Another DNA Case: Amanda Knox

As is by now well known, Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, were once again found guilty in the 2007 murder of Meredith Kercher, Knox's flat mate in Perugia, Italy. There are some interesting resonances between this case and the Ramsey case which are, imo, worth discussing here. The case is far too complex to get into in any detail in a blog post, but for those interested in digging deeper, a fairly detailed summary is provided on Wikipedia. It's a complicated case for sure, and not easy to get a handle on.

In both cases, DNA has played a significant role. And, in this regard especially, one sheds light on the other. To cut to the chase, much of the case against Knox and Sollecito hinges on the interpretation of DNA evidence found both at the scene of the crime and at Sollecito's apartment. At the scene of the crime we find the DNA of the victim's attacker. This evidence was traced, not to either Knox or Sollecito, but to a man named Rudy Guede, an individual with a criminal history, who only a week before had been arrested for breaking into a nursery school, carrying an 11 inch knife.

Guede claimed he'd been let into the flat by Kercher and had been in close contact with her as they kissed and petted. He denied harming her, claiming she'd been attacked by an intruder while he was in the bathroom. Unfortunately for him, his bloody palm print had been found on a pillow underneath the body of the victim, a piece of obviously incriminating evidence that resulted in his conviction for murder. End of case, you say? Not quite, because, after initially denying that either Knox or Sollecito were present at that time, he later changed his story to place them at the scene. Not long after their initial conviction, his sentence was drastically reduced, suggesting that this could have been his reward for "cooperating" with the authorities.

Nota Bene: In both the Kercher and Ramsey cases, it was alleged that DNA found on the victim was that of her attacker. However, in the Kercher case there was abundant DNA found all over the scene, not just some miniscule traces requiring highly specialized and sophisticated methods to retrieve. Guede left not only his DNA, but also his fingerprints, the bloody palm print and also his shoe prints. If JonBenet had been attacked by an intruder, this is the sort of evidence we would have expected to find, not just in microscopic traces, but, as in the Kercher attack, all over the place. Of course, any DNA or other evidence left on the scene by JonBenet's father could easily be dismissed, since he was known to have been in close contact with her prior to the attack. And he was, as we know, the one who discovered her body and carried it upstairs. So anything traceable to him could be explained away as "perfectly innocent."

Significantly no trace of anything that could be associated with Amanda Knox was found at the crime scene, no fingerprints or footprints, no fiber evidence, no DNA. According to the Wikipedia account, "The prosecutors advanced a single piece of forensic evidence linking Sollecito to Kercher's bedroom, a DNA fragment (Sollecito's Y chromosome) detected during analysis of Kercher's bra clasp, which had been cut from the strap." Unfortunately for the prosecution, the bra clasp in question had been ignored for a long time and when finally examined, handled with a "dirty glove." As in the Ramsey case, this DNA was miniscule, in fact a single Y chromosome. His lawyers pointed to the lack of any other traces of Sollecito's DNA anywhere else on the bra or anywhere else on the crime scene generally, very logically suggesting contamination.

The other DNA evidence was allegedly sitting on a kitchen knife found in Sollecito's apartment. Apparently a trace of Kercher's DNA was found on the blade. And Knox's DNA was discovered on the handle. NB: what was reportedly found on the blade of that knife was a trace of DNA, NOT blood, just DNA. If Kercher's blood had been found on that knife, that would have been powerful evidence indeed. But a trace of DNA? Again, as in the Ramsey case, such a trace could mean almost anything. Since Knox lived in the same building with Kercher and they had been friendly, it's not difficult to see how some traces of Kercher's DNA could have been innocently transferred to the knife by Knox herself. And as for Knox's DNA on the handle, well that's a no brainer, since she lived with Sollecito and prepared meals in his apartment. Yet, from the prosecution point of view, this was evidence linking her to "the murder weapon."

This is a complicated case, with many ramifications and some pieces of very puzzling and troubling evidence and also testimony that I won't get into here. However, on the basis of the DNA evidence and other evidence both present at and absent from the crime scene, and on the basis of the completely unconvincing argument that traces of Kercher's DNA on Sollecito's knife could have any bearing whatsoever on the case, plus the overwhelming evidence of Guede's involvement, it's very hard to believe that either Knox or Sollecito could have had any involvement in this crime, not to mention any motive for perpetrating it. Apparently the only explanation the prosecution was able to come up with for the complete absence of Knox's DNA from the crime scene was that she managed to clean it up. I can understand cleaning up some blood or wiping away some fingerprints -- but cleaning up DNA? Sorry, DNA is a molecule, it's microscopic, you can't see it.

While there are aspects of this case that have never been adequately explained, and there are aspects of Knox's behavior that do seem suspicious, on the basis of the actual evidence found at the crime scene, it seems abundantly clear that she and her friend had nothing to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher. This looks to me like a complete travesty of justice. What a shame!