To my visitors, commentators, and subscribers,

You are immensely appreciated. Thank you for enriching the content of this site with your knowledge and views. The purpose of this site is to offer 1st source documentation, empirical evidence, and resources surrounding the Meredith Kercher murder case, raise awareness of other miscarriages of justice, and promote discussion of differing views to help anyone and everyone get to the bottom of the truth. I believe we all benefit from everyone’s ability to pinpoint specific objects of inquiry, criticism, and reflection.

None of the views we express are above peer review. Our choice to express them and how to express them also acts as evidence of our state of mind, our awareness of objective evidence, our biases, and our intentions toward each other.

With that in mind, I wanted to clarify some of my housekeeping methods for this site. I receive notice of many more comments than make it to the discussion board, and there have been differing views expressed about my motivations for allowing some comments and not others. Here I will attempt to describe the qualifications I generally have in mind.

I delete all spam.

I delete any comment that requests information that doesn’t correspond with the post and subsequent discussion. For instance, if you’d like to ask me about WordPress or inform me of a technical or material problem or lack on the site, please contact me at [email protected]

I receive enormous quantities of messages of support and encouragement. I’m so grateful for your well wishes, but if I posted them all, the discussion boards would be flooded and difficult to follow. I do take them all to heart.

I do allow what some would define as controversial commentary. I do so because I believe it is important to not be reticent about certain arguments and allow, as stated above, differing views so that they may be peer reviewed. I do not determine whether or not to allow a comment based on whether or not I agree with it.

I’m sorry for the technical difficulties I’ve had with my RSS feed. I’m learning as I go along and will fix it asap!

thank you, everyone,



This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

683 Responses to Housekeeping

  1. Rosalva says:

    Hi! Support from Mexico!! Never let yourself down!

  2. Fred Aborn says:



    Political and Military Offenses

    1. [highlight=#ffff00]Extradition shall not be granted when the offense for which extradition is requested is a political offense[/highlight], or if the person whose surrender is sought proves that the request for surrender has been made in order to try or punish him or her for a political offense.

    This is a paragraph made very interesting because Hellmann has repeatedly stated that Amanda’s predicament is political. She is not free because of political reasons.

  3. Eric Harper aka. Harpertown says:

    I hate sending messages like this to public figures because I’m never quite sure who is truly getting them. So, I’d appreciate if this isn’t directly routed to Amanda that you please pass this along. It’s a nice message of support after all.

    And if this is Amanda, well, hello!

    I’ve watched from a distance the horrible injustice you were put through over the years, but didn’t really know all the details. To me I didn’t really have to. I’ve always had a refined compass when it came to people and their behavior, and every time I would catch a news broadcast with you stating your innocence I knew you were just that.


    I can always tell when looking into someone’s eyes if I should be picking up what they are putting down, or if I’m having the wool pulled over my eyes.

    I always saw you as an honest and genuine person and found myself getting frustrated that an investigator’s pride was getting in the way of your freedom.

    But I’ll digress before I begin a rant about my negative disposition on how your case was handled. That is not why I wanted to send you this message of support.

    I’m sure you get plenty of messages; both good, and some unfortunately bad. I want to send you another message of support because I just want to make sure you know you have another person on your side.

    I’ve wanted to do this earlier, but you were surrounded by a media storm, and I’m sure all noise (good or bad) was just that. Noise.

    As you know Netflix has taken the nation by storm. Turning us all into sedentary binge watchers of the many shows they have (I have 10 pounds and a developing neck chin to prove the point) and today I watched a CNN show about your case.

    I had to watch it because I really didn’t know all the details and I really wanted to know that my instincts were right. And oh my, I don’t think I could’ve been more spot on.

    I will not be disrespectful and recount any of those details, because my reason to email you was to send you love and support as a fellow American.

    And not like creepy stalky love, but the non-creepy non-stalky love you share with your fellow country men.

    Why do I feel like I should have a powdered wig on sitting in the presence of George Washington after saying a statement that ends in “country men?”

    My mind is just a menagerie of colorful imagery. What can I say? I always keep things interesting for myself.

    Sorry, I like to bring laughter into the world and am here to give you a serious message of my support. However, if you find my candidness entertaining I hope you get a good laugh.

    Either laughing with me (cause I find myself pretty darn hilarious at times), or hell even at me because you really deserve reasons to have laughter in your life.

    Anyway, back to what I really want to say.

    I hope there’s been numerous silver linings in this dark cloud for you, and wish you the best. Above all though, I pray that the real irrefutable truth comes out one day that finally clears both you and Rafael’s name.

    So, be well, stay strong, head high, and above all else stay the heck out of Italy! ;) That was my feeble and possibly inappropriate attempt at a joke.

    I come from one of those families that turns any situation into a punch line, so it’s kind of like a habit to me, If you haven’t already picked up what I was putting down with my other corny attempts at jokes.

    Take care Amanda, and all the best! I am sending so many good vibes your way, and to all who need closure with this by having the truth prevail.

    Although you may not see or know it, I can see that despite the words of those convicting you, they know you and Rafael had nothing to do with it.

    I believe this is why pride is considered one of the seven deadly sins.

    I feel that’s quite ironic, don’t ya think?

    Take care, and best wishes.

    Eric Harper

  4. Larry Saltzman says:

    It would have been wonderful if the court had gotten a grip on reality and ended this farce by declaring your and Raffaele’s innocence. But if they are bound and determined to come to false verdicts of guilty, based on theories drawn out of thin air and lies about non-existent evidence, at least their arguments are so absurd and illogical that perhaps it will actually help your cause. I have read the part of the verdict in English and if I didn’t already know you were innocent, this would have convinced me anyway. This is a political persecution and hopefully somewhere in the Italian government someone will wake up and realize how wrong this is. Meantime and Raffaele have many supporters working to help you anyway possible.

  5. Fred Aborn says:

    GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) is a concept common to computer science and mathematics: the quality of output is determined by the quality of the input. If the judges were being fed garbage by an early prosecutor, then they had to produce a low quality decision. And they certainly did!

    Every part of the process you’ve been through has replaced the original garbage with accurate information. If the Italian courts don’t have confirmation bias and can evaluate the data and the facts, then Italy will certainly find you at least NOT GUILTY.

  6. Luara says:

    If you allow religious proselytizing, lengthy posts with Bible quotes, people trying to convert you to Christianity – please allow the nonbelievers to respond to this.
    The proselytizers have been using your blog to try to propagate their religion. Many of their posts are not particularly related to your case. The agenda is to propagate their religion.
    Allowing religious proselytizing amounts to a perpetuation of the privilege that religion, especially Christianity, is given in our society to try to propagate itself. Religious beliefs are given respect in our society, as say a flat-earther or a conspiracy theorist wouldn’t be.
    Actually, you’ve been allowing posts attempting to propagate other religious and non-religious belief systems around – like alternative theories about the JFK assassination. If people have the privilege to try to propagate their beliefs, others should be able to respond.
    Many ex-religious people find religious proselytizing quite offensive. I’m not ex-religious, but I do like to be able to respond and question people’s beliefs, when they are voiced. It’s off-topic for sure, but in response to an off-topic post.

  7. Fred Aborn says:

    The disproven conspiracy to kill Kercher reminds me of the disproven conspiracy to kill president Kennedy. In president Kennedy’s assassination it was thought that Oswald couldn’t fire three bullets accurately and quickly and that one bullet couldn’t do as much damage as it did and still be in pristine shape. Tests by the Mythbuster show and others have proven otherwise. Tests by your lawyers have shown that Guede could climb into the apartment and that he could do the damage to Kercher that was done. Mysteries still remain, but it is known that Oswald could and probably did kill president Kennedy as the sole shooter. Likewise Guede could have and probably did kill Kercher as the sole attacker. I’m sure of it.

    • jamesrae says:

      Keep in mind that the reality of having a conspiracy to kill a President or political leader is not the least bit uncommon and in fact is rather common in history..

      Amanda’s situation as a murder conspiracy with her as the evil instigator, given all the players and motives, is actually beyond rare and in the stratosphere of probability. Beyond Vegas odds.

      Rudy as a lone burglar/rapist/murderer is a common occurrence and happening somewhere as I write this.

  8. Fred Aborn says:

    You and Raffaele are being subjected to trial by hypothesis.

    Trial by ordeal was the vogue several centuries ago. At least trial by ordeal was quick.

    The people that differentiate between a hypothesis and a reliable fact that puts a person at the scene AT THE TIME OF the crime always think you and Raffaele are innocent.

  9. Julie Jorgensen says:

    Amanda…could I make one suggestion…it would really be helpful if you would add a link from this blog to your Amanda Knox defense FB page. Now that I’ve unfriended you (as you sensibly asked for on your personal FB page) I’m finding it’s harder to find this other FB page. Thanks..hope you and your family are well and that you are able to hang in there with this last semester of school. As always, you are in our thoughts and prayers.

  10. Could someone please explain this post like I’m 4?

  11. Fred Aborn says:

    The prejudice and bias was initiated in the Guede case when the SC suggested that Amanda and Raffaele helped Guede. The case in defense of Amanda and Raffaele had not been presented then, but, nevertheless the SC prejudiced all the future court hearings and trials with these and subsequent statements. Lawyers in the USA would be disbarred for similar prejudices and biases.

    This is the US Judicial Code of Conduct:

  12. Rob H says:

    Judge Nencini’s motivation for convicting Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is already starting to seep out. Nencini has given an interview to “Corriere della Sera”. I am quoting only from the “Daily Mail” so some caution must be exercised, but the Huffington Post has exactly the same information. For some reason I cannot find the interview on the Italian paper’s website.

    “Judge Nencini hinted at what the court had found to be the most plausible explanation for what happened, saying that up until 8:15 p.m. on the night of the murder, Knox and Sollecito had other plans: In Knox’s case, she was supposed to have gone to work at a bar, and Sollecito was supposed to have gone to a train station to pick up a friend’s luggage.
    ‘At the moment I can say that up until 8:15 of that evening, the kids had other plans, but they skipped them and an opportunity was created,’ Nencini was quoted as saying. ‘If Amanda had gone to work, probably we wouldn’t be here.'”

    From the same source, Nencini also criticised Raffaele Sollecito for not testifying and for not submitting himself to cross examination.

    “It’s the defendant’s right, but it certainly deprived the process of a voice,” Nencini was quoted as saying. “He limited himself to spontaneous declarations. He said only what he wanted to say without letting himself be cross-examined.”

    So, Nencini has clearly rejected any alibi evidence and is of the opinion that a defendant, exercising his right not to testify, harms his defence.

    The other interesting point to make is that when asked whether the decision to convict was unanimous amongst all the judges, Nencini would only say that it was “shared”.

    It seems highly probable therefore that this was not a unanimous decision.

    • Matthew McKenna says:

      ROB H.
      Thank You for sharing that Judge’s Point of Contention.
      I wish I could help Raff, but I can Raise Issues.
      As far as Miss Knox is Concerned, there are MORE U.S. Constitutuional
      Arguments Raised here. WE in the U.S. have a 5th Amendment Right to Remain Silent.
      The Italian Appeallate Court is asking BOTH Defendants to PROVE that they Did NOT ! The PROOF is there ! Mr. RUDY, his UNQUESTIONABLE DNA. This is Taking the “BURDEN” from the Prosecutor to the Defendant, if this is the Way of ANY Legitimite Court…… The Any DUE PROCESS does Not Exist.

      • Robert Stallard says:

        After reading many articles and listening to many television reports on this affair, it strikes me as most peculiar that a man
        (R.Guede) pled guilty to this and is serving time, yet his testimony is never presented!
        Normally when you plead guilty, you ‘help’ the prosecution with evidence and even as a court witness for the prosecution.
        Why have the authorities not paraded Mr Guede before the court to testify as to the events of that murder that he pled guilty to, …if there were others to be held responsible?
        There are no grey areas of murder. You committed the murder,or you didn’t.
        If Ms Knox were there helping him commit this act, surely he would have volunteered the information to the prosecution to get his sentence reduced.
        Has this happened, did we miss something?

  13. Julie says:

    Without a shadow of a doubt, both you and your friend Raffaele are innocent. You were framed to cover up the internal mismanagement of affairs and crimes in Perugia. I’m no expert but from everything I’ve read so far, this screams ‘corruption’. It’s amazing how this is now playing out on an international level. And it has not yet reached fever pitch. Maybe because of this, the crooked prosecutor and his cohorts from Perugia will one day be exposed for the harm they have caused you and your family as well as everyone connected with this, not to mention the harm they have caused their own citizens. This, in the end, only throws more shade on Italy itself, which is already seen as country with a most fumbling festering and decaying infrastructure.
    I’m so sorry you have to go through this nightmare. If only there were a way for you to sue internationally, to sue the Italian legal personnel and police for defamation of character and for slander and for harassment and for abuse. How they treated you in prison smacks of human rights abuse. How to turn this around and go on the offensive? I think if it were me, once I’d gotten over the shock of the latest verdict, I’d go after them not only for their incompetence but for obstructing justice. I’d turn the finger and point it right back at them. Just like you did in your recent letter to court. I’d broadcast far and wide.
    I will be thinking of you and praying that you do not have to spend the rest of your life in this hell and that one day, and may that day come soon, you can feel safe again with the freedom to do, go and come as you please, wherever you please.

    • Daphne says:

      Hi, Julie.
      It is corrupt. By various international powers. I don’t have answers, but after the marathon bombing, I was talking to my aunt in Italy, and she told me in her city many innocents were being framed by Eastern activists, especially for murder. She also told me her adult daughter had been repeatedly stalked around the city, (like me) and it made her fearful to go out. The video I provided a link to keeps disappearing from these posts and my own computer. Sounds like terrorism. If you go to the TouTube channel, “Posledniye Novosti,” it argues for executions, against Obama, and closely follows global terrorism. The video about the guilty verdict gives very subliminal messages about Amanda.

  14. Roger Patterson says:

    Like other thousands, reading the authoritative reports from Bruce Fisher and others it was crystal clear you had been railroaded. Trying to empathise with your experiences these past years has been a roller coaster of anger and disgust with the way you have been treated, and terror at how easily it could happen to anyone. The corruption and psychology going on is astounding. Can I say that the way you and Raffaele (and family) have handled this nightmare it is an incredible example of forbearance and grace. As a father myself, I am in awe of your father. All the best with this latest set back. You will prevail. There are too many behind you now, and the number keeps growing. Keep going! Go Amanda!

  15. Luigi says:

    Ms Knox, it strikes me that you have made peace with the past by convincing yourself of the justice of this rationale: “I’m innocent because I’ve come to learn there is no free will: I’m a victim of my unguarded ignorance of my own lethal potential—now I know better and am finally fully self-aware. What else to call the oblivion of ignored psychopathy but innocence?”

    • Julie Jorgensen says:

      Luigi, what should we call the oblivion of ignored evidence of innocence?

      • Luigi says:

        “What is character but the determination of incident? What is incident but the illustration of character? What is a picture or a novel that is not of character? What else do we seek in it and find in it? It is an incident for a woman to stand up with her hand resting on a table and look out at you in a certain way; or if it be not an incident, I think it will be hard to say what it is…I do not say that these are extraordinary or startling incidents. I do not pretend to estimate the degree of interest proceeding from them, for this will depend upon the skill of the painter.”–I would only differ with Henry James on the last point, as some incidents and characters seem positively burdened with an inevitable and effortless, because inevitably startling, “interest.”

        • Julie Jorgensen says:

          Amanda is not the illusion or phantom that the media created. They have made her this sinister Mona Lisa that is completely a fantasy. Sadly the incidents of that fateful day have rippled on in an endless stream. Some ripples have traveled towards hate, vengeance and suffering. Yet in an amazing way, other ripples have traveled towards kindness, patience, inner strength, understanding, even forgiveness. These are the ripples I will reach for.

  16. JD says:

    I just wanted to let you know that I hear you, I believe in you, and I am praying for you. I wish I could help. I was a 17 year old senior in high school when all of this started and I have been following your story my entire adult life now. I read your book and I could relate so much to so much of what you wrote about your thought processes as a young person first arriving in Perugia, and I could so easily picture myself in your shoes. Those same things could have happened to me the same way. I completely understood all of your stories and explanations about what happened, and I believe you. You have been heard, at least by me. I hope you can put this nightmare behind you soon, my fondest hope is that you will have a normal and happy life someday without having to worry about this coming back again. I will be following what happens next and sending good vibes your way.

    If this comment is not posted I will not take offense, I just hope you see it. I want so very much to help and this is the only way I know how.

  17. Eric_B says:

    “There are two Italies,” wrote Percy Bysshe Shelley,
    one composed of the green earth and transparent sea and the mighty ruins of ancient times, and aerial mountains, and the warm and radiant atmosphere which is interfused through all things. The other consists of the Italians of the present day, their works and ways. The one is the most sublime and lovely contemplation that can be conceived by the imagination of man; the other the most degraded, disgusting & odious.

  18. Tom Mininger says:

    An excellent and concise book describing the actual crime by Doug Preston, FBI pioneer of criminal profiling John Douglas, seasoned murder investigator Steve Moore, Judge Heavey, and others:

  19. redress says:

    Amanda, stay strong. Stay focussed. You will be okay. The truth always perseveres. And, it always wins.

  20. Katy says:


    It’s fine with me if you don’t post this, because it’s just an ordinary message of support. I can’t even begin to say how upset and angry I am about the verdict. I have believed in your innocence for years, but it wasn’t until I read this blog and watched some of your interviews that I realized what a truly impressive person you are. Thank you for bringing my attention to Nyki Kish’s blog, and to the Innocence Project in general. I have so much respect for the way you have worked to make this awful experience meaningful. I know it must be hard – much harder than you make it look. But you are succeeding – if not with the wackjob Italian courts, then with intelligent people all around the world. So please, please keep up the good work.


  21. Denise says:

    I am so sorry Amanda for the verdict of the Italian Court. I don’t understand why or how this verdict could have occurred. My daughter had been in Italy studying abroad for a few months and after she was safely home I heard about your case. I was terrified for you knowing how young you were and for your family being caught up in a tragedy so far from home. I followed your case and researched the incident and I learned a lot about the evidence against you was not valid on the website Friends of Amanda Knox. I could not believe you were convicted of the crime when the first ruling came down, it is one of those days you remember where you were, when a great tragedy occurs before your eyes. I really hope you continue to do talk shows, to talk about what the evidence found in the crime scene reveals, because there lies the truth. I think everyone knows your name but not every one has taken the time to find out what truly happened. People need to be aware what happened to you, could happen to them or their children. Stay strong Amanda!

    • Dave says:

      It happened because the Italian Courts found her guilty.
      Do you have to have a photo of her killing Meredith to believe it?

      • BigDinBoise says:

        See Dave, a photo of her doing it would be actual “evidence” of a crime. Since it doesn’t exist, and nor does any other evidence pointing to Amanda’s guilt, common sense dictates that she is innocent.

      • Julie Jorgensen says:

        Do you have to have a photo of Rudy Guede murdering Meredith to believe that he alone murdered her? The scientific evidence all points to him.

        The Italian Courts found Amanda and Raffaele guilty without a single shred of evidence. According to the latest comment made by Judge Nencini…they must have done it because their plans changed and they had nothing else to do that night. This kangaroo court did not mete out justice but it did hand down more injustice.

      • Caro says:

        What’s your point? I don’t really understand your reply ..

      • Eric_B says:

        some evidence would be good, if any sane person is to believe the lunatic fantasies of the Italian courts.

        I guess that’s not coming any time soon.

      • Sarah H says:

        Yes, I would. Because there wasn’t a single witness or a speck of physical evidence that placed her there; even though the room was covered in blood and yielded dozens of pieces of evidence , including DNA and fingerprints — all connected to a known burglar, Rudy Guede. And there wasn’t a speck of Meredith’s blood or DNA on Amanda’s clothing, which the police found, unwashed, on her bed. It isn’t possible for Amanda to have participated in a violent knife attack without leaving traces of her presence in the room and on Meredith’s body. She cannot have been the killer. Frankly, if someone came up with a video at this time, I’d guess it had been photo-shopped.

        “The Mountain of Missing Evidence” by Stephen Moore

      • Tom Mininger says:

        Which of the prosecution or judge fantasies is the one for you?
        Sex game gone wrong
        Satanic sex cult murder ritual one night behind schedule
        Amanda directed it from another room
        No motive
        Argument over a turd in Filomena/Laura’s shared bathroom at the other end of the flat
        What’s the latest from Nencini? They were bored. Had nothing else to do.

        Or do you have one of your own?

        And would you contact Scotland Yard or the FBI immediately and reveal how Amanda and Raffaele removed their invisible DNA and left Guede’s invisible DNA behind?

        • Tom Mininger says:

          I’m sorry I left out Massei’s fantasy. Amanda and Raffaele saw Guede forcing himself on Meredith and instead of helping her, joined in. Amanda then proceeded to retrieve Raffaele’s giant kitchen knife out of her handbag. But how could the knife be there? Oh yeah, Raffaele must of given it to her for protection.

      • T.C. says:

        DNA would be nice but seeing that they haven’t found any you may want to look into the facts and ignore the tabloids. It may also increase your IQ some as well.

        Further, Italian courts and Italian police have no integrity. Here is an article in the guardian I suggest you read:

      • Antony says:


        We don’t need to see a photo (although I smiled a bit at Daphne’s response), but we do need to see coherent evidence to support the court’s verdict. This is something that should apply to all courts – in England we have a maxim that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.

        It’s long been obvious to any fair-minded person that once you look past the hysteria surrounding this case, there is no coherent evidence at all. If there were then Amanda and Raffaele would not have the support that they do.

      • Pigsticker says:

        No need for a photo, but evidence placing her in the room would be helpful. There is none except in the imagination of the guilters.

  22. Richard Buss, M.D. says:

    Hello Amanda,
    I have been following this case with increasing fascination, and some horror, to see how people can be caught up in an obvious perversion of justice. When I first read about your case, I was skeptical, but when I read about all the supposed “evidence” I was livid with rage.

    I want to rail against the entire Italian justice system. I wish more people found it appalling that the Italian Supreme Court found that rape could not happen if a woman wore tight jeans. Also, that a sixty-year-old man was appropriately having a sexual relationship with an eleven-year-old girl, if “she were in love with him”. Does this not bother people? It is probably not your place to badmouth the Italian legal system now, but SOMEONE has to do it. The Italian people apparently have little power or control over their legal system, and this is just another example of judicial power run amok.

    I wish I could do more. I just donated another $100 to your defense fund, and I am trying to tell everyone I know about the case.

    Please hang in there, be strong, continue to use your web site to oppose unjust convictions. I wish you and Raffaele all the best. In the best of all worlds, the U.S. should offer political asylum to Raffaele, as he and you are both being subject to political persecution.

    Richard Buss, M.D.

    • Nasim says:

      You do understand, doctor, that the Italian Supreme Court does not make the laws. In the case of the statutory rape case the Supreme Court remanded the case because the appeals court did not formulate its decision properly. It was required to discuss potential mitigating factors. Those mitigating factors are prescribed by law. Clearly the law needs to be updated but that’s not the Supreme Court’s fault.

      • BigDinBoise says:

        Nasim – what are you even saying? I think the doctor understands perfectly well that the ISC does not make laws, but they do interpret them… very poorly it seems. The ISC invented the mitigating factors and overturned the guilt verdict and women who wear jeans were outraged around the world .
        Here is what judge Aldo Rizzo said defending the decision in the New Your Times –
        “It should be noted that it is instinctive, especially for a young woman, to oppose with all her strength the person who wants to rape her. And it is illogical to say that a young woman would passively submit to a rape, which is a grave violence, for fear of undergoing other hypothetical and no more serious offenses to her physical safety.”

      • Rob H says:

        “Italy’s supreme court ruled that the verdict did not sufficiently consider “the ‘consensus’, the existence of an amorous relationship, the absence of physical force, the girl’s feelings of love”.

        This perfectly encapsulates the problem with the Italian justice system. This was not a case on the margins – the girl close to the age of consent and the man a little older – it was an eleven year old girl and a sixty year old man (the age of consent in Italy is 14) – a social worker whom the child trusted.

        The power of the judges transcends everything – no case law, no settled principle. And so a judge may opine that an 11 year old’s “love” for a 60 year old man somehow justifies that man having sex with her. Italian law does not require the judge to offer this opinion; it simply enables him to.

        But what does an 11 year old know about love?

        My neighbour has an 11 year old daughter. Sometimes, when I come home, she runs over to see me. I talk to her about what she does in school; I listen to her. Occasionally, she says “I love you” to me, because I am nice to her and she’s allowed to pet my dog. It is sweet and it is innocent. What kind of a justice system is it that justifies the corruption of such innocence?

      • Eric_B says:

        it cannot be a mitigating factor that an 11 year old girl was ‘in love’ with her 60 year old rapist.

        It cannot be obligatory on the ISC to claim that it is.

        that is contrary to numerous international treaties Italy has signed, such as the Treaty on the Rights of the Child.

        It is also contrary to the idea of statutory rape, a basic concept in Uk and US law.

        It is also simply sick.

      • Alex K. says:

        The supreme court believes that a social worker who molested a child in his care deserves a break because the relationship was “romantic”.

        This is a classic pedophile’s defense, an argument out of a NAMBLA brochure.

      • Sarah H says:

        Funny that the high court doesn’t follow Italian law with regard to finding guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Instead it enjoined the new appeals court to ignore any flaws in the evidence and just look at the “totality.” Which was the only way to convict her since there was enough reasonable doubt to fly a 777 through.

      • T.C. says:

        “The high court justices who threw out the first appeal and ordered a new trial last March did so not because it had doubts about the forensic reappraisal, but rather because, in their view, the appeals court had focused too much on the shortcomings of individual pieces of evidence instead of examining the case “as a whole”. This alone was a deeply disconcerting line of argument.

        The high court was convinced, even without proof, that Meredith Kercher had died as a result of a multi-person sex game gone wrong and said a new trial must take this into account. Enter Alessandro Crini, the lead prosecutor in the latest appeal, who did his best to follow the high court’s directions but could not make the sex-game theory stick.

        Instead, Crini came up with an entirely new scenario, unheard in any previous court proceedings going back to 2008, in which he envisioned Knox and Kercher arguing over an unflushed toilet and then somehow allowing the argument to escalate to the point where Knox pulled an eight-inch kitchen knife from her purse and Sollecito plunged his pocket knife into her neck. Guede’s role, Crini claimed, was limited to “satisfying himself in barbarous fashion” – in other words, seeking sexual gratification while the murder took place in front of him.

        The kitchen knife has been tested repeatedly and it is now agreed by all parties that Kercher’s DNA was not on it. Sollecito’s penknife, meanwhile, was never seriously considered to be a factor until Crini suddenly decided it was—again, without a shred of forensic evidence. The prosecution had nothing to place Knox or Sollecito in the house on the night of the murder, much less in Kercher’s room. And it had no motive to offer beyond the ludicrous notion – also unproven — that Knox was moved to homicidal rage because Kercher accused her of being messy around the house, and Sollecito was willing to go along with the crime out of love for her. ”

  23. RK says:

    Amanda is being punished simply because the prosecutors don’t want to admit being completely wrong from the start. The killer is Guede and Guede alone. His DNA is all over the place. And yet Guede was not even a suspect initially, only Amanda and her boyfriend were. Then they caught Guede. At that point, instead of admitting mistake, they wove Guede into their existing story, to save face. Horrifying and appalling.

    • Nasim says:

      If you read the arrest decree that Amanda herself translated, you will see that she and Raffaele were charged with conspiracy. The police believed initially that the attacker was male but could not ignore the staged break-in and the bizarre behavior. They suspected that Amanda and Raffaele knew who the real killer was. Rudy’s print was not identified until two weeks after the murder. Even if they had his DNA earlier than that, his profile was not on record. How were the police supposed to suspect him? Once Rudy was identified it became clear that he was the man in the role they had mistakenly assigned to Patrick. It is perfectly logical. There is no convincing evidence of a police cover-up.

    • T.C. says:

      Correct, this is about saving face.
      “But big questions remain. How could two innocent people be convicted of such a heinous crime, backed up by a 400-page opinion, spend four years in prison, and then have their convictions so resoundingly overturned?

      The answer lies in the Italian concept of face, la faccia, whose deep and pervasive power most Anglo-Saxons who have not lived in a Mediterranean country have a hard time appreciating.”

      “While they don’t like others pointing it out, many Italians are well aware that their judicial system is dysfunctional. Silvio Berlusconi is absolutely right when he says the judiciary needs fundamental reform. The Italian judiciary, a holdover to a great extent from the Mussolini era, when Italy was a police state, acts with no checks and balances, in which prosecutors and police wield enormous power.

      If you are arrested for a crime and have no alibi, you are in very serious trouble. The de facto burden of proof is on you to prove your innocence, despite lip service in the Italian constitution to the idea of innocent until proven guilty.

      The Italian justice system often seems more concerned with preserving the honour and reputations of powerful individuals than with finding the truth. This, in a nutshell, explains why Knox and Sollecito were not released when Guede was identified, why dubious DNA and forensic lab work was relied upon, why prosecutors and police leaked so much damaging and salacious information to the press, and why these two innocent young people spent 1,450 days in prison for murder they did not commit. It was all about honour, reputation, and the saving of face.”

      Full article:

  24. Rose Marie says:

    Those who want to learn about how the “facts” or “evidence” in this case have been manipulated, distorted or created out of nothing to support an over zealous prosecution should look at

  25. Alissa says:

    Dear Amanda,

    I am an American living and working in Europe. I want you to know that I support you 100 percent, and I admire you and your bravery and your strength. You didn’t ask to be put in this position, but the way you have handled it and yourself has been humbling to watch. I will continue to support you and think and pray for you.

    Cheering for you from across the Atlantic,


  26. Wayne says:


    I offer my support and hope you stay strong. I wasn’t surprised in the least at the verdict. The court had already determined what its verdict was going to be before the 3rd trial began. It was just a show trial. The Supreme Court had ordered a new test of the knife with a different sample because they knew that the 1st sample claimed to be Meredith’s was discredited. They simply wanted a confirmation by showing that a 2nd sample was Meredith’s. And when they found the 2nd sample to be Amanda’s not Meredith’s, just ignored that outcome. The same way that they have ignored every single piece of evidence showing innocence.

    This needs to get to an American extradition court as soon as possible. By an American court refusing extradition it will vindicate Amanda and will close this case forever. I’m saddened that it has come this far, but the Italian system was the one that caused it.

    • Pigsticker says:

      I noticed how they ignored the evidence. Frank wrote two articles about the testimony of Raffaele’s lawyers and another about Dalla Vedova’s testimony, and in all three hearings Nencini appeared to be either dismissive or half-asleep. Then Crini suggests his “precautionary measures” and all of a sudden Nencini perks up, asking him to repeat his question three times. Not a sign that he hadn’t already decided the verdict. It was a Kangaroo Court, plain and simple.

  27. Eric_B says:

    Well Judge Nencini has come up with his own fantasy explanation of the murder.

    Never mind toilets, he says Amanda and Raff ‘decided to kill because they had nothing to do’.

    I’m a bit worried because i often have ‘nothing to do’ in the sense of staying at home on my computer or watching TV.

    I am British so perhaps i could ask the Italians to take me into preventive custody?

    Better safe than sorry.

    • Matt says:

      Do it. Not even kidding.

    • Mike Wiesner (Smith) says:

      Shows how pathetically desperately they were to justify convicting with no evidence. While the outrageous interrogation by itself is a guarantee the U.S. will never extradite, the following quote from Nencini is another:

      “Asked if the final verdict was unanimous after 12 hours of deliberations, Nencini hedged, saying it was a ‘‘shared’’ decision.”

      Shared decision???? That means the “lay judges actually had the guts to disagree with the lead judge, something that rarely happens. More proof this verdict was purely political, dictated by the ISC.

      • Julie Jorgensen says:

        Can Amanda’s lawyers demand to have a head count of those who voted to convict and those who voted for innocence? It would be very interesting to learn the actual number for and against.

  28. It is perfect time to make some plans

    • warren says:

      from australia heres a fresh perspective. i only discovered your case this week. i hadnt heard of you before. so heres what a fresh set of eyes see. you didnt act out of order upon discovering the crime or the following days during your questioning. you were in shock and very young. you only knew your new boyfriend for a week and had only lived in italy a month your use of the language was limited. your boss was giving you problems. the police questioning comes across as forceful coercion and bullying the first trial judge has delusions. the evidence d with it all spread before you any logical person realises in short time you are innocent. the following court processes and time in jail are a shame to italy. the supporters you have around you are devoted. getting your life into an order back home with family took great charactor. you are blessed with a loving family. writing a book about your experience is healing. a hundred and fifty million dollars ortwo dollars i bet you helped pay your parents and grandma back. cause thats the kind of thing you would do. something nice. and thats what shines through about your whole case. you are a nice person. you are caught in a raging battle of really bad charactors egos and tragic actions. the killer is already in jail. you have good advisors. i think the good in people has already swayed your government to support you. they see you as there own daughter niece sister. the internet pages show themselves for what they are. one realises soon enough the manipulation and misinformation present in some. the media also shows where its coming from within minutes. you show your honest and human and a woman of charactor. in years to come you will look at dignity and see yourself.

  29. Garrett says:

    Hey first time commenting here.

    I’m amazed at the people I still run into who think “well maybe they had something to do with it…” and inevitably when they tell you why it’s debunked nonsense and remnants of sensational tabloid crap.

    If you happen to read this Amanda, you have my utmost sympathy for what you’ve one through and continue to go through. I didn’t know much about your case until some months ago when I decided to finally see what it was all about. I came into it late and with no presumptions. After looking at everything I could find, I came away completely convinced of you and Raffaele’s innocence. What has been done to you two is disgusting.

    I’m sure at some point you’ve watched the PBS Frontline episode called “The Confessions” – but if by some miracle you haven’t ended up watching it as you looked for stuff about false confessions, you should take the time to. It is also a great thing to link to anyone who says they just can’t understand how someone could be made to say things which weren’t true in an interrogation.

    Stay strong!

  30. Len D. says:

    There is probably nothing I can say to make you feel better, but I offer my sympathy for this unjust decision. Stay Strong. Apparently your situation has more to teach us about how to find justice.

    Also, I have seen interviews where you mention that you keep in contact with the priest from Capanne (?Father Saulo Scarabattoli?). He sounds like an interesting guy and one of the few bright spots in Perugia.

  31. Kate says:

    Dear Amanda:
    First, let me say how terribly sorry I am about the second verdict. This is a nightmare no human being should have to live. I cannot imagine what it must feel like to be convicted and sent to prison for something you didn’t do the first time around. But to be released and re-convicted and to have to face what you have to face now is truly an injustice that should never be. Even for a fiction writer like myself, it is in a word… unimaginable.
    Second, as someone who has faced an unusual amount of bad luck in her own life, I can tell you that there is no great hell than repetition. When something horrible just happens over and over again, it just makes you want to lay down and die. Please don’t. Please fight extradition with all your heart, soul, and every cell in you. I also know what it feels like when it seems the world is out against you with pitchforks in hand. Super scary.
    Third, you are not crazy. When the world is crazy, the sane people get sent to the psych ward. But it helps to hear it… you are not crazy. The Italian legal system is nuts. And anyone siding with them is equally nuts. Hang tight and don’t let the bastards get you down. Take care of yourself. Look good. Be brave. And stick it to the buggers.

    • Luara says:

      When something horrible just happens over and over again, it just makes you want to lay down and die.
      I did die psychologically when I was a very little child and I came back to life in my late 20’s.
      you are not crazy. When the world is crazy, the sane people get sent to the psych ward.
      I was brought up with a “crazy” label – so that any disturbing truths I said, could be written off as hallucinations or delusions.
      I am amazed at how terribly supposedly intelligent, sensible people can distort reality. People can do anything – and justify it. As long as delusions are socially acceptable, they can pass as reality.
      Whatever you went through, the dynamics seem to be similar.
      Amanda was labelled criminal, not crazy – which is different, it has more dignity but it’s also more dangerous to the labelled person. But trying to claim one’s innocence when an overbearing world claims one guilty, is similar to claiming that one isn’t crazy, and maybe feels a bit the same.

  32. Sally Egan says:

    Amanda. I know you are innocent. And pray for you and Raffaele

  33. Anne says:

    How do you do it? Living with the Knowledge but pretending otherwise to everyone around you cos they so much want you to be innocent? The right and healthy thing to do would be to admit to what you did. If not for Meredith and her family then for yourself. Cos its you and you alone who will have to live with the guilt, the sheer Horror of what you did that night. Face it and seek help. It won’t ever go away from pretending nor from living in denial. You can whine as much as you want, talk to as Many Interviewers as you like, nothing you do will ever change a thing if you don’t Start facing the truth.

    • Andrea Jonasson says:

      You sound very certain that Amanda killed Meredith, and you sound like you feel entitled to give her a mini-lecture about what she should do about it.

      There are many good reasons to think that Amanda is entirely innocent of this crime, and that she is already telling the truth. I won’t go into them here, but they are nicely summarized at the Injustice in Perugia site if you would care to open your mind before pronouncing judgment and offering advice.

      Perhaps you meant well, but your comment came off as misguided and condescending.

    • Meg says:

      Okay I’m going to state some facts here and I hope Amanda will allow my post to remain, even though I’m sure she disagrees:

      The Kercher family is bitter. They sent their daughter to a country steeped in sexism, and didn’t raise her to have very good judgment in men at the same time. She took to sleeping with Giacomo Silenzi who lived downstairs from Amanda and Meredith. He was growing enough pot from reports I’ve read to be a dealer. He treated Meredith poorly, shunning her in public and asking her to have anal sex with him. He hung around with Rudy Guede both in the nearby basketball courts but also in his own apartment, where Rudy had attended parties and gatherings. In fact, Giacomo had brought Rudy in to the apartment in the week or so before the murder, I have heard.

      So this influences Rudy’s decision to both break in to these young, pretty girls’ apartment, and to then rape and murder Meredith when she arrived him while Rudy was inside.

      It is very possible and perhaps even probable that Rudy might not have either broken in to begin with in the girls’ apartment and/or not raped Meredith had she not been unwisely involved with Rudy’s friend, Giacomo, who is a dirtbag. I have a lot of experience studying rape and sexual assault, but it doesn’t take some ‘expert’ to know that the disgusting men who rape often think like this, ‘Well, she’s giving it to him, why not to me…’

      Meredith Kercher made very poor decisions about the kind of man she chose to get involved with in Perugia, and this probably caused her to be murdered.

      This is not the fault of Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito. It is the fault of Rudy Guede, and to some degree Giacomo Silenzi for bringing such a scum into his apartment and into the sphere of the girl he was sleeping with. But it is also the responsibility of Meredith Kercher that she was involved with men who are dirtbags. This is not to blame poor Meredith for getting killed – that is Rudy’s fault – but it is to say that the Kerchers didn’t raise her to make solid choices in her dealings with men, and that had tragic consequences in the wrong mix of exigencies.

      Sorry to have to say this, I know Amanda may disagree as she is a nicer person in this way than I. But the Kerchers’ crusade to end the lives of two innocent people – Amanda and Raffaele – because they couldn’t raise their daughter to value nice sweet guys like Raffaele is repulsive. And it needs to be confronted. They are on a sick vendetta. Rudy ruined the life of a young person who did nothing to him…why…because he’d been abused in life by someone else…

      The Kerchers are acting out the same homicidal vendetta and it’s utterly vile.

      • Dave says:

        Crap – You were not there. If you were you would be found guilty as well.
        You DO NOT KNOW what happened. The courts in Italy know FAR MORE than you

        • Meg says:

          You’re right. My DNA was not there, and neither was Amanda or Raffaele’s! The courts do know a lot – like how Raffaele’s computer hard drives were fried multiple times! And what punishments and inducements were meted out to get half-baked witnesses to lie.

          The Kerchers could face this truth but they are too invested in avoiding the pain of knowing that they are partially responsible for raising their daughter with poor judgment about men. Giacomo Silenzi is the link to Rudy Guede, not Raffaele or Amanda! And Meredith linked herself to Giacomo by sleeping with him.

          So now Raffaele who was a nice respectful guy who treated women well and stood by them is now facing the rest of his life in prison. And Rudy will walk free in possibly a year.

          Luckily Amanda will never be extradited on such nonexistent evidence. The decent Americans will simply not stand for it. In the words of one supporter, “When they come for Amanda they’re coming for me.”

          Well times that by a thousand, and another and another…

          My only fear is for sweet Raffaele. He is an innocent facing crucifixion.

        • BigDinBoise says:

          Apparently not Dave.

        • Alex K. says:

          How can the court in Florence know far more than a dedicated observer? The court had access to the same transcripts and files as any outsider who bothered to inquire. The only witness the court heard was peripheral to the case.

          It’s yet another appeal to authority, “trust the courts”.

        • Sarah H says:

          “If you were there you would be found guilty as well.” Well, that is certainly a damning statement. Just not in the way Dave thinks. Apparently the Italian courts find people like Meg guilty just for being there! That doesn’t say much for the “justice” system in Italy.

          From what I’ve seen recently demonstrated, the courts in Italy are just as corrupt as the politicians there.

      • Luara says:

        That’s interesting and plausible. I don’t know if it’s true but it has the ring of truth.

      • Anne says:

        Dignity. That’s what i think of whenever i see or hear this family. But i doubt you know the meaning of the Word. You’re a poor soul.

      • Pigsticker says:

        I wouldn’t quite go so far as to call Giacomo a dirtbag, but he definitely didn’t choose very good friends if he was hanging out with Rudy Guede. Plus I believe it was his roommate Stefano who was operating the grow-op, and whose bedroom the blood was found in by the police. Why didn’t the cops arrest him instead of Amanda & Raffaele?

    • Alex K. says:

      You are another sock puppet of the guilters. You are part of the “online industrial complex of Amanda-haters and conspiracy-mongers, who have spread their falsehoods everywhere on the Web.”

      Quoted from: Preston, Douglas; Douglas, John; Olshaker, Mark; Moore, Steve; Heavey, Judge Michael; Lovering, Jim; Wright, Thomas Lee (2014-01-27). The Forgotten Killer: Rudy Guede and the Murder of Meredith Kercher (Kindle Single) (Kindle Locations 264-265). Kindle Edition.

  34. Tom Zupancic says:

    A petition to Protect Amanda Knox has been opened at the White House web site.

    Please join Amanda’s supporters to protest this terrible injustice. (see also

    • Tom Zupancic says:

      I now see that 2 petitions have actually been opened here. The second link in my post above goes to a second petition. I simply signed them both.

      • Luara says:

        Do these petitions mean anything right now? Amanda won’t be in danger of extradition unless the appeal to the Italian supreme court also fails.

        • Sarah H says:

          I think it makes sense to sign them now. It could take quite a while to get enough signatures.

          • Luara says:

            It says on the page that the petition has a month to get 100,000 signatures.
            If this happens and it reaches the White House, it would be too early for a real response, since Amanda isn’t currently threatened with extradition.

          • Julie Jorgensen says:

            I don’t know if they help…but unfortunately people have short memories and it seems you have to jump on something like a petition while their feelings are strong. If nothing it shows there are a lot of people supporting Amanda and who don’t want her deported.

          • Pigsticker says:

            Yes, but both petitions are scheduled to terminate in March. I would contact the guys who opened them and request that they extend the deadline. While I know Amanda is likely to gain alot of support, I can’t picture ANY petition gaining more than 100,000 signatures in less than two months.

          • Pigsticker says:

            BTW, I signed them both too

    • Sarah H says:

      Thanks for the links, Tom.

  35. Adrienne says:

    I am so saddened by the guilty verdict and my heart goes out to you and your family. I have followed your case since it was on the news many years ago. My husband and I were in Italy on a trip in November of 2011 when we heard the news that you and Raphael were found not guilty. I actually cried for you, but they were tears of happiness. Now I have tears of sadness. Anyone who has followed this case has to realize there is no way either of you were involved. I will keep you in my thoughts and prayers.

  36. Alfred says:

    I don’t konw if Amanda is guilty.
    Is it possible that she took drogs, they killed her roommate and she doesn’t remember.
    What do you think about it?

    • Brittany says:


      The only drug Amanda took was smoking a marijuana joint before going to bed. If marijuana made people into unconscious murderers then several State’s would not have legalized it for both medical and recreational use.


    • Julie Jorgensen says:

      Amanda and Raffaele smoked one joint of Marijuana. Studies have proven that a small amount of Marijuana does nothing but make you calm and sleepy. It clouds your thinking a bit but it does not take away your memories. Amanda has said herself in interviews that her thinking was a bit clouded but that she still remembered with clarity what happened that night…she watched a movie, ate dinner, read from a book, talked, had sex, and then slept. Normal behavior for someone who smoked one joint of Marijuana. It goes beyond reason to believe that out of “boredom” Amanda and Raffaele went out on a cold night and randomly decided to kill a person that Amanda cared about, someone who was her friend.

    • Luara says:

      Is it possible that she took drogs, they killed her roommate and she doesn’t remember.
      No, it isn’t possible. There is NO forensic evidence of Amanda in the room where Meredith was found, or on Meredith. No DNA from Amanda, no footprints, no fingerprints …

      • Dave says:

        SO WHY implicate an innocent man.

        An innocent person DOES NOT need to do that

        • Luara says:

          Read Amanda’s book, she tells how that happened. The police wanted her to implicate Lumumba, they’d found a black person’s hair at the scene, they told her she had been there but didn’t remember. Etc. etc. Amanda seems to have been doing her best to help the police and meet their demands, by generating a dreamlike “recollection” of being there with Lumumba.
          But, just read the book – I don’t have time to recapitulate the whole story.

        • Julie Jorgensen says:

          Seriously! How many times does this have to be explained?

          Amanda did not bring up Patrick Lumumba. The Perugian police demanded to see her phone…saw her text to Patrick saying “see you later” in Italian. Amanda’s Italian was very new and she wrote it literally which was interpreted by the police as “I’ll see you right away.”

          Then they demanded that she tell them where they met that night. They wouldn’t believe her when she said they didn’t meet. After yelling at her, telling her she was a liar, hitting her on the back of the head, telling her she would never see her family again…etc. and that she might have amnesia from that night, Amanda in a total state of confusion, regurgitated back to them the words they told her to say…that she had been with Patrick that night at Meredith’s. That she heard Meredith scream, etc.

          Later that morning…after Amanda could think a little clearer and with less confusion, she recanted what she said.

          The Perugian police alone are responsible for what happened to Patrick Lumumba.

          • Julie Jorgensen says:

            You should ask the Perugian police this question….”SO WHY implicate 3 innocent people who left no evidence at the crime scene and minimize the actions of the true murderer who left mountains of evidence at the scene?”

            A just legal system DOES NOT need to do that.

        • BigDinBoise says:

          Amanda did not volunteer to the police that Patrick was involved. They are the ones that invented that scenario and forced it down Amanda’s throat until she imagined he might have been involved. Amanda was sleep deprived and had been interrogated for hours, so she went along with the interrogators insistence that Patrick was involved – she also recanted this within a few hours of her original statement.

          Why is there no recording of the interrogation, when it is required by Italian law, and they had recorded everything else?

        • Luara says:

          ps Or watch the Frontline on false confessions. It’s not about Amanda, it’s about the “Norfolk Four” who all falsely confessed, and about how it was done.

        • Heidi says:

          she implicated another man, because the police asked her to implicate him after reading an E-mail she had sent to him, saying “see you later”.
          She was harassed for hours, hit on the head, refused bathroom time, etc. A lot of people become disoriented and panicked under such circumstances. In addition, she spoke very little Italian. Don’t say you would NEVER do such a thing, unless you have been in such an extreme situation. I wish Ms. Knox all the best!

        • Frank the Tank says:

          Perhaps you should phrase that question to the police officers in Perugia who told Ms. Knox [i]they knew[/i] that Patrick Lumumba was guilty.

        • Andrea Jonasson says:

          Wouldn’t it be super-duper if the Italian police released video of those interrogation sessions so that we could all see exactly how it came about?

        • Matt says:

          Jesus Flippin Christ. That has been answered many many many times. It was a coerced statement, over a grueling, intimidating, deceitful interrogation. She was threatened and denied sleep food and bathroom breaks. he’s have to have a mind of steel not to give in. Stop acting like that question has not been answered.

        • Alex K. says:

          Why state an unproven claim as fact?

          It was the cops who named Lumumba as a suspect and told Amanda to imagine him and herself at the scene of crime. That’s Amanda’s version and who would trust a bunch of rotten small-town cops living off drug dealers? Only Italian courts hellbent on saving face.

    • Sarah H says:

      Marijuana makes people hungry and then sleepy — not murderous. And Amanda had always been a happy, peaceful person. Three weeks in Italy didn’t change her into a monster.

    • Matt says:

      What are drogs? Some kind of drug? I know she smoked pot, but that doesn’t cause the kind of memory loss you are proposing. Nor does it make anyone murderous.

  37. Brian says:

    Shocked but, sadly, not surprised at yesterday’s verdict.

    Amanda’s first step now should be to get new lawyers. These two have taken a case that should have been a slam-dunk acquittal win and, on three occasions, turned it into a devastating defeat. Even from the very beginning they did not seem to have a grasp of how to protect her rights. From what I read in Amanda’s book their only qualifications were that they spoke English.

    • T.C. says:

      I doubt it is the lawyers fault. It is Italy’s ridiculous kangaroo system of so-called justice. Their justice system needs to restructured and reformed however, that won’t happen. There is more lawyers in Italy than all of the U.S. It is a major industry their. Further, they don’t understand facts and evidence nor do they have any comprehensive rules governing evidence. Hearsay is allowed. What amazes me is we have an extradition treaty with Italy. Everyone should take the time and write their Senators. Request that this treaty be nullified. Also ask your Senator to reexamine all extradition treaties. God only knows how many countries with unjust systems of justice we will extradites our citizens to.

      • Brian says:

        You make good points. It is not entirely the lawyers’ fault. But lots of mistakes were made, and lots of favorable points ignored, and the oral arguments were presented poorly, disjointedly and unconvincingly.

        The outcome itself would justify new counsel with a fresh approach and a fresh perspective.

        I agree that we should abrogate and nullify the extradition treaty with Italy before it’s too late for Amanda.

        • Pigsticker says:

          I’ve considered more extreme measures… such as writing directly to the European Court of Human Rights about Italy’s travesty of a Judicial System (I refuse to apply the word “justice” to them anymore, because it is clear that they have no concept of justice).

      • BigDinBoise says:

        I agree that Amanda should not be extradited, and I think a simple US constitutional justification of double-jeopardy should suffice, but there is no way the the US will abandon its extradition treaty with Italy. The US extradites far more Italians and others arrested there, than Italy does Americans.

        Politically this will be a very tough decision for the State Department if the Italians seek to extradite Amanda – she’ll essentially become a political pawn at that point.

  38. giulio says:

    scrivo in italiano che so che lo conosci. hai fatto bene a non tornare in italia per il nuovo processo. speravo che anche raffaele sollecito facesse lo stesso. qui in italia quando un processo diventa mediatico si cerca di fare contenta la gente, a cui piace dare l’etichetta di “mostro”, di “colpevole” a chiunque sia semplicemente imputato in un processo. il caso berlusconi ne è un altro esempio come ce ne sono stati molti. buona fortuna per tutto e a questo punto spero che vi dichiarino innocenti perche anche raffele sollecito non merita 30 anni di galera.

  39. Frank the Tank says:

    The ONLY positive thing coming out of this unjust verdict is that finally, after six years, the public and the media in Italy, the US, and the UK are starting to realize just how absurd this trial was, and what a sham this verdict was. It’s no longer strings of breathless headlines about Foxy Knoxy seducing men and other absurdities, but derisive columns questioning the intelligence and the integrity of the Italian justice system.

    The sad, pathetic haters will continue to hate, while those who stand for truth and justice will continue to support those unjustly convicted, and will continue to ask why Rudy Guede is being let out of prison next year.

    Will the guilters finally admit they were wrong if/when Rudy Guede rapes and murders another young woman? Is that what it’ll take?

    • Amber says:

      Amanda, my thoughts & prayers are with you. I feel numbed by the new verdict, so I cannot even begin to imagine what this is like for you & your family.

      Your strength is incredible, I just watched your appearance on a US chat show this morning & I have been left in floods of tears, it was heartbreaking!

      Please know that you have the love, support & best wishes from somebody who doesn’t even know you, but can so easily see through the image that has been painted of you.

      I’m English and live in the UK so I have seen & read all the tabloid smears & lies over the years. The frustrating & inconsolable fact is that if people would just take the time out to look for themselves the truth becomes clear, the lies of the prosecution, police, so called ‘witness’s’ (sheesh, pretty much everybody) so dam obvious!!

      Please know that I will be doing all I can to educate my friends, and in turn all their friends to the true facts of this case & the repercussions we are all faced with when people / countries allow the kind of interrogation & coercion that you were up against right at the beginning of all this sorry mess.

      I am so sorry this has happened to you & that your life has now become so public. Strength, good wishes but most of all huge hugs from a massive supporter of yours in the UK.

      All the best Amanda and shame on you Italy!!

    • Daphne says:

      Amanda, Raffaelle, and Knox and Sollecito family, friends, and supporters:
      Yesterday was the hardest day. I was speechless at the verdict, but in view of other media events this week, not at all surprised, and it’s made it difficult to get back to the reality of everyday life.
      Wednesday night, driving along my neighbourhood streets, I realized they were jammed because of Bieber’s surrender, just up the street. Watching the paparazzi, I knew something was really wrong with the picture, and I had a premonition about the verdict. Why are police and media using youth (albeit Justin’s legally 19) to set universal examples? I view this as child abuse. There is only one trend I can validate as being connected, and that is organized crime and Canada’s talon-clad link to that world. Sollecito’s badly timed publicity stories affirm the existence of such a dangerous trend. Since when do people who fall in love with others from different cultures become a risk? If so, many of the couples I know should be thrown into jail. How can one’s own country confiscate a passport based on the possibility that one may travel and develop relationships with foreigners? That sounds sociopathic. I am very sympathetic towards Sollecito.
      According to online articles, a recent overturn in mob powers redefined previous unspoken trends, which implied women and children were “off limits.” Apparently, that system (sick as it was) was overturned. That was the logic behind my question to “Bill,” a Canadian. There was a recent massive arrest in Canada regarding pedophiles, organized crime, and child abuse. Aside from the facts of Amanda’s case, some think any child, student, or celebrity who is well-loved and/or wealthy is easy game and legally condone the targeting of youth. Manufactured crime really pays out and that should stop. The scary part is that Argentina, Sicily, and Mexico are the leading drug capitals of the world, providing a permanent link to drugs and sociopathic behaviour.
      My previous remark, however, about “celebration,” was out of place with respect to the Kerchers. Meredith, like Amanda and Raffaele, were obviously targeted, and no matter how you look at it, this situation requires some life coaching skills that just don’t exist. No one wins here.
      Amanda, months ago you said you and your supporters would continue to defend your innocence with your heads held high. For the sake of innocent men, women, and children everywhere, we all have to do the same. If there is anything we can do as a group, let us know. This case is a trend-changer. Your PR people can create a website to lead us to information. There must be something people can do.

    • floen says:

      If you believe that Amanda & Rafaelle are innocent as I do, please help counter the lies and disinformation by posting these links on Twitter, Facebook and wherever:

      Thank you!

      • floen says:

        Also just sent you a message about helping on Twitter Amanda. Makes me mad to see the lies being posted. We need as many people to spread the truth as possible.

        • Daphne says:

          As for me, I have no privacy on Twitter, but I just have to do something, because this whole case has me just seething. I am not managing this well — and so worried for those who are suffering. Any other ideas out there? Honestly, we should hold a convention.

    • Willis Coleman says:

      Rudy gave up his right to contest the validity of the forensic evidence in exchange for an automatic one-third reduction in his sentence. Amanda and Raffaele had the same option and they chose to fight, all-or-nothing. That’s the system in Italy and almost every country has some analogous form of plea bargaining. If Rudy harms someone else while on work release or after completing his sentence that will be a tragedy but the prison system has lots of experience minimizing those risks. I’m more worried about Amanda and Raffaele. They have not undergone formal assessment to determine their societal risk. They are just on the loose until they finally have to serve their sentences.

      • Rob H says:

        I see that this fraud calling himself Willis Coleman – he presumably thinks its funny to get the name of the TV character wrong for his pseudonym – is back here again – now talking about ‘societal risk’ – a coward and a conman. Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito are demonstrably no risk to anyone – he on the other hand, I am not so sure about. Meredith Kercher’s killer, Rudy Guede will be out on day release later this year – that’s the justice served up for the Kercher family loudly cheered on by fakes like this. There remains no credible evidence against Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito – there never will be any. “Coleman” was challenged to put it up here for discussion before the verdict – evidence that proves their guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. He could not do it; he dared not even to try. But who this person is and who his fellow guilt obsessed internet friends are, we are surely getting closer to understanding. I have no doubt it will be revealing.

    • A says:

      Praying for you, Amanda.

    • duke says:

      Even if Guede made an outright confession the hard core guilters would go on believing Amanda had something to do with the brutal murder of Meredith.These people truly are insane.

      • Nasim says:

        Of course. How would we know Amanda and Raffaele didn’t pay him off? Witnesses recant all the time and courts usually ignore it. We decide based on the forensic evidence first of all, and secondly Amanda’s and Raffaele’s behavior around the time of the murder.

        • Rob H says:

          Yet again, “Nasim”! What forensic evidence do you base your decision on? Anything to do with an imaginary pair of missing shoes? Still cannot make a case for guilt can you? Still cannot dare to suggest how it is possible to commit a murder in that size of room, with that size of free space without leaving any physical evidence behind or taking any transfer evidence away.

          Nasim Niente! Cheap, tawdry and obsessed – coming to a theatre near you.

        • Alex K. says:

          “We decide based on the forensic evidence first of all”

          Which is non-existent.

        • Sarah H says:

          We know they weren’t guilty because the police collected dozens of pieces of evidence from the bloody murder room the very next day and not one was linked to Amanda or Raffaele — every single item was connected to Rudy Guede, the burglar.

        • Jack says:

          This short post adumbrates the “reasoning” of a hardcore conspiracy theorist. In other words, a person who relies upon gut instinct and paranoia rather than science and reason. Such a person’s beliefs are literally unfalsifiable – he or she will not broach counterargument because their theory is a closed system, like “Nasim’s” – and therefore worthless in any modern society.

          • Pigsticker says:

            Don’t forget that Nasim also thinks he’s God. That’ll also influence his ability to admit being wrong.

      • Luara says:

        Maybe when Guede gets paroled he will tell the truth about what happened that night. If he remembers – he’s dissociative so he may not remember.
        He implicated Amanda and Raffaele to make things easier for himself, and still has an interest in keeping quiet because he’s going to be up for parole.

    • Philippe says:

      Truth will prevail. the seeds if this verdict were probably already in the motivation of the annullement last spring.
      which was already claimed by various lawyers as not legal , and so probably will this verdict when comes its motivation .
      it seems it is heading to a realisation that perhaps the judicial sustem in italy is party to the trial as codefendent, of sorts, as it has too much to loose . So that simple fact might allow another court, European perhaps to take over with a minimum of commun sense. I wonder how it’s going to feel when R. Guede comes out and start giving interviews, while they will still avoid debating why or how there isn’t any traces of neither rafaele not Amanda at the crime scene ..

  40. Luara says:

    I’m so sorry about the court verdict, Amanda.
    It’s much worse for Raffaele. I don’t know why he didn’t move to a country that doesn’t have an extradition treaty with Italy, when the going was good.
    I’m horrified by the thought that he may actually have to go back to prison, for 20 years or so. I heard he was barely hanging onto his sanity when he was in prison before.
    It’s not so bad for you IF the USA refuses to extradite you to Italy. I don’t know how likely that is, I’ve heard opinions both ways.
    You could move to a country that doesn’t have an extradition treaty with Italy, and forget about this mess and get on with your life.
    Or, stay here in the USA and try to publicize your cause. Most people in the USA know little about your case (the people who do are simply more visible) and if your travails become well-known, public opinion in the USA will be in your favor, and that will influence the decision about extradition. Courts in the USA have got to be very reluctant to extradite you, since you’re obviously innocent.

    • T.C. says:

      I was one of those people that knew little about Amanda’s case however, the recent headlines made me curious so I looked into it. I must say I am appalled by what I learned to the point where I wrote my Senator and the State Department.

      As disturbing as Amanda’s case is, is the fact that the Senate actually approved a extradition treaty with Italy. These treaties should only be approved if they have a justice system that is just..This raises the question on how many treaties with other countries we have in which the countries justice system can ignore factual evidence for conjecture and opinions. Our politicians are not looking out for the people of our country.

      Amanda is seeking justice from Italy which in my opinion will not be awarded. This is a witch hunt and they have painted a scarlet letter on her.

      My advice is to run from this injustice. If I were her, I would get out of the U.S. and renounce my U.S. citizenship. The politicians and state department will use her as a pawn to get some concession from Italy they want. Once that happens, she will be on her way back to Italy.

      I will continue to write and call my representatives in support of Amanda. I suggest everyone does the same. I would also suggest you ask your friends and families to take the time to get in touch with there politicians as well. Actions speak louder than words. Demand action from your reps.

      • Luara says:

        the Senate actually approved a extradition treaty with Italy. These treaties should only be approved if they have a justice system that is just.
        The State Department keeps track of the human rights record of other countries. Perhaps if Amanda takes her case to the European Court of Human Rights and they agree with her, the State Department would take that into account in a decision on extradition.
        Perhaps Amnesty International could help too.

  41. Vanessa Saxton says:

    Amanda, I have been following your case in the media but we all know how the media distorts. I have not read your book in its entireity so I am not aware of ALL of the details, facts, and reports. However, I do believe I am well-versed and well-read with your case. With that being said, I believe you are innocent. I really hope the US is on your side and does not use you as a gambling tool with foreign policy.

    I just want to know, what will you do with your life now? You can’t get a 9-5 job at this point. Not that you want one, they are over-rated. I know you are a writer, and a successful one at that. But as a writer myself I just wanted to tell you that you are a very talented writer. Your writing style is very good, especially for someone so young. I think people forget how young you are. You had to grow up very quickly.

    I really hope you begin to write fiction. I can’t imagine the stories you have inside of you. Get a pen name and go on with your life. You already wrote your quarter-life story. I can’t wait to hear what other stories you will tell the world.

    Godspeed, Amanda! Use your talent to educate, entertain, and inspire the world through your words.

    • Daphne says:

      Better yet, Amanda’s own influence has had a positive impact on others. Be it fiction, life-writing, or journalism, teaming up at this point is viable, because facing the adversary alone is unbelievably hard. Many of us have similar or parallel, incredible stories. She shouldn’t have to do it alone unless she feels comfortable. In my opinion, Amanda’s future as a great screen play artist is definitely in the cards. If she ever needs a good character type for a hero, Mr. Curt Knox is a perfect example.

      • Pigsticker says:

        I’ve even considered a story of my own based on what happened. Woman gets murdered in bedroom by man who thinks he is a vampire (similar to Guede). Because the killer is protected by the local mafia, police are paid to manipulate the evidence to point to an innocent party, residing with the victim. One good cop sees through the frame-up and fights for the wrongfully imprisoned’s release. Beyond that, I haven’t really fleshed out my story yet, but I believe the basic premise would attract alot of readers… plus I already designed some of the key characters in an earlier cops-vs-criminals comic that was abandoned several years ago. I’d enjoy the opportunity to bring them back.

  42. Meowington says:

    New supporter here all the way =^.^=

    • Carol Fanfa says:

      Hi Amanda I am a new subscriber sending you love and prayers and praying for your peace. I will pray the truth comes out about you and you will live a long happy life. Your parents too
      God Bless and Keep you all

  43. Derek Hall says:

    Hi Amanda. I got your book a few weeks ago and read it all the way through. I can tell you poured your heart and emotions into that book because I could feel it as I was reading. You have shown so much courage in the face of adversity. I’m sorry the verdict didn’t turn out well. Hang in there. There are plenty of us on your side and an unjust verdict is not going to change that. There will still be plenty of us willing to help you however we can. I don’t blame you for not going back to Italy. I wouldn’t have either. Courts are only made of human beings, and those human beings can have bad intentions centered on money, control, egos, etc. You have no obligation to submit to injustice by any legal system. This situation will be made right and you and Raffaele will have justice one way or another. Don’t give up. :) ~Derek

    • Cinnamon says:

      The Italian court system is particularly bad – even Silvio Berlusconi admitted that it is in desperate need of reform. Many Italians have appealed decisions at the Strasbourg Court, which Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito could do on grounds of Article 6 of the ECHR. They did not receive the fair trial they would have done in, say, the UK or Germany: Italian juries are not sequestered, and the defence presentation was not properly listened to (the judge took a phone call in the middle, and jury members were falling asleep. They had clearly already made up their minds). Also, Ms Knox’s initial interrogation raises serious ethical questions.

    • Daphne says:

      @Derek: Ditto. Establishing a group of writers dedicated to related issues like France’s Human Rights seems to be a very valid way to extend support and publicity for this cause. More research in the 48 hour phenomenon would also give the universal justice system more to go on. Fiction and theatre can speak volumes, too.

  44. Rob H says:

    Excellent article by Andrew Gumbel in “The Guardian”. Mr Gumbel is Raffaele Sollecito’s co-author.

  45. Nicole Moynihan says:


    Do not stop fighting. A petition has been created by someone on your behalf. The site is

    Get the word out. Ask Ryan Ferguson to post a link to it on his facebook page. He has enough people liking that page to get your petition to the needed 100,000 signatures. The US will stand by you. Just keep fighting. It’s unfair that this charade isn’t over for you yet. Hopefully ti will be soon.


    • Luara says:

      The wording of that petition needs to be more dignified. Throwing around pejoratives doesn’t look good. And it needs to have a short summary of the reasons why Amanda is innocent.

      • Rob H says:

        I agree with you, Luara

      • Pigsticker says:

        Also, the author of the petition might want to extend the deadline a little further. As much support as Amanda has from around the world, very few petitions ever gain as many as 100,000 signatures in less than two months. Most are lucky to get 10,000. Plus we don’t really know if there will be an extradition order yet.

        But while some of my fellow supporters have told me now is too soon to be launching petitions, I believe it is a very good way of showing the White House that we are aware of Amanda’s situation and would be opposed to an extradition should the order be issued.

  46. Rafa elle says:

    Amanda why don’t you stop tricking all people by going to tv to try to clear your image?, you better clear your own conscience and go to Italy to serve your sentence!, don’t make kercher’s family suffer more. They’re the real victims, don’t deceive ourselves. You were there and know better than any other that you collaborated in that crime. Don’t continue lying. You deserve jail, if not something worse. If you had been condemned in your own country the sentence would have been harder, so don’t complain. You are really hateful, how someone could do that!. And now going to every Tv to cry, false. I hope you rot in jail. You, the best example of a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Manipulator.

    • Luca Cheli says:

      And you, what incarnation of some well known guilter are you?

      Too moron to be true.

    • Lilac says:

      rafa elle — you are the hateful one. leave amanda alone.

    • T.C. says:

      And you base your opinion on facts or on media hype? See, unlike italy, we have a justice system that is fact based. It is designed to eliminate suspects, not conjure them up. Any real forensic scientist would suggest that Amanda was not at the scene. What one physical piece of evidence do you have that can tie her to the murder? You know, evidence you can hold in your hand…Personally, I would rather the U.S. and Italy go to war before handing over Amanda to that unjust backward judicial system. We certainly need to cancel all treaties with Italy including trade. At least until they restructure that kangaroo judicial system.

    • TomG says:

      Unfortunately there is not one shred of evidence to back up any of this. You are obviously well versed in the prosecution rhetoric of making up stories and mud-slinging. The fact that the Kerchers are denied closure comes from being cocooned in lies and kept in the dark by their legal team. Meredith’s name has been hijacked by people like you who have turned this case in to some sort of existential experiment, you don’t care about Merdith one iota, this is just a game to you.

    • Matt says:

      Bugger off you ignorant troll. If not a troll do some actual research outside of TJMK and PMF and the gutter press smear.

    • Sarah H says:

      You are really hateful, Rafa Elle. If you cleared your own conscience, you’d probably feel less driven to attack innocent people like Amanda and Raffaele.

    • Pigsticker says:

      Raffa Elle, or whoever you are, I think yours is the lamest attempt to argue Amanda’s guilt I have ever seen. Your attempt to impersonate her ex-boyfriend is particularly laughable because we all know he would never say those things. When asked if he wished he’d never met her, he always insisted that what happened wasn’t her fault, that it was the police who were responsible for their wrongful convictions. Like it or not, the police don’t always get it right, and the courts aren’t always as willing to admit their mistakes as we’d like them to be. That’s why the wrong people go to prison while the real criminals either get away with it or benefit from a reduced sentence for fingering imaginary accomplices.

  47. Kim in USA says:

    Amanda, I am not computer savvy. I have never posted or sent communication to someone I don’t know before. I’m not even on facebook and I say this only to illustrate how moved I am by your story to do so now. I just want you to know that my heart aches for you and your family and the injustice that you’ve been forced to endure. I absolutely believe in your innocence and moreover can clearly see from your interviews and writings that you are a good person. I feel powerless to help you except to say that you have my prayers and support and that this unfortunate journey that you are on has purpose. To draw attention to and raise awareness for yourself and others who are or have been convicted of a crime that they are innocent of. Though this is not a role you have chosen for yourself, you are making a huge difference in this cause that was desperately needed. I admire your strength and character and please remember that I and most Americans stand behind you in your fight. GOD BLESS.

  48. Maria Perez says:

    I believe in your innocence and also Raffaele. What both of you have been through is not justified. I hope that with your family’s support, you remain strong. Don’t let anyone bring you down or take away your freedom. Believe in yourself and know that you have many people who support you.

  49. Kai says:

    I’m deeply saddened and shocked by the verdict yesterday. It seems so unreal that this is happening. Here we are thinking we are born free and protected by laws. But it is happening. It is very scary to witness this step back. Although I’d like to think it’s a step back to jump forwards. Courage Amanda.

  50. Tom Mininger says:

    We’re still here Amanda. These wrongful conviction cases are nightmares of tunnel vision, face saving, and ignornace. They can take a while. Keep your chin up.

  51. Fred Aborn says:

    I contributed $100 to your defense fund by PayPal to show that I am 100% behind you.
    You should NOT have to fight the suppressive Italian court system alone. Your fight for justice does the world a favor. You are a Gladiator (or Gladiatress) for justice. Queen Boudicca would be proud of you.

  52. Rob H says:

    All the television reports and discussions here in the UK since the verdict have convinced me that there is still widespread ignorance, even now, of the lack of any credible evidence in this case – the focus is on the dramatic impact – what the Kercher family thinks about it – what Lyle Kercher’s personal opinion about the Extradition Treaty between the US and Italy is and how Stephanie Kercher still thinks they might never know what really happened “that night”. I was ignorant of this ignorance.

    There were two rays of light: The first when a BBC reporter in Florence, after the verdict spoke in a derisory tone about the latest prosecution motive – that an argument about cleaning and an unflushed toilet could be a catalyst for murder. The second: in a studio discussion, one commentator said she had taken a “straw’ pole in her office about the verdict. She reported everyone had declared, “Guilty”, without hesitation. She asked them, she said, what they knew of the evidence. Apparently, nobody could give her an answer!

    There is a huge opportunity here in the UK, Italy and the rest of the European Union to get the facts of this case out in public, digestibly perhaps in advance of the motivation report, if possible. This work of fiction will at least have to make some attempt to indictate how the “learned” judges managed to eliminate all reasonable doubt in their deliberations. How on earth will they manage that is anybody’s guess. We would fully expect that they will embarrass themselves would we not?

    There is considerable sensitivity in the UK about our own extradition arrangements with the civil law justice systems in Europe, which many argue are incompatible with our own. Sometimes, we British can be quite laissez-faire about things, but if you can really demonstrate an injustice has taken place and show them that it could very easily happen to them, they can get agitated. On the whole people have a good sense of what is right – once they actually understand what is going on. At the moment, most people here do not really have a clue.

    • Cinnamon says:

      Yes, the Guilters either provide scant or no evidence to back up their conclusions. Their latest one is MK’s DNA allegedly found on a knife, and AK’s on the handle. However, the piece was so small that it could only be tested once. If that particular knife really was used by AK, then MK’s DNA would be all over the blade, not just on one tiny speck. Furthermore, AK’s DNA would be on MK’s body (she knew karate, and there is evidence that she put up a fight), which it wasn’t. Occam’s razor suggests that this tiny speck of DNA was either due to contamination or a false positive. Anyone who has studied DNA evidence or chromatography will know that false positives aren’t so rare, hence the need for multiple tests.

      • Willis Coleman says:

        Was Meredith’s whole body checked for DNA? No, the investigators mainly did a rape exam. Therefore the fact that Amanda’s DNA was not found on Meredith’s body is essentially meaningless.

        • Rob H says:

          Amanda Knox’s DNA was not found anywhere in the murder room at all – that, is highly meaningful. No physical evidence of her at all – not a jot was found. That is even more meaningful. A bloodbath in an open space measuring approximately 7′ x 6.5′ as a result of a knife attack – with blood spilled and aspirated, first of all apparently accommodated a victim and three perpetrators, but then, two of them left no evidence of their presence and took no evidence away. You want the bra clasp in as evidence? Fine, then I will have the owners of the three additional profiles on the clasp. So, now we have to fit six perpetrators in the space, four of whom left trace DNA on the clasp only and nowhere else and one of whom left nothing. I want to meet these people; they sound magical.

        • BigDinBoise says:

          Your comments here are essentially meaningless.

    • Pigsticker says:

      Yes, I read that Daily Mail article in which Lyle supposedly demanded that Amanda be jailed right away, but we really don’t know if he actually said that. Remember how often the Daily Mail twisted around Amanda & Raffaele’s words to present them in a bad light. They could be doing the same with Lyle.

  53. Nick says:

    I’m writing this with tears in my eyes. Tears of unbridled joy. I’m sure I speak for many people in England when I say Foxy Knoxy is welcome to try to visit England, JUST as soon as Italy makes the extradition request. Justice has been done, and it has been seen to be done. And Foxy Knoxy just doesn’t matter anymore. She is in a prison of her own making. Her contemporaries from Seattle Tech – forging careers as lawyers, doctors, accountants, architects, buying homes, starting families. And Foxy sitting in her mom’s basement, quivering with fear for the future. It couldn’t happen to a nicer young woman. Long Live Italy. God Bless the Kercher Family. Rest in Peace, Meredith. Justice is sweet.

    • eebaltimore says:

      Nick, we all have tears in our eyes because of people like you– so unbelievably ignorant and clueless, one could just weep! Wake up & smell the coffee, Dude!

      There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT SEE…

    • Luca Cheli says:

      No, Nick, she will become a champion for the many ones who have been wrongfully convicted inside and outside Italy, a country second to none in judicial wrongdoings.

      She will remain controversial, of course, but she will become a beacon of the fight against injustice, she will speak and write always more and will become the nightmare of people like you.

      • Nick says:

        If she’ll ‘become a champion of the oppressed’ yada yada, why isn’t Foxy studying law? ‘Creative writing’ is the sort of thing that doesn’t require any actual studying, that’s why. Just more listless drifting from poor Amanda.

    • Matt says:

      You are either a guilter troll or and ignorant fool who hasn’t researched their facts.

      • Dave says:

        Please tell us Matt.
        a) How many days of the trial did you attend.
        b) How much of the evidence displayed to the court have you seen.

        If the answer to ‘a’ is not all of them or even as I suspect none of them then the answer to ‘b’ is I haven’t seen it all and therefore you cannot be sure of anything.
        Unless you were there.

        • Rob H says:

          So, “Dave” – what’s your theory of the crime ? What evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to you? How do you accommodate the absence of any physical evidence in Meredith Kercher’s bedroom of anyone other than Rudy Guede in your explanation?

        • BigDinBoise says:

          Same could be said for you – but you seem to have your own definite opinions on the matter.

    • duke says:

      I’m sure you also have unbridled joy Meredith’s real killer will be out of prison soon.

      • Dave says:

        He will have Joy when the other two murderers – and yes they have been found guilty twice of that – are inside doing their time

        • BigDinBoise says:

          Hope you meet Rudy in a dark alley after his release Dave.

        • Pigsticker says:

          A guilty verdict says nothing when delivered in an unfair trial. That includes a trial in which the judge is pre-ordered to find the defendants guilty. Much like this one.

    • Sarah H says:

      This is sick. Really. You should get help.

    • Julie Jorgensen says:

      Nick, it is comments like yours that truly gives me concern for the future of humanity. Anyone who relishes in the suffering of another all the while saying they are doing this to honor another and even evoking the name of deity in the process is void of character and their words hold no value. In fact the words you are regurgitating actually say quite a bit about you as a person but they say nothing about Amanda. Your words do not create her future. Amanda will courageously forge her own future despite the unjust hate she has had to endure.

      Amanda is suffering, that is a given. She has suffered a great injustice for more than 6 years but one day this injustice will come to an end and she will yet live a rich and joyous life full of good works. One day the truth will be known, maybe even to you. I really wonder how you might feel when that day comes? Will you be able to escape the prison of your own creation?

      I believe with all my heart Amanda will go on to do great and important things with her life. I will be proud to have known her. What will you have done with your life?

    • Rob H says:

      Nick – You are a hateful, nasty, discredited, malevolent, contemptible piece of work.

    • Eric_B says:

      Hi Nick.

      I’m English too, but I have enough common sense not to endorse the decisions of Italy’s depraved and corrupt so-called justice system.

  54. mynameissam says:

    You’re exboyfriend was escaping…..and you!??!!? We’re looking forward to your arrive to Italy…

    • Brittany says:


      Don’t count on it justice will prevail. Also, I should note you believe everything you read, except the evidence in this case.

      Raffaele did not run. He was found in Italy. It’s likely that if he was trying to get away from anything it would be people like you who thrive on the soap opera you’ve created out of this case and innocent people’s lives.

      Your ignorance leads you. There isn’t a single solid piece of evidence linking Amanda and Raffaele to this murder. What you have here is a botched investigation, and a ruling based on Italian politics.

      This fight is not over. Her name will be cleared. Raffaele’s name will be cleared. The truth will not be snuffed out.


      • Daphne says:

        You are so right. I think Raffaele was running towards something, not away. Imagine being wrongfully accused in Italy. Ever try to explain that to a potential partner? Trying to cope, and get on with life in Italy can’t be easy. I don’t see what he did as criminal, just trying to be happy. My American friends went to Italy and were ostracized for responding to friendly Italian men and women. Ouch. It’s not like that in North America. Some people really judge you there, just based on conversation. I don’t know where some people get there ideas from.

    • Rob H says:

      No he wasn’t. He was in a hotel, in his room with his girlfriend in Italy. He wasn’t on the run and he didn’t make a break for the border.

      • Julie Jorgensen says:

        The latest report I read on this topic stated that Raffaele was traveling in Austria with his girlfriend where he heard the news of his conviction. He immediately returned to Italy where he found a hotel to spend the night. That is where the police picked him up.

        I don’t know why Raffaele came back when he had a chance to flee but it just sounds like Raffaele. He has always been a person of character and honor…even when it caused him great suffering. Keep Raffaele in your thoughts and prayers.

    • Annie says:

      You need to spend time looking at your country’s judicial system rather than leaving threatening posts. Oh, and it’s ‘your not you’re’!

    • Rob H says:

      Oh, and to deal with the rest of your first, ungrammatical, excited sentence, which was the next stupid thing that came into your head – Ms Knox is not “escaping” either. She is “justifiably abroad” according to the court and she is not a fugitive from justice. Got it? I am so very glad for you.

    • Matt says:

      She’s stupid enough to go back there.

    • Tom L says:

      She is not returning to Italy and the “miscarriage of justice” system employed there. I’ve never heard of a judiciary that keeps trying a case until it obtains the verdict it “wants”. I would fight, and help Amanda fight until my dying breath to avoid returning to participate in that sham. If the Italian police and detective networks had not bungled the investigation from the start, the true perp would have been revealed. Leave Amanda alone. Amanda, I’m with you, heart and soul.

    • Mike Wiesner (Smith) says:

      I too am looking forward to your return to Italy.
      To watch you receive the apology you and Raffaele deserve for the senseless pain they have put you through. Stay strong, this miscarriage of justice is not over. Right now I cannot imagine the agony you and Raffaele are suffering, and words can help little, but please know how many know you are innocent.

    • Jack says:

      Over our dead bodies, pal. Your country’s justice system has gone off the rails. You should be ashamed.

    • mp says:

      The Italian justice system is more concerned about saving face than finding the truth. Anybody but a fool would see the truth in this matter. The killer is in jail and took a reduced sentence to implicate others. A young life is being ruined and aholes like you sit there with your thumb up your arse and do nothing. Your a menace to society. Sam you suck

  55. Joe says:

    I was so saddened to hear the verdict yesterday. I don’t know how they can come to that conclusion based on the evidence they have. My heart goes out to you and your family, Raffaele and his family. I am almost at a loss for words, still in shock about it. I thought for sure it would ‘not guilty’ which we all know is what it should have been. I have done my best to follow your case from day one along with millions of other people around the world. I hope you can fight on which I know you can and finally put this away to live a healthy peaceful life. There are so many people that support you around the world I hope that helps some. I will write more later sometime once I can grasp this total injustice but wanted you to know we were thinking about you.

  56. Jillian says:

    Dear Amanda and family

    I have to admit I was utterly shocked to hear the court in Italy has overturned your innocent verdict again. Just cannot believe the Italians lower themselves to continue allowing such a scandalous miscarriage of justice. I have read pretty much every report, examination, expert statement and findings about this case and I just cannot believe how the prosecution can build a case on such shady “evidence”. Maybe the answer to this can be found in looking at the widespread corruption and hypocrisy in Italy. If you know (and pay) the right people, you get away with pretty much everything. Absolution is readily available from your parish priest, fees do apply. What chance does a foreign student stand, who commits the “atrocity” to exercise her rights to a free will, personal freedom without bowing down to the Italian chauvinistic attitude? I very much hope your country will protect you, not throw you to the lions again. In Italy you are just a pawn in their game, someone they can use as an example to further subdue their females “see that’s what happens to ‘bad’ girls”. Stay strong. Your family seems to be so supportive, you are able to rise above that swamp of corruption, negativity and medieval attitudes. xx

    • Daphne says:

      Hi, Jillian.
      Right, but anyone who thinks organized crime is limited to the borders of Italy is misguided. It seems be be a growing trend absolutely related to drug ties that advocate the abuse of innocent people, including children and youth. The network of organized crime is the very bedrock of Mexico, Canada, Argentina, and Eastern Europe. It’s based on people united by one common thread: hatred.

  57. To Amanda and Raffaele: I have lost all respect for the Judiciary of Italy in re-convicting Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito of murder without even a shred of credible evidence putting them at the crime scene. It is painfully apparent to their supporters just where they were the night of the crime – they clearly were at Sollecito’s apartment together and had nothing whatsoever to do with the death of Meredith Kercher. It is obvious to me that the Italian Judiciary must hate Amanda Knox and a re-conviction also saves them paying these co-defendants nearly $650,000 in damages for wrongful imprisonment from 2007 through 2011. I am appalled at the Court’s sheer stupidity in convicting Knox and Sollecito without any solid evidence of any kind. Amanda Knox killed no one, Raffaele Sollecito killed no one. They are still innocent. I would just ask both of them to stay strong during this difficult time because the truth must come out regarding their innocence. I have seen it all now, I just can’t believe this judicial nonsense and horrible injustice that has been done to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. There is much work ahead for me to do on this case to bring out the truth and I will do it – Period to help them clear their names and be set Free. – Kenneth Janeway

    • To Amanda and Raffaele: I just watched Amanda’s appearance on Good Morning America (without the sound) and can tell how hurt, and disappointed, she is at this ridiculous verdict coming out of Italy being re-convicted of a crime she had nothing, whatsoever, to do with. The total lack of forensic evidence points out clearly that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were not at the crime scene when the crime occurred. They also did not participate in any sort of “sex game”. This is also nonsense put into “evidence” by the original prosecutor Mignini without any evidence to back this crazy theory up. The prosecution also introduced the wrong murder weapon, the large kitchen knife taken from Raffaele’s apartment is not the right murder weapon. Amanda’s American attorney, Theodore Simon, is correct when he says that there “never will be” any evidence to show Amanda Knox participated in this crime. He is completely correct because Amanda (and Raffaele) were not at the residence on the night of the murder – again, it doesn’t take a genius to clearly see that they are BOTH INNOCENT. They always will be Innocent. How the Italian jurors in this re-trial could miss such a huge Fact (clearing both of them) is beyond me. Today I will begin a huge effort, and project, to bring out their innocence to the world which will take patience and time. I also plan to visit Raffaele if, and when, he is re-incarcerated in Italy and I also plan to visit Seattle as soon as I can. In the meantime, I will be working “behind the scenes” to bring out these co-defendants’ innocence in various forums, governments, with various Heads of State, and in various other ways as best I can (as they present themselves). Amanda Knox is innocent, she did not kill anyone. Raffaele Sollecito is also innocent, he – likewise – did not kill anyone – especially Meredith Kercher. Please stay strong for me – Amanda and Raffaele – in the meantime as your next Appeal progresses to Italy’s highest Court. I will be in touch with your families as well from time to time and with friends, and other contacts, I have in the American media and will make it possible for your families, and you, to contact me privately 24-hours a day should you need, or want to.- Best, Kenneth Janeway

      • Dear Amanda: Stay strong because a ground-swell of support is coming your way which I think will make a difference to turn this latest draw-back around. I will begin the research on your possible Extradition soon and will send you a list of other ideas I have privately in the mail, and actions I want to take, to help you bring out your innocence to the world, but you will be briefed about these ideas before they go into effect because it is important to get your feedback on them. Remember that all your supporters love and care about you and we all know you are innocent. Raffaele is also innocent as well – as you know. Continue to live your life here and don’t be concerned about this mis-guided verdict because it is wrong and you are innocent and we all know it. It is also not your fault.- Best, Ken

  58. Riposte says:

    I’m sorry these judges can’t get their heads around the reality of this nightmare.

  59. Rose Marie says:

    I’m so sad to hear the verdict. Italy has it very wrong. It’s a travesty. Courage, Amanda. In time, the truth will be known. This has always been a circumstantial case with many mistakes and insufficient, impeached and invalid evidence.

  60. Matt says:

    Hang in there Amanda. While there are many terrible things being said about you, from what I’ve read the majority still believes you. Italy just exposed themselves to the world as a country that cares little about you and hopefully the media backlash against this will be severe. No one in their right mind who have studied this case believe you are guilty.

  61. Sharon Schierle says:

    I just heard today’s verdict and am overcome with sadness. My thoughts and prayers will continue for you, Amanda.

  62. Brad says:

    One question. Will you have to buy a plane ticket back to Italy or will they supply one to you?

    • eebaltimore says:

      I guess you just haven’t been paying attention, Brad… Amanda’s NOT setting foot in Italy ever again.

  63. Chan says:

    So sorry about this verdict, but it came as no surprise after the way the Italian supreme court directed a guilty verdict in overturning your acquittal. Corruption was the winner today.

    • Dave says:

      Maybe they should just send them to Guantanamo like the yanks do.
      Prison and NO trial.
      Americans all righteous! Look in your own gun totting back yard.

  64. Gaelle says:

    Oh and you shouldn’t feel bad for slandering that Mumumba guy he is a devil. Probably it’s because you saw it in his eyes that you accused him.

    • Daphne says:

      I saw an online photo of Le Chic. I have never seen a nightclub set up like that. I think you have something there.

      • Daphne says:

        I didn’t mean to say that Amanda accused Lumumba. I meant that there is something different about the appearance of that bar.

    • Pigsticker says:

      What do you mean, Gaelle? Amanda didn’t slander Patrick. It was the police who slandered him, after picking his name off of her cell phone. Then they bullied her into signing the statement they had not-so-kindly typed up for her. keep in mind, that her fluency in Italian wasn’t strong enough to be making statements on her own. Not at the time.

  65. Gaelle says:

    Sorry about the verdict, well actually I am mad about that fucking verdict. These people are insane, they cannot ignore in their hearts and minds that their theories wouldn’t even make a good horror movie scenario because it makes no sense. No sense at all. These people have to be seriously retarded.

    I hope Karma will make them all pay for the wrong they did and continue to do to you and Raffaele I hope one day they realize you are innocent victims and they are just close to the kind of monsters they accuse you both of being.

    One has to be seriously twisted to take randomly two students and accuse them of an infamous crime and imprison them for years while they already have the monster behind bars.

    This is infamous, and I do think the Kercher family are part of that crowd. Meredith was probably the only good thing that came out of this family.

  66. Teddy says:

    We will continue to fight for your innocence Amanda.

  67. Cinnamon says:

    I have been thinking of you the whole day. I am so sorry. I wish I could give you a hug.

  68. Amanda —

    I’m so sorry for this latest verdict — this travesty of injustice that Italy continues to perpetrate against you and Raffaele.

    Know that your supporters are vast, don’t doubt your innocence for a minute, and will continue to support you as long as it takes.

  69. Nick Green says:

    Verdict: what a bunch of effing halfwits. Aaaargh.

  70. SeaDub says:

    I just watched the verdict and my heart is breaking and shaking for Amanda and Raffaele. I just am shocked that in this day and age, in the western world nonetheless, that there can be this gross miscarriage of justice.

    Amanda – I am just one of many who are thinking of you and wishing we were not so helpless.

  71. Alex K. says:

    Just heard the sentence. What a shame. Boycott Italy. Stay strong, Amanda!

  72. Simon Mates says:

    Well that’s probably ruined your day.

  73. floen says:

    This is a total outrage. I will never go to Italy – ridiculous, insane and beyond words. I’m so sorry for you Amanda.

    • eebaltimore says:

      Yes, floen, your post sums it up succinctly. We, who have followed this case from the beginning– and have read the books & reports, have never doubted Amanda & Raffaelle’s innocence. I’ve been near tears all day…How could that jury be so just plain stupid????

      I have been to Italy many times– even studied Italian there for 3 months. I loved the country and the people! But, since this whole miscarriage of justice occurred, I vowed I would NEVER go back. And parents should not even think of allowing their students to go there!!!

      Besides signing the petition on the White House website: , maybe we travelers should let Italy’s Ministry of Culture & Tourism know that we are starting a BOYCOTT ITALY movement. “Just say no– don’t go!!!”

  74. Rob H says:

    What a complete travesty – deeply shocked – the fight goes on.

  75. Lora says:

    I just wanted to send you a note to let you know that I am waiting anxiously right here with you for the verdict to be announced. Please know that there are so many people who are praying for you and Raphael and are hoping you receive the acquittal that you deserve so that you can put this all behind you. With much love and support…

    • Lora says:

      Oh dear. I meant to put this message in a more appropriate place than your housekeeping post. Sorry, I’m new here. :)

  76. Leonard Sneatlum says:

    Hey I feel there is a conspiracy going on there.
    Why else are they trying so hard to convict and keep coming up with different motives etc.
    I heard something a few weeks back about the actual guy who was convicted for the murder. His family is rich and very influential. I wouldn’t doubt if that has any bearing on this case directly or indirectly.
    There is still no critical evidence for murder and question of murder weapon, motive, etc. The prosecution keeps changes their THEORIES. I heard of a cartoon where they should speculative animation of what they feel happened. Are you serious?
    Best of luck I know common sense and justice should prevail in this case.

    • Pigsticker says:

      Unfortunately, common sense did NOT prevail. Not in THIS trial. It was never intended to be fair from the beginning.

  77. Rob H says:

    Just announced that the verdict will be at 8pm Italian time – 7 pm UK time and therefore 11am Seattle time if my maths is correct. Fingers crossed.

    • Monica Kruger says:

      Anyone know if the verdict needs to be unanimous? I read that there are 2 judges and 6 laypersons on the jury but I can’t find anything about whether it takes a simple majority or if it needs to be unanimous.

      • Monica K says:

        In light of the ridiculous ruling, I’ve made a donation to the Amanda Knox defense fund and encourage all of you who believe as I do that Amanda is completely innocent and that this is a complete travesty to do the same.

    • Meg says:

      Well the worst has happened.

      Keep your head held high Amanda. The truth cannot be altered to fit some sycophantic bureaucrat’s whim. It is what it is – and it exonerates you and Raffaele completely.

  78. Luara says:

    What happens if the verdict goes against Raffaele? Would he go back to prison?

    • Hi Laura…Theoretically, if the verdict goes against Raffaele, they can take him back into custody in court unless other arrangements are allowed by the court, but this fine man is innocent of any involvement in this crime – as is Amanda Knox because “they weren’t there.” – Best, Ken

      • Luara says:

        No, I heard he doesn’t have to go back to prison unless the supreme court rules against him.
        Still, I am horrified for Raffaele. The thought of this intelligent, gentle and innocent young man stuck in an Italian prison until he’s 50+, is appalling.

  79. Marco Marboni says:

    Hello to Amanda and all those who are reading.
    Firstly I would just like to point out that I am not Italian, I was born in England and my father was the only Italian born member of my family. Even though I lived there for many years, eventually I had to make the decision to abandon this troubled country around about 10 years ago and I’m not going to annoy anyone by saying why. After all, this isn’t about me. But among the many things I learnt growing up there was that even in schools, politics plays a large part in everyone’s learning curve and whether you “go with the flow”, or stand your ground as an individual can play a large part in your success, or failure as an Italian citizen.
    I’m not going to wish you Amanda “good luck” for the trial, because unfortunately luck has absolutely nothing to do with it. But I think you may have figured that out. It is indeed all about politics and forgive us if we (the people who follow your case), may be indeed contributing negatively to the outcome of your case, by fueling this huge media storm which it has become.
    I’ll give you a few examples of the “politicization” of the Italian Judicial system (if that’s what we want to call it), connected to your case and maybe a few unconnected:
    Miss Manuela Comodi, the Perugian prosecutor said: “They must be condemned to the maximum sentence which, luckily, in Italy isn’t the death penalty.” That is politics.
    Even Miss Giulia Bongiorno, the defense attorney for Raffaele Sollecito, has always been involved in politics and is currently Presidente della Commissione Giustizia della Camera dei Deputati.
    Some years ago there was a big corruption scandal and at the time an unknown prosecutor called Antonio Di Pietro became an overnight celebrity and after the case he left office to found his own political party.
    But apart from all that there is also another thing that is adding to your woes and you may also be aware of that: Physical appearance. Italians just love to bash someone who is in the spotlight, either for all the wrong reasons or like yourself, in the wrong place at the wrong time and I think it might be down to their own insecurities.
    I saw the interview you gave to the rai tg1 and it was clear that you are again fearing for the worst and in a state of anxiety and that saddens me deeply, because anyone who isn’t prejudicial can see the obvious; that you shouldn’t have been involved in this case right from the beginning.
    In conclusion my message to you then Amanda is that even if they emit a guilty verdict, that you shouldn’t worry about it too much. I think I read somewhere that America would stand by you and not allow your extradition if this was the case and rightly so. The Italians will always use this case as “bargaining chips” in future political discussions, whatever the outcome. I suggest you just brush aside the negativity, the media attention and everything this inconvenience has caused and get on with your life.
    Yours sincerely.
    Marco Marboni

    • Deppie says:

      Yes, but what about poor Raffaele?

      Amanda, we will support you and Raffaele as far as the end (which is certainly not tonight). This “verdict” is an outrage to the concept of justice. Please take them to the ECHR.

    • Gregory Thomson says:

      Very thoughtful comment, I agree, but getting on is out of the question, how can somebody accused over and over with more movies coming out all based on ignorance, just ignore it? Its not just the Italians, I saw the glee on the Kercher’s face at the verdict. It is Maresca who from day one promoted a lie, coined the term “Klan” and has been running his own PR campaign…for free….or is someone paying him? So there are more stories to be written, demand to be written, about each and every one of the police and prosecutors, who think its so funny to flaunt responsibility and morality just so they can get paid to hang out in Florence and wine and dine. The party is just getting started.

      • Daphne says:

        Touche, without this verdict, there would have been no fame for Italy, no money to promote tourism, and no cameras rolling. What a payout.

    • Daphne says:

      Camera dei Deputati? The Vatican?

  80. Ohiogirl says:

    Good luck today, Amanda. We are pulling for you.

  81. Katy says:

    I remember reading the New York Times review of Ms. Knox’s book when it came out. The review concluded, “Knox has suffered grievously. Few of us can imagine spending four years in prison. But the injustice very likely done to her pales beside the brutal truth of Kercher’s death, and no plea for sympathy will ever bridge the difference.” That infuriated me. Unless Ms. Knox killed Meredith Kercher – and the reviewer is obviously aware that nobody with any sense thinks she did – there is no reason why Meredith Kercher’s murder should make anyone less sympathetic to her. By that token, no one who hasn’t been brutally murdered deserves our sympathy for anything. I’m sure the reviewer thinks he’s being fair-minded. But in fact, by refusing to commit to believing Ms. Knox is innocent, he’s put her in a moral gray zone, somewhere in between innocent and guilty. And I think a lot of people do that without even realizing it; they don’t think she did the murder, but they act as if being accused of something is a crime in itself. There is nothing fair-minded about that. No one whose friend is murdered, who is falsely accused of the murder, and who spends four years in prison in a foreign country deserves anything but sympathy, support and respect. The burden should not be on Ms. Knox to be perfect at all times. She has done an admirable job of representing herself in the media; she has been intelligent, articulate and very polite, but she shouldn’t have to be. She doesn’t have to apologize to anyone, because she hasn’t done anything. People need to stop thinking about Meredith Kercher’s murder every time they look at Amanda Knox, and instead see Ms. Knox for what she is: a young woman who had something terrible happen to her, and who survived.

    • Sarah H says:

      Very well said, Katy.

    • Nick Green says:

      Well put, Katy. The hottest corners of hell are reserved for those who remain neutral on the matter of great moral issues.

    • Luara says:

      If Meredith Kercher were around to see what happened to Amanda, she would be appalled.

    • Gregory Thomson says:

      Katy: Exactly right. How it started….Maresca kept saying that the Knox Klan were evil for supporting their daughter, and kept perpetuating that “the Kercher’s” were above all that, never said an unkind word, but hello….they hired Maresca to slander Amanda, her family etc. It is pretty obvious now how Mignini, Comodi, Maresca, et al, got together and decided they would milk this to the end, and then not care what the supreme court determined because they would all have profited nearly a decade of free ride. I don’t know how the Kerchers, Lyle and Stephanie, sleep at night. Their mother trusts them she seems like a nice person. Don’t know, but their ugliness is revealed every time their uncivil attorneys open their mouths.

      • Gregory Thomson says:

        Sorry, I was making a point, that the only reason nobody challenged the “dignified” Kercher image was because Amanda was prisoner in a very inhumane place. Shame on you, Kerchers, see you back at the supreme court.

    • djavolicno says:

      But what if Amanda, your girl in favour, gets a surprise very soon with a new streak of evidence that’s on its way?!? Amanda, read Crime and Punishment, there is no way for you to hide forever. You have planned this murder a night before, during Halloween night, you thought it’s a game which can get unpunished. Unfortunately for you, there is this crucial part of evidence that will point out on you! This will be revealed soon! Not only you know what happened that night, there are others too who will speak, like your ex boyfriend. Just wait, he will not continue deceiving the world forever. You are not safe when you are guilty. Deep inside you, there is this little spoiled girl who wants to hide the facts and not take responsibility for her action but mystery of life has other plans for you! I promise to you, as you pose as truth seeker; the truth will be revealed, and you know, and a few others, that this truth, pure truth of that night, isn’t going to be in your favour!
      I wish you the truth! And to all of you who naively, in your infantile tradition of supporting and adoring stars, support a killer, I wish you not to become a victim of such a terrible crime that your girl, proven in a legal procedure in Europe, has committed. You are all victims of Amanda Knox, devilishly beautiful lier and manipulator.
      You’ll have to live with it, like Amanda will have to live with her coming nightmares. When all the media gets quiet, when your support becomes an empty declaration of naivety you live in, with your Hollywood sagas and insensitivity for others that are the victims of that arrogant ignorance, when the night comes, a quiet night, the voice of Meredith will come to you, believe me, even though you think you don’t have consciousness that can kill you, Meredith has other plans for her killers!
      But don’t worry, if you are innocent you will sleep innocently. Will you?!? hahahaaaaaaaaa…

      • Matt says:

        Bugger off you ignorant troll. No evidence. The Italian courts guilty verdict was really a guilty verdict to themselves.

      • Luara says:

        All this is based on the assumption that she’s guilty. But there is no good evidence that Amanda and Raffaele did that murder, and there’s good evidence that they didn’t.

      • eebaltimore says:

        Oh, for God’s sake, djavolicno! What planet are you visiting from???? Most of your rubbish here has been hinted at by other jerks, ages ago. Do get yourself a life sometime soon…

  82. JLS1950 says:

    Just hang in there, Amanda. There are MANY complete strangers pulling for you that you don’t even need to know who we are. Just accept and understand that we are doing what we can and when we cannot do (or even when we can) we pray. Just hang in there, do as your legal counsel advises, and try to live your life while this evil thing plays itself out. You are in inspiration to many, and you have many more unknown friends and supporters than you could possibly imagine.

  83. Stuart Lyster says:

    Blessings to you for Jan 30, that justice for you and Raffaele will happen…. Forza.

  84. Sarah H says:

    Amanda, I’m lighting a candle tonight, for you and Raffaele and your families. The two of you have shown such grace throughout your long ordeal. May tomorrow bring the justice you so surely deserve.

  85. Philippe says:

    Dear Amanda,
    J.l. Godard , the famous Swiss film director , once said, criticizing television or modern media I believe,:”objectivity, it’s five minutes for hitler and 5 minutes to the jews” .( I am not calling anyone”hitler..I promise , just objectivity is the subject here. )
    Indeed , not all theories are debatable. In this case as it comes hopefully to a close , it felt that the theory against you was so unsubstantiated , so not credited by any logic nor evidences, that it was solely the fact that it was allowed to be compared in court that gave it any credit .
    However, the truth and reason will prevail.
    Last week French public television broadcasted an investigative documentary that rightly showed the nonsense of this whole thing and clearly took side for your innocence.
    ( it’s a country that has not followed this as much as others, so these journalist came at it I guess with a somewhat fresh mind)
    while giving plenty of respectful opportunity to prosecution lawyers, guilters etc. 5 minutes here , five minutes there, they nonetheless less showed rather effectively how the public oppinion had been manipulated. But sometimes evidences, or absence of, speak for itself..
    So it should tomorrow,
    Good luck to you and rafaele.
    Warm thoughts from Europe .

  86. Tom Mininger says:

    “The Forgotten Killer: Rudy Guede and the Murder of Meredith Kercher” by Doug Preston, John Douglas, Steve Moore, Mark Olshaker, Mike Heavey, Jim Lovering, and Tom Wright is now available.

    • Hi Tom, Sounds like a good one…we know who is innocent…Raffaele and Amanda…Will be watching the news tomorrow, closely…Best, Ken

      • Today (1-29-14) at 3:00pm Pacific Standard Time (PST) it should be midnight, Jan. 30th in Rome, Italy, therefore, at 11:00pm Seattle time today (PST) it should be 8:00am in Italy on (Jan. 30th, 2014) and at 7:00am in Seattle on Jan. 30th it should be 4:00pm in Italy. I will check the news in the morning to see if Amanda and Raffaele have been formally Acquitted again which they both surely DESERVE because they are simply INNOCENT. – I hope these calculations are correct and I hope the Truth finally is recognized as to their collective innocence.- Best, Ken

        • Julie Jorgensen says:

          I wonder if anyone knows the timeline for things tomorrow? I know the defense still has closing arguments to give and there still may procedural things to do…so it seems to me the verdict would be later tomorrow or even into the evening. The last 2 verdicts came late at night if I remember correctly. Also, does anyone know the best way to keep up on things tomorrow? Is there a place either on the internet or television where the verdict can be watched?

        • Sarah H says:

          Thanks, Ken, for doing the math. I’ve been wondering about the time change.

          • I used the World Time Converter website yesterday to analyze the times comparing Seattle (PST) to Rome time. I’m hoping for a huge release from this case for Amanda and Raffaele today and I hope they are both paid for the time they spent in prison unjustly…when they were, (and are) both innocent. – Best, Ken

    • Sarah H says:

      Thank you!

      • Hi Sarah…Chief Judge Nencini said that a Verdict would most likely not be read until at least 1600 GMT which is 8:00am PST in Seattle. It is now 6:42am (PST) in Seattle (Jan. 30th, 2014). This statement was made in the story written by Elle Ide on Yahoo News. Wonderful day – I Pray…Best, Ken

  87. ariane says:

    Dear Amanda,
    Your story has been very dear to my heart as I have been following it from the beginning. As you represent in everyone…. someone’s daughter or sister. It pains me to see what should of been the beginning of a wonderful experience turned into swimming against the hardest river rapids. My prayers go out to you………Stay strong

    • Monica K says:

      I have been thinking about you all day. You have shown incredible strength while faced with unbelievable adversity. You have allowed those with differing viewpoints to post them on your blog. Even when some have posted unkind and even vile things about you, you remained professional and matter of fact. I don’t know how you do it. You are wise beyond your yours. Count me as one of your admirers. I wish you the best tomorrow and hope that this will all be over soon so you can go on with the rest of your life. I am confident that you will accomplish great things. You’re a remarkable young woman!

  88. Rob H says:

    There are remarkable similarities between the cases of Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito and Ryan Ferguson. Mr Ferguson’s case has received some publicity here in the UK in recent days as a result of his public support for Ms Knox and hers for his. The major difference? Mr Ferguson’s nightmare occurred in Missouri.

    The similarities:
    1) A false and coerced confession following a “dream” later recanted
    2) Absence of any physical evidence against Mr Ferguson
    3) Considerable physical evidence against the real perpetrator including bloody shoeprints
    4) Prosecutorial misconduct including the concealment of exculpatory evidence from the defence.
    5) Coached, perjuring eyewitness
    6) Absence of motive
    7) No prior convictions

    “After an exhaustive review of case law across the United States, no case exists in which the only witnesses against the defendant admitted perjury in open court at a habeas hearing”.

    Yet, even at this point, the judge refused to vacate Mr Ferguson’s conviction.

    A good documentary linked below:

    Mr Ferguson’s “Mignini” is Kevin Crane, the prosecutor in his case. It is not immediately clear to me why Mr Crane should not be arrested, charged, tried, convicted and imprisoned for his role in depriving Mr Ferguson of a decade’s worth of liberty. But what does US law say about this? Only when the misconduct of public officials is properly and severely dealt with by a combination of mandatory punishments – fines, dismissal, loss of pension benefits and imprisonment will these kind of injustices by halted.

  89. Doug Moodie says:

    I’m lost. Is there still a case against Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito? If so, what is it? The sex game theory was crazy. But the ISC brought back for a good reason. It put Knox and Sollecito in the room with Guede each holding a knife against the victim’s neck. The prosecution has abandoned this, but without it, what’s left? Guede’s sexual assault, and his hand/finger/shoe prints in blood in the victims room are foundational. The wounds reflect a need to subdue and control the victim. If Knox and Sollecito are not a part of the sexual assault, there is no reason to place them in the victim’s room at the time of the murder. Even accepting the idiotic bathmat footprint, kitchen knife, and bra clasp evidence, that does not add up to murder. It at best puts Knox and Sollecito in the house at the time of or after the murder. To participate in the murder, Knox and Sollecito would have to have helped Guede subdue Ms Knox so that he could assault her. Does this follow from an argument over poo?

    If it is true that the connection is reasoned back from the lack of defensive wounds, then the argument must show that Knox and Sollecito helped Guede assault the victim. I don’t hear the prosecution making that argument. Did I miss it? What is the argument?

  90. Sarah H says:

    In a post below, Nasim disputed my mention of the new computer evidence that was introduced in the current trial. I couldn’t reply to him there because of formatting issues, so I will here. The defense was able to demonstrate not only that a cartoon was opened at 9:26 p.m. — giving Raffaele an alibi for that time — but that the automatic screensaver was repeatedly interrupted throughout the evening, showing that a person was using the computer.

    “How can the alibi be failed, or even false, if Raffaele was at home using his two computers? . . . What deleted most of the data on the Apple was an event that happened at 6.20 on November 6, while Raffaele was in the police station. So it wasn’t him, it was them.

    “What did the police recover from that computer? Only the starting of Amelie, and the music file at 5:30 am. Then the defense examined it, and they were able to recover as well the opening of the cartoon Naruto at 9:26 pm (“What?” Nencini asked…..“The cartoon Naruto, President. NARUTO, it’s a CARTOON.” As usual the defense points seem to sound completely new to him). The cartoon remained open until the crash of 6:20.

    “Then the defense recovered some automatic activity, which just proves the computer was on. And plenty of screen-saver interruptions along the whole evening. ‘You have all those interactions in my report,’Maori reminded. ‘You decide if they are human or not.’”

    • Nasim says:

      This is not new. I find the testimony very confusing. It would really help to have the report to which Maori is referring. Best I can understand:
      1) Amelie ended at 9:10 – may or may not have been anyone watching
      2) Naruto accessed at 9:16 – had been created on a previous day, probably P2P activity, still opened when police confiscated the computer on November 6
      3) Automatic checks for browser security updates every 30 minutes
      4) Brief, automatic check in to around midnight
      5) Stardust finished downloading through P2P about 4AM
      6) Screensaver log indicates it was mostly inactive through the night, longest period of activity was 6 minutes
      Many of us have the VLC player. It has the ability to suppress the screensaver so that could be the explanation. There was no web browsing or email activity (Raffaele has claimed he was emailing his professors). In short it’s suspicious, and certainly not an alibi.

      • Alex K. says:

        Of course it is an alibi – defense showed the Naruto cartoon was opened at 9:26 and TOD was almost certainly between 9:00 and 9:30.

        What is truly suspicious is that the cops destroyed four hard drives on Raffaele’s computers.

        • Nasim says:

          Naruto was never mentioned by the accused until the defense consultant found it had been accessed on the evening of the murder. Only brief excerpts of that consultant’s report have been made public – not enough to understand his thought process. It does appear that the file was still being modified when the police seized the computer on November 6. If it had already been watched, why was it still being modified?

          The time of death between 9 and 9:30 was contrived to fit the “surprised burglar” theory. There’s no particular evidence for it, unlike the other commonly suggested times of 10:15 and 11:30. I agree with Hellmann that 10:15 is probably correct. Amanda, what do you think? ;)

          • Sarah H says:

            You are twisting the truth again. Hellman did NOT say that 10:15 pm was “probably correct.” He said: “hence the death shortly thereafter, occurred much before the time supposed by the Corte di Assise of first level: certainly not later than 10:13 pm.” “Certainly NOT LATER than 10:13″ does not mean “10:15 is probably correct.”

            The judge also explained why common sense would tell us that Meredith died soon after 9 o’clock. She had left the party because she was tired, and because it was time to call her mother. After calling her mother at 8:56, and being unable to reach her, why didn’t she call back again within a few minutes — which is what she usually would have done? Why would she have kept her street clothes on for more than an hour if she was so tired and wanted to go to bed? Most likely because she was attacked soon after trying to call her mother — that is, soon after 9 o’clock. And this would accord with the state of the contents of her stomach.

          • Willis Coleman says:

            Sarah – You are both correct. The English translation of the Hellmann Report p. 87 (Italian p. 13): Time of death “identified by this Court as around 10:15 pm”.

  91. emma horsfall says:

    Hi it emma
    just wanted to say my sympathy is with u and your family at the difficuit
    time and hope u will be alright in the end and get justice and I feel ashamed how england had treated u in the years I believe u 100 percent

  92. Karen says:

    “Whoever this is, your comment bears witness to who you are”

    Sociopaths appear to get off on the suffering and misery they have caused others and I’m pointing that out. Perhaps I didn’t need to describe it using such a crass phrase. I am astounded by the callous behaviour and attitudes that you and your supporters have towards the Kerchers.
    Even though you have caused a great deal of pain for the Kerchers, I wouldn’t wish that on you. You know what you did and I understand that you just don’t care.

    • Caroline says:

      Amanda you are an amazing person for allowing such comments. I am in awe of your inner strength. Karen shows nothing but pure hate, ignorance and spite, and though it must hurt you deeply, you still manage to react in such a dignified way. It is no wonder that it has been so easy to support you!! Pure inspiration thats what you are!!x

    • Sarah H says:

      I am astounded that people who supposedly care about Meredith didn’t object to the sex-game-gone wrong motive of the first trials — that they accepted the theory that Meredith was in some kind of orgy with the burglar Rudy, Amanda, and Raffaele. And when the appeals court rejected that motive, Meredith’s supporters are fine with the idea that Meredith had consensual sex with Guede — that was the testimony put forth by the prosecution — and then got murdered because she objected to his poop in another roommate’s toilet. I’m astounded by people like you who supposedly care about Meredith and never object to the fact that Guede could be released from prison on good behavior within a year or two. Karen, your hate is blinding you, so nothing you say makes any sense.

      • Jack says:

        Herein lies the true downside of the anonymous and egalitarian nature of the internet: that a pants-on-head crazy and vicious person like “Karen” – in “her” mean-spirited relentlessness, could she be one of “Harry Rag’s” incarnations in drag? – finds equal voice. It is the explanation for the viper’s dens of TJMK and the PMFs in a nutshell.

    • Tom Mininger says:

      This is the witch hunt in all its “glory”. It has plagued our past, our present, and our foreseeable future.

    • Luara says:

      the callous behaviour and attitudes that you and your supporters have towards the Kerchers
      I don’t feel at all callous towards the Kerchers. Clearly they have been through something so devastating that it is difficult for others to have any clue about what it would feel like. I can see how devastating a murder is for the family of the victim.
      Amanda’s supporters have often expressed sympathy for the Kerchers.
      But how is one supposed to be un-callous towards the Kerchers? By trashing Amanda?
      By suggesting people donate to the Kerchers’ fund, as Amanda did – and was discouraged by the Kerchers’ lawyer?

    • Brittany says:


      I admire your grace. May your heart be settled. May your soul feel warmth. May your sleep be filled with pleasant dreams. May your life once again be yours. I believe this all will come to be. Breathe easy.


    • Cinnamon says:

      If you’re trying to make Ms Knox look as guilty as possible, frivolously throwing the word “sociopath” around is not your best bet. No one of any importance thinks Ms Knox matches either the Cleckley or Hare checklists for the disorder. Calling someone a sociopath when they don’t even match the DSM diagnostic criteria simply shows a lack of education, and credibility, on your part.

      • Willis Coleman says:

        Technically if she committed the murder she qualifies. But let’s take a look at the Hare Criteria you mentioned (I’m not endorsing it. I have no idea if it’s valid in this situation or not.)

        1. SUPERFICIAL CHARM: Yes (2pts)
        2. GRANDIOSE: Yes (2pts, self-assured to the max)
        3. PRONENESS TO BOREDOM: Yes (2pts, remember Berlin)
        4. LYING: No (that I know of, apart from this case)
        5. MANIPULATIVENESS: Yes (2pts, knows how to get what she wants)
        6. LACK OF REMORSE: Maybe (1pts, was glad she wasn’t home that night rather than wished she’d been home)
        7. SHALLOW AFFECT: Yes (2pts, this is her most striking feature in interviews)
        8. LACK OF EMPATHY: Yes (2pts, noticed by everyone in the aftermath of the murder)
        9. PARASITIC LIFESTYLE: Maybe (1pts, fortunate to be a woman of means)
        10. POOR BEHAVIORAL CONTROLS: Maybe (1pts, swears like a sailor in phone calls with family)
        11. PROMISCUITY: Maybe (1pts, had at least two other relationships while dating Raffaele)
        12. EARLY BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS: No (unless you count pranking Curt)
        13. LACK OF REALISTIC, LONG-TERM GOALS: Maybe (1pts, hard to say what would have happened had she not become defined by this case)
        14. IMPULSIVITY: Maybe (1pts, Raffaele said she lived “for pure pleasure”)
        15. IRRESPONSIBILITY: Maybe (1pts, Patrick said she wasn’t the best worker)
        16. FAILURE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR OWN ACTIONS: Yes (2pts, still hasn’t paid Patrick)
        17. MANY SHORT-TERM MARITAL RELATIONSHIPS: No (that’s Raffaele, LOL)
        18. JUVENILE DELINQUENCY: No (at least not anything that’s public record)
        19. REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL RELEASE: No (but that’ll probably change on Thursday)
        20. CRIMINAL VERSATILITY: No (apart from this case just the usual rowdiness and drugs)

        Total=21. A score of 25 of higher is required for research purposes.

        • Alex K. says:

          You can be amusing, Mr. Pop Psychologist.

        • Rob H says:

          When are we going to hear from you about the evidence in Meredith Kercher’s bedroom that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are guilty of her murder? Do you lack the courage and the honesty to try? Your silence on the subject is deafening.

        • Julie Jorgensen says:

          Sadly Willis, you are posting comments and scoring a person who does not exist except in your own imagination and the tabloids.

          This is a glimpse of the real Amanda.–Just-another-UW-student-229020261.html

          Amanda has genuine charm, simplicity, amazing patience, truthfulness, openness, empathy and remorse for all that her loved ones and family have had to endure as well as the Kercher family, a calm gentleness, a very kind and giving lifestyle and nature, maturity and wisdom beyond her years, committed relationships and friendships, well thought out plans and goals, and the list goes on and on.

          You really should get to know the REAL Amanda.

          If you want to score a true sociopath…Rudy Guede is a perfect subject.

          • Daphne says:

            Unfortunately, the way the justice system is today, Rudy will never get the help he needs to overcome his terrible childhood. That, he had absolutely nothing to do with.

        • duke says:

          Who are you even talking about? Certainly not Amanda.

    • Stuart Lyster says:

      I agree that Amanda is an amazing person for being able to handle such cowardly comments in the manner in which she does.

  93. Rob H says:

    Does anyone have the actual dimensions of Meredith Kercher’s bedroom? Everybody seems to agree it was “small”, but what are the actual dimensions, with a source if possible. Indeed, is there a plan of the whole apartment with the dimensions of each room? I have seen plans, but without dimensions.

  94. Jim Lovering says:

    Some facts in light of the discussion here about what happened and how it’s possible to be sure of certain points…

    Meredith was on her knees in front of her closet when the final knife wound was inflicted. This cutting wound perforated her trachea. She began to aspirate blood, which produced the fine droplets on the closet doors and on the floor. This would have ceased when she stopped breathing, a few minutes after she sustained this wound.

    Police photos show aspirated blood on the side of the closet, next to where Meredith’s head lay when her body was found. It is also visible on the boots found between her head and the closet. She was in that position when she stopped breathing.

    She was breathing when her two shirts were pulled up to expose her bra, because photos show the aspirated blood droplets on her bra.

    Police photos also show the aspirated blood droplets on her exposed chest, throughout the area that had been covered by her bra. She was still breathing when her bra was torn off. Micheli was wrong about this in his report.

    Streaks of blood on the floor show that Meredith was dragged into the center of the room, to the position where she was found. The obvious explanation is that Guede moved her to get her feet clear of her desk, so it would be easier for him to remove her pants and underpants, which were found on the floor near her feet.

    The physical evidence thus shows that Meredith was disrobed immediately after she was incapacitated from a fatal wound. A DNA swab revealed Guede’s haplotype inside her body. A possible semen stain, detected with a forensic light source on the pillow found beneath Meredith’s hips, has never been tested.

    I have spent many hours poring over the crime scene photos and video that show what happened to Meredith. I can never look at this material, or go over these facts, without getting a sickening knot in my stomach. When someone asks, “why would Guede do this?” I don’t know. I don’t know him or what makes him tick. But I do know what he did.

    A lot of people are obsessively interested in this case and the many possibilities they think it offers. In fact, only one crime really happened that night. It happened one way, and it would not surprise a big-city homicide detective in the US, where there have been plenty of similar cases. This murder is not a mystery, and what happened will not change. Lawyers and judges won’t change it, and phony “evidence” won’t change it. I’m sorry the truth makes so many people in Italy look bad, but the sooner they face reality, the better for them and for everyone else.

    • Willis Coleman says:

      I like this. Jim starts with some facts that actually really are facts and then he draws a conclusion. In this case he draws the wrong conclusion, but still this is how critical thinking is supposed to work.

      Here is where Jim goes wrong: “The obvious explanation is that Guede moved her to get her feet clear of her desk, so it would be easier for him to remove her pants and underpants, which were found on the floor near her feet.”

      No, that is not obvious. There is another, equally plausible explanation: her pants and underpants were already off because the sexual assault occurred before the stabbing. Otherwise Guede would have had blood on his hands and supposedly even had a cut on his hand. What happened to the blood transfer that you folks always talk about?

      • Tom Mininger says:

        Blood transfer? On the pillow he positioned Meredith’s hips with for sexual assault. Her lower body was swung into this position across a bloody floor, after the attack as shown by the blood streaks. The authorities refuse to test the pillow stain that looks like semen, forcing people to “conjecture” that Rudy masturbated on the pillow.

        Willis where’s the blood transfer against Amanda and Raffaele from this blood bath?

        Ron Hendry’s “Single Attacker Theory” includes crime scene photos. Thankfully the body is not shown.

      • Jack says:

        Do you acknowledge that the blood stains on the floor indicate movement of Meredith Kercher’s bleeding body? What is your explanation for the motive to move her? Have you seen the autopsy photos in order to verify this guilter meme that there was no blood below Ms. Kercher’s waistline?

        Why would Guede begin from the bottom, so to speak, and wait to remove the upper garments only after having delivered the coup de gras? What logical sequence of events in the struggle makes this sensible? Rather illogical but convenient factoid for your side, no?

        Excepting, of course, it does nothing for you. Unless you subscribe to the Italian belief that a woman wearing tight-fitting pants cannot be raped, under threat of his knife and using his superior strength, Guede could have removed Ms. Kercher’s lower garments before he killed her, and still be solely responsible.

      • Gregory Thomson says:

        Guede ran away as soon as he cut her. He went to the disco, got more buzzed up (is there any account of this, how much did he drink there, like a bartender witness or something?) Then returned to the scene, used towels to help (as if towels can help a bleeding person?) and maybe moved a pillow, her body, added a comforter…..all crazy stuff, unless you are the killer and are in a panic. Then used the toilet, threw a rock at the cat, and fled to Germany. He could have just gone to visit his fashion designer friend in Milan, or stayed at the childrens school there where he is so welcome and play with knifes there, why Germany?

      • Jim Lovering says:

        Guede did have blood on his hands, which is why the waistband of Meredith’s jeans was stained with blood and why he left his bloody palm print on the pillow found underneath her body.

        I have gone over this in detail, believe me, and I have discussed it at length with experts. People are always looking for some great fact that can turn this crime back into a mystery in which anything is possible. People are looking for Bigfoot too.

        • Willis Coleman says:

          The jeans look like they were stepped on with bloody shoes. The underpants had no blood. You seem exasperated by your inability to convincingly explain the crime.

  95. Karen says:

    I see you for what you are and really don’t wish you any pain or suffering. I bet thinking back to hurting Meredith, watching her die and dragging her lifeless body across the floor makes you wetter than an otters pocket.

    • Amanda says:

      Whoever this is, your comment bears witness to who you are. It doesn’t say anything about who I am. I can only hope that someday you realize that.

      • Luara says:

        your comment bears witness to who you are.
        Her comment brought tears to my eyes.
        You are right, when people are abusive or trashing somehow, it’s often a kind of projection, a way of engaging with things in their own psychology that they don’t want to deal with directly.
        I went through this recently on an online social site. Someone posted a joke where part of the humor was based on a wrong statement about astronomy. So I said that it wasn’t true (not in a mean way). She got really pissed off, told me repeatedly how awful I was, I was an arrogant know-it-all etc. etc.
        It shocked me, it hooked into how I’d been told so much how defective I was when I was a child, etc.
        It seemed like she felt humiliated because she isn’t a science-y person and I am, that this had been brewing for a long time – but she didn’t want to put it that way, since she didn’t want to talk about feeling humiliated. So instead, she put me down – a lot, attacked me for being smart and showing it. An oppressive message.
        According to my values, it’s a good thing to propagate truth, pretty much always. I don’t want to bow to social pressures to hide truths. Hidden truths are toxic.
        And hidden truths lead to people being abusive.
        When someone has a comforting illusion they want to preserve, they may attack other people to hide the truth.

      • Willis Coleman says:

        You have to admit Amanda, in view of everything that’s happened, it’s interesting that you once wrote: “A thing you have to know about chicks is that they don’t know what they want.” … “You have to show it to them.”

        • Caroline says:

          lol what source did you manipulate that gem from?

        • Jack says:

          Presumably this is lifted from Ms. Knox’s creative writing? Are you attempting to establish psychology and motive from what sounds like a fictional, first person voice?

          Whatever the case, this is a genuinely puerile and idiotic comment.

        • Amanda says:

          The words of a character clearly portrayed as wrong and an enemy to women, including me.

        • Rob H says:

          Oh, you ass, Willis Coleman! That was a creative writing assignment you are quoting from – her whole class handled the topic.

        • Alex K. says:

          These are words of a fictional male character, the “bad guy” of a short story Amanda wrote at college, apparently as a creative writing assignment. It is a sort of anti-rape morality tale. The story is about two brothers falling out over the fact that one of them has raped a girl. His notion of what “chicks” want is a stereotypical potential rapist’s idea, probably shared by millions of men worldwide.

        • Tom Mininger says:

          This kind of sleazy manipulation of Amanda’s MySpace and diary entries by the police at the beginning of the case helped inflame public opinion against her and hurt her and Raffaele at hearings. It was done in conjunction with false evidence leaks and rumors including:
          Guede’s bloody shoeprint that they claimed was Raffaele’s.
          Picture of pink chemical all over the bathroom that looked like blood.
          German Harry Potter book. There was a copy at Raffaele’s apmt.
          Non existent bleach receipts.
          Non existent bleach clean-up.
          Amanda’s missing sweater that wasn’t missing.
          Washing machine that wasn’t running when the police arrived.
          A and R were not holding a mop when police arrived
          Phony HIV positive test
          The garage clock was running slow, not fast. Raffaele was correct that he called police before police arrived.

          Willis is still doing it 6+ years later.

        • Daphne says:

          I wonder if Stephen King ever has to defend his writing?

    • Cinnamon says:

      Ms. Knox must be the first person in the history of mankind to “[drag a] lifeless body across the floor” without leaving any DNA evidence.

      As Ms. Knox says, the taunting nature of your comments tell us much more about your character than it does about hers.

      • Ahem! says:

        By that token Rudy Guede must be the first person to bend a bra clasp and leave someone elses DNA on it.

        • Cinnamon says:

          If Mr Sollecito was present, why was his DNA nowhere but the bra clasp? Surely it’s a bit hard to only leave DNA in one tiny place? The presence of his DNA was due to contamination – the clasp was left on the floor for six weeks and then picked up with dirty gloves. There is no other explanation for why Mr Sollecito’s DNA was only there and not anywhere else at the crime scene.

    • Rob H says:

      No! Evidence here that the writer him or herself is sexually aroused by Meredith Kercher’s violent murder. And he or she comes here to slander Amanda Knox and call her a sociopath. Utterly unbelievable that you could could even begin to think of posting such a comment. It defines you for who you are – malevolent and contemptible.

      • Matt says:

        I think that may be true for many of the “guilt mongers”. They just can’t bear that their “murder porn” fantasy didn’t actually happen.

    • Som Nathan says:

      @Karen. You are pure evil. I am sure you are having a devilish laughter after making this post. You just know how to inflict pain, and not cure it. However, I wish you all the luck in life, for I know evil like you will end up somewhere rotten sooner or later. Or you learn and become a better human.

      Amanda, please stay STRONG, for you have faced, are facing and will face such evil. In the end, you and only you will slay these dragons, internet trolls, internet zombies by demonstrating the power of your innocence, truth and compassion for justice. Good news is that your supporters are growing by numbers everyday.

    • Frank the Tank says:

      You wrote that comment for the sole purpose of causing emotional pain, anonymously, from the safety and security of wherever you are.

      And you call Ms. Knox a sociopath?

      Meredith Kercher deserves better champions than you and your ilk. Justice deservers a better champion than Giuliano Mignini. Italy deserves better than this farce.

  96. Sarah H says:

    Here is an excellent article by someone who’s thought a lot about the case.

  97. Tom Zupancic says:


    Like so many others who recognize your innocence and understand the terrible miscarriage of justice that has been done to you, my heart goes out to you at this trying time.

    Amanda, I must admit, the kindness, sensitivity, and understanding that you have shown toward those who incessantly question you and confront you has been mind boggling to me. I know that I could never have done what you have been able to do. You have shown yourself to be a remarkable human being, full of goodness. I think you’re amazing.

    Just let me know if there is anything an old molecular biologist might do to help.

  98. Karen says:

    Where are the “millions of casual supporters” Amanda has? It’s certainly not millions, so there is no point in lying to her.
    You don’t appear to have the “emotional wiring” the average person has which explains why you were able to attack and murder Meredith without conscience. It would be very tragic if you were so intoxicated from drugs that you lost control of yourself and murdered Meredith, but your nonchalant attitude, continuous lies, profiting off of Meredith’s death, allowing your supporters to say vile and disgusting things about her family, insisting that her parents speak to you and taunting her parents about visiting her grave clearly shows you couldn’t care less about what you did to Meredith.
    I don’t wish you any pain or suffering. I’m just pointing out that not everyone is fooled by your attempts at feigning compassion for Meredith and her family and can see that you’re a sociopath.
    On your website, I read the little quote after Stephanie Kercher: “I cried all night until I could barely see or breathe, everything just felt so empty.” Please excuse me for saying this, but I’m sure that made you wet with delight knowing the suffering you put Meredith’s sister through.

    • Caroline says:

      Amanda why do you allow such comments? karen is a horrid person with no human emotions. she is not adding to the discussion just simply attacking you. There is nothing you can say that will ever change her mind. Delete the comment, you should not have to put up with such abuse :)

      I keep you always in my prays and hope for a complete vindication for yourself and raffaele later this week xoxo

      • Daphne says:

        I agree. This person may even be related to the people who put Amanda behind bars in 2007. Karen may be “Chan.”

    • Alex K. says:

      What a vicious, deceitful comment.

      Yes, Amanda has millions of supporters now.

    • Julie Jorgensen says:

      Karen, I truly feel great pain and sadness after reading your comments above. Just a few weeks ago you had said a very kind comment to Amanda…”Thanks for replying to me, Amanda. I didn’t expect you to”. And Amanda had kindly responded back to you and wished you a Happy New Year. Yet here you are just a few weeks later with this very hurtful and even hateful comment. There is so much information and evidence out there to refute these kinds of ideas and words and yet they persist. How can a person defend themselves against something that is indefendable? Where does the hate and rage of your words come from? What is its source? Why would it be something to spend ones valuable time or resources on? I have never understood this part of this case. I have never before encountered this type of hate and nonsensible thinking before. It truly scares me to know this way of thinking rages in the hearts of some people.
      That you and others like you can’t see the good that is so evident in Amanda is perplexing. That you can’t see the injustice and evidence that proves her innocence astounds me. It’s as if the world went topsy turvy and up is down and down is up and nonsense reigns. I don’t have the patience that Amanda has. I’m grateful she has this patience. It’s amazing to me to see her kindness and patience continue to shine through despite these types of comments. Amanda could have chosen to erase your comment and give it no life..and yet, she humbly took it on. I don’t understand fully why. I don’t think I would be able to myself. But she is a very courageous person along with being very open and kind. I hope one day you will see Amanda for the person that she really is and not for the person the tabloids tried to falsely create. Til then…I pray that hearts like yours will be softened and understanding will be opened to the truth.

    • Tom Zupancic says:


      I found your ignorant, and callous attack on Amanda here to be truly despicable. While it is easy to appreciate that you have no idea what you are talking about, it is more difficult to understand your hateful antagonism.

      ‘Karen’s’ post here appears to be a specific example of some sort of broader contemporary sociopathology, as near as I can figure. Perhaps if ‘Karen’ continues to post, we can elaborate on this diagnosis of ‘her’ pathology.

    • Sarah H says:

      I wonder what sort of emotional wiring you have that leads you to project your own personal sense of darkness onto an obviously innocent person like Amanda. Here is a link to a good article. Maybe you’ll learn something:

    • Rob H says:

      It’s YOU, Karen (or whoever you really are) who does not appear to have the emotional wiring the average person has which explains why you are able to come here and attack Amanda Knox without conscience, not only without any evidence, but with made up evidence, obsessed with her and obsessed, like your tiny group of internet “friends” with a murdered young woman. You throw around a diagnostic label like “sociopath”, without any understanding of what it means or any knowledge of what it would entail, are incapable of learning anything at all about this case despite the application of science and reason and simply cannot or will not grasp the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s people like you who still believe the earth is flat – that when things disappear at the horizon it’s because they have fallen off. Positively medieval.

      • Cinnamon says:

        I wonder whether Karen’s frivolous use of the term “sociopath” was psychological projection. Sociopaths are, after all, known for Internet trolling.

    • Luca Cheli says:

      I comment just on the “casual supporters” part: it all depends on what one defines as “casual”: if one defines as such people who may express sympathy when hearing about the story, considering a US population nearing 300 millions, well yes, they can easily range in the millions.
      No comment instead on deliria.

    • Jack says:

      Feel better now? Was that the full extent of your good day’s hate, or was it sandwiched between hateful, nonsensical tripe you posted on TJMK or one (or both) of the PMFs?

      You are a type. Nothing more, nothing less. A person too ill-equipped with reason or intellect to extract what is really going on in this case. In fact, you needn’t be particularly smart yourself to have cracked it. Disinterested scientists and experts in Italy, the UK and US have all but rubbed your nose in the truth. To repeat: there are serious, credentialed persons with no skin in this game persistently shouting that something is rotten in Perugia. And yet your ilk have not budged one iota.

      Simple explanation? You want to hate. You are pleased to have come upon a case like this, affording you the opportunity to scapegoat someone like Ms. Knox. During the witch trials, you would have been among the first to take up his or her pitchfork.

    • Brittany says:


      I find your choice to over look all the evidence, which is readily available, a disgust at this point. You cannot pinpoint a single piece of evidence placing Amanda there during the murder. If you gave her just the slightest moment of an open mind you will find her character to be of compassion not that of a murderer. It’s a shame that must be said again and again. This young girl set out to Italy with a love of language, different cultures, and to find herself. What it took to get to Italy greatly demonstrates her mind set, determination, and who she was and is. She absolutely would not throw it all away to participant in a horrific murder of her friend.
      I am anxiously awaiting the verdict that reinstates her innocence.


    • Cinnamon says:

      “allowing your supporters to say vile and disgusting things about her family”

      Just pointing out that Ms. Knox has absolutely no control over what her supporters say, just like she has no control over what you say. Whether you think she’s innocent or guilty, blaming her for what others say is downright unfair.

    • Len D. says:

      “so intoxicated from drugs that you lost control of yourself and murdered Meredith”….which means she would have had to leave DNA in similar areas and in similar amounts to where Rudy left DNA…but she didn’t…so there is no evidence..and so what you think happened didn’t happen.

    • Janet Stanziano says:

      What a vile thing you are. And yes, she has millions of supporters. More every day…people like you are helping her gain them.

    • Doug Moodie says:

      No one is fooling you. You are far too occupied fooling yourself.

      ( Incidentally, the majority of Americans and I would guess by now most Europeans get that Ms Knox is innocent. There are 300 million Americans and 700 million Europeans – that adds up to millions)

    • Gregory Thomson says:

      Yes, Amanda was faking it being in prison, she didn’t really have to be there, it was all a cruel joke on the Kercher’s. BTW, “Meredith was no prude,” as quoted from her boyfriend that did the music video with her in it. Its on the TJMK site, must be true. Kind of makes the whole forced game theory backwards. Why didn’t Meredith’s girlfriend accompany her ALL the way home, why didn’t she call her right after to see if she got in OK? Why didn’t Meredith try to call her friend to see if she also got home OK? Why didn’t anybody EXCEPT Amanda stick around to help the police solve the case? Laura actually returned to the scene and stole evidence…her own computer….and all the other computers were soon burned up…by Perugia’s “top” forensic experts.

    • Daphne says:

      Are you actually speaking to Amanda? Are you not a supporter? Or were you referring to someone else, the real killer?

  99. floen says:

    We have never met Amanda, but you have been in my thoughts ever since I realized what happened to you. Just before that, I had listened to Elizabeth Smart’s “My Story” audiobook. I mention that because she too faced a very difficult struggle (of a different kind) for her freedom at a young age, and both of you have amazing stories that inspire and awaken many people.

    I have seen in Elizabeth’s life and my own (and many other people’s lives) – these types of enormous struggles in life can be eventually tempered by joyous occasions of a magnitude that outshines the darkest days. That is what I wish for you going forward – wonderful, exciting and happy surprises that make the bad times pale in comparison.

    I’m grateful for your courage to tell you story, and I hope that you continue to get the opportunity to speak out about your experience. I am anxiously awaiting the decision this week- but no matter what I believe you will be safe, and hopefully you know there are many many people like me who are on your side.

  100. Bob Magnetti says:

    If justice is truly being sought by Judge Nencini’s court, the following two points demand acquittal for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito:

    1) The absence of evidence of anyone other than Rudy Guede in the victim’s bedroom certainly makes a very strong statement that Meredith Kercher was assaulted/murdered by a lone male named R. Guede–there were no multiple attackers, Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito were not present in the bedroom during the attack. Additional proof of their absence are the findings of both the Conti & Vecchiotti report and the carabinieri RIS report which gave no credence to the reported DNA findings on the knife and the bra-clasp. Thus, it can truly be said that “there is no evidence of Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito in the victim’s bedroom!”

    2) A time of death (between 9:15 and 9:30 PM based on Kercher’s arrival at the flat at 9:00 PM, failure to redial a dropped call to her sick mother, failure to remove her jacket, digestive physiology, and her cell phone pinging a distant abnormal tower at 10:13 PM) which makes it almost impossible for Knox/Sollecito to have met up with Guede and to have assaulted Meredith Kercher at the flat because of know activity on Sollecito’s computer at 9:26 PM.

    • Cinnamon says:

      Was there ever any evidence that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito ever knew Guede before the attack? I’ve not seen any compelling evidence that they were even (properly) acquainted, let alone that they planned a murder together.

      Good news about the Prosecution’s recent closing arguments is that they themselves have thrown out the “sex game gone wrong” theory and admitted that there would have been no motive. If even the Prosecution can admit fault with the original theory then things do look good for Ms Knox and her ex-boyfriend. Hopefully they can be acquitted once and for all.

      • duke says:

        Amanda said she had met Guede once very briefly two weeks before because he knew the guys who lived downstairs.Raffaele had never met Rudy Guede in his entire life.He said the only time he has ever seen Guede was in a courtroom.A murder conspiracy involving complete strangers – absolutely ridiculous.

  101. Doug Moodie says:

    To Ms Knox,

    Like everyone else I wish to express my deepest wishes for a good luck in the upcoming week(s). Please keep in mind that all over the world, tens of thousands follow your case with close interest and are hoping and praying that you will be found innocent by this court, as are millions of other more casual supporters, as well as the editorial staff of (almost?) every major newspaper, magazine, television and media outlet in the western world (outside of Italy unfortunately).

    The truth is a loyal ally, and will stick with you through the darkest of times. With time, the truth will be understood by all, even your dectractors and accusers. Ultimately, the truth will heal the pain these many years of lies and false accusations have thrown. Until, be strong. If there be a God, God is one the side of the truth, and so are you. That’s the right side to be on.

    All the best next week,


  102. Cinnamon says:

    Hey Amanda,

    Best of luck to you in the trial. I’ve been reading as much as I can about your case and I am totally convinced that you are innocent (having been initially disinterested). It doesn’t make sense for you to be convicted despite the absence of DNA from the crime scene. The whole case has turned “innocent until proven guilty” on its head. You would never have been convicted if this had taken place in the UK or the US.

    I seriously do feel for you and my heart goes out to you, even though you do not know me.

    You are in my prayers.

  103. Daphne says:

    Dear Amanda, and her friends and supporters,
    I like that people are keeping an open mind when it comes to haters, guilters, and all the other names we’re discouraged from repeating. I’ve been on pins and needles, waiting, praying hoping, that this clears up, and that it will get cleared up without any of us moving back to Europe . . . honestly, this could be happening to anyone, and it feels like it is happening to all of us. It’s worrying me. You or I could be next. I don’t know about Amanda, but with me, things started as a simple case of identity theft — and now it’s spiralling out of control. I hadn’t realized until just a few days ago, my situation is a bit worse than I thought it was . . .
    Amanda, stay cool. You’ve made good choices. Relax as much as you can before the verdict comes in, and hopefully, you have a plan intact on what best way to celebrate your newly pronounced innocence.

    • Amanda says:


      I’m really sorry to hear about your identity theft situation. That must be baffling and, if out of control, quite frightening. I hope you have a good support system around you. Stay safe.

      Thank you for your encouragement. It’s much appreciated and much needed at this time.


      • Hi Amanda: I wish you the best this coming Thursday and know it will be an emotional day for you (understatement of the century). I am hoping it will be a day of liberation and freedom for you, and Raffaele, and that you will both have a chance to take some time off to relax in the event the Verdict is favorable. It is also so vitally important not to blame yourself for what has happened, as you were like a small sailboat caught in a huge storm out at sea but I sincerely hope your craft floats up onto land this Thursday, Jan. 30th and you can enjoy a “restful intermission” from an often “speculative” voyage where you had to train yourself to be the “Captain of the Ship” along the way. In the end Love and the Truth will prevail…because they are superior forces and I will be watching developments closely as they unfold. – Best, Ken

      • Daphne says:

        Amanda –
        Thanks. As for that support system, I’m getting quite familiar with what it feels like to be hated. It’s horrible, and I don’t know how to manage all of this. As one might say, “I could write a book.” I’m going to spend as much time as I can trying to stick with the people who’ve vouched for me in the past — and doing good things for people whenever I can. As for the rest of them — they can’t hurt me if I don’t care. Hang in there.

      • Daphne says:

        Amanda Knox:
        Thank you. Your words, too, are much appreciated. I only hope that one day I can actually say I was able to contribute in some small way to the eventual affirmation of your innocence. It seems more easily said than done. Hang in there, and excuse the way my responses appear on this blog. It seems as though I am being used as a mouthpiece for some of the guilter trolls. God Bless you and your precious family.

  104. Doug Moodie says:

    @ Willis Coleman:

    This is a response to “You wrote: “He did in fact violate her AFTER he stabbed her. That has been FIRMLY ESTABLISHED.” Tell you what, Doug, if you can back this up my wife and I will donate $10 to Amanda’s defense fund. If you can’t, you donate $10 to the Meredith Kercher Fund.”

    Sorry, I just saw your post. I’m not that into being told what, but I’m sure you meant it respectfully. You’re right. If the Italian court had firmly established that Guede stabbed Ms Kercher, there would be no open litigation. It seems clear to *me* at least that Guede acted alone, so he must have stabbed her.

    My comment was a response to Giselle’s “after she is unconscious and bleeding he also sexually assaults her? This takes a really sick person” and the response I intended was “It is firmly established that Guede sexually assaulted Ms Kercher while she was being stabbed or after.

    Okay then, leaving behind my mistake of saying it has been firmly established that Guede stabbed Ms Kercher, I do believe I can argue that it has been firmly established that Guede assaulted Ms Kercher while or after she had been stabbed.

    What is “firmly established”? Firmly established means Judge Massei declares it true in the motivations report. Obviously, I disagree with the Massei motivations report. I believe Guede acted alone. However, it is unnecessary to look into that question to answer the question “Is it firmly established in the Massei motivations report that Guede sexually assaulted Ms Kercher while or after she had been stabbed”.

    On page 374 Massei says: “Elements which lead one to consider that the 4cm in depth wound was inflicted by Raffaele Sollecito with the pocket knife that he was always carrying around with him, and was inflicted immediately after having cut the bra, while Rudy penetrated the unfortunate victim – who had been almost completely stripped naked”. I do not need to say more.

    But there is more.

    Professor Anna Aprile, an expert appointed by the judge (GIP) at the sitting of the preliminary hearing, “gave evidence of the presence of signs, which led to the assertion that Meredith Kercher had been sexually active shortly before dying.” P. 155 Sexually active means vaginal penetration by Guede.

    Also, consider:
    [T]he most probable hypothesis, that Rudy decided on his own to enter Meredith’s room, the young woman’s reaction and refusal must have been heard by Amanda and Raffaele (Amanda’s room was very close to Meredith’s) who, in fact, must have been disturbed by them [i.e. by the reaction and the refusal] and intervened, as the progression of events and their epilogue show, backing up Rudy, and becoming themselves, together with Rudy, Meredith’s aggressors, her murderers. p367
    An activity of penetration which left biological traces inside Meredith’s body is behaviour which rightly belongs to the category of sexual acts. The fact that this behaviour occurred against Meredith’s will can be derived … from the comprehensive evaluation of the scene as immortalised in the photos, which showed the almost entirely naked body of Meredith Kercher, the bloodstains, and the cut and torn bra. P158
    [The Court] does not hold that this non-collaboration in the sexual activity could be indicative of a rushed sexual act, accomplished without any “preparation” of the female subject, [That] is clearly contradicted by the context of serious and widespread harm manifested by the body of the victim. It is also clearly contradicted by the strap of the bra that the victim was wearing, which was found stained with blood, indicative of the violent action which others performed on that garment before removing it and uncovering the victim’s chest. P 159
    My take:
    Together these say that Rudy was not sexually assaulting Ms Kercher until Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito restrained Ms Kercher by holding knives to her neck. This alone meets the conditions for “Guede is a really sick person”. But the phrase “stained with blood, indicative of the violent action which others performed” implies that Massei believes Ms Kercher was bleeding at the time the bra was stripped off.

    So does this: “[The Court] does not hold that this non-collaboration in the sexual activity could be indicative of a rushed sexual act, accomplished without any “preparation” of the female subject, [That] is clearly contradicted by the context of serious and widespread harm manifested by the body of the victim” , because it is possible that Guede had rushed sex and then Ms Kercher was assaulted and stabbed, but this is contradicted by the serious and widespread harm. I realize you don’t have to read this passage that way, but it seems clear enough to me that is Massei’s intent.

    At any rate, this is what I mean by “it has been firmly established that Guede assaulted Ms Kercher while or after she had been stabbed.”

    • Willis Coleman says:

      You can believe you can argue whatever you want Doug. Thank you for acknowledging that there is no firm evidence to support your claim that Meredith was sexually assaulted during or after being stabbed. Massei repeatedly uses the words “consider” and “probably” in his reconstruction of the crime. Sometimes for the sake of readability he leaves out the “probably” but it’s implied. That’s because the only people who know for sure what happened aren’t saying.

      • Tom Mininger says:

        Willis will never look, but open minded people will:

        Picture of blood soaked jacket Meredith was wearing when attacked: Ron Hendry’s “Single Attacker Theory” Location 638 of 1059
        Picture of blood spatter on Meredith’s bra: Location 647 of 1059

        Meredith was disrobed after the knife attack.

      • Doug Moodie says:

        If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Massei’s reconstruction is for you just one possiblity among many, and, Massei’s conclusions about the crime are just guesses, and only the victim and assailant know what happened.

        Welcome to the light, man! I agree wth you. Massei’s reconstruction is as ridiculous as it could possibly be. But Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito were found guilty *only* because there were no other *possible* ( as in feasible) logical alternatives to his reconstruction. You say his reconstruction is just one of many? Well, then, it’s about time we let Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito off the hook then, isn’t it?

        Also, it sounds like a confession from Guede would not be enough to sway you. He may have reason to lie. Only video tape of the incident would be enough to acheive “firmly establshed”. Okay, again I say, let freedom ring! No tape, no guilt. Got it.

        But I must admit, I suspect you mean something subtler, more nuanced. My guess is, it can be firmly established that in the opinion of Willis Coleman, firmly established equates to “is the opinion of Willis Coleman. ( I hope you find the humor in that and are not offended).

        Have a great day.

    • Tom Mininger says:

      This is the Massei fantasy where Amanda and Raffaele magically received no blood spatter, left no DNA, left no bloody prints, and received no cuts or bruises while Meredith had over 40 bruises.

      In another passage of his fantasy Massei has to get the huge kitchen knife from Raffaele’s apartment to the cottage. You know how he does it? Raffaele must of given this large knife to Amanda for protection. She must of carried it in her handbag (which would have been ripped to shreds).

      • Nasim says:

        I wouldn’t be surprised if Nencini rejects the kitchen knife as the murder weapon in light of the latest tests. OJ was convicted without a murder weapon. It’s importance is overstated.

        • Alex K. says:

          “OJ was convicted without a murder weapon”

          I didn’t know OJ was convicted of murder. Thanks for enlightening me, O Prophet!

        • Rob H says:

          OJ convicted of murder? Really? When was that exactly?

          In terms of providing proof, the importance of all the prosecution evidence in this case is and has been overstated – it hasn’t stopped the guilt obsessed from proceeding with their obsession, however. From convict and mentally ill “eye witnesses” to a lying Stefanoni, bad science, police and prosecutor “intuition”, poor logic, the results of an irresponsible interrogation of a suspect they pretended was just a witness and yet still misconstrued and a contaminated bra clasp (if we accept it as evidence against Mr Sollecito as uncontaminated then the theory of the crime must necessarily involve at least three other participants in the murder), the prosecution case is not strong enough to support the weight of a strand of gossamer. So we can take the knife out, Nasim – not central to your case? – Ok. What else would we need to take out so that, according to you, the jenga tower actually collapses? What proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in this case – for you, personally?

    • Julie Jorgensen says:

      “In parallels to Ferguson’s case, Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito were also wrongfully imprisoned,…”

      This is a quote from the Daily Mail…. :)

  105. In all of the discussions from the pro-guilt camp, I see a basic tenet of justice consistently missing. Many, including Giselle here, continually say, “the idea of Guede killing Meredith alone does not make sense”, and “Amanda and Raffaele’s story doesn’t make sense.”

    Even though I DO think Amanda and Raffaele’s story makes sense, even if I didn’t, it is besides the point. Thinking that it is unlikely that Guede acted alone is not evidence Amanda & Raffaele were involved. Finding it confusing that a single person could have killed Meredith is not evidence Amanda and Raffaele were involved. In a court of law, it is supposed to be proven that the defendants are guilty, not guessed at.

    There is simply no valid evidence that Amanda and Raffaele committed this crime. We can guess what actually happened all we want. Courts in democratic societies don’t convict people of murder just because they find them suspicious in some way. If that is allowed to happen, any and all of us could be locked up, for anything.

    • Luara says:

      Yes, there must be plenty of murders around here, for which I have no alibi except perhaps I was on my laptop.
      And if the info on my laptop was “accidentally wiped” while trying to investigate my alibi – I’d have no alibi at all.
      That’s why standards of evidence are important.
      DNA evidence has decreased the rate of wrongful convictions, but prosecutors can still try to “game” the DNA as they did in this case.
      There are old cases where the convicted person seeks a new trial to examine the DNA evidence. Perhaps we should have legislation to give convicted people that right.

      • PK says:

        What if like Raffaele you ‘spent the night sending emails’ hopefully then there would be a record even if your laptop was destroyed.

        • Luara says:

          What if like Raffaele you ‘spent the night sending emails’
          What’s your documentation for this claim? Other than a guilter website/yellow journalism.

          • PK says:

            His own book ‘Honor Bound’.

          • PK says:

            “I’d been up several times in the night—listening to music, answering e-mail, making love—and wanted only to go back to sleep”

          • Luara says:

            Maybe Raffaele will comment :)
            Maybe he was just drafting emails, not sending them. Maybe he sent emails at 5:30 AM.

          • Gregory Thomson says:

            Laura: I often do that, read emails and save drafts, to be finished and sent later….we would know this about RK if his computer wasn’t destroyed like all the others, except the one Italian girl who literally stole her computer from the evidence, guess she knew what was coming.

        • Rob H says:

          He didn’t spend the night ‘sending emails”. You quote from his book to support your contention – it does not support it! Can you not see that??

          • Luara says:

            What does RS say in his book, about what he was doing the night of the murder? I read the book, but I don’t own it.

      • Daphne says:

        Luara — wow, that’s really astute! It reminds me of how we’re being digitally traced wherever we go, in whatever we do. Its a sick life, to have it come down to that, though. Who wants to live like that? Not me. So, what healthier way is there to providing an alibi than doing 5-10 miles at the gym? (Honestly, people who jog and walk go missing in my city.) Swiping in at the gym is the best alibi anyone can ever have, I guess!

        • Luara says:

          If you got a microchip implanted that is constantly transmitting your location to the police, you could avoid being accused of various murders. Also the police would know where to find you if you were abducted. Worth it?
          I was taken aback when I read of repeated involuntary anal and vaginal searches by police in the USA, who stop motorists and suspect they’re concealing drugs in those places.
          David Eckert for example was subjected to repeated involuntary penetrations of his rear end by police, three enemas at a hospital ER after which his poo was searched for drugs, and an involuntary colonoscopy to search for drugs. It might have been kinder if he had been anally raped in the ordinary way.
          The police thought his posture was weird, and he’d been in meth-related trouble in the past.
          They found no drugs in him. But what if they had? He wouldn’t be getting a settlement – but he would still have been raped.
          Sometimes it seems the world is absolutely fricking NUTS.

          • Daphne says:

            Where I live, I get swiped out no matter what I do. I always have an alibi, even though I’ve never actually ever needed one. Wrap those chips in foil!

        • Daphne says:

          To the response below: “Kinder?” Since when is such violation in any shape manner or form justified as kinder?

    • Glenn Thigpen says:

      As I have read the comments pro and con, I have noticed one thing about those who are saying guilty. They all studiously avoid talking about the impossibility of Amanda and Rafaelle being able to participate in the murder without leaving any trace of being in the room when the murder was committed, or any other time prior, for that matter.
      The murder room and the evidence that would have to be there, mingled with Rudy’s should be the starting point of any discussion. How Rudy actually accomplished his horrific deed are irreleveant. Unless those who think that Amanda is guilty can show some plausible way that one or two other people could have been in that room during the murder, they have no case against anyone, except Rudy.
      “Suspicious behavior”, “innappropriate behavior”, coerced confessions, foot prints out side the murder room, etc., none of that is relevant if Rafaelle and/or Amanda cannot be placed in that murder room. I am axiously awaitng a new scientific breakthrough that will show that two people could be in a room, especially as bloody as the one where Meredith was murdered, without leaving a single trace of their presence.
      In all of the cases that I have heard where DNA evidence has exonerated a previously convicted person here in the U.S., I have never heard of any of the law enforcement officials involved declare that the person so exonerated could still have been there and participated in the crime, yet left no DNA evidence behind.

      So, Giselle and friends, would you put your brains to this task? Start at the actual murder scene, the evidence there, and work from there. If you had no other information than what the evidence that was collected from that room, where would you go looking for your suspects? After testing Amanda and Rafaelle for dna and their finger prints, etc, just where would you look. Maybe you should ask a few crime scene investigators where they would look.


      • Rob H says:

        Your last paragraph perfectly encapsulates the problem for the prosecution, Glenn. It also demonstrates that theirs was a suspect led not evidence led investigation. Not one of the many (or few if you consider their multiple identities) posting here about the supposed guilt of Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito are able to implicate them with evidence from inside the murder room. That’s why they do not mention it

      • Lisa Smith says:

        Just google ” do murderers always leave dna behind?” No they do not. If I touch or hit or bunch or hold someone down I do not necessarily leave any dna on that skin, so that next day the police could find it on the dead body. Usually it is a decomposition of the body, dirt on skin, moisture and temperature of the air, sweat, hairs on skin, etc. that makes dna not stay on skin. Use google to study something about dna on victims . Do police always seek the whole crime scene for finger prints or dna? No. That would be impossible. If you walk in a room and stay there half an hour you don’t necessarily leave any trace of you behind there.
        Amanda’s size 37 shoe prints on blood was found on Meredith’s floor. The victim died actully suffocation and loss of blood. She was stranguled to death by small hands . Like a woman’s hands. Raffaele wanted his shirt to be washed by laundry even though it was already washed, says the laundry lady .Amanda was washing clothes on the morning when police arrived. What else you want, a picture? I somehow don’t believe even that would make these people to understand.

        • Rob H says:

          No – her bloody shoeprints were not found on the floor – this is a lie. If it were true then I and most of the people supporting Ms Knox would be arguing for her conviction – even her own family would struggle. Your compadre, Nasim has been arguing obliquely (never directly) in support of this nonsense, if I have understood him correctly, for some time by inventing a missing pair of shoes – or perhaps he feels they were sprayed with blood.
          No – there is no evidence that she was strangled by “small hands” and no evidence she was strangled by Amanda Knox – you tried to suggest elsewhere that you could tell that it was Ms Knox’s fingers on Meredith Kercher’s neck by the size of the bruises!
          No – there is no evidence of Amanda Knox in the bedroom at all! No DNA, no footprints, no hair, no fluids, no fibres – no physical evidence. Putting it another way, there is as much evidence in the room that you killed Meredith Kercher as there is that Amanda Knox killed her.

          But what are you saying about DNA? Guede’s DNA is found – Amanda Knox’s is not. So the CSIs didn’t look hard enough for hers or that it wasn’t there to begin with – which? She could strangle Ms Kercher with her bare hands and leave no trace? Really?
          How do you have a violent struggle resulting in a murder involving abundant exsanguination – some two litres or more, in an open space no bigger than 6 feet by 6.5 feet and not find the physical evidence of everyone who participated?

          Either way, you need evidence to convict- an absence of evidence cannot be proof of guilt. Can you see that?

        • Jack says:

          Absolute, abject lies. Cite this nonsense, or crawl back in your hole, once and for all.

  106. Doug Moodie says:


    Thanks for your reply. I agree the Guede was your run of the mill low life. I doubt he had killed anyone before. There is no doubt that he killed Ms Kercher. The evidence is all over the room. The only questions are how, was he alone, and if Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito were a part of the murder.

    First, I would like to point out that your tag line “Eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth” should, based on your post, lead to Guede as the single killer. After all, you say “Therefore we have to believe that he went out of his way to literally run into her bedroom and attack her, this to me is not plausible”. To me, there is very significant difference between implausible and impossible, No matter how improbable, Guede attacking Ms. Kercher is far more probable than Ms Knox and Mr Sollicito doing so.

    Why you choose to believe that these ordinary kids would be more likely to spring a deadly attack on Ms Kercher than Guede alone is puzzling. There is one person who knows for sure what happened, Guede himself. Why doesn’t he just tell us? His situation won’t get worse. Also, if Mr Sollicito were there, why would he not cut a deal?

    In order for you to wedge Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito into the crime, you’ve stripped them of their humanity. They are not the people you see in the news, not the woman who runs ths blog, not the people they have been described as being before the crme, nor the people they were in prison. In fact they are cyphers, A+B. I don’t think this is realistic. You’ve turned them into fictional characters. Fictional characters will do whatever you want them too. Plus, why not the same for Guede. Just label him ‘C’ and he can be made to obey any scenario you draw up. It is artifical to turn Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito into ‘A+B’ but leaving Guede a real human character.

    Only Guede knows for sure what happened. I found parts of his Skype call to be very telling. He says “I went to the bathroom. I really had to go take a sh*t. And I heard the doorbell. For me, that must have been one of the girls who lived… ( there <- my word). …. I was in the bathroom, in the bathroom maybe five minutes. So, I really had to take this sh*t, 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".

    This is where the attack starts my opinion. He broke into the house, was taking a crap, Ms Kercher came home and shortly Ms Kercher screamed ( probably upon discovering the window broken). Guede came out of the bathroom and chased Ms Kercher back to her room, possibly so that she could not call the police. I don’t think he intended to kill her at that time, but to silence her so that he could get away. However, there was a struggle and it escalated. Ultimately Guede stabbed her and from there he realized his only way out was to murder.

    He did in fact volate her after he stabbed her. That has been firmly established. So, he may be a sicker indivual than you have been willing to accept.

    Is this the most lkely scenario? I don’t know.Itis plausible. Surely more likely than Ms Knox, and Mr Sollecito leaving Sollecito's apartment for the cottage ( for reasons unknown ) sitting around with Guede, a stranger to them, suddenly rising, for reasons unimaginable by even the prosecutor, and attacking Ms Kercher as one body. Now, that's implausible!

    I think the mistake you are making is that you are defining Guede’s actions in the most improbable way, concluding that is not likely, but substituting a scenario that is far more unlikely still.

    PS – if you want to find things fast on this board, press [CRTL]-F, or page search, and just put in your name, the name of the poster you want to read, or even the date (to filter out old posts)

    • Jack says:

      Solid analysis, but perhaps missing one key, clarifying point as to why Guede did not simply run: The front door of the cottage had a glitch so that it would not lock properly without turning the deadbolt with a key from inside the house. One can presume that Ms. Kercher had come home with Guede on the toilet, and unknowingly locked both herself and Guede inside. Guede very possibly did try to surreptitiously leave by the front door, but found it locked, thus leading him to confront Kercher, which escalated to the tragedy about which you postulate.

    • Bruce Mckee says:

      Doug like your post one small disagreement I have with is the idea Meredith would have seen the break-in. Guede would have closed the exterior shutters of Filomena bedroom window since it was right next to the front door to prevent someone coming home from seeing it. Filomena bedroom door is located at the start of the hallway to Amanda and Meredith half of the apartment it might be closed to prevent any light from living room/kitchen area from coming though the window. This is also the reason why Amanda doesn’t see the break-in when she went to the cottage the next morning. A final point would be we don’t know if Meredith really screamed since that apart of Guede story.

      • Doug Moodie says:

        I hear what you are saying. I don’t feel I am able to put too much weight on any variable in the crime scene, obviously because I wasn’t there. On the other hand, I don’t like to rule things out unless they present a true either or choice. It could be that Ms Kercher saw a light coming from under the bathroom door and realized she was not alone, or it could be that she saw the glass splattered all over Filomena’s room, or it could be something else. It could be she screamed ( if she screamed) in the common area, or in her room. These are details that no one knows the answer to. My job is to create a plausible single attacker theory. From there, I don’t think it can be argued that someone just doesn’t prefer it, or doesn’t think it’s so. If it could be, then, it’s certainly more likely than a group attack.

        I agree with you about being careful with statements made by Guede, but I don’t think I have to catagorically accept of deny ever statement he made. In this case, he was speaking with his friend, and as an explanation it has the typical guilty parties style of borrowing as much of the truth as possible while modifying it to exclude them as the criminal. This way, they don’t have to rely on completely made up stories when they after to repeat it over and over again to the investigators. Also, my goal is to create a plausible lone attacker scenario. This one happens to be reinforced by Guede’s own words. I can’t know that it is correct, but my guess is that it is.

    • Gregory Thomson says:

      Doug: Ya basha! :)

      • Kaosium says:

        In hopes this is the continuation of the discussion with Giselle that became buried down there on the page, I’ll post this here in response to arguments she made.

        You’re aware that even the prosecution experts admitted in the Massei trial that the killing was compatible with a single attacker, right? As a result the prosecution still has to present arguments that multiple attackers were involved being as they were trying to prosecute three people for the crime. They have to come up with *something,* so they offered arguments such as Meredith being trained in karate at one time and a perceived lack of defensive wounds.

        This isn’t any sort of *proof*, however it’s required as they have to have something to ‘support’ that claim, being as they have no real evidence of anyone else being there, or it’s scant and dubious like the bra clasp. If you think those defensive wounds not extensive enough and thus *must* imply more attackers, would that mean that all the people murdered by knives with the same or lesser defensive wounds and one attacker convicted means the police in all those cases missed this ‘crucial evidence’ of multiple attackers?

        I’m unsure how to properly link things with this program so I’ll quote it here and copy the url:

        ” Hunt and Cowling (1991) found that defence wounds were found in only 15% of those who exhibited a single stab wound, but were seen in 54% of those with multiple stab wounds.

        Karlsson (1998) identified defensive injuries in 41% of homicide victims, but not at all in suicides.”

        Almost half of multiple stab victims showed no defensive wounds, probably for reasons very much like Jim Lovering and others have explained occurred in Meredith’s murder and explain why she had few. As you can see the lack of defensive wounds is not only *not* evidence there were multiple attackers, it’s an extremely weak argument being as nearly half don’t have them at all. That’s why the likes of Steve Moore, John Douglas and Ron Hendry–all credentialed professionals in this field–don’t even give that argument the time of day.

    • Willis Coleman says:

      You wrote: “He did in fact violate her AFTER he stabbed her. That has been FIRMLY ESTABLISHED.” Tell you what, Doug, if you can back this up my wife and I will donate $10 to Amanda’s defense fund. If you can’t, you donate $10 to the Meredith Kercher Fund.

      • Jack says:

        Aspirated blood on Ms. Kercher’s bra, and on her exposed breast, which indicates that Guede removed the bra as blood sprayed from the mortal wound. Pay up or shut up.

        • Willis Coleman says:

          Meh. Who’s to say the bra didn’t tear off when Rudy used it to drag her? Let’s wait and see if Doug has anything firmer.

          • Jack says:

            Your confirmation bias is showing. If he did drag her by her bra – odd approach, but who but a fellow degenerate could creep into the mind of Guede and think from thence? – why did he do so but to get her into a position so that he could violate her?

        • Bruce Mckee says:

          Jack don’t forget about the pillow under Meredith hips the pillow had Rudy bloody hand and footprints on it as well as untested stain which if its Rudy semen would have said he was around longer after the murder then he says. The pillow was under her hips to help with the sexual assault.

          • Nasim says:

            The pillow stain would be relatively useless for figuring out what happened unless it turned out to be Raffaele. That’s why Massei, Hellmann and Nencini all denied defense requests to test it. (I would have allowed it just to put the issue to rest, but Italian law sets a high bar for the probative value of newly-discovered evidence.)

            Why do you assume the pillow was placed to help with a sexual assault? It isn’t really under her hips. More like under her left side. Considering that it was probably also Rudy who placed the blanket my guess it is was some attempt to make her more comfortable.

          • Bruce Mckee says:

            The pillow is use during sex by people to change the angle of the pelvis to allow for easier entrance. This would be the case here because Meredith was laying limp on the floor making entrance into her vagina. If you could prove the stain was Raffaele it would mean something.
            Since all the other evidence on the pillow is from Rudy to me it says that Rudy move the body to preform a sex act on a dying person not staging by others.

          • Julie Jorgensen says:

            Nasim, you state this quote….”considering that it was probably also Rudy who placed the blanket my guess it is was some attempt to make her more comfortable.” You say this in reference to the pillow under Meredith’s dead body. You think Rudy Guede was doing anything to make Meredith more comfortable? He stabbed her, hit her in the face and forced her to the floor until she suffocated on her own blood. Then he sexually viotated her. How was Rudy Guede trying to provide any comfort to Meredith? Covering her body with the blanket was not out of kindness either but out of either guilt, fear, or panic. Sorry but your statement borders on ridiculous.

          • Nasim says:

            Rudy had blood on his hands. There was no blood on Meredith below the waist. What happened to this blood transfer that everyone talks about?

          • Nasim says:

            Julie – You are starting with the conclusion that Guede did a bunch of vile things, most of which are completely unproven, to argue that he was incapable of pity. This is exactly the error of logic that got the Hellmann verdict thrown out. You have to start from a premise that is indisputable.

          • Jack says:

            Anyone who could infer from the evidence at the scene crossed with the profile of Rudy Guede that he was attempting to comfort Meredith Kercher has completely lost his mind. There is no polite or diplomatic way to address such sheer nonsense. Do you believe that Guede, as he absurdly claimed, actually had a date with Ms. Kercher?!

            You see, this is what comes of persons using their guts, hunches, alignments of the stars, etc., to make an assessment of a literally deadly serious matter. They come up with preposterous, and grotesquely insulting conclusions.

          • Luara says:

            Anyone who could infer … that [Rudy Guede] was attempting to comfort Meredith Kercher has completely lost his mind.
            Not really. It sounds very absurd – so Rudy stabs her repeatedly, has a vicious struggle with her – then he tries to comfort her???
            But Rudy is dissociative and he wasn’t in a normal state of mind, even for him.
            Might even have been a way for him to pretend that it was consensual and that he was caring.

          • Julie Jorgensen says:

            @ Nasm….I’m sorry but I cannot reason with a person….who has none.

          • Gregory Thomson says:

            Nasim: You really like Rudy. There is no opinion required, Rudy has a confirmed very proven history. Just look at what he admits to. He had a date with Meredith, then Amanda crashed the party….but not RK? What he did to Meredith as she was dying is moot, except to the family who doesn’t care. Why the prosecution refuses to take forensic samples screams that they selectively took or did not take samples to fit their conclusion. He took the money he stole from Meredith before killing her after his version of how they tried sex, then ran home to clean up, then party with the money and buy a train ticket out of town. Such a sweet boy. He will be out soon, perhaps you can provide him a home then.

      • Tom Mininger says:

        Picture of blood soaked jacket Meredith was wearing when attacked. Location 638 0f 1059
        Picture of blood spatter on bra. Ron Hendry’s “Single Attacker Theory” Location 647 of 1059

        I recommend “Single Attacker Theory” to everyone. Hendry presents a theory that is consistent with the physical evidence and Guede’s previous burglary MO, as opposed to the prosecution having to change its motive, MO, and time of death over and over again throughout the trials. Even Judge Massei got into the act.

    • Sarah H says:

      Giselle’s statement: “Eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth” is sheer nonsense.

      Whatever remains after you eliminate the impossible, is a mixture of possibilities that still must be considered. And the truth may lie somewhere else completely.

      However, in this case, it is impossible that Amanda was in the murder room and thus it is impossible that she helped Guede kill Meredith. How exactly Guede overpowered and killed the much smaller woman we don’t know. But we do know it wasn’t with the help of Amanda and Raffaele.

  107. Tom Mininger says:

    The bra strap clasp collection video is available for all to see. It’s the first video on this page:

    This dust magnet was picked up in a collection of junk 6 weeks after it was first photographed in a different location on the floor. The room was trashed during those 6 weeks.

    Keep in mind that the proper way to have collected this item was to have picked it up 6 weeks earlier in its original location with an unused tweezers and immediately place it into a paper envelope or bag. The moon suits in the video have no value anymore in this contaminated environment. You can see dirt on their gloves.

    Note the spectacle these CSIs are making out of the collection of this item. Normally frame-ups are attempted discretely. These police are so arrogant that they have no problem hamming it up.

    CSI Stefanoni also hid the fact that multiple male DNA was found on the metal of the clasp because it proves contamination.

    She also lied about the size of the sample she claims was on the knife blade. It’s down to 6 cells now which is not just in the contamination zone, it’s in the airborne contamination zone.

    She also lied about not performing blood tests on luminol detected prints when she had, and they were negative.

    And to this day she is allowed to hide the .fsa electronic data files that scientists around the world use to verify each other’s DNA analysis.

    • Gregory Thomson says:

      What on earth are they looking at the bra clasp for under bright lights and magnifying goggles? Seriously, what? Reminds me of when I was on the Orient Express when I guess I wasn’t supposed to be, in Yugoslavia. The police accused me of photographing an airport? Sorry, it was just peasants and oxcarts. Instead of searching my pack for film, they asked for the camera. I convinced them to let me cut out the portion of used film, then….LOL then they eagerly examined the film…from the camera.

  108. Bruce Mckee says:

    Giselle in one of your post from January 21 at 15:33 one paragraph read to quote: This is bizarre we have to accept A) Meredith did not hear Rudy break-in and B) Rudy decided to run straight into her room with the knife and stabbed her! This doesn’t make sense.

    a)For the break-in to be real Meredith is not home from night at her friends thus b) would have Rudy finding no one in Meredith room.

    Rudy claims to be at the cottage before Meredith arrived home at 9 pm I think he broke in and was in Filomena/Laura bathroom when Meredith arrived home.
    When Meredith enter the cottage she had to lock the front door with the key so it didn’t open by itself. Which would prevent him from leaving that way without the key.
    As for Rudy actions and the reasons for not stealing from other rooms and why the attack of Meredith lead to murder only Rudy really knows.
    The unflushed toilet, his evidence of DNA in the bathroom, in Meredith room with bloody shoe prints leading to front door straight from her room says this is very possible answer for the how it happen that I do believe.

    Giselle do you have a answer to what Meredith reaction to the prosecution idea that at around 11:30 pm a tired Meredith was surprised by three people arriving at the cottage, when she thought she was going to be alone.
    Since in the prosecution/Massei have said very little about what Meredith was doing at this time. Or by the way the prosecution/Massei does have Rudy walking down the hall and into Meredith room before attacking her of course Rudy according to them didn’t have a knife go figure.
    So how does Meredith react to protect herself if she knows he in the house?
    Lock her bedroom door? The door that only she has a key for?

  109. Giselle says:


    Thank you for your comment and sorry I missed it earlier – the way the layout works here makes it very easy to miss things, it is after all a blog and probably not designed for this. I appreciated your points and thought I should move this up and respond.

    1) In response to your first point. “If the attack happened like Ron Hendry and other experts claim, then the attack was a blitz attack. Could Meredith really have had time to defend herself before Rudy plunged his knife into her throat”. This is a valid point, I agree – however if you have a look at my comment to Doug I just can’t see why Guede would have randomly instigated such a violent attack if he was there to burgle the cottage.

    There is clear evidence, which even the prosecution claims, that Meredith was mainly assaulted after the fatal wound in her neck. For this I have not heard evidence – if you could link to a source I would like to read more.

    “I think 40+ bruises does actually show some self-defence but I suppose I can understand that some people might expect more injuries. However I think that 1 bruise or 100 is irrelevant if it was a blitz attack and the fatal injury was inflicted almost straight away.” defensive wounds I have defined (cut and paste from a forensic site and not my definition) somewhere here, however I understand that its easy to miss points. So I have it here again for you:

    “Many violent crimes tend to leave the victim’s hands and arms covered in defensive wounds, which can be made by the blade of a knife, biting or scratching, and clawing perhaps at the ground in an attempt to get away.
    Defensive wounds are often to be found on the hands and arms and this is because the victim will be trying to protect their face and upper body from attack by the assailant.”
    I just did a quick google and found this
    So the bruises etc that you mention are more where she was attacked, held, hit etc – defensive wounds are specifically those sustained while she blocks an attack with her hand, scratches at her attacker, the floor – wounds that show she tried to escape…

    2) I think many people underestimate or simply ignore the argument that ‘if you had a knife to your most people would not struggle’, this is correct in so far as the story you share. However there is evidence of a struggle in the case of Meredith, so at some stage things escalated and the first blow to her neck was not entirely debilitating – it was the second knife through her neck that killed her. So you see it is hard to understand why she never tries to raise her hand and try and stop the knife or such.

    I appreciate your observations and I hope that you can see my view through my responses. Taking Amanda and Raffaele out of the picture, it is much easier to see the attack as being carried out by Guede and another person.

    I also wanted to add that I have just managed to read through almost all the comments now and notice that a few people would have me a ‘trojan’, ‘troll’ etc. This is my response: Please don’t read my comments or respond to them if you believe I am trolling or the like – I will not spam this page, that is not my intention and honestly, I really don’t have the time. I would like to discuss the various elements of this case and this forum has been the best so far. I don’t find it useful to keep reiterating the facts with people that agree with me, whats the point of that? I want to hear the opposing views – that is why I am here. At the same time I will not accept the blanket response the cops screwed up, the judges made mistakes, the scientists and experts are uneducated etc. This is unreasonable. On the same point I don’t accept the character assassination of Amanda or Raffaele. They were your average college students, nothing special, nothing crazy – just your average John and Jane Doe.

    • Eric_B says:

      Giselle wrote:
      however if you have a look at my comment to Doug I just can’t see why Guede would have randomly instigated such a violent attack if he was there to burgle the cottage.

      What is it you don’t understand about a confrontation developing between an armed male criminal and a small female interrupting him in the act with no way to escape?

    • Rob H says:

      Still waiting for your evidence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito’s involvement in the murder, Giselle – that which you say you have no doubt about – verdict on the 30th so you have a little time, but hey, what are you waiting for? Evidence please!

    • Luara says:

      I just can’t see why Guede would have randomly instigated such a violent attack if he was there to burgle the cottage.
      I can come up with a scenario easily enough.
      So Rudy is in the bathroom perhaps when Meredith comes in. He fancies himself a womanizer and may have thought he could charm himself out of the situation, persuade Meredith not to call the police. And maybe he simply acted on a sexual impulse to approach a pretty woman.
      Meredith says something like “What are YOU doing here???” She doesn’t feel immediately endangered, because she’d met Rudy and he socialized with the guys downstairs. Rudy tries to charm his way out of it, approaching her.
      But Meredith isn’t placated and she starts to call the police. That’s when Rudy grabs her, puts knife against her throat.

      • Daphne says:

        Luara — Meredith’s parents said she called about 9;30, got cut off, and never called back. It seems as though that was her final attempt to call for help. It does seem as though Rudy surprised her immediately when she let herself in because she was still wearing her jacket.

        • Daphne says:

          Also, Rudy could have come in the door as Meredith did, without her ever having a chance to firmly close it. (she had the key, he didn’t) Because of her scream, he shimmied down the window (or up over the roof?) to avoid startled people.

          • Daphne says:

            But that is assuming his role as the alleged killer. It may not have happened that way at all.

    • Tom Mininger says:

      Burglar Guede’s bloody handprints on the murder bedroom wall and under the pillow he positioned Meredith with. His bloody shoe prints over the bedroom and out in the hall. His DNA on Meredith’s clothes, inside her, on her handbag. He admits throwing out his bloody shoes and clothes. His knife hand fingers are cut.

      The MO of rock through a window, knife, and vandalism are the same as his other break-ins. He was in possession of stolen goods from another 2nd story break-in. He confronted another owner with a knife. It’s November 1 and he has no rent money. He pays the rent after the crime.

      Zero blood transfer evidence against Amanda and Raffaele from that messy crime scene including in Raffaele’s apartment. Do you have any concept how difficult it would be to not have blood transfer evidence against you if you were involved in that crime?

      Zero credible DNA evidence against them. Meredith had 40+ bruises in a valiant struggle for her life but Amanda and Raffaele have zero bruises or cuts.

      Giselle, we continue to wait for your evidence against Amanda and Raffaele.

      • Willis Coleman says:

        Is there a source for Guede having paid the rent after the crime? I hadn’t read that before.

        Other than professional assertions of dubious value I have never read anything that says investigators would always find blood transfer evidence against all the perpetrators in a case of this nature. It is a common defense argument, for example in the Trayvon Martin case.

      • Tom Mininger says:

        And what is a crime of this nature? A vicious struggle in a small bedroom, with the perp(s) in contact with the victim, chaotic movement about the room, knife stabbings, blood spatter on the perp(s), floor, and walls.

        What do we end up with? Guede’s bloody shoeprints all over the room, and out in the hallway. His bloody handprints on the wall and the pillow he positioned Meredith with. He admits he threw out his bloody clothes. His knife hand fingers are cut. His DNA on Meredith’s clothes and inside her. The authorities refusing to test the pillow stain that looks like semen.

        Zero blood transfer evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, zero credible DNA evidence, zero cuts or bruises when Meredith attained 40+ in the struggle.

        I apologize about the rent money. I remembered it wrong. Guede was spending Meredith’s rent money at the disco, not paying his rent.

  110. Bob Magnetti says:

    Paul posted on Jan 22, 19:25:
    “Blood has not been ruled out except by the defense.”

    I believe that the scientific community takes exception to your statement, Paul! Universally accepted standards demand that a confirmatory test for blood must be performed if luminol detects the ‘possibility’ of blood. Have you forgotten that TMB testing was negative for blood; that Stefanoni withheld this information from the defense as well as the sample 36-B sample size. While we are on the subject of the prosecutions withholding of information, where are the electronic data files?

    • Paul says:

      Luminol is 100 to 1000 times more sensitive then TMB . The defense has ruled out blood the prosecution has not. Luminol can detect blood even painted over.

      • Sarah H says:

        The prosecution’s job isn’t to rule out blood — it’s to prove the EXISTENCE of blood, which they failed to do. Thus, no blood can be said to be in the smears.

        • Sarah H says:

          “Luminol is 100 to 1000 times more sensitive than TMB.” Assuming that you are right — it proves the opposite of what you think it does. “Sensitive” does not mean “specific.” The luminol test is a sensitive test that picks up blood AND many other substances. A second test that is specific to blood must next be performed to show that what the “sensitive” luminol test picked up was actually blood.

          From a report prepared by an FBI investigator:

          “Unfortunately, these tests give positive results for substances other than blood. They are sensitive but not specific for blood. Therefore, a preliminary test alone is not sufficient to conclusively determine the presence of blood.”

          • Paul says:

            Yes specifically there are a few, bleach which is ruled out here, rust, horseradish feces ,turnip pulp are still contenders fruit juice , or soap are not.

          • Sarah H says:

            Bleach was not ruled out, and blood was not ruled in. The prosecution in the first trial covered up the fact that specific tests for blood had been conducted, which produced negative results.

        • Paul says:

          Sarah bleach will not test positive for luminol after a couple of days. Dec 18th was 6 weeks later. No possibility the prints were made in bleach.

          • Sarah H says:

            There’s no possibility they were made in blood, because the prosecution lab tested specifically for blood — they just withheld the negative tests on those tests till much later.

          • Sarah H says:

            Also, the smears didn’t contain DNA, which they would have if the smears were made of blood.

      • Luca Cheli says:

        I’ve heard so many numbers about the sensibility of TMB and luminol that I could open a betting shop. Let’s say the thing is at least controversial.

        • Paul says:

          Sarah a very basic fact with luminol is that bleach will not test often a couple days . Dec 18 was 6 weeks after the murder. Bleach has been absolutely ruled out.

          • Sarah H says:

            Blood has been ruled out by the follow-up test that the prosecution tried to hide, but eventually had to acknowledge in court.

        • Sarah H says:

          What is NOT controversial except on hate sites is that luminol is not a definitive test for blood. It is a highly sensitive test that produces false positives, so it must be followed by a test that is very specific for blood. First the prosecution denied that they performed the second test; then they admitted that they had performed it and the results were negative. In either case, there is no positive evidence that there was blood in the smears. The luminol didn’t prove anything.

          • Paul says:

            Unfortunatly TMB is also known to give false negatives.

          • Sarah H says:

            The TMB test was clearly not a false negative because the smear also failed to yield any DNA, which would have been present in actual blood.

            But the bottom line is the prosecution failed to prove the existence of blood. The prosecution at most suggested the existence of blood; and their own follow-up tests undermined their suggestion.

          • Sarah H says:

            The defense never has to demonstrate certainty. The job of the defense is to point to reasonable doubt — which, in this case, is more than reasonable; it’s overwhelming.

      • Bob Magnetti says:


        1) Why did Stefanoni test the luminol identified arias with TMB if luminol is the quintessential blood detector?

        2) Why does the scientific community demand a confirmatory test for blood in addition to luminol?

        3) Why didn’t Stefanoni continue with a blood confirmatory test? Maybe she did . . .

        4) Why does the prosecution continue to ignore accepted standards and protocol established by the scientific community?

        5) Why do you continue to ignore accepted standards and protocol established by the scientific community?

        • Willis Coleman says:

          The debate over presumptive blood testing has nothing to do with science. In jurisdictions which allow this evidence, like Italy, the fact that it is presumptive goes to the weight of the evidence, so various agencies have adopted procedures which they think are more likely to convince a court that their procedure is reliable. Stefanoni was wrong to omit/forget certain TMB testing results but the procedure itself was not right or wrong.

          • Tom Mininger says:

            We finally agree on something Willis. Stefanoni should not “omit/forget certain” TMB testing results” in Italy’s “trial of the century”.

      • Michael Wiesner (smith) says:

        As well as other substances.
        Of course the prosecution hasn’t ruled it out. If they ruled out all the discredited evidence, they would only be left with the fact Amanda & Raffaele were in Perugia at the time.

      • Tom Mininger says:

        Luminol is not 100 to 1000 times more sensitive then TMB.

        There are forensics procedures for determing if what the luminol reacted to was blood. It’s not a mystery. TMB and confirmatory tests. If these procedures determine blood then the prosecution enters it as evidence. If not it is unethical for them to insinuate.

        Stefanoni could not determine blood, so she perjured herself on the stand in a court of law claiming she didn’t do the tmb, when in fact she had, and she insinuated blood.

        Instead of dismissing her and starting an investigation of the police crime lab, the prosecution as you say does not rule out blood.

      • Jack says:

        And yet Stefanoni initially withheld that the TMB test – which is a basic standard to confirm the accuracy of luminol – came up negative.

        Why? Because clearly she understood that the information would be a negative for the prosecution’s case.

        You see, like every single piece of evidence putatively against Knox and Sollecito, there is an element of ambiguity here. Once Guede’s rock solid evidence came to light, the prosecution engaged in a darkly comic effort to prop up evidence of AK’s and RS’s involvement. All in order to save face and preserve their nonsensical theory of the crime.

        None of it holds up to scrutiny.

      • Alex K. says:

        The simple argument is this: Luminol gave a pretty bright response so, had it been blood, it would have been a large enough amount for TMB to detect. Therefore it was not blood.

        It is incorrect to say that Luminol is 100 or 1000 times more sensitive than TMB. Chris Halkides has a review of articles on blood test sensitivity. I can see that TMB can detect blood diluted 1:1,000,000 while Luminol glow gets faint already at 1:100,000. No cleanup could have diluted blood to 1:1,000,000.

        As the American forensic scientists, Virkler and Lednev, commented: “We think it is more likely that there was no blood, and that the luminol was reacting with something else, possibly plant matter from the bottom of the shoes causing the footprints…”

        In addition, I will note that Luminol gave several positive results in Sollecito’s apartment, which the police were not interested in because no DNA was present. This shows how common false positives are with Luminol in the Perugian environment. Soil, plant matter, and fecal matter come to mind immediately as possible triggers.

        Finally, it is mind-boggling that the police ran no confirmatory tests after running the TMB tests. The proper way to proceed was either to assume no blood, or to run a definitive test. There was enough material for that, and sample 119 was subjected to a confirmatory test (negative). One wonders why not the others and whether the others were actually tested and the results suppressed.

      • Rose Marie says:

        You have this wrong. Luminol is very sensitive- but it’s sensitive to a number of substances besides blood.

        Luminol is a presumptive test for blood – but it also reacts positively to many household cleaning products- including bleach – and fruit juices. The correct protocol following a presumptive positive luminol test is a confirmatory test using TMB.

        The footprints in the hall that were revealed using luminol were not positive for blood using TMB. These were likely footprints made some time before – stepping from cleaned bathroom floor, for example, into hallway. There may be other luminol positives that were not confirmed by TMB. Others here know more than I do.

        Furthermore, what you ignore or you deliberately confound is that Stefanoni lied on the stand about the TMB. She withheld the fact that she had done the TMB tests which were negative.

        You are drinking the cool-aid of the prosecution.

        • Willis Coleman says:

          TMB is not a confirmatory test. It is a presumptive test just like luminol but significantly less sensitive.

          • Eric_B says:

            the thing with TMG is that it is not known to give false negatives.

            whereas luminol does give false positives.

            so when you have a strong luminol trace plus negative TMB, we can reasonably say there is no blood.

      • Caroline says:

        The point paul is that luminol detects more than just blood but tmb ONLY detects blood. All TMB tests came back negative

      • Eric_B says:

        Science has ruled out blood.

        The prosecution rules out science.

    • Tom Zupancic says:


      It is worth noting that Luminol is as best slightly more sensitive that TMB (see Professor Chris Halkides review here: “The sensitivities of presumptive and confirmatory blood tests.”

      It is also important to note that Luminol is a generic chemiluminescent agent that reacts with a wide array of substances: “Luminol”

      Thus, a luminol positive test requires a more precise confirmatory (blood specific) second test in order to be believable as evidence since it is well known that luminol positive spots are frequently observed in the complete absence of blood.

      • Willis Coleman says:

        It’s simply wrong to say “at best” luminol is only slightly more sensitive than TMB. Even the blog post to which you linked says that the great diversity in experimental conditions makes generalizations difficult. I have used both reagents and it’s hard for me to believe that for detecting latent prints on porous tile TMB would ever get close to the discriminative power of luminol. It’s like the difference between using a pencil and a highlighter.

      • Tom Mininger says:

        The luminol says it reacted with an oxidizing agent. The TMB says this oxidizing agent was not blood. What’s the next step for an ethical crime lab?

        Conclude the substance is not blood or proceed to confirmatory testing for blood. Stefanoni did neither. She committed perjury when questioned about having performed blood tests, and proceeded to claim she could tell the substance was blood by the way the luminol glowed blue. Outrageous.

        Stenanoni did test the substance for DNA and did not find Meredith’s DNA

        • Eric_B says:

          for an ethical crime lab the next step is probably nothing because they don’t really think there is any blood.

          for a corrupt crime lab in Italy where there are no standards, the next step is also nothing.

          Of course Italian methods work in Italy, but not in counries such as my own, the UK.

        • Willis Coleman says:

          I think you have a fundamental misundertanding of luminol and TMB. They react with all the same things. The only important difference is what happens when they react (glows versus turns blue), so luminol tends to be used in the field and TMB in the lab. You can’t say that because one is positive and the other is negative it means such and such. As for the supposed lack of Meredith’s DNA in some of these traces, if you study them closely there’s a strong case to be made that Meredith’s DNA is present.

          • Tom Mininger says:

            “You can’t say that because one is positive and the other is negative it means such and such.”

            Precisely. So why is the prosecution claiming its blood? They didn’t even do any confimatory tests. We’re supposed to be talking western democracies here, not dictatorships.

          • Kaosium says:

            Willis, it’s you who has the fundamental misunderstanding of luminol and TMB testing. They are different tests employing different chemicals that do *not* give the exact same results. While it’s the peroxidase-like activity of heme (in blood) that causes the reaction in both tests, properties of different other substances react differently with the tests, some giving false positives with luminol but not TMB; some giving false positives with TMB but not luminol. The combination of the two reduces the possibility of a false positive result, as if blood is present the sample will react to both tests as it’s a natural chemical reaction.

            That’s why the Italian police did them both, and you’ll see from these following two authoritative cites it’s *recommended* to follow up a luminol hit with TMB or other presumptive test:

            From page 9 of the following link:


            “It is advised that if a positive reaction with luminol is achieved, the stained area should be checked again with another reagent such as tetramethylbenzidine, phenolphthalein,or orthotolidine and always confirmed with a human-specific confirmatory test for blood.”

            Here’s another from one of the top forensic pathologists in the field, Dr. William Eckert:

            “After any positive reaction with luminol, the stained area should be circled with a grease pencil or other suitable marker. The stained area should be checked again with another reagent for blood such as tetramethybenzadine, (TMB) phenolphthalein, or O-tolidine.”

            That’s from page 162 of “Interpretation of Bloodstain Evidence at Crime Scenes, Second Edition” and can be viewed at this link:


            If you are getting you information from the ‘murderofmeredithkercher’ false wiki be advised that’s run exclusively by people who’ve spent up to six years condemning Amanda and Raffaele for the crime and is riddled with factual errors, rumors and gross misrepresentations of the documents they archived.

    • Tom Zupancic says:

      Earlier today Paul wrote, “Yes specifically there are a few, bleach which is ruled out here, rust, horseradish feces ,turnip pulp are still contenders fruit juice , or soap are not.”

      It is clear that Paul is confused about the science here. The chemiluminescence of luminol results from what is known as an oxidation reaction. There are many substances in the natural world that act as oxidizing agents, which is why luminol is only a presumptive test. This is an established scientific fact regardless of whether any particular individual can understand it or not.

  111. Alex K. says:

    Unfortunately, the depth of threads is limited on this blog so at some point there is no “reply” button any more. I agree it is not a discussion forum, but some nasty posts are left unchallenged as a result.

    In particular, I suspect that “Giselle” is a trolling “guilter” or an umbrella handle for a group of “guilters”. The principal red flag is her (shorthand for “her”) mention of a “PR machine” working for Amanda. As far as I know, there is only an anti-Knox PR machine, including three hate sites spewing lies and smears on a daily basis.

    Then there are two rather blatant lies she slipped into her purportedly disinterested arguments. She claimed that Mignini’s past roguery had been dreamed up by Amanda Knox’s hypothetical PR machine. It must be a time machine! Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi published their “Monster of Florence” in 2006. The book exposes not only Mignini’s deranged worldview but also hopeless flaws in the Italian justice system.

    Giselle also shows a touching concern for the reputation of Perugian cops, although the police force of a drug-infested backwater in a country fabled for its corruption would seem a natural target for suspicion.

    The second lie is the claim that, as “any profiler” knows, burglars do not kill. First, “any profiler” obviously does not include one of the most famous ones, John Douglas. Second, why not look at this survey,, from the US Bureau of Justice Statistics? Over five years (2003-7), 266,560 cases of burglary ending in violence. That’s 26% of all burglaries with household members present. In 65% of cases, offenders were known to their victims. According to the FBI, there were an average of 430 homicide-related burglaries per year in that period.

    (Nina Burleigh: ” I can’t tell you how many Italian “dottores” of law and criminology said to me that thieves simply do not kill.” Yeah right.)

    When discussing the single-attacker scenario, Giselle has refused to provide a clear definition of defense wounds as opposed to other, presumably offense wounds. I have shown that, whatever the definition, classifying a wound as defensive requires a scenario of the crime; hence Massei’s reconstruction – which begins with the claim that defense wounds were absent – is a logical fallacy. I have not seen a reasonable response to this.

    In addition, I have provided the source for the “hair formation” claim (the “Relazione” by Patrizia Stefanoni dated 12 June 2008) and for the claim that some of the cat blood was human (Guilia Bongiorno referring to that test in court).

    • Giselle says:

      1- Amanda will have my email address and therefore identity registered. She can see exactly who I am.
      2- This is a link to Amanda Knox’s page at Gogerty Marriott a PR agency.
      3- smearing the cop is really nor here nor there. This is a way to get around any of the facts that you don’t like. In this case we should say, they are innocent even though the evidence suggest otherwise because the cops planted it not that there is no evidence. That is an entirely different discussion which calls into question a strain of people beyond Mignini and frankly makes a ridiculous argument.
      4- I didn’t say burglars don’t kill, I said they are known to run away if they can. In fact the advice to anyone that walks in on a burglary is to let the guy run away. Those statistics include confrontations, people trying to get the safety deposit code, burglars that are backed into a corner and have no choice. Not a guy that is burglarizing a house and suddenly hey presto runs straight into one of the rooms with a knife and stabs someone in the neck. How does that make sense?
      5- defensive wounds are a forensic term, I don’t define them – they are defined by forensic scientists. I cut a paste some of the definitions below. So go and read them.

      It looks to me that this discussion is over. You clearly have lost track of the actual debate and want to delve into my credentials and motives. I made it very clear I think they were involved in the murder, I am not disguised. I also made it very clear that I was open to discussion and would very much like to see things a different way. I will not respond to your posts again. You have defeated the very purpose Amanda set up this site. Well done.

      • Tom Mininger says:


        I thought you kept making it very clear that although you believed in a multiple attacker theory it did not necessary include Amanda and Raffaele.

        • Giselle says:

          yes multiple attackers does not mean Amanda and Raffaele. Overall I believe they were involved, but not simply because there were multiple attackers. Even if there were multiple attackers this does not automatically mean Raffaele and Amanda were involved. Hope this clarifies.

          • floen says:

            I made a few posts to you here Giselle, because for awhile I too thought they were probably involved. But my instincts were telling me there were facts missing from my interpretation, and I kept digging through the Internet to try and figure it out. My opinion started to really change when I saw this expert panel discussion in Seattle:


            Then I listened to Amanda’s audiobook, and I was further convinced that there never was a real confession, nor any valid indication of guilt – but quite the opposite – an innocent young person who was misconstrued and judged because of her culture or quirkiness.

            Then I learned more about the known corruption of the officials involved, and their need to be right at all costs. I also learned about their process for the investigation – which was extremely unprofessional, prejudicial and largely based on superficial assumptions about Americans.

            I have deeply looked at both sides, spending equal time finding out about the people who believe in her guilt. Yet in the end, the HUGE impossibility in this whole case is that not a SINGLE TRACE of Amanda’s DNA was on the victim or in the room. No matter how you twist anything else in the case – she wasn’t even there in the room when the crime took place. Not a single footprint, fingerprint, drop of spit, blood or anything else. No one can dispute that.

          • floen says:

            And one more thing – for anyone who doubts the blood in the sink came from her ear piercing – there is also the very obvious possibility of the blood coming from her mouth. I know it’s gross, but my gums bleed almost every time I floss, and I end up spitting blood into the sink. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if police could extract a specimen of my blood DNA from my sink, because I clean the bathroom only once per week, and spit out blood a few days a week.

          • Gregory Thomson says:

            It clarifies you believed they were involved, for no reason.

          • Rob H says:

            Why do you believe they were involved, “overall”, as you say. What does “involved” mean. What evidence do you rely on?

          • floen says:

            I only ever thought they were ‘involved’ because of the many lies that were told in the news and online. After I saw the panel discussion and did my own research, I was shocked to see the lack of evidence. I’m sure many other people (and maybe Giselle) have also been steered to the wrong impression because of the media. I really wish the original tellers of all of the lies could be jailed and forced to pay the wrongly accused parties.

      • floen says:

        It’s obvious to me why Guede would not have just ‘run away’ if he was caught in the house – because Meredith knew him, he couldn’t run away and get away with it – she would’ve just reported the break in and told the police his name- and there would’ve been a warrant out for him.

      • floen says:

        And about the PR company – this is not surprising or strange in any way – the media smeared her name in countless publications and promoted their own image of her while she was in jail. In America, when someone is portrayed negatively in the media – pretty much the only way to fight back is with a PR company (who can book appearances and access the media easily). There is nothing wrong with her doing interviews and trying to set the record straight.

        • Giselle says:

          no I don’t think there is anything wrong – in fact it was a great idea for her to defend her image. I am just very much aware that PR is used to slant things in one’s favor – their job is to ‘create’ an image, whether Knox family intended this or not, that is what a PR company does. Its the media working in reverse, so pretty much as unreliable as the media…I would like to steer clear of all that and remain with primary sources and the interpretation of primary sources.

      • Doug Moodie says:

        Hi Giselle,

        For myself, I am glad that you are here. I think it is somewhat brave to put yourself out there as someone who believes that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito are guilty. I hope you don’t go away. The first post I read of yours, you asked how Guede could be the lone killer, and you wanted to stay focused on that. I agree that a good discussion will take on one thing at time if at all possible. Otherwise, both sides are just reading lists at each other.

        So, if it is okay, perhaps we can start at the very beginning. In my opinion, the chances of Ms Knox and Mr Sollicito, two seemingly very nice people, without a history of violence, clearly sane, with a night off together purely by happenstance, involved with each other watching the movie Amelie, at a location other than the cottage ….the odds of these two people who really did not know each other for a very short time, and were passionately involved with each other, and quite content, the odds of them coming together with a third party that one of them had never met and the other had had no prior meaningful discourse with … the odds of this are simply fantastic and not believable.

        Especially when compared to the odds that someone with prior criminal involvement, no means of support, who was found just days before hiding in a school with a large knife stolen from the kitchen, the odds of this person committing a burglary that turned into a murder are simply immeasurably and obviously greater by far, even if it is true that most burglars prefer to flee if they can. Plus, in this case he was recognized by the victim.

        Now, perhaps as the discussion unfolds you will present evidence to show that despite the tremendous unlikely hood that Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecitio would take part in the murder of Ms Kercher, housemate and friend to Ms. Knox, the evidence still shows they had to be there. That’s fine, but before beginning I do believe that a reasonable discussion must begin with how very unlikely, and how much more unlikely than Guede acting alone, it is that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito participated in this crime in anyway. From there, you can make the case that despite this, they were still involved.

        I do think though that it is unreasonable to assert that it is just as likely that Ms Knox and Mr. Sollecito participated in the crime with Guede as it is that Guede participated in the crime alone, or at least not with Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito.

        If you are not willing to concede this, I am forced to conclude that you are not genuinely discussing the case.

        • Jack says:

          The problem is, like most guilters, she is not conceding the points that demolish her position. It seems to be a malady of some sort, perhaps one in which emotion overrules logic and reason.

        • Giselle says:

          Hi Doug,

          Thank you for your sincerity. I really appreciate it and welcome the opportunity to discuss the case with you.

          Like yourself I find it very hard to believe that Amanda or Raffaele would do such a thing, for all the reasons you have stated here and many more. I wouldn’t say they were the nicest people, I would say they were ordinary people, just like myself for instance.

          In regards to Guede, I accept that he was a more questionable character. However he didn’t have a history of violence either, for instance when he was caught in the kindergarden with a knife in his backpack – he waited till the police showed up and booked him. There was no report of him having tried to get past the person that found him by pushing or shoving etc.

          If Meredith saw him, I can see he may have become desperate and that may have led to sudden violence. The major problem with this however is that, the evidence shows he approached her in her bedroom – which indicates that Meredith had not seen him upon entering the house. Therefore we have to believe that he went out of his way to literally run into her bedroom and attack her, this to me is not plausible. Also it appears he doesn’t just kill her quickly because she saw him, he threatens her with a knife and then things get out of hand. He also sexually assaults her. This is according to both defense and prosecution and also provided in the reconstruction that was linked to by one of the posters on this page (Ron Hendry’s reconstruction I believe). So is it plausible to believe that Guede having entered the house with the intent to burgle, then hears Meredith (who has not seen him) in the bedroom and suddenly attacks her, after she is unconscious and bleeding he also sexually assaults her? This takes a really sick person – these kind of things are usually premeditated attacks. I don’t see any history from Guede being anything other than your garden variety low end criminal; squatting in schools, stealing some laptops and some petty change – this is a huge leap.

          I absolutely agree with your last two paragraphs. It is very unlikely and in fact shocking to come to the conclusion that these two normal young people would do such a thing! I don’t have any reservations in being proven to be mistaken in my beliefs, that is why I am here. However when I go over the case and think of them as A & B (rather than two normal college kids – any of my friends etc), there is no doubt left in my mind that they were involved. So I assure you I am in full agreement with you and think the whole situation is bizarre. “Eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”

          • Rob H says:

            Well if you eliminate the impossible and whatever remains is the truth then you have to eliminate Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito because it is impossible for them to have been in Ms Kercher’s bedroom at the time of the murder without leaving any physical evidence behind – if you disagree with that, then the burden is for you to prove it is not true. You have not even attempted to do that, yet we would all be intrigued to see you try. This is the third time I have challenged you to produce your evidence – twice you have failed to respond. Yet you say there is ” no doubt…they were involved”. No doubt is beyond reasonable doubt, so, third time lucky, Giselle?

          • Julie Jorgensen says:

            In another robbery in Perugia that occurred in the weeks before Meredith’s murder, Rudy Guede broke into a man’s apartment and when the man awoke, Rudy pulled a knife on him and threatened him and then ran away. So, your comment that Rudy had never shown a propensity for violence is not completly accurate.

        • Nasim says:

          I don’t like to get into this type of discussion because the statistical calculations are much more complex than they appear. I will say that I was surprised to read in the link above that when there is a home invasion and someone is injured 2% of the time it is a sexual assault. I would have guessed even lower, but still it is by no means a common occurrence.

      • Alex K. says:

        You are being either irrational or not quite honest.

        We have provided a workable single-attacker theory and a reference to a book elaborating it. You have not disproved it.

        You have failed to come up with a clear, simple definition of defensive wounds despite being asked to do so more than once. Without this definition, you cannot argue your point: it becomes an argument about nothing.

        I have shown how Massei’s argument against a single-attacker scenario is circular. Did I miss your response?

        You falsely suggested that Mignini’s past wrongdoing was invented by Amanda’s PR campaign, whereas it had been exposed as early in 2006 in a true-crime bestseller. Gogerty-Mariott’s role has been limited to managing media access. They are not a smear machine, in contrast to hate sites such as TJMK and PMF.

        You attempt to defend the cops and the prosecutors who have been exposed as incompetent at best. Prof. Vecchiotti, one of Italy’s best forensic DNA scientists, together with Prof. Conti – both from one of Italy’s top three universities – has exposed the principal forensic expert working on the case, Patrizia Stefanoni, as a quack. Stefanoni and her colleagues broke basic rules of evidence collection and testing rendering their results largely worthless.

        The cops failed to test the semen stain; did not obtain reference foot- and shoeprints from Laura and Filomena (!), failed to run substrate tests for DNA and luminol, failed to run definitive tests for blood – in addition to numerous DNA-specific errors detailed by Vecchiotti.

        The cops have smeared themselves, that is.

        As for Rudy Guede, his history suggests he had exactly the right profile for this crime. A mentally unstable hard-drug user and probably a dealer. Sexually interested in the girls upstairs. A newbie burglar, not a pro at all. He had broken a window and climbed through in one of his earlier burglaries, just like in Via Pergola. Once he threatened a man who surprised him with a knife. Everything fits if you’re not quite blind.

  112. Rob H says:

    So, I have a question for Amanda Knox: If you don’t think it is appropriate to answer this or if you would prefer not to, I would perfectly understand – It has occurred to me in the course of learning about your case, that of all the people who so badly let you down in Perugia, Filomena Romanelli and Laura Mezzetti are chief among them – not only did they give testimony casting doubt upon the quality of your relationship with Meredith Kercher, raised doubt about your behaviour after the murder, drew attention to your lovebite (hickey in US) and implored you to lie to the police about marijuana use in the flat, they failed to take you aside in the days following the murder and say: “Look, Amanda. We know how Italy works – you must get a lawyer and do not talk to the police without one”. Is that a fair assessment? I wondered whether either or both of your flatmates have had any contact with you in person since your arrest and since your acquittal – have they apologised, empathised – have they offered you any support? Since they are themselves lawyers and since they were so close to this case, they will undoubtedly have been following its development very closely. Do you think that they might have worried about their position in the legal community and felt they had to support the Prosecutor’s office for fear of reprisals? With my very best wishes – Rob

  113. floen says:

    The prosecution’s assertion that more than 1 person had to be involved does not hold up from what I can see.

    — Guede was 179 pounds and 5’10 tall.
    — From what I’ve found, Meredith was 115 lbs. -which means she was likely not taller than 5’6″ and probably shorter by 1-3 inches (haven’t been able to find her height)

    Yet with Guede weighing 60 pounds more, the prosecution says that by himself he could not overpower her long enough to deliver a blow that would immobile her to the ground. I believe he did so at the beginning of the attack- so that most of the rest of the injuries took place after she could barely fight. The fact that there were 47 cuts, bruises or injuries does not prove more than 1 person was involved – from what I’ve seen in movies, each injury only takes a second or 2 to inflict.

    Even if there were 2 knives (which I’ve heard but don’t know for sure) – I could see how he may have started with a pocket knife that he carried – and then possibly ran to the kitchen to grab a bigger sharper knife when the first stab didn’t kill.

    I don’t see why the prosecution has anything to support their theory of multiple killers.

    • Sarah H says:

      The prosecution wants to have it both ways. They claim there were too many injuries to have been inflicted by one man. And they claim that the lack of “defensive injuries” proves that she was attacked by more than one man.

      Nonsense. One strong young man armed with a knife overpowered this petite young woman; but the fact that she fought back is shown in her numerous bruises.

    • Luara says:

      Ron Hendry is the expert in accident reconstruction who analyzed this case. His opinion means more than the amateur reconstructions being attempted here. Here’s what he said about the start of the attack on Meredith:
      She tosses the borrowed book and a notebook on the bed and hooks the shoulder bag on the desk chair. It is 8:56 pm. Meredith now gets out the cell phone she uses to call her family and friends in the UK, sits down on the edge of her bed, and initiates a call to her mother.

      For reasons only Rudy knows, he makes the decision to go to Meredith’s room, neglecting to flush the toilet lest he lose the element of surprise. Armed with a sharp pocketknife, he bursts into the room and confronts Meredith. She stands up, but Rudy grabs her before she can react defensively. She pulls away, but he turns her around and brings her flush against his body. This early struggle results in lateral contact with the bed frame and mattress and possibly the corner of the nightstand.

      Once Rudy has Meredith under control from behind, he positions the tip of his knife against the right side of her throat. …
      So, Ron Hendry’s idea is that Meredith was busy calling her mother, when Rudy appeared.
      Meredith had met Rudy before. He socialized with the guys downstairs.
      So she might not have thought she was in danger of being attacked, initially. Her reaction might have been more like “What the hell are YOU doing here??” then he goes up to her and grabs her.

      • Nasim says:

        You bring up one of my favorite Ron Henry quotes: “For reasons only Rudy knows…” In other words, Hendry doesn’t have a clue. There’s no way Meredith could have been sitting on her bed when she started to call her mom. Sophie and the parking garage video both put the call earlier than that.

  114. Frank the Tank says:

    I wonder how come nobody is accusing the Hamburglar of being one of Rudy Guede’s accomplices… After all, absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, according to guilter logic. Therefore, the Hamburglar could have been there. In fact, I’m certain that he was there because (long convoluted string of asinine logic). Now prove that I’m wrong!

    I think that pretty decent mockery of guilter theories…

    • Willis Coleman says:

      I think I said absence of evidence is not Proof of absence. So, yes, the lack of traces of the Hamburglar in Meredith’s room is not proof that he didn’t kill her. What is proof is the fact that he has a solid alibi, unlike Amanda and Raffaele. I encourage you to think this through carefully because critical thinking isn’t just useful in understanding this case. It comes in handy in life in general.

      • Rob H says:

        The burden of proof is on the prosecution not the defence. Beyond reasonable doubt is the standard. Why can’t you single cell creatures understand that? If you haven’t got the evidence, you cannot have a conviction.

        If absence of evidence is not evidence of absence do you think that absence of alibi is proof of guilt? Let’s have one of your loved ones in the dock, or you. Then we would see how quickly you are able to acquire the capacity for critical thinking on this subject. Only if it matters to you personally.

      • Amanda says:


        Absence of evidence is proof of absence in this case considering the fact that the crime scene was not cleaned and multiple sources of forensic evidence of the killer’s presence was found. For Raffaele and I to have participated in the aggression against Meredith, it would have been impossible for us to not have left traces of ourselves similar to those found proving the presence and action of Rudy Guede. Our DNA would have been found on her clothing and body, like Guede’s was, and it would have been impossible for us to be in that environment and not come into contact with Meredith’s blood. It is unreasonable to think that three people could have participated in the aggression, but only the presence of one could be forensically ascertained.


        • Paul says:

          I am interested in the origin of the luminol footprints at the crime scene outside of Meredith’s door. They are too small to be Guede’s. I think soap was mentioned as a possibility which does not show positive for luminol. Neither would bleach after so long. Turnip or horseradish could show a weak reaction. As well they appear from nowhere which may suggest that there was some cleaning.

          • Rob H says:

            Whose do you think they were?Do you think they were made in blood? What is the test for blood? What was the result of these tests – when they were made available? There is no evidence of cleaning.

          • Tom Mininger says:

            For luminol 101 from a murder investigator who has used it please see:

            We’ve got tmb telling us the luminol prints are not blood and of course with no blood, no Meredith DNA.

            We have CSI Stefanoni perjuring herself about not performing the tmb test, and claiming she could tell the prints were blood by the way the luminol glowed blue which is either gross incompetence or fraud.

            Paul, what evidence have you got against Amanda?

          • Cal says:

            The smears/prints could be anything and maybe Merediths. Who knows? Unfortunately Rudy Guede will never tell the truth.

            The Fast Track leaves no motivation for the murderer to tell the truth.

          • Sarah H says:

            Why do you care about those footprints? They tested negative for blood, so why are they important? They could have belonged to any of the four girls, they could have resulted from a number of substances, and they could have been there for days. The most likely possibility is that Meredith herself had slightly damp feet after showering in a shower that had bleach on the floor. (By the way, you can’t remove bleach-smeared footprints with more bleach. If there was cleaning with bleach involved, as some people claim, the whole area would be lighting up.)


            “Typically, luminol only shows investigators that there might be blood in an area, since other substances, including household bleach, can also cause the luminol to glow. Experienced investigators can make a reliable identification based on how quickly the reaction occurs, but they still need to run other tests to verify that it is really human blood.”

          • Alex K. says:

            First, there were two types of prints: those with our without DNA. Those with DNA were tested with TMB, which came back negative. Not blood. Those without DNA cannot be blood either. There’s nothing to see here.

            Second, a cleanup would have smudged the prints.

            Third, Luminol have multiple false positives in Sollecito’s apartment. The prosecution seems to have written that off to old animal blood. It would be more logical to assume it was something naturally occurring in the Perugian environment, such as iron-rich soil.

            Fourth, the police tried to hide the exculpatory TMB results and did not bother to do confirmatory tests for blood. It indicates that there was no investigation, only an effort to gather incriminating evidence.

          • Alex K. says:

            Unfortunately, the depth of threads is limited on this blog so at some point there is no “reply” button any more. I agree it is not a discussion forum, but some nasty posts are left unchallenged as a result.

            In particular, I suspect that “Giselle” is a trolling “guilter” or an umbrella handle for a group of “guilters”. The principal red flag is her mention of a “PR machine” working for Amanda. As far as I know, there is only an anti-Knox PR machine, including three hate sites spewing lies and smears on a daily basis.

            Then there are two rather blatant lies she slipped into her purportedly disinterested arguments. She claimed that Mignini’s past roguery had been dreamed up by Amanda Knox’s hypothetical PR machine. It must be a time machine! Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi published their “Monster of Florence” in 2006. The book exposes not only Mignini’s deranged worldview but also hopeless flaws in the Italian justice system.

            The second lie is the claim that, as “any profiler” knows, burglars do not kill. First, “any profiler” obviously does not include one of the most famous ones, John Douglas. Second, why not look at this survey,, from the US Bureau of Justice Statistics? Over five years (2003-7), 266,560 cases of burglary ending in violence. That’s 26% of all burglaries with household members present. In 65% of cases, offenders were known to their victims. According to the FBI, there were an average of 430 homicide-related burglaries per year in that period.

            (Nina Burleigh: ” I can’t tell you how many Italian “dottores” of law and criminology said to me that thieves simply do not kill.” Yeah right.)

            When discussing the single-attacker scenario, Giselle has refused to provide a clear definition of defense wounds as opposed to other, presumably offense wounds. I have shown that, whatever the definition, classifying a wound as defensive requires a scenario of the crime; hence Massei’s reconstruction – which begins with the claim that defense wounds were absent – is a logical fallacy. I have not seen a reasonable response to this.

            In addition, I have provided the source for the “hair formation” claim (the “Relazione” by Patrizia Stefanoni dated 12 June 2008) and for the claim that some of the cat blood was human (Guilia Bongiorno referring to that test in court).

          • Eric_B says:

            there is a huge list of substances that react to luminol.

            all we need to know is the prints tested negative for blood.

            what they actually are is unimportant.

          • Eric_B says:

            where do you get information about what does not show positive for luminol?

            i know there is a list of things that do.

            i am not aware of any list of things that definitely dont.

          • Eric_B says:

            to ‘Paul’.

            for example you say soap does not show positive for luminol.

            but there are all kinds of soaps, aren’t there?

            with all kinds of additives – for example there are lemon soaps, orange blossom soaps, you name it, there’s a soap.

            so your catch-all claim that ‘soap’ does not show positive seems inaccurate, simplistic and not thought through.

        • Tracy Musson says:

          If Rudy held Meredith immobile, while another person wielded a knife, then you would expect to find Rudy’s Dna on her clothing and the other person’s Dna on the knife.

          Why do you restrict the evidence and the ‘crime scene’ to only Meredith’s bedroom?
          Surely it should include the entire house – hallway, Molly’s bedroom, your bathroom etc.

          • Frank the Tank says:

            Are you for real? Now the theory is that Meredith Kercher was attacked in ALL rooms of her house?

            It doesn’t matter in any case… police incompetence destroyed any possibility of finding evidence in other rooms… hell, it destroyed much of the evidence in Ms Kercher’s room. So why would the onus be on the defense to disprove yet another cockamammy theory unsupported by any evidence?

          • Rob H says:

            Briefly, the murder was committed in Meredith Kercher’s bedroom – so it is the primary focus. There is evidence only of Guede and Ms Kercher in that room. Evidence of the presence of Ms Knox and her flatmates elsewhere in the flat is not inculpatory – they lived there. Evidence of Guede in he hallway and bathroom is inculpatory – his bloody footprint in the bathroom and he is tracked leaving the flat. The CSIs failed to collect or failed to disclose evidence collected in Filomena Romanelli’s room. You are free to speculate why this is the case.

          • Tom Mininger says:

            We’ve got all the evidence in the murder room telling us Guede did it.
            Bloody palm prints. Bloody palm prints. DNA on Meredith, inside her, on her purse.

            Tracy, what evidence do you have against Amanda and Raffaele anywhere else in the house?

          • Sarah H says:

            Why? Because OF COURSE Amanda’s DNA , skin cells, and hair will be found all over the common areas of the apartment, including her bathroom. Yours is all over your home, too. The fact that, in a room covered with blood, not one piece of evidence — not DNA, or fingerprints, footprints, hair or fiber — was connected to Amanda is more than enough reason for any reasonable jury to find reasonable doubt that she was ever in the room — i.e., that she could have murdered Meredith. No matter what smoke and mirrors the prosecution is using to suggest otherwise.

          • Paul says:

            Fot Sara above they could not have been bleach . Bleach only shows positive for a limited time. Blood has not been ruled out except by the defense. Any serious ideas what else those whole prints could be made in?

          • Alex K. says:

            The prosecution does not assert a cleanup in the murder room. How in the world the supposed co-attackers managed to leave the room free of any signs of their presence defies belief.

          • Eric_B says:

            the way forensic investigations of this kind of murder work is you start with the body and work outwards.

        • Doug Moodie says:

          I would like to this that for several months after the arrest of Ms Knox and Mr Sollicito, the prosecution hung their case against Mr. Sollicito on the multiple bloody Nike footprints found in the room. Only by interpid determinaton by Mr Sollecito’s sister was it shown without a doubt that the Nike treads weren’t his, and sure enough it was proven they belonged to Guede. Now, how could Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito remove traces of themselves but leave Guede’s Nike prints, since the prints look virtually identical? How could they tell them apart?

          • Doug Moodie says:

            …I would like to ADD to this…

          • Rob H says:

            There is no question in my mind (barring the production of evidence to the contrary) that this “Paul” above and “Nasim” are in fact one and the same – writing style is identical. How many shared identities are there on here between Willis Coleman, Celeste, Giselle, Karen, Nasim, Anthony Jenkins, Paul, Lisa Smith etc? Are we in the presence of one or more of the “guilter” greats? The Machine/Rag, Peter “the pervert” Quennell, Ganong, Ann Coulter, Barbiedoll “Luckedout” Nadeau, Andrea Vogt and Chelsea Hoffman? Or do these identities belong to one or more alternative crazies?

          • Nasim says:

            There’s no question in your mind that we are the same person, and yet you are wrong. Might you also be wrong about Amanda and Raffaele?

        • The 4-part analysis I posted last week of the Kercher Closing Arguments states, point-by-point, into WHY Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are simply innocent. The strongest fact is that 1) they were not even there at the residence when Meredith was attacked. That to me says it all…but the other facts I listed also hold up well to prove their collective innocence of any involvement in this crime. Other supporters of Amanda on this site have also done excellent forensic research, written excellent blogs, and analysis of this case (for which I am eternally grateful) so I am expecting that a week from today Amanda and Raffaele will be set Free via Acquittals from this case. Amanda’s response (which is above) is succinct enough forensically to make all of my points that she and Raffaele are both innocent and their presence in Meredith’s room cannot be documented at all because THEY WEREN’T THERE. The prosecution also introduced the wrong murder weapon into evidence (no small thing in any court of law). I hope there will be a nice party of celebration of Amanda’s innocence in a week and that she will be allowed to reconcile with the Kercher family over time. That will happen when Meredith’s family finally realizes that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, something I easily figured out over two years ago. Even Meredith knows that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent – but she isn’t here to tell the world that now. Amanda Knox was her friend and roommate but had no part, whatsoever, in causing her death. – Best, Ken

        • Meg says:

          Amanda, I think this specific point is critical in proving your and Raffaele’s innocence to any skeptics. Like many others, I had originally believed you to be guilty as per the press’ sensationalizing and prosecution-informed reports. But when I read about how Rudy’s DNA was found in copious amounts in places all over the crime scene, and yours and Raffaele’s were found nowhere, I realized you were both innocent. The cops’ false allegations of finding bleach receipts further brought this home for me – and the notion that they were engaging in foul play. While there were other secondary factors I took into account to recalibrate and gestate that two innocents were being railroaded, this impossibility of cleaning one’s DNA while leaving tons of one of the alleged perps everywhere was just inherently absurd and ridiculous, as it’s physically impossible.

          This point made the major difference for me, and I suspect it would for people who have not heard it elucidated before.

          Wishing you and Raffaele the best of luck.

      • Frank the Tank says:

        They do have an alibi… you just don’t believe it.

        Of course, it would help if the keystone cops could determine a time of death, but it certainly does help them if the time of death is 9 PM – 5 AM the following morning, because that gives them more time to invent stories.

        But the fact remains that for the most likely time of death (between 9 and 10 PM), Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito were in Mr Sollecito’s apartment watching movies.

        I would encourage you to think very carefully through how exactly Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito managed to clean all traces of their DNA from Ms Kercher’s room, leave only Rudy Guede’s, and eliminate all evidence that there had even been a cleanup. I’d very much like to see you apply some of your self-claimed “critical thinking” to that.

        • Sarah H says:

          There was also some computer evidence introduced in this latest trial. New tests have shown that the automatic screen saver was interrupted repeatedly in the hours after 9 pm, indicating that a human was operating the computer, causing the interruption.

      • Gregory Thomson says:

        The absence of all kinds of evidence in this case is evidence that maybe something was there, maybe it wasn’t. Philosophy 101 (actually this was taught in my Phil 101 at the dub) René Descartes suggested that tiny leprechauns made the hands on the clock move, and how could he in the absence of evidence, decide this? Something that has annoyed me for years are the person/persons who keep suggesting that basically, the more ambiguous suggested ideas and maybe evidence (like a heroin addicts account on the wrong night, added to a riot Amanda organized in Seattle) that the more there are, the more true is the allegation, regardless if any individual item holds water. Lots of people claim there is cold fusion also.

        The blatant problem in the prosecution is that they assumed a result within days, and have been forever inventing supporting “facts” and “witness accounts” which are all easily debunked, but then they claim….”but the quantity of these by logic proves their truth” which flies in the face of science. It only takes one solid proven fact to discredit 1000 or more suggested facts.

        Amanda and Raffaele always had solid alibi’s. Most of us have read it, and know what is quoted and what is essentially hearsay, from the moment of translation. There is nothing inconsistent at all. But the lies of the Perugian prosecutor, police, court, then the uncivil attorneys create a different story, literally create a different story which never had any basis in reality.

  115. Kai says:

    So many things have been said in the media and one thing that came up in 2008 was that Meredith was drunk when she was attacked, but it was never brought up again since (to my knowledge).

    Was this just another lie or do any of you know if she was indeed intoxicated? I’ve googled the subject, but have been unable to find anything apart from one news paper story, which leads me to think it could be just another story made up by the media. Or? Do any of you know?

    • Tom Mininger says:

      I think Meredith and her friends were very tired the night after their big All Saints partying. I don’t think Meredith was drunk when attacked.

      • Amanda says:


        Indeed, the claim that Meredith was drunk at the time of her aggression was the result of the police mishandling the blood sample. It was allowed to ferment in their custody, and so the myth that Meredith was beyond pass-out drunk was born. It was quickly determined, however, that this conclusion was wrong.


        • Kai says:

          Thank you very much for clarifying that, it’s been on my mind way too long.

          Gosh, so many mistakes!

          Amanda, I wish you all the best and cross my fingers for you x

  116. Rob H says:

    In principle, in Italy, there are no rules of law determining the weight to be given to particular items of evidence presented at trial. Yet, when it comes to the “single attacker” theory, discussed with some intensity here yesterday, it follows that if it is true there was but one “attacker”, then Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito MUST be innocent. We could pack up and, as it were, go home. It is terribly seductive. We could simply try this one element of the case on its own – no particular suspects, merely a consideration of the evidence of the presence of one person or more in Meredith Kercher’s bedroom.

    But that was a pre-trial matter, indeed a pre-arrest and pre-charge matter. It was the job of the police and indeed, even at that stage, the prosecutor, as an essential part of an evidence led rather than a suspect led investigation to reach that conclusion – the conclusion that we on the innocence side of this argument believe, from the evidence, is inescapable. It is central to our contention that there has been not just a miscarriage of justice but a travesty of justice, that the absence of evidence of more than one person having committed this crime still permitted even the mere arrest of Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito, let alone condemned them to four years in prison.

    My point is that the evidentiary significance of this element of the case has apparently been changed by Italian jurisprudence merely in its passing from the investigatory phase to the trial phase. Now, it is, even though it should not be, just one evidentiary issue among many, determined in the mix by prevailing process.

    So it is not now for us to do what the police should have done six years ago; it is for us to ask, “In the matter of the murder of Meredith Kercher, what is the proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are guilty of the crime”. So, from the single attacker theory as an investigatory matter, we move on to the “Knox/Sollecito attacker” theory as a trial matter, advanced by the prosecution.

    Interestingly, post acquittal, Judge Hellman asked, rhetorically:

    “How is it, if there had been a struggle and a thwarted erotic game in this small bedroom, perhaps an orgy that ended with Meredith being stabbed, there is not a single biological trace of Raffaele and Amanda? Whereas it is full of traces of Rudy Guede”


    Yes, quite! But for the police, but for the prosecutor and but for the trial process, there you have it – six years of misery rendered unnecessary in a paragraph. Another “let’s go home and put this behind us” moment, were this anything other than an Italian trial.

    What shall we talk about next? The evidentiary value of Ms Knox’s choice of underwear? Her contraceptive of preference? Yoga? Only in Italy and cyberspace!

  117. Tom Mininger says:

    Great layman friendly radio program last night where real scientists talk about the DNA evidence. They also highlight the current problems with forensics worldwide, not just this case.

    Do you know to this day CSI Stefanoni is still allowed to hide the .fsa electronic data files that allow scientists to verify each other’s DNA analysis?

    This was an opportunity for the Italian Supreme Court to promote reliable forensics in Italy but instead they went in the opposite direction with statements like contamination must proven, without even compelling crime labs to turn over data.

  118. Eric_B says:

    these multiple attacker arguments seem like nothing other than sophistry to me.

    they are made by people with no expertise in pathology and no crystal ball to establish what exactly happened in the cottage that night. there are infinite scenarios and permuations which could account for the end result of the injuries of the victim involving only Rudy Guede, the man who sexually assaulted the victim and left his palm print in her blood on the pillow below her hips.

  119. Giselle says:

    I wanted to ask a question pertaining to the evidence. I am not sure where on your blog this comment belong, but would be very interested in all your views.

    There was no DNA found under the fingernails of Meredith Kercher, meaning she never scratched her assailant. Nor were there any defensive bruises or marks on her.

    In the struggle for her life one would imagine that at some stage she would try and grab, push, poke or somehow hold back Rudy Guede (if we are to believe he alone attacked her). If we go down the single attacker route we are forced to accept that Meredith never so much as put her hand up to stop the attacker.

    The physical evidence also shows that Meredith was restrained (bruises and marks on her body). It is difficult to imagine a situation where Rudy Guede alone held Meredith with one hand because clearly he must have held a knife with the other. Throughout this whole struggle we also have to believe Meredith could not free her arm and swipe at him even once.

    I can’t see it. Therefore I am of the opinion that there was more than one person involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher. However this does not automatically mean Amanda Knox was that other person.

    I am eager for a logical response, however if I have learned anything following this case it is that people will generally come back with a whole lot of capital letters and insults with no actual reply. If thats what you are going to do here, please save your energy – however if someone has a different view and would like to share it with me, I would be very interested.

    I have to say that despite my current views, nothing in this case would make me happier than to believe that Amanda had nothing to do with her friend’s murder. Its such a tragedy to believe that is what the world has come to. So I am open minded.

    • Bob Magnetti says:

      No ‘caps’ here . . . However, if there were multiple attackers where is the evidence of their presence in the bloody bedroom–no DNA, no fingerprints, no shoe prints, no footprints? How is this possible?

      • Bob Magnetti says:

        Also, why is it difficult to believe that a lone, athletic male would have any difficulty subduing, restraining, murdering a female when the male has surprise, size, and a knife on his side? Unfortunately, these assaults/murders happen all too frequently.

        • Giselle says:

          Thanks for your reply. So I totally understand that he would be able to murder her on his own, however I can’t see that she never managed to defend herself throughout.

          In regards to your question of DNA – that is a debate in and of itself so I would like to put that to one side at this stage and focus solely on the the dynamics of the struggle and whether we can logically have a situation where a person attacked with a knife cannot even for one second defend themselves. Unless we assume she was drugged – this doesn’t seem plausible for me. I would however like to read your version of how this would play out.

          The element of surprise is another question. Do you believe Meredith walked in on the intruder or do you believe he broke in after she was home?

          • Philippe says:

            Rudy Guede was found with wounds on his hands. There are traces that show that she defended herself. As much as one can with a knife to your throat…

          • floen says:

            Giselle, I posted something about this above – Guede was more than 60 pounds heavier, he was also taller, and holding a knife. A 115 pound woman when faced with an intruder with a knife is going to try and survive by not fighting at first – just give him what he wants so he doesn’t cut me with the knife. In those moments – he may have inflicted one of the more serious injuries – either the the blow to the back of her head maybe from shoving her to the ground, or maybe he did the first stab with the knife that didn’t kill her. My theory is that she was immediately brought to the ground with a serious wound, and then as she squirmed or tried to stop him from having sex, he inflicted the bruises and scrapes -more than 40 of them- could’ve all easily happened in 5 minutes while he restrained her arms with his hands or knees – (not picking up or taking out the knife again until he was done raping), The fact that there were more than 40 injuries like bruises and stuff seems to say that she was fighting him.

    • Rick Bonin says:

      Giselle, a surprise attack by a single attacker could easily have rendered Meredith unable to defend herself at all. Ever heard of the “knockout game”? It is happening in the US with some frequency.

      • Giselle says:

        Do you believe she was home when Rudy came in or that she walked in on him?

        In regards to “knockout game” would you say Rudy had knocked her out in the first blow and then murdered her while she was incapacitated?

    • Tom Mininger says:


      The crime scene evidence is Guede’s bloody palm prints on the bedroom wall and on the pillow he positioned Meredith with. His bloody shoeprints are all over the bedroom and in the hallway. His DNA is in the bedrrom, on Meredith, on her clothes, inside her, on her purse. He admits throwing out his bloody clothes and shoes.

      Weeks later when he was caught his bruises would have healed from Meredith’s fight, but he still had cuts on his knife hand fingers that perps get when the hand slides forward over the blade when the knife meets resistance especially when lubricated by spattered blood.

      That was a blood soaked, blood spattered crime scene, with a vicious struggle. The abscence of blood transfer and DNA evidence against anyone else is overwhelming and can’t be ignored.

      Meredith had over 40 bruises over her body. How could they all be restraint wounds? Amanda and Raffaele had zero bruises or cuts along with zero blood transfer and DNA evidence. Blood is messy. It nails perpetrators in crimes like this.

      Guede had a powerful grip over her mouth and a knife to her throat. At one point he had a hold on her hair so tight it ripped out of her scalp during the struggle.

      As horrible as it is, picture multiple perps attacking someone in that bedroom. The perps stepping in the blood, spatter on their clothes, leaving fingerprints or smudges, and depositing their DNA on Meredith and/or her clothes.

      Now ask yourself what happened to everybody’s bloody prints and DNA except Guede. If you think there’s more than one attacker how can you explain this abscence?

      I recommend the POV of a seasoned murder investigator:
      and Forensic Engineer Ron Hendry’s book:

      • Giselle says:


        I would like to stay focused on the struggle at this stage, because if we start talking about footprints, DNA and the hallway the topic becomes too wide and it will become too generalized in my opinion to be of value to me. Also if we can agree on single/multiple attacker the rest will fall into place more easily.

        Are you able to link me to descriptions/photos of the wounds on Guede after he was caught? This will be of interest. However I still maintain that unless Meredith was totally knocked out during the struggle, she would at some stage have been able to ‘try’ and defend herself. I do not know of any other case where the victim of a single attacker struggles for about 20 minutes but has no defense wounds whatsoever.

        You maintain “Guede had a powerful grip over her mouth and a knife to her throat.” In this situation Meredith would have both her hands totally free – are we to accept she was not able to try and raise a hand a pull the knife away? I have listened to many experts say victims automatically want to defend the weak points of their body – such as their neck – its a reflex to being attacked. Why would Meredith with two hands free per your description not have done this?

        I will take a look at Forensic Engineer Ron Hendry’s book later today. Thanks

        • Luara says:

          Ron Hendry said if there had been multiple attackers they would have been stepping in blood, so there would have been a lot of bloody shoeprints around.

          • Gregory Thomson says:

            How many attackers can fit in the bedroom? There could have been 10 people not yet known who were in the apartment, were part of the attack, but not close enough and or left the moment it got messy, and they didn’t need to be in the bedroom at that moment. A huge amount of events can occur in 10 minutes, but posting fake questions over and over about what happened because of fake “logic” is never going to change what really happened, and it has nothing to do with RS or AK.

          • Gregory Thomson says:

            @ Giselle with respect to “fake questions.”

        • Alex K. says:

          “has no defense wounds whatsoever”

          I have already pointed out to you that the “defense wounds” is a terms that is ill-defined. How do we know that none of the three dozen bruises and scratches were defensive?

          “I have listened to many experts say victims automatically want to defend the weak points of their body – such as their neck – its a reflex to being attacked. Why would Meredith with two hands free per your description not have done this?”

          In line with this, Hendry believes Rudy grabbed Meredith with one arm, immobilizing her left hand, and she tried to protect her neck with the right hand and got it scratched against the knife.

          • Giselle says:

            Okay so let us look at the definition of defensive wounds.

            “Defensive wounds are more often than not to be found on the hands of an individual who has been attacked or involved in a fight. These wounds, which are normally to be found around the hands, fingers and arms of the victim – and indeed sometimes the attacker – can be examined in order to determine how much of a struggle the victim put up and how much of a frenzy the attacker was in.”

            “Many violent crimes tend to leave the victim’s hands and arms covered in these defensive wounds, which can be made by the blade of a knife, biting or scratching, and clawing perhaps at the ground in an attempt to get away.”

            “Defensive wounds – as we have said – are often to be found on the hands and arms and this is because the victim will be trying to protect their face and upper body from attack by the assailant.”

            Applying this to Meredith’s wounds and responding to your comment “Hendry believes Rudy grabbed Meredith with one arm, immobilizing her left hand, and she tried to protect her neck with the right hand and got it scratched against the knife.”

            If Meredith had her right hand free, she would have grabbed the blade that was entering her neck. This is common sense, there is no way that anyone can genuinely believe Meredith had her right hand completely free and all she did was scratch at the blade and get a couple of tiny scratches! Thats entirely implausible. Anyone would grab that knife and try to stop it cutting their vital organs. There is an element of human instinct that plays an important role here and cannot be denied. Also with a free hand she would have been able to try and tug at Guede, scratch him, pull his hair etc there is no evidence of any of this. So the theory that Meredith had her hand entirely free is a entirely ridiculous.

        • Tom Mininger says:

          Meredith had dozens of defense marks.
          Apparently there was material under Meredith’s fingernails that was not tested.

          Yes, let’s stay focused on the struggle and picture the perp depositing DNA on Meredith as the struggle progresses, getting spattered with blood, and stepping in blood.

          How come only Guede?

          • Giselle says:

            Tom I have checked Massei and he says that under Meredith’s finger nails were indeed checked and nothing was found. Noting she had short nails.

            In regards to your second question, could you be more specific?

        • Philippe says:

          It has been suggested , by Mignini himself in an interview, that the fatal wound to Meredith’s neck has been somehow “involuntary” , meaning as part of a struggle rather then a deliberate attempt to murder. To me It means that it in any case there was threat, then resistance, and it went out of control. I don’t think that joining the many attackers versus defense of herself makes much sense. Wether there would have been many or one, all the signs of a direct threat to her neck and her defense are there. In fact should there have been few attackers , it is a horrible thougt, then Meredith would probably be alive, as they could have overcome her more easily and she would not have been able to move, struggle so much.
          This for me is not heard enough.

          • Gregory Thomson says:

            Your not making a lot of sense there, but if you don’t speak English its a nice try. I can give you a clue: Mignini is a moron. “involuntary attack” yeah right. All the forensics were controlled and fabricated or conspicuous in their absence. Mignini’s idiotic fantasies will outlive him, in spite of his attacks on everyday people in Seattle. We will visit and enjoy Italy without his approval. He is welcome to visit here.

          • Giselle says:

            I think the threat would have been that she could identify her attacker(s) that being Guede or the others who stand accused. That in itself is the biggest threat.

            You say “ll the signs of a direct threat to her neck and her defense are there.” – What are these signs of defense which you refer to?

        • caroline says:

          Hi Giselle,

          I think your question is really relevant to this case, and thank you for remaining so calm and polite, as I know it can be intimidating coming to a blog that is pro innocence and asking questions such as yours.

          Putting aside other evidence of this case that I believe points to innocence, I think I can offer some thoughts that puts serious doubts about the multiple attacker theory. The prosecution and police unfortunately started their investigation very early with the notion that Meredith must have been attacked by more than one person. I believe this blinded them to other possibilities, intentionally or unintentionally. After all if a single attacker theory was right it would destroy their entire case, and damaging all other ‘evidence’ including the so called staged break in. This has been their primary motive in keeping up this ridiculous idea of multiple attackers.

          The primary reason I think that the prosecution is wrong is that there are other alternatives and coupled with NO evidence that places Amanda or anyone else but guede in the room, their theory is nothing but wishful thinking or deliberate lies aimed at misleading people.

          To answer your question about the injuries/lack of injuries, I think it depends how you look at this case, there are a couple of issues that I think you should consider?
          1) If the attack happened like Ron Hendry and other experts claim, then the attack was a blitz attack. Could Meredith really have had time to defend herself before Rudy plunged his knife into her throat. There is clear evidence, which even the prosecution claims, that Meredith was mainly assaulted after the fatal wound in her neck. such an injury has a serious effect on your ability to use and control your muscles. I think 40+ bruises does actually show some self-defence but I suppose I can understand that some people might expect more injuries. However I think that 1 bruise or 100 is irrelevant if it was a blitz attack and the fatal injury was inflicted almost straight away.
          2) I think many people underestimate or simply ignore the argument that ‘if you had a knife to your most people would not struggle’, hence another explanation to your theory that her injuries are consistent to multiple attackers. I graduated from high school in 2002, and I remember a story about three men here in London that had been robbed at knife point, none had seen their attacker. in all cases the men did not resist and handed over all of their possessions. It came as a big shock to them to find that their mugger (who had been caught mugging an old lady months later) was in fact a WOMAN! (when i find this story I will post it, but it was from 2003/4 so having problems finding it) Most people would comply, hoping that the mugger/attacker would take what they wanted and leave. unfortunately guede no longer only wanted the possessions in the cottage but decided to sexually attack and kill Meredith. Guede had no luck with women and saw Meredith as an opportunity to have what other women would not give the creepy f**k!!

          I would be very interested in hearing your thought regarding my observations and thoughts

          • Willis Coleman says:

            “There is clear evidence, which even the prosecution claims, that Meredith was mainly assaulted after the fatal wound in her neck.” – I think you are mistaken. Can you provide a source for this claim?

          • Tom Mininger says:

            There was blood spatter on the inside of Meredith’s clothes, including the bra cups.

          • Tom Mininger says:

            Sorry, forgot to include source:
            Picture in “Single Attacker Theory” by Ron Hendry at Location 647 of 1059

        • Alex K. says:

          This is a reply to your post below beginning with “OK”. You are not providing a definition of defensive wounds – I need to understand how I can tell a defensive wound from a non- defensive one. Lacking such definition, I can only repeat another commentator’s observation that many of the bruises do not appear to have resulted from restraining and therefore resulted from struggle – which wounds I suggest should qualify as defensive under any sensible definition.

          I did not claim Meredith’s right arm was completely free – it might have been bent at the elbow and pressed to her body so the hand, at the neck level, could still move a little. But that’s not what matters to me now. What matters is your notion that Meredith would have grabbed the sharp blade of the knife to keep it from entering her throat. This seems rather counterintuitive to me so I suggest you provide some evidence from a trusted source.

          But even that matters but little, for why would Meredith believe she was about to be killed? At first, Guede did not give the impression he was going to murder her. He merely touched her neck with the tip of the knife to force her to submit. In her predicament, fighting back would seem insane.

          Once again, I do not see much value in this discussion by amateurs but then Massei is likewise an amateur. Below, I point out the circularity of his argument. I suggest reading Hendry’s book and Torre’s testimony.

          • Eric_B says:

            the ‘multiple attacker’ proponents don’t really know what defensive wounds are, is the bottom line.

            they just want to claim there aren’t any.

        • Alex K. says:

          Massei may have been technically correct – in a Jesuitic way – that no biological material had been found under Meredith’s fingernails. Sure enough, no testing – no findings. According to the so-called “Relazione genetica” “formazioni pilifere” or hair-type material, was found but not tested.

          Sarah’s comment is by no means ignorant. Without a workable definition of defensive wounds, this discussion is meaningless. I would very much like to know if bruises from Meredith’s efforts to free herself from Guede’s hold are defensive.

          • Eric_B says:

            how are we supposed to know Meredith would have scratched anyone anyway?

            didnt she have some basic karate training?

            it’s all just hypothetical nonsense just like all the theories proving it was impossible to climb up to the window.

      • Richard Silvester says:

        I am of the strongly held belief that AK and RS are innocent of involvement in this crime (lack of evidence and lack of motive is enough for me) I am curious about one thing, prompted by your statement “His bloody shoeprints are all over the bedroom and in the hallway”. In all I have read, I don’t recall seeing any mention of footprints or shoe prints that Guede would surely have made in the hallway in walking between Meredith’s room and the bathroom or when he locked the door to Meredith’s room when fleeing the scene. Were any such footprints found and if not, what in your opinion would be a plausible explanation for the lack of any such prints?

    • Bruce Mckee says:

      Isn’t is possible because the attack caught Meredith by surprise coming from behind with the knife to her throat. The fact that she had little time to defend herself she may have swung a free arm yet not hit her attacker, just made him mad. Its also important to look at the order the crimes came in the stabbing that cause her death follow by the sexual assault by a sick killer.

      • Giselle says:

        I would very much like to read your sequence of events – I personally can’t put the picture together in this way.

        What I see from your short response is:
        – Meredith was in her room
        – Guede came in with a knife and struck her immediately, before she had a chance to even see him and react
        – she was immediately incapacitated and throughout the rest of the struggle and sexual assault could no longer even try to defend herself

        • Rob H says:

          Try and work the scenario the other way round, Giselle. See if you can make a case for Ms Knox, Mr Sollecito and Guede killing Meredith Kercher where only Guede leaves physical evidence of his presence behind and where there is no transfer evidence on Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito either. How is this possible? Or if not Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito, then any one, two or more accomplices.

          • Giselle says:


            So far I have only tried to establish whether there was one or more attacker. Even the defense introduced scenarios of others who helped Guede – I hope you understand this nuance; more than one attacker does not mean Amanda.

            In terms of the DNA evidence agains Guede, this is what was found:
            1- vaginal swab (not semen but other genetic material) on only one spot
            2- on the bra on only one spot
            3- handbag
            4- sweatshirt

            – toilet paper in the bathroom where he left his feces unflushed

            I highlight the one spot to show that although Guede is known to have touched other spots, his DNA only showed up on one area.
            Following from this it should be noted that although we know the attacker(s) removed Meredith’s jeans, there was no DNA found on them. So if we accept that DNA must be left behind, why did Guede’s DNA not show up on the jeans – he must have touched them to take them off. Point being that lack of DNA doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
            Even the hairdryer which Amanda says she used was tested for DNA and there was none found…

            Now if I put the 4 places his DNA was found in the murder room into perspective, I see that he held Meredith down and sexually assaulted her and then stole her money. However if others held the knife to Meredith’s throat there would be no point of contact for DNA to be deposited, in the same way the Guede’s DNA is not just flying around but is found where he had rubbing contact with her. Following from this Raffaele’s DNA on the bra clasp makes sense.

            At this stage I wanted to say I am hugely surprised by Amanda allowing this discussion on her won site. It must be very difficult to read and must take a lot out of her whether innocent or guilty and in different ways reading the available facts discussed over and over must take a toll. If she is innocent as she claims, at least she can try and understand why so many people believe she was involved. No one can know what happened to Meredith. This is the same in any murder case – at least one that lacks a witness.

          • Tom Mininger says:

            Meredith had defense wounds.
            Meredith apparently had untested material under her fingernails.
            The bra-strap clasp collection and analysis is a mockery of forensic science.
            And what scenarios did the defense introduce of others helping Guede?

            So far we have blood transfer and DNA evidence against only Guede plus the cut on his knife hand fingers. You seem to be working really hard for a multi-attacker theory.

            Meredith didn’t have to be held down by multiple people to be raped. She was asphyxiating on her own blood. (spatter on the inside of her bra cup.) Guede’s palm print is on the pillow he positioned her with.

            If you think a multi-attacker theory plausible, can we at least agree to eliminate Amanda and Raffaele since they have no bloody prints, no blood residue on clothing shoes, Amanda’s room, Raffaele’s apartment.

            If you have credible evidence that Amanda and Raffaele were involved in the struggle please tell us. But please stop the innuendo.


        • Bruce Mckee says:

          Guede states he was at the cottage at 9 pm with Meredith letting him in. Amanda and Raffaele were at his flat at 9 pm. So its either Meredith letting him in or he broke-in I believe he broke-in. Filomena room where the evidence collection that would prove it a real or staged break-in was badly done. Rudy is now in Filomena/Laura bathroom when Meredith arrives home. The biggest point here is that Filomena exterior shutters have to be closed. So Meredith doesn’t see the break-in point, when approaching the front door which is next to Filomena window. So with Filomena bedroom door which is located at the beginning of the hallway leading to Amanda/Meredith section of flat closed Meredith would see any sign of a break-in.
          Rudy follows Meredith down the hallway after leaving the toilet without flushing. So with the surprise element, size, strength advantage he wins that battle though she did struggle for her life. The pillow which has all of Guede evidence bloody handprint and shoeprint on it which is found under Meredith. This says he put it there not Amanda/Raffaele in some kind of staging of the murder scene the prosecution would have us believe. He put it there to help with the sexually assault. At some point he also visit the bathroom to wash blood of his pants this is when he leaves the watered down blood stain on the bathmat. He also grabbed towels that were used to dab up blood in Meredith room before going though her purse stealing her credit cards, money and cell phones and leaving.

        • Gregory Thomson says:

          Since the Perugian police were so incompetent and failed to properly investigate or take dna samples there is really nothing to objectively argue anymore. Guede was there, that is for sure, and nobody known so far was also there, or nobody. Except that many people lived there and came and went, but there is no evidence of that, yet we know it is true. Multiple attackers, one attacker, RG knows, but it is irrelevant to the accusation of AK and RS. There could have been 10 attackers in the house, they just ran off as soon as MK was cut, ran into the woods. It is not difficult to come up with any scenario, and we will never know until Rudy confesses. People who “cant picture it” are pretty much just trying the same old bs to get converts, and it isn’t working, so go away.

          • Gregory Thomson says:

            Who’s dna is on the window, the wall, or the rock…how do you pick up a rock and not deposit a lot of your skin? Its all totally absurd to any thinking person. According to the prosecution and the uncivil attorneys Amanda was pathologically untidy, but smoked marijuana one night and became the ultimate clean up person?

        • Gregory Thomson says:

          “Giselle” where do you come up with all these names? Why don’t you just ask yourself and answer your own questions, its called “thinking?”

        • Giselle says:

          In response to Toms comment below. I have stated several times on this very page that multiple attackers does not mean Amanda and Raffaele. There is no innuendo at all.

          Massei explicitly says that the material under Meredith’s finger nails was tested. I would be open to reading credible and primary sources which say otherwise (i.e. Italian lawyers of the accused, documents etc)

          “She was asphyxiating on her own blood.”
          The struggle has to lead up to this point. Unless we believe Guede, suddenly, ran straight into her neck with a knife, thus surprising her and leaving her choking in her own blood immediately.

          I believe the defense introduced witnesses that claimed someone’s brother and his friend went to steal a valuable painting and accidentally ended up at the wrong house (a mafia guy if I recall correctly).

          In any event the defense, yourself and me would be in agreement. Just because it is highly likely there was more than one attacker – does not follow that Amanda was involved. We would have to finish this discussion and start the next in order to debate what evidence would lead us to believe Amanda and Raffaele were involved. Or the lack of evidence and therefore innocence of the two, at the very least reasonable doubt.

    • Willis Coleman says:

      The arguments for the single attacker theory come down to this:
      -Absence of evidence is proof of absence (false)
      -Only Guede’s DNA was found (false, Sollecito’s was on the bra clasp)
      -Murders by athletic males happen all the time (true, but irrelevant; murders by friends and acquaintances happen all the time too)
      -Amanda and Raffaele had no injuries (false, Knox had a scratch on her neck and her blood is in the bathroom)
      So now that the record has been set straight, do you think Guede was burgling the cottage when he was surprised by Meredith and for some reason decided to kill her and then rape her while she lay dying? Or do you think Amanda and the other two went to the cottage and there was some kind of sick prank which ended with Meredith being sexually tortured and then murdered? Hint: Only one of these scenarios fits with the evidence of a clean-up/staging and Amanda and Raffaele’s shifting alibis.

      • Alex K. says:

        “-Only Guede’s DNA was found (false, Sollecito’s was on the bra clasp)”

        Sollecito’s DNA was not found: it was “found”, i.e. “Doctor” Stefanoni obtained this result by breaking multiple rules of evidence collection, storage and testing. Any serious scientist must discard her results in their entirety as junk science.

        “-Murders by athletic males happen all the time.” This is actually a very strong argument, especially when combined with the simple observation that surprised burglars often attack those who surprise them: it shows that the single-attacker hypothesis is not a contrived wiggle-out but should have been the default assumption.

        “-Amanda and Raffaele had no injuries (false, Knox had a scratch on her neck and her blood is in the bathroom).” Oh really? Oh really? How come the police doctor, always eager to please his colleagues, failed to find that scratch? And how does the blood from Knox’s pierced ears found in the bathroom help?

        ” do you think Guede was burgling the cottage when he was surprised by Meredith and for some reason decided to kill her and then rape her while she lay dying?”

        Definitely. This is typical behavior from someone like Guede, a known burglar and in all likelihood a mentally unstable character (as evidenced by his friends and his YouTube upload).

        “the evidence of a clean-up/staging and Amanda and Raffaele’s shifting alibis”

        There has never been ANY evidence of a clean-up. Massei invented this theory but it runs contrary to the dirty floor and un-smudged prints (not to mention that Quintavale was caught lying by the Hellmann court, a fact conveniently omitted by a mendacious supreme court). The defense has also showed that the break-in was in all likelihood genuine. There is no doubt for any reasonable person that the stone was thrown from the outside, for example.

        “Amanda and Raffaele’s shifting alibis.” Except that they never really shifted. Amanda was viciously bullied into dreaming up an absurd scenario but recanted immediately. Raffaele has honorably declined to implicate Amanda for six years. What shifting alibis are you talking about?

        And then, who shall I, a reasonable person with extensive knowledge about the way the world works, believe? – A bookish, upstanding, but naive and immature student from a good Seattle family…

        …or a bunch of cops from a drug-infested village in a hopelessly corrupt country – most likely deriving a not insignificant proportion of their earnings from providing “protection” to drug dealers, as cops in such cesspools are wont to do?

        The fact that Amanda is doing you – a shameless, hateful liar – a huge honor by allowing you to post on her blog, speaks volumes about her decency and magnanimity.

        • Philippe says:

          Thank you Alex. Once in a while its good to hear the truth. You are right , they never shifted with their alibis.

      • Rob H says:

        This is ridiculous! Where is the physical evidence placing Amanda Knox in Meredith Kercher’s bedroom? Where is the transfer evidence? The scratch on her neck was a lovebite. Don’t believe that? Then who made the scratch? Ms Kercher? Where is the DNA evidence that would be left behind?

        If it really is Mr Sollecito’s DNA on the bra clasp from a source other than contamination then we need to take into account the three other profiles on the clasp. So that now makes seven people in the room! Ms Kercher and six people who want to kill her – madness.

        ..and traces of Amanda Knox in her own bathroom. Well – that is a surprise.

        Clean up? Staging? Where’s your evidence Willis? (It’s all right – I do realise your name isn’t really Willis).

      • Luca Cheli says:

        -Absence of evidence is proof of absence (false)
        Abstractly false but juridically true because the effects of absence of evidence are equivalent to those of a proof of absence, since it is the presence which has to be proven, not the absence (in this case at least, since the prosecution claims presence).

        -Only Guede’s DNA was found (false, Sollecito’s was on the bra clasp)
        Yes, it was found (indeed some disagree also on the attribution but let us put that aside) but in one instance against multiple instances for Guede AND it was found together with other male DNA (Y-haplotype peaks coming from at least 3 more subjects): this and HOW the bra-clasp was re-discovered point to contamination. Since the Supreme Court says that contamination has to be proven and the source indicated, I invite them to tell me if those three other profiles, whose primary source apparently wasn’t found either, come from contamination or from the presence of three more males in that room at the time of the murder.

        -Amanda and Raffaele had no injuries (false, Knox had a scratch on her neck and her blood is in the bathroom)
        No, that was not a scratch, probably a lovebite or whatever but a real scratch causing the loss of blood leaves more noticeable traces on the skin, so much so that even Massei admits that “Amanda was not wounded” (page 280 of PMF translation).
        Amanda’s single drop of blood on the faucet of the sink in the small bathroom (that she regularly used) could come from the ear piercings, yes, but could also easily be days older than the crime.
        It is extremely paradoxical that at the first trial the small bathroom was considered clean because Amanda had stated it was so, while at the same time Amanda’s alleged lack of care for housecleaning was and is, today even more, considered a possible root cause of the murder.

        • Nasim says:

          Luca – Many points I would contest, but focus for now on the blood on the tap. Amanda testified it wasn’t there on 1 Nov. She testified it was dried blood. The photos show it as bright red, i.e. reasonably fresh. Wouldn’t you agree that places it around the time of the attack?

          • Rob H says:

            Nasim says that he “would” contest many of Luca’s points – but he doesn’t. He never gives a comprehensive theory of the crime based on the evidence. As for blood on the tap, he thinks there is proof that it was deposited in a specific, narrow window of time on November 1st 2007, which itself he cannot specify, based on its appearance to him in a photograph. Only a supernaturalist could believe such nonsense; only a supernaturalist can conceive of the emanation of blood without an injury or infer such an injury without an evidentiary basis; only an idiot can contend that this might support, even minutely the prosecution’s burden of proof. Then, elsewhere, he conceives of a missing pair of shoes – literally invents them – and offers them as evidence of guilt. Like his compadre, Lisa Smith, if you gave Nasim an enema, he would be so small afterwards he could actually fit himself into one of his own shoeboxes, real or imagined.

          • Eric_B says:

            she didnt notice it on Nov 1st.

            she does not have an obligation to perform a millimetre by millimetre examination of her bathroom before leaving home.

          • Luca Cheli says:

            What does it mean around? Plus or minus about 12 hours? That could as well be the morning of November 2 when she had a shower… and that admitting that Amanda had carefully looked at the tap on November 1: saying “I did not see it” does not mean “It was not there”, in general and particularly for very small things. But much more than that, what was her interest, if guilty, to say it wasn’t there the day before, or even before yet? She was sloppy with cleaning, wasn’t she? Had she said she had seen the small speck on the morning/afternoon of November 1 and said “Hey, I don’t clean a small spot!” Who could have objected without putting in doubt one of the main assumptions of the prosecution, namely that she did not care for housecleaning? This has always been one of my main objections to the prosecution case and more in general to any PGP reconstruction: Amanda is extremely smart or outlandishly silly according to the needs. That’s a puppet, not Amanda Knox.

      • Tom Mininger says:

        In the specific context of this blood bath crime scene with a vicious struggle, absence of blood transfer, DNA, and bruise evidence is proof of absence.

        Yes the prosecution and high court still tout that long ago discredited bra strap clasp as evidence. And Raffaele must have carefully approached “like a dragonfly” and touched only the little metal clip extending from the clasp and then left, while Guede left real DNA samples all over.

        Amanda had a hickey on her neck. There was a drop of Amanda’s blood on the sink and absolutely no cuts were found during a full body search. She did have many recent ear piercings to emulate her role model Laura.

        There is zero evidence of a clean-up and staging. In fact luminol detects bleach cleanups. It provides a blue glowing version of an erased chalkboard. There was no such thing so Mignini lied about it early on.

        To think that Amanda and Raffaele could remove their invisible DNA while leaving Guede’s invisible DNA behind, when no forensic scientist in the world can do it is nonsense.

        Amanda’s alibi faltered once in the middle of the night when that recorder wasn’t running and that “interpreter” was “helping” her to remember.

        Now that you’ve tried to convolute the record Willis, we’re back to Guede being right on schedule for another break-in with the same MO of rock, knife, and vandalism on Novemeber 1 with no rent money.

      • Jim Lovering says:

        The argument for a single attacker is comprehensive pattern of physical evidence that can only be explained by one man holding the victim from behind with a knife in his right hand. A sick prank escalating to murder would leave a different pattern of evidence, which is not present. This is a fable spun by the police, who shot off their mouths before they understood what had really happened. It endures because the publicity makes the Italian justice system look bad. It is propped up by meaningless details and artifacts of sloppy police work. I’m sorry you believe it.

        • Giselle says:

          How do you connect the picture you paint with an attack on both sides of her neck? Also how did Rudy restrain both her hands from behind (again lack of defensive wounds), kept her standing upright (i.e. she didn’t try to kick him etc), on top of which he somehow undressed her and sexually assaulted her? All from behind?

          • Jim Lovering says:

            Meredith sustained puncture wounds in the right side of her neck consistent with an attacker who was behind her with a small knife in his right hand, and consistent with the relatively limited bleeding in an area next to her bed. Hair and streaks of blood on the floor depict a struggle as she tried to break free after this initial stabbing. The crime scene shows the location where her throat was cut. She was on her knees, in front of her closet, when she sustained a wound requiring enough leverage so it could only (plausibly) have been inflicted by a strong attacker who was behind and on top of her. He plunged the knife into her throat and pulled from left to right.

            This wound produced a spray of blood on the floor and closet doors with no voids, as there would be had she been surrounded by multiple attackers.

            He dragged her into the center of the room and removed her clothing immediately after she was incapacitated. This can be determined from the nature of the bloodstains on her clothing, her body and the surrounding area.

            Extensive defensive cuts on the hands are most common with victims who have been frontally assaulted and are found with stab wounds in their chest and abdomen. Fingernail debris depends on many factors, including what the attacker is wearing.

            This was a knife attack inside a box, with a grid marked on the floor. It is possible to work out what happened. But someone has to look carefully to figure it out. The cops in Perugia didn’t. They applied the skills they have, force and intimidation. These are good skills for maintaining order, but not for solving a murder.

          • Sarah H says:

            Giselle, why do you KEEP repeating the same lie? There was no lack of defensive bruises. She had dozens of bruises, many of which were no doubt defensive as she fought off her attacker. Bruises don’t come with labels that say, “offensive” or “defensive.”

          • Nasim says:

            Jim Lovering – No voids? Take a look at dsc_0113. There is an obvious void along the right wall.

          • Giselle says:


            I appreciate your reasoning here. I see a few inconsistencies which I would like to clarify;
            – Are you suggesting the Guede walked into her room while she had her back turned and stabbed her – and all this was so quick that she was entirely taken by surprise such that she was unable to turn around? At the same time this follows that she had a free hand and as discussed above did not use it?
            – Also why should we believe Rudy attacked her? Why didn’t he just run away? (please don’t come back with something like he was a sick pervert, we know this already, but there is no previous behavior that suggests he was homicidal – he was just garden variety burglar (if that) and any profiler will tell you that burglars run away).
            – the bleeding of her neck must have stopped by the time her bra was removed because there is blood splatter on her bra and not on her chest. This would be a significant amount of time, unless you have another theory?
            – I won’t engage in insulting the cops, claiming corruption or any of that nonsense. Lets leave the PR out of it. Police around the world make mistakes, and all around the world innocent people get convicted. That I understand, but it cannot automatically be applied to any case when you don’t like the outcome.

            Sara, as I mentioned in my first post I don’t have time for capital letters. Also your comment is quite ignorant. Please do yourself a favor and read up on the topic.

            I would like to know about this void also.
            The other thing about voids is that Jim suggests they were circling her, this doesn’t have to be the case. If they were all behind her – would that not be the same?

          • Tom Mininger says:

            Thanks Jim for an excellent but painful descritpion. And we know what you mean about the blood spray from the fatal wound being unobstructed by anything in front.

            Yet the prosecution claimed (in at least one of their theories) that Amanda stabbed Meredith from the front while she was being held. They even produced a despicable cartoon to show only in closing arguments where it couldn’t be cross-examined, then destroyed it.

          • Tom Mininger says:

            Giselle says “…and any profiler will tell you that burglars run away”.

            Wrong. Profilers will tell you that surprising a burglar is unpredictable and dangerous:

        • Tom Mininger says:

          Darn. Giselle, I thought maybe you were a person with honest questions at first. Just another hard core guilter.

          And by the way it was easy for Guede to rape Meredith. She was mortally wounded, asphyxiating on her own blood (spatter on the inside of the bra cup) when he positioned her on the pillow where he left his palm print.

          • Bob Magnetti says:

            Giselle/Nasim, wondering why you wish guilt upon Amanda/Raffaele in spite of the lack of any real/believable evidence? Why? What is your agenda?

          • Jack says:

            Giselle may or may not be a guilter in sheep’s clothing, but, giving the benefit of the doubt, there are at least a few critical elements I haven’t seen mentioned in her analysis: 1) Meredith Kercher sustained serious bruising to her nose and lip in the struggle, suggesting that, at the first hint of her resistance, Guede struck her in the face, immediately limiting her ability to fight back; 2) in fact, blood spray can be seen both on Ms. Kercher’s bra, *and* on her exposed breast, making clear that Guede began stripping her *after* having delivered mortal wounds; 3) contrary to “Nasim”, there is no void in the blood patterns, and certainly none where they count – none on the floor, none on Ms. Kercher’s person, which would have been the case if more than one set of hands had been immobilizing her.

            Jim Lovering’s economical account is more than comprehensive enough to satisfy whatever curiosity one may have on this topic. But again, to me, a critical element that bears repeating is that Guede immediately delivered a sharp blow to Ms. Kercher’s face, substantially reducing her defenses. It is a sickening scenario to call to one’s mind, but necessary to understand the trajectory of the action in the bedroom.

      • Sarah H says:

        No, the argument for a single attacker comes down to this: on the day of the murder, the blood-covered murder room yielded dozens of items of physical evidence, including DNA both in and on the victim’s body, ALL of which were linked to a single person, Rudy Guede.

        The murder room yielded not a single piece of evidence connected to Amanda Knox. The only item linked to either of the students was the bra clasp taken from a pile of rubbish on the floor six weeks later; and there is a video showing the police passing the bra clasp from one dirty glove to another before dropping it back on the floor for a photograph. The bra clasp had so much DNA contamination on it that it could have yielded matching DNA for several men. (One of the independent court-appointed experts said it had so much contamination that he could have found a match for the JUDGE’S DNA — i.e., for virtually any male in Perugia.)

        Amanda didn’t have a cut on her neck. She had a hickey. And the drop of her blood in the sink was connected with the piercings she’d just had on her ears.

        Of your two posed scenarios, the first is the only one that makes any sense. There is zero evidence for a staged burglary. The truth is much simpler. A man with a history of hard drugs, carrying knives, and burglarizing — who had previously broken into another building by shattering a window with a rock — went on to break into the girls’ cottage through a window and killed an occupant with his knife.

    • Sarah H says:

      Your information is wrong. It’s not true that she had “no defensive bruises or marks.” She had dozens of bruises, all over her body, most of which she probably sustained in fighting for her life.

    • Alex K. says:

      1) Several medical experts testified in 2009 both for the prosecution and defense, and all (except one, perhaps) concluded that, as far as they could judge, a single attacker scenario could not be ruled out. Judge Massei summed this up as saying: “The consultants and forensic scientists have asserted that from the point of view of forensic science, it cannot be ruled out that the author of the injuries could have been a single attacker, because the bruises and the wounds from a pointed and cutting weapon are not in themselves incompatible with the action of a single person.”

      2) Massei proceeded to offer his own theory in spite of the medics’ opinion, which strikes me as somewhat speculative coming from a lawyer rather than a forensic expert. I would refer you to Ron Hendry’s book, “Single Attacker Theory of the Murder of Meredith Kercher,” for a detailed scenario of the attack carried out by one man, Rudy Guede. While it cannot be proven to be correct, nor can any other scenario, it appears consistent with all the evidence available.

      3) “Defensive wounds” is a a questionable term in itself: whether a wound was sustained through defensive action is often debatable. Take the small cuts on Meredith’s right hand for example. Hendry believes Meredith’s left arm was immobilized by Rudy’s bear-hug grip but she raised her right hand to her throat, against which Rudy was pressing the knife, and slightly cut it.

      4) It is not true that nothing at all was found under Meredith’s nails. “Hair formations” were found but, incredibly, not analyzed. This omission is as puzzling, to put it mildly, as the failure to test the semen stain on Meredith’s pillow, and the human blood from the apartment downstairs.

      • Giselle says:

        Hi Alex

        1- I have just gone over the passage you refer to. My understanding is that in science and law there is distinct difference between ‘cannot be ruled out’ and inferring there was probably a single attacker. Massei “no scientific elements arising directly from forensic science rule out the injuries having been caused by the action of a single person”. So the injuries could be caused by a single person, however he then goes on to discuss that absence of defensive wounds is a red flag!

        Massei reasons that Meredith was proficient in karate and her body shape and condition made her agile – basically she was in a position to at least try and defend herself.

        Massei says that ” almost nonexistent defensive wounds” and the multitude of injuries to one single area (her face and neck) do not weigh up. It seems inevitable that more than one person was involved in order to strongly limit her movements, whereby “she could not defend herself in any way nor shield herself with her hands in order to avoid a vital part of her body (the neck) being repeatedly struck.”

        Furthermore we have to accept that the attacker did all this whilst undressing her and sexually assaulting her. Again all this whilst not allowing Meredith even a single moment to defend herself. In fact Massei notes “in order to maintain such a hypothesis (action performed by a single attacker), Professor Introna (for the defense) suggested that Meredith was undressing, and thus when her attacker arrived.”

        This in itself becomes bizarre because we have to accept A) Meredith did not hear Rudy break in and B) Rudy decided to run straight into her room with a knife and stabbed her! Instead of just running away. That doesn’t make sense.

        Well to recap Massei here would be pointless, but his explanations seem perfectly logical. This is not to say that there could not be another explanation – but I have not heard one and cannot think of one. As the defense experts maintained Meredith would have had to be half dressed and surprised for a single attacker theory to hold up.

        2) I find this comment disingenuous. Massei combined all the evidence to reach his conclusion. Forensics say it cannot be ruled out that one person caused the injuries, however in order for this to be a possibility we have to accept the above mentioned situation which makes no sense.

        3) I can agree with this comment. Though it doesn’t change the overall argument.

        4) I know about the hair fibers and them being lost – Ive seen the picture which is said to be blond hair. Lets forget about this because its lost and done. I find it very frustrating myself – I also think its quite bizarre that the semen wasn’t tested! I don’t understand the Italian system and perhaps Amanda would be able to clarify why this wasn’t tested as I am sure her lawyers would have explained this technicality to her.
        In regards to the apartment downstairs, my understanding was that it was cat blood. The neighbors testified to this if memory serves me right. It was found completely irrelevant to Meredith’s murder.

        • Philippe says:

          Disengenious, Giselle, really?

        • Alex K. says:

          1) Massei essentially says, “Trust me, I know better than the medical examiners.” He goes on to offer a layman’s theory of the attack. He uses Introna’s theory as a straw man since the defense suggested more realistic theories apart from Introna’s. I can easily offer a layman’s theory as good as Massei’s, Rudy holding Meredith with one arm and holding the knife up to her throat with the hand of the other arm. Ron Hendry has more in his book, and Jim Lovering provides relevant details in this thread.

          On top of this, there is a gaping hole in Massei’s argument: it is based on the assertion that there were no defensive wounds. How does he presume to tell defensive from offensive? Even the bruises on Meredith’s wrists – did they come about because the attacker gripped the wrists, or did they result from Meredith’s attempts to free herself, forcing the attacker to tighten his grip to the maximum? To determine which wounds were defensive, one should have at least an outline scenario of the attack. 

          But Massei’s scenario is already based on the assumption “there were no defense wounds.” Hence his argument is circular.

          2) My argument is serious criticism aimed at a systemic defect: Italian judges find it acceptable not only to argue with experienced scientists but also to ignore scientific findings in favor of their own amateurish theories. This is plain wrong, incredibly hubristic, and sometimes veers into the absurd and the ridiculous. This is not what common sense requires at all. Common sense dictates, “Listen to the experts but make sure they are experts first.”

          Therefore, once the medical experts agreed that they could not rule out a single attacker, the court should have accepted that. The coroner Dr. Lalli said immediately after the autopsy that there was one attacker and he used a penknife. The defense expert Dr. Torre, one of Italy’s most experienced and respected in the field of forensic medicine, must have forgotten more about wounds than a judge will learn in a lifetime. Torre put it clearly, “there is not a single element that leads one to think more than one person could have committed the crime.”

          3) See (1).
          4) “I’ve seen the picture which is said to be blond hair.” This is another canard – there was no blond hair at the crime scene. Otherwise, no doubt it would be in the evidence now. (Bringing up this fictional hair goes a long way to destroy the debater’s bona fide credentials.) What I am talking about is what is called “hair formations” in the dossier, which I take to mean small hair particles. There is no innocent explanation for the prosecution’s failure to test it as well as the semen stain.

          Regarding the “cat blood” downstairs, Giulia Bongiorno has unearthed some of the test results, which show some of that was actually human blood. The cops knew the downstairs flat was a weed house; that Meredith had a key and was supposed to take care of the marijuana plants; that there was human blood in the apartment; and did nothing about that. Now that’s a real, not a thought-up red of flag, and one of rather impressive proportions.

          • Giselle says:

            1- please put aside your layman understanding of defensive wounds, read up on it and then you will realize that it has very specific meaning as to what is a forensic defensive wounds and is used as evidence in cases across the world. Afterwards you can apply it to this case
            2- in all countries across the world both sides bring forward scientists that offer their version of what may be within scientific limits. Now in Italy the judges and jury sit together to reach their findings and write a report on why they reached this conclusion and in other countries the jury sits and decide and we never know why they came to their decision. In both cases it is up to those people deliberating to weigh up what they have heard on both sides. I find criticism of the legal system and all the judges and prosecution and forensics teams etc etc quite unreasonable.

            3- please give me reference to your “hair formations” as I am clearly not aware of these. The blond hair picture was all that I have ever seen, its absurd to claim it ruins my bona fide credentials. I saw the picture and heard the hair was lost. I can dig up and link to the picture if you like, however its pointless as its lost and doesn’t prove anything.

            Regarding the human blood downstairs I would also like you to reference primary sources. I have never come across this information. Not being able to source an argument is what “destroys the debater’s bona fide credentials” to use your own words.

    • Kuba says:

      I think when you’re held at knife point you wouldn’t try to anger the attacker by scratching him with fingernails.

      I don’t think you’re correct about bruises indicating restraining.
      The slight bruises described by the medical examiner are not something that a forceful restraining would inflict. You would expect heavy bruising of wrists and forearms. There was nothing such.

    • Philippe says:

      Your question seems fair enough, but its assertions somehow make it a “Trojan” one.. But I am sure it wasn’t intended.
      I certainly don’t have any more information or insight then you, but It is my personal understanding that The “lone attacker” theory has been actually proven not only possible, but plausible, and this various times, as described by Tom here among others, but more importantly the “many attackers” theory has not been indisputably proven and does not match the forensic evidences shown and this after three trials.

      More importantly, what strikes me, is that the prosecution theory could be seen as disproven by Guede himself… Indeed, it seems that he first stated that while he was in the toilet and listening to music, a lone man entered and killed Meredith, then “disappeared”..
      So, since it is undisputed that he was there, What would he have been trying to do by stating that? protect his supposed “accomplices? “..whom, In returned, would have “cleaned” the crime scene of their own traces and gracefully leave all of his DNA , fingerprints, shoe prints, semen? Not only do we know that it is impossible for people to do that, let alone for inexperience youngsters who don’t know each other (Guede) or only met over just a week ago, but it does not make sense.
      Which probably explains why the prosecution is not explaining this, and point the eyes elsewhere. Which personally I think is unfair. From the outside, and far away at that I admit, They don’t seem to have to account for “wholes” in their theory, but the defense has to refute anything thrown at them.
      This is a tactical manoeuvre brings the defense to fight far away from where they should, perhaps.
      Or did I miss something?

      I fear that we are now in a situation where the very fact that there has been a trial for these two, somehow that fact by itself feeds the idea that there must be a legitimacy to that trial.
      As in, ” there is no smoke without fire” sort of way. as a trial as to have two competitive theories it unfortunately legitimates both of them on equal terms.
      We are made to accept that, but It’s difficult when it seems that basic logic as disappeared from the search for truth.
      Here, I just want to share this small personal experience.
      I was in Italy a few times in the past few years, and once after a special event, i happened to be at the home of some lawyers and judges for an improvised party or so. This was after they had won their appeal.
      It was a very friendly atmosphere and they were very cultivatd and welcoming people. so I volunteered to speak about this case, a subject very far away from my profession but somehow dear to my heart as, I have to admit here, that I have been convinced of their innocence fom the start.
      I was surprised to hear that they were all leaning towards guilt. But when I asked: but why? I realised that they knew practically nothing about the case. I mean not really even the basic story… Surprising as it seems. But stated things like,” Mr Mignini is a very respected magistrate..”

      So, there we are…
      with a press that has been fed things by the prosecution for the first few years prior to the first trial, before the defense could be allowed to respond, we have a situation which has bizarely some overtones to the Dreyfus affaire. I know it’s to really comparable, I agree, but there is a point that rings similar.
      Where a bizarre conspiracy theory of sorts, however false and ludicrous, resonate in society as a possibility… and results in people looking at things like an obviously consolatory kiss, or embrace, by a youngster confronted with the horrendous murder of her friend and flatmate, and see wrong when there was none.
      How could we, the descendant of Socrates, have allowed this to be ?

      • Sarah H says:

        Thank you, Philippe, for sharing your story. It makes sense that some people in Italy would rather rely on their trust in Mignini than take the trouble to learn the facts about the case — which, if they learned them, would inevitably lead to doubts about how well their system of justice is working.

      • Wayne says:

        Good points. I can sum it up by saying that people that are arrested and on trial “seem guilty”. I have been on two jury trials. From the start, the defendants just looked guilty. I had to actually listen to the case closely to fully grasp the facts.

      • Giselle says:

        Hi Philippe

        I see why my question could be seen as ‘Trojan’. It is not. I just thought it was a good topic to start a dialogue. I have found that posters on this board have been very tolerant and the responses have been informed (in large part due to the screening of comments posted I would imagine). This is fantastic and leads to exactly what Amanda has this set up for – the pursuit of what happened to Meredith.

        Now coming to the point, I don’t believe it has been proven that there was a single attacker, far from it. Why do you say that this is established? I don’t think referring to Guede is enough of proof and then we would get into was Amanda said and what Raffaele said and the waters will become muddy.

        briefly referring to your statement “In returned, would have “cleaned” the crime scene of their own traces and gracefully leave all of his DNA , fingerprints, shoe prints, semen?”

        I don’t think the prosecution is claiming there was a clean up of the DNA. There was a cleanup outside the room, which we can discuss in detail separately. However inside the room the reality is that there was very limited DNA of Guede and all evidence against Amanda and Raffaele is disputed – this doesn’t mean its nonexistent, its disputed.

        I have copy and pasted my note on the evidence of DNA from above:

        In terms of the DNA evidence agains Guede, this is what was found:
        1- vaginal swab (not semen but other genetic material) on only one spot
        2- on the bra on only one spot
        3- handbag
        4- sweatshirt

        – toilet paper in the bathroom where he left his feces unflushed

        I highlight the one spot to show that although Guede is known to have touched other spots, his DNA only showed up on one area.
        Following from this it should be noted that although we know the attacker(s) removed Meredith’s jeans, there was no DNA found on them. So if we accept that DNA must be left behind, why did Guede’s DNA not show up on the jeans – he must have touched them to take them off. Point being that lack of DNA doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
        Even the hairdryer which Amanda says she used was tested for DNA and there was none found…

        In regards to your experience and the comment “Mr Mignini is a very respected magistrate.” I would prefer to reserve any comment because its a can of worms and boils down to the PR firm hired by Amanda’s family. This also answers your question regarding the prosecution feeding misinformation to the media. But again these are not topics worth discussing, at least not at this stage. It would be best IMHO to go point by point, so if we could debate single/multi attacker and see where that takes us it would be more useful. If you disagree we could move the topic to another point – however its more fruitful to dig into one point rather than throw a bunch of arguments at each other and not analyze them, leaving us both exactly where we started.

        • Rob H says:

          “I don’t think the prosecution is claiming there was a clean up of the DNA. There was a cleanup outside the room, which we can discuss in detail separately. However inside the room the reality is that there was very limited DNA of Guede and all evidence against Amanda and Raffaele is disputed – this doesn’t mean its nonexistent, its disputed”

          So you’ve now, Giselle, moved on from discussing the single/multiple attacker theory in isolation from the inculpation of specific suspects other than Guede and you now introduce Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito by name and mention the existence of evidence against them – in Meredith Kercher’s bedroom. Compared to your stated intention, this does appear to be disingenuous. In any case, you cannot now unsing that song.

          It is not just about DNA. It is about all physical evidence – all traces of human presence – fingerprints, footprints, palm prints, hair, fluids, fibres. But on DNA, what are you trying to suggest – that the quantity of Guede’s DNA found demonstrates that it would be possible for Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito to participate in this kind of murder without leaving theirs behind or that there is some other reason to believe this? Are you trying to suggest that the lack of DNA evidence implicating Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito should not be a barrier to a finding of guilt? Rather than make an assumption here, I will wait for your answer. But, if you are going to make an assertion, I would really like to see a relevant source.

          Our purpose, of course, is not to try the case against Guede. That case has been settled. It is to consider the case against Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito.

          Can we agree, taking your comment on board, that there was no clean-up of evidence in Meredith Kercher’s bedroom?

          So, what evidence, disputed or otherwise are you referring to that places Ms Knox in the bedroom?

          For Mr Sollecito, would you agree that if we take the bra clasp profile as “evidence” of his presence then we MUST also take the profiles of at least three other males on the same clasp as equal evidence of their presence too and that we MUST agree that there were in fact at least seven people in the room? Would that not be necessarily true? If not, why not?

          Any other evidence against Mr Sollecito in the room within your citation?

          So, imagine now that you and I are jurors – we are, in the course of our deliberations, simply considering what should be accepted as facts.

          We must ask ourselves first, perhaps you will agree:

          1) What is the evidence (disputed or otherwise) in the bedroom that may implicate Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito – I have mentioned the clasp – what else must we consider?
          2) What do we accept? What do you accept? In other words what has the prosecution’s argument persuaded you is true in relation to this evidence.
          3) What does this prove if anything in connection with the involvement of Ms Knox, Mr Sollecito and any other possible suspects and why?

          • Rob H says:

            Giselle – why not take this to the top of the page – it’s getting small down here for everyone. thanks

          • Giselle says:

            Hi Rob,

            Sorry I missed this earlier. Seems I cannot keep up. I think others have already moved it up – so thats good. Its just tricky keeping up with the way this works – understandably because its a blog I guess.

        • Philippe says:

          I am afraid “Trojan” might have been the right word after all… all the various responses to your question , “lets just stay focus”.. make your repeating of your question louder and clearer..then its answers , however logical.
          There has been many highly knowledgeable one here i suggest it more then should suffice…but I am afraid wordings such as ” PR firm hired by Amanda ” give away you true feelings.. Unfortunately the world is all the more sad for that, as it is an innocent young woman we are speak about.
          Amanda ‘s lawyers closing statements have really a lot of answers for you, if you should care to look.

    • Julie Jorgensen says:

      Giselle, I saw a possible scenario on the channel 5 special filmed in the UK. In it they demonstrated that if Guede rushed Meredith and pinned her in the corner of the room she wouldn’t be able to move at all. In the tv special they demonstrated it with a woman and she couldn’t do anything or move a single arm. I don’t know if this is what happened or if the scientific evidence is not correct (like so many other things in this case) and she really did have some defensive wounds…but this at least is a possibility.

    • Jamie says:

      This site gives a rather convincing description of the struggle and subsequent murder. Just as a warning, it is pretty graphic.

      The link was found above under Meredith Kercher Murder–>Media.

    • Rose Marie says:

      Meredith did have defensive wounds, including cuts on her hands. Because DNA was not found under her nails does not prove she didn’t struggle.

      First, what is the evidence about that analysis? Did she have short fingernails? I don’t honestly know.

      Also, she may have been grabbed with one hand by her wrists/elbows and by another hand around her mouth/ nose. Then the struggle moved around the room and she was held, pushed, grabbed in different places- including around the neck.

      The many bruises – including on her thighs – can also be considered defensive wounds (she was struggling and likely thrown against furniture and/or into the wardrobe and walls and/or against the ground).

      Also, she was a petite girl. If, as it’s likely that she was, she was surprised and grabbed and held in a few different positions during the struggle with Guede – then also as he pulled a knife on her and used it – then all of her wounds can be explained by one assailant.

      Many judges and experts agreed. But that is denied or covered up by those who believe it must be more than one.

      Also, the way Rudy Guede’s lawyers were able in Italy to blame Amanda and Raffaele without either of them being able to challenge that accusation in Rudy’s trial(s) was legally completely unjust. That the Supreme Court would have the power to rule on “conspiracy with others” when those others were not able to challenge those accusations – that is one of many indications of the utter lack of justice in this case.

    • Doug Moodie says:

      I am wondering Giselle if any of the below discussion has made any difference for you? Thanks.

    • Eric_B says:

      how do bruises and marks on someone’s body show they were restrained?

  120. Brian says:

    Unless I am misreading the tealeaves, Amanda caught a few breaks today.

    1. Maresca is now on record as saying the Kirchers will accept serenely the verdict of this court. That would make it much more difficult for him to be a part of whatever appeal process happens next.

    2. Amanda’s lawyers have an extra ten days to work on their closing, to analyse the opposition’s statements and prepare good, precise rebuttals.

    3. The last words the judges and jury will hear, and have fresh in their minds before starting their deliberations, will be those of Amanda’s lawyers. The opposing side’s arguments will be stale.

    Let’s hope I’m not being overly optimistic. What do others think?