Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL* #2

[sherlockh]

i agree. i dont fully believe she's guilty either but if we expect other countries we have treaties with to honor our request for extraditions i would think the US should reciprocate but yes, the uproar from the media would be out of control.

Alternatively, with Knox arrested and put in a US jail while waiting for her extradition, the media value of Knox drops and the media chooses wisely not to protest against standard US extradition policies. There won't be any uproar IMO.

 

[aa9511]

Just finished reading up on this case. I originally had the impression that AK was innocent. It made sense to me that she was a victim of shoddy police work and sexism. I heard Sollecito speak and he just didn't seem like a killer to me. I heard some expert say that the killers DNA was found all over the place, so case closed, they caught the bad guy.

I was curious why some folks here were so convinced she was guilty, especially a lot of posters who I respect, so I dug deeper. I now think AK is guilty, but I do have some resevations about the forensic evidence.

I put a lot of weight in the behavior of people in these situations. I hear all the time on websleuths about not judging someone in these extreme situations because you dont know how you would act, but I disagree with that. I think there is a fairly reliable range of normal and doing cartwheels is not in the range. There is also too much lying going on. And I find the cell phone activity suspicious.

but there's not a lot of forensic evidence is there? I read all the documents about the DNA and am fairly well educated about it but I dont get how Amandas DNA would NOT be at the scene since she lived there. Couldn't the footprint just be overlayed or mixed with her DNA which was previously on the floor? So what if the bathroom had recently been cleaned. When we clean the bathroom does that erase all of our DNA?

i also find it odd that the mop had nothing linking it to the crime scene. That should corroborate the story that there was a water spill at sollecitos.

I really think these two are guilty. The cut on Amandas chin, the kanoodling, the different stories, the fact that this was not a lone killer, the footprint on the pillow, amandas lamp on the floor, the fact that AK seemed to know about the scream before that info was shared, and on and on and on. But I didn't see any slam dunk forensic stuff? Anybody want to set me straight or make a case au contraire? IMO sorry about the typos. Im on an ipad.

song22, I love your post! It echoes many of my own thoughts.

The problem here is that since Amanda lived in the apartment, that really complicates things as far as her DNA is concerned. It would be like a husband or wife killing their spouse...their DNA would be all over the house. In CMJA's case, we got lucky b/c she actually cut herself, and so IIRC her palmprint on the wall was her blood as well as Travis' blood mixed together, so no controversy there.

Their odd behavior and the bigger problem, the lies they told, have been attributed to just being kinda weird, and the latter to being naiive and being in a different country and being pressured/scared in interrogation.

However, some of their lies make no sense at all, how could they all be attributed to being scared? For example, when RS said he was on the computer all night, in an earlier post Nova said that was a naiive remark he made under intense pressure. But let's say he was doing some other innocent thing, like let's just say he watching tv (pretend he had a tv). Then why would he lie about watching tv and change it to being on the computer? Those are both neutral activites, in this case neutral being not involved in the murder. Why would he exchange one neutral thing for another?

Not to mention that he had many years where he could have amended his earlier statement, explaining that he was nervous and that he was actually doing Neutral event A instead of Neutral event B.

It just doesn't make sense.

 

[aa9511]

*Snipped*. I would have agreed that there is a possibility of overlaying DNA traces if Knox's individual DNA was found all over the place. Why just inside a Luminol footprint? Not even in the bathroom there is Knox's DNA all over. The only individual trace of Knox's DNA in the bathroom was found in a smear of her own blood. Other then that it is all mixed with Meredith's diluted blood. This must have happened with the blood still fresh. Guede left only undiluted blood traces in the bedroom/hallway and his DNA was not found in the bathroom and Filomena's room.

All this overlaying done by somebody else who doesn't even leave his own DNA? Does that make any sense? Then there is the mixed trace in Filomena's room. Where is her DNA in her own room? Looks like DNA isn't really over the place, even if you live there. Is there really any realistic chance that Knox's DNA was laying there in the middle of the floor of another roommate and the killer drops a tiny drop of Meredith's blood (without his own DNA) right on top of it? What is the probability of this series of amazing coincidences vs the simple explanation that it was Knox herself with blood of Meredith on her who was leaving these traces?

Thank you for that, you make it so clear and easy to understand.

 

[Mollyandme]

Alternatively, with Knox arrested and put in a US jail while waiting for her extradition, the media value of Knox drops and the media chooses wisely not to protest against standard US extradition policies. There won't be any uproar IMO.

im sorry maybe i phrased that wrong. i dont really mean uproar as in people protesting it, i mean uproar as it being the hot topic of the day for a few days all over the news and the talking head shows with all their "legal eagles" on giving their opinions etc etc etc.

 

[SMK]

Alternatively, with Knox arrested and put in a US jail while waiting for her extradition, the media value of Knox drops and the media chooses wisely not to protest against standard US extradition policies. There won't be any uproar IMO.

This is something that no one ever mentions: Her arrest and incarceration here if there is a Guilty verdict.

 

[otto]

Sorry Otto, moderating keeps me very busy and I had not had a chance to respond to your query.

If you look at (4) there are four alleles not attributable to Kircher or Sollecito. In addition, Conti's and Vecchiotti's findings of multiple male contributors still brings up the possibility of contamination. Please read the following:



(there are several studies in the article that show the possibility of contamination through clothing, gloves, or other means)

http://www.newscientist.com/article...tion-can-affect-court-cases.html#.UlTAcMMo7IV



http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...ely-brought-innocent-mans-dna-to-crime-scene/



http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/How-innocent-man-s-DNA-was-found-at-killing-scene-4624971.php

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/25/opinion/high-tech-high-risk-forensics.html?_r=3&


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3012025/

If I understand correctly, it seems that all those that tested the DNA on the bra clasp have concluded that Sollecito's DNA is on the clasp. Sollecito's defense has been that the only reason it is there is due to contamination. This argument is based on the fact that the fabric with the clasp was collected six weeks after the murder. The fact that Meredith had recently parted with a boyfriend in England and found a new boyfriend in Italy, and that additional male DNA was on the clasp, does not change this fact.

I seem to recall that the cottage was a sealed crime scene throughout the six weeks. Someone did break into the cottage via the kitchen window at some point, although I don't remember if it was before or after the clasp was collected. If the DNA on the clasp is a result of contamination, then it had to come from a source other than Sollecito. That would mean that it was contaminated either at the crime scene or in the lab.

If it was contaminated at the crime scene, that would mean that Sollecito's DNA was in the cottage and someone inadvertently put it on the clasp. It would make far more sense if Filomina's DNA had been transferred to the clasp, as she had lived there the longest. Sollecito had only been in the cottage once or twice that I know of, one of those times being the last day that Meredith was alive. It seems very unlikely that his DNA was transferred at the crime scene given the absence of him at the cottage in general.

The alternative is that, if the DNA on the clasp is a result of contamination, it occurred in the lab. If one piece of evidence was contaminated at the lab, then it's logical to assume that other evidence was similarly contaminated. The problem with this is that none of Guede's DNA was contaminated at the lab. It seems rather unlikely that there would be only one instance of contamination and it just happened to implicate the prime suspect, and there were no other instances of contamination at the lab.

What am I missing? What is the theory regarding contamination of the bra clasp? Crime scene contamination? Lab contamination? Contamination is always a possibility and it doesn't matter how it happened?

He lies to explain Meredith's DNA on the knife and alleges contamination to explain his DNA on her clasp?

"Murder victim Meredith Kercher's DNA was found on a kitchen knife because suspect Raffaele Sollecito had once "pricked" her with it while cooking, he has claimed in his leaked prison diary.

Computer studies student Sollecito, 24, made the suggestion in a 40-page notebook given to his lawyers and entitled "Notes on a Prison Journey.

...
In one entry Sollecito referred to the eight-inch black handled knife, which was found in his apartment, with DNA from Meredith on the tip and Knox's near the handle.

He wrote: "The fact there is Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife is because once when we were all cooking together I accidentally pricked her hand. I apologised immediately and she said it was not a problem."

However police have spoken to several of Meredith's friends who have all told detectives that Meredith, from Coulsdon, Surrey, had never been to Sollecito's house."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-DNA-knife-pricked-cooking.html#ixzz2hEQdhaKO

 

[aa9511]

If I understand correctly, it seems that all those that tested the DNA on the bra clasp have concluded that Sollecito's DNA is on the clasp. Sollecito's defense has been that the only reason it is there is due to contamination. This argument is based on the fact that the fabric with the clasp was collected six weeks after the murder. The fact that Meredith had recently parted with a boyfriend in England and found a new boyfriend in Italy, and that additional male DNA was on the clasp, does not change this fact.

I seem to recall that the cottage was a sealed crime scene throughout the six weeks. Someone did break into the cottage via the kitchen window at some point, although I don't remember if it was before or after the clasp was collected. If the DNA on the clasp is a result of contamination, then it had to come from a source other than Sollecito. That would mean that it was contaminated either at the crime scene or in the lab.

If it was contaminated at the crime scene, that would mean that Sollecito's DNA was in the cottage and someone inadvertently put it on the clasp. It would make far more sense if Filomina's DNA had been transferred to the clasp, as she had lived there the longest. Sollecito had only been in the cottage once or twice that I know of, one of those times being the last day that Meredith was alive. It seems very unlikely that his DNA was transferred at the crime scene given the absence of him at the cottage in general.

The alternative is that, if the DNA on the clasp is a result of contamination, it occurred in the lab. If one piece of evidence was contaminated at the lab, then it's logical to assume that other evidence was similarly contaminated. The problem with this is that none of Guede's DNA was contaminated at the lab. It seems rather unlikely that there would be only one instance of contamination and it just happened to implicate the prime suspect, and there were no other instances of contamination at the lab.

What am I missing? What is the theory regarding contamination of the bra clasp? Crime scene contamination? Lab contamination? Contamination is always a possibility and it doesn't matter how it happened?

He lies to explain Meredith's DNA on the knife and alleges contamination to explain his DNA on her clasp?

"Murder victim Meredith Kercher's DNA was found on a kitchen knife because suspect Raffaele Sollecito had once "pricked" her with it while cooking, he has claimed in his leaked prison diary.

Computer studies student Sollecito, 24, made the suggestion in a 40-page notebook given to his lawyers and entitled "Notes on a Prison Journey.

...
In one entry Sollecito referred to the eight-inch black handled knife, which was found in his apartment, with DNA from Meredith on the tip and Knox's near the handle.

He wrote: "The fact there is Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife is because once when we were all cooking together I accidentally pricked her hand. I apologised immediately and she said it was not a problem."

However police have spoken to several of Meredith's friends who have all told detectives that Meredith, from Coulsdon, Surrey, had never been to Sollecito's house."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-DNA-knife-pricked-cooking.html#ixzz2hEQdhaKO

Otto, I agree with you that it is probably not from contamination either at the crime scene or at the lab. I think the problem with this clasp is that apparently RS's DNA is not found anywhere else, so that leaves the clasp. If it is only one item, then it can probably be argued that it might have been contaminated somehow. If there were more places where his DNA was found, then that argument would not be acceptable in the least.

 

[otto]

Otto, I agree with you that it is probably not from contamination either at the crime scene or at the lab. I think the problem with this clasp is that apparently RS's DNA is not found anywhere else, so that leaves the clasp. If it is only one item, then it can probably be argued that it might have been contaminated somehow. If there were more places where his DNA was found, then that argument would not be acceptable in the least.

There is no evidence of Guede in the bathroom that Meredith shared with Knox, but that doesn't prevent anyone from trying to argue that if we shorten the length of Guede's foot and add a hammertoe, it could be Guede's footprint on the bath mat. Suddenly the requirement that there be additional samples of Guede in the bathroom or moving towards the bathroom are unnecessary. That is, it's apparently easy to understand that Guede removed one sock and shoe, stepped in Meredith's blood, hopped from Meredith's bedroom, backwards, in one qiant leap around a corner to land with his foot half on the bathmat. He touched nothing else. Then, he leaped forward again, landed next to his shoe, put his shoe back on, and then ran out of the cottage.

What I'm saying is that it seems easy for some to argue the above scenario, but when it comes to the evidence implicating Sollecito, it cannot be accepted without a story built around it.

 

[TartLemon]

I wonder how much longer Raffaele will be totally oblivious to the fact that Amanda is letting him take the full brunt of everything?

Amanda never leaves the US to visit Raff. He comes here. She's at 'home' in familiar surroundings of Family and the place she grew up. Raff has traipsed the World looking for a place to light.

If the result is GUILTY, Amanda will let Raff rot before taking what she deserves.

 

[otto]

I wonder how much longer Raffaele will be totally oblivious to the fact that Amanda is letting him take the full brunt of everything?

Amanda never leaves the US to visit Raff. He comes here. She's at 'home' in familiar surroundings of Family and the place she grew up. Raff has traipsed the World looking for a place to light.

If the result is GUILTY, Amanda will let Raff rot before taking what she deserves.

Knox has a criminal record with three years in prison. She's not allowed to enter many countries because most places don't allow convicted criminals to cross their borders until specific conditions have been met ... one of which is waiting several years. Sollecito crossed into Switzerland, but when they realized he was there, he was expelled. His situation is somewhat different, because his conviction is under appeal. Knox's conviction for what she did to Patrick has been confirmed.

 

[Nova]

Yes, this is true. The person who's travelling takes a risk by going to another country, and by going they are accepting that risk. It makes sense that when you go to another country, you are expected to abide by their laws. So I don't see how the U.S. can turn around and say that her constitutional rights were violated, since those are rights you have inside the U.S..

The same way Canada and Mexico can refuse to extradite those accused of capital crimes because their laws do not allow the death penalty.

If and when AK loses the final appeal, the argument will still remain as to whether Italian law violates U.S. constitutional rights.

 

[Nova]

However it's ok for someone to accept Amanda's propoganda? Because the words she said when she said she was under intense pressure and that's why she falsely blamed Lumumba and falsely said she was at her cottage that night....those are exactly that....words coming out of her mouth. There is no criteria we can use to determine whether that is the real truth or not, other than if we believe it, we are saying we trust those words that came out of her mouth.

So how can you say someone else is believing tabloid reports - which are just words coming out of a reporter's mouth, and how that's not ok, but at the same time you are saying it's ok to believe the words coming out of Amanda's mouth?

My point is that you are, in your mind, accepting what Amanda says as fact. When we are not sure if it is or it isn't. Amanda's words could also be in one sense a "tabloid report."

Because AK's testimony re the interrogation is not the only evidence. We know she was in a foreign country being interrogated vigorously in a language she did not understand. (Yes, there was a translator. Have you ever endured an antagonistic questioning through a third party?)

Setting aside how many total hours the interrogation lasted on the day she "cracked", we know she was questioned for more than a few hours in the week following the murder.

Whether one believes the "head slap" story or not, there is ample evidence that AK was questioned under duress. One needn't take her word for it.

 

[Nova]

Then how were Amanda and RS spending 24-7 together since the time they met, which RS has said himself. And how did she communicate all the information to him when she arrived at his house, which he obviously understood and that's why he supposedly walked back to the cottage with her? Sorry, that argument does not make sense to me.

I don't think they spent most of their time talking.

Between years of academic study and hand gestures, I can eventually communicate with the wonderful guy who cleans our pool. That does NOT mean I could withstand an aggressive interrogation in Spanish over a period of dozens of hours in a week.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I don't think they spent most of their time talking.

Between years of academic study and hand gestures, I can eventually communicate with the wonderful guy who cleans our pool. That does NOT mean I could withstand an aggressive interrogation in Spanish over a period of dozens of hours in a week.

That's probably better than my attempts to communicate with the landscapers by putting an "a" or an "o" at the end of English words while waving my hands and pointing.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[sherlockh]

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...ely-brought-innocent-mans-dna-to-crime-scene/
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/How-innocent-man-s-DNA-was-found-at-killing-scene-4624971.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/25/opinion/high-tech-high-risk-forensics.html?_r=3&

Snipped these links because they are all examples of secondary transfer. That is not what is suggested here. Here we are talking about tertiary transfer. Somebody that never touched Sollecito picked up his DNA from somewhere, in a reasonable amount and put it on the bra clasp. That is even more unlikely.

 

[sherlockh]

Because AK's testimony re the interrogation is not the only evidence. We know she was in a foreign country being interrogated vigorously in a language she did not understand. (Yes, there was a translator. Have you ever endured an antagonistic questioning through a third party?)

Setting aside how many total hours the interrogation lasted on the day she "cracked", we know she was questioned for more than a few hours in the week following the murder.

Whether one believes the "head slap" story or not, there is ample evidence that AK was questioned under duress. One needn't take her word for it.

What evidence? Her behavior after the murder, and the testimonies of the people present during her questioning don't indicate any duress whatsoever. Only Knox herself claims that 'she imagined they wanted her to imagine something'.

The testimony of the interpreter, Anna Donnino, that was present when Knox threw out her false confession was recently translated into English and gives an exact account of what happened. She arrived at 12:30am and the false confession was written down at 1:45am. First Knox was informed that Sollecito no longer supported her alibi, then very suddenly when the text message is shown Knox changes her behavior.
<modsnip>
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Anna_Donnino's_Testimony_(English)

 

[Harmony 2]

Snipped these links because they are all examples of secondary transfer. That is not what is suggested here. Here we are talking about tertiary transfer. Somebody that never touched Sollecito picked up his DNA from somewhere, in a reasonable amount and put it on the bra clasp. That is even more unlikely.

Greineder's second line of defense is our focus here. He argued that his DNA could have gotten onto the glove through tertiary transfer.

Taylor was allowed to present his findings to the jury. Although the jury ultimately convicted Greineder (there was other incriminating evidence besides the DNA), the case is a good example of how the amazing sensitivity of contemporary DNA profiling methods facilitate a plausible explanation for what might at first seem to be a damning DNA test result.

http://www.bioforensics.com/conference07/Transfer/

Sufficient quantities of DNA were obtained via secondary and tertiary transfer. DNA profiles could be observed from an individual to an object even though that individual did not directly touch the object.

Through secondary and tertiary transfer, DNA profiles are obtainable.

http://digitalcommons.hsc.unt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1098&context=theses

http://www.lawofficer.com/article/needs-tags-columns/transfer-theory-forensic-dna-a

 

[Harmony 2]

Because AK's testimony re the interrogation is not the only evidence. We know she was in a foreign country being interrogated vigorously in a language she did not understand. (Yes, there was a translator. Have you ever endured an antagonistic questioning through a third party?)

Setting aside how many total hours the interrogation lasted on the day she "cracked", we know she was questioned for more than a few hours in the week following the murder.

Whether one believes the "head slap" story or not, there is ample evidence that AK was questioned under duress. One needn't take her word for it.

IMO There seem to be a lot of parallels with the following cases:

Internalized false confessions. During interrogation, some suspects--particularly those who are young, tired, confused, suggestible and exposed to false information--come to believe that they committed the crime in question, even though they did not. In a classic case, 18-year-old Peter
Reilly of Falls Village, Conn., returned home one night to find that his mother had been murdered. Reilly immediately called the police but was suspected of matricide. After gaining Reilly's trust, the police told him that he failed a lie detector test (which was not true), and which indicated that he was guilty even though he had no conscious memory of the event. After hours of interrogation, the audiotape reveals that Reilly underwent a chilling
transformation from denial to confusion, self-doubt, conversion ("Well, it really looks like I did it") and finally a full confession ("I remember slashing once at my mother's throat with a straight razor I used for model airplanes.... I also remember jumping on my mother's legs"). Two years later independent evidence revealed that Reilly could not have possibly committed the murder.

http://iilab.utep.edu/reprints/Sci.Am.Mind_6.01.05.pdf

The Norfolk Four- who not only confessed but pointed the finger at several other innocent men who in turn confessed....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/magazine/19Norfolk-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

warning: graphic crime scene photos

http://video.pbs.org/video/1637166286/

Michael Krowe

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/not_guilty/coerced_confessions/6.html

 

[sherlockh]

http://www.bioforensics.com/conference07/Transfer/
http://digitalcommons.hsc.unt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1098&context=theses
http://www.lawofficer.com/article/needs-tags-columns/transfer-theory-forensic-dna-a

Thanks

Unlike tertiary transfer, the very real possibility of secondary transfer does pose the potential for problems both in the lab and at the crime scene.

http://www.lawofficer.com/article/needs-tags-columns/transfer-theory-forensic-dna-a

 

[MichaelSmith]

There is no evidence of Guede in the bathroom that Meredith shared with Knox, but that doesn't prevent anyone from trying to argue that if we shorten the length of Guede's foot and add a hammertoe, it could be Guede's footprint on the bath mat. Suddenly the requirement that there be additional samples of Guede in the bathroom or moving towards the bathroom are unnecessary. That is, it's apparently easy to understand that Guede removed one sock and shoe, stepped in Meredith's blood, hopped from Meredith's bedroom, backwards, in one qiant leap around a corner to land with his foot half on the bathmat. He touched nothing else. Then, he leaped forward again, landed next to his shoe, put his shoe back on, and then ran out of the cottage.

What I'm saying is that it seems easy for some to argue the above scenario, but when it comes to the evidence implicating Sollecito, it cannot be accepted without a story built around it.

There is indeed evidence of Guede in Amanda and Meredith's shared bathroom. Guede admitted going in there to get towels. In his diary he said he was covered in the victims blood.

I'm always baffled why people continue to say the footprint is Raffaele's when he was the one telling the police about blood in the bathroom in his 112 call. Are we suppose to believe he was telling them about his own footprint? Really?