Why I think Amanda Knox is guilty

Knox and Sollecito are to get their verdict this Friday and so this blog is going to run with this post. What I say here is hardly going to affect anything.

IMHO, she’s as guilty as sin, not only on account of the circumstantial and that there has been one conviction already but because of her attitude.  Whilst a person can’t be convicted for an attitude, thank goodness, it doesn’t alter how we, the general public see it.

An article yesterday summed it up for me:

A flirtatious gesture by American Amanda Knox caught an investigator’s eye and changed the course of the probe into the 2007 sex murder of her housemate, a defence lawyer said on Tuesday.

“Without the famous come-on… she wouldn’t be here today [standing trial for the slaying of Briton Meredith Kercher],” said Carlo Dalla Vedova.

There has been a steady stream of most inappropriate behaviour, given her supposed remorse at the murder of her supposed friend.  The simple fact is that Meredith Kercher was murdered and this young woman’s subsequent actions were bizarre.

From her framing of Lumumba to the behaviour of the two of them standing in the grounds of the house as can be seen in a small frame in the middle of this youtube, to her reaction when the police actually arrived and according to her, she first discovered that Kercher had been murdered, the one word which keeps running through my mind as to her reactions is “inappropriate”.

There’s zero remorse.  There’s something terribly wrong inside that head.  It doesn’t take much delving into her history in the States to see that this is no “wholesome girl”, as the defence is trying to make out.

The Seattle Greek Row party and conviction, the sex on the train, her renting of an apartment outside the university accommodation where male footballers were, the excessive behaviour Kercher picked her up for at their shared accommodation in Peruglia, the flirting with the police and court officials during the trial, calling the murder “yukky”, the changing of her story to suit the changing circumstances alone – all of these are not good.

Worse though in the mind of your humble blogger is that after the last two decades of my working life involving character judgments on a more or less daily basis, the red flags were popping up all over the place and there was nothing in her complete lack of remorse and strange reactions to events to separate her from what I know of sociopaths.  This has nothing to do with a poor little girl all alone in Italy – it has to do with a very hard person who heard screams and made nothing of that, who was cozying up in a garden while a body was inside the house, who did and said so many emotionless things before and after.

Whatever the verdict on Friday, in this blogger’s judgment, she is as guilty as sin.

134 Responses to “Why I think Amanda Knox is guilty”

  1. Bill quango MP December 2, 2009 at 11:30 Permalink

    Sometimes its those actions that people take, or don’t take, that trigger an investigation.

    I remember sitting with a team of seasoned theft investigators watching the Soham murders. Ian Huntley was being interviewed by the news explaining how he had seen the girls hours earlier. He was not a suspect at this time.

    Immediately 4 out of the 5 in the office said ‘It was him’
    It was the way he was standing and responding. Not like an innocent,but like someone behaving like an innocent.

    Knox is the same.

  2. Moggs Tigerpaw December 2, 2009 at 12:18 Permalink

    Well I didn’t follow the case in absolute detail, I may have missed some vital points.

    Even so, I figure you are probably right and your reasons too.

    I think even if they find her innocent I will have to be convinced of it before I would believe it.

  3. James Higham December 2, 2009 at 12:24 Permalink

    It’s just such and awful thing that OTT behaviour actually resulted in murder and it might be that if it had been just the two of them, it might not have been murder but that the entry of the third man who clearly seems the knife man that tipped it over the edge. Knox seems to me to be like Leslie van Houten – the latter held the victim only and when dead, then started her own stabbing. I’m not sure Knox would have had the guts to have made the first knife slit – the third man seems to be the one – but even so, she was sure part of the whole scene and where she was, the Italian was too.

  4. ubermouth December 2, 2009 at 16:25 Permalink

    Great compariosn with Leslie Van Houten.Yes. A ruthless, cold blooded psychopath.’Bambi’ needs to go away for life.

  5. Seattlelite voting, "Colpevole." December 2, 2009 at 21:37 Permalink

    There is too much circumstantial evidence to let this young lady simply “pass in the night.” The fact that her DNA in the “murder room” is scant, if not nonexistent, does not diminish her culpability as an accessory to murder. Neither she nor the boyfriend ever came up with any other person who could vouch for their whereabouts on the night of the killing. Both were caught in many small lies which, in sum, added up to a big question mark. And what of the fact that Amanda showed up early the following morning to purchase cleaning supplies–what college student in their right mind would give a hoot about cleaning their apartment at that hour in the morning??? I’m with you, James–lock her up and let her get fat on pasta.

  6. David December 2, 2009 at 22:10 Permalink

    I’m not so sure I’d be so quick to pronounce any guilt here. Your reasons for concluding she’s guilty seem unreasonable to me. I read the YouTube shot completely differently. Looks to me like a boyfriend consoling and assuring his girlfriend. She seems concerned to me.

    The prosecutors have little hard evidence. It’s questionable whether the knife is actually the murder weapon… the forensics seem in doubt.

    Let’s not forget that she did not know the victim for very long. It’s not as if this was a lifetime friend or a family member. It was a new roommate… This changes the dynamics of the emotions and the reactions she might have.

    Seems to me like there’s a lot of doubt in all of this. The Italian authorities have an interesting story… What I’d like to know more about is the guy who has already been convicted. He seems like a shady character, indeed…

    It’s very hard to believe Knox is capable of this crime given all we have learned of her.

    I’ve followed this in the media. I’m still not convinced.

    • James Higham December 2, 2009 at 22:14 Permalink

      It’s very hard to believe Knox is capable of this crime given all we have learned of her.

      Correction, David – it’s far easier to believe it with what we do know of her now – before she came over as a little miss innocent but she sure ain’t that with her background – the Seattle escapades and the train to Peruglia are just two points.

      I suppose it’s that much of my working life has been spent with girls of 18-22 and you learn not to fall for the innocence angle after a while. Her reactions earlier [not counting now after the duress] were decidedly strange.

  7. David December 2, 2009 at 22:24 Permalink

    You’re entitled to your opinion, James. In my view, it’s quite easy for the media and the Italian authorities to paint Knox in any way they choose. I find it quite interesting that the Italian police plan to file a suit against her for claims of bullying/abuse. Seems to me like they have it out for her any way they can get her… Oh, but they’re the authorities. They must be perfectly above board!

    Are any of us perfect? No. Is Knox? No. But I find it hard to believe someone like her, who had no record of wrongdoing, would be capable of such a crime. In any case, can we say she’s guilty because of questionable behavior one or two times? I don’t think so.

    As I’ve said on another blog, I don’t know if she’s guilty or not… but the prosecution hasn’t presented a compelling case here.

  8. James Higham December 2, 2009 at 22:46 Permalink

    Fair enough, David but just one point – she does have a conviction for disorderly, just before she left for Italy:

    Gangs of students, high on drink and drugs, were hurling rocks into the road. Cars were swerving to avoid them. Debris littered the road. It was mayhem.

    Fearing reprisals, neighbours who had called the police refused to give their names. The police officer called for back-up as the youths began throwing rocks at the windows of houses on the neat, tree-lined streets.

    Eventually, after reinforcements had arrived, the students calmed down. Police made only one arrest: the person they held responsible for the party and the disorder.

    Her name? Amanda Knox, or, as she prefers to be known, Foxy Knoxy.

    Knox was fined $269 (£135) at the Municipal Court after the incident – Crime No: 071830624 – and warned that any repeat of her behaviour would lead to much stiffer punishment.

  9. David December 3, 2009 at 00:17 Permalink

    James, yes… that’s interesting. I did some research on that and I can’t really say that this incident changes my thinking. She’s an early twenty-something in college. By all accounts, and this includes very close friends from university, she was far from a big druggie. And to go from that incident to a murder… seems like a big stretch to me.

    Like I said, I really don’t know if she’s innocent or guilty, but the evidence does not definitively point to guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

  10. No One December 3, 2009 at 06:15 Permalink

    Guilty as sin becuase she is not showing enough remorse – that’s enough evidence for you? Really? Here’s a little tid-bit from Tim Egan and the NY Times that indicates why you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. At all.

    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/amanda-knox-revisited/

    …there is no physical evidence placing Amanda Knox at the blood-splattered crime scene, the room where the killing took place. Zero.

    But there is abundant evidence linking a drifter named Rudy Guede to the scene — blood, DNA, prints and his own admission. Little wonder he fled to Germany just after the killing, while Knox went to the police voluntarily, without an attorney. Little wonder that he was found guilty, last year, of sexual assault and conspiracy to kill Kercher. He’s serving a 30-year sentence and appealing the case.

    There is no motive for Knox and Sollecito; they have no criminal record, no history of violent group sexual encounters. E-mails show Knox and her roommate got along fine, except for the typical college-student disputes over bathroom and household chores.

    There’s more, but, hey! All irrelevant, no? Spoiled American brat and inappropriate behaviour means she’s guilty as sin! That’s real, fine logic.

    • James Higham December 3, 2009 at 07:31 Permalink

      Oh that’s rich: “really fine logic”. Yes, it is rich because it does follow logic.

      The NY Times writer can be dismissed immediately – Timothy Egan has been pro-little girl innocent from the word go and has tailored his arguments around that form the beginning. He says:

      But let’s stick with the core of the case. As I’ve written earlier, there is no physical evidence placing Amanda Knox at the blood-splattered crime scene, the room where the killing took place. Zero.

      Yes, all except for the pesky problems of both the DNA and the CCTV showing her going into the house near the required time. As the defence said – it wasn’t very much Knox DNA on the body – that means that it’s a like being a little bit pregnant, not a lot.

      Then there is the triangulation placing him not in the region of the bar but in the region including the house – again at the required time.

      Then there is her changing testimony as to where she actually was.

      All of them damning in themselves before the rest of the evidence is even considered.

      Then comes all the circumstantial such as her manner, her previous and so on, which is what this post was about. I didn’t mention the physical evidence in this post because much of it was in the previous post and it’s so damning that simple logic dictates it nails her. CCTV is CCTV after all and put her there at 23:47. And while we’re on that, she claimed Lumumba came in with her. He didn’t and he’s been released.

      She instigated the Seattle riot and was charged for it. Her own friends say she was a drug fiend, not just a user. She bought the cleaning materials at that very time, she had a steady stream of low life men through the house, left her faeces in the toilet and didn’t flush, which caused the dispute with her “friend”. She grew weed in the house in Italy, back in America, she wrote in her myspace profile stories about drugging and raping. She’s pictured with guns and her ‘boyfriend’ is pictured in robes with a meat cleaver, there were “bruises on throat consistent with the small hand of the defendant and inconsistent with the hands of the male assailants”, where were Meredith’s keys [?], she hung around in the garden after it, kissing and haivng bought the cleaning materials [dislocation], if she hadn’t been there, she would under no circumstances have said: “I covered my ears ’cause she was screaming” and then changed that later, having retracted her statement that Lumumba was there, she was asked if she’d apologized to him, at which she laughed [!] and asked, incredulously: “Who, me?”.

      Once you’ve taken that on board, compare and contrast legal systems based on the Napoleonic code – mostly Latin countries – and those based on the adversarial system – mostly anglo-saxon. As a commenter on another site, examining the evidence said:


      At best, Amanda Knox: 1) stood by while her roommate was assaulted and killed; 2) chose not to call the police after the crime was completed; and, 3) when finally confronted by police, she gave deceptive multiple accounts. At worst, she fully participated in the killing. At least, Ms. Knox needs ten years of hard time for being a selfish, worthless, conniving human being.

      Everything points to her being a low-life and devoid of human feelings other than self-protection. This type of hard-nosed person is completely different to all reports of Meredith Kercher and let’s now turn it back to her. Nowhere in the defence of Knox is there a shred of compassion for the victim herself – already having a hard time with this housemate who broke all the rules of the house but then devised a sex game in which this girl was forced to participate. One man doesn’t hold her down at the neck and rape her at the same time.

      Amanda Knox has done nothing to give the impression in this long trial [there is no "rush to judgment here"] that she is anything but a low-life. She did not have a story and stick with it. She did not establish “good relations” with her housemate, as she claimed. She was willing to frame others without remorse and laughed where she should have been devastated and not nervous little laughs either. She openly flirted with the judge, with the court officials and with the police. The police were far from impressed.

      In an American court, where charges of Italian miscarriage of justice couldn’t be brought, there is more than enough to put her away for a very long time. Therefore, in an American court, as in a British court, she would be released with a fine and a warning. That’s the way we do justice these days. Than goodness she was caught by the Italian system.

      One last thing – if she was old and bloated, rather than young and pretty, would she have garnered the same level of sympathy from the remaining admirers [one reader poll put this at 67%-33% against]? Would she hell.

  11. Becky Chandler December 3, 2009 at 10:23 Permalink

    Wow, I wouldn’t want you on my jury or any jury for that matter–everything that convinces you of this woman’s guilt is totally irrelevant.

    I have no idea how the prosecuotr has tied in the guy who has already been convicted of this crime to Amanda Knox. It is certainly something that has been ignored in all volumes of mass media reports–for the type of crap you find so convincing.

    That is the key to the case. If that relationship (if there was one) needs to be explained or she should walk.

  12. James Higham December 3, 2009 at 12:11 Permalink

    Her being seen going in on CCTV and her DNA on the body is irrelevant? Becky, please …..

  13. Calvin Daley December 3, 2009 at 12:49 Permalink

    James! Get a life! Who do you think you are! Becky, you are absolutely right! Type of a guy like James keep putting the innocent people in jail and bunch of loosers free out there.

  14. David December 3, 2009 at 13:20 Permalink

    Becky, your point about the need for an explanation of the relationship between Knox and Guede is a good one. We haven’t seen anything about this, or at least it hasn’t been highlighted. I’d like to learn more there.

    James, I’m afraid you’ve got blinders on at this stage. You’re so convinced of her guilt that I’m not sure you’re able to be objective and truly assess whether the prosecution has proved their case here. That’s the real question. Have they proven beyond REASONABLE doubt that Amanda Knox committed the crime? In my mind and many others, they haven’t. Too many questions remain.

    This isn’t about whether we like Amanda Knox or approve of all her behaviors. But this is about whether we have any significant measure of reasonable doubt. The defence has certainly presented that, in my view.

  15. Lord T December 3, 2009 at 13:21 Permalink

    I think she is guilty but based on the evidence of the crime not her past history which seems to be becoming a standard for women nowadays.

  16. James Higham December 3, 2009 at 14:04 Permalink

    Calvin – are you American because you spell “losers’ loosers?

    Calvin and David – blinkers are what you two unfortunately have on. There has been so much obfuscation from her defence’s side and yet, as one commenter said – if it has webbed feet and it quacks like a duck, it is a duck.

    There is the pesky matter of evidence unfortunately and it sinks her. CCTV and DNA can not be negated. Sorry.

  17. David December 3, 2009 at 14:43 Permalink

    James, no blinkers here. Like I said, I don’t know if she’s innocent or guilty. I can’t conclude either way based on the evidence presented. The DNA is not conclusive. The mere presence of DNA does not prove anything. And, in this case, no DNA at the immediate scene of the crime is linked to Knox or her ex-boyfriend.

    As you well know, there’s lots of questions about the validity of the DNA evidence. There’s even doubt that the supposed murder weapon is in fact the murder weapon! The only conclusive results we have point directly to Guede.

    How Knox appears on CCTV doesn’t really weigh in here at all. A lot of experts and commentators have explanations for her behavior… I think some of this has been twisted a bit as well by the media.

    I’m not saying she’s innocent. I don’t know. But the evidence doesn’t give me confidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

    We need to base someone’s future, that of Knox, on hard evidence, not speculation by the prosecution, not circumstantial evidence as we have in this case, and not judgments about the behavior of the accused.

    Unfortunately, the murder victim’s future was taken away. While that’s tragic, we can’t use this as reason alone to convict those who we suspect are guilty. We must convict those who we prove beyond a reasonable doubt are responsible.

    I find it interesting that Kreacher’s parents had nothing substantial to say about Knox. While Kreacher did not like some of Knox’s habits as a roommate or how early she started a relationship, the parents confirmed that Meredith really didn’t have much to say about Knox at all. And this makes sense — they only knew each other for a short while. We have no witnesses who are pointing to any hostility Amanda may have had for Meredith. I believe it was the Italian authorities who came up with that story.

    This whole investigation has been badly handled by the Italian authorities and the prosecution. From a contaminated crime scene, sloppy investigating, strong arm manipulative tactics in their interrogation to irresponsible speculation on the part of the prosecution. Horrible.

    James, we’re not going to change each other’s minds here. I respect you have fashioned a view here… I just don’t see the evidence as hard and as convincing as you do.

  18. Calvin Daley December 4, 2009 at 11:33 Permalink

    James,

    Spell check? Really? FYI I’m a Brit.

    Everyone! Let’s just hope for a true justice!

  19. jeff Feene December 12, 2009 at 18:20 Permalink

    ive probably spent 4-6 hours researching the facts of this case, and i think that, at worst, amanda knox is a young, immature, horny pot-head who gets panicky under police pressure/suggestions/questioning.
    there is zero dna of amanda knox at the murder scene. there is zero incentive or motive for her to murder her roommate. lets be clear, guede is obviously the murderer, not only is his dna everywhere, its in meredith kerchers body. he admits to being in the house at the time of death. he said he saw a strange man leaving. he doesnt evenknow amanda and raphael, so why would he cover up for them, let alone participate in a sex/murder with them?
    smokign too much hash doesnt make you stab your roommates, it makes you want to kiss, eat too many snacks, and fall asleep.
    did knox try to leave the country after the murder, like guede? no. she had no reason to. the prosecution has said the murder was a violent sex game gone wrong, yet there is no evidence of this, its just picking a motive out of thin air.
    there were traces of the blood of amanda knox, and kercher, in the bidet. but not only does that not indicate how old the blood is, there were no cuts or wounds on amanda knox’s body whatsoever.
    when police eavesdropped on a telephone conversation guede had, guede was telling a friend that he didnt know amanda, and amanda was not there at the crime scene.
    i think this is a classic case of the italian police and prosecutors casting their net too wide. they already have their killer. Here’s an example of how the media can twist or accelerate any bit of random evidence. Say, i was in the process of reading a stephen king book, and my neighbor was murdered, the newspaper headlines would probably read, “Man with a fetish for blood and horror lives right next to murder victim!!!”

    • James Higham December 12, 2009 at 20:08 Permalink

      The thing first and foremost is that I have been through every site possible, some fifty hours all up and the most difficult part i sorting the wheat from the chaff. Even if the DNA is discounted, which it needn’t be because it was present despite the media blitz by the defence and supporters, in particular the Knox family, there is the CCTV and all the other evidence – 13 points were presented.

      The jury are not idiots. The reason Italian justice takes so long is not only that it is inefficient but that the prosecution must go over more hurdles than in the adversarial system. Therefore, when the case is presented, it has to stick. For outsiders to try to badmouth the Italian system is necessary to release Knox but unfortunately, it’s all speculation. You and I have no way of knowing what DNA was present but the prosecutors did because they did the footwork.

      As you say, they had their conviction already so why didn’t they stop? Simple. She’s guilty. Take out all the razamatazz on the defence side, their only defence and all that is left is the evidence – pesky things lie the CCTV footage placing her there, for a start.

      She was not clever in covering her tracks, she shows all the signs of being guilty in addition. The evidence stands up, including the DNA. She’s guilty.

  20. David December 12, 2009 at 20:58 Permalink

    James, James, James… “all the other evidence”… 13 points. Okay, outline them here.

    I’m pretty sure that if there was damning DNA evidence presented, we’d know about it by now. What is this DNA evidence that “stands up” as you say? Because from everything that we’ve seen, no DNA evidence conclusively places Amanda near the body. The knife (which isn’t conclusively the murder weapon) does not and nothing else does. But, oh yes, there’s some 200+ samples of Guede’s DNA.

    She’s not guilty based on the evidence presented, James. She’s not guilty.

  21. jameshigham December 13, 2009 at 09:16 Permalink

    Thanks, Lord Nazh – it says much and saves me the job. Obviously guilty but that pretty face sways people:

    Lord Nazh says:
    December 12, 2009 at 19:46

    Completely OT James but thought you’d enjoy this clip :)

    http://video.foxnews.com/12407479/justice-served?test=latestnews

  22. James Higham December 13, 2009 at 12:23 Permalink

    This was the most balanced one I’ve seen although it is old:

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/216903

  23. jeff Feene December 13, 2009 at 16:29 Permalink

    In 24 hours, i ive had a major change of course, on my opinion of this case, but one thing is for sure, the more i think i know, the less sense things make. in addition, it would be great if i could read amanda knox’s 5 page memorandum, and it would be great to read a clear concise account from amanda and raphael on their whereabouts of that night and morning.
    Great fox news clip from james higham by the way. Although, anne coulter is the first time ive heard they have a receit of any bleach that amanda knox may have bought. the last i heard, was a shopkeeper saying that amanda knox entered his store and headed to the cleaning supplies aisle. Another statement anne coulter made was that raphael’s bloody finger print was found on the bra clasp. im pretty sure, thats not accurate, i beleive it was his dna that was foudn there, and the defense sais this could have occured by contamination in the 2 months it took to find said bra clasp.
    at any rate, yesterday i claimed that amanda was a horny-pothead with a foggy memory who gets anxious under questioning, at worse. Today, i no longer feel that way. The main reason is, although i knew she named patrick lumumba as the murderer , supposedly under heavy suggestion,a nd pressure and lack of sleep, i just learned yesterday that the next day she wrote a 5 page memorandum , in which she still claimed he was the likely murderer, while she was in the kitchen. Now, do i beleive that amanda knox murdered her roommate? No. do i beleive she sanctioned the murder? No. However i do feel she is covering up for some sort of misdeed on her part, and has got caught in her own web of lies.
    The best scenario that i can come up with, is that she encountered rudy guede and he let her know he had some good weed for sale. she invited him into her apartment, bought some weed, or hash. They got super high, and she dozed off on the couch. rudy’s high and horny, he creeps into merediths bedroom, tries to feel her up in her sleep, she wakes, freaks out, he panics and whips out his pen knife, and slashes at her.
    amanda is in the living room in a doped up fog, she doesnt know if shes dreaming, or this is real, but she hears the screams, and covers her ears. rudy flee’s. amanda see’s the dying body.. covers it with the duvet. she doesnt want to call the police because shes high in a foreign country and just bought drugs from the murderer. she figure’s if someone sais they saw her enter her house with a black man, she’ll say its patrick lumumba, if it comes to that, because he’s the only other blackman she knows, and shes pissed off towards lumumba over some grievance.
    at some point, probably that night,or the next morning, she enlist’s raphael’s help(possibly) to stage a break-in, so they can just say they were sleeping at raphael’s and dont have a clue what happened. after they stage the break in, they realize they better wipe their finger prints off the doorknob and windowsill, with bleach. perhaps they broke the window by throwing meredith kerchers cellphoen through it. and the other unidentified cellphone.
    this seems to me the most plausible theory i can come up with. ijust dont buy that violent sex game gone wrong crap. it would be nice to hear the opionion of the 2 italian roommates on the dynamic between meredith and amanda. but i havnt heard boo about these women.
    I feel rudy guede is the primary, if not the only murderer in this case, but unless he finds god, and come’s clean with all he knows, which he might as well do….we’ll be talking about whether amanda and raphael commited this murder 40 years from now.

  24. James Higham December 13, 2009 at 17:02 Permalink

    They did make statements in the early days, the two Italian roommates and then seemed to either buy out of it or ran scared or were pressurized by the authorities [yes, I am saying that] or whatever.

    The thing is – nothing adds up here.

    I have to admit to stonewalling the extreme ad-hominem position the pro-Knoxers are taking [that's just my normal reaction] but what I’d really like to do, free from this duress, is lay it all out, every snippet, every scrap, on a giant board and then step back and just look at it.

    Seriously, free from pressure by either side and with two or three other people who don’t really care all that much, go through it with a wine or three and see where it leads us.

  25. jeff feene December 13, 2009 at 19:10 Permalink

    I agree whole heartedly about the scrapboard idea. a nice big chalkboard with agreed facts, known facts, disputed facts, timelines. Just put some brainpower together and consider the practicalities and the logistics of the case. I mean, we obviously care… we just hopefully have unbiased agenda’s…we cant take anythign the defense or prosecution, or familie’s say straight up, because they will twist facts to suit their agenda’s. Also,and obviously, the media tends to distort or exaggerate certain facts. For example, i read a headline that amanda knox was flirting with police, and court officers. when i searched for examples of this, all icame up with was, she winked at raphael in the courtroom, and when she was asked to slip on some non-contamination slippers at the crime scene, she wiggled her hips suggestively as she put them on.. well COME ON!evenif it was true, it sais nothing of a capability tomurder.
    additionally, i heard from one source that a trace of amanda’s blood was mixed with meredith’s in the sink. But amanda had no fresh cuts to her skin.
    another source said, it was merediths blood and amanda’s dna. which would seem explainable if the murderer washed his hands of merediths blood in a sink that already contained amanda’s dna.
    its a puzzler allright. i look forward to learning more pertinent facts in the future.

  26. NJC December 15, 2009 at 20:23 Permalink

    I didn’t realize she was caught entering the flat at 8:43pm on CCTV, as outlined here:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2855320.ece

    If Amanda and Raffaele were active participants of this crime, why didn’t Rudy more aggressively finger them in plea bargain? Is it possible that all of her wacky behaviour and lies were attempts to avoid being implicated? She may be a sociopath, but she does not strike me as a calculating murderer.

  27. James Higham December 15, 2009 at 20:26 Permalink

    No, I’m sure she wasn’t calculating – it would have been that they were just going to put the frighteners on her but that it went wrong. Maybe Meredith said some cutting things. We don’t know of course. Why Guede acted as he did is a mystery. He may have been advised that it would get him less time.

  28. NJC December 15, 2009 at 21:16 Permalink

    Andrea Vogt also wrote an excellent and fairly balanced piece today (Dec 15, 2009) in the Seattle PI:

    http://www.seattlepi.com/local/413244_knox15.html?source=mypi

  29. jeff feene December 16, 2009 at 05:11 Permalink

    Hmmm..thats interesting stuff. seattle P.I. do good work. they also have a peice called “meredith kercher timeline: her last 12 hours.” which is good for perspective.
    i also encourage you armchair detectives to seek online, the letter raphaelle wrote to his father. It sounds very very genuine and sincere. He talks about how meredith was so sweet and quiet, no one would dream of hurting her, and that although amanda lives purely for the pursuit of pleasure, he cant imagine she’d be capable of murder. which is fascinating, because it sounds as if he’s not 100% sure shes innocent.
    here’s some points of interest that have popped up for me. i read that raphaelle,had a receit for bleach…but its amanda accused of buying cleaning supplies. – the prosecution sais apartment was bleached. but can they date that?-raphaelle, apparently admitted to telling the police a load of rubbish during his first interview, because he felt pressured by amanda to fit his account with hers, allegedly. there’ve been reports of amanda and raphael leaving bloody footprints, but couldnt that have occured by stepping in or near the bedroom after the doorbreakdown, or by stepping in blood on the bathroom floor?- did the lovers stage a breakin, or did guede? and why is it SO important to stage a breakin?- there were 4 guys on the lower floor who knew guede, we never hear of them. did they not see or hear nothing?, like the lovers throwing a rock at a window?-kercher’s friends insist she didnt know guede, but someone claims the 4 of them were hanging out one night-what happened when the albanian drug dealer met the threesome, what did they talk about?- if the murder wasnt premediated, then why would amanda and raphaelle leave his place when they were having a nice relaxing evening there with food, weed, and movies….does raphaelle turn to amanda and say, “hey, mandy, lets go to your place and see if we can engage your quiet, shy roommate in a violent sex game, i’ll invite that black drugdealer guy, we barely know.”
    the prosecution sais ‘the lovers’ moved kerchers body to make it look as though shed been sexually assaulted. but she WAS sexually assaulted!-if knox did shower next to a huge pool of blood on the floor, thats very damning of her-when did knox admit she was wrong about lumumba, when he was freed after 2 weeks? How long did it take her to confess she only said his name to supposedly relieve police pressure? This is one of the biggest knocks against her.-
    guede criticized knox and sollecito from prison, for not admitting their guilt…what the hell? he never even included them in his recreation of what happened.
    why was guede so careless to leave his shit in the toilet? who would murder somone and leave such powerful evidence of presence at the scene?
    amanda’s behaviour after the murder is considered so carefree, its callous…. but couldnt it also mean, she was so convinced of her innocence,that she had nothing to worry about? I mean, she went with raphaelle to the police station for his questioning. she could have easily stayed away. if she was involved in the murder, shoudnt she have been in a nervous state, terrified of the police finding out what she did?
    amanda’s mother must be aware amanda was caught on cctv, because her mother is now claiming meredith was probably murdered just before amanda arrived home.

    Are some of my points contradictory towards guilt or innocence? yep. imjust trying to get it all out there. Im wish the italian prosecutors,or defense, would leak more documents to the media… so we can get an even better picture.

  30. James Higham December 16, 2009 at 10:10 Permalink

    I found this:

    Wednesday 31st October 2007 (Halloween)

    Evening “Amanda…sent [Meredith] numerous SMS messages.”

    1900 Meredith responds to her flatmate: “I have to go to a friend’s house for dinner.” The student from Seattle persisted, “What are you doing tonight? Do you want to meet up? Have you got a costume?” She then said that she was going to Le Chic and “maybe we’ll see each other.” ”

    Thursday 1st November 2007 (Day of the Dead in Italy)

    1300 AK saw MK at their apartment (per AK)

    1400 -1500 MK left

    1530 Sophie Purton arrives at Robyn Butterworth’s flat at Via Bontempi 22

    1600 Meredith arrives at Robyn Butterworth’s flat

    1700 AK, RS went to his apartment (per AK)

    1800 Meredith had a meal with her girlfriends “Ms Kercher was known to have eaten an early supper of pizza and ice cream with two British women friends, both fellow students, at six o’clock on the evening of her death. But Sophie Purton, one of the friends, had testified that the meal contained no mushrooms.”

    1800 AK, RS left her apartment (per RS)

    1836 RS at his computer, had watched ‘Amelie’ whilst also downloading the film ‘Stardust’ to watch later, would be at his computer until 0333 – (per RS & his lawyers). “He was with AK until 1800 when they had both left RS apartment to go into the centre. RS has also said that he spent the evening on his computer working on his university coursework

    2018 Patrick sends text message to AK

    2030 Patrick’s friend, Swiss Professor Roman Mero had a pizza and then went straight to Le Chic. (had originally claimed he was in Le Chic from 2000)

    2030 – 2100 RS “Went home, smoked; had dinner.”

    2030 – 2100 (AK “left him (per RS), saying to him that she would go to Le Chic, meet friends while he returned to his house”) “… left the house telling Sollecito that she was going to work, [but she], she was at the basketball court of Piazza Grimana.”

    2035 AK text message to PL

    2038 RG arrives at MK’s (per RG)

    2038 PL’s cellphone pings in the area of MK’s house

    2040** RS’s father phones him at his apartment on RS’s landline, the call went unanswered and instead went to answer phone. RS did not respond to the message and return his father’s call that night

    2040** Young woman, Popovic (Polish after all (?)), arrives at RS’s house to tell him she no longer needed a lift to the station. (She spoke to Amanda via the intercom (?) )

    2040** Serbian student, Jovanovic, ‘met’ (Could do with clarification as to whether he simply passed AK, or actually engaged with her in some way). AK on Corso Garibaldi. AK and RS were at RS’s flat at this time and before (per AK/RS)

    2040** AK and RS cell phones turned off

    2043 AK seen on CCTV entering her house (?)

    2046 Meredith arrives eight minutes after RG arrives (per RG)

    2050 RS chops up button mushrooms with his knife, and he and AK stir fry them (per Mignini)

    2100 AK claimed to meet PL at B-Ball courts and [return] to her house. (per the Judge)

    2100 Meredith leaves friend’s house with Sophie Purton to return home, Sophie walks her halfway

    2105 Sophie Purton leaves Meredith on Via Roscetto, Meredith continues home alone

    2110 Click on RS’s computer, no more activity on computer until following day

    2115 Around this time MK arrives home

    2130 Meredith commences phone call with mother (What time did it end?)

    2141 – 0532 of the night of the crime “is not any human interaction.at RS apt” (per RS’ computer)

    2200 – 2230 Meredith is either dead or dying. A breakdown truck arrives for a broken down car containing a family of three, man, woman and child. The Albanian ‘superwitness’, Hekuran Kokomani, arrives by car at the rubbish bins area a short way down the road from the cottage. HK punches RS, throws a phone and olives at AK, who threatens HK with knife. HK drives further down the road encountering RG who recognises HK and offers money to hire HK’s car, first 50, then offering 250 euros. HK hears banging sounding like ‘wood on wood’ from the house. RG says there is a birthday party at the cottage. HK refuses hire his car, driving off having seen RS in his wing mirror running at him with knife. RS persues him to the lights, where a motorist asks HK for directions. HK has to reverse his car to allow the breakdown truck, which is probably just arriving, to manoeuvre. HK leaves (per HK)

    2215 SMS requesting account balance sent from MK’s mobile to her bank balance

    2229 First recorded receipts at Le Chic

    2230 – 2300 A witness heard “a man and a woman arguing in Italian” inside the cottage “at about 10.30 or 11.00 on the night of November 1,” followed by an “agonising scream”.

    2230 “Alessandra Formica, a police witness, said her partner was almost knocked over by a black man running away from scene”. The couple also witness the broken down car and breakdown truck.

    2300 (circa) A dark coloured car is seen parked outside the cottage (per garage mechanic witness – Gianfranco Lombardi). “It was about 11pm on the night of November 1, 2007, and I was in the area because I had been called out to fix a broken-down car…When I got to Via Sant Antonio, close to where the house where Meredith Kercher was murdered, I saw a dark-coloured car parked outside and I noticed the gate on the drive was open…I didn’t notice anyone in the car and I didn’t notice anyone coming or going during the eight or 10 minutes it took me to load the broken-down car onto my tow truck.” “The statement is significant because Sollecito has a dark-coloured car, but claims he was not at the house.”

    2300 RS reveives telephone call from his father (per RS). Now known to be untrue as the unanswered call via landline was actually made at 2040 and went to answerphone

    2300 (circa) Nara Capezalli, the woman who lives opposite MK’s, hears screams coming from the house after which “at least two people” emerged and fled “in different directions.”

    2300 – 2330 AK and RS are seen on the baseball court by a sixty-year-old witness, ‘Toto’ (Antonio Curatolo), cuddling, behaving erratically, and looking towards the house…” “…their position of observation on the steps near via della Pergola overlooking the house.” “I saw Amanda and Raffaele around the square in 23-23,30 Grimana the first night of November. I am sure because the next morning the carabinieri were on the streets asking questions. “ AK and RS go down in the direction of the house (possibly joined by a third person (?))

    2300 – 0100 RS claims he’s on Internet at his home

    Friday 2nd November 2007

    0100 AK at RS’s apt (?)

    0200 Witnesses report seeing Rudy dancing down the Domus nightclub. Passers-by report loud voices from AK/MK home

    0333 RS comes off of his computer and goes to bed, Amanda is ‘not’ there (per RS & his lawyers)

    0430 Last sighting of Rudy at the Domus nightclub by witnesses.

    0532 Internet activity noted at RS’s computer, (Googling ‘Bleach’ & ‘Blood’ perhaps ?). Phones turned back on?

    Dawn Mobile phones switched back on (Would be great to have the actual time for this event)

    0745 Witness places AK outside supermarket

    0830 Bleach receipt supplied by the market (?) – RS/AK in bed (per RS/AK)

    0915 Bleach receipt supplied by the market (?) – RS/AK in bed (per RS/AK)

    1000 Woke up at RS’s in morning (per RS)

    1030 AK returns to her house to wash; took empty plastic bag (per RS)

    1100 AK was back at her house (per AK)

    1130 AK back at RS’s house; worried—door open (per RS). Back to AK’s together. AK opens door with keys; went in together. Blood in bathroom. Attempted to break down Meredith’s door (per RS)

    0900 – 1200 Sig.na Lana finds two phones in her garden and notify police, who ascertain that one is registered to Filomena Romanelli at via della Pergola

    1226 “Today it was confirmed that the garage video recorded the car of the postal police arriving at 12.26…” and find AK and RS outside (but within the gate), who said they were waiting for the Carabinieri.”

    1235 Filomena, having spent the night away with her boyfriend Marco Zaroli, whilst parking their car (with PG and LA) at the ‘Fair of the Dead’ in Perugia, receives phonecall (first of a series of three) from AK “who told me that she had slept at Raffaele’s house and that when she had gone back to our house she had found the door open and blood in her bathroom. She told me that she’d had a shower, that she was scared and that she was going to call Raffaele Sollecito. It seemed really strange to me and I asked her to check that the house was in order and to call the police or Carabinieri.” (Michael: “Going to call” RS when AK and RS claim they came back to the cottage together at 1130?)

    1235 – 1245 Second phone conversation between AK and FR

    1245 Third phone conversation between AK and FR “she told me that the window in my room was broken and that my room was in a mess. At this point I asked her to call the police and she told me that she already had.”

    1250 RS calls his sister in the Carabinieri

    1251 RS phones the Carabinieri (for the first time)

    1254 RS phones the Carabinieri again

    1300 (just before) Filomena Romanelli arrives at apartment with her friends PA (Paola Grande – girlfriend of Luca) and LA (Luca Altieri). M (Marco) was present and “Amanda and Raffaele were in Amanda’s room because at a certain point they came out into the corridor and we introduced ourselves.” (Michael: Evidently, RS and AK failed to notice Meredith’s keys whilst they were hidden away in her room. Why were they in AK’s room when important actions were taking place elsewhere in the cottage, leaving non-resident Marco to deal with the Postal Police? How long were they in there for? ‘What’ were they doing whilst in there – checking it was ‘clean’?)

    1305 Postal Police arrive (per RS and his lawyers)

    1315 (circa) After listening to Filomena’s remarks, with Postal Police present, LA breaks down door of MK’s room

    Evening PG and LA take RS and AK to Perugia police station in their car. PG and LA have stated that during the trip RS was constantly asking them questions regarding the murder and investigation of a manner that caused them to become so concerned and suspicious, they thorougly checked over the interior of the car after RS and AK got out, for ‘incriminating evidence’ they were afraid the pair may have ‘planted’ there. The ‘suspicious’ behaviour of the couple continued inside the police station, which was noted and reported by multiple witnesses

    **These times must be very approximate since the 20:40 time slot is ‘very’ congested.

    Filomena and the other housemate were not in the vicinity of the house until the next morning following the crime. No one from the prosecutors to the defence has trouble with this testimony.

    Her main significance is that it was her friend who broke down the door, even while the Postal Police were there. While the police talked to people, it seems AK and RS went into the room unattended. This seems awfully slack of the police but this comes from Filomena.

    She seems to have been pro-Knox up to that point [I saw a photo of the two Italian girls and AK] but she confirms that they had to insitute a rota because AK was doing none of the hosuework. MK’s friend Robyn confirms that MK said AK would not even flush the loo after menstruating.

    Filomena is either peripheral or else she’s the hidden factor that never came out.

  31. jeff feene December 16, 2009 at 14:50 Permalink

    Holy jumpins! did you write all that or paste it james?
    who is PL?
    there’s a lot of good new stuff in there. That’s quite a story by HK..but at the same time, drugdealers arent the most reliable witnesses, still, it seems too crazy to be true, and too specific to not be true. why did he punch raphaelle, and throw olives at amanda? His claim that raphaelle, had a knife, and amanda had a knife, and rudy was begging to rent his car…all within a short time span. Its almost too perfect to be true. for the 3 of them to rape andkill MK and to then rush out into the street, with the knives still in their hand and have a violent run in with a drug dealer? but if they were all accosting this dealer then who was making the banging wood sounds that the dealer heard? and why would rudy say there was a party in the cottage.. wouldnt that just encourage HK to go inside?
    but some of the witness accounts must be true, in a city that populated, someone must have seen something. i beleive there was a dark car at the scene. i tend to beleive ak and rs were at the ballcourt, or overlook.
    Its not necessarily strange that rs did not answer his fathers phone call. i ignore family calls all the time.
    if this account is true, ak walked home and rs drove there. which seems odd.
    is there a bleach receipt? in the possession of rs or ak? doesnt seem like it. its meaningless that the store should have a receipt like that, if the person paid cash.
    rs and ak admit they turned their cellphones off, so as not to be disturbed. is that highly unusual behaviour? for young lovers to do that?

  32. James Higham December 16, 2009 at 15:02 Permalink

    Holy jumpins! did you write all that or paste it james?
    who is PL?

    If it’s a blockquote in italics, Jeff, it’s pasted. The normal font is mine. PL is Lumumba.

    I have more in the latest post, Jeff:

    http://nourishingobscurity.com/2009/12/16/meredith-this-one-just-for-aficianados/

    The bleach can’t be tied definitively. The manager saw a young woman of her description, receipts confirm bleach bought twice, there was a new brand of bleach RS’s housekeeper found at his house, together with a mop and bucket which hadn’t been in the apt before, there is evidence of scrubbing at the Kercher house.

    When the postal police arrived, the two went and stood near the bucket and mop for some reason. They hadn’t been expecting police because they hadn’t called them – they called the carabinieri fifteen minutes later, twice. The postal police were there for the reported found mobile. Both mobiles Kercher had been using were in the garden of the person who reported it. Her daughter found the second. One was Meredith’s UK mobile, the first one found was Filomena’s, which she’d lent to Meredith.

    How did those mobiles get there? They were Meredith’s. Did she throw them in the garden of a neighbour? Why? Someone threw those mobiles. Guede? Why would Knox and he talk on the phone after the murder? For what reason?

    Yes, re RS, I agree that not answering the father’s phone call doesn’t place him anywhere, that he has been placed nearby with AK, checking out the house from that distance, that the computer not being used proves little – if they had been smoking and bonking, then they wouldn’t have needed the computer. They could well have gone back to RS’s apartment and I think they did.

    Where else would they spend the night? Certainly not in the murder house.

    HK is unreliable but other evidence placed him at the scene due to the car breakdown. Not much else can be relied on from him.

  33. jeff feene December 16, 2009 at 16:05 Permalink

    i have only 2 questions about that report, james.
    it state’s that rudy guede was amanda and raphaelles dealer. i do suspect, that is the possible reason the threesome would be at the murder scene, but is it factual? did the prosecution make that claim?
    your report sais that amanda called guede before and after kerchers murder. Thats like a smoking gun… but thats the first ive heard of it, and again, i dont even think the prosecution made that claim. why would knox’s team claim she didnt know guede, if there was cellphone evidence to the contrary?

  34. James Higham December 16, 2009 at 16:46 Permalink

    Good questions. I have this from The Times:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3067558.ece

    Sources close to the investigation said it was striking that Ms Knox never mentioned Mr Guede at all, “as if he did not exist”, when in fact they knew each other and had exchanged mobile phone calls before and after the killing.

    I found this too:

    One such comic entitled “The Last Vampire” was found in his residence. It featured pictures of a naked female vampire whose body had been slashed by a sword

    On Richard Dawkins, it says, in the google blurb:

    http://www.google.ru/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&newwindow=1&q=knox+guede+connection&start=10&sa=N

    You have phone records between Guede, Knox and Sollecito organizing for all 3 to

    But when you click, the forum has gone.

    Meanwhile, Knox has testified that she never knew Guede. She flatly denied witness Hekuran Kokomani’s report that he saw Knox, Sollecito and Guede together.

    Other evidence says he supplied drugs to her. The prosecution said this. An anti-Knox commenter at The Independent says:


    Erm, they both had mer Guede as he sold them drugs. Knox has said this herself. Also, she was in the building as she said the she “had to cover her ears to block out her screams”.

    Where he got that from I don’t know.

  35. Mariam December 22, 2009 at 01:46 Permalink

    I have been in the legal profession for 15 years and what surprises me is the comments by Ms Knox’s supporters . For instance they state that there was no evidence that placed her at the crime scene.
    There is a saying that if you repeat a lie for long enough it becomes truth.
    Instead of wasting time by listing the considerable evidence that was presented during the trial, which places her at the apartment, I’ll assume that it is the logical and intelligent who will read this and move on.

    Evidence has to be looked at as a whole. The selective analysis of bits of disputed evidence which takes place on various websites by Ms Knox’s supporters, is a far cry from what takes place in a court of law. The jury hears all the evidence and must deliberate on it.

    I’d say the success of the well orchestrated pro- Knox PR camapign has been that in selecting some pieces of disputed evidence and ignoring others ,they gave an incomplete picture of went on in the trial and convinced media outlets & the public there was no evidence against Ms Knox. Thankfully , this had no bearing on the jury , the trial and will have none on the appeal. It merely stoked up anger, particuarly in America . I’m puzzled as to why Knox supporters tried to convince /win over those with no influence on the trial. After all, i have not hearrd of a single civil liberty organisation supporting the notion that Ms Knox had an unfair trial. There are many such high calibre organisations in the US and worldwide. If Ms Knox’s trial was so unfair , why did they not involve a group like Amnesty International wo specialise in such matters or start a petition? They would struggle to get the backing of high profile or repected figures.
    Wo knows , maybe Edda Melllas will try this when her daughters appeal fails.

  36. James Higham December 22, 2009 at 07:31 Permalink

    Mariam, thank you for that and my thanks is in two parts – one just for your comment on the Knox case but two – because in a moregeneral sense – the question of evidence, you articulate something I have been trying to for years but have never seemed to be able to put into words properly.

  37. David December 22, 2009 at 08:05 Permalink

    Mariam, I would submit to you that the forensics evidence placing AK at the scene on the night of the murder is far less straightforward than you are putting forth.

    AK lived at the house where MK was murdered. Her DNA is, of course, going to be found, particularly in the bathroom, which was shared by AK and MK. It’s not surprising in the slightest that DNA would be mixed with DNA in a bathroom.

    No DNA of AK’s was found in MK’s room. And yet, RG’s DNA was found in abundance. Somehow, in their drug fueled frenzy, AK and RS were able to gain their composure and wipe away any trace of their DNA in MK’s room, but leave Guede’s behind. Let me tell you: those two really knew what they were doing to wipe away invisible evidence and leave RG’s behind. Oh, and how brilliant was it of them to mop the apartment… and yet we don’t hear anything about testing of the mop and bucket for blood/DNA. That’s because there was NONE.

    I could go on about other elements of the forensics and this case because for each point suggesting AK and RS were there, a counterpoint suggests they may not have been.

    I actually find it quite insulting that you would say “I’ll assume that it is the logical and intelligent who will read this and move on.” I think you could have made your point without such a preface.

    Presented with the counterpoints to the prosecution’s case, many rightly question the forensics and some of the arguments of the prosecution. They’re not dumb. They’re not being selective. They’re simply human, and when doubt is raised, they question. Nothing wrong with that.

    I think you make a good point about looking at the evidence as a whole. For that, we need to wait until this is released with the sentencing explanation so we can better understand what the jury was thinking and why they went the way they did.

    While I believe in justice for MK and her family, I along with many others are rightly concerned about the potential of sending innocent people to jail. I’m not saying AK and RS are innocent. I don’t know. But I along with others have the right to question the evidence at hand and the factors leading to the verdict in this case… because quite frankly, it could be any one of us in the place of the accused should we find ourselves in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    Juries and judges have been wrong before on evidence that was much more substantial than what we have in this case.

    On the PR effort, I don’t fault AK’s family in the slightest for employing this tactic. If I thought my daughter was innocent of a crime to which she was accused, I’d do whatever it took to help protect her. In this case, the bulk of the media attention in Europe and in the U.S. was quite one sided and was portraying AK in a very negative light indeed. I don’t blame AK’s family in the slightest for doing what they could to get their side of the story out there.

  38. James Higham December 22, 2009 at 08:45 Permalink

    The DNA, as Mariam said, is only one small part of the overall, which the pro-Knox fanatics are either ignoring or playing down. There is more than enough evidence in the above and in the other posts on this site alone to convince a jury and 19 judges, which it in fact did and even AK hersef conceded the trial was conducted fairly.

    This is nothing but denial to refuse to consider all evidence as presented.

  39. David December 22, 2009 at 15:03 Permalink

    I didn’t say the trial wasn’t conducted fairly. Technically, it was. And as you say, many have acknowledged that point.

    That’s not to say the jury/judges weren’t unduly influenced by the initial flurry of media coverage and then coverage during the trial which painted AK and RS in a bad light. This was not a sequestered jury. Personally, if I was standing trial and was aware of what was being said about me in the media, I’d be more than a bit concerned about what effect this might have on the jury.

    What we have here in this case is a masterful story put together by the prosecution, with evidence brought to bear to support the story, even though the story itself changed course about three times during the trial.

    We will know more when the sentencing explanation comes out. My early view is that all of the confusion around the alibis led the jurors to their verdict, in combination with some of the other evidence that perhaps wasn’t successfully refuted by the defence. And sometimes that happens.

    I stand by my words: we must not blindly accept the verdict of juries and judges or the outcomes of our judicial systems. Because they can get it wrong. They’re not flawless. This isn’t about denial for all… it’s about placing a check on our judicial system. I, for one, haven’t ruled out the possibility that AK and RS are indeed guilty. But I’m not ruling out the other possibility that they’re innocent based on the evidence that I’m aware of.

    Let’s be clear about the role of the 19 judges you reference. Their role was to scrutinize the evidence brought forth by the prosecution to determine if she should stand trial. We can all acknowledge that from a big picture point of view, the prosecution presented a complex array of evidentiary elements. The judges weren’t determining guilt; they were determining whether AK and RS should stand trial.

  40. NJC December 22, 2009 at 18:20 Permalink

    Rudy Guede’s sentence is upheld, but reduced from 30 to 16 years.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-12-22-italy-conviction-upheld_N.htm

    Plea bargain? Eager to learn the implications of this huge sentence reduction … and if that doesn’t fair well for AK and RS’s appeal.

  41. David December 22, 2009 at 18:30 Permalink

    This is unbelievable. The one person that we can reliably and indisputably put at the scene of the murder, the one person who clearly violated MK, gets 16 years for extinguishing a life???!!! If I was the MK family, I’d be outraged!!

    Somehow, we’re supposed to believe that two college kids with clean records (yes, I know Knox had a minor infraction for noise disturbance in the U.S.) masterminded this whole murder and Guede, a drug dealer with several break and enters to his credit and notoriety for carrying around a knife, had a diminished role?

    Sorry, I think it’s a stretch.

  42. James Higham December 22, 2009 at 19:23 Permalink

    yes, I know Knox had a minor infraction for noise disturbance in the U.S.

    Hardly minor – she was the ony one arrested and was seen as trouble by the police, an instigator. She hit the drugs hard but no one mentions this, she took lovers all over the place and her writings were weird and sexually violent. Hardly Bambi, one would have thought, as those blinded by her charm try to make out.

    Fair enough to dispute the low levels of DNA [although that strengthens the case against her, not the other way round because of the anxious cleanup and removal of the weapon to the otehr house].

    As for her character – it’s bad and no amount of bold statements to the contrary and playing down of this is going to alter the truth. As Mariam quite rightly said above:

    For instance they state that there was no evidence that placed her at the crime scene. There is a saying that if you repeat a lie for long enough it becomes truth.

    Evidence has to be looked at as a whole. The selective analysis of bits of disputed evidence which takes place on various websites by Ms Knox’s supporters, is a far cry from what takes place in a court of law. The jury hears all the evidence and must deliberate on it.

    Unfortunately, continuing to insist she is innocent on the grounds that one wants her to be innocent does not constitute proof – it constitutes denial. 19 judges and a jury considered her case, looked at all the evidence and concluded that she was guilty. End of story.

  43. David December 22, 2009 at 19:44 Permalink

    She was not arrested. She was fined. That’s how minor the infraction was. It’s like getting a fine for underage drinking or something.

    A lot of what you’re saying sounds like it comes right out all those credible media sources we’ve come to know.

    Let me give an example of the crazy misreporting that’s gone on. We’ve heard a lot about cartwheels in this case. But did you know that, in reality, she didn’t perform one cartwheel. Here’s what actually happened. AK was waiting in a room by herself to speak with the police. To try and relax, she started doing some yoga poses. Someone walked by the room thought it was strange and interpreted one of the poses and associated movements as cartwheels… and this was leaked out to the press. Is it still a bit kooky to do yoga while waiting? Sure. But mind you, she thought she was in the room by herself. I don’t find it that unusual really.

    The writings… again, this is ridiculous. The writing you reference was a creative assignment from one of her classes. She and her fellow students were supposed to write on some kind of sexually violent crime or something like that… and apparently her version was a lot tamer than most, and not particularly well done.

    I think it’s likely that she was using/abusing drugs. I don’t know to what extent. But it seems that she wasn’t the only one in her student community that was using…. apparently, it was pervasive…. and AK’s roommates at the cottage were reportedly also using. And let’s not forget that Guede was not only using, but dealing.

    If this was some kind of drug fueled sex game gone wrong, why didn’t the police test AK and RS to see what they had in their systems? Even though this was some time later, you would think that they would want to know what kind of drugs they may have had in their system. Did they test? I don’t know, but I don’t recall seeing this as evidence. The question goes to capacity as well. Somehow, they were so high on drugs that they ended up killing MK with RG. BUT then they managed to come to their senses, clean up the scene to remove any incriminating trace of their DNA but leave RG’s behind and they were able to stage a break in? Oh, and why again did we not find any evidence at all on the mop/bucket?

  44. James Higham December 22, 2009 at 21:09 Permalink

    Sigh. One can present the evidence and heaven knows there’s been so much both in the posts and via commenters but having done that, someone who doesn’t wish to heed it can’t be argued with.

    Just one example. “If this was some kind of drug fueled sex game gone wrong, why didn’t the police test AK and RS to see what they had in their systems? Even though this was some time later…”

    David, you just answered your own question.

    The writings – quite relevant because in a creative writing class, the nature of what comes out speaks of the person. In other words, she had to have had those things in mind to write on them. If she didn’t have, they wouldn’t have appeared on paper.

    And this is leaving aside the constant nature of the testimony about her and her character form close sources – not from people on other continents.

    I really don’t understand this obsession with calling something obviously black white. People around her – at the bar, in the ead up, after the event, her housemates – all come out with the same things.

    If there was any dispute, if it was a lesser case where there was ittle evidence, then the stance of the besotted woud be understandable. But in this case, she has no leg to stand on. It’s not even difficult.

    So why does it go on?

    The PR company publicity machine, that she is American and looks like a homecoming queen from a distance until one examines her.

    That’s all there is.

  45. David December 22, 2009 at 22:07 Permalink

    Well, you’re thinking is flawed in my view.

    If we go by the logic you’re using about the writing, then we should seek out and commit the entire creative writing class to a hospital for evaluation as they had the exact same assignment (the same subject matter).

    On the detection of drugs in one’s system, marijuana can be detected for nearly a week after smoking. Blood tests are even more accurate… it can take a month before your system is clear. How long a drug stays in your system depends on how much you have smoked/taken. In the case of AK and RS, who supposedly were very high, the police should have had no trouble determining if they were indeed under the influence, even days later.

    We seem to suggest some backing from a PR firm is evil. In this case though, AK’s family has rightly tried to get another side of the story out there. OR should we faithfully trust the authorities/police/prosecution/media without any fear that they may act inappropriately or make bad judgments? Sorry, but I’ll take the checks and balances any day.

    Based on all of the “evidence” presented, taken in parts or taken as a whole, doubts linger for many and I get that. It is what it is, even if you and others believe you see it much more clearly.

    Let’s hope clarity comes for all someday because I think the one thing we can all agree on is that none of us know exactly what happened that night.

  46. Harry Rag May 10, 2010 at 18:22 Permalink

    The evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is overwhelming.

    Amanda Knox’s DNA was found on:

    1. On the double DNA knife and a number of independent forensic experts – Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo and Professor Francesca Torricelli – categorically stated that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade.

    2. Mixed with Meredith’s blood on the ledge of the basin.

    3. Mixed with Meredith’s blood on the bidet.

    4. Mixed with Meredith blood on a box of Q Tip cotton swabs.

    5. Mixed with Meredith’s blood in the hallway.

    6. Mixed with Meredith’s blood on the floor of Filomena’s room, where the break-in was staged.

    7. On Meredith’s bra according to Dr. Stefanoni AND Raffaele Sollecito’s forensic expert, Professor Vinci.

    Amanda Knox’s footprints were found set in Meredith’s blood in two places in the hallway of the new wing of the cottage. One print was exiting her own room, and one print was outside Meredith’s room, facing into the room. These bloody footprints were only revealed under luminol.

    A woman’s bloody shoeprint, which matched Amanda Knox’s foot size, was found on a pillow under Meredith’s body. The bloody shoeprint was incompatible with Meredith’s shoe size.

    Two independent imprint experts categorically excluded the possibility that the bloody footprint on the blue bathmat could belong to Rudy Guede. Lorenzo Rinaldi stated:

    “You can see clearly that this bloody footprint on the rug does not belong to Mr. Guede, but you can see that it is compatible with Sollecito.”

    The other imprint expert print expert testified that the bloody footprint on the blue bathmat matched the precise characteristics of Sollecito’s foot.

    An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp. Sollecito must have applied considerable pressure to the clasp in order to have left so much DNA. The hooks on the clasp were damaged which confirms that Sollecito had gripped them tightly.

    According to Judge Massei and Judge Cristiani, Rudy Guede’s visible bloody footprints lead straight out of Meredith’s room and out of the house. He didn’t lock Meredith’s door, remove his trainers, go into Filomena’s room or the bathroom that Meredith and Knox shared.

    He didn’t scale the vertical wall outside Filomena’s room or gain access through the window. The break-in was clearly staged. This indicates that somebody who lived at the cottage was trying to deflect attention away from themselves and give the impression that a stranger had broken in and killed Meredith.

    Guede had no reason to stage the break-in and there was no physical evidence that he went into Filomena’s room or the bathroom. The scientific police found a mixture of Knox’s DNA and Meredith’s blood on the floor in Filomena’s room. They also found irrefutable proof that Knox and Sollecito had tracked Meredith’s blood into the bathroom.

    The murder dynamic implicates Knox and Sollecito.

    Barbie Nadeau wrote the following:

    “Countless forensic experts, including those who performed the autopsies on Kercher’s body, have testified that more than one person killed her based on the size and location of her injuries and the fact that she didn’t fight back—no hair or skin was found under her fingernails.”

    Judge Paolo Micheli claimed that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito knew precise details about Meredith’s murder that they could have only known if they were present when she was killed.

    Amanda Knox voluntarily admitted that she involved in Meredith’s murder in her handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007. She stated on at least four separate occasions that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed. She also claimed that Sollecito was at the cottage.

    Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito both gave multiple conflicting alibis and lied repeatedly. Their lies were exposed by telephone and computer records, and by CCTV footage. Neither Knox nor Sollecito have credible alibis for the night of the murder despite three attempt each. At the trial, Sollecito refused to corroborate Knox’s alibi that she was at his apartment.

    Legal expert Stefano Maffei stated the following:

    “There were 19 judges who looked at the evidence over the course of two years, faced with decisions on pre-trial detention, review of such detention, committal to trial, judgment on criminal responsibility. They all agreed, at all times, that the evidence was overwhelming.”

  47. James Higham May 10, 2010 at 19:06 Permalink

    You’re not wrong, Harry.

  48. David May 10, 2010 at 19:39 Permalink

    I’m still not convinced. Too many elements have question marks around them.

  49. Harry Rag May 10, 2010 at 19:42 Permalink

    Hi David,

    When you read the judges’ sentencing report, you will realise that the evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is compelling and substantial.

  50. David May 10, 2010 at 22:25 Permalink

    We’ll see, but from what I’ve heard there’s nothing particularly new or compelling presented in the report.

  51. James Higham May 10, 2010 at 22:26 Permalink

    Is her appeal coming up?

  52. Harry Rag May 10, 2010 at 22:49 Permalink

    I’ve read the translated report and discovered new information about the evidence against Knox and Sollecito that hasn’t been reported in the media.

    I seriously doubt whether your source has actually read a properly translated version of the whole report because if they had, they wouldn’t claim that there is nothing particularly new or compelling in it. I suspect your source has read the report after it has been translated by Google. It’s not the same thing.

  53. Harry Rag May 10, 2010 at 23:12 Permalink

    Hi David,

    You wrote:

    “This whole investigation has been badly handled by the Italian authorities and the prosecution. From a contaminated crime scene, sloppy investigating, strong arm manipulative tactics in their interrogation to irresponsible speculation on the part of the prosecution. Horrible.”

    There is no evidence whatsoever the crime scene had been contaminated.

    You weren’t present when Amanda Knox was interrogated, so you don’t know that there were any “strong arm manipulative tactics”. All the witnesses who were actually present, including Knox’s interpreter, testified under oath that she was treated well.

    There wasn’t any irresponsible speculation on the part of the prosecution. Mignini put forward a scenario when summing up the case in court. This is what prosecutors do.

    I recommend supporting your opinions with facts. You’ll find that it will help you have more credibility when posting your comments on the Internet.

    I have some questions for you:

    1. Why do you think Knox and Sollecito repeatedly told the police a pack of lies and gave multiple conflicting alibis?

    2. Who do you think staged the break-in in Filomena’s room?

    3. Who do you think tracked Meredith’s blood into the bathroom that Knox and Meredith shared?

  54. David May 11, 2010 at 02:34 Permalink

    Harry, your spin on things may influence some, but not me. Many of your so-called facts are grounded in the prosecution’s case or scenario of what happened that fateful night, and it’s clear that you’ve bought into Mignini’s theory hook, line and sinker.

    Mignini put forward a scenario, absolutely… a scenario that he conjured up even before any physical evidence was brought to bear. Oh yes, and this is the same prosecutor who tried to wrongly convict some 20+ people for crimes they didn’t commit. Sorry, but his credibility is highly suspect.

    As for your questions, sorry… but I won’t be drawn into answering them at any length. I’ve already discussed these points elsewhere and I’m a bit weary from the whole thing. In short: 1) confused, scared, bullied, snowballed out of control 2) no definitive evidence beyond doubt that a break-in was staged (Guede was skilled in break and entry though) 3) Amanda’s DNA, of course, would be in the bathroom as she shared it with Meredith and the DNA profile of Amanda’s in the samples were weak suggesting the obvious: mixed DNA b/c of co-habitation.

  55. Harry Rag May 11, 2010 at 12:26 Permalink

    David,

    1. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito lied before 5 November 2007, so you cannot claim that they were “confused, scared, bullied, snowballed out of control”.

    These lies are explored in depth in the judges’ sentencing report, which you clearly haven’t read.

    Raffaele Sollecito admitted that he and Knox had lied to the police and claimed that Knox had asked him to lie for her.

    On 5 November, they were given another opportunity to tell the truth. However, they both chose to tell the police even more lies.

    2. There is no absolutely no doubt that the break-in was staged.

    There were shards of glass on top of Filomena’s clothes on the floor. In court, the prosecutors showed photographs of shattered glass on top of scattered clothes. This proves that the window was broken after the room had been ransacked.

    Nothing of value was taken even though there were valuable items in plain view. Sollecito already knew nothing had been stolen from Filomena’s room and he told the police that nothing had been stolen before Filomena confirmed this.

    The outside shutter was closed and because of a warp. It was stuck against the window sill. The burglar would have needed to climb to the window to open the shutter first, before throwing the rock.

    There was no glass on the grass or ground below, but broken glass was on the window sill. This fact indicates that the window was broken from the inside while the outside shutters were closed. If the window had been broken from the outside, there would have been shards of glass outside, but there wasn’t even one piece of glass.

    There is no evidence that anyone stood outside Filomena’s window and climbed up the vertical wall. There were no marks from soil, grass or rubber soles on the wall. The earth of the evening of 1 November was very wet, so if anybody had climbed the wall, they would have left some marks on it.

    There was a large nail protruding from the wall. This nail would almost certainly have been used by an intruder climbing up the wall. However, there was no sign that this nail had been stepped on.

    The glass on the window sill and on the floor show no signs of being touched after the window was broken, which would have been the case if the intruder had gained entry through the window.

    There was not a single biological trace on any of the shards of glass. It would have been very likely that an intruder balancing on the window sill would have suffered some kind of injury or cut because of the shards of glass.

    In order to open the latch, the burglar would have had to kneel while doing so, and he would have cut his knees, if he had not cleaned the window sill first. Yet that wasn’t done and if he had done this, there would have been glass on the ground below.

    There was no physical evidence of Rudy Guede in Filomena’s room. He left the cottage almost immediately after Meredith screamed. However, someone tracked Meredith’s blood into Filomena’s room after she had been stabbed.

    The scientific police found Amanda Knox’s DNA mixed with Meredith’s blood on the floor. The criminal biologists involved in the case are in no doubt that Amanda Knox was in Filomena’s room after Meredith had been stabbed.

    Incidentally, you have no evidence that Rudy Guede was “skilled in break and entry”. I take it you mean breaking and entering.

    3. As I’ve already pointed out, Rudy’s Guede visible bloody footprints lead straight out of Meredith’s room and out of the house. They became progressively weaker and fainter. There is absolutely no evidence that he went into the blood-spattered bathroom.

    The judges’ report has detailed analysis on why the bare bloody footprint on the blue bathmat belonged to Raffaele Sollecito and was incompatible with Rudy Guede’s foot.

    Sollecito’s also left a bare bloody footprint in the hallway, which is further proof that he had stepped in Meredith’s blood whilst barefooted.

    The Kerchers’ lawyer, Francesco Maresca, called the mixed blood evidence “the most damning piece” of evidence against Knox. And Judge Massei and Judge Cristiani paid particular attention to the mixed samples of blood in their sentencing report.

    The reason why the mixed blood evidence is so damning is that Amanda Knox’s DNA wasn’t outlier DNA that had been left some time earlier.

    Amanda Knox herself effectively dated the blood stains in the bathroom to the night of the murder at the trial when she conceded there was no blood in the bathroom the day before.

    Three of the samples were “perfect”. Dr. Stefanoni said the most compelling forensic evidence against Knox was the mixed blood sample found on the drain of the bidet and it certainly wasn’t the result of co-habitation.

    You wrote:

    “But, oh yes, there’s some 200+ samples of Guede’s DNA.”

    This is complete and utter nonsense. There was a total of five instances of Rudy Guede’s DNA at the crime scene. You should get your facts straight before making a fool out of yourself on the Internet.

    I highly recommend reading the translated version of the judges’ report when it becomes available because the sources you are currently relying upon are clearly unreliable.

  56. David May 11, 2010 at 18:22 Permalink

    1. When exactly the inconsistencies started is really immaterial and doesn’t prove anything concrete. I still have doubts about how all of these inconsistencies developed and how the police handled this case. It wouldn’t be the first time that innocent persons have been convicted, wrongly, in part because they ended up unintentionally incriminating themselves or casting doubt upon themselves. This often happens in wrongful conviction cases.

    2. There is NO evidence to suggest that Amanda staged the break in. Amanda’s DNA was of course in various parts of the house because she lived there. How could it be that Amanda killed Meredith and then no DNA of Amanda’s was found in Meredith’s room, where the murder was committed? That was some amazing cover up staged by two young people who were under the influence of drugs at the time and who, according to the jury/judges, didn’t plan to carry out a murder that night. Oh, and NO evidence of a wipe down of the house was found. Zilch.

    3. AK and RS were no strangers to the house. It’s not unusual or unexpected for scant traces of their DNA to be found around the house.

    This case is riddled with rampant speculation, contradictions, inconsistencies, etc. You may go on and on suggesting the evidence is hard and concrete, but this is far from the case.

    Mignini has no credibility in my eyes. I don’t trust him based on what I’ve read and heard. He has conducted witch hunts in the past… and it’s possible that this is exactly what developed in this case as well. The way this case was managed, where we had leaks to the press feeding the rampant speculation as to AK and RS’s guilt, was completely irresponsible and reprehensible.

    We have seen reports that Guede has admitted to other inmates and to his father that AK and RS were never there in the house, but another unidentified male was. I don’t know about the credibility of these reports, but they would be consistent with the theory that it was Guede who committed this heinous crime. Regardless of the exact number of samples, the forensic evidence against him was overwhelming: bloody footprints, DNA, fingerprints, palm prints, bodily fluids, hair… We can’t say this about AK or RS.

    Guede was indeed known for breaking and entering. He had been investigated by the police on more than one occasion. He was also known for carrying knives with him. Those are the facts. The forensic evidence against him was overwhelming. He was the one who fled the country. He was the one with cuts to his fingers from the struggle he must have had with Meredith. He’s the one who agreed to a fast-track trial. He’s the one who initially said AK and RS were not there.

    Mixed blood? What mixed blood? No evidence of mixed blood was found. Let’s get the facts straight. DNA was found to be mixed with Meredith’s blood… but again, this is not unexpected given that AK and RS spent time in the cottage.

    Based on all I’m aware of, the case against AK and RS is weak.

    You have not presented anything to me that’s new or compelling. It’s more of the same stuff, fueled by all the speculation and horrid reporting on this case.

    We all want true justice for Meredith, an innocent girl. But we must make sure we get it right beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, I see no mountain of concrete evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that AK and RS were the killers.

  57. James Higham May 11, 2010 at 19:08 Permalink

    that AK and RS were the killers

    Plus Guede. There is a reply to each point of yours, David plus the ones you failed to mention but as I’m currently into our politics plus Common Purpose, it will be some days to address your points.

  58. Harry Rag May 11, 2010 at 19:15 Permalink

    David,

    Let’s get one thing straight. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito lied to the police. Both Sollecito and Knox gave completely different accounts of who they were with and what they doing on the night of the murder. These weren’t “inconsistencies”, but huge, whopping lies.

    Sollecito claimed that he had slept until after 10.00am on 2 November 2007. However, this lie was exposed by his telephone records and data recovered from his computer.

    He used his computer at 5.32am.

    He turned on his mobile phone at 6.02am.

    He received three phone calls at 9.24am, 9.29am and 9.30am.

    Lying repeatedly and giving multiple conflicting alibis will considered a clear indication of guilt in any murder trial.

    All the other people who were questioned by the police told the truth and had one credible alibi that could be verified. As direct result they were all quickly eliminated from the investigation.

    Knox and Sollecito still don’t have credible alibis for the night of the murder despite three attempts each. Sollecito is still refusing to corroborate Knox’s alibi that she was with him at his apartment.

    Why did Amanda Knox voluntarily admit that she was involved in Meredith’s murder?

  59. David May 11, 2010 at 19:23 Permalink

    James, go ahead… but I won’t be spending any more time on this debate. I’ve heard the counterpoints before. You’re heard mine.

    To anyone who may come across this debate, I encourage you to independently research all that is presented and do your best to make sense of it all. I do not consider James or Harry as unbiased sources… and clearly I am not an authority on this case. I’m probably just like you: someone who’s trying to make sense of it all. In my mind, the case against AK and RS defies all logic and is far from air tight.

  60. James Higham May 11, 2010 at 22:04 Permalink

    “James, go ahead… but I won’t be spending any more time on this debate.”

    I think that says it all, doesn’t it?

  61. David May 11, 2010 at 22:22 Permalink

    I don’t know. Does it? ;o)

  62. Chad May 17, 2010 at 08:52 Permalink

    In my opinion: Armchair detectives like us are the least biased. It seems to me that we all would take pride in knowing for ourselves that we have this thing figured out. I imagine it is similar for someone who becomes a real detective. The detectives are not going to gain anything either way. Their payscale is predetermined, and their pension is based on years served. They have the task of keeping their job, and credibilty, no matter what politician is currently on their way through. The best way to do that is to be in it for the truth. One is least threatening when they are predictable. And I think any crooked politician could use that predictability to their advantage, or at least work around it so to speak. Anyway, the lead detective recently said, when asked by a reporter, that he knew he had found his killer when he met Amanda. It is actually quite easy to tell if someone is hiding something, and/or lying, isn’t it? And if you have made it your profession, then one would be that much better at it.

    To me the other most credible person is Rudy Guede.

    For Guede: he has been in and out of the system pretty much his whole life in the Ivory Coast from what I’ve read. He knows the fire drill, so to speak: Admit your role, cop a plea bargain, and do your time. Along the way, gain some points for your appeal, or parole if you can. He was at the scene, everyone knows it, let’s fast track this trial, and get my time started.

    As for AK and RS, they still can’t get their stories straight.

    That said, the question for me is not whether they were involved or not, but how much they were involved.

    So instead of further dissecting the evidence and debating the validity of it all, what is the judgement from where we sit?

    Completely innocent, completely guilty, or accomplices?

    And let’s not forget that AK and RS still cannot get their stories straight. They cannot get their lies, or their truths, straight, after almost three years.

  63. James Higham May 17, 2010 at 10:38 Permalink

    One thing for sure, Chad – at least the issue has been talked out and that’s the healthiest thing of all – that we can still do that.

    Personally, I agree that we begin unbiased. If Knox was really being stitched up, if her background in the U.S. was benign [which it was most certainly not], if she hadn’t acted as she did and if the CCTV had not placed her at the scene, then I’d be a strong advocate for her, as I was for Jessica Watson in the round the world voyage.

    But the simple fact is that Knox’s whole defence stinks. The trouble is that we are now divided into camps – the usual thing in every issue from JFK onwards – and it is so hard to get the whole picture laid out.

    Which comes back to why such posts as this and many, many others you guys have written out there are vital in presenting what facts we can know.

    Thanks.

  64. Chad May 17, 2010 at 23:34 Permalink

    Yes, I agree with your point about Amanda’s defense. It is not believable at all. Her defense is based on injecting doubt in to the case, whereas the prosecution is saying, “ok, here is what she said happened, and here are the facts to show she is lying. And futher, here are CCTV tapes, phone records, etc.”

    The pro-Amanda camp seems to have two main subdivisions. 1. Those who believe that Mignini has railroaded, and/or framed her. 2. Those who cast doubt on the procedural handling/mishandling of evidence.

    So the pro Amanda camp, has a conspiracy theory, and “botched case” theory. To be frank it should be called the “O.J.Defense,”
    and it’s really all they have left.

    That is not enough for me. Raising doubts is not enough. Everything Amanda has offered has been exposed as a lie.

    Her appeal is in October. She better have something significant, and new to present: The truth.

    The irony is that I think something that is merely believable would suffice as the truth. Just give everyone watching something other than a complete lie. Something that we can start to rebuild your character, and credibility on.

  65. David May 18, 2010 at 21:00 Permalink

    Let’s be clear on one thing: Amanda Knox was NOT proven to be the person on the CCTV. The film was so grainy and of such poor quality that it was NOT possible to recognize the identity of the person being filmed. The reality is that it very well could have been Meredith herself returning to the cottage. Claims that the grainy image was Amanda were based solely upon the wild speculation of the prosecutor.

    Harry and others are good at saying “get the facts right”… but they’re not so good at following their own counsel. The CCTV footage was inconclusive and proved absolutely nothing!

    When the prosecutor is found guilty of mishandling a case and falsely accusing some 20-plus people, I think one would be foolish not to question whether his handling of other cases. Please!

    We have video footage that confirms evidence was moved at the murder scene (e.g. the bra). Wrong to worry about botched evidence? I think not.

    The one thing we can agree on, James, is that it’s damn hard to get to the truth and objectively analyze the evidence we do have because the picture is cluttered with arguments and a lot of misinformation (from both sides).

    I’m NOT convinced of guilt in this case for AK and RS.

  66. Harry Rag May 18, 2010 at 21:30 Permalink

    David,

    I wasn’t referring to the CCTV footage of the white figure on 1 November, but the arrival of the postal police on 2 November.

    Mignini hasn’t been been found guilty of mishandling a case or falsely accusing anybody. Please get your facts straight.

    I recommend reading the judges’ sentencing report once it’s published in English. At the moment you’re speaking from a position of ignorance.

  67. David May 18, 2010 at 21:46 Permalink

    Really, Harry?

    Then I guess you better go back and clarify this in the hundreds of posts you’ve splattered across the Web where you reference AK getting caught on CCTV.

    And if Mignini is so innocent and above reproach, then why did a Florence court convict him for “abuse of office” for illegally tapping the phones of police officers and journalists investigating the “Monster of Florence” serial killings between 1968 and 1985?

    Here’s a link for you:
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20003238-504083.html

    Yeah, Mignini couldn’t possibly be wrong.

  68. Harry Rag May 18, 2010 at 22:04 Permalink

    David,

    You wrote:

    “Then I guess you better go back and clarify this in the hundreds of posts you’ve splattered across the Web where you reference AK getting caught on CCTV.”

    This isn’t true. Please get your facts straight.

  69. David May 19, 2010 at 00:06 Permalink

    You’re right, Harry. Probably not in the hundreds, but you’ve referenced the CCTV coverage in many of your posts where you outline the case as you see it. Funny how the prosecution leaked this whole idea of AK on CCTV… it’s just SO responsible, isn’t it?

    And by the way, the arrival of the postal police on Nov. 2 proves absolutely nothing other than some confusion about when phone calls were made… big whoop, Harry.

  70. Harry Rag May 19, 2010 at 00:14 Permalink

    David,

    I have it on good authority that Mignini never leaks, so I seriously doubt that the prosecution leaked the CCTV footage. I think you’re getting confused between the police and the prosecutors.

    The police claim the CCTV camera recorded the arrival of the postal police at 12.25pm on 2 November. Sollecito called 112 at 12.51pm and 12.54pm.

  71. James Higham May 19, 2010 at 00:15 Permalink

    The CCTV image was quite clear enough – that’s a beat-up which the defend Knox at all costs people always try on. With CCTV, the issue isn’t only outline but how the figure moves etc. Most people are judging by stills and they are impossible. Even with the way the footage was presented, it had to go through loss of quality from the master. The original also had the benefit of technical analysis and they’ve established identity on far less than that before.

    In the end, it’s not a case so much of could it possibly be her but why not? It was her home and the time fits. Finally, the CCTV image was only one piece of so many things unexplained by the defence.

  72. David May 19, 2010 at 04:28 Permalink

    James, the CCTV footage was NOT “quite clear enough,” as you say. Why are you planting misinformation here? Hoping others will take this as guilt? Pathetic.

    The CCTV footage was inconclusive and, in fact, the timing suggests the figure could very well have been Meredith herself. Using your logic, why wouldn’t it have been Meredith? “It was her home and the time fits.”

  73. James Higham May 19, 2010 at 06:32 Permalink

    Again – speculation on the timing of Meredith’s return, given her friends’ testimony which did not put her there at that time. You said it yourself – might well have been. No, it might well NOT have been. The CCTV was at 20:41 and by the admission of Meredith’s friends, her return was not until much later.

    This is quite a simple matter of testimony. Even granted the “graininess”, which is not overly difficult to analyse, even conceding the inconclusiveness – it is timed wrongly. So who is it? The housemate? Nope. Testimony again.

    You see, David, in our armchair speculation, even granted that you have pored over the evidence available to us, the public, granted that you are an intelligent analyst, you are coming at this from a double edged standpoint – one, that you don’t like seeing anyone convicted on flimsy evidence [commendable] and two, no matter what you say, a certain feeling for Amanda Knox.

    So what we are arguing over is that word “flimsy” or as some extreme Knox supporters say: “no” evidence. But it is not “flimsy” at all. It is “thin” but it is substantive none the less and it fits the whole.

    The defence made a big issue of her character back home – that she was a loving friend etc. That may well have been so but there was also triple evidence that she was heavily into drugs and sex in the U.S., that she had a conviction for disorderly and was fined – the only one fined after that party [and why would that have been?], her behaviour on the train fitted that as well, as long with all her other weird behaviour, which needs explaining.

    If she was the demure girl her parents and team make out, then why this aberration? Police pressure? Give me a break. Drugs and the dissolute lifestyle where she’d lost all decency? More likely. A girl out of control and are you saying that girls do not go out of control under those influences?

    Then we come back to the bits of hard evidence like the conviction and like the blood, like the CCTV which put someone there, given that Rudi had a different entry path; we have the testimony and then we have the reconstruction on most likely scenario, including scenarios put in Knox’s inconsistent evidence [and that cannot be brushed under the carpet] which patently could not be, plus her attempt to pin it on someone else the first time and then later on Sollecito.

    I began this with two pretty girls in a story. If the weight of evidence had led to a stitch up of the innocent and pretty Knox, I’d be where you are now. The weight did not point that way at all and the defence [quite understandably] has ignored “most likely scenario”, which is what the police are doing the whole time.

    This is not just Mignini either – it is 19 judges. Even granted his assiduousness, his zealousness on other occasions [not seriously disputed], he still has to prove his case and he did that to the satisfaction of the court. They would also be aware of his reputation.

    In the end, there is too much crucial evidence, both substantive and circumstantial which, combined, are indicative and even in isolation, are ignored by the defence for strategic reasons.

  74. James Higham May 19, 2010 at 06:43 Permalink

    And please note this by Mariam above:

    I have been in the legal profession for 15 years and what surprises me is the comments by Ms Knox’s supporters . For instance they state that there was no evidence that placed her at the crime scene.

    There is a saying that if you repeat a lie for long enough it becomes truth.

    Instead of wasting time by listing the considerable evidence that was presented during the trial, which places her at the apartment, I’ll assume that it is the logical and intelligent who will read this and move on.

    Evidence has to be looked at as a whole. The selective analysis of bits of disputed evidence which takes place on various websites by Ms Knox’s supporters, is a far cry from what takes place in a court of law. The jury hears all the evidence and must deliberate on it.

    I’d say the success of the well orchestrated pro- Knox PR camapign has been that in selecting some pieces of disputed evidence and ignoring others ,they gave an incomplete picture of went on in the trial and convinced media outlets & the public there was no evidence against Ms Knox.

    Thankfully , this had no bearing on the jury , the trial and will have none on the appeal. It merely stoked up anger, particuarly in America.

    I’m puzzled as to why Knox supporters tried to convince /win over those with no influence on the trial. After all, i have not hearrd of a single civil liberty organisation supporting the notion that Ms Knox had an unfair trial.

    There are many such high calibre organisations in the US and worldwide. If Ms Knox’s trial was so unfair , why did they not involve a group like Amnesty International who specialise in such matters or start a petition? They would struggle to get the backing of high profile or respected figures.

    Here is a sane look at it, not so much in the blogpost but in the comments below:

    http://www.scientificblogging.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/blog/amanda_knox_guilty

    The url refers to the conviction, not an opinion.

    Key points made here:

    http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?style=1&f=1&t=98&start=1750

    These are discussions, with views both ways, not pro or anti-Knox sites.

    Sophie Purton and Robyn Butterworth, two friends of Ms Kercher, have told police that all three had had an early supper of pizza, ice cream and coffee at Robyn’s flat “at about 6pm”, drinking only water and no alcohol (forensic tests on Merediths body have confirmed this).

    They then watched a film on DVD, “The Notebook”, until “about 9pm”. Ms Purton has testified that she then walked home with Ms Kercher, but their ways parted and she went to her own home, leaving Ms Kercher to walk the 500 yards to the cottage in Viale Sant’ Antonio. This would put Ms Kercher’s return to the cottage at about 9.15pm.

  75. David May 19, 2010 at 15:15 Permalink

    On the fairness of the trial… I did not say the trial and court proceedings themselves were unfair. I do question the fairness and integrity of the investigation, mind you, which is led by a loose cannon prosecutor who, as we now know, doesn’t hesitate to break the law himself in conducting his investigations.

    No substantial evidence shouts out to us that AK and RS committed this heinous act. We have a lot of speculation. We have a lot of arguments and disputed evidence. But we have no hard evidence here, other than those pieces that clearly show Rudy Guede was in the cottage with Meredith, had some kind of sexual contact with her, had his hands in her purse, was in Meredith’s room, etc. No hard indisputable evidence places AK and RS in Meredith’s room. Why? They weren’t there.

    The so-called lies and fabrications resulted, in my opinion, from a combination of bad judgment on the part of AK and RS (wouldn’t be the first time innocent persons have said things to incriminate themselves; this happens a lot in cases of wrongful conviction), confusion, fear and pressure from the interrogations. Once again, your comments are misleading. AK was not the one to point the finger at the bar owner. The police did that and asked AK to imagine what could have happened. She later tried to clarify what it was she truly knew and believed. This is not unreasonable to me in the slightest.

    Contrary to your suggestion, AK was an average college kid. There was really nothing special about her. She has no history of crazed, deviant behavior. All we have is a fine for a loud party. Big whoop. This picture of her as a girl out of control comes from the tabloids, the media frenzy and the wild imagination of the prosecutor.

    The most likely scenario is that Rudi Guede acted alone. All of the hard evidence points to him and him alone.

  76. Harry Rag May 19, 2010 at 15:40 Permalink

    David,

    You’ve claimed that you don’t know whether Knox and Sollecito killed Meredith and then you claim they weren’t in Meredith’s room on the night of the murder? Which one is it?

    You’re cutting and pasting lines from Injustice from Perugia and then passing them off as you’re own. It’s not a smart thing to do. You sound like a silly teenager rather than a mature adult.

    There is no need to refer to Knox and Sollecito lies as “so-called lies and fabrications” because there is irrefutable evidence that they both lied deliberately and repeatedly. These lies are meticulously documented in the judges’ sentencing report.

    In case you don’t know, repeatedly telling the police a pack of lies and giving multiple conflicting alibis will be regarded a clear indication of guilt by judges and jurors.

    Voluntarily admitting that you were involved in someone’s murder will also be regarded as indication of guilt. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand this.

    You weren’t present when Amanda Knox was questioned, so you don’t know that she was asked to imagine what could have happened. You don’t seem to have the intellectual capacity to grasp this very basic point. That isn’t a criticism, it’s just an observation.

    There is no evidence that Rudy Guede had his hands in Meredith’s purse. Why don’t you do the sensible thing and read the judges’ report once it’s published in English. That way you won’t make a fool of yourself on the Internet by making numerous false claims.

  77. jameshigham May 19, 2010 at 15:47 Permalink

    Contrary to your suggestion, AK was an average college kid. There was really nothing special about her.

    No, what I was saying was that up to the point she started getting into that lifestyle, she very much was. After that, she took to drugs and sex, as some of those college players said, with gusto and thus began her slide into the slatternly person well documented between Seattle and Italy.

    And an “average college kid”, David, does not get a $250 [thereabouts] fine for disorderly at a party when she was the ONLY one at the party the police charged. Now why would that be?

    The answer is that she was most certainly not, by that point, the average college kid.

    A fellow Knoxite wrote: “Harry Rag’s statement that Amanda Knox was arrested for hosting a party is false; she was given a ticket. Nothing out of the ordinary there.”

    So – no doubt she was given at least that, which alone proves the point. But actually, it was very much a fine:

    The trial of former University of Washington student Amanda Knox took an odd turn Saturday as lawyers in Italy debated the significance of a Seattle party at which Knox was cited for residential disturbance – her only prior documented contact with police.

    Knox took responsibility, was given a $269 fine, which she paid with some money pooled from friends. The ticket was issued June 30, 2007, and the case was closed the next month, according to court records.

    There it is. You have a command of the facts, David and I respect you for that but you are being selective in which ones to allow to see the light of day and which ones not.

  78. David May 19, 2010 at 17:15 Permalink

    Harry, some of what you’ve written is absolute rubbish. Once again, you twist everything to suit your purposes. There was no “pack of lies” as you suggest, but certainly a few conflicting stories that resulted, IN MY OPINION, from, again, confusion, fear and manipulation, deliberate or not, from the police interrogations.

    James… one loud party, which she hosted and hence the reason she was ticketed, and she’s clearly a disturbed individuals and a violent murderer? Give me a break. She was moving toward that lifestyle? Rubbish. We have no hard evidence suggesting she was some kind of psychopath or a girl any more out of control than other college girls. I believe most of what we see here on the slander of her character comes from the tabloids and sheer speculation and imagination.

    Harry, I could care less what you think of me or how I choose to articulate my point of view. I’m not trying to pass lines off as my own, and I certainly don’t need you to tell me what is a smart thing to do and what isn’t.

    You think the courts got it right. I think the courts may have gotten it wrong. You’re not going to convince me. I’m not going to convince you. And should the full truth, without the shroud of doubt, come out someday (I know you already think it has), then we will have to live with our previously stated beliefs and positions. I’m more than comfortable with my position and you will not move me from it. What will move me from it is either 1) confessions from AK/RS or 2) hard evidence that presents no doubt whatsoever that AK/RS killed Meredith (you think we have this; I don’t).

    I’m exiting this debate for now. No, James, that doesn’t mean anything! I simply have no time to continue this discussion at any length.

  79. Harry Rag May 19, 2010 at 18:36 Permalink

    David,

    Knox’s and Sollecito’s various and conflicting accounts of what happened on 1 AND 2 November have been shown to be untrue.

    Please note that Knox lied to Filomena and her friends in an e-mail before 5 November 2007. Sollecito was caught lying to his family in a bugged conversation.

    Your argument that they lied because they were afraid, confused or being manipulated doesn’t apply to the lies mentioned above.

    How many times do you need to be told this before the penny finally drops?

    You’ll need to come up with another feeble and pathetic excuse to explain these lies away.

    You’re not the only person who can’t provide a plausible innocent explanation for the lies Knox and Sollecito told to various people, including the police, friends and family. No-one who believes that Knox and Sollecito are innocent has been able to do so either.

    Innocent people tell the truth and have one credible alibi that can be verified. Is that so difficult for you to understand?

  80. David May 19, 2010 at 20:14 Permalink

    Innocent people, for various reasons, make the mistake of incriminating themselves (fear, confusion, pressure, stress, exhaustion, etc.). This often happens in wrongful convictions.

    This discussion isn’t going anywhere, Harry. Perhaps we’ll take it up again should new developments come to light. ;o)

  81. James Higham May 19, 2010 at 21:24 Permalink

    James… one loud party, which she hosted and hence the reason she was ticketed, and she’s clearly a disturbed individuals and a violent murderer? Give me a break. She was moving toward that lifestyle? Rubbish. We have no hard evidence suggesting she was some kind of psychopath or a girl any more out of control than other college girls. I believe most of what we see here on the slander of her character comes from the tabloids and sheer speculation and imagination.

    You didn’t listen, David, nor did I present as extreme a scenario as you do – that’s a strawman I never put forward. You can’t lightly brush off the fine and it was an arrest and fine, not just a ticket and that fine was for her only, not for anyone else.

    You can’t brush that aside, especially as it occurred immediately prior to the trip, preceding the sleeping on the train and the drugs accompanying her first days in the town. Put that with her quite disturbing internet stuff about violence and weird sex and there is one kooky girl.

    Now even then it doesn’t tip her over the line as a killer. All it does is make her hyper-susceptible, both in the company she was choosing [Meredith had commented on that], she became sexually slovenly [vibrator left around in the bathroom, toilet not flushed and so on], which are surefire telltale signs of a person’s mindset.

    Into this came a bad boy and she clearly liked “interesting” men – Guede. I don’t read her as a she-devil at all but as a follower – a girl who would set the agenda with her housemates but would follow the lead when it came to a strong male lead and if that lead was bad – and in Guede’s case, he’s clearly a wrong ‘un – then it’s a recipe for disaster.

    By her own admission, she was out of her head that night, she resented Meredith greatly for her prissy ways and even now she would not have taken part but Guede was something else and fuelled the two of them to the point that it did happen.

    There’s the bottom line. It wasn’t the bar owner, it wasn’t an outsider, it was one, two or all of those three. That Guede was the main killer is not really in dispute but the notion of him doing that in that house by himself, given that Knox even placed herself there in one of her tales, does not accord with the physical evidence and all the other evidence.

    That she was in no way traumatized by it, even the next day, not white-faced, not stunned – even going shopping in that carefree way, is just one step too far in terms of incredulity. Only a rabid Knoxite could possibly ignore everything standing out a mile and exonerate her as an innocent.

    Innocent? In no way, shape or form did anything which happened establish her innocence but many things indicated her guilt, at least as far as collusion in the act or at a minimum, knowledge of it goes.

  82. David May 19, 2010 at 21:51 Permalink

    Okay, James. I know where you and Harry stand. Perhaps others can voice their views and engage with you on these questions. I’m out for now.

  83. Chad May 21, 2010 at 19:31 Permalink

    Jeff Feene wrote:
    “…although i knew she named patrick lumumba as the murderer , supposedly under heavy suggestion, and pressure, and lack of sleep, i just learned yesterday that the next day she wrote a 5 page memorandum , in which she still claimed he was the likely murderer, while she was in the kitchen.”

    She damned herself when she fingered the bar owner, and also said she was there when it happened.

    Anyway, given all the information in this blog, and what has been published, still, the crux for me is: where were Amanda and Rafael that night?

    Pro knoxies: They can’t even tell us where they were. The issue is not that they can’t prove where they were. They can’t even just tell us WHERE they were.

    Again, the issue is not that their wherabouts cannot be proven.
    It is the fact that every explanation they have given of their whereabouts, has been disproven. Disproven by whom? The police, and themselves when they changed their stories. Big difference for me.

    It’s lying 101: You say, “I don’t know,” and/or, “I don’t recall.”

    Verdict: Guilty, but not a sociopath. A sociopath would have honestly not cared, and probably just shrugged their shoulders when asked where they were. It was Halloween? She missed her chance to say, “I don’t know, but I woke up this morning still drunk in a dumpster, a bush, an abandoned warehouse, etc.

    Case closed. This has been a mystery solved by Nourishing Obscurity. I’m available for comment, as needed. Just leave a post. I will check back often.

  84. David May 21, 2010 at 21:48 Permalink

    A mystery solved by Nourishing Obscurity? I think not. I’m not sure why you would even suggest this.

    On Amanda’s written statement, she was actually asked to set down her statements from the previous night. She did so in a manner fully consistent with her version of the story, which is that the police had asked her to imagine what might have happened had Patrick been involved. She later retracted her comments in another written statement in which she tried to clarify that, in truth, she did not know what had happened on that tragic night.

    As for this question on whereabouts, this is all very confusing, I know… We have no hard evidence or proof that RS and AK were in the cottage on the night of the murder, contrary to what others believe and even what the judges/jury came to believe.

    The two initially told the same story. They were at RS’s apartment. Under intense pressure, they began changing their accounts. That is the source of the inconsistencies and conflicting stories.

    You consider the case closed. I believe it’s very much still open.

  85. Harry Rag May 21, 2010 at 22:00 Permalink

    David,

    You continuously get your facts wrong.

    You wrote:

    “The two initially told the same story. They were at RS’s apartment. Under intense pressure, they began changing their accounts. That is the source of the inconsistencies and conflicting stories.”

    This is not true. They contradicted each other from the very beginning.

    The police were not aware of many of Knox’s and Sollecito’s lies until they got their phone records and the data from Sollecito’s computer.

    I’ve already pointed out to you that Knox lied to Filomena on 2 November and to her friends in an e-mail on 4 November. Sollecito lied to his family in a bugged conversation in prison. These lies cannot be attributed to intense pressure from the police.

  86. David May 21, 2010 at 22:44 Permalink

    Untrue. For the first several days, both AK and RS gave the same account as to their whereabouts. It was only after intense questioning on Nov. 5/6 that conflicting statements emerged.

    We have no hard evidence that Knox lied to Filomena. All we have is a disagreement and confusion on the timing of events. I am not aware of any bugged conversations that implicated RS.

  87. David May 21, 2010 at 23:08 Permalink

    When Guede was arrested, he had severe cuts on the inside of his fingers on his good hand. Guede was known to carry a knife. Neither Knox nor Sollectio had cuts on their fingers or hands.

  88. James Higham May 21, 2010 at 23:18 Permalink

    Neither Knox nor Sollectio had cuts on their fingers or hands.

    They could hold a knife properly?

  89. Chad May 22, 2010 at 00:28 Permalink

    David, the solved by nourishing obscurity comment was tongue in cheek.

    My issue is mainly that no truth came out of their testimonies, even the version they agreed on was disproven from my understanding. And as of today, apparently RS, now will not corroborate AK.

    Your point about the cuts, or lack thereof, is interesting. Guede saying he heard AK and Meredith arguing right before the murder is interesting too. The appeal will be very revealing I think.

    I am looking to see if RS starts to distance himself from AK, or vice versa.

    The question of their whereabouts is the crux for me:
    their stories have not just been put into doubt, but they have been shown to be false.

    Giving us an alibi that can be proven would be ideal, but at the very least, a story that cannot be completely discredited would suffice for me.

    Thank you. I’ll be here all week.

  90. David May 22, 2010 at 17:16 Permalink

    Guede has absolutely no credibility so we can’t really believe anything he says or claims.

    I get it on the question of their whereabouts. And I do NOT dispute that their stories have been put into doubt. BUT!!!! How exactly did these different stories emerge? Harry Rag wants everyone to think that they lied from the very beginning. This is false. The conflicting stories only came out during the police questioning. For three days, RS and AK told the same story: they were at his apartment. Period. Under intense pressure from the authorities and manipulative tactics, other version of events emerged.

    It’s not difficult to discredit versions of events that simply didn’t happen and were pulled from the suspects under heavy and intense questioning.

    This would NOT be the first time that innocent people have unintentionally incriminated themselves. Too bad the authorities didn’t tape the AK interrogation… they taped everything else up until then (bugged phones, etc.), but did not record the AK interrogation. Or did they? If they didn’t, why not? If they did, why has it disappeared?

    The most likely scenario in this whole business is that poor Meredith walked in on a home invasion. Guede attacked her, took money from her purse, used her cell phone to try and call her UK bank and then, as we all know, fled the country.

    We have a conviction here based on scant evidence, conflicting stories that may very well have been created based on confusion from drug use + police interrogation tactics + fear and the wild imagination of a prosecutor.

  91. Harry Rag May 22, 2010 at 17:21 Permalink

    David,

    Why did Amanda Knox lie to Filomena on 2 November?

  92. David May 22, 2010 at 17:36 Permalink

    What was the lie? Explain.

  93. Harry Rag May 22, 2010 at 19:19 Permalink

    When Amanda Knox told Filomena that the window in her room was broken, Filomena told her to phone the police. Knox told Filomena that she had already phoned them. Knox’s mobile phone records proved that this was untrue.

    Knox and Sollecito were repeatedly caught out lying by their phone records for 1 and 2 November 2007. The judges meticulously document Knox’s and Sollecito’s lies and contradictions in their report.

    Knox and Sollecito lied to the police from the very beginning, which is a fact that was acknowledged by Sollecito. He claimed that Knox had asked him to lie for her. Please note that he didn’t attribute his lies to confusion and fear.

    Knox’s and Sollecito’s accounts of what happened on 1 November didn’t match up. For example, Sollecito told the police that he and Knox had left the cottage on Via della Pergola at 6.00pm and that they went for a walk downtown and passed through Piazza Grimana, Piazza Morlacchi and the main fountain in Corso Vannucci.

    Knox told the police that they had left the cottage at 5.00pm and that they went straight to Sollecito’s apartment.

  94. David May 22, 2010 at 20:27 Permalink

    Well, the problem I have with this so-called lie is that it’s totally unreliable. We are assuming that no misunderstanding took place when in fact the chances are quite high when you consider that Filomena doesn’t speak or understand a lot of English… and at the time that this took place, Amanda didn’t speak very much Italian. With an event like this where everyone is upset and chaos surrounds them, it’s not a big stretch to say that they might see or remember things differently.

    On this claim that Amanda had asked Raffaele to lie, I’d have to understand more around the context of that remark because I don’t really trust much of the content coming out of the interrogations and questioning. The police were trying to break these two kids, remember? They were looking for contradictions. They were, seemingly, trying to create them! And they eventually succeeded in generating conflicting stories. But again, what’s the true source of the contradictions?

    On the different accounts of events, are they really that different? In Knox’s mind, they went to Sollecito’s apartment. In Sollecito’s mind, they went for a walk and passed through various spots before going to his apartment. Do we have the transcripts of these police interviews/interrogations, by the way?

    Here’s another thing I don’t understand. If Amanda and Raffaele were staging a break-in, why then would Amanda take a shower first before making her first call. Also, she didn’t make any mention of the disturbance in Filomena’s room until much later.

    If someone was staging a break-in, wouldn’t they call their roommate first thing and say something like “Something has happened. I just got home and the place was broken into and your room has been ransacked.”

    But she didn’t. Why? Because she wasn’t expecting anything when she got back to the cottage. She only realized gradually that something was very, very wrong. All of this is consistent with the idea that Amanda didn’t really know what had happened when she got back to the cottage.

  95. James Higham May 22, 2010 at 20:34 Permalink

    It is our reaction to the lies of both and the subsequent behaviour of Knox which have been misinterpreted by Knoxites. I think it’s fair to say [and Harry will correct me if I'm wrong] but their behaviour is not just backgrounding for us to say: “Oh well, look what type of person she is – where there’s smoke, there’s fire,” but that behaviour is quite material to the case in itself, as Harry has just shown.

    This comments thread began with me being attacked from all sides and fighting a lone hand. Now, it’s poor old David getting three of us at him and I’ve been in that position before and can sympathize.

    However, sympathy aside, one must have a look at the overall, including David’s objections and see how they relate to what the other side says. Then we need to go back to the record and check there.

    It’s a painstaking process. What I would like is an auditorium and a large white board and marker. We’d list every single thing which happened and came out, for both sides and then we could look at the totality.

  96. Chad May 22, 2010 at 21:57 Permalink

    It is nice to see that at least our conversations haven’t deteriorated in to name calling, or chidish comments, despite our disagreements.

    David, it would be interesting to know exactly what Guede has told the prosecution. I do know that he has apparently chided AK and RS for not “admitting their role.”

    Also, thank you for acknowledging my point about the whereabouts, David, and yes, the context of Rafael’s comments regarding whether or not AK asked him to lie, is very important. Context, is something the media has brazenly ignored, which is sad, but not at all suprising.

    If AK did indeed ask RS to lie for her in some fashion, though, it is interesting that he won’t corroborate her alibi now. Maybe the distancing from AK has started? This last paragraph is a big “IF,” however. He could be distancing himself from AK on the advice of his attorney, but why?

    Btw, I read that in Italy, the prosecution can also appeal, and Mignini is now seeking a lilfe term for AK, and RS. Have any of you guys heard about this? Possibly a tactic to tighten the screws, and see what the added pressure will do perhaps?

    Our only hope for the truth may be an admission by RS to get his sentence reduced or overturned altogether.

  97. Harry Rag May 22, 2010 at 22:36 Permalink

    David,

    How do you know that Filomena doesn’t understand or speak a lot of English?

    Knox also lied in an e-mail to friends on 4 November 2007.

    She claimed that when she called Meredith’s Italian phone it “just kept ringing, no answer”. Her mobile phone records show this call lasted just three seconds. She didn’t make a serious attempt to contact Meredith because she knew that she was dead.

    She also claimed in this e-mail that she had called Meredith’s phones after speaking to Filomena. Her mobile phone records prove that this was untrue.

    Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that the police were trying to break Knox and Sollecito?

    Knox’s and Sollecito’s interrogations were legal and there is no evidence that they were mistreated at any time.

    The police had Knox’s and Sollecito’s phone records that proved that their versions of events for 1 and 2 November were untrue. When Sollecito was confronted with the telephone records, he immediately admitted that he had lied to the police and stopped providing Knox with an alibi.

    When Knox was informed about this, she readily admitted that she was at the cottage and accused Diya Lumumba of murdering Meredith. She stated on at least four separate occasions that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed.

    Unless you are simple-minded or have some serious learning difficulty, you should be able to understand that Sollecito’s claim that he had slept until after 10.00am on 2 November is a bare-faced lie.

    He used his computer at 5.32am, he turned on his mobile phone at 6.02am, and he received three phone calls at 9.24am, 9.29am and 9.30am.

    Marc Quintavalle’s testimony about seeing Knox at 7.45am on 2 November is corroborated by shop employee and defence witness Ana Maria Chiriboga, who says that he spoke about seeing Knox that morning.

    I have already pointed out to you that Knox and Sollecito were repeatedly caught out lying by their phone records on 1 and 2 November. Data taken from Sollecito’s computer provided further irrefutable evidence that he had lied to the police.

    Sollecito claimed that he had downloaded and watched Amelie during the night. Marco Trotta, a police computer expert, said the film had been watched at 6.30pm.

    Sollecito told investigators that he had spoken to his father at 11pm. The phone records show that Sollecito’s father had called him a couple of hours earlier at 8.40pm.

    Sollecito told the police that he had surfed the Internet from 11pm to 1.00am. There was no human activity on his computer from 9.10pm to 5.32am.

    Knox and Sollecito have given three different versions of events for the night of the murder and they have all been shown to be untrue.

    Can you think of another murder case where the defendants have given three different alibis?

    Sollecito’s lawyers didn’t want him to be cross-examined in court because he would have had to come up with a fourth alibi and that really would have insulted the intelligence of the judges and jurors.

    How do you know that Amanda Knox took a shower at the cottage on 2 November?

    You’re taking what Knox says as the Gospel truth, which is ridiculous because she is a compulsive liar who has lied repeatedly.

    If Knox wanted a shower, she could have had one at Sollecito’s apartment. Furthermore, the police officers who spoke to Knox on 2 November said that she smelt badly.

    The break-in was staged after Meredith had been stabbed. Rudy Guede’s visible bloody footprints lead straight out of Meredith’s room and out of the house. He didn’t enter Filomena’s room. However, Amanda Knox’s DNA was found mixed with Meredith’s blood on the floor on Filomena’s room.

  98. David May 22, 2010 at 23:22 Permalink

    Harry, how do you know Filomena does understand English very well?

    As I said, I’m not sure Amanda was even capable of recollecting all that happened on that day because of its tragic nature and the associated trauma, the speed with which everything unfolded, the confusion created through the police questioning, etc.

    Again, I believe it’s possible she may have given false information about the sequence of events, her calls to Meredith, etc., incriminating herself unintentionally. As I’ve noted, this tends to happen in cases where innocent persons are wrongly convicted.

    Her comments regarding Patrick are highly questionable. We’ve covered this before. Look above in this thread.

    I’m not going to suggest that I have evidence the police were trying to break Amanda and Raffaele… but I don’t really have any evidence to the contrary either. The authorities didn’t really conduct a thorough investigation into the nature of the interrogations. Are we to trust everything was totally above board. We do know Amanda and Raffaele were questioned very early in the morning, with one of Amanda’s lasting until 5:45 a.m. or so. Oh, and the police did not record these critical interrogations. Whether they should have or not, this would have saved a lot of grief for all of us now!!!

    Are we to take everything the accused say as lies? Do we not have a responsibility to view all claims with careful measure?

    Since the police destroyed the evidence on Raffaele’s computer, we will never know what activity took place. Unfortunate mishandling by the authorities, wouldn’t you say?

    We do not know that Amanda is a compulsive liar. We have no evidence from her past to suggest this quality in her character. Is she a liar? Or is she a girl who had taken drugs the night before and who became thoroughly confused and panicked about what was happening around her?

    Without a doubt, we have a lot of unanswered questions… but that doesn’t convince me that Amanda and Raffaele are murderers.

    How do we truly know that Rudy didn’t enter Filomena’s room? He could have entered there initially, Meredith comes home and then he attacks her. He wouldn’t have any need to return to Filomena’s room and, as a result, he would then not contaminate the room with bloody footprints.

    The whole notion of a staged break-in has been accepted by many… but how do we know? Because glass was on top of clothes? How do we know that the clothes weren’t already on the floor? How do we know the glass didn’t get redistributed as Filomena went through her belongings? Rudy was skilled in break and enter and photos show that it was indeed possible to enter through that spot.

    Amanda lived in the house. DNA gets redistributed. How do we know this is not the result of co-habitation and nothing more? How do we know the evidence was indeed properly collected? As shown with the bra clasp, which sat around for six weeks or so, the investigators didn’t exactly put on a clinic here in evidence collection.

    I think we’ll learn more at the appeal… and hopefully a lot of our questions will be answered.

  99. Chad May 24, 2010 at 10:00 Permalink

    [CODE]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/6737900/Amanda-Knox-guilty…-but-of-what.html[/CODE]

    according to this article Guede initially said that AK was not there, then changed his story. This complicates things for me because I figured he was reliable since he had nothing really to lose.

    This case is a mess with everyone having lied at one time or another, and evience mishandled.

    I still think all three of them were involved in some way. There is just too much testimony and evidence that would have to have been destroyed or bothced coupled with a conspiracy to frame them. Mr. Rag’s breakdown of each lie, to me, makes it impossible that AK and RS are completely innocent.

    I am however starting to think they have a chance to walk. At the appeal they are likely going to concentrate on police incompetence, and abuse so we may not get new information until Mignini appeals, if he decides to do so. If he appeals I would think that he would have to present new evidence of some kind.

  100. Harry Rag May 24, 2010 at 11:23 Permalink

    Chad,

    Of course Rudy Gude claimed that Knox and Sollecito weren’t at the cottage at first. I’ll let the Italian Court of Appeal explain why:

    “Guede has kept quiet for as long as he could” said the Court of Appeal in its recent motivation report “because, given the deep connection of the events, accusing Amanda and Raffaele would have exposed him to their very probable retaliation”. (“Guede, finché ha potuto, ha taciuto, poiché, stante la profonda connessione degli eventi, accusare Amanda e Raffaele lo avrebbe esposto a più che probabili dichiarazioni ritorsive da parte di costoro”).

    This phrase in boldface is extremely important in understanding the connection of the three actors to this horrible story. (Cesare Beccaria, TJMK).

    http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/how_each_of_the_three_subtly_but_surely_pushed_the_other_two_closer_to/#comments

    No evidence was mishandled and Amanda Knox wasn’t abused at the police station. The most likely outcome of the appeals is that Knox’s and Sollecito’s sentences will be confirmed.

    I highly recommend reading Cesare Beccaria and Commissario Montalbano on True Justice For Meredith Kercher. They are two highly-qualified Italian lawyers.

    When you read the translated version of the judges’ sentencing report, you will understand why 19 judges think the evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is overwhelming.

  101. Harry Rag August 5, 2010 at 14:34 Permalink

    Judge Massei’s 427- page report will be published in English on Monday 9 August. It will be available for download from PMF and TJMK.

  102. Harry Rag August 9, 2010 at 14:16 Permalink

    The English translation of Judge Massei’s sentencing report can be downloaded from here:

    http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=53735#p53735

  103. jameshigham August 9, 2010 at 18:57 Permalink

    Cheers, Harry.

  104. M.G. Miller October 7, 2010 at 04:29 Permalink

    Keep reading about a botched investigation. Given the repatedly conflicting stories made up by these supposedly can do no wrong young people, I’d say they did quite a remarkable job, and got a conviction.

  105. M.G. Miller October 9, 2010 at 04:12 Permalink

    Even in the most flattering photographs, I look into those eyes and say “Is anybody home?” I know what drugs can do to otherwise decent people, but if she lived in my neighborhood, I’d sleep with a .38 in my hand. I think instead of boycotting Italy, I’ll stay away from Washington state. Her parents come off as, not the shinyest pennys in the jar, and I’m not sure they are helping her situation any. Meredith brought none of this upon herself, everything that went wrong can be traced right back to Amanda.

  106. James Higham October 9, 2010 at 07:09 Permalink

    Whatever the spin, for me it goes back to that Seattle party where the police charged her, no one else and she was convicted. Character does count, despite the protestations of the Knox camp.

  107. M.G. Miller November 22, 2010 at 01:33 Permalink

    I don’t think she is a follower at all, I think she is the instigator, using these people to do her dirty work and tried to walk away with clean hands, then when things went wrong, implicated a totally innocent person.

  108. James Higham November 22, 2010 at 02:40 Permalink

    I think you’re right. Also, there was a news story:

    Murder suspect Amanda Knox has revealed in a series of leaked conversations with her parents how her cell mate begged her for sex.

    One commenter wrote:

    I don’t think she is “pretty” at all. She has too many tickets on herself. Very very selfish and very very deluded.

    And another:

    Self praise is no recommendation, she is not pretty on the outside and I dread to think what she’s like under the skin.

    Now I’m not above being susceptible to a pretty girl but this is a shell which might have been pretty which is actually as hard as nails, cruel and totally into herself.

    She’s a classic user and reminds me of the history of Messalina and other women quite happy to sacrifice others who do not do as they wish or who have the temerity to refuse.

    Everything in how she acted afterwards was not poor girl lost in the least but a sociopath who’s moved on to the next thing, in that case, lingerie buying.

    The thing is, the police might well have had it in for her but they would have done that for whoever emerged as the most likely and she emerged that way. Her stories didn’t hold up, the way she implicated Patrick Lumumba without the slightest hesitation should have been enough for her to at least go down for a short stretch.

    When she then turned on the police themselves in her characteristic way, she was well gone. She alienated everyone except people fascinated by her “beauty”, i.e. men.

    I knew just such a person, just as sociopathic and her beauty and “persuading power” was everything to her. I saw her try it on one man and it simply didn’t work – he saw right through her.

    Knox’s whole self-esteem revolves round her drawing power, her femme-fataledness, so to speak. She has to maintain that or she collapses. Hence her flirtations in the courtroom and the turned-on girlish charm, which persuaded her minders but not those at a distance from her.

    If she wins the appeal, it alters not one thing in this matter – maybe not the knife which slit the throat but right in there, goading it all on, dealing with the female who had the gall to oppose her.

    Sorry but it looks very like that to me. Very nasty piece of work.

  109. M.G. Miller November 22, 2010 at 05:06 Permalink

    I gave her every benefit of the doubt, but the more I read the worse it looked.

    Can’t pinpoint the turning point but got a very sick feeling and stopped reading for a few days. Went back to the text with indifference and same thing. I’m not sorry for the way I think, there are still those who argue every little point, as you know, and some have good arguments. There is just too much to explain away.

    When I watched the videos again you can see no sadness or remorse until things start to look bad for Amanda, then all sorts of drama unfolds. I too have been bamboozled by a pretty face in the past, yes it’s true, I know it’s hard to believe. As far as this girl being attractive, no, no way, she’s been cocked more than John Wayne’s rifle, and would throw you under the bus first chance she got.

    I’m done arguing. My opinion is not going to put her in jail, or keep her there, I just think that is where she belongs.

  110. hollyanna November 22, 2010 at 16:05 Permalink

    “Personally, I don’t think she was the one who slit the throat but it’s pretty clear she was in there, nonetheless. Yet neither side will allow you to take that position”

    Really? And what in the world is it that makes it pretty clear that she was “in there?!” There was not one shred of DNA evidence in the room from Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito! There was a heinous bloody crime scene, DNA from Rudy Guede all over the room and inside the victim and not ONE single fingerprint ior speck of evidence from Amanda or Raffaele. It is crystal clear that neither of them were in the room when this brutal murder occurred.

  111. James Higham November 22, 2010 at 16:06 Permalink

    Hollyanna, we’re way past that point now, aren’t we? Their prints and DNA were all over the room* – check the evidence in comments on this post [not the post itself]. There’s not a leg to stand on and 19 justices came to that conclusion as well. The feeling is that they’ll lose this appeal then try for the Supreme Court, thereby making the stress on the family extend way beyond what it should.

    Do you care at all about Meredith or just about the convicted killer?

    * correction – house, not room.

  112. kitty waters November 22, 2010 at 16:26 Permalink

    @Hollyanna – I strongly agree with what you have said. There was absolutely nothing to connect Amanda and Raffaele to this horrific crime. There was no trace of them whatsoever in that room. I am hopeful that the Court of Appeal will review everything and see that they were not involved in this murder.

  113. hollyanna November 22, 2010 at 16:27 Permalink

    “Their prints and DNA were all over the room”

    Where did you get your facts, from Harry Rag! There were no prints in the room; you have no idea what you are talking about!

    I am sorry for Meredith but her innocent friends sitting in prison is not justice for her.

  114. James Higham November 22, 2010 at 16:29 Permalink

    Harry quoted from the various reports, in Italian, translated into English. As such, he stated the evidence as it had been presented, which conclusively convicted Knox. That’s why she’s behind bars and not free.

    Hopefully he’ll come in and answer your comment.

    As for innocent, as an absolute minimum, she should be inside for framing Lumumba, which she admits. Innocent? Purrlease!

    Seattlelite voting, “Colpevole.”, on December 2nd, 2009 at 21:37 said:

    There is too much circumstantial evidence to let this young lady simply “pass in the night.” The fact that her DNA in the “murder room” is scant, if not nonexistent, does not diminish her culpability as an accessory to murder. Neither she nor the boyfriend ever came up with any other person who could vouch for their whereabouts on the night of the killing.

    Both were caught in many small lies which, in sum, added up to a big question mark. And what of the fact that Amanda showed up early the following morning to purchase cleaning supplies–what college student in their right mind would give a hoot about cleaning their apartment at that hour in the morning???

    Mariam, on December 22nd, 2009 at 01:46 said:

    I have been in the legal profession for 15 years and what surprises me is the comments by Ms Knox’s supporters . For instance they state that there was no evidence that placed her at the crime scene.

    There is a saying that if you repeat a lie for long enough it becomes truth.

    Instead of wasting time by listing the considerable evidence that was presented during the trial, which places her at the apartment, I’ll assume that it is the logical and intelligent who will read this and move on.

    Evidence has to be looked at as a whole. The selective analysis of bits of disputed evidence which takes place on various websites by Ms Knox’s supporters, is a far cry from what takes place in a court of law. The jury hears all the evidence and must deliberate on it.

    I’d say the success of the well orchestrated pro- Knox PR camapign has been that in selecting some pieces of disputed evidence and ignoring others ,they gave an incomplete picture of went on in the trial and convinced media outlets & the public there was no evidence against Ms Knox. Thankfully , this had no bearing on the jury, the trial and will have none on the appeal. It merely stoked up anger, particularly in America .

    I’m puzzled as to why Knox supporters tried to convince /win over those with no influence on the trial. After all, I have not heard of a single civil liberty organisation supporting the notion that Ms Knox had an unfair trial. There are many such high calibre organisations in the US and worldwide. If Ms Knox’s trial was so unfair, why did they not involve a group like Amnesty International who specialise in such matters or start a petition?

    They would struggle to get the backing of high profile or respected figures.

    Who knows , maybe Edda Melllas will try this when her daughters appeal fails.

    Harry Rag, on May 10th, 2010 at 18:22 said:

    The evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is overwhelming.

    Amanda Knox’s DNA was found on:

    1. On the double DNA knife and a number of independent forensic experts – Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo and Professor Francesca Torricelli – categorically stated that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade.

    2. Mixed with Meredith’s blood on the ledge of the basin.

    3. Mixed with Meredith’s blood on the bidet.

    4. Mixed with Meredith blood on a box of Q Tip cotton swabs.

    5. Mixed with Meredith’s blood in the hallway.

    6. Mixed with Meredith’s blood on the floor of Filomena’s room, where the break-in was staged.

    7. On Meredith’s bra according to Dr. Stefanoni AND Raffaele Sollecito’s forensic expert, Professor Vinci.

    Amanda Knox’s footprints were found set in Meredith’s blood in two places in the hallway of the new wing of the cottage. One print was exiting her own room, and one print was outside Meredith’s room, facing into the room. These bloody footprints were only revealed under luminol.

    A woman’s bloody shoeprint, which matched Amanda Knox’s foot size, was found on a pillow under Meredith’s body. The bloody shoeprint was incompatible with Meredith’s shoe size.

    Two independent imprint experts categorically excluded the possibility that the bloody footprint on the blue bathmat could belong to Rudy Guede. Lorenzo Rinaldi stated:

    “You can see clearly that this bloody footprint on the rug does not belong to Mr. Guede, but you can see that it is compatible with Sollecito.”

    The other imprint expert print expert testified that the bloody footprint on the blue bathmat matched the precise characteristics of Sollecito’s foot.

    An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp. Sollecito must have applied considerable pressure to the clasp in order to have left so much DNA. The hooks on the clasp were damaged which confirms that Sollecito had gripped them tightly.

    According to Judge Massei and Judge Cristiani, Rudy Guede’s visible bloody footprints lead straight out of Meredith’s room and out of the house. He didn’t lock Meredith’s door, remove his trainers, go into Filomena’s room or the bathroom that Meredith and Knox shared.

    He didn’t scale the vertical wall outside Filomena’s room or gain access through the window. The break-in was clearly staged. This indicates that somebody who lived at the cottage was trying to deflect attention away from themselves and give the impression that a stranger had broken in and killed Meredith.

    Guede had no reason to stage the break-in and there was no physical evidence that he went into Filomena’s room or the bathroom. The scientific police found a mixture of Knox’s DNA and Meredith’s blood on the floor in Filomena’s room. They also found irrefutable proof that Knox and Sollecito had tracked Meredith’s blood into the bathroom.

    The murder dynamic implicates Knox and Sollecito.

    Barbie Nadeau wrote the following:

    “Countless forensic experts, including those who performed the autopsies on Kercher’s body, have testified that more than one person killed her based on the size and location of her injuries and the fact that she didn’t fight back—no hair or skin was found under her fingernails.”

    Judge Paolo Micheli claimed that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito knew precise details about Meredith’s murder that they could have only known if they were present when she was killed.

    Amanda Knox voluntarily admitted that she involved in Meredith’s murder in her handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007. She stated on at least four separate occasions that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed. She also claimed that Sollecito was at the cottage.

    Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito both gave multiple conflicting alibis and lied repeatedly. Their lies were exposed by telephone and computer records, and by CCTV footage. Neither Knox nor Sollecito have credible alibis for the night of the murder despite three attempt each. At the trial, Sollecito refused to corroborate Knox’s alibi that she was at his apartment.

    Legal expert Stefano Maffei stated the following:

    “There were 19 judges who looked at the evidence over the course of two years, faced with decisions on pre-trial detention, review of such detention, committal to trial, judgment on criminal responsibility. They all agreed, at all times, that the evidence was overwhelming.”

    Facts, ladies – not emotion over a supposedly pretty girl.

  115. Harry Rag November 22, 2010 at 23:35 Permalink

    @Hollyanna,

    You seem to be forgetting that an abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp. His DNA was identified by two separate DNA tests. Judge Massei pointed to the extremely clear RFU peaks associated with the DNA test, the lowest of which was 30% higher than the RFU test widely used for minimum reliability and the highest of which was more than 200% higher. Of the 17 loci tested in the sample, Sollecito’s profile matched 17 out of 17. Dr. Torricelli for the Kerchers affirmed that the alleles (peaks) in the sample constituted the biological profile of Raffaele Sollecito. 

  116. M.G. Miller November 26, 2010 at 18:22 Permalink

    Returning to her apartment that night I think she knew that she would be confronted about the missing rent money, so she took along a drug fueled team that set on Meridith like a pack of mad dogs.

  117. James Higham November 26, 2010 at 18:39 Permalink

    I really think these sorts of things are going to come out this time round. The defence says it has new evidence but it seems to me to be new opinion on the old, possibly from pathologists with reputations.

    The prosecution does not seem to have asked for a review and therefore their sentences cannot be increased, only kept the same, reduced or thrown out.

    I hope they can stand up better to Ms Bongiorno this time round and present it better. The trial was fair, of course but I thought some things might have been highlighted more. For example, to me, the dearth of DNA in the actual room, coupled with the bleach the next morning, is not a negative – it’s more significant than if at least some DNA had been found where one would have expected some – after all, they were all housemates.

    Time and again I’ve tried to reconstruct it from everything that’s been written and it’s hard to go past the idea of her setting them on Meredith although my feeling is that Solecito held her upper body while Guede was behind and those little nicks in the neck from the knife would have to have been done by someone.

    I can’t see either of the men having sufficient grudge against M but Knox did and she wouldn’t stay back in the room – she’d be in there mouthing off at the girl. It might even end up being manslaughter with diminished responsibility because of the drugs.

    It’s the nick marks in the neck – many of them, which seem a problem to me.

    As the lawyer who left a comment on this post said – one has to look at the totality of the evidence, not just one aspect such as this.

  118. M.G. Miller December 17, 2010 at 04:16 Permalink

    Rudy Guede is gonna sing like a canary, look out now.

  119. Phil Hunt December 19, 2010 at 20:34 Permalink

    Hello all,

    I’ve read this blog, all your comments and the first 173 pages of The Massei Report because I want to know the facts for myself, and maybe I can contribute to the discussion. I do intend to read the rest but will set out my initial thoughts first.

    I’ve seen media reports of this case at various times since the murder and were immediately struck by the unsavoury nature not just of the crime but the reaction to it by the defendants and public.

    This is about Meredith Kercher not anyone else. A young life tragically cut short.

    To me it is of no interest what nationality the defendants are, what country the crime took place in, what the structure of the Italian Judicial system is, what the defendants’ previous history tells us, or even stories about the state prosecutor. I can even set aside Knox’s bizarre assertion of Lumumba’s guilt because the interview was not recorded when clearly it should have been. As to a motive, this doesn’t really interest me because establishing one does not constitute evidence.

    What is important is establishing where the three accused were on the night of 1 November 2007.

    Aside from the DNA evidence found on Meredith’s body and forensic evidence at the scene, Guede has admitted to being at Via della Pergola 7 on the night of 1 November 2007 (claiming he had ‘consensual’ sex with Meredith, and then left the room before she was murdered). He had a fair (separate) trial and was found guilty – but the defence for Sollecito and Knox argued at their trial (this argument is the same for their appeal) that Guede was the sole author of the criminal acts perpetrated against Meredith. For Knox defenders in the wider public I can only assume that this is their belief too.

    So – is this true? Was Guede the sole protagonist?

    The Massei Report describes the forensic search at Via della Pergola 7. It outlines in detail the careful steps that were made not to contaminate the scene (for instance, the use of single-use protective gloves and shoe covers with scientific police working in groups in different rooms). The defence for Knox and Sollecito at the appeal contend that mistakes were made that necessarily reduce the importance of the discoveries – particularly that of Sollecito’s DNA on a bra.

    I can accept that there ought to be a review of this evidence (why not) but, for me, there is evidence that Sollecito and Knox were not where they said they were on the night of 1 November but were instead involved in the murder. I welcome comments refuting the significance of the evidence presented below but please stick to discussing these points:

    1) The witnesses: Mr Quintavalle testified that he saw Knox at 7:45am on 2 November despite Knox claiming that she was asleep until 10am. He demonstrated that the memory was entrenched and thus a reliable source. In addition, Curatola saw both Knox and Sollecito on the evening of 1 November, but because he is homeless the appeal defence team claim he is mistaken.

    2) Meredith’s DNA on knife: On 6 November Sollecito’s apartment was searched. Everyone had gloves and shoes on and a knife was found that was put in a bag, closed, sealed and taken to police headquarters (The Massei Report, p.103). Unlike evidence collected at Via della Pergola 7 it seems more difficult to claim that this evidence is contaminated. It emerged later that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade despite her never being in the apartment.

    3) The bathroom mat: Knox claims that on the morning of 2 November she returned to Via della Pergola 7 from Sollecito’s apartment to pick up clothes and have a shower before going on a trip with her boyfriend. After her shower, she used the bathroom mat as a towel and, because Meredith was already dead, she notices blood on it. Knox thought to herself, ‘maybe there was some menstrual problem that wasn’t cleaned’ (p.70). On viewing a picture of the mat I do not find it reasonable to view the stain as a ‘menstrual problem’: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAqnEQFNQKg&feature=related

    4) Meredith’s locked door: Prior to two postal police officers arriving at Via della Pergola 7 in the afternoon of 2 November (when the grim discovery was made), Sollecito and Knox were the only people at the house. Knox asserts they discovered a burglary had taken place. She states in an email to friends and family, ‘I knocked louder and louder until I was really banging on Meredith’s door. No response. Panicking I ran out onto the terrace to see if I could see inside’ (p.91). This contrasts to her behaviour when police arrived, ‘the panic caused by that locked door was not expressed in any way and Amanda did not speak of that locked door in the phone conversation she had with Romanelli [housemate]‘ (p.91).

    5) Sollecito’s father phones: Sollecito’s father called his son at 9:30am on 2 November when both Sollecito and Knox are (according to their testimony) still asleep. Sollecito answers. However, Knox doesn’t remember this phone call in the testimony she gives to the police – perhaps because evidence suggests she was shopping from 7:45 that morning.

    I feel confident that there are many discrepancies in the defendants’ story and that both Sollecito and Knox seem to have been lying for the past three years. There are just too many inconsistencies and anomalies (many more contained within the Report that I haven’t mentioned) which when taken as a whole illustrate their guilt – why else is there this evidence against their explanation of events?

    If Sollecito and Knox are guilty then it follows that for the past three years they have put the Kercher family through untold agony for the sole purpose of saving their own skin. Why do this? Because they have convinced themselves that they didn’t mean to do what they did – and therefore they shouldn’t be punished? Because it wasn’t premeditated, they figure their lives should not be ruined too? I have trouble believing that this is their mindset but the evidence supports this conclusion. If I’m wrong then I’m only wrong if a zealous Perugia state prosecutor managed to coerce witnesses and influence forensic results coming out of a laboratory in Rome – I don’t know what else pro-Knox supporters can argue.

    What should happen next? There should be closure for the Kercher family and that means a confession from those guilty.

    • James Higham December 19, 2010 at 21:27 Permalink

      Confession won’t come of course, Phil. I’ve been tossing up running a new thread on the developments in the granting of the re-examination of the forensic evidence. Perhaps we’ll leave it in this thread for now because people know where to come.

      The thing is, the case does not rest just on the forensic – there is the totality of evidence to consider. On the other hand, if the forensic is questioned by the judges, then it might create a momentum against the police and that might be bad. She’s not going to get off until it’s all heard again and that will take some time but if the case is sound, it will stand up.

  120. Phil Hunt December 19, 2010 at 23:00 Permalink

    Hi James,

    I hope the appeal will not see the convictions of Knox and Sollecito quashed because you are right in saying that there is so much other evidence against their explanation of events. I think it is spurious of the defence team to argue that the evidence gathered at Via della Pergola 7 is unsafe. However, perhaps sufficient doubt may be cast on whether Exhibit 36 is the only murder weapon. If any of the scientific evidence is found by the appeal to be unsafe that better not mean automatic exoneration of the accused? Does it? Or would all the evidence have to be looked at again?

  121. M.G. Miller January 18, 2011 at 03:42 Permalink

    Didn’t Sollicito say that Meridith had cut herself cooking with that knife, at his place? Can’t find it again but I’m sure I read it somewhere. By the way this is the best post on the internet James, we can disagree and still remain civil. Why would there be the need to explain Meridith’s DNA on a blade that the defence claims does not fit the crime? Too many questions.

  122. M.G. Miller January 18, 2011 at 04:21 Permalink

    Sorry I meant Raffaele said Meridith had cut herself.

  123. FAL Italinano February 22, 2011 at 01:59 Permalink

    These Judges in Italy are crooked as sin. They will do anything they can to prevent any admittance that they were wrong….or worse. Any supposed evidence presented is circumstantial, at best, but more akin to hearsay, which seems to be admissible in Italian courts. Then you have the “criminal libel” charges against the parents. Seems like the Fascist state is alive and well in the Italian justice system…and I use the word justice lightly.

  124. Harry Rag February 22, 2011 at 12:11 Permalink

    @FAL Italinano,

    You wrote:

    “These Judges in Italy are crooked as sin.”

    Do you have any actual proof to support your opinion?

    Thanks in advance.

  125. M.G. Miller February 22, 2011 at 19:44 Permalink

    Is there anyone who is NOT offended by the behavior of the Knox family? Curt shoving a cameraman after the verdict, Edda droning endlessly with a “you know”, sometimes twice in the same sentence. (And mind you, this is a school teacher). It’s embarrassing! The Kercher family have been nothing but grace, and dignity, while these two buffoons; let me use a line I read, “Keep whopping it up like Slim Pickins at a chili cook off that has run out of spoons”. I’m convinced that if Edda and Curt has zipped it, and stayed out of sight the appeal would have stood a much better chance. Maybe a lighter sentence. I think the beans are going to spill, and my money is on Rudy. I know, I know “unreliable”, like the other two are not? There are fragments of what he has said that have rings of truth in them. This is going to take some time. Rudy cannot be so ignorant as not to see that he was thrown to the lions.

  126. Huh February 22, 2011 at 21:14 Permalink

    Even if someone IS a sociopath, this does not mean she is guilty.

    You can’t convict someone based on how they act or “seem”.

  127. James Higham February 22, 2011 at 22:02 Permalink

    They didn’t. they convicted on the totality of the evidence. Read the Massei Report:

    http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/TheMasseiReport.pdf

  128. Pete February 28, 2011 at 03:14 Permalink

    If Knox is so innocent, why doesn’t she have a credible alibi for the night of the murder? If Knox and Sollecito are so “innocent,” why were they discovered by the police the very next morning after the murder standing at the door of the Knox/Kercher residence with a mop and pail of water they had used to clean up the crime scene? A girl who according to everyone wouldn’t be caught dead picking up her own clothes.
    And why oh why did she lie about where she said she was during and after the murder. All her statements were proven false through phone and computer records. the list goes on and on.

    And finally and most important, if she is so innocent, why did she accuse an innocent man of killing Meredith Kercher? She first tried to pin the blame on one African man, Patrick Lamumba.
    This accusation alone puts her guilty in my mind. That accusation alone tells me who and what she really is. There was absolutely no reason whatsoever for anyone to have done that unless they were trying to shift the blame….Pete

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Meredith Kercher has been avenged « nourishing obscurity - December 5, 2009

    [...] article follows on from the December 2nd post. Filed under Life issues & people Comment (RSS)  |  Trackback [...]

  2. nourishing obscurity » Debate - May 19, 2010

    [...] is not honest and this is not democracy.  If you wish to see even semi-debate, the comments on this post are a good case in point.  What began, in comments, as assertion and counter-assertion became the [...]