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

[Chris_Halkides]

multiple routes of DNA transfer

I don't believe transfer from a towel(which towel the bloody(ones)is plausible , nor did I hear of DNA on the door handle. The bra was the natural source for moving and dragging Meredith. The stress,the exact point where the bra was strongest the middle or clasp was where it broke and we found Sollecito's DNA. Add to that the knife with its DNA from Meredith and it is what it is . Of course my opinion is shaped by far more including the fake break-in and DNA and mixed blood samples changing alibis etc etc.

Briars,

Raffaele's fingerprints are one the door, and fingerprints have long been known to be a source of DNA. One route is from the door or handle to the gloves worn by the FP to the clasp, which would be tertiary transfer.

Mark Taylor and Elizabeth Johnson did a study of towels and DNA and showed that tertiary transfer involving towels is possible. IIRC Raffaele cooked at the women's flat, and he may have washed his hands in Amanda's bathroom. His DNA would then be on a towel. If that towel were transported into Meredith's room, then there are several routes of secondary or tertiary transfer that are possible.

There is no mixed blood. Period. Full stop. The knife doesn't fit all of the wounds, nor does it fit the bloody outline on a sheet. It is a low template sample in a lab that was not even certified for standard DNA testing. It is probably due to contamination. Amanda and Raffaele had two stories of what they did, what they said on the night of 5-6 November, and what they said every other time, both before and after their interrogations.

 

[Dan O.]

Amusing you don't see the irony in your statment. I assume you started in a neutral position like I did when looking at the case. Weighing and considering the evidence. You reached a conclusion as have I, but you think your conclusion is better. You have the overwhelming support of facebook friends and those that attend parties with the accused here. I think they are guilty and have seen nothing yet to change my mind. I had left a small window open for Hellman's motivations which was so flawed and offered no new insight. People here cannot even admit her behavior was odd. so protective and so afraid that that admission will show weakness. Its a relationship with the accused that stands out a biased "kid glove" approach. That approach must have everyone out to get her incompetant if not willing to falsify evidence.

What have you got Brairs? What have you got? Do you want to see incompetence and falsified evidence? Go back to the very first judge to review this case when Mignini was asking that the three suspects be held for trial. Read through the judges report and list the evidence that was presented against each of the three suspects at that time. Then tell us what became of those items of evidence.

You will never see any evidence that will change your mind if you are not willing to open your eyes and look.


BTW: I don't have a Facebook account and don't go to any of those parties. Right here is pretty much the only place I discuss this case.

 

[Bill Williams]

Whats funny about the mixed DNA and blood sample documented in Fiolmena's room?

You said "...including the fake break-in and DNA and mixed blood samples". With the number of times this has been discussed, you should be aware by now what the issue with that is. As for Filomena's room, do you have some magic cronographer that can put a time stamp on that stain? Will it work on the purported semen stain on Meredith's pillow?

One of the most innocent explanation there is for guilters to hold the positions they do - when the bother to resort to actual evicdence - is the seamlessness that one goes back and forth between:

- mixed blood
-"Amanda's biological material mixed with Meredith's blood" (cf. the expression Judge Massei uses in his motivations report from 2010)​

The distinction is literally the distinction between guilt and innocence. Whereas it would be difficult to have an innocent explanation for the former, the latter is one of the larger "so what's" of this?

As you mention Dan O., Massei applies the rationale cruelly unevenly... throwing out the need to analyse the presumed semen stain, the one under Meredith's hips!!!!, because he says DNA cannot be time stamped. Yet he does not apply that to Amanda's "biological material" mostly found in the very bathroom she shared with Meredith.

Briars will NEVER address that point. The Machine not only NEVER addresses that point, The Machine always reverts back to something that was not found - mixed blood.

Why? It's the difference between being mistaken and perhaps not understanding and being an outright liar.

Briars is the former. The Machine is the latter.

 

[acbytesla]

Amusing you don't see the irony in your statment. I assume you started in a neutral position like I did when looking at the case. Weighing and considering the evidence. You reached a conclusion as have I, but you think your conclusion is better. You have the overwhelming support of facebook friends and those that attend parties with the accused here. I think they are guilty and have seen nothing yet to change my mind. I had left a small window open for Hellman's motivations which was so flawed and offered no new insight. People here cannot even admit her behavior was odd. so protective and so afraid that that admission will show weakness. Its a relationship with the accused that stands out a biased "kid glove" approach. That approach must have everyone out to get her incompetant if not willing to falsify evidence.

You amuse me Briars. I have no problem with people having a difference of opinion. I learn a lot from people that take a different perspective and frequently I do change my mind.

That being said, I'm an arrogant SOB and need a reason for my beliefs. This is why I am an atheist even though I was brought up in a very conservative Christian family. And I've been an atheist since I was 10. My parents tried to force me to go to church with them, I said fine, but pretty soon, the church asked my parents to leave me at home as I asked too many questions. I need evidence Briars to come to a conclusion. If there was actual evidence that Amanda and Raffaele had anything to do with this murder, I'd be saying, "Get a rope".

I don't need anyone supporting my opinion, in fact I often take the minority contrarian position just to see if it is defensible. In this case, I started out believing the two were guilty. Actually, assuming they were guilty.

I remember looking at the Luminol footprints in the hallway and Amanda's bedroom thinking that someone was walking barefoot in blood. Surely that is a sign of guilt. But then I actually learned something about Luminol and discovered that Luminol reacts to lots of substances and blood is just one of them. Then there is the fact that when those footprints were subjected to the presumptive TMB test and that came back negative, I'm left with nothing. I can't just assume that those prints are blood, not with two contradicting tests. That would be wrong. Now if the Stefanoni had subjected those prints to an actual confirmatory test for blood, I could ignore the negative TMB test, but she didn't. So that ship has sailed. I can't even begin to accept that as evidence of anything.

As for the bathmat footprint. I'm confident it is not Amanda's. It could be Raffaele's, but it also could be Rudy's. What's clear to me is that while that print could be used to eliminate a possible suspect, it would be wrong to use it to pinpoint a suspect.

The argument "that the burglary was staged". There is no evidence of that. There is anecdotal evidence derived from testimony, but nothing that is reliable. There are these silly statements about glass being on top of the clothes. I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean, since I can't see why there wouldn't be. I'm also very sure that rock came from outside the house. Now it is possible that Amanda/Raffaele still staged this by throwing a rock from outside, but there is no proof that this is staging. All I see are assertions that this was staged, no actual proof and definitely not anywhere near beyond a reasonable doubt.

This brings us to Amanda's interrogation and her statement saying that Patrick did it. But while Amanda signed that, there is no way in hell Amanda wrote that. The English is piss poor. She confusedly remembers? This is a girl that graduated with honors from the most prestigious Jesuit preparatory school in the State of Washington. And that isn't hyperbole, I've lived in the Seattle area pretty much my whole life and I know that it is. There is no way in hell, Amanda could have written so poorly. In fact, it is clear that this was written by someone who's native language was NOT ENGLISH. Then there is the fact that it says that Patrick her boss did it. If there was significant evidence of Patrick Lumumba in that bedroom, then I would have to seriously consider Amanda's involvement given her link and her communication to Patrick that evening.

I think the idea of it being Patrick who she saw night after night working with him as well as meeting him at her school and the text messages between each other would have been damning. But you can't just swap Patrick for this guy Rudy that she had "seen" on the street and a crowded party and had never called, emailed or texted ever. That just doesn't wash..

Then there is the background of the suspects. Neither Amanda or Raffaele had any evidence of violence in their past at all. Not any. The best that the prosecution could do was bring forward a noise citation which of course means nothing. In contrast, you have Rudy where there is significant evidence linking him to 4 break ins/burglaries in the month proceeding Meredith's murder. Two of which demonstrate a tendency towards violence and two where knives played a role.

I need EVIDENCE to condemn someone. I need conclusive proof. But there is NO evidence except for the bra clasp which is a little troubling. There is no evidence of multiple attackers. It simply is a big stretch. There is no evidence of "taunting" cuts. That one is new.

Then you have the depth or shall I say the lack of depth of the connecting relationships. My buddy always jokes about the difference between new friends and lifelong friends. A new friend might bail you out of jail but a lifelong friend is most likely in jail with you.

And even though Amanda and Raffaele were probably screwing like rabbits in the week before the murder of Meredith, the depth of their relationship was very limited considering it was only a week old. Amanda and Raffaele who could barely communicate with each other outside of the bedroom not to mention Rudy who didn't speak English either. It is absurd that these three could have been involved in this crime of this magnitude together.

Then we come around to this behavior argument which frankly I think is the worst argument. You can say that Amanda acted strange, but I think that is bull. People react to death and other stressful situations differently. I don't find for one second any of Amanda's actions as even the slightest bit strange. Because they weren't. I attributed them to being tired, bored, the need to hang on to someone and not feel isolated, the need to lessen the intensity. While I can see how some people might find some of those actions inappropriate, I don't find any of it to be strange or suspicious.

You might be a decent guy Briars, but your conclusion lacks common sense. I see 100 reasons to find Amanda and Raffaele innocent of this crime and only one to find them guilty. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Not even close.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's a mistake to connect religion with ethics, although it's a common theme of religious people to make out that they are in some way more moral or ethical than the non-religious (or devotees of a rival religion). The answer to your question may be earlier in your own message: see highlighted text above.

I've separated out the religious points you made, so as to make the distinction between religion and ethics. On the rest of it, the insight of yours that I've highlighted goes another step towards making sense of what really can't be made to make sense.

What's yet more incomprehensible is why there (still) should be internet bloggers who continue to maintain the pretence, presumably without having the career interest that the police, lawyers and journalist clearly do have.

Ethics does not stand alone. And if I can be so bold, Antony, you are confusing ethics with morals.

Ethics is simply a system of values that claims to describe how to analyze whether something is good or bad. Morals is the actual practise of that system.

A agree wholeheartedly with you, religion does not have a corner on the market of systems of thought which claim to produce good; or moral behaviour.

But to say that one group claims to be more "ethical" simply means that they claim to have a system which is better than some other system, it is not the claim that they deliver on their system better than someone else.

As Jewish people have done for centuries, they recognize that some people can be "moral" without sharing the same ethcial system. I think I have this right, when they say that someone (Oskar Schindler comes to mind) can be moral, without the law. Meaning that for Jews, they admit that some people have the ability to be moral without even knowing about the ethical precepts which guide Jews.

There are also very few religious people, really, who have a system where the system itself tells insiders that they are "better" than outsiders. Read up Calvinism, which is one of the dominant Protestant "moralities" there is! Sin, total depravity, the invisible elect. No one is sure, and it is dangerous to be sure, of one's salvation... because there's an inverse relationship between the sureness of one's salvation and the ability to act morally.

If history has proven one thing, it is that.

All religions, though, try to put together an ethic which makes sense to them. But it is true, ethics is not the private preserve of religion. And morals is another matter all together.

 

[Bill Williams]

You amuse me Briars. I have no problem with people having a difference of opinion. I learn a lot from people that take a different perspective and frequently I do change my mind.

That being said, I'm an arrogant SOB and need a reason for my beliefs. This is why I am an atheist even though I was brought up in a very conservative Christian family. And I've been an atheist since I was 10. My parents tried to force me to go to church with them, I said fine, but pretty soon, the church asked my parents to leave me at home as I asked too many questions. I need evidence Briars to come to a conclusion. If there was actual evidence that Amanda and Raffaele had anything to do with this murder, I'd be saying, "Get a rope".

I don't need anyone supporting my opinion, in fact I often take the minority contrarian position just to see if it is defensible. In this case, I started out believing the two were guilty. Actually, assuming they were guilty.

I remember looking at the Luminol footprints in the hallway and Amanda's bedroom thinking that someone was walking barefoot in blood. Surely that is a sign of guilt. But then I actually learned something about Luminol and discovered that Luminol reacts to lots of substances and blood is just one of them. Then there is the fact that when those footprints were subjected to the presumptive TMB test and that came back negative, I'm left with nothing. I can't just assume that those prints are blood, not with two contradicting tests. That would be wrong. Now if the Stefanoni had subjected those prints to an actual confirmatory test for blood, I could ignore the negative TMB test, but she didn't. So that ship has sailed. I can't even begin to accept that as evidence of anything.

As for the bathmat footprint. I'm confident it is not Amanda's. It could be Raffaele's, but it also could be Rudy's. What's clear to me is that while that print could be used to eliminate a possible suspect, it would be wrong to use it to pinpoint a suspect.

The argument "that the burglary was staged". There is no evidence of that. There is anecdotal evidence derived from testimony, but nothing that is reliable. There are these silly statements about glass being on top of the clothes. I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean, since I can't see why there wouldn't be. I'm also very sure that rock came from outside the house. Now it is possible that Amanda/Raffaele still staged this by throwing a rock from outside, but there is no proof that this is staging. All I see are assertions that this was staged, no actual proof and definitely not anywhere near beyond a reasonable doubt.

This brings us to Amanda's interrogation and her statement saying that Patrick did it. But while Amanda signed that, there is no way in hell Amanda wrote that. The English is piss poor. She confusedly remembers? This is a girl that graduated with honors from the most prestigious Jesuit preparatory school in the State of Washington. And that isn't hyperbole, I've lived in the Seattle area pretty much my whole life and I know that it is. There is no way in hell, Amanda could have written so poorly. In fact, it is clear that this was written by someone who's native language was NOT ENGLISH. Then there is the fact that it says that Patrick her boss did it. If there was significant evidence of Patrick Lumumba in that bedroom, then I would have to seriously consider Amanda's involvement given her link and her communication to Patrick that evening.

I think the idea of it being Patrick who she saw night after night working with him as well as meeting him at her school and the text messages between each other would have been damning. But you can't just swap Patrick for this guy Rudy that she had "seen" on the street and a crowded party and had never called, emailed or texted ever. That just doesn't wash..

Then there is the background of the suspects. Neither Amanda or Raffaele had any evidence of violence in their past at all. Not any. The best that the prosecution could do was bring forward a noise citation which of course means nothing. In contrast, you have Rudy where there is significant evidence linking him to 4 break ins/burglaries in the month proceeding Meredith's murder. Two of which demonstrate a tendency towards violence and two where knives played a role.

I need EVIDENCE to condemn someone. I need conclusive proof. But there is NO evidence except for the bra clasp which is a little troubling. There is no evidence of multiple attackers. It simply is a big stretch. There is no evidence of "taunting" cuts. That one is new.

Then you have the depth or shall I say the lack of depth of the connecting relationships. My buddy always jokes about the difference between new friends and lifelong friends. A new friend might bail you out of jail but a lifelong friend is most likely in jail with you.

And even though Amanda and Raffaele were probably screwing like rabbits in the week before the murder of Meredith, the depth of their relationship was very limited considering it was only a week old. Amanda and Raffaele who could barely communicate with each other outside of the bedroom not to mention Rudy who didn't speak English either. It is absurd that these three could have been involved in this crime of this magnitude together.

Then we come around to this behavior argument which frankly I think is the worst argument. You can say that Amanda acted strange, but I think that is bull. People react to death and other stressful situations differently. I don't find for one second any of Amanda's actions as even the slightest bit strange. Because they weren't. I attributed them to being tired, bored, the need to hang on to someone and not feel isolated, the need to lessen the intensity. While I can see how some people might find some of those actions inappropriate, I don't find any of it to be strange or suspicious.

You might be a decent guy Briars, but your conclusion lacks common sense. I see 100 reasons to find Amanda and Raffaele innocent of this crime and only one to find them guilty. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Not even close.

Well said.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well said.

Briars is (or may be) a decent gal.

 

[Briars]

You amuse me Briars. I have no problem with people having a difference of opinion. I learn a lot from people that take a different perspective and frequently I do change my mind.

That being said, I'm an arrogant SOB and need a reason for my beliefs. This is why I am an atheist even though I was brought up in a very conservative Christian family. And I've been an atheist since I was 10. My parents tried to force me to go to church with them, I said fine, but pretty soon, the church asked my parents to leave me at home as I asked too many questions. I need evidence Briars to come to a conclusion. If there was actual evidence that Amanda and Raffaele had anything to do with this murder, I'd be saying, "Get a rope".

I don't need anyone supporting my opinion, in fact I often take the minority contrarian position just to see if it is defensible. In this case, I started out believing the two were guilty. Actually, assuming they were guilty.

I remember looking at the Luminol footprints in the hallway and Amanda's bedroom thinking that someone was walking barefoot in blood. Surely that is a sign of guilt. But then I actually learned something about Luminol and discovered that Luminol reacts to lots of substances and blood is just one of them. Then there is the fact that when those footprints were subjected to the presumptive TMB test and that came back negative, I'm left with nothing. I can't just assume that those prints are blood, not with two contradicting tests. That would be wrong. Now if the Stefanoni had subjected those prints to an actual confirmatory test for blood, I could ignore the negative TMB test, but she didn't. So that ship has sailed. I can't even begin to accept that as evidence of anything.

As for the bathmat footprint. I'm confident it is not Amanda's. It could be Raffaele's, but it also could be Rudy's. What's clear to me is that while that print could be used to eliminate a possible suspect, it would be wrong to use it to pinpoint a suspect.

The argument "that the burglary was staged". There is no evidence of that. There is anecdotal evidence derived from testimony, but nothing that is reliable. There are these silly statements about glass being on top of the clothes. I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean, since I can't see why there wouldn't be. I'm also very sure that rock came from outside the house. Now it is possible that Amanda/Raffaele still staged this by throwing a rock from outside, but there is no proof that this is staging. All I see are assertions that this was staged, no actual proof and definitely not anywhere near beyond a reasonable doubt.

This brings us to Amanda's interrogation and her statement saying that Patrick did it. But while Amanda signed that, there is no way in hell Amanda wrote that. The English is piss poor. She confusedly remembers? This is a girl that graduated with honors from the most prestigious Jesuit preparatory school in the State of Washington. And that isn't hyperbole, I've lived in the Seattle area pretty much my whole life and I know that it is. There is no way in hell, Amanda could have written so poorly. In fact, it is clear that this was written by someone who's native language was NOT ENGLISH. Then there is the fact that it says that Patrick her boss did it. If there was significant evidence of Patrick Lumumba in that bedroom, then I would have to seriously consider Amanda's involvement given her link to and her communication to Patrick that evening.

I think the idea of it being Patrick who she saw night after night working with him as well as meeting him at her school and the text messages between each other would have been damning. But you can't just swap Patrick for this guy Rudy that she had "seen" on the street and a crowded party and had never called, emailed or texted ever. That just doesn't wash..

Then there is the background of the suspects. Neither Amanda or Raffaele had any evidence of violence in their past at all. Not any. The best that the prosecution could do was bring forward a noise citation which of course means nothing. In contrast, you have Rudy where there is significant evidence linking him to 4 break ins/burglaries in the month proceeding Meredith's murder. Two of which demonstrate a tendency towards violence and two where knives played a role.

I need EVIDENCE to condemn someone. I need conclusive proof. But there is NO evidence except for the bra clasp which is a little troubling. There is no evidence of multiple attackers. It simply is a big stretch. There is no evidence of "taunting" cuts. That one is new.

Then you have the depth or shall I say the lack of depth of the connecting relationships. My buddy always jokes about the difference between new friends and lifelong friends. A new friend might bail you out of jail but a lifelong friend is most likely in jail with you.

And even though Amanda and Raffaele were probably screwing like rabbits in the week before the murder of Meredith, the depth of their relationship was very limited considering it was only a week old. Amanda and Raffaele who could barely communicate with each other outside of the bedroom not to mention Rudy who didn't speak English either. It is absurd that these three could have been involved in this crime of this magnitude together.

Then we come around to this behavior argument which frankly I think is the worst argument. You can say that Amanda acted strange, but I think that is bull. People react to death and other stressful situations differently. I don't find for one second any of Amanda's actions as even the slightest bit strange. Because they weren't. I attributed them to being tired, bored, the need to hang on to someone and not feel isolated, the need to lessen the intensity. While I can see how some people might find some of those actions inappropriate, I don't find any of it to be strange or suspicious.

You might be a decent guy Briars, but your conclusion lacks common sense. I see 100 reasons to find Amanda and Raffaele innocent of this crime and only one to find them guilty. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Not even close.

Common sense is everywhere if you are willing to look. Take just the bathroom , common sense tell you it was cleaned. Common sense tells you that watery drips on the light switch and door with no point or origin confirm that, No splashing or ring in the bidet nothing on the floor not one drip.Yes common sense would leave drips going down the hall. No swirl from a bloody towel on the floor that he used in the bathroom( that is if you believe he stepped on it leaving just the half print on the mat.)Guede had no reason to clean common areas and leave his evidence in the room. Now thats just the bathroom and just a brief but not complete account of looking at what makes sense. There is an interesting link on .org today by mis represented I hadn't read before discussing the difference between an organized versus a chaotic crime scene and what that reveals. Worth a read if your "open" to it.

 

[acbytesla]

Briars is (or may be) a decent gal.

I'm sorry, I always just assumed that Briars, was a nome de plume for BR Mull.

 

[MichaelB]

Ohh hey everyone lets all take the university student fraud Miss Represented seriously. Who needs experts when you got her?

Brairs are you serious?

 

[anglolawyer]

Common sense is everywhere if you are willing to look. Take just the bathroom , common sense tell you it was cleaned. Common sense tells you that watery drips on the light switch and door with no point or origin confirm that, No splashing or ring in the bidet nothing on the floor not one drip.Yes common sense would leave drips going down the hall. No swirl from a bloody towel on the floor that he used in the bathroom( that is if you believe he stepped on it leaving just the half print on the mat.)Guede had no reason to clean common areas and leave his evidence in the room. Now thats just the bathroom and just a brief but not complete account of looking at what makes sense. There is an interesting link on .org today by mis represented I hadn't read before discussing the difference between an organized versus a chaotic crime scene and what that reveals. Worth a read if your "open" to it.

I must have been consigned to your ignore list. I asked what you made of Amanda not cleaning up the bathmat print (e.g. by tossing the bathmat in the washing machine) but you didn't answer. You want to discuss strange behaviour. Fine. Isn't that a bit strange? We know from Quintavalle she was in his store first thing on the 2nd. She went to the cleaning section. She then went to her place and spent (you say) two hours there. Doing what? Not cleaning the floor (as footprints were left, there are no swirls and the mop yielded nothing) not cleaning the bathroom and not flushing Rudy's deposit. If we let her smash Filomena's window and take her lamp into Meredith's to look for her earring (which I guess she found) how long does that all take? 5 minutes? 10? What do you think?

 

[Bill Williams]

Common sense is everywhere if you are willing to look. Take just the bathroom , common sense tell you it was cleaned. Common sense tells you that watery drips on the light switch and door with no point or origin confirm that, No splashing or ring in the bidet nothing on the floor not one drip.Yes common sense would leave drips going down the hall. No swirl from a bloody towel on the floor that he used in the bathroom( that is if you believe he stepped on it leaving just the half print on the mat.)Guede had no reason to clean common areas and leave his evidence in the room. Now thats just the bathroom and just a brief but not complete account of looking at what makes sense. There is an interesting link on .org today by mis represented I hadn't read before discussing the difference between an organized versus a chaotic crime scene and what that reveals. Worth a read if your "open" to it.

This is where you, patently, do NOT apply common sense.

The issue is not the standard, household cleanliness. What you're arguing for is a lab-like sterile environment, so that everything found in the bathroom is "time-stampable" for occurring during the murder.

Heck, Patrizia Stefanoni cannot even keep a DNA-evaluation lab sterile... contamination is so rife in ALL these labs, that they have to have anti-contamination protocols, which if not followed invalidate the results.

And what is interesting about your comments about "miss represented" is that you shift from "common sense", to a sense that one can only access with some sort of "openness", whatever that is.

What is miss represented writing about, a religious cult? One has to have "hidden knowledge" to be able to interpret your sacred texts properly?

Or do the sacred texts of your position have obvious meaning that everyone with functioning synapses can evaluate by themselves?

 

[Briars]

Briars,

Raffaele's fingerprints are one the door, and fingerprints have long been known to be a source of DNA. One route is from the door or handle to the gloves worn by the FP to the clasp, which would be tertiary transfer.

Mark Taylor and Elizabeth Johnson did a study of towels and DNA and showed that tertiary transfer involving towels is possible. IIRC Raffaele cooked at the women's flat, and he may have washed his hands in Amanda's bathroom. His DNA would then be on a towel. If that towel were transported into Meredith's room, then there are several routes of secondary or tertiary transfer that are possible.

There is no mixed blood. Period. Full stop. The knife doesn't fit all of the wounds, nor does it fit the bloody outline on a sheet. It is a low template sample in a lab that was not even certified for standard DNA testing. It is probably due to contamination. Amanda and Raffaele had two stories of what they did, what they said on the night of 5-6 November, and what they said every other time, both before and after their interrogations.

You and Dan should stop mis quoting me. I tried to be conservative and say mixed DNA and blood, never did I say mixed blood.I don't follow your towel theory. Are you suggesting the blood soaked towel that was long gone transfered DNA to the clasp? The clasp that was under the pillow and mat. Do you really think that metal clasp was a magnet and somehow attracted DNA just to the metal? Do you agree with Anne B that it was kicked around for 7 days and this is how it could have happened?The finger print on the door did not have verified DNA. Again even if this were a possibility the transfer would be on other parts of the material. Balding clearly said that the sample of 15 was strong evidence .

 

[acbytesla]

Common sense is everywhere if you are willing to look. Take just the bathroom , common sense tell you it was cleaned. Common sense tells you that watery drips on the light switch and door with no point or origin confirm that, No splashing or ring in the bidet nothing on the floor not one drip.Yes common sense would leave drips going down the hall. No swirl from a bloody towel on the floor that he used in the bathroom( that is if you believe he stepped on it leaving just the half print on the mat.)Guede had no reason to clean common areas and leave his evidence in the room. Now thats just the bathroom and just a brief but not complete account of looking at what makes sense. There is an interesting link on .org today by mis represented I hadn't read before discussing the difference between an organized versus a chaotic crime scene and what that reveals. Worth a read if your "open" to it.

Ahhhh...common sense for missing evidence? While there was a lot of blood in Meredith's bedroom we have no idea of how much was on Rudy or where it was on Rudy. You are assuming that Rudy's entire foot was bloody. Is there really any reason that there had to be blood on his entire foot? You think that if Raffaele and Amanda felt the the need to clean the bathroom that they would have wiped only the floor and not have washed the very obvious stain on the bath mat? Hell, all they would have had to do do was toss it in the shower and soak it and then throw it in the dryer.

This is the difference between you and me. I don't draw links on things that I cannot explain. Your argument is NOT common sense, it is in fact massive speculation. There are lots of Rudy's shoe prints in that hallway. So where is the clean up?

Rudy admitted cleaning up his bloody pant leg on that bath mat or did you forget?

You see Briars, I know what I don't know and I don't try and fill in the blanks just because.

 

[Bill Williams]

Briars - what you are arguing for is not one, but TWO clean-ups. One has to happen BEFORE the murder so to create this sterile environment as to be ready to receive forensic evidence, rather than normal household evidence......

And a second one, the one that then removes all trace of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

And to repeat what Anglo said, just in case he is on your ignore list, why did they clean some things and then not others? You claim a clean-up.... why not, then, the bathmat with the footprint and the faucet with the blooddrip - you know, the obvious things....

If they can use their patented Amanda's Magic Lamp to clean DNA traces invisible to the naked eye, why not the visible stuff?

You have them at the same time being master cleaners as well as bungler cleaners. Which is it? I thought common sense was your guide?

 

[Briars]

Sorry Bill you]re sounding a little too much like Nina and her pagan angle.

 

[js202]

Common sense is everywhere if you are willing to look. Take just the bathroom , common sense tell you it was cleaned. Common sense tells you that watery drips on the light switch and door with no point or origin confirm that, No splashing or ring in the bidet nothing on the floor not one drip.Yes common sense would leave drips going down the hall. No swirl from a bloody towel on the floor that he used in the bathroom( that is if you believe he stepped on it leaving just the half print on the mat.)Guede had no reason to clean common areas and leave his evidence in the room. Now thats just the bathroom and just a brief but not complete account of looking at what makes sense. There is an interesting link on .org today by mis represented I hadn't read before discussing the difference between an organized versus a chaotic crime scene and what that reveals. Worth a read if your "open" to it.

Do you suppose it's better to consider the finer points of organized and chaotic crime scenes by consulting a piece from "org." or from an experienced professional like John Douglas? Based on his decades of hands-on experience, Douglas is convinced the scene was highly disorganized - and it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to look at the photos of the murder room and come to this conclusion - and that Guede is the sole perpetrator.

And, sorry, any notion that Knox and Sollecito cleaned the bathroom is so fundamentally flawed as to be preposterous. You can't have AK and RS meticulously cleaning the bathroom whilst - whoops! - leaving the bathmat with the suspicious footprint.

There is no rational perspective to the pro-guilt viewpoint in this case. I repeat: none. It is fundamentally driven by hunches, emotion, and the like. This, of course, includes your own. Your allusions to evidence are riddled with assumptions and obvious flaws and holes that do not stand up to reason.

 

[Briars]

Briars - what you are arguing for is not one, but TWO clean-ups. One has to happen BEFORE the murder so to create this sterile environment as to be ready to receive forensic evidence, rather than normal household evidence......

And a second one, the one that then removes all trace of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

And to repeat what Anglo said, just in case he is on your ignore list, why did they clean some things and then not others? You claim a clean-up.... why not, then, the bathmat with the footprint and the faucet with the blooddrip - you know, the obvious things....

If they can use their patented Amanda's Magic Lamp to clean DNA traces invisible to the naked eye, why not the visible stuff?

You have them at the same time being master cleaners as well as bungler cleaners. Which is it? I thought common sense was your guide?

This has been discussed more than once. The watery drips were missed that night but used the next day to have a reason to fetch Raf call home and set the stage for discovery. The story continued to evolve even to include a bathmat scoot to help explain things. The doors went from open closed to ajar an attempt to make the sequence fit.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Open letter from November, 2009

Johnson and Hampikian wrote, "Transfer of Raffaele’s DNA to the clasp could have occurred through several innocent means as a result of his DNA being in the apartment or via Amanda’s clothing or belongings." Here is one more off the top of my head: Meredith hugs Raffaele at some point on 1 November, then touches her clasp.

 

[Dan O.]

Common sense is everywhere if you are willing to look. Take just the bathroom , common sense tell you it was cleaned. Common sense tells you that watery drips on the light switch and door with no point or origin confirm that, No splashing or ring in the bidet nothing on the floor not one drip.Yes common sense would leave drips going down the hall. No swirl from a bloody towel on the floor that he used in the bathroom( that is if you believe he stepped on it leaving just the half print on the mat.)Guede had no reason to clean common areas and leave his evidence in the room. Now thats just the bathroom and just a brief but not complete account of looking at what makes sense. There is an interesting link on .org today by mis represented I hadn't read before discussing the difference between an organized versus a chaotic crime scene and what that reveals. Worth a read if your "open" to it.

Brairs, is it common sense or just sloppy thinking that you are applying?

Look at that bare footprint on the bathmat. What characteristics can you see? I don't have the photos handy but I've looked at that print enough that I can still see the details without the photo. The ball of the foot is clearly deliniated indicating blood coating the foot and transferred to the mat like a printing press. The right side however shows an irregular pattern indicating the mat was over saturated which would require a dripping or flowing source. Then it is critical to note what is missing. There is nothing where the instep should be except along that saturated line on the right. Also, most of the toes are missing.

Now, extrapolate from those observations, what action could have created that pattern. As I have already given my answer in these threads I'll let you provide an answer and we will compare.