Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Another Prominent US Legal Commentator On The Evidence Points That Simply Won’t Go Away

Posted by Peter Quennell

Now a second prominent TV analyst joins CNN’s Nancy Grace.

Wendy Murphy is controversial, but then, aren’t they all? Like Nancy Grace she is a former prosecutor. This syndicated report is already being carried on 150 media websites.

The evidence still points to Amanda Knox

What’s more galling: Amanda Knox making out with her co-defendant boyfriend hours after Meredith Kercher was stabbed to death, or Amanda Knox crying tears of self-pleasure after being acquitted of murder despite overwhelming evidence of her guilt?

The most horrifying part of this story is the way it proves our collective stupidity. If a guilty criminal spends enough money on public relations, we can be convinced that up is down and a murderer is a national hero….

Here’s a small sample of what Amanda’s obKNOXious cheerleaders don’t want you to know:

Wendy Murphy then summarises four of the evidence points that wont go away. Pesky stuff. Mr Sollecito? Ms Knox?

It seems that lawyers are increasingly not taking kindly to the usurping of the law by P-R.


Added Wednesday afternoon. Wendy Murphy’s article was the subject of a concerted attacked with the usual faux facts on many websites. She came back fighting with this long comment.

Please refrain from posting false information. There is ABUNDANT evidence against Knox and Sollecito.

Guede’s involvement in the murder cannot be questioned. Nor is it in doubt that there were multiple offenders. Guede’s race is irrelevant. That Amanda Knox falsely accused an innocent black man is highly relevant and speaks to her consciounsness of guilt, and her character, as much as her racism. One news report revealed that she once photographed herself in a white supremecist context (claiming it was a joke).

She claimed to make the initial false accusation against an innocent black man (Patrick Lumumba) under stress from police questioning, but when given a chance to clarify her accusation at a later date, she reaffirmed her false claim against him. The man sat in prison for two weeks because of Amanda’s false accusation. She was convicted of lying about police treating her unfairly. One of her lawyers at the first trial told the New York Times her trial was fair.


The defense argued that the DNA on a metal bra clasp, which had been severed from the victim’s bra, could have been contaminated when it was moved on the floor, six weeks after the murder, or in the forensic laboratory in Rome. The judge at the trial of Rudy Guede acknowledged that the DNA sample on the clasp was considered small, but described the claim of contamination at the laboratory as making ‘no sense’, since there was no material from which such contamination could have come, and so ‘the risk would have been the LOSS of traces found there, not the risk of somehow discovering new traces’.


The defense has said the knife found at Sollecito’s apartment doesn’t match Kercher’s wounds or an imprint of a knife left on a bedsheet at Kercher’s apartment. They have also said the DNA sample is too small to be conclusive. They also raised speculation that the DNA found on the bra clasp could have been contaminated.


‘Why do you need to review the forensic evidence when this conviction is based on much more than the knife and the bra clasp?’ Prosecutor Manuela Comodi argued before the court began deliberating.
She then reminded the court that Knox and Sollecito don’t have an alibi for the night of the killing, adding that there was ‘ample’ evidence of a staged break-in.

Kercher’s body was found with her throat cut on November 2, 2007, in the house she shared with Knox in the central Italian city. A knife with a 6-inch blade was later found at Sollecito’s house, bearing traces of Kercher’s DNA on the blade and Knox’s on the handle. The defence teams of both Knox and Sollecito, who pleaded innocent at the weekend, have cast doubt on the DNA findings, saying the samples were too small to prove their provenance. THEY DID NOT CLAIM THE SAMPLES ON THE KNIVES WERE CONTAMINATED. THE DEFENSE ONLY CLAIMED THAT KERCHER’S DNA ON THE BLADE WAS TOO SMALL TO BE A MATCH - BUT EVEN IF YOU BELIEVE THAT - IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT KERCHER OULD NOT BE RULED OUT!

Guede says he was in the bathroom of the house when he heard Knox and Kercher argue about money [Meredith had several hundred dollars in her room - that went missing - which was likely the motive that sparked the fight] before Kercher screamed and he found her in a pool of blood


Forensic scientist Patrizia Stefanoni, who testified as a prosecution witness last spring, wrote too low in English on initial results, assumed to mean that the samples of Kerchers DNA on the alleged murder weapon were only partial strands that needed amplification. [THERE WAS NO DISPUTE THAT AMANDA KNOX’S DNA ON THE HANDLE WAS A LARGE ENOUGH SAMPLE SIZE TO BE MATCHED TO AMANDA KNOX. NOR WAS THERE A DISPUTE THAT THE BLADE HAD BEEN SCRUBBED CLEAN WITH BLEACH AND AN ABRASIVE SUBSTANCE]. Writing too low suggests the expert was copying a reading directly from the machine, while she was continuing to test the sample. The implication, according to the defense, is that Stefanoni then had to amplify the tiny sample found on the blade beyond the protocol to find a match to Kerchers DNA. AMPLIFICATION IS NOT FORENSICALLY INAPPROPRIATE AND IS DONE ALL THE TIME.


Knox and Sollecito were interviewed several times by the police on the day the murder was discovered and the following two days. On 5 November 2007, Knox voluntarily accompanied Sollecito to the police station where he gave a statement, in the course of which he said that he DID NOT KNOW FOR SURE that Knox was with him on the night of the murder. The police then decided to question Knox and began the interview at 23.00 that evening. Knox was interviewed twice during the night of 56 November, firstly by the judicial police and then, later, in the presence of a prosecutor. During these interviews, Knox made statements implicating Patrick Lumumba, the owner of a bar-restaurant named Le Chic, at which she occasionally worked. She said that she had accompanied Lumumba to Kercher’s house and had been in the kitchen and heard screams while Lumumba committed the murder.

Knox was formally arrested later on the morning of 6 November. Some time afterwards she made a written note to the police, explaining that she was confused when she made the earlier statements [IMPLICATING HERSELF], saying ‘I’m very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion’. However, she still seemed to incriminate Lumumba, saying: ‘I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrick [Lumumba], but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele’s house.’ She went on to say ‘I see Patrick as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don’t remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night.’

Lumumba was arrested on 6 November 2007 as a result of Knox’s statements. He was detained for two weeks until the arrest of Guede. Initially doubts about his alibi were reported in the press, but ultimately he was completely exonerated.

Knox’s DNA was found on two of the knives kept in Sollecito’s kitchen drawer for cooking, and a small amount of Kercher’s DNA was found on one of the two. At trial, the defence countered that Knox’s DNA would normally be on the knife because she used knives for cooking at Sollecito’s apartment. The defence also challenged the Kercher DNA sample as being too small to be reliable. Knox and Sollecito’s defence teams also asserted that this knife was not the lethal weapon because it did not match two of the three wounds and tested negative for blood. However, a forensic evidence expert for the prosecution testified that it was compatible with one of the wounds on Kercher’s neck, but that two other wounds might have been inflicted by a different weapon;

Mixed samples of Knox’s DNA and Kercher’s blood were found in the apartment, including in the bathroom sink and in Filomena Romanelli’s room. The defence argued that Knox’s DNA should be expected to be present there in the ordinary course of her use of the apartment and bathroom as a resident of the cottage - BUT KNOX HERSELF MADE STATEMENTS TO POLICE CONCEDING THERE WAS NO REASON FOR HER DNA TO BE MIXED WITH THE VICTIM’S BLOOD IN SO MANY LOCATIONS IN THE APARTMENT. KNOX HAD LIVED THERE FOR ONLY A FEW SHORT WEEKS BEFORE THE MURDER.




My favourite line:

“Whatever one makes of the controversial DNA evidence and Knox’s girl-next-door face, it’s worth remembering that the “type” of person who lacks enough of a conscience to restrain herself from falsely accusing an innocent man of murder is exactly the “type” who can kill.”

Good job Ms Murphy!!

Posted by Melanie on 10/12/11 at 05:39 PM | #

Wendy, if you read this. That’s about 1% of the evidence.

Posted by starsdad on 10/12/11 at 05:44 PM | #

“Untold” Amanda Knox story for Channel 5

New documentary to feature murder scene footage and testimony from Amanda Knox’s family

Posted by starsdad on 10/12/11 at 06:34 PM | #

I just read this and in fact was going to comment upon it. Great stuff. I believe this is a ground swell of vilification against this terrible family. There are other publications as well. Very dangerous to userp the public perception that they have been taken in and made to look like fools.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 10/12/11 at 07:02 PM | #

Why would Solicito come to the USA for a visit? I have heard Curt Knox say they invited the entire family but then heard Solicito’s step mother say they were never invited.It would seem to me to be an uncomfortable position for both parties in the fact they denied each others alibis to some degree. They were tried together but certainly seemed to be in separate camps during the trial and appeal. Just curious why he just wouldn’t move himself to a 3rd world country and disappear?? Thanks

Posted by fotomat1 on 10/12/11 at 07:35 PM | #

It is a horrible idea to bring Wendy Murphy into this. She is a rabid pro-prosecution zealot that has proved in every case that the truth is nothing but a minor inconvenience. She is (and has admitted) to be there only to present a position via obsessive propaganda, unencumbered by logic, truth, facts or reason.

She has a poisonous influence. She started in the malicious false prosecution of the Falls Acres Day Care center, and since then has been involved in several disasters that only highlight her uncommon dedication to cause misery to innocents.

Posted by razvan on 10/12/11 at 08:25 PM | #

@fotomat1 I heard it was Dr Sollecito who mentioned the invitation and then said it wasn’t a good time but he would like to speak with them. An observer noted that he did nothing more than shake hands with the family before facing the press.

I wonder how much money they’d get for adouble interview?

Posted by Melanie on 10/12/11 at 08:39 PM | #

I left the following comment under Ms. Murphy’s editorial:

It’s great to see another legal commentator (in addition to Nancy Grace) getting the facts and evidence of this case out there before the American public. Only have one quibble: The DNA of the victim Meredith Kercher that was found on the knife blade was not ‘partial.’ You can go to and find a powerpoint presentation on this. It was actually a full profile—the peaks at ALL loci examined (13 or 14, I believe) matched Meredith exactly. However, the amount was low—so-called ‘Low Copy Number’ or LCN. This is an evolving, new field in DNA forensics, and the law around it is in flux, but there’s no inherent reason why LCN DNA should not be used in trials as good evidence. Just like any other evolving field of forensics, some day it will no longer be controversial.

Tellingly, with regard to the supposed ‘experts’ who wrote the report denigrating the DNA evidence—when one of them got on the stand, she actually admitted the DNA on the knife was a full profile for Meredith Kercher. She just said it was too small of an amount to be reliable. That was her opinion, but most other experts who looked at the evidence were of the opposite opinion.

Raffaele’s ‘cover story’ as to why Meredith’s blood would be on the knife is also horribly incriminating.

Thanks, Wendy, for standing up against the prevailing media winds, which want us to ignore the evidence and cheer for Knox just because she’s young, pretty, white, and American.

Posted by Earthling on 10/12/11 at 08:49 PM | #

I wonder what Amanda will think whenever she hears this song:
On the other hand, now she´s free she will once again have access to all the media , including the web. What will she say if she finds this page or PMF? She´ll be extremely indignant, to say the very least.
What is Giuliano Mignini doing now, I wonder ?

Posted by aethelred23 on 10/12/11 at 09:16 PM | #

I also thought about AK discovering this website… how strange would that be 😉

For those interested, statement analysis has been performed on AK’s notorious email to her friends and family. Conclusion: GUILTY

Here’s the link:

Posted by gdeschaetzen on 10/12/11 at 09:33 PM | #

Hi Psoentgen,

I agree with you. The only reason Guede (or Sollecito) would have done something like this is if the woman whose affections they were competing for put them up to it.

When I think of all the nutty things I did to impress women it doesn’t surprise me at all that some men could cross over into violence. Knox is the linchpin here. Without her getting involved in what was essentially a barfight at the cottage, the murder wouldn’t have happened.

PS Sorry about your bad experience with the court. I’ve had my share as well.

Posted by brmull on 10/12/11 at 09:39 PM | #

It was suggested to me today that RG attacked Meredith during a break in, mistaking her for AK. This presents an alternative twist on the reason RG was involved at all, but that still does not explain why there is clear evidence of more than one attacker of poor Meredith.

Anyone any thoughts on this version? (of mistaken identity by RG)

Posted by TruthWillOut on 10/12/11 at 10:14 PM | #


If Guede initially mistook Meredith for Knox he would have figured it out pretty quickly. Why didn’t he try to talk his way out of it, like at the Milan nursery school? He could have said he dropped by to see if the neighbors were home and noticed the broken window. He went upstairs, found the door open, and came inside to look around.

Posted by brmull on 10/12/11 at 11:05 PM | #

Peter whereabouts did Wendy add the extra comment?

Posted by Tim on 10/13/11 at 01:16 AM | #

Hi Tim. If you google some text of Wendy Murphy’s original article, you’ll find her comment underneath several of the 150 or so hits including the top one here:

The pompous Bridgewater’s posts there to which she seems to take main exception are riddled with false facts. For example at trial Knox confirmed she had met Guede.  And Sollecito who lived about 200 feet away from Guede must have at least seen him dozens of times.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/13/11 at 01:35 AM | #

Thanks Peter.

Posted by Tim on 10/13/11 at 01:45 AM | #

Historical note: The passage from ARTICLESBASE is actually the old version of the Wikipedia article, before it got overrun by Jimmy Wales and his pro-Knox posse.

Posted by brmull on 10/13/11 at 01:50 AM | #

The points made here are excellent but I hope people will focus on that and not on the reporter. I thought it was wrong when so many people criticised Nancy Grace and Ann Coulter. I also hope people won’t read left or right wing politics into what is at its heart a fight for justice, and I’m sure we can all agree on that.

But the media is the circus, and as plans get underway to stage a reunion of the lovebirds in Seattle, I hope people don’t forget that it is going to be a long haul, and the outcome, not a slam dunk, and if we get involved in this case, our agenda is justice for Meredith Kercher. And we should welcome anyone that speaks for that.

Posted by Ergon on 10/13/11 at 07:39 AM | #

Does Wendy Murhpy have a twitter or facebook page to like? She is fantastic! In response to pathetic ratings driven and clearly plagiaristic journalists bounded by money and ratings she is a breath of fresh air. I am on board for her promotion.  I would like to post!

Posted by Jumpy on 10/13/11 at 09:18 AM | #


Well said…I too hope people will stay focused on what actually happend here instead of labeling it a conservative or liberal cause. Someone died and justice must prevail…thats the TRUTH left or right, up or down,backward or forward.I myself am fairly conservative and have been labeled a bleeding heart liberal because of what I think in this case.I really don’t know how you can label anyone left or right leaning in regard to this matter because the Truth cuts both ways.

Posted by fotomat1 on 10/13/11 at 03:15 PM | #

I made a comment on a previous post on politics and how that was not the route to take in this matter.  Now the Knox media approach is, through the eyes of my persuasion, so similar to how the media are on other matters that it is uncanny but how is that relevant?

It’s a red herring in this case which can only divide and rule us.  There’s also what we say here at TJMK and at PMF and these are the two premier sites on the “evidence” side of the debate.  Actually, it’s not even a debate - it’s a matter of just getting the evidence out to the public.

I would look askance at anyone from my political corner making political comment in terms of right and left or for that matter bringing other extraneous things into it.  One exception is whether Knox’s alleged racism did or did not colour her accusation and that one point is legitimate debate.  I’m undecided.  Doesn’t alter all the rest of it though.

The danger now is that, for want of something new to report, we might all get caught up in the troubles in the wider world and boy, have we ever got some of those coming up.  Some of us might fall by the wayside before the Cassation - in our own lives, I mean, not in the realization of the guilt of the three.

The two blogowners at TJMK and PMF and the host of writers have done a sterling job so far but the true test is coming up in these next few months.

Posted by James Higham on 10/14/11 at 09:06 AM | #

Wendy Murphy hits every pressure point of the hard evidence, including bra clasp and knife DNA evidence. She knows the facts. She nails Knox’s self-serving tears as guilty relief of acquittal.

She quotes Comodi that Knox and Raf have no alibi, that Knox claims she was NOT SURE she was at the cottage that night.

The uncertainty of her whereabouts was increased after Raf flipped to say she had left him alone for hours. So there’s nobody to vouch for either of them on the fateful night.

Wendy Murphy knows about the mixed Meredith DNA in Knox’s blood on sink tap, and the five spots of victim blood mixed with Knox DNA in Filomena’s bedroom where Knox had spent little time, she had only lived in the cottage around 5 weeks.

The five bloody spots in Filomena Romanelli’s room are very suspicious that they should all have Knox’s dna in them, in Meredith’s blood.

I read Wendy Murphy’s article about Slutwalk stupidity in “The Guardian” link. Too right there’s not much way to rehabilitate the image of slut. It’s a waste of feminists’ time.

The VICE show where Knox will support wrongly-demonized women will probably prove (as I think Chimera or one commenter earlier expressed) will prove how unreliable Knox is with the truth. She is self-branding these days without her David Marriott oversight who tried so hard to shape her up as the all American girl entangled by foreign complications. Her brand will suffer on the VICE show.

Posted by Hopeful on 12/24/17 at 05:57 PM | #
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 Long Lines For Any Amanda Knox Movie? Unlikely - Too Much PR Legacy Taints Her Brand

Or to previous entry Excellent Sunday Times Report On The Many Killer Questions The Second Appeal Next Year Might Answer