Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#6

[TorisMom003]

Silly question I know considering the less than professional way the entire crime scene and cottage was handled, however, was the broken glass that contained the mixed sample of Amanda and Meredith tested to see if the sample was on the inside or outside part of the glass?

 

[SMK]

Some thoughts: While dna and forensic evidence is extremely important and necessary in the legal sense, a grasp of the psychology of a crime goes a long way toward making one a "believer" or not ....In any case, I find the psychology of motive massively important...

I am aware that statement analysis is something which cannot be as "scientific" as blood evidence or dna, I do think that there are a couple of things in the email which do point toward a scenario and how it developed:

As I have mentioned many times, the fact that the statement analysis showed that something "out of the ordinary" probably did occur after lunch on Nov 1, prior to "saying goodbye" to Meredith has always made me ponder that some resentment carried over into the evening, making them return to the cottage. I also felt it was telling that in her email, Amanda did not write, "Meredith still had her Halloween makeup on from the night before" - what she did write was that the costume was still dripping blood. Imagine having resentment and an altercation, and the person has blood dripping from their mouth. It might put an idea in your head. Especially if one had a few problems with jealousy, envy, etc.

*And why is it that no one has thought that the altercation (begun early in the day, and carried on later) might have revolved around Meredith "stealing" her job, and her popularity at LeChic? It might explain the accusation against PL too.

 

[Yellow]

Why does one need to be bleeding profusely to have a drop of their blood mixed with someone else's DNA? Sorry but again this is one point that has reasonable doubt to explain it away. Also, how do we know that Amanda tracked the blood to Filomina's room? Is it not possible that all three women could have been in the room together? Or even just Meredith and Amanda? We don't have Meredith's complete history as to nose bleeds, finger cuts, or any other times when she had bled while living in the cottage.

They also did not do control testing, that is test random areas of the room to see if you are getting similar results. There could have been mixed DNA all over that apartment. I believe they found mixed AK and RS DNA in footprints in his apartment, it does not mean anything, it is common to leave mixed DNA in a home

 

[geevee]

The prosecution has to conjecture a motive and that's what he does. Based on testimony from roommates, friends and family, the prosecutor is comfortable taking it another step and suggesting that the well documented conflict erupted on the night of the murder due to more inconsiderate actions by Knox.

In the US, a motive is not necessary. In Italy, the prosecution must present some sort of theory.

Thanks, now I understand why so much theorizing has been going on in court.

 

[TorisMom003]

Thanks, now I understand why so much theorizing has been going on in court.

When they have very little else to rely on in trying to prosecute an innocent person, they then must resort to anything and everything to try and get a conviction. They also must "save face" to the rest of the world.

MOO

 

[aa9511]

Both of us are citing to blogs w agendas so absent being a scientist I am not sure what is right. I would think that if that was blood, the sensitivity of the test would not matter - this would not have been a very small sample, where sensitivity is an issue. Both tests should have showed up positive for blood and only one did.

I was under the impression that luminol is a more overarching test and can interact w lots of things not just blood. Whereas the t test one is one just for blood, a specialized test. I may be wrong on that though

I think it does matter about the sensitivities. There would be a difference between maybe, how fresh the blood is, maybe one test would detect more fresh blood which has not been degraded by exposure to air, etc., also they are footprints so as each step is taken, the sequential step would have less and less blood on it.

I have always heard of Luminol in relation to forensics in criminal cases. If Luminol is so overarching and reacts with numerious things, why is it used so frequently and apparently, non-disputably, in murder cases all the time?

 

[otto]

Why does one need to be bleeding profusely to have a drop of their blood mixed with someone else's DNA? Sorry but again this is one point that has reasonable doubt to explain it away. Also, how do we know that Amanda tracked the blood to Filomina's room? Is it not possible that all three women could have been in the room together? Or even just Meredith and Amanda? We don't have Meredith's complete history as to nose bleeds, finger cuts, or any other times when she had bled while living in the cottage.

Meredith's blood and Knox's DNA were on a piece of broken glass in Filomina's bedroom. Other than the night of the murder, the window was not broken and there was no glass on the floor, so the evidence can be dated to the night of the murder.

 

[geevee]

Ok, I see. Thank you, geevee. That makes sense. Although I do wonder if that was stated in any records, that they were not able to obtain a DNA profile? And what about that low-carbon DNA stuff, I have not heard of that being associated with any of the footprints.

Also, it said some footprints had Amanda DNA, so if they were able to obtain Amanda DNA from the footprint, wouldn't they be able to obtain Meredith DNA?

I don't know anything about the low carbon dna, this case is the first I've ever heard of that term and do not know which samples were low carbon (I'll have to google that too, I have no idea how it's different than 'regular' dna). Maybe someone here who went through the beginning of the trial can explain Italy's stance on partial and full dna profiles and what they can call 'dna' in a sample.

 

[otto]

When they have very little else to rely on in trying to prosecute an innocent person, they then must resort to anything and everything to try and get a conviction. They also must "save face" to the rest of the world.

MOO

It is the prosecution's responsibility to summarize the case during the appeal.

 

[aa9511]

And when was that mixed sample left in Filomina's room? Is it not reasonable to conclude that at some point in time that Meredith was bleeding and Amanda was helping to stop the bleeding while in the room? If so then there is the reasonable doubt needed to eliminate that mixture of DNA.

That is not a reasonable doubt, IMO. It is not supported by the evidence. The evidence shows signs of Amanda and RS in the home after the murder, staging a burglary scene. It also shows that Rudy could not have stabbed and restrained Meredith at the same time, in a way consistent with the evidence and injuries on her body. Meaning there were more involved. Amanda helping to stop Meredith's bleeding is, IMO, leads to even more certainty that she was involved in the murder itself.

 

[Steely Dan]

The prosecutor's argument was meretricious. We can all agree that if the outer shutters were closed, the rock could not break the window. There are one or two ways, however, that the shutters might have come open (IIUC they did not close tightly, owing to swelled wood). One is that they were not closed in the first place (Filomena's initial testimony was uncertain on this point). Two is that Guede climbed up once to open them, then threw the rock. Three is that he used a stick to open them while standing below. EDT: Four is that they were closed but came open due to wind.

One problem with objecting to Pasquali's demonstration is that (by itself) it does not answer the question of how the window was broken. This comes back to the problem I discussed in the previous thread: the lack of a comprehensive narrative/timeline of the crime. Massei's conjecture with respect to how the window was broken was never tested, but there is no way that the distribution of glass would be the same as it is if the window were broken as Pasquali indicated.

The shutters weren't closed. They were open like this;

That is why a rock thrown from the balcony couldn't have hit the window. (That is not a picture of the actual window. It's just to show how the shutters would have blocked the shot.)

This link has some great stuff in it; http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Massei_Trial#Filomena_Romanelli

<modsnip>

Did they ever bring this up before? Did they match the shoe w one of AK? A partial man print could also look like a female print (smaller).

W RG's prints, they matched it to a type of shoe he admitted he wore, just the make of the shoe, not the actual shoe. What did they do hear w these supposed bloody footprints? Do they contradict the footprints of RG?(ie. make it clear that it had to be a second shoe)

How do they know it was not made by one of the police or technicians? Maybe bc blood would have dried by then, but I think they would need to prove that, show blood would not have left prints so many hours later and they also need to match it to AK foot size as opposes to just being a female shoe. They need to show it is not RG (show it is a second make separate from the first make)

By the time the police arrived the blood was dried. The technicians were in full gear, including booties, that would ensure no contamination of the crime scene.

Don't forget that there was DNA from multiple other unidentified males on the bra clasp.

Do you have a link for that? I've never heard that before.

It's not simply a matter of them just living there. It's that they lied about where they were that night. They lied about what they were doing that night. They lied about what they were doing that morning. They lied about how the cottage was found. They lied about everything.

Do people who live in a house automatically lie about living in that house? Do they lie and say, no we weren't at our house at that time, we were actually at another house. Did Amanda say, "Becaues see, even though this is my house and I live here, and i'm going to use that for my "DNA everywehre" argument, actually I was at another house." Even though there is evidence they are lying about that fact?

IMO, they were lying about their alibi. And like I said, they were lying about what they were doing that night. And what theywere doing in the morning. And how they found the cottage, "her home."

I didn't bold the above post.

Another lie AK told is that she and Meredith were friends. This is from the above article;

<modsnip>

This is also very interesting from Filomena's testimony;
<modsnip>

 

[otto]

Some thoughts: While dna and forensic evidence is extremely important and necessary in the legal sense, a grasp of the psychology of a crime goes a long way toward making one a "believer" or not ....In any case, I find the psychology of motive massively important...

I am aware that statement analysis is something which cannot be as "scientific" as blood evidence or dna, I do think that there are a couple of things in the email which do point toward a scenario and how it developed:

As I have mentioned many times, the fact that the statement analysis showed that something "out of the ordinary" probably did occur after lunch on Nov 1, prior to "saying goodbye" to Meredith has always made me ponder that some resentment carried over into the evening, making them return to the cottage. I also felt it was telling that in her email, Amanda did not write, "Meredith still had her Halloween makeup on from the night before" - what she did write was that the costume was still dripping blood. Imagine having resentment and an altercation, and the person has blood dripping from their mouth. It might put an idea in your head. Especially if one had a few problems with jealousy, envy, etc.

*And why is it that no one has thought that the altercation (begun early in the day, and carried on later) might have revolved around Meredith "stealing" her job, and her popularity at LeChic? It might explain the accusation against PL too.

The conflict could have been brewing for a couple of days. Knox had been demoted to handed out flyers at La Chic, and Meredith had been offerred a job mixing drinks at La Chic. On Halloween night, Knox was alone while Meredith attended a couple of parties with friends. Knox tried to contact Meredith several times throughout the night, but Meredith did not reply. Meredith and Knox next saw each other when Sollecito and Knox were eating lunch at the cottage. Sollecito reported that Meredith showered, dressed and left without stating what she was doing. The next interaction between Knox and Meredith would be when Knox showed up with strange men, drugs and a party attitude when Meredith wanted to quietly study.

 

[aa9511]

Luminol does have some limitations however. It is not specific to human blood (presumptive test). That means that it will react to the blood of other mammals the same as it will with humans. In fact, Luminol will react with substances other than blood such as iron, copper, certain vegetables, and cleaners like bleach. Criminalists call this reaction a “false-positive“. A well-trained criminalist can often tell the difference between a Luminol reaction with bleach (for example) versus one with blood. Bleach reacts with a glittering appearance in bright points of light throughout the reaction area. Blood will have a more subtle and uniform glow.

http://forensics4fiction.com/2011/05/27/luminol-the-magical-blood-reagent/

BUt if Luminol reacts to protein, it would not react to bleach. Becauase bleach doens't contain protein. I don't know where this information about reacting with bleach comes from, but I'm beginning to question more and more if it is even true!!! Maybe it's a rumor that has been spread and spread by the internet!

I can understand things like the vegetable or other blood, becauase those would contain protein. But unless decided to take a vegetable bath (never heard of that one!), or walked around in skunk blood, I don't understand why these other "scenarios" are even being considered as possibilities!

 

[TorisMom003]

Meredith's blood and Knox's DNA were on a piece of broken glass in Filomina's bedroom. Other than the night of the murder, the window was not broken and there was no glass on the floor, so the evidence can be dated to the night of the murder.

I was sure that it was known that blood and DNA could be on a window before the window was broken. Apparently I was wrong. There is nothing to prove that the mixed DNA was placed in the room the night of the murder.

 

[SMK]

The conflict could have been brewing for a couple of days. Knox had been demoted to handed out flyers at La Chic, and Meredith had been offerred a job mixing drinks at La Chic. On Halloween night, Knox was alone while Meredith attended a couple of parties with friends. Knox tried to contact Meredith several times throughout the night, but Meredith did not reply. Meredith and Knox next saw each other when Sollecito and Knox were eating lunch at the cottage. Sollecito reported that Meredith showered, dressed and left without stating what she was doing. The next interaction between Knox and Meredith would be when Knox showed up with strange men, drugs and a party attitude when Meredith wanted to quietly study.

Yes, the job demotion while MK got a better job there, and ignoring her on Halloween could play a big part---But you don't attribute any importance to those 2 statement analysis bits, or believe a small altercation may have occurred that afternoon?

 

[geevee]

I think it does matter about the sensitivities. There would be a difference between maybe, how fresh the blood is, maybe one test would detect more fresh blood which has not been degraded by exposure to air, etc., also they are footprints so as each step is taken, the sequential step would have less and less blood on it.

I have always heard of Luminol in relation to forensics in criminal cases. If Luminol is so overarching and reacts with numerious things, why is it used so frequently and apparently, non-disputably, in murder cases all the time?

I think Luminol is now used to highligh possible blood, then the possible blood is tested further to ensure it is human blood and then tested to get a DNA profile to match to victim or assailant. I don't think anyone uses only Luminol anymore as they know (at least now) all the things it will react to other than human blood.

 

[Yellow]

I think it does matter about the sensitivities. There would be a difference between maybe, how fresh the blood is, maybe one test would detect more fresh blood which has not been degraded by exposure to air, etc., also they are footprints so as each step is taken, the sequential step would have less and less blood on it.

I have always heard of Luminol in relation to forensics in criminal cases. If Luminol is so overarching and reacts with numerious things, why is it used so frequently and apparently, non-disputably, in murder cases all the time?

I think luminol is the standard test, and the reason we do not hear about this t test is bc the defense does not contest that it is blood. Here there was dispute so they did anothe tests and that was negative.

A scientist would have to opine on sensitivities but those prints would have alot of blood, you would not need to go to 1 in a million or whatever to detect blood. I also do not see the prosecution challenging the t test, saying it is not reliable. I would be interested to know if they presented evidence in court on why this t test should be disbelieved. If not they have not met their burden.

 

[Yellow]

I was sure that it was known that blood and DNA could be on a window before the window was broken. Apparently I was wrong. There is nothing to prove that the mixed DNA was placed in the room the night of the murder.

AK could also have stepped in blood left by RG at some point and trailed that around.

 

[TorisMom003]

BUt if Luminol reacts to protein, it would not react to bleach. Becauase bleach doens't contain protein. I don't know where this information about reacting with bleach comes from, but I'm beginning to question more and more if it is even true!!! Maybe it's a rumor that has been spread and spread by the internet!

I can understand things like the vegetable or other blood, becauase those would contain protein. But unless decided to take a vegetable bath (never heard of that one!), or walked around in skunk blood, I don't understand why these other "scenarios" are even being considered as possibilities!

That luminol will react with bleach is not some rumor that has been spread by the internet. There were two different links given that prove that luminol does in fact react with things other than blood, one being bleach. As it defies the "proof" that it was in fact blood that the luminol reacted with, it is not being believed. That is fine, if one choses not to believe it that is ones choice. However, it has been proven that luminol does react and give a false positive with things other than blood. That is why further testing is always needed.

 

[otto]

The shutters weren't closed. They were open like this;

That is why a rock thrown from the balcony couldn't have hit the window. (That is not a picture of the actual window. It's just to show how the shutters would have blocked the shot.)

This link has some great stuff in it; http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Massei_Trial#Filomena_Romanelli

<modsnip>



By the time the police arrived the blood was dried. The technicians were in full gear, including booties, that would ensure no contamination of the crime scene.



Do you have a link for that? I've never heard that before.
<modsnip>

This is also very interesting from Filomena's testimony;

<modsnip>

Wow! Thank you for putting that together. That summary of testimony with references certainly explains the basis for the prosecution conjecture about motive.

It also answers the question about the washing machine where three witnesses believed that the laundry had just been done.