Sunday, July 03, 2011

A Deeply Ugly, Inaccurate And Callous Piece Of Junk By Nathaniel Rich In “Rolling Stone”

Posted by The Machine

Who is Nathaniel Rich?

According to Wikipedia, Nathanial Rich is an American author and essayist.

He is also the son of the New York Times columnist Frank Rich, and various online commentaries about him credit that.and not talent or ethics or hard work for any success he might have had.

Still, you would think that being the son of a high-profile journalist, Nathaniel Rich would try hard to write a fair, factually accurate and balanced report. One carefully checked out, with the Italians he impugns and with no sign of obsessive pro-female-perp bias. 

But instead Nathaniel Rich and his editor Sean Woods (image below) have come out with an xenophobic, defamatory,  highly inaccurate report..

In this piece Rich comes across like the notorious Stephen Glass who simply made stories up and whose editors never cross-checked until it was too late. Except Stephen Glass that never actually showed bigotry or defamed.

It does not seem too much to ask to expect anybody writing an article about the shocking sexual assault, torture and murder of Meredith Kercher for them to have done their due diligence? And to made sure that every single claim presented has been verified by the official court documents or independently corroborated by objective and reliable sources?

And for Sean Woods and other New York-based Rolling Stone editors even in their decline to check out their writers’ claims, especially with those impugned?

In this piece we analyze just some of the numerous wrong claims by Nathaniel Rich in his article The Neverending Nightmare of Amanda Knox and compare them (as he should have done) to official court documents such as the Micheli report, the Massei report, Rudy Guede’s final sentencing report by the Supreme Court, and testimony at 2009 trial and 2011 first appeal [later annulled].

Above: Nathaniel Rich’s editor at Rolling Stone Sean Woods

Claim 1: There were bloody fingerprints all over the apartment

Wrong. Nathanial Rich gets his first basic fact wrong in just the second sentence of his article with his claim that Guede left bloody fingerprints all over the apartment.

There was in fact not even one. According to the Micheli report, the Massei report and Rudy Guede’s final sentencing report, Guede was identified by a single bloody palm print, not a whole lot of bloody fingerprints:

b) traces attributable to Guede: a palm print in blood found on the pillow case of a pillow lying under the victim’s body ““ attributed with absolute certainty to the defendant by its correspondence to papillary ridges as well as 16-17 characteristic points equal in shape and position…  (page 5, Rudy Guede’s final sentencing report).

It is confirmed that Guede was identified by a bloody palm print in the Micheli report (pages 10-11) and the Massei report (page 43). There was not a single fingerprint of his or Sollecito and almost none of Knox at the crime scene - which consists of the entire apartment.

Rich’s “her killer” in his opening implies there was only one killer but FOUR courts including the Supreme Court insisted there had to have been three. The lone wolf theory has long been dead. This is why the defense had to drag Alessi and Aviello into court two weeks ago, to try to prove Knox and Sollecito were not the other two.

Claim 2: A provincial police force botched one of the most intensely observed criminal investigations in Italy’s history

Wrong. A Knox cult myth. Nathaniel Rich attempts to disparage the investigation in Meredith’s murder with the smearing claim that it was seriously botched (it wasn’t) and by a provincial police force. Nathaniel Rich is trying to insinuate that that the police officers involved in the investigation were unsophisticated. However, again he only succeeds in revealing his ignorance of even the most basic facts of the case.

Two separate police departments from the Italian equivalent of the FBI in Rome were heavily involved in the investigation into Meredith’s murder: a forensic team from the Scientific Police led by Dr. Stefanoni, and the Violent Crimes Unit, led by Edgardo Giobbi.

Claim 3: Sollecito finally stated that Knox could have left his apartment for several hours on the night of Kercher’s murder while he was asleep

Wrong. Nathaniel Rich’s claim that Sollecito said that Knox “could” have left his apartment for several hours while he was sleeping is simply not true. You can read Sollecito’s various alibis here. Sollecito categorically stated in his witness statement that Knox DID leave his apartment, while he was wide awake. He said she went to Le Chic at 9:00pm and she came back at about 1.00am.

“At 9pm I went home alone and Amanda said that she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends. We said goodbye. I went home, I rolled myself a spliff and made some dinner.”(Aislinn Simpson, The Daily Telegraph, 7 November 2007

“Police said Raffaele Sollecito had continued to claim he was not present on the evening of the murder. He said: “I went home, smoked a joint, and had dinner, but I don’t remember what I ate. At around eleven my father phoned me on the house phone. I remember Amanda wasn’t back yet. I surfed on the Internet for a couple of hours after my father’s phone call and I stopped only when Amanda came back, about one in the morning I think.” (The Times, 7 November 2007).

So Sollecito never said Knox “could” have left his apartment “while he was asleep”. The source for Nathaniel Rich’s embarrassing factual error is almost certainly the conspiracy theorist Bruce Fisher, who has repeatedly made the same false claim on his conspiracy website, a site riddled with invented claims.

Shame on Nathaniel Rich for gullibly believing another Knox cult myth, propagated by the likes of Moore and Fisher, and for being too lazy to independently verify this information.

Claim 4: Amanda Knox was slapped on the back of the head

Wrong. Another Knox cult myth. Nathaniel Rich employs the same tactic as the conspiracists Bruce Fisher and Steve Moore who are trying by all possible means to rescue Amanda Knox from those dastardly Italians.

Namely, to give what appears to be a very detailed eyewitness account of what happened at the police station on 5 November 2007 despite the fact he wasn’t even there.  He makes all of this up, including “verbatim” quotes from some unnamed police officers.

Two female officers, who had been chatting informally with Knox, invited her to an interrogation chamber.

“Let’s go back over what you did that night,” they asked her. “Start with the last time that you saw Meredith.”



But they went slower this time.

“What did you do between 7 and 8 p.m.?” they asked. “What about between 8 and 9?”

“I don’t know the exact times,” said Knox. “But I know the general series of events. I checked my e-mail, I read a book, we watched a film, we ate dinner….”

More officers kept entering the room. An interpreter showed up. The tone sharpened.

“But Raffaele says that you left his house that night.”

“What? That’s not true. I was at his apartment all night.”

The interrogators became angry.

“Are you sure? Raffaele said you left his house.”

“I didn’t.”

“If that’s a lie, we can throw you in jail for 30 years.”

“I’m not lying.”

“Who are you trying to protect? Who were you with? Who was it? Who was it?”

This bit went on for hours.

There was now chaos in the room. The Italians were shouting at her, arguing with one another, calling out suggestions.

“Maybe she really can’t remember.”

“Maybe she’s a stupid liar.”

“You’re either an incredibly stupid liar,” said Knox’s translator, who was sitting right beside her, “or you’re someone who can’t remember what you know and what you did.” The translator, changing tactics, explained that she had once been in a gruesome car accident in which she broke her leg. The event was so traumatic that she suffered amnesia.

“Amanda,” said the translator, “this is what happened to you. You need to try to retrieve those memories. We’ll help you.”

Knox, ever-credulous, started to ask herself what she might have forgotten.

“C’mon,” said the interrogators. “You were going to meet Patrick that night.” “Remember. Remember. Remember.”

“We know it was him.”

Knox shook her head.


Boom “” someone slapped her on the back of the head.

So Nathaniel Rich includes the false claim that Knox was slapped on the back of the head. All the witnesses who were present when she was questioned, including her interpreter, testified under oath at trial in 2009 that Amanda Knox was NOT hit even once.

Even Amanda Knox’s lawyer, Luciano Ghirga, confirmed that Amanda Knox had not been hit: “There were pressures from the police, but we never said she was hit.”  He never ever lodged an official complaint.

Nathaniel Rich should have pointed out that Knox claimed this hitting only long after, when she was trying to explain why she had framed Patrick Lumumba. He should not have repeated it as if it were incontrovertible truth.

And he should have pointed out that both Amanda Knox herself and both her parents are enmeshed in separate trials for doing that. 

Above: Rolling Stone aggravates defamation - this tweet was sent March 2013

Claim 5: Amanda Knox finally broke down and accused Diya Lumumba of murder at 5.45am

Wrong. Nathaniel Rich clearly does not know the chronology of events at the police station on 5 November 2007. His false claim that Knox finally broke down at 5.45am gives the impression that she had been subjected to a continuous all-night interrogation.

In fact Amanda Knox very rapidly “broke down” and claimed that Lumumba was “bad” and had murdered Meredith when she was still only a witness, not a suspect, and was told Sollecito had pulled the rug from under her alibi. She signed a statement at 1.45am, not at 5.45am, when she repeated the claim voluntarily. (She also repeated it later that same day in writing.)

Amanda Knox’s questioning was stopped at 1.45am when she became a suspect. She wasn’t actively questioned again that evening. However, several hours later she decided to make an unsolicited spontaneous declaration. Mignini was called at 3.30am and he observed her declaration. Knox makes it explicit in her witness statement that she was making her statement spontaneously:

“I wish to relate spontaneously what happened because these events have deeply bothered me and I am really afraid of Patrick, the African boy who owns the pub called “Le Chic” located in Via Alessi where I work periodically.” (Amanda Knox’s 5.45am witness statement).

Claim 6:  The knife was selected at random by a detective from Sollecito’s kitchen drawer

Wrong. Nathaniel Rich regurgitates another prevalent Knox-cult myth with his claim that the double DNA knife was selected purely at random. However, the person who actually selected the knife, Armando Finzi, testified in court that he chose the knife because it was the only one compatible with the wound as it had been described to him.

“It was the first knife I saw,” he said. When pressed on cross-examination, said his “investigative intuition” led him to believe it was the murder weapon because it was compatible with the wound as it had been described to him. (Seattle PI,

Claim 7: The confession, in violation of Italian police policy, was not recorded

Wrong. Another Knox cult myth. The police weren’t required to record Amanda Knox’s interrogation on 5 November 2007 because she was being questioned as a witness and not as a suspect. Mignini explained that Amanda Knox was being questioned as a witness in his letter to reporter Linda Byron:

“In the same way, Knox was first heard by the police as a witness, but when some essential elements of her involvement with the murder surfaced, the police suspended the interview, according to Article 63 of the penal proceedings code.”

She came in to the central police station voluntarily and unasked that night when Sollecito was summoned for questioning, and police merely asked her if she could also be questioned as a witness. She did not have to agree, but she did. No recording of witnesses is required, either in Italy or the United States.

Claim 8: Amanda Knox refused to leave Perugia

Wrong. This Knox cult myth is actually contradicted by Amanda Knox herself. In the e-mail she wrote to her friends in Seattle on 4 November 2007 she said she was not allowed to leave.

“i then bought some underwear because as it turns out i wont be able to leave italy for a while as well as enter my house”

Knox actually knew on 2 November 2007 that she couldn’t leave Italy. Amy Frost reported the following conversation.

“ I remember having heard Amanda speaking on the phone, I think that she was talking to a member of her family, and I heard her say, No, they won’t let me go home, I can’t catch that flight’” (The Massei report, page 37).

Above: Rolling Stone aggravates defamation - this tweet was sent September 2013

Claim 9: Mignini suggested that the victim had been slaughtered during a satanic ritual

Wrong. Another Knox cult myth. He did no such thing. Mignini has never claimed that Meredith was slaughtered during a satanic or sacrificial ritual, and that’s the reason why neither Nathaniel Rich - or anybody else for that matter - has been able to provide a verbatim quote from Mignini.

Mignini specifically denied claiming that Meredith was killed in a sacrificial rite, in his letter to the Seattle reporter Linda Byron:

“On the “sacrificial rite” question, I have never said that Meredith Kercher was the victim of a “sacrificial rite”.

Mignini also made it quite clear that he has never claimed that Meredith was killed as part of a satanic rite in his interview with Drew Griffin on CNN:

1’03” CNN: You’ve never said that Meredith’s death was a satanic rite?

1’08” Mignini: I have never said that. I have never understood who has and continues to say that. I read, there was a reporter ““ I don’t know his name, I mention it because I noticed it ““ who continues to repeat this claim that, perhaps, knowing full well that it’s not like that.

I have never said that there might have been a satanic rite. I’ve never said it, so I would like to know who made it up.

In fact Mignini has zero history of originating satanic-sect claims despite Doug Preston’s shrill claims. The notion of a secret satanic sect in Florence goes way back into history and many had declared the Monster of Florence murders satanic because of the nature of the mutilation long before Mignini assumed a (minor) role.

Claim 10: Mignini referred to Knox as a sex-and-drug-crazed “she-devil”

Wrong. Another laughable wrong fact. It wasn’t Mignini who called Amanda Knox a “she-devil”, it was Carlo Pacelli, the lawyer who represents Diya Lumumba, at the trial in 2009.

Carlo Pacelli’s comments were widely reported by numerous journalists who were present in the courtroom. Barbie Nadeau describes the moment he referred to Knox as a she-devil in some detail in Angel Face: 

“Who is the real Amanda Knox?” he asks, pounding his fist in the table. “Is she the one we see before us here, all angelic? Or is really a she-devil focused on sex, drugs, and alcohol, living life on the edge?”

“She is the luciferina-she devil.” (Barbie Nadeau, Angel Face, page 124).


Nathaniel Rich has published a sloppy callous error-ridden piece of pure propaganda straight out of the Knox cult handbook, complete with a gushy fawning reference to Amanda Knox in the title.

The piece includes an inflammatory mischaracterization of the extreme caution of the Italian justice system and the various officials working on the case.

There is no mention at all of the never-ending nightmare of Meredith’s family or the fact that she is NEVER coming back. Rich doesn’t seem to have the requisite emotional intelligence or reporter skills to realise that he may have been duped and used by the money-grubbers and killer-groupies of the Knox-cult campaign.

Tweet This Post


As the comic books used to say, Biff! Bam! Bang!  Superb expose.

Maybe the Machine will do the Truman Capote on this notorious case. He (assuming the masculine) surely has the gathered data for it, seemingly at his fingertips.

Also this: Peter’s website under the right editor could be mined for a beautifully illustrated Coffee Table book.

Only… Whoever heard of a Coffee Table book devoted to a sex-crazy psychopathic rape & murder?

Maybe in today’s environment…

PS:  Speaking of psychopaths, also this.

It was Wm James’s Varieties of Religious Experience from which I took the cue: What deep religious experience seems to share with the psychopathic temperament: Low thresholds.

A former Lutheran pastor and later fellowshiped Unitarian, I am no psychologist, but I have read a number of psychiatrists including (rather deeply) CG Jung.

Among now-forgotten psychiatrists I mention Adolf Storch’s book (read decades ago & not now in hand) from which I took the idea (or maybe invented it?) that schizophrenia may represent a kind of failed religious endeavor. 

Clear to me, however: Amanda Knox is no schizophrenic but, if deeply pathological, entirely sane.

Be that as it may, high time for me to shut up shop & well do I know it.  Hope my thresholds cooperate.

Great website.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 07/03/11 at 04:54 PM | #

Thanks again to Machine.

Another absolutely outstanding factual systematic decimation of another fawning biased sickening article, this time from the younger Mr Rich.

Although his father is yet to be universally heralded as the next Walter Cronkite of excellence in media, his many years as drama critic and later as columnist for the *formerly* very prestigious NY Times were not marred with such a biased piece of, as you point out, almost universally inaccurate and one sided slobbering as that now in Rolling Stone from his offspring.

Posted by bahia ben on 07/03/11 at 05:11 PM | #

Machine, glad you drew attention to this atrocious piece of writing which I viewed a few days ago.  With a few notable exceptions, mentioned on here numerous times, factual errors, misrepresentation and omission have been the norm in the realm of ‘journalism’ and media reports throughout.  Egos and the desire to create controversy have prevailed at the expense of factual, accurate, and comprehensive reporting.

Posted by Lola on 07/03/11 at 05:31 PM | #

Nathaniel Rich can be contacted via e-mail:

nathaniel at nathanielrich dot com

You can also send him a tweet:


Let’s see whether he has the courage and integrity to acknowledge and apologise for the numerous factual errors in his article.

Jann Wenner can be contacted via e-mail:

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Posted by The Machine on 07/03/11 at 05:44 PM | #

as soon as the Casey Anthony trial is concluded you can bet that all the news services in the US will zero in on Knox since just reporting the economy is too boring to a jaded populous. Therefore these illegitimate self serving so called journalists will make copy out of lies at the very best. I believe it’s going to get even nastier and my only hope is that in all the hoopla Meredith does not disappear from the radar. It’s up to us to keep her memory and the facts in true perspective alive. It’s up to us to keep the identity of the true murderers of Meredith Kercher namely Knox and Sollecito alive.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 07/03/11 at 06:11 PM | #

Hi Grahame,

Every single poster on PMF and TJMK can make a difference. It only takes a few moments to write an e-mail to Nathaniel Rich and Jann Wenner.

Posted by The Machine on 07/03/11 at 06:20 PM | #

Rolling Stone circulation is a sad and today all-too-familiar picture…

Its circulation had been sharply tanking through 2010. It is now at just over 100,000. The editors hope to fight their way back with investigative journalism.

You dont have to search far to find that the results of other investigations than this one on Knox attracted criticisim too. Here are several examples.

But here is a report by Al Gore which seems okay on polluters and ideologues and the damage they do and gets the facts right..

Pity it has to appear alongside complete crap like Nathaniel Rich’s big sob over his dear Amanda.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 07/03/11 at 07:54 PM | #

as always, wonderful analysis here…as for the stark differences between messrs rich jr and sr, i would also offer up mike wallace and his embarrassment of a son, chris at faux news! at least nathaniel can blame youth, inexperience…and…..! Rolling Stone should be equally embarrassed for printing this baloney!

Posted by mojo on 07/03/11 at 08:40 PM | #

What is needed now is the timely intervention of the Kerchers.
Mr Kercher could easily command prime TV time, and do an interview with someone like the BBCs Ben Brown who understands this case.  This family have kept a dignified silence relative to that other lot, but there are times when you have to cut cards with the devil.

Posted by JHEA on 07/03/11 at 10:16 PM | #

Hi JHEA. The Kercher family have trust in the Italian system and their Italian lawyer Francesco Maresca does any official talking. John Kercher has written several long articles in UK papers.

They don’t seem to like the way TV chooses to handle the case with its insistence on “balance” except when it is the Knox faction dominating the screen, which is maybe 95% of the time.

In Italy the almost universal perception is “it was a fair trial, there is LOTS of evidence, and they are proven to be guilty” and the chances of 8 appeal judges and jurors bucking that perception are pretty slim.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 07/04/11 at 01:20 AM | #

Like all the rest of the Friends of Amanda Knox hucksters including, Seattle friend, Judge Michael Heavey and fired/disgraced former Pepperdine University security staff member, Steve Moore, Nathaniel Rich is just another small weasel attempting to garner self-serving publicity while disrespecting the murder victim, Merdedith Kercher.

Any first year high school student in the US would have a better comprehension of the facts surrounding Meredith Kercher’s murder than what Rolling Stone has published by Nathaniel Rich.

I very much doubt Rolling Stone is read - if at all by Italians in Italy. Any few Italians who may actually read Nathanial Rich’s piece of fiction would come away laughing.

Obviously Nathaniel Rich does not understand that the outcome of Knox’s and Sollecito’s dismal appeal case arguments will be one of rejection by the astute Italian judge and jury in Italy.

So come July 9th Amanda Knox will be spend another birthday in Capanne Prison and Nathaniel Rich and Rolling Stone will continue writing entertainment articles.

Posted by True North on 07/04/11 at 01:22 AM | #

Newbie here. I was very upset by this article. I guess because I respect Frank Rich I don’t see how his son could publish such a piece of hurtful one-sided rubbish.

Nathaniel evidently went to Italy to report this piece but the only interview he did was a highly editorialized chat with Mignini. (Rich’s website indicates he also did at least two book signings while he was there.)

His last work was a book review in the NY Times that asserted that Jack Nicholson owes his career to The Monkees because they helped bankroll “Easy Rider.” So I get that he’s not one to let facts get in the way of a provocative story.

I hope he responds to the comments on this piece. I would like to hear what he has to say for himself.

Posted by bmull on 07/04/11 at 02:49 AM | #

I read that article, and I was rather amused that a piece of writing which so clearly indicates Knox’s guilt (notwithstanding the errors brilliantly shown by Machine) ended up leaning towards her innocence.

Some people, including Mr. Rich,  cannot see the forest for the trees, I think.

Posted by Janus on 07/04/11 at 03:03 AM | #

Hi BMull. Frank Rich is always an amazing read. He fights puffery and pretense and is one of the best at it. We need more of that on this case, but his son seems cut from a different twig.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 07/04/11 at 03:43 AM | #

This article by Nathaniel Rich was an absolutely abysmal piece of rubbish, from stem to stern.

I deeply respect Frank Rich; what happened to his son?

I must add on to the problems with False Claim No. 6. The knife was not randomly selected. The inspector (Finzi) smelled strong odor of bleach the minute he entered the apartment of Raffaele. The other knives in the drawer would not have been selected as murder weapons (not sharp enough, serrated, etc.). Also, the knife Finzi selected was shiny like it had just been cleaned with bleach. Who cleans their knives with bleach, to that level of brilliance, except a knife-murderer?

Posted by Earthling on 07/04/11 at 04:27 AM | #

The writer of this article makes an incredibly serious allegation without, as far as I can see, a shred of evidence.

He say that Meredith’s English friends “fled” back to England.  “Kercher’s British friends were even more cautious: Most of them fled the country, returning to the U.K.”

Where is the evidence that the English girls “fled” back home?  Most of you are more deeply knowledgable about the details than I, but my understanding was that the English girls gave evidence to the Police (where they noticed Amanda’s strange behaviour) and the English girls also attended Meredith’s memorial service - something that possible slipped Amanda’s mind.  The English girls also gave evidence at the trial. 

Are these the girls he is referring to?  Who “fled”?

He also weaves a picture of a group of country-bumpkin lawyers who are outshone by the dynamic Giulia Bongiorno.  Does the writer possibly consider informing us why the US embassy would recommend to Amanda’s family a country bumpkin to defend her?

I do accept that Giulia Bongiorno is probably very good but it does prompt the question, if she is so good why is her client facing 25 years in jail?  Could it be that it is because he just happens to be guilty?

Although he doesn’t realise it the Rolling Stone writer has done enormous harm to the FOA case.

Posted by Peter Oliver on 07/04/11 at 11:35 AM | #

The sad part is that these so called magazines do not want to report the truth but just like all the other carpetbaggers or psuido parasites of the Amanda Knox cottage industry want to sell stuff. Point is, don’t get your hopes up for an unbiased report coming from the USA anytime soon. If there was no Amanda Knox then these purveyors of pulp garbage filth would find something else to report right alongside “Lunar Rover discovers Face of Elvis on the Moon.” As to Nathaniel Rich, who only got the job because of his father anyway,
these out and out lies will still be fed to a gullible Amercian public.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 07/04/11 at 02:52 PM | #

While The Machine hammers Nathaniel Rich for details he may not have gotten totally right, it does little to implicate Amanda Knox in terms of hard evidence and logic. I agree that Rudy didn’t leave fingerprints all over the apartment, but since he left more than enough DNA, shoeprint and other evidence of his involvement in the room where the murder occurred, does it really make a difference that Mr. Rich generally overstates the evidence Rudy left at the crime scene? Also, most analysts outside of Italy do feel that numerous errors were made in this case, whether or not Amanda is guilty. The recent testimony of the unbelievable, heroin-addicted superwitness, Mr, Curatolo, and the new findings of the appeals court DNA experts provide just two examples of major errors in prosecuting this case. Although Nathanial Rich could have used some of the The Machine’s rebuttal points before publishing his article, there is nothing in the rebuttal of the Rolling Stone article that makes one think “Aha, this is truly damning evidence against Amanda Knox”. Also, it does little good to name call those who feel Amanda Knox is innocent. To suggest they are all a cult, have been brainwashed by the Knox family PR machine or are simply close relatives to the Knox family is absurd. This is a highly complex case that has attracted intelligent, thoughtful people to both sides and deserves open-minded debate. To put these two kids away for 20+ years will require compelling proof of guilt built on strong evidence.

Posted by Rob55 on 07/04/11 at 05:19 PM | #

Hi Rob,

Nathaniel Rich hasn’t addressed let alone rebutted the majority of the evidence that led to the convictions of Knox and Sollecito such as the mixed blood samples, Sollecito’s bloody footprint on the blue bathmat, Knox’s and Sollecito’s bare bloody footprints which were revealed by Luminol, the three traces of Meredith’s blood in Knox’s room, the mobile phone and computer records that provide irrefutable proof that Knox and Sollecito lied, Knox’s incriminating telephone calls and conversations with Filomena on 2 November 2007, Knox’s false and malicious accusation against Diya Lumumba which she didn’t retract the whole time he was in prison, the staged break-in, the testimony of Nara Capezzali and Marco Quintavalle and the testimony of countless forensic experts who testified that more than one person killed Meredith.

Antonio Curatolo isn’t a super witness. Knox and Sollecito weren’t convicted on the strength of his evidence. His testimony merely provided further confirmation that Knox and Sollecito’s alibis are false and helped establish Meredith’s time of death.

Posted by The Machine on 07/04/11 at 05:54 PM | #

Rob55, this article is about shoddy journalism and lack of fact checking. You do agree that a magazine like Rolling Stone and newspapers like the New York Times ought to be held to a higher standard, don’t you?

Now calls for civility on websites are all very well, but since the FOA rarely resort to it, asking the passionate people here who believe there is sufficient proof of “these two kids” guilt to hold back on their opinions is kinda one-sided, imo. There are larger issues we are debating, like the role of PR agencies and MSM in shaping public opinion.

And, may I suggest, you are asking for a higher standard of proof than was allowed to OJ Simpson, Scott Peterson, or Casey Anthony, yet you want that to apply to Amanda Knox? Hmm, maybe The Machine’s comments are quite apropos.

Posted by Ergon on 07/04/11 at 06:16 PM | #

On another note TIME magazine just published an article “Could Amanda Knox Have An Autism Spectrum Disorder?” whick looks like a ploy to gain sympathy.

Full disclosure: I’m a holistic physician specialising in the treatment of Autism Spectrum and other mental disorders.

Amanda Knox does NOT present as an Aspie (Asperger’s Syndrome) and when you look at the comments below there are a lot of people offended by this poorly argued piece.

But I did say more than a month ago on PMF she looked like she might have ADHD.

There’s quite a connection between ADHD and substance abuse, also problems in keeping employment or interpersonal relationships. I did ask if anyone had information on whether she’d been diagnosed or treated with stimulant medication, as subsequent interactions with alcohol and street drugs can have deadly consequences.

This does not excuse her actions, as she clearly is NOT insane. But it can possibly explain what happened that night. I do see an underlying pathology as well, but, not having examined her, will state this is my personal opinion only.

Btw, Raffaele’s demeanor in court? Heavily medicated on anti-depressants.

Posted by Ergon on 07/04/11 at 06:56 PM | #

Hi, Rob

You commented, unassailably, IMO:

“This is a highly complex case that has attracted intelligent, thoughtful people to both sides and deserves open-minded debate. To put these two kids away for 20+ years will require compelling proof of guilt built on strong evidence.”

In the furtherance of open-minded debate I wish to pose a few questions to you:

You are NOT suggesting that the DNA ON THE BRA-CLASP is NOT MR. SOLLECITO’S DNA, ARE YOU?

Don’t you believe that this DNA is strong evidence of something?

Do you reasonably believe this DNA MAY have gotten where it was found because of investigative incompetence, because of investigative fraud, or even by sheer unavoidable chance?

Do you believe the requirement of “compelling proof of guilt built on strong evidence” would be satisfied by eliminating reasonable doubt?

Do you believe that in the furtherance of eliminating reasonable doubt, the Jury should dissect the evidence ONLY piece-by-piece, in isolation from all the other pieces of evidence, or do you believe that the Jury should ALSO consider the evidence as an integrated whole, in combination with ALL the other pieces of evidence?

Do you believe that reasonable doubt can never be eliminated ?

Posted by Cardiol MD on 07/04/11 at 07:26 PM | #

Ergon, I certainly do believe these publications should be held to high standards of fact checking, but where they fall short I want to put these shortfalls in perspective. Also, I do not expect a higher standard of proof in the Amanda Knox case as compared to the others you mention. I do feel that OJ Simpson, Scott Peterson and Casey Anthony all had a motive and direct evidence tying them to murders that I have a harder time finding in this case.

Posted by Rob55 on 07/04/11 at 07:54 PM | #

Hi Rob55,

There are many articles on this website which detail and analyze the many different forms of evidence in this case.

This particular article is only addressing the false claims in The Rolling Stone article.

As far as Curatolo’s credibility, the first court DID believe him. Maybe this court will not. Who knows? He admitted to taking heroin, the same as Amanda and Rafaelle admitted to smoking pot. Are they ALL unbelievable drug-addicts or just the ones you want to be?

You tell me why a burglar would — poop in the toilet, rape and murder a young woman, move her body, cover her with a blanket, lock her bedroom door, run out of the house but leave the front door swinging open?

The entire house IS the crime scene NOT just the bedroom!

If two men were holding someone I could easily stab them with a knife and leave no trace of myself in the room.

What makes you think that everyone in Italy is incompetent? It’s one thing to think that maybe one or two people made mistakes, people are human but to assume that of the hundreds of people who have gone over all the evidence are completely blind is ridiculous!

Posted by bedelia on 07/04/11 at 09:07 PM | #

Hi Rob,

There are two pieces of forensic evidence that directly link Knox and Sollecito to Meredith’s murder which aren’t being reviewed.

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

The five instances of Amanda Knox’s blood or DNA which had mingled with Meredith’s blood in three different locations in the cottage. The jurors at the first trial found this to be compelling evidence.

There is no physical evidence which places Guede in the blood-spattered bathroom or Filomena’s room. His bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith’s room and out of the house.

Posted by The Machine on 07/04/11 at 09:15 PM | #

Cardiol, I think that the Raffaele’s DNA on the bra clasp is questionable due to possible contamination. There are three indications of possible contamination. First, the bra clasp was moved around on the floor to several spots before it was found under a rug 46 days after the murder. Also, the DNA of four people, excluding Amanda, were found on this bra clasp. If not through contamination, how did this extra DNA get onto the bra clasp and who did it belong to? Finally, the video of the handling of the bra clasp shows the clasp being handed between gloved hands instead of handled by forceps and one of the gloves in the video, when blown up, clearly has several small dark spots (contamination) on it. The most recent report of the appeals court DNA experts also throws doubt on the usability of this DNA sample as evidence.

One person’s reasonable doubt may seem unreasonable to another, so in this case it may be hard to eliminate.

I am OK with looking at the sum of evidence rather than isolating each piece of evidence. To convict, I would require some compelling evidence that the accused was at the scene of the crime when it was committed and/or would have had the state of mind to commit such rare, grizzly crime.

Posted by Rob55 on 07/04/11 at 09:16 PM | #

Rob55,that WILL be what the Italian court does, to look at the sum of evidence and decide a)whether Amanda was present at the scene of the crime, and b) the verdict is determined in accordance with Italian law.
As to the degree of compelling evidence required to prove whether she was there or not, that again will be determined not according to ‘international’ (read American) standards of evidence but Italian, thankfully. As to motive, only the courts, and not public opinion, will decide if she committed that crime whilst in a drug and alcohol fueled haze, which precludes any need to provide proof of ‘motive’

Posted by Ergon on 07/04/11 at 09:53 PM | #

former bad girl, I certainly don’t think everyone in Italy is incompetent. Their culture and justice system have produced a much lower per capita murder rate and level of incarceration. In addition, their appeals process is more thorough and provides a higher level of acquittal. That being said, there are corrupt or incompetent judicial officials in every country and it is the duty of each country to hold these officials to a high standard. I think that once mistakes were made, various players may have felt compelled to stick by the original story rather than expose themselves to admitting major errors in solving a major crime.

As to credibility, I believe that since heroin is a much stronger drug than marijuana, a heroin addict will be held less credible. I think this court will have to disregard Curatolo’s earlier testimony. I also think that neither court nor jury expects testimony from the defendants to influence their decisions one way or another.

Would a burglar who carries a knife do the things you suggest? This often happens when a woman arrives home in the midst of a burglary if she doesn’t immediately realize a burglary is occurring. A possible scenario would include: Rudy breaks the window from outside, climbs in, starts rummaging through Filomena’s items, takes a bathroom break just before Meredith comes in, Rudy pulls his knife, quietly goes to Meredith’s room and there an assault and murder occur. Despite Judge Massei’s staged break-in theory, I don’t believe it’s likely that a 9 lb. rock would break a glass window up against a closed shutter which would then spray the glass backward across the room. Although a member of the police force stated that glass was found on top of the clothes as well as under the clothes, police photos show no glass on top of the clothes.  Why would Rudy do this? Because he is a drug-using thug who had no problem stealing money and credit cards from Meredith’s purse after the murder and heading off to the disco.

It is conceivable to me that you might be able to stab someone quickly and rush out of the room without leaving a trace. However, experts have stated that a real battle occurred in Meredith’s room and that during this fight, there was plenty of blood. I’m no crime scene expert, but those I have heard discuss the case have said it would be impossible to have that murder occur without any indication of the presence of other murderers involved.

Posted by Rob55 on 07/04/11 at 10:03 PM | #

Happy 4th of July!

Rich can’t hold a candle to the powerful Mignini.
Let the truth rock on.

Posted by Hopeful on 07/04/11 at 10:08 PM | #

As you say Rob55 - you’re no crime scene expert, so I’d suggest leaving it for the professionals.

The Italians know what they’re doing.

Posted by Spencer on 07/04/11 at 10:17 PM | #

I agree with Rob55 that these debates must be conducted in a calm and courteous manner.

I appreciate that I am new round here and that others know far more than I but certain features of this case puzzle me.  May I be allowed to ask some questions.

Why didn’t she flush the excrement down the toilet when she found it?

Why was the burglary “staged”?

Why was the “clean up” so partial?  Clearing Amanda’s and Raffaele’s involvement but leaving Guede’s clearly visible?

The obvious conclusion is that these actions are meant to direct the police’s attention clearly toward Guede.

A popular view is that the three acted in concert.  That they went to the cottage together to smoke dope and drink.  Guede’s contribution was to provide the dope.

If this is so then in pointing the finger so clearly at Guede they were ultimately pointing the finger right back at themselves.  There is something about Guede’s testimony and, particularly his Skye conversation with his pal that has the ring of truth.  Is it possible that Guede’s account is largely true?

Could it be that what happened is similar to this:  That instead of the three going to the cottage as a shared enterprise they arrived separately.  Guede arrived (possibly looking for the lads down below?  To use the toilet?)  Meredith arrived at the same time and allowed him inside.  I do not believe for one moment that they had an assignation - I think that part of his story is to cover up for a shameful, dreadful action later.

While Guede is on the toilet and listening to his music Knox and Sollecito arrive and an argument breaks out about the stolen money.  The argument turns (incredibly) to violence and Guede is “awoken” by Meredith’s horrifying scream.  It is a total surprise to Knox and Sollecito when they see an unknown black man appearing out of nowhere.  Neither party sees the other clearly, what Guede see are the dim outlines of two white people.  What the two see is the unclear image of a black man.  Do they notice his height?

Guede then acts almost as he describes but with one important exception.  Does he (gulp, this is hard to type) touch Meredith intimately while he is tending her?  He then flees.  The other two are waiting for the coast to be clear to cover up the details of their murder and when they return they contrive things to direct attention to the unknown black man?

Why did Amanda cling to her accusation of Patrick Lumumba for so long?  Could it be that in her dazed state she actually thought the black man that she saw was (the shortish) Lamumba?

I apologise if I am covering old ground that others have covered better but this is not a simple case and I am trying to think it through.


Posted by Peter Oliver on 07/04/11 at 10:18 PM | #

Luciano Garofano thinks the attack on Meredith didn’t last long:

“The indication is that the fight was fast. There aren’t many signs of a fight going on. The glass is still standing, the postcards on the chest of drawers are still there. No, there’s not much sign of a fight.” (Luciano Garofano, Darkness Descending, page 381).

Posted by The Machine on 07/04/11 at 10:29 PM | #

The Machine,
The “mixed DNA/blood” evidence I have heard indicates that outside of the bathroom, there is no place that any of Amanda’s blood is mixed with Meredith’s. Amanda’s DNA is all over the house because she lives there. Any blood from anyone that dropped on top of Amanda’s DNA (from shed skin cells, for example) would provide a mixed DNA sample. Also, the police examined Amanda the day after the murder and aside from a small hickey of about 1cm in length, she didn’t have a mark on her. Therefore, to me, it seems that looking for any blood DNA from Amanda on the night of the murder is barking up the wrong tree. Same deal with the footprints. The notes from the prosecution’s DNA experts verify that the female footprints in the hall that tested positive with Luminol, tested negative when later tested for presence of blood. 

As to the bloody footprint on the bathmat, I have read in numerous locations that this footprint is 1)An exact fit for Raffaele, 2)An exact fit for Rudy 3)Totally inconclusive. I continue to look for the definitive answer.

Posted by Rob55 on 07/04/11 at 10:30 PM | #

Hi Rob,

Even Amanda Knox’s lawyers conceded that her blood had mingled with Meredith’s blood.

The footprints were tested for blood. Luminol was used to detect the presence of blood at the cottage and it is the most sensitive blood detection technique commonly used by forensic investigators. Luminol was has been found to be five times more sensitive than TMB (Tetramethylbenzidine). This explains why the TMB tests yielded negative results.

Furthermore, forensic investigators who regularly work on crime scene can easily distinguish between the bright blue glow of a blood trace and the much fainter glow of other reactive substances.

It should also be noted that reactive substances also produce different colour spectrums. For example, it is straightforward to distinguish between blood and bleach. The luminol couldn’t have been reacting to bleach anyway because bleach dissipates after a couple of days and there will be no trace left. The luminol tests at the cottage were carried out on 18 December 2007.

Posted by The Machine on 07/04/11 at 10:34 PM | #

I don’t know why my computer posted my last post twice, it may be operator error as I’m new here too, but now that I’m back can I ask one thing:

On Page 280 of the Massei report he says
“This Court also considers that the components of the mixed trace specimens were deposited simultaneously, and were deposited by Amanda.”

Does the fact that they were “deposited SIMULTANEOUSLY” definately mean that the DNA of both is mixed-all-through the samples, and not that AK’s DNA could in fact just be ‘on top’of the sample, which is where the defense might argue it should be if it just ‘floated’ or ‘drifted’ (is perhaps the better word), through the air after AK’s “shower” and landed on Merediths sample already on the floor, (...the basin, the Qtip box, the bidet, the hallway, and so on and so on)??

Any help appreciated

Posted by Spencer on 07/04/11 at 10:57 PM | #

Google: signs of a staged burglary:

Google: crime scene staging:

The violence of the fight was in the marks on Meredith’s body. (Bruises on her elbows where she was held) She was also strangled before her throat was cut. She had very few actual cuts (I think about 3 major ones to her throat). She was not bleeding alot until the fatal cut was made. At that point the struggle was largely over. Read the details of the autopsy.

Why was she stabbed on both sides of her throat? Did the lone wolf assailant hold her with one hand and the knife in the other and cut her on one side and then switch the knife to his/her other hand (all the while holding onto her) and cut the other side of her throat?

Read the summaries of the Micheli report. There are traces showing the body was moved. Also, no one has been able to climb in through that window.

When Filomena entered the cottage she was aware that a window had been broken in her room. She rushed in to see if something was missing. When she picked up the clothes on top of her computer and noticed the broken glass on top of the clothes, she disturbed the crime scene. That’s why the police photos don’t show glass on top of stuff. (They were not yet aware of a murder). However, her testimony is witness evidence of the state of her room. What reason would she have to frame her roommate?

Also, the real question Rob55 is “why would Rudy cover Meredith’s body with her quilt and lock her door?” why would a knife-wielding burglar cover the body? and lock the door?

The way they probably threw the rock was:

1. They opened the left inner wooden shutter

2. They opened the left window panel

3. They banged the rock against the window panel, hitting the left inner wooden shutter

4. Glass sprays all over the room

5. Both outer shutter were closed so that no one would hear the noise of breaking glass

Another question: To enter the cottage one has to walk a distance from the gate towards the front door. The broken window is in full view for the length of that walk.

How is it that Amanda returning to the cottage in the morning didn’t see that broken window?

Why would you enter a building with a broken window and the front door swinging wide open when you know that at least two of your three roommates are out of town?

I definitely would NOT go inside. I’d probably start walking back towards the street immediately and I definitely would call my boyfriend and ask him to call the police immediately. Remember she is a kid in a foreign country who doesn’t speak the language. There could be someone still in the house. That’s very scary!

Posted by bedelia on 07/04/11 at 11:08 PM | #

skin cells that shed are dead and have no DNA.

The Massei court believes that in washing off the blood in the bathroom, Amanda exfoliated (rubbed off) live cells which were mixed with Meredith’s blood and water to give trace amounts of pink stains which tested positive for both Amanda and Meredith’s DNA.

However, it is very possible since Meredith had studied karate and apparently struggled quite a bit as she was being held, that she managed to free one arm momentarily and give Amanda a hit in the nose. This would cause a nosebleed which would leave no mark on Amanda’s body and yield enough blood to come up with these mixed samples.

Another thing that’s weird is: why is Amanda’s DNA mixed with Meredith’s in Filomena’s room? In several different spots? Why isn’t it Filomena’s DNA since it’s her room?

Posted by bedelia on 07/04/11 at 11:23 PM | #

Agreed bad girl - Ak’s DNA had no business being in Filomena’s room (or anywhere else frankly). One other thing -  on the photos of AK from the 2nd she has a ripped ear from what looks like an earing being ripped out. Could that also be the source of the blood? And did they make anything of that in the trail, I can’t find much mention of it?

Posted by Spencer on 07/04/11 at 11:31 PM | #

I agree with Rob55 that these debates must be conducted in a calm and courteous manner.

Hi Rob

Many thanks for joining the debate and i will remember you as the man who kicked the hornets nest. I can not wait for the next post to come in.

I am very new to this so i will leave the technical stuff to you, machine, bad girl etc.

I have a simple question why do you refer to AK/RS as kids.
For EG
We send our yong men into war zones at sixteen and into combat zones at eighteen, where they are expected to fight and die as men, and men they certainly are.

You refer to RS who is in his mid twenties as a “kid”, WHY? please be honest.

Posted by JHEA on 07/05/11 at 12:26 AM | #

Your scenario sounds possible in several ways. The points of it I would question are:
- Supposedly, Raffaele had a stash of hashish/marijuana at his apartment and would have been able to stay inside his warm apartment on a cold night and relax after Halloween partying the prior night.
- Guede’s versions of events are thoroughly unbelievable. Meredith certainly didn’t feel amorous towards him as he indicated, he took five months after the murder to suggest Raffaele and Amanda were involved and he told different versions to friends and cellmates. Guede misidentifies Raffaele as a short left-handed attacker when Raffaele is tall and right-handed and says he identified Amanda by her silhouette through a window on a dark night as she was running away. Not overly convincing.
- It seems hard to believe that Amanda, with $4,500 in the bank, and Raffaele, who was rich, would steal from Meredith. Amanda’s only prior brush with the law was a “minor disturbance violation” for loud music, after 12:00am, at her going away party. Neither Amanda nor Raffaele had any background of temper or violence.
- In Amanda’s final interrogation, the police had seen that Amanda’s last text message on the night of the murder, after Patrick told her she didn’t have to come into work, was, “See you later, goodbye”. The police thought this represented a meeting later that night, so they told Amanda her memory must be failing her due to the marijuana she had smoked, that she had better quit lying or she would go to jail for up to 30 years, that they had absolute proof she was in the apartment at the time of the murder, that they knew Patrick Lumumba was the murderer and to try to imagine what she would have done if she was in the middle of this scene. An exhausted and confused Amanda said she imagined covering her ears while Patrick committed the murder. The police then gave her a confession document written in Italian to sign. She recanted to some extent later. She didn’t come to Patrick’s rescue while he was in jail because the police had told her they knew he was the murderer.
This is my best understanding of the facts you mentioned.

Posted by Rob55 on 07/05/11 at 12:40 AM | #

Rob55, there is ample evidence of attempts to clean up, eg: smeared bloody fingerprints, smeared blood streaks on the floor, luminol enhanced footprints, Amanda’s desk lamp on the floor and (when asked in court if that was hers) Miss Knox snippily said “I don’t remember”
and it looks like the cleanup was interrupted when the postal police arrived. The washing machine was still warm, but all the other occupants of the cottage had gone away for the holiday. Amanda had a mop and bucket in hand when the police came, and, instead of calling the police when she detected the break in, she called her mom, and Raffaele, his sister. Then they lied about it.

Posted by Ergon on 07/05/11 at 12:52 AM | #

I would be very interested in the source of your statement that Amanda had $4500 left in her bank. But then, I am unsure of the claim she had a motive to steal and/or kill Meredith. What she DID have, was a drug problem and a boyfriend with a knife fetish and violent fantasies she may have shared herself.

Posted by Ergon on 07/05/11 at 12:59 AM | #


Rudy Guede implicated Knox and Sollecito in November 2007.

Amanda Knox was questioned for approximately 2 hours and 45 minutes on 5 November 2007. According to multiple witnesses, including her interpreter, she voluntarily accused Diya Lumumba of murdering Meredith. She acknowledged that it was her fault that Lumumba was in prison in an intercepted conversation with her mother on 10 November 2007.

You have no evidence that the police ever told Knox that they knew Lumumba was the murderer. You’re employing the same tactic as the other white knights: giving a detailed description of what happened at the police station despite not actually being present. You’re relying on the word of a compulsive liar who lied repeatedly from the very beginning.

Posted by The Machine on 07/05/11 at 01:07 AM | #

Hi Rob. Everybody here can read Dempsey’s and Fisher’s ramblings on their own sites if they want to. The Machine’s post did a nice job of reducing confusions Nathaniel Rich introduced and now you seem intent on adding them back in.  Not one of the interrogators agree with your version, as the Machine noted just above. AK falsely fingered Lumumba very quickly and admitted it to her own mother. She knew it was a lie but kept Patrick sweating in a cell for 2 weeks. 

Regarding Guede, until a short time previously when his good job up north collapsed he was doing very well for himself, and he was the only one of the three to have no police record. Micheli was very scathing of the “witness” who tried to argue that Guede was in his apartment with a knife. He had no false reason to finger AK and RS, which as the Machine says he started to do very early on, after all 3 of them blew smoke - Knox more than anyone. 

There are many posts here on possible motive and if anything there are too many rather than too few. Mignini and Micheli and Massei all came with their own flavor. People do odd things when on drugs, especially hard drugs and skunk, and they include murder.  We know Knox arrived in Perugia with almost zero support system. Stewart Home did a very good post on that. People were backing away from Knox and finding her hard and peculiar and her friendship circle was shrinking. AK had reason to believe she was losing her job and without a work permit would have had a real problem finding another. With a drug habit $4500 would not have gone very far, maybe 3-4 months at most. Sollecito was not rich as you claim. He depended on his father to replenish his account and his father deliberately did that sparingly.

That four courts said three perps had to have done it is the real 80,000 pound gorilla in the room, not a contentious report not yet responded to about two of the many DNA samples. To help you get better tethered and stop misleading readers with categoric statements without proofs, it would be nice if you would read TJMK and the many court documents the crowd here and at PMF were ALONE in translating. No media did that, and certainly not any other site. They simply made things up, and waited for the suckers to arrive.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 07/05/11 at 02:29 AM | #


Amanda Knox stated (that means stated) she called Merediths phone and it just rang and rang and she got no answer,

In reality,the call lasted just 3 seconds.  Look at your watch and time 3 seconds.  Does 3 seconds constitute ringing and ringing but no answer to you?

Her boyfriend (now serving 25 years for the murder of Meredith Kercher) said he pricked Merediths hand when preparing a meal in his apartment with her.

Have you, or anyone else you have known in your life, ever pricked someone with a knife when preparing a meal?

Have you? Candace Dempsey, a cooking blogger no less, could not answer that question. She deleted it from her cooking blog. Why do you think she did that?

I would like to add that it has been confirmed by Amanda Knox herself that Meredith had not even been to her boyfriends apartment.

Can you see something that doesn’t seem right here, given that we are dealing with the slaughter of a young girl who lived in the room next door to Amanda Knox?

Am I wrong or does all this ring true to you?

Can you name the one person that links the apartment, the victim, Sollecito, Guede and Patrick Lumumba?

Posted by Deathfish2000 on 07/05/11 at 02:33 AM | #

What the editor of Rolling Stone needs to hear is that many of us who have followed the details of this case for years could have written a more accurate story than Rich wrote, and one of us could do that while locked in a room with no notes. 

Rich was obviously more interested in Knox the celebrity rather than the details of Meredith Kercher’s gruesome murder.  His story is so shallow that it treats Knox as a naive coed who blew into town and through no actions of her own got accused of murder. 

A jury of eight unanimously voted to convict Knox of Meredith’s murder based on the totality of evidence presented at a months-long trial.  My hope is that the prosecutors will keep the appeals jury focused on that evidence just as The Machine did in refuting Rich’s false claims.  Seeking justice for Meredith is a serious matter that shouldn’t be trivialized as Rich has done in his article.

Posted by Sailor on 07/05/11 at 10:29 AM | #

PS I also have sent the above by email to editors at rollingstone dot com
with a cc to
nathaniel at nathanielrich dot com

Hope it does something but probably won’t.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 07/05/11 at 03:36 PM | #

There are many parallels between Casey Anthony and Amanda Knox. Apart from the obvious ones here is a direct quote from the ‘Nancy Grace TV Show’ covering the Anthony trial..

Quote:“What do guilty people do?”

(1) They Lie.
(2) They Evade.
(3) They run and mislead.
(4) They act like nothing is wrong
(5) They accuse somebody else.
(6) They show no emotion or compassion for the victim.
(7) The young attractive accused will flirt with the jury, the judges and the lawyers both for the prosecution and the defense. Also they will rarely show anger or emotion on the stand only if they are cornered or directly insulted by the prosecution will any emotion show.
Sound familiar?

So here is my question.  Why is Amanda Knox being held to a higher standard than Casey Anthony??

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 07/05/11 at 05:43 PM | #


Thank you for responding to my supposition with courtesy and thought. My supposition (and that is all it is, a supposition) is that Rudy Guede’s Skype conversation with his pal represents, with one enormous exception, a largely true version of events from his perspective.  The one exception is that there was NO romantic meeting between Rudy and Meredith..

This is one thing we are both agreed on, that there was no romantic encounter and that lie was forced on Guede by his own actions.

Your other points:

You ask why would RS and AK would leave his nice warm flat on a cold night to visit the cottage.  There is so much about that terrible night that we can’t understand.  It is dangerous to start “filling in the dots” when we do not know.  I believe that they did go to the cottage with terrible consequences for everyone - but mainly, of course, for Meredith.

You say it is unlikely that rich-kid Sollecito or Amanda would have stolen Meredith’s money.  Strangely, it isn’t necessary for my supposition to work for Amanda to have stolen the money, merely that Meredith “thought” that she had and to have accused her of it.  Whatever.  Something was a trigger for a fight between them that ended in unbelievable violence.

You make the point about left-handed and right-handed.  I think that the state they were all in they didn’t know day from night.  I believe that Amanda accused Lamumba and retained her accusation because she thought that the shadowy black man she saw was Lamumba.  The height difference between Guede and Lamumba should have made this misidentification impossible - but I think she may have made that mistake.

I am aware that others know far more than I about this and if someone can authoritatively show why this supposition is impossible I will yield without any sense of false pride.  My objective is solely to get justice for Meredith.

Peter Oliver

Posted by Peter Oliver on 07/05/11 at 06:42 PM | #

Is Motive relevant to the Jury’s choice of its Guilty-of-Murder Verdict?

Or is Motive relevant only after the Jury’s choice of Guilty-Verdict, and then relevant only to its Choice-of-Sentence, when Motive becomes relevant as an Aggravating-Factor, or a Mitigating-Factor?

Posted by Cardiol MD on 07/05/11 at 07:21 PM | #

Hi Grahame Rhodes. Casey Anthony is today found not guilty of abusing or killing her daughter.

We will post on the lesson here for Meredith’s case. Nancy Grace who you quote and other legal commentators have ranted at Casey Anthony almost daily on their shows for three years and found her guilty the whole time.

If anything this mighty blast may have swayed the jury the other way - that and the first degree murder/death penalty request (she was known as a good mom) and an absence of smoking gun evidence.

In the Knox-Sollecito trial the evidence is way stronger and even redundant, violence obviously was done, there are no other likely scenarios or perps, and the media was in fact neutral in Italy and 95% pro Knox in the US.

No way the verdict there either was driven by the media as FOA so often like to claim.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 07/05/11 at 11:40 PM | #

Anthony’s attorney Cheney Mason blasted the media after the verdict.

“Well, I hope that this is a lesson to those of you having indulged in media assassination for three years, bias, prejudice and incompetent talking heads saying what would be and how to be,” Mason said.

“I’m disgusted by some of the lawyers that have done this, and I can tell you that my colleagues from coast to coast and border to border have condemned this whole process of lawyers getting on television and talking about cases that they don’t know a damn thing about.”

Posted by Helder Licht on 07/06/11 at 12:22 AM | #

Peter O - I’d like to add to your ‘possible scenarios involving Rudy Guede’ if I could…

If we take it as a given that the witnesses that just testified were all bribed, then surely it must follow that the defence has also tried to bribe Rudy himself.

Could it be possible that the reason AK was looking so perky during the appeal, leading up to Rudy testifying was because the defence had offered him a LARGE amount of money to take the fall (he has his sentence anyway - and maybe they offered him like $1M for when he gets out - who knows), anyway maybe he didn’t say ‘no’, and left them hanging, hoping.

And they were still hoping that he would take the deal right up until the night before he testified.

This could help explain why the following day AK was suddenly looking SO miserable - even as she walked into court - before Rudy had even started testifying she knew - He hadn’t taken the deal, and was going one step further and was in fact now fingering them both, making him an EYEWITNESS to the crime.

If I was Rudy and I was presented with an opportunity to screw with the very people who set me up so drastically, as was done to him by them, then I would relish a chance to seek a little revenge in this way.

Posted by Spencer on 07/06/11 at 12:54 AM | #

So Casey Anthony walks into that fateful courtroom sporting Amanda Knox’s ponytail And Rafaele’s pink Oxford shirt. How long will she maintain that look? How long until she’s back in the news, for some arrestable offence, or for entering rehab or partying like it’s 1999?

As for the fight in Perugia, I am dismayed by the further delays (and dismissal, re the Telenorba debacle?) in proceedings against the “grownups” It feels like entropy. On the other hand, it keeps the parents twisting in the wind that much longer. But if the Fair Ones are acquitted by this jury, then I suppose the other cases fall apart.

To Rob55: If Raffie is not a “kid”, why did Daddy feel the need to check on him daily. Was it to make sure he was brushing his teeth, or to see if he hadn’t fallen afoul of the law again? And, as far as the pair not needing to steal money, do Hollywood celebrities “need” to shoplift expensive dresses and jewelry? Or is it merely the thrill of getting away with something forbidden?
Soleccito laughed at the moronic cops who failed to notice the knife in his pocket. Knox thought it was a hilarious prank to have a couple of her male friends don ski-masks and bust in on her female housemate at the UW, in a simulated assault. Both have lied incessantly and displayed antisocial behaviours. This doesn’t prove they murdered Meredith, but it sure leaves a stink in their wake.

Posted by mimi on 07/06/11 at 05:13 AM | #

Hello Peter
        Now that the Anthony case is more or less over I suppose the US media will concentrate upon Knox. You are completely correct of course regarding media assassination, in fact I notice that there has been some minor soul searching on CNN news this morning particularly with regard to the Nancy Grace Show and others of the same ilk. Nancey Grace looked a little sheepish with her after verdict comments.
However the comments attributed to her which I quoted in reference to Amanda Knox/Raphaele Sollecito, in general terms I stand by. i’e, “Innocent people do not lie or blame others.” or all the rest of the Knox/Sollecito nonsense. Thank you as always for your insight and sane comments.
Cheers Grahame Rhodes

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 07/06/11 at 02:56 PM | #

Spencer, thank you for your addition observations.

You make a very interesting point about the bribing of that rag tag and bobtail group of convicts that Giulia Bongiorno paraded in front of the court.  I believe that t is very dangerous to underestimate Bongiorno and it makes sense that she had hoped to crown it all with Guede’s coup de theatre.  Guede refused to play ball.

Perhaps he wanted £1m instead of $1m.  I can’t believe that the Sollecito family will rest until they have their lad out.  Is Guede still negotiating?  AK must worry that she will be cast aside by in all this.  I assume, however, that Bongiorno has already worked out that they “hang together because if not they will assuredly hang separately”, I think Benjamin Franklin.

Something else has always bothered me.  The police must have realised that AK was a very peculiar person and her evidence was full of uncertainties and contradictions yet they immediately went, on her evidence, and arrested Lamumba displaying full confidence that they had their man.  Were they convinced because Amanda herself was convinced and that she was in no way acting but describing what she sincerely thought to be true?  That she thought that the black man, dimly seen, was indeed Lamumba?

Peter Oliver

Posted by Peter Oliver on 07/06/11 at 03:10 PM | #

Peter Oliver,

You need to exercise some common sense. Amanda Knox told the investigators on two separate occasions that she had met Diya Lumumba at Piazza Grimana. This was a blatant lie. Knox lied repeatedly from the very beginning. It’s ridiculous to suggest that she was describing what she sincerely thought to be true.

Posted by The Machine on 07/06/11 at 05:22 PM | #

Dear The Machine,

Thank you for commenting on what I wrote.  Naturally I wasn’t delighted with your admonition that what I wrote lacked common sense, however, in humility I accept that you are probably correct.

I believe that when we comment on a serious forum (and this is a serious and intelligent forum) like TJMK we all have a responsibility to have read and studied the details of the case.  To do otherwise would be dereliction of our duties as seekers of the truth.

Please accept, however, that not all of us have your olympian knowledge of this case.  It is a case I find complex and deep.  For TJMK to succeed it must remain an open and fertile forum for understanding.  It must allow people to test their ideas openly.

In my case I am trying to understand the position Guede played in all this and to reconcile certain contradictions.  I claim no false pride, if I am wrong I understand and relish that I will be put in my place.  It is a necessary and certain astringent in an open discussion.

When I began to look at this case I found that TJMK was by far the best amd most thoughtful forum for debate about the murder of Meredith Kercher.  I feel honoured, yet humble, to be part of it …. even if I do say things which are considered “ridiculous”

A fellow seeker after for justice,

Peter Oliver

Posted by Peter Oliver on 07/06/11 at 08:52 PM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Dear CEO Gary Pruitt: Could The Associated Press Try To Report Right A Little Harder?

Or to previous entry Not For The First Time Has Zombie-Like Behavior Afflicted American Crime Reporting

    Follow On Twitter
    Click To Get There