Nova
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 19,648
- Reaction score
- 4,630
Filomina and Laura were not "college kids". They were two women, employed in law firms, who had two rooms that they were prepared to rent out. Meredith took one room and Amanda took the other room. I highly doubt that they were okay with people coming and going at all hours of the day and night.
Although it may be hard to remember how things were prior to the use of DNA (which happened in the early 1990s), people have been justifiably convicted of crimes they committed for a very long time without relying on DNA. In this case, we have a prosecution and conviction that is solidly based on a combination of circumstantial and forensic evidence.
The fact that Raffaele, after learning about Meredith's DNA on the knife, wrote in his diary that the DNA got there because he nicked her with a knife when she had dinner at his house, falls into the circumstantial evidence category. What is the explanation for this? It appears that he was offering an explanation for the DNA ... a lie to explain this DNA. That is problematic. This is not the only instance of circumstantial evidence, but one piece in the puzzle. There are many more instances such as the fact that whoever did this used a key to enter the cottage, then staged a break in. Who could have done that? The list goes on and on. Challenging the DNA on the knife by suggesting that it is a result of contamination is not an argument based on evidence, it is a "what if" scenario. What if the DNA on the knife was a result of contamination? There's nothing to support that, but what if. What if Raffaele's DNA flew off the cigarette butt in the kitchen and landed on the bra clasp in a locked bedroom? There is nothing to support that, but what if it happened? What if there was no DNA evidence, and police had to solve the murder based on crime analysis? Would the same three people have been convicted? Most likely Amanda and Raffaele would still have been convicted ... but the only evidence against Rudy is the DNA evidence, so perhaps he would have gotten away with it.
When a piece of evidence is left uncollected for more than a month, then passed around and put back on the floor to be photographed, the possibility of contamination is more than a game of "What if?" It's the most likely explanation.
When a foot-long, non-collapsible knife--one totally unsuited for carrying around town--is magically plucked from a kitchen drawer only to reveal such an infinitesimal amount of the victim's DNA that accepted protocols don't recognize it, then contamination or out-and-out forensic incompetence become the most likely explanations.
Yes, it's unfortunate that RS invented a story to account for MK's DNA on the knife. But let's walk in his shoes for a minute: he is being told by supposed experts that the DNA is there and undeniable. (And given police SOP, he's probably being told, "If you can just explain this, we can clear you of suspicion in this case.") So he invents a dinner with MK that probably never happened.
He should have shut up and called his lawyer. It's amazing how many suspects don't, however, probably because LE makes it clear that non-cooperation will be seen by them as a sign of guilt.