Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Grinder]

I was reading another old mail story and ran across this as spoken by Meredith's Italian boyfriend"It was my birthday at the end of September but she couldn't make my party because she was flying back to England for the weekend.
"She gave me a bottle of rum as a present. Most of it was drunk at the party but there is a drop left that I will now keep for ever."

So there was rum available that night.

Grinder, please tell me you are not saying there was rum available the night Meredith was murdered?

I couldn't tell you that because the boyfriend said some was still there after her death.

Many have speculated that she went to water the marijuana plants and feed the cat she was taking care of in the boyfriend's apartment on the ground floor of the cottage. She could have had a drink while there - please explian why that's not possible.

I find nothing wrong with drinking, specifically with Meredith drinking and think that since the coroner reported and was backed up by another expert that she had the BAC of one drink in her system, it is as important as many other details in reconstructing the evening of the murder.

The BAC came from the Massei report. Perhaps, if people feel it is such a violation to discuss it, PMF should have censored that fact out of their translation.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Wow just Wow!

I was looking for early references to the alleged staged break-in and I found this check out the picture of Amanda partying back at the UW with a bunch of guys. We've seen this picture dozens of times for example here at Sharon Feinstein's blog.

I had never seen the original or at least I didn't notice or remember that they CROPPED OUT ANOTHER WOMAN THAT WAS AT THE PARTY - the press has consistently led people to believe that Amanda was the only woman at the drinking party.

The caption on the photo from Nov. 9th read "Party people: Amanda Knox (left) often took men back to the flat she shared with Meredith Kercher"

Apparently later use of the picture extracted the other girl because, well, you know, it doesn't have the same punch when another female was there with her.

Sorry to say but this has been the theme from about day 4. Amanda bad girl - other girls very good.

Yes, this subtle dishonesty is pernicious and malignant. Not only did they have Meredith cast as a saint and Amanda as a she-devil, but little manipulations like this were added to bolster this idea that Amanda was a girl among men and hostile to other girls.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

bladder alcohol levels and the USS Iowa

I was reading another old mail story and ran across this as spoken by Meredith's Italian boyfriend"It was my birthday at the end of September but she couldn't make my party because she was flying back to England for the weekend.
"She gave me a bottle of rum as a present. Most of it was drunk at the party but there is a drop left that I will now keep for ever."

So there was rum available that night.

Halides have you located any source that negates the coroner and the professor who in the Massei report stated they believed a reading of .43g/l.

You may have noticed that elsewhere you are attributed with concluding that the alcohol in her system didn't come from drinking. I don't think that's an accurate recounting of your position. As of the last statement you made publicly on this, you have not found a source that states post mortem fermentation produces alcohol under the conditions of this murder to the extent necessary to declare she hadn't had a recent drink or two, correct?

Grinder,

My present position on this is that we do not have enough information to be certain whether or not she had a drink at this point. The amount of fermentation will obviously depend upon several factors, not the least of which are time between death and the autopsy and the temperature at which the body was stored. There is also the issue of whether or not sodium fluoride was used as a preservative. Do we know whether or not a femoral vein was used as the source of the blood?

Besides vitreous fluid, the bladder is a good place to sample. In their 2007 review article (Forensic Science International 165 (2007) 10–29), Kugelberg and Jones wrote, “Thus by calculating the ratio of UAC/BAC furnishes useful information about the status of alcohol absorption at the time of death [115–118]. Finding a ratio less than or close to unity suggests incomplete absorption of alcohol in all body fluids at time of death, which indicates fairly recent drinking and some of the ingested alcohol probably remains unabsorbed in the stomach, whereas finding a ratio of 1.25 or more suggests that absorption and distribution of ethanol was complete by the time of death [117].” These authors go on to discuss the case of the USS Iowa, which may represent a particularly challenging situation for the person performing an autopsy: “For example, a person with 190 mg/100 mL in blood had no alcohol present in urine, which obviously raises suspicion about the integrity of the BAC report.”

 

[Bill Williams]

Wow just Wow!

I was looking for early references to the alleged staged break-in and I found this check out the picture of Amanda partying back at the UW with a bunch of guys. We've seen this picture dozens of times for example here at Sharon Feinstein's blog.

I had never seen the original or at least I didn't notice or remember that they CROPPED OUT ANOTHER WOMAN THAT WAS AT THE PARTY - the press has consistently led people to believe that Amanda was the only woman at the drinking party.

The caption on the photo from Nov. 9th read "Party people: Amanda Knox (left) often took men back to the flat she shared with Meredith Kercher"

Apparently later use of the picture extracted the other girl because, well, you know, it doesn't have the same punch when another female was there with her.

Sorry to say but this has been the theme from about day 4. Amanda bad girl - other girls very good.

The maddening thing about that prejudicial Daily Mail piece is that there is not an ounce of truth to it. There is scarcely an ounce of truth to any one sentence printed.

- Foxy Knoxy 'held Meredith down during deadly sex attack', say police (false)
- Knox pushed so hard on the 21-year-old's face that she left an imprint of her fingers on the skin. (false)
- Amanda Knox: 'An unscrupulous tendency to lie constantly to investigators' (false - she only ever told two stories, one of which was after interrogtation to which the police bragged, "she buckled". After some tardiness she reverted to Story #1, and has not wavered since)

etc. etc. etc.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

touch DNA

Suzanna Ryan has a commendable series of articles on DNA forensics. A recent addition is one on touch DNA. It discusses the paradox of where touch DNA comes from, given that keratinized cells have lost their nuclei.

 

[TruthCalls]

I was reading another old mail story and ran across this as spoken by Meredith's Italian boyfriend"It was my birthday at the end of September but she couldn't make my party because she was flying back to England for the weekend. "She gave me a bottle of rum as a present. Most of it was drunk at the party but there is a drop left that I will now keep for ever."

So there was rum available that night.

Halides have you located any source that negates the coroner and the professor who in the Massei report stated they believed a reading of .43g/l.

You may have noticed that elsewhere you are attributed with concluding that the alcohol in her system didn't come from drinking. I don't think that's an accurate recounting of your position. As of the last statement you made publicly on this, you have not found a source that states post mortem fermentation produces alcohol under the conditions of this murder to the extent necessary to declare she hadn't had a recent drink or two, correct?

Grinder, I believe you've got this one wrong. The party was at the end of September, a full month away from the murder, and the rum was drunk by those in attendance of the party, of which Meredith was not one (she was flying back to England). This would be totally unrelated to the murder.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder, I believe you've got this one wrong. The party was at the end of September, a full month away from the murder, and the rum was drunk by those in attendance of the party, of which Meredith was not one (she was flying back to England). This would be totally unrelated to the murder.

The related part is that they didn't finish the bottle at his birthday party so rum would have been there the murder night since there was still some left after the murder as per the story.

The other reason for calling attention to the Sun article is that people here kept talking about wine and that no red wine showed up during autopsy when I was under the impression that Mojitos were her drink of choice which is made with rum.

As I've said several times, if people want to reconstruct the evening for Meredith the BAC should be considered and where the alcohol came from is significant in the reconstruction.

Why people wish to ignore this evidence from Massei eludes me?

 

[TruthCalls]

Suzanna Ryan has a commendable series of articles on DNA forensics. A recent addition is one on touch DNA. It discusses the paradox of where touch DNA comes from, given that keratinized cells have lost their nuclei.

Thanks Chris, very interesting article. I found the following relevant as it may pertain to the bra clasp sample;

"Another common question in regards to touch DNA analysis is, "Is it possible that my client’s DNA arrived on the item of evidence via secondary transfer?". In other words, could someone’s DNA be found on an item even though they never actually touched that item? Based upon several recent studies, the answer is, yes, this is indeed possible.

Secondary transfer can be from:

3. person to object to object - I use a bath towel (primary transfer of my DNA to the towel) that is then wrapped around a gun and my DNA is found on the gun (secondary transfer from towel to gun).

One of the initial studies on secondary DNA transfer- after the original short correspondence describing examples of secondary transfer published by van Oorschot and Jones in Nature in 1997 - was a study by Ladd, et al, (1999) who appear to have sought to dispel the possible interference of secondary DNA on an item of evidence. They conclude their paper by stating that "Secondary transfer was not observed under our experimental conditions". However, a closer look reveals that low-level secondary transfer was indeed observed. The authors note that, "on occasion, minor peaks (below 75RFU) from the second individual were observed". This is secondary transfer. In addition, as mentioned above, the increased sensitivity common with today’s methods and techniques would likely have yielded an even greater appearance of secondary DNA transfer in the Ladd study. More recent studies indicate that secondary transfer of DNA can and does occur under varying circumstances."

It never made sense to me that Sollecito's DNA would be found on the metal clasp but nowhere else. Given the fabric of the clasp was separated from the bra itself, and the metal clasp bent, it's reasonable to conclude the bra was physically ripped off Meredith. If Sollecito had been involved in this action, his DNA should have been found elsewhere on the fabric of the bra but it was not. Only Meredith and Guede DNA was found. Is it practical to consider Sollecito was present, and while he did not yank the bra off Meredith, the clasp - and only the clasp - came into reasonably solid contact with him to the extent that he could 'touch' transfer his DNA to it? This seems to be extremely unlikely.

One thing not clear to me.. the C&V report mentions flaking cells on several occasions. Is this the same as saying skin cells? If so, could this possibly suggest that Sollecito shed skin cells in the cottage and during the 46 days following the crime his cells, via dust transfer, made it into Meredith's room and onto the clasp? And if so, shouldn't it also appear on the fabric of the clasp? Did the clasp ever come in contact with the towels which came from the bathroom (which Sollecito may have contacted). This seems like we could get into a silly game of bouncing DNA cells which could then justify DNA being found almost anywhere (being semi-sarcastic, but..).

 

[TruthCalls]

The related part is that they didn't finish the bottle at his birthday party so rum would have been there the murder night since there was still some left after the murder as per the story.

The other reason for calling attention to the Sun article is that people here kept talking about wine and that no red wine showed up during autopsy when I was under the impression that Mojitos were her drink of choice which is made with rum.

As I've said several times, if people want to reconstruct the evening for Meredith the BAC should be considered and where the alcohol came from is significant in the reconstruction.

Why people wish to ignore this evidence from Massei eludes me?

Well, I'd still argue that the story says a drop was left over, and that he is now going to retain it for life. So it stands to reason the rum that remained from the party was never consumed. Further, he was in possession of the bottle, not Meredith, and he has not figured into the night of the murder, so she would not have even had access to the bottle.

I would definitely agree BAC needs to be considered, and the source of any detected alcohol would be of significant importance, especially if none was consumed when she was with her friends. I'm only saying that this particular story does not tie into the murder -- it can reasonably be deduced that rum from that bottle is not the source of any alcohol in her system.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The DNA may have been on the towels

One thing not clear to me.. the C&V report mentions flaking cells on several occasions. Is this the same as saying skin cells? If so, could this possibly suggest that Sollecito shed skin cells in the cottage and during the 46 days following the crime his cells, via dust transfer, made it into Meredith's room and onto the clasp? And if so, shouldn't it also appear on the fabric of the clasp? Did the clasp ever come in contact with the towels which came from the bathroom (which Sollecito may have contacted). This seems like we could get into a silly game of bouncing DNA cells which could then justify DNA being found almost anywhere (being semi-sarcastic, but..).

TruthCalls,

I believe that Sollecito's lawyers made the claim that Sollecito could not get his DNA on the clasp without also getting it elsewhere in front of Judge Micheli. I assume that when the Conti and Vecchiotti report discusses flaking, that they are referring to skin cells. My own take is that Sollecito did not spend enough time in the women's flat to make a large contribution to dust.

However, there are several mechanisms by which his DNA might have arrived on the bra clasp. One is that DNA from his fingerprints on the door were transferred via a glove to the clasp. Two is from towels. Sollecito prepared food at the women's flat on at least one occasion, IIRC; therefore, it is reasonable to suppose he washed his hands there and deposited his DNA. If he happened to use the same towels that Guede brought into Meredith's room, his DNA might arrive on the clasp by secondary or tertiary transfer, as KatyDid and I speculated some time ago. For example, Guede might have stepped onto a towel then stepped onto the clasp to deform it. Or the towel may have been on top of the clasp, and Guede may have then stepped onto the towel.

 

[Grinder]

Well, I'd still argue that the story says a drop was left over, and that he is now going to retain it for life. So it stands to reason the rum that remained from the party was never consumed. Further, he was in possession of the bottle, not Meredith, and he has not figured into the night of the murder, so she would not have even had access to the bottle.

I would definitely agree BAC needs to be considered, and the source of any detected alcohol would be of significant importance, especially if none was consumed when she was with her friends. I'm only saying that this particular story does not tie into the murder -- it can reasonably be deduced that rum from that bottle is not the source of any alcohol in her system.

He lived downstairs and she had the key to the apartment in order to water his marijuana plants and feed the cat. I doubt that he saved a drop or two at the party, but that is all that remained after her death and even that might be a bit of literary license.

It could well be that the source of the alcohol was from elsewhere, even a bottle of rum from her part of the cottage. Also, early reporting had broken glass in her bedroom and some speculated that it was from a bottle used at the orgy, but I haven't heard anything about that for years.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

A paper on DNA mixtures and their pitfalls

I.E. Dror, G. Hampikian, Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation, Science and Justice (2011), 51(4), 201-208
doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004

Two forensic scientists had concluded that Suspect 3 could not be excluded in a DNA mixture from a gang rape in Georgia (the two knew the details of the case). Subsequently the authors asked seventeen forensic scientists to (re)examine this mixture. Surprisingly, only one agreed with the initial interpretation. Twelve concluded that Suspect 3 could be excluded, and four said the data were inconclusive. The authors wrote:
“The results are revealing in two respects: First, the fact that the 17 DNA examiners were not consistent in their conclusions, by itself, suggests that there is an element of subjectivity in DNA interpretation. If it was totally objective, then all the examiners would have reached the same conclusion, especially since they all work in the same laboratory and follow the same interpretation guidelines…

“Second, comparing the data between examiners, those from the context free condition to those who were exposed to the extraneous context condition, it is possible that the domain irrelevant information may have biased their interpretation. The DNA analysts who concluded that the suspect cannot be excluded within the biasing context of the criminal case, are in sharp contrast to the vast majority of examiners who examined the same evidence without this biasing context.”

The take-home messages here are that mixtures are generally ambiguous, and forensic scientists may unconsciously or consciously slant their interpretations in a way that is favorable to one side or the other. Dr. Hampikian was a coauthor of the 2009 open letter on the Knox/Sollecito case.

 

[anglolawyer]

Another golden oldie from the Sun:

Cameras overlooking the house in Perugia have captured the 20-year-old American student, known as Foxy Knoxy, at 8.43pm on 1 November dressed in a light-coloured skirt and top.

Man, when you read these old English tab accounts it brings back the bs and why I was so skeptical of the police and prosecution.

Why isn't there an investigation of these leaks of bogus "evidence".

Another meme in the early days was that it was not only okay but the duty of the police to give the press all this bs. Either way it is legitimate reason to question the system.

On about 18/11/2007 Richard Owen wrote in The Times (London) that police sources claimed that receipts for the purchase of bleach at Cardo at (IIRC) 7.30 and 8.15 AM on 02/11/2007 had been found at Raffaele's apartment. How damning is that? They are up and about early in the morning. They urgently need bleach. They run out of the stuff and urgently need more.

That factlet lodged in my brain until October 2011 as indicative of guilt when the acquittal prompted me to make enquiry at IIP (oh yeah? so what about the bleach?) only to find it was, er, just a lie(!)

A 'system' which generates such lies (one of many) consists of people, commonly known as 'liars'. Why would law enforcers be lying to the press about the case? Why are they talking to the press at all? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the case was to be tried before a non-sequestered Perugia jury and the further fact that these people like winning their cases and the further further fact that the jury will not be able to separate the evidence they hear in court from the background noise in the press?

Not subtle, or original, I know, but still deep.

 

[anglolawyer]

freeski posted this on IIP. Does anyone know whether Rudy was charged with burglary or theft of the cash or why Hellman might have held that the crime of stealing the cash did not exist?

'Today I was reading Hellman's report (section 1 recently completed translation - you guys doing the translation continue to do an amazing job) and I was very surprised to find that AK/RS were acquitted in the first trial of stealing cash and credit cards "because the act did not take place". Sure enough, revisiting Massei, he clears them of this though I couldn't find out why.

'... declared Amanda Marie Knox and Raffaele Sollecito guilty of the crimes attributed to them under letters A), into which offense the crime under letter C) was incorporated, B), D) limited to the cellular telephones, and E) for Amanda Knox only, of the crime attributed to her under letter F); while they were acquitted of the crime under letter D) with respect to the other objects and sums of money, with the formula “because the act did not take place” [perché il fatto non sussiste].'

Am I right in interpreting this to mean that the cash was not actually stolen? Or was it stolen but not by them. I thought it was a given that €300 was stolen from her. Or is this one of the many lies that has somehow slipped in under the radar.

Previously, I had read that when in Germany Rudy had complained (on his skype call I think) about having no money, and it bothered me cos I assumed he had the €300 on him. Maybe the above explains that.'

Thing is, the guilters fantasise about the theft of Meredith's money as precipitating a quarrel leading to murder. Maybe there was no evidence she had €300 in the first place - but then why would the charge have been laid at all?

 

[anglolawyer]

freeski posted this on IIP. Does anyone know whether Rudy was charged with burglary or theft of the cash or why Hellman might have held that the crime of stealing the cash did not exist?

'Today I was reading Hellman's report (section 1 recently completed translation - you guys doing the translation continue to do an amazing job) and I was very surprised to find that AK/RS were acquitted in the first trial of stealing cash and credit cards "because the act did not take place". Sure enough, revisiting Massei, he clears them of this though I couldn't find out why.

'... declared Amanda Marie Knox and Raffaele Sollecito guilty of the crimes attributed to them under letters A), into which offense the crime under letter C) was incorporated, B), D) limited to the cellular telephones, and E) for Amanda Knox only, of the crime attributed to her under letter F); while they were acquitted of the crime under letter D) with respect to the other objects and sums of money, with the formula “because the act did not take place” [perché il fatto non sussiste].'

Am I right in interpreting this to mean that the cash was not actually stolen? Or was it stolen but not by them. I thought it was a given that €300 was stolen from her. Or is this one of the many lies that has somehow slipped in under the radar.

Previously, I had read that when in Germany Rudy had complained (on his skype call I think) about having no money, and it bothered me cos I assumed he had the €300 on him. Maybe the above explains that.'

Thing is, the guilters fantasise about the theft of Meredith's money as precipitating a quarrel leading to murder. Maybe there was no evidence she had €300 in the first place - but then why would the charge have been laid at all?

Answering my own question, the answer is: no. Rudy was only charged with murder and sexual assault, as is apparent from the Micheli report.

 

[RWVBWL]

Meredith's rent...

Answering my own question, the answer is: no. Rudy was only charged with murder and sexual assault, as is apparent from the Micheli report.

Hi Anglolawyer and others,
I have a coupla questions for ya'all regarding Miss Kercher's rent money.
I should know this by now but forgive me I don't and I can not recall reading this info but then again I haven't read the post trial verdict reports nor courtroom testimony...

What day and time did Miss Kercher withdraw her rent money?

Was it only the correct amount due to pay the rent or more?

Did she do so from an ATM machine or did she have to go inside a bank to do so?

How come she had her rent on her if she knew in advance that Filomena was not going to be home for her to give it to her on the 1st, a Thursday?
She seems to have been concerned about someone possibly scopin' out the place at night prior to her murder. I would think that she would not feel to safe carrying a buncha cash in her purse while walking home from Robyn's by herself and knowing that no one was gonna be home upstairs or downstairs.
So why not just leave it in the bank? And go take it out on Friday or whatever day Filomena was gonna be back?

How did Miss Kercher pay the past month, October's rent?
In person, cash also? Or in an envelope placed somewhere, where ever Filomena said to leave it?

Just wonderin'...
RW

 

[Malkmus]

freeski posted this on IIP. Does anyone know whether Rudy was charged with burglary or theft of the cash or why Hellman might have held that the crime of stealing the cash did not exist?

'Today I was reading Hellman's report (section 1 recently completed translation - you guys doing the translation continue to do an amazing job) and I was very surprised to find that AK/RS were acquitted in the first trial of stealing cash and credit cards "because the act did not take place". Sure enough, revisiting Massei, he clears them of this though I couldn't find out why.

'... declared Amanda Marie Knox and Raffaele Sollecito guilty of the crimes attributed to them under letters A), into which offense the crime under letter C) was incorporated, B), D) limited to the cellular telephones, and E) for Amanda Knox only, of the crime attributed to her under letter F); while they were acquitted of the crime under letter D) with respect to the other objects and sums of money, with the formula “because the act did not take place” [perché il fatto non sussiste].'

Am I right in interpreting this to mean that the cash was not actually stolen? Or was it stolen but not by them. I thought it was a given that €300 was stolen from her. Or is this one of the many lies that has somehow slipped in under the radar.

Previously, I had read that when in Germany Rudy had complained (on his skype call I think) about having no money, and it bothered me cos I assumed he had the €300 on him. Maybe the above explains that.'

Thing is, the guilters fantasise about the theft of Meredith's money as precipitating a quarrel leading to murder. Maybe there was no evidence she had €300 in the first place - but then why would the charge have been laid at all?

While I find the current theory regarding theft of the 300 euros to be far-fetched (why would Amanda and Raf steal from Meredith in the first place when neither were even close to broke?), I am curious about the circumstances surrounding it as well. Was it stolen from her purse? How do we know about the existence of the 300 euros? Would she have left it at the house? There are probably answers to much of this already out there, so I'll take a look. I do find it interesting that Kokomani stated Guede offered him 300 euros to borrow his car...

 

[Dan O.]

What is it called in Italian when charges of a crime are brought against a person and that crime cannot be proven to have taken place?

 

[Antony]

On about 18/11/2007 Richard Owen wrote in The Times (London) that police sources claimed that receipts for the purchase of bleach at Cardo at (IIRC) 7.30 and 8.15 AM on 02/11/2007 had been found at Raffaele's apartment. How damning is that? They are up and about early in the morning. They urgently need bleach. They run out of the stuff and urgently need more.

That factlet lodged in my brain until October 2011 as indicative of guilt when the acquittal prompted me to make enquiry at IIP (oh yeah? so what about the bleach?) only to find it was, er, just a lie(!)

All credit to you for being able to change your mind.

A 'system' which generates such lies (one of many) consists of people, commonly known as 'liars'. Why would law enforcers be lying to the press about the case? Why are they talking to the press at all? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the case was to be tried before a non-sequestered Perugia jury and the further fact that these people like winning their cases and the further further fact that the jury will not be able to separate the evidence they hear in court from the background noise in the press?

Not subtle, or original, I know, but still deep.

It helps if when reading about the case you can see through the background noise (yes, I know that's a weird mixed metaphor, but I hope you take the point). Almost the first 2 pieces of information that I obtained about the case (belatedly, I only started reading about it after the Massei verdict) were that AK and RS were at the scene when the crime was discovered, and that they (and Patrick Lumumba) were arrested after Amanda was subjected to an all-night interrogation session with no safeguards for her rights. After that I wouldn't take seriously anything that was described as "police sources", and despite all the chorus of "a mountain of evidence" from the guilters, I was able to tell myself "I'll believe that when I see proof of it", because it was clear that the case had every indication of a stitch-up. And of course the "mountain of evidence" turned out to have no substance whatsoever.

One of the headlines that sticks in my mind from the comment in the early days was this: "They lied and lied and lied". Of course the journos and bloggers who used that line were talking about Amanda and Raffaele, but the reality is that it the lies came from the police and prosecution.

 

[Antony]

Answering my own question, the answer is: no. Rudy was only charged with murder and sexual assault, as is apparent from the Micheli report.

So he could still be convicted of the theft of the money and mobile phones, if by some unlikely dream, an honest prosecutor could take over the case?

Is there any prospect of the Mignini gang being discredited after the final Supreme Court rulings on Knox/Sollecito, and a new prosecutor being appointed to clear up the mass of unresolved issues? Maybe LJ could answer this one.