The stuff you didn’t hear on the Oprah show on Amanda Knox

At its core, this case is not about Amanda Knox. The cases brought to trial in the italian courts, which ended in three convictions, are about the brutal murder of a young english student who’s future and life were taken from her. Every country is entitled to pursue those who committed and were complicit in the criminal act of murder. Three people were convicted of criminal participation in this muder; only one of them was an american.

Knox claims she was at her boyfriend’s all evening, but the prosecution’s evidence that places her boyfriend Sollecito at the crime scene complicates her alabi. DNA traces of Sollecito were found on the bra clasp of the bra worn by the victim and cut off with a knife. The prosecution also testified that a bare footprint in the victim’s blood on a bathmat in the bathroom was a better match to Sollecito then it was to Guede, the black italian convicted in the first trial. Further, according to other reports, Knox’s boyfriend doesn’t corroborate Knox’s alibi for the full evening- the last statement he made on the matter was that she had gone out at some point in the evening.  All of these points complicate Knox’s defense- she claims she was at her boyfriends house, but the evidence puts Sollecito at the scene. Knox’s defense then not only has to argue her innocence, but support Sollecito’s as well for Knox’s alabi to be truthful.

The second complication is the footprints revealed via a forensic testing method using a chemical called Luminol.  There were no other bare footprints found leading up to the bare footprint in blood in the bathroom, so the police used Luminol to reveal potential traces of blood that were cleaned up. The luminol reacted in three places in the hallway, and revealed bare footprints. It was uncontested in the trial that these revealed footprints are not Guede’s size. The prosecution argued that these are the bare footprints of Knox and her boyfriend set in blood. The defense argued that these prints were set in another substance that reacts with luminol, such as fruit juice or bleach, made at a different time. Luminol does react with other substances, but does so in a different manner (brighter & quicker for bleach, for example). Other sites indicate that experienced technicians can tell the difference between a Luminol reaction to bleach and a luminol reaction to blood, and if I recall correctly the technician at the trial testified that it was their opinion that it was blood that the luminol was reacting to.

By far, one of the biggest problems with believing that Guede alone is responsible for the death of the victim is that there is evidence the body was moved after the murder. The prosecution put forth the evidence that shows from the pattern of blood, the victim’s bra was removed some time after the murder and the body was moved from the wardrobe. If I recall correctly, the prosecution contends  that this was an attempt to stage the scene as a rape, since the body was only moved to that position after the murder.  Who would have motive to come back and move the body, because surely if Guede had tried to cover his involvement he would have cleaned up his own evidence- footprints in blood in the hallway, flushed the toilet, etc.

Another point that is crucial to the case is the apparent “break-in” found in one of the other bedrooms. The prosecution contends that the break-in in the was a staged scene done after the murder. Several points of evidence were put forth in support of this theory, including that glass was found on top of the clothes and objects that had already been tossed about the room. The biggest piece of evidence against the break-in being real is that Guede would have had to step on top of a window and reach up through a partially broken glass window to unlatch the bedroom window;  howeverthe glass was broken lower then where the latch was making this a highly dangerous and unfeasible act. Thus, the prosecution  contents that Guede was let in by Knox, since the victim would likely not have let Guede in if she was home alone.

Knox is further implicated by the drops of the victim’s blood that also contained Knox’s DNA found in the house-a few in the bathroom, and one found in the bedroom of the roommate that had the “staged” break-in. Knox’s family ague’s that Knox’s innocence is supported by the lack of Knox’s DNA in the victim’s room, while also stating that the DNA found mixed with blood in the other room was latent DNA from Knox living in the house.

A common american response is that at best Knox’s presence at the scene but not participating in the murder would make her an accessory to the crime, (or complicit) and thus would be eligible under the american system for a lessor sentence. But an accessory to commit a crime is found in english systems, not in the Italian penal code.  Knox and her boyfriend Sollecito were charged under article 110, criminal participation, and this section of the criminal code applies the same penalty to all participants of a crime.

A wikipedia theory of what constitutes participation might be that without the participatory act its unlikely the crime would have been committed; even if Knox didn’t participate in the actual act,  the prosecution’s theory that Knox let in Guede (who’s DNA was found in multiple places in the bedroom) would likely make Knox guilty of criminal participation under article 110 of the italian penal code, and as such, subject to the full penalty applied for murder.

The prosecution of course makes a much stronger case with the evidence and testimony of what actually happened during the act of murder and why it took multiple people to commit the act; Knox & Sollecito’s attorneys put forth contradictory defenses on how the act was done and were unlikely to counter the prosecutions theory.

A final parting consideration- if the DNA of the murderer was found in every instance someone was murdered, there would be no unsolved murders in the USA, and everyone convicted of murder would be proven to be guilty by science, not by a trial’s standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

A caveat if I were imprisoned in a foreign country unjustly, I would hope that my family would fight for my release as well. Nobody should ever have to serve out a sentence for a crime they didn’t commit.

Pat

Advertisements

34 thoughts on “The stuff you didn’t hear on the Oprah show on Amanda Knox

  1. This was well written….helped me open my eyes and let me view this case from another perspective.

    -www.twitter.com/tAni_cAkes

  2. I am German and I have been following this case here in Germany for a long time. I am convinced, that Knox, Sollecito and Guede have all taken part in this horrible murder and Knox was the initiator. Only a fool would believe otherwise. Rest in peace, Meredith

  3. This is the first article I have seen that mentions the Italian legal system considers a person who witnesses a crime but neglects to call the police essentially as guilty as the one who weilds the knife. According to Amanda’s first story she would have been considered guilty. I have been following this trial closely. I live in Italy, went to University of Washington, lived in the UK for 30 years and am now a British citizen hence curious to see how the three cultures played out. Much respect for the British and Italians, disgusted with the PR, the poorly researched reactions and sentimentality coming from the USA. If only all articles and responses were as intelligent and well researched as this one.

  4. Thanks for the comments. Tosca- I vaguely recall seeing a mention regarding witnesses. The event I provided here is something that was mentioned in Judge Micheli’s report- that Knox let Guede in. So even if we presume that Guede committed the actual act without the assistance of Knox and Sollecito, he couldn’t have done so without Knox letting him into the house. This would make knox guilty under article 110, and subject to the full penalty of the actual crime.

  5. “Who would have motive to come back and move the body, because surely if Guede had tried to cover his involvement he would have cleaned up his own evidence- footprints in blood in the hallway, flushed the toilet, etc”.

    Guede was crazy, drunk and on drugs. There is no need in pretending anything he did or would have done was rational. He raped and murdered a girl for her rent money. There isn’t anything rational about that and one should not expect him to all of a sudden start thinking clearly and taking rational actions to cover his crime. Guede was crazy drunk and on drugs. Likely he is still crazy but not drunk and on drugs. If anyone moved the body it was Guede. Maybe he moved it later and maybe he did not. However if someone did move the body the evidence proves it was Guede. Amanda and Raffaele do not have a motive to move a body or stage a rape that already occurred.
    The suggestion that it is logical, reasonable or even possible for someone to clean away all the evidence except Guede’s is asinine. I suspect the notion that Amanda and Raffaele were some how involved in this came from the confused brain of an insane fool, who was recently sentenced to 16 months in prison fro his stupidity.

    • I did not claim that someone cleaned away all of the evidence except Guede’s. Also, Guede was seen at a club later that night; the body had been moved and the bra removed sometime later, making it unlikely that guede could have both moved the body and been simultaneously seen at the club.

      Eyewitnesses place Knox and Sollecito in the plaza around the time of the murder. While Knox’s dna may not have been detected in the room, DNA from Sollecito was.

      The notion that Knox and Sollecito were somehow involved in this crime initially came from both Knox’s and Sollecito’s own statements at the police station on the night of November 5th, when Knox accused an innocent black man of the crime and put herself at the scene of the crime, and Sollecito claimed that he lied because of Knox.

      Pat

      • Pataz said; I did not claim that someone cleaned away all of the evidence except Guede’s. Also, Guede was seen at a club later that night; the body had been moved and the bra removed sometime later, making it unlikely that Guede could have both moved the body and been simultaneously seen at the club.

        The prosecution claims Amanda and Raffaele cleaned the crime scene of all traces of evidence that was left by them. Without this unfounded charge the prosecution doesn’t have a case. However as demonstrated, the authorities in Perugia do not need much of a case to convict innocent people.

      • The “authorities in perugia” do not convict. A jury that includes six laypeople and two judges is responsible for determining a conviction or an acquittal. The “authorities in perugia” who brought forth the charges are required to do so if there is sufficient evidence to file charges, of which a series of judges agreed that there was sufficient evidence to file charges and hold Knox and Sollecito over for trial

        I’ll turn the request back on you- please provide the specific reference from the trial or testimony that the prosecution claimed in the trial that “Knox and sollecito cleaned the crime scene of all traces of evidence”? The prosecution would never contend such a thing in any criminal trial- to do so would mean that you actually have no evidence, due to the cleaning of the crime scene.

        The judge in Guede’s trial did write about how, despite that Knox lived in the apartment, and despite that she claims she took a shower, there was only one finger print of hers in the apartment she lived in. So, we would have to be believe that Knox is more likely to leave DNA lying around then fingerprints. Curious bit of physics that.

        The hallway does also show signs of cleaning, as evidenced by the footprints revealed in luminol.

        As far as the bedroom goes, if you’ve seen any of the photos you’ll note that the blood visible by the wardrobe is pretty smeared. This could have happened at any point during or after the act, and could have also been done by someone without them leaving any DNA traces behind.

        At some point someone had to have stepped in blood in their bare feet to leave the print on the mat in the bathroom. Guede had his shoes on during and after the act, as shown by his prints in the victim’s blood leading out the front door.

    • And Knox states that she and Sollecito were by their own admission on drugs.

      If Knox and Sollecito were involved in the murder, their motive to move the body and stage the break-in is to point suspicion away from themselves.

      There is a half a bare footprint in blood in the bath room. No bare footprints exist in the bedroom. By the same measure Of “no dna in the bedroom, she didn’t do it”, you would have to state, “no bare footprints in the bedroom, the one on the bathmat is unrelated to the murder”.

      • pataz1 said, on February 27, 2010 at 1:14 pm.

        There is a half a bare footprint in blood in the bath room. No bare footprints exist in the bedroom. By the same measure Of “no DNA in the bedroom, she did’t do it”, you would have to state, “no bare footprints in the bedroom, the one on the bathmat is unrelated to the murder”.

        I don’t have a clue what you said however I will attempt to enlighten you.

        Let’s try a little logic. The evidence at the crime scene proves beyond a reasonable doubt Guede was there and stabbed her in the throat, which resulted in blood being all over the place. It’s logical to deduct Guede got blood all over himself as he murdered her and as he got his DNA in her during a sex act he was convicted of committing. It ‘s logical the man with the blood all over him went into the bloody bathroom and got blood from his foot on the mat.

        The only evidence that exist of Raffaele being at the crime scene is the bra clasp with 4 peoples DNA on it other than the victims. There is no other evidence of these four people being at the crime scene so we can rule out they had blood on their bare feet. Therefore it is logical the the bloody foot print on the mat in the bathroom was made by the person at the crime scene that got naked and had sex with the body (alive and/or dead) and went to the bloody bathroom to wash up. Guede’s DNA was found in her so it’s likely the naked person that got blood on their-self was Guede and not the other four people who’s DNA was found only on the bra clasp, because there is no evidence that any of the four people got naked and touched her body or was in the room other than the: lost, forgotten, misplaced, stepped on, kicked around, contaminated bra clasp.

        Also there is a extremely high probability that Meredith got the DNA on the bra clasp from her hands as she put the bra on. Amanda and Raffaele were in the apartment with her the morning of the evening of the crime. Meredith took a shower after she got out of the bed and before leaving for Robyn Butterworth’s house, mid-afternoon. It is very possible she touched something Raffaele touched and got his DNA on her hands, then transfered it to the the bra clasp as she dressed to leave.

        If Amanda and Raffaele wanted to do weired things to her they had a perfect opportunity to do it that morning/afternoon. Obviously they had no intention of hurting Meredith in any way.

        Everyone left the apartment then around 8:30 pm Guede busted out the window and entered the apartment. Meredith arrived home about 8:55, went straight to her bedroom, without noticing anything strange, then placed a call to her mother. Guede’s attack was a total surprise and as he attacked, the call to her mother was interrupted by Guede. Then he beat her severely, knocking her teeth loose, etc. She fought back and during the struggle she got bruises all over her body. He performed a sex act before and/or after she was dead. The evidence indicates a sex act occurred after she was stabbed. It is possible she could have been near dead or dead when this occurred and the sex act could have occurred long after she was dead, but this in no way indicates Amanda or Raffaele had anything to do with her body being moved. The evidence proves Guede is the only person that touched her body, so if the body was moved after she was dead for a long time, then Guede did it. Guede did everything that happened to her regardless of when it was done, so it doesn’t matter if her body was moved or not. If it was moved Guede did it and nothing proves otherwise.

        You said Guede was seen at a club that night. Guede was not at the club all night. What about all the time his whereabouts is not known? It’s possible her returned to the apartment. Don’t say that’s not reasonable or Guede is to smart for that. Nothing he did was reasonable or intelligent. He was crazy, drunk and on drugs out of his mind. It’s not reasonable to use his ability to reason as a tactic to point the finger at Amanda and Raffaele.

        It is not logical or reasonable to suspect the bloody foot print on the mat belongs to anyone but Guede, and anyone that says/said otherwise is only practicing the art of deception for what ever gain they think/thought they might achieve from this clown act.

        The fame Mignina hoped for is not the fame he imagined. By many he is thought of as a loon, a goon and the situation for him is rapidly deteriorating.

  6. “Another point that is crucial to the case is the apparent “break-in” found in one of the other bedrooms. The prosecution contends that the break-in in the was a staged scene done after the murder. Several points of evidence were put forth in support of this theory, including that glass was found on top of the clothes and objects that had already been tossed about the room”

    Lets discuss this. The crime scene investigators did not record anything about glass being found on or under the Filomena’s clothes nor did they take pictures of glass on top her clothes or pictures showing glass was not found under her clothes. They have no records at all about the glass on the clothes except for Filomena saying there was glass on top of her clothes, but she did not say glass was not under the clothes, so this is meaningless. Also Filomena said she could not remember if she closed her shutter or not. She said she was in a hurry to go to a birthday celebration and could not remember. Apparently the prosecution thought she meant she closed the shutter and used this doubtful information to accuse two innocent people of being involved in this crime. Anyway a closed shutter can be opened. She never locks them because they jam on the window frame and locking is not necessary. Guede could have easily opened the window. This shows total lack of morals and integrity on the part of “all” parties involved in this deception.

    Guede has a criminal record for busting out windows and entering buildings. Why would anyone want to think he did not do this this time? I suspect that thoughts such as this would only enter the confused mind of an insane idiot that was recently sentenced to 16 months in prison for being an insane idiot / stupid fool.

    • While Guede could have easily opened the shutter, opening the window would have involved Guede standing on top of the window of the apartment below, reaching up under and behind a sheet of glass that had not broken up to the point of the latch. While there is dispute about whether the shutters were open or not, there is none that the windows were closed.

      The prosecution did not use the unlikelihood of Guede being able to unlatch and open the window to accuse two innocent people. The prosecution used the totality of the evidence that places Knox and Sollecito at the scene of the crime, particularly afterwards, in their case against three individuals who have now been convicted of criminal participation and murder.

      • I posted this correction to my post. I was talking about the shutter and typed window instead.

        “Guede could have easily opened the window”. Correction: Guede could have easily opened the shutters.

  7. Jo, seriously, Guede has no criminal record! None! There are photos showing the glass on top of the clothes. Plus, Meredith was not raped, she was sexually violated. There’s a difference. It’s one thing to want to protect and defend the “convicted” but, you need to get your facts straight. The biggest problem with you defenders is that you consistently skew the actual facts to fit your “truth”.

      • The judge’s report from Guede’s trial is linked at the right in this very blog. I’ve read through the translation of it twice.

        The defense attacks every single piece of evidence as being unreliable. Its the common mantra throughout the case. However, since its the common mantra, and there are places where it hasn’t been proven but only stated “we don’t believe that”, it weakens the whole argument. The defense is then reduced to being naysayers to whatever is put in front of them.

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/08/kercher-trial-knox
        Flatmate’s evidence at Meredith trial casts doubt on break-in story
        “She said that, knowing by then that the window of her bedroom had been smashed, her first instinct on returning to the flat had been to go to her room. What she saw was “a disaster”. Her clothes were on the floor and her cupboard was open. But none of her jewellery was missing, nor her designer sunglasses and handbags. Her laptop was among the clothes. She said there was glass on top of the pile of clothes: “I remember that in lifting the computer I realised that I was picking up bits of glass because there were bits of glass on top and it was all covered with glass.”

        The prosecution maintains that Knox and her boyfriend faked a burglary. If the glass was on top of the clothes, it suggests the window was broken after the room was rifled.”

        ————————–
        BTW, an editorial comment; quotation marks are often used to denote emphasis, but it is an improper use of quotation marks. On the internet asterisks before and after a word or statement are an acceptable way to denote emphasis, *such as this*. You can also use the bold setting from the edit box.

      • Let’s refocus.
        Filomena did not say there was not glass under her clothes. Nobody said there was not glass under her clothes. If there was not glass under her clothes then maybe the window was busted from the inside. But she did not say here was not glass under her clothes, so the glass she saw on top of her clothes was most likely the result of Guede searching her room. Also she entered her room three times before the body was found, so it is possible she knocked glass off of something onto the clothes in the floor, however of all the people at the crime scene ( 6 people were there before Filomena got there) that could have knocked glass onto her clothes is insignifigent compared to the likelyhood, Guede knocked the glass on her clothes as he searched her room.

        Also Filomena said she did not remember if she closed the shutters. So the prosecutions case that the window as busted from the inside is baseless. It is simply deception, however it will not work for them in the court of public opinion. People are not as stupid as assumed. Anyone that take a close look at the details surrounding this railroad job will quickly understand the authorities intentional deceived the public and the court (as they were sleeping).

      • You said you read the judge’s report twice. OK then, tell me what was said about the glass on top of Filomena’s clothes. Not his interpretation of the glass on the clothes, but tell me how he knew glass was on top of her clothes? Tell me how he knew there was not glass found under her clothes.

        And while you are at it, tell me how he knew the shutters were closed when the rock was thrown at the window.

      • Quote from and article originally published on http://www.corrieredellumbria.it on May 30 2009, reporting on the recent trial testimony.

        PERUGIA30.05.2009
        “E’ stato l’avvocato Luca Maori a porre le domande a Giuseppe Codispoti. Che ha risposto: “Noi pensiamo che sia una messa in scena per tutta una serie di motivi. Intanto nella casa non c’è stato un furto. Poi la pietra è di grosse dimensioni (3 chili e 990 grammi, ndr), l’altezza della finestra è del tutto incompatibile con la possibilità di una scalata (3 metri e 78 centimetri, ndr). Inoltre la scientifica ha trovato i vetri sopra il sasso e le tracce di effrazione all’interno della persiana””

        google translation:
        The simulation of theft Another important element of the hearing yesterday was the episode of stone found in room Filomena Romanelli. For the prosecution, we are facing a simulation, for the defense demonstration of a thief entered the apartment. E ‘was the lawyer Luca Maori to ask questions to Joseph Codispoti. What he said: “We think it is a setting for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile in the house there was a theft. Then the stone is large (3 kilos and 990 grams, ed), l ‘ height of the window is completely incompatible with the possibility of a climb (3 meters and 78 centimeters, ndr.) The “scientifica” (scientific consultant) has found the glass above the stone and traces of tampering in the “persiana” (window blind). ”

        note: Google translates “sopra” as above, but it can also be translated to be “on top of”

      • jojustice, just so you kow: Filomena testified in court that the broken glasses were on top of her clothes. Battistelli testified in court exactly the same thing, adding that to him it appeared immediately a staged break-in.
        There WERE pictures presented in court that proved no glasses on clothes, except that those pictures also showed glasses shattered in different locations because those pictures were taken after Filomena went in the room and searched if stuff was missing.
        Micheli said very clearly that the window was broken from the INSIDE.
        So whatever you are saying is TOTALY disputed by FACTS.

  8. Jojustice has many facts wrong. Rudy Guede had no prior criminal convictions for busting out windows or theft. He has had brushes with the police, but none leading to arrest or conviction until now.

    The same could be said of the other two, although Knox paid a fine for a party in Seattle that got out of hand and Sollecito was stopped by police and found to be in possession of drugs.

    There is no evidence that Rudy Guede is crazy, and none that he was drunk or on drugs the night of the murder. Both Knox and Sollecito have admitted to drug use on the night of November 1.

    People who were present at the trial and fluent in Italian have indicated that glass was found on top of Filomena’s clothes, and noted not just by Filomena. There were several other signs that the break-in had been staged. The defense tried unsuccessfully to refute this point. In any case, Rudy Guede could not have entered in the way suggested by the staging.

    Thanks, Pataz1, for laying the issues out so clearly and objectively, and also for keeping your cool in the face of hostility. As you point it, the desire on the part of AK’s family to fight for her release is understandable. What is harder to understand is the disinformation campaign, which clearly has some people very confused about the facts.

    • Peggy said, on February 27, 2010 at 4:47 pm Jojustice has many facts wrong. Rudy Guede had no prior criminal convictions for busting out windows or theft. He has had brushes with the police, but none leading to arrest or conviction until now.

      I did not say he was “convicted” of the burglaries he committed shortly before he murdered Meredith, however he was arrested and there are police reports / records.

      Peggie said; The same could be said of the other two, although Knox paid a fine for a party in Seattle that got out of hand and Sollecito was stopped by police and found to be in possession of drugs.

      She paid a fine for loud music. Big deal.

      Peggie said; There is no evidence that Rudy Guede is crazy, and none that he was drunk or on drugs the night of the murder. Both Knox and Sollecito have admitted to drug use on the night of November 1.

      Guede’s actions proves he is crazy or do you think a sane person would murder, rape and rob Meredith. As for being drunk and on drugs, read judge Micheli’s report.

      Peggie said; People who were present at the trial and fluent in Italian have indicated that glass was found on top of Filomena’s clothes, and noted not just by Filomena.

      Show me.

  9. NO DNA and NO forensic evidence, no footprints, no fingerprints, no sweat, no blood, not a hair, not a flake of dandruff, nothing! belonging to Amanda in the murder room.

    Amanda’s DNA all over the rest of the flat BECAUSE SHE LIVED THERE.

    • If you had read my post, you would have seen that under article 110 of the italian penal code, Knox can share in the penalty for murder even if she was not involved in the actual act in the bedroom.

      Amanda claim’s she was at sollecito’s all evening, and sollecito’s dna was found in the room, connected to the rearrangement of the murder scene. Sollecito also stated that Knox made him lie about his initial alabi, and in the end does not support Knox’s alabi that she was at his house all evening.

      The defense didn’t really argue that the footprints revealed in luminol weren’t knox’s; they argued that they were made at a different time in fruit juice or something else. That is forensic evidence at the murder scene, whether you agree with it or not.

      If we accept your argument that its reasonable to find Knox’s DNA in the house she lived in, under what law of physics would amanda’s dna be found in one flat-mates room, but not the other? That it would conveniently be mixed with the one drop of blood in one flatmates room, but not found anywhere at all in the other? Arguing that any of Knox’s DNA at the scene is latent leads to further problems since the DNA was only found in one room, not the other. And Knox’s DNA mixed with the victim’s blood is also forensic evidence, whether you agree with it or not.

      If DNA was a prerequisite for a crime, where in the room that had the break-in was Guede’s DNA? As far as I know, there is no forensic evidence, no foot prints, no fingerprints, not a hair of Guede in the room with the “break-in”. This is a room where the defense argues he reached up, opened a window, and climbed in. In fact, thus far the only DNA found in that room was actually Amanda Knox’s. If DNA points to who did the crime, then can we not reasonably conclude that Knox was responsible for the state of the room with the “break-in”? So we can neither accuse nor convict Guede of the the crime of the “break-in” since there is no DNA or other forensic evidence of his in that room?

      There are scores of murders committed in which forensic science has not helped in determining the murder. Knox’s defenders want us to believe that murder simply can’t take place without there being copious DNA left behind. This belief is based on a logical fallacy. In logic terms, the argument is based on the belief that “If A, then B” means “If not A, then not B”. “If there is DNA, you can convict. If there is not DNA, you cannot convict.” Stop the presses, cause you just released a third of the people in prison for murder, including Scott Peterson, based on your logical fallacy. Can I expect that you’ll take up the case of releasing scott peterson, who is actually on death row, compared to Knox who has a 26 year sentence?

    • John Winters, you know what the funny thing is ? That none of what you listed was found of Rudy Guede either. Of Guede they did NOT find any footprint, nor fingerprint, no sweat, no blood, no hair, not even dandruf !!!! Nothing of that was found of Guede in the room.

      Amnda’s DNA, on the other side, is mixed with Meredith’s BLOOD in several locations of the house, not only in the bathroom.

  10. “NO DNA and NO forensic evidence, no footprints, no fingerprints, no sweat, no blood, not a hair, not a flake of dandruff, nothing! belonging to Amanda in the murder room.

    Amanda’s DNA all over the rest of the flat BECAUSE SHE LIVED THERE.”

    Who put Amanda’s lamp in the room? What was it doing there? What was her explanation?

    Why was her DNA mixed with Meredith’s blood in Filomena’s room? The room that Guede was supposed to have broken in to.

    NO DNA and NO forensic evidence, no footprints, no fingerprints, no sweat, no blood, not a hair, not a flake of dandruff, nothing! belonging to Guede in the Filomena’s room.

    • Not only that, but consider that none of what she listed was found of Rudy Guede either in Merediths’s room. Of Guede they did NOT find any footprint, nor fingerprint (only palm print), no sweat, no blood, no hair, not even dandruf !!!! Nothing of that was found of Guede in the room.

  11. “No bare footprints exist in the bedroom. By the same measure Of “no DNA in the bedroom, she did’t do it”, you would have to state, “no bare footprints in the bedroom, the one on the bathmat is unrelated to the murder”.”
    How much is real?

  12. There is no evidence that Amanda participated in this crime. For one thing, virtually no DNA was found on the victim. Of course, her DNA would be all around the house. I am shocked this was even used as evidence. The DNA supposedly found on the knife could have been Knox’, but it could have been linked to any of the readers on this site. It was of such poor quality – this fact has been skewed out of control. The so called witnesses were “homeless” people. And the notion that Amanda was taking drugs – she was smoking pot and President Obama has admitted that he smoked pot in college. This is ridiculous.

    • Its not just her DNA that was found, it was her DNA found mixed with the victim’s blood around the house. Including in the other bedroom.

      Curatolo was the only witness among many that was homeless.

      If she was taking drugs, what other drugs might she not be admitting to having taken? The drugs presents a complication, because it undermines their defense; if they can’t accurately report what they -did- do during that time, then they can also not accurately say what they -didn’t- do.

      The cells taken from the knife weren’t poor quality, they were a small number of cells. DNA testing on such a small number of cells is a refinement of traditional procedures and is a developing field. Like any other evidence introduced, there are a number of avenues that defenses can attack such evidence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s