WARNING:GRAPHIC PHOTOS Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #8

[Malkmus]

The article also says that Patrick fired Knox ... and describes her in none to flattering ways.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Lumumba-reveals-framed-Merediths-murder.html

Would this be one of the examples of bringing tabloid gossip into the discussion?

This is actually an example of tabloid fiction that has spurred rumors that refuse to die, despite evidence to the contrary. In that article the line I fired Foxy Knoxy is not in quotations and nowhere in the article does Patrick ever mention firing or demoting Amanda. We know that she was not fired the night Meredith was murdered. And we have a letter and testimony from Amanda stating that she was afraid to work nights because of the murder and talked to Patrick about only working during the day as a result. Are we really to believe that Patrick decided to fire or demote Amanda a day or two after her roommate was murdered? When Amanda was being cross-examined by the prosecutor about her job at Le Chic she was never asked about being fired, which if true, would have been huge. Are we also to believe that this simply slipped the prosecutor's mind despite it being a motive for implicating Patrik? This entire notion of Amanda being fired stems from that one headline, not even a quote, and despite how much evidence there is to the contrary. You can choose to believe a tabloid headline or trial testimony. I know which I trust.

 

[otto]

This is actually an example of tabloid fiction that has spurred rumors that refuse to die, despite evidence to the contrary. In that article the line I fired Foxy Knoxy is not in quotations and nowhere in the article does Patrick ever mention firing or demoting Amanda. We know that she was not fired the night Meredith was murdered. And we have a letter and testimony from Amanda stating that she was afraid to work nights because of the murder and talked to Patrick about only working during the day as a result. Are we really to believe that Patrick decided to fire or demote Amanda a day or two after her roommate was murdered? When Amanda was being cross-examined by the prosecutor about her job at Le Chic she was never asked about being fired, which if true, would have been huge. Are we also to believe that this simply slipped the prosecutor's mind despite it being a motive for implicating Patrik? This entire notion of Amanda being fired stems from that one headline, not even a quote, and despite how much evidence there is to the contrary. You can choose to believe a tabloid headline or trial testimony. I know which I trust.

Exactly. It's tabloid gossip, and remarks claiming Patrick said that Amanda was fired or that he was beaten are clearly untrue. There was a brief portion of the trial that addressed this, and I think it was something about Amanda handing our flyers and serving at La Chic. I didn't read anything about her taking only daytime hours ... and besides, if she was questioned 54 hours in total, she didn't have time to work.

 

[otto]

I want to say to you that Meredith was beautiful, too. She was innocent as well.

Meredith was going home to read the book her friend had lent her so she could prepare for an exam. She had to return the book the following day.

I look forward to reading her father's stories.

 

[otto]

That is true that it can't be dated. That is what Stefanoni testified. However, her testimony was very damning. It is difficult to argue that the blood in the bathroom didn't come from the murder room, and mixed indicates that both the blood and AK's DNA were deposited at the same time. The defense didn't convince me (nor the judge and jury I believe) that there is a reasonable alternative explanation for the mixed traces. Same with the luminol footprints, and the bathmat footprint. I do try to look at this case from both sides and sometimes I even agree with the defense but this is an important area where they lost me and the case IMO.

In the Motivation Report, there is a long discussion about the luminol, and the type of testing that was done on the pirnts. Blood testing was done, and the conclusion of the court (after hearing testimony of standard and LNC DNA tests) was that there was a luminol print outside of Meredith's bedroom in haematic substance that matched Amanda Knox. I don't think her DNA was in the haematic substance, but the question was where the haematic substance came from. It was concluded that it came from inside Meredith's bedroom ... and the print belonged to the American woman. The forensic analyst stated up front that luminol also reveals fruit juice. The big question would be who spilled the juice that Amanda stepped in outside of Meredith's bedroom?

 

[sherlockh]

No it doesn't. The action of wiping a sample of blood from a sink that Amanda used that morning, probably to brush her teeth, would mix the DNA and blood. The blood was found around the drain in the sink, right where Amanda would have spit her saliva/DNA onto. "Mixed" simply means that when Stefanoni wiped the sink that a particular swab picked up both the blood of Meredith and DNA of Amanda. When you wipe up two things with one swab how do they not get mixed? If I wipe up a ketchup stain next to a mustard stain with a cotton swab (not that I would use that) the two are going to mix. It doesn't mean both stains were deposited at the same time.

I think the ketchup would have been dry by the time AK brushed her teeth and when Stefanoni wiped the sink. That makes it a bit more difficult to get the stuff mixed. It works better when the ketchup is fresh and liquid. But anyway, it is not a bad theory. I am not here to convince anyone of anything. Just pointing out that there were some serious problems for the defense where they didn't come up with a convincing explanation. Just saying 'it is all normal cuz she lived there' doesn't cut the cake. They should have tried a bit harder. JMO.

 

[otto]

It is amazing but true how many juries end up focusing on and using a single incident which they absolutely are convinced happened as the deciding factor in a verdict.
IMO

I'd have to see the documentary again (the one after the movie) ... but I think that Barbie Nadeau said that the jury found the completely uncoerced and voluntary statement Knox gave on Nov 6, where she accused Patrick (essentially confessed), most detrimental to her case.

 

[otto]

I think the ketchup would have been dry by the time AK brushed her teeth and when Stefanoni wiped the sink. That makes it a bit more difficult to get the stuff mixed. It works better when the ketchup is fresh and liquid. But anyway, it is not a bad theory. I am not here to convince anyone of anything. Just pointing out that there were some serious problems for the defense where they didn't come up with a convincing explanation. Just saying 'it is all normal cuz she lived there' doesn't cut the cake. They should have tried a bit harder. JMO.

The other funny thing is that when Amanda's DNA is mixed with Meredith's blood and found in Filomina's bedroom, the explanation is that of course Amanda's DNA is found in the cottage ... she lived there ... her DNA was lying on the floor in Filomina's bedroom when Meredith's blood was added. When none of Amanda's DNA was found in Meredith's bedroom, the explanation was that she wasn't involved in the murder and so obviously none of her DNA was in the crime scene. Are we to believe that there was no DNA evidence of Amanda in Meredith's bedroom (or on Amanda's bedroom lamp that was in Meredith's bedroom), but ample DNA from Amanda in Filomina's bedroom such that there is a mixed sample with Amanda and not Filomina?

I think the court theory is that Meredith's blood was put down first and Amanda's DNA was added.

 

[sherlockh]

The court theory is that Amanda went to the small bathroom right after she stabbed Meredith. Here she washed the blood of her hands and in the process of rubbing her hands together she mixed some of her DNA in the blood. After that she went to Filomena's room and a few drops fell off from her (still somewhat wet apparently) hands. One of the drops only contained Meredith's DNA and the other one a mixed profile of her and Meredith.

 

[OldSteve]

Nova, your rebuttals to the items listed, see links below are excellent! I appreciate the time and effort you spent providing it, and while I first started out believing Amanda to be guilty, my opinion has changed to where I find her not guilty.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Meredith Kercher murdered - Amanda Knox convicted, now appeals #8

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Meredith Kercher murdered - Amanda Knox convicted, now appeals #8


Any use of Amanda DNA found at the cottage is bogus IMO!! Come websleuths! We all know that DNA is used to place a suspect in a place that a suspect says they’ve never been in or should not have been. Not the house or anything a suspect has non-criminal contact with!

 

[miley]

Otto: the fact that Raffaele’s own father blew their alibi that they were together in Raffaele’s flat at the time of the killing with indisputable telephone records;

there are a million other things that supposedly blow their alibi... what does this one even mean?

 

[Malkmus]

The other funny thing is that when Amanda's DNA is mixed with Meredith's blood and found in Filomina's bedroom, the explanation is that of course Amanda's DNA is found in the cottage ... she lived there ... her DNA was lying on the floor in Filomina's bedroom when Meredith's blood was added. When none of Amanda's DNA was found in Meredith's bedroom, the explanation was that she wasn't involved in the murder and so obviously none of her DNA was in the crime scene. Are we to believe that there was no DNA evidence of Amanda in Meredith's bedroom (or on Amanda's bedroom lamp that was in Meredith's bedroom), but ample DNA from Amanda in Filomina's bedroom such that there is a mixed sample with Amanda and not Filomina?

I think the court theory is that Meredith's blood was put down first and Amanda's DNA was added.

Amanda's lamp not having any fingerprints or DNA on it is another rumor perpetuated by online posters and not something that came out of trial. The fact is that the lamp was never even tested for fingerprints and whether it was tested for DNA is unknown. However, knowing that it was not tested for fingerprints, it is reasonable to assume it was not DNA tested either (for why do one but not the other). The reason this became an internet meme is since we all know that no DNA or fingerprints of Amanda were found in Meredith's room, but her lamp was in there, then it became assumed she must have wiped it clean. So basically this is just an assumption by people on the internet based on the lack of evidence in the murder room and not based on anything actually determined at trial.

 

[Malkmus]

I think the ketchup would have been dry by the time AK brushed her teeth and when Stefanoni wiped the sink. That makes it a bit more difficult to get the stuff mixed. It works better when the ketchup is fresh and liquid. But anyway, it is not a bad theory. I am not here to convince anyone of anything. Just pointing out that there were some serious problems for the defense where they didn't come up with a convincing explanation. Just saying 'it is all normal cuz she lived there' doesn't cut the cake. They should have tried a bit harder. JMO.

We're talking about microscopic cells being deposited on a much larger sample of dried blood. There really is no way to separate the two, as one sample of the blood will have had those microscopic cells on top of it had Amanda spit into the sink that morning. Perhaps my mustard/ketchup analogy wasn't the best to get this particular point across.

 

[Malkmus]

there are a million other things that supposedly blow their alibi... what does this one even mean?

I've said this before. It doesn't matter what Amanda and Raf said they did that night or at what time they state certain things happened. They were each other's alibis. When Raf broke her alibi it went out the window. The only thing the phone call from his dad establishes is that they were at home at the time he called. Had he called a couple hours later perhaps his call would have established an alibi for both of them.

 

[otto]

Nova, having read through your responses to the list that points to involvment of Amanda and Raffaele, I've decided to reply as follows, with one example.

Point on List: the almost-entire naked footprint of Raffaele on a bathmat that in *no way* fits that of the other male in this case – Rudy Guede;

Your Response: The footprint is not a "match" to RS, it is at best "consistent with." otto misstates the evidence here, much as the tabloids did and perhaps as the jurors may have done in their minds.

The point is that the footprint in no way matched the other male suspect. Your response implies that the point is that the print is a match to Raffaele, whereas it can only be consistent with Raffaele. Then you imply that I have misstated evidence like a tabloid gossiper. This is completely absurd. You appear to be interpretting the fact that the print does not match the other suspect as meaning that the print is a perfect match, and because it cannot be a perfect match, you suggest that I am misstating something. I think perhaps it is the other way around. You are misstating what was included in the list, and then responding to something that is not stated ... and then inferring that I am a tabloid gossiper.

The point is that the print on the matt does not match Rudy. The motivation report concludes that it is the "'opinion of probable identity‛ with respect to Sollecito's right foot, having by a comparison of the footprint on the bathmat and the footprints taken from Knox and Guede at least excluded the footprint's belonging to either of the two co-accused." Later in the report: "As a consequence, the shape of the bare footprint on the sky-blue mat in the little bathroom cannot be attributed to Rudy, who, on leaving Meredith’s room (according to what the shoe prints show), directed himself towards the exit without deviating or stopping in other rooms."

That is what is stated on the list ... nothing about perfect matches or consistent matches .. nothing about tabloid gossip ... just factual information stated in court demonstrating a couple of points. That is, the solitary bloody print on the mat does not match Rudy or Amanda, and since there are no prints leading to and from the bloody print, the other prints must have been cleaned up.

I don't have time to clarify each point and straighten out the difference between what is stated in the list and how it is interpretted, but it is all clearly stated in the 427 page report.

 

[otto]

I've said this before. It doesn't matter what Amanda and Raf said they did that night or at what time they state certain things happened. They were each other's alibis. When Raf broke her alibi it went out the window. The only thing the phone call from his dad establishes is that they were at home at the time he called. Had he called a couple hours later perhaps his call would have established an alibi for both of them.

Raffaele's father placed a call to Raffaele about about 11:30 in the evening but it was not received by Raffaele's phone at the time because the phone was turned off. At 6 AM the message went through, meaning the phone had just been turned on. This time also corresponds to activity on the computer (think it was music). The alibi given by Amanda and Raffaele was that they turned off their phones around 8:45 and spent a quiet evening at Raffaele's apt using the computer and doing other things, then waking up around 10 AM. That alibi is problematic because the phone was turned on at 6, the message from Rafaele's father went through, therefore the pair were not sleeping until 10 AM. Another point where the father blew the alibi is regarding the time of dinner. Amanda placed the time of dinner late in the evening, and speculated that the time was 11 PM, 10 PM and 9:30 PM. Because the water leak occurred while doing the dinner dishes, and Raffaele reported to his father that the leak occurred at about 8:45, that blows the alibi of eating a late dinner at the apt. This results in a 9 hour time period where there are problems with the alibi ... since dinner was not late in the evening, and they did not sleep until 10 AM.

It is most likely that police used those cell phone records to break Raffaele's alibi during questioning, which also led to Amanda being questioned on the evening of Nov 5.

 

[missyjane77]

8. No negative control tests were run to check for contamination.
9. No control tests to check for field contamination were performed

I work in research and we even have to have these things. One would think they would be REQUIRED in a murder investigation.

 

[Allusonz]

I apologize in advance to the moderators if i missed something or the formatting is out of line

 

[JBean]

allusonz I am not sure where that information is coming from or if you wrote it. If it is copied from another site, we can only copy 10% and provide a link.
If it is some sort of public documents that's ok as long as you are linking to the source. I am having a bit of trouble going through your info and not sure what is being said by you or others.
You are not online and I am not going to be here so I am unapproving both for now, but they remains in tact so don't panic. If you can let me know the answers to my questions we can edit or restore it as is.
Please let me know and sorry to remove your posts even if it is temporarily.

 

[otto]

I work in research and we even have to have these things. One would think they would be REQUIRED in a murder investigation.

Regarding allegations that negative controls were not in place, not true:

"As for the necessity of reproducing an analysis, particularly in the case of a very small amount of DNA, in order for the result to be considered as reliable, Dr. Stefanoni stated that in the event that the quantity of genetic material available is extremely small, the analysis is performed nevertheless and the result is evaluated. She added that "every analysis that we do is done only once, even if we have a salivary swab containing a very great deal of DNA with respect to the traces..." She added further that, "if an analysis is performed following all the parameters of reliability and proper laboratory procedure, with the due positive and negative controls and the due precautions employed when wearing single-use gloves, everything which is indicated as proper laboratory procedure, then I can confidently obtain a result, even with a very small quantity of DNA. I can therefore use that DNA in a single analysis without needing, even if I had desired it, to repeat that analysis. And that analysis is absolutely valid," concluded Dr. Stefanoni on this point; "There is no reason to cast doubt...as long as the data is absolutely readable and interpretable" (page 25)." (pg 218)

And later:

Nor, as has already been said, is it possible to hypothesise a contamination in the laboratory since, as was declared by Dr. Stefanoni, during the course of all the analyses, no anomaly occurred, and the fact that all due controls, precautions and procedures of good laboratory practice were complied with necessarily leads us to rule out the possibility of such contamination in the laboratory. (pg 227)

And again:

"She also explained that in performing the various analyses on the biological traces in question, there was no anomaly found which could have caused such a [231] contamination, and she gave evidence of the presence of a whole series of checks [controls], precautions and procedures, intended so as to eliminate this risk." (pg 219)

And again:

She added that the databases are updated by people who work in the field of genetics, and in accordance with the existing controls in that regard. (pg 232)

Ref: Motivation Report

 

[Nova]

And yet that DNA on JBR's underwear appears to be one of the main reasons her parents have been cleared. Hard to imagine prosecutor would clear the parents it if she believed that DNA came from the person who packaged her underwear at the factory.

That's true, and, obviously, that's a topic for another thread.

My point was just that if Lee referred to DNA in a mixture as possibly coming from the packaging, then he must not think "mixture" means "deposited at the same time."