Heads-up. Unfortunately, Jessica Bennett, the conspicuously lazy NY Times reporter who wrote a slobbery 3-page ode to a mythical version of Knox recently, missed this definitively damning evidence described below.

Sunday, November 28, 2021

Tip For Good Reporters: Final Fatal Sequence Proves 3 Attackers With Complete Certainty

Posted by Cardiol MD


This explains autopsy findings. It may not be an easy read. It is the ninth in a multi-part series focused on provable realities in response to an inflammatory three-page report in the New York Times almost exclusively channeling dishonest and repeatedly-refuted Knox PR.

1. Context Of This Post

In previous posts I noted my extensive court experience with forensic testimony.

Also that the remorseless waves of forensic evidence above all, in days of harrowing closed-door presentations testimony in 2009, (1) ended the defenses’ feeble bids to frame Guede as a lone wolf, (2) cause Sollecito and Knox to react painfully in front of a watching jury, and (3) above all caused a unanimous verdict of guilty to murder with a sex crime component.

[Massei Report] Within the crime of murder, carried out in the course of the sexual assault which Meredith Kercher was subjected to according to what has been presented, the crime of sexual assault is assimilated as a special aggravating circumstance of the former [i.e. of the murder].

2. Availability Of Forensic Detail

The forensic evidence published by the courts was in Italian, distributed between several documents, and reported-on by less than 5 percent of the non-Italian media. The BBC, Associated Press, Reuters, London Times and New York Times, made zero mention of it.

Meredith’s autopsy was performed by Dr. Luca Lalli. Though the court heard them described at length, his detailed findings are not included in Massei’s report, and they still await their full translation into English. The Massei report includes only a limited paraphrase of Lalli’s findings.

Accordingly, to fully comprehend the totality of it in English requires the reading of: (1) the early-2009 Micheli Report; (2) the early 2010 Massei Report; (3) the late 2010 Giordano report; and (4) parts of “Darkness Descending” by Russell, Johnson, and Garofano (see more below).

Here now is a safe bet for you. Not a single pathologist anywhere who is on top of all of this evidence will still conclude that Meredith was not the victim of a pack attack.

Contrary to the inncessant bait & switch of the toxic Knox and Sollecito PR not even one court ever denied this.

Even the Knox & Sollecito defenses stopped denying it. No TV report or articel or book comes within light-years of proving that Guede or anyone else was a lone-wolf killer in light of this material.

3. The Final Fatal Sequence

In my opinion the most decisive fact excluding the single attacker theory is the fact that 2 different knives unquestionably were used to murder Meredith on the night. 

There were 2 major, penetrating knife-wounds into Meredith’s neck; one entering on the left-side, and one entering on the right-side, which was made by a pocket-knife of the size Sollecito customarily carried.

The latter wound could not have been made by whatever knife entered on the left-side as the size discrepancy was huge. Two knives had to have been used.

For enigmatic reasons, Massei chose to disagree with the reconstruction proposed by the prosecution’s expert witnesses which depicted Meredith on her knees, facing the floor: Massei concluded that Meredith was in a standing position, facing her attackers:

Massei Page 372-373: |considering the neck wounds sustained, it must be believed that Meredith remained in the same position, in a standing position, while continuously exposing her neck to the action of the person striking her now on the right and now on the left. Such a situation seems inexplicable if one does not accept the presence of more than one attacker who, holding the girl, strongly restrained her movements and struck her on the right and on the left because of the position of each of the attackers with respect to her, by which it was easier to strike her from that side.

4. Certainties re Final Fatal Sequence:

Here I reiterate the relevant certainties which I first posted in Those Pesky Certainties Cassation’s Fifth Chamber May Or May Not Convincingly Contend With #3 on Wednesday, May 20, 2015.

Meredith’s torture & murder, perpetrated by 3 people, took place in her room at Number 7, Via della Pergola in Perugia, Umbria, Italy on the night of November 1-2, 2007. This room measured eleven by nine and a half feet, contained a single bed, a bedside table, and a cupboard. The space was small but enough for Meredith and three perpetrators.

Certainty One re Final Fatal Sequence

In “Darkness Descending - the Murder of Meredith Kercher”  Paul Russell (Author), Graham Johnson (Author), and Luciano Garofano (Author) give clearer, more detailed descriptions of Dr. Lalli’s findings than Massei does.

On pages 72-74 of DD it emerges that the cut (Stab A) made by a large knife in Meredith’s neck was on the left-side, ran obliquely from left-to-right, almost parallel to her jaw, and slightly upwards.

Certainty Two re Final Fatal Sequence

DD does state that the knife entered 8cm vertically below her left ear, 1.5cm horizontally towards the front of her neck, but does not specify the cut’s length.

Certainty Three re Final Fatal Sequence

A large knife created a gaping wound, visible only through the opened-skin of the left side, continuing its travel under the skin, traveling across the mid-line plane, towards the right-side, exposing the oral cavity, fatty tissues and throat glands. Important jaw muscles were also severed.

Certainty Four re Final Fatal Sequence

As DD states, there was another stab wound (Stab B) on the right-hand side of Meredith’s neck, 1.5 cm long, penetrating 4 cm subcutaneously.

Certainty Five re Final Fatal Sequence

Stab B was made by a knife smaller than the above large knife.

Certainty Six re Final Fatal Sequence

The wound was shallow, did not create a gaping wound, did not cut important subcutaneous structures, but did create a route to the exterior through which blood from Stab A, then created by the large knife on Meredith’s left side, could also exit to Meredith’s right side.

Certainty Seven re Final Fatal Sequence

The large knife had damaged no significant vessels of the left side.

Certainty Eight re Final Fatal Sequence

Blood also flooded the subcutaneous tissues around the breech in the right-hand side of Meredith’s airway caused by the knife-stab on the left-side of her neck.

Certainty Nine re Final Fatal Sequence

This resulted in Meredith’s inhalation of her own blood.

certainty Ten re Final Fatal Sequence

Meredith stops screaming, but now her blood seems to be everywhere, including over her attackers, and they quickly abandon her, already evading the accountability they are fully aware is theirs.

Certainty Eleven re Final Fatal Sequence

As DD comments, during Meredith’s autopsy, surprise was expressed that the Jugular Veins and Carotid Arteries (of both right and left sides) were intact.

Exzperts who read about this murder concluded from this that the killers must have known about the major blood vessels (MBVs), but not about branches-of-Carotid-branches such as little RSTA.

5. Beyond Any Reasonable Doubts re Final Fatal Sequence:

Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt One re Final Fatal Sequence

Accepting Massei’s conclusion, Knox and Sollecito were standing-up and facing Meredith in Meredith’s room. Knox, Sollecito and/or Guede, were participating in the restraining of Meredith.

Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt Two re Final Fatal Sequence

Sollecito (or possibly Guede) was holding the smaller Knife, probably in his right hand. This smaller knife made Stab B.

Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt Three re Final Fatal Sequence

Stab B preceded Stab A, and caused Meredith’s scream.

When Meredith screams Knox plunges Knife36 into Meredith’s neck in the above long-axis direction, from left to right, transecting Meredith’s Hyoid bone, first opening Meredith’s airway to the atmosphere, then transecting Meredith’s Right Superior Thyroid Artery.

Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt Four re Final Fatal Sequence

Knox was holding Knife36, probably in Knox’s right hand, against the left side of Meredith’s neck with Knife36’s point directed slightly upwards toward the right side of Meredith’s neck, the blade-label facing towards Knox, the palm of Knox’s right hand also facing towards Knox and the long-axis of Knife36 angled a few degrees above horizontal.

Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt Five re Final Fatal Sequence

When Meredith screams Knox plunges Knife36 into Meredith’s neck in the above long-axis direction, from left to right, transecting Meredith’s Hyoid bone, first opening Meredith’s airway to the atmosphere, then transecting Meredith’s Right Superior Thyroid Artery.

Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt Six re Final Fatal Sequence

A thin stream of bright-red blood spurted from this artery to its exterior environment, probably through the cuts made in her skin to the outside by both knives.

(Consistent with bleeding from both cuts, Follain, in his book “A Death In Italy” states that Guede saw that blood was coming out of the left side of Meredith’s neck. Follain also states that Francesco Camana of the Rome forensic police, in Camana’s written report, notes that spurts of blood in the middle of Meredith’s chest made her sweatshirt more bloody on the right side than on the left side)

Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt Seven re Final Fatal Sequence

The large knife was Knife-36, which had been brought to the murder room from Sollecito’s kitchen.

Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt Eight re Final Fatal Sequence

The 3 murderers were Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, & Ruede Guede.

6. Other Essential Facts Corroborating Roles of AK & RS

1. AMANDA KNOX admitted she was present at the place and time of Meredith’s murder.

2. AMANDA KNOX’s DNA was found on the top of the handle of Knife-36

3. MEREDITH KERCHER’s DNA was found on the blade of Knife-36.

4. AMANDA KNOX admitted that MEREDITH had never been in Sollecito’s apartment.

5. A second sample of Knox’s DNA was also found on Knife-36, where the blade goes into the handle. This second sample was an LCN sample of mixed DNA, and was statistically determined to be Knox’s DNA. (RIS Berti & Barni 2013 report)

6. A DNA mixture compatible with Knox’s and Sollecito’s DNA was found on another stained pocket knife that Sollecito had on him.

7. Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp. 

8. Some 7 samples yielded DNA mixtures compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA mixed with either Knox’s DNA, Sollecito’s DNA or Guede’s DNA.

9. A DNA mixture compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA and Guede’s DNA was found on Ms. Kercher’s purse near the zipper.

10. A DNA mixture compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA and Knox’s DNA was found in three blood traces in the bathroom: (1) on the bidet drain plate, (2) in the sink and (3) on a plastic container containing cotton swabs.

11. A DNA mixture compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA and Knox’s DNA was also found in a Luminol-revealed blood-stain on the floor of Romanelli’s room, and in a Luminol-revealed bloody footprint in the corridor.

12. A second Luminol-revealed blood stain in Romanelli’s room yielded Ms. Kercher’s DNA.

13. A sample of blood from the small bathroom faucet yielded ONLY Knox’s DNA.

14. Guede’s DNA was found in fewer places than Knox’s: on Ms. Kercher’s purse, the left sleeve of her sweat jacket, her bra strap, in Ms. Kercher and on the toilet paper in the large bathroom.

7. Forensic Conclusions

In Common Law Jurisdictions, such as U.S. Federal Courts, U.K., Canada, & Australia, etc, Knox and Sollecito, as well as Guede would surely have been found Guilty.

There would have been no possibility of crime-scene amateurs and public-relations hired guns to contend this, for at least three reasons: (1) they very conspicuously lack anyone of status qualified to do so; (2) the extensive testimony in closed-court hearings would never be so described in a public document; and (3) Common Law juries are “black-box” and in most cases including murder do no explaining (also judges sometimes forbid jury members from talking later).

The decisions in Italy widely suggest to Italians the main influence of Sollecito’s Mafia connections, of which Knox is a very lucky collateral beneficiary.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 11/28 at 05:17 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (0)

Thursday, November 25, 2021

Tip For Good Reporters: 20 Forensic Proofs Guede Did NOT Attack Meredith Alone

Posted by Cardiol MD




This explains autopsy findings. It may not be an easy read. It is the eighth in a multi-part series focused on provable realities in response to an inflammatory three-page report in the New York Times almost exclusively channeling dishonest and repeatedly-refuted Knox PR.

1. Guede Persona, An Overview

First, for the record, I have testified on forensic evidence at numerous trials.

Convicted murderer Rudy Guede to this day claims, quite unbelievably, that Meredith let him into the house. His evolving claims as to how they had arranged that earlier were all thoroughly shot down at his trial.

But at the same time, he was no drifter or serial knife carrier, he had no police record in 2007 (unlike Knox and Sollecito), and no drug dealing has ever been charged or proved. Up to very recently, he had had a full-time paying job up north. And attempts to pin him to three burglaries all fell flat:

In the Milan “break-in” Guede had a key. In October 2008 Judge Micheli mistrusted and sharply rebuked a witness who claimed a “break-in” by Guede; he filed no police report. And the lawyers office “break-in” had to be two people with a car, opposing forces copying files on a contentious case, the lawyers themselves believed.

Guede seriously discounted his role on the night of Meredith’s death, but some physical evidence (not a lot) proved he had played a part in the attack. Thereafter his shoeprints lead straight to the front door.

2. Moving Target In Court

Neither Judge Micheli nor Judge Massei nor the Supreme Court believed he acted alone or had any part in the very obvious cleanup that had been carried out.

The Knox and Sollecito defenses failed miserably to prove he climbed in Filomena’s window, and despite much innuendo they never really tried to prove he was a lone attacker.

That is why in 2011 we saw two of the most bizarre defence witnesses in recent Italian legal history, the jailbirds Alessi and Aviello, take the stand

Alessi became so nervous making his perjured claim that Guede told him Guede did it with two others that he was physically sick and had to take time off from the stand.

Aviello loudly proclaimed that his brother and another did it (not Guede) and then claimed the Sollecito family via Giulia Bongiorno floated bribes including payment for a sex-change operation in his prison for false testimony.

Tellingly, although Bongiorno threatened to sue Aviello, she never has. Even more tellingly, Judge Hellmann himself initiated no investigation, and simply let this serious felony claim drop dead.

Here is a far-from-exhaustive list, first posted here in April 2013, of 20 reasons why Rudy Guede could not have acted alone. Also why not even one single scrap of evidence has ever been found for any two other than Knox and Sollecito themselves.

3. Twenty Lone-Wolf Disproofs

1.  Guede’s Final Appeal Report said Meredith sustained 43 wounds

The testimony at the 2009 trial about the 43 wounds was presented in closed court out of humane respect by the jury for the feelings of Meredith’s family.

So even the diligent and trustworthy Italian media mostly missed this, as they were locked outside, and to our knowledge all of the normally sharp foreign reporters also missed out. 

Mention of the 43 wounds was omitted from the 2009 Massei Trial Report and also from the 2011 Hellman Appeal Report.

Its inclusion in December 2010 in Judge Giordano’s Supreme Court report on Guede’s final appeal reflects that report’s excellent factual completeness.

The PMF translation at the time read, in relevant part:

The body presented a very large number of bruising and superficial wounds – around 43 counting those caused by her falling – some due to a pointed and cutting weapon, others to strong pressure: on the limbs, the mouth, the nose, the left cheek, and some superficial grazing on the lower neck, a wound on the left hand, several superficial knife wounds or defence wounds on the palm and thumb of the right hand, bruises on the right elbow and forearm, ecchymosis on the lower limbs, on the front and inside of the left thigh, on the middle part of the right leg, and a deep knife wound which completely cut through the upper right thyroid artery fracturing the hyoid bone, a wound which caused a great deal of bleeding.

Including the number of minutes occupied by an initial verbal confrontation, the escalation of that confrontation into taunting and then the physical attack, leading to the infliction of 43 wounds, and to the fatal stabbing, how many minutes would all of this occupied?

The prosecution estimated it took fifteen.

2.  Meredith had taken dance classes and played football & karate)

See the Massei Translation, p23.

Every day Meredith called her family, with whom she had a very close relationship. She had taken classes in dance and played sports (football, karate); she was a strong girl, both physically and in terms of temperament (cf. statements by her mother and by her sister Stephanie, hearing of June 6, 2009).

3.  Meredith was a strong girl, physically and in temperament

See the statements by her mother and by her sister Stephanie (hearing of June 6, 2009). and description of her karate. (Massei Translation, pp23, 164, 366, and 369).

With regard to the totality of these circumstances, it must be considered that Meredith could only have made an outright refusal to Rudy’s advances and in doing so could also count on her slim [fit] physique, which the photos allow [one] to understand, [and] on her good athletic training (other than dance she had also done sports characterised by a certain physicality such as football, and had even taken a course in karate), sustained by her strong character.

4.  Meredith must have been “strongly restrained”

See the Massei Translation, p371; p399, in the Italian original.

Conversely, considering the neck wounds sustained, it must be believed that Meredith remained in the same position, in a standing position, while continuously exposing her neck to the action of the person striking her now on the right and now on the left. Such a situation seems inexplicable if one does not accept the presence of more than one attacker who, holding the girl, strongly restrained her movements and struck her on the right and on the left because of the position of each of the attackers with respect to her, by which it was easier to strike her from that 372 side. One of these attackers was Rudy and the others were those who allowed Rudy to enter the house and who were with him in the house and who, in order to lead the nvestigations astray, then organised the staging of the broken window and the mess in Romanelli’s room: Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, according to all that has already been shown.

5.  Meredith remained virtually motionless throughout the attack

That was in spite of Meredith’s physical and personality characteristics [Massei Translation p369]  [Massei Translation p370-371].

A first indication to be taken into account is Meredith’s physical build: the photographs of her body and the data of her approximate height and weight reveal a physique with “normotrophic muscular mass and normally distributed subcutaneous fat” (cf. declarations Lalli p. 3), a slim physique which would have permitted Meredith to move with agility. To this must be added the declarations of the parents and the sister of Meredith. Her mother, Arline Carol Mary Kercher, recalled that Meredith had practised football and karate (p. 7 hearing 6 June 2009), and her sister, Stephanie Arline Lara, stated that Meredith also did boxing, if only the once, and that “physically she was very strong” (p. 20, hearing 6 June 2009). Also her father, John Leslie Kercher, declared that his daughter was quite strong and had taken a course in karate (p. 23 hearing 6 June 2009). It has also been noted that Meredith was not in bed and undressed when the “advances” and the attempts to subject her will commenced. Being still dressed and awake, and since it must be excluded because of what has been said above that the violent action could have taken place with Meredith lying on the bed, it is considered that she, who was sober and fully conscious since no traces indicating either the use of drugs or the abuse of alcohol were found, would have opposed a firm resistance, as she could claim a strong physique, experienced in self-defence by the lessons in karate that she had taken.

6.  The defensive wounds were almost non-existent

See the report of Dr Lalli, pp. 33, 34, 35 with the relevant photos. From Massei Translation p370:

The signs of this resistance, however, consist in a scream, the scream heard by Nara Capezzali at around around 23:30 and by Maria Ilaria Dramis when, having gone to bed at 22:00 pm, she awoke at a later time which she was not able to quantify; they consist also in some tiny defensive wounds: one on the palm of her [396] right hand of a length of .6cm showing a tiny amount of blood; another on the ulnar surface of the first phalange of the second finger of the left hand, also of length .6cm; another on the fingertip of the first finger with a superficial wound of .3cm, and another tiny wound corresponding to the fourth radius.  Compared with these almost nonexistent defensive wounds (cf. report of Dr Lalli, pp. 33,  34, 35 with the relevant photos), there is an injured area which is impressive by the number,  distribution and diversity, specifically of the injuries (bruises and wounds) on the face and neck of Meredith.

7.  One killer couldn’t inflict 43 wounds with so few defensive wounds.

See the Massei Report quotes above.

8.  There must necessarily have been two knives at the scene of the crime

See the Massei Translation p377.

Even this consideration, therefore, leads one to hold that the biological trace attributable to Amanda and found on the knife handle, could have derived from the use of the knife for the purpose of striking, rather than to cut food; it could have derived, therefore, from the harmful action carried out against Meredith and as a consequence, a biological trace attributable to Meredith remained in the tiny striations present on the face of the blade, in spite of the subsequent cleaning, and which does not appear otherwise explainable as to how, in this regard, it was to be found there (Meredith had never been in Raffaele Sollecito’s house and could never have used this knife). Moreover, the knife Raffaele Sollecito carried with him had a definitely shorter blade as has been seen than the length that would have been necessary for causing the deeper resulting wound, with a depth of 8cm, and therefore, there must necessarily have been two knives at the scene of the crime, first one, and then the other, being used against Meredith.

9.  A lone killer would need one hand/arm or both to restrain Meredith

So how could he use 2 knives?  To use 2 knives a lone killer would have to place 1 knife down, leaving blood-stain[s] wherever it was placed, and then reach for the other knife.

Even wiping the blades on the killer’s clothes, using the one hand, and later scrubbing of the knives would not erase all the blood, as has already been demonstrated.

10.  Two killers could divide attack, one holding Meredith, both holding knives

Meanwhile the other killer used one hand/arm to restrain Meredith, and the other hand to use the various knives. Could a lone killer accomplish all that?

11.  Meredith’s shoes, pants and underwear had been removed

See the Massei Translation p.370

“It is impossible to imagine in what way a single person could have removed the clothes that Meredith was wearing (shoes, pants and underwear), and using the violence revealed by the vaginal swab, could have caused the resulting bruises and wounds recalled above, as well as removing her sweatshirt, pulling up her shirt, forcing the bra hooks before tearing and cutting the bra.”  [Massei Translation p.370]

12.  Meredith’s sweatshirt had been pulled up and removed.

See the quote above of page 370 of the Massei Trial Report Translation.

13.  Meredith’s bra had been forcibly unhooked

See the quote above of page 370 of the Massei Trial Report Translation.

14.  Meredith’s bra had been torn

See the quote above of page 370 of the Massei Trial Report Translation.

15.  Meredith’s bra had been cut

See the quote above of page 370 of the Massei Trial Report Translation.

16.  Violence to Meredith was revealed by the genital swab.

See the quote above of page 370 of the Massei Trial Report Translation.

17.  In the 2011 Hellmann appeal Sollecito’s own lawyers didnt allege lone killer

They themselves brazenly introduced false testimony to the effect that there were two other killers.

18.  Even Judge Hellmann didn’t deny the complicity of AK and RS

Even H/Z seemed to conclude they are probably guilty, but not beyond a reasonable doubt:

“in order to return a guilty verdict, it is not sufficient that the probability of the prosecution hypothesis to be greater than that of the defence hypothesis, not even when it is considerably greater, but [rather] it is necessary that every explanation other than the prosecution hypothesis not be plausible at all, according to a criterion of reasonability. In all other cases, the acquittal of the defendant is required.”  [H/Z Report p.92]

19.  Judge Micheli, in Guede’s trial, found that Guede did not act alone

And that the evidence implicated Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito as accomplices of Rudy Guede in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

20.  Massei found that the evidence implicated AK and RS

He concluded they were joint perpetrators with Rudy Guede in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

4. Proof Of Pack Attack Was Huge

There is an incessant claim among conspiracy theorists THAT KNOX’S OWN LAWYERS NEVER MADE that there was no proof Knox was in Meredith’s room. Simply not true.

1. The autopsy results (essentially unchallenged by the defenses) show definitively that at least two attackers and almost certainly three MUST have carried out the attack.

2. The minute-by-minute recreation of the attack on Meredith and subsequent rearrangement of her body in closed court at trial REQUIRED three to be there.

3. Knox’s DNA mixed with Meredith’s DNA elsewhere, Sollecito’s footprint on the bathroom mat, and his DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp, are ULTIMATE PROOFS.

It is actually very rare for murder scene analysis and autopsy analysis and DNA analysis to all provide such firm proof of who the killers were.


Tuesday, November 23, 2021

Tip For Good Reporters: NY Times’s Jessica Bennett Snowed By Knox On Guede As Sole Killer #1

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



Juror amused at Guede tying opposing counsel in knots in 2011

This is the seventh in a multi-part series focused on provable realities in response to an inflammatory three-page report in the New York Times almost exclusively channeling dishonest and repeatedly-refuted Knox PR.

Post Overview

See how those reporters groveling to Knox never seem curious about who the “real killers” were?

An increasingly frantic Knox has incessantly been blaming all of the attack on Guede. She is sure to do it yet again, maybe even today, as Guede is now free to speak out.

But guess who turned their backs on the so-called lone-wolf hoax 10 years ago? It was Knox’s own defense.

Her team and Sollecito’s had demonized the absent Guede almost daily at trial in 2009, and brought in witnesses, every one of which proved incredibly weak. The prosecution simply sat there, amused.

And in the excellent explanation of the trial verdict by Judge Massei (already anticipated by Judge Micheli) the lone-wolf notion proved an enormous fail. Many of the reasons are explained below.

So at their appeal in 2011, Knox’s and Sollecito’s own defenses turned their backs on the failed lone-wolf ploy, and they instead brought in two witnesses (Alessi and Aviello) from different prisons for a Plan B.

The nefarious pair were meant to testify “Yes, it WAS a pack attack, we all concede that; but the pack did not include Sollecito and Knox; it was really some other guys”.

Well, that did not go well.

There were no other guys. Aviello was sick, so scared was he of a perjury charge. And Alessi was yelling to the judge that the defense had offered bribes.

Here now is a superb post by Marcello in 2013 definitively dismantling for Knox many main elements of the lone-wolf hoax.

1. Problems Of Your “Guede did it alone” Mantra

Your attempts to frame Guede for the entire attack sound racist, and they fly in the face of a multitude of hard facts.

Why are you and your more untethered supporters arguing to the media that Rudy Guede alone attacked Meredith (he could not have), that he was a drifter (he wasnt), a burglar (he wasnt), and drug dealer (he wasnt), and that his DNA traces are “all over Meredith’s room” (they werent)?

There are surprisingly few DNA traces of Guede in there, and outside Meredith’s door there is only evidence of (1) his prior use of the south bathroom, and (2) his shoeprints headed straight for the front door.

There is zero evidence that Rudy Guede was ever in the shared bathroom (the one with Sollectio’s bloody footprint on the bathmat) and zero evidence he was in Filomena’s room (the one with the broken window and the mixed DNA of Meredith and Knox). 

2. Evidence Against You Is Far, Far Stronger

Explain if you can about Sollecito’s bloody footprint. Explain if you can about the evidence of cleanup. Explain this and this about your multiple contradictory alibis.

Explain if you can why your own witnesses Alessi and Aviello were such disasters for your side in court. Explain your cell phone actions (or non-actions) and the timing and content of your phone calls, and explain your computer actions (or non actions).

Explain why in Sollecito’s book he claims he sent several emails throughout the night; but there zero records of such emails with his email provider. Explain why both Sollecito and yourself framed Dr Mignini for a crime in your books.

There are three compelling reasons above all why the Massei court and the Supreme Court will remain totally unbending on the point that Guede did NOT attack Meredith alone, and that it had to be a pack attack on Meredith.

  • One is the several full days of closed court testimony at trial by crime-scene and autopsy experts from Rome, who accounted for every point of evidence in Meredith’s room, and all the numerous wounds on her body, with depictions of a 15 minute pack attack which had to have involved three people. This seriously upset the jury and your own defense was essentially left speechless.

  • One is the prosecution’s video shown in closed court during Summations of the recreation of the attack on Meredith, which accounted for every point of crime-scene and autopsy evidence with a 15 minute pack attack involving three people.  This seriously upset the jury and your own defense was essentially left speechless
  • .
  • One is that the entry of an attacker via Filomena’s room is so absolutely unbelievable. Your own defense always knew this, and barely tried to make that sale (hence the witnesses Alessi and Aviello). There are seven other routes for a burglar to enter the house.

All of the seven are faster and quieter, and five of them are darker: two via the east windows, and three up onto the balcony and into the house via the louvre door or the kitchen window.

All seven routes would be obvious to any burglar, long before he walked all the way around the base of the house to beneath Filomena’s window (which he did several times in your scenario - while leaving no footprints at all). 

3. The Numerous Questions From Which You Hide

On or after 6 November you have both promised to appear in the appeal court in Florence. You are apparently too nervous to face cross-examination under oath, but you have said you intend to try to explain things.

    1) Rudy Guede had been to the apartment at least twice already on prior occasions and knew the boys who lived in the lower story. Why did Guede choose to NOT break-in to the lower story where he knew (or could ascertain) that all four boys were away on holiday, and therefore could break-in and rummage with some certainty of not getting caught?

    2) Why did Guede choose to break-in to the upper story of the villa mid-evening, when he surely knew Knox and Kercher would be staying at the villa for the holidays and could have been there or returned at any time to “catch him in-the-act”?

    3) Surely Guede would have verified that no one was present by circling the cottage and checking if any lights were on in the windows? But Guede “missed” the really easy way in: the balcony in the dark at the rear, used in 2 burglaries in 2009.

    4) If Guede did circle the cottage to make sure no one was there before attempting the break-in, why would he then choose the most visible and more difficult path of entry through a second story window, as opposed to the more hidden and easier path of break-in at the back of the villa, which he would have noticed while circling the villa?

    5) Why would Guede choose to break-in through a second story window that was highly exposed to the headlights of passing cars on the street as well as exposed to night lighting from the carpark?

    6) Ms. Romanelli testified that she had nearly closed the exterior shutters. Assuming her memory is correct, there is no way a burglar could easily verify if the windows were latched and if the inner scuri were latched to the window panes, which would make access to the window latch impractical unless one was armed with a core drill or an ax. Why would Guede, who was certainly familiar with such windows, choose to attempt the break-in through a window that he could not easily verify would allow him quick access?

    7) Assuming the shutters were closed, Guede would have to climb up the wall and open the shutters before smashing the window with the rock. The night of the murder, the grass was wet from rain the previous day. Why was there no evidence of disturbed grass or mud on the walls?

    8) Guede had Nike sneakers, not rock climbing shoes. How did he manage the climb up the wall with that type of footwear?

    9) If the shutters were closed, or somewhat closed, how did Guede manage to lift himself up to the sill with only an inch of sill available to grab onto?

    10) Assuming Guede opened the shutters, how did Guede verify if the inner scuri where not latched to the window panes, which would prevent access to the window latch? There was no light inside Ms. Romanelli’s room to reveal that the scuri were ajar.

    11) Assuming Guede managed to check that the inner scuro behind the right-hand window was not latched, how did he manage to break the glass with a 9 lb rock with one hand while hanging on to the sill with the other?

    12) Assuming Guede managed check that the right-hand inner scuro was not latched, how did he break the glass with the rock without having glass shards fly into his face?

    13) If Guede climbed down to the lob the 9 lb rock at the window from 3 meters below, how would he do so to avoid glass shards raining down on him?

    14) If Guede climbed down to the lob the rock at the window from below, why would he choose a 9 lb 20 cm wide rock to lob up to a window 3 meters above him, with little chance of striking the window in the correct fashion?

    15) If Guede climbed down again and climbed back up to the carpark (up a steep slope with slippery wet grass and weeds) to lob the 9 lb 20 cm wide rock from the car park, why is there no evidence of this second climb down on the walls?

    16) Why did Guede choose a 9 lb 20 cm wide rock to throw from the car park, given that a large, heavy rock would be difficult to lob with any precision? Especially considering that the width of the glass in the window pane is only 28 cm wide, surely anyone, experienced or not, would have chosen a smaller, lighter rock to throw with greater precision.

    17) If Guede lobbed a 9 lb 20 cm rock from the car park, such a lob would require some velocity and therefore force. Guede would have been roughly 11-12 feet away from the window, in order for the lob to clear the wood railing at the carpark. If the rock was thrown with some velocity, why is the upper 1/2 of the glass in the window pane intact, without any fracture cracks at all?

    18) If Guede lobbed a 9 lb 20 cm rock from the car park, such a lob would require some velocity and therefore force. Why is there so little damage to the scuro the rock hit, so little damage to the terrazzo flooring impacted by the rock, and so little damage to the rock itself, which surely would have fractured more on impact with a hard terrazzo floor?

    19) Why was there no evidence of glass shards found in the grass below the window?

    20) If Guede climbed the wall to open the shutters, climbed down and up to the car park to throw the rock, then climbed back down and up again to the window, how does he manage to hoist himself onto the sill without cutting himself on the glass that was found on the sill?

    21) If Guede climbed the wall to open the shutters, hoisted himself onto the sill, tapped the glass with a 9 lb rock to lightly break the glass in a manner more consistent with how the window was broken, why did he throw the rock into the room, rather than let it fall into the grass below?

    22) Why was no dirt, grass, muddy shoeprints or similar trace evidence found on the window sill?

    23) Why was no dirt, grass, muddy shoeprints or similar trace evidence found in Romanelli’s room?

    24) If Guede climbed the wall to open the shutters, climbed down and up to the car park to throw the rock, then climbed back down and up again to the window again, hoisted himself onto the sill without cutting himself on the glass that was found on the sill, unlatched the window and stepped inside Filomena’s room, how did he manage to get glass on top of Romanelli’s clothing that was found under the window sill?

    25) Why would Guede, who would have spent a good 10 minutes trying to break and enter with the climbing up and down from the carpark, waste valuable time throwing clothes from the closet? Why not simply open the closet doors and rifle through the clothes without creating more of mess?

    26) Why did he disregard Romanelli’s laptop, which was in plain view?

    27) Why did Guede check the closet before checking the drawers of the nightstand, where surely more valuable objects like jewelry would be found?

    28) Why were none of the other rooms disturbed during the break-in?

    29) Assuming Ms. Kercher arrived to the cottage after Guede’s break-in, presumably when Guede was in the bathroom, why did she not notice the break-in, call the police and run out of the cottage?

    30) Assuming Guede was in the bathroom when Ms. Kercher returned, why go to the extent of attacking Ms. Kercher in her room rather than try to sneak out the front door, or through the window he had just broken, to avoid if not identification, at least more serious criminal charges?

    31) Assuming Ms. Kercher was at the cottage while Guede broke-in, why did she not call the police the moment she heard the rock crash through the glass, loudly thud to the terrazzo floor and investigate what was happening in Romanelli’s room while Guede was climbing back down from the car park and climbing back up to the window?

    32) Assuming Ms. Kercher was at the cottage while Guede broke-in, Guede could have been on the sill already because he had tapped the glass with the 9 lb rock to break it. Therefore perhaps Guede was already partially inside Romanelli’s room when he was discovered by Ms. Kercher. In this case Guede follows Ms. Kercher to her room in an attempt to dissuade her from calling the police and the assault ensues. But then, if this scenario is correct, when does Guede have time to rifle through Romanelli’s clothing and effects?

    33) Why is there a luminol revealed footprint in Romanelli’s room that has mixed traces of Knox’s and Kercher’s DNA ?

    34) Why does this footprint not match Guede’s foot size?

    35) If multiple attackers were required to restain Ms. Kercher, holding her limbs while brandishing two knives and committing sexual violence, then who else was with Guede and why no traces of this 4th (or more) person(s) were found, either in shoeprints, footprints, fingerprints, DNA or otherwise?

    36) If Guede and others were involved in the assault, why has Guede not acknolwedged them, and instead consistently hinted that, and finally admitting that Sollecito and Knox were with him during the assault?

    37) If Guede and others were involved in the assault, why do the other shoeprints, footprints, DNA traces and fingerprints all point to Knox and Sollecito being present during the assault, in one way or another?


4. Italy Is Not Buying The Racist Mantra

If the mantra of Knox & her strange gang remains “the black guy did it” and “Italians are brutal, corrupt and stupid” then they should PROVE that. Mere fact-free ranting in the US will never prove Knox was not involved.


Saturday, November 20, 2021

Tip For Good Reporters: NY Times’s Jessica Bennett Uses Mafia Playbook To Smear Dr Mignini

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



Respected NY Times Publisher A G Sulzberger

This is the sixth in a multi-part series focused on provable realities in response to an inflammatory three-page report in the New York Times almost exclusively channeling dishonest and repeatedly-refuted Knox PR.

1. The False NY Times Report

This post explains the background to the periodic demonization of any Italian prosecutors and judges the mafias are running scared of.

Two individuals long under a cloud for their mafia ties (Spezi is passed on now and Sforza - still wanted for a crime of violence in Seattle - is feigning invisibility) spread the false claim years ago that Dr Mignini was pursuing them (he wasn’t at the time but however) because he simply imagined that they were into something satanic.

Now the New York Times’s Jessica Bennett, one of a line of strange women in media seriously confused on the facts who have popped up to make Knox their own (more on this later), is unearthing and repeating as hard fact this false satanic claim.

What they likely do remember are the more salacious details of a Halloween murder in a picturesque medieval town: the prosecution’s theory about a satanic sex game gone awry.

On the “satanic” see below. On the “sex game gone wrong” this was actually a decent proffer by the prosecution in early days, because the recreation of the crime did in fact suggest a hazing with sexual overtones, and the legal teams were buying in to it. But the parents insisted on a hard line instead.

Foolishly as it turned out: all three perps were handed stiff sentences and all three looked brutal in Italian eyes. All three were CONVICTED of a sex crime. Jessica Bennett doesn’t try to explain that - as she doesn’t try to explain the arcs of Sollecito, or the lawyers, or the juries, or the many prosecutors and judges in the case. Or the three bent courts.

2. Dr Mignini’s 2013 “Satanic” Rebuttal

This is what the New York Times, given some actual fact checking, could very easily have found out. It was not the first or last time that Dr Mignini explained this.

To the editor of Florence Corriere

Dear Director,

I am Giuliano Mignini, the magistrate who performed the investigation and trials of first instance and appeal in Perugia against the people accused of the murder of Meredith Kercher, as well as the investigation into the death of Francesco Narducci linked to the one performed by the Florence Prosecution Office in relation to the masterminds of the “Monster of Florence” murders.

I saw reported the interview that the journalist Mario Spezi - a person accused in the Narducci case - did with Amanda Knox, a main defendant in the appeal trial that will start today published in the Corriere Fiorentino on Sep. 29 2013.
 
In two recent cases the Court of Cassation has annulled verdicts, which acquitted Knox and Sollecito, and which decided [by Judge Micheli] a dropping of charge against Spezi (the parts regarding ‘lack of certainty about malice’ were annulled too).

Therefore I don’t need to add anything further on that point.  Instead, I need to point out the falsehood of an assertion which Mr. Spezi makes at the beginning of his article, as he tries to explain the reason for a link which, in his opinion, allegedly exists between the two cases, the one related to the Monster murders and Narducci’s death, and the one about the Kercher murder.

Mr. Spezi’s text claims: “a strangely similar background, for two different cases, behind which the magistrate thought he could see satanic orgies on the occasion of Halloween for Amanda, and ritual blood sacrifices as a worship to the Devil in the Monster of Florence case”.

This is an assertion that Mr. Spezi and crime-fiction author Douglas Preston have been repeating for years, but does not find the smallest confirmation in the documentation of the two trials, nor in the scenario put forward by the prosecution in which the Meredith murder (which didn’t happen on Halloween but on the subsequent night) was the consequence of a sex hazing to which Meredith herself did not intend to take part, and, above all, it was the consequence of a climate of hostility which built up progressively between the Coulsdon girl and Amanda because of their different habits, and because of Meredith’s suspicion about alleged money thefts by Knox.

Furthermore the object of the proceedings in the Narducci case is the scenario about the murder of the same Narducci and the attempt, by the doctor’s father and brother, to conceal the cause of his violent death, and this included the background within which the event - which was a homicide in my opinion and in the opinion of my technical consultant, coroner Prof. Giovanni Pierucci of the University of Pavia - had developed and taken place.

I had already denied several time assertions of such kind, but Mr. Spezi and Mr. Preston, and some people connected to them, go on repeating a lie, apparently hoping that it will become true by repeating it.

Another astonishing fact is that, despite that I was the prosecutor in the Kercher trial together with my colleague Manuela Comodi and then subsequently with my colleague Giancarlo Costagliola [at annulled apeal], and despite that I limited myself to formulating judicial requests which were all agreed to by a multitude of judges and confirmed by the Supreme Court, I am still considered as the only one responsible for an accusation against Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito, by twisting its content in various ways.

In the Narducci case, in the same way, I simply limited myself to performing the investigation and requesting the remands to trial, and the trial will have to start again now because the Supreme Court has annulled the dropping of charges [by Judge Micheli] and sent back the trial to another preliminary judge in Perugia.

The purpose - quite overt - of such endlessly repeated lies, is to defame the investigator, picturing him as a magistrate who is following alleged personal obsessions rather than sticking at facts, as instead he is.

The hope that such conscious misrepresentation of reality could bring advantage to the defences (foremost that of Spezi himself) is consistent with a bad habit which has all along flourished in Italy but is now also copied abroad.

Therefore I ask you to please publish my rectification against false and seriously defamatory information.

Kind regards

Giuliano Mignini


Tuesday, November 16, 2021

Tip For Good Reporters: How Time & Again Sollecito & Family & Lawyers Put Blame On KNOX

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



Jessica Bennett channeled inflammatory, dishonest Knox PR

This is the fifth in a multi-part series focused on provable realities in response to an inflammatory three-page report in the New York Times almost exclusively channeling dishonest and repeatedly-refuted Knox PR.

1. Context Of This Post

The Knox/Sollecito relationship has always reeked of her having dropped him in it - for which he will not forgive her any time soon.

Evidence indicates he was a part of the crime (DNA, a footprint, an eyewitness to the pair in the park, cellphone and computer activity, and a missed call from his dad) and was not just brought in at the crime-scene rearrangement stage. But seemingly neither he nor Guede had signed up for Knox madly delivering Meredith’s fatal stab.

Knox was deeply into the drug scene (probably the only reason she was even there) which her flatmates intensely disliked - an angle Sollecito and his team have promoted much harder than the police after they put Knox’s drug-dealer away, entirely thanks to her.

Unsurprisingly, prior to arrest Knox tried to be at the police station whenever Sollecito was there.

Keeping a close watch on him? Fearing a stab in her own back? Remember how she showed up with him late on 5 November, unwanted and unannounced?

And sure enough, before the night was out, Sollecito had testified to police that Knox had gone out on her own on the night Meredith was killed, and had made him lie.

We have noted over three dozen of Sollecito’s telling separations from Knox. He tends to come out with them several times every year, whereupon Knox usually tellingly melts down.

Sollecito’s signed statement to police made on 6 Nov 2007 on the night of their arrest was the very first of these - and he repeated the same indictment before Judge Matteini, the supervising magistrate, to ram things home.

In 2015 our fine Wiki team obtained, translated and posted the statement Sollecito signed that night, and we posted this below.

2. Sollecito Drops Knox In Soup

We have frequently noted that RS and AK were provided with an extraordinary total of SIX opportunities in 2007 and 2008 to head off a trial and to be released.

Each opportunity is very well documented (Matteini hearings, Ricciarelli hearings, Mignini hearings, Supreme Court rulings, and the two Micheli rulings) and the transcripts and reports make very clear why RS and AK failed each time.

Not one of those transcripts or rulings has been “explained” or rebutted by the RS and AK apologists. It is very clear now that their falsifying efforts are being left way back there in the dust.

Document after document after document proving the huge strength of the case is going live in English now for which they have no realistic response.  For example, the “brutal” Knox “interrogation” on 6 November is absolutely vital to their body of claims.

But document after document has shown that to be simply a huge hoax.  Dumb silence is the only response.

This new translation of Sollecito’s statement of 6 November 2007 in the central police station, complete for the first time, has just gone live on the Wiki here. As always, we sure appreciate the translation help.

Note: many of the claims here were proved wrong by phone and computer records and those dropping Knox in the soup contradict fluctuating claims by Knox.

Sollecito never agreed to testify or be cross-examined on this or many other statements once made.

Smart move, from his point of view. At the same time from 2007 to 2016 Sollecito NEVER testified that Knox was simply at his home all of the 1 November 2007 night.

Boldface below is added by us. 

Perugia Police Headquarters
Flying Squad
General Affairs Area.

SUBJECT: Witness statement of person informed of the facts given by SOLLECITO Raffaele, already identified.

On November 5th 2007 at 22:40 in the offices of the Flying Squad of the Perugia Police Headquarters. Before the undersigned of the Criminal Investigation Dept. Deputy Commissioner MONICA NAPOLEONI, Chief Inspector Antonio FACCHINI Vice Superintendent of Police Daniele MOSCATELLI, Assistant Chief Ettore FUOCO is present the above-mentioned who, to supplement the declarations made [November] in these Offices, in regards to the facts being investigated, declares as follows: [*A.D.R. = Question Answer = QA]

QA I have known Amanda for about two weeks. From the night that I met her she started sleeping at my house. On November 1st, I woke up at around 11, I had breakfast with Amanda then she went out and I went back to bed. Then around 13:00-14:00 I met her at her house again. Meredith was there too. Amanda and I had lunch while Meredith did not have lunch with us.

QA Around 16:00 Meredith left in a hurry without saying where she was going. Amanda and I stayed home until about 17:30-18:00.

QA We left the house, we went into town, but I don’t remember what we did.

QA We stayed there from 18:00 until 20:30/21:00. At 21:00 I went home alone because Amanda told me that she was going to go to the pub Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends.

QA At this point we said goodbye and I headed home while she headed towards the center.

QA I went home alone, sat at the computer and rolled myself a spliff. Surely I had dinner but I don’t remember what I ate. Around 23:00 my father called at my home number 075.9660789. During that time I remember Amanda had not come back yet.

QA I browsed at my computer for another two hours after my father’s phone call and only stopped when Amanda came back presumably around 1:00.

QA I don’t remember how she was dressed and if she was dressed the same way as when we said goodbye before dinner.

QA I don’t remember if we had sex that night.

QA The following morning around 10:00 we woke up, she told me she wanted to go home and take a shower and change clothes.

QA In fact at around 10:30 she went out and I went back to sleep. When she went out that morning to go to her house, Amanda also took an empty bag telling me she needed it for dirty clothes.

QA At around 11:30 she came back home and I remember she had changed clothes; she had her usual bag with her.

QA I don’t know the contents of her bag.

QA I remember we immediately went to the kitchen, we sat down and talked for a while, perhaps we had breakfast. In that circumstance Amanda told me that when she got to her house she found the entrance door wide open and some traces of blood in the small bathroom and she asked me if it sounded strange. I answered that it did and I also advised her to call her housemates. She said she had called Filomena but that Meredith was not answering.

QA At around 12:00 we left the house; passing through Corso Garibaldi we arrived in Piazza Grimana, then we went through the Sant’ Antonio parking lot and reached Amanda’s house. To walk there it took us about 10 minutes.

QA As soon as we got there she opened the door with her keys, I went in and I noticed that Filomena’s door was wide open with some glass on the floor and her room was in a complete mess. The door to Amanda’s room was open and I noticed that it was tidy. Then I went towards Meredith’s door and saw that it was locked. Before this I looked to see if it was true what Amanda had told me about the blood in the bathroom and I noticed drops of blood in the sink, while on the mat there was something strange - a mixture of blood and water, while the rest of the bathroom was clean.

QA I went to the kitchen and saw that everything was in order, then went around the rest of the house, I went to Laura’s room and noticed it was tidy. In that moment Amanda went inside the big bathroom, next to the kitchen and came out frightened and hugging me tight telling me that earlier when she took the shower [incorrect; Knox did not take a shower in this bathroom; she claimed to use someone else’s hair drier there] she had seen feces inside the toilet, while now the toilet was clean.

QA I just took a rapid glance at the bathroom trusting what Amanda had told me.

QA At that point I was asking myself what could have happened and I went out to find Meredith’s window to see if I could climb to it. I went outside with Amanda and she tried to climb to it, I immediately stopped her telling her to not do it because it was dangerous. I then told Amanda that the best solution was to break down the door, I tried to kick it and shoulder it open but I didn’t manage to open it. Then I called my sister on her cellphone and asked her what I should do since she is a Carabinieri lieutenant. My sister told me to call the Carabinieri (112, the Italian emergency number), which I did, but in the meantime the Postal Police showed up.

QA In my previous statement I told a load of rubbish because Amanda had convinced me of her version of the facts and I didn’t think about the inconsistencies. I heard the first statements that she made to the Postal Police who intervened at the place.

QA She always carried a big bag that she also had the night of November 1st.

The investigating officials acknowledge that the deposition ends at 3:30 (AM) of November 6th 2007.


Thursday, November 11, 2021

Tip For Good Reporters: Many More Examples Of Media Being Lied To By Knox And PR

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



Knox has commandeered her parents’ vicious mythmaking machine

Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments.

This is the fourth in a multi-part series focused on provable realities in response to an inflammatory three-page report in the New York Times almost exclusively channeling dishonest and repeatedly-refuted Knox PR.

1. Overview Of This Post

What has been Knox’s only career for the past decade?

Trashing Italy and elevating herself for cash. This has involved wild mis-statements of the case, inflaming of ill-informed Americans about Italian justice and its officials, and leading much of the American media around by the nose - especially the craven New York Times.

Here are more of the Knox PR juggernaut’s false claims, as nailed by our main poster Machine back in 2014. They have been repudiated, again and again, and yet gullible chunks of the American media still unearth the zombie claims, again and again.

2. Fifty key false claims

1. Knox was called to the Perugia central police station on 5 November 2007.

Neither the police nor the prosecutors brought Knox in for questioning on 5 November 2007. She insisted on being there unwanted, and stayed after it was suggested she go home and sleep.

Amanda Knox herself testified in court that she wasn’t called to come to the police station on 5 November 2007.

Carlo Pacelli: “For what reason did you go to the Questura on November 5? Were you called?”

Amanda Knox: “No, I wasn’t called. I went with Raffaele because I didn’t want to be alone.”

Monica Napoleoni, the head of Perugia’s homicide squad, said they told Knox she should go home to rest, especially as she angrily complained she was tired, but Knox still insisted on staying:

Amanda also came that evening, the evening of the 5th. We said to Amanda that she could go home to rest. Since, during those days, she was always saying, always complaining that she wanted to rest, wanted to eat, we said: “Look, you’ve eaten; you can go and rest yourself. If there’s a need, we’ll call you.’

Knox remained very nervous, and insisted on staying there.

Inspector Rita Ficarra was the one who led the discussion on a list of possible perps with Knox which she later listed in a typed record admitted to evidence.

Rita Ficarra: My astonishment was that I saw, I found her there, and I found her “demonstrating” her gymnastic abilities: she was doing a cartwheel; she had shown the back arch, she had done the splits, and it seemed to me, sincerely, a bit out of place, that is to say given the circumstances, the moment and the place. For which [reason] I admonished her, and I even asked her what she was doing there.

She, and my colleagues also confirmed this, said to me that she had come because they had called Raffaele Sollecito, he had been invited that evening to give another recap, and she had accompanied him.

Judge Massei [GCM]: You said this to her in English or in Italian?

RF: In Italian. I reiterate that she speaks Italian, with me she speaks only in Italian. I do not understand a word of English. My colleagues confirm that there was Sollecito in another room and in that moment the Deputy Commissioner Napoleoni and other colleagues were listening to him.

And continuing to speak, the girl told me that she was rather shocked at the fact, annoyed at the fact that she had been called and recalled several times by the Police and [that] she was totally tired.

At that point, I also admonished her because I said: you’re tired, yet nonetheless you came this evening, when nobody has invited you: you could have gone to rest. And furthermore, I said, you don’t understand that we are talking about a murder, of a person that you say was your friend, [who] lived in the same house as you, it happened in your house. If the Police call you, put yourself in our shoes: we need useful information.

2. Knox was subjected to an all-night interrogation on 5/6 November.

Under the Italian definition of an interrogation (similar to US and UK) Knox was not interrogated even once prior to 18 December, and was done so then at her own request. 

According to Barbie Nadeau in The Daily Beast, Amanda Knox’s informal questioning (known as a summary/recap) began at about 11:00pm with her agreement.

Since Knox was already at the police station [in the company of Raffaele Sollecito], the head of the murder squad decided to ask her a few questions. Her questioning [about others being at the house] started at about 11pm.

After Amanda Knox had made her witness statement at 1:45am, she wasn’t questioned again that evening. She herself decided to made another witness statement at 5:45am, but she wasn’t asked any questions.

3. Knox wasn’t provided with an interpreter for her questioning on 5 November 2007.

This claim is completely false as shown through the trial testimony of Knox and her interpreter. Knox’s interpreter on 5 November 2007, Anna Donnino, testified at length at trial about Knox’s conversation that evening. And Amanda Knox herself spoke about her interpreter when she later gave testimony at the trial.

4. Knox wasn’t given anything to eat or drink.

As reported by Richard Owen, in The Times, 1 March 2009:

Ms Napoleoni told the court that while she was at the police station Ms Knox had been “treated very well. She was given water, chamomile tea and breakfast. She was given cakes from a vending machine and then taken to the canteen at the police station for something to eat”.

Also reported by Richard Owen, in The Times, 15 March 2009:

Ms Donnino said that Ms Knox had been “comforted” by police, given food and drink, and had at no stage been hit or threatened.

John Follain in his book Death in Perugia, page 134, also reports that Knox was given food and drink during her questioning:

During the questioning, detectives repeatedly went to fetch her a snack, water, and hot drinks, including chamomile tea.

This is from the relevant court transcript:

Monica Napoleoni: Amanda was given something to drink several times. She was brought hot chamomile; she was taken to the bar of the Questura to eat. First she was given brioches from the little [vending] machine.

Carlo Pacelli: These methods of treatment, how did they translate into practice? With what behaviour/actions [were they carried out] in actual fact? Earlier, you recalled that they actually brought her something to eat”.

MN: It’s true. That morning, I remember that Inspector Ficarra actually took her to the bar to eat as soon as it opened. But before [that], we have little [vending] machines on the ground floor, and she was brought water, she was brought hot drinks, she was brought a snack. But also Raffaele, he was given something to drink; it’s not as though they were kept hungry; absolutely not.

Giuliano Mignini:  Had types of comfort been offered to her?

Anna Donnino:  Well, during the evening, yes, in the sense that I remember that someone went down to the ground floor; it was the middle of the night, so in the station at that hour there are those automatic distributors; there’s nothing else; someone went to the ground floor and brought everybody something to drink, some hot drinks and something to eat. I myself had a coffee, so I believe that she also had something.



Above: Several of the myth inventors and disseminators: Sforza, Mellas, Preston

5. Knox was beaten by the police.

The witnesses who were present when Knox was questioned, including her interpreter, testified under oath at the trial in 2009 that she wasn’t hit. (Under Italian law, witnesses must testify under oath, while defendants do not, so are not required by law to be truthful on the stand.)

These are from the relevant court transcripts:

Giuliano Mignini: Do you recall, shall we say, that night between the 1st and then the spontaneous declarations and then the order for arrest, who and what was with her, other than you, whether there were other subjects that spoke with us, how they behaved? Did [she] undergo/experience violence by any chance?

Rita Ficarra: Absolutely not.

GM: Was she intimidated, threatened?

RF: No. I, as I said earlier, I came in that evening and there were some colleagues from the Rome SCO, I was with Inspector Fausto Passeri, then I saw come out, that is come out from the entry-door to the offices of the Flying [Squad], the Assistant Zugarini and Monica Napoleoni, who appeared for an instant just outside there, then we went back in calmly, because the discussion we had with her was quite calm.

Giuliano Mignini: ... violence, of any kind?

Monica Napoleoni: But absolutely not!

Mignini:  You remember it; you’ve described it; however, I’ll ask it again. Was she threatened? Did she suffer any beatings?

Anna Donnino: Absolutely not.

GM: She suffered maltreatments?

AD:  Absolutely not.

Carlo Pacelli:  In completing and consolidating in cross-examination the questions by the public prosecutor, I refer to the morning of the 6th of November, to the time when Miss Knox had made her summary information. In that circumstance, Miss Knox was struck on the head with punches and slaps?

Anna Donnino:  Absolutely not.

CP:  In particular, was she struck on the head by a police woman?

AD:  Absolutely not!

CP:  Miss Knox was, however, threatened?

AD:  No, I can exclude that categorically!

CP:  With thirty years of prison”¦ ?

AD:  No, no, absolutely not.

CP:  Was she, however, sworn at, in the sense that she was told she was a liar?

AD:  I was in the room the whole night, and I saw nothing of all this.

CP:  So the statements that had been made had been made spontaneously, voluntarily?

AD:  Yes.

Carlo Della Vedova:  This is…

Giancarlo Massei:  Pardon, but let’s ask questions, if you please.

CP:  You were also present then during the summary informations made at 5:45?

AD:  Yes.

CP:  And were they done in the same way and methods as those of 1:45?

AD:  I would say yes. Absolutely yes.

CP:  To remove any shadow of doubt from this whole matter, as far as the summary information provided at 5:45 Miss Knox was struck on the head with punches and slaps?

AD:  No.

CP:  In particular, was she struck on the head by a policewoman?

AD:  No.

Even Amanda Knox’s lawyer, Luciano Ghirga, distanced himself in the Italian media from these allegations, and never lodged any complaint:

There were pressures from the police, but we never said she was hit.

6. Knox was refused a lawyer.

Rita Ficarra and Anna Donnino testified that Knox was several times advised to have a lawyer, but each time she declined the offer:

Anna Donnino:  ...she was asked if she wanted a lawyer.

Giuliano Mignini:  And what was her response?

AD: She had answered no; I remember that she replied with no.

Before she insisted on drafting her 1:45 and 5:45 am accusations Knox was advised to have a lawyer advise her, but she declined and pressed on.

Dr Mignini has wondered if the Supreme Court really understood this in banning the two unprovoked accusations from Knox’s main trial. [Similarly, the ECHR misunderstood. See other posts.]

7. Knox was tag-teamed by two police officers every hour.

There are complete typed records of every questioning session (recap/summary session) with Knox, all translated now, and she signed every single page. Her status was a person with possible information, one of a number, and not a suspect. The investigators, usually no more than two, were all named. 

On 6 November, according to Anna Donnino, who arrived at the police station at about 12:30am, there was a total of three people in the room with Knox who was there of her own volition and could have walked right out:

Anna Donnino: “I had been made to enter a room where in fact there was Inspector Ficarra at a small table, another colleague from SCO (I only remember his first name; he was called Ivano), a police officer, and there was Miss Knox seated. I seated myself beside her.”



Above: Several of the main myth inventors and disseminators: Fischer, Sforza, Moore

8. Knox was asked to imagine what might have happened.

According to the corroborative testimony of the three others present, including Rita Ficarra and Anna Donnino, Amanda Knox voluntarily and spontaneously accused Patrick Lumumba of murdering Meredith.

Here is Rita Ficarra (Knox had volunteered her phone).

We found only that one [text message] sent by her. She was given the mobile into her hand, and it was said, who is this person, and did you go out later or not? She said the name of Patrick Lumumba, and gave the declaration that then ...

GM: And what behaviour did she then adopt/assume?

RF: She suddenly put her hands to her head, burst out crying and said to us “It’s him, it’s him, it was him, he killed her”. It was the only time that I saw her cry.

GM: This behaviour, did she then continue like that during the course of that morning, by now we were at what time?...

RF: No, she was as if she was giving vent in that moment, she cried, she began to say that he was crazy, he was crazy.

Here is Anna Donnino (Knox had volunteered her phone):

Judge Massei: This change, at what moment did it happen, and in what did it consist of?

Anna Donnono: The change had occurred right after this message, in the sense that the signorina said she hadn’t replied to the message from Patrick, when instead her reply message was shown to her she had a true and proper emotional shock. It’s a thing that has remained very strongly with me because the first thing that she did is that she immediately puts her hands on her ears, making this gesture rolling her head, curving in her shoulders also and saying “It’s him! It’s him! It was him! I can see/hear him or: I know it.[Lo sento]” and so on and so forth.

Carlo Pacelli:  So the statements that had been made had been made spontaneously, voluntarily?

Anna Donnino:  Yes.

Here is Judge Massei.

[After hearing and weighing up the testimony of these witnesses and Amanda Knox, Judge Massei stated that it couldn’t be claimed that] “Amanda Knox was persuaded by the investigators to accuse Diya Lumumba, aka Patrick, by means of various pressing requests which she could not resist.” (Massei report, page 388.)

[He noted that there had been] “no corroboration of the pressing requests which Amanda was seemingly subjected to in order to accuse Diya Lumumba of the crime committed to the detriment of Meredith.” (Massei report, page 389.)

Judge Massei concluded at trial in 2009 that Knox had freely accused Patrick Lumumba of Meredith’s murder and awarded her a prison sentence for calunnia confirmed in 2013 and again in 2015 by the Supreme Court for which there is no further appeal.

9. Amanda Knox claimed she had had a “dream-like vision” in her witness statements.

Amanda Knox makes no mention of a dream or vision in her two witness statements - the unproven notion that she was having “false memories” was suggested by Saul Kassin, a grandstander, years later; he was wrong on numerous proven facts.

Knox categorically stated that she met Diya Lumumba at Piazza Grimana, and that they went to the cottage on Via della Pergola. In her first witness statement at 1.45 am, she claims that Lumumba killed Meredith.

This is from the voluntary 1:45 am statement.

I responded to the message by telling him that we would see each other at once; I then left the house, telling my boyfriend that I had to go to work. In view of the fact that during the afternoon I had smoked a joint, I felt confused, since I do not frequently make use of mind-altering substances, nor of heavier substances.

I met Patrik immediately afterward, at the basketball court on Piazza Grimana, and together we went [to my] home. I do not recall whether Meredith was there or arrived afterward. I struggle to remember those moments, but Patrik had sex with Meredith, with whom he was infatuated, but I do not recall whether Meredith had been threatened beforehand. I recall confusedly that he killed her.

This is from the voluntary 5:45 am statement.

I wish to relate spontaneously what happened because these events have deeply bothered me and I am really afraid of Patrick…  I met him in the evening of November 1st 2007, after sending him a reply message saying “I will see you”. We met soon after at about 21.00 at the basketball court of Piazza Grimana. We went to my apartment in Via della Pergola n. 7.

I do not clearly remember if Meredith was already at home or if she came later, what I can say is that Patrick and Meredith went into Meredith’s room, while I think I stayed in the kitchen. I cannot remember how long they stayed together in the room but I can only say that at a certain point I heard Meredith screaming and as I was scared I plugged up my ears.

10. Amanda Knox was questioned in Italian

The police provided Amanda Knox with an interpreter, Anna Donnino, so that she could enumerate visitors to the house for Rita Ficarra in English.

11. Dr Mignini questioned Knox on 5 November 2007.

Dr Mignini did not question Amanda Knox that evening. She wanted to make further declarations, and he came to the police station on the night only because he was on duty and had to witness Knox being cautioned. After Knox was cautioned that she need not say anything without a lawyer, Knox nevertheless insisted that she draft a second statement in front of him.

Mr Mignini explained what happened in his e-mail letter to Linda Byron, a journalist for King5 in Seattle:

All I did was to apply the Italian law to the proceedings. I really cannot understand any problem.

In the usual 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.

But Knox then decided to render spontaneous declarations that I took up without any further questioning, which is entirely lawful.

According to article 374 of the penal-proceedings code, suspects must be assisted by a lawyer only during a formal interrogation, and when being notified of alleged crimes and questioned by a prosecutor or judge, not when they intend to render unsolicited declarations.

Since I didn’t do anything other than to apply the Italian law applicable to both matters, I am unable to understand the objections and reservations which you are talking about.”

In Amanda Knox’s written witness statement, she explicitly states that she’s making a spontaneous declaration:

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.

12. Knox didn’t confess until 6am.

Amanda Knox’s first written statement was made at 1:45am. It was not a confession, it was a false accusation.

13. Knox retracted her allegation against Lumumba immediately.

Amanda Knox didn’t retract her accusation immediately. In fact, she never did formally. Knox reiterated her allegation in her handwritten note to the police late morning of 6 November 2007, which was admitted in evidence: From the Massei report:

[Amanda] herself, furthermore, in the statement of 6 November 2007 (admitted into evidence ex. articles 234 and 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code and which was mentioned above) wrote, among other things, the following:

I stand by my [accusatory] statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrick”... “in these flashbacks that I’m having, I see Patrick as the murderer”.

This statement was that specified in the notes of 6 November 2007, at 20:00, by Police Chief Inspector Rita Ficarra, and was drawn up following the notification of the detention measure, by Amanda Knox, who “requested blank papers in order to produce a written statement to hand over” to the same Ficarra. (Massei report, page 389.)

Knox did not withdraw the false accusation at her first hearing in front of the supervising magistrate on 8 November.

The Massei court took note of the fact that Amanda Knox didn’t recant her false and malicious allegation against Diya Lumumba during the entire time, two weeks, he was kept in prison.

14. In the days following Meredith’s murder, Knox voluntarily stayed in Perugia to help the police

This claim is contradicted by Amanda Knox herself. In the e-mail she wrote to her friends in Seattle on 4 November 2007 she categorically stated she was not allowed to leave Italy:

“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, a friend of Meredith, reported the following conversation (Massei report, page 37):

“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.’”

15. All of Meredith’s friends left immediately.

The police also told Sophie Purton that they needed her to stay on in Perugia on precisely the same basis as Amanda Knox. Sophie had been counting on leaving Perugia to fly back home as soon as her parents arrived, but the police called to tell her they needed her to stay on; they would let her know when she could leave. Her father stayed on with her.

In chapter 19 of Death in Perugia John Follain states that Sophie Purton was questioned by Mignini and Napoleoni in the prosecutor’s office on 5 November 2007.

16. There were only two tiny pieces of DNA evidence that implicated her, but they were probably contaminated.

The Italian Supreme Court explained how DNA evidence should be assessed in court; i.e., contamination must be proven with certainty, not supposition. The Court stated that the theory “anything is possible” in genetic testing is not valid.

The burden of proof is on the person who asserts contamination, not the person who denies it.

In other words, if the defence lawyers claim the DNA evidence was contaminated, they must describe the specific place and time where it could have plausibly occurred. Nobody has ever proved that the bra clasp and knife evidence were contaminated. Even Conti and Vecchiotti excluded contamination in the laboratory:

“Laboratory contamination was also excluded by these experts [Conti and Vecchiotti].” (The Supreme Court report, page 92.)

(1) The bra clasp

The fact that the bra clasp was not collected immediately because defense witnesses were not available is irrelevant. The cottage was a sealed crime scene and nobody entered the room during this time:

...the flat had been sealed and nobody had had the opportunity to enter, as shown in the case file.” (The Italian Supreme Court report, page 92.)

Alberto Intini, the head of the Italian police forensic science unit, excluded environmental contamination because “DNA doesn’t fly.”

Even Conti and Vecchiotti excluded contamination in the laboratory because Dr Stefanoni last handled Sollecito’s DNA twelve days before she analysed the bra clasp.

Professor Francesca Torricelli testified that it was unlikely the clasp was contaminated because there was a significant amount of Sollecito’s DNA on it.  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.

David Balding, a Professor of Statistical Genetics at University College London, analysed the DNA evidence against Sollecito and concluded that the evidence was strong”

“...because Sollecito is fully represented in the stain at 15 loci (we still only use 10 in the UK, so 15 is a lot), the evidence against him is strong”

(2) The knife

Dr Stefanoni analysed the traces on the knife six days after last handling Meredith’s DNA. This means that contamination couldn’t have occurred in the laboratory. Meredith had never been to Sollecito’s apartment, so contamination away from the laboratory was impossible. 

The knife and bra clasp are not the only pieces of DNA evidence.

According to the prosecution’s experts, there were five samples of Knox’s DNA or blood mixed with Meredith’s blood in three different locations in the cottage. After the trial in 2009, The Kerchers’ lawyer, Francesco Maresca, said the mixed-blood evidence was the most damning piece of evidence against Amanda Knox.

The Scientific Police experts concluded it proves that Meredith and Knox were bleeding at the same time.

17. The knife has essentially been thrown out.

The knife hasn’t been thrown out. A further DNA sample (36-I) was extracted from the blade late in 2013 and tested by the Carabinieri RIS DNA experts Major Berti and Captain Barni. The sample was attributed to Amanda Knox, the second. Judge Nencini stated in his report that Knox stabbed Meredith with the knife.



Above: Several of the myth inventors and disseminators: Hampikian, Burleigh, Heavey

18. The knife doesn’t match any of the wounds on Meredith’s body.

The prosecution experts, multiple defence experts and Judge Massei in his report have all agreed that the double DNA knife DID match the large wound on Meredith’s neck.

“On these matters, the considerations already made must be recalled which led this Court to evaluate the outcome of the genetic investigation as reliable, and this knife as absolutely compatible with the most serious wound.” (Massei report, page 375.)

Barbie Nadeau, an American journalist based in Rome, reported directly from the courtroom in Perugia that multiple witnesses for the defence, including Dr. Carlo Torre, conceded that the double DNA knife was compatible with the deep puncture wound in Meredith’s neck.

According to multiple witnesses for the defense, the knife is compatible with at least one of the three wounds on Kercher’s neck, but it was likely too large for the other two. (Barbie Nadeau, Newsweek.)

He (Dr. Carlo Torre, defence expert) conceded that a third larger wound could have been made with the knife, but said it was more likely it was made by twisting a smaller knife. (Barbie Nadeau, The Daily Beast.)

19. The DNA on the blade could match half the population of Italy.

Vieri Fabani, a lawyer for the Kerchers, pointed out that there is the possibility of 1 in 1 billion 300 million that the DNA on the blade does not belong to Meredith. 

20. Meredith’s DNA wasn’t found on the blade of the knife.

A number of independent forensic experts—Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo, Professor Giuseppe Novelli, Professor Francesca Torricelli and Luciano Garofano—have all confirmed that sample 36B was Meredith’s DNA.

Even American experts Elizabeth Johnson, Greg Hampikian and Bruce Budowle, who have been critical of the Scientific Police’s work in this case, have conceded that the DNA was consistent with Meredith’s DNA profile.

It should be noted that none of these American experts testified at the trial or played any official role in the case. They became involved in the case after being approached by supporters of Amanda Knox. They had no bearing on the legal proceedings in Florence.

Judge Nencini accepted that Judge’s Massei and the prosecution’s assertions that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade of Sollecito’s kitchen knife and that it was the murder weapon.   

21. No other knives were taken from Sollecito’s apartment.

Judge Massei discusses a jack-knife that was 18cm long with an 8cm blade at some length and the results of the DNA tests that were carried out on it:

“He [Armando Finzi] recalled they found another knife whose total length was 18cm, with an 8cm blade” (Massei report, page 106.)

“On the jack”‘knife, four samples were taken, with negative results where blood-derived substances had been looked for; on the fourth sample, which involved the handle, the genetic profile was found to be of Sollecito plus Knox.” ( Massei report, page 194.)

22. The knife was chosen at random.

Armando Finzi was the police officer who bagged the knife. He testified that he thought it was the murder weapon because it was compatible with the wound on Meredith’s neck. Andrea Vogt explained this in the same article:

“Armando Finzi, an assistant in the Perugia police department’s organized crimes unit, first discovered the knife in Sollecito’s kitchen drawer. He said the first thing he noticed upon entering the place was a “˜strong smell of bleach.’ He opened the drawer and saw a “˜very shiny and clean’ knife lying on top of the silverware tray.

” “˜It was the first knife I saw,’ he said. When pressed on cross-examination, he 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. With gloved hands, he placed the knife in a new police envelope, taped it shut with Scotch tape, then placed it inside a folder, he said. There were smaller and bigger knives in the drawer, but no others were taken into evidence from the kitchen, he said.” (Andrea Vogt, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 28 February 2009.)

23. No control tests were done.

John Follain pointed out in Death in Perugia that the control tests had been filed with another judge:

“The tests had been filed with an earlier test, and Judge Pratillo Hellmann later admitted them as evidence.” (Death in Perugia, Kindle edition, page 409.)

The judges at the Supreme Court in Italy noted in their report that the negative controls had been carried out:

“...since all the negative controls to exclude it [contamination] had been done by Dr Stefanoni”¦” (Supreme Court report, page 93.)

The judges at the Italian Supreme Court criticised the court-appointed independent experts Conti and Vecchiotti for assuming they hadn’t been done.

24. There is no evidence of Amanda Knox at the actual crime scene.

The crime scene involves the whole cottage and isn’t limited to Meredith’s room. Knox and Sollecito were both convicted of staging the break-in in Filomena’s room. Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence placing Amanda Knox in Meredith’s room on the night of the murder.

For example, her DNA was found on the handle of the murder weapon, her bare bloody footprints were revealed by Luminol in the hallway and her own room and, according to the Scientific Police, her blood was mixed with Meredith’s blood in different parts of the cottage. Knox’s lamp was found in Meredith’s room, and a shoeprint in her size of shoe.

25. None of the Luminol* stains contained Meredith’s DNA.

Two of the traces revealed by Luminol contained Meredith’s DNA:

“Amanda (with her feet stained with Meredith’s blood for having been present in her room when she was killed) had gone into Romanelli’s room and into her [own] room, leaving traces [which were highlighted] by Luminol, some of which (one in the corridor, the L8, and one, the L2, in Romanelli’s room) were mixed, that is, constituted of a biological trace attributable to [both] Meredith and Amanda”¦” (Massei report, page 380.)

[* Luminol is a substance used in crime-scene investigations to reveal blood that has been cleaned up. It reacts with the microscopic particles of iron in the blood and turns it fluorescent.]

26. Mignini is persecuting Amanda Knox.

As shown above Dr Mignini was absent when Knox made her false accusation. Because of checks and balances, prosecutors in Italy have far less power than their American counterparts. The decision to send Knox to trial was actually made by Judge Micheli in 2008, not by Dr Mignini.

Judge Massei, Judge Cristiani and six lay judges found Knox guilty of murder in Perugia in 2009, and Judge Nencini, Judge Cicerchia and six lay judges confirmed Knox guilty of murder at the appeal in Florence in January 2014. 

Dr Mignini is just one of several prosecutors who have been involved in the case. Manuela Comodi was Mignini’s co-prosecutor at the the trial in 2009.  Giancarlo Costagliola was the main prosecutor in the first appeal, which was annulled by the Italian Supreme Court. He and Giovanni Galati appealed against the 2011 acquittals. Dr Mignini played no part in the new appeal in Florence. Alessandro Crini was the prosecutor.

27. Mignini claimed Meredith was killed as part of a satanic ritual.

Mignini has never claimed that Meredith was killed during a satanic or sacrificial ritual, and that’s the reason why no one has been able to provide a verbatim quote from Mignini supporting this false accusation.

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:

Drew Griffin: “You’ve never said that Meredith’s death was a satanic rite?”

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.”



Above: Several of the myth inventors and disseminators: Kassin, Dempsey, Douglas

28. Mignini claimed Meredith was killed in a sex game that went wrong.

Mignini didn’t say anything about there being a sex game that went wrong when he presented his timeline to the court at the trial. Please be warned that there is some extremely graphic content below:

[Timeline of the attack on Meredith]

23:21: Amanda and Raffaele go into the bedroom while Rudy goes to the bathroom.

23:25: A scuffle begins between Amanda, helped by Raffaele, and Meredith. The English girl is taken by the neck, then banged against a cupboard, as shown by wounds to the skull. She resists all this. Rudy Guede enters.

23:30: Meredith falls to the floor. The three try to undress her to overcome her; they only manage to take off her trousers. The girl manages to get up, she struggles. At this point, the two knives emerge from the pockets of Amanda and Raffaele: one with a blade of four to five centimetres, the other, however, a big kitchen knife. Meredith tries to fend off the blades with her right hand. She is wounded.

23:35: The assault continues. Sollecito tries to rip off the English girl’s bra.

23:40: Meredith is on her knees, threatened by Amanda with the knife while Rudy holds her with one hand and with the other hand carries out an assault on her vagina. There is first a knife blow on her face, then straight away another. However, these blows are not effective. The three become more violent. With the smaller knife, Sollecito strikes a blow: the blade penetrates 4 centimetres into the neck.

There is a harrowing cry, which some witnesses will talk about. Amanda decides to silence her, still according to the video brought to court by the prosecutors, and strikes a blow to the throat with the kitchen knife: it will be the fatal wound. Meredith collapses on the floor.

23:45: Meredith is helped up by Rudy and is coughing up blood. The English girl, dying, is dragged along so that she can continue to be undressed.

29. Mignini called Amanda Knox a “she-devil.”

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 asked if Knox is 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 she 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, Kindle edition, page 124.)

30. Dr Mignini was convicted of a felony and faced prison.

The Florence Appeal Court and Cassation scathingly threw out a malicious prosecution for which both the prosecutor and judge suffered. Dr Mignini has never faced the slightest risk of prison.  Often now seen on national TV, Dr Mignini is expected to be the next Prosecutor General of Umbria.

31. Rudy Guede was a drifter.

Rudy Guede lived in Perugia from the age of five, and he had his own apartment at the time of the murder. He had had a good job up north, with a promising future, but the enterprise closed down.

32. Guede had a criminal record at the time of the murder.

Rudy Guede didn’t have any criminal convictions at the time of Meredith’s murder. He was not a drug dealer and not a police informant and police had no record of him.

As Judge Micheli scathingly noted, there is no proof that he committed any break-ins. None of the three “examples” advanced desperately at trial by the defenses stood up. One claim (a bedroom) was a grandstanding fake. One claim (a lawyers’ office) involved two people and a car. In the third claim (a preschool) a staff-member had given Guede a key.

33. Guede left his DNA all over Meredith and all over the crime scene.

There was only one sample of Guede’s DNA on Meredith body and there were only five samples of his DNA at the cottage. His DNA was found on a vaginal swab, on the sleeve of Meredith’s tracksuit, on her bra, on the zip of her purse and on some toilet paper in the bathroom that Filomena and Laura shared. 

...also a genetic profile, from the Y haplotype on the vaginal swab, in which no traces of semen were found; DNA on the toilet paper in the bathroom near the room of Mezzetti, where unflushed faeces were found; on the bag found on the bed; on the left cuff of the blue sweatshirt (described as a “zippered shirt” in the first inspection, discovered smeared with blood near the body and partly underneath it); and on the right side of the bra found by the foot of Kercher’s body” (Judge Giordano sentencing report, page 5.)

34. Guede left his semen at the crime scene.

Guede’s DNA semen wasn’t found at the crime scene.

...also a genetic profile, from the Y haplotype on the vaginal swab, in which no traces of semen were found”¦” (Judge Giordano sentencing report, page 5.)

In one of these swabs was found biological material belonging to a male subject identified as Rudy Hermann Guede. This material, which turned out not to be spermatic [158], could be from saliva or from epithelial cells from exfoliation”¦” (Massei report, page 158.)

35. Guede left his DNA inside Meredith’s bag.

According to the Micheli report, which was made available to the public in January 2009, Guede’s DNA was found on the zip of Meredith’s purse, and not inside it.

...b) traces attributable to Guede: ...on the bag found on the bed”¦”  (Judge Giordano sentencing report, page 5.)

36. Guede left his bloody fingerprints all over the crime scene.

He left zero fingerprints. According to the Micheli report, the Massei report and Rudy Guede’s final sentencing report, Guede was identified by a single bloody palm print:

...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” (Judge Giordano sentencing report, page 5.)

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).

37. Guede left his hair at the crime scene.

The Scientific Police didn’t find any hair that belonged to Rudy Guede at the crime scene. That’s why there’s no mention of this in any of the court documents.

38. Guede pleaded guilty or confessed.

Rudy Guede has never pleaded guilty or confessed to Meredith’s murder. He offered to testify against Knox and Sollecito at trial in 2009, but the prosecutors did not want to give him any breaks. 

39. Guede’s prison sentence was reduced because he made a deal with the prosecutors.

Guede was sentenced to 30 years in prison by Judge Micheli in 2008. However, his sentence was reduced because he opted for a fast-trial, which means he automatically received a third off the sentence of Knox and Sollecito. Generic mitigating circumstances—i.e., his young age—were also taken into consideration.

40. Guede didn’t implicate Knox and Sollecito until much later.

Rudy Guede first implicated Knox and Sollecito whilst on the run in Germany on 19 November 2007 in an intercepted Skype conversation with his friend Giacomo:

Giacomo: “So they [Knox and Sollecito] killed her while she was dressed.”

Guede: “Yes, here it says that they [clothes] were washed in the washing machine, but that’s not true. She was dressed.”

41. Amanda Knox didn’t know Rudy Guede.

Amanda Knox testified in court that she had met Rudy Guede on several occasions.

Here’s the court transcript:

Carlo Pacelli (CP), Patrick Lumumba’s lawyer: In what circumstances did you meet him (Rudy)?

Amanda Knox (AK): I was in the center, near the church. It was during an evening when I met the guys that lived underneath in the apartment underneath us, and while I was mingling with them, they introduced me to Rudy.

CP: So it was on the occasion of a party at the house of the neighbors downstairs?

AK: Yes. What we did is, they introduced me to him downtown just to say “This is Rudy, this is Amanda”, and then I spent most of my time with Meredith, but we all went back to the house together.

CP: Did you also know him, or at least see him, in the pub Le Chic, Rudy?

AK: I think I saw him there once.

CP: Listen, this party at the neighbors, it took place in the second half of October? What period? End of October 2007?

AK: I think it was more in the middle of October.

42. Raffaele Sollecito had never been in trouble with the police.

Raffaele Sollecito had a previous brush with the police in 2003.

...Antonio Galizia, Carabinieri [C.ri] station commander in Giovinazzo, who testified that in September 2003 Raffaele Sollecito was found in possession of 2.67 grams of hashish.” (Massei report, page 62.)

43. Sollecito had an impeccable track record.

Sollecito was monitored at university after being caught watching hardcore pornography featuring bestiality:

...and educators at the boy’s ONAOSI college were shocked by a film “˜very much hard-core…where there were scenes of sex with animals with animals,’ at which next they activated a monitoring on the boy to try to understand him. (Pages 130 and 131, hearing 27.3.2009, statements by Tavernesi Francesco).” (Massei report, page 61.)

44. Sollecito couldn’t confirm Knox’s alibi because he was sleeping.

The claim that Sollecito couldn’t confirm Knox’s alibi because he was sleeping is completely contradicted by Sollecito’s witness statement:

“Amanda and I went into town at around 6pm, but I don’t remember what we did. We stayed there until around 8:30 or 9pm.

“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.)



Above: The two provisionally convicted who originated some of the cancerous myths.

45. Amanda Knox had never been in trouble with the police.

According to Andrew Malone in an article on the Mail Online website, Amanda Knox was charged with hosting a party that got seriously out of hand, with students high on drink and drugs, and throwing rocks into the road, forcing cars to swerve.

He claimed the students then threw rocks at the windows of neighbours who had called the police. Knox was fined $269 (£135) at the Municipal Court after the incident (crime No: 071830624).

Barbie Nadeau also reported that Knox had had a previous brush with the law:

...and her only brush with the law was a disturbing-the-peace arrest for a house party she threw. (Barbie Nadeau, Angel Face, Kindle edition, page 6.)

According to the police ticket written by Seattle Police officer Jason Bender, Knox was issued with an infraction for the noise violation and warned about the rock throwing:

I issued S1/Knox this infraction for the noise violation and a warning for the rock throwing. I explained how dangerous and juvenile that action was.

46. Amanda Knox was retried for the same crimes.

All criminal cases in Italy are subject to three levels of review. No verdict is final until it has been confirmed by the Supreme Court.

Amanda Knox was not retried. She simply appealed her provisional 2009 convictions. The first appeal was held in Perugia in 2011, where she was provisionally acquitted by Judge Hellmann.

However, the Italian Supreme Court annulled the acquittals because Hellmann was found to have made a series of grave legal errors, and ordered a new appeal in Florence.

47. The Italian Supreme Court ruled that Amanda Knox’s “interrogation” was illegal.

The Italian Supreme Court has never stated that Amanda Knox’s recap/summary session on 5 November 2007 for the simple building of a list of prospect names with Rita Ficarra was illegal.

Even Bruce Fischer, who runs the Injustice in Perugia website and had heatedly denied this, eventually admitted this was not true on the former Perugia Murder File.net website:

When it comes to the admissibility of the written statements, you are technically correct. The interrogation itself was never ruled illegal.

Note that as stated above it was not an interrogation.

48. The Supreme Court threw out Amanda Knox’s statements.

The Supreme Court ruled that the 1:45am and 5:45am statements Knox insisted upon couldn’t be used against her in the murder trial because she wasn’t represented by a lawyer when she made them, even though she declined the presence of a lawyer.

However, both her statements were used against her at the calunnia component of the trial.

49. Dr. Stefanoni and the forensic technicians broke international protocols.

There is no internationally accepted set of standards. DNA protocols vary from country to country, and in America they vary from state to state. For example, New York state accepts LCN DNA tests in criminal trials.

Conti and Vecchiotti cited obscure American publications such as the Missouri State Highway Patrol Handbook and the Wisconsin Crime Laboratory Physical Evidence Handbook, not international protocols.

50. Amanda Knox is being railroaded or framed.

It would be immensely difficult in the Italian system for police or prosecutors to frame anyone and sustain this through two levels of appeal. With all its checks and balances and its professional career paths, it may be the system least prone to false final convictions in the world.

A number of Knox’s supporters, including Judy Bachrach, Paul Ciolino and Steve Moore, have claimed in the US media that Amanda Knox is being railroaded or framed, but they mis-state multiple facts and provide no hard proof or any reason why. The Hellmann appeal was wiped off the books, but they wrongly still draw upon that.

The collection of the DNA and forensic evidence was videotaped by the Scientific Police and, as the judges at the Supreme Court noted, defence experts were actually in the police labs to observe the DNA tests and reported nothing wrong:

...the probative facts revealed by the technical consultant [Stefanoni] were based on investigative activities that were adequately documented: sampling activity performed under the very eyes of the consultants of the parties, who raised no objection” (The Supreme Court report, page 93.)

The legal proceedings against Sollecito and Knox have been monitored throughout by US officials from the Rome embassy, and they at no time have ever expressed any concerns about the fairness or legitimacy of the judicial process.

Sources

Court documents
The Micheli report
The Massei report
Judge Giordano sentencing report
The Supreme court report
The Nencini report

Court testimony
Amanda Knox
Anna Donnino
Monica Napoleoni

Articles
The Daily Mail
The Times
The Telegraph
The Daily Beast
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Books
Death in Perugia, Kindle edition, John Follain
Angel Face, Kindle edition, Barbie Nadeau

Television programmes
Drew Griffins’ interview with Giuliano Mignini on CNN

Websites
The Freelance Desk
Perugia Murder File.org
Perugia Murder File.net
CPS website
Seattle-Post Intelligencer


Monday, November 08, 2021

Tip For Good Reporters: Some Of Hundreds Of Examples Of Media Being Lied To About Knox

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters

This is the third in a multi-part series focused on provable realities in response to an inflammatory three-page report in the New York Times almost exclusively channeling dishonest and repeatedly-refuted Knox PR.

Post Overview

In December 2007 a prominent Rome lawyer walked off the Knox team because of the tidal wave of lies that the massive and brutal Knox PR machine was already generating. In February 2009 Knox’s remaining lawyers publicly announced that the defamations needed to stop.

And yet they continue. Right up to this day. Even in the New York Times. Our main poster Machine posted this (one of many similar) in August 2010.

1 False claim-making endemic in support of Knox

In many posts we have been addressing the myriad false claims of Knox & family, lies that already number up in the hundreds.

And here are 150 questions for the two perpetrators posted by our great Powerpoint creator, Kermit, just prior to their conviction. If reporters had sought answers to all of those, they might have once and for all nailed down the truth from the two, and made clear what REALLY happened.

Edda Mellas is already charged along with Curt Knox with making things up, in that pending case about slandering Amanda Knox’s interrogators. And as Finn MacCool seems to have got all the facts right in this post on Amanda Knox’s calls with Edda Mellas, it seems surprising that she is not also charged with perjury.

It’s a great pity that not more media people have put aside their emotions, and actually analyzed the numerous wild claims that come pouring out of Edda Mellas. The fact that so many professional journalists have given her a free pass and never challenged, cross-checked, or probed her claims is especially shameful.

Why has Edda Mellas been able to make so many false claims in the media without being challenged? 

One primary reason according to the Daily Beast is because journalists are required to give certain guarantees about positive coverage in order to gain any access to Amanda Knox’s family: “Of the handful of American journalists in Perugia in late 2007 and early 2008, none got access to the Knox family without certain guarantees about positive coverage.”

And another reason why Edda Mellas has been able to get away with repeatedly propagating the same core false claims is that the journalists in the US who have interviewed Edda Mellas are almost completely ignorant of the basic facts of the case. They haven’t bothered to find out enough about the case to be in a position to challenge what she says.

In fact any journalist - in fact, anyone interested in the case - can check the veracity of her claims against the official court documents, including the Micheli Sentencing Report of January 2009 and the Massei Sentencing Report of March 2010 (both summarised on TJMK in English).

And they can check the claims against the objective reporting of the various respected Rome-based journalists who speak fluent Italian and who actually attended the trial - the only Rome-based English-language reporter who has ever filed biased reports was Peter Popham, who seemed reflexively anti-Italy, and who was withdrawn two years ago.

2. Numerous False Knox-Family Claims

This analysis focuses on the claims that Edda Mellas has made in interviews with Larry King on CNN, Chris Wragge on CBS, Linda Byron on King 5, and The Guardian’s Simon Hattenstone. There are other videos and text interviews that we could have drawn examples from.

Edda Mellas on CNN’s Larry King Live

Edda Mellas and Curt Knox appeared on Larry King Live shortly after the verdict last December. You can see them in the videos above and below. The timing here corresponds to the time counter at bottom-left of the video.


False claim 1 “The prosecution had changed the motive four times during the trial. and at the end they finally had to say we don’t have a motive but it doesn’t matter.” (minute 4.22 above)

Barbie Nadeau pointed out that the prosecutors had changed their theory, but only rather slightly:

“The prosecution lawyers began their case in January 2009 by arguing that Kercher was killed during a sex game gone awry. When it came time for closing arguments, they had changed the theory slightly, trying to make the case that Knox resented her prissy British roommate and killed her in hatred”

A sex attack was still involved.

Prosecutor Mignini also suggested that a hard drug like cocaine might have been involved, and certainly never said that they didn’t have a motive. Co-Prosecutor Manuela Comodi said that she didn’t know precisely what the motive was, but certainly never claimed that there was none.


False claim 2:  “He (Rudy Guede) all of a sudden had money that he didn’t have earlier in the day” (minute 3.22 above)

Edda Mellas is plucking “facts” out thin air with this claim. No evidence was presented at any court hearing that showed that Rudy Guede suddenly had money that he didn’t have earlier in the day on 1 November 2007.


False claim 3:  “There is no murder weapon.” (minute 4.32 above)

Judge Massei indicates in the sentencing report that Amanda Knox’s judges concluded that the double DNA knife, the larger of the two indicated by Meredith’s autopsy, is indeed the murder weapon.

It is totally compatible with the deep puncture wound in Meredith’s neck, and according to a number of independent forensic experts, it contained Meredith’s DNA on the blade..

 


False claim 4:  “The Italian Supreme Court found the interrogation illegal” (minute 7.54 above)

Though this claim has been repeated in different ways, the Italian Supreme Court has NEVER ruled that Amanda Knox’s interrogation either as a witness or a suspect was illegal. In the suspect interview, she had both a lawyer and interpreter present.


False claim 5:  “They admit to the fact they really have no physical evidence” (minute 7.54 above)

As it took the prosecutors four or five months to present it, they have never admitted that they have no physical evidence. The stop-start-stop nature of the defense phase of the trial showed how very telling the evidence was.


False claim 6:  “They believe Meredith was killed at about 9.30pm” on Larry King Live (minute 0.54 here)

The prosecutors didn’t claim this at the trial. According to Mignini’s timeline, which he used when presenting his scenario for what happened to the judges and jury at trial, Meredith was killed at about 11.50pm.


False claim 7:  Amanda Knox didn’t know Rudy Guede (minute 1.02 here)

Unbelievably, Edda Mellas claimed that Amanda Knox didn’t know Rudy Guede despite the fact that Amanda Knox testified IN COURT that she had met Rudy Guede on several occasions.

Here’s the actual court transcript:

Carlo Pacelli (CP), Patrick Lumumba’s lawyer: In what circumstances did you meet him (Rudy)?

Amanda Knox (AK): I was in the center, near the church. It was during an evening when I met the guys that lived underneath in the apartment underneath us, and while I was mingling with them, they introduced me to Rudy.

CP: So it was on the occasion of a party at the house of the neighbors downstairs?

AK: Yes. What we did is, they introduced me to him downtown just to say “This is Rudy, this is Amanda”, and then I spent most of my time with Meredith, but we all went back to the house together.

CP: Did you also know him, or at least see him, in the pub “Le Chic”, Rudy?

AK: I think I saw him there once.

CP: Listen, this party at the neighbors, it took place in the second half of October? What period, end of October? 2007?

AK: I think it was more in the middle of October.


False claim 8:  Rudy Guede’s DNA was in Meredith’s purse (minute 3.16 here

Edda Mellas’s claim that Rudy Guede’s DNA was in Meredith’s purse is completely untrue. According to the Micheli report, which was made available to the public in January 2008, Guede’s DNA was found on the zip of Meredith’s purse and not inside it.


False claim 9:  “Even the Italian Supreme Court ruled that her rights were repeatedly violated.” (minute 5:32 above

The Italian Supreme Court has NEVER ruled that Amanda Knox’s rights were repeatedly violated. Not even her own lawyers claimed that, and no complaint was ever lodged.

The first of Knox’s two written statements couldn’t be used against her simply because she wasn’t represented by a lawyer when she made it - and she volunteered that statement, in a seeming state of panic, when she was told Sollecito was no longer supporting her alibi..

CBS Network

We continue next with Edda Mellas making claims in an interview for the CBS Early Show.

Whilen Edda Mellas was in Perugia, she was interviewed by CBS’s Chris Wragge. (Embedding of this CBS video YouTube on sites like TJMK is disabled, which suggests that CBS might be worried that the claims made were wrong and they should have been challenged on-air.) 


False claim 10:  The double DNA knife is incompatible with the wounds on Meredith’s body. (minute 0.16 above)

In the interview Edda Mellas made the following claim: “The knife they think is the murder weapon is way too big and demonstrated how it had to have been a much smaller knife that caused all the wounds.”

Edda Mellas’s claim above is simply not true.

Barbie Nadeau reported directly from the courtroom in Perugia that multiple witnesses for the defence, including Dr. Carlo Torre, conceded that the double DNA knife was compatible with the deep puncture wound in Meredith’s neck.

“According to multiple witnesses for the defense, the knife is compatible with at least one of the three wounds on Kercher’s neck, but it was likely too large for the other two.” (Barbie Nadeau, Newsweek).

“He (Dr. Carlo Torre) conceded that a third larger wound could have been made with the knife, but said it was more likely it was made by twisting a smaller knife.” (Barbie Nadeau, The Daily Beast).

Judge Massei categorically states in the judges’ sentencing report that the double DNA knife was compatible with the large wound on Meredith’s neck.


False claim 11:  Meredith’s room was so tiny, there wasn’t enough room for four people in some kind of tussle. (minute 0.27 above)

In the same interview with Chris Wragge, Edda Mellas asserts that there couldn’t have been an attack on Meredith involving three assailants.

“The space available this crime happened is so tiny you can’t have had four people in that room in some kind of tussle.”

The Violent Crimes Unit itself used detailed images at the trial to show that there was more than enough room for an attack involving three attackers.


False claim 12:  There is no evidence of Amanda Knox at the actual crime scene. (minute 2.06 above)

“Its the fact at the actual crime scene there is no physical evidence of Amanda; not a hair, not a fingerprint, not a nothing.”

The crime scene involves the whole cottage and it isn’t limited to Meredith’s room. Knox and Sollecito were both CONVICTED of staging the break-in and tampering with the crime scene.

Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence actually placing Amanda Knox in Meredith’s room on the night of the murder: the double DNA knife, and the blood she tracked into the bathroom, the hallway, Filomena’s room, and her own room.

According to two imprint experts, there was a woman’s bloody shoeprint on the pillow under Meredith’s body which matched Knox’s foot size.

Even Sollecito’s forensic consultant, Professor Vinci, claimed that he had found Amanda Knox’s DNA on Meredith’s bra.


False claim 13:  “The DNA is so insignificant. It’s this tiny spot. It’s not blood.” (minute 2.16 above)

Three independent DNA experts -  Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo, and Professor Francesca Torricelli - confirmed that Meredith’s DNA was definitely on the blade of the double DNA.

The DNA charts themselves show a clear and unmistakable match. Edda Mellas doesn’t seem to understand that DNA evidence almost always involves only microscopic traces of DNA.

Dr. Stefanoni testified at the trial that the DNA on the blade could indeed have come from Meredith’s blood.

We continue next with Edda Mellas in an Interview with Linda Byron on Seattle TV station King 5.


False claim 14:  Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito maintained the same story (minute 3.17)

Edda Mellas claimed in this interview with Linda Byron that Amanda Knox had maintained the same story for over a year when she was asked whether her daughter had lied.

In another interview with Linda Byron in November 2009, Edda Mellas bizarrely claimed that Amanda Knox hadn’t changed her story. KING 5 Investigator Linda Byron asked her: “Did she change her story?”

Edda Mellas responded: “No, no. For this whole year they have maintained the story - what they did that night. They stayed at Raffaele’s, they made dinner, they watched a movie. That’s it, that’s the story.”

Edda Mellas’s statement that Amanda Knox didn’t change her story and that she and Sollecito maintained the same story is yet another incorrect and misleading claim.

Knox and Sollecito both gave three different alibis. The posts on their alibis are linked-to up at the top here. Knox gave at least three different times for when she and Sollecito had dinner on the night of the murder.

Knox gave different reasons for writing her handwritten confession, and she gave different accounts of seeing the blood in the bathroom which contradict each other.

And most devastating of all, Sollecito stopped providing Knox with an alibi on 5 November 2007.

Sollecito is STILL nearly three years later refusing to corroborate her alibi. He clearly hasn’t maintained that Knox was with him at his apartment - actually he claimed that she went out for four hours.


False claim 15 : Amanda Knox wasn’t provided with an interpreter (minute 2.37)

Edda Mellas made this false claim, which has been widely propagated by Knox groupies, in an interview with Linda Byron on King5.

It’s not difficult to prove that this claim is completely false. Knox’s interpreter on 5 November 2007, Anna Donninio, even testified at the trial. And Amanda Knox herself spoke about her interpreter when she gave testimony at the trial.

Edda Mellas On ABC TV

We continue next with these claims of Edda Mellas on ABC TV. [This video had been embedded here; but a nervous ABC spotted it, and had it banned from this site.]


False claim 16:  “Amanda Knox is incredibly honest” (minute 11.25)

In an interview with ABC’s Elizabeth Vargas Edda Mellas claimed that her daughter is “incredibly honest”.

And Edda Mellas told The Guardian’s Simon Hattenstone that “Amanda doesn’t know how to lie.”

In fact, Amanda Knox’s mobile phone records, data recovered from Sollecito’s computer, and corroborative testimony of numerous witnesses, provide irrefutable proof that Amanda Knox has lied - again and again.

For example, her felony lies about him directly led to Diya Lumumba, an innocent man, spending two weeks in prison - even though as recorded in prison she told her mother Edda Mellas that her claims were not true. .


False claim 17 : Amanda Knox could have left Italy, but she chose to stay and help the police.

In an earlier interview with Larry King in October 2009, Edda Mellas told him that Amanda Knox could have left Italy, but she chose to stay and help the police:

“After the murder, Mellas said, friends and family told Knox to leave Italy—to either come home or stay with relatives in Germany—but Knox refused because she wanted to help find the killer and prove that she had nothing to do with it.”

“Many people asked her to leave, but she said no. ‘I’m going to stay. I’m going to try and help, I’m going to try and finish school’ Mellas said.”

Edda Mellas’s claim is flatly contradicted by Amanda Knox herself, in the e-mail she wrote to her friends in Seattle on 4 November 2007:

“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”

And along with one of Meredith’s friends who walked home with Meredith on the night, the police told Amanda Knox pretty promptly that as her status was (then) a primary witness, she was not to go anywhere.

The fact that Knox did stay was of little help to the investigation - in fact, she seemed to work hard to derail it - and one of her main concerns at the time, a pretty callous one, was whether she would be staying or moving out of the house and getting a rent refund.


False claim 18:  Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were not under the influence of drugs on the night of the murder (BBC Radio)

In an interview with BBC Radio after the verdict, Edda Mellas apparently stated that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were not under the influence of drugs on the night of the murder.

This is despite the fact that both Knox and Sollecito had both themselves actually claimed they had smoked cannabis. The prosecution believed they might have been on a hard drug like cocaine, which also seems the general belief around Perugia.

3. And Some Conclusions

The fact that Edda Mellas has been able to propagate so many wrong claims in the media for so long without being challenged seems to speaks volumes about the naivety and unprofessionalism of her interviewers, and of the media organisations they work for.

As they usually do,  ABC News, CBS News, CNN, King 5, and other media outlets should have interviewed objective crime-case professionals, who don’t have a vested interest in the case.

Instead they have relied again and again on Amanda Knox’s mother and other family members as primary sources.

Amanda Knox is not an innocent political prisoner who was railroaded in some Third World country for some very murky reason. She was unanimously convicted after a lengthy trial at which the evidence was absolutely overwhelming. 

As the Christian Longo and Scott Peterson cases that we posted on below go to prove, seemingly quite normal people commit horrific murders. Probably the vast majority of murders are committed by people who to many seemed normal.

It seems downright perverse that some of the journalists who have interviewed Edda Mellas treat Amanda Knox as a victim, and with cloying sympathy ask “How is Amanda doing?”  They wouldn’t dream of asking Charles Manson’s mum how the Manson girls are doing.

It is time for the sake of the truth, the legitimacy of the verdict, the relations between the US and Italy, and the peace of mind of Meredith’s family and friends, that from now on they hold Edda Mellas’s feet to the fire.


Friday, November 05, 2021

Tip For Good Reporters: Trial Lawyer Explains How To Cut Through Smoke To A Very Compelling Guilty Case

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters


This is the second in a multi-part series focused on provable realities in response to an inflammatory three-page report in the New York Times almost exclusively channeling dishonest and repeatedly-refuted Knox PR.

1. Narrative Of My Own Arrival

The image above is of Dr Comodi who presented more than half the case at trial which I followed with a professional eye. There is a note at the bottom here on who I am and how this originated.

All of us who come to this case have one key question: did they do it? On the internet, you will find people who are passionate in their defence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and you will find people who are passionate in their support of the prosecution. 

Placing my own cards on the table here: as a twenty-plus year practising trial lawyer, I am firmly a part of that latter camp. 

But it wasn’t always that way. It was mastering the vast array of damning information on the evidence that changed my views.

What became very clear to me, early on, was that very few people in the English-speaking world are aware of anywhere near all of the evidence in this case.

I had thought I had grasped the core of the case, but I did not.  The case is deep and complex, and like many criminal cases, the complete facts behind it have been only sketchily reported in the media. 

I summarise below what I have found most compelling and of high potential in court.

2. Four Telling Contexts

1 The unanimous jury

I am sure that we all agree that no jury, in any murder case, given the awesome responsibility of adjudicating on (young) people’s lives for a multi-decade period of imprisonment, condemns people lightly.

It should be a matter of logic that the evidence presented against the accused must have been deep and satisfied the 6 lay jurors and 2 judges on the case for them to pronounce that huge judgement. That doesn’t mean that there couldn’t be the possibility of a mistrial, but clearly the evidence presented must have been substantial.

In this, we’ve already hit the first problem.  Some supporters of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito will tell you there’s no evidence against them. 

This is patently silly.  No jury ever convicts people and sends them to prison for 24 plus years without being quite convinced of the case against them.  Miscarriages of justice do happen, but the idea that there is “no evidence” can be summarily dismissed. 

The only question is whether the evidence is sufficient, true and accurate.

2 The voluminous evidence

So is the evidence enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt?  The six lay jurors and two professional judges thought so, clearly.  What you realise, when you come to the facts of the case, is that the evidence is based not around a single key event but on multiple points. 

It can be astonishing to realise that the case is based not only on DNA evidence but also on cellphone evidence and computer records and further yet on multiple conflicting and contradicting versions of what happened that night from the mouths of the accused, not to mention falsely accusing an innocent man of responsibility for murder causing his incarceration. 

The wealth of evidence is actually extremely unusual. It goes way beyond the quite similar Scott Peterson case.

3 The Massei Sentencing Report

What is absolutely new to the English speaking legal world is that the reasoning for the conviction can be read in an extremely detailed 440+ page report available online.  Bilingual posters at the Perugia Murder File Forums many of whom who are also key posters at TJMK translated the entire document into English over several months in 2010. 

It was my privilege to play an extremely small part in that work.  People from four different continents with backgrounds in forensic science, law, academia and a host of other disciplines participated. 

You can download and read the full Massei Report here. There is an effective executive summary in the conclusions from page 388 onwards, and an excellent short version starting here.

4 The Knox PR campaign

If you are new to this case, you will likely be shocked how much evidence there is against the convicted parties.  Amanda Knox’s family have spent over $1m and involved a professional PR agency called Gogerty Marriot to suggest otherwise in the English-speaking media. 

You might wonder why an innocent person needs a million dollar PR campaign on their part.  Make yourself a coffee and read the conclusions of the judge’s report. It will take you about 15 minutes.  Up until you read this report, almost everything you watch, hear and read is PR spin and is quite deliberately positioned to make you believe there is no case.

When you complete it,  I believe you will have a very different take. That 15 minutes could change your ideas about everything you thought you knew about the murder of Meredith Kercher.

3.  Scan Of Evidence Highpoints

Consider as you read these what is your own possible explanation for each of the following:

  • the fact that the wound pattern and the reconstruction of the attack, each presented at trial in extensive closed-court sessions, showed this absolutely had to be a pack attack; 

  • the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito on Meredith’s bra-clasp in her locked bedroom;

  • the almost-entire naked footprint of Raffaele on a bathmat that in *no way* fits that of the other male in this case - Rudy Guede;

  • the fact that Raffaele’s own father blew their alibi that they were together in Raffaele’s flat at the time of the killing with indisputable telephone records;

  • the DNA of Meredith Kercher on the knife in Raffaele’s flat which Raffaele himself sought to explain as having been from accidentally “pricking” Meredith’s hand in his written diary despite the fact Meredith had never been to his flat (confirmed by Amanda Knox);

  • the correlation of where Meredith’s phones were found to the location of Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guedes’s flats;

  • the computer records which show that no-one was at Raffaele’s computer during the time of the murder despite him claiming he was using that computer;

  • Amanda’s DNA mixed with Meredith Kercher’s in five different places just feet from Meredith’s body;

  • the utterly inexplicable computer records the morning after the murder starting at 5.32 am and including multiple file creations and interactions thereafter all during a time that Raffaele and Amanda insist they were asleep until 10.30am;

  • the separate witnesses who testified on oath that Amanda and Raffaele were at the square 40 metres from the girls’ cottage on the evening of the murder; and the fact that Amanda was seen at a convenience store at 7.45am the next morning, again while she said she was in bed;

  • the fact of Knox’s claim that she was aggressively interrogated for days, although she did not even have the status of a witness, and signed every page of every typed record of her mild, mundane and quite limited questionings;

  • the accusation of a completely innocent man by Knox again and again when under no pressure which she insisted on putting in writing;

  • The fact that Knox and her mother, in whom she confided that the accusation was untrue, left Patrick imprisoned for a full two weeks;

  • the fact that during Knox’s very unconvincing performance on the witness stand in July 2009 she admitted she was treated well and was not abused;

  • the lies of Knox on the witness stand about how their drug intake that night (“one joint”) is totally contradicted by Sollecito’s own contemporaneous diary;

  • the fact that when Amanda Knox rang Meredith’s mobile telephones, ostensibly to check on the “missing” Meredith, she did so for just three seconds - registering the call but making no effort to allow the phone to be answered in the real world

  • the knife-fetish of Raffaele Sollecito, and his formal disciplinary punishment for watching animal porn at his university so far from the wholesome image portrayed;

  • the fact that claimed multi-year kick-boxer Raffaele apparently couldn’t break down a flimsy door to Meredith’s room when he and Amanda were at the flat the morning after the murder but the first people in the flat with the police who weren’t martial artists could;

  • the extensive hard drug use of Sollecito as told on by Amanda Knox;

  • the fact that Amanda knew details of the body and the wounds despite not being in line of sight of the body when it was discovered;

  • the fact that after a late evening’s questioning, Knox wrote a 2,900 word email home which painstakingly details what she said happened that evening and the morning after that looks *highly* like someone committing to memory, at 3.30 in the morning, an extensive alibi;

  • the fact that both Amanda and Raffaele both said they would give up smoking dope for life in their prison diaries despite having apparently nothing to regret;

  • the fact that when Rudy Guede was arrested, Raffaele Sollecito didn’t celebrate the “true” perpetrator being arrested (which surely would have seen him released) but worried in his diary that a man whom he said he didn’t know would “make up strange things” about him despite him just being one person in a city of over 160,000 people;

  • the fact that both an occupant of the cottage and the police instantly recognised the cottage had not been burgled but had been the subject of a staged break-in where glass was *on top* of apparently disturbed clothes;

  • the fact that Knox and Sollecito have feuded quite publicly ever since November 2007 and have shown far more anger toward one another than either has ever shown toward Guede;

  • the fact that Knox and Sollecito both suggested each other might have committed the crime and Sollecito TO THIS DATE does not agree Knox stayed in his flat all the night in question;

  • the fact of the bizarre behaviour of both of them for days after the crime;

  • the fact that cellphone records show Knox did not stay in Sollecito’s flat but had left the flat at a time which is completely coincidental with Guede’s corroborated presence near the girl’s flat earlier in the evening;

  • the fact that Amanda Knox’s table lamp was found in the locked room of Meredith Kercher in a position that suggested it had been used to examine for fine details of the murder scene in a clean up;

  • the unbelievable series of changing stories made up by the defendants after their versions became challenged;

  • Knox’s inexplicable reaction to being shown the knife drawer at the girl’s cottage where she ended up physically shaking and hitting her head despite being joyful earlier at the police station.


4. My Concluding Advice

This list is not exhaustive. It goes on and on and on, And yet, those supporting Knox will tell you that’s all made up, all coincidental. 

Really?  Does the enormous weight of all that evidence look made up to you?

If so, it must be the most over-rigged criminal case in the history of crime.  Unlikely beyond all and any reasonable doubt.

The judge’s report explains why the jury found the defendants guilty. I truly expect you will be astonished at the amount of evidence if all you’ve done is watched a film or read a few press reports. 

This advice by the experienced trial lawyer SomeAlibi was posted at the start of the first appeal by Sollecito and Knox, the one that was corrupted and annulled and then repeated in Florence. Posted before the enormous Knox PR moved into crazed overdrive. It remains one of the best “landing places” for good reporters and others curious to know why Knox more-and-more frantically tries to shake the tenacious black cloud hanging over her.


Wednesday, November 03, 2021

Tip For Good Reporters: Knox Was Really A Fake Exchange Student In Europe

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters


This is the first in a multi-part series focused on provable realities in response to an inflammatory three-page report in the New York Times almost exclusively channeling dishonest and repeatedly-refuted Knox PR.

A Damning Question For Knox

Your book contains myriad easy-to-disprove false claims.

One repeated incessantly throughout was that you were a legitimate student, on a well-funded exchange program, on the same basis as Meredith. 

As always, I had gone to my mom first. She’s a free spirit who believes we should go where our passions lead us. When I told her mine were leading me 5,599 miles away from home, to Perugia, Italy, for my junior year of college, her unsurprising response was “Go for it!”....

Now I had to convince my dad. He’s a linear thinker who works in finance. He’s into numbers and planning. As practical and organized as he is, he’d have a lot of questions. So I approached him armed preemptively with the answers….

“Dad,” I said, trying to sound businesslike, “I’d like to spend next year learning Italian in a city called Perugia. It’s about halfway between Florence and Rome, but better than either because I won’t be part of a herd of American students. It’s a quiet town, and I’ll be with serious scholars. I’ll be submerged in the culture. And all my credits will transfer to UW.”

This mantra of earnest intentions appears again and again throughout the book.  You would return from Europe academically far down the road, and only one more year at college away from a dazzling career of some kind.

What total nonsense. How absurd.

  • First, to those fellow students who knew you in Seattle and Perugia, all of this comes as a very big surprise. See the quote at the top above. You were mainly known for voraciously chasing boys and drugs, and any academic ambitions and career ambitions came a distant third and fourth. Perugia at the time had the reputation of being one of Europe’s easiest drug cities; was that as some acquaintances think the real reason you made a beeline to it?

  • Second, you were utterly underfunded for a full academic year in Europe which costs Americans on average maybe $20,000. Why did your accountant father and math teacher mother not do the sums, see the huge shortfall,  and absolutely insist that you apply for the grants and scholarships that are readily available? How did you propose to work legally in Europe to make up the shortfall, as all Americans working in Europe require a work permit? (And what of your fingering Patrick for the murder, after he took a risk of losing his bar business in hiring you illegally?)

  • Third, there is no way that your “study year” in Perugia (if it was to be a year, which is highly doubtful)  could represent your junior year at university. There is no way “all” your “credits” could be transferred to the University of Washington, because (1) the School for Foreigners (a non degree issuing junior arm of Perugia University) does not even issue credits that count for American universities; in fact it is only a glorified language school (nice, but no better than several in Seattle) which allows in anyone who wants to study there. And (2) unlike Meredith you were not even enrolled at the main university, so zero prospects of transferring credits from there.

Your status was in fact that of a loose cannon and quite the opposite of a typical American studying abroad. You had almost zero study load to keep you out of mischief and off drugs; compare that to Meredith’s 40-50 hours a week. You were really, while denying it, taking a year off from your studies and career in Europe, as this account  by an academic counselor makes quite clear.

The media have now repeated countless times that Amanda Knox was on a “study abroad program”.

In fact, as these things are defined, she was not. It is precisely that she was NOT on a study-abroad program that she was able to adopt a lifestyle that seems to have led her to where she is now.

To go on a study-abroad “program” means that you attend an organized and SUPERVISED curriculum and agenda, most often with peers, faculty and/or at the very least a local administrative staff person assigned to periodically look after the participants’ behavior and well-being.

In fact the University of Washington does not even have a study abroad “program” in Perugia.

It merely suggests to UW students that the Universita per Stranieri is a possible destination and place for students to go on their own, and if asked helps out with some administration.

Knox took the “non-conformist” path to study abroad. I recall reading that she did not want to go on a program so as to not follow the herd, so to speak. So she did study abroad, but cheaply, and outside an organized program by the University of Washington. She was basically in Perugia on her own.

This is characteristic of at least two type of people, those who are adventurous, exploratory and want a true full-immersion experience into the cultural side of the host country (usually Italian majors), and those who want to be untethered and to have total freedom and no one to answer to so they can do as they wish.

Her casual attitude to her studies and other strong hints in her behavior and writings suggests that she was the latter type.

And presumably her biological parents understood all of this and signed off on it, even before Amanda Knox ever left Seattle.

Parents especially should know that if Knox had attended a UW-operated or US-University run study abroad program with supervision, her attendance in class would have been monitored, and any behavior that would upset roommates may have been reported.

In these programs for the most part there are strict housing rules such as no overnight guests, let alone bringing guys home to sack up with. Most of the time roommates will complain on the spot or get back to the American administrators that they have an out-of-control roommate bringing guys home, drinking excessively, or doing drugs.

In addition, programs with the proper supervision have enough of a presence to let the participants know that someone is at least checking up now and again. And as a result they watch their behavior.

Furthermore, in well-run programs, students are given significant preparation about living in the specific host country and city with pre-departure materials and perhaps meetings, talking with ex-participants, and attending an extensive multi-day orientation where staff and even local police lecture them about the many pitfalls of living in a foreign and new environment away from home.

They are reminded that the laws are different in other countries, and more importantly that there are some bad people walking the streets. They are told to enjoy themselves and learn, but also to be careful, stay alert, stay out of trouble, and so on.

I myself work in study abroad and we know what unleashed unsupervised colleges students get themselves into. We are trained to look for potential problems and we visit all students accommodations at least once per month and speak with everyone there.

We have open-door counseling and professionals with years of experience on staff. We watch out for all our students regularly”; we know what behavior to look for, and when to intervene, at least most of the time.

Yes, it costs more to attend the Universita per Stranieri or any overseas university through a US-college or US-university monitored program with local on-site staff and supervision.

But the situation Amanda has created, or at least found herself in, is much less likely to happen to students on a supervised and accredited study abroad program.

Let’s face it, at the age of 20, 21, or 22, many young adults are still really more or less kids. Naive and vulnerable, especially those who have yet to explore their “wild side”, they sometimes see this as an opportunity to make up for lost time.

This is exemplified in the fact that many pass out from drinking in the days after they arrive. Bottom line, they need guidance, and no more so than when they are 8000 miles from home and on their own.

Knox took the “I am too good to go on study abroad program with fellow students” route and the cheapest way overseas.  And it is not proving so cheap anymore.

Her biological parents really should have known better. All parents should either make sure the students are mature enough, or make sure they have a structured environment that can assist them while abroad. It is well worth the extra cost and peace of mind.

So the media should please get this straight from now on.

  • Amanda Knox was NOT on a study abroad “program” while in Perugia.  She was at most “studying abroad” as that term is used very loosely.

  • She took a leave from the University of Washington to study Italian at what is essentially a glorified language school which anyone can attend.

  • She was totally unsupervised in a high-risk situation where it would have seemed obvious to any supervisor that she was looking to break away.

  • And she most likely would have had a very difficult time getting any credit for her studies from the University of Washington at the conclusion.

So. The worst possible deal for any student abroad. The parents signed off in advance.  It seems to have exploded on Knox. And poor Meredith died.

In fact so scary was your semi-connection to the University of Washington with its zero control and potential huge liabilities that SINGLE HANDED your irresponsible and dangerous arc in Perugia sparked reforms in universities throughout American

Mirroring a nationwide trend, the University of Washington is overhauling how its students and professors interface with foreign countries….

The UW study abroad experience today involves much more oversight than it did two years ago when Amanda Knox left on an unsupervised European adventure that quickly degenerated into a nightmare.

When Knox, who is on trial for murder in Italy, left her familiar U-district environs in late summer 2007, she embarked on her own independent study in Umbria with very few guidelines or institutional oversight.

She arrived in the tolerant student melange of Perugia, a vibrant college town with temptation at every turn and many paradoxes (drug deals and party plans are often made on the steps of the cathedral).

A month later, the honor student’s pub-crawling, pot-smoking college shenanigans had taken a very serious turn and she was being hauled off to the Capanne penitentiary, where she remains today, pleading her innocence as the trial and controversial accusations against her plod forward.

Once her troubles began, the university tried to offer support, but had very few official guidelines to follow for responding to the kind of complicated legal-judicial matter Knox faced.

It’s different now….

In the wake of several negative overseas episodes, officials are busy raising awareness about the positive impact the UW is having worldwide and taking steps to improve communications, regulation and emergency preparedness for its students abroad.

Compared with two years ago, international education officials are more closely tracking who, where and what study-abroad programs involve. The university has new rules:. The department chair has to sign off on the program. Insurance is required. So is a cell phone. No program money can be used to buy alcohol, just for starters.

“There’s a much more formal process now,” said Taso Lagos, a UW professor who teaches international communication and manages a study-abroad program in Greece. “With administrators that are very aware, with lines of communication open and policies in place if something happens.”...

The UW’s growing commitment to international education—- even in a budget crisis—is reflected in some developments. [UW Vice Provost for Global Affairs Stephen Hanson] was named a vice provost in January, and in the spring, the UW dedicated an entire wing of the Gerberding Hall administration building to growing an international mission and profile.

This year, a travel security and information officer is coming on board to oversee emergency response and preparedness, as is Peter Moran, a new director of international programs and exchanges who previously worked at the Fulbright Commission office in Katmandu, Nepal.

New guidelines are being put in place to streamline communications, ease financial transactions and institute mandatory training for faculty taking students abroad. The Global Support Project, a rapid-response team with one person from each branch of the central administration, takes on cross-disciplinary international challenges.

Such reforms aren’t unique to UW.

Universities across the country are examining how better to organize study abroad to meet blossoming demand from students (and prospective employers) for foreign experience. Many are turning to independent service providers whose business it is to contract housing, health care or niche risk management services dealing with legal, financial or public relations crises when things go haywire abroad…..

Though the university bore no responsibility for any of the events Knox became entangled in, media across the world continued to mention the University of Washington—whether it was because of character witnesses who were her college buddies, reports of wild off-campus parties Knox attended in Seattle or her studies while in prison.

And it gets even worse. Page 14 of Sollecito’s book says you were not even staying in Perugia for more than one semester or term.

This was maybe three or four days into our relationship. The night before we left [for Assisi], I noticed she was chatting on Facebook with an American friend. I asked who he was. Right away, she explained that she, like Meredith, had left behind a boyfriend when she came to Italy. His name was David Johnsrud, known as D.J., and… they chatted or e-mailed almost every day. D.J. was spending his junior year in China… As the conversation went on, I learned she had just bought a ticket to China to visit D.J. later in the year [this was in October] and my suspicions were confirmed.

That intention to quit Perugia so soon is missing from your own book. Strange.

Your fake front of a diligent, serious, demanding year in Italy appears again and again throughout your book.  It is the whole basis for why you were at least the equal of Meredith and her circle and the others who lived in your house.

For why you would have little time off for irresponsible partying. For why there was no way you could possibly feel jealous or over-competitive toward Meredith.

In fact, both you and your foolish parents acted grossly irresponsibly. And as a direct result, Meredith died.


Monday, November 01, 2021

RIP Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher 28 December 1985 - 1 November 2007

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



Not Meredith, of course, there are none of her doing ballet - pity, she is said to have been pretty good. But, someone who knew her has told us that this was her kind of dance…

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters on 11/01 at 12:00 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in Concerning MeredithHer memoryComments here (1)

Saturday, September 25, 2021

Comparing The Kercher & Petito Cases: What’s Similar, What Differs

Posted by Peter Quennell

Timeline uploaded this past Thursday

Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments.


1. Overview Of Petito Case

Gabrielle “Gabby” Petito and Brian Laundrie met when at high-school on Long Island a few miles east of New York.

Brian’s parents moved to western Florida south of St Petersburg, apparently in 2015 when their house was bought (for just over $100,000), and they run a juicing-machine-sales business from there.

Gabby and Brian became engaged, and moved in with them down there. Neither have full college degrees, but Gabby has some nutritionist training and did work. Brian? Not clear.

Seemingly a bright and loving couple, they had established a way of traveling to great locations and mostly sleeping in a small van Gabbie owned.

They reported all this “van life” on social media video which had a sizeable following and so would have given them some sort of financial return.

This latest trip had taken them west from New York to southern Utah, where, with various incidents reported en-route, they headed north through eastern Utah to western Wyoming.

There, a week ago, just outside a dispersed camping ground, Gabby’s lifeless body was found. She had been dead for possibly three weeks.   

2. Similarities

1. In the US, these are perhaps the highest-profile murder cases in recent years

2. The two girls were of approximately the same age; both sets of parents are divorced.

3. Each girl was killed by someone seemingly sociopathic and in a psychotic rage.

4. Each presumed killer knew their victim well; signs of tension were seen by friends.

5. Each presumed killer rearranged the crime scene and worked on creating an alibi.

6. Each of the suspected killer’s parents circled the wagons and hired hardline help.

7. In each case national-level law-enforcement and their excellent labs became involved.

3. Differences

1. In the US Gabby has about 100% of public support; Meredith was deliberately ignored.

2. Gabby built a large following on social media; serious student Meredith not so much.

3. Local police in Utah and Florida made critical mistakes; in Italy, they made none.

4. Meredith’s family were illegally stalked; Gabby’s two sets of parents are revered.

4. Mysteries remaining

1. Why did Laundrie fly back to Florida leaving Gabby alone in Salt Lake City Utah for a week? Did he need a new prescription for mental-health-related meds?

2. Why did the cops who accosted the pair north of Moab Utah not know HE had been reported hours before for hitting Gabby on a Moab street? [resolved]

3. Did Laundrie’s extended psychotic-rage incident in a Jackson Wyoming restaurant (some 30 miles south of where she was found), which Gabby apologized to staff for, lead to her death?

4. Oddly, around the time of death, Laundrie hitchhiked twice, from way north of the campground, heading back south; was he trying to create an “I wasn’t there” alibi?

5. Gabby’s death is officially a homicide; where exactly was her body found, was it buried, and what was the cause of death? [resolved]

6. Why did Brian drive back to Florida in Gabbie’s van after seemingly trying to create an alibi and then fail to report and refuse to talk?

7. Where exactly is he now?


Below: Smart, but watch with caution. This was before Gabby’s body was found, and entertains a long trip west of the Tetons, impossible once the date of Laundrie’s Jackson restaurant meltdown is factored in.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/25 at 09:40 AM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (50)

Sunday, September 12, 2021

Whither Your Best Bets, If Herd Immunity Moves Out Of Reach?

Posted by Peter Quennell


1. Why Should TJMK Care?

Well, absent Covid, TJMK’s end-game would have come and gone a year and a half ago.

We’d have done a wave of damning press releases in conjunction with insider panels, books new and revised, and maybe some appearances at conventions and on TV.

But to avoid further media tricks, and misreporting, and a backlash, and legal threats, this involves all of us being on the same page, in Italy, the UK and the US. And travel has been risky or forbidden for at least a year and a half.

But the delay is not a net negative, as Part 5 below explains.

2. Herd Immunity Prospects Decline

What seems to be happening in the turbulent COVID realm is IN PART touched on in the video above.

1. For various reasons, some sound, some less-so, global vaccination has a long way to go. Above 20% of the global population, those 14 and under, cannot be vaccinated, and a similar percentage of those older than 14 is iffy or stubborn about the shots. Many national vaccination rates are still way too low.

2. The present vaccines (unlike all other vaccines in history) target only a particular spike protein, and the virus only needs to mutate to get around that to be on a home run, as the Delta variant shows.

3. Shots and masks still seem on balance worth doing, to minimise the spread and consequent deaths, to minimise one’s risk of long-haul Covid and lifetime weaknesses, to lighten the load on hospitals, and to keep many or most kids safe.

4. The antibodies from the current vaccines of course do fade, but if the more-broadband memory B cells are activated, they plus glutathione look to give okay immunity for life (see in Comments: Further tip 4).

3. The Personal Peak-Immunity Route

Maybe the least risky bet, and one that is quick and cheap (and talked about openly in WHO) is what we posted on more than a year ago: to push one own’s personal level of immunity up to the roof.

Which primarily means boosting our own natural glutathione levels in any way we can.

Many YouTubes explain this point, and research by the global World Health Organization and national counterparts like USNIH agree 100%. There is no controversy here.

But only a very small faction of glutathione directly taken in a capsule has up to now been making it out of the gut and into the blood.

Luckily the main glutathione building block, easy-to-absorb N-acetyl-cysteine (NAC), has been widely available in the US and has been disappearing fast off vitamin-store shelves.

But there are two problems, one old, one new.

1. If other body substances (selenium, zinc, vitamin D, etc) are low then NAC will fail to fully convert and so glutathione will not peak.

2. The US Food and Drug Administration has chosen this, the worst of all possible times, to ban NAC as a supplement and declare it a drug.

The reasoning is truly appalling (that is an eye-popping read) and the FDA did some incredibly sloppy work here, so chances of this being reversed through administrative appeal or the courts is good.

But that could take some time.

Meanwhile our two best bets, if we want to go this immunity-boosting route, vaccinated or not, is quite well explained on this (for-profit) website.

One is to look around for cysteine substitutes, and some that are nearly as good are easy to spot with an internet search.

4. The New Acetyl Glutathione

The other best option is to turn to the new glutathione in an acetic acid carrier, which far more easily makes it through the gut and into the blood than simple glutathione did.

Prices vary widely, the cheapest (see the Amazon range) which for now looks to be Monoherb might do as much good (read those Amazon reviews).

Finally, there’s some suggestion that going the acetyl-glutathione route is BETTER for Covid purposes because those other pesky neccessities (selenium, zinc, vitamin D, etc) don’t apply.

5. More Of Us Back On The Same Page?

Anybody who works internationally will tell you the same thing. The US population harbors an exceptional amount of fear. In recent months, it has been like sharing space with 100 million spineless jellies…

The American documentary film maker Michael Moore explained this in a report on a mass shooting in a school (Bowling for Columbine) as being a result of forever-scary news reports, and advertising that widely suggest dangers will overcome you unless you buy their product right away.

But it’s more than that. Very big bucks are made from paranoia-stoking radio and TV. The US government has indeed lied at times, as it did about Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2008 Wall Street did widespread economic harm. Global mass migrations are unbalancing “the north”. Weather is bothersome.

But ungrounded fears may have peaked for now. Conspiracy theories are being proven untrue time and again. Millions seem to be smartening up. Most people do have spines.

And as TJMK is itself in a fight against a conspiracy theory, this seems really helpful for us.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/12 at 12:25 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (16)

Wednesday, September 01, 2021

Tip For Good Reporters: “Retrial” And “Second Trial” And “Guilty Again” Were Media Hoaxes

Posted by Peter Quennell

1. Correct Italian Term for Florence Repeat Appeal

1. “Processo d’appello” is CORRECT

Click for Post:  Cronaca: Meredith, il 30 settembre processo d’appello a Firenze…
Click for Post:  Il sussidiario: Al via il nuovo processo d’appello...
Click for Post:  Perugia Today: “a Firenze il nuovo processo d’appello
Click for Post:  Quotidiano: “il nuovo processo d’appello a Sollecito e ad Knox…”
Click for Post:  La Nazione: famiglia Kercher parteciperà al processo d’appello
Click for Post:  Corriere: A Firenze il via all’appello bis
Click for Post:  24ORE Meredith, sarà da rifare a Firenze il processo d’appello
Click for Post:  Giurisprudenza Penale: Omicidio [MK] la sentenza di appello (bis)
Click for Post:  Yahoo: Meredith, pg Appello bis chiede condanna [Knox & Sollecito]


2. Wrong American Terms For Repeat Appeal

1. “Retrial” is NOT correct

Click for Post:  Washington Post: Knox will not return to Italy for retrial of murder case
Click for Post:  New York Times: Amanda Knox’s retrial Begins in Italy
Click for Post:  Reuters: Knox, Sollecito to face Italy retrial in Kercher murder
Click for Post:  Associated Press: Amanda Knox on retrial: ‘Everything is at stake’
Click for Post:  CNN: Amanda Knox retrial verdict: Six things to know
Click for Post:  Today: Amanda Knox and ex-boyfriend found guilty in retrial
Click for Post:  NPR: Italian Court Orders retrial For Amanda Knox
Click for Post:  Guardian: Amanda Knox retrial for Meredith Kercher murder opens
Click for Post:  Independent: Amanda Knox: A retrial, two films and endless speculation
Click for Post:  Daily Beast: Amanda Knox retrial Opens
Click for Post:  CBS News: Amanda Knox retrial under way in Italy
Click for Post:  Mirror: Knox has makeover before Kercher murder retrial verdict
Click for Post:  BBC: Meredith Kercher murder: Amanda Knox retrial opens
Click for Post:  Fox: Knox retrial over killing of Meredith Kercher begins
Click for Post:  People: Amanda Knox retrial for Meredith Kercher’s Murder Opens
Click for Post:  Christian Science Monitor: Amanda Knox retrial in Italy starts without her
Click for Post:  Chicago Tribune: Amanda Knox’s retrial begins in Italy
Click for Post:  Irish Times: Italy court orders Amanda Knox retrial for Kercher murder
Click for Post:  E: Knox’s Ex Raffaele Sollecito on retrial: “I Still Live in a Nightmare”
Click for Post:  Sky News: Amanda Knox retrial: Key Questions Remain
Click for Post:  The Wrap: Amanda Knox retrial Ordered in Italy
Click for Post:  France24: Judges in Amanda Knox retrial order new DNA tests
Click for Post:  Investor Place: Amanda Knox retrial: The Verdict Is In
Click for Post:  Agence France-Press: Amanda Knox retrial for Italy murder begins
Click for Post:  Latin Times: Knox retrial Update: American Student Says…
Click for Post:  Mercury: retrial ordered as murder acquittal is overturned

2. “Guilty again” is NOT correct

Click for Post:  ABC News: Amanda Knox Found Guilty Again
Click for Post:  USA Today: Amanda Knox found guilty again
Click for Post:  Reuters: Amanda Knox Found Guilty Again
Click for Post:  Amanda Knox guilty again
Click for Post:  Epoch Times: Amanda Knox Guilty Again
Click for Post:  Winchester: Amanda Knox guilty again
Click for Post:  Fox: Amanda Knox found guilty again of murder of roommate
Click for Post:  Mirror: Watch tearful killer describe being found guilty again
Click for Post:  CNN: Amanda Knox found guilty of murder again
Click for Post:  News-com: Amanda Knox guilty again
Click for Post:  Daily Mail: Knox’s fury after being found GUILTY AGAIN

3. “Second trial” is NOT correct

Click for Post:  USA Today: Prosecutor outlines case in second trial of Amanda Knox
Click for Post:  News Com: Knox’s second trial starts in Italy without her
Click for Post:  Komo News: Amanda Knox gets 28 1/2 years in prison in 3rd murder trial
Click for Post:  People: A critical component to Knox’s second trial…
Click for Post:  Vox: After a second trial convicted Knox and Sollecito…
Click for Post:  CBS News: guilty verdicts in the second trial
Click for Post:  Atlantic: guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher the second time
Click for Post:  ABC News: In the second trial, the defense…
Click for Post:  CBC: Those verdicts had been overturned in a second trial

4. “Second guilty verdict” is NOT correct

Click for Post:  Inside Edition: Knox Defiant Following Second Guilty Verdict
Click for Post:  Reuters:  Cassation threw out the second guilty verdict
Click for Post:  CNN: That second guilty verdict was thrown out in March
Click for Post:  Independent: first live interview after second guilty verdict
Click for Post:  Newsweek: threw out the second guilty verdict
Click for Post:  Daily Mail: a year after the second guilty verdict.
Click for Post:  BBC: the second guilty verdict announced by…
Click for Post:  Jerusalem Post: threw out the second guilty verdict

5. “Re-convicted” is NOT correct

Click for Post:  Amanda Knox Reconvicted of Murder in Italy, and It’s Still Not Over
Click for Post:  Amanda Knox Reconvicted for Murder
Click for Post:  Agence France-Presse: Italian court re-convicts Knox for murder
Click for Post: 

6. “Again convicts” is NOT correct

Click for Post:  SA Times Court again convicts Knox of murder
Click for Post: 

7. “New guilty verdict” is NOT correct

Click for Post:  Guardian: I feel stranded and trapped since new guilty verdict

8. “Third trial” is NOT correct

Click for Post:  The Columbian: Italian court convicts Knox of murder in 3rd trial
Click for Post:  AP News Service: FIRST TRIAL, SECOND TRIAL, THIRD TRIALClick for Post: 
Click for Post: 

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/01 at 09:22 AM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (0)

Wednesday, August 25, 2021

Tip For Good Reporters: 2011 Hellman Appeal Verdict Annulled Misrepresentations Fog Reality Still

Posted by James Raper




Hellman Misrepresentations Explained

Here’s an interesting vignette on Hellmann’s modus operandi in his Motivation.

In the quote below he pins Guede with sole responsibility and provides Knox and Sollecito with an alibi.

Here’s what Hellmann wrote -

“In that chat, furthermore, [ed : Hellmann is referring to the 2nd Skype chat with Giocamo Benedetti] Rudy Guede states that he was in Via della Pergola between 9 and 9.30 pm; and this fact which significantly brings forward the time of death of Meredith Kercher, in respect of that held in the sentence under appeal, does not reconcile with the prosecution hypothesis in regard to the present accused who, even with the desire to recognize as credible some elements held by the prosecution in support of it’s own hypothesis, at the time were certainly at the house of Raffaele Sollecito and not at Via della Pergola.”

There are three basic elements to this argument.

1. Time Of Death (TOD) between 9.00 and 9.30 pm
2. Guede was in the cottage with Meredith between these times
3. Neither Knox nor Sollecito were.

Ergo, it was Guede, or perhaps, at a push, Guede and others but not including Knox and Sollecito, who murdered Meredith.

This is important because it appears towards the beginning of the report and, reading on through it, we can see that virtually the whole report, and the ludicrous waiving away of all the other evidence, is predicated on it.

However, what’s the evidence for these propositions - and is it reliable?

Although TOD could have been between these times there is no evidence that it was other than, as we shall see in a moment, Guede’s own words.

So, if an appeal judge can hold Guede to be reliable in this respect do the little angels have an alibi? However just check the record of that skype chat.

In Italian -

Guede - “allora siamo entrati, e penso che saranno state le otto e mezza così, le otto e venti, è stato, è stato detto che lei aveva detto alle sue amiche che era stanca che sarebbe andata a casa. Invece no, ci dovevamo vedere, ci eravamo dati puntamento la sera prima nella festa di Halloween, che abbiamo passato a casa di questi ragazzi spagnoli e posso dire anche dove, non so la via ma posso indicare dove.”

Translation -

Guede - “So we went in, and I think it was about eight‐thirty, or eight‐twenty, they’re saying that she told her friends she was tired and wanted to go home. But in fact no, we were supposed to see each other, we had made an appointment the evening before during the Halloween party, at the Spanish kids’ house, and I can also say, well I don’t know the street but I can say where it was.”

Although this does not exclude Hellmann’s time frame of 9.00 to 9.30 there is a manifest problem with Guede’s account.

Guede has himself and Meredith meeting up at the cottage by prior appointment at a time when Meredith could not possibly have been there, because she was still at the house of her english friends and she and Sophie Purton did not part ways until they were near the cottage at 9 pm.

Given what is certainly a falsehood why give credence to any of Guede’s times? But Hellmann does. It is true that in the Skype chat Guede goes on to say the following.

“R. I was in the bathroom, in the bathroom maybe five minutes. So, I really had to take this shit, but then I heard a scream, but let me tell you, a really loud scream, so loud that according to me, if anyone was passing by, nearby, they would have heard this scream, because she screamed so loud…and then, then, I got a bit worried and I got out of the bathroom right away, without even putting my pants back on, they were practically falling down, I was wearing just my underwear and my pants were falling around my…
G. But if I understand, I mean like where was this…I mean, what time do you think this happened, I don’t know…
R. Around nine, nine twenty or so, because in the meantime we had gotten to talking and all.
G. I see.
R. I think nine‐twenty, nine‐thirty, around then, and then, when I heard the scream…………”

This is where Hellmann gets his time frame for Time of Death. Hellmann does not give us the full context and details of Guede’s remark. But if one is going to give credence to these times then the context in which they arise has to be evaluated and given some credence too. This would also have to involve evaluating the impact on Guede’s account of the fact that Meredith was not at the cottage until 9 pm. Instead, what he writes is as follows -

“In fact Rudy Guede, while confiding to his friend in a moment when he did not know that the police was also listening in, and while talking about a point (the time of the assault) which he had no reason to lie about, given that he stated he was present at the time in the house of via della Pergola 7 albeit denying his responsibility, he indicates a time between 9 PM and 9:30 PM.”

However even if any of the foregoing were to be true it does not give Knox and Sollecito a complete alibi. It can not be held to be certain that Knox and Sollecito were at the latter’s flat for all of that time. The last alibi corroboration is the manual interaction with Sollecito’s computer at 9.10 pm and Guede’s “nine-twenty, nine-thirty” looks the more definite time in it’s context and given that Meredith was only in the process of arriving at 9 pm. He could perhaps seek some tenuous assistance from Curatolo’s testimony but he has already held that witness as unreliable.

So, putting his two quotes together Hellmann conveniently has Guede in the cottage between 9 and 9.30, with the same time frame for TOD. Given the verdict it is obvious why he would want to do this but equally it is obvious why Hellmann shirks from quoting what Guede had actually said, as to his time of arrival with Meredith, because of the obvious difficulty as to his credibility that causes, and as to what he was doing when he heard the scream, because if the scream (and hence TOD, if in fact the two are related) was between, say, 9 and 9.10, thus giving probably at least Sollecito an alibi, that gives us the added unlikely scenario of Guede arriving with Meredith (no earlier than 9.00 pm it now has to be) and then immediately excusing himself from the presence of his attractive date, and diving in to the toilet for a crap. But that is not how Guede has it and in that respect he is probably right.

If the scream was between 9 and 9.10, and Guede did not in fact go immediately to the toilet, then we have him turning violently upon his date within a very short space of time and then going for a crap after the murder. No, I don’t think so.

It could be speculated that Guede was already at the cottage, having broken in earlier, and being surprised by Meredith’s arrival, but a genuine break in is a dead duck topic on any rational evaluation of the evidence, not that Hellmann shirks from bringing the same MOD to that topic as well.

Before I go on there are some observations to make about a genuine break in based on what Guede said. Guede, one can reasonably surmise, would have been keeping abreast of developments in the media about the case and so would have known about the reports of a break in, none of which suggested, at the time, that it had been staged. By placing his arrival at the cottage with Meredith at 8.30 he can therefore disassociate himself from responsibility for that and, furthermore, imply that the break in was not what it seemed.

On the other hand had he broken in earlier then obviously he knew that Meredith was not there. He was taking a risk by running with a story that he and Meredith had met at the cottage at 8.30 pm when he would know, as a consequence of the foregoing, that there was at least the chance that others could vouchsafe for Meredith’s whereabouts elsewhere at the time. His state of mind on the subject may be confused by the Catch 22 situation he was putting himself in but would surely be different if he knew there had been no such break in. He would still be taking a chance but not, in his mind, such an obvious one.

But Hellmann should not go unchallenged when he states that Guede had no reason to lie.

That we know of no reason for Guede to lie about these times does not mean that he was not making it up or simply making a hash of the times (and looking at the excerpt he does seem rather unprepared for Benedetti’s question) or that he did not have a good reason to lie, especially if TOD was much later. He could have been anticipating more witnesses coming forward, like Alessandra Formica who, with her friend Lucio Minciotti, were walking down the stairs towards the cottage at around 10.40 pm when they were bumped into by a dark man rushing up the stairs. Or Nara Capezalli and Antonella Monacchia who had heard the ear splitting scream much later.

There is, of course, another obvious motive for placing himself at the cottage at 8.30 pm. He has already, in the 1st Skype chat, explicitly denied that Knox was at the cottage. Needless to say Hellmann picked up on that and accepts Guede’s word for it. However, in Guede’s account he is on the toilet when a man and a woman, whom he either did not see or was unable to identify, arrive and commit the murder. So, given that it was only the male that he actually encountered, why so positive that Knox was not there?

What he is suggesting is that others, but who could be Knox and Sollecito, did it. What benefit does Guede derive from this?  The answer, again, is the obvious one that by being more specific he would be running the risk of a counter allegation from Knox and Sollecito as to his precise involvement in the murder.

Also, just in case his explanation were not to be considered all that convincing he gives the duo, and himself, the added protection of having himself arrive at the cottage without them at 8.30 pm. That is at a time when he might well have known (from his own personal knowledge) that they would be able to put together an alibi.

In any event perhaps, as to the scream, it was not so much a question of lying as just a matter (even if only in his own mind and, we have to remember, he was just chatting with a friend, not giving a deposition) of making it seem likely with his own account. After all he has himself there with Meredith at about 8.30. Did Guede have a watch? Was he checking times? Are we supposed to believe that Guede would check on the time when he went to the toilet, and when he heard a loud scream outside and rushed out of the toilet with his trousers round his ankles. He did not say, and no-one seems to know.

Then we have the chatting, petting, searching for Meredith’s missing rent money, and then he’s off to the toilet. Perhaps he thinks an hour for that looks right and indeed most of that makes him look like the irresistible and OK kind of guy any gal would find good company and later after she finds her money missing, a good listener. Of course, Meredith did not come to the cottage until 9 pm but Guede does not factor that in. How would anyone, maybe even himself, know that anyway? So, we are actually up to 10 pm, not the 9.30 pm, when in his story he says he hears a scream.

Now we are moving towards the territory occupied by the witnesses Capezalli, Monacchia, and Formica.

Hellmann’s original hypothesis was that the murder had occurred no later than 10.13 pm.

“… it is more consistent…. to hypothesize that in fact the attack, and hence the death shortly thereafter, occurred much earlier than the time held by the Court of first instance, certainly not later than 10.13 pm”.

Here Hellmann refers to the time of the last interaction on Meredith’s English phone on the 1st November, before it rang again and the ringing was noticed by Mrs Lana’s daughter the next morning.

Notice that Hellmann makes an assertion and a linkage for which there is no corroborative evidence – “the attack, and hence the death shortly thereafter”, linking this to the last interaction on Meredith’s phone at 10.13 pm. But there could have been a non fatal attack at 10.13 ( e.g a wresting of her phones away from her) followed by the fatal one a little later.

Hellmann seems to think his supposition is the more consistent. Perhaps so. We do not really know, nor do we know for how long Meredith lived after the fatal blow.

But then, dispensing with consistency, he has the TOD come forward by at least another 45 minutes. Hellmann is more than ready to brand Guede as an out and out liar, but then, making a lone exception to his (and our) distrust of everything Guede has had to say, and without any other evidence to back it up, and as if there was any credence to be given to the exercise, he asserts, without ambivalence, Time of Death as between 9 – 9.30 pm, purely as a consequence of his own uncritical thinking, deceptions, agile skipping around the evidence, and cherry picking on a liar’s say so as to when he was there, and whether Knox was, and this despite Guede’s own stated time of his and Meredith’s arrival at the cottage being demonstrably unreliable, and in Meredith’s case untrue.

Hellmann has had to leap through a number of hoops in order to stick with his own pre-formulated premise that Guede was the sole perpetrator in this murder. And indeed Guede was already definitively convicted of the murder by this time, but in “complicity with others”. Hence the attempt to posit an alibi in the argument he put forward.

Not even the 5th Chambers was prepared to countenance that.

The quotes do nothing to establish TOD or provide Knox and Sollecito with an alibi but they are an example (among many one could give) of Hellmann’s bias toward the defendants and unwillingness, or inability, as a result, to evaluate the evidence rigorously and properly, a trait which was manifest throughout his Motivation.

That was the reason why his acquittal verdicts were annulled. Surprisingly though none of the foregoing even got a mention in the appeal recourse and annulment. Perhaps because there were more egregious defects in the Motivation.

It’s not surprising that he got a backlash from his professional colleagues and resigned from the judiciary shortly thereafter. But the damage to justice had been done.

Posted by James Raper on 08/25 at 12:17 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (17)

Tuesday, August 10, 2021

Fine Italian Tune On A Fine Italian Accordion, But Played By…

Posted by Peter Quennell



Actually Marion LMJM is French.

She is playing Csárdás by Vittorio Monti. The crescendo - wait for it! - begins right after 2’00”.

Marion plays other instruments too, and has a pretty okay singing voice. She sings a lot in self-taught Russian and most comments under her YouTubes are Russian, though she has not been there yet.

You can read her unusual backstory here.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 08/10 at 09:07 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (9)

Sunday, August 01, 2021

Tip For Good Reporters: Knox Squawks About Her Slime-Italy Franchise At Risk

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters


The “Stillwater” Film

In the new “Stillwater” film Matt Damon’s character is in Marseille.

He is sort-of trying to get his murder-suspect daughter out of the hands of those meanies the French.

He and others have said that the film’s idea came in part from the myth that Knox still widely peddles for cash.

The film is said to be ambivalent about the daughter’s role - it comes across to many that she did do the deed.

Comments are mostly hostile to Knox under the YouTube at the top (see here).

Knox herself in the guise of several invented YouTube personas (confirmed to us by insiders; Imateapot51 is a main one) is there trying to fight back with fake facts.

At the moment Knox’s three main angles as her own sock-puppets are these:

(1) Knox was forced in illegal interrogation to confess

First, Knox did not confess, she blamed Patrick not herself, and second she was only ever interrogated twice - in December 2007 and July 2009 - both times at her own request. Even she testified at trial her pre-arrest treatment was just fine. 

(2) The Supreme Court vindicated her as there was no evidence

First, it was the Supreme Court’s Sixth Chambers (family-law court) not the First Chambers (murder court) that was “mysteriously” assigned the final appeal, and second under Italian law IT SHOULD NOT EVEN HAVE LOOKED AT THE EVIDENCE.

Any evidence quibbles should have been sent down to the Nencini Appeal Court. The evidence is massive and very damning in fact.

(3) Those Italian meanies refused compensation for her jail stay

Knox DID NOT EVEN APPLY FOR COMPENSATION though had she really been wrongly imprisoned a big award would have been a walk in the park.

Sollecito did apply for compensation. All courts squashed him like a bug, because of his numerous lies pre and post arrest, which wasted police time for months.

Try telling people this, Knox: It was actually the Supreme Court in Rome early in 2009 that ordered the two of you held till the legal process was done.

That was because it was advised that you might skip out - or cause bodily harm. Judge Hellman’s release of you late in 2011 was illegal in fact.

And you have incited bodily harm ever since.

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters on 08/01 at 01:20 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (4)

Sunday, July 18, 2021

Raffaele Sollecito, Once Again Being His Usual Muddled Self…

Posted by James Raper


Terrifying. Terrifying!

Corriere has published on the Internet Raffaele’s Sollecito’s latest outburst by social media video against the real media in Italy.

Here is what Corriere wrote -

“Raffaele Sollecito publishes on his social channels an outburst entitled “[Guede] found guilty in complicity with others is an invention of the media” against him by some of those he calls “newsagents” who, says Sollecito, continue to report “stupidities and falsehoods “. And he adds: “Below this video I will post the excerpt from the judgment with which Rudy Guede is sentenced. If one day I again observe that there are newsagents who write, or insinuate, that Guede has been convicted in complicity with others, and that therefore it remains necessary to find out who is this other culprit, I will be forced to file a complaint for defamation against me. Because it is thus being suggested that Amanda Knox and I [accused and then acquitted in the Perugia trial for the crime of Meredith Kercher, which took place in 2007, ed.] were acquitted either by luck or by chance.”

Below the video is Sollecito’s text.

“Sottolineo il tentativo della difesa di Rudy Guede di coinvolgere la responsabilità mia e di Amanda Knox ... tale tentativo miseramente fallito. In qualsiasi momento la Corte che ha giudicato Rudy Guede poteva chiamarci a deporre se qualcuno avesse mai dato fondamento a questo fantomatico concorso. Ciò non è mai avvenuto. D’altronde, nel processo contro di me e Amanda Knox, abbiamo chiesto di far deporre Rudy Guede che si è avvalso della facoltà di non rispondere.

I giornalai (giornalisti che hanno inventato la favola del concorso), non desiderano la verità ma vogliono soltanto arricchirsi alle spalle della vita di persone innocent.”

Translation -

“I emphasize there was an attempt by the defense of Rudy Guede to assign to myself and Amanda Knox responsibility ... this attempt failed miserably. At any time the Court that judged Rudy Guede could call us to testify if anyone had ever given grounds to this phantom competition. This never happened. But on the other hand, in the trial against me and Amanda Knox, we asked for Rudy Guede to testify, but he made use of the right not to answer.

Journalists (journalists who invented the story of the contest) do not want the truth but only want to enrich themselves at the expense of innocent people.”

What on earth is Sollecito talking about?! What attempt by “the defense of Rudy Guede”? What contest or competition? What judge could have called on them but didn’t? Micheli?

It was Judge Micheli who committed the pair to trial!

I do not think that Guede ever did try to directly implicate Knox or Sollecito before or at trial, not by name, not as a witness who saw them there at the time, not by stating what he saw them do.

Well… okay, so in his statements to the police he did do a bit of insinuating and implying. Presumably Judge Micheli at his 2008 trial had read those, but he still committed the pair to trial in 2009 in front of a different judge, Judge Massei.

No Guede statements were placed in evidence at their 2009 trial because Guede refused to testify for the prosecution fearing perjury charges (not for the defense, who did not even call him) rendering them inadmissable.

Despite not calling him, the pair’s own lawyers tried to have a field-day throughout the 2009 trial on the absent Guede. Recall the unproven drug-dealer nonsense, and the unproven serial-burglar nonsense.

Sollecito’s text continues, quoting from the Giordano Motivation dismissing Guede’s final Supreme Court appeal in 2011.

Incidentally I have re-read the Giordano Motivation and there is nothing there that states or implies that Guede acted alone or was responsible alone, in Meredith’s murder, as Sollecito apparently believes it says.

“8 - Il ricorso non ha fondamento e, pertanto, va rigettato.
Per intanto occorre da subito sfuggire al tentativo, perseguito dall’impostazione tutta della difesa, ma fuori luogo nel contesto della decisione, di coinvolgere il collegio nell’avallo della tesi di una responsabilità di altri, che sono S.R. ed K.A., per l’omicidio aggravato dalla violenza sessuale, di Ke.Me.. La decisione a cui è chiamata questa Corte concerne, e solo, la responsabilità del G. in ordine al fatto contestato e dell’eventuale partecipazione di altri al delitto si dovrà tener conto solo nella misura in cui una tale circostanza valga ad incidere sul tema che costituisce l’impegno esclusivo in punto di riforma o conferma della declaratoria di responsabilità dell’imputato, quest’ultima del tutto condivisa dai giudici di primo e secondo grado.”

Translation -

8 – The appeal has no basis and therefore must be rejected.

In the meantime it is now necessary to escape the attempt, pursued by the overall setting of the defence, but out of place in the context of this decision, to involve the Court in supporting the thesis of the responsibility of others, namely Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, for the murder aggravated by the sexual assault of Meredith Kercher. The decision to which this court is called concerns uniquely the responsibility of Guede regarding the deed with which he is charged, and the possible participation of others in the crime should be taken into account only to the extent to which such a circumstance would have an impact on the exclusive commitment of the Court to either modifying or confirming the verdict of guilt of the defendant, which was entirely shared by the courts of first and second instance.”

So? Will this cause Italian media to be shaking in their boots!

Even the Supreme Court, in its bent final ruling on the case against Knox and Sollecito, found that Meredith had been attacked by more than one assailant.

Maybe is this an indirect attempt by Sollecito to warn Guede away from further involvement? Who knows? Isn’t the media already speculating on what might happen when Guede has finally served his sentence in December 2023?

Sollecito does appear to be feeling some heat, and this all really looks as if he is once again losing it a bit.

Posted by James Raper on 07/18 at 03:00 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (13)

Thursday, July 01, 2021

Tip For Good Reporters: ANOTHER Nail In Coffin Of The Faked Break-In

Posted by James Raper



Scuri is white object at left

Again, Things Just Don’t Add Up

I was looking at a Powerpoint by our former main poster Brmull debunking Hellmann’s take on the rock apparently thrown at Filomena’s window.

According to Hellmann there was a genuine break-in, but if not, then there was no reason to think that Knox and Sollecito were the stagers. That guff apart, Brmull made some good points and displayed a close up of the crush-mark on the scuri (inner shutter) which I found interesting.

Unfortunately I cannot use my snipping tool on a Powerpoint so I am not able to re-produce that picture. You will just have to take my word for what I say next.

First up, of course the rock could easily have been thrown or tossed from the corner of the residents’ car park, breaking the glass. Amusingly Hellmann refers to the defence expert’s report for this blindingly obvious clarification. The trajectory of a rock so cast is on a 90 degree angle with Filomena’s window, i.e straight at it, so no problem.

There are, however, some problems with this.

The crush mark is full on the upper edge, and inside this edge, of a recess on the scuri. Assuming that the crush mark was caused by the rock then this suggests that the impact was from a trajectory that was on a different angle from that of a rock thrown from the car park.

There are a couple of points to flow from this, both by way of confirmation but which also debunk another point raised in defence.

First, the very existence of the crush mark (and there was a fragment of glass embedded in the scuri close by) confirms that the scuri was in position behind the window. Filomena had said it was, even if she could not be sure that it had been clipped firmly into place.

Short of throwing a heavy rock at the window to find out, how would the intruder have known that it was not so latched into place? And if it was, throwing the rock would not have made any difference, just a lot of noise. The intruder could not have been unaware of the existence of the scuri.

Secondly, the only mark on the scuri was that crush mark. I am surprised that there is no other damage that I can see to the scuri i.e dents or chipped paint, which is what I would expect to see, from a rock weighing 4 kilos tossed full on at the window from just several feet away.

In fact the scuri looks remarkably pristine but for the crush mark. This, for me, establishes that the crush mark was not a glancing blow past that edge. Indeed the white paint is crushed down into the dent, hardly compatible with a glancing blow.

Hence a head on crush the result of a different trajectory from a rock thrown from the car park. Both these observations support the view that it was an inside job.

Hence, a staging, it sure seems.

Posted by James Raper on 07/01 at 10:12 AM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (13)

Tuesday, May 18, 2021

Perhaps The Coolest Two Italian Actors Who Ever Lived

Posted by Peter Quennell

For full screen, mouse-over & click box at lower right.

Stars In An Italian Film Noir

This clip is from the epochal 1949 movie Riso Amaro (Bitter Rice).

The dancers are Silvana Mangano and Vittorio Gassman.

Vittorio’s character, from elsewhere, had recently stolen a diamond necklace and he was keeping a low profile with his female accomplice in the Italian ricefields region north east of Genoa.

Silvana’s character, from the region, had happened upon the necklace, and she is wearing it here.

Bitter Rice was the culmination of the anti-glamorous anti-hip Italian neorealism style which prided itself on being the opposite of Hollywoodism.

This movie paved the way to the astonishing wave of the 1950s through 1970s which included La Dolce Vita, Bicycle Thieves, Amarcord, La Notte, La Strada, 8-1/2, Rocco and His Brothers, and many other Italian classics which did so well.

And Silvana? She paved the way to the emergence of such similarly cool and fearless actresses as Sophia Loren, Gina Lollobrigida, Monica Vitti, Anna Magnani, Claudia Cardinale, Giulietta Masina, and Virna Lisi.

She created the mold. Not bad for an 18-year-old! As Silvana was when she starred in this movie. Two years previously, at 16, she had been crowned Miss Rome, and that led to this first of many starring roles.

The song that so suits this clip is Caballo Viejo, a classic Venezuelan mambo re-recorded worldwide.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/18 at 08:21 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (7)

Saturday, May 08, 2021

Comments Under US Media Reports Almost Universally Scathing Of Rome Killers Defense

Posted by Peter Quennell



Click through to comments, around 800 as of now.

- Prisoner: “I didn’t know he was a cop, your honor, so I should get mercy” Judge: “you stabbed him 11 times in “self defense” while trying to buy cocaine because you didn’t know he was a cop?”

- Just don’t commit a crime, I don’t care if the person they killed is a cop or drug dealer, one who commits crime like this has to pay the price, in this case they took a life, and have to serve life behind bars.

- GREAT JOB ITALY, THANKS, THIS IS JUSTICE, JUSTICE FOR OFFICER…




Click through to commnents, around 300 as of now.

- WAKE UP Parents. Your kids dont need friends who carry BIG KNIVES.

- The American News will put on the perpetrators family and friends, who will let you know how great they were, or some other type of excuse they will use. They never get the person who will say they were too crazy, America News never interviews that person because he’s too honest.

[Already proven correct: see comment on Associated Press report below]




Click through to comments, around 200 as of now.

- “We didn’t know he was a policeman”......because it would be ok to murder a civilian????????? Are these parents for real?!??

- “there are questions whether they properly identified themselves as police”. Yeah right, because if they did identify themselves as police, then it would be ok to kill them???

- I usually find an angle against the cops, but stabbing someone 11 times over a bad drug deal for $80? Take the loss and keep moving. The streets don’t play fair. This kid was well off, $80 was nothing. I mean, come on.

Seems promising for our cause?

Although (surprise, surprise) most of the 1300 or so American media-owners of the Associated Press have posted this misleading AP report.

None of Hopeful’s helpful takeaways on the two guys from the ABC7 video posted below were included and nothing about the illegality of the knife except for the mention of the guilty count for not leaving the knife at home.

And no mention of the fact that, like Knox, illegal drugs seem to have been the main reason for the trip.

The primary judge and all of the jurists that can been seen in the videos were women. Perhaps they were beaming a message: “American drug-takers and killers, keep away.”

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/08 at 06:58 AM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (0)

Page 1 of 93 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›