Amanda Knox New Motivation Report RE: Meredith Kercher Murder #1 *new trial ordered*

I know someone who has steam coming out of her ears... :giggle:

As far as I am concerned, it is over. No debating needed. But carry on.

LinasK said:

:snooty:Nah! I hate to disagree with you, but they're both acquitted murderesses! I can't wait until charges are re-instated against Amanda, there was more than enough evidence to convict her even without the screw-up in the lab! I won't be buying this book!

Click to expand...

It wasn't just a lab screwup, the other evidence used to convict Amanda and Raffaele also fell apart during the appeal.

Amanda's book should be an interesting read. Most of the books about the case were written before the first trial was over. A lot of information has been uncovered since that time.

dgfred said:

I will debate the entire list with you anytime, in fact I would enjoy it... fire away!

Click to expand...

(29) There are luminol positive spots in Filomena's room. If no confirmatory test was done on them, then calling them blood is an overreach. Some or all of the luminol positive spots were checked with TMB, which showed no reaction. The fact that Amanda's DNA has an innocent explanation for being in the flat has to be considered. In addition, there is a good chance that the police themselves mixed the DNA in the way that they collected DNA around the sink and bidet. The Hellmann report has a section on this.
(1) This relies upon the analysis of "experts" within ILE. They are the ones responsible for damaging three hard drives. The police are also responsible for the loss of meta-data such as the last access time of the Stardust file. Their views on what activity did or did not take place should be judged in light of these circumstances. Moreover, the claim of no activity is disputed in Raffaele's appeal, among other places, which discusses the screensaver log files. If time permits, I may return to this subject later.

ohiogirl said:

As far as I am concerned, it is over. No debating needed. But carry on.

Click to expand...

Yeah I got that... 'hill of beans' and all. Didn't think so. :seeya:

Chris_Halkides said:

(29) There are luminol positive spots in Filomena's room. If no confirmatory test was done on them, then calling them blood is an overreach. Some or all of the luminol positive spots were checked with TMB, which showed no reaction. The fact that Amanda's DNA has an innocent explanation for being in the flat has to be considered. In addition, there is a good chance that the police themselves mixed the DNA in the way that they collected DNA around the sink and bidet. The Hellmann report has a section on this.
(1) This relies upon the analysis of "experts" within ILE. They are the ones responsible for damaging three hard drives. The police are also responsible for the loss of meta-data such as the last access time of the Stardust file. Their views on what activity did or did not take place should be judged in light of these circumstances. Moreover, the claim of no activity is disputed in Raffaele's appeal, among other places, which discusses the screensaver log files. If time permits, I may return to this subject later.

Click to expand...

Sorry.

29. There was a definate 'spot' of blood in Filomena's room. Interesting the staging was there, and no other cottage mate's dna was mixed with it... but AK's was :waitasec: . So it was considered... but not believed that her living there is the ONLY reason. Just like the hallway... the 'fruit juice spill' theory just doesn't seem likely.

1. Please do return to the subject. They might have damaged three hard drives... but not that one. There was no human interaction (tho no doubt RS's appeal would wish it were so) which would/might prove he/somebody was there during the questionable time. The screensaver is one that is not human interaction IMO.

dgfred said:

Sorry.

29. There was a definate 'spot' of blood in Filomena's room. Interesting the staging was there, and no other cottage mate's dna was mixed with it... but AK's was :waitasec: . So it was considered... but not believed that her living there is the ONLY reason. Just like the hallway... the 'fruit juice spill' theory just doesn't seem likely.

1. Please do return to the subject. They might have damaged three hard drives... but not that one. There was no human interaction (tho no doubt RS's appeal would wish it were so) which would/might prove he/somebody was there during the questionable time. The screensaver is one that is not human interaction IMO.

Click to expand...

1. My point about the lost computer data is that the police who did this are no better than fools and possibly worse. The damaging of three hard drives puts their credibility at a discount for any computer-related matter, IMO. In addition,the police destroyed some meta-data on Raffaele's computer, as I previously discussed (Andrea Vogt mentioned this in an article). I have no idea why you would not consider the screensaver file data to be human interaction. The screensaver comes on during periods of inactivity, which are ended when someone interacts with the computer, as I understand it. Computers are not my forte, however.

29. What do you mean definite? If a confirmatory test were not run, no one should conclude that blood is present. Bringing fruit juice into it is a way of trying to reverse the burden of proof: The FP should should that a luminol-positive substance is blood; the defense should not have to prove that it is not blood. Many substances, including rust and non-human blood, give false positives in presumptive tests.

I suggest you read Kelly Virkler and Igor Lednev's review article in Forensic Science International on the testing of blood and other fluids, as one of many possible sources which makes a clear distinction between the two kinds of tests. Here is a relevant quote from another source: "The general principle is that if the test is negative, blood is absent, but that if the test is positive, blood is probably, not definitely present. For this reason the tests are often described as 'presumptive' tests." Moreover, Stefanoni testified in the preliminary hearing to the fact that when TMB tests are negative, a substance is not blood, IIUC.

My comment about returning to this subject was more general. I will do so as time permits.

dgfred,

I seem to recall seeing the Cooper case come up in a discussion here. It is claimed that the police managed to mess up Cooper's cell phone information in such a way as to lose data on the time at which his wife called him. No nation has a monopoly on police incompetence.

Thanks for your points and suggestions... but common sense works just fine.

dgfred said:

Thanks for your points and suggestions... but common sense works just fine.

Click to expand...

Are you claiming that your version of "common sense" should be allowed to run roughshod over generally accepted forensic chemistry principles? I would like to know the limits of your position. I would also be interested in your response to what Dr. Virkler and Professor Lednev said specifically about the luminol-positive, DNA-negative, TMB-negative pieces of evidence in this case (the footprints in the hall): “So, there was either no blood and the luminol was wrong, or there was blood and the TMB had interference and the luminol damaged the DNA. We think it is more likely that there was no blood, and that the luminol was reacting with something else, possibly plant matter from the bottom of the shoes causing the footprints (the intensity of the luminol reaction might give some more insight). The prosecution should have used much more convincing evidence to prove the presence of blood.” With respect to Filomena's room, there was DNA. However, all of the luminol reactions were done on December 18th, and a great deal of foot traffic had occurred in the intervening time period.

If you mean 'roughshod' over the BARE prints in the hallway being from rust or fruit juice... yes. Just outside the murder room but not in blood, come on?

Wonder how a BARE footprint of RS's was found on the bathmat... were they BARE footed? Why would there be one BARE partial print in the bathroom, but we are to think the BARE prints in the hallway a not in blood... but some other hogwash or not tested correctly???

If you mean human interaction on the laptop because 3 OTHERS were messed up-so we should believe a non-existant alibi... yes.

If you claim AK's dna was mixed with Meredith's blood in Filomena's staged room because she lived there and foot traffic... yes.

dgfred said:

Sorry.

29. There was a definate 'spot' of blood in Filomena's room. Interesting the staging was there, and no other cottage mate's dna was mixed with it... but AK's was :waitasec: . So it was considered... but not believed that her living there is the ONLY reason. Just like the hallway... the 'fruit juice spill' theory just doesn't seem likely.

Click to expand...

A quick perusal of the electropherogram for Rep. 177 from Filomena's room suggests that there are extra alleles present at some loci, including D19S433. This suggests the presence of a third person's DNA. There are no reference profiles from Filomena or Laura, so establishing the donor of this DNA is probably not going to happen. However, it is the very presence of this DNA, not the identity of the donor, that is problematic for the prosecution's case.

So first the problem was it wasn't even blood, now it is the extra alleles?

Dang, TWO excuses for one spot of blood with AK's dna mixed in. Same old same old.

dgfred said:

So first the problem was it wasn't even blood, now it is the extra alleles?

Dang, TWO excuses for one spot of blood with AK's dna mixed in. Same old same old.

Click to expand...

dgfred,

I think we should try not to conflate two separate issues. My point about DNA was that it calls into question one of your claims, namely that there was no evidence of other roommates in the mixed DNA samples. I don't claim to know the identity of the person who donated the extra alleles (maybe it's a roommate or maybe not, but I seem to recall that it is from a female). Yet the identity of the person doesn't matter as much as the fact that it exists. There is no reason to suppose that whomever did donate that DNA had anything to do with the crime. Once one acknowledges that some DNA in Rep. 177 is adventitious, one is forced to say that the rest of the DNA may also have arrived adventitiously. It is worth recalling that the existence of DNA does not give information on when it was deposited. My question to you is, How does the presence of extra alleles change your view of this item of evidence?"

With respect to the blood issue, you did not answer my question. Let me attempt to rephrase it: "Are confirmatory blood tests necessary none of the time, some of the time, or all of the time? Do you deny that plant matter, rust, certain cleaning products, and non-human blood give positive results with luminol?"

Now let us look at the evidence specifically from this case. If you claim that spots which are TMB-negative are still blood, why was the TMB test negative? Videos of the FP suggest that these workers had one-piece jumpsuits with no means of changing shoe covers as they traversed from one room to the next. If so, how would they avoid carrying material from one room into another? Do you believe that the collection methods around the toilet and bidet were fine, or were they deficient?

From the English translation of the Hellmann-Zanetti report: "Footage of this procedure was shown in Court: Officer Brocci is clearly seen to run the same swab of blotting paper again and again several times, with a dragging motion, from the rim of the sink down to the drain and back, and on both sides [of the sink]. The same procedure for the bidet, where the swab – presumably a different one – is used to accurately clean the drain area." This is the second time I have brought the matter of the collection methods up.

Maybe you could look at 'it' from a different perspective instead of muddying the waters with technical jargon and deflecting.

Why would AK say that the blood in the sink MIGHT have been from her recent multiple piercings being infected?

Or that one of the girls (not her) might have had their period... eww she says.
Does that sound like someone that doesn't THINK it was blood???

Who used the 'bathmat boogie' bogus story to cover up the fact that her BARE footprints MIGHT be in the hallway and bathroom? WHY???

Who used that same story to include:
An unlocked front door... she doesn't lock or find her 'missing' cottage mate.
Getting a mop for the PREVIOUS night's water spill.
Taking a shower and missing towels with an unlocked front door.
Poo in the other bathroom- goodness me... who's poop is it?
A locked cottage mate's door, but don't try her phones to see if she is behind the door.

Who would not notice their ONLY light source missing from room, and not need a light in her room or in the bathroom (blood smeared on lightswitch)?

Who would need to make it look like a thief broke into Filomena's room and not someone that was let into the cottage by someone with a key?

If someone did stage Filomena's room... could their dna possibly be mixed with the victim's blood? Why wouldn't it be RG's?

Who would need a mop for a small water spill from the NIGHT BEFORE? Really?

Who would lie about what time they ate supper? Why???

Who would turn off their phone, for the first time on the night her cottage mate just happened to be murdered? Why???

That should get you started.

dgfred said:

Maybe you could look at 'it' from a different perspective instead of muddying the waters with technical jargon and deflecting.

Click to expand...

dgfred,

I am not trying to use jargon, except where I believe that jargon is necessary to convey a message as accurately and specifically as I can. I gave you the name of a particular locus and a link to an image of the electropherogram only because I felt it was necessary to support my argument. Feel free to ignore the specifics if you like; the gist of that particular comment is that there is extra DNA in one sample in Filomena's room. If you need clarification on some point, I am happy to attempt it.

So far you have not answered most of my questions, and your comments have been less than cordial: possibly they are civil, but certainly they are no more than that. If you want to have an adult discourse in which each person asks questions and makes sincere and direct attempts to answer them, that is fine. I'll wait and see.

Fair enough.

I will even admit there could possibly be 'extra-dna' in the sample from Filomena's room. A couple of things would be certain from that too... that I would hope you can admit.

1- AK's dna was in the sample.
2- RG's dna was not in the sample.
3- The sample was Meredith's blood.

What were your specific questions? I do have a hard time catching them when at the end or middle of a bunch of other stuff I am not interested in.

dgfred said:

Fair enough.

I will even admit there could possibly be 'extra-dna' in the sample from Filomena's room. A couple of things would be certain from that too... that I would hope you can admit.

1- AK's dna was in the sample.
2- RG's dna was not in the sample.
3- The sample was Meredith's blood.

What were your specific questions? I do have a hard time catching them when at the end or middle of a bunch of other stuff I am not interested in.

Click to expand...

dgfred,

I agree with 1 and probably 2 (I would have to check Rudi's reference profile, but I strongly doubt his DNA is there). I don't agree with 3, that the substance was even blood, let alone Meredith's blood, for the reasons that I have already given, including but not limited to the lack of a TMB reaction. Some of the luminol-positive spots might have been blood, but none of them were shown to be blood (I lean against most of them being blood but not strongly).

[jargon]With respect to the extra DNA in profile 177, if one finds any locus in the diagram to which I linked in which there are more than four peaks, there is a third person's DNA present, excepting stutter peaks. Stutter peaks usually fall at one number smaller than the real peak: if there is an allele with 8 repeats, the stutter peak will probably fall at 7, and these numbers are printed on the diagram. And stutter peaks are usually 5-10% the size of the associated real peak, so if the peak heights are also marked, the stutters can be identified. This discussion should help someone decide for himself or herself whether or not there are extra alleles in Rep. 177.[/jargon]

Here are most of my questions from previous comments, with some rephrasing:

1. How does the presence of extra alleles in Rep. 177 change your view of this item of evidence?
2. Are confirmatory blood tests necessary none of the time, some of the time, or all of the time?
3. Do you deny that plant matter, rust, certain cleaning products, and non-human blood give positive results with luminol?
4. If you claim that spots which are TMB-negative are still blood, why was the TMB test negative?
5. Do you believe that the collection methods around the toilet and bidet were fine, or were they deficient?
6. If the FP failed to change shoe covers when they moved from one room into another, how did they avoid carrying biological material forth and back?
7. Does Virkler and Lednev's comment change your perspective?
8. If the police destroyed meta-data from Sollecito's computer, is it fair to hold him and Amanda responsible for an apparent lack of computer activity?
9. Should Raffaele's computer be given to independent forensic experts for review?

dgfred said:

Who would need to make it look like a thief broke into Filomena's room and not someone that was let into the cottage by someone with a key?

If someone did stage Filomena's room... could their dna possibly be mixed with the victim's blood? Why wouldn't it be RG's?

Who would need a mop for a small water spill from the NIGHT BEFORE? Really?

Who would lie about what time they ate supper? Why???

Who would turn off their phone, for the first time on the night her cottage mate just happened to be murdered? Why???

Click to expand...

dgfred,
It is late here, but I will tackle a few questions. I don't see persuasive evidence for staging. There are no photos of the glass on top of the clothes, and Filomena inadvertantly disturbed the items in her room when she retrieved her computer. I don't think that RG was in Filomena's room for an especially long time, and he may have worn gloves, so his DNA might not have been deposited. There was a TMB-positive substance outside of Filomena's room, but the presence of blood could not be confirmed (Rep. 199?).

If the floor had dirty or greasy streaks from the drain water, one might mop them up with the equivalent of Spic 'n Span. Assuming that the two offered different times for when they ate dinner, I think that one of the two is mistaken rather than lying. In a letter to his father, Raffaele does not give a specific time (Dempsey, p. 187). If their alibi is that they spent the night at Raf's place (which it is), then in which order they did things is not that important. If they were guilty, they might have worked hard to match their stories.

Amanda turned her phone off so that Patrick could not contact her if he changed his mind, and also to conserve battery power. Raf turned his off later, and I don't believe that they turned them on at the same time, either. If they were cunning and premeditated criminals, they would have left their cell phones on but at Raf's place. Then if a tower pinged their phone, it might support their alibi. Another answer to the question of why they turned their cell phones off is to ask, "Why did Patrick change his SIM card when he did?" Some things are just meaningless coincidences.

I am enjoying the discussion from both dgfred and Halkides about the evidence from Filomena's room. I have a lot of questions about this evidence. I will try to list this and the questions I have. First there is a hair sample and presumed blood substance taken from the broken window, Reps 198 and 199.

Rep.198 – Hair formation found between the lower cornice of the left window shutter having the broken glass, indicated in the evidence photographs with the letter “R”, (report of the evidence described carried out by the Gabinetto Provinciale of Forensic Police of Perugia) – page 172 A.F./239 R.;
Rep.199 – Sample of presumed blood substance taken of the portion of the wood of the window having the broken glass, indicated in the evidence photographs by the letter “S”,
(report of the evidence described carried out by the Gabinetto Provinciale of the Forensic Police of Perugia) – page 172 A.F./239 R.;

Click to expand...

So we know that Sample 199, the "presumed biological substance" tested positive for blood with TMB, but negative for an antibody test for human tissue. It was subjected to DNA extraction which did not yield a detectable amount of DNA. For this reason it was judged unsuitable for PCR amplification and electrophoresis. Sample 198, the 6 cm, dark brown, catagen phase hair had a few cells attached to the hair bulb. DNA extraction was performed on the bulb, again with no DNA detectable in the extraction solution, and no further analysis was performed.

So you have a positive TMB test on the blood and the hair is human hair-dark brown, which doesn't fit either AK or RS. Stefanoni stopped with the too low reading on this one (for some reason).

The two Luminol hits are also interesting and the one in question in this discussion is the one with the positive DNA results for MK and AK, Rep 177. Please note in the attached image the postcard and envelope near this piece of evidence. I will get to that as well. There are no images of the two Luminol hits in Filomena's room, we don't know if they resemble footprints or shoeprints, neither Rinaldi or Vinci did an analysis of these. Very strange.

What Rinaldi did do was an analysis of the prints on the card and envelope near Rep 177. Lets attach a picture of this as well.

You will note that the pattern of these footprints (I have reached the max of 5 attachments on this post so only showing one, but they both have a similar pattern) don't match the circular pattern of either RG's or RS's footwear and Rinaldi was unable to match this to any footwear belonging to AK or MK either.

A few questions arise here. Who do these prints belong to and when were they made? What substance made these prints (revealed through the fp process-not Luminol)? Also, very strange.