Monday, April 11, 2011

Retired Forensic Engineer Hendry believes there was gross misinterpretation of the blood evidence by the Scientific Police

Perugia, ItaliaImage via WikipediaRetired forensic engineer Ron Hendry has stated in a lengthy analysis of the crime scene his view that there was "gross misinterpretation of blood evidence by the scientific police"  involved in the murder case of British student Meredith Kercher in November 2007,  Perugia, Italy.  


Hendry,  who for 28 years worked as a forensic accident reconstruction professional,  believes that police mistook blood drippings which they themselves had pushed under the bed during their investigation, for ones which Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollection  -  both convicted for the murder,  along with Ivory Coast immigrant Rudy Guede  -  had attempted to hide.  


From an article by Hendry:


The Scientific Police White Suits reexamined the cottage crime scene on December 18, 2007. During this reexamination, they removed a large number of shoes and other items that had been shoved under the bed during the original workup of the crime scene. After removing everything, investigators noticed and photographed dried blood drippings on the floor under and near the head end of the bed.  [.  .  .  ]The Scientific Police subsequently determined that this was important blood evidence that had been intentionally hidden by Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Photos and analysis of these blood drippings were included in a report prepared for the prosecutor and the Court. The photos of the blood dripping area and the police interpretation of what they meant were also included in the large Scientific Police crime scene exhibit, ostensibly produced for the jury’s consideration at the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. 


In his careful analysis,  Hendry has determined that the police themselves made these drippings during the moving of clothes and shoes under the bed and discovered them later in their subsequent removal of the items from underneath the bed. 
Enhanced by Zemanta

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm glad that Italian LE had better and broader skills and experience on board than a retired forensic [i]engineer[i]otherwise they ma have come to the same stupid conclusions.

SM Kovalinsky said...

Well, I do not think his conclusions are in any way stupid.

Anonymous said...

SM, OK not stupid in that he has some (uninformed by the appropriate training)logic, but it in no way can compare to the professionals' hands-on analysis. I think it is pitiful that AK's vocal and visible supporters are relying on "experts" who really have no heft in the areas the claim to. It's all so bankkrupt and indeed, embarassing.

SM Kovalinsky said...

I think Hendry has enough training and experience to do this analysis. The Italian police made plenty of their own mistakes. If their case and the Massei Report were not so full of holes, there would be no refuters. I do not think it is either bankrupt nor embarrassing.
Very best wishes, SMK

Anonymous said...

We look forward to the progess of the appeal. Maybe some of your "holes" can be accounted for to your satisfaction.

Mr Hendry should realise that his contribution formulated from photographs and reports can not be taken seriously.

Why haven't these people been called to testify by the defense lawyers? It isn't the case as Candace Dempsey stated that the Italians wouldn't tolerate American experts.This is nonsense. The problem is their credentials and their baseless claims.

I return your best wishes, SK.
It's never personalfor me.

SM Kovalinsky said...

I believe the experts came after Knox and Sollecito were already convicted.

I do not believe their being American has anything to do with it in any case.

It is not personal for me, either, as I do not know Knox or Sollecito, nor did I ever meet the victim.

Thank you for reading and for commenting.
Very best regards; SMK

Anonymous said...

Hi just a small thing, but hours later (when the police arrived) the victim's blood would not make a "drip" mark on the floor with the same appearance as fresh, unclotted blood, ie if the police made drips later, that could be determined. I also think it's quite a big leap to say police did it. Has he any evidence?

In your comment above you say these exxperts came after conviction....but appeals are on now. Why weren't they called by Amanda and Raffaele's lawyers?

SM Kovalinsky said...

Yes, that is an interesting point.
I think they have not been called because the court would argue that although they have expertise, it is not specific to murder cases. However, this does not prevent them from being convincing to members of the public.
Best regards.

SM Kovalinsky said...

Addendum: Another reason why the defense may be unable to call these witnesses is because the appeal review granted is limited in scope, and my not include a review of what these analyses entail.

Anonymous said...

Doesn't it seem to you, though, that if their theories were of any value AK and RS would surely be able to find a proper expert to agree and present it.

I'm sure I read that Knox "lost" an expert witness, but I don't know any more; whether quit or fired. It does make one wonder.

The appeal court may yet ask for more evidence, and if that happens may we see Hendry and Moore and Waterbury or even Bruce Fisher?

SM Kovalinsky said...

I think Hendry and Waterbury make excellent cases. Bruce Fisher does as well, but he lacks a firm public profile. Moore I do not know too much of. Hendry and Waterbury make very logical deductions and inferences. I don't know the criteria for expert witness testimony, but I think the point is to make a public case for future presentation to the US State department for intervention.

Under New Influence