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

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

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

You wrote:

“These Judges in Italy are crooked as sin.”

Do you have any actual proof to support your opinion?

Thanks in advance.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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

* correction – house, not room.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.