Sunday, June 21, 2009

How The Media Should Approach The Case If Justice Is To Be Done And SEEN To Be Done

Posted by Hellodalai

The American media are really playing with fire here.

This is one of the most seriously misreported cases in recent history, and a line really needs to be drawn.

Much of the media are doing no digging, consulting no Italians, repeatedly recycling discredited sources and those with a vested interest in the outcome, stating facts that are not facts, ignoring other facts that really are facts, revealing no understanding of how the Italian judicial process works, and often depicting the Italian professionals with contempt.

And so far no-one is really calling them on it.

From this perspective, I have been reading all the articles and information on this case for the past few days. I too was very disappointed in the NY Time pieces by Egan.  Rather than attempt to discuss the facts and evidence that are known so far, he painted “broad brush” strokes to argue that this trial is unfair.

The TIME magazine report just below - where the reporter basically allowed a Knox advocate to state her position unchallenged - is equally mediocre in terms of investigative and reporting quality. It was one of dozens that have done that.

Here is my own analysis of the case which I advance as the appropriate depth that EVERY reporter and print and TV analyst should aim to achieve before they start telling the rest of us what to think.


Egan points out that Amanda Knox had no motive to kill or participate in killing Meredith Kercher.

I agree that there seems to be little evidence on this issue.  One roommate testified as to tensions between Amanda and Meredith.  Roommate tensions are common, though, and rarely lead to murder.

Neither Rudy Guede, who has been convicted already, nor Raffaele Sollecito, who was Amanda’s boyfriend of less than two weeks, seemingly had motives, either.

All three were young adults who liked alcohol, music, marijuana, and sex (although Rudy has been described as a petty thief and small time drug dealer; other reports state he had no criminal convictions). None seemed likely to erupt into a murderous rage.

One of the downstairs male students testified that Guede expressed some interest in Amanda and said that Meredith was beautiful.  Sollecito wrote in a newspaper column that he was a 23 year old virgin when he met Amanda.

So Sollecito was vulnerable to Amanda’s influence.  Guede may have wanted to gain Amanda’s favor.  Add alcohol and drugs and group dynamics and - the threesome may have spun out of control.

Since the murder, Amanda’s behavior could certainly be questioned.  Who does cartwheels at a police station during an investigation of their murdered roommate?  What defendant wears a shirt to their murder trial that says “All you need is love” when the prosecution is trying to portray them as someone with out-of-control sexual behavior?

If this case rested solely on whether Amanda had a motive to kill Meredith, I would agree with Egan’s stance that the trial is unfair.  Egan seems to stop at that issue, however, and seems unwilling to examine all the evidence objectively.

DNA Evidence

One of the better reports on the case included this statement:

“But perhaps more damning even than the knife was Stefanoni’s testimony that a mix of Knox’s DNA and Kercher’s blood was found on the floor in the bedroom of a third roommate, Filomena Romanelli. While it might not be noteworthy to find mixed genetic traces of residents of the same house, Romanelli’s room is critical in this crime.

Her window was broken with a large rock that prosecutors believe was used to stage a break-in. The mixed Knox-Kercher trace was found after investigators used luminol, a substance used in forensic science to bring out blood that had been cleaned up.

In addition, Stefanoni testified that a mixture of Knox’s DNA and Kercher’s blood was found on the drain of the bidet, on the bathroom sink, and on a Q-Tip box in the girls’ bathroom.”

That is FOUR different blood samples with mixed Knox-Kercher DNA.  Yes, it does seem that the investigative methods were sloppy and not all samples may be reliable (I acknowledge that there are some problems with the prosecution’s case).

But I have yet to read even one article where a reputable DNA expert can explain why sloppy police procedures would result in four separate mixed blood samples.  I did read one explanation that Amanda bled from a pierced ear—thus providing some explanation, although weak, for why her blood may have been in the bathroom.  That doesn’t explain why her blood was in the bedroom of Filomena Romanelli (another of her roommates) or why her blood was found mixed with Meredith’s - or why her blood would be recoverable from an area that had been cleaned after the murder to eliminate evidence.

Similarly, the DNA evidence from Sollecito, found on Meredith’s bra clasp is not explained away by scientific reasoning.  True, the police left the clasp in Meredith’s room (which was sealed) for weeks and did not retrieve it, but DNA is not transferred by “flying DNA”; there is no “innocent” scientific explanation why Sollecito’s DNA (not sloughed dead cells, which do not contain DNA) would affix itself to a bra clasp worn by the murder victim after the clasp had been torn from her body.

As to the DNA evidence found on the knife located in Sollecito’s apartment,  the DNA sample from Meredith was very tiny, according to reports, and the DNA from Amanda could be explained by her using the knife at Sollecito’s apartment. (Sollecito explained Meredith’s DNA by stating she had come to his apartment for dinner with Amanda and that he had accidentally pricked her. But no witnesses have been found who remember Meredith ever talking about going to Sollecito’s apartment)

True, the knife is not the same size as most wounds on Meredith, but it is the same size as one wound. The knife showed evidence of bleach cleaning and some scratches (Sollecito’s apartment showed a lot of evidence of bleach cleaning, even though his maid did not use bleach to clean).

Clean up motives and evidence

I have yet to see a careful review of the testimony and possible conclusions that may be drawn from the known facts and circumstantial evidence, including the clean up after the murder—which, to me, are very compelling.

The neighbor has testified that she heard a very loud, long scream that night (presumably Meredith’s last), followed not long thereafter by the sounds of two to three different people running from the area (it was unusual to hear people running at that time of night).  The neighbor was 69 and could not remember exactly the date she heard the screaming, but she was firm that it was the night before Meredith’s murder was discovered.

It is not a stretch to link the screaming to Meredith, given that loud, long piercing screams are uncommon.  Also, a murderer or murderers would realize that Meredith’s scream may bring the police at any moment—so running from the crime would be expected. 

The uncontradicted testimony is that there was a fair amount of effort to “clean up” the crime scene (the defense merely claims that Knox and Sollecito were not involved). It also appears that whoever came back for the “clean up” also broke a window in Filomena’s bedroom (as mentioned, one of the two other roommates living upstairs; there were also four male students living downstairs in a separate unit), in an attempt to throw the investigating police off the scent. 

Filomena testifed that she found clothes strewn around her room the next day and that she had left the room tidy.  She testified that glass from the window broken in her bedroom was on top of those strewn clothes.  If the window was broken by someone entering the home who was intent on rape and/or robbery, then the glass would not be on top of the clothes as those clothes would not have been under the window then (Filomena also testified that she had valuables in plain view in her bedroom and that none were taken).

The evidence suggests that someone placed these clothes around the room and THEN broke the window to “stage a scene” (as there is no explanation for why anyone would have any motive to randomly take clothes and throw them around a room).

Let’s start with Guede first and the assumption that he came back to the home that night - either by himself - or with someone other than Amanda and Sollecito.

Guede’s motivation to come back to the crime scene would be to clean up the most incriminating evidence against him and to stage this crime scene to lead the police in a direction away from him.

Guede left DNA inside Meredith, bled on Meredith’s body, and left a bloody hand print on the pillow underneath Meredith’s head.  He also left feces in the bathroom toilet (the bathroom near Filomena’s bedroom - -not the “bloody” bathroom between Meredith and Amanda’s bedrooms).  He would know that if he came back to clean.  He would know that that evidence would be the strongest against him.

During this “clean up phase,” the DNA inside Meredith, Guede’s blood on Meredith’s body, the bloody hand print, and Guede’s feces in the bathroom toilet were all left untouched. 

The “clean up phase” spent a lot of time in the bathroom next to Meredith’s bedroom (it was also next to Amanda’s bedroom), the hallway, and Filomena’s bedroom, where the “break-in” was staged (it is possible at least part of this crime occurred in the bathroom, as Meredith’s blood was found on the bathroom light switch when it was in an up position - meaning it was touched when the light was on.  The bathroom had numerous droplets of her blood, some of which were commingled with Amanda’s blood.)

Despite the cleanup in Filomena’s bedroom, the police were still able to obtain DNA samples.  Guede’s DNA was not found in either the bathroom or Filomena’s bedroom.

Six bloody footprints from bare feet were identified.  One was visible to the naked eye in the bathroom and five were visible only after the police used luminol, which allows blood evidence cleaned by bleach to become visible under a special light.  The luminol did reveal five bloody footprints that had been cleaned up (one shoe print was also found under Meredith’s pillow - the print is consistent with the size of Amanda’s shoe).

None of the six bloody footprints are consistent with the size of Guede’s feet.  All six of these footprints are consistent with the size of Amanda and/or Sollecito’s feet.

Why would Guede concentrate his clean-up efforts on areas where there is little to no evidence from him and ignore the areas where there is substantial evidence of his involvement?  Wouldn’t he at least flush the toilet?

As to the staged “break-in,” would Guede be motivated to set this up?  If the police believed a “break-in” had occurred, would they then be led away from investigating Guede as a suspect?

If the police believed that a break-in had occurred, then they would focus on looking for someone who was either a complete stranger to Meredith or someone she would not readily admit to her home late in the evening if they knocked on her door unanounced.  Guede was not a complete stranger.  One of the four male students who lived in the separate unit downstairs testified that Guede sometimes came to the apartment of the four male students and met and talked to Amanda and Meredith there (the testimony is that Meredith dated one of those four male students).

The evidence suggests that Guede only slightly knew Meredith. So, Guede was not someone who could knock unannounced on Meredith’s door late at night (at least 9:30—after Meredith talked to her mother) and be readily admitted. 

Guede had no motivation to stage a “break-in” because a break-in would in no way lead the police away from his scent.  Plus, there is no evidence that Guede was ever in Filomena’s bedroom where the “break-in” was staged.  If he had participated in this staging, a footprint consistent with the size of his feet should have been illuminated by the police’s luminol.

It wasn’t.

Conclusions that jurors would normally draw from facts and the circumstantial evidence relating to the “clean up” and “break-in” point to someone OTHER than Guede participating in the “clean-up” and “staged break-in.”

Let’s now look at the assumption that Amanda and her boyfriend, Rafaelle Sollecito, were the ones who came back for the “clean up” and “staged break-in.”

If Amanda and Sollecito were with Guede when the murder occurred (accounting for the extra footsteps running away shortly after the last scream of Meredith) and then came back to get rid of evidence of their guilt, their motivation would be to clean up their blood and DNA evidence and lead police away from their scent.

As for whether Amanda bled that night, another roommate of Amanda’s and Meredith’s, Laura, testified that she saw a a mark under Amanda’s chin the day after the murder that was not there the day before the murder; Laura testified the mark was not a hickey as a hickey would have been purple and more round. 

I have read two different comments on this issue from Amanda’s father.  One stated that the mark was merely a hickey and is evidence she spent the night with her boyfriend.  Another was that a physician examining Amanda on Nov. 6th - -the murder occurred the evening of Nov. 1st - did not note a mark under the chin.  (Interestingly, the police interrogating Amanda the next day did not report such a mark, either).

I then found a photo that was posted online taken of Amanda the day after the murder.  It clearly shows a mark under her chin—and would account for her blood being found at the apartment.

[click for larger image]

If Amanda and Sollecito did the “clean up,” they would be motivated to leave evidence of Guede’s guilt and point the police in his direction.

Forensics don’t show either way whether bleach was used to clean up Meredith and Amanda’s apartment, though it was used in Sollecito’s apartment AND on the knife found in his apartment containing the DNA of Meredith and Amanda. 

The Conad store owner reported the presence of Amanda in the household cleaners part of his store early on the morning after the murder (when Amanda and Sollecito contend they were asleep) although rumored receipts for bleach were not presented at trial.

Meredith’s body, which contained Guede’s DNA and his blood (mixed with hers) was not cleaned and Guede’s feces was not flushed from the toilet.

The bathroom, which even after the cleaning, contained Amanda’s blood mixed with Meredith’s and a bloody footprint which is consistent with the size of Sollecito’s foot (trial testimony was that it was “likely” Sollecito’s footprint), had a lot of cleaning activity.

The hallway and Filomena’s bedroom, which even after the bleaching contained Amanda’s blood mixed with Meredith’s and bloody footprints, was the site of a lot of cleaning activity (these footprints were all consistent with the size of the feet of Amanda and Sollecito, but not consistent with the size of Guede’s feet) .

The “cleaning” evidence, and conclusions which may be drawn from it, point to Amanda and Sollecito as participants.

Would Amanda and Sollecito have a motive to stage a break-in?  Amanda obviously had a key to the unit and did not have to break into her own apartment.  If there was no sign of a break-in, police would probably focus on people who had a key to the apartment or friends of Meredith she would readily admit to her apartment at 9:30 at night.  If there was no sign of a break-in, police would question Amanda and Sollecito at length - and they would obviously know that.

Amanda and Sollecito had a strong motive to stage a break-in to focus police on looking for a stranger, or someone like Guede who only knew Meredith very casually.

What about the next morning?  Let’s first assume Amanda was innocent and she is being truthful when she testified that she did not come home until around 11:30 the next morning.

Amanda testified that when she came home around 11:30 a.m. that the apartment door was open, that there was visible blood in the bathroom (which would have been numerous scattered blood drops, a ten inch smear on the bathroom door, and a bloody footprint on the floor) and that there was feces in a toilet.  Amanda says that she called out for Meredith and no one answered.

She then took a shower and went to Filomena’s bathroom and used her dryer to dry her hair (this is the bathroom with Guede’s feces;  this toilet is different than American toilets in that it had a large flat area so that the standing water in the toilet did not submerge the feces) and returned to her boyfriend’s apartment.

If Amanda were truly innocent when she arrived that morning, wouldn’t she also try to open the door to Meredith’s bedroom after Meredith did not answer, even when she banged on her door more than once?  Amanda’s fingerprints were not found on the door knob and she has never testified that she tried to open the door.  Sollecito testified that when he arrived later with Amanda that he tried to open the door - and his fingerprints are on the door knob.

If Amanda were innocent, wouldn’t she text Meredith, as she did several times two days before?  Wouldn’t she call both of Meredith’s cell phones and let them ring to see if they were in her bedroom? (Phone records show she called each phone one time; one for three seconds and the other for four seconds, despite Amanda telling Filomena that day that she had called Meredith’s cell phones and that the phones just kept ringing) 

If Amanda were innocent, wouldn’t she also call out for Filomena and Laura - because she would not know for sure if they might have returned that morning (she knew Filomena had spent the night in town and that Laura was in a nearby town)?  Wouldn’t she look into their bedrooms (Filomena’s door was closed that morning, according to Amanda; Sollecito says it was open) and have noticed that Filomena’s bedroom window was broken and her clothes were strewn about? (When Amanda first called Filomena she did not mention that Filomena’s bedroom had been broken into).

If Amanda were innocent, wouldn’t she have just flushed the exposed feces down the toilet?

If Amanda were innocent and truthful, wouldn’t her hair three hours later look like it had been washed and blow dried that day?  Look again at the photo posted above.  It was taken about three hours after the alleged washing and blow drying.  Is that the hair of a woman who washed and blow dried her hair three hours earlier?

Wouldn’t Amanda have noticed that the lamp in her bedroom, which was the only source of light for that room, was missing? (Police later found it in Meredith’s room).  Wouldn’t she have immediately noticed the missing lamp when she first entered her bedroom that morning so that she would have immediately either left the apartment without taking a shower or called the police to come over? (Police and phone records show that Sollecito didnt call them until 12:54, even though the Postal and Communications Police had been at the apartment with Sollecito and Amanda since 12:26 - the Postal Police unexpectedly showed up at the apartment because Meredith’s cell phones had been found.)

People react differently to unexpected happenings and Amanda may not have done all of those things, but surely she would have done at least one of them.

If Amanda were truthful about showering and drying her hair, wouldn’t her fingerprints be in both bathrooms? (Since these activities would have occurred AFTER the clean up).  The police only found one of her fingerprints in her residence - on a glass in her kitchen.

As to this time frame, what about the recent trial testimony of Amanda’s mother that Amanda told her in their first phone call that day that she thought someone was in her apartment?  Cell phone records place that call at 12:47, some 21 minutes after the Postal Police arrived. (A nearby video camera documents that time, as does Postal Police log records;  the defense has tried to argue that the Postal Police did not arrive until after 1:00 p.m., but do not have evidence for that position.  In fact, Filomena testified that she arrived back at her apartment before 1:00 and that the Postal Police were already there.)

Postal Police testified that both Amanda and Sollecito were in Amanda’s bedroom with the door closed at 12:47 - the bedroom with no lamp or overhead light (neither Amanda nor Sollecito mentioned to the Postal Police or Filomena when they emerged from that bedroom after many minutes that the only lamp in the room was missing).

Let’s keep assuming Amanda was innocent.  Would she have come back to her apartment with Sollecito, still not having called police, and then start a load of washing of Meredith’s clothes? (The Postal Police said the washing machine was running when they entered;  Filomena, who arrived a little later, said that the washing machine was still warm and contained Meredith’s clothes.)

Amanda has testified that she got out a mop and bucket the first time she went to her apartment that day and took it back to Sollecito’s because there was water on his apartment floor from water used in cooking pasta the night before (Sollecito said, however, that the water was from a broken pipe;  Sollecito’s diary written in prison talks of a dinner of stir fry mushrooms and vegetables).

Who has water spills from cooking pasta so large that the next day it is still puddled to the degree it needs to be mopped?  Who voluntarily carries a mop and bucket several blocks to clean up water from cooking pasta the night before? (Especially a person who has been labeled in trial testimony as messy and unkempt in their cleaning habits).

If Amanda were innocent, wouldn’t she and Sollecito have called the police after Sollecito tried to open Meredith’s locked bedroom door and couldn’t open it?

Instead of calling the police, Amanda and Raffaele went outside and stood next to the mop and bucket.  Why didn’t they just put the mop and bucket back up in the apartment when they first arrived?  Why leave it outside the apartment?  Why then go back out and stand next to the mop?

If Amanda and Sollecito were innocent, that means that Guede (and perhaps one or two accomplices) murdered Meredith, then ran away, and then came back at some point and cleaned up the crime scene PARTIALLY (but ignoring and leaving the most damning evidence against him) and THEN GUEDE CAME BACK that morning after Amanda had showered and left - so that GUEDE could do a LOAD OF WASHING of Meredith’s clothes - presumably blood stained, all the while ignoring his feces in the toilet and his bloody hand print on the pillow under Meredith’s body - only for GUEDE to then leave again right before Amanda and Sollecito arrived (so the washing machine would still be running when the Postal Police arrived a short while later).

What type of person or persons would come back to a crime scene to clean it up?

The most likely person to return to a crime scene for a clean up is someone who knows that they can do a clean up with little chance of being caught. 

Guede might have known that the four male students downstairs were all away due to his occasional appearances there.  But how would Guede know that Filomena and Laura, the other two upstairs roommates, would not come back either that night or in the morning?

Amanda and Sollecito, on the other hand, would know that everyone who lived in the house would be gone and that they could do a clean up that would take some time and have a good chance of not being caught in the act.  Only the unexpected appearance of the Postal and Communications Police interrupted the mopping and cleaning (as there was still a ten inch blood smear on the bathroom door near Meredith’s bedroom and numerous visible blood droplets).

No one else other than Amanda and Sollecito, and who may have been involved, had such knowledge.   



The facts, testimony, and conclusions that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence, including circumstantial evidence (that is what juries do all the time), lead me to believe that Amanda will be found guilty.

Let any reporter or analyst run the case through their minds at this depth and then make sure that at a minimum, they keep their cool and don’t misrepresent.

When I read an article or blog in the New York Times or Time magazine, I expect thorough, well-reasoned, well-researched, investigative journalism. Judicial cases DEMAND it.

Instead, here I have found articles that IGNORED the evidence and some very mediocre journalism. What happened to journalistic standards?  Where is the public outcry against the U.S. media’s handling of this case? 

For the sake of true justice, a line now needs to be drawn.


Excellent, impartial, well thought out review of the major contested issues.  What needs to happen is that one of the innumerable “journalists” who have interviewed Mellas or Knox needs to walk them through these issues and get their response, citation to facts and evidence, rather than serving as nothing more than a conduit for the PR spin.  I hope Egan, CBS and Preston take the time to read this, and I would encourage them or someone from FOA to post a factual and evidentiary response.

Posted by Sierra1049 on 06/21/09 at 04:03 PM | #

Indeed, this is so clear! Thanks!

Do we know if Meredith responded some of these numerous calls Amanda made 2 days before? Because I am thinking that in case she did not answer, that was a way to show “Leave me alone”... Don’t you think?

Thanks again for this wonderful exposé!

Posted by Patou on 06/21/09 at 04:42 PM | #

Hopefully this will help to a more objective reporting of the case, away from the   “there’s no evidence” FOA mantra. A very good summary, and badly needed. Thanks!

Posted by Nicki on 06/21/09 at 04:50 PM | #


Thank you for addressing THE most frustrating thing about this case!  As an American watching US “news” coverage I was originally shocked at all of the incorrect, misleading and unverified reports!  I am grateful that I have access to the internet and therefore all of the international reporting of this case.  I don’t understand the sweeping incompetence regarding the US media.  Aside from Barbie Nadeau and Andrea Vogt no one else seems to be checking their facts!  It is astonishing and disappointing to me.

Posted by jodyodyo on 06/21/09 at 05:49 PM | #

Thank you for this report Hellodalai.

Americans have no idea the anguish they cause entire nations to feel with the persistence of their attitude that the world is theirs to be colonised.

Do they ever stop to think that FEW nations actually ENVY the American lifestyle? What is there ito envy? All we see is a negative example of what we should NOT become.

The myopic lack of self-awareness Americans display is a dangerous one, and Europe, if not the world has recognised it already. America is doing great damage to itself in continuing to believe that all nations are popluated by people such as the native Indians, who can easily be dessimayed, dictated to, subverted or converted, FORGETTING that Western Civilsation, Law, Culture, Arts, the systems of Engineering and Urbanisation were all invented here.

Without guns, America is nothing, and should there be a third world war, it should find itself alone and without civilised allies.

This is how I feel, and I KNOW I am not alone in feeling this way. Very angry.

Posted by LIBBY on 06/21/09 at 06:02 PM | #

Hi Libby. I know your perspective is from Italy and others there are just as angered too, but those dont seem to me to be majority sentiments here that you depict. I think Hellodalai would agree with me that the media are out of step with what almost all Americans would conclude - were they given the actual facts. The media pandering you are seeing is to relatively small minorities and not to the broad majority.

Exhibit A is how our readership in Seattle has grow from under-representation in our early days to a very considerable number now. This case is distressing to a lot of Seattleites and they could be forgiven for just switching off, and yet they continue to read and to seek fairness and truth in the case.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/21/09 at 06:20 PM | #

hellodalai, i add my congrats on a wonderful summary of events and facts in evidence. i wonder if any of the amanda supporters dare to reply….although, there is the problem they seem to have with facts.

Posted by mojo on 06/21/09 at 06:41 PM | #

Ciao Hellodalai: A very, very good summary! I hope the right people reads it.

A minor thing: I disagree on the hair-thing. Amandas hair looks precisely as it would look after a hairdryer expose without a brush. More relevant is to be sceptical about her claim of numbers of hairwashes; one late evening and one again in the morning. (And yes, yes: I did read on ‘Perugia Shock’ that ‘we’ (the italians, europeans, rest of the world?) are unfamiliar with that americans sometimes shower twice a day (ohh, mamma mia!).. but in fact; so do ‘we’ sometimes.

Numbers of showers is not the issue: after having hot sex, we need a shower; and maybe be also need one before the sex. And probably one again in the morning ... but in my experience longhaired young female students of all nationalities rarely washes their hair in the evening and then again in the morning. More likely they could, occasionally, wash their hair in the morning and then again in the evening the same day, but that would be because they had a hot date that evening.

I suggest that Amanda had a shower that morning to get rid of any evidence. Point is: the frequency of the hairwashes requires an explanation, as Mrs Comodi is aware of.

Libby: Don’t start a III.ww - please! Be firm, but nice towards the misguided sheeps.


Posted by Fiori on 06/21/09 at 07:44 PM | #

Excellent summary!  As stated before, one or two of Amanda’s quirks could be explained away, but the overwhelming evidence against her and her cohorts points towards guilt.  Amanda’s supporters always pick one piece of eveidence, such as DNA on the knife, build it up as the ENTIRE case against Amanda and then proceed to show us “reasonable doubt”  It is a classic straw man argument and thankfully the Italian legal system (as most legal systems would) seems immune to such logical fallacies.  If only we could get this summary printed in the Seattle Times. Wishful thinking I suppose.

Also, LIBBY I know you only have my “word” to go on, but please don’t judge all Americans by CNN or the New York Times.  The major network news shows and newspapers are dying over here and are desperate for viewers at any cost.  Newspapers are going out of business and network television news shows (ABC, NBC, CNN, FOX) are losing viewership at an unprecedented rate.  As a demographic among 18-35 year olds Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show” which is “current events” comedy show has a larger audience then ABC, NBC, etc.  Americans are sick of network news as well, and unfortunately in this case, a well-connected PR Firm and publishing company are showing just how pathetic American news really is.

Posted by destro on 06/21/09 at 08:05 PM | #


Thank-you, that puts a lot of things into perspective.

I felt very sad reading that. Very very sad to see how manipulative and evil such young people can be. I thought about Amanda’s phone call to Philomena, asking if they could still live together in the cottage…...after the fact.
That’s VERY disturbing…

Excuse my ignorance but I’ve been under the impression that there never were any receipts from that morning found in RS’s flat?

Posted by Tammy on 06/21/09 at 09:34 PM | #

Very good work.  The problem for those of us who are not in the court room, is that the other side says there were no receipts for bleach, the Postal Police were dispatched at 12:46 p.m., the DNA detection machine is extremely sensitive, the footprint on the bathmat matches Guede’s foot and not Sollecito’s, the DNA from Amanda was not blood DNA in some cases, and more. 

I wish I could be there in the courtroom, but I can’t.  So, it’s hard to know for sure what really happened.  Anyway, thanks for your hard work with this article. 

BTW, I’m an American and sometimes I’m embarrassed to say so.

Posted by beep on 06/21/09 at 10:27 PM | #


I agree that we do not have access to perfect information, nor do we know the “truth” of what happened.  We may never know the exact circumstances that led to Meredith’s murder. 

However, this site provides excellent coverage of actual testimony from the court room, judges’ and witness transcripts of testimony and findings, and access to news reports from around the world.  Even if we were in the courtroom, the prosecutor would be presenting evidence as reported on this website and the defense would be presenting their counter-arguments (which to-date have been largely unproven or unsupported by the existing evidence).  Being in the court wouldn’t help us in this situation. 

Given the excellent summary by Hellodalai above as well as the extensive cataloging of evidence that can be found on this site, Amanda and her cohorts look very guilty of murder.  Don’t forget that Amanda and Raphaele have changed or altered their respective stories more than 13 times!  There stories contradict one another.  Amanda is an admitted liar who tried to frame an innocent man, and neither Amanda nor Raphaele’s stories fit the existing evidence or fit the “claims” made by their defense team. 

If the postal police arrived at 12:46 that doesn’t change that Amanda was standing outside next to a mop and bucket or that the flat was cleaned with bleach.  If the footprint matches Rudy and not Raphaele that doesn’t change that Amanda’s and Raphaele’s footprints (that someone attempted to clean-up) were found in multiple other places in the flat.  The DNA of Amanda not being blood in some places by definition means that in some places Amanda’s blood DNA was found.  There is just too much evidence against Amanda and her cohorts.  Don’t fall victim to the PR campaign here in the US that because we don’t have “perfect” information Amanda must be innocent.  Remember even in the US the standard is beyond a “reasonable” doubt: NOT 100% certainty.

Posted by destro on 06/22/09 at 12:00 AM | #

So much of the evidence and inferences therefrom is common sense. For example who would remain at the crime scene cleaning when the other occupants could come home at any time. Only someone who knew the occupants were away all weekend. Only Knox knew this.

That two knifes were involved is consistent with the evidence and explains the outline of the second knife, likely Guede’s on the bed. But this case is not about eveidence if the FOA have their way. It is about bullying an entire country to influence officials in a murder case.

One can only imagine the political and perhaps other forms of persuasion at work behind the scenes to make sure there is no justice for the only person who does not have a PR firm and its cronies spinning for her. Meredith Kercher.

Many Seattleites are embarassed and sorry for the PR swill emanating from a Seattle firm.

Posted by jennifer on 06/22/09 at 01:44 AM | #

Hellodalai, great summary—well thought out and organized. I believe, though, that the receipts for bleach purchases do not exist. They were mentioned in an early news article about the case but never were confirmed as evidence. I am also American and am impressed by the capable performance of the Italian law enforcement and judicial systems as this tragic case unfolds.

Posted by 2catsintheyard on 06/22/09 at 02:30 AM | #

Probably the most difficult obstacle for me to judge Amanda as guilty is the lack of a motive.  What was her motive?  Meredith taking her job?  Knife’s and blood for Raphaelle’s enjoyment?  Stealing money? 

None of these motives justify the brutality of the murder.  Something seems to be missing from the puzzle.  What is that?

Posted by beep on 06/22/09 at 02:58 AM | #

On the rumored bleach receipts, Hellodalai agrees, nothing was presented at trial. The bleach-receipt sentence is amended to mention that the Conad store owner testified to AK being at the store early but no evidence that bleach was bought. We hope that is acceptable to everybody.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/22/09 at 03:12 AM | #

From FOA website: “At the trial, the PROSECUTION PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE THAT ANYONE CLEANED THE COTTAGE WITH BLEACH, and video of the crime scene strongly undermines such a claim. Along with the latent footprints in the corridor that were revealed with luminol, investigators found a number of faint but visible blood traces matching Rudy Guede’s shoe. It would have been hard to mop the floor without destroying these blood traces.”

This is what I’m talking about.  So much attention was given to the clean up in the article, then I found out no evidence was given at the trial.  It’s very frustrating!

Posted by beep on 06/22/09 at 03:59 AM | #

Hi beep. The jury won’t be in much doubt that there was a rearrangement of the crime scene, and that Meredith was moved several hours after she died. Evidence to that effect was presented over a number of days as we posted. Judge Micheli also devoted many pages to it, and he concluded that only one of the defendants would have had a reason. There were luminol-revealed traces of footprints other than Guede’s, of course, as well as DNA and blood evidence, so whether bleach was used is somewhat immaterial.

You can also find some conjecture here as to possible motives for the attack and much more on the Miss Represented site. Judge Micheli in his very extensive report did not devote much attention to motive, which does not need to be proven. He started with the depravity of the murder as revealed by the autopsy, the forensics, and the moving of Meredith, concluded that several people were present, and sentenced Guede to 30 years. Prosecutor Mignini had only asked for 25. If the verdicts here also are guilty, a similar report will follow on this evidence.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/22/09 at 05:42 AM | #

Quote: “It would have been hard to mop the floor without destroying blood traces.” 

This is downright false.  It has been PROVEN that the cottage was “wiped down” “cleaned” “sanitized” whatever word you’re most comfortable with.  The very fact that the police had to use luminol to reveal “bloody footprints” that were no longer visible to the naked eye is proof positive that someone cleaned bloody footprints from the floor.

I think some of the confusion (other than the outright lies from the PR campaign) is coming from a report that the knife had been cleaned in a bleach solution.  The key here is that it was a bleach solution—not pure bleach in a bottle which requires a mask, protective eyewear, and gloves.

The first police on site did not report or testify to seeing bloody footprints in the hallway.  The investigation turned up bloody footprints using luminol.  THEREFORE, someone had to clean said bloody footprints from the floor prior to when the police showed up.  Focusing on whether or not a concentrated or diluted bleach was used is merely a distraction device and has no consequence on the guilt or innocence of Amanda and Raphaele.

Furthermore, Amanda’s defense makes contradicting statements about the “forensic cleanliness” of the flat.  On the one hand, they say it is expected for Amanda’s DNA and footprints to be found throughout the flat.  On the other hand Amanda’s fingerprints were completely wiped down from 99% of the flat so the only evidence of her existence is the DNA.  No one is contesting that Amanda lived at the flat, so why how can it be so clean if no one cleaned it?

At any rate, I welcome the critical examination of each piece of evidence for that is how we arrive at proper conclusions.  However, please do not fall into the logical trap of thinking that because one piece of evidence is not “foolproof” that the entire case is flawed.  This is why there are multiple pieces of physical evidence, testimony, witnesses, statements, and expert opinions being presented at trial.

The idea of a “smoking gun” or one piece of evidence that an entire prosecutor’s case is based upon is largely a creation of Novels and Hollywood.  Entertainment stories must have a good beginning, middle, and satisfactory conclusion that wraps up the story neatly.  Real life is rarely so accommodating.

Posted by destro on 06/22/09 at 07:05 AM | #

Whether it began as theft of Meredith’s rent money, or sexual persuasion turned coercion, or a confrontation about drug use, the ultimate motive for murder was most likely silencing the witness/victim.

The rage trigger may very well have been the message from Knox’s employer, the innocent man she fingered, that she was not needed at work. This after she had just been demoted. Their phones were turned off nearly simultaneously after that message.

Posted by jennifer on 06/22/09 at 08:13 AM | #

I join with the other posters in congratulating you for your excellent summary.  I hadn’t read that there were no fingerprints of Amanda’s in either bathroom - that seems very telling to me, if she’d used the bathrooms in the cottage that morning.

I understood that there was no trace of bleach found on the bucket and mop - I don’t know how much rinsing you’d need to remove traces, but the evidence that the cottage was cleaned in certain places seems incontrovertible.  The staged ‘break-in’ evidence, too, appears sound, therefore proving the alteration of the crime scene.

There is disputed evidence, and timeline arguments, strange coincidences and odd behaviour in this case in plenty.  But no one else has motive to alter the crime scene in this way except for someone from within the cottage, and that’s what you, others on this site, the prosecution and Micheli have stated, over and over again.

Posted by NearlyNeville on 06/22/09 at 11:02 AM | #


Beep: I think you probably should take notice of the first as well as the last part of the FOA sentence; claiming that there was no EVIDENCE because the cottage was not cleaned with BLEACH.

But I have not read anywhere that the prosecution made effort to argue use of bleach in the cottage, and only luminol revealed certain evidence.

Bleach appears explicitly in the prosecutions case in relation to Rafaelle’s apartment and the cleaning of knife no.1. The cleaning of the cottages refers to less specified actions, but there is clear indications that a mop was used.

Best, Fiori

Posted by Fiori on 06/22/09 at 12:24 PM | #

We’ve been receiving emails every week for months now, many from fence-sitters or pro-defendants, telling us that the evidence and scenarios on TJMK have edged them into believing that there really IS a case to be made and into revering poor Meredith.

Hellodalai’s fine post here has really pushed those emails into overdrive - and he didn’t include what he might have added, about cellphones, or alibis, or computer happenings, that would have only added to the strength of the piece.

We now suggest that the pro-defendants might come out with their own full-blown scenario of the case and please stop muddying the waters. Or they might soon have NO supporters left…

And that the print and television media might do en-masse what Hellodalai has done here: start pushing the truth. And revere poor Meredith. Or they might soon have NO audiences left…

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/22/09 at 07:38 PM | #

has there ever been any mention of the keys to Meredith’s room?

Posted by anna49 on 06/22/09 at 09:32 PM | #

Great post and thank you to all who work so hard on this site. One question, I’m not sure I remember how Guede’s name ever came up as a suspect in the first place. Did Amanda name him as well?

Posted by memphis05 on 06/22/09 at 09:39 PM | #

Hi Memphis,
Guede is an immigrant and therefore his fingerprints were on file, so the police were able to find out who the third suspect was quite fast.

Posted by Nicki on 06/22/09 at 09:49 PM | #

Hellodalai presents an excellent and compelling summary, and as Peter note there are many points that could be added.

Indeed it is the sheer volume of evidence in this case pointing towards Knox and Sollecito that is notable. It is quite unlike any example of miscarriages of justice I have seen where the prosecution rests on a couple of dubious eye witnesses, a single piece of forensic evidence and a vulnerable or poor defendant. This is no “railroad job”.

I can understand how one or two things could be misconstrued or facts misremembered, but in this case there are dozens of discrepancies requiring explanation. Innocent people nearly always stick to a consistent story, even if it appears contradicted by evidence presented by the prosecution, unless under extreme duress to confess or name a suspect. There is no independent evidence to suggest Knox was placed under any duress, and she also volunteered further information later, at a time when she could have easily retracted it.

Knox gave a robust performance under cross-examination, not the person who caves under aggressive questioning, nor someone who is not savvy enough to realise they have a right to see a lawyer without prejudice to their position.

I often look at Knox and Sollecito and wonder how such apparently “decent” people could have committed a brutal crime, and for what motive. But then I look down the list of evidence, and wonder what other explanation is possible.

Posted by bobc on 06/22/09 at 11:42 PM | #

How much lower can CBS go????  This “story” takes the cake: 

My comment on the article:

CBS continues its astonishingly bad reporting on this case.  Is this journalism or has the once vaunted CBS news devolved to nothing more than a conduit for ignorant spin???  Ryan Smith or Chris Wagge could have done something befitting the proud journalistic heritage of the organization they work for like….God forbid….ASK A QUESTION YOU MORONS!!!! 

While, as in any contested trial, there are differing interpretations of the direct and circumstantial evidence supporting the charges, you can’t evaluate the credibility of either side unless you ask questions…  Do you really consider her Mom’s statement that Amanda’s DNA “could have come from anywhere” as supporting or justifying the assertion that she “punched holes in the case????”

Have you read the forensic testimony or accurate reports as to that evidence and the means used to gather it???  Did you consider asking Mom for an explanation as to Amanda’s complete lack of an alibi?  Or her totally contradictory statements to the police?  Her continuing accusation that a Mr. Lumuba, a black man (who fortunately had an airtight alibi) committed the murder? 

The fact that her boyfriend contradicts her stories?  The fact that she suggested to the police that Rafaelle committed the murder?  The coincidental, simultaneous and highly unusual shut down of both her and Rafaelle’s phones shortly before the murder until the next day?  Her blood at the scene….just a bad ear piercing?  Taking a shower after allegedly coming home to find blood all over the place????

You people are pathetic….I hope an editor with some horsepower there takes the time to look at this “article.”

Posted by Sierra1049 on 06/23/09 at 01:52 AM | #

I have been curious about the way the Italian court proceedings take place.  When Amanda Knox testified, why did she only testify regarding her treatment by the police?  Why didn’t the prosecution question her about all the evidence and discrepancies in her previous answers?  If Patrick’s attorney was the only one questioning her, why didn’t the prosecution as well?  Or is it that when the defense presents their case, does the prosecution THEN cross-examine? 

It seems that with all the evidence posted on this site, that the prosecution could bring up each point, item for item, and simply ask Amanda Knox for clarification.  And, for instance, if Amanda’s mother said Amanda told her she got along well with Meredith, can there not be witnesses brought forth to testify to the opposite?  Furthermore, as for motive, perhaps what started as cruel teasing at the hands of a jealous roommate, who goaded on her accomplices, went too far and ended up in a murder. 

I’ve followed your site from the beginning - I can actually recall the very day the news first was reported.  Oh, and another point - I have worked with students and young women - it is entirely possible for a young woman to live a completely DIFFERENT life than the one her parents see or know of.  I see it in high schools where teachers consider young women, who make the honor roll and are polite, the “cream of the crop”. 

They do not, however, see them drunk at parties, hear their casual obscenities in conversation with their friends or know of their sexual activity (sometimes criminal activity)OUTSIDE the classroom.  The same can be said for a mother whose daughter conceals the dark side of her personality.  I imagine that there was great turmoil in Amanda’s life as her parents probably fought and then divorced, only to see her mother re-marry a man whose character and behavior is suspect itself - enough background messiness to create problems in the life of an adolescent.

Posted by gramjan on 06/23/09 at 02:13 AM | #

Great piece. Well written and put together for all to understand. With all of the evidence, circumstanstial and direct, some people don’t want to believe that ak and rs could be guilty of such a horrible crime. I believe the people that believe the defendants are guilty feel in a way similar, but the evidence points to the logical conclusion: Guilty. No reasonable person acts the way they did, and there is too much evidence against them.

The 3 biggest pieces for me are: the cab driver, the store owner, and the police interrogators. The cab driver could not make up that story, he had no reason to lie. The store owner had no reason top lie about Amanda showing up early in the a.m. Question? Was the store owner cross examined? How did he respond? I realize a.k. has said it was not her? Lastly, the police have no reason to lie about their questioning. Only a.k. and r.s. have reasons to lie.

So either they are lying, or EVERYONE else is. Because they have changed their story so much, guess who the judges will believe? Also, unless it can be proved the police are lying, the judges ALWAYS believe the police. Example: if you get a traffic violation and it is your word against the police, judges always believe the police unless you can prove they are lying. In this case, the judges will believe the police concerning the interrogation unless a.k. can prove they are lying. Good luck with that.

There is just too much evidence for anything but guilty. The defense of A.K. took a shot and put her on the stand, but in the end none of the evidence was refuted. The judge and jury will look at the evidence and decide solely on that. DNA alone cooks their goose. I am actually looking forward to blogging about this case when they are found guilty. It will be interesting to see what friends of a.k. and r.s. say about their lost strategy. I think they should not have put a.k. on the stand and just tried to attack the evidence. But you can’t really attack that written note a.k. put together blaming someone innocent,...

Posted by kredsox on 06/23/09 at 05:35 AM | #


I have 2 ‘alternative’ senario’s which are not pro-defendant, but perhaps ‘pro truth and justice’

First, we can start with the forensics, on google video there is a documentary entitled ‘How to commit the perfect murder’. Great explaination of the technique used to establish a body has been moved, etc. At 38 mins a DNA expert explains that all a person has to do is to breathe in a room for 30 seconds and she will pick up the DNA.

Why so little DNA from AK and RS in Meredith’s room?. Perhaps the ‘fight’ started in the kitchen, but ended by Guede alone dragging Merdith into her room, sexually assulting her and killing her. Remember, Guede is a big guy (size 46 shoes) he could probably do as much restraining etc as AK and RS together?.

RS is a southern Italian, when things got out of hand, even before the assault and murder he may well have scooted, with AK in tow. Its almost imbred in southern Italians to do this, they don’t want to be involved and don’t want to be witnesses. Happens at every Mafia + Camorra, hit. Perfect example was caught on video over the weekend in Naples.

People usually run a safe distance, (the gate?) before waiting to see the outcome. Once Guede came out of the house, they all run. After returning to the house, RS and Ak find what RG has done and panic (shouting match heard about 2am).

At this point, fearing that they will be blamed along with RG, they decide to clean up and alter the scene to be ‘sure’ only RG gets the blame. We’d have to believe that RS was arrogant enough to think this could work, but he told his dad that the police were stupid, and ignored advise not to take his knife to the police station ... so maybe?.

We’d also have to believe that RS and AK were stupid, rather than evil. Second senario, same, except just AK and RG at the murder, RS involved only in the clean up.

Posted by Kevin on 06/23/09 at 01:37 PM | #

I could be wrong - and hope I am!! - but it wouldn’t surprise me if this case is adjourned at the end of the trial pending a ‘super perizia’, similar to the Alberto Stasi case. In other words, all the DNA evidence will be re-examined again by another independent party. As such, i can see this trial extending well into 2010.

Posted by Paul on 06/23/09 at 01:41 PM | #

Hi Kevin. Nicki has explained several times why there can easily be little or no perpetrator DNA in the room. And Judge Micheli was in little doubt from the autopsy (not all of which we translated and posted) and other evidence in the room that the acts committed against Meredith required the involvement of three people, and the demonstrated presence of two knives only hardens that presumption. He dismissed the lone wolf theory.

The recreation of those acts took the entire last full day of the prosecution’s case in this trial and also seemed to leave little doubt that all three were involved throughout. Guede and Sollecito, probably for very different reasons, have both shown some restlessness with Knox’s not very credible claims on the stand, and to separate themselves might tell us more than we now know. If Sollecito was only there for the clean-up. he took some very odd actions beforehand.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/23/09 at 03:01 PM | #

I remember having read, right after Sollecito e Knox were arrested, that he said something like “he never wanted to see her again”, or “talk to her again”. Obviously since then she found her way back to him, but he had a reason to say that!

Posted by Patou on 06/23/09 at 03:14 PM | #

I’d have to agree Kevin.

I don’t believe for a minute that all three were in that room with Meredith’s struggling for her life. There would be more DNA.

I believe Amanda was in the kitchen, (her written statement and shaking when a drawer was opened in the kitchen by police officers suggests that) but did nothing to stop what was happening.

I believe Rafaelle may have been in the room holding her down as the prosecution states.

I’ve not seen the video you’re talking about but listening to Dr Stefanoni, a person has to do more than breathe to leave the amount of DNA found on Meredith’s bra clasp. I think she was stated saying a person would have to “rub forcefully” to leave the amount of DNA that was found.

I believe they were all involved and I don’t think there’s any doubting that. To what extent is the thing still up for discussion.

Regardless of their levels of involvement, they’re all as guilty as each other in my opinion and should face life sentences should they be found guilty.

Posted by mikeyverve on 06/23/09 at 03:21 PM | #

Hi Patou. Yes Sollecito did sound pretty exasperated. That is one reason why some think he did not wield the knife that committed the final act against Meredith. It is possible that two of the three people who seem to have been present might have been caught unaware by that action.

In addition to all the evidence that Hellodalai advanced in his scenario above there is the moving of Meredith closer to her bed several hours after the murder, which was pretty convincingly demonstrated again at this trial. Very hard to explain away as the act of an outsider to the house.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/23/09 at 03:23 PM | #


The bra clasp DNA was the result of the staging, not the murder. That has been established. The female footprint on the pillow could have been Merediths or Amanda’s from the staging.

I’ve read the full Micheli report in Italian, he talks about an escalation in violence. The sex assault was Guede’s, ‘work’, his DNA is everywhere in the bedroom. I believe the other two could have bailed out once things started to get very nasty.

If you subsitute Guede for Patrick in Knox’s blurted out accusation, it makes sense?.

At what point RS and AK ‘bailed out’ I don’t know, but I think Guede dragged Meredith into the bedroom, at knifepoint, tried to rape her, she screamed and he finished her off.

As you say, legally, regardless of the level of involvement of the 3 in the attack, they are all guilty. However, it is also important to establish exactly what happened, if possible.

The ‘double DNA’ knife, in some ways seems to be a problem for the prosecution, in the sense that to believe that it is the murder weapon, you would have to believe that the whole thing was pre-meditated?. That’s a very big leap.

Posted by Kevin on 06/23/09 at 04:51 PM | #

Hi Kevin. You seem to be wandering far from Micheli here. None of our Italian speakers who read the whole of the report seem to be agreeing with you, although I will leave them to offer here if they choose what they actually did read.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/23/09 at 05:42 PM | #


I think one of the biggest problems I have with the “they were mildly complicit and then panicked” line of thought is that I don’t believe an innocent person would continually lie, change their story 13 or 14 times, indite an innocent man, and contradict their cohorts stories. 

I have said it before that their initial reaction may very well have been panic which prompted the first set of lies.  HOWEVER, once the first several Judges found just cause for the main trial that we have now, I believe an innocent person would “tell the truth” or at least proclaim one story as the truth and stick to it. 

Even if, as you say, they were only complicit in the murder not a direct involvement, rolling the dice in a murder trial is an extremely risky strategy.  Their lawyers would have to know that admitting their role, if it was as minor as you say, would only get them a few years in prison, less on good behavior.  As it stands now they are looking at life in prison.  That’s quite a leap for an innocent person to take, especially considering the inconsistency of their respective stories.

Posted by destro on 06/23/09 at 05:48 PM | #

Kevin’s theory seems plausible.  Perhaps Guede threatened both Amanda and Raf that if they squealed on him he would kill them too - or sic his druggie thugs on them.  Otherwise, why wouldn’t Amanda have told the authorities up front that it was Guede (except, of course, that would be admitting that she and Raf were there when it happened….accomplices, as it were.)  Guede’s conviction is on appeal so she can’t be sure what will happen if he gets off.  I even thought perhaps Amanda’s DNA was on the knife handle because she cleaned it.  Amanda and Raf were there delighting in what was going on in the other room - but when it turned bad, they began the coverup.  But I agree with Peter that it is truly a gamble they are taking.  Wonder if at some point they will break and come clean?

Posted by gramjan on 06/23/09 at 06:01 PM | #


As far as I remember, AK first blamed Patrick on the 6th Nov. Then retracted the accusation in her Nov 9th letter to lawyers and since then has stuck to her story of being home with RS?.

RS has also changed his story once, first saying AK was with him all night, then maybe she wasn’t, from 2100 to 0100?.

If the truth is that they played a much lesser role than Guede, then it could be the lawyers who convinced them to ‘go for broke’ since they are still guilty. Also, pressure from the families, or an unwillingness to admit the truth to their families, could have led them to go to trial.

Once FOA in Seattle, and the Solliceto Clan ‘policial connections’ were mobilized, they could have been given false hopes of the ‘cavalry’ arriving.

Bongiorno arrived quite late on the scene? I think she also has an interest in showing herself as a modern day Roman Senator, many of whom made their names by coming out on top in difficult trials?.

Posted by Kevin on 06/23/09 at 06:28 PM | #

Hi Kevin,

Guede’s DNA wasn’t “all over” the room, but only on Meredith’s purse zipper, sweater’s cuff and right side of the bra. Sollecito’s was on the bra. If DNA flew in the air and were so easy to transfer in meaningful quantities: a) DNA would not be used in forensic investigations by any police in the world, and b) Rudy would have left DNA “all over” for real and not only in two or three places.

If you really want to play the stereotype card - incidentally it is getting pretty boring - then I’ll agree with you that Southern Italians have a tendency of not wanting to get involved in shootings, but if the victim is a defenseless woman,  their well-known chivalry pops out immediately.  Furthermore, the despicable Naples case is not comparable - there, people were running everywhere because they were scared of the multiple gunshots fired by several people, and the man who was shot was a vagrant Romanian, probably very gypsy- looking. Meredith was a British student being attacked in her own home by just one person, an acquaintance bearing a knife, not a gun.  I don’t see what the two episodes have in common to draw conclusions about Sollecito’s alleged behavior

I also would like to add that as bad as the Naples murder was, using it to stamp all Southern Italians as cowards smells of racism to me.

Posted by Nicki on 06/23/09 at 07:29 PM | #

Hi Kevin,

Please check your facts carefully before posting comments on here.

Rudy Guede’s DNA wasn’t everywhere in the room. It was found in three places.

The woman’s bloody shoeprint on the pillow was incompatible with Meredith’s foot size.

Raffaele Sollecito changed his story more than once. He gave three different alibis. He also categorically stated in his witness statement that Amanda Knox went out on the night of the murder.

There is no evidence that anyone bailed out before things got very nasty. Two knives were used in the attack on Meredith. The double DNA knife, which is believed to be the murder weapon, doesn’t implicate Rudy Guede. It was taken from Sollecito’s apartment and used to stab Meredith.

It was then returned to the cottage where it was cleaned vigorously. However, Meredith’s DNA was found on the blade and Amanda Knox’s DNA was found on the handle. This indicates that Amanda Knox inflicted the fatal wound.

Meredith has 47 separate wounds on her body. Several medical experts, Dr. Luca Lalli, Dr. Vicenza Liviero, and Professor Gianaristide Norelli, testified that they thought Meredith was attacked by more than one person.

The fact that the double DNA knife was taken from Solelcito’s apartment and used in the attack on Meredith clearly indicates that Knox and Sollecito intended to harm or kill Meredith. Premeditated murder cannot be excluded.

Posted by The Machine on 06/23/09 at 08:41 PM | #

Come now, it doesn’t take a tea leave to figure out the two were just smoking a joint during their “mop” break when the cops arrived. “Duuude! stay cool, man.” 

Nicki – Muggles are uneducated and ignorant.  They will never know the truth because their brains cannot comprehend such intelligence and their reality is not that of a prized wizard.

Pete and Hellodalai - this article and the many links (thanks Brian S.) are the cat’s meow.  It is super to have so much information in one place. Hellacious loooong but certainly worth every read!

destroy – agree wholeheartedly.

Jennifer – I have always read “coercion” at every reference to “sex game” thank you mentioning it. Game is something played willfully; Meredith deserves a much higher level of respect in this regard.  I have always enjoy your passionate posts.

To me, killing someone is brutal.  Killing someone in a brutal fashion is perverted.  Moving someone, later, afterwards is a merciless act and demonstrates the person’s sickness and sheer stupidity.  I am told criminals always make mistakes.

Justice is coming.

Posted by Professor Snape on 06/23/09 at 09:31 PM | #

The idea that Guede was the sole assailant and that Knox and Sollecito were bystanders is pretty far fetched. If Guede were so brazen he would not have fled to Germany. Guede is not a connected mobster, nor a “drug dealer” as commonly quoted, he had less convictions than Knox, I think.

I think it more likely the other way round, AK and RS threaten Guede that he should keep quiet otherwise they will drop him in it. They have already tried to make a frame with the staging of the crime scene, Lumumba very nearly made to fit.

Southern Italian equals cowards? Come on, I think we can do better than playground stereotypes.

Posted by bobc on 06/23/09 at 10:51 PM | #

What really surprises me when it comes to some of the press in America is the “railroad job from hell” line.

I watch a few crime shows and I’ve just watched one now where the evidence was much weaker than here yet the woman was given 35 years.

No physical evidence, two conflicting confessions, one to murder, the other to just planning the murder, those were both later retracted, she is mentally retarded and can’t read, but did have some motive and opportunity.

The boyfriend confessed to the killing and is serving 12 years. She chose to stand trial so she’s spending 35 years in prison based on the second confession she made that she’d helped plan the murder, but that confession, like I said, she later retracted.

If that were the case against Amanda Knox they’d be going mental. I think America needs to look at its own justice system before criticising anyone elses.

Posted by mikeyverve on 06/23/09 at 11:15 PM | #

For me motive is irrelevant.  If the evidence proves they did it, we don’t need to prove they are capable of doing it.  As far as pre-meditation; cell-phones being shut off at the same time takes thought, and action, and in this case, cooperative timing.  Bringing a knife also leads more credence to what they were pre-meditating. 

I have always found it amazing when something as remarkable as a woman finding a cell phone leading police to show up at a crime scene before the pre-meditated time appointed to them, and interfering with more cleaning up of evidence.  I can only imagine what AK and RS were thinking when the Postal Police showed before they were ready for them.  I also suppose the brain-storming being done in Amanda’s room and the token calls to her mother and his sister and subsequently the 112 (I hope I got that right)call for help really cements the pre-meditation for me. 

Why would they need to call police if the police were already there?  Because, it was already in the plan and they obviously felt it best to proceed as planned.  As far as the ring-leader in this horrible crime, I would love more info based on evidence in that regard.  RS is so very creepy to me and AK also registers high on the make-your-skin-crawl meter.  For me, little doubt remains in their innocence, and also by the evidence presented on this web site, I have little doubt that this was a thought-out and calculated murder. 

I don’t buy the sex-game theory because one thing FOA’s can never achieve is tarnishing Meredith.  By all accounts, she was very intelligent, elegant, and a hard working student who didn’t care for her “free-spirited” roommate’s antics. 

This site is wonderful and will achieve its goal, true justice for Meredith, which is to make available the evidence.  For those who go to the amount of work it takes to keep this site up and running and full of information and you just happen to be Meredith’s friend, I think you should feel very good about yourself at the end of the day. 

Anyone would be proud to have friends like that.  Again, thanks for all the hard work.

Posted by karenkay on 06/24/09 at 03:29 AM | #

This article and others on this site have done a great job dicussing the large amount of evidence against the lone wolf theory.  While it is clear that Guede took part in this horrific crime, I believe that he was not the only one involved, and I also believe that he was not the one who stabbed Meredith. 

If he was the lone individual involved, he would have used his own knife or a knife from the house.  Seeing as how he didn’t bother to clean up any of the other multiple traces of himself at the house, had he done the stabbing, I would think he would be inclined to leave the uncleaned murder weapon at the house as well…or perhaps dispose of it carelessly somewhere nearby, in which case it likely would have been found.  I doubt he would walk take a bloody knife with him to the disco or keep the murder weapon on him when he fled. 

If Guede, AK, and RS were together at the house and Guede had done the stabbing and left the knife there, AK and RS certainly wouldn’t have cleaned it for him; they would have left it as evidence against him.  These are the reasons why I don’t think Rudy was the one who held the knife (aside from the evidence showing that it was likely a knife from RS house with AK’s DNA on the handle and Meredith’s on the blade).

Does anyone know if anything has been said about Meredith’s keys and credit cards?  Were they ever recovered?

Posted by chira385 on 06/24/09 at 05:36 PM | #

Excellent article - very detailed, comprehensive and informative. It’s good to be able to see the big picture (including all the details) meshed together into a coherent, and conclusive whole.

Posted by Scooby on 06/26/09 at 02:39 PM | #

On the bathmat print.  There’s a lot of argument about whether this is Guede’s or Sollecito’s.

From what I’ve read, there doesn’t seem to be any footprints that are being assigned to Guede.  Is that right?

If it is, surely this is a strong argument for saying that Guede didn’t remove his trainers. After all, why would he? He’d already left a lot of incriminating evidence, and a bloody shoeprint in the bedroom.

That only leaves Sollecito as the person who left the bloody bathmat print - unless Guede had an accomplice?

From the court proceedings going through previous robberies it sounds like he worked alone. Not only would he have had to have a male accomplice on this one to leave the bloody bathmat print, but also a female accomplice with similar size feet to Amanda to leave the bloody shoeprint found on the pillow in Meredith’s room.

Sorry if I’m going over old ground but I’d never thought before about the possibility that Guede didn’t remove his shoes - and the evidence, if there aren’t any bloody footprints of his, seems to point to that.

Posted by mikeyverve on 06/30/09 at 05:44 PM | #

Ciao. Regarding the DNA evidence on the knife found in Rafaelles drawer I think one has to be careful making conclusions to what extent it involves Amanda.

The knife in the drawer ‘speaks’ about:

a) that it has been into Merediths body, which means that the knife has been in the cottage as Meredith never had been in Rafaelles apartment.

b) that it has been in the hands of Amanda, but we do not know when she held the knife. It could have been while she was stabbing Meredith or it could have been when she cleaned the knife with bleach after someone else has used the knife to stab Meredith.

I do not see that the existence of two knifes exclude that Rudy only use his own knife or that he did the fatal stabbing. In the heat of the fight Rudy could have lost his own knife, and grabbed any knife laying on the kitchen table, which turned out to be the knife which Rafaelle had used earlier the evening to cut mushrooms, for their ‘party’. Or alike scenario.

Other facts and circumstantial evidence suggest that the knife was the one that made the fatal wound, and that there were multiple attackers. But this is not to be concluded from what the knife speaks itself.

What is highly implicating for Amanda and Rafaelle is that the knife had Merediths blood on it, that it was brought back to Rafaelles apartment, and that it was cleaned. These 3 facts demand an explanation, which has never been given.

Best, Fiori

Posted by Fiori on 06/30/09 at 08:03 PM | #

One thing about Knox and Sollecito’s behavior, in relation to the blood stains, foot print in blood on the bath mat, and the state of the bathroom doesn’t make sense to me. Can you please help?

The spots, stains and foot print in blood show that either:

a) Knox intentionally left these to be discovered, or

b) that she was mid-way through the cleaning of the cottage when the postal police arrived, and she was interrupted so didn’t get to clean the bathroom.

If we accept that Knox & Sollecito were interrupted, then Knox’s call to Filomena before the cleaning was completely done seems strange. One would’ve thought they’d clean off any evidence incriminating them first and then alarm Filomena once all cleaning was done.

If we, instead, believe that she deliberately left the blood in the bathroom because she wanted to use this as an excuse for being able to claim later that her call to Filomena was prompted by her having noticed ‘strange’ things in the cottage, then it also seems bizarre that Sollecito would agree to her doing so when his incriminating footprint is on the bath mat.

Could it be possible Sollecito hadn’t noticed his foot print & Knox deliberately left his print there to incriminate him? Or maybe she just didn’t care?

Does any one know more about this, or has anyone read anything relating to this?

Posted by Scooby on 07/01/09 at 03:26 PM | #


As far as I am aware the call to Filomena only took place once they had been taken by surprise by the postal police.  If this had not happened and the mobile phones found I truly believe that they would have completed the cleaning and the 2 of them would be not in prison today


Posted by Love Wolf on 07/01/09 at 05:31 PM | #


Evidence presented in court regarding cellphone activities show that Knox had her phone switched off until 12:07 (the day after the murder) when she first rand Meredith’s UK phone (but only for as little as 3-4 seconds, possibly just to have a record of it on her phone as she knew Meredith was dead and wouldn’t answer) and then called Filomena’s phone straight after that to say she found ‘strange’ things in the flat.

Filomena tried calling her back at 12:12 & 12:20 but Knox didn’t answer. Postal police - according to cctv - arrived at 12:25. Filomena tried Knox again at 12:35 (the police was there in the cottage by then) and Knox finally answered. Police gave evidence that Knox & Sollecito had slipped off to Knox’s room during this point with the door closed; allegedly this is when Knox spoke to Filomena at 12:35. But the first call to Filomena was made at 12:07 before the arrival of the postal police.

Posted by Scooby on 07/02/09 at 04:28 PM | #

After many weeks of reading and puzzling, I have come up with the following scenario, that I would like to present to you:

1. I never thought that Amanda actually planned to kill Meredith. I also doubted she would actually have killed her with the knife. I however did think from the start that it was strange that Raffaele enjoyed collecting knives. Also the picture he has up on the internet of him with the knife and bleach/blood is maybe meant to be funny - but I don’t have this kind of ‘funny’ picture, considering that he took this picture, I think it shows that this scenario is somewhere in his world and mind.

2. I tried really hard to see Amanda innocent for a long time. But I cannot explain all the evidence then, especially after some of the excellent powerpoint presentations here.

So the scenario some friends of mine now find credible is the following:

In a letter to Amanda in prison, Raffaele once wrote that “we were honest with each other”. I think this might hint at the fact that Raffaele might actually have confessed to Amanda about his interest in more violent sex (fitting with the books he has at home). Amanda, being a sexually interested and seemingly kind person, was fascinated by it and might have said, that they should try it out at some point.

Both of them knew Guede, Raffaele must have, because of living so close to him, Amanda knew him from the guys downstairs. He had a soft sport for Amanda and Meredith and might have joined into their idea of a rape when they brought it up at some point (as a spontaneous, kind of ‘fun’ idea, totally not considering the consequences and the pain).

The night:

Why do you turn off your cell-phone? Because you don’t want to be spotted after a murder? Not a 21-year old girl. I totally disbelieve that. You turn off your phone, when you don’t want to be heard or surprised. That’s what made me think first, that they might have actually hid somewhere. Fitting with the evidence of the running washing machine and the open closet in Meredith’s room, I think that Raffaele might have hid in Meredith’s room. Amanda was in the kitchen and Rudy in the bathroom (where he also left his evidence).

I think it might have been the plan that once Meredith was in the room, Amanda would call Rudy - who at this point wouldn’t flush the toilet, since he was trying to remain calm - and also give some kind of sign for Raffaele to jump out of the closet and Rudy to enter via the door. The plan was to assault Meredith and later say it was consensual. Amanda might also have entered at this point to hold Meredith down, which would explain the footprint underneath Meredith’s cushion and Amanda’s reaction when the police asked her just that - whether she had held Meredith down.

Something went wrong then. The knife that Raffaele held to her throat (coming from his pocket) somehow, maybe in the struggle, at some point went in deeper as intended. Rudy withdrew and ran. At this point, Amanda also heard Meredith choke, a sound, she later reproduced in front of the police (something that a normal girl of 20 years would NOT know what it sounds like).

Amanda and Raffaele, shocked, at this point, also ran and left Meredith to die… and observed the house for police. They might also have thrown away her phones at this point.

Who came back?

After the first shock was over, Amanda and Raffaele thought about what to do and went back. When they arrived back in the cottage maybe an hour and a half later, Meredith had actually died in the position next to the closet (which her bra shows). Or she was still alive and barely breathing.

Calling the police was an option, but they would have asked, why Amanda and Raffaele didn’t call the police immediately (the blood might have dried partially already). Also, calling when Meredith was still alive was impossible as well, since Meredith would later have said they were involved in the crime and they wouldn’t have been able to defend themselves, once Rudy was caught and would say the same thing.

So at this point, either Raffaele killed Meredith and they then moved her - which I find hard to believe, since both are young people and Raffaele said he wouldn’t hurt a fly - or they moved Meredith, who had already died at this point and staged a rape. They got the towels out, with which they had cleaned themselves and maybe with which Rudy had tried to stop Meredith’s blood before.

What to do (evening/morning):

They probably staged the break-in at that point, and might already have cleaned the floor with towels, which might also have ended up in that washing machine the next morning. Then they went back to Raffaele’s, where the computer went on between 6 and 7 a.m.. Amanda got bleach from him and went back the next morning to clean some more.

The postal police took them by surprise, Amanda then called her mom from her room, pretending she had only just seen the scene, even though the police was already there. This first lie would become fatal, since afterwards she would never be able to tell her mom and family again that she knew some more. I think this is a critical mistake of hers and also shows the degree of desperation and the lack of plan.

Why are there no cells and DNA of Amanda on scene (besides the bra, where I normally only read Raffaele’s DNA to have been on)?

Because Amanda maybe mainly stayed in the kitchen, as she said in her first police statement. She might have handed a knife, or maybe Raffaele even killed the dying Meredith before moving her, somehow the kitchen drawer made her very frightened. But I don’t think she was actually involved in the knifing, although she might have been involved in the crime, since she froze when they asked her whether she held Meredith down.

After this point, everything unfolds naturally. Their kissing, the strange behaviour at the police station (yelling at Meredith’s friends, that Meredith choked to death (how did she know?) and her supposed false confession.

This is my scenario - if you’d like to comment, I would be very thankful.

I don’t know who took the cell phones and at which point, I am not sure Rudy did it, I think he ran thoughtlessly. Maybe Amanda and Raffaele between running from the crime and coming back that night. I think that is more plausible.

I think it would have been way better for the defense to admit that Amanda and Raffaele were at the house and for example misjudged the screams of Meredith and therefore did not help.

However, we have to think of one thing: Edda Mellas, with whom I have been very happy to exchange thoughts, told me, that there is no evidence of blood in the footprints. Revealed by luminol, they could have been left from anything else and long before the crime.

Also, she says, none of the prints has a second long toe, which Amanda has, and which is longer than her big toe. I am not sure this would have to show up in footprints, but she says this should.

Also she says there is no sign of a clean-up. And indeed, if there had been: Wouldn’t that have been the main fact the prosecution would present? Why didn’t they?

Thanks for reading my post and happy to read from you,



Posted by Malwida on 07/23/09 at 01:15 AM | #

Malwida,  I think your first mistake is to allow Amanda knox to represent every “20/21 year old normal girl”. ” Seemingly kind”, for her, appears to alternate with seethingly nasty (to shocked and grieving friends of the recently deceased, who had shared more than a few weeksof Meredith’s life and did not expect to be informed, point blank, that she “fucking bled to death”—Do pardon sweet Amanda’s french).
Anyone who considers rape a “fun idea” should get help.

You turn off your cell phone (before, by the way, not after a murder) to avoid being “pinged” in the vicinity of the crime you are planning to commit( which may have been no more than the innocent pilfering of Meredith’s rent money.)

How does not flushing a toilet = remaining calm?
How does one accidentally push a knife blade clear through someone’s neck and out the other side?
How did AK and RS ‘stage a rape” with RG’s DNA inside the victim’s body?
Anyone who has watched television can imagine what choking sounds like.

“After this point, everything unfolds naturally”. In what sense is ANY part of tis behaviour and scenario NATURAL?? For natural born killers, perhaps.

Read and puzzle on. It’s not over yet.

Posted by mimi on 07/23/09 at 07:50 AM | #

Hello Mimi,
I think your comments were made very aggressively. This does not help the case. Different from you I do not see some devil in Amanda Knox, but a girl who was sexually overinterested and dangerously naive (like thinking a rape could be fun and not thinking of the victim or the consequences). I am not sure your yelling at me does disprove this possiblity. And I also don’t condemn people for what you would call “sick” tastes of sexuality. As long as you don’t hurt anyone, let it be. I personally am convinced (like I said in my scenario above) that neither Amanda nor Raffaele are these biests you seem to see. And I think a more rational approach (like mine) could be helpful. I still totally see both of them guilty, as one can read in my scenario above, and I do not at all excuse them, I just try to understand it from a different viewpoint.

Here to your questions (which can actually all be answered from my first post):
- I did say they turned the cell phones off before the murder in order to hide. I think this is a very good explanation.
- If you are hiding in a bathroom and Meredith is for example in the kitchen, flushing the toilet would give you away. (Meredith: “Who is there in the bathroom?”). Understand? Once she is in her room, Amanda might have called Rudy to get out quickly, and then he might have either forgotten about flushing or was still being quiet until the signal (in my scenario) came, where Raffaele jumped out of the closet and Rudy through the door.
- I have not seen a forensic picture of report of the knife actually exiting again on the back side.
- I did say Rudy raped her.
- Amanda cannot have known that Meredith choked from blood, since all they knew was that she had been attacked with a knife. I would have just thought of the scream, not the choking, and I thin so would have most people.
- With naturally I meant logically.

I would appreciate more scientific instead of insulting comments.

Posted by Malwida on 07/23/09 at 11:57 AM | #

Amanda described how icky it would be with MK choking to death on her blood, and that it would take a long time.
She claims watching CSI is how she knew this.
Me, I watch lots of crime tv, and what I notice is that being stabbed, shot, or having your throat slit is mostly instantly fatal.
From watching us tv, I would have thought having your throat slit meant you died almost instantly.
Sweet Amanda was making sure MK’s friends knew she had suffered.
Nice kid.

Posted by lauowolf on 07/23/09 at 07:48 PM | #

Hi Malwida. There seemed to be a major move away from the perception of Knox you are meditating from the second day of AK’s testifying. Lauowolf is quoting from it above.

Mimi quotes earlier remarks of AK that were earlier testified to which helped convince the various hearing judges to deny AK and RS bail or house arrest. Even so, what AK said on the stand on day two and the way she said it were apparently a real shocker for some who had been undecided up to that point. Several in the court told us they felt sickened.

Here is a video of her testifying on the first day, which already came across rather badly. Our posters in Italy Fiori and Nicki both heard her and said her testimony suggested a callous mindframe very different from the one you are meditating.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 07/23/09 at 08:24 PM | #

I just watched the video again, and it is so obvious that she sometimes takes a good breath to save time and recollect not what happened (in which case she would probably talk faster and be a bit agitated, following her memory) but what she has put together to be the truth.

She is not spontaneous at all.

How can she not, for example, on an evening, remember more or less precisely what time she did start the cooking, what time the table was ready, what time she ate. These are things that a woman schedules without event thinking at it. She (or they) made spaghetti (that spilled, remember?) and of course when you throw them in the water, you know you need to eat in 10-12 minutes! You know what time it is, more or less. You then know what time it was when you go to bed, because you are tired and try to figure out if it is late, etc…

Posted by Patou on 07/23/09 at 09:13 PM | #

Oh, and I just realized something about the mop and bucket.
I think the messy ones used to clean the crime scene were long gone, along with whatever rags and stained clothing were disposed of, probably in the same trip away that returned the knife to RS’s apartment.
The clean mop and bucket were replacements being brought to the scene - see, the mop is all clean, everything happened in MK’s room, no cleanup elsewhere.
Since the Postal Police turned up unexpectedly, they didn’t get to finish completely.
They weren’t far from done.
Another pass would have caught the last bits of visible blood in the bathroom.
Wipe up the wall and fixtures, move the laundry over to wash the bathmat and a rag or two, and possibly remove a few items from Filomena’s room to complete the apparent burglary.
Then the two of them have an unremarkable amount of stuff to carry off with them, they make one last trip to dispose of it, and go wait for Filomena to come home to make the discovery.

Posted by lauowolf on 07/23/09 at 09:15 PM | #

Hello Peter Quennell,
thanks for your comment. I generally think Amanda’s behaviour in court fits well with the personality she presents us as being a girl who very probably had the idea of “raping Meredith for fun” (or agreed to it). I mean, this very thought (which I think started the crime, this was the initial motivation of everything) already shows a total lack of compassion for others. I think she was driven by the fact that she had been fired and Meredith promoted. Also, Meredith seems to have rejected and criticised Amanda a lot, and this was Amanda’s way to pay her back. Staging this rape for Raffaele who (as I think) might have confessed to Amanda his attraction to violent sex would at the same time (as Amanda might have thought) have broken Meredith’s attitude of ‘superiority’ towards Amanda - something Amanda would have enjoyed.

All of this shows that Amanda has no respect for others, no compassion, no feelings, neither of guilt nor regret.

In my above scenario, all I wanted to say is that I do not believe they planned a murder. A rape yes, including a weapon, yes, a rape including Rudy who might have hid in the appartment before Meredith came in, yes. But no murder.
It could however be that Raffaele stabbed Meredith in the first place (or Rudy, I don’t think it was Amanda) and that they then killed Meredith when they came back after the stabbing and running away (and in case she was still alive then). This would have been in order to shut her up (an incredible crime of such coldness that I wish both of them life in prison if this was the case). I also wish them a long sentence if they left Meredith to blood and choke to death.

Why does Rudy not talk?
Might he be told to keep his mouth shut by the Sollectito-clan? Or is it because then they might actually conspire against him and say that he in fact killed Meredith? Only once he establishes them being at the crime scene, Amanda and Raffaele would be able to make him the murderer - which in return would only make things worse for him than they are now. Now he can still say he is completely innocent.
Thanks everyone for helpful comments.

Posted by Malwida on 07/23/09 at 11:47 PM | #

Hi lauowolf,
“Oh, and I just realized something about the mop and bucket.
I think the messy ones used to clean the crime scene were long gone, along with whatever rags and stained clothing were disposed of, probably in the same trip away that returned the knife to RS’s apartment.
The clean mop and bucket were replacements being brought to the scene - see, the mop is all clean, everything happened in MK’s room, no cleanup elsewhere. “
I think you’re right about this; I couldn’t see how the cleanup had been cleaned up as it were, but if the Postal Police arrive after most of the cleaning materials have been removed ...
In Italy, is it common to have a cupboard in the shared entrance hall with broom, mop, bucket for use in cleaning these areas? If that is so, it would be easy to swap mop and bucket for one not suspiciously new.
Was it ever reported what was in the washing machine? I remember Meredith’s clothes with ?Amanda’s - is that correct? No cleaning rags, I would imagine, and I would assume none of the clothes were bloody, as I’d guess a wash wouldn’t remove bloodstains but would mix up DNA traces.

Posted by NearlyNeville on 07/26/09 at 08:07 PM | #

On the hickey/scratch/whatever it is on Amanda’s neck - just a thought, but the front side of the throat, next to the windpipe, is not the normal place for hickeys or lovebites. It is a less sensitive area than the side of the neck.
On the other hand, it is more accessible to a scrape or bruise, acquired, perhaps, from someone fending you off?

Posted by NearlyNeville on 07/27/09 at 12:14 AM | #

As many others may be doing, I keep reading and re-reading the posts to see if anything comes to mind that I hadn’t thought of before. In reading this particular post I had a new thought about the clothing in the washing machine.

As it was said that the clothes in the washing machine were Meredith’s, and obviously Meredith had not been the one to be doing laundry as she had already been deceased since the evening before, I’m thinking that Knox used some of Meredith’s clothing as cleaning rags to try to clean up the evidence without creating any cleaning rags to be found and used as evidence,  and thus, it was she who started the laundry, and why the laundry was still warm when the police arrived.  Also, depending on the type of mop, the clothing could have been attached to the mop and used as a mophead, and then the original mophead put back on the mop afterwards.

Someone has probably already thought of this and posted it, but I haven’t seen it said yet, so thought I’d put it out there to be pondered.

Posted by Mo-in-Mass.,USA on 01/31/10 at 09:52 PM | #

I also have been pondering a lot about the logistics and technicalities of the cleaning job. I doubt any of the blood stained rags and clothes would be clean, even after a washing cycle or two in a washing machine.

My bet would be that those rags were disposed of, maybe in a trash bin on the street, on the way to the convenience store where some more cleaning supplies may have been bought.

By the time Amanda and Raffaele were suspects, those trash bins had been emptied already.

Fresh blood stains can be cleaned with milk or cold water. Warm water better not be used, because it can make the stains more permanent, because the blood solidifies!

Posted by saskia on 02/01/10 at 05:39 PM | #

I had thought the same thing, Saskia, but then I thought “why would someone be washing Meredith’s clothing after she was deceased?”.......Also, I had the thought that, as with the double DNA knife, that the thought might have been to hide the evidence in plain sight.

Re: Blood stain removal - My friend’s son was in a terrible auto accident (almost a miracle that he lived, as the car was almost unrecognizable) and his clothing had been soaked with blood.  Someone told her to get the clothes into the washer with warm (not hot) water, soap flakes and household ammonia and the blood stains would come out.  Sure enough, the blood was totally removed from the clothes.  Since learning that, I have also had good success in removing blood with soap and ammonia.

Posted by Mo-in-Mass.,USA on 02/02/10 at 04:28 AM | #

Kevin, you’ve got the one that definately makes the most sense - thats what I’ve been saying as well. your the first thats agreed with me, not that anyone reads this far down any more, but next tuesday, I’ll post the whole thing right below this.

Posted by John on 03/07/10 at 09:12 AM | #

NOV 1st
8:35 PM   Amanda’s text message to Patrick
8:40 PM   RS discovers he no longer has to go to the station, they turn their cell phones off
(They are now free for the evening and tomorrow’s Saturday)
RS’s bank account is $0.00 – they are limited as to what they can do.
Both have stated that they had a late supper so they plan on making something at Amanda’s, she has pasta there and RS has ingredients to make a sauce (mushrooms for one)
On route to Amanda’s, they meet Rudy, he has drugs, and they invite him over for supper in hopes of him sharing his drugs.
9 – 9:30 PM   Meredith arrives home, mingles with the 3, is offered to eat with them but declines, she has eaten, perhaps she’ll just have a mushroom. Retires to her room.
9:30 PM   Meredith attempts phone call home, but hangs up because Rudy has come into her room. At first they just talk but when Rudy starts making sexual advances, Meredith explodes and kicks him out, Rudy goes to main bathroom while Meredith gets into a very heated argument with Amanda about him. This heated argument turns confrontational and Amanda is no match for Meredith. RS, though he tries, can’t control either of them. Amanda uses a kitchen knife she has been using and slashes out at Meredith, cutting her across her throat.
  Meredith, in shock and pain, grabs her throat and runs to the washroom. Rudy comes out of the bathroom to see what has happened. In the washroom, after tuning on the light, Meredith fall to the floor and bleed on the mat, getting a towel, she wrapped it around her neck to stem the bleeding, stands up and turns the tap on and looks in the mirror. In Anger she screams she’s calling the police and runs to her room, Amanda and Rudy run after her, Rudy grabs her from behind in a choke hold while Amanda grabs her phones and goes into the living room.
  In Meredith’s room, Rudy finds out just how strong Meredith really is and it is all he can do to subdue her. In the other room, RS tries to calm Amanda down and gets her out of the flat; they hear Meredith screaming and can imagine what is going on. With the phones they walk down the road and discard them. RS decides they have to go back and see if Meredith is OK, but before he goes back in there, they stop at his place to get a knife in case there is a confrontation with Rudy and briefly stop at the park where the hobo sees them before returning.
10 – 10:30 PM   RS and Amanda return, Amanda stays outside while RS goes in, armed with his large kitchen knife he has brought, he sees Rudy and knows something really bad has happened, he says something to Rudy and runs out of the flat to Amanda where the two of them go to the park. They are now waiting for Rudy to leave and the breakdown truck to vacate.
11 – 11:30 PM   Breakdown truck now gone, RS and Amanda enter the house and discover what Rudy has done. Amanda, at seeing Meredith’s body, screams. The two leave right away, going back to the park to decide what to do.
12:00 Am -  After a heated argument, they decide not to call the police, but to go back and clean up any traces that they were they that evening. Basically, the supper they were making and the knife Amanda used on Meredith, stage a break in and plan what they would do in the morning to alert the police and what their alibi would be.
  During the cover-up, Amanda refuses to go into Meredith’s bedroom, so with both wearing gloves they had brought from RS’s place, Amanda cleans up the kitchen and living rooms, RS goes into the bedroom and stages the murder/rape scene, He moves Meredith body, removes her pants and under garments which had only been pulled down but when he tries to remove her bra, he can’t undo the clasps with his gloves on, he removes one glove, grabs the clasp and cuts it off with his kitchen knife, accidently nicking the point of the blade in Meredith’s back. He cuts the straps and pulls it off, but the clasp falls off under Meredith as he sets her body back down, unknowingly to himself and tosses the bra. After done staging the room, he looks it over and notices the clasp is missing, because he used his hand without a glove on, he figures he better find it, but he can’t. Realizing this could be important, he convinces Amanda to help in the search for it. She won’t go into the room unless he covers Meredith’s body. They have been doing this cleanup without using any lights for fear someone will see them. Its dark in the room even with the little table light on, so Amanda get the one out of her room and they search all over the floor but finally have to give up.
  Next, they stage the break in part, together they mess up the room and decide to throw the rock through the window when they leave, they lock Meredith’s door and prepare to leave, RS make one last trip into the break in room and unknowingly to Amanda, he sets the computer on the floor too and closes her door, outside he looks for a suitable rock and tosses it through the window and they run away deliberately leaving the outside door open.
  The mop found outside with them, never made it RS’s, it was used only in the kitchen, living room and hallway, all of which had no blood in them but needed to be explained nonetheless.
  The bare footprints found in the house were Amanda’s, she really did take a shower as part of their cover up.
  The kitchen knife was washed and put back in drawer by Amanda
  The long shower Amanda talked about was their after cleanup shower, when they disposed of their cloths and gloves used during the clean up, including the red coat.
  The postal police’s unexpected arrival in the morning foiled their plans on how and when to make their phone calls

Posted by John on 03/10/10 at 02:58 AM | #

I’m new to all of this (a couple of weeks of reading reports and interpretations), and it is very difficult to truly understand all of the happenings, the timelines, and evidence, so long after the events transpired. 

But John, I have to hand it to you, your timeline and theory of events makes FAR more sense to me than any other theory I’ve read anywhere else.  It does NOT exonerate anyone, they are clearly all guilty if this is how it went down, but none of the other theories flow, the events are disjoint and make no sense. 

This one, though, I can see happening.  Maybe I just need things to be tidy and make sense, but this gels with my sense of possibilities.

Posted by Fleeese on 02/16/11 at 06:01 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 Trial: Defense Witnesses On Scream On The Night And On Relationships.

Or to previous entry Trial: Defense Witness Makes A Claim About The Second Knife