Perugia, ti voglio bene

Perugia Vi Odia 5

It’s interesting that this week dedicated to love should be the same week that a hate campaign is established on Facebook. It consists of photographs of various individuals, supposedly Perugian, holding placards reading Perugia Vi Odia (“Perugia Hates You”). They mimic a photograph I posted to my own website and Twitter account that professes Raffaele’s and my innocence to the Italian people despite the latest guilty verdict handed down by the Florentine Court of Appeals on January 30th.

The hate campaign was quickly reported in Perugia Today, an online publication also responsible for coining La Maledizione Amanda (“The Amanda Curse”) in a number of its articles, a term referring to the bad publicity Perugia has received due to the prolonged scandal that is the Meredith Kercher murder case, publicity which the publication attributes directly to me. The article claimed the hate campaign hoped their message would reach me and perhaps prompt a response.

Usually I don’t respond to hateful messages and rather let them speak for themselves. This is not the first time, nor will it be the last time, that I’ve received hateful messages from proud, irrational people. Proud, because their sentiment is automatic defensiveness against legitimate criticism. Irrational, because criticism of the Meredith Kercher murder case scandal usually has nothing to do with these individuals personally and the hate they feel is the expression of irrational emotional investment that is based on impression rather than objective evidence.

There are two reasons I bother to acknowledge these messages of hate in particular. The first is because these individuals claim to represent the feelings of Perugia as a whole. The second is because, while their disagreement with my declaration of innocence is implied, what these individuals choose to explicitly express is not a judgment, but a feeling that is irrelevant, if not impedimentary, to judgment. This is, unfortunately, not a surprise.

Nothing is more expected than to be told I am hated because hate reflects the nature of the Meredith Kercher murder case scandal. Hate, in addition to pride, is one of the few things that can explain the prosecution’s biased investigation and persecution of Raffaele and me despite a distinct lack of objective evidence incriminating us and a distinct abundance of objective evidence incriminating a single, separate person: Rudy Guede. Whether they mean to or not, these Perugia Vi Odia people, who bear their emotions on placards, are helping me and the world to understand what has really happened in this case.

Colpevolisti (“guilters”) lose their credibility once they reveal that their stance is founded upon irrational emotion rather than objective evidence. Justice cannot be expected to result from thinking tainted by pride and hate.

I know for a fact that not everyone in Perugia hates me or believes I’m guilty. My family and I have received tremendous support from many Italians and Perugians in the form of verbal and written messages of sympathy and solidarity, legal and linguistic assistance, generous hospitality, and friendship.

Ironically, Perugia Vi Odia simply reminds me of the part of Perugia they don’t represent. My love extends to the clear-headed, compassionate, and generous Perugia that my family and I came to know throughout my wrongful persecution and imprisonment at the hands of certain proud and hateful authorities, empowered by certain proud and hateful individuals.

Perugia, ti voglio bene.

This entry was posted in Meredith Kercher Murder, Personal and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2,727 Responses to Perugia, ti voglio bene

  1. Ivan Najakov says:

    I read something on a site from a British tabloid news paper. Their claim was the U.S.A. has to hand over any American citizen to a country with which we have an extradition treaty, if this other country makes a request. And the reason for this is we will want the other country to hand over one of their citizens if they were convicted of a crime that happened in the U.S.
    I think I speak for all of America when I say if an American prosecutor showed up in an American court with a case as ridiculous as the work of fiction that Mignini brought to court, and he somehow got a jury to buy it, and if that foreign citizen was later acquitted and released, and America got angry and took back the acquittal, well I would say to that country you can keep your citizen.

  2. Ivan Najakov says:

    ” but it is the duodenum evidence alone (T-Lag) that indicates that the prosecution’s time of death at 11.30 is virtually impossible. ”
    When crime scene investigators examine a murder victim they have a method using measurements of the victims temperature and that of the room she was found in. They can make an estimate of the time of death by measuring how much the warm body cooled.
    Mignini told them to NOT do this.
    Prosecutore Mignini would prefer that we do not accept any estimates of the time of death as accurate, IF they indicate that Meredeth’s death occurred during an early part of that night.
    This is related to the theory that Amanda left Raffy while he was asleep, then she killed Ms. Kercher , and then came back to Rafael’s bed. If this is what happened, it is possible that Rafael does not know everything Amanda did that night so an alibi associated with Rafael is not airtight.
    Amanda might need to wake up Rafael to borrow a key from him so she could get back in if the door was locked, but I suppose the guilters will assume that someone like Amanda would know how to pick a lock.

  3. Ivan Najakov says:

    “For some reason they were and still are trying to protect the sole murderer Rudy Guede.”
    This was a comment made by Som Nathan in this thread. During the past few years I have read things that are similar posted on the internet by quite a few people. I have never found any good evidence to prove this accusation. However IF the police were trying to help Rudy, it looks like they got the job done.
    I have read that the Kercher family is in need of closure. I would think they are still wondering why Rudy was not in jail on the night of November 1st when he was arrested a few days before.
    I think they may have been advised to not mention this to anyone in the news industry because they need to keep the police on their side, so they would do better to not say anything that would make the cops angry.
    Do any of the guilters here know anything about this? It is your opinion that things said by the Perugia police are true, you must have a good explanation about whoever got Rudy released from jail and why we can’t hold them responsible for Meredeth’s death.

  4. TomG says:

    Hi there Amanda greetings from Scotland!

    One of the things that vexes me about the case is why the duodenum evidence wasn’t pursued to a definitive conclusion by the defence. The thing that really confirms your and Raffaele’s innocence for me is the evidence that Meredith left for us to easily make sense off. The fact that the poor girl was killed while she was still wearing her jacket which was pulled off and was completely inside-out indicates that she was attacked almost as soon as she got into her room.

    Also the fact that she had tried to phone home perhaps when she was walking to the cottage but never made an attempt to phone home again, something she habitually did. The fact that she hadn’t emptied her washing from the machine having completed its cycle earlier in the evening. There is also the fact that one of her trainers had been unlaced but the other one was not suggests that she might have been undressing while she was surprised and attacked.

    All this is what I would call Meredith’s testimony, but it is the duodenum evidence alone (T-Lag) that indicates that the prosecution’s time of death at 11.30 is virtually impossible.

    Anyway, I like to know what your considerations are on the subject and why it is so neglected yet so vital.


  5. Stewart says:

    Two weeks ago I posted 4 queries, and thought I would post my findings, as it were, on the issues concerned.
    First of all, sorry to @Chris Meyering for mistyping your name. That sort of thing is very sloppy and disrespectful – so my apologies.

    My conclusions are:
    1. On the matter of who gave Patrick’s name to Amanda.
    I accept that Amanda was telling the truth when she agreed with Judge Massei that the police did not literally mention his name to her first, and that they did not tell her that he was the murderer.
    Therefore Bruce Fischer’s account was inaccurate when he wrote in ‘Injustice in Perugia’: ‘Amanda was told that her boss, Patrick Lumumba, was the man that attacked Meredith.’

    2. Concerning Amanda’s first call to her mother for advice.
    Bruce is approximately right when he wrote: ‘Raffaele called the Carabinieri while Amanda made a call to her mother in Seattle to ask for advice.’ Actually, Amanda’s call started at 12:47.23 and ended 88 seconds later at 12:48.51 – before Raffaele’s first call to the police at 12:51.40, but I won’t quibble over that here.
    The main thing is that Amanda was heard discussing the call with her mother in the days after her arrest, claimed to have forgotten the call during the trial; and has now moved it’s timing to at least 3/4 of an hour earlier.
    So Bruce is (more or less) right on this one.

    3. On the subject of the handprint on the bedroom wall, I am none the wiser!
    There appears to be no official attribution of it to anyone.
    The Friends of Amanda cause is in a muddle on this issue. The I.I.P website claims that the print belongs to Rudy Guede, whereas their star witness on the evaluation of the crime scene, Ron Hendry, states in his Pdf presentation ‘What really happened to Meredith?’ that Meredith left the marks with her fingers.

    4. As for Amanda’s word versus that of the interpreter over the claim of police brutality.

    There is no evidence for putting Amanda’s word above that of the interpreter.
    You all talk about justice on this forum, and you call people who dispute Amanda’s claims guilters and haters; but you have no problem in making serious accusations about a decent, and well liked professional like Anna Donnino – with no evidence for doing so whatsoever.
    I would agree that the interpreter would have been better off not making any suggestions at all in the interview concerned. She can only translate, and I think she was mistaken in making the reminiscence about her own misfortune.
    But to make it into a malign intention to coerce as part of a threatening interrogation, rather than helpfulness, is without any foundation. Indeed it mainly based on the circular argument that Amanda’s claim of being mistreated by the police must be true because they mistreated her; and we know that to be the case because Amanda said so, and …

    You can choose the testimony of Amanda if you want. The Amanda who claimed that on her first visit to the cottage she saw that Meredith’s door was closed, which to Amanda meant she was sleeping; but despite having found the front door open and a bloody footprint on the bathmat, failed to check on her friend and simply went off to have breakfast.
    You can choose Amanda with her claim that she saw what she thought may have been someone’s menstrual blood on the bathmat, which repelled her; but then: ‘used the mat to kind of hop over to my room and into my room, I took my towel, and I used the mat to get back to the bathroom’ ( yes, you Knox supporters believe that story by the way).
    You can choose Amanda with her many testimony anomalies, inconsistencies and ‘false memories’ – the Amanda who could not even provide a matching alibi, or a good reason for the mismatch.

    Well, I choose Anna Donnino: I believe that she told the truth when she said that Amanda was not mistreated by the police.

    Btw @HH
    A police officer, Antonio Galizia, attested to Sollecito’s drugs possession; and Francesco Tavernese, principal of the Onaosi college where Raffaele Sollecito studied, testified about the films.
    So, you cannot blame Judge Massei.

    • Antony says:

      “Well, I choose Anna Donnino: I believe that she told the truth when she said that Amanda was not mistreated by the police.”

      Stewart, if you believe the police (and Anna Donnino is police) told the truth about the all-night interrogation, where are the mandatory video and audio tapes?

      There can be no doubt that the proceedings were recorded, which means that the recordings are being hidden or have been destroyed. You seem to think that Amanda, with no way of keeping the truth from coming out, would make up stories about what happened. At the same time, you believe the police are telling the truth, while in full control of the means of substantiating their story, choose not to do so for whatever reason. This is not a rational assessment.

      What is your explanation for the way the police have behaved as regards the recordings? You will no doubt excuse them, saying that they “forgot” to record the interrogation, or that they chose not to do so because “Amanda was not a suspect”. Neither of these excuses has any credibility.

      I would add that you have come onto Amanda’s personal blog and accused her of lying on this point. This is grossly discourteous and presumptuous on your part.

    • Wayne says:

      Its not a circular argument. But one founded in well-reasoned facts. Fact 1 is that the Supreme Court found the police interrogation illegal in that they did not provide a lawyer as required by their law. Fact 2 is that they claimed that she was not a suspect and give various reasons for that, but the absurdity of that claim is transparent to any who would actually look at the timeline. They found her behavior suspicious at the cottage, they determined days before that the break-in was staged. Both of these were used against her in court. You cannot simultaneously use evidence against someone and claim that they are guilty because of it and say that they were not a suspect. Fact 3 is that Patrick Lumumba also initially claimed abuse which supports Amanda’s claims of the same thing. Fact 4 is that Patrick was held for 2 weeks without any evidence at all against him. It did not take two weeks for his alibis to tell the police where he was (do you think they were on an island in the Pacific) And Fact 5 is that the police didn’t bother to video either Amanda’s or Rafaelle’s final interview although they did in previous ones and also had hacked into their phone. And finally Fact 6, the police charged her with a criminal offense of slander against 12 police officers. Just odd how 12 police officers would be needed to interview a “witness”. Me doth think they protest too much. Fact 7, the interpreter works for the police. Fact 8. The interpreter knows that accusing the police of anything can get one charged with slander.

      Taken together, its pretty obvious what happened.

    • Som Nathan says:

      You can choose and believe whatever you want including like many believers that ww2 holocaust never happened or Elvis is still alive or Man never landed on the moon. Your are a typical guilter who believes in fiction and fairy tales concocted by Perugian police and prosecutors.

      What I believe is that Perugian investigators made serious mistakes during their investigations, lied or hid or destroyed the evidence because it did not support their fictional theories. For some reason they were and still are trying to protect the sole murderer Rudy Guede.

      They framed Amanda and Raffaelle to give Rudy a secondary / passive role while shifting the entire blame on Amanda. Amanda became their prime suspect from day 1.

      First they forced Amanda to name Patrick Lumumba as murderer and held him in the prison for 2 weeks without checking the facts, because they knew that a black man had committed the murder by the time they were interrogating Amanda.

      Perugian prosecutors have gaping holes in their theories as to how murder was committed.

      No matter what they said then and say now, the ground reality remains that RUDY GUEDE IS THE SOLE MURDERER WHO BROKE-IN, RAPED, ROBBED AND KILLED DEFENSELESS MEREDITH KERCHER.


      My analysis is that Rudy Guede was working as informant for Perugian police and he knew some information that could implicate many in police, so when the forensic and genetic and his own admission placed him at the crime scene for a crime that police never imagined he would commit so they were in bind. They worked out a deal with him for leaner punishment and kept Amanda and Raffealle as primary suspects and charged them as such despite NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE against them.

      They are classical formation of An Evil Alliance nicknamed The Mighty Dragon.

      I call it “The Little Amanda and The Mighty Dragon”.

      How Little Amanda is going to defeat this Mighty Dragon is virtually impossible. Only way that can happen is if somehow magically a real-time video surfaces showing Rudy breaking-in, pooping in Filomena’s toilet, going to Meredith’s room after she unexpectedly arrives, holding her hostage, Meredith putting up a gallant but loosing fight,because Rudy slitting her throat fatally, raping defenseless Meredith, robbing her belongings from her purse and her cell phones.

      Shame on Perugian investigators.

    • Audrey says:

      Amanda never stated that the possibility of small amounts of menstrual blood ‘repelled’ her. That sounds more like something that might be your own issue. When you’re 20 years old and sharing a bathroom with another young woman that you really like, a small amount of that roommate’s menstrual blood on a bathmat is not going to offend or upset you. It’s not as if she stepped on a bathmat that was riddled with large amounts of blood. It was a faint stain and Amanda was young, and stoned at the time. The people that make these kinds of ludicrous statements about Amanda, most often reveal themselves as misogynists, and you’re just another man who really finds aspects of things that are natural about women, and natural to other women, ‘repellent’. That is your word, and not the expression used by Amanda.

  6. Fred Aborn says:

    Yesterday I had said that Amanda’s DNA should have been found everywhere where she lived and on the kitchen utensils she used. Amanda’s DNA cannot be evidence because it proves nothing, only that she was there. And she was there. She lived there!

    One guilter commented that maybe Amanda’s DNA meant something. I explained that there are no maybes. A prosecutor is required to prove that every piece of evidence is true beyond a reasonable doubt.

    At wit’s end, the guilter responded by calling me a name. Name calling is the guilter panacea for all their cognitive dissonances especially when other guilters concur. Guilters have a need for support because their epiphany is that the majority is always right regardless of fact or logic.

    To quote Sylvester J. Pussycat “suffering succotash”.

    • Willis Coleman says:

      Nonsense. The prosecutor must prove the case as a whole beyond a reasonable doubt. Each individual piece of evidence is weighed in the context of the case in its entirety. What you are describing is the Hellmann fallacy.

      Amanda’s DNA is not expected to be mixed with Meredith’s DNA in luminol positive spots in Filomena’s room. Amanda’s claim not to remember precisely how her blood ended up on the bathroom faucet is unconvincing. The dilute blood in that bathroom is highly suspicious for mixed blood, although the prosecution decided (rightly I think) not to try to make this complex argument in court.

      • Max Green says:

        “The dilute blood in that bathroom is highly suspicious for mixed blood”

        I don’t know who told you that but you should ask him why he believes that. In general it is always better to ask someone who knows about these things. The web is full of amateur opinions.

      • Wayne says:

        I noticed how you tried to carefully say “spot” in Filomenia’s bedroom. It was tested for blood and found negative. Not a sign of evidence. Just a sign that they lived there. The fact that you leave this out is very tyical of how the prosecution behaved.

      • Som Nathan says:

        Prosecutors case “as a whole” has many big holes. Some will then definitely ask , “how come they got convictions”. Simply answers.
        1) The whole case was compromised and in favor of prosecution because Perugian investigators used every opportunity to advance their false claims against Amanda and Raffealle. They used media very effectively to promote their false claims and lies.
        2) Italian prosecutors are a very powerful entity that influences judges and decision making process in their favor within the Italian Justice System. This was very evident in Florence appeal. It was just a window dressing. A blinder for media and public to believe that a fair appeals trial is being held, whereas they had directed the Florence appeals court the “verdict they were supposed to deliver”. Judge Nencini was biased towards prosecution, because he allowed the investigation of evidence that prosecutor Crini requested, and rejected all such requests from Amanda and Raffaelle defense team.
        In the first trial why didn’t Massie investigate that the break-in to the villa could be actual rather than staged. Why did he take just the words of postal police and Filomena. No serious investigation was done for break-in.
        Why did Massie assumed that Amanda carried a big kitchen knife around. What proof he had to prove his assumption. Here in many other areas of the first trial he showed serious bias towards prosecutors specially Migninni and crook Maresa.

        Italian Justice System has failed to give a fair and unbiased trial for the defence of Amanda and Raffaelle. These two innocent young adults should not have been charged of the crime in the first place. But Perugian investigators and prosecutors made mistakes, lied, destroyed or hid the evidence to protect Rudy Guede and therefore some big-wigs in the Perugian police who used this case to accuse the innocent and advance their self interest and carriers.

        This case is a classical example for the police trainers as to “How not to conduct a homicide scene investigation”.

        Will Amanda and Raffaelle ever get a fair trial. Not until an unbiased Judge re-examines the case and any remaining evidence investigation by the independent people. Such as the genetic analysis of the “semen” on the towel found under Meredith’s body.

        • Antony says:

          Som Nathan: “Judge Nencini was biased towards prosecution, because he allowed the investigation of evidence that prosecutor Crini requested, and rejected all such requests from Amanda and Raffaelle defense team.”

          As did Hellman, with the exception of the review of the DNA data. Hellman, of course, probably reasoned that no further defence requests were necessary to arrive at a verdict of not guilty, and was following a strategy of causing the least embarrassment to the prosecution.

          The fact that Nencini convicted having refused all defence requests shows that he had no intention of conducting a fair trial.

          “Will Amanda and Raffaelle ever get a fair trial. Not until an unbiased Judge re-examines the case and any remaining evidence investigation by the independent people. Such as the genetic analysis of the “semen” on the towel found under Meredith’s body.”

          Of course, even the Hellman trial wasn’t a fair one – he convicted Amanda (illegally) of the callunia charge and failed to impose sanctions against the abuses committed by the prosecution, such as attempting to withhold the DNA data from the independent scientists.

  7. Nam says:

    Amanda Knox And Extradition: More Likely Than You Might Think

    Doug Mataconis · Monday, February 3, 2014

    In my post yesterday, I discussed the supposed double jeopardy issues raised by the legal proceedings against Amanda Knox in Italy and her re-conviction for the murder of British student Meredith Kercher last week. As I noted there, much of the analysis asserting that what happened to Knox would amount to double jeopardy under American law is based on two errors. First, there seems to be a misunderstanding of what actual double jeopardy is under American law. Additionally, people are making evaluations about the Italian justice system that don’t seem to take into account the fact that, like many European countries, Italy has a legal system that differs from our own in several important respects. To a large degree, those two errors are influencing much of the discussion I’ve seen regarding the one issue in this case that actually matters when it comes to American law in this case, the question of whether Knox might ultimately be extradited back to Italy if her final appeal fails to result in dismissal of the charges and Italy requests extradition.

    While there’s been much commentary that, because of the alleged “unfair” nature of Knox’s conviction and the way the matter has been handled on appeal, the United States might actually oppose an extradition request by Italy, or that an American Court might turn down the request should, as expected, Knox’s lawyers challenge it if it is made. On the first point, it’s important to note that, based on what I’ve read, it seems to be quite rare for the United States, via either the State or Justice Departments, to refuse an extradition request that is otherwise proper under an applicable treaty unless there’s a clear exception under the terms of the treaty or we’re talking about a nation or a proceeding that clearly violated fundamental standards of justice.

    As a preliminary point, it’s important to note that the United States has an Extradition Treaty with Italy. The current version, which I’ve embedded below, has been in place since it was ratified by the Senate back in the early 1980s. While the ultimate decision on the issue of whether or not Knox should be extradited will likely rest with the Federal Courts, most legal experts seem to agree that the odds of Knox being able to avoid return to Italy are low assuming that the Italians make the proper requests under the treaty:

    The Knox case is special because it raises the question of whether the U.S. government would send one of its own citizens to a foreign country to face a long prison term.

    The answer: It’s been done before, though in less high-profile cases involving the governments of Canada, Mexico and other nations.

    The U.S. has extradition treaties with more than 100 countries, including Italy, providing what would appear to be a strong legal foundation in favor of a request for Knox’s return to Italy.

    “It’s absolutely not the case that an individual will not be extradited just because they are a U.S. citizen,” says Douglas McNabb, an international criminal defense attorney and an expert in international extradition law.


    Mary Fan, a former federal prosecutor, suggested that any decision by the State Department on whether to return Knox to Italy is “a matter of both law and politics.” From a U.S. standpoint, the case at first seems to raise questions about double jeopardy — being tried twice for the same offense, something that’s barred by the U.S. Constitution. Knox was first convicted, then acquitted, then, on Thursday, the initial conviction was reinstated.

    Some observers dismiss the double-jeopardy argument because Knox’s acquittal was not finalized by Italy’s highest court.

    Questions also have been raised about whether the State Department might conduct a review of the evidence and ultimately decide it doesn’t support extradition. The treaty says the country requesting extradition shall provide a summary of the facts and evidence in the case that establish “a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offense.”

    But Christopher Jenks, a former Army attorney who served as a State Department legal adviser and now teaches at Southern Methodist University’s law school, said that’s a low bar, and that there’s “no reason why Italy wouldn’t be able to put together a sufficient extradition request.”

    He also noted that although any request would wind up before a U.S. federal judge, the court’s role would largely be to ensure the paperwork is in order and that basic requirements are met.

    “She’s not going to be able to relitigate ‘did she do it’ in a federal court,” he said. “Your chances of anything coming of that are slim to none.”

    Harvard’s Alan Dershowitz and other legal experts agree:

    “As popular as she is here and as pretty as she is here — because that’s what this is all about, if she was not an attractive woman we wouldn’t have the group love-in — she will be extradited if it’s upheld,” said Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz.

    While Knox has won a great deal of support in the United States where she is seen as the innocent victim of a miscarriage of justice, Dershowitz said there are no legal grounds for preventing extradition.

    Nor would it play well diplomatically, given that the United States demands more extraditions than any other nation, he said.

    “The Italian legal system, though I don’t love it, is a legitimate legal system and we have a treaty with Italy so I don’t see how we would resist,” he told AFP.

    “We’re trying to get Snowden back — how does it look if we want Snowden back and we won’t return someone for murder?” he asked, referring to fugitive intelligence contractor Edward Snowden.

    Knox’s supporters argue she should be protected from extradition because the Italian system — which allows prosecutors to appeal a verdict — violates the US legal prohibition on double jeopardy: trying someone twice for the same crime.

    Legal experts attach little weight to this argument.

    “They always forget she was convicted first,” said Julian Ku, who teaches transnational law at Hofstra University.
    Knox and her former Italian boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito served four years in prison for the murder before being released after an appeal led to their 2011 acquittal.

    The Italian Supreme Court overturned that ruling in 2013, sending the case back for re-trial.

    Italy must first file an extradition request with the US State Department, which will then determine if it should ask the Justice Department to detain Knox.

    Knox then has the right to challenge her extradition in a US court.

    “The chances of her winning that are not high because there has to be some very strong claim she’d have to make to block her extradition,” Ku said in a telephone interview.

    Ultimately, though, it seems clear to me that this is going to come down to the question of what position the United States Government wishes to take on any extradition request. If the Obama Administration decided for some reason to deny the request, then its unlikely that Knox would ever be extradited as long as she stayed in the United States or only visited nations with no extradition treaty with Italy. This strikes me as unlikely, though. As noted both in the articles posted here and my post yesterday, the proceedings against Knox appear to have complied fully with Italian law and procedure, and while those laws and procedures are different in many ways from our own it seems like an incredible stretch to argue that those differences are so extreme that they violate fundamental rights. After all, throughout these proceedings Knox has been represented by counsel, she has been granted the same protections under Italian law that a citizen of Italy would receive, she has had, and continues to have, access to the full range of appeals that any other defendant in that system would have, and all of the proceedings have been as open to the public as any other proceeding in the criminal courts of Italy. The fact that she’s an American citizen and that her family has managed to put on a good PR campaign on her behalf really shouldn’t matter. Finally, if the U.S. Government really did try to oppose a proper request by the Italian Government under the treaty, it would likely create a serious diplomatic crisis with an ally of long standing.

    In the far more likely scenario where the Federal Government backs the extradition request, the odds that Knox and her attorneys will be successful in their effort to convince a Federal Judge to deny proper request or extradition seem to be pretty low, for the reasons noted above.

    All of this remains off in the future, of course. Knox has at least one more round of appeals that she can take advantage of, and it seems unlikely that the Italians will request extradition before those appeals are resolved. Assuming she loses those appeals, though, Once the matter comes to the courts in the U.S. she would have the ability to have the matter heard by a Federal District Court Judge, a panel of the appropriate Circuit Court of Appeals, and potentially even the Supreme Court itself. In the end, though, I’d put my money on Knox eventually being extradited if her new conviction is upheld.


    About Doug Mataconis
    Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May, 2010 and also writes at Below The Beltway.

    • Som Nathan says:

      And in the end it will be all perfect. Put away an innocent person for life with no credible evidence against her and let go a murderer in about 6 years. I think with all these of power and in power the humanity has limited number of days, who uphold that innocent be punished endlessly because some mad prosecutor recorded false accusations and convicted innocent based on flawed evidence. Hitler was right, saddam Hussein was right, and get force their evil on humanity until humanity decided to act against them. Guess what US was the prime mover in the destruction of that injustice and it will be US now in this case that will prevent a great injustice being perpetrated against innocent Amanda, no matter what those paper pushing high profile with law degrees from Yale and Harvard say. IN THE END IT’s all phony if the law the study and uphold doesn’t bring justice to the innocent. That society is bound to fail sooner if the miscarriage of justice becomes so prevelant.

      Italian justice system is a show off, trials are window dressings to feed the media and public that everything is done by the books of law, where as in fact every law in the books is broken by the prosecutors like in this case against Amanda, because they know that they can get away with prosecutorial misconduct.

      Shame on such lawmakers and prosecutors who see their self interest as against the rights of the defendant.
      Perugian prosecutor Mignini is a glaring example in this case who wrongfully convicted Amanda.

    • Max Green says:

      There are always guys who want to make it complicated. To me it there is no question that their constitutional rights apply to americans on american ground, at least. Who else should they apply to if not to them? Amanda returned to her home as a free american citizen, fully legally acquitted “not having committed the crime” and sentence dropped, free. That’s when the criminal case ends for a U.S. citizen. Now if the Italians think they should re-try the case on the same facts later, it might be the the correct thing to do according to their law but that can’t apply to Amanda anymore while she is protected against double jeopardy by her constitutional rights.

      That’s why I still don’t see why any of those frequently cited specifics in a foreign countries law and examples of disparate cases could matter here and I am very confident that the respective U.S. authorities will see it the same clear.

    • Richard says:

      I am hearing that a competant jurisdiction the USA is going to try Guiliani Mignini in absentia with prosecutorial misconduct, perjury, human rights violations and conspiracy, based on his conduct in trying an American citizen and others. No doubt he will be convicted and sentenced to prison. The conviction will be valid acording to US standards and the US will request extradition. Italy will extradite Mignini the same day that the US extradites Knox which will coincidently be the same day that hell freezes over.

      • Antony says:

        “I am hearing that a competant jurisdiction the USA is going to try Guiliani Mignini in absentia with prosecutorial misconduct, perjury, human rights violations and conspiracy,”

        If only. It would be well-deserved, but I can’t see it happening.

        It would be interesting to see Mignini required to attend an extradition hearing in the US and to present his case in front of an American court.

  8. Nam says:

    Double Jeopardy Isn’t What You Think It Is—and It Won’t Save Amanda Knox

    “…The only legal argument that Knox, her lawyers, and other advocates have made thus far is that she should be protected by America’s commitment to preventing double jeopardy. They claim that Article VI of the U.S. extradition treaty with Italy incorporates the American meaning of double jeopardy. But the Article only relieves the U.S. of its obligation to extradite if the subject is charged with the same crime at home. Even if the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution were in question, it would offer Knox scant hope….”


  9. HH says:

    Amanda, what is this about? Is it saying that Rudy was JUST NOW convicted of theft for breaking into the lawyer’s office in Perugia?

    • Amanda says:

      It would seem so…

      Here’s my translation:

      Rudy Hermann Guede, already condemned to 20 years [actually 16 years] for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia, has received another conviction for burglary. The Milanese Court of Appeals found the defendant guilty of a few burglaries which occurred on October 27th, 2007 in Milan. The court accepted the request of prosecutor Gianni Griguolo and set the sentence at 1 year and 4 months.

      The conviction is for being in possession of a laptop computer and cellphone that were stolen from a lawyer’s office in Perugia. The Lombardese appellate judges confirmed the previous verdicts. In Milan Guede was found within a nursery on October 27th, 2007, before the crime committed against the British student. The police found the laptop and cellphone in his backpack.

      “Guede, who was not in court today, has always claimed to have acquired these items from a secondhand market,” explained his defense counsel, attorney Nicodemo Gentile. “Our client,” he added, ” has never been accused of the burglary of these two objects. This is a case of imprudent acquirement. We will appeal this verdict to the Court of Cassation.” In attorney Gentile’s opinion, this Milanese sentence will not prolong the period before which Guede, imprisoned in Viterbo, may ask for his first permission to leave prison. This possibility is expected in the coming months.

  10. APRIL 6, 2014
    …Amanda Knox retrial conviction could work in her favor once Italy will seek extradition procedures as a preeminent law professor claimed that the 1983 U.S.-Italy Extradition Treaty provides an out for the convicted killer dubbed by the media as”Foxy Knoxy.”
    According to M. Cherif Bassiouni, Emeritus Professor of Law at DePaul University, wrote in the Oxford University Press blog that Art. VI of the Treaty states that “extradition is not available in cases where the requested person has been acquitted or convicted of the “same acts” (in the English text) and the “same facts” (in the Italian text).”

    The law professor said that whatever is the interpretation of Art. VI, whether it’s “same act,” “same facts,” or the broader “same conduct,” Amanda Knox is not extraditable to Italy “because she was retried for the same acts, the same facts, and the same conduct.”
    The Amanda Knox retrial update meant that her case “was reviewed three times with different outcomes even though she was not actually tried three times.”
    “In light of the jurisprudence of the various circuits on this issue, it is unlikely that extradition would be granted,” M. Cherif Bassiouni added….

    • Nam says:

      The United States extradites more people than any other country in the world. If we want to retain that right with Italy, just consider the implications with organized crime alone, we’re not about to give up that right solely based on one Amanda Knox. That’s the leverage, and it’s pretty substantial.

      In 1995, a defendant attempted a double jeopardy defense to avoid extradition to Turkey, where they had two prior acquittals overturned. The US federal courts again denied that the US constitutional protections do not apply “extraterritorial” protections to crimes in other countries, and the defendant was extradited (CourtListener).

      • jamesrae says:


        This is well beyond a legal case and evolving into many other realms that need no explanation. Call it a lethal can of worms.
        There will be considerations other than legal.

      • BigDinBoise says:

        Amanda does not have to give up her constitutional rights for the sake of the US/Italy extradition treaty.

        Any American that supports such an action does not deserve to live here.

  11. Chris Meyering says:

    Instead of going around in circles about the evidence, I feel compelled to share a story about what happened to me a number of years ago. This is the reason why I have a more than a passing interest in expats experiencing injustice in foreign lands. I hope this is an informative and interesting read….

    In my early 20’s, (1990’s) I, like Amanda, had the desire to branch out and experience the world. I worked extra hard, saved money and moved to the high Andean city of Cusco, Peru. Like most small Provincial cities, Cusco is a very traditional, Conservative town where Exorcisms and wild Rumors would gloss the evening news.

    Early on, I got a job in a fellow expats Bar. It wasn’t for much money, but it kept me busy. At first, business was slow. To save money, the owner literally moved into his Bar( Due to the sensitivity of this case, I’m intentionally leaving out his Name and Bar to keep it out of Google search. But, those industrious enough can find his case.) He had a small living area connected to the Bar where he lived with his Fiance. Also, what was different about his Bar was he kept the ever present Prostitutes, aka ‘bricheras’ out of his bar. This initially hurt his business, but the well-to-do locals caught wind of this atmosphere and started to frequent his establishment, and slowly we became more successful and subsequently, a respectable bar.

    Well, this success finally reached the Local Police, and a smartly dressed Officer paid us a little visit. He was demanding a thousand dollar a month ‘Business fee’ which he claimed all businesses must pay. Growing up like I did, he was not open or tolerant to Corruption and refused to pay. The next week, a different group of police came in and wrecked the Bar. They broke the door to the refrigerator, smashed the Toilet and threw around a few chairs and tables. The Original officer came in the following day and asked for the fee again and talked about how he wouldn’t be able to protect Him from the ‘Hooligans’ than vandalized his bar. Still, he refused to pay.

    Then the hammer came down. About a month later, the Officer came in with a large entourage of Police, local Leaders and News Reporters and subsequently arrested him for Child Molestation. Remember, he not only lived inside his bar, he also lived with his Fiancee. There was no way he had any free alone time to perpetrate this crime. But that’s not the way everyone else saw it. The Locals were incensed. The Compesinos were holding protests to close the Bar. The news outlets were having a field day, rumors were flying. It was the perfect believable story. An American coming to Peru to rape a poor Indian Child. It seemed a very believable story and they were calling for his head.

    What was sad for me was everyone I talked to, including my Peruvian friends and Family believed he did it regardless of the evidence was or what I knew of him and his circumstance. If the Police said he did it, than he must have done it. There was nothing I could say to convince them otherwise. Now this was the kicker, when the trial came, there was no victim. They claimed that they were protecting the Identity and well-being of the child and said it was not necessary for her to testify. No one ever knew who this Mysterious little girl was. But they had a signed affidavit from the victim and a Doctor. He lost, it went to a second court, he lost that as well. Then it went to the Supreme court in Lima and it has languished there ever since. It is to our understanding that the Supreme court isn’t willing to rule against the Police, nor does it necessarily want to convict my friend based on the evidence.

    I have since moved back to the U.S. and never really fully found out what happened, but now my eyes are wide open to events such as these and before Amanda Knox’s case, I was just as interested in Eric Volz’s case.

    There is absolutely no doubt that this experience has jaded me. But that doesn’t mean I just believed Amanda’s story outright. Its just I wasn’t quick to believe the Police’s version of events either. I now have a healthy dose of skepticism to any and all news reported. I now make my own opinions and judgements based on evidence and I looked at AK’s and RS’s case in its entirety. This case most certainly falls into the annals of Police and Judicial corruption run amok.

    Amanda, (and Raffelle if you ever read this) you will always have my support and I will never stop rallying to your cause until you are vindicated.

  12. Stewart says:

    Re. ‘made up your mind’: I have accused no one of lying in the interview 5/6Nov.

    Sollecito’s reputation:
    Massei Report, P.61
    Massei Report, P.62
    Plus – Three knives, all weapons, were taken from Sollecito.

    I mentioned Sollecito’s reputation as @Chris Myerling introduced the subject of personal credibility.

    Your attacks on the interpreter (and the police) seem to be largely based on an
    assumption that Amanda and Raffaele’s accounts are truthful.

    You drift away from the subject. I asked for opinions concerning whose account of the interview 5/6 Nov 07 is to be believed, Amanda’s or Anna Donnino’s.
    You have forcefully made your choice.

    • HH says:

      My point was that the police as well have been caught in numerous lies and that Donnino did not do her job properly. You ignored all that.

      And yes, I have made my choice. I’ve looked at all the evidence. I believe Amanda. The case against her is ridiculous.

    • HH says:

      As for Sollecito’s reputation, while you may have pulled the information from Massei’s ludicrous motivation report you were absolutely coloring it with your opinion.

      At least I admit to the fact that I believe Amanda over Donnino, you’re still trying to paint yourself as objective when you obviously aren’t.

    • Wayne says:

      I would disagree. There are other strong reasons to state that the police lied.

      1. They failed to provide a lawyer to Amanda or Rafaelle. The Italian Supreme Court ruled in their favor on this and rejected their signed statements.
      2. To defend themselves, they claimed that Amanda and Rafaelle were just “witnesses” and not suspects. This lie is so blatant that it is actually funny. The police later described on how the break-in was staged and that this implicated Amanda. They described Amanda’s behavior at the cottage and at the station as “suspicious”. These were statements used against her in court and all were determined BEFORE the Nov 6 final interrogation. To investigate someone as “suspicious” of a crime means that they are a suspect. Whether you say so publicly or not. The Supreme Court had agreed.
      3. They failed to audio or video tape the interview. Previous interviews with Amanda HAD been taped. Suspiciously, the final interview was not. There is no innocent reason here that they would not want to tape a legitimate interview.
      4, Patrick Lumumba had publicly stated and reported in the Daily Mail that he himself was hit and kicked by the police. These are the same police on the same case.

      All this together lends considerable credibility to the idea that when Amanda stated in her note on that morning that she was hit in the head, that she was hit in the head.

      And I’ll add a final one. After she stated this, she was charged with slander with a 4-year possible penalty. This is such blatant police intimidation. Fascism in my opinion and could be applied to any person arrested or detained by an Italian cop. For example, what of a young woman molested after being arrested for public drunkenness? Does she complain? And risk 4 years in prison for daring to accuse a police officer? Mussolini would have approved.

  13. Antony says:

    I had shower this morning. Still streaming with water, I stepped out onto the bathmat with one foot to retrieve a towel. The result: an isolated wet footprint on my bathmat, very much like the disputed bathmat footprint in this case – with the exception that my print of course wasn’t made with a blood-water mix.

    Anyone who has ever taken a shower in a bathroom with a carpet or a bathmat should recognise what the bathmat print indicates: the killer used the shower to rinse blood from his clothes, then momentarily stepped out of the shower, perhaps to reach for a towel, leaving the isolated print in the process. No clean-up, and no 10-foot L-shaped leap by the perpetrator.

    Below this post, there is a lengthy screed cut-and-pasted by the contributor using the name “Nam”. He makes no attempt to engage in the discussion, and just repeats the same fallacious reasoning used by the prosecutor in this trial and, absurdly, endorsed by Judge Massei in his original trial report – including the faulty conclusion about a clean-up based on the isolated bathmat print.

    Why does Amanda and her moderators allow this kind of misuse of her blog by malicious intruders? Presumably, posts containing verbal abuse or threats are removed (I don’t doubt that there are many of these that we don’t see), but the continual appearance of unsubstantiated accusations, or posters who won’t engage in discussion, is something I find baffling and frustrating. Lengthy cut-and-paste screeds don’t strike me as what this blog is for.

    Amanda’s tolerance, beyond what could be expected of her, is an example to us all.

    • Tyler says:

      “…the killer used the shower to rinse blood from his clothes, then momentarily stepped out of the shower, perhaps to reach for a towel, leaving the isolated print in the process…”

      So you are saying the killer took a shower with clothes on? And then after standing barefoot in the shower where all the water collected, the killer then still had enough blood on his/her feet to leave a bloody footprint on the bathroom mat after stepping out of the shower? This would kind of defeat the purpose of taking a shower in the first place don’t you think?

      • Antony says:

        Tyler: “So you are saying the killer took a shower with clothes on?

        No, simply that he stood in the shower and attempted to hose the blood from his trousers. Note that Guede himself, in his own account of the aftermath of the crime, stated that his trousers were wet. Far from a clean-up, this is what the evidence actually shows.

        “And then after standing barefoot in the shower where all the water collected, the killer then still had enough blood on his/her feet to leave a bloody footprint on the bathroom mat after stepping out of the shower?

        He never had straight blood on his feet (only on his shoes, and the evidence shows that that happened after his trip to the bathroom). The bathmat print is visibly in a fairly dilute blood/water mix, not straight blood. He was in a hurry to avoid getting caught and didn’t really think about the bloody water streaming down his leg and off his foot.

        “This would kind of defeat the purpose of taking a shower in the first place don’t you think?”

        Only if you make the kind of shallow assumptions that the entire prosecution case is based on. The purpose of it was to avoid having to make his escape with visibly bloody clothes. Leaving traces of blood in the bathroom wasn’t his main concern.

        All of your comments show that, in your compulsion to rationalise this unsustainable prosecution, you haven’t thought through the facts of the case.

        • Antony says:

          Further thoughts about this exchange:

          All of this is in the context of the bathmat print allegedly being evidence of a clean-up/staging. In this doctrine, a break-in and murder by a single perpetrator would have to be an entirely predictable event, carried out in a systematic manner, and anything that doesn’t immediately appear to make sense (in the mind of those fixated on AK/RS guilt) supposedly discredits the so-called “lone wolf theory”.

          So Tyler dismisses the shower explanation on the grounds that the killer wouldn’t have stepped on the bathmat until his foot was absolutely, forensically clear of blood. Supposedly. Never mind that he might have done so before he even finished cleaning himself up.

          Get real. The break-in itself would necessarily produce some random, unpredictable results, and that was the part of the crime that the perpetrator had leisure to do some planning. Once he had been disturbed by Meredith’s unexpected return home, panic and chaos became increasingly a factor – reaching a peak immediately after the fatal blows.

          The fact is: the random nature of the crime-scene is very strong evidence that there was no clean-up and there was no staging, because randomness is one of the hardest things to simulate. The selective thinking by the pro-guilt side ought to be obvious: all of the odd details of the crime scene actually make less sense in the context of a staging than they do if there was a genuine break-in.

  14. Nam says:

    PART 1 OF 3:

    On the day after her murder, Meredith Kercher’s blood was found in many places in her bedroom and on a bare right-foot print on the bathroom floor mat. But no footprints were found in the 10-foot-plus stretch between those two bloody locations – all hard-surface floors in the bedroom, hallway and bathroom. In addition, after she died, Meredith’s bra had been cut off, and her body had been moved and repositioned – to make it appear she’d been raped, the police speculated. Finally, her body had been covered with a comforter. No one knew why, though various theories were offered.

    This is undisputed. Although the prosecution’s “staged rape” theory was speculation, the defense, far from challenging it, took it a step further, arguing that Meredith indeed had been raped and then killed by Rudy Guede, acting alone. Guede’s DNA was found in several places in Meredith’s bedroom, including inside her body. Amanda and Raffaele could not have been there, the defense insisted, since none of their DNA was found in Meredith’s bedroom (other than Raffaele’s DNA found on Meredith’s bra clasp – more on that below).

    Granted, Meredith’s bedroom was right next to the bathroom. But it would have required at least a 10-foot leap, with a 90-degree turn near the end, to reach the bloody bath mat from the bloody areas of Meredith’s bedroom without touching down somewhere in between. And whoever made that 10-foot leap-and-turn obviously didn’t mind leaving a bloody footprint on the bath mat when he landed. It doesn’t matter here whose bloody footprint was on the bath mat. The blood in both Meredith’s bedroom and on the bath mat indisputably was Meredith’s. That’s all that matters here. What accounted for the blood-free 10-foot gap?

    A 10-foot leap-and-turn? Or perhaps the person had a blood-free left foot, on which he hopped to the bathroom so his bloody right foot wouldn’t leave any footprint along the way. When he got there, despite his careful effort to avoid leaving a bloody footprint, he stepped on the bath mat with his bloody right foot. One can imagine other possibilities, but only one stands out as plausible: More bloody footprints were made on the hard-surface floors between the two bloody
    locations, but those footprints were cleaned up.

    In other words, there was no 10-foot leap-and-turn, no
    blood-free-left-foot hopper who inexplicably changed his mind upon arrival and left a bloody right footprint. Originally there was blood in Meredith’s bedroom, a bloody footprint on the bath-mat, and bloody footprints on the hard-surface floors in between. Those bloody footprints were cleaned up. The bloody stain on the bath-mat was more stubborn and could
    only be diluted (just as Raffaele later described it).

    Whoever cleaned up the bloody footprints may also have moved and covered Meredith’s body – or at least knows who did. The question is obvious: Who did these things, and why would that person take such a risk?

    If you came home to find a bloody murder had been committed there, would you say: “I don’t think I’ll call the police just yet. First I’ll clean up this bloody mess, reposition the victim’s body and make some other changes so it appears she was raped, and then cover her up. Sure, the police may find out about the murder from someone else, in which case
    they might show up and be suspicious because I’m destroying and altering evidence of a murder that I’ll claim to know nothing about. But that’s a risk I’m willing to take. I just can’t stand to leave such a mess, or to leave a dead body lying in that particular position – uncovered, no less.”

    Utterly implausible? I think so. Yet it’s all but certain
    that such a clean-up and body-repositioning occurred. So, again, the questions are: Who did these things, and why would that person take such a risk?

    Then there’s the “burglary” in Filomena’s bedroom. Both courts that convicted Amanda concluded she had staged it,
    and Rudy Guede was not even charged. Amanda nevertheless insisted a burglary actually happened and that Guede was the burglar. That is how Guede had gotten into the house, Amanda claimed, though sometimes she speculated instead that Meredith had invited him in (an alternate explanation that naturally makes one wonder who the “burglar” was).

    In any event, the “burglar” was not convincing. He allegedly threw a 10-pound rock through a window 13 feet above the ground (which Meredith apparently didn’t hear), scaled a 13-foot wall in plain view from the street, climbed through the broken window without disturbing any of the broken glass spread across the windowsill, threw clothes out of Filomena’s closet onto her bed but then decided not to take anything
    (including jewelry, a digital camera, and a laptop in plain sight), went to Meredith’s room and raped and killed her, and then ran out the front door, tracking Meredith’s blood along the way. Broken window glass was found on top of items thrown onto Filomena’s bed – on top – suggesting her window had been broken after her room was ransacked, not before. The “burglar” left no DNA, fingerprint, footprint, mud, grass stain, or any other trace in Filomena’s bedroom, on the windowsill, on the outside wall, or on the ground below. No one’s DNA was found in Filomena’s bedroom – not even Filomena’s – except for Amanda’s DNA, mixed with Meredith’s blood.

    Once again: Who carried out this real or staged burglary, and why?

    END OF PART 1 OF 3

    PART 2 OF 3:

    There is evidence of a great deal more than just a clean-up and body-repositioning. Just a few examples:

    1. Despite the clean-up, Amanda’s DNA, mixed with Meredith’s blood, was found in five different
spots in three different locations (bathroom, hallway, Filomena’s bedroom). Some was visible to the naked eye; some was revealed by Luminol.

    2. Raffaele’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp. Although this is undisputed, defense lawyers blamed it on “contamination” (the bra clasp had lain on the floor of Meredith’s sealed-off bedroom until six weeks after the murder). But even if the evidence-collectors had sneezed on the bra clasp, and 47 different men had touched it that night, and it had been trampled by 1,000 wild horses and chewed by 98 rabid dogs in the six weeks before it was collected, no amount of contamination could have caused Raffaele’s DNA to materialize on Meredith’s bra clasp. Most Knox supporters nevertheless rely on this “contamination” argument to insist that no DNA of Amanda or Raffaele was found in Meredith’s bedroom.

    3. The prosecution also argued (and the courts that convicted Amanda and Raffaele agreed) that the bloody bath-mat footprint was “consistent” with Raffaele’s footprint (though it may not have been his), and could not have been Guede’s or Amanda’s. The defense disagreed: it was Guede’s, they said. It seems that Guede’s right shoe (but not his left shoe) had come off during his scuffle with Meredith. Guede postponed his escape to wash off his right foot, which was covered with blood even though it managed to leave no footprint until Guede reached the bath mat.

    For one reason or another, Guede chose not to wash off his bloody left shoe, which seems to have had a mind of its own. It left no shoeprints in the bathroom while Guede was washing his right foot, choosing instead to leave an unbroken string of bloody shoeprints in a direct line from Meredith’s bedroom to the front door. Guede’s bloody left shoe did pause once, however – just after leaving Meredith’s room, so that Guede could lock Meredith’s door from the outside. He must have done this by reaching behind his back with Meredith’s stolen room key, since Guede’s bloody shoeprints all point toward the front door, indicating he never turned around to face Meredith’s door after he’d left her room. The prosecution argued, more plausibly, that it wasn’t Guede who locked Meredith’s door – after all, he was careless enough to leave the front door wide open. Instead, Amanda or Raffaele had locked Meredith’s door after the murder, enabling them later to explain why they hadn’t discovered Meredith’s body sooner.

    4. Amanda’s fingerprint-free bedside lamp was found on the floor at the foot of Meredith’s bed. Knox supporters say Meredith must have borrowed it without asking (Amanda confirmed that Meredith had never asked to borrow it). Skeptics suggest the lamp was brought in to help illuminate spots to be cleaned, and was inadvertently left there when the clean-up was finished. All we know for sure is that Meredith’s room ended up with extra lighting that November evening, while Amanda’s bedroom was left with no light at all (Amanda’s room had no ceiling light – only her bedside lamp).

    5. Amanda’s “morning after” story raises eyebrows. She testified that she came home that morning (November 2) to find her front door wide open and blood in the bathroom that hadn’t been there before. She called out to her roommates, but no one answered. She thereupon closed the front door but knowingly left it unlocked, and took a shower. When she finished, she realized she’d left her towel in her bedroom. She used the bath mat – on which she’d just noticed a bloody footprint – to “hop,” dripping wet and naked, back to her room to get her towel. Rather than dry off in her room, she “hopped” back to the bathroom, still wet and naked, on the same blood-stained bath mat, and dried off there. After returning to her bedroom, now dry but still naked, Amanda dressed, and then blow-dried her hair in the other bathroom. There she noticed an unflushed toilet (which she left unflushed) containing what turned out to be Rudy Guede’s feces. Though Amanda said all of this puzzled and worried her, she didn’t notice that Meredith’s door was locked, and she walked right past Filomena’s bedroom – at least four times – without looking in and discovering the “burglary.” Filomena’s door was closed, Amanda said, and she didn’t try to open it. Yet Raffaele said that when he and Amanda returned to the cottage about an hour and a half later, after breakfast, Filomena’s door was “wide open” when they walked in, and he immediately noticed the “burglary.” Neither Raffaele nor Amanda claimed to have wondered who had opened Filomena’s door in the meantime.

    Even worse, recently Amanda made yet another change to her story:

    Court testimony – June 12 2009
    Amanda: “I used the mat to kind of hop over to my room and into my room, I took my towel, and I used the mat to get back to the bathroom.”

    Amanda Knox Blog:

    Amanda says:
    FEBRUARY 28, 2014 AT 15:15
    2) “I took a shower and used the bathmat to shuffle a bit into the hall, only to abandon that procedure part-way through because it wasn’t accomplishing much.”

    END OF PART 2 OF 3

    PART 3 OF 3:

    6. Amanda’s other stories were no less suspicious. The day after the murder, she told the police she’d spent the entire evening and night at Raffaele’s apartment and had no idea who had killed Meredith. A few days later (under severe pressure, she insists), she told the police she’d been home after all, had invited Patrick Lumumba in, and that Lumumba had killed Meredith. The next day, in an entirely voluntary statement she wrote with no one else present, Amanda said she was pretty sure she’d been at Raffaele’s after all but nonetheless stood by her recollection that Lumumba had killed Meredith. A few days later, Amanda still remembered having been at Raffaele’s apartment, but now she was certain that Lumumba had nothing to do with the murder. (How Amanda could know anything about Lumumba’s guilt or innocence was unclear, of course, once she’d returned to her claim that she’d been at Raffaele’s apartment the whole time.) Unfortunately for
    Lumumba, Amanda only told her mother this. Both Amanda and her mother neglected to mention it to the authorities, even
though Amanda said they knew there was no evidence against Lumumba except Amanda’s accusation. Lumumba languished in jail for over two weeks until he came up with an airtight alibi. After Lumumba was released, Amanda said she felt terrible that the police had wrongly arrested him.


    The clean-up and body-move were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the judges and juries that convicted Amanda also determined that she had staged the “burglary.” Though it’s possible Amanda was not the person who did those things (and also possible she was not the person who locked Meredith’s door after the murderer left Meredith’s room), inferences reasonably drawn from the clean-up and cover-up evidence, together with the ample evidence summarized above (and other physical evidence and testimony not mentioned here), solidly support the murder conviction. The burden shifted to Amanda long ago to answer the tough questions posed in this imaginary monologue:

    Amanda, it’s clear that someone cleaned up after Meredith was murdered. Someone also cut off her bra and repositioned her body – to make it appear, we think, that she’d been raped. We think that person also staged a burglary so it would appear the murderer hadn’t been let in by someone who lived there. Even if a burglary actually happened, as you insist, who in his right mind would risk drawing suspicion on himself by cleaning up after the murder, or by moving and covering Meredith’s body? And if he did bother to clean up, why would he ignore his own bloody footprints? Why would he pause to lock Meredith’s door with a key, and yet leave the front door wide open? It’s difficult to believe you weren’t involved in the clean-up and body-moving, or why you might have done those things for an innocent reason. The killer would have no reason to have done them. Obviously Meredith didn’t. No one suggests your two out-of-town roommates came back and did all this, or that a stranger wandered in off the street and did it. Who does that leave?

    You, with or without Raffaele’s help. We found your DNA, mixed with Meredith’s DNA, in five different places around the cottage – including even Filomena’s bedroom, where you insist a burglary occurred. We didn’t even find Filomena’s own DNA in her bedroom, much less any trace of a burglar or anyone else – just your DNA, mixed with Meredith’s. You’ve also told several different stories about where you were that night. Sometimes you were home, sometimes you weren’t; sometimes you’re not sure. Sometimes you invited Patrick Lumumba into your cottage and he killed Meredith, sometimes you didn’t and Patrick had nothing to do with the murder; sometimes you’re not sure. Sometimes you insist Guede broke Filomena’s window and climbed in; sometimes you say Meredith must have let him in; sometimes you’re not sure. And so on. Maybe you had nothing to do with this gruesome murder, Amanda, but, frankly, we doubt seriously that you’ve told us all you know about what happened that night. Maybe it’s time you did. Better late than never.

    END OF PART 3 OF 3

    • Rob H says:

      Sorry, what was the evidence of a clean-up? Perhaps it got lost amongst the rest of your verbiage. You’re not paid by the word are you? You could try a more economical style. Haven’t you put this up here before?

    • jamesrae says:

      My brain is way too tired to tie into this mishmash but just a few points.

      I remember the fingerprint expert saying there were hundreds of prints
      that they didn’t collect as they were imperfect and smudged and this talk
      about no fingerprints is always misleading. ( desk lamp ).

      There is no way on earth I can figure any kind of clean-up would avoid
      the bathroom evidence and in particular the bathmat. There is no way
      a culprit would leave that behind unless they had left so much elsewhere
      it didn’t matter.

      It is inconceivable that Amada would use the blood in the bathroom as
      a reason for calling her roommate and as left evidence for the police while
      at the same time cleaning up. Just a total mindtwister.

      The supposed staged burglary makes no sense in that a thinking person
      would naturally look out the window and see how difficult a challenge it
      would be for an average person. They would gravitate to the supposed
      easier routes into the house.

      • Stewart says:

        …’A thinking person would naturally look out the window and see how difficult a challenge it would be for an average person. They would gravitate to the supposed
        easier routes into the house.’

        I’m pleased you can appreciate that!
        I’ve always thought the burglary looked a bit fake, and that Rudy would have chosen the balcony.

        • jamesrae says:

          Rudy was not an average person. He was a
          semi-pro basketball player and not at all put
          off by this minor challenge and he done the
          identical break-in before. I think he liked the
          challenge and physicality of it. Sort of a inner
          enthusiasm fantasy of being a great cat burglar.

          There is no doubt you get my point. It is the reverse situation that is more logical. Raff if
          he was to stage something would approach things
          much differently.

        • Elias says:

          I’ll bet you 1 million Euro, that I, at age 57, could make that climb.

          Rudy had iron bar steps on the window below to step on, with gloves and a tick jacket, getting in would be as easy as boosting yourself onto a pommel horse — and even I can still do that — with two damaged knees from a car accident.

          There’s a lot of things that we don’t think we can do, that we can do, if focused, and especially if adrenalized.

    • Wayne says:

      Interesting how he keeps repeating the same lie of “Amanda’s DNA, mixed with Meredith’s blood, was found in five different
spots in three different locations (bathroom, hallway, Filomena’s bedroom). Some was visible to the naked eye; some was revealed by Luminol.”

      A lie because he keeps leaving out one very important point. The luminol revealed stains, and since luminol tests for many substances that have copper in them, the police then tested the stain with TMB to see if it was blood.

      The results were negative.

      The typical guilter rant is that luminol is superior to TMB in testing for blood but that misses the very obvious point that if it was so superior than what was the need to use TMB to test it after the revelation by Luminol. Second, the guilters ignore the fact that TMB in and of itself is very sensitive and that it is inconceivable that 5 different locations would all test negative.

      And finally, this. The prosecution and guilters refuse to even discuss the obvious. After the stains were found negative for blood with TMB, why didn’t the police actually determine the substance? This did not happen in 1907. Scientists no longer just have to rely on pouring a chemical on a substance and watch its color change to determine what it consists of. I have images of Victorian era labs and test tubes and beakers with little flames beneath them.

      Give me a break. This happened in 2007. We have things now called electron microscopes, mass spectrometers and other sophisticated techniques to determine to the atom what a substance is.

      And yet the police just used the luminol to find the stain, purposely hid the results of the TMB test until cross-examined and then refused to determine the actual composition of the stain.


      And it was just accepted it without question. Just like all the other lies and deceptions.

      • Francisco says:

        Wayne, just thought I would add one extra point to your excellent assessment of the Luminol traces.

        Most of the traces also tested negative for Meredith’s DNA. So even if you wanted to believe the negative TMB was because Luminol is more sensitive (a faulty argument in itself) how can you explain a trace made from Meredith’s blood that doesn’t contain her DNA?

    • Elias says:

      I stop reading your scat as soon as I see a for sure complete lie.

      Meredith’s bra clasp was TORN off. As close up pictures clearly show a curved jagged tear and stings of loose fibers.

      You’re just wrong, and probably mentally not all there, not able to logically review evidence.

      Judge Hellman threw all of this nonsense out, and he is beyond reproach. Mignini, on the other hand? Charged and convicted.

      2 other police officers on the case from Perugia? Under investigation and charges.


    • Corrado Massa says:

      You wrote:
      Rudy was an athletic man, very good at basket; and he was a burglar not new to this modus operandi.

      of course she didn’t hear, she was not at home!

      Easy. Please see this video:

      black man, black suits, trees all around, very short time (about 10 seconds, see the video) employed to climb up…where is the problem?

  15. Hide Baert says:

    Dear Amanda,
    My message comes late (not too late to be of any help, I hope).
    After considering all the information, I think both of you, Amanda and Raffaele, are innocent.
    I agree with the Hellman verdict regarding your innocence.

    I feel sorry that both of you had to jump through all these hoops, i.e. interviews, books, legal consultations and invasion of your privacy. On that last matter, I plead guilty too: I googled your name and searched your blog.
    I feel happy you turned a page (your photo safari).
    Best wishes, Hilde

  16. Stewart says:

    I have been trying to research the Meredith Kercher case recently, and have been confused by the conflicting statements and opinions. There seem to be so many claims and counter claims. I wonder if anyone could help me with four details I have yet to sort out?

    Firstly, Bruce Fischer in his book ‘Injustice in Perugia’ claims that:
    ‘Amanda was told that her boss, Patrick Lumumba, was the man that attacked Meredith. She did not give Patrick’s name to the police; his name was suggested to her.’
    Bruce Fischer, ‘Injustice in Perugia’

    But this exchange between the presiding judge at the trial and Amanda, suggests otherwise:
    Giancarlo Massei [Trial judge – referring to the interview and Patrick’s identity]
    “But they didn’t literally say that it was him.”
    Amanda Knox
    “No. They didn’t say it was him, but they said ‘We know who it is, we know who it is. You were with him, you met him.”
    Amanda Knox, trial testimony — Saturday, June 13 2009
    Is this a translation issue?
    Furthermore, in a letter to her lawyers written soon after her arrest she writes:
    ‘[The]y stuck pieces of paper in front of me, to write down the name [of] the murder, but I didn’t know.’
    …’they just wanted me to say his name, but I knew nothing.’
    …’It was all [I] could think of, Patrik.’
    …’and so I said [Pa]trik.’
    Amanda Knox, letter to her lawyers, Nov 9, 2007

    Secondly, there is the matter of the time of Amanda’s first call home on the 2nd Nov. [The 12:47 call]
    On this matter Bruce writes:
    ‘Raffaele called the Carabinieri while Amanda made a call to her mother in Seattle to ask for advice.’
    Bruce Fischer, ‘Injustice in Perugia’

    I understand though, that Amanda now claims that she made this call when/as she returned to Raffaele’s house (i.e approx. midday), is that true?

    Thirdly, the handprint on the wall has been attributed by some to Rudy Guede:
    ‘Rudy’s handprints, in Meredith’s blood, were found on a pillow case in Meredith’s room and on her wall.’
    IIP webpage,

    But Ron Hendry, leading proponent of the ‘lone wolf’ theory, has written:
    ‘Meredith raises her hand to the wounds and leaves finger streaks on the wall.’
    Ron Hendry, ‘What really happened to Meredith?’ PDF presentation – IIP website

    Finally, Amanda Knox claimed that she was struck on the head at the interview of 5/6th Nov:
    ‘One [p]olice officer hit me on the back of my head twice.’
    Amanda Knox’s letter to her lawyers of Nov 9, 2007

    But Anna Donnino, the interpreter present on that night, stated in court that Amanda was not hit:

    Carlo Pacelli, Lumumba’s civil lawyer:
    To remove any shadow of doubt from this whole matter, as far as the summary information provided at 5:45. Miss Knox was struck on the head with punches and slaps?
    Anna Donnino:
    Carlo Pacelli:
    In particular, was she struck on the head by a police-woman?
    Anna Donnino:
    Court hearing 13 March 2009

    Any help with the above would be appreciated.

    • Tom Mininger says:

      Where do you think the recordings are of Amanda’s “interview” and Patrick’s “interview” where he claims he was beaten?

      These police tapped 39,900+ phone calls , recorded other interviews, and secretly recorded police holding room conversations. Can’t produce the recording of the most important interview in Perugia history, or refute Patrick’s claims of abuse?

      BTW will all that mountain of recording going on, the one useful tap was of Guede telling his friend that Amanda and Raffaele weren’t there.

      Here’s the caliber of people Amanda was subjected to that night:

      • Stewart says:

        Tom, you cannot sidestep the question like that. I have concerns over the lack of audio/video records of the interview in question, but that is not the point here.
        Either Amanda lied about being hit; or Anna Donnino lied when she said in court that Amanda was not hit.
        Which is it?

        • Antony says:

          Stewart: Either Amanda lied about being hit; or Anna Donnino lied when she said in court that Amanda was not hit.
          Which is it?

          Simple answer: Amanda told the truth and the police lied. The fact that they destroyed the videotape of the interrogation or are hiding it tells us all we need to know.

          • Stewart says:

            So to be clear on this – are you accusing Anna Donnino of perjury?

          • HH says:

            Sure. I’m accusing Donnino of perjury. Either that or she wasn’t in the room at the time and didn’t see Amanda being hit.

            The police’s actions have not been above ground for this entire trial.

            1) They lied about TMB testing the luminol footprints, the footprints tested negative for blood.

            2) The Polizia Scientifica threw two pairs of bloody shoes under Meredith’s bed on November 2 and then came back in December, moved all the shoes out from under the bed and claimed they found “new blood traces” that Amanda and Raffaele were trying to hide.

            3) Curatalo was a “serial witness” meaning that he testified for the police in two other trials before this one.

            4) They refused to test a possible semen stain in what they themselves are calling a sexually motivated crime.

            5) They protected Rudy Guede. If he had been sitting in jail charged with theft, he would not have been murdering Meredith on November 2.

            6) They produced a witness to testify that Patrick’s bar was “closed” around the time of Meredith’s murder back when they were still trying to pin the entire thing on him. It was not.

            7) They arrested three people and announced case closed before they got the DNA results back and looked like jackasses.

            8) They destroyed three of the four computer hard drives that they confiscated.

            9) The Polizia Scientifica in their full glory while collecting evidence:




            What I see are a bunch of shoddy arrogant fools with WAAY too much power who carried on a shoddy arrogant investigation and who are desperately trying to cover their asses by spreading rumors left and right, leaking false information to the tabloids and then threatening to charge anyone who dares challenge them with calumnia.

            This case is rife with corruption on the part of the authorities. They can dish it out, but they can’t take it. The whole thing is stupid and pathetic and long past embarrassing.

          • Antony says:

            Let me turn the question round for you, Stewart: what’s perjury to a member of the Italian police? They have impunity.

            They treated Hellman’s court with complete contempt, yet no action was taken against them. A squad of cops paid a threatening visit to the independent scientists, Conti and Vecchiotti, on the pretext of obtaining a copy of their report which was already available in the courtroom. Stefanoni was ordered, twice, to provide her results for analysis, and at the second issue of the order only provided a printout – not the actual data. She also attempted to pass off false results into the case file, yet escaped being jailed. The delay meant another summer in prison for the defendants.

            Hellman did the right thing in freeing Amanda and Raff, but he did justice no favours by upholding the equally preposterous callunia conviction, nor by failing to take action against the abuses of the prosecution. No doubt he calculated that he could follow reason on the murder charge while letting the Perugia police and prosecutors off the hook with a compromise verdict. If so, it was a miscalculation.

        • jamesrae says:

          I would say that the officer obvious slapped her good. They brought in interrogation specialists from Rome to do a job knowing full well Amanda’s Mother was arriving the next day. Do what you have to do? Smack for shock. Sounds reasonable. This is not the Mayberry police department Stewart.

          • Stewart says:

            I’m sorry, I actually do not know what the Mayberry police department is! I will Google it.
            On the relevant point – are you accusing Anna Donnino of committing perjury?

          • jamesrae says:

            I believe CSI Stef in charge of testing blood and dna lied in the first trial about testing the luminal footprints for blood but it came out in the appeals trial that she had and they came were negative for blood. So lying in very possible and given that link to their subsequent rogue like criminal behaviour you have to be realistic about the nature of these matters – it is less about justice than it is about winning.
            Mayberry was a fictional town in American on a TV show in the 60’s
            where everyone was nice and good.

    • Wayne says:

      The translator worked for the police. Her paycheck comes from the police. Also, just to be clear, in Italy, accusing the police of abuse can get you charged with a criminal offense of slander. Taking those two things into account, what do you think she is going to say?

      • Stewart says:

        Wayne, Amanda felt safe enough to claim during the course of the trial that she had been beaten by the police; and having done so it would have been quite easy for her to say that the name of Patrick was given to her by them.
        The point is though, who is correct about the origins of the name ‘Patrick’; Amanda or Bruce Fischer? Did Amanda lie about being hit – or the interpreter?

        • Chris Meyering says:

          Don’t want to speak for Amanda, but I don’t recall she ever saying that she was “beaten” by the police. She said she was hit in the back of the head. Minor difference I suppose but what’s has always perplexed me is the absolute refusal by some to accept that some Police forces are ripe with these types abuses and are just as capable of lying like anyone else.. You can find literally thousands of such cases perpetrated all over the world. People are people regardless of the clothes they wear and I will go out on a limb here and say the people in positions of power are more apt to do so, i.e. Politicians for example.

          To the point, both have claimed the opposite and one side is lying and neither side will budge. Basically, its all hearsay. So what an investigator has to do is look into the back grounds of both parties to judge credibility.

          So I if you want to attempt to answer your own question, maybe first look into the history and backgrounds of the two parties involved. Since this case has brought out detailed information about everyone involved, you should be able to find ample info on the interent. Does the Perugian Police Department have any history of lying? Corruption? Abuses of Power? Have any of the officers or technitions connected to the investigation been investigated? Arrested? Have other defendants complained of similar acts against them?

          Then you compare it to Amanda’s and Rafaellles history. What have friends and relatives said about them? Their academics? Teachers, professors, people of the community. Any history of mental issues or criminal activity?

          Put that all together and draw your own conclusion. But I highly doubt it will matter. You seem to have already made up your mind and no matter what answer she gives you will not satisfy you…But you might prove me wrong.

          • jamesrae says:

            Stewart seems to be seeking and that is good. When I was living in Crete in 1973 an incident happened where a beautiful Greek young man and the son of a doctor got stoned on LSD and jumped off a cliff. Fortunately he survived but broke both legs. Us hippy types had to run for the hills as a mob started rounding up likely suspects. I escaped but a few I know went straight to the police station where they were laid back down on a desk with 2 officers holding them down and the 3rd took off their shoes and socks and beat their feet with a stick until they confessed to whatever.
            Would probably still happen today.

          • Stewart says:

            Chris – firstly on your point about my use of the word ‘beaten’. I think you are right! Admittedly Chambers dictionary states that the word means ‘struck repeatedly’, and Amanda did claim that she was struck twice, i.e with a repetition; but I still feel that ‘beaten’ suggests being hit several times in a prolonged attack. So yes, ‘struck twice’ would have been a better phrase.

            I’m not so naive as to think that all police officers are above any wrongdoing, but that is not the relevant point here. I asked for clarification on the claims about Amanda being hit. Who is telling the truth – Amanda or the interpreter Anna Donnino?

            You say ‘basically it’s all hearsay’. Another poster said that it is a case of ‘she said, she said’. Surely though, this all indicates doubt about who is telling the truth: that is to say, you don’t necessarily believe Amanda’s claims of being hit?

            On the matter of witness credibility, Anna Donnino is a highly respected professional whose reputation is more than a match for the drug taking, knife collecting, bestiality porn watching Sollecito.
            Furthermore, she appears never to have faked a burglary as a prank against former housemates, as Amanda has admitted she herself has done.

            Finally, you say, without justification, that I seem to have made up my mind on this matter. I have not asserted that Amanda lied about being hit during the interview of 5/6 Nov 07. Nor have I accused the interpreter of lying.
            I have only asked a question – is Amanda telling the truth, or the interpreter?

            Chris, either you believe that:
            Amanda lied about being hit.
            The interpreter committed perjury.
            Or, you do not know what happened during the interview, and so must accept that no support can be given to Amanda’s allegations, and that the matter should be left to the courts to decide upon.

          • jamesrae says:

            You could also consider comments from early statements from Patrick
            about his treatment by these officers
            while in detention as an indicator of
            there methods. Lets consider the police’s ambitions at that time. They knew Amanda’s mother was
            arriving the following day and they needed to work hard and fast to get
            what they wanted. A slap or two is
            quite acceptable I am sure.

          • HH says:

            Stewart: Actually, I got the impression that you made up your mind already as well from that post.

            You refer to Donnino as above reproach and to Sollecito as a “drug taking”, “knife collecting”, “bestiality porn watching” druggie and you think that you still sound open-minded?

            I’m curious as to why you’re even bothering to attack Raffaele since Raffaele was not the one who was claiming to have been hit with Donnino negating that fact.

            As you say, Donnino has no history of “faking break-ins” but she went above and beyond her job and inserted herself into an interrogation, first bringing up the fact that once she broke her leg and blocked the entire experience out of her head. She then suggested to Amanda that Amanda may have been at the cottage, witnessed the murder and blocked the entire incident out of her head.

            Donnino is an INTERPRETER, not a trained INTERROGATOR and she should have kept her mouth shut and kept her personal experiences out of it. Instead, she made a deliberate suggestion to a frightened and confused young girl who was in the process of being browbeaten without a lawyer. Amanda was not telling them what they wanted to hear, that she was at the cottage when the murder took place.

            If you put yourself in Amanda’s shoes, I think it makes sense how a false confession could have come about:

            1) Amanda had the authorities, who she trusted, claiming they had hard evidence of her presence at the cottage even though she told them repeatedly she wasn’t there. IMO, she didn’t understand why they weren’t taking “no” for an answer.
            2) Amanda didn’t understand why the cops would be treating her so harshly when she was trying to help them if she hadn’t done anything to merit it.
            3) They went around and around with Raffaele the same way and finally got him to sign a statement that took away Amanda’s alibi. That’s a third person that she trusts telling her that she left Raffaele’s apartment even when she didn’t remember doing so.

            Then this “highly respected professional” took the role of the “good cop” and offers her an explanation that does make sense. Since back then Amanda never even conceived of the other possibility, that the police were just corrupt and out to get her.

            So yeah, I’m calling Donnino a perjurer and another member of Perugian Law Enforcement who doesn’t know how to do her f’ing job and lied about it.

            She was definitely out of line making any suggestions to Amanda when Amanda was already in a highly vulnerable and suggestive state of mind. She was out of line telling Amanda to “try to remember.”

            That, IMO, was the reason Patrick got accused along with the fact they were persistently waving his text in her face.

            Think about it this way: They put Amanda in a vulnerable enough state of mind to think that she actually witnessed the murder. They probably also had her in a vulnerable enough state of mind to convince her that Patrick was the culprit.

          • HH says:

            Donnino’s job was to facilitate communications between the police and Amanda, not perpetuate the confusion.

            Her job was not to trick Amanda into saying what the police wanted her to say by implying that she must have witnessed the murder and had trauma induced amnesia.

            By the way, Raffaele the “bestiality porn watching”, “knife collecting” druggie worked hard towards his robotics engineering degree the entire time he was in prison.

            I’d also like to know how Amanda, even with her history of pranks, was able to fake a burglary that so clearly echoed Rudy’s unusual MO when he robbed the Perugia law office. You think Rudy told her the whole story?

            When? He’d just returned from Milan at that time. Where’s the evidence that they associated with each other? Where’s the call history that suggests they communicated with each other and she knew so much information about him that she was able to realistically frame him for the crime?

            Oh yeah and how did she manage to clean up all of her invisible DNA and leave all of Rudy’s dna and Meredith’s blood behind??

        • Wayne says:

          Amanda first made the claim about being hit in a handwritten note to the police the next morning. This was before she had a lawyer and was not grandstanding for the world but a personal note that the police would read. So she had ALREADY made the claim and the police then later released that note to the world. Therefore, her stating it in court was not being “safe” but simply repeating what everyone already had seen.

          The interpreter lied for the reasons stated. When Amanda wrote the personal note to the police, stating in there that she had been hit if in fact she had not would not accomplish anything would it? Specifically, the note, written just a few hours after the interrogation says this:

          ” Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn’t remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received. ”

          Amazingly, in the same sentence she claims to be hit, she empathizes with the police and “understands” the treatment she received. Really not much of an accusation is it? But in Italy, its enough to get charged with slander and a possible 4 year penalty, fascism at its finest.

          Interestingly, Patrick made the same type of claims to the Daily Mail after he was arrested. Then retracted them. He saw which way the wind was blowing and decided to go with it.

          • Stewart says:

            The fact that Amanda made the claim about being hit on the day of the 6 Nov. supports rather than detracts from my argument! If she feels able to make that accusation whilst she is still in the clutches of the police, and then it has gone public; she should have no worries about merely claiming, later when in court, that Patrick’s name was stated to her. The relevant part of the remainder of your post is that you have chosen Amanda’s word over that of Anna Donnino.

          • Wayne says:


            If that is your counter then you are not following me. The original point was not rather Amanda would make such a claim but the interpreter. Would the interpreter accuse the police of hitting Amanda. I said no because she knew that such an accusation was a criminal offense in Italy. You replied that Amanda felt comfortable and I replied that Amanda had already made the claim. Nothing in our exchange takes away from the original point, that the interpreter KNEW that claiming abuse was a criminal offense in Italy and therefore had strong motivation to lie. In addition to the fact that she works for the police and that is where she received her pay.

    • jamesrae says:


      Thanks for that link. Heard about this but hadn’t read any real details. I can
      imagine Amanda and Raff lighten up a little when something like this appears.
      Hopefully it gets more attention than it probably has.

    • quixotic1 says:

      I can weigh in on #1 and #4 as I understand it and I welcome others to correct me if I get this wrong

      #1. As the interrogators were demanding the name as they were simultaneously holding Amanda’s phone scrolled to the text message she had with Patrik as a silent indicator of who they wished her to implicate. At the time they thought they had evidence by way of an Afro hair sample so they were looking for an African. The sample was later proven to be curly black carpet fibers. This implication sequence is documented in audio released in the recent BBC3 special about the trial.

      #2. (What does it matter when she called her mother?)

      #3. (don’t know. I haven’t research this)

      #4. A case of she said, she said. It would be illegal for the police to strike Amanda. It is also illegal for the police to fail to record the interrogation, but they did fail to do that citing budget constraints. Amanda’s assertion that this happened led to a libel charge being levied against her parents for telling an American newspaper that their daughter had reported this to them. The trial date against the parents is still seemingly perpetually pending. Why levy the libel charge when both Amanda and Patrik have made the same assertions publicly of police physical abuse but they were never charged with libel over it. Logic dictates that the libel charges are just one more intimidating harassment tactic of the prosecutor made in his signature impulsive and erratic nature to foster fear over truth.

      • Stewart says:

        Thank you for your well considered reply.
        The difficulties I have with it though, are:
        Re 1. This is not precisely what Bruce Fischer has claimed. He wrote: ‘Amanda was told that her boss, Patrick Lumumba, was the man that attacked Meredith.’

        Re 2. It does matter, as the time of the call became an issue during the trial with the prosecution trying to use it against Amanda. They made it seem unnecessary at the moment it was made, with Amanda claiming not to have remembered it.
        Either it is another example of Amanda’s often confused testimony, or Bruce has written something that is factually incorrect. Which is it?

        Re. 4. It cannot be demeaned as just ‘she said, she said’. Nor can you ‘move the goalposts’ like Tom. Either Amanda lied about being hit, or the interpreter committed perjury.

        • Skind says:

          1. And according to Amanda’s account, Fischer is correct.

          She was told she knew the murderer and that she’d met up with him, she was also told that there was a message setting up that meeting. Have a guess who she was supposed to have met that night – her boss, at work.

          By suggesting that she a: knew the murderer, and b: that she was supposed to have met him, the police were suggesting her boss, even if they did so by accident.

          2. And the prosecution was entirely worng about the nature of the call, and they lied in court about when it was made, even tricking the judge into joining in. With the context of the call destroyed, the exact timing of the call no longer matters, as it’s no longer incriminating.

          4. The translator may have committed perjury, assuming the hit occurred when she was present. She cannot be used as a witness for anything that may have occurred before she attended.

          • Stewart says:

            1. ‘Amanda was told that her boss, Patrick Lumumba, was the man that attacked Meredith.’ Bruce Fischer, ‘Injustice in Perugia’
            Note – Amanda ‘was told.’

            “But they didn’t literally say that it was him.”
            Giancarlo Massei [Trial judge – referring to the interview and Patrick’s identity]
            “No. They didn’t say it was him, but they said ‘We know who it is, we know who it is.
            Amanda Knox

            So which of the above is correct?

            2. Either Bruce is right when he wrote, ‘Raffaele called the Carabinieri while Amanda made a call to her mother in Seattle to ask for advice.’
            Or Amanda now correctly claims that she made this call when/as she returned to Raffaele’s house (i.e approx. midday).

            3. No answer on the wall handprint – like everyone else!

            4. Amanda has testified on at least two occasions that the interpreter arrived before the time when Amanda claims she was struck.
            Just to be clear – are you claiming that Anna Donnino committed perjury?

          • HH says:

            Stewart: From what I read, Amanda called her mother twice. She called her mother first on the way back to Raffaele’s apartment because she was bothered by what she’d seen. Her mother advised her to call her roommates and tell Raffaele. They then went back, discovered the break-in, Raffaele called the police, Amanda called her mother again and told her their house had been broken into, her stepfather yelled at her to get out of the house immediately. They waited outside for the police to arrive, the postal police arrived because of the cell phones and Amanda and Raffaele mistook them for the police that they had just called.

            The postal police apparently didn’t make much out of Guede’s footprints either (they were pretty light) and refused to break Meredith’s door down. Filomena had to get her boyfriend to do it.

          • HH says:

            Stewart: And IMO, Donnino committed perjury.

    • Elias says:

      It’s also interesting to note, that according to various interviews, good old honest Patrick Lumumba went from “I was thinking about firing Amanda,” to “I fired Amanda.”

  17. Boggled says:

    Because most posters here espouse having an open mind and a logical basis for their belief in Amanda’s innocence, I thought many would enjoy the following podcast. The attorney speaking is a defense attorney with a long history of defending the wrongly accused underdog.

    Also, I was wondering: Amanda, do you answer all of the questions posed to you, or does Bruce Fischer answer the non-softballs?

    • Tom Mininger says:

      Here’s videos of FBI agents who investigated violent crime scenes and worked with prosecutors their entire careers helping put criminals away. But they can’t walk away from this blatant hatchet job against 2 innocents. The burglary gone bad crime scene is no stranger to them.

      If the Perugia police had waited for Guede’s palm print ID to come back, this case would have been solved quickly and correctly.

      • Elias says:

        I don’t know about that, let’s remember that Mignini had an obsession with Satanism and Catholic Black Mass ceremonies and wanted to “catch” one.

        He’s clearly delusional and corrupt. I really have to wonder what he has on some peer in the judiciary that sustains the network protecting him… (On this case.)

    • jamesrae says:


      I believe Dick is a divorce lawyer. Just another talking head trying to get
      some attention with his opinions. It is rather juvenile stuff really. I view
      this as fodder for high school dropouts sort of thing. I could do better
      sitting on either side of the fence. To bad I am not a lawyer. Or better yet
      thank God I am not a lawyer.

    • Andrea Jonasson says:

      Boggled. I am a logical person. Thanks for noticing:) My thoughts on the opinion piece you provided – from a logical perspective. Detailed evidence omitted for brevity.

      What is the source?

      Just consider this to be a second opinion from a complete stranger online.

      Does the source have any biases that should be considered when evaluating the information? Looks like it.

      I can tell you, as a black male, once I hear that she’s just trying to randomly frame a black man, that’s one of the first things she does, no evidence whatsoever…

      Let me tell you what I see when I see Amanda Knox. I see a lot of packaging. This is a class game. This is where an accused wants you to believe that she’s with the in crowd. That she is just too middle or upper class to have done some crime like this.

      Is the source accurate in relating facts?

      Mr. Dwyer conveys the impression that Amanda Knox, immediately and free from suggestion or coercion told an invented story accusing Patrick of the murder, and did not admit that this story was false until the prosecutor discovered Patrick’s innocence.

      This version of events does not fit what is known about the overnight interrogation where the statements were made. He also does not acknowledge that after having had a break and some sleep, Amanda tried to tell the police not to rely on what she has said, as it does not seem real to her.

      He completely ignores the fact that the statements were ruled inadmissible in this case because Amanda was a suspect without counsel. Would she have signed these statements with a lawyer present? Not a chance.

      Are his conclusions sound? Are there other reasonable conclusions that could be drawn?

      Who finds out about a murder they had nothing to do with, and immediately tries to frame an innocent person for it? I’ll tell you who. Someone who is guilty.

      That is certainly a logical explanation where a statement is truly spontaneous, given free from coercion, and not retracted or contradicted until the statement giver is forced to do so.

      However, there is another reasonable explanation where the statement is not truly spontaneous, given under coercion, and called into doubt almost immediately by the giver without outside prompting. The source of the accusation against Patrick is the police, and not Amanda. De Felice said in an interview that Amanda had “buckled” and told the police “what we knew to be true”. Buckling is not a voluntary thing, and the police knowing the truth before Amanda said it makes the Patrick story seem like their idea, not hers.

      A logical take on this opinion piece? Mr. Dwyer is strongly biased and under informed. As a result, his conclusion is unreliable.

      Side note: It is unfortunate that the interrogations were not recorded so that there would be an objective record of how the statements came about. This would cut down on the armchair speculation of how it must have been.

      • Boggled says:

        Thank you for your civility.

        • Andrea Jonasson says:

          You are welcome. I think that it is unfortunate that there is so much animosity in the discussion of this case, because it gets in the way of looking at the evidence in a critical and logical way, and it keeps people from treating each other with dignity and respect.

          It is inevitable that feelings will run high, because so many people have been hurt so badly by Meredith’s murder and its aftermath. People naturally feel strongly, but I would rather that they thought critically than felt strongly because it is my belief that a basic scientific understanding of the evidence and the legal principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt’ will lead a logical person to believe that Amanda and Raffaele are not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A logical person should be able to entertain the notion that they might not actually be guilty. That is the nature of reasonable doubt, the key word being reasonable.

          When I began my reading in this case, I thought they were probably guilty. After all, people who are arrested for murder often are guilty. Now that I am better informed, I don’t see any reason to think they had anything to do with Meredith’s murder. I believe that Hellmann and Zanetti got it right.

    • Glenn Thigpen says:

      The guy has got a lot of facts wrong. He obviously has not studied the case very well.


  18. Nam says:

    The burden shifted to you long ago to answer the tough questions posed in this imaginary monologue:

    Amanda, it’s clear that someone cleaned up after Meredith was murdered. Someone also cut off her bra and repositioned her body – to make it appear, we think, that she’d been raped. We think that person also staged a burglary so it would appear the murderer hadn’t been let in by someone who lived there. Even if a burglary actually happened, as you insist, who in his right mind would risk drawing suspicion on himself by cleaning up after the murder, or by moving and covering Meredith’s body? And if he did bother to clean up, why would he ignore his own bloody footprints? Why would he pause to lock Meredith’s door with a key, and yet leave the front door wide open? It’s difficult to believe you weren’t involved in the clean-up and body-moving, or why you might have done those things for an innocent reason. The killer would have no reason to have done them. Obviously Meredith didn’t. No one suggests your two out-of-town roommates came back and did all this, or that a stranger wandered in off the street and did it. Who does that leave?

    You, with or without Raffaele’s help. We found your DNA, mixed with Meredith’s DNA, in five different places around the cottage – including even Filomena’s bedroom, where you insist a burglary occurred. We didn’t even find Filomena’s own DNA in her bedroom, much less any trace of a burglar or anyone else – just your DNA, mixed with Meredith’s. You’ve also told several different stories about where you were that night. Sometimes you were home, sometimes you weren’t; sometimes you’re not sure. Sometimes you invited Patrick Lumumba into your cottage and he killed Meredith, sometimes you didn’t and Patrick had nothing to do with the murder; sometimes you’re not sure. Sometimes you insist Guede broke Filomena’s window and climbed in; sometimes you say Meredith must have let him in; sometimes you’re not sure. And so on. Maybe you had nothing to do with this gruesome murder, Amanda, but, frankly, we doubt seriously that you’ve told us all you know about what happened that night. Maybe it’s time you did. Better late than never.

    • Amanda says:


      How is it clear that someone cleaned up after Meredith was murdered or “staged” her body and a break-in?

      There is no evidence anyone cleaned the crime scene (Meredith’s bedroom). Her blood was found pooled and splattered throughout the room. There were hand prints and footprints in her blood. There were no signs of someone having cleaned any traces in that room. For that matter, it is impossible to distinguish and clean up one person’s genetic traces and leave someone else’s. Furthermore, Guede’s genetic traces were found in Meredith’s vagina, so for her body to have been found in a prone position, with a pillow beneath her hips, suggests that the sexual contact very likely occurred in that position. The evidence suggests Guede covered her body with the duvet after the assault and then set the bloody murder weapon on the bed sheet and riffled through her purse. Nothing in that room suggests a staging after the fact of the murder in order to suggest a different kind of assault.

      There is no evidence anyone cleaned the immediate surroundings of the crime scene (Meredith’s and my bathroom, the hallway joining our two bedrooms, Filomena and Laura’s bathroom…) Rudy Guede’s shoe prints in Meredith’s blood were not cleaned. The nude footprints revealed with luminol tested negative for blood – which means they weren’t made in blood – and therefore had nothing to do with the crime. Meredith’s and my DNA found on the floor between our two bedrooms leading into the bathroom (which tested negative for blood) had already been deposited there from the sheer fact of passing through that space multiple times a day every day. The hardly-detectable traces of Meredith’s blood in the bathroom were diluted in the sink and bidet presumably because Guede had rinsed the blood from his hands. My own genetic traces in that bathroom had already been deposited there again from the fact of making use of that space on a daily basis, as well as when I took a shower the following morning.

      There is no evidence to suggest that the break-in was staged. There is no actual evidence that glass was found on top of and not under the clothing strewn around the room. There is no actual evidence of the rock being through from inside the room instead of from without. In fact, the broken wood of the window pane and the glass strewn within the room definitively suggests the rock was thrown from the outside. Rudy Guede had proved himself capable and habitual in breaking into second-story windows in order to burglarize. A trace of my and Meredith’s DNA, which tested negative for blood, has nothing to do with the crime. Again, Meredith and I lived in the apartment. We had been in Filomena’s room before.

      Nam, I had nothing to do with Meredith’s murder, so I can’t provide definitive answers. What I can tell you is that what you are suggesting as proof of my participation is unfounded. The crime scene and the immediate surroundings were not cleaned or staged. The only reason the prosecution has attempted to bring up the idea of a clean-up and staging was to account for there being no evidence to sustain their theory of Raffaele’s and my involvement. They were interpreting the objective evidence from the biased perspective that I had to be guilty, not from the objective perspective of seeking to find the truth of what the objective evidence was suggesting.

      The context of my testimony ever being inconsistent was the result of a coercive interrogation that occurred over night between November 5th and 6th, 2007. Upon relief from that terrible and terrifying situation, I immediately questioned and recanted what had been claimed. Before that interrogation, and ever since then, I have sustained a consistent testimony of what I did the night Meredith was murdered. I was at Raffaele’s apartment, enjoying a relaxing evening of dinner, movie, and intimacy with my then boyfriend. Period.

      Does this make sense?

      Does this make sense?

      • Som Nathan says:

        Good strong rebuttal Amanda.
        Nam, you are another misinformed Guilter. If you read WRONG information you will arrive at WRONG conclusion. Or you are simply evil who believes in darkness and evil as against innocence, hope and truth.
        The lies spread by Perugian prosecutor and police are UNSUSTAINABLE.
        Sooner than later truth will reveal itself.

      • Elias says:

        It makes perfect sense.

      • Nam says:


        Thank you for your reply. However, we still seriously doubt that you’ve told us all you know about what happened that night. Also, like it or not, the crime scene is the whole cottage, not just Meredith’s bedroom. Having DNA at the crime scene and on the murder weapon is very strong trial evidence against you. As written above, maybe you had nothing to do with this gruesome murder, but we still have some more questions.

        A small portion of your blood and Meredith’s blood was found to have been co-mingled in five cases, and even the defense was forced to agree with this finding of the prosecution. Your DNA was found in visible diluted blood traces in the bathroom and elsewhere in footprints revealed with Luminol. Two Luminol traces were discovered in the room where the burglary was staged; one of these is a mixed trace. These are referred to as L1 and L2. Both traces are presumed to be blood and both contained the victim’s DNA. There is no plausible explanation for this evidence that does not involve you being at least involved in the clean up after the murder.

        Detectable levels of DNA aren’t all that easy to find. Blood, sweat and tears — or saliva — contain it, and occasionally skin cells can be found. But merely being present in someone’s room isn’t necessarily enough — ask Filomena about her own bedroom, for example, or try to explain the absence of any DNA of “Burglar Rudy” in Filomena’s room, or the absence of Sollecito’s (or anyone else’s) DNA in Sollecito’s car.

        Judge Micheli said that evidence showed that Meredith had lain on one shoulder near the wardrobe. She lay in that position long enough for the imprint of her shoulder and bra strap to remain fixed in the pool of blood after she was moved to the position in which her body was finally found. Photographs of blood on her shoulder matched the imprint by the wardrobe and her shoulder itself also showed signs that she had remained in that position for some time.
        Based on this, Judge Micheli concluded that there could be no doubt that Meredith’s body was moved away from the wardrobe and her bra removed quite some time after her death.

        Granted, Meredith’s bedroom was right next to the bathroom. But it would have required at least a 10-foot leap, with a 90-degree turn near the end, to reach the bloody bath mat from the bloody areas of Meredith’s bedroom without touching down somewhere in between. And whoever made that 10-foot leap-and-turn obviously didn’t mind leaving a bloody footprint on the bath mat when he landed. It doesn’t matter here whose bloody footprint was on the bath mat. The blood in both Meredith’s bedroom and on the bath mat indisputably was Meredith’s. That’s all that matters here. What accounted for the blood-free 10-foot gap? Even if what you say was true, there is still an unexplained “footprint gap.” If a bloody footprint is found on a bath mat, there should have been several bloody footprints between that mat and the source of the blood. Why weren’t there?

        Worse yet: You speculate (though no court seems to have agreed) that Rudy walked on his right heel out of the bedroom, not letting his right toe touch the floor. Hence no bloody footprints, only heel prints. Despite being so careful, he then stepped down with his entire right foot on the bath mat — apparently no longer concerned about leaving bloody footprints. Persuasive? Apparently to you. I find it absurd and, again, even if it’s true, it wouldn’t explain the “footprint gap.”

        Then you speculate that Rudy, after washing blood off his hands and right foot, walks back into Meredith’s room and promptly plants his left foot in a pool of blood. Quite a lot of blood, it seems, since his left shoe tracked blood all the way out the front door. Why would he do that, after taking such great care to wash the blood off his right foot?

        But let’s assume Rudy did that, that he came back into Meredith’s room, did various things there, including stepping into her blood with his left shoe. When he was all done with those bad things and finally ran away, his left foot left bloody footprints all the way out the front door. Agreed? But can you explain this? Why did those bloody left footprints not start until he was OUTSIDE Meredith’s door? When he got Meredith’s blood on his left shoe, he was well inside Meredith’s bedroom, several steps away from her bedroom door. If he had enough blood on his left shoe to still be tracking blood all the way to the cottage front door, why were there no bloody left-shoe prints between the blood-source, well inside Meredith’s bedroom, and the hallway, where his left-shoe print was first detected?

        Even if your theory is correct, you haven’t explained the “footprint gap.” All you’ve done is “trade” one “footprint gap” for another. Now you need to explain why Rudy didn’t start leaving bloody left-foot prints right away, rather than only in the hallway and the kitchen/living room.
        A 10-foot leap-and-turn? Or perhaps the person had a blood-free left foot, on which he hopped to the bathroom so his bloody right foot wouldn’t leave any footprint along the way. When he got there, despite his careful effort to avoid leaving a bloody footprint, he stepped on the bath mat with his bloody right foot. One can imagine other possibilities, but only one stands out as plausible: More blood footprints were made on the hard-surface floors between the two bloody locations, but those footprints were cleaned up.
        Whoever cleaned up the bloody footprints may also have moved and covered Meredith’s body – or at least knows who did. The question is obvious: Who did these things, and why would that person take such a risk?

        If one came home to find a bloody murder had been committed there, would one say: “I don’t think I’ll call the police just yet. First I’ll clean up this bloody mess, reposition the victim’s body and make some other changes so it appears she was raped, and then cover her up. Sure, the police may find out about the murder from someone else, in which case they might show up and be suspicious because I’m destroying and altering evidence of a murder that I’ll claim to know nothing about. But that’s a risk I’m willing to take. I just can’t stand to leave such a mess, or to leave a dead body lying in that particular position – uncovered, no less.”

        Utterly implausible? We think so. Yet it’s all but certain that such a clean-up and body-repositioning occurred. So, again, the questions are: Who did these things, and why would that person take such a risk? The killer would have no reason to have done them. Obviously Meredith didn’t. No one suggests your two out-of-town roommates came back and did all this, or that a stranger wandered in off the street and did it. Who does that leave?
        You, with or without Raffaele’s help.

        In any event, the “burglar” was not convincing. He allegedly threw a 10-pound rock through a window 13 feet above the ground (which Meredith apparently didn’t hear), scaled a 13-foot wall in plain view from the street, climbed through the broken window without disturbing any of the broken glass spread across the windowsill, threw clothes out of Filomena’s closet onto her bed but then decided not to take anything (including jewelry, a digital camera, and a laptop in plain sight), went to Meredith’s room and raped and killed her, and then ran out the front door, tracking Meredith’s blood along the way. Broken window glass was found on top of items thrown onto Filomena’s bed – on top – suggesting her window had been broken after her room was ransacked, not before.

        The “burglar” left no DNA, no fingerprints, no footprints, no mud, no grass stains, or any other traces in Filomena’s bedroom, on the windowsill, on the outside wall, or on the ground below. No one’s DNA was found in Filomena’s bedroom – not even Filomena’s – except the DNA for you, mixed with Meredith’s blood.

        Who carried out this staged burglary, and why?

        The Massei report for your trial looks into whether or not a break-in is supported by the evidence available in the room with the broken window, and concludes that the broken window and room in disarray are an “artificial representation”, i.e. that the break-in was staged. After seven pages of review of the evidence (english translation*), the report states:

        “…the situation of disorder in Romanelli’s room and the breaking of the window pane constitute an artificial representation created in order to orient the investigations towards a person who, not having the key to the front door, was supposed to have entered through the previously broken window and then effected the violent acts on Meredith which caused her death.”

        Again, who carried out this staged burglary, and why?

        As for your alibi, all that we know is that around 8:40 pm you were still at Raffaele’s apartment. Jovana Popovic, a Polish student who knew Raffaele, came by his apartment to inform him that she no longer required him to give her a drive to the bus station. Jovana did not see Raffaele, and she was told he was in the bathroom by you. Sollecito received a phone call at 8:42 pm that was handled by the cell tower covering his apartment so he was likely at the apartment until at least 8:42 pm. That is all we can confirm of your alibi.

        Sorry Amanda, but we still don’t fully believe you’ve told us all you know about what happened on that night of November 1, 2007.

        • Amanda says:


          The reason I distinguish between Meredith’s bedroom and the rest of the apartment when using terms such as the “crime scene” and the “immediate surroundings” is because it was within Meredith’s bedroom that the assault occurred. For that reason, it is within Meredith’s bedroom that one may expect to find genetic evidence relevant to that specific act of violence. However, outside of the immediate space where the crime occurred, one cannot expect to find genetic evidence that’s immediately and definitively relevant to that specific act of violence.

          There are other reasons for which my DNA was found in the bathroom I shared with Meredith, in the hallway between our two bedrooms and our bathroom, and in Filomena’s room. My DNA was already there before the assault occurred. Furthermore, I deposited more of my DNA in our bathroom and the hallway between our two bedrooms when I came home the morning of November 2nd to take a shower. These traces are not datable and are not relevant to the crime.

          The knife claimed to be the murder weapon has proven to be not, so my DNA on that knife is irrelevant to the crime. The knife does not fit Meredith’s wounds, does not match the imprint on the bed sheet, has tested negative for blood, and did not have Meredith’s DNA on it.

          The traces of Meredith’s blood found dispersed throughout the immediate surroundings of the crime scene are of course relevant to the murder because they were tracked outside of the immediate crime scene after the crime occurred. However, my DNA having been found mixed with traces of her blood is not necessarily indicative of my involvement in the crime. My DNA was already deposited in the areas I frequented within the house.

          Luminol traces that have tested negative for blood cannot be presumed to be blood. Just as my DNA was already deposited throughout the common areas of our apartment, so was Meredith’s. Meredith and I had both been in Filomena’s bedroom before.

          I have not heard this argument about Meredith’s shoulder having rested for some time against the wardrobe. I will of course reread Judge Micheli’s report to check. However, in response to your idea that Raffaele and I must have staged the crime scene, that also would have necessitated the leaving of our genetic traces in the room.

          I have never speculated about the means by which Guede left his foot and shoe prints within and immediately without of the crime scene. What is relevant to the case against Raffaele and I is that these foot prints and shoe prints in Meredith’s blood do not belong to us. Furthermore, had footprints been cleaned in the distance between Meredith’s body and the bathroom, there would have been evidence of a cleaning – luminal reacts to blood as well as to household cleaners. Testing for blood of any such revealed traces would determine whether or not they had been made in blood.

          Rudy Guede was known to burglarize other residences and offices in a similar manner by which he burglarized our apartment. Rock through a window, scaling to the second floor. The prosecution’s assertions that Filomena’s window was clearly visible from the street is inaccurate. Our villa was below the street, distant by a long drive way, and situated above a ravine where there were no immediate neighboring houses. Claims that glass had been found only on top and not below the items scattered throughout Filomena’s room is also inaccurate. Photo evidence and testimony says otherwise.


          • Paul says:

            The cottage is very visible from street . The drive runs parallel to the road which is just above. A pedestrian or passing car has a long unobstructed of view of the cottage. The exit from the car park is almost across from the cottage gate and entrance to the drive. This is the safest place for pedestrians needing to cross over.There is even a photo online of the very visible window of Filomena’s as seen from the gate at night.

          • Andrea Jonasson says:

            This JREF post from Charlie Wilkes explains how the bra strap print / body moving error was introduced by Micheli.

            Warning – graphic with blood.

            bra strap print error

          • Tyler says:

            You claim that Guede’s bloody footprint is on the bathroom mat. But there is no trace of any blood trail connecting from Meredith’s room (site or murder) to the bathroom.

            Not to mention that the footprint is from RS (the court’s opinion and mine as well) but even leaving that aside,there is still a lot of physical evidence connecting RS and AK to the cottage.

            Then there is the matter of the turned off phones by both RS and AK during the crucial time period of the murder. What a tragedy that innocent Amanda cannot show us a text message to prove she was doing something else at the time.

            Just one more of the many million-to-one coincidences that make Amanda look guilty when in fact she is innocent. My what an unlucky girl she is.

          • Nam says:


            Thank you for your reply. However, some of your statements are still not fully believable and we have more questions.

            Regardless of what you assert, the Italian police and courts recognize the crime scene as the whole apartment. And within it there was a lot of evidence found against you and some against Raffaele. So how do you know that the attack on Meredith occurred only in her bedroom? Could the attack on her have started in the hallway? Could the first blood shed have been on the hallway tiles?

            Also, you didn’t reply to our previous inquiry on why Rudy didn’t leave bloody left-foot prints right away in Meredith’s bedroom, rather than only in the hallway and the kitchen/living room.

            Only one possibility stands out as plausible: more blood footprints were made on the hard-surface floors between the two bloody locations, but those footprints were cleaned up. Whoever cleaned up the bloody footprints may also have moved and covered Meredith’s body – or at least knows who did. So, once again, who did these things, and why would that person take such a risk?

            Despite your claim above, Raffaele’s DNA was discovered on Meredith’s bra clasp found in her bedroom and in abundance and the “contamination” argument was ruled out. The Supreme Court, overturned Hellmann’s ruling, and was especially harsh regarding the lack of logic on this point, calling it completely unmoored from scientific reasoning. Also, the Supreme Court accepts that the Luminol prints, which match your foot size, were made in the victim’s blood.

            We are also having trouble believing your “genetic traces” argument. You speculate that Rudy was “guilty” of burglary but none of his DNA was found in Filomena’s room. However, you also claim that you are “innocent” for murder since none of your DNA was found in Meredith’s room. So you are using two completely different and opposing sets of logic for two different rooms. Which set of logic should be applied to the bathroom and which set should be applied to the hallway?

            Additionally, it would be highly unlikely that the victim’s blood would be mixed with your DNA in another roommate’s bedroom – and not mixed with the resident of that room. So why wasn’t Filomena’s DNA or any of your other roommates’ DNA detected with Meredith’s blood found anywhere else in the cottage? After all, they all lived there just like you did, and by your logic, Meredith’s blood should have also mixed with their DNA. However, only your DNA was detected with her blood and not the others. Why?

            As for the knife, you can see a video that shows a match with the stain on the pillow here: Also the knife was never “proven” to be too big to inflict the wounds on Meredith, it was only disputed as so by your defense team in the latest trial. Additionally, the most recent DNA test on the knife was only done on a single trace of DNA that had not previously been tested and that test found your DNA on the knife again. Your defense team disputed the previous findings of the trace belonging to Meredith, but those findings are still part of the case evidence.

            Also, a seemingly unrelated ruling in the Queens Supreme Court, released on Feb 8th 2010, presents difficulties to your argument for innocence. You and your supporters have claimed that results from a new type of DNA test entered into evidence in your trials in Italy would not be accepted in US courts. However, it is this same type of DNA test that the Queens Supreme court issued its ruling on, a ruling that allowed results from the new DNA test to be admitted to the Queens trial.

            This kind of testing is performed on a very tiny amount of DNA material and is called Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA testing, The Queens ruling establishes that results from LCN DNA testing can be entered in as evidence, and is the first challenge to LCN DNA testing in a US court. While the Queens ruling is only applicable in that jurisdiction, it does establish precedence and an argument for LCN DNA test results to be accepted at other trials in America. The DNA test results presented at your trial are key evidence that directly implicates you as participating in the murder. Meredith’s DNA was found via LCN DNA testing on the knife found in Raffaelle’s apartment, and your DNA was found on the handle of the knife through a regular DNA test. Based on this, you were also found guilty of transferring a murder weapon, which added additional time onto your sentence.

            The Queens ruling cites “Frye vs. the US” to determine criteria for acceptance; Frye “requires the proponent of new or novel scientific techniques to establish by sufficient evidence the general acceptance and reliability of the technique within the relevant scientific community”. The Queens ruling is that the LCN DNA procedure passes this test, and actually isn’t even a “new or novel” technique; merely a refinement of a generally accepted technique. It further states that while the defense may argue critiques of LCN DNA testing (interpretation issues, transference issues), these arguments “do not affect the admissibility of the evidence for trial purposes pursuant to Frye”. Therefore, because of this finding , the kitchen knife would, most likely, be acceptable in a US court of law.

            Even worse, in an effort to explain things, Raffaelle made a damning statement to the police when he claimed:

            “The fact that Meredith’s DNA is on my kitchen knife is because once, when we were all cooking together, I accidentally pricked her hand.” However, Meredith had never been to Raffaelle’s apartment.

            Furthermore, in a jailhouse conversation with your parents on November 17, 2001 you said:

            “I am very, I am very worried about this thing with the knife…because there is a knife of Raffaelle’s…”.

            Why should you have been so worried about a single knife in Raffaelle’s flat? If you were genuinely innocent, you would not have needed to ever mention anything about this knife, or, indeed, to worry about it. It would have been the last thing on your mind. Yet you mentioned it to your very own parents. Why?

            Additionally, you called your mother at 12:47, before the door to Meredith’s bedroom had been broken down. In a later conversation with your mother on this phone call, you stated “I was in shock”, and your mother replied “But this was before anything had happened…” Why did you say that to your mother?

            Much of the press outside of Italy has refused to look at the details of the evidence presented at the trials. Thus, making it very easy and lazy to conclude based on a limited understanding of the case that the “evidence is flimsy” or that there is “no evidence”. However, after careful review, it is quite clear that the evidence is very strong against Raffaelle and you.

            So, again, sorry Amanda, but we still don’t fully believe you’ve told us all you know about what happened on that night of November 1, 2007. Maybe you should start to now. Better late than never.

          • Wayne says:

            I’m impressed that Nam has been able to state so many lies, contradictions, appeals to authority and plain illogic in one post. I’ll cover a few. Nam states “Despite your claim above, Raffaele’s DNA was discovered on Meredith’s bra clasp found in her bedroom and in abundance and the “contamination” argument was ruled out. The Supreme Court, overturned Hellmann’s ruling, and was especially harsh regarding the lack of logic on this point, calling it completely unmoored from scientific reasoning. Also, the Supreme Court accepts that the Luminol prints, which match your foot size, were made in the victim’s blood.”

            It wasn’t just the Hellmann court that stated the bra was most likely contaminated, it was court appointed independent DNA experts who stated it. The Supreme Court is full of lawyers. So I see a gaggle of lawyers simply dismissing the work of scientists because they don’t agree with their conclusion. I hear Galileo saying now, “The more things change the more they stay the same”. at least in Italy.

            As for the Luminol, the police themselves used TMB to determine the specificity of the s ubstance. IT Was NEGATIVE. Now before you go into the guilter rant that Luminol is better, ask a) why did the police need to use TMB if Luminol specifies the substance and b) why didn’t the police actually find out what the substance was once the TMB test was negative. This was 2007, not 1907. We no longer just pour a chemical over a substance and watch it turn color to identify it. We have things now like electron microscopes and mass spectrometers that can perfectly identify what “something” is. Get it?

            The lie comes from your statement about the knife and Rafaelle. Some guilters have published articles stating it was in a letter to his father. Some claim that it was in his diary. And some like you claim that it was in a statement to the police. When you make up a story, can you at least get it straight which one it is?

          • jamesrae says:

            Nam, Naseur, Nasim.

            If I was Amanda I would not respond to this resent post because you are a predator/vampire type who has no boundaries. There is absolutely nothing one could say than would end the thirst that drives the beast. I would just send you over to JREF and let you slug it out with the big boys you fear. Otherwise you will just grab at anything and everything never satiated.

          • Andrea Jonasson says:

            @Nam re: the knife.

            I have myself tried the high-res crime scene photos with the semi-transparent knife on the bloodstain using Photoshop. The YouTube video is using somber and dignified piano music to distract the watcher into overlooking the blob that is the handle of a much shorter knife. I could make a YouTube video that shows that a completely different knife is way more compatible with the stain than this kitchen knife.

            If you really want that knife to be the murder weapon, you will need to adequately deal with the conclusions reached by Conti and Vechiotti, who were appointed by the court to review the DNA results produced by Ms. Stefanoni in regards to sample 36b. Their report says that one cannot conclude that Meredith’s DNA was ever on the knife, let alone deposited there in blood (negative for blood) as she was being murdered. The RIS Carabinieri said during the trial that two separately amplified tests would be required to produce a reliable result for this kind of LCN DNA testing. This was not done, so the result would not be a result in the RIS Carabinieri lab.

            Let go of the knife, Nam. It never made sense in the first place. She carried it in her purse. Really? It could not have made two of the three neck wounds. It does not match the stain on the bed. I don’t think it’s even compatible. Crini is the first ever to say so in court. The DNA match to Meredith is not reliable evidence.

            Let it go. It is time.

          • Lince says:


            Regarding the absence of Filomena’s and other housemates DNA. Did not find you strange that none of these were found anywhere at the house at all? Are they all ghosts not leaving any traces? Or there is a trivially simple explanation for that, which also happens to be the truth: none of them, except Amanda and Raffaele, were asked to give their DNA samples for comparison. The prosecution “knew” the killers right away, they did not need to bother with any unnecessary tests. So your explanation goes in smoke.

            Regarding DNA LCN results. By definition, it is very low DNA quantities that could be analysed only by using proper equipment and following strict scientific procedure to exclude possible contamination. When this was done (twice in a row now) by independent experts, none of Meredith DNA was found on the knife, while the found Amanda’s DNA alone is not incriminatory in any way. The Stefanoni results are unreliable exactly for the above reasons: the used equipment was not designed for such low DNA analysis and, moreover, the necessary scientific procedures were not followed (not even negative control tests were performed, which are needed to establish the background contamination level). One of the crucial scientific requirements in such cases is to conduct LCN DNA tests in absolutely clean environment: i.e., in a lab and by equipment where no relevant DNA (Meredith DNA) were not tested before. Obviously, this requirement was also violated by Stefanoni.

        • HH says:

          Nam: You people need a careful trail of evidence to explain Rudy’s every move and convict him of anything. Then if it isn’t there, you assume it’s because there was a cleanup. That isn’t how DNA works. It was plentiful in Meredith’s room because Meredith was involved in a desperate fight for her life with Guede.

          What’s really sick is this boolean reasoning, this need to blame a LACK OF EVIDENCE on Amanda when there was no evidence that she was present during the crime. The only evidence that exists is evidence that she was present in her own home and used her own bathroom around the time of the murder.

          This reasoning requires you to do two things:

          1)You have to invent evidence that isn’t there.
          2) You have to assign Amanda as the reason this evidence isn’t there.

          It requires you to make not one, but two leaps in judgment. Then you need evidence accounting for Rudy’s every footstep and if it isn’t there, that’s Amanda’s fault. Then with no evidence, you make the fact that RUDY WAS THERE Amanda’s fault.

          So let’s review what leads you to believe Amanda was there.

          1) There’s no evidence of her present at the crime scene.
          2) There isn’t enough evidence of Rudy.
          3) Amanda, in your opinion, is the only way that Rudy could have gotten in the house.

          To do this, you’re ignoring both the broken window and the fact that Rudy had friends that lived downstairs.

          You’re ignoring Rudy’s own version of the story that Meredith was the one who let him inside, but you’re willing to take his word in regard to anything that implicates Amanda.

          4) To sum up, you’re choosing to treat the word of someone who ran away to another country, who had assailant wounds on his hands and who had his DNA all over the victim’s room and with his handprints and footprints in blood as a reluctant accomplice, because he changed his story to implicate Amanda and Raffaele.
          You are choosing to believe that he was somehow covering for Amanda and Raffaele when he originally stated that they (Amanda specifically) was not present.

          You are willing to take the word of someone who in your opinion is still lying about his involvement in the murder as proof against Amanda.

          You don’t see how insanely biased you are being?

        • Andrea Jonasson says:

          I wonder why you bother writing to ask Amanda questions when you are not willing to listen to the answers and incorporate the information she is graciously providing to you into your understanding of the case.

          I also wonder why you expect her to explain the oddities in the evidence that Rudy left behind, since she wasn’t there and doesn’t know why Rudy’s footprints are the way they are any more than anybody else who is familiar with the evidence in the case but was not present during the murder.

          Have you tried writing to Rudy and asking him? He was there, so he should be able to provide you with the information you are seeking.

          I hope you will have the good grace to thank Amanda for the time she has taken to answer your questions.

      • Chris Meyering says:

        Using Nams logic, Solving crimes are easy! Now, all a Detective or Prosecutor has to do to win a case or solve a crime is retrieve a form and fill in the blanks.

        So when they come upon a scene, they pull out their trusty ole’ “easy solve it form.” Under ‘who’, Just pick a random name from the Phone book. Under evidence, just list, “none, suspect cleaned it up crime scene with bleach”. Under, Witnesses, just pick someone up sleeping under a bridge. DNA? No problem, Just go into the Suspect house and swab his Bathroom.

        There we go! Case Solved! Now everyone can be a star Prosecutor and never lose a case! I never realized how easy being a Detective could be….

      • Celeste says:

        It think the duplicated “Does this make sense? a” at the end of your post reveals substantial working and re-working of your answer, much like the extra words in your 3am email alibi. None of this stands up to scrutiny. To take just the last sentence, we know that you were still at Raffaele’s place at about a quarter to nine. That’s really all that is definitively proven regarding your account, and it’s telling that you initially tried to place dinner as late as 11pm to fill up all that empty space.

        • DW says:

          It’s more likely the repeated line at the end of her posts represents a cut and paste error, if she wrote her post in Word and then copied it here. Lots of people do that.

        • HH says:

          Celeste: You’re picking apart her every word because you have nothing else against her. I see this over and over again from people who insist that Amanda is guilty. Are you an expert in statement analysis? Or are you a guitar teacher that talks big in your free time?

        • Rob H says:

          It is astonishing, “celeste” what you seem to find “telling” about this case – based on a faux psychological examination of some of Ms Knox’s writings – only some, not all. Yet, the complete absence of any DNA or physical evidence connecting Ms Knox to the murder room, is not “telling”. Nor is the lack of any transfer evidence, which might incriminate Ms Knox, “telling”.

          This tells us a lot about you “celeste”.

          Here’s some more “telling” evidence, “celeste”:

          “I don’t remember these things, these hours, these things. I don’t remember them anymore.” – Nara Cappezali

          “At a certain moment, I don’t know if I had gone away for a moment to speak with someone from the Flying Squad or something, in passing that room, returning to this room where I remember [Amanda] was alone, it was only her, and I was practically…I understood that this girl was truly fatigued, exhausted, she was tired because I practically found her, she was draped on a seat with her head reclined toward the wall, white in the face, with her eyes closed, white, I was very struck by her pallor and I understood that this girl was in bad shape.” – Aida Colantone

          “There were a lot of young people in costume.” – “Toto” Curatalo

          “We knew she was guilty of murder without physical evidence.” – Edgardo Giobbi

          And here’s Judge Hellmann:

          “The reality is that we are in the presence of entirely ambiguous circumstantial evidence which acquired [trovato] value as indicative of the falsity of the alibi in the interpretation of the first-level Corte di Assise only because it was read at that time in light of genetic [i.e. DNA] investigations performed by the Scientific Police which were held to be reliable; so that, with this reliability having collapsed, the evidence in question can be interpreted in an entirely different manner, consistent with the alibi offered.”

        • jamesrae says:


          What bothers me to know end is those darn tech police busting up 3 of 4 computers. Now ya’ll got
          to wonder what was on Amanda and Raff’s busted computers. Ya’ll got to wonder why the prosecution hid their blood tests on the footprints. Lots of things to wonder about.

        • Andrea Jonasson says:

          I had a bet with myself… I thought, “Somebody is going to take the duplicate sentence at the end of your post as evidence of guilt!” I wish I had been wrong, because this is really sad.

          Celeste – Naruto at 9:26! And copy-paste errors, like your own DNA in your bathroom sink, are not evidence of guilt.

          • Elias says:

            Well geez, then I am guilty 20 times over for all my composition and proofing errors, lol! (I thought the same thing too.)

        • Stephane G says:

          I think the nature of your recent analysis on Amanda’s comments reveals you’ve finished reading « psychology for dummies » lately, and did not fully understand it. And I did not re-worked this answer 27 times.

        • Mandos says:

          What is is your point, Celeste? That Amanda used a text editor to write out her response and then copypasted it to her blog? Heck, I do the same thing when writing a long post on a messageboard or a blog. Blogs and messageboards rarely have save feature and it sucks to lose a post when there is a hickup. It also makes spotting typos a lot easier.

      • Scott says:

        I doubt that all the facts in this case will ever come to the surface irregardless if Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. There is too much co-mingling of DNA in this case from residents of the cottage at the time of the crime whose DNA would be “all over the place”. I can’t speak to the exactness of the Luminol tests either one way or the other. I do hope that everyone involved in this large case begins to heal and that we all remember Meredith Kercher for the person she was and the goals she was working towards. I have no earthly idea what will happen to the defendants in this case…if they are indeed innocent I hope they can go on with their lives peacefully. Perhaps this is what Meredith would have wanted had she still been alive. – Sincerely, Scott

    • jamesrae says:

      Nam old boy

      You should try and reposition a dead and lifeless body sometime.
      You will be amazed at what dead weight means and of course you
      are clueless if you think you could actually reconstruct a whole new
      scene without many indicators of the restaging of the body and the
      added contamination of the crime scene from those involved. You
      need to review all and everything you think you know starting with
      a pencil and new blank piece of writing paper and do the math with
      what really exists as opposed to what ” we imagine and we think “.

    • Rob H says:

      I am intruiged, “Nam”. Who is the “we” you refer to? As in: “we doubt seriously that you’ve told us all you know….” and: “We think that person also staged a burglary…..”. Of course you also say: “We found your DNA…”. You’re not Stefanoni are you? :)

    • HH says:

      Nam: I don’t see how anyone could look at Meredith’s room and think there was a cleanup of any kind. Stop regurgitating what you’ve heard and review the actual evidence.

      Take a look at Hendry’s analysis. It reenacts the crime complete with pictures and indicates that poor Meredith was still alive (and aspirating blood) when she was undressed, not dead and stripped by someone in the middle of an impossible cleanup.

      Amanda didn’t commit this crime. She couldn’t have committed this crime unless she had superhuman powers including the ability to hover in the air and see DNA with the naked eye.

    • HH says:

      Here’s a more detailed analysis of the crime scene, complete with how the bloodstains on the duvet indicate that Meredith wasn’t moved after she died.

    • Wayne says:

      What I find absolutely amazing is that the guilters and prosecution believe that Amanda and Rafaelle had carefully cleaned the rooms and had rinsed their blood out in the bathroom sink and then forgot to clean the sink! Yes, that makes sense…not.

      Amanda had pointed out one very key point. The so-called “blood” with DNA had been found with luminol and then tested specifically for blood. With negative results. No blood. Then in past posts, the guilters twist themselves into contortions trying to explain away that the luminol test was already proof positive of it being blood. Which is of course absurd. Luminol tests for multiple substances that contain copper. That is why the police had to use TMB to actually see if it was blood. And the results were negative. What the guilters never explain is this. Once the sample was shown negative for blood why did the police not bother to found out what it actually was? Not just pouring a chemical on it and seeing what color it turns, but by actually using 21st century techniques to establish the substance? Methods such as electron microscopes, mass spectrometers, so forth. The crime occurred in 2007, not 1907.

    • Andrea Jonasson says:

      Nam, one of the things that is leading you to believe that Amanda is guilty is the mixed DNA found in various places around the house. Your DNA is in your house – on your light switches, in your bathroom sink, and in your hallway. If you live with somebody, and the two of you walk barefoot in the same hallway, there will be mixed DNA on your hallway floor. If somebody bleeds in your bathroom sink, their blood (with DNA) will be mixed with your DNA. This does not mean that you are the one who made them bleed.

      It is normal to find people’s DNA in various places around their own home. Therefore, if a person is murdered and has bled on DNA previously left by someone who lives in a home, it would be normal to find a murder victim’s blood mixed with an innocent resident’s DNA.

      Finding Rudy’s DNA on the murder victim and her purse is meaningful, since he is not known to have been a visitor in the house. Finding Amanda’s DNA in her own hallway and bathroom is not meaningful. Not finding Amanda’s DNA in the room where Meredith was murdered, or on Meredith and her belongings is meaningful.

    • Glenn Thigpen says:

      @NAM, the evidence in the room where Meredith was killed screams that Rudy Guede was there. The evidence that Raffaele and/or Amanda were in that room, ever, is deafening in its silence. No one, but no one has been able to provide any credible evidence that Amanda or Raffaele were even in that house that night, much less in the murder room. The only way they could have been there is by magic, which I do not believe in. Do you?


    • Doug Moodie says:

      The burden should not be on Amanda or Raffaele to prove their innocence. That burden makes real jurisprudence impossible. But, since you are asking, just as you have important questions for Ms Knox, I have some important questions for you. I hope you will take the time to answer.

      1) Are your concerns at all legitimate? Why ask questions for which you do not want answers!?

      I have gotten tired of guilter “free riders”; those who ask a question, or demand an explanation, but fail to continue the conversation after getting a response. There is no follow up discussion. It’s purely hit and run. These are not legitimate questions. They are accusations couched as questions. You remain implacable. Why waste everyone’s time?

      2) What are the parameters of your opinions? How do you make your choices? What are the decision points that determine for you the question of guilt or innocence? What facts about this case really matter to you?
      For example, here is a link to a picture from pmf that shows the door handle to Meredith’s room.
      Clearly there was no clean up because certainly they would have cleaned the door handle!

      Typically, a guilter like you will not respond to a fact like this at all. The typical guilter will just disappear, sometimes never to reappear, and sometimes coming back under a different name. But if a guilter like you responds at all, it will be to create a special scenario. Something that common sense says is the unlikeliest of possibilities, but which is harder to disprove.
      For example, one typical response is that A & R only cleaned up traces of themselves, and left traces pointing towards Guede. ( How that would apply to the bloody door handle, I can’t fathom.)

      The mere lack of evidence of a cleanup, which ordinarily would meet the standard of reasonable doubt, fails in the mind of the quilter to meet the standard of reasonable doubt.. “Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence” as the guilter mavens have written. Maybe not, but it’s not evidence of presence either, and that standard is the only fair burden to place on a defendant. If you think she cleaned up after the murder, prove it. Otherwise accept that reasonable doubt exists on that point. Or at least hang around to discuss it.

      3) Can your opinion be changed? Is it based on facts, facts and disputable? If nothing can change your mind, your opinion is not fact based. Everyone has loyalty to their point of view, but if you cannot conceive of learning anything that could convince you that your opinion is wrong, your opinion is not fact based. If that is the case, don’t bother to ask questions. Instead, look at how you came to feel that Knox is guilty and investigate if the causes of that feeling are indisputably valid. This should lead you back to a rational discussion, but I am not holding my breath

      4) We who? The hooded committee in the white sheets?

  19. Elias says:

    Tyler and Willis:

    Even 3 year old children can recognize the weakness of a circular argument:

    I read this, and you two and the guilter squads smoke and mirrors immediately came to mind.

    Enjoy the read; see if you are as smart as little kids.

    • Celeste says:

      Might this be another example of circular reasoning? “It follows from this that, with regard to the murder, not only may the “spontaneous” statements not be used, but in reality neither may the note written later, since, although usable from a procedural standpoint, it does not deserve to be relied upon from a substantive one, as it does not represent what really happened in this case.”

      • HH says:

        No. It’s not that complicated. What Hellman is saying is that the false confession that Amanda gave DOES NOT match the available evidence at all and so it is not reliable to be used against her.

        Basically, (and this is the part you guilters really seem to have a problem with) Hellman is saying that Amanda buckled and told the cops what they wanted to hear since they first started waving Patrick’s text in front of her and yelling at her and calling her a liar.

        Nothing in her confession can be backed up by the actual evidence. No one saw her go back to the cottage and there is no evidence of her participating in the crime. Patrick COULD NOT have been there and her confession (where she placed herself in the kitchen covering her ears) most certainly does not match what the prosecution is asserting: that Amanda stabbed Meredith with one of Raffaele’s kitchen knives that she was just carrying around in her purse.

        Basically Hellman is saying that the statement that Amanda signed is hogwash. I think he has a point. Just because she signed it does not indicate that she killed her roommate. It indicates that at most, she lied.

      • BigDinBoise says:

        How do you know? You don’t seem to know much of anything about this case Celeste. It seems to me that your only purpose in being here is to stir the pot. If you have anything substantive to add to the discussion then lets hear it.

  20. Glenn Thigpen says:

    The questions I have at this time for anyone who maybe really understands the Italian legal system, can the evidence of contamination that was discussed in an earlier set of posts be presented to the Court of Cassation for their required level of proof?
    Also, can Amanda’s and Raffaele’s lawyers argue that the Nencini court “undervalued” the results of the further DNA testing on “the knife” which the court of Cassation said would be “decisive”?


    • Antony says:

      Glenn Thigpen: can Amanda’s and Raffaele’s lawyers argue that the Nencini court “undervalued” the results of the further DNA testing on “the knife” which the court of Cassation said would be “decisive”?

      These are my thoughts as well, and I think a strong case can be made which in front of a fair tribunal would declare the Nencini verdict (and the previous Supreme Court decision) illegal and reinstate the Hellman acquittals. The previous SC ruling was that Hellman failed to consider all the “evidence” – so, logically and legally (in terms of the existing SC mandate), Nencini has to base his decision on evidence not considered or wrongly-evaluated by Hellman. I don’t see any sign of him doing that from the reports of the trial. The Nencini report will make interesting reading – I can only suppose that it will be even more fanciful and contrived than the Massei report.

      But, as has become obvious, the Italian courts do not operate on fairness but on partisanship. The Nencini report can be destroyed in front of the next Cassation hearing by the defendants’ lawyers (as the callunia, and it will still be entirely true to form that the judges will ignore reason and justice and rubber-stamp the prosecution assertions.

      On the other hand, the new SC panel will be a different set of judges who conceivably could have different sympathies. The final outcome (within Italy) will depend not on legal arguments, but on the makeup of the Supreme Court panel.

      • Antony says:

        Sorry, that should be: “… (as the callunia conviction would have been last time round), …”

        • Wayne says:

          I find it incredible that there was only one piece of new evidence introduced in the Nencini court meaning the additional test on the knife and that that evidence was again showed no DNA from Meredith on the knife. And the court found Amanda guilty anyway.

          Although innocent, I find little hope that Rafaelle and Amanda will be found innocent by the Italian SC. After the Hellmann court was overthrown by the SC, it seemed like the fix was in. My humble opinion is that Raf’s best chance is to hope for a light sentence and for Amanda to let the American system including the State Department examine and most likely laugh with contempt at any extradition request based on a case with so many holes.

          In other words, the judgment of guilt already seemed predetermined.

  21. vanboy says:

    Sarcy said on September 20, 2012

  22. Nick Green (UK) says:

    News from Japan: Iwao Hakamada, a former pro boxer on death row for 45 years after being convicted of a multiple murder, has been freed after DNA tests ruled out key evidence used in his trial.

    He was convicted based on a forced confession after prolonged interrogation.

    • BigDinBoise says:

      You don’t say? 45 years of a life taken by corrupt police, who some here will say “were just doing their jobs.”

    • Elias says:

      Yeah, I read that NYT story, shows that this kind of things happens around the world. Sad. People and Police need to wake up and update themselves!

    • Chris Meyering says:

      I will always concede to the fact that the Japanese are some of the most Honor bound people in the world, yet as we can see, corruption can still seep into positions of power. Regardless, we are starting to see more and more cases like this all over the first world.

      Maybe Judges (who were Prosecutors once themselves) are becoming more emboldened by these recent events and are willing to do the right thing.

  23. Just follow the ongoing case-investigation of missing flight MH370, and as each new piece of real, verified, evidence comes in, all the previous theories based on mere conjecture wash away, they can not stand without facts to back them up. Thats why its important to do a thorough investigation and wait for all the evidence to come in before demonizing someone.

    Amanda’s case should become a documented case study in all that can go wrong with an investigation not based on facts, but based on made-made theories and conjectures.

  24. Tyler says:

    Footprint analysis from an independent source . Pay close attention to the overlays at 4:00 min into the video. It is RS’s footprint on the bathmat . No question about it. I know the many blindly-devoted AK supporters here will dispute this, but just use some common sense. It is clearly RS’s footprint. Check the indentation on the left side of the footprint where the big toe connects to the main part of the foot. RS has a very big indentation while RG has almost no indentation. The bloody footprint on the bathmat has a very big indentation just like RS. Conclusion: RS and AK are guilty.

    • Som Nathan says:

      @tyler. Wrong analysis leads to wrong conclusion. First you guilters and prosecutors alike are CONFUSED about the foot print. It has long been discarded in Massie’s court that footprint cannot be Raffele’s.
      It can only be of Rudy Guede, the sole murderer and rapist in this case. There is no physical or DNA related evidence that places Amanda and Raffele at the crime room where Rudy raped, robbed and murdered Meredith.
      Amanda and Raffele are INNOCENT, they did not commit this crime.

    • Andrea Jonasson says:

      There is no question in your mind about it. That does not mean that there is no question at all about it.

      The indentation in the big toe speaks to you. I think you are just using the indentation as an excuse to explain why the shape of the big toe in the bath mat print is slim and not wide like Raffaele’s.

      The shape of the big toe and the second toe blob speak to me. It looks more Guede-like than Sollecito-like to me.

      But let’s face it. We are both biased and likely to interpret the footprints in ways that fit our existing beliefs.

      However, if the bath mat print were the only piece of evidence against Guede, I would say that it is not enough for a definitive identification, and would not be able to send him to jail on the strength of that print alone.

      Tyler, do you know whether or not Guede was ever questioned about this footprint in court? He admitted to being in the bathroom to get the towels, so we know he was in that room. We know he had blood on him. This is the kind of evidence that tells me that Rudy is a more likely candidate for that footprint than Raffaele. Take off the shoe to rinse the bloody pant leg, touch down on the bath mat with a wet foot…. It is plausible.

      Among other things, the duodenum evidence supporting an early time of death and Rudy’s stated 9:20 timing for Meredith’s scream make Raffaele a less likely candidate for the involvement in the murder and creation of the footprint because he was at home watching Naruto with a 9:26 start time.

      • Willis Coleman says:

        The bath mat print is not a slam-dunk but careful study shows that Rudy is excluded and Raffaele is a pretty good match. I don’t expect to convince you of that here. But why do you choose to believe Rudy when he says he was in the bathroom, but not when he says he was just on a date with Meredith when the attackers showed up and killed her? The duodenum evidence is useless for determining the time of death according to three independent pathologists appointed by Micheli. Crini seems to have accepted the interpretation that the Raffaele’s laptop shows human interaction at 9:26PM. I know there was another computer expert’s report submitted to Nencini which, like the one before, has not been made public. At this time I am not persuaded that there was any human interaction with the computer at all after 6:27PM when Amelie was started.

        • BigDinBoise says:

          “why do you choose to believe Rudy when he says he was in the bathroom, but not when he says he was just on a date with Meredith”

          For the same reason you most likely do Nasim; the former is probable, while the later is not.

          Rudy knows there is evidence of his presence at the flat, his statement about being in the bathroom does not contradict that fact; however, he does need an explanation for why he was there, and his statement about being on a date with Meredith provides that.

          Do you believe Rudy was on a date with Meredith, or do you believe he is incapable of telling the truth even on something so seemingly mundane as his presence in the bathroom next to Meredith’s room?

          • Willis Coleman says:

            I believe he is lying about the towels. There’s no space for towels in the bathroom: Amanda kept hers in her room. In a panic, would he really take just one towel, and then go back and get another? Where are the blood drops or Rudy’s prints leading into the bathroom? I believe someone handed Rudy the towels and he didn’t really see where they came from, or else the towels were used after Rudy left.

          • HH says:

            Willis: Why on earth would he lie about WHERE he got the towels? How does lying about that help him in any way?

          • Elias says:

            I guess it didn’t occur to the genius that is Willis that there were towels in the bathroom for drying their hands and for quests — and that just as Amanda had a towel in her room — Meredith probably had a towel or two in her room, hanging off a hook, or a chair etc.

          • BigDinBoise says:

            So you do believe Rudy was on a date with Meredith?

            As for the towels… what does it matter? He could of found a towel in Meredith’s room, and then went to look for more and found one in the bathroom which he used to help clean himself . His foot print is in the bathroom, along with blood drops. He could have used the towel to clean his foot prints or blood drops, or maybe he hadn’t stepped in the blood at that point. As far as there not being space in the bathroom for towels, this is reaching for the sky… there is a small white cabinet next to the bidet that had nothing else on it, maybe this is where he found the towel, or maybe it was hanging over the shower wall.

            The fact is that the evidence points to Rudy as Meredith killer, and you keep defending him. Is your real name Biscotti?

        • Mark says:

          Before we even get to the bathmat print let’s take a look at the overall picture.

          Rudy Guede, a known knife carrying burglar, left his shoe prints and hand prints in the blood of a murder victim at a cottage. In this cottage there is no other time stamped forensic evidence matchable to anyone else. There is only one set of bloody shoe prints. Only one identifiable person set their limbs in the victim’s blood. And that person is Rudy Guede.

          There is a bare footprint set in the victim’s blood in the bathroom on a bathmat. The only person we can time stamp to the crime claims to have been in the bathroom washing up after the crime. Our natural assumption has to be that the bare footprint is going to belong to this person.

          Of course we have to follow the evidence. If the bare footprint was 100% matched to Queen Elizabeth, while we might have the most astounding of circumstances on our hands, the facts would be facts. However, in actuality the footprint is a fuzzy smeared sample which gives no precise or exacting measurements which could, beyond reasonable doubt, exclude certain feet that are around the same general size plus or minus a modest margin.

          So why believe it is Raffaele’s? As opposed to the Pope’s? Or Barack Obama’s? If you believe it is Raffaele’s, it is only in spite of, and not because of, the overwhelming corroborative evidence telling us who the most likely person who left this footprint is. Such a contrived viewpoint is not meaningful in a search for the best provable truth.

        • Andrea Jonasson says:

          Willis, your eyes and mine are too biased to make a reliable judgment about the footprint. You may exclude Rudy upon careful examination, but that is not very meaningful in real world terms because you are human and subject to confirmation bias. I can exclude Raffaele. Same thing. Meaningless coming from me.

          Why do I believe Rudy about the towels? Because he definitely had blood on him (bloody handprint at the scene) and the towels were blood soaked and found in Meredith’s room, so what he said makes sense in the context of the other evidence. Extrapolating, it makes sense that he would want to clean the blood off before leaving the flat. The bathroom seems like a logical place to clean up.

          Why do I not believe Rudy when he says that he was on a date with Meredith and sitting on the toilet when other people came in and killed her? Because there is no other evidence that makes this extraordinary story the least bit likely. Meredith told her friends she was tired and going home for some studying and an early night. She even borrowed a textbook. On a date? Seems unlikely.

          Empty duodenum plus known time of last meal is useful for a TOD estimate. The autopsy video shows that Dr. Lalli tied off the intestine correctly, whatever else you may have heard.

          Why do you doubt Naruto at 9:26? Do you have access to some data that would cast doubt on this computer interaction?

          • Willis Coleman says:

            Have you seen the autopsy video and do you have the pathology background to interpret it? I’m going with the opinion of the three court-appointed pathologists which went unchallenged by defense experts. In fact the whole argument about stomach contents is something that originated on the internet and only worked it’s way into closing arguments at the end of the Hellmann appeal.

          • Rob H says:

            This is utter rubbish “willis coleman”.

            You say that the argument about stomach contents emerged only at the end of the Hellmann appeal. What rot! Lalli gave evidence on this subject before Massei and Massei summaries him (page 115) of his motivation. He states that: “….the third or fourth hour after eating… …This is when one can find food material at the level of the duodenum (page 63 of the Lalli report)”.

            Clearly Massei misunderstood the science because he arrived at an 11.30pm time of death. It would seem that Massei understood that it takes 3 or 4 hours after the LAST of the food has been consumed before ANY of it reaches the duodenum. In fact (even though 4 hours is a stretch) the time frame is measured from the moment food was FIRST consumed.

            The real science on this subject is reflected in a paper on gastric emptying times by Hellmig et al ( “Gastric emptying time of fluids and solids in healthy subjects determined by 13C breath tests: influence of age, sex and body mass index” Volume 21, Issue 12, pages 183).


            Chris Halkides (Professor) summarises the findings as follows: “They showed that t(lag) [the time when food BEGINS to leave the stomach and enter the duodenum]for a solid meal did not follow a normal distribution. The median time was 82 minutes, with the 25% percentile at 66 min. and the 75% percentile at 102 min. Out of 82 subjects (Figure 1D), the longest value was 200 minutes, and the next longest was 170 minutes (each value corresponded to a single individual).”


            (There is much more from Chris Halkides on TOD at this link).

            Taking testimony from “Meredith’s friends” – Ms Butterworth said she thought Ms Kercher began to eat pizza at 6pm – Ms Frost says she thought it was 5.30 or 6pm. Allowing say a half hour’s grace for error, even “willis’ will be able to see that 200 minutes after 6.30pm takes us only to 9.50pm – and that’s right at the margin of the range of results.

            We know Ms Kercher was alive at 9.00pm; she MUST have been dead by 9.50pm, yet it is much more likely she died closer to 9pm than 10pm.

            I submit that in conjunction with Ms Purton’s testimony – Ms Kercher tired and wants to go to bed – the fact that she removed only her shoes when she arrived home – the fact that she did not try to call her mother after failing to speak to her at 8.56 etc. this reflects an attack soon after she arrived home shortly after 9.00pm. Nobody can be certain how long the attack lasted or how long Ms Kercher actually took to die, but, for the purposes of the case against Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito, it is the time of attack that is more important to verify.

            It is rather straightforward to calculate these occurences from the evidence.

            But, “speaking” of evidence, where’s yours, “willis” – the testimony of the “independent” pathologists. Where is it?

            Also, what happened to that “University of Turin” study you mentioned on luminol/TMB??

            I’m guessing these will never see the light of day.

          • Andrea Jonasson says:

            @Willis – Dr. Lalli is the expert, not me. He showed the video in court, demonstrating that the duodenum was tied off.

            I don’t really care at what point in the trial an argument was introduced or whether or not the defense jumped on it right away, because this information does not inform anyone about what actually happened to Meredith.

            I only care about reliable objective evidence. If Dr. Lalli plays a video in court showing himself tying off the duodenum, that’s objective evidence of Dr. Lalli tying off the duodenum.

            If you can ignore that objective evidence to suit yourself, then you are likely to reach incorrect conclusions about what really happened in this case.

        • Antony says:

          The bath mat print is not a slam-dunk but careful study shows that Rudy is excluded and Raffaele is a pretty good match.

          This is the direct opposite of the truth. Tyler above cites a Youtube video that does not bear out his/her assertions. There is no “big indentation” on the bathmat print. It’s a mystery to me how the guilt-crowd can make these claims when anyone can see that the shape of the big toe corresponds to Guede (long and narrow) and not at all to Raffaele (stubby, almost triangular). The print is so indistinct and incomplete otherwise that not much else can be determined, but it is definitely not Raffaele.

          The duodenum evidence is useless for determining the time of death according to three independent pathologists appointed by Micheli.

          I’m not familiar with the evidence at the Micheli hearing, but unchallenged testimony at the Massei trial heard that 3-4 hours after eating is an outside limit on TOD. Meredith began her meal at 6-6:30pm so any time much after 10pm is excluded. So, not “useless” at all.

          This agrees with the other evidence which shows that her phones were outside the cottage by 10:13pm (stolen by the fleeing killer), and the fact that she was still wearing her outdoor clothes when attacked – her bloody jacket was found at the scene with the sleeves pulled inside out, and one of her shoes was pulled off without being untied. This means that the attack happened within a short time of her arriving home at 9pm.

          Yet Massei ignores these facts and decides on a TOD to suit the prosecution: 11:45pm. Go figure.

        • jamesrae says:

          This is elementary Willis. Rudy lies to protect
          himself from his crimes. Did not break in – was
          invited in. Did not kill – was on toilet. Rudy tells the truth for his anchors and heroic deeds. Scream at 9:30 and went to washroom to get towels to help and comfort Meredith. A slippery guy that Rudy. As for the computers – it is a damn good thing they destroyed the 3 and especially Raff’s 2nd computer otherwise we probably wouldn’t need to go through his reality distortion field.

        • Rob H says:

          Your “careful study” of the bath mat print, “willis” cannot have taken into account the measurement of Mr Sollecito”s big toe or Rinaldi’s incompetent combining of the first two toes in the print. Mr Sollecito is definitely ruled out. Guede is not.

          Poor “yummi” has taken a real pasting on this blog in recent days hasn’t he?

          As for Time of Death, which pathologists are you referring to?? And what testimony? The duodenum evidence is compelling. Lalli said 2-4 hours after FIRST consumption the stomach starts emptying. So, at the furthest end of the range, this gives a TOD no later than 10pm – just at the time Ms Kercher’s phone was twice used strangely at 9.58 and 10pm. She was clearly dead before these calls were made.

          But actually, the evidence of Ms Purton – Ms Kercher was tired and wanted to go to bed – and the fact that she only had time to remove her shoes upon returning home strongly indicates that she was attacked earlier – probably no later than 9.10 – and died, most likely between 9.15 and 9.30 – perhaps right at the point Mr Sollecito opened Naruto.

          Why are you persuaded that the last computer interaction was 6.27? Even the police expert, Marco Trotta confirms an interaction as late as 9.10pm.

          I assume that you want to keep the alibi to 8.40/45 so that you can fantasise about Mr Sollecito and Ms Knox sprinting out the door to meet Guede in Grimana so that they can all get to Via Pergola by 9pm ahead of Ms Kercher.

          Of course the “colpevolisti” get themselves all mixed up after 9pm with a variety of different speculation – Ms Kercher arrived home to an empty flat and the “others” arrived later, perhaps together, perhaps one after the other, perhaps two first and one later, or, alternatively, she arrived home to a find the “others” there already.

          Found any CCTV of Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito out and about in Perugia that night?Anywhere? No? Thought not.

        • Glenn Thigpen says:

          @Willis. Actually, careful study, which means using accurate measurements does not exclude Rudy. However, as several posters have already noted, it is hardly clear enough to really be hard evidence against anyone.
          We do choose to believe Rudy when he says he was in the bathroom and not when he says that he was on a date with Meredith because the evidence pretty much shows that he was in the bathroom and the murder room. The evidence does not show that he was on a date with Meredith. No one saw them together. And the CCTV shot shows her coming home alone.
          But actually that is irrelevant. Even if he was on a date with Meredith, the evidence stills shows that he murdered, by himself.


        • HH says:

          I call it critical thinking. No one in their right mind would believe Rudy was there on a date with Meredith and Meredith was killed while he was on the toilet. You don’t even believe that, do you?

          Why shouldn’t we believe Rudy when he said he went in the bathroom to get the towels? There were towels on the floor and Rudy, although he lied about why he was there most likely oriented all of his lies around what evidence of himself he expected the police to find. He was being proactive, IMO.

          Interestingly enough, he also places himself in Filomena’s room. He said he was looking through her window when he saw Amanda’s silhouette.

        • DW says:

          Are you kidding? He was “on a date with Meredith when the attackers showed up and killed her”?

          It is hard to believe anyone actually believes this. “Excuse us, Rudy, we’re here to kill Meredith. Please go occupy yourself with some towels or something. We may need you afterwards; there will be a lot of blood. Oh, and if you need something else to do, go and rummage around in Filomena’s room and try to make it look like a break-in. Thanks we’ll call you when we need you, or if we need any help pinning her down; after all she has an ORANGE BELT in karate. Sorry to interrupt your ‘date with Meredith’ old chum.”

          On a less sarcastic note, I am not sure if this could have any significance, but it occurs to me that one explanation for the seemingly erratic pattern of footprints, and the oft-questioned “Why is there a bloody footprint on the mat but no prints leading up to the mat?” is that he could have had his shoes on most of the time, and only taken them (or one of them) off on realizing that there was blood on his feet, or on one foot. The dry bloodless one wouldn’t have left a print.

          The “guilters” seem to assume that whoever was guilty would have taken off their shoes and jumped up and down in a puddle of blood at some point, making their subsequent tracks around the apartment clear and obvious and easily identifiable. In reality the killer may well have been making some attempt to keep the blood off himself, and/or may have been surprised and overwhelmed at the amount of blood. People ask derisively if we are supposed to believe Amanda was hopping on one foot … but it might make sense that the (real) killer at some point was hopping around on one foot, aiming to minimize his prints. This would make sense if only one foot was bloodstained.

          • Antony says:

            DW, the best explanation for the bathmat footprint combined with the lack of other footprints is this. For a start, it’s important to note that the footprint is in a dilute blood/water mix, not straight blood.

            The killer didn’t leave any footprints to the bathroom because at this stage he had avoided getting blood on his shoes. He took off his shoe to in order to rinse blood from his trouser leg in the shower, stepping on the bathmat with his bare foot while doing so or immediately afterwards.

            The visible shoeprints in blood were created later after he went back to the murder room and then picked up blood on his shoes. It’s to be noted that Guede himself stated that his trousers were wet after he left the house. There is no reason to speculate about cleanups of supposedly missing footprints.

          • DW says:

            On further reflection, I’m thinking that the presumption that everyone had their shoes off arose from the original “sex game” hypothesis.

            Doesn’t all the hoopla over footprints become a bit different once the sex game nonsense is discarded? Can’t we then assume that it’s at least possible that whoever was there had their shoes on????????? Wouldn’t that answer a lot of the breathless and prurient questions about “why no footprints,” which in turn leads “guilters” to the erroneous conclusion (based on an erroneous premise) that “someone must have cleaned up the footprints.” What footprints? What if Rudy only took off one shoe, to get the blood out of it, momentarily? In this scenario we do not need Amanda and/or Raffaele to have been scrubbing away bloody footprints all over the apartment. It’s seems entirely possible that neither Meredith nor Rudy took their shoes off during the attack. Meredith had just come home, and Rudy didn’t live there, so why would he have taken his shoes off? (Admittedly, a fair rebuttal there is that the fact that Rudy didn’t live there didn’t stop him from making himself at home in other ways.)

          • DW says:

            Thanks Antony … that was just the conclusion I had arrived at.

            I can’t understand why there is derision and scorn for the notion that the murderer might have, at some point, been hopping on one foot. Isn’t it obvious that one might do that if trying not to get blood all over everything? They also ask why oh why did he lock Meredith’s door … well for the same reason: to contain the horrible mess to one room of the house and try to ensure the longest possible passage of time before someone found it. It seems plain evident to me that one does that by locking the room! And if one has been in other rooms in the course of the whole horrible deed, one tries, however ineffectually, to leave as few traces of blood as possible. A murder isn’t something most people – even murderers – do most days, so it’s hardly to be expected that they cover every detail logically and flawlessly. He then left the front door open because a key was necessary to lock it behind him, and at that point, it probably just seemed best to him to flee – not to be seen messing with another lock *outside the house*.

    • Antony says:

      Tyler: The bloody footprint on the bathmat has a very big indentation just like RS.

      … except that it doesn’t. This post just shows that guilters will see whatever they want to see in all of the pseudo-evidence surrounding this case.

      In any case, the footprint is so indistinct that it cannot be used on its own to identify anyone: not Raff, not Guede – although Raff can be excluded based on the shape of the big toe (prosecution pseudo-science based on contrived measurements notwithstanding).

      It’s all the other evidence pointing to Guede as the sole killer, along with the match with the shape of the big toe on the footprint, that allows us to be confident that the print belongs to him.

    • Bob Magnetti says:

      Common sense says

      — the footprint is Guede’s because his second toe (clearly seen next to the large toe) is longer than Raffaele’s second toe

      — the prosecution’s footprint ‘expert’, Lorenzo Rinaldi, used inaccurate measurements in his presentation to the court. Why is this?

      — there was no source of blood for Raffaele’s foot since there is no evidence of his presence in the bloody bedroom; R. Guede is the only person leaving evidence of his presence

      — common sense says, hmmmm . . . .

    • jamesrae says:


      6 minute vids by independent sources with bad soundtracks for the masses
      are not going to convince anybody of anything. Where you have a desperate
      problem is in the murder room where you want A&R to be vicious killers with
      Rudy sitting on a toilet. This is what you want Tyler. It just doesn’t play and
      that is the bottom line. What you are doing is taking static and misconstrued
      evidence on the outer reaches and trying to make it into something that is
      completely denied by the core centre of the crime itself that truly speaks for
      itself. This is where you have a desperate problem and how you will ever
      make that work in your thinking and convictions is beyond me..

    • BigDinBoise says:

      No question about it indeed! The foot print more closely resembles Rudy’s than Raff’s but it is hardly solid evidence against either one. Good thing Rudy also left bloody hand print and DNA in Meredith’s room…. case closed! Thanks for sharing Tyler!

    • Tom Mininger says:

      It takes 6 minutes to attempt to distract the audience away from the big toes?

      Just go to the pictures at:
      See CSI Rinaldi’s outrageous two toes combined as one measurement “error”.
      See how the big toe can’t possibly match Raffaele.

    • Mark says:

      You can’t dispute good science. If Raffaele’s thumbprint was found in blood in Meredith’s bedroom what would there be to dispute? Good evidence is indisputable.

      If the footprint could be scientifically matched to Raffaele, Amanda would not be living in Seattle today. Perhaps that’s common sense you’re looking for.

    • Rose Marie says:

      Actually, the footprint is more compatible with Guede’s foot. But it is not conclusive evidence against either one. You should realize that with such a faint and incomplete print, it can be compatible with the feet of millions of people.

    • Brittany says:


      The footprint is clearly Guede’s. Perhaps you should pay close attention to the entire video again.



    • Sarah H says:

      This is just ludicrous. It’s a smear on a rough, highly absorbent surface. It can’t be linked to anyone definitively. It has nowhere near the precision of a fingerprint.

      But let’s pretend, for the sake of argument, that it looks more similar to Raffaele’s. That couldn’t overcome the essential weakness of the prosecution’s case. All of the credible evidence found in the murder room — including DNA inside and on Meredith’s body, a bloody palm print, and shoe prints — all of it matches Rudy Guede.

      On the other hand, there wasn’t a single bit of evidence in the murder room linked to Amanda Knox, nor a single trace of Meredith on Amanda or her clothing. And the bra clasp linked to Raffaele by the prosecution also contained DNA linked to several other men — none of whom were charged with the murder.

      Every other piece of “evidence” you point to, including this smear, is just smoke and mirrors to distract attention from the giant hole of reasonable doubt at the center of this case. Amanda wasn’t IN the murder room so she couldn’t have murdered Meredith.

    • Lou says:

      You and I both know that the footprint above is the one accepted by the court. Sadly there is a distorted version that is circulating on IIP and a number of other pro-Amanda sites. These guys have fallen for the distorted version. Amanda knows which footprint is correct but she won’t confirm it as it will confirm the guilt of Raffaele and in turn her own.

      • Andrea Jonasson says:

        “Pro-Amanda” is a mischaracterization of many of Amanda’s and Raffaele’s supporters who do not know them at all personally. Many of us are not pro-Amanda or pro-Raffaele, but are simply against sending innocent people to jail based on flawed investigations and judicial proceedings. We are also against bullying by anonymous internet posters. I know that I would speak out for you, Lou, as quickly as I speak out for Amanda and Raffaele if you ever found yourself in a similar pickle.

        • Som Nathan says:

          Well said Andrea. We simply don’t want innocent people to go to jail for the crime they didn’t commit. If the guilters prefer to call us Pro-Amanda, so be it.

      • Som Nathan says:

        @lou. You are wrong again. Analyzing wrong information leads to WRONG conclusion and results. And that’s what you got Lou and Tyler and Nasim and Willis Coleman and Mignini and Nencini and Massie and Micheli and on goes this list of guilters. Seems like their success rate in getting anything right is low because of missing cognitive and reasoning skills.
        Their belief in fairy tales and fantasies as reality is childish.

    • Elias says:


      Time for you to go away Tyler.

      First, that homemade video shows nothing, and has some incorrect
      “finesse” to the lines.

      Second, all three of those foot impressions were not made
      under the same conditions.

      • Tyler says:

        I see that I gained your attention. Do you blindly devoted people realize how many incriminating facts against RS and AK you must keep explaining away with stories of prosecution error, contamination, coercion, etc etc. The simplest and most plausible explanation for all of the evidence is that all three (Rudy, Raff and AK) were involved in the murder. We don’t know how they were involved precisely but they were all there in that cottage that night. No doubt about it.

        • Amanda says:


          That is precisely the flawed argument that the prosecution is using to attempt to justify a flawed case against Raffaele and I. Flawed evidence is a smoke screen, not a valid argument. 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0

          They would have you believe that because they’ve collected so many 0’s over the course of the investigation, it legitimizes their argument, but that’s not how logic or science or law works. Rudy Guede has been proven to have been involved in the murder because his DNA was found inside and on Meredith’s body and clothing, and his hand prints were found in Meredith’s blood at the crime scene. No such clear and decisive evidence exists suggesting Raffaele’s and my participation and guilt.

          Shrugging off the burden of actually proving the reality of guilt in favor of leaning on inuendo and assumption is a blatant violation of every individual’s right to being assumed innocent until proven guilty. No truth is established by you THINKING I’m guilty.

          Ask yourself what you expect for yourself from others, from society. This is what you must then offer others.

          • Thor Klamet says:

            Well put.

            The strength of the irrational argument is that it takes zero effort to create a zero. So if I want to argue that the holocaust never happened, I can say, “All those dead bodies would surely have led to a disease outbreak and there was none; therefore, the holocaust never happened.”

            A rational person could spend hours or days doing the necessary research to soundly refute my assertion and I could then spend 30 seconds coming up with the next zero.

          • Wayne says:

            Brilliant explanation Amanda. I was going to say that a bunch of manure piled together does not make a mound of gold but just a pile of manure. But you said it better.

            There is NOT ONE single bit of evidence that is not seriously flawed in this case. None. Its all manure.

          • Anna says:

            God it is good to see you defend yourself Amanda!

            I am so tired of all these stupid people and their assumptions and crazy scenarios.

            Hugs, and stay strong :)

          • Tyler says:

            Now you are talking like a lawyer not an an innocent person.

          • BigDinBoise says:

            “Now you are talking like a lawyer not an an innocent person.”

            Oh my god, Tyler!
            She has been defending herself against this bullshit case for over 6 years!
            Of course she sounds like a lawyer, she knows more much more about criminal trials and Italian law than she reasonably should. This is the circumstance Mignini thrust upon her, it is not her choice. First she was criticized for acting immature and inappropriate after the murder, and now you’re criticizing her for approaching the question of her guilt analytically?

            Do you see how ridiculous this is? I do not believe there is anything Amanda, or anyone else can say or do, or present to you as evidence or lack thereof that will convince you she is the victim of a terrible injustice and not a murderer. But it’s true.

          • Julie Jorgensen says:

            Tyler, exactly how is an innocent person supposed to talk? Amanda has been involved in legal proceedings for more than 6 years. She probably knows more about this case than any of the lawyers combined. So, the fact that she can explain something in an articulate and coherant manner, like a lawyer, should be seen as a positive thing. Is there nothing that Amanda can do right in your eyes? Luckily, it really doesn’t matter and the fact that guilters such as yourself are impossible to please leaves no bearing on her innocence. Amanda is innocent and answering a question with elequence just shows how much she has learned during this long journey of injustice.

          • Adriano says:

            “0 +0 +0 = 0” but also “+1-1 +1-1 = 0” or “0 +0 +1 +0-1 = 0”! But someone may well say: “+1-1 +0” -> “+1 +0 = 1” the number -1 away! I do not need .. This is the problem of this bad issue. For example how many numbers there are -1 in this case? Many, too many! While everybody talks about the foot on the mat, which can not be certain proof, if not the fact that the foot is not a child of 10 years, does not seem much evidence as to give it the value +1, then multiply by for 28 years in prison;). I am reminded of so many evidences with a value of -1, which occasionally post in this forum that, for the average intelligent person can give a result much less than zero. When I read the post on the mat, I realized that it is easier to say “the number -1 away! .. I do not need,” instead of saying “this number -1 tells me that the path taken is not correct, it is therefore necessary to seek another way. ”
            Sometimes I think I’d like it at the head of this forum there is a board which shall include the lists of numbers -1, which may have relevance to the process, as opposed to the numbers +1 and see at the end of their final sum if greater or less than zero. An easy way for everyone to understand and follow this sad story, perhaps a simple way to demonstrate the absurdity of the accusation. In fact they are party to believe to a final number greater than zero, but from many weeks that number is widely less than zero.

        • Rob H says:

          You really must try to understand “Tyler” that explaining is not the same as “explaining away”.

          There is not one single piece of real information advanced by the prosecution or its acolytes in this case, explained as evidence of guilt that does not have an alternative, better and innocent explanation. That, legally, is more than enough to confirm the existence of “reasonable doubt”. And that means acquittal.

          The prosecution’s case might indeed be “simple” – it really cannot stand under the weight of complex scrutiny. But it is not nor has it ever been, “plausible”.

        • Andrea Jonasson says:

          Listen to yourself, Tyler!

          We don’t know how they were involved precisely…

          No kidding. You don’t even know how they were involved vaguely. But you are so sure!

          No doubt about it!

          Until you know precisely how they were involved – a clear timeline would be nice – and can show objective evidence that supports your theory, you should go away and leave them alone.

          If you think that the simplest and most plausible scenario is a group crime by people who don’t all know each other, you are not very good at estimating probabilities.

          Simple explanation: Rudy Guede breaks in. He is surprised on the toilet by Meredith’s arrival home. He can’t get out peacefully through the faulty front door because she has locked it with her key. A confrontation ensues, with a tragic result.

          This story is simple and fits the reliable objective scientific evidence.

          • Tyler says:

            I’m sorry but somebody does not throw a super heavy rock throough a second story window then make an incredible climb through a broken window to steal rent money ( that only AK knew about) only to then take a leisurely bathroom break that is what you are saying.

          • Andrea Jonasson says:

            @Tyler – Somebody does throw a heavy rock through a second story window to break in to a place: October 13, 2007 – the law offices of Paolo Brocchi and Mattero Palazzoli on via Del Roscetti in Perugia. So don’t say somebody doesn’t because that is wrong. It might even have been Rudy himself, since he was caught with a laptop from that break in.

            The climb is not incredible. Look at the YouTube videos. Don’t say that the climb is incredible, because that is incorrect.

            Rudy was caught in a preschool break-in getting ready to plug in his computer to the Internet. If he’d take the time for that in a place not his own, why not a leisurely bathroom break?

            A second story break and enter by Guede is not far fetched. He is young and athletic with the physical capacity to manage the rock and the climb. He’s in the house uninvited. He has a history of breaking into people’s places. Perfectly plausible, and fits the physical evidence.

          • HH says:

            Tyler: So you’re saying that Amanda had to have been there for Rudy to take a leisurely bathroom break and then not flush? If you read up on his past burglaries, Rudy made himself at home in every place that he robbed.

            Why would Rudy take a shit in the toilet of a house he was robbing? How about asking yourself why Rudy had a habit of going through his victim’s refrigerators and helping himself or why he had a habit of turning up the heat super high?

            You aren’t in his head, you can’t dismiss hard evidence because he didn’t do what you think he would have done. In a similar vein, you are presuming Amanda guilty because she didn’t react the way you would have reacted.

            How do innocent people react, Tyler? Is there some sort of formula you have to follow to avoid being charged with murder even though there is no hard evidence against you?

            Amanda admitted to her mistake during the interrogation when she briefly buckled and named Patrick. The police have yet to admit their many, many mistakes.

          • Anna says:

            Yeah Tyler, “incredible climb”

            and “super heavy rock”

            /rolls eyes

            And you’d have to ask Rudy Guede why he had to go to the bathroom, because indeed he did.

          • Anna says:

            To Tyler again. I forgot to mention this: How would you know who knew about the rent money? Apart from the 2 other roommates, you forget that Rudy Guede was friend with Meredith’s boyfriend, who knows what he knew.

          • jamesrae says:

            That is exactly what she is saying Tyler and this is just a day in the life of a B&E dude and not the least be
            outlandish. In fact it is less risky that purse snatching.

          • BigDinBoise says:

            Tyler, you don’t even seem to be familiar with Rudy’s history. He did exactly those sort of things and was was caught in Milan just a few weeks before the murder. He broker into the 2nd story of a lawyers office in Perugia, and stole a laptop, and used a hammer to break the glass. He stole a laptop which was found in his bag along with a knife when he was arrested at a Nursery school in Milan. The teacher that found him and reported him also said that he had made himself at home, and even cooked a meal before she found him.

            The climb was not incredible. There were steel bars on the window underneath it, and it has been demonstrated you can climb it like a ladder. Rudy was friends with the guys in the basement he knew the property, and of course rent money is typically collected at the end or beginning of the month. But Rudy didn’t need the rent money motive to burglarize the villa… he had a history of petty burglary, he wasn’t just looking for a big score.

            This is all stuff that is in the case file, the nursery school teacher was a witness, as well as some of his other burglary victims.

            If you do not know this what are you doing here man?

          • Stephane G says:

            Tyler, the rock was not made of irridium, and considering its size (that can be seen on pictures with a hand holding it) it was not “super heavy”. Nor was it so difficult to launch, especially by a trained basket-ball player as Rudy was. Two men at least tried and succeeded in the “incredible climb” without touching the nail and without too many visible difficulties (see pictures and video). Rudy had burglarized homes or offices at least 3 times in the previous weeks without knowing what he would found inside (including a nursery where I guess he did not expect to find much money or jewelry), as most burglars do. Noticeably, he had taken some rest and even ate and made himself comfortable there. Considering his previous records, the break-in in 7 via della Pergola almost bore his signature. Amanda did not and could not to know his modus operandi, so how could she stage a Rudy Guede’s break-in ? And if they were accomplices in the crime, why would she ?

          • Julie Jorgensen says:

            Rudy Guede had already done this exact thing just a few weeks earlier where he threw a rock into a window of a second story window, climbed up and robbed a lawyers office. This fit exactly with his MO. I think he enjoyed challenging break-ins.

        • Antony says:

          Tyler: Do you blindly devoted people …

          This is a personal attack on other posters here. Every time I post a comment, there is a delay of up to a day while it is indicated as awaiting moderation, and apparently visible only to me. How is it possible that attacks of this nature are acceptable to the moderators?

          … realize how many incriminating facts against RS and AK you must keep explaining away with stories of prosecution error, contamination, coercion, etc etc.

          None of the prosecution “facts” are remotely incriminating when considered fairly.

          The simplest and most plausible explanation for all of the evidence is that all three (Rudy, Raff and AK) were involved in the murder.

          You can go on talking up the so-called “evidence” all you like, but the simplest and most plausible explanation is that the investigation had the agenda of supporting a pre-decided conclusion. That’s why it consists of conjuring tricks without any pretence at proper collection, handling or testing, while everything that really would be evidence (interrogation tapes, CCTV footage, computer drives, actual DNA machine readings) mysteriously disappear in police hands.

          We don’t know how they were involved precisely

          Well, of course you don’t. That’s because none of the “evidence” actually points to anything at all.

          but they were all there in that cottage that night. No doubt about it.

          A bold assertion with no substance behind it.

        • Anna says:

          Tyler. How about actually paying attention to what Amanda said to you, and give it some thought, instead of ignoring her comment, and on top of it, once more, pass judgement on her? (this is so typical of guilters)

          • Elias says:

            Every time he is shut down by factual, logical, or reasonable intelligent arguments he changes his point of attack.

            It’s not possible for all of “Amanda’s points” to be wrong, he doesn’t have the class to acknowledge when a point should be taken.

            Tyler, memorize these: “Point taken,””fair point,” “I can understand that.” ETC!

        • Sarah H says:

          None of us needs to explain away a single puff of your smoke and mirrors. There is a giant hole of reasonable doubt in the bloody murder room — not a single piece of evidence places Amanda there. And not a single trace of physical evidence connects the two girls. Amanda couldn’t have murdered Meredith because she wasn’t there.

    • Anna says:

      Actually, when I look at the bathmat, what I see right away is Rudy Guede’s elongated big toe, and when I look a little closer, I see the 2nd toe touching the big toe. It looks nothing like Raffaele’s toes.

    • Mark (AKA Supernaut) says:

      The shape of the ball of the foot, which is one of the few distinctive features discernable from the otherwise amorphous bathmat impression, is a MUCH closer match to Guede’s than Raff’s. Unless you’re viewing them through bottle-glass pro-guilt lenses.

      Raff’s print / bathmat / Guede’s print;

    • stacy d says:

      That’s about the worst damn video I’ve ever seen. And what’s up with that music? Good Lord. No reliable forensic evidence = no Amanda and Raffaele in Merideth’s room. It doesn’t get more simple than that.



    Mi fe completa en tu inocencia nunca ha vacilado. (My complete faith in your innocence has never wavered.)

  26. Elias says:

    There’s been a lot of reference and debate here lately about whether Meredith was the “good girl,” “angel,” “dear departed saint” she’s been portrayed as, which of the two girls was the bigger “party girl,” etc. OF course there’s always the history of how Amanda was portrayed as…I don’t even want to think of something to type because Mignini’s whole projection onto Amanda was nuts.

    Rafaelle, in his book, briefly describes how foreign student women are often perceived by Italian men:

    “Perugia was full of foreign students, and a lot of my fellow Italians saw the women as easy targets—good for a quick roll in the hay, or a discreet affair on the side, with a built-in guarantee that sooner or later they would head back where they came from. But that wasn’t at all how I felt. I’m too dreamily romantic to think of using women that way. For me, it’s always been true love or nothing.”

    All of this reminds me of an old set piece from The Onion that is still funny and has some truism to it…

    American Woman’s Take:

    “European Men Are So Much More Romantic Than American Men
    By Alyssa Lerner, Junior, Boston University

    I just got back from a semester abroad in Europe, and let me tell you, it truly was the most magical, amazing experience of my entire life. The French countryside was like something out of a storybook, the Roman ruins were magnificent, and the men, well, European men are by far the most romantic in the world.

    You American men all think you’re so suave and sophisticated. Well, think again! European men make you look like the immature, inexperienced little children you are. They really know how to make a woman feel special over there. Unlike the so-called men here in the States, European men know how to treat a woman right.

    For one thing, European men aren’t afraid to come up and talk to you. And they know how to start slow, with a nice cup of Italian espresso or a long walk on some historic street. They know the places you can’t find in any tourist guide. They know the whole history of the cities in which they live—who the fountains are named after, who the statues are.

    I remember one unforgettable night in Athens, I sat and listened to a Greek sailor for hours as he told me about the countless men who fought over Helen back in ancient times. Afterward, he told me he loved his homeland even more now that he’d seen it through my eyes. I ask you, would an American man ever say something as deep and beautiful as that?

    European men know the most romantic little cafés and bistros and trattorias, candlelit places where you can be alone and drink the most fantastic wine. They tell you what’s on the menu and what you should try. (If it wasn’t for a certain young man in Milan, I never would have discovered fusilli a spinaci et scampi.) And the whole time, they’re looking deep into your eyes, like you’re the only woman on the entire planet. What woman could resist a man like that? Then, after a moonlit stroll along the waterfront and a kiss in the doorway of their artist’s loft, you find yourself unable to—well, I’ll leave the rest to your imagination.

    I’ll never forget my magical semester abroad. One thing’s for sure—I’m ruined for American men forever!

    And then…

    “American Women Studying In Europe Are Unbelievably Easy
    By Giovanni Di Salvi

    I’m a 25-year-old carpenter living in Rome, and I don’t mind telling you that I get all the action I can handle. I’m not all that handsome or well-dressed, and I’m certainly not rich. In fact, my Italian countrywomen could take me or leave me. But that’s just fine, because Rome gets loads of tourist traffic, and American co-eds traveling through Europe are without a doubt the easiest lays in the world.

    Being European gives me a hell of an advantage. I’m not sure why, but there’s something about the accent that opens a lot of doors. All you have to do is go up to them, act a little shy and say, “Whould hyou like to go with me, Signorina, for a café?” I actually have to thicken up my accent a little, but they never, ever catch on.

    After a cheap coffee, which to them always tastes better than anything they’ve ever had, because they’re in Europe, it’s time to walk them. Now, all they know about Rome is what they’ve read in Let’s Go, so you can pretty much just make up a whole bunch of shit. It’s fun to see how much they’ll swallow: As long as I refer to Italy as “my homeland” and other Italians as “my people,” they’ll believe pretty much anything. I don’t know who most of the local statues are, so I tell the muffins they’re all great artists and poets and lovers. Once, just for the hell of it, I told a psychology major from the University of Maryland that a public staircase was part of the Spanish Steps, which she’d never even heard of. Another time, I told this blonde from Michigan State that the public library was the Parthenon, and she cooed like I’d just given her a diamond.

    For dinner, I usually take them to some cheap little hole in the wall, someplace deserted where not even the cops eat. American girls think candlelight means “romance,” not “deteriorating public utilities,” so they just poke their nipples through their J. Crew sweaters and never notice that there’s no electricity. Just as well, because Roman restaurants aren’t exactly the cleanest. After a bunch of fast-talk about the menu, I get them the special, which is usually some anonymous pasta with spinach and day-old shrimp, and whatever cheap, generic, Pope’s-blood chianti’s at the bottom of the list.

    By this time, they’re usually standing in a slippery little puddle. Going in for the kill, I walk them past one of Rome’s famous 2,000-year-old open cesspools. Then, as we open the door to my shitty efficiency, I kiss them on the eyelids so they don’t see the roaches, making sure the first thing they see is the strategically positioned artist’s easel I bought at some church sale. That’s usually all they need to see and, like clockwork, they fall backwards on my bed with their Birkenstocks in the air.

    I mean, they’re hardly Italian women, but we have a saying here in Europe: Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?”


    Okay, so there’s a little humor…cliches and generalizations often contain kernels of truth.

    Mignini certainly projected his conspiracy delusions and value judgments about young women’s sexuality into this case.

    Which has been truly sad, because it has over shadowed the topic that should have been front page: Sexual Assault, rape and murder by Rudy Guede.

    Amanda and Meredith’s sex lives should never have been a part of this case — including any efforts by the Kercher family to posthumously portray Meredith as some chaste angel. Both of these young women were on par – having relationships, including sexual, making mistakes, learning and growing.

    Both young ladies probably could have benefited from some additional cultural orientation counseling and education about that side of their lives in the specific culture they were going to be living in.

    • elbee says:

      Not only did the prosecution seem to want to divide these women as a Madonna or a whore, its main focus seemed to be trying to prove that Amanda was also a witch. Sad to think that some people in civilized western democracies are still stuck in the 12th century. While Meredith and Amanda seem to have been approximately equally sexually active, the prosecution seemed to need to convince the world, and themselves, that having sex made only one of the two bad.

    • Nasim says:

      When did the Kercher family ever try to portray Meredith as a chaste angel? It was roommates and friends who described Meredith as serious and studious. It was Raffaele who wrote that Amanda seemed to live for pure pleasure. Whatever Mignini’s personal attitudes it was public knowledge that Meredith had butt sex and waxed her privates so he had no reason to discriminate against Amanda on that basis and he did not.

      • Elias says:

        Some have commented that in John Kercher’s book he polished Meredith’s real life image up a bit, understandable, but not realistic. She was a member of her generation and very social, and you know, within a few weeks she is having sex with the Italian dude downstairs — many can see that as not exactly the chaste classy buttoned down young English woman that Mr. Kercher sought to portray.

        There’s two points, Meredith was no angel. She was no different than Amanda, a young woman experimenting and learning, discovering, evolving themselves by those experiences and lessons learned.

        The second point is that the sex lives of neither of these women should ever have been a part of this case.

        Rudy Guede, the lone killer, broke in through the window, his usual M.O., and was surprised when Ms. Kercher came home, and then attacked and sexually molested her — most likely while she was barely still alive. –That is what people should be focused on, and incensed by the fact that this serial burglar, through back room deals, is about to hit the streets in Italy again.

      • Elias says:

        PS: re: “butt sex.”

        You can’t be serious. Are you drinking?

        Amanda was portrayed as a sex crazed group sex ring leader, etc. She was completely discriminated against. Otherwise Meredith would not have been portrayed as this straight laced British Madonna who resisted the “sex games.”

        And exactly where was it “public knowledge” that Meredith had “butt sex” (are you 15 years old, or just insane?)

        Mignini had an obsession with Vaseline, and apparently assumed upon seeing it in Meredith’s room that it was used for anal sex…either by the perpetrator, or Meredith’s boyfriend.

        Provide a link proving that it was “it was public knowledge that Meredith had butt sex.”

        • Andrea Jonasson says:

          Nina Burleigh, Fatal Gift of Beauty referencing Giacomo’s friend Marco’s statement to police.

        • Willis Coleman says:

          It seems after going on four weeks there’s still a lot you don’t know about this case. Meredith was every bit the victim of salacious reporting that Amanda was, and more.

          • BigDinBoise says:

            “Meredith was every bit the victim of salacious reporting that Amanda was, and more.”

            You can’t be serious?
            In what newspaper was this information reported? The Italian and British press printed an exaggerated number of Amanda’s lovers.

            Show me one newspaper article in which Meredith was similarly maligned Nasim?

      • HH says:

        Nasim: Meredith had butt sex? Where are you getting this information from? That’s the first I’ve heard of it. Ever.

        • Antony says:

          HH and Elias: It seems that among the questions about Meredith the police put to Amanda in the early days was “does she like anal?” As if Amanda would have known about this.

          Amanda mentions this in her e-mail to friends, adding: “WTF?” Of course, this detail has been turned against her by the hate-crowd.

        • Mark Saha says:

          See Nina Burleigh, p. 179.

          • HH says:

            Oh wow. That is true. I just checked my copy of The Fatal Gift of Beauty.

            I don’t know how I missed it the first time, except that maybe I didn’t think it was that important.

            I have to wonder how offended Meredith truly was by Amanda’s vibrator then. If this is true, I think the British friends were most likely exaggerating. I already think they exaggerated Meredith’s other complaints about Amanda.

        • Lyn says:

          There is testimony to this ‘butt sex’ thing….go to JREF and search MKs name and a*** sex. You will find the sources there.
          Sad that this has been brought up, but given the dreadful sexual slurs against Amanda’s name, its right that everyone know MOST young women these days are experimenting sexually. Meredith was no exception. But of course we cannot assign the foul words used against Amanda to Meredith. Can we.
          Or maybe we can. In fact, why not? They were BOTH innocent young women caught up in Guede’s crime. His alone.

      • Rob H says:

        So, now we see that “nasim” is prepared to degrade Ms Kercher on a false premise in order to advance an erroneous argument in defence of Mignini.

        Ms Knox was subjected to the most virulent character assassination by this Perugian felon – all of it invented, half for the court and half for the egregious pleasure of the tabloids.

        But then, weird little Maresca degraded Ms Kercher further in court with his gratuitous display of her naked dead body.

        Why is it left to Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito’s supporters to attempt to preserve the dignity of the murder victim in this case? Why is her dignity routinely sacrificed by the prosecution, its supporters and the representatives of her own family?

        • Elias says:

          Here, here.

          (I was aware that Amanda had been asked if Meredith practiced anal sex, I was not aware that it was ever testified to in the affirmative. Either way, it is irrelevant, Rudy Guede did the murder, and only Rudy Guede.)

    • Chris Meyering says:

      Funny read….I did make a comment below about “party Girls” I for some reason, I feel I need to clarify. From my experience, neither Amanda, nor Meredith were exactly party girls. They were both young women simply stretching their wings.

      As you allured to, both were equal in regards to what areas on life they experimented with. I tried to convey earlier that the comment that majority of people in their early twenties are in the same mindset.

      I really didn’t want to highlight the party girl attitude, I was just trying to point out the hypocrisy with the portrayal of the two women at various websites.

      I’ve read at TJMK, posters talking about how remorseful Guede has been throughout this case that it should be an example to Amanda and Raffelle. Again, pure conjecture and another example of the hypocrisy of the portrayals of all the partys involved.

      • Elias says:

        True remorse by Guede would be to fully confess.

        He is the lone killer; and he declined to answer questions in open court.

        • HH says:

          Elias: I agree. Not only that, he won’t even admit to taking part in the murder, which the pro guilt people completely ignore. So how is he showing remorse?

          All he’s doing is saying “I tried to help Meredith, but I was scared, so I left her dying in a pool of blood and didn’t call an ambulance.” So again, according to the pro-guilt people, Rudy is showing remorse by:

          1) Completely denying all involvement in the crime.
          2) Belatedly pointing the finger at Knox and Sollecito.
          3) Claiming he tried to help Meredith, but was too afraid to call the police so he went dancing and left her to die. (I really think testing that possible semen stain that was smeared by his footprint would debunk the myth that what he was doing as Meredith was dying was desperately trying to save her.)

  27. Thor Klamet says:

    Quick question. Haven’t been able to find this online. Sorry, haven’t read the books yet.

    Is there any data on how much English Guede spoke in 2007?


    • Tyler says:

      “Is she telling the truth about what happened or not?” I think not.

      • Glenn Thigpen says:

        Tyler, tell us what really happened, based on the evidence, not fairy tales.

      • jamesrae says:

        Unfortunately this is really Mignini’s book and this Italian author will forever have to live with all the errors within for
        the rest of her life. Certainly you have to agree that is was
        a Rush to Judgement and always rife with risk for a so called

      • Rob H says:

        “Tyler” – the question you ask is about Nadeau right? And the answer you give is in reference to what Nadeau said in this interview, yes? It must be, because in the report and brief interview you link to, “she” (Nadeau) is the only “she”.

        The “she” cannot be Amanda Knox, because Ms Knox doesn’t say anything in the piece. She does not appear in the interview.

        Nadeau is skilled at passing off unspecific innuendo as specific fact. The closer she gets to making specific statements about the evidence, the further from the truth she departs.

        The myth about Ms Knox’s “constantly changing story” is a favourite of the “colpevolisti”.

        • penelope says:

          So she stuck to the same story throughout?

          • HH says:

            Pretty much yes. The only time she changed it was the night of the interrogation. Then she tried to retract it by writing a note a couple of hours later when she could think straight again and didn’t have a bunch of policemen screaming at her.

    • Nasim says:

      Amanda can’t answer your question for legal reasons so I will. Rudy’s English was reasonably good, that is to say not fluent but close, according to an acquaintance of his named Alex. She and Rudy had no difficulty understanding each other.

      • Som Nathan says:

        @nasim. And where is it documented that Rudy spoke and understood English. Amanda in her written statements or otherwise has never stated that held conversations with the to-be killer Rudy.
        If according to you saying “hi” and “bye” is English, then I suggest you and Rudy join some KG classes to learn some elementary English.
        By the way we all (supporting Amanda’s innocence) are very eagerly waiting for Rudy to give his first public interview in a language he knows best.
        I bet he is currently being groomed by “Perugian elites” for such an eventuality, as he will be free to go soon.
        Under Italian law THE KILLER. WILL BE FREE TO GO SOON. Mignini, Massie and rest of the goons will be there to hug and greet him.

      • Rob H says:

        She and Rudy shared nothing more than two instances of random proximity as you well know, “nasim”. Are you determined to portray yourself as an idiot?

        If any of you and your fellow travellers could connect Ms Knox and Guede by phone records, witness sightings etc, you would have done it long ago, as would the real prosecution.

        Without a definitive relationship with Guede, each and every prosecution theory of the crime fails. You need him to have known her. She did not know him and was not in contact with him.

      • BigDinBoise says:

        Nasim – don’t make unsubstantiated assumptions about why Amanda has not answered Thor’s question. Oh, and Rudy’s fluency in English has zero bearing on this case.

        • Thor Klamet says:

          The prosecution has posited a number of virtually impossible/wildly unlikely/totally unprecedented theories such as the miraculous clean up. I’ve been mentally collecting these impossibilities – I’m up to three so far. Thus, I was wondering whether or not the relationship assumed between AK and RG falls into my impossible category.

          I tend to agree it has no bearing on the case, such as it is, mostly because there isn’t actually a case for it to have any bearing on.

          • BigDinBoise says:

            I believe it is unlikely that a relationship between the three would have gone unnoticed by those around them. There is no evidence they exchanged texts, or communicated by cell phone in any way, and the only witness to see them together is the idiot Kokomani, who couldn’t even describe what Amanda looked like when she was sitting right in front of him in the courtroom.
            Rudy himself, while conveniently fabricating a relationship with Meredith, wrote that after meeting Amanda in the downstairs apartment, he only saw her in passing.
            Rudy’s fluency in English is really irrelevant. It might be the case that he spoke English relatively well, but Raeffael and Meredith could speak Italian, as well as Amanda to a lesser degree, so from a defense stand point I don’t think it helps.

      • jamesrae says:

        Herein lies the greatest problem for all those concerned.
        This ongoing sheltering of Rudy and his qualities by all
        his so called friends and of course never a mention or appearance of a girlfriend and of course not a mention of his apparent Dissociative Fugue State condition which fits him
        like a tee. Such profound omissions of the real Rudy. This
        is going to bust into the open eventually or Rudy will end up
        forever disappeared.

      • HH says:

        Link please to a source.

        I read the exact opposite. I’ll try to figure out where so I can provide you with a source.

      • Sarah H says:

        There is no evidence that Raffaele had ever met Rudy; and there is no evidence that Amanda knew him except in passing, as she testified, since they once were both in attendance at the same party.

        When the police asked her to identify men who had hung around the cottage, she could describe him but she didn’t even know his name. And yet supposedly she scrubbed all her own traces for the room in order to make him look like the guilty one. It doesn’t make sense, if she was setting him up, that she wouldn’t provide the police with his name.

        One more of the crazy contradictions in the prosecution’s case.

      • Elias says:

        Except that she never talked to him accept to take a drink order.

        No one ever saw them socialize, and they didn’t have each others phone numbers.

        She was too busy with school, work, and her new romance to have bothered with a guy whom you say one guy says had decent English.

        We’d need more evidence than that to start considering that Guede spoke decent English, let alone socialized with Amanda or RS.

        None of this crap passes the reality test. Two honor students falling in love take time out of cuddling like bunnies, to murder someone.


        • kristine says:

          Rudy did not speak English.

          • Nasim says:

            Rudy speaks English on the youtube video! His writing is sprinkled with English phrases. Leila’s son in law knew him in Perugia and said he speaks decent English. What is your source? Your own bias telling you that he is sub-human? Jeez.

  28. Elias says:


    Just curious, did you and your sister, after you established your rental in Perugia, able to
    visit Florence, the Uffizi, and David? (Or did events deny you of that experience?)


  29. Sarah H says:

    There’s some new information over at the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF), one of the groups that has been dissecting the case against Amanda and Raffaele. They’ve been pouring over lab data that was filed with the court on July 31, 2009 and say they’ve found proof of contamination in the DNA testing. It turns out the data do include some negative controls – except these controls tested POSITIVE for DNA. Negative controls are supposed to be negative, not positive!


    “Well, we can prove some contamination of the DNA testing. See Quantificazione.pdf at p. 14 (RTqPCR Run No. 564, Well B11, Ct=34.30).

    “Tell your friends.”


    “You know how we have been saying that there should have been negative controls and the PGP answer that there were negative controls and we would then say ‘show us the negative controls’ and they would change the subject to talk about something else?

    “Well, for once it turns out that they were right and buried deep in the dump of data there are results from some of those negative controls.

    “But the thing about negative controls is that the results are supposed to come out ‘negative’. These controls if done properly are processed with all of the same supplies and go through exactly the same process as a sample from the crime scene except no sample is added. That means that these negative controls ought not to have any DNA detected in them. But some of these negative controls did come up positive with DNA.

    “A negative control coming up positive means one thing: CONTAMINATION!”

    “The little pseudo doctor in the DNA lab had proof that there was contamination in her lab at the time she was running these tests and she covered it up and lied about it to the court.”


    “And, I just found another one. See page 29 of Quantificazione.pdf.

    “This is for a quantification run dated March 7, 2008. This one is a little bit different, because she has started using a new machine (Fast Real-Time). The negative controls listed at wells B10 through B12 should all say “Undetermined” in order to be a true negative. But, one of them says 40 and one says 39, which means that they are not negative. The Reps. in this run are 185 and 192 through 197.

    “So, we have repeated CONTAMINATION.”

    • Sarah H says:

      Of course, no reasonable court would require proof of contamination, when so much evidence existed of sloppy or incorrect procedures that would make contamination likely. And the Hellman Court expert witnesses, even without citing this evidence, testified that Meredith’s DNA on the knife and Raffaele’s on the bra clasp were most likely the result of contamination; and Judge Hellman used this in his motivation when his court ruled that Amanda and Raffaele were innocent.

      But in the Court of worldwide OPINION, which is still important now, this could make a difference. This is proof of contamination.

      • jamesrae says:

        That is an excellent thread over at the James Randi site.
        Some great thinkers and minds at work. These are classic
        rationalists and logic people and some very good straight-
        forward information.

      • Lyn says:

        Good for you Sarah! I have tweeted a link to those pages and invited the pro guilt people to visit, read and comment. True to form, none have.
        Truth hurts like Hell!!!

      • Nasim says:

        I would genuinely like to know more about this, but as a matter of law Amanda and Raffaele would have to convince a court that any information that was withheld regarding contamination problems at the lab would have changed the verdict and I think that is too high a bar. In the US despite a rash of crime lab scandals involving thousands of cases the courts have been generally unwilling to overturn convictions.

        • Rob H says:

          I think we might be getting our jurisdictions confused, “nasim”.

          Upon what in Italian jurisprudence do you rely in establishing the position of the “bar”?

          “In inquisitorial systems, the court has complete freedom in evaluating the evidence. The French Code of Criminal Procedure leaves the judgment on guilt or innocence to the “internal conviction” (intime conviction) of the judges (French CCP, art. 427; cf. StPO, § 261; Italian CCP, art. 192). This means that there are, in principle, no rules of law determining the weight to be given to particular items of evidence.”

          It should not therefore be a matter for the ISC or anyone else to second guess the opinion of a trial court with regard to its view of the weight of any particular piece of evidence. It is surely a matter solely for the trial court.

          Speculating, of course, it would appear that there may be two possibilities. Either the defences appeal, as they would have, Nencini’s verdict based on his motivations (which he hasn’t written yet and which will not contain any reference to this new evidence as it was not mentioned at trial) to the ISC calling for further fact finding – by satisfying the court that prima facie, Novelli’s “burden” has likely been met.

          Or, they apply with the new evidence (they must have “new” evidence) directly to the Court of Appeal for a review of the trial. The court then has the power to order a review (such an order itself could be appealed to the ISC) and hears the case again.

          Or they do both.

          It could be that the defences have two possible bites at the cherry. If they are refused a further appeal by the ISC they might then be able to go to the Court of Appeal.

          I wonder if there has ever been an instance where potential new evidence has become available between a verdict and the issuing of the motivation after so many years and at such a crucial juncture.

          We would need some more expert guidance here – perhaps Luca Chelli has a view? I am sure he knows much more about this than I do.

          Of course, at this time, we simply have no way of knowing the value of this new evidence or how much more may be discovered in time.

          But it seems to me that it is a fundamental issue of fairness which requires the Italian justice system to respond to Stefanoni’s perjury and the hiding of evidence (which was already known) by giving the defences the greatest leeway possible.

          I remain convinced
          that unless they are cleared through the process in Italy – however long that takes, both Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito will have a very substantial case at the ECHR.

          In addition to the case law in Strasbourg, the Italian constitution specifies that:

          “Trials are based on equal confrontation of the parties before an independent and impartial judge. The law has to define reasonable time limits for the proceedings.”

          Perhaps the honourable justices of the ISC will be aware of how exposed they are to humiliation in the European Court.

    • Nasim says:

      Interesting. I like to see this kind of analysis. If someone can break the code and tie these apparently contaminated runs to either the knife or the bra clasp they’ve got a winner. At the very least it appears to show that contamination does occur in Stefanoni’s lab, contrary to what she said. (Not that I’m surprised. All labs experience contamination from time to time.)

    • Rob H says:

      I’ve not had time to examine this in detail yet but on the face of it this is stunning potential new evidence – Stefanoni hid negative control testing which tested positive proving contamination!!??

      I wonder if Greg Hampikian and Chris Halkides have picked this up yet. I assume they must.

      If this is positively peer reviewed then it could be case changing.

    • Richard says:

      My guess is that Mignini told Stefanoni in so many words that either you get me some evidence for guilt or you will be the one going to prison. Stefanoni and others connected with the case came up with whatever they could even if it was simply manufactured. Mignini is facing the end of his career and a second conviction of misconduct if he loses. To him the choice of putting two people who are of no consequence to him in jail for life versus his job and reputation is a no brainer. Unfortunatly he would not be the first prosecutor to try that but the very publicity he was seeking at first is the thing that makes it impossible to keep the lies going.

    • Som Nathan says:

      Excellent find. We all know contamination is the reason a false positive result was reported and accepted in Massie and Nencini trials. However, the million dollar question is, how this fact that contamination occurred is hammered home in the upcoming appeal.
      The prosecutors are biased and are able to convince the judge to rule against further testing.
      How do you convince a bunch of prosecutorial hooligans that 1) the break-in was real not staged, based the documented MO of the lone culprit Rudy Guede, 2) The multi-attacker “theory” is just a theory, it doesn’t hold water against the available evidence or the lack of evidence against the defendants, 3) the picked 20 year old and vulnerable Amanda from day one and from there on build the case against her with phony evidence, eg she carried and used a big kitchen knife to kill Meredith. Practically impossible.

      This is three items from a very long list of items that the court refuses to correct.
      How is the defense team of AK & RS going to achieve the reversal?

    • Tyler says:

      James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF)
      Mission statement: Our mission is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.

      Forgive me if I am not impressed.

      • Glenn Thigpen says:

        It would be helpful if you would provide a bit of context to that mission statement, maybe by including the “rest of the story”.

        “Mission statement:

        Our mission is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.

        About the JREF:

        The James Randi Educational Foundation was founded in 1996 to help people defend themselves from paranormal and pseudoscientific claims. The JREF offers a still-unclaimed million-dollar reward for anyone who can produce evidence of paranormal abilities under controlled conditions. Through scholarships, workshops, and innovative resources for educators, the JREF works to inspire this investigative spirit in a new generation of critical thinkers.”


      • Andrea Jonasson says:

        I forgive you.

        In order to promote critical thinking, I encourage you to read further than the mission statement before pronouncing judgment. Try reading some of the forum threads on topics that interest you.

      • jamesrae says:

        It is a simple case of you cannot afford to be impressed.
        Reading the thinking of PHD level scientific and rationalist
        opinions on this case opens your mind to places you have
        not traveled in your own thinking. Keeping an open mind
        is critical to your growth as a thinker..

      • Sarah H says:

        They dispute the work of charlatans, like Mignini.

        They also linked to the actual computer data, which you can refer to yourself.

    • Andrea Jonasson says:

      One additional question from Diocletus on JREF:

      And why we’re on the topic, I’ll raise the issue that the STR or Egram plate no. for 36b is “365bis”. I think that “bis” signifies a redo. A redo may be the consequence of contamination. So, where are the records for plate plain old “365”??? Wouldn’t it be remarkable if we knew that the plate that generated 36b had been re-run due to contamination?

      • Rob H says:

        Yes, Andrea. Well done for posting this. “bis” I take to mean “additional” – “chiedere un bis” – “to ask again”?? If he is correct about 36B…..well, we can only hope at this point.

        Both of these people, “Diocletus” (his use of this moniker is a very amusing, slightly naughty way to declare himself an atheist/ rationalist) and “Dan O” have been posting with some gusto about their findings.

        They all relate, apparently to a search of the dump of data Stefanoni made on July 31st 2009 during the first trial.

        I see that Chris Halkides has also been on the forum and is aware of these developments.

        These findings need to be properly evaluated, of course, and not all of the data is available to be searched because it has not been disclosed. Diocletus also stated:

        “One thing that these quantification results tell us, though, is that she did have contamination in her lab, and I’m betting dollars to donuts that the missing STR records, particularly the EDFs thereof, would show serious problems.”

        Furthermore, Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito may well, at least, be somewhat “future-proofed”. “Diocletus”, smart fellow that he (or she) is, refers to Berraru v Romania (ECHR 18th March 2014):

        “70. The Court reiterates that it has already found that unrestricted access to the case file and unrestricted use of any notes, including, if necessary, the possibility of obtaining copies of relevant documents, are important guarantees of a fair trial. The failure to afford such access has weighed, in the Court’s assessment, in favour of the finding that the principle of equality of arms had been breached (see Matyjek v. Poland, no. 38184/03, §§ 59 and 63, ECHR 2007‑V, and Luboch v. Poland, no. 37469/05, §§ 64 and 68, 15 January 2008).”

        Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito’s Article 6 rights seem, very clearly, to have been breached.

  30. Adriano says:

    A trivial question that should be discussed during the process, but I do not know with what result . The problem of the two phones Meredith .
    1 . Who stole them did so to avoid that sounded in the house, this is clear, he has not turned off to avoid giving too many suspects who could possibly call? Or was too confused to remember to remove the batteries?
    2 . At what time were moved out of the house if the phones were turned on , the log of telephone operators should tell him .
    3 . If Amanda had committed the crime , and then she knew that she was alone in the house , what was the point of risking taking away cell phones from the house, well lit ?
    4. If, however, who killed Meredith, wanted to have the maximum time available for escape and had no relationship with Amanda, then what he did was correct. He closed the door of the room, took away the phones because they were playing in the house, if Amanda had returned early, and / or to simulate a petty theft took them away, but hurry, great hurry, and forgot to turn off the two phones. Amanda knew that she was alone in the house, had, according to the indictment, all the time to clean the house, so I find it unlikely that he could have such a hurry to take away cell phones, leave them on its biological traces, and abandon them, leaving them turned on!

  31. Phillip says:

    Rob H – Im still waiting for your contact details mate?

  32. This current search for what happened with flight MH370 reminds me somewhat of the search for the what happened in Amanda’s case, in that all the contradictory information by the various sources has caused great confusion.
    Another point, is if the investigation was continued solely by Malaysia, we would probably never have found out where to look or what happened. Other nations, and their resources have
    given us greater details , and a more open or clearer view of what might have happened.

    In Amanda’s case we also would have never known what happened if we listened solely to Mignini
    and his version of the truth…even though all the contradictory information has also caused great confusion, the numerous outside investigations by people have shed more light on what happened or didn’t happen that night. That has certainly helped Amanda’s case…

  33. Jack Friend says:

    The formation of a society is the result of a social contract between the citizens and its government with each side having certain responsibilities. John Locke envisioned the role of the citizen was to keep the power of government in check and that citizens could withdraw their consent if the power of government became abusive. This underscores my interest in this case, since I have no personal involvement, I am obligated to speak up when I feel injustice has occurred and any government is exercising its power in an abusive manner.

    For where is the man that has incontestable evidence of the truth of all that he holds, or of the falsehood of all he condemns; or can say that he has examined to the bottom all his own, or other men’s opinions? The necessity of believing without knowledge, nay often upon very slight grounds, in this fleeting state of action and blindness we are in, should make us more busy and careful to inform ourselves than constrain others.”
    ― John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

    The act of permitting the state to take life or liberty from another is a serious event and is not to be taken lightly.

    Socrates chose to drink poison as not doing so would be to presuppose knowledge he did not have, that life was better than death. Many so convinced of Amanda and Raffaele’s guilt are simply professing a certainty of knowledge they do not have. I could condemn no man or woman with this evidence but am suspicious of the motives of those who so easily can.

    Which brings me to those who write such thoughts that it is time Amanda just told the truth and admitted her guilt. As though after spending 7 years professing her innocence, Miss Knox will suddenly reverse course simply because some lady from somewhere wishes her to do so as that will enable that person to return to an intellectually lazy existence where the quest for truth is obvious and perhaps because her son will not encounter any she-devils on his journey through life. Not to digress, but one would think that given the many plagues, genocides, and wars the race of she-devils would have died out by now, but they have proven to be very resilient. Much like witches, faeries, dragons, unicorns, and ancient astronauts, they just won’t go away.

    But unfortunately, it does not work that way and I repeat an argument I have made many times on this blog. The same people hoping for Amanda and Raffaele to lose their liberty would feel entirely different if it was someone they knew or was their son or daughter and would feel so with the same evidence. It is easy to condemn the Knox’s daughter and the Sollecito’s son, but what happens when it’s yours? I see the answer on the nightly news: My son or daughter could not have done this! He was a good boy! She read her Bible! , He took loving care of his hamster!, She took soup to her grandmother in the hospital, and so on. So if Amanda and Raffaele are imprisoned with this evidence don’t expect any better for your son or daughter. Since I know you would just as easily condemn my daughter, I am compelled to support the Knox’s.

    I am also quite certain that some would celebrate Amanda and Raffaele returning to prison. I am sure many champagne corks flew after Hitler presented his “Final Solution”, when Mussolini rose to power in Fascist Italy with the expectation of easy solutions, when Japanese-Americans were transported to internment camps to make us all safe, and when African-Americans were kept segregated from the rest of society. Enjoy your champagne and perhaps toast to your own demise in the process. Victor Hugo masterfully interpreted this mindset in the character Javert in Les Miserables. Having realized his view of justice was flawed, Javert chose to kill himself to avoid facing the reality of having been wrong.

    Raffaele is fortunate in one respect, he is just considered to be a mindless robot. Amanda has received the brunt of the character assassination. Some have reached into the darkest recesses of their psyche and heaped all their skeletons on her. Did you see what she did, how she looked, how she acted, what she said, how she said what she said, how she moved, how she didn’t move, how her eyes moved, how her eyes did not move, her eyes are too brown, her eyes are not brown enough, she’s too pretty, she’s not pretty enough, she acts guilty, she does not act innocent enough?

    How many times when this case was discussed in the media was a few second video shown of Amanda and Raffaele exchanging an innocent kiss? Was it shown to frame a judgment and opinion? Was it intentional so the masses would go along? That video had as much to do with the facts of the case as showing a video of a pig walking across an open field. It did however mold public opinion, especially that of the casual observer.

    Showing a video over and over can create an effect and change opinions. I recall when Howard Dean was running for President of the USA via the Democratic primary. After spending all day campaigning and speaking publicly following a disappointing finish in the Iowa Caucus, he let out a large scream intended to invigorate his followers. This scream was incessantly played by the media and some stated this proved he was imbalanced and unfit to be President. Really? A man who had completed medical school, practiced medicine and was Gov. of Vermont was now unfit based on one instant? It does demonstrate how easy some come to their judgments and the role media can play in creating an outcome whether intentional or not.

    At the end of the day, some will acquiesce to authority and let them do whatever they like and some will be inclined to disagree. I am sure if Mr. Putin sends tanks to the Eastern Ukraine it is only in the interests of justice and preserving liberty. I am sure there will be many champagne corks popping throughout the Ukraine and many observers throughout the world will rejoice at how safe the world will be as a result. Oh well, what does it matter, I don’t live there?

    I suggest a different standard before one relishes another’s loss of life or liberty at the hands of the state. I do not entertain such behavior unless absolutely certain I am correct and am willing to sacrifice my own life or liberty if I am wrong.

    …And lastly, Amanda if fighting for one’s liberty equates to narcissism, I thank you for it as it helps me to preserve mine! I hope you find strength in your family and friends and never give up!

    “Well, although I do not suppose that either of us know anything really beautiful & good, I am better off than he is- for he knows nothing & thinks that he knows; I neither know nor think that I know.”
    ― Socrates

    • Elias says:

      Excellent commentary.

      I wish Jean Luc Godard was young enough / interested enough to make a documentary on this case and the use of imagery, video loops. It could be a modern “Letter To Jane,” type of film, on it would “Letter to the Monster of Perugia and Tabloid Media.”

  34. Sarah H says:

    This Italian legal blogger explains the stark difference between our legal system and that of Italy, and how in 2006 Italy tried – and failed – to establish the concept of “reasonable doubt.”

    By Davide Giacalone, Translated by Kate Townsend

    February 17, 2014

    . . . . The good thing (so to speak) is that we remedied such regrettable issues with Law No. 46 of February 20, 2006 – better known as the Pecorella Act. The act established that in cases of acquittal, the prosecution may only appeal to the Court of Cassation [which rules on trial procedure rather than evidence]. The reasoning was simple: in 1988 the Criminal Code adopted the accusatory model [Americans would say the “adversarial model”], which establishes that a conviction can only be imposed when there is no “reasonable doubt” of guilt. So if a tribunal or court has already acquitted a defendant, then it is quite obvious that from that point forward, there is a reasonable doubt.

    The Pecorella Act was sent back to the legislature because the president of the republic (then Carlo Azelio Ciampi) had doubts about it. Yet it was approved again and enacted. Then the Constitutional Court, with three coordinated judgments, tore it to pieces. The underlying reason: the trial process must be taken as a whole, so if they acquit you on your first or second appeal, you’re still not considered innocent, because one must wait for the entire legal process to conclude. In a process wherein the parties to the trial must be equal – if the defense can file an appeal, so, too, can the prosecution.

    Try to make an American, who considers a verdict final, understand this. For an American, the trial, which occurs in a courtroom, is a cross-examination of both parties that concludes with a verdict. So if you’re acquitted, the state loses its right to charge you – forever (aka/double jeopardy). This is profoundly reasonable because it is in no way true that the parties have equal capacities; the weight of the state is immensely superior to that of the citizen . . . .

    • Rob H says:

      This is a really interesting post, Sarah H – connecting the concepts of “Reasonable Doubt” and “Double Jeopardy”. Of course, the Italian model of justice is now, de facto, a confused mish- mash of the adversarial and the inquisitorial which, together with the unremitting power of judges and the rules of evidence is the reason why justice itself waits such a long time to be delivered and often never reaches the finish.

      What astonishes me (well, so much about this case astonishes me actually) is that Mignini stood in front of Hellmann and argued that “reasonable doubt” was not something that his honour should worry too much about. It was scandalous and hardly reported.

      • Sarah H says:

        It was also interesting to me how clearly and logically this translated piece of Italian develops its argument. After reading the court transcripts, I was wondering whether my problem following their logic was due to a difficulty translating anything properly from Italian, or whether the legal rhetoric was simply obfuscating and impenetrable even in the original.

        Now that I know an Italian lawyer can write so clearly and succinctly (and that this shows even in translation), I am convinced that the prosecution lawyers and Judge Massei used language they way they did on purpose — to cover up the utter illogic of what they wanted to say. They thought if they threw enough flowery words around, if no one could really understand them, everyone would assume they were saying something highly intelligent and meaningful. But they made no more sense than the Queen in Alice and Wonderland.

      • BigDinBoise says:

        Why do you need reasonable doubt when you have the possibility of guilt?

        Amazing the number of things that aren’t reported in this case that most people, whether American, British, or Italian, would be appalled to learn.

      • Phillip says:

        Thankfully ‘Rob H’ we don’t have to worry about what was argued to Hellmann, other than the money it took to argue it.

        • Sarah H says:

          All the DNA and other evidence in the Hellman trial, including the testimony about the DNA evidence by the university forensic professors who were appointed by Hellman to testify as independent experts, is still part of the “wholistic” trial record. Only the Hellman verdict was annulled.

          And the fact that the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” was not followed in this case will certainly be of interest to the US officials who will have to decide on any extradition request.

        • BigDinBoise says:

          The very fact that there was an acquittal in one trial is enough to create reasonable doubt in perpetuity.

        • Rob H says:

          What we are discussing, “Phillip”, is the legal concept of “reasonable doubt” – it is not a concept which was part of this case inside the Hellmann court and then disappeared outside it – no judge in a criminal trial, even in Italy, is permitted to set it aside.

          But it is discussed in detail in Hellmann’s motivation.

          “Beyond Reasonable Doubt” is the standard of proof which must be met by the prosecution if a verdict of “Guilty” is to be rendered in an Italian criminal trial. So, we must understand what this means, and ourselves (if we want to have opinions about the guilt or innocence of the defendants) hold the evidence to this standard.

          Both the Massei and Nencini courts were required to satisfied themselves that the case for guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

          Therefore, for you to suggest that “we don’t need to worry about what was argued to (sic) Hellmann” is quite astonishing and rather betrays your prevailing, cavalier attitude to this case.

          Are you even the slightest bit familiar with Mignini’s argument on this most fundamental of points and what he was asking the court to do?

          Interestingly, Italian law’s definition of “reasonable doubt” is codified. Of course interpretation of language is a different matter, but there is detailed written guidance for the popular judges here,(much more than there is in English and Welsh law). The jury, for example, in the first trial of Vicky Pryce (R. v Huhne and Pryce 2013), a case you might aware of, got itself into a real pickle over the issue.

          Since you want to debate with me outside this forum, “Phillip”, you are really going to need a grasp of this concept – you cannot simply dismiss it as irrelevant. My interest is in advancing a proper understanding of this case, not in making a fool out of you or wasting my time.

          If “we don’t have to worry” about Hellmann, should we, by the way, not worry about Conti-Vecchiotti?

        • Mark (AKA Supernaut) says:

          “….. The money it took to argue it”?

          “It” being Amanda and Raffaele’s innocence, IOW their legal costs, you mean?

          Or are you slyly referring to the slanderous allegation made by a prolific Italian poster (and “TJMK main poster”) going by the name of Yummi/Machiavelli, that Hellmann was “bought”?

          perhaps you missed this;

          “….. it is in no way true that the parties have equal capacities; the weight of the state is immensely superior to that of the citizen .”

          How do you suppose a total figure for what the Italian state has spent prosecuting Amanda and Raffaele would compare to their defence costs so far?

          • Elias says:

            The government might have found the cost worth it to — protect careers, save face…and well the money they are making from the media.

            This case seems more about saving face than true justice at this point.

            Mignini seems to have 9 lives, what does he have on whom that he collected in all those old wire taps that keeps him from going down even after his craziness, incompetence, and being convicted???

        • Bob Magnetti says:

          How can the Italian system ignore the ‘reasonable doubt’ established by Hellmann’s acquittal? Especially when this ‘reasonable doubt’ was amplified by the fact that that the two items Nencini examined (sample 36I and Aviello) returned results favorable to the defense . . .

  35. Adriano says:

    Sorry if the question may seem a bit ‘technique, but I do not know where to put it … I’d like to know when Rudy Guede saw, before the killing, the boy who frequented Meredith, whose name is Giacomo (? The surname I do not know), or one or more boys who lived downstairs. Obviously I want to understand if they have communicated in some way, to Guede, who would not have been at home on the night of the murder. If I am not mistaken Guede knew James, and consequently Meredith, right?

  36. Chris Meyering says:

    I’ve read all the main sites of this case thoroughly which includes, of course, this one,Denver at Ground Report, TJMK, Injustice in Perugia and one other anti-knox site whose name I can’t remember. Besides the obvious one sided opinions, there are some definite differences between these sites.

    The most Glaring are the use of Real Names and the type of Language used to support a position.

    Seems everyone here, for example, has no Problem using their real names and also cite Real names and institutions for data analysis. In contrast, at TJMK, they all use aliases and say things like “…..I’m a Psychologist” or “…I know a Doctor” yet they never list any credentials.

    The second point I would like to point out is the Language. The language used at, again I’ll use TJMK as an example, is very, well, the politest way I can put is ‘remedial’. They don’t seem to be interested at getting to the truth, but more interested in bashing Amanda specifically. They really seem to enjoy it.

    I would like to add that their representation of Meredith, god rest her soul, is very creepy. They speak about how wonderful and angelic she was as if they have always known her. This is not appropriate behavior for a advocacy site, and it borders more on a fetish site, especially when Meredith was every much the party girl as Amanda has been portrayed to be. (As many men and women in their early twenties tend to be)

    This leads me the conclusion that these sites are nothing more than an arm of the Italian Prosecution to continue its narrative and its follower’s are simply part of a Meredith fetish club.

    • Anna says:

      I would just like to add another website to your list , this is a nice one too (pro-Amanda/Raffaele), the other one with “the” is the guilter one (but you already know that).

      Take care :)

    • Nasim says:

      The names of the discussion boards that you can’t remember are and TJMK is explicitly a blog and a tribute site. All pro-Meredith are tightly controlled by the site owners and there are definite differences between what is tolerated at each of the sites. What is never tolerated is tendentious posting of “There is zero evidence of Amanda and Raffaele in the murder room…” because this is a waste of everyone’s time. The reason real names are often not used is because some on the pro-Amanda side (and let’s be honest, Raffaele is not nearly as important to them) have tried to run them off the internet by contacting their jobs, their families and even the police. With respect to Meredith and the Kerchers, the issue is not whether she was every bit the party girl that Amanda was (by most accounts, she was not) but that she has been reduced to a cardboard cutout in her own murder case by the media’s incessant focus on Amanda. As often seems to be the case when tragedy strikes, it’s hard to imagine a family less deserving of this than the Kerchers. They are truly salt of the earth people whose values are honesty, integrity, respect and community service. And, yes, that sets them apart.

      • Elias says:

        The Kercher family patriarch’s main career was that of a tabloid reporter for one of the most exploiting of innuendo, rumor, and lies tabloids in Britain.

        There is no way those kids could have not grown up in a household filled with tabloids and had their mentality, world views, value systems, effected or expanded to include that kind of nonsense and conspiracy mongering in the “mental maps” on some level.

        People are called “salt of the earth” all the time, some of those are the ones who pop off the rails and gun down all their co-workers.

        You can’t know or make definitive claims about the entire Kersher family unless you knew them personally over a long period of time before Meredith’s tragic murder by Rudy Guede.

        Yes, it sucks to be honest about a murder victim, Meredith was every bit the young, developing, learning, young person as Amanda was and is. Meredith used drugs, partied a lot, and within weeks of arriving at the house was screwing the guy downstairs — she didn’t go slow enough to figure out that the reason the guy didn’t want to be seen with her in public was because he was using her for sex and did not consider her “relationship material.” Meredith was no angle, nor was she a she-devil, and neither was Amanda a she-devil.

        The were both just young women of their generation, experimenting some, celebrating their youth some, and learning and growing.

        If, for instance, Amanda had not been experimenting with casual sex, she never would have met and slept with Rafaelle the first night they met. And if she had not done that (ironically) it is likely she would have been home that night (everyone was tired post Halloween) before Meredith, and could have been the murdered.

        Just as Amanda should not be painted as the devil, neither should Meredith be painted as an angel. They both were just examples of women of their generation from their various families and cultures.

        • penelope says:

          She certainly was no angle.

        • penelope says:

          Yes I’m sure the whole house was filled to the rafters with tabloids, their poisonous influence invading and besmirching all the Kerchers’ minds. My father was an automative engineer and not one single aspect of his career had the slightest bearing on my mindset.

      • Sarah H says:

        You’re right, Nasim. What is never allowed at the hate sites is the simple truth: there wasn’t a single piece of evidence linking Amanda to the murder room. And since she wasn’t there, she couldn’t have committed the murder.

        Also, the court-appointed forensic experts, faculty of the University of Rome, both testified that the only piece of evidence in the room the prosecution linked to Raffaele, the dirty and rusted bra clasp, was subject to contamination and had no value as evidence. It contained the DNA of several other men as well, and none of them have been charged with her murder.

        What your sites specialize in is obfuscation and convoluted logic: in other words, smoke and mirrors.

      • BigDinBoise says:

        How are these sites pro-Meredith exactly? I didn’t know Meredith, and are pretty sure you didn’t either, but I can’t imagine she would be a fan of injustice. In my view the pro-Meredith sites are the ones that promote justice for Meredith through exposing the truth. I can’t imagine Meredith would be happy about the injustice that you and the rest of the guilter crowd support.

      • Rob H says:

        “What is never tolerated is tendentious posting…” (on PMF 1 and 2 and TJMK) – “nasim”.

        What??? Do you know what “tendentious” means???

        “Having a tendency; written or spoken with a partisan, biased or prejudiced purpose.”

        “Implicitly or explicitly slanted.”

        Here’s one, at random, from November 12th 2013, from Quennell:

        “None of the science in Meredith’s case has ever been discredited in court. Even in Judge Hellmann’s court the agenda-driven independent consultants Conti and Vecchiotti failed – and under cross-examination admitted it.”

        Agree with Quennell, “nasim”? Support Quennell’s lie?

        I could fill this entire blog with examples of “tendentious” postings from the three “colpevolisti” websites you refer to.

        As for the “honesty” and “integrity” of the Kerchers, please explain how their “quest for the truth” is consistent with their attorneys vehemently arguing for the guilt of Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito from the beginning of the case. Please then, go on to explain how their attorneys’ arguing for guilt on instructions from their clients is consistent with Stephanie Kercher refusing to say in interview that she thought Ms Knox was guilty?

        Now, if she had said something like:

        “I believe and have always believed that Amanda knox is guilty. This is why we took advantage of the Italian judicial system, which allows us to be represented in court in a contemporaneous civil trial where we are also suing Ms Knox for substantial damages – money rightfully due to us as compensation for Meredith’s death – a right which would not be granted to us in Britain – and hired attorneys to support the prosecution’s case against her. We are doing and have always done as much as we could to ensure Amanda Knox was found guilty of Meredith’s murder because we believe she is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

        … that would be “honest”; that would demonstrate “integrity”.

        But it is beyond her and it is beyond them.

        If Ms Kercher has been reduced to a “cardboard cutout”, then yes, that is the responsibility of the media.

        But some, including her own family, have pressed the idea of “Meredith is being forgotten in all of this” to the extent that nothing, seemingly will satisfy them unless Ms Knox stays utterly silent, does not mount a defence to the spurious charges levelled at her and walks meekly into a jail cell with her arms in the air or her hands cuffed behind her – out of “respect”.

        Ridiculous notion.

        As for your real identity, I couldn’t care less. But we should know what other aliases you post under. There would be no risk to you from the police.

      • HH says:

        Nasim: Yup, the truth definitely appears to be considered a waste of time over there.

        As for Meredith being reduced to a “cardboard cutout”, whose fault is that? Do you think Amanda asked for that attention? Both her and Meredith are portrayed as cardboard cutouts. Amanda is treated as the archetype of a femme fatale while Meredith takes on the archetype of a pure, virgin maiden. Is that the truth?

        No, but some people, including Meredith’s own father, seem desperate to perpetuate both of these stereotypes. Ask John Kercher why he wrote a book, titled it “Meredith” (and after a couple of lovely opening chapters describing his relationship with Meredith and what she was like growing up) and spends the majority of book, persecuting Amanda and spreading incorrect and debunked information.

        He has very little to say about Rudy, except strangely enough, he dedicates half a page to rationalizing to himself a witness account where a witness (Fabrizio Gioffredi) claimed to have seen Meredith and Rudy walking together as part of a group with Amanda and Raffaele.

        Quoting him “the only reason that Guede could ever have been seen with Meredith was that he might have called at the cottage to meet Knox and Sollecito just as Meredith was leaving.” I have to wonder, is he more concerned about the truth or doing everything he can to portray Meredith (who I believe was a good, nice girl) as pure lily white? Nothing she could have done merits what happened to her. Honestly WHO CARES if she was walking with Rudy? Her father apparently.

        He also ignores the fact that Meredith’s boyfriend also knew Rudy better than both Knox and Sollecito, which is another reason Rudy might have been hanging around the cottage.

        In fact, he apparently considered something of KOKOMANI a reliable witness. According to Kokomani, Amanda had some sort of black scarf around her neck and started screaming at him and pulled an 8 inch knife out of her bag. Then Guede sauntered up, informing Kokomani that Amanda was holding a cake knife. He also claimed Amanda threatened him and someone tried bribe him with 100,000 Euros not to talk to the police.

        John Kercher’s take: He couldn’t help wondering what his motivation might have been if he had been truly concocting his absolutely ridiculous story. It seemed reasonable to John Kercher that Kokomani was scared and if he’d wanted to attract attention to himself, he would have approached the police earlier.

        John Kercher completely left out of his book the fact that Kokomani claimed that he recognized Amanda by the gap in her teeth. (Which she doesn’t have.) I have to wonder how closely he was following his daughter’s trial if he still considered Kokomani reliable.

        I have many more examples that I could post from his book but that would take all day.

        Integrity? Honesty?

      • Rob H says:

        Here’s another one of those “honest” (no, actually, it is tendentious) posts from TJMK.

        Take note, “nasim”, “willis”, “paul” (if there really are three of you). This is what you are personally associated with.

        Take note all those who come here both in support of Ms Knox and in opposition to her. This poison is what she has to face and has had to face for years and it has nothing to do with any “evidence” against her.


        “Knox sees other woman as rivals for the affections of men.

        That is why she is jealous of all of them and Meredith in particular of course, since Meredith was several thousand times better in every department than Knox was/is or could ever hope to be.

        This is why every man Knox beds is to her a triumph over her personal view that she is no good/ugly/a failure etc:

        Her father abandoned her and she has never psychologically got over that but keeps on trying to attract men and or woman by her attempts to better herself, at least in her eyes. This she does not really believe possible hence the ever ongoing con game she has developed to hide the fact that she really is second hand goods and always will be. Creative writing indeed. Meredith was far superior in that as well.

        No! Knox sees other woman as a threat because most other woman will see through her straight away. Men don’t since they are sucked in by the poor Little helpless me approach.

        Face it Knox is soiled property or as my mother used to say
        “Second rate breeding stock.”

        Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 03/20/14 at 01:56 PM ”

        My apologies to Ms Knox for having to read this drivel. But, perhaps some good will come from it.

        I find it difficult to believe that anyone with integrity, pro or anti could read this diatribe and not immediately start to question the real intentions of the people behind this website, if they have not done so already.

        Well, “nasim”, “willis” and “paul? What do you have to say about it?

        • DW says:

          Ugh. The comments about “soiled property” and “breeding stock” are really despicable, and they show quite clearly that deep rooted misogyny is at the heart of this case (virgin/whore dichotomy). Nothing subtle about this.

      • Antony says:

        Nasim: What is never tolerated is tendentious posting of “There is zero evidence of Amanda and Raffaele in the murder room…” because this is a waste of everyone’s time.

        You said it. Why have trials at all? You can just have the police tell the judge they’ve caught the culprits and he can pass sentence without having to worry about evidence.

        With respect to Meredith and the Kerchers, the issue is not whether she was every bit the party girl that Amanda was (by most accounts, she was not) but that she has been reduced to a cardboard cutout in her own murder case

        It’s not “her murder case”. It’s Amanda and Raff who are under threat of being locked away for half their lives for no reason other than to save the pride and careers of the Perugia police and prosecutors.

        … by the media’s incessant focus on Amanda.

        Which, of course was entirely the prosecutor’s strategy, and, ironically, the so-called “pro-Meredith” sites you refer to, which have engaged in a campaign of defamation against the 2 defendants (while soft-pedalling on the actual murderer, Rudy Guede).

        It’s the defendants and their lawyers who have sought to focus on the facts, and have been obstructed at every turn by the prosecutors and the judges who have taken their side.

        … it’s hard to imagine a family less deserving of this than the Kerchers.

        In what sense does the victim’s family “deserve” to have her centre-stage in a murder trial? They deserve the truth, as do the defendants, and this trial and the way it has been handled by the prosecutors has served to provide them with lies. The “focus” on Meredith (just as much as on Amanda) has been part of the prosecutor strategy to hide the truth.

        In no other murder case I can think of has so much attention been given to creating a cult surrounding the victim.

      • Andrea Jonasson says:

        Nasim, you describe ‘pro-Meredith’ sites and the ‘pro-Amanda’ side as if this is some kind of battle between the two women in which it is necessary to condemn Amanda in order to respect or care for Meredith. In this mental model, tendentious arguments for Amanda’s innocence are seen as attacks on Meredith’s memory and her family.

        However, if you could open your mind for a moment and consider the possibility that Amanda had nothing to do with Meredith’s death, you would see that your Meredith vs. Amanda model falls to the ground. It is perfectly possible for Meredith and Amanda to have both been intelligent, generous, and kind young women during their time living together. It is quite possible that Amanda and Meredith were friends.

        Nasim, if you are so deeply opposed to the media focus on Amanda, I wonder that you participate in it to the extent that you do. You have gone out of your way to engage her in discussion here. Why do you not just turn your back on her and focus on worthy projects in Meredith’s name instead? Scholarship funds, that sort of thing?

        • penelope says:

          Very well put Andrea and not a view that is shared by many on this site with their unnecessary and vicious attacks on John Kercher and his profession.

          • jamesrae says:


            This is far from the truth. There is a core group of posters pro Amanda on this site and certainly it is obvious to you that the majority by far have not viciously attacked John Kercher and his profession. We can all count.

          • BigDinBoise says:

            I for one do not have a lot of respect for tabloid journalism, but I’m not certain what type of journalist John Kercher was during his career. He has written some recent articles in the Daily Mail attacking Amanda, but other then that and his book Meredith, I have been unable to find any other examples of his work. He seems to be fairly well retired from journalism at this point.

            How would you define vicious attack exactly? I disagree with the man, but I cannot think of an instance in which I or anyone else on this site have unfairly maligned John Kercher, as they so often do with Amanda and Raffaele on the pro-guilt sites. Do you believe as the father of a murdered girl that he is above any criticism, whatsoever?

  37. Julianne says:

    I have been following your case since the beginning and can only feel immense outrage at the amazingly cruel injustice you have received by the Italian courts,police, press, etc. My daughter is your age and after having read Candace Demsey’s book and your own I see a strong likeness in character and outlook to my own daughter who loves travel, learning new cultures/languages, and experimenting with all that life affords. I can understand not only your innocence but a kindness and open-mindedness that is not common to most people and was seized upon in a negative way to damage your character and to horrifically implicate you in a murder. I imagine your former friend Meredith would be saddened to know that her family will not accept that their daughter’s killer has been caught and convicted and that they treat you so unfairly. Their spite is a great dishonor to their daughter’s memory.
    It is also incredible to me that the US can recognize Italy in any sort of diplomatic manner as long as their justice system is so blatantly corrupt. A country not be considered a “civilized” one when it does not correct the gross abuses of its most important institution. It is perplexing that its citizens do not demand reform when one of their own (who could be the son of any of them) has had his life turned so upside-down much less an out going foreigner who clearly loves and celebrates their culture.
    You are an unnecessary example (i.e, you should never have had to endure what you did) but a shining one of courage and resilience all the same..

  38. Jade says:

    I would like to share a review of Amanda’s book, posted by Lauren Passell, May 20, 2013.

    15 Naive Mistakes Amanda Knox Made

    Even those who doubt Knox’s innocence can’t deny that she was unfairly villainized. The police and press stole and misinterpreted her journals, bugged her, twisted her words, and spread lies. (For example, it was reported that receipts proved she bought bleach after the murder, but the receipts were actually from before the crime, and were for pizza.)

    But Knox made it easy on the corrupt police by making mistake after mistake. I imagine that while Amanda Knox wrote her book Waiting To Be Heard, she constantly smacked her forehead and said, “Why did I do that?! What was I thinking?!”

    1. She didn’t hire a lawyer. The police told her that getting a lawyer would make it look like she was unwilling to cooperate. Hasn’t she seen Law And Order? And everyone deserves to be represented by someone who, oh, I don’t know, speaks the language that will be spoken during the trial. Knox’s Italian roommates got lawyers immediately, and they weren’t even being targeted or interrogated. She should have followed suit.

    2. She didn’t cry. Initially Knox showed a lack of emotion, remaining oddly stoic and refusing hugs from Meredith Kercher’s friends. Unfortunately, we live in a world where people judge innocence based on a suspect’s emotions. And many were left wondering why Amanda wasn’t more upset.

    3. Then she got angry. When Natalie, one of Kercher’s friends, said she hoped Kercher did not suffer, Knox snapped, “how could she not have suffered? They cut her f*cking throat! Bastards!” In this case, her emotions were not in line with everyone else’s, and people were shocked that she seemed to be lashing out at Kercher’s friends, the same people who would serve as witnesses for the prosecution.

    4. She stayed in Perugia. Knox probably could have gone home immediately, but, thinking she could help the police, she stayed in Perugia. The whole time she thought she was assisting the case, well, she was—because she was incriminating herself with all the “help” she was giving.

    5. She was weird. According to Knox, she got along well with Kercher. But she notes that when they lived together, she sang loudly (and that everyone thought she was crazy for it) and that once, Kercher had to remind her to brush the toilet after every use. Reading between the lines, that means Kercher might have thought Knox was pretty weird—annoying, even—and lacking in personal hygiene. When Kercher’s friends were put on the stand, they all said that Kercher thought Knox was unusual. They pointed to the toilet brush incident, suggesting the girls were at odds. What may very well have been regular roommate communication issues were interpreted as potential motives for murder.

    6. She made bad jokes. In her journal, the one that was confiscated by the police without her knowledge, Knox joked, “I’d really like to say I could kill for a pizza but it doesn’t seem right.”

    7. She acted like she was in a musical. The media reported that when brought back to the crime scene in her sanitized booties, Knox jumped out like a Broadway star and said, “ta-daa!” This seemed like more inappropriate behavior from someone whose roommate had just been murdered. Knox says she acted this way because she had just been reprimanded for complaining, and she wanted to appear cheerful.

    8. She had a pink bunny vibrator. Before she for Perugia, one of Knox’s friends gave her a pink bunny vibrator to use “until she met her Italian Stallion.” Kercher’s friends claimed Kercher thought it was a tad uncouth that the bunny was on display in the bathroom. (Perhaps it was a British thing.) And prosecution claimed it indicated she was a loose woman. Knox says it was just a gag gift that she never used.

    9. She bought red undies. Before she was detained, Knox and her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito went to a cheap clothing store so she could buy clean underwear, since she was unable to go back to her villa to get her own clothes. It became public knowledge that she chose red. The store clerk reported that it was a “lacy G-string” (Amanda says it wasn’t) and said that after it was purchased, Sollecito said, “I’m going to take you home now so we can have wild sex.” Maybe that story would have been different if she had considered white or grey or nude. Maybe.

    10. She implicated her boss. The worst thing Knox did was implicate her ex-boss Patrick Lumumba in the murder. (He had nothing to do with the crime and was cleared.) To be fair, she had been interrogated for hours, and under these conditions, people are known to lie if they think it will get them off the hook.

    11. She never remained silent. She claims the police never read her her rights, so she didn’t know that she could just shut up. But instead she talked herself into a hole.

    12. She didn’t call the American Embassy. Her aunt in Germany suggested it, but she didn’t think she was in a serious-enough situation to justify calling the embassy.

    13. She skipped Kercher’s vigil. A few days after the murder there was a candlelight vigil in Kercher’s memory. Sollecito couldn’t go, and fearing her safety, Amanda didn’t want to go alone. So she skipped. And it just sort of looked bad. (Since she was already under suspicion, it also would have looked bad had she attended.)

    14. There wasn’t enough variation in her everyday life. When the police asked Knox where she was, what she was doing, who she was with, etc., she couldn’t remember, because she and Sollecito “had done some variation of watching a movie, cooking, reading Harry Potter, having sex, and smoking every day for a week.” Since she couldn’t remember, her story (and her credibility) got muddled.

    15. She thought the prosecutor (Pubblico Ministero) was the mayor. I’m shocked there wasn’t more lost in translation throughout all of this, but Knox, for a good portion of her questioning, thought that the prosecutor was actually on her side, or at least of an impartial party. Oops.


    Amanda, indeed, you made some mistakes, but it does not make you a murderer. Most of these mistakes root in misunderstanding and misinterpretation. The prosecution, with the support of the media, made a ‘terrific job’ to misinterpret these facts.
    I remember my college year abroad, and I also made mistakes…. and not only with the grammar :). We all make mistakes, but we get a chance to learn from it, and get on with our lives. You got a hard lesson. Nothing will be the same, but I hope you find your peace. Ti Voglio Bene!

    • Jamie says:

      I take issue with this post because I simply don’t think it’s fair. With that said, I do understand it was not written by the individual who posted it. Regardless, the author had the benefit of hindsight. I’m sure Amanda would say if she knew then what she knew now, she may have behaved differently. I would certainly hope she would’ve gotten an attorney and gotten the hell out of Italy. How was she to know the nightmare that was about to begin? Was she naïve? Sure, I’d say we all were at twenty. Another point I’d like to make is that had she been a young man, many of the points above would never have been mentioned. Specifically, the hygiene discussion, the underwear shopping and the “lack of emotion” mentioned in the same breath as an accusation of an abundance of anger.

      • elbee says:

        Amanda’s naiveté and certain actions as a result actually toward disproving her guilt. If she’d been guilty and the crafty witch the media conjured, there wouldn’t have been visible droplets of blood left in a bathroom, or a bat mat that might have had a murder-related footprint. There either wouldn’t have been an Amanda left in Italy to sign the BIG statement, or she would have been lawyered up for each contact with the authorities.

        • Nick Green (UK) says:

          She was twenty. When I was twenty I barely knew how to make coffee.

          • Elias says:

            Geez, man, I’m 57 and still don’t know how to make coffee. (Never liked it).

            It seems a very human trait to easily judge or not like others that are different from us.

            I read a neuroscience article sometime back that said that we may be hard wired to not trust / not like people that look different than we do…because in ancestral times we often had our tribe attacked by their tribe….so one way to protect ourselves was to react quickly to people that look different than us.

            Possible there is some aspect of this where less tolerant people judge people that act different than they do.

            Amanda was indeed young when all this started, there are also big missing pieces of the puzzle where her behavior was judged…the system was gamed by the leaks from Mignini and his minions (good name for an Italian punk band).

            If the cameras had been on her when she was crying her eyes out in the car over Meredith, things might be different.

            Anyway, none of the evidence points to Amanda and Rafaelle, and there’s plenty of mass psychology studies to review how the tabloid media conducted a witch hunt against them…only as time wore on some of the media started to ask questions and realize things didn’t add up.

            No motive. No previous history.
            No evidence.


            Mignini, however, had a history of trying to place his conspiracy theories into a crime.

          • Will says:

            Agreed. The fact that she had just recently turned 20 makes all of the complex conspiracy theories all the more absurd. Unless of course she is a witch who is practiced in the black arts, including especially the highly advanced black art of selective elimination of incriminating crime scene evidence. Sigh. I hope this madness ends soon.

          • Stephane G says:

            Bad exemple : if I remember well, Amanda was already a trained “barista” herself 😉

    • Elias says:

      None of this really matters — a better list is the list of character assassinations and law breakings of the prosecution.

      And to top off that list, there is no evidence of Rafaelle and Amanda in the murder room.

      • Jade says:

        The purpose of posting this list is to inform people who accuse Amanda… since they will not bother reading her book (for her defence). These are facts, which were misinterpreted purposefully and intentionally by the prosecution.

        Mignini should go to jail… together with Berlusconi.

    • Kai says:

      Even if she’d said she’d done it, the investigating team should have been professional enough to see through that and do their job instead. They should have stuck to the facts of the evidence; instead they made more 50 mistakes collecting evidence from the crime scene and forced a false confession out of 2 innocent young people who had their lives ahead of them.
      The person who’s DNA was everywhere obviously states he didn’t do it (some mystery man did it). That doesn’t make him innocent. If someone confesses it doesn’t make them guilty either. How someone behaves shouldn’t matter in a case where there is no evidence. Speculations that she must know something given her behaviour are just that, speculations and they should be left at that. Her behaviour should never have been taken into account. She should have been able to trust her environment and make the mistakes she made without being punished so severely. The punishment she’s received is totally out of proportion to the mistakes she innocently made as newly hatched 20 year old.

    • Mark (AKA Supernaut) says:

      This “review” is typical of what I’ve come to expect from people who flatter themselves as “informed”, but who have actually made NO EFFORT to actually become so, and are quite possibly INCAPABLE of the critical thinking and discipline needed.

      This is mostly a (partial) “list” of the irrelevant, mis-representative but nevertheless HIGHLY prejudicial, if not inflammatory crap the ITALIAN PROSECUTORS were feeding the lap-dog Italian media before and during the first trial (i.e. 2008-2009), and subsequently repeated slavishly by the latter’s peers in other countries. From whence this “reviewer” gleaned his/her “insights”.

    • Som Nathan says:

      Hey Jade, can you list fifteen mistakes prosecutor Mignini, Commodi, police chief Edgardo Giobbi and Judge Massie commited while executing this case.
      Really appreciate it.

      Seems like every Tom, Dick & Harry Or Jill, Jane & Mary have something to say or write to BASH Amanda.

  39. Nasim, If you don’t mind me asking, are you also the same poster “Ergon” that runs I apologize if this has been asked here previously.

    Either way, you reference the PMF’s and TJMK often here. I am curious why the sites you look to for information have ignored Professor Vinci’s work. Do you base your conclusions solely on the prosecution’s claims or do you truly look at all of the evidence?

    I have not seen Prof. Vinci’s work posted on any of the pro-guilt sites, but I have seen attempts by those groups to smear Prof. Vinci. Ergon recently claimed that it was decided in court that Prof. Vinci doctored his photographs. This is absolutely false. The prosecution called him a “magician,” not the court. Is it really shocking that the prosecutors tried to discredit the defense expert that shredded their case?

    Prof. Vinci’s work is the best seen in this case. Both sides of this discussion should be studying his work.

    Injustice in Perugia provides the prosecution’s expert analysis that is currently available along side the defense expert analysis that is currently available. Why do the pro-guilt sites hide information from their readers?

    • Willis Coleman says:

      I can only speak for myself but I came to know about Dr. Vinci’s presentation recently. There are a number of questions about his analysis, most obviously that Sollecito’s reference (ink footprint) is not properly rotated relative to the stain on the mat. It also appears that the stain has faded (or the contrast has been adjusted) relative to Rinaldi’s photo, making the stain appear somewhat smaller and more fragmented. One has to ask why Vinci took his own photos rather than use Rinaldi’s. One also has to ask why, after obtaining his own ink prints of Sollecito’s foot (complaining that Rinaldi’s were “static” prints) did he decide to use Rinaldi’s ink prints anyway. The most likely explanation is that Rinaldi’s prints are not “static” after all. Finally, if Vinci’s analysis were correct then the stain on the mat would be an even worse match for Rudy than what Rinaldi found, so much so that one would have to surmise that there was an unknown accomplice.

      • Rob H says:

        Thanks for this, “willis”. I assume that “yummi” has had his biros and ruler out again in an effort to get a better grade from his teacher in school for the “footprint” project”. Perhaps he is getting close to graduation but still needs a few extra credits.

        Vinci had to re-do Rinaldi’s work “in” Meredith Kercher’s bedroom in order to discover the remainder of Guede’s footprints in blood and disprove Ms Knox’s presence in the room from this evidence, which had also been asserted.

        I suppose we should be thankful to Guede (although it seems an odd thing to say) that he put his bloody hand on the wall after murdering Ms Kercher so even the incompetence of Rinaldi (and others), and the deceit of Stefanoni (and others) wasn’t allowed to give him a free pass. They might still have been arguing that all his shoe prints belonged to Mr Sollecito, otherwise.

        But when you add up all the incompetence and all the deceit, (considering it holistically and osmotically of course) you can see that if Guede had only been a little bit careful, given the prosecutor’s obsession with fitting up Ms Knox for the murder, he would have got away free and clear. Guede’s attorney, Pacelli has, arguably, been the most succesful connected to this case. He has made a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

        He has had a lot of help though.

        • Rob H says:

          Forgive my error please – I have jetlag! (no, really!). I wrote, “Pacelli” when I had meant to write “Biscotti” who, is of course, Guede’s attorney. Pacelli has also been particularly successful in this case too. He would have been considerably less successful if he had gone after the police, as he should have, for Lumumba’s incarceration, rather than Ms Knox.

      • Doug Moodie says:

        I don’t get it. The photo on p.30 of Vinci has the exact same orientation as that presented in Rinaldi’s, and are the exact same pictures. You can go to and open both reports each in it’s own tab and see for yourself. Rotating Sollecito’s foot relative to Guede’s, whoops, I mean the print on the bathmat, would alter where the back of the foot meets the edge of the mat resulting in non-alignment. The Vinci photos are correct as anyone can see with their own two eyes.

        The remainder of your comment is not relevant to the issue at hand, which is, “Is the bathmat print a match for Sollecito’s foot beyond a reasonable doubt”. As your one relevant comment lacks any substantiation, and appears erroneous to the naked eye, I conclude that you also agree that there is no definative match between Sollecito’s foot and the bathmat print. The bathmat print does not connect Sollecito to the crime.

    • Mark (AKA Supernaut) says:

      I’d like to add;

      what does such furtiveness and deviousness bespeak?

    • Tom Mininger says:

      The pictures of Sollecito’s, Guede’s, and the bathmat footprint are available for all to compare.

      See the outrageous two toes combined as one measurement error that CSI Rinaldi made in one of his several attempts to railroad Raffaele and Amanda.

      And anyone not blind can see that the shape of the big toe can’t possible be Raffaele’s but is compatible with Guede.

      It’s amazing that Dr. Vinci even had to deal with this junk from the Polizia Scientifica.

    • Tom Mininger says:
      shows visually how Dr. Vinci proved that the shoeprints in question in the murder room were all Guede’s.

      CSI Rinaldi was actually claiming that one of the partial shoeprints on the pillow was Amanda’s sized shoe!

      When Vinci got a hold of the pillow he found several more Guede shoeprints that Rinaldi missed. He also found the semen stain. The one the courts refuse to test in a rape/murder case.

      Rinaldi and CSI Stefanoni’s (the DNA “expert”) boss in the crime lab is Biondi who was consultant to the prosecution.

    • Tom Mininger says:
      discusses the luminol detected print and blobs. This is where CSI Stefanoni committed perjury on the stand when she claimed she hadn’t performed further testing on the print/blobs. Her notes later revealed that she had performed tmb testing and it was negative for blood.

    • Nasim says:

      Let me ask you: Are you Brace from the reality show Gigalos? Having settled that, please turn to page 30 of the Vinci report and notice that the Robbins grid is not placed correctly. In the right image the side of the foot is angled slightly clockwise relative to vertical. In the left image the side of the foot is angled slightly counter-clockwise. If you fix this, you will see that the so-called points of discordance line up much better. The same explanation was made in Massei.

      • jamesrae says:

        Discordance is the right wrong of this case. The scientific and legal minds will never come to harmonize because ego gets in the way and pride and stubbornness. The only professionals who learn harmony are musicians. This case is a travesty and can be unwound with some God given common sense which seems in short supply at times.

      • Rob H says:

        Your eccentric understanding of Vinci aside, “Nasim”, do tell us why you are so coy about your identity.

        Of course it goes much further than that, doesn’t it? You have at least one other false identity for the purposes of posting about this case. I do understand that people have a qualified right to anonymity or at least they should. But, to have multiple false identities employed in the discussion of this case is profoundly dishonest. So I am not asking you to say who you really are. I am asking you to state the identities or monikers you use for posting about this case, which I think is the essence of Bruce Fischer’s question.

        Anybody here think this is unreasonable?

        • jamesrae says:


          I approach it differently with a conviction that the need for deception speaks for itself and therefore they are ” people of the lie “. It is less important to know their monikers than too develop a keen sense of their language and where they may uncover themselves. Nasim has become my Adolf Eichmann of sorts. Very smart and organized and purposeful but understandable in that he takes what he gathers here and applies it elsewhere. Most of the deception characters would route out of TJMK
          and I read there regularly to get a sense of their thinking and mission statement but never post.

        • Paul says:

          Obsessing and trying to put a name to posters is a strange pastime. In particular I’ve found it disturbing how some involved with the case have harassed the Kerchers and written online that they are a a certain poster.
          What is more pertinent to the case is exposing the altered print posted on the defendants FB page along with the Vinci analysis. The drawn in toes which are supposed to be proof that it is Guede’s print are laughable. A simple reference to the police print shows Guede’s toes are much longer. I agree with Nasim that attempts to doctor or alter a photo is not going to convince anyone.

          • jamesrae says:

            Personally I feel the supporters of the Rudy Innocence Project should boldly use their own names and be proud of the fact so history remembers their heroic struggle.

          • Elias says:

            There is NO credible forensic evidence of either Amanda or Rafaelle in the murder room.

            Zero, Zero, Zero. All this other nonsense is a distracting side show and smoke and mirrors lies.

            Absence of evidence, is evidence of their absence at the scene of the crime.


          • Mark (AKA Supernaut) says:

            Paul says;

            “Obsessing and trying to put a name to posters is a strange pastime…. ”

            And none have been “obessesing” more, in this respect, than the denizens or the two “Perugia Murder File” websites, “outing” and harrassing people via any means at their disposal (often, hilariously, getting the wrong man or woman) , including contacting their places of work.

            Whatever – there are many well-known – which is to say pre-eminent – people who are advocating publicly and strenously, for Amanda and Raff, professionals and experts in many relevent fields.

            There are none that I know of doing likewise for the prosecution, but please feel free to name any you can think of (apart from Dershowitz, and a handful of yellow journalists who’ve been making a living off “reporting” the case for years)

            Paul says;

            “In particular I’ve found it disturbing how some involved with the case have harassed the Kerchers and written online that they are a a certain poster.”

            A “certain poster”? Do you mean the one who’s been posting profligately but anonymously for over 6 years, but has resolutely, or would that be cowardly refused to reveal his/her indentity in all that time?

            Paul says;

            “What is more pertinent to the case is exposing the altered print posted on the defendants FB page along with the Vinci analysis. The drawn in toes which are supposed to be proof that it is Guede’s print are laughable. A simple reference to the police print shows Guede’s toes are much longer. I agree with Nasim that attempts to doctor or alter a photo is not going to convince anyone.”

            To be frank, I’m amazed you’ve been allowed to get away with this here.

          • Rob H says:

            Does “paul” agree with “yummi” about the second footprint on the bathmat – the “smaller size” one that he “identified” in his school project? Or do you think that this is “laughable”, “paul”?

            You can be anonymous if you want to, but posting under multiple identities is dishonest and carried out with a demonstrable intention to deceive. If not, then why is it done? If the author of Comment A on Website B is also the author of Comment C on Website D then this knowledge is relevant to the debate and allows posters to be held to account for everything they write. On what grounds would you disagree?

          • Paul says:

            James Guede was found guilty and is in jail no group believes he is innocent that I know of. The fact that his accomplices remain free is the problem.

          • HH says:

            James Guede? You mean Rudy Guede, don’t you?

            My problem is that Rudy Guede was not found guilty of other crimes that he obviously committed. His DNA is on Meredith’s purse clasp and he mysteriously acquired money later that night which he used to buy his friends drinks at a disco (because that’s what remorseful and frightened people do after they witness a murder) and Amanda was charged with the theft.

      • Nasim,

        I would suggest looking at the measurements throughout Professor Vinci’s analysis.

        I disagree with your view of the Robbins grid images, but even if you set that one comparison aside, there are plenty of images and measurements provided by Vinci showing that Raffaele’s foot does not match the print on the bathmat.

    • Phillip says:

      Bruce – why do you fell to chastise Nasim for looking at weighted website, then finish your post with a link to a weighted website? Surely your intelligence, along with Amanda’s evidence, should be proof enough she didn’t do anything? Anything otherwise could be construed as PR spin.

      • Phillip,
        I didn’t chastise anyone. I simply asked Nasim if he was Ergon, because of the similar name (compared to Ergon’s real name), as well as the style of his posts. Nasim is not obligated to answer me and I don’t believe he has.

        It’s a stretch to view posting a link to a respected expert as PR spin, but you are free to see it as you like.

      • Antony says:

        Nasim: Surely your intelligence, along with Amanda’s evidence, should be proof enough she didn’t do anything?

        That has been the reality for years – certainly since I became interested in the case, in the period following the Massei verdict.

        The Italian courts (including the Supreme Court) have simply disregarded the facts in favour of the prosecution’s bogus “evidence”, so as to follow expediency. This includes the Hellman court, in convicting Amanda of callunia on the basis of illegally-obtained statements, and his failure to take action against police and prosecutor abuses.

        The fact that you and others continue to support them remains a mystery.

    • Samson says:

      Nasim is Ergon and Manfromatian.

  40. Rob H says:

    Two extraordinary judgements in UK courts have extensive implications for the Italian Justice system and the operation of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), the fast-track system employed by states to facilitate speedy extraditions to European countries from within Europe.

    The courts have refused to allow the extradition to Italy of two men, one a Somalian, the other an Italian, because of the prison conditions they would be likely to face.

    These judgements follow a previous judgement in January 2013 by the European Court of Human Rights – Torreggiani and Others v Italy – a “pilot” judgement process which the court followed because of “the existence of a structural or systemic problem” with prison conditions, particularly overcrowding, in Italy.

    In the first case – Hayle Abdi Badre – the court refused to accept assurances provided by Italy and expressed concern that no improvement in general conditions had been demonstrated since Torreggiani.

    For the second case – Domenico Rancadore, the court was bound by the judgement in Badre.

    Clive Coleman, the BBC legal correspondent commented:

    “This developing law represents something of a tipping of the balance, in favour of human rights considerations as against the imperative, under the EAW system, for member states to co-operate with one another.”

    Following the ruling, Rancadore’s lawyer Karen Todner said: “It’s almost impossible to defeat a European arrest warrant but we have been successful today so I’m delighted with the decision.”

    Italy will feel humiliated by yet more atrocious publicity for its inability to co-operate with the requirements of a civilised approach to justice and Human Rights.

    State Department, take note.

    • BigDinBoise says:

      For me, aside from the way Amanda and Raffaele were railroaded by Mignini in this case, one of the most incomprehensible things they have done is bring the slander lawsuit against her parents. Even with, what I consider, Italy’s ridiculous libel laws, how can they sue her parents for a hearsay comment they made in a foreign newspaper? It’s galling beyond belief.

      • Corrado Massa says:

        @ BigDinBoise – Amanda’s parents reported to journalists what Amanda had said publicly, in Court. The trial was public. Therefore, as far as I know, there was nothing wrong in Amanda’s parents behavior. Even if they had made their comment in an Italian newspaper, they would be right. To me, suing them was an act springing from thirst for money, cowardice, and cruelty.

        • Elias says:

          The Italian legal system is so screwed up that the can make charges for something said in court that can be seen to embarrass a prosecutor.

      • Rob H says:

        I would be very surprised if they pursue this for three reasons:

        1) It was used in a transparent effort to keep the Knox family cowed – it had a specific purpose and as such it failed.

        1) They would be highly unlikely to win

        2) It would bring back into the media and the court one of the most controversial aspects of the whole debacle and would permit further attacks on the handling of the case against Ms Knox, specifically, her last, illegal interrogation.

        An example of a prosecutor raising his gun and firing blanks.

      • Nasim says:

        You can’t accuse someone of committing a crime in England either, unless you can prove it. These laws need to be liberalized. Obviously if you’re Rudy, this is a huge obstacle to telling everything you know. Rudy even alluded to this in one of his letters.

        • Rob H says:

          The common law offence of “Defamatory Libel” or criminal libel was abolished in the UK in 2010, “Nasim”. There could be no criminal case against Ms Knox’s parents in the UK because the offence does not exist. Even at the time it would not have been prosecuted as it had become inconsistent with widely held conceptions of human rights.

          Furthermore, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights ruled in 2012 that the criminalization of libel violates freedom of expression and is inconsistent with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

          Moreover, the case is predicated on statements made to John Follain in June 2008, repeating to him what Ms Knox had imparted to her parents.

          Following from Castells v Spain (ECHR 1992), a successful prosecution in Italy in this case would likely be viewed as a breach of Ms Knox’s parents’ Article 10 rights:

          “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”


          The information given to Follain had already been reported in the Daily Telegraph seven months previously and the police in Perugia had not at that time denied the story. In fact, they waited until February 2009 to publicly deny Ms Knox’s allegations.

          As a consequence of the police’s reticence, a prosecution of Ms Knox’s parents would also potentially be a breach of their Article 14 rights.

          As of June 2008, they had every reason to believe not only their daughter’s version of events which took place in November 2007 but that the police did not object. The police had said nothing about it!

          Under Italian law, as we all know from Ms Knox’s own calumny prosecution, a person making a false accusation is only guilty if they knew the accusation was false.

          Indeed, further research in this area has demonstrated to me that Ms Knox’s own case at the ECHR is even stronger than I thought, (providing her application is accepted).

        • HH says:

          Nasim: Oh my God. Rudy is not telling everything he knows because he is guilty. All the evidence points to him. IMO, he’s never told the truth.

  41. Elias says:

    I’ve just finished reading The Monster of Florence, by Mario Spezi and Douglas Preston. I read the first edition — which well covers Mignini’s delusional thinking, lack of ethics, and law breaking, well before the tragic and avoidable murder of Meredith Kercher.

    (A few weeks ago I read the addendum to the 2nd edition, via amazon preview, which includes Preston’s update on Mignini’s malfeasance…which is basically his unjust prosecution of Amanda and Rafaelle and some added details.)

    The first edition ends noting a few things: Mignini becoming involved in another high profile case; Meredith Kercher’s murder. And that press leaks (a true tradition of Italian police/prosecution/press tradition and symbiosis) were already floating a group sex frame straight out of the MOF case. Mignini was already known for illegally bugging journalists and others, as well as the numerous charges against him for malfeasance, and illegal activities as a prosecutor and member of the court. Charges for which he has now been found Guilty.

    The book, as previous readers, and “Knox trial” followers may already know — deeply shows what Douglas Preston learned and wrote about before Amanda ever set foot in Perugia:

    1. The culture of Italian Police contains a code of “support the prosecutor, even if he/she is completely wrong or corrupt.” It is like the military, if the commander says “charge down this hill to your certain death,” well then that is what you do. If the prosecutor projects and follows an egregiously mistaken or prejudicial theory of the crime and then keeps changing the story, witnesses, and inventing “evidence” to back up his theories…you roll with it. An omerta, is built in, a code of silence, running in tandem — which explains why it is so difficult for one of the numerous Italian police to break ranks and tell the truth about the many mistakes, incompetence, and lies told to support wrong theories and continually morphing theories about the Kercher murder.

    2. That Mignini clearly had previous involvement and continued contact and involvement with the equally delusional and serial attention seeking Catholic/Satan conspiracy theorist whack job behind this crazy blog: –Gabriella Carlizzi. If it some day came out that these two were secret lovers, it would not surprise me one bit. So identically did Mignini spout core concepts and phrases from Gabriella Carlizzi’s blog in court against Mario Spezi — that he either had to be addicted to her blog, or slipping her the Mignini trattoria lunch siesta sausage special. (Seriously, there are people in the world like this.)

    Within a week of Meredith’s murder, Gabriella Carlizzi was already publicly projecting her Monster of Florence Satanism model onto poor Meredith’s murder. She had injected her theories into the MOF case and that is likely when Mignini, trying to make a career move for himself by dramatically solving the case, encountered her ideas and adopted them. Clearly Carlizzi was a major influence on Mignini — he indeed used the same concepts and phrases from her website in his court accusations and tirades against Mario Spezi — and then he applied MOF case ideas ala the “Sardinian Trail,” / “Queen Bee” group sex frames onto Meredith’s murder as well.

    –I challenge the guilters to really think about the injury and disservice THAT has done to the Kercher family, friends, and memory of Meredith’s shining young life. You can still be in denial if you want and think people other than Rudy Guede were involved — but you absolutely cannot separate out and deny the fact that Mignini carried these delusional prejudices a previous unrelated case — and automatically projected them onto his theories of Meredith’s murder. (For which, by the way, there is ZERO evidence of Satanism or group sex games — not even a Florentine stone hexagon shaped door stop to be had anywhere.)

    I highly encourage the “Nasim’s” and “Willis’s” to read this book — no, wait, I challenge them to read this book…or shut the hell up…and just cease commenting here because they have no grasp of the Italian police culture, the “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch your back” insular corruption and unaccountable nature of the Italian court system — where Judges can be prosecutors and prosecutors can be judges — and neither are held accountable to any “checks and balances” system what-so-ever. (*They won’t read this book, because they are not engaging in seeking the truth, facts, or even in erroneous “confirmation bias,” they are engaging in error, prejudice and hateful blaming of the unfairly accused, persecuted, and prosecuted.)

    3. Endemic corruption is part of the “Italian way,” bred into the cultural DNA for centuries. This causes a natural skepticism for the surface — and a cultural delusion to believe in conspiracies and that the obvious case cannot be the truth. “I must show I am smarter because I just know something else happened behind the scenes,” is the Italian way. This cultural concept is described by two Italians in the book. Written before Meredith’s murder, or Knox’s prosecution.

    4. The Italian “justice” system is an embarrassment to the EU. Yes, we make mistakes here too, that does not obviate the above. We don’t have nearly the level of tabloid journalism and regular character assassination as tactic by our police and justice systems.

    5. At a certain point of public pressure the Italians very much do care about how they are perceived by international and American opinion. So, writing to Italian media outlets, and writing to the Italian Ambassador to the USA, the Italian PM, and the Italian President, could indeed be positive ways to help Rafaelle and Amanda. (Public pressure, international perception, becoming the only form of checks and balances the current Italian “justice” system is held to.) A threat of an organized American boycott of travel or study abroad in Italy could be as effective as an actual boycott.

    I’d love to see someone like George Clooney, who by now has read this book multiple times over, and likely the second edition, take a public stance against Rafaelle and Amanda’s persecution and prosecution. Several reasons. First, he’s loved in Italy since he chooses to live there. Second, he has that star power Italians love. He’s a charmer and could likely serve the message in a face saving way for Italians. As outline in the book, the Italians would find a face saving way for Mignini to fade away. It’s all about Face in Italy, saving face.

    Finally, here is a interesting statement by a scion of Florentine blue blood…excerpted from The Monster of Florence:

    “It was an extraordinary letter,
    written by Niccolò’s father, Count Neri Capponi, the head of one of Italy’s most ancient and
    illustrious noble families.
    When I first met Niccolò, he had mentioned the reason for his family’s long success in Florence:
    they had never thrust themselves into controversy, remained discreet and circumspect in all their
    dealings, and never tried to be first. For eight hundred years the Capponi family had prospered by
    avoiding being “the nail that sticks out,” as Niccolò had put it in his drafty palace seven years earlier.
    But now, Count Neri had broken with family tradition. He had written a letter to the editor. This
    was no ordinary letter, but a ripping indictment of the Italian criminal justice system from a man who
    was himself a judge and a lawyer. Count Neri knew whereof he spoke, and he spoke plainly.

    THE COUNT CAPPONI (In a letter to The Atlantic Monthly)

    The travesty of justice undergone by Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi is the tip
    of the iceberg. The Italian judiciary (which includes the public prosecutors) is a
    branch of the civil service. This particular branch chooses its members, is self ruling
    and is accountable to no one: a state within a state! This body of bureaucrats can
    be roughly divided into three sections: a large minority, corrupt and affiliated with the
    former communist party, a large section of honest people who are too frightened to
    stand up to the political minority (who controls the office of the judiciary), and a
    minority of brave and honest men with little influence. Political and dishonest judges
    have an infallible method of silencing or discrediting opponents, political or
    otherwise. A bogus, secret indictment, the tapping of telephones, the conversations
    (often doctored) fed to the press who starts a smear campaign which raises the
    sales, a spectacular arrest, prolonged preventive detention under the worst possible
    conditions, third degree interrogations, and finally a trial that lasts many years
    ending in the acquittal of a ruined man. Spezi was lucky because the powerful
    Florentine public prosecutor is no friend of the Perugia one and, I am told,
    “suggested” that Spezi be freed: the Perugia court, I am told, accepted the
    It may be of interest to know that miscarriages of justice in Italy (excluding
    acquittals with a ruined defendant) amount to four million and a half in fifty years.
    Yours sincerely,
    Neri Capponi

    Past was indeed, prologue, for Rafaelle and Amanda.

    …If this book had been published earlier, and Amanda had read it before her trip
    to Italy, she might have been inoculated from this experience, and she certainly would have known that Giuliano Mignini was a bad man, and that a “public minister” was a district attorney level prosecutor etc. Sadly, no thanks to her Italian housemates for giving her the 411 about lawyering up over there. (It’s clear from this book that Italians know exactly how their “justice” system works.)

    The only things Amanda are guilty of are unlucky tips of fate, and youth. That lucky day easily finding her dream lodgings in Perugia? Sometimes a nightmare begins with a dream come true.


    • jamesrae says:


      ***** five star award of excellence. J

      • Elias says:

        Why thank you kind sir!

        It was a very illuminating read, more so than I had expected. Written before Meredith’s murder, it well painted the dynamics Amanda would metaphorically, innocently, “cartwheel” into after Meredith’s tragic murder by Rudy Guede.

        Mignini, The Monster of Perugia, belongs in jail.

    • Willis Coleman says:

      I’ve read all three of Preston and Spezi’s slanderous screeds about this case. Preston is an insufferable girly-man who runs around hair on fire about how people were mean to him and never forgets a slight. When Tom Wright told him that Mignini was prosecuting Amanda he saw dollar signs and a chance to rake his Perugian nemesis over the coals. Well he failed to take down Mignini and his 15 minutes are up.

      • Elias says:

        Well, the legal departments of the American and Italian publishing houses of The Monster of Florence prove that these books are not “slanderous screeds.”

        You need to grow up. Both of these men, these authors, have had journalism and writing careers beyond reproach.

        As for slanderous screeds, TMOF follows a simple timeline of the case, and points out, based on trial and public record in Florence etc., both the promising leads and investigations, and the incompetence.

        I’ve got some land I’d like to sell you in Florida. Or would you prefer a bridge in Brooklyn?

        Rudy is the only murderer of Meredith Kercher. Stop defiling her memory with disgusting lies.

        Mignini is a convicted, corrupt prosecutor.

        There is ZERO evidence connecting Rafaelle or Amanda to the crime. ZERO.

      • Adriano says:

        It seems to me that you’re a little biased, I’m really sorry . I’ve lived in Florence for 40 years and know the history of the Monster of Florence very well! Once I told my friends that the monster of florence needed to sell newspapers , in effect allowed the main Florence newspaper “La Nazione” to make a lot of money . But even many police investigators have made ” gold business ” with this story. On the Monster of Florence careers have flourished and many prosecutors and judges who participated in this mystery . The result ? Three names : Mario Vanni , Giancarlo Lotti, Pietro Pacciani , but the only one who was really accused was Pacciani who was acquitted of all charges because no one has ever proved that it was really him.
        But then there was another review of the process and Pacciani was again accused and it all started over again, luckily for him, he died. Finally the lights went out on this absurd and senseless theatrical opera.
        Of course, before get the three suspects, been destroyed lives, ruined many families with suspicion as in 1600 with the “witch hunt.” But the monster of Florence, in spite of 40 years of research and millions of spending dollars, has never been found! In fact, none of the three accused was mentally able to do what the monster did to the victims, the three accused perhaps knew something, but trust me they were absolutely incapable of doing crimes so perfect like that. Often better than justice to stop before shooting and killing of innocents!
        A small example to finish, if I trust only faint traces of DNA for an investigation, or for a girl’s smile than twenty years to her boyfriend trembling with fear of saying something is not right when entering into the room of the crime of his friend. When we trust in half-sentences, absolutely illegal interrogation, the complete absence of motive, while the murderess is in jail and has also assured that he is … Then we risk shoot at random just to save his own reputation and career.

        • jamesrae says:

          I take it from you that the Italian justice system loves these theatrical operas. It seems to be
          what this case was designed to become. An
          immensely titillating soap opera with endless
          complications and intrigue and lots of sex.

        • Andrea Jonasson says:

          “…luckily for him, he died.”

          There are not very many situations where this would apply. And yet Mr. Mignini goes on, arrogantly oblivious to the terrible harm he has caused to so many people.

          Unskilled and Unaware of It

      • Dopre says:

        Girly-man? Really… this what you must resort to in order to project your dominance in a debate…..feeble attempts at provocation?

        You think you are protecting Mignini, when in fact you are protecting a system that promotes people like him. Mignini is a product of the power the corrupt judicial system has bred. Most Italians realize their system is corrupted and suffer because of it. Something of little consequence to you or I, but of egregious and demoralizing weight to the citizens.

        Go ahead and blather on and on about the people you revile….your participation in the plight of the Italian people and the fear they live with under their version of the “rule of law” is duly noted.

        Mignini thanks you.

        • Elias says:

          I know, Willis is idiotic to the max.

          The Monster of Florence was written before Meredith’s murder and Amanda and Rafaelle’s trial, although published after.

          Preston’s sample of the book was published in The Atlantic Monthly in the July/August 2006 edition.

      • Sarah H says:

        “Girly-man?” You’re giving yourself away, “Willis.”

        Men who use terms like that are deeply insecure about their own masculinity. Maybe that’s why you come here to prey on a young, innocent woman.

    • Stephane G says:

      Hello Elias and thank you once more for your always interesting and rich contributions to the debate. I hope you are recovering from your misadventure.

      This time – for a change 😉 – I might disagree a little with some of your suggestions, though (point 5).

      As I putted it several times here, I seriously think that bringing national considerations in a case, that has proven to be irrational enough, would be a major mistake. And I beg supporters in America not to commit it.

      Because many people tend to believe in what they hear or read from the medias, Italians and English have generally believed in what their own home medias taught them to believe, and came to the conclusion Amanda and Raffaele were guilty, while Americans were more on the supporting side for the same reasons. Now time passed and new views emerged from new experts or analysis. Besides, I think in Italy just like anywhere else in the world, people naturally and in the end, tend to distrust their own governments or symbols of power and/or oppression like politicians, police or prosecutors. Therefore I would not be surprised to find Italians, or English, little by little, shifted their position to a more balanced one. Allow them to do their introspection work and go through their own self-questioning. There are also supporters from UK and Italy on this blog, btw.

      Also consider Italy has a long and great history of culture, art, politics… Through the Romans, they gave the world emperors, legions and dictators but also democracy, republic or law… They may be proud of their people achievements. Sure, their legal system has failed many times but, unlike the “Regina” pizza, miscarriage of justice is not an Italian specialty. Injustice is everywhere in the world. America sentenced Sacco and Vanzetti, we French, had our “Affaire Dreyfus” that split the country in two a century ago… Italian justice is far from perfection but it is not an ayatollah tribunal. Claudio Hellman was ALSO Italian justice.

      A few days ago I came across a few videos from an American who lives in Italy and talked about the case in a reasonable and rational manner. Though I did not agree with all his positions, I really shared his views and warnings on a few points and more precisely on this one : do not go against Italians or English, or anyone, (or their institutions) as a group or as a symbol. A country is like a family : many may totally disagree with their own family but it remains their family in the end. And they will stand on its side under an external attack. You may very well – and there are many reasons for that as we know – criticize the way some paranoid prosecutors and police have handled that case, but do not go against the system or the country as a whole, or call for boycott. You will get unexpected adverse effects.

      I think you are aware of how US and Europe have been looking at each other for the past 40 years… Don’t expect a positive reaction from Europeans if they feel, rightly or wrongly, they are looked upon like some ignorant barbarians. Especially from Americans. Or if you behave as if you had the right to judge or teach them. I fear the result would be a disaster.

      Because our minds here are somewhat focused on the case, we might tend to think that other people may globally react to the story in the same way. Well there are 61 millions Italians, among which maybe… 1 or 2 percent have a strong feeling about the story (same in UK or US, I’m sure) in my opinion. So 98% just don’t think of it that much. If you go on a boycott or any kind of “aggressive” campaign against their country or some of their institutions, you will only be facing a few million more enemies to your cause. Look for support, not for repressive action.

      Consider Amanda’s own positions on this topic, as expressed above. Perugia or Italy should not pay for a few haters, a few psychotic lawyers or prosecutors or policemen, or for a questionable legal system (what legal system is error-free, anyway ?)

      A nice day to you and to all.

      • Sarah H says:

        Thanks for the thoughtful post, Stephane. As frustrating as it can be to watch helplessly while Amanda and Raffaele are victimized by what seems to be such an unfair justice system, it doesn’t help to blame all Italians for what is going on there, or to pretend that our own system is perfect.

      • Elias says:

        Hey, thanks for the well thought out comments.

        I understand Amanda’s position and love of Italy.

        I too love Italy.

        I’ve taken 3 trips there and spent a ton of time and money there.

        Now put yourself in my position…in the position of so many of us who have now thoroughly learned of the injustice Amanda and Rafaelle have received. The crimes committed by Mignini and his crew, etc.

        I’ve been to Florence 3 times. I have the Uffizi floor plan memorized. I’ve been all around Florence in the country side. While reading The Monster of Florence, I could visualize almost everything. I’ve been there, done that. I’ve been in some of the restaurants and shops that Preston mentions!

        Now imagine me there again, with all the knowledge and facts I’ve collected after reading 6 books on this case or related to it. After learning how the Carbinieri set up Rafaelle’s sister and fired her and what happened to her fate next…

        Now imagine me walking down the streets of Florence and seeing a Carbinieri… I’d be disgusted.

        11 Members of the Italian Parliament wrote to protest Amanda and Rafaelle’s situation. Others internationally have written to Italy’s ambassadors, PM and President.

        I think the smart action, when this lasted justification ruling comes down — is for Americans and others to write threatening a boycott. We can always visit Italy LATER after this travesty of injustice is corrected.

        • Stephane G says:

          Hello Elias. Well I understand very well your position and, as Sarah putted it, how frustrating the situation is because we feel we would like to take action and play an active part. I also love Italy and travel there almost every two years. I did not know much about the case last time I was in Rome about a year ago but I admit next time I’ll travel there, it will be difficult to avoid thinking of it, and I may look at a few things with different eyes.

          But let me raise two points here. First – and that is going to be a bit cynical, I agree, but it is for demonstration purposes – as Staline could have said : “Knox and Sollecito supporters ? How many divisions ?” I fear a boycott from those who really feel concerned might be a bit… unnoticed, in terms of sales and economy.

          Then, as I explained above, this campaign might be somewhat upsetting for Italians. Though they may believe themselves their legal system is corrupted – and I think a lot do – they probably do not appreciate such comments when coming from foreigners. I think US citizens would react the same way. Their pride is hurt when they read about their “medieval justice”. If you go on boycott, there will be an outcry about “hateful Americans on a hateful PR campaign”. But this time, it will not come from a few thousand “guilters” but from a whole country.

          And their government will have no choice but to be on their side. Their representatives are not elected by US votes but by Italian ones. They will not take the risk of facing a public outcry by giving up or agreeing to US demands even if they might agree themselves.

          May I give you an example of such a situation ? About twenty years ago, a month or two after President Chirac was elected, he decided to resume nuclear weapons tests in Pacific. A major part of the population in France was against it. It caused an “helpful” uproar throughout the world and opponents in France, like myself, could rely on it to organize many demonstrations. Then Australia and some others decide to boycott French products. This was felt as an attack against us, and as a result Chirac (who, as I know, thought in private he had made a big mistake and did not know how to get out of it) gained a tremendous support from within. Organizing more demonstrations suddenly turned to be quite difficult because in a few days it had become sort of “anti-patriotic” and the majority were not supporting them anymore ! The result was totally opposed to the intention. And Chirac went to the end of his nuclear testing program.

          I am not aiming at your position in particular, of course. I am just trying to warn people here, and supporters, to stay focused on the case and on the people who misconducted it, and not turn to what could be a sticky wicket. A true victory would be to have more and more people in Italy (and elsewhere) being aware of the mistakes and the miscarrying of justice which would be a major inconvenience to those who support Amanda and Raffaele’s sentencing.

          • Elias says:

            I understand your concerns.

            A few notes, Americans in general (rightly or not) don’t really give a sh*t about the opinions of other countries. That’s kind of in the DNA of the majority of Americans, we’re a big country, isolated in a way.

            Secondly, I really don’t know how anyone truly steeped in this case could choose to spend their vacation dollars in Italy until Amanda and Rafaelle are completely cleared.

            Go to Greece instead. Enjoy the Acropolis and its surroundings, and then tour some Greek Islands and have a great time, beach, great food, dancing at night. And the Greeks need the visitors right now, so the famous “Greek Hospitality” will be at its highest point.

          • Stephane G says:

            That’s just fine ! I had planned to sail to Greece this year, for a change… 😉

            “A few notes, Americans in general (rightly or not) don’t really give a sh*t about the opinions of other countries. That’s kind of in the DNA of the majority of Americans, we’re a big country, isolated in a way.”

            Yes. I think I understand and share your view. Well… Among the many possible explanations for this irrational wave of hate and this witch hunt aimed at Amanda, we talked already about women condition, religious preoccupations… Would you say that the fact she was an American played a role in all this ? Sure, Raffaelle has also been sentenced though he was Italian himself, but did people vent so much hatred on his head ? Do you believe there would have been such an outcry if Amanda had been Bulgarian or Swedish ? In your opinion, was there some kind of “racism” (in that case “anti-americanism”) involved ?

        • Corrado Massa says:

          Hi Elias – you wrote “11 members of Italian parliament wrote to protest…” . Can you tell us their names? Thanks.

          • Elias says:

            I didn’t make any notes when I read the books, but if you google around you should be able to find it. And Rafaelle’s attorney is/was a member of Italian parliament.

            Some one else may have the names or a link handy ?


            I am sure there is some aspect of anti-Americanism in how Amanda was portrayed.

            I think it would have actually have been worse if Mignini had decided to railroad an Italian woman.

            The key thing here is that Mignini decided before any DNA or fingerprint/palmprint analysis was done – to force a “Satanic sex game gone wrong,” then “sex game gone wrong frame onto the case.”

            The crime investigation, the prosecutors theories etc., everything was delusion, lies, craziness from moment one (the Postal Police calling the break in staged when they weren’t qualified to know squat. –They probably projected it from a case where they knew of someone staging a break in for an insurance scam. The idea didn’t come from nowhere.)

            You know, the phrases “sex game gone wrong” and “murder,” automatically get people’s attention in a shocking way.

            Anyway, there’s no evidence Migini had any previous “anti-American” sentiments.

            There is plenty of evidence that he was involved with Satanic cult conspiracy theories and sex cult ideas from the Monster of Florence case.

            I really don’t understand in what society a person like Mignini could manage his way through college and law school to his position as prosecutor etc. Clearly the institutions he graduated from didn’t do much for his sanity or ethics.

            Mignini is a dangerous freak who should be in prison.

  42. Nick Green (UK) says:

    My copy of ‘Waiting To Be Heard’ is here! First time I’ve had to buy a book through the US Amazon site because UK publishers won’t take it. Bizarre.

    And what an extraordinary book it is. The only silver lining to this horrendous miscarriage of justice is that it happened to someone who could write so brilliantly about it. I’ve shed tears twice over the book and I’m only on (checks…) page 154. So yes, it’s got slight water-damage, but that doesn’t matter as this one won’t ever be going on eBay.

    Amanda writes with such sensitivity, perception and feeling (not to mention elegance) that it renders the depiction of her as a heartless monster almost comic. And yes, she still manages to find black humour even in the darkest moments. One of the most heart-rending aspects is how clear it is that Amanda was the most determined among all of Meredith’s friends to help find the killer, and how far she was prepared to go to help the police, unaware of their purposes towards her. A lesser friend would simply have gone home.

    It just makes one want to buy a punchbag printed with a photo of Mignini and hit it till you’ve broken every bone in your hands. I may yet do that.

    • BigDinBoise says:

      Nick – this is very strange that Amanda’s book is not offered in the UK. I thought book banning was something only practiced in hard line regimes today. I’ve noticed that many times I’ve tried to post comments in support of A & R on British news sites that they are not accepted by the moderators; although, there is no discernible reason not to publish them other than they offer an unpopular view, based on the high number of guilter comments.
      What is going on in the UK with the bias reporting in this case? I would think that the 2011 acquittal would have at least opened some of the British public’s eyes to the possibility of innocence.

      • Elias says:


        I suspect the type of forums you are on are on sites that are at the tabloid level. The Guardian seems to permit comments from both sides.

        The fact that the UK would not stock Amanda’s book is pretty telling about a culture and country being manipulated and in denial…word is it is starting to change.

        We can’t forget that Meredith’s father was ironically a tabloid reporter. That’s a huge irony, and certainly causes one to raise one’s eyebrow in doubt about certain aspects of the Kercher family values. I’ve spent time in Britian and those tabloids are insane — well evidenced by the NOTW’s paying the police to help them tap celebrities cell phones.

        What kind of person works in that industry when there is legit journalism to be had. (I know because a Brit friend of mine went that direction.)

        • Rob H says:

          I have to tell you, BigDin and Elias, that “Waiting to be Heard” has not been banned in the UK.

          In fact, a decision was taken by Ms Knox’s publisher (and, indeed Raffaele Sollecito’s publisher in respect of his memoir) not to publish in certain jurisdictions because of concern over libel laws.

          This includes the UK.

          My copy was brought over for me by a friend in the U.S.

          The First Amendment protects publishers and authors in connection with works published in the U.S.

          • Elias says:

            Okay, this makes sense, there are certain benefits and lack of benefits to the UK’s notoriously easy to win libel cases.

            Of course, that hasn’t stopped them from libeling Amanda and Rafaelle big time.

            The more I read of this case, the more my opinion is lowered of Italy, the UK, and most sadly, the Kercher family. (They ought to really want the truth, and not to see two young people’s lives ruined, young people that were friends of their daughters. What a wicked web Mignini has woven…)

        • Nick Green (UK) says:

          The press can be terrifyingly amoral. In a way it’s worse than being evil, because at least with some people (say, Hitler) you know where you stand, and can act on that basis. But something like the Daily Mail might support Hitler one moment (as they did pre-WW2) and then flag-wave for Britain the next. There’s no consistency. Truth and lies become indistinguishable, or non-existent, and goodness can be corrupted into wickedness.

          I’m sure that the majority of ‘haters’ don’t actually hate Amanda – they hate the fictional character bearing her name who was created by the prosecution and brought to life by the media. In a supposedly righteous cause (finding who killed a young woman) they do untold additional harm. They have been taken in and now they can’t be taken out.

          • BigDinBoise says:

            With regard to the strict UK libel laws – how are these tabloids able to get away with printing the salacious lies they spin and not get their pants sued off?
            Here in the US you can be sued for defamation but those cases are rarely brought and difficult to win due to 1st amendment protection.
            We more or less have a system in which the press polices itself, with competing organizations vetting the accuracy of their competitors reporting.
            I’m not going to make a judgement about which system is better. I believe it is at times too easy to slander someone in the US, but I just don’t understand how the tabloid culture in Britain exists with its strict libel laws.

      • EFoyer says:

        BDB, the book is not banned in the UK. The publisher has decided not to publish it there.

        According to a Guardian report from 2013:

        “The publisher is concerned that the UK’s stringent libel laws mean that it could run into legal difficulties because a retrial of Knox and her ex-boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, has been ordered by Italian authorities.

        In addition, the publisher is closely monitoring a number of libel cases in Italy where police and authorities are suing Knox and her parents for defamation for claims made in the press about how she was treated and and her interrogation about the murder.”

        • BigDinBoise says:

          Yes I realize this is self censorship by the publisher and not government policy, but the affect is the same.

          I’m aware of Britain’s libel laws as well… and yet somehow the tabloids, which seem to be so prevalent in Britain, get a pass. Why is that?

          The matter of the libel case brought by the authorities in Italy against Amanda’s parents is particularly disturbing to me as an American. A government that seeks to silence its critics in such a manner is corrupt beyond repair.

          • Rob H says:

            The tabloid press in the UK do not get a “free pass” protecting them from libel actions.

            They are regularly sued.

            Only a small percentage of cases make it to court; many more are settled prior to hearings.


            Indeed, actions for libel against a number of newspapers would have been available to Ms Knox in respect of some of the journalism written about her since her case began.

            As an example, and in a case not unlike Ms Knox’s, Christopher Jeffries, a man falsely accused of murder in late 2010, subsequently and succesfully sued eight newspapers for libel as a result of the untruthful and damaging press coverage he received.


            Libel actions, however can be very expensive with costs often rising above the level of damages – alll often payable by the losing party.

          • EFoyer says:

            A publisher careful of being sued = self-censorship? Perhaps. Or maybe professional wisdom. The effect is not the same as banning – the book can still be bought via Amazon etc and it’s not illegal to own a copy.

            Perhaps start a campaign, in support of the publisher, and which challenges the UK’s libel laws and justice system?

          • BigDinBoise says:

            EFoyer – You’re right. It’s not the same as banning the book. I think my complaint is that Amanda’s publisher has exercised extreme caution with publishing her book in the UK, while the tabloids there seem to print any silly lie that will sell copy.

      • Elias says:

        I did search, and the ebook is technically available to anyone via the various pirate and torrent sites.

        Any cheap but fair minded (ironically) Brit who wanted the book could dl it for free. Perhaps then donate the cost to Amanda and Rafaelle’s defense funds…

    • Elias says:


      Good on you for going the extra mile to get the book!

      I wonder how many Brits have gone that extra mile?

      I wonder why, which has to have serious ownership by Amazon USA, allowed for that censorship — was some law passed banning Amanda’s book in the UK?



      • Doug says:

        According to The Telegraph newspaper it was the publishers decision not to publish in the UK, due to UK libel laws (if you believe the UK press that is – I have a problem with that, but this does make some sense).

        I (living in the UK myself) managed in the end to download an audiobook copy, and it was actually probably even better having Amanda reading the story (she did the Audiobook recording herself). How anyone could listen to that and still believe she is guilty is beyond me.

        • Nick Green (UK) says:

          Wow! Doing an audiobook recording is HARD. (Just recording one short passage to professional standards is hard). I am even more impressed.

          What is it with Italy, brilliant people, and prisons?

          • Doug says:

            Absolutely Nick, and Amanda did an amazing job on it. I have listened to quite a lot of audiobooks (I actually prefer them to the written version for autobiographies, particularly when read by the author), and almost from the very start of the book I forgot that I wasn’t listening to a professional ‘reader’.

      • Rob H says:

        Libel law in the UK is not to be equated with “censorship”, sanctioned by Government or otherwise.

        Media outlets in the US are far freer to state untruths causing reputational damage to individuals than they are in the UK. This does not mean they are less censored. I would argue, in fact, that they are more censored – but that’s a different subject.

        Not being free to lie is not censorship; not being free to tell the truth may be censorship.

        Problems arise however, when we consider the nature of “truth” and the right to hold opinions. In Austria and Germany, for example, it is illegal to deny the holocaust.

        Some argue that it is right and proper to be prohibited from denying the “undeniable” truth of the existence of such such evil; others argue that the right to hold opinions, however unsavoury is the most important principle of all to defend within the concept of freedom.

        • Elias says:

          Our journalists have to run things through fact checkers and legal, often, before publication.

          Italy not so.

          UK ?

          • Rob H says:

            Actually U.S. no! There is no statutory requirement in the U.S. Such practices as fact checking are exercises engaged in-house – good practice standards of the profession.

            In the UK, such practices exist for the same reasons.

    • Julie Jorgensen says:


      I’m so happy to hear how you went the extra mile to get and read Amanda’s book. It’s very heartening to know there are good, open minded people like you in the UK.

      I hope you don’t mind my asking how you came to believe in the innocence of Amanda and Raffaele? It seems to be a rarity in this particular part of the world with all of the tabloid and media bias that is so prevalent there. It gives me hope that others in the UK will be able to see the truth of their innocence in time.

      I want to tell you thank you for your kind words of encouragement and for your courage.

      • Nick Green (UK) says:

        Julie – glad you asked! Well, like I suppose most people, I assumed initially that the police and courts knew what they were doing. (As, initially, did Amanda herself!).

        But after Amanda and Raffaele’s first conviction, I kept reading so much about campaigns in the US protesting their innocence, that I got fed up with ‘not being sure’. I hate not knowing stuff. So I trawled for all the information on the case I could find, and one site stood out as being the most credible: ‘Injustice In Perugia’. It was Steve Moore’s analysis in particular that finally showed me the plain facts – why it was not just unlikely but impossible that those two were involved in any way.

        Of course, now I’m just flabbergasted at the incompetence/corruption of the system that got it so wrong, and infuriated by those who insist on closing their minds to what is suddenly so blinkin’ obvious!

        • Julie Jorgensen says:

          Nick, thank you for your reply! I still am mystified why so many people in the UK seem to believe Amanda is guilty? Do the tabloids have great influence and believability there? Is it because Meredith was English and her family has well known media connections? Just curious about what can be done to help change these types of beliefs and curious what you think about it?

          • Nick Green (UK) says:

            Julie – as I see it, there are a number of levels of logic employed here in the UK to support a guilty view.

            i) The court must know what it’s doing. (The most forgiveable one).

            ii) There’s no smoke without fire. (Less forgiveable.)

            iii) Amanda is a privileged American, and “we don’t like America after that business with Bush and Iraq, so she must be guilty.”

            iv) Amanda is better looking than a) me or b) my girlfriend, therefore I hate her, therefore she is guilty.

            v) Think? I don’t do think.

            So you see there are numerous reasons, and I’m not sure there are practical solutions to them all!

        • Elias says:


          Again, good on you for finding the facts for yourself.

          That was my approach too, and I stumbled upon Judge Heavey’s presentation and had my eyes opened. It is completely convincing.

          And as my father was a Rotary governor, it was with a sense of security that I knew Judge H., was a Rotary member.

    • Adriano says:

      I’m reading, though with difficulty because it is very sad, the Amanda’s book, of course in the e-book English version, since there is not an Italian version due to censorship, the process is ongoing and a defendant, in Italy, it can not do what they do every day prosecutors and judges, talking to the press, giving interviews, giving their versions of events etc.. This is the problem of the strong asymmetry between those who accuse (advantage) and who must be defended because our legal system is accusatorial, as I explained in a previous post.
      For the problem of non-publication in England is really a mystery, since, in theory the victim’s family would have an interest in the truth and Amanda version is one of the possible truth on which to work. Actually I do not understand where is the problem, is perhaps related to the civil lawsuit? I do not know, would very interesting to know the thinking of victim’s family on this issue.

  43. Sara S says:

    Dear Ms. Knox, I would be grateful if you could clarify an issue for me. To be clear I have reviewed what evidence is available to me and believe you and Sollecito had nothing to do with the murder of Ms. Kercher.

    In the first court case you were convicted of theft, staging a break in and sexual assault in addition to murder and defamation. In the first appeal you were found not guilty of all charges except defamation. The supreme court upheld the defamation conviction but annulled the finding of the first appeal on the other charges. The second appeal has found you guilty of murder but the other charges appear to have disappeared. Has the prosecution dropped these? Have you been found not guilty of the other charges. In England if the prosecution dropped charges in the middle of a court case the judge would usually direct a not guilty verdict to be returned. There is clearly a logical non-sequitur; the reason for thinking that you were involved in the murder, was because the break in was staged and the only person with a motive to stage a break in was you, but if you are not guilty of staging a break in, then the logic of your involvement in the crime would seem to fall.

  44. Julie Jorgensen says: Check out these before and after pictures. It is absolutely inconceivable to me that anyone could look at these pictures and still believe that this case or any of its contaminated “evidence” held any reliable merit.

    • Julie Jorgensen says:

      Sorry. Not sure why the pictures in this link aren’t showing up anymore…Here are the same pictures with Italian captions. If the pictures with English captions show up again, I will repost them.

      • Nasim says:

        So Raffaele’s aunt has posted some new photos which appear to solve the mystery of how the mattress ended up on the sofa. I don’t know what this is supposed to prove. Why doesn’t she post the wiretaps in which her family allegedly sold video of Meredith’s naked dead body to a Bari television station?

        • Julie Jorgensen says:

          You are talking about something that “allegedly” happened that I’ve never heard of…but I do know of something that absolutely happened beyond a doubt with hundreds of witnesses to attest to it. That’s the horrible moment when the Kercher’s lawyer showed, unannounced, Meredith’s naked dead body to every person sitting in the court room, without prior warning.

          The only wiretaps I’ve heard of were the thousands of hours of illegal and secret private phone conversations that were listened to of Raffaele and his family members.

          You see only what you want to see and are blind to hundreds of things that prove Amanda and Raffaele’s innocence. Why is that?

          • Willis Coleman says:

            The Kerchers have every right to show pictures of Meredith’s body in open court if the judge allows it.

          • Elias says:

            Willis, you idiot, the judge had already ruled against that — the lawyer violated the ruling and the law, but since he was on Mignini the perverts side, he got away unscathed.

        • Julie Jorgensen says:

          These pictures prove that the murder scene was trashed by the so called forensic “experts”. They made a mess of every room and obviously contaminated everything they touched in the process of collecting the evidence. It’s very apparent in these pictures as well as the videos that were taken that show how carelessly they treated important items.

        • Sarah H says:

          What this demonstrates, Nasim, is that the crime scene found on November 2 was greatly disturbed. So the DNA evidence found in December was of no value. But we knew that, of course, because we have already seen the video of the police passing the bra clasp from one visibly dirty glove to another, before returning it to the dirty floor.

        • Andrea Jonasson says:

          Nasim, why don’t you address the actual content of the post? If you want to talk about a completely different topic, you could write a post of your own to discuss it instead of going, “Look! A squirrell!”

          The care and handling of the crime scene is very relevant in a case where evidence was collected long after the murder. It is not a topic that you should ignore if you are truly interested in understanding the case.

        • Caroline says:

          It proves that the forensics did not handle the crime scenes professionally but trashed it! trashed crime scene = unreliable ‘evidence’!

          • Elias says:

            The sad beauty of it is that the idiots professionally film themselves being unprofessional, violating internationally agreed upon evidence collection standards 54 times!!!

        • Dopre says:

          What this is supposed to prove?

          What do you think it proves Nasim? How can it be so obvious to all who view these pictures what their meaning is, yet be so obscured by your desire to see your mindset validated that you would blatantly deny what they mean?

          Why do you wear blinders? Because it suits your needs. Someday you will come face to face with what it is you have done with regard to this case and realize the harm you inflicted. All of it perverse and self-aggrandizing.

      • Stephane G says:

        Good Lord… I knew they had been turning the house upside down but they seem to have rummage around with a bulldozer. Are there similar comparative pictures of Filomena and Amanda’s rooms and of the bathroom ?

      • Adriano says:

        From the newspaper “Il secolo XIX”: September 5, 2011 Meredith’s DNA on the bra clasp of an expert:
        …The experts are responding to the questions of the Court lawyer Francesco Maresca, a civil party to the Kercher family. Let’s start with the bra. In the trace of mixed DNA found on the bra clasp worn by Meredith Kercher can be also identified the genetic profile of one of the experts of the Court of Assizes of Perugia. “There are also I” explained Professor Carla Vecchiotti responding to a question of the defense of Raffaele Sollecito. “9 loci correspond to me,” said the expert yet. Experts have argued that the track on the clasp is made from the DNA of most subjects. One is “definitely” one student said. For others, it can be rebuilt according to the experts the genetic profiles of more people. How Sollecito but also the same professor Vecchiotti …

        In the use of DNA in forensic search is known that the DNA analyzed is a mixture of dozens, if not hundreds of cells containing DNA . The analysis thus tends to give a response of the fuzzy type , ie a set of possible matches that defines a set of possible owners with those characteristics of the DNA. For example, if the expert says that there is a 90 % chance that Sollecito’s DNA is , it is true only if in that room, in recent years , came only Raffaele and the victim. In fact, the hook was only found after two months, the house came dozens of people and obviously not all in white coats ! At this point one has a mixture of DNA which tends to be the average , so it is always more likely to find other correspondences until complete loss of signal. In fact, in the first appeal process have been rightly excluded all reports that were not proven genuineness , or who had not undergone contamination.

    • Adriano says:

      Please, une question, :) … Amanda talks about the guy who frequented Meredith, named Giacomo (?), was made the verification of his DNA to check for any traces on the bra hook?

      • Anna says:

        No it wasn’t sampled. The only DNA sampled were Meredith’s, Amanda’s, Raffaele’s, Patrick’s, and Rudy’s. (and this is mentioned by Amanda’s defense consultant, Sarah Gino, and also mentioned by Patrizia Stefanoni when she was questioned about this)

        And this has been bugging the heck out of me (to put it midly). Why not sample the other roommates’ DNA? Why not sample all the guys who lived downstairs’ DNA? Why not sample especially Meredith’s boyfriend’s DNA, and her other boyfriend, the one she left in England. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if one of them fits the profile found on the bra clasp, as they are very likely to have touched this bra clasps.

        And this leads the public to believe there was only Meredith’s, Amanda’s, and Raffaele’s DNA at the house (including of course Rudy Guede’s but this is obvious, there was so much of it, including bloody shoe prints and handprint).

        The other thing that really bothers me is that, as far as I know, every judge so far has refused to let the DNA on the stain found on Meredith’s pillow, the one that was under her (thought to be sperm) to be tested.

        • DW says:

          These are good questions I’ve wondered about repeatedly too. I assume the Italian boyfriend must have had an airtight alibi? Because normally in a murder case the victim’s own closest associates are initially suspects; certainly anyone she had slept with recently would be a better suspect than a roommate who was spending most her time at someone else’s house anyway.

          It seems to me they more or less got away with this lapse (not testing and/or interrogating any of Meredith’s recent boyfriends and the other guys living downstairs) because they successfully painted Amanda as a whore and Meredith as some kind of pure virginal saint – when the truth is they were both ordinary young women. It’s Amanda who had to endure having past sexual contacts’ names released to the press, for no reason of any conceivable relevance to the case. Almost no media attention has been devoted to the fact that Meredith also had lovers.

          • Anna says:

            Oh they didn’t “more or less” got away with this lapse, they indeed totally got away with it. They also got away with terrible evidence and DNA collection (how anyone could even look at the police videos and think this was a well done job, or even acceptable, is amazing to me). And with so many other things, even the Prosecution most important witnesses/experts lying in court. I cannot tell you how revolting I think this whole thing is. How can this be acceptable in any way?

            I really hope that some of our best experts will be officially appointed to look into this case, we have to protect our citizens against these clowns. (I don’t hate Italy or Italians, my ex-husband was Italian, but I sure think the people involved in these trials were a bunch of incompetent idiots, I mean on the Prosecution side, and many Judges as well).

            Recently, I was also very deceived with Dr. David Balding, who said that he is convinced that the DNA on the bra clasp is Raffaele’s (eventho, just like all the other experts, he had no other profiles to compare with, other than possibly Rudy’s and Patrick’s), but didn’t even bother getting information about the DNA collection procedures, didn’t watch the police videos, wasn’t aware that the bra clasp had been moved around, therefore didn’t pay any attention to the very strong possibility of contamination. Yet guilters think his words are pure gold.

            And I agree about Meredith.

        • Adriano says:

          I’m actually trying to understand the relationship between Rudy – Giacomo – Meredith, I have already asked a question in a post yesterday, but no one can give me an answer. Reading the book written by Amanda is a clear relationship between the three, and Amada writes that Giacomo was a close relationship of friendship with Meredith. Obvious that there are three hypotheses that can go in parallel:
          1. The DNA of James Meredith is present in the clothes, and it is typical for us Italian men, for example, tap the back of a girl who we care about and obviously even touch the strap of her bra. This without having to have sexual intercourse or another, it’s just a gesture of affection and attention towards especially of a girl with whom we groped a relationship. So it is obvious that such verification was done if the police really believed what Amanda said.
          2. Giacomo knew then Rudy and Rudy knew Meredith. It has been proven that statement? During the trial of the case has been verified this? Giacomo probably you will not tell never if he did would be immediately suspected of murder and seen what has happened to Amanda, it’s good to stay out for him. However, it is maybe sufficient to know if Rudy, through Giacomo or other guys on the floor belowknew Meredith.
          3. Rudy, we make the assumption that attempted a relationship with Meredith, this is a typical dynamic groups of boys in Italy. If a girl who frequents a group of guys and not have a relationship with a boy of the group is engaged or not, it often becomes a tempting target for every guy in that group. This is human and biologically correct during courtship, often just a gesture or a word of that girl, against a guy, that guy, if it finds pleasure to that girl, feels entitled to try to verify. And this could explain a different dynamic of the crime scene. For example, Rudy has entered into the house explicitly, with the consent of Meredith, perhaps with a trivial excuse. Then Rudy has tried, but unfortunately it went wrong. Rudy, who has already committed other burglaries in homes, then tried to sidetrack the investigation by creating a false trail, in a technically correct manner.

  45. Jade says:

    After almost 17 years in prison, Gloria Killian’s murder conviction had been overturned. A private investigator uncovered a piece of evidence, a letter that proved the prosecution’s star witness, Masse, had struck a deal. In exchange for leniency, the accused testified that Killian was the master planner of the home invasion and murder.
    Just like Rudy Guede struck a deal with the prosecution. Sounds familiar. Remember his initial Skype recording, and how he changed his testimony.

    • jamesrae says:

      Rather we could say the ego-maniacal criminal Mignini struck a deal with Rudy to facilitate a cover-up of ineptness and culpability in the murder of Meredith by
      his department bringing Rudy back from Milan without any charges laid and this fact as well as Mignini’s own reputation and legal hassles ongoing. Regardless, we
      can assume that when Rudy came back from Germany and into the interrogation room alone with Mignini he was completely without a defense and Mignini would
      not have left the room without the full Truth of what transpired. If Amanda had been involved and Mignini had acted responsibly he had the whole case rapped up
      with no complications and all time lines intact. This did not happen. Mignini hid Rudy on a separate track, downplaying his involvement and creating an accessory role and slipping Amanda and Raff into the staring roles. All to distract. This case is massive case of disorganization well orchestrated by maestro Mignini who regardless of details knew the whole truth from the day he interviewed Rudy and everything after that fact is disinformation. Just a mess.

      • Jade says:

        By the time Mignini got hold of Ruedi, he already ‘tricked’ Amanda into a false confession. There was no step back without losing certain reputation. For Signore Mignini, as well as for most high profile Italians, reputation is more important than the fate of two innocent young people.

    • Nasim says:

      Except that Rudy didn’t strike a deal with the prosecution, which are in any case illegal in Italy. He got exactly the sentence the law allowed: 30 years, reduced to 24 on appeal to match the mitigating factors given to Amanda and Raffaele. The standard 1/3rd fast-track reduction was applied to get 16 years. There was a two year (IIRC) general amnesty to alleviate overcrowding. Prisoners are eligible for work release after serving half their sentences. And there you go.

      • Rob H says:

        Not being prosecuted for any one of the number of instances of burglary that Guede was responsible for prior to killing Meredith Kercher is contrary to the responsibilities of police and prosecutors in Italian law so I shouldn’t be celebrating the workings of this system – if they had done their jobs (how many times has it been necessary to start a sentence with, “if they had done their jobs…” in connection with these cases?), Meredith Kercher would now be alive.

        In any case, it is peculiar that the standard discount from life in prison under fast-track reduces the sentence to only thirty years when the principle is a one third discount. Effectively, therefore, a life sentence is actually 45 years under fast track but not in a regular trial.

        He then got a further third off the reduced appeal court sentence too – they took six years off the discounted sentence and discounted the result by a further eight years! That’s how we got to only 16 years. So, in reality, his real sentence discount is close to two thirds of the implied full term.

        On top of this he gets further, early release benefits.

        Stunningly lenient and negligent in the lack of protection afforded to society from the danger he poses.

      • BigDinBoise says:

        Maybe the two of you can get together for a drink when he gets out in the near future Nasim?

      • HH says:

        Bullshit. He struck a deal. His story changed and suddenly his sentence was cut in half upon appeal.

      • Wayne says:

        What the guilters always seem to ignore is that a “fast-track” is not a given right. They can’t just demand a “fast-track” and presto, there it is. This is how the deals are made. There is absolutely no doubt that a “deal” was made so that Rudy would implicate Knox and get his early release. And the results are disgusting. An actual murderer will be walking the streets of Italy while two innocents are still be trialed.

      • Elias says:


        The mattress on the sofa proves contamination of evidence. Anything on the sofa, the sheet, etc., could have just dropped DNA on the floor, over any other items.

        And do you really want to float the idea that Mignini wouldn’t do anything illegal in Italy? He’s already been convicted in Italy.

      • Sarah H says:

        Rudy Guede should not have been entitled to a reduced sentence based on the mitigating factors applied to Raffaele and Amanda, who had unblemished criminal records. The police had Guede’s fingerprints on file because of his prior criminal activities.

      • Skind says:

        Patteggiamento is not illegal in Italy.

      • Bob Magnetti says:

        Let’s not forget that Mignini never appealed for a longer sentence for Guede whereas he was always requesting longer, stiffer sentences (including solitary confinement) for Knox/Sollecito. The reason he stated: “Guede showed remorese” . . . .

        • Elias says:

          Have the Perugian authorities or the Milanese police shown remorse for not pressing burglary charges against Rudy a week before he Murdered and raped Meredith?

        • BigDinBoise says:

          It’s my understanding that Rudy would not have been eligible for the reduced sentence, or at least to the same degree, if it wasn’t for Amanda and Raffale’s being found guilty in the first trial. Mignini essentially made the case that Amanda, and not Rudy was the primary instigator of the murder, and this allowed the appeals court to consider leniency due to mitigating circumstances.
          I’m doubtful he would have received much of a reduced sentence for the fast tract trial if it wasn’t for Mignini pushing the case that Amanda was the ring leader. Complete and utter BS that.

          • Jade says:

            Ruedi is a loser. He is a perfect puppet of Mignini. He is a disturbed character and a petty thief. He did not kill intentionally, but in PANIC. (The result, unfortunately, is the same.) In jail he confessed to another criminal that Amanda has nothing to do with the crime, but due to the criminal’s background (child molestation) his testimony was not validated.

          • BigDinBoise says:

            Jade – I agree, but I think the story of Rudy, given his troubled background, would be viewed in a more sympathetic light if it was not only for the tragic way he ended Meredith’s life, but also for the injustice that he has helped perpetrate on AK and RS.
            His German prison diary reads as if it is written by someone dealing with mental illness.

  46. Jade says:

    After almost 17 years in prison, Gloria Killian’s murder conviction had been overturned. A private investigator uncovered a piece of evidence, a letter that proved the prosecution’s star witness, Masse, had struck a deal. In exchange for leniency, the accused testified that Killian was the master planner of the home invasion and murder.
    Just like Rudy Guede struck a deal with the prosecution. Sounds familiar… Remember his initial Skype recording, and how he changed his testimony?

  47. Elias says:

    A very interesting and cogent read in the context of Amanda and Rafaelle’s experiences.

    • Daphne says:

      the damages done by such an injury can really leave lifelong scars. I think if more people were brave enough to follow through on defending themselves, and if the laws were more clear about official legal procedures innocents should take in lashing back against such atrocious charges, the world would be a much better place . . .

      • jamesrae says:

        Mignini used Heroin Man in a few cases before
        the Amanda case. It would be interesting to know
        more about this relationship and just how often
        this did happen.

        • Nasim says:

          There’s no evidence that Dr Mignini was involved in any way with the Maria Scota (1997) and Najla Dridi (2001) murders. If you have special knowledge otherwise by all means share.

          • Sarah H says:

            If you have special knowledge that jamesrae was referring to those two murders, please share.

  48. Nasim says:

    I want to thank Amanda for releasing the November 7th memoriale and her phone records. While no substitute for a full acounting of what took place, these disclosures help complete the body of evidence that is publicly available for anyone to review and discuss. I hope we can work together to identify and locate remaining missing materials which include court transcript pages and expert reports.

  49. Jonathan says:

    I’ve followed this case with interest, and it appears there are good arguments on both sides, although the weight of the evidence seems to be in favour of the prosecution. I think if Raffaele and Amanda know more than they are letting on then they should spill the beans, as they will not know any true peace until they do. I can only guess that any such information (if it exists) would make them feel embarrassed, hence the need to keep it under wraps. I’m also not sure their families are helping much in this matter, apart from financially.

    If Amanda and Raffaele were involved in some way, that won’t make me sit in judgement on them, just as I don’t judge Rudy Guede. Everyone has within themselves the capacity for both good and evil, and we are all on a level playing field. I just think that they would be helping themselves if they admitted to anything they haven’t yet told, as it’s a shame to see them trying to battle their feelings of unhappiness which so obviously comes across in their interviews.

    • Julie Jorgensen says:

      Johathan, Amanda and Raffaele’s feelings of unhappiness do not stem from guilt. The only thing they are guilty of is being young and naive about how police, corrupt prosecutors, and the media, can twist any word you say, or action you make to fit their preconceived notions. The feelings you see them battling are justified feelings of frustration and anger over suffering 6 1/2 years of injustice and judgements. Can you imagine how it would feel to be innocent and to think that because you are innocent that the truth would come out and exonerate you and yet instead experience over and over again the opposite? It would be devestating emotionally, spiritually and physically. Please consider for one moment that they truly are innocent. What would you do in their shoes?

    • Antony says:

      Jonathan: I’ve followed this case with interest, and it appears there are good arguments on both sides, although the weight of the evidence seems to be in favour of the prosecution

      You are misinformed. There is no credible evidence for the prosecution. All of it has been shown to be hopelessly compromised and scientifically worthless. The reason this case has been kept going (following an illegal Supreme Court ruling from March 2013) is that the Italian authorities regard saving face as more important than justice.

    • jamesrae says:

      ” Just as I don’t judge Rudy Guede ” exactly. Another wingman. Hide Rudy.
      Clarification! The truth is hidden with Rudy. Crack the coconut and all spills
      out. Couldn’t do that could we. The deal was made by Mignini. We are asking
      for the details. Fair deal. Mignini played a backward hand and got caught and
      no amount of hiding Rudy by Rudyites will heal anything ever regardless.

    • Willis Coleman says:

      First of all when there are pending legal issues it can be difficult to be completely forthcoming. That’s why I think when Rudy gets out it will be interesting to see what he has to say. I think that Amanda and Raffaele would like to come clean but the price may just be too high at this point. I think in Amanda case she’s making the truth obvious to anyone who cares to look and if despite that the faithful still want to give her their social security money that’s on them.

      • Glenn Thigpen says:

        The murder room forensic evidence makes the truth clear to anyone who is really interested.


      • Rob H says:

        “coleman’s” postings are now bordering on the surreal – derived from one strange fantasy after another. Now, it’s….”Amanda…making the truth obvious to anyone who cares to look..” etc. Very peculiar. Where should we look, “willis”? Perhaps he is a regular victim of “social cuffing” and it’s taking its toll.

      • Doug Moodie says:

        It would be interesting to hear what Guede has to say right now!

        If the murder happened as the courts have found, Guede has nothing to lose by describing it in detail. But he has not. Obviously he can’t. Never have I heard of a case where the accused want the co-accused to spill the beans, and the prosecution and the courts do all that they can to get in the way.

        Guilters disinterest in finding the truth now through Guede is perfectly illistrates of someone stumbling over the truth only to pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. (parapharasing Churchill).

        I gather Guede is already free for day release, but he does not take advantage of it because “Guede is worried that when he leaves prison to attend classes, or meet with his tutor, the media will harass him.” (Google CBS Guede day release)

        Perhaps what I find truely repugant about guilters ( and Willis you not excepted) is the continued certainty in Knox’s guilt despite the clear and unavoidable implications of the sentence above.

        This is the first time ever I have heard of a prisoner choosing jail over freedom. Guede has something to hide, and it isn’t that the crime occurred as courts have maintained. That’s no secret. The only fact worth hiding is that the crime occurred other than as the courts have maintained – in a way that should not have allowed him such a short sentence for such a heinous act.

        It’s too bad that guilters offer themselves as defacto Guede defenders, in that they are complacent about the short sentence and Guede’s silence.

      • Sarah H says:

        Amanda IS making the truth absolutely obvious. And so is the EVIDENCE. The truth, of course, being that she and Raffaele are completely innocent.

    • Elias says:

      I don’t believe you.

      Just flat out don’t believe you’ve “followed the case with some interest.”

      Simply because both sides do not have good evidence.

      The prosecutions evidence was ENTIRELY thrown out by the second judge, Judge Hellman — who tossed out all the “evidence” based on the fact that it was cooked up, false, lies, contaminated etc.

      The more one reads and learns about this case, The Facts, the more one gets disgusted at the travesty of injustice done to Amanda and Rafaelle – the damage and cost to their young lives and family.

      And as if that wasn’t bad enough — lost in all the prosecutions lies — is the easy pass the Actual Murderer Rudy Guede continues to get — and what an egregious insult that is to the memory of a wonderful young woman named Meredith Kercher…

    • Tom Mininger says:

      For those interested in how seasoned murder investigators, who have unfortunately analyzed thousands of murder scenes, can easily recognize this crime scene as a burglary gone bad:

      These are forensic professionals who never announce “case closed” before a shred of crime scene evidence has been analyzed.

    • Doug says:

      Jonathan – “I think if Raffaele and Amanda know more than they are letting on then they should spill the beans”

      “I just think that they would be helping themselves if they admitted to anything they haven’t yet told”

      What if there are no beans to spill, nothing new to be told? Maybe they have been telling the truth all along (every part of my being tells me that they have).

    • Sarah H says:

      Can it, Mr. Non-Judgemental. You are so obvious.

      Of course they’re battling feelings of unhappiness, and that shows in their interviews. They spent 4 years in prison for a murder they didn’t commit, were set free and declared “innocent,” and then that verdict was overturned and yet another jury found them guilty. Now it will probably be years before the case is finally over, and they’re still facing the prospect of prison for a crime they did NOT commit. The evidence is absolutely clear to anyone with a brain. Try using yours.

    • Glenn Thigpen says:

      Jonathan, Can you elaborate a bit on just what evidence seems to favor the prosecution??? Do you realize that there is as much evidence that you were in the murder room at the time of the murder as there is that Amanda and Raffaele were there???


    • BigDinBoise says:

      Jonathan – You should admit to your involvement in Meredith Kercher’s murder. I’m sure it would have as much bearing in this case as the involvement of Raffaele and Amanda. Where were you on the night of November 1st, 2007? Remember, we are all on level playing field and have the capacity for good and evil, just like Rudy.
      I just think it would better for you and you would come off much happier when people are asking you if you killed Meredith if you would just admit to what you have done.

    • Andrea Jonasson says:

      If you shine the cold, objective light of science on the evidence it does not weigh in the favour of the prosecution at all.

      There is no reliable evidence that places Amanda and Raffaele at the scene of Meredith’s murder.

      The autopsy results do not indicate that there were more than one attacker.

      The autopsy showed that Meredith’s entire meal was still in her stomach, indicating that she did not live long after she arrived home. At this time, Amanda and Raffaele’s alibi is corroborated.

      The only two reasonably incriminating pieces of physical evidence ever produced by the prosecution, the knife and the bra clasp, were discredited by independent court appointed scientists at the first appeals trial for sound scientific reasons.

      Rudy Guede, who we know was there, originally stated that Amanda had nothing to do with it.

      If you understand the scientific evidence and you ruthlessly apply logic to it, you will reach the conclusion that Amanda and Raffaele had nothing to do with Meredith’s death. Any other conclusion requires you distort some facts and ignore others to suit your theory.

    • William Benjamin says:

      Could you please elaborate in detail about the “good arguments on” the pro-guilt side. I already have all the pro-innocence evidence I need but I am genuinely interested in your approach leaning to the prosecutions side and I would ask that if you are willing to give it that people here refrain from beating you up over it. What exactly tipped you to the guilt side? What I want to learn from you is to better approach people that I disagree with. Face it this is one of those problems where compromise is impossible because compromise would just equal a wrong.

  50. david says:

    dear amanda i dont think you or any of your roommates would have went number 2 and just left it there correct if me wrong you girls dont seem be like that so the dirty toilet motive doesn’t fit

    • Sarah H says:

      David, the prosecution fully acknowledges that the poop contained Guede’s DNA. What is crazy about their story is that they think Meredith got mad at GUEDE’S poop — which made Raffaele, who had never even met Guede, and Amanda decide to kill Meredith.

      I know, the dirty toilet motive doesn’t make any sense. But that’s what the prosecution claimed.

      • david says:

        sara thats not what i was asking. i was asking amanda if 1 of the girls or her had done it before rudy did. and that what started it

        • Elias says:

          The answer is “no.”

          Amanda early on, flushed, but didn’t know to “scrub after every poo” European style toilets, because she was used to US toilets that don’t barbarically allow the poo to hit a “dry shelf” and then slide into the water…eventually.

        • Sarah H says:

          The prosecution never alleged that Amanda, at any point, failed to flush “number 2.” But the English friends said Meredith had to tell Amanda to also use the brush, something that isn’t normally necessary in the US due to a different design of the toilet.

          • Sarah H says:

            Also, the toilet with Guede’s poop wasn’t the same toilet that Amanda and Meredith shared. So there was no reason for Meredith to think Amanda had used it.

      • Ben says:

        Who is even suggesting that Sarah H?

        Can you please provide evidence that the prosecution is using ‘Meredith being mad over Guede’s poop theory etc as a motive for Meredith’s murder. Because that is essentially what you’re saying. That is the most absurd thing I’ve read so far. Stop trying to ridicule the prosecution by spreading false propaganda. All your doing is adding to the rather long list of Amanda Knox falsities and not helping her cause at all.
        Stop embarrassing yourself.

        • Dopre says:


          It is true. Crini introduced the theory in this last trial “told the Florence court that a sexual motive was a side issue and that the killing was sparked instead by a row over a dirty toilet.” as quoted in an

          It was widely reported. If you were to do a simple google search instead of resorting to insults, you would not now have egg on your face.

          Google it

        • BigDinBoise says:

          Have you been living under a rock Ben? That is exactly the prosecutions new theory of the motive, and I agree, it is one of the most absurd things I’ve ever heard as well.

  51. DW says:

    Dear Amanda,

    From a strong supporter … Please disregard completely if this just irks you, as I have no desire at all to irk you.

    Just wanted to say that I am so sick of looking at that jerk’s face on your blog post. (The moron holding up the Perugia hates you sign.)

    Of course it’s your blog. I’m mostly joking. But man am I sick of that dude.

    Best to you.

  52. BigDinBoise says:

    With regard to the ISC decision to overturn the Hellman acquittal and send the case back to appeal – If the evidence of guilt needs to be considered “holistically,” as the ISC instructed, then it cannot be done without first examining each piece of evidence individually. There is no reason that the whole of the evidence should include unreliable witness testimony or DNA evidence that was ruled unreliable or inconclusive by the court appointed independent forensic scientists. The removal of the unreliable or inconclusive pieces of evidence destroys the case against Amanda and Raffaele.
    Conversely, if the evidence of guilt must be considered “holistically,” then the same must be done for the evidence of innocence as presented by the defense. Even allowing the bogus evidence of guilt, a reasonable judge and jury would conclude there is ample reasonable doubt to the veracity of the prosecutions claims, and should acquit Amanda and Raffaele.
    Anything else is to give credence to a lie.

    • Phillip says:

      BigDinBoise – thats fantastic, but lets discuss this without nonsense words added together to form nonsense sentences.

      She was found guilty, its nearly April and ever so closer to the reasoning report. Your posts are going to change her guilty verdict how? Your posts are going to influence the reasoning how?

      Do you, Amanda, Steve, Michelle, Bruce or whoever else you’re employing think you’re making a difference? You tried, it didn’t work…

      • Julie Jorgensen says:

        Whether you would ever believe it or not, not one of Amanda’s supporters is paid for what they do. Why would people like Steve Moore, or his wife Michelle or Bruce Fischer or hundreds of others, (myself included) bother spending our free time helping with this case? Because we can’t stand injustice when we see it and we do think we are making a difference and we are not stopping until they are both fully exonerated.

        • Julie Jorgensen says:

          We do think we are making a difference…remember the starfish analogy? Even if we are only making a difference for Amanda and Raffaele and their loved ones to feel supported and cared about then it is a success. No matter how long it takes, nothing will take away their innocence. Not time, not hateful comments…in the end their innocence does not change based on the success of proving it. Saying they are guilty and charging them with guilt does not make it so. We are here to help and support any way we can for as long as it takes.

      • Antony says:

        Phillip: She was found guilty, its nearly April and ever so closer to the reasoning report.

        Inevitably, the Nencini motivation report will be even more contrived and fanciful than the Massei report, following the original December 2009 conviction. He has even less evidence to go on – the DNA “evidence” was discredited by the Conti-Vecchiotti review (which remains in the evidence file), and the new analysis on the disputed knife, ordered by the Supreme Court with the words “will be crucial”, showed no presence of the murder victim.

        Futhermore, the Rome laboratory conducting the test for the Nencini court also stated that a non-repeatable test cannot be accepted as scientifically valid, thereby nullifying both the knife evidence and the notorious bra-clasp. All that remains is the DNA of Amanda, found in a bathroom she had used every day for 6 weeks, plus inconclusive footprints in an unidentified substance (not blood) and a bathmat footprint that is not Raffaele’s.

        It will be interesting to see how Nencini reconciles the further damage to the prosecution evidence with his guilty verdict. And that’s not even considering the statements, currently under investigation, that he made to the press following the trial.

      • Luca Cheli says:

        Yes we are going to make a difference and expose injustice and the falsehood of that conviction.

      • Wayne says:

        Amanda is not in Italy. A relatively rare act of justice from the Italian court system declared her not guilty and allowed her to return to the US. The battle for Amanda no longer matters in Italy, it was always a foregone conclusion on how they would rule. The only battle that matters now is with the American government if the Italians are brash enough to request extradition.

        Unfortunately for the guilters, its going to be much harder for them to sell their pack of lies, deceit, misdirection, and plain incompetence to the US government.

      • Sarah H says:

        Phillip, why are you posting if you think posts here make no difference?

        I for one am posting so that the idiots and the haters aren’t the only ones heard.

      • Stephane G says:

        Well I love wasting my times on lost causes. Maybe BigDinBoise does too ? But what about your own motivations and participation to this blog, Phillip ? Will it after all change anything to this unesapable scenario ? Or did you attend a “basic psychological warfare” course recently, and what to exercise or do some homework ?

      • Elias says:


        So why do you post, to achieve your nothing from your “trying” ???

        People post because they are outraged at the injustices done to the lives of 3 young people.

        For the murder of Meredith Kercher and the coverup for why Rudy Guede was released from custody and jail several times and free to kill her. For the added disgrace to her memory that these wrongful prosecutions of RS and AK have been.

        Those of us that post here in support of AK and RS will be writing letters over the years to ensure that she is never extradited, and hopefully help RS find justice.

        And to share things that can possibly help, like this:

      • William Benjamin says:

        Phillip, like so many others, this ordeal has only cost me money in the way of donations and hundreds of hours of research. And there is no end in sight. What should have been a basic murder investigation was morphed into a tabloid made for media spectacle at the expense of the victim and two of her newer acquaintances. The guilty verdicts are bovine and don’t pass the smell test and any knowledgeable & reasonable person knows it. This is a battle to define the current state of human civility on an international scale. This can’t be Amanda’s or Raffaele’s fight anymore. They have played there roles in this international stupidity long enough and need to move on with their lives if at all possible and leave the fight to those who are, with a hope and a prayer, better at it.

      • BigDinBoise says:

        Phillip – Do you think you’re making a difference? Are you oblivious to the hypocritical nature of your question? No one is employing me to support Amanda – I believe she is innocent and think it is important that people understand the injustice that is being perpetrated on her and Raffaele.
        Who’s employing you Phillip?

        What is nonsense about my statement in your opinion? Tell me what new evidence of Amanda’s guilt was presented at the last trial. The only new piece of evidence I’m aware of is the testing of a previously untested part of the knife; the results of which was that Merediths’ DNA was not found and the substance was determined to be starch. But this is not evidence that supports the prosecutions case. The DNA evidence and eye witness testimony was destroyed during the appeal. Nothing has changed with regard to the evidence, and unless the court wants to appoint a new independent analysis of the DNA, then the work that was performed during the appeal must be accepted as valid.

        If there was ever a document written with “nonsense words to form nonsense sentences” it is the language the Court of Cassation used in its ruling to over throw the Hellman acquittal. The court has stated that the evidence must be considered on the whole, which is fine in of itself, but not prior to determining the validity of the parts. In mathematics you cannot compile random numbers to achieve a desired outcome. The same is the case in determining the likelihood of someone’s guilt in a court case. The evidence to determine guilt cannot be considered holistically, until each piece of evidence is analyzed individually. In other words the formula cannot be completed until the validity of the parts is determined (i.e. the higher math cannot be performed until the lower math is complete and correct).
        This is elementary logic, and neither Crini or the ISC have employed it in their reasoning.

        • Phillip says:

          For all the supporters who so desperately think they are ‘making a difference’. Lets equate it to a Football game. On 1 side we have the ‘guilters/haters of murderers and on the other we have the supporters/supporters of rapistmurderers.

          First trial – Win
          Appeal – Lose
          Court of Cassation – Win
          2nd Appeal – Win

          That to me looks like 3 -1. Going into extra time, the best you can hope for is a draw.

          If she wins the third and final appeal, I’m willing to donate money to any charity this board decides.

          • Stephane G says:

            Interstingly, the way you put this is not far from reality. From the moment you consider one of the teams is the “devilish rapist murderers” anyway – as you do – you are in a “head I win, tails you loose” game very similar to the way this case has been conducted by italian justice so far, though it does not have much to do with fairness.

          • BigDinBoise says:

            “On 1 side we have the ‘guilters/haters of murderers and on the other we have the supporters/supporters of rapistmurderers.”

            Or to put it another way – on one side you have the guilters/haters of true justice that are unwilling to objectively look at the facts, and on the other you have people that believe in justice for everyone and have weighed the evidence and determined that there is decisively a lack of evidence that points to the guilt of 2 of the 3 accused.

            Justice isn’t a football game Phillip. 3 -1, 2 -2, it doesn’t matter – Amanda can be convicted by the Italian justice system a thousand more times, but just as Hellman decided, the evidence points to innocence, and his acquittal alone is enough to create reasonable doubt FOREVER!

    • Lince says:

      If you read carefully ISC argumentation about how all the evidence should be considered “holistically”, you can easily understand what their meaning of “holistics” is. Essentially, ISC is ordering to take the verdicts and motivations from the (separately held) Guede trials into account. Since the Guede legal trials went through all the steps of Italian Judicial system, in the eyes of ISC, their conclusions should be used as undeniable facts. The problem with this approach is that the prosecution crazy theories about Amanda’s and Raffaele’s participation in the murder were accepted in these trials without any challenge, with full support of the Guede’s defence, to get a better verdict for Rudy Guede. In other words, Amanda and Raffaele were also convicted in these trials, even though they or their lawyers were not present. They were denied the fundamental right to defend themselves.

      • William Benjamin says:

        Lince I think you hit the nail right on the head. It’s like Italy’s jurisprudence is too immature to admit mistakes. So they coverup instead and hide behind doubt hoping that the smell of their mistake will eventually fade away. And they care not for whom else it damages.

    • Rob H says:

      “If the evidence of guilt needs to be considered “holistically,” as the ISC instructed, then it cannot be done without first examining each piece of evidence individually.” – BigDin

      You are right not just once but twice! It is a requirement of Italian law that the process followed is exactly the one you have arrived at using logic. The ISC correctly quoted the requirement and then proceeded to ignore it.

      Hellmann made no error on this point, as is commonly and mistakenly suggested. The ISC should have stayed out of it. Hellmann examined the evidence against Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito and found all of it suspect. You cannot add together all the pieces of suspect evidence and achieve a result greater than the sum of their individual values. There is no higher truth to be discovered.

  53. Margaret says:

    What exactly is the review process for the Supreme Court now? Are they reviewing only the reasoning for the convictions or will they considering the validity of the evidence used in that reasoning? I assume they will not be going through all evidence from day one. But I wonder what they will examine,and if they would be able to hear any new evidence that had not been heard before.

    I’m curious because I think that there is more to be found out about criminal activity by the prosecution. Was Guede an informer for the police dept. as Steve Moore theorizes? There could be somebody with a conscience that knows something about the police’s prior interactions with Guede. They framed Amanda to avoid looking bad, so perhaps someone who worked within the department at that time knows more and could be encourage to speak. I know Mignini was under indictment at the time of this case, so sadly, maybe it doesn’t matter how criminal the police were.

    In almost every exoneration, there are people who come forward years later, eager to unburden their conscience about their part in helping the prosecution obtain a false conviction. There will be some in this case, eventually I am sure. I just hope it is now and not decades from now.

    • DW says:

      I keep thinking this too, and wondering if there is any additional way to put pressure on Guede to tell the truth. But it’s hard to see what that would be.

      • Anna says:

        Once he is freed Amanda or Raffaele should call him, and ask him why he murdered Meredith, and why he implicated them, just to see what he would say (and of course tape the conversation).

        • Amanda says:

          Hi Anna,

          I have thought hard for a long time about whether or not any good could come from contacting Rudy Guede. My conclusion was that it wouldn’t be productive for a number of reasons:

          – Raffaele and I never had that kind of contact with Rudy Guede before. Raffaele had never met him, and I had only met him in passing. We never spoke over the phone, never discussed anything personal. It is not likely Guede would have any interest in communicating anyt truth to us in the way, for instance, that he spoke with his friend Giacomo Benedetti before arrest.

          – Guede’s lawyers have banked on the the prosecution’s disinterest and the distraction of the case against Raffaele and I to get Guede off with a minimal sentence. It is not likely they would advise him to ever communicate with us.

          – Guede’s testimony has already been found unreliable by the courts. Even if he were to admit to what really happened, it is not likely to carry judicial weight.


          • Nasim says:

            He has accused you of murder! He murdered and raped your friend! And you don’t want to confront him? I’m sorry but that’s just weird to me.

          • BigDinBoise says:

            Once again you’re twisting Amanda’s words Nasim. She has already stated that she wanted to confront Rudy in her book, but she was a denied the opportunity to confront him in court, which is the proper forum to do so. What could be gained from her writing him a letter? No doubt it would be construed as more evidence of their collaboration in Meredith’s murder by people like you.

          • Rob H says:

            Of course she WANTS to confront him, “Nasim”. Don’t you understand what she has written??

          • HH says:

            Nasim: Everything she does is weird to you. If she was trying to contact Guede, you’d be all over that claiming that she’s trying to get to him before he tells the “truth.”

            Guede is an f’ing rapist and murderer. The evidence is all there. It was his DNA inside of poor Meredith.

            Like I’ve pointed out three billion times, he was the one with the knife wounds on his hands, indicating that he was the one who did the stabbing. It’s very easy to cut yourself when you’re using a knife as a murder weapon.

            If the situation was reversed, Amanda had fled the country, had cuts on her hands and her DNA was everywhere while Rudy had only a speck of DNA on a bra clasp and his DNA on a “murder weapon” that tested negative for blood and didn’t match the stab wounds, I would be convinced that Amanda killed Meredith.

            Yet you are so consistently willing to push him aside and continue claiming that Amanda is the “mastermind.” Do you care about what happened to Meredith at all? If you do, why won’t you look at the evidence and what it shows and stop trying to put a stupid kitchen knife in Amanda’s hands and place her in a room that had no trace of her in it?

          • Anna says:

            Hello Amanda :) Thank you for the reply.

            Its just a (probably stupid lol) thought that crossed my mind, thinking maybe he would incriminate himself, somehow. After all in the intercepted Skype conversation he did say “Amanda wasn’t there”, but then again as you said, it didn’t seem to make much of a difference. I understand how you (and Raffaele) may feel about this idea, I’m not sure if it was me that I would want to call him either, its just that I’ve been thinking there might be a clever way to get him to talk about what happened (I’m not talking about torture of course).

            And I sure hope this appeal (yours) will be the last, it is terrible what they are doing to you. Not that it will make any difference, but know that I support you 100%. Again I wish you all the best, stay strong!

          • Paul says:

            Amanda , Guede chose a fast track trial and had his sentence reduced . To say it was shortened because they were distracted with you and RS is dishonest.

          • Paul says:

            Guede’s lawyers opted for a fast track trial which results is a shorter sentence.You could have done the same. It had nothing to do with his “lawyers banking”on the prosecution being distracted by you and RS. That is twisting the facts and being dishonest Amanda

          • Amanda says:


            Guede’s lawyers opted for a fast track trial because Guede was clearly guilty: his hand print in Meredith’s blood on the pillow found below her body, his DNA inside her body, his history of breaking and entering, his escape to Germany. That earned him 30 years instead of life.

            Guede’s lawyers then took advantage of the prosecution’s focus on me by channeling that attention toward Guede’s defense (arguing that I, not Guede, had been accused of wielding knives and robbing Meredith’s belongings), thereby quietly pushing Guede through the judicial process toward a considerably reduced sentence of 16 years because he was primarily held responsible for sexual assault, not murder.


        • Ben says:

          Oh Anna, but Rudy didn’t implicate them you see. They implicated themselves with their involvement in this murder. Amanda implicated herself even further by placing herself at the crime scene….

          • Dopre says:

            It’s easy to see how this works for you Ben. It’s really quite easy to see how it works for all who believe in the pairs guilt. Authority is not to be questioned. Nothing that authority introduces as reasoning or asserts as fact should ever be regarded as anything but the truth. This is how fascism gains a foot hold in a society. To believe that authority is above reproach and always has good intentions regardless of its history and evidence to the contrary.

            The question as to how it came to be that Amanda would place herself at the scene of this crime is made to be irrelevant. All that matters is she uttered the words. But until the full transcripts and or tapes are released by Perugia authorities, those words and the background behind how they came to be spoken, will always be cast under the cloud of suspicion. The authorities hid behind their posts to see them buried, and it appears they did so to protect themselves.

            You would make yourself complicit in the deception rather then admit your mindset works against all that is just and good. Authority should not be forced to hide behind deception in order to find justice in a trial against a civilian……ever. That you would find it acceptable to insert yourself into this debate with the words derived from a coerced interrogation, yet completely deny the weight of the authorities responsibility to give all the information that led to the confession, speaks to a very troubling mindset. This is a trial against an average citizen waged by a government entity that has nothing in its way to impede its pursuit. This trial in no way places the Italians and their government in harms way. Yet a government system and the players involved will stop at nothing to justify their actions, going so far as to step outside the boundaries of their own laws in what appears to be a political maneuver by the hierarchy to protect the status quo.

            Are you here to say you are comfortable with this….so comfortable that indeed you would enable this gross miscarriage of justice all to satisfy your belief system? You should be worried Ben……we should all be worried. Someday it could be one of us.

          • Anna says:

            Here is an interesting document for you Ben.


            And I don’t know why it is so difficult for some people to at least acknowledge the possibility that a 20 year old girl could have been manipulated during an interrogation. I just don’t understand why you trust the police officers (the ones who participated in the interrogation) so much while they failed to record the interrogation, made her sign documents which were later declared inadmissible (1st one was declared admissible only concerning the calunnia charges), and then lied in Court saying they “lost the tapes”.

            Do you know the percentage of innocent people who, during an interrogation, admitted they committed a crime when they were actually innocent? Seriously look it up.

          • Paul says:

            Amanda a fast tract option is open to all regardless even if the defendant is accused of murder. Rudy chose fast track it had nothing to do with a distraction or deal with the prosecution .That idea has circulated amongst your supporters and is false.

          • Rob H says:

            You can read on your own “Paul”, right?

            Guede’s attorney took advantage of the focus of the prosecution on Ms Knox as the most blameworthy of the three suspects and directed the court to consider the case against his client in the light of the prosecution’s conclusions.

            This got him leniency – twice!

            He was “going down” anyway; fast track meant he “went down” a lot less. Biscotti played a good game – got a much better result than he could have hoped for if the prosecution had not been so stupidly obsessed with Ms Knox.

          • HH says:

            Paul: No one in their right mind would take the fast track option unless they were obviously guilty. If you were innocent, you’d want to take the time to go over all of the evidence and prove that you didn’t do it. The fast track is asking for a summary judgment as quickly as you can before the police hopefully dig up more witnesses and find more evidence that incriminates you.

          • HH says:

            We have something similar in the US. The right to a speedy trial.

    • Phillip says:

      It isn’t with the Court of Cassation yet. They are waiting for the reasoning report from Judge Nencini, which should be out around April (ish). Its then up to Amanda and Sollecito if they want to appeal.

      If they appeal, it will go to the Court of Cassation; they will only rule on points of law in the Nencini appeal.

      It won’t matter if Guede, Knox or Sollecito made any type of plea bargain now, its too late. The Court of Cassation will only rule on points of law from the lower courts.

      At this point, if all 3 came out with their hands held up, it wouldn’t matter a jot. They have been found guilty.

      • Sarah H says:

        The Court of Cassation did much more than rule on points of law the first time around: they made arguments about the evidence. Why would you expect them to restrain themselves this time around? Unless of course, the result has been fixed from the beginning.

      • HH says:

        They didn’t only rule on points of law the last time. Look at that motivation report and that’s the last thing they ruled on.

      • Stephane G says:

        Theoretically right. Though it did not keep the same Court of Cassation from widely discussing the evidences in september 2013.

      • Antony says:


        If they appeal, it will go to the Court of Cassation; they will only rule on points of law in the Nencini appeal.

        That’s my understanding as well, which makes the previous Cassation decision all the more scandalous. They made no pretence of restricting their decisions to points of law.

      • BigDinBoise says:

        Guede’s conviction was confirmed years ago Phillip. It’s not a question of if Amanda and Raffaele appeal, they will.
        Interesting that you say that the Court of Cassiation will only rule on points of law… they did not do that in the Hellman verdict. Of course they have their desired outcome with Nencini, so they just need to rubber stamp this one.

      • Kokomo Joe says:

        Your statement that the Supreme Court will only rule on points of law in the Nencini ruling ought to be correct but it certainly was not what they did when they ruled on the Hoffman decision. Their rulings at that time went heavily into the facts and evidence. The short answer is that the Supreme Court can do whatever it wants, I guess.

        • Willis Coleman says:

          The mandate of the Court of Cassation is published online in English at “”. As you can see it is not so simple as saying Cassation only rules on points of law. It can do almost anything except hear new evidence.

          • Luca Cheli says:

            But there are explicit limist to how much they can debate fact finding, for instance they shouldn’t create new hypotheses about what happened, which instead is what they did at least in one instance in this ruling.
            They can debate the logicality of the motivation report concerning fact finding, not establish facts.
            In that context writing that the scream heard by Capezzali surely belonged to the victim doesn’t seem to fit very well in the aforementioned limits.
            The point is that the SC enjoys not having superior courts to reckon with, except the ECHR, but that’s a relatively new thing.

  54. Anna says:

    I just wanted to say how amazed I am at the way some people judge Amanda for absolutely everything she does, a facial expression, a word, a silence, etc, for these people anything and everything translates to “she is guilty”. But I think most these people don’t actually “believe” that she is guilty, they just “want to believe” that she is, and are even willing to fill their posts and websites with flat out lies about the case.

    But personally what I see when I look at Amanda is a VERY honest person. In fact she is so honest, and so willing to believe that most people are good and honest as well, that when having to “deal” with people who weren’t, it was easy for them to manipulate every so-called facts and everything she said and dit, and turn it against her.

    While reading her testimony of June 9th for example, I was amazed at the lies even within questions, Carlo Pacelli (Patrick Lumumba’s lawyer) for instance, while questioning Amanda, kept saying “you said Patrick is guilty”, while referring to her handwritten notes, but she did not say that, she said “he might be”, which is totally different. He also kept insisting that she didn’t say “he is innocent”, but how could this be expected? how was she supposed to know whether he was guilty or innocent? I wish her lawyers had stepped in when he said those things, and objected, as it was very dishonest, the statements/questions were lies, and ridiculous expectations. In fact I think she never should have been charged with calunnia.

    People also don’t realise that when she mentions that she was slapped twice, she could have said that she was slapped 10 times, why not make them look as bad as possible? But she didn’t do that. She could have said that they threatened her physically if she didn’t sign the documents, but she didn’t do that. Etc. While some people say that she is lying about the way she was treated during this interrogation (yet they don’t question the fact that it wasn’t recorded), personally I think her statements show, once more, how honest she is.

    I will stop here as my message is getting pretty long, but all I can say is that I wish her (and her family) the very best, and I hope so much that the latest appeal will be the last. Either way I hope that she can continue to stay strong through this ordeal, and that she won’t let these dishonest people affect her any further. God bless.

    • Mark says:

      Lots of things back up her version of the interrogation. For starters why was she a suspect in the first place at the time? They obviously had zero forensic evidence or they would have been hunting Guede. Her behavior? When somebody explains Knox’s pre interrogation behavior to me trying to imply it’s suspicious I just see Homer Simpson on Rock Bottom where they are parodying sensational reporting and film him in slow motion with a vignetting lens and play sinister music. Wow look at that guy walk down the hallway, he’s clearly guilty.

      The only reason for them to be suspicious of her before the interrogation is if they think the break-in is staged. That’s it. They had already closed the case. If the break-in is staged, Amanda is the culprit. They simply had nothing left to investigate except who her accomplice is, and she texted Patrick just before the murder and then turned off her phone, so there it is, case closed.

      What are the very words out of the police’s mouth in the press conference after the arrests? “At first Amanda told us what we knew to be lies, but then she buckled and told us what we knew to be correct, case closed.” Straight from the horse’s mouth, it doesn’t get any better than the police saying “we didn’t allow the suspect to tell us anything except what we knew was the correct sequence of events.” Which of course was Patrick being the murderer and Amanda being his accomplice and the stager.

      There’s more of course:

      -They didn’t ask her about the window break-in even though she claims she invited Patrick through the front door, such a contradiction should have perked their interest but they already knew it to be correct that she staged the break-in before they interrogated her so why ask?
      -Various people came forward to explain to the police that Patrick’s bar was open and he was there, but they ignored them.
      -They had forensic results back from the lab as early as the 6th pointing to a “4th man” but continued to hold Patrick for another 2 weeks, and suppressed these results from the hearing judge to keep Patrick detained, because they knew it to be correct that he was the killer.
      -They rounded up a witness to testify that Patrick’s bar was closed, even though it was open, and they didn’t worry about getting a witness to lie for them because they knew it to be correct that Patrick was the killer

      The media should have been all over the police after Patrick was exonerated and questioning the integrity of the investigation like crazy, but Knox was a juicy story and free press in Italy seems to be more of a guideline than a rule.

      • Wayne says:

        Great evaluation. I would add a couple of things. The Daily Mail reported that Patrick claimed he was hit and kicked by the police who were accusing him of being the murderer. Secondly, they had his alibi a week before he was finally released. He was only released when the police finally were able to match Guede’s DNA to the crime and only then did they switch Guede into the scenario for Patrick. And of course, they neglected to video or audio the final interrogation, and refused to provide a lawyer. All of it adds up to one thing. Coercion. And I am just AMAZED at how many people are so willing to buy it without the slightest question.

      • Anna says:

        About this “The only reason for them to be suspicious of her before the interrogation is if they think the break-in is staged.”

        First let me say that I am not convinced that the break-in was staged. But for the sake of argument let’s assume it was, I find it amazing that the first person they suspected of this was Amanda, stating she was the only one who had a reason to stage a break-in. They totally ignore the fact that eventho they didn’t know him much, Rudy Guede was not a total stranger, chances are if he knocked at the door Meredith opened the door (why would she suspect him? he was an acquaintance), he had a good reason to stage a break-in (again assuming it was staged): so people would think a total stranger broke in and killed Meredith.