r/amandaknox • u/Financial-Many-4482 • 10d ago
How do those who think she’s guilty explain no DNA in the room?
To those who believe she’s guilty - how do you explain there being none of her DNA in the bedroom? When Rudy’s was all over?
I understand the back and forth on her behaviour etc, but how is this not categoric evidence that she didn’t do it?
Am I being daft? Is there an obvious explanation to this I’m overlooking?
10
u/Funicularly innocent 10d ago
Amanda and Raffaele selectivity cleaned their invisible DNA, leaving behind Rudy’s alone.
14
u/SeaCardiologist6207 10d ago
Basically that Amanda possessed Rudy Guede with her Foxy Knoxy lingerie and made him do it. Who needs DNA then?
Its like the handprint on the closet door. How dare Meredith go into Amandas room and lean against the closet door? GUILTY
6
u/AyJaySimon 10d ago
Had she worn gloves and shoes, it wouldn't be that far-fetched for her to leave behind no DNA. The problem, though, is that direct involvement in the murder (she "wielded the knife," after all), would've had her leaving behind plenty of physical traces (handprints, shoeprints, hair, etc), not to mention the blood that she'd have carried out of the room on her own clothes. No evidence of this sort was ever found.
Complicating things further for the guilters is that Knox's DNA on the knife handle is taken to be evidence that she committed the crime with that knife. But if so, that would also imply she wasn't wearing gloves when she was in Kercher's room committing the crime. So it's that much harder to explain away the lack of DNA in Kercher's bedroom.
1
u/Financial-Many-4482 10d ago
Yes exactly! It seems so odd to overlook the lack of actual physical traces (I should’ve said this rather than DNA, it covers more) in the room it actually happened in. But then focus on things like Amanda thinking she did sometimes lock her door…
2
u/ModelOfDecorum 10d ago
There's also the blood spatter. If Amanda stabbed Meredith from the front (as the prosecution claimed), why is there no gap in the blood spatter on the closet door? Why is there no trace of her standing there?
1
u/jasutherland innocent 9d ago
Gloves and shows aren’t enough - I’m sure you’ve seen the “bunny suits” with masks and hoods that crime scene techs have to wear to avoid contaminating the scene with their own DNA, hair, prints etc? Even then, the spraying blood would have been almost impossible to avoid, as Guede found with his shoe and his need to wash blood off before he left.
Also far-fetched to think that they used two different knives for the murder, and managed to ditch one without trace - but took the other one back to Sollecito’s flat and used it for food (but without Sollecito himself handling it), to explain both the possible DNA speck and the definite potato presence.
1
u/AyJaySimon 9d ago
Gloves and shoe aren't enough to guarantee DNA isn't shed, but if the acknowledged killer had left behind no DNA at the scene, and we come to find out they were wearing gloves and shoes, it does make more plausible the fact that none of their DNA was found.
1
u/jasutherland innocent 9d ago
He certainly left shoe, foot and handprints - if he wasn’t able to avoid stepping in the sprayed and pooling blood, leaving obvious shoe prints then a partial trail outside (presumably after at least a little effort at wiping it off) how could two others supposedly there with him? Particularly bearing in mind his blood phobia which would probably make him more motivated to try to avoid it than most.
7
u/corpusvile2 10d ago
It wasn't all over, Knox was convicted on more dna evidence than Guede and absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Lots of convicted killers- Richard Allen for the delphi murders, serial killers Mark Nash, Lucy Letby, Rose West, child killer Ian Huntley, mob boss Whitey Bulger- had no dna evidence against them and Knox did have dna evidence against her.
8
u/joe_boehm 10d ago
He's made this argument before. By "more" he means that the count of samples was higher. But gives no context. Surprise surprise there were a lot of samples of her DNA in the house where she lived. Were any of them actually incriminating?
3
u/corpusvile2 10d ago
Yes they were, especially the presumed blood mixed dna of Knox & Meredith's in the staged burglary room. Any dna evidence submitted against a defendant as evidence is considered incriminating. Knox had more dna samples submitted against her than Guede and Sollecito.
3
u/Financial-Many-4482 10d ago edited 10d ago
In the bedroom? Obviously her DNA was in the house she lived in.
5
u/corpusvile2 10d ago
Her dna wasn't found in her bedroom and neither was Filomena's in her bedroom. Knox's was found mixed with Meredith's in Filomena's bedroom, where the staged burglary happened- that's extremely damning evidence.
1
9d ago
Wait, weren’t there luminol footprints in Knox’s bedroom? Did those test positive for any DNA?
1
u/corpusvile2 8d ago
Sorry my bad, there were three of her footprints in luminol that did have her dna, I meant there was no regular dna or fingerpints in her bedroom, but should have clarified that, my bad again. But again there was none in her bed for example and again none of Filomena's dna in her bedroom. It's not unduly significant overall.
3
2
u/Truthandtaxes 10d ago
If her DNA is so ubiquitous in its spread then finding it in the victims room would be meaningless (bar for example like Rudy's showing sexual assault)
2
u/Majestic-Praline-671 10d ago
Raffaele’s DNA was in the room. I assume they cleaned up what they could, what they knew they touched and they probably got lucky. Amanda’s lamp was in the room, that’s also never been explained.
2
u/Dangerous-Lawyer-636 8d ago
The lamp is very hard to explain innocently. Meredith had a working lamp and working overhead light.
1
5
u/Truthandtaxes 10d ago
Firstly Rafs is in there
But this argument is completely flawed
a) its based on the expectation that murderers regularly leave DNA or that its findable, which is completely false. Jack Woodley for example was beaten by a group of 10 teenagers and then stabbed to death, the DNA evidence is Jack's DNA on the knife sheath. Koberger similarly only left his sheath with DNA after several stabbings.
b) Its hardly difficult to picture scenarios were she would never leave DNA - like say just shouting orders
c) If as very likely she inflicted the fatal wound, then why would stabbing a held and helpless victim leave evidence?
d) There was DNA but its completely obscured by the victims volume of blood
e) There was DNA but in unexpected and tested places.
In all finding DNA is meaningful, not finding it means very little.
1
u/Etvos2 10d ago
The point is that Guede left so much evidence and Knox and Sollecito none at all.
This was the reason the guilter crowd had to invent the "selective cleaning" hypothesis which even the Italian Supreme Court acknowledged was bunk.
3
u/Truthandtaxes 10d ago
Rudy was holding and SAing the victim
1
u/Etvos2 10d ago
Wut?
2
u/Truthandtaxes 10d ago
thats why Rudy left DNA on the victim most likely
1
u/Etvos2 10d ago
Guede left DNA on the victim's handbag.
What were K&S doing then during the attack?
2
u/Truthandtaxes 10d ago
and? yes Rudy was there
Knox probably getting her nose hit by kercher and plunging a knife in
Raf probably holding her somewhere with a hand free to plunge a pocket knife in the other side of her neck (no transfer isn't expected and who knows where)
1
u/Etvos2 10d ago
So you claim Sollecito was holding but "transfer isn't expected" My how convenient!
And here we go with Knox getting hit so hard she bleeds profusely but has no visible signs of injury the next day like blackened eyes.
The problem is some the bloody footprints didn't come back with Kercher's DNA, only Knox's, so now to keep the BS narrative alive you have to fantasize that Knox was hemorrhaging all over the place but magically without a sign twelve hours later.
Does this mean that the "injury" to Knox's neck is no longer in play?
3
u/Truthandtaxes 9d ago
Its not, and its its not like they systemically tested every location
Knox was a football player, we regularly have noses that have had 10 too many balls to the face. Not that you need a broken nose for a nose bleed anyway like you insist
Because the prints were cleaned up and even several of the ones that nominally don't contain Kerchers DNA do if you look at the graphs, including both in Filomenas room. Stef apparently was overly nice.
the scratch is still very scratch looking
0
u/Etvos2 9d ago
I never said her nose needed to be broken.
We're not talking about a "bloody nose". Garofano said Knox was "bleeding profusely". We're talking about covering the soles of her bare feet.
The scratch is BS and you know it. The police had to fiddle with the color until Knox was as yellow as a Simpson's character just to get people to notice.
→ More replies (0)1
u/jasutherland innocent 9d ago
Clearly, the “hickey” was in fact an arterial bleed that drenched her feet (in magic blood that shows negative on TMB tests), but Knox got her neck insta-healed by the secret CIA clinic leaving just the little mark the next morning…
5
u/AyJaySimon 10d ago
As an aside, it's always been curious to me how guilters will cite Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp as iron-clad proof that he was in the room, and not only does that fact somehow also put Knox in the room (absent any traces of her own). But let's take it for granted that the bra clasp does prove Sollecito was in the room - you notice how nobody really cares that he wound up getting away with murder.
Folks are obsessed with Knox.
4
u/Etvos2 10d ago
Oh absolutely.
Knox's problem is she's the avatar for all the sexual insecurities of creepers.
male incels: She looks like all the pretty girls who wouldn't talk to me in high school. e.g. Dilan Esper
female incels: Men are attracted to her and that's why I live alone with six cats. e.g. Roberta Glass, Krissy Giscombe
2
9d ago
Let’s be honest here, the reason this case has ever drawn a lot of attention is because it involves a white, middle class, attractive woman either committing a violent rape and murder (with accomplices) or being framed by police for it. Change various of those factors and there’d be much, much less interest and it probably would not be having mini-series made about it nearly 20 years later. This figures for people who think she’s innocent and those who still think she’s guilty.
1
9d ago
I don’t think either were involved but just going to point out this is r/amandaknox. This sub isn’t named after Raffaele or Meredith. Everybody here is fixated on Amanda, regardless of their view on the murder.
1
u/AyJaySimon 9d ago
I'd argue the fact there is no r/RaffaeleSollecito sub and the r/MeredithKercher sub hasn't had any activity in over a year just reinforces my point about people being obsessed with Knox.
1
9d ago
Well this is a largely English language forum and Knox is the one still putting out occasional books and tv shows in English about her role in this crime. Sollecito isn’t, and Kercher is dead. And Kerchers parents are dead.
Really This sub is the only game in town to discuss the crime. Before the miniseries this sub was lightly used it seemed like and the main handful of guilters never seemed to me mostly more obsessed with Knox than sollecitos involvement. But this is almost 20 years later, closer to the event that may have been true.
Fact is Almost no one cares about this crime at all, and just a spurt of new interest due to the mini-series, which I’m sure will quickly pass.
Oh and there was that lunatic American lady doing the YouTube videos a couple years ago who thinks Knox and every other exonerated person is really guilty. Name is right in the top of my tongue — Roberta Glass maybe?
0
u/TGcomments innocent 10d ago
Your comment is total pie-in-the-sky baloney, and you know it, but it's the fact that you then try to foist it on others as plausible that pisses me off.
"The key consideration was the distribution of DNA profiles of Guede vs Knox and Sollecito. Multiple profiles from multiple evidential items are much less likely to all be contamination incidents, whereas weak (one-off) results are more likely to be contaminants—this was always a recognized difficulty for the prosecution who invented the selective cleaning hypothesis to explain away inconvenient results." (Peter Gill)
It is indisputably impossible that traces attributable to the appellants would not have been found at the crime scene had they taken part in Kercher’s murder (the room was of small dimensions: 2.91 x 3.36m, as shown in the plan reproduced in f: 76). (Marasca-Bruno)
The only similarity between the murder of Meredith and the case you mention is that there was a fatality. Association fallacy is all you've got.
3
u/Truthandtaxes 9d ago
Way for Peter Gill to push the boat out with that quote and also manage not to notice that that there are at least 3 DNA contamination events required here. But yes the obvious position that one finding is more likely contamination than 5 is such an amazing deep statement, lets all clap for the professor.
Shame he also doesn't put any absolute probability on the risk for 1 sample being contamination (not relevant here anyway). Are we to take from the statement that Gill thinks single sample DNA evidence should be discarded for all cases? I guess Koberger is also a false confessor then and Jack Woodley's killers should be released. Let him advocate that.
You say association fallacy, I say direct real world contradictions to your assertion. Potatoes potatos I guess.
0
u/TGcomments innocent 9d ago
You're still having difficulty expressing yourself in plain English. This isn't meant to make sense, it's just an obscurantist train of waffle.
1
u/Truthandtaxes 8d ago
I don't think its unclear
All Gill states there is that one sample is more likely to be contamination than three would. That is just an obvious statement of relative risk. What it isn't is a statement of absolute risk, i.e. the important metric.
Unless Gill fancies taking a position that finding a single DNA trace should be dismissed generally as contamination, his statement contains zero useable information.
1
u/TGcomments innocent 7d ago
Another meander up the garden path? Nope, not this time. Let's return to what you originally said-
Firstly Rafs is in there
The main contributor to 165b is Meredith, whose DNA was 7 times more prevalent than Raffaele's LCN trace and the other 2 (at least) unidentified males.. This indicates that it's more likely that 165b was deposited on the bra-clasp by Meredith herself as the primary transfer. In other words, Raffaele's DNA could have been on the bra-clasp hours or even days before Meredith was killed, picked up and deposited by Meredith from another location, not necessarily in Meredith's bedroom.
But this argument is completely flawed
a) its based on the expectation that murderers regularly leave DNA or that its findable, which is completely false. Jack Woodley for example was beaten by a group of 10 teenagers and then stabbed to death, the DNA evidence is Jack's DNA on the knife sheath. Koberger similarly only left his sheath with DNA after several stabbings.
You'd have to compile a detailed point-by-point list of the similarities of the cases to make any headway with this. Your usual vagueness and obscurantism aren't going to cut it.
b) Its hardly difficult to picture scenarios were she would never leave DNA - like say just shouting orders
Pure fantasy. I'm not even sure if Kondaks could dream that one up.
c) If as very likely she inflicted the fatal wound, then why would stabbing a held and helpless victim leave evidence?
Totally hypothetical scenario with no other sustainable evidence to back it up.
d) There was DNA but its completely obscured by the victims volume of blood
If that's the case, then there could be obscured DNA traces of others, not necessarily of K&S. Evidence of no evidence is still no evidence.
e) There was DNA but in unexpected and tested places.
Like what? And how would it be incriminating?
In all finding DNA is meaningful, not finding it means very little.
Not finding DNA of others in a murder of that brutality and intensity in such a confined space is hardly likely, especially when compared to the multiple traces of Rudy, as DNA expert Peter Gill points out in his analysis. Suggesting that K&S's DNA could have been obscured by the sheer volume of blood is ridiculous since the ratio of traceable DNA of K&S would still have to be at least comparable to Rudy's DNA, and other forensic traces. Yes, the blood loss was significant, but hardly the wall-to-wall variety.
I can believe Gill, who pioneered the science of DNA extraction, or I can believe you. Not difficult, actually.
2
u/Truthandtaxes 7d ago
The main contributor to 165b is Meredith, whose DNA was 7 times more prevalent than Raffaele's LCN trace and the other 2 (at least) unidentified males.
By 2 unidentified males you of course mean a couple of spurious peaks that identify nobody.
Raffaele's DNA could have been on the bra-clasp hours or even days before Meredith was killed, picked up and deposited by Meredith from another location, not necessarily in Meredith's bedroom
There is no good reason for Raf to deposit DNA onto the victims bra ever be serious.
You'd have to compile a detailed point-by-point list of the similarities of the cases to make any headway with this. Your usual vagueness and obscurantism aren't going to cut it.
The cases are irrelevant to the principle if you can't be bothered to check. The principle would remain that single DNA sources must be discarded, which would set free a lot of criminals
Pure fantasy. I'm not even sure if Kondaks could dream that one up
Not really when three people are attacking a 3rd, its a completely reasonable scenario.
If that's the case, then there could be obscured DNA traces of others, not necessarily of K&S. Evidence of no evidence is still no evidence.
Sure, but given we already have traces of two key suspects in addition to Guede, its completely reasonable to allow for the possibility that more were obscured.
Like what? And how would it be incriminating?
Any area of the victim or clothing that wasn't tested and yes any DNA on the victims clothes would have been incriminating (although I can see the disputes now...)
Not finding DNA of others in a murder of that brutality and intensity in such a confined space is hardly likely, especially when compared to the multiple traces of Rudy
and yet the two cases I provided already show that violent assaults can leave essentially no DNA even as primary assailants. Also how intense could have it all been when there is a completely undisturbed glass of water not a yard from the murder?
Suggesting that K&S's DNA could have been obscured by the sheer volume of blood is ridiculous since the ratio of traceable DNA of K&S would still have to be at least comparable to Rudy's DNA,
None of Rudy's DNA is from blood covered areas from memory - and it is an understood phenomena. For example they obviously aren't getting touch DNA of the strangler for such reasons
1
u/TGcomments innocent 6d ago
By 2 unidentified males you of course mean a couple of spurious peaks that identify nobody.
*But they weren't spurious peaks, they were male contributors, not stutter, as even David Balding conceded, but that hasn't got anything to do with your claim that Raffaele's DNA was "in there" when you've no hope of confirming any such thing.
There is no good reason for Raf to deposit DNA onto the victims bra ever be serious.
*I tend to go with Gill, Hampikian, Budowle, Waterbury, and Johnson's considerations on 165b as well as Conti-Vecchiotti. It's you or them, not much else to discuss.
The cases are irrelevant to the principle if you can't be bothered to check. The principle would remain that single DNA sources must be discarded, which would set free a lot of criminals
*I'm not going to run around checking your claims for you. You are now even extrapolating on those unsubstantiated claims. You make the claim, you make sense of it, not me.
Not really when three people are attacking a 3rd, its a completely reasonable scenario.
*What!! That Amanda would be standing outside Meredith's bedroom, shouting instructions on how Meredith should be dispatched, like some psychotic cheerleader. Go on, give me some examples, what would she say?
Sure, but given we already have traces of two key suspects in addition to Guede, its completely reasonable to allow for the possibility that more were obscured.
*What traces? There were no other incriminating traces of anyone else in Meredith's room except Rudy. This discussion is concerned with the confines of Meredith's room, not anything you try to sneak in by the back door.
Any area of the victim or clothing that wasn't tested and yes any DNA on the victims clothes would have been incriminating (although I can see the disputes now...)
*Again! Pure speculation. If it wasn't tested, too bad, you still have no evidence.
And yet the two cases I provided already show that violent assaults can leave essentially no DNA even as primary assailants. Also how intense could have it all been when there is a completely undisturbed glass of water not a yard from the murder?
*You need to put up or shut up on this one. Do your homework, do some research and provide a point-by-point list of the similarities of the other cases you mention. Meredith suffered multiple abrasions and bruises, was punched and had her hair pulled out. Eventually, being suffocated and stabbed to death. Those are the facts according to the pathologist. That's brutal and intense. The water makes no difference to that.
None of Rudy's DNA is from blood covered areas from memory - and it is an understood phenomena.
*So now you're trying to tell me that none of Rudy's DNA was obscured by Meredith's blood, but it's a safe bet that K&S's was, the cops just didn't find it? How nuts is that?
3
u/Truthandtaxes 6d ago
*But they weren't spurious peaks, they were male contributors, not stutter, as even David Balding conceded, but that hasn't got anything to do with your claim that Raffaele's DNA was "in there" when you've no hope of confirming any such thing
But they are 2 peaks. Its Rafs profile with 2 extra peaks chosen to enable the claim of "multiple men". I would suggest this isn't a reasonable description, but hey ho
*I tend to go with Gill, Hampikian, Budowle, Waterbury, and Johnson's considerations on 165b as well as Conti-Vecchiotti. It's you or them, not much else to discuss.
I don't think even those shills go for the underwear fondler defence.
*I'm not going to run around checking your claims for you. You are now even extrapolating on those unsubstantiated claims. You make the claim, you make sense of it, not me
You don't need to validate anything, Gill statement is effectively a statement that single DNA trace cases shouldn't use the DNA. I think thats bonkers but...
*What traces? There were no other incriminating traces of anyone else in Meredith's room except Rudy. This discussion is concerned with the confines of Meredith's room, not anything you try to sneak in by the back door.
Rafs for a start, but the logic also applies to knox given she leaves DNA everywhere. But yes whoever strangled Kercher isn't being identified by DNA from the strangulation because its completely covered in the victims blood. Ergo its a potential explanation for not finding more
Again! Pure speculation. If it wasn't tested, too bad, you still have no evidence
But it is an explanation as to why you shouldn't expect to find a comparable amount of DNA between different suspects.
*You need to put up or shut up on this one.
Kohberger is all over the news for that student murder spree and only leaving a LCN trace on his own sheath stupidly left at the scene.
Yes Kercher was subject to horrific violence and yet in that small room the struggle failed to topple over a glass of water. You should reflect on the implications of that.
*So now you're trying to tell me that none of Rudy's DNA was obscured by Meredith's blood, but it's a safe bet that K&S's was, the cops just didn't find it? How nuts is tha
No i'm saying that from memory the known sources for rudy weren't. I'd further expect that Rudy left further DNA that was completely masked. But yes this is potential reason for not finding more.
2
u/Jim-Jones innocent 10d ago
I understand the back and forth on her behaviour etc, but how is this not categoric evidence that she didn’t do it?
Quote: "Indeed it may be said with some confidence that the average man never really thinks from end to end of his life. There are moments when his cogitations are relatively more respectable than usual, but even at their climaxes they never reach anything properly describable as the level of serious thought. The mental activity of such people is only a mouthing of clichés. What they mistake for thought is simply a repetition of what they have heard. My guess is that well over eighty per cent. of the human race goes through life without having a single original thought. That is to say, they never think anything that has not been thought before and by thousands."
— H.L. Mencken, Minority Report (1948)
3
u/Littlepotatoface 10d ago
Those who still believe she’s guilty are either stupid to the point of it being a disability or willfully ignorant.
1
1
1
u/Dangerous-Lawyer-636 8d ago
I believe she’s guilty and I have been through the evidence against her so many times. I can list it here for you. But suffice to say there was enough evidence to charge rafaelle and Amanda and 2 separate courts found them guilty. Meredith’s family who sat through each day in court and also attended private sessions (due to the grisly nature of the evidence it wasn’t public) and the family also believed she was involved (please read the fathers book for this).
You can believe she’s innocent if you want but there are good reasons to think she is guilty
2
u/Littlepotatoface 8d ago
I feel sorry for you.
1
u/Dangerous-Lawyer-636 8d ago
You can if you want but there’s no need - it is just a disagreement on Reddit
0
u/Particular_Ad589 7d ago
Lol what a pitiful "argument" against everything that was presented to you. You are right because of your feels? 😄 That's the kind of rebuttal we get these days when presenting hard evidence. Pathetic generation.
1
u/Littlepotatoface 7d ago
I’m gen x 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
1
1
u/Particular_Ad589 7d ago
Probably 15 years old judging by the language being mostly made up of emojis
-2
u/tkondaks 10d ago
Probably killed her in the hall then moved the body into her room.
And there was DNA in the room: bra clasp.
5
u/Angry_Sparrow 10d ago
Contaminated evidence though. The clasp wasn’t found until 46 days after the murder. With so many people moving through the house, the clasp as evidence should be ruled out entirely.
2
u/ModelOfDecorum 10d ago
So why was there no blood in the hall?
-1
u/tkondaks 10d ago
[for the love of God, not anotherv luminol discussion] Hall? What hall?
3
u/ModelOfDecorum 10d ago
You wrote "probably killed her in the hall".
2
u/TGcomments innocent 7d ago
That was an absolute belter of a gaffe from Kondaks, but was it really him?. Maybe it was one of the voices in his head that mentioned "the hall" and not Kondaks himself.
2
u/jasutherland innocent 9d ago
Luminol? If she’d been stabbed in the neck in the hallway it would have taken a lot more than the - unused - mop and bleach to clean up - and then the blood spray and pooling in her bedroom would be missing or at least greatly reduced and totally different.
Turdy did partly strip and move his victim’s dead or dying body, leaving various prints in the process, but not very far - just repositioning it within her bedroom.
18
u/TreeP3O 10d ago
Besides DNA, you should also think through the bloody room and the footprints in the blood were all Guede's, not from anyone else, let alone two people.