Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Congratulations To The BBC For A Report Emphasizing The Sheer Extensiveness Of The Evidence

Posted by Our Main Posters

[From the BBC report: Meredith the night before the cruel, deadly attack with her Halloween friends]

This is the painstaking and obviously expensive report by Andrea Vogt and Paul Russell with interviews in London, Seattle and Perugia.

It was aired by the BBC on 17 February. Considerable time is allocated to defense lawyers and experts and the Knox family and Ann Bremner of the FOA taking their best shots at explaining how Knox could maybe have not been involved.

Still, the sheer mass of the evidence remains as the 80,000 pound elephant in the room, lacking any hint of a realistic alternative explanation. Three people committed the horrific attack, including Rudy Guede and two others.

Only Knox and Sollecito remain pointed to by dozens of evidence points as those two others. Not one single evidence point indicates anyone else was involved. The Masssei trial court got it right as the Nencini appeal court just confirmed.

We will enquire if we can embed the hour-long video. But as it may be picked up by US and other foreign media outlets, we will start by simply summarizing it soon.  Assessents by those who have already seen it are welcomed.


That would be awesome if you could embed it.  I can’t get at it from Can., but will try Hola as suggested by Odysseus, I think.  otherwise regional licensing will leave people like me out.  I can’t wait to see it.  Thanks Peter.

Posted by all4justice on 02/18/14 at 09:52 AM | #

There was one scene which was repeated a couple of times, it’s also at 50 minutes and 40 seconds. In it there is a smile that comes across Amanda’s face… Bizarre.

I also noticed Amanda looked extremely tired on the day of the discovery of the body.  It was much more evident to tell on standard television rather than grainy footage on the Internet.

Posted by DavidB on 02/18/14 at 10:24 AM | #

Thanks DavidB

Amanda Knox’s extreme body odor outside the house the day the police arrived is taken in Perugia as fairly firm evidence (there is more) that she had been on some sort of amphetamines - cocaine or crystal meth.

The physical signs and odd behavior over the several days later could also be signs of hard drug use. Maybe this is what Meredith stumbled in on or protested.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/18/14 at 10:33 AM | #

Most objective - well done BBC 3, redeeming itself.

During AK audios: shut your eyes and listen to her phonation, undistracted by the body-language of her lifetime of successfully lying.

When she makes that loud, impatient exhalation noise, mocked by the Italian Punch-and-Judy spoofers, she’s LYING.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 02/18/14 at 12:34 PM | #

Yes, quite right Cardiol ( very telling in the spoof). One can notice too, just listening to the intonation, this unnatural high pitch, with harmonics that are falsetto. Also spoken rapidly.
A true statement would be said with a tone of conviction, usually with lower, stronger voice and spoken more slowly and steadily, with natural pauses but immediacy in launching into it.
All she does is the opposite - the pause is BEFORE she commences, and then this rapid, high intonation. I think that’s why the spoof was so very funny, and accurate.

A good idea, as you say, to close the eyes and listen.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 02/18/14 at 12:55 PM | #

Excellent documentary by journalist Andrea Vogt!


Posted by True North on 02/18/14 at 02:02 PM | #

We’re a bit concerned about the uploadings of video captures.  Uploadings are a contravention of copyright and may make it hard to market the production around the world.

Which could result in it never being aired in the US where it is needed most. Take it easy guys.

We will have a summary with screen captures late today. There WAS one other English language report on a level with this - way back in 2008:


Six years ago…

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/18/14 at 02:48 PM | #

Good documentary.  At last.

Posted by thundering on 02/18/14 at 03:04 PM | #

These are my initial reactions to IS AMANDA KNOX GUILTY? from BBC3.

It is the best TV documentary I have seen to date, and I have watched everything which has come to hand in English and Italian.

There is a huge demand on FB and Twitter for access to the film and a swell of opinion praising it on the social media.

There are some impressive, sober appearances by experts such as UK scientist Prof David Balding, Italian lawyers Francesco Maresca and Walter Biscotti, just to name a few. For the Sollecito defence, we have Giulia Bongiorno in full flight.

The historic footage at the via della Pergola cottage gives further insights into the anatomy of the crime and the behaviour of the accused.

For the prosecution there are interviews with PM Mignini and deputy Manuela Comodi.

Kurt Knox is interviewed and also makes an appearance, FOAK spokesperson Anne Bremner does not convince at all, to put it kindly.

Some measure of how hard-hitting this presentation has been felt to be among the knoxisti can be gained from the frenetic and often obscene comments from the more unbalanced of Knox’ supporters still flooding onto Twitter.

Stephanie and Lyle Kercher’s express their longing for closure with quiet dignity.

For further reaction from posters go to pmf.org & pmf.net .

Posted by Tiziano on 02/18/14 at 03:39 PM | #

My review of: “Is Amanda Knox Guilty?”
Directed by Andrea Vogt, Produced by Paul Russell
BBC3, Feb 17, 2014

What is the “Amanda Knox trial” (really the Meredith Kercher murder trial) really about? Is it about an innocent 20-year-old pretty white girl being railroaded by the medieval Italian justice system? Or is this actually a murder trial, about the fact that a beautiful, intelligent, ambitious young woman, innocently trying to improve her life by study abroad, was brutally murdered? I believe it’s the latter, and the BBC3 production gives us one of the first truly balanced reports on this trial.

The filmmaker starts from the beginning, and takes us through the murder, investigation, and various trials and appeals up to the present day. Instead of the breathless “Perils of Penelope” tone (toward Amanda Knox) that most such previous “documentaries” have taken, this one takes a sober look at the actual evidence.

Did you realize that there are luminol-revealed bare footprints in Knox’s size in the apartment? Luminol reveals blood and a few other substances; but those substances can be ruled out because the test was done six weeks after the murder, by which time those substances would have dissipated. Blood doesn’t dissipate. This documentary shows you those bloody footprints in all their creepy glory, something never shown on American TV before.

“Is Amanda Knox Guilty” also speaks of the actual DNA evidence in the cottage linking Knox to the murder, including five mixed-DNA spots (Knox and Kercher) that tested positive for blood. Both prosecution- and defense-oriented experts are allowed to comment on this evidence, and the viewer is allowed to make up his or her own mind.

My one criticism is that a lot of the evidence against Knox (witness statements, cell phone data, fake break-in) is skimmed over or not even mentioned. Also, because the documentary quotes Rudy Guede’s position at length without any contradictory narrative, it is confusing as to whether the filmmaker might have believed him. In the end, the filmmaker says, he was convicted of participating in the group murder. However, a stronger statement against his “I’m entirely innocent” defense would have been good.

Other than these quibbles, this is the best documentary on the Meredith Kercher murder case that I have ever seen.

Posted by Earthling on 02/18/14 at 07:58 PM | #

themurderofmeredithkercher.com is down. It is overwhelmed by traffic or is it under attack?

Posted by janenewyork on 02/18/14 at 08:05 PM | #

Soooo refreshing to have the facts presented clearly for people who have only read the Daily Mail cut and pasting the ‘story’ MK’s “throat was slit as part of a sex game gone wrong” for the last six years. I can now direct people to a straight forward programme which outlines the basics of this case.
Absolutely agree with Tiziano’s review- the Friends of Amanda Knox defence of “there is absolutely no evidence” coming a mere few minutes after a ton of evidence has been clarified by impartial experts said all that needed to be said when it comes to the hard sell the Americans have been given.
As always, the Kerchers are dignified and well spoken- Lyle’s response about the US extradicting had me cheering and clapping; he said what needed saying but with a cool and practical exterior- I certainly couldn’t be as composed if something happened to my little sister.
On the other hand the Instagram photo of AK made me squeeze my eyes closed. So classless, when someone is mourning the loss of a child/sister, to use a tool typically used for showing off people’s tans or meals with a tacky filter to proclaim your innocence.
A must watch for anyone confused by contradicting news reports.

Posted by Ginny on 02/18/14 at 10:02 PM | #

I just watched the program, it was very good, quite fair and neutral, although gave the defense side a generous hearing. There was a lot more prosecution evidence not presented, but they did cover the whole history of the case in 1 hour.

My only quibble was the statement about not collecting the bra clasp immediately being a “critical mistake for the prosecution”. The elapsed time has little bearing on the forensic value, and there is no credible reason to believe that the DNA on the bra clasp could have got there by anything other than primary transfer.

The only critical mistake was the court process that released Knox from custody, but hopefully that will be corrected in future.

Posted by bobc on 02/19/14 at 02:09 AM | #

Congratulations to the BBC on an honest documentary. Fair, balanced, and accurate.

Maresca was pitch perfect as always. Mignini was his dignified and perceptive self. Anne Bremner seemed happy to show off a new facelift.

This is a very tender and careful look at the winding road of trials from Perugia to Florence, complete with Knox’s recent “We are innocent” gulag photo stunt. Raffaele is taunted subtly as his white taxi exits town immediately before the Florence verdict, paired with news of his shortlived border crossing out of Italy.
However his quiet restrained demeanor at the Perugia appeal as he is declared not guilty offers a stark contrast to pictures of Knox bawling and shaking as she is led from the court near a nervous breakdown of relief mixed with what must surely be embarrassment knowing that she walks away from a murder of which she is fully guilty. Fortunately, the plane was waiting to whisk her speedily back to Neverland Space Needle Chinatown.

Stephanie Kercher’s mention of a last snuggle with Meredith on the couch when Meredith begins to cry as she says goodbye to Stephanie before her fated trip to Perugia, takes on weighted meaning as it turned out to be a final forever goodbye. BBC3 did a wonderful job showing clips of Rudy and Rudy’s laywer, Mr. Biscotti, and crowd scenes outside the courtrooms. The forest of television cameras and media personnel with flashing lightbulbs as the perps took the perp walk into court showed the high tension of the trial. After Knox was found guilty, Curt is overheard telling the photographers to push back, and Edda is rushing up some stairs and turning to say, “Stop it, Chris” twice to her husband as the Knox family hastily exits the Perugia courtroom in disarray and discouragement. It was the first time I truly felt sorry for Edda in a long time.

The documentary shows Matt Lauer interviewing Amanda who is dressed quite beautifully with hair full and styled well, with makeup that makes the most of her features and good looks. She should do this all the time, guilty or innocent. She now has to put on the shaved head martyr look to remind Sollecito she is suffering as much as he is in a last ditch attempt to prevent him from publicly rescinding her alibi and confessing all. She has falsified everything, and he can destroy her at the drop of a hat.

Posted by Hopeful on 02/19/14 at 02:21 AM | #

Who would believe him now?

Posted by mylady007 on 02/19/14 at 03:12 AM | #

Utube won’t ask for credit card #‘s..hehe
Andrea Vogt docu…I was so impressed by the body of work…and I learned things I did not know before!
I was touched by the subtle expression of the prosecution facts and the important prosecution statements that have been squelched by the media in America, over the years.
More than anything, the twit storm pleased me. There was gigantic outrage for the perversion of Justice. 
RIP Meredith Kercher.

Posted by Bettina on 02/19/14 at 04:04 AM | #

Overall, a good documentary, as it is difficult to cover six years of case information in less than an hour.

That said, this was probably the best “mainstream media” account so far.

I think it would have helped if it had included the witness evidence of Curatolo and Quintavalli, which drove a coach and horses through the AK/RS “alibi” that they had spent the evening of the murder together at RS’s apartment.

It also made a common error of stating the prosecution and defence argument/counterargument, without pointing out any flaw in the latter. For instance, in relation to Meredith’s bra clasp, it may well have been found 46 days after the murder, (BTW, NOT the “weeks and weeks and weeks” that FOA Anne Bremner asserted in the programme), but the documentary should have highlighted the fact that the cottage had been a sealed crime scene in that period and that RS’s DNA could not have sprouted wings and flown into the cottage and just happened to land only on the clasp that was hidden under a cover.

Too often, media coverage of this case leaves analysis of the evidence to one side and thus FOA sirens get away with telling repeated lies, (such as Guede’s DNA was “everywhere in the murder room”). In the absence of any factual challenge in the media, such lies gain currency through repetition, just like the misleading and dangerous propaganda of Nazi Germany.

Finally, media documentaries also need backup by searching interviews of AK and RS, asking the difficult questions about the evidence of their undoubted involvement in Meredith’s murder, rather than such softball questions as “This whole ordeal must have had a profound impact on you and your family?”

If the AK/RS PR machine would only allow interviews with pre-set Q & A, the media should decline to interview AK and RS at all, thereby starving them of the oxygen of publicity that their lying propaganda needs to survive and grow into “unquestionable truth”.

Posted by Mealer on 02/19/14 at 12:07 PM | #

Well said, Mealer.
Especially about a) the bra clasp and b) interviews.
The journalistic process is corrupted if honesty and genuine questions are ‘not allowed’.
It’s no different from the propaganda in the media under dictatorships. I’m glad we have such social media as Twitter, which, in spite of its limitations, does give a platform to resist such propaganda.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 02/19/14 at 12:21 PM | #


I have just noticed two interesting denials by Knox about Meredith’s alleged dislike for Knox’s “experimental” sexual practices.

In response to “And therefore you resented her?”, Knox states “No”, but immediately closes her eyes.

To the next question, “...because she was judging you, none of that?”. Knox states “No” and again closes her eyes.

She immediately tries to gain her self control by adding “Absolutely not!”, but cannot stop her body having a reflex pause, (signifying that she has lied twice in succession).

She finally adds, “There is no evidence, no evidence of that”. This is not the same as saying that the allegations are untrue in their own right, but rather that they are true, (but somewhat triumphally), you cannot prove it.

Posted by Mealer on 02/19/14 at 12:39 PM | #

Good observation.
“There is no evidence of that…” - seems to be her favourite card. She really doesn’t seem to have a normal comprehension of what constitutes an untruth - or emotional lie.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 02/19/14 at 12:55 PM | #


It’s a pity, the link doesn’t work anymore. I watched the documentary twice.

Indeed, it is fair, balanced, and accurate.

For me the strongest moments are the parts with RG or his layer. Why he chose fast track trail or when he testified in court.

Posted by itsneverBoW on 02/19/14 at 03:38 PM | #

As posted by Mealer on 02/19/14 at 06:07 AM:

“It also made a common error of stating the prosecution and defence argument/counterargument, without pointing out any flaw in the latter. For instance, in relation to Meredith’s bra clasp, it may well have been found 46 days after the murder, (BTW, NOT the “weeks and weeks and weeks” that FOA Anne Bremner asserted in the programme), but the documentary should have highlighted the fact that the cottage had been a sealed crime scene in that period and that RS’s DNA could not have sprouted wings and flown into the cottage and just happened to land only on the clasp that was hidden under a cover.”

To say nothing of Richard III’s DNA, discovered more than 500 Years later than deposited.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 02/19/14 at 03:57 PM | #


I’ve just looked again at the start of the documentary and your point - “lack of evidence is her favourite card” - is well made

There’s a hardware (or software?) malfunction in there somewhere. She says:

“I was imprisoned as an innocent person”.

This is obviously someone that only values - and has no comprehension of anything beyond - appearances. As we all know, an innocent person wouldn’t phrase it that way, they’d say (or scream) “I’m innocent”, or words to that effect. They wouldn’t paint a picture for the gullible to explain a role they’ve been somehow randomly allocated in a melodrama.

There’s a screw or two loose there. All of a sudden her predilection for “creative writing skills” makes sense. She’s the heroine in her own crazy novel.

One day, maybe, we’ll really understand how someone can be so absolutely bereft of soul. How come the lights are on but there’s nobody home?

Posted by Odysseus on 02/19/14 at 07:25 PM | #

The whole approach was very well done.  In approaching it in a clean and unbiased way the truth of Knox and Sollecito’s guilt was able to shine through.

A very telling moment of Curt Knox’s character was captured when, immediately after Knox was found guilty the first time around, he was clearly heard telling his family to push the people surrounding them.  Edda is then seen telling him to ‘shut up’.  They were not happy bunnies!

Posted by MHILL4 on 02/19/14 at 07:52 PM | #

@Odysseus, quite so.
“as an innocent person” ...as an?

A ‘play’ has been written. It’s a long, dramatic tragedy which is based on true, historical events.

Amanda Knox has the part of the leading lady. However, she is deeply confused and unable to behave as a professional actress - to learn her lines, and stick to them, and deliver them.
She is so muddled about her identity that she veers between thinking she is an actress…or then, also the writer. She keeps re-writing the script in crucial sections.

She doesn’t like those lines…so they have to be changed. ‘Oh, this is a better version!’...‘I’ll keep those lines in, as I agree with the way I’m portrayed there…’ But these, ‘oh no, I’m not as people say I am’...so better make up a different scene in Act 2… I can ‘see’ Patrick in the baseball court…I could place Mignini there too perhaps? Until I think of a better better version….

No, oh dear. It doesn’t work.
We have all gone back to the original script, that is, the one based on what actually occurred.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 02/19/14 at 08:52 PM | #


Lol. Very good -:)

Posted by Odysseus on 02/19/14 at 09:29 PM | #

The Halloween pic with Meredith and friends is haunting because of her look. It is very serious.
It could have been a momentary cloud over her face, but I was impacted that a girl at a party in her beloved Italy would look joyless. That is not the Meredith we know from photos…
Team Meredith is most impressive, and I believe we will get some closure for her family. Thanks to all.

Posted by Bettina on 02/20/14 at 03:13 AM | #

Wicked brilliant documentary!  “Stellar” I would like to say to Andrea Vogt and the others involved, incl. the BBC.  The BBs has redeemed itself from the recent Savile and NewsNight scandals re: journalistic integrity and logical persistence.  Courage it took for all of those involved to get that show on ANYwhere.  I for one will buy or rent the doc even though I’ve seen it because, like with music & writing, I want to support certain authors/creators, those brave & stubborn (dedicated) enough to get a program of that quality (in every respect) into the public/media realm given the multi-million USD stonewall of lies - in this case ones sowed and cultured (bio-engineered) by Marriott et al. over the past 6+ years. 

I agree that not All points were addressed, but IMO, the Main ones were so treated.  It was written and edited in a cohesive and professional fashion, had a compelling underpinning of FACTs, it interviewed experts - lawyers (all sides, most clients - none of AK’s were interviewed, which says even more), prosecutors, etc., interviewed Italian and UK and US experts, interviewed all the key participants (except for the those two who are not worth 20 seconds of my life to listen to).  I am happy they didn’t show that **** spewing her nonsense for a few reasons, but mostly in this context that it’s a 1-hr. production and you’ve got to make it count.  If you try to cram every sniff and whisper in, it would dilute the perspective, which is part of the mistake that the rotten first appeal judges made: to cherry-pic and take out of context.  I think that by hitting all the major points and people, this documentary can’t help but bowl over all the pond-skimmers, fence-sitters, and well-meaning people who haven’t made the time to seek past the paid-for headlines.  Honestly, I can’t stand to watch her lie, to see an unrepentant, self-delusory, self-entitled murderer given another venue for more self-indulgent sighs and pouts.  It took a lot of truly professional people to make that documentary, and it’s uniquely (so far) important.  Like someone else in Comments said, (paraphrasing) ‘Finally there is something authoritative and honest that I can show people to adequately explain (valid overview of) the facts and actual evidence in the case.  It could have been 6 hours long, it could be 6 years long, but it’s a video and you have so much time, so you have to make it count.  If they were me, I’ll bet they (the doc. creators) were miserable with the fact they had to edit or curtail any of the points, because there is solid and copious evidence of all types on both free-for-the-moment murderers.

I have other things to say, but have to sleep so I can work, so for now - I have to say: This is the best audio/visual production on the facts of this case that I have seen.  It’s a must-see for anyone interested in the case.  It leaves room for questions, but no questions unanswered.  Extremely well done Andrea Vogt and the BBC!

Posted by all4justice on 02/20/14 at 09:13 AM | #

Hello All,

I, too, have been a closet follower for many of the same reasons Ziak mentioned in a post a few weeks back. For years I’ve lurked and admired the intelligence and thoroughness of TJMK as a counter-punch to the strident Knox-Sollecito PR. I am very grateful for all your work, and it looks like all your efforts and the latest Twitter assault are proving highly effective! The tide has begun to turn…

I remember too well how sick, absolutely sick to the stomach, I felt when the convictions were overturned. I remember watching a group of Knox supporters cheering—all I could do was turn off the TV and feel terrible. I wanted to scream: They are GUILTY! It’s SO OBVIOUS! What is WRONG with you all? But from watching my fair share of “True Crime” shows I am familiar with the (almost invariably) outright denial by family and friends that an “innocent” loved one could ever perpetrate the horrible crime (s) they are being accused of (and so obviously committed.) Just because they can’t or don’t want to imagine it that proves innocence in their minds. It’s infuriating, but it’s pretty standard. And even if they are not friends or family, it’s a sure bet that someone somewhere will take up the ‘innocence defense’ of murderers. That’s why this site is so important.

I often wonder if deceiving friends and family weighs on ObKnoxious and Raffy more than the murder.They are such deceitful, horrible cowards. I used to hope that Raffy would crack, but I agree with someone who posted a while back that with his ridiculous book and tour he’s gone too far to confess. But now that the convictions have been reinstated do you think he will finally crack? Would he still be eligible for any “deal”?

My stomach was in knots watching that live feed when Nencini read the judgements. I was also glued to TJMK and felt such joy when the tweets came in!  I really don’t know how I would have coped had it gone the other way. Sometimes I wonder why I am transfixed by this case, and is it good for me to follow it obsessively and be so wound up over people I’ve never met? I’m not sure about that yet. I think Graham said that the real story starts now. How interesting it will be and I will be following every detail.
Anyway, I want to say thank you to everyone here for your myriad efforts and insights.  I enjoy reading your posts every day. Thank you and you have made an incredible difference and are true champions of justice!
Much respect & gratitude.

Posted by Wascana on 02/20/14 at 09:27 PM | #


Like many, I watched the BBC3 documentary.  I think that it was very fair to AK and RS, considering the amount of suspicious detail it left out.  These two deserve to be very much under the spotlight again, in my opinion.  I hope as many people as possible see the documentary, particularly in America.  What stood out for me were the findings of the Professor from Imperial College re. DNA on the bra strap.. and just how pale AK looked that morning with circles under her eyes.  Remember, she and RS did not look into Meredith’s bedroom with the others that morning.  She so much looks like she’s been up all night, as opposed to being in shock from the terrible sight in Meredith’s room..  And also the following statements made by Sollecito on the phone to the Carabinieri:

“Someone entered the house and broke the window.”  NOT someone broke the window and entered the house; or they broke a window to get in; as you might expect.

“They messed everything up”. 
NOT they rummaged through Filomena’s room and made a mess; or I think we’ve been burgled; as you might expect.

“And there’s a locked door”. 
NOT our friend Meredith’s door is locked and we’re really worried because she is not answering us; as you might expect.  The locked door was key to AK and RS’s account of trying to break into Meredith’s room due to her not answering their apparent knocks or cries.  The fact that it was locked was later described as normal by AK. 

These statements sound like a list of things that were done to prepare the ground for a version of events; and to give an impression of concern.

I know the impression they give me.

Posted by nomorecoverups on 03/06/14 at 12:03 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 Our Reviews Of The Painstaking BBC-3 Report First Aired In The UK On 17 February 2014

Or to previous entry Hard Questions By Italian Journalist Giuseppe Castellini For Sollecito