Sunday, September 09, 2018

How With Myriad False Claims John Douglas Pushes To Forefront Of Pro-Knox Crackpots #4

Posted by The Machine



Muddled mindhunters Mark Olshaker, John Douglas, and Jim Clemente

[Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments]

1. Post And Series Overview

In the previous posts, I used the official court reports and court testimonies to prove John Douglas has made numerous demonstrably false claims.

They addressed false claims about (1) Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito’s questioning on 5-6 November 2007;  (2) the personas and backgrounds of Knox and Sollecito and some of the evidence against them; and (3) the persona and background of Rudy Guede and some of the evidence against him.

In this post, I will analyse a number of specific claims that John Douglas makes in his analysis of the crime scene in The Forgotten Killer. Note that the police processed the whole of the apartment for evidence and as it was distributed throughout they defined that as the crimescene.

All the courts accepted that, and the witness testimony and the judges’ reports make that overwhelmingly obvious. But bizarrely without any attempt at an explanation John Douglas redefines it as merely Meredith’s bedroom, and so all evidence elsewhere is ignored by him. For ex-FBI he sure adopts very strange methods.

Further reading:  TJMK/Wiki Evidence Points Masterlist: 400 points In 25 Parts

Further reading:  Totality of Evidence Suggests Knox And Sollecito Guilty Just As Charged

2. Some False Claims On Crimescene Evidence, Rebutted

Douglas’s claims incessantly contradict the definitive judgments of the Italian Supreme Court here.

Examples of his overarching claims include (1) there was proof of only one attacker and no proof of multiple attackers, (2) there is no indication of a female attacker, and (3) the break-in at the cottage was genuine and not staged to mislead investigators.

I will focus on rebutting these overarching claims in this post.



Devastatingly convincing closed-court recreation ignored by Douglas

1. False Claims By Douglas On Number Of Attackers Involved

“Had there been any specific indication of a female offender or multiple offenders, the pronouns would have been adjusted accordingly.”

But there were multiple indication of multiple offenders. Many hours at trial were devoted to this evidence, and in Post #3 in this series I explained how even the defenses had to fall back to accepting and trying to explain this. .

John Douglas clearly hasn’t read the official court reports, court testimonies or any of experts’ reports and he wasn’t in the court to hear the prosecution’s experts explain why they believe there were multiple assailants.

So he’s in no position to flatly claim Meredith killed by a lone attacker or address let alone refute the evidence for multiple attackers.

In fact, leaving aside the annulled Hellman, all courts up to and including the Supreme Court definitively ascertained that there were indeed multiple attackers, and that it’s a proven fact Amanda Knox was at the cottage when Meredith was killed and the break-in was staged.

All the judges involved in the case from 2007 through 2015 concluded this after examining the medical reports and listening to the testimonies and cross-examinations of numerous forensic experts, including those who actually examined Meredith’s body and those who recreated the pack attack.

The fine journalist Barbie Nadeau was in the courtroom when these experts testified at trial in 2009 and explained why they concluded there were multiple attackers.

“Countless forensic experts, including those who performed the autopsies on Kercher’s body, have testified that more than one person killed her based on the size and location of her injuries and the fact that she didn’t fight back—no hair or skin was found under her fingernails.”

And here is more testimony on the certainty of multiple attackers.

“countless prosecution witnesses, including two coroners who did examine Kercher’s body, testified that the 47 cuts and bruises indicated that “more than two hands” were at work.”

Further reading:  Supreme Court Confirms All Three Were There And Lied, RS & AK Apologists Desperate To Downplay That

Further reading:  Why Final AK & RS Appeal Against Guilty Verdict May Fail: Multiple Wounds = Multiple Attackers



One of many exhibits on the knives not mentioned by Douglas

2. False Claims By Douglas Denying Multiple Knives Involved

One of the main reasons why these forensic experts believe there were multiple attackers is there were different-sized knife wounds on Meredith’s neck.

The fine journalist Andrea Vogt who was also in court reported more details about this evidence.

“Injuries on Kercher’s body ‘consistent with attack by more than one person….  Wounds were from two different knives, Perugia courtroom is told…. Professor Gianaristide Norelli testified that the multiple lesions on Ms Kercher’s body were consistent with being held and attacked by more than one person. He said she died of suffocation and interpreted her stab wounds as having been inflicted as threats during a struggle. The wounds, mostly on the side of her neck, were possibly inflicted by two different knives, he said, but noted that one of the stab wounds was compatible with the alleged murder weapon.”

It’s worth noting the credentials of some of these forensic experts whom are about the best Italy has to offer and certainly on a par with any American expert:

Professor Norelli is the Chief of Legal Medicine at Firenze University and the President of the Italian Conference of Professors of Legal Medicine;  Mauro Bacci is a Professor of Forensic Science and Director of Forensic Medicine at the University of Perugia. Giuseppe Codispoti is the Assistant Chief of the Scientific Police.

The Italian Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged the certainty of two knives having been used in the attack on Meredith.

“expert results that because of the morphology of the injuries, attribute them to two different cutting weapons used by different individuals” (Judge Giordano’s Supreme Court report).

“the numerous wounds inflicted on the unfortunate victim, very probably with two knives.” (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report).

“Firstly, testifying in this direction are the two main wounds observed on the victim’s neck, on each side, with a diversified path and features, attributable most likely (even if the data is contested by the defense) to two different cutting weapons.” (Judge Marasca’s Supreme Court report).

Judge Chieffi in his report presents a concise summary of why the Supreme Court ascertained from the wounds that there were multiple attackers.

“From the examination of the stab wounds and the bruises found on the victim, a picture of massive injury in terms of number, distribution, and diversity emerged, especially with regard to the injuries inflicted on the face and neck (where the wounds were 4‐8 centimetres deep), a picture which contrasted with the absence of defensive wounds; [7] a circumstance that was at odds with the fact that the young British student was equipped with a strong physique, trained in self‐defence through a course in karate which she had taken; all of which led to the conclusion that the criminal action was necessarily carried out by several people acting together against the victim, who was placed in the position of being unable to defend herself or shield herself with her hands to avoid the repeated striking of vital parts such as the neck.

Also considering the type of activity undertaken by the attacker, it turned out to be very difficult to hypothesize an isolated and individual action, because it included acts aimed at disrobing the victim (who was unquestionably dressed when the attacker appeared), violating her private parts, and stabbing her with a knife; the victim was certainly seized by her wrists to prevent a reaction, so that Guedeʹs DNA was found on the cuff of the young English woman’s sweatshirt; but the diverse morphology of the wounds, their number, and their distribution led to the conclusion that there was more than one attacker.

In particular, it was found that many injuries were caused by activities of grasping, others by a pointed and cutting weapon; they were extremely different in size and degree of injury, and had reached the victim sometimes from the right and sometimes from the left. All of which led to the conclusion that more than one attacker, together, held the girl, limited her movements, and struck her from the right and from the left, depending on their position with respect to her, but above all they covered her mouth in order to prevent her from repeating the scream that was heard and reported by the two witnesses mentioned above.” (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report).

John Douglas doesn’t address any of this evidence on multiple attackers presented at great length in great detail in court.

Further reading:  Strong Proof That Raffaele Sollecito Also Stabbed Meredith Kercher Causing The Lesser Wound.

Further reading:  Multiple Attackers and the Compatibility of the Double DNA Knife (Exhibit 36)



Knox DNA profile outside bedroom not mentioned by Douglas

3. False Claims By Douglas On Locations And Implications Of DNA

Douglas erroneously claims that is scientifically impossible for the other attackers to have left none of their DNA at the crime scene - which he wrongly defines as merely Meredith’s bedroom.

“It is scientifically impossible for one offender to leave extensive DNA evidence and for others involved in the same assault to leave none.

But as I’ve already pointed out in the previous posts, Rudy Guede did NOT leave many DNA samples in Meredith’s room - he left just four samples. And it is flat-out wrong that the other two left none at the rest of the real crime scene: the complete apartment. .

It’s an indisputable fact that Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp. Of the 17 loci tested in the sample, Sollecito’s profile matched 17 out of 17. Sollecito’s DNA was identified by two separate DNA tests.

“Both by the quantity of DNA analyzed and by the fact of having performed the analysis at 17 loci with unambiguous results, not to mention the fact that the results of the analysis were confirmed by the attribution of the Y haplotype to the defendant, it is possible to say that it has been judicially ascertained that Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was present on the exhibit; an exhibit that was therefore handled by the defendant on the night of the murder.” (The Nencini report, page 267).

John Douglas is entitled to make the far-fetched claim that Sollecito’s DNA on Meredith might have been due to contamination. However, it is deeply dishonest of him to pretend that Sollecito’s DNA was not found on Meredith’s bra clasp in the first place.

Douglas is not a forensic biologist and he has no special expertise in DNA evidence. He seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that DNA is like wet paint and that if the forensic police swabbing does not provide evidence of someone in a room, that is definitive proof they haven’t been in that room.

But no DNA expert ever claimed this. For one thing the priority given to the processing of Meredith’s room was for fingerprints, and not for DNA

Professor Peter Gill contradicts John Douglas with the following observation.

“Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.”

Meredith had bruises around her neck, but the Scientific Police didn’t find any DNA of her attacker on her neck. If one adopts John Douglas’s strange logic, does he mean that nobody strangled Meredith?

The Scientific Police didn’t find any of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA in his car. Does the strange logic of Douglas mean that Sollecito never drove his car or was even inside it at all?

Many, many crimes and many many crimescenes come up short on DNA. In a UK Crime Ian Huntley admitted killing Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in his house. However, there were no traces of them in his house.

Further reading:  Omitted - How The DNA Processes And Evidence Points Were Deliberately Misrepresented

Further reading:  Ways To Rebut The Drive-By Critics Of The Case On The DNA Dimension



Mixed Knox and Meredith DNA’s not mentioned by Douglas

4. False Claims By Douglas On Presence Of A Female Attacker

John Douglas’s claim there is no specific indication of a female offender at the cottage is contradicted by multiple pieces of evidence implicating Knox.

The Italian Supreme noted that it’s a proven fact Amanda Knox was at the cottage when Meredith was killed because (1) she herself repeatedly admitted she was; (2) she knew specific details about the murder; and (3) the DNA evidence in the small bathroom provided “eloquent proof” that she washed Meredith’s blood off.

Explaining this further:

(1) The Italian Supreme Court noted that Amanda Knox repeatedly admitted she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed.

“Given this, we now note, with respect to Amanda Knox, that her presence inside the house, the location of the murder, is a proven fact in the trial, in accord with her own admissions, also contained in the memoriale with her own signature, in the part where she tells that, as she was in the kitchen, while the young English woman had retired in the room of same Ms Kercher, together with another person for a sexual intercourse, she heard a harrowing scream, so piercing and unbearable that she let herself down squatting on the floor, covering her ears tight with her hands in order not to hear more of it.”

Amanda Knox admitted she was at the cottage in her 1:45am witness statement, her 5:45am witness statement and her handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007.

(2) The Supreme Court concluded that it is proven fact Amanda Knox was at the cottage when Meredith was killed as she knew specific details about the murder.

“About this, the judgement of reliability expressed by the lower [a quo] judge [Nencini] with reference to this part of the suspect’s narrative, [and] about the plausible implication from the fact herself was the first person mentioning for the first time [46] a possible sexual motive for the murder, at the time when the detective still did not have the cadaver examination, nor the autopsy result, nor the witnesses’ information, which collected only subsequently, about the victim’s terrible scream and about the time when it was heard (Nara Capezalli, Antonella Monocchia and others), is certainly to be subscribed to.

We make reference in particular to those declarations that the current appellant [Knox] on 11.6.2007 (p.96) inside the State Police headquarters. On the other hand, in the slanderous declaration against Lumumba, which earned her a conviction, the status of which is now protected as a final judgement [giudicato] [they] had a premise in the narrative, that is the presence of the young American woman, inside the house in via della Pergola, a circumstance which nobody at that time - except obviously the other people present in the house - could have known (quote p.96).”

Judge Chieffi also highlighted the fact that Amanda Knox knew specific details about the murder in his Supreme Court report and he criticised Judge Hellmann for not addressing this evidence.

“actual statements by the defendant demonstrating knowledge of details of the murder which turned out to coincide with what was later found by investigators. The court of first degree highlighted how Knox always stated that neither she nor Raffaele saw Meredithʹs room when the door was broken down, as they were both near the living room at that moment and did not enter the crime room, a fact which was confirmed by [other] testimony.

It was, however, noted that, on the other hand, all the English girls testifying at the hearing of 13 February 2009, stated that Knox ‐ on the evening of 2 November ‐ had told them that she was the one who found the body of her friend, that it was in front of the closet, covered with a quilt with a foot sticking out, that her throat had been cut and that there was blood everywhere, whereas in her testimony of 13 June 2009, Knox had denied having seen anything.

The fact of the multiple details given to her friends, potentially demonstrating knowledge gained prior to the intervention of the police ‐ even if she denied this in the interrogation ‐ was neglected without any explanation on why these elements were deemed irrelevant.

Judge Nencini noted in his report that Amanda Knox placed herself near the basketball ball in Piazza Grimana which was corroborated by another witness.

(3) The Supreme Court concluded it’s a proven fact Amanda Knox was at the cottage when Meredith was killed because her DNA was mixed with Meredith’s blood in the small bathroom.

“Another element against her [Amanda Knox] is the mixed traces, her and the victim’s one, in the ‘small bathroom’, an eloquent proof that anyway she had come into contact with the blood of the latter, which she tried to wash away from herself.”

According to the Scientific Police and renowned DNA expert Luciano Garofano, there were five samples of Knox’s DNA or blood mixed with Meredith’s blood in three different locations in the cottage.

Forensic police biologists testified about five spots where they had detected samples of “mixed blood” genetic material—spots of blood of both Knox and Kercher’s—in the bidet, on the sink, on the drain tap, on the Q-tip box in the bathroom and in a spot where prosecutors argued Knox and Sollecito staged a break-in. (Andrea Vogt, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 29 May 2009).

The mixed-blood evidence convinced Dr Stefanoni that Amanda Knox was involved in Meredith’s murder because they both must have been bleeding at the same time. John Douglas hasn’t addressed the mixed-blood evidence, presumably because he is completely unaware of it.

Further reading:  Beyond Massei: On The Seemingly Insuperable Mixed Blood Evidence By All The Expert Witnesses

Further reading:  Questions For Knox: Why So Many False Claims In Accounts Of Your Visit To The House?



Guede’s shoeprints in red head straight to front door, ignored by Douglas

5. False Claims By Douglas On The Footprints & Shoeprints

In post #3 I quoted Douglas claiming Guede was wandering around the apartment, as if the shoeprints and footprints prove that. 

But they don’t. Rudy Guede couldn’t have tracked Meredith’s blood into the small bathroom because he didn’t even go into the small bathroom after Meredith had been stabbed.

His bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith’s room and out of the cottage. This something that has been noted by multiple judges and the Supreme Court.

“As a consequence, the shape of the bare footprint on the sky-blue mat in the little bathroom cannot be attributed to Rudy, who, on leaving Meredith’s room (according to what the shoe prints show), directed himself towards the exit without deviating or stopping in other rooms.” (The Massei report, page 379).

Judge Nencini stated it would have been impossible for Guede to leave the bare bloody footprint on the bathmat.

“…the person who left the apartment without deviating from a straight path was wearing shoes on both feet, and it would thus have been objectively impossible for him to leave a bare footprint on the mat in the small bathroom.” (The Nencini report, page 76).

The Supreme Court also noted there is no evidence that Rudy Guede went into the small bathroom after Meredith had been stabbed.

“Not only that, but the above assumption also clashes with the available evidence regarding the bloody shoe prints which indicate that he left the room where the crime was committed to proceed directly to the exit door of the flat.” (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report).

The bloody footprint on the bathmat in the small bathroom completely debunks the PR lie that there was only one attacker because it couldn’t possibly belong to Rudy Guede.

Judge Nencini pointed out that there were irreconcilable differences between the bloody footprint on the bathmat and Guede’s foot.

“Guede’s foot presents irreconcilable differences with the bathmat imprint“ (The Nencini report, page 275).

Some of the individual measurements of Guede’s imprint are as much as 30% too small, but the relative proportions of length and breadth measurements are entirely wrong as well, both undershooting and overshooting by a large margin - 70% to 150%.

The bloody footprint is a near-perfect match for Sollecito’s foot with seven out of twelve individual measurements having a 100% correlation to Sollecito’s foot.

Andrea Vogt pointed out that the bloody footprint on the bathmat matched the precise characterisitics of Sollecito’s foot in a report for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

“All the elements are compatible with Mr. Sollecito’s foot,” Rinaldi said, pointing with a red laser to a millimeter-by-millimeter analysis of Sollecito’s footprint projected onto a big-screen in the courtroom. He used similar methods to exclude that the footprint on the bath mat could possibly be Guede’s or Knox’s.

“Those bare footprints cannot be mine,” said Sollecito in a spontaneous statement…. But the next witness, another print expert, again confirmed Rinaldi’s testimony, that the print, which only shows the top half of the foot, matches the precise characteristics of Sollecito’s foot”.

Judge Giordano noted in his Supreme Court that one of the reasons why the appeal judges were convinced there were multiple attackers is there were different-sized footprints in Meredith’s room.

Barbie Nadeau reported:

“footprints not attributable to Guede on the floor of the room where Meredith’s body lay, convinced the appeal judges that several people acted together.” Judge Giordano’s Supreme Court report, page 19).

According to two imprint experts from the Scientific Police - Rinaldi and Boemia - there was a woman’s bloody shoeprint on the pillow under Meredith’s body that matched Knox’s foot size, but was incompatible with Meredith’s foot size.

Worse for Knox, when the judge asked Rinaldi the size of an unidentified bloody shoeprint found on the pillow below Kercher’s body, he responded, “Between 36 and 38.” The judge then asked Rinaldi what size shoe Knox wears. “The Skecher shoe we sequestered belonging to Amanda Knox corresponds with size 37.”

Also Barbie Nadeau reported:

A bloody footprint from a smaller shoe was found on the pillow beneath Kercher’s head but it could not be positively identified as a match to any of the suspects.”

Forensic expert Luciano Garofano also believes there was a woman’s bloody shoe print in Meredith’s room.

“Now is the question of the small shoeprint in the pillow. There is neither the heel nor the toe, so it’s hard to say the size of the shoe. You could estimate that has been made in the area of size 37 or 38, which of course, is Amanda’s size. Hard to prove, though.” (Luciano Garofano, Darkness Descending).

Further reading:  The Incriminating Bathroom Evidence: Visual Analysis shows the Footprint IS Sollecito’s

Further reading:  Experienced Trial Lawyer: There’s Far More Evidence Than UK/US Courts Need For Guilt



No Guede DNA or prints outside or inside window, ignored by Douglas

6. False Claims By Douglas Denying Rearranged Crime Scene

These are the very narrow grounds on which Douglas attempts to base his claim:

“Perugia police officials believed the rock and broken window might have been indicators of staging—that is, making the crime look like something other than what it actually was. We reject this conclusion based on crime-scene photos of the exterior window. Photos reveal that prior to breaking the window, the rock first struck the inside edge of the exterior shutter, indicating it was thrown from outside. Freshly exposed wood under chipped paint and mineral fragments imbedded in the wood surface substantiate this finding. Glass-fracture examination of the window would prove this.”

It’s typical of John Douglas’s simple-minded and superficial approach that he doesn’t address the Supreme Court’s specific reasons for ascertaining the break-in was staged.

The only reason he puts forward for the break-in being genuine is there is allegedly a mark on the inside of the exterior shutter. Predictably, he doesn’t substantiate this claim with the crime-scene photo.

One of the main reasons why multiple judges and the Supreme Court concluded the break-in was faked was that four witnesses, including two police officers, testified that there were shards of glass on top of the clothes and objects strewn on Filomena Romanelli’s floor.

The courts considered that this proved the window was broken after the room had been ransacked and that the break-in was staged.

“Picking up the computer I noticed that I lifted some glass, in the sense that the glass was on top of things. I remember very well [the glass] on top of the computer bag because I was careful as it was all covered with glass. We mentioned this, saying, the burglar was an idiot, he did not take anything… the jewelry is here, the computer is here…and in addition to the fact that he didn’t take anything, the pieces of glass are all on top of the things.” (Filomena Romanelli).

“The fact that the glass fragments from the window wound up on top of the strewn clothing and objects… is surely incompatible with a breaking of the glass in a phase preceding the ransacking inside the room of the apartment. The window glass evidently was broken after entry into the cottage, by someone who was already inside and had already arranged the disorder that was then seen by the witnesses.” (Judge Nencini’s report).

Judge Chieffi summarises the reasons why the Supreme Court ascertained the break-in was staged in his report.

“The conclusion that the crime had been simulated was based on a series of facts with a high level of probative value constituting a valid inferential basis, on the strength of which the first instance statement of reasons produced a logical dissertation (pages 35‐42) anchored in the facts that:

(1) nothing (not even jewellery or the computer) was missing from Romanelli’s room, which was the focal point;

(2) there was no evidence of climbing on the outside wall of the house over the distance of 3.5 meters from the ground to the window through which the phantom burglar supposedly entered, nor was there any trace of trampling on the grass on the ground underneath the window;

(3) there were no traces of the blood of the climber on the window sill, which he would have had to grip among the glass shards in order to sneak inside the room;

(4) the glass shards were found on the inside but not on the outside of the window, a sign that the rock was thrown with the outside shutters closed, forming a shield that prevented pieces of glass from spraying to the outside;

(5) the shards were found in abundance on top of the clothes and objects ransacked by the alleged intruder, proving that this ransacking had occurred before the window was broken;

(6) the sound of the rock, hypothetically thrown from the ground had not startled the young English woman so as to make her call for help outside the house before being attacked (given the lapse of time between the throwing the stone and the climbing up the wall).” (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, pages 63-64).

Further reading:  Understanding Micheli: The Staged Scene - Who Returned To Move Meredith?

Further reading:  Explaining The Massei Report: A Visual Guide To The Staged Break-In Via Filomena’s Window

3. My Conclusions On How Douglas Misleads On Hard Evidence

John Douglas’ analysis of the crime scene - and I use the term “analysis”  loosely - is such a dishonest and misleading piece of work.

He removes all the incriminating pieces of DNA evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito from the crime scene and exaggerates the DNA evidence against Guede. He actually states “all the crime-scene DNA came from a single source: him” - which is demonstrably false.

He accepts everything Amanda Knox says as the gospel truth despite the fact she is a self-confessed liar and claims her alibi was she was at Sollecito’s apartment. He doesn’t address the computer and telephone records which provide irrefutable proof that Knox and Sollecito lied repeatedly about 1 and 2 November 2007.

He doesn’t say anything about Sollecito categorically stating Knox wasn’t at his apartment on the evening of the murder in his witness statement and this claim being corroborated by the mobile phone evidence. He doesn’t acknowlege that Sollecito admitted lying to the police.

He doesn’t say anything about Amanda Knox repeatedly admitting she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed and this being corroborated by the mixed-blood evidence and the fact she knew specific details about the murder.

He doesn’t say anything about the bloody footprint on the bathmat that matched the precise characteristics of Sollecito’s foot, but couldn’t possibly belong to Guede.

The fact John Douglas has airbrushed every single piece of incriminating evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito out of his analysis and pretends there is no evidence against them speaks volumes. If he had the tiniest modicum of honesty, he would at least acknowledge the fact Knox and Sollecito gave multlple false alibis.

John Douglas’ so-called analysis of the crime scene in The Forgotten Killer is nothing more than PR propaganda. It’s so ridiculously biased, one-sided and dishonest that it’s almost comical. It’s something you would expect from Goebbels or Pravda - not a respected FBI profiler.

It defies belief that anybody takes this dishonest charlatan seriously.


Posted by The Machine on 09/09/18 at 11:18 PM in


Comments

No comments yet. No comments yet.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page