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

[Nova]

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 don't have any statistics on the subject, but that is also my impression from listening to jurors talk on crime shows.

 

[Nova]

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.

I could be wrong but I believe the collection process re-dampens the area.

In any event, what is tested is whatever ends up on the swab, and I don't believe there is any automatic, scientific way to date the results or even tell which deposit was made first.

 

[Nova]

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.

No, I think there was simply no DNA from AK in the places where they tested. I assume those places include those deemed most likely to contain relevant DNA, since obviously they found plenty of Mr. Guede left behind.

 

[Nova]

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, if my language was too blunt, I do truly apologize. I know you have researched this case thoroughly--far more thoroughly than I--and I have minced no words in expressing my gratitude for the help you have given me. I certainly should not have made the tabloid comparison in the way I did, and did not think about how it would read.

But when you call a print "the footprint of Raffaele", you go far beyond what the forensics actually show in this case. As I'm sure you know, when you think about it, since you were part of a discussion here on the subject.

Not even the Motivation Report declares it a certain match, referring instead, as you point out, to "probable identity." In shifting from terms indicating probability to terms indicating certainty, you do something similar to and as unfortunate as many media reports have done. That was my point.

***

As for the other items, I don't expect you to respond to each of my responses--we could both go on forever doing that; nor do I assume you are conceding any of your points. We've each made our list and we can leave it at that.

 

[Nova]

FWIW, I thought it was surprisingly sympathetic to the possibility that AK and RS might be innocent. The previews seem much more suspicious of the two, and perhaps they were deliberately constructed in that way because Marketing thought the "scary duo" would attract viewers.

From the film, I now know what otto meant about AK's alleged reaction to seeing the knives in the drawer of her own home. Since the reaction was reported by LE with an interest in making AK look suspicious, it may all be rubbish. Or it may be that AK found knives disturbing, considering her flatmate had recently been stabbed to death. I think we can understand that AK doesn't have to be the killer to react to knives in that context.

Question: in the film, a coroner is shown telling Mignini that lividity in MK's body proves that it was moved three hours after the murder. I'm surprised I haven't seen that discussed here, because if true, that would seem very damning to AK. Does anyone know offhand if that issue was raised at trial? And if so, what was the defense's response?

 

[trillian]

Im really getting tired of hearing about proven footprints of Amandas in Merediths blood. IT IS NOT TRUE. And never was. The lies are really ridiculous.

No bare prints (except the bath mat) tested positive for blood. And the prints were never positively attributed to any known person. This is FACT.

Can we just agree on these facts and move to other things? If she is so guilty, surely people do not need to cling to things which are fabricatons to prove she is.

 

[Allusonz]

the footprints shown by luminol tested negative for blood

Stefanoni claimed these stains were never tested for blood, however in July 2009, Stefanoni's notes confirmed the stains were tested with tetramethylbenzidine which is extremely sensitive for blood. All of the stains detected with luminol tested negative for blood

http://injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-01.html

again luminol reacts with a number of substances such as soil, bleach, products that contain bleach, water that has iron etc in it but it does not mean that there is blood there

ETA: The ones in blood RS's family actually noted the number of rings did not correspond to RS's shoes

 

[otto]

No, I think there was simply no DNA from AK in the places where they tested. I assume those places include those deemed most likely to contain relevant DNA, since obviously they found plenty of Mr. Guede left behind.

That's interesting, but neither here nor there. The bottom line is that evidence was presented in court stating that Knox's DNA was found mixed with Meredith's blood.

 

[otto]

otto, if my language was too blunt, I do truly apologize. I know you have researched this case thoroughly--far more thoroughly than I--and I have minced no words in expressing my gratitude for the help you have given me. I certainly should not have made the tabloid comparison in the way I did, and did not think about how it would read.

But when you call a print "the footprint of Raffaele", you go far beyond what the forensics actually show in this case. As I'm sure you know, when you think about it, since you were part of a discussion here on the subject.

Not even the Motivation Report declares it a certain match, referring instead, as you point out, to "probable identity." In shifting from terms indicating probability to terms indicating certainty, you do something similar to and as unfortunate as many media reports have done. That was my point.

***

As for the other items, I don't expect you to respond to each of my responses--we could both go on forever doing that; nor do I assume you are conceding any of your points. We've each made our list and we can leave it at that.

This has nothing to do with blunt. Please reread my comment if you are unaware of why I find a problem with your remarks about me, and please keep in mind that this is not about me, and there is no reason to comment on me. Furthermore, I did not state that the print belonged to Raffaele, I stated that it did not belong to the other male suspect.

This is what you have written: "otto misstates the evidence here, much as the tabloids did"

The moderator edited your comment to separate my remarks from yours, and apparently did not have a problem with this, but I do.

 

[otto]

Perhaps everyone needs a reminder from the moderator that opened up the thread:

Salem: "Be sure your posts attacks the information and not the poster or posters in general."

 

[Malkmus]

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

Not sure who or what Missy was quoting, but I believe the actual issue is that there is no evidence that "substrate controls" were performed (i.e. testing random objects found near the knife and bra clasp to determine whether they also contained AK, RS or someone else's DNA). The parts you have cited from the Massei report only correlate to proper testing procedures done in the lab. That being said, what Massei writes is fairly vague and amounts to Stefanoni saying "I did everything right, so contamination wasn't a possibility". This doesn't address the possibility of contamination before reaching the lab which is something substrate controls would help determine.

 

[Malkmus]

This has nothing to do with blunt. Please reread my comment if you are unaware of why I find a problem with your remarks about me, and please keep in mind that this is not about me, and there is no reason to comment on me. Furthermore, I did not state that the print belonged to Raffaele, I stated that it did not belong to the other male suspect.

This is what you have written: "otto misstates the evidence here, much as the tabloids did"

The moderator edited your comment to separate my remarks from yours, and apparently did not have a problem with this, but I do.

Sorry, Otto, I agree that this is misleading, and how can you possibly say "I did not state that the print belonged to Raffaele" when in the paragraph Nova quoted you said:

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

 

[miley]

It is the way the lawyers work I guess. RG's lawyer carefully avoids pointing the finger directly at RS. He has one of the best lawyers of the country. RG standing up during the appeal and saying he saw AK from the window. What for he say that? He already stated he heard her voice. I think it is the lawyers who play 'political' games behind the scenes. Maybe 'political' is the wrong term..lol.. It is just my feeling

What if it's part of their strategy - Rudy and his attorney are using it as leverage...
(because the prosecution needs Rudy to testify that A & RS were there)

Evidently, "hearing" Amanda isn't nearly as incriminating as seeing her "silhouette" and that's why during his appeal Rudy makes that spontaneous statement.

Instead of political 'games' behind the scenes, what if it's just negotiating.. business as usual.

Forget about the fact that Italy doesn't 'plea,' there are ways around it.

I can't remember the legal term but I read that Italy offers deals to informants, usually mafia/terrorists, but not exclusively. Besides, Mignini is known for loopholes.

This could of happened off the record, maybe political but not illegal --
(isn't there a rumor that Rudy was an informant)

btw, I'm not saying this is what happened, just a idea building off what Barbie N. said

 

[miley]

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?

Rudy said he got orange juice out of the fridge and drank from the carton. He said he didn't want to dirty a glass.

eta: I'm not saying it was Amanda's print, just saying Rudy admits to drinking OJ.

 

[otto]

Sorry, Otto, I agree that this is misleading, and how can you possibly say "I did not state that the print belonged to Raffaele" when in the paragraph Nova quoted you said:

It helps if you take it from the top ... the point on the list that is being discussed does not mention Raffaele. The quote is from the Motivation Report.

 

[Allusonz]

It helps if you take it from the top ... the point on the list that is being discussed does not mention Raffaele. The quote is from the Motivation Report.

I do not presume to speak for Malkmus

The Motivational Report is simply that. The judge determines what testimony he chooses to use to back his arguments. It is HIS reasoning based on what HE chose.

This does not mean that there are not mistakes with his reasoning

 

[miley]

I just read that the luminol testing wasn't done until Dec., about 4 weeks later. I had never seen this video, notice the way the crime scene was handled, and walked on... this is the same hallway tested w/ luminol 4 weeks later.
(Patrizia Stefanoni wrapping the mop)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ySCwcZD5Dk&feature=player_embedded

 

[Allusonz]

I have seen that video miley

What perplexed me more is that it was not wrapped according to proper protocols/procedures standard with forensic testing as there would probably be DNA on the Christmas wrapping paper....

Thanks for posting it!!!

 

[Allusonz]

FWIW

I do not conisder the phone call from RS's father to give them an alibi. RS's friend that stopped by the apartment i would consider to be an alibi. I believe that is essentially what Malkmus is trying to convey especially considering the number of misrepresentations that have been presented (in the media for example) of the words that his father said during that conversation

 

[OldSteve]

FWIW, I thought it was surprisingly sympathetic to the possibility that AK and RS might be innocent. The previews seem much more suspicious of the two, and perhaps they were deliberately constructed in that way because Marketing thought the "scary duo" would attract viewers.

From the film, I now know what otto meant about AK's alleged reaction to seeing the knives in the drawer of her own home. Since the reaction was reported by LE with an interest in making AK look suspicious, it may all be rubbish. Or it may be that AK found knives disturbing, considering her flatmate had recently been stabbed to death. I think we can understand that AK doesn't have to be the killer to react to knives in that context.

Question: in the film, a coroner is shown telling Mignini that lividity in MK's body proves that it was moved three hours after the murder. I'm surprised I haven't seen that discussed here, because if true, that would seem very damning to AK. Does anyone know offhand if that issue was raised at trial? And if so, what was the defense's response?

BBM
Like you I thought the movie did allow AK, at least, to appear innocent of murder. So I was surprised that I read elsewhere that her family did not like the movie.....

As I mentioned, I believe while AK may have seen MK's body in MK's room, and that AK may have covered MK with the quilt(blanket).... I do find any evidence that AK murdered MK.
As to what I BBM in my quote - I believe that simply supports that AK saw MK after she was murdered.
Finally, just to reiterate - any AK DNA in the cottage or MK's room would be normal to find - since AK lived there! What am I missing?!