Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[NancyS]

This whole case seems to have been carried out upside down. In most similar crimes you'll find some ordinary looking person accused, who will probably scrub up reasonable well in a suit for the trial - and after the unquestionable evidence is presented at court they are convicted. After the conviction you find out that this ordinary looking person had done all sorts of terrible things before and you will suddenly have a load of stories in the press about his past crimes.

This case seems to have been completely the other way round - we learnt all these terrible things about Amanda and Raffaele and they attend trial alreay as an infamous 'Mickey and Mallory' style couple - rather suspect evidence is presented at court and it's only after they are convicted that you find out most of the information in the press was lies and that there are no stories to come out about their past crimes - and they eventually start to appear rather ordinary.

I mentioned further up thread, that I thought it was possible that as these were young people that lived together, the tiny amounts of DNA could have been transferred prior to the crime - and if the police had looked long enough they might have been able to connect any of Meredith's close friends or housemates to her murder with similar very low scale DNA evidence.

 

[Rolfe]

At least this explains where the description came from and why the term "fourth man" was used, but notice the dates:

Original Title: Fourth Suspect Emerges in Kercher Case
November 10, 2007
SOURCE: http://current.com/groups/crime/87151711_fourth-suspect-emerges-in-kercher-case.htm

Current Title: Lawyers stop Meredith coffin return
As the murdered student's body is held at the airport while defence teams demand more tests, Tom Kington in Perugia and Charlotte Franklin in Seattle report on the emergence of a possible fourth suspect
November 11, 2011
SOURCE: http://www.guardian.co.uk/italy/story/0,,2209198,00.html

" ...Police are reportedly also searching for a possible fourth suspect in the killing, after a fingerprint was found in Kercher's bedroom which did not match Lumumba, Knox or Sollecito. The report has been tied to the sighting of a North African man hastily washing clothes including trainers in a nearby launderette the day after the murder... "

I am not certain about the hand print. I have never seen it. Perhaps Frank has a copy of this hand print from court. Maybe it is clear enough to read the ridges and curves...I still think the police did not compare it to Rudy Guede until after his friend informed the police that Rudy might be involved. This was simply a release from the police to help them look better.

This is intriguing.

I find books to be a bit of a two-edged sword. Once they're printed, it's set in stone, and nobody peer-reviews them. On the other hand sometimes the authors do have unique information. (There's a book about the Lockerbie case which seems to have been pretty much dictated by the police inquiry, but which is a confusing mix of absolutely dynamite information, and complete and utter codswallop.)

Contemporary newspaper reports can often be better for establishing an early timeline of an investigation. That stuff about Meredith's body being held at the airport for further tests certainly has the ring of truth and suggests that the existence of a fourth suspect was suspected about 10th November. Can someone tell me when Rudy's friend came forward, and when the Skype call was? (Forgive me, but I have so much detailed information about Pan Am 103 in my head there isn't room for this as well.)

This rather gives the lie to the invented conversation about a fingerprint identification on 16th November. However, I think I've read that Rudy's friend came forward precisely because he had heard that the police were looking for someone else he realised might be Rudy, so that does indicate they had some idea there was a fourth person before that.

I wonder, actually, if it was in fact from a normal fingerprint and not from the palm print on the pillow case, but the two have later become conflated? But did they match the fingerprint to Rudy before the friend came forward, or not, I wonder?

Rolfe.

 

[RoseMontague]

Here is the quote from Rudy's first appeal (Google translation):

In further investigation it was ascertained that, by comparing in a palmprint database of printed and found blood on the pillow that was under the body of vittimav whose results were reported by police science with a note of November 16, 2007 , the scene of crime was also a national Ivorian Rudi Hermann Guede, already indicated by Sonassi Stephen tenant of the ground floor of the building, the nickname of "The Baron" - between people who occasionally frequented the house away della Pergola 7, coir adding the detail that he had fallen asleep on the toilet in the apartment occupied by young Marche, where he had defecated, then forgetting to pull the toilet, special interest considered by the investigators as presented similarities with the found in one of the bathrooms in the apartment above, that Guede was being subjected to ritual reliefs in relation to practice to get permission to stay in Italy, on June 16, 2005 and on 27 October 2007 had been identified and reported at large, in Milan, theft, receiving stolen property (a computer stolen from a law firm in Perugia tonnes of other material) and holding a knife and port (taken from a school where the accused was found): comparison with the 14 fragments detected papillary fingerprints allowed to award themselves with absolute certainty, the defendant.1

Unfortunately, The "1" as a footnote might indicate an attachment picture, but I don't have it.

 

[RoseMontague]

Here is the front/back picture of the pillow.

 

[Rolfe]

Mmmm, still sceptical that there was an identifiable palm print on that pillowcase, I have to say. Maybe something that could be seen to be Rudy's one you've already placed him on the scene, but good enough to pull his ID cold from the immigration database?

I admit this is argument from incredulity, and I'm open to persuasion, but I'm not seeing the evidence so far. What the police claim they did is one thing, and under the circumstances I could see why Rudy's defence wouldn't think it worth challenging, but could they really have done that?

Rolfe.

 

[ForTruth]

Yes this is a very interesting aspect I haven't seen extensively explored - how they could have possibly identified Rudy from a palm print on a piece of fabric.
This actually changes my perception of the evidence against Rudy - because that palm print in blood which I assumed to be legible is what I compare to the scant/dubious trace indicator of Raffaele in the murder room (and the lack of any arguable trace of Amanda in the murder room).

I still think Rudy is guilty by all means, but without legible fingerprints or palm prints in blood, I think there may be a stronger case for a new appeal for Rudy after Amanda and Raffaele's convictions are overturned.

The sad part is if they had only took the time to do this investigation right (i.e not rush to identify suspects, not force a confession, not force DNA results), they wouldn't have lost the opportunity to get True Justice for Meredith Kercher.
Any hope of that is lost. They should award themselves some more medals. Bravo guys and gals.

 

[Rolfe]

I don't have any serious doubt that Rudy is guilty as hell. However, if the sloppy techniques surrounding the DNA collection and analysis mean that all the DNA evidence has to be discounted, and the palm print is little more identifiable than the bathmat footprint, then he may indeed have a reasonable case for another appeal.

And what about the stain that might or might not have been semen? How on earth can anyone have justified not testing that?

Morons.

Rolfe.

 

[RoseMontague]

Here is what I consider to be a fair and balanced summary of the C&V report regarding the contamination issue as presented by thoughtful at PMF.

First of all, I think you're missing the point that the court wanted the views on the level and reliability of the forensic work and the possibility of contamination from people outside the case, hired by neither the defense or the prosecution to defend one specific point of view. If these new "independent experts" come down on one side or the other (which they did), I believe that the court will still weigh their opinion as being independent, and treat it differently from the same things being said by a highly paid defense expert. The first thing that the court demanded was independence, and I for one believe that they got it, by which I mean that I absolutely do not believe that C&V's opinion was in any way influenced by any a priori belief that Amanda and Raffaele should be acquitted.

Secondly, I think you're exaggerating what they could be expected to prove. The most they could possibly do is show a path in which there is a real, even if small, possibility that contamination occurred, and to assess any evidence that might exist that would tend to confirm the hypothesis of contamination. They cannot possibly be expected to prove that it did occur, nor would the court have expected this.

They did show realistic scenarios for contamination in both cases.

For the knife, they explained the chance that contamination could have occurred from prior samples of Meredith's DNA run in the machine. This would have been a perfectly realistic scenario, except that it fell apart at the subsequent court date due to the discovery of the time-lapse between samples. Therefore, this part of their report is pretty much discredited. But the court's ultimate goal is to find out the truth, and if the report's conclusion, followed by the rebuttal in court, led to a conviction that the knife is safe, then that goal was correctly reached through this discussion.

For the bra clasp, they clearly evoked the scenario that police going in and out of Meredith's room, back and forth from the living room, carrying heavy objects out of her room, laying them down in the living room, going back to Meredith's room, carrying out other objects, all without changing shoe covers, could have led to their shoe covers picking up Raffaele's DNA from the floor and tracking it onto the bra clasp. Since the bra clasp was not originally under the rug, and was later found under the rug, no one knows exactly when it got under the rug, and it might have spent ample time not under the rug while the technicians were working. C&V also pointed out that many samples should have been picked up from the floor to see if Raffaele's DNA was present, either in the living room or in Meredith's room, but this wasn't done. I do not think you can expect them to do anything more in the way of giving a realistic scenario. They can certainly not prove that this actually happened, but that was not what they were asked to do. They did, however, adduce evidence towards contamination by pointing out the existence of other minor contributors on the bra clasp.

Where I do agree with you, where I consider that C&V underperformed, is: firstly, not checking when the previous samples were tested before the knife. I doubt that that information was spontaneously provided to them, as it wasn't in their original task which was to examine the knife testing, but given the importance, they should have requested it. Secondly, I don't know if it is true or not that kits exist now which would be capable of testing the knife, but they should have tried, although I do suspect that nothing is left on the knife and they would have found nothing. But they should have gone as far as possible. Thirdly, they should have entered more clearly into an explanation of the quantity of Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp with respect to the other minor contributors, and the meaning of the obvious fact that his peaks are more consistent and higher than those other peaks; they didn't do this.

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=98371&sid=1d6368f915803c1607211ac983085f58#p98371

 

[Rolfe]

Yes, I read that. The mistake Thoughtful makes is this bit.

For the knife, they explained the chance that contamination could have occurred from prior samples of Meredith's DNA run in the machine. This would have been a perfectly realistic scenario, except that it fell apart at the subsequent court date due to the discovery of the time-lapse between samples. Therefore, this part of their report is pretty much discredited

She takes Stefanoni's assertion about the time lapse at face value, which I think is overly-trusting when considered in the light of the same lady's quite blatant falsification attempts as regards the negative controls.

She hasn't brought up what the prosecution expert said about other samples not having such contamination, however as we discussed here, that isn't a tenable claim on the basis of evidence before the court, and if he has had access to evidence not before the court that needs to be brought out.

Rolfe.

 

[ForTruth]

Analysis of the latest TJMK post by PQ

A quick commentary on PQ latest TJMK post since it is a short one. This is classic PQ.

"Majority opinion in Perugia has long inclined to the view that the right perps were convicted back in December 2009."
Says who? Is there a recent poll? I believe in 2009 that would most definitely be true of Perugia and the rest of Italy, but now is another story.

"It is very hard to see the six jury members (the lay judges) bucking that trend without being given a great deal more red meat for them to convince their friends and neighbors (and for that matter most of Italy) than they have now."
Passive speech is a great way to push an idea under the guise of known fact "It is very hard to see" It's very hard for who to see? Somehow I don't think PQ even agrees with this. Also he ignores the fact that the popular jurors are effectively symbolic. They don't write the opinion. And his statement here is based on his previous assertion that the juror's friends and neighbors haven't changed their opinion since 2009 which I highly doubt. Plenty of new media has come out in favor of Amanda and Raffaele in Italy. And I've heard that Italians generally view their judiciary as a joke, so I don't think they'd need all that much convincing that their was a judicial travesty in the first conviction.

"And Judge Hellman has a reputation similar to Judge Massei’s for making sure all the bases are covered and for not arriving at trial or appeal outcomes based on a few outlying contradictory “facts” or a mere whim. He too has been given very little that is new."
Just asserting some more falsehoods. The Massei report probably convinced PQ himself that Massei was sloppy. Very little that is new??? Sure I guess you could say that. What about the nullification of evidence? Witnesses no longer considered credible, DNA evidence discredited. This puts any other point of evidence from the first trial into question since Massei didn't leave a solid opinion on those items. Hellman on the other hand - he seems to be right about him. I think he was efficient and got to the core of the matter to ensure that this acquittal will stand any supreme court appeal.

Putting Knox and Sollecito on the stand now would seem the last best shot at taking of that.
What? "taking of that" I don't get this. Is this a typing mistake or Brittish wording I don't understand. I guess maybe he is saying that putting them on the stand will give new evidence for Hellman to consider. I don't think so.

But there is no sign that either defense team has been eager to see their clients speak out at any time, and Knox was even publicly warned early on not to do so.
The teams quite possibly winced now and then (along with many others) at Knox’s performances in past spontaneous declarations and in her stint on the stand in July 2009 which did not really go over at all well.

Agreed. There are good reasons for them not to take the stand -- and not because they're guilty. Ask any criminal defense lawyer.
Wow - he really didn't even give it the old PQ BS try, when he softened his statement with a "quite possibly". I don't agree. These defense teams clearly believe in their clients. I don't see that in Rudy's lawyer. They know Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. They know any small awkward statements that have been made are just them being genuine and true. They know that the truth that is becoming more and more apparent overshadows such over-analysis.
Knox's "performance". Nice one PQ. This implies it was acting. Knox's "stint" on the stand was actually quite convincing to me, someone from Amanda's home community who knows her personality type a lot more that you. It just had no affect on a court that already had the verdict determined and needed the court sessions to find things to write in the judge's opinion.

See here and here and here.
Oh what credible sources - your own site! you and your close colleagues' opinion pieces!

Kermit in this December 2010 post explained the risks Knox would face on the stand. Kermit helpfully included 150 cross-examination questions to drive home the stark point.

Yes again, credible sources. An anonymous dude named Kermit who has mastered the art of begging the question in each of his "questions". Let's not mention his highly serious mastery of the most annoying features in PowerPoint.

So. Knox and Sollecito. Trapped by poor legal and PR strategy between the devil and the deep blue sea.
Really - you are going to put forth this pessimism? How are you going to retract this when the conviction is overturned? Oh yeah... you have no concern about your own credibility. You know it was lost long ago when you all parted ways with Frank Sfarzo well before the first conviction.

 

[RoseMontague]

Yes, I read that. The mistake Thoughtful makes is this bit.




She takes Stefanoni's assertion about the time lapse at face value, which I think is overly-trusting when considered in the light of the same lady's quite blatant falsification attempts as regards the negative controls.

She hasn't brought up what the prosecution expert said about other samples not having such contamination, however as we discussed here, that isn't a tenable claim on the basis of evidence before the court, and if he has had access to evidence not before the court that needs to be brought out.

Rolfe.

My review of the test results and the dated SAL slides show a gap with a few items still not dated. As I stated before I though it was strange that one hearing ended with this nagging statement and a claim that one of the experts admitted there could be no contamination then the next hearing it is not mentioned in any news report I have read. I would love to see both transcripts.

So I don't consider it a mistake at this point. It is simply that we don't have the information to properly evaluate that part of thoughtful's post. Perhaps we should ask thoughtful for the raw data files.

 

[Rolfe]

A quick commentary on PQ latest TJMK post since it is a short one.

There's an absolute cracker of a comment on that post. I especially like this bit.

I am sorry I have written all this and not made any mention of your favourite demoness Amanda. The same Amanda that said to Raffaele in the middle of a frantic clean-up…
AK: “no leave that footprint on the mat… just clean all of those other bloody ones”
RS: “but Amanda my darling my love my eternal angel eyes I think this one is mine not Rudy’s”
AK: “dont worry I’ll tell them its Rudys and they will believe me as everyone does what I tell them, now leave it be boy”
AK: “ok now we have to make it look like Rudy did it remember… we’ve cleaned the blood and DNA that is ours using the INDIVIDUALS’ FORENSIC REMOVAL KIT from Ebay we luckily bought in advance, and left his. Now how can we make it look even more like him other than his DNA inside Meredith, his prints in her blood inside her room, his DNA on her purse and his footprint (RS: but amanda its my..) SHUT UP his footprint on the mat. OK lets stage a break-in. I dont really know Rudy other than in a rape and murder capacity but hes got the look of a burglar if ever i saw one. I think from his personality he must use a rock to break in to places so lets use that method as I’m sure it will turn up hes done that sort of thing before. Remember to make it look authentic, throw it hard so the rock and glass bounce back a far enough distance so it doesnt look like we did it from here where i’m dripping mixed blood. Of course we could have just left the door open or the window open, but I’m sure this is a low risk and good idea. CRASH. Good boy”

Go read it before it vanishes.

Rolfe.

 

[ForTruth]

There's an absolute cracker of a comment on that post. I especially like this bit.




Go read it before it vanishes.

Rolfe.

ahahah. nice!

 

[Grinder]

Peter Quennell recently said that he knew where I lived and he was gong to bury me. I never heard Peggy denounce the threat made by her good friend. She has mentioned the 2nd amendment comment made on Perugia Shock dozens of times since it happened. I have never seen someone so happy to be stalked or threatened. Maybe it's because no one is really stalking her, no one is threatening her, no one is doing drive-bys (except for Peggy when she drove by Amanda's parents house and counted their shrubs). She makes it all up as she goes along, just so the light is always shining on her. I wonder why she threw Michael out of her group. I imagine she wanted all of the attention, just a guess.

After hijacking the site they rearranged it so that PG's screen name dominates - in fact they replaced the ADMINISTRATOR title with a huge font and style reminiscent of regime from central Europe that seemed particularly appropriate. I mentioned it on Shock and they reduced the size.

As in Achtung YOU BEEN BANNED

 

[Kestrel]

There's an absolute cracker of a comment on that post. I especially like this bit.

Go read it before it vanishes.

Rolfe.

Thanks for sharing. PQ must be busy this morning, otherwise that comment would have already been purged.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

evidence samples versus reference samples

After reading John Butler's textbook "Forensic DNA Typing", I was under the impression that good lab practice was to run the evidence first, then run the profiles (I'll look up the page number later if anyone is interested). Am I to understand that (according to the putative six day delay) the knife was run after Meredith's reference sample was run? I have never seen anyone back up with proper citations the idea that six days is enough time to assume that contamination is not possible.

More importantly, the machine logs should tell the story of what was run when, but the prosecution's idea of discovery was, "Trust us." Ann Wise reported, "In testifying for Knox, expert Sarah Gino, who has appeared in court before, called out the prosecution for providing amplified DNA samples with the dates missing."

 

[theRealBob]

-

At least this explains where the description came from and why the term "fourth man" was used, but notice the dates:

Original Title: Fourth Suspect Emerges in Kercher Case
November 10, 2007
SOURCE: http://current.com/groups/crime/87151711_fourth-suspect-emerges-in-kercher-case.htm

Current Title: Lawyers stop Meredith coffin return
As the murdered student's body is held at the airport while defence teams demand more tests, Tom Kington in Perugia and Charlotte Franklin in Seattle report on the emergence of a possible fourth suspect
November 11, 2011
SOURCE: http://www.guardian.co.uk/italy/story/0,,2209198,00.html

" ...Police are reportedly also searching for a possible fourth suspect in the killing, after a fingerprint was found in Kercher's bedroom which did not match Lumumba, Knox or Sollecito. The report has been tied to the sighting of a North African man hastily washing clothes including trainers in a nearby launderette the day after the murder... "

Don't listen to uninformed sources.
The fourth man is Anthony Blunt.

And True Justce For My Website will tell you that really expert legal commentators tell them that Raff and Amanda don't have a hope in the appeal.
But Commodi will tell you, and the media, and everyone of course that they'll probably get off. But to those who follow the case she's more of an institutionally sodden with power 'liar' than a legal expert anyway so it obviously doesn't count.

Great job nearly shielding Steffi from a shock, horror independent audit of her, ahem... work though.
When -Dr Steff was s***-scared about coughing up her paperwork to the court, after the 40 day period they were diligently waiting before the trial's events could proceed, Commodi was brilliiant at shielding Steff's lithe, but vulnerable body of crooked evidence from the crossfire.
But, Lord help us, still told everyone in a rage after, that it's just not going to work...

 

[Grinder]

It is clear from the Gogerty Marriott (only took the PG people three years to accept that Stark was gone ) site that they are doing some work on behave of Knox.

Has there ever been any proof that GM is controlling the media in the US or anywhere else?

Are there any copies of emails sent to reporters?

 

[Diocletus]

More importantly, the machine logs should tell the story of what was run when, but the prosecution's idea of discovery was, "Trust us." Ann Wise reported, "In testifying for Knox, expert Sarah Gino, who has appeared in court before, called out the prosecution for providing amplified DNA samples with the dates missing."

Now that is fascinating. Sort of goes along with the fact that apparently no authentic, contemporaneous e-grams have been produced from November 2007. The e-grams attached to the C&V report are from June 2008.

At this point, there appears to be no documentary evidence that anything beyond the "too low" fluorometer analysis occurred in November 2007.

Moreover, Stefanoni has been shown to have lied about conducting a Real Time quantification at that time (she claimed she "forgot" that this didn't really happen).

This is very, very irregular, and IMO is a HUGE issue.

As far as we know, the extract could have been contaminated or even fabricated at any time between November 2007 and June 2008.

 

[Diocletus]

After reading John Butler's textbook "Forensic DNA Typing", I was under the impression that good lab practice was to run the evidence first, then run the profiles (I'll look up the page number later if anyone is interested). Am I to understand that (according to the putative six day delay) the knife was run after Meredith's reference sample was run? I have never seen anyone back up with proper citations the idea that six days is enough time to assume that contamination is not possible.

I wonder if it's possible that of the two runs mentioned in C&V, one of these runs was the Meredith reference sample. If you look closely at the knife-track e-grams attached to C&V, one is marked "Meredith". Could this mean that the reference and track B e-grams were run right together asindicated by the dates on the e-grams?