Exposing Peter Gill #2: Nailing His “Proven Miscarriage Of Justice” False Claim

This article is the second in a series of posts about Peter Gill. The first can be read here.

I want to expose some of the claims Gill noisily made only a year ago in an academic paper The Meredith Kercher case for Forensic Science Genetics: Analysis and Implications of the Miscarriages of Justice of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to see whether they stand up to the light of day.

Peter Gill claims the case is a PROVEN miscarriage of justice with regard to their convictions for Meredith’s murder:

“The case discussed here relates to the proven miscarriage of justice of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in relation to the accusation of murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy on the 1st November, 2007” (Peter Gill, FSI Genetics Report).

Anyone who is unfamiliar with the case might assume after reading Gill’s comments that there must be some exculpatory evidence will supports his claim e.g. verified alibis or CCTV footage that proves Amanda Knox and Sollecito were not at the cottage at the time of the murder.

However, Peter Gill never substantiates this claim. The reason why he can’t substantiate this claim? There is in fact NO exculpatory evidence at all.

Those unfamiliar might also assume that the other pieces of evidence against Knox and Sollecito have been completely discredited. However, Peter Gill chooses to completely ignore this evidence and its stark significance.

“This paper is necessarily restricted to the interpretation of the DNA evidence””without it the original convictions probably would not have occurred.”

How does Peter Gill KNOW the original convictions probably wouldn’t have occurred?

He seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that DNA evidence is mandatory in a murder trial order to secure a conviction.

However, DNA evidence isn’t a required element in any common law jurisdiction. All the pieces of evidence in a murder trial have to be considered. They also have to be considered wholly - not separately.

If firm DNA proof is there good. If it isnt, that is not a fail. The Italian Supreme Court criticised Appeal Judge Hellmann for adopting a piecemeal, atomistic approach to the evidence, and assessing each piece of evidence in isolation to the other pieces of evidence.

“The Hellmann Court of Appeal did not assess the pieces of circumstantial evidence in a comprehensive fashion; it did not evaluate them in a global and unified dimension, but managed to fragment them by evaluating each one in isolation, in an erroneous legal”logical analysis, with the goal of criticizing their individual qualitative significance, whereas if the Hellmann Court of appeal had followed the interpretative rule of this Court of legitimacy, each piece of circumstantial evidence would have been integrated with the others, determining an unequivocal clarification of each of the established facts, so as to reach the logical proof of the responsibility of the accused.” (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, page 25).

But Gill makes the exact same mistake as Hellmann in adopting a piecemeal approach to the evidence against Knox and Sollecito. Unlike Hellmann, however, he ONLY considers the DNA evidence.

British killers Levi Bellfield and Robin Garbutt were both convicted of murder on far less evidence than Knox and Sollecito and without the prosecution presenting any DNA evidence at their trials.

Nobody batted an eyelid. Presumably because these two killers didn’t hire PR firms and they weren’t young women in their 20s.

By restricting his comments to the DNA evidence, Peter Gill conveniently doesn’t have to address and let alone refute the other pieces of evidence that led mutiple judges - including three separate panels of Supreme Court judges - to believe Knox and Sollecito were involved in Meredith’s murder.

One of the key reasons why Knox and Sollecito were convicted of murder is they repeatedly told the police a pack of lies. They gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they were doing on the night of the murder. Neither Knox nor Sollecito have verified alibis despite three attempts each.

All the other people who were questioned as part of the police investigation into Meredith’s murder had one credible alibi that could be verified. Innocent people don’t give multiple conflicting alibis and lie repeatedly to the police. It should be noted that Knox and Sollecito lied before and after their questioning on 5 November 2007, so their lies can’t be attributed to police coercion.

Amanda Knox initially claimed she was at Sollecito’s apartment on the evening of the murder and that she was there when she received the text message from Diya Lumumba at 8:18pm. However, Judge Massei and Judge Nencini both pointed out in their reports that her mobile phone records showed that this wasn’t true.

On 5 November 2007, Sollecito admitted in his signed witness statement that he had lied to the police.

“In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.”

Sollecito withdrew his alibi for Knox and claimed she wasn’t at his apartment.

“At 9pm I went home alone and Amanda said that she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends. We said goodbye. I went home, I rolled myself a spliff and made some dinner, but I don’t remember what I ate. At around eleven my father phoned me on the house phone. I remember Amanda wasn’t back yet. I surfed on the Internet for a couple of hours after my father’s phone call, and I stopped only when Amanda came back, about one in the morning, I think.”

Once Knox was informed Sollecito was no longer providing her with an alibi, she repeatedly admitted that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed in two witness statements and in her handwritten note to the police.

Knox was given another opportunity to tell the police the whole truth, but she chose to deliberately and repeatedly lie to the police by again and again accusing Diya Lumumba of murder.

“Amanda Marie Knox accused Patrick Lumumba of the murder at 1:45 am on 6 November 2007.”

“Amanda Marie Knox repeated the allegations before the magistrate, allegations which she never retracted in all the following days.” (The Nencini report, page 114).

Amanda Knox reiterated her false allegation against Diya Lumumba on 6 November 2007 when under no pressure.

“[Amanda] herself, furthermore, in the statement of 6 November 2007 (admitted into evidence ex. articles 234 and 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code and which was mentioned above) wrote, among other things, the following:

“I stand by my [accusatory] statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrick”¦in these flashbacks that I’m having, I see Patrick as the murderer”¦”

This statement was that specified in the notes of 6 November 2007, at 20:00, by Police Chief Inspector Rita Ficarra, and was drawn up following the notification of the detention measure, by Amanda Knox, who “requested blank papers in order to produce a written statement to hand over” to the same Ficarra. (Massei report, page 389).

The Italian Supreme Court categorically stated that it’s a judicial fact Amanda Knox was present at the cottage when Meredith was killed because she repeatedly admitted she was there and she knew specific details about the crime.

“Given this, we now note, with respect to Amanda Knox, that her presence inside the house, the location of the murder, is a proven fact in the trial, in accord with her own admissions, also contained in the memoriale with her signature, in the part where she tells that, as she was in the kitchen, while the young English woman had retired inside the room of same Ms. Kercher together with another person for a sexual intercourse, she heard a harrowing scream from her friend, so piercing and unbearable that she let herself down squatting on the floor, covering her ears tight with her hands in order not to hear more of it.

About this, the judgment of reliability expressed by the lower [a quo] judge [Nencini, ed.] with reference to this part of the suspect’s narrative, [and] about the plausible implication from the fact herself was the first person mentioning for the first time [46] a possible sexual motive for the murder, at the time when the detectives still did not have the results from the cadaver examination, nor the autopsy report, nor the witnesses’ information, which was collected only subsequently, about the victim’s terrible scream and about the time when it was heard (witnesses Nara Capezzali, Antonella Monacchia and others), is certainly to be subscribed to.”

We make reference in particular to those declarations that the current appellant [Knox] produced on 11. 6. 2007 (p.96) inside the State Police headquarters. On the other hand, in the slanderous declarations against Lumumba, which earned her a conviction, the status of which is now protected as final judgement [giudicato], [they] had themselves exactly that premise in the narrative, that is: the presence of the young American woman inside the house in via della Pergola, a circumstance which nobody at that time ““ except obviously the other people present inside the house ““ could have known (quote p. 96). (The Bruno and Marasca, Supreme Court report).

Not only does Peter Gill completely ignore Knox and Sollecito’s numerous lies and multiple false alibis as if they are somehow unimportant and irrelevant, he also completely ignores the fact that Amanda Knox knew specific details about the crime.

Judge Nencini pointed out in his report that Knox made statements to the police that contained specific references to events that the investigation ascertained actually happened on 1 and 2 November 2007 and that nobody other than a participant in those tragic events could have known about. She knew that Meredith had been sexually assaulted and had screamed loudly and she placed herself near the basketball ball in Piazza Grimana which was corroborated by another witness.

Umbria Prosecutor General Galati pointed out in his appeal that Amanda Knox told Meredith’s British friends that Meredith “was covered by a quilt, that a foot was sticking out, that they had cut her throat and that there was blood everywhere” (The Galati-Costagliola appeal, page 65).

Galati concluded that Amanda Knox knew these specifc details because she was in Meredith’s room at the time of the murder.

“Amanda has described the spot where Meredith was effectively murdered (in front of the wardrobe) and she has described the state of the body and of the room and the injury to the throat, in speaking with Meredith’s co-nationals, although, at the moment when the door to Meredith’s room was kicked in, neither she nor Sollecito, for certain, were able to look inside.

According to her, neither she nor Sollecito went into that room that morning before the arrival of the police because it was locked. Yet she knew everything. She knew because she was in that room at the time of the murder and when Meredith was left in the conditions in which she was discovered.” (The Galati-Costagliola appeal, pages 66-67).

I anticipate that Peter Gill might try to handwave away the lies by attributing them to police coercion or brutality on 5 November 2007. Amanda Knox claimed she was slapped twice by a police officer. However, the witnesses who were present when Knox was questioned, including her interpreter, all testified under oath at the trial in 2009 that she wasn’t hit.

Furthermore, Amanda Knox’s lies can’t be attributed to police brutality and coercion because she lied repeatedly BEFORE she was questioned on 5 November 2007.

  • Her account of the morning of 2 November 2007 is fictitious. She lied about sleeping until around 10:00am on 2 November 2007. (The Nencini report, page 158).

  • She lied to Filomena about where she was later that morning. (The Nencini report, page 174).

  • She pretended she hadn’t just called Meredith seconds earlier when she spoke to Filomena. (The Massei report, page 387).

  • She lied to her friends in an e-mail on 4 November 2007 by claiming she had called Filomena first. (The Nencini report, page 169).

  • She lied to the postal police by claiming Meredith always locked her door (The Massei report, page 179).

Florence Judge Martuscelli has just comprehensively detailed Raffaele Sollecito’s numerous lies and false alibis in his report - which explained why Sollecito was denied compensation from the State.

“The contradictions and inconsistencies between the various reconstructions which Sollecito offered about the movements of himself and his girlfriend during the late evening of 1 November 2007, and the succeeding night are clear, and we don’t need to underline them.

At first he said he and Knox went to his house shortly after 17:30, after a short walk around the town, and that he remained at home with her for the rest of the evening and night. A few days later he described this story as a “sacco di cazzate”, recounted by him only because the girl had persuaded him to confirm her account, whereas the truth was that he had gone to his home alone at 20:30-21:00, and had remained at home alone until Knox returned, about 01:00, and she remained and slept with him.

Two days later, questioned by the GIP, he said that this story of 5 November 2007 was untrue, and that really Knox had gone to his house with him at 20:00-20:30, they ate together, and then he certainly had remained at his computer until midnight, though it was possible that the girl had gone out, even though he didn’t remember well either if she went out or if she had later returned, excusing his lack of recall either because he had smoked cannabis that evening, or alternatively because every evening at that time was much like all the other evenings.

Such contradictions and inconsistencies render some of his earlier statements obviously incredible, because he himself has declared that they contain lies, besides which, after having purposely retracted his statements of 5 November 2007, which completely overturned his earlier statements, he didn’t return to his original story but came up with something different in which he reaffirmed the fact that he had first introduced on 5 November 2007 that Knox hadn’t spent the whole evening with him, “without however being certain about this, but confusing it in a tale of vague recollections emphasising this vagueness in the course of questioning aimed at clarifying his inconsistent statements.

Additionally his claims [5 ->] to be unable to remember those hours was criticised by various judges regarding the cautionary measures, who highlighted the strangeness of a “wavering” memory, which showed that he recalled very well various details of the evening but claimed to have completely forgotten other details of equal or greater importance. For example, the GIP in the interrogation of 8 November 2007 receiving the vague replies of Sollecito, when asked about his earlier declarations said “Sometimes you seem to remember very clearly, but at other times, when you are challenged, you say you don’t remember. I exhort you to be accurate, because you must understand that with all of these contradictions…your situation is not good.”

At the Court of Review, the order made on 30 November 2007 notes that in the spontaneous declaration given by Sollecito to that court that he had lingered on the fact that he had been at the computer the whole evening “adding new details about what he had done on the computer, details which obviously contrast with the complete mental blank which must have been his mind due to drug taking, at least unless we reach the conclusion hypothesising a particular pathology, the loss of memory secundum eventum.” [after the event]

The poor memory of what he was doing on the evening and night of 1 November 2007 seems barely credible because if it is possible that he spent all of his evenings in the same way, certainly he had never before lived through a day like 2 November 2007. To discover in the morning of 2 November 2007 that in his girlfriend’s house a murder had occurred, and that it was one of her flatmates who had been killed should have, logically, prompted the young man to have a precise memory of where Knox had passed the time during which all of this had presumably happened, at the very least to be thankful for the circumstances which had kept her away from the house, and thus would have been bound to encourage a precise recall of whether she was at home with him all evening or had been absent during that critical period.

“However all of the versions offered by Sollecito are untrue not only because they are contradictory, but also because many of them have been substantially disproved. For example, the witness Popovic disproves that Sollecito returned to his home alone at around 20:00/:30, although this is what he claimed in his last account which he never withdrew. This witness testified that she visited Sollecito’s house twice on the evening of 1 November 2007, at about 18:00 and at about 20:40, and that on both occasions saw Knox there, from which it seems certain that both of the young people were at Sollecito’s house together at least up until the time of the later visit. In addition, examination of his computer showed that it was in use, to watch a film, and showed “signs of human interaction, between the hours of 18:27 and 21:10.

It is also disproved that the young man was working at his computer on the evening of 1 November 2007 until 23:00/24:00. The analysis of his computer shows that between 21:10 and 05:32 there was no human interaction, though the machine remained switched on, downloading films in an automated manner (although Sollecito’s expert witness D’Ambrosio claims that a short animated film was viewed between 21:26 and 21:46).

The claim that the two slept all night, from 24:00 or 01:00 until 10:00 is also disproved; one of them (there was nobody else in the house) at 05:32 had turned on the computer, and listened to music for half an hour, and at about 06:00 someone had turned on Sollecito’s cell phone which was then able to receive a goodnight message from his father sent at 23:14 and which had not been received earlier because the phone was turned off.

Finally, it was disproved that Sollecito had received a phone call from his father at about 23:00 on 1 November 2007: the phone logs show that he received no calls on either the fixed or mobile line after about 20:40, [6 ->] and indeed his father explained that having established from this call that his son was with his girlfriend, getting ready to spend the evening together, he avoided telephoning again in order not to disturb them.”

The significance of Knox’s and Sollecito’s numerous lies to the police and others seems to be completely lost on Peter Gill.

Bear in mind that Robin Garbutt was found guilty of murdering his wife because he lied to the police, changed a key part of evidence and was caught out by technology.

There was no murder weapon, no DNA or forensic evidence, no logical motive, no witnesses and no confession. There has been no big media maelstrom concerning Robin Garbutt’s conviction for murder. It seems middle-aged white knights are only interested in rescuing damsels in distress and trying to profit from Amanda Knox’s infamy.

There is no plausible innocent explanation for Knox and Sollecito’s multiple false alibis and numerous lies. Amanda Knox’s high-profile supporters in the media seem to be completely oblivious to them.

The filmmakers responsible for the Netflix documentary Amanda Knox also completely ignored her lies with the exception of her false and malicious allegation against Diya Lumumba.

They ignored the fact Amanda Knox didn’t retract her accusation the whole time he was in prison even though she knew he was innocent. Time and time again Amanda Knox’s advocates in the media brush inconvenient facts that show her in a bad light under the carpet.

Peter Gill has never publicly mentioned Amanda Knox’s false and malicious accusation of Diya Lumumba or the fact she is a convicted felon for life, presumably because it undermines his narrative that she is an innocent victim. Amanda Knox’s definitive slander conviction for repeatedly accusing an innocent man of murder completely shatters this PR myth - a myth that Gill has unethically tried to peddle in the media.

Judge Micheli, who presided over Rudy Guede’s fast-track trial and sent Knox and Sollecito to trial, said lying repeatedly to the police will always be considered to be a serious indication of guilt. Judge Massei and Judge Nencini both attached considerable significance to Knox and Sollecito’s numerous lies in their respective reports.

Judge Micheli, Judge Massei and Judge Nencini are all experienced trial judges. Even Judges Bruno and Marasca didn’t attempt to understate their significance and stated that Knox and Sollecito were covering for Guede. That makes Knox and Sollecito at the very least accessories after the fact and guilty of perverting the course of justice.

Only a gullible simpleton would unquestioningly believe anything Knox and Sollecito say given the fact they are self-confessed and compulsive liars. It’s completely illogical for anyone to trust them - and yet Peter Gill does.

He may be a highly-qualified DNA expert, but he doesn’t seem to have an ounce of common sense. It should be self-evident even to a half-wit that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito lied repeatedly because they were trying to cover up their involvement in Meredith’s murder.

Posted by The Machine on 03/06/17 at 02:08 AM in Hoaxers from 2007Hoaxers from 2011Peter Gill

Tweet This Post


Astute, a straight arrow of truth to the target of Gill’s wild assertion of a PROVEN miscarriage of justice. He has narrowed his scope to throw doubt on DNA, in a can’t see the forest for the trees approach to this crime. No, it’s more like he has a microscope to the bark of one tree and since he can’t see a forest there, he dismisses the forest all around him.

The Machine focuses on salient points that allow for no other explanation than that Knox is a liar, a proven liar, who accused her boss of a murder in a house he’d never entered, who was not coerced into such a damning statement but asked for pen and paper with which to further accuse him. Her own lover at the time admits he lied to police for her. Chieffi said it’s wrong to take one tiny piece of evidence and believe that doubt cast upon it (and not even disproof, but merely doubt) is a way to remove the entire wall of bricks.

There is no innocent explanation for all of Knox’s lies and Raffaele’s lies, as Nencini confirms. They have no alibi. They lied for the world’s oldest reason: to hide guilt.

It’s as if a hoarder in a debris filled room were to sort one small stack of business mail and envelopes, dust them off, straighten their edges and then crow that the entire room is clean and neat.

Posted by Hopeful on 03/06/17 at 05:20 PM | #

I don’t think Gill is a simpleton.  However,  I do think he is channeling all of his frustration and exasperation of police misconceptions and poor understanding about DNA into this one case, tempered with jumping on an ‘injustice bandwagon’ without properly appraising himself of the facts of the case.

Yes, DNA sampling is a complex subject, especially its meaning within the context of a crime scene, with the added issue of one of the subjects living there, so even more limiting factors are introduced.

Gill makes a rather insulting assumption that the Rome Forensic Police led by Stefanoni were too stupid to understand the implications of DNA forensics, or worse, corrupt and determined to ‘frame’ ‘the kids’ for some inexplicible reason.

We can see Gill’s unfairness, as he doesn’t criticise the Rudy Guede DNA at all, collected under the same conditions, bearing in mind, Guede also swears he is innocent, and was there invited.

Gill can be rightly criticised for introducing his theory that Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA appears on the bra-clasp by ‘secondary transfer’ - i.e., from the door handle to the glove, to the clasp.  However, this would be *tertiary transfer* which even he considers highly improbable in other works.  |In any case, the ‘dirty glove’ theroy is to accept the rather tenuous claim by the defence Stefanoni had on a dirty glove, just because the defence CCTV footage shows a spot, which could be anything: a trick of light and shadow, a fault in the pixels, a spot on the lens, or even if there was a speck of something, it doesn’t follow Sollecito’s full DNA profile would be on it, and then transfer to the bra hook.  One would have to assume conditions favourable for the door DNA to remain transferable for 42 days, which even Gill concurs is unlikely to happen beyond 24 hours.

The condition of the DNA on the towels used to staunch the blood and the faeces in the loo had deteriorated within days and no DNA could be found at all, never mind good quality DNA that could be transferred not once, not twice, but THREE times.

Gill fails to highlight the statistical near impossibility for this to happen, especially as Stefanoni testified she specifically did *not* touch the hook itself with her gloved hand.  In effect, Gill would have us believe the DNA somehow leapt off the glove from the imputed speck, which itself had somehow picked up Raff DNA from the door, which Sollecito told police he had shouldered and kicked, but not mentioned touched with his hands, even whilst assuming the DNA wouldn’t have been degraded by all of this passing around.

In his own critiques, Gill emphasises how vital it is for the court representative to outline this presumed path of ‘secondary’ transfer, yet he fails to even mention the defence’s abject failure to do so.  In any case, it was ruled by Massei and Nencini, there was no credible evidence there was any contamination, given the strong DNA profile of Sollecito (17-alleles) which showed high RFU’s and were not Low Copy Number.

We have to ask, ‘What on earth is Gill thinking of..?’

I can only imagine he received a fee for his contribution towards the appeal doucment to which his report was attached, even though he did not give evidence at the trial, nor was cross-examined by anyone.  However, even with a fee, it is baffling that an academic and DNA expert would even put his name to such highly speculative ‘guesswork’, obviously designed to ‘get round the legal system and free the kids’.

Dr Gill:  What about justice for the victim?  Or did that not cross your mind?

Posted by KrissyG on 03/06/17 at 07:55 PM | #

Stabby’s claim to have tried to break down Meredith’s door is, as we know, arrant nonsense. We’ll never know if he did make a half hearted effort (akin to Knox’s panicked calling of Meredith for all of two seconds) and had splintered some wood but not managed to completely knock the door in. But even that is almost certainly a lie.

If that had been true then the fact that he had tried to knock a door down to a locked room where he knew his girlfriend’s “friend” slept and that this action had elicited no response from inside would have induced blind panic. Any normal person would have continued working on the door until it gave way. Especially if it had splintered a bit and was clearly on the way as it were.

As for the use of a shoulder only, anyone who has tried to knock a door down (I’ve knocked down a few in my time) knows that the most effective, and least painful, method by far is to take a small run at it and use a lateral stamping motion with the sole of your shoe as close to the lock as possible. This I can tell you from experience as mentioned above. It’s an intuitive thing when you realise that you only get a sore shoulder from the other method; unless it’s a balsa wood door.

Sollecito’s footprint’s would have been on the door if he had really tried to knock it down. Indeed Knox’s finger/palm prints would have been on the handle if she had tried to open it when she found it locked as she claimed. I don’t recall either being found, although I may just have forgotten. Indeed I recall the apartment was unusually bereft of Knox’s fingerprints and DNA, almost as if a person or persons unknown had been out with the mop and cloth.

Gill is clearly a very bright man. He would go up hugely in everyone’s estimation if he would cease making fantastically nonsensical statements like there had been a proven miscarriage of justice in this case and just look at the evidence in the round. He makes no mention of the lack of Rudy’s DNA in Filomena’s room or Knox’s mixed DNA with Meredith in blood in the same room. Or any of the other plethora of evidence that she left around the place.

Sadly, like the surviving defence lawyers who defended OJ and who still say that he was not guilty, Gill is probably pathologically incapable of admitting his error. A poisonous mixture of hubris, professional pride and thirty pieces of silver at play here methinks.

I still wonder how these people who wilfully game the system sleep at night.

Posted by davidmulhern on 03/07/17 at 11:08 AM | #

Krissy G, The first para of your comment above sums up nicely the forces that may be driving Mr. Gill. As The Machine himself says, Gill is no doubt a highly qualified DNA expert, but he’s not bringing his common sense to this case. It’s likely he may be frustrated or exasperated with the lack of understanding of DNA science by police, who like the majority of persons cannot begin to grasp the highly technical science of his DNA work. Krissy G is right that this must make him feel he must wade into the fray.

And he is right to limit himself to his area of expertise, that’s wise but he doesn’t have the right to throw out all his other common sense about the obvious factors of this case. He uses his narrow focus on DNA as an excuse to turn a blind eye to the guilty evidence.

Again I agree with Krissy G that he comforts himself with the idea of being on the side of the angels in some “injustice network” and assumes he’s helping the falsely accused. How can he not gulp a little and scratch his head when he sees the 17-alleles of Raffaele Sollecito on the bra clasp?

davidmulhern brings an interesting discussion of Raffaele kicking the locked door, and the lack of his or Amanda’s fingerprints all over a door they were supposedly wrenching and banging on to force open.

If he did kick at the door it was probably to retrieve Amanda’s lamp. The idiots had left it inside the murder room in a last minute blur caused by their drug haze, crime shock, adrenaline rush and long hours of hard work in clean-up hysteria. It was a lamp they had brought in to help clean up the floor carefully, or maybe search for a lost earring or glass fragments as they worked at night.

It’s been observed that when Amanda is upset about something, she jumps and moves her body doing flips and cartwheels and hits her head, she works off excitement through her body like a wild animal. She may have kicked Meredith’s door herself in frustration at having left her lamp behind. Of course Raf had done some kickboxing back in the day, so he may have kicked the door too. Later they cleaned up all fingerprints on the door to remove any signs of themselves, but as davidmulhern points out, the lack of their prints on the door handle casts more doubt on their tale.

No doubt Raf was enraged with Knox about the lamp, after all his tedious detailed cleaning. He said she even tried to scale the wall and look into Meredith’s balcony window and he tried to pull her back from that daring move, fearful she would fall.

Was Knox’s typical monkey move that he was referring to, yet another desperate attempt to look into Meredith’s bedroom window because of the lamp she’d left inside? Did she hope to get in through Meredith’s window when they couldn’t kick open the door?

Never in a million years could Amanda have guessed that her own lamp on the floor of murdered friend would not be presented in court as the smoking gun that she knew it was.

I suppose the reasoning was that any killer could have moved the lamp into the room, and that’s true.

But it was suspicious how Knox pretended to not notice the lamp had disappeared from her bedroom, when asked to see if anything was stolen.

About Rudy: as davidmulhern comments Rudy’s bloody shoeprints and his DNA on Meredith’s cuff, also Rudy’s bathroom leavings prove Rudy was all over the cottage EXCEPT near the broken window attributed to him.

It was in that room with the broken window that we see Knox’s DNA mixed in the victim’s blood. And it was neither of those women’s bedroom, so Knox’s DNA would not likely have been smeared all over the floor just waiting for a random drop of Meredith’s blood to fall onto it. That mixing occurred elsewhere but Knox was so distracted when she moved into Filomena’s room in an attempt to break a window and strew clothes around to fake a scene that she missed the small blood speck that told of what she’d been doing earlier.

The Machine writes that the Supreme Court disagreed with Hellman’s atomistic, piecemeal approach to the evidence, which is the same mistake Peter Gill is making. I’d say few people doubt Mr. Gill’s DNA expertise and intelligence (I think he worked on the Romanov’s bones, the last Russian tsar, a fascinating story), but he needs to bring the same intelligence to the general picture of this crime.

It’s in criminal behavior that not scientists but police are experts. Police investigators study criminal nature and have a wealth of experience with liars and con artists and the violent. As the fictional detective Columbo said, the criminal usually has only one chance to cover his crime, while the police are professionals and work on case after case and have many chances to see the patterns of deceit.

They could see a fake break in immediately. At Questura they saw Raffaele’s inner sneer a mile away.

Knox was probably more difficult for them (for a nanosecond) but they soon saw through her, and treated her with kid gloves while doing it. The language barrier worked in her favor and she was aided by the PR headlines her daddy paid for that tried to persuade us to see Knox as little girl lost amid thieves and cutthroats. PR wizards working for money tried to turn the suspect Knox into the studious, hardworking, socially generous but focused academic that was Meredith Kercher, who wanted only to follow the rules, read, learn, achieve, and support her family, mother, sister, etc.

I did online search to learn about the Robin Garbutt case, he was some piece of work, bold as brass, a thief (I assume the post office theft he reported long before the murder was his scam to cover embezzlement? not sure).

Every criminal like him should learn from Knox how to talk shamelessly about their sex life, claim a poor memory, discuss a desire for adventure, and sow confusion and complexity into their criminal case by multiple lies alternating with the waif’s batted eyelids…oh wait, not everyone is a young sexy female student excused for youthful excesses and wild nights on the town. Nor do innocence project volunteers rush to the Robin Garbutt defense quite as willingly. I will check out the Levi Bellfield case.

Posted by Hopeful on 03/07/17 at 06:01 PM | #

It is with hope in my heart that Mr. Gill could use hindsight to now see how he was recruited to the cause.

First thing would be to explain specifically how this is a “proven miscarriage of justice” please.
I don’t know if an apology; something not quite along the lines of e.g. “sorry about what I said but i can see now its a sack of shit that doesn’t make sense so i lied (because she told me to) but i didn’t think of the inconsistencies”
- but something with honour nonetheless.

Sollecito and the door? Don’t even go there.
Neither did he.
It is from the words of both 2 time guilty of murder convicts that this happened at all.

True evil and true darkness ran through the veins of Amanda Knox the night Meredith Kercher lost her young life Mr Gill and here is one thing proven - Amanda Knox was at the scene when Meredith was murdered and she washed her hands of Meredith’s blood in the bathroom they shared that night.
All the time Sollecito is accompanying Knox, slithering away like only he does.
And what of Guede on record as stating he was “invited” that night.
Would these judicial facts have any bearing on your opinion?

I often wonder why a 23 year old student would walk around armed with a combat knife at all times, in fact feeling positively naked if he isn’t “tooled up” in such away - a mere fashion accessory like worn on the streets of Glasgow amongst the young.
A 23 year old IT student rich kid uses his ever present combat knife to notch trees it seems Mr Gill.
You know, like he has done since childhood.

Posted by Deathfish on 03/08/17 at 12:05 AM | #

Hi Krissy,

Peter Gill is an idiot savant. He’s clearly highly knowledgeable about forensic science, but he has zero common sense. It’s actually embarrassing that he doesn’t seem to understand the blatantly obvious significance of Knox and Sollecito’s numerous lies. It makes me wonder whether he has severe learning difficulties.

Posted by The Machine on 03/08/17 at 08:17 PM | #

There are some dodgy pictures of Knox’s throat scratch floating around Twitter purporting to be a hand print or even, still, a ‘hickey’, lol, so I dug up the original and posted it here. http://www.perugiamurderfile.net/viewtopic.php?p=131876#p131876

Posted by Ergon on 03/11/17 at 06:08 AM | #

Wow!! Big step forward Ergon. That looks nothing like a hickey and extremely like a defensive scratch mark.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/11/17 at 03:45 PM | #

Enough to be taken aside by the police and have it photographed so it seems.
One thing I would like to see would be a profile shot of Knox with her lower stud (missing) that I noticed from back in the day, from memory I believe it was The Daily Mirror that first published the shot. Have they any more in the series?
There are no specific profile shots of Knox’s torn lobe and missing stud taken by the police?

Posted by Deathfish on 03/12/17 at 03:33 AM | #

Looks like a fingernail scratch. Photo was taken on November 6, 2007 but fatal fight occurred night of November 1, so the scratch had been healing for several days. Think how red and bad it looked right after the incident.

Knox probably masked the scratch before her Questura visit by applying the stolen makeup from Filomena?

The scratch was hidden behind scarf when Knox visited the drugstore early next morning after Meredith’s death. Maybe she was at Quintavalle’s to buy band-aids or zinc oxide cream to soothe and conceal it.

Or Raffaele might have had antibiotic ointments in his apartment (his dad being a doctor) that were applied to hasten the healing.

Poor Meredith, Rudy gripped her arms or she would have knocked Knox’s teeth out and broken her nose and slammed Raf’s glasses off and maybe cracked his nose. They were scared of her or they wouldn’t have pulled knives.

Of course this comment is surmise but the mark on neck looks like a scratch, straight down Knox’s windpipe. Maybe this stung and enraged Knox and she escalated the fight, calling in henchmen to save her skin.

Posted by Hopeful on 03/12/17 at 04:11 AM | #

It is certainly not a ‘hickey’ nor a (in the english) a ‘love bite”.

Although admittedly I am not an expert on the subject - who is? but I have never in my entire life seen a mark like that on someones neck that is NOT the result of a violent struggle.

Granted Sollecito is a super wimp, but here it seems (if you were to believe he or Knox’s supporters) he has a propensity to suck until he has drawn blood to the surface of the skin;  a weird vertical mark at the side of the adams apple.
I dont know but I have never in my life been asked by a lady to perform such a thing as this so as to enhance her enjoyment of the experience.
In other words another major lie from Knox and the super wimp.
Why lie?

Posted by Deathfish on 03/12/17 at 05:00 AM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry How Saul Kassin Hoaxed The American Psychology Law Society

Or to previous entry Exposing Peter Gill: An Opportunistic Expert Never At Trial and Never At Either Rome Police Lab