Amanda Knox
Her case is like one of my twisty plots that keeps us reading long into the night to find out what happens. Help us out here! Did she or didn’t she???
Four years ago this week, an Italian jury said Amanda Knox was guilty of murdering her British roommate. Two years later, another jury reversed the conviction. Now, an Italian prosecutor wants Knox’s conviction reinstated.
In 2007, at age 20, American college student Amanda Knox ventured from college in Seattle, Washington, to Perguia, Italy to study abroad. She rented an apartment with a 21-year-old British woman named Meredith Kercher. On the morning of November 2, 2007, Kercher was found dead in her bedroom, brutally stabbed to death. Knox and her Italian boyfriend, 23-year-old Raffaele Sollecito were arrested for murder.
Police said the couple participated in an extreme sex game with Kercher, 21, resulting in Kercher’s murder.
Is that what happened?
Sollecito maintained he was not present at the Knox-Kercher home that night. Knox says she spent the entire night at Sollecito’s place, too, although she admitted using marijuana which might make her recall unreliable.
At trial, the prosecution hammered two pieces of forensic evidence:
- Knox’s DNA mixed with Kercher’s DNA on a knife.
- Small traces of Knox’s DNA on Kercher’s bra clasp.
But the knife didn’t match Kercher’s wounds, the defense claimed. Experts said the amount of blood on the knife was too small to be sure it was Kercher’s.
As for the bra clasp, lawyers argued it could have been contaminated because it wasn’t recovered from the crime scene until six weeks after the murder.
Suspicious circumstances were claimed to bolster the case against Knox.
- Knox sent a text to her boss the night of the murder. Knox wrote, “See you later.” Did this mean they had plans to meet up and commit a crime?
Knox’s explanation: She didn’t literally mean that she would see him later; she meant the English colloquialism.
- Knox performed stretches and a split while waiting for police to interrogate her. Is that normal behavior for someone mourning?
Knox’s explanation: “When I feel uneasy or nervous, I act a bit foolish.”
- During interrogation, Knox suggested she was in the apartment she shared with Kercher at the time of the murder. Does that put her at the crime scene?
Knox’s explanation: She said this after hours of interrogation by police in a foreign language amidst physical abuse by investigating officers. An Italian judge later agreed Knox’s confession was a result of “total confusion.”
- The media portrayed Knox as a seductress, pointing to her nickname “Foxy Knoxy.” Did that mean Knox was a deviant?
Knox’s explanation: “Foxy Knoxy” was a silly childhood nickname she was given by girls on her soccer team.
There’s one more important aspect of this case to point out. A small-time drug dealer named Rudy Guede was found guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher in 2008. He’s serving 16 years. Did he act alone?
Knox’s retrial began in September 2013. Last week, a prosecutor called for her guilty conviction to be reinstated. An appellate judge has yet to making the final ruling.
What say you? What kind of evidence would you need to solve this case so we can all get some sleep?
Caffeinate and Carry On!
p.s. Would a little extra cash in your budget make a difference? We might be able to help with that. Are you a member of the Diane Capri Crowd NewsFlash! mailing list? Just CLICK HERE to complete the form and refer your friends, too. Can’t wait to see you there!
You should have started your case summary with Rudy Guede.
Rudy Guede barely knew Amanda and has never met Raffaele Sollecito.
Rudy Guede killed Meredith Kercher. Nobody disputes this.
The end.
It does seem that Rudy Guede’s conviction should have put an end to the matter, BillyBob. Yet it did not. The matter continues even now.
this actually isn’t unusual in Italy.
Recommended reading matter is The Monster of Florence by Doug Preston and Mario Spezi.
Yes, I’ve read Doug’s book and have discussed it with him. I’ve actually talked with Doug about the Amanda Knox case, too, in a social setting a few years ago. I totally understand that things are different in Italy’s justice system.
Many folks also believe that Amanda Knox would not have been brought to trial in the U.S. on the evidence as they understand it exists. Too much reasonable doubt, they feel, and the prosecutors would have known they couldn’t win from the outset — unless they have something more than has been published in the popular press.
There are other cases in the US that have been brought to trial with even less evidence. Scott Peterson is on death row based on entirely a circumstantial case. Recently, a doctor in Utah, Martin MacNeill was convicted of murdering his wife in 2007, without the autopsy even revealing it was a homicide. The MacNeill case has many parallels to the Knox case, including police suspicion based on behavior of Macneill, jailhouse snitch testimony, etc. The prosecutors in that case even acknowledged how weak the case was and how unlikely a conviction was going to be. So to say the case would not have been brought to the US is unsupported, since there are examples of cases that have been tried and convicted with even less evidence.
Sollecito was telling stories even two days prior to his questioning, and “broke” very quickly when confronted. Knox also “broke” very quickly when she was told Sollecito no longer supported her alibi. Sollecito never formally indicated his support for her alibi in the trial proceedings. Knox placed herself at the scene of the crime, in three different statements. The police were right to arrest and charge them.
in the US the other problem would have been the violation of suspects’ rights that occurred at the beginning of the case.
Denial of access to a lawyer, no recording of the interview, not informing the suspect of the charges against them, etc etc.
That would have killed the case stone dead. Same in the UK since 1984 with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
Myth: Denial of access to a lawyer
Knox was not denied access to a lawyer during her questioning. ECHR only requires legal assistance to defend against charges in a case; it does not require a lawyer immediately upon arrest.
Unfounded: no recording of the interview
Very few places record all interviews with witnesses
Myth: not informing the suspect of the charges against them
Those charges were not levied until AFTER knox placed herself at the scene, at which time the questioning stopped and she was notified.
I say not guilty! The prosecutor was proven negligent and over zealous.
So you believe the ongoing efforts to pursue Amanda Knox are just ego, Pat? You could be right. It seems like a lot of time and resources they’re expending all these years later. If I was an Italian taxpayer, I’m not sure I’d be thrilled with that. Would you?
You may not know this, but on Friday one of the Amanda Knox prosecutors, Manuela Comodi, is on trial at a disciplinary hearing for squandering 183,000 euros on a ‘The Sims’ style video of the murder that was never admitted into the court record.
In the prosecution’s closing, they listed 16 points over two days. You have listed 4 individual unrelated items. Some of the other items of significance you neglected to list:
Knox’s first “confession” came after under two hours of questioning; Sollecito was called to station at 10 pm; knox was on phone with filomena at 10:50 pm; police started talking to her in the hallway; she did her yoga, and only then was she taken in for questioning, which puts it sometime after 11:30 pm. An interpreter arrived at 12:30 am, and she “confessed” by 1:30 am. Less than two hours later.
Knox’s DNA found either mixed with Meredith’s DNA or found in footprints revealed by the forensic chemical Luminol in four other rooms of the apartment: Filomena’s bedroom, the hallway, the bathroom, and Knox’s bedroom (trial testimony and reports)
There is much contradictory evidence to Knox and Sollecito’s latest stories they were at Sollecito’s all evening. In contrast, Knox and Sollecito have yet to produce any contradictory evidence that they were at the scene of the crime during the murder. Even Knox admits they didn’t have solid alibis (interview with King 5 reporter Linda Byron, end of october)..
Sollecito was already false stories two days before his questioning on Nov 1st. He told UK reporter Kate mansey that he and Knox had gone to a party the night of the 1st.
Knox voluntarily wrote a statement many hours after her questioning and voluntarily provided that statement to the police. In her statement she “stood by” the events she claimed might have happened the night of the 1st. She also states she knows that since she can’t fully recall the events on the night of the 1st, that is incriminating.. (Knox’s written statement, later in the day of Nov 2).
Sollecito made up a story in his diary to explain why Meredith’s DNA was found on the knife; he pricked her once while cooking.
Those are some of the other points in the case. Its worth noting that prior to being hired, Amanda Knox’s attorney Ted Simon said that Knox would have to come up with a “cogent story” that explains her actions for the evening, instead of playing “whack-a-mole” with the evidence. It seems that despite his belief, Knox and her defense team choose to play whack-a-mole anyways, and have constructed a defense consisting of claims of conspiracy, contamination, incompetence, vendettas, and interrogations.
Yes, Pat, there is a lot of contradictory evidence we didn’t mention in the blog post. You’ve put some of it here. Thank you. After considering your points, what do you think? Did she or didn’t she?
There are key points that are hard to explain by having Guede be the lone killer. The barefoot print on the bath mat with no visible blood leading up to it. That is very anomalous. Footprints concurrently revealed by the use of the forensic chemical Luminol are another.
The charge Against Knox is “participation in murder.” I think there is enough evidence that Knox participated to some extent. Even if she didn’t wield a knife, the act of cleaning up the hallway helps the person get away with the crime. So yes, I think she is guilty of the crime of “participation in murder.”
By Italian law to aid someone in committing a crime is to be as responsible for the crime as the person who struck the final blow. That point is lost in the US I think, which focuses on discrediting direct evidence then claiming circumstantial evidence isn’t evidence. Case in point: “if the glove doesn’t fit…”. People refer to this as the CSI effect.
One other correction; this is not a “retrial” but a re-hearing of Knox and Sollecito’s appeal of their original murder conviction. Multiple sources report on this accurately, but the mainstream media fabricates the image of a “retrial”. One US news organization, an NBC affiliated station in Seattle, acknowledges knowing this and deliberately deciding to withhold this information from their reports.
http://aklwei.wordpress.com/2013/11/24/the-amanda-knox-trial-information-king-5-deliberately-withheld-from-seattle/
Police said the couple participated in an extreme sex game with Kercher, 21, resulting in Kercher’s murder.
–> The prosecution made clear at trial that Meredith was not a willing participant in any “game”. The prosecution’s motive was always some sort of friction between Knox and Kercher.
Sollecito maintained he was not present at the Knox-Kercher home that night. Knox says she spent the entire night at Sollecito’s place, too, although she admitted using marijuana which might make her recall unreliable.
–> You forgot to mention that Sollecito contradicted Knox’s alibi and told police she went out around 9pm the night of the murder. That would be an important detail, no?
At trial, the prosecution hammered two pieces of forensic evidence:
Knox’s DNA mixed with Kercher’s DNA on a knife.
Small traces of Knox’s DNA on Kercher’s bra clasp.
–> It was Sollecito’s DNA on the bra clasp, and the prosecutions case encompassed more than a dozen other pieces of evidence against the two.
But the knife didn’t match Kercher’s wounds, the defense claimed. Experts said the amount of blood on the knife was too small to be sure it was Kercher’s.
–> Experts have said a lot of things that are not true. The larger of the two wounds was compatible with any knife. There is no doubt that the blood on the knife blade is Kercher’s. The only question is whether the knife was contaminated somehow, and that is undermined by Sollecito saying Kercher’s blood got on the knife when he poked her while they were cooking together.
As for the bra clasp, lawyers argued it could have been contaminated because it wasn’t recovered from the crime scene until six weeks after the murder.
–> DNA has been successfully recovered decades after a crime occurred. The only question is where in the house was a large amount of Sollecito’s DNA and how did it get deposited just on the bra clasp? Sollecito touching the clasp is infinitely more likely.
Knox sent a text to her boss the night of the murder. Knox wrote, “See you later.” Did this mean they had plans to meet up and commit a crime? Knox’s explanation: She didn’t literally mean that she would see him later; she meant the English colloquialism.
–> This may be true, but in the context of Sollecito having just withdrawn her alibi it is not surprising that the police interpreted the text as something suspicious.
Knox performed stretches and a split while waiting for police to interrogate her. Is that normal behavior for someone mourning? Knox’s explanation: “When I feel uneasy or nervous, I act a bit foolish.”
–> Acting foolish when uneasy is evidence of poor judgment, but it was never introduced at trial.
During interrogation, Knox suggested she was in the apartment she shared with Kercher at the time of the murder. Does that put her at the crime scene? Knox’s explanation: She said this after hours of interrogation by police in a foreign language amidst physical abuse by investigating officers. An Italian judge later agreed Knox’s confession was a result of “total confusion.”
–> The interpreter arrived at 12:30. Knox implicated Patrick by 1:45. Knox expert Saul Kassin said no one falsely confesses in an hour.
The media portrayed Knox as a seductress, pointing to her nickname “Foxy Knoxy.” Did that mean Knox was a deviant? Knox’s explanation: “Foxy Knoxy” was a silly childhood nickname she was given by girls on her soccer team.
–> The media are idiots. We can agree on that.
There’s one more important aspect of this case to point out. A small-time drug dealer named Rudy Guede was found guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher in 2008. He’s serving 16 years. Did he act alone?
–> The burglary was staged as was recognized by the first officers on the scene. There is no doubt that the window was broken from the inside. No one has ever presented a convincing argument otherwise. Why would Guede do that? In addition there are more than a dozen other points of evidence implicating Knox and Sollecito.
You’re clearly familiar with the facts of this confusing case. What’s your conclusion in light of the Guede conviction?
Rudy Guede raped and murdered Meredith Kercher. Knox and Sollecito were not involved in any way. The theory(ies) of the prosecution is absurd. And none of the so-called “evidence” against them holds up to scrutiny.
What happened here is the Italian police beat a false confession out of Knox. They eventually found the real killer, but had they absolved Knox at that time, they would have to explain how she came to give the false confession in the first place. Rather than admitting their mistakes and abusive tactics, Amanda Knox (and Sollecito) were instead sent up the river to cover the asses of the bungling Italian cops and prosecutors.
Do not, however, Diane Capri, flatter yourself that something similar couldn’t happen in the US. To name just two examples: David Camm in Indiana and Billy Wayne Cope in South Carolina. In both cases, authorities continued to persecute these men long after the real killer of the people they had been accused of murdering had been found.
All but one Italian court have agreed that the evidence does hold up to scrutiny. That one court’s verdict was thrown out by the Supreme Court for being manifestly illogical.
There is no evidence that the Italian police beat Knox. Even she has said that at most she got a couple of cuffs to the back of the head by 90lb Rita Ficarra, and the police and the interpreter AND her lawyers all deny it.
It is difficult to admit mistakes but the prosecutor did exactly that by admitting that Patrick Lumumba was innocent. There is no reason to believe he would not have freed Knox and Sollecito if the evidence pointed in that direction. Apart from being unethical it would be far more embarrassing to go to court with a patently weak case.
Diane, please try not to think of Guede’s conviction as “they already have the guy” and are pursuing Knox and Sollecito for no good reason — logically it’s more likely it’s for reasons you aren’t yet aware of, and this is in fact the case.
All three were initially meant to be tried together for one crime and proceeded through the first year as a single set of defendants. In 2008 Guede separated his case from the others’, fearing they would gang up on him. He was convicted in a fast-track trial (an option available to all but which only he took), which also served as the preliminary hearings to determine whether AK and RS should stand trial. His conviction is for conspiracy to murder, so when Knox supporters point to his conviction as reason to drop it against AK and RS, they tend to ignore that it was a conviction for acting in concert with others.
The case is complex but not particularly confusing:
– More than one person attacked Meredith Kercher. Meredith was dressed, awake, and standing for the attack, yet did not defend herself. Unusually, Meredith had no defensive wounds but for three tiny (0.24 inch or 6 mm) cuts on her hand, indicating an inability to express normal reflexes, flinch from the small cuts to her neck, or attempt to block the incoming blows with her hands or forearms. Indeed, in addition to wounds which fit two different knife profiles, she suffered numerous compression or restraint bruises to her elbows, wrists, and face. At the trial, consultants for Knox and Sollecito each proposed a single-attacker scenario but could not agree whether this lone wolf had attacked from the front (Torre, Amanda’s consultant) or from behind (Introna, Raffaele’s consultant).
– Someone returned to move Meredith. As is detailed by Judge Micheli (who convicted Guede for his part and committed Knox and Sollecito to trial to answer for the evidence of theirs), Meredith had died and rested on her shoulder to the right of the room, wearing her bra, and was moved to center of the room and her bra discarded at her feet, soaked through but nowhere near any blood. He notes that the blood droplets on the cups show she was wearing the bra while still breathing, but her chest, which the bra had been covering, remained clean, indicating no breaths were being drawn when or after the bra was removed.
– The bra clasp, cut or torn off from the bra the victim was wearing and originally hidden under the victim, had Raffaele’s DNA on the hooks. No plausible argument for contamination was successfully made. Stefano Conti, the independent reviewer who testified to this point, could only suppose that “anything is possible.”
– The knife recovered at Sollecito’s apartment contained the victim and Amanda Knox’s DNA. In her court testimony Carla Vecchiotti, one of the pair of independent experts who reviewed the DNA evidence at the first appeal, as well as forensic scientists from the Scientific Police, ruled out contamination in the laboratory with respect to the knife, owing to the six-day interval since testing items related to the Kercher case. When confronted with the knife DNA result in 2007, Raffaele responded with a fabricated story about accidentally pricking Meredith’s hand while they were cooking together. Meredith had never been to his flat, and they had never cooked together.
– A bare footprint made in the victim’s blood was discovered on the mat in the bathroom. Rudy’s bloody shoe prints lead from Meredith’s room directly down the hall and out the front door. The bathroom print, which could not have been made by Rudy Guede, is highly compatible with Raffaele Sollecito’s right foot.
– Knox’s DNA was found mixed with the victim’s blood in the room where the burglary was staged, and in the bathroom they shared. Amanda testified that the bathroom was clean the day before the murder.
– Footprints compatible with Knox and Sollecito’s, and made in the victim’s blood, were discovered when the forensic investigators tested the crime scene with luminol. These footprints were found in Amanda Knox’s room, in the section of the hallway connecting the victim’s room and Amanda Knox’s room, and at the site of the staged burglary. The footprints were not compatible with Rudy Guede, only Knox and Sollecito.
– The burglary was staged, and there is no one other than Knox and Sollecito who would have any motivation or opportunity to alter the crime scene that way. Broken glass had fallen on top of the scattered objects, meaning the window was broken after the ransacking, and Luminol revealed the presence of two traces of the victim’s blood on the floor, showing conclusively that whomever had tracked it in had done so after Meredith was killed. Raffaele knew nothing had been stolen in the course of this supposed burglary, assuring the 112 (911) operator of this fact well before the occupant of the room had come home and verified it for herself.
– Amanda Knox intentionally lied to the police to discourage them from considering Meredith’s locked door suspicious. In her email home Amanda relates a scene of rising panic as she and Raffaele shout for Meredith, climb the balcony to try to see in her window, and Raffaele attempts to force the door open, but only splinters the frame. Knox says it was then they decided to call the cops. Despite all this concern, they did not mention the door, or their worries about Meredith, to the communications police who arrived unexpectedly to return Meredith’s discarded cell phones. Filomena and her friends arrived shortly thereafter, and it was Filomena who said that it was not Meredith’s habit to lock her door. Amanda falsely offered that this was not true: Meredith had locked it before, even to take a shower. The Supreme Court rules this is in itself proof of an attempt to prevent the discovery of the body, with all the implications that has for Knox’s guilt.
– Knox and Sollecito’s alibis are contradicted by each other, by physical evidence and by witness testimony. While this does not directly implicate them in the murder, they have clearly lied about what they did on the night of the murder and the following morning. It is inconceivable that they would risk lying about their activities if they were not involved in Meredith’s murder. It is one thing to claim they cannot remember due to the influence of drugs. It is another to knowingly lie. The recent ruling confirms that they lied repeatedly.
– Raffaele withdrew support for Knox’s alibi, claiming that he lied at her request. Sollecito elected to not testify, and he refused to confirm that Knox was with him the night of the murder, for the entire trial. Confronted with the news that Raffaele had ceased to support her alibi, Knox quickly changed her story, placing herself at the cottage and falsely accusing an innocent man of committing the deed. The conditions under which Amanda Knox changed her statement have been consistently misreported.
Amanda Knox’s false accusation of her boss Patrick Lumumba, made a mere hour into her interrogation in response to a question about her text messages. Her family told the press for years a confession was beaten out of her during an all-night interrogation, even convincing Senator Maria Cantwell of this to spur her to write to President Berlusconi. As the facts have percolated through the English-speaking world, it has become known that the parents knew within days that Knox accused Lumumba very quickly and of her own volition. She has since been convicted of frustrating the course of justice and slander (calunnia).
Arguments for the lone-wolf scenario are as follows:
– People are being mean to Knox;
– Guede strikes them as the kind of guy who would do this.
Neither of these account for the (partial) list of evidence above. I would love for you to get acquainted with the actual facts at the site linked in my name.
Ben, the evidence is lengthy and confusing, to be sure.
It’s only lengthy and confusing if you are the defense and have to dismantle each piece of evidence point by point. At least seven ways for the prosecution to win:
1) Fishy alibi + staged break-in = AK and RS Guilty.
2) Fishy alibi + RG account = AK and RS Guilty.
3) Fishy alibi + reconstruction of the attack = AK and RS Guilty.
4) Fishy alibi + evidence of a clean-up = AK and RS Guilty.
5) Fishy alibi + bloody bathmat footprint = AK and RS Guilty.
6) Fishy alibi + luminol footprints in the hall = AK and RS Guilty.
7) Fishy alibi + confessions (just AK’s handwritten note is sufficient) = AK and RS Guilty.
Any one of these things would buy them 25 years to life in a U.S. court, assuming they didn’t have a PR campaign and a pliant media.
I am absolutely fascinated by this case. I guess I’ve been living under a rock these past few months and had no idea her retrial had started. Thanks for the heads up, Diane!
It is a fascinating one, Tiffany, isn’t it? So many different viewpoints on the evidence.
you can guarantee that anyone posting a giant wall of text is posting misinformation.
Everything I’ve said is true, Bill. This is the evidence that convicted them and which they will attempt to answer in a couple of weeks as their appeal winds down. It is not a complete list; you’ll notice I omitted their cellphone records contradicting their stories and Knox’s blood on the bathroom faucet she said wasn’t there the afternoon before the murder.
Diane was referencing cartwheels and Foxy Knoxy. People took this to indicate she is working with very old and incomplete information — for instance that Guede isn’t a drifter and Knox’s interrogation was an hour long are virtually unknown in America. In the beginning there was a massive information vacuum that Knox’s parents filled with information favorable to Knox, which makes the current appeal in Italy difficult to comprehend — They must be nuts! Why would they do this to obviously innocent people if they already have the guy?
The answer is they aren’t doing this to obviously innocent people. Guede was convicted of conspiracy and the clues point only to Knox and Sollecito in the form of their DNA on the victim’s undergarments or knife, their footprints in her blood, their changing stories, their access to the house, their modification of the crime scene, etc.
The prosecutor said Meredith was immobilized like an animal while they tormented her — this was an absolutely horrible murder and I do hope Diane comes to realize how badly it’s been misrepresented for the benefit of those responsible.
At trial, the prosecution hammered two pieces of forensic evidence:
1) Knox’s DNA mixed with Kercher’s DNA on a knife.
2) Small traces of Knox’s DNA on Kercher’s bra clasp.
3) But the knife didn’t match Kercher’s wounds, the defense claimed.
4) Experts said the amount of blood on the knife was too small to be sure it was Kercher’s.
1) Knox’s DNA was found on the knife (3 separate reviews), the first review stated they found Kercher’s DNA on the knife but later discredited in the second review (Conti-Vecchiotta). The 3rd review did not find Kercher’s DNA on the knife.
http://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com
2) Knox’s DNA was NEVER found on the Bra Clasp. The first review implicated Sollecito but this claim was later discredited by Conti-Vecchiotta.
3) True
4) No blood was ever found on the knife in any amount. Knox’s DNA has been confirmed on the handle and starch was found on the blade during the Conti-Vecchiotta review.
PS. Don’t compare the Scott Peterson case to this one. Scott Peterson was convicted of murder because his wife died under mysterious circumstances while he and the wife were having martial problems AND he was having an AFFAIR. Clearly the motive overwhelms the lack of physical evidence. The Knox case has no motive, no credible physical evidence, and no credible witness.
For more information, read Candace Dempsey’s book, or Nina Burleigh’s book, or Mark C Waterbury (PhD) ‘s book.
Candace completely ignores the DNA evidence in her book; she only says the word “DNA” three times. The Massei court ruling, on the other hand, made 400 references to DNA when convicting Knox and Sollecito.
Even CV agreed the profile on the bra clasp was sollecitos; they claimed it was only there from contamination.
You are also confusing “disputed” with “discredited”. Evidence is not automatically discredited just because the defense puts forth an argument or another expert opinion. If that were the case, there would never be a conviction:
“I didn’t do it your honor!”
“Well, that’s good enough to discredit the entire case against you! Dismissed!”
The defense has put forth arguments disputing the evidence of the case. They are not automatically accepted as true or accurate.
Meredith’s DNA on the knife blade is still part of the case, but was disputed by the defense. However, the latest RIS testimony and finding will likely support the original finding of Meredith’s DNA on the blade, as the amount was a similar amount.
Candace Dempsey’s strong point is understanding and explaining the relationships between the women, not the analysis of the DNA. The CV report addresses the DNA:
ITEM 165B (BRA CLASPS)
Relative to Item 165B (bra clasps), we find that the technical analysis is not reliable for the following reasons:
1. There does not exist evidence which scientifically confirms the presence of supposed flaking cells on the item;
2. There was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile of the autosomic STRs;
3. There was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile relative to the Y chromosome;
4. The international protocols for inspection, collection, and sampling of the item were not followed;
5. It cannot be ruled out that the results obtained derive from environmental contamination and/or contamination in some phase of the collection and/or handling of the item.
ITEM 36 (KNIFE)
Relative to the genetic analysis performed on trace A (handle of the knife), we agree with the conclusion reached by the Technical Consultant regarding the attribution of the genetic profile obtained from these samples to Amanda Marie Knox.
Relative to trace B (blade of the knife) we find that the technical analyses performed are not reliable for the following reasons:
1. There does not exist evidence which scientifically confirms that trace B (blade of knife) is the product of blood.
2. The electrophoretic profiles exhibited reveal that the sample indicated by the letter B (blade of knife) was a Low Copy Number (LCN) sample, and, as such, all of the precautions indicated by the international scientific community should have been applied.
3. Taking into account that none of the recommendations of the international scientific community relative to the treatment of Low Copy Number (LCN) samples were followed, we do not accept the conclusions regarding the certain attribution of the profile found on trace B (blade of knife) to the victim Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher, since the genetic profile, as obtained, appears unreliable insofar as it is not supported by scientifically validated analysis;
4. International protocols of inspection, collection, and sampling were not followed;
5. It cannot be ruled out that the result obtained from sample B (blade of knife) derives from contamination in some phase of the collection and/or handling and/or analyses performed.
During the review this fall (2013) they also did not find Kercher’s DNA on the knife.
Conti and Vecchiotti were independent experts appointed by the court (not hired by the defense).
The knife has been discredited.
1. Most recent testing was on a previously untested DNA trace. The claim “during the fall (2013) they did not find kercher DNA on the knife” only refers to the newest DNA sample, NOT the other previously tested DNA samples. By and large, the US mainstream media assumed wrongly that the whole knife was tested. (Source: at-court reporters, unbiased media sources, italian media reports, etc).
2. C&V did not disagree that Sollecito’s DNA was on bra strap; they claimed it was contamination. No viable path of contamination has been put forth by the defense.
3. Counter-claims do not automatically discredit evidence, despite the beliefs of Knox supporters.
4. The amount tested in the latest DNA trace is similar to the amount tested in the original DNA trace, undermining defense claims that the original amount was too small to be of any use.
5. The other DNA evidence that Dempsey doesn’t talk about is Knox’s DNA mixed with Merediths or found in luminol footprints in four other rooms of the house, including a bedroom which did not belong to either of them, and which had the supposed “break-in.” This is some of the DNA evidence that forms part of the case that Dempsey completely ignores.
1) The CV conclusion on the knife was the low copy DNA on the knife was not processed correctly thus the stated results and the conclusion by Ms Stefanoni are wrong. If it had been Kercher’s DNA, the deposit could just as likely been the result of poor evidence collection and handling techniques by the police.
2) The viable path for contamination was that the bra clasp remained on the floor for a month while the police team walked trough the area and it was Ms Stefanoni herself who decided to pick the clasp from the floor, handle/examine it, and then put it back on the floor while all this was caught on camera.
3) There is too much uncertainty regarding the claims of the first court regarding the knife and bra clasp because they can’t demonstrate that their techniques are robust enough to rule our contamination (quite the opposite) and none of their results can be replicated. You don’t have this problem with the evidence against Rudy because they used standard PCR technique and there is so much of it in places where it should be if he were innocent.
4) They didn’t find Kercher’s DNA. The “original” sample was processed incorrectly by Ms Stefanoni. Processing something correctly this time has no bearing on previous results.
5) Mark Waterbury and Nina Burleigh books are better on this issue than Candace is. When you don’t find any DNA from Knox and Sollecito on Kercher (like you did with Rudy) when it supposed to be a violent attack, finding DNA in common area from people who lived in the house doesn’t tell me anything about what happened when.
With all this, my personal opinion is that the LCN DNA on the knife and bra are all a red herring. By themselves they mean nothing because by the nature of the violent and prolonged attack on Kercher there would have been a lot more and it would have been found on Kercher herself. How much? I would say that the amount and location of DNA found for Rudy on Kercher should be a pretty good guide on how much you should have found of Knox and Sollecito if they had been involved.
Yes, the defense disputed the findings. Defenses will always dispute findings and claim contamination of incriminating DNA evidence. It doesn’t mean their arguments are accepted carte blanche. In particular,
1. the recent testimony in the appeals supports the standards that are followed in italy. C&V’s claims about “international standards” is spurious.
2. The LCN amount is no longer an issue, as the defense had no problems with the RIS testing on LCN
3. How, specifically, was it that Sollecito’s DNA that came to contaminate the bra clasp? How, specifically, was it that Sollecito’s DNA came to be in Meredith’s room to contaminate the bra clasp? How is it then that contamination is a valid defense for Sollecito and not Guede?
4. 46 days means nothing in regards to DNA. It has a half life of 400 YEARS. Part of the delay was due to coordinating schedules with the defense teams so they could witness the collection on Dec 18th. Citation: stefanoni’s testimony.
5. Your ‘sense of’ how attacks are supposed to go is irrelevant. The assumptions you erroneously make are:
a: you assume they all had an equal role in the attack, thus would have left an equal amount of DNA
b: you assume they all wore identical clothing, thus would have left an equal amount of dna
c: you assume they all had equal contact with meredith, thus would have left an equal amount of dna
d: you assume they all participated for the full length of the attack, thus would have left an equal amount of dna
e: you assume the attack started in the bedroom (because the attacker(s) obviously closed the door after the attack) thus DNA evidence at the rest of the crime scene is unrelated to the attack
f: You assume they all switched between holding knives and touching meredith equally, thus would have left an equal amount of dna
I could go on about the number of erroneous assumptions you make to claim the evidence doesn’t fit your view on how attacks should happen, but I think you get the point.
Knox’s trial was going on shortly after we moved to Italy and I followed it pretty closely. I do think she was part of the murder, though don’t think she acted alone.
Oh, and filomena’s bedroom is not a ‘common area’ of the house, but luminol footprints, Knox DNA, and Meredith DNA were all found in that room.
You can say for sure that Knox and Meredith were never in that room visiting Filomena in the days before the murder?
From our other conversation…
C&V were court appointed, not defense expert witnesses. They disputed the police findings (Ms Stanfanoni).
1. Ms Stanfanoni was unable to prove the appeals court with data that she performed the tests to any accepted standard, as she couldn’t produce her notes. If you are an expert in this area than you should publish your work and open it up to peer review, otherwise I’m sticking with C&V (the court appointed experts).
2. As far as the knife is concerned, the only consensus is that Knox’s DNA is on it.
3. Maybe Ms Stanfanoni contaminated it. For 46 days the bra clasp was not considered that important, maybe somebody picked it up like she did or accidentally stepped on it (we don’t know). As far a Guede, his DNA was in way too may places it shouldn’t be and was detected by standard PCR techniques so you can’t say they were all due to contamination. If fact there were traces of Guede in side of Meredith. I don’t care how good his lawyer is, he’s never going to convince me that his DNA was there due to contamination. Forget about it.
4. 46 days of exposure/risk of contamination to the bra clasp. Remember, we are talking about Low Copy DNA.
5. I never said they had an equal role to Rudy in the attack, I said Rudy provides a guide on what you should expect. This means if there is a high contact attack you should be able to use standard PCR techniques to find lots of evidence (like Rudy) and low copy DNA techniques become unnecessary. Said another way, if your going to argue that 3 people did similar things, then the amount of DNA left behind by each as a result of those things should also be similar (but not necessarily equal). Similar amounts and similar locations.
Sollecito’s DNA on the bra clasp was not LCN. Read stefanoni’s testimony and also that of other published experts.
Even CV admitted stefanoni provided what she was supposed to provide.
Part of the reason for the 46 day delay was to coordinate with the defense so the defense could witness the collection. Read stefanoni’s testimony. They were in a van outside watching on a camera feed.
Again, disputed does not mean the same thing as discredited. Please look these terms up, as you seem to confuse them.
Nothing to solve! There is NO DNA from Amanda Knox nor Sollecito at the crime scene – NONE! Impossible for this type of crime! Rudy Guedde’s DNA is everywhere. They have their killer, but insist on Knox & her boyfriend. Stupid Italians!
The crime scene includes everywhere where there was:
1. Meredith’s blood
2. Signs of other activity concurrent with the crime.
You cannot exclude Knox’s DNA in four rooms of the house mixed with meredith’s DNA or found in the luminol footprints while at the same time accepting in Guede’s excrement in the other bathroom and the “break-in” in the other bedroom. Either the crime scene is the entire apartment or its not. You cannot selectively choose which rooms you’ll accept as part of your “crime scene” simply because there is other evidence that disagrees with Knox being innocent.
If Filomena’s bedroom, the other bathroom, and the blood in the first bathroom are included in the “crime scene”, than so is Knox’s DNA mixed with Meredith’s DNA or found in luminol footprints.
1) The police never claimed that Meredith’s blood was on the knife only her DNA and V&C stated that this claim was unsubstantiated. You also have to wonder why….if the knife was covered in blood and then cleaned, why would there only be one spot on the knife that comes up positive for Meredith’s DNA? The spot (or spots) would have been invisible to the naked eye, so you couldn’t see it to clean it. There wasn’t anything special about the surface of the knife where the police claim Meredith’s DNA was, so why wasn’t there at least one other spot that could have been tested to prove that the police result were repeatable? Also, wasn’t she stoned that night? That would help her clean the knife. You also have to consider that the knife in question didn’t match the wounds on the victim so it does not seem reasonable to claim that the knife was the murder weapon.
2) You would have to be able to know when the Knox DNA found in the common areas was deposited. If Rudy stabs Meredith by himself and gets her blood all over him, then tracks that blood in areas that already have Knox’s DNA (because she lived there) then that Knox DNA/Meredith blood combination is obviously not part of the crime. That is why you need a strong Knox DNA deposit on the victim herself (somewhere it shouldn’t be) before you can claim she was involved.
.
Knox doesn’t ever have to touch meredith for her to be convicted of participation in the murder of Meredith Kercher. You do know about the italian legal concept of “concorso”, don’t you? If you don’t, I suggest you look it up. Anyone who aids in the commission of a crime is equally as guilty as the person who commits the crime. Even if Knox just cleaned up afterwards, she’s aiding in the crime of the murder of Meredith Kercher. Ergo, she is convicted.
The knife matches the final blow. Read the trial testimony.
Why was Knox’s dna found mixed with Meredith’s DNA and in the luminol footprints in Filomena’s room? That was not a common room in the cottage, nor does the claim “she lived their” hold for someone elses bedroom. Unless you want to claim that presence of DNA in a bedroom doesn’t mean that someone was in that bedroom.. in which case I’d have to respond by telling you you’re trying to lobby for Guede’s freedom!
There is no credible witness says Knox aided in the murder. There were no signs of cleaning, as that would have been visually obvious in the Luminol.
Hellmann’s conclusion on the knife vs knife wounds:
But in truth there is no need, in order to rule out a link between the seized knife and the murder, to determine if the aggressors have indeed been multiple and if the weapons used have been one or more. There is no such need since (again abstracting from the genetic analyses) there are no particular elements, specific signs left on the body [of the victim] by that knife, and the alleged compatibility – according to the Public Minister’s consultants – is not even such in a strict sense, the experts appointed by the Investigating Judge [GIP, Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari, i.e. Claudia Matteini] having ascertained only the “non-incompatibility” of the seized knife with the wounds present on the victim’s body, basing their assessment on the consideration that a 17.5 cm blade can anyhow cause wounds with a 8 cm path and on the fact that the blade in object is single-edged and sharp pointed. And an assessment of “non-incompatibility” amounts, on the probative [probatorio] level but also on the merely evidentiary [indiziario] one, to nothing, since such characteristics are common to many commonly-used knives.
It is not shocking that DNA from Knox and Meredith could have been found in Filomena’s room because you don’t know when it was deposited. Maybe they were dropping off the rent money, just being friendly, or asking for advice. All three lived in that house for 2 months. Rudy is like a case study in using DNA to find what doesn’t belong (his DNA) in her room and on/in her. Meredith never dated him, never “hooked up” with him, and had a steady boyfriend. Hard to believe they might let him out in 2014.