Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#6

[otto]

Rudy Guede's German diary attached.

Is it typed in English?

 

[MichaelSmith]

I find believable too.. maybe, RG hears her coming in, he tries to hide, he bumps something or makes a noise, it's dark and she yells "anybody here " or "Who's there"


Right, he shifts blame. "One of your many druggie-lovers you were bringing home? Was he someone from the "Merlin," "Domus," I think here he might be referring to Tramontano, because elsewhere he writes: We tried to go to “Domus,” but Alex couldn’t get in, since he’d fought with one of the club bouncers" When actually, Tramontano had the bouncer remove RG from the club because of the threat he posed (considering he had just caught him breaking into his home).. Rg tried to play it off calling them racist, which is exactly what he said about the (phantom) left-handed Italian who he said killed MK .

Here: He tried to attack me but I took a chair to protect myself, being stronger than him. Although I had a chair and he had a weapon, he exited through the front door telling me "black man found, guilty man found," he yelled.
This is the exact same scenario that happened when Tramontano caught him in the house, except RG reverses their roles. Rg had the knife, picked up the chair and asked if he could leave through the front door.

Well done. So that's where he got it from! I'd never connected that part of his story to his break-in at Tramontano place.

I think he got the Ipod cover story from seeing Meredith's Ipod in her handbag.

 

[otto]

Well done. So that's where he got it from! I'd never connected that part of his story to his break-in at Tramontano place.

I think he got the Ipod cover story from seeing Meredith's Ipod in her handbag.

Was the ipod stolen?

 

[Yellow]

It sounds like lawyers are aiming for putting scientists out of a job by discrediting DNA on the basis that a single contact can result in secondary transfer to multiple locations. Wasn't it just last week that secondary transfer to multiple locations was successfully argued with a woman and her boss getting away with murder?

Has a complete list of samples taken ever been released?

In this case, the Camm case, the jury did not buy the secondary transfer argument; in the case last week it did (even though that argument was ridiculous as defense merely alleged in closing argument without any experts that the killer might have used a towel to wipe multiple areas of surface that the defendant also used in a visit to a third parties home 5 months prior- that is stretching it too far, IMO),

Secondary transfer, such as from a handshake, could plausibly explain one instance but it is not going to explain 2,3,4,5,6,7 instances. It is also not going to explain transfer to certain places, like in the body. There is a limit to the secondary transfer arguments you can make for one point of contact. If there are multiple situations of transfer, it makes it more plausible, but again there is a limit to what is believable. Juries also just don't take contamination as given, especially if other evidence is clear cut. You need to at least show a situation of how contamination happened, as in AK, by showing the video of evidence collection and by explaining the large time gaps.

 

[otto]

In this case, the Camm case, the jury did not buy the secondary transfer argument; in the case last week it did (even though that argument was ridiculous as defense merely alleged in closing argument without any experts that the killer might have used a towel to wipe multiple areas of surface that the defendant also used in a visit to a third parties home 5 months prior- that is stretching it too far, IMO),

Secondary transfer, such as from a handshake, could plausibly explain one instance but it is not going to explain 2,3,4,5,6,7 instances. It is also not going to explain transfer to certain places, like in the body. There is a limit to the secondary transfer arguments you can make for one point of contact. If there are multiple situations of transfer, it makes it more plausible, but again there is a limit to what is believable. Juries also just don't take contamination as given, especially if other evidence is clear cut. You need to at least show a situation of how contamination happened, as in AK, by showing the video of evidence collection and by explaining the large time gaps.

Was it a California jury that recently acquitted a woman of murder on the basis that secondary transfer was all over the crime scene that was set to explode, and she was never in the house? Her DNA was everywhere, so police throuht they had a slam dunk case and were not prepared for the multiple secondary transfer argument.

The video of the evidence collection at the cottage does not explain a crucial piece of evidence: Meredith's DNA on Sollecito's knife (and his story about the dinner party). Although contamination of Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp at the crime scene is plausible, the DNA has to come from somewhere; it has to make sense ... and that is where the argument breaks down.

We know that DNA on the clasp is not a result of contamination at the lab (contamination also ruled out by Conti and Vecchioti), and it's unlikely that the DNA flew from the ashtray in the kitchen down the hall into Meredith's bedroom and landed on the bra clasp. Gloves were changed between the two properties, so that is not a possible source for contamination. Where did Sollecito's clasp DNA come from if not direct touch and not secondary transfer?

The cigarette butt in the kitchen is not a DNA source for secondary transfer. The cigarette butt did not touch the bra clasp (secondary transfer), instead DNA supposedly transferred from the cigarette butt to the gloves and then to the bra clasp. The DNA on the clasp is a strong, undisputed sample. The only concern I'm aware of relates to static that can be interpreted as additional sample types ... but I'm not convinced that static means that there are 3-4 additional male DNA profiles on the clasp.

 

[otto]

Sherlockh, you've mentioned the blood on the door that wasn't wiped off even though the front and the back of the door were wiped. Do you have a link to the photo? Is that the bathoom door that looks like it was washed down?

 

[otto]

This photo illustrates where Meredith bled out (darker blood) and where her hair made a sweeping pattern on the floor when she was moved.

On the discussion of the size of the room, I don't see the desk or the wardrobe in the picture, so apparently there was some room, as this photo was taken near the wardrobe where she was murdered.

Found the blood on the bathroom door photo. What could have caused that type of blood dripping?

These two photos are available at PerugiaMurderFile.org.

 

[sherlockh]

Sherlockh, you've mentioned the blood on the door that wasn't wiped off even though the front and the back of the door were wiped. Do you have a link to the photo? Is that the bathoom door that looks like it was washed down?

I don't know if both sides were wiped, but at least one of those as Massei says it looked like the trace was part of a bigger trace. He doesn't further explain it.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/An_Introduction#cite_ref-61

 

[otto]

I'm trying to figure out the "Guede took off his shoes" scenario. He took off his shoes and jumped from Meredith's bedroom into the small bathroom barefoot (bloody shoe prints attributed to Guede in the bedroom but not the bathroom ... so barefoot). He left a half barefoot print on the bathmat as he washed his pants, yet there are only mixtures of Knox and Meredith on the Q tips, sink, bidet and toilet in the small bathroom? The whole bathroom was tested.

Also, at some point, Guede supposedly (per his diary) picked up towels from the small bathroom for Meredith after she was stabbed, because he cared, but only after he removed his shoes? He wanted to disguise the fact that he was getting towels for Meredith so he removed his shoes? The one bloody barefoot print in the small bathroom that is debated as belonging to Guede (who did not appear to be concerned with bloody prints, finger prints and DNA evidence) relies on the supposition that he became so concerned about Meredith that he took off his shoes before he stepped in blood and then he hopped from Meredith's bedroom onto the the bathroom bathmat, leaving a half bloody barefoot print. He grabbed the towels without leaving any other evidence, and then he leaped out of the bathroom back into his shoes, which were in Meredith's bedroom, and then he brought the towels to Meredith, because he cared? How does this make sense?

 

[otto]

I don't know if both sides were wiped, but at least one of those as Massei says it looked like the trace was part of a bigger trace. He doesn't further explain it.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/An_Introduction#cite_ref-61

Because there is a wet driop of blood that rolled down the edge of the door, and the door opens inward (so on the hinge edge of the door), and there is no evidence of knife attack blood spatter in the bathroom, it certainly gives the impression that wet blood rolled down the hinge edge of the bathroom door as a result of a clean up. Alternatively, could the attack have started in the corridor? If so, and if there was a blood spurt that landed on the edge of the door, where's the rest of the blood?

There doesn't seem to an alternate explanation for blood rolling down the bathroom door, <modsnip>.

link to photo

 

[otto]

What I've wondered about in the Guede did it scenario is why the broken window and claim that he was there before Meredith returned home have not been combined. It should be obvious to most that no one scaled the wall, but what if Guede was at the cottage at 8:30 and decided to break into the cottage and used a knife to pry open the shutters, dropped/lost the knife in the grass, and then threw a rock through the window from the parking lot. He couldn't climb the wall, but if Meredith came home and she didn't see him near the window, and he sneaked up on her as she was unlocking the door, but that doesn't explain the glass on the ransacked items in Filomina's bedroom. It could explain both the broken window and how Guede entered the cottage, but not all the evidence.

 

[sherlockh]

Because there is a wet driop of blood that rolled down the edge of the door, and the door opens inward (so on the hinge edge of the door), and there is no evidence of knife attack blood spatter in the bathroom, it certainly gives the impression that wet blood rolled down the hinge edge of the bathroom door as a result of a clean up. Alternatively, could the attack have started in the corridor? If so, and if there was a blood spurt that landed on the edge of the door, where's the rest of the blood?

There doesn't seem to an alternate explanation for blood rolling down the bathroom door, but I'm confident that one can be imagined.

So probably somebody pushed the door open with a bloody hand, and the cleaning of that spot pushed some blood over the edge which was not further noticed because you don't notice it when the door is closed. Also this blood seems to have been diluted. I agree with the analysis in the link. Maybe they should have used Luminol on the door.
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...w_the_clean-up_and_the_locked_door_contribute

 

[DerKritiker2011]

These images were taken from the internet. There are not scaled. Guede's print and the bathmat were one image and I added Sollecito's print. We can see the dimensions in these images. I lined them up using guides. I can post the image with the guides if it helps.

You can't compare it directly. In case of the suction property of the mat and blurring the the result of this measurement is not reliable.

The great difference is the missing gap. This fact can't be ignored.

 

[sherlockh]

You can't compare it directly. In case of the suction property of the mat and blurring the the result of this measurement is not reliable.

The great difference is the missing gap. This fact can't be ignored.

That is not a fact. The experts claim is that there is one big toe just like Sollecito's. You have to cut off a part of his toe to make a second toe and claim that it 'looks like' Guede's foot. Only then there would be a missing gap between Guede's big toe and 2nd toe so that doesn't make any sense either. That the footprint was compatible with Sollecito's foot and not with Guede's foot was accepted by the judge. Why would this be different this time?

 

[Tugela]

Thank you. So the white blood cells contain the DNA and the fewer white blood cells, the less DNA, and the less likely the TMB test will work. Does exposure to air cause the DNA to deteriorate such that over time, DNA detection is less likely?

If DNA fell into the blood, would it preserve the quality of the blood? Probably a dumb question, but I'm curious.

That makes sense. Was there unidentified LCN DNA? Wasn't there a clean sample in Filomina's bedroom of Knox's DNA in Meredith's blood?

The TMB test has nothing to do with DNA. It is used to detect the peroxidase-like activity of haemoglobin (the iron bearing protein that give erythrocytes their red color). If luminol can detect the iron in the haemoglobin, then the TMB should detect the haemoglobin. If you have positive results in both tests then you probably have blood.

 

[Tugela]

These images were taken from the internet. There are not scaled. Guede's print and the bathmat were one image and I added Sollecito's print. We can see the dimensions in these images. I lined them up using guides. I can post the image with the guides if it helps.



link

Both of those footprints match the stain. There is no reason to believe the blood covered the foot. The foot may also have moved when on the ground, in which case the stain would cover a larger area. Also, the carpet is an uneven surface which can deform, none of which would be reflected in the static prints.

In other words the footprint is a match for Guede. Since we know for sure that he was there at the time of the murder, it is reasonable to conclude that on the balance of probabilities that the footprint belongs to Guede.

 

[Tugela]

Was it a California jury that recently acquitted a woman of murder on the basis that secondary transfer was all over the crime scene that was set to explode, and she was never in the house? Her DNA was everywhere, so police throuht they had a slam dunk case and were not prepared for the multiple secondary transfer argument.

The video of the evidence collection at the cottage does not explain a crucial piece of evidence: Meredith's DNA on Sollecito's knife (and his story about the dinner party). Although contamination of Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp at the crime scene is plausible, the DNA has to come from somewhere; it has to make sense ... and that is where the argument breaks down.

We know that DNA on the clasp is not a result of contamination at the lab (contamination also ruled out by Conti and Vecchioti), and it's unlikely that the DNA flew from the ashtray in the kitchen down the hall into Meredith's bedroom and landed on the bra clasp. Gloves were changed between the two properties, so that is not a possible source for contamination. Where did Sollecito's clasp DNA come from if not direct touch and not secondary transfer?

The cigarette butt in the kitchen is not a DNA source for secondary transfer. The cigarette butt did not touch the bra clasp (secondary transfer), instead DNA supposedly transferred from the cigarette butt to the gloves and then to the bra clasp. The DNA on the clasp is a strong, undisputed sample. The only concern I'm aware of relates to static that can be interpreted as additional sample types ... but I'm not convinced that static means that there are 3-4 additional male DNA profiles on the clasp.

It is simple enough, you don't require contamination at the lab or at the scene (although the fact that no other trace of Sollecito was found it most likely IS contamination of some sort). Sollecito was AK's boyfriend. His DNA would have potentially been all over her belongings. If MK subsequently picked up one of these belongings (in the bathroom for example) then used that same hand to close the clasp on her bra, then there could be DNA on it.

DNA is only really useful when there is no known connection between the victim and someone else. In this case there WAS a connection, since Sollecito was AK's intimate friend and AK lived with MK. Drawing conclusions from the presence or absence of DNA in that scenario is bad science, since you potentially could find DNA of both of them all over the place, and even at Sollecito's residence, since AK could carry MK DNA there just as easily as she could carry Sollecito DNA to her home.

 

[Tugela]

That is not a fact. The experts claim is that there is one big toe just like Sollecito's. You have to cut off a part of his toe to make a second toe and claim that it 'looks like' Guede's foot. Only then there would be a missing gap between Guede's big toe and 2nd toe so that doesn't make any sense either. That the footprint was compatible with Sollecito's foot and not with Guede's foot was accepted by the judge. Why would this be different this time?

Because the only "expert" they had in court at the time said so?

Other "experts" would disagree.

Matching vague imprints in crime scenes is pretty much pseudo-science. These things are rarely clear and clean, they are almost always open to interpretation and cannot be relied on.

 

[sherlockh]

Because the only "expert" they had in court at the time said so?

Other "experts" would disagree.

Matching vague imprints in crime scenes is pretty much pseudo-science. These things are rarely clear and clean, they are almost always open to interpretation and cannot be relied on.

At some point I have to rely on what has been measured by the experts otherwise the world might as well be a pancake. Their conclusions were based on those measurements. Conclusions were that the print does not match Knox nor Guede, and it is compatible with Sollecito. That is all. I have seen the measurements and they indeed seem to be a closer match to Sollecito than Guede. I have not seen any reason why they should have gotten it all wrong, and I have seen no 'facts' that prove otherwise. IMO what the prints 'look like' to people is not very relevant. <modsnip>.

 

[Katody]

Both of those footprints match the stain. There is no reason to believe the blood covered the foot. The foot may also have moved when on the ground, in which case the stain would cover a larger area. Also, the carpet is an uneven surface which can deform, none of which would be reflected in the static prints.

In other words the footprint is a match for Guede. Since we know for sure that he was there at the time of the murder, it is reasonable to conclude that on the balance of probabilities that the footprint belongs to Guede.

Looking at the picture it's hard to imagine how Sollecito's very distinct big toe matches it.
The big toe print looks like Guede's and matches Guede's dimensions.