So many of Amanda Knox’s high-profile supporters such as Frank Sforza, Candace Dempsey, Doug Preston, Bruce Fischer, Nina Burleigh and Steve Moore have something in common - they have cynically tried to make a profit from Meredith’s tragic murder.
Now we turn our big guns on tendentious DNA expert and Johnny-come-lately Dr Peter Gill. When Gill tried to cast doubt on the bra clasp and knife evidence with copious innuendo in the media early in 2014, it was a fairly safe bet that a book would follow suit.
Predictably, Gill’s book Misleading DNA Evidence: Reasons for Miscarriages of Justice was published later that year in June.
This first in a series of posts about Gill draws on some excellent previous posts - please do read in particular Fly By Night and Olleosnep, Machiavelli and KrissyG.
In this article I will explain the weak basis for his claims about the Meredith Kercher case and examine them to see whether he did real research.
Any hopes that Peter Gill did meticulously research the Meredith Kercher case before writing his book are almost immediately dashed. He embarrassingly refers to Meredith as “Meridith”. Is it too much to expect him to be able to spell the victim’s name correctly, especially when he is putting himself forward as an expert on the case and using his DNA credentials to bolster his credibilty?
In three specific places in his book, he refers to the case as a “miscarriage of justice” even though at the time Knox and Sollecito were still appealing their convictions for murder and sexual assault back in 2009. The appeal judge Judge Nencini then also found them guilty of murder and sexual assault in Florence in 2013.
Peter Gill was never in a position where he could conclude there had been a miscarriage of justice. Unlike the judges and lay judges, he hadn’t attended any of the court hearings in Perugia or Florence, he doesnt speak any Italian, and he has never been to the two labs that processed the DNA in Rome.
Upstanding forensic scientists limit their comments solely to their specific area of expertise, and they allow the courts to ultimately decide whether defendants are guilty or not guilty - and not act as partisan advocates. That’s certainly the stance Peter Gill took when replying to an e-mail to TJMK poster Swansea Jack on 28 June 2014.
Thanks for your email.
I cant control how people interpret my comments. I am not getting involved in a debate that specifically addresses the ulitmate issue of innocence/guilt of individuals since that is the purpose of the court. I can only comment on the probative value of the DNA evidence. I dont know definitively how the DNA was transferred - I simply make a list of all of the possibilities. I dont comment on the non-DNA evidence.
It was dishonest of Peter Gill to claim he wasn’t getting involved in a debate that specifically addressed the ultimate issue of innocence or guilt when he had already done that by categorically stating the convictions of Knox and Sollecito were a “miscarriage of justice” in his book.
It wasn’t the first time Peter Gill had blown backwards and forwards on an important topic and made contradictory comments. Here is judicial criticism of some of his comments during his testimony at the Omagh bomb trial.
Dr Peter Gill, an exponent of the Low Copy Number DNA technique, conceded some of the results presented in the bomb trial were “valueless”.
Mr Justice Weir warned Dr Gill about “blowing backwards and forwards” on “an important topic”.
The judge said it was “very unhelpful” to give apparently contradictory evidence. Sean Hoey denies 58 charges, including 29 murders in Omagh in 1998.
Mr Hoey is a 37-year-old electrician from Molly Road, Jonesborough in County Armagh.
Low Copy Number DNA - a technique whereby DNA profiles can be obtained from samples containing only a few cells - is an important part of the prosecution case.
Dr Gill had been asked to comment on claims that control samples tested at the same time as parts of a device in Lisburn had come up positive for Mr Hoey’s DNA type.
That finding, said defence QC Orlando Pownall, should have meant that the tests were run again. The fact that they weren’t meant the results were invalid, he claimed.
“I think it invalidates the result,” Dr Gill agreed.
Dr Gill was also challenged over what appeared to be conflicting evidence on the reliability of Low Copy Number DNA testing.
Mr Pownall was questioning him about the amounts of DNA below which results could be relied on.
Giving evidence, Dr Gill said at a certain DNA level information taken from the results could be “informative”.
But Mr Pownall pointed out that in papers Dr Gill had written on the subject he had said that at that level the results were “uninformative”.
Mr Justice Weir intervened to say it “seems rather an important topic on which to be blowing backwards and forwards on.
In July 2016, Peter Gill wrote an academic paper about the Meredith Kercher case for Forensic Science Genetics: Analysis and implications of the miscarriages of justice of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. He made the following false claims:
“The final judgement exonerated the defendants” and “Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were exonerated in March 2015”.
Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito weren’t exonerated in March 2015 - they were merely acquitted with the weakest language available under Italian law.
There is a significant difference here. They were acquitted under paragraph 2 of article 530, which is merely an insufficient evidence acquittal. Had they been acquitted under paragraph one of article 530, then that would have been a definitive acquittal or exoneration.
Judge Bruno and Judge Marasca, the Supreme Court judges who acquitted them, said it was likely they would have convicted Knox and Sollecito of Meredith Kercher’s murder if the police hadn’t made claimed errors in their investigation:
“If it were not for the weak investigation and if the investigation had not been affected by guilty omissions, the court would, in all likelihood, be allowed right now to outline a framework, if not on absolute certainty at least of tranquil reliability, in view of the guilt Knox and Sollecito for killing the British student Meredith Kercher in Perugia on Nov. 1, 2007.”
Bruno and Marasca stated Meredith had been killed by Rudy Guede and others. They also said it’s certain that Amanda Knox was at the cottage when Meredith was killed and she washed Meredith’s blood off in the small bathroom. Furthermore, they said Sollecito was probably there. It’s not difficult to work out who the others are. Bruno and Marasca didn’t exonerate Knox and Sollecito - they clearly implicated them in Meredith’s murder.
I don’t know whether Peter Gill knows about Bruno and Marasca’s comments. If he doesn’t know about them, it was remiss of him not to read the whole report and refer to these comments in his academic paper. If he does know about them, he’s guilty of deliberately misleading the forensic community as well as the general public.
Is it just a coincidence that filmmakers responsible for the Netflix documentary Amanda Knox also cherrypicked comments made by Bruno and Marasca which were favourable to Knox and Sollecito, but completely ignored all their comments which were not?
Amanda Knox’s advocates in the media have always brushed inconvenient facts under the carpet. Their intention has always been to persuade the public that she’s innocent - not inform them and let them make up their own minds. Anyone who deliberately hides information that shows Knox and Sollecito in a bad light doesn’t care about Meredith or truth and justice.
More to come.]]>
[Video above: Sollecito slams Knox’s weird behavior; video below: Sollecito exhibits his own weird behavior]
He who comes to court for compensation must come with clean hands.
Dr Maresca’s comment quoted below is relevant and fully justified. It is not to be overlooked that in addition to the lies and suspicious behaviour we have a “definitive” (joke) judgement that also says that Knox and probably Sollecito were present in the cottage at the time of the murder.
Even if Sollecito was not then he had good cause to believe that Knox was, yet before and after his police statement he did everything he could to obfuscate the fact and mislead investigators and prosecutors, all the while trying to dig himself out of a hole.
That adds up to a number of additional criminal offences he has committed but for which he has escaped sanction. In addition who can doubt that at the very least he had a part in, or knowledge of, the burglary staging (not criticized by the 5th Chambers), and the subsequent removal of blood traces (the evidence for which which the 5th Chamber basically ignored).
‘Doubts Remain about Sollecito’s Acquittal by Maresca’
(ANSA) - PERUGIA, Feb. 12 - The lawyer Francesco Maresca, who represents the family of Meredith Kercher, commented on the decision of the Tuscan capital judges to reject the claim for unjust detention by the young man from Puglia.
“The Court of Appeal of Florence confirms the uncertainty related to the acquittal of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox will remain in the history of Italian justice for all the unresolved doubts that it leaves”.
According to the lawyer “It confirms the statements and behavior of the young pair as a justification for custody and reminds us of the fact that the Supreme Court has placed them still in the house of the crime, so it really does seem that this absolution was to be refused at all costs.”
This is a repeat of my post of almost exactly three years ago which reveals an incriminating behavior pattern for sure.
A very strong case for guilt has been made at trial and endorsed at the first-level appeal…
The focus of this post… is upon the described behaviours of Knox and Sollecito, from the very beginning for a full week.
The early pointer of the staged break-in aside this behaviour gave investigators an insight into the pair’s possible involvement back on Day One: Behavioral pointers have continued on a par with corroborated developments in the case.
It has even continued, incredibly, since their release from prison. For me it is the thread that runs through this case having as much to do with the overall picture of culpability as the other elements .
This behaviour - to include what they have to say for themselves - is a catalogue of the inappropriate, of the implausible, of inconsistencies and contradictions, of evasions and obfuscations, to be gleaned from the accounts of Knox and Sollecito themselves and highlighted in the accounts of other witnesses. It is also to be gleaned from phone and computer records.
Taken together it is a formidable body of evidence which goes to character and culpability. It cannot be attributed to a railroading job, the machinations of a corrupt and evil prosecutor or character assassination by the media. It is also implausible if not impossible to explain it as being due to naivety, confusion or some quirkiness of character.
It amounts to the pair of them concocting stories, telling lies and misleading investigators and the general public.
There are numerous items of evidence which are building blocks in the prosecution case and with which we are all familiar.
I don’t want to make this an unduly long post. Accordingly I am going to concentrate on the period up to that famous police interrogation analysed just below. As to that critical period I will be selective but it should be enough.
The Lady With The Mop?
The story (in Knox’s e-mail) that she had visited the cottage to collect a mop, have a shower and get a change of clothing, earlier on the morning of the 2nd November, but did not notice that Filomena’s window had been broken and her room trashed is just that - a made up story. It is entirely implausible and the account unreliable for a number of reasons including-
The Two Stayed At Home?
The story that Knox and Sollecito had spent the previous night (the night of Meredith’s murder) indoors, critically from 9 pm onwards, that both had slept and that Knox had been the first to rise at about 10.30 am the next morning is implausible and uncorroborated, not only because this alibi is directly contradicted by the testimony of Curatolo and Quintavalle, and Sollecito’s statement to the police that Knox had gone out and not returned until about 1 am, but also in view of the following facts.
GCM: Can you say what time this was?
AK: umm, around, umm, we ate around 9.30 or 10, and then after we had eaten, and he was washing the dishes, well, as I said, I don’t look at the clock much, but it was around 10. And…he…umm…well, he was washing the dishes and, umm, the water was coming out and he was very bummed, displeased, he told me he had just had that thing repaired. He was annoyed that it had broken again. So…umm
LG: Yes, so you talked a bit. Then what did you do?
AK: Then we smoked a joint together……we made love…..then we fell asleep.
The Fake Call To Knox’s Mum in Seattle?
Knox falsely claims in her book that having had her shower she called her mother on her way back to Sollecito’s apartment as she was beginning to have concerns as to what she had seen at the cottage. Her mother tells her to raise her concerns with Raffaele and the other flatmates and Knox says that she then immediately called Filomena. Filomena tells her to get hold of Meredith by phone which she tries to do by calling Meredith’s English phone first, then her Italian one.
“….and I returned to Raffaele’s place. After we had used the mop to clean up the kitchen I told Raffaele about what I had seen in the house over breakfast. The strange blood in the bathroom, the door wide open, the shit in the toilet. He suggested I call one of my roommates, so I called Filomena………..
Filomena seemed really worried so I told her I’d call Meredith and then call her back. I called both of Meredith’s phones the English one first and last and the Italian one in between. The first time I called the English phone it rang and then sounded as if there was disturbance, but no one answered. I then called the Italian phone and it just kept ringing, no answer. I called the English phone again and this time an English voice told me the phone was out of service.”
Ist call of the day @ 12.07.12 (to Meredith’s English phone) - 16 seconds
2nd call @ 12.08.44 (to Filomena) - 68 seconds
3rd call @ 12.11.02 (to Meredith’s Italian phone) - 3 seconds
4th call @ 12.11.54 (to Meredith’s English phone) - 4 seconds
8th call @ 12..47.23 (first call to her mother) - 88 seconds
1. In her e-mail, and repeated in her trial testimony, Knox says that she woke up around 10.30 am, grabbed a few things and walked the 5 minutes back to the cottage. If the first call to her mother was about an hour after she left the cottage (see before), then she left the cottage at about 11.47 am, which means that she spent over an hour there. Either that or she spent more (a lot more) than 20 minutes at Raffaele’s place before calling Filomena. The latter would be more likely as it is difficult to conceive that she spent over an hour at the cottage. She didn’t have the heating on when she was there. Either way there is a period of about an hour and a half between when she might have tried to contact Meredith or raise the alarm and actually doing so.
2. That we are right to be incredulous about this is borne out by the false claim in Knox‘s book. That false claim is significant and can only be because Knox is aware of the problem and feels she needs to add some support to her implausible story of the mop/shower visit and to conceal the real reasons for the inactivity and delay connected with it.
3. That it is incredible is even belatedly acknowledged by Sollecito’s feeble but revealing attempt to distance himself from Knox in a CNN interview on the 28 Feb this year. “Certainly I asked her questions” he said. “Why did you take a shower? Why did you spend so much time there?”
4. That she makes that false claim and has constantly stonewalled and/or misplaced the 16 second call to Meredith’s English phone is indicative of her guilty knowledge. Her guilty knowledge with respect to the 16 second call was that it was made to ascertain whether or not the phones had been located before she called Filomena, and hence for her it was not (incredulous though this is without such explanation) a pertinent fact for her to bring up with Filomena.
The Real Call To Knox’s Mum In Seattle?
As to the 12.47 call to her mother itself (4.47 am Seattle time and prior to the discovery of Meredith‘s body) Knox not only did not mention that in her e-mail but in her trial testimony she steadfastly declined to recall that it had occurred.
She clearly did not want, or could not be trusted, to discuss why the call had occurred and what had transpired in conversation with her mother before the discovery of Meredith’s body.
Not only was the timing of the 12.47 call inconvenient to her mother but I found it interesting to note from Knox’s phone records (covering 2nd Oct - 3rd November) that mother and daughter do not appear to have called or texted each other once up until that 12.47 call.
It would appear then that in so far as they remained in direct communication with each other for that period it must have been by e-mail. One can therefore imagine that her mother was very surprised to receive that call.
It is also very difficult to accept that Knox could not recall a phone call she was not in the habit of making. (On the other hand the same records show that it was not at all unusual for Knox and Meredith to communicate with other on Meredith’s English phone.)
Sollecito’s Call From His Dad?
At the cottage, and prior to the above call, Sollecito received a call from his father at 12.40 am. Do we know what they discussed? It would in any event have been after the discovery of Filomena’s broken window and (allegedly) Sollecito’s (rather feeble) attempt to beak down Meredith’s door.
Did the responsible adult advise his son to do the obvious and call the police? One would think so, but then why was there a 10 minute delay before he called his sister in the Carabinieri at 12.50 am? Indeed, why call his sister at all? Filomena had also urged Knox to call the police when she called at 12.35.The delay might be explained by the unexpected arrival of the postal police and if this was the case then it was before Sollecito called the 112 emergency services.
The Claims Of Finding Meredith’s Body?
Neither Knox nor Sollecito saw into Meredith’s room when the door was broken down and her body discovered on the floor under a quilt. Yet in the immediate aftermath it is as if they have wanted others to believe that it was they who discovered her body and in the bragging about this there have been disclosures, not only as to what they should not have been aware but also suggestive of disturbed personalities. This behaviour was remarkable for all the wrong reasons.
“Yes I knew her. I found her body.”
“It is something I never hope to see again,” he said. “There was blood everywhere and I couldn’t take it all in.”
“My girlfriend was her flatmate and she was crying and screaming, ‘How could anyone do this?’”
About the only thing that is true here is that he knew Meredith.]]>
Sollecito, represented by his attorneys throughout the process, Avvocato Giulia Bongiorno and Luca Maori, is currently claiming compensation for ‘wrongful imprisonment’.
This claim now before a Florence court is in respect of the four years he served of a sentence of 25 years handed down for the Aggravated Murder of Meredith Kercher, 1 Nov 2007.
The conviction was controversially overturned by the final Italian Supreme Court in March 2015, and its Motivational Report published – some three months late – in September 2015.
It was only then Sollecito was able to commence compensation proceedings, as the Italian Penal Code provides for this, given its long-winded legal process whereby defendants accused of serious crimes (i.e., one with a sentence of over three years custody) can be held on remand whilst awaiting trial. In theory, this should only be for up to one year.
The Florence panel of three women judges indicated over a week ago that their decision could be expected by last Friday. Why the further delay? Well, a major reason could be that, far from finding Sollecito “innocent”, the Marasca-Bruno Supreme Court ruling in fact did him few favors and the judges may be having a hard time grappling with that.
They will also know of Dr Mignini’s explosive contention that two articles of the judicial code were flouted and the case should have been referred back down to the appeal court (the same Florence court!) if there were evidence problems.
The Marasca/Bruno verdict is considered controversial because Sollecito and his co-defendant, Amanda Knox had been found guilty at the first instance trial court (merits), which was upheld on appeal.
It is unusual for the Supreme Court to have not remitted the case back to the Appeal (second instance) court as the Penal Code – as is standard in the UK and the USA – does not allow the Supreme Court to assess facts found at trial.
The correct procedure is to send the disputed evidence back to the court which in the opinion of the Supreme court erred. Marasca did not rule a Section 530,1 ‘Not Guilty’ acquittal, but a Section 530, 2 ‘Not Guilty’ ‘insufficient evidence’, which some say is similar to Scottish Law, ‘Not Proven’. However, the wording used, proscioglimento indicates a pre-trial ‘charges dropped’, rather than ‘acquittal’ (assoluzione).
Sollecito and Knox made several applications against being held in custody whilst awaiting trial and were turned down at every stage, including appeals and an application for ‘house arrest’ in lieu.
The prosecution opposed the application on the grounds of the seriousness of the crime, and in Knox’ case, the standard ground that she might flee the country, as a foreigner to Italy. In addition, the prosecution had used special preventative powers to isolate the defendants (Knox, Sollecito and Guede) to prevent tampering with witnesses, a power which had been added to the Penal Code to assist in the fight against mafia gangs who did intimidate witnesses, often through their lawyers.
Therefore the law allowed the prosecutors to deny the defendants an attorney until just before their remand hearings.
However, the award of compensation for having (a) been held in remand, and (b) serving a sentence until such time the conviction was overturned, is not automatic. The applicant has to show that they are factually ‘not guilty’, i.e., cannot possibly have committed the crime, perhaps because the ‘real perpetrator’ has come to light, or ‘new evidence’ presented.
Neither of these scenarios apply in Sollecito’s case. Whilst a defendant is allowed to ‘lie’ and indeed, does not need to swear an oath in testifying, this only holds true if they are guilty. Marasca did not find Sollecito or Knox, ‘Not Gulty’ as per Article 530,1, the common or garden ‘Not Guilty’ verdict.
Further, Sollecito refused to testify at his own trial, and made various misrepresentations and lies to the police. He argues in current tv and radio show rounds – for example, in the recent Victoria Derbyshire BBC morning show – that as he was a ‘collector of knives’ and had always carried a knife around since age thirteen, ‘To carve on tables and trees’, he explains, and thus argues, the police should not have viewed this with suspicion when he attended the questura carrying one in the days after the murder.
Sollecito’s other difficulty is that Marasca, whilst criticising the investigation as ‘flawed’, and this being the main reason for acquittal, it nonetheless cuts Sollecito little slack.
From the Marasca Supreme Court Motivational Report, Sept 2015 (boldface added):
It remains anyway strong the suspicion that he [Sollecito] was actually in the Via della Pergola house the night of the murder, in a moment that, however, it was impossible to determine. On the other hand, since the presence of Ms. Knox inside the house is sure, it is hardly credible that he was not with her.
And even following one of the versions released by the woman, that is the one in accord to which, returning home in the morning of November 2. after a night spent at her boyfriend’s place, she reports of having immediately noticed that something strange had happened (open door, blood traces everywhere); or even the other one, that she reports in her memorial, in accord to which she was present in the house at the time of the murder, but in a different room, not the one in which the violent aggression on Ms. Kercher was being committed, it is very strange that she did not call her boyfriend, since there is no record about a phone call from her, based on the phone records within the file.
Even more if we consider that having being in Italy for a short time, she would be presumably uninformed about what to do in such emergency cases, therefore the first and maybe only person whom she could ask for help would have been her boyfriend himself, who lived only a few hundred meters away from her house.
Not doing this signifies Sollecito was with her, unaffected, obviously, the procedural relevance of his mere presence in that house, in the absence of certain proof of his causal contribution to the murderous action.
The defensive argument extending the computer interaction up to the visualization of a cartoon, downloaded from the internet, in a time that they claim compatible with the time of death of Ms. Kercher, is certainly not sufficient to dispel such strong suspicions. In fact, even following the reconstruction claimed by the defence and even if we assume as certain that the interaction was by Mr. Sollecito himself and that he watched the whole clip, still the time of ending of his computer activity wouldn’t be incompatible with his subsequent presence in Ms. Kercher’s house, given the short distance between the two houses, walkable in about ten [sic] minutes.
An element of strong suspicion, also, derives from his confirmation, during spontaneous declarations, the alibi presented by Ms. Knox about the presence of both inside the house of the current appellant the night of the murder, a theory that is denied by the statements of Curatolo, who declared of having witnessed the two together from 21:30 until 24:00 in piazza Grimana; and by Quintavalle on the presence of a young woman, later identified as Ms. Knox, when he opened his store in the morning of November 2.
An umpteenth element of suspicion is the basic failure of the alibi linked to other, claimed human interactions in the computer of his belongings, albeit if we can’t talk about false alibi, since it’s more appropriate to speak about unsuccessful alibi.
Sollecito in his police interview of the 5 Nov 2007, shortly after which he was arrested, withdrew his alibi from Amanda Knox. During the Nencini appeal phase, he and his advocate, Bongiorno, called a press conference to underline that Sollecito ‘could not vouch for Knox’ whereabouts between 8:45 pm and 1:00 am on the night of the murder. Sollecito has never once retracted this withdrawal of an alibi for Amanda.
Further, Judges Marasca and Bruno state:
The defensive argument extending the computer interaction up to the visualization of a cartoon, downloaded from the internet, in a time that they claim compatible with the time of death of Ms. Kercher, is certainly not sufficient to dispel such strong suspicions.
In fact, even following the reconstruction claimed by the defence and even if we assume as certain that the interaction was by Mr. Sollecito himself and that he watched the whole clip, still the time of ending of his computer activity wouldn’t be incompatible with his subsequent presence in Ms. Kercher’s house, given the short distance between the two houses, walkable in about ten [sic] minutes.
Sollecito had claimed he was surfing the internet until 3:00 am in one statement and claimed to have watched Naruto cartoon until 9:45 pm on the murder night. It winds up:
The technical tests requested by the defence cannot grant any contribution of clarity, not only because a long time has passed, but also because they regard aspects of problematic examination (such as the possibility of selective cleaning) or of manifest irrelevance (technical analysis on Sollecito’s computer) given that is was possible, as said, for him to go to Kercher’s house whatever the length of his interaction with the computer (even if one concedes that such interaction exists), or they are manifestly unnecessary, given that some unexceptionable technical analysis carried out are exhaustive (such are for example the cadaver inspection and the following medico-legal examinations).
Leading to the verdict:
Following the considerations above, it is obvious that a remand [rinvio] would be useless, hence the declaration of annulment without remand, based on art. 620 L) of the procedure code, thus we apply an acquittal [proscioglimento *] formula [see note just below] which a further judge on remand would be anyway compelled to apply, to abide to the principles of law established in this current sentence.
*[Translator’s note: The Italian word for “acquittal” is actually “assoluzione”; while the term “proscioglimento” instead, in the Italian Procedure Code, actually refers only to non-definitive preliminary judgments during investigation phase, and it could be translated as “dropping of charges”. Note: as for investigation phase “proscioglimento” is normally meant as a non-binding decision, not subjected to double jeopardy, since it is not considered a judgment nor a court’s decision.] http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Marasca-Bruno_Report_(English)
Sollecito has clearly passed the first hurdle of being eligible to have a hearing for compensation. His legal team have asked for the maximum €516,000. A claimant who can successfully plead ‘wrongful imprisonment’ can claim €500, per diem imprisonment, up to a cap of €516,000.
Sollecito’s legal team have referred to Marasca’s criticism of the investigation as grounds for the full compensation, claiming Sollecito’s “innocence and loss of youthful endeavours” because of the ‘flaws’. Problem is, the issue of investigative flaws was never pleaded at trial, or at least, not upheld, by either the trial or appeal court judge. Marasca never really explains in which way this was a proven fact.
The Prosecutor’s Office based at Florence is opposing the application. I would expect they will be relying on Matteini’s remand hearing and Gemmelli’s written reasons rejecting Sollecito’s appeal against being kept in custody until the hearing.
The three judges who on 27 January 2017 in a hearing listed for five days announced they would issue their verdict ‘within five days’, as of 7 Feb 2017, some seven working days later, have yet to make a decision. Alternatively, the decision has been made, but the public and press have not yet accessed it. It could be Sollecito’s legal team have yet to call a press conference, whilst they study the findings.
The Florence panel of judges will have to decide:
Watch this space for the decision! Also Sollecito has made noises that he plans further legal action against the prosecutor, based on Marasca’s criticisms in the Motivational Report. Watch for that too.
Sources: The Murder of Meredith Kercher com True Justice for Meredith Kercher]]>
The ill-prepared Victoria Derbyshire was snowed.
Sollecito was convicted ONCE and not ever found “innocent”. The verdict was that he was probably at the scene of the crime, and Knox definitely so. And that fail was despite a mighty effort to corrupt two Italian courts.
Who knows what new tricks behind the scenes are being played now? But if the Florence judge really studies the record of the early days, there is no way in which Sollecito gets paid.
He ADMITTED on 5-6 November 2007 that he had lied to the cops, because Knox made him do so. That same night he signed a confession to that effect. Lying to the cops is itself a crime.
And Sollecito was treated extremely fairly throughout. He and Knox had half a dozen judicial hearings even before the 2009 trial began.
He and Knox failed to win release at every one - all the judges ending with Judge Micheli who wrote up the case against them at length turned his pleas down, moving him from prison to mere house arrest being one.
One of Sollecito’s and Knox’s failed attempts at being sprung before trial was an appeal directly to the Supreme Court (amazing - try that in the UK or US!).
Our translation by Catnip of the Gemelli judgment is highly worth a read (there is a similar judgement for Knox) as the Florence court has to decide: did the Gemmeli court act unfairly in light of the list of evidence here?
Gemelli Court Decision on Raffaele Sollecito’s 2008 Appeal (English)
Held: the decision to continue pre-trial prison detention for the suspect was reasonable.
THE REPUBLIC OF ITALY
IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE
THE SUPREME COURT OF CASSATION
SECTION 1 CRIMINAL DIVISION
Comprised of the most Honourable Justices:
Dr Torquato GEMELLI - President -
Dr Emilio Giovanni GIRONI - Member -
Dr Maria Cristina SIOTTO - Member -
Dr Umberto ZAMPETTI - Member -
Dr Margherita CASSANO - Member -
have pronounced the following JUDGMENT on the appeal lodged by:
(1) RS, born on X, against Order of 30/11/2007 Liberty Court of Perugia;
having heard the relation made by Member Emilio Giovanni Gironi;
having heard the conclusions of the Prosecutor-General Dr Consolo for its rejection;
having heard the defence advocates G and T (substituting for advocate M).
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The order referred to in opening confirmed, at the Re-examination stage, the one by which the GIP [the Preliminary Investigation Magistrate] had applied pre-trial prison detention of RS for participation in the murder of MSCK, the which occurring in Perugia on the evening of the 1st of November 2007 by means of a cutting weapon, in an alleged context of sexual assault by a group, in which there would have taken part, in addition to S, his girlfriend AK and a RHG, who had left behind a palm print on the bloodied pillow on which the victim’s body was resting and whose DNA was found on the vaginal swab taken from the body of the same and on faecal traces found in a bathroom of the house that the victim was sharing with Ms AK and two Italian students.
The picture of circumstantial evidence specifically concerning S consists of the identification of a print left in haematic material present at the scene of the crime of a sports shoe held to be compatible, because its dimensions and configuration of the sole, with the type of footwear, “N” brand size 42.5, used by the suspect; of the recovery – in the kitchen of his house – of a kitchen knife bearing traces of Ms AK’s DNA on the handle and on the blade traces of Ms MK’s DNA; and of the collapse of the alibi put up by the young man (having been disproven by technical investigations carried out), in which, as asserted by him, he had interacted with his computer during the hours in which, according to the forensic pathologist’s reconstruction, the criminal fact would have occurred, that is between 22:00 and 23:00 of the 1st November 2007; from the investigations carried out up until now it would appear, in fact, that the last interaction with the machine on 1 November occurred at 21:10 and that the subsequent one took place at 5:32 the day after, when S also reactivated his mobile phone, acts witnessing thereby an agitated and sleepless night. Equally disproven was that the young man had received a phone call from his father at 23:00 on the night of the murder, it resulting, instead, that said call had happened at 20:40.
Against S, caught at the time of arrest with a switchblade initially considered compatible with the wounds found on the neck of the victim, would line up, in addition, the mutability of the stories given to the investigators by the same and by his girlfriend, having initially maintained they had remained the whole evening and night in the young man’s house, later to state, instead, that at a certain point Ms AK would have left to meet the Ivorian [sic] citizen PDL, manager of a pub in which Ms AK was undertaking casual employment, she making a returning to her boyfriend’s house only around one in the morning.
It must, finally, be added that the same Ms AK had, amongst other things, initially referred (not confirming, in any case, the thesis in confused and contradictory subsequent versions) to having taken herself to her own house with L, where this latter (he also was struck with a custody order, later revoked after the previously mentioned identification of G’s DNA) had had sexual relations with Ms MK, and to having, while she herself was in the kitchen, heard her friend scream, without, further, remembering anything else of the subsequent events, up until the occurrences of the day after, marked by the discovery of traces of blood in the small bathroom next to Ms MK’s room and culminating in the discovery of the body, after the intervention of the forces of law and order (the police appear, in particular, to have intervened prior to the call to 112 effected by S); in particular, the young woman was specifically pointing out not being able to remember whether S were also present in the victim’s house on the occasion of the events just described.
The Re-examination Court concluded recognizing, for the purposes of maintaining pre-trial detention, the persistence of all the types of pre-trial exigencies mentioned by Article 274 Criminal Procedure Code.
The S defence has indicated an appeal, on the grounds of, with new reasons as well:
- reference to Ms AK alone of the circumstantial evidence constituted by the presence of biological traces from her and from the victim on the knife found at S’s house;
- absence, at the scene of the crime, of biological traces attributable to the suspect [ndr: note, this was before the bra-clasp tests had been done];
- arbitrary transference onto S of the weighty circumstantial evidence against Ms AK, on the unfounded assumption that the pair could not have been anything but together at the moment of the homicidal fact;
- inexistent evidential value of the phases relative to the discovery of the body;
- absence of blood traces from the soles of the “N” shoes worn by the suspect even at the moment of his arrest;
- absence of any evidential value of merit, alleged failure of the alibi, constituting the use of his computer, of which the falsity has not in any case been ascertained, of the lack of interaction by the subject with the machine after the last operation at 21:10 not permitting the inference that the computer was not, however, engaged in downloading files (being, to be specific, films);
- irrelevancy of the mistake revealed between the indicated time of the phone call to the father furnished by S and the actual time of the call, given the uncertainty of the time of death of the victim, depending on the time, otherwise uncertain, of the consumption of the dinner (according to various witness statements coinciding with 18:00), it being well able, therefore, for the time indicated by the forensic pathologist (23:00) to be revised backwards to 21:00, a little before which time the witness P had referred to having made a visit to S, finding him at home and not on the verge of going out;
- interpretability of the so-called unlikelihood of the versions supplied by the suspect as attempts to cover for (aid and abet) another subject;
- attribution of the victim’s biological traces found on the knife seized at S’s house to chance contamination not related to the homicidal fact;
- insufficiency of the pre-trial exigencies, having diminished in a probative sense after the return to Italy of G; those relating to risk of flight lacking in specificity and concreteness; and with reference to the conventional content of blogs posted on the internet by the suspect, those relating to danger to society illogically reasoned;
- missing appearance of the young man’s walk, via security cameras installed along the route that the aforesaid would have had to traverse to go from his house to that of the victim’s.
THE APPEAL IS UNFOUNDED
As regards what this Court is permitted to appreciate, not being able here to proceed with a re-reading of the investigative results nor with an alternative interpretation of the factual data referred to in the custody order, the appellant defence substantially contests the recognition, as against S, of the necessary requisite of grave indicia of culpability. The question thus posed and submitted for scrutiny by this bench of the well-known limits of the competence of the court of merit, it must be held that the finding expressed by the Re-examination judges concerning the gravity of the frame of circumstantial evidence is not susceptible to censure.
Not upheld, in the first place, is the defence submission according to which the knife bearing the genetic prints of Ms AK and of Ms MK found in S’s house would constitute a piece of evidence relevant solely as against the young woman, even if privy of traces attributable to the suspect, the utensil has as always been found in the young man’s house, and the testimony acquired up until now has led to the exclusion that it formed part of the inventory of the house inhabited by the victim, and which, at the time, and until proved to the contrary, must be held to be the same available for use by the suspect and which had been used in MK’s house, there being contested no access by her to S’s house.
Given the multitude of group contributive possibilities, the fact is not significative, then, in itself being a neutral element, that on the scene of the crime there are no biological traces attributable to S, to which, in any case, is attributable the “N” brand shoe print considered compatible, by dimensions and sole configuration, with the footwear worn by the suspect at the time of arrest. Although having the same impugned order excluded, at the time, the certainty of the identification constitutes as, in any case, a certain datum that the print in question had been made in haematic material found in Ms MK’s room by a shoe of the kind and of the dimensions of those possessed by the appellant, while it remains to be excluded that this could have originated from G’s shoe, who wore a size 45 and, therefore, dimensions notably larger. The revealed coincidence, notwithstanding the residual uncertainty on the identification, assumes particular valency in relation to the restricted circle of subjects gravitating to the scene of the homicide, with not even Ms AK, who made admissions about her presence on site at the same time as the execution of the offence, excluding the presence of her boyfriend in the victim’s house in the same circumstance; nor can it be held that the print could have been left by S the following morning, he never having claimed to have entered into the room wherein the body was lying.
It does not answer, therefore, to verity that, as against the young man, there had been recognized, by a phenomenon of transference, items of circumstantial evidence in reality pointing solely to Ms AK.
The last finding held unfavourable to S is constituted by the failed proof of the alibi constituted by the argument of the suspect as having remained at home on the computer until late at night; it being a matter of, properly speaking, an alibi failing up till now and not of a false alibi and the defence, correctly, does not refute the technico-judicial valency of the circumstantial evidence, but it remains, in any case, acquired into the case file that the accused had not been able to prove his absence from the locus of the crime at the same time. An item up until now assumed as certain is, instead, the fact that S had interacted with his computer at 5:32 the morning following the murder, at around the same time reactivating his own mobile phone, a contradiction of the assumption of a waking up only at 10:00 and a symptomatic tell-tale of a more or less sleepless night; likewise as symptomatic was held to be the nearly simultaneous cessation of telephonic traffic as much by Ms AK, in his company the evening of 1 November 2007.
The proof of a permanent stay in his house by the suspect can, all told, be considered as acquired up until 20:40 – coincident with P’s visit – who confirmed his presence, or up until 21:10, the last interaction time on the computer, but this does not cover the time of the homicide, located between 22:00 and 23:00.
As for the proposed argument that S’s conduct were interpreted as aiding and abetting, this does not result, in the event, as being supported by anything emerging from the investigations and its plausibility cannot be verified by the judges of merit.
In conclusion, the Re-examination Court’s evaluation as to the gravity of the circumstantial evidence picture are removed from the audit of this court.
There remains, finally, the finding that for what concerns the pre-trial exigencies, those of a probative nature are not able to be considered as ceasing from the sole fact of G’s re-entry into Italy (amongst other things significantly never invoked in the statements by the suspect and by his girlfriend, who instead co-involved L in the proceedings), given the existence of an investigative picture in continual evolution, in which the positions of the various protagonists so far remain unclear, the changing versions of which are marked by reticence and mendaciousness (the same suspect had, in truth, admitted to having, at least initially, told ‘a load of balls’); but the permanence of pre-trial exigencies had been held reasonablely even under the aspect of flight risk, in relation to the gravity of the charges and of the potential sanctions, not to mention danger to society, given the revealed fragility of character and the specific personal traits of the subject, – which would narrowly evaluate as innocuous youthful stereotypes –, in a context the more connoted by the noted habitual use of drugs.
FOR THESE REASONS
Rejects the appeal and sentences the appellant to payment of costs of the proceedings. Article 94 para 1 ter, and activating provisions, Criminal Procedure Code, applies.
DEPOSITED IN THE REGISTRY ON 21 APRIL 2008
Mid-2015 report; El Chapo was soon captured, but escaped and was recaptured in November 2016
Who’d a known it? We are being told that the highrise prison adjacent to the courts in downtown Manhattan is maybe the US’s most escape-proof.
Well that is a relief…
The career of Sinaloa cartel leader and escape artist “El Chapo” (three escapes so far) in northern Mexico (see the great 2015 movie El Sicarrio for a fictional version) has been littered with bodies - he himself claims to have bumped off thousands.
Having escaped those three times very ingeniously from Mexican prisons, the authorities there were not unhappy to send Guzman northward. He faces his first American trial soon, in the Federal courts in Brooklyn. The Chicago courts will be his next destination.
Much of northern Mexico is a desert - actually a quite beautiful one - and the drug-transporting cartels had traditionally divided it up into corridors to run the drugs that are produced further south, especially in Colombia. The Sinaloa cartel initially settled for only the western several.
But as the video explains, a fired-up and mistrustful El Chapo set about taking over all of the corridors.
The Sinaloans are assiduous builders of long tunnels, and there are said for example to be many dozens between the Tijuana and San Diego areas.
No border wall like that being mooted is likely to have any effect on them. This is though experts say hard drugs do way more harm to society than the dwindling trickle of illegal immigrants.
See this case for example.]]>
A trial review is something that resembles what in the US would be called an “appeal”, in fact a kind of appeal that a person convicted might request, in the event that new evidence emerges that may change the verdict. The existence of new evidence is required in order to simply request a revew trial. The burden for presenting new evidence which is significant is fully on the convicted person (requesting party).
So this is what Guede was attempting to request. The “new evidence” that he was presenting as I understand was basically the points made by the Fifth Chambers of the Supreme Court, that is basically: the finding that presence at the murder is not sufficient evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt; despite it being proven the suspects were there there is still no evidence beyond reasonable doubt of their active role in the act of killing.
If that point was applied to Guede too, he could argue that there is still reasonable doubt on his participation in the murder and guilt, despite the evidence of his being on the scene of crime (as the Fifth Chambers said about Knox).
In a situation of the normal functioning of the law - where the previous judges’ decisions are actually legal - there would be no room for a review of Guede’s conviction, because in order to obtain a trial review, a convicted person has to show that given the new evidence, the overall assessment of the evidence has a significant probability to change, meaning that a court assessing all the evidence would have a significant probability to come to a different conclusion.
Now, if evidence on Rudy Guede is assessed legally by a court, there would be no significant probability that any court would come out with a different verdict, because there is in fact sufficient evidence that he took part in a murder and that he is guilty in complicity along with other culprits as the courts have already found.
Before the Florence ruling my mind was open because the situation was not a normal legal situation: we had the Fifth Chambers verdict that was making those absurd points of law potentially changing the legal landscape, they created a precedent on which Guede could have requested a different assessment of his evidence, aligned with the standards set by the Fifth Chambers.
Those standards are not normal, not legal. They are delusional. But they are in the record, and so the decision on whether to allow a re-trial of Guede would depend on (1) whether the court decides based on the normal legal standards, or (2) whether they decide based on the verdict & rationale on reasonable doubt by the Fifth Chambers.
Since there is a conflict of res iudicata any possible rationale on Guede’s request was theoretically possible.
My guess is that the Florence judges could see that based on normal legal rules it was obvious that there is no actual room for a trial review of Guede’s verdict. So they declared his request inadmissible.
The question of how to fit the decision with the Fifth Chambers Bruno/Marasca verdict is an open question, upon which the court may decide to invent something so to make it look consistent in the pending report.
It is impossible to make it *actually* consistent with the Fifth Chambers verdict, but the Florence court can’t change the Fifth Chambers verdict and the verdict is not about Guede, therefore they might just ignore it, or mention it in a way that is vague, or write arguments that are either building pretexts about it or dismissive of its implications. What they write doesn’t really matter, actually because their decision is not about Knox & Sollecito.
The Florentine court can neither find AK & RS guilty nor “acquit” them, that is they cannot “take them away from the murder room” where the Fifth Chambers definitely placed them. This is true no matter what the Florence courts decides to write about AK & RS: it doesn’t matter what they write about them, since they only have power to assess the final verdict about Rudy Guede for retrial purposes and nothing else.
Whatever excuse they write about any other topic - such as the participation of Knox & Sollecito - is legally irrelevant, because they are not invested with the task of finding anything else. Whatever they write in their motivations might be useful for the media, but we shall bear in mind the Florence court is making no decision about Knox & Sollecito and cannot make any finding that could ever change the previous definitive judicial truths.
That included the definitive finding that Guede acted in complicity with others, that he was not the person who was holding the murder weapon, and that AK and probably RS were right there.]]>
The huge public relations effort on behalf of Sollecito and especially Knox is entirely omitted from the film.
Perhaps because Netflix’s “Amanda Knox” was itself a toxic assault on Italian justice? Perhaps because the producers had themselves for five years acted as a nasty sharp end of that same PR?
Amazing omission, any way you look at it, as complete movies and books could dwell on this brutal attempt by non-legal means to set Knox and Sollecito free. The pro-Knox PR in particular, mostly in English in the US making it hard for Italians to know about, let alone respond, was taken to unique extremes.
Look at the giant scope of the PR as presented in Kermit’s masterful Powerpoint. That was created even before the 2009 trial was done, before the worst of the PR was set loose.
Note the number of strongarming threats and false talking point and outright lies. The dishonest TV appearances and misleading books. The threats and personal abuse of officials and reporters who had no easy way to hit back. The myriad hapless professionals roped in as glovepuppets, many of which we will quote in the next two posts.
And the staggering moneygrubbing, surely a world record in itself.
It is pretty well impossible to affect court outcomes in Italy with PR. Contempt of court and defamation laws are too strong. Papa Doc Sollecito and his family tried a few things, but they ended up in court in Bari, and Vanessa Sollecito was fired from her job.
Giulia Bongiorno was then the head of the powerful justice committee in the parliament. She was hired as lead counsel and acted as the spokesman for Sollecito’s cause, often (like Sollecito) dropping Amanda Knox in the drink. Other actions moved underground.
The Knox PR beamed at Americans was initiated by Curt Knox before he and Edda Mellas ever left West Seattle for Perugia. Before any lawyers had even been consulted, let alone employed.
Why so fast? Well one good hunch is that Curt Knox already KNEW with his family history of dangerous volatility that Knox really could have exploded and led a pack attack that left Meredith dead.
Here is a great book on how aggressive American PR too often helps clients with financial means to win while trampling on the law.
Here is a good roadmap for what is known in the PR world as astroturfing, the techniques of which the ever-expanding Knox/Marriott public relations effort followed almost to a tee.
Prior to the start of the trial, the PR was becoming extremely shrill. Deathfish posted this. The Machine posted this. After a crazed PR event in West Seattle was reported upon, even Knox’s lawyers wanted it toned down.
In April 2010 we were hearing things similar to this description of the PR from everyone who had tried to file honest reports.
Coverage of the crime began to diverge on the two sides of the Atlantic. From the vantage point of Perugia, it seemed as though the Knox family’s American supporters were simply choosing to ignore the facts that were coming to light in Italy….
The American press hung back, at first, objective and somewhat disbelieving that such a wholesome-seeming girl could have any connection to such a sordid foreign crime, and then, as the family stepped up its defense, increasingly divided between two camps that would become simply the innocentisti—those who believed she was blameless—and the colpevolisti, those who did not. In Perugia, these labels governed access…
Of the handful of American journalists in Perugia in late 2007 and early 2008, none got access to the Knox family without certain guarantees about positive coverage. Within months, the family decided to speak on the record primarily to the American TV networks, often in exchange for airfare and hotel bills. Most of the print press was shut out. And the TV producers learned to be very cautious about being seen with people like me, lest the Knox family should cut them off.
But as interest in the case grew, an odd assortment of American talking heads attached their reputations to Amanda’s innocence. An aggressive support group called Friends of Amanda formed in Seattle, headed by Anne Bremner, a media-savvy criminal lawyer who had cut her teeth as a tough prosecutor in Seattle’s King County Court…
Very quickly, [PR manager David] Marriott lost control of the situation. As he spoon-fed the Knox-approved message to American outlets that couldn’t afford to send correspondents to Italy, those of us on the ground in Perugia began passing his contradictory e-mails around as entertainment during the long days in the court.
[We reporters in Rome] began what would be a two-year battle against the Seattle message machine, incurring personal attacks and outright threats.
Newsweek said that the PR campaign was winning over nobody in Italy and doing some real harm.
More negative reports began to appear. See this on one PR shill. See another example here.
A media expert rated the PR counter-functional and likely to fail at least in part. There was soon the first hard proof of this when the PR landed Oggi in court.
The talking points became so extreme that you’d think they would be impossible to spoof. However Chimera did the impossible here.
This brings us to a halfway point with the Hellmann appeal court, first chambers of the Supreme Court, the Nencini appeal court and the fifth chambers of the Supreme Court still ahead. The first and fourth of those courts were bent and in each case the PR played some role.
But the outcome is not cast in stone. Guede could spark a retrial for himself (we will know in a few days) in which the Knox and Sollecito teams will not even be present. A lot could be said that will set them back.
A dozen main media outlets and several hundred professional writers and TV commentators and so on came to swallow the PR bait without any checking of the truth. We will quote them at length. Netflix itself has clearly done this - it swallowed the assurances of thee cranks with axes to grind and did no due diligence in Italy before guying and airing a very unsafe product.
Both Curt Knox and David Marriott have declared the PR to have been a success. We will asses that. The PR departed so wildly from the truth and did so much harm to those it lied about that it is easy to shoot down. Look at the comments on the media threads about the Netflix movie and you will generally see a majority denying that Knox did no harm or was framed. One of various signs of a huge fail?]]>
1. The team that created the video above explores whether fake news is killing the Internet.
2. The influential activist Noam Chomsky is reported as denouncing the fake-news aspect of the Internet as a “cult generator”.
3. And the serious and most diligent media seem to be profiting from a media market suddenly increasingly hungry for news that is trustworthy.
Profitable’ Washington Post adding more than five dozen journalists
... Now, come 2017, the Post seems to be doing something unique in daily journalism: It is adding journalists early in the year.
“We’re adding dozens of journalists,” Fred Ryan, the Post’s publisher and CEO, told me late last week. Ryan, in a recent memo, said the Post was “profitable and growing.”...
The Post newsroom will number more than 750, third among the national newspaper-based press and moving it closer to the Times, with which it increasingly competes for high-end talent.
The Times complement stands at about 1,307, the company says. USA Today’s newsroom stands at about 450, while the Journal, after its recent buyouts, tells me it employs 1,500.
Brussels, the headquarters of the European Community.
This is where Meredith thought she might be heading. With a skillset and natural leadership talents that Europe and, well, everywhere so badly needs now.
Have others of her age been so inspired? We have heard from friends that their mostly brief acquaintances still really matter, and their own futures are better for having known her.
And the prosperous attractive caring well-run town of Perugia, now relatively drug-free, has some of that to revere her for.]]>
Update: The Florence court has agreed to do an initial review and has requested some documents and will convene again on January 10. The court could then trigger Criminal Code Article 636 which provides for a quick retrial focusing on that evidence relevant to what Guede’s team think was handled wrong, which rotates around the identity of the other two. There is tough evidence suggesting he was part of the attack so a simple release seems not in the cards. But there is tough evidence also suggesting that RS and AK were those other two, as Florence Judge Nencini in 2014 already showed.
Guede has brought the application for a review of his case to the Florence courts.
A closed session excluding the media and the Knox and Sollecito teams is scheduled for today. Guede’s application cites ‘internal inconsistencies’ within the Marasca-Bruno reasoning in respect of Knox and Sollecito.
I plan to sort out the facts from the fiction and to provide a definitive review of what the legal facts concerning Guede are. These will be as specified at his trial and appeal and rubber-stamped by the Supreme Court in Guede’s case, plus how the Supreme Court verdict in the Knox / Sollecito case impacts on then.
I also anticipate what might be the comebacks of the Knox and Sollecito defenses if they are allowed to participate down the road.
One starting point might be the recent crimepod broadcast by ex-FBI agent and ex- District Attorney & prosecutor, Jim Clemente, in tandem with Laura Richards, criminal psychologist and ex-Scotland Yard, wherein they attempt a ‘behavioural analysis’ of the Guede interview on RAI3an Italiana TV channel earlier this year with interviewer Franca Leosini.
My analysis below of their analysis will highlight some of the misconceptions about the case revealed by Clemente and Richards in this broadcast, which can be accessed here.
There are many theories about Guede’s role in the Kercher murder case with many assertions becoming common currency, as interested parties, such as Knox and Sollecito compete for the hegemony. I have referred to original source material to get to the actual facts of the matter.
These consist of Guede’s Prison Diary whilst under extradition proceedings in Koblenz, between 21 Nov 2007 and late November 2007, his Skype conversation 19 Nov 2007 with best friend Giacomo Benedetti, whilst on the run from the police and the detailed Micheli report, Perugia, 28 Oct 2008,the finalised legal findings of fact, and as approved by the Cassazione Supreme Court.
Thus, whether one agrees or disagrees with the court findings or of Guede’s exact role in the crime, these remain the legal position today, and these are the grounds on which Guede is bringing his application for a review to the Florence Supreme Court.
• Guede definitively did not wield the murder knife.
• He had no meaningful prior contact with Meredith.
• Therefore he was not invited to the cottage or let in by Meredith, nor had any consensual contact.
• The burglary and rape mise en scene was a second stage of the crime after the murder.
• It thus follows, says Micheli, that Knox let Guede into the murder cottage.
• The crime was sexually motivated, and not one motivated by theft.
• There were multiple assailants – as per DNA and luminol testing and the fact of a return to the scene to rearrange it.
• Guede did not steal the rent money or the phones.
• He was guilty of aggravated murder because of his complicity in the attack and failure to stop it as soon as knives were produced.
• Complicity: “Above all if the certain facts include the consequent outline of that supposed ‘unknown’ (the presence of the three at the scene of the crime) they are abundant, and all abundantly proven”. - Micheli
1. Is Clemente’s and Richards’ claim – one of Guede being the ‘lone killer’ grounded in any substance?
2. The timeline of the events from Guede’s point of view
3. Could Guede have been the sole killer?
4. How do Knox and Sollecito fit in with Guede?
5. The actual legal position with Guede, as laid down at Guede’s trial.
6. How this differs from the Fifth Chambers (Knox & Sollecito) Supreme Court’s controversial ruling in March 2015, acquitting the pair on the grounds of Article 530 Para II, ‘Not guilty: due to insufficient evidence’.
These are the claims of Clemente and Richards,which reflect the views of pro-innocence campaigners of Knox & Sollecito, critiquing Franca Leosini’s tv interview.
During their broadcast several ‘behavioral’ observations are made:
1. ‘The foundation as to why he is in her room and cottage, DNA inside as well as outside – he is finding a plausible excuse for being there.’
Comment: Guede did not claim to have made sexual advances in Meredith’s room.
2. ‘Meredith had locked door from the inside – helped self to drink – Meredith went to bedroom – claimed she was mad at Knox for stealing money and being dirty.’
3. ‘He said he ‘wouldn’t go with her unless she had a condom. Not appropriate time to get going so got dressed. As if.! Leosini cracks, ‘You missed the best part of the evening – ‘No Sex Please We’re British’ – inappropriate – she is flirting with him (Leosini). She purports to get tough with him, but he dances around the question.’
4. ‘Got dressed, had bad stomach, had to go to bathroom, kernel of truth – poop in toilet. Before Meredith came in. Trapped in there – he if flushed the toilet, she’d know he was there. She tells him to use that bathroom, in kitchen, then went to bedroom.
Comment: Guede used the large bathroom which was by the front door. If he was in there when Meredith unexpectedly returned, it was easy to run away unrecognised.
5. Heard doorbell ring, Meredith opens door, engages in conversation - 101% it is Amanda. Fallacy – Amanda lives there, why would she ring doorbell? ‘Meredith had locked inside door.’ There is no reason for Amanda to ring doorbell.
Comment: The courts agree. The courts uphold that it was Knox who let Guede in.
6. Becomes very detailed and specific. He saying look, I’m very clean. Poor boy ‘found myself in Germany’. 101% - extending.
7. Why would Amanda ring, Rudy’s explanation. Identifies someone by voice – despite listening to very loud music. Hears girls arguing, puts on ear phones to block out- 2.5 songs – 10 minutes. Inconsistency. It’s a lie. The attack on MK took about 10”. Kernel of truth in the lie.
Comment: Guede says he put on headphones after hearing initial greetings. However, Micheli agrees that how come Guede only hears the last scream, from 4-5 metres away, when a nearby resident, witness Mrs Capezelli, heard a series from 70 metres away.
8. It was Meredith coming home, not Amanda, we ‘know as a fact’ it didn’t happen. His sleeve had the victim’s DNA. He carried a knife consistent with bloody impression on bed.
Comment: There is no evidence Guede carried a knife. At the Milan nursery trespass 27 Oct 2007, Guede was found with a knife which belonged to the nursery so had not carried it with him.
9. Scream louder than his music, runs to Meredith’s room, lights off. So concerned about his image in terms of cleanliness. He leaves a dying girl alone. ‘Lights were suddenly not on’ coming out of the bathroom into the hall, but were on in her room.
10. Can only describe the jacket – guy facing Meredith. Guy turns starts flashing with his scalpel. Happened so fast, did didn’t know what was in his hand. He says, ‘I said’, not what happened. Recount what happened, not ‘when I testified I said this’ – leakage – skips ahead. ‘This is the story I am sticking to’. It shows he is trying to keep to the story he testified.
11. “He turned around and came to me I didn’t see his face”. Quotes self. Not in the moment any more. Wildly gesticulating hands – struggling for words. Cognitive load, wants to get it right. Story trying to remember. How do you remember insignia but not face? (The brand logo on the man’s jacket.)
Comment: The light was described as an abat-jour so it’s possible it was on an auto-timer. Guede explains he was busy concentrating on the blade in the man’s hand. The man’s face would have been back lit. Good point about Guede reverting back to testimony.
12. German police found he had a cut on his hand.- ‘you were focused on his hand’ – ‘I said I thought it was a scalpel. It could have been a knife 12” long 7” blade. So he says, ‘I thought’ but didn’t know. Mignini argued, ‘There are two knives’. Rudy and Mignini are ‘perverted accomplished liars’ (Clemente’s view). ‘Pissed off with Mignini for perverting justice. Collusion’. Man fleeing. RG backed out of way.
Comment: The fact of at least two knives was decided by the courts after expert witness testimony and not up to the prosecutor.
13. Says he saw Amanda walking away outside. Statement made to Mignini – You must have seen her, you must have seen her! - I saw her silhouette a long way into the night. - Voice over music in earphone from bathroom. Mignini pushing his agenda to ID Amanda. ‘Man is like – had beret with red band, jacket’ ; called out to other person, let’s run before they catch us; black man found’ odd thing to say . ‘Great! We just killed Kercher, we’ve got a black man here we can blame!’
Comment: the courts agree this is Guede being self-serving. The fact he doesn’t mention the silhouette until later, could be preclusion, from reading the press.
14. Hero, he finds Meredith bleeding – runs out of bedroom to grab towel x 2. Grabs third towel, that didn’t work, so left. Said she was alive. Was able to run into Romanelli’s room – sees Amanda run away with this young man. Made silhouette ID in time period there is a dying woman on the floor. More important than helping Meredith is to go to Filomena’s room to ID these people.
Comment: No DNA on towels due to environmental degradation, but someone did apply them.
15. Why, If he is already 101% certain it was Amanda? No reason except to please the prosecutor. All of a sudden, people saw the three together. Pressuring others. Mignini ends up giving Rudy a fast track trial. – he wouldn’t have to testify on any subsequent trial. Takes first amendment against self-incrimination, should have to testify in Amanda and Raffaele’s case – he was not used.
Comment: Mignini as a prosecutor (district attorney) has no authority to provide legal advice. Guede would have been advised by his counsel to take the fast track as it offers the incentive of a ‘one-third off’ discount from the sentence. He pleaded, ‘Not Guilty’ therefore, he had the right to decline from giving any further self-incriminating testimony, as exercised by Sollecito himself in his trial. There are mechanisms. A party can appeal for other documents or transcripts in evidence instead (as Mignini did at one stage) and it is up to the presiding judge whether to accept the application or dismiss it. It is the Judge’s or the defendant’s decision, not the prosecutor’s.
16. Why does he want the fast track? – wait. He has to say he stayed in bathroom for that long. This other person did it, when he left, Rudy was trying to stop the bleeding. Meredith was saying af – writing on the wall ‘in her blood’ – there’s a desk right there. Why didn’t he alert for help? Has to construct a narrative to make sense. How does this person get in when door was locked? What we hear in his narrative is how he is overwhelmed. He is the victim, everyone feels sympathy for him.
Comment: In his original claims he says he was in the bathroom between six and ten minutes. Later Guede changes this to ‘lightning fast’, although he may have meant the supposed fight between him and the mystery man.
17. He hears scream. The broadcast host, Laura Richards says she once saw someone run into a room and stab someone. Stabbing had very little blood. Saw stab put pressure on it. Quick in and out – what prisoners do. Will never forget the guy’s face. Guy turned ran out, Guede could not remember the guy’s face. Would he forget? In the only lit room. Light is on this guy, why can’t he ID his face? – clearly lying. Fear. Afraid he’d be blamed. What does he do, he goes out drinking with his friends – he is establishing an alibi. He ran out of country ‘because he was afraid’ – alibiing himself.
Comment: The issue of the blood spray after the stabbing is an important forensic point, which is dealt with further on.
18. Clever narrative because of kernel of truth. Always wants to be seen as victim. ‘Why didn’t you call for help?’ a six-year old would ask – he starts to talk over her – the real him. ‘The investigators didn’t believe your point’. Sad fact is, that black people do get blamed for crime – he is lumping himself in with them. OJ? Exactly same situation – charismatic, wants people to think he’s a victim. How he left Meredith. Details of crime scene.
19. When he left Meredith she was fully dressed. In his story, Amanda had argument with Meredith killed her, then ran away everything was in order except one drawer pulled out. Filomena’s room undisturbed.
Comment: Guede describes Meredith as wearing a white top. Robyn Butterworth (friend) testified Meredith was wearing a sky-blue zip up top with sporty arm stripes, with a beige top underneath, and perhaps a second, patterned one.
20. If he saw her, she must have seen him. Raffaele must have told Amanda man there. Why would Amanda then come back? Feel bad for anyone who believes this crap. ‘Judge didn’t believe your version of events’. Why did someone come back and alter the crime scene?’ He left Meredith fully clothed, with full details of clothes she was wearing but can’t remember the guy’s face.
21. Franca Leosini says left foot and face showing. Crime scene staged , as a legal fact. Glass and rock on top of clothes, rock thrown from inside. Glass and rock on top. Rudy gets specific about Knox and Sollecito; not in dispute they were there. Judge said Rudy wasn’t the one who had the knife and dealt the blow, not in dispute. It is now in dispute, they were declared ‘innocent of the crime’.
Comment: False: there is zero mention Knox and Sollecito were ‘declared innocent’.
22. Rudy did it in concert with two people – it is a legal point of law and cannot be appealed – certified fact. Once evaluated it was 100% fraudulent, not a mistake. People would be fired if they did not say what Mignini wanted them to say. If they disagreed, they weren’t called to testify. (Clemente’s views.)
Comment: Mignini - and later Comodi - only get to choose the prosecution witnesses, the defence get to call whomsoever they wish..
23. Leosini: You fled to Germany. Guede: I had no idea how I got there, it could have been Russia. Conversely, they (Knox/Sollecito) did not run. Rudy trusts the system. Skyped with his friend Giacomo for four hours. Threw away clothing. Choosing not to give an account.
24. Specifically says, ‘Amanda was not there’. Why bring it up at this point? Friend says Amanda was arrested. Friend brought her up. Police direct the conversation. Says clearly, ‘She was not there’. Rudy gets it from Mignini. Mignini gets Rudy to ID Knox – silhouette, knife. Patrick Lumumba has a proven alibi, so they needed another black man there, which is why Amanda volunteered his name.
Comment: Knox was hardly arrested ‘for no reason’.
25. Accomplished liar. Part 9, Leosini talks through the forensics consensual foreplay. Palm print, DNA on toilet paper . Interesting leakage about Patrick being there – he gets vociferous there, true self. Why fast track trial? He says because of his ‘non-involvement’. More than one person. Sentence reduced from 30 to 16 on assumption he did not hold the knife. ‘He went along with others’; someone else’s initiative.
26. Jan 2016. People are still sticking to their beliefs Sollecito and Knox are still guilty. Reformed character, artsy, intellectual. Served sentence because, “I didn’t call for help”. Lawyers have been very strategic – stylised interview – deliberate choice. FB and twitter set up.
27. All evidence points to him being only killer and guilty of murder and sexual assault. He’s charismatic, intelligent, detail-oriented no sign of remorse. Psychopath; gifted at selling himself. Takes a trained eye to see the holes in his story. Let Meredith die; fled country only after he went drinking with his friends. Abominable. Foster father says he is ‘an accomplished liar’. Multiple perpetrators.
28. Retrial 20 Dec will be interesting. Already eligible for parole. 2018. By the time the motivation comes out. Opens everything up for Kercher family. This interview may have been the grounds on which the interview is granted. Engaging charismatic young man – interview strategy to get him out. “Amanda got away with murder.” It was because of Mignini. He used Rudy to get Amanda. Should be prosecuted. Recommendation: Amanda wrongfully convicted and then exonerated. JC and LR.
Comment: Mignini was nothing to do with the ultimate conviction. That was solely for the courts to decide.
Born in the Ivory Coast 26 Dec 1987 six months older than Knox and three years younger than Sollecito. Came to Italy with his father Roger, aged five, rejected by his mother. Lived with a series of foster families, including a wealthy local family, whom he left as soon as he reached age of majority. Stayed with an aunt in Lecca. Took up various short-term jobs, had periods of unemployment, tended to ‘disappear’.
His childhood friend Mancini, the son of Guede’s teacher, Mrs Tiberi tried to keep tabs on him. His last job he was fired from for sickness without a note, took up bedsit in Perugia in early September 2007 nearby Sollecito and the cottage. Socialised with the Spanish contingent in his house. Mrs Tiberi described Guede as always polite and well-behaved. His childhood friends, Mancini and Benedetti, say they never saw him take drugs or get drunk, although latterly they had not seen him much. His more short-term acquaintances mentioned witnessing him drunk at various times.
A witness claimed he had said he wanted to go to Milan for a few days ‘to dance’. In Milan 27 Oct 2007, just a few days before the murder, he was caught trespassing at a nursery, but was not charged at the time. He was found in possession of a stolen laptop, a knife found at the nursery, a ladies watch and a small glass-breaking hammer. His mobile phone was confiscated, thus claimed to have no phone as of the time of the murder. He was charged post-murder conviction for the laptop possession.
Around the time of a friend’s birthday (Owen), ‘12th or 14th October 2007’ he’d been out celebrating with friends, met up with some basketball playing pals outside, which included the boys in the downstairs apartment of the cottage, Knox approached, whom he had seen before at Patrick’s bar, Le Chic, to say ‘Hi, I’m Amanda from Seattle’, the boys made off towards home, together with Guede. Knox went into her apartment on the upper level whilst the boys went downstairs and lit up a joint. Knox came down to join them, and then Meredith later. This was the first time she met Guede. Guede relates Meredith had just one toke on the joint and then said she was off to bed, Knox followed shortly after.
The next time Guede saw Meredith was at a pub called ‘The Shamrock’ where the World Cup Rugby Final between England and South Africa was being played. This took place 20 Oct 2007. Witnesses confirm that both Meredith and Guede were present, within groups of friends. Guede claims to have struck up a banter with Meredith, but there are no witnesses to this and Meredith never mentioned it to her friends if it happened. On Sunday, Guede went by the cottage to watch the Formula One final after seventeen events. This took place 21 Oct 2007. If Guede had struck up a friendship with Meredith, he made no attempt to pop his head around the door to say hello. Laura Mezzetti, one of the roommates upstairs did witness Guede there, when she came down to ‘buy a smoke for €5’.
Guede then claims to have asked Meredith for a date on the night of Halloween on 31 October 2007 at the Domus nightclub, again there were no witnesses to this and Meredith never mentioned it to anyone. Both were at the packed night spot. He gives this as the reason he approached the cottage the next evening, 1st Nov 2007, claiming Meredith let him in. He had a drink from the fridge whilst Meredith went to her room. He claims he heard her cursing Amanda, as her money was missing; she showed him her drawer where she had kept it; he calmed her down; they searched the cottage together and, after chatting about their families; they began canoodling. They had no condoms so it went no further.
As Meredith had not been home when he first arrived circa 20:20 pm, he had gone to see his friend Alex and then went to buy a kebab whilst he waited. Because of the effects of the kebab, Guede claimed that whilst at the cottage, he had to rush to the bathroom and whilst there, the doorbell rang, Meredith who had been on her way to her room, answered the door and Guede heard Amanda’s voice with Meredith saying, ‘We need to talk’ and Amanda reply, ‘What’s happened? What is the problem?’
Guede put on his earphones to listen to loud music for ten minutes when he heard a loud scream, ran out, the light was now off, ‘to my astonishment’, saw the figure of a man standing on the threshold of Meredith’s room, who suddenly turned with a knife in his hand. Guede backed off and grabbed a chair in self-defence, the man said, ‘Black man found, black man guilty’ and then ‘Let’s go!’ and ran off. Guede administerd three towels to the dying girl before himself running off, because he heard a noise from downstairs that frightened him, he claimed.
He ran home via Plaza Grimana direction, changed and washed his jogging pants, then went out nightclubbing.
3 Nov 2007 he went to Milan via Modena and Bologna and after midnight he jumped on a random train, to avoid police seen at the station, an ended up in Duesseldorf in Germany. Between then and 19th he stayed in barges and places along the Rhine. Sixteen days to reflect. Mancini his childhood friend had contacted him 12/13th November via the internet, unaware he was wanted, accusing him of ‘always running away’ and Guede replied, ‘You know why’, without elaborating. His other old friend, Benedetti helping police, set up a Skype conversation with Guede, 19 Nov 2007,and persuaded him to return. In the meantime German police caught him on a train without a ticket and on an Interpol warrant, held him in custody in Koblenz until 1 December 2007, whilst processing an extradition order.
Guede was brought back to Italy and subsequently interviewed by prosecutor Mignini 26 March 2008 and charged with the murder, in complicity with Knox and Sollecito. Guede opted for a separate, ‘fast-track’ trial, which was closed, although we can discern what took place from the presiding Judge’s reasoning (Micheli) for the ‘guilty of aggravated murder’ verdict and the dismissal of the theft charge of the phones and credit cards.
The Missing Money: Who first mentioned it? It was Guede, and he brags about this fact of being first in his Prison Diary written in Koblenz up to 19 Nov 2007.
Who First Mentioned Knox and Sollecito at the scene? Whilst Guede does refer to a mystery man holding a knife in the doorway of Meredith’s room in his presence, he does not actually name either Knox or Sollecito until his recorded interview with Mignini, March 2008. We know he read the papers whilst on the run for he mentions to Benedetti in the Skype conversation he saw that Knox is accused of using the washing machine to clean Meredith’s clothes.
An alternate explanation is that he was applying ‘Prisoners Dilemma’, a situation when there are several perpetrators and each is dependent on the other/s to not ‘grass’ them up. Therefore, it is theorised, the best strategy is to say nothing. Knox did not name him, he did not name Knox. Guede himself confirms he did not know Sollecito at all to name him.
Who First Mentioned Sollecito and Knox together at the scene with Guede, and when? A witness, Kokomani did come forward to say he had seen the three together outside the cottage prior to the murder, and police have corroborated he was in the region because of pings from his phone and his account of seeing a dark car, also seen by a separate car mechanic witness. However, his testimony was dismissed by Micheli as ‘ravings’. It appears that what holds the three together is circumstantial evidence as constructed by the forensic police (DNA, luminol, bathmat footprint), the inactivity of Knox & Sollecito’s phones in advance of the crime and for the rest of the night, their false alibis and inability to ‘remember’ what they did that evening, together with the apparent staged scene of the burglary, clean up and repositioned body.
The case against Rudy Guede When comparing Guede’s original account with his later recorded interview, it is safe to note that much of what he says is:
• To try to establish justification for being at the cottage at all. To do this, he claims to have made a date with Meredith the night before. However, when he made a date with a Latvian girl in a similar circumstance, they wanted to swap telephone numbers, with Guede having to memorise hers as he did not have a phone at the time. He does not say this for Meredith.
• To try to justify his DNA being on Meredith’s body, he precludes this by claiming the contact was consensual. In his conversation with Benedetti he expresses he knows none of his sperm will be found. In his Prison Diary he makes no mention at all of Meredith talking about her mother being ill. Micheli points out that his later claim that Meredith spoke about her mother’s specific condition was already widely reported in the papers since 4 November 2007, by Meredith’s aunt.
He claims in his testimony the Formula 1 final race (21 Oct 2007) was BEFORE the Rugby World Cup (20 Oct 2007) – and Micheli does not pick up on this – to evade the fact he didn’t say hello to Meredith when he visited the cottage to watch the F1 race downstairs. In his Prison Diary he claims Meredith told him she had ‘someone special’ back home, implying she was free in Italy. However, we know Meredith was in an exciting new relationship with Silenzi, from downstairs, so would not have made herself easily available. None of the British girls corroborated Guede’s claim to have made friends with Meredith.
• Guede in both his original Prison Diary account and in the Leosini tv interview in Jan 2016, expresses disapproval of Meredith cursing out Knox over the missing rent money. In the interview he becomes quite agitated. Thus, Guede takes Knox’ side in this dispute and is not a friend of Meredith’s.
• To try to justify running away without calling for help for Meredith, despite his claim it was ‘another man’ who did the killing, Guede says he was worried he would be blamed because he was Black and because the man said so, before running off. He claims he was frightened off by ‘a noise downstairs’.
• Most incriminating of all is the description of the blood. Micheli found as a fact that Meredith was stabbed in the neck and then immediately fell backwards into a supine position because (a) of a bruise on the back of her neck indicating a violent jolt, (b) because there is no spray of blood on the desk where one would expect it to be and (c) it was a logical position by which to carry out the sexual assault by Guede. Her left hand was restrained. Dr Arpile an expert witness said this was a characteristic of a sexual attack.
• In his Prison Diary in Koblenz he recalls the stabbing of Meredith was being like the time he was whacked over the head with a stick by his father and blood spurted out of his head ‘like a fountain’. This suggests he may have witnessed the ‘fountain of blood’ spurting from Meredith?
In his Prison Diary Guede makes much of the sheer volume of blood. He sees blood everywhere, and sees nothing but ‘red’ when he closes his eyes to sleep. Massei in the later trial of Knox and Sollecito, does not agree with Micheli that she was stabbed whilst standing and then falling onto her back, and rules that Meredith was killed whilst forced into a kneeling position. Where then, did the spray of blood go, when the knife was pulled out, if there is none to be seen on the furnishings and upholstery? Garofano in Darkness Descending offers his expert forensic opinion that the blood surge would have gone all over the person who withdrew the knife.
Guede by his own account relates that his pants were ‘soaking wet’ and he’d had to cover them up with his sweatshirt as he ran home fleeing the scene.
• Guede states that on his way out, none of the windows were broken and Meredith was full dressed. The broken window and condition of the body were all widely reported so it could be argued that Guede states everything was intact when he left as a self-serving narrative to preclude himself as the culprit.
Micheli ruled that Guede’s claim to have struck up a first date with Meredith was proven false and therefore it was not Meredith who let him into the cottage. As Meredith was in a new relationship and no-one could corroborate any date with Guede, she did not consent to any sexual activity with him. In addition, Knox would not need to ring the doorbell as she had a key and in any case, had Meredith locked the door from the inside, she would have in effect locked Guede in for the night, not to mention locking out Knox. Therefore, as the burglary was staged – clothes rummaged first and then window broken, bits of paper from the burglary on top of the duvet on top of the body – then it must have been Knox who let him in.
Micheli directs that it is a legal fact that Guede did not wield the knife based on submissions by the prosecutor and that the crime was in complicity with the others. This was due to the fact that even if Guede only intended a sexual assault, he became culpable of murder ‘as soon as the knives were produced’.
Micheli legally acquitted Guede of the theft of the phones as he ruled that they were taken ‘to cause their sudden removal’ and not for lucrative gain. He ruled that the autocall to Meredith’s bank Abbey National logged at circa 22:11 was due to the phone falling from her person to the floor due to her wanting urgent contact with her sick mother, and indeed, there does appear to be an outline in blood in the shape of a phone.
Micheli ruled that Guede did not go through Meredith’s bag as his DNA (which was scant at the scene) was midway on the clasp at the top of the bag, indicating Guede had gripped it to lift and move it, as there is no DNA or blood stains inside it. In addition, there were multiple differing footprints of sundry persons at the murder scene, as highlighted by luminol, a forensic instrument to make visible invisible blood which had been cleaned up.
• Complicity: “Above all if the certain facts include the consequent outline of that supposed ‘unknown’ (the presence of the three at the scene of the crime) they are abundant, and all abundantly proven”. – Micheli
This merely stated that the pair were acquitted because of ‘insufficient evidence’, not because they were ‘innocent’. Knox was placed at the scene of the crime and Sollecito probably so. The attackers were estimated most probably at three. All attempts to prove they were other than Knox and Soillecito fell far short.
It specifies that Knox did wash off the victim’s blood from her hands and did cover up for Guede. It stated that the pair told ‘umpteen lies’ and that their behaviour remains ‘highly suspicious’.
So does Guede have a case, based on the final definitive facts, as set out, above?
We shall see.
*** UPDATE*** It has been decided that there will be a decision on whether to revise Guede’s verdict on 10 January 2017
Source: The Murder of Meredith Kercher wiki: http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Primary_Sources]]>