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

[LondonJohn]

Sorry, we cross-posted. Well, this just gets back to the question of when her jeans were removed I guess - before or after. Personally I can't see how she can possibly have been wearing them while being dragged through that pool of blood in the corner, not without leaving very obvious bloodstains.

He may certainly have intended more, but that doesn't necessarily mean it happened.

Well, perhaps. I still think he'd have made up a story to account for a rape (in the sense you use it) if it had happened - I doubt Guede's all that knowledgeable about DNA testing to have worked out exactly what they could and couldn't tell from the evidence he left.

Firstly, can i reiterate that this is just my hypothesis, and one which I think fits the known evidence. It's not proof, nor is it a rigid belief, nor is it strictly important in a wider context of who committed this crime, how, and why.

Secondly, I contend that you are totally wrong about what Guede might or might not have known about DNA identification. I think that ANYONE who has grown up in the westernised world (for want of a better description) is fully culturally aware of how and why criminals can be caught by forensic evidence. If you're suggesting that Guede was unaware that his semen might allow the police to link him to the crime, I think you're badly mistaken.

 

[Diocletus]

Not only that, but the police photos clearly show that they pushed the exposure settings well beyond normal recommended levels, perhaps in an attempt to "push" the results. A look at the photos themselves shows significant levels of "light noise" that could not possibly have been crime-related (they are mainly in the form of a galaxy of tiny speck of apparent luminescence, in areas where there could not have been any blood misting).

At first, I thought you were talking about the electrophoresis machine.

Is there any piece of equipment that these CSI wizards didn't turn up beyond its intended setting?

 

[Diocletus]

The total removal of Meredith's jeans.

Careful there. It's impossible, as a matter of law, for a lone rapist to accomplish such a feat in Italy.

 

[LondonJohn]

Hmmm. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one I think. I don't dispute at all that it could have been a trigger - actually I probably agree, I just disagree about the jeans thing - but I certainly don't think this is necessarily true at all. There are cases where women have asked the rapist to wear a condom, for example, but that certainly doesn't mean the sex was consensual.

Yes.... but.....

It's fairly well-established by the blood-spatter evidence that Meredith was on her knees (or on all fours) facing the wall next to the wardrobe when the fatal stabbings occurred.

I would suggest that it's far more common and controlling for a man to rape a woman (whether "compliant" or not) in the missionary position - that's because the man's body weight is then upon the woman, it's easy for his weight to force her legs apart, and it's easy for his hands to control her hands and arms.

If Guede raped Meredith (and that's "if", remember.....), then I suggest that he raped her when she was on her back, in a missionary position - in fact in essentially the position in which her body was found. If that's the case, then it seems very unlikely that he raped (or otherwise sexually assaulted) her with her on her back, then manoeuvred her so that she was on her knees or all fours, then stabbed her, then turned her BACK onto her back into the position in which she was found.

Instead, I think the clearly most-logical scenario is that the stabbing occurred before the sexual assault, that Guede then turned Meredith over onto her back, removed her jeans fully, dragged her body into a "better position", placed the pillow under her hips (or simply dragged her over the pillow) and raped her.

Again - please remember that I'm not offering this as "evidence" of what happened. It's just what I happen to think most likely happened.

 

[Supernaut]

That paragraph isn't a description of the film, it's from the blurb for Nadeau's book. I doubt the film will be like that since Winterbottom's already said he's not exploring the question of guilt/innocence.

I'm a fan of Winterbottom's previous work - he's normally quite a thoughtful director - so I'm going to withhold judgment on the film until I actually see it. What I can't work out is why he needed to buy the rights to Nadeau's book. There's nothing in there which he couldn't have easily found from the mass of information already in the public domain. Unless he just wanted the title, I suppose...

Oh. My. God.

Winterbottom is easily one of the most shallow, pretentious, careerist, jumped-up frauds in the movie industry.

Honestly, there is simply nothing to his "work" - NOTHING.

He learnt lots of cinematic tricks at film school and uses them to great effect - or should that be affect?

I've always despised him (in case you hadn't noticed).

ETA >> of course, he doesn't "write the stuff", but nevertheless he blatantly tries to cultivate the image of an "auteur", and it could hardly be phonier.

 

[LondonJohn]

At first, I thought you were talking about the electrophoresis machine.

Is there any piece of equipment that these CSI wizards didn't turn up beyond its intended setting?

Here's an earlier post from me on this. As I remembered, it appears that the exposure on the police photos was roughly three times the recommended exposure:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7505041#post7505041

This would have the inevitable effect of over-amplifying light-noise and other light artifacts - as indeed the photos themselves seem to show.

 

[Grinder]

If she was dying when the sexual assault took place would there be any sign of forced sex?

I don't know but would guess that bruising would be there if she had been still alive.

My question revolved around the genesis of the sex game theory. They first thought she knew her attacker because of the lack of indications of forcible sex. That's why they thought it might have been someone she met at the party. At that time at least one tab referred to her as a party girl.

I think it is possible that at first they thought of her as one the party hardy college foreigners but were influenced my the father and other british journalists to change their view. They then said she was not to blame in any way and the sex game theory came to light.

 

[katy_did]

Firstly, can i reiterate that this is just my hypothesis, and one which I think fits the known evidence. It's not proof, nor is it a rigid belief, nor is it strictly important in a wider context of who committed this crime, how, and why.

Fair enough LJ. I think we're basically in agreement that there are no certainties here, and that it's only a question of which scenario is more or less likely. Sometimes in discussing aspects of this case it does feel as if there various 'certainties' which as good innocentisti we're expected not to question, and that does get a little frustrating at times - I may have come across more harshly than I intended because of that. Apologies if so.

Secondly, I contend that you are totally wrong about what Guede might or might not have known about DNA identification. I think that ANYONE who has grown up in the westernised world (for want of a better description) is fully culturally aware of how and why criminals can be caught by forensic evidence. If you're suggesting that Guede was unaware that his semen might allow the police to link him to the crime, I think you're badly mistaken.

No, certainly not suggesting that. I think Guede would have been well aware that they could find evidence of rape - I'm just not sure he would have known that they might not find any evidence of it if he did in fact rape her. I think he would have assumed they would and wouldn't have wanted to take the risk of lying about it and getting caught out. I doubt he'd have had the knowledge to realize that they might only find epithelial cells which could just as easily have come from his hand.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't know but would guess that bruising would be there if she had been still alive.

My question revolved around the genesis of the sex game theory. They first thought she knew her attacker because of the lack of indications of forcible sex. That's why they thought it might have been someone she met at the party. At that time at least one tab referred to her as a party girl.

I think it is possible that at first they thought of her as one the party hardy college foreigners but were influenced my the father and other british journalists to change their view. They then said she was not to blame in any way and the sex game theory came to light.

Well it's probably important to draw the distinction between a) whether or not there was violent genital-area contact, and b) whether or not any violent contact would have left evidence.

I think you may be talking about (b) here - in that if someone's heart has stopped pumping blood around the body, it's almost impossible for bruising (haematoma) to occur, regardless of contact. In other words, if you punch a recently-dead person in the arm, a bruise will not ever appear, and nor will any form of mark (unless the skin is broken of course).

I personally think it's unlikely that Guede left Meredith to die (which would probably have taken between 10 and 15 minutes from the time of the stabbing) before carrying out the sexual assault (whether digital or penile penetration). I think that he would probably have been so aroused and adrenaline-fuelled that any post-stabbing sexual assault would have been carried out (and concluded) much more shortly after the stabbing had occurred. I therefore think it's more likely that there were no bruises or marks simply because Meredith offered no resistance (because she was dying), and that therefore Guede did not need to make any violent contact in order to fulfill his base desires.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Sorry, we cross-posted. Well, this just gets back to the question of when her jeans were removed I guess - before or after. Personally I can't see how she can possibly have been wearing them while being dragged through that pool of blood in the corner, not without leaving very obvious bloodstains.

The lower part of her body wasn't dragged through the blood. If it had been, and she hadn't been wearing pants, wouldn't you expect to see streaks of blood on her legs? I can tell you there are no drops of streaks of blood on her body, anywhere below her upper torso.

I guess I have never understood what you think happened here. Do you think he got her pants off and raped her before cutting her throat, ripping her bra off, and positioning her the way he did?

 

[katy_did]

Yes.... but.....

It's fairly well-established by the blood-spatter evidence that Meredith was on her knees (or on all fours) facing the wall next to the wardrobe when the fatal stabbings occurred.

Not all of them - at least one was made earlier. There were spots of blood under the desk, on the wall next to the bed and above the bed (the finger marks). I think it's also conceivable that the fatal stab was made while she was standing but that she sunk to her knees immediately afterwards (at least, I can't see anything which would rule that out).

I would suggest that it's far more common and controlling for a man to rape a woman (whether "compliant" or not) in the missionary position - that's because the man's body weight is then upon the woman, it's easy for his weight to force her legs apart, and it's easy for his hands to control her hands and arms.

If Guede raped Meredith (and that's "if", remember.....), then I suggest that he raped her when she was on her back, in a missionary position - in fact in essentially the position in which her body was found. If that's the case, then it seems very unlikely that he raped (or otherwise sexually assaulted) her with her on her back, then manoeuvred her so that she was on her knees or all fours, then stabbed her, then turned her BACK onto her back into the position in which she was found.

Instead, I think the clearly most-logical scenario is that the stabbing occurred before the sexual assault, that Guede then turned Meredith over onto her back, removed her jeans fully, dragged her body into a "better position", placed the pillow under her hips (or simply dragged her over the pillow) and raped her.

Again - please remember that I'm not offering this as "evidence" of what happened. It's just what I happen to think most likely happened.

Sure, if he raped her I agree with you. I'd only question whether a full rape occurred in the first place.

If the pillow stain turned out to be, say, urine, would that change your view of what likely happened? In terms of suggesting a likely sequence of events, I think the nature of the stain is maybe the most important question. If it's semen, then that definitely suggests a 'completed' sexual assault. But what if it isn't? For me that would make an assault stopped half way - interrupted by the stabbings - more likely. I don't find it all that plausible that he was cold-blooded enough to continue with an assault but stopped at using his fingers, and even less plausible that he carefully arranged Meredith using towels and the pillow solely for that purpose.

 

[katy_did]

The lower part of her body wasn't dragged through the blood. If it had been, and she hadn't been wearing pants, wouldn't you expect to see streaks of blood on her legs? I can tell you there are no drops of streaks of blood on her body, anywhere below her upper torso.

I guess I have never understood what you think happened here. Do you think he got her pants off and raped her before cutting her throat, ripping her bra off, and positioning her the way he did?

Isn't Ron Hendry's theory that she was dragged through the blood backwards by the sweatshirt until it came off? Which part of her body made the drag marks in the blood?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

more on the colposcope

Dean G. Kilpatrick, Ph.D, wrote, "Conventional rape exams without colposcopes typically report evidence of genital injuries in only 19%-28% of cases (Slaughter & Brown, 1992). However, examiners using colposcopes find evidence of genital trauma in up to 87% of cases (Slaughter & Brown, 1992). Another important finding is that colposcopic examinations of women who have had recent consensual sexual intercourse do not find evidence of physical injury. Thus, the colposcope is not only capable of detecting physical injuries invisible to the naked eye, but a trained expert examiner can also testify that such injuries do not occur during consensual sex...The second part of the protocol would include a second colposcopic exam conducted 4-6 weeks after the assault. The purpose is to collect evidence of a victim’s recovery from physical injuries detected during the first exam. That would provide evidence for an expert examiner to testify about recovery from injuries inconsistent with consensual sex." On general principles I have to wonder whether or not there is some subjectivity in the analysis from the colposcope. However, it sounds as if it is a big improvement over conventional exams. If Dr. Lalli did not have access to a colposcope, then I don't think that the lack of injuries is very meaningful.

 

[RWVBWL]

Does Bruising Continue After death?

If she was dying when the sexual assault took place would there be any sign of forced sex?

I don't know but would guess that bruising would be there if she had been still alive.
<snip>

Bruising.
Here's tragic photo's of some of Miss Kercher's bruises from PS:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110504...logspot.com/2008/10/pointing-at-murderer.html

Question:
How long does bruising continue after death, if at all?(*)
How long does anyone believe these bruises on Miss Kercher occured before her death to have shown up in these photographs?
Once dead, do bruises stay the same color,
color more or less? What if a dead body bleeds out?


I can't seem to get a definitive answer,
if anyone can share input, that'd help me understand something about bruising that I am curious about in a different topic.
Thanks, RW



(*)-I am somewhat researching a fatal shark attack where-in the woman had a bruise on the top of her hand. I wonder how long before she died and bled out might this bruise, a clue to what happened, might have occured...

 

[LondonJohn]

Isn't Ron Hendry's theory that she was dragged through the blood backwards by the sweatshirt until it came off? Which part of her body made the drag marks in the blood?

Her upper torso and head/hair.

It's also important to remember that there's no physiological reason for any blood to have been present any lower than the middle of her torso, if she was in a prone position as she bled out. Any initial spurting (which would have subsided very quickly as her blood pressure dropped dramatically) would have been outwards or upwards from the neck, and she would probably only have lost about 2 litres of blood in total before dying (at which point blood would have stopped leaving her body). All of this blood would have remained localised around her head, shoulders and upper torso. There's no reason at all to suggest that it would have got anywhere near her waist or below.

 

[katy_did]

Dean G. Kilpatrick, Ph.D, wrote, "Conventional rape exams without colposcopes typically report evidence of genital injuries in only 19%-28% of cases (Slaughter & Brown, 1992). However, examiners using colposcopes find evidence of genital trauma in up to 87% of cases (Slaughter & Brown, 1992). Another important finding is that colposcopic examinations of women who have had recent consensual sexual intercourse do not find evidence of physical injury. Thus, the colposcope is not only capable of detecting physical injuries invisible to the naked eye, but a trained expert examiner can also testify that such injuries do not occur during consensual sex...The second part of the protocol would include a second colposcopic exam conducted 4-6 weeks after the assault. The purpose is to collect evidence of a victim’s recovery from physical injuries detected during the first exam. That would provide evidence for an expert examiner to testify about recovery from injuries inconsistent with consensual sex." On general principles I have to wonder whether or not there is some subjectivity in the analysis from the colposcope. However, it sounds as if it is a big improvement over conventional exams. If Dr. Lalli did not have access to a colposcope, then I don't think that the lack of injuries is very meaningful.

Thanks for this info halides. I think there are perhaps even more complicating factors than the above would suggest: for example there can be injuries due to consensual sex, and even involuntary arousal during a rape (one theory is that this is a protective mechanism to prevent injury). For all sorts of reasons, not finding evidence of injuries isn't evidence a sexual assault didn't occur.

I think the police/prosecution were either just ignorant of the facts on this and jumped to conclusions, or else they already had the consensual sex gone wrong theory and jumped on Lalli's findings to support it.

 

[LondonJohn]

Bruising.
Here's tragic photo's of some of Miss Kercher's bruises from PS:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110504...logspot.com/2008/10/pointing-at-murderer.html

Question:
How long does bruising continue after death, if at all?(*)
How long does anyone believe these bruises on Miss Kercher occured before her death to have shown up in these photographs?
Once dead, do bruises stay the same color,
color more or less? What if a dead body bleeds out?


I can't seem to get a definitive answer,
if anyone can share input, that'd help me understand something about bruising that I am curious about in a different topic.
Thanks, RW



(*)-I am somewhat researching a fatal shark attack where-in the woman had a bruise on the top of her hand. I wonder how long before she died and bled out might this bruise, a clue to what happened, might have occured...

Hi RW

Bruises are caused when pressure or blunt force causes capillaries in the skin to burst, causing blood to leak into the tissue. In order for this to happen, the blood must be under pressure, causing it to flow out from the burst capillaries and pool in the surrounding tissue.

Once a bruise has been caused, it's permanant - it's essentially a puddle of blood trapped in the tissue. The reason why bruises change colour over time is that the blood in the bruise is gradually broken down and reabsorbed.

If someone is killed after having been bruised, the bruising will essentially remain exactly the same in the days after death as if the person had still been alive. That's because the blood remains in situ, and begins to break down in the same way regardless of whether or not the person is dead or alive.

Likewise, if a person bleeds out, there will be no noticeable effect upon any existing bruising. That's because the blood in a bruise has already left the circulatory system and is trapped in the tissue.

The last answer (I think) to your questions is that even if a person is bruised very shortly before death (whether by bleeding out or any other cause), the bruise will develop in essentially exactly the same way as if the person had remained alive. That's because all that's important for the causing of the bruise is the blood pressure in the capillaries at the time of the pressure or blunt impact. If there's any significant pressure at that time, then blood will flow out from the burst capillaries and a bruise will form. Note that even with reduced blood pressure a bruise - although smaller - will still form. This means that in the case of Meredith, she could even have formed bruises after having been stabbed. It was only when her blood pressure had dropped very low (low enough to immediately precede death) that no further bruising could have occurred.

 

[katy_did]

Her upper torso and head/hair.

It's also important to remember that there's no physiological reason for any blood to have been present any lower than the middle of her torso, if she was in a prone position as she bled out. Any initial spurting (which would have subsided very quickly as her blood pressure dropped dramatically) would have been outwards or upwards from the neck, and she would probably only have lost about 2 litres of blood in total before dying (at which point blood would have stopped leaving her body). All of this blood would have remained localised around her head, shoulders and upper torso. There's no reason at all to suggest that it would have got anywhere near her waist or below.

But if she was dragged by her sweatshirt, wouldn't that necessarily mean the upper half of her body had to come first with her lower body trailing behind? If you see what I mean. It's in that scenario I can't see how there could not have been obvious blood on her jeans.

I agree with your second paragraph, but remember that here we're trying to account for the absence of evidence: why there was little blood on her jeans if she was wearing them during the attack. Even if this is possible, it certainly doesn't support the theory she was wearing them, it just doesn't rule it out.

 

[LondonJohn]

Thanks for this info halides. I think there are perhaps even more complicating factors than the above would suggest: for example there can be injuries due to consensual sex, and even involuntary arousal during a rape (one theory is that this is a protective mechanism to prevent injury). For all sorts of reasons, not finding evidence of injuries isn't evidence a sexual assault didn't occur.

I think the police/prosecution were either just ignorant of the facts on this and jumped to conclusions, or else they already had the consensual sex gone wrong theory and jumped on Lalli's findings to support it.

I completely agree with this. And I also agree that the most important thing about this whole issue is the unscientific way in which supposed conclusions were drawn by police, prosecutors and courts.

 

[katy_did]

Oh. My. God.

Winterbottom is easily one of the most shallow, pretentious, careerist, jumped-up frauds in the movie industry.

Honestly, there is simply nothing to his "work" - NOTHING.

He learnt lots of cinematic tricks at film school and uses them to great effect - or should that be affect?

I've always despised him (in case you hadn't noticed).

ETA >> of course, he doesn't "write the stuff", but nevertheless he blatantly tries to cultivate the image of an "auteur", and it could hardly be phonier.

LOL, well artistic tastes differ, I guess.

Any directors you'd recommend instead?