Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #18

[Allusonz]

otto,

I would like to compare your work with Katody Matrass, who analyzed the print at JREF. The reason I asked you to put the mixed DNA in the theory of the crime was so I could decide whether or not it were inculpatory, but you declined.

Very well, all we know about the blob in Filomena's room is that it tested positive for luminol and that it had Meredith's and Amanda's DNA. Luminol is a presumptive test for blood, not a confirmatory test; therefore, you are wrong to talk about Meredith's blood being in Filomena's room. There are problems with the blob as evidence, starting with the fact that the luminol work was done on 18 December, after many non-forensic police had been in the cottage. There is a good chance that biological material of either Amanda or Meredith was transferred into Filomena's room during this period. The boots of one of the forensics workers had a luminol-positive substance on it, as can be seen in one of the photographs. If the material on the boot can be transferred, then we have one of several possible explanations for the luminol reaction.

Another problem with the blobs in Filomena's room is that one of them has extra alleles in it that do not belong to Amanda or Meredith. It was not a complete profile, and Filomena's reference profile was not taken in any case. If the DNA counts as evidence against Amanda, why doesn't it also count as evidence against person X?

I don't think that much should be deduced by the lack of Filomena's DNA, even if the police had been able to identify it. The police should have sampled for DNA a few inches or so away from the blobs. This is called a substrate test (substrate control), and it might indicate whether the DNA deposited had anything to do with the luminol blob. There are luminol-positive blobs in Raffaele's apartment containing Raffaele's and Amanda's DNA. No one asserts that these are part of any crime. Who the idiot is (with respect to my title) is in the eye of the beholder.

Thanks for this link to the analysis by KM. I am going to have to spend more time on that site as it appears that there is a lot of information which simply confirms information that many of us have posted here many times to no avail. It seems the misinformation continues and it has been very difficult to dispel and I am very appreciative of the input of everyone here with resepct to the TOD, footprints, DNA etc.

 

[Allusonz]

Awesome! A song. Knew we'd have one soon enough! Add it to the RS and AK CD compilation.

Just had to have an Italian song to go on that rubber DVD for our collection. As well it is amazing how well songs help to learn the language which I must admit I am finding to be one of my favs :giggle:

 

[mdana]

That bloody footprint on the bath mat points to someone other than Guede because the size/shape of the print is too short and wide for Guede.

Knox changed her story several times, with Dr Sollecito revealing one serious lie about the events on the evening of Nov 1. She claimed that she was eating dinner at 9:30, 10 or 11, but none of the above is true. She claimed that she was watching a movie, but that ended at 9:10. She claimed that she was at the cottage while some other guy murdered Meredith. She claimed all sorts of things, none of which could be verified. Sollecito cannot confirm that Knox was with him through the entire night. He claimed that he was on the computer throughout the night and that he slept until 10 - both proven untrue. They have no alibi and the fact that they could not give police a straight answer about their activities on the night of the murder is not trivial.

Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1 - YouTube

Basically, an innocent person tells the truth, but in the course of trying to "prove" their innocence they exagerate their story such as, "I wasn't in the room. I wasn't in the hotel. I wasn't even in VA. Beach that night." The last part might be technically a lie since you were on Shore Dr. thinking you were in Norfolk, but you were in the Lynnhaven area (part of Va. Beach). The police get someone to testify they saw you in Lynnhaven that night, now your alibi is shot, even if you really were nowhere near the crime scene.

As to the rest, allow me to quote the VA. Beach police officer (former Navy investigator with international experience) in the 2nd part of the above video around the 30 sec. mark, "Thank God we are in the United States, because most interviews in Italy, Spain and so forth start out physically. There is no police abuse over there, they can do pretty much what they want."

Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2 - YouTube

 

[Sonata]

Which foot is the best match to the bloody print?

Here is Guede's print

Now we need Sollecito's print.

I see that Malkmus posted a link to a comparison here: http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=271&p=64681&hilit=reference+print+yummi#p64681

And then I came across this pps all about the bath mat print not matching Guede: http://perugiamurderfile.org/download/file.php?style=1&id=224

Thanks for this Otto - really handy.

The only thing here that I do have a really big problem with is that big toe... on the bathroom mat, I just don't think it's as wide as they always say... I'm convinced the bit at the top is a blemish else it doesn't fit EITHER of the other prints. Both RS's and RG's prints are just too narrow at the top to correspond with that. Don't you think?

I'm convinced that extra little blob to the right of the big toe is either the next toe or a drop of blood from elsewhere. It just doesn't fit either profile and it looks like a separate mark... like it's sort of defined in a circle. I used to say it was the other toe, but the more I look at it the more I think it is probably just a drip from above whilst the washing was going on presumably.

I don't know... what does everyone else think?

 

[RoseMontague]

Dan O's scaled comparison side by sides

 

[Sonata]

Dan O's scaled comparison side by sides

Thanks. Yes, disregarding measurements and just going on shape, it seems way more likely to me to be RG's. Looking at the shape it just seems clear as day to me.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

otto, sonata, and wasn't me,

I am not sure how long the time between the crime and the typical application of luminol is, but my main point is that the forensics should be completed early on. I was just watching a film of the crime scene being processed, and Meredith's mattress appears to be outside of her bedroom near the kitchen. I did not see anyone who handled her mattress change his or her gloves. With respect to the blob near the big toe, I agree that it should not be considered part of the big toe; it looks like a drop of blood landed nearby.

Meredith's stomach had food matter, but her duodenum was empty. We know that the British women ate pizza roughly at 6:00-6:30, then they watched a two-hour movie. For Meredith's duodenum to be empty at 9:00 is unusual, but for it to be empty around 11:30-11:40 is essentially impossible. LondonJohn, KevinLowe, and Rolfe (who is a veterinary forensic pathologist) have discussed this extensively at JREF. Massei's discussion obscures the point by bringing up the time it takes for complete emptying of the stomach to occur, which is different from the time at which it begins to empty.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

There was a discussion of the prints at JREF (link here and some images here).

 

[Monzoo]

Thanks for this Otto - really handy.

The only thing here that I do have a really big problem with is that big toe... on the bathroom mat, I just don't think it's as wide as they always say... I'm convinced the bit at the top is a blemish else it doesn't fit EITHER of the other prints. Both RS's and RG's prints are just too narrow at the top to correspond with that. Don't you think?

I'm convinced that extra little blob to the right of the big toe is either the next toe or a drop of blood from elsewhere. It just doesn't fit either profile and it looks like a separate mark... like it's sort of defined in a circle. I used to say it was the other toe, but the more I look at it the more I think it is probably just a drip from above whilst the washing was going on presumably.

I don't know... what does everyone else think?

I'm with you. I think the blob next to the big toe is either a blood droplet or a smaller toe -- definitely not part of the big toe. It can be seen pretty clearly on some of the other photos.

I personally don't think that the print can be definitively matched to anyone. It's not like a fingerprint where you are identifying based on a unique pattern of whorls-- the shape of a footprint depends not only on the foot, but also on the amount of liquid, pressure, and angle of foot.

Does anyone have the expert testimony about the footprint from the first trial available?

 

[RoseMontague]

Thanks. Yes, disregarding measurements and just going on shape, it seems way more likely to me to be RG's. Looking at the shape it just seems clear as day to me.

It is hard for me to believe you can get a measurement from a carpet stain that is reliable to the actual measurement of the feet in question. Soaking, spreading, and dripping are problems. I agree on the big toe question. It looks like Rudy's to me.

Prof Tower said something along the lines of all these gentlemen doing all these fancy calculations but if you just look at Amanda's second toe, is it a match? Rinaldi has this print belonging to Amanda. This is the only decent print in the lot, btw.

Rinaldi measures everything but the second toe. I wonder why he skipped that one?

 

[otto]

otto, sonata, and wasn't me,

I am not sure how long the time between the crime and the typical application of luminol is, but my main point is that the forensics should be completed early on. I was just watching a film of the crime scene being processed, and Meredith's mattress appears to be outside of her bedroom near the kitchen. I did not see anyone who handled her mattress change his or her gloves. With respect to the blob near the big toe, I agree that it should not be considered part of the big toe; it looks like a drop of blood landed nearby.

Meredith's stomach had food matter, but her duodenum was empty. We know that the British women ate pizza roughly at 6:00-6:30, then they watched a two-hour movie. For Meredith's duodenum to be empty at 9:00 is unusual, but for it to be empty around 11:30-11:40 is essentially impossible. LondonJohn, KevinLowe, and Rolfe (who is a veterinary forensic pathologist) have discussed this extensively at JREF. Massei's discussion obscures the point by bringing up the time it takes for complete emptying of the stomach to occur, which is different from the time at which it begins to empty.

Through following this case, I came to understand that there is a standard time interval that is followed in order to obtain optimal evidence through the use of luminol. I understood that time interval to be about 6 weeks. Therefore, using luminol half way through Dec would be the best time to gather the best evidence. Yet, you have commented that this was the wrong time to use luminol; that it should have been used immediately after the murder was discovered. I'm wondering why you would suggest that it is incorrect to wait a certain amount of time before using luminol in a crime scene.

With respect to the bloody print on the bath mat, all of the blood could be blobs and drops, or all of the blood could be one foot print. My understanding is that the blood belongs to one footprint, especially since there is no evidence of anyone dripping blood from any other source onto the bath mat.

Stomach content analysis is known to be unreliable in determining time of death. The recent trial in the murder of Nancy Cooper in NC included testimony about stomach contents, bug activity and known timelines. The testimony contradicted each other and the known timelines. That represents a clear counter-example to any argument that stomach contents conclusively determines time of death. The accused was still found guilty.

 

[Sonata]

Through following this case, I came to understand that there is a standard time interval that is followed in order to obtain optimal evidence through the use of luminol. I understood that time interval to be about 6 weeks. Therefore, using luminol half way through Dec would be the best time to gather the best evidence. Yet, you have commented that this was the wrong time to use luminol; that it should have been used immediately after the murder was discovered. I'm wondering why you would suggest that it is incorrect to wait a certain amount of time before using luminol in a crime scene.

With respect to the bloody print on the bath mat, all of the blood could be blobs and drops, or all of the blood could be one foot print. My understanding is that the blood belongs to one footprint, especially since there is no evidence of anyone dripping blood from any other source onto the bath mat.

Stomach content analysis is known to be unreliable in determining time of death. The recent trial in the murder of Nancy Cooper in NC included testimony about stomach contents, bug activity and known timelines. The testimony contradicted each other and the known timelines. That represents a clear counter-example to any argument that stomach contents conclusively determines time of death. The accused was still found guilty.

I think it's fairly safe to assume that the whole footprint is not made of drops... I don't think anyone was suggesting that at all. Just because there are no other drops on the mat doesn't mean that we can rule out a drop.

I still think that that portion of the print looks out of place and does not fit with either suspect.

 

[otto]

I think it's fairly safe to assume that the whole footprint is not made of drops... I don't think anyone was suggesting that at all. Just because there are no other drops on the mat doesn't mean that we can rule out a drop.

I still think that that portion of the print looks out of place and does not fit with either suspect.

Where would drops of blood come from ... Knox's ears?

 

[otto]

It seems rather obvious that the bloody footprint on the bath mat is not a match to Guede. Therefore, someone else made that footprint.

 

[Monzoo]

Through following this case, I came to understand that there is a standard time interval that is followed in order to obtain optimal evidence through the use of luminol. I understood that time interval to be about 6 weeks. Therefore, using luminol half way through Dec would be the best time to gather the best evidence. Yet, you have commented that this was the wrong time to use luminol; that it should have been used immediately after the murder was discovered. I'm wondering why you would suggest that it is incorrect to wait a certain amount of time before using luminol in a crime scene.

With respect to the bloody print on the bath mat, all of the blood could be blobs and drops, or all of the blood could be one foot print. My understanding is that the blood belongs to one footprint, especially since there is no evidence of anyone dripping blood from any other source onto the bath mat.

Stomach content analysis is known to be unreliable in determining time of death. The recent trial in the murder of Nancy Cooper in NC included testimony about stomach contents, bug activity and known timelines. The testimony contradicted each other and the known timelines. That represents a clear counter-example to any argument that stomach contents conclusively determines time of death. The accused was still found guilty.

Can I ask where you saw that six weeks after a crime was an ideal time to use luminol? I have to say that I have never heard anything of the sort. In fact, I don't think most crime scenes are commonly kept sealed for so long after a crime. Not to mention the fact that there is evidence that the cottage, in this case, shows signs that there was entry between the initial crime investigation and the mid-December forensic investigations.

 

[Monzoo]

Where would drops of blood come from ... Knox's ears?

I assume that you agree that the footprint was made by somebody responsible for Meredith's murder. If this is the case, is it most logical that Meredith's blood would only be on the sole of the foot to make the print, or would you expect there to be blood on other parts of the perpetrator?

If there is blood on other parts of his/her body, would it not be logical that the perpetrator would wash off that blood while in the bathroom? Wouldn't drops be a logical artefact of this? I don't see drops of blood next to a footprint made in blood or watered down blood to be in any way inconsistent.

There is no evidence that AK's DNA is located within the blood on the mat, so it would not be consistent with being a drop from AK's ears or any other part of her body.

 

[Sonata]

Where would drops of blood come from ... Knox's ears?

LMAO, genius!

I was thinking it came from washing the blood off. Since that's obviously what was going on in the bathroom, it seems a reasonable explanation.

 

[otto]

Can I ask where you saw that six weeks after a crime was an ideal time to use luminol? I have to say that I have never heard anything of the sort. In fact, I don't think most crime scenes are commonly kept sealed for so long after a crime. Not to mention the fact that there is evidence that the cottage, in this case, shows signs that there was entry between the initial crime investigation and the mid-December forensic investigations.

I would like to know why there is any criticism of the luminol being used on December 18th. The iron in the blood was still present. I was hoping that a biochemist might know something more about whether there was an advantage to using luminol immediately or after a couple of weeks.

 

[SkewedView]

Everything you ever wanted to know about Luminol can be found in this document. I'll make comments on it later, but I'm sure that the answer to the current question of ideal timing is in there.

http://www.cbdiai.org/Articles/grispino_8-91.pdf

 

[otto]

I assume that you agree that the footprint was made by somebody responsible for Meredith's murder. If this is the case, is it most logical that Meredith's blood would only be on the sole of the foot to make the print, or would you expect there to be blood on other parts of the perpetrator?

If there is blood on other parts of his/her body, would it not be logical that the perpetrator would wash off that blood while in the bathroom? Wouldn't drops be a logical artefact of this? I don't see drops of blood next to a footprint made in blood or watered down blood to be in any way inconsistent.

There is no evidence that AK's DNA is located within the blood on the mat, so it would not be consistent with being a drop from AK's ears or any other part of her body.

If you're suggesting that the murderer was dripping blood, no, I don't believe that this was the case. Someone appears to have stepped in the blood with a bare foot, and then somehow floated over to the bath mat and left a bloody print on the mat. There are no prints leading to the mat or away from it, and no dripping blood to and from the mat. The dripping blood was over the sink, and that belongs to Knox ... she speculated that her newly pierced ears were bleeding, but then maybe they weren't - perhaps confused imaginings, as usual.