Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#12

[otto]

Really? I think it's quite possible that they all only heard Raffaele say what he thought she said, as they were all talking at the same time and she was the only one speaking English. I think many of the "lies" accepted as gospel in this case could have resulted in translation errors, based on the translation from Italian to English I've read (both machine and human); and sometimes from English to Italian back to English.

It's always been said that Sollecito didn't speak English, but suddenly he spoke English and the other six witnesses had to rely on him to understand what Knox stated about Meredith's bedroom door? I don't think so.

Filomina was alarmed when she heard Knox claim that Meredith routinely locked her door. She immediately disagreed with Knox, and stated to police that Meredith had only locked her door when she traveled to England. Filomina insisted that police break down the door and, when the Postal Police asked who would pay damages, she stated that she would pay for damages. Silly lies from Sollecito, a man appealing his murder conviction, in his fictional book do not omit the facts of the case.

 

[aa9511]

I'm not sure how much background you have in DNA analysis, specifically low quantity DNA but in order to do that analysis one has to amplify the DNA sample many many times. In doing so one also amplifies any contamination that may have gotten into that sample. My understanding is that Steffanoni had to amplify this specimen even more than is usually done in order to find ANY identifiable peaks. The one peak she found was a match for MK's DNA. Now, running 2 separate samples during low quantity DNA analysis decreases the likelihood that the peak (s) seen are contaminants. If the DNA is real it will definitely appear in both samples. If it is contaminant it may only appear in one of the samples. Occasionally a contaminant may appear in both samples (the different equipment used to test both samples may all be contaminated). That is why controls are run. Controls are analyzed in the same manner as the samples. The controls contain NO DNA so any peak that shows up during the analysis of the controls must be considered a contaminant. In this case, if MK's DNA peak showed up in the controls, one would rightfully assume that MK's DNA peak in the sample was a contaminant. If the second sample showed a peak that matched MK's DNA and the controls were negative (did not contain MK's DNA) one then could claim with certainty that MK's DNA was on the knife

Therefore, to answer your question, yes the peak that Steffanoni identified, purportedly from the knife, matched MK's DNA profile; however, without a second test and controls no one can say with any degree of scientific certainty whether the peak came from the sample or was a contaminant. Remember, large quantities of MK's DNA were analyzed in that exact laboratory 6 days before the knife was tested to serve as a standard. Who's to say that minute quantities of that DNA were still not present in the lab and were a source of possible contamination. I would also argue that the fact that no blood was found on the knife, makes the contamination explanation more likely. If I am a defendant in a murder trial, I would expect that the tests done of important evidence used to convict me were optimally performed, performed to the Internationally accepted standard. Steffanoni's tests did not meet that criteria. Therefore, that DNA evidence should be thrown out and would have been thrown out in just about every Western justice system except apparently in Italy. Hope this explanation helps.

Ok, thanks, yes that was a very clear explanation.

Please tell me this - if this sample that was tested was so so sooooooooo LOW that the supporters of her innocence are always emphasizing - how is it that in this LOOOOOWWWW sample, managed to land Meredith's DNA from somewhere (contamination)? On that precise, itty-bitty, pinpoint of a place??

 

[otto]

Ok, thanks, yes that was a very clear explanation.

Please tell me this - if this sample that was tested was so so sooooooooo LOW that the supporters of her innocence are always emphasizing - how is it that in this LOOOOOWWWW sample, managed to land Meredith's DNA from somewhere (contamination)? On that precise, itty-bitty, pinpoint of a place??

There were controls in the amplification, but they were not included in Dr Stefanoni's report.

 

[SMK]

No, it's not obvious. They weren't able to show that it was her blood, and there's no obvious connection between the footprints in the hallway and the blood in the bedroom, and by obvious I mean at least a trace of a bare bloody footprint in the bedroom, either visible or shown by luminol or other test.

Luminol showed footprints attributed to Knox and Sollecito, and reacted positively for blood. The only source of blood in the cottage was from the victim, Meredith Kercher. The TMB test which was negative does not negate the luminol test as TMB is less sensitive to blood than is luminol.

Ergo, the presence of these reactive footprints shows that there were others with Guede. It links the defendants to the crime scene.

 

[aa9511]

I doubt you would accept it, but Raffaele has a simple and clear explanation in his book of why the police thought Amanda said that Meredith "always locked her door", when she in fact said the opposite, that Meredith never locked her door except when she went to London - the same thing Filomena said.

His reason was that he (Raffaele) was acting as translator between the police and Amanda, and he misunderstood her. FWIW

Then why wasn't there discussion of breaking down the door at that instant? Why only when Filomena got there and told the police that no, actually, she never locks her door.

 

[MichaelSmith]

Here's a study on luminol and other presumptive testing.
http://projects.nfstc.org/workshops...ffect of Luminol on Presumptive Tests and.pdf

Looking at the chart it shows on tile (cleaned with 10% bleach on a sponge) tmb gave a weak result before luminol and a negative result after luminol was applied. That proves that luminol is the more sensitive test on tile. So a negative tmb test does not absolutely mean its not blood because in this controlled testing it was for sure blood.

This is a bad example because it's after bleach had been applied and bleach was not used at the cottage to clean up blood.

 

[otto]

Then why wasn't there discussion of breaking down the door at that instant? Why only when Filomena got there and told the police that no, actually, she never locks her door.

Filomina, her three friends, the two Postal Police and the two culprits were all present when Knox lied and stated that Meredith normally locked her bedroom door. It is irrelevant what one of the culprits says in his fictional account of the murder, as there were several reliable witnesses that could testify to what Knox said about Meredith's habits with her bedroom door.

 

[quesarita]

Then why wasn't there discussion of breaking down the door at that instant? Why only when Filomena got there and told the police that no, actually, she never locks her door.

In his memoir, the conversation with Filomena was happening at the same time. Both Filomena and Amanda were answering the question at the same time, Amanda using Raffaele as an interpreter.

 

[aa9511]

Lab contamination cannot be ruled out because there are no negative controls and no raw data allowing to see if there was residual contamination with Meredith's DNA also in other samples that underwent amplification and electrophoresis around the time of processing the knife sample.

Of course the Carabinieri were meticulous in providing negative controls and testing the sample more than once. Let's not forget they found no Meredith's DNA

All of this is rather moot for the simple fact that there was no blood on the knife. That makes it most probable Stefanoni's odd result was a contamination with PCR product, i.e. artificial DNA created in lab during testing. Second best that absolutely cannot be ruled out is contamination during all the packaging and repackaging of the knife by the cops that were at Meredith's cottage the same day they collected the knife.

To me the simple fact Amanda and Meredith lived together means any DNA that is not blood is not evidence of anything at all, that's just common sense.

Another thing is that the knife "evidence" must be taken as a whole. That means how it happened to get to the cottage and back again to the drawer, how was the wound the doesn't really match it made, how there is another knife absolutely required, how the cop plucked it by "intuition" from the drawer ( somehow they had no flashes of intuition over the drawer in the cottage that was full of sharp and pointy knives - all never tested).

How to say it? When I have common sense on one side I'd like something more convincing and less complicated and contrived on the other to sway my opinion.

bbm

So Amanda and Meredith living together accounts for Meredith's DNA being found all the way over in a knife in a drawer in Raffaele Sollecito's house?

I suppose the supporters of her innocence now also want "controls" to have been done on every single cell of every single spot of every single square inch of Raffele's house? Even though they did not even do that at the murder cottage itself? But of course, this would be necessary to support the claim that Meredith's DNA has a reason to be at Raffale's house.

 

[quesarita]

Filomina, her three friends, the two Postal Police and the two culprits were all present when Knox lied and stated that Meredith normally locked her bedroom door. It is irrelevant what one of the culprits says in his fictional account of the murder, as there were several reliable witnesses that could testify to what Knox said about Meredith's habits with her bedroom door.

But did the postal police ask Amanda in Italian and receive an answer in Italian? Or did Raffaele translate the question to Amanda and then translate here answer back to the police and everyone else in the room? If so, if the answer was mistranslated, they would have all thought she said the same thing.

 

[otto]

I've never claimed to be an expert in crime scene analysis; and I don't see why my confusion that the same type of testing that was done in the hallway was not done in the bedroom should be taken as a criticism.

My apologies, I wasn't referring to you, I was making a general remark about how many crime scene analysts are sitting at a computer making bold remarks about how the crime scene should have been handled, or how experts should have performed their jobs. I have a feeling that those with the loudest criticisms could be the least qualified to make so many criticisms.

Hampikian, for example, has boldly taken credit for influencing the Conti and Vecchiotti report such that the guilty verdicts were overturned, yet requests for additional information are refused on the basis that this information is a "state secret". If he has valid scientific evidence that is applicable in a public trial, why is his work a secret?

 

[aa9511]

Luminol showed footprints attributed to Knox and Sollecito, and reacted positively for blood. The only source of blood in the cottage was from the victim, Meredith Kercher. The TMB test which was negative does not negate the luminol test as TMB is less sensitive to blood than is luminol.

Ergo, the presence of these reactive footprints shows that there were others with Guede. It links the defendants to the crime scene.

Thank you, SMK, you worded this so well.

:detective::goodpost:

 

[otto]

But did the postal police ask Amanda in Italian and receive an answer in Italian? Or did Raffaele translate the question to Amanda and then translate here answer back to the police and everyone else in the room? If so, if the answer was mistranslated, they would have all thought she said the same thing.

What difference does it make. Sollecito was not the only witness to the statement where Knox claimed that Meredith routinely locked her bedroom door. Sollecito was not the only witness to the discussion about breaking down the door. Filomina heard what Knox said about the door and immediately disagreed with her. Police were inclined to go with Knox and leave the door alone. It was only when Filomina insisted that they break the door, and accepted full financial responsibility, that the door was broken.

Sollecito does have a long history of lying when asked about his activities surrounding the time of the murder.

 

[otto]

In his memoir, the conversation with Filomena was happening at the same time. Both Filomena and Amanda were answering the question at the same time, Amanda using Raffaele as an interpreter.

I'm sure that Sollecito has rewritten history. Does that surprise anyone?

 

[quesarita]

Luminol showed footprints attributed to Knox and Sollecito, and reacted positively for blood. The only source of blood in the cottage was from the victim, Meredith Kercher. The TMB test which was negative does not negate the luminol test as TMB is less sensitive to blood than is luminol.

Ergo, the presence of these reactive footprints shows that there were others with Guede. It links the defendants to the crime scene.

The footprints reacted positively to luminol, and I will agree with you that the reaction was caused by diluted traces of blood. OK?

But there is a lack of those traces in the bedroom, either because they weren't there, were never looked for, or were completely removed (within the confines of the mess).

Outside of the bedroom, there was a bloody footprint on the bath mat, and possibly traces of blood in the shower. It seems more likely to me that someone stepped in trace amounts of blood in the bathroom and left trace amounts on the floor, than that they were able to completely eradicate more intense bloody footprints from the tile (and grout) in the bedroom, but only partially remove, or remove some of lighter footprints walking to and from the bedroom.

Any comments on the last part?

 

[aa9511]

This is a bad example because it's after bleach had been applied and bleach was not used at the cottage to clean up blood.

Oh, that's funny, since I have seen possibly hundreds of thousands of specific studies and specific cases and specific you-tube videos referenced on here which do not match every aspect of this crime exactly, and sometimes do not even match in general.

I think the general conclusion to be drawn is clear from Amber's link.

In fact, I recall one picture being referenced on here several times showing swirling circles in luminol of some case where they had cleaned up with bleach.....that was shown on here several times to try to prove that there should have been swirling circles shown in luminol in this case also, because you see, it was shown in that case.

 

[Harmony 2]

Presumptive positives
In Taylor's case, an alleged blood stain was the only physical evidence tying him to the murder. The presumptive test was positive; the confirmatory test was negative. The lab report made no mention of the negative confirmatory test.

The same thing happened in Allen's case. Prosecutors said the most important evidence that Allen sexually assaulted and killed his girlfriend's daughter was a pair of bloody panties. A presumptive test indicated the stain was blood; two subsequent confirmatory tests were negative. They were not included in the lab report.
In both cases, the SBI lab reports simply said there "were chemical indications of blood." Several North Carolina prosecutors have said they understood this phrase to mean the evidence had blood on it, and they were unaware that confirmatory tests had been negative.

Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson, who dismissed all charges against Derrick Allen, said he was amazed at the difference a few words made.
"He spent 12 years in prison, basically on the interpretation of a phrase," Hudson said. "That shouldn't happen."

http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/12/26/881887/sbi-in-minority-on-test-results.html

Of course the jury that convicted Taylor never heard about negative blood tests or heard from the woman who picked up Taylor and Beck that night after Taylor’s truck got stuck.

Many viewers have also asked if the state compensated Taylor for his wrongful conviction. State law requires wrongfully convicted people to be compensated $50,000 for each year of their imprisonment for up to 15 years, so Taylor received the maximum $750,000. He would be the first to tell you that it doesn’t come remotely close to compensating him for losing 17 years of freedom.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/documentaries/blogpost/10998385/

 

[aa9511]

In his memoir, the conversation with Filomena was happening at the same time. Both Filomena and Amanda were answering the question at the same time, Amanda using Raffaele as an interpreter.

That makes no sense, why would they be asking each separately but simultaneously? Doesn't it makes more sense that the police would be leading and asking the questions, and the young adults would be taking their cues from the police and answering their questions as they were asked? And why would they ask simultaneously the same question from two different people when they were all standing there together?

 

[MichaelSmith]

It's shocking how many crime scene analysis experts are on the internet ... so eager to criticize professionals trained in the job.

Are you sure they were professionals? On the crime scene video they joked about wanting cocaine, forgot the luminol and didn't know how to use the equipment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tigators-joked-taking-cocaine-stay-awake.html

 

[otto]

The footprints reacted positively to luminol, and I will agree with you that the reaction was caused by diluted traces of blood. OK?

But there is a lack of those traces in the bedroom, either because they weren't there, were never looked for, or were completely removed (within the confines of the mess).

Outside of the bedroom, there was a bloody footprint on the bath mat, and possibly traces of blood in the shower. It seems more likely to me that someone stepped in trace amounts of blood in the bathroom and left trace amounts on the floor, than that they were able to completely eradicate more intense bloody footprints from the tile (and grout) in the bedroom, but only partially remove, or remove some of lighter footprints walking to and from the bedroom.

Any comments on the last part?

Knox removed her clothes in her bedroom prior to taking a shower. After taking a shower, she realized that she left her towels in her bedroom. She then did the bathmat shuffle from the bathroom to the bedroom. It's a mystery why she walked to the bathroom freely without her clothes, but needed the bathmat to shuffle back to her bedroom. It sounds more like the bathmat shuffle was related to an explanation for why there were missing footprints.

Email where Knox describes removing her clothing in her bedroom prior to the shower
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox's_Email_Home