Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #15

[emyr]

I just read the endless discussion about DNA in the Messai report. I don't think the knife is admissable as evidence. The whole below RFU 50, and ignoring certain peaks in favor of others convinces me. i.e. the amount tested is below what is considered a reliable amount to be tested, the results are below the minimum threshold in consideration of "noise" marring the result, and the results are indicitive of cherry picking to make the dna match the desired result (choosing to ignore specific allelles over others.)

My word, reading through was tedious.

That being said, I'm not sure the bra clasp can be ruled contaminated. Though there is some evidence of cherry picking the desired result (certain allelles not considered as part of the profile). THe explanations are so dense, I will need to re-read them fresh.

 

[SMK]

right...

Rudy Guede's attorney, Walter Biscotti, came out of the interrogation (which lasted more than 7 hours) and said that Rudy claims to be innocent, he admits his presence, admits contacts with Meredith but he says he didn't kill her.
Biscotti specifies that "He didn't name anyone because there's no one to be named". He didn’t see the murderer well in the face, but an attempt of describing the person more precisely will be done on a meeting which is to be settled by judges for the purpose.
Walter specified that no pictures of suspects have been shown to Rudy.
And Rudy doesn't know Raffaele and knew Amanda just by sight.
zimbio.com​

So this discounts any 3 on 1 theory. Rudy's story makes things less believable. ETA: Wish this would all be over, because at this point speculation will not matter; it is in the court's hands and down to the wire. Here is what an expert on Perugia Murder File is predicting: Let's hope it is way off base:

I would attach the following probabilities:
- 70-80% confirmation (which means any penalty above 21 years, statutory minimum for murder - up to 25-26).
- 1% acquittal or strong reduction (eg manslaughter or other reason).
- 19-29% Life or penalty higher than 25-26 years (eg 30 years)

 

[emyr]

Alright, I'm fatigued. I see plausible explanations for the evidence except for the following things:

1) DNA on bra clasp. (The case against cross contamination in the Messai report is convincing. Someone will need to give me a scientific forensic explanation of why this evidence needs to be dismissed. OR simply say you think the evidence was planted.)

2) Luminol footprints. (I need a forensic explanation of why they can be dismissed. This might be the shower cleaning explanation, but I don't understand why her right foot would flouresce and not her left... also why her bare right foot is in FR's room. One would think if she saw the broken window while in bare feet she would have freaked out and called the police immediately. Or is there not a bare foot print in Romanellia's room? I am very unclear on this evidence.)

3) A logistical explanation of how Rudy's footprints occurred. If they leave in blood directly out the door, then you have to explain the sequence that involves getting rid of the phones, stealing the money from the purse, washing off in the bathroom, getting the keys and locking the doors. i.e. if the bottom of his shoes are bloody, you would see them go into the bathroom, or pause at the door to lock it. etc.

I think if you can't find a plausible explanation for each of these three pieces of evidence then the defense loses.

 

[otto]

You are both correct and incorrect. Raf's last proven sighting is around 8:40 (when that girl come by to tell him she didn't need him to help with the suitcase). And at 5:34 am he launched itunes. I'm not sure (someone help me out) whether it can be proven he clicked to close the movie window or whether it could just end on its own. If the click to close registered, then we can place him at his apartment at 9:10pm. Conversely, since we know he was there at 8:40 pm, we would have to think that he and Amanda left the movie playing on the laptop as they were leaving.

That's all that can be definitively proven. HOwever, the Messai report clearly states that there is data loss evident from the fact that they know a specific file was played after the date in question but before the computer came into evidence, and that missing file indicates there could be other missing information. (see page 309 of the report). Specifically Raffaele said he played Stardust, and the last modified date for that film was 4 days after Meredith died, erasing the fact that he may have watched it that night.

I don't know if the time of death can be definitively narrowed for sure less than 9:00-12:10. Anyone? 100% certainty?

Regarding the movie ending at 9:10:

"The dead system confirmed that the last access (‚the system closed the program‛, is how Vice-Captain Trotta expressed it, on page 31, meaning that the ‚closure‛ could be correlated as much to the human activity needed to stop the playing of the film, as to the natural conclusion with the scrolling of the end credits, a place at which the end of the ‚film‛ itself would have undertaken a last interaction with the system, irrespective of the physical presence of a user), took place at 21:10:32 on the 1 November."

pg 304; Massei Report

Raffaele used file sharing, apparently his computer was turned on the night he was arrested, so the Stardust file was accessed that night. What is surprising is that he/lawyer didn't look for an external confirmation (like file sharing host) to confirm the download after 9:10 that evening:

"But the Stardust files remained on Raffaele Sollecito’s computer in a folder shared with the Internet, such that, for these, a ‚last access‛ occurred right on the night of 6-Nov-2007, at 02:47, during the time period in which Raffaele and Amanda were being held in the Questura [Police Headquarters].

The fact that the Encase system registers a "last modified" entry during the night of 6-Nov-2007 for the Stardust files constitutes the confirmation that there has been a loss of data. ... the access in question is not even referable to the computer user but [can be referred] to anyone at all around the world [quisque de populo] with a P2P program requesting the sharing of the files from the dedicated folder on Sollecito’s computer."

(your above reference of pg 309)

 

[otto]

No, it does not. It merely means that at some point during those 54 hours (or 40-some per AK's attorney), 12 people were interrogating Knox.

I believe the OP was referring to the two hours before AK's first statement implicating PL.

Personally, while I know that AK was interrogated by a "team" and 12 investigators were available, I do not know if all 12 were ever in the interrogation room at the same time.

What we do know for sure is that it was an ordeal for AK. Otherwise, she wouldn't have put herself at the scene of the crime, must less implicated PL.

Sure. What we know is that during questioning as a witness between 11:30 PM and 1:45 AM, Knox told a pack of lies (or "rubbish" per Sollecito) to police. She lied to police throughout her questioning as a witness, but the last lie, about Patrick, was the whopper that changed her status from witness to suspect. At 1:45 AM, her statement had been written in English and she signed it. After being detained, she demaned to be heard, so the prosecutor was hauled out of bed and required to hear what Knox had to say. The interpreter that assisted with this Knox-statement testified in court (proving any claims about the absence of an interpreter as untrue). At about 5:30 in the morning, Knox signed another English language statement confirming her earlier statement.

NOTE: Neither of these statements were admissable during her trial.

 

[otto]

I just read the endless discussion about DNA in the Messai report. I don't think the knife is admissable as evidence. The whole below RFU 50, and ignoring certain peaks in favor of others convinces me. i.e. the amount tested is below what is considered a reliable amount to be tested, the results are below the minimum threshold in consideration of "noise" marring the result, and the results are indicitive of cherry picking to make the dna match the desired result (choosing to ignore specific allelles over others.)

My word, reading through was tedious.

That being said, I'm not sure the bra clasp can be ruled contaminated. Though there is some evidence of cherry picking the desired result (certain allelles not considered as part of the profile). THe explanations are so dense, I will need to re-read them fresh.

LNC DNA is accepted in many countries including the UK (I think it was also recently used in the Joanna Yeates murder but we'll have to wait for the trial to know for sure), Netherlands, USA and most likely several other countries. The Innocence Project used LNC DNA to help exxonerate Tim Masters, but it seems that the same group now wants to claim that LNC DNA is not reliable. The issue of LNC DNA has been raised in the Anthony trial and it is claimed to be reliable science.

LNC DNA cannot be used to identify an unknown person, but if compared to known persons, it can be matched. I have the charts of the knife DNA so if you'd like to look at the comparison yourself, let me know and I'll post them. The difference between DNA and LNC DNA is that LNC DNA has the same peaks, but they are lower than a full DNA profile.

 

[otto]

There are more scenarios that could fit in with the defense so I was trying to cover them all. Actually I am not so much crafting a case that I would present as prosecution or the defense, I am looking for what the truth is. So what's the most likely scenario if it was all three. And what is the most likely scenario if it was just Rudy. That means, you can't take in any questionable , or unproven evidence. And don't use any testimony from anyone who has an agenda.

For the defense, the points I am uncertain still on, is 1) was meredith moved later, and if so, how much later, or if that is unknown. 2) Were Rudy's footprints laid out in a pattern of running or walking out the door. 3) Was there any indication of wiping away blood in the bathroom or the hallway. 4) The exact scientific data on luminol enhanced footprints, why no one elses footprints luminsced, and when exactly was that luminol testing done. 5) Whether or not the knife originated from the girls apartment or not definitively. (I know they found it at Raf's apartment).

As for my prosecution argument, I think there are things in there which can now be definitively disproven, but if I'm uncertain then I go with my understanding of what is reported. For instance, I do think the time of death has been narrowed, also I think it's been proven that Raf did call the caribineri before the police arrived. But the data I read that on didn't make it fully clear how much time the CCTV camera is off. I'd like to see the raw video and the raw cell phone logs of the arrival of the police and carbineri.

The question of whether Meredith was moved a few hours after the murder is uncertain. There is information that there was blood pooling on one shoulder, which would suggest that she died in a position such that she was rolled slightly onto one of her shoulders. When found, she was lying prone and covered with a duvet. The blood pooling is inconsistent with dying in a prone position.

Guede's footprints go straight from the body in the bedroom and out the front door (luminol evidence). The bloody prints become fainter as he gets closer to the door, but it has been confirmed that the prints do not enter the small bathroom, the large bathroom, or any of the bedrooms. It has been said that he ran out of the house.

Luminol was used to reveal prints in the hallway. The prints were not visible prior to the use of luminol. They have been attributed to Knox. The luminol test was done approx 6 weeks after the murder, which is the standard time delay required for luminol to be most effective with blood evidence.

The 12" knife belonged to Raffaele and was found in Raffaele's apt. He claimed that he playfully pricked Meredith with it when she had dinner at his apt (in his prison diary), but that was proven untrue.

I haven't seen any factual information regarding time of death except 9:00 PM - 12:10 AM.

cell phone logs: pg 316; http://www.westseattleherald.com/si...ttachments/MasseiReportEnglishTranslation.pdf

 

[emyr]

Regarding the movie ending at 9:10:

"The dead system confirmed that the last access (‚the system closed the program‛, is how Vice-Captain Trotta expressed it, on page 31, meaning that the ‚closure‛ could be correlated as much to the human activity needed to stop the playing of the film, as to the natural conclusion with the scrolling of the end credits, a place at which the end of the ‚film‛ itself would have undertaken a last interaction with the system, irrespective of the physical presence of a user), took place at 21:10:32 on the 1 November."

pg 304; Massei Report

Raffaele used file sharing, apparently his computer was turned on the night he was arrested, so the Stardust file was accessed that night. What is surprising is that he/lawyer didn't look for an external confirmation (like file sharing host) to confirm the download after 9:10 that evening:

"But the Stardust files remained on Raffaele Sollecito’s computer in a folder shared with the Internet, such that, for these, a ‚last access‛ occurred right on the night of 6-Nov-2007, at 02:47, during the time period in which Raffaele and Amanda were being held in the Questura [Police Headquarters].

The fact that the Encase system registers a "last modified" entry during the night of 6-Nov-2007 for the Stardust files constitutes the confirmation that there has been a loss of data. ... the access in question is not even referable to the computer user but [can be referred] to anyone at all around the world [quisque de populo] with a P2P program requesting the sharing of the files from the dedicated folder on Sollecito’s computer."

(your above reference of pg 309)

Yes, those are the exact items. You emphasize different points, but the result remains the same. I'm not positive Vice-Captain Trotta knows that the file was closed without having to click it, but I'm not convinced it HAS to be either so I leave it at the 8:40pm mark as the 100% certainty point.

I think, though, your comment about "file sharing host" indicates some confusion on your part. The file was downloaded from itunes, but was in an internet sharing file ON his computer. In the rest of the report they discuss this at length, but having used the same program, the result is that you pre-download the movie, then you can watch it at your leisure from your own computer later. Therefore you are no longer downloading from anywhere else, thus not showing evidence of downloading with your service provider.

In fact, NOT in the Messai report, people who have defended Raffaelle said that the pop up that occured around midnight was perhaps in result to accessing a pre-downloaded movie file and refusing a pop-up to download anything else (as it was an auto-itunes popup). I don't understand that whole thing very well so I don't use it to establish with certanity that they are in fact home at that time.

 

[emyr]

LNC DNA is accepted in many countries including the UK (I think it was also recently used in the Joanna Yeates murder but we'll have to wait for the trial to know for sure), Netherlands, USA and most likely several other countries. The Innocence Project used LNC DNA to help exxonerate Tim Masters, but it seems that the same group now wants to claim that LNC DNA is not reliable. The issue of LNC DNA has been raised in the Anthony trial and it is claimed to be reliable science.

LNC DNA cannot be used to identify an unknown person, but if compared to known persons, it can be matched. I have the charts of the knife DNA so if you'd like to look at the comparison yourself, let me know and I'll post them. The difference between DNA and LNC DNA is that LNC DNA has the same peaks, but they are lower than a full DNA profile.

Sure, I'd like to see it. Against a chart of the other DNA possibilities, not just Meredith's.

In the Tim Masters case, my understanding was that the tests were done blind, and confirmed by a different lab. In this scenario, the test results were read by soemone who knew what DNA they were supposed to be matching. Not good practice.

 

[otto]

Sure, I'd like to see it. Against a chart of the other DNA possibilities, not just Meredith's.

In the Tim Masters case, my understanding was that the tests were done blind, and confirmed by a different lab. In this scenario, the test results were read by soemone who knew what DNA they were supposed to be matching. Not good practice.

The charts I have are for Meredith's DNA and the Knife DNA.

Regarding LNC DNA, I can't remember the correct term right now, but it means that LNC DNA cannot be used to identify someone that is not already included in the sample, as LNC DNA could be matched to more people than regular DNA (that is, the probability that DNA belongs to a particular person is say X, and the probability that LNC DNA belongs to a particular person is X+Y; where X and Y are finite). Given that Meredith is the victim, the cells that were found on the knife blade were compared to her DNA profile. The profiles match, but the LNC DNA readings have lower peaks (on the graph) than her DNA.

I suppose there are other DNA charts available on the internet that you could compare Meredith's LNC DNA to.

I'll dig up the two Meredith results.

 

[otto]

Knife DNA

Meredith's DNA

Overlay

 

[emyr]

The charts I have are for Meredith's DNA and the Knife DNA.

Regarding LNC DNA, I can't remember the correct term right now, but it means that LNC DNA cannot be used to identify someone that is not already included in the sample, as LNC DNA could be matched to more people than regular DNA (that is, the probability that DNA belongs to a particular person is say X, and the probability that LNC DNA belongs to a particular person is X+Y; where X and Y are finite). Given that Meredith is the victim, the cells that were found on the knife blade were compared to her DNA profile. The profiles match, but the LNC DNA readings have lower peaks (on the graph) than her DNA.

I suppose there are other DNA charts available on the internet that you could compare Meredith's LNC DNA to.

I'll dig up the two Meredith results.

Well, based on what you just said, it sounds to me like you can only use LNC DNA to rule out someone. If this DNA can be attrituble to many people in the population, then you have higher chance of IDing the wrong person.

I had my DNA tested 10 years ago to see if I was Native American. (I'm not). It ends up what I did have tested is next to useless. It merely tells me I am of European descent. Along with millions of other people.

 

[wasnt_me]

I just read the endless discussion about DNA in the Messai report. I don't think the knife is admissable as evidence. The whole below RFU 50, and ignoring certain peaks in favor of others convinces me. i.e. the amount tested is below what is considered a reliable amount to be tested, the results are below the minimum threshold in consideration of "noise" marring the result, and the results are indicitive of cherry picking to make the dna match the desired result (choosing to ignore specific allelles over others.)

My word, reading through was tedious.

That being said, I'm not sure the bra clasp can be ruled contaminated. Though there is some evidence of cherry picking the desired result (certain allelles not considered as part of the profile). THe explanations are so dense, I will need to re-read them fresh.

THIS is why the bra clasp needs to be thrown out. Even the investigators at one point considered the bra to be cross contaminated, and this needs to come out in court.

A police source in Perugia said: "The fact that three new traces of DNA have emerged indicates that two other people handled Meredith's bra.
"It does not match with that of the two we have already found and at this stage we do not know who it belongs to.
"This does not mean necessarily that others were involved in her death it could have got there from a third party who had previously handled her bra, possibly her boyfriend however nor can we exclude it.
"It is possible that someone could have picked the bra up while visiting the house, maybe it was hung on a clothes line, all we know for certain is that it does not match any of the suspects.
"At this stage we are keeping an open mind and are carrying out a process of elimination to see if we can restrict the DNA to a specific person."


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-faked-Meredith-sex-attack.html#ixzz1QQsBnreE

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-faked-Meredith-sex-attack.html#ixzz1QLfgzeD4

 

[wasnt_me]

I hope RG's testimony is not the end of the appeal, because we still need to hear about other items raised in the appeal.

the luminol prints, AK's lawyers wrote pages upon pages in the appeal about why those need to be discounted.

RS has computer and alibi information which cannot be ignored in the appeal, and I think they challenge the break-in as well. I'd have to go back through and list all the items that the two have brought up for reexamination, but there's just too much to close the door on the appeal with this little bit of evidence and testimony.

RG's a big deal, though, and in a few short hours, he will be on the stand!!!! Hopefully. Unless he gets all high-blood pressurish and faints out.

 

[wasnt_me]

more on the big event:

http://www.umbria24.it/omicidio-mer...-aula-davanti-ad-amanda-e-raffaele/47830.html

http://www.groundreport.com/Business/Man-Responsible-for-Meredith-Kerchers-Murder-Expec/2939791

http://whtc.com/news/articles/2011/jun/26/knox-murder-appeal-resumes-monday-with-key-witness/

His lawyer Valter Biscotti stressed that Guede's testimony was admitted in reference to that particular claim, and might be limited to that alone. But he said the presiding judge has some leeway to allow some broader questioning.

"He's got nothing to hide and nothing to be afraid of," Biscotti said of his client.

However, when Guede took the stand during the pair's first trial, he declined to answer prosecutors' questions or offer any spontaneous testimony.
...."We are getting ready for a ferocious cross-examination, though it may not be needed," said Luca Maori, a lawyer for Sollecito..

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...uZalzg?docId=4635430fbd6b4a6684f1953b2b269206

 

[otto]

I hope RG's testimony is not the end of the appeal, because we still need to hear about other items raised in the appeal.

the luminol prints, AK's lawyers wrote pages upon pages in the appeal about why those need to be discounted.

RS has computer and alibi information which cannot be ignored in the appeal, and I think they challenge the break-in as well. I'd have to go back through and list all the items that the two have brought up for reexamination, but there's just too much to close the door on the appeal with this little bit of evidence and testimony.

RG's a big deal, though, and in a few short hours, he will be on the stand!!!! Hopefully. Unless he gets all high-blood pressurish and faints out.

It sounds like you're expecting that everything listed in the defense appeal affidavits is going to be reviewed in this appeal ... but that is not what's happening. There were pages and pages of items that the defense wanted the courts to examine during the appeal process, but only three items were accepted: knife DNA, bra clasp DNA and testimony of the homeless guy. Everything else was rejected.

It is interesting, however, that it is acknowledged that there is a long, long list of evidence that will not be reconsidered; which was decided on during trial ... and not merely 3 pieces of evidence in total.

 

[otto]

more on the big event:

http://www.umbria24.it/omicidio-mer...-aula-davanti-ad-amanda-e-raffaele/47830.html

http://www.groundreport.com/Business/Man-Responsible-for-Meredith-Kerchers-Murder-Expec/2939791

http://whtc.com/news/articles/2011/jun/26/knox-murder-appeal-resumes-monday-with-key-witness/

His lawyer Valter Biscotti stressed that Guede's testimony was admitted in reference to that particular claim, and might be limited to that alone. But he said the presiding judge has some leeway to allow some broader questioning.

"He's got nothing to hide and nothing to be afraid of," Biscotti said of his client.

However, when Guede took the stand during the pair's first trial, he declined to answer prosecutors' questions or offer any spontaneous testimony.
...."We are getting ready for a ferocious cross-examination, though it may not be needed," said Luca Maori, a lawyer for Sollecito..

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...uZalzg?docId=4635430fbd6b4a6684f1953b2b269206

The difference is that when he was asked to testify earlier, his case was under appeal and therefore he was not required to testify. Now that his case is over, and there are no more appeals, he is required to testify.

 

[otto]

Well, based on what you just said, it sounds to me like you can only use LNC DNA to rule out someone. If this DNA can be attrituble to many people in the population, then you have higher chance of IDing the wrong person.

I had my DNA tested 10 years ago to see if I was Native American. (I'm not). It ends up what I did have tested is next to useless. It merely tells me I am of European descent. Along with millions of other people.

I'm no expert ... I'm only repeating what is my understanding after reading up a little on DNA.

 

[Nova]

Regarding the movie ending at 9:10:

"The dead system confirmed that the last access (‚the system closed the program‛, is how Vice-Captain Trotta expressed it, on page 31, meaning that the ‚closure‛ could be correlated as much to the human activity needed to stop the playing of the film, as to the natural conclusion with the scrolling of the end credits, a place at which the end of the ‚film‛ itself would have undertaken a last interaction with the system, irrespective of the physical presence of a user), took place at 21:10:32 on the 1 November."

pg 304; Massei Report

Raffaele used file sharing, apparently his computer was turned on the night he was arrested, so the Stardust file was accessed that night. What is surprising is that he/lawyer didn't look for an external confirmation (like file sharing host) to confirm the download after 9:10 that evening:

"But the Stardust files remained on Raffaele Sollecito’s computer in a folder shared with the Internet, such that, for these, a ‚last access‛ occurred right on the night of 6-Nov-2007, at 02:47, during the time period in which Raffaele and Amanda were being held in the Questura [Police Headquarters].

The fact that the Encase system registers a "last modified" entry during the night of 6-Nov-2007 for the Stardust files constitutes the confirmation that there has been a loss of data. ... the access in question is not even referable to the computer user but [can be referred] to anyone at all around the world [quisque de populo] with a P2P program requesting the sharing of the files from the dedicated folder on Sollecito’s computer."

(your above reference of pg 309)

ILE destroyed three out of four hard drives that they investigated. And you want me to take their word on computer usage? I don't think so.

 

[Nova]

Alright, I'm fatigued. I see plausible explanations for the evidence except for the following things:

1) DNA on bra clasp. (The case against cross contamination in the Messai report is convincing. Someone will need to give me a scientific forensic explanation of why this evidence needs to be dismissed. OR simply say you think the evidence was planted.)

We have the ILE techs on tape passing the fragment of bra clasp from person to person and then putting it back down on the floor. That's a half-dozen or so different sets of gloves touching the clasp. Where had all those gloves been, is the question, not whether the defense can prove theoretical contamination?

2) Luminol footprints. (I need a forensic explanation of why they can be dismissed. This might be the shower cleaning explanation, but I don't understand why her right foot would flouresce and not her left... also why her bare right foot is in FR's room. One would think if she saw the broken window while in bare feet she would have freaked out and called the police immediately. Or is there not a bare foot print in Romanellia's room? I am very unclear on this evidence.)

We already know AK saw the broken window, but didn't call police. I think she was intimidated by the prospect of trying to report a break-in in a language she didn't speak. So she turned to RS and FR, both fluent in Italian.

Obviously, her right foot stepped in something her left foot missed. I don't know what. I believe there has been a vehement argument as to whether it was blood.

I don't know why you find this a "smoking gun." AK has admitted to showering and wandering around the apartment on the morning after the murder.

3) A logistical explanation of how Rudy's footprints occurred. If they leave in blood directly out the door, then you have to explain the sequence that involves getting rid of the phones, stealing the money from the purse, washing off in the bathroom, getting the keys and locking the doors. i.e. if the bottom of his shoes are bloody, you would see them go into the bathroom, or pause at the door to lock it. etc.

I think if you can't find a plausible explanation for each of these three pieces of evidence then the defense loses.

I agree this needs to be explained, but I don't see how any of it is incriminating to AK or RS.