Powerpoints #17: Why The Totality of Evidence Suggests Knox And Sollecito Are Guilty Just As Charged

Posted by James Raper With Kermit





Please load Powerpoint Viewer if not on your system, and click here for the slides. The Powerpoints consist of 150 slides, the outcome of many hours of work, and should open in 30 to 60 seconds. 

Impartial lawyers like myself tend to look at a tough case like this and think, “Now what would I have done differently?” The problem for the defences here is that there are literally hundreds of evidence points, many created by the appellants themselves as they behaved erratically both on the night Meredith died and subsequently.

The Knox family legal advisor Ted Simon (who in our view was brought in far too late to be of real help after all the bull-in-a-china-shop damage of the PR) himself recognized this, on Dateline NBC late in 2008, when he said that a whack-a-mole approach to creating reasonable doubt would fall short in this case. (Whack-a-mole is a popular fairground game where “moles” keep popping up out of various holes, and you win if you can whack them all.)

Judge Micheli set out a big picture for the conviction of Rudy Guede in October 2008 and the remitting of Knox and Sollecito to stand trial. Judge Massei clearly created a big picture in all of the fine detail he neatly tied together in his 425-page report. The Supreme Court of Cassation understood the big picture in declining Guede’s final appeal.

The defences have never really managed to respond with their own big-picture approach. Nitpicking of a few evidence points, which is really all the defence and the campaign have done, will only very rarely destroy such an edifice. At the end of the DNA rebuttal this September, the DNA collection and analysis is unlikely to be fully discounted, and already it seems that more ethical and competence question marks hang over the independent consultants than over Dr Stefanoni and her team.

This for your consideration is an overview of all of the main evidence. Check it out as you go through and you will see that after the nine long months of the appeal process it is all almost entirely left standing. If they really want to see Knox and Sollecito released, the defence lawyers now need to bite the bullet and prepare their clients properly and let them try to explain from the stand.




Comments

This is certainly a comprehensive document. It will take me a while to go through it, but so far just the portion on the staged break-in has been instructive and helpful.

I also like how in the introduction, you talk about the meaning of looking at the comprehensive evidence trail, and how questions about any specific piece of evidence should not call the entire compendium of evidence into question.

Vince Bugliosi makes the same point very effectively in his book on OJ, Outrage.

Thanks, James and Kermit!

Posted by Earthling on 08/02/11 at 05:02 PM | #

Haha, very instructive and also very funny ! Well done.

Posted by aethelred23 on 08/02/11 at 06:26 PM | #

James Kermit

Simply wonderful work. I am breathless since I spent all morning and this evening reading this. Tomorrow I will read it again and keep on until I have digested it all.

I just bet that Seattle and environs will simply ignore this because they cannot refute it. If this does not put the icing on the cake then nothing will.

I predict though that the Amandii will quite honestly be soiling themselves although somewhere I expect there will be a rebuttal of some kind.

Still well done and to quote an old Navy term ‘Bravo Zulu.’

Cheers; I raise a glass in your honor and to the memory of Meredith.

Sincerely Grahame Rhodes

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 08/02/11 at 07:38 PM | #

I have a complaint!

With such a detailed and wide-ranging overview contained in a single post, isn’t there a danger of pushing the rest of the blogging community out of the market?

Is there an ombudsman or something with whom I might be able to raise this issue?

Cheers,
Maundy

Posted by Maundy Gregory on 08/02/11 at 10:42 PM | #

That’s a pretty good summary including visual cues. The gerrymandering of the upper floor of the cottage to isolate only those elements they feel point to Guede is a personal favourite. It would have started looking like a map of the Holy Roman Empire if you got really particular. Knox’s lamp is inside Meredith’s room but certain prints in the hallway just outside the locked door belong to Guede.

I am not sure why Luminol wasn’t used inside Meredith’s room but it could have been because they felt the results would have been pointless. There was a lot of the victim’s blood inside that room and many of the prints were smeared. The logical places to have used Luminol were in the rooms of the other three girls. You’d be looking for bloody prints that could be later tested as well as to gain a better understanding of the meaning of the main set of visible prints (turning out to be Guede’s) leading straight out the front door.

Sometimes lost in the discussion of the mixed traces is your perception that there may have been many more mixed traces inside Meredith’s bedroom. Five mixed traces doesn’t sound like a lot but each of these were discovered outside a locked door and Knox has denied being inside that room during the murder. How did one or two—let alone five—traces of the victim’s blood and probably that of Knox wind up all over the place with the ‘magical barrier’ of the locked door intervening?

Try explaining that in a courtroom.

Posted by Stilicho on 08/02/11 at 11:47 PM | #

Thank you Kermit and James Raper for pulling together so much information from so many different places, not to mention your masterful effort to expose some of the more persistent “untruths” floating around out there.

Posted by Skeptical Bystander on 08/02/11 at 11:57 PM | #

Nice work gentlemen. Looking at the totality of the case here makes me even more convinced that this was a premeditated act. I’m not sure why Massei ruled that out so quickly.

Has anyone surmised as to who could be the unknown man whose DNA appears on the bra clasp? Not that it matters, as the only persons DNA you would absolutely not expect to find through contamination is Sollecito’s. Yet there it is.

Posted by bmull on 08/03/11 at 03:38 AM | #

That was amazing! Thank you.

Posted by Giselle on 08/03/11 at 07:44 AM | #

bmul, I was also thinking about the unidentified DNA on the bra clasp - which has been used by FOA as an indication of contamination. The only logical answer I have thought up, is that it belongs to Meredith’s boyfriend, with whom she was intimate…

Also, generally speaking, I dont understand why covering Meredith’s body with a duvet is seen as showing remorse! Based on all the subsequent actions and comments of AK and RS (ie; AK"Shit happens”) I can only think that she did not want to look at Meredith’s dead body while she was cleaning up in that room!

IMO it was yet another selfish action from no other than, Amanda Knox.

Posted by Giselle on 08/03/11 at 07:50 AM | #

Giselle.
Imho is a case of “libero convincimento del giudice” principle existing in Italian jurisprudence but not in Anglo-Saxon. Any lawyer around here ?

Posted by ncountryside on 08/03/11 at 09:00 AM | #

This is fantastic!!  It must have taken you ages to put this together.  I need the weekend to read and absorb it.  Thank you!

Posted by thundering on 08/03/11 at 09:20 AM | #

Great summary.

Has Amanda ever stated a reason why her lamp was in Meredith’s room?

Posted by kpva33 on 08/03/11 at 10:25 AM | #

ncountryside,  I dont have any knowledge of Italian law outside this case, but I would imagine you are correct. At the same time I cant help but wonder if it will form part of the prosecution’s appeal arguments for increasing their sentence…

it does seem the more likely reason why she covered the body, she didnt want to see what she had done - I dont think she was ‘sorry’ for Meredith. If I can insert my view based on observation of Amanda’s character through her emails, photos, statements etc - it is always about her, why would it be any different here?

She didnt want to believe what she did, to see Meredith’s body after the adrenalin of the attack had gone must have been terrifying. At least I hope it was - otherwise she really is not human at all!

Posted by Giselle on 08/03/11 at 10:59 AM | #

A Masterpiece.  Thank you Kermit and James.

Posted by Tara on 08/03/11 at 11:09 AM | #

Does anyone know how I can view this powerpoint on a Mac every time   I try to open it I just get a text edit file full of rubbish :( thank you.

Inserted by Peter. If you don’t have a recent-version Microsoft Office loaded, please install the latest version of the free Microsoft Powerpoint Viewer available here.

http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?displaylang=en&id=13 

That should take care of the problem. Same tip is now inserted in the first line of James’s and Kermit’s post.

 

Posted by distemper on 08/03/11 at 01:03 PM | #

OK here goes as I have a Mac too.  This is what works for me

Click on the photograph, a window should open top left hand with a request “Do you want to open this file.?” Click yes then a small window superimposed on top or next to it should open indicating the amount of time to download.

Then eventually it will.  Also it may take a few moments since the powerpoint site is very large.  Are you on dial up? if so it may take a very long time if at all.  Cheers and best of luck G.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 08/03/11 at 01:44 PM | #

Great powerpoint! I find the visual representation of some of the evidence very enlighting. Especially the part about the breakinn. Your powerpoint makes it really obvious that the breakinn was staged when you take in account that getting in through the kitchen window would be the only logical place.

What is also mentioned in the powerpoint is the removal of the bra. I think this is a very solid piece of evidence that doesnt get talked about a lot. Am I correct in assuming that Meredith’s bra was removed sometime after she died? If so this would imply that whoever was responsible for her death (Knox/Sollicito in my view) waited untill she had died before returning.

This timeframe would have at least been long enough for the bloodspots to have dried out. This rules out any outsider in my view. Nobody who didnt know that everybody in the house would be gone for the night would stick around or come back to manipulate the crimescene.

I also think this evidence is an indication of the lack of emotional depth of Amanda and Rafaelle. Touching someone after she died because of your actions would be very difficult for a normal person. The removal of the bra is the action of a disturbed person.

Posted by carl on 08/03/11 at 02:30 PM | #

A wonderful, if sad, and comprehensive presentation, Kermit and James!

A true “Grand Slam” for Meredith!

Posted by Fly By Night on 08/03/11 at 04:22 PM | #

@bmull:  A lot of us have similarly wondered how the events of 01 NOV 2007 could have happened without there having been an element of premeditation.  The pair switched off their cell phones to remain ‘invisible’ for the evening.  There is evidence that Knox tried to lure Meredith into a situation the previous night.

@kpva33:  Knox was asked directly about the lamp during her testimony.  She had no explanation at all and was reluctant even to acknowledge that it belonged in her room and not on the floor inside Meredith’s room.

Posted by Stilicho on 08/03/11 at 05:09 PM | #

Hello distemper By the way nice name. I am reminded of Janice in the Sopranos using the name “rising-damp.”

Anyway to more important things. Strange to relate I am provided with a Microsoft computer where I work and it opens in the form of a book same as yours which is very difficult to read.

My day gig is a Government Job (Coast Guard) so therefore they spend as little as possible on equipment. That means my screen is postage stamp size. So sorry if you can’t read it easily, but keep trying it’s well worth the effort.

Cheers Grahame

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 08/03/11 at 06:33 PM | #

hey distemper, i just had the text problem too on my mac, got my boyfriend to sort it for me: highlight it in finder then hit spacebar to open it in quicklook and you can then make it full screen. xx

Posted by flowers on 08/03/11 at 06:37 PM | #

Thanks to you all for your kind comments.

@Maundy, don’t worry, there’s lots of room for all to opine and contribute to the discussion (in fact, I visited your pages more than once during the preparation of this presentation).

@Stilicho, your Holy Roman Empire reference made me laugh. Indeed, I was thinking of making the “FOA Defining Map Of What The Crime Scene Is (And Isn’t)” somewhat more detailed, but a computer screen has it’s limits.

The presentation takes some time to go through, yet we had to hold back to not get into excessive detail on any specific point. I think this overall appreciation of the case against the convicts’ appeals is quite strong, and only reinforces the feeling that the first level conviction in Judge Massei’s courtroom was just.

Posted by Kermit on 08/03/11 at 06:58 PM | #

I have a question which I open to everyone.

Given the fact that Knox and Sollecito are guilty without a shadow of doubt. Then why (The family and various people thereby attached aside)

What is your feeling regarding others who have attached themselves to the innocence side of the equation, so much so that they refuse to be in any way shape or form objective?

There are people here who fervently believe in the innocence of these two and I cannot help (being a student of Psychology, I took it as an elective) wonder why that should be. I don’t believe that it’s innocence on their part but just the same, in my mind it’s a large question mark?

Cheers Grahame Rhodes

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 08/03/11 at 07:20 PM | #

In answer to your question, Grahame:

Why do people believe they really need to buy something they don’t really need?

Or buy a historical narrative (Did Lincoln really want to ‘free the slaves’?)

Or get lead into war on the most specious of lies?

Because of spin, and PR, and mass manipulation of public opinion on the basis of some very persuasive psychology.

So, some people really do believe that Amanda Knox is innocent, not because they know anthing about the evidence, but the masters of discourse have told them so.

Posted by Ergon on 08/03/11 at 07:49 PM | #

@grahame

I guess it must have something to do with picking a side. At some point people have invested so much into a point of view that changing it would mean acknowledging that they have been wrong for a long time. It means that all the statements they made on blogs or to friends would have been wrong. Their personal judgement is at stake (since most of them seem to have chosen the FOA camp on the basis of gut feelings) and being wrong means more than losing an argument.

Also it is my impression that a lot of them chose to support Amanda out of disbelieve that a pretty intelligent girl would do something as horrendous as this. Not only is their judgement at stake but also their ideas about who is bad and who is good. It becomes harder to deal with the world when things dont seem to be black and white, so there is a natural tendency to order things in easy and distinguishable categories.

Posted by carl on 08/03/11 at 08:03 PM | #

@Grahame:  The main issues raised by some of the newcomers to the case include the stomach contents (arguing for an earlier time of death), the erection of the locked door as a ‘magical barrier’ beyond which no DNA evidence is deemed relevant, the incomplete science of LCN DNA, the rarity of female-on-female sexual assault, and the lack of direct evidence. 

The first objection is entirely reasonable and it’s always possible they killed Meredith at 22:50 as the medical examiner used as the most probable time of death (allowing for a range).  The second objection is tougher to figure out and is impossible to reconcile with Guede’s visible prints leading straight out of the cottage.  The third objection is relevant and timely; expect more of this as DNA science becomes increasingly effective. 

The last two objections are simply cases of special pleading.

If I’m not misstating your position, you’re talking about newcomers who are not invested in the guilt or innocence of Knox but instead want to look at it as a parlour game or a subject for critical analysis.  These are the people who erect a scientific structure and perform gamblers’ techniques to guess how Hellmann will rule.  I would argue that they really are objective but have arrived at an incorrect conclusion because they haven’t the skill sets or completeness of information to properly analyse the data. 

Not one of them has submitted an academic paper on their internet-gleaned science to a proper peer review.

Posted by Stilicho on 08/03/11 at 10:21 PM | #

Great work!!!!

Posted by willsavive on 08/03/11 at 10:24 PM | #

Casey Anthony was in florida, Knox in Italy. In the xenophobic US this makes all the difference. To give an illustration of this I recently completed an online test of political viewpoint at a well-known website. One of the questions I was astonished to discover was “Do you believe a life of one American is worth several foreigners?”

It must be that a large slice of the population say yes otherwise the question would be pointless and removed from the test. Can you imagine large percentages of say Canadians or Australians or Germans thinking like this?

Posted by sbman on 08/03/11 at 10:28 PM | #

This is a great powerpoint. Really effective and to the point. I’ve followed True Justice for a couple of years but one of the things that struck me in the presentation was the side by side of various alibis and stories that K & S proposed about that night.

Rather than poor Amanda being led to the police station like a lamb to the slaughter, the police did absolutely the right thing, i.e. boyfriend comes in, completely changes his story throwing out alibi for girlfriend. The police would be completely derelict if they didn’t question the girlfriend at length regarding her whereabouts and previous alibi.

Both were quite detailed in their new stories re whereabouts and activities of the night of the murder, both lied, and all accounts are on record. Would innocent people lie to this extent?

Thanks again. You do a great service against the misinformation out their including here in Canada, our own Globe and Mail which reviewed Burleigh’s book as an excellent true life crime of how two innocent people were sent to prison in that horrible Italy. Grrrr.

Posted by Dora Maar on 08/03/11 at 11:56 PM | #

Grahame,

The story I hear most often from the pro-Knox people is that they initially thought she was guilty and then they read or saw something that convinced them everything they thought they knew about the case was wrong. Some people are more susceptible to emotional arguments and the TJMK side for a number of reasons I think has not engaged in those types of arguments.

Then there’s the sheer magnitude of the pro-Knox bias in the U.S. middlebrow media. I assume that’s because people in the entertainment industry are disproportionately the touchy-feely types. It’s also a measure of the effectiveness of the Knox PR campaign. I have had some success in convincing pro-Knox people that the break-in was staged, but when it comes to the validity of the DNA evidence that’s a bridge too far.

Posted by bmull on 08/04/11 at 01:53 AM | #

I enjoyed it. And highlighting all the different stories/alibis/ side by side shows that AK’s and RS’s boat is full of holes and sinking fast. Thank you, James and Kermit, well done!

Posted by friar fudd on 08/04/11 at 04:43 AM | #

Hi bmull,

Amanda Knox’s supporters are invariably ignorant of the basic facts of the case. They have been manipulated and misinformed by the people involved in the dishonest PR campaign. They don’t have the requisite common sense and emotional intelligence to realise this.

It’s painfully embarrassing to witness them parroting the standard FOA myths: Knox was interrogated for 14 hours without an interpreter; she was denied food and water; the Italian Supreme Court ruled that her interrogation was illegal; she had never been in trouble with the police; the knife doesn’t match any of the wounds; there is no evidence placing Knox at the crime scene; she didn’t know Rudy Guede; Mignini claimed Meredith had been killed as part of a satanic ritual; Rudy Guede had a criminal record etc.

You will have probably noticed that a lot of Knox’s supporters make racist and xenophobic comments about Italy. This speaks volumes about the kind of people they are.

There is one thing you’ll never hear from Knox’s supporters: a plausible innocent explanation for her numerous lies.

Posted by The Machine on 08/04/11 at 05:56 AM | #

Dear Everyone

Thank you so much for all your contributions and advice concerning my question. I never expected such a response. It speaks volumes about the character of the people who post here and it also points out and never ceases to amaze me the shear vitrolic and rude statements eminating from the pro Knox bunch.

Anybody, It would seem, with an opposing point of view they consider to be a personal threat. However that aside I thank you all very sincerely

Keep up the good work

Cheers Grahame Rhodes

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 08/04/11 at 06:54 AM | #

Thanks everyone for your kind comments.

I do not know for a fact that the washing machine was still running, or warm, with some of Meredith’s clothes in it when the postal police arrived. Perhaps this is just a bit of anecdotal.

I only bring this up because again I am in to a bit of speculation arising from those images of the bathmat posted by Kermit. It’s just that, to me, that bathmat looks as if it may have already had a wash.

I wonder if it was damp, or if it was noticed to be damp, at some stage, perhaps by the investigators when they turned up, or perhaps it was dry by then?

We may have two explanations. Amanda’s shower water or a machine wash.

Incidentally who believes for one moment that, as Amanda claims in her e-mail,  she did not notice the blood on the bathmat until after she had taken a shower! Just how could she have possibly have missed such a recent and extensive deposit of blood.

And if the washing machine business is correct then Meredith’s clothing would be there to disguise the machine’s previous use. Perhaps this is the explanation. Another mistake by Amanda?

Posted by James Raper on 08/04/11 at 08:21 AM | #

@Stilicho

You mention evidence of premeditation in one of you posts. Something about Amanda trying to get to Meredith the day before the murder. Where can I find info on this evidence? Have I missed it in the Massei report?

Posted by carl on 08/04/11 at 08:36 AM | #

Technical tip. If you can’t see the Powerpoints and all their moving parts as intended, you may not have a recent-version Microsoft Office or Powerpoint Viewer loaded. Please install the latest version of the Powerpoint Viewer available here.

http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?displaylang=en&id=13

The same tip is now inserted in the first line of James’s and Kermit’s post and at top of all of our Powerpoint posts. Apologies for not catching this problem sooner.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 08/04/11 at 09:20 AM | #

H Carl. A quick answer to your question to Stilicho on premeditation and he may want to answer better or more fully.

The suggestive evidence presented at trial of some intent or disposition to confront or harm Meredith includes those text messages from AK to Meredith on Halloween night wanting to get together, which Meredith didn’t see or ignored; the simultaneous switching-off of RS’s and AK’s mobile phones at RS’s place mid-evening on the night of Meredith’s murder; and the movement of the large knife to Meredith’s place and then back again.

The prosecution at RS’s and AK’s trial and Judge Micheli at Guede’s trial saw a pattern here, but Judge Massei’s scenario is more spontaneous with the initial move coming from Guede. This will be argued about again soon in appeal court as it is relevant to the allowing by Judge Massei of the mitigating circumstances being appealed by the prosecution which lopped five years off AK’s and RS’s sentences.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 08/04/11 at 09:59 AM | #

James, your point about the bath mat and the blod has bothered me always when a clean up is suggested. On the one hand it is blatant that there must have been some sort of cleaning due to footprints etc - on the other hand how stupid were they to leave the bloody footprint on the mat? She must ave seen it! She says she say it! Why not at least clean enough so the footprint is smudged?
A sinister thought, giving to much credit to her intelligence and foresight would be that she wanted to have the opportunity to blame sollecitto….

But seriously other than that it baffles me to no end! Was she blind? That’s a major piece of evidence! Any of us would see that and clear it up right?

Posted by Giselle on 08/04/11 at 10:53 AM | #

Giselle,
Your sinister thought is brilliant—& produced a flash of illumination in my mind. 
Fits to a T her psychology (as I see it) & fits her other actions & words, & yet I’d overlooked this entirely.

Does not at all give too much credit to her intelligence & foresight. You have to factor in the Unconscious.  Given a disposition like Amanda’s, a constant chronic attitude: Blame anyone but me!

The merest fleeting thought on her part, consciously, I would suppose.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 08/04/11 at 11:35 AM | #

A few specifics on Giselle’s idea:

In her writings Amanda:
(a) wonders why Raffaele would lie about her or, if I remember, want to blame her.
(b) Fable of the knife: he may have put it in her hands while she slept, for the fingerprints.
A fable that presupposes the knife as a weapon.

In conversation with her parents: She is very… very worried about that knife…

Accusation of Lumumba, which she is happy to let stand (& Edda with her) & which she would have been happy enough to ride out of jail, had it come to that.

There’s no love lost between these lovebirds. There was never any to be found there, they merely… do it.  (Amanda consumes men.)

And the fact that the footprint HAS counted, irrefutably, against Sollecito.  Measurements fit his foot nicely but not at all Guede’s foot which (if I remember now) is narrower & longer.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 08/04/11 at 11:57 AM | #

Thanks to Grahame and Flowers for their advice yesterday on how to view the pps on a mac, the spacebar did the trick smile

I also wanted to say, great post, and THANK YOU for taking the time to put such a colossal amount of information together in such an easy to follow and informative way. Shame you didn’t also have a site dedicated to the McCann’s! Awesome job..

Posted by distemper on 08/04/11 at 11:59 AM | #

Hi Giselle,

Thinking about it it’s obvious that the bathroom has been cleaned up to some extent. This point could have gone into the Partial Clean Up Section of the Powerpoint.

Meredith’s blood was visible in the bathroom on the electric light wall plate and the door frame but, as you can see, very little of it. Clearly there was originally more there. Massei commented that one of these visible traces seemed to be a leftover from a larger trace swiped clean.

Why the bathmat was left and Amanda’s blood on the faucet we will never know. As I say, though I am open to any suggestion that I am mistaken, the bathmat looks as if it may have been washed, or at least rinsed, perhaps even in the shower basin.

We would need to know a lot more about when the clean up actually started, the time frame for it, and what else may have been going on and to what extent tasks were agreed and co-ordinated. whether they were together and if so was this the whole time? For all we know verything may have been attended to in a short time frame, and in something of a panic, and not long before the first call to Filomena.

They may have thrown the bathroom mat into the washing machine for a rinse just before returning to Raffaele’s to make that call, thinking that would be enough, only to find on their return to the cottage, and with Filomena already alerted and possibly on her way, that the result was disappointing, but at least explainable as being attributable to someone else. Claiming to have had a shower comes in handy to explain why the blood looks faded.

Or perhaps they attended to these things earlier, after Amanda’s visit to the mini mart and that was enough for them.

The answer in the end is of course, Who knows?

All I can do is try to imagine how it would be like if I was their age, and exhausted, having been up all night, sick to the stomach with the fear of being apprehended.

The reality of dealing with something like this will always be very different from what perpetrators would hope.

It seems though that they thought they had got away with it.

Posted by James Raper on 08/04/11 at 01:29 PM | #

My take on this is

Amanda cleaned up the room, hence the duvet and the lamp, plus the removal of Meredith’s bra. This sounds to me such as a woman would do.

Sollecito cleaned up the bathroom and didn’t do a very good job of it either and he probably staged the break-in.

Also I think they started later than previously thought because they would be too scared to go back initially for fear of what they may find. After all they ran for it.

Sollecito would be far more terrified than Knox given her sociopathic personality. She would have gone to the store for the bleach after finding Meredith dead not before so that may be a time frame.

Of course this is just conjecture on my part but to me it sounds plausible.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 08/04/11 at 04:00 PM | #

“sick to the stomach with the fear of being apprehended”

Try this…....Police to AK: “RS has just told us that in fact you weren’t with him at his flat on the night of the murder between 9pm and 1am as you claim. Where were you, and who can confirm your statement ? “

Gulp.

Posted by Smacker on 08/04/11 at 04:10 PM | #

The presence of unexplained blood splatter elicits a visceral reaction in most people of mild to extreme repulsion and/or fear. But not our Amanda - she just thought ‘ew’! Someone ie Meredith must be having menstrual issues.

This is an insidious attempt to insult the fastidious girl who would have been appalled at the though of leaving a mess in a shared bathroom. Menstrual blood does not end up on taps and Amanda knows this very well. Her hatred of Meredith comes out in her rambling email and she twists the knife by introducing the notion that Meredith was unhygienic.

As Peter Hyatt astutely observes this is another subconscious revelation of her overly sexualized nature. Ever the tactless one, Amanda cannot resist firing off an email to numerous recipients with this most intimate conjecture, never stopping to consider the offense. Amanda being Amanda again - Bleurgh!

Posted by pensky on 08/04/11 at 04:55 PM | #

Grahame,

I think Capezzalli may have been wrong about the running in two directions. It could have been an echo. I think Guede fled (as he realized he’d been tricked) but Knox and Sollecito, who would have been covered in blood, stayed behind to shower and do at least a preliminary clean-up. Their goal was to remove evidence of multiple attackers and pin the murder on Guede.

I don’t rule out that Sollecito panicked at some point and went home to get loaded. I think Knox herself panicked in the 12:47 phone call to her mom and admitted she was in big trouble. We know from the Lumumba affair that Knox has a tendency to claim implausible memory disturbances when she’s lying, and I think that is the case here too.

Posted by bmull on 08/04/11 at 05:16 PM | #

I think everyone here has the same problem. Both us and the pro Knox bunch try to approach this logically and not from the point of Knox’s insanity for insane she obviously is. We seem to try to get inside her mind which is difficult for anyone sane to comprehend.

An example of this is Karla Hamolka here in Canada who with her lover Paul Bernado who killed three girls including Hamolka’s younger sister who they drugged and raped first. They had absolutely no guilt about it at all and indeed wondered what all the fuss was about.

Knox is just the same which makes her actions and others like her almost impossible to comprehend logically.

This morning I watched ‘The View’ on TV and they discussed Knox and other crimes with a bunch of lawyers, all female. The condenses was that Knox was innocent and in the US would never have gone to trial thereby proving that the PR/Media spin is working well in the US. As Peter has pointed out “Innocent sells ratings, while guilty does not.” Thank God the trial is in Italy.

The general population seem to have a problem absorbing anything outside a 30 second sound bite which is why only the minority will look at James and Kermits work while the others are just too lazy and misinformed to bother preferring instead to just except the innocent label.

I even listened with some astonishment to an announcer on CNN describe how the British legal system is “Guilty Until Proven Innocent” just as the Italian one is thereby proving the level of ignorance is pandemic not just in the US but everywhere.

I’m convinced that if Knox admitted to everything there would be those who would say she was suffering from ‘Stockholm Syndrome.’

Best wishes to everyone and thank you for your informative responses.
Cheers Grahame

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 08/04/11 at 07:17 PM | #

@peter   Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Amanda texting Meredith to get together on Halloween is very intriguing. I’ve always thought the murder was the result of a situation that got out of hand. But it seems that situation was also premeditated as Amanda was already planning something the day before. I would think she wanted to gain back control over Meredith after what may have been arguments over hygiene, money, etc.

She may have even felt that the deteriorating relationship with Meredith would impact on her relationship with the other girls.  Amanda is obviously someone who wants some control over the people around her. So why not try and persuade Meredith to join her and Rafaelle/ Rudy in night of drugs and sex. Meredith would either go for it and thus be a friend she could party with (and have control over) or she would just teach Meredith not to mess with her.

I agree with Giselle’s remarks earlier on in the comments. Its all about Amanda so she wasn’t sorry for Meredith. Like others I think because Amanda’s lack of empathy and narcissistic personality, she wouldn’t have been terrified of Meredith’s body. She would have been terrified of the consequences for herself.

Using the duvet was probably done because they had some cleaning up to do and the sight of the body was disgusting to Amanda (as I think she stated in court when discussing Meredith’s death).  I think the violation of the integrity of the body by removing the bra is further evidence that the duvet wasn’t used out of pity or remorse.

Leaving the stained bathmat is rather strange. But maybe she felt removing it would direct the investigation towards her. She may have thought that the footprint was vague enough to be allocated to the lone wolf.

Posted by carl on 08/04/11 at 07:25 PM | #

Simply a masterpiece!!!! Can you format it as a video and upload in youtube? We can make it become viral!!

Posted by lulupr on 08/04/11 at 09:02 PM | #

Indeed a great presentation. Thanks, James and Kermit! One request: did I miss Nara Capezalli’s house on the map? I’d have liked to see the relative distances between her and Villa Pergola, seeing as the Knoxers say it was too far for her to have properly heard Meredith’s scream.

Posted by Ergon on 08/04/11 at 11:12 PM | #

Another excellent piece of investigative journalism for TJMK by James and Kermit!

@carl

You are correct in the fact that Meredith Kercher’s bra was intentionally removed after she died. The Micheli Report includes forensic evidence that Meredith’s bra was removed after she was killed because no aspirated blood spray was found on the part of her chest that had been covered by her bra.

Judge Micheli also referred to Knox’s and Sollecito’s “states of mind” - how they committed such a brutal killing and then behaved as if it were nothing.

Both Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were remanded in custody pending their first trial because the Italian court deemed them a danger to the public.

A wrongly convicted “innocent abroad” American gal and uno bambino innocento from an Italian family? After 4 years who is it that their defenses and families are trying to fool?

Posted by True North on 08/04/11 at 11:13 PM | #

Hi Lulupr “Can you format it as a video and upload in YouTube? We can make it become viral!!”

Interesting idea. We have created our own YouTubes of course. The knife one is the most watched. So far we only promoted those via TJMK not by emailing or dropping links.

A special question here of whether dynamic Powerpoints with small text can transfer. We’re looking into it. Any experience?

Posted by Peter Quennell on 08/04/11 at 11:18 PM | #

Hi Ernest,

It sort of also fits in with her not flushing the feces too,would you agree. I’m sure she knew it was Raffaelo’s print, since she would know Rudy was wearing shoes and he wasn’t… I wish I knew if this is common in Italian culture. For instance most Americans wear shoes at home and most Asians would not (forgive me for the stereo types) - what is the norm in Italy?

You’re definitely right that she goes on to try and accuse Raffaele, without (in her own mind) implicating herself. He does the same with her “no love” as you say!

Hi James,

Thank you again for the Powerpoint, I think the way you have summarized the issues is excellent. Although I have followed the case for years,  this whole summary made the picture very clear. Much more effective than pieces here and there, or the long and technical Massei Report, which IMHO is not as convincing as Michelli.

I think you did point out in the Powerpoint that the heel from the footprint was missing - insinuating a clean up (if I remember correctly).

The bathroom must have been cleaned, unless we assume that Knox went in with her nose bleed during the attack, came back angry, murdered Meredith, but the blood was sprayed on Rudy who was holding her down. Rudy runs straight out and Raffaele runs back in the bathroom to wash his hands (hence not as much blood as expected in the bathroom)...when they came back, maybe they didnt focus on cleaning the bathroom!?

You’re right, they probably cleaned up in a rush - I cannot imagine they had the presence of mind to stick around and clean up after Meredith screamed and lay dying. They took her cell phones and ran home to each decide what they are going to do! Maybe thats when Curatolo saw them looking anxiously at the house…

In terms of the washing machine, I seem to remember reading that Meredith’s clothes were in the machine and that the police searched for blood traces etc in the machine but there was nothing (unfortunately I cant remember where I came across this and not all sources are reliable). The blood on the mat does look faded, I should imagine you are correct and they rinsed it in the shower (there was no DNA found on it either so it makes sense).

Its a shame the police didnt find the wipes they used and other cleaning stuff. But they had more than enough time to dispose of these before their arrest.

As you say, it is all a matter of conjecture, when one is in that situation things are very different. Having been in an attack myself - I cannot remember half of what happened and what I did or even feeling any pain until the next day in hospital. I still dont have a clear vision of the night, only images here and there. I was not on drugs but had been drinking (not drunk) I also had taken a sleeping tablet.

I know that my reactions and thoughts were not what they would normally be, I was a less cautious than I would be usually and in my defense I could easily have caused serious harm to my attacker without even knowing. I am not suggesting that Amanda was attacked by Meredith - rather the fact that she was also on drugs that are meant to relax you. It takes away logic and deletes the filter between your actions and brain… as has been discussed extensively here. Sorry to go on a tangent.

I also think that since Raffaele’s sister was in the Carbinerri, he must have known some things about police work and procedures etc. He may have had more of an input in the whole where to throw things away, what police look for and other inside knowledge type things…its pure speculation but we all seem to learn to some extent the profession of those close to us, we hear stories and have conversations…

I agree with you Carl, it was probably that she was terrified of the consequences. I imagine it was also an unsightly sight for her eyes…

Thank you again to Peter and everyone who contributes to this site - its comforting to know the truth is out there for those who seek it. If I listen to the media without cross referencing here or on PMF I end up believing she is innocent!

Posted by Giselle on 08/05/11 at 02:38 AM | #

James and Kermit, you have outdone yourselves. Hard-pressed to think of any stone you failed to overturn.

Re; knox’s tapped conversation about the worrisome knife: where did the excerpt leak out into the public domain, and where is the rest of the conversation? As with the “why would I lie/ I was there” quote, it would be so helpful to hear it all in context and unedited.

I agree with Carl—the duvet covers a yucky, disgusting sight.  And of course, at this point the killer sees the body as an inconvenience. I long ago gave up trying to put myself inside their minds ( a lot of this went on during the active comment period at Miss Represented’s blog.) I will wager, however, that along with the adrenaline surge at carrying out what had up to that point been merely a fantasy (for ‘Devilman Raf” the snuff manga fan) and a comeuppance for Queen Bee Knox, who was insulted at not being admired by MK) there was also shock.

Shock because they had actually assaulted a living, fighting human, and now she was dead. Did they actually take it in that they had killed? Shock makes time move differently. Hard to be logical and organised about covering your tracks when your head is reeling.

Enough hours later, when they had calmed down enough to actually imagine they hadn’t been sussed, both could not stop themselves from bragging about “finding the body”—AK , to the English friends, with her, “What do you want to know because I know Everything” and RS to the press. And was it a Freudian slip that he mentioned how much blood there was,when he, after all, was not supposed to have seen inside the room?

And why not discard the mat? No one else would miss it. The other flatmates showered in the larger bath, and M was hardly going to ask where it had gone! Was Knox stupid enough to think that she might actually need it for future showers at the cottage?

Posted by mimi on 08/05/11 at 02:56 AM | #

@mimi

You said no one would miss the bathmat and I just realized you’re probably right about that. So maybe the bathmat was left as part of the story Amanda wanted to tell everybody. Amanda needed a reason to “panic” on the morning after the murder. The faeces in the toilet alone wouldn’t be sufficient, since they could have been left by a legitimate visitor of Meredith. The fact that Meredith’s room was locked was also not an reason for her to panic, since Meredith could have gone out or even left early for home.

Since Amanda had no reason to be in Filomena’s room her story had to unfold to where she for some reason panicked (the bathmat) and then progressively discovered more disturbing things ending with the discovery of the break-in.  The spots of blood were too small to be a legitimate first trigger. A big bloody footprint on the bathmat however was a good reason for Amanda (in her own story) to get uneasy and could act as reason for her to “investigate” and progressively “panic” to where she finally had a reason to call Filomena. 

I don’t think this was all thought out in advance.  Amanda (like a fellow dutchman Joran van der Sloot) is very good at quickly creating fictitious scenarios and adapting story’s. The problem is that she (like Joran) has difficulty looking at things from a different perspective than her own (a consequence of her narcissism) .  So what seems like a logical story to her may not seem logical to others.  This is why she has to be so adapt to changing her story and why people like her need to be very manipulative.

Posted by carl on 08/05/11 at 05:17 AM | #

mimi: you said you gave up trying to get inside these two’s minds. How true. I usually believe that AK was the leader because of her jealosy and hatred of Meredith. But then I am reminded of RS’s obsession with animal porn and the sickness that might spawn. But regardless who was the leader the Italian legal system has these two right where they belong and we all are safer for it. They can rot.

Posted by friar fudd on 08/05/11 at 07:10 AM | #

Who else but Knox could have lured Guede into the plot? That in my mind makes Knox the ringleader. And also if you look at the pictures of Knox and Sollecito together the body language suggests Knox is the alpha dog.

Posted by bmull on 08/05/11 at 07:41 AM | #

I have to say that I cant agree much with the concept that the bathmat would not be missed. I am sure that Laura or Filomena would have known it was there - since they had initially rented out the place (it was probably theirs). They also probably used the bathroom at some stage for one reason or another. Its difficult to assume that they would not miss it when the police took them round questioning them etc. Also Carl I thought that Filomena’s door was open and that she had to walk past it to get to her room…its reasonable to assume that she would have seen the breakin. Maybe I am wrong - I cannot remember exactly.

The only part of the story that I have never been able to accept is Amanda carrying a kitchen knife around with her. I know Massei explained it was RS who told her to do so for protection, but (1) he had other pocket knives he could have loaned her and (2) why not take a small kitchen knife - I cannot imagine anyone thinking they could defend themselves with a huge knife…again maybe I am wrong. But the whole thing does not make sense to me…has anyone thought of any logical, reasonable, likely explanation? Unless it was premeditated…IMHO the knife itself would be proof enough of ‘pre meditation’ for of murder or GBH.

Posted by Giselle on 08/05/11 at 08:11 AM | #

@Giselle

You may well be correct on the door being op. If so this raises the question why bother with the complicated story and not simply say that you entered the house and found your housmate’s room burglarized after which you called the police. Why all the talk about showering and walking back to get Rafaelle. There much less room for error in this story. But I guess this could be typical for a habitual lier. they tend to think that more details make their story more true.

Posted by carl on 08/05/11 at 08:28 AM | #

Knox’s approach to survival has always been “Fill the air with words” that way she tries to cloud any issues.
 
This ploy of course is very dangerous and she thinks she can get away with it because of her narcissistic outlook upon life.

like all true sociopaths she believes others are there just for her audience. Consider her demeanor at the trial.

As to the bath mat. I think she left it there on purpose. She would know it was Sollecito’s of course and already she was trying to build an additional alibi. Never lose sight of the fact that she really believes she can get away with this, and consoles herself with all the money and fame she will garner upon being set free.

She wants to write a book and appear on TV talk shows. This is her pattern since she enjoys the limelight and the notoriety.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 08/05/11 at 08:59 AM | #

I think with absolute certainty that they washed the bathmat, and in the machine, blood doesn’t go pale pink when it dries, it goes black.

I’m not convinced that it was from RS washing his foot in the bidet either, as we would then have a mixture of his DNA and Meredith’s in the bathroom, as we have with Knox, and we don’t.

For me it’s still either machine washed, or it was left by RS exiting the shower thinking he’d washed himself thoroughly, when there was still some traces on the sole of his foot. The other pale drops on the mat could have come from his wet hair or whatever at the same time.

But this still doesn’t explain why they didn’t then clean that room thoroughly.

Posted by Spencer on 08/05/11 at 10:54 AM | #

Good post, Spencer, but I do think it leaves Giselle’s hypothesis in play.  Which would mean that a final look at the bathroom was left to Amanda
& its disposition left to her devices. Raffaele may have been busy elsewhere.

In effect (extending this to a far-out hypothesis) Amanda has effectively “planted” evidence against Sollecito by leaving blood which will be taken as left by the unknown killer & bathmat which she knows to retain a washed-out trace of Sollecito’s foot.

What is truly at issue is, after all, not how it happened & whether by sinister design or stupid carelessness. What’s at issue is that the bathmat incriminates.  “If it does not fit, you must acquit,” but in this case, it so nicely fits the print of the co-murderer’s foot. Mignini won’t let us forget that.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 08/05/11 at 11:51 AM | #

Hello.

First time posting, but definitely long time TJMK reader.

I want to first thank all of you who work so hard on this site to ensure that the general public, particularly, the English-speaking public get an accurate and complete view of all the facts in this case. Your professionalism and objectivity is very much appreciated, given all the biased, one-sided garbage that is spewed out there, particularly here in America. James Raper and Kermit’s post is an example of that objectivity. It is truly enlightening to review the facts of this case from another perspective, by a lawyer, nonetheless, who, as he stated, was impartial to the case and derived at his own conclusions based on FACTS of the case (and I’m sure his own professional experience trying cases).

The one question I’ve always had is how is it that AK & RS were able to erase most of their traces in Meredith’s bedroom, while leaving RG’s? How did they know where to clean? Well, this powerpoint, did an excellent job in answering this very question (among others), and after seeing this powerpoint, it should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind about AK/RS’s guilt.

Peter, one question: how likely is it that their sentences will be confirmed? I don’t think they’ll be reversed but I’m concerned that the court may knock off some years. After all, Italy is known to be true to the “rehabilitation” notion for the incarcerated. My husband (he’s Italian), although so very grateful to this site for its fair depiction of the Italian justice system, does have some doubts given the history of how defendants are treated in Italy. That is, he, like many Italians, feels that the Italian judicial system favors the defendants too much and thinks AK/RS will probably do less time than the 26 and 25, respectively, that has been adjudicated to them. I’m really hoping for an increase, especially since, as many others have already mentioned, the mitigating circumstances allowed by Massei really don’t seem to be valid given the evidence of this case. Any chance of that happening?

Posted by Sunflower on 08/05/11 at 02:37 PM | #

How plausible is the idea that RS could have had a portable radio receiver at his place that could pick up the local police bandwidth?

If we allow for the possibility that he might have had such a device, perhaps from his sister or one of his weird friends, and that he disposed of it later, and he and AK were monitoring it during the night, it could provide a rather simple explanation for both the whole spilled-water scenario and also why they had to leave the bloody bathroom as it was found.

If we assume that they had been monitoring the frequency - to ensure that their game wasn’t up, or that the phones had not yet been found - and they were still monitoring it at 12:00 midday - when they were perhaps taking a break a RS’s, waiting for the last load of washing at AK’s to finish and the clean-up not yet quite complete (the end is in sight - only the bathroom to do!). At this point they are still coming down from their high and are very paranoid, and they suddenly hear over the radio the dreaded despatch of a police unit to the Villa Pergola.

They panic of course, and assume the police will be at the house in minutes, and so they have to hatch a fast-plan in an attempt to cover the fact that the clean-up still isn’t complete, the bathroom still probably shows evidence of their recent showers, and so there still may be evidence of them in the bathroom and elsewhere.

But in just a few minutes they have their plan – and they immediately phone Filomena to set it in motion. They tell her this CRAZY story about how AK is at the house now, she went there to shower and noticed the blood etc. but is heading back to RS’s place NOW ( they assume here that the police won’t have got to the house in just 8 minutes).  They then hang up and work out their story and then a bit later head over to the house expecting to find the police there (but they have their story now and (to their minds), someone to back it up – Filomena). But when they arrive at the house there is no one there yet! So they had time to clean it all up after all - but they can’t now because they have already told Filmona about the spots and the footprint, so they have to leave it. 

Maybe then, as Giselle suggests, AK does a quick clean of the bathroom anyway, while RS is on lookout, but she can’t clean it too much as they are stuck with it now, but maybe she cleans the floor under the heal of RS’s foot and maybe flips the mat around so it looks as though the killer entered the bathroom and not exited the shower, and maybe she slyly thinks it can only implicate someone else anyway, so she’s safe - but either way they have to leave it, they can’t throw it out as Filomena knows about it now and that’s that.

And from that point on they have to stick to the script they told Filmona in that panicked call at 12:08, however implausible it is, or the whole house of cards will come down on them.

Posted by Spencer on 08/05/11 at 02:58 PM | #

Can you theorize a scenario or time frame where Raffaele would turn on Amanda in order to obtain some leniency for himself?  It certainly appears that his course of action in this case (not supporting Amanda’s alibis) and decision not to testify leave him some options. 

One might think that as an Italian of “good family” he might get some consideration for a reduced sentence if he pins the major blame on Amanda and says he was “brainwashed” by her due to his use of drugs.

Posted by Toto on 08/05/11 at 03:39 PM | #

Hi Sunflower,

It would have been easy for Knox and Sollecito to clean up their own bloody footprints and leave Rudy Guede’s shoeprints in Meredith’s room. However, it should be noted that two imprint experts - Rinaldi and Boemia - testified at the first trial that there was a woman’s bloody shoeprint on the pillow under Meredith’s body which matched Knox’s foot size, but was incompatible with Meredith’s foot size. Barbie Nadeau and Luciano Garofano both agree that there was a woman’s shoeprint on the pillow.

Knox and Sollecito weren’t able to remove all traces of themselves from Meredith’s room.

An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp. His DNA was identified by two separate DNA tests. Of the 17 loci tested in the sample, Sollecito’s profile matched 17 out of 17.

According to a number of DNA experts - Professor Vinci, Dr. Stefanoni and Luciano Garfofano - Amanda Knox’s DNA was also on Meredith bra.

Furthermore, Knox and Sollecito weren’t able to remove the traces that place them in Meredith’s room on the night of the murder.

There were five instances of Knox’s blood or DNA mixed with Meredith’s blood in three different locations in the cottage. Knox and Meredith were bleeding at the same time. The mixed blood evidence is the most damning evidence against Knox.

Luminol revealed Knox’s and Sollecito’s bare bloody footprints in the corridor. They must have stepped in Meredith’s blood in Meredith’s room and tracked it around the round house.

The bloody footprint on the blue bathmat in the bathroom matched the precise characteristics of Sollecito’s foot, but couldn’t possibly belong to Guede.

The double DNA knife indicates that both Knox and Sollecito were both actively involved in Meredith’s murder.

Here’s a question for the FOA:

Why are there no traces of Rudy Guede in Filomena’s room and the blood-spattered bathroom?

Posted by The Machine on 08/05/11 at 04:14 PM | #

Very thorough chronology and summary of the evidence, James and Kermit.  Thanks for all the hard work that must have gone into it.  As to the issue of the washing machine, I also recall—but can’t remember the source—that on arrival the police heard the washing machine running.  However, the Massei report on pp. 101 and 105 refers to the police going back to the house on November 6 to collect the clothes in the washing machine.

Posted by Tullia on 08/05/11 at 04:56 PM | #

Hi Tullia,

Barbie Nadeau wrote the following in Newsweek:

“The prosecution had also introduced evidence about the washing machine in the villa where the murder took place. Filomena Romanelli, the Italian from whom Knox and Kercher sublet rooms in the villa, testified that the washing machine was warm when she arrived on the scene. She later identified the contents of the washing machine as Kercher’s even though the Briton had been dead for at least 10 hours before her body was found, implying that someone else started the laundry.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/02/16/stranger-than-fiction.html

Posted by The Machine on 08/05/11 at 05:46 PM | #

@Machine-

Thanks for the information. Yes, I definitely agree that not all traces were erased from Meredith’s room, and I had totally forgotten about that woman’s shoeprint, which was found to be compatible to AK’s. Believe me, I definitely believe without a doubt that those two were not only the killers, but conducted the clean up. I guess when you come across Pro-Knox talking points, they do quite a job muddying the waters. I’m just glad I have TJMK to double check the accuracy of their claims!

Posted by Sunflower on 08/05/11 at 06:42 PM | #

I agree with Giselle that a missing bathmat would have been noticed, and that washing the bathmat would have been risky. The police were going to find traces of blood in the bathroom anyway. I agree with Wants Justice that the blood was faded because it was dilute. I think Sollecito’s DNA was not found in the bathroom because he washed up before Knox, and Knox was the one who cleaned the bathroom. Also, despite what Massei said, I think it’s very possible she was injured.

Regarding Giselle’s question as to why Knox chose the large knife, my theory is that she took it because it looked menacing. Sollecito’s smaller knives were much more dangerous, but they probably didn’t fit the sick fantasy she had in mind. Either that or she didn’t know—and Sollecito for some reason didn’t tell her—that a bread knife doesn’t make a very good weapon.

Posted by brmull on 08/05/11 at 08:10 PM | #

Excellent presentation both. The only section I’m a bit confused about is the call data records. When analysing these records in the UK it isn’t possible to establish how many times a phone has been rung before the caller hangs up. I would interpret the two calls to Meredith lasting 3 and 4 seconds as her phone diverting to voicemail. I would interpret the earlier 16 second call as either the call being answered ( which we know is impossible) or a voice mail message being left, intentional or not. There is no need for a phone service provider to retain records of how many times a phone is rung because it doesn’t make them any money if nobody answers. A billing record is a record of charged calls, it’s an itemised breakdown of communications for which the user has been charged. If the call doesn’t connect, it doesn’t cost and so it won’t appear on the bill. Similarly the incoming calls from Filomena lasting 36 and 65 seconds I would interpret as connected and answered calls.

I would like to see the call data records for each of the phones to produce a detailed analysis of what went on that afternoon..

Posted by Welshy on 08/06/11 at 09:44 AM | #

Great work, James and Kermie!

Thank you so much for your time and talent.

Posted by bucketoftea on 08/06/11 at 03:20 PM | #

Hi Welshy,

I can’t imagine anyone changing the settings on their mobile phones so that their phones only ring for a couple of seconds before going to voicemail. Amanda Knox knew Meredith was dead and couldn’t answer her mobile phones. That’s why her phone calls only lasted 3 and four seconds. There isn’t a plausible alternative explanation.

Posted by The Machine on 08/06/11 at 04:37 PM | #

Hi Welshy,

I did a series of experiments with a friend’s phone in the same room. (Of course, this is the U.S. so an exact correspondence is unlikely; still, I think it was instructive.)

The time (according to the timer on my phone) until their phone actually started ringing, was an average of about 6 seconds. The time until their voice mail even activated was about 28 seconds. (I averaged 3 tries.)

I think you’re wrong about those phone call records. They are records of “attempts,” including unconnected attempts. I don’t know why you think the phone company records only connected calls. Attempted calls are recorded because they can be, not just because they use up phone “minutes.” Perhaps they are recorded mainly for police investigations, but we know that they are. There is a column in that table, I believe, that indicates whether or not a call connected or not. (I think going to voice mail is not the same as connecting.) Some of those calls connected; some didn’t. I suppose our Italian readers can shed more light on which column indicates “connection status.”

So Meredith’s phone might not even have rung for the 3- or 4-second calls. In the 16-second call, Meredith’s phone probably didn’t even go to voice mail.

Posted by Earthling on 08/06/11 at 07:17 PM | #

Welshy,

In addition to my learned colleagues comments above, I want to add one thing.

Meredith would be the last person on earth to set her phone to divert to voicemail after such a short time. If you read-up you’ll learn she was very close to her mum, and it was a huge priority to her to be accessible to her day or night. Diverting all her incoming calls to voicemail after only 3 or 4 seconds just doesnt fit with these facts which we know to be absolutely true.

The only possible explanation that fits all the facts is the one outlined above by The Machine.

Posted by Spencer on 08/06/11 at 07:28 PM | #

Over at the Wikipedia page on Meredith Kercher, user “Cody Joe Bibby” has added the following libellous statement to the discussion page:

“brmull is now posting on the anti-Knox hate site truejustice.org. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 07:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)”

On the other hand, the page now has a ratings feature at the bottom for ‘objectivity’,‘research’ and ‘how well written it is smile

Posted by Ergon on 08/06/11 at 10:54 PM | #

Welshy,
I think Spencer raises a very valid point and I agree with Earthling. The records are kept by the phone company, but not printed on your bill - similar to the fact that the phone company can produce a record of which tower sent the signal etc - for police records or research etc

I imagine hen Massei says that Amanda let the phone ring for 4 seconds, this relates to ringing and not answering - had it rang enough to go to voicemail for 4 seconds there would no longer be discussion as to why she only let the phone ring for such a short time, it’s reasonable that one would hang up after getting to voicemail….there would be nothing strange about that. I can only assume the records in James and Kermit’s PowerPoint are of court records produced by the phone company to the police and not Meredith’s regular bill.

G

Posted by Giselle on 08/07/11 at 01:34 AM | #

Welshy,
I think Spencer raises a very valid point and I agree with Earthling. The records are kept by the phone company, but not printed on your bill - similar to the fact that the phone company can produce a record of which tower sent the signal etc - for police records or research etc

I imagine hen Massei says that Amanda let the phone ring for 4 seconds, this relates to ringing and not answering - had it rang enough to go to voicemail for 4 seconds there would no longer be discussion as to why she only let the phone ring for such a short time, it’s reasonable that one would hang up after getting to voicemail….there would be nothing strange about that. I can only assume the records in James and Kermit’s PowerPoint are of court records produced by the phone company to the police and not Meredith’s regular bill.

G

Posted by Giselle on 08/07/11 at 01:35 AM | #

“I can’t imagine anyone changing the settings on their mobile phones so that their phones only ring for a couple of seconds before going to voicemail. Amanda Knox knew Meredith was dead and couldn’t answer her mobile phones. That’s why her phone calls only lasted 3 and four seconds. There isn’t a plausible alternative explanation.”

Hi Machine, what I meant is the call will only feature on a billing if it connects. If you ring a phone for 30 seconds and there’s no answer then it doesn’t feature on the bill and the phone company will keep no records of it, if it’s answered or diverts to voicemail then the call will feature in the bill with a duration. If there’s a call that lasts for 3-4 seconds it almost always means the phone has diverted to voicemail and the caller has simply hung up. I would need the call data in respect of Meredith’s phone to confirm this, calls which divert to voicemail usually appear as an outgoing call to a number preceded by 144 (that’s in the UK anyway, although one of Meredith’s phones is a UK number so it should be in there)

As I say this is UK service providers I’m talking about. If Italian service providers are different and they retain details of calls which do not connect I would readily accept the scenario whereby Knox rings for just a few seconds.

Earthling - In the UK a phone service provider has no obligation to keep records simply to aid a police investigation, they are concerned only with profit making and anything which doesn’t make them money they’re not really interested in. They disclose the information to Police largely out of goodwill.

Giselle - I don’t mean that the data records in the presentation are simply a copy of an itemised bill which is sent to a customer, I just mean that phone companies don’t retain details of attempted calls unless they connect and they can charge the caller for using their network. Again I’m talking about the UK here, you never get details of attempted calls because, in effect, they don’t exist.

Posted by Welshy on 08/07/11 at 11:51 AM | #

Welshy, please, read carefully page 316 of english translation of Massei’s report.

Posted by ncountryside on 08/07/11 at 12:19 PM | #

Welshy, I am not in the cell phone business but logically it makes no sense for the judges to criticise Amanda for hanging up after Meredith’s phone went to voicemail. So I gather the records of unconnected calls are held. Unless you have expert knowledge in this area I would say you are mistaken. Emphasis being on the fact that this data is kept for companies own research and consumer knowledge etc but is shared with police for investigations.

Posted by Giselle on 08/07/11 at 12:39 PM | #

I have only now read through Kermit’s earlier Powerpoint (#13), which deals with the many questions Mignini ought to press if Amanda takes the stand.  Most effective & informative. See the Amanda file p.3.

Despite my spotty knowledge of this case, whose proper resolution has become a moral urgency, I do wonder about a remark attributed to Amanda & quoting (supposedly) a conversation with Raffaele as they were lying abed: namely, that there is no right or wrong, only better or worse choices. Really, did she say this? If so, why ever would she tell police?  Or is this from Raffaele? So then: what evidence for this remark?

Kermit’s Powerpoint #13 is so very powerful in demolishing the testimony so far given as well as the many contradictory remarks by these defendants (though mostly by Amanda spouting off) that I can’t see their ever testifying in their own defense. Their own lawyers would prevent it, no?

Posted by Ernest Werner on 08/07/11 at 12:54 PM | #

Welshy, Giselle, ncountryside, Earthling, Spencer and TM:

Thanks for your comments and questions regarding the mobile phone call records.

I’m the first person who is interested (along with James) to correct any errors in the presentation, or straighten out any misconceptions.

Looking into your comment, let’s go to the basis for our observations. Page 316 of the translated Massei report states the following:

“calls which are not answered do not generate phone traffic when they involve mobile subscribers of Italian [GSM] service providers; an exception is made for the Service Provider H3G which, having become operational after the entry into force of law No. 155/2005, was able to immediately organise itself, in conformity with the aims of the anti-terrorism legislation, to record all types of traffic.

An unanswered call, therefore, does not leave any trace which could be verified in the printouts.

There is however an important exception to the rule, and this exception concerns the subscribers of foreign service providers that are used in Italy, as happened with Meredith’s English mobile phone: in this case the contractual relationship between the English operator and Wind [the Italian GSM service provider] in connection with the roaming service stipulate a give-and-take relationship which is maintained even for unanswered calls.

In fact, phone traffic is also generated since the missed call is redirected to the mobile phone’s answering service, producing its own record; the unanswered calls are ultimately perfectly recognizable, since the printouts indicate the involvement of the answering service.”

In the light of this information, I think that the only type of phone call in this case which would not generate a call record (don’t narrow it to the concept of a call billing record, which necessarily generates service use and billing), is an unanswered call from an Italian mobile phone to another Italian mobile phone, when the phone is on and there is no automatic answering system activated. However, unanswered calls to foreign phones *do* provide call record information.

Let’s look at the two cases we have:


1) Amanda’s 12:11:02 call (from her Italian phone) to Meredith’s Italian phone.

We know that Meredith’s Italian phone rang audibly earlier in the morning, around 9 a.m. in Signora Elisabetta Lana’s garden, so it wasn’t turned off, nor did it have an answering machine service activated that would route automatically all calls to the answering machine without audibly ringing.

Perhaps Meredith could have had an answering machine service configured for if the phone was unanswered after ringing X times, but that type of service normally does not allow the phone owner to configure how many X times it rings (or how many seconds pass) before passing the call to the message service. Normally, it is a certain number of rings, and in any case more than 3 or 4 seconds before it is determined that no one will pick up the call, and the call is routed to voicemail.

When Meredith’s phone rang at 12:11:02, it was probably in the Postal Police office (or in transit). Amanda makes no mention of being surprised that a (police) man answered it.

Nor does she make mention that a voicemail system took the call directly without ringing, and that she did or didn’t leave a message. This situation (automatic rerouting without ringing) would have been impossible in any case that morning, since - as was mentioned - the phone rang audibly in Signora Lana’s garden.

Neither does she mention that she left a message (of the type: “Meredith, where are you? Are you OK? Filomena and I are worried because there seems to have been a break-in, in the cottage and there’s blood on the floor”). She obviously didn’t leave just a message in case the phone jumped to a message system after ringing a number of times, because just saying that sort of message takes more than 3-4 seconds.

It would be great to have the exact technical call data to know what the 3 seconds of the call related to exactly, and in particular, what Amanda heard and why she hung up after only 3 seconds.

The Massei report says: “− 12:11:02 (3 seconds) the Vodafone number 348-4673711 belonging to Meredith (this is the one [i.e. SIM card] registered to Romanelli Filomena) is called and its answering service is activated (cell used: Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector3)”

However, given the possibilities, either she hardly let it ring, or passing to an answering machine, she didn’t leave a message. (One possibility is that if the phone was already in the Postal Police office, the agents may have opened the phone, taking out its battery and SIM card, and thereby disconnecting it from coverage, and forcing the call to the answering machine that Amanda didn’t leave a message on).


2) Amanda’s 12:11:54 call (from her Italian phone) to Meredith’s English phone.

Here, according to the Massei report quoted above, it is quite possible that the 4 second duration of the call record does not relate to an automatic response, but simply a short amount of ringing (one ring ...?) before hanging up, since the call record to the foreign telephone *did* leave call record data.

The Massei report unfortunately doesn’t go into much detail: “− 12:11:54 (4 seconds): another call is made towards Meredith’s English mobile phone number (the cell used is the one in Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3, thus compatible with Sollecito’s house)”

However, this phone number was called less than 5 minutes beforehand, with a call duration (ringing, or with answering machine?) of 16 seconds.

We also know that this telephone also rang audibly in Signora Lana’s garden.

In this case (because the call record to a foreign number includes ringing) we can assume that Amanda didn’t make much effort to get through to Meredith.

Indeed, Massei says in his report (bottom of page 324 of translation, top of page 325) of this four second call: “It is strange that Amanda did not say a word to Filomena about the phone call to their flatmate, when the call, not having been answered would normally have caused anxiety and posed some questions as to why Meredith did not answer the phone at such an advanced hour of the day.”

And from page 326 of Massei: “With regard to the information that a [phone record] printout can provide, Chief Inspector Latella gave a general explanation that the [phone record] printout records everything that generates traffic; it also records calls which do not give rise to charges (e.g. free calls on the basis of promotional [marketing] campaigns). Whenever there is traffic, it is therefore registered.

The printouts ... [Kermit: I abridge] ... do not register non-connected [i.e. unsuccessful] calls, **** with the exception of those which are due to the roaming agreement where, for calls to foreign numbers, [phone] traffic records are also produced **** [Kermit: my emphasis with asterisks].

Finally, the [phone record] printouts do not contain any indications whatsoever that would allow one to determine whether a mobile phone was switched on or off; this is, in fact, a detail which is of no interest [for the records], since it does not serve to generate traffic.”

=================

So, Welshy, I think all of the above reader comments, including yours, have something in them that should be taken into account. In particular, if the 3 and 4 second calls were so short, it could be either because Amanda hung up, or also because she didn’t leave a message if an answering machine was activated and she was aware of that.

I’m correcting a few spelling errors in the presentation, and will adjust the texts accordingly to have this possibility too.

Thanks for the critically constructive eyes of all.

Posted by Kermit on 08/07/11 at 01:56 PM | #

Of course by dialing both phones she must have known that would bring attention to them. Is that because she wanted them to be found thereby providing an additional cloud of fog or something else. What do you think?

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 08/07/11 at 03:50 PM | #

Hi Grahame,

Whether the phones were in Lana’s garden by accident or not is a discussion we had before you joined.

I am firmly of the opinion that they were there by accident having been intended for the undergrowth of a ravine to the side of the garden.

I can’t see any sense as to why she would have wanted them to be found anyway.

Posted by James Raper on 08/07/11 at 04:48 PM | #

Thanks for the response Kermit! I hope you don’t think I’m picking holes in your work, the presentation is a sterling effort and an important document. None of what I’m saying diminishes the supsicious actions of AK and RS that morning ; the call to Meredith’s English phone only at 12:07 makes no sense if AK is so concerned with getting hold of her for example and the fact she never mentions the call to Romanelli is highly suspicious, but I do think we need to be careful not to overstate certain aspects of the telecommunication evidence.

Ok, as I thought the 3 second call from Knox to Meredith’s Italian phone at 12:11 does indeed divert to voicemail. Since, as Massei confirms, Italian service providers do not keep details of unsuccessful/unanswered calls it must be the case that the 3 second duration of this call is consistent with Knox hanging up the phone soon after the voicemail activates - something which you see all the time when analysing call data records. Therefore, it’s not possible to conclude that the call was very short because the likelihood is that the phone would have rung a number of times before diverting.

In respect of Meredith’s English phone,I can see that the roaming agreement between Meredith’s uk service provider and the Italian service provider results in all phone traffic being recorded. This can include unconnected calls. The question is does the 4 second duration of this call refer to Knox just ringing for 4 seconds or does Meredith’s phone divert to voicemail again and Knox simply hang up again before the automated message like she did with Meredith’s Italian phone? The truth is, I don’t know. I would need to see Meredith’s incoming and outgoing records to establish this. Or the forensic download of her handset. We do know that Meredith does have an active voicemail because she dials it late on the evening of 01/11/07.

I do think it’s telling that Massei doesn’t suggest that the 3 and 4 second calls are suspicous because of an apparent ‘short’ duration. In my opinion, neither should we.

There’s lots of things I find suspicious about Sollecito’s phone traffic on the morning/afternoon of the 1st by the way…I really would like to see those records.

Posted by Welshy on 08/07/11 at 05:16 PM | #

Hi Graheme/James

It would not make any sense for them to want Meredith’s phones to be found.  One can only assume she rang the numbers so there would be a record on her own phone to show she had endeavoured to contact Meredith.  Two things always puzzled me about this action; why they didn’t switch the phones off to ensure they would not be found; and whether any fingerprints were found.

Posted by Lola on 08/07/11 at 06:14 PM | #

Lola,

I think the killers wanted the phones to be geolocated, far from the cottage, to throw the police off track. That’s why they left them on.

As to why Amanda called only the English phone at 12:07, it suggests she may have known that the phones were together but I don’t think we can be sure.

Posted by bmull on 08/08/11 at 12:50 AM | #

Thank you Kermit for the thorough explanation - once again shedding light on the facts.

Posted by Giselle on 08/08/11 at 04:41 AM | #

Like many I have been logging onto this site since 2007 - this is my first post.  Thank you all for all for your work on this site.  It’s marvelous and an invaluable source of truthful information - a breath of fresh air after all those ridiculous (but damaging) posts from FOA all over the web. Great work.

A thought on the premeditation issue.  It occurs to me that they did want to get her on Halloween but failed.  I think AF was so incensed that Lumumba had given “her job” to Meredith, when Meredith was actually okay for money that she wanted to “kill 2 birds with one stone” by murdering Meredith and implicating Lumumba; possibly setiing Rudy up as the fall guy - knowing that he fancied both AF and possibly Meredith too, it would have been easy to persuade him to come over.  The fact that Meredith’s rent money was missing tells me AF probably used it to buy drugs, possibly from Rudy.  I think there’s more to this premeditation theory but it would be extremely difficult to prove which is probably why the prosecution didn’t try. 

I think that is some way it was definitely premeditated.  The fact they turned their phones off is proof of that.

Once again many thanks for presenting the truth so clearly

Posted by Earthdog on 08/08/11 at 08:08 AM | #

To all readers,

Given the interest in this presentation, and the positive contribution of the commenters here and through emails that we have received, we have updated the presentation file.

There aren’t any radical changes, mostly minor improvements or corrections (e.g. “marijuano” to “marijuana”).

The discussion here about Amanda’s phone calls to Meredith’s mobile phones on the morning of 2 November 2007 has provided some changes to those points.

As always, please do continue to discuss this crime and the trial. Confusion, obscurity and oblivion are the friends of injustice.

This presentation, as well as any others past or future are open to updating and further development.

Regards, Kermit

Posted by Kermit on 08/08/11 at 12:54 PM | #

Thank you Kermit
            As always just a wonderful presentation. Thank you also for removing all the confusion and the obvious attemps to derail the process such as the latest silliness from Ground Report.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 08/08/11 at 01:07 PM | #

James and Kermit,
You’ve both done incredible work on this illustrated synthesis of the case. Thanks for the mighty valuable effort. I’m still reading it and thinking. I’d like to add a quality response, but my head’s still spinning from weeks of focus on a wedding we attended out of state.

I came home and vegged in front of TV. In channel surfing there flashed a poster of “Feist”. Feist was the Canadian singer whose music Amanda sang during recesses in the trial.

Feist was part of a band called “Broken Social Scene”. Her hits included “1234, Tell Me that You Love Me More” and “I Feel It All”.

The lyrics are 100% Amanda-esque.

Here are bits from the song, “I Feel It All”:

“Oh I’ll be the one who’ll break my heart/I’ll be the one to hold the gun/I know more than I knew before….......

“I didn’t rest I didn’t stop/Did we fight or did we talk”

“I love you more/I don’t know what I knew before/But now I know/I wanna win the war

No one likes to take a test/Sometimes you know more is less/Put your weight against the door/Kick drum on the basement floor/Stranded in a fog of words….I’ll end it though you started it/The truth lies/The truth lied/And lies divide…”

“I feel it all, I feel it all/The wings are wide, the wings are wide/Wild card inside…..(repeat)”

 

Photos in your post made me wonder if that was a costume wedding dress Amanda wore in YouTube, the one that showed her partying in a formal white dress. She wore long white gloves with it and in her hand she held a red cup.

I also wonder what was written on the newspaper that stuck to the leg of Meredith’s chair when they shoved it back under her desk at same time someone possibly moved the Oxford Dictionary. It’s of no great consequence perhaps, but sometimes these things are symbolic.

Thank you again Kermit and James for assembling so much pertinent information in an easy format. The final photo of a smiling Meredith was nice: The End Crowns the Work.

Posted by Hopeful on 08/08/11 at 03:39 PM | #

@Hopeful, you said “the final photo of a smiling Meredith was nice”.

Indeed, it’s important for us all to constantly be going back to Meredith.

I also included the perhaps silly photo of her smiling through 7 “cells” in the sequence of slides concerning The Double DNA Knife, because I thought of an anecdote I heard about a coroner: everytime she (the coroner) initiates an autopsy, she audibly says or just thinks: “Joe (name of victim), let’s do a good job of this and make sure that you get the opportunity to declare whatever you can, in the investigation and trial for your murder”.

For me it would be a shame if a million dollar Public Relations contract and all the self-interested activities of the Knox Entourage were able to silence or distort the bits and pieces that Meredith has to tell about what happened in the cottage on 1 November 2007.

I personally say to Dr. Stefanoni “bravo” for salvaging a weak, but clear passage of Meredith’s “voice”, so as to enable her (Meredith’s) “testimony”.

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

Kermit: I loved the 7 cells, each with Meredith’s smiling face peaking out of them. Brilliant! And more than symbolic: each of those few cells did indeed contain a copy of the DNA that created that face, and that DNA was extracted, amplified, and determined to be there by Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni (my hero).

The exact match-up between the Kercher Meredith Susanna Cara result and the Evidence 36bis result was amazing to see. There are no obvious “stutters” there, that I can see. Actually, the main point is, every peak that should be there, is. Even Dr. Vecchiotti admitted on the stand last week that that profile was “complete.”

Let me repeat: Dr. Stefanoni is my hero. smile

Posted by Earthling on 08/08/11 at 04:49 PM | #

Dear Kermit and Hopeful
Amen to that

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 08/08/11 at 04:50 PM | #

It seems that the FOA have been resuscitating the same old lie they’ve been circulating for years now, that the Kerchers are motivated by the money they’ll “collect” by suing those found guilty of killing their daughter, and who released the crime scene video.

Go to Huffington Post for several examples of how disgusting, how slimy they can be

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/30/amanda-knox-trial-battle_n_913931.html

But what really shocked me was a comment from FOA Doug Bremner, a doctor, no less, repeating the same thing on his “before you take that pill” website.

Posted by Ergon on 08/08/11 at 10:18 PM | #

Hi Ergon. The financial awards were routine in Italian law and were actually arrived at by the Massei court. The Kercher family lawyer briefly explained the precedents to the court at trial at the end of 2009 and that was all. The court then took over.

The awards have not even been challenged by Knox’s or Sollecito’s lawyers in the present appeal - they are going for all or nothing in terms of getting them off rather than taking a softer position which could have included trying to reduce the wards. Foolish move? It looks to me it is as chances of RS or AK getting off entirely are very slim.. 

As you know, given the marketability of high-profile perps in the world (sadly perps can do way better than the victims if still alive or their families) courts order such awards to slow the cashing in.  Doug Bremner should ask his lawyer sister Anne what she would have asked for. Righly and fairly, she has asked for big awards in court. Victims and their families deserve no less.

In fact we don’t know of any American lawyer who considers the awards to be excessive given the huge money-making potential of the three convicted perps (well maybe not Guede) over the next several years. (That potential probably fades fast after then.) Casey Anthony in the US who was found not guilty is shopping around for huge sums and may get them though she is wildly unpopular compared to Knox.

The civil award to the Goldman family when they won the wrongful death suit against OJ Simpson, was for $33,500,000. Scroll down to “Wrongful death civil trial” here below to see how very hard Simpson tried to avoid paying the “unfair” award even though the courts kept intervening for the Goldmans to press him. (It was his bizarre moves to avoid paying which became an obsession that now have him in prison in north Nevada.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson

John Kercher in one of his articles in UK newspapers said that Meredith’s death and fighting for justice for her has cost them a small fortune and they get little help from the Italian government and none at all from any other source. They refuse to do anything at all to raise money such as creating a fund or running fund-raisers or going on TV or appointing a PR front man for the media.





Comments here are closed for now. Apologies all. After this comment (#100) no more have been showing up.

The problem does not apply to other threads. We’ll do a software upgrade and hope that takes care of it.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 08/09/11 at 08:17 AM | #

Come September 5th it is anticipated that any hand rubbing/salivating producing cash dream bubble of the Knox & Mellas clans shall burst after Stefanoni is expected to testify.

Stefanoni’s testimony along with that of other experienced forensic experts will demonstrate that the “independent experts” report my not have been so independent after all.

At the conclusion of next month’s appeal hearing, Edda and Chris Mellas will resort to recounting how much petty money is left from those Amanda Knox Defense Fund raisers.

I guess Edda and Chris wil make do sipping chianti while sitting on aluminum lawn chairs from their Seattle backyard instead of from that grand Italian villa they’ve been pining for ever since their daughter brutally murdered poor Meredith Kercher.

Posted by True North on 08/09/11 at 10:18 AM | #

Peter, this is why I comment so often on the subject:

a) I am convinced of the guilt of the three accused

b) I detest the PR agency based tactics used by the Amandii.

c) The Kerchers are a family that faced the horrific death of their daughter with courage and decency.

As long as attempts are made to subvert the course of justice or slime them with personal attacks, I will speak up.

Posted by Ergon on 08/09/11 at 12:46 PM | #


Make a comment

If you are reading this please log in to post a comment.

Smileys



Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry It Looks Like There Could Be A Major Realignment of Italian Politics In The Near Future

Or to previous entry Eleventh Appeal Session: Judge Overrules Defense Objections and Stefanoni Will Return to the Stand