Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#13

[otto]

How about testing the members of the team that collected the clasp or for that matter anyone else who entered the murder room after the room was broken into by the police. If there was a match from any of those it would PROVE contamination.

Is it protocol anywhere that evidence is compared to all parties that were at a crime scene?
Is there probable cause for a Judge to demand a DNA sample from the friend of Filomina that broke the door on Meredith's bedroom?

 

[quesarita]

Regarding the print attributed to Knox, the court does not express an opinion, and instead points out that there is ample evidence of Knox barefoot at the crime scene:

"The Court, on this point, takes notice of the opposing conclusions without expressing a specific opinion. It cannot in fact be excluded that Guede alone tread on the cushion ... but, on the contrary ... one must attribute [Knox] moving herself about the murder scene essentially in bare feet, as shown in the part of the report that examines the genetic investigations that were done on certain biological traces and the positive Luminol prints."

Massei Report; pg 344

There is zero evidence of Knox's bare footprints in this spot just inside Meredith's door, or anywhere inside the bedroom. IMO the photo analysis matching all 5 shoe prints on the pillow case that Harmony posted above is amply convincing.

It's a huge and unnecessary leap of faith IMO to assume that the footprints in the hallway could only have been made by someone stepping in a pool of blood in the bedroom, when her blood was also found outside the bedroom, and no bare prints are in the bedroom.

I have a hard time believing they did no luminol testing in the bedroom, especially at the area in the attached photo. IMO they tested there and found no trace of prints or cleaned prints and threw away the results.

 

[otto]

There is zero evidence of Knox's bare footprints in this spot just inside Meredith's door, or anywhere inside the bedroom. IMO the photo analysis matching all 5 shoe prints on the pillow case that Harmony posted above is amply convincing.

It's a huge and unnecessary leap of faith IMO to assume that the footprints in the hallway could only have been made by someone stepping in a pool of blood in the bedroom, when her blood was also found outside the bedroom, and no bare prints are in the bedroom.

I have a hard time believing they did no luminol testing in the bedroom, especially at the area in the attached photo. IMO they tested there and found no trace of prints or cleaned prints and threw away the results.

The Massei Report does not make any "huge and unnecessary leap of faith", but is instead a well reasoned document that summarizes all opinions prior to drawing conclusions. The conclusion regarding the print on the pillow is that no conclusions will be drawn. Instead, the Judge refers to ample evidence that demonstrates Knox moved around the crime scene barefoot (which is summarized in another section of the document).

I don't see any upside to identifying the second male contributor in the DNA sample that implicates Sollecito, and I don't see any upside to applying luminol to visible prints. Luminol is used to reconstruct the movements of the guilty parties during the murder. Whether Knox huddled just inside Meredith's bedroom, near the door, or not, does not seem to add anything to an understanding of the murder.

The court does conclude that the prints made by Knox were the result of contact with blood.

 

[quesarita]

The Massei Report does not make any "huge and unnecessary leap of faith", but is instead a well reasoned document that summarizes all opinions prior to drawing conclusions. The conclusion regarding the print on the pillow is that no conclusions will be drawn. Instead, the Judge refers to ample evidence that demonstrates Knox moved around the crime scene barefoot (which is summarized in another section of the document).

I don't see any upside to identifying the second male contributor in the DNA sample that implicates Sollecito, and I don't see any upside to applying luminol to visible prints. Luminol is used to reconstruct the movements of the guilty parties during the murder. Whether Knox huddled just inside Meredith's bedroom, near the door, or not, does not seem to add anything to an understanding of the murder.

The court does conclude that the prints made by Knox were the result of contact with blood.

They did apply luminol to other areas with visible shoe prints so that is not the reason there is no report of luminol testing in the bedroom. Why throw in an extraneous comment about Amanda "huddling?" There's not a single bare print of hers in the bedroom, which that super sensitive luminol should have detected.

The single partial shoe print clearly matches the other prints around the room and in the hallway per the analysis above. Those shoe prints show a continuous reconstruction of Rudy's movements from the body out the door.

 

[otto]

They did apply luminol to other areas with visible shoe prints so that is not the reason there is no report of luminol testing in the bedroom. Why throw in an extraneous comment about Amanda "huddling?" There's not a single bare print of hers in the bedroom, which that super sensitive luminol should have detected.

The single partial shoe print clearly matches the other prints around the room and in the hallway per the analysis above. Those shoe prints show a continuous reconstruction of Rudy's movements from the body out the door.

Her lamp was just behind the door ... was she squatting rather than huddling?

It seems important to the defense to criticize investigators for not demanding, without probable cause, that all males with any association with Meredith provide a DNA sample. Because identifying the identify of the contributor would not change the outcome, it appears to be a criticism of investigators for the sake of criticizing the investigators. It also appears to be a criticism of investigators that there is a spot on the floor which cannot be verified, one way or the other, that luminol was applied. It would not change the outcome if Luminol was applied to the area surrounding Knox's lamp.

If the defense wants to make a point about who was squatting or huddling beside the lamp on the floor behind the door, there should have been a request that the lamp be tested.

(still haven't seen a link stating that luminol was not applied at the entrance to Meredith's bedroom)

 

[Harmony 2]

The undisturbed glass sitting on the exterior ledge of the window had to be removed if someone was going to climb through that right-side shutter and right-side window. If it wasn't removed, it would have resulted in cuts, or fallen to the ground. It was suggested that Guede removed the glass from the window sill, before he climbed through the window, placing it on the ledge in the exact spot where he would need to perch in order to climb through the window. If Guede was interested in throwing rocks, smearing his bloody hands on the wall and leaving his toilet unflushed, why would he neatly line up glass in a location that interfered with his burglary?

note: responding to the bbm

FWIW, the information can be taken as rumor as it came from a book but I found this little tidbit interesting:

According to Nina Burliegh, author of A Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox, on page 127 she writes that Rudy had moved bits of glass from where the window had been broken at the lawyer's office and arranged them in a neat little pile in another room. She also claims he neatly lined up utensils and a screwdriver on a lawyer's briefcase.

http://books.google.com/books?id=XZ...4Dg&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAg#v=snippet&q=glass&f=false

 

[Harmony 2]

Her lamp was just behind the door ... was she squatting rather than huddling?

It seems important to the defense to criticize investigators for not demanding, without probable cause, that all males with any association with Meredith provide a DNA sample. Because identifying the identify of the contributor would not change the outcome, it appears to be a criticism of investigators for the sake of criticizing the investigators. It also appears to be a criticism of investigators that there is a spot on the floor which cannot be verified, one way or the other, that luminol was applied. It would not change the outcome if Luminol was applied to the area surrounding Knox's lamp.

If the defense wants to make a point about who was squatting or huddling beside the lamp on the floor behind the door, there should have been a request that the lamp be tested.

(still haven't seen a link stating that luminol was not applied at the entrance to Meredith's bedroom)

responding to bbm
Meredith's bedroom is not listed...

Page 194

She then explained the results obtained from the Luminol tests, stating that "this test was performed during the second search, at the end of all the other activities, on the floor of the following areas: Filomena Romanelli's room, Amanda Knox's room, the corridor, the living room-kitchen corner and the larger bathroom" (p. 83 of the transcripts). She pointed out that on the basis of this test, she could not say with certainty that blood was present, since other substances as well may cause Luminol to glow.

http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/TheMasseiReport.pdf

 

[quesarita]

Her lamp was just behind the door ... was she squatting rather than huddling?

It seems important to the defense to criticize investigators for not demanding, without probable cause, that all males with any association with Meredith provide a DNA sample. Because identifying the identify of the contributor would not change the outcome, it appears to be a criticism of investigators for the sake of criticizing the investigators. It also appears to be a criticism of investigators that there is a spot on the floor which cannot be verified, one way or the other, that luminol was applied. It would not change the outcome if Luminol was applied to the area surrounding Knox's lamp.

If the defense wants to make a point about who was squatting or huddling beside the lamp on the floor behind the door, there should have been a request that the lamp be tested.

(still haven't seen a link stating that luminol was not applied at the entrance to Meredith's bedroom)

I said nothing about squatting or huddling or the lamp. The area in the photo is the only way in or out of the room. It's where someone who stepped in blood in the bedroom would have to put their bloody footprints to get out of the room, as Rudy clearly did.

 

[otto]

I see the report also says that the kitchen, living room and large bathroom gave negative results for luminol, which would negate any suggestion that there other prints in that area and that they were omitted from trial evidence.

 

[otto]

I said nothing about squatting or huddling or the lamp. The area in the photo is the only way in or out of the room. It's where someone who stepped in blood in the bedroom would have to put their bloody footprints to get out of the room, as Rudy clearly did.

The lamp was behind Meredith's door. Luminol application in the area of Meredith's door, which is where the lamp was found, might reveal who moved the lamp. It might not. It seems obvious that Knox and Sollecito stepped in the blood before exiting the bedroom because their bloody barefoot prints are found outside the bedroom. If there is a blood pool at Point A and evidence from that blood pool at Point C, we can conclude that someone passed through Point B (Meredith's door) to track the blood from Point A to Point C. We don't need to see a footprint at Point B to know this.

Guede's prints in the hallway tell us what Guede did after leaving the bedroom. Knox's prints in the hallway tell us what she did after leaving the bedroom. Isn't that what is important?

 

[otto]

note: responding to the bbm

FWIW, the information can be taken as rumor as it came from a book but I found this little tidbit interesting:

According to Nina Burliegh, author of A Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox, on page 127 she writes that Rudy had moved bits of glass from where the window had been broken at the lawyer's office and arranged them in a neat little pile in another room. She also claims he neatly lined up utensils and a screwdriver on a lawyer's briefcase.

http://books.google.com/books?id=XZ...4Dg&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAg#v=snippet&q=glass&f=false

Page 127 is not available in the online version of the book. Does the author provide a reference, or source, for that information?

 

[SMK]

Page 127 is not available in the online version of the book. Does the author provide a reference, or source, for that information?

It would be interesting to know what the source is. If the fact of Guede's tidying up the lawyer's office is on an official report, then it would make the glass pile on Filomena's window sill take on a different meaning. Problem is, I cannot find any report on this, anywhere.

 

[otto]

It would be interesting to know what the source is. If the fact of Guede's tidying up the lawyer's office is on an official report, then it would make the glass pile on Filomena's window sill take on a different meaning. Problem is, I cannot find any report on this, anywhere.

There are some sources at the end of the book, but Guede's lawyer, Meredith's family and Meredith's friends all refused communication from the author.

 

[SMK]

There are some sources at the end of the book, but Guede's lawyer, Meredith's family and Meredith's friends all refused communication from the author.

Presumably because they thought she was biased in favor of Knox?

OK- well according to her journalistic method, she would have gotten that information about Rudy and the neat piles of glass and tools from a primary document, a secondary reference, or an interview.

 

[otto]

Presumably because they thought she was biased in favor of Knox?

OK- well according to her journalistic method, she would have gotten that information about Rudy and the neat piles of glass and tools from a primary document, a secondary reference, or an interview.

Apparently the author sent a letter directly to Guede and she got a response directly from Guede lawyer to cease all communication with his client. How is she with the rest of her information?

 

[Harmony 2]

Presumably because they thought she was biased in favor of Knox?

OK- well according to her journalistic method, she would have gotten that information about Rudy and the neat piles of glass and tools from a primary document, a secondary reference, or an interview.

I agree about her journalistic method. I don't know specifically where the information about Rudy came from. My understanding is that she lived in Perugia for a year so it is possible she interviewed the victims (lawyers) of that robbery.

 

[SMK]

Apparently the author sent a letter directly to Guede and she got a response directly from Guede lawyer to cease all communication with his client. How is she with the rest of her information?

Yes, I understand that she was allowed no contact with him, nor the Kerchers. I am just having a hard time understanding why, if she got the information from primary or secondary documents, why no one else has published it anywhere. Unless as Harmony says, it came from interviews with the victims.... :waitasec:

 

[Tugela]

The lamp was behind Meredith's door. Luminol application in the area of Meredith's door, which is where the lamp was found, might reveal who moved the lamp. It might not. It seems obvious that Knox and Sollecito stepped in the blood before exiting the bedroom because their bloody barefoot prints are found outside the bedroom. If there is a blood pool at Point A and evidence from that blood pool at Point C, we can conclude that someone passed through Point B (Meredith's door) to track the blood from Point A to Point C. We don't need to see a footprint at Point B to know this.

Guede's prints in the hallway tell us what Guede did after leaving the bedroom. Knox's prints in the hallway tell us what she did after leaving the bedroom. Isn't that what is important?

It is not established that either of them stepped in blood.

It is not even established that the footprints were even blood, let alone blood from MK.

You keep on repeating this as though it is fact when it is speculation. It is NOT supported by any evidence at all.

For all you know, these "footprints" could have been made a hundred years ago.

The main problem is that you have a fundamentally flawed idea about what luminol reveals. The flouresence can be made by many other substances, blood is not the only one, and most of those "false positive" substances are common in residential areas. The way it works is that luminol shows were blood *MIGHT* be. To show if it actually IS blood, you have to do confirmatory tests. In this case the confirmatory tests were negative. If the confirmatory tests had come up positive, the next thing that would be necessary is to show that the blood came from MK. That should be simple to do, because, if they claim to have identified AK DNA in these "prints", then MK DNA should have been there in abundance. Further to that, you have to establish WHEN these prints were made, since they were only collected considerable after the crime when large numbers of people had been tramping around the scene. None of these things were done or yielded positive results, and the obvious conclusion was that these "prints" were neither blood nor did they came from MK. If the prosecution wants to make the case that it was blood, and that it came from MK, they have to provide EVIDENCE for that fact, and they have failed to do any of that. The can't just make the claim it was without showing that it actually was so.

The way science works generally is that people come up with a hypothesis and gather data to support that. Very often you will get such data, but for those results to be valid you have to perform something called controls. Basically these are test experiments where you systematically use known samples to eliminate all other possible explanations for the data you have observed. This is often not done properly in scientific studies, which is why there are many junk studies in the literature. People get tunnel vision and don't ask the questions to consider possible explanations outside of their theory. They lack critical thinking. That is exactly what has happened and is happening in this case. This kind of "non scientific" thinking is very prevalent among CSI personnel (who generally don't have much a solid scientific method training to begin with), and it gets even worse when their results get into the hands of LE or prosecutors who are even more poorly trained in interpreting the data. This is why we get so many false convictions.

 

[otto]

“The research was hard because no one spoke English over there, contrary to belief,” Burleigh said. “I took Italian classes and worked with a translator and I’ve learned what it’s like to work in a country where the concept of freedom of speech doesn’t exist. They do certainly have legal right to free speech, just not as extensive as ours.”

http://www.columbiachronicle.com/metro/article_8cd702e7-c560-591a-80bc-00ae83e6a7f6.html

 

[otto]

It is not established that either of them stepped in blood.

It is not even established that the footprints were even blood, let alone blood from MK.

You keep on repeating this as though it is fact when it is speculation. It is NOT supported by any evidence at all.

For all you know, these "footprints" could have been made a hundred years ago.

The main problem is that you have a fundamentally flawed idea about what luminol reveals. The flouresence can be made by many other substances, blood is not the only one, and most of those "false positive" substances are common in residential areas. The way it works is that luminol shows were blood *MIGHT* be. To show if it actually IS blood, you have to do confirmatory tests. In this case the confirmatory tests were negative. If the confirmatory tests had come up positive, the next thing that would be necessary is to show that the blood came from MK. That should be simple to do, because, if they claim to have identified AK DNA in these "prints", then MK DNA should have been there in abundance. Further to that, you have to establish WHEN these prints were made, since they were only collected considerable after the crime when large numbers of people had been tramping around the scene. None of these things were done or yielded positive results, and the obvious conclusion was that these "prints" were neither blood nor did they came from MK. If the prosecution wants to make the case that it was blood, and that it came from MK, they have to provide EVIDENCE for that fact, and they have failed to do any of that. The can't just make the claim it was without showing that it actually was so.

The way science works generally is that people come up with a hypothesis and gather data to support that. Very often you will get such data, but for those results to be valid you have to perform something called controls. Basically these are test experiments where you systematically use known samples to eliminate all other possible explanations for the data you have observed. This is often not done properly in scientific studies, which is why there are many junk studies in the literature. People get tunnel vision and don't ask the questions to consider possible explanations outside of their theory. They lack critical thinking. That is exactly what has happened and is happening in this case. This kind of "non scientific" thinking is very prevalent among CSI personnel (who generally don't have much a solid scientific method training to begin with), and it gets even worse when their results get into the hands of LE or prosecutors who are even more poorly trained in interpreting the data. This is why we get so many false convictions.

The court concluded that Knox made the prints with blood and that the print on the bath mat was made by Sollecito. I'm simply accepting the conclusions of the court, which is a rather normal thing to do.