• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dan O. said:
The outside of the shower wand can be easily cleaned. I do this all the time to remove soap residue from the wand in my shower. The wand could have been collected and opened to test for blood on the inside.

A piece you are missing is that there is testimony given that the mat was moved between the time of the murder and when the bathroom was photographed. The stain was not noticed by someone walking into the bathroom but rather was noticed when stepping out of the shower. When this case is settled I may ask for further clarification from the witness.

We can also deduce the hight of the stain on the pants from the drip on the door leading into the bathroom. I haven't done the exact measurements for this but it appears to be higher than the bidet will spray.
Click to expand...


Well Guede could extend his pant and leg horizontally over the bidet and attain a rather high up rinse job.

So how does the blood get into the bottom of the bidet then?

Could Rudy have removed his shoe, rinsed the shoe and his leg in the bidet and while slightly off balance then placed his tipped foot down momentarily onto the bath mat...a mat that we have no clue was in what position?

Sure we can guess the mat was parallel to the wall which would seem normal but it could have been perpendicular ...these were strange girls...brazilian rabbits after all...
 
RandyN said:
Well Guede could extend his pant and leg horizontally over the bidet and attain a rather high up rinse job.

So how does the blood get into the bottom of the bidet then?

Could Rudy have removed his shoe, rinsed the shoe and his leg in the bidet and while slightly off balance then placed his tipped foot down momentarily onto the bath mat...a mat that we have no clue was in what position?
Click to expand...

The question is not how blood got into the bidet. Blood can be dripped anywhere as long as there is a source of watered down blood. The question is how does drips of blood end up staying somewhere that has to be cleaned becaus it was drenched in blood. The drips of blood are not an indicator of what was used to clean the blood off Rudy's pants. If anything, they are an indicator of what was not used.

But it is realy not important.
 
RandyN said:
4 guys on the bra clasp....




Well the independant experts from the appeal trial sure made that point. IIRC the pathologist said she could even find the judge himself on there if she wanted to.

Has anyone heard either C or V mentioned in this trial?
Click to expand...

My understanding was it might have been mentioned around the time the RIS presented. That C&V will not be ignored, or something like that. But to what extent? Maybe Stefonani will be accepted too.

This trial moving so fast and hurried to the end, I wonder "what good are all these piles of scientific documents if no one reads them?"

My point is if the judge's don't care to really read, or don't have time, or maybe spend the majority of time reading Micheli's report instead of C&V's then any verdict can happen.

This is all obvious banter, but the ability of a large, well connected system of prosecutors and judges and police, all supporting each other in the dark is a powerful thing.

Its confirmed Monica Napoleoni and others with her, are corrupt and dishonest. It's no longer just the rantings of conspiracy theorists of 2007. The slapping and interrogation, the ruined hard drives, the DNA Lab w/ Stefoni lying on the stand, reading 20 rfu peaks to build a profile leaks to the media just before the verdict continues as if its pre-planned....

Is this more a case of "Honesty vs Corruption", not innocence or guilt? It seems to me this is the real trial.
 
tertiary transfer of DNA

There have been questions about the possibility of tertiary transfer of DNA in this case. To recap, there have been two unpublished studies of tertiary transfer, one by Marc Taylor and Elizabeth Johnson, and the other by Greg Hampikian and colleagues. Suzanna Ryan implied that tertiary transfer will not turn out to be important in DNA forensics, but her words are ambiguous: "Unlike tertiary transfer, the very real possibility of secondary transfer does pose the potential for problems both in the lab and at the crime scene...Obviously, the inadvertent transfer of DNA is an area that should be further studied. Since so many of the available journal articles present conflicting information, more work is needed to see how likely it is to both transfer and detect DNA in a secondary or even a tertiary fashion, especially considering the sensitivity of modern forensic DNA analysis."

A recent study by Bruce Budowle and his colleagues is the first published study of tertiary transfer of DNA of which I am aware. Link to abstract here. The article is behind a paywall, but a master's thesis of one of Professor Budowle's students is available. I did not realize or had forgotten that Professor Budowle's 2010 letter on the Knox/Sollecito case is now publicly available. "However, it would seem extremely unlikely to have been able to wash away all traces of hemoglobin and preferentially left behind solely DNA...A person’s DNA will be found on his/her items in his/her home, place of work, and other places. That DNA also can be picked up by others and passed on to other items. This process is known as secondary and tertiary transfer and is well-established in the scientific literature."
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
There have been questions about the possibility of tertiary transfer of DNA in this case. To recap, there have been two unpublished studies of tertiary transfer, one by Marc Taylor and Elizabeth Johnson, and the other by Greg Hampikian and colleagues. Suzanna Ryan implied that tertiary transfer will not turn out to be important in DNA forensics, but her words are ambiguous: "Unlike tertiary transfer, the very real possibility of secondary transfer does pose the potential for problems both in the lab and at the crime scene...Obviously, the inadvertent transfer of DNA is an area that should be further studied. Since so many of the available journal articles present conflicting information, more work is needed to see how likely it is to both transfer and detect DNA in a secondary or even a tertiary fashion, especially considering the sensitivity of modern forensic DNA analysis."

A recent study by Bruce Budowle and his colleagues is the first published study of tertiary transfer of DNA of which I am aware. Link to abstract here. The article is behind a paywall, but a master's thesis of one of Professor Budowle's students is available. I did not realize or had forgotten that Professor Budowle's 2010 letter on the Knox/Sollecito case is now publicly available. "However, it would seem extremely unlikely to have been able to wash away all traces of hemoglobin and preferentially left behind solely DNA...A person’s DNA will be found on his/her items in his/her home, place of work, and other places. That DNA also can be picked up by others and passed on to other items. This process is known as secondary and tertiary transfer and is well-established in the scientific literature."
Click to expand...

A good collection of links, the one regarding the knife caused me to think of something: we are supposed to believe that the knife DNA survived the vigorous scrubbing necessary to remove all traces of blood, yet Stefanoni swabs it and *poof* all of a sudden all (~10 pgs) DNA removes itself from the knife to the point it can't be detected there anymore, nor any trace of the biological substance that produced it found?
 
Raffaele writes in his book:

"because my cell phone was turned off, I didn't receive the message until six the next morning."

That simple?
Curiously in the Massei trial he even hired an expert to prove that in some places of his flat there was no reception.
 
Last edited:
bolint said:
Raffaele writes in his book:

"because my cell phone was turned off, I didn't receive the message until six the next morning."

That simple?
Curiously in the Massei trial he even hired an expert to prove that in some places of his flat there was no reception.
Click to expand...

Not sure what your point is bolint. So?
 
I thought in the Massei trial his lawyers stipulated that he might have turned off the phone. The point being that the prosecution was claiming that turning off the phones showed premeditation while at the same time they were arguing that there was no premeditation.

So, Bolint, what is your theory of the crime?
 
Dan O. said:
I thought in the Massei trial his lawyers stipulated that he might have turned off the phone. The point being that the prosecution was claiming that turning off the phones showed premeditation while at the same time they were arguing that there was no premeditation.

So, Bolint, what is your theory of the crime?
Click to expand...

I get that the prosecution made this argument, but it is weak. It also signifies that there was premeditation involved and obviously some kind of conspiracy, which seems to have been discarded by everyone.

I get why the defense hired a cell phone engineer. The prosecution also argued that Raffaele's flat wasn't compatible with the cell tower that relayed the text message delivered to Amanda, this of course is debunked by the cell phone records themselves, but somehow Massei incorrectly accepts the prosecution's argument.
 
Is it unreasonable to conclude that Meredith’s alleged DNA on the knife could have got there by perfectly innocent means with no murder having been committed? We know that DNA can be transferred easily by primary, secondary or tertiary means. The quality of the DNA means it was either secondary or tertiary transfer. Amanda and Meredith shared the same toilet and living space, some sources suggest that they borrowed each others clothes. Amanda could have picked up Meredith’s DNA at the flat on her hands or from clothing on any occasion and transferred it onto the knife when cooking at Raffaeles flat.

We hear Maresca still banging on about Meredith’s DNA being on the knife but surely the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the DNA was on the knife as a result of the alleged attack on Meredith and not by innocent means, this is of course something they can’t do since there was no blood on the knife! Even if the DNA was more substantial and was able to be tested twice it still offers no guarantee that the DNA wasn’t there by innocent means. The prosecution of course are absolved from having to prove any such thing!

The DNA on the bra-clasp hook seems to suggest contamination by it’s very location and by the other male DNA unidentified on the hook that doesn’t exist anywhere else on the bra. It is clear that the DNA was deposited after the clasp was ripped off. You would have to ask yourself why Raffaele would have such an interest in a detached bra-clasp considering the gravity of the alleged ongoing situation! The eventual retrieval of the bra-clasp shows it being handled by the hooks and at least one of the wearers having dirty gloves. If an eejit like me can get it, why can’t the Italian judiciary?

And you thought you'd seen the back of me!!:)

Hoots!
 
So, Bolint, what is your theory of the crime?
Click to expand...
bolint said:
Rudy was the murderer, but Amanda was in the cottage at the time of the murder. Raffaele was not there.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, this is not a theory... this is the conclusion of the theory, where one names perpetrators.

Also, if I am anticipating properly, this is based on the scenario that Amanda herself was led to believe, by the very-leading questions at interrogation. And this involved Lumumba, not Rudy.

It also included some gems like: when Knox was asked if she heard screams, she said no. (Aside: why did she not hear screams? Because the police had not yet placed the need for them into her mind!)

They asked, "How could you not hear screams?" Her answer, trying to cooperate, was that she said, "I must have had my hands over my ears.

What is clear here, is that from exhaustion and deprivation, she thought that somehow her imaginings were useful to the police in solving the murder of her friend. She had been nicely "set-up" by translator/mediator Anna Donnino who admitted to trying to garner rapport with her clients by talking about shared experiences, in this case Donnino's own experience of not being able to remember things.

So Amanda, quite foolishly, though that her imaginings were somehow useful to the police.

The key to false confessions is that they actually describe nothing to do with the crime.

Finally, if one says that Raffaele was not involved.... what do you make of Raffaele risking life in prison while standing by his alibi for her?

There is NO guilter explanation for that.
 
"What evidence do you think supports that theory?"

Her breakdown and accusation of Lumumba, their inability to explain how they had passed the knight, his lie about the computer usage alibi, her absurd story on the visit to the cottage next day, etc.

I know all the innocentist "explanations" for these, but I don't buy them. For me it is more credible that they lie.
 
bolint said:
"What evidence do you think supports that theory?"

Her breakdown and accusation of Lumumba, their inability to explain how they had passed the knight, his lie about the computer usage alibi, her absurd story on the visit to the cottage next day, etc.

I know all the innocentist "explanations" for these, but I don't buy them. For me it is more credible that they lie.
Click to expand...

What absurd story? Can you answer why they were raising the alarm from before returning to to cottage for the second time that morning.... it seems to me that they were trying to call attention to the cottage.....

And why does Knox "naming" Lumumba make you believe Rudy and she were involved?
 
bolint said:
Rudy was the murderer, but Amanda was in the cottage at the time of the murder. Raffaele was not there.
Click to expand...


By this statement, bolint is throwing out all evidence against Amanda. Without the evidence, the statement itself is unsupported.


Can bolint prove that he is not a curly haired left handed Italian who was in Perugia on the night of Nov. 1, 2007?
 
Last edited:
bolint said:
"What evidence do you think supports that theory?"

Her breakdown and accusation of Lumumba, their inability to explain how they had passed the knight, his lie about the computer usage alibi, her absurd story on the visit to the cottage next day, etc.

I know all the innocentist "explanations" for these, but I don't buy them. For me it is more credible that they lie.
Click to expand...

The problems start when you try to fill in the details, preferably with more evidence. For her to be there requires a reason for her to leave Raf's place and hook up with a guy she scarcely knew. And while you might prefer to attribute meaning to what you consider to be untruthful or inexplicable behaviour, you necessarily accumulate a list of even weirder things that require explanation, like Raf standing resolutely by her for the last 6 years, for example, and her never blaming Guede (even though he blames her without compunction).
 
bolint said:
"What evidence do you think supports that theory?"

Her breakdown and accusation of Lumumba, their inability to explain how they had passed the knight, his lie about the computer usage alibi, her absurd story on the visit to the cottage next day, etc.

I know all the innocentist "explanations" for these, but I don't buy them. For me it is more credible that they lie.
Click to expand...

So the lack of physical evidence means nothing? And what inability to explain how they passed the night? Also, you just said that Raffaele wasn't there but Amanda was. So you have Raffaele covering for Amanda for 6 years. Why would he do that?

And why would Amanda have left Raffaele that night?

Now regardless of your opinion about Amanda's involvement, do you really believe that there is enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of Amanda's involvement? From what I can see, it all comes down to two pieces of evidence. The interrogation and 10 trillionths of a gram, which registered too low on Stefanoni's equipment ten times. 10 trillionths of a gram that has never been confirmed by anyone including Stefanoni since she didn't perform a second test.

??????
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom