The Ridiculous Case Against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito

Unarresting the Arrested:FBI Profiler John Douglas on the case against Amanda Knox & Raffaele Sollecito

2011-09-28T18:37:00.000-07:00

This is an excellent interview of FBI Profiler John Douglas conducted by journalist Krista Errickson.

The interview originally appeared on her blog, Woman on a Wire, and is now available on Ground Report (linked below).

From Krista: This article was originally supposed to be published for Il Messaggero. It was given to me as an assignment, after the editor and legal expert of the newspaper saw the Maxim interview with famed FBI profiler, John Douglas, in the January 2011 issue.

When the article was turned in, albeit shortened, my editor told me – “this article is too dangerous to print in Italy”.

Hunting the Hunters

There are two kinds of hunters: the hunter that waits and the hunter that tracks. The difference of two is the complexity of their hunting techniques though both aim for the same thing; bagging the prey.

Hunters who wait prefer to lure their prey into range. This is usually the preferred method of serial killers. They watch, and wait for the chance to pounce. Hunters who track their prey, involves a more detailed approach; knowing the specific differences, patterns and behaviors of the hunted, and calculate their next moves. John Douglas is of the latter. However, he pursues a different kind of animal: serial killers. He is the investigator and legendary criminal profiler known as “The Mind Hunter”.

Click here to read Krista Errickson's interview with John Douglas

Amanda Knox and the Architects of the Foxy Knoxy Myth

2011-09-16T00:20:00.000-07:00

Amanda Knox and the Architects of the Foxy Knoxy Myth

by Bruce Fisher September 16, 2011

Nick Pisa & Barbie Nadeau

Freedom looks to be on the horizon for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, in Perugia, Italy. Both were convicted in 2009 for the murder of Knox’s roommate Meredith Kercher. Both have adamantly denied any involvement in the murder.

Where the original trial was a prosecutor’s dream come true, the appeal has been a complete disaster, where the prosecution has lost every key issue. The prosecution’s most important witness from the first trial admitted that he was a heroin addict on appeal and told the court, quite unashamedly, he was using heroin on the night in question----a humiliating blow to the prosecution, prompting Judge Hellmann to cut his testimony short and have him escorted out of his courtroom.

The most damaging blow to the prosecution came from independent experts appointed by the court to review the DNA evidence. The experts’ testimony discredited the alleged murder weapon and a DNA laden bra clasp used to secure the convictions of Knox and Sollecito. Knox’s father Curt Knox summed it up best when he told CNN “the prosecution has no case left.”

Click here to read the rest of this article.

Want to read Italian report on why the science in the Amanda Knox case is bogus? You can

2011-07-06T18:05:00.000-07:00

Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti

Translation of the report submitted by Profs. Carla Vecchiotti and Stefano Conti of the University of Rome — La Sapienza to the Corte di Assise di Appello (Court of Appeals) of Perugia, Italy, regarding DNA evidence in the case against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is now in progress. Vecchiotti and Conti were appointed by the presiding judge in Knox and Sollecito’s appeal trial, Claudio Pratillo Hellmann, to conduct an independent review of this evidence, which (like most of the evidence in the case) had long been seriously questioned by Knox and Sollecito’s defense teams and by outside observers.

The conclusions reached by Conti and Vecchiotti constitute a damning indictment of the investigation conducted by Italy’s Scientific Police, and in particular of the methods employed by the prosecution’s main forensic scientist, Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni. They lend official support to the already-widespread perception that Knox and Sollecito have been the victims of a scandalous miscarriage of justice.

Read the translation here: The Conti-Vecchiotti Report By komponisto

Why I Believe a Mafia Supergrass Will Help Clear Foxy Knoxy's Name

2010-06-16T19:29:00.000-07:00

Luciano Aviello, a mafia witness who wrote to the court three times saying he knows who the real killer is.
Photo originally post by the Daily Mail.

Copy of Aviello letter can be read here.

By Bob Graham

Rarely has a murder investigation been so mired in controversy, prejudice and downright incompetence as the inquiry into the death of British student Meredith Kercher. Yet this week, three years after she was killed in her Italian digs, once more the case took a dramatic twist as a Mafia mobster emerged to add to the obfuscation and intrigue. Gangster Luciano Aviello, a jailed supergrass, claims it is not Amanda 'Foxy Knoxy' Knox and her former boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito - who are serving jail sentences of 26 and 25 years respectively for the crime - who are guilty, but his own brother, Antonio. In almost two years since I began investigating this murder for a documentary, I have learned to be intensely sceptical of the many 'new' developments that have occurred. And this latest is no exception.

Read rest of the article here.

Amanda Knox Prosecutor Tainted by 'Satanism' Case

2010-06-08T11:15:00.000-07:00

As Meredith Kercher's killers prepare their appeal, serious questions are being asked about the man who led the case against them

By Peter Popham

One of Italy's most rambunctious legal performers, the scourge of Amanda Knox, was back in action last week.

Plump, pompous and perspiring, Giuliano Mignini, 60, may look like a character out of Dickens, but in persuading a Perugia jury to convict Knox and her Italian boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito of murdering Knox's English flatmate Meredith Kercher, the public prosecutor for the city of Perugia earned himself a reputation for steely ruthlessness in nailing his enemies.

A devout Catholic with a dim view of lax modern ways, he went on to demand that Knox serve not 26 years, as decided by the court, but life. And he was on form again this week, adding to the American student's woes by prosecuting her for slander. During the murder trial, Knox had claimed that, during an all-night grilling, a woman police officer had repeatedly slapped her. Mignini said "the good name of the Perugia police" had been attacked and asked the judge to add another six years to Knox's sentence.

Read the rest of the article here.

Amy Jenkins: Amanda Knox's plight has taken an even more absurd turn

2010-06-04T17:09:00.000-07:00

From The Independent:

There's adding insult to injury – and there's adding an entirely spurious slander trial to a monumentally unjust 26-year prison sentence. It's not enough for the Italian authorities to have convicted Amanda Knox for murder on the basis of a) no forensic evidence, b) no motive and c) no previous; they're now going to prosecute her for slandering the police when she spoke out in her own defence.

There have been complaints about a kind of snobbery leaking out from British and American commentators about the Italian judicial system – but no amount of political correctness is going to stop me from saying that this trumped-up charge exposes the Amanda Knox case for the witch hunt it is. I'm not saying the British courts haven't overseen some terrible injustices in their time, but the fact is that if you were serving 26 years for murder in this country and you said the police hit you, you wouldn't be had up for slander.

You can continue the article here.

Motivations Against Giuliano Mignini

2010-05-23T19:12:00.000-07:00

Comments Allowed

Back in January, Giuliano Mignini was convicted for abusing his office. Just as all criminal cases in Italy, the judge's must publish their motivations 90 days after the verdict. Last month this blog posted a summary of the charges and significance against prosecutor Mignini (which we were able to do thanks to a very informed source who has followed the case closely in Florence). You can read that summary and view the sentencing report here. As discussed in that post, the charges Mignini was convicted for are:

1.) Illegally investigating journalists who had criticized him with the "intent to harass or deter them from pursuing their legitimate profession". Specifically the court found that Mignini had targeted Italian journalists Vincenzo Tessandori, Gennaro De Stefano, and Roberto Fiasconaro, because they had criticized his investigations into the death of Narducci.

2.) Ordering an illegal investigation of the Florentine ex police chief Giuseppe De Donno.

3.) Ordering illegal investigations of two officials of the Viminale, the Ministry of the Interior in Rome, including an illegal investigation of the Roberto Sgalla, ex-director of the office of external affairs.

For the news round up from the day of Mignini's conviction, click here.

For info on the defamation suits related to this case, including Giuliano Mignini, click here.

Now the motivation document is available to the public and you can read that document embedded here. Below are both the Italian and English versions. The English version is a computer translation, so at the moment that translation is rough. For the Italian version, this is the full and unredacted copy.

Italian Version Part 1

Italian Mignini 1 -

Italian Version Part 2

Italian Mignini 2 -

English Version Part 1 (Rough Translation)

Mignini part 1 doc -

English Version Part 2 (Rough Translation)

Mignin Motivation part 2_2_ -

Former FBI Investigator, Steve Moore, Talks with Frank Shiers on Northwest Nights

2010-05-20T22:24:00.001-07:00

More audio at MyNorthwest.com

Slander Suit Against Amanda Knox About to Begin

2010-05-13T18:37:00.000-07:00

by LINDA BYRON / KING 5 News

Posted on May 13, 2010 at 6:12 PM

PERUGIA, Italy – Amanda Knox, the University of Washington exchange student who is serving 26 years for murder in Italy, is about to go on trial on new charges that could extend her sentence.

Read the rest of the article here.

The Luminol Lies: The Case Against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito

2010-05-11T17:52:00.000-07:00

By Steve Moore,

Luminol has been a powerful weapon of the prosecution in the Kercher murder case. Luminol is a reliable, useful forensic tool. But it is much like the sniper rifles I fired when on SWAT: Used correctly, it can save the life of the innocent. But used carelessly or incorrectly, it is brutally efficient at killing the innocent, not the guilty. An inch or two is all that it takes to change it from savior to murderer; and that inch depends solely on the training and skill of the sniper.

THE BLEACH CLEAN-UP LIE: Much of the evidence presented in this case is based on luminol test results. You may be more familiar with luminol than you think. You know those light-sticks they sell at rock concerts and for camping? Luminol. The way luminal works at a crime scene is this:

1. A mixture of luminol powder and hydrogen peroxide is mixed in a spray bottle like you buy at the grocery store.

2. The mixture is sprayed on areas where blood (or other substances) are expected to be.

3. The mixture reacts to many things, but one of them is the iron in hemoglobin (a component of blood) which causes the mixture to glow. The luminol, like the light stick, has a limited fluorescent life. In the forensics application, the glow lasts about 30 seconds.

4. On those areas where you get a “hit”, you photograph quickly, and then test the site for indicators of what the “hit” was. You first test for the presence of blood, then if not blood; other substances. If it is blood, you can then conduct a DNA test. (Luminol does not disrupt blood or DNA testing).

5. Importantly, you take a control sample from a nearby area that did NOT fluoresce, so you can be certain that your tests are valid.

6. There is no difference in the fluorescent color of luminol, no matter what substance it is reacting with. If it reacts with blood, it is blue. If it reacts with bleach, it is the same color of blue.

Imagine for a minute a schoolroom chalkboard with a couple of footprints drawn on it in chalk. Now, take an eraser and erase the prints. This is a little what a bleach-cleaned crime scene looks like under luminol examination. A crime scene cleaned with bleach wouldn’t have footprints or fingerprints; it would have wide swaths of bleach, many times in arcs that give away the tell-tale motions of cleaning and wiping, kind of like we used to see on chalk-board erasures. You would see luminol reactions everywhere; it would look like a huge florescent blue paint spill.

This was not what the Policia Scientifica found at Raffaele’s apartment on November 13. They found approximately 14 luminol ‘hits’, and no blood. And, no indications of a cleanup. The crime scene investigators knew on November 13 from luminol tests that the scene wasn’t cleaned with bleach. How can we be sure that the luminol ‘hits’ were not blood? Because finding blood would be damaging evidence, and Mignini would have used it. How do we know that the scene wasn’t cleaned with bleach? Because of the 14 luminol ‘hits’, and the fact that a cleanup would be damaging evidence, and Mignini would have used it.

However, in a court filing on November 28, two weeks after the tests, Prosecutor Mignini alleged that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito cleaned both the cottage and Raffaele’s apartment with bleach. He knew that to be untrue from luminol testing. He had known for two weeks that no cleanup occurred at Raffaele’s cottage, but still insinuated it throughout the trial—knowing it to be a lie.

I have personally reviewed video of investigators searching for bleach and bleach receipts in Raffaele’s apartment about two days after the luminol tests there. They found two bottles of bleach. One unopened, the other nearly full; and no receipts for bleach purchase.

QUESTION: Why would the police look for bleach and bleach receipts if they knew that no bleach cleanup occurred, and that no blood was ever in the apartment?

ANSWER: The only possible reason to search for bleach or bleach receipts when you know no bleach cleanup occurred, and no blood was found, is to explain the lack of blood by inferring disingenuously (lying) that bleach was used.

THE LIE ABOUT THE FOOTPRINTS IN THE HALLWAY: It was obvious from the murder scene that no cleanup had been undertaken in Meredith’s room. But 6 weeks after the murder, the investigators returned to the cottage and did extensive luminol testing, which further proved that no bleach clean-up occurred in the cottage, as had been stated as fact (without proof) by Mignini in court filings on November 28th—three weeks earlier.

The prosecution in this case stated that many bare footprints of Amanda Knox were found in the house (but none in Meredith’s room) Never was there any attempt to determine whether they were indeed Amanda’s as opposed to any of the other roommates. Theoretically, they could have been old footprints of Meredith. These footprints, however, were detected with luminol. Recapping, now; after luminol detection, a forensic investigator then……

1. Tests for blood (after all, that’s what you’re looking for), and

2. Tests for DNA. (If it IS blood, you want to know whose it is).

Patrizia Stafanoni of the Policia Scientifica, who perpetrated this debacle, instead tested only for DNA. Only for DNA? You are looking for blood and you get a hit that could be blood or any of a dozen different substances, including bleach, and you don’t test to see if you hit the jackpot? It begs the question of incompetence or intent. Regardless, the DNA testing showed that whatever the substance was; Meredith’s DNA was not in it.

So even if it someone inexplicably believed it was blood, the prosecution’s own evidence proves that it could not have been the victim’s.

But Patrizia was not deterred by logic and fact. In court, she said that she knew that the luminol stain was blood “…because of its color.” Every trained forensic investigator (except, apparently Stefanoni) knows that luminol glows blue. Only blue. Not a different shade of blue for different substances…just blue. What Stefanoni said, she knew to be false, or she was so incompetent that she should not have been allowed to destroy a crime scene.

What could have left the footprints, then? Among the many things that we know reacts very strongly to luminol is bleach. Even trace amounts of bleach will light-up luminol. Amanda told the police that she came home that morning, took a shower and then looked for roommates in the house. Amanda was in bare feet after leaving the shower. Showers are routinely cleaned with substances that contain bleach. The products are sprayed on the walls, and collect and pool invisibly on the shower floor. Therefore, it would be almost incomprehensible for her not to have minute traces of bleach substances on the soles of her feet after standing in a shower cleaned by a modern cleaning product. Remember, in Raffaele’s apartment, there were 14 luminol ‘hits’. And where were nine of them? In the bathroom. Outside the shower. And none were blood. I would postulate that nearly every person in America and Italy who stepped out of a sanitary shower today left luminol-detectable footprints; including Mignini and Stefanoni.

As stated above, Stefanoni never offered any evidence to prove that the luminol footprints belonged to Amanda. If we go along with the assumption by the Policia Scientifica that the luminol prints were indeed Amanda’s, the evidence would prove the following:

1. Amanda lived at the cottage

2. Amanda was not in the room where the murder occurred before, during or after the murder.

3. Amanda never stepped in, or came in contact with Meredith Kercher’s blood.

4. There was no bleach cleanup of the crime scene.

5. Amanda came in contact with a non-blood substance (probably a bleach-based cleaner), likely while taking a shower that morning, and she walked in exactly the places she told the police she walked.

In reality then, Stefanoni’s own incompetent investigation actually verifies Amanda’s account of her morning.

FINAL THOUGHTS: Even the ‘directed’ investigation of the Policia Scientifica could not detect a single footprint of Amanda in the murder room. Not one. A bunch of footprints were found in a non-blood substance outside the room, where she lived, (and having no relationship to Meredith at all), but not a single one in the murder room. The police know a cleanup could NOT have happened.

So the footprints were never there to begin with. Because Amanda wasn’t there.

In the U.S., this type of prosecutorial misconduct would almost certainly have resulted in a mistrial, and likely jail time for the prosecutor. This is not to say that the Italian judicial system is corrupt. There is no country in the world that does not have to deal with the occasional crooked cop or rogue prosecutor. They know how to work the system. America had a very prominent rogue in 2006. But in that case, the authorities dropped all charges against the innocent and jailed the prosecutor. It’s not whether a country is going to have to deal with this kind of corruption—it is when. Of more importance is how that country reacts when it happens. The action a country takes determines whether it is a country under laws or a vigilante society masquerading as a civilized nation.

One of the responsibilities of the FBI is to investigate police misconduct, and it is one of the more difficult investigations an FBI Agent can be assigned. I myself have conducted some of these investigations. I have seen the misconduct of police and prosecutors. But I have never personally been involved in a case where the misconduct is as egregious and obvious as the Mignini actions in Perugia. This was not a search for truth. This was a crusade to convict. It reminds me of that old joke about the crooked prosecutor; “I can convict anybody,” he said, “the innocent just take more time.”

Amanda Knox and Raffale Sollecito: EVIDENCE COLLECTION

2010-04-27T19:49:00.000-07:00

Evidence Collection
By, Steve Moore (Retired FBI Investigator)

The case against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is centered on two pieces of evidence. These two pieces are a knife and a bra clasp. Their collection and interpretation defies logic. The knife (by the prosecution’s own testimony) could not have inflicted 80% of the wounds on Meredith, and the bra clasp mysteriously appeared 6 weeks into the investigation.

THE KNIFE:

From examination of the crime scene in Meredith’s room, it should have been obvious to any experienced or trained investigator that the rape and killing of Meredith Kercher was likely what is known as a “crime of passion.” These crimes are unplanned, opportunistic crimes that usually occur spontaneously.

Some of the hallmarks of these crimes are highly disorganized crime scenes, where little, if any attempt has been made to conceal evidence or hide one’s identity. No planning is evident. These are also sometimes called “clustered” crime scenes. A clustered crime scene is a location where the initial confrontation, the attack, the rape and the murder occurred at the same location, sometimes all within one room. Another hallmark of the crime of passion is that the murder weapon is almost always nearby or at hand. Whether it is a blunt object, a kitchen knife, or a pair of scissors, the assailant usually avails himself of the nearest makeshift weapon he can find within arm’s reach. Sometimes, the person carries a weapon with them habitually. But rarely if ever do they bring a weapon with intent to use it to kill. That is because the attacker hadn’t planned the crime.

Therefore, what an investigator should be looking for are any and ALL items which could inflict stabbing and/or slashing wounds. The logical thought for a crime scene analyst would be that the murder knife in this case was obtained from inside the cottage where the murder occurred. Stabbing wounds at the crime scene are so vague that simply by looking, an investigator cannot tell the difference between a letter-opener wound, a scissors wound, or a knife wound. Had I conducted the search of the cottage, I would have collected (and have in my cases collected) every single weapon of the type I could find in the house. This is “Investigations 101”. What if the murderer got a letter opener from one of the OTHER girl’s rooms, wiped it off and returned it? Do we not look in the other rooms? Of course we do.

Yet the police did not seize a single knife, letter opener, scissors, screwdriver, nail file…ANYTHING from the murder cottage for testing. Not one thing. It is inconceivable that in a cottage where four women lived, there was not a kitchen knife, or a letter opener, or scissors, or anything which might have been used. It leads one to suspect an investigation intent on proving a theory, rather than searching for truth.

Possibly the reason that nothing was seized from the cottage was that even if Meredith’s DNA was found on an object there, it could not be used to implicate Amanda. But if Meredith’s DNA was found in Raffaele’s apartment, then it would be powerful evidence.

Instead of taking anything from the cottage, the police went to Raffaele’s apartment; a five-minute walk from the cottage. A five minute walk is absolutely out of the question for the suspect in the frantic seconds a “crime of opportunity” would take. Undaunted by the sheer lack of logic, they enter his kitchen, and open a drawer to find a utencil tray. Jackpot! There were at least two knives in the drawer and From my viewing of the film taken by the crime scene analysts, both of them could have been a murder weapon. If the investigators were looking for a possible murder weapon in Raffaele's apartment then the same rules would apply. ALL items which could inflict stabbing and/or slashing wounds should have been collected. (though why they felt it would be in Raffaele’s apartment I can’t explain).

The police are staring at a gold mine of potential murder weapons. What do they do? If it had been an FBI investigation, the Agent would have scooped up every possible item in Raffaele's apartment that could inflict a stabbing and/or slashing wound. You never know until the lab reports get back. You might just get lucky and find DNA, or invisible blood or something. Every possible weapon seized gives police a better chance of finding the murder weapon! The more possible weapons, the better their chances! They would take them all and add them to the pile of potential weapons seized from the cottage, (which weren’t there because the police didn’t take them).

But in Raffaele’s apartment in Perugia, the officer chose one. One. As if he knew which one he wanted.

If the murder weapon is in the apartment and let's say as an example, you take one out of 5 possible weapons; you have an 80% chance of missing it. If you take all of them, your chances are 100% of finding it. Choosing just one possible weapon is counter-intuitive. It is unprofessional. It is negligent. It makes no sense. It absolutely devastates your chances of finding the murder weapon—if it was in that apartment to begin with. Mainly, though, it seems inconsistent with a search for the truth. I can only imagine having to explain to the United States Attorney that I left 80% of the potential evidence in the apartment. That would be an unpleasant conversation.

Now imagine their luck! That very knife blade allegedly bore a speck of DNA so infinitesimal that only two things could be determined for sure. #1: It wasn’t blood. #2. But it was Meredith’s DNA (kind of). The amount of DNA “found” was too small for legitimate testing, but that didn’t stop the authorities. The size of the sample was also too small to be admissible in reputable courts, and substantial evidence indicates that the alleged DNA might have been only in the prep equipment in the lab. It turned out to be so small that it was “consumed” in the test. Therefore, no second test, or even a test by the defense was possible. The only thing not microscopic about this find was the luck of the find. This coincidence was immense beyond words. Or odds.

Undisputed facts about the knife collected at Raffaele Sollecito’s apartment:

1. Meredith’s blood was not on it.

2. The Italian Medical Examiner who conducted Meredith’s autopsy testified that 4 of the 5 wounds found on Meredith COULD NOT HAVE BEEN INFLICTED BY THAT KNIFE.

3. The remaining wound could have been inflicted by any number of knives—including the knife that actually inflicted the stab wounds.

THE BRA CLASP

EVEN IF RAFFAELE SOLLECITO PARTICIPATED IN THE MURDER AS DESCRIBED BY THE PROSECUTION; HIS DNA WOULD NOT BE ON THE BRA CLASP.

With the knife discredited, only one piece of potentially real physical evidence exists in the case. A microscopic piece of DNA found on a bra clasp that in the course of 6 weeks, had been moved multiple times, finally swept into a corner and left.

It is undisputed that after her murder, Meredith Kercher’s bra was cut off. The first cut was a vertical slice on the rear horizontal strap. This could not have been accomplished (and would be totally unnecessary) if the bra was not fastened. Next, the two shoulder straps were cut through and the body was rolled over. The bra at this point was removed from the front so that the breasts could be exposed without the need to remove her other clothing. This is not just the opinion of Steve Moore, it is also the official position of the Italian forensics experts

It is undisputed that Rudy Guede (alone) sexually abused Meredith. It is undisputed that he did so after the fatal wounds were inflicted.

Even the prosecutor’s imaginative stories about the event do not allege that Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito cut Meredith’s bra off and removed her pants and panties after the murder so Rudy Guede could rape her. This left Rudy Guede to cut off the bra, as he took Meredith’s clothes off. Yet Guede’s DNA was not on the clasp! Why?

Simply because Guede cut off the bra, he didn’t unfasten it.

Guede’s DNA was not on the bra clasp because he never touched it. He didn’t have to. He cut off the back of the bra, and as he removed it from the body, the short-end of the clasp strap fell to the floor. And there it sat for six weeks. If the rapist himself cut off the bra and never touched the clasp; what possible explanation is there for Raffaele Sollecito to touch the bra clasp if he was even in the room? There is no explanation that can pass any test for logic and reason.

So why was DNA consistent with Sollecito’s found on the clasp? Why was the clasp not collected for six weeks? Is it possible that it had something to do with the complete lack of credible evidence against Sollecito and Knox to that point?

Join me at the crime scene the day after the murder. Humor me and accompany me as if it was an FBI case and I was assigned to investigate it. Assume the sublime for a second; that I think (though it defies logic) that Amanda and Raffaele were the murderers, and I had not already been relieved by my superiors for this strange, irrational theory.

I am now in Meredith’s room. One of the first things I and everyone else notice in the room , after the body, is the bloody brassiere at Meredith’s feet. I examine the bra evidence closely, without touching it, of course. And as a trained investigator, I notice that the clasp on one side of the bra is missing—physically sliced off.

This is important evidence. If it’s in another room, it could indicate that the assault started elsewhere. It MUST be found. It would be on our “to find” list, much like the ‘black box’ at a plane crash. I would instruct that nobody leave that day until the bra clasp is found, or that I could definitively state in court that it was not in that house that day.

But, the bra clasp is plainly visible on the floor in Italian forensic videos that day. As well as center-frame of a photograph on the day after the murder. It is not an ancillary piece of evidence, it is a key piece. The Policia Scientifica saw it, but didn’t pick it up. They picked up the bra, but not the clasp that was physically cut off. Possibilities:

Possibility 1: They failed to notice that the bra clasp had been cut off.

Conclusion: They are incompetent and any of their findings should be viewed with great suspicion.

Possibility 2: They didn’t think it was important.

Conclusion: They are incompetent and any of their findings should be viewed with great suspicion.

Possibility 3: They looked but could not find the bra clasp.

Conclusion: They already had the bra clasp on video. Incomprehensible. (See Conclusions 1 and 2 above).

Possibility 4: They saw it, but didn’t realize what it was.

Conclusion: They are incompetent and any of their findings should be viewed with great suspicion.

Finally, join me on one last trip. It is December 18, 2007, six weeks into the investigation, and I have returned to the crime scene to see if there is more evidence. Why would I do this? There are only two possible reasons:

1.) I’m in trouble. I have no real evidence. This is a “Hail Mary”. Every competent investigator in the WORLD knows that anything found after 6 weeks at a crime scene (if not thrown out by a judge) will be at best suspect, and at worse, cause people to question my motives, and cast doubt on any other evidence I have already submitted—such as the knife. So the only reason I would go back is desperation OR

2.) Dramatic new information has been developed, and the evidence I’m looking for is for evidence of a completely new and different suspect. This was not the case in the Kercher matter.

The Italian police “found” the bra clasp six weeks after the murder in a swept-up dust-pile.

A 2009 University of Arizona study showed that 40% of household dust is organic, primarily consisting of shed human skin cells. This number, however, goes up significantly in a colder climate where doors and windows remain closed, and more than one person lives in the house. Perugia, that fall was cold. The doors and windows in the rented home were kept closed, and four women lived there, and at least two had boyfriends who were frequent visitors. So without scientific doubt, that dust pile contained a huge percentage of the DNA of many people who had previously been in the house. And the clasp sat in that dust for weeks. The police subjected the clasp to DNA examination and found, not surprisingly, that the DNA of five different people were on the clasp.

1.) Meredith Kercher’s DNA was on the clasp. Not a surprise.

2.) Rudy Guede’s DNA was not on the clasp. Not a surprise, he CUT the bra off.

3.) DNA was reported on the bra clasp which indicated it could be in a class of DNA that included Raffaele’s DNA. Why he would ever touch the bra clasp, even if the prosecutor’s stories were true, is incomprehensible.

The prosecution, for reasons they refuse to explain, have refused to allow any independent laboratory to test the DNA found on the bra clasp.

OVERVIEW

In this case, at every significant step, the investigators’ actions were counter to and opposite of established and recognized investigative procedures and “best practices”. Every conclusion they took from evidence presented was counter to logic or reason.

For instance, at the crime scene, we have the following undisputed facts: A window was broken by a thrown rock; a grate below the broken window allowed access to the cottage, and a known burglar (who is also known to carry a knife) is present in the cottage. A female resident of the cottage, who we know to have returned about 9:00 – 9:30 p.m. is grabbed in her room, stabbed and raped. Her purse is rifled, $300 stolen, and the burglar escapes the country. These are facts.

However, from this scenario, the detectives incredibly come to the conclusion NOT that a simple (but horrible) resident-surprises-burglar, burglar-rapes-and-robs-resident case has occurred—NO. From this simple scenario, we have the tortured hypothesis of a Dean’s List exchange student from America engaging in a drug-fuelled orgy with a new boyfriend and an African stranger, and/or stumbling on her roommate being raped, and siding with the rapist, stabbing her friend and cottage-mate in the throat with a knife that isn’t in the cottage.

The detectives in this matter chose to believe that this opportunistic “clustered crime scene” killer did nothing to hide his footprints, fingerprints, DNA, or shoeprints, hair or bodily fluids, but then decided to break a window and steal cash to stage a burglary. This defies any human logic.

The book “Practical Homicide Investigation” is the veritable ‘Bible’ of homicide investigation and homicide crime scene practices. It has been so for the last several decades, and was last updated in 2006. Its author, Vernon Geberth is a retired lieutenant commander of the New York City Police Department with 40 years on the job. His last assignment was as the commanding officer of the Bronx Homicide Task Force, which handled over 400 murder investigations a year. He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy, and is arguably the most qualified homicide investigator in the United States. He continues to teach homicide investigation at the New York City Police Department. He cautions against the dangers of preconceived notions at a crime scene:

“The investigators must keep in mind that their hypothesis is provisional. If new evidence emerges that suggests a different sequence of events, they must be willing to reassess and modify their hypothesis as the new facts dictate. I have been at many different homicide scenes over the years and have seen initial theories change over and over again. The key to success in this phase of the investigation is flexibility. Practically speaking, use your common sense in this process. Do not get bogged down in theory and hypothetical speculation. Many times the answer you are looking for is right in front of your nose. The problem is that with all the events going on at the scene, it is sometimes easy to miss a simple observation.

The police and prosecutor in Perugia decided on an outcome in this case very early on. They were undaunted by evidence that repeatedly contradicted and disproved their chosen outcome. These conclusions go beyond simply stretching credibility. They lead a rational person to question one of two things: Either the competence or the motivation of the prosecutor. But you decide. Here’s a clue as to which scenario might be true: At the time of these investigations, prosecutor Mignini was fighting charges of gross misconduct which occurred during his conduct in a previous investigation, which involved illegal activities such as wiretapping innocent persons and journalists critical of them. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to over a year in prison. He is appealing this ruling. While Mignini will most likely never spend time in jail, if his conviction is upheld, he will be removed from public office and never be allowed to serve as a prosecutor or judge again.

Amanda Knox: The Mountain of Missing Evidence

2010-04-26T01:21:00.000-07:00

The Mountain of Missing Evidence

By, Steve Moore (Retired FBI Investigator)
Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence
The Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case isn’t really about (the alleged) evidence, it is about lack of evidence—evidence that would have to be there if Knox and Sollecito participated. A shooting victim has an entry wound. That is evidence. If you tell me you have a shooting victim, but there’s no entry wound, the lack of evidence shows your theory to be impossible. No entry wound→ no evidence→ no shooting. A complete case consists of not just what’s at the crime scene, but what’s not at the crime scene. This is simply basic investigation: Investigation 101. The prosecutors and investigators in this case simply ignored the implications of what they could not find.

In the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case, we have a conflict between an implausibly small amount of highly suspect “evidence” that is alleged to be at the scene vs. a vast amount of missing evidence that would have HAD to be at the scene if Amanda and Raffaele had participated at all, and even more so if they had participated in the way the prosecutors allege. While the prosecution’s evidence is scant, contrived and likely non-existent; the mountain of missing evidence is absolutely overwhelming and compelling. And they both can’t be right because they are mutually exclusive.

If Amanda and Raffaele had actually killed Meredith in company with Rudy Guede, the following evidence WOULD have been there:

BLOOD TRANSFER
1. Meredith’s room would have been filled with the bloody footprints, handprints and smears of THREE PEOPLE, not one.

In the world of homicide (and other) investigations, law enforcement officials and prosecutors use the word “transfer”. Transfer is what it sounds like; the transfer of physical evidence from one person to another. Transfer is especially prevalent in murders (especially by stabbing) and rape. The nature of this case indicates that it would have the MOST transfer of any type of case.

2/3 of the required evidence missing, means 2/3 of the people were not there.

If the prosecution’s story is true, we are missing all credible evidence of the participation of, or even presence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the cottage at the time of the murder.

With three alleged assailants, that would mean that 2/3 of the evidence is simply missing. Evidence of Rudy Guede’s presence and participation are everywhere; bloody footprints, DNA, fingerprints, palm prints, bodily fluids, hair and even fecal matter. Nobody; not even Rudy Guede disputes this evidence. How then can the total absence of evidence of any other person be explained? The prosecution cannot provide an answer.

The sheer volume of forensic evidence of Guede’s presence is overwhelming. Evidence of any other person’s presence or involvement could not be erased without wiping out that of Guede’s. Therefore, the room could not have been cleaned, and was not cleaned. This means that the missing evidence was not removed—it was never there.

Amanda Knox is alleged to be the person who stabbed Meredith Kercher. She would therefore have been in VERY close proximity to Meredith—well within an arm length. Blood spatter evidence at the scene is consistent with ‘projected’, or ‘medium velocity impact spatter (MVIS) blood stains which travel at between 1.5 meters per second (mps) and 7.5 mps. (That is an arm-length in ½ second). Blood was spattered several feet away from Meredith’s wounds. It is inconceivable that the person stabbing Meredith was not contaminated by blood spatter. Guede was.

Anybody holding Meredith (such as was alleged by the prosecution) would be within the spatter zone. Again; blood on clothes and skin. This would mean that both Raffaele and Guede would have had substantial amounts of Meredith’s blood on them as they were alleged to have held Meredith.

The volume of blood in a woman the size of Meredith is between 4 and 5 liters. Approximately 2 liters of blood loss results in death. That would indicate that at least two liters (a little over half a gallon) of blood was spilled on the hard-surfaced floor.

Nobody disputes that Meredith was fighting bravely for her life to her last breath. There were 46 wounds on her body consistent with such a struggle. With three persons wrestling and stabbing, it is impossible that contact blood transfer did not occur; on the feet, on the clothing and on the hands of any alleged perpetrator. Especially when fighting in the small confines of Meredith’s bedroom. And the footprints would occasionally overlap.

Guede stepped in the blood, Guede put his hand in the blood, Guede touched surfaces all around the room. Yet neither Amanda Knox, nor Raffaele Sollecito came in contact with any blood? This is difficult to conceive, as even if they avoided the large blood pools and spatters, it would be impossible to avoid stepping on the bloody (but sometimes latent) footprints left by Guede.

It is all the more impressive that examiners found latent (but non-blood) footprints claimed to be of Amanda all through the house….but NONE in Meredith’s room. This is an impossible result if Amanda had been involved in the murder. Against all of this missing evidence is a bra clasp that sat for six weeks in a pile of dust with a questionable DNA marking related to Sollecito, and a bloody footprint of Guede that the prosecution asserted to have belonged to Raffaele.

BLOODY CLOTHING: NOT THERE
2. There would be blood-stained clothes, underwear and/or shoes of the attackers.

There is a simple answer to why Guede’s clothes were not found to have blood on them. They were never found. Guede left the country, and disposed of his clothes and shoes. Those items can never be tested. But Amanda and Raffaele stayed in town. Their clothes would have been with them. Maybe even ON them. The blood would likely not have even been dry. Even after laundering, it is easy to detect latent blood on fabric and certainly leather. Any blood on Amanda or Raffaele’s clothes or shoes would have been found.

No blood was ever found on any of their clothes or shoes.

The prosecution might argue that the two disposed of the clothes they allegedly wore at the murder. But then one would have to believe that they cleverly and secretly disposed of their shoes, they disposed of their clothes, they disposed of one murder knife……but they kept a second murder knife, and returned it to their silverware drawer. This makes absolutely no sense. I remember as a kid that if you started telling a tall tale, the tales you had to tell to back the first one up became all the more ridiculous. This reminds me of that type of situation.

INJURIES TO THE ASSAILANT(S)
3. There would have been bruises, cuts and other injuries to Amanda and Raffaele.
It is a rare occurrence when a frenzied fight involving a knife does not involve injuries to both parties, even when one is assumed to be larger and stronger than the other.

When I was on an FBI SWAT Team, we had an exercise designed to teach us the dangers of trying to fight off a knife attack. A red magic-marker played the part of a knife, and an “assailant” would attempt to attack another member of the SWAT Team with it. We did this in white t-shirts and open sleeves so we could see the wounds. Within seconds, the assailant had usually dispatched the victim with stabs and slashing attacks to the neck and torso, as the victim fought back desperately. Without exception though, the attacker was “cut”. Always. And almost every time on the hands or fingers. This is because the victim, in attempting to fight off a knife, reaches for the hands, which deflects the knife into fingers or other parts of the hands. In addition to the “cuts”, there were bruises and lacerations simply from elbows and arms flying.

Also, folding knives have no ‘hilt’, a perpendicular piece between the knife handle and blade to keep your hand from sliding forward when using the knife for stabbing. When this happens, the attacker usually receives slash injuries to his finger just below (or in the vicinity of) the second knuckle. Amanda could not have known that. She had no such cuts. Rudy Guede, when arrested had such cuts across three of his fingers. One piece of evidence used against O.J. Simpson in his stabbing/slashing murder trial was that he had a severe cut on his finger, likely inflicted during a stabbing motion when his hand slid over the blade.

In the FBI, I have been involved in several physical altercations, including a couple of attempts to take a knife away from a person. Each of those events ended in all parties having bruises and/or cuts. And these people weren’t fighting for their life; they were just fighting to keep from being arrested. Meredith had 46 wounds consistent with a fight for her life. Rudy had just such cuts on his hand. If Meredith had been attacked by three people, is it plausible that in all of Meredith’s fighting that she was unable to inflict a single scratch or a bruise on either of her other two attackers? Not really.

Neither Raffaele nor Amanda had a bruise on their body, not a cut, not a scratch. Amanda had a small mark on her neck that was proven to be nothing. There was not a single hair of theirs in the room. Raffaele’s glasses were not broken or bent. They were NOT involved in any struggle with Meredith.

BLOOD CONTAMINATION IN AMANDA’S ROOM OR RAFFAELE’S APARTMENT
4. There would be significant blood residue

They had to change and clean up. They didn’t change their clothes outside. They would have to have changed either at Amanda’s or Raffaele’s, and if the clothes came in contact with ANY object or substance, there would have been further transfer. At the O.J. Simpson crime scene, significant amounts of the victims’ blood were found on the carpet in Simpson’s house.

There is NO place where they could have changed their clothes which would not have been contaminated by contact transfer.

Not a speck of blood was found in Amanda’s room or Raffaele’s apartment. (According to the Italian authorities themselves, not even the knife taken from Raffaele’s apartment had blood on it.)

ESCAPE
5. There would likely have been some type of escape attempt
Guede fled to Germany shortly after the murder. Amanda had time to get a flight out of the country and to the safety of America. Raffaele had friends in Rome. Instead, Amanda was at her cottage when Raffaele called the police.

PSYCHOLOGICAL INDICATORS OF VIOLENCE
6. Much (flawed) amateur psychology has been bandied about by the press and the police in this matter. It is true, however, that a person’s behavior can be an indicator of future violence.

The prosecution alleged ridiculous theories in this case such as satanic rituals, etc., which were soundly rejected even in the Motivation Document. However, the Motivation Document alleges that Amanda came upon her roommate fighting off a rapist, and instead of assisting her roommate; she sided with the rapist. Not only that, but for some unknown reason, Amanda abandoned her attempts to assist Guede rape her friend, and simply slashed her throat. The Motivation Document could not provide any motive for this attack. This is anti-social behavior in the extreme. This is sociopathy. This behavior is so extreme that it could not be hidden from the world prior to this event.

As part of my duties in the FBI, I was responsible for evaluating the dangerousness of individuals who were involved in violent groups, or were threatening violence. I worked closely with FBI profilers on these matters, and even assisted in the creation of an FBI text on lone attackers. We put dangerous people in prison and I believe we saved lives.

The Association of Threat Assessment Professionals (ATAP), whose conferences I attend, has several behavioral checklists to assess potential violence. The following are a selection of questions which are industry standards used to assist in the assessment of behavior that indicates future violence. They rate the potential violence by how many of these predictors are present in a person’s life. The higher the score, the higher the potential threat. Let’s check how Amanda Knox would score on this test.

But first, we should discuss the word “credible”. Something is credible when it can be backed up with substantial facts. An unsupported accusation (such as those we have seen in the press) is simply non-credible. In determining if anybody was dangerous, we always discounted any information that we could not verify. Doing otherwise would endanger lives. An example of information which would be discounted here is, for instance, an accusation that Amanda Knox was involved in the occult, and committed murder as part of a satanic ritual. No unbiased person believes that, and it has never been established with a single scintilla of evidence.

7. WHAT WOULD WE HAVE SEEN IF AMANDA KNOX WAS THE KILLER SHE IS PORTRAYED TO BE? We would have seen:
A. A MOTIVE for violence:
No motive has ever been established for Amanda allegedly murdering Meredith, though the prosecution came up with a new one almost every week during the trial. None.

B. Homicidal fantasies or preoccupation:
No credible allegation has ever been made that Amanda Knox harbored homicidal fantasies or preoccupation. This would have surfaced by the time Amanda was 21. Stories would abound; she would likely be a feared person. Much like Rudy Guede was in Perugia.

C. Violent intentions and expressed threats
Not once can a single person provide any account that Amanda threatened anybody in her entire life. Not one person can state that she ever displayed violence of any kind. Ever.

D. Weapons skills and access
Amanda Knox has no knowledge of guns or knives as weapons. (If you consider cooking knives a weapon, then there is not a person in America or Italy over the age of 8 who does not have access to a weapon, rendering this part of the question null).

Putting a knife in Amanda’s hand is like putting a trumpet in my hand. It doesn’t mean that I know what to do with it. I am a firearms instructor. I can tell you that a knife or firearm in an inexperienced person’s hands is more dangerous to them than others. The thought that you could put a knife in Amanda’s hands, and the very first time, have her inflict fatal wounds (especially without injuring herself in the process) is ludicrous.

E. Pre-Attack planning
The Italian court stated that there was no pre-planning for this crime.

F. Stalking
No allegation was made, even by Mignini, that Amanda ever stalked Meredith or any other person. Amanda has never been accused of stalking or ANY similar behavior in the US.

G. Job Problems
Amanda held several jobs working toward going to Italy to study. She has never been fired from a job. She had no reason to believe that she was having any problems at Le Chic. (After an angry Patrick Lumumba was released from prison, he told the “Daily Mail” tabloid that he had fired Amanda prior to the crime. This was shown to be a lie in trial.)

H. Loss, Personal Stressors
Amanda was having the time of her life in Perugia. She had just met Raffaele, and was in a new romance. Amanda was extremely happy.

I. Lack of conscience
Much has been made of a perceived lack of concern for Meredith in the days following the murder. I believe most of these to be highly inaccurate and sensationalized, to sell media. However, the lack of conscience issue is not a photograph of one or two days in a person’s life. It is a movie of their entire life. Amanda’s care and concern for others in her hometown is legendary. Only those who prefer to get their information from tabloids believe otherwise.

J. Anger problems
Anger problems do not mean that a person is never angry. A complete lack of anger over a lifetime is a danger sign, not a reason to relax. Absent discredited tabloid reports, there are no indications that Amanda Knox dealt with anger any differently than any other normal person. There have never been any accusations by schools, teachers, and friends or family that Amanda had “a temper” or any such thing.

K. Depression and suicidality
I refer you to the answer to question 9: Amanda was having the time of her life in Perugia. She had just met Raffaele, and was in a new romance. Amanda was extremely happy.

L. Paranoia and other psychotic symptoms
Not a single speck credible evidence exists that in her entire life, Amanda Knox ever suffered from any mental illness, or neurosis.

M. Isolation
Before Amanda left America, she had hundreds of friends. She now has thousands. Amanda is a “people person”, who at the time of Meredith’s murder, had a boyfriend and lived with three other girls.

N. History of violence
None.

O. History of criminality:
Amanda Knox has NO history of criminality. None. In his latest appeal Prosecutor Mignini points out that Amanda was fined for a loud party. A loud party? Really? This is not criminality. Period. This is no more criminality than is a speeding ticket. Are all college students who host or go to loud parties now threats to become violent murderers? The argument is simply absurd and beneath the dignity of Mignini’s office, though clearly not below his personal dignity. This is a panic reaction to an upcoming appeal. Are we to believe that there is a person in a civilized country who believes that the throwing of a loud college party is grounds for raising a sentence from 26 years to life? Where are the statutes that say a loud party is worth a prison sentence enhancement? This is simply desperation and petty posturing. It should shame an otherwise honorable and reasonable Italian Judiciary.

Mignini alleges that rocks were thrown at the party. But he does not allege that Amanda had any part in it. She didn’t. How do I know? If Mignini had any proof that she threw a single rock, he would have put it in the appeal.

These are examples of a history of criminality that professionals recognize: Robbery, threats, assault, cruelty to animals….All things in which Rudy Guede has dabbled.

Amanda had been in Perugia for three months and was virtually unknown to the police. Rudy Guede, however, had been arrested several times in the previous 30 days.

P. Domestic partner violence
No.

Amanda scores a zero on the potential violence threat test. No threat. Not a small threat, not a manageable threat, not a moderate threat….no threat whatsoever.

CONCLUSIONS:
1. There is absolutely no evidence of Amanda Knox in the room at the time of the murder, nor is there evidence that she participated in any way.
a. No blood
b. No hairs
c. No fingerprints
d. No footprints
e. No saliva
f. No DNA
2. There are absolutely no items of Amanda’s which have any blood on them
a. No clothes
b. No shoes
c. No socks
d. No underwear
3. Amanda had not a scratch on her the morning after the attack
a. No cuts
b. No bruises
c. No lacerations
4. There was absolutely no blood found in Raffaele’s apartment or Amanda’s room.
a. Nothing on the floors
b. Nothing on knives
c. Nothing on carpets
d. Nothing on walls
e. Nothing on clothes
f. Nothing on utensils
g. Nothing on doorknobs
5. There was no escape attempt by Amanda or Raffaele
a. Rudy escaped to Germany shortly after the attack
b. Amanda did not attempt to flee
c. Raffaele did not attempt to flee
6. There were NO psychological indicators of potential violence in Amanda
a. No motive
b. No homicidal fantasies or preoccupation
c. No violent intentions or expressed threats
d. No weapons skills
e. No pre-attack planning
f. No stalking
g. No job problems
h. No loss or personal stressors
i. No lack of conscience
j. No anger problems
k. No depression or suicidality
l. No paranoia or other symptoms
m. No isolation
n. No history of violence
o. No history of criminality
p. No domestic partner violence.

Based on the preceding, AMANDA’S INVOLVEMENT IN THE MURDER IS NOT JUST UNLIKELY, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. The prosecution is missing all evidence needed to convict Amanda Knox, and hasn’t provided any plausible reason for it's absence.

Behind Giuliano Mignini's Own Conviction

2010-04-20T00:13:00.000-07:00

A few months ago the head prosecutor in the case against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, Giuliano Mignini, was convicted for conducting illegal investigations in connection with the Narducci case, an alleged murder originally thought to be a suicide. Incidentally, Mignini submitted a ridiculous "switched-body" scenario in that case just as ludicrous as his theory in the case at hand. For some context on the Narducci case, here is a short explanation.

Aside from the possibility of being forced from office as prosecutor, the Narducci case could have further repurcussions. Mignini's computer was seized and contained an enemies list. You can read more on that here.

Below is an explanation of the charges and conviction against Giuliano Mignini as well as the charge where he was acquitted.

Sentencing Report for Giuliano Mignini

What were the charges Giuliano Mignini was convicted for?

The charges against Giuliano Mignini are threefold and involve more than just illegal wiretapping. The court convicted Mignini for the following:

1.) Illegally investigating journalists who had criticized him with the "intent to harass or deter them from pursuing their legitimate profession". Specifically the court found that Mignini had targeted Italian journalists Vincenzo Tessandori, Gennaro De Stefano, and Roberto Fiasconaro, because they had criticized his investigations into the death of Narducci.

2.) Ordering an illegal investigation of the Florentine ex police chief Giuseppe De Donno.

3.) Ordering illegal investigations of two officials of the Viminale, the Ministry of the Interior in Rome, including an illegal investigation of the Roberto Sgalla, ex-director of the office of external affairs.

Why were Giuliano Mignini's investigations illegal?
These investigations were illegal because they involved illegal wiretaps (wiretaps without judicial approval) and Mignini illegally created investigative files for the targets outside of normal judicial procedures and approvals. These were illegal freelance investigations, the court determined, designed to "harass and intimidate" people who had criticized him or Chief Inspector Michele Giuttari for their conduct in the Narducci investigation.

What was Giuliano Mignini acquitted of?
Along with being charged with conducting illegal investigations, Mignini was also charged with "aiding and abetting" where he was accused of informing Giuttari that he was the target of a criminal inquiry by the "procura di Genova" who was investigating Giuttari for doctoring the transcript and tape of a wiretap to put false and incriminating words in the mouth of a targeted suspect.

How serious are the charges?
Some uninformed bloggers have described the charges against Mignini as an "administrative charge"---a claim which is completely bogus. Mignini was given a 16 month prison sentence, 6 months more than even the prosecutor had asked for. However, he is unlikely to see jail time and his sentence is suspended while his case is on appeal.

While Mignini will most likely never spend time in jail, if his conviction is upheld, he will be removed from public office and never be allowed to serve as a prosecutor or judge again.

It is important to keep in mind that the Florentine judge in this case imposed a heavier sentence than what was asked for, which came as a huge surprise to even Mignini himself. A judge handing out a stronger sentence than asked for is extremely rare in Italy and serves as an incredibly strong condemnation of Mignini's illegal behavior (though under Italian law he is still presumed innocent until he has exhausted his appeals---as are Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito).

NOTE: Whenever you are in doubt about how serious a charge is, just look at the length of the possible sentence. That is the barometer for how seriously society judges that specific crime.

More info on Mignini's Conviction

For the news round up from the day of Mignini's conviction, click here.

For info on the defamation suits related to this case, including Giuliano Mignini, click here.

Rayrayturner@gmail.com

The Appeal Moves Forward for Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox

2010-04-19T15:17:00.000-07:00

From NBC News

From ABC News

Lawyers for both Raffele Sollecito have now filed their appeals. Frank Sfarzo of Perugia-Shock has updated his blog with more specifics about Sollecito's appeal in particular:

They repropose their argument of illegitimate arrest of Raffaele due the original lack of legal assistance and they ask to cancel the judge order that declared it regular, so to obtain the immediate release of Raffaele.

They try again with the full re-examination of all scientific data, included the DNA tests.

They deny the validity of DNA result for The Knife and the bra clasp.

They ask the substance on the pillow case to be analyzed.

They ask an audiometric test to demonstrate that Nara couldn't have heard Meredith screams and the steps.

They ask new investigative activity to be performed and discussed in trial, they ask new witnesses to be heard to doubt Toto's version.

They also now believe that Rudy was not alone when he committed the crime, and will rely on Mario Alessi's testimony and the one of three other gentlemen from Viterbo jail to prove this.

But, above all, they maintain the illegitimacy of the whole trial in Corte d'Assise, since it forced the defendants to prove their innocence, when, by law, it should be the opposite.

continued here.....

Also, from Bob Graham, the possibility that Rudy might have been a police informant is discussed. There is much more to this finding that will hopefully be revealed in the press shortly:

LAWYERS appealing against the murder conviction of Amanda Knox have been told they can’t use shocking new evidence.

It reveals the third person convicted of killing British student Meredith Kercher had committed six serious crimes over 33 days before the killing.

But robberies carried out by small-time drug dealer Rudy Guede were ignored by Italian authorities, raising suspicions that he was a police informer.

Continue here......

Also, co-prosecutor Manuel Comodi brushes off a defendant's right to examine the evidence against them. To this day, the defense team has yet to receive the .FSA files which are vitally important to examining the DNA evidence. More here from the Telegraph.

Prosecutors Manuela Comodi and Giuliano Mignini Plan to Appeal the Sentences of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox

2010-04-15T20:32:00.000-07:00

There should be a lot of news this coming week as Amanda Knox's appeal is due on Tuesday. Expect in the next week to hear more about what each party plans to argue on appeal as well as possible new evidence that wasn't heard in court. I will also be posting more specifics on the charges against Mignini sometime within the next week which should create a clearer understanding over what he was convicted for and why.

From Perugia-Shock:

We'll hardly appeal the sentence, prosecutors Giuliano Mignini and Manuela Comodi said after the conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. But then the motivations Giancarlo Massei released didn't really make them happy. Massei was too kind.

continue reading......

From Ann Wise and Nikki Battiste of ABC:

The Italian prosecutors who sent American college student Amanda Knox to prison for 26 years filed an appeal of the case today, asking the court for a tougher sentence.

The appeal came just days before Knox's lawyers are expected to file their own appeal of her conviction for murdering British roommate Meredith Kercher in 2007.

The prosecution did not specify the sentence it wants imposed on Knox, but by arguing that the court should have considered an aggravating circumstance in handing out Knox's punishment, a life sentence would be almost automatic.

continue reading here......

Email: Rayrayturner@gmail.com

Giuliano Mignini's Enemies List

2010-04-15T02:28:00.000-07:00

Translated from Panorama, an Italian Magazine. For original version in Italian click here.

You're my enemy? Then I will indict you.

The Index. Following the conviction of the pm Giuliano Mignini and of the policeman-turned-writer Michele Giuttari, their methods of investigation have come under severe criticism. Many blacklists found.

A blacklist, a secret file with the names of parliamentarians, ministers, and journalists. This is what investigators have discovered on the personal computer of Giuliano Mignini, the Italian prosecutor who has been heavily criticized in America (the same one who pointed a severely accusatory finger against the American Amanda Knox in the trial for the death of Meredith Kercher) and the lead investigator in the second part of the investigation of the Monster of Florence.

Florentine prosecutors Luca Turco and Gabriele Mazzotta have uncovered a series of “strange items” in the investigations conducted by Mignini and the policeman-writer Michele Giuttari, who were searching for the masterminds behind the serial killings of couples. The end result: on January 22 the Tribunale of Florence convicted the magistrate and the chief inspector for abuse of office.

According to the verdict of conviction (the two men received respectively a year and six months and a year and four months in prison, beyond a ban on holding public office), the two, in 2006, illegally investigated certain journalists, the police chief of Florence Giuseppe De Donno and two high officials of the Viminale [the Ministry of the Interior in Rome].

However, the disturbing files in question opened other possibilities. The affair had its origin in April 2006, during the sensational arrest of the journalist Mario Spezi for involvement in murder and obstruction of justice. Spezi spent 23 days in prison, of which five were spent in an isolation cell, denied access to his attorney, under laws of the Penal Code meant to be applied only to extremely dangerous criminals such as terrorists.

Spezi’s arrest unleashed scathing criticism by some journalists. Giuttari and Mignini responded with a series of “assessments” (later judged illegal by the tribunale) authorized under the signature of Judge Marina De Robertis, who used a legal procedure meant only to be employed in an emergency; but these emergency authorizations were never retroactively justified as required by law.

One of the cases involved the wiretapping of a cellular telephone owned by the daily newspaper, La Stampa, in use by the reporter Vincenzo Tessandori, who was moreover illegally investigated beyond normal judicial procedures, but who had written several articles critical of the investigation. The same illegal harassment was directed at other newspaper reporters such as Gennaro De Stefano (who has since died) and Roberto Fiasconaro.

Giuttari and Mignini ordered the wiretapping and shadowing of two police officials from the press office of the Polizia in Rome, who had earlier asked Giuttari to limit his television appearances.

These are the facts that have emerged from the Florentine inquiries. Here is a passage from the indictments written by the pm Turco regarding the fact that the victims of this judicial abuse were investigated illegally, outside of normal judicial procedures. “If Mignini suspected a crime had been committed, he had the capacity and obligation to investigate the suspect in a proper and legal manner.” But even more disturbing, for the repercussions it had, is the list of “enemies” of Mignini.

From December 2005 to May 2006 a file was created and added to entitled “Attacks to Remember”, in which there is another file: “Orgy of Attacks Following the Arrest of Spezi; an index of newspapers: Libero, Il Giornale, Oggi.” Following that is a long list of people “To Remember” that consisted of the names of some of the most prominent judges involved in the case of the Monster of Florence, a long list of politicians, among which could be found the ex-mayor of Florence, Leonardo Domenici, the deputy mayor Michele Venturo and the Minister of the Environment Altero Matteoli, all of whom signed a petition of solidarity protesting Spezi’s incarceration.

Former FBI Investigator Discusses the Case Against Amanda Knox & Raffaele Sollectio

2010-04-15T02:10:00.000-07:00

My name is Steve Moore; I retired from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 2008 after 25 years as a Special Agent and Supervisory Special Agent. My entire investigative experience was in the investigation and prosecution of violent crime, from murder to mass-murder and terrorism. In my last such assignment, I was the Supervisor of the Al Qaeda Investigations squad, following which I ran the FBI’s Los Angeles-based “Extra-Territorial Squad”, which was tasked with responding to any acts of terrorism against the United States in Asia and Pakistan. I have investigated murders throughout the United States and the world.

I do not know Amanda Knox. I have never met or spoken with anybody in the Knox or Mellas families. In my 25 years in the FBI, I had come to believe that if you were arrested, you were probably guilty. I never had a person I took to trial who wasn’t convicted. I was especially tired of guilty persons claiming their innocence.

I had heard snippets about the Knox case from the news, and believed that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were certainly guilty. But then I began to hear statements from the press that contradicted known facts. Wanting to resolve the conflicts, I looked into the case out of curiosity. The more I looked, the more I was troubled by what I found. So I looked deeper, and I ended up examining every bit of information I could find (and there’s a lot of it). The more I investigated, the more I realized that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito could not have had anything to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher. Moreover, one reason that they were falsely convicted was that every rule of good investigation was violated.

continue here......

About Steve Moore:

Steve Moore is a retired FBI Agent who has 25 years of investigative experience. His experience includes the investigation and prosecution of violent crime, from murder to mass-murder and terrorism. Steve has researched the Meredith Kercher murder case extensively. I was very pleased when Steve accepted my request to write about his knowledge of this case for Injustice in Perugia. Steve has agreed to join our effort and will continue to work with us to set the record straight about this case. I would like to personally thank Steve for providing this invaluable information. Steve's expert opinion is one that comes from years of experience and one that must be respected when it comes to crimes of this nature.

The Trials of Amanda Knox: American Version to Air This Sunday on TLC

2010-03-24T22:54:00.000-07:00

This Sunday, the documentary "The Trials of Amanda Knox" will air at 8pm on The Learning Channel. Speculation has already begun about which version will air as several different edits currently exist.

The back story behind the filming is almost more interesting than the actual documentary itself, with the two main directors, Bob Graham and Garfield Kennedy, losing creative control of the editing process, where the footage rights are currently in the process of litigation. Paul Russell, a casting director who co-authored the first book in English on the case, Darkness Descending, was fired during the filming process for breach of contract.

For those who have seen the British version of the documentary which originally appeared on More4, the differences in the two edits may not justify a second viewing. This is not to say the two are exactly the same.

The American version begins by asking, "Who is the real Amanda Knox"? Is she the ring leader of a callous murder as described by the prosecutor, the quirky Seattle student described by her family and friends, or "Foxy Knoxy" the media creation?

If the film posits one sure conclusion, it is that the media itself is somewhat of a guilty party in a country where trial by media is common. As Richard Owen of the Times of London explains, "Well I think it's no secret to the Italians themselves that their system of justice is slow... suspects can be held in jail for up to a year before they're charged. The result of that tends to be trial by media and that is one reason you get a lot of leaks from legal sources, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and so on, so that the information will at least get out there and the public can make up its own mind."

We also get a glimpse of just how out of touch the views of many reporters writing about the case are towards the younger generation in Perugia (and the United States for that matter). For example, Barbie Nadeau, writer for Newsweek and the Daily Beast, states that it's not completely out of the picture to assume that group sex is part of the university experience now and that university kids are no strangers to extreme sex games--a ridiculous claim for even the worst of tabloid journalists.

This version concentrates slightly more on the forensic evidence, but only to a superficial level that will fail to satisfy either side. We are told of the problems with the murder knife and the problems of the "two knife" scenario put forth by the prosecution. Also explored in slightly more detail is some of the footprint evidence.

The lead prosecutor in the case, Giuliano Mignini, and his suing of the West Seattle Herald for defamation is also touched upon. (You can read more about Mignini on the side bar entitled "Mignini File" and his many lawsuits here).

In the end, just as with the British edit of the documentary, very few will be satisfied, and even fewer will be swayed one way or another. For those who are only vaguely familiar with the case, however, they will get an interesting view of the players involved and a primer for the basic areas of contention that surround this controversial case. If you never caught the British version, it is probably worth tuning in.

Special thanks to The Learning Channel and Discovery.com.

Another Giuliano Mignini Defamation Suit: Now Amanda's Own Attorney and Italian Journalists Meet the Hammer of Odd Justice

2010-02-03T16:56:00.001-08:00

From Perugia-Shock:

I didn't sue anyone, Mignini says in his office. But the indiscretion I just received is clear: an investigation for defamation is running against Amanda Knox's lawyer Luciano Ghirga, Raffaele Sollecito's lawyer Luca Maori, and Oggi journalist Giangavino Sulas, along with the director and editor of that magazine.

continue here....

Close followers of the case should no longer be surprised about any new defamation suits from here on out. In fact, there are so many now I'm starting to lose track. A defamation rehab clinic might be advisable for the sensitive Mignini. The list so far is as follows:

1. Amanda Knox: Charged with defamation of the police for claiming she was hit. No investigation was necessary, said Manuela Comodi, co-prosecutor. More on the defamation charge against Knox can be found here.

2. The West Seattle Herald: Mignini filed defamation charges in this case because Herald reporter Steve Shay quoted other people saying Mignini was "mentally unstable". Mignini sued the paper, mind you, not the people actually making this claim. You can read more about it here. It was ridiculous at the time and it's ridiculous now. Incidentally, this case has gone nowhere and obviously never will. Mignini actually stated he wanted U.S. officials to shut down the Herald.

3. Joe Cottonwood (Fiction Writer): I wrote about this in September of 2009. No U.S. papers picked it up, but some Italian ones did. Joe Cottonwood had the misfortune of being sued by Giuliano Mignini for this quote in an Italian newspaper:

"The Meredith Kercher murder is
one of those mirrors that reflects the prejudices of whoever is looking into it. There is no physical evidence and no credible motive, and yet an egotistical prosecutor is blaming Amanda Knox anyway. In the USA, this would only happen if she were black. Perhaps partying American college kids are so hated in Italy that Amanda will be treated as blacks are treated in the USA, and she will be convicted not because of the evidence but because of general resentment of shallow rich Americans. Personally, from what I've read I don't like Amanda Knox. She sounds spoiled, naive, and shallow. But that's not a crime. I loathe the prosecutor, who has a counterpart in every city in the USA - a preening, intellectually dishonest bully who cares more about making newspaper headlines than in serving justice. It's the same all over the world. Power and prejudice are the enemies of justice."

Mignini charged Cottonwood with criminal defamation, which could have included a jail sentence. Upon Mignini's own conviction for abuse of power, Cottonwood now asks "Am I still a criminal?". Well Mr. Cottonwood, if you're not a criminal now, you will be soon if you don't keep your mouth shut! I expect this case to go nowhere at all.

4. Edda Mellas and Curt Knox: Conveniently timed just before the verdict against their daughter, parents of Amanda Knox, Curt and Edda, were served defamation papers for statements made in an interview with John Follain.

5. Luciano Ghirga (Attorney for Amanda Knox), Luca Maori (Attorney for Raffaele Sollecito), Giangavino Sulas (Journalist for Oggi Magazine), Editor and Director of Oggi Magazine.
6. Mario Spezi: Italian journalist who co-wrote The Monster of Florence with journalist and author Doug Preston. His statement? According to Frank Sfarzo, "The work of Mignini has been a shame." (Paraphrased) Oh ya, and for good measure, Mignini actually accused Spezi of murder at one point.
7. Gabriella Carlizzi: Roman "Psychic" who Mignini has charged with defamation multiple times even though, according to Doug Preston, he used her as a "very important witness in the Monster of Florence Case."

Total count comes to 11 people charged with defamation. Who am I missing?

You can easily see why most common law jurisdictions give absolute immunity for allegedly defamatory statements if made during a legal proceeding. Look what happens when someone falls in love with these kind of law suits/charges.

If Mignini is reading, he may want to go to this page here and put in an application pronto.

Note: Another article by Spokane attorney Bill Edelblute, who writes for the Examiner.com, also recapped Mignini's defamation cases. You can find the article here.

I called Mignini asking for comment, he stated: "I hesitate to answer any inquiry as I fear I may be forced to charge myself with defamation. How can I charge someone other than myself now? There is no one left!". Ok ok, obviously a joke. We'll call it "satire", a protected form of speech in the United States--just in case Giuliano Mignini gets any wacky ideas!

UPDATE: We can now add another person to the Giuliano Mignini Walk of Defame list thanks to an email by one of our readers.

8. Francesca Bene, who works for a small Italian paper, Giornale dell 'Umbria, who was interrogated by one of the same police women that interrogated Amanda Knox and was indicted for causing public alarm by publishing false information.

The Italian justice system should get rid of Mignini

2010-01-27T01:06:00.000-08:00

Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini has now been convicted by a court in Florence of abusing his official powers. He has been sentenced to 16 months in prison, but, as is usual in Italian criminal justice, he is free to live his life and practice his profession while the appeal is heard.

Mignini describes the charges against him as technical and hard to understand. In fact, they spring from specific acts in which he abused the power of his office.

The story has its origins in a series of shocking murders committed during the 1970s and 80s by someone whom the press dubbed the Monster of Florence (MOF). Young couples, who had parked in a remote place to have sex, were shot with a pistol. The bodies of the women were grotesquely mutilated after they were dead.

Crime experts recognize the MOF murders as the work of a particular kind of sexual deviant, one whose best-known precedent is Jack the Ripper. Mignini, however, is no crime expert. He is a crackpot who sees the world through a veil of ignorance and superstition. He got involved in the MOF case while investigating the death of a Dr. Narducci, whose drowned corpse was found in a lake near Perugia. In a flight of pure fantasy, Mignini concocted a theory that linked Narducci's death to the MOF. The essence of his theory is that the MOF killings were done by assassins who were paid to procure body parts used in the rituals of a Satanic cult. Dr. Narducci belonged to this cult, but he had become a security risk, so other cult members decided to kill him and make it look like an accident or suicide.

This theory attracted widespread and well-deserved ridicule. Among Mignini's critics were author Doug Preston and his Italian writing partner, Mario Spezi. Preston was living in Italy when he and Spezi came up with the idea of doing a book about the MOF. They realized that Mignini's theory was preposterous, and Spezi said so publicly. In response, Mignini forced Preston to leave the country and ordered the police to bug Spezi's car and ransack his office. Eventually Mignini arrested Spezi and threw him in jail, which attracted the ire of a human rights group, the Committee to Protect Journalists. After three weeks, a judge ordered Spezi's release despite Mignini's vehement objections.

This conduct forms the basis of the criminal charges for which Mignini has now been convicted. The matter has attracted attention outside Italy because Mignini also led the Meredith Kercher murder investigation. His theory in that case is as far-fetched as his speculation about the MOF. In his closing argument at the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, Mignini told the court that Amanda spearheaded the attack to "take revenge on that prissy girl" and taunted Meredith by saying, "now you'll be forced to have sex."

In fact, there is no evidence that Amanda uttered these improbable words or harbored any such thoughts. No one has ever claimed that Amanda displayed the slightest hostility toward Meredith, either directly or in conversation with others. But evidence is not important to Mignini. He solves crimes simply by using his filthy mind to imagine what might have happened.

That is fine for masturbation, but it's not how a prosecutor is supposed to operate. Amanda and Raffaele should be freed while their appeal is pending, and Mignini should be taken out of commission before he damages more innocent lives.

NBC Report on the Conviction of Giuliano Mignini

2010-01-25T17:08:00.000-08:00

Co-Prosecutor Manuela Comodi Confirms: There Was No Slander Investigation

2010-01-24T18:20:00.000-08:00

As anyone following the case knows, only a few days ago, Amanda Knox was informed that the slander investigation against her for stating that police hit her is over. No charges have officially been filed as of yet.

On January 19, 2010, Frank Sfarzo of Perugia-Shock posted a short interview with Co-Prosecutor Manuela Comodi, about the nature of the investigation into this charge.

The revelation? There was no investigation. A short snippet:

Q: What was done as investigation?
A: Nothing, what should we have done? She did it in front of everyone.
Q: You didn't think you could maybe investigate if what she said was true?
A: And what should we have done, interview the interpreter?
Q: The interpreter and all other witnesses, the suspect, the victims. Run the investigation, you know how to make them.
A: Please... there's nothing to investigate, she did the slander in public. And everybody was already heard at the trial.

Read the rest here.

So no witnesses were interviewed, not even the interpreter. The fact that there was no investigation begs the question: Why now? Incidentally, it didn't occur to even a single reporter to mention the convenient timing of all this, just days before Mignini was found guilty in Florence for abuse of office.

Revisiting the Interrogation
If we only had the testimony of the Perugian police to go on, the answer would be settled over Amanda's interrogation. They treated her like a queen, gave her chamomile and cookies, and out of the blue for no reason, because the police were treating her so nicely, she decided to give them the gift of falsely accusing Patrick Lumumba of murdering Meredith Kercher. At least this was the testimony of Perugian officers Monica Napoleoni, Lorena Zuaringi, and Rita Ficarra. However, it is worth noting that their recollection of the final interrogation before Amanda's arrest materially contradicts the testimony of not only Amanda, but of the lead investigator from Rome, Edgardo Giobbi (you might remember him from this video here).

So we have three conflicting accounts of the intterogation: Amanda's, the Perugian police, and Giobbi from Rome.

Let's look at the three accounts.

1. Testimonies of Perugian Police: A whole book could be written on just Amanda Knox's interrogation alone. Monica Napoleoni, head of the Perugian murder squad, testified that when Amanda Knox came to the police station the night she was arrested, she found Amanda Knox's actions "very strange", describing both Amanda and Raffaelle's attitudes as "bizarre". Napoleoni noted that Knox and Sollecito seemed indifferent which she claims she found disturbing considering the circumstances.

Rita Ficarra, who worked for the Perugian narcotics unit, testified that no lawyer was given to Knox during the interrogation at this stage because she was not formally a suspect. Ficarra eventually told Knox that Sollecito was no longer supporting her alibi. She told Knox "....if you tell me a lie one time, that is comprehensible, but if you lie again--even if it is a small lie-- it makes you less credible." Nevertheless, it should be noted that Ficarra also described Knox as being "shocked" even at the beginning of her visit to the police station.

Then Knox eventually broke down and accused Patrick Lumumba. The interrogation was stopped after Amanda admitted being at the scence of the crime, and she was now formally a suspect.

During the testimony of the interrogators, as somewhat a surprise to observers in court, the Perugian police claimed that Amanda had spontaneously named Patrick, and that the police had no idea who Patrick was. They further claimed that Knox hadn't even been called to the police station.

Napoleoni stated that Knox was "treated very well. She was given water, camomile tea and breakfast. She was given cakes from a vending machine and then taken to the canteen at the police station for something to eat." She further stated that the memorandum Amanda wrote was written of her own free will.

The basics of the Patrick accusation, according to Napoleoni, was that Amanda opened her phone to a text message from Patrick which said "A più tardi, buona serata" ("see you later"). The police see the text, and Amanda tears up and says "He's bad, he's bad....he's the murderer!". The interrogation stops and PM Mignini is called in.

After the Perugian police testified, their description of events was protested by Knox by means of a spontaneous statement:

"I just wanted to say that I'm really very sorry to hear these things because frankly what they said is not true. They treated me as a person only after I released the statements. Only after that, I could go to the toilet. Thank you."

No claims of hitting were made in the spontaneous statement, but would be made later. An important point to mention (based on the prosecution's own timeline), Amanda's interrogation lasted until 5:45 in the morning, and she had been interrogated for about 7 hours by this point (a pretty long time for someone police claim was not yet a 'suspect').

2. Giobbi's Account: To the right is Edgardo Giobbi, the police chief from Rome who testified a few months after the female officers. His account contains important contradictions to that of the female officers.

Contradiction #1: Ficarra, Napoleoni and Zuaringi all stated that only Raffaelle was called in for an interrogation. In fact, as Frank Sfarzo of Perugia-Shock points out, these officers actually testified that they rebuked Amanda over and over again for coming to the police station in the first place, stating that the call was only for Raffaelle to be brought to the station. This Raffaelle only invitation is directly contradicted by Giobbi's testimony, who stated that he was "mathematically sure" that he gave the order to have both Amanda Knox and Raffaelle brought to the station for questioning.

Contradiction # 2: The Perugian police boasted of how nicely they treated Amanda. They gave her cake and camomile, etc. Giobbi wasn't in the interview rooms, instead hiding in the director's room. He testified that he could hear Amanda screaming, something not mentioned by the chamomile bearing Perugian police.

3. Amanda Knox's Account
Though well known to followers of the case, it's worth briefly recounting Amanda's testimony of the interrogation. During her testimony, Amanda stated that police called her a "stupid liar" and hit her on the back of the head after Knox denied she was lying. She further stated that the officers kept suggesting Patrick Lumumba's name. In short, suffice it to say that Amanda has continued to claim that she was not treated well by the police. Her version of events certainly indicate an interrogation that was accusatory in nature (though Perugian police claim she was not a suspect....), and certainly tense.

The Elephant in the Room: The Audio of the Interrogation

No one can really seem to answer whether an audio of the interrogation actually took place. It is difficult to believe an audio recording does not exist, but prosecutor Giuliano Mignini in the recent More4 documentary (Directed by Garfield Kennedy) alleged that no audio was ever taken, citing the excitement surrounding the accusation of Patrick Lumumba. They simply "forgot" to record it. So we have two options: (1) An audio or video of Amanda Knox's interrogation was never recorded OR (2) an audio or video was recorded. Pretty simple competing trains of thought here. So let's look at both options.

1. The Interrogation Was Never Recorded: It is very hard to believe that this was the case for many reasons, but the one that sticks out the most is the fact that they were recording everything else Amanda and Raffaele were saying. This fact has been known going back all the way to 2007. As reported on Dateline NBC on December, 21, 2007, "By [Saturday, Nov. 3] authorities were bugging every phone call placed and received by the young lovers." Every phone call! The police were more than happy to release what they felt were incriminating statements to the press from these bugged conversations. (Another exploration to consider: It's very strange for the police to be bugging the two since they were supposedly just being treated as witnesses....).

Even if we take Giuliano Mignini at his word in describing the reasons for the lack of audio tape, we still have to deal with the fact that he wasn't there for the portion of interrogation where Amanda claimed she was hit.

So there are many unanswered questions. The police were tapping the phones of Amanda and Raffaelle. We know from the testimony that they were suspicious of everything they were doing. We know that Giobbi testified that both Amanda and Raffaele were called into the police station, not of their own volition to help as witnesses.

Something isn't adding up.

(Note: You can also read Mignini's explanation in Italian here.)

2. The interrogation was recorded: If this is the case, then the audio was either lost (reeking of incompetence), and the police are lying about it, or it was thrown away, and the police are lying about it. If the audio of the interrogation has been destroyed, the question then of course is: why? You would think the Perugian police would have no problem with any tape of the interrogation being played if the tape would actually confirm their testimony from the trial. So, if the interrogation actually was recorded, observers have legitimate reason to believe in some sort of cover up by the police, or at the very least, absolute incompetence in losing such a crucial piece of evidence.

Conclusion: One can subjectively come to the conclusion that Amanda was or was not hit (I think it's obvious where I stand on the issue). That being said, for Manuela Comodi to explicitly say that no investigation was necessary where there are a multitude of questions needing to be answered in order for any sort of slander to be proven is extremely showing. Certainly the actual court statements during Amanda Knox's murder trial are not enough to prove anything in regards to slander one way or another. Thus, any way you look at it, Comodi is either amazingly corrupt or amazingly inept, exhibiting a pathetic lack of diligence to follow through with basic inquiry that is in the interest of justice. Of course, this is the kind of situation one can expect when we ask the same police who are accusing defendants of slander to investigate themselves. The police will always win that one.

Giuliano Mignini is a Convicted Criminal (Part 2: Video from King 5 in Seattle)

2010-01-22T23:50:00.000-08:00

More detailed report from Linda Byron with Video:

Italian Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini successfully convinced a jury that Amanda Knox masterminded the slaying of her former British housemate, Meredith Kercher, during a drug fueled sex game.

Knox was convicted of murder in December and sentenced to 26 years in prison. Her conviction was a personal victory for Mignini, who is the Public Minister of Perugia and a powerful prosecutor.

continue here

Giuliano Mignini is a Convicted Criminal

2010-01-22T10:24:00.000-08:00

UPDATE

Mignini could face a disciplinary proceeding suspending his functions as prosector. From Perugia-Shock:

The penalty was suspended and an appeal is pending, but the Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura --the national organ of government of the judiciary-- could start disciplinary proceedings which could lead to the suspension of Mignini from his functions. The disciplinary trial, to be held behind closed doors, could start any time by CSM's own initiative. It would involve another magistrate defending Mignini and could last several weeks.

MAIN STORY
Condemned. Giuliano Mignini, the prosecutor who headed the investigation and prosecution of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, is now a convicted criminal himself.

Before the verdict was handed down, Mignini told reporters "My conscience is clean. I know I didn't do anything."

He has received a 1 year and four month sentence (along with his partner, who got an extra two months) for abuse of office and bugging journalists in connection with the Fransesco Narducci case. Mignini's sentence was even more than the 10 months that the Florentine prosecutor, Luca Turco, had asked for.

Neither is likely to see jail time, however, because it is a first offense. Amazingly, Italian law allows prosecutor Mignini to keep his job for the time being as well.

Mignini said he was bewildered by the verdict. "I am shocked," he said. "It was totally unexpected."

And the irony continues as Mignini then complained that he has been the victim of a power struggle stating, "This case never should have been tried in Florence". Perhaps Mignini should have thought to seek the help of Seattle area judge Michael Heavey to help him request a change of venue.

Even SeattlePi.com's Andrea Vogt couldn't really spin this one, try as she might. It would be nice to have a quote from one of the prosecutors in Florence, you know, so that we can hear both sides.

Amanda Knox's Slander Charge for Claiming She Was Hit

2010-01-19T16:25:00.000-08:00

From Peruga-Shock:

They were coming to the trial to enjoy the show. They were sitting in the last rows looking at her (and not only at her) with hate. They were afraid she could say that.
And she said it, very simply: "You are a liar!" And, bam! She hit me on my head! And all the description we know.

continue here

Donald Trump Wants to Boycott Italy until Amanda Knox is Free

2009-12-16T14:56:00.000-08:00

Real Estate mogul Donald Trump writes in his Trump University blog today:

What’s really going on over there? Nothing has been made clear -- except that Amanda Knox is now in an Italian prison for perhaps her whole life. Is that the easy solution? One solution is to boycott Italy until they decide to get serious and let her go.

continue here..

Personally, I think these calls for boycotts are quite silly because they won't accomplish anything. Furthermore, Americans gladly buy plenty of of products from China (along with borrowing enormous loans) even though the human rights abuses there are staggering. Regardless, maybe he can help as an advocate for her and ease some of the defense costs that Amanda's family has been burdened with. So there you have it.

The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

2009-12-13T23:21:00.000-08:00

From LessWrong.com:

Followup to: You be the jury: survey on a current event

All three of them clearly killed her. The jury clearly believed so as well which strengthens my argument. They spent months examining the case, so the idea that a few minutes of internet research makes [other commenters] certain they're wrong seems laughable

- lordweiner27, commenting on my previous post

The short answer: It's very much like how a few minutes of philosophical reflection trump a few millennia of human cultural tradition.

Wielding the Sword of Bayes -- or for that matter the Razor of Occam -- requires courage and a certain kind of ruthlessness. You have to be willing to cut your way through vast quantities of noise and focus in like a laser on the signal.

But the tools of rationality are extremely powerful if you know how to use them.

Continue reading here.

It's not about Italy

2009-12-09T22:24:00.000-08:00

(Jim Lovering)

She was, is, and always will be innocent, but the system refused to see that. Her persecutors, with help from a frenzied media, turned a wholesome, fresh-faced American girl into a sexually depraved monster. They constructed a cartoon caricature so far from her real nature that it would be laughable if not for the fact that her life and her freedom were at stake.

The idea that she would commit the crimes for which she was charged is ridiculous to anyone who really understands the nature of sex crimes and sex offenders. But reason did not prevail in this case. Instead, public authorities looked to their own interests and reputations. Their goal was to win at any cost. To compensate for evidence that was weak and contrived, they whipped up hysteria inside and outside of the courtroom. They fed the worst impulses of human nature. They made the public hate her.

And when the long trial reached its conclusion, Margaret Kelly Michaels was convicted.

It happened in 1988, in a US court in the state of New Jersey. Michaels was convicted on 115 counts of child sex abuse and sentenced to 47 years in prison. She was absolutely innocent. The US criminal justice system, with all its supposed protections, reached a verdict that was absolutely wrong.

Hers is far from the only case. There are countless others in the US. In DuPage County, Illinois, police and prosecutors in the Jeanine Nicarico murder case schemed and connived for over a decade to keep two innocent men in jail, long after they knew beyond a shadow of a doubt who the real killer was.

In Wenatchee, Washington, a psychopathic police detective named Robert Perez conducted a witch hunt that put more than 20 innocent men and women behind bars. It took years for a team of lawyers, working pro bono, to clean up the mess Perez created for no better reason that to glorify his malignant ego.

And for most of that time, Perez had the citizens and institutions of Wenatchee thoroughly behind him. Like the lead prosecutor in Perugia, Giuliano Mignini, Perez was a shrewd operator. He knew how to manipulate the public and play to their emotions.

The case of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito does not reflect a problem unique to Italy. It reflects the shortcomings of human nature. It shows how badly any justice system can err when local authorities reach the wrong conclusion in public and then try to save face at all costs.

These cases take time to unravel, but eventually, they do. In the end, Kelly Michaels, the innocent men in the Nicarico case, and the innocents of Wenatchee Washington were all vindicated and set free. Someday the world will understand that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are likewise the victims of an injustice. I have no doubt that the Italian public, led by brave individuals like Frank Sfarzo of Perugia Shock, will play the lead role in bringing that understanding to pass.

Washington Senator Maria Cantwell Clarifies Position in Amanda Knox Trial

2009-12-09T15:03:00.000-08:00

Today on the Stranger Website (a Seattle weekly alternative newspaper), the Stranger asked Cantwell 4 questions:

1. Does Senator Cantwell believe that Amanda Knox is innocent?

2. How closely did the senator follow the trial?

3. Can you describe further what she means by her suggestion that "anti-Americanism" may have tainted the trial? (The other two convicts in the case are Italian and African.)

4. What does she plan to say to Secretary of State Clinton when she meets with her to discuss the Knox case?

Here answers to these questions are linked here.

Madison Paxton, one of Amanda Knox's best friends also has a featured article in the Stranger this week called "She Didn't Do it".

The Magical Bra Strap Found 47 Days Too Late

2009-12-09T01:28:00.000-08:00

This video looks into the circumstances surrounding the discovery of Raffaele Sollecieto's DNA on a Bra Clasp that was collected from the crime scene 47 days after the murder of Meredith Kercher.
It is an addendum to the video "Unassailable Evidence".

May they find peace

2009-12-05T20:59:00.000-08:00

(Jim Lovering)

Meredith Kercher's parents and siblings have behaved impeccably ever since her death. They have spoken rarely, and when they have done so, they have chosen their words carefully and tactfully.

Meanwhile, those of us who are certain of Amanda's innocence are mixed up in a raucous debate. We are outraged, and we are mobilized. We're going to get Amanda out and exonerated.

But by doing so, do we add to the pain felt by the Kerchers, who support the prosecution? Do we create the impression that we think the death of their daughter is secondary in importance to Amanda's freedom?

These are concerns I take seriously. I believe Amanda is going to come out of this ordeal with her head high and her exuberant personality fully intact. She has a great future ahead of her. Meredith does not, and I am deeply conscious of that essential fact whenever I write or think about this case.

I am also conscious of what I believe is the worst kind of bad faith on the part of the Perugian authorities. Giuliano Mignini and his associates have fed the Kercher family an account of what happened that is even more painful than the truth. The evidence at the crime scene shows that Meredith was ambushed in a lightening attack by someone she barely knew. It left her unconscious within a few minutes. It was a terrible death, a monstrous injustice, but it was nothing like the protracted ordeal that Mignini laid out in the trial, in which Meredith was taunted and tortured by someone she thought was a friendly housemate.

Another irony of the case is that the prosecutor, in a futile attempt to make his narrative hold water, has presented Meredith as someone whose behavior was confrontational and irritating. But that is nonsense. Amanda told the truth at the trial, when she said that Meredith was never anything but nice to her. If she and Amanda disagreed, it was a trifling matter for both of them. Both were busy making the most of a year in a foreign country and had no time or reason to sit around and brood.

In 1980, an Illinois seminary student named Steven Linscott lived in an apartment building where a young woman was killed. He foolishly told the police about a dream he had on the night the murder took place, and he was accused and convicted of the murder on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. Eventually the conviction was overturned, and he was released.

Linscott has written extensively about his ordeal. He fit the experience into the framework of his religious beliefs, and turned it into an odyssey of spiritual growth and understanding. One aspect of the case was that the the victim's family believed Linscott to be guilty. Linscott accepted that. He understood that they needed that belief.

I do not doubt that the Kercher family desperately wants the peace that will come with seeing this case fade from the headlines. Sadly, they are not going to get such closure for some time. But that is not the fault of Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito. It is the fault of officials who are too proud and self-interested to admit a mistake. Over time, however, their mistake will be examined in minute detail until the whole world understands. Such is the nature of these cases.

In the mean time, my heart goes out to the Kerchers. Their conduct has been above reproach. They are entitled to whatever opinions they wish, and I hope they find peace in the end.

A farcical end

2009-12-04T19:58:00.000-08:00

(Jim Lovering)

The trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito has ended the way it began, as a sad joke at the expense of everyone who cares about justice. Let's go back and summarize the main points of the crime for which Amanda and Raffaele have now been convicted. The story, per Mignini, runs like this:

Seething with resentment over household chores, Amanda recruited two love-sick puppies to restrain Meredith and plunged a huge kitchen knife into her neck, causing her death. Puppy number one ran away leaving a great deal of physical evidence at the crime scene; puppy number two stayed with Amanda to clean the place up and therefore left almost no physical evidence.

A judge and jury evaluated this account and decided that its truth is not in doubt. Then, having reached this conclusion, they imposed their sentence: 26 years of imprisonment for ringleader Amanda, and 25 years for puppy number two, Raffaele.

This begs the question: why did puppy number one, Rudy Guede, get a longer sentence of 30 years after sparing Italy the cost of a full trial? Isn't the fast-track process supposed to result in a reduced sentence? And if Rudy was a follower, whereas Amanda was the ringleader and the one who actually wielded the knife, shouldn't her sentence be more severe than his?

It seems clear that when the time came for them to serve the aims of justice, this judge and jury cowered before two opposing masters: Mignini and Truth. Their improbable verdict is the result.

I feel terribly sad for Amanda. My heart also goes out to her family. They are good, honest people who in no way deserve to be dragged through this ordeal, which has been financially ruinous and has exposed them to a steady stream of sniping that is as ignorant as it is malicious. It is all deeply unfair.

But, at the same time, I also think they are going to pull through this. Amanda has shown herself to be a resilient young woman. She is suffering now, but she will step out of prison in full Beatles regalia and scoop up the best opportunities that come her way. And there will be many. Curt and Edda will have plenty of happy times, grandchildren, the whole nine yards. It's all written in their future.

But for another family, the heartache will go on, bleakly, year after year. What is Meredith Kercher's family supposed to make of this verdict? Will they convince themselves it is the outcome of a process in which an impartial court, protective of their interests as victims, has weighed the evidence, gotten to the truth of the matter, and brought them justice?

Maybe they will. People badly want answers when something tragic happens in their lives. But I have to think they will be haunted by doubt. And for good reason. This verdict brings no truth or justice. It is nothing more than a craven accommodation to a provincial cabal. The sooner it is undone, the better for everyone, except perhaps those who orchestrated it.

Knox and Sollecito Found Guilty

2009-12-04T16:22:00.000-08:00

Nick Squires: Amanda Knox Trial, the Unanswered Questions

26 years for AK, 25 for RS. Appeal is automatic.

The footnote that is Rudy Guede

Frank Sfarzo on Sky News:

Statement from Maria Cantwell:

I am saddened by the verdict and I have serious questions about the Italian justice system and whether anti-Americanism tainted this trial. The prosecution did not present enough evidence for an impartial jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Knox was guilty. Italian jurors were not sequestered and were allowed to view highly negative news coverage about Ms. Knox. Other flaws in the Italian justice system on display in this case included the harsh treatment of Ms. Knox following her arrest; negligent handling of evidence by investigators; and pending charges of misconduct against one of the prosecutors stemming from another murder trial.
I am in contact with the U.S. Ambassador to Italy and have been since the time of Ms. Knox's arrest. I will be conveying my concerns to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. I have also been in touch with the Embassy of Italy in Washington, DC.

Awaiting the Verdict

2009-12-04T08:30:00.000-08:00

Keith Miller on NBC

UPDATE: Verdict will be at 6PM Eastern, 3PM West Coast time

Last Day of Closing Arguments

2009-12-03T16:10:00.000-08:00

AP Video

And in case anyone forgot, the Italian police don't need evidence, they can tell if you are guilty just by looking:

Anderson Cooper: The Case in Pictures

Sky News Blog: Is Perugia the New Salem?

Well, it will soon be judgement day for Amanda Knox and Raphael Sollecito. Their trial for the murder of Meredith Kercher is due to finish on Friday or Saturday.
It's very difficult to read what the verdict will be. But many Italian legal experts say it has been a trial by media. The evidence used by the prosecution has certainly at times been hysterical and laughable.
There've been moments when it's felt like you were sitting in a sixteenth-century court in early modern Europe with an alleged witch on the stand. Take the prosecutions summing up yesterday for instance.
more...

Frank Sfarzo:

Maresca defended the fake B & E theory, recalling that there's even dust on the little window below the broken window. And if Rudi was drunk how could he have been so good at breaking and climbing?

Donati for Sollecito, though, recalled the presence of glass in Meredith's room and in the corridor. And even, most probably, under Rudi's shoe (the famous Y-shaped sign of the pre-trial).

New York Times:

In a trembling voice the day before a jury is expected to begin deliberating her fate, Amanda Knox, 22, thanked her family and friends, the jurors and even the prosecutors who have accused her. “They are trying to do their work even if they don’t understand,” she said in Italian nearly perfected during her time in prison.

ABC News:

"I have thought in these days about what I wanted to say and I had a question, which I wrote down, that a lot of people have asked me: How can you stay so calm?" Knox said to the jury in the Italian she has improved during her years in prison. "The first thing to say, is that I am not calm."

A canary in a very dark coal mine

2009-12-03T04:14:00.000-08:00

Tim Egan pulls no punches in his latest article about the persecution of Amanda Knox. "What century is this?" he asks. "Didn’t Joan of Arc, the Inquisition and our own American Salem witch trials teach civilized nations a thing or two about contrived sexual hysteria with a devil twist?"

The sad truth is that virtually the entire world, including the United States as well as Europe, remains in the Dark Ages when it comes to criminal justice. DNA evidence has shown that mistakes are far more common than most prosecutors and judges would care to admit. In the US, more than 200 prisoners have been freed because DNA tests have proved their innocence. By any reasonable estimate, thousands more innocent people remain behind bars. Most are poor and uneducated with little chance of ever gaining a reprieve.

In that respect, Amanda is lucky. Whatever the court decides to do in the next few days, she has a growing army of supporters who know she is innocent and will champion her cause until the day she walks out of prison. And that day will come. My hope is that prominent writers like Egan, by taking a stand on Amanda's behalf, will help raise public awareness that wrongful prosecution is a pervasive problem, even in civilized nations.

Tim Egan Revisits the Amanda Knox Case

2009-12-02T18:43:00.000-08:00

From Tim Egan of the New York Times:

In just a few days, a verdict is expected in the trial of Amanda Knox, the 22-year-old Seattle exchange student on trial in Italy for the throat-slashing murder of her British roommate two years ago. Her ex-boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, is also being tried.
The trial in the Umbrian college town of Perugia has dragged on just short of a year. As this week’s closing arguments showed once again, the case has very little to do with actual evidence and much to do with the ancient Italian code of saving face.
In closing arguments, Knox was described as a “Luciferina” and “a dirty-minded she-devil.” Preposterous, made-up sexual motives were ascribed to her.

continued here

Defense Closing Arguments: Day 3

2009-12-02T09:09:00.000-08:00

CNN

NBC

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

CBS

Frank Sfarzo, Amanda Knox's Lawyer's Thunders and Moves:

It was a strange inquest for Luciano Ghirga, full of strange coincidences. When the Amanda-Patrick association collapsed, DNA of the victim magically appears on a crystal clean blade. WhenRaffaele's footprint in the room fades away, his DNA materializes on a bra clasp.

continue here...

NowPublic, SMKovalinsky (Supporters of Amanda Knox Speak on Facebook):

"One of the closing statements of Magnini before the prosecution rested, was that it would be insane for a person to shower, as Knox did, in a blood spattered bathroom. His implication: Ms. Knox was able to do so, because she was not shocked by the blood, being full aware of the murder. This YouTube tells quite a different story; hopefully, the defense team has shown this to the jury in Perugia, Italy."

continued here for full recap of Ghirga's closing arguments.

West Seattle Herald:

Immediately after Ghirga concluded, the prosecutor addressed the court. He asked to give his rebuttal right away, an unusual move. He was already scheduled for the following morning, but witnesses say he was visibly shaken. The judge allowed it.
Within a few minutes of his address all the power went out in the court room and he was forced to stop. However, the power was restored about 10 minutes later, and he continued for two hours.

Nick Pisa, Daily Mail:

Defence lawyer Ghirga described the 'clash between women from the Perugia flying squad' and his client.
He said: 'They had it in for her just because she had condoms and a vibrator in her beauty case.'
He added that as a result Knox "had suffered as a result of this antagonism."
Mr Ghirga also described how officers had questioned Meredith's then boyfriend Giacomo Silenzi about their sex life and said it was 'outrageous and something we would never have dreamed of doing.'
He also added how 36 officers had been present during Knox's final questioning at the police station and he added: 'All those people signed the charge sheet and there was just one poor Amanda.'

Seattle PI (Mignini retorts: 'but she used a vibrator!'):

Mignini's attempt to slow Ghirga's significant momentum revealed a glimpse of professional rivalry between the two men -- who are facing one another in several other large trials playing out in the city -- with each one claiming to be more Perugian than the other.

"I am Perugino," Ghirga said at one point, taking issue with details of the prosecutor's murder reconstruction. "How can he put forward a hypothesis so contorted?

"The prosecutor is right about one thing, you should not forget the victim, Meredith," he said. "And there is one thing the prosecution should have done for Meredith, and that is a rigorous investigation done well from the beginning."

CNN:

"How could someone come up with the hypothesis, a completely distorted one, and in the crime scene put Rudy against Rafaele in order to humiliate the smirking Meredith?" he asked. "How could someone conjure such a thing?"

He attacked the way police and prosecutors had treated Knox, giving them a symbolic "red card" -- a referee's sign in soccer that a player is being expelled from the game for breaking the rules.

AP:

"Amanda is asking to have her life back. Give Amanda her life back by clearing her of all charges," Ghirga said, raising his voice and fighting back tears at the end of his three-hour long remarks.

ABC:

"This is a privation of the right to defense of a person who was at that moment effectively a suspect, and," he said with his voice rising to a shout, "we will not accept it. It is a very serious omission that we cannot bear - something we did not know how to explain to her and her parents."
Ghirga said prosecutors leaked investigative documents that were to be kept secret, and he repeated charges that the blade of the alleged murder weapon did not match the cuts on Kercher's throat.

BBC:

Mr Ghirga denounced allegations made about the character of Miss Knox.
He said: "The deductions made about Amanda outside of the courtroom, I don't accept them."
He also pointed to inconsistencies in the prosecution's case and said the alleged motive behind the killing had changed.
"First it was (Miss Kercher's) refusal to participate in a sex orgy, then it was an economic motive."

Defense Closing Arguments: Day 2

2009-12-01T15:08:00.000-08:00

ABC NEWS: Forensic Expert Elizabeth Johnson

AP

CBS NEWS

Ann Wise, Abc:

"The motive is fundamental," attorney Carlo Dalla Vedova told the jury in Perugia, Italy, where Knox has been jailed for the last two years. "But today the motive has been changed at the last minute."

Richard Owen, Times Online:

"Carlo Dalla Vedova told the six jurors, all Perugia residents, that there were “more doubts than certainties” in the case against Ms Knox, 22, and Raffaele Sollecito, 25, her former Italian boyfriend who is also charged with murder."

Seattle PI:

"The truth comes out in a trial, and we have been patiently waiting for this moment, especially Amanda Knox, who has been sitting in jail with patience and determination, waiting to get her life back," said Carlo Dalla Vedova, of Rome.

"Amanda Knox never should have been arrested. And everything that has happened since then has been part of an attempt to maintain an accusation, that, bit by bit, has disintegrated."
It began with "psychosomatic" observations of one powerful cop, he said, Edgardo Giobbi, the former director of the violent crimes division of the central operations unit in Rome, who on "investigator's instincts" suspected Knox from the beginning.
"Immediately after the crime, they focused attention on her," said Dalla Vedova. "They started recording her conversations. They were quick to say 'case closed,' but it was a mistake the police made in the beginning, then they couldn't let it go."

The Bloody Bathroom Fallacy (What Amanda Knox Saw)

2009-12-01T09:03:00.000-08:00

This is actual crime scene video of the bathroom at Via della Pergola #7 taken within hours of the murder of Meredith Kercher.

Contrary to reporting and popular belief, the bathroom looked relatively normal; there was nothing so out of the ordinary that Amanda Knox would suspect that a murder had been committed in the room next door. She simply took a shower as she did every day. (Even on chilly mornings).

At the end of the footage a photo that was leaked to the press as an actual "crime scene photo" is shown. This photo was reprinted throughout Europe without the caveat that it was chemically enhanced to turn pink with exposure to protein, any protein, and the belief was born that Amanda had showered in a bloody bathroom. Consequently public opinion was inflamed against her.

Science versus Patrizia Stefanoni

2009-11-30T19:52:00.000-08:00

Today, 9 US specialists in DNA have strongly outlined their concerns over two crucial pieces of evidence (knife and bra clasp) in the case against Amanda Knox and Raffaelle Sollecito in an open letter/petition (Full copy at bottom of this post).

From NewScientist:

On the eve of the verdict of the high-profile trial in Perugia, Italy, in which Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are charged with the murder of British student Meredith Kercher, DNA evidence brought by the prosecution is being questioned by nine US specialists in DNA forensics.
The trial is in its final stages, with a verdict expected on 7 December. Knox and Sollecito are pleading not guilty. In an open letter, the US specialists outline their concerns with two pieces of DNA evidence that are central to the case against Knox and Sollecito.
The defence has already suggested that the amount of DNA allegedly linking the pair to the crime is too small to be definitive. The letter raises the possibility that this DNA was introduced through contamination of the evidence and concludes that the DNA test results "could have been obtained even if no crime had occurred".
Two years ago, Kercher was found dead, with cuts to her throat, in the accommodation she shared with Knox in Perugia. Although a third suspect, Rudy Guede, has been convicted of her murder, the prosecution claims that Knox and Sollecito helped.
continue here....

From Time Magazine (Nina Burleigh):

As for Knox's defenders, since the early days in the case, American lawyers and experts have criticized the evidence. New to that chorus is Greg Hampikian, chief of the Idaho branch of the Innocence Project, who released a report to TIME saying the knife and bra clasp evidence against Knox are meaningless under prevailing standards in U.S. courts. Kercher's bra clasp, discovered at the scene of the murder six weeks later and revealed to the press the morning after a defense expert demolished other material evidence on a national television show, "cannot reliably be interpreted to show that Sollecito's DNA was on the bra clasp at the time of the murder" and therefore "does not constitute credible evidence," Hampikian wrote.
continue here.....

KnoxSollecitoDNAPetition

Defense's Closing Argument: Day 1

2009-11-30T08:42:00.000-08:00

NBC: Keith Miller Reports/Interview w/ Anne Bremner

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Nick Pisa, Daily Mail:

'Are we to believe that selective cleaning was carried out by Raffaele and Amanda ?' she asked.

'They said 'oh there's my fingerpints, there's my footprints, there's my DNA and then cleaned it all up, leaving only Rudy's handprint and DNA at the scene.'

Ann Wise, ABC: One of Italy's most prominent defense lawyers told the jury in Amanda Knox's murder trial today that the 22-year-old student from Seattle is not "Amanda the Ripper."

Instead, attorney Giulia Bongiorno said that Knox is more like "Amelie of Seattle," referring to the popular French movie "Amelie" about a naive young woman who tries to help people. ...cont

Nick Pisa, Sky News:

"Throughout this trial I have heard Amanda described as someone who coveted hatred, someone who was a maneater and someone who was a diabolical witch…" the lawyer said.

"She is not Amanda the Ripper. She is a fragile and weak girl...

The Little Dictator (Amanda Knox's Parents Charged with Defamation)

2009-11-29T11:17:00.000-08:00

By Mark Waterbury, Ph.D

In dictatorships and other totalitarian governments it is common practice to arrest people, conspicuously without reason, and to threaten and intimidate them. This is done to disavow them of any illusions they may have about possessing civil rights or being entitled to due process of law. The authorities in Perugia, Italy took a page from this Manual for Despots when they charged Amanda Knox’s parents, Edda Mellas and Curt Knox, with felony Defamation of Character for supporting their daughter’s statements about mistreatment during interrogation by the polizei.

This interrogation, as is well known, was conducted without her being allowed either legal counsel or a translator, in a language she barely knew, over long hours until the middle of the night. In an interview with a British newspaper, Edda and Curt said that Amanda was “abused physically and verbally” and that she had told them she was “hit in the back of the head by a police officer with an open hand...” Amanda has since testified to this in court.

Now, after 18 months, an unstated number of unnamed polizei could bear this insult no more, and decided to press these charges the day before the beginning of the defense’s closing arguments. One can question the speed of Italian justice, but it’s timing is impeccable. By throwing this rock into the already muddy waters of the case, they clearly hope to bury coverage of the defense’s closing with yet another groundless accusation by the prosecution.

These obscene charges have several effects. Among them:

First, more lawyers for the family, and yet more legal bills. Guilty or innocent, the crushing burden of legal bills is a punishment not to be underestimated.

Second, if convicted, they face 6 months to 3 years in an Italian prison. It is said that those without prior offenses are unlikely to serve time for this crime, but, clearly, that rule of thumb has no bearing in this case. One need only look at the record of malevolent, vindictive, and dragged out incarceration that has already been inflicted on Amanda to understand this.

Third, having been charged on preposterous grounds simply for speaking the truth and defending their daughter, they are put on notice that any further support will bring risks. It is an attempt to silence opposition.

Fourth, it will make it far more difficult, and dangerous, for Amanda’s parents to visit her in the event that she is unjustly convicted. By simply leaving these charges hanging, as was done in the case of Doug Preston by this same jurisdiction, any visit to Italy will risk arrest and imprisonment. This will have the effect of isolating Amanda even more severely than the 9 months in solitary confinement already demanded by PM Mignini.

This is part of an effort, not merely to convict Amanda, but to destroy her. It is an attempt to inflict cruel and unusual punishment on someone with no history of violence or aggression, and with no plausible evidence or motive to link her to the alleged crime.

What is the evidence for these charges? Did the polizei abuse Amanda, cuff her, browbeat her, and demand that she make statements that she did not think of herself? That is the beauty of the charge, you see. There is no evidence. Because the prosecution will not release it.

Although the polizei made recordings of every telephone conversation, cell phone call, Skype link, and statement made in this case, they deny that any recording of Amanda’s interrogation exists. One can imagine them saying, “Her interrogation! What an oversight! I suppose we should have spent a few Lira to record.” It is absolutely not credible that no recording was made. It is absolutely not believable that it does not exist, and it is clear that the reason they have refused to release it is because it supports Amanda’s testimony, and not the prosecution’s statements.

Withholding this evidence leaves only Amanda’s word against the word of the unnumbered and unnamed polizei.

Frankly, I believe Amanda. How about you?

Posted by Mark C. Waterbury, Ph.D

Summations: Week 2

2009-11-27T10:37:00.000-08:00

AP

Reuters

Millions Sought in Damages in Italy Murder Case (AP)

Amanda Knox a 'She Devil Who Destroyed Innocent Man' (Telegraph)

Amanda Knox Hit w/ $12 million Law Suit (ABC, Ann Wise)

From Perugia Shock (Frank Sfarzo):

"Another terrible day for Amanda. She had again to listen to another inquisitor throwing mud on her, convincing the world, convincing the jury, who just wait to be convinced.
Her lawyers were busy with the papers, her family wasn't there yet. She was all alone again, with the death in her heart.

Then they all arrived: stepfather and mother, father and wife, aunt. The free people arrived and she turned around with a look that confessed all the drama she was going through. A glance from desperation, a howl in silence. The loudest howl."

2009-11-24T10:12:00.000-08:00

Comodi asks for common sense

Posted by Jim Lovering a.k.a. Charlie Wilkes

The prosecution has now presented its closing arguments in the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. I won't even try to address the assault on reason unleashed by prosecutor Giuliano Mignini. His brand of lunacy is worthy of Dickens, or Melville, or perhaps Dr. Seuss.

I can more easily come to grips with Mignini's sidekick, Manuela Comodi. Her opinions bear on pedestrian matters. In last Saturday's Seattle PI, Andrea Vogt gave us a taste of Comodi's thinking:

[Comodi] defended the work of police biologist Patrizia Stefanoni and other police forensic investigators and appealed to jurors to use common sense when considering the reliability of defense consultants' testimony.

"At the scene of the crime there is a footprint made in blood on the bathmat and Knox and Sollecito's footprints made in blood on the floor," Comodi said. "and these were supposedly made at some different time because they stepped in bleach or rust or fruit juice? It's up to you to decide."

Common sense, eh? OK, Ms. Comodi, let's apply common sense to these "footprints made in blood." Except for the one on the bathmat, which obviously fits the shape of Rudy Guede's foot and big toe, they weren't visible to the naked eye. Nor were they confirmed to have been made with blood. They were detected and photographed with the aid of luminol, a chemical that glows for a few seconds if it reacts with blood, or the rust found in tap water, or certain types of soil, or various household cleaning products, or many other substances.

Altogether, there were six latent bare footprints, three in the hallway, three in Amanda's room, and none in Meredith's room. Each was swabbed and tested for DNA, and not one of them revealed Meredith's DNA. Is it common sense, therefore, to conclude that they were made with her blood?

Is it even possible they were made with her blood?

Let's look at where the hallway footprints were found, starting with Rep. L9 in the above illustration. Rep. L9 corresponds to the blue blob pictured below. The prosecution's footprint consultant, Lorenzo Rinaldi, attributes it to Amanda.

It is just outside the door to Meredith's room, a single footprint, all by itself, with the toes pointed toward that room. It's also adjacent to the bathroom Amanda and Meredith shared.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that this footprint really has something to do with the murder, and that it was made with Meredith's blood. What transpired to produce it? What criminal scenario are we supposed to imagine when we heed the Comodian call for common sense? Did Amanda step in blood in Meredith's room and then hop backward into the hallway to deposit this solitary print, which she then mopped up, but not thoroughly enough to prevent its detection with luminol?

Now look at rep. L6-L7. That label denotes a pair of blue blobs: two right footprints, side-by-side. They are outside the door to Amanda's room, oriented parallel to the run of the corridor, with the toes pointed toward the kitchen.

According to Rinaldi, the right footprint on the right was made by Raffaele. He doesn't say how or why, but that's OK. We'll simply uncork another bottle of Umbrian common sense and assume that Raffaele hopped on his left foot from Meredith's room to the spot where he put down his right foot, leaving a bloodstain which he then mopped up, but again, not thoroughly enough.

But where did the other right footprint come from? Whose is it?

While we ponder those questions, let's take a look at Rep. 2 and Rep. 3. Those labels correspond to a different kind of evidence — one that doesn't require luminol. They mark visible blood traces having the distinctive tread pattern of Rudy's athletic shoes. The box for those shoes was found in Rudy's apartment. He has admitted he wore them on the night of the murder and threw them into a dumpster after he fled to Germany.

And there were more of these prints, inside Meredith's room and in the corridor. The photo below, made from police video, shows how they continue toward the front door. We don't have to imagine people hopping on one foot. These markers show the trail of blood that Meredith's killer left when he made his exit. Rudy's shoe prints are part of a pattern of evidence that also includes Rudy's DNA inside the victim's body and Rudy's bloody fingerprints on a pillow inside the room where the murder took place.

This murder was senseless and brutal, but it was not complicated. The evidence — the real evidence, as opposed to random forensic artifacts that could have a dozen perfectly innocent explanations — shows that Rudy acted alone. He broke in, he robbed Meredith, he raped her, he killed her, he cleaned up in the bathroom, and he ran away. That is what happened on the night of November 1, 2007. Everything else is a malicious fantasy that needs to be shot down before it ruins two innocent lives.

If you want common sense, Ms. Comodi, there it is.

CNN interviews Amanda Knox's Parents

2009-11-24T09:57:00.000-08:00

When Amanda Knox's parents head to Italy for closing arguments in their daughter's murder trial they'll be carrying a present they hope desperately she can use soon: a plane ticket home.

In that purchase lies one family's entire hope.

Curt Knox and Edda Mellas say their daughter is nothing like the person they've seen depicted before and during her trial.

They grimace at the description prosecutors have used in court: that Amanda Knox was a resentful American so angry with her British roommate Meredith Kercher that she exacted revenge during a twisted sex misadventure at their home two years ago.

continued here......

Doug Preston and Dr. Libby Johnson (Forensic Expert) on NBC

2009-11-23T08:13:00.000-08:00

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Libby Johnson on the knife: "It does not come from blood....I don't believe that it was ever on the blade itself. I think its quite likely a laboratory contamination issue." Dr. Libby established the Harris County Medical Examiner's DNA lab in 1991.

Doug Preston: Italian sources tell him that Amanda will be convicted and acquitted on appeal.

The West Seattle Herald also runs a story story today: "“Amanda and Meredith were very friendly,” said Janet Huff, Knox’s aunt. “Just two days before (the murder) they attended the Chocolate Festival together and had been out together to local pubs. There were quite a few photos of the two of them together in the days before her murder on Amanda's computer. Too bad the Italian police completely fried it when trying to get into it and were not able to retrieve a single thing."

Kathi Goertzen Interviews Amanda Knox's Parents: Full Video

2009-11-22T08:14:00.000-08:00

Closing Arguments: Day 2

2009-11-21T08:44:00.000-08:00

SKY NEWS

MSNBC

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

ITN

From Perugia Shock:

If she smiles it's wrong, if she cries it's wrong, if she moves it's wrong, if she's still it's wrong, if she watches it's wrong, if she doesn't watch it's wrong.

They say that she killed Meredith, they demonstrate that she killed Meredith, they show how she killed Meredith, in words and in images. The blame is on her, only on her, and nobody believes her. Rudi is almost a saint, who she corrupted. Raffaele was just a puppet, that she manipulated. There's only one monster here. And that monster is her, Amanda Knox.

Ann Wise of ABC: ""Meredith was my friend," Knox said, her voice cracking briefly with emotion. "I did not hate her, and it is absurd to think I would have hurt someone who was so nice to me."

AP Report: "Knox, who is from Seattle, took a deep breath when Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini requested life imprisonment — Italy's stiffest punishment. She then addressed the court, saying that the accusations against her were "pure fantasy."

"Meredith was my friend, I didn't hate her," she said in Italian, fighting back tears.

Sky News: ''This first thing is that Meredith was my friend. I did not hate her. To say that I wanted to take revenge against a person who I liked is absurd.

''Then I had no relationship with Rudy...oh mama mia...

''Everything that has been said these last two days is pure fantasy, it's nor true, I have to insist on this and that's all I want to say. Thank you.''

The Telegraph: "Turning to the jury, Mr Mignini said: "You must give to them what is expected. That is why you must give Knox life and Sollecito life."

As he made his request Miss Knox stared straight ahead and showed no response, but after he had spoken she asked to address the court - the first time she had spoken in public since June."

CNN: "She's an innocent girl looking at having to spend a lifetime in prison," Chris Mellas told reporters. "Of course she was upset. She had to sit there as he continued to say, 'Amanda this, Amanda that.' Yeah, it gets to you."

Seattle P.I.: "It is not the truth," she said. "Meredith was my friend. I did not hate her," she said in Italian, her voice quivering with emotion. "The idea that I wanted to vindicate myself against someone who was always nice to me is absurd." Knox also took issue with the prosecutor's claims that she really knew Guede, who she said she had no relationship with. Knox's lead counsel, Rome attorney Carlo Dalla Vedova echoed his client's criticism, adding that the case was "totally lacking in proof."

Closing Arguments: Day 1. An Odd Summation

2009-11-20T06:43:00.000-08:00

Co-prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini attempted to prove that he can read minds and has psychic abilities to see the past in ways previously unknown to man. I have to say that out of all the cases I've followed, I've never seen a prosecutor who made so many unsubstantiated assumptions based on no evidence. However, the fact that Mignini is forced to make such assumptions highlights just how weak his case truly must be.

And ever more embarrassing, convicted Rudy Guede's story suddenly has crediblity in the eyes of Mignini. Ann Wise reports: "Mignini said the two women had argued over rent money missing from Kercher's room. "

Of course, the only source that any sort of argument of this kind occurred is from Rudy Guede. And so Mignini theorizes that this is how it began, and it thus resulted in a brutal stabbing with Amanada as the ring leader. A strange brand of theorizing based on unsubstantiated "could haves" and "maybes".

Mignini stated further in his closing: "After a heated discussion the three, under the influence of the drugs, and probably alcohol as well, decide to put into action the project they had of involving an extreme sex game," he said. (Probably alcohol? Another great unsupported supposition to conveniently throw in it seems)

And now thankfully, we can put to rest the rumor floating around the blogosphere that the "sex game" theory was one put out by Knox PR to make Mignini look unhinged and irrational. Mignini solved the question for us in this respect; it's best to remember it again for posterity's sake should revisionist bloggers attempt to rewrite history and coverup for Mignini's penchant for the absurd and unbelievable.

And then Mignini gives us the motive we've all been waiting for:

"Amanda has the occasion to get back at that overly serious and moralizing English girl who she felt was too tied to the closed group of her English friends, and who accused her not too subtly of not being orderly or clean, and who criticized her for being too easy with boys," Mignini said.
"Amanda nurtured her hate for Meredith, but that night that hate could explode. For Amanda the moment had come to take revenge on that prissy girl. That is what she must have thought. And in a crescendo of threats and increasing violence, Meredith's ordeal begins."

The criticism of one's hygiene can make a person do awful things....
Moreoever, Mignini proved that having no evidence to support an assertion can actually be a great thing. Rather than being forced to constrict ones theory based on mountains of solid evidence, when one has very little to go on, he can let his imagination run wild with unsubstantiated theories:

The prosecutor said Knox likely insulted Kercher during the assault, and imagines Knox saying, "Now you'll be forced to have sex."

And so again we are left with Mignini's grand suppositions. Interesting from a literary or satire perspective, but Mignini believes what he is saying is all too real.

A few weeks ago Mignini offered to "surprise" us all. Well, he did just that. But not in the way anyone would expect.

From Perugia-Shock

Mignini sees. Mignini hears.

Amanda Knox brings home Rudi and Raffaele. In this order, yes. Because, for her, Rudi comes first and then, only as a second choice, Raffaele.

We don't know what is planned. She maybe just wants to go have some fun, maybe she just wants to disturb Meredith. She maybe wants to have a threesome and since there's also Meredith there, doing her homework, a foursome with the good girl. Particularly exciting. Whether she agrees or not. Actually better if she doesn't want to.
Because it's not love moving Amanda, or attraction. It's hate. It's VENDETTA.....Continued here

NBC News

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

CNN: Amanda Walking into Court

CBS News Interview the Amanda Knox's Parents

Watch CBS News Videos Online

CBS Report

Rudy Guede's Appeal

2009-11-18T07:54:00.000-08:00

For any fair minded observer, today was not a surprise at all. We learned absolutely nothing new about what happened. Proceedings in Rudy Guede's appeal have been adjourned to December 21st when Guede's attorneys will argue their case. If you were expecting anything significant to come out of these proceedings, you probably have pretty bad instincts.

Guede told a fanciful story about the murder being a fight over money between Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher and then rushed into the room where he fought off an attacker. Adding insult to injury, Guede claims he actually tried to save Meredith and tried to mop off her blood with towels, but then panicked and left.

Let us not forget that Guede is the same man whose DNA was found in Meredith's private area, and that his bloody hand print was found on Meredith's purse (and yet he was acquitted of the theft charge--a perfect example of the ridiculousness of this case).

If anything became clear today, it is becoming harder and harder to envision a scenario where all three defendants would come together to participate in this crime. Mignini has an impossible task at creating a realistic scenario involving the three. Whether that will matter---well, I am not so confident in the Italian judges, but time will tell.

Theoretically, Guede's trial, and any testimony therein, has absolutely no impact or weight with the trial against Knox and Sollecito. However, the judges and jury are not sequestered.

1. Ann Wise's report for ABC

2. For AP report, click here

3. Sky News Reports.

Full article here.

4. Pisa's detailed report for the Daily Mail. (Most detailed report in English so far today)

5. Nick Squires of the Telegraph also reports:

Rudy Guede, 22, said that on the night of the murder he heard Miss Kercher and Miss Knox, her American room-mate, arguing over money in the bathroom of the house that they shared in the Italian university town of Perugia.
Minutes later he heard a “piercing scream”, he told the court in Perugia, where the case has been heard since January.

The court is expected to reach a verdict on Miss Knox, 22, of Seattle, and her Italian former boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, 26, early next month, and will begin hearing closing arguments on Friday. They deny any wrongdoing.

Guede addressed the court for the first time as he launched an appeal against his 30-year jail sentence, handed down last year in a separate trial during which he was convicted of the murder.
Full article here

The Crucible of Perugia

2009-11-15T17:11:00.000-08:00

The Crucible of Perugia

Written by Mark C. Waterbury, Ph.D.

In medieval times in Europe, roughly one hundred thousand people, three quarters of them women, were tried for witchcraft. With charges often based on accusations from those already under suspicion, most were convicted and were burned, hung, or strangled. Thankfully, that dark era is past, and such groundless, perverse, inhuman prosecutions no longer take place. For the most part.

A conspicuous exception is drawing to a close in Perugia, Italy, where Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are on trial for a murder that they clearly did not commit. Like the absurd evidence used to convict witches, their prosecution hinges on a series of deliberate distortions, half truths, and outright lies. I’ve discussed this evidence in previous articles. Now let’s take a look now at the crucible of witch hunt justice, Perugian style.

Medieval witch hunts didn’t just happen. They were fed by an atmosphere of superstition and fear. After a slow start, they soared after the publication of the “Hammer of Witches,” one of the first printed books. "All wickedness," Hammer tells us, "is but little to the wickedness of a woman….Women are by nature instruments of Satan.” Witches were also believed to have powers to control and coerce men. Perhaps this misogynistic insight is where prosecutor Giuliano Mignini came up with his obsession with Amanda, and the accusation that she led a “satanic sex ritual,” since no evidence of one has ever been presented.

Like the fancy garb and pretentious air of the prosecutor, this instruction manual for atrocity conferred a mantle of authority, an official air, that carried great weight in the small towns and backwaters where the most ardent witch hunts occurred. Backwaters not unlike Perugia, Italy. Perugia, you see, is no Rome.

Wikipedia calls witch trials “a vivid cautionary tale about the dangers of religious extremism, false accusations, lapses in due process, and governmental intrusion on individual liberties.” This will all sound familiar to those who have followed this case. “Evidence that would be excluded from modern courtrooms-- hearsay, gossip, stories, unsupported assertions, surmises-- was also generally admitted.” Deja vu all over again.

This trial didn’t just happen either. It is a direct result of a serious, ongoing aberration in the legal system in Perugia. An aberration that is driven by a rogue prosecutor who is himself, under indictment for obstruction of justice and illegal wiretapping in the Monster of Florence case, a previous, bizarre prosecution that also, coincidentally, involved satanic cults.

More Weight
A good place to start to understand the witch hunt system of justice is the case of Giles Corey, a prosperous farmer and church member in Salem, Massachusetts in the late 1600s. A woman accused Giles of asking her to write in the devil’s book. This same woman also claimed to have been told by a ghost that Giles was her murderer. He was therefore arrested along with three women, one of whom, terrified and desperate to gain favor with the prosecutor declared that Giles was a warlock.

As with Amanda, there was no evidence of any of this. How could there be? None of it was real. In a way, Giles’ guilt was established “psychologically,” just as Amanda’s was by the lead investigator, Giobbi, though that impressive sounding word had yet to be invented.

Giles refused to enter a plea, guilty or innocent. If he did he would certainly be convicted, his assets seized, and his family would lose everything. The court therefore slowly crushed him under rocks while asking, three more times, if he was ready to plea. Each time he famously replied, “More weight.” It took two days of this to kill him, and witch trial justice was served.

I Just Highly Doubt All of That
Amanda’s family’s assets have already been plundered by the process of justice. But, at age 20, Amanda did not show the resolve of Giles Corey when her inquisitors pressed her to imagine what might have happened at the murder, insisting that she knew, but was lying to them. After days of questioning, in the middle of the night, in a language she barely knew and without an attorney, she took their bait and, as suggested, pictured Patrick Lumumba committing the crime. As soon as possible, she made a written statement saying that it all seemed like a dream, that she was unsure what was real and what was imagined. Nevertheless, the witch hunters touted this as an accusation, one witch of another, and raced off to capture Patrick, again ignoring the total lack of evidence.

That accusation didn’t pan out, as it was soon proved that Patrick had nothing to do with it, but the witch hunters weren’t through with Amanda. They leaked her diary to the press, a violation of Italian law, and twisted it to their needs. Here is the original passage where she discusses Raffaele and his kitchen knife.

"Raffaele and I have used this knife to cook, and it's impossible that Meredith's DNA is on the knife because she's never been to Raffaele's apartment before. So unless Raffaele decided to get up after I fell asleep, grabbed said knife, went over to my house, used it to kill Meredith, came home, cleaned the blood off, rubbed my fingerprints all over it, put it away, then tucked himself back into bed, and then pretended really well the next couple of days, well, I just highly doubt all of that."

Notice that Amanda wrote, “It’s impossible that Meredith’s DNA is on the knife because she’s never been to Raffaele’s apartment.” Think about this for a moment. Amanda only thought about DNA from Meredith visiting, not from being murdered. That hadn’t even occurred to her. It is a natural, human mistake. One that suggests innocence.

But here is the English translation of the Italian translation (you read that right) of that same diary entry, that appeared in much of the Italian and British press. Notice that the meaning, the exact opposite of Amanda’s meaning, is greatly improved as it met the witch hunter’s needs much better.

"That night I smoked a lot of marijuana and I fell asleep at my boyfriend’s house. I don’t remember anything. But I think it’s possible that Raffaele went to Meredith’s house, raped her and then killed. And when he got home, while I was sleeping, he put my fingerprints on the knife. But I don’t understand why Raffaele would do that."

This gave the witch hunters another false accusation to work with. They used this tortured translation to claim that Amanda had accused Raffaele, even though that was the exact opposite of what she wrote. And they spread it far and wide with the aid of a willing, gullible, gutter, press.

In Meredith’s Blood
These were just appetizers for the main course of false accusation that is about to be served. But first, let’s talk just a little more about the evidence. In a previous article we discussed the importance of control tests in the scientific method. One of the best kinds of controls is something called an “internal standard” that is, a control that is built right into the same device, or environment, so you can compare what you’re wondering about with something else that has been there, and done that. In the case of this murder, we have an excellent internal standard for whether Amanda and Raffaele were involved in the crime. His name is Rudy Guede.

If we compare the evidence left behind by Rudy with that left, or, rather, not left, by Amanda and Raffaele, we can see a stark difference. That is because Rudy committed murder, while Amanda and Raffaele did not.

“No matter how much someone tries to clean up a crime scene, something is generally left behind.... it's almost impossible to take any kind of violent action without shedding something.”

By his own admission, Rudy was present when Meredith died. He stated that he left her bleeding to death, then washed her blood off his shoes and himself, went out dancing at a local disco, and fled the country like any aggrieved person would do. If we look at the evidence he left behind, and compare it with the lack of traces of Amanda and Raffaele, we can see that the evidence solidly supports their innocence, and Rudy’s guilt.

Rudy left his DNA in, on, and around Meredith. These were not picogram traces that could have come from anywhere, they were substantial, reproducible, indisputable, evidence.

Rudy left his excrement in the toilet.

Rudy suffered a cut on his right hand during the struggle.

Rudy left footprints, in Meredith’s blood, in the bedroom, bath, and hall.

Rudy left handprints, in Meredith’s blood, on the wall and on a pillow case.

Rudy left his DNA, and Meredith’s blood, on her purse as he ransacked it.

In contrast, there was no DNA from Amanda in Meredith’s room, despite the fact that she lived in the same apartment. There were no fingerprints, footprints, or other traces of Amanda in that room. She had no wounds on herself and left no marks on Meredith. Despite claims that her footprints were found in the hallway with luminol, they cannot be attributed to her, but could have been made by any of the girls who lived there, and could have been made at any time. Further, they did not show any traces of blood.

Amanda Knox left no traces whatsoever of presence at the scene of the crime, because she wasn't there.

Similarly, there was no DNA from Raffaele in the room. There were no footprints, no handprints, no other traces and he had no wounds. None. Of course, the prosecution tried to assert that there were. They grossly mismatched his foot and shoe to prints clearly left by Rudy. They dug up the bra clasp 47 days after the rest of the forensic data was collected, after it was kicked about the floor, buried under a rug, and seriously contaminated. They then declared that it, and it alone (not the bra that it was cut off from!) carried his DNA. But setting aside this single piece of grossly contaminated and quite possibly planted evidence, there is no trace of Raffaele at the scene of the crime.

Further, Amanda and Raffaele did not flee the country, even though some of her relatives pleaded with her to do so. They did not even retain lawyers, even though they should have. They thought that innocence would protect them. But innocence, in a witch trial, is merely an inconvenience.

I have promised one more false accusation, and haven’t forgotten that promise. It will come from that paragon of virtue, Rudy Guede. His lawyer has given notice that he will testify against Amanda during his appeal. This would be laughable, were it not for the gluttonous appetite of the prosecution for any lie, any distortion, any false evidence to convict her of a crime she did not commit. So look for them, and for the gutter press, to tout it as the truth, at long last. From someone who has told lie, after lie, after committing horrific, senseless murder.

The Crucible of Perugia
Is there any hope for a just verdict for Amanda? This isn’t a real witch trial, after all, and the judges and lay jurors are not fools. They have given Mignini almost everything he has asked for, but that doesn’t mean that they believe his fairy tales. He has had every opportunity to establish guilt, but has failed to produce more than tainted evidence, bizarre stories by drug addicts, and leaks and insinuations unsupported by the facts.

Many say that they will rule guilty to avoid what is called “bad face,” to “save face” in English, because they have made earlier rulings that suggest they believe Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. But not all rulings have gone that way. When the prosecution had Kokomani testify that Amanda had a large gap in her teeth, one of these judges simply asked Amanda to smile, showing no gap at all.

There is still time for the crucible of Perugia to yield a just verdict.

The judges can show the courage do what is right, not what is easiest.

They can do what is fair, not what will avoid “bad face.”

They can prove the skeptics wrong and show that they understand and value justice.

They can acquit Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito of a crime they did not commit.

--By Mark Waterbury, Ph.D.

Linda Byron Report from Perugia

2009-10-31T02:37:00.000-07:00

by LINDA BYRON / KING5 News

Posted on October 30, 2009 at 10:18 PM

Updated yesterday at 11:07 PM

PERUGIA, Italy - The Amanda Knox trial is being closely watched from the largest cities to the smallest villages in Italy.

The tiny Umbrian village of San Martino dei Colli looks down upon the Capanne prison where Knox is locked away on murder charges. On a Sunday afternoon, the Bartolocci family is gathered in the 15th century villa for a family feast.

continued here

Full Video of Larry King Live Discussing Case Against Amanda Knox

2009-10-17T21:50:00.000-07:00

L-king/Knox from Ray Turner on Vimeo.