Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[DrTesla]

your point 5 is somewhat misleading (no trace of Knox in the bedroom), b/c they found raff's DNA on the bra clasp, and since Knox said she was with Raff that night, this does incriminate her as well. Anything that points to Raff must point to her as well. here is the summary of the bra clasp evidence:
Small blood drops were clearly visible on the bra clasp material. The bra clasp revealed a mixture of DNA belonging to the victim and to Sollecito. According to Dr. Stefanoni the quantity of DNA was not low.

On trace B, from the clasp, a mixed genetic profile was found: the victim plus Sollecito and that result was further confirmed by the Y profile of Raffaele Sollecito, also found on the hooks.[197]

The Polizia Scientifica’s mixed trace DNA analysis is described in detail in Massei on pp. 206-11.

The defense raised the issue of the Polizia Scientifica using a “suspect-centric”methodology that might bias the DNA analysis and its interpretation. Dr. Stefanoni’s remarks are summarized in Massei:


“With reference then to the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito and the fact that his profile was already present and available to her when she interpreted the collected samples, including the one relating to the hooks, she stated that the data was present as historical fact, but that she did not have it, have it available before her at the moment in which she was interpreting the technical data, nor was she otherwise consulting this biological profile.”[226]

Given the delay in collecting the bra clasp and the fact that the bra clasp had been moved on the floor of Meredith’s room, the essential question before the court is presented as follows:


“Was ... the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito, which, according to Dr. Stefanoni, was found on the bra clasp, a consequence of an act of Raffaele Sollecito carried out directly on the bra which Meredith was wearing on the night that she was killed, or on the contrary, could it have had a different origin, so that this DNA could have ended up on the bra clasp without Raffaele Sollecito having ever touched the bra directly, and its clasp in particular?”[266]

The court observes that Meredith’s door was closed and locked on the morning of November 2; that’s how Sollecito and Amanda testify to have found it and that’s how the Postal Police saw it when they arrived. When the door was finally broken down and opened:


Raffaele Sollecito remained at a distance, far enough—as has been said—that he could not even have been able to look into the room; furthermore, it does not appear that he entered the room at any later time; in fact, as has been seen, the contrary has been shown: once the door was broken down, everyone was ordered to leave the house and Raffaele Sollecito did not enter into the cottage again, much less into Meredith’s room.[268]

Therefore the court rejects this hypothesis for the “placing” of Sollecito’s DNA in Meredith’s room. Furthermore, there is no reasonable suggestion that Sollecito could have placed his DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp in the prior week after meeting Amanda for the first time. Sollecito’s DNA was only found in one other location in the house: on a cigarette stub, mixed with that of Amanda Knox.

 

[DrTesla]

I don't have anything deep to say in reply. All things being equal, being presented with two vacant apartments, you would think he would tackle the easier one. He must have had a reason for going upstairs and it's interesting to wonder what it might have been. It might be important.

the obvious answer is he was invited in by Knox and he hung out there socially for a bit prior to the murder. his feces in the toilet is consistent with this and not so much a breaking and entering scenario. as I have pointed out, the break in was staged b/c no evidence of rudy on the exterior of the house, no scuff marks, no footprints in the wet grass, no traces of him in the bedroom with the window. plus he's not so dumb to try to climb in the highest window when lower access points were available out of sight of the main road.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

mixed DNA is not the same thing as mixed blood

The presence of DNA is not even a presumptive, let alone a confirmatory test for DNA. Please go to the link I provided earlier today. Here is a link on presumptive blood testing that may also help. This link may also help people understand the footprint evidence with respect to presumptive blood testing.

 

[Bill Williams]

well I just proved you wrong on your point 7, he didn't think the lone wolf theory was possible for several reasons, and that was partly why they found the other two guilty. I suspect as I go through the list you will be found wrong on each of your assertions. you got one real wrong so I don't have much hope you are right about the others.

I think there has been an effort to stop talking about Hellman so much, since that verdict has just been tossed by the supreme court over there, and start tring to twist the Massei report, which the court found them to be guilty, into some kind of argument for their innocence, which seems to be a little Orwellian? Show me where I'm wrong.

Here's the deal - Massei writes, after going through the experts who do say that a single attacker is possible, and some say probable, Massei writes:

The consultants and forensic scientists have asserted that from the point of view
of forensic science, it cannot be ruled out that the author of the injuries could have
been a single attacker, because the bruises and the wounds from a pointed and
cutting weapon are not in themselves incompatible with the action of a single
person.....

.... The answer given above concerning the
possibility of their being inflicted by the action of a single person or by more than
one was given in relation to these specific duties and questions, which belong
precisely to the domain of forensic science, and the meaning of this answer was thus
that there are no scientific elements arising directly from forensic science which
could rule out the injuries having been caused by the action of a single person.

It is the "other elements" which led Massei to conclude that there were, in his conclusion, multiple attackers; the science by itself (Mssei concludes) has the distinct p[ossibility of one attacker...

But,
to actually answer this question, of whether the criminal action which determined
Meredith's death was the action of one person alone or several people acting
together, it is necessary to take into account, not only the contributions of forensic
science, but also other elements which have emerged and which are relevant to this
point, and to evaluate the situation in a way which takes the comprehensive picture into account...

He then lists Meredith personality, her physical condition, that she was dressed and not "lying abed." He also says it is improbable that one person could have removed her clothes.

I am not claiming that Massei himself did not rule out multiple attackers. What I am saying is that the forensics (rather than the behivoural aspects) supported a single attacker in Massei's report. He needed to include thos other things to come to the conclusion he did. I am NOT saying he did not come to that conclusion, but I believe this still stands:

7) Massei concedes that there is nothing in science to rule out a single attacker. (Massei comes to the conclusion of multiple attackers on other grounds; but in principle, a single attacker is eminently possible.)

It's the very reason he had to look at other aspects...

If this is not convincing to you, so be it. I believe it shows how Massei himself turned away from hard forensics, and into softer assumptions about how the melee was supposed to have played out.

 

[DrTesla]

I think your point 8 about the climb up to the window being very doable doesn't match the Massei report. To me the Massei ridicules the whole scenario as extremely unlikely on several fronts. Is it doable? Yes but it never happened for the reasons provided. No burglar is going to put this much effort and take great risk to access a window that high when paths of less resistance are available. Rudy isn't that dumb.

The Massei Report examined the evidence surrounding the broken window and disarray in Filomena Romanelli’s bedroom in order to determine whether a real break-in had occurred or the appearance of one had been staged.

When she first returned to the apartment, Romanelli had made a quick check of her room and ascertained that, even though it was in a complete mess with the left-side [as seen from inside the room] windowpane broken and a big rock on the floor, nothing was in fact missing.[31] The court noted that when Romanelli had left the house, on November 1, she said she had pulled the external shutters towards the interior of her room, although she did not think that she had actually closed them completely. Because they were old and the wood had swelled a bit, they rubbed on the windowsill so, to pull them towards the room, it was necessary to use some force. But, once they had been pulled in, they remained well closed by the pressure of the swelled wood against the windowsill.[48]

Based on Romanelli’s testimony, the court rejected the assumption made by a defense expert witness that the external shutters were left completely open. In fact they were not even completely open on the day following the murder, according to witnesses on November 2.[50]
The initial assumption was that the window had been broken with a rock thrown from the outside (and such a rock was indeed found in the room). However, to have broken the glass of the window without shattering the external shutters, it would have been first necessary for a burglar to open these shutters. The court considered whether some sort of instrument could have been used to open them from the outside, but noted the failure to find any suitable instrument and doubted what type of instrument could be used to this end. This led them to assume that the wall would have to be scaled a first time in order to open the external shutters, so that the burglar could then aim a rock at the window. [48-49]

He would then have had to return underneath the window for a second climb, and balance on his knees or feet on the outside part of the windowsill, while reaching through the broken glass to unlatch the window. The court noted that the window must necessarily have been latched since, otherwise, there would have been no need to throw a rock at all, but just to open the external shutters and climb inside. [49] The burglar would also need to rely on the fact that the external shutters themselves were not actually latched, and also that the internal wooden shutters had not been fastened (otherwise it would have been impossible to open them from the outside).[49]

The court decided that this scenario appears totally unlikely, given the effort involved: going twice underneath the window, going back to throw the stone and scaling the wall twice. Especially so, taking into account the uncertainty of success (having to count on the two favourable circumstances indicated above), with a repetition of movements and behaviours, all of which could easily be seen by anyone who happened to be passing by on the street or actually coming into the house.

Next, the court noted that the double climb necessary to reach the height of three and a half metres would surely have left some kind of trace or imprint on the wall, particularly at the points on the wall that the burglar would have used to support his feet, especially as the earth below the window, on that early November evening, was very wet.[50] In fact, investigators had examined both the wall and all of the vegetation underneath the window, and noted that there were no traces on the wall of earth, or grass, or any streaks at all, and none of the vegetation underneath the window appeared to have been trampled.[142] Furthermore, it was observed that a nail that was part-way up the wall, remained intact. The court deemed it very unlikely, given the position of that nail and its characteristics, that a climber would not cause it to fall or bend.[50]

The next fact to consider was that the pieces of glass from the broken pane were distributed in a homogeneous manner on the inside and outside parts of the windowsill, without any displacement being noted or any piece of glass being found on the ground underneath the window. A prosecution expert witness stated that this tends to exclude the possibility that the rock was thrown from outside the house. Also, a climber, in leaning his hands and then his feet or knees on the windowsill, would have caused at least some piece of glass to fall, and he would have been obliged to shift some pieces of glass in order to avoid being wounded by them. Instead, no piece of glass was found under the window, and no sign of any wound was seen on the pieces of glass found in the room. It can moreover be observed that the presence of many pieces of glass on the outside part of the windowsill increases the probability of finding some small pieces of glass on the ground underneath, since there seems to be no reason that so many pieces of glass would all stop just at the edge of the windowsill without any of them flying beyond the edge and falling down to the garden below.[51,52]

These inconsistencies in the break-in theory can, however, be explained if one supposes that the rock was thrown from the inside of the room, with the two external shutters pulled inwards so that they blocked the pieces of glass from falling to the ground below. Once the glass had been broken from inside, the rock was set down at some place in the room, and the external shutters were pushed towards the outside, being thus opened from within the room.[51]

A further indication that the ‘break-in’ was staged was deduced from photos of the scene, taken by investigators. The appearance is that the goal was to create obvious disorder in Romanelli’s room, but does not appear to be the result of true searching for the kind of valuable objects that might tempt a burglar. The drawers of the little dresser next to the bed were not even opened; the objects on the shelves appear not to have been touched at all; piles of clothes seem to have been thrown down from the closet but it does not seem that there was any serious search inside the closet, in which some clothes and some boxes remained in place without showing any signs of an actual search for valuable items that might have been there. It does not appear that the boxes on the table were opened in a search for valuable items. Indeed, no valuable item was taken, or even set aside to be taken, by the ‘burglar’.

Based on all this evidence, the court concluded that the disorder in Romanelli’s room and the breaking of the window pane constituted an artificial representation created in order to misdirect the investigations towards a person who, not having the key to the front door, was supposed to have entered through the previously broken window and then effected the violent acts on Meredith which caused her death.

 

[anglolawyer]

the obvious answer is he was invited in by Knox and he hung out there socially for a bit prior to the murder. his feces in the toilet is consistent with this and not so much a breaking and entering scenario. as I have pointed out, the break in was staged b/c no evidence of rudy on the exterior of the house, no scuff marks, no footprints in the wet grass, no traces of him in the bedroom with the window. plus he's not so dumb to try to climb in the highest window when lower access points were available out of sight of the main road.

Approximately, what time do you think it was when she invited him in?

 

[Bill Williams]

here is the part of the summary of the Massei report that contradicts your point 1 that there was no mixed blood (or mixed blood and dna) b/t the two girls in the house:

The defense did not contest the mixed DNA test results, but instead argued that they were irrelevant: that mixed DNA would be expected since Meredith and Knox lived in the same house and shared the small bathroom. [378] They suggested that Knox’s DNA could be exfoliated skin cells. Dr. Stefanoni (for the prosecution) testified that exfoliated skin cells are keratinized and contain no DNA. [202]

I think if you read that again upthread, or re-read Massei's report, you'll see that nowhere does Massei say "mixed blood". He says, "mixed DNA," and "Knox's biological material mixed with Meredith's blood".

The point being, that Knox was not wounded, in the scenario Massei envisions. He talks about Knox's DNA coming off with a hypothetical clean-up of her person in the bathroom. This begs the question as to why it is unusual for Knox's DNA to be found in her own bathroom?

You're going to have to reread Massei's report, sorry.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think your point 8 about the climb up to the window being very doable doesn't match the Massei report. To me the Massei ridicules the whole scenario as extremely unlikely on several fronts. Is it doable? Yes but it never happened for the reasons provided. No burglar is going to put this much effort and take great risk to access a window that high when paths of less resistance are available. Rudy isn't that dumb.

The Massei Report examined the evidence surrounding the broken window and disarray in Filomena Romanelli’s bedroom in order to determine whether a real break-in had occurred or the appearance of one had been staged.

When she first returned to the apartment, Romanelli had made a quick check

................

Based on all this evidence, the court concluded that the disorder in Romanelli’s room and the breaking of the window pane constituted an artificial representation created in order to misdirect the investigations towards a person who, not having the key to the front door, was supposed to have entered through the previously broken window and then effected the violent acts on Meredith which caused her death.

I appreciate the effort you are putting into this. However, you wandered a bit from what Massei himself found as factual to what evidence Filomena offered, etc.

Please remember that #8 says....

8) the climb in through Filomena's window is very possible, Massei rejects it on grounds other than its do-ability. But it is eminently possible, acc. to Massei.

In a sense, you're just repeating what I wrote - the climb itself is doable, but Massei rejects (wrongly in my opinion) that Rudy went in that way on other grounds. For me, this is to counter people who say that Rudy must have had a jet-pack to get up that high.

The break-in is VERY doable. And an experienced second-storey man would be up and in byt the time you finished reading this.

 

[DrTesla]

I think if you read that again upthread, or re-read Massei's report, you'll see that nowhere does Massei say "mixed blood". He says, "mixed DNA," and "Knox's biological material mixed with Meredith's blood".

The point being, that Knox was not wounded, in the scenario Massei envisions. He talks about Knox's DNA coming off with a hypothetical clean-up of her person in the bathroom. This begs the question as to why it is unusual for Knox's DNA to be found in her own bathroom?

You're going to have to reread Massei's report, sorry.

well I disagree with the notion that Knox did not also bleed b/c they found her fresh blood by itself not mixed with Meridith's in the bathroom. given that knox and her family all suggest possibilities for why Knox was bleeding that night (ear piercing, menstrual blood) this does seem to be true. I think there were 5 samples of mixed Knox blood or DNA with the victim's. the mixed dna with the victim's blood is enough though. the sample found in the room with the staged break in in especially damning b/c there's not reason for knox and meridith to be in the other roommates's room while the victim was bleeding. you can try that argument for the bathroom but it doesn't work for the other roommates room.

 

[Bill Williams]

your point 5 is somewhat misleading (no trace of Knox in the bedroom), b/c they found raff's DNA on the bra clasp, and since Knox said she was with Raff that night, this does incriminate her as well. Anything that points to Raff must point to her as well. here is the summary of the bra clasp evidence:

................

Therefore the court rejects this hypothesis for the “placing” of Sollecito’s DNA in Meredith’s room. Furthermore, there is no reasonable suggestion that Sollecito could have placed his DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp in the prior week after meeting Amanda for the first time. Sollecito’s DNA was only found in one other location in the house: on a cigarette stub, mixed with that of Amanda Knox.

You have made my point for me. The issue is the lack of ANY trace of Amanda, and you talk about a disputed trace of Raffaele. Do I need to go on about that!?

 

[DrTesla]

also, Knox herself time stamped the blood found in the bathroom as that night, b/c she said when she left the apartment that day there was no blood in the bathroom and she noticed it when she returned. so it was recent blood

 

[DrTesla]

You have made my point for me. The issue is the lack of AMY trace of Amanda, and you talk about a disputed trace of Raffaele. Do I need to go on about that!?

you are not being logical. how did raff get into the apartment without Knox? If he was there and participating in the murder of HER roommate, you dont' think that is proof of her presence, especially since she claimed she was with him all night?

also, they did find evidence of her in the house, and the entire house is the crime scene. her mixed dna with victim's blood, her bloody footprints as exposed by the luminol.

 

[Grinder]

The window broken from the inside or the glass only on top of the things dropped by the stagers would make great evidence.

Yes it would. But one could easily stage without either of the above being the case. There clearly wasn't evidence of staging that was that clear.

I very much appreciate your taking the time and effort to actually answer the question.

 

[DrTesla]

I appreciate the effort you are putting into this. However, you wandered a bit from what Massei himself found as factual to what evidence Filomena offered, etc.

Please remember that #8 says....



In a sense, you're just repeating what I wrote - the climb itself is doable, but Massei rejects (wrongly in my opinion) that Rudy went in that way on other grounds. For me, this is to counter people who say that Rudy must have had a jet-pack to get up that high.

The break-in is VERY doable. And an experienced second-storey man would be up and in byt the time you finished reading this.

how is the climb to that window doable if there is no evidence that anybody climbed up to the window on the exterior of the house and there is zero trace of rudy in that room, none of his dna, none of his blood on the window glass, none of his footprints and debris from the garden on the floor, etc. if you say it is doable, where is the evidence that he did it? One implies the other.

 

[cuki777]

Cuki pbs#11

The break-in is VERY doable. And an experienced second-storey man would be up and in byt the time you finished reading this.

"it looked impossible to get to to climb into"

 

[Grinder]

Doubt Rudy went round telling anyone he was a burglar. His name would gave come up earlier if the boys knew that. I was just wondering why choose upstairs, which is difficult to enter, than down. Like he knew something. In her book Amanda does say she had her rent money in her room. She forgot to check to see if it was still there when the cops sent her to see if anything was missing.

Oh Anglo the PGP used to argue that Amanda and Raf could have read about the MO in the paper. As we all know college students always read the local section of the paper especially the police blotter.

I think the door might have posed a more difficult entry point. I'm assuming that outside doors are more substantial than inside ones.

ETA - oops missed a comma

 

[DrTesla]

Suggesting that a hypothetical doablity means that something was done is absurd. if you want to argue guide is the lone killer, you should just say he was invited in by meridith or maybe he found the front door open somehow (maybe meridith had left it open while taking out the trash, Knox herself suggested this what she thought regarding why it was open when she returned, Guede just walked in. there's no way he accessed the cottage through that window, both the illogic of it and the lack of evidence supporting that theory slaps it down as the entry point.

 

[Grinder]

Not on the glass door though.

I'm sure you have a better picture but the one on IIP looks like there are bars on the door.

 

[DrTesla]

In the united states, black people tend to be very wary of the police given our history of slavery and segregation and discrimination. I c an't see a black man chosing to scale up the side of the house to the highest window, not once, but at least twice and then having to deal with the shutters to gain access. he's going to pick a lower access point so he can get in as quickly as possible without being seen, at least in the states. given the fact rudy is not very tall, and the picture of the guy on the defense who tried it shows a very tall man and it still looks difficult, there's just no way. plus there is no evidence he went in that way. knox supporters make a big deal about none of her dna in the bedroom, but they seem ok with absolutely on dna from guide in the fiol's room, and no other trace of him being there as well. I find that hilarious, and probably racist in one degree or another.

 

[anglolawyer]

I'm sure you have a better picture but the one on IIP looks like there are bars on the door.

It's a while since I looked but I thought the cops got in by kicking in the glass in the door. Maybe I am misremembering and it sure would be dumb to bar the windows and leave the door as an easy means of access but still I'm sure that's how the cops got in on 02 Nov.