Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Alt+F4]

I was especially sad reading that Mr. Kercher would have kept that chocolate forever...

That is sad.

Too bad Amanda didn't send the Kerchers some of the chocolate she got when her and Meredith were having that great time together.

 

[LondonJohn]

LondonJohn,

Apologies, I am feeling my way back into this, so I hope my question isn't a repetition of recently covered ground. When you talk about the burden of proof being high, do you mean on the forum, in the court, or both?

Welcome back

Well, I was referring to the court primarily. I don't think that there's a burden of proof on anyone posting on this forum - after all, it's merely a talking shop with pretty much no direct repercussions on the case. But many of us think that the first court didn't meet its burden of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for Knox and Sollecito.

Having said that, I do believe that the asymmetry of the justice process should be reflected to some degree in an asymmetry in discussions of the case. In other words, those who remain convinced of Knox's and Sollecito's guilt ought to (logically) be presenting cast-iron evidence of their guilt, and should also be able to completely refute any reasonable possibility of their non-guilt. But those who believe the convictions to be unsafe do not necessarily need to present any firm evidence of their innocence, and only need to be able to cast reasonable doubt upon any evidence pointing towards guilt.

 

[katy_did]

Hi Machiavelli, thanks for the detailed response - I've cut and pasted some of your points so I can better reply to them.

If the objection consists in making an analogy between Sollecito leaving DNA in a single spot - the bra clasp - and the theory of transfert via towel, I disagree, and I found the two cases very different.

1. First of all, the number of DNA findings in Meredith's room is not an issue, and was not an issue in my argument. Rudy Guede left only three DNA traces on items, which is more than one, but not a number of a different magnitude. This is the size of numbers if we are speaking about items traces that where sampled. Maybe there were 30 DNA traces of Rudy in the room and only 10% were sampled, maybe there where 10 traces of Sollecito in the rom, and you would have a finding with the same ratio.

4. The relation between the towel and the bra hook is very weak. I mean it is about the less likely object to have contact with the towel, and expecially unlikely to have a strong contact with the towel. This tiny clasp would have fallen on the ground during the attack and was under the pillow when the victim was placed in her last position. The towels enter into play after the stabbing. You could imagine that towels could have been used extensively on the floor to clean blood, wiping and brushing and maybe over the piece pf bra clasp. But this kind of activity would be a clean up, and a clean up incriminates Amanda Knox. The bra clasp is an object of no weight and we may think the only way it could have a contact with the towel is getting catchd and wrapped into a towel inadvertently, and then dropped exactly where it was found underneath the body. This complication is needed to build a dynamic. But the bra clasp nevertheless is not stained with blood and the towels are soaked with blood. To conclude, there is no reason to think the towels should leave their secondary transfer on that piece of item.

This doesn't quite address what I was saying. Sure, you could make a case that the chances of the clasp coming into contact with the towels is weak. But the chances of Raffaele coming into contact with the tiny hook on the clasp - and only there, leaving traces nowhere else in the room, not a shoe print, fingerprint, bloody hand print, DNA, nothing - are also very weak. It would be easy to make a case for it being virtually impossible for Raffaele's DNA to end up only on the clasp, arguing in the same way you're doing here. And that's because the chances are miniscule that his traces would end up only on the hook of the clasp.

You have to start with the fact of the DNA on the hook (leaving aside the controversy on that for now) and then show why it's less unlikely that it ended up there through direct transfer than by secondary transfer. Arguing that secondary transfer is unlikely doesn't work, because direct transfer is also unlikely.

To answer your specific points about the towel coming into contact with the clasp, the simple fact is we just don't know what might have happened to make that possible. What we do know is that the towels and the bra clasp were found in the same area of the floor; that the towels had been taken from the small bathroom; that Raffaele had visited the house the day of the murder and had most likely used the small bathroom. Since we don't know the specifics of the attack and where either the towels or the bra clasp were at any particular point, we can only deduce that contact between them was possible. And that means secondary transfer from them can't be ruled out. Just as it can't be ruled out that Raffaele only left traces on the tiny metal hook and on nothing else in the room (however unlikely that may be).

2. The transfer from Raffaele touching the bra clasp would be a direct transfer (like all others were deemed to be direct transfers). While the transfer from a towel would be secondary, and the likeliness of leave a secondary transfer is something entirely different. It is about very different odds from touching an object. A towel would contain only microscopic tiny amounts of DNA, a minuscle amount, not quite like a human finger, and also it would be extremely unlikely to transfer this amount on a precise spot.

This is getting closer to an argument that might make direct transfer less unlikely than secondary transfer. I don't really have the knowledge of DNA transfer to say what the respective likelihood of direct/secondary transfer is. Do you have some sources you can link to that I can read on that?

3. There is no evidence of towels with Sollecito's DNA. One or two the towels were analysed and DNA samples from Sollecito were not found. Moreover, Sollecito's defence did not ask for furthr tests, and did not put forward this theory, and what the defence does and says on the matter is important in the case as you know: the defence in fact proposes a different theory based on forensic error. The whole thing has, as an effect, the fact that there is no evidence of presence of Sollecito's DNA on a towel, so this towel with DNA needed to build the theory is missing.

From what I posted earlier, it sounds as if the towels weren't able to be accurately tested for DNA, due to being mildewed/saturated with blood. I'd also point out again that only a few samples were taken from each towel, and that it seems highly unlikely that there was no DNA from anyone on the hand towels, assuming they hadn't been washed immediately before the murder.

As for the defence not mentioning it, well - apart from the fact it would have been pointless testing them anyway - I don't think we can take the defence position on this as definitive. Not from a truth perspective anyway, as opposed to thinking of it in terms of legal strategy. And it's quite possible they simply missed the significance of the towels. After all, it wasn't until they filed the appeal documents that they finally linked the locked front door to Meredith's front door keys being taken, yet it was discussed here on the forum several months before that.

5. Apparently - although I am not sure about the whole set of loci - the fragments of DNA don't need Laura and Filomena to be explained. Moreover, the towels were from the small bathroom, not used by Laura and Filomena. If you start thinking about a towel from the other bathroom, things get complicate because Rudy Guede - dirty with blood on his hands and clothes, cuts on his hands, bloody shoes or allegedly bloody feet, allegedly tiny glass fragments - didn't leave any trace of himself nor of Meredith in the big bathroom, while traces of Meredith's blood are abundant in the other bathroom. So I would not easilly believe Rudy as lone perpetrator walked in the other bathroom to get a towel.

I think you're splitting hairs about Laura and Filomena not using the bathroom - it's entirely possible they may have occasionally used the smaller bathroom if theirs was occupied. If they had a cleaning roster, they may have cleaned it. At any rate, their presence there is more likely than anyone else's, and probably to be expected.

I don't think Rudy went to the other bathroom to get a towel - I think he got them from the small bathroom, and that it would be no surprise at all to find both Filomena and Laura's DNA in there as well.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Is it or is it not footage of the bra clasp "being contaminated"?

<snip>

It is not.

It is evidence of the clasp being handled. The two processes are not equivalent.

Apparently I was not being as facetious as LJ claimed. There is no question that the clasp was handled. Video evidence is not even required. Unless you are making the claim that you can see Sollecito's DNA being transferred to the clasp in that video then it shows nothing beyond that. The assertion that Sollecito's DNA (or anyone's, for that matter) was transferred at that particular moment is still only an assertion. It can be said that contamination might have occurred at that moment, but not that it certainly did.

Perhaps you think you are seeing something which others cannot.

 

[Kaosium]

The discussion was about the Nov 10 conversation, how it was dealt with in court and the ramifications of this.

I gathered that, it looked like you were going all sneaky-pete trying to 'prove' Amanda must be guilty because she declared she'd figured out Patrick must be 'innocent' on the tenth, and the only way she could 'know' that was if she was actually there. You're not the only one whose tried that tack, if you've read this thread. I was pointing out that has other implications as well, especially regarding the veracity of the Perugian police regarding the release of Patrick. As for your point, I believe she probably used the word 'innocent' in that testimony because that's how it was put to her, and by the time she was on the stand eighteen months later it was obvious he was innocent. Hell, if I recall correctly I even used the word 'innocent,' but certainly not because I was secretly admitting Amanda was guilty.

If you're going to come at things obliquely, maybe I might too sometimes...

You appear to be stuck on an earlier 'talking point' - 12 cops, all nighters, missing tapes (or has that been upgraded to videos) etc.
I take it you are by now aware waterboarding, 43 hours, Cheka tactics etc have been dropped from this list.

You might need to do some further research regarding admissibility, the various interrogations, statements, gifts, appearances before judges (silent and terminated), and 'whose' lawyers were fighting to keep 'what' out of the trial.

Once you can make sense of this it should all become clearer.

That's why I asked you what you thought happened. I don't know what assumptions you're operating under regarding the interrogation, which is where the whole Patrick thing starts. I've not seen much discussion on this lately, at one time it was argued that Amanda just waltzed into that police station, wiggled her hips and accused Patrick out of the blue and the surprised police officers, beguiled by her wiles, went out and arrested Patrick posthaste, and didn't release him until the capricious 'Foxy Knoxy' gave them permission two weeks later in her note they received that day.

I kinda doubt you buy that, but I don't know what you believe happened. Not long ago your Siberian Tigress suggested to me she still believed Patrick was not released until Amanda said so two weeks later. I find that absurd, and that note was received shortly after the interrogation. As you note there's much confusion about what actually happened in that interrogation, forty-some hours, fifty-some hours, just the other day in a comments section I read someone who believed she broke after thirty-six straight hours of interrogation! I have no idea where that could have come from, but it made me laugh.

What I do know is there was initially supposed to be twelve cops involved in the calunnia charge, and someone looked them up and found many were supposedly stationed in Rome. I do know they had her wiretapped beforehand and that the session started late at night, sometime after 10:00 PM and didn't actually end until almost six AM, with the big 'confession' supposedly happening at about 1:45 AM. After that is indications that they told her they had hard evidence of her at the scene, Giobbi said he heard Amanda scream, she faced deprivations like with the bathroom, and that they were aggressive to the point she was eventually struck twice on the back of the head to get at her 'repressed memories.'

You set up an interrogation under those conditions, and I believe you're trying to break the subject, and get a confession. When the subject doesn't even speak the language very well they damn well need to tape it. If they didn't tape it, then maybe it's an awfully good thing Amanda freaked at the point where they started cuffing her...

 

[LondonJohn]

It is not.

It is evidence of the clasp being handled. The two processes are not equivalent.

Apparently I was not being as facetious as LJ claimed. There is no question that the clasp was handled. Video evidence is not even required. Unless you are making the claim that you can see Sollecito's DNA being transferred to the clasp in that video then it shows nothing beyond that. The assertion that Sollecito's DNA (or anyone's, for that matter) was transferred at that particular moment is still only an assertion. It can be said that contamination might have occurred at that moment, but not that it certainly did.

Perhaps you think you are seeing something which others cannot.

Isn't it a shame that if the forensics team had done their jobs properly and simply photographed the clasp where it was found, then picked it up with sterile tweezers and placed it directly into a sterile bag, then we wouldn't even be having this part of the conversation....

Oh and it's even more of a shame that the forensics team didn't do all of the above on the 2nd-4th November, rather than 46 days later. It's known in the trade as "best practice", and it most assuredly wasn't followed in this case. Why not?

PS I'm pleased and proud to announce that I own the same knives as Tom_Ch: the Henckels 4-Star range. And my pride is expanded further by the fact that my collection is a great deal bigger than his, including an additional boning knife, two cleavers (Chinese and meat), a fish filleting knife and of course a smoked salmon slicing knife. And I can confidently say that I'd never take any of them on a picnic If only I could post a picture of the collection on here...... And that reminds me that Henckels actually send a man over with a huge knife-sharpening machine to Selfridges on Oxford Street at this time of year, and he re-edges and sharpens all Henckels knives for free (well, for a voluntary donation to charity). I must check if he's here yet.

 

[katy_did]

LondonJohn,

Apologies, I am feeling my way back into this, so I hope my question isn't a repetition of recently covered ground. When you talk about the burden of proof being high, do you mean on the forum, in the court, or both?

Welcome back, shuttlt - always wondered where you disappeared to!

 

[katy_did]

Going for a moment with the thought that the interrogation sessions were recorded:

These things are not done by the interrogating officer setting up a camera in the room. The room is already wired with both hidden and visible cameras that feed to a technicians booth where the actual recordings are made. There is at least 1 low level technician that knows a recording was made and would know if his superiors were claiming that no such recording exists. If the superior already picked up the tape, does anyone expect that technician would come forward to reveal that a recording was made?

Someone asked Frank at Perugia Shock what the chances were that the interrogations were not recorded, and his response was quite blunt...

-Impossible. If they really didn't record they must have been all drunk or drugged.

 

[Draca]

I understood this to mean that although they could obviously detect Meredith's DNA (it having been her blood) trying to find anyone else's DNA - inevitably in much smaller quantities - would have been useless.

I'd also point out that, even if this weren't the case, IIRC only two or three samples were taken from each towel anyway, which wouldn't rule out the possibility that Raffaele's or anyone else's DNA might have been elsewhere on them (Rudy's lawyers appeared to think there was at least an argument that was the case). It's hard to believe that no one's DNA was on the hand towels through normal use, not unless they'd just been washed that same day or something.

Katy_did,

I have long wondered why none of the forensic tests revealed the blood of Rudy Guede in the mix. He cut his hand quite severly and had visible scars weeks later when brought back to Italy. If he cut his hand wouldn't it be expected to find his blood on several items? Really on anything he would have touched or grabbed after the cut? I.E - jacket, socks, bra...... The non-testing of the towels due to blood saturation explains part of that. It still seems that testing would have revealed his blood mixed in somewhere. Have I missed something?

 

[Alt+F4]

I have long wondered why none of the forensic tests revealed the blood of Rudy Guede in the mix. He cut his hand quite severly and had visible scars weeks later when brought back to Italy.

Do you have a source for this Draca? I haven't heard this before. And, btw, thanks for the link to the photo of Amanda's lamp. I don't see how Raffaelle's DNA could have gotten on the cord of that lamp unless he was the one that unpluged it.

 

[shuttlt]

Welcome back

Thanks!

Well, I was referring to the court primarily. I don't think that there's a burden of proof on anyone posting on this forum - after all, it's merely a talking shop with pretty much no direct repercussions on the case.

Agreed.

But many of us think that the first court didn't meet its burden of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for Knox and Sollecito.

That summary could have been made 6 months ago :-(

Having said that, I do believe that the asymmetry of the justice process should be reflected to some degree in an asymmetry in discussions of the case. In other words, those who remain convinced of Knox's and Sollecito's guilt ought to (logically) be presenting cast-iron evidence of their guilt, and should also be able to completely refute any reasonable possibility of their non-guilt. But those who believe the convictions to be unsafe do not necessarily need to present any firm evidence of their innocence, and only need to be able to cast reasonable doubt upon any evidence pointing towards guilt.

I don't know here. Shouldn't somebody who is convinced of their innocence (there are surely some of them on this forum) be equally able to completely refute any reasonable possibility of their non-innocence? Clearly there is a big gulf in between being convinced of innocence and convinced of guilt. One could take the position after all that they might well be guilty, but that the court didn't meet the standard of proof required to convict.

 

[odeed]

I'm not seeing much vitriol at all. Nor do I see misplaced emotion. Instead, I see hard questions aimed at testing those whose investigation, testimony, advocacy or judgment contributed to the convictions of Knox and Sollecito. They were convicted of very serious crimes, and have potentially lost their freedom for over two decades. So it's entirely appropriate that hard questions are asked. Just as it should be entirely obvious that the burden of proof for their convictions should be appropriately high.

As far as your insinuation of a lack of reason goes, well I guess we'll see what conclusions the appeal court reaches before we make our first judgment calls on that one.

The Italian court met the burden of proof in convicting the three for murder.

Those that think that Knox is innocent put forward fallacious arguments* consisting of strawman and non sequiturs in my opinion, a frequent argument is usually made in the general term of "Police were bias/corrupt/inept in handling the case, therefore the evidence is tainted, why should we believe the evidence?"

*There are also examples of trying to shift the burden of proof, and probably a lot more fallacious arguments in this thread.

My attempt a few pages ago at trying to elicit proof that the three were "paraded" around Perugia, which was given as an example of the police bias by the some, was an attempt at getting the defenders of Knox to back up some of their claims with evidence, if you did not realise.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't know here. Shouldn't somebody who is convinced of their innocence (there are surely some of them on this forum) be equally able to completely refute any reasonable possibility of their non-innocence? Clearly there is a big gulf in between being convinced of innocence and convinced of guilt. One could take the position after all that they might well be guilty, but that the court didn't meet the standard of proof required to convict.

You're right, of course. And there are indeed some here who are 100% convinced of the total innocence of Knox and Sollecito. But the only place that this case will get tested is in an Italian court, and its only options are to find them guilty or not guilty. It can't declare them to be innocent (although it's still a widespread public misconception that "not-guilty" = "innocent"). Therefore, I think that the most germane discussion we can all have is whether they should be properly considered guilty or not guilty of the murder - since these are the only two options on offer.

Personally, I believe that Knox and Sollecito most likely weren't involved in the murder or any post-murder criminal conduct. But if the burden of proof were reversed, I don't think their innocence could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (unless there is stuff in the appeals whose scope we don't yet appreciate). So my position is entirely pegged to the belief that they were wrongfully convicted, and I am interested in seeing my position tested in the appeal(s).

 

[Antony]

It is not.

It is evidence of the clasp being handled. The two processes are not equivalent.

Apparently I was not being as facetious as LJ claimed. There is no question that the clasp was handled. Video evidence is not even required. Unless you are making the claim that you can see Sollecito's DNA being transferred to the clasp in that video then it shows nothing beyond that. The assertion that Sollecito's DNA (or anyone's, for that matter) was transferred at that particular moment is still only an assertion. It can be said that contamination might have occurred at that moment, but not that it certainly did.

Perhaps you think you are seeing something which others cannot.

I think this conversation has run its course.

For me, it illustrates the contrast between the levels of proof demanded by the guilters of any contrary view, compared with the utterly shallow speculation which seems to be regarded as "proof" of the prosecution's case.

 

[katy_did]

Katy_did,

I have long wondered why none of the forensic tests revealed the blood of Rudy Guede in the mix. He cut his hand quite severly and had visible scars weeks later when brought back to Italy. If he cut his hand wouldn't it be expected to find his blood on several items? Really on anything he would have touched or grabbed after the cut? I.E - jacket, socks, bra...... The non-testing of the towels due to blood saturation explains part of that. It still seems that testing would have revealed his blood mixed in somewhere. Have I missed something?

Hi Draca, I guess one explanation might be that if a trace tests positive for blood they can't tell who it belongs to, but only that blood is present; so if they found both Meredith and Guede's DNA, it could be that his DNA came from blood but they wouldn't be able to tell. And of course, Guede's hands were covered with Meredith's blood, so any traces he left probably would've been mixed with her DNA anyway. When you add in the fact that the police mostly tested visible blood stains - which would probably have been from Meredith - perhaps that might explain it to some extent?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

general remarks on secondary transfer and contaminations

If the objection consists in making an analogy between Sollecito leaving DNA in a single spot - the bra clasp - and the theory of transfert via towel, I disagree, and I found the two cases very different.

1. First of all, the number of DNA findings in Meredith's room is not an issue, and was not an issue in my argument. Rudy Guede left only three DNA traces on items, which is more than one, but not a number of a different magnitude. This is the size of numbers if we are speaking about items traces that where sampled. Maybe there were 30 DNA traces of Rudy in the room and only 10% were sampled, maybe there where 10 traces of Sollecito in the rom, and you would have a finding with the same ratio.

2. The transfer from Raffaele touching the bra clasp would be a direct transfer (like all others were deemed to be direct transfers). While the transfer from a towel would be secondary, and the likeliness of leave a secondary transfer is something entirely different. It is about very different odds from touching an object. A towel would contain only microscopic tiny amounts of DNA, a minuscle amount, not quite like a human finger, and also it would be extremely unlikely to transfer this amount on a precise spot.

Machiavelli,

I am not 100% certain of what you are saying, so I will try to confine myself to general remarks. First, the presence of DNA does not give information about whether it got there by primary or secondary transfer; specifically the amount of DNA does not indicate the mechanism of transfer. I argued this point when other commenters tried to say that the amount of Raffaele's DNA on the clasp was too large to arise from secondary transfer, but the argument cuts both ways (now that we know the amount of DNA is small). Second there is an unpublished study by Taylor and Johnson that shows that tertiary DNA transfer involving a towel is possible. Third, I offered the towels as but one of many possible scenarios. I personally favor contamination from secondary transfer during collection, but there are other routes as well.

 

[platonov]

I gathered that, it looked like you were going all sneaky-pete trying to 'prove' Amanda must be guilty because she declared she'd figured out Patrick must be 'innocent' on the tenth, and the only way she could 'know' that was if she was actually there. You're not the only one whose tried that tack, if you've read this thread. I was pointing out that has other implications as well, especially regarding the veracity of the Perugian police regarding the release of Patrick. As for your point, I believe she probably used the word 'innocent' in that testimony because that's how it was put to her, and by the time she was on the stand eighteen months later it was obvious he was innocent. Hell, if I recall correctly I even used the word 'innocent,' but certainly not because I was secretly admitting Amanda was guilty.

If you're going to come at things obliquely, maybe I might too sometimes...





That's why I asked you what you thought happened. I don't know what assumptions you're operating under regarding the interrogation, which is where the whole Patrick thing starts. I've not seen much discussion on this lately, at one time it was argued that Amanda just waltzed into that police station, wiggled her hips and accused Patrick out of the blue and the surprised police officers, beguiled by her wiles, went out and arrested Patrick posthaste, and didn't release him until the capricious 'Foxy Knoxy' gave them permission two weeks later in her note they received that day.

I kinda doubt you buy that, but I don't know what you believe happened. Not long ago your Siberian Tigress suggested to me she still believed Patrick was not released until Amanda said so two weeks later. I find that absurd, and that note was received shortly after the interrogation. As you note there's much confusion about what actually happened in that interrogation, forty-some hours, fifty-some hours, just the other day in a comments section I read someone who believed she broke after thirty-six straight hours of interrogation! I have no idea where that could have come from, but it made me laugh.

What I do know is there was initially supposed to be twelve cops involved in the calunnia charge, and someone looked them up and found many were supposedly stationed in Rome. I do know they had her wiretapped beforehand and that the session started late at night, sometime after 10:00 PM and didn't actually end until almost six AM, with the big 'confession' supposedly happening at about 1:45 AM. After that is indications that they told her they had hard evidence of her at the scene, Giobbi said he heard Amanda scream, she faced deprivations like with the bathroom, and that they were aggressive to the point she was eventually struck twice on the back of the head to get at her 'repressed memories.'

You set up an interrogation under those conditions, and I believe you're trying to break the subject, and get a confession. When the subject doesn't even speak the language very well they damn well need to tape it. If they didn't tape it, then maybe it's an awfully good thing Amanda freaked at the point where they started cuffing her...

Kaosium

The confusion here seems to be yours I'm afraid

I dealt with a post by London John using Direct Testimony from AK which laid the matter to rest & used his logic to show he was now a 'guilter'

You interjected [as did Mary H] with musings about the Perugia cops and missing tapes.
Seemingly missing the fact that your insight [implication] was not the point & indeed has been dealt with several times including very recently - see my response to halides1.

What you believe about that testimony itself is neither here nor there as it seems uninformed by the fact that all concerned parties had access to the transcript of the original tape.

Your continued confusion and speculation over the original interrogation would be cleared up if you research the list of mine you have just quoted.
I'm not going to do it for you - as we have just seen when given direct testimony [this the kind of stuff my assumptions are based on ] you seem to misunderstand the thrust of it & Instead revert back to Talking Points or an argument seemingly based on a a belief that this is a Watergate movie and the missing tape will turn up in the finale !

PS To soften the blow in case this post seems brusque if you follow up my digging up Nixon ref you should be rewarded with a worthwhile piece/polemic.

.

 

[Draca]

Do you have a source for this Draca? I haven't heard this before.

Here's a photo of Rudy's hand cut taken after his Nov 20, 2007 arrest:

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=18&image_id=137

And, btw, thanks for the link to the photo of Amanda's lamp. I don't see how Raffaelle's DNA could have gotten on the cord of that lamp unless he was the one that unpluged it.

The lines of contamination are rarely known. The cord could have been wrapped around the base at one point for example. One of the white suits picked the lamp up off the floor from behind the door and placed it on the desk and could have touched a place Raffaele had is another. Did they change their gloves before touching the bra clasp? It was passed among a few of them and dirt is photographed on a pair of gloves. The lamp gives another example of a how Raffaele's DNA could be in the room. The towels, door frame and walking between rooms are others.

 

[shuttlt]

LondonJohn,

By the way, another asymmetry that struck me in this debate is how it could end. It might be my bias coming out, but if they are acquitted, my feeling is that the pro-innocence camp would declare victory and go home. I don't think that a final conviction would cause the pro-guilt camp to pack up. What do you think?

Ultimately I suppose the news stories, leaks, quotes and transcripts will dry up and things will grind to a halt.

 

[Draca]

Hi Draca, I guess one explanation might be that if a trace tests positive for blood they can't tell who it belongs to, but only that blood is present; so if they found both Meredith and Guede's DNA, it could be that his DNA came from blood but they wouldn't be able to tell. And of course, Guede's hands were covered with Meredith's blood, so any traces he left probably would've been mixed with her DNA anyway. When you add in the fact that the police mostly tested visible blood stains - which would probably have been from Meredith - perhaps that might explain it to some extent?

Thanks Katy_did,

That explains it quite well.