it. First, you should ask the defence, who released the video, to release now the complete video not just a copy with audio deleted, and then put the question about what everything means.