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

[Yellow]

And when a presumptive test is negative there is no point in taking any confirmatory tests. A negative DNA test is obviously not conclusive otherwise there wouldn't be any need for further tests after that. Luminol test came first, second the DNA test, third the TMB test. The DNA that was found was LCN and only tested once IIRC. So very small amounts which is in line with the negative TMB test. Negative TMB test is not conclusive either. Overall, there is no conclusive blood test and the assumption that it is blood is not a scientific issue. It is a CSI issue. JMO.

If not blood and not DNA, then what was AK doing that was do nefarious w those footsteps?

 

[geevee]

<modsnip>

Hello,

The spreadsheet definitely doesn't come from Massei. It is a work of a anonymous pro-guilt poster who has been caught posting manipulated photos on JREF forum quite a while ago. I doubt it is accurate.

Welcome to WS!

 

[MichaelSmith]

Guede has every reason to lie about going to the bathroom to get towels because it gives the illusion that he cared. Knox's towel was in her bedroom, and it's quite likely that Meredith kept her towels in her bedroom.

Quite likely? Really? Most people keep their towels in the bathroom.

Why wouldn't Guede just say he found them in her bedroom instead of admitting he went to the bathroom to get them?

 

[whoanellie]

Could you please explain.

The statement in Rudy's diary is evidence. <mod snip>

 

[otto]

And when a presumptive test is negative there is no point in taking any confirmatory tests. A negative DNA test is obviously not conclusive otherwise there wouldn't be any need for further tests after that. Luminol test came first, second the DNA test, third the TMB test. The DNA that was found was LCN and only tested once IIRC. So very small amounts which is in line with the negative TMB test. Negative TMB test is not conclusive either. Overall, there is no conclusive blood test and the assumption that it is blood is not a scientific issue. It is a CSI issue. JMO.

Thank you. That makes so much sense. I know nothing about DNA, so I'm trying to understand something about it based on the discussion. It is so clear when presented in terms of

1. luminol to reveal whether it could be blood
2. DNA to see if that is present (not always present)
3. TMB test to determine whether it is blood

This might be a dumb question, as I'm trying to get it, but:

Is it true that the a lower amount of DNA correlates to lower probability that TMB will confirm blood?

 

[otto]

The statement in Rudy's diary is evidence. Whether you believe it or not is another matter.

I hope we agree on the meaning of "evidence".

I have no doubt that Guede wrote many things in his diary, but it's a bit like reading the diary of Sollecito (remember the story about Meredith having dinner at his apartment) and Knox (what about that email to 23 people).

Writing it does not make it true. Writing in more than once does not make it true.

 

[MichaelSmith]

I hope we agree on the meaning of "evidence".

I have no doubt that Guede wrote many things in his diary, but it's a bit like reading the diary of Sollecito (remember the story about Meredith having dinner at his apartment) and Knox (what about that email to 23 people).

Writing it does not make it true. Writing in more than once does not make it true.

Here he is again on page 4

I was outside, but didn’t know where to go, seeing still all that blood. It was all so red. I thought of going home. I had wet trousers and tried to cover it with the sweatshirt.

Wet trousers from being in the bathroom he admitted going into. He cleaned his pants and left the footprint.

 

[sherlockh]

If not blood and not DNA, then what was AK doing that was do nefarious w those footsteps?

I didn't say no blood. I said the scientific tests were inconclusive. After that it becomes a CSI issue. The internet is full with 'scientific' discussions about these Luminol tests but they never go anywhere. IMO this is no longer a scientific issue after the negative TMB tests.
http://startlingglass.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-meredith-kercher-case-back-to_9.html

 

[miley]

(she) then took the keys out of her purse, opened the door, and we entered. There wasn't anyone in the house because it was dark everywhere, in the kitchen, in the living room, then she yelled "Anybody here,"​

That part I find believable except instead of they entered, he heard the keys and she entered asking "Anybody here"

I find believable too.. maybe, RG hears her coming in, he tries to hide, he bumps something or makes a noise, it's dark and she yells "anybody here " or "Who's there"

Also, I checked the other rooms but everything was in order. So I tried to speak to her and calm her down, saying that a girl shouldn't get upset or she'll get wrinkles, and she laughed. I told her to laugh because everything would eventually work out.​

He'd checked all the rooms for sure. She's freaking out finding him there.

Speak the truth. What are you hiding? If it wasn't Raffaele, who was there on that night? One of your many druggie-lovers you were bringing home? Was he someone from the "Merlin," "Domus," was it all of you downstairs?​

He plays the role of an innocent witness who can't identify the killer. Notice how he even wonders was it everyone from downstairs who did it? In another part of his diary he asks himself "Who is Raffaele"

Right, he shifts blame. "One of your many druggie-lovers you were bringing home? Was he someone from the "Merlin," "Domus," I think here he might be referring to Tramontano, because elsewhere he writes: We tried to go to “Domus,” but Alex couldn’t get in, since he’d fought with one of the club bouncers" When actually, Tramontano had the bouncer remove RG from the club because of the threat he posed (considering he had just caught him breaking into his home).. Rg tried to play it off calling them racist, which is exactly what he said about the (phantom) left-handed Italian who he said killed MK .

Here: He tried to attack me but I took a chair to protect myself, being stronger than him. Although I had a chair and he had a weapon, he exited through the front door telling me "black man found, guilty man found," he yelled.
This is the exact same scenario that happened when Tramontano caught him in the house, except RG reverses their roles. Rg had the knife, picked up the chair and asked if he could leave through the front door.

 

[whoanellie]

I hope we agree on the meaning of "evidence".

I have no doubt that Guede wrote many things in his diary, but it's a bit like reading the diary of Sollecito (remember the story about Meredith having dinner at his apartment) and Knox (what about that email to 23 people).

Writing it does not make it true. Writing in more than once does not make it true.

It doesn't matter whether you believe it and it doesn't even matter whether it is true. The statement written in his diary is evidence. If Rudy wrote in his diary that he was in the bathroom then your statement "There is no evidence that he was in the bathroom." is blatantly false. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "no evidence".

 

[sherlockh]

Thank you. That makes so much sense. I know nothing about DNA, so I'm trying to understand something about it based on the discussion. It is so clear when presented in terms of

1. luminol to reveal whether it could be blood
2. DNA to see if that is present (not always present)
3. TMB test to determine whether it is blood

This might be a dumb question, as I'm trying to get it, but:

Is it true that the a lower amount of DNA correlates to lower probability that TMB will confirm blood?

That makes sense to me although I reasoned the other way around. The more blood, the bigger the chance of DNA being present. If the ratio is 1,000 to 1, red vs white blood cells, then on average you need at least a 1,000 red blood cells until you get a single white blood cell. Luminol is so sensitive that it can react to just a few hundred cells.

Even when there appears to be no signs of blood, luminol will exhibit a chemiluminescence with as little as a few hundred red blood cells.

http://diaryofawickedteen.blogspot.com/2011/08/luminol.html

I don't know how many white cells you need to get DNA, but it is possible there wasn't enough based on the sensitivity of Luminol. So if it was blood, we could conclude there wasn't enough to get DNA, and we know there was not enough for a positive TMB test, which both seems to confirm that there was very little blood. Then I don't really remember if the mixed traces were LCN DNA or not, but the spots had been cleaned so possible one was better cleaned than the other. It all depends. IMO.

 

[Yellow]

This David Camm case tonight on 48 hours gives good insight I think into DNA evidence and reasonable doubts, there, they initially think it is the husband, then they find DNA evidence if a third party. Touch DNA later done by the husband showed this party's DNA was on his wife's panties, and on body of all three victims (wife & children). There was also a palmprint on the car. The killer said, "oh well, I shook hands with the husband and he transferred it." That, I think, is an example of an unreasonable scenario. The killer also alleged multiple contamination of DNA from all over the crime scene - also an unreasonable scenario I believe.

This case is also scary bc it appears that the prosecutor simply did not test alot of areas and they forgot or else lied about finding a Codis hit on DNA. It was the defense who found all this touch DNA pointing to guilt of this third party.

Just an example of a prosecutor looking for evidence to fit his story (the husband did it) rather than who actually did it (a local thief)

Anyway, makes me wonder whether there is all sorts of touch DNA here in AK case that was never analyzed. I bet if you sent another team in now they would find all kinds of stuff - most likely RG touch DNA in more places. I wonder if they even had the capability to do touch DNA and thus did not really do it.

 

[sherlockh]

Here he is again on page 4

Wet trousers from being in the bathroom he admitted going into. He cleaned his pants and left the footprint.

Sounds like he says the upper part of his pants were wet. How else he covered it with his sweatshirt?

 

[otto]

These images were taken from the internet. There are not scaled. Guede's print and the bathmat were one image and I added Sollecito's print. We can see the dimensions in these images. I lined them up using guides. I can post the image with the guides if it helps.



link

 

[otto]

That makes sense to me although I reasoned the other way around. The more blood, the bigger the chance of DNA being present. If the ratio is 1,000 to 1, red vs white blood cells, then on average you need at least a 1,000 red blood cells until you get a single white blood cell. Luminol is so sensitive that it can react to just a few hundred cells.

http://diaryofawickedteen.blogspot.com/2011/08/luminol.html

I don't know how many white cells you need to get DNA, but it is possible there wasn't enough based on the sensitivity of Luminol. So if it was blood, we could conclude there wasn't enough to get DNA, and we know there was not enough for a positive TMB test, which both seems to confirm that there was very little blood. Then I don't really remember if the mixed traces were LCN DNA or not, but the spots had been cleaned so possible one was better cleaned than the other. It all depends. IMO.

Thank you. So the white blood cells contain the DNA and the fewer white blood cells, the less DNA, and the less likely the TMB test will work. Does exposure to air cause the DNA to deteriorate such that over time, DNA detection is less likely?

If DNA fell into the blood, would it preserve the quality of the blood? Probably a dumb question, but I'm curious.

That makes sense. Was there unidentified LCN DNA? Wasn't there a clean sample in Filomina's bedroom of Knox's DNA in Meredith's blood?

 

[otto]

Here he is again on page 4

"I was outside, but didn&#8217;t know where to go, seeing still all that blood. It was all so red. I thought of going home. I had wet trousers and tried to cover it with the sweatshirt."

Wet trousers from being in the bathroom he admitted going into. He cleaned his pants and left the footprint.

Wet trousers covered with a sweatshirt. Why does that remind me of a teenage boy. Instead, we're talking about a twenty year old man that was just involved in a sexual assault that was not confirmed to be a rape.

 

[otto]

It doesn't matter whether you believe it and it doesn't even matter whether it is true. The statement written in his diary is evidence. If Rudy wrote in his diary that he was in the bathroom then your statement "There is no evidence that he was in the bathroom." is blatantly false. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "no evidence".

Guede wrote in his diary that the window was not broken when he left the cottage. Are we going to believe everything in his diary, or only that which serves a single purpose.

I don't believe liars so, as with Sollecito and Knox, I believe anything he says.

 

[otto]

This David Camm case tonight on 48 hours gives good insight I think into DNA evidence and reasonable doubts, there, they initially think it is the husband, then they find DNA evidence if a third party. Touch DNA later done by the husband showed this party's DNA was on his wife's panties, and on body of all three victims (wife & children). There was also a palmprint on the car. The killer said, "oh well, I shook hands with the husband and he transferred it." That, I think, is an example of an unreasonable scenario. The killer also alleged multiple contamination of DNA from all over the crime scene - also an unreasonable scenario I believe.

This case is also scary bc it appears that the prosecutor simply did not test alot of areas and they forgot or else lied about finding a Codis hit on DNA. It was the defense who found all this touch DNA pointing to guilt of this third party.

Just an example of a prosecutor looking for evidence to fit his story (the husband did it) rather than who actually did it (a local thief)

Anyway, makes me wonder whether there is all sorts of touch DNA here in AK case that was never analyzed. I bet if you sent another team in now they would find all kinds of stuff - most likely RG touch DNA in more places. I wonder if they even had the capability to do touch DNA and thus did not really do it.

It sounds like lawyers are aiming for putting scientists out of a job by discrediting DNA on the basis that a single contact can result in secondary transfer to multiple locations. Wasn't it just last week that secondary transfer to multiple locations was successfully argued with a woman and her boss getting away with murder?

Has a complete list of samples taken ever been released?

 

[otto]

are you trying to change the subject?

I'm not sure if we're talking about evidence, or the validity of self serving diaries of convicted murderers. Either way, I am not inclined to believe what Guede wrote about the night of the murder ... in my opinion, it doesn't matter what a convicted murderer said about the towels. If it made him look better, he probably said it.

Meredith was creeped out by Knox's vibrator and the strange men that she brought home. Somehow, I doubt she was taking chances with leaving her towels in the bathroom. Think about it ... and there's the story about how she got the cold sore.

We know that Knox didn't leave her towels in the bathroom. They were in her bedroom and, miraculously, Guede didn't take Knox's towels, only Meredith's towels. Only Meredith left her towels in the bathroom? That doesn't sound right.

 

[MichaelSmith]

Rudy Guede's German diary attached.