Home » Cases on Appeal » AMANDA KNOX AND RAFFAELE SOLLECITO ACQUITTED THEN CONVICTED: WHAT TO BELIEVE

AMANDA KNOX AND RAFFAELE SOLLECITO ACQUITTED THEN CONVICTED: WHAT TO BELIEVE

Amanda Knox
Amanda Knox

We recently spoke with Journalist Frank Sfarzo in Italy about the upcoming Italian Supreme Court ruling that is expected this month on the Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito case. He was kind to offer his observations.

Written by Frank Sfarzo

When a judicial case drags on for too long, and in Italy it’s quite possible, it becomes only paper, only words. A risky situation, since words can be interpreted as one wants. As we remember, plenty of indications of guilt were brought against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, and the appeal had completely swept away all of them. Then the guilty verdict was reinstated.

At the pre-trial, the main pieces of evidence against Knox and Sollecito were the pushers Kokomani and Curatolo (as we will see, indeed, that night Knox and Sollecito were “visible” only to pushers, tramps and criminals…), the witnesses without whom the defendants couldn’t be convicted, since the knife and the other stuff weren’t enough. Kokomani was heard, so he wasn’t only a piece of paper. Indeed, he was thrown out. Curatolo instead wasn’t heard, they just read a statement signed by him, so he was only a piece of paper. Indeed, he wasn’t thrown out. He was then cross-examined in the real trial, and then he was thrown out. And Knox and Sollecito were acquitted. Then the prosecution appealed, and in the following stages the case became only paper. Curatolo wasn’t heard in the Cassation trial and he wasn’t heard in the Florence trial. And we have learned that it’s easy to believe a testimony you read only in court documents.

Had I just read court documents I wouldn’t know anything of the Meredith Kercher case. Instead I was there, before and during the case, in an environment that I knew. And as I was receiving the results of the investigation, I knew what value to give to them.

I believe in what is legal, what is public, what is verifiable. I certainly don’t believe police reports, or “spontaneous statements” without a lawyer, or unverifiable tests, or conjectures, or hypotheses, or illegal exhibits, or unexamined witnesses! Parole, parole, parole… No thanks, only verifiable, public and legal facts.

WHY SHOULD KNOX HAVE ACCUSED LUMUMBA? INDEED SHE DIDN’T 

They said, for instance, that Knox accused Lumumba. In private! Indeed, no one has ever heard Amanda Knox accuse Patrick Lumumba. When she was heard by the judge of the arrest, that was the moment to accuse Lumumba, if she really had just done it behind closed doors of the police station. But, in the open of the hearing, in the public of the hearing, in the verifiable time of the hearing, in the legal time of the hearing, she did not accuse Lumumba.

I follow the law, and for the law, statements without a lawyer don’t exist. They can be used for the investigation, not for a judgment. Cassation also follows the law, and Cassation deemed those statements unusable in the trial. So, I’m in good company: for me and for Cassation, Knox never accused Lumumba. But, as we know, in the trial they used those statements anyway and, since I follow the law, I think that their use was illegal. Yes, by the way, you read right, the court used statements deemed unusable by the Supreme Court of Cassation; it’s unbelievable, but it happened for real (and another time I can explain how that could happen). It’s only one of the unbelievable things happened in this unbelievable case. And if nobody contests such things, the case remains in the error.

THE FABLE OF THE DNA ON THE KNIFE 

I certainly don’t believe the fable of DNA on a knife that disappeared after a first, mysterious test.

I follow the science, and for the science, a test that is not confirmed doesn’t exist. Scientists also follow the science. Two groups of scientists tested that knife, and didn’t find any of Kercher’s DNA on it. So, I am again in good company.

I follow the logic, and logic says that Kercher’s DNA couldn’t be on the knife before it was taken by the cops. Meredith, indeed, never went to Sollecito’s house. And the knife never exited Sollecito’s house, except for the hypothesis made by the prosecution. But a hypothesis, by definition, is not a proof, and considering it a proof is a petitio principii, a circular reasoning (which is prohibited by logic. And the law recognizes logic). You can’t assume that Knox and Sollecito took the knife out because there’s maybe some DNA on it, and that there’s really some DNA on it because Knox and Sollecito took the knife out — you have to demonstrate both claims, independently. So, there’s no proof that Knox and Sollecito took the knife out, while there is proof that the cops took the knife out. Therefore, assuming that Kercher’s DNA was on the knife, there’s no proof that it got on it before the cops took it, while there’s no proof that it didn’t get on it after the cops took it. Which suggests that, if there was, it got on it with an extremely common, usual and probable contamination (for instance, you wear the gloves, you take something belonged to the victim, you put it in an envelope. Then you take the knife and you put it in an envelope. In this way you will have left not your DNA on the knife, but a low template DNA of the victim. Then you forget the double movement, and that LTDNA on the knife becomes “unexplainable”, or explainable only with a prosecution hypothesis…).

However, the substance on the knife, if there is, is not blood. So, there’s proof that the knife is not the murder weapon. At the best, then, they could try maintain that Knox and Sollecito took the knife out and that they put it, for instance, on Meredith’s face. But they have to demonstrate such hypothesis, and they failed to do it.

The subsequent claims –that it was the murder weapon and that it was washed after the crime– cannot even be hypothesized. However, they did hypothesize them, and they did it in the same circular and illicit way. And in this case, too, they of course failed to prove both claims, which remain two undemonstrated hypotheses. So, Sollecito’s knife is a concentrate of illogical claims, double triple, quadruple…

I follow the law, and the law says that the belongings of the suspect have to be legally seized in the presence of all parties. The reader of court documents may perceive that Sollecito’s knife was seized by the scientific police in the presence of the lawyers, and tested right after. But it’s not like that; it was just taken by the cops, then it went private, then it reappeared in public for the test. And we certainly don’t know what happened to it in between… I know that even the lawyers forgot about that, but I was there, so I’m not the one who has forgotten such “details.”

I was there when “Kercher’s DNA on Sollecito’s knife” came out. So I know, because I passed that stage, that when you read in court documents, or just in the news, that according to a test, “there is the victim’s DNA on the knife,” you think that that’s a huge indication of guilt. That’s what I thought that day, and in the next days and weeks. I needed a couple of months to discover everything about the knife and understand that, instead, it wasn’t an indication of guilt at all. But the reader of court documents wasn’t there, he doesn’t have a couple of months, he doesn’t know the story and the people, he doesn’t know the facts behind everything, he doesn’t know that the knife was never legally seized but was just taken, and that it then disappeared for six days… He may not know, or may forget, basic scientific principles such as “every test can be wrong”, or logic principles as the one seen above. Yet he has to decide whether the DNA is proof or a mistake, so he may easily make the wrong decision. Just like I made at the time.

I was there and I stopped arguing about the DNA more than 6 years ago, because for me the knife was never legally seized, it was just taken, and it went out of sight. So it’s useless asking if there’s really DNA on it (even after the test was repeated twice and no DNA was found). For the one who follows the law, then, just as the statements signed in private without a lawyer don’t exist, the knife too, taken in private, without lawyers, and then hidden from public control, technically doesn’t exist.

The reader of court documents, instead, cannot know what is behind everything. By reading court documents he can perceive that the knife was seized in the presence of the parties and immediately tested, and believe the fable of the DNA on the knife that appeared for the test, then disappeared. And then he can convict. And in my view that is, of course, illegal.

THE CHRONOLOGY PROVES THE ACCUSATION THEORY WRONG 

The prosecutor and the police had affirmed that the murderer of Meredith Kercher was Patrick Lumumba, and they were wrong. So, they make interpretative mistakes, it’s proven. Then they said that the murderer was not Patrick Lumumba anymore, but was Amanda Knox with Raffaele Sollecito. When the name of Guede came out they said that the murderer was still Knox, now with Sollecito and Guede, and that they had killed Meredith between 9 pm and 11 pm. On the way, indeed, the prosecution found a witness, the tramp Antonio Curatolo, who signed at the police station that he had seen Knox and Sollecito in the square. But signed statements don’t have any legal value in a legal trial; witnesses have to be cross-examined in court. And Curatolo, when finally heard in court, added that Knox and Sollecito were in the square since 9:27/9:28 pm up to almost midnight, exonerating the two (because the crime happened exactly in that period of time). Thus, the prosecution was obligated to change versions again, and said that they killed Meredith at 11:30 pm (assuming that that could be included in the “almost midnight” period of time, which I couldn’t assume).

The final version of Knox with Sollecito and Guede killing Meredith at 11:30, is the one received by the last court. The last court, having not examined the witness, missing the history of the versions, the chronology of the case, the characters and details, just evaluated the latest version, and believed it true. But the chronology is everything, since it shows how the prosecution theory had to be continually adapted to the results that were confuting it, showing that it’s wrong. We have seen in the Florence trial that the judge was stopping lawyers who were trying to show chronology and details. He didn’t want to know, he just wanted to evaluate the latest version. So lawyers weren’t able to explain why the chronology was proving the latest version false. Not only that, the lawyers did argue about DNA, as if the knife had been seized in the regular way. And that’s why that jury could get the case wrong.

KERCHER’S DNA WASN’T FOUND ON SOLLECITO’S KNIFE 

However, one last real fact occurred in the Florence trial: the knife was re-analyzed. And, for the second time, no Meredith Kercher DNA was found on it. So, the defense had the match-ball in their hands. But they didn’t draw it. Sollecito’s defense thought that the knife, having only Knox’s DNA on the handle, wasn’t their business, and they could accept that it was the murder weapon (they forgot that the knife is “Sollecito’s knife,” so it’s not really separable from him….). After having spent four years demonstrating, together with Knox’s defense, that Sollecito’s knife wasn’t the murder weapon, in the end Sollecito’s defense said that Sollecito’s knife could be the murder weapon! Can they complain that Sollecito was convicted?

11016494_10152712419216592_881976442_n
The fantastic prosecution theories about Amanda Knox have unchained the creativity of parodists.

WHY THE COURT COULDN’T GET THAT THE MAIN WITNESS AGAINST KNOX AND SOLLECITO LIED 

By reading, for instance, the testimony of Antonio “Toto” Curatolo (which, incredibly, is the main piece of evidence for the conviction), you can tell that it’s false, since he says that there were masked people in the square (so it was the previous day – Halloween).

But Toto, besides saying that it was Halloween, also said that the next morning there were the scientific police in white suits. The reader of court documents wasn’t there on November 2, and doesn’t know that the white suits arrived in the evening, so he doesn’t understand that this is a mistake, too, in Curatolo’s testimony. And a testimony with two huge mistakes, one the opposite of the other, certainly can’t be considered true. This pusher and drug addict at the last stage, this completely crazy person, was caught lying. Of course, he did again the only thing he had been doing along his whole wasted life: he lied.

Let’s then remember that if Knox and Sollecito were there, they necessarily had to have Sollecito’s knife with them. But Curatolo didn’t say to have seen it. So, if there was one person who could have provided a “proof” that the knife had gone out, that person failed to do it….

The reader of court documents doesn’t know the whereabouts and doesn’t perceive that Curatolo is disproven not only by himself, not only by the same prosecution theory that relies on him, but even by the other witnesses.

The reader of court documents, for instance, may have read that Alessandra Formica and her fiancé saw a dark-skinned boy who was running away from the cottage, and that’s it. But there’s more in their testimony that the reader of court documents can’t perceive: the two walked at 10 pm just where Knox and Sollecito, according to Curatolo, should have been. But Formica and her boyfriend didn’t see Knox and Sollecito (on the other hand, guess who was that dark-skinned boy who was walking away without showing his face…).

The reader of court documents may have read that the Dramis sisters, while in bed, heard some steps in the street, and that’s it. But there’s more in their testimony that the reader of court documents couldn’t have noticed:

(1) the Dramis sister came back home at 10:30 pm, and walked just where, according to Curatolo, Knox and Sollecito should have been. But the Dramis sisters didn’t see Knox and Sollecito;

(2) they then entered their house, from which they heard people’s steps in the street, but not the scream heard by Nara Capezzali. The reader of court documents can’t know that the Dramis house is at the same distance, even closer to the cottage than Capezzali’s house; and he didn’t meet the Dramis sisters, so he doesn’t know that they are young, smart and reliable, and with hearing so sharp that they can even hear steps outside! The Dramis sister heard steps outside, but they didn’t hear the scream. The Dramis sisters, then, prove that the scream happened before 10:30 pm (meaning that the crime happened before 10:30 pm). The Dramis sisters, then, disprove Curatolo and prove Knox and Sollecito innocent. In other words, thanks to the Dramis sisters, we can place the crime before 10:30, which means that if Curatolo’s testimony was true, Knox and Sollecito were in the square when Meredith screamed (that is, during the crime), and therefore, Knox and Sollecito are innocent. If Curatolo’s testimony isn’t true, then no one saw Knox and Sollecito outside; therefore their alibi is not disproven, and they can’t be convicted.

For the reader of court documents, the Dramis sisters are not important witnesses. But I am not a reader of court documents; I was there, and I clearly see how the testimony of the Dramis sisters, combined with the one of Curatolo and of the ones who heard the scream, prove Knox and Sollecito innocent. It is useless then, making smear campaigns and producing defamatory reports. Who cares what Knox and Sollecito are like? They could be the worst people on earth, but if the scream happened before 10:30, they are mathematically innocent. On the other hand, we can’t spot any element that exonerates Guede.

It’s very easy to make mistakes when you didn’t live the case. Not only the prosecution, but the defense, too, can make mistakes. In Sollecito’s appeal document, for instance, you can read that the Dramis sister heard the scream! It’s a mistake.

And the other witnesses?

Nara Capezzali heard a scream; she looked down, but didn’t see Knox and Sollecito.

Antonella Monacchia came back home, heard a scream, but didn’t see Knox and Sollecito.

A family from Rome got stuck with their car right outside the cottage. But no one in that family saw Knox and Sollecito.

A mechanic came to tow their car; he had to make a long manoeuvre right outside the cottage, but he didn’t see Knox and Sollecito.

So, nobody except Curatolo said to have seen Knox and Sollecito, and nobody in absolute said to have seen Sollecito’s knife.

THE INVISIBLE MAN (AND WOMAN) 

Two fiancés, two sisters, one lady, one young lady, a family of four people, one mechanic. It’s a lot of people! And none of them saw Knox and Sollecito. From some mysterious sorcery, then, that night Knox and Sollecito were visible only to pushers and tramps, but they were invisible to other people…

Of those pushers and tramps only one remained, Curatolo. Those who never examined him believed his words to be true. And the only way to get an acquittal is to prove their reasoning about him fallacious.

So, we have seen that there are violations in the law, in the logic, and in the science. There are errors and oversights, in the prosecution, in the judgment, and in the defense. But what we say in the media is just for us. The only effective things are those said in the trial. If those violations, omissions, and fallacies will be said in court, Knox and Sollecito will be acquitted, otherwise they will be convicted.

  • Larry Saltzman

    What a powerful article. The innocence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is beyond any reasonable or unreasonable doubt. They are innocent. There is no evidence to support a guilty verdict, there is a lot of evidence that should have prevented them even being brought to trial. The real killer Ruede Guede is in prison, but will be released early. This case makes Alice in Wonderland look sane.

    • Mark Levy

      Wow, your post and opinion here will surely be a GREAT help for Amanda!!

    • Alice WAS sane. It was everyone else in Wonderland who was crazy. (The Cheshire Cat even admitted it.) The thing is, the trial of the Knave of Hearts in the book was genuinely funny and relatively harmless. This one is NOT.

      • Larry Saltzman

        That sounds like this case. Amanda and Raffele are sane and persecuted by insane people and an insane system.

  • jrpppp

    Cassation would do well to read this article, before issuing a verdict. Thanks so much for presenting the case so clearly, living through it, and bearing witness.

  • Dr. Joseph Zoo will no longer posting here.

    • Robyn Gordon

      I dont think he will be missed somehow.

    • The Maati

      You must be scared of him to get him gone..Transparent. Me too please.

      • We do not fear anyone. We welcome conversation. We do not allow the utter nonsense that Dr. Zoo spews out in various comment sections online.

        • The Maati

          I believe you fear the truth…but, if you say so. Nevertheless, you censored another. Why not ignore?

          • We certainly do not fear the truth, we provide the truth about this case. http://www.amandaknoxcase.com. That fact is not relevant to this conversation. This conversation deals with inappropriate comments. We do not “ignore” people that post vile comments, we remove them. The comment section here is intended to discuss this article. Do you have a comment about this article or would you like to continue with the intentional distraction?

          • The Maati

            I encourage posters to go to Injustice In Perugia..com…that is shere the dirty tactics began, People like to know the history.

          • It’s injusticeinperugia.org. Thanks.

          • Joanie

            themurderofmeredithkercher has the most thorough analysis of this case.

          • Ringo

            How many times have I heard THAT?

          • jackbutler5555

            Have you offered this advice to Peter Quennell and Peggy Ganong?

        • Ringo

          Uh, Mr. Fischer, “The Maati” just asked you to kick him off your website. Please honor his polite (cough) request.

    • Ringo

      Good.

    • jackbutler5555

      A sacrifice we must make for the advancement of medicine. He had been too generous with his time for us.

  • Noel Dalberth

    Admitting a mistake is tough. When that mistake turns into a 7+ year miscarriage of justice, one must wonder if integrity exists in this area of the Italian Justice system. The violations are vast. Amanda & Raffaele’s rights including a fair trial and presumption of innocence continue to be denied. The absolute absurdity of this nightmare has hit an all-time low. How desperate must a judicial system be to gain 2 wrongful convictions in the name of a victim? This entire timeline has been twisted & falsified to the point that it’s an absolute embarrassment. Stop the lies, Italy. Stop trying to punish 2 innocents. Stop protecting a cold-blooded murderer. Stop the coverup. This isn’t justice for Meredith.

    • Corrado Massa

      There is no integrity in the Italian justice system.

    • Ronovitch

      Writes ‘noel’ – the anonymous internet liar. That’s all the convicted criminal Knox has left – proven liars just like her.

  • ThomasSeven

    Amanda and Raffaele are clearly innocent. It is time to end this nightmare. Where is the conversation about false confessions?
    http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/false-memory-crime?mbid=social_twitter

    • Mark Levy

      ha yes, and then what will you do to end this nightmare??
      Even the US news network abandoned Amanda and know she is guilty and lied to them!

      You will continue to talk in this forum that nobody reads??
      GREAT HELP!

      • jackbutler5555

        “Even the US news network abandoned Amanda and know she is guilty and lied to them!”

        You know this how? I thought I counseled you on that before.

        • Ringo

          He was lying, Jack.

    • JackBB

      What did she confess to?

  • mryan1956

    What a powerful defense. Too bad this piece of paper won’t be among those considered by the judges.

  • This is a great article.

  • ProfessorAnderson

    Brilliant analysis, Frank. One of the things that allows such prosecutorial sleight of hand is the incredibly long-drawn out nature of the whole process in Italy; It is fortunate for us all that you are young, paid attention, are honest, have a good memory, and were free and dedicated enough to make it your career for years.

    Somehow people in power in Italy need to realise that psychopathic public prosecutors, police and judges have created a system in their own image that is more incredible than even the brilliant Franz Kafka could have dreamt up. But even more important, the few good honest people still working within this surreal system, and the politicians with the power and responsibility to actually change it, need to shout out the truth loud and clear. Unfortunately if everyone continues to lie about the Legal Emperor’s clothes rather than use this case to expose the truth and force change, Cassation will come up with some ludicrous obfustication, and Italy’s terrible persecution of the innocent will get steadily worse.

  • conservativeprof

    I do not understand the arguments. As I understand, both AK’s and MK’s DNA were found on the knife in the original testing. In testing a second area in 2013, only AK’s DNA was found but the original test results were not nullified by testing the second area.
    AK made a written statement following the statement prepared in the interrogation. I understand that the second statement was admissible.
    For the point about individuals not observing AK and/or RS, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. These individuals may have not observed either for a variety of reasons. The observation by

    • Here is an excellent resource discussing Raffaele’s kitchen knife: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/

      Amanda retracted her statements the morning after she had spent the entire night at the police station in a foreign country being grilled in a language she was not fluent in at the time. The statements obtained during her interrogation were completely unreliable given the circumstances. The rush to arrest Lumumba without any further investigation or questioning, is proof of that.

      • JackBB

        Didn’t she show up with Raffaele uninvited?

    • ianric

      If Curalot was telling the truth, he provides Amanda and Raffaele with an alibi for the time of the murder. If the prosecution had a strong case, why did they have to resort to using evidence which undermined their case?

    • CatsForever1960

      Can you explain why MK’s “DNA” was found on the knife but not her blood? Let me repeat that. No. Blood. Ever. Found. I await your explanation for that. And when you determine, correctly, that you cannot offer one, then answer this: through what other bodily fluid/substance of MK’s did her DNA arrive on the knife?

      • conservativeprof

        Your reasoning exhibits a classic fallacy: the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Her DNA should not have been found on the knife. DNA on the knife is evidence that Meredith came in contact with the knife when there is no explanation for her contact with the knife except that the knife was present at the crime scene.

        • CatsForever1960

          What a ridiculous response. I wonder if you could just answer the question I actually asked? What bodily substance of Meredith’s delivered Meredith’s DNA on the knife?

          Oh, and btw, Meredith’s DNA on the knife isn’t necessarily evidence that Meredith herself came into physical contact with the knife. If she did, then something like blood, sweat, saliva, etc., etc. was how her DNA arrived on the knife. So just what was that substance and why wasn’t it found?

          • Mark Levy

            why don’t you go to court an send them your arguments or “proofs”?? Everybody will laugh at you and you know that!!

            Time waster you are, defending a convicted killer.
            Trial is over. Amanda got caught by the evidence in the judge report.
            GUILTY.

          • CatsForever1960

            I’m asking FOR the proof, not saying that I already have it, mental midget. Fittingly, “conservative” can’t provide it. And I’m not “defending” anybody. Go back to the 4th grade and maybe you can develop some reading comprehension skills.

          • Mark Levy

            All the proofs and evidence are public and in the judge report.
            Are you smart enough to look it up?
            If not, get more…Prozac!!.

          • CatsForever1960

            The “proof” of what bodily substance/fluid the DNA came from isn’t “public” nor is it in the “judge report”. That “proof” doesn’t exist. I won’t ask if you’re smart enough to grasp this because the answer is hilariously obvious: you aren’t. Must be time for your second lobotomy.

          • Niteangel

            Amazing how some people consider the Judge report as “proof” and/or “evidence”. No wonder there is idiots who actually believe that there is evidence against her.

          • JackBB

            So you think that every piece of evidence in this case is faulty? Every one?

          • JLS1950

            Every piece of “evidence” claimed by the prosecution to “prove” the involvement of Knox or Sollecito is faulty and has been proven so. Other evidence may or may not be faulty – it is truly had to tell when police and prosecutors have told so many outrageous lies and fables. It is instructive that the DNA from in and on Meredith’s body was NOT collected by Patrizia Stefanoni and her team, however.

          • JackBB

            So how to document all the faults and make sure the US court sees it before its too late? and will they investigate it? It would be worth while, there is too much at stake I would say.

          • JLS1950

            Most of the evidentiary faults are thoroughly documented in the Hellmann Motivational Report from the 3 Oct 2011 acquittals when Knox and Sollecito were acquitted “as innocent” and released without condition. Judge Hellmann was extremely perceptive and he wrote a very detailed explanation why the defendants were not proved guilty but indeed why the actual evidence proved them wholly innocent. (They get to say that in Italian courts.) So in theory the Hellmann Motivations – the formal statement of the acquittals – should be the first line of evidence rebutting the rulings of Nencini and the ISC as respecting Probable Cause. Additional to that, I know that Bruce Fischer (IIP / IA sites founder/moderator) has amassed a great deal of evidence from many sources that is available to the Knox defense team – including names of highly-qualified experts in forensic genetics (DNA) from both the U.S. and the U.K., and in other crime-scene disciplines, who have already indicated willingness and in fact outright eagerness to testify. The documentation of the decision of the ISC to “nullify” Hellmann is in and of itself clear evidence of total anti-science or pseudo-science wackiness (the take on laws of motion is spectacularly wacky) improper linkage of findings from a separate case where these defendants were not represented, and just outright political motivation (which obviates extradition.) You can easily find this information by following links on the InjusticeInPerugia website.

          • JackBB

            Hellmann clearly misconstrued the BARD standard as akin to “absolute certainty” and did not understand that it must be applied to the TOTALITY of the evidence.

            He doesn’t understand what the SCOTUS understands: that the BARD standard is “probabilistic” in nature, and that a doubt is not reasonable if it is based on “mere possibility” (which is all C&V could offer).

          • JLS1950

            When evidence violates evidentiary standards of reliability and competence, it MUST be thrown out. Hellmann understood that. The idea of piling contaminated “evidence” upon contaminated “evidence” and trying to pretend that the whole sordid mass does not stink seems to be a uniquely Italian and Italophile trait and habit. You are stretching beyond the limits of your reach here, trying to turn base metal into evidentiary gold. The American courts will have to sort this one out – Italian courts are simply incompetent and corrupt.

          • JackBB

            How was the evidence contaminated?

          • JLS1950

            It is not necessary to explain “how” the evidence was contaminated – although that has been done by others. The important point is that the accepted procedures designed to avoid contamination were violated at every turn. It is a bit like the hospital in Texas that violated all recommendations in handling Ebola by using makeshift protective gear and such, and people were infected: it is not necessary to show exactly how they were infected but only to show that procedures were violated and people were infected.

            Remember that the process of analyzing DNA is a form of “culturing” process: the original DNA is never even measured at all, but rather its presence is inferred by the ability to “clone” it and manufacture much more in a “culturing” process called Polymerase Chain Reaction or PCR. The DNA itself is very close to being “alive”, and “contamination” is quite literally a form of “infection”. If the proper “anti-infection” (anti-contamination) measures have not been followed, then results are utterly unreliable. And in this case, one or several indicators designed to detect and alert to actual contamination came up positive: contamination did occur.

          • JackBB

            Then that blows the dna evidence.

          • JLS1950

            Precisely.

          • jackbutler5555

            Depends on how you define evidence. Is the kiss evidence? How about buying the panties? The exchange over a locked door?

          • JackBB

            Behavior and conflicting explanations are not evidence? Just in Italy or everywhere?

          • jackbutler5555

            So, I gather you make a distinction between evidence and proof.

          • JackBB

            are you splitting hairs here? What is relevant in a court of law?

          • jackbutler5555

            Lots of objects and testimony can be regarded as evidence — whether or not they turn out to be proof.

          • jackbutler5555

            But it’s not proof, as I explained elsewhere.

          • JackBB

            in many cases it is. In the US one lie and they zero in on you.

          • jackbutler5555

            So, in those cases that it isn’t proof, does that still mean it’s part of this mountain, anyway?

          • JackBB

            If it is in the record, it is in the record, what else can I tell you?

          • jackbutler5555

            I didn’t ask you if it’s part of the record.

          • jackbutler5555

            You can tell me whether your mountain includes these boulders.

          • JackBB

            ain’t my mountain, its THE mountain.

          • jackbutler5555

            Do you mean that the mountain of evidence includes a kiss, a dispute over a locked door, et al?

          • JackBB

            Is that considered circumstantial?

          • jackbutler5555

            Are you asking or telling me?

          • JackBB

            asking

          • jackbutler5555

            No it’s not circumstantial.

          • JackBB

            That’s what the question mark is for

          • jackbutler5555

            It’s actually just a pile of dirt. But it is a big pile, if that’s any consolation.

          • Niteangel

            If you are referring to the evidence against Guede, no. His DNA was easily and completely identifiable, and the quantities more than sufficient for analysis according to international standards. So were his bloody shoe prints.

          • JackBB

            I wasn’t

          • JackBB

            The same forensic team collected all the evidence. Why is Guede acceptable but the others not?

          • jackbutler5555

            If Guede had a decent lawyer, he would certainly call attention to the shortcomings of the lab — even if he were a friend of Mignini’s. But Guede was advised by his lawyer to cave.

          • JackBB

            ah, so its the lawyers fault, and Guede is as innocent as AK and RS?

          • jackbutler5555

            You derived that from what I said?

          • JackBB

            so you want it both ways?

          • jackbutler5555

            Search for comments I made stating Italy proved Guede’s guilt. Or search for comments I made stating Italy did not prove his guilt.

          • CatsForever1960

            Agree, Niteangel. I’ve yet to see any “evidence” against either Knox or Sollecito that hasn’t been thoroughly dismantled by disinterested parties. There is no scientific expert anywhere in the world other than those paid by the prosecution to testify who has endorsed the scientific “evidence” in this case as it relates to these two.

          • jackbutler5555

            And if that knife was used in a bloody stabbing, the DNA would come from that blood. But the police lab tested the knife for blood and found none.

          • JLS1950

            Moreover, the trapped starch grains identified by C&V would have absorbed and held any actual blood that knife was bathed in (and it absolutely was a bloodbath) so that no amount of “bleach” could have removed all traces – and would have further absorbed and held any such “bleach” used to clean the knife. Neither blood nor bleach was found in the starch grains – thus the knife had NEVER been in contact with any quantity of either.

          • jackbutler5555

            Why is it that the anti-Knox folks want to discuss just about anything but the case. Here you give them an opportunity to shoot your logic down. Will they — can they — step up to the challenge? And if they can’t, why does that not give them reason to pause? Instead they resort to hostesses at Olive Garden.

          • JLS1950

            No, they cannot. All they can do is call us names and repeat old and discredited lies. As I said, the best thing here is that after the ISC puts its collective feet in its collective mouth, this whole case will transfer to an AMERICAN court where a bit of sense can be argued and can prevail.

            Italy’s courts are like The Picture of Dorian Gray: all pretty and charming in polite society, but ugly and grotesque and horribly disfigured under the covers.

          • Niteangel

            Stefanoni never answered this question Catsforever, she did the TMB tests tho (for the presence of blood) and it wasn’t blood. But again I repeat, the profile could not actually be attributed to anyone, including Meredith, in other words Stefanoni assumed and/or guessed that it was Meredith’s. Read Barni and Berti’s diagnosis, especially their conclusions concerning the DNA profiles on the knife.

        • Mark Levy

          I agree with you “conservativeprof”.
          It is a waste of time to try to show people here that the earth is round, they will not want to realize that.

          Lots of evidence in the judge report allowed the 2 courts to convict Amanda Knox.

          • jackbutler5555

            The earth isn’t round. So much for your mastery of science.

            Lots of evidence? Which is the most compelling for you?

          • Joanie

            Enough with this ridiculous tactic. Its totally absurd:

            The law of evidence is concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation.

            The quantum of evidence is the amount of evidence needed; the quality of proof is how reliable such evidence should be considered. This includes such concepts as hearsay, authentication, admissibility, reasonable doubt, and clear and convincing evidence.

            There are several types of evidence, depending on the form or source. Evidence governs the use of testimony (e.g., oral or written statements, such as an affidavit), exhibits (e.g., physical objects), documentary material, or demonstrative evidence, which are admissible (i.e., allowed to be considered by the trier of fact, such as jury) in a judicial or administrative proceeding (e.g., a court of law).
            The AK case is batting 1000

        • JLS1950

          If DNA is derived from blood, then a test for blood will be positive. If DNA is not derived from blood then we are left with skin flakes and saliva. For a man we could add semen, but not in this case.

          So non-blood DNA does not connect the knife to any of the fatal wounds that it did not fit, and as it was found half a km away in a kitchen drawer, there is nothing valid to connect the knife to the crime or crime scene.

          But the real problem with the “MK” DNA is that it was processed using a low-template or LCN technique that the lab was not equipped to perform safely. As a “business professor” you may be familiar with the term “Chinese wall” as applied in the legal, banking/securities and certain technology industries: and artificial barrier erected to prevent certain information from crossing into the wrong side of an activity.

          In this context, DNA is not “stuff” but rather is information used to create massively more DNA for identification. The original DNA is detected ONLY by its ability to be copied thousands or millions of times.

          There was never enough DNA anywhere on the knife to identify as DNA per se. Rather, the very tiny amount was used as a template in a massive copying process, literally doubling in every copy cycle until as little as one copy turns into hundreds or thousands or millions. In LCN testing, one copy turns into billions or trillions. ONE copy.

          But where did one copy – or even ten copies – of non blood DNA come from in a single-room lab without walls where physical evidence such as the victim’s clothing has been laying around, skin flakes falling off and being wafted by the air systems, tracked on the floor, becoming attached to technicians… No “Chinese wall” here: DNA like little Post-It notes lying all around – stuck to the furniture.

          A proper LCN lab is required to have two separate rooms – one where original evidence is processed and possible DNA samples extracted into liquid in single-use – and another where the actual amplification and analysis is done. The rooms are required to have separate ventilation with specific rescrictions, and the analysis room is to be at a higher absolute air pressure than the extraction room so that particles cannot blow from the one to the other. Samples are to be passed through a small airlock. No other door is permitted between the rooms.

          Stefanoni’s lab had none of that. The extraction bench for the clothing, the grinder used to take a sample from the knife blade, the PCR amplification machines and the capilary e-gram machines were all within a couple of meters of each other. Contamination was all but assured.

          There was in almost certain fact never ANY Meredith DNA on that knife before it was collected.

          • JackBB

            Didn’t both the defence and prosecution agree her dna was on the knife?

          • JLS1950

            I do not believe the defense has ever agreed that Meredith’s DNA was actually on Raff’s bread knife at the time it was collected by police. It certainly has never been verified as required by the legal procedure – and it was absolutely non-blood DNA (if DNA at all) in any case. The presence of Amanda’s DNA on the handle of the knife she was using to cut bread and pizza is distinctly non-incriminating: most of the knives in your own kitchen likely have your DNA on them after use and until washed in a dishwasher. Connoisseurs of food preparation knives NEVER put them in a dishwasher (hand wash only with soft soap!)

          • CatsForever1960

            Thank you very much for posting this great information, JLS1950. It has always seemed obvious to me that Meredith’s DNA arrived on the knife via contamination in the lab but I was not aware of the extent to which Stefanoni’s lab failed to meet the protocols necessary for this kind of sophisticated analysis.

          • JLS1950

            Thank you. I am glad you found it both understandable and however slightly enlightening.

          • JackBB

            What is the threshold for blood in a TMB test? is there one?

          • JLS1950

            That is sort of like asking whether your tongue is sensitive enough to detect that there is water in Lake Superior. Given the amount of blood involved in the fatal wounds, there should have been more than enough blood on that knife to be detected by TMB or by any other confirming test for blood. The trapped starch grains would have absorbed blood – and if used at all – also bleach. None such was absorbed. If you know that a body has bled out and you find only a pristine place on the carpet where there is no bloodstain and no blood under the carpet either, don’t go blathering on about how TMB is just not sensitive enough to detect the “blood”.

            There was NEVER any blood on the knife.

          • JackBB

            Is there a threshold? If you don’t know, just say it. I don’t know, that is why I am asking.

          • JLS1950

            I don’t think TMB has a hard threshhold – but for very tiny concentrations it might be difficult to detect the response. This is beyond my actual knowledge: you would have to ask someone like Steve Moore. But the point here is the starch grains which would have acted like tiny sponges to absorb and never let go of blood… or bleach. That blood would have been highly detectable in 2011… if it had existed at all. It was not there. In the bloodbath of this crime, no “murder weapon” could have been cleaned beyond detection in four days without burning it in fire.

          • JackBB

            good point. If they washed it off, it would also be traceable in the sink, drain, etc. Shame on them for not looking (Or they did look and found nothing, not sure)

          • JLS1950

            That is not the point really, although I would say that police were reckless (or dishonest) in not taking DNA samples from and Luminols studies of the floor of the shower stall in the cottage to rule out tracking from there: that would have explained the Luminol footprints immediately. But for the knife it is the knife itself and these pristine trapped rye starch grains which show that it never touched blood. Cleaning blood and bleach out of those starch grains would be equivalent to un-baking bread to manufacture flour.

          • JackBB

            Does that theory also apply to the mixed blood/dna spots?

          • JLS1950

            The thing about “mixed blood” is that none was ever proved. Finding blood with two persons’ DNA in it does not prove “mixed blood”: there are just too many other ways for DNA to contaminate blood, and only an antibody test looking for mixed serotype (A, B, Rh and other factors) can detect actual mixed blood. No antibody tests were reported that demonstrate mixed serotypes. In a bathroom, DNA most commonly comes from oral mucous from tooth cleaning – and in women and where a bidet is provisioned then also from vaginal mucous (not common in America where bidets are uncommon.) So reports of “mixed blood” in the bathroom basin and bidet are at best very suspect – especially since police did not take any “control” samples from unbloodied portions of these fixtures to rule out latent non-blood DNA that is ubiquitously found there: if you simply drop one person’s blood into the basin or bidet of a shared bathroom, you will almost always get blood with mixed DNA.

            Outside the bathroom and Meredith’s bedroom (where she was butchered) the only verified blood found was of Meredith only in Rudy Guede’s very unique Nike Outbreak 2 partial left shoe prints and I think one amorphous “blob” like a bare heel print between the bedroom and bathroom doors. All the Luminol hits were so strong that had the Luminol been detecting actual blood, TMB (which is only about half an order of magnitude less sensitive to blood than Luminol) would also have reacted fiercely. All tested negative with TMB: no blood. Some of these did contain mixed DNA, but the DNA necessarily came from other sources – the most likely being skin flakes (“shower scum”) tracked from the shared shower stall floor where traces of common shower/tub/tile cleaner would also have been present… which is a powerful Luminol trigger. Had police tested the shower pan with Luminol and taken DNA samples, all this would have been quite obvious.

            No DNA of Knox was found inside the murder bedroom, and the claim of Raff’s DNA there (on the bra hook) has been trounced as specifically invalid (Raff is actually excluded as a contributor.) No blood, hair, spit, sweat, prints of any sort, or other evidence of either Knox or Sollecito was found in the murder room – only for Guede.

          • Niteangel

            A guilter (conservativeprof) speaking of fallacy … that’s rich lol, they are the kings of fallacious arguments.

        • Niteangel

          I don’t think you can read well. “couldn’t be attributed with certainty to anyone” means it could not be attributed to Meredith with certainty either, in other words it could have been anyone else’s DNA, but Stefanoni decided to attribute it to Meredith, despite the fact that the profile was not complete enough to do so, she assumed/guessed. Do read Berni and Barti’s analysis, and especially their conclusions about the DNA profiles on the knife.

        • Niteangel

          Here’s something that is not a “fallacy”, contrary to your comment: the simple fact that Stefanoni herself couldn’t confirm her result by testing the knife a 2nd time makes this result inadmissible as evidence and in Court. Simple as that. Clear enough? There is a reason for this, if the quantity of DNA is in such a small quantity that the result can’t even be confirmed, it indicates a strong possibility of contamination, and it is not admissible as evidence because it is too easy to deposit some other person’s DNA on your own clothes, items etc, even from something as simple as shaking hands, or slightly touching the person or items that he/she has touched. The point is to, as much as possible, avoid condemning innocent people for crimes they didn’t commit.

        • jackbutler5555

          “In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.”

          —Copi , Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95

          • JLS1950

            Thank you. That needed to be said and you said it better than I would have.

      • Niteangel

        You still don’t realise that Stefanoni is the only one who supposedly found Meredith’s DNA on the knife, and she couldn’t even confirm her own “result”. And you still don’t understand that a result that can’t be confirmed is not valid nor admissible in Court, and there is a very good reason for that, its because the DNA was in such small quantity that 1 – it could not actually be attributed with certainly to anyone, and 2- chances are extremely high that it was contamination (very small quantity + couldn’t be confirmed). Also read Berni and Barti’s conclusions about the DNA on the knife, maybe it will help you understand how it works.

        • JackBB

          How was it contaminated? What else was contaminated? The scenario needs specifics.

          • Niteangel

            Again I repeat, read Barni & Berti’s conclusions about the DNA on the knife, it will help you understand better. Briefly: what they found is an “incomplete” profile that cannot be attributed with certainty, they compared with Meredith’s profile, and their conclusion is that it was likely NOT Meredith’s DNA. Also the simple fact that the DNA was in such a small quantity strongly indicate the possibility of contamination. Now as to how it happened, first the knife was not collected nor stored properly (it was put in an envelope and in one of Raffaele’s used grocery bags – note here that he had cooked and also ate at the cottage, and met Meredith, and that Amanda was her roommate, so it is also possible – again assuming that it was in fact Meredith’s DNA on the knife, which I strongly doubt – that either Raffaele or Amanda would have transfered/deposited some of her DNA themselves on different objects), also it was left in a box (not sterilized, and other items had been put in it before) and left on a desk at the police station. And that’s not to mention the possibility of contamination in the lab as well. Now don’t ask me to pinpoint the exact moment when the contamination occured (assuming it was even Meredith’s DNA to begin with, which as I said I strongly doubt, especially after Barni & Berti’s analysis, and the fact that Stefanoni herself couldn’t test the knife a 2nd time to confirm the result) because its pretty much impossible, especially in this context.

          • jackbutler5555

            You and Italy’s judiciary agree. Are you and the court you seem to revere so caught up in your predispositions that you can not understand that any transfer of DNA can not be proved. You and the high court seem to want to impose an impossible barrier so that the blunders committed by the police lab won’t have to be explained away.

          • JLS1950

            As I keep saying, these people are using the same sorts of thinking that went into the Salem Witch Trials. In fact the parallels are absolutely uncanny. At Salem they tested for “witchcraft” by taking urine from a person suspected of having been “bewitched” (note: not just the suspected “witch” but often the suspected “victim”) soaking a piece of rye bread in that and feeding it to a dog. If the dog went crazy, convulsed and/or died, then “witchcraft” was “proven”. But after all, what could possibly go wrong? It was entirely “Scientific”!

            That year has been unusually wet in Salem, and the rye harvest had become infected with ergot – a type of fungus that produces a potent neurotoxin known to cause hallucinations, loss of motor control, seizures and death. People throughout Salem were reporting “visions” and “bewitchment” causing tremors and seizures throughout 1692.

            The same basic thinking is infecting the Italian judicial system and in fact the guilters around the world: they think the mere presence of DNA is absolute evidence of “guilt”. After all, it is “Scientific” and “everyone knows that Science is always right!” But they do not know that they live their very lives amid a veritable sea of DNA and that DNA of and by itself really proves nothing except that a living person or a very fresh corpse was once nearby.

            The people are bewitched by their ignorance and their own insecurity.

          • JackBB

            Convenient

          • jackbutler5555

            What question was asked that “convenient” is a logical answer?

      • JackBB

        All that is important, really, is that her dna was on the knife. And RS did make up and excuse as to why it was there. Very strange to do that, regardless of where or when or how he said it, he said it. Very strange indeed.

        • CatsForever1960

          Pure idiotic garbage. It matters 100% how and in what setting the DNA “arrived” on the knife. I’m not wasting my time on you but in case some actually smart person comes across this thread and is interested in quality information, here’s a sample of what world-renowned DNA expert Peter Gill, who reviewed the work of the 2 independent DNA experts appointed by the Hellman court, had to say on Italian TV recently – words in caps are my emphasis:

          My understanding is that there was DNA from Amanda Knox on the handle, and trace DNA evidence of Meredith Kercher on the blade. However the DNA profile on the blade, purported to be from Meredith Kercher was extremely weak, and furthermore there was NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of any blood. But there was evidence of starch grains which was evidence that the knife was used to cut food. So the main question is ‘was the knife used to stab Meredith Kercher?’ And obviously part of the evidence is the DNA profile on the knife handle, which matched Amanda Knox. But there are obviously two possibilities; either the knife was used to stab Kercher, or else it was used to prepare food and it was not used to stab Kercher. And the question is ‘can DNA profiles distinguish between the two events?’ And it clearly CANNOT, because the DNA profile gives us no information about HOW it was transferred. The DNA profile which I would observe on the handle of a knife would be the same REGARDLESS OF WHETHER the knife had been used to cut food or to stab a victim. I have seen some evidence from the judgement where it has been proposed that the distribution of the DNA on the knife handle is evidence that it was used to stab rather than to cut food, but there is absolutely NO scientific evidence, there are NO scientific papers whatsoever that would support this kind of conclusion. So again the DNA profile takes us NO further forward to decide whether it was transferred as the result of a cutting action as opposed to a stabbing action. The DNA profile purported to come from Meredith Kercher is extremely low level, and again we HAVE
          to consider the same possibilities of HOW it got there. Either it was used as a murder weapon, or else the DNA could have been transferred as a result of a contamination event. … It’s said that the knife has been cleaned with bleach, for example, which is why there is a small amount of material purported to come from Meredith Kercher, but I actually find it quite difficult to believe that bleach would selectively remove blood and leave some DNA there. And it’s also another example where no experiments have been carried out to verify whether these conclusions are feasible. I would actually carry out some experiments to take some knives; I would do careful controls – I would put blood on the knife blade, I would clean it with bleach for example, to see whether the DNA was selectively removed or stayed intact. But these types of experiments have not been carried out, and therefore all I see with this is quite a lot of speculation.

          • JackBB

            Peter Gill never reviewed the actual evidence and the Hellmann Appeal was annulled. Try to keep your emotions in check and be objective. Legitimate questions and concerns are raised by both sides, however, the court rendered a verdict. if it is wrong, how can it be corrected?

          • JLS1950

            A “story” made up by RS proves NOTHING. I could as effectively claim that you are making up “stories” (accusing AK and RS) that thereproves YOU are the killer. It is NONSENSE.

            -I am sure that Gill reference C&V – that is what real scientists DO. But Gill is the SME on LCN/LT forensic genetics: he has the qualifications to review C&V and to state whether they are barking up the right tree or the wrong one. He said they were on the right one.

            -You do not “prove” a path of contamination: you “prove” that you have taken all steps according to generally-accepted procedure to avoid contamination.

            -Citation of papers on secondary transfer (tertiary transfer and beyond also has been rigorously documented) is sufficient to demonstrate that such cannot be ruled out. As it cannot be ruled out and as accepted procedures were violated, the results are suspect and unreliable and not at all appropriate to consider at all.

            -No, I do not believe it really was a “full” match to Meredith’s DNA, but in fact even just one single cell can provide a template for an entire genome. (Were this not so you’d not have been born!) The problem is in eliminating all the places where that single cell or small group of cells MIGHT have come from OTHER than from blood that was not detected at all. Actual blood should have left LOTS of DNA-containing cells. And as for bleach, the starch grains would have absorbed any such and we would have a record of that: there was no bleach ever applied.

            -Shoe box, lingerie box, whatever – if proved would prove a path of contamination but if disproved only disproves THAT SPECIFIC means of contamination and not any others. What was the full chain-of-custody of the knife? Why was it re-wrapped after leaving Raff’s apartment? Even Stefanoni herself stated under oath that it was delivered to her in wrappings that were “obviously not sterile”… WHY? What had happened to the knife between when it was removed from the original evidence bag and when it was rewrapped for delivery to Stefanoni? Where is the original evidence bag for testing? When had Meredith’s clothing or other items form the crime scene been in Stefanoni’s lab prior to testing the knife? When and were were the swabs from the autopsy processed? MIGHT prior testing have left bits skin flakes or dried saliva or vaginal mucous lying around on services like little DNA Post-It Notes? If this cannot be ruled out, then it must be accepted as a possible source of contamination. Remember, it takes only a VERY tiny amount of contaminant to create a false result in LCN testing – THAT is why there are such stringent standards for LCN labs.

            -Gubbiotti and Finci CANNOT “remove all possible paths” but only exclude paths that they can identify as “potential” – they cannot exclude paths that they do not know of and cannot predict, and as the chain of custody is not documented and rules of handling were flagrantly violated, we (and they) simply cannot know what potential paths may exist. You cannot rule out what you are unaware exists.

            -C&V showed that the bra hook DNA was NOT a valid match for Sollecito, and I believe also that Raffaele could be excluded entirely as a donor. Additional to this, it is very clear from police photos that the bra strap was not “cut” at all, but rather simply tore under immense tensile load that deformed one metal hook: the bar was yanked off. (The is a straight edge visible in photos, but this is not a post-manufacture cut: it is a heat-fused “clean finish” edge from manufacture. Any competent seamstress could tell you this.) Yanking the bra off of Meredith with the tensile stress observed should have left a pretty massive transfer of “touch DNA” somewhere on the strap, and indeed such was found I believe behind the left cup: DNA of Rudy Guede.

            And last but not least, the Supreme Court decision “annulling” Hellmann is not a statement of qualified scientists but of judges clearly lacking in scientific training based on their own claims. Of course Gill would not cite it: it is as irrelevant as citing Muhammad Ali on the coarseness of lunar “soil”. And the only “lay persons” who are “tearing apart” Gill’s writings are unqualified guilters who are annoyed with him for trashing their fantasies.

          • JackBB

            makes a lot of sense. thanks.

        • Niteangel

          I’d try to find an explanation too if I was told that the DNA of a murdered person ended up on one of my kitchen knife and I was accused of the murder. And her DNA wasn’t there, Barni &Berti eliminated this myth.

          • JackBB

            Really? You would make up a detailed scenario rather than just say it doesn’t make sense?

            That the profile found on the knife recovered from Sollecito’s apartment is a match to Meredith was never in question. The experts for both sides stipulated to the fact that those two profiles match. Conti and Vecchiotti, although they reveal their bias in attempting to avoid directly answering the question, eventually admit that the DNA profile recovered from the knife is a match to Meredith Kercher.

          • jackbutler5555

            Perhaps I’m not as familiar with C&V’s testimony as you are. But I don’t recall their having said what you said they said. Do you have a direct quote?

          • JLS1950

            The point here is that because of the deficiencies in Stefanoni’s lab vis-a-vis LCN requirements, we can never know that the DNA really came from the knife at all. What was “found” were DNA templates equivalent to maybe less than 50 skin cells – or a very tiny flake or dried mucous. And this DNA was discovered “on” a piece of evidence for which the chain of custody is not merely in question but is in fact unknown. We simply do not know where that knife was for several days or what it was brought into contact with during that time. What we do know is that every effort to verify that the “Meredith” DNA was actually present on the knife – even ONE confirming result – has been fraught with utter failure. NOBODY has been able to reproduce the result – and in both science and forensics a result that cannot be reproduced is simply not a result at all… but a “mistake”.

          • Niteangel

            I think you skipped a few lines in his journal, he also mention that the story about the knife doesn’t make sense.

          • JackBB

            But still made up the story. Strange.

          • jackbutler5555

            Can you provide direct quotes?

        • jackbutler5555

          Fits your definition of evidence? Or, is it proof?

          • JackBB

            What? the dna on the knife or the made up excuse?

          • jackbutler5555

            I duly note you regard the finding of the Steffanoni un-certified lab as proof. The only DNA scientists — the only DNA scientists — and you disagree.

          • JackBB

            as do the courts

          • jackbutler5555

            Do you ever disagree with authority? If so, why is your mere mention of “the courts” supposed to be persuasive — in and of itself?

          • JackBB

            Why is it now “ever”? because a full plethora of professionals studied a huge amount of information and deemed it worthy of a guilty verdict? Your position requires a combination of conspiracy, incompetence and dishonesty on the part of this authority. That’s fine, but it needs to be articulated in your details. You can’t just make the accusation without a basis in fact.

          • jackbutler5555

            My position, in fact, merely requires the mind of a skeptic. I note that you are walking away from your reverence for the court. Click my handle and you will see the basis of my skepticism. There are plenty of details in what I said. Why don’t you select one of my comments on the case itself and debate me? Or select one of the elements of this “plethora” and defend it.

          • JackBB

            It is you who is claiming the entirety of the participants are in cahoots. that is what require detail and corroboration, not cherry picking. Otherwise it falls apart without foundation.

          • jackbutler5555

            You must be confusing me with someone else.

          • JackBB

            So you don’t hold the Italian authority responsible? my mistake.

          • jackbutler5555

            I mention nothing about a conspiracy. In order for me to do so, I would have had to speculate. Speculation is the specialty of Judge Massei, et al.

          • JackBB

            its okay to avoid the question, no one will notice.

          • jackbutler5555

            Please reread the thread.

          • jackbutler5555

            Please go over what I actually wrote.

          • JackBB

            Its a simple question. Why are you avoiding a one work answer/ yes or no?

          • jackbutler5555

            Click my handle. I have been pointing out the shortcomings in this case. You’re better off finding fault with what I found fault with. Are you trying to divert attention away from these shortcomings by asking me to sleuth? Why not challenge me? Find fault with what I say, if you can. Why do you keep side stepping?

          • JackBB

            It was a simple question, yet you refuse to answer

          • jackbutler5555

            Your index finger broken? Try the middle finger.

          • JackBB

            yes or no?

          • jackbutler5555

            Okay, I’ll try the middle finger.

          • JackBB

            so still can’t answer. its okay, you never do.

          • jackbutler5555

            I invited you to click my handle and challenge my comments. Your response…well… it wasn’t challenges to my comments. Instead, it was — and I’m sure will continue to be — more dodging.

            Wouldn’t it have been great to have absolutely destroyed what I said with facts and logic? I’d have been humiliated. Still, it’s not too late.

          • jackbutler5555

            What specifically — specifically — did I write which you disagree with and why? If you can.

          • JackBB

            yes, or no?

          • jackbutler5555

            I gather that answer is that you can’t. It doesn’t come as a surprise.

          • JackBB

            neither can you, obviously.

          • jackbutler5555

            You’d be hard put to find a direct quote from my writings which includes the word conspiracy or any of its synonyms. You folks will try anything to avoid challenging my specific criticisms of the case. Surely you must have more confidence than that. But maybe not.

          • JackBB

            you’re right, I don’t.

          • JLS1950

            In fact, virtually all of the forensic DNA specialists who have examined the evidence in this case have called it unreliable crap. Only “experts” who are supervising officers in the Italian police – and the population statistical genetics analyst Balding – seem to support it – and Balding admitted that he never had access to the original data and his opinion was wholly dependent on Stefanoni having followed proper procedure. She did not.

          • JackBB

            Then why wasn’t that brought up in court, and accepted? They obviously proved her procedures were sound.

          • JLS1950

            This was brought up in court, but the prosecution strongly objected to any foreign expert witnesses – and in Italy and under an Inquisitorial system, when the prosecution objects then the evidence or witnesses are generally not allowed at all. (This is how the putative semen stain was never tested and why actual-conditions testing of the break-in were never allowed. It is also the real reason that Hellmann was scorned by the judges of the ISC: for allowing expert witnesses Conti and Vecchiotti over the objections of the prosecution.)

            This is a huge part of the problem with the Italian system. Remember that up until the mid 1990’s, criminal trials in Italy did not even have real defense attorneys and defense witnesses at all: the Public Minister controlled the WHOLE show and determined who was allowed to be a “witness”.

          • JackBB

            The operative word being “putative”. If you insist on absolute certainty of every piece of evidence totally on its own, the use of this word contradicts your efforts. If it was never tested, how could you possibly know what it was? or how old?

          • JLS1950

            Putative: generally considered or reputed to be (from Merriam-Webster dictionary)

            If evidence it not generally considered or reputed to be evidence, then it is not evidence. Expert and Scientific evidence is supposed to be “generally accepted within the relevant scientific or professional community or derived using generally-accepted procedures and principles”. The relevant scientific community tells us that Stefanoni’s DNA “evidence” for the bra hook and for the knife is CRAP – not evidence at all. Therefore it is not putative. There is nothing in there about “certainty”: the relevant scientific community is telling us that these claims of Stefanoni are no better than examining frog entrails to detect “witchcraft”. It is “junk science”.

          • JackBB

            You referred to the unknown stain as Putative. Are you now deflecting away from your own topic?

          • JLS1950

            The stain is generally considered or believed to be a semen stain by everyone EXCEPT the prosecutors and the judges – and no evidence whatsoever has been presented to show that it is NOT such. No test results have EVER been presented. However the position of the stain directly under Meredith’s genitals – and the very apparent fact that it was still wet when Rudy Guede stepped in it and tracked it with his very unique Nike Outbreak 2 shoe – all augur that it is just that.

          • JackBB

            So in this case of the stain, “generally considered or believed” is enough for you?

          • JLS1950

            Look up the definition of “putative” again. Apparently English must be unfamiliar to you?

          • JackBB

            You’re missing the point. This stain that was never tested, you are using as proof, yet other pieces of evidence, that were tested, you are disputing. See the disconnect? No?

          • JLS1950

            Only using it as proof that something that should have been tested was not tested despite repeated requests….and that spells “hiding something”.

          • JackBB

            Did the defence request it to be tested from the beginning?

          • JLS1950

            As far as I know Amanda’s team did, once they were aware. of it. Really doesn’t matter though, as it was the job of police to test it whether asked or not: it is part of the evidence and it needs to be in the record.

          • JackBB

            What did massei say about it?

          • JLS1950

            At the hearing of December 4 the Defence for Sollecito concluded the rebuttals, submitting a memorandum evidencing that on the site of the inspection of May 25, 2009, on the pillowcase of the pillow found in the victim’s room some stains had been found with the ‚crimescope‛ that could have been spermatic in nature and that these had not been the object of any genetic analysis. In relation to this contention, various questions were raised as to the necessity of testing relative to these stains.

            Massei, p9 [p21 in English translation]

            It appears the “questions” were never answered in the writings of Massei.

          • JackBB

            sounds like a good grounds for an appeal

          • JLS1950

            It was… and it still didn’t get tested because Mignini objected and refused. Just like Stefanoni never turned over the edfs despite being ordered to by Hellmann. And more such with Nencini.

            stupid corrupt is as stupid corrupt does.

          • JackBB

            I doubt Italy will request extradition – too many holes in the case. I’d bet the ISC finds a way to abdicate their responability. Either send it back for retrial, or find technicality. They can’t convict RS and not AK, so it will be very interesting to see what happens.
            I must say I admire your depth of knowledge in this case.

          • JLS1950

            This might be a clue now how the ISC is going to weasel out of the painted-in corner: one of the jurors on the Nencini panel has made a public statement that she has “grave doubts” about the verdicts and that there was an atmosphere of prejudice or ‘guilt’ before the trial even began. She states that… well, read it yourself:

            http://www.dailymail.CO.UK/news/article-3002451/Juror-helped-convict-Amanda-Knox-grave-doubts-American-s-involvement-Meredith-Kercher-s-murder.html

          • JackBB

            JackBB • a few seconds ago
            As a guilt leaning troll, I still can’t help but ask some of the FOA questions that I find relevant:
            – Why wasn’t that semen stain tested by police
            – Why wasn’t the blood in the break in room not tested?
            -Why, if they had recording equipment in the interrogation room, did they not start to record when Amanda supposedly changed her story?
            -Did Curatolo confuse hallowe’en night with the night of the murder?
            – How was DNA on the knife but no blood, and why didn’t the police look further into the drain/pipes for blood if it was washed off.
            – Why, if blood was found on the bathmat and in the bathroom, did they not look further into the drain for evidence it was washed off?
            These are legitimate questions I am wondering about.

          • JLS1950

            “Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra”: “Sokath, his eyes uncovered!”: “Darmok and Jalad on the ocean”

            (We’ll see if you recognize the reference…!)

          • JackBB

            no man is an island…I admit I had to google it, then it came back to me. great episode, loved that show.

          • jackbutler5555

            Shoot, if the court accepted it, who are we to challenge authority? That would be uppity. We should know our place and accept it willingly.

        • Niteangel

          You keep repeating the same thing over and over. NO, her DNA was NOT on the knife, Stefanoni guessed that it was, from a profile that was so incomplete and so small, that it couldn’t be confirmed even by her, nor could it be attributed to Merdith. Again I repeat, read Berni & Barti analysis if you don’t understand. Geesh.

          • JackBB

            It was an exact match to MK. Accepted as such in the court. I’m just stating what transpired. if the courts are wrong, that needs to be exposed to them and the ISC.

          • JLS1950

            The “Court” has “accepted” that Newton’s Laws of Motion are invalid: what the “Court” now accepts is no longer proof of anything at all.

          • JackBB

            that’s a pie in the sky statement. unless you can prove it.

          • JLS1950

            No it is not. The court held that when a rock thrown from outside strikes a glass windowpane, all the broken shards of glass should fly backward in the direction from which the rock was thrown and fall on the ground outside. The court then used this reasoning to insist that since all the broken glass was found scattered across Filomena’s bedroom, therefore the rock was thrown into the window from the inside and bounced back onto the floor. Remember also please that the latches on the outer shutters did not work at all.

            Look up the definition and the rules for “inelastic collision” on the Internet, and you will find that when a rock strikes a window from the outside, the broken shards of glass can be expected to rebound in the same direction as the rock (i.e. into the interior of the room) at up to TWICE the velocity of the impinging rock. This is what actually accounts for the glass scatter in the room. The pieces of glass found on the outer windowsill near the hinge side of the broken pane are the edge pieces removed by the intruder from the bottom half of the window so as not to cut himself when reaching through to unlatch the casements. The very fact that these pieces were so carefully removed is huge evidence that the break-in was 100% real. No glass appears to have actually fallen to the outside of the window during the impact of the rock – which is 100% as expected.

          • JackBB

            That the rock was thrown through the window was never established. it was just lying on the floor. in fact, it could not have been thrown through that window.

          • JLS1950

            On what grounds do you claim that it could not have been thrown through the window? It has been demonstrated again and again that it in fact COULD have been thrown through the window, and the combination of glass scatter and damage to the inner blackout shutter demonstrate that it quite certainly WAS thrown through the window from the outside.

            What is the basis of your claim that this “could not” be true.

          • JackBB

            common sense

          • JLS1950

            Common sense is not evidence nor is it qualified expert testimony. Very often it is neither “common” nor in fact even “sense”.

            The qualified experts say the rock both could have and almost certainly did go through the window from the outside to the inside. BBC even produced a documentary with an equivalent-conditions simulation showing how a rock through that window would create the specific observed glass scatter and breakage pattern, and with a climber demonstrating the ease with which the window could be reached, the shutters opened, the latch accessed, etc. The climber stated that ANY reasonably athletic person could reach the window – and demonstrated that he would NOT leave any marks on the outside wall from climbing. Rudy Guede was a semi-pro basketball player – certainly “reasonably athletic”.

          • JackBB

            So your scenario indicates common sense, which to are railing against?

          • JLS1950

            My scenario is based on equivalent-conditions and actual-conditions tests that I have seen on video, on the written opinions of qualified engineers and materials scientists, and on my personal knowledge of Newton’s Laws (well-proved or consistently demonstrated physical laws first described about 350 years ago) especially as related to elastic and inelastic collisions.

            Now what are your claims founded on again?

          • JackBB

            Otherwise known as common sense

        • JLS1950

          The presence of Meredith’s DNA on the knife has absolutely no probative value unless it can be determined with acceptable probability (by ruling out all other known options) that it came to be on the knife during and in commission of the act of murder. If it arrived in any other way – or if arrival by other means cannot be ruled out to acceptable probability (typically much greater than 99%) then the DNA has no evidentiary value.

          In order to rule out that the DNA arrived by some other means, the chain of custody of the knife must be known quite precisely and actually from the time of the murder through the time of testing – but absolutely from the time of collection through the time of testing. And the fact is that there is if anything only a very sketchy record of this chain of custody, with many gaps and holes.

          We actually need to rule out the possibility that some stray “Meredith” DNA was somehow clinging even to Knox’s or Sollecitos’s clothing ot to some other article in his apartment when Knox used the knife – although this seems unlikely. But we must remember that the amount of “Meredith” DNA claimed to have been on the knife (“less than 100 picograms”) corresponds to no more than sixteen individual human cells – just not very damned much! One tiny skin flake would contain hundreds of cells!

          • JackBB

            A tiny skin flake that did not get washed off, as it was clinging to the etches in the blade. That is what the court accepted.

          • JLS1950

            Perhaps, but that still does not tell us when and how the skin flake came to be there. Expert testimony could not tell us that, and the Court is not a qualified expert in forensic genetics or event-reconstruction engineering. (Actually, that is a major part of the problems with this case: the Court and the judges assuming personal qualifications to understand and interpret scientific evidence instead of calling upon real experts and accepting their criticisms.)

            Unless it can be determined to very high probability WHEN and HOW the “Meredith” DNA came to be on the knife, it has no probative value at all. My personal guess is laboratory contamination, since we know that materials carrying skin flakes had been there, that the laboratory was not equipped to control contamination at that low level, and that Patrizia Stefanoni used a degree of PCR amplification as far above accepted LCN levels as LCN is above standard forensic DNA profiling. She ran that sample through an astounding 40 or 41 replication cycles before she got a signal! Accepted LCN in a properly-equipped lab is 34 cycles. Stefanoni’s lab was certified for no more than 28 cycles to gain signal.

          • JackBB

            She still found it and it belonged to MK. Was any other of her dna found in the apartment?

          • JLS1950

            We do not know if other DNA was in the apartment: for the most part they never looked. But that is not the point: you have to be able to say how sixteen cells worth of Meredith’s non-blood DNA got onto the knife that was half a kilometer away and how that connects it to the crime – and you have to show that there were no innocent ways for that DNA to have gotten there. And you cannot. Because (1) you do not know everywhere that that knife was in the days after it was collected and while other evidence from the crime was being handled by police – you cannot prove that it did not come into contact with other evidence because you cannot even account for where it had been; (2) you cannot account for what evidence had been in the lab and might have left the tiniest of skin flakes of dried saliva flakes there to waft into the knife processing. Remember, the total original DNA identified based on amplification results – less than 100 picograms – is the DNA content of at most just 16 human cells. That is just not very damned much – a fleck of cells far too small to be seen by the human eye without a microscope.

            The root problem here is that Stefanoni went FAR beyond the amplification levels that she, her lab, or in fact ANY forensic DNA lab is certified for. She seems to have run no less that FORTY amplification cycles to obtain a signal. Standard non-LCN profiling uses no more than 28 cycles. Properly certified LCN labs use 34 amplification cycles maximum to obtain signal. Stefanoni used either 40 or 41 amplificaiton cycles. Note that once signal is obtained then further cycles are normal – that is merely analogous to turning up the volume once you have the radio station tuned in properly, and simply makes more copies of a valid template. But what Stefanoni did is analogous to tuning a radio between stations, turning the volume up to full, and hearing ‘alien voices’ in the hiss of “static”. She went so far beyond standards that NO COURT in either the U.S. or the U.K. would ever accept her results no matter what her training and certification.

        • jackbutler5555

          Her DNA “finding” has been disputed. Why don’t you participate in that dispute? Is it because you can’t? DNA found on a knife used in a bloody stabbing — without the blood which could be the only source of that DNA — if, in fact, it WAS used in a stabbing.

        • jackbutler5555

          A knife used in a bloody stabbing with no blood on it — just DNA derived from the blood of the victim? What happened to the blood?

    • JLS1950

      The knife should have been collected in a PAPER bag and should never have been removed from that bag until it got to the DNA lab. Instead, we know that it was removed from whatever original wrapping (which has never been produced for examination and testing of contaminants insofar as I know) and after some while was reportedly wrapped in plastic wrap of unknown origin and placed in a “calendar box”. Between being removed from the original wrapping and being placed in the “calendar box” there are unverified reports that it lay open on a police officer’s desk for several days. Patrizia Stefanoni testified under oath in court that when she received the knife it was in a container and wrappings that she described as “obviously not sterile”.

      Unless the precise chain of custody of that knife can be established – and ALL containers and wrappings and everything else it may have come into contact with along the way made available for testing, the knife is not valid as DNA evidence AT ALL.

  • Niteangel

    Great article! Frank Sfarzo is the man.

    • JLS1950

      The thing about Sfarzo is that he actually started out on the guilt side and then switched as he examined the evidence. That says a lot.

      • Niteangel

        Exactly! This shows his honesty, and the fact that he was not biased. He was not afraid to change his mind when it became obvious that Amanda and Raffaele were innocent and being “railroaded”. I just love the guy lol kudos to him.

        P.S. I have his whole blog about the case, starting in 2007, in my computer.

  • Mark Levy

    This “article” is a piece of propaganda. A lot of circumstantial evidence are there as well.
    What is Amanda’s alibi the evening of the murder now that RS says she was not here the whole evening?
    The DNA on the bra clasp, the many lies of both, contradictions, Double dna on the knife, the bloody footprints, incriminating an innocent man (this “article” says Amanda did not accuse Patrick, in fact she said on TV she did accuse him and still feels bad about this, so this “article is a lie!), the stage break in, Amanda lying about Meredith’s closed door (to gain some time probably), RS changing his story numerous times…This murder is similar to Jodi Arias: 2 women killing because of anger/jealousy, slitting the throat of their victims, lying, split at the police station, staging, fake alibi, leaving their dna, etc…both got caught.

    Amanda is very lucky she committed the murder in Italy, here in the US she would already be sitting on death row.
    Alan Dershowitz, a famous US defense attorney also said that.
    Amanda is on the cover page of People magazine special issue: Crimes of passion.

    Amanda’s petition barely got 3,000 votes, many of them were proven fraudulent/fake accounts. The public opinion knows she is guilty.
    The US media abandoned her as well, she lied to everybody, no major US network is talking about Amanda nor defending her case since the past year!!
    And you guys in this “forum” are probably members of Amanda’s family with a few fake accounts each to make it look like you are more.

    Feeling sorry for you, you are defending a criminal who killed a girl and also accused an innocent man and almost ruined his life if a few witnesses had not shown up.
    You people lack common sense.

    Lots of evidence in the judge report.
    Both were convicted TWICE.
    Guilty. Justice will be done when both are sent to jail where they belong.

    • Niteangel

      Do you actually believe you just made valid points? Everything Frank said is true. And you can’t even understand what you are reading, so let me help you: when he says “Amanda never accused Patrick”, he means in a context where it would be admissible in Court and for charges of calumnia. And adding Dershowitz in the mix on top of it, a man who is completely misinformed about the case didn’t help proving your unprovable points.

      • Mark Levy

        You are simply ridiculous, in total denial, without any valid argument to answer my post.
        Go get more Prozac for your mind please.

        • JLS1950

          The ONLY actual “accusation” of Patrick appears in a document known to have been authored by Donnino – not in the presence of Amanda and without the use of any notes.

          • Mark Levy

            You have no valid arguments, all you say is propaganda.

            If there was such an injustice against Amanda, why do the US news network not report it and why don’t they defend Amanda in the news the past year??

          • JLS1950

            Understand this: after 25 Mar, any further legal accusation of Amanda Knox will have to be proved in U.S. Federal Court and against the clear reasoning of the Hellmann document. It will be a very tough argument.

          • Mark Levy

            we will see, this will not be another trial nor court, you are totally off, trial is over and won by the prosecution who showed all the lies which were spit by Amanda and RS.

          • JLS1950

            Lies do not prove guilt and the prosecution has made abundantly more lies. The U.S. Federal Court will want to see the evidence that overwhelms Hellmann.

        • Niteangel

          And you still don’t understand the difference between statements that are admissible in Court and statements that have been illegally obtained.

          • Mark Levy

            I only still understand that Amanda was convicted fairly twice in a court of law based on valid evidence and proofs contained in the judge report. You don’t get it.

    • JLS1950

      YOU are a piece of propaganda. How much are you being paid?

  • Joanie

    it is an indisputable fact that Amanda Knox has spun the truth. Tells lies. Deliberately, repeatedly, and very incriminatingly. I think it’s worth revisiting a few of her many lies for any new visitors to this board, so that they can get a clearer picture of the real strength of the case.

    Some of Amanda’s vociferous supporters have claimed that Amanda only lied once – and that was because she was “smacked around” by the police, or put under pressure. And that her confessions, in which she admitted to being at the cottage on the night of the murder, were thrown out by the Italian Supreme Court.

    It doesn’t take a careful examination of the known facts to conclude that both these claims really are nonsense. Amanda’s first known lie wasn’t to the police, but to her flatmate, Filomena, on 2 November, the day after Meredith’s murder.

    Amanda phoned Filomena at 12.08 pm, and said she was worried about the front door being open and blood stains in the small bathroom.

    False claim one. Amanda said she was going to call Raffaele, but according to Raffaele, Amanda had already returned to his apartment at 11.30 am, and then they had gone back to the cottage.

    At 12.34 pm Amanda and Filomena spoke again. Filomena said, “We spoke to each other for the third time and 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.”

    False claim two. Amanda and Raffaele didn’t actually call the police until 12.51 pm.

    The postal postal police unexpectedly turned up at the cottage at 12. 35 pm.

    False claim three. Amanda and Raffael told the police that they had called the police and were waiting for them.

    False claim four. Amanda told the postal police that Meredith always kept her door locked. Filomena strongly disagreed with her, and told the postal police the opposite was true.

    Amanda and Raffaele were then taken in for questioning.

    False claim five. They said they couldn’t remember most of what happened on the night of the murder, because they had smoked cannabis.

    It is medically impossible for cannabis to cause such dramatic amnesia and there are no studies that have ever demonstrated that this is possible.

    Long term use of cannabis may affect short term memory, which means that users might have difficulty recalling a telephone number. But it won’t wipe out whole chunks of an evening from their memory banks.

    False claim six. Amanda accused Diya Lumumba of murdering Meredith at the cottage.

    It’s true that two of Amanda’s such statements were thrown out by the Italian Supreme Court. However, Amanda repeated the accusation, in a note that she wrote to the police on 6 November.

    This note was not thrown out by the Italian Supreme Court, and it was admitted as evidence.

    False claims seven and eight. In her 6 November note Amanda claimed to have seen Diya Lumumba at the basketball court at Piazza Grimana; and outside her front door. He was actually at his bar.

    False claim nine. Amanda’s supporters claim that she confessed to a lesser role in Meredith’s murder, and blamed Diya Lumumba, because she had been “smacked around” or put under pressure by the police.

    But the real reason she had to say she was at the cottage was because she was informed that Raffaele Sollecito was no longer providing her with an alibi.

    Raffaele had been confronted with phone records, and was now claiming that she was not with him the whole evening, and that she had only returned at 1.00 am. Amanda did not attempt to refute Raffaele’s claim, but now admitted that she had been at the cottage.

    The significance of this about-turn cannot be stressed enough.

    (Incidentally, Raffaele was also claiming that he had lied, because he had believed Amanda’s version of what happened and not thought about the inconsistencies. He is acknowledging that Amanda’s version had inconsistencies.)

    If it had been true that Amanda had been “smacked around” by the police during questioning, why haven’t her lawyers ever filed a complaint? It was very telling that Amanda dropped her allegation of being hit by the police at her recent court hearing, and instead just claimed she had been put under pressure.

    There’s a world of difference between police brutality and being put under pressure. It wasn’t the first time that Amanda has made a false and malicious accusation, as Diya Lumumba knows only too well.

    False claim ten. Amanda claimed to have slept in at Raffaele’s until the next morning. However, her mobile records show that this was not so. Amanda turned on her mobile at approximately at 5.32 am.

    The only plausibe explanation for Amanda’s deliberate and repeated lies? That she was involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

    It should be no surprise to anyone following the case that the same three witnesses who have repeatedly lied, Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede, have all been placed at the crime scene.

    By a total of 23 separate pieces of forensic evidence.

  • JackBB

    Why so many deleted comments?

    • Ringo

      Because this site has mods, and isn’t gonna take crap from you guilters.

      • JackBB

        Maybe delete the responses. they don’t have any reference and don’t make any sense.

        • Niteangel

          Actually I don’t mind still seeing the responses, its obvious they were addressed to guilters.

          • JackBB

            you advocate censorship.

  • OhioBrian

    March 19th, 2015 News

    THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3002451/Juror-helped-convict-Amanda-Knox-grave-doubts-American-s-involvement-Meredith-Kercher-s-murder.html

    “Atmosphere of Guilt” Before Trial Began => IMPARTIAL/BIASED JURY

    “Grave Doubts” >> Reasonable Doubt => INNOCENT AS NOT PROVEN GUILTY

    Case = “Nonsense” => INNOCENT ALL TOGETHER

    P(Guilt) = f(Sentence Length) => MISTRIAL

    GAME OVER!

    Finally! 8 long years later!

  • OhioBrian

    March 19th, 2015

    THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3002451/Juror-helped-convict-Amanda-Knox-grave-doubts-American-s-involvement-Meredith-Kercher-s-murder.html
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/meredith-kercher-death-amanda-knoxs-5365109

    “Atmosphere of Guilt” Before Trial Began => IMPARTIAL/BIASED JURY

    “Grave Doubts” >> Reasonable Doubt => INNOCENT AS NOT PROVEN GUILTY

    Case = “Nonsense” => INNOCENT ALL TOGETHER

    P(Guilt) = f(Sentence Length) => MISTRIAL

    Finally! 8 long years later!

    GAME OVER!