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

[Kevin_Lowe]

Do you not think had he returned to the door, his prints would have been reviewed when they luninal'd the floor, the original prints were visible to the naked eye, had he returned, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The theory that best fits the evidence is that Guede went to the bathroom to clean off in between those two visits. The bathmat footprint, remember? He's not going to leave bloody prints on the second trip if he has cleaned off his shoes.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

On which there might have been fingerprints which would have been smudged. Please explain Mignini's (non) handling of this piece of evidence.

No one ever perceived the lamp as relevant until it became a story on the Internet. There were lots of objects in the room that were never tested. It's possible the fingerprint people tested it and couldn't pull any clear prints off it. All we have from them is their map, which reports the places where they found usable prints but doesn't say what all they tested.

Mignini raised the subject when he cross-examined Amanda because he was aware that people on the Internet viewed it with suspicion. He wanted to feed that, but he had nowhere to go with it.

He did the same thing with the washing machine, asking a series of witnesses if they noticed anything about the washing machine. Nobody had. It wasn't running, and it wasn't warm to the touch. And of course Mignini knew that. He knew a load of Meredith's damp clothing was found in the washing machine, which was consistent with Amanda's statement that Meredith started the machine before she left on the afternoon of Nov. 1.

There was nowhere to go with that line of questioning, so why did he mention it at all? Because people on the Internet had been speculating wildly for months, and he wanted to feed their suspicion despite the lack of substance.

I can't say it's impossible that the cops brought the lamp into Meredith's room. I just can't see why they would. The first crime scene images we have are from the video that was shot not quite two hours after the body was found. The lamp is missing from Amanda's desk, and the cord is lying unplugged across the doorway to Meredith's room, leading to the lamp which was pushed behind the door. At that point, there was plenty of natural light to see what was in the room. And they hadn't yet gotten to the point where they were examining the details of bloodstains, etc.

If the hypothesis is that first responders found the room so dark they couldn't make out what was inside it, and they retrieved Amanda's lamp, then why did they leave it behind the door with the unplugged cord sprawled across the threshold? Wouldn't they more likely have left it in the position where they used it, or else removed it from the room when they were done with it? And why wouldn't they flip the wall switch, activating the lamp on the wall above Meredith's bed, which would have afforded enough light for a general assessment?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Do you not think had he returned to the door, his prints would have been reviewed when they luninal'd the floor

Guede's shoe prints do not constitute a record of his every step, and luminol won't correct that deficiency. Otherwise the luminol would have recorded the many people who traipsed in and out of that blood-soaked room starting on Nov. 2.

You are using the same approach as the 9-11 truthers - using isolated bits of data to draw wild, unsupportable inferences that contradict the totality of the evidence.

 

[bri1]

and Rudy had no real history of violent crime either, but we agree what he was capable of I'm sure.

Rudy might not have had a history of violent crime, but his crimes were clearly escalating. If you confront people whose property you've broken into with knives, sooner or later you'll use one.
According to some, Rudy also was a well-known harasser of women, so you also have the roots of sexual aggression as well.
Amanda and Raff, on the other hand, have no history of any kind of crime, no sign of sexual aggression, no sign os psychopathology at all.

 

[JREF2010]

Well, the Doc and I have theories that don't require about half of Italy being lying, incompetent, dishonest and evil just to make our theory work. Look at the people you have in that group, lawyers, judges, police, forensics personnel, hobo's, store owners and even the girls she lived with and the guys downstairs. We also don't have to sluff over facts we can't explain like the break in, Toto, Meredith's locked door, the bathmat, mixed traces of blood, false confessions, cartwheels or splits, lies and strange behaviour.

that's a wide swipe of a paint brush, but its not very true on what the defense presented.

That's a over exaggerated remark, "half of Italy" is incompetent.

But do you agree the computer -techs failed, the forensic team with the bra clasp and storage responsibility failed, the police wrongly assigning the bloody tennis shoe pattern was a big failure to match a simple shoeprint and count circles, the lab DNA raw data seems to be missing or impossible to locate when requested, the video of the forensic team shows horrifically bad procedural examples, the interrogation mysteriously not recorded, theres people involved like Edgardo Giobbi who are on film saying he doesn't need science, all he needs is to watch someone and he can tell very quickly they are guilty. Migninni never able to produce one solid account for his theory, instead changing it each time his other one fails.. the HIV prison test mistake...

I don't see a intelligent and flawless investigation team.

What exactly is "our theory" you mention? I've read so many theorys Im not sure which one the prosecution decided on.

 

[cuki777]

cuki pbs#12

Indeed, your last line sums up my belief exactly. A problem I have, they are on trial for murder, they did not murder, nor were they involved or responsible for this murder, they should be found not guilty. However, they are lying about what involvement they are responsible for, should that be taken into any account, is there something they should have to pay for this involvement? I believe this is the reason they are and likely will still be found guilty, there is too much evidence pointing that their story is not true, and if it's not true, then the jury is going to convict them, it is too late in the game to change their account of what happened, if they change it again, it won't mastery, they will still be found guilty, so no they are stuck between that rock and a hard place, nowhere to go, except possibly back to jail.

They can independently provide a highly detailed narrative of 1st Nov/2nd Nov that fits all the evidence. They need to overcome their fear of HK.

 

[Grinder]

Do you not think had he returned to the door, his prints would have been reviewed when they luninal'd the floor, the original prints were visible to the naked eye, had he returned, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

If the front door was not locked or the key was left in the door which is what I would have done if I were in a house with that locking set-up. He could have taken his shoe off when he arrived at the door. The prints were becoming lighter as they went away from the murder room and I'm not sure we know how faint they became.

While I do think it highly unlikely that Rudi locked the door with his foot in the position shown (thanks Dan O) it is an unacceptable leap to assume that means that Amanda or Raf did it. If Amanda didn't leave any evidence in the room, it is certainly possible that someone else could have been in the house with Rudi. They did find both prints and DNA that went unidentified.

It is also possible that Rudi did have the keys and left the house and went outside. After catching his breath decided he needed to go back and by then the blood no longer left prints.

There is absolutely no way that the locked bedroom door and footprint evidence proves anyone else was there or that even more so that it was Amanda.

Lamp probably means something, but we will never know, so it means nothing, agreed.

Laura has what's called an alibi, Amanda does not, 'I don't remember' is not a solid alibi, "I was in Rome and 500 people can vouch for this' is.

Sherlock you missed the point. If Laura's room had been next to Meredith's and her lamp was found in Meredith's room, it would not point towards her guilt even though the physical reality would be exactly the same as it being Amanda's room; therefore, it is the same reality for it pointing towards Amanda. The main fact of significance wasn't whose room it was, but rather the location of that room. None of the rooms were locked. Whoever moved the lamp picked the one closest to Meredith's, that can't be debated, that is a fact. If the police needed more light immediately, would you expect them to get the lamp from down the hall or the room right there?

 

[Bill Williams]

Indeed, your last line sums up my belief exactly. A problem I have, they are on trial for murder, they did not murder, nor were they involved or responsible for this murder, they should be found not guilty. However, they are lying about what involvement they are responsible for, should that be taken into any account, is there something they should have to pay for this involvement? I believe this is the reason they are and likely will still be found guilty, there is too much evidence pointing that their story is not true, and if it's not true, then the jury is going to convict them, it is too late in the game to change their account of what happened, if they change it again, it won't mastery, they will still be found guilty, so no they are stuck between that rock and a hard place, nowhere to go, except possibly back to jail.

I do believe I understand where you're coming from, and with apologies completely disagree. The theory of the footprint in the hall (Rudi's) is a lot like the lamp =- someone finds some anomalous piece of evidence which can have a varying interpretation and zeroes in on one as if it is the Rosetta Stone.

What this case needs, esp. from someone who uses the word "guilty" in a sentence with the two students, is a comprehensive theory of the crime which looks at the totality of what was what in the cottage. I have my opinions about why no one ever tries it from that side of the fence - at least by anyone who can use the word "guilty" in relation to the students in this horrid crime.

Anyway, thanks for the back and forth.

 

[anglolawyer]

No one ever perceived the lamp as relevant until it became a story on the Internet. There were lots of objects in the room that were never tested. It's possible the fingerprint people tested it and couldn't pull any clear prints off it. All we have from them is their map, which reports the places where they found usable prints but doesn't say what all they tested.

Mignini raised the subject when he cross-examined Amanda because he was aware that people on the Internet viewed it with suspicion. He wanted to feed that, but he had nowhere to go with it.

He did the same thing with the washing machine, asking a series of witnesses if they noticed anything about the washing machine. Nobody had. It wasn't running, and it wasn't warm to the touch. And of course Mignini knew that. He knew a load of Meredith's damp clothing was found in the washing machine, which was consistent with Amanda's statement that Meredith started the machine before she left on the afternoon of Nov. 1.

There was nowhere to go with that line of questioning, so why did he mention it at all? Because people on the Internet had been speculating wildly for months, and he wanted to feed their suspicion despite the lack of substance.

I can't say it's impossible that the cops brought the lamp into Meredith's room. I just can't see why they would. The first crime scene images we have are from the video that was shot not quite two hours after the body was found. The lamp is missing from Amanda's desk, and the cord is lying unplugged across the doorway to Meredith's room, leading to the lamp which was pushed behind the door. At that point, there was plenty of natural light to see what was in the room. And they hadn't yet gotten to the point where they were examining the details of bloodstains, etc.

If the hypothesis is that first responders found the room so dark they couldn't make out what was inside it, and they retrieved Amanda's lamp, then why did they leave it behind the door with the unplugged cord sprawled across the threshold? Wouldn't they more likely have left it in the position where they used it, or else removed it from the room when they were done with it? And why wouldn't they flip the wall switch, activating the lamp on the wall above Meredith's bed, which would have afforded enough light for a general assessment?

First, I reject as patently absurd the idea that Mignini constructed his examination of witnesses around concerns raised on the internet. Of all the ridiculous arguments I've heard, that one takes the biscuit and deserves no more response than this: do you seriously imagine he went to the trouble of story-boarding the lamp into the €182,000 cartoon for the benefit of people who were never going to see it (you and me) or the professional and popular judges? Please give me (and Mignini) a break.

Whoever brought the lamp in left it where it was filmed but, unlike all other candidates, Battistelli did not have to rig it like a booby trap behind a closed door. We know from the photography they quickly opened the shutter, flooding the room with light. Why don't you ask why Battistelli didn't do that too? Because to do so was above his pay grade, just as was flicking light switches. He did something he thought made no difference to the crime scene, not understanding that the whole apartment was the scene.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If the front door was not locked or the key was left in the door which is what I would have done if I were in a house with that locking set-up. He could have taken his shoe off when he arrived at the door. The prints were becoming lighter as they went away from the murder room and I'm not sure we know how faint they became.

Does not matter how faint they became, we can follow them to the front door and they don't return, even after they were checked with luminal. This may be the best example yet for the shoe prints though, you were thinking correctly, unlike any other explanation I've read so far. Rudi's shoes were left at the front door, when someone let him in, Amanda or Meredith herself. Then after the murder, he goes to leave but front door is locked, puts on shoes, goes back to bedroom, steps in blood with left shoe, gets key and leaves, BUT, and this is a big BUT, he still does not lock Meredith's door, but it explains everything else.

While I do think it highly unlikely that Rudi locked the door with his foot in the position shown (thanks Dan O) it is an unacceptable leap to assume that means that Amanda or Raf did it. If Amanda didn't leave any evidence in the room, it is certainly possible that someone else could have been in the house with Rudi. They did find both prints and DNA that went unidentified.

I don't assume it was Amanda only because of this, anyone other than Rudi could have locked that door, perhaps he had an friend with him that left the same amount of DNA Amanda left in the murder room, possible, but with everything else going against Amanda, I think she is by far the most likely suspect, unless you count Raff.

It is also possible that Rudi did have the keys and left the house and went outside. After catching his breath decided he needed to go back and by then the blood no longer left prints.

Yes, a very slight possibility, do you think that is more likely than just someone else locking Meredith's door?

There is absolutely no way that the locked bedroom door and footprint evidence proves anyone else was there or that even more so that it was Amanda.

I totally disagree, if Rudi didn't lock it, someone did. Again, doesn't mean it was Amanda, until you take everything else into account, but by itself, no.

Sherlock you missed the point. If Laura's room had been next to Meredith's and her lamp was found in Meredith's room, it would not point towards her guilt even though the physical reality would be exactly the same as it being Amanda's room; therefore, it is the same reality for it pointing towards Amanda. The main fact of significance wasn't whose room it was, but rather the location of that room. None of the rooms were locked. Whoever moved the lamp picked the one closest to Meredith's, that can't be debated, that is a fact. If the police needed more light immediately, would you expect them to get the lamp from down the hall or the room right there?

I have never said anything about the lamp, all I've said is that it probably means something, but we'll never know, so it means nothing. If I had to guess, and it's only a guess, I'd say the lamp was used by either Rudi, Amanda or Raff to look for something on the floor, or just for a small light so the main lights would not have to be used (perhaps during the middle of the night staging, I don't know), I doubt they would want to turn on the main lights if they were doing a staging.

 

[Dan O.]

If the front door was not locked or the key was left in the door which is what I would have done if I were in a house with that locking set-up. He could have taken his shoe off when he arrived at the door. The prints were becoming lighter as they went away from the murder room and I'm not sure we know how faint they became.

Grinder, do you live alone? There are 4 girls in that appartment and each one of them has their own key. Which one of the girls is supposed to leave their key in the lock? A proper "fix" would be to replace the double key cylinder with one that has a thumb turn on the inside. A local lock smith could make that change in just a couple of minutes.

Those prints down the hall are not that clear and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them were not even shoe prints. I'll be looking at those in more detail as I continue to map the shoes on top of the prints.

 

[Bob001]

Indeed, your last line sums up my belief exactly. A problem I have, they are on trial for murder, they did not murder, nor were they involved or responsible for this murder, they should be found not guilty. However, they are lying about what involvement they are responsible for, should that be taken into any account, is there something they should have to pay for this involvement? I believe this is the reason they are and likely will still be found guilty, there is too much evidence pointing that their story is not true, and if it's not true, then the jury is going to convict them, it is too late in the game to change their account of what happened, if they change it again, it won't mastery, they will still be found guilty, so no they are stuck between that rock and a hard place, nowhere to go, except possibly back to jail.

Okay, what evidence? Their original story is that they were at Raffaele's house all night watching videos, blowing grass and having sex. Any revisions to that story were coerced during grueling interrogations without lawyers that were never recorded ("Raffaele, if you were asleep you couldn't know if Amanda sneaked out, right?" "Amanda, we know you were there. You must have blacked out from the trauma. We want to help you. You have to try harder to remember...."). What undisputed evidence contradicts their original story?

 

[Kaosium]

The 'Mixed Blood' and Forensic Sophistry with Trace DNA

Here is what the prosecution tried to pretend was Amanda's blood mixed with Meredith's in the sink. You won't find that contention in Massei, in fact you'll get the impression from him quoting Stefanoni that they didn't make that contention, as she admits therein that it cannot be determined with the tests they did, but in court, which Massei does not mention, they did in fact 'hypothesize' that the samples were mixed blood even through she had to make that admission under questioning.

Here is forensic sophistry at it's finest. First look at the collection method, review this video, specifically around 1:35 if you don't want to sit through the whole four minutes. Note how he's swabbing the sink, he doesn't just collect the tiny little traces of Meredith's blood that were left there when Rudy washed up, he swabs far and wide nearby and another forensic technician points out something he missed and he rubs down the edge of the sink as well for good measure. Also of interest is the swabbing of the bidet drain which starts at about 3:30.

That was the sink (and bidet) that Amanda and Meredith shared, if you watched the whole video you may have noticed directly before 1:30 the technician was swabbing the dried blood on the tap from Amanda's earring, which as you'll see from Massei was mixed with nothing and even Massei allows that it had been there before as he details in the excerpt below. That's hardly all that was in (or on) that sink that was unrelated to the murder, also there is quite likely plenty else that had been in that sink and deposited there the previous two months, or at least that which had survived previous cleanings, the (barely in this video it can be seen better here at 3:55) visible blood smear hardly the only thing that might be in that sink from her brushing her teeth every day and spitting in it. As for the bidet drain, that would tend to collect traces of whatever was being washed out, which caused even Luciano Garafano to protest, and he'd been an ally of Mignini when he was trying to find the devil by digging up bodies.

A portion of those swabs would then go into a little tube and the DNA extracted with chemicals. Stefanoni used the Qiagen EZI for which I linked the manual and a video showing it, here's a page showing another such machine with a less commercial (but quite boring) video showing an extraction from a mouse tail (poor little mouse!) taking the place of the swab and the loading of the chemicals that perform the extraction. Here's a lower tech way of extracting DNA using household chemicals from a PBS Nova video.


So as you can see, what's on that swab is going to get mixed together, and being as Meredith's blood was on that swab (and it tested positive in a separate blood test) along with anything that might be in Amanda's sink, most likely saliva containing cheek cells, (this may be the most common way of collecting DNA incidentally--swabbing cheek cells) that extraction sample is going to contain both Meredith's DNA and Amanda's. After extraction that sample will be amplified (to make it easier to 'count') and the DNA then 'sequenced' through capillary electrophoresis and then analyzed and lo and behold we have two electropherograms for the sink and bidet with both Amanda and Meredith's profiles on it.

So there's actually no reason to think that DNA (of Amanda's) was ever actually in the same spot as the minute quantify of blood of Meredith's, or has any connection to the murder, any more than the dried blood droplet from Amanda's endeavor to turn her ears into pincushions does. This is what they are referring to when they say they found 'mixed DNA.' It does not mean that the DNA was deposited at the same time either, if they swab like that it most certainly doesn't even mean it was in the same spot, just that it was picked up by the same swab. Of all the places you're most likely to find usable DNA samples at any time a person's sink has to be amongst the best, people spit in sinks while brushing their teeth, they wash their face and hands, they brush their hair, apply make up and use hygiene products in front of the mirror.


Now here's Giancarlo Massei on the subject of Amanda's blood on the tap from her ear (which mixed with nothing) and the mixed DNA samples and the contention of 'mixed blood.' As the verdict was guilty, and this was evidence of Meredith's death being as Rudy Guede washed up in there and left traces of Meredith's blood around, Massei had to try to attribute what he could to the defendants on trial, Raffaele and Amanda. However even he choked on the idea of 'mixed blood' and instead tried to use the mixed DNA samples as evidence that Amanda had washed up with Meredith's blood on her and by scrubbing vigorously left her skin cells in Meredith's blood. However, he also noted this before starting:

It is true that, according to what was asserted and explained, it is not possible with a mixed trace specimen that tested positive for human blood to determine which of the trace’s contributors the blood belongs to.

He also acknowledged this rather important point which directly follows the above:

In this case, however, non-mixed traces were also found, which were shown to be of a haematological nature [i.e. blood] and turn out to have the biological profile of the victim. Such traces, in particular the dribble of blood left on the right inside edge of the door and the stains left on the light switch (see photographic illustrations 141, 142; 158, 159) lead to the deduction that whoever entered that bathroom had his or her hands covered in Meredith’s blood.

Furthermore, the sky-blue bathmat with the print of a bare foot in blood, blood which also was shown to be from the victim, indicates that whoever went into this bathroom was barefoot, and must therefore also have been barefoot in Meredith’s room where she had been repeatedly struck, a room which had great blotches of blood, and in one of these whoever transferred the blood to the bathroom and the sky-blue bathmat must have placed his or her foot, and thus must have been moving about that room with bare feet.

The above observation leads to the deduction that whoever went into the bathroom at that point (after the stabbing of Meredith) must have had to do so to clean him/herself of Meredith’s blood with which he/she was staining the various things he/she touched or leaned against: the door, the light switch, the mat. And it is probable - not necessary, but probable - that during the following act of scrubbing the hands to remove the blood, he/she left the mixed trace consisting of Meredith’s blood and of cells which had been removed by rubbing during the act of washing. An entirely probable outcome given the likelihood of the act of scrubbing, yet not a necessary one, since the running water which was used in the shower stall or in the bidet or in the sink, or in several of these sanitary fittings, might well have rinsed away the washed-up blood and the cells which had been lost during this washing.

That's one reason why there's no identified traces of Rudy in the bathroom, even though he was the one who left his DNA all over Meredith's room and it is certain that he had Meredith's blood on him, especially his hands and probably feet. He had to have cleaned that up before leaving (he'd have looked strange dancing with bloody hands and feet) and of course most of the traces amount to someone having touched the light switch, cotton box and door frame with bloody hands, and the bathmat bloodstain sure looks more like his foot than Raffaele's and I'm more skeptical of the 'measurements' taken by the prosecution 'expert' that seem to require some fourth dimensional space in order to add up as noted by Rose recently on the Conspiracy thread.

Cleaning up once quickly isn't nearly as good an opportunity to leave plentiful DNA traces as two or so months of activity doing many things that don't involve cleaning oneself. Despite the fact that throughout this section he's trying to attribute these traces to Amanda being as though they collected Amanda's DNA in her bathroom, he's handicapped by the fact that in reality one cannot pretend that one quick use of a bathroom will necessarily leave copious traces, especially if that activity is cleaning oneself up. He also has to recognize the fact that DNA doesn't come with a timestamp either, and quotes Stefanoni on that very point, as she too had to admit to that in court, along with with the fact that because that swab with Meredith's blood tested positive for blood that hardly means that all the DNA was due to blood, any more than Rudy's DNA inside Meredith means it came from Rudy's vaginal fluids.

As for Amanda's (non-'mixed') dried blood smear on the tap, he refuses to attempt to use that as evidence against her, and again we see when Massei doesn't have to attempt to support an unlikely contention, he is actually a pretty clear and logical thinker:

While it is not possible to use the genetic scientific data (Dr. Stefanoni explained the impossibility of determining the date, the succession or the simultaneity in the depositing of the components of the mixed trace specimen and the impossibility of attributing the haematological component to one or the other of the contributors), the information previously put forward provides answers which are entirely consistent with the circumstantial evidence that has emerged and which the Court considers convincing.

Amanda was not wounded; in the days following no one spoke of wounds that she might have had; the examination which was carried out on her when measures restricting her personal freedom were taken ruled out the presence of wounds. Meredith’s situation was the complete opposite. In relation to this and to the circumstance by which haematological stains attributable to Meredith were found on the inside of the door, on the toilet-seat cover, on the light switch, it should be deduced that the haematological components found in the sink, in the bidet, on the box of cotton buds were also from Meredith.

Nor can it otherwise be argued for the presence of a drop of Amanda’s blood on the tap of the sink. This consisted of a spot of coagulated blood, with respect to which Amanda explained that it came from her own ear having been pierced; this spot, furthermore, was located towards the inside of the sink: distinct, separate and morphologically different, therefore, from the trace found in the sink itself.

In other words there's no reason to think the dried blood on the tap was involved in the murder, unlike the other tiny droplets that were collected in the video above that smear had coagulated, suggesting it had been there longer, and of course there's one very good reason to think it wasn't: Amanda was not wounded, and it's not like they didn't check most thoroughly to see if she had been.

There was one person who most definitely got Meredith's blood on him and needed to clean up, there's one person who's foot seems to match that bathmat stain better. That person would be male and this is a bathroom mainly (in fact almost exclusively) used by females. That means one could use the Y-haplotype test to determine if there was any DNA that could be attributed to a male that might be masked by the almost certain robust traces of the women that lived there and used the bathroom on a daily basis, just like they did on the bra-clasp and how they often do in rape cases. Why didn't they do that?

However, and more importantly, why didn't they go looking for LCN/LT trace DNA in this location? One doesn't need to rely on LCN/LT trace DNA to find copious amounts of DNA evidence in the bathroom of someone who lives there, it's pretty much a given that you're going to find it if you look hard enough and swab far and wide. However, if they were going to go looking for LCN/LT trace DNA in this case, there's two definite locations that should have been included, as there's people out there who just don't get that if one doesn't go looking for LCN/LT trace DNA they're not going to find any. Here's why:

Peak amplitude thresholds – The software uses these parameters to specify the minimum peak height, in order to limit the number of detected peaks. Although GeneMapper® ID Software displays peaks that fall below the specified amplitude in electropherograms, the software does not label or determine the genotype of these peaks.

From the GeneMapper manual:

Peak AmplitudeThresholds

GeneMapper software reports to the user only those peaks whose heights are at least the Peak Amplitude Threshold for that dye.

Set the dye amplitude threshold at a level that allows the software to detect peaks, but eliminate noise.

If you leave the default value of 50, peaks with amplitude above 50 are analyzed and display in the tabular data.

Lower amplitude peaks still display in the electropherogram, but are not analyzed and do not display in the tabular data.

Stefanoni chose a Peak Amplitude Threshold of 100 for almost all the DNA analysis outside a few selected items, mainly the bra clasp, the knife blade and a few others here and there. However that's where one is going to find the trace elements of DNA, if one doesn't even set the perameters to look for it (except to give some special treatment) you cannot find it.


Now look at the bottom of some of these electropherograms from the bathroom (that I haven't already posted). Make sure to look to the left as a reference, that's the RFU's and on typical samples they aim for 1k-2k. Those little bumps at the bottom registering roughly fifty, or a hundred RFUs are where you'd go looking for the trace DNA. So they not only have to do the forensic work at the scene, they have to analyze it in the lab and determine to count it. To give a comparison, most the 'peaks' (a generous term!) on 36B (knife blade) are between 20 and 40 RFUs, quite a bit lower than many of the little bumps at the bottom of the bathroom samples.

If they don't collect it, (samplewise) they didn't look, if they set the threshold so as to not recognize it, they cannot find it either. Anyone expecting trace DNA results from anywhere they didn't look or didn't try to find isn't taking into account the fact those sorts of trace elements can only be found that way. Obvious substances with plentiful DNA were collected as best they could, however trace elements from the window in Filomena's room and the bathroom were damned unlikely to be found with a threshold of 100 RFUs.

Therefore in the case of the bathroom and the break-in window 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' Someone merely passing through or cleaning up once is not guaranteed to leave plentiful DNA about, however that might be found if looking for trace elements, but you cannot find find them if you do not try. They looked very hard in the murder room and found plentiful samples of someone whom there's very little reason to believe could have an innocent explanation of them, they found utterly nothing of Amanda Knox no matter how hard they tried and for Raffaele only something they contaminated on camera for all the world to see, if it wasn't enough they left it there to perhaps skitter around the floor like a dust bunny for six weeks. That means they tried hard and didn't get anything useful, however where they very likely could have found trace elements that...let's just say...they 'didn't need to make their case,' there's little interest in pursuing peaks of less than 100 RFUs. Of course without the electronic data files one cannot really look at those little bumps and see what they might be, and whose profile they might spell out, those would actually allow a full analysis of those cute little bumps:

“Each tested sample has its own file. The file contains the full electropherogram trace information along with other information about the testing conditions (e.g., date, time, injection time, voltage, temperature, current, the RFU threshold used by the analyst). If you have the electronic data, you can use the DNA analysis software (GeneScan & Genotyper or GeneMapper ID) to independently analyze the electronic data. That allows you to examine the results as closely as possible (zoom in on the electropherogram to evaluate low-level results) and establish the RFU threshold of your choosing."

Stefanoni fought tooth and nail to avoid providing that information to the defense or even the independent experts assigned to the court.

Forensic sophistry at it's finest!

 

[Grinder]

I wonder what it would take for the PGP to find Curatolo unreliable. He is an admitted herion addict that stated he took heroin every day including the day in question. When asked shortly after the crime, he reported seeing nothing. When he finally came forward he described the wrong day. His first testimony gave the impression that he saw the kids when he arrived just after 9:30 and they were there until he left just before midnight. Later he adjusted that to say he saw them from 9:30 until 11:30, but only noted them about 5 times. In addition, he is reported to have testified in three major cases and had been charged for heroin dealing in 2003.

I bigger mystery is why the PGP even want his testimony. Why did Mignini change the TOD to match his and Nara's testimony (another person coming out late)?

How did the kids gets get by the tow truck and the car without being noticed? They were there from 10:30 to 11:15. Did they go and come back after the murder? If they did were they bloody? Did they have the knife?

Did they wait there the entire time and then race down to meet Rudi and do the deed?

It just makes no sense but we do have to consider that her lamp was in Meredith's and Rudi's shoe print is pointing the wrong way.

 

[cuki777]

cuki pbs#12

Okay, what evidence? Their original story is that they were at Raffaele's house all night watching videos, blowing grass and having sex. Any revisions to that story were coerced during grueling interrogations without lawyers that were never recorded ("Raffaele, if you were asleep you couldn't know if Amanda sneaked out, right?" "Amanda, we know you were there. You must have blacked out from the trauma. We want to help you. You have to try harder to remember...."). What undisputed evidence contradicts their original story?

The fact that he undermined her alibi had been a tremendous shock, she said in an interview with Oggi, an Italian weekly magazine.

"It was a shock for me. A shock that, combined with the fact that after they put us in prison we couldn't communicate for a while, ended my feelings for him. In jail I had to concentrate on surviving, I had to put love and romance aside," she said.

 

[Bob001]

Grinder, do you live alone? There are 4 girls in that appartment and each one of them has their own key. Which one of the girls is supposed to leave their key in the lock? A proper "fix" would be to replace the double key cylinder with one that has a thumb turn on the inside. A local lock smith could make that change in just a couple of minutes.

Just curious, there's been a lot of discussion about this door and the double-cylinder lock. Was there a glass panel in it or next to it? In the U.S., at least, locks like this are often used with doors where breaking glass could allow a burglar to reach inside and turn the button. Typically the homeowner stashes an extra key near the door where everybody in the house can get to it if they need to. But there is no reason to install such a lock in a door with no glass. In this particular case, if glass wasn't a problem, they wouldn't need to replace the lock. They could just buy an extra key and leave it in the lock, or hang it on a hook on the door. If they had guests, they'd probably want to hide the spare key. Maybe Meredith would be alive if Rudy could have quietly let himself out the front door.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder, do you live alone? There are 4 girls in that appartment and each one of them has their own key. Which one of the girls is supposed to leave their key in the lock? A proper "fix" would be to replace the double key cylinder with one that has a thumb turn on the inside. A local lock smith could make that change in just a couple of minutes.

Those prints down the hall are not that clear and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them were not even shoe prints. I'll be looking at those in more detail as I continue to map the shoes on top of the prints.

No Dan O I have a harem - another peeled grape please - so, many women here. They love the yachts.

What I said was that on a night alone in the house it would make sense to leave a key in the door if that door needed it to open. The fix you suggest would be the law here.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I wonder what it would take for the PGP to find Curatolo unreliable. He is an admitted herion addict that stated he took heroin every day including the day in question. When asked shortly after the crime, he reported seeing nothing. When he finally came forward he described the wrong day. His first testimony gave the impression that he saw the kids when he arrived just after 9:30 and they were there until he left just before midnight. Later he adjusted that to say he saw them from 9:30 until 11:30, but only noted them about 5 times. In addition, he is reported to have testified in three major cases and had been charged for heroin dealing in 2003.

I bigger mystery is why the PGP even want his testimony. Why did Mignini change the TOD to match his and Nara's testimony (another person coming out late)?

It's indeed a mystery. Toto actually gives Amanda and Raffaele an alibi, if you use the correct time of death. That's why pro-guilt fan-fiction has to mess both with the evidence-based time of death and what Toto said to even begin to create a story that hangs together.

If I was writing pro-guilt fan-fiction I'd throw Toto's evidence out entirely. However the pro-guilt zeitgeist changes slowly if at all, and they still tend to suffer from the misconception that the more irrelevant data they reference in a story the truthier the story gets. In their mind if a story manages to rope in Toto, Nara, Kokomani, the lamp, the mop and the "bloody footprints" then it's definitely truer than a story that chucks those plot points out as unreliable.

 

[RandyN]

Rather than re-explain all the evidence missing that indicates AK and RS had anything at all to do with this murder to someone who simply repeats the Mignini talking points without providing any facts to back up the case for guilt....how about we do this...

Mignini has recently filed cases against RS for writing a book and Oggi for printing excerpts from the Knox book. I suppose it is a foregone conclusion that he will surely be filing charges against Knox soon too. So...

With the huge knowledge base here and in other places why don't we compile a list of Mignini lies. The prosecutor wants to play games and infers the defendants are disrespecting the judicial system of Italy and for that they should be silenced charged with a crime. meanwhile Mignini lies and tricks and deceives all in the name of and with the backing of the power entrusted to him by Italy. I think it is time for Italy to get the picture of what lengths this clown will go to get a wrongful conviction. In short he is a liar and we should be able to list at least a hundred lies and then forward this list to the head of the prosecutors Super Doctor so and so...
Time to start revealing these clowns for the circus they are causing.

 

[RandyN]

No Dan O I have a harem - another peeled grape please - so, many women here. They love the yachts.

What I said was that on a night alone in the house it would make sense to leave a key in the door if that door needed it to open. The fix you suggest would be the law here.

Yes the double key dead bolt lock proves that Italians may not be all that smart... as someone contended must be the case then. What country fails to consider residents being trapped inside due to a missing key as they burn to death in a fire...that's just idiotic.