Hi everyone, I'm a new poster here but have been following this case closely ever since the first trial in 2009. As a means of introduction, I hold a dual MD/PhD degree with my PhD in genetics (although I have no significant expertise in forensic DNA analysis). I have spent the last 30 years as an academic radiologist. That means I do day-to-day radiology, teach medical students and radiology residents and do research. For 5 years I served as the forensic radiology consultant for the state of Virginia mostly helping identify victim's remains. Thus, I have some experience in how murder investigations are conducted. As I said above, I am a new POSTER to this sight but have been following the discussions here, at pro-inocense and pro-guilt as well as other neutral sights for some time now: therefore, I am familiar with the evidence and the arguments both for and against guilt. I must admit that my knowledge of this case's details is not as encyclopedic as some of yours on this site.
With that preamble, and recognizing that this site is dedicated to finding THE TRUTH of various criminal cases, I would like to ask everyone on this site the following simple question (and I do so with no axe to grind). If you were a member of the current jury, could you honestly find AK and RS quilty, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT?
Trying to keep an open mind, I have looked at the evidence and could NOT in clear conscience vote guilty. I am torn between innocent and not guilty.
I doubt that we will ever KNOW, with certainty, what happened the night of the murder (unless one of the 3 suspects eventually confesses) but I could not vote guilty for the following reasons:
1) This investigation was flawed from the beginning. Collection of evidence was done by people who either didn't know proper technique, didn't care or worse, purposely cherry-picked what evidence to collect. I offer as evidence the commical video of Steffanoni (sp?) and her underlings handeling the bra clasp and the failure to analyze the apparent semen stain. Additionally, a couple of computer harddrives were fried. Was this incompetence or was there a more malevolent motive like destroying exculpatory evidence. I would like to believe the former but I'm not sure.
2) The interrogation of AK seems to have violated accepted standards (no lawyer provided, a biased translator, possible physical abuse (especially in light of the physical abuse described by Patrick L) and to top it off failure to record the interrogation. I honestly can't buy the argument that AK and RS were not suspects at the time of the interrogation, of course they were.
3) The scientific work by Steffanoni was incompetent at best and at worst criminally culpable.
A) The analysis of the DNA sample on the knife purportedly matching MK's DNA was not carried out to international standards and would not be admitted as evidence in most European and North American courts. I also can't buy the argument that the knife taken from RS's apartment is "compatible" with the blood stain found on the sheet in MK's room. It doesn't pass the eye test.
B) RS's DNA on the bra clasp also has problems.
1) It was found days later at a site 1 1/2 meters from it's original
site.
2) The material to which it was attached was initially white and by
the time it was collected had turned gray.
3) How does one get one's DNA ONLY on the clasp and not the
material?
4) It seems somewhat coincidental that Steffanoni decided to collect
the clasp only AFTER the only evidence linking RS to the murder
(the bloody shoeprint initially attributed to RS but later shown to
match a shoe RG disposed of while in Germay) was discredited.
Why was it not collected earlier and why was it's collection so
throughly documented. It's as if she KNEW it was going to
contain RS's DNA.
5) My understanding is that somewhere between 2 and 4 other
people's DNA was found on the clasp or the material to which the
clasp was attached. Why weren't the people who collected the
clasp sampled to see if their DNA matched one of the 4. If it did
it would prove contamination.
C) The luminal+ footprints are problematic. They tested- with TMB. In
forensic labs that I'm aware of, this combination would have
precipitated the need for further testing. Steffanoni did NOT do these
follow-up tests and in fact initially lied about the TMB tests being
done. Why?
4) The prosecution has offered no consistent motive for the murder. I know the pro-gulit people point to the prank that AK apparently played on her roommates while in college but I tend to dismiss that as significant from personal experience. While I was a student, at an Ivy League college, I belonged to a fraternity. It was the custom to allow the pledges, who were near initiation, one night where they could seek revenge on a brother, if they could get away with it, without the other brothers finding out and preventing the prank. My senior year, I did not live in the fraternity house but rather served as a counselor in a freshman dorm. I was easy pickens. The pledges, kidnapped me from my room, stripped me down to my underwear, hogtied me and drove me to my future inlaw's home, 10 miles from campus. They put me on the frontlawn, rang the doorbell and when my future mother-in-law came to door, they leaned out of the car, and said, "Do you know Bill C? He's on your front lawn after we showed him who's boss." They then drove away. Needless to say, she freaked out. She didn't think the prank was very funny and at the time neither did I. Now both she and I think back on the incident and laugh. I mention this because NONE of the people committing the prank have ever done anything criminally violent and to my knowledge have never in any way had problems with the law. My prank was somewhat violent. AK's was not, so I think it's a little far fetched to presume that a college prank is evidence of future wrongdoings.
5) The prosecution has NEVER presented a timeline that fits the 3 suspects' involvement and the evidence. In fact they have never presented a consistent timeline at all.
A) RG's testimony, MK's stomach contents not reaching the duodenum and the "stolen phones being sending signals from a place relatively far from the house at 10:13pm strongly suggest that the murder occurred sometime probably between 9-10pm. If the drug addict who purportedly saw AK and RS at the park from 9:30-12, is to be believed (which I do not), AK and RS therefore would have had to killed MK between 9 and 9:30 pm. Unfortunately, for the prosecution, there is evidence that places AK and RS at RS house until 9:21pm watching a movie. It would be quite a trick for them to leave the house, meet up with RG (who by the way they apparently "knew" only in the most superficial way, if at all (at least in RS's case), kill MK and dump the phones someways from the apartment by 10:13 at the latest much less 9:30 as implied by the drug addicted witness.
6) I feel that the evidence of a staged robbery and coverup is tenuous. The British channel 5 documentary convinced me that a person could climb up to the window after throwing a 9 pound rock thru the window from below. Their forensic glass expert said the individual glass shards could be examined to determine the direction of breakage. This was never done. Why not? Poor police work! There is damage to the inside shudder with glass imbedded in it to suggest that the window was broken from the outside. It is my understanding that a shard of glass from the window was found in MK's room. This would imply that whoever "staged" the break in would have had to go back into the murder room. Why would AK or RS risk leaving traces of themselves in the murder room if they didn't have to?
A) The prosecutors claim that AK and RS cleaned up evidence of their presence the next day. It seems highly unlikely they would be able to remove evidence of their presence from the murder room while leaving copious evidence of RG's involvement. Outside the room could be a different story although I honestly doubt it. How could they clean the hallway of most blood evidence, leave some bloody footprints (RG's) and other luminol+/TMB- footprints without leaving the luminol smear that one typically sees following blood cleanup attempts?
B) The footprint on the bathmat is somewhat difficult to explain. There is no DEFINITIVE evidence that it belongs to RS. In fact, to my eyes it could just as easily belong to RG. I am usually not one for proposing untested scenarios but in this case, I will. Suppose RG got one leg of his pants but not his shoes soaked in blood during the murder. He went into the bathroom wearing his shoes, took one of them off, and attempted to rinse his trouser leg off in the bidet. Some of the blood from the trousers washed down and covered his foot. Stepping out of the bidet he placed one foot on the bathmat leaving the stain (which if I'm not mistaken was felt to be diluted blood: I may be wrong on this point). He them put his shoe back on and attempted to leave the house. While walking down the hall his wet paints leg, still partly bloody dripped onto his shoe accounting for the bloody shoe prints leading to the door.
7) Why did AK NOT notice the foot print on the following morning when she took a shower? I admit this bothered me a little until I saw the video of the bathroom taken shortly after the murder was discovered. In viewing that video, the foot print appeared rather inconspicuous to my eyes and could easily be mistaken for a dirty footprint (remember the blood appears diluted) if one is not suspicious that something violent had occurred. Remember all, her roommates stated that AK was not the most tidy of housekeepers so a dirty bathmat probably would not bother her.
Things I still don't have an explanation for:
1) The woman who heard the scream. I suspect there was a scream but when? RG claims there was a scream at 9:30 pm. How would he benefit from misstating the time he heard the scream? The woman claims that it was sometime after 10 but can't pinpoint it. Her daughter never heard a scream and the people in the broken down car outside claim to have heard nothing from (if I remember correctly) 9:30-11:30.
2) I don't know the significance of the shop owner who claims that AK was waiting for him to open at 7:30 the day after the murder to buy bleach but apparently she left without buying any (there's no receipt). Why would she need to buy bleach when there was plenty in RS flat.
3) AK's "peculiar' behavior at multiple phases of the investigation. I admit that I probably would not have done some of the things she has done, such as recently admitting that she would technically be a fugitive if the current trial ends in a guilty verdict and admitting to the collegiate prank. But if anything this shows poor judgement and a sort of naiveté, NOT guilt. It's the same poor judgement she exhibited in wearing the "all you need is love" teeshirt to the first trial.
Even though I can't explain all aspects of this crime, as a scientist and someone who believes in justice, I need to have proof BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT before I would send 2 people to jail for a large portion of their lives. In this case, the evidence that I'm aware of doesn't begin to approach that standard. Am I convinced they are innocent BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT? No, but I am much closer to reaching this standard and fortunately for AK and RS this is NOT the standard they are expected to prove. if I were a jury member, I would have to vote at least NOT GUILTY but would consider INNOCENT.
