Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[christianahannah]

Supposedly the knife and the bra clasp were also contaminated somewhere along the line as well. Perhaps there's a lot of it about.

I don't think the bra clasp and knife were tested at the same lab as the blood/alcohol sample.

I believe the first two items were tested at the forensic lab in Rome while the blood sample was tested at the Institute of Forensic Medicine in Perugia.

 

[Mary_H]

Well, if Raffaele knew his diaries might become public, weren't there a lot of not very nice things said about Amanda? I will have to go back and check what Raffaele wrote, but, IIRC, they were damning to Amanda. I'll get back to you on that, by tomorrow at the latest.

In the first few days of his diary, Raffaele's writing reflected what the police had told him about Amanda. He believed what they had told him about being involved in the crime, and he believed what they had told him about Amanda lying. I don't think Raffaele wrote anything he didn't believe was true at the time he wrote it.

His lawyers definitely would have wanted him to incriminate Amanda if they thought it would get Raffaele off the hook. He turned out to be too honest, within days insisting that Amanda had spent the night of the 1st with him.

 

[shuttlt]

I was of course aiming at a lab contamination scenario. But considering a hypothesis that the DNA really was on the knife I'd say it's by far more probable it got there by transfer, than that it got there by stabbing and then survived a vigorous cleaning.

We shall have to agree to disagree.

Actually he was the last person that spent considerable time there. The day before he was there with Amanda while the Italian girls were away.

I don't see that it being the day before overwhelms the time they spent in the apartment preceding that.

On Nov 2 he was in every room and was trying to get into Meredith's room.

True. As were the police, and Filomina's boyfriend I think. In any case, he never entered Meredith's room.

Amanda also inevitably was transferring his DNA day by day.

In teeny, tiny quantities though. She would have been transferring hugely greater quantities of her own DNA.

Even on Nov 2 when she came home to take a shower in the morning.

I don't see how that is significant.

Just an arbitrary number large enough that I know I wouldn't sleep after convicting someone with such a probability of mistake.

But this is only one piece of evidence. As has been discussed before, you could be 99% sure of guilt, but have relatively low levels of certainty about individual pieces of the evidence, even below 50% certainty.

Incidentally, no matter how little probability you would see of an "innocent" transfer, such a transfer is fully consistent with the complete lack of other incriminating traces.

Being consistent with something you don't think happened doesn't mean a lot.

And what are the chances that in a violent struggle, in which he was holding down and stabbing a victim squirting blood, he was struggling with her bra presumably to take sexual advantage of her and he left only one trace of incomlete DNA of LCN ammount?

That's only one way the DNA could have gotten there with Raffaele still being involved in the murder. The bra clasp was removed at some point after all.

And of all the possible places where he could have left abundant DNA, footprints, hairs, fingerprints his single trace of DNA landed on a hook of a bra clasp? I would expect his DNA on the bra straps, on victim's body where he held her, even inside her body.

Depends what he did, doesn't it? Rudy supposedly did a heck of a lot, and sure there was DNA and fingerprints, but it's not like they were gathering them up by the bucketful. Raffaele and Amanda, if they were involved, presumably were less physically involved than Rudy.

At least some of his footprints on the floor.

I'm not going to touch a discussion about footprints.

BTW Again all of our chance considerations disregard the non-zero probability that the DNA was simply planted.

True, that's a different scenario with other problems. Are we talking about the police, the prosecutor, and the lab working alone, or together to frame them here?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Er, not if she was dead. If he was cleaning other evidence, why not flush, even if it was not his habit? And after all that effort, not even steal much.

I can just about see him breaking in, as a known petty burglar, although it is really daft to break into a place and run the risk of being immediately recognized, but the segue into an opportunistic rape/murder seems far-fetched.

This scenario still doesn't make any sense to me.

Looking at it rationally, here are three scenarios that might be put forward:

1. Criminal with a history of carrying knives and robbing buildings robs a building, and commits an opportunistic rape/murder using a knife.

2. Two university students with no history of violence and no plausible motive team up with a criminal with a history of carrying knives and robbing buildings to rape and murder their housemate with a knife, then stage a robbery which fits the robbers M.O., while leaving computer evidence that they were at home all night.

3. Something else.

No sensible something else has been put forward, so for the moment a rational judgment about the likelihood of the competing stories has to be a judgement about the relative likelihood of (1) and (2).

I have been unable to track down hard statistics for the actual homicide rate due to burglaries gone wrong, but it doesn't seem to be wildly uncommon by any stretch. Determined efforts have so far unearthed a grand total of zero cases that show more than a superficial similarity to the Massei theory of the Kercher murder, so it's either a once-in-history murder or a zero-times-in-history murder.

As such while it's not likely in any absolute sense for any given young crook like Rudy to rape and murder someone on any given day, the relative likelihood of the lone wolf theory in and of itself is much higher than that of competing theories, at least before we look at other evidence.

Guilters would of course argue that the other evidence should incline one away from the lone wolf theory and towards the Massei nonsense or some other vague and unspecified theory of the crime that has Amanda and Raffaele doing it for unknown reasons at an unknown time.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Shifting the goalposts, they show exactly what you expected.

If we were to speak precisely, they show exactly what you decided LononJohn meant when he described what he expected.

What he actually expected, and what you decided to think he expected are not necessarily identical.

 

[Mary_H]

Sure. It could have happened that way. Again, I'm surprised that it would be Raffaele's DNA that would get transferred in this way rather than somebody else's. Or, if you feel that the supposed Amanda DNA and the still weaker unidentified DNA got transferred in this way as well, that Raffaele's of all peoples would be so much stronger.

In addition to the potential for contamination and planting, there is some suspicion that the lab didn't try to identify all the results, but rather just looked for matches to the suspects' DNA and ignored any other DNA that might have been present.

 

[shuttlt]

I have been unable to track down hard statistics for the actual homicide rate due to burglaries gone wrong, but it doesn't seem to be wildly uncommon by any stretch. Determined efforts have so far unearthed a grand total of zero cases that show more than a superficial similarity to the Massei theory of the Kercher murder, so it's either a once-in-history murder or a zero-times-in-history murder.

Surely lots of murders are 'unique' if you include enough detail. How rare is it for someone to kill their housemate for ******** reasons? It's surely not so rare that it doesn't happen. How rare is it for someone without a history that would lead you to expect them to get involved in a murder to **** up in some way and get involved in a murder? It's surely not so rare that it beggars our imagination when faced with the possibility.

As such while it's not likely in any absolute sense for any given young crook like Rudy to rape and murder someone on any given day, the relative likelihood of the lone wolf theory in and of itself is much higher than that of competing theories, at least before we look at other evidence.

Before we look at the evidence, people killed in their own homes are quite likely to have been killed by the people they lived with, surely?

 

[shuttlt]

In addition to the potential for contamination and planting, there is some suspicion that the lab didn't try to identify all the results, but rather just looked for matches to the suspects' DNA and ignored any other DNA that might have been present.

Is this part of some theory about the mobsters brother being the real killer?

 

[Mary_H]

Is this part of some theory about the mobsters brother being the real killer?

No, not that I know of, although I guess it could be. It goes all the way back to the fingerprints and footprints. There were a lot of people the investigators could have gotten samples from, but they didn't bother, because they were looking only for matches to the defendants they had in mind. It's kind of the ultimate in confirmation bias.

 

[capealadin]

In the first few days of his diary, Raffaele's writing reflected what the police had told him about Amanda. He believed what they had told him about being involved in the crime, and he believed what they had told him about Amanda lying. I don't think Raffaele wrote anything he didn't believe was true at the time he wrote it.

His lawyers definitely would have wanted him to incriminate Amanda if they thought it would get Raffaele off the hook. He turned out to be too honest, within days insisting that Amanda had spent the night of the 1st with him.

You mean, the police TOLD him to say that Amanda had told him to say a lot of S***? That he didn't trust her? How would the lawyers get him to incriminate Amanda? By telling him to lie? I'm not following this at all. I'm going out to celebrate, so I'll have to read Raff's diaries, and get back to you. 1 plus 1 is equalling at least three here, to me. It took him DAYS??? Mamma Mia.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

several possible routes of DNA deposition

Not relevant. If the DNA was on the knife before it entered the lab it is a huge surprise if Meredith's DNA got there innocently. It really doesn't matter how many times it was amplified.

shuttlt,

You are forgetting that the second police officer to handle the knife had just come from the girls' flat; therefore, contamination outside the lab is still a possibility. I think that secondary transfer is not all that likely, but Dr. Kekule mentioned it in a German newspaper article about a year ago. Contamination within the lab is my pick as the most probable, given the factors we have already mentioned.

 

[shuttlt]

No, not that I know of, although I guess it could be. It goes all the way back to the fingerprints and footprints. There were a lot of people the investigators could have gotten samples from, but they didn't bother, because they were looking only for matches to the defendants they had in mind. It's kind of the ultimate in confirmation bias.

Are there any plausible looking suspects who don't have alibis?

 

[capealadin]

Here's Massey's umm....embellished report, which was actually published on the 4th November:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sunday-mirror/2007/11/04/italy-murder-details-emerge-98487-20058122/

Here's the full "quote", in context:



So regardless of how much Massey actually spoke with Sollecito, it's absolutely clear that the "blood everywhere" phrase is referring to Meredith's room, and not to the hallway or cottage. This is further confirmed by the section further down the article, where Sollecito explicitly describes the condition of the small bathroom:



So regardless of Sollecito's actual level of participation in this article, it's clear that there's no reference to the hallway or small bathroom having "blood everywhere".

I'm still interested why RUDY said there was a lot of blood, in the BR and corridor. As I said before, how would that deflect from him? How could he know who's dna would be found? Deflect to whom? I'm assuming he already knew his dna was founf in the bedroom. How would it help him, to lie about blood elsewhere?

I have to take it, that the logical answer to this is: Rudy must be lying about this, or, it goes to a cleanup. This is not an answer you want, right? Because...???

 

[shuttlt]

shuttlt,

You are forgetting that the second police officer to handle the knife had just come from the girls' flat; therefore, contamination outside the lab is still a possibility. I think that secondary transfer is not all that likely, but Dr. Kekule mentioned it in a German newspaper article about a year ago. Contamination within the lab is my pick as the most probable, given the factors we have already mentioned.

I'm with you on the secondary transfer. The policeman you mention included.

 

[Mary_H]

Rudy's whole defense has been to blame someone else. So if you was to judge whether he said something was true or false. Then you have to realize anything that he says that blames someone else has a higher chance to be a lie than something that doesn't.

As an example: Your kid is blamed for hitting a car with a rock. So you ask him. Yes dad, I was there but I didn't throw the rock it was someone else. You have an admission of presence at the scene. That has a high probability of truth. Doesn't necessarily mean he was there, just means the probability that admission of presence is more likely the truth than him saying he didn't throw the rock.

In Rudy's case he doesn't only admit to his presence but gives a timeline to go with it. Now for the all that blood statement, which he uses to deflect blame, there is no evidence of that. There is only so much blood in the body and a high majority of that was on the floor with Meredith.

In retrospect lets look at Amanda's confession. During questioning she claims to be there but later retracts that statement. Everything else she says has been pretty much proven to be false.

Whats the difference between Rudy's and Amanda's confessions to presence at the scene. Rudy's was given freely without interrogation with a timeline. Amanda's was given during interrogation in which she was called a liar and told they had proof she was there. So from a neutral point of view. Whose would you be more likely to believe. The one given freely without interrogation or the one that came from an intense interrogation.

FYI Mignini chose Amanda's over Rudy's.

The Micheli report says that Rudy claimed to have gone to a friend's house after he left the cottage (and after he went home to change). He said he arrived at his friend's at 11:30, and stayed until 2 or 3 when they went to the Domus.

That's one lie we wish were true, eh? (His friend denied it.)

 

[Mary_H]

I'm still interested why RUDY said there was a lot of blood, in the BR and corridor. As I said before, how would that deflect from him? How could he know who's dna would be found? Deflect to whom? I'm assuming he already knew his dna was founf in the bedroom. How would it help him, to lie about blood elsewhere?

I have to take it, that the logical answer to this is: Rudy must be lying about this, or, it goes to a cleanup. This is not an answer you want, right? Because...???

I think he's just saying, "Oh, what a horrible crime, I would never be involved in anything so horrible, must have been some other person much more horrible than me."

I would imagine it's hard to keep track of which lies are effective and/or necessary and which are immaterial in a case like his.

 

[Mary_H]

Are there any plausible looking suspects who don't have alibis?

Filomena is just as plausible as Amanda, and her alibi is that she spent the night with her boyfriend. The only difference between Amanda and Filomena is that Amanda found the situation at the cottage and Filomena didn't share a bathroom with Meredith.

 

[moodstream]

Filomena is just as plausible as Amanda, and her alibi is that she spent the night with her boyfriend. The only difference between Amanda and Filomena is that Amanda found the situation at the cottage and Filomena didn't share a bathroom with Meredith.

And Filomena got an attorney.

 

[Jungle Jim]

Filomena is just as plausible as Amanda, and her alibi is that she spent the night with her boyfriend. The only difference between Amanda and Filomena is that Amanda found the situation at the cottage and Filomena didn't share a bathroom with Meredith.

Another difference might be that Filomenia attended a birthday party the night of the murder and was in the presence of a number of people during the time the murder occurred.

 

[nopoirot]

I assume it has been satisfactorily established that the leaks by the police to the media about Raffaele's interrogation were made of whole cloth. Curiously enough, though, they seem to agree with what he told his diary he had represented to the police. Oh, he also admits to some doubts about Amanda's fidelity.