Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#3

[otto]

Maybe Manuela Comodi thinks that she knows more about testing for blood than forensic scientists do, but forensic scientists are quite clear about the need for a true confirmatory test to be performed, and yet no confirmatory tests were performed on the footprints in the hallway. Rusty water (iron), plant matter of any kind (manganese, iron, copper, and probably a trace of cobalt), and soil are but three places where transition metal ions may be found. Gregory Taylor was convicted partially on the basis of a presumptive blood test, but eventually he was released when it was learned that confirmatory tests were negative, yet the results had been hidden. A misunderstanding of the limitiations of presumptive blood testing is a problem in many jurisdictions (I have previously discussed the Lindy Chamberlain case in this regard).

Let's suppose that we leave the bloody footprints in the hallway matching Knox on the sidelines for now. We still have Knox's DNA and Meredith's blood in Filomina's bedroom. How is that explained?

 

[otto]

Sorry, a little off topic, but I keep seeing BBM. What does this mean?

When people want to emphasize a sentence in a comment, sometimes they make it "bold" and then add "BBM" ... meaning, "bold by me" (rather than the author of the comment).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

When he gave evidence to the trial in 2009, Dr Francesco Sollecito said his son had never been violent in his life and "wouldn't hurt a fly".

He acknowledged that Raffaele liked carrying and collecting knives – he was carrying one when he was first questioned by police.

He also appeared to have a taste for the macabre –

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...71/Amanda-Knox-Who-is-Raffaele-Sollecito.html

Then I read -
"He writes openly about the night of the murder, but he does not entirely clear up doubt that lingers among some who still believe he and Knox were involved in the crime."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ollecito-tells-all-in-honor-bound-memoir.html

The Telegraph article is a little bit overwrought. "and he was a fan of Japanese manga comics, known for their extreme violence and rape fantasies." Manga is sometimes seen in museum displays, if I correctly recall an article from The Economist a few years ago. Sollecito had been given a gift of one that was more violent (it was a collector's item) but it was unopened at the time the police searched his flat.

Sollecito is crystal clear in his book that Amanda could not have left his flat on the night of 1 November: she did not have a key and would have needed to have him let her back in. This is something he remembered in the weeks following his arrest. He also walks the reader through his confusion about the knife DNA, mentioning a time when he cooked in the women's flat and concluding that there was no connection. Barbie seems fond of making things murkier than they need to be IMO.

ETA
Nick Squires wrote, "But police checks on his background revealed a darker side to Sollecito, who had a lifelong obsession with knives and swords, which he collected, and always carried a flick-knife in his pocket." I have not seen any evidence to the effect that Sollecito collected swords. Obsession? This is just Squires being Squires IMO. He also wrote, "Sollecito also appeared to have a taste for the macabre – he had visited the site of the Nazi concentration camp at Dachau in Germany..." Wow. Who knew that visiting an important historical site was a manifestation of someone's having a taste for the macabre?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

BBM. You did, otherwise it makes no sense to question why RS and AK did not leave bloody foot/shoe prints in the murder room.

We will have to agree to disagree about the interpretation of one of my previous comments, but let me say again that I am not implying a particular sequence of events at the present time. Let's try this again, looking at the bigger picture. Rudy's bloody shoe prints put him in the murder room at the time of the attack or just after. So does his hand print. So does the fact that he had to discard some of his clothing. That same kind of evidence just does not exist against AK or RS. Why not?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Let's suppose that we leave the bloody footprints in the hallway matching Knox on the sidelines for now. We still have Knox's DNA and Meredith's blood in Filomina's bedroom. How is that explained?

Let's not leave the footprints so quickly. The footprints in the hallway are more likely than not to be blood, according to two experts unaffiliated with either the prosecution or defense (Drs. Virkler and Lednev). Even if they were blood, they cannot be "matched" to any individual: there are no individualizing lines, the luminol was overapplied, and there are not nearly enough reference footprints.

I spoke with a former police officer whose job it was to secure crime scenes. I told him about the evidence collection on 18 December, and the first words out of his mouth were, "Contaminated, contaminated." A strong argument could be made for tossing all of the evidence collected on that date, including the evidence against Guede. There was too much traffic in the cottage, such as the movement of Meredith's mattress out of her room. There is at least one photo of a technician walking on a dried bloodstain in Meredith's room, and dried blood flakes easily.

The blob in Filomena's room remains puzzling, but there are plenty of luminol-positive spots in Raffaele's apartment as well. Who can say what they are? Another problem with the luminol-positive areas in the hall and Filomena's room is that substrate controls were not taken. They should have sampled nearby the luminol-positive stain. The negative TMB test is bad enough for the prosecution's case, but the lack of a confirmatory test for blood is arguably worse. Confirmatory tests are quite sensitive, having a limit of detection of blood that has been diluted one millionfold. Another problem for the prosecution is the lack of a detailed for how a hypothetically guilty Amanda made the stain in Filomena's room.

 

[otto]

Andrea Vogt has written an interesting article about the man that has been trying to poke holes in the forensic evidence related to the murder of Meredith Kercher.

" Mr. Hampikian recounts a series of experiments he and his research team conducted in his Boise lab: Researchers collected Coca Cola cans that had been used by employees who worked in the BSU Dean’s Office. They also bought a cheap set of knives, still in the package from a dollar store. They then collected and tagged the cans and knives only changing gloves between every other piece of evidence. The result? One of the dean’s office employees’ DNA was unknowingly transferred from a can to a knife that she had never seen or touched. “That’s what happened with the evidence in the Knox case,” he was quoted as saying in one article."

http://thefreelancedesk.com/the-secret-u-s-forensic-defense-of-amanda-knox/

For this to have actually happened at the crime scene in Perugia, Sollecito's DNA would have to be somewhere in the cottage. The only place where it was found was on a cigarette butt in the kitchen and IIRC, on a glass in the kitchen. Hamkipian theorizes that investigators touched the cigarette butt, did not change gloves, immediately touched the bra clasp, and voila - DNA transfer explaining Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp.

 

[Bravo]

Sorry, a little off topic, but I keep seeing BBM. What does this mean?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Welcome. It means bolded by me.

 

[otto]

The Telegraph article is a little bit overwrought. "and he was a fan of Japanese manga comics, known for their extreme violence and rape fantasies." Manga is sometimes seen in museum displays, if I correctly recall an article from The Economist a few years ago. Sollecito had been given a gift of one that was more violent (it was a collector's item) but it was unopened at the time the police searched his flat.

Sollecito is crystal clear in his book that Amanda could not have left his flat on the night of 1 November: she did not have a key and would have needed to have him let her back in. This is something he remembered in the weeks following his arrest. He also walks the reader through his confusion about the knife DNA, mentioning a time when he cooked in the women's flat and concluding that there was no connection. Barbie seems fond of making things murkier than they need to be IMO.

ETA
Nick Squires wrote, "But police checks on his background revealed a darker side to Sollecito, who had a lifelong obsession with knives and swords, which he collected, and always carried a flick-knife in his pocket." I have not seen any evidence to the effect that Sollecito collected swords. Obsession? This is just Squires being Squires IMO. He also wrote, "Sollecito also appeared to have a taste for the macabre – he had visited the site of the Nazi concentration camp at Dachau in Germany..." Wow. Who knew that visiting an important historical site was a manifestation of someone's having a taste for the macabre.

Funny thing ... Sollecito was also "crystal clear" when he stated that he could not confirm that Knox was with him on the night of the murder. Now, we have two "crystal clear" statements from a murder suspect that in a known liar. How about that!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

For this to have actually happened at the crime scene in Perugia, Sollecito's DNA would have to be somewhere in the cottage. The only place where it was found was on a cigarette butt in the kitchen and IIRC, on a glass in the kitchen. Hamkipian theorizes that investigators touched the cigarette butt, did not change gloves, immediately touched the bra clasp, and voila - DNA transfer explaining Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp.

Sollecito's fingerprints were on Meredith's door, and fingerprints have been yielding forensic DNA for some time.

 

[otto]

Let's not leave the footprints so quickly. The footprints in the hallway are more likely than not to be blood, according to two experts unaffiliated with either the prosecution or defense (Drs. Virkler and Lednev). Even if they were blood, they cannot be "matched" to any individual: there are no individualizing lines, the luminol was overapplied, and there are not nearly enough reference footprints.

I spoke with a former police officer whose job it was to secure crime scenes. I told him about the evidence collection on 18 December, and the first words out of his mouth were, "Contaminated, contaminated." A strong argument could be made for tossing all of the evidence collected on that date, including the evidence against Guede. There was too much traffic in the cottage, such as the movement of Meredith's mattress out of her room. There is at least one photo of a technician walking on a dried bloodstain in Meredith's room, and dried blood flakes easily.

The blob in Filomena's room remains puzzling, but there are plenty of luminol-positive spots in Raffaele's apartment as well. Who can say what they are? Another problem with the luminol-positive areas in the hall and Filomena's room is that substrate controls were not taken. They should have sampled nearby the luminol-positive stain. The negative TMB test is bad enough for the prosecution's case, but the lack of a confirmatory test for blood is arguably worse. Confirmatory tests are quite sensitive, having a limit of detection of blood that has been diluted one millionfold. Another problem for the prosecution is the lack of a detailed for how a hypothetically guilty Amanda made the stain in Filomena's room.

Is this opinion formed in the same way that Hampikian formed an opinion about flying DNA? That is, was the objective to prove that there can be an exception to the rule and to then conclude that the exception to the rule is the only possible explanation?

The prosecution has explained that Knox's DNA, mixed with Meredith's blood, was deposited in Filomina's bedroom when the scene was staged by breaking the window.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Funny thing ... Sollecito was also "crystal clear" when he stated that he could not confirm that Knox was with him on the night of the murder. Now, we have two "crystal clear" statements from a murder suspect that in a known liar. How about that!

Are you referring to the hearing in front of Judge Matteini? We have accounts from four books. Strangely, the one which is most emphatic that Sollecito backed up Ms. Knox's account is "Darkness Descending." One wishes that Matteini had allowed Knox and Sollecito more time to consult with their lawyers before they went into a hearing that allowed them to be held for a year without being bound for trial. Sollecito spent several months in solitary before being bound for trial. Not a great day for the principle of habeas corpus.

 

[otto]

Sollecito's fingerprints were on Meredith's door, and fingerprints have been yielding forensic DNA for some time.

Two fingerprints on the outside of the door matched Sollecito. There is no DNA matching Sollecito on the door. Should we pretend that because there were fingerprints, there must have been DNA, and that DNA was transferred to the bra clasp?

 

[otto]

Are you referring to the hearing in front of Judge Matteini? We have accounts from four books. Strangely, the one which is most emphatic that Sollecito backed up Ms. Knox's account is "Darkness Descending." One wishes that Matteini had allowed Knox and Sollecito more time to consult with their lawyers before they went into a hearing that allowed them to be held for a year without being bound for trial. Sollecito spent several months in solitary before being bound for trial. Not a great day for the principle of habeas corpus.

We should also pretend that we have no memory of statements made by Knox and Sollecito prior to the publication of their books? Exactly how much evidence and factual information should we forget and overlook in order to view a convicted criminal as innocent?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Is this opinion formed in the same way that Hampikian formed an opinion about flying DNA? That is, was the objective to prove that there can be an exception to the rule and to then conclude that the exception to the rule is the only possible explanation?

The prosecution has explained that Knox's DNA, mixed with Meredith's blood, was deposited in Filomina's bedroom when the scene was staged by breaking the window.

Can you be a little bit more specific?

Dr. Hampikian was addressing the issue of secondary/tertiary transfer, but let's talk about airborne DNA, anyway. Ms. Nadeau wrote, "Alberto Intini, head of Italy’s national forensic team, disagrees. On the stand, he defended the forensics work and stressed that the crime scene had not been contaminated, especially under cross examination when the defense lawyers tried and failed to prove otherwise. ‘DNA does not fly around like pollen,’ he said…” Bologna. Aerosol DNA is a serious potential contaminant, against which one must take many precautions. Why should anybody trust the work of a lab under his supervision?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

We should also pretend that we have no memory of statements made by Knox and Sollecito prior to the publication of their books? Exactly how much evidence and factual information should we forget and overlook in order to view a convicted criminal as innocent?

I suggest you reread what I wrote.

 

[otto]

Can you be a little bit more specific?

Dr. Hampikian was addressing the issue of secondary/tertiary transfer, but let's talk about airborne DNA, anyway. Ms. Nadeau wrote, "Alberto Intini, head of Italy’s national forensic team, disagrees. On the stand, he defended the forensics work and stressed that the crime scene had not been contaminated, especially under cross examination when the defense lawyers tried and failed to prove otherwise. ‘DNA does not fly around like pollen,’ he said…” Bologna. Aerosol DNA is a serious potential contaminant, against which one must take many precautions. Why should anybody trust the work of a lab under his supervision?

It is my understanding that the objective is to demonstrate that when DNA is found, it is always possible that it is a result of contamination. This is exactly what Conti and Vecchiotti wrote in their report. They probably read about Hampikian's "scientific" experiment where he demonstrated that it was possible to transfer DNA when that was the objective. During cross examination, Conti was asked to elaborate on this point. The end result was that Conti agreed that there was absolutely no evidence of contamination, and that she could not present a hypothetical situation where contamination could have occurred.

Is there any reason why we should not accept the statements from Conti regarding the fact that there is absolutely no evidence of contamination?

 

[otto]

I suggest you reread what I wrote.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but when I read that we should accept Sollecito's most recent version of events because he was "crystal clear" in this version, I have to wonder why we should reject all previous "crystal clear" statements made by Sollecito. For example, he was "crystal clear" in his prison journal where he stated that Meredith's DNA was on his knife because he cut her hand when she was making a meal at his apartment. Why should we accept any self serving statement from a known liar?

 

[SMK]

Here is a piece on the upcoming Congressional briefing:

Congress to Convene Briefing on Amanda Knox

ABC News
With issues like immigration reform and the budget looming, Congress is turning its attention to a completely different subject: Amanda Knox.

On Thursday two Washington State Democrats — Sen. Maria Cantwell and Rep. Adam Smith — are hosting a panel discussion about the third trial of Knox, who served jail time in Italy for murder before her sentence was overturned.

Knox, who is from Seattle, was convicted in 2009 of murdering her British roommate, Meredith Kercher, in Perugia, Italy, with the help of her former boyfriend Rafaelle Sollecito. Knox was originally sentenced to 26 years in Italian prison, but after serving almost four years, she was released when an Italian appeals court threw out the original conviction. This March, the Italian Supreme Court issued a new ruling, saying that Knox must be retried for the murder of Kercher.

With the re-trial of Knox now underway in Italy, Congress is getting involved.

[modsnip]”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/10/congress-to-convene-hearing-on-amanda-knox/

 

[otto]

Here is a piece on the upcoming Congressional briefing:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/10/congress-to-convene-hearing-on-amanda-knox/

That article makes no sense.
One the one hand:

"According to a letter sent from the offices of Cantwell and Smith, Thursday’s “educational briefing” will feature analysis and insight from three expert panelists. Retired ... Justice Mike Heavey ... Steve Moore ... John Douglas, a former FBI ... will discuss his analysis of this international criminal trial."

On the other hand

"Spokespeople for both Cantwell and Smith could not immediately say whether either lawmaker would attend the briefing."

Is this a congressional briefing, or a room reserved by Senators for a private interest group?

On the one hand:

"Congress to Convene Briefing on Amanda Knox"

On the other hand

“The panel will address issues related to convictions of Americans abroad and international criminal law.”

Again, what exactly is going on ... Congress convening a briefing on Knox, or a visitor room, educational briefing about international criminal law where Senators are not in attendance? If it's about international criminal law, which one of Heavey, Moore, or Douglas is the expert?

ETA: I just noticed that "blog" is in the URL. That explains why the article doesn't really make any sense, and does not inform

 

[Chris_Halkides]

It is my understanding that the objective is to demonstrate that when DNA is found, it is always possible that it is a result of contamination. This is exactly what Conti and Vecchiotti wrote in their report. They probably read about Hampikian's "scientific" experiment where he demonstrated that it was possible to transfer DNA when that was the objective. During cross examination, Conti was asked to elaborate on this point. The end result was that Conti agreed that there was absolutely no evidence of contamination, and that she could not present a hypothetical situation where contamination could have occurred.

Is there any reason why we should not accept the statements from Conti regarding the fact that there is absolutely no evidence of contamination?

When Comodi cross-examined Vecchiotti, Vecchiotti said that a six-day gap in testing should be sufficient [presumably to exclude in-lab contamination] if that is the way things went (I am basing this on how the exchange was reported in Follain's book). There are some ifs, ands, and buts that need to be stated IMO.

One is that gaps in the testing have nothing to do with contamination outside of the laboratory. That is worth keeping in mind with respect to the bra clasp, where contamination outside of the lab is so likely. I have examined the egram of the Y chromosomal profiling. There are between 2 to 4 additional male contributors to the DNA besides Raffaele. We are all agreed that four other men did not take part in the crime; therefore, the bra clasp is contaminated by definition. DNA forensic scientist Van Oorshot wrote, "any DNA deposit that is not immediately relevant to the crime being investigated can be viewed as contamination. In this light, gross or sporadic contamination may appear at any point: (1) before the crime has been committed; (2) in the interval between the crime and securing the crime scene; (3) during the investigation of the scene; and/or (4) within the laboratory."

Two, the six-day gap argument is problematic on multiple grounds, especially with respect to the knife profile (I discussed this extensively elsewhere). There is a one-day gap in the contamination that occurred in the Farah Jama case, and there is a two-day gap that occurred in the Jaidyn Leskie case. If a one-day and a two-day gap are demonstrably insufficient to rule out contamination, what is so special about a six-day gap?

Three, the claim looks even more suspect when one realizes that DNA can persist on laboratory tools for at least three months, as a 2006 study by Poy and Van Oorshot showed. These authors also noted, "To further help evaluate the above finding swabs were taken from gloves worn whilst examining a heavily soiled dress during routine casework examination. A significant amount of DNA was retrieved which exhibited a genetic profile that matched that of samples taken from the exhibit."

I am now returning to lurker status, but may occasionally be available through PMs.