PFS Major Assignment - A comprehensive report on the murder of Meredith Kercher PDF

Preview

Summary

A comprehensive report on the murder of Meredith Kercher...

Description

65242: Principles of Forensic Science Major Assignment The Murder of Meredith Kercher

SUMMARY OF CASE

On 1 November 2007, Meredith Kercher, an exchange student from the University of Leeds, was murdered in Perugia, Italy. Kercher shared a four-bedroom apartment with three roommates, two Italian women and an American exchange student, Amanda Knox, whilst four men rented the flat beneath them. According to Knox, on the evening of Kercher’s death, she had spent the night with her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito. Upon returning home the next morning, Knox found the flat in an unusual state; blood stains in the bathroom and a broken window in one of the roommates’ bedroom with a large rock laying in the centre of the room. Alarmed by Kercher’s lack of response, Knox notified Sollecito, who attempted to knock the door down. Being unsuccessful, the couple called the police. At 1:15pm, local police discovered Kercher’s body covered by a duvet, her death caused by multiple knife wounds and suffocation due to asphyxiation.

The police subsequently charged Knox and Sollecito on 6 November 2007. However, weeks later bloodstained fingerprints belonging to Rudy Guede were found in multiple locations in the apartment. He was extradited from Germany and faced a separate trial in October 2008 where he was sentenced to 30 years in prison (reduced to 16 years after appeal). Despite this increased media attention and publicity focused on Knox and Sollecito’s apparent role in the murder. On 5 December 2009, Knox and Sollecito were both convicted and given a sentence of 26 years in prison. The sentence caused international controversy as the evidence used to convict the pair was weak and inconclusive. Following an appeal that discovered numerous flaws in the collection and analysis of the evidence used to commit Knox and Sollecito, the two were acquitted due to insufficient proof. However in 2014, the two were once again convicted after a previously unexamined sample of a knife, was brought forward as the murder weapon despite there being nil DNA evidence belonging to Kercher being found on the blade. A final appeal trial in 2015 was held by Italy’s Supreme Court finding Knox and Sollecito innocent. The final report’s reasoning being ‘insufficient or contradictory evidence’ ( Marasca-Bruno Motivations Report 2015) a nd that the increased media attention led to a ‘frantic search’ ( Marasca-Bruno Motivations Report 2015) f or guilty parties. They resolved in point saying there was 'an absolute lack of biological traces,’ ( Marasca-Bruno Motivations Report 2015) that were attributable to Knox and Sollecito to implicate them in the murder.

SUMMARY OF KEY EVIDENCE

Summary of pathology findings A post-mortem examination of the corpse was not undertaken until 11 hours after Kercher’s body was discovered, in order to preserve the crime scene. Whilst there were no discernable injuries on the chest and abdomen, slight bruising was found on one elbow, on the front of the left thigh, front of the middle of the right leg, bruising to the cheek and lower jaw and below the top of the head (Massei Report 2010, pp. 111-112). Minor wounds on Kercher’s hands were also found, indicative of a defense response. Evidence of sexual violence had been taken into consideration as biological traces linking to Rudy Guede and a distinct pattern of abrasions were discovered during a gynecological examination of the corpse. The most significant injuries that Kercher sustained were multiple knife wounds and thrusts to her neck, which had severed the 'right superior thyroid artery and the hyoid bone' (Massei Report 2010). Another knife wound of 4 cm deep was found on the right side of the neck, which intersected another wound from the left side. As a result of these findings, the Court concluded that these wounds were made by a single-bladed weapon, indicating that it could have been consistent with a number of instruments. The severing of the right superior thyroid artery had asphyxiated her as Kercher inhaled blood, which subsequently resulted in 'pools of blood' (Massei Report 2010) in her lungs, and the severing of the hyoid bone had opened her airway passage into the atmosphere. Thus, the Court found that the coalescence of the severed bone and artery had led to Kercher’s cause of death.

Summary of physical evidence The most significant piece of trial evidence was the double DNA knife, as both Knox and Kercher’s DNA were found to be on the knife. Knox’s DNA was discovered on both the handle and the blade, and Kercher’s DNA appeared on the blade. The knife, a 17.5 cm blade and dark handle, found in Sollecito’s kitchen draw, was found to be unusually clean. Both the compatibility of the knife and the wounds that Kercher had suffered, and the reliability of DNA analysis, had been widely criticised within the case. In examining the knife, Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, the Chief Technical Director Biologist of the State Police (Massei Report 2010, p. 43) had noted that there were scratches and imperfections in the metal of the blade (Massei Report 2010, p. 196). Even though the peaks found from Kercher’s DNA profile on the blade were low, the alleles were found 'to be equal to those from the swab taken, from the sample taken from the wound' (Massei Report 2010, p. 108). However, the presence of Kercher’s DNA on the blade of the knife was not relevant in light of the negative blood tests, as the DNA could equally have been deposited from an accidental transfer or a contamination event, either before or after the crime had taken place.

An important observation about the knife has to be made. The fact that the test revealed negative results on the presence of blood did not mean that the knife was not the one used for the murder. A hypothesis was made by experts after two bottles of bleach were found under the kitchen sink, suggesting that the knife was cleaned with bleach after the incident took place, elucidating the strong smell of bleach reported by the police when examining Sollecito's apartment. Two maids who worked in Sollecito’s apartment were examined numerous

times, where they revealed in the first instance that they were not allowed to use bleach when cleaning the house, explaining that they had never seen a bottle of bleach in the apartment (Gill 2016).

Another piece of trial evidence that held paramountcy was exhibit 165, Kercher’s bra clasp, which was detached from her bra. The bra clasp was noted to be missing from the bra itself, which was collected in the first search on 2 November 2007, in which it was torn off of Kercher’s body and positioned at the foot of the victim. Upon discovery, the bra clasp had visible droplets of blood.

It is also important to note that mixed DNA evidence was found at the crime scene. First, some mixed DNA from Knox and Kercher were found in five places within the house. Three of them were discovered in the bathroom and the other 2 were found in the footprints found in the hallway between the living room and Kercher's room. Although, none of Knox´s DNA was found in Kercher's room. It would be expected to find mixtures of Knox´s and Kercher´s DNA, as they lived together and DNA can be deposited at different times and by different body fluids, or by touch (Gill  2016).

Through a biological examination of the bra clasp conducted by Dr. Stefanoni, the autosomal DNA test revealed the presence of Sollecito’s DNA, matching on 16 locus-points (Massei Report 2010). The results from the DNA test were interpreted and it was concluded that the sample was compatible with the hypothesis that the sample contained a mixture of Kercher’s and Sollecito’s DNA. Whereas it was possible to agree that the tests detected DNA matching the reference profile of Sollecito’s on the bra clasp, it does not follow that this tells us anything about his presence at the crime scene. The presence of Sollecito’s DNA can be explained as a result from a contamination event, although the specific route could not be discovered.

Lastly, Rudy Guede’s DNA was found in multiple places at the crime scene: inside Kercher’s body, on her sweatshirt, on her bra, on her purse, and in a toilet bowl in one of the bathrooms, Guede’s DNA being the only DNA profile found in the place of murder. This is probably the most significant evidence as Guede had not previously visited Kercher’s apartment prior to the night of the murder. Therefore, the presence of his DNA highlighted his presence at the crime scene, which could not be explained by any legitimate reason (Gill  2016).

In terms of the footmarks found at the crime scene, a number of footprints identified with luminol were discovered in the hallway, some of which (Items 177 & 183) revealed a mixture of Knox’s and Kercher’s DNA. Further, a tetramethylbenzidine (TMB) test revealed a negative result, yet this was interpreted by the Nencini judgement as proof that the origins of the footprints were directly related in a temporal sense to the crime (Gill 2016).

EXPLANATION OF KEY ISSUES

In regards to this case, the most prevalent issue was the failure of forensic investigators to follow correct procedures, which resulted in contamination of crucial evidence and paved the way for the wrongful convictions of Knox and Sollecito. One of the main causes of controversy with the case was due to external forensics experts criticising the collection and analysis of traces used in court. This criticism was deemed to be warranted, as it was seen that the evidence used to convict the pair was inconclusive. The overall negligence of the case can be viewed from the beginning of the case, as general police officers were granted entry to the scene without protective equipment on, and that the crime scene investigators processed large amounts of evidence without changing gloves in between (AP 2011). The inability to adhere to standard regulations and procedures was also evident in the destroying of evidence. Rudy Guede’s bloodstained footprints were initially wiped clean from the floor after less than 12 hours into the investigation, although this biological trace was later attributed to Guede’s actions. The incorrect procedure resulted in both destruction of evidence and a delay in results, as upon returning to the crime scene, the CSI had to refer to video and photographs in an attempt to locate where the footprints had been (Injustice Anywhere 2016). The delay in proceedings was one of the many reasons the media increased the pressure on the police to correctly identify the suspect. Investigators also poorly allowed for a considerable amount of time to pass between collecting different traces. Around 46 days passed before the bra clasp that was used as evidence to implicate Sollecito was collected, and had been moved around the crime scene. Officers also mishandled the knife that was brought forward as the murder weapon. Irregardless of the negligence observed by CSIs and general duty officers, Knox and Sollecito were still convicted from these poorly collected traces. These forensic issues could have been avoided if the parties present had made a greater attempt to avoid contamination of both the overall crime scene, and the specific evidence collected.

Another high profile forensic issue that was prevalent was the kitchen knife, which was the supposed murder weapon claimed by the prosecution. The knife was 31 cm long with a 17.5 cm blade; and was the foundation of the prosecution’s case, being the only piece of physical evidence that linked Knox to the murder of Meredith Kercher. The evidence in question was recovered from Sollecito’s apartment, where forensic investigators concluded that Kercher’s DNA was found on the blade and Knox’s DNA on the handle. This led to the knife being dubbed the ‘double DNA knife’ in the media, and the frenzy created by mass media most likely led to its continued usage as evidence. One of the most obvious issues with the knife was its apparent random selection as evidence as it was found in a cutlery drawer and was the only knife taken from the drawer. It was also later shown when another officer testified that, although whilst wearing gloves, he removed the knife from the envelope it was initially packaged in and placed it in a non-sterile box closed up with tape (Gill 2016). Aside from these initial issues, the defence first observed at the Massei trial that the knife measurements were in fact incompatible with the wound found on Meredith’s body, 'the knife blade is 2.2 cm wide, while the injury was 1.5 cm wide' ( Injustice Anywhere 2016). Yet still the ‘double DNA profile’ was still utilised by the prosecution to convict Knox. At the second grade trial for appeal, independent forensic experts Vecchiotti and Conti were brought in to re-examine aspects of evidence - including the knife. Their early findings showed that the knife

blade contained no traces of blood, using the extremely sensitive TMB test (Gill 2016). In regards to the DNA, the later tests discovered a DNA match with Knox on the handle - an innocent discovery on its own, as Knox would have been extremely likely to have used a knife in Sollecito's kitchen for miscellaneous purposes. The key issue brought up, was that the blade, which upon re-testing showed no trace belonging to Kercher (Lavanga 2013), and that any other traces found on the blade were so scarce, they were inconclusive and most likely a result of contamination. The initial findings were therefore ruled unreliable during the appeal, which in turn allowed for the convicted to be acquitted.

The bra belonging to Kercher was a key piece of evidence utilised by the prosecution to convict Knox’s boyfriend Sollecito for his implication in the murder. Sollecito's DNA was found on the bra clasp (Vecchiotti 2013), leading authorities to believe he was involved in the sexual assault of Kercher prior to her murder. Due to the negligence of Perugia forensic investigators, the collection and containment of the clasp were both made under very poor conditions. It was photographed on 2 November 2007, however, it was found that the bra clasp hadn’t been collected until 46 days after the murder; after it had been mishandled and moved to photograph its position (Starr 2016, para. 14). Along with the timely process it took to bring the clasp into evidence, investigators proceeded to incorrectly store the clasp in an extraction buffer due to incompetence, which led to the hooks rusting. Thus, the negligence as well as the mishandling of the bra clasp would ultimately lead to a significant issue for the case, regarding contamination and dismissal of evidence.

Furthermore, a consequential issue regarding the Kercher case was the ‘CSI effect’, the dramatised portrayal of forensic science which influences public opinion, and the manipulation of the murder case by the media. This case, and in particular, the involvement of Knox, was heavily exaggerated by the public and numerous mass media outlets, escalating the portrayal of forensic evidence, which then led to the various aforementioned issues involved with the forensic evidence. The ‘CSI effect’ had thus developed a preconceived idea within the public’s and jurors’ mind, augmenting unrealistic expectations regarding forensic evidence during trials, effectively blinding them from scientific evidence (Felicetti 2008, pp. 86-87). In a similar fashion, even prosecutors, judges and scientists permit speculation to override logical reasoning. Knox and Sollecito’s conviction and acquittal was highly dramatised by the media within different nations, including the United States, Italy and Britain, each taking a different perspective on their predicament. From America’s viewpoint, Knox was perceived as an innocent college exchange student who was ‘caught in the wheels of the Italian judicial inferno’ (Boyd 2013, pp. 33-34). Yet in the eyes of British and Italian media, Knox was ‘vilified’ as a ‘sex-crazed liar,’ (Boyd 2013, pp. 33-34) conveying the vast complications regarding the exaggerated media depiction of this case. Thus, the exaggeration and manipulation of the Kercher case by the media, prompting the CSI effect, has been deemed a significant issue to the ramifications that occurred.

ANALYSIS OF KEY ISSUES

The overarching issue of negligence and subpar work of the crime scene investigators, as well the lack of proper care and procedure when it came to forensic evidence, led to improper policy and an unjust sentencing. Although the decision was reversed through a later appeal, the initial sentencing relied heavily on the poorly collected and incorrectly examined traces. Even after an abundance of indisputable DNA evidence relating to Guede was discovered, the media had already focused its attention on Sollecito and Knox, demanding repercussions for their involvement in the crime (Gill 2016). Poor forensic examination is an issue that is still prevalent, especially in countries with outdated justice systems, however, the hype around Kercher’s murder drew attention to issues with forensics and allowed for a re-examination of international standards in an attempt to remove complacency. Calls for forensic data to include error reports and records of validation emerged so that data can be scrutinised allowing for a better chance at a correct conviction. It also brought about the request for new analysis techniques which carry less risk (Hampikian 2015, para. 6-7). Media coverage has continued to progress, with streaming service Netflix releasing a documentary Amanda Knox (2016), highlighting the forensic issues and shedding light on the implications of how they can lead to miscarriages of justice, portraying the gravity of the complications within the case, that still years later providing the basis of modern forensic literature. The one positive impact coming from the case lies in the highly unlikely chance of the same mistakes occurring due to the coverage received. Therefore it can be seen that had the forensic investigators pursued the traces with more care and in a timely manner, they may have avoided making errors but more importantly circumvented the media hype of the wrongly accused.

The issue regarding the contamination of forensic evidence due to negligence is a prevalent issue in the legal and forensic science system. Evident in the mishandling and movement carried out onto the bra clasp, this would have led to the contamination of valuable forensic evidence, resulting in the presence of Sollecito’s DNA profile combined with various other contributors (Vecchiotti 2013). In spite of the issues with the collection of the clasp it was still used as key evidence highlighting the limited case against Sollectio and the overall inability of the forensic investigators to carefully and periodically examine the crime scene and leave it uncontaminated. This also made re-examining the clasp later on, impossible, which led to its dismissal as evidence that neither parties could use in appeal. When the independent examination done by independent experts, Conti and Vecchiotti was complete, it was concluded that ‘the results obtained from the analysis of the bra clasp derived from environmental contamination and/or contamination in some phase of the collection and/or handling of the item’ ( Vecchiotti 2013). Forensic evidence contamination has been a universal matter, prevalent in various cases. For example, Adam Scott was wrongly accused and imprisoned for five months in Manchester rape investigation based upon a contamination of DNA evidence by a private forensics company. It was apparent that the contamination occurred when ‘the plastic tray that contained the saliva DNA samples was then reused when the samples from the rape victim were also run for DNA extraction’ (Walter 2012). The outcome of this incident yielded great ramifications on forensics and the legal system as a senior law enforcement stated, ‘it is inevitable that when you get something like this, everything else will have to be reviewed. Every defence lawyer will be

looking at this and asking: does it affect my case? I find it hard to believe this affects just one case’ (Dodd ...