Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[quadraginta]

Leaving a knife at the scene is one thing. Carrying a blood-soaked knife through the streets of Perugia just to put it back in the drawer is another, especially after Nara's bloodcurdling scream has rung out through the whole town. What did they carry the knife in? Amanda's bag? Where is the DNA/blood evidence?

It's idiotic.

Why would the knife have to be "blood-soaked". It seems that everybody involved was washing blood off of everything else. Pants, shoes, floors, themselves, ... . Why would it be so tough to rinse off a knife?

What was it about this knife that made it so hard to conceal? It could be wrapped in a couple of paper towels and stuck in a boot. It's not exactly a broadsword. I could think of half a dozen ways of transporting that knife a few blocks without raising an eyebrow, and I feel confident that you could as well, if you were so inclined.

"Idiotic " is easy to come by. The mastermind criminal is a figment of literature. Timothy McVeigh, after planning and executing a truck bomb which killed 168 people was busted hours later for driving a car with no license plate, and carrying an illegal concealed weapon while doing it. He was already locked up when they linked him to the bombing. How idiotic is it to blow up a building and then make your escape in a car which all but has a sign on it saying "Pull me over please, Officer!" while wearing an illegal gun under your coat?

Many criminals end up getting busted for being stupid, in retrospect.

============================

All of which is irrelevant to my question to Mary_H.

Do you concur with her assertion that "... as far as most of us know, most knife-killers dispose of their murder weapons after use."? Can you provide some data to support it?

I ask this because, quite frankly, I don't know, and was rather surprised to see such a claim made as an argument in defense of Knox and Sollecito. It may well be true, but I have not run across such an assertion before.

 

[quadraginta]

duplicate post.

 

[christianahannah]

That post provides insight into the way you think. you decided what would be most incriminating and stated it as "fact" without any supporting evidence.

What is the chain of custody of this video and what evidence do we have to glimpse its state along the way? We know that the investigation team created this video. Do we know if the camera was set to even record audio? Where did the defense get their copy? Have any segments of this video surfaced with audio?

There are several references to the video of December 18, 2007 in the Motivations. I do not know if audio was provided with the video (it doesn't specify).

From the following paragraphs I assume the defense had a representative present (possibly also the prosecution) to view the monitor (set up in the van) while the search was being conducted in the house.

(Bolding by me)

Page 101:

Subsequently, another entry was made into the house on December 18, 2007, to collect further material by the Scientific Police. On that occasion, full protective gear was worn and a prepared van was provided in which a television monitor was installed to allow the various parties to see what was happening and what was being accomplished inside the house, in particular inside Meredith’s room.

Page 104:

She then returned to the house for the forensic inspection on December 18, putting on "the white suit". On that occasion, a van had been set up to allow everybody to follow what was happening inside the house, and no one put forward any objections as to how to proceed. [97] (page 246). On that occasion, "they were all wearing the white suits and gloves", and the bra piece with hooks was collected then (page 247).

 

[quadraginta]

Good example. That case seems even more similar to the one her new cell-mate was convicted of. Were the two 19 year old men friends with each other?

One was the girl's boyfriend. The other ( the honor student) a friend of theirs from school.

More perplexing, and not mentioned in the 48 Hours piece, was that this had been only one of several cases of teens trying to off their parents in that area over only a few years. Rough place for parenthood, I guess.

 

[TomCH]

Surely they would have needed the knife in the kitchen on the evening before the picnic, to prepare their dinner and presumably sandwiches etc for their picnic the following day?

Why exactly does one need a large knife on a picnic anyway?

Because around here, one doesn't 'prepare sandwiches', one brings meats, cheeses, tomatoes, bread, etc. and cuts it at the picnic site.

If there's one thing I always carry on a picnic, it's a knife (the other is a corkscrew), anything else can be purchased, and in fact usually is.

 

[Withnail1969]

Why would the knife have to be "blood-soaked". It seems that everybody involved was washing blood off of everything else. Pants, shoes, floors, themselves, ... . Why would it be so tough to rinse off a knife?

What was it about this knife that made it so hard to conceal? It could be wrapped in a couple of paper towels and stuck in a boot. It's not exactly a broadsword. I could think of half a dozen ways of transporting that knife a few blocks without raising an eyebrow, and I feel confident that you could as well, if you were so inclined.

"Idiotic " is easy to come by. The mastermind criminal is a figment of literature. Timothy McVeigh, after planning and executing a truck bomb which killed 168 people was busted hours later for driving a car with no license plate, and carrying an illegal concealed weapon while doing it. He was already locked up when they linked him to the bombing. How idiotic is it to blow up a building and then make your escape in a car which all but has a sign on it saying "Pull me over please, Officer!" while wearing an illegal gun under your coat?

Many criminals end up getting busted for being stupid, in retrospect.

It would be an extraordinary risk to take the knife back to Raffaele's, given that a bloodcurdling scream of death had recently echoed through the town.

And with Stefanoni's superpowered DNA detection skills, it would have been impossible to hide even tiny traces of blood on Amanda's bag or clothing.

Far easier to take the murder weapon a hundred metres or so into the shrubbery below the cottage and bury it, just stab it vertically into the ground and stamp on it. In fact, i wonder if that's what Rudy did with the real murder weapon.

Did the cops search the area with metal detectors? Who am i kidding, of course they didn't.

 

[Withnail1969]

Because around here, one doesn't 'prepare sandwiches', one brings meats, cheeses, tomatoes, bread, etc. and cuts it at the picnic site.

If there's one thing I always carry on a picnic, it's a knife (the other is a corkscrew), anything else can be purchased, and in fact usually is.

It's still not a good explanation of why Amanda would have been carrying the knife around on a Thursday evening.

 

[TomCH]

What was it about this knife that made it so hard to conceal?

Ummm, nothing?

I can probably fit any knife I own in the bag for my laptop (except the salmon knife, that really is too long!).

But, a short-bladed knife like that in question could easily be kept with the blade in a book, with damage to neither book nor blade.

 

[Withnail1969]

Ummm, nothing?

I can probably fit any knife I own in the bag for my laptop (except the salmon knife, that really is too long!).

But, a short-bladed knife like that in question could easily be kept with the blade in a book, with damage to neither book nor blade.

Except that there was no reason for them to take this knife anywhere, especially on a Thursday night, since Rafaelle already carried knives suitable for a picnic which he already used to cut food items.

 

[quadraginta]

The handle was very long, the blade only 6 or 7", total was 34cm as I recall. The handle was longer than the blade. My Henkel with 8" blade is 32.5cm, my Victorinox with 8" blade (camping knife) is slightly shorter.

My 'usual' kitchen knife has a 10" blade, and is 39cm long.

They were going on a picnic the next day (or so they claim), a knife would be a standard tool to bring. So, that's a good explanation for why Amanda had it in her bag.

Yikes, no sarcasm intended. You are obviously well informed on knives. Are those pet names for your blades or brand names? You are obviously not most people when it comes to knives, at least in my opinion. Your theory is better than the one proposed by Massei, regardless.

Aside from misspelling "Henckels" (a common mistake), those are brand names which would be very well known to anyone with even a casual familiarity with quality kitchen cutlery, along with Sabatier, Spyderco, etc. Henckels is probably one of the best known balances between cost and quality. Someone nearly always has them on sale somewhere. I have eight of them in a knife block on my kitchen counter.

 

[RoseMontague]

Aside from misspelling "Henckels" (a common mistake), those are brand names which would be very well known to anyone with even a casual familiarity with quality kitchen cutlery, along with Sabatier, Spyderco, etc. Henckels is probably one of the best known balances between cost and quality. Someone nearly always has them on sale somewhere. I have eight of them in a knife block on my kitchen counter.

Mine are probably ACME products (Coyote brand). I usually use the knives in my drawer when I can't find a screwdriver.

 

[Alt+F4]

In any case my guess is Amanda goes back to the US even in the unlikely event of all appeals--including to the EU--failing, and odds are will be effectively a free woman the moment she steps off the plane.

How would she be out of prison and back in the U.S. even if all her appeals fail?

 

[quadraginta]

Mine are probably ACME products (Coyote brand). I usually use the knives in my drawer when I can't find a screwdriver.

Aside from the butter knives with our place settings it would be both unrewarding and remarkably dangerous to try and use any of the knives in our kitchen for a screwdriver.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

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?

This has been discussed extensively in this thread, but I realize it's hard to keep track of everything that gets posted, so I will summarize the problems.

For starters, they trashed the cottage before they were finished collecting evidence. The premises were reasonably tidy, outside of Meredith's room, in photos taken on November 2 and 3, but when the next set of photos was taken, on December 18, the place was a shambles.

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/bed_nov_02_07.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/bed_dec_18_07.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/kitchen_nov_02_07.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/kitchen_dec_18_07.jpg

Also see the pdf on the IIP site:

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

It explains how they threw bloody boots under the bed, and then concluded that the resulting bloodstains were part of the post-crime staging. If that isn't bungling, I don't know what is.

Here are some guidelines for handling DNA evidence, put out by the US Dept. of Justice:

- Wear gloves. Change them often.
- Use disposable instruments or clean them thoroughly before and after handling each sample.
- Avoid touching the area where you believe DNA may exist.
- Avoid talking, sneezing, and coughing over evidence.
- Avoid touching your face, nose, and mouth when collecting and packaging evidence.
- Air-dry evidence thoroughly before packaging.
- Put evidence into new paper bags or envelopes, not into plastic bags. Do not use staples.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/nij/bc000614.txt

Notice the condition of the gloves in this closeup from the December 18 kitchen photo:

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

Obviously someone handled a lot of stuff with the same pair of gloves, and this is how evidence becomes contaminated. Over the course of several hours of video taken at the crime scene on Nov. 2-3 and on Dec. 18, no one is ever seen changing into a fresh pair of gloves. This is significant, because the video shows sloppy evidence gathering, like this:

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

Notice how she rubs the bloodstain, then reverses the tip of the swab and bears down on the bloody spot with her thumb. Unless she changes gloves, this procedure is almost certain to cause DNA transfer between samples, which is why the guidelines listed above tell investigators to change gloves or use a clean instrument before handling each new sample.

Now take a look at this video clip showing another sample being collected:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/dropped_swab.avi

She drops the swab on the floor, then picks it up and resumes her wiping of the bloodstain as though nothing had happened.

These are just a few examples among many documented by the police themselves, in their photos and video.

 

[Alt+F4]

At any rate, you bring up something I was pondering when I heard (initial reports at least) that the first movie, the one with Hayden Panetierre, wouldn't even show the murder scene, it would leave that part a mystery. I think that would be especially effective, as if they stick to the facts as close as anything Hollywood can, that would more or less exonerate her in everyone's eyes anyway.

You do know that Hayden Panetierre has her own doubts as to Amanda's innocence, right?

If the movie leaves the actual murder as a mystery how would that exonerate her in "everyone's eyes."?

 

[Alt+F4]

Obviously someone handled a lot of stuff with the same pair of gloves, and this is how evidence becomes contaminated.

But this doesn't explain where Raffaele's DNA came from in order to be contaminated onto the bra clasp.

 

[Chris C]

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

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6596417&postcount=17256

There is actually no reason to assume it is from a contamination of the scene after the murder, since the bra clasp is an item that could well have carried residual traces since before, or could have been touched or got dirty before the murder or during, or after the murder in the room, without implying a contamination in laboratory or by forensics.

Its seems your basing your assumption and arguments against my questions that contamination can only happen in a lab or when its being handled for processing. I don't think in my questions have I mentioned anything about lab contamination.

However, I'm not telling lies. You have made it clear that you believe the extra dna on the bra clasp could have had happened before the murder. So unless the Star Trek Enterprise was orbiting Earth and beamed the DNA onto the clasp. The only other possibly way is for the DNA to have gotten there was for the 3 individuals to have only touched the bra clasp. Or do you now believe that the bra got contaminated from the floor.

 

[Draca]

It seems unlikey it would have happened at the crime scene because where would his DNA have come from inside the apartment in the first place? .

Add to that RS's appeal which states that it's not his DNA on the bra clasp but if it is...it's there due to contamination.

One possible place Raffaele's DNA came from in Meredith's room is on Amanda's lamp. Raffaele likely turned the lamp on or off while 'hanging out' with Amanda in her room. On Dec 18th Amanda's lamp had been moved to the desk and the cord of her lamp extended down to the floor near the rug the bra clasp was found under. Can you prove this is not reasonably possible?

 

[Withnail1969]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6596417&postcount=17256


Its seems your basing your assumption and arguments against my questions that contamination can only happen in a lab or when its being handled for processing. I don't think in my questions have I mentioned anything about lab contamination.

However, I'm not telling lies. You have made it clear that you believe the extra dna on the bra clasp could have had happened before the murder. So unless the Star Trek Enterprise was orbiting Earth and beamed the DNA onto the clasp. The only other possibly way is for the DNA to have gotten there was for the 3 individuals to have only touched the bra clasp. Or do you now believe that the bra got contaminated from the floor.

Withnail told me to say that we've all seen what happened. The Keystone Kops trashed the place then played pass the parcel with the 'evidence'.

No amount of verbosity from 'Machiavelli' is going to change those basic facts.

 

[tsig]

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.

I've read the rules for Major League Baseball yet i still can't play in the majors.