Saturday, April 16, 2011

Will Savive On Amanda Knox On The Witness Stand On The Afternoon Of June 12 2009 (1)

Posted by Peter Quennell

[This excerpt covers the questioning by Luciano Ghirga and the next will cover the questioning by Carlo Dalla Vedova]

The afternoon session began at exactly 1:38p.m., as declared by the presiding judge, Giancarlo Massei, who called Knox’s defense team for further examination. Knox took the stand again as her lawyer, Luciano Ghirga, stepped forward to begin his questioning.

Mr. Ghirga began by asking Knox the last time that she saw Meredith alive. Knox began by reiterating her previous version: which began around noon on November 1st, just before Meredith went to Robyn Butterworth’s apartment. This time, her answers were clear and concise. Knox further explained her first meeting with Raffaele Sollecito, the configuration of the living arrangements at the cottage (including who lived there with her and Meredith), and how the rent was paid.

Ghirga then began discussing Knox’s relationship with Meredith, trying to establish that there was no problem between them. Knox claimed that she and Meredith were close friends, but she did mention briefly that Meredith had expressed her discontent over her [Knox’s] cleaning habits; although she made excuses and downplayed the discussion. Knox snickered a bit and claimed that she “wasn’t the cleanest person in the house,” speaking of herself.

Going further into the night of the murder, Knox testified that she and Sollecito read a bit of the book Harry Potter, listened to music, watched the movie Amelie, and then ate a fish dinner around 9:30-10:00p.m. After dinner Knox told the court that Sollecito began doing the dishes. It was then that Knox claims that the sink began leaking water all over the floor. Sollecito was “displeased” she said, because he had recently had the sink fixed.

Sollecito didn’t have a mop, so they found some rags and let the water soak in, and Knox told him that she would go and get the mop she had at the cottage in the morning and bring it back to his place to clean the mess. Once that was determined, Knox says that they went into his room and smoked a joint (marijuana cigarette). After that she said that they had sex and then fell asleep.

From there Ghirga stepped back a few hours to the text message from Lumumba.

Knox said that she received his message “just before or right after” the movie had started. Knox claimed that she was so excited that she didn’t have to go into work that night that she jumped into Sollecito’s arms and screamed, “Woo!” Knox then reiterated her previous version in which she woke up the next morning around 10:00-10:30a.m etc (similar version in her November 4, 2007, email to family and friends).

Knox claims that they had plans to go to Gubbio, so she left his flat, went home to take a shower, and return to Raffale’s so that they could go to Gubbio. After noticing the blood in the bathroom and taking a shower, she returned to Sollecito’s flat.

There, Knox claims that they cleaned the floor in his apartment with the mop she retrieved from the cottage, and then ate breakfast and had coffee at Sollecito’s apartment. Knox then proceeded to testify that she called Meredith’s phone first, then she called Filomena, both from Sollecito’s apartment.

This varies from her 4 November 2007, email to family and friends, because in that email she wrote that she called Filomena first, and then Meredith. Also during her testimony, Knox never mentions running outside and banging on a neighbor’s door, which she writes about in her November 4th email.

Before the breaking of the door into Meredith’s room, Knox testified, “Yes, because I told them, look, the door is locked, and Filomena was going “˜Mamma Mia, it’s never locked, it’s never locked,’ and I said no, it’s not true that it’s never locked, but it is strange.” Knox testified that when Meredith’s door was broken down she was near the entrance.

Yet in her 4 November 2007, email to family and friends she claimed that she was “in the kitchen, having really done my part for the situation.” It also contradicts all other versions of those who were there at the time who claim that Knox was in the kitchen when the door was kicked-in.

Knox also claims that while in the car with Paola and her boyfriend, on the way to the police station, they informed her and Sollecito that Meredith’s throat had been cut.  This statement is suspect, however, as Paola testified that because of the “penumbra” (or “lack of light”) in the room, only a foot could be seen, no blood or anything else.

Knox claims that after she was told that Meredith’s throat was cut she cried. According to Luca and Paola’s testimony, Knox did cry in the car, and they also testified that they told Sollecito and Knox what they knew about how Meredith had died before they had gotten to the police station.

The questioning then switched to 4 November 2007 questioning when Knox was brought back to the crime scene.

Knox explained that the police requested her presence at the police station. Knox testified that she had requested to meet them at the cottage, but police asked her to meet them at the station first. She was driven there by Sollecito and the police then took her over to the cottage.

To her surprise, her other roommates, Laura and Filomena, were there; but they arrived without a police escort. Knox then briefly discussed her mental breakdown at the cottage when she was shown the knives. She claimed that she was very scared when shown the knives and that she was in shock; she claimed that she was just beginning to understand what exactly had happened there.

Luciano Ghirga then shifted questioning to what Knox had told police on November 4th about a man nicknamed “Shaky.”

On that date police had asked Knox to remember if there were any males who had visited the cottage that seemed like they could be dangerous. She could only think of one man who had made a bad impression on her since she had been in Perugia and his name was Shaky. Knox said that they called him Shaky because of the way he danced.

Amanda Knox: one time I had a, he [Shaky] went for example to the place where I worked, at the time when I was supposed to go home, it was very late, and he offered me a ride home on his motorbike. But during the ride, he insisted that I go have some dessert with him, and I said, “Look, I really want to go home,” and he said “No, look, I’m giving you a ride, a bit of dessert is nothing,” and he took me to have it, and then he took me to his house, which to me… 

I kept telling him again and again, “Look, I really want to go home, it’s really late, I’m really tired,” and he kept saying “No, no, relax, relax, come on, sit down on my bed, relax, make yourself comfortable.” I said “No, look, take me home.”

So he finally brought me home, and that was it, but it left me with an ugly impression because I thought he wanted to somehow try something, and he was the only person that had made an impression of strangeness on me, like he had intentions that were different from what I wanted. So he made that impression on me, but that’s all, because everybody else I met was nice.

Mr. Ghirga then switched question back to the November 4th, when police brought Knox to the cottage.

Mr. Ghirga asked Knox what conversations there were between her, Laura, and Filomena. Knox said that they discussed how stunned they were about what had happened, why nothing was stolen during the break-in, and the overall situation that had transpired thus far. Knox said that they also discussed future living arrangements, as the girls were staying with friends and Knox was staying with Sollecito.

On that day the three girls were talking about possibly moving-in together at a different location. Mr. Ghirga then said that he wanted to ask Knox about the evenings of the 5th and 6th, but he was cut-short by Judge Massei, who suspended the proceedings. The time was 2:30p.m., and judge Massei announced that they would have a break in the action and reconvene at 3:00p.m.

The trial picked-up again at 3:00p.m. Judge Massei called for silence and Luciano Ghirga resumed questioning. As Ghirga began to speak crowd noise could still be heard. Judge Massei again called for silence and Ghirga repeated his question, asking Knox about when she first came to Italy.

Amanda Knox had first moved into the cottage in Perugia in late September of 2007. She had previously been in Germany at her aunt’s house with her sister Deanna, and both Amanda and Deanna had gone straight to Italy afterwards.

Ghirga then asked Knox how many piercings that she had in her ear, as he pointed out that he counted eight on the left ear and four on the right ear; Knox agreed. It had appeared as though Mr. Ghirga was going to try to establish that the blood found at the scene of the crime that belonged to Knox came from the piercings. Yet, without warning, Ghirga said that he had exhausted the topic and went back to Knox’s interrogation on 5 November 2007.

Mr. Ghirga then asked Knox about her allegations that she was struck in the head by police:

Amanda Knox: So, during the interrogation, people were standing all around me, in front of me, behind me, one person was screaming at me from here [she points in front of her], another person was shouting “˜No no no, maybe you just don’t remember’ from over there [points to her left], other people were yelling other things, and a policewoman behind me did this to me [Knox mimics the sound of two whacks to the back of her head].

Luciano Ghirga: Once, twice?

Amanda Knox: Twice. The first time she did this, I turned around to her, and she did it again.

Luciano Ghirga: I wanted to know this precise detail.

Amanda Knox: Yes.

Luciano Ghirga: After all that, that whole conversation, that you told us about, and you had a crying crisis, did they bring you some tea, coffee, some cakes, something? When was that exactly?

Amanda Knox: They brought me things only after I had made some declarations. So, I was there, they were all screaming at me, I only wanted to leave because I was thinking that my mother was arriving, and I said look, can I have my telephone, because I want to call my mom. They said no, and there was this big mess with them shouting at me, threatening me, and it was only after I made declarations that they started saying “No, no, don’t worry, we’ll protect you,” and that’s how it happened.

Ironically, just moths earlier “” at Rudy Guede’s trial “” Luciano Ghirga undermined and contradicted his own client’s (Knox’s) story when he said, “There were pressures from the police but we never said she was hit.”

Knox then recalls being brought several papers to sign: arrest warrant, declarations, etc. She claimed that she wasn’t sure what the papers were, and that she just signed everything because she wanted to go home.  However, these papers were brought to her after she had been informed that she was under arrest, which she doesn’t make reference to during this exchange.

After repeated questioning about her unpleasant interrogation””in an effort to show that she made the confessions out of exhaustion, intimidation, and miscommunication””Knox claimed to have asked for a piece of paper and a pen so that police could be sure that they understood her. “Look, I’ll give you a present,” Knox claims to have told police, as she lets out a small laugh.

Knox then speaks about the second letter which she wrote when she was first taken to jail.

Amanda Knox: So in prison I again asked for paper, because that’s how I’m used to expressing myself, the way I succeed best, also to organize my thoughts,  I needed to write them down. I needed to reorganize all my thoughts, because at that point I was still confused, I still had these images in my memory that finally I understood were a mixture of real images in my memory from other days mixed with imagination. So I needed those pieces of paper, so I could take everything and put it in order.

Knox’s answer even seemed to confuse Ghirga, who responded by saying, “All right, I’ve finished the subject of the night in the Questura.”

Knox testified that she lost track of the hours and was unsure of any of the times involved. That is quite common when a suspect is initially confined. There had been some confusion after the murder as to why Knox did not leave the country when she had the chance. Knox claims that she had worked hard to get to Perugia and that she wanted to stay and finish her studies.  However, she also said that she asked police if she could leave the country and they said “No.”

Mr. Ghirga then attempted to clear-up the statement made by Knox (on November 17th of 2007), which she made to her mother and father. The calls were from prison and were recorded by police.

There was a long pause as Ghirga flipped through the transcript of the calls and found the quote on page eight. Once he found the page, he read Knox’s comments aloud to the court. Knox said to her mother and father, “I was there. I can’t lie about this. I’m not scared of the truth. It would be stupid to lie about this because I know I was there.” Knox responded by claiming that when she said, “I was there,” she meant that she was at Sollecito’s flat during the murder, not at the cottage.

Mr. Ghirga then pulled out a letter that was written by Knox on 9 November 2007, which was addressed to him; Ghirga claimed to have received it on November 12th. In the letter Knox writes in English that she “felt upset about mentioning Patrick Lumumba’s name.” The letter was not known at the time by any other party and that along with the fact that it was written in English and transcribed into Italian by Knox’s other lawyer, Carlo Dalla Vedova, brought an objection by Prosecutor Manuela Comodi.

A small argument ensued over the translation of the letter from English to Italian. Prosecutor Comodi stated that she did not trust that the translation was accurate. Judge Massei settled the argument by letting the interpreter, who was there translating for Knox, translate the two lines in the letter that Mr. Ghirga was referring to.

After Ghirga had established that Knox had informed him that she was upset about falsely accusing Patrick Lumumba””which slightly clarified an earlier question posed by Lumumba’s lawyer””he then switched questioning to the morning after the murder.

Mr. Ghirga wanted to establish that Knox was not at the Conad Store on Sollecito’s street at 7:45a.m., the morning after the murder. These statements were made earlier in the trial by Mr. Quintavalle, who owned the store, and had testified that Knox was in his store at that time.

Knox denied being at the store at that time or on that day. She did admit to being in the store a couple of times on other occasions, but with Sollecito””never alone. Knox also denied ever owning a red coat or anything resembling a red coat, which Mr. Gioffredi had testified that she was wearing when he saw her.

The last questions from Mr. Ghirga were regarding the scratch on Knox’s neck, which was clearly visible in a picture of Knox outside the cottage just after Kercher’s body was discovered. As indicated by prior testimony, the scratch was also seen by two others who had testified to its presence. Knox told the court that it was a hicky from Sollecito.

In the background, Kercher family lawyer, Francesco Maresca, called out, “Is it a scratch from Meredith?” Knox responded, “A hickey from Raffaele.” With that, Mr. Ghirga said, “For now, I’ve finished,” and he took his seat.


From The Study Abroad Murder by Will Savive

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/16/11 at 01:59 PM in The officially involvedTrials 2008 & 2009Amanda Knox


How except for not being able to come up with a well thought out alibi could anyone that lived in that house not know exactly where and with who they were with UNLESS they were involved. This is a murder investigation! Someone that grew up in the US doesn’t understand what being arrested for murder means? ak comes up with images, dreams, confusion and the most attrocious excuse a totally innocent man. Outrageous.

Posted by friar fudd on 04/16/11 at 03:06 PM | #

I truly hope that Meredith got one good punch in and bloodied amanda’s nose hence the mixed blood in the cottage…I hope Meredith made her see stars…rip Ms. Kercher

Posted by rach on 04/16/11 at 04:22 PM | #

Didn’t two witnesses testify that Knox was wearing a red coat? First that person that saw all four of them together a couple days before the murder, and now Quintaville. Sounds like witness corroboration to me. That red coat must have been in a dumpster by noon on the 2nd (or shortly thereafter). I wonder if Edda remembers that red coat, and if she has bad dreams about it?

Posted by Earthling on 04/16/11 at 05:14 PM | #

When Knox was testifying, she probably had the mindset: “If I say it’s so, it is so.” That also seems to be the way she approached the email back home after the murder. She was probably hoping there wasn’t much evidence to contradict her statements.

Posted by Sailor on 04/16/11 at 06:33 PM | #

According to Darkness Descending p. 186, Quintavalle doesn’t say anything about a red coat. He describes Knox as “wearing a hat and scarf, jeans and a grey-white jacket”. Of course, it’s possible DD is wrong, but where did Savive get this information about Quintavalle talking about a red coat? Italian newsreports?

Posted by Rumpole on 04/16/11 at 08:09 PM | #

Forgot to mention that I bought Saville’s book. It arrived couple of days ago. Have not read it yet, just been browsing here and there. I’ve spotted the same errors as reported on PMF, ie. some spelling mistakes and grammatical errors, some facts wrong.

One further comment as a translator: I think it would be best, if possible to use always the original, first English version of what Knox said. I’ve noticed that there are certain shifts in the meanings when what Knox said is first translated into Italian and then back-translated into English. Can’t find the page just now, but I noticed that you had the back-translated version of, for example, Knox’s speculations about Sollecito been able to sneak out house and killing Meredith Kercher. In the original version, the tone is different, it goes on something like this “Unless Raffaele sneaked out of the house, I cannot understand how ...”.

And yes, the Saville book also reports on page 118 Knox’s clothing as in the DD section I quoted. So the other claim said to be made by Quintavalle must be an error I guess.

I have now 6 books on the case and not one of them seems to be error free. Although Darkness Descending I still find the most reliable one when it comes to facts about the crime scene, not about Knox’s or others’ imagined dialogs etc.

Posted by Rumpole on 04/16/11 at 08:54 PM | #

Hi Rumpole.

On PMF there was only one strident critic of Will’s book and increasingly he or she is now looking like a troll. The Machine just challenged them directly on PMF to start providing evidence for their points or stop the innuendo (or go away!).

On the other books,  I agree there are debatable points and mistakes in all of them. By far the worst are in the several books that try hard to infer that the cops and judges did many things wrong and that this was all a great frame to save face or get back at Americans.

Will Savive respects the Italian professionals and the Micheli and Massei reports and tends to cede to them the benefit of the doubt. That is not the popular position in the US and UK publishing world, and I really admire him for it.

On the possible red coat (Amanda Knox denied having one) this only ever came up once, in the testimony of Fabrizio Giofreddi, who testified that he saw the three (Guede included) with Meredith on 30 October 2007. Here is Stewart Home’s report from the courtroom on 29 March 2009.


He was also a pretty good witness, confident and unwavering in his testimony. He stated that on October 30th he parked his car right at the junction where Via Della Pergola begins and the street leads up to the piazza Grimana, which he described as being across from the pub “contropunto”.

He was sure of the date because when he was leaving he scratched the car next to him and left a note for the driver of the other car and wrote down the information (license plate etc.) and the date and time. He said that he arrived and parked around 5:00pm and saw four people coming from the driveway of the house walking on to the road.

He said that he saw Amanda, Raffaele, Meredith, and a black man which he believes was Rudy as he had seen him before, but could not be 100% sure. He did say he was 99% sure, but could not say “cento per cento” or “without any doubt”. He stated that he noted them so well he could even state what they were wearing.

He said that Meredith had jeans and a dark coat and high heels, Amanda had a red coat with large buttons (which he described as 60’s style) and jeans, and Raf had on a long dark jacket and dark pants. He stated that because the black person was behind the rest, he saw his face but did not see well what he was wearing. He then locked his car and went on his way. He pointed to both Knox and Sollecito in the courtroom and stated it was “him and her”.

(Note: oddly, he said he had seen Rudy before, giving out flyers in front of the University, but few have seen Rudy do that while many have seen Patrick do that many times)

Under cross-examination, he was also asked as with other witnesses “why did it take so long for you to come and tell police this information?” He stated that he was not following the homicide, and had no idea his testimony had any bearing on the case.

He told his Spanish professor, who was following the case religiously, what he had seen. and she told him to go and talk to the police immediately, which he did, albeit nearly a year later.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/17/11 at 03:06 PM | #

This is all very confusing. 

Interesting that AK gives such incredibly meandering and confusing responses to all the prosecution and defense lawyers’ questions except to her own lawyers (and those of RS) when suddenly her responses are ‘clear and concise’!

Also suspect is the fact that she had begun to watch a film BEFORE the text from Lumumba arrived telling her not to go into work that evening.  Why settle down to watch a film if you are going to have to go out to work?

If she thought she was going to have to go out to work later, how can she really explain or justify the fact that it would be more logical to eat dinner at the earlier time rather than leave it until 9:30 / 10:00 pm?

Unless I am missing something?

Posted by thundering on 04/17/11 at 03:07 PM | #

Hi thundering,

According to cellphone records, Knox was not even at Sollecito’s apartment when she replied to Patrick’s text message.

Apart from this record which shows she’s lying, your post points out inconsistencies and illogicalities in her testimony, which also indicate this.

I imagine her responses to her defense lawyers are so concise because she has practiced with them her answers, but she cannot practice how to respond to the prosecution who are anyway trying to trip her up.

Posted by lilly on 04/17/11 at 03:32 PM | #


Quotes from the book, “Darkness Descending”, by authors Russell and Johnson. Page 308: Stefanoni met with Mignini.

“She (Stefanoni) said that she had identified a large blob of Amanda’s blood on the tap, and their blood was mixed in the basin, bidet and on the cotton bud box. This meant Meredith and Amanda must have been bleeding at the same time. The implication was that Amanda had cut herself in the violence of the murder struggle. Stefanoni wanted to confirm this.” (by asking Mignini to reopen the crime scene to use Luminol in January 2008)

“Excuse my ignorance, sorry to interrupt,” Mignini said. “Can you explain to me how you know the sample contains blood from both the victim and Knox? Couldn’t it just be the victim’s blood and say, other biological substances, saliva for example, from Knox? “

“Stefanoni explained she knew both samples were blood because white corpuscles provide an immense quantity of DNA compared with other substances, and this sample contained a lot of Amanda’s DNA. ‘This in itself proves that it is blood,’ said Stefanoni, and added: ‘Actually, in some cases we see more of Amanda’s DNA than Meredith’s, such as here in the basin. This means that there is a lot of Amanda’s blood, not a smudge.’”

Stefanoni was applying to Mignini for permission to reopen the crime scene 46 days after the body was discovered.

P. 311, “They sprayed the walls and picked up more little marks that had been too pale to see in the weak light of November as it filtered through the bathroom skylight.”

“In Amanda’s room, another previously invisible footprint appeared. Stefanoni had been right to push for a second CSI…They moved into Filomena’s room where the window had been broken. Another goal: a huge patch of Luminol glowed on the floor, but this time the pattern was not a clear footprint, more a patchwork of shapeless blobs—but blood all the same.”

P. 315: “The results from the swabs from the Luminol-highlighted bloodstains in the bathroom were now ready. An array of DNA tests had come back, but four appeared particularly damning of Amanda. The multicoloured peaks and troughs showed Amanda’s blood mixed with Meredith’s in one of the footmarks and in the confused bloodstain in Filomena’s room. This could now be added to the mixed blood in the washbasin, the bidet and on the cotton-bud box, and to Amanda’s blood only on the tap. Stefanoni’s conclusion was simple: Amanda and Meredith were definitely bleeding together, at the same time. How else could their blood have mixed in five places?”

P. 327:  (chapter 33 Murder Reconstruction. At this meeting, Mignini, Giobbi, Intini, and Giunta were present to hear Stefanoni)

P. 329 Stefanoni: “There are bruises on the back of her head, on her right forearm near the elbow, cuts on her right hand….” 

P. 330: “‘So where do the bruises to her inner thigh come in?’ someone fired. “Attempted sexual assault,” Stefanoni said without blinking.”

P. 331: “Someone played devil’s advocate: ‘Sorry, but surely the stuff in the plugholes could have come from either of them having their period?’ “‘Not the same kind of blood,’ Stefanoni rebutted. ‘There’s a difference, I promise….”

Stefanoni: “The most interesting thing isn’t the nice footprint in the corridor on on the bathmat, it’s that confused trace in Filomena’s room.’ The DNA specialist really came into her own now, “It’s mixed blood, Amanda and Meredith.”

P. 332:  “Mignini pressed on: ‘How do we know that it’s blood from both and not blood and biological material of another source?”
Stefanoni: ‘The peaks in DNA are much higher when produced by blood. Both Amanda’s and Meredith’s peaks are high. Both blood, I can assure you.”

“The implication was that this was irrefutable proof that Amanda had taken part in the murder. How else could her blood be in the bathroom and Filomena’s room?”

“The blood mixing and footprints were a mistake because their cleaning got sloppier later—and, crucially, they were disturbed.”

Please correct me if this blood evidence by Stefanoni has been disproved.

Posted by Hopeful on 04/17/11 at 07:16 PM | #

With regard to the so called ‘Hicky’ on Kbox’s neck The position is all wrong for it to be one since it is almost directly under the chin. (check the photo) Hickeys almost always are on the side of the neck. Examine how Sollicito would have been able to deliver a hickey in such a place? Knox would have had to bend her head almost directly backwards. However someone directly underneath her (Meredith) would have been able to deliver a blow in such a place.

Also I note that some of the pathetic hysteria emanating from the Knox supporters claims the entire Italian Justice system is corrupt. Of course they fail to mention Knoxs lawyers. After the appeals fail I’m sure they will blame her lawyers anyway.
Sincerely Grahame Rhodes

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 04/17/11 at 09:50 PM | #

Hi Grahame. People who have looked at hickeys on Google Image not only dont see any hickeys right there - the hickey images all look more like bruises and there dont seem to be any where the skin is all gone. Google vampire bites though and… hmmm.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/17/11 at 11:30 PM | #

All of us that follow this case are trying to comprehend or at least trying to come to terms with how this tragedy could happen. Regardless of perspective, it is difficult to fathom – we are ALL trying to come to terms with the reality and find some explanation.  This site has been good at providing facts not easily available in English (particularly the Massei Report and Guede Sentencing Report).  Blog comments are obviously personal perspectives but, I hope that the main posts will remain factual and objective.  I think it is important to provide the facts in English so this information is available to the ‘Anglo’ population. Subjective main posts could quickly discount the credibility of this informative site. The court will decide, I see this site as a valuable resource for obtaining objective information not readily available to the English language public.

1.  I noted a variance regarding the timing of the dinner and the subsequent kitchen sink pipe leak that RS reported to his father, Knox court testimony vs. cell phone records. Knox says they finished dinner about 22h00 and after dinner experienced the pipe leak, but the Massei report says RS told his father about the leak during the call of 20h42. I have provided the relevant quotes below – how has this been explained?
•  Quote from Will Savive excerpt: Going further into the night of the murder, Knox testified that she and Sollecito read a bit of the book Harry Potter, listened to music, watched the movie Amelie, and then ate a fish dinner around 9:30-10:00p.m. After dinner Knox told the court that Sollecito began doing the dishes. It was then that Knox claims that the sink began leaking water all over the floor. Sollecito was “displeased” she said, because he had recently had the sink fixed.
•  Page 319 of Massei Report:− 20:42:56 call from the father (221 seconds: this is the conversation which Dr F. Sollecito referred to, made at the end of the film he had just seen in the cinema, which the father recommended to the son, at which point Raffaele informed his father of the problem with the water leak in the kitchen).

2.  Speculation: In the photo of RS/AK on the day the police arrived it appears RS has not showered, i.e. he not only has obvious ‘bed head hair’ but looks like hair that hasn’t been washed for a few days – if he was directly involved I would assume he would have had a full shower at some time prior to the police arriving, thus no bed head hair. It’s difficult to imagine that he didn’t.  It’s not difficult to imagine that he slept at his apt. and then went to the house in the morning at AK’s request. This is just an observation as I can’t imagine that if he was directly involved’ that he wouldn’t have had a full shower before noon of the next day.

3.  Peter, I believe that AK’s email to her family and friends says a lot. I don’t think you have ever posted it. Can you post this? I think it offers good insight being direct from AK.

Thank you for your site. I hope that you will continue to provide the facts objectively.

Posted by Patri on 04/17/11 at 11:55 PM | #

Thanks for the info on the red coat, especially on Giofreddi’s testimony (Pete and Stewart). Didn’t Knox make a spontaneous statement after his testimony that she had never owned a red coat? Could she have been wearing it when Kokomani saw her (if you believe his testimony)? Just the fact that Knox denied it with such scorn makes me think it was true. That’s my cynical side coming out.

Posted by Earthling on 04/18/11 at 03:56 AM | #


Regarding Raffaele Sollecito’s hair on the morning of 2nd of November: I don’t think that you can see from a photo if someone took a shower earlier or not. For example, I have very fine hair. If I take a shower and go to bed, in the morning my hair is going to look like I haven’t combed it in days, with my hair going all to the front or to one side or parted somehow funnily where it shouldn’t be. Unless I wash and style it in the morning again, I am going to look like a mess. Simple combing is not going to do the trick. My son has fine hair as well and he needs to wet his hair as well, if not it looks “funny” in the morning, depending how he slept on it.

I don’t believe Raffaele Sollecito’s bad hair day is proof he wasn’t involved in the crime. The evidence indicates that both, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were directly involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher. Raffaele Sollecito stepped in Meredith’s blood and tracked it to the bathroom where he left a bloody footprint on the bath mat.

Posted by Nell on 04/18/11 at 05:48 AM | #

I agree with Patri about the value of this site.  The wealth of information that gets shared here is a tribute to Meredith Kercher in that it is an ongoing rebuke of those who insist that there is “no evidence” linking Knox and Sollecito to Meredith’s murder. Keep posting!

Posted by Sailor on 04/18/11 at 09:26 AM | #

I just finished Wills book and have thoroughly enjoyed it. It has a flow to it that can be enjoyed by those who have followed the case as well as someone who has never heard of Meredith’s murder. This book holds the time line together and in doing so exposes many many lies and their impossible believability. Thank you Will.

Posted by friar fudd on 04/18/11 at 12:29 PM | #

All this on the red coat. Interesting. However I note that Sollicito is quoted as saying he had the sink fixed. If that quote is true then who fixed it?

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 04/18/11 at 12:47 PM | #

I echo Patri’s comments re objectivity and factual posts.  It’s a veritable achievement in this day and age where, as has been seen only too clearly even in this case, subjectivity and bias permeate the media and blogs. 

On my part, another few observations after reading Hopeful’s extract from Darkness Descending:

- If ‘a lot’ of Amanda’s blood was found in the bathroom and also in Filomena’s room (discovered after application of luminol) it must mean she was bleeding badly and for some time - i.e. more than the time it took to murder Meredith and including the time it took to plan and execute the fake break-in.  A hickey - or a scratch to the neck - is not enough to cause as much blood as all that, I would think.

- In that case, how on earth did she manage to hide all traces of herself in Meredith’s room?

- Looking at the crime scene photographs, there was a huge amount of Meredith’s blood in Meredith’s bedroom.  Were those thick patches of blood tested for other DNA presence?

- Unless it was a nose bleed as someone else has suggested where was she bleeding?

- If it wasn’t a nose bleed (which recovers fast) was it a cut on the foot or elsewhere and how is it that the doctor who examined her upon her arrival at the prison did not find traces of the wound?  It was only a few days later on.

Posted by thundering on 04/18/11 at 02:25 PM | #

Hi Patri. Great suggestion on AK’s email home. Peter Hyatt said he was hoping to do a statement analysis on it, so I’ll ask if it could be fitted into his schedule.

Peter has become in considerable demand and I think is bringing comfort to a lot of people. His previous analyses are here.  They’re an insightful and amusing read.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/18/11 at 02:52 PM | #

Patri -

The text of AK’s e-mail home can be found here (Perugia Murder File forums):  Scroll down to the bottom 25% of the page to see it (Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 3:11 am   Post subject: AMANDA’S EMAIL HOME, NOV 4, 2007).

A partial statement analysis can be found here:

Mr. Hyatt appears to have not had the time to do the entire analysis, but he picks up on the re-occurrence of water imagery, doors opening and closing, and the way Meredith is presented.  I cannot remember if it was Mr. Hyatt or a responder who suggested that AK’s memories of the crime scene were tinging her recollections of Meredith alive - blood and sexuality references (exclusive of anything else).  Not all comments are constructive, as far as I remember, but some people do contribute valuable insights.

This should tie you over until Mr. Hyatt produces a full analysis.

Posted by Vivianna on 04/18/11 at 04:53 PM | #

Hi Pete,

I’m a bit confused now: when I wrote my email about the red coat, I’m pretty sure I was commenting Will’s book excerpt above. Have you now corrected the text, ie changed Quintavalle to Gioffredi? Probably, since in the book on p. 161 it still says:

“Know also denied ever owning a red coat or anything resembling a red coat, which Mr. Quintavalle had testified that she was wearing when he saw her on that day.”

There are these kind of mistakes, errors in Will’s book, I’m not inventing this. He should’ve asked someone from PMF to proofread it, even I who don’t know all the early details am able to spot mistakes in it. But then again, when I was out of work last year, I was reading about this case night and day for months.

Skep also mentioned the grammatical and spelling errors.

Here are some facts I doubt are ok: 1) Was there really someone called Molly before Filomena moved in? I think it’s F:s nickname. 2) Is Laura Mezzetti an English girl? If so, I just never knew that. 3) I think that when Knox wrote that Laura and Molly smoke like chimneys, she’s talking about cigarettes, but Will interprets that mention as L. and M. were heavy marijuana smokers. I can’t believe that. 4) AFAIK Knox was not arrested in Seattle, only given a ticket. 5) Will states that Knox was speaking fluent English in court -I presume it should be fluent Italian? 6) Lots of words hyphenated weirdly: close-down, civil-plaintiff, break-into, car-park, two-months etc. why? This is just what I can spot when leafing the book.

Vill’s book is a good effort, but it would have been better if he’d corrected the typos and let a native speaker professional proof reader check it + a PMF fact checker read it for any factual corrections.

The books by Jacopo etc. and King appear to be the worst examples regarding errors in facts. Dempsey’s book which I vowed never to buy but eventually did last xmas, does not contain anything new, and is therefore immensely boring to read.

As for StewartHome2000, I read all his posts about a year ago. I predicted on PMF before the Massei report came out that the judges would dismiss Gioffredi and Kokomani’s testimonies because they seemed so unreliable and erratic, this due to what StewartHome wrote about them (and Sollecito making a spontaneous statement of never having seen Knox wearing a read coat). This proved to be the case if I understood correctly. But they deemed, at that time, Curatolo and Quintavalle reliable. If one reads the news reports of that time, there was as much speculation about Curatolo’s reliability as now, and still they believed him. But of course, now during the appeal that he apparently was not so coherent in court and his drug use and history was discussed, the new judges may possibly dismiss his testimony as unreliable.

Posted by Rumpole on 04/19/11 at 05:27 AM | #

Hi Rumpole. Complainers other than the troll on PMF and you actually have been very few, Skep has read only what is posted here. You asked for corrections and got em. I didnt make the change on the coat but I’m not the only one with access here.

Will has already corrected the rest of the book and I’ve explained some of the circumstances (there are more) in various places. If he had found a publisher willing to run with his point of view instead and to pay for a sub-editor, and if he had not had a day job to worry about, a nice proofread book would have emerged. Readers tell us they are happy that he takes an objective point of view and follows the evidence where it goes. We could use more such books.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/19/11 at 06:04 AM | #

This business about a red coat is no doubt (excuse the pun) a red herring. But it has made me conjecture about why Guede oddly told investigators that Meredith’s bed quilt was red. No one has been able to work out why he said this.

Just wild conjecture but suppose AK tore into M’s bedroom, took off her red coat (if she had one) and threw it down on her bed before challenging Meredith to a fight!. Guede is just so focused on Meredith in what follows that he just gets a blurred lateral image of the bed.

Doesn’t really work does it, but just a thought? More likely his description of the colour of the quilt is just another of the clues (had AK had a red coat) he was throwing out at the time, like the search for missing money and AF.

Was a red coat an item which AK had in her wardrobe but not worn until up to a few days before? What was the weather like and had not F or L seen it before? Were they asked?

@ thundering

In my post I meant that there was a lot of AK’s blood - I said “relatively”, but should have said “forensically”, speaking. The bleed could have happened at the junction of Meredith’s room and the small bathroom. AK holds her nose and dives into the small bathroom where a drop of blood falls on the tap (which she does not notice), a few drops on the bathroom floor (which she later steps in and tracks round with Meredith’s blood), but most into the sink until the bleed is staunched (with a handkerchief or cotton buds?). She leaves the bathroom without stepping on any of the spots on the floor, not returning to the bathroom until after the full on attack in M’s room. That would explain why her blood is not spilt in M’s room.

Posted by James Raper on 04/19/11 at 12:07 PM | #

Hi James.
Thanks for the clarification which does make sense!  What would be great - and would explain everything - would be a full confession from the perps.  Can’t see that happening any time soon, though.

Posted by thundering on 04/19/11 at 03:00 PM | #

Was the coat red or was it green? Eyewitnesses can misremember colours, as well as other details.  I witnessed a road accident in which I could have sworn the victim got up and staggered toward the curb, but later was told this was not possible, as he’d been knocked unconscious.

If Guede remembered the duvet as red it could have been his subconscious shock at seeing “so much blood”, or, he could have hallucinated, or even seen the red of his own retinas, with the blood pounding inside his head.

Was Knox’s trendy bright green peacoat a post- arrest gift? Red is the compliment of green on the colour wheel. If you stare intently at a green object and then look at a white wall, you will see an after image of same object in red. Gioffredi came forward quite some time later.

Perhaps he merely misremembered?

Posted by mimi on 04/20/11 at 08:10 AM | #


Several interesting suggestions, including your “trendy bright green peacoat” remarks.

I knew a man, a Tommy Johnson, who couldn’t red from green.

He could drive only because of conventional traffic lights.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 04/20/11 at 06:10 PM | #

And my friend was sacked from a tomato farm for muddling all the ripe ones up with the green ones!

Posted by pensky on 04/20/11 at 06:11 PM | #

Very funny, pensky, but Tommy Johnson (now deceased) was my daughter’s father-in-law & his color-blindness was not a lame joke.
mimi’s post makes real points bearing on evidence. That’s why my post (“couldn’t tell red from green”) supports her.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 04/20/11 at 11:22 PM | #

Daltonists can’t see red or green - what they see is the equivalent of a chromatic gray, if you’ve ever seen one of those gradient charts.  I highly doubt it that a Daltonist even has a concept of what “red” and “green” look like to a person with normal vision.

If Giofreddi had been color-blind, I very much doubt it that he would have identified the coat as red.  For one, he wouldn’t have seen it as red, as red wouldn’t mean anything to him.  Secondly, he would have known that his Daltonism may come up, so he would have steered clear of that trap from the beginning.

I really don’t think there was a red coat.  Giofreddi testified a year after the crime, so AK could not have foreseen that someone would claim he’d seen her in a red coat.  Aside from that, wearing a red coat while out with friends, 2 days before anything happened, is not incriminating in itself (so why even think of tossing it out?).

Giofreddi’s testimony had a lot of problems, the biggest being his description of Rudy (which sounded more like Patrick, except Patrick never went to the cottage).  I suspect that he, like Kokomani, is just an attention-seeker who wanted his 5 minutes of fame.  There is more than enough incriminating evidence regardless of his testimony.

Posted by Vivianna on 04/20/11 at 11:55 PM | #

Ernest Warner, so sorry I seem to have offended you. Although what I wrote evidently sounded like a lame joke to you, it is actually true and also supports the previous posts although in a possibly too light-hearted manner for you to tolerate. I hope you will accept my apology,  I did not mean to upset you or make light of a serious condition.

Posted by pensky on 04/21/11 at 09:57 AM | #

Unfortunately (& regrettably) I mistook your comment for (what seemed at the time) a sarcastic remark reflecting on mine. No hard feelings. Thank you for responding.
We can both be glad that the discussion has elicited Vivianna’s complete statement on the matter which is informed & well thought out.
Thanks also to Hopeful above for supplementary quotes from Darkness Descending, most helpful for those of us who haven’t read it.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 04/21/11 at 11:48 PM | #

Hi Pete,

Thanks for your answer. So Will has had someone proofread it for him now -that’s good! I was just bringing this to your notice because I believe that it’s in the best interests of this website and Will, too, to get the facts right. If there are any new facts for me in the book, I don’t know now if I can rely them to be correct. But I guess I can always ask you or Will directly by email in the future.

I don’t think Knox owned a red coat. Red is a memorable, visible colour, so I would suggest that Gioffredi saw some other group of people coming from this or some other house in the vicinity.

It’s a pity that they couldn’t get a male interpreter to Kokomani when he refused any cooperation with a female interpreter. Had I been a prosecutor in this case, I’d done my utmost to accommodate Kokomani regarding this interpreter question.

Posted by Rumpole on 04/22/11 at 03:44 PM | #

Make a comment


Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Three Excellent Websites Commenting On The Case That We Have No Connection With

Or to previous entry Another US-Italian Case Shows The Utter Futility Of Trying To Strongarm The Italian Justice System