Friday, October 07, 2011

US And UK Media: Make RS & AK Answer The HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS Of Open Questions

Posted by Our Main Posters

It seems Judge Hellman has begun sweating.

Maybe Judge Hellman already sees as much of the Italian public and commentators do that he’ll have a REALLY tough time answering all the open questions in his December sentencing report as he is required to.

Constitutional requirement of Ministry of Justice never met?

That so many questions exist but are not generally even known about, especially in the US and UK, is because a key requirement of the usually very careful Italian justice system seems to have been (illegally) ignored.

The key requirement is built into the justice system by the Italian constitution. It is that trial and appeal sentencing reports MUST be made available to the maximum extent, so that the general public (usually only the Italian public) can readily check on the legitimacy of trial outcomes.

Italy is the only country in the world that has that public check and balance on trials.  Under that requirement, if it existed in the US, Barry Scheck of the US’s Innocence Project would likely find that most of the travesties of justice his team uncovers would never have happened in the first place.

Here is how things are meant to work. 

Back when the Micheli Report on the Rudy Guede sentence was released in January 2009 with Judge Micheli’s reasons for remitting Knox and Sollecito to trial it was released in THREE formats.

    1) It was released digitally (in a Word Doc) to the media with the one requirement that it not be posted in full. We translated most of our copy and posted an extensive summary (scroll down) in English in four parts (three by Brian and one by Nikki) in September 2009.

    2) It was released in printed document form by the Ministry of Justice in Rome and anyone in Italy could buy a copy.

    3) It was also posted on the website of the Ministry of Justice in text and Acrobat document format. It appears that this Internet version was checked out by hundreds of thousands and quite possibly even by millions.

Now when the Ministry of Justice in Rome released the Massei sentencing report for Knox and Sollecito (links at top of this page) in March 2010, they released it in only ONE format.

The Ministry of Justice released it ONLY on paper, and it was obtainable ONLY by the press and by those in the general public who managed to figure out how to buy a copy of the book-sized document from the Ministry.

To our knowledge the Ministry of Justice never ever posted the required Internet version.

The effect of this serious and seemingly illegal shortfall by the Rome Ministry has been that even in Italy few people have ever read the Massei Report. The number of Italian readers might be only in the hundreds and at most in the low thousands. Way, way less than ever read Micheli.

As a result only very few people in Italy may have ever realized how powerful, logically complete and conclusive that report is. Probably few or no peers of the lay judges in Perugia have ever read it. The most important document in the entire case is essentially unread.

In August 2010 a PMF team finished translating the Massei Report and made available the Masssei report in English in Acrobat format on the PMF forum and on TJMK.

In June 2011 Skeptical Bystander and a PMF team posted a Massei summary in text on TJMK and PMF.

This English language version has been downloaded close to 30,000 times and there are many people in the US and UK who are very well informed on the conclusions.  Every lawyer we know who has read the report has agreed that it arrived at the right conclusions. Many say and several do right here in these posts (scroll down) that the case would have been way more than enough for a US or UK conviction.

A slam dunk in effect. Evidence overkill.

But few of the busy people in the US and UK media have read the Massei Report and no one in the media to our knowledge has extensively analyzed or quoted from it. None of the books out so far go into the Massei Report in depth.

WHY did the Italian Ministry of Justice fail to fully distribute the Massei Report, and in particular not post it on their website? And is the Supreme Court of Cassation aware of this huge shortfall in its distribution?

This is such a serious mistake that our Italian lawyers believe that the Supreme Court or even the President of the Republic of Italy if he is petitioned could throw out the entire Hellman proceedings, verdict and sentence.

The hundreds and hundreds of open questions

Arising from the Massei Report are literally hundreds of questions for the released defendants and their teams. They have been around since early 2010. The defense teams and PR campaign have never ever tried to answer these questions, or for that matter to produce a convincing alternative scenario that hangs together implicating Guede but not Knox or Sollecito.

Here are four lists of the many, many outstanding questions.

Here from the Daily Beast are those ten questions with the Beast’s annotations showing how they are STILL unanswered:

1. Why did you and Raffaele Sollecito turn off your cell phones at the same time the night of Nov. 1, 2007, and on again at the same time the next morning? You told the police that you and Raffaele slept late the morning of Nov. 2, 2007, but phone records show that you both turned your phones back on very early that morning. How could that be? This question was never addressed fully in the appellate process except when Giulia Bongiorno for Sollecito said that perhaps the cat stepped on the phone and turned it on. At that time the prosecutor Manuela Comodi quipped, “I’ve got a dog and he has never done that.”

2. Why were you bleeding? Your lawyers agree with the prosecution’s findings that at least one of the spots of Meredith’s blood found in the house where she was killed had your blood mixed with it. Your mother told me that you had your period. Your stepfather told others that your ear piercings were infected. Which was it? Even if this mixed blood drop is contentious in its genetic makeup (all blood or blood mixed with DNA), the appellate court was shown a picture of a drop of blood attributed entirely to Knox on the faucet.

3. Once you realized your mistake in blaming Patrick Lumumba for Meredith’s murder, why didn’t you tell the authorities? You told your mother that you felt bad about it, so why didn’t you alert an official so Patrick could be set free?

4. Why did you go with Raffaele to the police station on Nov. 5, 2007? You were not called in for questioning. Did you realize at that time that you were both under suspicion?

5. Why weren’t your and Raffaele’s fingerprints found in your house after the murder if the two of you had spent time there that morning and the day before? Only one half-print on a glass in the kitchen has been attributed to you, yet you have claimed that you took a shower there that morning. How did you spend so much time there and leave virtually no trace? Much of the crime scene has since been determined to have suffered from sloppy investigative work, meaning the absence of fingerprints in any room of the house may be due to that rather than any sort of cleanup.

6. Why did you take the mop and bucket from your house over to Raffaele’s house? You told the prosecutor during your testimony in June 2009 that you took the mop and bucket to his house to clean up a leak under his kitchen sink. But by your own testimony, the leak was minuscule and could have been easily cleaned up without it. What were you really doing with the mop?

7. What would you do differently if you had a chance to rewind the clock back to Nov. 3, 2007? Would you go to the memorial service for Meredith? Would you still have gone to the police station with Raffaele? Would you have left for Germany when your aunt asked you to?

8. What do you think happened the night Meredith was killed? You have professed your innocence. Who do you think killed her and under what circumstance? Your supporters say Rudy Guede was the lone killer. Do you agree? Or do you think there are still others out there who were involved in your roommate’s murder?

9. What do you really think of the Italian justice system? You told an Italian parliamentarian that you got a fair trial, and you even thanked the prosecutors for trying to solve the mystery of Meredith’s death, but your supporters at home in Seattle maintain that the Italian system is corrupt and unfair. In your appellate hearing you said you lost faith in justice and the police. Now that you are out, what do you really think of the system that has both convicted and acquitted you?

10. Is there anything you wish you would have said in court during your (initial) trial (in which you were convicted)? You talked about your vibrator and about how you did not want an assassin’s mask forced on you. But in your final appeal after the closing arguments on Dec. 4, 2010, why didn’t you say the words, “I did not kill Meredith Kercher”? Raffaele did when it was his turn to speak. Why didn’t you? You have said on many occasions during the appellate trial that you did not kill her and you have never hurt anyone. This question has been addressed with your denials. What about the rest?

Judge Hellman may be able to answer all of these unanswered questions AS HE MUST under Italian law in his sentencing report. He cannot simply address points defense raised about small parts of it. He must be able to explain the totality of the evidence or his report risks being thrown out by Cassation and a retrial at the first appeal level ordered.

Possibly Judge Hellman might be able to achieve this. But why do we seriously doubt it?


It’s going to sound crazy but I feel much better now [compared to after the verdict and release]. 

They’ve had their day, the nastiness of FOA on Twitter will cause a backlash, it’s going to become progressively more fashionable for journos to actually explore the evidence - as Peter said - and Routledge in the Mirror [dead tree version] came out today with his piece called ObKnoxious - great stuff. People do read him.

More and more it will happen, the evidence will be looked at, Hellman and crew will be questioned over it by the media and the appeal will be interesting.  As long as TJMK and PMF keep up the facts and people like me go easy on the theories, then it will most certainly turn around.

Patience, patience.

Posted by James Higham on 10/07/11 at 03:48 PM | #

And well done for the sterling work for your post too!

Posted by James Higham on 10/07/11 at 04:21 PM | #

Hi James. Most of the sterling work was done by Skeptical Bystander and the translation and summary teams over on PMF. The post here is by all of us with strong opinions from some of our very bright Italian lawyers.

We really would like to see an immediate petition to President Giorgio Napolitano. The President is no friend of Mr Berlusconi or his mini-me Rocco Girlanda - whose petition to investigate the Perugia prosecutors he simply ignored.

I posted this tip in a comment yesterday touching on some of the national and international political context.


Tip: keep a very close eye on this on which we are going to be posting soon:

The wildly unpopular Mr Berlusconi is struggling with the Italian economy right now. Any heat off of him and his party (which is also Rocco Girlanda’s party) can only help.

Mr Berlusconi personally is feeling 4 kinds of heat from the justice system in the form of 4 trials coming up in Milan.

And his party will be the very big loser if the national investigations entrusted to PERUGIA PROSECUTORS into 2006 winter Olympics and 2010 earthquake reconstruction financial shenanigans sail on without a shot across their bows.

Rocco Girlanda is now running a campaign in the Italian parliament to eliminate entirely the annual police budget (up in the many millions of Euros) for wiretapping.

Does this help to connect any dots?

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/07/11 at 04:38 PM | #

Onorevole Girlanda, se ne faccia una ragione.

Posted by ncountryside on 10/07/11 at 04:48 PM | #

Links to more lists of questions would be appreciated. More questions in this excellent post here entitled “America’s angelic O.J.” for O.J. Simpson who was found not guilty of killing his wife and a friend despite many, many questions - and is now in prison.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/07/11 at 05:00 PM | #

Ice cream.

Posted by Badger on 10/07/11 at 05:01 PM | #

Good article!

This is the most frustrating thing about this case. So many questions! Even the washington Post acknowledges this…

Posted by starsdad on 10/07/11 at 05:04 PM | #


Regarding the article you linked and the reference to OJ, It would be appropriate to ask Judge Hellman ‘if it does not fit…how can you acquit?’

Posted by starsdad on 10/07/11 at 05:21 PM | #

There are so many things that don’t add up in Judge Hellmann’s verdict in Amanda’s and Raffaele’s appeal. He’s has 90 days now of creative writing to join all of the dots.

Meanwhile, Amanda has gone home to one of the weirdest welcome home situations that I have ever seen for persons jailed abroad (correctly or incorrectly) who have returned home.

It seems to me that her family has set up a “preventative damage” wall, not so much to keep the world from getting to Amanda (which is something that they need in order to get $$$ to pay off the PR campaign), as to keep Amanda from getting out into the world and being herself.

Posted by Kermit on 10/07/11 at 05:30 PM | #

Great article on WND that you linked to Peter.  Some nice quotes in it too, such as:

“Ann Coulter offered up a few tart tweets about Knox’s exoneration:  -  Amanda Knox not guilty, Casey Anthony rolls eyes, says; ‘well, duh…’”

“Comprehending circumstantial evidence demands analytical and deductive thinking. These faculties are becoming rare in the Age of the Idiot now upon us…”

How true, and I must remember that line.

Posted by Tim on 10/07/11 at 05:53 PM | #


I agree, the homecoming was a lot subdued than I had expected. According to the experts in the link, she needs to get ‘out’ and convince people of her innocence asap…......

Posted by starsdad on 10/07/11 at 06:25 PM | #

A Poem for Meredith

Long lines of juxtapositions
Sway in the breeze.
Meredith, where are you, angel, darling?
Where is your wine?

Don’t look down on this fiasco,
this charade,
this Beelzebub of confusion
and bemusement
done by the brainless mobs.

They are shortlived, these celebrants’ victories.

Beautifully you can’t hear them
for the Hallelujah choruses wafting you onwards.

I will take sweet comfort
in the notion of your peace,
and stop to hear the starlight
that banners from your eyes.

Posted by Hopeful on 10/07/11 at 06:38 PM | #

It’s interesting to see right wing columnists like Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly write about the case, and I even like Nancy Grace’s outrage. But when World Net Daily’s Ilana Mercer writes an article as well and people think it’s well written, sure, but does anyone remember that site is Obama Birth Certificate Central?

This is becoming an ideological battle, and we do not do the Kerchers any favours by projecting our emotional stuff on to them. I wish them well and hope they will begin to heal, regardless of any future outcome.

But Justice, when it comes, has to be dispassionate and blind.

Posted by Ergon on 10/07/11 at 06:48 PM | #

Hi Starsdad. Thanks for linking to the Guardian. We have a post on the probable extreme limits of Knox money-making from Meredith’s sad demise coming up.

The passage from that Guardian piece that especially relates to this post:


Max Clifford said Knox will find herself at the centre of another disaster if she doesn’t address the “half the world that still thinks she’s guilty”.

“The past four years have been very damaging for her,” Clifford added. “She has a long way to go to win over the hearts and minds of the public. There were more boos outside that courtroom than there were cheers.

“If I were advising her, and I would only advise her if I thought she was innocent, the first thing I would do to convince the world of my innocence was meet the Kercher family. Then you have the foundations in place in terms of TV, movie and books.”

Otherwise, Clifford believes any move by Knox to tell her side of the story through the media will backfire.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/07/11 at 07:19 PM | #

If Hellman was the lone voice of reason within the jury - as some here have suggested - wanting justice to prevail but hamstrung by a lay jury too influenced by CSI and the PR machine to themselves think clearly. Then why has he been widely reported to have said that following the verdict - “I went to bed serene but I didn’t sleep very much as I was so tired, it was a late night.” 

To use the word “serene” to describe the sleep he had that night, when he so clearly understands the Kercher’s position, seems odd.

Posted by Spencer on 10/07/11 at 08:15 PM | #

Has anyone read the latest on the Judge Hellman’s comments about the appeal?

He admits that Knox and Sollecito may have been guilty but claims the evidence wasn’t there.

Very surprising admission given the appeal verdict options open to him as the British papers are reporting:

Posted by mikeyverve on 10/07/11 at 08:40 PM | #

Badger: “Ice cream.”

Save a pretzel for the gas jets.

Posted by Earthling on 10/07/11 at 08:53 PM | #

The world will be hearing from Amanda very soon. Her story has a limited shelf life and the clock is ticking.

I expect the Hellmann report is going to be very short and focused on defending the verdict from appeal.

The Massei report is the definitive document on the case. It was the first thing I read apart from news reports, and now having read extensively I am amazed that he has the best explanation for any given piece of evidence 80-90% of the time.

Posted by brmull on 10/07/11 at 09:36 PM | #

@ Earthling
And the Black-Eyed Peas version for Rudy?

Posted by Tim on 10/07/11 at 09:48 PM | #

@brmull- I tend to agree with you about the limited shelf life, but this article today had a different point of view:

“Amanda Knox ‘could donate book and TV deal money to Meredith Kercher’”

“Dave Marriott, who was hired as a publicist for Miss Knox in 2007, said he has advised the family to “go dark”, meaning it could be months before she tells her story.”

It also claims that Knox would consider donating money to the Kerchers, which is a rather extraordinary thought. The real question is whether the Kerchers would or would not welcome and accept such a gesture from Knox.

Of course, it’s all talk and no action for now, too.

Posted by giustizia on 10/07/11 at 09:52 PM | #

So Amanda profits from Meredith’s murder whether or not she did it (the Kerchers seriously believe she did it) and then Amanda wants to remove the taint of blood money by giving some of the unseemly profits to the Kerchers?

I dont see it. It sounds like the PR manager is getting nervous. Media people here never did rate him too highly and now with the meltdown on the verdict he has a rapidly growing mess on his hands.

And when to let Amanda out of the attic as Kermit noted above? She could be encountering yells of “murderess” every day for the rest of her life. Casey Anthony’s situation.

She could have sought the short form trial, blamed drugs or mental damage, sought forgiveness and compassion from the Kerchers and court, and been out of prison in another 4-6 years with her head held high and debt to society paid.

Some PR.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/07/11 at 10:00 PM | #

@peter: There’s no honor among thieves (and murderers).

@giustizia: Here in Hollywood the saying goes that if someone promises you a percent of the profits you’ll never see a dime.

The best thing we could do is to streamline the website so when people see her books and movies they can come and get the truth in a quick and compelling fashion.

Posted by brmull on 10/07/11 at 10:21 PM | #

Thank you to all who are painstakingly providing the evidence and truth behind that poor girl’s dreadful murder.

As difficult as this week has been for us, as observers, I can only imagine how the Kerchers feel.

Keep up the good work. With your endeavours, I believe that one way or another, the truth will come out and be upheld. I know that I am not alone in knowing that they are guilty.

It does make one wonder if closed door trials, excluding the glare of the media, is really the only way to allow justice to take place.

Posted by TruthWillOut on 10/07/11 at 10:33 PM | #

Hi BR. Great idea. We intend to do that soon. Separate pages for each area of evidence. A separate page for all the questions. And maybe a separate m[page listing all the made up “facts”. It would be a long page.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/07/11 at 10:34 PM | #

Here are the download links to the original Italian version of the Massei Report for our increasing number of Italian readers, some of whom are from the Italian media.

The Italian talk shows are now warming up. We have been invited to nominate a representative to half a dozen. Looks like Mr Hellman may have misjudged, unless he is playing a deep game.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/07/11 at 10:57 PM | #

Keep up the good work. I am lost in admiration.

Posted by Ann-Marie on 10/07/11 at 11:38 PM | #

The trial against family Sollecito and two journalists will be held in Bari instead of Perugia on March 28th, 2012.

Posted by ncountryside on 10/08/11 at 12:14 AM | #

Also some kind of politics is warming up:

Forza Nuova:

Posted by ncountryside on 10/08/11 at 12:20 AM | #

Some more questions for Amanda:

1. Is the reason you couldn’t clean up a spill because you were drunk and high? And is that why you turned off your phones?

2. Do you like knives? Why were your fingerprints on Sollecito’s jack-knife?

3. Did you know Guede lived right around the corner from your boyfriend? You said you never bought drugs from him, but do know anyone who did and what kind of drugs were they?

4. Did Guede ever talk about his criminal escapades? Did you know he was a thief?

5. Do believe Guede’s alibi? Why or why not?

6. Why did you decide to turn on your cell phones so early in the morning? Were you expecting a call?

7. Why did you lay out your dirty clothes all nice on your bed? Did you want people to notice that you’d done what you said you did?

8. Why did you take a plastic bag to the cottage. Doesn’t the cottage have plastic bags? What was it for?

9. Why would Sollecito tell the police and the Daily Mirror things that weren’t true, and later say you told him to say that?

10. Why did Meredith have tiny cuts and scrapes on her hands? What did you do to her?

Posted by brmull on 10/08/11 at 12:37 AM | #

Bongiorno answered in courtroom to question 6: Raffaele’s cat turned up the cellphones.

Posted by ncountryside on 10/08/11 at 12:54 AM | #

@ncountryside - Could you explain the Forza Nuova poster?

They are a far-right, neofascist party, right? I would expect people embracing that kind of ideology to find the verdict perfectly acceptable. 

But then the part about “la vostra giustizia democratica” seemed to express disapproval - as in, this is what your “democratic” justice has produced: a racially-divided outcome.  Are they calling them hypocrites? As in - you too are neofascists, but too afraid to admit it?

Posted by Vivianna on 10/08/11 at 01:20 AM | #

Very sad aticle here. John Kercher being interviewed

‘John spoke to Meredith every day by phone. She often talked about her British friends, but never Amanda Knox. Indeed, he is bewildered when Knox keeps talking now about Meredith as her ‘dear friend’, because he believes there was some friction between them. Meredith had told friends she wasn’t impressed with Amanda’s hygiene habits, nor some of the people she brought back to the cottage they shared. Amanda seemed to prefer the company of Italian students’.

Read more:

Posted by starsdad on 10/08/11 at 01:34 AM | #

CBS’ 48 Hours To Air Amanda Knox: The Untold Story

will reveal that Knox was the victim of “cruel manipulation and sexual intimidation” while behind bars, as discovered in a letter she had written.

Didn’t take them long.

Posted by Miriam on 10/08/11 at 01:47 AM | #

This is exactly the story I referred to in my earlier post today under a dfferent section. AK is THE VICTIM here. But I am wondering if the parents let her talk at all in this interview because I think her Dad is doing everything instead of her right now. And I have had enough of his face already, I hope others will feel the same way…

Posted by Hungarian on 10/08/11 at 01:54 AM | #

His whole family is a freak show, a circus act.

Posted by Spencer on 10/08/11 at 02:06 AM | #

This post above is very comprehensive and really incorporates all the questions that have brought us all together here, very impressive, thanks! The American media has focused solely on Knox, and not at all on Sollecito. I believe that Sollecito’s lies are even more telling than are Knox’s.

I have written an article detailing Sollecito’s 4 different versions of where he and Knox were on the night of the murder, also very telling as to what really happened…

Posted by willsavive on 10/08/11 at 02:34 AM | #

Bonus questions for Amanda:

Why were you not surprised when you got to the cottage in the morning and your door was open? Did you leave it open when you left the night before? so why was there blood on the handle?

After the murder were you missing any glass object that might have been dropped or thrown in Meredith’s room and would have been easily traced back to you?

Did you carry a washrag or some other item that you used to clean the bathroom into Filomena’s room?

Posted by brmull on 10/08/11 at 03:14 AM | #

If I was Amanda and I was innocent I maybe be angry with the Kerchers to judge me wrong. If I was guilty I would try everything to show I am innocent including meet them. So if she says she want meet them for me is not signal of innocence, it is only for her own benefit: try to smooth people opinion or who knows! She regrets what she has done. But not necessary it is because she is innocent.

Posted by lulupr on 10/08/11 at 03:22 AM | #

AK is not planning to meet the Kerchers at all, at least according to her dad:
“it is probably too early for Knox to contact the Kercher family, who have been put back to square one by this week’s acquittals, with no answer over who killed their daughter.

‘I think right now, it’s a little bit premature. The Kerchers are still trying to work through the whole verdict and so forth. Hopefully in the long run, they will see that really the truth is Amanda and Raffaele had nothing to do with the death of Meredith.

‘As they hopefully get there and are allowed closure with this horrific crime and the loss of their daughter, they’ll be able to really recognise that Amanda and Raffaele had nothing to do with it,’ he added.”;=

Posted by Hungarian on 10/08/11 at 04:18 AM | #

If I were a member of the Knox family I would be rather worried right now because we are not going away ever. We seek the truth and the truth will set you free. Amanda Knox and Raphael Sollecito plus Rudy Guede are guilty of murdering Meredith Kercher it’s that simple. So Knox and friends, enjoy it while you can. The media is a very fickle thing and they will turn on Knox if only to boost their ratings. You can run but you can’t hide.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 10/08/11 at 04:53 AM | #

Great article, Peter.  Thanks to you all for your faithful hard work which takes so much time.  If any of you work full time I don’t know how you do it.  I work full time and can barely keep up with the traffic on TJMK and PMF - I certainly cannot keep up with PMF. 

I didn’t think BLN asked the best questions in her Daily Beast article and there are far more here.  It’s a shame as that will have a large US audience.  I hope that someone will represent TJMK at the Italian chat shows - pity I read it as ‘US chat shows’ at first and became excited - silly me.

Re AK making the millions, my view is that she will write a book or something like that.  Less risky as she can control what is ‘spoken’ and cannot be put on the spot to answer difficult questions. 

Interesting that her family has been advised to ‘go black’ (nice expression) and, of course, there is more smoke screening being pumped out of the machine now with the allegations of sexual harassment which may or may not be true. 

No-one ever said that prisons are the safest of places although my impression of Capanne is that it seems quite pleasant compared with prisons in the UK, the US and other countries.

I used to be on a prison ministry team visiting foreigners imprisoned in Thailand - now there you have ‘conditions’ and there are even worse places around the world. 

My prevailing thought is that this is one huge, tangled mess they have created for themselves in Italy and I fear that it may never be resolved adequately.  Somehow, I am unable to imagine AK going back to jail in Italy.

Posted by thundering on 10/08/11 at 05:18 AM | #

I agree, Thundering. One thing that Knox (and/or her advisors) must be hugely aware of is that if she sells her story to the highest bidder, the ‘losing’ networks are, almost certainly, going to start asking tough questions like these and drawing attention to the inconsistencies in her story.

Of course, if she does write a book, she will have to do a promotional tour, including interviews. Let’s just hope the interviewers are appraised of the facts and not sob-brothers and sob-sisters of the ‘how awful was it for you in prison on a scale of one to a million, Amanda?’ type.

I like in hope. But I daresay a large part of Knox’s ‘relaxing, spending time with her family, playing soccer yada hey’ time right now is spent being advised exactly how to address questions like these. Lawyers cannot ethically tell their clients how to answer questions. Public relations advisers certainly can.

Posted by Janus on 10/08/11 at 09:25 AM | #

Thank you for all the good work you have done on this site and on PMF; I’ve been a silent reader till now, and my heart goes out to the Kerchers. My hope is that one day the tide will turn and more people will come here in search of the truth.

One question I do still have is this: were there any fingerprints on Amanda’s lamp left in Meredith’s room? What is the “innocent” explanation for the lamp’s presence?

Posted by lamaha on 10/08/11 at 09:26 AM | #

@ lamaha

Another conundrum. It seems no fingerprints were found on this lamp - otherwise it would have been highlighted. No innocent story came up for this either from Knox I understand.

Guede moving and using this particular lamp is preposterous if AK and RS are innocent. If his motivation was to clean up the scene, he only succeeded in leaving most of his own traces.

The previous analysis on this site suggested that Knox and Sollecito used this lamp in the clean up of the scene after the murder. This makes sense, as she would want to use her own lamp - as any fingerprints found on it would be expected to be there, as opposed to using Meredith’s lamp.

Posted by gabster1971 on 10/08/11 at 11:29 AM | #

What I forgot to mention above is that probably in the panic of the cleanup, Knox forgot to return the lamp to her own room. Otherwise, there is no logic to leave it there and incriminate yourself.

Posted by gabster1971 on 10/08/11 at 11:44 AM | #

Thanks Thundering and others for the appreciative words about the posters. Open invitation to send in a main post. Half of all posters (now around 60) began that way.

As far as I know all of us work fill time though the main posters are all their own bosses and have good incomes. One gets into a rhythm in reading and posting and becomes very fast.

Hardest is Internet on the road in Europe where open networks and free WAN dont exist. Here it easier on the road. Last month I drove coast to coast and back in 26 days doing economic presentations and looking at things on the road (many cities here show signs of being “down”). No internet or posting problems all the way.

Smart caring readers here. That makes a huge difference. We are all fascinated by the comments and how new people arrive to carry the baton for a while. .

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/08/11 at 01:30 PM | #

Thank you for all the good work you have done on this site and on PMF; I’ve been a silent reader till now, and my heart goes out to the Kerchers. My hope is that one day the tide will turn and more people will come here in search of the truth.

One question I do still have is this: were there any fingerprints on Amanda’s lamp left in Meredith’s room? What is the “innocent” explanation for the lamp’s presence?

Posted by lamaha on 10/08/11 at 04:10 PM | #

Sorry for the double posting. I’m not sure how that happened; I’m only aware of posting once.
I did fight Meredith’s case quite vehemently on a forum I frequent, asking people to drop in here to check the details. I hope it was a little drop from the ocean of truth!

Posted by lamaha on 10/08/11 at 04:13 PM | #

Sorry for the double posting. I’m not sure how that happened; I’m only aware of posting once.
I did fight Meredith’s case quite vehemently on a forum I frequent, asking people to drop in here to check the details. I hope it was a little drop from the ocean of truth!

Posted by lamaha on 10/08/11 at 05:25 PM | #

Hey All,

Can you believe this? AK is now accusing Italian authorities of another alleged mistreatment - sexual harassment by a senior prison official!

She hasn’t learned anything about calunnia, despite her conviction. Hardly surprising.

And I wish Kurt would get the hell off the airwaves. What a media w#*£e.

Peace all.

Posted by all4justice on 10/08/11 at 05:57 PM | #

I am glad to see that more and more people who have been silent readers have decided to show their support openly.  The illusion created by the PR machine, via very vocal recruits, was that of overwhelming public support for Amanda and Raffaele.  Support for Meredith and her family has been low-key and concentrated on making evidence public and on interpreting it. I think it’s great to see that our numbers are greater than it may have appeared.

We know that justice is not infallible.  Because in some cases it cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt that someone is guilty, some people slip through the cracks and their crimes go unpunished.  In other cases, incompetence, disinterest, or political and monetary interests can skew the course of a trial.  While we cannot influence justice and we absolutely should not harangue people who were released, we can work to ensure that the true victims are not forgotten.  It’s a more humane kind of public justice and it’s something that all of us can contribute to.

Here are some ideas in which you can make a tangible contribution to keeping Meredith’s memory alive, in no particular order:

1.  Support objective journalists who have been reporting on this case, such as Barbie Latza Nadeau and Andrea Vogt.  Nadeau has written a book on this case, titled “Angel Face: The True Story of Student Killer Amanda Knox.” Let them know in your comments that you appreciate the hard questions they have been openly asking, and encourage them to continue doing so.

2.  If your local papers are publishing inaccurate accounts of the case, write letters to the editor linking to TJMK and PMF and pointing out inaccuracies in reporting.  Not all journalists are sold to the Marriott PR campaign, but some have little understanding of the case.  Help them see that there is more to it than a tearful Amanda Knox.

The more objective reporting there is, the better the chance that major news outlets will send investigative reporters to figure out what led to this particular verdict.  As we know, international media attention can make some uncomfortable secrets difficult to keep.

3.  If you are active on Twitter and Facebook, support Stephanie Kercher with her recent “Remember Meredith” campaign.

4.  Several people on PMF have posted beautiful pictorial or video memorials for Meredith.  If you are artistically inclined, you could create something and post it on PMF, on your website, and on any social media you use.

5. Kristian Leontiou’s song “Some Say,” featuring Meredith, can be found on YouTube: You could link it on social media you use, as it’s probably the only public video footage including Meredith (plus, it’s a beautiful song and Kristian was Meredith’s friend).

Posted by Vivianna on 10/08/11 at 06:11 PM | #

@lamaha: I’d be surprised if the lamps weren’t dusted for fingerprints. From the crime scene videos it appears both were collected as evidence. One possibility is that there were no *usable* prints which is different than no prints. I think the killers took great care to make sure they left no incriminating prints. After all they were sophisticated enough to stage a break-in. That’s why I believe it was such a disaster when a glass bottle or cup shattered on the floor of the victim’s room and they had to look very hard to make sure there were no broken pieces with DNA or a print.

Posted by brmull on 10/08/11 at 06:31 PM | #

@all4justice: I wonder how much CBS paid for that letter. It’s laughable that Team Knox imply prison is still too painful for her to talk about yet she had visitors several times a week, wrote a novel-length memoir, and accounts of her prison activities are widely reported.

@vivianna: Great suggestions and I have a Meredith avatar, but I think it’s still a little early to stop haranguing those unjustly acquitted. Especially if they actively seek the media spotlight like Mr. Curt “Apple doesn’t fall far from the tree” Knox.

Posted by brmull on 10/08/11 at 06:45 PM | #

Hi Vivianna re your 10/08/11 at 11:11 AM Comment:

“... 2.  If your local papers are publishing inaccurate accounts of the case, write letters to the editor linking to TJMK and PMF and pointing out inaccuracies in reporting….”

Have you checked your TJMK Control-Panel PM File Inbox?

Please let me know.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 10/08/11 at 06:53 PM | #

Well, Curt Knox is fair game, since he made a deal with the devil.  Also, based on the Italian articles I linked the other day, which are now being picked up by English newspapers, he is slandering Italian police left and right. Very ill-advised move, considering that he has a trial pending for the exact same offense.

By not haranguing them, I meant not openly saying defamatory things because we could be accused of slandering them.  I don’t consider asking questions, however, as haranguing.  I think we should continue asking the same questions we’ve been asking from the beginning.

However, at this point, I’m more interested in what the judges and the jury have to say for themselves.  We know what Amanda and Raffaele have to say, and I’m not interested in it unless they are willing to say something we haven’t heard before.  But this panel is sort of a new factor and I’d personally prefer it if investigative media focused on them and on how they reached this decision. Shining some light on that might end up being useful for when the Supreme Court reviews this case.

Posted by Vivianna on 10/08/11 at 07:21 PM | #

Looking forward to your next post. In the UK we’ve been hearing $8-10m for the first interview alone, and a $10m advance offered for the ‘memoirs’.

Posted by Spencer on 10/08/11 at 07:35 PM | #

@Cardiol - I didn’t know I had an inbox here, but I sent a reply.

The sort of inaccuracies I am talking about are huge: there was no evidence linking AK and RS to the murder, there was no blood, there was no DNA, the footprints were falsely attributed, AK was interrogated for 50 hours (beaten, starved, no interpreter or lawyer, etc), they never changed their stories, etc.  We know these things are false and used to mislead readers.

Posted by Vivianna on 10/08/11 at 07:36 PM | #

We can only hope that Kristen Stewart is intelligent enough to not take the role that will soon be offered.

Posted by Spencer on 10/08/11 at 07:44 PM | #

Another thing we can do is to reply to ALL pro-Amanda comments on media threads that repeat lies and myths such as “she was beaten into accusing Lulumba”. A lot of people read these comments and believe the rubbish posted there. It’s important that every single myth is corrected again and again and again, so that neutral readers are curious enough to come here and check.

Posted by lamaha on 10/08/11 at 07:47 PM | #

Another thing we can do is to reply to ALL pro-Amanda comments on media threads that repeat lies and myths such as “she was beaten into accusing Lulumba”. A lot of people read these comments and believe the rubbish posted there. It’s important that every single myth is corrected again and again and again, so that neutral readers are curious enough to come here and check.

There’s an article in the Daily Mail today which is just full of rubbish!

Posted by lamaha on 10/08/11 at 07:50 PM | #

Lamaha, did you read the Telegraph or the Guardian? Sickening also. I’m back to having no newspapers that are safe to read anymore.

Posted by Spencer on 10/08/11 at 07:55 PM | #

Some publications are starting to ask hard questions about the ethics of hiring a PR firm to manipulate public opinion, encourage advocacy journalism instead of investigative work, and ensure that only those who toe the line are given the time of day by networks—precisely because of the deals worked out by the PR firm, first brokering access to the family and now brokering paid access to the recently (but not finally) acquitted Knox.

My thoughts here, with a link to the very good NY Times piece that inspired it:

Posted by Skeptical Bystander on 10/08/11 at 08:18 PM | #

Popper over at PMF said that based on what he saw on Italian TV, Mauro Chialli was NOT on the panel, but served as reserve juror.  There were several reserve jurors who watched the trial in case one of the six lay jurors could not be present for the final deliberations.  Chialli had nothing to do with the decision, which is probably why he feels safe to share that flawed perspective. 

The other juror who talked, Angeletti, only mentioned the impossibility to establish guilt with 100% certainty and the difficulties they had identifying a motive.  Since a clear motive is not required for a guilty verdict, and 100% certainty is impossible unless the act was recorded, there are some indications that perhaps the jurors were not correctly guided.  But that’s a lot more subtle than coming out and saying that you just tell from their sweet, innocent faces that they weren’t guilty.  That’s absolute rubbish and he should not be allowed to serve again.

Posted by Vivianna on 10/08/11 at 08:21 PM | #

Skep wrote: “Some publications are starting to ask hard questions about the ethics of hiring a PR firm to manipulate public opinion, encourage advocacy journalism instead of investigative work, and ensure that only those who toe the line are given the time of day by networks—precisely because of the deals worked out by the PR firm, first brokering access to the family and now brokering paid access to the recently (but not finally) acquitted Knox.”

Very good. Glad to hear this. It’s about time, too!

I’m very disappointed that the Ministry of Justice did not publish the Massei Motivations report in downloadable form. That made it much more difficult for regular people to read it. In essence, it languished until the PMF translators had finally translated it months later. Then, I suppose, it would have to be translated back into Italian for wide Italian distribution? Ridiculous!

I hope Knox is finally convicted by the Italian Supreme Court.

(Pete, the “save a pretzel” comment was an “in-joke” from our trauma-induced goings-on at PMF. Feel free to remove if inappropriate. Thanks!)

Posted by Earthling on 10/08/11 at 08:50 PM | #

Looks like the Knox PR team is still trying to shape public opinion.  The “mistreatment in prison” claim could be the first attempt by the PR team to build sympathy for Knox in case she loses the final appeal.  They want to paint the Italian prison system as a third-world dungeon so Americans would pressure the U.S. government to refuse to extradite Knox.

Posted by Sailor on 10/08/11 at 09:55 PM | #

My understanding, at least in the U.S., is that if you are sued for defamation you can win the case by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that what you said is true. That would mean re-arguing the murder in front of a U.S. judge. I for one would welcome that, but I don’t think Knox or Sollecito would ever risk it.

Regarding Mario Chialli, it’s mind-boggling what he said. Did he ever meet with a judge or the other jurors? Because the idea that you can make a judgment by watching a defendant’s courtroom demeanor—especially one who is widely reported to have been coached on body language—is sheer idiocy.

Posted by brmull on 10/08/11 at 10:35 PM | #

@Sailor - No doubt, but that could backfire very badly.  Even if extradition is denied, the person can end up serving the sentence in his/her own country.  I’m not sure how WA state prisons compare to Capanne, but I have a feeling that they might be a worse place.

@Brmull - No idea what the extent of his interaction with the judges/active jurors was.  He’s putting the entire panel in a very bad light, especially that foreign newspapers are erroneously saying he was on the panel.  I agree that his impressions were shallow and idiotic.

Posted by Vivianna on 10/08/11 at 10:55 PM | #

I quite agree that Amanda, now, should not be harassed, but I don’t at all take this to mean that probing questions or plain speaking & frankness or pointed comments should be avoided.

That’s a real poem.
Not the sort of thing that I would say but yet, one feels it. Good shot.

@to One & All:
Consider the Case of Amanda Knox because…

“All principles are most effectually tested by extreme cases.”
John Stuart Mill

Amanda’s is nothing if not the Extreme Case after her recent acquittal.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 10/09/11 at 12:12 AM | #


The only reference to Meredith that I can find on facebook is ‘let us remember Meredith’ which does not appear to be the right one. I have googled ‘Remember Meredith’ without success. Can you advise?

Posted by starsdad on 10/09/11 at 02:03 AM | #


Check out this announcement posted by Clander on PMF:

Here is Maundy Gregory’s announcement:

Posted by Vivianna on 10/09/11 at 02:27 AM | #

The Facebook page is “RIP Meredith Kercher”.  This is where I read about Stephanie’s campaign to change your FB (and other social media pics) to the picture she selected of Meredith.


Posted by Tara on 10/09/11 at 05:11 AM | #

If anyone has read Steve Moore’s valedictory manifesto (I’m not endorsing it) it’s quite a piece of work.

He’s says he met Knox after the verdict and had he known earlier how “intelligent,” “empathetic,” and “gentle” she was, well basically he would have tried to bust her out of prison.

He goes on to accuse the protesters outside court who he sees as all men in their 20s to 40s, as most likely Perugia police officers, the same ones who are suing her for defamation.

Posted by brmull on 10/09/11 at 06:40 AM | #

Oh and not one word about Meredith or her family.

Posted by brmull on 10/09/11 at 07:08 AM | #

What justice for Meredith Kercher

Posted by mojo on 10/09/11 at 02:00 PM | #

“One gets into a rhythm in reading and posting and becomes very fast.”

“Last month I drove coast to coast and back in 26 days doing economic presentations”

Peter, I can HEAR the rhythm of your network, the sound of your car driving from east to west, I can feel the depth of your ecomomic growth models.

I’ve seen many, many pictures of big obligatory buildings, representing the italian justice system and forensic science and to be honest, I don’t hear or feel anything at all. At the moment I can’t feel the human power behind it.

Posted by Helder Licht on 10/09/11 at 02:03 PM | #

Once again through all the smoke and mirrors still simmering from this acquittal journalist Andrea Vogt’s latest Seattle Times article rises to the top with an alternative view from Europe.

Posted by True North on 10/09/11 at 04:22 PM | #

It was bad enough when that alternate juror said it, but I am aghast to hear an appellate judge cite a defendant’s courtroom appearance as a primary reason for acquittal. God help you if you don’t have the fortune to be well-groomed in Judge Hellmann’s court:

“I am left with the image of two kids, two kids little more than twenty years old, nothing more. It’s not that I was able to get into the psyche of those two, my impressions were based on the images I saw and a few words that they spoke, but they seemed normal kids, as normal as many today, well behaved, composed, tested and forged and matured by this experience. That’s all.”

Posted by brmull on 10/09/11 at 04:23 PM | #

@ Spencer

For now, your comment is gone, but I did appreciate your reaction. My intention was to emphasize the difference between empty systems and the power of a driven individual, like Pete. Thank you, Pete.

Posted by Helder Licht on 10/09/11 at 05:00 PM | #

Regarding Max Clifford and his advice to Amanda Knox to get ‘out’ and convince people of her innocence. Rebecca Leighton was released 2/9/2011 and gave this interview 17 days later under the advice of Clifford.

Posted by starsdad on 10/09/11 at 05:18 PM | #

hmmm don’t know what to make of this?? i continue to wonder about sollecito and his silence.

Sollecito’s father offers sympathy to parents of murdered Meredith

Posted by mojo on 10/09/11 at 05:19 PM | #

That Telegraph piece is what passes for thoughtful coming from Jenny McCartney. But she’s still flogging that zombie lie about the hard drive possibly containing exonerating evidence. Everyone who covers this case should know that the hard drive was cloned before it was “fried” and it is inconceivable that the drive could have contained any other relevant information.

Posted by brmull on 10/09/11 at 05:26 PM | #

The interesting bit for me was that Knox and Sollecito played chess by post. I wouldn’t have figured her for a chess player. As for what Sollecito and his dad think, their early unscripted comments are the real feelings. They blame Knox. They feel that Knox dragged Sollecito into this. Which of course is the truth. They may reunite for a book tour, but that’s it.

Posted by brmull on 10/09/11 at 05:38 PM | #

Helder, I hope this re-inclusion means we will be hearing from you again in the future 😊

Posted by Spencer on 10/09/11 at 05:58 PM | #

After checking “re-inclusion” in google translator, I can confirm:“Yes!”

Posted by Helder Licht on 10/09/11 at 06:13 PM | #

Dear all,

I have been reading this site for the last few weeks, having happened across it by googling. Thank you to all involved for your careful presentation of the various strands of evidence, and especially to those who have provided the English translation of the Massei Report which I have now read (though I did not fully understand the most technical sections). I have a number of questions, and I hope you will be able to point me at answers:

1. The knife

In the photos I have seen, the knife found in Raffaele Sollecito’s kitchen appears to have been manufactured in two parts, comprising a metal blade and a plastic (?) handle. I have found no mention of the separation of the two parts of the knife, in order for forensic testing to be applied to any substance that may have seeped into the tiny gap where blade joins handle. Has this been done? I gather it is standard practise, but I have read no mention of any results obtained this way.

2. The bathmat

The stains on the bathmat appear somewhat paler than actual blood. Is this correct? If so, is the paleness due to the footprint being a stain from watered down blood, like the stains on the washbasin and bidet, or has the bathmat been washed? Was blood found on the underneath of the bathmat too?

3. I have read that when the police arrived the washing machine was going, and finished its cycle when they were there, and that the contents were mainly clothes belonging to Meredith. Who turned the washing machine on? I am assuming it is not important, as there is so little mention of it, but it is confusing.

I have more questions but that will do for now!

Thanks again for such an informative site.


Posted by KateC on 10/09/11 at 06:14 PM | #

When are we going to have a TV documentary of the Massei report? It really does have to come out and into the publicd domain.

Posted by starsdad on 10/09/11 at 06:17 PM | #

The Mellox crowd remind me of the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. Edda seems like velociraptor, Curt the dilophosaurus, and Chris the Tyrannosaurus.

Posted by Hopeful on 10/09/11 at 06:50 PM | #

The freedom of speech in the USA????

Last night I read the comments about the CBS show and there was brmull’s long and detailed description how the murder happened according to the evidence.(Thanks a lot brmull, you at least tried…).

Guess what, this morning this comment and its replies are not there any more.

Posted by Hungarian on 10/09/11 at 06:58 PM | #

Thanks to True North’s reference, underlined, to “journalist Andrea Vogt’s latest Seattle Times article…”

Read it & boil. Dishonesty & obfuscation in Judge Hellman’s remarks, echoed by “a prominent American attorney with a Rome-based international law firm.”

All very convincing, however, to those many who are buffaloed by the facades of an Empty Authority, so useful to place-holders.

But shameful entirely to those who understand the perversion of justice in this case, as the many outside crying Shame! when the verdict was announced.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 10/09/11 at 07:02 PM | #

What could be the reason why the Knoxes are still constantly lying???

“Sollecito said there had been no contact between the Knoxes and his family since the verdict and ruled out a front page-grabbing reunion between Knox and his son in the near future. “We have other priorities,” he said. “We have had no invite from them to visit, but we would love to speak to them,” said Papagni. “I send them my best wishes.”“


Posted by Hungarian on 10/09/11 at 07:06 PM | #

Great questions KateC.

1. The indepedent experts asked the Judge if they could take apart the knife. Instead it was decided by mutual agreement among the lawyers that two additional DNA samples would be taken from the point where the blade meets the handle. These tests were negative.

2. The stains on the bathmat were certainly watered down. Most people assume this is because someone stepped out of the shower without realizing their foot still had some blood. But the footprint is pointed the wrong way, so I personally think it was washed. I’m not sure how you can know. There was no other blood on the bathroom floor.

3. It was reported in the media that several witnesses said the washing machine still running or warm when the police arrived. But pro-Knox blogger Frank Sfarzo who was in court said every witness the prosecution asked on the stand said they didn’t notice. Because Massei doesn’t mention this in his report I tend to accept Sfarzo’s version—although I do suspect in actuality the murderers did laundry during their clean-up.

Posted by brmull on 10/09/11 at 07:08 PM | #

As my comment looks to have been accidently deleted, I wanted to say again how much I appreciated your observation. I could tell it came from your heart as it touched mine.

I liked that you acknowledge both the warmth and humanity that Pete brings to whatever he does - be it his economic models or this site - and you contrast this with the cold, empty, soulless hallways, courts and indeed processes of the Italian judiciary system.

My hope is that when the Supreme Court overturns the appeal next year we will start to see the humanity return to a system currently controlled by unseen forces.

Unseen forces have no soul, no warmth, no capacity for reflection, all they know is their purpose.

So Pete, we’re all with you, keep up your great work.

Posted by Spencer on 10/09/11 at 07:27 PM | #

@Hungarian - The Knoxes aren’t actually lying about the invitation. I read an article in an Italian newspaper, maybe 1-2 days after the verdict, in which Dr. Sollecito mentioned that his daughter (Vanessa, I assumed) had talked to the Knoxes and Curt had invited them to Seattle.

His response was something like “that’s nice, but not right now.”

It has been obvious that the Sollecitos are trying very hard to distance themselves from the Knox-Mellas clan, and this may be the latest attempt to do some damage control, especially since Curt has been saying that they expect Raffaele to visit before the end of the year.

Posted by Vivianna on 10/09/11 at 07:50 PM | #

Thanks Vivianna for the clarification. I still feel that the headline of “spending AK and RS the Christmas together” is a far fetch from Dr. Sollecito’s opinion.

Posted by Hungarian on 10/09/11 at 08:25 PM | #

Morning, first post from me! I have been what I think is called a “lurker” for quite some time. As may before me have said - the content and effort that has gone into this site is phenomenal and most importantly the memory of Meredith is always at the forefront - thanks and well done - I am from the south London area and know some gymnasts that attend the same gym in Croydon that Meredith did as well - she is very much missed.

I am posting because there is one point I would like cleared up - I find all this DNA stuff a bit of a minefiled but one point that keeps cropping up is why was it that only Rg’s DNA that was found in Merediths bedroom? John Hooper of the Guardian has this as his most crucial fact - but is he correct? Thanks in advance. PS - still trying to train my cat to turn of my cell phone - no joy yet!

Posted by heinro on 10/09/11 at 08:46 PM | #

Hi Heinro,

An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp. His DNA was identified by two separate DNA tests. Of the 17 loci tested in the sample, Sollecito’s profile matched 17 out of 17. Professor Novelli pointed out that there’s more likelihood of meteorite striking the courtroom in Perguia than there is of the bra clasp being contaminated by dust.

According to Sollecito’s forensic expert, Professor Vinci, and Luciano Garofano, Amanda Knox’s DNA was also on Meredith’s bra.

There is other DNA and forensic evidence that places Knox and Sollecito in Meredith’s room on the night of the murder.

The prosecution’s experts testified that there were five instances of Knox’s DNA or blood mixed with Meredith’s blood in three different locations in the cottage. Even Amanda Knox’s lawyers conceded that her blood had mingled with Meredith’s blood. Barbie Nadeau recently noted that there were mixed genetic traces in spots of blood in which Knox’s traces were higher than Meredith’s and according to dozens of forensic experts, this indicates mixed blood.

The bloody footprint on the blue bathmat in the bathroom matched the precise characteristics of Sollecito’s foot, but couldn’t possibly belong to Guede.

Knox’s and Sollecito’s bare bloody footprints were revealed by Luminol in the hallway.

According to two imprint experts - Dr. Rinaldi and Chief Inspector Boemia - the bloody shoeprint on the pillow under Meredith’s body matched Knox’s foot size, but was incompatible with Meredith’s foot size. Luciano Garofano and Barbie Nadeau both think the bloody shoeprint belonged to a woman rather Rudy Guede.

It should also be noted Knox and Sollecito didn’t manage to remove Meredith Kercher’s DNA from the blade of the double DNA knife. A number of DNA experts - Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo and Professor Francesca Torricelli - have categorically stated that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade of the knife. Sollecito knew that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade which is why he lied about accidentally pricking her hand whilst cooking.

Posted by The Machine on 10/09/11 at 09:57 PM | #

To follow up on what The Machine said and put in simple language, consider a “Scrabble” analogy regarding the bra clasp:

Suppose you draw the Scrabble tiles “RAFFAELE*S” where * is the blank tile that can be any letter but can’t be nothing.

You have to assume the bra is contaminated because there is an extra letter.

As one of the independent experts famously and idiotically said, “Even my name (Carla) is in there!” Well, yes if you wanted to use the above letters you could spell Carla but you’ve still got a ton of other letters to explain away.

Furthermore, it turns out in this analogy that the letter “S” is extremely rare: << 1 in 15,000 people have this letter in their name.

The bottom line is contaminated DNA evidence is never 100% perfect, but the bra clasp still provides *extremely* useful information that in context is highly highly incriminating.

Posted by brmull on 10/09/11 at 11:25 PM | #

Amanda Knox had a knife,
And took her British roommates life,
When she realized what she did,
she staged the blame on the black kid.

Posted by mikeb on 10/09/11 at 11:51 PM | #

Hi brmull

You may be right when you say that the lawyers agreed for a retest near to the handle of the knife, and the results were negative, but since this is the first I’ve heard of this where did you get this information from?

Posted by James Raper on 10/10/11 at 12:59 AM | #

To reinforce the Machine’s point about various experts being certain that was Meredith’s DNA on the knife, a defense expert was actually present at the test by Dr Stefanoni and saw Meredith’s DNA identified by the process.

had the defense sent two or three experts as invited to witness the DNA test this “independent” test could never have been requested or granted or taken seriously. Dirty tricks? You decide.

This the 100th comment on this thread and normally our database stops accepting comments over that number. Please add all new comments to the new posts higher up.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/10/11 at 01:10 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 Another Spotlight on Raffaele Sollecito’s Different Versions of Events

Or to previous entry Nancy Grace’s “Miscarriage Of Justice” Observation Goes Viral, Google Says It’s On 38,000 Sites