Prof Peter Gill DNA expert on the Amanda Knox case

Jun 08, 2014, 07:20 PM

#AmandaKnox case BBC Radio 4 asks about the mystery untested stain found at the crime scene. The audio clip plays on any phone :

Who killed Meredith Kercher ;- Professor Peter Gill and Prosecutor (leading forensics expert UK) and Giancarol Costagliola (prosecutor) and Ruth Alexandra (BBC Radio 4).

Background ; Sollecito's lawyers asked Professor Vinci to examine the stain found on Meredith Kercher's pillow case. His conclusion based on a visual inspection was that this fluid was semen.

However, inexplicably Prof Vinci did not (or was not allowed to) chemically examine or DNA test the stain. He used only UV light and visual inspection in his examination.Its worth pointing out that all sides want this stain tested now but didn't right at the beginning of the trial.

So why does the prosecutor Mr Costagliola refused to test the stain?

In the audio clip The prosecutor refers to it as semen (as if he knows, it is semen). But the prosecution have not confirmed or denied if the stain was DNA tested. If they confirmed it had been tested obviously the defence would request the DNA profile. so this may be a tactic.?

The prosecution by not confirming or denying that the semen stain has been tested has created an obvious injustice and new grounds for appeal.

The court of appeal has refused requests by Sellecito's lawyer to test . This has left almost everyone asking why did the court do this?

It may be because :Sellecito's lawyers left the request for tests until the very last second in the proceedings, at a point when the case was virtually over ? The fact is the court refused tests on the pillow case stain.

In the audio clip Prof Peter Gill comments on this remarkable court decision.. The test according to Gill could exonerate both Knox & Sellecito. So let's zoom in.

If the DNA profile came back unknown male. The defence would then apply to the court for a court order to force police to trace this second man at the crime scene, Mr X.

If the second man turned out to be an ultra violent drug dealer and friend of Rudy Guede everything would make sense and it would be a jackpot for the defence.

Note : if this proposed second man was in the mafia Guede would be killed in prison if he had disclosed Mr X to police. (The mafia don’t approve of that kind of thing )

A Mr X (a second man), helps Knox and Sellecito because the prosecution's multi attacker theory no longer needs to invoke Knox and Sellecito. Rudy and a second man will do nicely, thank you. This over comes the problem of the autopsy findings of 2+ attackers (accepted by the court).

If a Mr X shows up AK & RS are no longer the only candidates as assistants to Rudy Guede. The court found Guede could not have acted alone so Knox and Sellecito must have helped in some way. However, a second man changes every conclusion.

Next… If the second man is placed at the crime scene he would be the prime suspect to be the person who returned to move MK and stage the break-in to frame Rudy Guede. Again in the court's reasoning only AK & RS could have returned to move MK (Rudy was in a disco).the other housemates were all away on holiday or accounted for.

The autopsy found MK was moved. MK was in one position for some considerable period of time. Then some person (s) the killer (s) returned to move MK to a position laying flat. The autopsy found MK did not expire in this position. Rudy at this time was in a disco. So the court asked who could it be that returned? Knox and Sellecito again were the only candidates. Add a Mr X and that pillar of the prosecution's case crumbles to dust. .

This is the key "iditsy" (or chain of clues) the reasoning that impressed the jury and the judge, Rudy left quickly his footprints all pointed out to the exit of the house. So he did not stop to lock MK 's bedroom door so who did? Many foot prints are missing so who cleaned them and why?

Guede went home then went out to a disco (verified fact) The court reasoned...