Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[shuttlt]

I don't think there was an effort to "frame" Knox or Sollecito.

Many do though.

Here's a question: how do you think that the police came to have Guede's handprint in Meredith's blood, in Meredith's room, by around 15th November 2007?

Because he left it their during the murder, naturally.

 

[Kaosium]

That may very well be what they are called, but are they collected as a matter of routine? If the police pick up a knife from under a park bench, say... do they pick up some random beer cans, or any other litter they can find to act as a control?

They might, depending on the circumstances. They wouldn't want to arrest some poor bum at the park for murder just because he took a leak on it or vomited on it.

The most curious thing about the drawer is that they took only that one knife, being as they must have known it was too big to match the wounds. They might have taken it as a control, but their exclusion of the other knives in the drawer is mystifying.

 

[Kaosium]

Could be. I don't know. She could be an innocent nut as well. I'm sure there are other possibilities.

If that's the case, how come this didn't come out in the more than dozen hours she'd previously been interviewed and interrogated?

 

[shuttlt]

They might, depending on the circumstances. They wouldn't want to arrest some poor bum at the park for murder just because he took a leak on it or vomited on it.

That would hardly be worth doing as finding the bum from the parks DNA on other things from the park would prove nothing, just as finding Raffaele's DNA on his own posessions prove's nothing.

In any case, I still don't recall having seen any evidence that objects that the police don't think are related to the crime are routinely collected in order to act as controls. If this doesn't normally happen, the demand seems unreasonable.

The most curious thing about the drawer is that they took only that one knife, being as they must have known it was too big to match the wounds. They might have taken it as a control, but their exclusion of the other knives in the drawer is mystifying.

What other knives should they have taken from the drawer? As for the size of the knife, we know it is compatible with at least some of the wounds, also the cop who collected it had seen the body and claimed he collected it because it matched his visual impression of the wounds.

 

[shuttlt]

If that's the case, how come this didn't come out in the more than dozen hours she'd previously been interviewed and interrogated?

Well, perhaps she said things that were untrue at the other interrogations as well, it's just that by this interrogation the cops felt they were able to prove it.

 

[Mary_H]

But it isn't really gathering control samples if you only take things that you expect to find something on, is it?

Gathering samples you don't expect to find something on is just as biased as gathering samples you do expect to find something on. That's why you have to take everything. You might look in the drawer, see the big knife and say, "Well, there was only one murder weapon, so I don't expect we'll find anything on these other utensils." You now have no controls against which to compare the knife in order to make sure the drawer wasn't full of DNA, or even that more than one utensil was used as weapon.

It also stands to reason that the investigators should have taken everything from Meridith's room to test, instead of leaving mounds of clothing everywhere. Probably the only reason they didn't work harder to find Amanda and Raffaele's DNA SOMEWHERE in there is because they never expected anyone to question them about it.

If you want to use control samples to rule out contamination you would take things that you don't expect to find anything on, and in the event that you find something you can conclude contamination of some sort.

The contamination issue arises only after the fact, for example, in the collection or testing procedures.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

thermal cyclers

I think the machine can be ruled out as far as the result according to Stefanoni in the motivations:

Page 219:



I am not familiar with the functions of this machine to know if this is true but perhaps others would know if this testimony from Stefanoni is correct.

Christianahannah and RoseMontague,

One of the best articles I have found on the subject of PCR DNA is one by Dr. Donald Riley, and there are two portions of the article that deal specifically with contamination. Here is a quote from the first section: “Unfortunately, a few forensic DNA laboratories omit their controls. A few favor the controls by using special equipment on them, or by not carrying them through the entire procedure. Such practices are hazardous, especially when an important evidentiary sample has a low amount of DNA, degraded DNA, or otherwise presents as a minimal or partial (see below) sample. In short, while PCR is a useful research tool, all applications require extreme care and vigilance.”

From the second section: “3. Thermal cyclers (where PCR is carried out) need to be cleaned. It is not unusual for sample tubes leak DNA in the thermal cycler. Such tubes become soft during temperature extremes and they do not always seal properly. It is not usual for sample tubes to have minuscule pin-holes. Sample contamination due to contaminated thermal cyclers has been documented. Hot soapy water, a sponge and a round scrub brush are useful for cleaning thermal cyclers and their sample-tube wells.”

I saw the portion of the Massei report you mentioned a few days ago. It is unclear to me what Dr. Stefanoni means exactly, but I am not convinced. Does her thermal cycler have a new self-cleaning feature of some kind? Also, there is also the possibility of contamination at the stage of capillary electrophoresis, although I have not found this point addressed frequently.

 

[shuttlt]

Gathering samples you don't expect to find something on is just as biased as gathering samples you do expect to find something on. That's why you have to take everything. You might look in the drawer, see the big knife and say, "Well, there was only one murder weapon, so I don't expect we'll find anything on these other utensils." You now have no controls against which to compare the knife in order to make sure the drawer wasn't full of DNA, or even that more than one utensil was used as weapon.

It also stands to reason that the investigators should have taken everything from Meridith's room to test, instead of leaving mounds of clothing everywhere. Probably the only reason they didn't work harder to find Amanda and Raffaele's DNA SOMEWHERE in there is because they never expected anyone to question them about it.

Is it normal to take everything from the scene and any other important locations and test all of it? That is a heck of a lot of testing.

 

[Mary_H]

... As for the size of the knife, we know it is compatible with at least some of the wounds, also the cop who collected it had seen the body and claimed he collected it because it matched his visual impression of the wounds.

No, he said the knife matched the wounds as they had been described to him.

 

[Malkmus]

I agree with Matthew, loverofzion. You could start a new thread. How about this?

"Rudy Guede guilty -- all because of a bloody hand print, shoe prints, DNA, feces, a criminal history and because he left town"

Ha!

 

[shuttlt]

No, he said the knife matched the wounds as they had been described to him.

I had thought that it had turned out that this quote was how we found out he had been at the crime scene and hence the "two seperate search teams" claim was wrong. Still, either way, it makes no odds.

 

[Mary_H]

Is it normal to take everything from the scene and any other important locations and test all of it? That is a heck of a lot of testing.

Well, okay, I guess not everything. Just everything that could possibly be related to the crime or could help solve the crime. If I were in their place, I would be darn curious, but they probably don't have the time or funding to be that curious.

Here is what Steve Moore said (in part) about the weapon:

Therefore, what an investigator should be looking for are any and ALL items which could inflict stabbing and/or slashing wounds. The logical thought for a crime scene analyst would be that the murder knife in this case was obtained from inside the cottage where the murder occurred. Stabbing wounds at the crime scene are so vague that simply by looking, an investigator cannot tell the difference between a letter-opener wound, a scissors wound, or a knife wound. Had I conducted the search of the cottage, I would have collected (and have in my cases collected) every single weapon of the type I could find in the house. This is “Investigations 101”. What if the murderer got a letter opener from one of the OTHER girl’s rooms, wiped it off and returned it? Do we not look in the other rooms? Of course we do.

Yet the police did not seize a single knife, letter opener, scissors, screwdriver, nail file…ANYTHING from the murder cottage for testing. Not one thing. It is inconceivable that in a cottage where four women lived, there was not a kitchen knife, or a letter opener, or scissors, or anything which might have been used. It leads one to suspect an investigation intent on proving a theory, rather than searching for truth.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI3.html

 

[Mary_H]

I had thought that it had turned out that this quote was how we found out he had been at the crime scene and hence the "two seperate search teams" claim was wrong. Still, either way, it makes no odds.

Supposedly, nobody at the crime scene saw the body except Battistelli, Stefanoni and two medical examiners. Also, the knife was collected on the 6th, whereas the body was collected on the 2nd. However, I won't argue it because I don't want to take the time to look it up. It's 23 deg. F. in Seattle right now and my hands are freezing -- gotta go get warm!

 

[Justinian2]

It's a pity for her that she didn't. There might afterall have been some hope that the other housemates would confirm that the knife had come from the appartment where the murder took place..

Even if Amanda had borrowed the knife from Meredith's flat earlier in the week, I'm not sure that would have helped the defense as that places the knife in Amanda's purse for a moment. For all we know, that could have been Meredith's favorite knife.

I can't see a scenario where there is Meredith's DNA on the teaspoons and so on on the drawer. We keep talking about this, and I'm not sure that anyone has ever shown that it is standard procedure to take random objects along with whatever item of interest is taken into custody.

The reason for testing the other stuff is to see if contamination wasn't coming from the lab itself. I know a lot about testing with electronic instruments, but I'm not even a mini-authority on DNA testing. I would presume everything on the knife has to be accounted for and methodically analyzed. Having done that, having a double DNA knife still doesn't automatically prove anything at all.

No, the knife is not necessary for them to be guilty. This is also not a question of the scientific community concluding things. Science generally occurres in controlled environments, or experiments are repeated in order to control for the varguaries of environment. One does not necessarily have that luxory in real world situations.

The knife is ABSOLUTELY necessary. Guede has been found guilty of Meredith's murder.

1.) Amanda and Raffaele have to be proven to have conspired with Guede for scientific proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Not a shred of evididence shows that either Amanda or Raffaele cared one iota about Guede.

2.) Scientific investigations happen anywhere. Scientific investigations happen millions of light years away and at the sub atomic level. Science doesn't always happen in a lab. Applied science happens everywhere. Engineers and lab technicians use applied science.

3) The double DNA knife is the only support for the supposition that Amanda, Guede and Raffaele conspired together AND the only thing that suggests that Amanda was involved.

 

[shuttlt]

Supposedly, nobody at the crime scene saw the body except Battistelli, Stefanoni and two medical examiners. Also, the knife was collected on the 6th, whereas the body was collected on the 2nd. However, I won't argue it because I don't want to take the time to look it up. It's 23 deg. F. in Seattle right now and my hands are freezing -- gotta go get warm!

It doesn't matter either way.

 

[Kaosium]

That would hardly be worth doing as finding the bum from the parks DNA on other things from the park would prove nothing, just as finding Raffaele's DNA on his own possessions proves nothing.

Point being they wouldn't just take the knife without checking the surrounding area as a control. They wouldn't necessarily know that the bum 'resided' there, this is how you do an 'investigation' in some places. You need to know for sure just what that DNA on the knife means.

Liquid Material Collection Technique
A. When suspected biological evidence is found on clothing or other absorbent surfaces, transport it to the laboratory in an appropriate container. Wet evidence should not be folded over on itself. Use paper wrapping to prevent contamination during the transfer. This will protect bloodstain patterns and prevent cross-contamination between stains on one item. The item should be air-dried thoroughly in a drying locker and packaged in a container suitable for dried evidence.

B. If the suspected biological evidence is in a liquid form on a fixed surface that cannot be transported (i.e., concrete floor), the substance should be recovered using the following swab technique:

1. With gloved hands, swab the liquid material allowing the swab to absorb as much of the substance as possible. Multiple swabs should be obtained when a large quantity is available.

2. Thoroughly air-dry each swab. Package the swab inside an appropriate container.

3. Collect a substrate/control sample from an unstained area using the same techniques.

http://projects.nfstc.org/property_crimes/Crime_Scene_Procedures_III.pdf

In any case, I still don't recall having seen any evidence that objects that the police don't think are related to the crime are routinely collected in order to act as controls. If this doesn't normally happen, the demand seems unreasonable.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI3.html

There were at least two knives in the drawer and From my viewing of the film taken by the crime scene analysts, both of them could have been a murder weapon. If the investigators were looking for a possible murder weapon in Raffaele's apartment then the same rules would apply. ALL items which could inflict stabbing and/or slashing wounds should have been collected. (though why they felt it would be in Raffaele’s apartment I can’t explain).

The police are staring at a gold mine of potential murder weapons. What do they do? If it had been an FBI investigation, the Agent would have scooped up every possible item in Raffaele's apartment that could inflict a stabbing and/or slashing wound. You never know until the lab reports get back. You might just get lucky and find DNA, or invisible blood or something. Every possible weapon seized gives police a better chance of finding the murder weapon! The more possible weapons, the better their chances! They would take them all and add them to the pile of potential weapons seized from the cottage, (which weren’t there because the police didn’t take them).

But in Raffaele’s apartment in Perugia, the officer chose one. One. As if he knew which one he wanted.

What other knives should they have taken from the drawer? As for the size of the knife, we know it is compatible with at least some of the wounds, also the cop who collected it had seen the body and claimed he collected it because it matched his visual impression of the wounds.

There were four major pieces of evidence of the knife at the murder site. The first was the outline of the knife, which didn't match the butcher's knife seized from Raffaele's drawer, and you'd imagine would be the best indicator of what kind of knife to look for.

On the body there were three major wounds. Of those, one couldn't possibly be caused by the knife from Raffaele's drawer. The second was found by one 'expert' to be 'compatible' with the knife, which only means possible which is a step below 'unlikely' and well below 'likely.' That was contested by another expert who found it impossible. The last major knife wound could have been caused by anything from a box-cutter to a broadsword, thus tells us nothing.

 

[Kaosium]

Well, perhaps she said things that were untrue at the other interrogations as well, it's just that by this interrogation the cops felt they were able to prove it.

I don't quite follow what you're getting at. What would they trying to 'prove?' That she saw Patrick rape and murder Meredith?

 

[SomeAlibi]

Hi Treehorn,

How come pro-guilt believers constantly say that she did not apologize to Patrick?
It seems that Amanda Knox did so waaaay back on Nov. 30, 2007...
Correct?

Was just having one of my infrequent peeks here and no-one seems ready to help you with this one, but no, incorrect. Souce: Amanda Knox. Trial testimony June 9th, 2009 under cross-examination by Patrick's counsel:

CP: Well, I've finished for now. One last question. Did you ever say you
were sorry to Patrick?

AK: No.

Not a lot of space in that.

Amanda's recent spontaneous declaration also acknowledged that she was "wrong" in her words for not having spoken up earlier and she then apologised to both the Kerchers and Patrick in the courtroom in turn to make up for her dual oversight. Contrast her performance where she saved her moment of maximum "distress" for when talking about Meredith to her testimony in the first trial where she was able to talk about Meredith at length without getting upset and reminded the court that although she was "so upset" "in the end, I only knew her for one month, and more than anything, I am trying to think how to go forward with my own life,"

 

[SomeAlibi]

While I think of it, a New Year's challenge for the-community-who-prefer-not-to-be-referred-to-as-guilters.

The standing challenge to come up with a theory of the crime that fits the facts as we know them, has Knox and Sollecito murdering Meredith Kercher and isn't incredibly implausible still stands, but inspired by Alt+F4's personal opinion on the three silliest arguments of the year here's a bonus:

If you reckon that objective, verified evidence of human interaction with Raffaele's laptop from ~9pm to ~6am only provides an alibi for one person (Alt+F4 for one believes that this is a great shaft of insight), then surely you have a coherent theory of the crime that fits with the facts as we know them, has Raffaele or Amanda murdering Meredith, and fits with the computer evidence, right? I'd like to hear Alt+F4's theory, but everyone else is welcome to pitch in and help her.

Who killed Meredith, and when, and why, if someone was using Raffaele's computer from ~9pm to ~6am, and Meredith died between ~9pm and ~9:30pm? Who broke into the house, or staged a break-in, and why and how and when?

You don't actually believe the computer usage from 9pm to 6am do you? I mean neither Knox nor Sollecito every claimed they used the computer between those times and there's no internet activity, no applications being used, no grand novel being written for 9 hours. What the hell is he supposed to do during those 9 hours? And how exactly was Raffaele doing that when he was washing bloody fish, looking at leaky pipes, eating dinner with Amanda in a different room, cleaning up, having sex with Amanda and then falling asleep with Amanda? Amanda herself completely undermines this "theory" lock stock and barrel in her testimony.

AK: Um, around, um, we ate around 9:30 or 10, and then after we had eaten and he was washing the dishes, well, as I said, I don't look at the clock much, but it was around 10. And...he...umm...well, he was washing the dishes and, umm, the water was coming out and he was very "bummed" [English], displeased, he told me he had just had that thing repaired. He was annoyed that it had broken again. So, umm...

LG: Yes. So you talked a bit. Then what did you do?

AK: Then we smoked a joint together. What we did is, we said all right, let's find some rags, but he didn't have a "mop" [in English] how do you say "mop"? [The interpreter translates "lo spazzolone", the lawyer "il mocio"] he didn't have one, and I said don't worry, I have one at home, I'll bring it tomorrow, the leak is in the kitchen, it wasn't like it smelled bad or anything, we could just forget about it for the night, and then think about it tomorrow. So, we went into his room, and I think I, yes, I lay down on his bed, and he went to the desk, and while he was there he rolled the joint, and then we smoked it together.

LG: Did you fall asleep together?

AK: Yes, first we made love, and then we fell asleep.



I know the defence have a massive problem to attend to with the computer records but I really have to say i consider this attempt at showing continuous computer activity, never mentioned by the defendants and directly, flatly contradicted by one in multiple instances to be both barrels to the feet. Unless they are considering reverting to throwing Amanda under the bus (again). But I can't see that really happening.

It really is mind-boggling. Desperation stakes imho.

 

[Kaosium]

Hi SomeAlibi! I'm sorry I missed you the last time you popped in. I had been naughty and was being punished!

I'd like to thank you for your first 'experiment' here. It was as a result of that I learned a great deal.

Was just having one of my infrequent peeks here and no-one seems ready to help you with this one, but no, incorrect. Souce: Amanda Knox. Trial testimony June 9th, 2009 under cross-examination by Patrick's counsel:

CP: Well, I've finished for now. One last question. Did you ever say you
were sorry to Patrick?

AK: No.

Not a lot of space in that.

Patrick wasn't there at the time, right? That's what that all amounted to if I recall, she'd said she was sorry before but not in the actual presence of Patrick Lumumba.

Amanda's recent spontaneous declaration also acknowledged that she was "wrong" in her words for not having spoken up earlier and she then apologised to both the Kerchers and Patrick in the courtroom in turn to make up for her dual oversight. Contrast her performance where she saved her moment of maximum "distress" for when talking about Meredith to her testimony in the first trial where she was able to talk about Meredith at length without getting upset and reminded the court that although she was "so upset" "in the end, I only knew her for one month, and more than anything, I am trying to think how to go forward with my own life,"

Frankly I think the one who's going to need to do the most apologizing when this is all over is Patrick. He told some unconscionable lies about Amanda Knox. That Amanda apologized to him is indicative of character on her part, that he went on TV more than once insisting she apologize again and then claim he didn't believe her is rather curious. I wonder just what would cause a man to continue to blame a college-aged girl for the actions of the police, being as they're the ones who arrested him and closed down his bar for months.

He has a big suit pending against ILE at the ECHR, does he not? I wonder just how vigorous a defense they will put up against him being as he's been so useful to them in continuing to defame a young lady for the mistakes they made?