Video Analyses Of The Case Against Knox #1: Why We Recommend Those By Liz Houle

Tweet This Post

Comments

As I have always been committed to accurate and fair comment I do have to correct what the police were saying to Knox in the second part of the interview above. The police put it to her, several times, that at the Questura on the 2nd Nov the police themselves did not know how Meredith had died, and pressed her on how she had known that Meredith’s throat had been slashed.

That the police did not know, at that time, how Meredith had died has to be complete tosh. It is nonsensical to think that more than three hours after the discovery of Meredith’s body the police had no idea how she had died.

Are we supposed to believe that they launched a murder enquiry but hung around with an unidentified body, presumably dead, on the floor, and under a quilt, doing nothing at all but wait for Dr Stefanoni’s forensic team to turn up from Rome, which they did some six hours later at around 7 pm? No, of course not. They already knew that Meredith’s throat had been slashed.

Furthermore it is fairly obvious that Batistelli knew that as well, and Altieri.

Remember that Batistelli claimed that he did not enter the room but that Altieri claimed that he had. Frankly, I think that Altieri’s assertion is the more credible. I cannot believe that Batistelli, as the first official responder on the scene, would not have checked out what he was dealing with exactly and that whoever was beneath the quilt was beyond medical help.No doubt he did so mindful not to contaminate the crime scene.

Even if he did not do so, it is also fairly inconceivable that the officers from the murder squad would not have checked.

As for Altieri he gave evidence that he had told Knox and Sollecito as to the knife wound to the throat whilst driving them to the Questura. I doubt if that was supposition. He probably had been told by Batistelli or he had overheard this from those who had seen for themselves.

Not that the implication bothers me that much. The police often hold their cards close to the chest. misleading as to what they do or do not know, in order to prise information out of the interviewee. That is accepted as a legitimate tactic, and if Altieri’s evidence is correct it is interesting that Knox did not say so but maintained that she had received this information from a police officer at the Questura.

But then perhaps she did not want to have Altieri as the focus of attention at that point bearing in mind that Altieri, and his girlfriend Paola, said that Sollecito’s behaviour in the car journey was sufficiently creepy for them both to have doubts about him and to check their car for a possible murder weapon on arrival at the Questura.

The same struck me, James, that it would be unlikely that they did not know. However, their willingness to impart this info to AK is questionable. Her ability to forget events, genders, times, places which would be seared onto anyone else’s memory forever is also unbelievable.

Hi James,

Who told Amanda Knox that Meredith’s throat had been cut? A policeman? A policewoman? Luciano? An interpreter? She changes her story repeatedly and she is deliberately vague about the details and when it happened.

It should be pointed out that Amanda Knox already knew Meredith’s throat had been cut because she and Sollecito had cut it. She even told Natalie Hayward that Meredith had suffered for a long time and must have died slowly and painfully because “they” had cut her throat.

Knox’s assertion that “they” had cut Meredith’s throat was corroborated by multiple forensic experts who believe Meredith’s wounds were made by two different knives e.g. Professor Norelli and Professor Mauro Bacci.

@James I don’t understand your criticism.  IIRC Altieri claimed he saw a policeman making a ‘cut throat’ motion.  Knox and Sollecito were questioning him and Paola in the car trying to find out how much police knew, which is what criminals do after a crime (peruse all the papers and news reports).  It doesn’t mean the police made it public straight away as you imply.

PS: What Altieri said in court.  (THERE is Altieri, questioned by GM: Mignini)

‘THERE:
Yes, yes, yes, after a while, here, after a red cross machine had arrived, the scientific officer, the Carabinieri, all of them, after a while one of the two doctors, I think, of this wheel of the cross red, it was not an ambulance, he came out of the inspection, let’s say, inside the house, addressing one of the Carabinieri who was out there he described a bit what had happened, saying ... referring both to the fact that her throat was cut and the fact that she had also fought, let’s say, and so from there I learned this.
GM:
she learned it, do you know if the others knew it too? In particular…
THERE:
Yes, there was Paola next to me who heard it.
GM:
and Amanda and Sollecito?
THERE:
I believe not, I believe not.
GM:
look, and then you went to the police station, didn’t you?
THERE:
Yup.
GM:
here, do you remember if Sollecito spoke to you at the police station, did you speak about this story? What did he say to her?
THERE:
look, the only exchange that was going to the police station was in the car, let’s say, where he asked me if she was dead, he asked me. I, somewhat appalled by the question, answered yes. And then afterwards he asked me, if I’m not mistaken, how something like that had died, in short, and I therefore explained to him this thing that I had heard out there. Then if I’m not mistaken he also asked me ... I don’t remember well now, he also asked me a third question but that I’ve always declared in the depositions.
GM:
Look, and when ... do you remember seeing if Amanda in the police station cried or not?
THERE:
Amanda has already cried once outside the house, even going to the police station by car, yes, at some point ...
GM:
when did you cry?
THERE:
here, after I ... he asked me this ... I don’t remember if he asked me how, with what she had been killed, in short, how they had cut his throat, and when I also gave the answer at this question she burst into tears. ? -? i - ^^’

With Ghirgha (LG):

‘THERE:
got out of that car. At that point they returned to my car only to be accompanied to the police headquarters.
LG:
So, car, accepting his advice go to the police to say things, feces in the toilet, go back in the car ...
THERE:
after, after quite a while
LG:
After a while he went to the police headquarters. On the way, she answers Sollecito’s question and about the cut in her throat and ... she also uses a second question, but with a knife, she says, “no - I read - with bread”, she says, somewhat ... So you talk about all four of the murder arrangements, what was it like ...?

<snip>

‘THERE:
what I replied was ... that is, before she asked me if she was dead and I confirmed that she was dead, of course.
LG:
Yup.
THERE:
then he asked me how she was killed and I replied that his throat had been cut. And then he asked me with what.
LG:
and she used a joke ...
THERE:
and I told him with a cutting weapon, with ...‘http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Luca_Altieri%27s_Testimony [goggle translate]

I can’t find the reference at the moment about the cutthroat sign.

How reliable is Luca Altieri as a witness?

He testified that the mobile phones were on the table in the kitchen, but the next day he recanted and said he misremembered and it was the phone numbers on a piece of paper on the table - not the mobile phones.

Altieri even described the ‘two phones’ in great detail.

[MC = Commodi; THERE: Altieri]

‘MC:
how do you say that there was a coincidence between the telephones that were being talked about, and therefore they were doing ... on which the police of the Postal Police were ascertaining, and the two telephones that were above the table?
THERE:
but…
MC:
how do you say there was a coincidence?
THERE:
the two policemen of the postal, when talking about cell phones, referred to the two telephones that were on the table.
MC:
what two phones were they? But that is? References, which brand?
THERE:
what brand, what model? N, I don’t remember.
MC:
neither?
THERE:
no.
MC:
what color were they, what did they look like, don’t you remember, small, tight?
THERE:
one was a bit of the older ones, not the little ones, in short, the older ones.
MC:
the service one, yes.
THERE:
one of the two, the other I don’t remember. It was two cell phones ...
MC:
were they book type or were they free keys?
THERE:
one, this one of which I have a better memory, was not a book, it was open, it was an open cell phone.
MC:
what does it mean? Wasn’t it in the book?
THERE:
not those who closed, those with the keyboard ...
MC:
what do you say is older, older, bigger?
THERE:
relative size, for me not small.
MC:
that is bigger or smaller than this?
THERE:
longer, certainly taller.
GCM:
So about 15 centimeters tall, what? No, ten, ten fifteen.
THERE:
let’s say…
MC:
well these are less than ten ... this is a mister phone. Does the color remember it?
GCM:
sorry lawyer,
THERE:
maybe on dark gray, but I don’t remember well.
MC:
the bigger one.
THERE:
Yup.
MC:
And the other?
THERE:
I don’t really have the image of the other phone.

‘http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Luca_Altieri%27s_Testimony

Interesting Knox wanted to know what type of weapon had cut Meredith’s throat (according to Altieri).

OK, so maybe it was a paramedic who gabbed. Would a paramedic have looked? Do they issue death certificates? Could they pending a murder enquiry? Maybe the paramedic was simply told that it was a murder crime scene and there was no point in his attendance. I don’t know.

The point is made and I was not trying to be unduly critical. Rather we have just covered something that has not been much covered before.

Yes I think we can rely on Altieri. Who knows whose phones were on the table! I suspect everyone had brought their own mobile phone with them into the cottage.

P.S The reference to bread i.e “with bread” does not appear to be a mistranslation. First Sollecito asked Altieri if Meredith was dead, to which he replied curtly, yes her throat was cut. Altieri thought the question was odd given it was pretty obvious that she was. They had been outside the cottage for at least a couple of hours and it was not as if Meredith had been rushed off to hospital.

Then Sollecito asked “With a knife?” This seems to have rocked Altieri.  He said “Yes” but his emotional reaction was WTF! Yes of course with a knife! Does he think her throat was cut with a slice of bread! [The foregoing is from John Follain’s book and probably covers what isn’t clear from the google translation above]

What was more revealing than whether Knox had a plausible innocent reason for knowing that Meredith’s throat had been cut before being officially informed as to the fact is just why, at the Questura, she said that Meredith’s body had been found stuffed in to the closet.

Who could possibly have sourced such gross and inaccurate misinformation? Not Altieri, in the car journey, who had seen into the room. The fact is no one told the duo this. Why would they since it was not true.

I put this disclosure by Knox on a par with Sollecito’s “but nothing has been stolen” remark when viewing their handiwork as to the break-in staging.

Both seemingly impromptu remarks but in fact intended to give an impression of non-involvement and innocence. The problem for Knox however is that spots of Meredith’s aspirated blood were found all over the open sliding door to her closet, with manual blood swipes just inside the closet, showing that Meredith was close to and facing the closet - she would have to be on all fours given where this blood was - as she was struggling to breathe.

The connection between the forensic evidence and this otherwise nonsensical bragging and upsetting remark is, I think, clear for all to see.

Knox was clearly, at the very least, an eye witness and, it would seem, none too fussed about the horror of it either. More duper’s delight in front of Meredith’s friends but a little too obvious this time!

Amanda Knox was clearly more than an eyewitness.

According to multiple forensic experts, Meredith was attacked and killed by multiple attackers and two knives were used in the attack. Knox’s DNA was on the handle of the murder weapon.

The mixed-blood samples in the small bathroom and Fiomena’s room indicates Knox and Meredith were both bleeding at the same time. There must have been confrontation between Knox and Meredith that resulted in a copious blood loss from Knox before Meredith was restrained and repeatedly stabbed.

Dr Stefanoni testified in court that it’s possible to tell from the electropherogram who left the greater amount of blood in a mixed-blood sample. She pointed out that Knox and Meredith’s blood was mixed together in the bidet and there was more of Meredith’s blood than Knox’s blood in this mixed-blood sample in her report dated 12 June 2008:

“a genetic profile deriving from a mixture of biological substances containing human blood belonging to KNOX Amanda Marie (to a lesser extent) and KERCHER Meredith Susanna Cara (to a greater extent)”.

The fact Amanda Knox’s blood was found on the tap, the cotton bud box and the basin indicates she was bleeding from her nose or mouth. Knox must have been sprayed with Meredith’s blood when she stabbed her. This would explain how their blood became mingled and account for the mixed-blood samples in the small bathroom.

Altieri claims a couple of doctors came out and related to the Carabinieri that MK’s throat was cut.  I doubt very much a doctor would say any such thing in front of the young man and his sister, who were merely bystanders, especially as the place was cleared and sealed off until senior police turned up.  Altieri said he waited in the car whilst Sollecito and Knox went to inform Napoleoni of the mess in the toilet.  In addition, it was likely an instinctive reaction to vouch for his two contemporaries.  Batistelli denied he went inside the room and lifted the duvet.  Either Batistelli is a liar or in the interim Knox and Sollecito were pondering how they could come up with an explanation of how they knew about the cut throat (in fact, it was a stabbing) and Luca felt obliged to claim it came from him.  Perhaps a false memory or just speculation.

However, fact is, the cause of death was asphyxiation by breathing in her own blood, which could only be made via an autopsy, so I really cannot see how Altieri got his information from a doctor or a Carabinieri, as of the scene of the crime.

In fact, Battistelli swore under oath he did not enter and did not lift the duvet.  IMV he has no motive to lie and because he made detail notes he was less reliant on distant memory.  If he had gone in he would have said just said so.

From his testimony [GM - Bongiorno, MB - Michele Battistelli:

‘MB:
I did not enter because the first thing I noticed, apart from it, was all dirty with blood, there was a lot of it, the color of the blood could be seen, in short, that it had been stale there for a while.
GB:
So to guarantee the genuineness of the environment?
MB:
Yes, yes.
GB:
Listen here instead it actually turns out that she entered the room and even then she was made tests on the shoes.
MB:
I don’t know where it turns out that I entered. I did not enter and I wrote it in two different minutes. The investigation on the shoes was done, then Dr. Chiacchiera asked me ...
GB:
So you rule out entering?
MB:
I categorically exclude.
GB:
Do you exclude having lifted the cover?
MB:
Absolutely.
GB:
What did you do, looked from afar and then?
MB:
I looked there from the door what was in there, I saw the black blood in those conditions, I saw ... You all saw it on the photo, in short, the foot that came out from under the duvet, the color of the foot , the fact that it did not move, I opted more to call the sanitary workers, rather than going to raise the duvet.‘http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Michele_Battistelli%27s_Testimony

There would have been zero penalty if he had gone in.  It would have been neither right or wrong.  In addition, as a trained police officer, he wrote his minutes immediately after the event and lodged them.  Battistelli had nothing to hide whatsoever.  He was there by a sheer accident of fate.

Luca Altieri displays his lack of exposure to serious crime.  He reveals a lack of imagination because a throat can be cut with many things other than a knife. Raf’s question was not so silly.

If a dead body lies hidden under a duvet, who knows whether the throat has been cut with a pair of scissors, an ice pick, a razor blade, a small axe, a screw-driver, or the edge of a metal lamp, a corner of a broken mirror, a wine bottle, a beer bottle, a surgeon’s scalpel, an X-acto knife or a box cutter, etc. etc.?

For Sollecito to ask if a knife made the fatal wound was not so far-fetched. Luca or Paola’s strange cynical quip, “No, she was cut with a loaf of bread,” is really the dumber and more childish response.

In hindsight knowing of Raf’s knife collection and knife fetish, his question does raise eyebrows. He probably wanted to know if the police had any inkling that TWO knives had been used, not one.

And as guilty persons are eager to find out what the police have found as clues, he was trying to gather info from which to plan innocent explanations.

I wish Altieri could describe in concrete detail what made him so suspicious of Raffaele’s behavior in the car when Altieri drove him and Amanda to the Questura.

And yes, Amanda proves herself a liar by her body language and duper’s smile, her sneering raised lip in many of the above video clips. She nods her head for YES while saying “no” to Diane Sawyer! She has really improved on her lying skills since these early interviews.

Now she acts a good deal more convincing, sad but true. Now she believes her own tall tales, she really does. She never would take a lie detector test.

Why aren’t Amanda Knox’s supporters in the mainstream media e.g. Oprah Winfrey, Robin Roberts and Dr Phil asking her to keep her promise to take a lie detector test?

Their belief in her innocence is based on a pack of lies and the assumption that no American citizen charged with any crime in a foreign country can possibly be guilty of it.

Knox was very bullish when she made a promise she had no intention of keeping. I don’t understand why no-one in the media is prepared to question her story and ask her some tough questions. There is no real difference between the behaviour of most of the journalists who have covered the case in the US and the role David Marriott played.

It’s encouraging to see a number of people pointing out that Amanda Knox’s blood was mixed with Meredith’s blood in different locations in the cottage on YouTube.

One of the biggest misconceptions about the DNA evidence is that Merediths blood had mingled with Knox’s touch DNA that had been left at an earlier time and that it’s not surprising and it has no evidentiary value.

Credit should be given to Andrea Vogt and Barbie Nadeau who made this fact known via their reports in the media. Barbie mentioned the mixed-blood evidence in her book and Andrea made it known in her excellent BBC documentary about the case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erla7Ley4Tw&t=1919s

I’ve been reading Dr Stefanoni’s report dated 12 June 2008 and she categorically states that Knox’s blood was mixed with Meredith’s blood in the bidet and on the cotton bud box and the basin in the small bathroom.

@ TM

You say -

“I’ve been reading Dr Stefanoni’s report dated 12 June 2008 and she categorically states that Knox’s blood was mixed with Meredith’s blood in the bidet and on the cotton bud box and the basin in the small bathroom.”

Well, no, she doesn’t. I have read the report and her testimony as well.

As a scientist she can only comment on the results of her scientific analysis.

She conducted a test to establish that the samples were human blood and then a DNA analysis to establish that each of the samples contained the DNA of Knox and Meredith.

That’s not the same as her saying that the samples were mixed blood.

She also made it clear at the beginning of her report that one cannot date DNA.

It’s a shame the Perugian investigators did not offer Knox a lie detector test. Did they? Her refusal to take one would speak loudly against her.

The results aren’t admissible in U.S. courts, but to pass one does help establish innocence in the eyes of people.

The media is free Marriott for Knox, too right.

Media are getting paid to put out her twisted story. They’re getting paid to distort truth, not reveal it. Journalism has long ceased to be an objective report of facts.

Life has sped up, the new motto is down with accuracy.

Truth takes time. Truth went out the window unable to pay his bills.

If Knox took a polygraph today, would she pass? No, I don’t think so.

She’d never release the results.

Think of the headlines:  Knox fails lie detector.

But she could not be prosecuted again for the same crime so what difference would it make other than to her image or public perception?

It might hurt her pocketbook$$$$. Would the Innocence Project still want her as poster girl? Probably.

The future may reveal things about Knox. “In vino veritas”. In some future drunken stupor or high on cannabis she may let her guard down and hint or tease the ears of someone with her guilty knowledge, thinking she can retract it as drunk talk.

She might have kept some small souvenir or trophy from the murder, some object of Meredith’s, possibly hidden it in Perugia. She might try to retrieve it.
The October diary pages she tore out, they might turn up.

She might have stolen some item they’d mutually hidden together from Raffaele’s apartment to blackmail him with.

She might have some piece of jewelry of Laura’s. Filomena’s makeup was missing.

Remember the strange note posted in public about Via Della Pergola needing a new tenant? the handwriting analysis on that might one day reveal Knox’s cruel joke.

Raffaele might one day whisper or anonymously “sell his story” to underground press or big media about Knox, desperate for money.

He might have told his father everything long ago and if Raffaele predeceases his dad, his dad might unburden his heart to the Kerchers, perhaps a deathbed confession. A written statement.

If Dr. Sollecito told a wife or a future wife, who knows?

If construction work is done in future on Via Della Pergola, perhaps something hidden in the floors or walls or the yard will turn up. Big machinery could plow up the land.

Knox may have sworn her parents or Madison Paxton to secrecy during the trial. They might later talk if she turns against them. Or if she predeceases them.

And why doesn’t Knox want to be called “Mrs. Chris Robinson”? She is married to him, she is technically Mrs. Robinson. But she doesn’t want to take his name or to drop the Knox name, it’s her brand.

Could Mr. Robinson’s long game be as a spy to find out Knox’s secrets and sell them through his family’s newspaper?

Time will tell.

Is Robinson writing a new novel in code, hiding information about Knox on different pages in disguise as an inside joke between the pair?

Threatening her with exposure might come if they divorce.

Could Knox have hidden something with Meredith’s blood on it in Perugia? even a small Kleenex, a page from a book?

She would have been too smart to keep it at the cottage or Raf’s apartment, but she knew the area well enough to hide something under a rock, a pavement.

She could have slipped a small paper into the binding of a book at the University for Foreigners if they had a library?

She could have hidden a small item inside a possession of the boys’ downstairs to implicate them, in case her lies didn’t get her out of the murder charge.

She might have hidden an item that Silenzi and the boys from Marche don’t know is still taped inside a guitar or something they still own? a backpack? a gym bag? Under a chair still in the cottage?

The truth is out there. New science might uncover proof that was hidden in plain sight.

The truth will find a way. Like gravity it has force. It pulls at things. 

@James

Stefanoni had her attention drawn to a single long pink streak in the sink and bidet.

Marasca refers to this as ‘diluted blood’.

Such material singled out was pink, of “washed blood ... in the sense it did not have the characteristic red colour of blood.

The same colour other than in the bathroom sink was noted inside the bidet (p. 152).

She specified further that it was not a strip, but “more little specks < with the same continuity‛ (page 153): they were ‚drippings< that gave this continuity‛ and the colouring was the same, always pink.

Stefanoni spoke to he authors of Darkness Descending and elegantly described the progress of the visible blood stains as follows:

‘Forensics officer, Gioia Brocci found an ‘unusually long streak of blood’ which extended from the rim of the wash basin all the way in a line towards the plughole and another, which followed the same pattern in the bidet.  Stefanoni explains her theory to the authors
‘This is the knife moving around,’ she said extending her right arm away from her hips in an arc motion, as though she was throwing a Frisbee.  ‘These blood drips were left y the knife.  Too many droplets and look, the blood in the basin and bidet is paler, so it’s the knife that has been washed at that particular point’.
Pointing to other drops, she continues, ‘The drops on the box of cotton buds and the basin are dark.  This is blood before being washed.’
At the trial the court was impressed with Stefanoni’s expert testimony.  Massei found as an established fact, quoting Stefanoni:
‘Traces that appeared to be of a blood nature [101] were also present on the box of cotton buds, on top of the toilet seat, on the light switch and in the bidet, ‚and there was always the drop upwards, really on the edge and the same continuity up to the bidet siphon, of the common colour and in the same line‛ (pages 134 and 135).
Traces were present also over the bathroom door, not watered down but a vivid red colour. ‘

There was another, diluted stain on he inside edge of the door.

So, to sum up the blood at the cotton bud box was dark red from being rinsed in the sink and bidet, it became pale pink - hence the deduction that the blood of both Knox and Kercher had been deposited the same time (as blood ries within half an hour and would not mix once it starts clotting - and the faint blood on the light switch which is that of Meredith is also diluted - which shows her blood had been washed. 

Hi James,

Andrea Vogt and Barbie Nadeau repeatedly reported that Dr Stefanoni testified that Amanda Knox’s blood was mixed with Meredith’s blood in the small bathroom and Filomena’s room. They were both in the courtroom when Dr Stefanoni testified and I trust them implicitly on this.

I couldn’t find a reference to the mixed-blood evidence in Dr Stefanoni’s courtroom testimony on the Wiki website. I then realised that it’s only a partial translation of her courtroom testimony.

‘‘a genetic profile deriving from a mixture of biological substances certainly containing blood substances belonging to at least two individuals both of female gender.

The Kerchers’ lawyer Francesco Maresca told the media outside the courtroom that the mixed-blood evidence was the most damning piece of evidence against Amanda Knox. He wouldn’t have said this if Dr Stefanoni hadn’t testified there was mixed-blood evidence in court.

I then checked Marasca’s closing arguments in court and he repeatedly refers to the mixed-blood evidence and cites the page numbers from Dr Stefanoni’s report to support his assertions:

“I refer to the report, in the records of Dr. Stefanoni acquired at the beginning of the hearing, sampling of presumed blood substance highlighted by luminol technique performed on the floor located in the room used by Romanelli Filomena, is described in page 219 finding 177 I repeat of fundamental importance, a measure of biological substance, two individuals, both women, provided a compatibility result, is compatible with the hypothesis of measurement of biological substance containing blood substance belonging to Knox Amanda and Kercher Meredith.”

“Dr. Stefanoni papers 124 and 125 and the results that she inserts in her report tell us that beyond the drawing or not carried out with the same garzina also the other three report the same profile confirming that evidently the genetic profile obtained clearly corresponds to truth and there was a mixture of blood substance between the victim and Amanda Knox”.

I then checked Dr Stefanoni’s report - which is also isn’t on the Wiki website and she categorically states that some of this blood belongs to Amanda Knox.

Mixed blood in Filomena’s room (Rep.177, page 219)

‘‘un profilo genetico derivante da mistura di sostanze biologiche (conententi presumibilemente ematica)appartenenti ad almeno dui individui entrambi di sesso femmminile. Il confronto effettuati tra il genotipo derivante dalla traccia del Rep.177 con quelli appartenenti a KERCHER Meredith Susanna Cara e KNOX Amanda Marie’‘.

‘‘a genetic profile deriving from a mixture of biological substances (presumably containing blood) belonging to at least two individuals both of female gender. The comparison made between the genotype deriving from the trace of the Rep. 177 with those belonging to KERCHER Meredith Susanna Cara and KNOX Amanda Marie’‘.

Mixed blood in the bidet (Rep.66, page 119 )

‘‘The bidet: un profilo genetico derivante da mistura di sostanze biologiche conententi sangue umano appartenenti KNOX Amanda Marie (in misura minora) e KERCHER Meredith Susanna Cara (in misura maggiore)’‘.

‘‘a genetic profile deriving from a mixture of biological substances containing human blood belonging to KNOX Amanda Marie (to a lesser extent) and KERCHER Meredith Susanna Cara’‘.

Mixed blood on the cotton bud box and the basin (Rep 136-7, page 175)

‘‘contenenti certamente sostanze ematica appartenenti ad almeno dui individui entrambi di sesso femmminile. Il confronto effettuati tra il genotipo derivante dalla due tracce analizzate con quelli appartenenti a KERCHER Meredith Susanna Cara e KNOX Amanda Marie’‘.

‘‘a genetic profile deriving from a mixture of biological substances certainly containing blood substances belonging to at least two individuals both of female gender. The comparison made between the genotype deriving from the two traces analyzed with those belonging to KERCHER Meredith Susanna Cara and KNOX Amanda Marie’‘

Mixed blood in the hallway (Rep.183, page 224)

‘‘un profilo genetico derivante da mistura di sostanze biologiche (conententi presumibilemente ematica)appartenenti ad almeno dui individui entrambi di sesso femmminile. Il confronto effettuati tra il genotipo derivante dalla traccia del Rep.183 con quelli appartenenti a KERCHER Meredith Susanna Cara e KNOX Amanda Marie’‘.

‘‘a genetic profile deriving from a mixture of biological substances (presumably containing blood) belonging to at least two individuals both of female gender. The comparison made between the genotype deriving from the trace of the Rep. 183 with those belonging to KERCHER Meredith Susanna Cara and KNOX Amanda Marie’‘.

According to the authors of Darkness Descending, Dr Stefanoni explained to Migini how she knew Amanda Knox’s blood was mixed with Meredith - and not another substance like saliva.

“She said that she had identified a large blob of Amanda’s blood on the tap, and their blood was mixed in the basin, bidet and the cotton bud box. This meant Meredith and Amanda must have been bleeding at the same time. The implication was that Amanda had cut herself in the violence of the murder struggle. Stefanoni wanted to confirm this.

“‘Excuse my ignorance, sorry to interrupt,’ Mignini said. ‘Can you explain to me how you know the sample contains blood both from the victim and Knox? Couldn’t be just be the victim’s blood and say, another biological substance, saliva for example, from Knox?’ Stefanoni explained she knew both samples were blood because white corpuscles provide an immense quantity of DNA compared with other substances, and this sample contained a lot of Amanda’s DNA. ‘This in itself proves it is blood,’ said Stefanoni, and added ‘Actually, in some cases we see more of Amanda’s DNA than Meredith’s, such as here in the basin. This means that there is a lot of Amanda’s blood, not a smudge.’”

The explanation attributed to Dr Stefanoni is basically the same as Professor Garofano’s.

“However, here is the electropherogram and you can see that the RFU value is very high, so the sample is undoubtedly blood, which is the body fluid that provides the greatest amount of DNA.

In some cases you see higher peaks of Amanda’s DNA than Meredith’s. Amanda has been bleeding. (Luciano Garafano, Darkness Descending, page 371).

“Let’s say the assassin used the basin and bidet to wash the knife: if you look at the electropherograms you’ll see that there seems to be more of Amanda Knox’s blood than Meredith’s. There is a copious blood loss by Amanda.”  (Luciano Garofano, Darkness Descending, page 374).

Professor Garofano isn’t some fur coat salesman with no forensic qualifications or experience spouting nonsense. He’s the former head of the RIS Carabinieri. In England that would be like the head of the Forensic Science Service.

I specifically discussed the mixed-blood evidence with a former chief prosecutor last year and he said Knox’s DNA wasn’t touch DNA because it results in minute amounts of DNA. It’s also my understanding that pure saliva doesn’t contain any DNA.

I’ve painstakingly ploughed through hundreds of pages of Dr Stefanoni’s courtroom testimonies and her reports and I’m still not finished. It’s heavy going because it’s very complex subject. She testified that it’s possible to tell from the electropherogram who left the greater amount of blood in a mixed-blood sample:

‘‘the trace is composed of two DNAs in a quantatively different manner: maybe one has lost a tiny drop of blood and a big drop blood of the other ended up on top of it - thus a larger quantity of DNA - even this can be seen in this graph.”

I’m going to specifically draw your attention to these comments about the mixed-blood sample in the bidet from Dr Stefanoni’s report:

‘‘The bidet: un profilo genetico derivante da mistura di sostanze biologiche conententi sangue umano appartenenti KNOX Amanda Marie (in misura minora) e KERCHER Meredith Susanna Cara (in misura maggiore)’‘

‘‘a genetic profile deriving from a mixture of biological substances containing human blood belonging to KNOX Amanda Marie (to a lesser extent) and KERCHER Meredith Susanna Cara (to a greater extent)‘‘.

‘‘CONTAINING HUMAN BLOOD BELONGING TO KNOX AMANDA MARIE’’

I think it’s clear that Dr Stefanoni is referring to Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher’s blood. Perhaps one of Italian speakers can clarify.

Barbie Nadeau told Denis Murphy from NBC that the mixed-blood evidence in the bidet convinced Dr Stefanoni that Knox was involved in Meredith’s murder:

The most damaging forensic evidence against Amanda was what the prosecution’s expert said was mixed blood DNA of Amanda and Meredith found on the drain of the bidet.

Barbie Nadeau: She was convinced that it showed that Amanda Knox was involved in this crime.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28057560/ns/dateline_nbc-crime_reports/t/trial-amanda-knox/#.XYjh5y-ZOqA

The reference to ‘‘mixed blood DNA of Amanda and Meredith’’ seems to corroborate my interpretation of Dr Stefanoni’s comments in her report.

I have Dr Stefanoni’s contact details. I can always check with her.

The defence lawyers asked Dr Stefanoni if she could rule out that Knox’s DNA could have come from another substance and of course she couldn’t because it’s theoretically possible that Knox’s DNA came saliva. However, does anyone really believe that Meredith’s blood landed on five different spots of Amanda Knox’s saliva in three different locations in the cottage? Bear in mind that Knox’s blood was found alone on the tap in the bathroom.

Stewart Home - a poster from PMF and TJMK - attended the trial in Perugia and spoke to the defence lawyers. He also said there was mixed-blood evidence. I’ll try to find his comments about this.

I don’t believe for a second that Andrea Vogt, Barbie Nadeau, Francesco Maresca and Stewart Home are all making this up and by some amazing coincidence the former head of the RIS Carabinieri also thinks there was mixd-blood evidence.

I’ve found Stewart Home’s comments about the mixed-blood evidence. He posted these comments on PMF in April 2009 - which was obviously before the trial in Perugia and months before Andrea Vogt and Barbie Nadeai reported that Dr Stefanoni had testified there was mixed-blood evidence. He got this information from one of the defence lawyers:

‘‘7. Blood Evidence at the House – This, if proved to be correct, will be a bit harder to explain. The prosecution has not brought this out in court, but it will come out. There are at least THREE instances of blood evidence found in the house, one specifically being on a cotton swab container in the bathroom, which is positive for AK’s BLOOD and the victims BLOOD. Yes, you read that right blood mixed with blood. You have not heard this yet, but it will be presented soon enough. AK said she had a bloody earring. OK maybe a drop lands on drop, but three places? Motorhead, and FOA if this turns out to be true, how did Amanda’s BLOOD get mixed with M’s blood in three different places? If its not true, no worries.‘‘

This issue also came up at the Nencini Appeal. 

Day 5 of the Nencini Appeal, 25 Nov 2013, Crini points out that luminol highlights BLOOD, so to have Knox’ bloodied footprint precisely where it fell upon her victim’s blood, is incredibly revealing.

On resuming, Crini refers to the bloody footprint on the bath mat with no blood leading up to it.  This, he points out, indicates a clean-up in the surrounding area.  He covers the luminol-highlighted footprints in the hallway – identified as those of Knox, Sollecito and Guede - and the one in Filomena’s room as being the most important, as it includes the mixed DNA of Knox and Meredith.  He dismisses the defence’s claim the footprints were not blood.

CRINI:  For a policeman, the most striking feature is precisely the blood pound found on the small bath mat…[…]… the most impressive figure, because it is a unique one, as though it were a spoken word, it is this imprint that we find on this pattern, on this mat, a celestine, greenish mat, that of the small foreigners’ bathroom.

Coming onto the footprints exposed by luminol, which reacts with the iron element in haemoglobin to produce a fluorescent light in the dark:

CRINI ;…[…]…[re Luminol]. in my opinion is the most important element of this whole story - at least in one case we are superimposed on the DNA of the victim, on this footprint, with the DNA of Knox. Then we, to imagine - understand? - that this DNA comes from something other than Kercher’s blood, we have to conjecture that there is *a substance that is exalted by Luminol through a reagent X*, which is certainly not signalled, but which we hypothesize, and that for the very part that was torn, clearly left either by Knox or by Kercher, of course, or perhaps by Kercher, but in that case then on that point, let’s say, there would be the Knox DNA itself.

He believes the most incriminating evidence of all is against Knox:
…[…]… So there is a [luminol] fluorescence in Romanelli’s room, which appears at the same time - we are not in the victim’s room, we are not in the Knox room, indeed, that of Knox’ is totally cleaned from this point of view - simultaneously refers to DNA victim and Knox.

…[…]… That in this room of the Italian, in which the presence of the other two is certainly there ... yes, precisely in that room they were given a convention the two strangers, leaving their DNA exactly in the same spot in the room.’

In other words, Knox has trailed Meredith’s blood into Filomena’s room and shed her own DNA on exactly the same spot as the victim’s and that they were mixed together.’

Day 6, 26 Nov 2013, Crini refers to Knox’ blood in the bathroom:

• Crini focuses on how Amanda’s blood is on the bathroom tap, yet her claim not to remember bleeding is unconvincing.
• Mignini in the Massei trial believed the mixed DNA of Amanda and Meredith in the small bathroom was the most incriminating of all as it appeared they were both bleeding at the same time, for it to comingle.

CRINI: “Yes, I saw blood but I did not connect it with myself. ” But how not, dear, it, is your drip! How do you “do you not connect it with me”?  Explain why a drop of blood has fallen into the sink, right? It’s not what you say, “I saw blood, I did not connect it with myself.” No, you’re talking about *your* blood, not the blood of Meredith or Romanelli. Your blood, because it turns out to be yours. So if you’ve got a spill, it’s best to say so.

I see the girl in possession of this knife, and a situation that maybe at the moment does not offer specific indications of injuries that she has suffered; the fact remains that *Amanda Knox’s blood is in this bidet,  mixed with that of Meredith*, and one present alone, to a sufficiently large extent, to which is not given ... the slightest explanation.

In the sense, she rightly evades the subject and says “well, I see blood but it does not make an impression”. But how? It’s your own. Is absurd. However, she says “it’s okay” ... so.

…[…]… The context is that we are here with a bloody, cruel, killing-killing person, in which anything can happen I have to give this blood to Knox, who runs this into this bidet, some explanation, otherwise I cannot imagine it closely related to the bloody story that was consumed little by little. I can be happy to say “well, it’s Knox’s blood, but in short, let’s say it came from a cut “? Maybe. The fact is that this element, too, is also corroborating, and that is precisely what we say is integrating; it indicates a clear presence at the scene of the offender but not as a resident , but as a cover.’

Day 10, 20 Jan 2014

About Guede’s knife wounds to the hand, Crini says there was no sign of any of Guede’s blood at the crime scene, and in any case, as he knew the house, having visited more than once, he would have made a more logical entry than Filomena’s window.

The idea that the mixed blood/DNA is ‘just a theory’ is shown to be misconceived.  It is a hard fact.

There was a live chat with Barbie Nadeau on The Daily Beast website and the fur coat salesman disagreed with Barbie’s claim there was mixed-blood evidence. This was her response:

“There are mixed genetic traces in spots of blood in which Amanda’s traces are higher than Meredith’s. That implies mixed blood according to the dozens of forensics experts I’ve interviewed about this.” (Barbie Nadeau, The Daily Beast).

Hi TM,

Your post is far too long for me to respond to each and every comment you make.

What you have not done is counter the point I made above about Stefanoni’s work, which was limited, as far as her evidence was concerned, to the facts arising from the scientific tests she made. Drawing inferences from those facts is a different thing and in that respect you and I are certainly not that far apart.

However I myself prefer not to read inaccuracies. Eg, you say above (quoting from the biological report) -

‘The bidet: un profilo genetico derivante da mistura di sostanze biologiche conententi sangue umano appartenenti KNOX Amanda Marie (in misura minora) e KERCHER Meredith Susanna Cara (in misura maggiore)’

‘a genetic profile deriving from a mixture of biological substances containing human blood belonging to KNOX Amanda Marie (to a lesser extent) and KERCHER Meredith Susanna Cara (to a greater extent)”.

‘CONTAINING HUMAN BLOOD BELONGING TO KNOX AMANDA MARIE’

No need for capitals as quite clearly that is not what Stefanoni is saying.

She is not saying that there was blood belonging to Knox as well as Kercher. She is saying that it was blood but not whose blood it was. It was nevertheless a mixture of biological substances from which was derived a genetic profile for Knox (to a lesser extent) and from Kercher (to a greater extent). That is actually quite clear from the report. That is the reason why Massei (indeed every judge) inferred that the mixture accounting for the respective profiles was blood and skin cells. The lesser and greater can, of course be inferred from the peaks of the alleles in the respective profiles.

As to the conversation between Stefanoni and Mignini in Darkness Descending I suspect the authors have probably indulged in a little licence there, as they did throughout the book. It certainly isn’t evidence and even if it happened it was Stefanoni interpretion only. It was to assist Mignini to get a handle on the evidence.

Who am I to judge that her interpretation is wrong? In fact I am largely in agreement with it but of course that is not what she said in evidence.

Hi James,

According to Andrea Vogt and Barbie Nadeau - who attended the trial and observed Dr Stefanoni testify on the stand - she did say there was mixed-blood evidence:

“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).

“Last month, the Rome forensic police biologist Patrizia Stefanoni testified that five mixed DNA samples – blood or DNA that tested positive for both Ms Kercher and Ms Knox – were found in various rooms of the small villa the two women shared.“ (Andrea Vogt, The Independent, 7 June 2009).

“Ms Knox gave one piece of important information about the blood found in the bathroom (police have told of finding DNA samples of Ms Kercher and Ms Knox’s blood on the sink, bidet and a cotton bud box in the bath). Ms Knox told the judge that she had not seen any blood in the apartment or bathroom the day before Ms Kercher’s death. Only the morning after.“  (Andrea Vogt, The Independent, 14 June 2009).

ANDREA VOGT:  ‘‘I feel that it has still not been properly explained why there are mixed traces of DNA of Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher in 4 different spots in the house. Mixed blood, and I’ve talked to different biologists.’’ (Andrea Vogt, Justice on Trial).

“Your lawyers agree with the prosecution’s findings that at least one of the spots of Meredith’s blood found in the house where she was killed had your blood mixed with it.” (Barbie Nadeau, The Daily Beast, 29 May 2010).

“The defense did not contest any of the lab results, provide a counter scenario to the staged break-in, or offer testimony to explain why Knox may also have been bleeding (except to say that it is common to find mixed DNA from two people who shared a house).“ (Barbie Nadeau, Newsweek, 10 June 2009).

“Evidence: Mixed blood
Who it hurts: Knox
The only forensic evidence against Knox is the presence in her house of five spots where the blood and DNA of the roommates had commingled. Of those five, the most damning is a drop of Kercher’s blood with Knox’s DNA found (with the aid of Luminol, a substance used in crime-scene investigations to find blood that has been cleaned up) in the bedroom of Filomena Romanelli, one of the two Italian women who also lived in the house. The prosecution alleges that a break-in was staged by Knox and Sollecito in Romanelli’s room: the window was broken with a large rock and the room was ransacked, but nothing was taken—even though expensive sunglasses and jewelry were in plain sight. Clothes were pulled from Romanelli’s dresser drawers but the glass shards from the broken window were found on top of them, leading police to believe that the window was broken after the ransacking took place, not before. Romanelli testified on the stand that the first thing she thought was “What a stupid burglar.” The other mixed DNA spots were found in the bathroom the women shared—on the sink, the bidet, and on the side of a Q-tip box. The defense did not contest any of the lab results, provide a counter scenario to the staged break-in, or offer testimony to explain why Knox may also have been bleeding (except to say that it is common to find mixed DNA from two people who shared a house). Knox originally told police that her pierced ears were infected. Her mother, Edda Mellas, told NEWSWEEK that she was menstruating, though neither scenario was presented to the jury. Knox supporters suggest that Kercher’s blood had been dropped by Guede on a spot where Knox’s dried blood or DNA already existed, even though Guede’s DNA profile was not identified in any of the five spots.“ (Barbie Nadeau, Newsweek, 6 October 2009).

BARBIE NADEAU:  ‘‘I have to say, I live in a house with 3 people, my two sons and my husband, I guarantee you I have no mixed blood with any of them, anywhere in my house. I don’t bleed where they bleed, we don’t bleed at the same time. There would never be my mixed blood, their blood and my blood anywhere ever.’’ (Barbie Nadeau, Justice on Trial).

Once again I am only interested in the evidence presented in court either by way of report or direct verbal testimony, that is on oath or knowing that it will be entered in evidence and being aware of the penalties for making a false representation.

Stefanoni never said the samples from the sample bathroom were mixed blood, in her report or in verbal testimony, as far as I am aware. [NB you are right. We do not have a complete english translation of her testimony on the Wiki. However I did see that at one point she did refer to the sampled blood from the small bathroom but as mixed DNA]

With the greatest respect what Andrea Vogt or Barbie Nadeau may have reported is not the same. They are not above misunderstanding the difference between evidence and interpretation or of being a bit loose in their terminology, including the other reporters they discussed the case with afterwards.

One only has to read the quotes from the reporters above to see what I mean.

Andrea Vogt, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 29 May 2009 -

“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.”

What’s the drain tap? Where’s that? Is that the faucet? If it is then we know that the blood on it was Knox’s. Perhaps that’s how we get Knox’s blood in the above quote and mixed blood.

And then -

Andrea Vogt, The Independent, 7 June 2009 -

“Last month, the Rome forensic police biologist Patrizia Stefanoni testified that five mixed DNA samples – blood or DNA that tested positive for both Ms Kercher and Ms Knox – were found in various rooms of the small villa the two women shared”.

Last month being the month of the former quote. Three of the five mixed samples being from the washbasin sink, the bidet and the Q-tip which are now more accurately referred to as “mixed DNA samples” - blood OR DNA.

I think anyone would have to agree that the reporting can at times be imprecise but it seems that at any rate Andrea has now corrected herself.

There is a difference between fact on the one hand and interpretation and evaluation on the other. Judges are trained as to both aspects. Reporters and journalists, whatever their integrity, not so much. They have deadlines to meet and an expectant readership after all.

I am not critical of them but I do think it is incumbent on us, after all this time, to be more careful and not take what we understand them to be saying as the literal truth as to what the evidence presented was. Also we need to keep fact and evaluation separate in our thinking and be clear about that when we are commenting.

Hopefully I met this criteria when writing my book. I never (I think ) quoted a reporter when it came to the evidence.

We have english translations of the various motivations and testimonies which I think we can take as being more reliable.

@James The cotton bud box (dark red) contained the mixed DNA of Knox and Kercher.  The line of drips extended into the sink and was pale pink in colour = diluted with water and likewise into the bidet.

Stefanoni said she was able to date it to the murder precisely because of this.  She clearly stated she could not date the drop of Knox blood on the tap.  You have to remember Stefanoni was an objective and impartial scientist.

Now here’s the thing: dried blood is insoluble in water.  If Knox’ had deposited her blood on a different occasion to the pink strip of diluted blood (= water mixed with *wet* blood), then it would have been caked hard by the time the fresh blood and water was introduced.  This is what Stefanoni meant when she said the two samples were not separate in that respect but co-mingled.

It was her job to make objective scientific findings.  She wasn’t just guessing.  She had no interest in anything other than gleaning information and reporting her results.

Hi James,

Andrea Vogt and Barbie Nadeau are both fluent in Italian and they are absolutely adamant that Dr Stefanoni testified that Amanda Knox’s blood was mixed with Meredith’s blood. There are still hundreds of pages of Dr Stefanoni’s courtroom testimony that haven’t been translated.

Andrea Vogt used quotation marks when referring to the “mixed blood” evidence - which indicates it was a verbatim quotation, presumably from Dr Stefanoni, and then pointed out the defence lawyers’ counter-argument:

‘‘Defense attorneys argued that this genetic material couldn’t be certified as blood and that even if it were, it wasn’t abnormal since Knox lived in the house and could have left blood around at any time.‘‘

Barbie Nadeau was well aware of the fur coat salesman’s claim there was no mixed-blood evidence and she said she had checked with ‘‘dozens’’ of forensic experts who also said the fact there were higher traces of Knox in these samples implied it was mixed blood.

Francesco Maresca’s specifically referred to the mixed-blood evidence inside and outside the courtroom. He repeatedly referred to the mixed-blood evidence in his closing arguments at the trial.

His comments below make it clear he’s referring to mixed blood and not Amanda Knox’s DNA mixed with Meredith’s blood.

‘‘there was a mixture of blood substance between the victim and Amanda Knox”.

Do you think he also misunderstood Dr Stefanoni’s courtroom testimony?

Professor Garofano - who is one of Italy’s top DNA experts - categorically stated there was mixed-blood evidence and explained how he could tell Amanda Knox’s blood was mixed with Meredith’s blood.

Explain to me how all the judges in the case disagreed with or were unwilling to find for the proposition that mixed blood was proved - either scientifically, or in context. None of them even referred to any evidence to that effect.

I think I will leave this alone now. To do otherwise is simply to repeat oneself endlessly.

Judge Massei didn’t accept Dr Stefanoni’s findings there was mixed blood evidence because it couldn’t be ascertained who the blood belonged in the mixed traces. Dr Stefanoni couldn’t rule out the possibility that Knox’s DNA could have come from a different source.

He assumes the blood must have belonged to Meredith because she had many wounds and it couldn’t have belonged to Amanda Knox because she didn’t have any wounds.

This is a layman’s non-scientific line of reasoning that completely disregards the fact there was more of Knox’s DNA in some of these mixed samples and her RFU peaks were extremely high - which indicates her DNA came from a source that provides an immense of DNA i.e. blood.

His non-expert opinion also contradicts the expert opinion of Professor Garofano who categorically stated that Amanda Knox’s blood was mixed with Meredith’s blood in the small bathroom and Filomena’s room.

Professor Garofano thinks Knox was bleeding from her nose or her mouth and this would explain why there weren’t any visible wounds. This is common sense and it surprises me that Judge Massei dismissed or didn’t even consider these very plausible scenarios.

It also surprises me Judge Massei unquestioningly believed Amanda Knox’s explanation that her blood on the tap came from one of her piercings.

I agree with Professor Garofano that Knox was injured in a violent struggle with Meredith and her blood on the tap should be seen in relation to her blood in the mixed-blood samples in the bathroom - they were in very close proximity to each other.

Judge Massei still considers the mixed samples in the small bathroom and Filomena’s room as evidence that Knox was present at the cottage at the time of the murder and that she had come into contact with Meredith’s blood because she was the one who inflicted the fatal wound.

Judge Gemelli is the only judge who specifically mentions the fact there were blood traces that were attributable to Knox and Meredith in the bidet his Supreme Court report.

Here is a summary of the mixed-blood evidence in the small bathroom from the Meredith Kercher Wiki website:

The small bathroom

A mixture of the two women’s DNA (probably mixed blood) was found in three places: on the cotton bud box, the side of basin, and the bidet.

The mixed traces are probably mixed blood because of the similar heights of the DNA peaks attributable attributable to Meredith and Knox (see below).

Blood stain in the bidet

Rep. 66 is a smear of blood, beside the plughole of the bidet. It has the visual appearance of dilute blood and tested positive for human blood in a scientific test. DNA testing revealed that it is a mixed profile of Knox and Meredith.[4]

4. ↑ Stefanoni: pp.112-113

The wash basin

Rep.136 is a sample taken from a visible smear on box of cotton buds beside the tap on the basin. It tested positive for human blood. DNA testing revealed a mixed profile of Knox and Meredith.[5] In the electropherogram, the peaks attributable to the two women are of similar heights, implying similar concentrations of DNA from both women in the sample. Blood is extremely rich in DNA, so this is definitely not a sample of “blood DNA” from one woman and “touch DNA” from the other. It is very likely to be a mixture of Knox’s and Meredith’s blood.

5.↑ Stefanoni: pp.114-115

Rep. 137 is a sample taken from the left hand side of the wash-basin. It tested positive for human blood and DNA testing revealed a mixed profile of Knox and Meredith. Again, the similarity of the heights of the electropherogram peaks suggest a probable mixed blood sample.[6]

6. ↑ Stefanoni: pp.116-117

The tap smeared with Knox’s blood

Rep. 24 is a sample taken from the tap on the basin, where there are visible smears of blood. This sample tested positive for human blood and matched the DNA profile of Knox. There are no DNA peaks attributable to Meredith, so there is no doubt that the smears on the tap are Knox’s blood.[7]

7. ↑ Stefanoni: pp.95-96

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Other_DNA_Evidence

I’d like Amanda Knox to answer the following question from Barbie Nadeau:

2. Why were you bleeding? Your lawyers agree with the prosecution’s findings that at least one of the spots of Meredith’s blood found in the house where she was killed had your blood mixed with it. Your mother told me that you had your period. Your stepfather told others that your ear piercings were infected. Which was it?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/amanda-knox-10-questions-for-the-convicted-murderer

The Amanda Knox Lies spotting TED talk has now been viewed over 400,000 times:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0o5qrEZfuc

Where next:

Or to previous entry Subtitled In English, Videos Of All Of The RAI Rudy Guede Interview Start Here