Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#4

Amber29 said:

Not to mention there was a mixed DNA sample of Meredith and amanda in Filomenas room. The excuse they lived together can't be used for this one. Considering there was no sample of either other roommate mixed with Meredith. Not even Filomenas own room.

How did that mixed sample revealed with luminal get there?

Click to expand...

Mixed DNA is a common occurrence in forensics. Luminol detects the possibility of blood, nothing more. The negative TMB tests means that it probably was not blood, and the lack of a confirmatory test means that no one has any business concluding that it was blood. The lack of good forensic technique might have led to apparently mixed samples of DNA in some instances. It is known that gloves themselves can test positive for DNA, yet Stefanoni only indicated that they were changed after handling an item that was particularly soiled (as summarized in Massei). The lack of substrate controls (DNA tests near the luminol stain) is another strike against the stain as evidence. One of the samples from Filomena's room had some extra alleles (possibly Rep. 177). The forensic police did not obtain Laura's or Filomena's reference profiles; therefore, unidentified DNA might be theirs for all anyone knows.

Yet first among equals in what is wrong with this evidence is the fact that it was collected on 18 December. The American Bar Association’s standards for collecting evidence reads in part, “Standard 2.1 Collecting DNA evidence from a crime scene or other location

(a) Whenever a serious crime appears to have been committed and there is reason to believe that DNA evidence relevant to the crime may be present at the crime scene or other location, that evidence should be collected promptly.”

I would either exclude all evidence taken on this date or I would take it at a deep discount to evidence collected promptly, and that goes for evidence collected against Guede as well. There was traffic in the cottage in the intervening period; Barbie Nadeau took a picture of an open door behind some crime scene tape on or about 14 November, for example.

aa9511 said:

With regards to the view of Filomena's window from the street, I think that the main point is that there is much more risk with that wndow than somewhere towards the back of the house. It is visible from the street, that's undeniable.

Also, let's say Rudy managed to get up to the window as the climber did, using his athleticism. So he is hanging from the windowsill, as it shows the climber doing.....then he would have to have pulled himself up with his hands firmly on the wndowsill, then sort of lunged forward through the window. His entire body, from forearms to feet, would have had contact with that windowill as he pulled himself through it.

So I do not believe that he could have done all of that, and the police would still think the window was staged. It would have been an obvious true window entry, IMO.

Click to expand...

Let's not forget the latch he had to be able to reach while hanging there.

Amber29 said:

Looks like those pics are taken in a different season tho as the vegetation is thick and green. Murder happened in November. The cottage did not look like that.

Click to expand...

the you tube video smk linked earlier shows the vegetation to be "thick and green" imo... it was uploaded late nov 2007.

redheadedgal said:

the you tube video smk linked earlier shows the vegetation to be "thick and green" imo... it was uploaded late nov 2007.

Click to expand...

These photos also show the vegetation around the cottage at the time period of the murder:

link

link

link

link

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=13&image_id=2638

View from the fence rail. Pretty clear view IMO

Amber29 said:

Pretty clear view IMO

Click to expand...

yes, from the side of the road. imo, the first two pics harmony linked in post #31 are more accurate from a driver's perspective.

smk: So what was their argument? If they believed the burglary was a simulation, why did they argue for the ease of entry into this window?

Click to expand...

i don't know... i didn't read the entire document... but just after the spiderman remark it says something about it being more likely that a thief would break in downstairs (except, weren't the boys friends of guede's?) and then micheli reports that the rock was thrown from inside...

here is the google translation... use the find feature to look for the word "spiderman"... the explanation begins after that line:

http://translate.google.com/transla...750&ei=WQ4eS_DSOYO4NZjA9asK&sa=X&oi=translate

I found these photos on google images. The collage shows the bars on the windows around the house. Were the bars on there at the time of the murder or added later? I know the ones in Filomena's room were added after the murder.

link

Note: I don't know who made the collage or where it came from.

link

Chris_Halkides said:

Mixed DNA is a common occurrence in forensics. Luminol detects the possibility of blood, nothing more. The negative TMB tests means that it probably was not blood, and the lack of a confirmatory test means that no one has any business concluding that it was blood. The lack of good forensic technique might have led to apparently mixed samples of DNA in some instances. It is known that gloves themselves can test positive for DNA, yet Stefanoni only indicated that they were changed after handling an item that was particularly soiled (as summarized in Massei). The lack of substrate controls (DNA tests near the luminol stain) is another strike against the stain as evidence. One of the samples from Filomena's room had some extra alleles (possibly Rep. 177). The forensic police did not obtain Laura's or Filomena's reference profiles; therefore, unidentified DNA might be theirs for all anyone knows.

Yet first among equals in what is wrong with this evidence is the fact that it was collected on 18 December. The American Bar Association’s standards for collecting evidence reads in part, “Standard 2.1 Collecting DNA evidence from a crime scene or other location

(a) Whenever a serious crime appears to have been committed and there is reason to believe that DNA evidence relevant to the crime may be present at the crime scene or other location, that evidence should be collected promptly.”

I would either exclude all evidence taken on this date or I would take it at a deep discount to evidence collected promptly, and that goes for evidence collected against Guede as well. There was traffic in the cottage in the intervening period; Barbie Nadeau took a picture of an open door behind some crime scene tape on or about 14 November, for example.

Click to expand...

Tmb tests don't always test positive for blood on a trace found with luminol, considering luminol is a lot higher sensitivity to blood. Considering we also have a source (Meredith's blood) for the luminol positive spots. I don't find it to be a coincidence that amanda and Raffaeles footprints are revealed with luminol in a hallway outside a room where a girl had bled to death. Sorry I'm not going to discount that evidence that easily. It's just more evidence that has to be explained away. We could do that with everything couldn't we?

Harmony2 said:

I found these photos on google images. The collage shows the bars on the windows around the house. Were the bars on there at the time of the murder or added later? I know the ones in Filomena's room were added after the murder.

Click to expand...

The lower floor windows had bars at the time of the murder. The bars on Filomena's window were added later.

I have seen a photo from an Italian newspaper showing the cottage at night taken within a few days of the murder. It clearly shows Filomena's window is in deep shadows. If I find it again, I will post it.

A burglar trying to break in from the balcony has another problem. As cars approach the cottage from that side, their headlights pan directly across the balcony.

But even if we ignore this, the pro guilt argument on this issue is nonsense. Does the fact that one way of entering may be "better" preclude someone from entering the cottage by a less optimal route?

I don't think that balcony would've been able to be seen well at night but here's a view of Filomenas window at night
http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=13&image_id=2222

Either way I still believe the back would've been the easier access. Rudy was familiar with this cottage as he was friends with the boys downstairs.

Amber29 said:

Tmb tests don't always test positive for blood on a trace found with luminol, considering luminol is a lot higher sensitivity to blood. Considering we also have a source (Meredith's blood) for the luminol positive spots. I don't find it to be a coincidence that amanda and Raffaeles footprints are revealed with luminol in a hallway outside a room where a girl had bled to death. Sorry I'm not going to discount that evidence that easily. It's just more evidence that has to be explained away. We could do that with everything couldn't we?

Click to expand...

bbm

Yes, we most certainly could. This is a point I have been trying to make on here for a long time. I feel like sometimes we are asked to believe that up is down and down is up, and that it's perfectly normal to question the fact that up is up and down is down!

Amber29 said:

Looks like those pics are taken in a different season tho as the vegetation is thick and green. Murder happened in November. The cottage did not look like that.

Click to expand...

:drumroll: BINGO ! Good catch about the vegetation !

JMO ... but the ONLY PICS that are relevant are the pics that were taken the day Meredith was found because this is a true and accurate pic of the vegetation, the cottage, etc.

:moo:

I'm still trying to catch up on this case and I've found some older threads to try to get a feel for the progression of everything.

I've been reading that many posters think the prosecution was misleading and I haven't gotten to the evidence of that yet, but I have to ask why the defense would make a video touting that the window could be accessed without the bars then have an experienced climber do the video and USE the bars. That doesn't make sense to me.

Amanda's comment about thinking the blood was menstrual blood also makes no sense. Are there really woman that have their period hard enough that they would leave footprints on a rug in blood before they could address the issue?

I'm also confused how glass could get on top of the clothes in Filomena's room if the room hadn't already been ransacked. Guede took the time to use the restroom but didn't rifle through the other rooms? I think I read that Filomena was the one that collected the rent money so that may be the answer but how many people would know that?

Sorry, just rambling thoughts. Still trying to catch up. Thanks for all the info provided here.

OOPS! Also, was Amanda's blood what was visible on the sink spout in the initial walk through? If so where did it come from? Was she prone to bloody noses?

Myvice said:

I'm still trying to catch up on this case and I've found some older threads to try to get a feel for the progression of everything.

I've been reading that many posters think the prosecution was misleading and I haven't gotten to the evidence of that yet, but I have to ask why the defense would make a video touting that the window could be accessed without the bars then have an experienced climber do the video and USE the bars. That doesn't make sense to me.

Amanda's comment about thinking the blood was menstrual blood also makes no sense. Are there really woman that have their period hard enough that they would leave footprints on a rug in blood before they could address the issue?

I'm also confused how glass could get on top of the clothes in Filomena's room if the room hadn't already been ransacked. Guede took the time to use the restroom but didn't rifle through the other rooms? I think I read that Filomena was the one that collected the rent money so that may be the answer but how many people would know that?

Sorry, just rambling thoughts. Still trying to catch up. Thanks for all the info provided here.

OOPS! Also, was Amanda's blood what was visible on the sink spout in the initial walk through? If so where did it come from? Was she prone to bloody noses?

Click to expand...

In her email home, Knox says she first saw blood smears in the sink and faucet after showering; and thought it was coming from her ear piercings (she didn't mention the footprints, nor being prone to bloody nose - she did wonder if MK were having "menstrual issues".)ETA:yes, she does in fact mention blood on the mat as well.

In Hendry's analysis, Guede alone broke in to an empty house, was at his leisure, using the bathroom, when MK arrived home early.

Yes, I've been round in circles and still have many questions which cut both ways.

SMK said:

In her email home, Knox says she first saw blood smears in the sink and faucet after showering; and thought it was coming from her ear piercings (she didn't mention the footprints, nor being prone to bloody nose - she did wonder if MK were having "menstrual issues".)

In Hendry's analysis, Guede alone broke in to an empty house, was at his leisure, using the bathroom, when MK arrived home early.

Yes, I've been round in circles and still have many questions which cut both ways.

Click to expand...

She does mention the blood on the mat as well, saying it was too much to be from her ears. Then she proceeds to use that bloody rug to scoot to her room. With the thought that it is "menstrual blood", it's another who would then use it that way to scoot to their room??

Amber29 said:

She does mention the blood on the mat as well, saying it was too much to be from her ears. Then she proceeds to use that bloody rug to scoot to her room. With the thought that it is "menstrual blood", it's another who would then use it that way to scoot to their room??

Click to expand...

Oh, OK, sorry. Yes, that is quite odd indeed....

Bars were added later.
Here's a look at the balcony with no bars on the kitchen window
http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=42&image_id=3546

Harmony2 said:

My responses are in red to dgfred's post.



- The climber did not go thru the window as the intruder would have.

If the bars had not been there IMO he would still have been able to hoist himself through if he had utilized the top bar on the lower window to climb up as the lawyer did. IMO the newly added burglar bars acted as a barrier and blocked the momentum to hoist himself up there.

link

Rudy was a former semi pro basketball player. He was athletic, lanky, agile, and thin. IMO The climb would not have been difficult for someone of Rudy's athleticism and body frame. Moreover, there was a similar MO in that he had gained access into a law office building by using a rock to break a window and he had brandished a knife at another robbery weeks prior. Not to mention a huge kitchen knife being found in his backpack when in the process of a robbery at a nursery school.

http://masseireport.wordpress.com/contents/rudy-hermann-guede/

- There was NO glass on the ground under the window.

Did the police use screens to filter and capture small shards of glass that may have been kicked under leaves or not visible due to the transparency of the glass pieces?

- There was glass lined on the windowsill... like where the shutters would be.

- There was glass on top of the items on the floor.

If his foot caught on the television cable under the window and jostled the clothes cabinet forward then backward depositing clothes on the floor, then glass would have fallen on top of the items as the intruder climbed through the window.

- There were no pieces of grass/mud/sticks/etc on the floor of the room.
dirt on clothes

I see dirt/mud and pieces of white rock on the clothes.

link


- There were no scuff marks on the wall as nobody climbed/struggle up it.

There were scuff marks on the cottage wall and the top edge of the sill, coincidentally exactly where the rock climber guy stood. However, there is no way to date those marks.

scuff marks on cottage wall

link

scuff on window sill top edge

link

link

- Nothing was taken.
Chris answered this one…

- The unlikely use of that window as the entry point in the first place.

I am not sure why it would be unlikely on a dark night if the intruder wore dark clothes and blended into the dark shadows...A driver on that side of the road would have to turn back to look in that direction as they drove... There is a white metal fence obscuring view. Is it a two way road?
Photo of house and street

link

link

streetlights on other side

omicidio della ragazza inglese a perugia - YouTube


- The positions of the shutters the next morning were not as Filomena left them.
Because the killer moved them?

Click to expand...

:fence:

So. Do you think he would have left anything inside the sill, on the glass, on the wood, on the floor, or in the room? He used the bars to pull himself up and to hang on. The point being a burgler would have had to go thru after breaking the glass and unlatching the inner window... climbing UP to the window proves/shows nothing IMO.

RG had NO prior record. Anyway, if those things are true does that make him a killer? Hasn't past history been ignored for RS for the most part?
'Brandished a knife' - I don't know about that.
'Huge kitchen knife' - I haven't seen pictures and the person who found him said he wasn't threatening in any way.

I don't see any mud, leaves, or sticks... only some dirt from what looks like to me to be from normal walking on the bottom. But I do see glass on top... So did Filomena and the responding officer. I still will believe her testimony over pics taken later.

I saw no scuff marks but am aware of attempts to show a couple as that.
IMO the scuffs would have been clear... and around the sill and the broken window would show evidence of entry.

Chris didn't answer IMO. Break-in to steal, but don't steal is not what happened IMO. RG wasn't the one charge with theft either. AK/RS were.

IMO a thief would have the choice of the back balcony, front door or that window. The balcony would be the choice IMO... although AK did say that the front door was open before her naked bathmat boogie. So maybe he could have just walked in the front door. That is the point of the staging in the first place IMO... to show someone without access to the cottage tried to break in. I believe one person fits that scenario.

The meaning about the shutters not being left the next day was that Filomena testified she pulled the shutters closed as much as she could.

Does your scenario have him opening the shutters while up there and smashing with the rock... then crawling thru? That is doing alot while perched there in the dark IMO.

Or is it he must have climbed up once to open them, then again to get thru?
Double the chances of being seen?

If you are looking at the cottage from the street and want to get into the cottage... are you going to pick Filomena's window or the back of the house?
Just curious what you would do personally.

While I find it strange that a woman would see feces in a toilet and not automatically flush it. I actually find Amanda's whole story about finding it unbelievable.

Take a good look at the pictures of Laura and Filomenas bathroom/laundry room
http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/album.php?album_id=21&sk=t&sd=d&st=0&start=60

See the blow dryer sitting near the wall outside the bathroom door?
There's a pic of the mirror in that room with a blow drying brush on the otherside opposite the actual blow dryer. One would assume the girls use that area to blow dry their hair.

Now in Amanda's story she noticed the feces in the toilet while putting the blow dryer back.(that is not in the bathroom)
Another convience that it was "after" that she saw it. Putting that aside what was amanda doing that far into that bathroom, the toilet is next to the tub and the blow dryer isn't even in the actual bathroom?

Amber29 said:

While I find it strange that a woman would see feces in a toilet and not automatically flush it. I actually find Amanda's whole story about finding it unbelievable.

Take a good look at the pictures of Laura and Filomenas bathroom/laundry room
http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/album.php?album_id=21&sk=t&sd=d&st=0&start=60

See the blow dryer sitting near the wall outside the bathroom door?
There's a pic of the mirror in that room with a blow drying brush on the otherside opposite the actual blow dryer. One would assume the girls use that area to blow dry their hair.

Now in Amanda's story she noticed the feces in the toilet while putting the blow dryer back.(that is not in the bathroom)
Another convience that it was "after" that she saw it. Putting that aside what was amanda doing that far into that bathroom, the toilet is next to the tub and the blow dryer isn't even in the actual bathroom?

Click to expand...

Yes, that is odd because the first instinct would be to say , 'ugh' and quickly flush it and try and forget it. There is something suspect there (keeping RG dna?). Yes, I follow you.....