The Nencini Report

The Nencini Report Pt.1 Pt.2 Pt.3 Pt.4

I have stated from the beginning of this long ordeal that Raffaele and I are innocent of the accusations against us. We were found innocent by the only court in Italy that retained independent forensic experts to review the case. I want to state again today what I have said throughout this process: We are innocent of the accusation against us, and the recent motivation document does not – and cannot – change the fact of our innocence.

The recent motivation document does not – and cannot – change the forensic evidence: Experts agreed that my DNA was not found anywhere in Meredith’s room, while the DNA of the actual murderer, Rudy Guede, was found throughout that room and on Meredith’s body. This forensic evidence directly refutes the multiple-assailant theory found in the new motivation document. This theory is not supported by any reliable forensic evidence.

The forensic evidence also directly refutes the theory that the kitchen knife was the murder weapon: The court-appointed independent experts confirmed that neither Meredith’s blood nor her DNA was on the alleged murder weapon, which experts also agreed did not match the stab wounds or the bloody imprint of a knife on her bed sheet.

In fact, in the prior proceeding in which we were found innocent, the court specifically concluded that the forensic evidence did not support our alleged participation in the crime and further found that the circumstantial evidence was both unreliable and contrary to a conclusion of guilt. The recent motivation document does not – and cannot – change the fact that the forensic evidence still does not support our participation and the circumstantial evidence still remains unreliable and contrary to the conclusion of guilt.

And the recent motivation document does not – and cannot – identify any legitimate motive for our alleged involvement in this terrible crime. No fewer than three motives have been previously advanced by the prosecution and by the courts. Each of these theories was as unsupported as the purported motive found in the new motivation document, and each of these alleged motives was subsequently abandoned by the prosecution or the courts. Like the prior “motives,” the latest “motive” in the new motivation document is not supported by any credible evidence or logic. There is simply no basis in the record or otherwise for this latest theory.

I will now focus on pursuing an appeal before the Italian Supreme Court. I remain hopeful that the Italian courts will once again recognize Raffaele’s and my innocence. I want to thank once again, from the bottom of my heart, all of those—family, friends, and strangers—who have supported us and believe in our innocence.

a

The Nencini Report is divided into 12 sections:

0. The development of the trial. Pg. 1-32.

1. Premise. Pg. 32-37.

2. The context in which the murder occurred and the time of death of Meredith Kercher. Pg. 37-63.

3. Post-crime activity. Pg. 63-92.

It has been much discussed, especially by the defense of the defendants, whether a “selective” clean-up of the crime scene is possible by the authors of the crime. This possibility was denied on the basis of the empirical impossibility of a “naked eye” to identify and select the singular traces, often invisible, to destroy. It was also excluded that someone in the cottage of Via della Pergola, on the night between November 1st and 2nd, 2007, after having committed the murder of Meredith Kercher, could “selectively clean” the traces left by the authors of the crime, destroying all of the traces of the defendants in question, and leaving at the crime scene all of those traces that would have lead investigators to Rudy Hermann Guede.

The affirmation, if apparently agreeable theoretically, must be correlated with the case in question, of which there are certain peculiarities.

It is peculiar, for example, that no traces of Amanda Marie Knox were found in the cottage of Via Della Pergola if not those which are refer-able to the murder – nor of Raffaele Sollecito. For the latter the explanation may be simple, that he had only just begun his sentimental relationship with Amanda Marie Knox, and so had his patronage of her house, but regarding Amanda Marie Knox the explanation is not simple at all, because she had been living there since the previous September.

The lack of biological traces of Amanda Marie Knox at the cottage, if not those refer-able to the murder, is a circumstance that is surely singular and at the same time not easily explainable, if not with conjecture. But there are other examples, all of which have the same vulnus: to likely be conjecture.

The Court retains that in fulfilling its duty, it must limit itself to a reasoning that is founded upon objective facts; upon that which emerged procedurally that are the most objective possible.

An argument characteristically objective that emerged procedurally was evidence that, after the murder of Meredith Kercher, selective or not, there was a clean-up of the traces of the murder, and a maneuvering of the body of poor Meredith into a position (between the armoire and the wall of the room and covered by a duvet) that certainly doesn’t correspond with the position in which the girl died, at the end of the aggressive phase. Someone spent much time within the cottage on the night between November 1st and 2nd, 2007, altering the crime scene and destroying numerous traces. The evidence provided by the Scientific Police proves this incontestable truth, which the Court’s reasoning must take into consideration.

4. Slander, false alibi. Pg. 92-146.

5. The probative picture inferable by the testimonies of the defendants and witnesses. Pg. 146-175.

6. The genetic investigations of the evidence. Pg. 175-250.

7. Shoe prints, footprints, and hand prints. Pg. 250-263.

8. The attempt to pollute the evidence in the appellate court. The testimonies of witnesses Aviello and Alessi. Pg. 263-289.

9. The testimonies of Rudy Hermann Guede. Pg. 289-308.

10. Conclusive evaluations. Pg. 308-328.

From the results of the analysis of the entire body of evidence, this Court finds it possible to develop some conclusive considerations.

Each piece of evidence from the entire body of evidence that was been obtained from the proceedings, of absolute consistency in their quantity and significance, was singularly evaluated and analyzed by this Court with the articulated treatment that verified their part in the context in which the homicide occurred. None of the clues examined individually resulted eccentric, by nature or by significance, in respect to the means of their cause. It is also useless to go over them individually again in this circumstance. It would be a useless weighing down of this report. The assignment of this concluding paragraph  is instead to evaluate altogether the circumstantial clues collected and already evaluated as conferring, in order to verify, by examining them together, if there emerges a probative picture of unequivocal significance that affirms the criminal responsibility of the defendants of the murder of Meredith Kercher, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Confirmation of the criminal responsibility of the defendants of the crime ascribed to them can be reached only if there is no reasonably reliable explanation other than the theory that emerged in the investigation of their personal involvement in the crime. Doubt over the significance of the circumstantial evidence that would justify an acquittal of the defendants must be reasonable, and not just a hypothesis unsupported by any objective evidence. The truth that emerges from the probative picture must be ascertained with exclusion of any reasonable explanation of the means of their cause that is different than the involvement of the defendants.

This Court affirms that an alternate explanation of the causes of the circumstantial evidence, for how they were ascertained in the proceedings, is not conceivable, and that the body of evidence, if evaluated critically, inevitably affirms the criminal responsibility of both the defendants of the crime ascribed to them.

One must then proceed to the reconstruction of the events of the evening of November 1st, 2007 exclusively using that which was ascertained from the proceedings and that which one may obtain from the procedural material of a declarative nature, as well as that which results from the technical investigations that took place in the course of the trial.

It is proven that Meredith Kercher, who had spent the afternoon at the house of her British friends looking at photographs and some videos having to do with the past night of Halloween, returned home around 9:00 p.m. in the evening. At that time no one was present in the cottage of Via della Pergola. The proposal by the defense that by 9:00 p.m. Rudy Hermann Guede would have already been present within the cottage via the window in Filomena Romanelli’s bedroom has already resulted, from a detailed analysis, to be unfounded.

The British girl arrived home and entered using the keys that she had at her disposal. Laura Mezzetti and Filomena Romanelli were both distant from the cottage (Laura Mezzetti gone from Perugia even) while Amanda Marie Knox was at Raffaele Sollecito’s house, presumably together intent on watching the film previously downloaded from the internet.

Both the defendants only by 8:00 p.m. of the evening of November 1st, 2007 were aware that they could spend the night together. In fact, Amanda Marie Knox, who had left Sollecito’s apartment to go to Patrick Lumumba’s pub were she was to work for the whole evening, received a text from Lumumba communicating to her that she didn’t have to work that night at the pub. The girl then returned to Raffaele Sollecito’s home. He then received a communication at 8:30 p.m. that there was no longer the necessity that he accompany his friend, Popovic, to pick up a suitcase from the bus station at midnight that had been sent to her by her mother.

Around 9:00 p.m. on the evening of November 1st, 2007, therefore, without it having been possible before, but by coincidence, both the defendants had the possibility to spend the evening together.

The last certain evidence of the presence of both of the defendants in the apartment of Via Garibaldi #130 consists in the human interaction on Raffaele Sollecito’s computer around 9:20 p.m. that night, presumably by Sollecito himself. Then, until 5:30 a.m. the morning after, when Raffaele Sollecito’s computer in his apartment at Via Garibaldi #130 was again solicited by human interaction, neither of the defendants provided reliable indications of where they were.

The witness Curatolo placed them in Piazza Grimana already from 9:30/10:00 p.m. of that evening, where the witness claimed to have noticed them many times until 11:00/11:30 p.m. of the same evening; a circumstance that the Court holds to be reliable for the reasons already expressed.

One must immediately observe that Piazza Grimana was a few tens of meters from the entrance of the cottage of Via della Pergola; a cottage that can be observed by leaning on the railing that borders the piazza, and from which Curatolo saw Raffaele Sollecito lean, evidently interested in what was happening around the cottage.

A first fact that can be inferred from the procedural acquisitions is that both the defendants from 9:30/10:00 p.m. on the night of November 1st, 2007, were stationed a few tens of meters from the cottage which Meredith Kercher had already entered, around 9:00 p.m.

Amanda Marie Knox was the only person, other than Meredith Kercher who was in the apartment and the other housemates Laura Mezzetti and Filomena Romanelli who were far away from the cottage, to have access to the keys to the house. It doesn’t result from the facts that any other person was also in possession of them.

We know for certain that the evening of November 1st, 2007 Rudy Hermann Guede was present inside the cottage of Via della Pergola, and not only because this was affirmed in his conviction and also by his own testimony, but also based upon the investigations of the judicial police inside the cottage and evidence they deposited. Just as we know with certainty that Rudy Hermann Guede remained in the cottage for a considerable period of time with absolute tranquility, seeing as he left his “traces” in the big bathroom of the apartment.

We know for certain, because the probative picture allows it, that immediately after the murder within the cottage of Via della Pergola there were three persons present, certainly two men and a woman. This is confirmed by the genetic investigations and from the results of the traces revealed by luminal. We can also affirm that one of the men, who stepped in Meredith Kercher’s blood, left a visible trace of his foot on the blue bathmat found in the small bathroom of the apartment. This footprint was attributed by the investigators, an attribution that this Court agrees with based on the already developed considerations, to the right bare foot of Raffaele Sollecito. One of the footprints revealed by luminal was attributed by the judicial police to a female foot corresponding, by measurement, to that of Amanda Marie Knox, just as the mixed traces of DNA in the small bathroom of the apartment were attributed to Amanda Marie Knox (sink, bidet and Q-tip box).

We have altogether probative elements of certain reliability, that are numerous and concordant, that place Rudy Hermann Guede, Amanda Marie Knox and Raffaele Sollecito within the apartment of Via della Pergola the evening of the murder of Meredith Kercher, and in the immediate phases after the murder, when the three left traces of their presence by stepping in the blood of the victim that poured copiously from her wounds.

From the examination of the testimonies discussed, and noted by the girl’s British friends, there emerges with reasonable reliability the fact that Meredith Kercher, the evening between November 1st and 2nd, 2007, did not have an appointment with Rudy Hermann Guede, contrary to his own testimony. The girl, at the moment of leaving her friends’ house, with whom she had confidence and to whom she had not mentioned any appointment with Rudy Hermann Guede, had led them to believe she was tired, because the preceding night she had partied and the next day she had to study. One may therefore affirm that Rudy Hermann Guede entered into the apartment with the use of keys that, the night of November 1st, 2007, only Amanda Marie Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had at their disposal.

It’s prudent to clarify at this point that the fact that Raffaele Sollecito had never before met Rudy Hermann Guede  has scarse significance in the reconstruction of the events, because the connecton between the latter and the defendant is constituted without a doubt by Amanda Marie Knox, who was Raffaele Sollecito’s girlfriend and who had met Rudy Hermann Guede on more than one occasion.

In any case, what matters is not whether Rudy Hermann Guede entered the apartment with Amanda Marie Knox and Raffaele Sollecito or if Meredith Kercher opened the door for him (the only possible options, excluding the entrance via the window of Filomena Romanelli’s bedroom); what’s important is that, at a certain point, most likely between 9:30 and 10:00 p.m. the night of November 1st, 2007, both of the defendants and Rudy Hermann Guede were certainly within the cottage, and Meredith Kercher in her bedroom.

The development of the sucessive events necessitates a premise.

The prosecutor hypothesized in his closing arguments, specifically in relation to the motive of the murder, that it cannot be identified as a sexual aggression, but one that roots itself in a situation of conflict between the girls, a conflict that suddenly exploded the night of November 1st, 2007; and specifically by the fact that Meredith Kercher had blamed Amanda Marie Knox for having let Rudy Hermann Guede into the apartment, and he having made inurbane use of the apartment’s bathroom.

With regard to the problematic issue of the motive, it is first of all prudent to remember the direction of the Court of Legitimacy, according to which the exact identification of the motive of a murder loses its relevancy when the attribution of the responsibility of the defendant is derived from a probative picture that is precise and concordant.

Second of all, the motive of a grave, bloody crime cannot always be readily deciphered. It may certainly be when the crime occurs in the context of criminal association, or when the crime was committed with evident finality (profit, for example). But where instead, as in this case, one is working with the consummation of a crime completely detached from a criminal framework, but in all likelihood is rooted in motivations of a personal character or in instantaneous drives, the identification of the motive may become extremely complicated.

Motivations that drive multiple persons reunited to commit an act as grave as that of taking the life of another human being may not be united in character, in the sense that each of the accomplices may be the carrier of an accumulation of motives, some of which may be embedded in previous personal relationships, while others may respond to instantaneous drives of a communal nature, or also the simple adhesion to the behavior of the person to whom one is affectively tied.

The difficulty in pursuing an effective knowledge of the motivations that regulate human actions—in whose scope also enters the consummation of crimes—imposes an analytical approach that is as objective as possible. To effect an analysis of the facts that emerged during the trial for the sake of identifying a precise motive that would have driven the defendants, together with Rudy Hermann Guede, to the murder of Meredith Kercher, one must begin with an evaluation of a series of facts that, if evaluated together, may produce an indication of the reasons for which the murder was committed; without, however, the validity of that or any other motivation, reconstructed a posteriori, minimally affecting the conclusion, in regards to the responsibility, derived in a unique manner from the circumstantial and incriminating evidence that emerged in the course of the trial and that were thoroughly investigated.

And so a first fact may be immediately perceived. Amanda Marie Knox and Meredith Kercher did not have a good relationship. Meredith Kercher, who conducted a very regulated lifestyle of study and spending time with her fellow British friends, and who had begun an intimate relationship with one of the young men who lived in the semi-underground apartment of the cottage, did not tolerate the way in which Amanda Marie Knox interpreted cohabitation of the same apartment. In particular it has arisen from witness statements that the British girl did not tolerate the fact that Amanda Marie Knox brought strange persons to the apartment, especially young men; she did not tolerate that Amanda Marie Knox used communal spaces of the apartment and didn’t take part in the cleaning, such that in the last period of their cohabitation, it was necessary for the young women to construct a kind of schedule system for the performing of domestic chores.

Essentially, and looking beyond the scarce significance of the singular circumstances, once taken together in a greater context of relations, there is no doubt that the concrete behaviors of the defendant constituted reason for which she did earn the sympathy of Meredith Kercher.

The fact that the relationship between the American girl and the British girl was not idyllic is adequately illuminated in the testimonies of the British girls who were examined in the course of the first trial; and it is Amanda Marie Knox herself who, in her interrogation before the Court of Perugia, hinted at the difficulty of her relationship with the victim, if undervaluing the circumstance.

Lastly are the declarations made by Rudy Hermann Guede in the course of the interrogations made following his arrest. Guede claimed that Meredith Kercher, the night she was murdered, had discovered money was missing from her bedroom, and she immediately blamed the theft on Amanda Marie Knox. Regardless of the whether or not the victim’s blame of the American girl was justified, that which interests the Court is to observe that in this circumstance referred by Guede, the fact is that, in the face of an event of objective severity, that of the theft of money within an apartment shared by multiple girls, a situation of inevitable promiscuity, the British girl immediately attributed the action to Amanda Marie Knox; a circumstance that is compatible only with a negative evaluation of the personality of the defendant by part of the victim.

But the theme of money brought to the attention of the Court by the declarations made by Rudy Hermann Guede and recalled in the conviction of the same, introduces another reflection.

It results from the witness testimonies heard in the first trial that in the days preceding November 1st, 2007, nearing the due date of the monthly rent payment, Filomena Romanelli invited all of the girls to procure the sum of 300 euro that constituted the amount each of them had to pay for the payment of the rent of the apartment they occupied. It also results that the victim had the money at her disposal, and evidently kept it in her bedroom.

The sum of 300 euro was certainly in the bedroom occupied by Meredith Kercher and it was not found after her murder, just as her credit cards were not found; such that the sum of money and the credit cards constituted an object of the theft noted in letter D) of the indictment. It is surely of interest to observe, after the elevated indictment relative to the theft of the sum of the money and the credit cards, there was no further trace of those goods in the court documents or in the minutes of the proceedings. The only reference is on page 471 of the sentence handed down by the Court of Perugia at the first trial, which reads: “the total of the given evidence that was evaluated singularly demonstrates a overall and unitary picture, without holes or incongruencies, that demands as a necessary and strictly consequential result the attribution of the hypothesized facts of the crime to both of the defendants to which is therefore declared the criminal responsibility, with exclusion of the objects of letter D) that are other than the cell phones, of which no evidence emerged incriminating the defendants, for which they are acquitted of the rest of the indictment because the crime doesn’t subsist.”

Rudy Hermann Guede was also absolved of the theft (in his case of the entire indictment) according to article 530,2 by the GUP of the Court of Perugia for not having committed the act. One understands that the Judge evaluated the circumstance as totally devoid of proof, because in the entire body of the sentence there is no evaluation on the subject.

In any case, and noting that both of the defendants and Rudy Hermann Guede were all absolved of the theft in relation to the indictment with reference to the 300 euro and the two credit cards, there remains the fact that both the money and the cards were never found;  just as the fact remains that on the evening of November 1st, 2007 it does not result that anyone entered the cottage of Via della Pergola other than the defendants and Rudy Hermann Guede.

If, then, the acquittal of the defendants of the theft described above constitutes an indisputable element seeing as it is covered by the judgment, in any case the circumstance of the disappearance of the money and the credit cards never was explained in the court documents, and could constitute an element that could have sparked a discussion between the defendants, Rudy Hermann Guede (who references the circumstance explicitly in all of his interrogations, including the guaranty hearing) and Meredith Kercher; in addition to the circumstance that Rudy Hermann Guede effectively used the bathroom of the residence in a casual manner, as he was used to do, at least in that one which was in use of the young men who resided in the lower part of the cottage.

But there is another certain element that must be evaluated in the scope of the reconstruction of the events on the night of November 1st, 2007 and in the possible reconstruction of the motive of the murder.

Surely Meredith Kercher suffered a sexual assault, with vaginal penetration by the fingers of the hand of Rudy Hermann Guede. This fact is confirmed by the finding of the convict’s DNA inside the vagina of the victim and, furthermore, expressly admitted y the same Rudy Hermann Guede in all of his interrogations, if however in the context of a situation of affectionate exchange with the British girl which advances were, according to Guede, not only tolerated by the victim, but also encouraged.

11. Sanctioning treatment. Pg. 328-337.

UPDATE – 16 May 2014

Luca Cheli has written a thorough review of the Nencini Report, including translations: Knox and Sollecito: Dissection of a Conviction.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1,753 Responses to The Nencini Report

  1. Pigsticker says:

    Just thought I’d bring this link back to the top of your blog:

    http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/crime/op-ed-dna-laboratory-fraud-revealed-in-amanda-knox-case/article/386758#ixzz359YuyEHH

    Exposing Stefanoni is key to dismantling the entire bogus case.

  2. Carol F. says:

    Not sure my other post to you had the right email address, it is above in this one.

  3. Carol F. says:

    I have been in your corner from the start. I think you are dealing with egos, and a prosecutors really nasty fantasy world. ( I personally think many Italians are just crazy women haters, you should read about their own feminist perspective who agree, and they ARE Italians, 1//2 my family is Italian origins, and have that same female prejudice, and twisted thinking, its really sad (to put it mildly), you seem more understanding that I am about all that! Just look up what feminist Italian women have to say. It may help you emotionally, IDK>
    I also would like to add that I completely understand how they basically set you up in the interrogation and throughout.
    I do wonder a few things .
    1. why don’t you take a polygraph, a good one, like with jack trimarko fbi. Is that too risky, or inconclusive or what. If not, you could help your reputation , and build off his, as a reputable administrator of them. I would strongly advise that you do NOT talk to dr. phil McGraw , who made Trimarko famous, because I have been watching him for 12+ years and he sets women up ALL THE TIME, on his show, makes them say things on tv, and helps the MALES not the females, his wife is the same way. He misuses his knowledge of the law and mental health against women . I HOPE YOU DONT TRUST that, you will be sorry if you do. He twists and uses his knowledge against women and to help the males all the time, every time, even when he knows he is guilty. He knows how sexist mental health is also and will send her their to be labeled, and the guy he will just ‘coach’ and build up. Good for you for avoiding him all this time, good for you. Women cant trust either of them Phil/Robin, and I don’t know why they think that they can… I wish they had nothing to do with female or male children either. They ALWAYS trash(even if people don’t realize that trashing can be that he sends them to a mental health therapist for labels, etc ) the women and help the males, even if abusers. He may at times pretend otherwise, but you cannot trust him/them. I wish there were some I think you could, besides the ones I give you below to check out for yourself.
    2. why don’t you have an American attorney trained and licensed in both countries. Or as it seems popular, ask the Justice Dept to help you ? Maybe need them later , IDK>
    3. I have sent you this information and do not know if you got it. Listen, this is the only healing tool that will help you resolve your feelings, fear, anxiety, trauma and that is why I am sending it. By resolve, I mean remove the trauma feelings so that the memory fades into the background like other memories , can be recalled or remembered, with out the trauma/feelings, like a neutralized/healed memory. It is the only method to do that. It is PAINLESS , you don’t have to re-live it, or talk about it over and over , and it requires no medications or labels, etc. I hope you check it out. Many people clear a lot out by themselves, even severe trauma, then get help with the rest if they need it. It is at the first site, for FREE.
    Please don’t over look this or discount it. emofree dot com, stressproject dot org, eftmasters dot com masteringeft dot com eftuniverse dot com, if you put PTSD in the search bar you will see the clinical trials results showing it healed PTSD in vets by 85-100% in SIX hours (that is remarkable , and far surpasses anything else), it also shows successful stories, some of them. One young lady cleared her own entire sexually abused childhood in 3 months, with the free version.
    It works far better, fasters than EMDR and will resolve your traumas quickly and so that they don’t come back, look at it healing PTSD in soldiers in SIX hours by 85-100%. I think you need this, you have been very traumatized. There is lots of evidence and clinical trials to show it works. It is accepted by the American Psychological Association as a profound healing too.
    The Congress, VA and others know about it but it is not profitable to medicine, and the VA would rather spend money building TBI hospitals. One soldier commits suicide due to PTSD every hour in this country. That’s 22 /day.
    It also would help you PREVENT trauma on an ongoing basis , if you clear yourself daily of the days pain. It would help your family. You can all learn the method, create a healing circle and tap along with each other to heal whatever comes up, as well. It also can be used to build you up, build up your confidence and love, and it can be used surrogately for others.
    I feel SO badly for you , Amanda. I think you should not have to be going through this at all.
    I believe you have a LOT of support in this country and people who believe you are innocent.
    I am sorry to see that your ex bf, decided to save himself by implicating YOU, that is desperate and sad.
    PLEASE don’t go back. Pack a bag and disappear before you do that, or if it should come to that, I hope not, I don’t think it would go well for you there . I don’t think this country will send you back, again, I hope not.
    I BELIEVE your stories of abuse in prison, and the rest. I did NOT even read your book. I may some time. PS I honestly think they have the right person in jail, and or, there is someone completely not looked at yet.
    Have faith and know that people are supportive of you and your family.
    The best to you. CF (you can write to me , I just don’t want to give my name out publically)

  4. John Lazarus says:

    An important overlooked article from Nov 4, 2007, by Polly Dunbar and Nick Pisa, shedding light on how to reconstruct the events of Nov 2.

    STUDENT KILLER ‘MAY HAVE BEEN WOMAN’; FROM POLLY DUNBAR AND NICK PISA IN PERUGIA; AS ITALIAN POLICE ASK IF MEREDITH KNEW HER MURDERER, FRIENDS AND FAMILY TELL OF THEIR SHOCK
    1739 words
    4 November 2007
    The Mail on Sunday
    MOSM
    English
    (c) 2007 Associated Newspapers. All rights reserved

    POLICE in Italy searching for the killer of a British student were last night investigating the theory that she could have been murdered by a woman.

    Meredith Kercher, 21, who was on a postgraduate gap year in the picturesque town of Perugia, was discovered semi-naked on her bed on Friday with a single knife wound to her neck.

    Police say there is evidence that she had recently had sex – but they do not know whether it was consensual. They said they found her ripped bra on the floor of her bedroom.

    As friends, family and a former boyfriend paid moving tributes to the student, senior detective Marco Chiacchiera said the local force was looking at ‘all possible lines’.

    He said this included the possibility that the murderer was a woman who had been well known to the victim. ‘We are questioning her female housemates as well as her friends,’ he said. ‘We are not convinced by the theory her killer was a boyfriend as we do not believe she had one.’

    The potential twist came as the mother of Meredith’s housemate, Amanda Knox, told how her daughter had returned home to a ‘horrific’ murder scene.

    Meredith, who was on an exchange from Leeds University, was discovered by police when they went to her house to return her two mobile phones, one English and one Italian, which had been found lying in the undergrowth of the nearby Parco Sant’Angelo.

    Yesterday, forensic teams were still examining the simple, whitewashed two-storey house Meredith shared with Amanda and two Italian girls. When her body was found, the door to the house was closed from the inside, leading police to assume the assailant left through a window. It is thought she had been dead for around 12 hours.

    Traces of blood were found in the bathroom sink and police said this could be evidence that the killer had washed before leaving. Detectives are puzzled by the lack of blood elsewhere in the house, and are investigating the possibility the killer had a change of clothes.

    Phone records on calls received and dialled from both mobiles were also being examined to see if they could provide clues about her killer.

    Friends said Meredith did not appear to have had a regular partner since she arrived at the town in August to study at the University for Foreigners.

    Pasquale Pisco, the owner of Merlin’s Bar, where she attended a Hallowe’en Party on Wednesday night, said: ‘Meredith used to come in here all the time and I never saw her with a regular boyfriend. She may have had the occasional romance but I know she was not seeing anyone seriously.’

    Following the Hallowe’en celebrations, it is known that Meredith spent Thursday relaxing at college. According to Mr Pisco, she spent Thursday evening watching the romantic film The Notebook at her friend Sophie Purton’s house nearby.

    He said: ‘Sophie told me Meredith came round to her house to watch The Notebook and left at 9pm on Thursday.

    ‘They were close friends who spent a lot of time together. I met Meredith through Sophie when she brought her to the bar one night and got to know both of them pretty well, although Meredith’s Italian was not particularly good.

    ‘Meredith was a lovely girl, very calm and tranquil. They both came to my place dressed in Hallowe’en costumes on Wednesday night and I saw them later at the Domus nightclub. Meredith looked like she was having a great time, dancing with her friends.’

    It is still not known whether Meredith went home alone on Thursday night, or if she met someone after leaving her friend’s house.

    Edda Knox, the mother of 20-year-old Amanda, who is studying German, Italian and Japanese at another college in Perugia, said she had returned to the house on Friday morning after staying with a friend.

    Mrs Knox, a Seattle primary school teacher, said her daughter, who was yesterday being questioned by police, had ‘freaked out’ to find the house crawling with police.

    ‘The police were there and asking her questions and she was in state of shock. She said it was horrific.

    ‘She didn’t give me the exact details. She was too upset but she said something about a cell phone and the police had showed up as she’d gotten home.

    ‘I don’t know if they broke down the door before or after my daughter arrived. I read online about there possibly being a boyfriend but Amanda never mentioned anything about one to me and I haven’t asked her about it.

    ‘She didn’t know Meredith a whole lot. She knew the two Italian girls much better because when she arrived in Perugia in August, they took the flat together and there was a room available and it was filled by Meredith.’

    The house where Meredith was murdered is in an idyllic location, standing on a hilltop and boasting stunning views across the Umbrian countryside.

    It has a small terrace outside an upper bedroom, where neighbours say Meredith enjoyed sitting with her housemates and chatting over a glass of wine after lectures in film history at the university.

    Despite the beautiful setting, however, Perugia has a darker side. The town has the highest concentration of heroin addicts in Italy and in its rundown streets syringes can be spotted outside addiction clinics.

    A friend, who would give only her first name, Olienke, described Meredith as ‘hard-working and studious during the day but a girl who would never turn down an invitation to party in the evenings’.

    A Dutch neighbour, who would not give his name, said he was on the same film course as Meredith at the university, where her studies were funded by the Erasmus international programme.

    ‘She was a clever girl who seemed very intelligent and took her studies seriously,’ he said. ‘We went to the local bars, Merlin’s and La Tana, together on a few occasions.

    ‘All the students are incredibly shocked by this terrible news. We are all terrified and will be until they catch the killer.’

    Last night, one of Meredith’s former boyfriends described her as ‘great fun’. Patrick Cronin, 22, who now lives in Australia, dated Meredith a couple of years ago when the pair were both living in Britain. Speaking from his new home in Southport, on the Gold Coast, where he moved almost two years ago, the sports student said: ‘I couldn’t believe it.

    ‘Meredith was great fun with a really good sense of humour. She loved to have a drink and to party. I can’t imagine anyone wanting to hurt her. She was a very intense person but really lovely. This has been quite shocking.’

    Meredith’s father recalled the last words he exchanged with his daughter, hours before she was killed. John Kercher said she had called him from Italy on Thursday in between lectures.

    Mr Kercher, 64, a freelance journalist, said: ‘She phoned me here at home from her mobile.

    ‘It was just a quick call. She just wanted to know if I was OK. It was unusual because it was 2pm and she didn’t often phone in the day because of lectures and things.

    ‘We often spoke in the evening. We spoke almost every day. She was so sweet like that, checking on me.’

    He added: ‘I am in total shock. I am just numb. What makes it worse is that she fought so hard to get out there. There were quite a few setbacks but she was determined to go and kept persisting and eventually got what she wanted.’

    Mr Kercher is believed to be separated from Meredith’s mother Arline, but lives in a flat in Croydon, Surrey, near the £400,000 family home in Coulsdon.

    He arrived at the house yesterday morning to be with Mrs Kercher and their other children, Stephanie, 24, Lyle, 28, and John,

    30. The curtains remained drawn throughout the day as several bouquets were left by florists and family friends.

    Mr Kercher said Meredith had initially been told by Leeds University she was not allowed to take part in the study programme overseas. She was finally given permission on April 23 this year.

    Mr Kercher said: ‘She had the choice of going to Milan, Rome or Perugia. But everyone told her to go to Perugia because it is smaller and quieter and, we thought, safer.’

    Perugia, the capital of Umbria, has a population of 161,000 – a third of which are students. Many are from abroad, studying at the University for Foreigners which was set up in 1921 to spread awareness of the region throughout the world.

    Students can be found everywhere in the town, particularly in the cafes and bars surrounding the main university building.

    Merlin’s bar is popular with foreign students because of its happy hour, from 10.30pm until 11.30pm every night, in which its cocktails are half-price and a variety of food is available free to customers.

    Merlin’s, like nearby La Tana del Orso, stays open until 2am playing loud, cheerful Italian pop music. La Tana is run by Estevan Garcia Pascual, whose wife Lucy is a British former Erasmus student at the university.

    Additional reporting: Jo Knowsley in Sydney and Sharon Churcher in New York

    A CHANCE TO STUDY ABROAD

    THE Erasmus programme that Meredith was on offers students the chance to study part of their degree in another European country.

    It was set up in 1987 and named after the philosopher Erasmus, who lived and worked in many places in Europe to increase his knowledge.

    Students go abroad for up to one academic year, building up credits that go towards their final degree results. The aim of the project is to improve their language skills. There are 1.4million students participating in the scheme across 31 countries.

    Students do not have to pay extra tuition fees to the university they visit, and can even apply for a grant to fund their living expenses.

    It gives them the opportunity to learn about the host country as well as the chance to socialise – ‘Erasmus parties’ are renowned in university cities for being wild.

    • Jamie says:

      This article is of interest only because it goes to show that days into the investigation they were already planting the seeds in the media to arrest and convict Amanda of the murder by suggesting that it may have been committed by a woman that the victim knew. They suggested that the murderer may have been female although they do not site objective evidence for making that determination and then they repeatedly mention Amanda’s name. It supports Amanda’s claim that she was targeted irrationally from the beginning.

  5. Elias says:

    Hi Amanda,

    This may seem a little familier, eh?

    http://www.wantedinrome.com/news/2003332/expat-photographer-arrested-in-front-of-colosseum.html

    No more Italy for me until you and Raff are exonerated, vindicated, and apologized to.

    e

  6. toon van der sandt says:

    One more comment: According to recent publications in the media about a video of a young woman, telephone contacts with a drug dealer, a now missing alibi for the (early) evening, doubts to Amanda’s innocence are suggested. But it seems to me, that Italian police and justice overrun themselves in their zeal to deliver “proof” of their suspicion. It seems to me, that they as well could try to show, that Amanda has connections with a Higher Civilisation on Sirius, or that she has been whispering Secret Spells in the house all night long since that evening.
    However, as the second trial clearly has decided: there is no sign of any role of Amanda and Rafaello in the murder that night. Until now, we are just dealing with the constructive-creative mind-products of Rudi Guede and the Judges of the first and third trial. Lets at most award to satisfy them with an Oscar or Pulitzer Prize, but jurisdiction is something else: “To offend and judge are distinct offices, and of opposed nature”, (Shakespeare, the merchant of Venice).

    • Paul says:

      I am curious why Amanda doesn’t speak out about the phone calls and alleged relationship with the cocaine dealer. The individuals involved have a criminal history,one is very violent. If your blog is active and you allow people to bring up the recent reports why not address them? It seems there is possibly more news coming from the Italian media about phone calls and your involvement with these individuals. It might be in your best interest to say so if there is really nothing to report.

      • Jamie says:

        Amanda has been posting less frequently as of late. With this most recent, ludicrous conviction she may be following legal advice not to address these allegations.

      • Pigsticker says:

        Have you ever read her book? Pay specific attention to Chapter 2. In it, she describes her encounter with the man on the train, how the affair ended and why she would have no reason to ever want to contact him again.

  7. Toon v.d. Sandt says:

    About the image of Cold Angel, that has been created up by the media I would like to make some comments: When one sees some pictures of Amanda one might think: Wow, she really has a piercing look, she might be some representation of Evil. But in reality this all is part of an image that is created by the media. In fact Amanda could only a very suited Hollywood actor to play some dark princess, or the Bad Stepmother of Snow-white in a Hollywood movie.
    But this is real life and not the fantastic movie or play, that the Italian media try to keep up.
    And in real life there is ust an American student in Perugia, who has had the bad luck to have been in the neighbourhood of some Rudi Guede, who succesfully has put his blame on others .
    So Italy (“Berlusconia”), wake up and treat your foreign students well according to a sound jurisdiction.

  8. Toon v.d. Sandt says:

    (my comment of 25 july seems to be lost?)

    Dear Amanda and others.

    From 2007 on, in news broadcasting and papers in Holland the trial about the murder of Meredith Kercher was shown in such a way, that Amanda was depicted as a sure committer of the crime. In fact, Dutch articles and reports followed that of the Italian press. But some years ago, our bookstores saw the publication of Amanda’s book, which showed the terror of being exposed to the personal pressure and accusations of the Italian Justice and four years of imprisonment. From the picture of a Cold Relentless Angel the image of Amanda evolved to one of a young senstive woman, who had hoped to live a nice time in Perugia as a happy student, sharing love and friendship with her fellow-students, but walked into the trap of accusation of involvement to this murder, simply because she had lived too close together to Meredith to be clearly distinguishable from being innocent. When reading more about this case on the Internet I learned that there many fictions had grown in and around the case. What we now see, is that Italian Justice, in a somewhat emotional way of dealing with facts and reports, tries to “prove” Amanda’s guilt.
    I see this as Amanda being tragically being trapped in the jaws of a unproperly functioning Italian Justice, which has cost her yet as much of her life as if she were really guilty. By the many facts and fictions to the outsider (like me) it hard to tell what is true and what is not. But I do see that truth and lies are unacceptably mixed together, where they should be clearly kept apart. I hope, that in the last and final trial this will be acknowlegded by the Italian Supreme Court and that persecution will be stopped: Not guilty. Nobody, and especially not a young and vulnerable young person, deserves to be exposed to the actions of Italian Police and Prosecution.
    I once (1980) knew a friend, who went from Holland to Perugia to study Italian Language there for three months. He has had there a very happy stay: he met a girlfriend and also other friends, who visited him later in Holland. A international atmosphere of tolerance and understanding.
    A brutal murder between such students, who get to know and appreciate eachother in a short time, is unthinkable and most unlikely.
    Amanda has shown to have a strong willpower to survive all this; helped by the support of friends and relatives, the gift of writing and due to her natural sense to survival.

  9. toon v.d. sandt says:

    In the year 1980 a friend of mine went to Perugia to study Italian. He met a girlfriend there and more friends and had a wonderful time of love and friendship. I imagine, how in such a background the murder has taken place. But I, now separated in time and space from the tragic events in 2007, cannot tell the difference the difference between truth, and lies and nonsense.
    What I do see is the second tragedy of young people being trapped in the Jaws of Italian Justice, which cannot come to a uniform and sound conclusion. Jaws that indecisively keep on chewing on the accused. In the end (= now) there is hardly difference in if one is guilty or not: a long period of detention & nerve-wrecking and lasting trials is what one can get.
    This is a grim play, where one can only lose. Let the last trial soon be over, never visit that indecisive Mediëval country again, and now hope for the best. In Dutch we speak of a: Bananen Republiek, (Banana Republic), where Law, Justice and Investigations take place according to subjective standards.

  10. Mike the skier says:

    Is the PO Box for sending congratulations to Amanda for graduating still open and what is the address?

  11. Frank Fischer 1904 says:

    I’m a German lawyer and this case is very disturbing. I feel ashamed that a european justice System is responsible for this. In Germany this would be unthinkable. But Italy is different. No prove whatsoever. Good look and stay in Seattle:-)

  12. Jim Hiatt says:

    1. Of all the evidence brought under suspicion in the Hellmann trial, why did Judge Nencini only choose to re-analyze Amanda’s DNA on the alleged murder weapon handle? I mean, no one questioned the validity of her DNA on the knife from Raffaele’s apartment; it was Meredith’s miniscule DNA on the blade that was in question. 2. Why did Nencini accept as “fact” the words of RG that Meredith told him she believed Amanda stole her 300 euros; but insisted that Amanda was the one who let Rudy into the apartment even though Rudy insisted that he followed Meredith to her apartment and Meredith let him in for consensual sex? I mean, how did Nencini know that one thing Rudy said was true, but the other false? 3. Why did Nencini refuse to test the semen sample after the defense requested it be tested? Can you imagine any other court (save for maybe one in North Korea) that would not test semen found at a murder scene where two of the co-conspirators are male? 4. Why did Nencini claim that the break in was staged because RG would have had a cut/s on his hand if he had crawled through the broken window when Rudy was brought into custody two weeks after the murder with a gash on his hand that was healing? Did Nencini just forget to review the prosecution’s evidence? 5. Why did Nencini say that because the Knox DNA on the knife handle tested positive in the Rome crime lab as her’s, that proves that all the other evidence submitted by Stefanoni in the Massei trial must also be valid.

    • Pigsticker says:

      I can only conclude that he was trying to cover for those responsible for the big frame-up. Just like when the prosecution appealed the acquittals. Fortunately, Hellmann didn’t do a good job of it. Maybe he secretly wants A & R to appeal.

  13. Elias says:

    It doesn’t matter to me what nonsense is published in Italy.

    Things play out over time.

    And I believe Amanda’s version of events.

    • David Turnblom says:

      Made easier by the fact that the material evidence in this case supports almost everything she says. I believe her, too, and her honesty in little, verifiable things makes it easier for me to believe her when she proclaims facts about larger evidence that is harder to verify (such as the events of the evening of 2007-11-05 and the early morning hours of 2007-11-06).

      I’ve read headlines about Raffele’s supposed turncoat announcement, but I’ve refused to read the articles because I believed his statements were taken out of context. Based on what I’ve learned today (that he was responding to allegations made by the Italian courts), I believe the headlines were.

      • Antony says:

        David Turnblom: “I’ve read headlines about Raffele’s supposed turncoat announcement, but I’ve refused to read the articles because I believed his statements were taken out of context.”

        Many of the news stories used headlines that didn’t reflect the details of the story. So the headline suggested that Raffaele was changing his story, but the article contained a more accurate report of what he was saying.

        • David Turnblom says:

          That is a point. My refusal to read the articles, however, came more out of a desire not support the use of such underhanded tactics in order to ‘sell’ an article. I did check out an article that gave a less biased review of his press release after I posted this statement, but my original sentiment still stands. Amanda is more believable than her opposition because she has been so consistent in telling the truth.

      • Pigsticker says:

        I’ve seen alot of people on both sides take Raffaele’s statements out of context. In particular, where Bongiorno says that “Amanda did leave earlier in the evening”. They tend to leave out the “According to the recent ruling” part before that. That puts her statement in an entirely different context:

        “According to the recent ruling, Amanda did leave earlier in the evening”. In other words, Bongiorno is NOT saying that Amanda left Raffaele’s apartment, but that she’s leaving it up to Amanda’s lawyers to prove her alibi.

        And even if Amanda WAS out when she texted Patrick, that still doesn’t place her at the crime scene. Remember that she thought was supposed to be working that night, until she discovered his text message. She could have still been at Raffaele’s when she responded or she could have been on her way home to change for work, only to turn around when she found out it was a slow night. Either way, she was back in Raffaele’s apartment by 8:40, because it was her that answered the door for Popovik.

  14. Richard M says:

    It would be outrageous if the members of the next Court of Cassation that hears this latest appeal do not dismiss this case against Amanda and Raffaele. The Court members are each well aware of who they are dealing with in Guede. He is a killer and this murder was up close and personal. When Meredith returned while he was burglarizing the apartment he could have just ducked out the door, probably before she could recognize him. Rape is all about control, hate and rage and all these emotions surfaced in Guede the instant he saw her. He pulled his knife intending to rape her at knifepoint. He became enraged when she attempted to fight back so he cut her throat. It is easy to see for anyone who looks what kind of a sick punk Guede is. He cut and tore off her clothes while she was bleeding to death. As he raped her he could see the fear and pleading in her eyes and hear her attempt to beg for mercy from a monster that had none. After he was done and Meredith was dead he just grabbed her money and phones and gave no more thought to the person he had just robbed of 60 years of living on this earth. Then he went dancing and drinking before he fled the country. This creep has not shown a speck of remorse but only cares about himself.
    This is the reality that has been proven by the DNA and all other forensic evidence. The Court cannot and in reality does not believe the lies and manufactured forensics of Guede and Mignini. The public will believe anything they are told by the tabloids if they tell it often enough and are skillful enough liars to be somewhat believable. It doesn’t take much research to find cases in any country where the profit motive has caused tabloid media outlets to knowingly sensationalize cases by presenting the innocent as guilty and the guilty as innocent. But the Court knows better.
    Those members of the Court of Cassation that dismissed the Hellman decision and ordered Nincini to find Amanda and Raffaele guilty in favor of the monsters Geude and Mignini have no concept of the human condition. They are well aware of the cruelty of Guede and by ordering the Nincini verdict have joined Guede in that cruelty not only to Meredith but to Amanda and Raffaele as well. The Nincini motivations explain the reasoning of the members of that Court and as such disgraces those members as nothing but accomplices to Guede in a horrible rape and murder. They are so isolated and arrogant in their world of legal nonsense that they are irrelevant to true justice. The Italian court concepts of “Judicial Truth” and “Osmosis” are ridiculous to the outside world. Those only exist as legal conventions to justify doing whatever they want to do in a case. The judges have shown no more concern for justice for Meredith than the human scum Guede. There are any number of reasons available to the next Court to not let this travesty go any farther. They can’t allow an Italian public that has been fed lie after lie by the media, as is the custom of fraudulent prosecutors everywhere, to justify their actions. The circumstances of this appeal are much different than the original trial. At that time there were honest people who really gave Mignini the benefit of a doubt. But with the scrutiny applied since there are no honest people left who are familiar with this case who don’t know Guede is the sole killer. The past decisions of the Court cannot stand up to review so their best action is to simply stop defending the indefensible and end this whole disaster. To continue to prosecute Amanda and Raffaele and allow the guilty to escape justice is to make themselves true accessories after the fact to rape and murder.

  15. Bruno says:

    It is official: Amanda Knox has no alibi for the night of the murder

    June 27, 2014

    It is being reported today in the news that Amanda Knox’s ex-boyfriend and co-defendant in the murder of Meredith Kercher case, Raffaele Sollecito has just held a news conference to announce that he does not remember being with Amanda the night of the murder.

    In ” . . weekly magazine Gente, Sollecito is preparing to change his version of events in almost seven years after the crime: contrary to what is always said, that that night was at home with her ​​’ then-girlfriend Amanda Knox, Sollecito now ‘admit to not remember clearly what happened’; In short, ‘the American would be left alone for the first time to support his alibi.’

    According unveiled by People, ‘the sensational turn would explain the line of defense of Raphael, that the appeal to the Supreme Court asking for acquittal or, alternatively, by changing the classification of the offense to only aiding in murder.’”

    It has been speculated by trial watchers for a long time that the conflicting alibis of Amanda and Raffaele would become the point of their legal unraveling. After Amanda rejected a marriage proposal from Raffaele last summer followed by their convictions being reconfirmed on January 30, 2014, with 28.5 and 25 year sentences, the former lovers have grown further and further apart.

    Raffaele, who has kept silent throughout the trials, refusing to be cross-examined in court, has decided to come forward with what happened the night Meredith Kercher was savagely attacked. However his new revelation consists of feigning memory loss which is a common defense tactic of guilty criminals.

    Amanda Knox also claimed to not remember clearly what she did that evening and accused an innocent man, Patrick Lumumba for the murder. She also insisted that she had no recollection of her suspicious call home in the middle of the night soon after the murder.

    “Sollecito had always said that that night was at home with his then-girlfriend Amanda Knox, but now admit to not remember clearly what happened.” Sollecito’s defense team is desperately hoping his newly announced forgetfulness will help reduce his sentence.

    This version of events is nothing new to those who have followed this case from the beginning as it is well-known that the reason Amanda Knox was arrested in the first place was because Raffaele withdrew his alibi for her back in the police station in November 2007. He claimed that the story of being with Amanda at home the night of the murder was “all rubbish” and that Amanda had put him up to it.

    This new bout of amnesia is the second blow to Amanda Knox whose likeness was captured on CCTV the night of the murder, walking home alone shortly before Meredith was stabbed to death. Now that we know Amanda Knox wasn’t with Raffaele Sollecito on the evening of November 1, 2007, that leaves Amanda Knox all alone to try to prove her whereabouts on that fateful night.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/it-is-official-amanda-knox-has-no-alibi-for-the-night-of-the-murder

    • Skind says:

      “newly announced forgetfulness ”

      It’s been a major component of guilter arguements that Knox and Sollecito have been using ‘forgetfulness’ as an alibi defence for years.

      This ‘new’ announcement has actually been part of his defence since the beginning.

    • Antony says:

      Bruno, if there’s any truth in the report you cite then all this means is that when a suspect inconveniently has a genuine alibi, then all the police need to do is arrest and charge the person providing the alibi? It’s not an obscure point that the only reason the police became interested in Raff is because he was providing an alibi for Amanda. The fact that he (and she) has remained steadfast this long in their mutual alibi ought to tell you that their story is the truth.

      Actually, I wouldn’t blame Raff for caving in now and making the statement the prosecutor wants, if it means they let him alone. Of course, such a statement made under the coercive threat of decades in prison could not be regarded as voluntary or as truthful.

      • Pigsticker says:

        Well spoken. The only thing it would prove, if Raff DID cave in, is that anybody can be broken by a cruel enough government. Nobody could describe it more accurately than George Orwell did in 1984. And the Italian Justice System has many similarities to Big Brother.

    • Max Green says:

      Thanks for citing the latest news from the “Astrology & Paranormal” section.
      Next: “The return of the Goddess of reason and Jupiter enters Leo”

      It is official: Some people got hoplessly lost in their fantasy

      Tuesday you will learn that your Goddess of reason lied to you again. Mr Sollecito will not deprive Ms Knox of her alibi – actually he won’t change anything of his “story”. As an honorable gentleman Mr Sollecito will always adhere to the truth. Not that I believed you really learned from it. Don’t worry, just keep ignoring reality and wait for Jupiter to bring better news to the people of sex game fantasia.

    • Som Nathan says:

      Doesn’t change an iota the ground reality that Rudi Guede brutally murdered Meredith Kercher that night. After that Mignini came in twisted and turned the facts, invented evidence and created a diversion towards Amanda and away from the sole killer Rudi Guede. Those diversions are very well documented in court documents. Raffaele is the collateral damage we know that, he was dragged into this mess because he refused to withdraw his alibi which he is doing now.

      Mr. Bruno and likewise haters / guilters you can rejoice and go dancing in the streets but you all are misguided and celebrating WRONG cause. Petitioning to send innocent to jail as if they are threat to society is irresponsible and taking steps to release the real murderer Rudi to society is irresponsible and TRUE INJUSTICE.

      The three M’s of all this mess are Mignini, Maresca and Massei.
      They are corrupt and immoral.

    • Wayne says:

      Good for Raf. He will now be acquitted and can go on with his life. The court will of course uphold the conviction for Amanda because it was already “predetermined” that Amanda will be found guilty. Any Italian request for extradition will look even more ridiculous than it did before and the Italians will be able to blame it on the “evil American gov” without having to imprison one of their own people, who is indeed innocent.

      Raf is being clever. Hope that it works for him.

    • William Benjamin says:

      @ Bruno… Can you explain your claim that something that by your own reporting has not happened yet is interpreted by you as being “official”?

      I never drank the kool-aid of hyperbole that has surrounded Amanda, and therefore Raffaele. I have the ability to understand the difference between an implication and a fact. For some reason you do not and you seek to share your untrue fact. Part of the solution to this persecution will be gaining an understanding of why so many people feel compelled to spread lies about it. There is an old axiom I can’t accurately quote that suggest that truth is uncontrollable and that is why human beings lie about it.

      Your prophecy may turn out to be true and we will find out in a few days on July 1 at about 10:30 am local time when Raffaele actually makes his announcement. In the end the only truth we will know is that human beings have difficulty accounting for their surroundings while they are asleep.

    • Lince says:

      Wow, you guilters are really getting desperate. A speculation on what could happen in the press conference that is still a couple days away, published under the section “Astrology and Paranormal”. Are you relying on crystal balls and Ouija boards now?

      Amanda does not have to prove her whereabouts on that night. Quite opposite, the accusing party should prove her presence at the crime scene. And in 6.5 years they got nothing to show in this regard. No wonder paranormal connections remain their only hope.

    • Chris Meyering says:

      You do realize that was probably agreeed upon by both defense teams right?

      Amanda will never be extradited, leaving Raffelle in serious danger. So it makes since to hatch out a defense strategy to save him.

      Regardless, even if Raffelle turns on her and doesnt collaborate her Alibi, it still throws the whole case in doubt as the entire Case has been built on the premise that Meredith was this super strong, super skilled martial arts expert and couldn’t have possibly been overpowered by on person. The claim is that each male held her down and Amanda did the stabbing.

      Plus, with Rudy out dancing and partying, One person couldn’t have possibly cleaned up the house and stages a crime scene so quickly.

      So as you see, If Raffelle can prove his own innocence independently, that turns the entire case on its head.

    • Bruce Mckee says:

      Bruno: You claim that Amanda made a “suspicious” phone call home in the middle of night shortly after the murder. Forgetting that Amanda phone was off remember people said this was a sign of guilt. I think you got that confused with a call she made to her mother the following day which would have been early morning in Seattle.

      Interesting when naming Lumumba as the murder Amanda doesn’t mention Raffaele or any role he played in the murder which I think it was Raffaele is pointing out in the press conference today.

      As for the CCTV it shows a person walking into the parking garage not towards the cottage when Amanda/Meredith lived as you state. Also now you are saying the murder happens shortly after Meredith arrived home? Not the 2 1/2 hours later that Mignini and all the judges that convicted Amanda and Raffaele state as fact?

      Yet you are saying Amanda and Raffaele stories have changed or would have us believe this what you always believed?

    • Pigsticker says:

      Bruno, if you really care about finding justice for Meredith, you’d stop wasting all your time on Amanda and start focusing on keeping the real killer in prison. You wouldn’t want Guede to kill someone else, would you? The fact that he never owned up to what he did tells me he has a very high chance of doing it again.

      Bar all your windows, Perugia!

  16. Bruno says:

    Sollecito To Change His Version Of His Story



    Friday, June 27, 2014



    It will be a sensational breakthrough said the weekly magazine Gente Edition that will be on news stands tomorrow. In a widespread anticipation to the media, Raffaele Sollecito in fact states that for the first time in seven years that he will change his version of events.

    Contrary to what is always said that the night of the murder of Meredith Kercher that he was in her house with Amanda, now he will argue that he did not remember what he did and what happened that night. According to people who know him well, that change of course would be motivated by the desire to ask for the appeal to the Supreme Court whose decision is expected in the autumn, for the acquittal or changing the classification of the offense by conspiring to murder to only aiding and abetting. Sollecito then stated that will not want to encourage his ex-girlfriend: “To break the spell – you will read in the newspaper, about this psychological subjection by the Seattle beautiful girl”, according to Greta Menegaldo, the new girlfriend of Raphael.

    http://www.ilsussidiario.net/News/Cronaca/2014/6/27/OMICIDIO-MEREDITH-Sollecito-cambia-versione-non-ricordo-cosa-avvenne-quella-notte/510669/

    • Just a Parent says:

      Bruno, despite enough ink having been spread about this case to fill several oil tankers it really is pretty simple.

      On the plausible notion that Meredith, like so many victims, was murdered by someone close to her the Perugia cops focused on Amanda first. After all, her behavior seemed inappropriate, and the language barrier thwarted clear communication. As well, they were being pushed by a prosecutor whose medieval outlook made Satan a woman’s partner whenever she engaged in unmarried sex. Thus was born the tabloid spectacle.

      That’s all simple enough. Tawdry, yes, and rather creepy, but simple. Then comes the DNA results – Rudy Guede! Rudy Guede!!! The same Rudy Guede who had broken into at least three properties in the past month and been caught red-handed with a knife! The same Rudy Guede whose criminality the Perugia police knew about, never properly investigated, and released! Suddenly things got very complicated. The authorities had a problem, a really big one – called ineptness, and it had lead to the death of an innocent.

      How to escape? Certainly not by telling the truth; that would require courage and humility and they were a bit short of that stuff. So they improvised. They shoehorned Amanda (and by extension Raffaele in his nobility) into the story of “poor Rudy,” who certainly never could have done such a thing left to his own moral compass. It had to be Amanda, she caused him to do it, and without her wicked involvement the police failure to keep Rudy locked-up after his most recent crime only a few days earlier would have been harmless.

      That’s it. Simple. And it’s worked. All the lies, argument, calumny, sympathy, tears, anger, fear, sorrow, have deeply obscured the simple truth at the core of this whole onward-marching nightmare – the Perugia authorities wish to deny the consequence of their failure to deal with Rudy Guede before he hurt someone, and they are willing to destroy two more innocent lives to accomplish that end. Simple.

      What I can’t grasp is how those destroyers, in their quiet moments, alone with the truth and no escape, keep sane. That question terrifies.

  17. LBK says:

    I find it offensive as an Irish person that your fans have the audacity to compare you to Gerry Conlon.

    • Antony says:

      LBK: “I find it offensive as an Irish person that your fans have the audacity to compare you to Gerry Conlon.”

      Odd comment. Although different in circumstances, the parallels between the Guildford case and the Kercher case are too obvious to miss. There’s something rather confused about someone who appears protective of the victim of one gross injustice, to the extent of failing to make the link with another.

      Presumably, LBK, you don’t regard Gerry Conlon’s “confession” which led to his conviction as having any value. Tell me: is it Amanda’s alleged statements during an all-night, unrecorded interrogation session that convince you that she’s not to be compared with him?

      Presumably, also, you don’t regard the test results on Annie Maguire’s kitchen glove as reliably indicating contact with explosives. What is it about the evidence offered against Amanda that makes you think she shouldn’t be compared with them – that a kitchen knife she had handled allegedly carried a speck of the victim’s DNA: a speck that no other scientist than the one working for the police could find?

      Is it, perhaps, a national thing? The British behaved so badly in Ireland that nothing about their justice in 1975 could be trusted. What is it about Italian justice, 2007-2014, that gives you more confidence than the Guildford trial in 1975? Is it that the British courts ultimately admitted they were wrong – while the Italian courts first said she was guilty, then innocent, and now guilty again? I really would like to know.

    • Jack says:

      In that case, as an American of Irish heritage, I am sure that Gerry Conlon would be no fan of you.

    • Skind says:

      You are more than welcome to have your opinion and share it.

      However, the comparitives are there, even right down to how Knox is being treated by the general public. You could have just kept your offence to yourself, but noooo, you had to take a cheap dig at Knox and her supporters, just as happened with Conlon, and Barry George, and Stefan Kiscko, and Randy Weaver, and so on and so on.

      Well, hope you’re proud of yourself.

      • Elias says:

        We don’t care, as a part Irish American, I care zero unflushed Guede’s what this tosser thinks.

    • Rob H says:

      I can assure you that Gerry Conlon would have felt enormous empathy for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

      Ms Knox’s experiences in this case are similar to Mr Conlon’s in his – rubbish forensics and thug police officers drunk on illegitimate power, together with the crass failure of the establishment and the media to confront the truth that was so starkly clear to anyone who bothered to look.

  18. Bruno says:

    Did Amanda Knox drag Raffaele Sollecito down with her?


    Seattle : WA : USA


    Jun 23, 2014


    By Chelsea Hoffman



    Amanda Knox is a convicted murderer and so is her former lover Raffaele Sollecito. However, Sollecito appears to be washing his hands completely of Knoxy by coming out against her with his latest pleas to the court. The man whose DNA was found directly on Meredith Kercher’s bra clasp says that he’s only “guilty by association,” and he should be granted a separate appeal’s trial from the woman who he once romanced. 




    Sollecito has spoken out against Amanda before with his recent comments about her being an “evil bitch” who is “selfish.” And during the beginning of this case his alibi didn’t quite match up with hers 100%. There’s also the issue with Knox admitting herself that she had been in the Apartment the night Meredith Kercher was killed. Of course she conveniently retracted that confession, like many criminals are known to do in these situations. 



    Whether or not Amanda Knox is truly guilty — and at the least she’s been dishonest — the fact of the matter is that she’s been her own worst enemy during the course of this case. And that probably didn’t help things for Raffaele Sollecito — Though it should be noted that Sollecito had been given chances in the past to separate himself from her. So either he’s finally had an awakening, or he’s doing what he can desperately do to evade justice. 



    What do you think about this latest bit of news? Does Raffaele Sollecito deserve a separate appeals trial from Knox?

    

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/17342349-did-amanda-knox-drag-raffaele-sollecito-down-with-her

    • Som Nathan says:

      No matter how you twist and turn the evidence, churn and re-churn the lies initially invented by Perugian police and prosecutors, specially PM Mignini, one truth stands loud and clear. That is, Rudi Guede assaulted, killed and robbed Meredith Kercher, no one else but him. Amanda and Raffaele have nothing to do with her murder.
      Like many others, Chelsea Hoffman is a trash journalist who has no idea about this case and is only good at recycling trash and lies about this case. These junk journalist know that timid little Brunos will take the bait.
      All you haters and guilters will be hit by the truth one of these days.

      • grahame rhodes says:

        Som Nathen
        Nuts your just indulging in wishful thinking. But you are right we really really hate Amanda Knox because the evidence is conclusive and you can’t change that because no more evidence will be admitted into the court proceedings. She will be extradited. of course you can send money to her so she can escape but you won’t because all you have is talk.

        • Pigsticker says:

          You need to see a psychiatrist. Many of us are well aware of the death threats you’ve been spouting on line, and that’s a definite sign that there’s something seriously wrong with you.

    • Len D. says:

      Nobody smart takes Chelsea Hoffman

 seriously.

    • William Benjamin says:

      Sollecito deserves whatever he wants or needs. I hope he gets a smoking hot woman who loves him, a stable home life and the peace to enjoy whatever comes of it.

      I read yesterday that members of his extended family are requesting air time in Italy. I hope it does not signal another public display of division within the family. That Italian media machine over there will make hay of it for everybody’s entertainment. In the end there will be Raffaele doing what he does best. Being an honest broker, a role model and a patriot. An honorable man.

      Hoffman like so many others is just attempting to cash in on the victims. A closer look at Hoffman exposes a tabloid persuit-icution. She is in it for some money and closer inspection of it exposes a double digit IQ.

  19. dan says:

    Hi Amanda,

    I have no idea if you are guilty or not. But what do you say to all the people (including the judges) who say that you are a very crafty and cunning woman who brillantly does everything to save her ass?

    And why did you do (if it is true) stretching at the police (they said you did the splits),,,,?

    • Rob H says:

      Always, always ask for evidence. There is no evidence against Ms Knox or Mr Sollecito worthy of the name.

      The stretching conducted by Ms Knox is not evidence against her despite anything a mad prosecutor or foolish commentator might suggest. Yoga exercises are designed to relieve stress and relax the body. Conservatively, they are performed by about a billion people twice a day on the planet.

    • Som Nathan says:

      Either you can believe the lying judges and prosecutors who have been changing their story every time they present their side of fantasies and fairy tales, or you can believe Amanda who has been CONSISTENT in saying that she is innocent.

      If you don’t believe them look at the real evidence or lack of evidence her.

      Rudi Guede, the homeless, unemployed, penniless petty robber from Ivory Coast, killed Meredith Kercher. That is the truth and whole truth, no matter how and what the “arrogant, immoral and biased” prosecutors and judges say about Amanda and Raffaele.

    • William Benjamin says:

      I cannot speak for Knox but I find your questions to be immaterial yet leading to imply guilt based upon a false premise. Doesn’t everybody have a right to defend themselves. Why do you make defending one’s self an indicator of guilt?

      Also why does somebody who is perceived as crafty (and/or) cunning (and/or) brillant (and/or) does yoga become perceived as being more guilty?

      Your insinuation makes sense if you start with guilt then expect innocents to be demonstrated to override your prejudice. Your being unfair.

  20. Pigsticker says:

    BTW, I just thought I’d share this link, since it has strong relevance to what is happening with the Kercher trials:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3IWdHroT9Y

    All about the 25 Worst Wrongful Convictions ever. Gerry Conlon is mentioned, but they didn’t say anything about his co-accused (Hill, Armstrong & Richardson); they were tortured into false confessions, too. Paul ended up getting the worst of it. Mind you, it was Gerry whose family (the Maguire Seven) was dragged into it, when the police tried to use a pair of dishwashing gloves to pin his aunt as “the experienced bombmaker”. It sickens me what some of these “law enforcers” would pull to secure a wrongful conviction. Using those washing gloves has all the same credibility as using Raffaele’s kitchen knife.

  21. Pigsticker says:

    For a guy who doesn’t make any sense, this Nencini is pretty long-winded, isn’t he? Then again, the Massei report was pretty long, too. Both indications that they lack credibility, since a true report wouldn’t require so many pages to justify it.. not that Nencini’s really successful at justifying himself. I read Luca’s interpretation, and there are quite a number of contradictions in there.

    Makes me wonder what Nencini was drinking/smoking/sniffing/popping during the trial.

  22. Antony says:

    “I know what happened was a tragedy, in Guildford, Woolwich and Birmingham – but you don’t compound the tragedy by making other tragedies …”

    Gerry Conlon, victim of police corruption and wrongful conviction over the 1975 terrorist bombing of the Guildford pub. He died 21 June, aged 60.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0WLCJ26Emc

    Even 25 years after the truth came out, there is still someone anonymously posting malicious libel against him in the Youtube comments. Some people don’t ever learn.

    • Pigsticker says:

      Have you seen any of my posts about Paul Hill? Also accused of the Guildford pub bombings. Plus the murder of British soldier Brian Shaw, whose brother wouldn’t even talk to him until 6 years after his full acquittal. I think I posted the link on one of Amanda’s pages about the Kerchers, and their inability to accept the truth about Meredith’s murder. Shaw’s family experienced the same problem.

      • Antony says:

        Pigsticker, I know about Paul Hill. I read both his and GC’s books on the case – although it’s a long while ago now. I think the Guildford case in particular destroyed my confidence in the courts to get things right, and got me interested in injustices generally.

        • Pigsticker says:

          I’ve had alot of interest in that case, too, since I happen to be Irish, just like the Guildford Four… and I remember renting the film, “In the Name of the Father”, very shortly before I became interested in the Knox-Sollecito trials. One of the first things I noticed about the case against Amanda & Raffaele was its striking similarities to what happened to the Guildford Four. Especially the false confessions.

    • Pigsticker says:

      BTW, I agree 100% with what Gerry said.

  23. Bruno says:

    “Nick Green says:
    May 21, 2014 at 00:11 ”

    “It must baffle you, Bruno, and the likes of you, that neither Amanda nor Raffaele has yet ‘cracked’ or ‘cut a deal’ as you put it. You must be slack-jawed with incredulity that they have managed to hold out for so long, after so many trials and ordeals and years in prison.”

    “It defies belief, doesn’t it? That two people no longer in a relationship (and where one now has more to lose than the other) could continue to maintain this pact at a distance of thousands of miles. ”

    The previous strategy to use a joint defense failed miserably and it now looks like that “pact” that you mentioned may come to an end soon:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/20/amanda-knox-s-ex-raffaele-sollecito-asks-court-try-me-separately.html

    “Raffaele Sollecito’s defense team is asking for the question of his innocence or guilt to be separated from that of his former paramour in the murder of Meredith Kercher.” – Barbie Latza Nadeau

    I doubt that this request will be granted. But there is a remote possibility that it will be and we may see separate trials of Amanda and Raffaele in which they will, most certainly, accuse each other of the murder of Meredith. This would have been a better strategy from the outset. But since they rolled the dice together, I doubt that the Supreme Court will allow this to happen now.

    • Bob Smith says:

      Bruno,

      Like you, the rest of the guilter community is having a field day with Raffaele’s lawyer’s request to separate his case from Amanda’s. But this request is nothing new. For example, during the closing arguments of the appeal, they were already distancing themselves – asking the court to consider them separate. But they didn’t accuse each other at that time, so why do it now?

      The purpose of separation is to show how ludicrous the case against Sollecito is without the evidence against Knox, not so that he can now accuse her of the crime. The only shred of evidence against him is the discredited DNA on the bra clasp. They are hoping that the court dismisses the case against him, even if continues to carry out the witch hunt against her.

      By the way, the joint defense was not a “strategy”, it was thrust upon them because they were charged and tried together by the prosecution. Saying that they were together at Raffaele’s that evening was not a strategy, unless telling the truth can be considered a strategy.

      If Raffaele’s defense was going to include accusing Amanda of the crime, he would have done it long ago.

      • Bruno says:

        “By the way, the joint defense was not a “strategy”, it was thrust upon them because they were charged and tried together by the prosecution.”

        Both Knox and Sollecito had the option of cooperating and going the fast-track trial route from the outset. Had they done so, then probably they both would have received reduced sentences. They had that choice. And, most certainly, a choice which they both now wish they had taken. Instead, they chose to roll the dice. Oh well.

        • Wayne says:

          This myth is told over and over by the guilters. A fast-track route is not a right. It is a possible option that has to be accepted by the judge and with consultation with the prosecutor. The prosecutor Mignini was never going to agree to that! This was the absolute biggest case to hit Perugia in decades and allowed him to bloviate for years to advance his career.

          As for Amanda “rolling the dice”, innocent people don’t usually ask for a fast-track option. And she is free and away from Italy. Forever. Good roll, Amanda.

          • Bruno says:

            You’re wrong. The final verdict has not been made yet. But don’t worry, it will be soon and once they throw Raffaele back into prison, the Italian authorities will request Amanda’s extradition.

            And remember, 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 and the ongoing war on drugs. The Cosa Nostra, Camorra and the ‘Ndrangheta are some of the world’s largest cocaine and heroine manufacturers and suppliers and all are active in the US, Canada, South America, Australia and Europe. They collaborate with other organized crime syndicates from all over the world including Al-Qaeda associates and are also involved in illegal gambling, political corruption, extortion, kidnapping, fraud, counterfeiting, infiltration of legitimate businesses, murders, bombings, and weapons trafficking. Industry experts in Italy estimate that their worldwide criminal activity is worth more than $100 billion annually. Indeed, these Italian organizations are at the center of the ongoing war on drugs, the war against organized crime syndicates and overall crime itself.

            For anyone to think, even for a moment, that a one “Amanda Marie Knox” is worth giving up the fight against all of that is ludicrous and downright laughable. Indeed, we’re not about to give up that fight solely based on one single individual. That’s the leverage against Knox, and it’s quite substantial. Italy will make the extradition request and America will extradite Amanda Knox.

          • Wayne says:

            Bruno,

            Your assertions are incorrect. The USA denies extradition requests. So do the Italians. Most recently the request for “convicted” CIA agents was denied. Life goes on. Nothing is “jeopardized”. We’ll see.

          • Bruno says:

            Wayne says:

            “Your assertions are incorrect. The USA denies extradition requests. So do the Italians. Most recently the request for “convicted” CIA agents was denied.”

            No Wayne. You are wrong once again. The Abu Omar case involved agents in the CIA’s extraordinary rendition operations which have now been stopped.

            In September 2012, Italy’s highest court, the Court of Cassation, upheld the guilty verdicts that had been handed down by lower courts.[44] The Italian government has not stated whether it would seek extradition of the convicted Americans.

            Before you go on the internet and make yourself look like a fool, you should read more.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case

    • William Benjamin says:

      They are not going to turn on one another. It’s all about dealing with and exposing the politics of the court. Where Amanda’s case should not have ever gone to trial, Raffaele’s case REALLY should have never gone to trial. It’s Amanda they wanted and it is likely that Raffaele suffered at least in part because he was not obeying the misogynistic underpinning present at the time of the indictments. Your scenario resembles tabloid thinking. Ditto what Bob Smith said.

    • Som Nathan says:

      Whatever RAFFAELE’s lawyer request or Amanda’s lawyers request, the ground reality remains the same. That, “Rudi Hermann Guide killed Meredith that fateful evening of November 1st 2007, while burglarizing their villa”. As simple as that. Rest of it all noise and unnecessary details, stories, lies created by Perugian law enforcement authorities. And this is what they wanted.
      Barbie Nadeau, Andrea Vogt, Peter quennel are all paid for advertising Italian prosecutors nonsense and fantasies at best. They have invented all these theories to reduce the role of murderer in chief Rudi Guede to innocent bystander level, and bring Amanda to forefront. That is why Rudi’s fast-trial was “quickly” accomplished and confirmed by Italian Supreme court. This was a trap for Amanda and Raffaele. This whole case is a SHAM.

  24. ALBERT CALLEROS says:

    Amanda:

    Si hay una cosa que ha permanecido intacto, esta unica cosa ha sido tu dignidad. Nadie te puede privar de eso. Mantente fuerte. En mi libro, eres otra Juana de Arco.
    (If there is one thing that has remained intact, this one thing has been your dignity. Nobody can deprive you of that. Stay strong. In my book, you are another Joan of Arc.)

    Albert (Calleros)
    Fullerton, CA, USA

    • Paul Carr says:

      Talking about legends like Saint Joan, a closer resemblance is Emily Wilding Davison, the suffragette. Like Amanda, she had half-siblings from her father’s other marriage and was working her way through college. With three newsreel cameras rolling, a thousand witnesses, and her life an open book, we still don’t know if she deliberately stepped in front of the king’s horse or was crossing the race track to pick a flower. The case has been debated for over a century with no conclusion. Be that as it may, history has looked kindly upon Emily, as it will upon both MK and AK. If Emily was really a fool then fools like these change the world. Whether the injustice is corrupt authority as in the case of St. Joan, a woman’s vote denied as in the case of Emily, or a get-out-of-jail card as in the case of the brutal slaying of a young British woman, someone must always die to square it.

  25. giovanni says:

    well well –
    “New information in the Meredith Kercher Murder case has now emerged alleging that Patrizia Stefanoni, the lab technician responsible for DNA testing on behalf of the prosecution, committed scientific misconduct by suppressing data from faulty equipment and falsifying evidence in order to support the prosecution’s case.”

    Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/crime/op-ed-dna-laboratory-fraud-revealed-in-amanda-knox-case/article/386758#ixzz359YuyEHH

    • Lyn says:

      Rather than scroll waaaaaaay down to post a seperate comment, I add it here. This piece is from an Italian site http://www.avvocatisenzafrontiere.it ‘Lawyers without Borders’. I first noticed it a couple of months ago, saved it to post everywhere, then forgot about until now.
      Interestingly, this piece can only be found cached now, not on the site so I am assuming they were maybe ‘asked’ to remove it.

      http://goo.gl/eTp6eW

    • Tom Zupancic says:

      giovanni,

      The fact is that the deeper one dives into the forensic basis of the prosecution’s case, the more problematic and tenuous it becomes. There are so many conspicuous flaws and so many omissions of essential supporting materials that essentially any competent scientist provided with such data would say, ‘so what?’ … ‘you have not shown me anything’. A scientist would quickly follow with, ‘so, where is your data?’, and then, ‘why can’t you show me your data?’ … begging the question, ‘do you even have any data?’ or more to the point in this case; ‘Oh you do have data, but it contradicts what you want me to believe. I get it.’

    • Pigsticker says:

      I think I’d like to pass this on to Raffaele

  26. Hide Baert says:

    @ Skind
    RE: confused blogging

    My apologies. You may be right.
    In fact, I have been confused for the last couple of weeks (months).
    I intend to take a break from blogging.
    We’ll see how things (this current state of confusion) will evolve.
    Best, Hilde

  27. Tom Zupancic says:

    Regardless of what anyone would prefer to think about the validity of the DNA evidence in this case, in reality the train has already left the station. Dr. Peter Gill, a respected expert in Forensic Science from the UK is now publishing a book on “Misleading DNA Evidence; Reasons for Miscarriages of Justice”. Here he includes an extensive discussion of the many problems with the the DNA evidence in this case. Like it or not the bungled DNA forensics and misrepresentation of this evidence are about to become classic textbook examples of how DNA forensics should not be performed and how misrepresentation and misinterpretation of such flawed evidence produces miscarriages of justice.

    • Willis Coleman says:

      Like it or not, it’s a sad commentary on humanity when respected experts are so arrogant that they don’t think they need a thorough understanding of the facts in order to pass judgment. The Kerchers deserve better. The good news it that, although the bra clasp is the easiest path to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, there are many other paths to guilt. As Dershowitz noted, there a many people sitting in prison on far less evidence than we have here.

      • Max Green says:

        Where is Dershowitz’s case analysis that convinced you that he is the one with the “thorough understanding of the facts”?

      • Glenn Thigpen says:

        So, Willis, it does not matter to you that the scientists who are weighing in on this matter are pretty much of the same opinion, as more facts are being revealed about suppression of evidence, including evidence of contamination? It is only your “facts” that are important, facts which are being shown to be less credible with each and every new revelation.

        Glenn

        • Glenn Thigpen says:

          Also, Willis, I (and I suspect a lot of others who post here) would like for you to please present your credentials to allow us to understand your qualifications to critique the efforts of the scientists you disdain. Tom Zupancic and others like him have stated their qualifications. You have not given anyone any reason to accept anything you have to say. Affirmation by repeated assertions do not make anything more credible.

          Glenn

      • Antony says:

        Willis Coleman: “Like it or not, it’s a sad commentary on humanity when respected experts are so arrogant that they don’t think they need a thorough understanding of the facts in order to pass judgment.

        Crass hypocrisy from someone whose idea of “facts” is is founded on the outrageous lies on which the prosecution is based.

        “The Kerchers deserve better.

        Absolutely yes. They didn’t deserve to be deceived, exploited and to have their tragedy turned into a circus by the self-serving antics of the Mignini team. It’s a shame that they can’t recognise the work of real scientists who have exposed the sham prosecution “evidence” for what it is.

        “The good news it that, although the bra clasp is the easiest path to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, there are many other paths to guilt.

        Willis, you are deluded. Every shred of prosecution “evidence” has long been shown to be worthless. The bra clasp in particular is worthless because (like the knife DNA) it cannot be replicated, and because the DNA readings that have been made available by the perjurer Stefanoni don’t even show what she claims they show.

        “As Dershowitz noted, there a many people sitting in prison on far less evidence than we have here.”

        Not less evidence, but still many on a similarly fraudulent basis. It’s for the sake of victims of injustice everywhere that this travesty cannot be allowed to stand.

      • Pigsticker says:

        I agree that the Kerchers deserve better than they’ve been getting, but continuing to go after Amanda and Raffaele is not going to give them that. Nor is giving too much credibility to someone like Dershowitz.

    • Rob H says:

      Peter Gill is a pioneer in the field of forensic science. He collaborated with Sir Alex Jeffreys, and published the first demonstration of the forensic application of DNA profiling in the mid 1980s – a veritable giant. And a British one!

      In attempting to rescue the reputation of us Brits in all of this nonsense in Perugia, I might also point out that Dr Hampikian (at least as far as I am aware), was alerted to the problems with the DNA evidence in the Meredith Kercher case by another British scientist, whilst he was attending a conference in England.

  28. William Benjamin says:

    Recently I had a bit of a tit-for-tat discussion with another poster about comparing wrongful convictions in the USA as opposed to Amanda’s case which was in Italy. As follow-up I am attempting to see the other point of view more completely. I am looking for Italian citizens who’s convictions in Italy of serious crimes that have been finalized by the Court Of Cassation that would at some point afterwards have those convictions vacated and be exonerated. Anybody got any names to get me in the right direction? I can’t seem to find any but hope is emerging http://italyinnocenceproject.org/
    (Names other than Galileo Galilei or Giuliano Mignini please {humor intended})

    • Mike the skier says:

      Bill, your post just made me remember something: Carlo Parlanti.

      This is an Italian man who was convicted in California of a brutal rape. His case is very well know in Italy. Most Italians think he was wrongfully convicted. Some type of a ruckus even occurred at a soccer match with the U.S., if I recall correctly. You can find his story on the internet

      Some of my family got to know his wife well and she consulted with me over some issues. Nice lady.

      And, there is another case of a man in a U.S. prison (possibly incorrectly)that is well know to Italians. I’m trying to find out his name

      I have wondered if these cases have affected how Italians view Amanda.

      • William Benjamin says:

        It’s healthy for perspective and discussion to hear alternate views. Those cases you mention are not on the radar so to speak. It shouldn’t matter what nationalities or circumstances of race or creed or whatever else should have to do with the truth and facts of whether Amanda Knox murdered Meredith Kercher. But it apparently does matter and that is a problem.

        If you want a reason to convict Knox for reasons extraneous to her control there are several ones more significant than the one’s you mention. Some US military forces killed a prolific Italian agent in Iraq as he was completing a rescue of a journalist. Also one of our pilots decided to illegally buzz a northern Italian gondola and clipped the cable. All aboard the cable car plummeted to their deaths horrifically. None of these cases were targeting Italians but were friendly fire so to speak and each was totally avoidable and frankly stupid. Americans make mistakes and they are document-able. Are Italians mistakes the same? In comparing these countries is it possible to compare apples to apples?

      • William Benjamin says:

        Thanks for the head up on the case of Mr. Parlanti. Even though his trials were completely different from Knox and Sollecito there are some minor parallels that make his case an interesting study.

  29. Nic T says:

    Andrea Vogt has noted that Raffaele’s appeal has taken big steps to seperate himself from Amanda and Vogt insinuates that their appeals are contradictory. There is a lot of noise here in Italy that the Sollecito family, not necessarily Raffaele but others, have more evidence to discredit Amanda in the court of public opinion and will release it near to the decision time. It is also rumour here that the Sollecitos released the recent CCTV photos (source: I live near Lugano but work for a British company and read US news channels – I see this from every view!). I think the conviction will be confirmed for Amanda. I am less sure about Raffaele. Amanda’s conviction for lying did her a lot of damage certainly in Italy. Her lack of contrition afterwards and lack of payment to Patrick has actually done more harm that the original slander conviction – Amanda ruined a man’s life and doesn’t care! Unfortunatley because of this, noone believes a word she says. The opinion of most Italians is that noone can make you say anything unless they are physically torturing you, particularly when your public statements say you did not understand the language and had no translator/a bad translator – how can you possibly be interrogated! The denial of physical attacks by Ghirga (as reported by Candace Dempsey in the link below) has also stuck hard in Italy – if her Italian lawyers deny abuse then these are just more American lies. And if Amanda lies about police abuse in a murder case, what else might she be lying about?

    http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2008/10/20/tainted-evidence-against-amanda-knox-updated/

    Ultimately, it the opinion of Italians and not Americans that counts; Raffaele understands this and is playing the Italian game instead of the one directed from America. Amanda would do well to follow his lead. This DNA laboratory thing will not fly in Italy and it will not save her from extradition…it is just a distraction from what will actually save Amanda, convincing Italy that she is not a murderess – hire an Italian PR company and sack the USA one who have destroyed Knox’s reputation in the one place that acutally matters.

    • Willis Coleman says:

      You make some excellent points, although I personally think Raffaele has squandered any chance for leniency. Anyone who’s been yelled at in a foreign language knows it’s preposterous that an interview led by 90lb Rita Ficarra and an officer from Rome, conducted through an empathetic translator, could be sufficiently coercive to explain Amanda’s self-incriminating statements. You don’t need a recording of the interview, not required in any case, to know that.

      • Skind says:

        Anyone who has conducted interviews on a professional basis would know that coercion – intentional or otherwise – can occur with a lot less than what Knox went through.

      • jamesrae says:

        And when the translator arrived, after being called in one hour after the interrogation had started, she found the session in absolute chaos as she testified at the trial.

      • Rob H says:

        But it wasn’t just Ficarra and an officer from Rome and the translator decided to try out some interrogation techniques of her own.

        To you, evidence contrary to your own position counts for nothing. You don’t try to explain it; you just ignore it. You did it with the autopsy. Lalli must have botched it despite the video evidence because if he’d done it properly it meant that Ms Kercher was dead before 930 and that just won’t do.

        It is simply beyond credibility that Ms Knox would deliberately try to implicate Lumumba and place herself at the cottage when according to you she had cleaned up the crime scene of all traces except Guede’s in order to implicate him. These are contradictory positions from which you cannot recover. One minute you conceive of Ms Knox as a wicked master tactician with extraordinary powers and the next, she’s caving in to a few gentle questions from a tiny woman and forgetting her plan.

      • Chris Meyering says:

        Do an internet search of Derrin Brown. Hes well known in England and puts on shows all the time and his results have been repeated in the U.S. under less known manipulators. But in a nut shell hes a master manipulator. He can get anyone to believe anything and to say and do whatever he wants through powerful manipulation techniques and hes explained his techniques in interviews in other shows. Basically, regardless of how much you believe you are in control of your own actions, there is ample evidence of the ease one can be persuaded to many things without it being realized.

        And its not a song and dance show. This Science has been well known by Con men, advertisers, Magicians and Interrogators for literally centuries.

        And Police are well aware of these techniques as well. Its not a super secret science. Its just many People are oblivious to it and refuse that they can be manipulated.

      • Tom Mininger says:

        Tens of thousands of worthless recordings on this case but only excuses for why we’re missing the 3 important ones: Amanda, Raffaele, and Patrick’s “interviews”.

        Here’s a timeline of the half week leading up to the unrecorded middle-of-the-nighter:
        http://groundreport.com/amanda-and-raffaele-the-illegal-interrogations/

    • Som Nathan says:

      No doubt she will be convicted again, because of
      1) Italian judges reliance on fIawed evidence, refusing to take an independent view
      2) Rudi’s fast track trial in which Amanda’s defense was not represented, and Supreme court has already confirmed, just like Perugian police declaring “case closed” even when all the evidence was still being analyzed.
      3) Too much Italian pride. Which is USA vs. Italy, and it should have been Justice vs. Injustice, Facts & evidence vs. manufactured evidence to specifically implicate Amanda.

      First appeals judge Hellman has already predicted that as he did predict the outcome of Nencini trial. The judge is fully aware of corruption in Italian Justice System. These appeals and trials are just show case of their justice system to fool the world into believing that “due process” is being rendered to defendants, but what really it is “pre-determined” outcome, i.e. to convict Amanda no matter what the evidence says. “It is the Italian public opinion that matters and not the evidence and facts of the case”.
      This case is the demonstration of truly corrupt social and judicial system, where in the end the verdict is delivered based on public opinion. Truly the traits of the third world countries where justice system is not so strong and judges and prosecutors are easily swayed to convict, because of influence from the rich and wealthy, bribes and to avoid the “confrontation” with people who hold power.

      This case was doomed for Amanda the day PM Mignini walked in, and displayed Anti-Amanda bias from day one.

      Journalist like Andrea Voght have towed the “guilty verdict” since day one as well, even when all the facts of the case were not even analyzed.

      I doubt that USA will extradite Amanda, because in this case Italians have a political bias, as well as influence from rich & wealthy family who initially nurtured Rudi, and therefore influenced judges and prosecutors to reduce Rudi’s role as an “innocent bystander, who even helped dying Meredith in her final moments”. This is evident from Mignini’s statements recorded during the trial and later to Italian media. He is known to refer the lone killer as “POOR RUDI WHO SHOWED REMORSE TO KERCHER FAMILY”.

      This is a text book case of 1) how to botch a murder an investigation, Perugian justice system style, 2) Influence and sway public opinion via controlled release of critical information that favored the prosecutors, to media, 3) how to manufacture evidence where there is none, and portray mountain of a mole, 4) manipulate criminal justice system, 5) showcase appeal process and yet deliver “pre-determined” verdict, and 6) deliver a “guilty verdict” based on public opinion and not true justice.

      This is hallmark of a justice system rotten to it’s core.

      Amanda, your are innocent and you will remain so no matter what the Italian Justice System says. You have challenged them and that they don’t like.

      • NicT says:

        I have to make a point about your comment about Mignini. Mignini the dastardly evil prosecutor is a cartoon created by the US PR people. The more rounded story told in Europe/Asia paints him completely differently and not just in countries “sympathetic” to the Italian justice system or the British victim..and this again is important because this case is being “handled” by the USA and the story in the American press is not entirely true. I don’t blame Amanda for this but she needs to understand, again, the unfixable damage that is being done to her in Italy by her PR people who just don’t understand Italy. Mignini was not involved in this case until after Amanda “confessed” and accused Patrick. He prosecuted the case and argued the police theory but he was not the one that spoke with Amanda on the night when she “confessed” (he arrived after the first written statement), and he did not speak to Raffaele when he withdrew their alibi. Mignini is very well respected in Italy, regardless of what you all might think. His recent prosecution (something that happens a lot to prosecutors in Italy – an accepted quirk of the job) was thrown out and he is now completely cleared. Again, Americans might percieve it to be helpful to Amanda to attack Mignini but actually, this is another thing that causes her a lot of harm in Italy. Freedom of speech is enshrined in European laws too but we understand that with freedoms come responsibilities – the responsibility here is when you exercise freedom of speech, you upset the people who have power over Amanda’s life so are your rights more important than Amanda’s freedom? If you also think that Amanda is more important than many other international prisoners which the USA would like to extradite into America then you are mistaken. By not extraditing a high profile case like Knox, it makes the USA look unwilling to deal in extradition cases to ALL countries, not just Italy. Providing that the Supreme Court accepts that the Nencini appeal was held according to the law then the USA has little choice. It cannot retry the case, nor can it consider any of this evidence that you are all gathering of DNA testing problems. I just don’t think many commentators on here get what is actually going on in Italy and how to deal with it. I just cannot stress how many of you are basically siding against Amanda when you abuse Italy, Meredith and her family or the judicial process. If you did understand this, you would be focussing on finding the other people with Rudy that night – he did not act alone and no Italian court will ever accept that he did because the evidence presented to the court does not support the lone wolf theory, yet the case presented to the US media does. From what I have seen, many of Knox’s supporters have spent years attacking the very people who can decide to treat Knox kindly or not. If you were Italian and on the Supreme Court, and bearing in mind some of the cruel comments against Italy, its judiciary and the victim, would you be inclined to help this girl out; would you use your discretion to help her? I know Amanda gets some horrific abuse from others but the point is to rise above it and not bite. Which is not what is happening. Instead, you are doing what anti-Amanda people want you to do and burying her for 30 years.

        • Jack says:

          What you write about Mignini is patently false. He was at the crime scene from day one, literally manipulating the way science was done on Ms. Kercher’s body. Like Giobbi, without question, he was formulating his opinions about Ms. Knox’s culpability from the start.

          It does no one but this pompous, stupid turd Mignini a service not to call him what he is. The longer Italy insists on polishing over turds like Meisterberger Mignini, the deeper its reputation will sink.

          • Nic T says:

            Mignini did not visit the crime scene until after Amanda “confessed” and Raffaele withdrew her alibi. The prosecutor doesn’t get involved until there is a suspect. Seriously, look again at the timeline. Youa re following the US media timeline and not the reality timeline that actually happened and was presented ot the court. It would take someone reading this about ten seconds to Google the truth – you’re not making me look stupid by perpetuating the “party line” from the PR company.

          • Jack says:

            This is a falsehood, causing you yourself to make yourself look stupid. Either you have not looked at the photos at the cottage from the day Ms. Kercher’s body was discovered – with Mignini freely cavorting throughout the space – or you are engaging in willful subterfuge and lies.

            Mignini was there from the start, and, moreover, personally directed the medical examiner Lalli not to take Ms. Kercher’s body temperature.

            Either get up to speed on the very basic elements of this case, or work much harder to thwart a fact-based discussion.

          • Jack says:

            Photos of Mignini on the scene, in the afternoon on the day the murder was discovered:

            http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/contamination4.html

            Next time, do your own homework.

        • jamesrae says:

          Nic
          Being an apologist for Mignini paints a clear picture of where you hang your hat during office hours. Mignini’s past follows him like a stink and that certainly spilled over onto this case and as we all know Mignini arrived at the cottage on day one and this was his case and no wiggling around the facts on this matter will work here.

          • Nic T says:

            My “apology” for Mignini? I am doing nothing of the sort. I am dealing with true facts of the case AND trying to defend Amanda. It is not an exclusive situation, despite this being a line from Amanda’s so called defenders; I am trying to save Amanda using the facts of the Italian courts. Using lies perpetuated to suit the agenda of the US media is burying Amanda. By all means, keep dealing in half truth and lies but if you all keep parrotting a line from a PR company whose aim is to make money and not save their client then you might as well go post on PMF.org. And I might stop reading here and bothering as it seems to me that attacking Italy and its judiciary is way more important than freeing Amanda from the Italian legal system. Way to go everyone.

        • Wayne says:

          Nic, you said
          ******
          Again, Americans might percieve it to be helpful to Amanda to attack Mignini but actually, this is another thing that causes her a lot of harm in Italy.
          *******
          Adn that is our problem with Italy. It SHOUD NOT MATTER whether teh US press or public or posters or anyone here says anything about Italy or not when deciding the case. Its SUPPOSED to be about the evidence and only the evidence. If you are convicting Amanda because you don’t like our attitude, then you have proven yourself corrupt. Justice is not about popularity, hurt feelings, pride, or any of that. Its about the actual truth.

        • Rob H says:

          Actually, Mignini was directing the case from the very beginning – Day 1. You can see him at the cottage as the police genuflect in awe at his arrival. As for the ridiculous multi-attacker/staged break-in theory, there is simply no evidence for it.

        • Som Nathan says:

          NicT, based on what say above and elsewhere you demonstrate pro-guilt bias. Yet you tend to offer some advice to Amanda’s Support community on her blog here, as to how to rectify the situation and take some corrective steps so Amanda can win her exoneration from Italian Supreme Court.

          You and I know that no matter what you and I say here, it will not influence the outcome of decisions that the Supreme Court will deliver in the near future.

          However, I do not agree with any of the arguments you make to say that Amanda is guilty. I am well versed with the case. Your portrayal of Mignini as well respected prosecutor in Italy, in not what I have read in the media and publications. He may be respected in his little town Perugia, however, what I have read he took control of the murder case on Nov. 3 2007 as Public Magistrate. From what I have read, Mignini is a little dictator around his little town and clobbers down anyone who disagrees with him. As he took control of this case on Nov. 3 2007 he manipulated evidence and witnesses to favor the outcome he had already theorized.

          Anyway, my point being you and I disagree on the role that PM Mignini played in framing Amanda, since he was in control he had problems shifting the blame of the killing from Rudi to Guede. To me he is the evil manipulator who orchestrated all this mess.

          Also, it appears you are a “soft guilter”, who believes Amanda is guilty if the Italian court say so. You render some useless advice as to how a guilty verdict can be turned around, by hiring an Italian PR firm to sway the public opinion in her favor in Italy. I don’t think your’s and my advice matters here. Amanda is better served following instructions from her lawyers and family members.

          One outcome I agree will happen. That is, the Supreme Court will confirm her convictions based on testimonies from Rudi’s statements in his “fast track” trial, where he lied implicating Amanda and Raffaele as accomplices and they were not allowed by enstranged Italian law to be represented for cross examination. The outcome of this case is pre-determined after “Mignini’s Poor Rudi Guede’s” fast track trial. No Supreme court judges will show guts to challenge the outcome of that trial as it was very quickly endorsed by the Supreme court. Power politics has played a big role in reducing Rudi Guede’s role as a mere innocent bystander who even tried to help dying Meredith Kercher.

          There are glaring loop holes and ambiguities in this murder investigation that even I as a commoner can write a 500 page report pointing at those holes, yet the judges and prosecutors have “completely” ignored, replacing the facts and evidence in this case with their own fantasies, suppositions and opinions. In USA, UK, Germany, Switzerland or any of the advanced countries such absurd will not fly. The prosecutors such as Mignini will be prosecuted and barred from practicing law. However, he goes on, on his rampage in Perugia.

          I am a strong supporter of Amanda and Raffaele’s innocence, based on lack of physical and genetic evidence against them. They are in this mess still defending themselves because of mistakes made by Perugian police and prosecutors, and releasing prosecutors favoring case information to media to mis-inform the public. And the propogation of those initial lies did the most damage to the credibility of AK &RS.

          And you are suggesting that same media be approached to repair the damage and sway the public opinion in favor of AK & RS. A mammoth task.

          The fight will soon shift to US for her extradition, and her lawyers will fight “tooth and nail” to prevent that from happening if Italian Supreme Court requests one. And, it will be denied, based on the proven notoriety of the prosecutors and controversies around “fast track” trial of Rudi Guede without AK’s defense representation.

          I think “innocent” Raffaele will end up in jail, for not killing Meredith, and Rudi Guede will end roaming the street of a certain city in Italy, a free man, looking for his next victim. After all, he can now boost his resume to say, “how to kill and not getting punished”.

        • Lyn says:

          Nic….Mignini was involved in the case WELL before Amanda’s ‘confession’! He arrived at the cottage around 3pm the day Merediths body was discovered.

        • Antony says:

          NicT: “His recent prosecution (something that happens a lot to prosecutors in Italy – an accepted quirk of the job) was thrown out and he is now completely cleared.”

          More misinformation. Mignini’s conviction for abuse of office was overturned by his friends in the judiciary on technical grounds only, in that the convicting court (dubiously) did not have jurisdiction. His retrial has never been arranged, as far as I know. He has not been cleared.

          This just shows, as does the March 2013 ISC decision, that this man can get court verdicts changed when he doesn’t like them. He is very dangerous.

    • Max Green says:

      Regardless of any PR company’s announcements in this case, people just have to realize that there are only two possibilities: Ms Knox is either 1) involved in a murder or 2) she has nothing to do with it.
      So if it the latter was true – and it does not appear to be unlikely according to the great majority of the world’s independent criminological experts – it should be clear to everybody that Ms Knox is just another victim in this tragedy the same as Mr Lumumba is. I don’t need to determine who has suffered more than the other.

      • NicT says:

        If Amanda has nothing to do with this then prove it. Because what has been presented to the court is insufficient by a long way. And the Italian system is not your system, she is not necessarily innocent until proven guilty, there is a an element of Amanda needing to prove her innocence here, particularly in light of her and Sollecito’s shifting stories (regardless of why they shifted). Noone put their hands into Amanda’s throat, manipulated her voice box to make her say Patrick did it. Then they did not make her write two pages using language that instead of exonerating herself, unintentionally made her sound guiltier. The two written memoriales are possibly the worst things that Amanda did, no matter how good intentioned. Believe it or not, I personally think the chances of Amanda being innocent are higher than the chances of her being guilty – none of us really know except Amanda and Meredith. I also understand that what she went through that night before accusing Patrick is not seen as bad enough in Italy/Europe for it to be coerced confession (American views don’t count at the ECHR)…the admittance of Ghirga, on record, that she was not hit means that the ECHR is a waste of time and money…money going to the very lawyer who screwed up her claim with his comments! Ironic huh? What I am trying to say in all of these comments is that people need to start helping Amanda but everything being done by Amanda’s family, IIP etc just digs her deeper into the mire. Unless you have the money to start paying off the US officials making the extradition decisions then you all need to start playing the Italian game and make sure the Court does not confirm the conviciton. First thing to do? Pay Patrick and withdraw from the ECHR. If you all think Amanda should not pay pay him yourselves. I’ll throw some Euro’s into that cause becasuse Patrick did nothing wrong either yet he lost everything, and yes, in part that was down to Amanda. Start a kick starter, hold a fundraiser; but make Amanda look good instead of a woman who does not accept responsibility for the small thing she did do (which might suggest that she also did the big thing she is accused of) and as a woman who surrounds herself with people who act and comment like the very sorts of Americans that make the rest of the world dislike you intensely. I love America but sometimes you guys are your own worst enemy with an inabilty to see yourselves from the outside. And if you see that comment as anti-Americanism then you are part of the problem and not the solution.

        • Jack says:

          Much of what you write here is false and unreasonable. If you are, in fact, a reasonable person, you should do your homework on this topic and understand how many individuals have been notoriously browbeaten into giving false information which police “know to be true.”

        • Mark says:

          Why did the Italians say Amanda told them what they “knew to be correct” after she “eventually buckled” when she agreed Patrick was the murderer in her unrecorded unsolicited inadmissible midnight interrogation?

          Why didn’t they ask Amanda about the broken window even though she said Patrick came in through the front door?

          Why did they continue to lock up Patrick even tough they had the results of the vaginal swab the morning they arrested him and it proved absolutely that another, unknown male, was Meredith’s rapist and Amanda’s alleged story about Patrick sexually assaulting Meredith was obviously wrong?

          Why did they dredge up an eyewitness to claim Patrick’s bar was closed, even though it was in fact open?

          Why did Patrick continue to sit in jail even after they had positively IDd Rudy Guede from his DNA/prints, only letting him go when an ironclad alibi came forth?

          Why did they continue to keep Patrick’s bar shut down for 2 months, long after he had been exonerated of any wrong doing whatsoever?

          Why do you think Amanda has anything to do with the police corruption in this case or is obligated to pay the price for it?

        • Max Green says:

          “If Amanda has nothing to do with this then prove it. Because what has been presented to the court is insufficient by a long way.”

          You see how difficult it can be to prove one’s innocence, even if you can raise hundred thousands for the process. Now imagine the chances of a poor defendant to expect justice in such a system and you will understand why it is not required to prove one’s innocence neither in the Italian justice system nor by European standards in general. The fairy-tales you tell us about the Italian system makes me believe that your claim to be European is the same wrong as your assumption that I am American. In Europe the Italian problem is well known for decades, vaguely reflected by their record at the ECHR. I won’t go into further detail about this here. Briefly, it is continuous misbehavior of official individuals benefitting from the weakness in certain control structures. Basically you’ll find this in every system – I think I read more blatant cases of judicial misconduct from American law enforcement on a weekly basis, even if the letters are smaller for homeless or immigrants – but for the Knox-Sollecito-Lumumba case the Italians have to accept the their sole responsibility even if it is unpleasant to them.
          I appreciate that you want to help Ms Knox because you believe in her innocence but I can’t support your proposal to be silent about the (unpleasant) truth and let lies and fantasy rule instead – like searching for another “ghost” multi-perpetrator as an imaginary replacement or whatever. A court of law that is unable to deal with the truth needs to be replaced – there is no alternative in my opinion.
          Since I personally don’t know the Knox family my interest in the case is of more general nature. Remember, if countries like Italy are allowed to move on the way they do anybody can be the next to to spent his/her life in jail for nothing.
          Of course I also wish Ms Knox success for the fight for her right she is also fighting for us all and I hope her life will not be sacrificed for someone else’s purposes.

        • jamesrae says:

          Transparency International ranks Italy as 69/177 for world’s most corrupt countries and this is especially true of the Political/Judiciary. It is considered a contender for the most corrupt country in Europe. USA ranks 19 and Canada 9 and Denmark 1 just for some examples. Italy is extremely corrupt by any standards applied. Italians need to wake up and join the real world before they slip into the very bottom rung. Throwing Mignini in jail where he belongs would help matters greatly. Best to you.

        • Sarah H says:

          According to the Italian Constitution, the state must acquit a criminal defendant unless guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is NOT up to a defendant to prove his or her innocence. And there wasn’t a single piece of physical evidence or a witness that placed Amanda in the murder room or connected her body or clothing to Meredith’s body or clothing– facts that provide more than enough reasonable doubt to result in a not guilty verdict in any unbiased trial.

          During the dibattimento (trial), both the Prosecutor and the defendant try to make their case.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure

          Article 111 of the Italian Constitution states that

          2. 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.

          3. In criminal trials, the law provides for timely and confidential information of the accused regarding the nature and reasons of charges brought against them; they are granted the time and means for their defense; they have the right to question those who testify against them or to have them questioned; those who may testify in favor of the accused must be summoned and examined under the same conditions granted to the prosecution; any evidence in favor of the accused must be acknowledged; the accused may rely on the help of an interpreter if they do not understand or speak the language of the proceedings.

          4. In criminal trials, evidence may only be established according to the principle of confrontation between parties. No defendant may be proven guilty on the basis of testimony given by witnesses who freely and purposely avoided cross-examination by the defense.

          During the trial, all the witnesses must bear testimony once again, as must the experts. Plus, all the experiments, conducted during the preliminary investigations, must be repeated as possible and so on, to allow the defendant to actually participate in the process of formazione della prova (proof formation).

          If the Giudice del Dibattimento (Judge of the Trial) is convinced beyond any reasonable doubts the defendant is guilty, the Judge must convict him; if not, the Judge must acquit. The Judge must also publish written explanations of his decisions.

    • Bob Magnetti says:

      Nic T says: “This DNA laboratory thing will not fly in Italy and it will not save her from extradition…”

      Why not? Do you really think that fraudulent DNA evidence should convict someone? Anyone? Especially since the only evidence of Knox/Sollecito in the bloody bedroom is the ‘manufactured’ knife and Bra clasp. Does Italy really wish to move forward with this now that more and more evidence of malfeasance is being discovered in the DNA evidence? I can’t imagine why Italy would wish to go down this road . . .

      • Glenn Thigpen says:

        Nic T. just articulated why this series of trials is such a mess. DNA evidence, scientific evidence, will not fly in Italy. Public opinion is what matters. What is so repugnant about the whole situation is that Italy is willing to sacrifice one of its own citizens, an innocent and honorable man, by all accounts, to “save face”.

        While what Americans may think of feel about the case may be irrelevant in Italy, what Americans think and feel will be relevant when, and if, Italy requests extradition.

        I think that maybe the ECHR may also have something to say about the presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial for both Raffaele and Amanda.

        But then again, the Court of Cassation may just actually regard the evidence, the real, scientific evidence, and annul the latest conviction.

        Glenn

      • NicT says:

        We are past the evidence phase. The appeal has been submited to the Supreme Court. The US extradition system cannot retry the case. There is nowhere to go with this DNA evidence, which you cannot prove, only theorise. So, with respect, you are wasting your time and Amanda’s.

        • Jack says:

          Not with a European Court of Human Rights appeal. Taking the time now to piece together the many travesties in Italy’s pitiful excuse for science will not be lost on the judges in Strasbourg. Italy has been a far too frequent guest there, and at some point, either reform will occur, or the perception of Italy as a modern, civilized state will be tarnished for many years to come.

        • Bob Magnetti says:

          NicT says “The US extradition system cannot retry the case.”

          With the most recent revelations proving that the DNA is pure crap, the US extradition system will most assuredly laugh in Italy’s face. That is if Italy would have the audacity to request extradition.

          Then there is the ECHR. Does Italy wish to be embarrassed by the lECHR with its ‘anything goes’ DNA testing?

        • Antony says:

          NicT: “We are past the evidence phase.”

          We were past the evidence phase in March 2013, when the previous sitting of the ISC annulled Hellman on grounds of his interpretation of the evidence. They acted illegally. Thanks for confirming that point.

          There are in any case multiple legal issues with the Nencini verdict, including that the previous ISC ordered another testing of the knife, stating that “it will be crucial”. As we know, the test came back negative for the victim’s DNA, and the Rome lab went further, stating that the single test which was claimed to show DNA from the victim could not be relied upon because it cannot be replicated. Nencini ignored all this and ruled the knife to be the murder weapon anyway.

          So we have a verdict from a court whose legal basis depends upon an illegal ISC ruling, which did not even follow the parameters handed to it. If the next ISC panel is made up honest judges, then it’s a no-brainer – they will cancel the Nencini travesty, re-instate the Hellman verdict, and put a definitive end to this nonsense.

          But of course we already know that Italian judges can’t be trusted to be impartial, and that there’s (at minimum) a considerable faction among the judiciary determined to bring a guilty verdict regardless of facts, justice or their own laws. So in all probability this will go on to a US extradition hearing and the ECtHR – with Italy losing both battles.

        • Sarah H says:

          Those making the decision in the US are free to exercise their good judgment in answering any extradition request from Italy, including considering the fact that Italy never had probable cause to arrest Amanda, much less try her and find her guilty.

        • Richard M says:

          Yes, NicT, we are way past the evidence phase of this case. In fact the true facts of this murder were known a few days after the murder. The actual forensic and circumstantial evidence pointed to Guede as the sole killer. He was apprehended while trying to flee, tried, convicted and sentenced to 30 years. These facts are well known to all the Italian judges involved and were affirmed by the Hellman verdict of innocence. Guede has been proven guilty and Amanda and Raffaele have been proven innocent.
          Your description of the Italian system describes a system that has completely divorced the finding of guilt or innocence from the true facts of a criminal case. You say that the conventions and practices of the system are more important than putting in jail the actual person who stuck the knife in Meredith and then raped her as she died. Plus the system is prepared by following it’s peculiar policies to put two innocent people in jail and take justice away from Meredith. You say that public opinion as determined by tabloid journalists trying to sell papers for profit are more important than anything else in the outcome of criminal cases in Italy.
          In reality this case has the potential of uniting Italians and Americans against this Italian justice system. Not all Italians can be lead like sheep by the tabloid newspapers. The Nencini motivations are may be exactly the way this system does things but they read like nonsense to everyone else. The idea of extradition of Amanda or actually putting Raffaele in prison based on Nencini is absolutely absurd.
          Knowingly putting innocent people in jail and letting killers go free to kill again is abhorrent to Americans just as it is abhorrent to Italians. The US State Department has a large presence in Italy, they have been following this case closely and the decision on extradition has already been made. They are actually hoping the Court dismisses the whole thing. The court would do itself a lot of favors if it did. This time around the names of each member of the Court will be known. It is incredibly cruel to put people in prison that you know did not commit the crime. In the eyes of the public the judges would be no better than the human scum that is the real killer Guede.

    • Mark Saha says:

      Nic T,

      Perugia police could make Alan Dershowitz accuse Patrick Lumumba of the murder of Meredith Kercher. The interrogation would be untaped due to budget cuts, he would be denied an attorney, and they would sue him for calumny if he denied having been served camomile tea and cake during interrogation.

      What makes no sense is the police theory that Amanda allegedly scrubbed all evidence of herself from the crime scene and broke Filomena’s window to blame Rudy Guede, and then a few days later – “to further throw off police” Mignini says — placed herself right back at the crime scene by falsely accusing Patrick Lumumba.

      There is not a whole lot you can do about the perceptions of people who think like this.

      • Som Nathan says:

        Rudi Guede almost away with murder, like he always used get away with his petty robbery and break-in crimes courtesy “his friends in Perugian police and judiciary”.

        They are pinning this murder on Amanda when there is no physical and genetic evidence of her or Raffaele in murder room, reducing Rudi’s role as a mere bystander who even tried to help dying Meredith.

        Imagine this, 1) that Amanda had deposited her “innocent” DNA few hours to the murder, Or 2) Patrick Lumumba couldn’t provide an alibi; given all other execution of events remaining the same, that is activities leading upto the murder of Meredith by Rudi, I think, Amanda would still be some Italian jail, because the lack that evidence and that evidence alone exonerates her.

      • Willis Coleman says:

        “What makes no sense is the police theory that Amanda allegedly scrubbed all evidence of herself from the crime scene and broke Filomena’s window to blame Rudy Guede, and then a few days later … placed herself right back at the crime scene by falsely accusing Patrick Lumumba.” It’s called a partial confession. Happens every day at every major police station around the world.

      • NicT says:

        Did you see the link in my comment? Ghirga said on record that Amanda was subjected to normal police pressures (i.e nothing she would not find in a US police interview if the US police officially considered her a witness not a suspect) and she was not hit. Her confession to being present was therefore not coerced. The court will take notice of Ghirga and not Amanda. The Perugia Police, if they wished, could beat Jesus himself into a murder confession but the second his lawyer denies the hitting on record, it never happened. And thanks to her lawyer, that means her confession stands.

        • Jack says:

          What do you think Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann – amongst the reality based community, apparently situated mostly outside the borders of Italy, the only credible judge in this entire fiasco – genuinely thinks about this material? Hellmann is convinced that the evidence against Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito was entirely propped up, is absolutely paltry and illegitimate, and has publicly put his reputation on the line in saying so.

          Hellmann’s court was the only one that appointed legitimate and neutral DNA scientists, who summarily demolished the work that had been done in this case. Trust me when I say that rational persons look to the Hellmann court as a beacon, and intuit that he was merely playing ball when he let the calumnia charge stand. If he had overturned that, it would have meant that, as of the moment of his dismissal of Knox and Sollecito, Italy would have had one extraordinarily famous and public wrongful imprisonment case on its hands.

          Again, you do Italy no service by making excuses for these improprieties. Especially when the world has witnessed that there is/was, in Judge Hellmann, at least one thinking and relatively incorruptible individual in a position of power within her borders.

        • Bob Smith says:

          Actually, the article you keep citing said that Ghirga said: “There were pressures from the police but we never said she was hit.”. That is very different than “Ghirga said on record that Amanda was subjected to normal police pressures” or that he said “…she was not hit”.

          To begin with, when someone publishes something on a blog it does not mean it is “on record”. But let’s assume for a moment that he did say it. So, Ghirga saying that there “were pressures” is not saying it was “NORMAL pressures”. The existence of something does not make it normal. And he never said she was not hit, he said he DID NOT SAY she was hit. His comment may have meant in response to someone saying he said it.

          I have heard that you are just repeating what the Italian public thinks. But is seems to me that the Italian public is probably oblivious to this comment from Ghirga since it was something from 2008 that was published in an english language blog.

    • Rob H says:

      Actually, I see nothing in Andrea Vogt’s brief post from which to infer a “contradictory” nature of the two appeals.

      The case against each has been made with different evidence points that will no doubt be reflected in the thrust of each appeal.

      As for Lumumba, he was ruled out as a suspect within a couple of days of his arrest and so the responsibility for his predicament lies with the police not Ms Knox and doubly so since they caused, illegally, Ms Knox to incriminate him and didn’t test the veracity of her coerced statement.

      As for the rest of your rumour mill, it carries no weight and nor does your personal view of the exculpatory DNA evidence.

      • Willis Coleman says:

        How exactly was Patrick “ruled out as a suspect”? Once he’d been fingered by Amanda nothing could rule him out except an ironclad alibi, which fortunately for him he eventually got or else he’d likely be two years in the slammer along with the others.

        • Rob H says:

          You don’t know your evidence, “will is”. Lumumba was supposed to have been having sex with Ms Kercher before killing her. By November 8th it had been confirmed there was no trace of him in her room and the samples on her body were not his. Absence of alibi does not equate to guilt. But in Italy they do things differently. Silenzi knew this too. Doubtless, if he didn’t have an alibi, he would have been falsely accused as well and in even more danger because he was Ms Kercher’s boyfriend. A differently truncated picture of the evidence would have revealed his presence at the cottage and he would have been woven into the prosecutor’s fantasy along with the others. The possibilities were endless and are endless for rogue justice systems, which specialise in the suppression of evidence that does not support the convictions they have decided to pursue.

        • Jack says:

          Literally the following morning after her “accusation”, Ms. Knox expressed that she doubted the truth of what she said with regard to Lumumba. A professional and reasonable detective squad would have paid attention, rather than going with their stupid instinct that, under duress, Knox had “told them what they already knew.”

          It was also up to the crackerjack Perugian squad not to make preposterous assumptions about the text exchange between Knox and Lumumba, and to bloody well wait until the evidence was in before making public pronouncements about the case being closed. It was amateur hour from the start with these clowns, with a soupçon of corruption and abuse for good measure.

          It is disgraceful that an apparently educated person would fall for such transparent, unjust and primitive nonsense, but you have made it quite clear you have drunk the Kool-Aid. Consequently, you are no more than another robotic “guilter” attaching to the flimsiest circumstantial indications of guilt, whilst ignoring huge problems with an *actual case* for guilt.

          Because, as a founding and influential member of one of the anti-Knox cults, he is a genuine threat to justice, Ergon/Nasim/The Man from Atlan’s tripe must be attended to. You are merely a drone. If there were an ignore function here, I’d have long ago placed you on it.

        • Sarah H says:

          Amanda withdrew her statement about Lumumba within a few hours of making it — at which point that should have been the end of the matter. The police — not Amanda — were the ones responsible for Lumumba’s arrest and jail time.

          • Michael says:

            She did not withdraw her statements. Read her two written statements and she never recant’s her confession, she sounds confused and rambling but never recant’s her previous statements.

          • Jack says:

            Typically, “Michael” posts “guilter” tripe. As one of the lead, shall we say, theoreticians of one of the many looney bins operating under the acronym “PMF”, this entity is invested in a tenuous mythology, around which an online cult has formed.

            Along with something called TJMK, this alphabet soup of groups are united in their inability to honestly address actual evidence in this case. They either lie or simply ignore the numerous massive flaws in their position. They have devoted seven years to creating what will doubtless someday be a point of departure for an exhaustive sociological study of aberrant, vindictive group behavior.

          • Max Green says:

            Michael, if you don’t understand the purpose of a written note that is addressed to you because it “sounds confused and rambling” the normal reaction would be to ask the sender for clarification, wouldn’t it?
            Considering it undoubtedly refers to the reasons of Lumumba’s arrest, it is serious negligence – at best – of a prosecutor to just ignore it for weeks. Not even taking into account that the DNA evidence exonerated Lumumba days after.

        • Som Nathan says:

          Willis, why didn’t the dumb Perugian police investigate Patrick Lumumba’s alibi and evidence at the crime before arresting him. That was a dumb move by the police to arrested someone from a “word” from someone who herself is in custody for the same crime as alleged.
          If they so much believed in Amanda’s words (under duress though by police pressures), why didn’t believe her and let go when she simply said, that she is innocent and had nothing to do with the killing of Meredith.
          Rightly so, if they had believed her and let her go then, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
          But, now we know Perugian law enforcement authorities had “other plans” after learning Amanda’s vulnerability and weak alibi, under the guidance of little dictator PM Mignini, the cooked up fantastic story, to bring Amanda to the forefront of the crime and reduce Rudi Guede’s role as an innocent bystander who even helped dying Meredith in last moments. That is “Mignini’s poor Rudi Guede”.

          Version 3.0 of that “cooked” story was recently released in Florence. Amanda’s role hasn’t changed.

    • Wayne says:

      The fact that you said “American lies” tells me everything I need to know about the attitude of Italy. To the Italians this was a “get the American” case. Not one based on evidence, forensics, truth or justice.

      The Italin court can claim any conviction they want. They can’t have her.

    • Mark says:

      Amanda is never going to convince the Italian people that their authorities are all wrong, and she, the American accused of murder, is right. I think we’d have better luck convincing them our soccer team will challenge them in the World Cup.

      Patrick has nobody to blame but the police. We don’t even have to worry about what Amanda may or may not have said in her unrecorded unsolicited interrogation. The fact is the police had ironclad proof the day after the interrogation, direct from the DNA lab, that Patrick was not Meredith’s rapist, making Amanda’s alleged interrogation false. They went full steam ahead detaining him and accusing him of murder. That’s on him and not her. And that the Italian media has no interest in explaining this to their public is also not on her and not something she can singlehandedly counter.

      As for the appeal, I trust Andrea Vogt to give an accurate assessment of it about as much as I trust our US soccer team to give a challenge to Italy (sorry, been watching the World Cup). So, I’ll wait on that front.

    • William Benjamin says:

      My snap reaction is that this is old junk news. Raffaele is respected here in the USA and many understand that he needs to care for himself first and that he is in the best position to know what that is. Raffaele is an honorable man and he has paid an enormous price for that.

      The extradition question is separate from Raffaele’s issues. It is an American issue and Americans will decide. My feeling is that since the first trial was so utterly screwed up extradition will not be approved. It is really not about nationalism and that will be the hardest thing to explain. If it doesn’t go Italy’s way there are many Italian citizens that will fully understand why and be in agreement. Wouldn’t it be nice if our two countries could put an end to this foolishness that has cost two good and innocent people a decade of their lives.

      Your comment about the importance of a small pr company is laughable. It was an Italian pr campaign that caused this whole problem.

      • NicT says:

        I work for a British company based in Italy. We work with expats in Italy with various legal problems from tax planning to criminal issues, including extradition and the application of various international treaties. Trust me, the only way to stop Amanda being sent back to Italy is to stop the Supreme Court confirming the conviction. There are people in the world more valuable to America than Amanda and America needs to be seen to be playing the international game, particulaly at a time when it needs strong European allies with the Middle East and Iraq. If you really believe that America will protect Knox then you are in for a very shocking wake up call in the early part of next year.

        • Jack says:

          Time will tell. But I suspect, even with numerous recent examples of “American exceptionalism” (many with which I personally disagree), you do not understand Ms. Knox’s home country any better that you believe we understand Italy.

          Often to its great credit, “old Europe”, as the dumb-ass Rumsfeld insultingly called it, is in tune with seeing the world and its passing history in shades of gray. America equally reliably cuts to the quick with assessments in black and white.

        • Sarah H says:

          Right. And you’re such an expert about America and its extradition policies because you work for a British company based in Italy.

          If you think America will extradite her while she is in the midst of a well-grounded appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, then you are in for a shocking wake up call.

        • Rob H says:

          Perhaps some Americans might not appreciate the particular kind of “wisdom” espoused by NicT. But over here, it’s easily recognisable as the blokish product of British pub talk. With copious quantities of stronglager, a unique breed of racially, sexually and culturally homogenous British males,over the course of a couple of hours,claims to understand everything about a particular issue that grabs their attention. It’s all black or white, there is no grey and there is no doubt. Later, when events unfold differently, they will say to each other, “See! I told you so! It’s happened just like I said it would!”

          People like this have an opinion about everything and knowledge of nothing. The phenomenon was beautifully parodied a few years ago by the comedian Al Murray.

    • Frank the Tank says:

      You make good points about what the Italians think about Ms Knox.

      My rebuttal would be that most Italians are morons. And please don’t interpret that as a knock against Italians, because I think most Americans are morons as well.

      Ultimately the sad reality is that the actual facts of the case were largely ignored seven years ago because that pervert, Giuliano Mignini, wanted to craft a story about satanic sex rituals and/or sex games gone wrong. The Knox/Sollecito trial is ultimately more about Italian prejudices about American women than it is about the facts.

    • Som Nathan says:

      Andrea Vogt is a biased journalist. She has zero credibility. She is a paid by Italians and British media to tow the “guilty” line. Her articles are based on manufactured evidence by prosecutors and all she does is recycle the perugian lies over and over again. She is a junk tabloids journalist where all guilters go to get information, including her and guilters belief that UFA and Aliens exist.

    • Maggi says:

      Actually this case involves far more than the Italians and the Americans – the world is indeed watching now – and if it does need to proceed to the European Human Rights Court that little “DNA laboratory thing that will not fly in Italy” might just prove crucial in “true justice” finally being achieved for all involved – particularly for the young lady who was so brutally murdered.
      The many fictions created by an apparently corrupt police, forensic ‘specialists’, judges, prosecutors, media, and cyberbullies have denied her and her family real truth, justice and closure for far too long.
      The worldwide justice and scientific community will be expecting certain procedures to be followed and watching very closely.
      It is also criminal that a huge hunk of two other young people’s lives has been stolen in the process.
      An accused person should not have to hire a PR company and would not have had to if a powerful and corrupt system had not initially poisoned the well by ‘leaking’ falsified info such as those famous luminol/blood photos to the tabloids..the first bit of faked forensic evidence….. to a media that was more than willing to assist/profit from the ‘story’.
      A tiny Seattle PR firm against the tabloid press in league with a corrupted prosecution – equals David Vs, Goliath.
      Oh wait…this story might end with true justice after all.

    • giovanni says:

      Not sure what you are getting at? A bunch of noise is what I am seeing/reading. There is NO EVIDENCE to find them guilty. And I call BS on the supposition of who released the CCTV film. Its a sideline issue with no credibility. its a big SO WHAT!

    • Chris Meyering says:

      You are welcome to have differences of opinion but you cant use Vogt as a source to be taken seriously. Shes a tabloid Journalist and has been the leading figure in the Anti-Knox propaganda.

      If you want to be taken seriously, quote from partial or neutral sources and it would be helpful if the person had a PhD in something related to crime or Science or is not a sensationalist journalist.

    • Som Nathan says:

      “discredit Amanda in the court of public opinion”, nothing new in this. Perugian prosecutors and police have been doing this Nov. 2 2007. They have been releasing key information critical to the case and should be kept confidential until both parties agreed for release, since day 1 after the murder. That includes speculations, lies and misinformation. That includes the bathroom photos sprayed with the chemical and portrayed as if it was murdered victims blood to gain public sympathy and later portray as if it was all Amanda’s fault.
      Sollecito family members can do whatever they can to save Raffaele from going to jail, but still cannot alter the fact that, Rudy Guede broke-in, pooped, threatened, raped, robbed and killed clueless, defenseless Meredith Kercher.

    • Len D. says:

      Nic Y:

      “This DNA laboratory thing will not fly in Italy and it will not save her from extradition”

      My perspective:

      The Italians will request extradition and the Americans (we) will deny it. Why? The Italians never convinced people here who were paying attention and for most of the others who weren’t paying that close attention the public discrediting of the DNA and subsequent acquittal did it for them. This latest conviction didn’t convince too many people here because the Italians made the biggest public mistake you can make…they changed their story…or as they say here in politics they “flip-flopped”. To the masses: first they say she’s guilty, then she’s not, now back to guilty! The opinion here then shifts to they are either stupid or lying. As a backdrop, there also have been other public “issues” regarding Italy that, let’s say, haven’t filled people with confidence (Berlusconi/bunga bunga, Costa Concordia, scientist can predict earthquakes, ect). It also didn’t help that here they started with that preposterous pot induced sex game gone awry motive eventually followed up by this ridiculous po0p in the toilet argument that led to violence motive. Let’s say that this will probably not fly in America.

    • Sarah H says:

      As far as extradition is concerned, the opinions of US scientists, politicians, lawmakers and citizens are far more important than any of the haters in Italy or elsewhere.

  30. Tom Zupancic says:

    Yet another example of ‘illiogicality’ has now emerged as actual scientists scrutinize the evidentiary foundation of this case. The latest issue goes back to the analyses performed in the lab on November 5-6, from samples previously collected from the downstairs apartment. These are the famous ‘cat blood’ samples found by investigators.

    Briefly, careful inspection of the DNA evidence now reveals yet another specific example of fraud by the prosecution. The so called ‘cat blood’ from the downstairs apartment was actually found to contain human DNA which was analyzed by genotyping. The results were then suppressed and the story about ‘cat blood’ was apparently concocted. For the details see the table describing Batch 1 http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/batch-one-downstairs-crime-scene-semen-samples-early-exclusion-sollecito-lumumba/. The ‘Ct values’ obtained here conclusively demonstrate that these blood samples contained human DNA. Unequivocally!

    Needless to say, the subsequent genotype analyses that were then done on these samples have been suppressed by the Prosecution. Go figure.

    • Julie Jorgensen says:

      I would be curious to know, given this new information about the blood downstairs being human instead of cat, what your hypothesis is of how this blood got there and whom it may have belonged to. Do you believe this was also part of the crime scene or that Rudy Guede could have gone there after the murder in an attempt to clean up, and if so, how would he have gotten into the downstairs apartment? This is certainly an area that needs to be looked at again and more thoroughly.

    • Rob H says:

      One wonders what possible defence Messrs Stefanoni, Mignini, Comodi et al could put forward with regard to this extraordinary suppression of evidence.

      In Italian law “all investigatory materials” are required to be disclosed. And this is exculpatory evidence.

      Is it possible that Professors Conti and Vechiotti or indeed other independent, respected Italian forensic scientists might be able to interpret this new evidence and in conjunction with a member of the Italian bar, file the equivalent of an amicus curiae (amicus brief) with the court of cassation?

      Now is the time for men and women of influence, courage and moral purpose to come forward in Italy.

    • Wombling free says:

      In Amanda’s UW interview, she did wonder if Meredith had been chased from the downstairs apartment. Amazing insight.

    • Willis Coleman says:

      Here’s the thing: I don’t believe for a minute Stefanoni “suppressed” the fact that there was human blood in the downstairs apartment. What you’ve got is a giant data dump that you are mining on the basis that everything that is unexplained represents potential malfeasance. This is precisely the reason police labs are almost universally reluctant to disclose their EDFs. As a student of the case I think what you’re doing is interesting though not particularly relevant and certainly not deserving of the hype with which each new “revelation” is announced.

      • Rob H says:

        You are confused. It is the EDFs that validate the lab’s results. If the lab has nothing to hide, it shows them.

        “All investigatory materials” must be turned over to the defence, in Italian law.

        In the absence of the EDFs, the work being done on the information in the data dump is the most important ever done in the case.

      • Tom Mininger says:

        Stefanoni found human blood downstairs and went along with the prosecution lie that it was cat blood. That’s suppression of evidence. Imagine if a crime lab committed this fraud against you.

      • Antony says:

        Willis Coleman: “I don’t believe for a minute Stefanoni “suppressed” the fact that there was human blood in the downstairs apartment.

        Willis, what you “believe” is neither here nor there. You’ve already shown that you’re not interested in objectivity or fairness.

        “What you’ve got is a giant data dump that you are mining on the basis that everything that is unexplained represents potential malfeasance.”

        Doesn’t this remind you of the cheap gotchas levelled at the 2 defendants, that are the basis of the entire guilt campaign? Except that the mountain of “unexplained” irregularities within the conduct of the prosecution case really do demonstrate that it has no merit whatsoever.

    • Tom Mininger says:

      So 6 of the downstairs human blood samples were DNA profiled, yet the prosecution suppresses who these profiles were of.

    • Wombling free says:

      Tom. The boys downstairs did share the apartment with the cat so wouldn’t it be natural to find human DNA there? Are you now saying the downstairs apartment is also part of the crime scene? After all, as I mentioned previously, Amanda did suggest Mereedith was chased from there. Where is your evidence the ‘cat blood’ story was concocted?

  31. Hi Amanda and Raffaele: I have blogged this newest article on DNA Lab Fraud onto most of my music pages (Twitter, Facebook, Wix.com, Reverbnation.com, etc) and I certainly hope that this newest development leads to a FINAL ACQUITTALS FOR YOU BOTH. The story Link is below.- Best, KJ
    http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/crime/op-ed-dna-laboratory-fraud-revealed-in-amanda-knox-case/article/386758

    • Glenn Thigpen says:

      In light of that information, it would be in Italy’s best interests for the court of Cassation to throw out the latest verdict because the Nencini court did not follow the edict that the further tests on the knife that it ordered were supposed to be “decisive”. If the Hellman verdict is reinstated, there will be no further action and the ECHR will not become involved. That would avoid further embarrassment for Italy in the eyes of the EC and other international entities. I am hoping for such a scenario.

      Glenn

      • Stephane G says:

        Let me see… PR campaign (inevitable)… Two knives… Picture of the bathroom tinted in red (Look ! Must be blood…) Strange behavior… Staged burglary… etc. And another article with the Luminol / TMB thing (see below). Most instructive indeed.

      • William Benjamin says:

        http://groundreport.com/the-evidence-is-strong-against-amanda-knox-in-the-meredith-kerchers-murder-case/

        I can’t believe the bloody bathroom photo was used. You do know that is luminol, not blood, in that bathroom photo, don’t you? Please explain then why you would endorse it’s use.

      • Ian Morris says:

        If the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was so strong, why did the prosecution have to resort to suppressing evidence and lying?

        • Som Nathan says:

          Ian, I even (a commoner) know the answer to that question. Because Perugian police and prosecutors after coming to know that Rudi murdered Meredith, because of “over whelming” physical and genetic evidence of him, Mignini manipulated the people and material (evidence) resources to reduce his role at secondary level. For example, Mignini already knew that Amanda had weak alibi and whatever alibi she had on Raffaele’s computer hardware was destroyed.

          Why Mignini reduced the role of Rudi to just an innocent bystander is a 100 million dollar question, who even tried to help dying Meredith, according to Mignini, Massie and Nencini?

          Was it the powerful and wealthy family who nurtured Rudi played a role in influencing the police and prosecutors to twist and turn the evidence in reducing the role of Rudi?

          Someone needs to investigate and answer these questions.

      • Jack says:

        Yes, but you have already thoroughly demonstrated your inability to think carefully and clearly. Therefore, the flawed, propped-up, contaminated and corrupt evidence alluded to in the pieces you’ve linked make convincing cases only to you and your ilk.

        To clear-thinking, reasonable persons, caveat emptor!

      • Tom Mininger says:

        Here’s a good article on the pink chemical in the bathroom that Tyler dredges back up. The police had people all over Europe believing this was blood years ago. There’s also a police photo of what Amanda actually saw in the bathroom.
        http://mindhuntersinc.com/how-italian-police-attempted-to-sink-amanda-knox/

        The police were so unconcerned they refused to break Meredith’s door in. Filomena’s friend had to do it.

      • Ian Morris says:

        The Groundreport report article The Evidence is Stcong ontains fslsehoods. It claims Raffaele was confronted about phoning the carabineri after the postal police arrived. The police have never claimed this. The notion Raffaele called the Carabinieri after the postal arrived has long been debunked. I would like to ask Taylor a question. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so strong, why is that you and your fellow haters can not argue your case without resorting to lying? Is it not hypocritical to constantly accuse Amanda and Raffaele of lying when you lie yourself?

      • Som Nathan says:

        Recycled material. All proven to false and manufactured by Perugian police and Prosecutor Mignini.

    • Thousands of Americans know that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent and our voices will not be silent until these wrongfully convicted co-defendants are SET FREE from this Injustice and Battle for the Truth. Rudy is the killer. Amanda was not there, Raffaele wasn’t there, Period. ACQUIT THEM NOW ONCE AND FOR ALL. – Best, KJ

    • The real “Villain” in this entire episode is Prosecutor Mignini and not Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito. This prosecutor will stand before God having to explain WHY he accused two innocent persons of a crime he clearly knew was contrived by his own office. Amanda Knox did not argue about money with Meredith and did not steal the funds in her room. She worked hard to save up the funds to travel to Italy and was working on concrete goals. She has since mastered the Italian language to meet this prior goal and also out of sheer legal necessity. Raffaele is also a man of achievements and accomplishments in terms of his own life and career. He had never met Rudy Guede and only saw him in court as a witness later on in the trial. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were not at Amanda’s residence on the night of the crime and the knife taken from Raffaele’s kitchen drawer “at random” by the Perugian police is not the murder weapon. At first the prosecution said a “sex game” caused the murder and then when that didn’t fly they switched to the theory that Amanda fought with Meredith over money on the night of the crime but that is impossible because Amanda was not even there. She was at Raffaele’s apartment. I urge the Court of Cessation to grant both Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito complete ACQUITTALS now because they have always been – Innocent. – Best, Kenneth Janeway

  32. Mike the skier says:

    @ William Benjamin

    Could this have happened in the U.S.? Well no; but then again maybe. And she would still be in prison. We have plenty of U.S. cases to compare

    The “Confession” was thrown out in Italy because of a lack of a lawyer. My question, was she explained her rights? If she was read her rights then the confession would stand in the U.S.

    The “false accusation” is a civil mater in the U.S. and would not have factored in here in the U.S. The “confession” played a huge role in Italy because such an accusation is criminal in Italy and everything was combined. As such the jurors (really just the judge) had to disassociate one part from the other which is hard to do.

    The lack of evidence would not have mattered in the U.S. There way too many cases of that happening in the U.S. There are too many confession only cases in the U.S. More notable one: Barry Beach, Blaise Lobato, Norfolk 4 (8 at one time), Memphis 3. Only the Norfolk 4 and Memphis 3 are conditionally free.

    When comparing cases in the two countries, one thing stands out. Italy continued with the forensics where in some cases in the U.S. everything stopped once the person(s) was formally accused (David Camm {amazing}, Norfolk 4 {8 at one time}, Blaise Lobato, and only Camm is free).

    The David Camm case is similar: No forensic, shifting motives in 3 trials and false character assassination (child molestation) that proved he must have done it.

    The Stock Murders in Murdock, Texas is similar. The forensics had essentially stopped after one nephew confessed (he did not get along with the uncle) except two women kept looking. It almost became a wrongful conviction. There are police and relatives that still do not believe the forensics and evidence based confessions. The family says “Now we will never know what happened”. Does that sound familiar. There was also forensic misconduct.

    In conclusion William Benjamin, it may not have happened here in the U.S. but I don’t think you can be that confident in your argument. The good thing is that Italy solved the case. They just could not admit that they made a mistake. In all these cases, that is very juvenile behavior.

    • Som Nathan says:

      Yes, the Perugian police made many mistakes, including the collection of evidence physical as well as genetic. That includes calling the famous “CASE CLOSED” prematurely. They arrested wrong people without collecting and analyzing all the critical evidence. They leaked critical pieces of investigation to media for Italian public consumption. Rudi Guede’s lawyers took full advantage of this leakage. They knew the identity of the other two defendants before Rudi went to trial. It was easy for him to change his narration of the events that fateful evening. He grabbed the opportunity to implicate Amanda and Raffaele when he saw that AK & RS alibi is not very strong (or what ever there was on three computer disks was deliberately destroyed by the police). PM Mignini played (still playing behind the scene) in authoring phony and made up charges against AK & RS. He did everything to reduce Rudi Guede’s role in murder as secondary. Mignini’s “Poor Rudi” even tried to help dying Meredith. He also did everything to bring Amanda’s role to forefront and charge her as primary in the murder, although no evidence or motive sticks to reality, that Rudi killed Meredith.
      Raffaele is just a collateral damage as he refused to change his alibi for Amanda, although he was given many such opportunities by Perugian police and also his own family members. Mignini was only after Amanda from day 1 after the murder. The prosecutor had nothing against Raffaele after the shoeprint was ruled as NOT belonging to Raffaele shoes, therefore they conspired and went back to the “villa” to collect the famous “bra clasp” after 46 days, just to punish Raffaele because he had refused to comply to the prosecutors wishes.

      Massie and Nencini have made many assumptions, personnel opinions and have used terms like “most-likely” scenarios. For example,
      1) They assumed that break-in is staged based on words from postal police, therefore didn’t investigate the “actual” break-in scenario.

      2) They assumed that Amanda carried kitchen knife in her shoulder bag. This was never proven by any eye witness(es), or any evidence collected.

      3) They speculate that Amanda delivered the fatal cut to Meredith’s throat based on Rudi’s testimony in the court trial where AK & RS were not even represented.
      They do not have direct proof, just speculations. And, more so why Rudi’s claims are so authentic from point of view that he “heard” the murder being committed and not actually “see”. Remember, he claimed that he was in Filomena’s toilet in the bathroom quite away from room when Meredith was attacked, taking that famous “dump”.
      4) NO other knives from Raffaele’s kitchen or Meredith’s kitchen were tested. The very first “shiny” knife was picked. This was “assumed” to be the murder weapon, Why? Where as from a detectives prospective any knife could have been the murder weapon.
      5) Why judges have refused to test the stain on the pillow placed under Meredith’s lower part of the body, believed to be semen stains of Rudi Guede.

      I can list many-many more such flaws, but so far the two judges refused to accept the real facts and evidence favoring Amanda and Raffaele, and have sided with phony and fabricated stories from prosecutors.

      Amanda and Raffaele have been wronged and framed. Rudi Guede is the lone killer of Meredith and getting a leaner punishment.

      Shame on Mignini and his chronies in police department and judiciary in Perugia.

      • William Benjamin says:

        Som the impetus of Mike’s statement here and prior is…

        isn’t just as likely that Amanda and Raffaele would have been wrongfully convicted in the USA just the same as they were wrongfully convicted in Italy. He evidences known and probable wrongful convictions in the USA as substantiation to his claim.

        I think his tactic is called a strawman. I’m not sure though.

    • William Benjamin says:

      You are attempting to compare apples to boulders and I’m calling you out on it. I think your point is that the American Knox and Italian Sollecito should be incarcerated into Italian prisons for decades because the United States has convicted some innocent American people.

      My opinion is that Knox, and therefore Sollecito, would not have ever been tried. This case was instigated by and continues to be about propaganda. The physical evidence against Knox and Sollecito can reasonably be doubted and only enough has been collected to just barely qualify as evidence. It’s measured in picoliters. With the questionable DNA handling practices it’s only enough material to create doubt. However the amount of physical evidence against the person jailed is copious. And the reasoning for this is a impossible cleanup scenario. This ordeal is about propaganda that appeals to our lesser selves. Now on to your statements point by point.

      [Could this have happened in the U.S.? Well no; but then again maybe. And she would still be in prison. We have plenty of U.S. cases to compare]

      You are comparing this to exceptional cases that we might both agree probably went wrong. Shouldn’t we compare these trials against the average US case? Or are you saying that most trials in the U.S. falsely convict people. Assuming everything was normal, with discovery motions for evidence it would have been like the peer review of evidence that occurred in the Italian appeals trial 3 ½ years into this… would have happened before the 1st trial even began. That is the way it works here. I am confident that the prosecutor would have never proceeded into the 1st trial with that peer review in place. The main part of his case was blown apart as was just about everything else. I don’t believe a judge would have allowed it to go forward. The prosecutor didn’t have a case accept for the she devil scenario.

      [The "Confession" was thrown out in Italy because of a lack of a lawyer. My question, was she explained her rights? If she was read her rights then the confession would stand in the U.S.
      The "false accusation" is a civil mater in the U.S. and would not have factored in here in the U.S. The "confession" played a huge role in Italy because such an accusation is criminal in Italy and everything was combined. As such the jurors (really just the judge) had to disassociate one part from the other which is hard to do]

      We would not call it a confession. Typically we assign that word to admission of actions that are illegal. Sitting in your own kitchen is not illegal. Lying about when you did that is illegal but there would have been no statement from her because she knew her rights here, would have been read her rights (Miranda Law), spoke the language here and would have been given a lawyer when she inquired. It would be illegal for police here to threaten her with jail time just because she was asking for a lawyer. That is a line that investigators here do not cross. They lose their jobs if they do.

      [The lack of evidence would not have mattered in the U.S. There way too many cases of that happening in the U.S. There are too many confession only cases in the U.S. More notable one: Barry Beach, Blaise Lobato, Norfolk 4 (8 at one time), Memphis 3. Only the Norfolk 4 and Memphis 3 are conditionally free.]

      Once again you compare this to the exceptioned US cases and not the average cases. In the average cases the lack of evidence would matter. The jury would be eyeballing the prosecutor because all he would have is the she-devil approach and we here haven’t tried a witch for quite some time now. A jury would be embarrassed and outraged that they were being asked to do so.

      [When comparing cases in the two countries, one thing stands out. Italy continued with the forensics where in some cases in the U.S. everything stopped once the person(s) was formally accused (David Camm {amazing}, Norfolk 4 {8 at one time}, Blaise Lobato, and only Camm is free).]

      Yes I saw the photograph of the forensics sprayed all over the bathroom walls. So when Italian police spray paint a room with fake blood then send the pic to the media and lie about its implications, Italians and others rallied around the misogynistic and salacious entertainment value and didn’t care that they just poisoned public opinion and the impartiality of the future jury with a huge lie. Over here being educated and not wanting the same to happen to us, we cry foul and then police get investigated for lying. In Italy they don’t get investigated for lying. This is just one of many many reasons why so many people here are calling this case an injustice. We are now beginning to pay this some attention.

      [In conclusion William Benjamin, it may not have happened here in the U.S. but I don’t think you can be that confident in your argument. The good thing is that Italy solved the case. They just could not admit that they made a mistake. In all these cases, that is very juvenile behavior.]

      In conclusion I am confident that Knox and Sollecito would have never been brought to trial here. That is precisely the reason why I am sitting here right now writing this to you. I have also donated money to both of them and a great deal of time and will continue to do so. Mistakes are one thing. Failing to admit them is called corruption. Italy made a horrendous mistake here and you are trying to negotiate a lesser impact on Italy. I’m not against that except that there is a gun pointed at Knox’s head and Sollecito’s head while you present an argument to negotiate a better repercussion for Italy.

      (paste and copy of my earlier response)
      Nonsense! The farce would have come to a screeching halt when USA today published the photos of the luminol soaked bathroom. The false reports of a so-called “confession of murder”, the private sex life information being stolen and paraded and dozens of other things. There were red flags popping up all over and public opinion would have been balanced and demanding of investigations of those leaking the information early on. The forensics would have had peer review. This case had the glare of a public spotlight on it and substantial defense funding. Did the cases you mention have those ingredients as well?

      • Mike the skier says:

        Okay one case: Kirstin Lobato “Blaise” in Las Vegas 2001. Go to You Tube. There are lots of videos. The same FBI agent in the Meredith murder is involved. This is not an exceptional case.

        She is still in prison.

        A sketch:
        She goes to a hotel in Las Vegas. A “large” black man attempts rape and she stabs him in the groin with a butter knife which is not sharp. She tells everyone in her home town.

        A month or so later a “skinny” black man is murdered and his penis is cut of. A counselor in her hometown hear about it and makes the connection and calls the police.

        Have you every watched the “Who’s on First” video by Abbott and Costello? Take a break and watch it on You Tube. It is funny. That is how the police interview went. They were talking about one crime and she was talking about another.

        This is not an exceptional case. It is a simple case that has become exceptional, just like the Kercher murder.

        If AK and RS were arrested in the U.S., they might still be in jail.

        • William Benjamin says:

          OK here’s an easy answer for you. If everything was the same then in October of 2011 AK & RS were acquitted in a US court. That is the end of it. No more trials. Over and done with. They are free. No double jeopardy here. Period.

          • Mike the skier says:

            I always hear pundants say that the U.S. has the best legal system in the world. I’m trying make the point that U.S. is not the best. Maybe better than Italy.

    • Sarah H says:

      Please cite a single case in the US where criminal defendant A was convicted in large part (or any part) based on evidence stipulated to in the trial of a separate defendant, defendant B; and where B’s testimony against A was entered into A’s trial without giving A’s attorney the chance to question B.

      • Mike the skier says:

        There is no case like that in the U.S. Italy has a unique legal system where one trial determines the facts of another trial and the defendants can’t defend themselves against it.

    • Antony says:

      Let’s not beat ourselves up by agonising over whether or not a case like this would have happened in the US (or the UK, which is where I am). I think it’s fair to say it wouldn’t have happened in the same way; while there are certainly corrupt police and partisan, hanging judges – and powerful incentives to “achieve” convictions regardless of justice – outside Italy, it’s hard to imagine such a transparent frame-up occurring in a country with a half-way functional justice system. In the US or the UK the police would have made a much more convincing job of it.

      What’s breathtaking about this case is the arrogance of the police and prosecution – all of their behaviour, from the “caso chiuso” press conference to the conjuring tricks used to “find” the 2 vital items of evidence, demonstrates a belief that nothing they did would ever be subject to scrutiny. Why have trials?

      • Mike the skier says:

        Anthony, I just view this as a worldwide legal systemic problem. The Kercher case is just one of many, particularly of confessions. There is just a total international lack of understanding on this.

        All of this gives me pause. I favor the death penalty, but these cases make me rethink the death penalty

        Here is a very interesting one from Iceland. It is a nice mixture of writing and videos. Enjoy

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/2014/newsspec_7617/index.html

  33. Stewart says:

    Thank you all for your many replies to my post of Tues last. Clearly the TMB test issue arouses strong feeling, and, @Max Green, is significant.
    I feel I must reiterate the case for false TMB negatives as implied by the NFSTC when they stated in their DNA Analyst Training Laboratory Training Manual that:
    ‘A negative result indicates that either no blood is present or is below the limit of detection of the test.’
    The luminol footprints cannot necessarily be discounted by the TMB negatives performed on them, as there is too great a possibility of the tests simply not being able to pick up any blood cells left at the point where the prints were set down, after a clean up operation.

    Firstly, the very fact that luminol can detect blood at a density of 1 in 1,000,000 parts, whilst TMB can only detect blood to a sensitivity of 1 in 10,000 parts – proves in itself that blood can exist on a sample and be detectable by luminol, while being invisible to the TMB test.
    Secondly, the FBI have found that contamination of blood traces by reducing agents, such as are contained in some detergents, can lead to false negatives in their ‘FBI Critical Revision of Presumptive Tests for Bloodstains’.
    Perhaps the most intriguing possibility for a TMB negative is the very use of luminol itself. In tests performed by Minnesota Forensic Science Laboratory they found that a blood sample can even go from testing TMB positive before application of luminol, to a negative afterwards: ‘Four of the surfaces which gave positive results with the TMB test before luminol treatment gave negative results after treatment’ [The Effect of Luminol on Presumptive Tests and DNA Analysis Using the Polymerase Chain Reaction'].
    Bearing in mind the limitations of the TMB test as stated above, with the strong possibility of a clean up at the scene; it is not hard to see how any blood left on the floor could escape detection. I think the TMB tests are inconclusive.

    @Michael and Stephane G – You both stated that Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni admitted that a TMB negative means that there is no blood present in the test sample. I should point out that in the Massei report she is quoted as saying that luminol results test positive with TMB only 50% of the time. Perhaps she was mistaken in her choice of words, or quoted out of context. In any event false TMB negatives have been proven.

    @ Rob H, @DW, @HH, @Jack, @ Nick Green, @ Mark(AKA supernaut) – You suggest that for me to undermine the TMB tests is the same as claiming that they prove the presence of blood, and that I am requiring Amanda to prove her innocence.
    For me to say that because the TMB tests proved negative Amanda and Raffaele must be guilty, and that the footprints must have been set down by blood is clearly absurd – that is why I have not said it. The defence do not have to prove that the prints are not blood, but they do have to counter the prosecutions claims that the TMB tests are inconclusive.

    @Stephane G – Thank you for your constructive, and civil reply. Your point that luminol would reveal any smears from cleaning is a very good one, and I have given it thought. I just feel though Stephane, that any blood being mopped away would be an ephemeral, watery mix, that could be cleaned before having had a chance to sink into the floor sufficiently to be detected by luminol later; whereas the footprints may well have been there for 2hrs or more, allowing them to sink, and dry into the floor tiles. Also, thorough cleaning could have blinded the TMB test to all the test samples.

    @ Nick Green -The Prosecution have to prove that the footprints are blood, yes. However, they can still make the claim that the TMB tests are inconclusive without doing so. BTW, ‘OKaaaaaaaay’ – is that a colloquialism or are you just pompously assuming that you are in the right?
    @Rob H – Courts should be interested in possibilities, as long as they can be argued for.
    Would you want to dismiss the possibility that a miscarriage of justice has been committed against Amanda Knox?
    @DW – You said: ‘I wish you people were able to look at your own reasoning for just a minute sometimes.’
    I asked a question and put forward a hypothesis, What is unreasonable about that? Feel free to tell me where I made an incorrect inference from stated premises in my original post.
    @HH apart from the claim that I have already dealt with above, the rest of your reply appears to be the usual mix of evasiveness and slagging off Italians.

    @Michael. I think you need to send your concerns about the NFSTC to the President. How about this:
    ‘Dear Mr President,
    It has come to my notice that data provided for a manual on behalf of ‘The President’s Initiative To Advance Justice Through DNA Technology’, has been provided by people who are just a small group operating out of a warehouse in Florida. Out of 26 of them, only 3 are listed under ‘Scientific services’, and their qualifications aren’t stated. Furthermore their website is not necessarily endorsed by the Dept. of Justice.
    I insist that the Bureau of Justice has nothing more to do with these incompetents, who are bringing it, and the good name of your office into disrepute.
    Kind Regards,
    Michael, on behalf of all here at the Amanda Knox Blog’.

    @Tom Mininger – Hi Tom, well nothing you have said rules out the possibility of a TMB negative. BTW – have you sorted out the problem with the hand prints on the wall yet? Are they Rudy’s as yourself and the IIP website have claimed, or Meredith’s, as – claimed by Ron Hendry?

    • jamesrae says:

      Stewart

      Unfortunately you have no known identity or qualifications known therefore all you write is merely a distraction. An authority or person with integrity provides the above otherwise they have no credibility. The footprints have never been positively identified as Amanda’s and could be any of the residents of the cottage who were not footprinted for comparison. The footprints and luminal are a red herring. Why would Amanda be barefooted during this event on a cold and damp evening in November. Who takes off their shoes and socks – for what reason? Red herring!!

      • Michael says:

        Jamesrae
        What is your point about identity and qualifications ? Who on this site really has any of either ? We all have opinions and who really knows the identity of anyone posting here. Kind of funny.

        • jamesrae says:

          It is not kind of funny. You know the identity of most of the higher profile Amanda supporters. It is not a mystery but you yourself prefer to keep yourself anonymous for the simple reason you have no real belief or conviction in anything you argue otherwise you would be comfortable stating your professional qualifications when arguing scientific information and giving yourself some credibility.

    • Rob H says:

      It is rather frightening, Stewart, that you are prepared to go to such deceptive lengths in order to make a case for guilt from evidence that cries out “INNOCENCE”.

      1) There is no support for your unattributed claim that luminol is 100 times more sensitive than TMB as a presumptive test for blood.
      2) The FBI study you cite states as follows: “We proved that there are differences in sensitivity with respect to the action of the contaminant among different reagents. Following analysis of the tests performed on stains on paper, we found that false negatives were detected using tetramethylbenzidine with low-concentration blood samples (1:400000), whereas o-tolidine and leucomalachite green produced the same with samples that were slightly more concentrated (1:200000) and phenolphthalein gave false negatives in samples concentrated at 1:2000″. So, as you can see, you were writing nonsense when referring to TMB sensitivity to blood of 1 part in 10000.
      3) In the Minnesota study you referred to, the conclusions were the opposite of what you claim – “Our findings indicated that luminol did not adversely effect the PCR testing and did not interfere with the PT and TMB presumptive tests for blood”.
      4) Stefanoni testified that the TMB test means “It is not blood”. It was Sarah Gino who testified that TMB tests show negative for blood on about half the occasions there is a luminol hit. This is Tom Mininger’s point that TMB catches luminol’s false positives. Professor Tagliabracci further observed that TMB’s sensitivity is in the order of five blood cells.
      5) As to the value of the luminol positive/TMB negative results as evidence that the prosecution can rely on, there is nothing. There is no evidence of blood. The testing results are entirely exculpatory. But, Comodi ignored the science and appealed to the judges to do the same.
      6) There is no evidence of any clean up and your attempt to conceive of one that would resist detection is laughable.

      Again, courts must not allow themselves to be swayed by rogues who present fantastical possibilities as reasonable scenarios.

      As for you, well you should be ashamed of yourself for mis-representing evidence and false citation. You would not have subjected your mother to this deceit and yet you are prepared to do so in this case. Disgraceful.

    • Glenn Thigpen says:

      @Stewart: Aren’t you being a bit disingenuous concerning the luminol vs TMB tests? While it is true, according to the different reports that I have read, that luminol can have a sensitivity of 1 in 1,000,000 parts and TMB can have a sensitivity of 1 in 10,000 parts, a lot depends on how the tests are conducted. TMB does lose some sensitivity when it is used on material such as swabs, etc. but it has been shown to be extremely sensitive when testing blood stains directly (1 in 1,000,000). Of course, luminol is still more sensitive by a factor of maybe five in similar conditions and still more sensitive when testing blood transferred to cloth.
      According to Steve Moore, a crime scene cleaned up with bleach would show it. Here, as in every other aspect of crime scene investigations, we have to defer to the experts. A cleanup by bleach would have obliterated the footprints, made them unrecognizable as such, even if the luminol did not react to the bleach.
      Looking at the hallway, it appears that it is tiles, a non-porous surface. Just a bit of research will expose the fact that non-porous surfaces can be cleaned very effectively with bleach, even blood.
      You seem to be intelligent enough that I should not have to explain all of the ramifications.

      Glenn

    • Stephane G says:

      Hello Stewart. Let me add a few observations and challenge your hypothesis, if I may…

      I agree Stefanini might have use one word for another at the moment she declared that the absence of reaction to TMB meant there was no blood involved, since I simply believe she was then somewhat confused and embarrassed as she was aware she had – let’s say once more – “failed to mention” important information that she knew would weaken her position and conclusions.

      The way I understand it, be it much less sensitive or not, TMB is still supposed to be a confirmation test. So once again a failed TMB test means – technically and therefore legally – that the presence of blood is NOT proven or has to be proven by other means. At this stage, the Luminol reaction COULD have been caused by blood… or not. You will note that this observation is totally NFSTC – compatible. And so, that the forensics failed to perform further testing should still be a mystery to anyone looking for answers here (unless of course they were afraid to find out their construction might collapse). Nonetheless, the Nencini court seemingly assumed the traces were indisputably made of blood. Interestingly we have similar results at Raffaele’s (14 Luminol hits, no reaction to TMB, DNA in some traces but not all…) but in the court conclusions, no blood was apparently supposed to be involved here. (Maybe they simply did not need any ?)

      I wish to underline this because the same situation appeared with the exhibit 36 which is a key evidence in the case. Officially at least, only Conti & Vecchiotti analyzed the matter on the blade to find out there were no blood cells there. And still the knife remains the bloody murder weapon in the Florence court construction and description.

      Now I understand you suggest traces of “could – have – been – blood” were revealed by Luminol and no other “hit” could be observed elsewhere (which could suggest a cleaning) because some (unwashed and so undiluted) blood had time to migrate in the tiles within the, say, 2 hours interval before a cleaning could occur. Therefore, to be conclusive, I also understand the much diluted blood washed and wiped away and around by the cleaning did NOT migrate (or it would have left Lumi + traces. Am I right ?)

      In this hypothesis we still have to deal with the absence of response to TMB in every trace and thus to consider once again that EVERY trace fell in the Lumi + / TMB – range. So a very very small quantity of blood had time to migrate in the tiles before it was totally washed (though I think I remember Stefanini stated she got quite visible and strong Luminol “hits” when she sprayed the floor).

      Stewart I think you once had the opportunity to clean blood yourself – not too much I hope – and to realize how thick, sticky and viscous it was. Let’s consider nonetheless that the floor was uniformly porous enough, but not too much, to absorb enough blood to get a response from Luminol but not from TMB (Sadly again, no evaluation of the material or its permeability was carried). Remember TMB can react to as little as 5 blood cells, so Luminol being noticeably more sensitive (though I’ve found different figures, it really seems to be), a single droplet in a bucket of clear water would cause a visible reaction.

      As no reaction was visible all around the floor, I assume many buckets of clear water were necessary to clear the floor from any trace. Water being of course far more fluid than blood, its migration in our porous tiles was much quicker than with pure blood. A couple of minutes at most were enough. Now I doubt the repetitive and continuous cleanings with buckets of clear water – which were highly complicated by the necessity of leaving Guede’s traces to the main door intact, not stepping on the wet corridor at the risk of turning the whole place into a disco dancefloor at the first use of a Luminol spray, and not getting anything on a clothing that was negatively tested a short time later – allowed a quick drying of that floor / flood in such a small interval of time. Particularly in a wet and cold November night when you could possibly not expect the help of a hot breeze…

      In concrete terms I’ve read that when blood was washed from a tile floor it left those typical circular patterns from the wiping, invisible to the eyes but very visible to Luminol. Like chalk writings erased from a blackboard. What does NFSTC says about it ?

      I’ve been fed for years by lex parsimoniae (Occam’s razor) principle when it came to solving problems. Assuming once again that the traces were made of very very small amounts of blood – though I still do not believe they were – I offered what I (pompously) believe to be a much simpler explanation for the observations. But I’m afraid it brings us again and again to the same conclusion : these traces were of no probative value and, quite likely in my opinion, totally irrelevant to the crime.

      S

    • Tom Mininger says:

      Stewart-
      Guede’s bloody palm print on the pillow, not on the wall. Sorry for the mistake. Hendry is accurate.

      You’ve been here for months. Isn’t it time to state definitively your evidence that puts Amanda and Raffaele at the cottage that night, let alone the murder room, and your crime theory? Remember we are talking evidence here, not speculation.

      If you can’t, isn’t it time for you to call for the investigation of CSI Stefanoni and the Polizia Scientifica?
      Kind regards.

  34. Victoria says:

    Hi Amanda,
    I hope you and Raffaele are well and plan to fight this to the bitter end. Still praying for you both. Congratulations on finishing your bachelor’s degree.

  35. Tom Zupancic says:

    As I have examined the details of the prosecution’s ‘forensic evidence’ in this case I have been most struck by to the vigorous efforts of the prosecution to prevent the release of the basic laboratory results required to ensure the integrity of the judicial process. It is clear in my opinion that their intention was always to conceal problems with the lab work that compromised the validity of multiple analyses. The actions of the DNA analyst and the prosecution regarding the recently discussed revelations with the ‘bra clasp’ were only a small part of a much broader pattern of behavior that characterized their approach to this case; they consistently ignored evidence that supported innocence while misrepresenting their findings in a way to imply guilt.

    As a scientist this matters to me because the selective inclusion of data in order to promote a preconceived interpretation of reality is not science and it should never be represented or accepted as such. People should not be duped into believing that the distorted misrepresentation of laboratory procedures made by the prosecution in this case should have ever been taken seriously. Frankly, this BS should never have survived in the light of day.

  36. David Turnblom says:

    Allow me to congratulate you on your success in school. Regardless of your trials you have been steadfast and dedicated to improving yourself.

    Your courage in facing your enemies has been one of the most shining examples of Christlike behavior I’ve seen in years. Your determination to finish your schooling is another shining example.

    Through this adversity you have come out stronger than you were (I’m probably paraphrasing several sources here).

    It it my wish that you will continue along this path and gain happiness in spite of all those who would destroy you.

    Keep up the good work!

  37. Hide Baert says:

    @ Kokomo Joe,

    Dear Joe:
    She did it!! I mean Amanda finished her coursework and is all set to graduate.
    (amanda knox and raffaele sollecito facebook, June 8, 2014).
    Hurray and Bravo!!

    Best wishes, Hilde

    • DW says:

      Big congratulations to Amanda. You are a marvel.

    • Tyler says:

      I think you meant to say “If she did it” along the lines of the title of OJ Simpson’s book.

      • Antony says:

        Tyler, why don’t you try writing an “if she did it, this is how it would have happened” account, along the lines of OJ Simpson? Doesn’t it tell you something that even the prosecution in this case don’t have one of those? Don’t forget to include that the police would have to have had psychic powers to identify 2 of the 3 actual culprits before any of the evidence was in.

        Or perhaps I should say they have new one for each of the various trials which they can’t get to match the evidence – and then the convicting judge makes up a different one of his own.

    • Stephane G says:

      I’ve read that on facebook too. Congratulations for your work and for these happy news !

      Best. S.

    • Som Nathan says:

      Dear Amanda,
      Congratulations for your fine achievement.

    • Tom Zupancic says:

      Congratulations on your achievement Amanda! Always cherish your education; from the Latin ‘educo’ – to lead out… and as I was taught, ‘educo tenebrae’ – to lead out from darkness. You have the ability to lead so many of us out from darkness.

  38. Kenneth Janeway says:

    Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were innocent yesterday, are innocent today, and will be innocent when the future arrives as well. ACQUIT both of them now, Supreme Court of ITALY. -Best, KJ

  39. Jeff Anderson says:

    The following are the contents of a series of identical letters sent recently to President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, Attorney General Eric Holder, Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, and Congressman Rick Larsen. Good luck, Amanda!

    Dear President Obama,

    My name is Jeff Anderson (age 53) and I am writing you on behalf of, and in support of, Ms. Amanda Knox in her legal case in Italy. Like Ms. Knox, I am a citizen of the USA and a resident of the State of Washington. I am a graduate of the University of Washington (Seattle), a member of the Unitarian Universalist faith, and a lover of justice and fair and due process under the law. I have followed her case through the media for several years and have read her book “Waiting to Be Heard”. From this background and experience I want to express my unwavering support for Ms. Knox – firm in the conviction that she and her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, are innocent and not guilty of the murder of her roommate Meredith Kercher in the City of Perugia.

    In my opinion, far, far, far more reasons support her innocence instead of her guilt. The two most outstanding and irrefutable reasons and evidence include:
    • No DNA evidence from either Ms. Knox or Mr. Sollecito was found at the murder scene. The only DNA evidence found was that from a third person, Mr. Rudy Guede. In my opinion, this is solid scientific evidence supporting her’s and Mr. Sollecito’s innocence and Mr. Guede’s guilt.
    • After the murder, Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito voluntarily stayed in the City to assist the police investigation of the crime and to answer any questions the police had. They did not flee. On the other hand, Mr. Guede was not to be found anywhere close to the crime scene and was apprehended later fleeing the country. In my opinion, this is strong character and behavioral evidence supporting her’s and Mr. Sollecito’s innocence and Mr. Guede’s guilt.
    As you very well know, she was initially convicted in her first trial, acquitted in her second trial, and then reconvicted in a third trial – through an Italian justice system very different from our own American justice system. It is my opinion Ms. Knox is just as much a victim as Ms. Kercher. She’s a victim of a malicious witch hunt by the City of Perugia’s prosecutor and police department. And she’s a victim of an Italian justice system which is influenced far more by politics and public opinion than by concrete evidence and logical reasoning.

    It is for these reasons and more that I support Ms. Knox’s efforts to be ultimately acquitted of all charges against her. If, however, through the Italian legal system she is ultimately determined to be guilty – and then requests are made for her extradition from the United States back to Italy – under no circumstances do I support such extradition. To me such an action would be a gross injustice – not only with respect to the American justice system – but with respect to any justice system which values its decision making to be based upon concrete and scientific evidence and logical reasoning. In addition, in light of the severe trials which Ms. Knox has endured over the last 7 years, and the extraordinary and exemplary character which she has shown in the face of horrendous opposition and injustice, I enthusiastically nominate her for the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

    Thank you very much for your continuing, tireless, and inspiring public service to the United States and to the world.

    Sincerely,

    Jeff Anderson

    • Chris Meyering says:

      Any support is good support and I will never tell anyone to stop trying. However, not only do I believe that the U.S. wont extradite, I highly doubt Italy will even request it due to risk of embarrassment.

      I’ve been on a massive search for information about this case whiten the political and private psyche. Its taken me awhile but I’m slowly getting a complete picture.

      Despite what the guilters claim, there apparently is far more Support for Ak’s and RS’s innocence than I previously believed. I used to believe in what the folks over at PMF/TJMK were saying, in that there were more people who believed they are guilty than innocent. This does not seem to be the case. It seems that England and Italy are the main countries that believes that she is guilty and highly suspect it has to do with their Tabloid News culture and the highly biased documentary that Vogt produced and showed in England.

      But thats not what the rest of Europe believes. Im pretty sure, based on conversations and news articles Ive translated recently that the rest of Europe is rather indifferent to this case. No real opinion one way or another but they do acknowledge Italy’s Corruption don’t carry a very favorable view of the Italian Justice system.

      This will come in to play at the ECtHR in determining if any of their rights were violated. I have no idea how many of the Judges there are Italian but I am fully aware that the Judges there are the best that the member countries can send. I think we can safely say that quite a few rights were violated, the two that stand out the most is the interrogation without a proper translator and that not only did the lead forensic scientist lie in court (proven), but that the Judges did nothing about it and still used the highly suspect evidence. Plus, we have Scientists like Tom Zupancic doing seminars on Italy fabricating evidence in this case. Im pretty sure the ECtHR will look at this case without bias or a need to protect Magnini and this is would obviously would be great news for Amanda and Raffelle.

      Therefore, I can’t really see Italys higher authorities embarrassing themselves in requesting extradition on such a ridiculous case. Mixed in with that is my belief that ECtHR will look at this case closely and possibly sanction Italy on this verdict.

      So no worries be me.

      By the way, I was once a Unitarian Universalist. My sister still is. Great people. I suppose, based on its beliefs, its not really a church you join or quit as I still agree with their message.

      • Hide Baert says:

        @Chris Meyering

        Dear Chris,

        I agree completely with your message. You too are right.
        I like the upfront American approach most of the time (especially in this case). And yet the Belgian (little mafiosi, or honest crooks) side of me still believes in gentlemen’s deals.
        It may sound preposterous: I have this little fantasy about Obama’s recent visit to the Pope. They exchanged Bibles and had a little heart to heart talk about this case. There is the upfront approach and the diplomatic way. Both ways can work, especially the combination of both. We will see.
        Best wishes, Hilde

    • Hi Jeff: A very nice letter to the President. I would nominate the entire Knox and Sollecito families to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom…for that matter for their super-human efforts for Amanda and Raffaele. I will also send a letter to the US Secretary of State asking that Amanda’s extradition be denied based on Article VI of the Treaty. Thanks for posting this great letter. Best, Kenneth Janeway

      • William Benjamin says:

        Article VI doesn’t apply. The information you are referencing pertains to the “requested” party. If Knox had already been convicted, acquitted or pardoned…… by the United States (the requested party) for the same acts (then) extradition shall not be granted.

        The secretary of state can refuse to accept the request. The US has done it before with Italy recently where there was a military component.

        Sorry to rain on the parade but I feel strongly that supporters should be adequately prepared if this becomes a reality. Maybe a letter sent suggesting we cancel our extradition treaty would be more appropriate.

        I don’t feel that Italy will make a request. There will be a political reality in response to such a request. It is up to supporters and representatives of Knox and Sollecito to dissuade Italy from going any further with this height of absurdity. After that the political realities will need to be enforced. I would view any support by any representative of my U.S. government leading towards extradition as an act of treason.

        • Michael says:

          Italy will try to extradite Knox, they can’t put RS in jail and forget about her. You are reaching if you believe that.

          • William Benjamin says:

            You are right. RS must not go to jail then. I hate using the initials because it turns them into a online video game.

            My hope is that calmer heads are prevailing. And that good people have and are stepping forward to lead public opinion in a stable thoughtful manner. Lasting change such as this situation requires comes slowly and builds slowly. Proof that this is occurring is difficult to express but ponder this. Italy has had for a time now, roaming free within it’s borders a dreadful dangerous twice convicted murderer named Raffaele. If he doesn’t pose a imminent risk to public safety or flight now, why did he then a few years ago?

            Every avalanche is triggered with the weight of a single snowflake. Only faith knows when one stops.

          • Antony says:

            Michael: “Italy will try to extradite Knox, they can’t put RS in jail and forget about her.”

            No only that, but they are set to free the real killer on work release. They really have painted themselves into a corner. Only if a US extradition hearing goes along with their flight of fancy – which seems highly unlikely – will they avoid humiliation.

    • Hide Baert says:

      @ Jeff Anderson.

      Dear Jeff,

      As a naturalized American citizen, I support your letter.

      And I want to add one thing: ‘Please, offer asylum to Raffaele’ in the same spirit of Elias (Let Raffaele be the unforgotten man)

      Best wishes, Hilde

      • Hide Baert says:

        @ Jeff Anderson

        Dear Jeff,
        Oops, I made a mistake ‘ in the same spirit as Elias’
        Still working on being an US citizen.

        Best wishes, Hilde

        • Hide Baert says:

          @Jeff Anderson

          Dear Jeff,

          I want to add to ‘in the same spirit as Elias’ the remark of William Benjamin (also in the same spirit as Elias) ‘Make Raffaele the unforgotten man AND support him in his and his lawyer’s strategy to cut himself loose from Amanda’
          Best wishes, Hilde

          • Hide Baert says:

            @Jeff Anderson

            Dear Jeff,
            another oops. Just remembered to say ‘ his strategy of cutting himself loose from Amanda’.
            Hope I am getting closer to right, now.
            Best wishes, Hilde

  40. Rob H says:

    Let’s not forget amidst the recent revelations, that there has been a massive suppression of forensic evidence in this case concerning much more than just the bra clasp.

    We can see from the work completed by Dr Zupancic and his colleagues that amongst other things test results are missing from:

    - 6 luminol samples
    - Ms Kercher’s bra and bedsheet and other items from her room
    - 3 items in Ms Knox’s room
    - 14 samples in Guede’s apartment
    - the entire first run of plate 365 which included the kitchen knife and 20 out of 24 samples from 365bis, the re-run of this plate, which produced the ‘evidence’, 36b, of Ms Kercher’s DNA on that knife from the repeated test.

    We can only wonder, I suppose as to what other evidence of a non forensic nature may also have been suppressed.

    Two innocent people spent an additional 2 years in jail on top of the year they had already served pre-trial and another year they served whilst the first trial took place, because Massei accepted the word of a laboratory technician that her lab’s results were sound. All this before Nencini added his own surreal madness to the scandal.

  41. Stewart says:

    Amanda,

    A constant objection to the luminol enhanced footprints evidence is that the Tetramethylbenzidine (TMB) test for blood performed on them gave a negative result.

    Are you and your supporters aware that a negative test result does not necessarily mean that the sample being tested is not blood? That it merely fails to prove that it is blood, as can happen if the amount of blood cells present are not plentiful enough to be detected?
    Information provided by no less a body than the National Forensic Science Technology Center, states (in reference to a TMB negative) that:

    ‘A negative result indicates that either no blood is present or is below the limit of detection of the test.’
    Page2, Protocol 2.19: Tetramethylbenzidine Presumptive Test for Blood
    DNA Analyst Training Laboratory Training Manual

    This would seem to strongly imply that a negative TMB test result could possibly arise from a test sample containing an amount of blood that is too scarce to be detected, such as might occur when there has been a clean up at the crime scene for instance.

    Are the NFSTC wrong? I would be interested in peoples opinions on the matter.
    T/you

    • Rob H says:

      It’s very simple. A negative TMB test is not evidence for the presence of blood. Indeed it argues with impressive weight to the contrary. A positive luminol test is not evidence of the presence of blood either since it reacts with other agents. Rust is a good one. You can see rusty water leaking from the hall radiator but there are many other things too.

      Courts are not, or should not be, interested in possibilities particularly vague ones, but in probabilities – near certainties as evidence of guilt. The procedure is to test with luminol and if positive to further test with TMB and if negative, well that’s it. Even if the TMB test were to be positive you would still have to proceed to confirmatory testing for blood. Whichever way you cut this particular piece of cloth, nobody could ever say with any credibility that the luminol samples are proof of blood. So they have no evidentiary value. One comment I read recently was that Ms Knox must be guilty because she has ‘dead eyes’. The luminol samples are similarly convincing.

    • DW says:

      I wish you people were able to look at your own reasoning for just a minute sometimes.

      What would you propose? What on earth do you think courts should do with negative test results? Convict the person anyway because there is such a thing as a false-negative test result?

      Seriously – can you tell us exactly what you are suggesting here?

    • HH says:

      So…You think people should just assume it’s blood even though the prosecution can’t provide concrete proof that it is?

      IMO, that’s almost saying that Amanda has to prove it isn’t blood or she has to go to jail for murder? At the same time, the fact that that one of the tests performed to detect blood came up negative is not sufficient proof? It seems to me that they won’t allow her to prove her innocence. It’s too inconvenient for them.

      The court has flat out refused to allow possibly exculpatory evidence (like the semen stain found on a pillow under the victim) to be tested. Ask yourself why, if Amanda and Raffaele are guilty, why they were fighting for MORE tests to be done which would have put them further at risk. Ask yourself why Amanda and Raffaele requested that the handle of the knife be completely removed and more tests done and it was the PROSECUTION and I believe the victim’s family’s lawyer who fought against it.

      Is anything sufficient proof ? It seems like every time Amanda and her defense team and well known forensic experts speak out in her favor, the evidence is simply ignored or deemed irrelevant as opposed to a heroin addict’s testimony, or the testimony of a half asleep old woman who woke up to pee in the middle of the night.

      You should ask yourself why, if the TMB tests are not conclusive proof that the footprints were set in blood, Stefanoni still felt the need to lie in court and denied the TMB tests had ever been performed.

    • Michael says:

      The “National Forensic Science Technology Center” sounds important and authoritative but a quick check of their website shows they are just a small group operating out of a warehouse in Largo, Florida selling online courses, equipment and certificates.

      Check the staff page.

      http://www.nfstc.org/about/nfstc-staff/

      Out of 26, only 3 are listed under “Scientific Services” and their qualifications aren’t stated.

      At the bottom of the site it says:

      This website is funded in part through a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, US Dept. of Justice. Neither the US Dept. of Justice nor any of its components operate, control, are responsible for, or necessarily endorse this website (including, without limitation, its content, technical infrastructure, and policies, and any services or tools provided).

      This is what Stefanoni testified about TMB:

      JUDGE – ok! And here there is a degree of sensitivity?

      ANSWER – It is very sensitive, now I do not know how to say it to him, however, in common practice …

      JUDGE – There also cites false positives of the series … VOICES – (inaudible because overlapping) …

      ANSWER – Yes, in the sense that it does not distinguish whether it is human or animal blood, for example.

      JUDGE: However where the result is negative I’m given to understand that it’s almost certain that it is not [blood]?

      ANSWER: Yes, it’s not blood, it is not, yes.

      This is what Professor Tagliabracci testified:

      “tetramethylbenzidine is a very sensitive diagnosis that can highlight up to five red blood cells. So that both negative result in short leaves no room for doubt”

    • Tom Mininger says:

      tmb is extremely sensitive as a blood test. The argument that tmb is not as sensitive as luminol is a red herring. CSIs around the world use both luminol and tmb in an investigation. They catch each others false positives for blood.

      CSI Stefanoni perjured herself when she claimed she hadn’t performed tmb tests. Her notes revealed she had and the tests were negative for blood.

      The final tests would have been confirmatory tests for blood. Stefanoni either didn’t do them or doesn’t want to share the results.

      So none of the luminol detected prints and blobs were blood. All the claims of mixed blood/DNA on the floor are false.

      http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/luminoltests/

    • Max Green says:

      Stewart, you forgot to explain what significance this could have on the case at this point.

    • Stephane G says:

      Hello Stewart. I think everyone who has read and thought a little about the case is aware of this Luminol vs TMB question. It has puzzled me a bit, and I also spent some time trying to find information about it on documentation unrelated to the case, whenever possible. Here are a few observations.

      Although TMB apparently is not as sensitive to blood as Luminol is, it is still a VERY sensitive test – reliable to the point that it remains a confirmation test for forensics up to that day. In a situation where you’d get a positive result from Luminol and a negative one from TMB, you should then either legally consider that the presence of blood is not proven, or perform further testing by microanalysis (which is something I would have expect in such a case, but it was not done anyhow). When Stefanini hid – or let’s say “failed to mention” – the negative responses to TMB, she knew very well what she was doing, before she eventually had to admit herself that the tests had been performed and that a negative response to TMB meant there was no blood (in her own words).

      So let’s say the presence of blood was not confirmed. Technically, we still have this possibility that the quantity of blood (assuming it was blood anyway) was so small – but still there – that it fell exactly within the Lumi + / TMB – detection range (which, though significant, is not a “one out of billions” ratio as I have read it sometimes). It is a possibility in a single trace. But here we have to assume that ALL the traces fell exactly into that range where they could be detected by Luminol and not TMB. Not a single one. The probability of such a situation decreases with the number of traces tested.

      Still, let’s assume it was blood anyway. I have two observations to make :

      1 – A thorough cleaning would have result in a blood smear and blood cells spread all over the place. The spots would have appeared more blurred and the whole floor would have glow under Luminol ! Remember, Luminol being more sensitive than TMB, is then Highly Very Super Mega sensitive to blood. IF the Luminol traces were caused by blood, we, on the contrary, know it was not wiped or washed.

      2 – The Luminol detection does not in itself give any indication about the time when the blood – assuming it was blood once again – was left. I suppose some further lab testing could give more information but none was made. So, considering the Luminol detection threshold, a single drop of blood in a bucket of water could have caused the traces. Four young ladies were living in that place. Any of the girls stepping out of her shower with wet feet after losing a drop of blood or two – so diluted she could not even notice it with her eyes – from her nose, ear or menses of course, could have left them at any moment.

      Which leads us to the same conclusion : the Luminol traces in this case have not much of a probative value and their relevancy is questionable.

    • Jack says:

      “Are you and your supporters aware that a negative test result does not necessarily mean that the sample being tested is not blood? That it merely fails to prove that it is blood, as can happen if the amount of blood cells present are not plentiful enough to be detected?”

      “Does not necessarily mean?” Yes? Is this your paltry standard for proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

      Are you aware that the fact that a young couple exchanged kisses, comforting each other, does not necessarily mean they had spent the night committing murder in cold blood and then forensically cleaning up their traces? Are you aware of the fact that a young couple sharing a pizza during the ensuing days also does not necessarily mean they committed said murder? Are you aware that the fact that a lab tech like Patrizia Stefanoni making a preposterous statement that her lab had never had an incident of contamination does not necessarily make it so? Are you aware that when a crew of rustics hold a news conference before any forensic data results have been returned and declare “Caso Chiuso!”, it does not necessarily make it so?

      Are you really so stunningly obtuse? Is it your predisposition in life to bay for blood? You would have been right at home during the world’s various witch trials and the Inquisition.

    • Nick Green says:

      > “…a negative test result does not necessarily mean that the sample being tested is not blood? That it merely fails to prove that it is blood…”

      Okaaaaaaay, ONCE more….

      The burden of proof is to prove guilt, not innocence. So I’m afraid the prosecution really would need to prove that the stuff is blood, and there is absolutely no requirement, in the absence of such proof, for the defense to prove that it isn’t.

      (For the record, it isn’t.)

    • Mark (AKA Supernaut) says:

      So, it suits you to demand absolute proof that they was no blood in these prints?

      I’m guessing that you also want it **proven** that cross-sample contamination occurred in the Rome police lab, rather than requiring that the latter prove it **didn’t**, which they could do via the simple expedient of producing documentation of the (mandatory) simultaneous null-result negative controls.

      And presumably you’re one of those odd people who require that people accused of crimes **prove their innocence** (in contradiction to your own …… intuition of their guilt?), rather than that their accusers proving their

    • Skind says:

      Unfortunetly, the luminol hit of blood below the TMB detection level is typically very, very slight, whereas the luminol hits in this case were described by the prosecution variously as very bright and very obvious.

      There is no know mechanism whereby you can get a strong luminol hit, yet a false negative TMB.

      • Nasim says:

        No true. The method by which the TMB test is performed has a huge impact on its sensitivity relative to luminol. According to the Carabinieri the Combur test that was used (which is essentially a urine dipstick) is 50,000 times less sensitive than luminol spray which has the ability to react with heme that is in the crevices of the stone. Finally the luminol was applied very aggressively in this case and long exposure times were used to make the luminosity brighter. As the saying goes, when footprints compatible with Amanda and Raffaele appear at the scene of her roommate’s murder, think of horses not zebras.

        • Rob H says:

          There is no science to support these relative sensitivities you mention. The scene of the murder was Ms Kercher’s bedroom and nowhere else. Not even Stefanoni after having recovered from her perjury would testify that the luminol prints and blobs were blood. Think horses not unicorns.

        • Jack says:

          Predictably, what you write about TMB is nonsense. Written like a non-scientist, struggling to achieve even a layman-level understanding of the material. Of course, given your intractable bias, if it suited your argument, you would say a positive TMB test proved AK and RS innocent, a negative result, guilty. You and your ilk specialize in having your cake and eating it, too.

          But, of course, as any thinking person knows, Knox’s and Sollecito’s footprints do not appear at the scene of Ms. Kercher’s murder, in any meaningful sense. We all know that, as the Sollecito family was poised to prove that the athletic shoe print initially attributed to RS was merely another print from Guede, Mignini expeditiously sent Stefanoni out to tamper with, er, collect the bra clasp. You see, as with the phony kitchen knife, Mignini, et al., just *knew* the college students were guilty, so the ends justified the means.

          Stunningly stupid and corrupt individuals, these Perugian authorities have proved themselves to be. Which renders ingenuous cheerleaders like Ergon, er, I mean, “Nasim” truly “special” cases.

        • Skind says:

          Totally true.

          The supposedly very strong and obvious luminol hit purported would have a very high concentration of blood. Remember, the prosecution were arguing that they could tell it was ‘obviously’ blood by visual inspection – aggresive misapplication and overexposure are totally irrelevant here.

      • Hide Baert says:

        @ Skind

        I feel really irritated again by your lack of candor (just like Stewart). Please, stop sending these mixed messages ( i.e. Amanda is innocent and yet she is not innocent): I find them very confusing.
        In addition, you are painting yourself into a corner.
        Let me roughly paraphrase your first paragraph which starts with the word ‘Unfortunately’: ‘Unfortunately, the forensic analysis done by the independent experts (who work upon request by the defense) doesn’t agree with the prosecution’s statement’
        Best wishes (Truly! Honestly!) Hilde

        • Skind says:

          You must thinking of someone else, or you are certainly very, very confused.

          I’m not sending mixed messages. If you are getting mixed messages, that’s entirely internally generated by you. The luminol trace cannot be blood if it truly was as described and documented by the police forensics, yet still fail a TMB test. That’s not a confusing arguement at all.

          I made no mention of forensic analysis done by independent experts, nor did I claim that the independent experts who did work on the case were working for the defence, as they would then be defence experts, not independent. The independent experts who rubbished the prosecutions case were working for the court, not the defence.

          You come across as very confused in most of your postings.

    • William Benjamin says:

      The defense position was not just about a cleanup but about a “selective” cleanup where Amanda and Raffaele only cleaned out their own DNA and any residue of a cleaning agent but left Rudy’s DNA and Meredith’s DNA. How do you explain the SELECTIVITY in your argument? Can a large team of the very best geneticist recreate this? I’m doubtful that this can be done. If that is the case then us supporters have every right to call the courts claims “impossible” and “reckless”.

      Recently there has been much organized outcry attempting to discredit the “impossible cleanup” defense. There has been much talk about not finding Raff’s DNA in Raff’s car and other such similar examples. Many of these are explained because those DNA sets were not being looked for in the stated examples. These are ploys to prey on ignorance and create doubt. The logic behind this serves a master that wants to convict by looks and feelings instead of by facts. This is exactly what happens in tabloid articles and yellow journalism. It is the work to earn belief in a “big lie” and as such has no right to exist in any humane court proceeding.

    • Hide Baert says:

      @ Stewart

      I appreciate your effort at being polite.

      However, I feel irritated because you are not really candid. Please, show me your true colors. Put your cards on the table face up. How about saying: ‘I am not convinced, Amanda, of your innocence’ AND CLEARLY STATE YOUR REASONS.

      You can politely disagree and state your truth.
      Nobody is going to bite your head off.

      This so-called little interesting question + references to an obscure website reeks for me of passive aggressive behavior.
      Best wishes, Hilde

  42. Tom Zupancic says:

    Stepping back, I have been attempting to look at this travesty from a broader perspective. The good news is that I have found that although Galileo was initially convicted by the Italian Justice System, he was ultimately exonerated. (This just happened a few weeks ago, fyi.) Thus we have some reason to believe that this system can actually work given sufficient time and effort.

  43. Chris Meyering says:

    To Tom Zupancic….

    Thank you for putting your name and reputation on the line defending in what you think is a worthy cause. (which lifetime of false imprisonment certainly is)

    The question I have is that you mentioned somewhere in one of you posts that “….people are watching this and these results closely.” Or something to that effect. Could you elaborate on that?

    I’m a keyboard warrior. Im not out in the field immersed in the forensic world so I have no inkling of whats truly happening out there.

    Is the Forensic world really looking at this case closely? Is there a widely held opinion about this forensic evidence by your colleagues? Are there more legitimate and prominent Forensic specialists, actively pursuing truth the same way albeit anonymously?

    Since you have information that I can not get easily, I would suspect you have intimate details, intimate knowledge or inside access to this case the rest of us cant easily achieve. Do you have an idea whats really going on within the Forensic and legal circles with this case? Do they care? Is there a movement? Are they aware of the absurdity of the evidence? If so, are they at least a little bit concerned that a legal team may have falsified evidence? Or are they just complacent?

    Im starving for real information. Could you help me please?

    • Tom Zupancic says:

      Chris,

      Great questions; what is reality here? The quick answer is yes, this case is becoming a text book example of how forensic analysis should never be performed. The flaws in the lab work are so conspicuous and exemplary that they lend themselves to classroom examples of what ‘bad lab procedure’ looks like. In the future we can expect that the problems with the forensic analyses from Perugia will be featured in the forensic science textbooks that all the students buy in their college bookstore.

      • Daphne says:

        The case should also go down in history for other issues like providing an example of how the criminal justice system has been violating the rights of all unjustly accused victims and violating their basic rights. It put Amanda and Raffaele in such awkward positions — they have practically had to make the case against the prosecution’s unconventional tactics all on their own. That is so disheartening.

  44. Pablo says:

    If anyone in this administration fails to fight Amandas extradition to the best of their ability, I will immediately withdraw all support for this administration, and shift my support to their political opposition.
    The best possible political outcome for everyone involved is to simply cease any public mention of this case and pretend it never happened. This is doubly so in Italy, where embarrassment is the least of their concerns: Has anyone considered the political backlash in the US against Italy in the form of economic shifts? Americans buy approximately $40 billion worth of Italian goods annually. Now is not the time to endanger this.

    • Rob H says:

      I don’t want the Italians to drop this case because they fear reprisals. I want them to drop this case because the evidence demonstrates that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito are innocent.

      They must understand that their police and prosecutors are too powerful and unrestrained, their judges unworldly and arrogant, their justice system archaic, their trials unfair and the forensic scientist in this case both incompetent and a liar.

      • Mike the skier says:

        Yes Rob but may I remind you that there are cases in the US with even less evidence and the people are still in prison. Italy has an appeals system where they can look at the evidence in entirety. We do not have that system in the US. In the US we just look for judicial error

        • Rob H says:

          All you say is true, Mike. I am no defender of American prosecutors. Indeed, I have had a number of stormy conversations with a couple of them. What I was getting at is that you must win a case on the merits and not for other reasons otherwise your victory will be diminished and the system left intact.

          • Mike the skier says:

            I agree.

            The Blaise Lobato case in Las Vegas is a good example of someone in the US with less evidence than the Kercher case. If you ever watched the comedy routine “Who is on First”, then you know how the police interview went.

            People are always saying that this would never happen to Amanda in the U.S. Well think again. It could happen and she would still be in prison. Italy might be better in this one thing but worse in so many others

            Barry Beach just got denied clemency. If any case screams reasonable doubt like no evidence, it is his.

          • William Benjamin says:

            @ Mike the skier…
            “People are always saying that this would never happen to Amanda in the U.S. Well think again.”

            Nonsense! The farce would have come to a screeching halt when USA today published the photos of the luminol soaked bathroom. The false reports of a so-called “confession of murder”, the private sex life information being stolen and paraded and dozens of other things. There were red flags popping up all over and public opinion would have been balanced and demanding of investigations of those leaking the information early on. The forensics would have had peer review. This case had the glare of a public spotlight on it and substantial defense funding. Did the cases you mention have those ingredients as well?

  45. Kokomo Joe says:

    Does anyone know how Amanda is holding up through all this? No one seems to have seen any direct posts or comments from her recently —

    Also, how is she doing with that last “pesky math course” and does she have a graduation date set yet?

    MOST IMPORTANT, isn’t it just time for her (and Raffaele’s) legal teams to file their appeals with the Italian Supreme Court? Seems to me that deadline is less than a week away?

  46. Hide Baert says:

    @Michelle Jones,

    Please, curb your cynical mouth.
    Look at your real intentions. What are your real motives?
    Best wishes, Hilde

  47. Hide Baert says:

    @LaMotta.

    Are you REALLY SERIOUS?
    This case is too tragic to try your talents at movie script writing.
    How about the most straightforward explanation (Occam’s Razor ‘cut the trimmings’)
    Just try and apply at a Hollywood movie factory.

    Please, spend your Sundays in a different way. How about reflecting on your speech or writing?
    Best wishes, Hilde

  48. Hide Baert says:

    @ Jill G,
    Jill, there are 4 branches of government in a democracy: 1. the legislative branch; 2 the executive branch; 3. the judiciary; 4. the press.
    A truly functional democracy protects people from unjust incarceration.

    Moreover, an informed and educated citizenry is indispensable.

    In addition, a fair trial requires that the prosecution presents the real facts; hence this blog’s concern with the integrity of forensics.
    Another great concern, is the integrity of the judicial process (the role of defense, judge and prosecutor + the jury system)

    It is the duty of the press to inform the public correctly. Nowadays, we, citizens, can’t trust the press. It remains for us, citizens, to educate ourselves and find out the truth.

    I am under the impression, you see a court session as a theatrical performance with different roles. It shocked me you judged the way the ‘actors’ played (Guilia Bongiorno; Amanda; Raffaele; Edda Mellas) This is not entertainment!!
    I had a great Sunday with my son (ice cream etc.) and wish you a good remainder of this day.
    Best wishes, Hilde

  49. LaMotta says:

    This is how I think it all happened:

    I doubt that Rudy stole Meredith’s rent money. During his Skype call from Germany, he said Meredith had told him her rent money had been stolen — at a time when, I believe, this hadn’t been reported. When no one else yet knows a theft has occurred, rarely is it the thief who reports it — especially when the victim has since been found dead. Nor can I imagine that Meredith kept such a large amount of cash (300 Euros) in her purse, or that, if she did, she would have left her purse out where Rudy could see it and steal her money when she wasn’t looking.

    Just as Meredith apparently suspected, I believe Amanda had already stolen Meredith’s rent money, probably that afternoon after Meredith had left the cottage and Amanda remained there for another two hours — or at least that’s what Meredith believed. Probably that’s why Meredith’s fingerprints were found on Amanda’s wardrobe door: She thought Amanda might have stashed the stolen rent money in her (Amanda’s) wardrobe, and Meredith checked there in the hope of finding it.

    My hunch is that Amanda — not Meredith — invited Rudy in to the cottage, to buy drugs from him. Her usual suppliers, the boys downstairs, were gone for the long holiday weekend. She probably knew that Rudy, in turn, was their supplier, and that he wasn’t hard to find. According to Rudy during the Skype call, though he didn’t know Amanda well, they’d exchanged greetings on the street several times. He had no incentive to exaggerate the frequency of their contacts.

    I suspect Amanda arrived home (with Rudy) shortly after Meredith had returned from dinner with her friends and discovered her rent money was missing. It probably angered Meredith even more to suspect that Amanda was planning to use her rent money to buy drugs from Rudy. Meredith confronted Amanda, who denied the accusation, left in a huff and returned to Raffaele’s apartment, where she told Raffaele about Meredith’s “unjust” accusation. Raffaele agreed to return to the cottage with Amanda — perhaps to defend her, perhaps to try to calm the waters, perhaps both. Amanda was so upset that she decided to bring along a knife from Raffaele’s kitchen drawer, though I doubt Raffaele was aware of this.

    Raffaele and Amanda arrived back at the cottage, not knowing that Rudy was still there (now in Laura’s and Filomena’s bathroom, presumably with the door closed). While Meredith had not invited Rudy in (contrary to his claim), Rudy had witnessed her earlier argument with Amanda and had comforted Meredith after Amanda left — perhaps hoping his tenderness would make Meredith receptive to his sexual advances. While Amanda had been gone, Rudy and Meredith had become intimate but had stopped short of having sex, as Rudy claimed, because neither of them had a condom. Rudy then went to the bathroom and closed the door, just as he claimed, possibly planning to make another try when he’d finished. But when he heard Amanda and Raffaele come back in, he decided he would be wisest to remain quietly in the bathroom until things had calmed down.

    Amanda confronted Meredith when she returned with Raffaele. The situation escalated and Amanda and Raffaele ended up killing Meredith. Rudy recognized too late that things had gotten out of hand, came out of the bathroom and discovered Meredith bleeding in her bedroom, as he claimed. He tried to stop the bleeding, but soon realized he couldn’t save Meredith and that he’d probably be blamed if he were found there. So he dashed out the door and never came back. By then, however, he’d left a great deal of evidence that he’d been there. He may or may not have taken things from Meredith’s purse before he left. Frankly, it’s never been clear to me why someone worried about being accused of murder would take the victim’s house keys, credit cards, and cell phones. What if he’d been arrested on the street, or at his apartment, or at the disco where he went after leaving the cottage, and had had those items on him? What if he’d used her credit card, or cell phone, allowing his location to be pinpointed? Why would he want her house keys – did he think he might return to the murder scene some day, hoping the locks hadn’t been changed in the meantime?

    Amanda and Raffaele ran out too, even before Rudy did, but soon realized they’d be suspects unless they went back and cleaned up. They’d become aware of Rudy’s presence just before leaving, and decided the best idea was to clean up evidence of themselves but leave evidence of Rudy. So they returned to the cottage, brought Amanda’s bedside lamp into Meredith’s bedroom for additional light, moved and repositioned Meredith’s body so the police would think she’d been raped, and started cleaning up, making sure they left ample evidence of Rudy so that he’d be accused. Since Rudy had remained at the cottage after Amanda had left the first time, they may have believed that Rudy and Meredith had had sex while Amanda was gone.

    Amanda’s and Raffaele’s clean-up effort resulted in the blood-free 10-foot gap between the murder scene in Meredith’s bedroom and the bloody bare-foot print in Meredith’s and Amanda’s bathroom. The hard-surface floors in between were relatively easy to clean. The blood-stained bath mat, made of an absorbent material, was harder to clean. The bloody bare-foot print could only be diluted but not totally removed.

    The standard “selective cleanup impossible” rebuttal would make its appearance here, of course. But that argument assumes a person’s DNA will always be found in a room if she’d been present. Therefore, the argument goes, the absence of Amanda’s DNA in Meredith’s room proves her innocence. Contrary to Knox supporters’ insistence, however, the absence of a person’s DNA in a room does not establish that the person wasn’t there. After all, 95 samples from Raffaele’s car were tested and nobody’s DNA was found. Yet there’s no dispute that Raffaele was in his car at times. And according to Knox-supporter Luca Cheli, 460 samples were tested without finding a single trace of Laura’s or Filomena’s DNA, anywhere in the cottage. Yet Laura and Filomena indisputably lived there. Besides, Amanda herself argued precisely the opposite at times. She insisted that Rudy had burglarized Filomena’s room, for example, even though there was no trace of Rudy in Filomena’s room, on the windowsill, on the outside wall, or on the ground below. Rudy nevertheless had been there, Amanda argued.

    I’ll be the first to confess this is speculation. But so is any other explanation of what happened that night. No one except who killed her (Amanda and Raffaele) and Rudy who all indisputably were there. My speculation, unlike many made by Knox supporters, has the advantage of being consistent with the physical evidence. That evidence doesn’t prove any explanation of what happened. But it certainly casts no doubt on this possibility.

    • Sarah H says:

      You think it’s significant that Guede knew Meredith’s money was stolen even before it was reported? The reason for that, brainiac, is that Guede took the money at the same time he took the keys, phone, and credit card. Since knew he’d taken the money, he tried to cast suspicion on Amanda. This is the only interpretation of the evidence that makes any sense.

      The rest of your story is also sheer fantasy, based on nothing but your fevered imagination.

    • Glenn Thigpen says:

      @LaMotta,
      You are ignoring a lot of evidence and (at least noted) conjecturing about the interpretation of other evidence or the lack thereof.
      Firstly, any selective cleanup would have left its own traces. And any involvement by Raffaele and Amanda would have necessarily left the same type of traces that Rudy left, in the same places that Rudy’s traces were left. Amanda and Raffaele could not have been involved in that murder and not have left some foot prints, etc around the body. You also ignore the fact that Rudy’s DNA was found inside Meredith’s body.

      The conjecture about the rent money is just that, as you noted. You question why Rudy would do this or that, logically, but it has been noted that Rudy often did not act logically or rationally.

      Absence of evidence is usually, at least, a reason for doubt as to anyone’s involvement in a crime, especially with the abundant evidence left by Rudy to indicate his presence.

      Conjecture, especially in a case as grave as this one, is not a way to arrive at the truth.

      Glenn

    • William Benjamin says:

      You have now proven that Amanda and Raffaele were there. Your primary evidence is because you said so. I need more than that before I become compelled to ruin people’s lives.

      Liar Liar Pants On Fire.

    • Nasim says:

      It’s a pity that more people won’t appreciate what a superb reconstruction this is. I think the observations about missing money being integral to the motive are spot on. I agree Meredith’s fingerprint on Amanda’s wardrobe is significant. I’m less convinced that the knife was a murder weapon, rather than a prop or something that was used in the cleaning. Also Rudy’s DNA on Meredith’s sleeve suggests that he was involved in the struggle, although I agree he may have come upon it already in progress. Filomena’s and others’ DNA was found in the cottage. The police did not have their profiles so it was listed as unidentified but we can deduce with a fair degree of certainty whose it is. The blood stains on Meredith’s purse suggest that it was zipped when Rudy handled it and the expected blood on the zipper is not seen. Therefore it seems likely that Rudy was not the thief, who was instead the person who subsequently lifted the purse by its strap with a sock and emptied the contents on the duvet. I can only imagine Amanda itching to tell us what really happened. Too bad, as the Good Book says, the truth is the reward of him who sows righteousness.

      • Rob H says:

        This “superb reconstruction” you write about actually manages to have Guede both as the new boyfriend of Ms Kercher AND innocent of any crime! Gosh, if that’s true, he really must be hurting right now. Have you been sending him messages of support and righteous food parcels?

        Will you be starting your own website to advocate for him? You could call it “Injustice in my own mind” and have some of “yummi’s” drawings on the home page.

        How do you use a kitchen knife for cleaning crime scenes exactly?

      • Skind says:

        ” I think the observations about missing money being integral to the motive are spot on.”

        Except it ignores that Guede left traces on the purse.

        Under La Motta’s scenario, there’s no plausible reason for Guede to handle the purse at all.

        But under a Guede as thief scenario, it makes perfect sense for him to concoct a story to account for his own movements.

        He has to account for the possibility that someone that knew Meredith knew she had the money and would tell the police to check, or that the police would ask around.

    • Mike the skier says:

      Congratulations LaMotta, you managed to offend all sides with your conspiracy theory. How did you do that? OMG

      You either believer Rudy or you don’t. You can’t believe him selectively. Nenceine believes anything Rudy says “repeatedly”. He said several times that Amanda was not there. He didn’t even mention Rafaelle. So this must be true.

      Amanda met Rudy 2 times while hanging out with Meredith. Meredith may have met Rudy more times because her boyfriend was downstairs. I don’t think Rafaelle ever met Rudy

      Your conspiracy theory includes Rudy’s major dump. Good job. But I did not see the seamen in your conspiracy theory. Furthermore, I think the forensics show Rudy had sex with Meredith’s corpse. You have to factor that in.

      Your theory has some basis to it, but it needs a little work. Try again.

    • Rob H says:

      I could send you some medicine to help you get well. I’m just not sure it would be strong enough.

    • Jack says:

      Sheer lunacy. You have no evidence which stands up to scrutiny to support what you have written, here. None. Meanwhile, you blithely ignore the preponderance of evidence and data in the case.

      If it was Amanda who stole from Meredith, why was it Rudy Guede’s DNA that was found on her purse? If Guede was Ms. Knox’s drug connection, why is there no evidence of cell or computer contact between Rudy Guede and Amanda Knox (much less with Sollecito)? Why would she need a drug connection in Guede, when, like Meredith, she had access to the ample pot being grown downstairs by Meredith’s friend with benefits, Giacomo? How do you explain that it was Rudy Guede’s abundant evidence found all over the scene of the crime, and that the Perugian police were forced to continue returning to the cottage to even trump up evidence of AK’s and RS’s presence? How do you factor into your “thinking” that it was Rudy Guede who had an escalating record as a burglar, whilst AK and RS had no history of law-breaking or aberrance?

      Your post is an object lesson in the fact there there is a certain, supremely irrational mindset in play in this case, that simply cannot be reasoned with. Like Mignini, Nencini, et al., you represent a kind of primitive who “thinks” with his instincts, which are subject to fantasy, mythology, cultural biases, and whatever mental disturbance may underly your personal thought process. This does not wash in modern society, in a matter that genuinely pits reason and science (represented by Knox supporters) against chaos and the primordial ooze (that would represent you and yours).

      Your approach to such matters exists solely to be gotten past; to be put in civilization’s rearview mirror as it moves forward.

    • DW says:

      Take a creative writing class. You have a great future ahead of you with your imagination. I mean you do acknowledge that you made all this up, right?

    • Som Nathan says:

      @LaMotta. Your analysis is fictional at best. Not close to reality as to what really happened that night. Your are obviously influenced by guilter sites who have been spewing hatred against Amanda and Raffaele for 6 years now.

      Your commentary here is “GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT”.

      The reality is that fateful evening, Rudi Hermann Guede killed defenseless Meredith Kercher. Amanda and Raffaele were not there when Meredith was killed.

    • HH says:

      Consistent with the physical evidence? Oh God…

      1) You decide to believe Rudy because he mentioned the theft of the money to a friend during the Skype conversation “before anyone knew it had been stolen.” That’s wrong, people knew it had been taken along with Meredith’s phones. Rudy knew about the theft of the money because he took the money.

      A) Rudy’s Dna was found on Meredith’s purse clasp, not Amanda’s.
      B) RUDY was broke. Rudy was asking around trying to borrow money to pay his rent earlier that day. Later that night, when Rudy went clubbing (after Meredith’s death) he suddenly had money and treated his friends to a round of drinks.
      C) Amanda had four thousand dollars in her bank account and no reason to steal Meredith’s money.

      You wrote: “Nor can I imagine that Meredith kept such a large amount of cash (300 Euros) in her purse, or that, if she did, she would have left her purse out where Rudy could see it and steal her money when she wasn’t looking.”

      Try this: Rudy took Meredith’s money AFTER he stabbed her. She didn’t know he was in the house because he had broken in and she came home while he was in the middle of burglarizing the place. Meredith did not need to hide her purse from anyone because she didn’t know that he was there and most likely thought she was alone in the safety of her own house.

      2) You wrote: “Just as Meredith apparently suspected, I believe Amanda had already stolen Meredith’s rent money, probably that afternoon after Meredith had left the cottage and Amanda remained there for another two hours — or at least that’s what Meredith believed. Probably that’s why Meredith’s fingerprints were found on Amanda’s wardrobe door: ”

      Why would Meredith think that Amanda stashed her money in her wardrobe? Amanda has no prior history of theft. So you think that on a whim she decided to suddenly start stealing to supplement her bank account that already had plenty of money in it? And this is proven to you by a couple of undated prints from Meredith on Amanda’s wardrobe door? That’s a ridiculously tenuous connection to make.

      Rudy Guede has an extensive history of theft. He was caught breaking and entering red-handed and threatened the occupant of the house with a knife.

      3) You wrote: “My hunch is that Amanda — not Meredith — invited Rudy in to the cottage, to buy drugs from him. Her usual suppliers, the boys downstairs, were gone for the long holiday weekend. She probably knew that Rudy, in turn, was their supplier, and that he wasn’t hard to find. ”

      Your hunch? No real contact between the two of them, no indication that Raffaele had ever been in the same room with Rudy. Oh and now you decided, based on nothing, that Amanda stole Meredith’s money to buy drugs from Rudy?

      It’s interesting that you have Amanda coming and going from the house to Raffaele’s house and Rudy (who came there with Amanda and just received a chunk of Meredith’s stolen cash in return for drugs) stays and for some reason Meredith (who you claim wouldn’t leave her purse lying around where he could steal from it) decides to get intimate with him on a whim. Then just like that Rudy is absolved of all blame regarding the sexual assault.

      And then Rudy wasn’t even in the room (where there is ample evidence of him) when the murder occurred, but Raffaele and Amanda were in the room where the murder occurred (even though there is no evidence of them in there.)

      But poor Rudy was hiding in the bathroom. Interesting. How did he get the cuts on his fingers? Did he defecate a razor and then when he went to wipe, he ended up cutting himself?

      So despite what the evidence shows, according to you, Rudy is not a rapist, he is not a thief and he is not a murderer. He was just an unfortunate COMPLETELY BROKE drug dealer/burglar (who has been caught with a knife in his possession multiple times) and who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Oh and who decided to go clubbing after witnessing a murder.

    • Zapata says:

      Lamotta, are you trying to write a fiction novel?
      What is the purpose of posting such nonsense, if not to simply hurt another persons feelings?
      You know what this site is dedicated to, and you know who will read this. Do not go out of your way to offend strangers, as no good can come of this.
      If I were you, I would ask that the last posting alleging Knox & Rafael’s guilt be deleted, as it is as offensive as it is speculative.

    • Chris Meyering says:

      Nice article! I think my version sounds the most reasonable. Amanda grew up dreaming of going to Europe and murdering someone. When she was five, she would draw faces in the sand and then erase it and do it again! You see, at an early age, she was already prone to murder.

      Then she went there and got a Job. She got a job solely for the purpose of throwing the police off her trail when she would find the right opportunity to steal money from her roommates. She actually invited Meredith to go to a concert together to try to lure Meredith into a false since of trust. You see! That’s just more proof that she a cold hearted thief.

      Then she fell in love with an dirty, homeless drug addict. She always had dreams of having an orgy with a homeless man so here was the perfect opportunity. So when the four had an orgy, Amanda found the perfect opportunity to fulfill her desire to kill so she killed Meredith! Got two for the price of one. And Rudis DNA found on the victim is proof of the orgy!

      This is just my speculation, unlike many made by Knox supporters, has the advantage of being consistent with the physical evidence. That evidence doesn’t prove any explanation of what happened. But it certainly casts no doubt on this possibility.

      • DW says:

        “She got a job solely for the purpose of throwing the police off her trail”

        That must also be why she put several thousand dollars in a bank account there – to throw the police off when she stole Meredith’s money.

        • William Benjamin says:

          The really diabolic part was the plan to have a college party before she left for Italy and she paid party goers to make noise and throw rocks so she would get a citation for it. This would create the appearance of a unreasonable conclusion about her. This unreasonableness would ultimately create PR machine to help her get away with it. We know this happened because a copy of the citation in on a website. That is one smart 5 year old.

    • Frank the Tank says:

      Your “theory” relies on Meredith Kercher being both stupid and a whore, being willing to fool around with a guy she just met…

      You guilters are willing to stoop to any level, aren’t you?

    • giovanni says:

      “After all, 95 samples from Raffaele’s car were tested and nobody’s DNA was found”
      And what are driving at? What a bizarre post. You’re drawing up “scenarios” out of the blue. Illogical statements…

    • Doug Moodie says:

      Speculation it is, and rank speculation of the worst sort! What a floozy you turn poor Meredith into! I leave it to others to show you the errors in your thoughts. The point I wish you to take with you is that it is irrelevant what you think. The only issue that counts is the refutation of reasonable doubt. Constructing a cock-eyed solution pleases yourself, but does nothing to connect either Ms Knox nor Mr Sollecito to the crime. ( Just a question – what happened to the money. Since Knox had money in the bank, a lot, and Sollecito had no problems with funds, why would Knox steal the money, and, given that she was arrested a few short days later, what happened to it?)

    • There was no reason for Amanda to steal anything from her roommates. She arrived in Italy with $8700 and had ample money in the bank to meet her expenses plus she had a part-time job. She worked 3 jobs to be able to go to Italy in the first place which shows 1) Work Ethic, 2) Goal setting and accomplishment. She is not a thief and is certainly not a murderer. She and Raffaele are both innocent because they were not present during the commission of the crime by burglar, Rudy Guede. To steal rent money also would make no sense whatsoever because she also lived there. If anyone stole this money, it was Guede not Amanda Knox. – Best, KJ

    • Hans says:

      “Rudy and Meredith had become intimate but had stopped short of having sex, as Rudy claimed, because neither of them had a condom.”
      How does that fit in with the testimony of Meredith’s English friends, who testified that Meredith was annoyed that Amanda kept her condoms in her transparent bag in her bathroom in plain sight?

      “Amanda’s and Raffaele’s clean-up effort resulted in the blood-free 10-foot gap between the murder scene in Meredith’s bedroom and the bloody bare-foot print in Meredith’s and Amanda’s bathroom.”
      Any chance that this “gap” was caused by the multiple persons, including the postal police officers, standing in front of, arguing about and finally breaking down that door?

      “After all, 95 samples from Raffaele’s car were tested and nobody’s DNA was found.”
      95 samples from Raffaele’s car? Do you have a cite for this number?

      “And according to Knox-supporter Luca Cheli, 460 samples were tested without finding a single trace of Laura’s or Filomena’s DNA, anywhere in the cottage. Yet Laura and Filomena indisputably lived there.”
      The problem here is that neither Ms Romanelli nor Ms Mezzetti were asked for a reference sample so Dr Stefanoni wasn’t able to link any of the unknown traces to them…

      “Besides, Amanda herself argued precisely the opposite at times. She insisted that Rudy had burglarized Filomena’s room, for example, even though there was no trace of Rudy in Filomena’s room, on the windowsill, on the outside wall, or on the ground below.”
      Tell me, did they test the outside wall or the windowsill for DNA? How many samples were taken from Filomena Romanelli’s room? Did you think about the possibility of Guede wearing gloves up to the time he went to the loo?

    • Duke says:

      What ridiculous nonsense and a gross insult to Meredith’s memory.She would never have done anything willingly with somebody like Rudy Guede and Amanda has never stolen anything in her life.You should go to work in the Italian “justice” system.You’re really good at up preposterous stories.

    • Som Nathan says:

      @LaMotta. You have a promising career in writing short murder mystery fiction. Your imagination is wild and weird. You think it is funny to post your fictional imaginations on Amanda’s blog where she is trying to have serious discussion on the murder of her friend and false conviction of her and Raffaele.
      Shame on you and JillG who has almost similar fictional imagination. I think your source of false information is the same, with Nasim very jubilantly endorsing as if he is the judge of a fictional story writing contest. If you happen to write a book let us know, I will definitely buy it if it sells for .069 liras or less.

  50. Tom Zupancic says:

    I think that it is worth noting that a group of DNA experts have now found indisputable evidence of DNA contamination during the processing of the ‘bra clasp’; ie,sample 165B http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/batch-5-bra-clasp-contamination-undocumented-re-run-tampering/ Okay, I am one of those DNA experts who found this.

    The implications of this finding are significant.

    • Sarah H says:

      Thank you for all your work on this, Tom!

    • Nasim says:

      Would your group of DNA experts mind identifying themselves so their colleagues will know who the fools are among them? What you have here is a whole lot of nothing.

      • Rob H says:

        Are you not aware of Tom Zupancic’s credentials, “nasim”? Do you think that people like this who guard their reputations are likely to make claims they cannot substantiate?

        Now if I were in your position, I might be hoping against all hope that some problem with the analysis could emerge in peer review, but I don’t think I would be having a rush of blood and calling a DNA professional a fool, lest I am shown to be one myself.

        You should be taking notes not giving lectures.

      • Tom Zupancic says:

        Nasim,

        I find your comment here to be most strange. My colleagues all know me quite well given the many years we have worked together in this field. Given the progress and substance we have created your comment about ‘a whole lot of nothing’ demonstrates profound ignorance on your part. That said, who are you ‘Nasim’? Why are you so afraid to identify yourself?

        • Som Nathan says:

          He is just a court jester, jumping up and down in his funny costume. This is the same jester who found some evidence of guilt in Amanda’s “shoebox”.

    • Rob H says:

      It is worth recalling Massei in the light of these new developments.

      “Nor, as has already been said, is it possible to hypothesise a contamination in the laboratory since, as was declared by Dr. Stefanoni, during the course of all the analyses, no anomaly occurred, and the fact that all due controls, precautions and procedures of good laboratory practice were complied with necessarily leads us to rule out the possibility of such contamination in the laboratory.”

      How our words sometimes come back to haunt us.

      Congratulations to you, Dr Zupancic. May we know who else was involved in uncovering this evidence?

    • Doug Moodie says:

      The implications of this finding are significant!!!!

      The problem is, how are you/we going to elevate this info above the “ground report” level? It is too important to be ignored, but, I , as an interested lay person am struggling to understand it, and we both know the press cannot be asked to inquire into facts, just repeat from sources.

      Also, frankly ideally this would be peer reviewed by PMF’ers who are familiar with the process, especially “thoughtful” aka Leila Schneps, a mathematician and mystery writer, and her daughter Coralie Colmez.

      Interestingly, in March of last year they were all over the news declaring that if only the knife were retested, and found not to contain Ms Kerchers profile, the probability of Knox’s innocence, relative to the knife, would just about be assured. Yet since then, now that the knife has been retested, not a peep!

      What gives with you guilters anyhow!?

  51. William Benjamin says:

    @ Heather. First of all you don’t have to reply to a message to get posted. Just go to the very bottom of the page and enter your comment in the space provided there and if it passes moderation your comment will appear in the first position.

    Yes the scientific police have committed perjury and it has gone undisciplined. That sounds bad but by the traditional standards of Italian jurisprudence it is somewhat routine and business as usual and justified by their inquisitor’s system. Many of the officials do the same. That’s the way they do it. The guiltier you look the guiltier you are. The mass media’s involvement was and is complicit. They can justify their “system” with some of the lowest capitol crime rates in the free world. Hammering some innocent people along the way is just the price one pays to lead. Mussolini would be so proud.

    If Amanda would have been offered a lawyer when she had initially inquired you and I and everybody else reading this would not know who Amanda or Raffaele or Meredith or Rudy was. And I would not be spending a rare sunny spring Saturday morning in Seattle writing this to you and yours. But it’s important to me for you to understand that this seemingly endless event that brings us together is a battle. Winning justice has as much to do with you as it has to do with me.

    Educate yourself and one of three things will happen in order. You will find it too inconvenient or you will obey the prescription that the official arbiter’s of justice have given you or you will feel like you have just fallen into a deep hole. If you fall into that hole you will not be alone. Many other people, who genuinely believe good must prevail over the other things, are already there waiting for a critical mass that must show it self in the name of that which is good.

  52. Tom Mininger says:

    Regarding the topic of coerced confessions, can you imagine the crushing power of the state trying to coerce an accusation against Amanda from Raffaele for 6 and a half years and counting, starting with the half year of solitary confinement with no charges? This man is a hero. I can’t imagine the stress on his family.

    • Mike the skier says:

      Tom that is interesting Raffaele has prevailed after all these year. He never confessed. Almost everybody confesses under that pressure. He is a man of dignity. I think it is his calm demeanor that has served him well.
      My uncle was trained in the military. They told him to hold out for 3 days because that would give them time to change secrete things. Raffaele has held out for 6 years.

      • Kenneth Janeway says:

        Raffaele is a great fellow…an Honorable Man and like Amanda, completely Innocent. They never should have become suspects. – Best, KJ

    • Sarah H says:

      Tom, you are right. He is a hero.

      And does anyone think that if Raffaele were actually a murderer, he would have spent all these years refusing to change his account of that night? Even though he could have gotten a deal much better than Rudy’s if he had just changed his account — as Rudy did — to implicate Amanda?

      Raffaele’s insistence in holding to the truth, no matter what the cost, proves his innocence, and Amanda’s. What an amazing young man.

    • William Benjamin says:

      I believe this so much I publicly advocated him to sell out Amanda to save his own skin under the projection that Amanda would be protected here at home. His attempts to do a bit of that were lame at best. It isn’t within him and I just love that. He is one of the good guys. I wish he and his family were here in the U.S. where I would feel more assured of their security. I stand by my original advise. It is an intensely bitter pill and I own up to it.

  53. Hide Baert says:

    Heather,
    Please, bear with me. I might have sounded too pedantic .
    Let me clarify my remark.
    I admire your openness: You say very honestly that you are confused.
    What Occam meant (the Occam of Occam’s Razor): When you are faced with several explanations for a fact, thing etc. choose the simplest and most straightforward one: i.e. cut out all the unnecessary things = ‘cut the crap’ = don’t make things too complicated.

    Liars ( the murderer thief and rapist; the people who messed up and the people who are afraid to lose their careers; ) do a lot of backward processing and muddy the waters.

    Think of the following riddle : ‘How do you get a goose out of a bottle’
    Answer: ‘How did that goose get in the bottle?’
    Hope I didn’t muddy the waters even more. Best wishes, Hilde

  54. Tom Zupancic says:

    Careful inspection of evidence has recently revealed that DNA contamination occurred during the handling and analysis of samples in this case. Most significantly, it has now been found that the lab analysis of the ‘bra clasp’ included contaminated ‘controls’.

    • Tom Mininger says:

      Thank you for this important information Dr. Zupancic.

      • Som Nathan says:

        Contamination is the only explanation why Raffaele’s DNA got there on the bra clasp along with three other “unknown” persons. Or, is it a sabotage by Perugian police to keep Raffaele in the “conviction loop” after the shoeprints near Meredith’s body initial reported to be his were ruled out and that of Rudi Guede ruled in.
        Make a “sane non-guilter” wonder why they had to go back after 46 days to collect just that bra clasp.
        There were after Amanda from very beginning that is known and they tried numerous times to change his alibi, for leaner or no charges. He didn’t budge, that disappointed Mignini. Hence bra clasp, may be?

    • Nasim says:

      I went to the usual places to find this ‘most significant’ new evidence that shows contaminated controls for the bra clasp but I came up empty. Even if there were a couple of low level controls out of the hundreds of samples that were tested it would not explain how Raffaele’s DNA got on the clasp since there was very little of his DNA in the exhibits and what there was had been tested weeks earlier.

      • DW says:

        The defense should not have to prove how it got contaminated (there are at least a dozen scenarios I can think of). If it is contaminated that means it is not useful evidence.

        • Jill G says:

          Yes, but the problem henceforth would be that all defences would cry ‘contamination’ in order to discredit an inconvenient piece of evidence. The situation as it stands is imperfect, but I don’t think placing he burden of proof on the prosecution is the answer.
          I think many people here, and I include myself, are naive about DNA. Even the illustrious Steve Moore, not commenting for once on the Meredith case, said that even in the US, where most labs have the ‘proper’ accreditation, DNA contamination is an endemic problem, which is why multiple tests are run.
          I am not defending Stefanoni, but with regard to the knife, which may or may or may not be the murder weapon, that’s not my point, but there was insufficient material to duplicate a test, so she invited the defence to witness the (at that time) unknown results. They refused. But this didn’t stop them trying to invalidate her work.
          Another point needs to be made here. It goes without saying that forensic science plays an enormous role, but cases are often decided on how credible the witnesses/ defendants are, and how the jury perceives them.
          Smart or not so smart lawyers can win / lose a case by tripping up witnesses, discrediting experts.
          I went back to the Massei trial and examined all testimonies, and all commentary from the press I could find.
          The jury did not warm to her; (yes I know there is a language barrier), but Marriott did not do a good job of preparing her- they neglected to factor in Italian cultural norms, and Amanda was too arrogant, too aggressive, too dismissive. She seems to have learned that lesson now, but alas too late.
          You would think Sollecito would have fared better, but I can see why his lawyers advised him not to testify; in his spontaneous statements he came over as petty, whiny and in short untrustworthy.
          The most compelling witness was, yes you’ll laugh, Curatolo. Yes. He was courteous, respectful, even when speaking of Guede, and no matter what angle the defence adopted, he was consistent and unwavering. Some say he was bribed, but if so he had memorised his story really well…The court also warmed to Edda Mellas…

          By far the best lawyer was Giulia Bongiorno, dramatic, shrewd, but towards the end her government duties meant she was often absent.

          I have the advantage of being able to read the original Italian, but there are reporters on the guilt and innocence stance whom you can look up and read, who will confirm this analysis.

          Please don’t take this as an apologia for the Italian judiciary: i would be the fist to admit that a plethora of reforms are urgently needed.

          I just wanted to take the spotlight away from the science temporarily. If it were all about science and nothing else, then there would be no need for courts, witnesses, jurors, and that would be a devastating blow for democracy.

          • Rob H says:

            You want “to take the spotlight away from the science”. But science is the key to this case. Surely current developments must demonstrate this to you.

            But you also said, “I don’t think placing the burden of proof on the prosecution is the answer”. This is astonishing. The burden of proof IS on the prosecution. You cannot divide it up. It lies there whether you like it or not.

            In DNA cases, contamination is always a consideration; in LCN cases, like this one, more so. You cannot just set this aside. The quality of the evidence is the quality of the evidence; it cannot be something it is not just because a prosecutor or a society wants more convictions.

            If you are the prosecution and you wish to offer evidence in court, you cannot restrict the defence’s ability to impeach testimony by witholding exculpatory information, which may demonstrate that the burden of proof has not been met by the prosecution. You cannot flip the burden.

            The Italian Supreme Court citing Novelli, stated that it is an
            “erroneous belief that the burden of proof lies in demonstrating the absence of contamination”.

            This is legally unsound, even in Italian law, which requires the disclosure, pre-trial of “all investigatory materials”. This disclosure is an opportunity for the prosecution to demonstrate the efficacy of laboratory records and procedures with reference to, amongst other things, issues of contamination, and, from the electronic data files, the validity of the laboratory’s findings. It is these and not witnesses to the testing that are the evidence.

            As we have seen in the last few days, the junk “science” behind the evidence given in testimony used to convict Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito has been discredited by real science and real scientists. It is all the more remarkable because they have effectively completed a jigsaw puzzle without all the pieces. They, I have no doubt, will seek further peer review of their findings.

            In evidentiary terms, there is nothing else to this case. The rest is just a distraction.

          • DW says:

            I’m sorry, Jill, but indeed the prosecution DOES have to prove their claims, in most parts of the civilized world. When you say, “The problem henceforth WOULD be …” ummmm … there’s no “would” involved here.

            No, everyone would not claim contamination – but they’d claim it when there was/is EVIDENCE of contamination. Get it?

            “the most compelling witness was Curatolo” … hopefully then you’re starting to see the problem with this case.

          • Som Nathan says:

            You need to study West Memphis Three case, where compromised and false witness testimonies put three innocent teenagers behind bars for many years before a late DNA evidence exonerated them. The prosecutors didn’t admit that they made mistakes, but behind closed doors made bargain plea with defends to release them if they pleaded guilty. Which the three did and were released from prison. Therefore, you see, in the end science played a key role in proving the innocence of three young men, which you are so willing to discount.

            You seem to be quite an intelligent person, however you find Curatolo’s testimony a druggy credible is quite interesting. His testimony in Hellmann’s court was rendered useless and unreliable. Curatolo was mixed up with dates.

            Also he was a compromised prosecutorial witness who was used by Mignini in some of his other cases.

            Overall this whole case is a sham, with botched evidence collection, falsification of records, lying, hiding the data from A & R defense.
            PM Mignini is a key player in making this case a total mess, and very very difficult for Amanda to defend herself in a foreign country and language she barely knew.

            Put yourself in her shoes and imagine how you would react when falsely accused?

          • HH says:

            You don’t think placing the burden of proof on the prosecution is the answer? That’s the law over in the United States.

            Of course reasonable doubt doesn’t appear to exist in Italy either. Or double jeopardy.

          • jamesrae says:

            The Massei trial did not include Amanda Knox as she was and is but a substitute satanic cult sex predator illusion that stole everyone’s attention including the jury. It was a backward moving trial. The sin of tabloid journalism had cast her guilt before the trial began. If you spend some time with the new Nencini motivations you can see that nothing is real nor stable in this fabricated story. I would contend that you yourself are probably farther from any confidence in any storyline than you were from day one and that is the singular most telling truth. It is a simple story perverted by a beginning point of utter nonsense and spends it’s time trying to unravel itself. That is the power of contamination.

      • Jack says:

        What are your scientific credentials, sufficient to make assessments challenging actual scientists, Ergon? Just curious.

      • Rob H says:

        This is what I have seen so far:

        “Batch 5, which includes the bra clasp (Rep. 165), shows very serious problems. Demonstrable machine malfunction and obvious contamination render unreliable all of the quantification results for Batch 5; in other words, there is no reliable quantification result to show “abundant” DNA in Rep. 165b, as has been claimed. In addition, Rep. 165b (bra clasp hooks) apparently was profiled twice, with the results of the first analysis being suppressed by the prosecution. Record-keeping anomalies, together with the belated re-run of 165b, even suggest tampering with the results of the analyses for this exhibit. Generally, the contamination, machine malfunction, processing irregularities and record-keeping issues render unreliable the results reported for Batch 5, and raise serious questions about the integrity of the lab’s work.”

        This and the batch charts are here:

        http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/missing-profiles-draft/

    • Tom Mininger says:

      The collection of the bra-strap clasp is available for the entire world to see. It’s the first video on this page: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheBraClasp.html

      It was picked up amid a pile of junk 6 weeks after it was originally photographed in its original location after the crime. The room has been trashed. People have trampled all over the cottage for 6 weeks. The moon suits in the video no longer have any value in this contaminated environment and their gloves are visibly dirty.

      Keep in mind the proper way to collect this was to pick it up 6 weeks earlier in its original location, with unused tweezers and immediately place it into a paper bag or envelope. The police had no evidence left against Raffaele at this point after the shoeprints turned out to be Guede’s. Note the spectacle they make collecting this clasp. Normally frame-ups are attempted discretely. These police are so arrogant they have no problem hamming it up.

      Stefanoni hid the fact that multiple male profiles were found on the clasp and only the clasp because it proves contamination. She proceeded to destroy the clasp by storing it incorrectly

      You can view how the crime scene was trashed during those 6 weeks.
      http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/contamination-photos-before-and-after/

  55. Hide Baert says:

    Heather,
    I think you don’t need to apologize for asking questions.
    Apparently, you are not familiar with this website.
    At least that is my impression.
    True, nobody can be a 100% sure (I read a similar remark a couple of days ago on this blog) for the simple reason we (you, I and others) were not at the cottage on that fateful night. We can’t be (like) a fly on the wall and just see things happen at a safe distance, without being seen. It would just be great if that were possible.
    The only person who can orient you is you.
    The information is out there. You can find out the truth. As one of the bloggers here said (He or she pasted a link about ‘The Razor of Occam’ shortly after the Nencini Verdict, if I am correct) TRUTH IS SIMPLE (NOT SIMPLISTIC!!) AND RIGHT UNDER OUR NOSES.
    Just plain seeing, hearing, reading and reflection.
    It takes time and patience. I (and others if I am correct) went on this arduous road.
    I hope you don’t feel patronized. Best wishes, Hilde

  56. Rob H says:

    Bruce Fisher and Luca Cheli discuss Luca’s recent analysis of the Nencini motivations here on a taped radio broadcast, bringing to light the contradictions, errors, omissions, faulty logic and invented evidence, which Nencini used to falsely convict Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

    http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/luca-cheli-discusses-his-analysis-of-the-nencini-motivation/

  57. Mike the skier says:

    I just listened to an interesting conversation with Professor Sir Richard Evans of Great Britain. The subject: Conspiracy Theories.

    Whenever something big and bad happens people expect a big complicated explanation as to how and why it happens.

    Take the Kennedy Assassination. There are lots of theories but whenever a trained sniper goes to the book depository, they all say the shot is easy. Oswald more than likely killed Kennedy by himself.

    The Germans used the burning of The Reichstag before WWII as an excuse to commit atrocities on the peoples involved in the “conspiracy”. Never mind all the evidence which showed that a lone Dutchman probably burned it down.

    Why does there have to be a conspiracy theory to justify the murder of Meredith Kercher. Rudy did it all by himself

    If the Italians asked, Amanda probably could have shed more light on the Kennedy assassination. She might have even confessed. Think about it. We could have solved that mystery. (Sarcasm)

    • SteveG says:

      Mike

      Given that a full trial AND an appeal trial have adjudged Amanda and Raffaele to have participated with Rudy Guede in the murder of Meredith, technically the idea that Guede acted alone IS the conspiracy theory.

      • Rob H says:

        Oh dear, SteveG…

        “A conspiracy theory is an explanatory proposition that accuses TWO OR MORE (my caps) persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an illegal or harmful event or situation.”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

        Can’t have a conspiracy of one, Steve. But nice try. Keep those guilt fires burning,

        As that old song says…”a policeman’s lot is not a happy one”.

        Perhaps your feet are still sore from pounding the beat all those years.

        • SteveG says:

          Rob

          But it’s not a”conspiracy of one”, is it?

          Contributors to this page, and other pro-innocence sites, routinely accuse the prosecution, the Italian judiciary, the Scientific Police etc (delete as appropriate) of conspiring to ensure a guilty verdict with regard to Amanda and Raffaele.

          • DW says:

            Conspiracies exist. When there’s EVIDENCE of a conspiracy, it’s a good thing to bring it to light, I’m sure you’d agree.

            But there are far more conspiracies in fantasy than in reality, and one clue to this is when there’s no EVIDENCE for the conspiracy. Also, when the scenario described is far-fetched, or violates common sense, that’s a good indication a conspiracy theory is at play.

          • Rob H says:

            Oh dear, Oh dear, Oh Dear. You keep coming back to make yourself look very silly.

            You stated in your first pass at this that “the idea that Guede acted alone IS the conspiracy theory”.

            No conspiracy between any two or more people is required nor is it possible in asserting that Guede acted alone to kill Ms Kercher.

            On the other hand, in order for Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito to be guilty of the murder alongside Guede, requires a conspiracy between the three of them, which the prosecution and all you colpevolisti fantasists allege but have no evidence to support.

            Finally, we, on the side of innocence point to real evidence of a conspiracy between various elements amongst the Italian officials involved in this case to deny Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito a fair trial by suppressing exculpatory evidence in contravention of Italian law and committing multiple counts of perjury.

            Do you get it now or will you require a comic book with colourful drawings complete with words like “Kapow”, “Zoom”, and “Gotcha”?

          • Antony says:

            Steve, who on the innocence side calls it a “conspiracy”? If it was one, then it was remarkably inept in that it’s absolutely transparent to anyone who takes an objective view of the case.

            There doesn’t need to be a “conspiracy”. All that there needs to be is the a closing of ranks among corrupt officials with an interest in seeing a particular outcome to the case. We don’t know what strings were pulled or what favours were called in, but it’s quite clear from reading the Massei, ISC and Nencini motivations that there is a substantial grouping within the Italian judiciary determined to bring a guilty verdict regardless of the facts of the case.

          • HH says:

            I would normally find it farfetched, but in this case it really isn’t.

            Did you read the Monster of Florence? Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi both tangled with Mignini. Their story is strikingly similar to Amanda’s. First Spezi’s reputation was ran through the mud by tabloid police leaks, he was arrested for arrested with very little evidence, Mignini ran the gambit of weird theories, etc.

            Part of the problem, I believe is that the police and the prosecution are given too much power in Italy. They can get away with not submitting evidence to the defense, their word is taken at face value in the courts and evidence is suppressed. Oh yeah, and speaking out gets you charged with calumnia (slander) which is a crime you can be jailed for.

        • Jill G says:

          ROB H, is this what you’ve descended to, an exercise in semantics to point score?
          Just substitute “orthodoxy” for “conspiracy theory ” if you didn’t understand the point.
          Better now?

          • Rob H says:

            Jill G

            Are you related to SteveG by any chance?

            There is nothing orthodox about the claim that Ms Kercher was murdered as a result of a conspiracy between three people, two of whom did not know the third.

            On another matter, are you clear about how the ECHR works after Sarah and I explained it to you? Are you now able to understand how egregiously Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito’s human rights have been abused?

            Seen the new bra clasp evidence, have you?

      • Sarah H says:

        The first appeals trial — that you pretend could be made non-existent — ruled that there was no evidence against the students and that they were innocent.

      • mike the skier says:

        SteveG, there are plenty of well “adjudged” or rather adjudicated people based on a conspiracy theory who have received multimillion dollar settlements. Municipalities just don’t pay that kind of money unless they fear being “adjudged”. So much for adjudication. The system in many countries is broken. Nothing supports that fact more than the number of DNA exoneration’s. Still police and prosecutors struggle with coming to terms with the DNA even when it points to another person. So in order to get around the DNA, they create a conspiracy theory which is what 2 judges did in the Kercher murder. But in this case the theory keeps changing as the previous theories prove preposterous.

        So let’s break down the conspiracy:

        And, we have to believe what Rudy says because this last judge based the conspiracy on Rudy’s statements. Also, everyone, feel free to add facts to the conspiracy theory because my memory of the facts is fading (senility)

        1. Meredith and Rudy must have some sort of relationship. We know that she met Rudy at least two times. Both times while she was hanging with Amanda. Meridith was confiding with Rudy. She suspected that Amanda stole her money. (Didn’t Amanda have plenty of money in the bank?)
        I don’t think the conspiracy theory is clear here on this point but Rudy did listen to Meredith

        2. How Rudy gets in?
        Now here I really like Rob H’s post and the recorded discussion because it does a great job of breaking down the Nencini report and all of its contradictions and selectively believing Rudy’s comments. (I think I only believe the Skype conversation)
        A. Did Rudy and Meredith arrange a rendezvous and did Meredith let him in? Furthermore did they have a consensual sexual encounter as Rudy has said “repeatedly”. I used the word “repeatedly” because Nencini believes anything Rudy says “repeatedly” and Rudy has said this “repeatedly”.
        B. Or did Amanda let Rudy in because Meredith too moral of a person to let Rudy in.
        C. Did Rudy climb in the window? Here Nencini acknowledges Rudy’s talent because he entered another building similarly. Apparently that would be too much of a hassle.
        I think the conspiracy theory has it that Amanda lets Rudy in.

        3. The conspiracy to kill Meredith.
        This theory requires that Amanda, Raffaele, and Rudy get angry enough and quickly enough to kill Meredith. I don’t think there is evidence that Raffaele ever met Rudy and Amanda only met him in passing while hanging with Meredith. Now what upset Amanda, Raffaele and Meredith so much and so quickly? Was it the money? Was it the Rudy’s major dump?
        I’m not sure the conspiracy theory is clear on this point. Somebody help me out. Does it make sense that people who barely know each other would commit such a crime? So we need a conspiracy theory to make this sound sensible. Did Nencini accomplish it here?

        3. Rudy having sex with a corpse while Amanda and Raffaele watch.
        I think the forensics show that Rudy had sex with a corpse. The conspiracy theory would have to support this. The conspiracy theory in the first trial, I think, addressed this with the sex game gone bad. I don’t think Nencini addressed this.

        My whole point here is that, if the facts don’t fit the scenario you want in a murder case, you have to create a conspiracy theory to have it make sense.

        The conspiracy theories in the Kennedy assassination have never made sense. Oswald killed Kennedy.

        The Nazis ignored the facts in the The Reichstag arson and created a conspiracy to justify mass murder.

        The conspiracy theories in the Kercher murder keep changing and don’t make sense. Rudy killed Meredith

      • Tom Mininger says:

        Staged crime scenes are the stuff of conspiracy theorists and fiction writers. Moriarty can do it. You and I and Raffaele and Amanda can not come close.

        Selectively cleaning your invisible DNA while leaving Guede’s invisible DNA behind enters Judge Nencini’s realm of the supernatural. And not only that, A and R were supposedly stoned while they accomplished this feat.

        And to top it all off, after “framing” Guede with this impressive feat, Amands goes and names Patrick during her unrecorded middle-of-the-night “interview”.

        • Mike the skier says:

          Tom the conspiracy theory is multilayered. You mentioned at least two more steps in the conspiracy. You also noted that A and R did this while stoned. Marijuana makes you silly and giggly. I don’t think you could focus on such a task while stoned

          I wish a good writer could coherently and cogently (does that make sense?) put it all together in an article entitled something like “The Conspiracy Theory for the Murder of Meredith Kercher”. They should also detail how it has changed from sex game gone bad to money/hygiene dispute, etc.

  58. Hilde Baert says:

    More on ‘John’
    Sadly enough ‘John’ is still stuck in prison without any chance of parole

    • Heather says:

      Sorry, this is not a reply to anybody, but could someone answer some questions for me honestly and without spin. On the web, all you find are polarised viewpoints, the guilt and innocence sites are biased in equal measure. What I want to know is 1) the hallway: i thought the luminol applied there revealed blood cleaned up, but I read that the TMB test came back negative. Is this true? Did Stefanoni lie in court? Did she conceal evidence from the defence? If there was no blood in the hall, how did the bloody footprint in the bathroom get onto the mat?
      2) How significant is the fact that Stefanoni’s team not gained the full international accreditation at the time of the murder? Was there a team in Italy that possessed this accreditation?
      3) What about the science in the Hellmann trial? How valid are the criticisms of Stefanoni’s work? I know Hellmann ruling no longer stands, but many still cling to this ruling and its criticism of the Massei trial.
      4) The infamous double DNA knife: are we to accept that it has Knox and Kercher’s DNA or could it be contaminated? If so how? How can we be sure?
      5) The small bathroom: what are we to make of the blood in the sink mixed with Knox’s DNA? How likely is it that Knox’s deposits were just a result of her living there?
      I am an intelligent person, but I am struggling with the science of this case. I have no preconception of guilt or innocence, apart from some witness testimony and behaviour points to guilt, but then the science which should support this seems ambiguous to say the least.
      Please, somebody without a huge agenda, answer these questions for me honestly, without concealing anything. If the science is inconclusive please say so, and why, and what part of each ‘side’s case is weak.
      I’m so sick of one sided views, and the sliming of the Italian science without a full explanation, and I hope there is somebody out there honest enough to help me understand the science of this case. Layman’s terms please if you can.

      • Rob H says:

        I’ll take you at your word.

        What I suggest you do is read the following two “wikis”.

        One is the case for the defence and one the prosecution. Please read both.

        You should have no trouble at all in finding the answers to your questions and much more besides as well as coming to a more certain conclusion as to which side of the argument the evidence better supports as well as which side of the argument handles the evidence honestly and which does not.

        The Prosecution

        http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Main_Page

        The Defence

        http://murderofmeredithkercher.com

      • Frank the Tank says:

        Heather,

        If you think Injustice in Perugia is “biased,” simply because they analyze the evidence first, and THEN draw a conclusion, then you’ve pretty much eliminated any possible source.

        There is no such thing as an “unbiased” source, based on that definition.

        The difference between guilter websites and Pro-innocence websites (such as Injustice in Perugia) is that the guilters start assuming Knox/Sollecito are guilty and cherry pick the evidence to “prove” their guilt.

        Injustice in Perugia and other similar websites start by making no assumptions about guilt or innocence and instead focus on the forensic evidence and witness testimony to determine who is guilty… arriving at the conclusion that Rudy Guede was most likely the sole rapist and murderer.

        You tell me… which approach is more reasonable, scientific, and honest.

        Then tell me why you consider the latter to be biased.

      • Samson says:

        Heather, there is a simple test in this case that everyone agrees on, including Mignini, the original prosecutor, Massei, the original judge, and Hellmann, the second judge
        If the break in was staged, there is one conclusion, if it was not staged there is another
        To begin viewing this case from the other evidence is to misunderstand the aim, which is to resolve the question of who did what, and when.
        You can take it as a given, that if the evidence gleaned following the vandalism of the window is hotly contested by public figures, which it is, then there will be viable explanations for every detail that seems to point to guilt Therefore the first step is to understand the window, and the hard science involved. It is extremely fortunate that there are many photographs taken and time stamped on the afternoon of the discovery of the body, that demonstrate one completely inescapable fact, the window was broken by a rock thrown from outside the cottage. I just posted this on another site, so to save time this is a copy and paste.

        I continue to wonder why the prosecution get away with the staged break in. The damage, and impaled glass shard in the interior shutter, and the glass distribution to the far side of the room can only be achieved with a horizontal high velocity throw for accuracy and certainty of an ingress opportunity, from the car park. This is what is seen. This in itself can not preclude Raffaele from throwing it, but certainly there is no chance Amanda would have the strength, the rock being the identical weight to an Olympic female shot put. However, with this taken as a fact, we then must consider what time of night, and with what purpose Raffaele performed this throw. The time is allegedly midnight, and the purpose is to conceal involvement of a murder, the victim’s body being in the house. A moment’s reflection shows this would never be deemed a cunning plan by the perpetrator, but one of the gravest folly, with the extreme likelihood of attracting attention to exactly what was being intended to conceal for as long as possible. I have just re-examined Ron Hendry’s analysis, and the photo of the light colouring on the lower window frame can be explained only by a recent rubbing action, Rudy’s foot.

        Heather you would be surprised how little people are driven by agenda in this case. The reason that people pursue it is that there is an unusually complete proof available, including a completely plausible perpetrator behind bars, who acted as most petty criminals prefer, alone, and that there is no need to include Amanda and Raffaele. People spend their time on the case because it has been solved by science, but not by the underlying sociology. The Italian people are unscientific in their approach, and their nation is the 52nd in the list of least corrupt countries.

        • Nasim says:

          I also first realized the truth about this case by studying the alleged break-in but in contrast to you I concluded that it was obviously staged. The rock thrown from inside at the open window would account for everything including the final position atop the Isley bag. The presence of glass deep into the room can be understood by studying the workings of an impact sprinkler. Look it up!

          • Steve Nye says:

            In no way does that explain how the rock ended up where it did. And I’m almost certain that there was no impact sprinkler in the bedroom.

          • Mike the skier says:

            Nasim, there is a great online video where the study a rock an glass breaking. They compare glass breaking from the inside and outside. As I recall, they experimenters are English. Actually they glass splatters on the inside in both experiments but the splatter pattern most compares to this case when thrown from the outside. If they saved the glass (I think not), they can see the stress pattern microscopically. Where are forensics when you need them?

          • Jack says:

            You begin with a false premise, and go downhill from there. You have never realized the truth about this case. The sum total of all of your ruminations by all of your myriad manifestations across the internet prove you ill-equipped, disinclined and incapable.

          • Samson says:

            Nasim, I have pointed out a detail many times, and this is of the utmost importance, it is the embedded glass shard in the shutter. This is completely impossible to achieve without maximum velocity. The maximum velocity this rock can be delivered by a female shotputter is 28 miles per hour, launch velocity. For the break in to be staged, this implies that Raffaele, not Amanda because she has not the strength of a champion shot putter, needed to do what was completely unnecessary, make as much noise as possible with the rock when engaged in an act of concealment of activity, and with a dead body in the house, late at night. I have posted this many times and the science has never been addressed. What is notable is that this velocity makes sense when Rudy can duck out of sight to see if anyone notices, before there is a dead body to be discovered. In other words it is a good idea because if this does not provoke a response, no one is in the house, and the way is clear for a burglary. I note you do not claim the rock could not have been thrown from outside. Then there is the scuff mark on the lower window frame which must be fresh

          • Rob H says:

            Man looks at a crime scene photograph – but not of the murder crime scene – and magically intuits an entire explanation – a theory of everything -complete with the importation of culprits for which he has no evidence and without submitting his theory to scientific testing and analysis.

            Once, thousands of years ago, one of our ancestors sat atop a hill and observed a shooting star crossing the night sky.

            And from this simple happening, a universe controlled by deterministic gods was conceived and religion was invented.

            Later, religion decided that the universe wasn’t old enough for this event to have occurred an it proceeded to deny the roots of its own existence.

            My conclusion is that Nasim is no more than 4000 years old and used to run around with dinosaurs whilst wearing a loin cloth.

  59. Hilde Baert says:

    Still struggling with them computers.
    ‘ I agree with the concept of ‘Justice’. However, the primary reason for putting Rudy Guede behind bars for at least 30 years is PUBLIC SAFETY. (For me, pragmatic approaches make more sense than principles).
    I undermined my argument somewhat by the last sentence I wrote ‘decades of good behavior merits a chance of parole’.
    I refer to ‘John’, an inmate in a state prison in Berlin, NH.
    My friends (religious volunteers at this same prison) know him.
    He killed a person (at that time, he was a Vietnam vet, suffering from PTSD)
    He doesn’t use that as an excuse: He plainly states that he made the decision to kill.
    Now, he refuses to kill insects (Buddhist vow).
    Hope I don’t keep bothering you with repetitions.

  60. Hide Baert says:

    I often read the word ‘Justice’ on this blog.
    I agree totally with the concept of ‘Justice’.
    However, I favor the pragmatic approach: The main reason that Rudy should be locked up is PUBLIC SAFETY.
    On the contrary, Amanda and Raffaele have consistently behaved in a safe and considerate way. The proof is here.
    It may sound controversial, but there are people who committed a heinous crime and turned themselves around in a radical way. In my opinion, their long records (decades!!) of excellent and compassionate behavior deserve a chance of parole.

  61. Mark Saha says:

    Reader Corrado Massa [google translated as Conrad] posted this letter on OGGI:

    Conrad Massa wrote : 27/05/2014 at 23:43

    I would like to reflect on Rudy Guede. A few days after the murder of Meredith, Rudy spoke via Skype with a friend of Perugia, Giacomo Benedetti, without knowing that the conversation was intercepted by the police (a part of the conversation can be heard on OGGI). He said that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were completely unrelated to the crime and did not understand why they’d been charged and added that a stranger had entered somehow in Meredith’s room and had stabbed while he was in the bathroom.

    When then November 21, 2007 Rudy was arrested in Germany, the German police repeated the same version. Think about above: the normal reaction of an accomplice to a crime done in a group, when he is accused, is to accuse the other participants, and to minimize his own role. Rudy did not do so. Rudy did not use the names of the two students who, he knew, had been arrested, but he accused a stranger. Why?
    The simplest explanation is that Rudy knew that the two students had nothing to do with it, that there was no evidence against them and that they would soon be freed, leaving him just as guilty. And since he had to (to dilute his own responsibility) accuse someone else, he accused an imaginary man.

    Conrad Massa wrote : 29/05/2014 at 16:59

    Here is another problem that the prosecution did not know how to resolve:

    In the interrogation Night 5 – November 6, 2007 Amanda says that Lumumba was in Meredith’s house the night of the murder. But we know well that Lumumba was not there, and that Rudy was there.

    Now, if Amanda really was, as claimed by the prosecution, in Meredith’s house the night of the murder, Amanda would know, during questioning, that Lumumba was not there but there was Rudy. So why does she name in interrogation not Rudy but Lumumba? She did so for the sake of bringing on herself a conviction for slander? Of course not.

    Here, then, of the possible answers, with its controrisposte :

    1) Does not talk about Rudy because she wants to defend him. Objection: if she wants to defend him so much, why did she do everything she could to frame him ? (In fact: she did not erase his tracks from the crime scene, taking care to remove only their own [Amanda & Raffaele], and in the staged break-in in the room of Filomena she imitated the modus operandi of Rudy, which is like putting the signature of Rudy).

    2) She does not talk about Rudy because she is afraid of him.

    Objection: If you fear him, why didn’t you erase his traces too and simulate a break-in with a different modus operandi?

    3) She threw in Lumumba for personal hatred of him.

    Objection: there is no trace of hatred personal testimonies, and the same Lumumba has testified in court that their relations were excellent . It also does not make sense to seek “revenge” in a way that inflicts self-injury, which would surely yield a conviction for slander.

    4) She wanted to sidetrack the investigation.

    Objection: Amanda believed she was being questioned as a witness informed of the facts, and not as a suspect. So why did she need to get defensive to the point of lying and expose her and Raffaele to serious risks? She also knew that she had eliminated any trace of them at the crime room and they were safe. What need had she to sidetrack? And again, because in her accusation of Patrick she puts herself at the scene of the crime? Why so self-defeating an admission when there was no evidence against her?

    And then there’s another problem: how come a few hours after her deposition Amanda retracted everything and says it is not true that she saw Lumumba in Meredith’s house? What sense does this almost sudden withdrawal, made in writing, November 6, repeated always in writing and with more force November 7, reiterated again and repeated constantly to lawyers for all the following years ?

    I cannot answer her accusers. Here instead how easy and common sense makes the defense:

    Amanda has not brought up Lumumba spontaneously but was induced to say so because it was a kind of interrogation using the Reid technique she had undergone twelve hours when the cops come all the way from Rome (their names are in the file ), and so arranged as to confuse the interviewee to create false memories.

    Conrad Massa wrote : 29/05/2014 at 22:06

    This sad story has taught me some interesting things about DNA . The did not know until a few weeks ago, I was informed by an expert and now I want to share it with those who are not familiar with . Believe me it’s worth it. Then: the DNA is deposited everywhere : by direct contact, for deposit of dead cells ( 30% of the dust that we have at home is made of skin cells ) hair , dandruff , sweat, saliva droplets that come from a cough or even just by talking loudly … it’s impossible to stay for a while ‘ in a room without leaving their DNA , invisible but real. In addition, the DNA moves easily, and the transfer mechanism is this:

    A) is the primary transfer: touch something, or I let my saliva on something, in short, I have a direct contact with something, and immediately my DNA is deposited on that thing.

    B) then there is the secondary transfer : someone, or something, it touches the object that had been touched by me, and now that someone or something takes upon himself a part of my DNA , I had settled on the object.

    C) then there is the tertiary transfer if the person or thing that has my DNA on himself touches another object or another person, my DNA is transferred to that object or person.

    The tertiary transfer you can still reveal, but it is very difficult if not impossible to discover any transfer quaternary. This is because, as is obvious, the amount of transferred DNA becomes increasingly small as the various steps that occur. The only transfer that can legally prosecute someone or at least do strongly suspect someone is the primary transfer (which implies direct contact).

    A too small amount of DNA cannot be considered the result of direct deposit, so you cannot tell where it comes from, and cannot prosecute anyone.

    The international unit of DNA is the “relative fluorescence units” ( RFU ) or relative fluorescence units . “Only the DNA present in quantities greater than 150 RFU is considered legal interest; below 150 RFU one cannot speak of the primary transfer, that is, deposit by direct contact, and then the DNA is not found incriminating . It is clear that with this transport mechanism can get my DNA at a great distance and in places where they have never been and people, on objects , on cadavers) that I have never seen or touched. No one, however, I incriminerà for this, as it will be less than the amount found fateful 150 RFU and the judge will say rightly,” is the result of contamination.”

    We come to the case of Perugia: the bra clasp of Meredith is clearly contaminated, and the proof is not just in the incontestable fact of having suffered all kinds of vicissitudes in the 46 days when it was at the mercy of movements, kicking, handling up to end up under a dirty carpet, but also in the fact that the various DNA that cover it are in such small quantity, well below the 150 RFU, to be safely exclude direct contact.

    The DNA of Sollecito is far below 150 RFU and so is the DNA of three other male persons appearing on the same hook . Just the fact that there is this multiplicity of DNA suggests the contamination (or want to charge them all, these four gentlemen?). The fact that it is far below the minimum threshold cuts off the head of the bull.

    A similar conclusion applies to the infamous knife blade on which the prosecution says he found Meredith’s DNA. In fact, assuming that the invention has, the amount is less than 15 RFU, ie less than one tenth of the minimum limit necessary to suspect an involvement of the knife in the murder. The ‘prosecution insists that the blade has been cleaned, but the police have the scientific tools to discover similar washing, when there were . Well, there is no trace of this cleaning.

    Conclusion: even allowed (and not allowed) that Meredith’s DNA is present on the knife and Raffaele’s DNA is on the bra clasp, this presence is certainly not due to a direct contact but at a secondary or tertiary transfer. Raffaele has never touched the hooks, and the blade of his knife never touched the body of Meredith. This is what science says: Do not talk, but the science that gave us the CT scan, the computer and space travel. And I, having to choose between the science of Galileo and Einstein and fictional reconstructions of the judges, I choose science.

    Conrad Massa wrote : 31.5.2014 at 19:18

    I would like to ask another question on DNA and its cleaning, or cancellation, selective. What I’m about to write may be understood by anyone with a basic understanding of the scientific and technical realities involved, so it is amazing that there are people, the level of judges and prosecutors, so uninformed they believe there can be [selective] cleaning.

    If Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito ( briefly : A & R) have really cleared their DNA , leaving one of the only Rudy , they had first of all to collect DNA samples in the room of the crime using special pads , turning them into a liquid solution , and analyze this solution with machines capable of generating profiles and identify to whom the profile belongs. These machines are supplied with the scientific police and are not in a pharmacy or supermarket ! After this work , is neither easy nor short, they performed the selective cleaning going on the area where the samples were collected and hovering over bleach wipes or similar , wearing protective suits (the type used by RIS ) to avoid depositing its DNA in the act of trying to erase it. It ‘s impossible that A & R have done this because such a procedure requires things that A & R certainly had not , and that is: the availability of machines, from specialized technical skills , and very , very long time (several days).

    It does not end here ! The procedure I have just described is perhaps (very possibly) feasible in the case of DNA separated. If the various DNA are mixed becomes completely impossible , because the mix of DNA occurs at the microscopic level and the separation of the components necessary to delete some while leaving others as it is difficult to separate the water from the wine after they have been mixed. And in the dynamics proposed by Judge Nencini (three attackers on the same victim in a small room measuring three meters by three) the mix is inevitable. Conclusion: The presence of the DNA of only Rudy shows that Rudy is the only murderer .

    Conrad Massa wrote : 06/02/2014 at 20:19

    In this story there is a curious detail that, at least in Italy , is continuously kept quiet by the media. These are the computers of Raffaele Sollecito , Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher , computers that according to the defense would have acquitted the two defendants by providing them with a solid alibi and , in the case of computer Meredith , demonstrating through photos and email Amanda and the English girl had best friends. The computers were seized at the beginning of the investigation by the police and returned in bad condition practically useless.

    You can use Google by typing this sentence:

    technical survey – reference laptop Amanda Knox

    Towards the end you read the comments (which I transcribe below) technician who examined the three scrap:

    “Human error or sabotage? I do not pronounce, it seems to me, however, that three equal and simultaneous human errors are less likely.”

    Conrad Massa wrote : 06/02/2014 at 20:23

    In my previous email the comments of the technician you are unable to read. The ritrascrivo here:

    “It is still really incomprehensible that the three hard drives, different from each other as a capacity produced by the manufacturers of the most quoted, belonging and working on three different PC Laptops, prove all three damaged in a similar manner and all three behave the same way when the attempt to read data from an external disk controller operated by the Operating System resident on the IBM PC provided by the IAC / CNR and related utilities data recovery were used, and the CTU recovery utility is compatible with the operating system.”

    http://www.oggi.it/video/notizie/2014/05/02/amanda-knox-videointervista-non-ho-ucciso-la-mia-amica-non-ne-avevo-il-motivo/

  62. The only way that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito will be FREED from this legal nightmare is for Rudy Geude to come forward like a man and tell the Truth that neither Amanda nor Raffaele were present during the commission of the crime against Meredith Kercher and did not participate in the crime. Short of this, Raffaele could spend a very long time in prison for a crime he clearly did not commit. Come forward, Rudy Guede, and tell the Truth for once to Free these two co-defendants that have been railroaded and framed by Prosecutor Mignini and the Perugian police. Your breaking your silence is the Key to this case- Best, KJ

    • I believe that the U.S. Secretary of State has valid grounds to deny the Extradition of Amanda Knox back to Italy under Article VI of the Treaty should she not be re-Acquitted by the Italian Supreme Court. She has never killed anyone and is simply innocent.- Best, KJ

      • Michelle Jones says:

        This is the major issue for Amanda, you’re not the person deciding. There is actually very little room for Amanda to move on the extradition. From what I have seen, the concept of double jeopardy won’t be a consideration. Knox needs to prove her innocence to the US dept considering any extradition request…this is the one time that the burden of proof is on the defendant. If Knox cannot show that there are significant issues with her conviction (and nothing I have seen so far qualifies as Knox cannot prove contamination of the DNA nor can she prove an Italian conspiracy – suspicion is not proof) then she will return to Italy or serve her sentence in Washington.

        • Rob H says:

          Notwithstanding the fact that your premise is wrong, contamination has already been proved.

        • Ian Morris says:

          I would like to ask Michelle two questions :-

          1) The prosecution committed numerous abuses against Amanda and Raffaele :-

          * The rights of Amanda and Raffaele were violated during the interrogations. They were denied access to lawyers, they were not officially told they were suspects and the interrogations were not recorded.

          * The prosecution told numeroues lies.

          * The prosecution suppressed evidence.

          * Forensic prototols were not followed.

          * A motivation report riddled with falsehoods was used to convict Amanda and Raffaele.

          In view of the abuses committed by the prosecution, why should Amanda be extradited to Italy.

          2) In view of the abuses committed by the prosecution, do you think corrupt prosecutors would want their case to come under scrutiny in an environment where they can not hide behind calunia laws and send thugs to intimidate people like they do in Italy? Do you not think there is a danger the prosecution will be asked the following types of questions :-

          * Amanda and Raffaele were clearly suspects when they were being interrogated. Why were the interrogations not recorded, they were denied access to lawyers and were not officially told they were suspects?

          * Why did you have to tell so many lies if you had a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele.

          * Do you not think it is suspcious you took only one knife for testing and this knife just happened to be the knife used in the murder?

          * How could the knife be the murder weapon if it did not match the wounds?

          * Why did you refused to hand over the EDFs if the tests on the knife were valid.

          * How could the test on the knife be valid if Stefaoni’s lab did not have the facilities to do LCN DNA.

          * Why did Stefanoni continue to carry out tests on the knife when the results kept coming back too low.

          * Why was the bra clasp not collected for six weeks?

          * Why were the luminol tests not done for six weeks if they were so important?

          * Why have you constantly changed motives and scenarios?

          * If you had a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele, why did you have to resort to using dubious forensic evidence against Amanda and Raffaele eg a knife which did not match the wounds.

    • HH says:

      He won’t though. :(

  63. Rob H says:

    The question of disclosure of records with respect to the forensic evidence in the Meredith Kercher case is a key one. Clearly, there are considerable gaps in the record and a strong indication that material, which may well be of an exculpatory nature continues to be withheld. These matters first came to something of a head on July 18th 2009 during the first trial when it became clear that Comodi knew far more about the record than Stefanoni had disclosed to the court, leading to a request approved Massei for all of her documentation. Yet only a partial and disorganised data dump was made to the defence, revealing, amongst other things, that Stefanoni had committed multiple counts of perjury in her testimony and, as has recently been established on JREF by “Diocletus” and “Dan O”, evidence of laboratory contamination.

    And so the question remains as to the appropriate extent of forensic disclosure in criminal cases. A few days ago, Tom Zupancic wrote on this blog, following his attendance at a conference for trial attorneys in the U.S :

    “One key thing I learned is that lack of discovery, failure to provide EDF’s and suppression of evidence, etc. are SERIOUS VIOLATIONS of acceptable judicial practices”.

    Tom is entirely correct. In connection with disclosure, American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice: DNA Evidence, 3d ed. © 2007 state as follows:

    Part IV: Pretrial Proceedings

    (a) The prosecutor should be required, within a specified and reasonable time prior to trial, to make available to the defense the following information and material relating to DNA evidence:

    (i) laboratory reports as provided in Standard 3.3;

    (ii) if different from or not contained in any laboratory report, a written description of the substance of the proposed testimony of each expert, the expert’s opinion, and the underlying basis of that opinion;

    (iii) the laboratory case file and case notes;

    (iv) a curriculum vitae for each testifying expert and for each person involved in the testing;

    (v) the written material specified in Standard 3.1(a);

    (vi) reports of all proficiency examinations of each testifying expert and each person involved in the testing, with further information on proficiency testing discoverable on a showing of particularized need;

    (vii) the chain of custody documents specified in Standard 2.5;

    (viii) all raw electronic data produced during testing;

    (ix) reports of laboratory contamination and other laboratory problems affecting testing procedures or results relevant to the evaluation of the procedures and test results obtained in the case and corrective actions taken in response; and

    (x) a list of collected items that there is reason to believe contained DNA evidence but have been destroyed or lost, or have otherwise become unavailable;

    (xi) material or information within the prosecutor’s possession or control, including laboratory information or material, that would tend to negate the guilt of the defendant or reduce the punishment of the defendant.

    The complete and rigorous ABA standards are available here:

    http://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice_section_archive/crimjust_standards_dnaevidence.html

    Additionally, the document complete with explanatory commentary is available at the same link.

    Quoting from the commentary : “Comprehensive discovery is critical in scientific evidence cases, and DNA discovery is no exception. The National Academies 1992 Report recommended extensive discovery in DNA cases: “All data and laboratory records generated by analysis of DNA samples should be made freely available to all parties. Such access is essential for evaluating the analysis”. (Page 95 of the document/88 of the numbered pages).

    In the Meredith Kercher murder trials, the withholding of data supporting (or rather failing to support) forensic evidence, in US terms would amount to a breach of Brady disclosure requirements:

    “the prosecutor must disclose evidence or information that would prove the innocence of the defendant or would enable the defense to more effectively impeach the credibility of government witnesses”.

    Of course, whilst this is further confirmation that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito’s Article 6 rights under the European Convention of Human Rights have been breached, perhaps another contributor would care to examine the position with respect to Italian CCP, which the ECHR would also take up if Cassation fails to support a reevaluation of this case.

    • Jill G says:

      Rob H, what is your motive here? Are you trying to prove Amanda’s innocence, or are you treating us to details of the US ‘bar standards’ in order to assert the supremacy of the US judiciary over the Italian? This kind of superiority which you arrogate to yourself by virtue of your nationality contributes nothing to your cause; it just makes your opposition even more entrenched in its position.

      I think it’s safe to say that these aforementioned excellent guidelines which you describe have not always been adhered to in the US. May I remind you that the murder and trial took place in Italy not the US, so that’s what you’re stuck with I’m afraid.

      Now Stefanoni’s forensic qualifications may not match those of the US luminaries, and yes, there is the possibility she may have lied in court. And yes, she might or might not have withheld evidence, and suppressed information, just as the Sollecito family may or may not have attempted to bribe witnesses.

      If your question is a genuine one about the ECHR, my answer would be that it was very remiss of Amanda’s lawyers not to have referred this ‘breach of human rights’ to the ECHR as soon as they had a suspicion that this might be the case, rather than so late in the proceedings.

      • Rob H says:

        Jill G

        1) My motive in respect of the post you commented on was to put the legal flesh on the skeleton provided by the biologist, Tom Zupancic, with regard to disclosure in DNA evidence cases and generally to add my voice to the many others here, scientists and non scientists who have correctly recognised that in the Kercher case, vital disclosure has not been made of materials of a likely exculpatory nature.

        Furthermore, my motive is, because I abhor injustice, to demonstrate alongside others that the only conclusion to be drawn from the body of evidence in this case is that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito are entirely innocent of the crimes they have been convicted of. I hope that eventually, the wider acceptance of this fact and their acquittal will lead to wholesale reforms of the flawed criminal justice systems in continental Europe and elsewhere.

        2) You are mistaken. I am not an American. I am British. In fact I live close to the Kercher family so you might expect my tribal affiliations to lead me to attack Ms Knox as so many others from my country have done. But evidence trumps tribe.

        3) Good science also knows no international boundaries. The information required to properly evaluate forensic evidence in Perugia is exactly the same as it is to evaluate such evidence in London or Washington or Shanghai or Sydney. This also applies to collection and testing methodologies and the efficacy of laboratory conditions. Evidence in this case has been suppressed and the lead forensic scientist lied in court on at least three occasions. There is already proof of contamination of evidence. (see links provided by Tom Mininger and me below).

        3) Since you clearly appreciate that Stefanoni lied and that evidence was suppressed, I am more than a little surprised why you (who are sophisticated enough to have the word “arrogate” in her vocabulary), are not arguing for an acquittal (or at the very least full disclosure and a re-assessment of the case) as vehemently as I am.

        4) You are clearly unaware of the procedure to be followed for applications to the ECHR. An application cannot be made until all avenues of approach are exhausted within the judicial system of the country hosting the trial. Ms Knox’s calumny conviction was already confirmed before the Nencini trial, which is why that aspect is already before the ECHR.

      • Sarah H says:

        Jill, your answer shows you don’t understand how the ECHR works. Cases may not be submitted there, no matter how egregious the breach of human rights, until all appeals in the country have been exhausted — in Italy, not until the Court of Cassation finally ratifies an appeals court verdict.

        And Rob’s points about the US system are also related to possible extradition proceedings against Amanda, which would be bound by US standards of justice. A US judge will be determining whether there is probable cause to send her back to Italy — and with the incomplete DNA “evidence” being worthless, and Stefanoni proven to have lied, a judge would be very unlikely to find that probable cause.

        • LaMotta says:

          Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni never lied and was never charged with perjury. You can read her full testimony here:

          http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Patrizia_Stefanoni%27s_Testimony_%28English%29

          • Jack says:

            1. She is not a Dr.; 2) she withheld evidence, in not one, but at least two instances; and, moreover, 3) she is an incompetent lackey for the prosecution.

            There are no grounds, whatsoever, to give this woman respect, much less accolades. But, then again, you run with a crew who have twisted themselves into pretzel shapes sufficient to give probative weight to the testimony of a homeless heroin addict.

          • HH says:

            Actually, she did get caught lying. She testified that she did not test the luminol footprints in the hallway for blood and alleged she could tell it was blood from the shade of the luminol or some nonsense.

            She did in fact perform TMB tests on the footprints in the hallway and they came up negative for blood.

      • Bob Magnetti says:

        Jill G:

        It appears that you are attempting to defend Stefanoni’s and the Italian Supreme Court’s position on the scientific evidence. How can the lying about sample size, the lying about ‘no contamination in my lab’, the withholding of TMB testing information, the withholding of DNA testing information, the continued withholding of the EDFs, the ignoring of the C-V independent study, the ignoring of the RIS study, and the ignoring of the international scientific testing guidelines be overlooked? Please explain how you are able to look past this and state that the scientific evidence is valid? That a court of law should consider this thoroughly discredited scientific evidence when assigning two young defendants to lengthy prison terms? How can you rationalize your position?

      • Julie Jorgensen says:

        “American attorneys … were stunned to hear how the Italian forensic analysts and prosecutors connected to the Knox-Sollecito case manipulated and withheld evidence in this case,” he said. “Such behavior would never have been tolerated in the American system. It shows an inherent contempt for fairness, the concept of justice and is a serious breach of acceptable judicial practices.”

  64. Tom Zupancic says:

    For what its worth, I just got home from Chicago where I gave a talk at the “Forensic DNA for Trial Attorneys 2014 Conference” (I’m a Molecular Biologist who does DNA stuff). As a scientist and practitioner of DNA analysis I talked about “How handling and processing of DNA evidence affect validity.” I learned a huge amount about the issues that are being discussed on this blog. One key thing I learned is that lack of discovery, failure to provide EDF’s and suppression of evidence, etc. are SERIOUS VIOLATIONS of acceptable judicial practices. SERIOUS VIOLATIONS. It is also clear that the world is watching.

    • Willis Coleman says:

      A scientist should talk like a scientist, with precision:
      “lack of discovery” – what are you talking about? were Conti and Vecchiotti ultimately satisfied with the discovery or were they not?
      “failure to provide EDF’s” – do you know the percentage of DNA cases in which the EDFs are disclosed? Very few.
      “suppression of evidence, etc.” – what are you talking about?

      • Rob H says:

        “A scientist should talk like a scientist, with precision” – “willis”

        This must be a criticism of Stefanoni – the lack of precision she exhibited when declaring how much DNA she found, whilst giving evidence, together with her declaration that she never tested the luminol observed traces for blood.

      • Jack says:

        Truly, the impudence of anonymous persons obsessed with this case who have the temerity to take potshots at professionals using their real names – staking their actual reputations – is breathtaking. You and your ilk should be utterly ashamed.

      • Len D. says:

        Should a scientist also talk like a scientist, with accuracy?

      • Tom Zupancic says:

        Willis,

        Lack of Discovery refers to the failure to disclose complete laboratory results to the defense in a pretrial hearing in order to determine their admissibility as evidence. No discovery ever occurred in this case.

        Italian Forensic Science experts Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti only became involved in this case several years after discovery had been denied. Discovery is a procedural legal requirement related to due process. The opinions of independent scientific experts on this legal issue not relevant.

        In the US, disclosure of EDF’s is required. It occurrs in essentially all cases during pretrial hearings on admissibility of evidence.

        Supression of evidence in this case refers to the substantial fraction of the DNA analyses performed by lab technician Stefanoni in this case, but withheld from the court. These data are required for impartial experts to interpret the results.

        In the US the forensic laboratory is required to provide the defense with results from all cases analysed in the period when the work in question was being performed.

      • Tom Zupancic says:

        To elaborate,

        The importance of discovery, open disclosure, and the release of the EDF’s cannot be understated. American attorneys in Chicago last week were stunned to hear how the Italian forensic analysts and prosecutors manipulated and withheld evidence in this case. Such behavior would never have been tolerated in the American System. It shows an inherant contempt for fairness and the concept of justice.

        • Somebody says:

          “American attorneys are stuinned”? What dna evidence did your “better” american system then find against those hundereds of people you hold illegally caged and tortured in Guantanamo Bay? Or those innocent children your lawyer President sends droids to murder in Jemen? Your system doesn’t even allow a day in court for those poor tortured innocent people. Yet your attorneys have time to defend a criminal who’s dna is in the murder weapon with victim’s dna. Who are you trying to fool?

          • Rob H says:

            It’s not the murder weapon and the victim’s DNA wasn’t there.

          • BigDinBoise says:

            I believe you have finally revealed your true motivation for hating AK and trolling her blog as you do; anti-Americanism.

          • jamesrae says:

            Somebody

            It is imperative you proofread your material before posting. Just saying. Stay on topic and don’t make things up. This is an adult site and we have standards.

          • Tom Zupancic says:

            ‘Somebody’,

            From my discussions in Chicago I would speculate that the concensus of the people in attendance at the Chicago conference would be against extra judicial detentions etc, but it is unclear how much you actually care about justice. I doubt that you care very much. Rather, ‘Somebody’, your anonymous post appears to be a feeble attempt to divert attention from the conspicuous failings of the Italian Judicial System in the case being discussed here.

            About the DNA, I appreciate that you lack the scientific knowledge to understand DNA analysis, but really, to assert that anyone ever demonstrated that any DNA from MK was ever present on ‘the kitchen knife’ is a public admission of profound ignorance.

          • Sarah H says:

            Somebody has just unmasked itself as a hater and a witch-hunter, who would make Amanda a sacrificial victim for all the wrongs of America.

        • Michelle Jones says:

          But there was open disclosure. when the knife was originally tested by Stefanoni, there were defence representatives in the room overseeing the procedure! When people talk about the DNA processing issues, they seem to overlook this fact. No objection was made by those defence reps at the time which is why the DNA evidence stands to the Nencini court. All of these issues being raised by Amanda’s supporters are issues that cannot be changed. The defence has had two chances to discredit the DNA evidence and failed both times. Unless you can prove the source of contamination then these DNA arguments are moot frankly. Pointing out people not changing gloves in a video is not proof btw.

          • Rob H says:

            No, there wasn’t “open disclosure”. As Dr Dan Krane states: “Reviews of the underlying data for DNA tests often reveals alternative interpretations of the evidence samples, especially in circumstances were small amounts of DNA are involved and it is difficult to distinguish between signal, noise, and technical artifacts..
            ….problems such as contamination of samples can easily arise before a sample arrives in a laboratory yet could not be detected by an expert observing the testing process itself.”

            (Quoted by Professor Halkides :
            http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.co.uk)

            You cannot see DNA. What you need is the complete laboratory file.

            If demonstrating by observation that poor evidence collection procedures such as not changing gloves, (which Professor Hampikian has shown by ex- perimentation),causes substantial risk of contamination, are not sufficient to raise, at least, reasonable doubt with you, then what, to your obviously un expert mind, would? A video of Stefanoni wearing the victim’s and the defendants’ clothes whilst performing her lab work? Or, perhaps, the better answer would be – by demonstrating with access to the complete set of laboratory files, through a proper evaluation, that there is a substantial problem with the evidence? Well, let’s have them! But if that is not enough for you, then how about actual extant proof that there was contamination in this case? The existence of additional male profiles on the bra clasp IS proof of contamination. And, from the partial disclosure forced from the prosecution mid- trial, there are two instances of contamination in the negative controls.

            Or will you now argue that proof of contamination is not enough because we can’t precisely know the direct source of it??

            But as for the kitchen knife, there is no need to argue contamination, according to the independent experts; Ms Kercher’s DNA was never actually demonstrated to be on the blade.

      • Elias says:

        So “Willis,”

        Tell us with precision about your taste for untested semen stains?

        As a precise scientist, “Willis,” how do you explain the untested semen stain?

        Come on, spin that credibility and “precision” evidence collecting you believe in and show us how you swallow untested semen stains so easily? Cunning mental stunt how easily and seamlessly untested semen stains go down for you.

        Explain that trick, in precise gross detail.

        And while you explain, just let us whop you upside the head a couple of times, ‘kay?

      • Alex K. says:

        ““failure to provide EDF’s” – do you know the percentage of DNA cases in which the EDFs are disclosed? Very few.”

        This disclosure is required both in the US and the UK. When the defense has doubts about the quality of forensic work by the state, it has the opportunity to recheck it by using the same source data as the state.

    • Len D. says:

      “ the that lack of discovery, failure to provide EDF’s and suppression of evidence, etc. are SERIOUS VIOLATIONS of acceptable judicial practices.” …and this case had most (if not all) of these.

      So, what does EDF stand for?

      • HH says:

        Electronic data files, I think.

      • Tom Mininger says:

        Electronic Data Files. These are the files that forensic scientists around the world use to verify each other’s DNA analysis.

        CSI Stefanoni is still allowed to avoid full disclosure of the EDFs in this case.

      • S. Michael Scadron says:

        Electronic Data Files

        • Tom Zupancic says:

          Len D.

          The ‘EDF’s’, ie, the electronic data files constitute the actual scientific analysis of the case. In the world of scientific research no one would even begin to imagine that they could make any key point without showing anyone and everyone their data.

  65. Richard M says:

    The actual details of the Murder of Meredith Kercher are not in question and have never been in question since a few days after the discovery of her body. All the forensic and circumstantial evidence pointed to a single killer named Rudy Guede. He was apprehended in flight, returned for trial, convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison.

    Prosecutor Mignini fantasized a scenario involving Amanda and Raffaele, manufactured evidence and false testimony and obtained a guilty verdict. This verdict was reviewed on appeal. Judge Hellman applied science, logic and common sense and found they were innocent.

    Five members of the Court of Cassation then set aside the innocent verdict and ordered Judge Nencini to find Amanda and Raffaele guilty. This is a case of be careful what you wish for, you might get it. In order to comply with the Court Nencini had to come up with motivations that completely discarded science, logic and common sense and based his statement of guilt on nothing but legal conventions and procedures that are utter nonsense to anyone outside the Italian justice system. Whether he intended to or not is anybody’s guess but Nencini has backed the Court into a corner where they have little choice but to discount this guilty verdict and find a way out of this mess. The members of the Court who hear the appeal would be on extremely dangerous ground if they were to validate Nencini. They would be setting a known killer, Guede, free to kill again, knowingly convicting innocent people and taking justice away from Meredith.

    Mignini is well known in the system as a prosecutor given to fantasy prosecutions. The Court is fully aware of the true details of the murder and it is inconceivable that they actually believe the versions of Mignini and Guede. It is immensely cruel to send people to prison that you know are innocent and even if you are willing to do that you don’t do it in front of the entire western world. When the doctrines and verdicts of your justice system do not agree with reality then reality must rule. The members of the Court individually and collectively know that any guilty verdict would be based only on legal doctrines that can be used to obtain almost any result you want. In this appeal the five individual members of the court must be identified and must be required to state their individual opinions and their reasons for them. They must do this in front of their peers in Italy and throughout the world. They must apply true science, logic and common sense to this verdict. If they are unwilling to do this then they have to explain why anyone should take them or their verdict seriously and why they think their decision has any validity at all. The members of Court of Cassation want to think of themselves as noble and profound but if they do not find a reasonable way to throw this whole case out they will be seen as nothing but total buffoons, and dangerous buffoons at that.

    • DW says:

      Well stated. The thing that scares me is that it seems they have no way out – I mean, they will look like buffoons no matter what they do, whether they throw out or uphold the conviction. They have backed themselves into a very tight corner, and cornered animals are always dangerous.

    • Willis Coleman says:

      Your argument as I understand it is that all courts except for one have acceded to Mignini’s version of events, knowing it was another preposterous fantasy for which he is well-known, in order to spare him from embarrassment. Assuming this is true, why would Cassation re-open the case once Hellmann had thrown it out? At that point the system had in Hellmann a new scapegoat who promptly retired and everyone could have gone on with their lives. Most of us thought the case was over at that point and that Cassation would simply rubber-stamp what was in my view a wrongful acquittal. What happened? They only plausible explanation I can see is Cassation does indeed believe there is evidence that Amanda and Raffaele committed this murder.

      • HH says:

        The only plausible explanation that I can see is that they are corrupt to the core.

      • jamesrae says:

        You don’t know what to believe Coleman. Now you have to defend the Nencini lunacy which may be his way of saying
        ” if they can buy into this nonsense they will crumble and fall “.
        Maybe Nencini has created a Trojan Horse for the Italian upper courts to poison themselves with.

      • Duke says:

        Except that there is no evidence.Once you admit Rudy Guede was involved in the murder Meredith Kercher you’ve exonerated Amanda and Raffaele because during the one week that they had known each other they had nothing to do with Guede at all.

        • Som Nathan says:

          Perfect argument. As simple as that, that “Migninni’s poor” Rudi Guede killed Meredith Kercher. Period.

      • Glenn Thigpen says:

        @Willis Coleman,
        It would be nice if the Court of Cassation could actually provide some solid reasoning, pointing out any solid evidence that experts in the forensics and crime scene investigation fields have missed. Even you, with all of you knowledge of forensics, DNA testing, and crime scene investigation, have been forced to rely upon conjecture, body language, supposedly untoward kisses, and other unscientifically based methods to decree their guilt.

        Glenn

      • Richard M says:

        Willis, You ask why Cassation would do what they do and that is a very good question. The first step to the answer is to determine the names of the judges who will be hearing the appeal. If they are the same as the ones who discarded the aquital then it is easy to quiz each one of them and determine if they are making decisions based on true science, logic and common sense or if their decisions are based on legal conventions and procedures of the Italian system. In reversing Hellman they said reliance should not be placed on each individual piece of evidence but to use “osmosis” to determine guilt or innocence as a whole. As you are well aware the concept of “osmosis” is not found in any American law school and Americans practices apparently are 180 degrees apart from Italian methods of criminal trials. In every system peers tend to protect each other when they make mistakes but that only goes so far. In any case the names of the judges and their individual reasons for their decisions will be very well known. If the reasons do not agree with the true reality as determined by true science, logic and common sense and pass review by legal experts from three countries then they will have to live with the consequences and those are not going to be pleasant. They would be wise to abandon a fight like this where every minute aspect is now being played out in front of millions of people. The bottom line is that it is incredibly cruel to knowing send innocent people to jail just for the sake of your legal dogma. If the judges in Cassation pursue the course they are on they are no better than the human scum that is Guede.

    • Somebody says:

      Richard:”All the forensic and circumstantial evidence pointed to a single killer named Rudy Guede”. So, the sounds of multiple running foot steps right after the loud scream defends this theory in your mind? What a wise mind.

      • hh says:

        Somebody: who was allegedly running away with Rudy? Don’t most guilters have him fleeing and Amanda staying behind to clean up? Or are you saying he had an accomplice that was not Amanda orRaffaele?

      • Julie Jorgensen says:

        The sounds of multiple running foot steps is a fantasy made up by a lonely old woman. She lived on the 3rd floor of a nearby apartment building and she admits her windows were shut that night. A sound specialist went back to her apartment years later and proved that it would have been impossible for an old woman to hear what she claimed under such circumstances.

    • Elias says:

      Richard,

      Thank you for your eloquence and clarity.

      –To all Raffaele and Amanda Knox supporters, I am very appreciative of all our varied voices, united for actual justice for the wrongly accused and wrongly convicted, for that is the only way there will ever be any justice for Meredith.

      Nothing will ever give Raffaele and Family, Amanda and Family back the moments, hours, days, years, losses, harm and damage that the crimes from Mignini and his cohorts have caused to so many innocent people.

      I still have this gut feeling that with that mass myriad of wiretaps that Mignini did in Florence previous to this case, that he just has tapes on multiple people — or at least they think he does — which is how this insane prosecutor kept a job, any job and was not forced out.

      Thank you again, Richard for showing your voice of reason without prejudice.

      We need all voices for justice here…

  66. Hide Baert says:

    Thank you, Glenn, for your latest posting.
    Lowering the decibels of our voices (literally and figuratively) will increase our chances of being heard , wherever on this planet.
    We (You, I, and others) supporters, have not to change our minds regarding Amanda’s and Raffaele’s innocence.
    We stick to our guns and change our attitudes and ways of communicating.
    In addition, I admire your ‘I can’t know for sure what is going on in the Kerchers’ minds’.
    My Best Wishes and Greetings to your wife too. Both of you kissed the right frog.
    Hilde
    PS. I posted this message again, due to technical problems

    • Elias says:

      I think we need voices across a spectrum, and I appreciate passion and dispassion just as I appreciate each friend individually…

  67. Hilde Baert says:

    Thank you, Glenn for your latest post. Softening of our tone of voice will increase our chances of being heard.
    We don’t have to change our minds. Only our attitudes have to change.
    Life taught me this hard lesson: A change of manner, i.e. lowering the decibel level of my words (literally and metaphorically) helped me achieve my ultimate and long-term goals. It took time and patience. At the first stage, I got a minimum and totally insufficient reward. Looking in the rear view mirror, I thank my lucky stars.
    Greetings to your wife. Both of you kissed the right frog.
    Best wishes, Hilde

  68. Rob H says:

    A good article at Huffington Post:

    “When people talk about Knox’s reaction, they’re placing a gendered expectation on her: Should she have been weeping publicly and often? Should she not have kissed her boyfriend? Would only a horrible she-devil derive pleasure while her roommate is dead in the morgue?

    How we experience and move-through trauma is personal. It is not up to anyone to determine how one should behave during difficult times. Knox was 20 years old, an age somewhere between the never-land of youth and the terror of adulthood. Are we, as women, expected to be sensitive, sad and weak? I rarely hear critics discussing Sollecito’s post-murder behavior. So Knox did a split and kissed her boyfriend? I would have done the same.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-marie-basile/where-are-all-the-feminists_b_5386971.html

    • Willis Coleman says:

      The defense and its supports love to put the world on trial instead of Amanda and Raffaele and this is just the latest example. If you want to discuss post-murder behavior, here’s what I see: Amanda looks dead-tired despite supposedly having slept in until ten. At the same time she seems anxious (which we now know is very unusual for her) with a million thoughts running through her mind. She is very conscious of the media up on the street and it seems to heighten her anxiety. She initiated the kisses (in contrast to Raffaele’s claim that he intended them to soothe her.) He clearly hasn’t showered, in contrast to her claim that he did. He is doing a lot of jaw clenching, which we know he doesn’t normally do, and so it raises the question of whether he is coming off of drugs. Bottom line, the way they acted and appeared is not the way they would have acted if their story of the events leading up until that point had been true.

      • hikertom says:

        Willis:
        There were only three short kisses. Amanda was obviously very distraught about the murder of her housemate. How do you know how you would react under similar circumstances?

      • Sarah H says:

        What you see as “dead tired” is obviously shock. And that is also why she would appear anxious. Her roommate just been murdered. Of course she is shocked and anxious. And Raffaele doesn’t normally clench his jaws, you say? What about this situation would be “normal” for anyone?

      • Rob H says:

        As always , “willis coleman” engages with a demonstration of confirmation bias, believing he has the ability to discern the truth of what is inside the human mind from mere observation. It’s as if the eyes really are the window to the soul.

        ” she seems anxious” says “willis”. No kidding! My friend and flatmate has been murdered. I realise it could just as easily have been me. Yes, I think I would be anxious.

        What is the ” normal” way to act when you encounter a situation you have never been in before – have no experience to refer to?

        As every competent investigator will tell you, there is no evidence of guilt to be had here – a few tiny moments captured on film and displayed to the world – the remainder of the footage consigned to the cutting room floor.

      • Antony says:

        “The defense and its supports love to put the world on trial instead of Amanda and Raffaele and this is just the latest example.”

        In case you didn’t know, “putting someone on trial” means analysing the accusations against them, not trashing their character with the meaningless subjective crap you spout. It’s because Amanda and Raff are on trial that the police and prosecution have to prove everything they say.

        The 2 defendants don’t have to prove anything. There is no genuine evidence that supports your thesis.

        Oh and if you think you can tell someone’s guilt by looking at a picture of them, try analysing this picture of Monica Napoleone:

        http://groundreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Napoleone-eyes-pair-CU1.png

        Unlike Amanda and Raff, there actually is evidence of Napoleone lying to the court and tampering with evidence.

      • Chris Meyering says:

        Absolutely everything you said in your paragraph is your perception of the events. There’s that old proverb,”…life is 90% and 10% reality.” Not only is this true, this is exactly the reason Courts around the world claim “blind Justice” and “right to a fair” trial. Educated people are well aware of how easily people can be swayed to believe what ever you want them to and that witnesses are generally unreliable.

        How did you arrive at this perception? My guess is that you bought into the media hysteria when this story first broke. The Kiss (was it innocent or callous), the sexy underwear (sex crazed or simply looking for underwear), the splits (insensitivity or stress relief), claw clenching (Meth amphetamines or stress) smiling to the TV (showing off to camera or simply smiling to a friend). All of these events could be perceived in two different ways and the Media, influenced by Migini, went with the she-devil angle to garner sales and you bought right in to it.

        This can also answer the “She Lies and Lies and Lies” argument as well as every single lie TJMK claim’s were either taken out of context or they’re claiming hearsay as fact. This is a common tactic for any news or Politician (or prosecutor) to sway public opinion about any subject on their agenda.

        In short, you perceive every action these two made after the Murder as odd or guilty behavior because in your mind you ‘know’ they are guilty. Thus, the ‘ole “…an innocent person wouldnt act like this” or “…only a guilty person would do that” when the reality of the situation is that we simply don’t know what they really meant by their actions. We weren’t there to grasp the context of the event, therefore its foolish to consider it as evidence.

        Well, most of us, and especially those with the gifts of logic and reason are well aware of perceptions and is why we demand real evidence and ignore the presumptions.

        • Chris Meyering says:

          change to* “…life is 90% perception and 10% reality.”

        • DW says:

          Likewise, someone please explain to me why buying underwear was suspicious. I don’t care if it was sexy underwear or grannypants – in either case, I do not understand why some people apparently see it as behavior indicating a person has recently committed a murder.

          It’s a well-known fact that many people want to have sex soon after a death. Psychologically, it is a way of affirming to oneself that one is still alive.

          Again: her/their behavior was normal. Only in the minds of a bunch of perverted old men was this normal behavior something sordid.

      • hh says:

        Looking pale and drained after you discover that your roommate has been murdered is a sign of guilt to you? If she looked bright eyed and bushy tailed you would be screaming sociopath. Admit it.

        • DW says:

          Well, they caught hell for hanging on each other and making kissy face and acting like the normal barely-out-of-adolescence kids they were.

          Suppose they had acted aloof from one another, avoided touching each other, were not seen smiling at each other, etc.? The guilters would say this was obvious evidence that they felt guilty or that Raffaele was mad at Amanda for dragging him into this, or that Amanda was a psychopath and Raffaele was afraid of her, or that Raffaele was a psychopath and Amanda was afraid of him …. ad infinitum.

      • hh says:

        I’m also curious at how you are consistently able to call their behavior out of character when you have no baseline to compare it to. You don’t know them personally and how they have dealt with crisis in the past.

      • Ian Morris says:

        Even by hater standards, this is one of the most ludicrous posts I have seen. Amanda’s housemate had been found dead. Is not natural for Amanda to look stressed under these circumstances? How exactly was Amanda supposed to react when her housemate had been found dead? Willis claims Raffaele had not showered. How exactly does he establish this just by looking at film? One thing I have learned is that the stupidity of the haters should never be underestimated. As far as behaviour is concerned due to the hysterical lynch mob mentality which took over in this case, it did not matter how Amanda behaved it would be wrong. This is something which often happens when women are accused of crimes.

        • Willis Coleman says:

          It’s my interpretation. I would have liked to see her comforting her roommates, not canoodling with Raffaele. If you think their behavior was perfectly appropriate, that’s your interpretation. As far as the hard evidence, I established that Raffaele had not showered by observing that his hair is matted in back and he is unshaven. He never said he showered. But Amanda, in her interview with the UW Daily, said, “immediately after he had gotten out of the shower I was like ‘Tell me if I’m crazy, Raffaele.’” As my mom used to say, if you tell the truth you don’t have to remember what you said before. Good advice.

          • Rob H says:

            “I established that Raffaele had not showered by observing that his hair is matted in back and he is unshaven” -”willis”.

            Funny, because I took a shower this morning – was in a bit of a rush, didn’t comb my hair and didn’t shave.

            Obviously then, I couldn’t have taken a shower (duh). Clearly, you have “established” that!!

            Or, alternatively, as Shakespeare said, ” Your abilities are too infant-like for doing much alone”.

          • HH says:

            So that’s your proof that she committed murder? You think she lied about whether or not Raffaele took a shower?

            Doesn’t that actually work in his favor though? According to you, he hadn’t taken a shower that morning or the night before and his hair was “matted in the back.” So you’re saying he couldn’t be bothered to take a shower after participating in both a murder and cleanup? That’s a sign of guilt to you too? What ISN’T a sign of guilt to you?

            I know it’s unfathomable to you that Amanda could simply have been mistaken or remembered things wrong without having killed someone.

          • Ian Morris says:

            Rudy stabbed Meredith to death, sexually assaulted her as she lay dying, stole her belongings and told a pack of lies. Rudy never gets condemned by people like Willis for inappropriate behaviour. Why is it that Amanda was villified for things like kissing but Rudy is never villified for the horrific murder of Meredith.

          • elbee says:

            YOU would have liked? What about her roommate comforting her. She was screaming and yelling and hanging out with her boyfriend. Do you find her behavior suspicious too. Their roommate had just been found murdered? Both reactions seem appropriate to me.

          • DW says:

            Why should Amanda have comforted her roommates? Why didn’t her roommates comfort HER? Objectively speaking, their behavior seems more suspicious to me, or at least, you could play it that way. Not that I actually think they had anything to do with it – the point is just that your frame of reference determines how you appreciate things.

            Amanda’s other roommates (aside from Meredith, that is) were considerably older than her, and they were Italians. They were on familiar ground and their families were nearby, and they spoke the language. They ought to have been trying to help and comfort their younger housemate who was far from home and far from her family. Instead they completely cold-shouldered her. And from the American perspective, their histrionics, shouting and weeping etc., look more suspicious than Amanda’s stunned, shocked expressions look to me. I would have found the melodramatics (shrieking “A foot! A foot!”) to be somewhat suspicious. But that’s probably because I am not Italian.

      • Richard M says:

        Willis if the logic of your response was used in real life it would be nonsensical. A person goes to a doctor complaining of stomach pains. The doctor tells him that he ran several scientific diagnostic tests and they say appendicitus. But I was watching you as you sat in the waiting room and my conclusion is it was just something you ate so it will go away. If you were that patient you would think the doctor was crazy and head straight to a hospital. When someone tells you they can tell guilt or innocence simply by observation the correct response is “How stupid do you think I am?”

      • elbee says:

        Anxious? Indeed why would anybody be anxious having just found out their roommate, and/or friend, was dead, apparently murdered? That’s no cause for anxiety. Sheesh.

        Tired looking? Kisses? Hasn’t showered? Jaw clenching? Proof? Nah, I don’t think so. One of opinion of how someone looks is proof of nothing. Bottom line, the factual evidence does not place Amanda and Rafaelle in the murder room. In fact, it does the opposite.

      • DW says:

        To this day I am trying to find out why “kisses” were supposed to be a sign of something suspicious.

        I just do not get this. Anyone willing to take a shot at explaining this to me? It seems normal to me. It seems to me those who think otherwise are really telling us something about their own twisted fantasies. You know, they didn’t get it on in the street right after the murder. They were two confused, frightened young people hanging on to each other. They were also lovers of about 1 week’s duration. Their behavior was normal.

  69. Glenn Thigpen says:

    I would just like to add a couple of thoughts on the Italian court system and the Kerchers. Basically, I am hoping that everyone will lay off them, especially the Kerchers. They have gone through something that will probably take years for them to recover from. I would like to see Amanda and Raffaele’s supporters take the high road, and like Amanda, give them the benefit of the doubt.

    As for the Italian justice system, Frank Sfarzo believes that because of the faulty report by Nencini, especially the bit about the knife and the DNA that the Court of Cassation ordered to be tested. The Court of Cassation indicated that the results of that test should be decisive, but Nencini ignored those results. That gives the Court of Cassation a great opening to annul te report because Nencini did not follow their instructions on the matter. So, I hope that we can hold off any more venting and let things calm down while we await the results. Plenty of venting has already taken place.

    Just my two cents worth. (I recently got a raise. My wife is now offering me a dime instead of a penny for my thoughts.)

    Glenn

    • Sarah H says:

      The problem with this, Glenn, is that the Kerchers are still involved in a civil lawsuit against Amanda and Raffaele, seeking millions of dollars; and to that end their attorney has been working with the criminal prosecutor.

      Why should anyone “lay off” of them until they stop pursuing Amanda and Raffaele for a crime they clearly didn’t commit?

      • penelope says:

        They won’t be getting any money though. Once Amanda has paid off everybody else: parents, maybe Patrick one day (unlikely) there won’t be any money left.

        • Sarah H says:

          I understand Raffaele inherited something from his mother. He is the one most at risk here.

      • Rob H says:

        It is important to remember that in a common law system of justice, the Kerchers would have had no standing at trial and no ability to influence the court pre-verdict.

        We are all accountable for our public actions; they are accountable for theirs.

        An unholy alliance between victims’ families and prosecutors is a virtual guarantee of a miscarriage of justice.

      • Doug says:

        “Why should anyone “lay off” of them until they stop pursuing Amanda and Raffaele for a crime they clearly didn’t commit?”

        It is the harder thing to do for sure, but that is precisely the reason for doing it. From the Kercher’s perspective, identifying Amanda and Rafaellle as innocent is the most difficult thing in the world. This is due to the fact that from the start of the murder investigation their brains have been wired to believe these two people were involved in the murder (because the only perspective they were given on the case was the cartoon created by the prosecution team and associated lawyers – they were purposely distanced from Amanda and Rafaellle and have therefore never been allowed to see them as the real people they are). You will find many studies out there which indicate just how difficult it is for us to change our beliefs once they are formed (Michael Shermer’s book ‘The Believing Brain’ is a nice accessible one imo)

        As supporters of Amanda and Rafaellle, I believe our best approach with respect to the Kerchers is to show them compassion. We should show them that we can view things from their perspective, even though it is very hard for us to do.

        To attack them is to take the easy route, and this (I believe) just forces them to retract even further into their established beliefs.

        As well as supporting Amanda and Rafaellle in their quest for true and complete exoneration, I want to see justice for the Kercher family. And part of that is trying to find a way to help them cleanse themselves of the poisonous lies with which they have been fed for so long.

        • Ian Morris says:

          Discussing the Kerchers is a sensitive issue. They have suffered the loss of their daughter. Many people have argued how the Kerchers can continue to claim Amanda and Raffaele are guilty when there is no credible evidence against them. Steve Moore argued that there exists what is called imprinting where the relatives of crime victims fixate on the first suspect and it is very difficult to remove this fixation even when evidence of innocence emerges and other suspects appear for which there is strong evidence against. If the Amanda and Raffaele’s supporters criticise the Kerchers, this gives ammunition to the haters. The haters can potray Amanda and Raffaele’s supporters as callous people attacking a family who have lost their daugher. In the comments section for a Ground Report article, a hater alleged that one of Amanda and Raffaele’s supporters had compared the Kerchers to the Nazis. Unless you have experienced your child being murdered it is impossible to tell how you would feel in the same situation.

          However, the Kerchers should not be immune to criticism. John Kercher published his book Meredith in 2011. He accused Amanda and Raffaele of being guilty. To write a book accusing somone of murder is a very serious accusation to make and a book should be based only on facts. John Kercher’s was riddled with numerous falsehoods and evidence which had long been discredited. To write a book accusing someone of murder on the basis of falsehoods is totally unnacceptable.

          The haters constantly attack Amanda and Raffaele for lying. The haters gave glowing 5 star reviews on Amazon for a book riddled with falsehoods and people who criticised the book for containing falsehoods were attacked. This was a clear indication of the hypocrisy of the haters when it came to the issue of lying. I wonder how John Kercher would feel if one of his children was accused of murder and someone wrote a book arguing for guilt on the basis of falsehoods.

          • Doug says:

            “John Kercher’s (book) was riddled with numerous falsehoods and evidence which had long been discredited”

            Of course, he clearly didn’t believe they were falsehoods, and he clearly didn’t accept that the evidence he referenced has been discredited. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have published them. They are only falsehoods and discredited evidence from your (and mine) point of view.
            It is very tempting to dismiss those who disagree with us as either evil (or at least, malevolent in some way) or stupid (or degrees thereof). But that, in most cases, is not reflective of reality and in my opinion not at all helpful.

            “I wonder how John Kercher would feel if one of his children was accused of murder and someone wrote a book arguing for guilt on the basis of falsehoods.”

            This is a fair question. But, of course the reverse question can also be posed. Try and imagine it was your daughter who had been brutally murdered, and from the start of the investigation the people involved in solving the crime were telling you that Amanda and Rafaellle were definitely involved. Are you absolutely sure that you would be able to apply the objectivity you have as a removed observer? Are you absolutely sure that you would be able to change your mind from guilt to innocence?

            Understanding the point of view of others when it is so diametrically opposed to our own is the most difficult thing. But to try is the only sure path towards resolution in most cases. In other words, how can you possibly start to change the beliefs of others if you don’t try and understand how they came to believe in the first place, and when you just dismiss them as wicked or stupid (or both)?

          • Ian Morris says:

            Doug

            I feel there is no excuse for John Kercher to use discredited evidence and falsehoods in his book. Four years had passed since the murder of Meredith and John Kercher should have been familiar with the facts of the case. For instance, John Kerchear repeated the lie Raffaele called the police after the postal police arrived. If John Kercher was familiar with the facts of the case, he should have known this was a police lie. Judge Massei accepted Raffaele called the police before the postal police arrived. There is a possibility that John Kercher was familiar with the facts of the case and knew he was presenting which had been discredited rather than being ignorant of the facts.

            There is one falsehood in his book which could not have been caused by ignorance of the facts. John Kercher claimed that Meredith constantly complained about Amanda. In the four years prior to the publication of his book John Kercher and other members of the Kercher family had made no mention of this and this was never presented at evidence in court or used by the prosecution. This indicates that John Kercher was lying. This raises the issue if Amanda and Meredith hated each other and the relationship between them was so poor, why did John Kercher have to resort to lying to support the idea of a strained relationship between Amanda and Meredith?

          • HH says:

            Doug: I hope to God that I wouldn’t be using that pretentious, flat-out nasty TJMK site as my main source of information if I was in John Kercher’s situation.

          • HH says:

            ….To the point where I’m willing to disregard what independent COURT-APPOINTED experts say in favor of TJMKs disingenuous, catty, flat out mean propaganda.

            John Kercher is not avoiding the entire case because he can’t bear to read about it, he’s researching it at very select places.

          • HH says:

            If he’s doing this, as he says, “for Meredith”, his own grief should be a non-issue. He doesn’t get pass from me forever, sorry.

      • hh says:

        I somewhat agree Sarah. In regard to the kerchers speaking softly increases our chances that they will hear us wrong. After all, they are the “good guys” who break their brave dignified silence to remind the world of Meredith’s suffering and the fact that they fight a daily battle against Amanda’s evil PR campaign.

        • hh says:

          After all, its okay when they use the media for their own purposes. In fact, it’s apparently okay when Rudy does it since they were willing to participate in a documentary where Rudy’s lawyer was allowed to spin the facts and assert his innocence in the whole matter.

          • hh says:

            Amanda and Raffaele weren’t given such representation after lie after lie was told in that documentary. The documentary even dredged up information that had already been debunked like the luminol footprint ts in the hall being in blood and raffaele calling to report the burglary after the postal police arrived.

    • Hilde Baert says:

      Thank you, Glenn!
      Softening our tone of voice increases our chances to be heard.
      Greetings to your wife! Hilde

    • Laurie says:

      Glenn,

      I respectfully disagree with your stance about leaving the Kerchers alone. They are not innocent bystanders, but instead, through their attorney, are active, I would even say aggressive participants in the vicious persecution of Amanda and Raffaele.
      I personally do not buy the theory that their attorney is just hiding things from them. Not only do they have access to the same resources we all have access to, but as a group they strike me as pretty savvy and sophisticated. With two journalists among them, getting access to information should be a piece of cake for this family.
      Being the victim of a cruel and unimaginable injustice is perfectly compatible with being the (co-)perpetrator of another injustice; and in my opinion, this is just what we have here. I will stop criticizing their actions the day when they stop their active involvement (directly or through their attorney) in the persecution of two innocent people. Likewise, my stance is perfectly compatible with my deepest empathy for their tragic loss.

      Laurie

      • Michael says:

        I don’t understand the hatred towards the kercher’s, they had what is every families nightmare happen to them. It is obvious that they believe that AK and RS know more than they are saying. It doesn’t matter whether you agree or not, if they still believe that they are guilty, it is only normal that they would want them punished. It’s not really hard to understand, I don’t think any of us can know what it feels like to lose a daughter in this manner. Walk a mile in there shoes, it can’t be easy. If you support Amanda’s innocence that’s great but stop attacking the real victims, MK will never be coming home.

        • HH says:

          I understand their grief, but I don’t believe their actions are helping Meredith.

          1) Stephanie Kercher actually wrote a letter to Hellman’s court asking them to disregard the dna evidence in the independent review done by Conti and Vecchicioti.

          2) They participated in a documentary that trashed Amanda and Raffaele, yet provided a platform for Rudy’s lawyer to get on his soapbox and advocate for Rudy’s innocence.

          3) They, through their lawyer, fought to block testing of the semen stain found on the pillow under Meredith’s buttocks.

          4) I see no reason to excuse them for remaining willfully oblivious to the facts of Meredith’s murder. Believing in Amanda and Raffaele’s guilt is one thing, spouting misinformation in support of it is another thing entirely.

          If they are actually satisfied with Nencini’s ridiculous report (where he cites Raffaele’s DNA as being on the knife), I don’t see how they can claim they are searching for the truth. I would be insulted for Meredith’s sake that the judge who tried the case could not even be bothered to get the most basic of facts right.

          They should know the facts of this in and out and acknowledge where there have been problems if they truly believe in Amanda and Raffaele’s guilt and want to fight for Amanda’s extradition. Instead, they ignore the entire issue and paint themselves as the dignified underdogs who are up against Amanda’s diabolical PR machine. (When actually they have the tabloids at their beck and call and have made lucrative use of them. John Kercher published an entire series of articles in the Daily Mail.)

          In one of their recent statements, they were overjoyed with Nencini’s report despite its obvious flaws (Nencini even claimed Raffaele’s Dna was on the knife) because the sex game theory had finally been put to rest.

          Clinging to a fictional version of events where Meredith is as pure as the driven snow and strong enough to fend off a six foot man with a knife (therefore there had to be multiple attackers) is not helping Meredith.

          Weeding through the facts, misinformation and rebutting them with solid evidence is what they need to do to convince the US to extradite Amanda. They don’t do that, they get on the news, mention how much Meredith must have suffered and pointedly bring up the Amanda’s extradition, all the while bemoaning their plight of being up against the PR firm.

          Meredith has indeed been “lost in this,” to them as well. At this point, I reserve all of my sympathy for Meredith and for Amanda and Raffaele, who in my opinion, have been wrongfully convicted.

          • Michael says:

            HH
            I once again disagree, you like me have lost nothing in this case, the Kercher’s have lost everything. I can’t believe that your obsession with AK and RS trumps compassion for these people. It is so very easy for you to sit behind your PC and judge what the Kercher’s do or don’t do according to you. I don’t know where you got your info from or do I know if it’s true or not but I think they have a lot more right then you or anyone else, to their opinion. I hope you never have to find out what it’s like to be in the Kercher’s shoes.

          • HH says:

            Michael: I’m only pointing out the facts. Call me mean all you want. Putting innocent people in prison so the Kerchers feel better doesn’t help Meredith and they have been active in the prosecution of both Amanda and Raffaele.

            However, you are fully entitled to your opinion that I am a mean person and you are welcome to say so as much as you please.

          • HH says:

            I am also confident that, if I were in their shoes, I would be incredibly insulted by this latest motivations report which cites evidence that has long been discredited by MASSEI’S court and evidence that is blatantly false and made up. If I believed in their guilt, I would be concerned that the convictions of Amanda and Raffaele would be put in jeopardy yet again because the judge made such egregious errors such as quoting that the DNA of the wrong person was found on the “murder weapon.”

            Why don’t you try to put yourself in Amanda and Raffaele’s shoes for once?

          • Michael says:

            HH
            I would not want to be in AK and RS shoe’s either but being a father of 3 girl’s, I can’t even imagine the Kercher’s grief.

        • elbee says:

          Amanda and Rafaelle are also REAL victims.

          • Michael says:

            Last I looked they are alive. Which REAL VICTIMS would you want to be.

          • HH says:

            Michael: That’s a tough one. Their lives and reputations have been shredded internationally. They are currently looking at more jail time. Thousands of people who have never met them hate them.

            Keep in mind that I am saying this from the perspective that it is not Amanda and Raffaele’s faults that Meredith is dead. Therefore I see no reason where they should be grateful to still be living, yet be endlessly persecuted.

        • SteveG says:

          I can only endorse this sentiment, Michael. The Kerchers are an intelligent family who have borne their loss with dignity throughout the years. Their grief is something that most of us, thankfully, can only ever imagine from a distance. If I had to endure such loss, I firmly believe that I would want the guilty – and only the guilty – punished. I certainly wouldn’t waste energy pursuing anyone who I believed was innocent, even for monetary gain, whilst allowing the true perpetrator a relatively easy ride. That would not constitute justice for my fallen daughter.

          The problem is with the mindset of people who believe that the innocence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is so obvious that anyone thinking otherwise must be either stupid or have an ulterior motive. These people do not accept the possibility that, faced with contradictory, interpretative evidence, a rational and intelligent person may genuinely conclude the likelihood of the involvement of Knox and Sollecito. It’s certainly what I believe, and the Kerchers, along with a great many others, appear to agree.

          • Rob H says:

            SteveG
            The Kerchers were sucked into the Italian legal process, where, what you are expected to do as the victim’s family is hire a lawyer and join with the prosecution.

            Yet this is not conducive to John Kercher’s stated “quest for the truth”. If you want the truth then you stand independent of the advocacy.

            Yet they have campaigned, through their attorneys for the guilt of Ms Knox and Mr Sollectio since before their trials commenced.

            Mr Kercher’s book is heartbreaking for many reasons, not least of which in that it is a demonstration of a family dreadfully misinformed and completely out of their depth trying to sift evidence and coming up woefully short.

            After the Hellmann acquittals, Mr Kercher wondered how the judge could have concluded there was only one attacker in the apartment…………”when Amanda Knox’s DNA and blood, mixed with Meredith’s, was found in several locations. On top of this, a mixed genetic profile of a bloodied footprint had been found in Romanelli’s room” (p 263 – “Meredith”).

            With his knowledge and understanding of the case so fatally flawed, it is little wonder that he and his family have such a strong belief in guilt.

            One cannot allow the grief of victims’ families to contaminate trials; one does not send innocent people to prison just because it might make them feel better.

          • Michael says:

            Well said, It is obvious that yes the Kercher’s believe they are in someway guilty. Most people on here think that’s impossible.

          • Rob H says:

            Actually, Michael, what I think, is that in the trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, what the Kercher family “believe” is utterly irrelevant. They have behaved disgracefully and yet are neither intellectually or emotionally equipped to understand the meaning of what they have done – what they have been allowed to do. But I do not ascribe wanton malice to them.

            Any system of justice, which permits the victims of crime to have any influence whatsoever in the prosecution of defendants, let alone standing at trial, advances the liklihood of miscarriages of justice as in this case and in Italian criminal trials, generally.

          • Ian Morris says:

            SteveG argue that the evidence leads people to believe Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. If there was a large amount of solid evidence and a strong case against how do you explain the following :-

            1) Misconduct was committed on a massive scale by the the polic and the prosecution. During their interrogations Amanda and Raffaele were denied access to lawyers, were not told they were officially suspects and their interrogations were not taped. Why did the police have to resort to such dubious and underhand tactics if they had a strong case?

            The prosecution suppressed evidence. They refused to hand over the EDFs, CCTV footage which covered the route between the cottage and Raffaele’s apartment and the tapes of the phone conversations between Amanda and Raffaele and destroyed several computers. The prosecution told numerous lies. For instance, the prosecution released a fake story that Raffaele had purchased bleach. If there was a mountain of hard evidence and a slam dunk case against Amanda and Raffaele, why did the prosecution have to resort to suppressing evidence and lying?

            The bra clasp was not collected for six weeks and it is very suspicious the bra clasp turns up when Raffaele’s family showed shoe prints which allegedly belonged to Raffaele could not have made by his shows. This has lead to speculation the bra clasp was planted. Why would the prosecution have to resort to manufacturing evidence if they had a mountain of genuine evidence against Amanda and Raffaele?

            I would recommend reading RandyN’s posts on the JREF forum to see the level of corruption and abuses committed by the prosecution. How do you explain these abuses if the case against Amanda and Raffaele was watertight?

            2) If the prosecution had a mountain of solid evidence and a slam dunk case, why did the prosecution have to resort to using dubious forensic evidence against Amanda and Raffaele? Basic logic says that if the knife is used to stab someone it must match the wounds. A knife which does not match the wounds can not be a murder weapon and has zero credibility as evidence. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so strong, why did the prosecution have to resort to using a knife which did not match the wounds as evidence?

            3) The guilters have a long history of spreading lies and misinformation on the internet. Harry Ragspreading has been spreading the same lies since the start of the case in the comments sections of articles about the case. Other guilters use the comments sections of articles about the case and Amazon reviews to spread lies. For instance, a reviwer called Christina said in a review for WTBH that there were female thumbprints on Meredith’s neck which was not true. The guilters have lied on this board. For instance, Willis Coleman claimed Raffaele had made false claims about sending E mails for which there is no record. If there was so much evidence and a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele, why are the guilters unable to argue their case without lying? Why do they have to make things up if there was so much genuine evidence against Amanda and Raffaele?

            4) If there was so much evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, why is that the guilters when arguing their case have to resort to character assassination and things not directly connected to the case. For instance, the haters argue that Raffaele must be guilty because he collected knives or Amanda is guilty because of a noise violation. Why do the guilters have to rely on these type of arguments to support guilt rathe than direct evidence?

          • Michael says:

            Rob H
            What you think really doesn’t matter. I don’t know what the Kercher’s have or haven’t done, with regard to AK and RS. I don’t think you need to trample on the family of the victim, in your rush to defend Amanda.You can still do that with some compassion.

        • Laurie says:

          Michael,

          I don’t think you should characterize comments about the Kerchers as “hatred,” which, at least in my case, I assure you it is not. Nor is it a lack of empathy for their loss. However, it is a fact that they are very active and vocal in seeing to it that A & R stand accused, once and for all, of murdering Meredith. John Kercher specifically accused Amanda in his book. Stephanie Kercher wrote a letter to Judge Hellmann, asking him to not give too much weight to the independent DNA experts’ conclusions. They specifically stated after the Hellmann’s verdict that they were hoping for a different outcome. These are not the actions of neutral people who are staying out of it and letting justice take its course.

          Yet their line after each interview is that they are on a “journey to the truth,” while at the same time standing by their attorney as he vigorously opposed the DNA testing of the semen stain on the pillow. I wish that some day a journalist would ask them how they reconcile these two elements; but I digress…

          I believe that it is both morally and philosophically justified to criticize injustice where one sees it, regardless of the perpetrator’s previous or current status as a victim.

          • Michael says:

            Laurie
            Like I said. The Kercher’s believe in AK and RS guilt. I think that’s pretty obvious. I don’t think you have hatred but have you read some of the post’s about them? It’s pretty sad.

  70. LaMotta says:

    Shades of Amanda Knox case in N.H. trial involving sex, bondage, murder

    Boston Herald

    Wednesday, May 28, 2014

    A blockbuster trial involving sex, bondage, murder and a missing body will begin unfolding today, and a media scrum will envelop a small New Hampshire courthouse, as the case carries with it shades of the infamous Amanda Knox trial.

    Seth Mazzaglia, 31, is charged with raping and murdering Elizabeth “Lizzi” Marriott — a 19-year-old University of New Hampshire student whose body has never been found. She was also a native of Westboro, Mass.

    The case has eerie similarities to the Knox trial, in which Italian authorities originally held tight to the theory that Meredith Kercher — a young exchange student — was sexually abused and killed during a drug- and drink-fueled orgy. Knox, who was allegedly involved, was convicted, acquitted, and re-convicted of the heinous crime. She has appealed.

    • Rob H says:

      I’ve read this case – it’s only similar if you consider as real the maniacal fictional characters of “Foxy Knoxy” and “Mr Nobody”. But they were never real.

      And that’s the point. The Italians couldn’t try Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for murder. They were obviously innocent. So they tried a pair of cartoons instead whom they could draw as evil, strange and at times even supernatural.

      • Mark says:

        Yeah, it’s similar in that it’s a real example of what the prosecutor was trying to construct. And since it’s real it conforms to what you would expect. They were a well established couple, they had a history of S&M behavior etc, and there wasn’t a random burglar stranger that they randomly included for inexplicable reasons.

        As opposed to the Knox case where they knew each other for a week, barely spoke a common language, no history of any deviant behavior, and, most importantly, there was a burglar rapist which excludes the students from being involved, both from a common sense/social/logistical standpoint, and from a standpoint of all the evidence pointing exclusively to the burglar.

  71. Sam Allison says:

    Howdy, all:

    A few weeks back I posted the story of how my folks visited Italy and returned with a gift of Perugian chocolates. I mailed them back to Italy today, together with the following letter of protest, addressed to the Roman daily newspaper with the largest circulation. I wish I could do more.

    May 28, 2014

    Gruppo Editoriale L’Espresso
    90 Via Cristoforo Colombo
    00147 Roma
    Italia

    To the Nation and People of Italy:

    I apologize for not addressing you in your native tongue. I speak no Italian, and I could not find someone who does to translate my message to you. I authorize a faithful translation of this letter for the purposes of editorial publication or similar dissemination.

    My parents recently returned from touring your ancient land and brought as a gift chocolates from Perugia. I have heard much about fine Perugian chocolate, reputedly the best in all Europe. I have also read about Perugia and its institutions with regard to the murder trial of British student Meredith Kercher. It seems to me upon thorough investigation that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, accused of Meredith’s 2007 murder, are obviously not guilty of this crime, and that the continued prosecution of both represents an atrocious miscarriage of justice. I have donated to their respective defense funds and continue to stand with them during their ongoing ordeal.

    I have decided that I cannot enjoy these chocolates, because I fear I would taste in them the blood of innocents crushed under Perugian and Italian legal institutions. Therefore, I have included them with this letter. Please accept back the work of Italian hands as I respectfully request true justice for Meredith, Amanda, and Raffaele in its place.

    This is only a small, symbolic gesture, but it is the least I can do under the circumstances. As a citizen of a country with its own many ills, I recognize the helplessness of so many in the world who bear good hearts and intentions but are fettered with limited power to effect the changes that are so badly needed. I implore the many Italians with clear vision and strong conscience to raise up their voices against the maliciousness enacted against these young people. While Meredith Kercher’s untimely death is a great tragedy, the ruin of innocent lives will not in any way serve to lessen the grief and anguish of Meredith’s loss.

    Thank you for hearing my plea. I pray my words will fall upon fertile ears and that righteousness will prevail.

    Respectfully,

    Samuel Baxter Allison

    • Michael says:

      I think you should have kept the chocolate’s, they were a gift from your parents. The merchants in Perugia have nothing to do with the trial or the verdict. What you did will not change anything. I guess it made you feel good, so that’s ok.

    • Jade says:

      Dear Samuel,

      In my opinion, you have good intention, but your letter would make more harm than good if it would be published in Italy. There are already so many angry people ‘blinded’ by righteous indignation and these types of arguments would awake only more angry responses. By saying this, I must state, that I am on the defense’s side 100%, having no doubt in the innocence of Amanda and Raffaele. Unfortunately, as a foreigner in Italy, I got into countless debate with Italians on the issue, and was devastated by their conviction and ignorance, inflicted by the national and local media. Most of them are so stubborn that they don’t even want to hear different argument from their own. It is cultural as well. Italians don’t want to admit that they are wrong; they rather turn the reality in a ways that suits them. Unfortunately, the prosecution is not immune from this cultural trait either.
      We can’t generalize such a way, referring to the ban of chocolates from Perugia, since similar cases happen everywhere, and the U.S. justice system is not immune to failures either. See just one of the many notorious examples below [Innocence in New Orleans, The Economist, May 17th 2014]. Regardless, I will not ban chocolate from Perugia, neither give up my I-Phone, just because it was produced in the U.S. Best, Jade

      ~~~~~~~

      [Source: The Economist, May 17th 2014 | NEW ORLEANS | Innocence in New Orleans, The wrong man, A shocking tale from the Big Easy]
      Free after 34 years
      “IT’S all good,” Reginald Adams said as he walked free on May 12th, having spent the past 34 years in prison for a murder he didn’t commit. A less forgiving man might have put it differently. New Orleans police and prosecutors should have known they had the wrong guy back in 1979. They recovered the gun used in the murder (of a cop’s wife), and linked it to another pair of criminals who had nothing to do with Mr Adams.
      All the police had against Mr Adams was his confession: one he gave after a marathon interview, during which police allegedly plied him with alcohol and drugs. Mr Adams got almost every detail of the crime wrong, from the calibre of weapon used to the number of shots fired to the sex and hair colour of the victim.
      Nonetheless, prosecutors sought the death penalty when they first tried him. And they did not hand over to his defence team the police report tracing the gun’s provenance. Mr Adams’s new lawyers say—and the city’s current district attorney, Leon Cannizzaro, agrees—that detectives knowingly gave false testimony.
      As Mr Adams languished in prison, some of his tormentors were caught wandering off the straight and narrow. One prosecutor became a crooked judge and was jailed for it. One of the detectives served five years for vehicular homicide. And Ronald Ulfers, the cop whose wife was murdered, is now serving life in prison for murdering his second wife.
      Mr Cannizzaro took only ten days to join the motion by Mr Adams’s lawyers to set aside the guilty verdict. The DA said the misconduct was the worst he has seen. That is saying something. The DA’s office in New Orleans has become notorious for such cases, largely from the three-decade tenure of former DA Harry Connick senior, the father of a well-known singer. Most of the defective cases involve “Brady violations”: failures to give defendants all material that might be exculpatory.
      In one case Mr Connick’s men sent John Thompson to death row for a murder he didn’t commit, hiding evidence that would have helped him. Mr Thompson narrowly missed being executed. After his exoneration, he won a $14m judgment against the DA’s office.
      Mr Cannizzaro appealed the award, saying it would bankrupt his office. In 2011 the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in his favour, saying the office should not be held liable for the acts of a “rogue prosecutor”. Dissenting, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote that Mr Connick’s office had been “deliberately indifferent” to the Brady rule. The Innocence Project of New Orleans, which represented Mr Adams, counts 31 cases from the Connick era where Brady violations have been proven. Mr Connick has said that his office handled so many cases that a few mistakes were bound to occur.
      Not long ago, every pillar of New Orleans’s criminal-justice system was broken. Now the police and the jail are under federal decrees requiring judicial oversight and reforms, and Mr Cannizzaro has done much to improve the DA’s office. But that may be scant comfort for Mr Adams.

      • Som Nathan says:

        Well said Jade. With same analogy, I hope every pillar of Perugian Justice System gets rubbled, and with that it takes down the rouge policemen, prosecutors and judges. Escpecially those who rushed to conclusions and convictions and called famous “CASE CLOSED” in this murder trial when the evidence was still being collected and analyzed. Collection of bra clasp after 46 days when the crime venue was compromised by several times that is not on record, but at least twice by detectives to collect evidence or “plant it”. Who will know?

    • Sam Allison says:

      I think you folks have good points, but I’m not certain I entirely agree. I was a bit taken aback that my parents would give me such a gift. I had spoken to them extensively about the case before their trip, and they know how much it means to me. Although I thought it was insensitive of them to choose that gift for me, I accepted it graciously, thanked them, and didn’t mention what I was going to do with it.

      I don’t think that my letter will cause problems because I think that the chance that L’Espresso will publish it is practically nil. As I mentioned in the text, it was a symbolic gesture I executed because no other means of protest is open to me. Obviously, if I had the power or ability to right this horrendous injustice directly, I would.

      Nothing will ever undo or justify the horrors that “civilized” society, that human nature itself in concert with a mob mentality, has visited upon these young people. I simply can’t remain silent; I can’t act as if nothing is wrong and that all is right with the world. As Amanda herself has pointed out, this could have happened to anyone; I could easily be where Amanda and Raffaele now are, and were that actually the case, I hope someone would speak up for me.

      • Michael says:

        Sam
        Again I don’t see what your parents gift has to do with the case. I am glad you didn’t tell them what you did because it is you who are insensitive. I am sure your parents were only being thoughtful in bringing home a gift from Italy. You need to lighten up a little.

    • William Benjamin says:

      @ Sam Allison. I noticed the light flak you got here for your gesture of support. Don’t be phased by the criticism. It is the price one pays to lead. fyi… nothing made in Italy comes into my house. And it is surprisingly inconvenient.

  72. David Turnblom says:

    I’m not sure why my comment won’t go through, but the system seems to think it’s spam. I was simply trying to dispute the logic of a statement that made no sense. Possibly because of how many levels it was raised, but I’m not sure what the problem is.

    • David Turnblom says:

      Fascinating. A comment that comes to the ‘logical’ conclusion that an unreliable witness’s testimony must be valid because it comes from someone whose testimonies have been unreliable in the past.

      “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! … Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the Lord of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.” Isaiah 5:20-21,24

      Sounds like the Perugian courts, and so many of those who are convinced Amanda is guilty in spite of the absence of reliable evidence.

    • David Turnblom says:

      I’m not sure what caused the problem, but I have been able to post my response here. I wish the best for you, Amanda. I support you as best I’m able. Whatever your enemies have against you, you’ve shown that you’re stronger than they are.

    • Michael says:

      David
      That’s happened to me a couple of times, and my post’s were not profane or rude in anyway. I don’t know what’s up either.

      • Paul says:

        David try including a comment like “Italians don’t like to admit they are wrong” or say the Kerchers are after money and your post will be added to the miserable collection here.

  73. Elias says:

    I’d just like to remind, again, that Raffaele needs support. He’s in a tough spot, perhaps the toughest spot.

    i don’t feel in my bones that the USA would ever give Amanda up based on the plethora of incompetence and dishonesty in this case from Italian “authorities.” Not to mention double jeopardy and more that we all already know about.

    Unlike Frank Sfarzo, I am not hopeful or optimistic that the corruption and massaging of Italian law will stop with the ISC. I think the ISC will “find” them “guilty” again…just to justify something in their warped minds — or perhaps because in all the thousands of hours of wire tapping Mignini did in Florence, he has something on someone, blackmail material — that explanation is far more believable than the merry-go-round of dark and inane fairy tales of motives the Italian courts have cooked up every go round…

    They’re going to be corruptly convicted again — it is insanity over there — and Raffaele is stuck in it — his family greatly damaged by Mignini’s lies and massive miscarriages of justice.

    We need to support Raffaele, even privately, with our friends, asking them off line, away from keyboards, to think about donating a few dollars to Raffaele’s defense.

    He’s stuck, stabbed in the back by his own country and country-men.

    There is a tiny chance that if he succeeds in getting his trial separated out, that he could be acquitted again. (Again? What?)

    Help Rafaelle, please. Make him the unforgotten man.

    Thank you.

    e

    (sorry for repost, my tabs got mixed up or something)

    • giovanni says:

      Yes of course Mr Sollecito is obviously innocent as is Ms Knox .

      If you know of a fund one can contribute please let us know.

      I have strong suspicion that this trial will end up at the EU Court of Human Rights. The Italian judicial system and these judges are corrupt and they have to save face without regard to the innocents that they are harming . The ISC is acting in a very disgraceful manner

    • Tom Mininger says:

      I could not agree more. Raffaele is an hero.
      http://www.gofundme.com/3bct8o

      • Somebody says:

        Weird heroes you have: they watch animal porn to pleasure themselves. We all know what men do while watching those videos. He also had killer’s knife hanging on his bedroom wall. He fits in the profile of a killer.

        • Som Nathan says:

          Only Rudi Hermann Guede fits the profile of a killer. Better yet as evidence has it, he is the only killer. And your post here Mr. Somebody, speaks volumes of your thinking. You need some counseling.

      • Jade says:

        Raffaele is not a hero. He is a victim. I hope the best for him.

  74. Are Amanda and Raffaele guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” ?
    The answer has to be no, though “there will always be unanswered questions, and
    no case is evidentially complete; no case maker can eliminate every possible reservation.”

    No legally required recording made of their interrogation, no apparent motive, no DNA in the victims room, no history of violence or mental illness, non-reliable witnesses linking them to the crime(including Rudy G.)

    • Nasim says:

      Show me the law that says Knox and Sollecito’s interviews had to be recorded. It doesn’t exist. In fact the American FBI had an express policy of not recording such interviews until last week. The motive was, is and always will be a dispute between roommates that got out of hand. A domestic argument is the most common motive for murder the world over and there is no reason not to suspect it here. (Killing someone in order to rape them isn’t on any list I’ve seen.) Sollecito’s DNA was in fact found in Meredith’s room so all you can say is that you refuse to believe it, not that it doesn’t exist. There is evidence of mental illness on the part of all three defendants and Sollecito was actually in treatment. Finally the witnesses are not perfect but contrary to Hellmann their collective evidentiary value is not zero. In any event the prosecution’s case is first and foremost rooted in forensics and the defendants’ self-incriminating statements. The witness testimony is the icing on the cake.

      • Alex K. says:

        Don’t take the focus away from the core issue. If the prevailing practice is to record, which is true of the Perugia police, and the practice is abandoned in one instance, it’s automatically suspicious. Even more so when ridiculous reasons are presented, such as budget constraints. How much did they spend on the phony reconstruction video?

      • HH says:

        What are you talking about, Nasim? You keep pulling things out of your ass like you think that putting them into writing magically makes them true.

        1) I don’t believe Sollecito’s DNA was really in that room. I believe it got there via cross contamination.
        2) What evidence of mental illness is there on the part of either Amanda or Raffaele?
        3) The witnesses aren’t perfect? That’s good enough for you? You think it’s okay if you were in their shoes that you could be put away for 28 eight years because some homeless career witness saw you in the plaza on what actually appears to have been Halloween Night and not November 1? Or someone who, when first questioned, did not state Amanda had bought cleaning supplies, but whose recall suddenly improved a year later?

      • Jack says:

        The Hellmann court, the only reasonable and sane court in this entire fiasco, had the professionalism to take on the entirely neutral services of actual DNA scientists Conti & Vecchiotti. C&V demolished the shoddy – and very possibly intentionally corrupt – work of Patrizia Stefanoni who lacks a PhD, and quite literally was in the bag for the prosecution from the beginning. Stefanoni and her team practiced slipshod evidence collection “techniques” that fail to pass the smell test of a loyal CSI fan; initially lied that a TMB confirmatory test – which proved the luminol hits in the cottage *were not blood* – had not been performed, when in fact it had; and withheld background data critical to a full understanding of the methodology she used to evince Sollecito’s DNA on the bra clasp.

        In fact, the presence of at least three other unidentified males was found on Ms. Kercher’s bra clasp, and one notes that none of these individuals have been sought out as collaborators in her death. (Like Sollecito, these were almost surely due to contamination.) Additionally, the bra clasp was stored in an aqueous solution in a vial so that it rusted, and could never be tested again in order to replicate Stefanoni’s results.

        Every aspect of the forensic case the police and prosecution propped up against Knox and Sollecito fails first world standards, and is simply too convenient. When the Sollecito family were poised to prove that the Nike footprint the prosecution held as the one bit of evidence of RS in the murder room was, in fact, *not RS’s shoe, but Guede’s* they rushed out the troops weeks after the crime scene had been trashed and violated, and evinced the bra clasp.

        Individuals the likes of “Nasim” are more interested in this case as a cultural locus around which they can socialize and seem important on various online sites which demonstrate practices akin to cults. These individuals are willfully blind to massive flaws in their beliefs, and place the freedom, dignity and financial security of two innocent persons and their families beneath the games they like to play.

      • Rob H says:

        Crackers “Nasim”!

        1) Everything else in the questura is recorded. But not the final interrogations, apparently. The police cannot evidence their claims. When in every other instance the police behave in one way but in this instance only, they behave differently, it is not safe to believe them.

        2) Now you say the “motive” “…was, is and always will be a dispute…” Before, you asserted it was a prank. The prosecution has asserted variously that it was a ritual, a sex game, retribution for past slights and cleaning. Nencini says it was about allegations of stolen rent money citing evidence that could not possibly exist. There is no evidence for any of them.

        3) Mr Sollecito’s DNA was part of a mixed and by definition contaminated sample. It was physically impossible for him to have left the sample himself without wearing a hazmat suit and suspending himself from wires or actually flying. No forensic scientist or CSI anywhere in the world has ever demonstrated how it could have been done.

        4) There is NO evidence of mental illness on the part of Ms Knox or Mr Sollecito. They have no criminal records and no behavioural issues.

        5) Every eye witness against them and the “ear” witness have been thoroughly discredited. At least two of them were mentally ill.

        6) There is no forensic evidence against either Ms Knox or Mr Sollecito that survives an honest appraisal of its merits and its relevance. There never was ANY physical evidence that would have made it into an American or a British Court and international protocols dictate that it should never have made its way into an Italian Court.

        7) Mr Sollecito never incriminated himself. Ms Knox’s internalized false “confession” was obtained under duress and is not sustained by any corroborating evidence. It was never convincingly incriminating. She never once maintained that she had anything to do with the murder. It was speedily recanted by her.

        In this case the 1st prosecutor lied in his written submission to the pretrial judge; the lead forensic scientist, woefully under qualified for her role, committed multiple counts of perjury from the witness stand and refused to disclose and was allowed to get away with not disclosing her data to the court.

        It was a dog to begin with and would have been laughed away by any competent authority.

        • Ian Morris says:

          This is a good summary of the corruption and misconduct which occurred in this case. It is beyond me how the members of the TJMK/PMF hate sites can slavishly support a bunch of the corrupt scumbags.

      • Frank the Tank says:

        This comment makes me think of a line from the movie, Billy Madison:

        “[Nasim], what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

        I could respond to your comment point by point, but you would just ignore it just like you’ve managed to ignore basic facts and reality for seven years.

      • Antony says:

        Nasim: “Show me the law that says Knox and Sollecito’s interviews had to be recorded.

        This from the poster who constantly makes unsupported assertions without backing them up with reputable references.

        “It doesn’t exist. In fact the American FBI had an express policy of not recording such interviews until last week.

        Huh? We’re talking about Italy, not the US. (That’s if what you say about the FBI is even true.)

        … (various unsupported assertions snipped) …

        “Finally the witnesses are not perfect but contrary to Hellmann their collective evidentiary value is not zero.

        “Collective evidentiary value” depends upon corroboration. None of the prosecution’s “not perfect” witnesses corroborate each other – they all say different things. Their collective value is as non-existent as their individual value.

        “In any event the prosecution’s case is first and foremost rooted in forensics

        The forensic methods used by the “investigators” in this case broke every scientific rule. The fact that they followed a suspect-centred programme after the accused were in custody further destroys their credibility. Nothing about this prosecution has any merit.

        “and the defendants’ self-incriminating statements.

        This is where the missing audio/video tapes come in. Without the recordings, we only have the word of the police (shown again and again to be liars) that the statements were even made. The defendants’ independently-verifiable statements are only “self-incriminating” under malicious interpretations.

        “The witness testimony is the icing on the cake.”

        There is no “cake”, and the “icing” has no substance. The whole case is without any credibility whatsoever.

      • Kokomo Joe says:

        This is so absurd that it hardly deserves comment, but a few points need to be answered quickly before they take on the trappings of the truth:

        There IS an Italian law that requires statements made by suspects to be recorded, and it was not done. Why do you think the Italian Supreme Court threw out Amanda’s subsequent statements? They were allowed only in the civil cases, not the criminal cases.

        No one is claiming that the motive for the killing was to permit someone to commit rape. You have it backwards. The attempted rape came first and the killing happened in order to silence the victim when she began to scream.

        You claim that all three defendants have evidence of mental illness and that Sollecito was actually in treatment. Well, now, I have been following this case pretty closely since the beginning and this is the FIRST I’ve heard of that. Documentation, please?

        Facts are facts and BS is BS. Let’s stick to the first and eliminate the second.

        • Glenn Thigpen says:

          The pertinent law is in Article in article 141 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure.

        • Michael says:

          You are wrong, her statements were not allowed in the criminal case because she was then considered a suspect and should have had a lawyer. Not because they weren’t recorded. There is NO law in Italy that say’s interview’s must be recorded.

          • Glenn Thigpen says:

            Article 141-bis.
            Procedures for documentation of the interrogation of persons in detention.

            1. Any questioning of the person who is, in any capacity, in custody, and that does not take place at the hearing, must be fully documented, otherwise unusable, by means of phonograms or audiovisual work. When there is a lack of recording equipment or technical personnel, are provided with the forms of expertise, or technical advice. Interview shall also be minuted. The transcript of the reproduction is prepared only if requested by the parties.

            This is via a Google translation. Amanda was effectively in custody from the moment the interrogation, a planned interrogation, began.

            Maybe someone fluent in Italian, with no axe to grind, can render a better translation. But that law does seem to state that any interrogation of one held in any type of custody must be recorded.

            Amanda was considered a suspect from the very first, from the statements of various of the investigators.

            Glenn

      • Som Nathan says:

        Lies, lies and more lies. “Raffaele’s DNA found in Meredith’s room”, that DNA claim is disputed and more over DNAs do not have a time stamp, so you cannot tell when it got there. This case is a BIG FRAMEUP to convict Amanda and Raffaele as soon as PM Mignini took over. The “incriminating statements” by AK & RS were recorded and presented by inapt Perugian police men in part as it suited the case for a hurried “CASE CLOSED” victory claim. All the evidence against that Mignini and his cronies could fabricate and manipulate to their advantage was done against these innocent, un-assuming individuals. They are innocent. Rudi Guede and his Perugian protectors are real culprits. Rudi Guede killed Meredith Kercher in the evening of November 1 2007, between 8:45 pm and 9:30 pm. That is the truth and whole truth.

    • Jill G says:

      You’re doing it again- wanting to restrict the crime scene to Meredith’s room, but sorry, like it or not, THE WHOLE COTTAGE is the crime scene. Until someone can demonstrate how Guede entered the cottage via Filomena’s room without leaving a trace of himself, how someone can go through a bloody room, leave an imprint on a bathmat without leaving a trace in the hall (manifest evidence of a clean-up), can shower in a house with a window broken, a door open, blood in multiple locations then I’m afraid I cannot accept these, shall we say “alternative theories”

      • Ian Morris says:

        Jill G that no blood leading up to the bathmat is a sign of a clean up. If Amanda and Raffaele had carried out a clean up of the blood leading up to the bathmat, why did they leave the bloody bathmat which supposedly had Raffaele’s footprint. There was no blood in multiple locations. There was only a small amount of blood in the bathroom. There is a video on youtube which shows how exactly the bathroom looked when Amanda took a shower in it. If Amanda had killed Meredith, would Amanda have admitted to taking a shower in a bathroom filled with Meredith’s blood? The prosecution released a photograph of the bathroom which appeared bloody. The prosecution failed to mention the bathroom had been sprayed with a chemical which reacted with the protein in blood and the bathroom was not how it would appear to the naked eye. If Amanda had showered in a bloody bathroom, why did the prosecution have to resort to trickery to make the bathroom appear bloody rather than show how the bathroom would appear to the naked eye?

        When Amanda first returned to the cottage, she did not see the broken window as she did not look into Filomena’s room. The broken window was noticed when she returned to the cottage with Raffaele and they checked Filimena’s room.

      • hh says:

        Jil : explain how Amanda could stab Meredith to death in Meredith’s room without leaving a trace of herself.

        Since you insist on this route, where is the evidence that Amanda let Rudy into the house? Since you refuse to consider the obvious maybe Meredith let him in, as he said she did.

      • Som Nathan says:

        Since postal police initial claim of “assumed staged break-in” was firmed up by regular police no further evidence collection in filomena’s room was deemed necessary. No genetic samples were collected.

      • jamesrae says:

        There was no clean-up because there was no evidence of a clean-up. End of story. Rudy wore gloves and didn’t leave a trace unless he did and they didn’t look hard enough because they thought it staged. Rudy went twice to the bathroom to fetch towels before getting blood on his shoes as he mentions. Did he just wash blood off his pant leg in the tub and accidently transfer some wetness to the bathmat – seems to be the likely scenario.

      • Glenn Thigpen says:

        Lie it or not, the murder took place entirely in Meredith’s bedroom. There is no signs of a struggle anywhere else in the apartment. There are no signs of Raffaele or Amanda being in that room. The bloody foot print has been shown to more closely match that of Rudy Guede than Rafffaele.

        And, as has been stated rather frequently, opinions by experts on crime scene investigation have ruled out anyone but Rudy being in the room with Meredith at the time of the murder.

        Any cleanup would have left its own signs, of which there were none.

      • Som Nathan says:

        The traces of Rudi Guede would have been there. It’s impossible not to leave genetic material after climbing up the wall, opening the window and entering through it to enter into Filomena’s room. But it is evident that Perugian police did very little evidence collection in that room, after it was established in few minutes by Postal police personnel that it is a “staged break-in” for insurance claims a common phenomenon in and around Perugia. After it was very quickly established that it was a staged break-in only few photographs were taken and very few genetic samples were taken. In a typical homicide case on an average 1800 genetic sample are taken. In this case a fewer than 500 genetic samples were taken. The famous bra clasp sample was taken after 46 days. This was when partial shoeprints thought to be Raffaele’s initially turned out to be not from his shoes, but from shoes that Rudi wore that day. Rudi’s shoes were never recovered, because he discarded his bloody shoes, clothes and the knife he used to kill Meredith on his way to Germany. More over someone in Perugian police knew that this break-in could be done by Rudi from his past MO, similar break-ins that is. There was not enough evidence collected from Filomena’s room. Just few photographs to prove a staged break-in. Which it really was not. It was a real break-in done by Rudi Guede his standard operating procedure to commit robberies. He needed money. He broke-in, was a tough climb indeed into Filomena’s room, but when he got in, too much pressure on his bowels, so he had to take that famous “dump”. Then after that we all know what happened, right. His plans of stealing easy money from the girls was suddenly disrupted by arrival of Meredith. Confrontation happened, Meredith fought hard and lost. Rudi Guede killed her. That was not his plan but it happened. That is the truth and only truth.
        Meredith’s room is the crime scene where most of the genetic material collection by the inapt and inexperienced Perugian police was done.

        Imagine this folks, just food for your thoughts. If in the late morning or early afternoon when Amanda, Raffaele and Meredith met at the villa on Nov. 1 2007, Amanda and Raffaele had visited Meredith’s room and left their dna there, may be a kiss on her cheek, or a hug or just plain old visit there. Don’t change anything else in terms of all the follow up events including the murder by Rudi. There would be no chance for Amanda and Raffaele for claim of innocence because the prosecutors would have had the field day.

        Aren’t they both AK & RS lucky or is it God’s grace.

        Now prosecutors have nothing really. Just concocted stories to frame these two innocent, decent, fun loving, caring college students whose lives have been systematically destroyed by the Italian Justice System and media, and Peter Quenell, and Barbie Nadeau, and Andrea Vogt. Also, I won’t leave out Kerchers, specially John and Lyle who have acted behind the scenes.

        • penelope says:

          Even if Rudy G was the sole perp the crime scene would not be limited to the bedroom. If the bloody bath mat print is his, as you believe, then is the crime scene still restricted to the bedroom? I think a number of forensic experts would disagree.

          • hh says:

            Yes but finding someone’s Dna in their own house when there is a glaring lack of it around the immediate crime scene and considering that enough to convict someone of murderer makes no sense. In fact I’m not sure what their argument is. They are claiming evidence existed that they have no way of proving.

    • Try this Ground Report on for size by former FBI Agent, Steve Moore, theorizing that Rudy Geude was a police informant from the start at Link: http://groundreport.com/amanda-knox-judge-nencini-motivation-lends-support-to-theory-knox-framed-by-italian-police-from-day-one-of-kercher-murder-investigation/#.U4SgiawwFcw.facebook

      Could it be that Amanda and Raffaele have been framed by the Perugian police and Prosecutor Mignini all along? I believe so. – Best, KJ

      • jamesrae says:

        So do I. Past actions suggest future actions. That is a John Douglas quote. It perfectly fits Mignini and his inner crew.

  75. Mark Saha says:

    Amanda,

    Thought you’d like to know the Italian weekly OGGI remains a solid supporter of your innocence.

    Yesterday I received this email from them:

    “Grazie – lo staff di oggi.it”

    Apparently that was for my reply to someone who had posted there as E.P. I was pleased to find that your words to Jack Slacker did the job nicely.

    You can read it here:

    http://www.oggi.it/attualita/cronaca/2014/04/29/delitto-meredith-kercher-le-motivazioni-della-sentenza-fu-un-litigio-non-sesso-da-amanda-knox-la-ferita-mortale/

    • William Benjamin says:

      The article does not offer any such support of Knox. All it does is gloss over the judges decision, excludes the judges crazy claims and vilifies Knox and Sollecito as a more common variety of killers motivated by anger, not by sex. Please explain where the “‘solid support” is.

      • Mark Saha says:

        William Benjamin,

        OGGI sent me a private email that reads:

        “Grazie – lo staff di oggi.it”

        (“Thanks – from the staff at OGGI”)

        This was in response to my post in reply to a lengthy two part post by E.P. in the comments section of that article. Scroll to the bottom of the page and you can see E.P.’s post and my reply.

        OGGI does not normally acknowledge posts by sending private emails to posters. I took this one to mean “the staff at OGGI” is sympathetic to the innocence of Amanda Knox.

        • Nasim says:

          The editor of Oggi has been very public in his support of Knox’s and Sollecito’s innocence, and the publication has gone so far as to publishing misleading information on their behalf. This is not news.

      • Alex K. says:

        The article exposes the crazy claims by the judge(s), indeed. This, of course, is an expression of support. There is little room for an Italian paper to openly call a magistrate or judge a corrupt fool, since that would subject it to endless legal harassment.

        However the piece does not “vilify” Knox and Sollecito as “more common” killers. You have just made it up. Congratulations, Mr. liar!

      • Som Nathan says:

        If Amanda and Raffaele are “common Varity killers” then half the people must be murdered by now, and other half the murderers running amuck in the streets of Italy. Common sense is failing the logic in this case.

    • Here’s the Link for the Ground Report article by FBI Agents Steve Moore and Jim Clemente on Amanda and Raffaele’s innocence. See http://groundreport.com/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-reprehensible-2/ – Best, KJ

      • Nasim says:

        It is provably false that the Perugia police called the police in Milan and told them to give Rudy back his belongings and send him on his way. The stolen goods were confiscated, and Rudy was charged and ultimately convicted of possessing stolen property. Possession of stolen goods is not a crime for which there is pretrial detention in Italy. I believe your ex-FBI agent tried to float this whopper on mainstream TV and was laughed off stage. Hence his presence on a public-access internet channel with about 40 viewers.

        • HH says:

          You think there isn’t enough evidence for Guede to be charged with burglary and not just “possession of stolen property” but there’s enough evidence for Amanda and Raffaele to be put away for murder?

        • Elias says:

          Dude, let me make this clear: Just Shut Up.

          There’s no motive.

          There’s no physical evidence. No DNA evidence. No forensic evident, and no supporting evidence for any of the merry-go-round of every changing theories and motivations the idiot Italian court members bake up in their delusional minds.

          These two honor students did not do the crime. Sick Rudy Hermann Guede did the crime. The guy with the troubled past and troubled present at the time did the crime.

          Not-The-Newly-In-Love-Honor-Students.

          Capisce?

          You want to carp about a misstatement here or there?

          How about the 100′s of misleading “facts” and statements and info leaked to the gutter press prostitutes? Huh? Why don’t you carp on those?

          Your childish attempts to play “tit for tat,” are meaningless.

          Your statements are trivial to the fact that Guede was released, and should not have been released from jail in Milan, and if he had been held, Meredith would probably be alive.

          How any of you gutter minded guilters can gloss over that is just plain stupid.

          It’s “SHUT UP, ALREADY, STUPID,” So just knock it off.

          Move on with your life. Stop hounding innocent people. Stop your “Harry Rag,” or John Jr.” stroking imitation, and Move On With Your Life.

          Start a charity, donate time at a community center, volunteer at a food bank. Whatever.

          Move the F on, with all of your hair splitting, lying, haters and guilters nonsense.

          –YOU’RE JUST PLAIN WRONG ON THIS CASE. ===THEY ARE INNOCENT===

          News Flash.

          No matter how many fuzzy distractions you float — they just don’t matter.

          There’s no motive, and no DNA evidence.

          Do you really think that a 23 year old dude having sex/making love with only the 2nd partner of his life would leave the new love cocoon these two surely had to be in like all of us experienced at that age…to go out in the cold night and engage in all of these farcical scenarios for which there is ZERO EVIDENCE???

          Didn’t happen. Has never happened in the history of young love in college with two college honor students. Neither Meredith or Amanda were confrontational or oppositional enough personalities for something as stupid as Mignini and the dancing scenarios to have happened.

          You embarrass yourself every time you float these distractions.

          In fact, you embarrass humanity, and you do dishonor to the deceased.

          Get a job, get a life, go work for a hospice, do something to help the world, go clean a creek, restore a riparian corridor — anything, something, other than what you spittle up here.

          Move on from your freakish witch hunt and GO do some good in the world, cos you’re just wasting oxygen at this point.

        • Jack says:

          And yet you make no accounting of this practice of Guede’s in your bizarre belief system that two college students from fine backgrounds would be more inclined to stage a burglary and commit murder than a known criminal would escalate to sexual assault and murder in the process of commission of an actual burglary.

          Such a willful belief system in the face of fact, reason and likelihood is not merely curious. It is obtuse stupidity, tainted with intentional malignancy.

        • Rob H says:

          Guede is a criminal with a conviction outside this case. He is a burglar whose modus operandi matches the burglary at Via Della Pergola down to stealing from the fridge, carrying a knife and defecating. The police chose not to apprehend him before the murder.

        • When a prosecutor allows a heroin addict to testify falsely against two co-defendants in an effort to accuse them of a crime they did not commit – this is called being RAILROADED or FRAMED. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have never killed anyone and probably never will. They were not present during the commission of the crime, by Rudy Guede, they were both at Raffaele’s apartment, period. They are simply innocent, period and to accuse them of something they did not do is simply Slander before God (Bearing False Witness).- Best, KJ

  76. Wayne says:

    Probably the most outrageous comment from Nencini is his take on teh testimony of the homeless addict Curatolo. Nencini says of his testimony:

    WHERE THE WITNESS CLAIMED TO HAVE NOTICED THEM MANY TIMES UNTIL 11:00/11:30 P.M. OF THE SAME EVENING; A CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE COURT HOLDS TO BE RELIABLE”.

    Okay lets look at his testiomony concerning his accusation that he saw Amanda and Rafelle on the night of the murder, Nov. 1.

    Judge: So, you saw Amanda and Raffaele?
    Curatolo: Yeah, it was Halloween when I saw them. I know this because I saw the kids getting on the disco buses all dressed up in costumes. That’s how I also know what time it was.
    Judge: When is Halloween?
    Curatolo: I don’t know. Maybe end of October or beginning of November, I think.
    Judge: You aren’t sure? What about your case now? You are in prison, correct? How long will you be there?
    Curatolo: I don’t know. I don’t understand the case against me really. I understand nothing.
    Judge: Ok, so how did you live in the park? Were you always there?
    Curatolo: Always, yes. I never left. I just lived there. On a bench mostly.
    Judge: What about when you had to go to the restroom?
    Curatolo: I went to the bathroom in the wooded area down the hill.
    Judge: So you weren’t there all the time then?

     Curatolo: What do you mean?
    Judge: Never mind. So, are you certain the buses were disco buses and not tour buses?
    Curatolo: Yes, definitely disco buses. They look different from other buses.
    Prosecution: No, no, you must be mistaken?
    Curatolo: No. I am certain they were disco buses.
    Judge: Do you take drugs?
    Curatolo: Yes, heroin.
    Judge: Were you taking drugs on that night?
    Curatolo: I always take drugs, so most certainly I was high that night…but that’s ok. Heroin does not make you hallucinate or anything.
    Judge: Guards, take him away. I am done

    Nencini is either corrupt or inept. No other choice.

    • Nasim says:

      I am not 100% sure that Curatolo was telling the truth but when I read Zanetti’s questioning of him I knew we had a rogue judge on our hands. What everyone needed to know was whether Curatolo could provide additional details that would substantiate his abbreviated testimony before Massei. If you’re going to recall a frail witness 3-1/2 years after the fact you better be prepared to do some coaxing. Instead Zanetti came out looking to humiliate the man with cheap shots. That’s not a judge’s job. It’s a disgrace.

      • Jack says:

        Yes. You are 100% sure of the word of a homeless heroin addict. One who had conveniently testified in other cases for the Perugian prosecution. (And, once he embarrassed himself in front of Pratillo Hellmann’s court, who conveniently expired, never to be consulted again on such grave matters.) Elsewhere, under another nom de guerre, you have made the absurd statement that Curatolo’s testimony is a bedrock aspect of your belief system in this case.

        This would be laughable if it were not so reprehensible and preposterous.

        You have said you would not believe Rudy Guede himself if he found grace and admitted that the murder of Ms. Kercher was entirely his doing, and pointed out that it was clearly an escalation of his recent activity. You also would not believe the words of two college students from fine backgrounds with no criminal records or records of psychological aberrance. And yet you do believe the word of a drug addict and mendicant when those words – and, given the inconsistencies in his testimony with the actual events of the evening in question, only sort of… – suit your ridiculous “logic”.

        You are not to be taken seriously in serious matters.

        • Nasim says:

          I cannot agree or disagree. I have no idea what you are talking about.

          • Jack says:

            Do you deny that these are all positions you have personally taken in this case? If so, then you may add liar to your list of personal sins in this matter.

          • Frank the Tank says:

            Is it possible that Nasim is the reincarnation of Antonio Curatolo? Think about the comparisons…

            * Nearly everything he says is nonsense… often completely incomprehensible nonsense at that.
            * He believes everything the Keystone Kops say and assumes that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito are bad and evil and murderers.
            * He thinks the Keystone Kops were such skillful forensic examiners that they were able to detect the presence of Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito when far better educated, experienced, and competent forensic experts said they weren’t present.
            * He is happy to lie through his teeth, seeming almost gleeful in doing so.
            * He is regularly befuddled and confused, sometimes by his own admission.

        • Elias says:

          Word. For him up is down, and down is up, white is black and black is white and gray is pink — whatever suits him in the moment.

          Nasim, he’s talking about the fact that the witness was not reliable because he was a serial witness and snitch. Not to mention he was on heroin — which can cause hallucinations. Not like LSD, but it can cause visual distortions, as the drug ebbs and flows…there is no way this “witness” was reliable or could be if he had a fix within a few hours of the murder.

          No freaking way.

          The whole fabricated case against two innocent college honor students insults the victim, and honest people everywhere, a group that does not include you.

          Were you the kid who always got picked last in the school yard? Or didn’t get picked at all?

          What’s your deal? Bad childhood?

          I’m sorry — it doesn’t change the fact that Raffaele and Amanda are INNOCENT.

          See that word in all caps? Tattoo it to the inside of your eyelids and get to know it deeply in your sleep now and for ever more.

          They Are Innocent.

        • penelope says:

          You can’t believe Curatolo because he was a drug taker but you can believe Amanda and Rafaelle despite them being drug takers?

          Curatolo: drivelling old junkie
          A & R: innocents with amnesia

          • HH says:

            Penelope: That’s an apt description of Curatalo, IMO.

            There’s quite a contrast between a heroin user and someone who uses weed recreationally. Curatalo was living on that bench for a reason.

            Curatalo: Heroin, living on a park bench, serial witness, can’t remember whether he saw Amanda and Raffaele on Halloween or November 1.

            Rudy: Weed smoker, cocaine user, history of breaking and entering, falling asleep on the toilet and going into fugue states while barking like a dog.

            Continuing on in that vein, if we decided to distrust every person involved in this case who smoked weed, Filomena and Laura’s testimony is unreliable, as is Giacomo’s and the downstairs. Oh yeah, and Meredith herself. She was a drug user, so maybe she invited Rudy in. Maybe she was buying drugs from him.

            No one is willing to make these sort of assumptions about anyone other than Amanda and Raffaele.

            For most pro-guilt people however, Rudy is given the extreme benefit of a doubt. They want to believe that badly (despite his evidence all over the victim and her purse) that when he claims he saw Amanda’s silhouette through Filomena’s (conveniently for him) unbroken window, it was the truth.

            It baffles me.

      • Rob H says:

        There was far to much “coaxing” of witnesses in this case. Or should that be, “coaching”? Curatalo was obviously told by the police or the prosecutor what he had “seen” the night of the murder. But, of course, the poor man couldn’t sustain the lie he was told to tell. I submit that he was not lying – he simply did not know the difference between the truth and the fiction they put in his head.

        What Hellmann did was to reveal his unreliability – it’s what he should have done. What sort of coaxing of witnesses is “nasim” in favour of from an independent judge? Feeding the witness the answers the prsecution wants to hear? Telling him which buses were running on which night in order to jog his false memory?

      • Skind says:

        Really? At each and every step that it was possible to coax things out of the witness, that’s exactly what Zanetti did. There isn’t a single relevant thing that he wasn’t carefully questioned on. No ‘cheap shots’ occured.

        You just don’t like it that Curotalo obliterated himself on the witness stand, so you make up claims against the judge.

      • Skind says:

        Interestingly, you say nothing about the direct and quite aggressive challenge from the prosecution towards a person who was effectively their own witness. Curotalo managed to field their challenge quite well for a supposedly ‘frail’ witness.

        Funny how you missed that. I’m sure you just skipped it accidentally.

        • Friend of Mez says:

          I entirely agree. Although Curatolo was not the ideal witness ( how inconsiderate of him to die before the process has ended), no matter how he was questioned, he came up with the same answer every time.
          Our co defendants however have changed their stories so many times it makes my head spin!
          Innocent people don’t need to lie, back peddle, invent excuses, alibis, accuse an innocent person.
          If we examine Knox’s ‘comments” over the years, we see that they are characterised by innuendo, implications and obfuscation.
          There seems to be a collective amnesia regarding the murder evening, and subsequent ‘explanations’ are equally confused…… ‘I dreamed I saw….. Maybe Raffaele got the blood on his hands from the fish…..What I really meant……”
          An innocent person does none of the above.

          • Antony says:

            “Friend of Mez”, you are lying or ignorant of the facts of the case. Amanda and Raff never changed their stories except when they were being manipulated by police, or in stories reported by the police – who themselves verifiably lied. The “accused an innocent man” lie results from Amanda succumbing to pressure from these police in an illegal interrogation.

            Who are you, “Friend of Mez”? Did you know Meredith personally? Amanda, whose courtesy you abuse in providing you with this platform, actually was one of Meredith’s friends. She voluntarily placed herself at the disposal of the police following the crime, eager to help them, without realising she was being lined up.

            That’s exactly what happens to innocent people when a corrupt and incompetent police force seek to solve a crime the easy way. Guilty people don’t put themselves in this position – doesn’t it occur to you that had there been any truth in the case against her she would have left Italy when she was able to?

          • jamesrae says:

            Friends of Rudy. Your spin and back-peddling your goop is over. Nencini has revealed a horrid truth of absolute corruption. Megnini is a provable psychopath past, present and future and Rudy is the easily provable killer of Meredith Ketcher . Amanda and Raff have been maliciously framed. That’s all.

          • Rob H says:

            I don’t think Ms Knox could have been any clearer. She was at her boyfriend’s apartment with him all night. There’s nothing complicated about this case; the “obfuscation” has come entirely from the Massei and “Nencini” courts, the prosecutors and the civil attorneys, in particular, the noxious Maresca. The result has been that no-one has received any justice in this case.

          • Glenn Thigpen says:

            @Friend of Mez(not) You keep asserting the same old canards about Amanda and Raffaele changing their stories multiple times. Amanda, following the advice or admonition of her interrogators did try to imagine herself at the flat on the night of the murder. She signed a statement written out by the police, in Italian. She retracted that statement the very next morning, if I understand the sequence of events correctly, saying that after having time to reflect on the matter, she was certain that her earlier statement was incorrect.

            Raffaele was questioned about whether he could be sure that Amanda had spent the night, all of the night, in his apartment. He, at one time, noted that there was no way that he could be sure, but again, after thinking on it, he noted that he could be sure because if Amanda had left during the night he would have had to buzz her back in.

            Other than that, their stories have been remarkably consistent and unified.

            When you say that innocent people do none of the things you mentioned in your list, you either have not been doing any research on any of the things that innocent people actually do, which includes false confessions, or you have done the research and still believe your own dogma, which is divorced from reality.

            Glenn

          • Wayne says:

            I’m sorry but how can you say that. Did you bother reading his comments? Specifically he stated this “Yeah, it was Halloween when I saw them. I know this because I saw the kids getting on the disco buses all dressed up in costumes. That’s how I also know what time it was.”

            He claimed, actually insisted it was Halloween. That is Oct 31 if you don’t know. In the 1st trial he had stated it was Nov 1, the day of the murder.

            Therefore, it is NOT consistent, not logical and definitely NOT RELIABLE

          • Som Nathan says:

            @Friend of Metz. When you will put in a similar situation you will also react the same way as Amanda did. Remember she was 20 years old, unassuming, willing to help, non-manipulative, put in a situation never before. You can blame her as much as you want, but you cannot change the ground reality and that is, Amanda and Raffaele did not kill Mez. Rudi Guede killed her all by himself when his plans of commiting robbery were suddenly disrupted by Mez. Perugia police and prosecutors made mistakes while investigating the crime, and are now doing everything to cover those mistakes. They have fed the media with lies and false acquisitions, and media specially junk tabloid journalism has corrupted the minds of weak and vulnerable like yourself with all the fantasies and concocted stories of this case. Rudi Guede has received most favorable treatment from the Perugian police and prosecutors, although he is charged with same crime as Amanda and Raffaele. But he was tried in separate court and assumed a secondary role in murdering Mez. Her blamed Amanda and Raffaele, but Amanda and Raffaele were not given a chance defend themselves in that court. That trial sealed their fate and a pre-determined verdict of these two fine, decent college students who loved and still love life as it comes to them.
            Blaming for anything and everything Amanda says or does has become the game for the biased prosecutors, judges and a swarming army of Amanda haters.
            People don’t realize how difficult it is defend against acquisitions specially those that are absolutely false. These people take and believe that whatever Rudi said is true, what Curatolo said is true and whatever Amanda says is a lie. This is because you all haters have been brainwashed to believe what is false and lies.

        • Nasim says:

          The prosecution questioned Curatolo for less than 10 minutes and I fault them for that. But in the Italian system the judge is ultimately responsible for ascertaining the truth, and there are many additional questions that could have been asked to either bolster Curatolo’s credibility or decrease it. Hellmann and Zanetti asked none of them, preferring to belittle the man for his lifestyle, belief system, drug use and incarceration on seven year old charges.

          • HH says:

            Nasim: Look at it this way. Amanda has been nothing but “belittled for her lifestyle, belief system and drug use” to the point where the prosecution believes they don’t need any physical evidence of Amanda’s presence at the house.

            If you don’t think that’s a fair way to run a court, why hasn’t all of this been kept out? Or are Amanda and Raffaele the only people who deserve no respect and are treated as if they have no credibility.

            FACT: Curatalo was vague and uncertain about what day he thought he saw the two of them. The fact that he brought up “disco buses” and people in costume is indicative of that.

            Actually what you seem to be saying is that Curatalo seems to have been mistaken about seeing the disco buses, etc. but he definitely saw Amanda and Raffaele and he DEFINITELY SAW THEM THE NIGHT OF THE MURDER. That part is set in stone because you think it helps you to make your point.

            You’re cherry picking.

          • Rob H says:

            If you don’t believe Curatolo then Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito were not there in the Piazza; if you believe him, then they were there on another day but could not have committed the murder. He’s not much help to you either way.

          • Skind says:

            What were those additional questions then?

            No belittling occurred, he was asked pertinent questions regarding his claim and reliability i.e. what he saw, when, whether he would be familiar with the area, how solid his recollection is, how solid his base knowledge is – all the sorts of things any reasonable interviewer would want to know.

            You simply do not like the fact that he failed to come up to scratch on every single account.

        • Jill G says:

          Completely agree. Knox supporters have objection to nearly all witnesses, which is highly risible. Witnesses ‘ruled out’ by them ( but not by the courts) based on spurious reasons – wore a hearing aid, didn’t come forward early enough, took heroin….Fortunately the orthodoxy as of now is that these witnesses’ testimony is valid, and anyone who pretends otherwise is clutching at straws.

          • Jack says:

            Yes, of course. Absolutely. I vote that, from now on, all homeless heroin addicts who moonlight as serial witnesses for the local prosecutor should be presumed as “orthodox” in all jurisdictions all over the world! Brilliant!

          • Wayne says:

            Not just “took heroin”. Stated outright that he was high on heroin that night. Stated that he saw them on Halloween night which was not the night of the murder. Insisted that it was Halloween because he saw people in costumes getting on disco busses.

            In other words, completely contradictory to the idea that he saw Amanda and Raf on the night of the murder.

            And yet you just accept it all anyway.

          • HH says:

            No, the prosecution and the prosecution’s witnesses are the ones clutching at straws.

            Curatalo’s testimony would never have been allowed in an American court room unless there was something very wrong with the way the case was being tried. Why?

            The prejudicial weight of such a witness outweighs the probative value.

            Curatalo can’t ascertain which day he claims he saw them. It might have been Halloween, (in fact his testimony indicates that it was.) It is not fair to put him on the stand before a jury of laymen who will certainly be influenced by such testimony the defendents “acting suspiciously” unless the evidence is rock solid, meaning Curatalo can definitively state that it was November 1, state definitively that he did in fact see them on the right day and accurately describe the clothing they were wearing that night or some other aspect.

            2) The same goes for Nara, who states vaguely that she “heard a scream” around a certain time and heard footsteps on the stairs. Yet somehow that trumps the evidence gathered from Meredith’s stomach contents and the testimony of Rudy Guede himself, who stated that he arrived there around nine o’clock and was out of there by ten.

            3) Quinatavalle. Again we can’t be sure. Why? When first questioned, he stated that he did not see Amanda. He came forward A YEAR LATER. There is also conflicting testimony from one of his employees.

            The prejudicial harm of such a statement outweighs