The Brutal Killing of Meredith Kercher
– Part 8
Fred Davies in the eighth chapter of his critical examination of the trials and
subsequent appeal hearings of Rudy Hermann Guede, Amanda Marie Knox and
Raffaele Sollecito
Examining The Forensic Evidence Against Each Defendant Seriatim
Sollecito
The only cogent items attributable to Sollecito were: (1) A print on a mat left by the
defendant’s right toe in the small bathroom. (2) DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp (Exhibit
165(b)).
(1) A print on a mat left by the defendant’s right toe in the small bathroom.
In addition to the bra clasp, there was additional circumstantial evidence pointing to
the presence of Sollecito at the material time: a print left on a mat in the small
bathroom.
On May 12, 2008, the Public Prosecutor charged Dr Rinaldi and Chief Inspector
Boemia with a consultancy task. The technicians were requested, inter alia, to:
compare the footprints taken from the three accused with the footprint found on the
bathmat. Analyses of the size of Sollecito’s big toe led the technicians to conclude
that there was compatibility between a print on the mat and the defendant’s right foot
(described in the Massei report as “probable identity”). As a point of information the
technicians arrived at a finding of non-compatibility of the print with Guede’s right
foot.
The purported compatibility by the two technicians did not represent accepted
scientific theory. Rinaldi and Boemia had asserted (correctly) that because of the lack
of highly individualizing elements represented by the minute details of the papillary
ridges, the print on the bathmat should only be considered useful for negative
comparisons ie, Guede, but not for positive comparisons ie, Sollecito (Massei Report,
p.362).
These same conclusions were vehemently opposed and contradicted in the expert
report prepared by Professor Francesco Vinci. Nevertheless, influenced by the
number of footprints revealed by Luminol, the totality of the evidence, including the
finding it had made in regard to the bra strap, the Massei Court determined that the
said footprint belonged to Sollecito. The Court surmised that after Meredith’s murder,
the two defendants (unlike Guede who, it was presumed, immediately fled the scene),
coolly or cold blooded it has to be said, washed themselves off in the small bathroom.
Sollecito apparently went first, which accounted for most of his blood stains later
being washed away by Knox. These actions do not totally account for any blood
stains which must have been on the clothes they were wearing.
(2) The bra clasp (Exhibit 165b)
At the time the bra clasp was bagged, roughly six weeks (December 18) after the
murder (November 1-2), it was noted that the location of the bra clasp had changed.
Following a review of the phases, entries and operational methods adopted by the
investigative agencies, the Massei Court ruled out the possibility of contamination.
The focus of attention then shifted to the suspect-centric method that may have
invalidated the interpretation of the trace which was applied to the bra clasp (p.294).
In particular, the consultant for Sollecito’s defence, Professor Adriano Tagliabraca, in
examining some of the gene loci, offered different interpretations from those put
forward by Dr Stefanoni during the course of the various hearings (see p.202 of the
Massei Report). He maintained that the interpretation offered by Dr Stefanoni and
considered to be wrong was derived from the suspect-centric method applied. He also
maintained that because mixed traces were involved, the ratio between the major
contributor (Meredith Kercher) and the other contributor or contributors were of 1 to
8 (corrected from earlier testimony of 1 to 10), so that it fell within the category of
“low copy number” with the necessity, in order for the result to be considered reliable,
of repeating the test – which was not done.
Speaking of the Y haplotype, which was also found in Exhibit 165b, the Professor
made no criticism of the reading/interpretation, but stressed that such analysis could
only exclude, not establish, the presence of a given male subject.
[Haplotype: A combination of DNA sequences at adjacent locations (loci) on a
chromosome that are inherited together. A haplotype may be one locus, several loci,
or an entire chromosome depending on the number of recombination events that have
occurred between a given set of loci, if any occurred.]
The formula offered by Dr Stefanoni was a ratio of 6 to 1 which, looking at the height
of the various peaks and making the consequent comparison, seemed to the Court to
be more in accordance with the truth. Consequently, the Massei Court rejected the
contention that the calculations of Dr Stefanoni were “low copy number”. The Court
then ruled that the peak heights appeared suitable to provide a result that was
completely reliable according to the interpretative criteria mentioned above.
Turning next to the interpretation according to which Exhibit 165b should be
attributed to Sollecito’s genotype, the Massei Court determined that despite the
interpretative disagreement regarding the non-compatibility of Sollecito’s profile with
the loci that had contributed to forming trace 165b, for the greatest number of loci at
least, the peaks were so clear and the interpretation so sound, they were
incontrovertible. Consequently the overall result was reliable even though the tests
were not repeated. As a footnote, the Massei Court added that during her testimony,
Dr Stefanoni had offered suitable explanations and answers to the concerns posed
which were equally acceptable.
Consequently, the match between Sollecito’s Y-haplotype and the trace found on
Exhibit 165b lead the Massei Court to conclude that the biological trace found on the
bra clasp Meredith was wearing when she was killed, was left by Sollecito. This
conclusion was fortified by the recognised match between the genetic profile of
Sollecito and that yielded from the trace, a match which, for a considerable number of
loci, was uncontested.
The Massei Court’s finding cooked Sollecito’s goose, so to speak. It helped negate
the alibi advanced by him (and by implication Knox) and almost inevitably lead to a
finding of guilt for the digital rape and murder of Meredith Kercher, together with the
associated offences.
Evaluation of the Forensic Evidence Implicating Sollecito
(1) The print on the mat
The best the prosecution could hope for was that the footprint left on the mat in the
small bedroom did not exclude Sollecito. On its own, the print, as a piece of
circumstantial evidence was nothing more than suggestive; but as we have seen from
the Massei Court’s conclusions, when combined with other cogent pieces of
circumstantial evidence, the prosecution case appeared strong and irresistible. Massei
also ruled out the possibility that if the footprint was that of Sollecito it could have
been made at some time a little after the murder (this finding will be reviewed in the
Summation and Conclusions section infra).
Reliant on Rinaldi and Boemia’s expertise, the Massei Court’s conclusion was
equivocal. One example should suffice to expose the imperfect reasoning of the
Court. In their report, the authors objectively emphasised some points of considerable
discrepancy associated in the dimensions of the bathmat print and Sollecito’s
reference [foot] print. Those measurements contradicted their conclusion of
“probable identity”. It follows that, even without considering the eminent findings of
Professor Vinci, the bathmat print had little value as a piece of circumstantial
evidence against the accused Sollecito. This also scuppered the notion that Sollecito
had washed himself in the small bathroom at Via della Pergola 7, immediately after
Meredith Kercher’s digital rape and murder.
(2) The bra clasp (Exhibit 165b)
Aside from his close relationship with Knox and the associated evidence levelled
against her (more on that later), the only other strong piece of circumstantial evidence
suggestive of Sollecito’s physical presence in the “killing zone” was the bra clasp.
The first question to dispose of is this: On November 2, 2007, why was the bra clasp
not bagged for forensic analysis? The answer is simple: because the investigative
authorities did not believe that the clasp lent weight to or was material to the case. If
it had been it would have been collected and bagged on November 2.
Secondly, by the time the clasp was bagged six weeks later (December 18), despite
the careful machinations of the Scientific Police to avoid contamination, the net result
was that the clasp had been moved from its original location by others who did not
necessarily adopt the same precautions. No assurance could be given that the person
or persons who moved the object unwittingly contaminated the clasp using old gloves
which were probably stained at the fingerprints. There is evidence to support this
contention. First, the evidence of, Domenico Giacinto Profazi, referred to in the
earlier section:
Investigative activity. Secondly, Professor Conti produced a photographic still from
the film of the operations performed by the Police. It showed that when the bra clasp
was collected and bagged for scientific examination during the search of 18 December
2007, the gloves worn by the technicians of the Scientific Police already showed
traces of stains located at the tips of the fingers which were used to pick up the bra
clasp.
But the clinching argument to demonstrate that Exhibit 165b had probably been
contaminated was the finding made by Massei that Sollecito had been fully complicit
in the crime; more specifically, that he cut the bra strap, that he helped subdue and
stab Meredith Kercher. If this was true, it is inconceivable ie, it is almost
scientifically impossible, that no other traces of his DNA were found in the room
and/or on Meredith’s sweatshirt and clothing (the same goes for Knox).
In conclusion, it could not be ruled out that the bra clasp had been contaminated
unwittingly between November 2, 2007 and December 18, 2007; either prior to or on
the date the bra clasp was collected and bagged. The evidence therefore had to be
considered “unreliable”.
But similar to the footprint on the blue bathmat, assuming the bra hook had not been
contaminated and did contain a small trace of Sollecito’s DNA that did not by itself
prove that Sollecito took part in the crime. It was equally as consistent with his
presence after the murder.
Knox
The only cogent genetic traces attributable to Knox were: (1) The Double DNA Knife
(Exhibit 36). (2) Traces revealed by Luminol. (3) Blood traces in the small bathroom.
(4) The Black table lamp.
(1) The Double DNA Knife (Exhibit 36)
To avoid duplication, the reader is referred to s.5 immediately below, which
summarises the Massei Court’s hypothesis as to the part played by both individuals
and more crucially s.7 (b) infra, entitled: The curious case of the missing murder
weapon.
(2) Traces revealed by Luminol
It was during the second inspection of Via della Pergola 7, on December 18, 2007,
carried out by trace search experts of the Scientific Police, that spraying with Luminol
was performed on the floor of the corridor, of the kitchen/living room, Knox and
Romanelli’s bedrooms and the large bathroom. In addition, Chief Inspector Ippolito
took photographs of the traces of bare footprints detected (only) in the corridor/living
room. While taking the pictures he did not use fluorescent metric ribbons, which
would have assisted the subsequent measurement of the photographed footprints.
(3) Blood traces in the small bathroom
These traces have already been catalogued earlier in the section entitled Biological
and Forensic Evidence. At Knox and Sollecito’s trial, no significant and specific
criticisms were made of the accuracy and results of the tests.
The small bathroom in question was used predominantly by Knox and Meredith
Kercher, while the other housemates used the larger bathroom. It goes without saying
that the DNA of the two women was found on the sanitary fixtures of the small
bathroom.
Knox testified that she visited Via della Pergola 7, some time after 10.30am the
following morning ie, November 2, 2007. If Knox showered in the small bathroom
after the fact ie, after Meredith’s murder, it stands to reason that Knox’s DNA would
have been found mixed with traces of Meredith Kercher’s blood. Knox’s explanation
therefore is partially consistent with an innocent explanation for the mixed blood
traces found in the said bathroom. Massei ruled out contamination, however, because
it rejected Knox’s testimony that she had visited the cottage (alone) at 10.30am.
(4) The Black table lamp
This had been found on the floor in the killing zone, adjacent to Meredith’s body.
The lamp undoubtedly belonged to Amanda Knox. When giving evidence at her trial,
Knox was unable to account for how the lamp ended up in Meredith Kercher’s
bedroom. The reader is also referred to the pre-trial declarations of Rudy Hermann
Guede supra.
Evaluation of the Forensic and other Evidence Implicating Knox
(1) The Double DNA Knife (Exhibit 36)
In the light of expert opinion summarized in ss.5 and 7 (b) infra, it is submitted that
Exhibit 36 (the Double DNA Knife) could not have been used to inflict all or some of
the injuries found on Meredith Kercher’s body.
There remains the equally vexed question as to how a sample of Meredith’s DNA
came to be on Exhibit 36? This much discussed question appears even more taxing
when one considers that, according to the prosecution, the Knife was carefully
scrubbed before being put back into the kitchen drawer at Corso Garibaldi. It is
equally curious that Knox’s DNA was detected on the handle and/or at the top of the
blade of the Exhibit. Without even bothering to challenge the propriety of and/or the
accuracy of the results, the author is deposed to the view that there are only two
possible ways in which Meredith’s blood could have gotten on to the knife: (a)
innocent contamination (b) deliberate contamination.
One can conclude therefore that Exhibit 36 went a long way to refuting the allegation
that Knox and/or by implication, Sollecito, was responsible for stabbing Meredith
Kercher. The forensic trace attributable to Knox and Meredith Kercher on Exhibit 36
was “wholly unreliable”.
(2) Luminol
The Massei Court concluded that Knox was barefoot and that the footprints had been
created by Knox treading on Meredith’s blood in “the killing zone” (Meredith’s
bedroom) and then carried by her into other parts of the house.
But the quantity of DNA was compatible with what is known as “low copy number”,
and it did not appear that the analysis had been repeated to validate the results. Expert
evidence also concurred that they could not say with certainty that blood was present,
since other substances may cause Luminol to glow.
It is submitted therefore that the footprints found in Via della Pergola 7, had limited
evidentiary value against Knox and/or by implication Sollecito.
(3) Blood traces in the small bathroom
There were at least two conundrums which confronted the Massei Court. Assuming
that Meredith’s blood traces were carried by a person from her bedroom (the killing
zone) to the small bathroom (a reasonable deduction, at least as far as the light switch
is concerned), who carried them and when? At first blush, the forensic traces did not
support the assertion that Guede visited the small bathroom after the murder. The
Massei Court therefore reasonably inferred that they were carried by some other
person either immediately after the murder or some time later.
The finger of suspicion inevitably pointed towards Knox and/or Sollecito. Since
several mixed trace samples of Knox and Meredith’s blood were found in the
bathroom, this represented circumstantial evidence of Knox’s involvement in the
crime which, when combined with several other elements, convinced the Massei
Court she was complicit and/or by implication Sollecito. But this does not adequately
answer the second conundrum which flows from the Massei Report. If Sollecito had
also used the small bathroom to wash off traces of Meredith’s blood on him why were
no other traces of Sollecito found in that part of the house or anywhere else for that
matter? Having already concluded that the footprint found on the sky blue mat was
Sollecito’s, the Massei Court endeavoured to solve the paradigm in the following
manner (p.379):
“Also from this viewpoint it must be excluded that the print left on the sky blue mat in
the little bathroom could be attributable to Rudy…That there were no biological
traces found in this bathroom also attributable to Raffaele Sollecito as there were
biological traces attributable to Meredith and to Amanda, does not diminish the
validity of what has been said. Raffaele Sollecito could have washed himself in the
shower stall, in a different way and with an abundance of water, so that, either for one
reason (use of water in large quantities), he did not leave his own biological traces
while he was washing himself, or rather, he could have washed himself before
Amanda, so that the water used by her immediately afterwards could have carried
away the preceding traces”.
The above statement as far as Sollecito is concerned is unscientific and therefore
unsatisfactory. When one considers the paucity of forensic evidence placing him at
the scene of the crime, it is submitted that part of the Massei Report’s conclusion is
flawed. There was little or no evidence to suggest that Sollecito was present at Via
della Pergola 7, at the time when Meredith Kercher was digitally raped and murdered.
This outcome does not by itself exonerate Knox. The supposition is that she was
present even if Sollecito had remained at Corso Garibaldi. The only other rational
hypothesis is that Guede did go into the small bathroom after the murder even if the
visit was transient or momentary. There is some tentative evidence to support this
assertion. The Massei Court could not adequately explain how a shard of glass was
carried from Romanelli’s bedroom into the killing zone. The shard of glass could not
have been carried by Knox as she was bare foot. Sollecito can be discounted because
no traces of bloody footprints consistent with the size of his shoe were ever found in
Romanelli’s bedroom or Meredith Kercher’s bedroom (the killing zone). A
reasonable assumption is that the bloody footprints found, compatible with the Nike
shoes worn by Guede, did not disclose all of the Guede’s movements after he had
murdered Meredith.
The Massei Court inferred Guede immediately exited the premises after he left
Meredith’s bedroom. The shard of glass suggests otherwise because the same was
found close to a bloody left footprint which must have come from the sole of Guede’s
Nike shoes. This is suggestive that he went into Romanelli’s bedroom. It is also
conceivable therefore he also visited the small bathroom, adjacent to Meredith’s
bedroom. And to that end we have Guede’s pre-trial declaration made to De
Benedetti i.e. as poor Meredith lay dying in her bedroom he (Guede) tried to help
staunch Meredith’s blood loss with the aid of bathroom towels, but to no avail. Where
did he get the towels from? It is significant that Meredith’s bedroom was
immediately adjacent to the small bathroom. This would also account for traces of
Meredith’s blood being found in that part of Via della Pergola 7. The weakness in
this hypothesis, it has to be conceded, is that aside from Professor Vinci’s evidence
concerning the footprint on the blue bathmat (see the Hellmann Report infra), no other
traces of Guede were ever found in the small bathroom. It is highly unlikely that he
used the small bathroom to clean himself and/or to take a shower and the author does
not support such a hypothesis.
(4) The Black table lamp
No satisfactory explanation was given for how the said lamp came to be in Meredith
Kercher’s bedroom. The most likely hypothesis being that Meredith took (borrowed)
the lamp out of Knox’s bedroom in order to provide additional illumination while
studying or reading a book for pleasure. This conclusion is affirmation of the
relatively cordial relations between Knox and Meredith. An alternative theory is that
Knox took the lamp into the bedroom after the murder to help illuminate the room in
order to check for incriminating traces left by her or Sollecito and/or to facilitate the
cleaning of the room. Thereafter, she or Sollecito locked the room forgetting about
the lamp. Another hypothesis is that Guede went into Knox’s room and took the lamp
into Meredith’s bedroom. This latter thesis seems highly unlikely because none of
Guede’s biological traces were found in Knox’s bedroom.
Knox was questioned about the lamp when she gave evidence at her trial. She was
unable to account for how the lamp got into the bedroom. It is submitted the first
hypothesis is the most likely. How it came to be on the floor is uncertain. As a single
component of the circumstantial evidence levelled against Knox, it is of very low
evidentiary value and the Massei Court did not trouble to include it in its reasons for
convicting Knox and/or Sollecito.
(To be continued next week.)
About the author
F.G. Davies BA (Hons), Barrister