u/AlanOfTheCult

It is curious to see how many "guilters" defend the investigative teams in this investigation when they should be absolutely furious with the investigative team.

Why? Because they kept destroying and losing evidence.
Here's a catalogue of the one's I'm aware of (please feel free to correct me if I make an error).

The Bra Clasp
The most famous one. They allowed a crucial piece of evidence to go uncollected for weeks, stood on it, and then collected it in such a way that they rendered its evidence useless. - Using dirty gloves, dropping it, and passing it between mutiple people.

It was so badly contaminated that it had 4-5 different DNA profiles on it. At least two of which were determined to be irrelevant by the investigative team. (profiles that, iirc, had a stronger signature than the supposed DNA on the knife blade).

Then they stored it in a way that meant it rusted and destroyed all DNA traces on the clasp meaning that no subsequent analysis could be conducted.

Had they handled this item correctly and it still had Sollecito's DNA on it then guilters would have a far easier time. And, if it had none of Sollecito's DNA on it then it basically would have been impossible to tie him to the crime.

Instead we are left with no choice but to disregard it as evidence at is has clear evidence of contamination and mishandling. And, because of their erroneous DNA analysis on other items e.g. the knife, we would need to retest the knife to validate the results.

Computers
They destroyed both Meredith Kercher's and Knox's hard drives before they could be analysed.

This was key evidence that could have implicated or exonerated Knox.

They also used Sollecito's computer before analysis which erased a lot of timeline data - and fried the hard drive.

CCTV Footage
There were a number of CCTV cameras between Sollecito's apartment and the cottage.

When the defence asked for copies of this they were told it had already been erased.
This includes military buildings!

Only the car park footage was kept.

Again this is evidence that could have implicated or exonerated Knox and Sollecito.

"Forgetting" Blood test results
During the first trial the forensics team portrayed the luminol footprints as "bloody footprints" despite the fact that the blood tests came back negative - and this was clearly written in their notes.

===

The list on ineptitude goes on and on and on.
What is worse is that there are occassions when they straight up lie about it.

Like with the blood test results or how they claim that there was "zero contamination" on anything - yet disregarded DNA profiles on the bra clasp.

Either the bra clasp was contaminated and those profiles are irrelevant, or it wasn't contaminated and we should be trying to find out who the other profiles are from!

Can't have it both ways!

===

So it is possible that they destroyed/lost evidence that would have implicated Knox/Sollecito. But it's equally true that they may have destroyed/lost evidence that would have exonerated them.

But either way these errors were major contributing factors for why this case went on to cost tens of millions of euros and there are ongoing legal battles 19 years later.

The "Reid method" for questioning was recently brought up in a thread so I thought it worth discussing in more detail here.

What is the purpose of Witness and Suspect questioning?
Many people have the misconception that questioning is about "forcing a confession" because they've see too many detective movies.

But questioning is about obtaining information.

Good investigators, whether they work in law enforcement, journalism, or science, want to get the best and most accurate information.

Whilst people are notoriously unreliable in general at recounting things - they can provide information.

In a police investigation this is:

1. Obtaining evidence
2. Establishing facts
3. Uncovering truth

In the UK the modern framework is called PEACE
Preparation and Planning
Engage and Explain
Account
Closure
Evaluate

We'll go more into this later. But the approach is to test a suspect's account againt existing evidence, to clarify their involvement, and determie if there are sufficiet grounds for prosecution.

This is the framework that is being adopted by many jurisdictions today (including many in Italy)

What is the Reid method?
The Reid method was developed in the 1950s.

It uses psychological manipulation and behavourial analysis to extract confessions.

It goes through three phases:
Factual Analysis
Behaviour Analysis Interview
Interrogation.

The Interrogation is split into 9 steps:

1. Direct Confrontation
2. Theme Development
3. Handling Denials
4. Overcoming Objections
5. Getting Suspect's attention
6. Capitalise on Suspect's Passivity
7. Give the suspect two choices about why the crime was committed, one framed as more morally acceptable.
8. Detail the offense onece the suspect chooses the "morally acceptable" one
9. Written confession.

The problem with the Reid method?
The Reid method presumes guilt, exerts psychological pressure, and has been confirmed to produce false confessions and statements.

The rate is staggering 73-81% of cases where a suspect falsely confesses result in a conviction.
That is tax payer money being spend on incarcerating an innocent person. And a guilty person not being brought tp justice.

In the US 30% of exonerations are miscarriages of justice caused by methods like the Reid Method.

It has, in fact, been banned in may jurisdictions as a method because of how bad it is. It has, in fact, been largely abandoned in Italy as well.

The problem is that not only has it got an extremely high rate of miscarriages of justice it also contributes to the extremely high number of unsolved murders in jurisdictions like the USA.

It means that many people under questioning provide inaccurate information - because the questioning "leads" people to where the police want them to go, rather than providing information.

Many jurisdictions were also largely skipping the Factual Analysis stage.

How is it relevant here?
PGP used a modified version of the Reid method - but used a version that was event more coercive, even more psychologically manipulative, and more leading.

They also largely skipped the whole "Factual Analysis" phase.

They rushed into that interrogation without all the facts, and because they were worried that lawyers would soon be present.
In bringing Knox and Sollecito in for questioning again they actually broke their own guidance which was to continue surveillance.

And this is absolutely a case where "suspect" testimony changed in a way that actually drifted further away from the physical facts of the case and in the direction of where the police wanted them to go.

PGP wanted Knox to say Lumumba did it - and that's what they got Knox to say.
"I vaguely remember he killed her"

And, yet, we know that that isn't true.

Her new version of events matched their hypothesis, and not any kind of reality.

That means that any and all of Knox's testimony has to be questioned - and largely discarded - and can only really be used where there's corroborating physical evidence.
e.g. they watched Amelie.

And this is why Reid is so bad:- in this case it effectively made it harder for PGP to do their jobs, not easier.

It would have been better to wait and continue collecting more evidence.

In their defence they were under great pressure to get results - but a more cautious and measured approach would have made their jobs easier.

But because they repeatedly tried to force the results they wanted (through questioning of Knox, Sollecito, "the swiss professor", Lumumba, etc. etc., through reporting negative forensics results as positive etc) they wasted a huge amount of time and resources.

What can be learned?
In future investigations where there is a cooperative suspect/witness that is not showing any signs of flight patience is often better than trying to"force" a confession.

Investigating things like "see you later" in more detail, and getting a greater understanding of the physical evidence likely would have produced better results.

Instead, because of incidents like this, people still debate the issue 19 years later. And legal battles are still ongoing.