Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[TomCH]

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.

Yes, and had the landlord, upon hearing of the death of Meredith, reported that a knife was missing, how would THAT look?

 

[Withnail1969]

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.

It's hard to imagine what the audio would say.

'Guys, could you please hold the bra clasp in your dirty gloves, give it a good rub, shine some torches on it, pass it around, then put it on the floor'.

 

[TomCH]

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.

Even so, why was Raffaele's DNA present ANYWHERE in Meredith's room?

And by what stretch of the imagination do you get off claiming that the investigation was botched by the police?

 

[Withnail1969]

Yes, and had the landlord, upon hearing of the death of Meredith, reported that a knife was missing, how would THAT look?

A cheap and common knife, easily replaced with Amanda's alleged shoplifting skills. Of course it's an irrelevant scenario, because the knife was not the murder weapon. If it actually had been, they would have tossed it, and then we would be talking about what happened to Raffaele's kitchen knife.

 

[Withnail1969]

Even so, why was Raffaele's DNA present ANYWHERE in Meredith's room?

And by what stretch of the imagination do you get off claiming that the investigation was botched by the police?

Raffaele's DNA was already in the cottage on his cigarette butts. Of course the investigation was botched by these clowns, you only have to watch these 'forensics experts' to realise that.

 

[RoseMontague]

Raffaele's DNA was already in the cottage on his cigarette butts. Of course the investigation was botched by these clowns, you only have to watch these 'forensics experts' to realise that.

Raffaele's DNA was also found on the outside of Meredith's door most likely from his efforts to break down the door according to the Ron Hendry post on the bra clasp. He also lists the actions of the forensic team prior to the discovery of the bra clasp that could possibly result in contamination. I am certain that Raffaele's DNA was present in other areas of the flat, the forensic team did not test everything for DNA of course, just those things that were possibly related to the things they were looking to find that would prove their theory, or things they felt might contain something related to the crime.

Time photo sequence of December 18, 2007 police investigation of upstairs
cottage flat where Meredith Kercher was murdered. All times are pm.

1:14 entered the cottage
1:50 started setting camera up in Meredith Kercher room
1:51 photo taken of items on and under bed
1:53 wardrobe doors at door entrance
2:01 videographer begins taping
2:04 four white suits in living room with woman white suit arrival
2:04 entry of non white suite investigator with green cap brings total to 6 in cottage
2:22 look at shoe prints erased by DNA scrubber
2:44 photos of floor where Meredith’s head had lain
2:49 photos of Meredith Kercher room door
2:53 mop and cleaner photos
3:12 refrigerator photo
3:18 mattress photo
3:22 samples from forensic kit at Amanda Knox door
3:26 DNA sample of wall finger swipe by bed
3:33 examination of tennis shoes
3:50 examined handbag
3:52 discovery of the clasp

It is pretty obvious that the gloves of at least one of the handlers of the clasp was not clean. It is also obvious that they entered Meredith's room from the hallway, having stepped in several other areas of the flat, then walked over the area that they eventually set the bra clasp back down at. I agree that this whole scenario demonstrates a level of professionalism that is poor and a botchedness of evidence collection.

 

[Alt+F4]

And by what stretch of the imagination do you get off claiming that the investigation was botched by the police?

Watching too many episodes of CSI?

 

[Antony]

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.

This is all pretty feeble. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not on the defence. In this context, it's down to the prosecution to show that evidence was collected, handled and tested in a way that avoids possibility of contamination; in this case, there is all this unnecessary handling of the sample, there is other footage showing visible dust on the investigators' gloves, and there is the 47-day gap during which the clasp was moved from one part of the room to another. It's manifestly clear that contamination was not only possible, but highly likely, so this piece of "evidence" should be seen for what it is: worthless.

What you are demanding is that the defence show a route of transmission for the contaminants, for you to knock down so as to obfuscate the failure of the prosecution to provide valid evidence. Justice doesn't work like that.

Not only that, but the prosecution and their online apologists want us to believe that the DNA was deposited during the murder, and is therefore "proof" that Raffaele was involved. But there is no credible narrative of the attack that would have one of the attackers handling the metal clasp of the bra. However the DNA came to be on the bra hook, it wasn't during the murder.

 

[Withnail1969]

Raffaele's DNA was also found on the outside of Meredith's door most likely from his efforts to break down the door according to the Ron Hendry post on the bra clasp. He also lists the actions of the forensic team prior to the discovery of the bra clasp that could possibly result in contamination. I am certain that Raffaele's DNA was present in other areas of the flat, the forensic team did not test everything for DNA of course, just those things that were possibly related to the things they were looking to find that would prove their theory, or things they felt might contain something related to the crime.



It is pretty obvious that the gloves of at least one of the handlers of the clasp was not clean. It is also obvious that they entered Meredith's room from the hallway, having stepped in several other areas of the flat, then walked over the area that they eventually set the bra clasp back down at. I agree that this whole scenario demonstrates a level of professionalism that is poor and a botchedness of evidence collection.

Why did all this forensic work take place weeks after the murder, allowing time for biological samples to rot or degrade?

 

[Antony]

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.

I too would like to hear the video, along with an English translation of the transcript of their conversations. I can think of no reason why the defence would want to keep it secret, but plenty of reasons why the prosecution would.

 

[Alt+F4]

Hiding under a blanket and firing ridicule at random targets might be psychologically easier on you than admitting that you might have been completely wrong, but it's not a very convincing argument.

"Psychologically easier"?

Amanda Knox and Raffelle are guilty as hell. They will lose their appeals and spend many, many years in prison. You should psycholocially prepare yourself for this since obviously you spend a considerable amount of time thinking about it. As for me, going for a bike ride.

 

[RoseMontague]

Why did all this forensic work take place weeks after the murder, allowing time for biological samples to rot or degrade?

I believe it is recommended that there is a delay in the luminol testing. Other than that I have seen claims that the delayed return to the cottage was because of defense stalling (still unsupported despite several claims of this here). Others have suggested that this is the Perugia way of storing evidence until they get around to it (still funny, afaiac). Others have suggested that as soon as the shoe expert was shown to be stupid by a kid they needed something else to tie Raffaele to the crime so they just happened to notice they "forgot" the hook the first time.

 

[Machiavelli]

I too would like to hear the video, along with an English translation of the transcript of their conversations. I can think of no reason why the defence would want to keep it secret, but plenty of reasons why the prosecution would.

What you are able to think is one separate issue, while facts are the video has been released to the public by the defence, and the same source who released it obviously removed the audio. The prosecution did not remove the audio from the video released by the defence. So whatever you think based on your convincements, you should request the audio directly to the source who released the video.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA guidelines

Watching too many episodes of CSI?

Those of us who think that the handling of the clasp was botched came to this conclusion by reading guidelines on how to handle DNA evidence, such as change gloves often and use disposable tools, as has been pointed out many times on this and the previous thread.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is all pretty feeble. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not on the defence. In this context, it's down to the prosecution to show that evidence was collected, handled and tested in a way that avoids possibility of contamination; in this case, there is all this unnecessary handling of the sample, there is other footage showing visible dust on the investigators' gloves, and there is the 47-day gap during which the clasp was moved from one part of the room to another. It's manifestly clear that contamination was not only possible, but highly likely, so this piece of "evidence" should be seen for what it is: worthless.
(..)

No it is not feeble, it is a rock solid as a mountain on the evidence scale. There is no reasonable explaination for Raffaele's DNA, that's all, despite all these evesive ramblings, and that's enough. In all what you complain about there is nothing that can explain the presence of Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp. Nothing that can produce a reasonable doubt. And even if there wes a reasonable doubt, it would be still not enough to reduce a piece of evience to zero. Raffaele's DNA is on the bra clasp, there is no likely or reasonable explanation for it to be there, this is a fact, and will have a weight.

 

[Machiavelli]

(..)

What you are demanding is that the defence show a route of transmission for the contaminants, for you to knock down so as to obfuscate the failure of the prosecution to provide valid evidence. Justice doesn't work like that.
(..)

Justice works precisely like that, and you will be shown.

 

[RoseMontague]

What you are able to think is one separate issue, while facts are the video has been released to the public by the defence, and the same source who released it obviously removed the audio. The prosecution did not remove the audio from the video released by the defence. So whatever you think based on your convincements, you should request the audio directly to the source who released the video.

I am curious if you have heard an audio of this and/or your source for this claim. It may be obvious for you or it could be a well educated guess on your part. In any case, I see no reason not to ask Charlie to release it with the audio, if that exists. Would you or Tom be willing to do a transcript with translation if this is done?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

contamination fallacies

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.

Machiavelli,

In the Gregory Turner case, DNA from the victim's nails was transferred by a technician to Mr. Turner's wedding ring. The technician also transferred some of her own DNA. You appear to be basing your ideas of DNA transfer on Dr. Stefanoni's testimony, but she is not a good source of information. Also, contamination has a very specific meaning in forensic DNA work. It is the transfer of DNA after an item has been taken into custody. And contamination can take place either at the scene of the crime or in the lab. Finally, as RoseMontague correctly pointed out, it is a logical error to equate all of Raffaele's DNA in the apartment with how much DNA the investigators found there.

 

[TomCH]

Of course the investigation was botched by these clowns, you only have to watch these 'forensics experts' to realise that.

So you personally are a forensics expert?

If not, well that says it all.

 

[Alt+F4]

More likely by reading guidelines on how to handle DNA evidence, such as change gloves often and use disposable tools, as has been pointed out many times on this and the previous thread.

Is it deliberate contamination, accidential contamination, planted evidence or simply not his DNA at all? Why is it that those who believe in AK and RS's innocence can't decide on one theory?

Same thing with it comes to the large knife. Was Amanda's DNA planted on the knife, did the lab use the instruments incorrectly (....again deliberately or accidentially) or was her DNA never on the handle to begin it?