Background:
A basic outline of the facts is given below, this is not a complete version of events and you might even come to disagree with some points as you work through the case study.
Meredith Kercher was studying in Perugia under the Erasmus program. On 1st November 2007 she was eating pizza with friends and watching a movie. Just before 9pm she left her friend’s apartment and arrived home a few minutes later. She shared her home in Perugia with two Italian girls and an American girl, Amanda Knox. At around the same time the Italian Raffaele Sollecito, who lived a short distance from Meredith was using his computer. Raffaelle had been “seeing” Amanda Knox for about a week since the two met at a classical concert.
Normally Amanda Knox would have been working at a pub called “Le chic”, but as business was slow she wasn’t required. According to Knox, instead she spent the entire evening at Raffaele’s place eating, watching a film, smoking pot, making love and getting some sleep.
Meredith Kercher was murdered that same evening, the initial autopsy revealing that she had been stabbed with different knives during an assault by more than one assailant. It appeared as though she had been gripped, restrained, abused, and choked before finally being killed.
According to testimony that Knox gave, she had returned to her home the following morning to get some clean clothes and shower but had noticed some “strange things” and had become worried and returned to Raffaele’s house to tell him about the strange things. Knox and Raffaele returned and explored the house together and discovered that a window in the bedroom of one of the two Italian girls, Filomena, who shared the house, had been broken and the room ransacked.
Filomena returned home accompanied by several friends and the Italian postal police who were investigating the discovery of two of Meredith’s mobile ‘phones in a nearby garden. Filomena insisted that the locked door to Meredith’s room be broken down and it was then that Meredith’s body, lying on the floor in dried blood, covered by the quilt from her bed, was found.
Tasks:
You need to produce a coherent, written report that includes consideration of the following points. How you structure your report is up to you; you do not need to subdivide it by “point”. The case study will evolve to a final submission as indicated on your assessment deadline timetable. Part of the assessment will be looking at your individual contribution to the whole (70%) and part of the assessment will be as assessment of the finished “product”; your case study report which reflects your ability to work as a team (30%). You will need to divide the tasks amongst yourselves and agree who is doing what – this needs to be recorded in your group work sheets. This needs to be reviewed regularly so that if it is clear someone has a task that is unreasonably difficult (or easy) tasks distribution can be re-arranged; again any reassignment of tasks needs to be recorded in the group work sheets (when marking your work I will consider the relative efforts required for each individual contribution). The finished product is clearly important and you must give yourselves plenty of time to make sure that the finished product is a coherent whole and not an unconnected series of individual pieces of work. You will need paragraphs that link the various sections of your work and introductions and conclusions etc. Again, I expect the contributions to this to be recorded on the group work peer- and self-assessment forms.
The report must be clear, logical and easy to follow I would therefore recommend sectioning the report carefully and clearly and making sure that the “flow” of the report is clear. My only stipulations are that:
• it must be 12pt, double-spaced
• it must have an index with an indication of who did what (by p-number) and pages
• each page must be numbered and have a header or footer with your p-numbers (NOT names)
• there must be proper use of sources that are properly cited in the text and properly referenced.
• It’s a case study, so make sure you relate everything to this case as well as making any general points
As this work will be completed as a team and requires a final deadline to be met it is crucially important that you manage your time and efforts carefully so that you do not fall behind.
Tasks:
1. There were more-or-less immediate doubts amongst the police as to whether Filomena’s room really had been broken in to. What features of the scene were considered to be inconsistent with a break in? Why did these features make the Italian police conclude that it was likely that the “break-in” had been staged? Tabulate your response.
2. Much has been made of the initial crime scene processing and recovery of evidence. What precautions, including things such as PPE, were taken when the crime scene processing took place? In your opinion were errors made during this important stage of the investigation? Explain your answers.
A large amount of so called “genetic evidence” was recovered and there were two items of evidence in particular in which the DNA evidence was seen as crucial; one was the knife (the so called “double-DNA knife”, exhibit 36) and the other the bra clasp (exhibit 165b).
3. According to evidence presented to the Italian courts DNA from which individual(s) was present on these two items and where?
4. With respect to the DNA evidence on these items, why was the timing of the evidence collection and the subsequent laboratory analyses and the order in which they were done important when considering activity level propositions?
5. Was any blood detected on the knife blade, exhibit 36? Can the DNA, said to be Meredith Kercher’s (exhibit 36b), be associated with any body fluid or tissue?
6. What alternative (Hp and Hd) propositions, at the sub-source level, might apply to the DNA evidence exhibit 36b?
7. When considering exhibit 36b, were activity level propositions considered at any of the trials/appeals? Is it possible, in your opinion, to deal with activity level propositions related to stabbing (or other activities implying that the knife was directly used during the murder)?
8. The amount of DNA on the blade (exhibit 36b) of the knife was very low; what do you think are the relative probabilities (qualitative estimates are what is required) of finding low levels of DNA on the blade of the knife considering the following scenarios; i. the knife was used to stab Meredith Kercher, ii. the knife was used to stab Meredith Kercher but was subsequently completely, thoroughly cleaned with bleach, iii. the knife was used to stab Meredith Kercher but was subsequently cleaned with bleach sufficiently to remove any traces of blood but not all the DNA and iv. the DNA on the blade of the knife arose from contamination?
9. The Massei report (judges reasoning for initial conviction) considers several activity level propositions as far as exhibit 36 is concerned, including the knife being held whilst stabbing rather than cutting food, based on the distribution of Knox’s DNA on the exhibit. Consider Mariya Goray, Roland A.H. van Oorschot, John R. Mitchell (2012) DNA transfer within forensic exhibit packaging: Potential for DNA loss and Relocation. Forensic science International: Genetics 6:158-166 and comment on whether this has any relevance for interpreting the DNA evidence and inferring what activity the knife was used for.
10. The Balding paper “Evaluation of mixed-source, low-template DNA profiles” (PNAS 2013; 110, 12241–12246) gives a re-evaluation of the evidence on item 165b. Does this re-evaluation lead to any changes to any (sub-) source level propositions?
11. Contamination of evidence through various mechanisms and at various points has been proposed by the defence to explain traces of DNA being found on several exhibits. Considering what is known about the case and the extensive work of Roland A.H. van Oorschot (and others) do you think that contamination is a possible explanation for any of the DNA evidence?